Loading...
1989 11 20CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 Mayor CTm~iel called the ~m=eting to order at 7:30 p.m., .The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. ~ ~ COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Clm~iel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and CounciL,~an Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Todd Gerhardt, Paul Krauss, J~ Chaffee and Jo Ann Olsen APPROVAL OF AGENDA: CounciL-~an Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions: Councilman Bovt wanted to disc~]ss t%]blic Safety Co~ission Minutes, Councilman Workman ~a~ted to move item 4 before item 3 and to discuss the Police Contract, Mayor Chmiel wanted to discuss Cities Fight Back Against Drug Week, and Councilwoman Dimler wanted to discuss Chanhassen Tobacco Free Youth Project. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Chmiel drew the na, e for the Recycling Prize. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler ~)ved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda item,s pursuant to the City Manager's recc~m~endati OhS: a. Resolution #89-121: Accept Utility and Roadway I~rovements in Creek ~]n. b. Resolution #89-122: Consider Na~e Change for 184th Avenue. c. Resolution #89-123: Authorize Preparation of Plans and sPecifications for Construction of City Wells Nos. 5 and 6. e. Approve Contract for Financial Advisor Services. f. Resolution #89-124: Resolution Setting Hearing Date for the Sale of Bonds of 1989. g. Approval of Accounts. h. City Council Minutes dated November 6, 1989 Planning Co~m~ission Minutes dated November 1, 1989 t~.%blic Safety Co, m~ission Minutes dated October 12, 1989 i. Resolution #89-125: Accept Utility and Roadway I~rovem~ents in Stratford Ridge. j. Resolution #89-126: Approve Change Order No. 1 and Certificate of S,%bstantial Completion, Chanhassen Clock Tower, Entry Mon~nent and Dinner Theatre Stage Sign. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting - November 20, 1989 D. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING "CITIES FIGHT BACK AGAINST DRUGS WEEK" Councilman Johnson: 11his is Cities Fight Back Against Drugs and we have here resolution where the City of Chanhassen gets firmly behind the war against drugs that this nation has to fight. I think it's a most worth while effort. I don't know if we need to read this page long resolution. I don't think so. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think it's necessary. Councilman Johnson: But the bottom line on this is the City is pledging to fight drugs in all aspects and we are by this resolution declaring the City of Chanhassen as a dr~ free area and we're going to work towards that goal. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I've seen this go through the process over in the City of St. Paul and it was bro~]ght to my attention and this is one of the items that I feel is very close to all of us and something that we have to take a position on. Even though this is just basically paper, what we're trying to do is make people fully aware that we' re not going to allow people coming into this co~unity, selling drugs, using drugs. We're having within a lot of the business establishments posters that are posted making those people aware of the fact that this is a drug free city. I know it sounds a little hard to accept beca~]se of just saying it that way but the full intent and the full Council I know feels that way and I for one am fully supportive of this and want to see drugs eliminated from this co~'~unity. So with that I guess we can look for a motion for item l(d) . Resolution #89-127: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to declare Dece~er 3-9, 1989 as Cities Fight Back Against Drugs Week in the City of Chanhassen and further resolving that the City of Chanhassen will sponsor Drug Awareness Programs, literature drops, red ribbon distributions, media attention, cc~unity involvement and go on record urging community groups, schools, businesses, civic organizations to support and participate is special activities during that week and to draw co~'~unity attention to this issue. ~_]rthermore, that the City declare our co~unity a drug free area, making this a goal that all the City's resources will be co~itted to. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION OF FRAMED COPY OF SCHOOL DISTRICT 112 STATEMENT OF VALUES, MARGIE KARJALAHTI. Margie Ka~:jalahti: It is really a delight to be back here because I am so excited, especially hearing about the Drug Awareness Week, the program. The resolution the Council's just made. On behalf of the Values Co~ittee of our Youth Development Task Force, would like to present the City of Chanhassen with a framed copy of the Values which you have adopted for our city which can be hung in a nice place for everyone to see. I also would like you to reme~oer that the adoption of these means more than just paper too. We really would love to work with you in making people aware of these values. Through the Drug Awareness Program, that just hits on respect for others and integrity and citizenship just real quick off the top of my head and we have already had some leads in working with the city government on ways that we can help you. We have co~ up with two program,s that we would like to present to somebody on your City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 staff and they maybe could figure out where it would fit in best that we'd be able to work with making an awareness program work in Chanhassen. Tais being my town I'm really excited about it so I'll give this to you. M~yor Chmiel: Thank you. I appreciate it. We' 11 put it in a place where everyone can see it. One other thing too in talking about the drug situation, which also came to mind is w~'re trying ,to tie it in with a few of ~the other cities in and adjacent to the City of Chanhassen. By doing~this we' figure we can get everyone involved in it in making them aware on the things ~that are really things that can take place ~and happen. If you-See something happening, call our police department. Be involved. Don't sidestep it. I feel so strong about this. I feel that it's something that we really, really have to grab by the throat and just choke it out. But there are ~z3ny other things that we have going with this as well this particular week. There will also be an evening presentation of showing what the drugs are. What to look for. What they consist of. That will be brought in by our Sheriff's Department and the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force so there will be a lot of different things happening during that particular week. Now I' 11 move on. Is there anyone else wishing to make any visitor's presentations? PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROHIBITING CIGARETTE SALES VIA VENDING MACHINES. ~blic Present: Name Address Dr. Jean Forester Norm Perzinski Nancy Lang John Carlson Matt Kelso Melissa Mensdel Ted Korzonowsky Tom Briant ~]ss Pauly University of Minnesota Chaska Police Departm~ent American Lung Association of Minnesota 902 Penamint Court, America Cancer Society President, Chaska High School Student Council Vice Pres.,.Chaska High School Student Council Prairie HOuse Restaurant Coalition for Responsible Vending Sales Pauly's Jim Chaffee: Although I wrote the m~o, clearly this movement has been started by Tc~ Workman here and he just points to Councilme~er D~ler, but Tom Workman has done a vast majority of the work on this and I would just let Tom take it frc~ here. councilman Work~n: How nice. I'll just say a couple words and then we can, I know this would be a ~]blic hearing so we should open it up to the ~blic and I know we have an awful lot of people that want to ~mke some cc~ents. I guess ~ only hope this evening is that the issue stays in fact on the issue which is the marriage of cigarettes and vending machines. If we can accomplish that slim goal, maybe we can get this taken care of but I don't anticipate that happening but I would like to Mr. Mayor hear sc~ c~ments. I will have sc~e cc~nts afterwards but I'd hear some comments from the ~]blic if I may. City Council Meeting - Nove~oer 20, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. As many of you know, we're considering an ordinance amendment prohibiting the cigarette sales in vending machines basically to eliminate children that are not the age of being able to s~oke. Many of the things I've seen and many of the things I've read and a lot of things I've hear. d,. it appears as though Chanhassen is a good growing spot for kids within the school district to come here and acc~_~ire their cigarettes from vending machines. So with that, anyone wishing to come forward and let ne establish a possible rule. I'd like to try to keep this to maybe 5 minutes per person. If it might take a little longer, fine. We'll go along with that. I'd like to hear the proponents for reproving these frc~ vending machines first and those that are in opposition will then have the.~.r opportunity right afterwards. So those of you who would like to co~ forth, please state your na~e and your address or who you're actually representing. Dr. Jean Forester: My name is Dr. Jean Forester. I'm on the faculty of the School of t~.%blic Health at the University of Minnesota. Councilme~ers and Mr_. Mayor. It's a pleasure to be here tonight to be able to talk to you about this issue. I especially am excited to hear that you're considering this ordinance in light of your previous action against drugs in Chanhassen. This is especially appropriate to be considering the ordinance to ban the sale of cigarettes through vending machines at the sa~e meeting as you passed your other ordinance. I'm here to talk to you about cigarette addiction as a childhood epidemic. More people start smoking at age 13 than at any other age. 60% of smokers start by the age of 14. 