1989 12 04CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 4, 1989
Mayor Chmiel called the ,eeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The ~eeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimier
and Councilv~n Johnson
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Boyt
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Elliott Knetsch, Gary Warren, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd
Gerhardt and Jim Chaffee
RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Cfmliel drew a na,~ for the recycling prize.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions: Councilman Johnson wanted to
propose an ordinance amendment that tobacco products be sold frc~_l behind the
counter only and Don Ashworth wanted the Council to reconsider a public hearing
date for the 1990 budget. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been called to the City's attention that we are proclaiming
this particular week as Fight Back Against Drugs and it's an effort that we're
trying to do within the City to prevent the use or to assist and help in
whatever way we can. I don't think I'll have to talk about it later because
that's exactly what I really wanted to say and it's the 3rd thru the 9th of this
week. That's part of the reason why all of us are wearing our little pins with
our little red ribbons which is a significance of that.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda ite~ls pursuant to the City Manager's
reco, m,endations:
a. Approve Developpent Contract for Country Hospitality Suites, Bloop-~erg
Companies.
e. Extend Letter of Credit and Expiration Date for Installation of I,~rovemlents
for Seven Forty-One Crossing (HSZ Site).
f. Approval of Accounts.
g. Planning Co~iission Minutes dated Nove~6er 15, 1989
Park and Recreation Co~-mlission Minutes dated November 14, 1989
t~]blic Safety Co~,ission Minutes dated Nove~0er 9, 1989
h. Ordinance Adopting the Official Map for TH 212, Final Reading.
i. Resolution #89-132: Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications for
North Leg Improvements of TH 101 Realigrmlent Project 88-22B.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
City Co~]ncll Meeting - Dece_~oer 4, 1989
B. APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO MINNEWASHTA MEADOWS DEVELORMENT CONTRACT, GARY
CARLSON.
Mayor Chmiel: Gary, maybe yo~'d j~st like to indicate your concerns on that and
that's the reason why I pulled it.
Gary Carlson: Good evening. My name .is Gary Carlson. I'm the developer of
Minnewashta Meadows. I wish to wish the entire Council a very happy and merry
Christmas and Happy Holidays. I also wish to point out that again the city
staff has done a great job in rec~iring a lot of work, a lot of time, especially
on the engineer's part on drawing ~p this amendment. I passed o~t, I think
everyone should have a copy of the proposed contract for deed which we' re
closing on tomorrow on Lot 15 of my development and that lot already had a home
on it. That specifically calls for on the back of that contract for deed, it
s~-~cifically calls for the owners or the proposed b~yers to ass~m~e one of the
c~u:rent assessments of $11, 497. gg. That couple has lived there for 11 years and
I've always told them that they co~ld buy it once I got it divided. They're
both retired and they wo~ld like to ass~Pm~e that assessment. If you look on my
amendment on iteru 3 of the amendment. Well we can sta~:t with item 2. Item 2
calls for levying the assessments on 13, 15 and 16. Then down on the next item,
item 3, of course those will be paid fo~:. I will pay for them either when I
draw a certificate of occupancy or I sell them which is what it calls for in
item 3. I wo~ld like to have Lot 15 pulled from item 3. It doesn't ~ean that
you're giving ~p the receiving of that. It j~st means that I won't be obligated
to pay it and in fact these people who are b~ying Lot 15 will assuage that. I
think that's the easiest is just to pull that ntm~ser 15 o~t of item 3 of the
amendment.
Mayor Cb~iel: Does anyone see any problem with that? Jay?
Councilman Johnson: To cover all bases, we could modify item 3 that the
developer agrees p.rlo~ to iss~ance of certificate and all that good st~ff and
pull Lot 15 from there but add in that Lot 15, Block 1, Minnewashta Meadows upon
the sale of Lot 15, Block 1 Minnewashta Meadows, that the o~tstanding assessment
mentioned above shall be paid in f~ll by the new owners or whatever since that's
what in yo~- p~u~chase agreement that they're going to be paying that assessment.
Gary Carlson: They're going to be ass~ing it. I don't think they'll be_ paying
it. They want to pay it over the in other words.
Mayor Chmiel: What wo~ld be the proper terminology to have contained in there.
Elliott Knetsch: I think if that was closed, just p~]t when the Lot is sold,
buyers ass~mte tine assessment.
Councilman Johnson: B~]t do we want to p~]t that as a new n~oer in the contract
or rewT~i te it?
Etliott Knetsch: I think we would rew~:ite 3 and add that language.
Councilr~an Johnson: I think that's simple. That the b~]yer will ass~e the
assessment.
City Council Meeting - December 4~ 1989
Gary Carlson: I think that will take care of it. Otherwise, it's been a good
development and it's all paid for except for those 3 lots and they will be paid
for shortly.
Mayor Chmiel: The assessm,ent on Lot 15 will be taken care of by Clinton and
Carol Wagner right?
Gary Carlson: Yeah.
Resolution #89-133: Councilman Johnson ~ved, Councilwoman Cimler seconded to
approve the Contract Amendment to Minnewashta Meadows Develolm~ent Contract with
a modification to item ~er 3 stating that Lot 15, Block 1, the assessment
will be ass~ed by Clinton and Carol Wagner. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
C. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF CITY CODE REGARDING COLLECTION OF
RECYCLABLES, FINAL READING.
Council~an Workman: Jo Ann, I had a problem with item 4 on the front page.
Section 3(f), this states that licensed ~nicipal solid waste haulers may not
charge the customers the flat fee rate and that it ~]st be based upon the vol~m~e
or weight of the mixed municipal solid waste that is collected.
Councilman Johnson: State law.
Councilman Workman: Does that ~an that each individual residence would be
weighed?
Jo Ann Olsen: What they'll do is you'll have like certain cans. Between you
and your hauler will figure out exactly how you're going to do it but instead of
being able to put out as ,,any cans as you want, you can charge by the can.
Councilman Workman: So by volt, ne, not really weight then?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. Volume or weight. If they did it by weight, they would
have to have devices on the truck to weigh it. It's going to be by vol,m~e most
likely.
CounciL-~an Word,an: So if I have a trash compactor, I can get away with ~re?
Councilman Johnson: Eventually you're going to see trucks with the scales right
on the trucks. When they lift your can in there, it will get weighed and
they'll have a little computer there and you'll pay for exactly what weight you
did. That's the long term future of solid waste and they're already designing
that stuff. The trash cans will be bar coded and all kinds of good stuff.
Councilman Workman: Well I'm just wondering then, you have a homeowners
association for exa, ple we had basically a pick up by the neighborhood contract.
How would that work? How would they do that? I mean the individual would, it
would be a neighborhood contract. Does that p~an that that's going to spell the
end of hc~eowners association trash hauling contracts?
City Council Meeting - Deceu~Der 4, 1989
Councilman Johnson: They have to do it by vol~_m~e. I know co~tercially yotl do
it by how many cans you pick ~tp. If everybody puts out 2 cans, they write the
contract with the neighborhood that if you p~t o~lt 2 cans, that's the most you
can put out. You can't p~t o~tt 3 or something.
Mayor Ckmiel: Wo~]ldn't that be done strictly by vol~_m~e anyway?
Councilman WorPm~an: Well but if I put out or my neighbor who's a single older
woman, puts o~lt half a can and the people across the street have 5 kids and they
put out 5 cans and it's a gro~]p contract. What I'm getting at is, we' re then
going to have to probably dissolve the contract and we're asking n~.~erous
haulers to co~e into the neighborhood where that isn't...
Councilman Johnson: We can renegotiate the contract but it has to be on a
vol~m,e basis.
Councilman Workman: It wo~]ld then spell the end of it, of the contract as it
would be.
Co~mcilman Johnson: Unless you could come up with some creative ways to do it.
The State legislat,]re has said it has to be by vol~'~e or weight.
Councilman Workman: No, I can't get creative. It's just something I wanted
clear because if that's the case, then that spells, we've always discussed in
our discussions of our trash ha~]llng that we've got a problem with a lot of
trash ha,]lets coming into town and running all over every day of the week and
that's kind of what the State maybe is telling cities that that might have to
happen in certain neighborhoods. I'd move approval.
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Co~mcilman Workman moved, Co~mci]r~an Johnson seconded to approve the Ordinance
Amending Chapter 16 of the City Code regarding Collection of Recycleables, Final
Reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPOINTMENT OF A POLICE STUDY COMMITTEE.
Councilman Workman: Establishing a police study co~ittee. ~m~oer one, I guess
there's some confusion as to whether or not 2 citizens from the co~unity at
large should be appointed to this or whether they should be fro~_~ the public
safety co~m~ission. Should we have 6 me~oers or 7 men,ers? My fundamental
concern about this co~ittee is I'm wondering if in fact we're again not
establishing a police study co~m~ittee too soon. My question being to the
Council, if in fact the police study finds o~]t that we need in fact a police
department of o~]r own with our own City of Chanhassen police personnel, if in
fact that's found out, would we go ahead and do that? Could we afford to go
ahead and do that? I think probably not and if in that case, or if we're
looking to do a st, ldy for long range, say 5 years or o~]t, won't in fact we be
doing exactly what's been done with the last police co,~ittee study in that it
really is worthless to us today. Or is it? And so, maybe I'm not so clear
about what the final product of the police co~ittee is going to be because if
it's going to be a long range forecaster, or are we going to pick a date or a
City Council Meeting - Dece~er 4~ 1989
year when potentially we couId be doing this and if in fact it is in 5-627
years, wo~]ldn't it be more appropriate if we think that even in a rough
sense? Wouldn't it make more sense to do this study 2 to 3 years prior to?
CounciL-~an Johnson: Since I started this last year and continued it this year,
what we asked for last year is for the Sheriff and our t~]blic Safety Department
to get together and fo~ a co~nittee and I like it being expanded to include the
p~olic. To determine when is that ti~'e going to be? The studies I've seen so
far have been very inconclusive and are c~_]ite old. How can we do it to where we
have minim~, impact on the sheriff and minim%~ impact on the City. To my way of
thinking, it's a grad~]al growth. If on Dece~oer 31st of 1990 they said that's
the end of the Sheriff's contract, we're going to have a police department
January 1st. That'd be terrible for the Sheriff's Department. There would be a
lot of people unemployed all of a sudden because they couldn't support those
~,~ployees that work the city and it'd be very rough on the city. There has to
be so~e way for us to make this transition at the proper time. In starting to
make that trans~.tion, we've already actually started by having Jim Chaffee and
Scott Hart and our CSO program. I'd like to see an orderly migration from the
contract to our own police department if that's what the study co~m~ission finds
needs to be done and they need to determine when that needs to be started. If
we wait 2 years and they say well it should have been started 2 years ago, then
we have a problem. I think it's a good time to start looking at it. If they
say we need to do it and start the transition in 5 years, then I agree with you.
That it would need to be, a group to look at it just prior to starting that
transition beca~]se we have to collect that information.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess what Tom is saying, are we spinning our wheels now before
it's really needed to start looking at it this much in advance.
CounciL-~an Johnson: I don't think we have a 5 year plan for public safety. We
have a 5 year plan for a lot of~ other things. We need a 5 year plan and a 10
year plan for public safety and it may not be a very exact plan like none of our
plans are very exact. Most businesses change their 5 year plan yearly. That's
probably what this will be too. The growth, we might predict such and such a
growth within the next 5 years and interest rates go back up to 16% and we won't
see that growth. Then that delays the plan and everything else.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I do have a c~_]estion. Isn't that why we started the
t~]blic Safety Co~m~ission originally? And now we're adding another co~-m~ittee. I
think that was the original tm]rpose of the Public Safety Co~.~ission wasn't it
Jim?
Jim Chaffee: It was to advise the Public Safety Department in various areas. I
don't think they were specifically charged with coming up with a 5 year plan...
Councilwoman Dimler: So in ~ estimation, are we just creating another
co~m~ittee or was this the original purpose of the Public Safety Conm~ission and
has it developed and taken on other responsibilities? Do you reme~0er Don?
Don Ashworth: My recollection is that they were to prepare an annual report and
that report was to, that was originally started by Dick Wing and it was a study
of own police force versus continuing with the contract.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's what I thought.
City Co~ncil Meeting - Dece~er 4, 1989
Don Ashworth: I don't think that it really looked at a 5 year scale though b~]t
yes, my recollection is that the committee, one of the reasons the co~ittee was
p~]t into being was to continue to st~]dy the police iss~]e.
Councilwoo~an Dimler: Okay, so do we really need another committee or can we_
just...them to do ~nat we originally co~'~issioned them to do?
Councilman Johnson: No, I think we need one where we have the Sheriff's
Department involved beca~]se this ~pacts the Sheriff's Depart~ent worse act~alty
than it does the City.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. That's fine. Yeah, I agree with that.
Councilman Johnson: So a subconm~ittee of the public safety, which is what this
is turning into is to being really a s,]bconm~ittee of the public safety co~m~ittee
with 2 me,~oers of public safety co~ittee, the public safety department, the
sheriff's departp'~ent and then one at large and then one me~er of the Council so
we've got 2 public safety, 2 sheriff, 2 public safety co~ission and then 1
me~oer of the Co~]ncil is what's being proposed. That's 7 men,ers. I think 7 is
always a good n~m~oer versus 6.
Councilwoman Dimler: I also had a concern abo~]t, it says here that we should
present something to the City Co,]ncil by early s~_m~er of 199~. I'm wondering if
that isn't a little bit ap'~oitious but anyway, I guess my feeling is if we go
ahead and establish this co~m~ittee, that we should have 9 me~'~ers and that we
sho~]td add 2 men,ers at large that have no leaning one way or the other but are
totally objective.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think yo,]'ll find s~]ch a person.
Councilman Work~an: And if we expand it to 9, I'd certainly like to be a meufloer
of the co:~,ission.
Councilman Johnson: You're not at large.
Councilman Workman: I'm getting larger. The word that you used Jay was
transition. This is the word that this Council has been fighting with since
January. The transition of when and how and what we're going to do with our own
force. I think what Co~]ncil has seen is there's been a transition going on that
maybe Co~]ncil doesn't think is appropriate at this stage and so I guess what
maybe yogi're saying by establishing this co~m~ittee, you think we're so many
years away from doing this and that we need to start making a transition now.
Councilp~an Johnson: We need to do sc~ething orderly. Not necessarily, I'm
saying if we're going to make the transition, we need to have it orderly and
planned. Right now we seem to be making a transition witho~]t a plan to follow.
Councilman Workr~an: I'd agree with that.
Co~]nciLman Johnson: So let's make a plan and see if the transition is necessary
wo~]ld be the first step of this con~ittee.
City Council Meeting - Dece~oer 4~ 1989
Mayor Chmiel: I think I was sort of one too that brought this up because of my
concerns as to one of the things you mentioned Jay was that the Sheriff's
Department that wo~]ld be the one that would really be hurting more than anybody
else. I had discussion with that and I also discussed this with Co~m, issioner
Klingelhutz and also with A1 Wallin and they thought that that probably would be
a good idea to co"~ up witch some conclusions. Whether it be 5 years down the
road or 10 and it won't become really effective, as far as I'm concerned, until
and if I'm still around here sitting out in the a~ience, it won't become
effective until it really is cost effective as far as I'm concerned. As long as
the sheriff's department is doing a good enough job for us and we feel it's
satisfactory, then I don't see the need for us to pursue our own police
department. But once it gets to that point, that's something that we have to
weigh back and forth and take everything into consideration.
CounciL,,an Workman: But that's what I'm saying. I don't think, we're talking
about a transition from the sheriff's department. I mean I'm worried about our
city just as much and I don't think we're anywhere near ~3king that transition.
We're all sitting in on the budget together for crying out loud. Unless we have
a windfall coming fro., so.~ewhere and we've talked about the transition of
picking ~]p an automobile here, adding an employee here, adding a copy, doing
this stuff. We're adding, adding, adding and we're not so sure that that's
maybe the way we ought to do it.
CounciL-,an Johnson: Let's do the study and find out.
CounciL,~an Workman: I'm just saying Jay, are we too early on this? And if we
are, that's a pretty big waste of time. I think with the public safety
direction, assistant, 2 men,ers of the l~]blic safety co.-~ission, I'd say it's
leaning one way right now anyway and I just have some reservations and I wanted
to make sure everybody understood.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is this study going to cost us anything?
Mayo~ Chmiel: Time.
Councilman Johnson: There will be some cost in time.
Councilwo.~an Dimler: Yeah, but I mean money wise?
Mayor Clm~iel: I don't know dollarwise.
Don Ashworth: I don't anticipate any.
Mayor CTm~iel: I wouldn't see any.
CounciL,~an Johnson: Unless they hire so.~e kind of survey or some kind of an
outside expert to do so.e kind of analysis of police needs but I don't see that.
In ~ discussions with A1 on this last year was that he thought this was a good
idea and he wanted to, you know it co.,es up every year at police contract ti, e.
Councilman Work.mn: I just don't think, every police contract time, I don't
think we have any other options.
City Council Meeting - Dece~er 4~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: I think one time they had a reco, m',endation tl~at at 12,ggg
people I think it was, that we go to a police department. 12,gg0's not that far
off.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Workman: That tells you the effectiveness of the co~ittee so~_'tetimes
maybe.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, but that was in like 1981 and this is 1989. The
world has changed. I think it's time to update some of these things. I'd like
to see the t~blic Safety Co~ission have a 5 year plan just like anybody else.
I think this ~}uld be an essential part of it b,]t there's other things. What's
a CSO prograr~ going to do over the next 5 years? The crime prevention program.
What's the Fire Department's 5 year plan? I think all these things. We have to
be looking more into the future.
Councilwoman Dimler: Sho~]ldn't they be drawing up their own 5 year plan though
rather than having a study co~ission?
Councilman Johnson: This co~tittee will help them in one of the most cc~plex
parts of that 5 year plan. They have a lot more than just police to worry about
and I think it's important to have the sheriff's involvement. I agree with you,
I think 2 me~'floers from the public would be good on this too. I'm backing your 9
people. It's getting a bit large b,]t what the heck. What have they got in
Congress? 36g so~e. I never can reme~floer that
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other f~]rther discussion? If hearing none.
