1992 11 23C~N~L~SSEN CTTY CQ~JNCTL
R~GULAR ~EETTNG
N~HB~R 23, 1992
Hayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
C~NCIL E~fl~[R~ ;q~ESE#T: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dimler, Councilman Wing,
Councilman Workman and Counc£1man Mason
~TAFF PRESENT: Don Ash~orth, Roger'Knutson, Charles Folch, Pau! Krauss,
Todd Hoffman, 3ean Meuwiesen, and Tom Chaffee
~PPROVAL OF AGE~: Councilwoman Dtller loved, Councilman Hason seconded to
approve the agenda amended by Mayor Chmlel as follows.' Table the public
announcement for the Maple Leaf Award and to moving 1rem 2.5 to item number 8.
All voted £n favor and the mot£on carried.
CONSENT N~EP~R; Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
c. Adopt 1993 Meet£ng Schedule.
d. City Code Amendment regarding the PUD Residential District, Final Reading
and Approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes.
e. Approval of Accounts.
f. City Council Minutes dated November 4 and 9, 1992
Planning Commission Minutes dated November 4, 1992
g. R~aolut~on 1~-137: Accept Land Donation, Lot 1, Block &, Red Cedar Point,
Margaret Ward.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
YZSZT~ P~SENTRT~S:
ST, FRANCXS EGI~ ~H~DICqL CENTER, B~ ~H]].TON.
Mayor Chmle[: Barbara Hamilton is here this evening to te[[ us about some of
the things that St. Francis is doing and I think it's sort of neat and that's
why I asked if you'd come.
Barbara Hamilton: We[! thank you Mayor Chmiel. I'm glad to be here. I have
some overheads. Should I do my speaking from over there or here?
Mayor Chmie[: Wherever you fee! comfortable. If we have to, we can just move
the microphone.
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Barbara Hamilton: I will move over there. Well as you all know at clty
governments, as well as consumers and employees, that whenever there's a
possibility to false some extra revenue to run a business or a city, they look
for all different ways to do that and as you all well know, hospitals have, in
the Unlted States for the most part, remained as tax free organizations which
means we do not pay as an institution any kind of a tax. But in the last few
years thls has been brought up as a possible place that we could get some
revenue and the Catholic Hospital Association of the United States decided to
take it upon themselves to prove to the country that we, as an organization do
provlde services to the community that are worth far and above what we would be
providing for taxes to the community. In 198g the Catholic Hospltal
Association of the United States set up an organization which put out some
publications and some accounting systems for Cathollc hopsltals to use to
account for the services that they do provide to the community. Up until that
tlme I think hospitals as a whole did acknowledge at least internally that the
services we provided was far and above what we normally would have to because
that's part of our mlssion, but this gave us a chance to quantlfy it. Now St.
Francis Regional Medical Center, which for those of you who are not acquainted
with it ls located in Shakopee, Minnesota. About 5 miles down. Not a very
straight road but it is getting straighter I noticed. And our hospital is over
50 years old. It has been under the sponsorship of the Francescan Sisters unt11
about 5 years ago when it was purchased by the Benedictine Sisters out of
Ouluth. And we as most organizations have a misslon statement and I'm not
going to read you the whole thing but I would llke to point out number 3 whtch
states very clearly that in the tradition of our founders and to the extent that
we are able to continue to provlde medical care and community resources for
those who are unable to afford these services. And that is the basis of the
mission statement upon which we feel we have become and our reporting our soclal
accountability to you tonight. Several of us in the hospital over the last year
got together and brainstormed about what we felt were quantifiable services that
we provide to the community and we divided them up 1nrc two factors. One, where
the community services to the poor and the other where community service is to
the broader community. I believe Theresa Johnson dld send you an annual report
and in the annual report, did you get the inserts that list, does the
summarization? Okay. I wlll do an overhead of that. We broke it 1nrc two
parts as I said. One, total services to the needy and St. Francis last year
provided in that whole circle public programs whlch we conslder Medicaid, to be
part of our services to the needy. $567,000.00 that was not reimbursed to the
organization. We have a program called Benedictine care which is money that
we've set aside at the very beginning of our budget year to be given out to
people who cannot pay for services. And last year we gave away $57,000.00 to
people who came in and said no. We are not going to be able to afford this
care. We would 11ke to see if we quallfy, and we do have a qualification
process and we were able to qualify quite a few people last year and gave away
$57,000.00. The kinds of people that came in ranged from 12 year old children,
and their parents of course brought them in, to older adults. The servtces we
provided were obstetric care, some care in our CCU unlt, some ambulance servlces
and then the other things are other benefits for poor and needy and cash and in
klnd donations. We provlde Toys for Tots programs. We have a collection for
food. The Food Shelf program. Various other things. The other part of the
program that we broke apart was the quantifiable community beneflts plece and
these are things that would address the broader needs of the community and those
in need. These would be things 11ke ambulance service, Meals on Wheels, our 4
City Council Meet£ng - November 23, 1992
for 5 Care Program, and this came to $1,&&8,000.O0. This also included our
non-reimbursement services that we have to prov£de for Hedicare patients. How
that particular piece broke down, things like education and research,
$40,000.00. We provide an education and research. This is, we have a research
base for a medical program through the Medical Association. We also provide a
learning lab for student nurses from Normandale. We have an LPN program out of
Hennepin Tech. We do a Paramedic program out of the Vo-tech 91&. And this is,
as I said, also includes the ambulance service that we provide. Only part of
Chanhassen is included in that ambulance service. The unpaid cost of Medicare
is $459,000.00. Various other things fall into that category. Hedicare, as I
pointed out before is a big share of what we feel certainly qualifies for
services to the broader community. These are, as you can see, the straight line
is the actual cost of the health care and we started that back tn 1985 and you
can see what it looked like £n 1991. The dotted line is the amount that we are,
as a hospital getting reimbursed. And that gap continues to get wider. This,
at this point, is 14.9~ difference between what it costs to provide the care and
what we get reimbursed. But as all hospitals_tn the State-of Minnesota we
cannot pick and choose our customers.· They all are given care, whether·they can
pay for it or not. And one of the·reasons that we·wanted to start doing some of
the promotion for the social accountability program out.of St. Francis is that
we do want the community to know that we have·funds that are available for
people who cannot get the service. And as you'can see,'we budgeted last year to
give away about $134,000.00 and of that me gave·away $5&,000.00. Zn the next
fiscal year, which ends in 3une,-ue-budgeted'to give.away $1&1,000.00 and we
hope that people here in attendance, as.well'as you as organizational members in
the community, will let people know that these·funds are available. They're
there. We want people to know about them. Again I'd like to say, the hospital
does not turn away anyone for any.of the.care that :they need. At all. So I
think as a hospital we are very:proud of what we have been able'.to give back to
the community and I'm glad that you asked us-to come here and share that
information.
Mayor Chmiel: We appreciate you taking time out to do that Barb.
Barbara Hamilton: Oh I'm glad to be here.
Mayor Chmiel: And that was one of the reasons why I thought it should be noted
that there is that kind of ava£1abiLity at the hospital and thank you.
Barbara Hamilton: Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING: TRUNK UTILITY I~PROUL~ENTS IN SECTION 10~ Ne 9ME; aUTBOeXZE
PREPARATION OF PLANS ~ND SPECIFICATIONS. PRO3ECT NO. 92-5.
· .
Public Present:
Name f~ddrea~
Bret Oavidson
Charles & Irene Song
Paul Youngquist
David Stockdale
Donald 3ensen
7291 Galptn Blvd.
7200 Galptn Blvd.
7105 Hazeltine Blvd.
7210 Galpin Blvd.
5201E. River Road ~301, Fridley 55421
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Name
.... AddresG
Thomas Turcotte
Don Patton
Mike Klingelhutz
7240 Galpin Blvd.
7600 Parklawn, Edina
8601 Great Plains Blvd.
charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This is the continuation of
the public hearing for Project 92-5 for trunk utility improvements in Section 10
and 9. Staff has had the opportunity to meet with two of the large acreage
property owners to get a better understanding of their future intentions with
their properties and this information has been summarized in your staff report.
Staff has also outlined three likely scenarios for the project scope and
corresponding assessments levied. Basically, Scenario ! is the original scope
of the project. Maybe Phil, do you have a diagram we could put up just
basically to show the alignments. Basically a sanitary sewer alignment has
remainted intact, as originally proposed, and the water would be extended,
proposed to be extended south from the Well No. 3. Extended west through the
Song and Lundgren properties. Scenarios 2 and 3 involve, would depend on
development demand. Basically from other properties to the south such as
Rottlund's intentions to develop the Klingelhutz' property and/or any potential
development on the Davidson property which would require extension of trunk
watermain south along Galpin Boulevard. In all three scenarios, a full lateral
benefit assessment is proposed and a one trunk unit assessment per 10 acre
increment for the small acreage or hobby farm non-developing type properties is
also proposed. Corresponding initial assessment revenue schedule for each
scenario is also provided in your packets. The trunk assessments are estimated
to be $659.00 for sanitary sewer and $l,275.00 for trunk water. Lateral benefit
is based on the cost for an 8 inch pipe. In all three scenarios, the predicted
initial assessment revenue, less the green acre properties, either balances or
is within 10~ of balancing. The City Manager has also provided a history of
similar projects where these same difficult issues and difficult decisions had
to be made. In all cases the extension of sewer and water has involved a number
of parcels to allow for multiple development projects in the service area and
full lateral benefit was assessed. With the exception of the property owners
who are senior citizens and demonstrate limited financial resources, as
recognized by State Statute, staff is opposed to offering any type of assessment
deferral associated with this project. Depending on the wishes of the Council
and property owners, any of the three scenarios as outlined are feasible. If an
approval is to be made on any one of the scenarios, it is staff's recommendation
that full lateral benefit be assessed and that the previously established policy
of assessing one unit per 10 acre increment trunk assessment to a small acreage
or hobby farm type developing property with an existing dwelling, be maintained.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you Charles. This, as I mentioned, is a public
hearing, at this time anyone wishing to address this proposal, at this time has
the opportunity to do so. If there's anyone who would 11ke to come forward to
lndicate your concerns, this is the time. If you would, please state your name
and your address for the record.
Jerome Carlson: Jerome Carlson, 6950 Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen. Still with
an Excelsior mailing address. In your notes, which Charles and perhaps someone
else very accurately recapped in terms of a meeting we had. It indicates that
the Song's and ourselves, Linda and myself, have come to an arrangement or an
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
agreement if you will, which will be exercised in early 1993. They are going to
be departing very shortly for a little time and when they return we will resume
our activities. In any event, the staff's recommendation that assessments be
made is obviously contrary to what our feeling is, although the timing may in
fact turn out to be no problem. As we look at and review the use of the
property, and may [ start by saying our motivation for getting involved was
really the location of our particular home and the views from that particular
place. A desire to protect the wetlands but also to protect the area
surrounding those wetlands in terms of a number of potential homesites and
roads. That was our motivation from the very'beginning for wanting to work with
the Song's relative to this potential project. And so relative to at what point
the southern part of the property would actually be developed, this is really a
question that is premature for Linda and ! to answer. We do need more time,
quite frankly. As far as the granting of an easement necessary for the
watermain, until we have some other more definitive plans, if you will, it is
impossible for us to simply say sure. That's okay-because that's not okay. It
may be just fine but this is premature and I expect that.shortly after the first
of the year, before the end of the first quarter, we'will be in a position to
have made some definite plans. Some specific plans relative to the property.
So as far as our position, and I believe this is very much in.concert with what
the Song's have consistently said.from their.point of view prior to our ·
£nvolvement. The land should be viewed at this'date as.not being available for
development. Having said'that, we are, as the report says, not necessarily
opposed to development in the'southern.part of the property but that has not
been worked out. And to presume and to assume that going forward,'the easement
would be forthcoming and the assessment could be'made, maybe.an assumption that
you're not prepared to make.at this-time.based.upon'the, situation as it has
changed. And if you have any questions for me~ I'.d be happy to try to answer
them but that's basically where we are at' We just need some more time.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions from the Council at this time? When
you're speaking of time, 5 minutes. 6 months. A year. What is the timeframe
that you're looking at?
· .
. .
Jerome Carlson: I would say that.we.are interested in continuing some
discussions which have already begun-with the'Lundgren Bros..With the Songs'
endorsement of those discussions. And should-they lead us somewhere or some
other discussions with some other opportunity, which at this point has not been
looked at, hasn't been even considered. I.would hope that we would have this
whole matter pretty well settled by the end of March, to give you sort of an
outside time table. It could be settled even sooner. Perhaps much sooner but
to give the Council some sort of a time frame. .That would be,.based upon what
we know today and what we expect will happen, that's the time frame that I think
is appropriate at this particular date. If it changes, we'll be happy to share
it with you. Thank you.