90% begin s~oking by the age of 19 so the vast majority of adult s~okers begin when they are truly children. Before they have the opportunity, in my way of thinking, to make an informed decision on this issue. Tobacco is also considered a gateway drug in that the research says that young people who smoke are 15 times more likely than non-smokers to graduate to narcotic drugs. This isn't to say that everybody who smokes or every child who smokes is going to becc~e addicted to drugs but they have a much higher chance than non-smokers to becc~e addicted. Now I became involved in this as a public health issue as a researcher at the University of Minnesota. I did some research that I'd like to just s~arize for you tonight. We were curious about just how accessible cigarettes are to young people so we worked with three co~unities in the northern suburbs, Hastings, Stillwater and White Bear Lake and we took a variety of children, age 12 to 15 into all of the tobaCco license holders in those three cc~unities. The res~]lts were that they were able to purchase the cigarettes in about 60% of the time. This means that youngsters as young as 12 were able to get cigarettes in a large nu~er of the occasions. This includes 53% of their attempts in over the counter sales but 79% of the attemps from vending machines. This included all kinds of outlets including restaurants, gas stations, convenience stores, grocery stores, drug stores, lic~.]or stores, private cl~s and bars. Many people think that children either can't go into bars, liquor stores or private clubs or don't. In fact, there's nothing in the State law that says that children cannot go in there. They simply cannot go into those places for the purposes of buying alcohol. We found that our young people have no problem getting cigarettes in those places. We've heard...information frc~ bar owners and people like that that they have young people coming in there frec~]ently attempting to buy cigarettes from those places. Especially frc~ vending machines in those places. Another aspect of our research was to look at the ~pact of the increase penalty for sale before and after. July 1 the State penalty for sale of cigarettes to minors increased from a petty misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor. That means that the maxim[t,~ penalty is now $3,000.g0 fine or a year in jail. KIa had collected our earlier City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 data in April and May and cc~pared that to data we collected in July~ Three weeks after, the incr.eased penalty went into effect. What we found out was that the penalty did have an impact on over the counter sales. Over the counter sales decr.eased from 52% to 38% comparing before and after the penalty. However, vending machines there was no impact on vending machine sales so the law apparently is not able to address the issue of access of kids through vending machines. Another interesting point that we found from our. research is that there's a big difference in boys and girls in their accessibility to cigarettes over the counter. Young boys, for whatever reason, I don' t know what it is, young boys have a much harder time buying cigarettes than young girls do. Young girls 12 years look like 12 year olds can buy cigarettes over the counter quite readily. What we found is that young boys, 13 and 14 years old, have a very difficult time buying cigarettes over the counter. A pair of 14 year old boys in April and May of 1989 were able to buy cigarettes only 22% of the time over the counter. However, they were able to buy cigarettes 74% of the time frc~ vending machines. After the new penalty went into effect, these same young boys were only able to buy cigarettes 9% of the time that they tried in over the counter sales. However, they were still able to buy cigarettes 70% of the time from vending machines so clearly vending machines don't have the ability to distinc~]ish age of the buyer. They also can't be trained the way people who sell over the counter can. Thank you. No~.m Perzinski: Good evening Mayor and Councilm~ers. My name is Norm Perzinski. I'm a police officer with the City of Chaska assigned as a police school liason officer between the school district and the Chaska Police Department. National survey data indicates that 57% of high school seniors who report daily smoking, began when they were 14 years of age. Stopping a sale of tobacco to minor.s is an important step in any effort to prevent tobacco use. Easy access to tobacco is obviously a prerequisite to maintaining a tobacco addiction. In fact three quarters of smokers in high school still ~oke 7 to 9 years later.. In January of 1988 the City of Santa Clara, California conducted a study into looking at reducing the illegal sale of cigarettes and tobacco products to minors. In that study the city of Santa Clara had 18 minors aged 14 to 16 years of age go into 412 stores, including outlets that had 30 vending machines. These minors went into these stores and also the outlets with vending machines with the intent to purchase cigarettes or illegal tobacco products. These minors were successful 74% of the time buying in stores over the counter and successful 100% of the time buying from vending mach~ines. The City of Santa Clar.a then conducted a 6 month campaign using cor, munity media, merchant education, contact with CEO's of the chain stor.es and grass roots work with co~unity organizations. After the 6 month period of education, they again sent in the 18 minors to ~]rchase cigarettes in stores and outlets with vending machines. The study found that the percentage of stores with the legal over the counter, sales of cigarettes to minor.s was reduced to 39%. However, the 18 minors were still able to obtain cigarettes from vending machines 100% of the time they atte~pted to buy from the vending machines. What this study showed was that a good education campaign can greatly reduce sales in stores but the inability to reduce vending machine sales suggests that elimination is the only effective way to stop minors from buying cigarettes through vending machines. Recently Chaska High School conducted a focus day on smoking. Each student who went thr.ough this focus day filled out an anonymous survey form. The main thing we asked for. from the smokers is where they purchased their cigarettes. Of course the most resounding answer to this question was none of your business or mind your own business. I'm not going to tell you because you'll just bust the City Council Meeting - November 20, 1989 owners and I can't get my cigarettes. After this the most answers we heard were from stores and vending machines followed by parents, friends or they had an adult purchase them for them. Since September, or over the s~i~er, the Chaska Police Department, Carver County Sheriff, I believe the Chanhassen Public Safety Department, Juvenile Court Services and the court syste~ in Carver County met to develop a policy for the unifok~ enforcement of not only the sale of tobacco to minors but the use of tobacco. What we agreed is law enforcement organizations, that's people under the age of 18 caught using tobacco would be issued a citation. Would have to go to court and look at paying a $40.00 fine or perfon~'J~ng 8 hours of co~unity work service. Since that time the Chaska Police Department has issued 25 citations to juveniles. When these citations are issued primarily by myself, I conducted a very informal, unscientific survey just merely asking these st~]dents where they're obtaining their cigarettes. The biggest 2 answers were stores and vending machines. This was about in September. Last week I issued probably another 5 citations to students caught s~oking asking them again where are you obtaining your cigarettes. The answer I heard only was vending machines. Not you obtain vending machine cigarettes are extre~ely expensive and I asked the students why are you buying ther~ from vending machines and not stores and they said because we cannot get them from stores and no one monitors the vending machines. Recently a Chaska resident, male, juvenile who lives in the city of Chaska, I caught for smoking was issued a citation. The ~portance of this was I asked him where are you buying your cigarettes. He said I go to Chanhassen to buy them from vending machines because you can't buy them in stores in Chaska. About a month ago the Chief of Police in Chaska, Greg Skol, contacted every business that had a vending ~achineo Bars, restaurants, businesses asking them that instead of passing an ordinance could we get some voluntary compliance, moving them to an area where the vending machines could be monitored. Recently again within the week I issued another citation to a male juvenile asking him where he got his cigarettes and he said he got th~ fro~ a business establishment that is both a bar and a resta~]rant. Chief of Police had contacted this bar and restaurant a month ago. Was told that the machine ~ould be moved. In calling back this owner, we had found that the machine had not been moved. I want to thank all of you tonight for giving this opportunity for me to talk and I applaud your efforts and courage to make this diffic~]lt decision on a very controversial issue. Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to talk? Nancy Lang: I'll just speak real briefly. I'm Nancy Lang with the Amercian Lung Association of Minnesota. Obviously my interests here are pretty clear. I don't have too many statistics. My er~phasis really is environmental health and today I was asked to go and give a talk to a respiratory support group that's called Huffers and ~]ffers on the effects of outdoor air pollution on lung disease patients. I couldn't help thinking as I looked out at these people with their oxygen tubes and paraphenalia that 30 and 40 years ago they had made scr~e pretty critical decisions that we're talking about here so it's kind of funny how things cc~ full circle. Anyway, my point is to obviously support the intention of the City of Chanhassen. I realize it is a difficult situation and to also encourage you to hold fitr~ as the ordinance is written right now in the model of the White Bear Lake. I think the intent is not to criminalize youth. I think a move that would say it's illegal for children to purchase cigarettes is not the way to go in the City of Chanhassen or any other city. I think what's important is that responsible sales of cigarettes is the priority because City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 children under the age of 18, we all assume they have sc~.~e naivete and I think we have to take that into account but we assume that people who are selling cigarettes for a profit need to act responsibly. I would also support the idea that having so much ~phasis in the schools on tobacco education and yet having vending machines available is a real mixed message to kids. It's like saying well, don't smoke and don't think about tobacco and stay clean and all that kind of stuff but yet when we give ths~ an easy port of entry for cigarettes, I think that's one of the more blatant mixed ~ssages that we can pick out in terms of health education for youth. So with those comments I' 11 complete my summary. John Carlson: I'm John Carlson. I'm a resident of Chanhassen at 902 Penamint Court, a hc~eowner. I'm also here as a representative of the American Cancer Society. I'm their Vice President of Development. I too am here to speak in favor of this proposal. I think it's reasonable. I think it will send a very good symbol to the parents and to the children of our co~unity and I think it's a step in the right direction. 