Councilman Johnson: I move that we approve item l(d), formation of the
committee. Make the coP~,ittee a 9 me~er co~ittee with the assigrm~ents of
Sheriff A1 Wallin, Chief Deputy Jim Castleberry, Asst. t~]blic Safety Director,
Scott Hart, R]blic Safety Director, Jim Chaffee, ~]blic Safety Co~issioners
me~floers Barb Klick and Bill Bernhjelm, Counci]m~e~er Ursula Dimler and 2 me~floers
of the public at large to be advertised for and selected by the Council. Do we
want selected by the Council or the t~_]blic Safety Co~ission select them?
Mayor Chmiel: The Co~]ncil has done it in the past. There's a motion on the
floor. Is there a second? It appears as tho,]gh it's going to die for a second
Jay.
Council,mn Johnson: Okay. Is it the 9 merfloe.rs or is it just the whole
co~m~ittee altogether? Ursula, you want the t~]blic Safety Co~m~ission to do it.
Councilwoman Dimler: My personal feeling is it's too early.
Councilman Johnson: I think we've got to collect the data. We shouldn't go
from g,]t feelings. We're assigning sc~ebody to get us the n~ers, the figures,
to collect the data and make an informed decision, not a gut feeling. My gut
feeling is we're a little early too but maybe it's my engineer training. I'd
rather see the facts and fig, Ires before I make the final decision.
Councilwoman Dimler: But like I stated earlier, we have the g~]blic Safety
Co~ission in place and that was the original intent of it. Right now I think
City Council Meet~ng - Dece~er 4~ 1989
it's up to them to give ~ a yearly report. I just see a lot of conflict with
it.
CounciL,~an Johnson: They're in support of this.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, they basically do support this portion of it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I see Dick Wing was not.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that was a discussion at that particular meeting a~d I sat
in on it. The entirety, as I recall, were basically for it. This kind of
arrangement because it's involving two different segments of it. The City as
well as the County.
Councilman Johnson: If we didn't want the Public Safety Comnission to do
anything else, they could actually just sit there and work on this one issue the
rest of the year. But ~ definitely want so~_~ other input too.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm just afraid that it's going to set a precedence for
moving into the transition too early. Especially it scares ~ that w~'re
supposed to have a report by su~er of 1990 which is what, 6-7 months away. It
kind of sounds to ~ like we're rushing it.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you rather have it be 19917
Councilwoman Dimler: It's a 5 year study.
Councilman Johnson: How about 6 month update reports as to what progress
they're making? I don't like to give somebody a year and a half to do
something...preliminary report every 6 months as to what progress they're making
and which way they're leaning so we have a feel instead of letting, here for the
next year and a half you guys go study this issue and come back to us with a
presentation. That scares me too. I was kind of reading in this 1990 report as
kind of, hopefully present. It wasn't sc~ething cast in concrete. Chisseled in
chalk maybe but not cast in concrete.
Councilwoman Dimler: But isn't this something that the Commission can already
do?
Mayor Chmiel: The Co~ission has already gone through that process of looking
at those aspects. What it boils down to having another set, another group to
co~ in such as a sheriff's department.
Councilwc~an Dimler: That's the only thing that I can see that there's no
representation on the Public Safety Commission right now from the Sheriff's
Department. Perhaps that's all we need to do is add a me~er there.
Councilman Johnson: I think the other thing is, this group will be focused.
They will be singular in purpose. Some men,ers of the ~]blic Safety Cor~.~ission
are there because they're concerned with the fire department and other things.
The ~]blic Safety Co~,ission has to worry about dog catching, code enforc~nent,
building inspectors. They've got a ~ge agenda. This group will be focused to
look at one issue. Becc~ fully educated on that one issue and cc~ and provide
us guidance on that one issue.
City Co~lncil Meeting - Dece~oer 4, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe you'd feel more comfortable with this. Saying that
hopefully presenting to the City Council in the early s~_~er of 1991 and then
having, as Jay mentioned, preliminary reports every 6 months from that group.
Councilman Johnson: Progress reports.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess on something like that, that would be something that
would be ongoing. They could look at it every 6 months to see if it's going to
be cost effective or not. By getting that and including everything into that,
of course you have to have hospitalization and all those other things conjoined.
Councilwoman Dimler: So you're saying we could start the study of how much it's
going to cost us?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: And t~hen come up with a report by 19917 S~m~er of 19917
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilwoman Dimler: That would be more pleasing to me, yes.
Councilman Johnson: Because one of the criteria the last Council put on this is
when is the time going to be when the Sheriff's cost is going to be more than
the cost for the City of Chanhassen to do it themselves. That's what we want to
do is maintain the cost to the citizens, the c~lality of public safety at the
rain ~_~.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom?
Councilman Workman: No co~ents.
Mayor Clm~iel: Alright.
Councilman Johnson: We're doing a new motion here. Basically the same motion
but modified with hopefully present a report to the City Council by the s~m~er
of 1991 with 6 month progress reports to the Council.
Mayor Cb~iel: Is there a second? Okay, I'm going to move it to second it.
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to appoint a police study 9
me~3er co~ittee with the assignments of Sheriff A1 Wallin, Chief Deputy Jim
Castleberry, Asst. t~]blic Safety Director, Scott Hart, t~]blic Safety Director,
Jim Chaffee, t~]blic Safety Co~issioners meu~mers Barb Klick and Bill Bernhjelm,
Councilmember Ursula Dimler and 2 me~oers of the public at large to be
advertised for and selected by the Council. This co, mittee will present a
report to the City Council by the s,mm~er of 1991 with 6 month progress reports.
All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 1.
City Council Meeting - Dece~er 4~ 1989
Mayor Ctm~iel: Okay, 3 to 1. Proceed with it with those changes in the early
s~m~er of 1991 would be 6 month progress reports.
Councilwoman Dimler: And advertising for 2 m~ers at large.
Mayor Chmiel: And 2 men,ers at large.
G(1) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 20, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: Ail I had there was just the changing of a word. On page
12, at the bottom of the page. Under ~ quote it says it's not a gross
misdsmeanor punishable by jail.., ar~ the word was it's now a gross misdemeanor.
It is a gross misdemeanor. So change not to now. It's minor but it has a lot
of meaning.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman moved to approve the Minutes of
the City Council meeting dated Nove~-~er 20, 1989 as amended. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: KASTERN CARVER COUNTY YOUTH COMMISSION, STEPHANIE YOUNG.
Stephanie Young: I'm the current chair of the co~ittee on the Youth Co~ission
and tonight with me is Laurel Swanson who is a co~ittee m~er. She's also
with the University of Minnesota Extension Service and she works primarily in
the area of 4H and youth development. I'm glad we were able to give you sc~e
materials in your packet talking about the background of the youth cor~nission
and how it relates to the four aspects of the youth development plan as well as
giving you a look at our proposed By-laws. I've got a lot to say in a short
amount of time here so I'm going to try to give you the key points on the
purpose and reasoning behind the youth co~mission and then ask for your
q~]estions. The youth commission is that aspect of the youth development plan
which was designed to be the ongoing vehicle. The insurance as it were that all
the great ideas which had been generated in the past year or so don't fall by
the wayside. It will also keep the other 3 parts of the plan moving forward.
The youth co~ission is n~ber one, to provide advice and make recc~endations
on broad planning goals and policies for children and youth. N~m~er two, it
will improve coordination, co~[unication and cooperation among the youth serving
agencies. So it w~uld have this advisory function and it would have a
coordinating function. The co~-~ission would also provide an opportunity for
youth to have a voice in their community. A youth board would be set up and 2
representatives from this board would be on the co~nission. The cc~ission in
it's advisory and coordinating roles will ascertain areas where needs are not
currently being met. Help generate program ideas and possible funding grants.
The overall idea is to foster an environment in our co~-~unities where youth can
internalize and apply co~,unity values in their own personal decision making and
become healthy productive ~ers of society, and I'm c~oting now from the
By-laws. Now this is a wonderful goal but what makes us think that this sort of
enviror~ent will achieve these sorts of ends? On the last page of your packet,
I reproduced a national study on teenagers. I found out that contrary to the
popular myth that adolescents travel in rebellious packs of peers with their
minds tuned only to Def Lepper and each other, teen values and social roles are
predc~,inantly shaped by the co~,~mities in which they live and by the adults in
11
City Council Meeting - Dece~oer 4, 1989
their lives. This is born o,]t in a lot of studies that we've seen. Kids really
want a solid footing. R~]les, perameters. They thrive on this and we who are
parents already know this. Life in the 50's was amazaingly simple in comparison
with today. We knew what was expected of ~]s and we also knew the path to the
~erican Dream but today's kids have so many choices, so many decisions to ~,ake
and I'm not really saying that this is bad but it can be very bewildering to
them. TV's there creating new appetites. Making kids old before their ti~e
really. Then too, parents can't always be there for their kids. The rise in
single parent ho,]seholds and the majority of the rest with do,zble bread winners
in the femily. What will give kids a strong footing in today's society? Well
we think that it's a strong, clear, consistent message froP, all ad~lts J~pacting
yo~]th all the way thro,]gh their develolm~ent. The successful early childhood
programs in our Co~nty show us that cooperation and cohesiveness works. The
success of the interdisciplinaru team in the area of child abuse also tells us
this. Today's youth ].ssi]es are having a definite [~,pact on cities. This latest
business with kids buying cigarettes is a case in point. First they were buying
cigarettes in Chaska and it got tougher to buy them in Chaska so tJ~ey'd come up
to Filly's and buy th~.~ here and now because you've taken some action, they
can't do that anp~ore. I don't know if they'll go to victoria next or where
they're going to go but this is an exe~,ple of a probler~ reaching all the cities
in o~]r area with sort of a ripple effect. It's really hard to be effective
without coordination and Laurel will give you some insight on this part of it.
Laurel Swanson: My role with the University of Minnesota, I work with the
County Extension Service. Minnesota Extension Service here in Carver County so
I have a broad based approach in terms of youth develoim~ent. Not only in this
particular area but also in other parts of~the County. As a part of my role, I
serve to coordinate professionals and working on an issue on teen suicide. When
it was getting a lot of attention in the media and there was a real concern
abo~]t that with suicide attempts in a n~_~oer of the metropolitan area schools as
well as concerns here, and we coordinated a group of professional people around
that particular issue and what happened was that there was tremendous response
and a real desire for people to work together and to cooperate. It see~,s tho~]gh
that ~/nen that group of people are brought together around a specific issue and
the multi-disciplinary team on child abuse, prevention is another example.
Those people rally around that. As soon as that issue becomes less of a p~zblic
issue, then that gro~]p tends to die o~]t and beco~_~e less co~itted and so what we
feel by having a youth co~',ission, is that that will continually bring ~]p the
youth issues and it will be a structured o~ganization for peopl~ to be
encouraged to work together and to cooperate.
Stephanie Young: Right now there's more of a scattergun approach as you're
talking about. Each agency program with it's own person, power and financial
backing and this is wasteful, competitive and frankly confusing to the kid with
needs. Children with problems often end up falling through the cracks after
being referred to one program after another each with a new approach. I think
you all know at least one of these kids and really there are so many. Kids
without readily detectable problems are left to t~eir own devices and to peer
pressures and there are a lot of peer pressures these days. They need a strong
support network. Each component, the churhces, the parents, the~schools, 4H,
coaches, etc. working in a unified way towards com~on goals. So the obvious
first job of the youth co~',ission would be to dete.t~ine what program,s are out
there. What's available. How many kids are served in which types of programs.
Finding out a sort of a state of the child in eastern Carver County. The
12
City Council Meeting - Dece~er 4~ 1989
co~ission coordinator, in their first year, would also establish the youth
board that I talked about which would send representatives to the co~ission,
generate ideas for progr~ a~d give input on the youth experience in eastern
Carver County. A profile of program duplications and holes existing would be
determined. We know that in sc~ areas such as substance abuse, there are a
myriad of programs designed to do the same thing, basically. It only makes
sense from a taxpayer's viewpoint to cut down on this duplication. Also, in
it's first year, the Co~ission ~uld begin to establish a repoire between the
youth serving agencies. Right now these agencies may have the desire to
cooperate with one another but have little time or resources to seek better ways
to handle things. And of course, each one thinks it has the best program.
There's a lot of turf protecting going on out there and we need to get around
it. The co~ission would be flexible enough to respond to the changing needs of
youth. It wouldn't be tied down to any specific program and it's important to
note that the co~ission would not be in the business of implementing new
programs. The last thing we felt we needed was a competing bureacracy. That
sort of competition would really sc~]elch any kind of coordinating effort. This
coordination will be an ~phasize of the commission during the second year and
as to the new program needs, the co~ission will be able to go to the most
appropriate agency to design it, making sure that the offering would support the
positive values of the co~munity and it would be able to offer much needed
assistance to the existing agencies in the area of grant writing proposals.
Most of the agencies don't have a lot of ti~ to do this and they lack the
expertise. There's a whole lot of money out there that currently is not being
used and this we feel couId be funneled into our own cor~nunities with most of
the grant proposal awards having a broad based, a very broad based in core,unity
a necessity to the award of the grant. We took a look at the highly successful
Minneapolis Youth Coordinating Board as well as many others around the country
when we devised our model and Laurel, would you talk a little bit about that?
Laurel Swanson: Sure. What we have found out is that in the Minneapolis area
there are four different groups joining efforts to provide a youth coordinating
board. They involve a park board, library, the City and then Hennepin County
and I guess another one was the school district and they had worked together for
a period of 5 years and found such great results with that coordinating effort
in the Minneapolis area, that they have upped their donation from those groups
for another 5 years to continue that coordinating effort in the City of
Minneapolis. We also did in researching what was available in other parts of
the United States, we took a look at some doc~ents that were put together in
Seattle and Sehomesch County, Washington and also a County in Florida so there
are groups that are working, that have developed By-laws to put together youth
co~,issions in their states and counties.
Stephanie Young: You may feel sc~etimes as if we don't have big city proble~
out here and why look to a city like Minneapolis to be a model for us but really
with all the growth and development out in this area, we also have all the
accompanying problems co~ing to this area as well, and your Public Safety
Director could probably espound on that. There are certain reasons why the
youth co~ission would be looked to for advice and it's coordinating efforts
needed. The coordinator hired and the multi-disciplinary co~'~ission membership
would have that needed experience and expertise in the youth area and it would
have gathered necessary data and have done it's homework. This will carry with
it the respect and the trust needed to be listened to as an advisory and
coordinating group. The most i~portant factor in the cor~ission being able to
13
City Council Meeting - Dece~oer 4~ 1989
carry out it's f~]nction is the partnership of the cities, school and county all
behind the effort. Your co~m~ittment to the idea as a partner in the Joint
Powers Agree~Lent sets a model and implies a spirit of cooperation. The welfare
of a city's youth should have it's high priority. What we are attempting here
is to help internalize the values of their co~unity and then go on to make
their good decisions. A proactive approach to kids is clearly better than
reacting to their bad decisions. Vandalizing, shoplifting, chemical ~]se and a
whole lot less expensive to the city coffers. A co,-~itment by each of the
parties to the Joint Powers Agreement, Chanhassen, Chaska, victoria, Carver, the
school district and the County is necessary to the significance of the effort
and integration. The co~,ission would be accountable to the parties to the
joint powers agreement through the representatives of the various parties which
would come back and report to, your representative would come back and report to
the City and through an annual report which would be made by the coordinator.
The b~]dget essentially is, it's mostly salary for the coordinator. We picked a
figure of $20,ggg.gg for three-c~.]arters ti~e person. We'd like to have more but
we're trying to be realistic here. Also there needs and space area for officing
and for having the co~Lission meet from ti~ to time on a monthly basis.
Computer time, phone answering service, supplies and secretarial. But
predominantly the salary that we're looking for. Wqnat we're asking for from
each of the cities is $1.gg per capita. The population living in District %112
so for Chanhassen that wo~]ld mean that it's only the people living within the
School District in Eastern Carver County. $1.0g per capita would mean for
Chanhassen approximately $4,70g.gg. O~rrently Victoria has this in it's budget
and it s~]rvived the first budget hearing and it's expected that it will go all
the way through. Carver's a different _,Latter. Carver's decided on it's budget
a long time ago. They ~zere c~]t to the bone and they had a large increase in
their levy. Chaska, there's a hearing tonight in Chaska on the same issue and
we fully expect Chaska to be in favor of this although the amount that they
wo~]td have to budget wo~]ld be greater than $11,g00.g0. The Mayor is fully
behind it and we anticipate success in Chaska. What we'd like is your agreement
in principle with the concept of the yo~]th cou~Lission and we'd ask that you
consider an incl,]sion of this ite~ within yom.Ir budget for 199g.
Mayor ClmLie!: Thank you. Is there any specific c~_]estions?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I g~ess as I was reading this, I think it's a great
idea but I had some c~_]estions and I know Stephanie when you were talking you
said that the City, the County, the school and the co~mission were behind this
and I was just wondering, what about the parents? We left out the parents?
Stephanie Young: The parents would be represented on the co~ission by it's at
large type n~-~oers. There are 11 men,ers on the co~'~ission and the
representatives of the various parties to the joint powers agreement would take
up 5. 2 from the youth coordinating board and then the remainder fr~ at large.
Councilman Johnson: By the County and School district?
Stephanie Young: By the County and School district, right.
Co;_]nci]~an Johnson: 2 at large then. Or 3 at large.
Stephanie Young: Yes, that's right and it wo~]ld include representation fro~ the
areas listed. 1 tb3fu 8. One of those is citizen represent. One of those is
14
City Council Meeting - Deck,er 4~ 1989
from the religio~ co~nity so when establishing the m~bership, these areas
would be kept in mind. I mean not all of th~ can be covered by it is also
hoped that the representatives from the various parties to the joint powers
agreement would also take this list into consideration so your representative
would perhaps fall in one of those categories.