..
Mayor Chmiel= Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Paul Youngquist. My name is Paul Youngquist. I'm at 7105 Hazeltine Boulevard
which is the property on the north boundary of the Lundgren project. I'm a much
smaller player than the Song's or the Carlson's and my request is simple. We're
scheduled for 2 units. I was just here to request that we be considered I unit.
We've paid I unit on the Lake Ann Interceptor. We've paid our park dedication
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
fee. We've paid the trail dedication fee. We've upgraded our sewer for
$4,300.00 and I know that it's tradition and precedence and all these kinds of
things but I'm just here to request that our property be considered 1 unit.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul.
Charles Song: My name is Charles Song. I just want to be here to say that we
totally agree with what Jerome has told you and so that's, and we have been
talking for qulte awhlle and just as he say, our agreement ls emlnent and lt's
going to be probably...very quickly. So I just wanted to reiterate what Jerome
has said. Thank you.
Mayor chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Don Jensen: Don Jensen with the Rottlund Company, 5201 East River Road, Suite
301 in Fridley. We would just 11ke to encourage the Council to look at the
various alternatives that have been proposed tonlght by staff. As we understand
lt, to begin the design process which would still allow an opportunity for
further refinement of dollars and budgets and an opportunity to look at st111
putting the project on hold or forward as various parcels come on line, or don't
come on 11ne. The process that we are at in having the Klingelhutz property
under an option agreement and having some discussions with the Oavidson famtly
to the north of the Kllngelhutz parcel, leads us to belleve that to stop at thls
point in time might be premature. We would just encourage the Council to move
forward at least lnto the planning of speclfic plans and specifications. Perhaps
even going into the bidding this next year to find out whether or not contracts
and contractors can bring projects perhaps into a more cost effective mode than
the initial estimates would reveal at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Is there anyone else wishlng to make a
statement?
Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. Ny name is Terry
Forbord with Lundgren 8ros, g35 East Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata, Minnesota.
I'm in klnd of a difficult positlon because I'm enjoylng and having constructive
discussions with Mr. Carlson and Mr. and Mrs. Song. It's been a pleasure to
work with them or talk to them over the last couple years and ! hope that we can
continue in those discussions. I think that, if I'm correct, the issue before
us tonlght ls not orderlng the project. Is that correct?
Charles Folch: Basically it is. Excuse me Mr. Mayor, it is ordering the
project.
Terry Forbord: Aren't we ordering the plans and specifications? We're going
into the design phase. Is that not correct? Okay, but that does not mean that
the project ls being ordered because that doesn't occur until you go to a bid
letting and you accept the bids and then you order the project, correct?
Don Ashworth: You're ordering the project tonight. If they would.
Terry Forbord: It seems to me at the last meeting there was some discussion
that ensued about enterlng into the deslgn phase. Obviously Lundgren Bros has
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
got a significant stake in this and has for some time and we're' kind of between
·
a rock and a hard place because time starts to become my enemy, or it already
has. Time's either my enemy or my friend. I either have too much of it or not
enough of it. Right now I'm running out of time. Purely from an economic
standpoint and from agreements that ! have with people who we've purchased the
land and as you know we already have a preliminary plat approved on the property
and the more time that goes by, because of the construction seasons that we have
in Minnesota, if you don't capture the window of opportunity, then all of a
sudden you lose another year. So if we can't get into the ground and get
prepared for 1993, then all of a sudden we're looking at '94. Unfortunately
it's a weather issue ! see before us tonight. If we don't proceed now, we
probably won't be happening in '93 and then it's a delay. I was hoping that at
some way, shape or form maybe we could at least start the design process and get
underway with that but if what ['m hearing you say that we're ordering the
project now, because ! do not want to put the-Song's or Mr. Carlson certainly in
an uncomfortable posit£on. While at the same time ['m trying to continue with
sound business decisions on behalf of Lundgren Bros. -So I don't know if there's
a way to have both. I don't know if we can start that process and get underway
w~th the design and then go out to bid and see.how things happen. Then the
Council can make another decision at that time if they want to proceed. If
there is a way, maybe there's a way to explore that because I sure would like to
accommodate the Song's and the Carlson's [f we could.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Roger.
Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor. There is one potential. If Lundgren Bros. wanted to
pay for the plans and specifications if the project does not go ahead and pre-
fund that, then the City would not be at risk. Zf they're willing to do that.
Then you could have the plans and specs...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Mayor Chmiel: ...onto the other people because of aldevelopment wanting to
proceed. If this is to happen, can the developer pick up the total costs on
this and then as people connect to it, can the City, maybe I should ask that of
Don, can the Clty administer that kind of a situation?
Don Ashworth: Yes. Yes. I don't know of a bank that would be wllllng to fund
a development though. In the case of Near Mountain, that's not something that
they would. ! don't know of any developer that has ever done that type of
thing. At least maybe to a small scale. Z've seen £t to the extent of 1, 2 or
3 lot type of thing. I've never seen it to this type of scale.
Mayor Chmiel: Thls as we're looking at was $800,000.00 some dollars?
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor, maybe we could find out what thelcommitment would be
for plans and specifications and whether Lundgren Bros could make a decision
whether that's feasible for them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That mtght be an idea to just toss around and discuss.
Charles, would you have any idea or inkZe as to what that might be?
City Council Meeting - November 23, lg92
Charles Folch: Maybe I can request Bob or Phil to respond to that based on the
estimated project cost.
Phil Gravel: Based on the estimated cost, in the latest revision of the report,
for the full project or? The full project, which would include the watermaln on
Galpin, the plans and specifications would be $40,000.00 to $45,000.00. It
might be obviously less than that if we didn't decide on the watermain...&s an
option.
Mayor Chmiel: The question would be posed back then to Lundgren Bros. Would
they be willing to plck up that cost of whatever It might come to wtth the cost
factors? Say anywhere between $40,000.00 to $50,000.00.
Terry Forbord: Your honor, Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros. I'm not sure if I
can answer that questlon here tonight but Z can say the following. Whether
Lundgren Bros drops their option and walks away or whether Lundgren Bros
exercises the optlon and buys the property and develops lt, the City of
Chanhassen sooner or later needs to make a commitment to It's future if they
declde they want a future. The City at this present time has no developable
land in the commercial or residential sector to speak of, other than maybe some
very, very small parcels. I thlnk it's more of an lssue of versus should the
prlvate sector be doing that for the benefit of the City for their future. Now
maybe there's something to be sald. Maybe they should. I don't know but it's
kind of a philosophical situatLon. I think all cities need to make a commitment
for an investment in their future. For thelr own residents. For both
commercial and industrial growth. But I can't answer that question tonight.
There's a lot of other property owners that would be benefitting from this
project as far as what they could or could not do wtth their land. And maybe
somebody else would be wllling to contribute as well. Some of the other
property owners. Now if it was just for our, you know there's three soenarios
before you and each one lnvolves I thlnk different projects. Whether the
watermain's included or whether it's not included. I guess, because I'm not an
owner o~ Lundgren Bros Z can't answer that question. It's never been done in 23
years that we've done business before so it would seem somewhat unusual I think
but lt's something Z'd have to talk to the owners of the company about.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What you're saying then basically, would you be requesting
us to table thls agaln untll you can come back wlth those klnds of?
Terry Forbord: Well actually I think, you know I'm not sure if that's what I am
saylng. Sooner or later the City's probably going to put thts pipe in and the
City should want to know what the design of that pipe would be, because they'd
be orderlng it and bulldlng it as part of a publlc improvement project. So
whether it would be Lundgren Bros here or Rottlund or Mr. and Mrs. Song chooslng
to develop it or Mr. Carlson, the City would want to have that study done sooner
or later anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: True, to a polnt and where do you put the dollars and where do
the dollars most fit within the city, and this may not be the place that we
chose to do it at thls particular tlme as well. So Z guess that's why I pose
the question. Times are changing. Operational factors are changing.
Businesses are changing. The dollar becomes a more important lssue in all these
cases, as you well know. Because cities are getting cutback every time we turn
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
around from the State. Consequently we're going to have to start changing
possibly some of the way we do business as well. I guess that's why I'm say£ng
this. Does Council have?
Councilman Workman: Well you know there's a lot of merit in what everybody says
and it sounds to me like we just need to sit down and in a little bit more
detail figure out what we want to do. If the City ran that pipe out there, it'd
develop out there. Whether we have a major risk in paying for a study, for that
study I think it would probably be assessed as soon as we could get it assessed.
That property's going to develop out there. The only thing I hear is time
lines. I hear that from Jerome and then the Song's and I hear it from Terry too
so it sounds like we need to work just on the time line. It doesn't sound like
anybody wants to stick their neck out too far because there's a lot of variables
inbetween, all of them sound reasonable. What are we talking about for the
cost of this study?
Charles Folch: I think Phil mentioned $40,000.00 to $45,000.00 estimated.
Councilman Workman: I know Jerome said end of the first quarter, first of
March, and I don't know if that can be moved up and I don't know enough about
Terry's business to know whether that ruins it for '93 for him.
Mayor Chmiel: I think the point Terry is making is he has options on those
particular properties and options can be reneaable as well. So you can have
extensions on those options.
Councilman Workman: No, I understand that. It's a matter of, what I'm reading
from him is it's a matter of having work in '93 or not having work to do in '93
which makes a difference to a business I would suspect.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor, without disclosing proprietary information, our
options have been extended to the point where they longer can be extended. We
either have to buy the land or we have to go away. And we're getting to that
point in time where we're face with the inevitable. And it's not because
anybody has intentionally dragged their feet or anything like that but as you
know, this has been a very lengthy process going all the way back to when the
comprehensive plan was being adopted. But ! know it sounds like a lot of money,
$40,000.00 to $45,000.00 but ! know each one of you have been on the Council
long enough to know that you deal aith things with land development in the
commercial sector that have cost the city a tremendously greater amount of money
than what this, ordering of plans and specs for this project is. As a
residential developer we've never come before you and asked for any subsidies of
any kind. We've never asked the City to participate in our development. This
is a normal public improvement project and the City, I don't think it's out of
line certainly in light of some of the other city expenditures that you've made,
to proceed with this.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: Don, I've sat here and it's sort of gotten to be the owners
versus the developers and we have some real major issues here that impact a lot
of people along the way. I guess I've never felt a real emergency to develop
this far west away from the sewer and water and it seems that what we're being
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
asked to do here has some severe impacts on a lot of land owners. Just the
issue of septlc and wells that are being put in for $10,000.00 on some of the
newer homes along the way and the assessment that's going to impact them. I
kind of hate to get into an argument where we're deciding major issues versed on
a developer's weather or season or economic conditions or options. If it's a
good buy, buy it. If it looks like it's got some potential, pick up your
options and buy lt. I don't thlnk that's our decision to have to make or worry
about. I think when we impact so many others along the way that we are kind of
leap frogging and then we have to slow down and both owners that own the access
to this plece and the easements and so on have both addressed us tonight and
suggested we slow down for 2 or 3 months and ! thlnk lt's a pretty small request
for such a major impact on the future of the City and wlth all due respect to
the developers, I think we owe it to the community to go slow on these issues in
this case. Plans and specs, they could maybe change if the Carlson/Song
situation changes so I'm a 11ttle nervous about not tabllng thls tonlght and
I've got a lot more questions even on the septic and the water systems for these
new homes. I'd 11kw to know what we're going to do wlth them and wlll thls
stand on it's own 2 feet or are we gotng to have to hit all these homeowners
along the way and I thlnk if we start dolng that, we're going to have a lot more
people here with a lot more opinions.