2,000 people in Minnesota this year are going to develop lung cancer. Over 80% of those cases are going to be fatal. If you did a case study on each one of those 2,000 people you'd find that many of them began their smoking habits when they were very young. Will this proposal change that? No. But it will be a step in the right direction because it's going to make it harder for youth to obtain those cigarettes and I agree with the representative frc~ the Lung Association that by treating youth as criminals, that's not the way to address this problem. We need to address this problem with the adults in our c~unity. The owners of the establishments that have these vending machines and to make it less accessible for the youth to obtain th~. I found the co~ents frc~ the representative frc~ the Chaska Police Department very insightful and I think his testimony in and of itself is I think presents a really solid case for why the City Council should support and put in place this type of amendment. Our organization recently, last Thursday at the D Day celebration in downtown Minneapolis, applauded White Bear Lake's City Council for what they did and hopefully we'll be able to applaud you tonight as m~ers of the City Council if you would pass this legislation. Matt Kelso: Councilmembers, Mr. Mayor, I 'm Matt Kelso. I 'm the President of the Student Council at the High School and this is Melissa Mendsel, the Vice President of the Student Council at the High School. Recently the Executive Board of the Student Council passed a resolution that Melissa's handing to you. It states, Whereas, cigarette smoking is a proven health hazard; Whereas, many students beco~ addicted to cigarette smoking at young ages; Whereas, the students in our area co~l~nities have complete access to each and every c~ity; and Whereas, the Chaska School District #112 will legally become Smoke Free as of January 1, 1990, ~nerefore, Be It Resolved that the Chaska Senior High School Executive Board supports the prohibition of cigarette dispensing machines and the sale of tobacco to persons under the age of 18 years in our area co~unities. As you can see, we the Executive Board, through the knowledge of the alarming statistics that have been brought up tonight and are prevelent in our media today, support your efforts on this issue. Smoking not only harms our peers who smoke, it harms everyone. ~nank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Those who wish to address the issue frc~ the other aspect? Ted Korzonowsky: My name is Ted Korzonowsky, proprietor of the Prairie House Restaurant. We do have a cigarette vending machine in there too. In principle City Council Meeting - Novem~oer 20, 1989 I concur with the proposal that we want to stop some of this cigarette selling but on the other hand, we as business people have an investment here. Now who's going to take care of my investment if you outlaw the machine and who's going to cover my profit that I'm making off that machine? I think your ordinance is just black and white. I think the other gentleman said, now if we had them in a an area that's controlled, just like we do over the counter, you can have that machine by the register sc~eplace where we can control it. It's no different than going to the drug store and buying over the counter. I don't know why you're zeroing in on cigarettes. It seems to me there's a real problem with alcoholism ~here b~]t I don't see you, you know concentrating on the lice]or store and the bars. Any of these drug stores, not drug stores but gas stations have vending machines for condoms. You know no one's putting, they're available to anybody that wants them and Aids is spreading like crazy. Why are we only looking at cigarettes? It seems to me you zeroed in on one subject because White Bear did it and all of a sudden, cigarettes have been a problem here for years and all of a sudden why are we so excited about it? People have been dying of lung cancer and what not for years and years. How many people here smoke? ~]ite a few. So you know, the children are going to get the cigarettes. They can get adults to buy it for the~. They can go anywhere they want. If they w-ant to get them, they're going to get them. Throwing out a few, what do we got, 10 machines in town here? 157 You can't legislate morality as far as I'm concerned. Those kids that smoke at that early age, they're going to get cigarettes one way or the other. You're not going to stop them. Where you've really got to start is educating at hc~e. The family. Start at the home. It's the parent's responsibility to educate their children on the proper things in life and that's where it really starts. Throwing out machines is a nice jesture and it looks good in the paper but I don't think you're going to solve the problem. The ones that come in our resta~]rant, we've been catching them. Those children are going to get cigarettes sc~eplace and same with the liquor store. I notice you have 3 or 4 armed, not armed guards but you have Sargeant at Arms there because how many children try to buy lic~.]or over there? If they don't get it there, they go somewhere else. If you give a guy $10.00, he'll go in and buy it for you. So you're not going to really solve the problem that way. It's education in the schools and in the homes as far as I'm concerned but I would like to see this amended to read that if we've got them someplace where we can control this. Why discriminate against us. The drug store's got tons of cigarettes he's selling over the counter and your statistics showed that 70% of them are still getting them,, even over the counter so why don't we take out the cigarettes altogether? You're not going to really stop theme. The only way you're going to do it is cut all cigarettes out in the town. Period. Which is drug stores, the whole works. I don't think you're going to control it but I like to see, like I said before, I've got $1,000.00 investment in the machine and I supposed sc~e of the other people do too. I ~mke $70. 00-$80. 00-$90. 0~ a month profit. The City comes, they raise our taxes. They raise this. They raise the sewer. We' re trying to make a few bucks and all you' re doing is digging into our pocket and I'm sure some of the other people feel the same way that here's a chance. You know we can make good profit on that machine but let us control it. Give us an opportunity to try to control it. Maybe give us a year's time to see what we can do about it rather than just arbitrarily just throw the thing out. But like I say, I agree that cigarette s~oking is bad. None of my children s~oke. I don't smoke. My wife doesn't smoke but we've educated our kids at home. The cause is good but I think the way we're going at it is w~ong. That's all I've got to say. City Co~cil M~eting - November 20~ 1989 Tom Briant: Mr. Mayor, CounciL,~ers. My name is Tom Briant. I'm an attorney and I represent the Coalition for Responsible Vending Sales. That is a group of 5 state organizations that all have an interest in vending ~mchine sales. The coalition certainly doesn't support the sale of cigarettes to minors nor minors smoking cigarettes. In fact we wholeheartedly oppose such an idea. The coalition does support a partial restriction of vending machines and I would ask you to consider two things. First, legislation is currently being drafted that will be introduced this winter session to control this issue on a statewide basis. It will provide a uniform resolution to this proble~. When I spoke to the Hastings City Council 2 weeks ago, much as I'm speaking to you here tonight, they tabled the action on their individual ordinance because legislation is being drafted. The legislation will take precedent over any city actions taken. If that legislation passes, what will be done here tonight, if it is passed in any form, will all be a ~ot question. Second, in terms of the actual partial restriction that we are supporting. The language basically allows machines to re~in in factories and businesses where minors can not generally gain access. Locations where liquor is sold and locations that we have supervision over the machine. As the restaurant owner said, if there can be an adult employee that can supervise that ~chine to ~ke sure minors do not purchase cigarettes from that machine, then the machine should be allowed to remain. I give you an example of the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre. They have a machine out in their front lobby. That machine should not be there. Rather, the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre should have the option to move that machine to one of it's two bars. They've asked for that vending machine to provide a service to their custom,rs. Now you'd be re~]iring them to remove that ~chine and the can no longer provide that service. ~ ask that you allow them to remove that machine to the bar locations where the minors are generally not allowed. Another part of the legislation and sc~ething else that we ask you to consider tonight is a penalty for minors who buy cigarettes through vending machines. Under State law it's illegal to sell cigarettes to minors. It's illegal for minors to use cigarettes or smoke them. It is not a crime or unlawful in this state for a minor to buy cigarettes. I have proposed penalty language to give you tonight and I'll pass it our shortly. What we ask you to do is consider that the minors be responsible for their own actions and such a penalty we believe would deter those actions. The penalty basically sets up a fine for a minor of $100.00 for a first violation and $200.00 for a second violation. That is in conjunction with State criminal juvenile codes. Also in this week the Chaska Herald had an editorial. It supports the kind of partial ban that we are considering here and I'm proposing to you and we suggest that that is a reasonable compromise and should be seriously considered by this Council. At this time Mr. Mayor and Councilm~ers, I'd like to pass out the penalty language and the editorial in the Chaska Herald. Counc i lman Boyt: We ' ve got i t. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I already have the Chaska. Tc~ Briant: But I don't believe you have the penalty language. Councilman Boyt: No. We'd be happy to have it. Tc~ Briant: One final cogent. We've shown you studies and we've provided you the su~maries of the studies that show that more minors purchase cigarettes over the co~ter than through vending machines and Dr. Forester presented her studies City Council Meeting - Nove~oer 20; 1989 tonight. I ask yogi to eliminate the studies from your mind for a minute and consider this. If you take away a vending machine, you're not going to curb that minor's desire to smoke. There are other sources. Just as the policeman said, they're going to get them from parents, friends or over the counter sales. You need education. You need to teach the minors either not to smoke or to c~it sm~oking. Removing vending ~mchines is not going to solve the problem. With that I ask you to seriously consider an amendment to your ordinance or an alternative ordinance that sets up a partial ban. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Tc~. Is there anyone else? ~]ss Pauly: My name is Fha]ss Pauly. I'm President of Pauly's Bar and Restaurant in Chanhassen and a couple of points I'd like to touch on. Ntm~er one, the problem I have with any local goverrm~ent regulating something like cigarettes is, what's the next thing? Is alcohol going to be the next thing that local goverr~ent regulates? I think they're stepping into an area where they really don't have any business. White Bear Lake set a precedent and now it seems to be popular that everybody wants to j~m~p into it but I just don't think the local government has any business being in there. I really think they have other concerns that they could attend to and cigarettes isn't one of them. If you want to go to convenience stores, then geez they better make the clerks all 18 years of age that work in these convenience stores in Chanhassen because you can go in any one of the~ and there's very few people working from 4:~ until that are 18 and older. I'm sure any kid can walk in there and buy cigarettes. If you're going to regulate it, you're going to have to regulate it _~ore than just vending machines. I just don't see where that fits in. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Russ. This is a public hearing. Anyone else wishing to address the issue? Counci]m~an Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Counci]m~an Workman: Mr. Mayor, first I'd like to read one c~]ick piece of a resolution. When I pointed out Ursula Dimler, Ursula has done also sc~e work for this cause. Chris Burns and the Sailor stated that I rec~_]ested a resolution from the Chaska School Board or District #112. In fact it was Ursula Dimler that did that and I'd like to be acknowledged. The resolution reads, Whereas School District #112 through policy promotes a tobacco free enviror~ent, and Whereas, selling tobacco products to persons under the age of 18 is prohibited by law, and Whereas it is very difficult to restrict vending machine sales to legal buyers, Therefore Be it Resolved, that the District #112 School Board go on record as supporting the passage of a Chanhassen City Ordinance which prohibits the sale of tobacco products through vending machines and Be It Further Resolved that the District #112 School Board forward a copy of the Resolution to the Chanhassen City Council and Be It ~]rther Resolved that the District #112 School Board send a copy of the Resolution to other local goverrm~ent units that fall totally or partly in District #112 in order to apprise the~ of the School Board's support of this ordinance. Adopted November 9, 1989. Ironically enough we are talking about school goals or cost,unity goals tonight. We're talking about Drug Awareness. The Minnesota Journal, a publication of the Citizens League which is read widely I believe in the state 10 City Co~cil Meeting - Nove~er 20~ 1989 of Minnesota, dated tc~orrow, ended up on my desk today with an article in it, Early Start Points to Drug Abuse. From the Minnesota Student Survey Report, 1989, a survey of 90,000 Minnesota students in grades 6, 9 and 12 by the Minnesota Department of Education. Substance use almost always starts with alcohol or tobacco. Excessive attention to illicit drugs such as cocaine may send an implicit yet ~intended message that alcohol and tobacco are less dangerous than illicit drugs. It's everywhere. I understand the concerns of local businesses. I don't intend to take away the right for these businesses to sell cigarettes. I'm taking that right away frc~ the machines which they have in their establishments. What I'd like to also get out in the open right away is that approximately 2 years ago my mother died of emphysema basically fro~ cigarettes. It's a real hell of a way to die I might add. But for the 28 years that I knew ~ mom, I was never going to get her to q~]it. Loving, hating, cheating, sneaking, doing whatever you want to do, there's no way you're going to get people to c~]it so this is not a testimonial to tell adult smokers or any smokers c~.lit. I'm not interested in it. It doesn't work. It's a waste of ~ time but we have a lot of pink lunged young 13 and 14 year olds out there that don't know that. And you're right. If we can't take away, we're not going to take away this probl~ frc~ these kids. If kids want to go out and poke themselves in the ear with a sharp object, they can do it but this is one very small step. The Vending Coalition basically states that State government will have legislation passing soon, maybe by April. I think we all understand how State goverr~ent operates. I can't wait and that's why I promoted this and I appreciate the help of Council. Alcohol is not in vending machines. ~nere are no illegal s~stances in vending machines except cigarettes. That is why we're going specifically after them. The condom issue, the alcohol issue is another issue. One which we should get into down at Pauly's later. $70.00 to $90.00 profit is something that you would necessarily base your business on and it's my knowledge that the ~oking industry will, once you lose your vending machine, will do everything in it's power to set up a cigarette sales center, racks, signs, whatever you want to make it as easy for you as you want. And I'd like perhaps a response frc~ the vending coalition on whether or not they are in fact s~sidized by the tobacco industry. Tom Briant: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Workman. The tobacco industry does subsidize each vendor that has cigarette vendingmachines. I don't know the exact dollar amo,~t of the subsidy but it is an annual subsidy that is paid. I do not know if the s~sidy also goes to over the counter sales but it does go to vending machine sales. Councilman Work~mn: I've heard an awful lot of co~ents about because White Bear Lake did it. I thank White Bear Lake. I thank the University of Minnesota. They started a national trend here I think. You can't legislate morality. You're right. I'm not sure that this is a morality question. It's definitely a life and health situation. Education at ho~, there's no doubt about it. That's where it starts. I would say that so~ hc~s are failing and they could use a little bit of help. Drug stores selling over the counter, that's where people are selling th~n over the counter. Again, I'm not after that aspect of it. It's a vending machine. As far as diluting this ordinance, I think we're opening ourselves up to a large can of worms trying to enforce. Who gets them? Which bars get them? Filly's has teen night. The entire facility is opened to teens in the bar, ~]sic going. No alcohol served but vending ~chines available certainly. I bet there's smoke in the joint. I haven't been down there. They don't allow ~ in the door. One of my 11 City Council Meeting - Noves.~er 20; 1989 professions is the life insurance business. I invite you all to call a life insurance agent and ask him the difference between what it costs for cigarettes. Smoking rate versus non-s~,oking rate. It's the most basic rate that a life insurance agent asks. When somebody tells me they smoke, I go oh, because it's going to double. Your rates are going to approximately double. Finally, to give everybody a clear indication about the fact that I'm not after people trying to stop smoking, I think it would behoove you to do so. Earlier this year at the completion of the new wing of City Hall, there was a little sentence in there, t~]blic Safety Director, Jim Chaffee had a little sentence in there that the new wing would be smoke free. I raised the c~.]estion here that night that why isn't all of City Hall smoke free. We have 2 smokers in City Hall, at least that smoke at City Hall, one of them being City Manager Don Ashworth and the other is Jean Meuwissen. It caused c~ite a roar and I could hear the gutteral sounds of Don Ashworth down the way here when I mentioned it and I understand living with my mother for 28 years that it's a heck of a thing to have to give up. When you're about ready to die, you just don't give it up. You enjoy it and you wait for things to happen. Basically what Don did with this new wing was stated that Don and Jean would contain their smoking a little bit better. There were some complaints. That anybody at City Hall that had a complaint against the cigarette smoking. In other words, if Jean and DOn were getting out of shape, that they could then go in privacy to me and then I could basically with the Council's permission make all of City Hall smoke free just like that. Did I ever do that DOn? Don Ashworth: No. Councilman Workman: Even though I had that opportunity. I didn't. I'm not out to ruin people's lives. Their livelihood or their comforts or their pleasures. I understand habits. I enjoy Coca Cola. But, this is a gap and a huge gap in a much tougher ordinance or legislation that the City is passing that I think all of ~zs as adults can help to pass. Trying to figure out which one of our spots in Chanhassen should be able to have a machine and which one shouldn't is sc~ething I don't think the City wants to get into and I'd like to personally thank Dr. Jean Forester from the U of M and her friends Mary Corrigan and Harry Lando, Matt Kelso and Melissa Mendsel from the High School, Nancy Lang from the Lung Association, John Carlson from the Cancer Society, Chuck Gabrielson was going to be here from Group Hone in town. Didn't make it. Midge May from the Chaska School Board was going to make it. Norm Perzinski from Chaska Police and the rest of the Council for hearing this and I await your cos~ents. Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you Tom for acknowledging my work with the School Board. I appreciate that. I did give Tom a hard time when he first proposed this to me. I played the devil's advocate. I wanted him to get his story straight. I am not against smoking and as my children will tell you, occasionally after dinner I smoke a cigarette. Isn't that terrible. Anyway, so that is not the purpose of this ordinance is to get people to stop smoking. The purpose of this ordinance is to keep tobacco products out of the hands of our minors and that in this case means anyone under 18 years of age. I know that the smokers will still have access to cigarettes in our town from over the counter sales. It's impossible to enforce our new Minnesota law as long as cigarettes are available through vending machines. The new law that went into effect this past stm~er increased the penalty of selling cigarettes to minors. It's -~ow a gross misde~eanor punishable by jail for up to 1 year and/or a fine 12 City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 of up to $3,000.00. This makes the seller responsible and does provide sOme deterrance to minors obtaining tobacco products. We can't very well find a vendingmachine or put it in jail and it is n~ experience that vendingmachines have very little supervision. Mostly they are placed in the entrance of an establistm~ent for easy access. In one of the reports I read it stated that friends are the primary providers to minor smokers and I guess ~ question there is, how old are these friends and where are they getting their cigarettes? I find it hard to believe that an 18 year old would be real close friends with a 13 year old. It just doesn't wash with n~ experience. I could see however an 18 year old ,mybe being friends with a 16 year old and then giving the cigarettes to the 16 year old. However, that 18 year old is an adult and is open to prosecution for even giving the cigarettes to the minor because it's an illegal activity. I realize that an ordinance will not stop 100% of the sales to minors but I do believe it will have a significant impact. I was glad that the Chaska School Board did give us their support and I'm glad that they're already taking a strong stand against tobacco use by declaring all district buildings s~toke free as of January 1, 1990. However, I don't think this goes far enough. Declaring it so doesn't necessarily make it so. I think as Jay pointed out, when Chanhassen is declared drug free, that doesn't mean it is right now. We have to work towards that and so we have to take this as a first step working towards that. Many ti~.