Councilwc~an Dimler: Okay, and the only one that is paid is the coordinator?
Stephanie Young: The coordinator would be doing the bulk of the data work.
Councilwc~,an Dimle~: The co~missioners would not be paid. And this $4,700.00
is a yea~ly co~itment?
Stephanie Young: Right. We're not asking for a 5 year cc~itment because I
think that would sc~]elch the whole deal but we'd like to have a 5 year
co~itment.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, but what I'm saying is that's not just a one time
shot? That's going to be a yearly thing?
Stephanie Young: Right.
Councilwoman Dimler: When you say that you are going to work, coordinate &-~ong
co~uniites and agencies in the areas of youth development, can you give me
something specific that you mean by youth development?
Stephanie Young: Tell me again what you mean?
Councilwoman Dimler: Well under, on the first page ~nder..., the establishment
of the youth co~ission. It says in there that I assume the purpose is to
coordinate among co~unities and agencies in the areas of youth development and
youth activities. I was just wondering if you could give ~-~ some examples of
what the youth development entails and what the youth activities would entail.
Stephanie Young: Well this would involve both the areas, the agencies dealing
with troubled youth and it would also involve the agencies that deal with the
more positive sides such as Park and Rec and would also involve churches, Boy
Scouts, that sort of thing. Any agency or service group that deals with youth.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, whether they're troubled or not?
Stephanie Young: Right.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then I did have another question here about, you said
sc~ething about the other, are these other agencies you're talking about funded
with public money as well? Some of them are?
Stephanie Young: S~e of th~ are, yes. I have a lot of county agencies.
You've got the police agencies. The sheriff. All those sorts of programs. The
City programs. You've got your church programs. Things like the Girl Scouts.
Councilwoman Dimler: Now is there going to be a willingness to cooperate or do
you foresee some problems there? Like you said, you talked about protecting,
each agency protecting it's turf.
15
City Council Meeting - Dece~oer 4~ 1989
Stephanie Young: Right and I think that a way that, what will give the
co~ission clout is first of all an acknowledgement of the fact that it's done
it's hc~ework and is an expert in the area. Acknowledgement that it knows the
state of what exists already in eastern Carver County and also the fact that the
joint powers members are all behind him. If we lack that cohesiveness, then we
might have a problem b~]t if you've got all these various groups behind one goal,
I think that the clout is there.
Councilwoman Dimler: So basically you're asking ~]s to give this co~mission the
clout so you can go to the other agencies and say we're going to coordinate it
all and hope_fully they won't resist?
Stephanie Young: Right now there isn't any coordination so this would be the
device.
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand. I mean just because you've got the clout
does not mean they're not going to resist is what I'm saying.
Stephanie Young: Right but they're f~]nded [m]blically a lot of times and that
might be an extra pull but for the ones who aren't funded, I think that they'll
want to work because they'll want to work cooperatively because they'll
understand the benefits from sc~ething like that.
Laurel Swanson: And they need to work cooperatively. From my perspective they
need to in te~',s of the resources that are available and in order to, the ~ray ~
f~]nding works now through grant dollars is you need to have a cooperative effort
in order to apply for those grant dollars so what's existing right now, what's
happening is people are drawing together advisory groups or task forces for
short periods of time in order to write the grant to get the dollars. To carry
out the program so there's a n~_m'floer of those and that extends people because
they're on a ntm~oer of those different task forces. If there's a vehicle in
place, then the people can go to that vehicle. One place to have that happen.
It seems to be more efficient and I think there's a willingness for people to
cooperate. The vehicle isn't necessarily there to do it. We've tiled a lot of
different ways to make that happen.
Councilman Johnson: In youth sports is a good example of this being needed.
We've discussed this on the CAA board for probably the last year or two is how
do we coordinate. We run youth sports in this city up to about the 6th grade
and 5th grade, depending on what sport it's in and then the kids are off to
junior high and kind of, there's some sports there's even a gap where there's
one year they don't play basketball. We play up to 5th grade and then they
start again in the 7th. There's no youth basketball for 6th graders in this
co~'~unity. It' s a coordination effort.
Councilwoman Dimler: And you see this co~mission as being the coordinator to do
that?
Councilman Johnson: They would have a subco_~ittee on sports. This is
so~.~ething that both the soccer group and the CAA and now the Babe Ruth gro~]p is
looking for some way to coordinate throughout. Exactly what she was saying here
on getting grant money and stuff is sc~ething that was brought out in several of
the classes I went to on getting federal funds. That a joint group of multiple
16
City Council Meeting - December 4~ 1989
cities and districts have a far more likely ability to get federal funds than a
single entity going their own way. Like the Southwest Metro Transit Co~mission,
they have a better ability to get federal funds than the Chanhassen Public
Safety Department and this would be the type of organization to get those. An
organization like this in support of our LAWCON grants within our cities would
give a very large boost to those federal funds that our city could get if we had
a group like this supporting that application. There's other things. If we're
going to add youth athletic fields with LAWCON grants and I'm sure you would
support that.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't have any further questions.
CounciL,,an Workman: Do we know how much or when will we discuss how much we're
planning on giving if any?
Mayor. CTm~iel: Basically this is just, we'd have to discuss this at a later
ti,~e. We'd have to put it back on the agenda. This is purely just presentation
at this particular time.
Councilman Johnson: What is your tJa~eframe?
Stephanie Young: We're at your disposal.
Councilman Johnson: I'd 'like to see this on our next agenda. I know that the
Athletic Association may think that this is a big enough item to where we may
want to donate some of our funds to it. I'll push for that at the mext Board
meeting also because we can c~.]ite easily, we've got a $10.00 per year family
me~oership. We could designate $1.00 per year of the f~mily membership to go
into this organizing cc~mittee. Something...proposing to them which isn't a
whole lot. We've got 350 families.
Stephanie Young: It all helps.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, it's dollars. I think it's a very worthwhile thing
and I'd like to serve on it personally. I'm com,.~itted to the youth of this
town. Mymultiple years on the Athletic Association. I'm on two different
athletic associations in this town.
Stephanie Young: Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else who would like to address anything?
John Doric: I'm John Doric. I'm owner of what was just called Filly's. I
wasn't her.e for this ~]~pose but the ladies that made the presentation, I'd like
them to hear. this. I'm here for a different ~]rpose and I personally and we are
all for the youth and I think it's a wonderful thing but I think it was a little
unfair and very untrue to say Filly's is a place where people are getting,
children ar.e getting cigarettes. I'd like to meet with you and correct you on
that if I could.
Councilman Johnson: John, I'm aware of many things John has done for the youth.
He has the grade schoolers cc~m over and bowl at his bowling alley and provides
rooms for the O_~ Scouts. Does a lot for the youth in this town.
17
City Council Meeting - Dece,-~er 4~ 1989
John Doric: For instance, it's impossible for a 16 year old to get into Filly's
to have cigarettes. We have people at the door and you have to be 21 to get in
the door so I think it's just misinfon~.,ation but I'd like to correct it.
Councilman Johnson: I'd agree with yo,] there.
Councilman Workman: Doesn't he have teen night there?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Council~an Workman: How do they get in the door then?
Counci]r~an Johnson: They can't get cigarettes on teen night. There's no
vending machine an!~.~ore co~e January.
PUBLIC HF~ARING: AMENDMENT TO LIQUOR ORDINANCE TO EXPAND HOURS OF OPERATION FOR
SUNDAY SALES.
D~]blic Present:
Name Address
Jim J~]de
John Doric
General Manager, Chanhassen Dinner Theatre
Filly's Nightclub
Mayor Chmiel: I don't see anyone here. I did make several calls to each of the
owners. John was ~%e only one I hadn't been able to get a hold of. I talked to
the Legion, Riviera, Pauly's, Dinner Theatre. J~ Jude is here. Would you like
to come forward.
Jim Jude: Good evening everyone. My name is Jim Jude. I'm the new general
manager of the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre and I would like to say at least for
the Dinner Theatre on this iss~]e, obviously the New Year's Eve this year falls
on a Sunday. It's our intention to as promoting a new life, a new growth to the
Dinner Theatre that we want to do a lot of things to increase the visibility and
the entertainment factor on New Year's Eve incl~]ing the Dinner Theatres and
what we're doing in our presentation and we would appreciate if we could do that
until l:g0 a.m. in the morning. We are very conscience of that hour. We would
like to set up coffee and donuts, a station for that. We are going to be
offering a limosine service for our patrons so we would like you to know that we
are very conscience of that hour and we ask that you extend that priviledge to
the City of Chanhassen. Thank
Councilman Johnson: Jim, as long as you're here, I'd like to p%~lically ~]ank
you for hosting Amazing Grace. Was it 2 weeks ago? I think that was a very
good ~]blic service to provide. I was out of town at the time but I went to
Norwood and saw it last night.
Jim Jude: Yeah, it was a very good presentation. It was very well attended as
well and it was a great presentation. Very informative. So you're welcome.
Councilman Work,,an: Hr. Mayor, I would approval.
18
City Council Meeting - Dece~er 4~ 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I just ask one c~]estion?
Mayor CTm~iel: John, did you have anything to say about that?
John Doric: I think I speak for everyone that isn't here that we would find it
difficult to have people to celebrate New Year's that at a c~]arter to 12:00 go
hc~e.
Councilwoman Dimler: I just have one c~]ick question to our attorney about our
liability. Does it increase it in any way?
Elliott Knetsch: No. On City liability?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Elliott Knetsch: No.
Councilman Workman: City liability can't get any higher. Say John, don't you
have teen night on Sundays also?
John Doric: Yes.
Councilman Workman: So there are children under 21 in the bar on Sunday night?
John Doric: Well not the Sunday that we're talking about.
Councilman Workman: I know.
Councilman Johnson: He's backing up.
Councilman Wo)~kman: I'm backing up to the cigarette issue.
John Doric: We have teen night every Sunday night from 6:00 until 10:00 and we
allow everyone up to 20 years of age and none of them can smoke. If they're 20,
19 or 18, they cannot s~ke. It's a no smoking room.
MaWr CTm~iel: ~ay, thank's J~n. I have a motion on the floor. Do I have a
s~ond?
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Johnson: I just want to state my general principle of not wanting to
increase the availability of liquor. I'm somewhat anti-drugs but in this case
we're just meeting State law and I'm going to vote for it just because all we're
doing is moving this to make our laws in conformance with the state laws but
otherwise I would not want to in general increase our hours of alcohol
conscription. It just makes for more drunk.
Councilwoman Dimler: This is only for that night isn't it?
Councilman Johnson: No. This is forever. Every Sunday night.
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh it is?
19
City Council Meeting - Dece~oer 4, 1989
Counncilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public
hearing, all voted in favor and the motion carried. The p~blic hearing was
closed.
Councilman Work~an moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the amendment
to the Lic~.~or Ordinance to expand the hours of operation for Sunday Sales. Ail
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINAk~ING PLAN, MODIFICATION
NO. 9.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Co~mcilme~oers. Your Nover~er 19, 1989 work session,
staff had handed out Modification No. 9. The redeveloim~ent plan was handed out
that evening. It wasn't a lengthy disc~]ssion regarding that plan. Staff just
asked Councilme~oers if they had any c~estions or concerns that we may address
those prior to tonight's ?~eeting. Under State law you have to approve the plan
and Modification No. 9 consists of several public improve~ents such as the north
side parking lot, the south side parking lot and the redesign of both parking
lots at City Hall as to the public improvements. Additional public improvements
would consist of Market Blvd. as it would go so~]th of TH 5, Lake Drive East as
in front of Empak and the Rosemount facility and again the north side parking
lot and the lighting along Lake Drive East. One othe~ item included in the plan
for modification would be land acc~]isition. The ~pak site. Also the grocery
store site. The parking lot areas and also the extension of Market Blvd.
between West 78th Street and Coulter. Staff is ready for any c~]estions
regarding the plan and any modifications to those. We do reco~end that the
City Council adopt the Resol~]tion approving the redevelopment tax increment
financing plan No. 9.
Mayor Ck~iel: Is there anyone from the a~]dience wishing to address this issue?
This is a public hearing.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public
hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Councilman Workman: Mm~. Mayor, just one c~.]ick point. Not too many people have
maybe access to the report. Maybe a lot of people don't want to have access.
One thing that's strikingly apparent in there is basically the City of
Chanhassen owns and basically ope_rates every parking lot in town. I g~]ess I
kind of wanted to, and I got an answer from Don Ashworth basically why do we own
all the parking lots in town? Why are we making improvements to the Chanhassen
Dinner Theatre parking lots, etc and I was I guess given a fair enough answer in
that that's the way we get the improvements in by owning the parking lots. At
any given time the City can give back those parking lots for maintenance, etc..
I have a problem, as also an HRA me~oer with contim]ing down the road owning all
these parking lots and maintaining them and I guess I wanted to get that point
into the record as far as why that is.
Todd Gerhardt: If I couid add a point to that. It's true the City does
maintain the parking lots but those costs are then assessed back to those
benefitting property owners from there so the City's tax dollars are not spent.
2~
City Council Meeting -Deck,er 4~ 1989
It is back to the benefitting properties of those parking lots. That'd be it.
Lights, snowplowing, patching, paving, sealcoating.
Councilman Johnson: So we're working as a subcontractor basically. They have
no choice but to accept us as their contractor.
Todd Gerhardt: They have the opportunity of jointly going together and hiring
their own plowing services and maintaining the lots of their own if they wish.
Such in f~ont of Kenny's, if they want to go out and hire their own plower, they
have that opportunity to do so. Such as Pauly's/Pony/Pryzmus area, they did
that last year.
Councilman Workman: In following that up. One, the City then has control over
enforcing the maintenance and keeping those clean. My basic principle is I
don't want to be in the parking lot business whether we get the money back or
what so weighing that out, is it better for us to have control versus owning
them and ope~ating them and that's the point I wanted to make.
Todd Gerhardt: I would say in the beginning but overall, probably not. A
nuisance.
Councilman Johnson: Well, I ' 11 move approval.
Councilman Workman: I' 11 second it. Any discussion?
Resolution #89-134: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded that
the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Redevelopment and Tax
Increment Financing Plan, Modification No. 9. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: BONDS FOR 1989:
A. $6,650,000.00 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS.
B. $725,000.00 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT BONDS.
C. $835,000.00 GENERAL OBLIGATION CORPORATE PURPOSE BONDS.
Dave MacGillivrary: Good Evening. I'd like to pass out the results of this
bond sale.
Don Ashworth: Just for the record. This is Dave MacGillivrary of Springsted.
I think everyone here knows Dave.
Dave MacGillivrary: I'd like to introduce the results of the bond sales and
have your consideration of the three resolutions listed on the agenda. At 2:00
this afternoon the City took bids in our office on these three bond issues.
What I passed out is what I call our bid tabulation sheets which are the results
of that sale. I'd like to take these in order. First the Series A bond which
is the larger dollar a~unt. $6,650,000.00 General Obligation ~rovement Bond.
How this sheet is set up is basically the title, award is the consideration to
the lowest net interest rate bidder, s~me information on sale. You notice the
credit rating information is over here on the right hand side. These were
insured. I'll get into the insurance later by what's called FGIC and they have
21
City Council Meeting - Dece~er 4, 1989
a AAA rating by both Moody's and Standard & Poor's Credit Rating Agencies. Then
the bids follow that. These are ranked best bidder first and they go in
descending order. The best bidder here would be a First Bank National
Association with the following Account me~oers. They have a price and then on
the far right hand side you have the total net interest cost in dollars and then
the rate. $3,513,291.67 with a rate of 6.3868%. The following two bids were
Griffin, Kubik. That's a Chicago s,vndicate, 6.46% and Prudential-Bache,
6.4628%. These rates we believe are very competitive. When we did our estJ~ate
about a month ago we were estimating 6.68% so this is about .3 of 1% under that.
The market has moved down somewhat but not nearly as much as this move~,ent down
in this rate under the estimate. The result of this bid is s, lch that the City
will be rec~]ired to put less money in from it's tax increment financing district
to fund the debt service of this so it will be a reduction in the amount of
increment income required for debt service. I think I'll just move thro,]gh each
iss,le if I could and then maybe have some co~'~ents. The second issue is the
taxable issue and $725,ggg.0g. It's a taxable general obligation tax incre~ent
issue. As you can see, there is c~.]ite a bit of interest on this one. A lot of
bidders. Taxable bonds are basically an entirely different market in terms of
they're selling these to different types of investors. In this case the City
received 8 different bids. This issue was insured. The lowest bidder was
Miller Johnson. 8.3175%. Okay, and then they start going ,]p from there.
Allison-Williams, etc. and the high bidder at the bottom, Griffin, Kubik,
Stephens at 8.592265%. 8 n,~er of bids is c~]ite a n~m'~oer of bids. The
proceeds of these issues are ,]sed for the incentive programs associated with the
development of the downtown. (~lr estimate a month ago was significantly higher.
This is very agressive bidding. It was 9.26%. This is almost a full percentage
point under that. Lousy estimating I think is the answer to that. Basically
here again, because the debt service fro3~ these is the tax increment income of
the redevelolm~ent district, this will rec~.]ire a significantly less tax increment
income to service the debt of this issue which will therefore freeze up more as
potential s,]rplus. So that's the story on the taxable. Now we come to the
$835,~00.~ General Obligation Corporatio t~lrpose Bonds. Similarly insured,
etc.. The City got one bid on this and anytime we get one bid, we stop and
c~lestion severely whether or not we should go ahead and award. The same
syndicate that bid the larger issue bid this issue. First Bank. They bid
identically the sa~e interest rate that they bid on the larger issue so because
of the size of this, the othe.~ two bidders on the larger issue 9~re Chicago
syndicates and they do not have re, Ich interest in buying issues of this size so
they did not bid on this s~',aller issue, t~_]t because the interest rate bid here
is the same as the larger issue, is identical, we feel that this is a market
rate bid. Also, earlier in the day at ll:gg we had a sale for Burnsville which
is a A1 rated co~m~unity and essentially this bid is the same as B,]rnsville got
that is A1 so the fact that this was insured. The insurance did the job on this
and gave you a competitive bid comparable with a A1 rated City of Burnsville
security. For that reason, even though there's one bid, we feel both the market
conditions that percipitated getting one bid plus the results of that bid are
competitive and reflect the other iss,]e where you've got by basically a national
bid. So we feel on this one that it is a very acceptable bid. This bid is
approximately 1/4 of 1% ~nder our estimate as well which exceeds the market
movement so we figure it's a good bid as well. This would result, because it's
a lower bid than the estimate, approximately a 4% reduction in the interest
costs which will lead to lower tax levies for the debt service. That is my
synopsis of the bid results. I have some general co~'~ents on credit rating.