Don Jensen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Don Jensen with the Rottlund
Company. One thing that hasn't been mentioned, at least in the last few minutes
of discussion, in looklng at the overhead it appears that a lot of the project
going into the Lundgren development is specific to their particular design and
there's a portlon of the water along Galpin whlch would clearly run in public
right-of-way and is not dependent on any particular design, and there's
portlons through the properties that are, or could be construed to benefit the
Rottlund Companies should we be able to make those business decisions and move
forward. When you're talking about $45,000.00 in planning fees, that seems a
lot for any one particular person to swallow, if in fact you're throwing it away
because the plans are meaningless after the work ls done. It would appear that
some type of a partnership and discussion as to how to facilitate those planning
studies may in fact be able to occur as some of those designs on the alignment
in the graphic up on the screen would not change regardless of the personalities
or the companies involved. I think the Rottlund Company would be open to at
least entertaining some type of a partnership in how those fees might be paid in
order to at least get a better look at what the immediate future, speaking of a
window between now and February is concerned. That doesn't mean a decision
today but it certainly means in our perspective, a decision to continue moving
forward at least to not stop the process completely. And I think ~e'd certainly
be open to paying our fair share to get a study looking forward with an
understanding that if the project does move ahead, the City continues to do as
they've done in the past and those planning fees are part of the overall project
cost and it's assessed as it's been proposed regardless.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
10
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Terry Forbord: Since it appears that the discussion in the Council is that
that's what they think is falr, is that the private sector should bear these
costs, then maybe what you could do tonight is pass a motion contingent upon
that occurr£ng. Then if it doesn't occur, the motion dies or the resolut£on
would dle and if it does occur, then we move forward. That way we wouldn't be
wasting any time and you'd put the burden of proof on the private sector to pony
up and if we can, then we move forward. If we can't, then nothing's lost.
Councilman Mason: That addresses one concern. I don't think that addresses
Councilman Wing's concern about property owners along the way and I think, this
is I guess a gut reaction or a gut feeling. I suspect at some point this
project will go through. It's inevitable. But in terms of the life of this
city and the length of stay of some of the residents, I guess I don't think
slowlng thlngs down perhaps as much as a quarter of a year is going to be
damaging that area that much. I don't dispute Lundgren Bros' concerns on that
at a11. They're very real to them. We need, I guess I concur with what Dick
sald. I think our first response needs to be, in a situation as large as this,
the concern of the people who most directly would be affected by it. I think
it's good to hear Rottlund and Lundgren Bros talking about that kind of thing
because I think clearly that's the way it's-going with flnances becoming what
they are. We have to look at more creative ways of doing things and maybe
something good ls coming out of this but I'm not sure I'm prepared to move on
this tonight either because of these concerns mentioned by the Carlsons and the
Songs and there are other people I think that also have those concerns.
Mayor Chmiel: Thomas, did you want to say something?
Councilman Workman: Yeah. As my fellow mates up here would try to characterize
me as pro-developer and development. We went through the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilman Mason: I think lame duck...more appropriate.
Councilman Workman: ...but we went through the Comprehensive Plan and we made
some various decisions back then about what's going to happen. And the Song
property and the Jerome property and this piece and a'll these pieces are going
to be developed and they just don't, they're just not all maybe in the same
month in the same year. If any city in Minnesota had one parce! like Prince
Roger Nelson or Jerome and Linda Carlson or the Song's, in the way of another
development that'd be one thing. There's 3 of them out there. So the word leap
frog is used maybe a little incorrectly in that these are all young people. The
Carlson's, the Song's and the Prince are all very young people. They could have
thls property for 20 more years. So the Johnson/Oolejsi property, and that's
maybe a little bit about what Terry's getting at is that then, those properties
that are now within the MUSA line are not'going to-'develop. Of course I
understand the plight of all the people £nbetween. It's going to happen now or
it's going to happen later. It's never going to be good time if I've got a
septic system, to pay an assessment-. So it is a unique situation that we have
out here with those big parcels of land and three individual owners, or at least
two of them that are here tonight that are unique to any city in that they can
afford to develop or not develop. And so that's where I, with Rottlund and
Lundgren I, sympathy is a tough word to use but that somehow we figure a way
that this is all going to happen. I suspect we're going to table this tonight.
How that affects people's time lines I don't know but-to continue the dialogue
11
City Council Meeting - November
and try and figure out how this is going to be accomplished. Because it's
unique and I think we should asslst those in the situation who want to move
ahead 11ke our Comp Plan said.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't disagree with what you're saylng Tom either but I
don't think the comfortable feeling, at least wlth myself, is there yet. I
still have some real concerns. I'll defer saylng anything more.
Councilman Wing: That was good though because I really agreed with my friend on
the right and I'm really feellng wlth you. I mean it ls going to develop and it
is going to happen soon, and I'm all for it. And Lundgren's got an excellent
proposal.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah and I don't think that you're going to find that this
Council has ever been against development uithln the city. It's just more or
less the timlng of it rlght now is really what we're looking at.
Oon Patton: Mayor, Council. Just to give you data. You realize I've been
appearing before you since Z thlnk '86 with the Lake Susan development and as
you know, we worked with you in donating land for the County Road 17 and worked
on gettlng the watermaln extended down through our project to serve the Chart
Lakes project. So it is not a precedent to do that and I give you that just as
a data to encourage development because again, it is going to develop.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else at this time?
Terry Forbord: You know I thlnk I need to talk speak specifically about delays.
I know that most of you probably won't want to hear this but the fact is, I know
each one of you well enough, elther you're businessmen or you work for youself,
you certainly understand the cost of time and the cost of money. But when
you're talklng about $1 mllllon. I'm talking about just $1 mllllon at today's
rates, you're talking somewhere between $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 a month just in
interest. And when you start looklng at projects that are $2 million or
m±lllon, simple math, it's really clear to see what the cost of indecision
Now lt's not just, to me I start looklng at weather. I mean I know you don't
want to think about weather but weather, when you lose a season, you lose
months. You start totallng up the cost of that, that cost gets passed onto the
buyers or the future cltizens of this community and inflated home prices that
needn't be. And that's the reallty of it. The bottom 11ne is, it gets added
cost into the project. I know you probably don't want to hear that and you
don't want that to be a factor in your declsion but oftentimes I hear that lt's
not going to have any effect whatsoever by havtng a delay. But it does. It
effects the community. It doesn't just effect Lundgren Bros. It effects the
people who live here. The vast majority of the people who buy our homes who
live in the area, and they're going to have a prlce to pay for lt. So the cost
of time and money and delays is phenomenal in our society. It's just
phenomenal. And so there were a couple comments made that tlme isn't that big
of a deal. It's a huge deal. Not as far as profits but in what it does to the
cost of houslng.
Mayor Chmlel: Maybe I'll get back to my present position that I stated before.
Was that if you feel quite as strong as you do with what those needs are, maybe
your company may be willing to even plak up that total assessment cost wlth that
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
reimbursement coming back if this is really going to be a problem. And use the
clty as the catalyst to provide back the dollars back to Lundgren Bros as the
growth progresses. Maybe that's where the crux of this really still lies and !
am trying to meet a happy median with the position that you're taking of saying
the cost factors are there. And there's cost factors there for everyone else,
not just Lundgren Bros. It's involvements of other people in and adjacent to
that route who are on their own septic systems which they will be required to
connect to city sewer. They can keep their own water system. There's
additional costs that are incurred by them as well and depending upon the amount
of feet that it runs in. So there are a lot more things that we have to look
1nfo. And that may be an eventual situation that will occur, as you said.
Hopefully it will but I'm still uncomfortable with the way we're proceeding with
this. To me I still think there's a certain amount of, there's been some pros
and cons to the issue of leap frogging. Even though there are those large
parcels. There are still other people concerned within that complete line as to
where we'd locate it. $o I don't know whether you can come up with an answer
thls evenlng in regards to some of these questions that have been asked. Or
where you can really come from.
Terry Forbord: I can answer some of those questions. First of a11, from a
planning perspective and from an engineering perspective, both from a consultant
standpoint and from a Met Councll standpoint, this is not leapfrogging and I can
attest to that because I was at the Met Counctl this week and I was talking
about this very project in relation to the HOIF and tt was not considered
leapfrogging from a Met Council perspective. I know staff doesn't believe it's
leapfrogging and I know the consultant for the City doesn't believe it's leap-
frogging. ~s far as, I'm not sure if I understood the question correctly
about, [ wasn't sure if you meant would Lundgren fund the project and be
reimbursed or would the private sector pay for the plans and specs? I wasn't
sure.
Mayor Chmiel: I think there's two items there. Both of those.
Terry Forbord: I don't know a development company anywhere in the Twin Cities
that could do that. I'm just not aware of one. We financially are not strong
enough where we could do that. We may be able to contribute to the cost of the
plans and specs if we can get some participation from some of the other people
but I personally do not know of any development company in the Twin Cittes, from
Carlson Real Estate to Opus that could afford to fund projects and work on some
reimbursement factor. Maybe Oon is aware of one but I don't know of one. But
as far as contributing to the plans and specs, I'm sure we'd be willing to
contribute some portion of. I'm not sure how much we could afford to but
Rottlund said they'd be willlng to and so maybe we could work something out with
the city. It's my understanding we get reimbursed on that anyway at some point
in tlme. But we are not financially strong enough to pay for the entlre
project.
Don Ashuorth: Mr Hayor? Listening to a number of the comments made, and I
guess I've had various thoughts but CounciLman Workman had said that this is a
unique project. In a lot of ways I thlnk that it ls but I thlnk in the past
you've had some unique projects as well. Sewer and water as it went up into the
business park lnvolved going across the entlre lake frontage of the Martln Ward
property and through property then purchased by Jim Curry who favored the
13
City CounciI Meeting - November
project. Martin Ward did not. Through the Victor $chmieg farm and then
finally to serve the business park which was Ed Dunn and Bob Schoenecker with
Animal Fair that was proposed to go in on Prince's property out there. And I
think we took some time to try and look at some options that would try to deal
with all of those owners but it really came down to, Ward not really wanting to
do the project and I don't know how much time you could have given it, it just
wouldn't have changed the fact that they couldn't decide where that really
should be. $chmieg, which ends up as a parcel that Jerry ended up buying. That
Instant Web eventually went on. And it came down to the Council having to make
a decision, should this project go in or shouldn't it? I don't think that
there's a way a developer could hold that cost because again, the Ward family
has decided to hold that cost. They bore that cost and have paid those costs
since it was put in in 1978. And it's still not developed today. Whereas
Victor $chmieg, I'm sure he came off very, very well in selling the farm site
and again the eventual construction of Instant Web, United Hailing and Victory
Envelope. And I know there is a cost of holding land. Ed Ounn saw that as it
involved the Eckankar property which he just hit a bad time for him. Otherwise
you'd see single family houses out there today.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, to move this along. I think I've heard the Council
make a statement tonight that several of us aren't comfortable. Not denying the
project, nor do we even suggest it shouldn't go through. There's enough loose
ends that I want to ask questions about that for me there's two options. Either
to deny this or simply to table it and I'tl leave that to the other Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I guess we've had some discussion.
Councilman Mason: I just want to make a couple quick comments. I don't view
tabling this as indecision tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think some answers have to come back anyway.
councilman Mason: I agree with that and whereas I appreciate the money angle
from all of this, we're in a position to not be considering just the money angle
here. And maybe that's good. Haybe that's bad. But our charge is not just
lookinq at total dollars and cents here.
Charles Folch: Mr. Hayor, I would like to just make one clarification for any
property owners here tonight that have the 5 or 10 acre parcels with either new
or currently satisfactorily functioning septic and well systems. If and when
these improvements are put in, they will not be required to immediately hook up
to the system. If their septic or well system should fail, then basically the
City Ordinance would kick in requiring that they do make hook up. But initially
they will not be required to make hook up to the system if their septic and well
are functioning properly.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if that's a true statement Charles. And I'm not
going to challenge it but on my understanding ls, by the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission. Anytlme you put sewers within a glven area, they have a
limited tlme to make connection. And I know I was told that when I had my own
septlc system that was worklng and I was required to make that connection with
the sewer and I think that is a regulation of the MWCC.
14
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Don Ashworth: I see where Bob has hls hand up in the att and I'm hoping he can
respond.
Bob Schunicht: I've got a comment to make... What we're talking about in the
improvements here are really the trunk sanitary sewer system. Not the lateral
sanitary sewer system and when you put laterals in, then you have to hook up but
the trunk system does not require you to hook up. You still have another step
to get to the homes wlth the lateral systems so I think wtth trunk system it's
just, you pay your area charges and they'll hook up until you put the laterals
in.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Okay. I think we've probably, we're discussing
this to death. I would like to have a mot£on one way or the other. To either
table these plans and I don't, I'm not looklng for to denying it at this
particular time but I think some answers have to come back so we can feel
comfortable.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well, I haven't said much about this. I've tistened to
a11 the discussion and I think everyone has made excellent points on both sides
of the lssue really but I really see that the City isn't pushing. Is not the
entity that is pushing this project at this particular t£me. I see that to be
Lundgren Bros and therefore if they can't carry the cost, you know I'm not ready
to put a burden on our property owners or on the city taxpayers so I would move
at thls tlme that we table this issue until either Lundgren Bros feels that they
want to move ahead and come up with another prop, Jsal to pay for the project or
something else happens then. Other developers want to get involved.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Wlng: I'll second that Don but I would 11ke to just discuss wlth you
the timeframe. What are we after here? OD we want to wait for Mr. Carlson and
Mr. Song's proposed quarterly report or do we want to move in January on this
one? What's our timeframe on this?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, I think as we're looking at this and respecting some of the
things that Lundgren wants to get through, I would suggest that we have this on
our next Councll agenda w~lch would be December 12th?