~s when I've driven past the school I have seen the kids outside of the buildings smoking. I realize that anytin~ you restrict things, it ~mkes them~ more desireable. It's a little bit like the wet paint sign. Everybody then wants to touch it and see if it really is wet paint. So restricting it in so~ instances ~mymake people pay more attention to it but I do believe that son~ restrictions are necessary and I kind of have, saying that not restricting access to cigarettes to our minors is like saying that we don't need speed limits. Let's have everyone use their own judgment. Speed limits don't cause people to quit driving and just like this ordinance won't cause smokers to quit s~.~oking but we still have speed limits. It's also been said that we can't legislate health andmorality. I've heard that we can't morality often but I've never heard that we can't legislate health. I guess I'm questioning why do we have a goverrm~ent department called Health and ~m~an Services if we can't legislate health. Just food for thought. On the final analysis, I see that this ordinance gives some assistance to the enforcement of our Minnesota Statute. I do believe in helping our businesses make money but I seriously do~t that anyone's business depends on the cigarette sales from vending ~mchines. The business can still sell them over the counter and have a revenue with a minor inconvenience and I hope that this inconvenience, that they're willing to put up with to help so~ of our youth stay tobacco free. I think the pending state legislation, whatever they pass, will not affect our Chanhassen ordinance if we are more restrictive. We cannot be less restrictive but we can be more restrictive so at that point we can change our ordinance if we find we are less restrictive and we can ~mke it more restrictive then to be in compliance with the State legislation but we can go ahead right now and pass our ordinance. That's all I have. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, this is a first step, necessary first step. It doesn't go nearly far enough. If you walk into Brooke's, you look at their sales cotu~ter, it's tobacco everywhere. %~nere's the free give away on the one side. There's the cigars down below. There's the cigarettes up above. There's the cigarettes to the right. There's cigarettes, it's con~letely encircled with tobacco. Most of this is handily, readily available for the quick of hand youth that wants access to this. I think the next step after the vending machines is 13 City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 to make the cigarettes behind the counter the same as the Playboy's and the Penthouse that we also are ~ying to have our kids not rip off. They're behind the counter, under the counter. What does that say to our youth who go there every day after school to pick ~ their candy? When they go to pay for their candy, it's all tobacco. That says tobacco's okay. They're getting it all day in school that tobacco's not okay fro~_~ Norm and the teachers and everybody else. Many of the~ get it at home. Then they go into the stores in our town and tobacco is everywhere. I think the next thing I'd like to look into is making tobacco has to be behind the counter rather than in front of the counter to ~ere it is not obtainable by the shoplifting method and is not advertised and put forward. I think it's obvious I'm somewhat in favor of the ordinance. Councilman Work~an: And they have candy cigarettes on the other rack. Councilman Johnson: Oh, don't get ~ wife started on that one. I think the candy vendors, I'd like to see all of our people in town, our good ~erchants, not sell candy cigarettes. If you look at how the kids do them, you can say oh it's j~mt candy but my little 4 year old she had candy cigarettes and she was doing the old cigarette smoking thing with it and that's exactly what Marlboro and Winston that's on the pack wants when they do that. I'm wondering who owns those candy companies that make candy cigarettes. Mayor Chmiel: Is that it Jay? Council~an Johnson: Yeah. Councilman Boyt: I think it's always ~portant to take a little time to reflect when the river seems to be flowing in one direction so strongly. The Public Safety Co~ission considered this and reco~,~ended that it be sm~ended. I think it's important that the Council consider those amendments. They're along the lines of the uncontrolled access that the vending machine, if it's in an area where the access is controlled, the D]blic Safety Co~m~ission felt that a vending machine would be appropriate in those areas. I agree with Mr. Workman that anyt~e that we amend this wemake it more difficult to enforce. Recognize that if we don't amend it, we're really striking at situations in which we're not trying to. We're hitting areas that we're really not trying to control. I think everything I've heard tonight said vending machines are difficult because they are uncontrolled generally. I think if the merchant can show that the vending machine is controlled, locked when Filly's has their teen night for instance would be another way of controlling it. I think another area that, well the t~lic Safety Co~m~ission also reco~m~ended that the Co~mcil consider is that when vending machines are in manufacturing areas. Typically manufacturers cannot hire anyone ~nder the age of 18 because of liability considerations and it's there s~ply because the employees would have no other means generally of acquiring cigarettes. Borrowing frc~ friends I suspect but they have no other neans of purchasing theme. I think the statistics verify that vending machines are not the source of choice for cigarettes. I mean you just have to look at the price in a vending machine to realize that no one who had other alternatives would choose that as their first choice. I think what the ~]blic Safety Co~m~ission discussed and reco~m~ended ~mkes sense. I recognize what Mr_. Workman said. I think that another part of this, I guess out of curiousity, how many people has the Judge fined $4g.007 14 City Council Meeting - November 20, 1989 No~m~ Perzinski: The kids can go through a diversion program whereby if they go to a probation officer. Admit that they have been ~oking, they can just go ahead and pay a $40.00 fine. In fact what the new policy's going to be, from what I understand, they're going to send i~ediate letters out to the kids and their parents and the kids can just go ahead and mail a check or money to the court. Councilman Boyt: Maybe I should put it differently. How many $40.00 fines have you collected? No~ Perzinski: I'm not in the collection business. We're just in the enforcement business. You'd have to contact Court Services. One other point I would like to make, whether restricting or going with full force ordinance is that a lot of businesses, it will be my experience that you start restricting this ordinance like you're saying or the Public Safety Co~ission, it makes it that much harder to enforce. Whether it's manufacturing, United Mailing, or another business, there are a lot of people 17 years of age or under that do work for cc~panies that will have access to those vending machines. Councilman Boyt: And I agree that that complicates the issue. I guess I'm a little startled that a judge would actually fine a teenager $40.00 for smoking when ~ can't get them to fine people for speeding. That just happens to be my hot button. I find it ridiculous that the State would actually consider fining teenagers, or I imagine teenagers $100.00 for using a vending machine. Maybe they will. It just doesn't fit my experience. Norm Perzinski: If I could make one point too to kind of clarify. The $40.00 is not a fine. That $40.00 is donated to a charity. I think the American Cancer Society or American Lung Association. It's not ~t into the County hoppers as per se. Jim Chaffee: It also, I should add, that's not judicial Bill. It does not go to the judge right away. That's all handled by Court Services. If the child does not respond to that ticket, then it goes to the Judge but all that is handled, the fine is handled adminstratively first. Councilman Boyt: Well, I think that's going in the wrong direction gentlemen. I think that the people who have talked about education are right. I think that to put this on parents is to put a pretty heavy load and my guess is if w~ went out and surveyed parents, we'd find that they feel helpless in this situation. When their children smoke, they generally, my guess would be they smoke -without the parent's permission initially and the parent realizes sc~ewhere along the line this is happening and says how do I maintain peace in my family. I'm sure there are a lot of solutions to that but some of th~, I think when the study said that parents allow their children to buy cigarettes or even buy cigarettes for th~m~, I don't believe, well I'll put it positively, I think in most cases the parents isn't saying I condone smoking. They're saying it's the only way we can live as a family and get this done. I support the ordinance as I suspect everyone does here as an attempt to control a problem but I don't think it's going to work. Sure, we'll r~ove vending machines but I can show you that we don't currently enforce the State law about smoking in convenience stores and other enclosed places. We don't, I don't think, we do a very agressive job at enforcing the law about keeping them from selling cigarettes which has been there forever. Mr.. Ashworth suggested sc~e approaches to that a few weeks ago. 15 City Council Meeting - Nove~oer 20, 1989 I didn't see the Council leaping to that action[ I think what we've got ].n vending machines is something that's kind of handy to do but I really don't think it's going to be all that effective if what we're trying to do is keep teenagers from smoking. Maybe it will help if we do all this other stuff because that will push people to vending machines and there won't be vending machines in Chanhassen but if this is all we do, we're wasting our time. Councilman Workman: Well tune in next week when we tackle another proble~ Bill. When you say it won't work, yes it will work. Not one package of cigarettes will be bought out of a