One thing you'll have to do is, let's get into the credit rating specifically.
22
City Council Meeting - Dece~er 4, 1989
We did have a teleconference presentation with Moody's. The Mayor participated.
M~. Ashworth participated. Most of the major department heads. It was
successful. Moody's comments afterwards as they were conveyed to us were
basically as we anticipated and as we told you at the previous workshop. Those
being they did recognize there is a relatively high debt burden but that w-as
offset by the City's internal financial condition and the growth that's occurred
in the tax base, both in the co~ercial area and in the residential area so that
coupled with the co~ents we got from the insurers because they do a separate
risk analysis or credit rating. The insurers we got an ext3~emely competitive
bid frc~ the insurance people and their co~ents were that perhaps Moody's was
off base a little bit in being too conservative with your credit rating and this
was FGIC, the low bidder on all of the, for the insurance on all three so that
was fairly telling so we think the credit rating situation is perhaps stabilized
and we didn't get, other than those general co~ents, other than a lot of
running aro~und at the last minute, much more negative from the credit rating
agencies so we think we're in fairly good shape there. I think the staff did a
very good job in terms of the presentation and the myriad of c~]estions we had
follow-up after that so I think that should be mentioned as well. The last
thing I have is the City has a policy of pre-paying all it's registration fees.
Those are the annual fees of maintaining the bond issues. Those are done by
trust agents. We went through a competitive bidding process and got the 4 major
fir~'s in the Twin Cities. The low bidder there was Norwest by a considerable
margin. They bid an amount of $10,200.00 for all three issues total for the
entire term of that. That is approximately 30% less than the next lowest bidder
so we've had some conversations with Norwest. They've been anxious to get back
into the registration business and we've told them their pricing is too high and
they seemed to have listened and they have given you a very good big so we would
reco,~-~end as part of the resolution, awarding the sales that also that Norwest
be named as the paying agent for all three issues. So I'd be glad to receive
any c~]estions that you have.
Mayor Chmiel: Any c~]estions?
Councilman Johnson: Once again so~-~ favorable bids.
Mayor Clm~iel: Any discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: Good j ob.
Mayor Ck-,iel: You bet. Nice job.
Councilman Workman: Which one of these bond issues covers our salary?
Dave MacGillivrary: The little one.
Councilman Johnson: There isn't one small enough for that. It's kind of
interesting that the middle of the $725,000.00 one, if you look, a lot of the
people that bid are breaking up of the big conglomerate that bought the big
issue and the two bigger issues. But there's still some competition.
Dave MacGillivrary: There's a different market for taxable bonds and they have
different customers that they sell those to. Taxable bonds are still an
evolving market and this is a very agressive bid.
23
City Council Meeting - Dece~e.r 4, 1989
CounciLman Johnson: But only 2 of the people that bid on this one, weren't part
of the winners on the other 2. It's just kind of interesting.
Don Ashworth: If I may Mayor, I'd like to congratulate Dave, the work of
Springsted in ter~'~ of, the whole selection process took much longer than I
think any of us had anticipated and of course we knew that we had to sell bonds
this year and bringing this issue, or these iss~es into market this late in the
year and as c~ickty as we did and as professionally and to receive then the same
bids as an A rated community. I mean that's at least a quarter of a percent
that co~ld have been different from these so I think Dave did an excellent job
in all areas.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Thank you. Do I have a motion?
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Johnson: And Norwest Bank as the paying agent.
Resolution #89-135(a): Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded
to award the General Obligation Improvement Bond, Series 1989A to First Bank
National Association for a price of $6,583,50g.0g with a net interest cost of
$3,513,291.67 at a rate of 6.3868% with Norwest Bank as the paying agent. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Resolution #89-135(b): Co~mcilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded
to award the Taxable General Obligation Tax Incre~ent Bo~d, Series 1989B to
Miller, Johnson & Kuehn, Inc. for a price of $72g,65g.gg with a net interest
cost of $251,258.33 at a rate of 8.3175% with Norwest Bank as the paying agent.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Resolution #89-135(c): Councilman Workr~an moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded
to award the General Obligation Corporate ~]rpose Bond, Series 1989C to First
Bank National Association for a price of $824,145.~0 with a net interest cost of
$488,271.67 at a rate of 6.5284% with Norwest Bank as the paying agent. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS TO INSTALL A DOCK ON A
BEACHLOT, ROBERT PIERCE.
Jo Ann Olsen: At the last meeting Councilme~ers Johnson and Boyt rec~]ested an
appeal to the Board of Adjustments' decision so that's the reason it's brought
back tonight for discussion. Again, just in review, the Board did approve the
appeal.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Councilwo~an Dimler: Yes. It's real conf,]sing.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, it really is but.
24
City Council Meeting -Dece~er 41 1989
Councilman Johnson: ~]at we're doing tonight is really guiding the Planning
Co~ission because when we make this decision tonight, we are telling the
Planning Co~mission what our opinion is.
Peter Beck: Of the existing ordinance.
Councilman Johnson: Of the existing ordinance and then we're saying, now
Planning Co~lission now make the existing ordinance read unec~]ivically the way
that we...
Councilwoman Dimler: No. We're not giving them guidance as to how to amend the
ordinance. We're just saying this is how we interpret the present ordinance to
read.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. ~lt, I mean you can interpret this anyway you want.
It is vague enough to where it can be interpretted either way very easily. If
we ~mke an interpretation one way or the other, we are saying that is our
preference of the way we want it.
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, Counci~i~er Johnson. There is also, I don't like to
bring ~ legal issues but you can consult your City Attorney, there is a legal
issue in terms of when it can be interpretted either way. The court say the
property owner gets the benefit of the doubt which is why we even bother to
bring the whole thing up at all.
Councilman Johnson: Just because if you want to go to court?
Peter Beck: Well, hopefully the Council would do the right thing irregardless.
Councilwoman Dimler: At this point I would move that we uphold the decision of
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. That the interpretation of the present
ordinance is that as long as it meets the requirement of 100 feet depth anywhere
on the lot, it doesn't have to be uniform throughout.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Work~an: Are you saying approve the dock Ursula?
Councilwc~an Dimler: No. I'm saying approve the interpretation of the
ordinance as it is written today. What the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
interpretted it.
Councilman Workman: Which is to not allow the dock at this point?
Councilwoman Dimler: No. Which is to say that it does meet the requirement of
100 foot depth at one point in the lot. Therefore, it meets the re~]irs~nts of
the ordinance.
Peter Beck: But the dock has to go through a conditional use permit.
Councilman Workman: And you want to uphold that approval of a dock?
29
City Council Meeting - Dece~0er 4, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: I want to uphold the decision of the Board of Adjustments
and Appeals to the interpretation of the present ordinance.
Councilman Johnson: They haven't applied for the dock.
Mayor Chmiel: They have. They have to go through the p~ocess on the
conditional ~tse.
Councilwoman Dimler: They still have to go through the process of the
conditional use permit and if they may need a variance or not.
Peter Beck: We' re not going to ask for one. No. We got that message.
CounciLman Workman: I wo,]ld second it.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to uphold the decision of
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals that the interpretation of the present
ordinance for a dock on a beachlot is that as long as it meets the rec~_]irement
of the 10g feet depth anywhere on the lot, it doesn't have to be uniform
throughout. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: A coument, which Wednesday night I'm not going to be able
to talk to the Planning Co~mission. I'll probably call a few of them. What I'd
like to see is that the dock should go at the point of lg0 or greater feet
depth. If that's not possible for some reason, that there should be a minim[~',
of 75 feet which doesn't hurt yon guys at all.
Peter Beck: That's very doable for us.
Councilman Johnson: That's very doable for you and I wot~ldn't want to see a
dock get any closer than 75 feet to the end of the property.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would also like to direct staff to write a letter to
Mary Moore to explain this confusion because we didn't ~nderstand it and I don't
think she has less of a chance of understanding exactly what the Board did and
what the Council did and what the Planning Co_~ission is going to do. And that
she can still co~e to the Planning Co~mission meeting and have all the input
there at that point.
Co~mcilman Johnson: As vocal as the Lake Minnewashta homeowners have been in
the past, it's surprising they haven't been here.
REQUEST TO DELETE INTEREST CHARGES ON A DEFERRED ASSESSMENT, 40gl ASTER TRAIL,
HENRY GESS/OPAL SCHRAM.
Gary Warren: I was asked to review the rec~_]est from the Gess' concerning the
deferred assess~ent for Project No. 73-1. The staff report was based around the
doc~ents that were submitted by the Gess' and the Sch~am's here. Basically
we've reviewed the project and the basis for the assessment and found that it
was reasonable in that sanitary sewer a~x] watermain are along the southerly part
of the property accessible to the property and that in ~ opinion the benefit is
30
City Council Meeting - Decem~0er 4~'1989
Councilwoman Dimler: I thought the Board approved the interpretation of. We
went through this.
Mayor Chmiel: If the Board approved that unanimously.
Councilwoman Dimler: The interpretation. And that it was up to Council to
change the wording if they so desired.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Change within the ordinance in itself. Clarification as
I have here.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think that's what's confusing here.
Councilman Johnson: We've got to get so,~ kind of action on changing.
Mayor Chmiel: As I reviewed some of the staff notes. It says here, the Board
of Adjustments and City Council feel the intent of the ordinance was to require
a recreational beachlot to have at least 100 feet of depth from some area of the
beachlot, specifically where the dock is proposed, then the zoning ordinance
should be amended to clarify that intent and that the appeal should be approved.
If that's the feeling of Council.
Councilman Johnson: Did we get any input from any of the lake homeowners
associations?
Councilwoman Dimler: Well, you did get this letter and I just passed it out. I
just got it when I got back so and I guess she's the only one that I heard from
that was also confused as to what was going on and what the dates and
everything. Was that because we switched from the first and third and you
thought we we~:e still on the second and fourth?
Jo Ann Olsen: That's correct.
Councilwoman Dimler: So she was a little l~.]t out about the dates.
Jo Ann Olsen: She was yes, and we did send another notice out to everyone
though with the correct dates.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And the other thing is, I guess I'm confused as to
why the Planning Con~.~ission is going to look at this on the 6th.
Jo Ann Olsen: We were directed to process a zoning ordinance amendment and
that's what we were doing.
Councilwoman Dimler: So that's what they're going to be doing?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
Councilwoman Di~ler: So what are we going to be doing tonight?
Jo Ann Olsen: There was an appeal to the Board of Adjustm~ents' decision where
you reviewed it and said that the interpretation was incorrect. That the way
the ordinance is written today, the applicant meets what the ordinance states
right now.
25
City Council Meeting - Dece~er 4, 1989
Councilwc~an Dimler: That's what the Board of Adjustment and Appeals?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and then Councilman Boyt and Johnson appealled that
and so we' re supposed to do what?
Jo Ann Olsen: You're supposed to review the appeal to that decision.
Councilwoman Dimler: No wonder I'm so confused.
Councilman Workman: I thought the happy compromise was that we're going to look
to change it and nothing was going to happen this winter anyway. Is the
applicant anxious or impatient or both or why can't we wait as long as we're
going to make the change? Why can't it wait? That was my biggest question
when I read it. Why is this back? I thought we had kind of had a happy
comprc~ise. I know you're going thro~]gh the process and it's your right to do
that but I thought we were heading in that direction anyway.
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Workman, it's fine to change the ordinance.
That should be done but in the meantime, if Bob could save a couple months.
We've already applied for the conditional use permit and if you find in our
favor on this appeal, that will just, it's consistent with t~e ordinance anyhow.
It wo~]ldn't affect anybody except Bob and it would give him a co~]ple extra
months to market and sell some homes on those 3 lots. The conditional use
pe~r~it is already in the process. It could go ahead at the next Planning
Co~ission meeting if the appeal is upheld. Really they're not, as I understand
it, I haven't seen the zoning ordinance amendment but it wo~ldn't say anything
different than the appeal does. It would just clear up the ordinance. In other
words, you'd be saying tonight this is what the ordinance says and then when
adopt the ordinance you'd say we're going to make it clear as to what it says'in
the text.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I would just ~ own opinion. I would just as soon give
it back to the Planning Co~ission. Come up with a verbage before we even pass
on that.
Peter Beck: On the appeal?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Peter Beck: Well, Mr. Mayor, there's also kind of a history he~:e. We're kind
of going thro~]gh exactly what happened before to Bob. In other words, he went
t[~ough the Planning Con'~ission and the Council on his plat and everybody agreed
that the dock made sense but the didn't think the ordinance allowed it so they
said you should wait until we amend the ordinance. Then the ordinance amendment
process started and it went all the way thro~]gh and it got to the Council and
they came up with two different options and the Council didn't agree on which
one and never passed an ordinance. So in addition to wanting to save a couple
months right away, we're also a little bit afraid that the ordinance amendment
procedure might follow the s~me track that it did and we end up another 4 or 5
or more months down the road without a resolution. So again, it seems to be the
sense of the Council that the proposal makes sense. That's what the ordinance
26
City Council M~eting - Decemfoer 4, 1989
meant and all we're asking is that you go ahead and say that like the Board of
Adjustments did. Like the staff did. Then attend to the ordinance in due time.
The ordinance amendment. It's the two reasons. The timing plus the fear that
there won't be an agre~ent from 4 councilmembers on the ordinance amencl,~ent.
_Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it takes four-fifths.
Councilman Johnson: We agreed to hear this appeal at the next Council meeting.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's this one.
Councilman Johnson: No. The next one after this one. We had set it this one
and Bill said he's going to be out of town so we changed it and said the
following Council meeting if I reme~oer correctly.
Jo Ann Olsen: No. The Minutes show the first meeting in Dece~-~er.
Peter Beck: It was 2 meetings ago that we were here and it would normally come
up in the next one when Bill said he was going to be gone.
Mayor Chmiel: Bill was not going to be out of town. He went out of town
unexpectedly.
Peter Beck: So in the meantime we filed our application for a conditional use
permit ass~ing we would be able to stay on schedule here.
Jo Ann Olsen: Again, the appeal is to how the ordinance is written today. Not
necessarily what you think it should say or what it will say in a few months.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, that's what the Board ruled on.
Jo Ann Olsen: It' s what it says today.
Pete~ Beck: We don't ~-~an to be prejudging what you have to do on the arnend~ent
at all. We're just looking at what it says today in light of all the
discussions over the last aL-~ost 3 years with Bob's deal.
CounciL,,an Johnson: Okay, technicality of lot depth of depth of lot basically.
Peter Beck: That' s exactly right.
CounciL,~an Johnson: Is lot depth the s~-~e as saying a lot with a 100 foot
depth. Is that the same as saying a lot depth of 100 feet? What the Board of
Appeal has said, which is different than ~nat we've been going under for the
last 3 years, was that it is different to say that the lot shall have a depth of
100 feet versus saying a lot depth of 100 feet.
Councilwoman Dimler: What does it say?
Mayor Ck-~iel: The way the ordinance is written, it's not really clear that the
definition of lot depth applies. It's just a require~ent of the 100 feet.
Councilman Johnson: Right. The lot shall have a depth of 100 feet or a 100
foot depth I think.
27
City Co~mcil Meeting - Dece~lmer 4~ 1989
Peter Beck: A little bit more background. It only rec~_lires the 100 feet for a
dock. In other words, a beachlot without a dock doesn't rec~lire the 100 feet.
If you want a dock, you need the 100 feet. That's why the interpretation of
staff and the Board that it would only make sense then that they're talking
about 100 feet where the dock is.
Councilman Johnson: This is kind of a reversal of staff with the new City
Planner.
?~yor Chmie!: What they talked previously was the location where the dock is
proposed has approximately 95 feet of depth. This is to the ordinary high water
mark. If measured to where the existing water line is today, the area where the
dock is proposed has at least 100 feet of depth. In the area to the north of
the dock meets and exceeds the 100 foot depth.
Peter Beck: And we'll move it in the conditional use permit to the 100 foot.
Co~.mci~an Johnson: You have?
Peter Beck: We have or we will.
Jo Ann Olsen: You have 100 feet.
CounciLman Johnson: At the point the dock's at measured perpendicular to the
lake?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. In the new zoning, we're getting off track again but the
proposed zoning ordinance amendment with your example again, that's where the
DNR preferred to have the sand beach and the dock so they might not necessarily
have the 100 feet there. If there's enviror~ental factors where there's a 100
foot depth might not be the best place to have the dock. If there's trees or if
there's slope.
Councilman Johnson: But if there's only 20 foot depth, that's not a good place
for a dock?
Jo Ann Olsen: When you go through the conditional use permit, that's when you
have that opportunity to say where the dock goes.
Peter Beck: See in this instance we can ~]t the dock where there's a 100 foot
of depth. It doesn't make the most sense to put it there because that's where
the DNR insisted the beach be but that's an issue we can deal with in the
conditional use permit. For purposes of the interpretation, all we want to know
is if it goes where it's 100 feet is that okay.
Councilman Johnson: I think we need to clear up the ordinance. It's essential.
Councilwoman Dimler: But what we're doing here tonight is either ~]pholding or
not upholding the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. What the
ordinance says will be done in the Planning Co~'~ission on Wednesday and then
they'll bring that back to ~s so all we need to deal with now is are we saying
that the depth has to be ~mJ. fokm throughout 100 feet or does just one place. If
it's just one place of the lot, does it meet the ordinance?