Don Ashworth: 14th.
Mayor Chmiel: 14th.
Councilman Mason: Will we just be hashing all thls stuff over agaln if the
carlson's and Song's are still discussing?
Mayor Chmiel: We could. We could.
Councilwoman Oimler: What answers are we looking for that would give us a
better comfort level than, I'm sensing some of us are not comfortable. I mean
my end, is Lundgren Bros going to pay for the project as plans and specs? That
still doesn't address the future of the assessments there.
15
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Well the assessments don't really take hold until
the following year after that once it's put in. And by that time, whatever
they're doing can be consummated but I don't think that's the discussion that
Council should take for the consideration.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. So are we just waiting for the answer to see if
Lundgren 8ros wants to go ahead with the $45,000.00 expenditure?
Councilman Mason: Well it wouldn't just be Lundgren Bros though necessarily.
Mayor Chmiel: No. There may be the other factors that are involved as well.
Councilwoman Oimler.: Okay, to work that whole thlng out. Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Jerome Carlson: Jerome Carlson, 6950 Galpin Blvd. For your December 14th
meeting, relative to any potential change, relative to the Song-Carlson
property, the Song's have granted me the ablllty to continue negotiations and
talks with the Lundgren Bros. I think I indicated that that was the case
earller so it ls not out of the question that something could occur by that
time. We do not want to be viewed as ant1 this particular development. But
rather the concern agaln goes back, and went back originally to the speclfic
property which the Song's presently own and our desire mutually to protect the
northern part of that in particular. So should thls be put on the 14th agenda,
it may or may not, specifically from any new developments relative to the Song
property, be a waste of tlme. It's difficult for me to predlct that outcome.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. We realize that.
Jerome Carlson: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: And with that I'll call a question.
councilman Workman: Could you repeat that motion?
Mayor Chmiel: The motion basically is to table this until December 14th.
Determinations ls finding whether or not the cost for plcking up the plans and
~pecs would be done by Lundgren 8ros or any of the others that may be associated
with thls project.
Councilman Workman: I'd like to make one comment maybe before we vote.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Councilman Workman: We aren't making a decision to develop or not develop.
Either tonight or even at the next Council meeting. We made those decisions
about 2 years ago so I'm not going to, Z tried to play a little bit of the
devil's advocate tonight and maybe I sound pro development but that deciston and
those heart aches we went through a long time ago. I was trylng to highlight
the differences and some problems with large blocks of land in the way of people
who do want to develop. So now that I've made that polnt, Z feel better.
City Council Heeting - November 23, 1992
Oon Ashworth: Clarification point. This is primarily for Terry's benefit. What
I hear the Council saying is, is if this project does not go ahead as a public
improvement project, that they will have to put up some form of guarantee to
insure that the City is reimbursed those costs. If in fact it does go ahead as
a project, those costs are folded into the project so you don't come up with
those dollars.
Hayor Chmiel: Okay. guestion is being called.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Win~ seconded to table authorizin~ the
preparation of plans and ~pecificatione for trunk utllit¥ improve~ent8 in
Section IONW and 9NE, Project 92-5 until the next City Council moetin~ December
14, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Terry Forbord: Hay I say one more thing?
Hayor Chmiel: Sure.
Terry Forbord: ! think what...prepare for the City Council for the next
meeting. 3ust so you know. The preliminary analysis of this, just on the
development of the Lundgren portion of this project alone will service the debt
on the bonds for the sale of the project. So [ mean just with a minimal
absorption rate will be servicing the debt just from our project. And that's
from the preliminary analysis that we've done and [.know the City's Springsted
can easily prepare a performs for you. A spread sheet showing how all of that
would work, if that's what the Council would like to see. Because they've
already told me they could do that. In case that was a question.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll let you know back on it. Thank you.
AUTHORIZE PREP.*RATIOH OF FEASTeILITY STUDY FOR EXTENSION OF UTILITIES TO G~TEg~Y
WEST BUSINESS PARK. PRO3ECT 92-17.
Charles Folch: Hr. Hayor, members of the Council. Gateway Partnership, in kind
of a joint venture with Opus Corporation, have prepared some preliminary concept
plans and are interested in developing the 160 acre parcel of land located in
the southeast quadrant of Trunk Highway 5 and Trunk Highway 41. The southwest
portion of this property was one of the four areas in Chanhassen identified as
potentially being served by gravity sewer flow to Chaska. In fact a Joint.
powers Agreement for this flow was drafted as an addendum.to the Interim Chaska
Flow Diversion through Chanhassen. The Agreement which was approved in
cooperation with the Hetropolitan Waste Control.Commission earlier this summer.
Phase 2 of the Upper Bluff Creek project.is Intended to serve the entire
property for development by Opus and Gateway, but these improvements are likely
to be a number of years down the road. Therefore it may be more feasible to
serve, at least this first initial phase of the Opus development from Chaska.
I've contacted our consultant and received an estimate to prepare this
feasibility study which is estimated to cost $2,100.00 and it is therefore
recommended that authorization be given to prepare the feasibility report for
this extension of utilities to the Gateway Business Park Addition, Project No.
92-17 conditioned upon the City receiving and the City of Chaska executing the
Joint Utility Service Agreement and that the developer, Gateway Partnership and
17
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Opus Corporation provide a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of
$2,100.00 to secure the cost for the study.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone from Opus here? [ don't see
anyone. Any discussions? Richard.
Councilman Wing: My only concern on thls ls that the Highway 5 Corridor Study
and the potential of people doing, being that entlre area is moving real rapidly
now and I thlnk we're going to have some conclusions fairly fast and my concern
that if this study is done and in fact we agree to extend the utilities, it will
put that development in high gear. It wlll be 11ke Target wlll be here
overnight and then we'll say yes and it will be up. And based on the corridors'
speedy flnlsh here, will this project be dragglng the horse? Will the oart be
dragging the horse? Or wlll we be and the horse will be dragging the cart? And
wlll this project be ahead of us to the point where we both meet architectural
standards or setbacks or landscape or parking. Whatever requirements are part
of thls PUD. Is it going to get ahead of us and literally be the island that
we've established in other areas that's going to get in our way. So my concern
ls, if we prove preparation of the feasibility study and if that does in fact
extend it, is that going to time line the same or are we going to just lose our
shirts on thls whole Hlghway 5 corridor project?
Paul Krauss: Well if I could touch on the last issue first. What you're being
asked to approve tonight ls undertaking the feasibility study, not the project.
And it's at no cost to the City and there's no commitment to do the project. So
thls in and of ltself won't hurt anything. And I guess I'm oonfident that that
could go ahead and not put the cart before the horse type of situation. In
terms of, you know you're ralslng a bigger lssue. It's not only for thls site.
It's for all the sites up and down the corridor and I think you're aware we're
worklng on the property for Abra and Goodyear up by the Emisslon Control station
whlch ls clearly right now out of the direct control of any new, or many new
inputs comlng along Highway 5 because there's no new ordinance and lt's not a
TIF district and we're not giving them anything. The idea, I mean the only way
to really prevent that from happening is a moratorium and that's been discussed
twlce and that was decided that that's not a way to do it. So yeah, we are
truly playing catch up with a lot of thlngs and this ls clearly the major
project in the corridor. The positive side of it ls, the planning process is
golng to be a lengthy one. It's a major, major project. If they got anything
in the ground by next fall, I mean I like to be optimistic but I'd be surprised.
It may happen and we'd 11ke to work towards that happening, especially...traded
to Chaska but I don't know if it's going to happen. Secondly, the Highway 5
group has been worklng to keep ahead of things. We did have thls developer do a
presentation at the last meeting. We are gotng to continue that process so
we're committed to keeping this process proactive so that you're not, it's like
the SWMP committee. You're not going to wait until it's all done for the
results. We're golng to try to feed the results back and forth. And since thls
project is a PUO, wlll have a tax increment district created for it, even though
we don't have a Hlghway 5 ordinance in place, we have a lot of leverage in this
which we don't have on the Abra and Goodyear.
Councilman Wing: Do you know where your south service road is going to go? To
the point where they can even develop this?
18
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Paul Krauss: Well, that's something we're going to have on the next agenda in
fact of the Highway 5 group. Barton-Aschman's engineers are looking at
alternative road alignments and effectively through the Opus site there's really
only one choice. I mean once you get over to TH 41 there's some variation but
to bring it around that wetland there, there's only one place for it to go.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, my understanding too is the south frontage road wiZl be
meandering through that particular area because of some of the wetlands that
exist there as well. And so it's not going to be quite as straight as the north
slde of the hlghway.
Paul Krauss: That's true. You won't have the road continuity. I mean the.
north side you'll be able to get from H£ghway 41 to TH 101 without going on
TH 5. The south side is discontiguous.
Councilman Mason: I was at the last highway corridor meettng and I think
Councilman Wing you would have been more than impressed with the heat that the
developers felt about the need to take care of that area and what probably, if
that task force had anything to say about tt, what'would be and wouldn't be
getting approved. At least recommendation wise-from the task force.
Councilman Wlng: If I wouldn't have been at a fire I would have been at that
meeting. Hr. Mayor I'll move to authorize preparationlof feasibility study for
extension of utilities to Gateway West Business Park Project 92-17.
Councilwoman Oimler: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmlel: Any discussion?
Resolution ~92-138: Councilman Wing moved, Councllmoman Dimler seconded to
authorize the preparation of the feasibility report for the extension of
utilities to Gateway West Busineaa Park, Project 92-17 conditioned upon the City
of Chanhassen and the City of Chaska executing the 3otnt Utility Service
agreement and that the developer, Gate~ay Partnership/Opus Corporation provide a
cash escrow or letter of credit in the. amount of $2,100.00 to ~ecure the. coat
for this study. -Al! voted in favor and the motion carrted.
: . .
. .
CZTY CODE AHENOH~NT REGARDING WETLAND RE6ULATION$. FIRST READZN6.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, this is something that you're aware of that we've been
worklng on for some time since the SWMP committee and a'subcommlttee to the SWMP
Committee. ge're real proud of this document. We think this represents the
state of the art in wetland protection in'the State. of Minnesota. It
incorporates a number of features that have never been put.into ordinance
before. For example we've looked, we used to say a blanket 75 foot setback from
wetlands. We realized that wasn't doing the job and it was.a'pretty onerous
requirement on property owners and what we.went mith mas a reduced setback and
the imposition of buffer yards which would do'a lot better job of protecting the
wetland. One of the things, buzz words that Incorporated into this ordinance
that's part of the new State law is called sequencing- What that means is that
before you impact a wetland you have to go through a process that we've done in
the past but was never articulated. 'Oepending on the metland'you have to look
for alternatives flrst and determine that there are no alternatives before
19
City Council Meeting ~ November 23, 1992
you're allowed to impact them. Our ordinance, and I think this is where it's a
real healthy departure from the State law and the State rules right now, is that
our ordinance truly deals with value and function. What is the value of a
particular wetland to the community and the way we've done that is by
classifying wetlands as pristine, natural and ag urban and then utiiized. What
that allows us to do is say that pristine and natural are going to receive the
utmost protection by the city. Ag urban is something that we'd have some
latitude to work with developers on. We can improve them up or we can make them
serve to fiiter storm water and serve those other functions. The last thing
that I think is real good here, and these maps are being used so often that
they're becoming...is that ue did map every wetland in the city. We have
identified. We have a handbook that outlines height, the nature of it, survey
notes, the eievations. Everything else and it gets used 7 or 8 times a day. $o
we would recommend that you do approve first reading of this ordinance. We've
already sent it out. A number of communities have been bugging us for it
because Jo Ann and I keep going to conferences and telling them about how
uonderfui it is and I know a lot of other communities are looking at doing it.
Now, before you do approve it though I want to make it clear that there is a
State law out there and there are State rules. Proposed rules that go with the
State law and you're aware that I worked on the committee that helped draft
them. Weil, the ruies and I think Roger can attest to this too, the rules are
incredibly bad and the law itself is severely flawed. I think now that we have
a friend in the legisiature maybe ue can.
Councilwoman Dimier: He's pro deveIopment.