vending machine. That will work. Councilman Boyt: I agree. That will probably work. Councilman Workman: Okay, and it will be effective given the statistics. It will be effective. If in fact a vending machine with a product that's illegal to anyone under 18 isn't such a proble~ if we slide it in the corner. If we have the bartender kind of keep an eye on it over there. Why don't we let the local bars put cans of beer in there? It's just another pain for the bartender to have to dispense those darn cans of beer you know so why don't we just have the~, put $2.00 in the machine and a can of beer will pop out. Then he just has to mix. We' re not heading in that direction. We're not going to head in that direction. It's the most ludicro~]s thing I've said. Manufacturers, you're right. Victory Envelope, United Mailing, Instant Webb, those people aren't here tonight. They're not going to be here tonight because they don't have a vested interest in having their employees ~oke. They're going away from it. They want that crap out of their manufacturing plants. Do the owners' children have a special priviledge to purchase cigarettes if we do that though? Does the kid who helps the family cleaning business clean that plant have a special priviledge at getting at those cigarettes? Probably. You're right, if we try to string this whole thing up, we can think about it all night. We're not going to do a darn thing and I'm not so sure you don't want to not do anything. I think we've got to do something and you've just act~itted that there's a problem out there. This is one little baby step. Again, I know the dangers of smoking better than anybody in this room, or as much as, and yet I understand a person's right to have that habit. It's like baseball. It's an ingrained national past time. Wordly past ti~e so I'm not going to slay that dragon. I'm just saying we're taking a s~all step towards a small segment of the pol~]lation who are most vulnerable to this and trying to restrict it there. Once you open up a little door, you're going to open Ilo a whole plethra of things that I don't think the City wants to deal with. I'd like to make a motion as soon you'll let me. Co~mcilman Boyt: Well Don hasn't spoken yet. If I might j~_%st respond DOn and then I'll pass it over to you. I think there's 3 elements to the wandering I did there. One of them is, we're going to pass something. That's clear. I think that the ordinance is a little better if it's amended. Third, I hope that this really is the first step in a more agressive approach by the City. Those are my three points. Mayor Chmiel: You're looking at a former smoker. I'm sure there's many of them sitting out there. I c~]it smoking 26 years ago and I probably smoked anywhere between a pack and a half to 2 packs a day. I have a son who just c~_]it smoking 4 weeks ago because I've challenged him. I gave him an incentive. Who smokes 2 packs a day. Q]it cold turkey and it's been 4 weeks. I have a daughter who s~okes aL,~ost a half pack to a pack a day who c~]it smoking 4 weeks ago as well. 16 City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 I sc~etimes feel incentives work and hopefully they will and they're going to learn f~om it. But I know that the availability of kids buying cigarettes from machines are there all the time. I was standing in one of the St. Paul hotels where there's no controlled access to a machine and it's close enough to the cash register a~d this youngster went in there and just bought cigarettes and he paid $2.50 a pack. Now that's absolutely ridiculous. I also had a father-in- law who died frc~ ~,physema as well and it's nothing of a pleasure to watch sc~eone die from that. I don't want to see kids start s~noking and I feel that if we can curtail that a~)unt of availability for those kids by getting the access to those machines and getting their cigarettes, I feel that's one step. Basically it's just one step at a time that we have to do this. I'm not opposed to anyone smoking. ~nat's everybody's priviledge. I did it. I'm not going to say I'm a goody tw~ shoes now and I'm not. If they want to smoke, that's their perogative. If you want to sell cigarettes, I feel then sell them over the co,_~ter where there is a control so the kids don't have that access. I feel rather strongly about it. So I guess you can sort of tell where I'm coming from. I don't want to take anyone's livelihood away. I think that there is the availability as Tom mentioned that the cigarette manufacturers would be more than willing to set up a display to sell cigarettes within each of these establishments. If it's so choosing that people want to buy them, that's up to th~. Before my voice goes tonight, I think I'll just sort of stop right there. I would entertain a motion. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion for what I would call the first and final reading of an ordinance a~nding Chapter 10 of the Chanhassen City Code by adding provisions regulating the sale of tobacco products, specifically banning of cigarette vending machines in the City of Chanhassen. Councilwoman Dimler: I second that. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to discuss it for just a mc~ent. Our vending machine person, I didn't catch your na~ but can you tell ~ sc~ething about the resale of vending machines? Tc~ Briant: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Boyt. There is no resale value to a cigarette vending machine. The machine cannot be converted for any other use. Councilman Boyt: No, I mean the ability just to sell it to sc~.~eone else who's selling cigarettes through it. Is there a market for those? For used cigarette vending machines? Tom Briant: Generally no. We have vendors who have literally semi-trailer full loads of these used vending machines that they cannot sell either outstate or instate so there's basically no market. Councilman Boyt: I guess we got out too late huh? Well, I think the City should share the financial burden here. I don't think we should cover future losses that sc~eone would realize but I do think that the City should be involved since typically if we were going to ~mke something, if we were going to eliminate the possibility of doing something, we would grandfather in everything that had it and clearly we're not going to do that tonight so I think the City has an obligation to pay scot,thing for these vending machines. If we're dedicated to this thing, we ought to put our dollars there. ~ 17 City Council Meeting - Nove~oer 20, 1989 Mayor C%mtiel: Ted, do you own your? Is that your own vending machine that you have? Did you purchase that yourself as you mentioned for what, $1,000.007 Ted Kor zonowski: Right. Councilntan Boyt: Well you can see the resale value is pretty low today Ted. Ted Korzonowski: He said grandfather. If we had a year to try to do this, if we couldn't police our own, then I'd be willing to give the thing up. Councilman Work.tan: Bill, I guess I'm not adverse to that. I guess I wouid like to discuss that as a separate issue and not make it a part of this ordinance and this motion. I do understand that liability. I would hate to leave my position on the Cot~ncil and say yeah, I bought a cigarette machine so I would like to look at that at the next meeting or we could disct]ss that and figure out what that might be if in fact we have a liability. It's still a machine that's dispensing illegal products. I'm sure that machine has paid for itself a couple, few times a month. I'm not sure what our liability is. I'd like to talk about it. Councilman Boyt: I don't follow all of your argtmtent but I do follow the point. If we could schedule this for the next meeting, I'd certainly consider that reasonable. They're not dispensing illegal products. People are buying them that shouldn't be buying them. Certainly the merchants have an invest~tent here that they made in good faith and the City's taking their ability away to make money with that and I think we certainly at least ought to look at how we balance that out. I'd like to offer an amendment in good faith with the t~]blic Safety Co~'mtission just to see what happens to is I guess among other things, plus I believe in it. That we amend the motion to mean that vending ntachines would not be allowed in uncontrolled areas. Is there a second? Well, I did it in good faith didn't I. Cot~nciL,~an Johnson: One thing I'd like to say before we vote is, the other way is to start leveling $3,000.00 fines against people with vending machines that have children buying cigarettes out of those vending machines because any responsible person's making a profit off that machine is ready to pay the fine. Ready to do one year in prison. That's the way I feel about it. If you want a vending machine, you shouid be ready to do a $3,000.00 fine and 1 year in jail because that's the maximtm~ fine and I would be right there in court telling the judge that's what I think you sho,]ld get. If a kid cortes in here and buys cigarettes out of your machine while your hostess is away or whatever. I think you' re ready to do that. You said you' re ready to, you want to sell cigarettes because you wanted that $70.0~ a month so if for any reason this gets turned over or whatever, I'm sure it's going to pass tonight but I think we may want to the only thing I would want to do here is give them 30 days or something. Mayor Chmiel: It won't be effective until the issuance of a new license. Councilwoman Dimler: Not until January of 1990. Councilman Work.lan: Mm-. Mayor, I made my motion to be the first and final reading of this so we may have to modify Council rules. 18 City Council Fk=eting - November 20, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: I think we would have to~ Roger Knutson: If you wanted, you could move to waive your rules. Councilman Workman: Can we do that? Councilman Johnson: There's no hurry if it's not effective until January 1st. We can put it on the Consent Agenda next week or 2 weeks. Councilman Workman: Can I make a motion with one on the floor already? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, you'd have to. Councilman Boyt: It probably has precedence if you're going to lay aside the rules. Councilman Workman: Okay, then I would ~ke a motion to suspend Council rules to make this a first and final reading. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that. Councilman Boyt: I don't think it's a good idea. As Jay said, we have time. By the t~ Jay, this takes a four-fifths vote. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I know. CounciL-~an Boyt: And this is the kind of thing that since we do have the ti~, why do we want to make this look like we've rushed to judgment? We haven't. You've done a lot of work on this thing. CounciL,~an Work, un: Nothing's going to change next week Bill. Nothing's going to change this week so there's no reason to bring it up and muddle up the agenda. The experts are all here this evening, as I thanked them~ before. Without the~.