28
City Council M~eting - Dece~er 4~ 1989
there to justify the original assessment that was placed on it. A deferment was
made by the Council at the assessment hearing, which the materials are contained
in the report, which recognize the fact that the actual building itself was
sc~ewhat r~oved from the project area and as is consistent with our current
ordinance, would not be rec~.~ired to connect at this time so a deferment was
placed on that original assessment and the property has that stated on the
record as a deferred status since that time. I'm unclear I guess on all the
specifics as far as the applicant's concerns on this but I believe the interest
that has accrued on the assessment is one point of concern and it was unclear in
the record as to the interest rate would be applied although an interest is
applied consistent with the typical city policies so it would not be I guess in
my opinion an exception. The fact that that interest rate was not called out at
the time of the deferment. That is established policy of the City when you
defer the assessments and a 7% rate was applied to upgrade the assessment fr~
the point of adoption. It currently stands in a deferred status. The value, we
did do sc~e counts to evaluate whether the value of that assessment at today's
rate is reasonable as it relates to the ~%ograding of that assessment with the
interest rate and Dave Hempel's m~o is attached but basically, assess~ents are
difficult things to compare but in general, I'm t3~ying to be fair. It does
appear that the Gess assessment, which at this point is $7,591.00 in round
n,m~ers, is comparable to some similar projects that we could pull from our
files as far as assess~ent rates such as North Lotus Lake, South Lotus Lake
projects. So it was the opinion, my opinion that the assessment was reasonable
and the policy has been applied consistent with, the interest policy has been
applied consistent with our standards in that .no adjustment is warranted.
Mayor Chmiel: Is M~. Gess here?
Cindy Gess: He isn ' t. I 'm Cindy Gess, his daughter. What we had been
concerned about...
Mayor Chmiel: Could you please state your name.
Cindy Gess: I'm Cindy Gess. I'm Henry Gess' daughter. I also live at 4001
Aster Trail and we're concerned with the interest accruing when w~ were never
notified of it. Opal Schram is also here. She is the person we had bought the
property from. On that October 1, 1973 meeting it doesn't mention the interest
on there when the motion was carried. You did make the comparison with the
current assessments and I guess it isn't a current assessment and that's what is
also concerning us. The interest is accuring but we were never notified of
that.
Mrs. Henry Gess: I lived there all of that time and it never appeared on a tax
bill and the interest or the assessment was deferred until there was
development. No one ever told us that there would be interest accruing during
the time that it was deferred and there never has been development. Also, the
Abstract company in Chaska looked this up when I sold the property in 1984 and
they said there was nothing against it. I would never have allowed this
interest to accrue if I had known that that was happening. I was never informed
and it was never appeared on a tax bill.
Councilman Johnson: It wouldn't because it was deferred.
31
City Council Meeting -Decem~ber 4, 1989
Mrs. Henry Gess: How do you let somebody know that there's an assessment to be
paid?
Councilman Johnson: Well you knew when you applied to defer the assessment.
You made the application so yogi knew of the assessment.
Mrs. Henry Gess: I guess I did but that I don't remember.
Cindy Gess: I think the question tho,]gh is with the interest accr,]ing.
Councilman Johnson: Right. That has been the general policy. It is within the
ordinance that it will be charged as such, if I rer~e~er correctly, and this is
not the first case where this came ~lp and said, hey, we didn't kn~w about the
interest. Since I've been on here, before sc~ebody talks abo~]t deferrals, I
says you realize you will be charged interest on your deferrals so all I can say
is the couple people who have talked abo~]t deferrals since I've been up here
the last few years, I've informed them of it so that they are aware of it.
There are sc~e people with extremely, I mean we're talking big assessments. I
mean hundred tho~]sand dollar type assessments that had interest going and it got
to the point on their deferrals that the assessment was so h~]ge, they had to
basically sell their property. I don't want to see that ever to happen to
anybody a~d that has happened in the past. I mean much worse cases then this.
I do see an ability to compromise a little here in the 4% hook-up rate that we
charge a 4% inflation every year on our hook-up rate so, I think that could go.
What we want to do is remain as consistent as possible to where everybody is
treated ec~.]ally. The 7% wo~]ld be the equal treatment as far as I see but I
think in these circ%m~stances where the bonds are totally paid off, there's no
development occurring. You don't seem to be in a hurry to develop your
property.
Cindy Gess: We have no intention of ever developing it.
Councilman Johnson: Right. It's the type of property where you probably won't.
Cindy Gess: That' s right.
Councilman Johnson: I wo~]ld like to see us compromise and use that 4% which
would drastically reduce this interest. C~_lt the interest in half almost. It'd
be still somewhat ec~_]al. A little favorable t3~eatm~ent here versus other people
who are getting deferrals and they pay at the same bond interest rates that the
bonds will go for. We just did some bonds at 6%. I reme~-~oer a few years back
when we were doing bonds at 9% before the interest started getting f~vorable to
us. In this case we've already paid off the assessments so we're basically on a
hook-up charge type arrange~ent at this point because the bonds that paid these
assess~'~ents are paid off so I think we could back track and place the interest
at a 4% rate versus a 7% rate. Consider this just as a hook-~]p charge versus
an assessment.
Cindy Gess: And so then the assessment couid be paid at this point so the
interest wouldn't continue at a 4% rate?
Councilman Johnson: Right.
32
City Council Meeting -Dece~er 4j 1989
Councilman Workman: Does it matter though that the bond is paid off? Is that
fair to those who may have paid in a timely fashion? Would that be
encouragement, you know if you j~t hold out you'll get 4% down the road.
Councilman Johnson: Setting a precedence is what you're saying.
Don Ashworth: The connection charge is established. First of all you assess
everyone within a neighborhood. Greenwood Shores sewer and water assessments.
If for some reason an additional lot were able to be created in Greenwood Shores
area, that's where your connection charge would co~ in and that individual,
even though he would be paying a lesser interest rate, the formula recognizes
that he really did not get to use that sewer for those first 8-10 years so in
fact there's a depreciation that's built into that assessment. So we felt that
the connection charge truly is equal to an assess~ent. Ursula and I had talked
about this issue earlier today. In a lot of ways I would prefer looking at this
as a connection charge. I'm very fearful of the precedence situation that may
develop and I would go just the opposite direction and that is, that we could
really only consider this type of a req~]est if the bonds have been fully paid
because if they have not, then you or I must be, we'll have to be paying off
that differential. I mean the bond holders still have to be paid and if you had
a similar rec~]est for some other property, and again those bonds were still
being paid off, then somebody would have to step in and pick up that
differential.
CounciL,~an Johnson: This would be like the Kerber's property which is the one I
was talking about.
DOn Ashworth: Kerber's is still going though.
Counci]_,~an Johnson: Yeah, the bonds are still going and they asked for the
deferral and so we couldn't drop them down to 4% because we were paying 8% or 9%
on the bonds and so we would have to continue at the bond rate.
Mayor Chmiel: Because the bonds had been paid off is what you said at 4%?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, and basically how many deferrals do you think we have
out there that this might be considered as a precedence for? What kind of
monies are we talking about?
Gary Warren: 15 to 20 maybe according to the City Treasurer.
Councilman Johnson: How many thousand of dollars?
Gary Warren: I don't know the dollar amo[~t. Point of clarification also. The
4% rate is actually arrived at by an ec~]ivalency rate by deducting 3% off of the
bond issue so it's not always 4% but the 3% is the discount rate that we apply
to arrive at an ec~]ivalency rate on a connection charge.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, our deferrals are only eligible for elderly as
I rem~e~r too. Not anybody can get a deferral?
Gary Warren: If the Council chooses.
CounciL,,an Johnson: I think the policy in the past has been a fixed income.
33
City Council Meet_].rig - Dece~oer 4, 1989
Don Ashworth: I think the only one allowed is just a senior citizen but in
previous years they did allow deferments that were just simply development.
Elliott Knetsch: That's right. The State law lays out what the deferrals and
it's been heightened ~]p I guess since '73. I can't say exactly what it was in
'73 but now it is only for seniors.
Councilman Johnson: Opal, were you a senior citizen in 19737
Opal Schram: b~at I'm wondering is in a real estate deal you make searches for
outstanding monies due on a property. If you're hiding this underneath some
deferral something or other, how are you going to find out that you owe this?
Councilman Johnson: The County, the Abstract Company should have found it.
Opal Schram: Well that's what I'm wondering because there's no search...at all
on the Abstract. And also she had an attorney and I don't know whether that
attorney even did anything.
Councilman Johnson: Well you know if you've got title insurance on this,
shouldn't the title insurance pay it because they messed up.
Opal Schram: No, t_here was no title insurance, no.
Cindy Gess: ...Abstract updated and there was nothing on there.
Gary Warren: It points o~]t part of the problem of trying to track deferred
assessments among other things but also I guess depending on the caliber of the
Abstract company or the person doing the title search, sometimes things are
missed I g~]ess. I don't know if it was in this case.
Opal Schr~*l: Well, are they on the re-cord so...
Don Ashworth: Gary is right. We have to maintain two separate files. One for
all current assessments and then all specially deferred but even with the
specially deferred, Jean goes back through that. Any assessment search she
pulls those out and fills them in so I don't know how that potentially was
missed in 1984. I don't know that it was or it wasn't, let's put it that way.
Councilman Johnson: If they didn't check with the City. If they only checked
with the County then it would have been missed. If the Abstract service only
checked with the County and did not check with the other jurisdiction, then the
County has no way of knowing of this until we actually assess it against the
property. But if they check with tine City, they would have found it. I don't
know what their, talk to your lawyer on the liability of the Abstract service is
for telling you, yeah, for doing a bad job.
Don Ashworth: P~ don't know that to be the case.
Councilman Johnson: Well they've got the doc~_~-~entation that in 1984 the
AJostract service says that there is no assessment against this property and
that's not tr~]e. I don't know, maybe there's a Statute of Li~itations or
something, i don't know. Of course it was just discovered so.
34
City Council Meeting-- Decem~er 4~ 1989
Gary Warren: You don't know if they called the City and there's some chance the
City missed it either.
Mayor Chmiel: We can't solve their problems but let's try to solve our own. Is
there a motion as to the rec~]est or additional discussion?
Councilman Workman: I still don't understand what the detriment could be if you
went down to 4%. That seems to be maybe where we're heading.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we're able to do that because of the fact that bonds are
paid and it's not establishing a precedent.
Councilman Johnson: If somebody else comes in with paid up bonds and goes for
the same thing, it again makes sc~ sense. But if somebody comes in and we're
still paying on those bonds and we drop their interest rate to 4%, I mean that's
bad.
Mayor Chmiel: I've been paying mind for the past 10 years at 7%.
Councilman Workman: Well I would move approval.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second. That's move approval of changing it to 4%?
Gary Warren: Point of clarification? Is that from then the deferment date? Is
that what you're saying is bring it forward using 4% instead of 7%?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: And they intend to pay it off so it ~n't accrue?
Cindy Gess: Yes. We wouldn't let it keep adding up.
Don Ashworth: Council has done on some issues, we have the Attorney kind of do
up a Findings of Fact. I don't think that's necessary but for the Minutes on
this, I'll go through those and list the items that the Council had considered
so it's clear that we have kind of check list of why it is that this item was
treated different.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Four Percent
(4%) interest charges on the deferred asses~ent at 4001 Aster Trail. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
CONSIDER EXTENDED CONTRACT TO PROVIDE ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES TO THE CITIES OF
SHOREWOOD, GREENWOOD, TONKA BAY, EXCELSIOR AND VICTORIA.
Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, men,ers of the Council. You may r~me~er that several
months ago the cities of Tonka Bay, Greenwood, Shorewood, Excelsior, Victoria
approached us asking that we provide on an interim basis animal control to their
cities. We looked into it. We decided at a cost of $17.00 an hour we could
provide animal control for those cities and still come out approximately $800.00
ahead. You ~y also r~,e~er that it was an inter~ basis that we did this and
35
City Council Meeting - Dece~oer 4, 1989
that we would look at a more permanent arrangement at the end of this year. We
axe now looking at that more permanent arrange~ent. We initially went into
negotiations with these 5 cities with a hourly cost of approximately $19.00 an
hour. That was $2.00 an hour more than what our interim arrangement was
principally to cover the increased salaries that would be anticipated by our
CSO's in 1990. We went into negotiations on several occasions with this $19.00
an ho,~r figure which would still maintain our approximately $800.00 profit, if
you will, on this contract. One of the sttm-~ling blocks that we ran into was
the p]rchase of a s,]pport vehicle which I think by all accounts everyone agreed
we needed. Couldn't cc~e to an agree~ent where the 5 contracting cities would
purchase this vehicle. We did however come up with a compromise agreement where
we would increase our hourly cost from $19.00 an hour to $22.00 an hottr and
thereby have them in effect purchase half of a $10,000.00 CSO support vehicle.
So half would be approximately $5,000.00. The intent then was that they could
go back to their City Councils with a firm ho~]rly contract submitted to them
with the intention of purchasing one-half of a vehicle. To do that though they
felt more comfortable if we entered into a 3 year agreement if they were in fact
going to contribute half of the cost of this vehicle. I have figured out the
cost and revenue on the second page of your packet and t_he long and the short of
it is, is that if we agree to a 3 year contract, we will be making approx~,ately
$3,900.00 a year based on the $22.00 an hour rate. Over a 3 year period of
time, this would generate profits of approximately $11,700.00. In effect they
would be ~]rchasing the full price of a s~]pport vehicle. We are reco~ending
approval of this 3 year agree~ent.
Councilman Johnson: Are salaries going to stay the same for 3 years?
Jim Chaffee: No.
Councilman Johnson: Is that figured in?
Jim Chaffee: In the contract that's figured in. That the hourly rate will be
looked at each and every yea~ of the contract.
Councilman Johnson: Using $22.00 as a base?
Jim Chaffee: Using $22.00 as a base right now, right.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's where you said you increase it from $19.00 to $22.00?
Jim Chaffee: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: One of the things and if we're going to look at it on a yearly
basis at the rates, as I looked at the contract, is there a clause contained in
there Jim if we decided to walk away from this we could?
Jim Chaffee: Yes. On the last page of the contract, item 15. It says if all
parties are unable to agree to a fee schedule for that particular year, it is
agreed that the contract will then end at the conclusion of that year that is
c~]rrently in effect.
Councilman Johnson: There's also a walking agreement within item 14 where the
individual cities, Shorewood, victoria, etc. can walk out but they have to pay
the remainder of the year basically to leave. It's kind of like our old tri-
36
City Council Meeting - December 4~ 1989
city contract we used to have~
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Councilman Johnson: I guess the only thing that's not really included in here
is the fact that if we buy a vehicle this year and we get the monies for it over
a 3 year pe~iod, that... It seems like a good idea. I'd like to keep Bob. Of
course as Bob progresses out of this job. As he continues his schooling. I
think he's going to become a licensed officer at one time. We've got a real
good man there. I'd like to keep him as busy as possible.
Mayor Chmiel: It does give us some additional exposure to it.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I've had some real good feedback on Bob from
citizens.
Mayor Ctm~iel: In fact I just had a letter of acc~odation to him fro~ some
people that's in the packet. In the staff packet that we have. If you have an
opportunity to look at it, there's one in there.
Councilman Johnson: Sc~ebody I ran into from another town had a probl~m~ in
St. Paul, an ~ergency in St. Paul and they called the sheriff to get a hold of
him and everything else and Bob happened to be there and went through and
followed up and everything. That's kind of beyond the point but I'd like to
move approval.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I have some discussion before we do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to say that I'm really glad that we were
able to help our surrounding core,unities out for the past 3 months and very,
very happy that they were satisfied with our services and I think that our
~]blic Safety Department, especially Bob Zydowsky and Deb Rand need to be
congratulated for their great work. I am somewhat relunctant to extend this
services for 3 years for the following reasons and that is that I'm relunctant
to ira.it the City of Chanhassen into a business that I feel is not lucrative.
Apparently Midwest Animal Control discontinued it's services for a reason and I
figure it's because it wasn't lucrative or they'd still be doing it. I think
helping our neighbors out is fine on a temporary basis but I think if we' re
going to operate a business, that it has to be profitable and as I look at these
expenses, it doesn't look like they're profitable to me. Looking at the
expected expenses and expected revenues as they were present to us, only shows a
profit of $3,900.00 a year and that the City of Chanhassen is ass~ing liability
for damages resulting from negligence. Our entire profit plus more could be
wiped out with just one mishap and to me that's not worth taking the chance.
Also, the expenses as they are presented do not show overhead and supportive
expenses. I think in reality the expenses are much more than shown. An example
would be the office overhead and supportive expenses include operating and
maintenance of the vehicle. Also sc~eone has to type and produce the reports.
That's not shown and we know that that can be very costly. I'm not sure if our
insurance, general coverage includes these animal mishaps. How about training
costs to Bob Zydowsky? And so forth. Also, it's shown the benefits of the
salary at 20%, which I believe is a low figure. 35% would be more accurate.
37
City Council Meeting - Dece~-~er 4, 1989
This includes unemployment insurance, hospitalization, medical insurance,
vacation, sick leave, PERA, etc. so I think if we calculated the actual expenses
of everything that was mentioned and probably sore things that I didn't mention,
that there would in fact be no profit but maybe a cost to the City. I also
doubt that a 4 wheel drive vehicle could be purchased for $10,ggg. 0g and I know
that you did say used but if it is used, how many miles does it have on it and
how many years can w~ use it? I'm mean this vehicle puts a lot of miles on per
year so I could just see that we'd be looking at another vehicle before the 3
year te~?~ is up. Also, I don't see any costs listed for radios and other gear
that would be used in the vehicle which could add up to be another $4,~g.0~. I
just don't believe it would be a cost effective operation for Chanhassen. Then
again, if we provide this service, which you know like I said, I'm glad to help
our neighbors out b~]t I don't want to do it at a cost to the citizens of
Chanhassen. If we provide it at a cost to the City that gives the other cities
no incentive to be looking for other services and then what do we do at the end
of 3 yea)~s? We will be right back here where we are right now looking at doing
it again. So before I would approve this, I would certainly want to see all the
direct and indirect costs updated and get a more accurate pict~]re if this is
indeed a profit business or s~*~ething that would cost us money.