Paul Krauss: Slnce the law was the result of two bllls gettlng crammed together
at midnight and they never even bothered to revise the language so they worked
together and the rules are belng urltten by beaurocrats in St. Paul and involve
both of those jurisdictions doing a lot of things. We worklng to cleaning that
up. Parts of our ordinance are contrary to the way the State law and the rules
are set up right now. I still think, and we've thought on the SWMP committee
that thls is still the right thing to do and we are worklng to secure changes
into the law and the rules. By the way, I should also mentlon too. We are
working with a number of planning organizations, governmental organizations, to
get the State law and the rules changed. I'm going to be testifying down there
in December. I should tell you, one of the things we've been looklng at doing
is there's a joint public/private coalition being assembled now to put together,
the ldea is to say to the State that we're highly in favor of the no net loss
concept but you've got to do a better job of it than this. Communities such as
Blalne and Maple Grove, Eden Pralrle, Mlnnetonka are looking at doing lt.
They're joining this. Watershed districts, Minnehaha Creek...County, Ramsey,
Washington I thlnk is one of them. A number of other watersheds. A number of
other communities. Private developers are look£ng at becoming thls and better
private developers. Terry Forbord from Lundgren ls one of those and business.
There's a number of industrial...going in here. What the SWMP committee did is
authorize, if thls platform comes together as another means of approaching the
State legislature. If this platform that's being developed under the auspices
of Larkin-Hoffman on behalf of thls group, comes together. The SWMP oommittee
authorized contributing not only my tlme but some funds to that effort which
u111 probably in the nature of like $500.00 or if anybody's looklng to klck ln.
And we want to explore every avenue that we can to do that. The State hearings
on the rules are golng to be December 17th and so I'll keep you posted on that.
2O
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
But again, I think that this in accordance is the best example of how to handle
wetland protection in the city. We wrote it and I'd recommend that you approve
it. Thank you.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilman Wlng: Mr. Mayor, just before you ask for a motion. Oid you attend
the Soil Management Convention in Ninneapolts 2 weeks ago?
Paul Krauss: What Soil Management Convention?
Councilman Wing: There was a very large nationwide soil management convention
at the Minneapolis Convention Center. I was there and I was looking for you.
But the reason I was there is my daughter, Shannon. I'll say the word Shannon
because she watches these programs. She senior thesis at the University of
Washington was published and it was presented at this Soil Management. At any
rate, one of the programs I went to followed this to the T and I just, for the
Council's information, the University of Washington, ecology circulars 92-7 thru
iO follow this ordinance to the hilt and those are brand new circulars from the
University of Washington. So this is very well done. .My daughter was rather
pleased that this is very modern. Very up to date and I would move approval.
Councilwoman Oimler: Good. Before we do that, vote on it though, I want to say
something too because I worked on this and I thought it was, it's so well
thought out and I know it's going to be the model for a lot of other cities and
other states as well. It is just exactly what we needed. There will be no more
arguments whether this is a wetland or not. We've got it all down. It's pro
development plus it protects our natural resources. Z think we hit a real good
balance there so I would highly endorse this wetland ordinance.
Councilman Mason: Well I'll get my two cents in too because I was on that
committee too. We worked long and hard and I'm also very proud of lt. I think
all of the people involved on that did an excellent job and put in a lot of
time.
Mayor Chmiel: True. Very true. So with this, can I have a motion?
Councilman Wing: I so moved.
Councilman Workman: I second lt.
Councilman #lng moved, Councilman gorkman seconded to approve the first reading
of the Wetland Ordinance amendment as eho~n in Attachment t1. A11 voted tn
favor and the motion carr%ed.
TAX INCREHENT PLAN AHEND~ENT$. DISC[BSION.
Don Ashworth: As can be seen on the date of this report, it goes back a period
of tlme. The plan amendments have been considered by the Mousing and
Redevelopment Authority. To make any of those occur we need to get, we need to
notify the County and the School Oistrict of the proposed modifications. As I
saw that the planned amendments potentially could represent a situation where
both the County and the School Oistrict would feel that we have not, or would
21
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
not then be complying with what had been agreed to for a long period of time,
that the districts would cease by '95-96, we commenced discussions with both the
county and the $chool 01strlct in terms of how we could continue to do the local
projects whlle at the same point in time develop a plan whereby both the County
and the $chool Oistrlct could recelve a hlgher level of funding and would be
received if the districts were to cease. I think we've been successful in dolng
that. The County at this point in tlme is stating that the proposal that is
belng presented does represent more dollars to them than would be received if
the dlstrict ceased. They also recognize that there are county roads in
Chanhassen that would not be built under albeit for our pledging dollars toward
that construction. The school dlstrlct ls looklng to a major referendum that
they would like to see passed to provide additional schools withln the district,
but specifically wlthin Chanhassen. They see the work that's been completed
between the city and the school distrlct as a means by which that they can
literally obtaln greater dollars than would have been achteved if our dlstrlct
would have closed out~ Whlle simultaneously lnsuring that our school district
could present a referendum that would be, have lower dollars that then could
otherwise be achieved if the district dld exlst. The Housing and Redevelopment
Authority has revlewed this ltem for thelr last two agendas. It ls the Houslng
and Redevelopment Authority which needs to conduct the hearing which would be
held approximately 30 days from now. Thls 1rem is being presented to the City
Councll as I see that there has been very close cooperation between the City
Counc11 and the HRA as to what it is that we're trylng to achleve. Not only in
terms of local projects but also in terms of how we can assure that we are not
harmlng either the County or the School District. Thls report is being
presented primarily to lnsure that the Council is aware of some of the jolnt
efforts that have occured. And by the way, I should mention that the meetlngs
wlth the School 01strict and the County have occurred for at least 3 to 4 years
at each of those levels where I have attended a meetlng at least once a year by
those groups. The presentations as to the dollars and number of dollars
available are amounts that have been agreed to by Olck Stolz, representing
Carver County and Jeff Priest, representing the School Oistrict. Dave Clough
representing the School 01strict. We have been presently previously to the
Carver County Board. I've made an invitation, or made myself available to meet
with elther of those two groups should they ask for that. Agaln, this is being
presented primarily as a presentation to the Council to make you aware of what
ls occurring. But it ls also being done recognizing that any bonds sold by the
HRA have to be approved by the City Council. They have no authorization to
potentially build a 11brary wlthout comlng back in front of you and asklng for
that authority and you approving that sale. So for them to go through plan
amendments whereby they would dedlcate dollars, elther for county road
construction, municipal school cost reductions or for local projects, we have to
lnsure that both Council and the HRA are working jolntly and again that's the
reason this item is presented.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. I have reviewed this completely and I've
had several discussions wlth Don and I also have attended some of those meetlngs
wlth the County and $chool District and the cltles. Mainly between Vlctorla and
Chanhassen and Chaska. And I think it's unique in itself to be able to get
those total numbers of people to all sit down in one room and work together for
what's best for everyone within the district. And I think that what Don has
pulled together here really spells it out qulte well and I really feel that it
does all the explaining as it should and yet I wanted to make sure that the City
City Council Meeting - November 23, lgg2
in one way did not get hurt by doing this because it's quite evident that in
doing what we're doing within the City is providing still and yet additional
taxing dollars by being able to utilize that tax increment. If we don't have
that, we're not able to bring additional kinds of businesses or industries,
commercial or like commercial into the city. And so I think the old story goes,
what's good for the goose is good for the gander. In this particular instance I
feel that this is what it is. Ursula, would you care to say something?
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah. I guess I've always gone on record as saying, what
we're dolng here is rolling the districts over so to speak and I've always gone
on record saying that I would oppose that. I think the report that Don wrote up
and Z'm sure lt's well studied and well documented. I think it makes excellent
sense. I agree that the County and the School Districts and the City should be
working together and if you can prove to me that we-'re all going to come out
better, that's fine. Then I would look at it...But my main concern is that
nobody's addressing how the taxpayer of our city is going to come out and I see
no evidence that they're coming out better. Can we look into that a little bit
more deeply and see what the tax burden is on the individual taxpayer here? As
a result of doing this. Because they mtght end up...
Mayor Chmiel: As I see with what we're doing here, we are offsetting some of
those costs that normally would be incurred by the residents of the city.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's correct. But they might very well be also paying
for a school referendum, which I know they're going to have to present
regardless of what we do here. You know and other costs are going up for them.
I just want to make sure that the tax burden does not increase to the individual
taxpayer as a result of the actlon we're doing here. Because certainly some of
the projects are worthwhile but I'm saying that if it's-going to be an increased
tax burden to the taxpayer, then maybe we can do without a city center park. We
can do without a 11brary. You know. So I'd feel more comfortable knowing what
the end result is on the individual taxpayer.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
Don Ashworth: Again this is a hearing that will be proposed to be conducted by
the HRA in December or the first part of January. Could I inbetween that time
work with Councilwoman Oimler and try to see what type of information might.
Councilwoman Oimler: Well I think maybe we should ali be involved. Isn't
everybody else interested too?
Councilman Wing: Well I asked that question and Don sold me. When I walked out
of there saying, whoa. Let's not mess with this because it would impact me very
negatively. Very negatively.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. And that's exactly...
Councilwoman Dimler: Well that's good. That's good news if, you know. I'm not
convinced of that but if you want tolpresent me with the evidence.
23
City Council Meeting - November
Don Ashuorth: I think what it amounts to is, I think it's there. It's simply a
question of, I must not have presented it in a format to show it to yourself so
what I need to do is sit down and say, hou can I better show this so that it's
easier to understand or easier for the average citizen. Whatever you might.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I think you've done an excellent job. But I'm saying
is that, and I agree that the projects are worthwhile but if it's going to
increase the taxes, then do ue need another library? Do we need a city center
park? Do we need some of the programs? Maybe we can weed out some of the
projects. I think we have to look at that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilwoman Dimler: But I like the idea of.working with the County and the
School Oistrict and if ue all benefit, and the taxpayer benefits, then I'm all
for it.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's where this is really boiling down to. And I think
that it shows maybe uhat you should do Don is sit down with Ursula and.
Councilwoman Oimler: Just not me. Is somebody else interested?
Councilman Mason: I'll sit with her.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thanks. You two new members interested?
Don Ashuorth: And I do believe that Councilmember Senn has shown some concern
in this area and may want to sit in on that type of meeting and I would
encourage Dick Stolz from the County and that Jeff Crees from the School
District.
Councilwoman Dimler: And Dave Clough too. Let's get them ail together and set
up a meeting and discuss it.
Councilman Wing: Don, I have just one other quick question. Not to interrupt
you. The only thing, I failed to ask Don this today and I apologize for having
to brlng it up tonlght but what's the State kind of golng on the attack a little
bit and the rules becoming more stringent, do you have a feel? If ue start
relying on thls and predicating our future on this, and suddenly they sweep it
out from underneath us, where would we wind up? Are we really looking for
trouble if they suddenly do away with these?
Councilman Workman: They can't break a rule.
Councilman Wing: No. No, but they can sure make the rules stringent like...
Mayor Chmiel: They can make some changes, no question. A couple legislators...
Councilman Wing: Is that an issue? Do I care about that?
Don Ashworth: Yes you should. The worst that would happen is that certain
projects then wouldn't get funded. You know some of them we know. For example
the library, assuming that that were to go over on the Pauly/Pony/Pryzmus site,
24
City Council Meeting - November
the earliest that that site is available is 3uly 1st of 1994 with construction
belng '95-%. If in the next 3-4, whatever year period of time and the
legislature said no, for whatever reason. These certain dollars are not
available, you're just not going to do that project. One of the areas that I
would be concerned about would be, entering any type of agreement with the
School District or the County and then somehow having fundtng pulled. And I'll
tell you that the soft spot for us is right now we do not pay into fiscal
dispar£ty pool. At one point in time one of the legislators had a bill in
effect that basically said that the opt out or the communities that are pre 'Tg
cities should start to pay and they phased them in. They said that next year
they'll go in at 80~ of the 40~ and. Or I'm sorry, 20~ of the 40~. 40~ of the
40~ and finally literally take away 40~ of your revenues. You take away 40~ of
your revenues and you take away many of the benefits we have for keeping the
district in place but more importantly you take away the dollars that might then
have been shared with the county or the school. Any agreement that we would
enter into with those two entlties should take that into account and recognize
that possibility.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Olmler: So we're not approving anything here tonight? We're just
discussing it. So do you want to call us on a meeting date Don?
Don Ashworth: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: There's only one clause containing...action proposed be taken by
Council or HRA to authorize staff to prepare specific plan amendments. I don't
know what your feellngs are. I'll start wlth Michael on the end.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, may I?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Don Ashworth: This report was.