Councilman Johnson: Is Bob a full-time employee?
Jim Chaffee: Yes he is. If I couid just add, we are covered by insurance for
the liability issue. The radios would be coming out of the present CSO truck
and be put into the newer one so it wouldn't be a cost there.
Councilwoman Dimler: But yott'd want radios in your other one too?
Jim Chaffee: No we wouldn' t. That would be a spa~:e vehicle for Deb's use for
crime prevention. That cost was not figured in there.
Councilman Workman: I think Urst]la had some good points. I think again this
gets into our discussion ear, lief of transition and where and what we're trying
to go. Maybe this issue can become a part of the t~]blic Safety Co~m,ittee or
Police St,]dy Co~tJ. ttee. I don't see this as a lucrative bt~siness. I can't
imagine us intending to want to be a real lucrative business or us to make money
at it. I also don't see why or how the City should be extending itself
basically into failed private businesses. I spoke to one of the mayors in one
of the cities with whoot we would be contracting with and he kind of elbowed rte
in the ribs, or that person elbowed me in the ribs and said, you got our dogs
now. It's a dirty part of the business, the t~]blic Safety business, and
ultimately I do not see the ultimate advantage that we would be gaining by
spreading ourselves o,]tside of our own borders to do this. I understand again
the concept of being neighborly wherever perhaps necessity draws us into that
but I think even at this rate, those cities are getting a bargain and I just
don't see why and how we're so excited to extend ot]rselves into this business.
It's a business. I just don't feel comfortable with the City of Chanhassen
being involved with it. Nothing to say of the 3 year contract which to rte is a
very, very long ti, e all for the purpose of basically paying for a 4 wheel drive
vehicle. I think. We're talking abot]t picking ilo extra hours in the co~'~Lunity
and everything else. Well, that vehicle is supposed to be ot]t of the co~'~'~unity.
It's not supposed to be here. It's supposed to be basically taking care of
coverage in other cities and I just don't see, I see a lot of arguments and a
lot of them are pretty good. I just don't see why we should be getting in such
38
City Council M~eting - December 4, 1989
a sticky business. I just don't see it. We're not making a whole lot of money
which I don't think our City should be in the business to make money. You know,
let's reduce taxes but I don't see where we should be getting into a business.
We're already getting into the grocery store business. We're crossing lines all
the time. We own parking lots. I don't think we should be in the parking lot
business. I understand why we are but this is not pleasant business and I don't
think it should be our business to have to feel guilty if we don't do it. I can
appreciate, I think these cities, it is a bad, bad deal and it's an ugly
business. I just don't feel comfortable approving getting into that business
for 5 other municipalities.
Councilman Johnson: The only real advantage I see on this is that where Bob
won't be in our co~unity 40 hours a week, he will be able to be called. If
he's over in victoria doing his routine patrol through victoria and we have a
dog incident or like last week a red winged hawk runs into a guy's window and
ends up injured and they had to go out and pick up the hawk here in town. He's
here for another 20 hours a week. He's available to then drive in from victoria
and provide that service versus having to be called out on overtime from home to
provide that service or the deputies providing it. It provides ~ with, while
it's true he's not actually in our town, he's still available for our services
without overti~ involved. I don't think we should be in the business of making
money. I think a service like this should be budgeted at pretty close to break
even which this appears to be. Very close to break even.
Councilwoman Dimler: It shouldn't cost our citizens money though.
Councilman Johnson: But it should not cost the citizens of Chanhassen.
Councilwoman Dimler: And that's ~nat I'm afraid it's going to do.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I think we really have to look closely. Like I said,
this does not appear to be done by quite what I consider a bean counter. Not
enough rows and cold, ms and stuff here. They always make it a lot more
confusing. This seems too simple.
Mayor Chmiel: It seems to me that you're sort of eluding to the fact that maybe
we should table this. Have h~ relook at it and come back with other figures?
Councilwoman Dimler: Well there's a lot of overhead costs.
Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure how much overhead is involved beyond what we
already provide Bob as far as the office space is already going to be provided
anyway. I'm not sure how many reports have to be typed up for these other
cities but that should be in here too.
Councilwoman Dimler: ~]ite a few reports.
Councilman Johnson: If one of our secretaries t~vpes up a report for the City of
Shorewood, that should be at a charge rate.
Councilwc~an Dimler: Yeah, that would be a supportive service that we'd be
picking up.
39
City Council Meeting - Dece~oer 4, 1989
CounciLman Johnson: Whether that's included in the $19.00 or $22.00 an hour now
as part of the hourly rate, I don't know.
Councilwoman Dimler: No. It's only for the vehicle and the extra hours right?
Jim Chaffee: I'm sorry Ursula, what?
Councilwoman Dimler: Is the $22.0g not only reflecting the cost of the vehicle
and the extra hours. It has nothing to do with the s~]pportive services.
Jim Chaffee: That was s,]pposed to be all inclusive.
Counci]m~an Johnson: But you didn't incl,]de that in your cost. If it's all
inclusive, then you have to throw something in your costs there.
J]~ Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, if I may. We went into this really not knowing what
kind of reaction we would get from the City Council and c~]ite frankly I'm not
real wild about it myself, especially if we don't have 10g% s~ipport from the
City Council so I'd just as soon withdraw the entire proposal at this point in
time.
CounciLman Johnson: If that provides us with less CSO coverage. If there's
someway we could maintain our CSO coverage at it's present level. If it's a
matter of going up to $25.00 an hour. The cities may not want to do it at
$25.00 but, I'm not against the program. I just want to ~'~ke sure that there's
not a penny of our tax money spent to s,]pport a Shorewood, Victoria and I don't
quite have that evidence here.
Councilwoman Dimler: And that's what I was trying to point out.
Councilman Johnson: That's exactly what yogi were saying. But I support the
general concept of it if that provides our citizens with, I'd rather see them
supporting ,is a little bit by having our CSO on duty and able to respond for a
larger portion of the day. I'd like to see earlier morning response capability
and a later evening response capability from o,]r CSO's. Our problems of dogs
being taken to our playground for their morning exercise. We have a group of
citizens that like to bring their dogs out to the grade school playground every
morning before our CSO's are on duty. I haven't seen it as much lately. I
think there's been so~e enforcement going on. The playground coordinators don't
like that at all.
Mayor Chmiel: What's the decision of the Council?
Councilman Johnson: I think we sho~]ld table.
Councilwoman Dimler: If Jay wants to withdraw, I guess I wo~]ld favor that.
Don Ashworth: Councilwoman Dimler and I did have a chance to talk a little bit
today on this. She had asked various questions. I had to be_ honest in that I
had, with ourselves being gone this past week, I had not been able to go thro~]gh
this report. Listening to t/ne concerns as they're be_lng raised, maybe it should
be tabled so that we're in a better position to respond to the c~]estions as to
whether or not we're making money, losing money. I did make a co~ent that some
of the areas where we're really, really tight. For example the 2g% and as far
4~
City Council Meeting - Dece~er 4~ 1989
as overhead, etc. and I don't know if the other cities would be willing to move
off of that $22.00 figure or not.
CounciL-~an Johnson: Why don't we do this Mr. Mayor. Because this contract runs
out in less than 30 days and we'll be putting our neighbor cities in a bit of a
cr~_~nch if we end it. If we table it now for 2 weeks, it's going to be basically
Christmas and they're going to have to be finding alternate service. Why don't
we extend it one month to the end of January and table it and say, okay we'll
give you one more month of service as is so we'll have enough time to fully
consider this. That helps our neighbors out and gives us enough time.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a good idea.
Don Ashworth: It should aL,~ost be for upwards of even a 3 month period. I
don't know what we may have told the communities. If they have a feeling that
the 3 year contract is likely to go through but I know myself that if you had to
run out and find so~ other way to provide that service and to do it within
literally a 30 day period of time, you'd never get it done.
CounciL-~an Workman: Is there a State law on that?
Councilman Johnson: That they have to have that service?
Don Ashworth: You mean as far as the bidding for it?
Councilman Workman: No, I mean as far as co~nity of a certain size having to
have some sort of animal control.
Don Ashworth: No. You would not be re~]ired to but again, in just watching our
own calls, it's not really the dogs that are at issue. It's the lady that's
80-90 years old and hears noises l~stairs or sees the animal. It's the
raccoons, the snakes, all of the other kinds of animals that get into your ho~_~
and destroy your property and that's where you become very concerned not to
count the wolves and things like that.
Councilman Workman: Again, my concern...the money because somehow we're going
to figure out a Way to get these other cor~unities to subsidize us and Bob and
our truck and everything else. I think this contract is, I'll tell you what, if
Bob Boyt was a city council member in victoria, he'd be having a heart attack
right now.
Councilman Johnson: I would.
Councilman Workman: That's right. It leans our Way so heavily, it's
unbelieveable. I've never seen such a good contract for us. I'm just saying,
we're getting into a business here. We're going into the business of animal
control and~mybe we'll offer it to Chaska and we'll get bigger and bigger and
bigger. I don't think that's the direction I want to head. If we could take
care of our own animal control situation plus other things, I don't see why.
It's like the noise ordinance. You can't stop all noises. Even if you have the
ordinance and so you're not going to be able to stop all animal control problems
no matter what kind of coverage we have. I just can't see us trying to bouy up
a position just to cover that base.
41
City Council Meeting - Dece~er 4, 1989
Councilr~an Johnson: Right now we have minimal animal control. There's one
thing I've gotten c~_]ite a few complaints from citizens on is that we don't
respond fast enol]gh. We're not able to respond at all hours on barking dog
complaints and most dog complaints.
Co~mcilwoman Dimler: Altho~]gh we must have been right now because everybody
else is satisfied.
Councilman Johnson: Well something over nothing is...
Mayor Chmiel: I think we're going to just keep throwing this back and forth and
I think we need to come ~]p with a conclusion on this. I would like to take
Jay's suggestion to extend this for another money or even 2 until we know
exactly where we' re coming from with total costs. I too don't want to see
additional dollars cc~e into this where it's going to co~e out of the City's
coffers here. fk]t of Chanhassen's pocket.
Jim Chaffee: ~9~. ~ayor, what I'll do is I'll have the finance department work
up the true and correct figures on this then.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and then what I'd like to see is this brought back to us at
the next Council meeting and see if we can come up with so~_~e sort of
conclusions.
Councilwoman Dimler: But you want to extend it for a month or two? As is.
Mayor Chmiel: A maxim~, of 2 months.
Councilman Johnson: Beca~]se if we decide to go into...
Mayor Chmiel: I keep looking back at some of these letters that we received
from each of the cities and of course they're benefitting from this but I know
they're saying this from the heart and it's basically, it says here it's
encouraging to have neighboring cities working together to s~lve co~on problem,s
and share in the cost of providing this serious services to the public. And I
agree, to have a cooperative kind of effect here to with all these adjacent
neighboring co~'~unities that are here by us. Those dogs from their co~-~,unities
come into our cc~munity as well. So there is some cooperativeness there I think
that should be done. So I'd like to take that motion to table to extend the
contract period for 2 more months and come up with some real solid dollar
figures so we know where we' re coming frc~,. Is there a second?
Councilman Johnson: I' 11 second that.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table to extend the contract
to provide animal control to the cities of Shorewood, Excelsior, Greenwood,
Tonka Bay and victoria for a period of 2 months until some more exact dollar
figures can be worked out. All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who
opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
Councilman Johnson: It's like the Youth Council, Southwest Metro Drug Task
Force. The cooperation between cities is becoming a bigger and bigger issue on
42
City Council Meeting - Dece~-~oer 4~ 1989
all fronts and in all aspects of city life. You can become more efficient and
more cost effective if you're slightly bigger.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING TO PROVIDE
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, INCREASED PARKING REQUIREMENTS IF WARRANTED BY SITE PLAN
REVIEW, AND TO REQUIRE ENCLOSED PARKING FOR ~0 VEHICLES FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY
DWELLINGS, FIRST READING.
Jo Ann Olsen: Paul's out sick so I'm going to try to take his place on this.
They originally were proposing the enclosed 2 parking spaces and after that went
through review by the Planning Co~m~ission, they reduced that to 1.5 parking
stalls that would have to be provided enclosed for the multiple family. We also
went through different areas in the zoning ordinance that needed to be i,~roved
upon such as parking standards, visitors parking, and I guess I'll just leave it
at that and if you have any ~]estions, I'll answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any discussion? Is there anyone wishing to
address this?
CounciL,~an Johnson: I was kind of wondering what the group was here for. I do
have so,~ discussion but let's hear from the public first here.
Dean Johnson: As you know, my name is Dean Johnson and I'm in front of you to
talk about the parking issue. I have talked about this issue with the Planning
Co~ission when it w-as in front of them. Maybe, I have the version or I have
the full presentation that I gave the Planning Co~mission back 2 weeks ago. I
guess the c~]estion that comes into my mind is, do we need to go through the
whole report and all the stuff that I have put in front of the Planning
Co~'~,ission? I guess I'm looking for a little guidance. One and a half units on
the townhouse project, although we feel is a little severe, is a workable
situation. We feel that the apartment building part is where it is still an
unworkable situation.
Mayor Chmiel: Dean, maybe I can just answer that. We do have the Minutes of
the Planning Co~m~ission and all discussions of what you have here and I believe
it goes on for 3 pages.
Dean Johnson: That's why I bring it [~. No, it goes on for 7 actually.
Mayor Chmiel: In several different locations but in one spot here it's 3 pages.
If you could just give us a broad overview.
Dean Johnson: Just to get sc~ things out of the way here because...a lot of
what I'm going to show you ca~ from different things and I guess I'd just like
to show so,~ of the doc~ents that we went through first. So~ of it ca,~ from
the co~m~unity profile. The types of wages paid out to the employees and that
css~ frc~ so~thing put out by the Department and Trade and Economic
Develotm~ent. I'm sure you Planning Co~ission has it. The Met Council report
which I'll be reading from. The Housing Develotm~ent Guide was so~thing that we
used. Also the Minnesota Salary Survey was a booklet in which we took a lot of
this data frc~ so a lot of what I'm talking about is with those and some of the
stuff, I'm going to have some things for the projecter. I guess what I want to
do is recap the Planning Conmission. I guess the types of things that we talked
43
City Council Meeting -Dece~oer 4, 1989
about that I presented them with is first establishing a need for affordable
housing in Chanhassen. We talked to some extent about the types of people per
the incomes and it showed that a lot of the people that were coming in new to
the City, a lot of the people that were already working here needed this type of
housing beca~]se of their wage structure that they have. We established at that
thing through some different fo~.~',s and in this case it was a MLS listing sheets
for single family ho~ses and townho~lses in Chanhassen. That there is very
little in this market in Chanhassen. In fact, if I remember right. In houses
there was one and in townhouses there were 6 that would fit into this category
in all of Chanhassen for the year 1989. We talked a lot and Paul was real
helpful in this, in talking about the garage ordinance in relation to the
impervious surface ordinance. In other words, that the garages had to be almost
tuck under style units in order that with the 35% impervious surface ordinance,
that was the only way in ~nich to do this project unless you red, ice density
which again would raise housing costs so for the affordable housing thing, with
those two ordinances conjoined, would be real restrictive. I guess the other
thing we talked c~lite a bit abo,]t again was the fact that in the make-~]p of 1
bedroom and 2 bedro~n~ units and in the make-up of the people that would be
renting th~'. which meant divorced, retired, singles, all of those types of
groups of people, we showed percentages of those types of people. Types of
wages that these people would have to have in order to c~]alify even for the
~inim[~ that I was proposing say in my project. We showed an awful lot of that
staff and ca~e to the conclusion that there is a need for 2 bedroom units with
only 1 car garage because of the fact that there are a lot of singles out there
or there are retired people where they have only the one car. They don't have
children anymore. The other thing that we talked about is we talked about the
fact that there is legislation, 1986 legislation through the State you know that
said that cities should do things to accept a portion of the affordable housing
people or housing that is necessary out there. We read so~e passages out of the
Met Council about the fact, maybe I should read those. In the housing guide
here in one spot, several policies deal with local governments and developers
can facilitate production of affordable housing. They reco~end modifying
zoning ordinance or housing sizes, lot sizes and garages. It goes on to talk
about examining [m~]blic service costs for streets and strea~ulining procedures for
approving housing developments. Encouraging cooperation between co, m~unities and
private ho~sing, developers and prod~]cing affordable ho~]sing. There's also a
statement when it gets back into the actual technicalities or the physical parts
of building. It says eliminating garages. A garage can add several thousand
dollars to the cost of a house. Many people consider one a necessity but
garages are not essential for basic living needs. Eliminating a garage can
s~bstantially reduce the price of a house. Market demands should dictate
whether garages are constructed. So in this type of stuff we went with them.
I guess at this point I'd like to introduce the architect that they heard and
I'd like to have him talk about more the apartm,ent side then since you have read
the Minutes and stuff so I'd like to introduce Hal Pierce which, he's an
architect with a group called Design Resource Group.
Hal Pierce: Good evening. I'm Hal Pierce. I'm an architect with Design
Resource Group. I've got over 15 years of design experience in multiple family
housing and I'm also currently a me~er of the Planning Con~,ission on a
neighboring cou'munity so I'm familiar with parking rec~_]irements. What I'd like
to readdress is some of the physical constraints of designing maybe a typical 3
story apartment building. I've prepared a couple overheads. This is a typical
3 story condomini~.m~ building with an underground garage. This basically shows
44
City Council Meeting - Dece~f~er 4, 1989
that the garage is in the basement and there are 3 units stacked above the
garage. The plan would show how a typical 1 and 2 bedroom ~nit would stack
above these garage spaces. Based on this example, I have a 50% 1 and 2 bedroom.
The 1 bedrooms are approximately 750 sca]are feet. The 2 bedrooms are 1,000
sca]are feet. These would cover, 1 of the 2 bedroom would cover 6 garage spaces
in the basement. Using 3 floors, that would be 6 units so it'd co~_~e out to 1
space per unit. Now we have elevators and stairs and c~on areas which would
increase some of the garages but we also have cc~pactor, waste storage
d~psters, mechanical rocks and other typ~s of things like this in the basement
so it usually works out just to be a little bit more than 1 space per unit. To
increase this parking we could increase the 2 bedroc~ units count to more than
50% but with the ordinance, that would also rec~]ire to increase the parking so
it really doesn't give us much relief. We could attach parking as it's stated
in the ordinance, suggested ordinance, on page 6 to the exterior but this
doesn't make for a very attractive building usually. We could restrict to only
building 2 stories which would of course only give us 4 units for the 6 spaces
but this would again cover, add a lot to the coverage of the building to give
the same density. A lot more coverage and of course increase the cost. We
could of course enlarge the sizes of the units but to do this we'd probably be
limited to only luxury units and those types of units go on where we have
amenities like lakeshore. Another solution would be to maybe go to 2 level
parking garage but again, this is usually limited to a highrise type
construction. The cost of a parking space typically is about $5,000.00 a space.
This is about 11% to 14% of the cost of a typical unit which would probably add
to construction cost between $35,000.00 and $45,000.00. The typical 2 bedroc~
unit in Chanhassen right now with 1 garage rents for about $575.00 so if we
added 1 more stall, we'd probably have to raise that say 11% to 18% which would
be $60.00 to 80.00 a month.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you repeat those 2 figures.
Hal Pierce: The hard construction costs? Between $35,000.00 and $45,000.00.
That's usually without the land and the cost is $5,000.00 per space with a
parking stall for undergro~und. If there's any q~]estions.
Mayor Chmiel: You had a cost per month there too.
Hal Pierce: That would run $60.00 to $80.00 a month.
Councilman Johnson: Start at $575.00 for a?
Hal Pierce: 2 bedroom with 1 garage. That's an average we got from the
apartment guide.
Mayor Chmiel: Now is that over a 30 year period you're talking or how long a
period of time?
Hal Pierce: Usually your debt retirement is over 30 years so that's usually how
you figure your cost.
Councilman Johnson: That's your rental cost.
Hal Pierce: Your rental cost, right. Less all operating expenses.
45
City Council Meeting - Dece~oer 4, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Less the operating expenses?
Hal Pierce: You take your total rental and deduct the operating expenses and
that ~]s~]ally is what yo~]r debt retire~ent is based on.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, now you said if you had to add the extra stall it'd
be $60.00 to $80.00?
Hal Pierce: About $60.00 to $80.0g a month based on that percentage of the
construction cost. Now this could maybe vary slightly dependir~ on how we'd
configure those and how it wo~]ld add to the actual cost of the building. What
I'm showing here basically is that it's fairly typical to build them with one
stall per beca~]se of the way it stacks. To go to 2, we'd have to come up with
sc~e other arrangements. Probably increase that basement area somehow or add
so~,e attached to the building.
Dean Johnson: I guess what I'd like to do then is talk about some of the
demographics of the rental. For that I have some transparencies here also.
This survey or where these n~.~'~ers are coming from is the U.S. Census Bureau.
In their statistics, 35% of the renters are single renters. 28% have 2 people.
16% have 3 people and 21% have 4 or more. Of the make-up here, 37% of the ones
that are 2 and ~ore have children where 63% of than, do not have children. In
other words, the elderly or just newly married. I have another transparency
here. This one is of an... This one is of an aparta~ent b,]ilding in Crystal. In
this one, 52% of this one in Crystal has single renters and 48% have 2 person in
than~. Of than,, only 4% have children in it. This does vary away from the U.S.
statistics but is actually what happened from one, an ec~_]al op_portunity renter
in Crystal. I guess what I'd like to get to is that the apartment dweller are
generally (a) single people who are starting out. Can't afford to buy a ho,]se.
Don't want to buy a house. Or don't have, they're busy building on you know
what it takes just to set up a do~_~icile away from home. Going to school. Those
types of things. (b), married people starting out. Haven't establish yet.
Again, are maybe setting ~]p domicile again. Can't afford to buy. Three,
divorce people. Single car. Can't afford to buy beca~]se of the transition.
Have ~'.ore st, iff so they need the second bedroom. Four or (d), are retired
couples. Have a single car. Don't want to or can't afford a hc~_~e at that time
in life. Again, have lived their life span so they have an acc~m'~ulation of
stuff. Need the second bedroom b~]t again don't need that space down below. No
need for that car. I'd like to then get to the availability of rental in
Chanhassen. This is a rent analysis for Chanhassen. It's a little too small to
see. This is st~]dio apartments in Chanhassen. There are none available.
Excuse me, studio tenant available. Ntm~oer of vacancies are 0. There are none
available. 1 bedroom, there are 224 units available. 15 are vacant. That
gives you a percentage of about 6.7%. 2 bedrock', units, there are 118 2 bedroom
units. Only 7 are available as of Aug,]st 15th which is 5.9% vacancy rate and
there are none in the 3 and 4 bedroom,. There are none in Chanhassen in 3 and 4.
So you definitely have needs. 6% vacancy rate is a very low vacancy rate for
this and there is a need for these types of units.
Councilman Johnson: No 3 and 4 bedroom. That says so~ething too.
Dean Johnson: It does say so3~ething but maybe not quite what you're thinking
and the reason is, when you go f,]rther in the apartment guide report, you find
that the 3 and 4 bedrooms are the worse for vacancy rates. In other words, by
46
Cihy Council Meeting - Dece~er 4~ 1989
the time the rents get Ilo there for that type of thing, they're more into the
houses or townhouses because of their station and family so you'll find that if
you go through other co~mlunities that do have so~_'~e, they don't fair very w~ll.
In fact vacancy rates can be up in the 20% and 25% range real easily in those
types of units. There are low n~m~ers of them and they don't rent very w~ll.
Counci]mlan Johnson: We sure had a hard time trying to find one when we were
trying to get a family of 8 into affordable housing.
Dean Johnson: Which I believe is that Ethiopian family that you talked about
that one time.
Counci]mlan Johnson: Right.
Dean Johnson: Yeah. There are those cases and well, there's nothing in
Chanhassen. Nothing at all. Sc~ething should be done. Just to back up some of
this, total vacancy rate is 6.2%. 22 of 354 units in Chanhassen were available.
That's a low percentage. I believe that the rentals in Chanhassen, rental
available does not have attached garages. In fact, I believe the only rental in
Chanhassen that has garages are the townhomes that are adjacent to the site that
I'm looking at. I'm not sure of that but I don't believe any of the older
existing has any type of garages at all that we were able to see.
Mayor Clm~iel: Some do.
Dean Johnson: Some do?
Councilman Johnson: Apartments. I don' t think we have any other townhomes do
we?
Mayor C?mliel: No.
Dean Johnson: No, there is no other townhomes but the apartments, okay. But
none have double attached. I think they have garages but they don't have
attached garages. I think they're all out garages, if I'm not mistaken. But
none according to the rental information have double garages. They're all
singles at the most. Okay? As Hal's pointed out, to build that stall adds 14%
or 11% to 14%. $60.00 to $80.00 so you're increasing the rental. You're going
to t~_]t more of a burden by adding this stall. You're going' to cut out the
affordability by doing this. The other thing that cc~ies in is that you have to
look at in renters is the fact that these rents pay a disproportionate amount of
taxes. These renters don't get homestead credit so you're going to end up with
not only are you taxing them harder just by the way the tax rolls are, and I
realize that's not so~_.lething that the City or City Council does but it's another
burden that are on these people and now to put this on is going to make it
harder for affordable housing for theml. After the Planning Conm~ission meeting I
realized that, we too saw a need for the looking at parking ordinances in other
co~unities so Hal Pierce, with the aid of a fellow named Frank Larson, went
around and gathered what the other co~nities. I do know that in your packet
that's sent out, because I do have a copy of the staff report, that they did
canvas some co~m~mities themself. We canvas some also and we got a little bit
of duplication but not too much. I believe you people canvased ~den Prairie in
yours. You're looking at yours. This is what we found and we have the
ordinances here. Copies of th~ so if you want to look at the~-~. But we found
47
City Council Meeting - Dece~er 4, 1989
that as m~lch as in your report, everybody rec~_lired so~e covered parking. In
fact some of them didn't. Chaska rec~.]ired 2 stalls for the multi far',ily. One
other point I should bring up. In sc~e communities, multi-family and townhouses
were not separated. Their ordinance covered both so when you see things like
the dashed lines, it means that the townhouses and -the ~',ulti-family and the
elderly were grouped in one section. In Chaska they rec~]ire no covered parking.
They rec~]ire 2 stalls for parking but they rec,.lire none of them to be covered.
victoria rec~_]ires 1 1/2 stalls and 1 stall covered. Minnetonka ~fno had a lot of
experience with this, rec~]ires 2 stalls again so there's adec~_]ate parking but
only 1 of them be rec~_]ired. Eden Prairie, there seems to be a little bit of a
discrepancy. We have in o~]r ordinances and we've looked at what they've sent
,is. They have 2 for townhouses and 2 for multi-family. They don't address
elderly. They only rec~]ire 1. I believe your staff report says s~'~ething a
little bit differently but I do have that stuff with me if you want to look at
it. It's according to what they sent us currently in the ordinance. It's only
2.
CounciL*~an Johnson: Do they require a visitor's stall?
Dean Johnson: They require visitors.
Counci]m,an Johnson: O~rs says 2 1/4. I think the ~]arter is fro~ the visitors.
1 out of 4 is to be a visitors so that wo~]ld be 2 for the resident and a 1/4 for
a visitor.
Dean Johnson: Okay. Again, we get into Hopkins doesn't. St. Louis Park
doesn't but Plymouth and Wayzata do. Nobody that we canvased saw, and a lot of
these people have experience with them. A lot of people are experience them now
or a lot of ccm.~,'~unities experience the~ now. Nobody after looking at it in
their ordinances rec~]ire more than 1 covering but most of them, the majority of
th~, required 2 spaces so there was adec~]ate parking. I believe the only one
that was different in your staff report was Edina. Edlna covered 1 1/4 if
not mistaken what the staff report said. I guess the point I wanted to make was
that there are co~,unities that don't rec,_lire any to be covered. Edina seems to
be the very high end and then a lot of the~ were at 1. From the couments that
were made at the Planning Ccm~,ission ~'eeting, we saw storage as an issue. We
felt that maybe so~'~e of what was being disc~]ssed here was not so u,uch the need
for parking or only parking but a lot of what prcm'~pted changes was in the
storage. We started to think about the types of things that you know people
would be putting in their garage or you know that type of stuff. We got into
the bikes and the toys and the lawr~owers and garden tools, workbenches,
motorcycles, snowr~obiles and boats. Single family, all of these people have
that. ~nen you get into townhouses, the list seems to dwindle. You have bikes.
Some people have children so there are some that need it for the children but
la%m ec~]iment, that's all done by the association so the lawn ec~_]ipment's no
longer around. You don't have gardening tools. Work bench, maybe but again you
know, depending on their station in life, probably not very much of that.
Boats, us,lally are rec~.]ired to be stored other ways. I know in the townhouse
project that we did in Plymouth, that we rec~.]ired boats to be stored off site.
That they co,ltd not store snowmobiles, trailers or boats on site so there was
the place for the garage so it couldn't be taken ~]p by that which is sc~'~ething
that we would again work into an ordinance here. Apartments, then you lose a
lot more. You' re not going to have work benches in apartments. You may have a
~'Lotorcycte and you may have some bikes b~]t that's ~nere storage areas work out.
48
City Council Meeting - Dece~er 4~ 1989
Instead of having extra spaces, nobody's going to put their extra belongings in
a parking space. It's going to need to be a storage locker obviously so maybe
the thrust of this maybe should .be that, maybe that there shouldn't be 2 stalls
rec~]ired for the thing but instead of having 1 1/2 required covered, that maybe
some storage rec~]irements or things should be looked at. ~ne other thing too is
a lot of what came out of the Planning Co~mission meeting were things that we
felt might be covered by nuisances. In other words, one of the cor~nission
m~ers ca~ to the point where he said well I just got married and me and my
wife moved into a townhouse, or excuse me an apartment building. The 3 story
variety he said, and I had 3 cars when I moved into it and everybody kind of
laughed about it because of the fact that well, what do 2 people need 3 cars for
and we laughed about 1 probably wasn't licensed and those types of things and I
guess what we're getting to, you do have nuisance ordinances for unlicensed cars
and junkers and those types of things and so they can control some of what goes
into this. So I guess in conclusion I'd like to list off so~e things here. I
think through what was said through the Planning Co~mission and sc~ here, we've
shown that Chanhassen does need some affordable housing. It needs affordable
apartments. I guess I do have one other transparent? which shows the a~Dunt of
an alternate ho~ing in Chanhassen. This is a transparency made off of the Met
Council. Met Council has de~m~ed that 41% is their goal for alternative housing
types. In Chanhassen, if I'm reading this properly, you have 23.8%. You have
23.8% alternative housing types. Chanhassen is somewhat deficient in affordable
housing. It could [~e a project that has affordable housing and these garages
would ~ke that hard to do. A strict garage ordinance along with an impervious
surface ordinance pretty much eliminates a lot of the affordable hoaxing. This
cuts out a large group of people who need and have the right for affordable
housing. It kind of you know maybe the thing to be looked at or to be thought
of is that by the wages in Chanhassen, by the wages of people starting out in
life in Chanhassen and also the elderly, you might cc~e to the conclusion or it
might be drawn that your children wouldn't have a place to live because the
wages that your children would make wouldn't suffice to pay the rents and stuff
that would go along in Chanhassen with these types of things added in. There
doesn't seem to be a need for 1 1/2 cars in apartment buildings. The storage
locker would probably be more of the answer for that. The cost to increase the
parking rec~]irements from 1 to 1 1/2 raises the rent to an ~affordable level
and makes building an apartment building an unfeasible thing in the present.
It's not cost effective in this market so I guess then for reco~endations that
I would have is, leaving the apartment garages at 1 covered stall and address
the storage need, the 1 1/2 covered stalls for the townhouses is restrictive if
you want to go to even more affordable ranges than the townhouses but it is a
doable thing but what might help that situation is something that was talked
about by Paul Krauss' change in the impervious surface from the 35% to possibly
a 40% or 45% to give you some design flexibility and being able to work with the
1 1/2 car rule on the townhouse. And that's all I have. Any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Any c~]estions? Any discussion?
Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson. Mr.. Mayor. Councilmen. One of ~ other lives
I used to develop apartment buildings and I happened to read this ordinance this
afternoon.. I was quite surprised by it because of it's restrictions. I
developed about 400 apartment buildings in New Brighton, Roseville, Minneapolis,
South St. Paul, places like that. Not 400 apartment buildings, 400 units.
Generally speaking, the concept currently that we are using for apart~.~ents, not
so much townhouses because that's what I was looking at, is a 1 to 1 ratio and
49
City Council Meeting - Decer~oer 4, 1989
that seems to be what the market's looking for. Then they have about 2 parking
spots per building so yOL1 have 1 underground and 1 above and that seems to be
the ~'~rket today. If you drive around Eden Prairie. Not so much in Chaska but
around Eden Prairie and places like that, you'll see kind of a 1 covered either
underground or detached or attached and i above. As they explain~t today, it
just works out that's how the buildings work. You can put 1, you can take the
footings of an apart~ent building and put 1 car per unit. It's just the n~_~ers
work out that way, underneath very efficiently. It costs about $3,9~0.g0 to
$5,g0g.gg a unit to do that. If you were to put 1, you'd have to go double
layer down and it gets very costly. You'd probably his $1g,ggg.gg or
$15,090.0g. If you had to have detached housing, you can imagine an apartment
building with parking underneath and then parking outside like you have over
here at the townhouses. They have 1:1 ratio I believe at that particular thing.
You'd just have kind of a crazy looking building and if you drive thro~Kjh _most
of your complexes, you'd see 1:1 ratio. That's what we ran into in most
co~m~unities. But my majo~ concern is, I don't know if Don Patton, he's got 5gg
units to develop and I don't know if he even knows. I just found out about it
this afternoon beca~se I happened to ask for the agenda for this evening and
then I went over and picked up this thing. There's a bunch of people that may
own property in this co~m~unity are not aware of what hhis co~]ld potentially do
to them financially because the way I look at it, as the ordinance, it really
makes a lot of units undevelopable in this cos-~unity because you're not
competitive. I noticed that sc~Lebody did a st, ldy and the st~]dy says enclosed
stalls 1, 1, 1, 1 per unit and then we recos~'~end 1.5. That doesn't ~mke a lot
of sense. That makes us non-competitive in the marketplace. Secondly, St.
Hubert's is planning on building a senior facility with 2~ to 30 units. ~e know
for a fact that seniors don't have ca.~s so many co~'~'~unlties. No, I'm talking
about seniors, assistant living like they're talking about over the~e. Normally
I built a lot of the ~_mits. You've got all kinds of divisions of types of
housing so no~.~'~ally it's like .2 to .3 parking spaces for a senior facility.
They all vary and I think the ordinance doesn't address any of those types of
things and you're going to be back trying to change that and I notice that when
you bro~]ght that up somplace, you brought out the senior stuff, that you have to
have that in as part of it. I think we've got some land that's zoned for 12
units per acre. To me that us multi-story apartment land. That's one type of a
b~]ilding. Then you've got townhouses and different types of areas that you
sho~]ld deal with. Edina talked about affordable housing. Edina's actually
subsidizing the developers now to build affordable housing in Edina in the
$6~,~g~.~ to $75,~g~.~ category, all of which have 1:1 coverage and they're
selling like hotcakes and they look fine. That's all that stuff that's going in
over by Southdale so I think you should just generally look at that whole issue.