Mayor Chmiel: Purely discussion.
Don Ashworth: No, joint between Council and the Redevelopment. I was not clear
in that the authorization of taking on spectfic plan amendments was back to
really the HRA. It still is true though that if they act and say, yes we want
to amend the plan and they hold a hearlng and you decide you don't want to bond
them, I guess I'm trying to figure out out loud.
Mayor Chmiel: How they do that.
Don Ashworth: Yeah. When does the Council.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we have that meeting prior to the 14th?
Don Ashworth: Prior to the HRA?
Councilwoman Dimler: To the HRA public hearing.
25
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Don Ashworth: Sure. Save me a phone call. Mark, Colleen, would you like to be
in on that meeting? Yes?
Councilwoman Dimler: And Olck Stolz and Jeff Crees and Dave Clough.
Councilman Wing: Dick Wing.
Councilman Dimler: And Dick Wing and...
Mayor Chmiel: And anybody else in the city who wants to come. And if we have
more than 2 of the existlng Counc11.
Don Ashworth: Then I'll notify the newspaper.
Mayor Chmiel: Make sure you notify the newspaper.
Oon Ashworth: I w111.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. We'll move along.
NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD CONSTRUCTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH HIGHWAY 5 RECONSTRUCTION
PROJECT.
Don Ashuorth: Thls ltem has gone, agaln I tried to make sure both the HRA and
the City Council ls aware of what the others are doing. Primarily recognizing
HRA and any costs associated wlth the Highway $ frontage road construction where
as the City Council ls actually authorizing the work to be completed. The
inltial concern, or one of the lssues ralsed at our last meeting was the cost
associated with acquisition and other costs associated with the project. In
talklng ulth Barton-Aschman, the cost of the right-of-way acquisition cannot be
included under the ISTEA funding. However, there are parts of the frontage road
that in fact could be paid, meaning the right-of-way acquisition. Specifically
the area in front of Eckankar property as it would go over into Lake Ann Park.
A piece to serve what ls currently the Kerber property and the tree farm and
what was the nursery that's sltting there. And then Mr. Gorra's road. The
biggest part is the recognition that they're, although part of the project will
not be seen as a benefit back to properties where you had the road and there's
thls 150 foot buffer. In most instances that ls golng to be looked at more as a
taklng rather than as a benefit. However, the western portion of the project,
where it would go through the area currently being considered by Fleet Farm,
very definitely ls an assessable project and an analysis of thls with 8arton-
Aschman we feel very confident that the cost for thls project, including
right-of-way acquisition, will not end up as any form of a general obligation
cost. Should be 100~ assessable. Any cost that do not hlt 1nrc one of those two
categories could be used, or tax increment could be used to pay those costs.
Again, we do not think there would be tax increment dollars 1nrc that project.
But those would be the three levels of funding. To specifically respond to the
questlon as to the right-of-way costs, we're estimating that to be $700,000.00
to $900,000.00. One final note and that is, initially there was a concern that
maklng application for these dollars maybe get in advance of the work that the
Highway 5 corridor group was carrying out and before citizens could actually
become involved. The memo from Barry Warner at the very end of your packet
basically ls stating they need, meaning the Highway 5 corridor task force, needs
26
City Council Heeting - November 22, 1992
the information that would be generated through the engineering side to be able
to complete those publlc hearings and to meet with owners to tell them where
thls ls going to be and what it's 11kely going to look like. So we've kind of
moved from, maybe we're moving too.quick in making application to the State to,
or we're movlng too slow.
Mayor Chmiel: I see some of the costs that they're looking at for the
construction and...and so on has changed some from what it was back in September
to what it ls now in October as it shows here. In the later part of October.
It's not that any difference there as far as the MnOot assistance one but there
is a little variation without MnDot's assistance as well. Zf you look at this
particular table. Is there anyone wanting any discussion on this at this time?
Or have any questions?
Mike Gorra: My name is Mike 6orra. I'm in part of this area that's effected by
the road. How much land are you planning to take for this service road? Bo you
have a diagram or a sketch or something that shows what the taking's going to
be?
Don Ashworth: I thought Mlke, didn't between Paul or I gtve you a copy of that
study carried out by Bill Morrish. It was called the corrtdor and the, I can't
even remember now the name of lt.
Mike Gorra: Well I got something but it dtdn't really show what the footage
was. You could just kind of guess at it. I just wondered if it had changed.
You know how things change from day to day?
Oon Ashworth: Well my understanding, and Councilmembers can correct me but Bill
was looking to trying to insure that a green area was preserved especially as it
went along what Z'11 call the main line, recognizing that it would have to
bubble back out at certain intersections. Mean!ng you'd have to move back to
11kg a 300 foot distance at any major intersection. But it was my understanding
that kind of midstream areas, which would be kind of where your property would
be, would be generally 150 feet was my recollection. Between, that we were
looking to as what I'll call a buffer area. I don't know if your recollection
was 100, 200.
Councilwoman Oimler: Do you remember?
Mlke Gorra: Would that include the new right-of-way or would that just be a
buffer inbetween the two? I mean it's kind of hard to figure out.
Don Ashworth: In my mind that was seen as the buffer and then you would have an
additional 50 foot of right-of-way associated with the frontage road itself.
Mayor Chmiel: So you're saying as far as the expansion of Highway 5 as well?
Mike Gorra: Yes. The total amount of the taking. Would it be 150 or would it
be over 200 then? Are you talking 150 inbetween the two?
Don Ashworth: Through your area, if there is any taking and MnOot now has got
it down to the polnt at least in that area that tt's very small, would all be on
the south side as it deals with the main line. Now in the area of Lake Rnn Park
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
you're going, that would actually be on the north side. There would be a
transition right through that intersection area where it will actually move back
over to the south slde and go off of the proposed school property. $o any main
11ne right-of-way in your area comes off the south side. Then thls plan, the
Blll Morrlsh concept, would say that there should be a green buffer area between
the highway and a north frontage road. And my recollection was that he was
eenerally looklng for 150 foot dlstance where you'd have pedestrian walkway.
Potential bikeway. Treed area and then there'd be the frontage road would be
the north of that.
llike Gorra: So the ultimate distance would be probably over 200 feet then?
Don Ashworth: I thlnk the important thing Mike would be to make sure that you
continue to work with thls committee. In making an application for this
funding, we're not making application that the road would be $0 feet north of
the roadway or 250 feet north. We're presenting a generalized concept and
gettlng HnOot to agree that taking traffic off of the main line would be a good
ldea. Whether that frontage road be right adjacent to the highway or not is a
local decision and we have until 19% to really make that decision.
Mike Gorra: So nothing's really been decided yet? It's still.
Don Ashuorth: No. That's the reason that we've selected this committee and
want that committee to be the ones that say, how do we want each of the parcels
along Highway 5 to develop. And it could get accelerated. It could move to
'94. Maybe '95.
Mike Gorra: Now ls thls north service road, ls thls a necessity? 100~
necessity. Does it have to go all the way from, down to CR
Mayor Chmiel: It should.
Mike Gorra: No matter what the development is lnbetueen CR 17 and CR 1177
Mayor Chmiel: No I look at it as a safety factor more than anything else for
the residents within the city. Making that accessibility rather than golng out
onto TH 5 approaching into Lake Ann Park. And so to me it would have a priority
of being put ln, yes.
Hike Gorra: So that's the only option you're looking at on the north side of
TH 5 then?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Nike Gorra: That's all I had to ask.
Councilman Wlng: Don? You know Z've been real actlve in thls corrldor study
and supporting it. I guess I'm a little frustrated that land owners such as Mr.
Gorra who's rlght in the project's way, if you w111, he hasn't had more
questions answered. Isn't more up to date on what the thlnking is and some of
the potentials. Somehow we've got to get the communication going because we're
kind of moving on this. I think the Council has unanimously agreed to go with
thls corrldor and I think the landowners ought to know at least as much as we
28
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
know on the committee. Because they're the ones'that are going to be impacted.
Is there any way we can get th£s £nformat£on to, ! mean Mr. Gorra £s just one of
many but I think he deserves a little more background here than maybe he's
getting.
Don Ashworth: Do you recall, has Paul set up specific timeframes under which
notices would be sent? Do you recall?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know. Paul's out in the halt. Paul, maybe you can come
in here and answer that question, if you can hear me. Paul, Don has a question
for you.
Don Ashworth: The Council wondered, when in the Highway 5 corridor process do
we bring in the owners such as Mr. Gorra and tnvolve them in the process? We
recently approved the contract with Camiros. We're moving ahead with this.
Paul Krauss: Yeah. This process is running pretty similar to the
Comprehensive Plan. ! mean there will be definitive neighborhood meetings.
Informational meetings all along but we've had a contingent of residents who
have shown an interest and I'm pretty sure Hike, did you get our agendas? We'd
be happy to send them to you if not. We have had a lot of residents start to
follow this thing and show up regularly at the meetings and we appointed a
chairman at the last meeting. Actually two chair people at the last meeting.
And depending on their calls, I would invite people to come and get some...but
there will be specific informational meetings.
Mayor Chmiel: Z thlnk if we could make sure and check out each of the adjacent
property owners all the way along TH 5 and provide them with that information as
to when these meetings are going to be held and if they'd like to come and sit
in on them, they're more than welcome.
Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Hayor we've avoided, I guess whenever anybody shows an
interest in this thing we're more than happy to provide them all the
information, meeting notlces and what not that we can. We've been a little
relunctant. This is a hold over from the Comp Plan, to go out and mass notify
everybody of every meetlng because the Highway 5 task force needs to gain an
understanding of what they're going to do and so they have something for people
to give them feedback on. The Planning Commission, while they ran a very public
process. Sent out all the notices. Invited people to come, actually did not
lnvite them to speak for a period of time until.they had some thoughts jelled
and provided the basis for discussion. So I think we're trying to run this in
the same way.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't find that as a probtem. At least if they come to these,
they know what's happening. Even if they're not allowed to give input at that
particular time. Still they can be there to observe and listen as to what's
taking place.
Paul Krauss: I'd be happy to double check if you're not already on that mailing
list.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions?
29
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: What's our action here tonight? Anything?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think our action basically, this is to.
Oon Ashworth: You're authorizing me to prepare a letter similar to the one
that's enclosed to MnOot basically asking them that yes, they're willing to make
a commitment to this project and include the north frontage road project as a
part of the Highway 5 construction.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Seeing none, can I have a motion? For Don
to send that letter to MnOot.
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded authorizing the City Manager
to prepare a letter to MnOot asking them to make a commitment to the Highway 5
project and include the north frontage road project as a part of the
construction plans. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Wing: I was doing City business and I missed the Pledge of
Allegiance and I just was wondering, would you just allow me out of order one
quick comment under Council Presentations?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Wing: Okay, I'll do it next time.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead.
Councilman Wing: Paul, I think this Council and the Planning Commission at the
last meeting are constantly stymied, Abra's coming in and we got something good
from Target. I'm surprised at the feedback I've gotten from Target. Comments
that maybe that ought to be our minimum standard. Abra we're stuck with and
these other ones coming in along Highway $ and it would appear that our
landscape ordinance needs to aggressively be attacked right now. I mean if
Target 15 what we 11ke and what we want, then the landscape ordinance has to
reflect that on the Abra and the new ones coming in and it doesn't. We really
have no say whatsoever unless it's a PUD or HRA's project. So my concern is
two. Number one, landscape ordinance seems to be solely, grossly inadequate.
Is that an assumption I can make? Or needs to be adjusted?
Paul Krauss: I think our landscape ordinance was state, was 1980 state of the
art but it doesn't deal with Hlghway 5 lssues very well.
Councilman Wing: Okay. And also architectural standards. We say well we want
this and we want that and we think it ought to have pitched roofs and we don't
think, and we thlnk it ought to have this. So there's no rules and these poor
3O
City Council Meeting - November
guys are coming in scratching their heads saying, gripes people. What do you
want? Just tell us what you want. We'll build it. We'll do it but what do you
want and we don't have the rules. So the in a sense the architectural standards
we don't seem to have adequate rules and the Planning Commission is frustrated
and I think I get frustrated here because you don't know, we just don't have
anything to tell the people coming in except the quick oil change place could
build what they want because that's, we don't have any rules to say they can't.
So I guess I'm suggesting here that the Council recommend to staff that the
iandscape ordinance and the issue of architectural standards be taken up at
the Planning Commission and be given priority.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't disagree with you but how far are we going to go with
architectural standards?
Councilman Wing: Oh, I have no definitions other than we don't have any
definitions. So what's good for you I don't like. What I like you don't like.