My c~_]estion is why are we doing it so restrictive and look at the market place
because I think this is overly restrictive given what the marketplace is
act~]ally doing. I think you should cons~]lt with some of the developments.
architect that we have here, Arvid Ellness probably only does probably 5,gg0
units of housing per year. There are a lot of people who can show you different
types of projects that are very attractive. Make sense and are not as
restrictive on coverage because coverage really, I figured out, if you had to
build a $10,gg0.gg garage, which is the second level down, just the taxes on
that that you have to pay the goverrm~ent is 5% of value so that's $5gg.0g per
yea.~:. So another $4~.~ just in taxes that every apartment would have to do.
It's a real rest~;ictive ordinance that you're suggesting and not competitive
with what other cc~unities are doing and given the average wage in Cnanhassen
is probably what, $22,~0g.g0 to $23,g00.~07
5~
City Council Meeting - Dece~'~r 4, 1989
Dean Johnson: $21,000.00.
Brad Johnson: Yeah, we all look around. The people that work here are earning
$20,000.00 to $30,000.00 a year. Ros~,ount will change that. The people that
live here on the average are ~rking $50,000.00 to $60,000.00. F~en Prairie
next to us has housing right now for sale for $56,000.00. Single family.
Average inco~ in that co~ity is in the $50,000.00 to $60,000.00 also but
they have got a place for it. It all has 1:1 parking so I think this, I realize
this is the first reading and I missed it but I think you should really look
into the whole concept that you're working under and why you're doing it. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I need discussion. I would a~ost suggest that possibly we
table this particular item and get sc~ input frc~ some of the other people as
well like Don Patton to see what basically his concerns are regarding this.
Councilman Workman: What does Don Patton have to do with it?
Councilman Johnson: He owns a whole bunch of R-12 and R-8.
Jo Ann Olsen: Lake Susan Hills, the PUD. He doesn't own it. He's the realtor.
The developer.
Mayor Chmiel: And too F~ybe Rick ~]rray. Doesn't he? That would be~
suggestion at this particular t~e. We're getting close to 11:00.
Councilwoman Dimler: Why isn't Paul here tonight? I'd like to hear him.
Councilman Johnson: He's sick.
Mayor Chmiel: I realize Jo Ann's trying to fill in.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want to address it?
Jo Ann Olsen: I can. If you feel more comfo~:table notifying everybody to have
them here...the final thing's going to be, you might as well table that now and
we'll do that. That's no problem.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's what I'd like to do.
Council,an Johnson: I'd like to see if it's got any chance of passing anyway.
Whether there's, this takes a four-fifths vote to a~nd the zoning ordinance.
I'd like to see if 1 or 2 of us are against this. There's no use wasting a
whole lot of ti~ if there's already going to be 2 votes saying heck no, we
don't want this. I'm not sure where Bill sits on this one.
Councilman Workman: Out of town.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah...I think he wants 2 enclosed.
Mayor Chmiel: So at least thats ~ suggestion. I would ~mke that as a motion
to table to get the additional information from the other people. Is there a
second?
51
City Council Meeting - Dece~-~er 4, 1989
Councilman Workman: I'll second it to disc~]ss it a little.
Councilman Johnson: You can't disc~]ss a motion to table.
Mayor Ckmiel: Oh, that's right. It's a tabling motion. Don't second it.
Let's have a disc,]ssion.
Councilman Workr~an: Dean, are you fsm,iliar with what Met Council's projections
were for pop~]lation for Chanhassen in the year 290~?
Dean Johnson: I think I have it.
Councilman Workr~an: I ~now what it is. Maybe you can take a stab. Well, to
save us all time, it's ig,~gg for the year 2g0g and we're well, well, well past
that and people are lining up to get into this co~'~unity. I think a lot of your
co~'~ents kind of ~,issed the mark in telling ,~s how much Met Council and other
stastistical agencies tell ~m how m~]ch of a certain kind of housing we should
have or we're supposed to maybe feel guilty on how much we have of that or not.
We don't have trailer homes in town either and I suppose a trailer home group
could come in and say well you should have them. The issue Brad with the
apartment buildings I think I would agree with more on that side. I'm looking
more at the single garage, more townhome type things. I live in a townhome, as
I've indicated before. Two stalls in my townhome, 2 bedrooms, is not very much
roa~. As I've mentioned to people before, if yo,~ drive down Pontiac Lane where
the twin homes are and they have 2 car stalls, there's trucks and cars and
garbage and you can't hardly get down the street. It looks terrible. I drive
through it every day. Those people aren't the reason for this ordinance but
again you're bring up a group of people or a very large group of people that
maybe we're s,~pposed to feel sorry for. Maybe we're not s~]pposed to. Divorced
people, single people. I understand there's an awful lot of need out there. We
could all be divorced and single so~eday but parking is the issue and storage is
not the issue I would say. You can always find rooo~ for storage or yogi throw it
o~]t. The parkin9 issue, you know I ~]sed to live down where Peter used to live
down, or yogi live somewhere down in Minneapolis down in Lake Harriet. I used to
live down by Lake Harriet and there's 5 of us in this big ho~]se. We were the
problem in the neighborhood. I'll admit it. ~4e were the problem. We're the
rente~;s because rente~:s are a little more transient and move around and do a
little more things. They party a little more and they've got a little more oats
to sow and so I don't feel as tho~]gh we owe anybody an ability to rent in the
city. I do have some concerns about large employers in this city and a lot of
those employees being able to get some housing but I think those are a couple of
different issues. I still think that the City has a right and can have the
right to what the aesthetics are of these complexes and for me that's the issue.
My townhome association has a very sound r~]le of everybody has a 2 car garage.
Garage door shut and both cars in the garage. No parking o~]tside for any
distance. It's in our By-laws. I think it's a good idea. It keeps things nice
and tidy and clean and it doesn't look like a big parking lot. I think that's
where ~e're heading. I don't mean to sh,]t people out. I just think where this
city is heading, you and I maybe have a different idea about where we're heading
or where v~'re able to and where v~ should be heading. But Met Council has
gotten our population way wrong, let alone highway funding. Let alone whatever.
52
City Council Meeting - Dece~oer 4~ 1989
CounciL,~an Johnson: I definitely agree with Tom on F~t Council' Using th~ as
an authority does not carry a heck of a lot of weight but I do believe in life
cycle housing. I believe that when my kid goes to work, whether he chooses to
go to college or if he goes to tech school or whatever when he first gets out of
whatever schooling and decides to live someplace, I'd like hi., to have the
opportunity to live in Chanhassen. I'd like to have hi.~ have the opportunity
for affordable housing in Chanhassen. I do not think that we should endeavor or
should become an exclusive co~m~unity where we say you've got to be making
$30,000.00 or $40,000.00 before you can move into the co~m~unity because the
price of our housing is too high. I think we need a cc~plete span. I do think
that some of these places do get rather unorderly with too n-tony cars parked all
over the place. Shoot, I have a neighbor who's got 4 kids but none of the~ are,
the oldest one's only 12 but he's got 4 cars too. I don't think he's ever sold
a car that he's bought. He's the exception. I have another elderly retired
couple and they have 2 cars. She likes big cars, he likes little cars. They
can't agree on what kind to buy so they each have their own. So you know not
all seniors, you can't clum~p anybody into a group. I don't like what this would
do to affordable housing in town. I think there is room for affordable housing.
I think it's up to the developer to decide. I think that I can see the Don
Patton area, some of his areas would be very convenient to, in fact across the
street from the ind,lstrial park where his R-12 is, once the Lake Drive West
continues on west. One side of the street is R-12, the other side of the street
is indust~ial, if I rem~ember right. That's where you'd be looking for another
area of affordable housing. If we told th~-~ we had to have 2 stalls enclosed in
there, that would drastically hurt the affordable housing and hurt our
businessmen plus just one more step towards ~-mking this an exclusive city, which
I think we need everything so I'm against 2 stalls enclosed. I do believe we
need room for 2 cars. 1 in, 1 out. I'd encourage people, if anybody wants to
do a PUD, we may be able to do so~e negotiating there too. We add some more. I
think we need the visitor's parking is very important so 1 in, 1 out and a
c~]arter for visitors maybe. That's my con~ents Don.
Councilwoman Di"~ler: I agree with what both of you said and I'd like to add
that on page 5, section 20-1123, with the lighting. I did have a letter from a
Janet Arnold that lives at Chan view Apartments 9102 and her concern was that in
the present situation and all the places that you've been in multiple family
parking lots, that the lighting is not adec~]ate. It's okay in the wintertime
when the snow reflects the light but in the s~mm~ertime it's very dangerous in
that the light gets absorbed and they cannot see and she feels that they are
unsafe and I guess I'd have to agree with her. So I would like to see under
lighting, that that would be extended or that we look at maybe having some
specific rec~_]irements as to how much lighting. Not just that it be lit. Does
that mean that we just have 1 light? You know, we ought to look more
extensively into that Jo Ann, as to having some rec~]irements as to...
Councilman Johnson: How many foot candles.
Councilwoman Di"~ler: How many foot candles there are, that's right. Because it
is not adec~]ate.
Mayor Chmiel: Just so I don't have to reiterate, I guess I agree with what's
being said here. I really do because I've driven around and I've looked at
Brooklyn Park, Plymouth, areas that the parking is as such and I'm sure you're
bringing up with single individuals or single car stalls. There to I find that
53
City Council Meeting - Deceu~oer 4, 1989
the impact to that neighborhood is just absol~ltely chaotic because there are
boats, cars, vans, all over. It just, in my opinion, is j,~st not as neat as it
should be. Aesthetically I think it's just not there. I really agree with some
of the concerns that have been disc~ssed so with that I feel wi~h what we have
bro~ght forth to what's being proposed, my s~ggestion is still that we table
this to get some inp~t from so~.e of the other people and move on with that.
Councilman Johnson: How can we handle the unsightliness that yo~l're talking
about?
Brad Johnson: I was just going to address the unsightliness. You've raised the
c~_]estion about possibly doing...All around Edenvale they're all 1 car garages.
They have figured out some way in the design of the system...
Councilman Workman: Well we don't have control over that.
Councilwoman Dimler: There's parking all over the streets there.
Brad Johnson: No. They don't allow parking in the street.
Councilwoman Dimler: My daughter has a friend that lives behind there and I
co~]ld barely get into the neighborhood.
Brad Johnson: I just visited them and...
Ymyor Chmiel: The best t]~e to visit them is after 6:gg in the evening. Try it
on Sat~]rdays. That's what I did.
Brad Johnson: And I'm not sure you can control those types of things somehow.
Councilman Workman: They're 2 car garages also.
Brad Johnson: Some had just 1.
Co~]nci]m,an Workman: Not the twins though. The townhomes are all 2 car garages.
Brad Johnson: I'm not talking about the twins.
Councilman Workman: I know but they're 2 car garages and there's still stuff
hanging out of the,~.
Councilman Johnson: You give a person the opportunity, they'll fill their
garage. They' 11 buy a boat.
Dean Johnson: ...an observation for me b~]t what it seems is happening here is
you're rec~.]iring everything to be inside so it's aesthetically pretty.
Mayor Chmiel: That was only my view.
Dean Johnson: Well, a couple mentioned things hanging out of garages, those
types of things. W~at yogi're going to do is put the burden on them and you' re
going to get rid of affordable housing. If everything has to look perfect...
54
City Council Meeting - Dece~er 4~ 1989
Mayor Chmiel: We want affordable housing in the co~-~unity, there's no question
but I think some consideration should be given too as to what we're directing
and what we ' re saying.
Dean Johnson: Well we agree. We're not against 2 spaces. We're not even
against... What we're saying is trying to impose that on an apartment building
or any...so you can get that market also, you're going to find that 2 car
garages is going to blow you out of that market. You're not going to be able to
have that in Chanhassen. If you want to be an exclusive cc~-u~unity, those are
the types of things that you do need. If you want to not be an exclusive
c o.'~uni ty.
Councilwoman Dimler: Dean, would you address the difference in price between 1
car and 2 car?
Dean Johnson: In the townhomes?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Is $10,000.00 difference?
Dean Johnson: $10,000.00 to $15,000.00.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you're looking at between $55,000.00 and
$65,000.00? Well, I think $65,000.00 is considered affordable housing.
Dean Johnson: It ~my be. If you look at wages, it's not. I mean if you look
at what a person's w-ages, if you look at the economic report that w-as t~]t out by
the Trade, Minnesota Trade and Economic Development, they gave wages. If you
take those wages and you c~]alify those people at 10% and give them sc~e long
term debt, in other words a car payment. Even if you only get half of it, you
only get say $100.00 to $150.00 a month in long term debt, they don't c~_]alify
for $65,000.00. That was brought out again to the Planning Co~.~ission.
Mayor Ctm~iel: Okay, I made ~ motion previously to table.
Councilwoman Dimler: I second that.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action on the zoning
ordinance amencl,,ent regarding off-street parking and loading to provide
dJ~ensional standards, increase parking rec~_]irements if warranted by site plan
review and to rec~ire enclosed parking for 2 vehicles for multiple family
dwellings for more input. All voted in favor and the motion ca, tied.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR
CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS, FIRST READING.
Mayor C?m, iel moved, CounciL,~an Workman seconded to table action on the zoning
ordinance amendment modifying zoning restrictions and locations for convenience
stores, gas stations and automotive service stations. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
55
City Co~lncil Meeting - Dece~floer 4, 1989
ZONING ORDINANCE A~MENDMENT REC~ARDING REVISIONS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW
FOR THE REVIEW AND GRANTING OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR USES THAT ARE
TEMPORARY IN NATURE IN ALL DISTRICTS, FIRST READING.
Mayor Ckmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the zoning
ordinance amend~,ent regarding revisions to the zoning ordinance to allow for the
review and granting of conditional use pe~P'~its for uses that are temporary in
nature in all districts. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REVIEW PROPOSALS AND AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT TO CONDUCT A SENIOR
NEEDS STUDY UTILIZING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS.
Resolution #89-136: Councilor',an Workman moved, Councilwa~an Diu~ler seconded to
authorize staff to enter into a contract with J. M. Research Associates for
$7,50g.gg of Co~unity Development Block Grant funds to conduct a senior needs
st~]dy. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Johnson: I'd like the City Attorney to look into drafting an
ordinance to require, as I said in the previous council meeting, I don't think
vending machines was going ~ite far enough. Once the vending machines aren't
there, it's going to be shoplifting. In fact I plan on asking Brooke's on what
is their losses over their tobacco products. They do a weekly inventory. Once
a week they come in and inventory the entire store. I thought it was rather
excessive too b~lt nobody's walking, they know exactly what walks out of there
quite a bit so I'm going to find out.
Councilwo~an Dimler: They don't have their tobacco products behind the counter
at present?
Councilman Johnson: No. If you go into Brooke's and you're at the counter, to
your left is a display of Salem. Below you is the cigars, pipe tobacco, sn~]ff,
etc. and to your right.
Mayor Cbr~iel: Zig Zag papers.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, Zig Zag papers and to the right are your cartons. So
when a child goes ,]p there to buy candy, he's s,]rrounded on 3 sides by tobacco
products.
Councilman Workman: They've got a rack don't they?
Council,,an Johnson: And they've got racks all across the top and they have more
cartons on the bottom. It would be no inconvenience to them whatsoever to put
it all behind the counter. So that's what I'd like to do.
Councilwoman Dimler: Would you go along with having them, rec~]ire them to wear
this b~]tton?
Councilman Johnson: I think that's going a little far. I think that's stomping
on their rights. I don't know, what does your b~]tton say?
56
City Council Meeting - December 4~ 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: The button says, it says you've got the cutest baby face,
may I please see your ID. That when they sell the~ cigarettes, the child knows
that they're going to be...
Councilman Johnson: My poor brother was carded until he was over 30. He got
carded in an 18 state when he was 32.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, and they don't mind being carded.
Councilman Johnson: Oh, he did.
Councilman Wo)~kman: Jay, are you suggesting that staff would do a proposal?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I~]t together a proposed ordinance for that.
Mayor Chmiel: Do we need a motion for that?
Don Ashworth: I really think that you should. The appointment to Southwest
Metro, I think you'd agree as to who the ~er should be earlier in the agenda.
Jo Ann sent ~'~ a note saying we should vote on that.
Councilman Work, mn: I would move approval of Debra Kind.
Councilwc~an Dimler: I would second that.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to appoint Debra Kind to
the Southwest Metro Transit Co~m~ission. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
Don Ashworth: The State really continues to do it to us. We set a special
~eting date for consideration of the Budget for Dece~-~oer llth. We had a
back-up date for the 18th. State law states, or now I find out, we cannot set
our date on the sa,~ date that was set by Hennepin County, Eden Prairie School
Districts, Carver Co~ty, Chaska School District, Minnetonka School District or
Shakopee School District. Have I missed anybody?
Councilman Johnson: Shakopee?
Don Ashworth: Yep. The very lower Y. Even Eden Prairie School District
because co, m~ercial, you have no children going to Eden Prairie School District
yet a co~e~cial property tax payer may want to attend an Eden Prairie School
District meeting to protest and therefore he can't cc~e here. So that basically
what we need to do is, and I've got from the State, we don't have to do the
$350.00 one but Dave has agreed he will try to get it in this week's edition
which would cancel the special meeting for the llth. Now we need to have a
secondary date and the earliest we could look to would be Thursday the 21st,
Saturday morning the 23rd. I'm ass~_~ing we'd just as soon skip...
Mayor Chmiel: How about Thursday the 21st?
57
City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989
Councilr~an Workman: [ge have HRA that night.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. You're on HRA.
CounciLman Work, Lan: So's Don.
Councilman Johnson: How abo~t at 5:gg on the 21st? I've got a 7:3g meeting.
Southwest Advisory Co~'~ittee and he's got HRA.
The Council set 1~_~esday, DeceP~oer 19, 1989 at 7:0g p.m. for the public hearing
for the 199g budget.
Don Ashworth: The proposed budget we do have at this point in ti~e balanced and
we will be getting that out to the City Council hopefully Wednesday so you
should have it.
Councilman Workman moved, Co~mcilwoman Digger seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15
p .D'L o .
S~,itted by DOn Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
58