And I don't know Don. I don't have that answer. Or maybe just a committee to
review but do we want pitched roofs or don't we? Are flat roofs okay or aren't
they?
Mayor Chmiel: ! think we should have a specific direction with design. But as
far as colors, I don't think we should even really approach that.
Councilman Wing: You know you're becoming specific and I don't know, I have no
suggestion here other than what can or can't a company do coming in.
Mayor Chmiel: In other words you say you want this one blue, you want this one
pink, you want this one yellow.
Councilman Wing: We're sort of doing that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Wing: And they're really frustrated. I don't blame them.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul.
Paul Krauss: Well you know, in fact I had a meeting with 3elf Farmakes today.
Jeff had volunteered to provide some sketches for Abra and Goodyear so that we
could relate to them the kinds of concerns that staff and Planning Commission
had. And Jeff and I had an opportunity to discuss, how do you get a design and
we both agree and that is... We don't want to dictate colors. We don't want to
dictate era...you know, everybody has a Wild West theme or ultra modern or
anything else but you do want to get to things like there should be no unadorned
walls. That there's got to be...detailing that we do want this, on and on and
on. As far as the Highway 5 area goes, that's on the agenda for the Highway 5
corridor task force. Maybe we can give some direction to them to accelerate
work on an overlay district might be appropriate. But that would, once that's
in place that will deal with the Highway 5 corridor which incorporates portions
of downtown but all of downtown. Then you have sites like the Charlie James
property that aren't technically on the Highway 5 corridor. If you want to deal
with those somewhat separately or just expand the corridor so that, there's lots
of ways you can look at that.
31
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Mayor chmlel: I thlnk we can put slash slash TIF districts to varlous blah,
blah, blah.
Paul Krauss: Well you see I thlnk the HRA and the Councll have been very good
recently, the last two years, I think it started with Councilwoman Dimler's
suggestion wlth the industrial building, to use the HRA lnput as leverage to get
a better quality product. So in that case you don't specifically need an
ordinance. You're gettlng at it through another.
councilman Wing: Oh, but if Charlie James puts in a Wal-Mart across the street
that doesn't use HRA money, we do want that one landsoaped the same way we want
the Target across the street landscaped? Or better? Then we won't have an
ordinance for it rlght?
Paul Krauss: You don't have one that would produce that, right.
Councilman Wing: That's what I'm asking for.
Councilman Workman: But Eden Prairie has an ordinance that dictates design,
right'? I mean I get a little nervous relying on things that can blow over that
~ termite can eat to block the view of something that's still going to be there.
Paul Krauss: Eden Prairie has I think, I could be wrong, but I think they have
a brick or better ordinance so lt's been my experience that Eden Prairle that
gets a lot of buildings that are just as ugly, they're just clad in brick.
Councilman Wing: But on the other hand the Abra plan at the Plannlng Commission
talked about thls classlc, updated. It went on and on describing how wonderful
they're golng to be and then it states cement block and I almost want to start
applauding. Well that's painted cement block. Wonderful. What a classic
that's golng to be. Something's wrong. I'm just saying we don't have the rules
and I'm concerned about it. That's a11.
Paul Krauss: I certainly wlll feedback thls thlng to the Hlghway$ corrldor
task force. Same thlnk 11ke when we did the SWMP and we were told to accelerate
t he wetland.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. And I thlnk Olck has a good point there.
Councilman Wing: To move along tonight I'd just like to ask this be on a future
agenda. Don if you would approve that for Council discussion. Preferably after
the 1st of the year...
Mayor Chmiel: Alrlght, we'll get it on the next agenda for discussion. We'll
move along to ?.
ADHINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
1993 BUDGET, CITY HANAGER.
Don Ashworth: Each of our sessions moves us a little closer to adoptlon of a
budget. Our hearing is set for Oecember 9th. At that point in time you do have
to complete what would be the general and debt levles as they would go to the
32
City Council Meeting - November
County. We have until December 28th to complete literally all of the rest of
the budgetary items. Again I would hope that we have everything concluded by
the 9th.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's at 7:30 p.m.? That's what I have down.
Don Ashworth: Right. The Council previously had received a copy of each of the
requests from each of the departments. Those dealt primarily with the general
fund. Scott HarK, Todd Hoffman made initial presentation for Park and Public
Safety. Then Charles is associated with Public Works. Paul as it dealt with
planning. We had an additional session where we passed out the sheets
associated with what I'll call the special revenue type funds. At that same
point in time we presented the consolidated budget as it related to the
presentations by each of the department heads, meaning Paul, Todd, etc.. At
that point in time we were out of balance by $500 and I think I stated
$27,000.00 here but Z think the amount was closer to $514,000.00 Tom.
$524,000.007 $524,000.00. Council instructed staff to go back and meet with
each of the department heads. Try to figure out how we could achieve balancing
of that number. We did that. We have put in front of you basically the same
sheets you had from our third work session showing the general fund revenues. I
should note there that under general property tax levy the amount proposed for
certification, or at least for 1993, $1,SGG,O00.O0 is approximately $30,000.00
less than the dollar amount levied for 1992. With the aggregate revenues then
for the revised budget being $3,402,000.00 in comparison to proposed
expenditures is on the third page of $3,402,000.00 for a positive position of
$689.00. We have reshown each of the departments. So in other words, if you
take the budget forms you had from three meetings ago and look under general
qovernment or publlc safety, you would see the amount that they had requested
under each of those categories. Whether it be by type. Personal services
materials or by department. General government and publlc safety. To make your
.lob a little easier, we then put together what would be the fourth and fifth
sheets which show the detail associated with how we feed that $524,000.00 so
that shows each of the revenue adjustments for expenditure cuts. Hopefully
tonight I can get Council reactlon to those. By the end of thts week we hope to
take and have before you, and I'm starting to, knowing the total thlngs that
need to be completed, I'm a little worried as to whether or not we'll be able to
do that but I'm still hoping to take and have together a total proposed budget
that would lnclude general, all of the speclal revenue, debt, have a lot of the
same qraphics that you had in previous years for the tax dollar and a lot of
those klnds of things. So again I don't know how you want to proceed. If you
want detail questions now. If I could, maybe I could go through my entire
report and then we mlght come back to this because I think there's some overall
impacts that should be considered. Anticipated tax impacts. Back in September
when staff had basically set through the Truth in. Taxation process, the proposed
1993 levy. We set that at 5~ greater than had been set for our operational levy
in 1992. We dld that recognizing that we-had an approximate 11~ real growth
within the community. That means that we put in 11~ more streets. 11~ more
street 11ghts. 11~ more watermains. 11~ more people. 11~ more houses. We
had, and they're very good justification to take and look to a proposed levy
that would be 11~ higher simply to keep us at where we were at from a year ago.
And that really wouldn't keep us up from the standpoint that that number does
not include any type of inflation. So hypothetically you could justify taking
before the citizens a 12-13~ or 14~ increase over one year ago. However, the
33
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
State changed the rules for taxing residential properties. In fact they gave a
m~.ior tax break to higher valued homes. The fact that higher valued homes are
~oinq to pay less taxes means that somebody else has to pay more taxes.
Conscience decision, and I hope it was a conscience decision of this Council was
to state you dld not want to see a tax lncrease on any residential property
~!hich means then that from a staff standpoint we no longer could look at this
shlft of 6~ and we lost 6~ off of the 11~ real growth. That's the reason we set
the amount at 5X more for the operational levy than we had one year ago and it
was to insure that no matter what valued residential property you had, barrlng
that there had been any improvements to the property, or a general increase in
values through 11ke a 4 year re-evaluation process, that there would not be a
tax increase. We came awfully close. I got mine at home and my value stayed
the same from one year to the next. The clty portion went up 34 cents. The
budget as presented here, if the Council would drop cut $5,000.00 off of the
budget as it ls, you can assure that no residential property, barring that they
made improvements, would have a tax increase. Everyone would have a tax
decrease. The effects of what the State did can best be shown in exhlblt number
3~ What that shows, oh by the way. This was prepared by Carver County. Carver
County put this through thelr computer. The tax sheets, the truth in taxation
n,atices that you recelved in the last I or 2 days have been, were prepared using
live data. So in other words, that would represent your tax b111 from the olty.
From the county. From the school district if no changes were made from that
proposed in September. What exhlblt 3 shows you is that for properties values
starting there at $50,000.00 and going up to $60,000.00, $80,000.00,
$120,000.00, $110,000.00 all would have a OX change. So in other words, when we
set it at that 5~ amount, 5X more, ue truly for lower valued houses are not
creating a tax increase. We are also not creating a tax decrease. We're
basically leaving them the same. Starting at $110,000.00-$120,000.00, you're
startlng to see decreases. And this is the formula change that the State put
through. Movlng on up to a property at about $200,000.00, becuase the formula
change will see almost 12~ reduction in thelr taxes. Now that agaln ls solely
b~cause of the formula change. If you look at the city, county and school
district, you u111 find that between the three, that there ls an approximate
3 1/2~ decrease £n the aggregate for al1 of those governmental units. So that
means that if you have a lower valued home, $60,000.00 to $80,000.00. I don't
know if that's lower value. I think it £s. That you would see a 3 1/2X
decrease. That's the minimum decrease. [f you have a more expensive home, you
would see the 12~ plus the 3 1/2~ so you would see an approximate 15
reduction. Now [ have to make one big caveat for one thlrd of our residents
that live in the Minnetonka district. And that is that Minnetonka dlstrict
not see the same reductions that are currently belng foreseen in the Chaska
district. Specifically that levy went up by about 13~ and I believe that it's
attributable to the new debt associated with the new school buildings. The
County is also proposing to go up 3~, 4~, 5X so residents in that area are going
to see an approximate 17~ to 18~ lncrease in thelr property taxes. Now, what
you have to again factor in is th£s modification that the State makes. So if
you're 1lying in that area, you have a $200,000.00 house, you'll see an 18~
increase because of the actions of the school district and the county but you
will see a 12~ decrease as a result of what the legislature dld. So the net
effect would probably be a 5~ or 6~ increase. If you have a lower valued home
in that area, you would see the full 18~ from the school and the County.
Because you did have the lower valued home, you would not see...
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: Makes sense.
Councilman Mason: I'm going to move across the street.
Don Ashworth: The third sheet basically shows the proposed levy amounts. I
also included that some of the financial reduction information that we have been
using associated with our meetings wlth the school distrlct and the county. The
final item is kind of talking about what might happen on Oecember 9th. I don't,
if on December 9th we do have a number of residents that are present, first of
all I would request that I be allowed to make kind of an overview presentation,
very similar to what I've made here and in fact we have in place and I hope to
hsve it functioning by that point in time, a computerized form where I can show
some of these numbers right on the screen and it should appear in thelr homes
when they see that. So that each of these sheets that I've been referring to
and where we show general property taxes and that the amount scheduled for 'g3
is less than the dollar amount for 'g2, that I can show that right on the
screen. Flnally, that if again we do have a number present, that the meetlng
for the 9th ~ust concentrate on those funds, meaning the general fund, debt
servlce funds, fire relief, those type of things that deal with the property tax
levy. and discuss and vote on those on that evening. I think that if the group
has concerns over whether or not, let's assume that the final sheets that we
develop, we've already gotten some preliminary in this case for cable TV. $o we
show how much we're brlnging in for cable TV. When we show a continuation of
the contract with the City of Chaska for $5,000.00 to carry out programming
through the Hlgh $chool. I think if we got lnto more lengthy discussions on the
gth in regards to whether or not we should include $2,000.00 camera wtthin the
cable TV fund that lt's golng to be difficult for cltlzens who may be in the
audience to relate to the fact that that's not an item that's effecting their
taxes. And so there might be a tendency for that citizen to stand up and say,
I've listened to this discussion and I don't understand this. If we're trying
to find ways to reduce taxes, why don't you guys vote to get rid of that
$~,000.00 camera that you guys were talking about. And not realize that that
has it's own funding. It's own source of revenue and that'lf you eliminate the
camera, you do not save the property taxes. 61yen the overall strength of the
proposed budqet, meaning that it will create a tax decrease for 2/3 of our
people from a city standpoint. It will create a real good decrease for most of
our cltlzens on a generalized basis. Meaning clty, county, school. I think we
will have some from the Minnetonka district area. Maybe we might even have a
Counc11 member get up and go in front of us.
Councilman Wing: Wouldn't be a bad idea.
Don Ashworth: I guess I open it to, Mr. Mayor should we go back and maybe'touch
on each one of these items now?
Mayor Chmiel: No ! think we can probably look at this, we're looking at
possibly one more meeting before the gth and I think at that particular time I
think we can probably go through most of that.
Don Ashworth: How about the 7th? That's Pearl Harbor Day. Maybe that's
fittlng.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a good day.
35
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Don Ashworth: Do it as a work session like at 5:30?
Mayor Chmiel: That'd be fine. Monday, 5:30 p.m.. Okay, meet in the courtyard
room?
Oon Ashworth: Yeah.
Councilman Wlng: Was thls in 1leu of the gth?
Councilman Mason: No, no, no. No, no.
Councilman Workman: Aren't you 11ghtlng the Christmas Tree at 6:00 Don?
Mayor Chmiel: Well maybe we'll be done by then.
Oon Ashworth: Could we make it 5:00?
Mayor Chmiel: I can make it at 5:00.
Councilwoman 01mler: 5:00, sure.
Councilman Mason: 5:00, I can make 5:00.
CounciIuoman Dimier: And then the tree lighting's at 6:00?
Mayor ChmieI: Yes.
CounciIman Wing: I wiII not be here the 9th.
Oon Ashworth: And then maybe in the meantime, if any of you would get a hoId of
me. Where we have shown cuts in there and if there are particular items that
you really feel should stay in there. Remember we stlll do have some of our
speclflc and capltal project funds where hypothetically a shed for Lake Ann
hypothetically can still go into the park acquisition and development fund. But
then it would be back to the Park Commission to basically say that that's a
prlority and they really have that in there. We feel very good about the budget
process to date. We feel that we've met the guidelines that you've given us and
we hope to conclude the process on the 9th.
Councilman Mason: So we're golng to walt on questions for thls until the 7th?
Mayor Chmiel: I would suggest that you look at this and look at your other
sheets that you've had.
Don Ashworth: But if you could glve me a call. I mean it'd be flnd if you'd
like to wait until the 7th but.
Mayor Chmlel: But if you have something you want to talk about beforehand.
Oon Ashworth: Then I've got something to work on.
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
UTILITY BILL APPEAL, STATEWIOE ~UTO ~ALVAGE. L~R~ERI~ ~h~SSAR,
Mayor Chmiel: It appears that Mr. Vassar is just walking in the building and
very fortunately thls is perfect timing. Oon, 1rem number 5 for you. You're
just in time. We just have it before us. We haven't started any dIscuss£ons.
Don Ashworth: I started out my report stating that ! firmly believe that the
passage of the storm water management plan will turn out to be one of the most
important ordinances that we put through and will be found to be one of the most
environmentally sensitive ordinances that we've had. I think the merits of the
entire ordinance, the program are, well again, time will prove that tt in fact
is one of the best ordinances to pass on through. Unfortunately, in trying to
establish charging systems back, those become much more difficult and especially
recognizing the wide range of properties that we have w£thin this community.
The number of landscape property owners. The number of Arboretums. The number
of hills. The number of valleys. The number of wetlands. [ am very surprised
that you have not received previous concerns or complaints as to how an
individual property was being charged under that ordinance. How should we look
at the drainage that comes off of St. Hubert's cemetary? How do you look at the
drainage associated with our schools? Yet they're all put Into generalized
categories and !reaily appreciate and commend engineering and planning and
specifically Dave Hempel in meeting with each of these individual property
owners. All of the Dave StockdaIes of the world who are concerned because they
have their own ponding area. They're doing their th£ng for the environment.
And he's done an exceilent job in getting them to understand the genera! goals
of that ordinance and then to reasonably come back to what should be a
reasonable charge against their property. To the best of my knowledge, the
request before you tonight to review the account of Mr. Vassar associated with
Statewide Auto Salvage, is the first complaint that ! am aware that you've had
in front of you. And in looking at the aerial photos that I've suppl£ed with
this packet, there is no question in my mind that his property being in a
similar category to St. Hubert's cemetary or Chanhassen Elementary, there's
absolutely no way that his property has to have 10 times the runoff and if you
want to look at the type of runoff. I'm sure one of the things that he may say
to you is that you don't have a specific program established for his area. Of
course that's a part of the ordinance is to develop programs. But [ do know
that someone will pay a major cost in cleaning that site up and it's going to be
far more than any amounts that we've collected locally. And I have yet to see
any one of these projects that the City has not gotten involved with somewhere
along the line. Again, I can only guess as to what Mr. Vassar has to say but I
would highly recommend that the Council keep In place the charge as has been
developed by Oave Hempel.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Mr. Vassar.
Laverne Vassar: Well by the letters that your own staff has sent you, you've
got them in your copies there, your staff has atready admitted... It's like
charging for the sky. Blue sky is what you're doing.
Don Ashworth: I wouldn't have gone on the first reduction but Dave did that and
that was within his Jurisdiction.
37
City Council Meeting - November 23,
Laverne Vassar: On the south of Highway 212 is in a different watershed
district from the rest of the city completely.
Don Ashworth: The watershed districts make no differences to.
Laverne Vassar: It absolutely does. There's nothing you could ever do on the
south side of 212. That's done by the Minnesota Lower Watershed Distrlct ls
what regulates that completely.
Roger Knutson: That's not true. We have concurrent jurisdiction over storm
water.
Laverne Vassar: It does. That's who issues all the permits for that area down
there. On the south side of 212.
Roger Knutson: We also issue it.
Mayor Chmiel: The City does basically. In conjunction with their approval.
Laverne Vassar: Well, I've got the League of Cities doing a check on this thing
too.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's fine and that's your perrogative to be able to do
that as well. But I think that after I have reviewed this as well, I don't
dlsagree wlth the position taken even though they dld give you a different
category for that. Moving it from a general business to the industrial/office
category whlch dld lower it some as well.
Laverne Vassar: Well, that's no different than a field. 3ust because there's a
car sittlng there, that doesn't mean that water's runnlng off the place. It's
just your car at your house. When the water runs off the roof of it, it runs
underneath the car and it soaks 1nrc that ground just like anything else. I'll
tell you a good example for you. You've got Joe Notterman's motel down there
and you've got Western's motel and you've got the same area, amount of acreages.
You've got two different fees down there. It's a discriminatory practice that's
going on.
Mayor Chmiel: That I'm not aware of.
Laverne Vassar: Every point that I brought up when I come in and talk to him in
the offlce, every polnt lt's just 11ke fa111ng on deaf ears. He never addressed
any of them.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Notterman has been in and I know that there has been
correspondence on his property. I do not know the details of the correspondence
but I do know that he's been in and vislted with Dave on several occasions.
Mayor Chmiel: Does the Council have any specific questions of Hr. Vassar?
Councilman Workman: Well how about, what may be his contention that in fact
anything draining from this area, and I see naturally that it would draln into
the pristlne waters of the marsh there. And the Clty may not ever need to treat
that. How do we treat a scenario like that? What might come off of a farm
38
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
field and into a ditch that we might have to maintain. This may never enter a
ditch or a pond that the city would, you know what I'm saying?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Workman: Because this clearly runs into United States of America
property that we're not going to have anything to do with.
Roger Knutson: Maybe I can respond, at least in part. One of the things we're
aiming for and we're required to by Federal law shortly, is to have storm water
that enters places like rivers and lakes, be of a certain quality. We recognize
that every drop of rain water we can't control before it enters those bodies of
water. Maybe in some cases it will have to be a little dirtier here and a
little cleaner here. So we use the money we gain here to clean it up over there
so overall we reach the goals we need to reach.
Councilman Workman: We may need to use monies from this fund here someday. I
mean in a general sense, if our City were a dome, every parcel of land on the
bottom of the dome would drain into another community. It wouldn't be
justification for not having them a part of the utility. Because we may need to
do something there anyway. Correct? is that what you're saying?
Roger Knutson: Yes. And they maybe reach a point for example where you're not
going to allow direct runoff from industrial sources or sources like industry
into a wetlands. You want some pre-treatment before it reaches there. There
are all sorts of different things you need to do. One thing you need to do is
develop a plan and that takes money.
Hayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Roger. Any other questions? Or any discussion?
Councilman Wing: I'm in the same boat as Mr. Vassar out on Lake Minnewashta.
I'm paying into this fund but they haven't c[eaned up my lake. It's all going
towards Lotus and other areas of the city but I accepted this as an
environmental tax and I guess it's been so intact and a[l the dust that's
settled down, ! thought all the problems had been addressed. I was rather
surprised.
Laverne Vassar: Welt I tried to come and address you last year and I got the
date screwed up and that's why I didn't address you last year.
Councilman Wing: I'm paying the same fee, just not as much obviously because
I'm residential.
Laverne Vassar: Right across the street is Moon Valley over there. He's got
two parcels of property and he pays like $3.22 apiece on like 40 acre parcels.
That doesn't even make any sense. And that's not residential. I got the whole
list of from everything from the county line up to Gedney's. Gedney's has got,
look at Gedney's what they're paying you for storm water. If you think that
isn't discriminatory practices, Gedney's is paying nothing.
Councilman Workman: Maybe we can get an analysis of that. I couldn't tell you
what Gedney's is paying.
39
City Council Meeting - November 23, I992
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't have the foggiest ldea.
Laverne Vassar: His roof runoff has got to be bigger than my whole place. At
Gedney's.
Don Ashworth: I'm not aware of what the charge ls on Gedney. I do know that
Gedney bu£1t a large ponding area onto the property and they went through a
permlt process back wlth DNR and this was to take waters that had been going
into the waste treatment system and be able to put those out into one of these
aeratlon pondlng areas and take the dralnage off of the property and pre-treat
it in advance of putting it into the river. Now I know there had to have been
credlts for that type of thlng to the point where he got a zero b111, I have not
heard that before. Do you believe that Tom? Do you know? You don't know one
way or the other?
Councilwoman Oimler: Let's look into it.
Councilman Workman: You know I don't mean to hold it up for anybody. We mlght
want to get that. I'm not £nctined, like I suspect the rest of the Council is
to remove one parcel out of all the parcels in the clty from the district. If
we're not being fair to him, that's another issue. If we can research that, I
mlght feel a 11ttle more comfortable.
Councilwoman Dialer: Absolutely I agree.
Mayor Chmiel: As we see here, as Don has indicated and also the letters that we
have from staff, Oave Hempel, I guess maybe we should find that out as to what
the others really are and then based that on that judgment. I thlnk the charge
is going to be there but I'm not sure whether that same amount would be the
charge that we'd be charglng those untll we flnd out what the others mlght be.
Councilman Wing: I bet if Dave was here tonight he could answer this pretty
stralght forward.
Mayor Chmlel: I'm sure he could but being that he's not here, I would request a
motion for a table on this.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded to table to pull together
information that's been gathered to determine what it is to be based on. 0id
you have a question Tom?
Tom Chaffee: If Council is going to take action to table...maybe a critical
time point being here now. Mr. Vassar has a bill that is going to be certified
if lt's approved by thls very body to be certified to the County Auditor to...
with his 1993 property taxes. If you're going to take any action tonight to
hold that in advance, perhaps they should footnote the action they've taken that
that be held in...not certified at this time until a determination is made.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, give me a legal definition as to how we can really?
4O
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992
Roger Knutson: The problem you're running agalnst is that if you don't get it
to the County virtually now, it doesn't get on next year's property taxes. It's
too late. The cut-off, I don't know what the cut-off. You're just about at the
end of the line. I think it's like this week. Next week. And you either do it
now or it's gone for the year.
Mayor Chmlel: Okay, can we make any correction to it? If we were to let this
go through and say the funds could be certified, is there any way that we then
can go back to the County to request that they make that change once we reach a
determination later on?
Don Ashworth: Mark's office has been very good with us. You always worry how
many times can continue to push them to help us. I thought we had a little more
tlme on thls one Tom. I thought that the change, the certification dates that
we weren't under quite as much pressure.
Tom Chaffee: Adjustments can be made to the certification up until the 28th of
December.
Mayor Chmlel: Well then we should be alright.
Don Ashworth: So if we have this one back on for our regular meeting of
December 14th.
Tom Chaffee: Staff's schedule calls for certification to the ~uditor's by the
2nd of December.
Don Ashworth: So then the Mayor's suggestion is a good one. Go ahead. Make
your certification but if necessary we'll treat th£s one as a, what did you just
say?
Tom Chaffee: Subsequent adjustment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. With that, is that agreeable with the motion and the
second to table?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table the utility bill
appeal for Statewide ~uto Salvage, Hr. Laverne Vassar for further information
until the next City Council meeting. Also, to direct staff to cerify the
ut/lity bill and adjustment, if necessary, can be done at the December 14, 1992
meeting. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. ~11
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
41