~, a lot of this wouldn't have been possible and I think they're like to see it passed tonight too. Councilman Boyt: The first reading will pass. Councilman Workman: First and final. I have a ~tion. CounciL-~an Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to suspend Council rules to vote on a first and final reading of the City Code. All voted in favor except CounciL-lan Boyt who opposed and the motion carried 4 to 1. Co,.~cilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the first and final reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 10 of the Chanhassen City Code by adding provisions regulating the sale of tobacco products, specifically banning of cigarette vending machines in the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 19 City Co~ncil Meeting - November 20, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER RECYCLING PROGRAM OPTIONS: A. REQUIRE ALL LICENSED HAULERS IN CHANHASSEN TO PROVIDE CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES; OR B. ESTABLISH A DIRECT BILLING SYSTEM FOR ALL CHANHASSEN RESIDENTS TO PROVIDE WEEKLY OR BI-WEEKLY CURBSIDE RECYCLING. Public Present: Name Address Victor Hallberg Gary Lano Keven Tritz Mike Bet kowpeck Uli Sacchet 411 Del Rio, Chanhassen Chaska Sanitation Woodlake BFI Waste Mange~ent, Inc. Hidden Circle Jo Ann Olsen: As you know, the City currently has a contract with Waste Mangement for collection of curbside recycling. The City has been funding that program. We can no longer do that through the general funds so we've been looking at separate options for funding recycling, to continue it. We have a Recycling Committee now and we have looked at several options and we have narrowed them down to the two that you just mentioned. After looking at all the info.~.~ation, the committee has recommended that the haulers collect the recycleables. The haulers that are licensed in Chanhassen. We do have co~ittee me~rs here to also give information and we do have some haulers here. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to have the committee me~mers, those who are wishing to address it to come forward at this time. Victor Hallberg: Victor Hallberg at 411 Del Rio. I serve on the Recycling Co~ission. The key development that occurred recently was a finding frc~ the Attorney's office that there was little enforceability to collections of recycling bills because it could not be defined as a utility. As ec~]ivalent to a utility in the size city that we're at, as I understood it. That meant that the only alternative was to go to small claims co,irt which would be a costly procedure. At which point the Co~'mission c~.~ickly concluded that asking the haulers to pick up a~d bill for the recycleable materials was the only logical alternative and we unanimously recommended it to you. The other issues have been covered in a lot of different memos. I don't think we need to cover the~ at length. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any haulers or anyone else wishing to address? Gary Lano: I'm the owner of Chaska Sanitation, Gary Lano. We service approximately 600 residential homes inside Chanhassen. At this time I really feel, for a lot of the smaller haulers inside Chanhassen, it's going to be awfully hard for ~us to go out and buy new ec~]ipment for a recycling progra~. Recycling and garbage collection is basically two separate businesses and if the Council and the Mayor decide to go ahead with this, our company's going to be 20 .City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 more than happy to go along with it and I'm basically here to represent the 600 residents I have here in Chanhassen. Thank you. Kevin Tritz: Mr. Mayor, m~ers of the Council. My name is Kevin Tritz. I'm the district manager for Woodlake BFI. I have a n~m~ber of accounts also in Chanhassen. I guess I have no problems either way. There is several cities now in the metro area that have licensing requir~nents for recycling as part of doing business in those cities. There's 14 in all in the metro area. There's 23 cities in the metro area right now that have sc~e type of licensing rec~.]ir~ent. I feel that in due time we're going to have to do it all over. Right now it makes it a little more difficult in Chanhassen in that we're not faced with the tipping fees like we are in Hennepin County or some of the other co~,unities but in due time we're going to see that those tipping fees are going to basically increase here and ~'re going to be faced with the same situation we are in Hennepin, Ramsey and Dakota counties. At that point recycling ~kes a lot of sense for us as haulers to do. I guess if we had to do recycling ourselves, we're prepared to do it and I have no problem with that. Mike Berkopeck: My name is Mike Berkopeck and I 'm with Waste Mang~m~ent, the current recycling collection hauler and we do have some residential accounts here in the city of Chanhassen for garbage service. I think it would be, myself and Lynn Morgan frc~ my company have been at many of the recycling cor~ittee meetings so I think where we stand with this thing is pretty clear and quite obviously we don't want to lose the work. We have a good contract with the City and we'd like to keep doing that. We know what we can do and I guess we think that that would be a good thing to continue to do. We understand that there's sc~e problems from a billing standpoint and things like that and I think ultimately it cc~es down to how you want to, the goal for everybody is to try and get as much out of the waste treatment as possible and I guess we have sc~e feelings that the contracted way may be the best way in this case. Other than that, I guess I think on more of a technical thing is when this thing happens, if the ordinance happens, I assume would this be the first reading of the ordinance also? Councilman Boyt: Hopefully. Mike Berkopeck: Okay. If it happens that way, I guess I have some c~]estions and concerns about the ordinance that it's not important to get into but I assume there's a first reading and then there's opportunity for co~ent and change? That's all I need to say. Okay, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there any one else? Uli Sacchet: My name is Uli Sacchet. I live at Hidden Circle. As a resident I like to stress slightly different aspect with this whole effort which I personally very much appreciate and encourage. It seems to me that there should be also an effort in stressing why recycling in terms of the residents. It's basically a discussion here between the city and the haulers who's going to do it. I don't know if there's enough awareness out there in the con~nunity and I'd like to encouk~age you from your vantage point to stress the important of recycling for the residents in general because it's relatively modest what's being attempted here. I just visited my parents in Switzerland a couple of months ago and they have to bring old medication back to the drug store to have to put batteries in a recycling thing. They have to put aluminum foil into a 21 City Council Meeting- November 20~ 1989 different place. They have about 12 categories of recycling. It was a whole little book to look at. A whole little brochure of how to go about it and people take it very seriously and why? Well, it's important. Well, why is it important? It's one way that we can preserve our environment. Healthy and it's very...way to show we care for the environment. I don't know how much, and that's just a little aspect of it, how much this awareness is out in the co~unity and it should be considered as an important ele~ent in this whole set-up. Not just is it the hauler or the city but the people have finally got to do it or the residents. Of what I've seen in my neighborhood, there weren't overwhelmingly many participating in that pick-up of recycleables. Just a little idea. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: We have been doing this since, I'll let you address it. Victor Hallberg: The issue of education is very close to the minds and hearts of the me~oers of the co, mission and it's just been the issue is the ~m~ediate issues that we've had to address first and then once we get that, we fully expect to go into a much more broad educational program and please ask your mother to send the booklet. If you would translate it for us, we'd be much obliged. The other thing I wanted to comment on was the small haulers. The cost of getting up the ec~]ilm~ent for recycling. There is options available. We did hear several weeks ago when we had a lot of haulers at one of our cc~'mission hearings and at that time, there is a natural obviously a conflict of interest between large hagglers that already have geared up for recycling. For them to subcontract through a s~aller hauler to do the recycling but in addition there are companies out there that only do recycling. One of those representatives was at that meeting so I think that does provide at least so~e flexibility for the small haulers not to have to gear up and do a subcontract for the recycleables of their customers so that gives us sc~e partial solution at least. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thanks. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else wishing to address the issue? Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Johnson: I was actually somewhat leaning the other way until we found out that we couldn't actually make anybody pay us other than take them to court for if the city made the collections and that kind of swayed ~ vote on the co~nittee to go for rec~]iring the haulers. It's also very helpful to having an independent businessm~an there who's only b~%siness was to provide recycling. I think he does the city of Mound or whatever. So he would be the type of person that the small hauler could subcontract to where he wouldn't be helping out his other competition because this guy doesn't compete in the hauling business. So there are options for the small ha,]lets where they won't have to go out and buy a bunch of trucks. Roger Knutson: Could I make a point of clarification? I hope you all received by letter of Nove~oer 16th which explains how I got into it. As far you treating this as a utility and being able to turn off the water, I think it's pretty clear. You have a long way to grow before your city is a first class so you can't do that. But as far as assessing the cost, ass~m~ing our recycleable 22 City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 is garbage you could assess the cost as I pointed out. That has not been tested. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Johnson: We could have assessed it back against the individual's taxes? Roger Knutson: The property owners. If sc~_~eone doesn't pay their garbage bill, if a city garbage collection and you don't pay your garbage bill, the City can assess that cost against the property just as it can a water bill. Councilwc~an Dimler: Okay. After looking at all the options, I would go along with option nu~er 2 requiring the haulers to recycle it. Especially in light of the testimony that the haulers would be willing to comply with that. I would reco~end removal of item (c) from Section 2 of the ordinance where it say, not to restrict the nlm~er of haulers in our town. I guess I wanted to ask Roger why we're not a first class. What's the criteria for first class? Roger Knutson: There' s only Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth. Mayor Chmiel: St. Cloud. Councilwc~an Dimler: Is it population? Roger Knutson: Yeah, population. I think it' s 80,000 to 100,000. Councilwc~an Dimler: Okay. So we need to grow. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe it's not St. Cloud if it has to be 100,000. Councilman Boyt: Bloomington. Roger Knutson: Are they 100,000? Councilman Bo~vt: They're the largest city in the Minneapolis. Councilwoman Dimler: Also, the other one I had was in Section 3, item (d) it states that the garbage collection would be done on the same day but not necessarily the recycleables at the same time and I was wondering why that was because I thought one of our aims was to reduce truck traffic because it is hard on our roads so that's 2 different trips for the same hauler. Jo Ann Olsen: Because it will be a different truck. It can't be, recycleables couldn't be collected along with the garbage trucks so it's two separate trucks. Councilwc~,an Dimler: And you couldn't route th~ together? Jo Ann Olsen: Well, they can do that but usually they come in later that day or... Councilwoman Dimler: Well anyway, I go back to Option 2 with the r~m~oval of (c) from Section 2. 23 City Council Meeting - Nove~ker 20, 1989 Roger Knutson: Just an editorial co~ent. Living in Minneapolis, it's really nice if you have everything done the same day because I have a complicated schedule at home next to my calendar where there's some days this things happen, some days other things happen. You've really got to keep on top of it. It's easier if it all happens the same day. Councilman Boyt: First I think, and I'm sure the whole Co~ncil would support this that the committee certainly deserves and should receive our thanks for their diligence. I know they met virtually weekly to get this done by January. The Mayor could probably say it better but. Mayor Clm~iel: That's alright, go ahead. Councilman Boyt: I'll open it ~.~ by saying that I think that the City shouId be coordinating this. I don't think it should be going through the individual haulers so maybe a few words for the other side of that. The recycling co~mitte meeting that I attended when both of those options still looked like they were possibilities was evenly split. Only 4 of the committee me~kers were there. Now a couple things about that. Why I think it's a better option. Marketing recycleables is a challenge in itself. I understand we maybe coming out of hte newspaper glut but that's a cyclical sort of thing and has always been and probably will continue to be for a while. Finding a market for these is going to be a challenge, especially for somebody who's major business is picking up garbage, not recycling. I think there's some real efficiencies. I've got several problems with the staff report, not least of which is when they ~]ote the price at $1g.00 to $12.00 on a ~]arterly basis. The last time I looked, the quarter was 3 months. The most we've ever ~]oted an~oody is $2.~ a household per month which would be $6.00 a ~]arter. Jo Ann Olsen: As explained in those me~os, that also included adminstrative costs and also included containers. Purchasing containers. Councilman Boyt: That's with weekly pick-up was $2.g~ a household per month. Now, so there's this issue of who's going to do the marketing if we have the individual 16 or whatever haulers do it? I agree with Ursula that we definitely should strike item (c). What happens to new people who want to enter the industry if we've said we're co~m~itted to only these 16 trying to get at the 4? Maybe someone will come in with a better way of doing it. I think another question that I have and I didn't see it in the staff report, how it would be answered, but the County is going to be getting money from all of us through the State and how is the Co~nty going to rei~flourse the city for this is the City isn't spending anything? I mean all of us individually are spending something but the City isn't spending it and you can be sure the County isn't going to send each taxpayer $12.~g back or $3g.g0 back. They're going to want to focus it through the City so if you've got some answers to that, or if staff does, I'd like to know what those are. The City loses the ability to negotiate for the best bid if we turn it over to the individual haulers. As it is now, we can negotiate and have been fairly successful at negotiating at pretty good rate for this. As we just heard, we're not going to be reducing the n[mfloer of trucks when we go to individual haulers. We may even be doubling the n~er of t,~ucks so I don't agree with the staff report that that's an advantage to the individual hauler option. I think that the City, this is virtually a utility. Would be if we were a big enough city. A utility should be controlled by the city. There aren't many things that the City should be doing but basic 24 City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 utilities are one of them and only the size prevents us from considering this a basic utility. It is in fact a utility type service. There is probably a lot of directions that the City is going to want to take with this over the years. We can take them better if we're doing the monitoring and supervision of the collection by being the people paying for it. My last point is, whatever we do, whether it be option 1 or option 2, that the city staff should be directed to w~fite a letter to our State Representatives asking them~ to spearhead legislation to give us the right to consider recycling a utility. If the State's going to req~ire us to do it, and they certainly have, then they should give us the power to use it to get the job done right. That's all I've got. Counci]m~an Johnson: Mr. Mayor, may I respond to one of Bill's there? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I was going to respond to it too Jay. If you'd like to, go ahead. Councilman Johnson: I think the main one was what are we going to do with the score money from the County. That's going to be used for education, containers. Councilman Boyt: How will we get it? Counci]m~an Johnson: How will we get it? Councilman Boyt: Well we're not going to pay for the containers. R~ne individual haulers are going to be bill their individual people for that, as it stands as I read the staff report. Jo Ann Olsen: If we have the billing, the direct billing, we would be. Councilman Boyt: Well if we had direct billing, certainly we would but I'm talking about option 2 where the 16 haulers are going to be doing the billing individual. Is the City going to go ahead and buy the containers? Jo Ann Olsen: We were still looking at that option. To go for the gran~ through the M~t Council to have 50% of that cost paid. Council~an Boyt: Okay, that would be one item. And your sense then is that the Cot~ty would give us money to provide for the education awareness thing that Uli has said, and we all agree, is... Councilman Johnson: Plus household hazardous waste. Plus white goods. Plus a lot of other recycleables that these folks will not be able to recycle. Mayor C?m, iel: All the other things youhave going including your leaf recycling and many other factors too. Councilman Boyt: Well you know, we're in here, the way this ordinance is written now, we're going to require the individual haulers to do 16 leaf pick-ups. Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Councilman Boyt: Well, the City and the County is currently doing that. 25 City Council Meeting - Nov~er 20, 1989 Jo Ann Olsen: That's mandatory anyway starting January 1, 1990 you cannot take leaves or compost grass clippings to a landfill. Councilman Boyt: No, but you know that the County already does that in the fall and spt lng right? Jo Ann Olsen: No they don't. This year ~nat they did was to let haulers know where they could drop off leaves and grass clippings. They did not sponsor. Councilman Boyt: What happened to those bags when we get them? Don't we get those frc~ the city? Jo Ann Olsen: We get those from the County. Councilman Boyt: Doesn't the County come around and pick those up? Who picks those up? Jo Ann Olsen: The haulers. At least this year they did. Councilman Boyt: Well that wasn't true last year. Jo Ann Olsen: last year we had BFI pick up a portion of the city. Councilman Boyt: And they carried the~ all out to the landfill, to the compost and opened the bags and d~m~ped the leaves there? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. Councilman Boyt: So this year's going to be different? Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, it has to be taken to the compost facilities. They cannot be mixed with garbage. Co~mcilman Boyt: Who's picking it up this year? Jo Ann Olsen: This year? You mean this fall? CounciLman Boyt: Well, last year the County arranged for the pick-up. Jo Ann Olsen: With BFI. The years before, we did it through our public works depar tmen t. Councilman Boyt: So who's doing it this year? Jo Ann Olsen: Are you talking next year? Council~an Boyt: This year. Right now. Jo Ann Olsen: With the haulers. Carver County contacted all the haulers in Chanhassen and said, there's a compost facility open that you can take grass clippings, leaves to and only a few of the haulers provided that service. Councilman Boyt: So we didn't provide that this year? 26 City Council Meeting -November 20~ 1989 Jo Ann Olsen: No~ Mayor Chmiel: Put them in your own compost pile. Councilman Boyt: I could use more leaves by the way. Mayor Chmiel: Everyone hear that? TV audience. Can we have your address Bill? Councilman Workman: ~ne reason I didn't have a whole lot of cc~m~ents is because this is one of those issues, I don't think we're going to be fighting to make the first and final reading. Just a lot of really to~h decisions and I too want to say that the recycling cor~nittee has a tough job and thanks for making it less tough for us. I guess I'm curious as to what will happen if we force haulers in the city to go into the recycling business. I was talking to Mr. Lano in the back row. When I think of garbage I think of Gary Lano. I grew up with Gary Lano. CounciL.mn Johnson: You're in rare form tonight. Councilman Workman: Probably the best fullback the Hawks have ever had too. That's, talk about taking a simple little machine out of somebody's ~]siness and n~ God we're throwing their ledgers out of whack try buying one of those recycling trucks. I would think, that's a major deal so I like the free market idea. There's no way that we should allow only 4 haulers but gee, that's maybe all we'll get. So that issue is confounding me a little bit. But then Bill makes sc~e good points as far as the City having a little bit of control over it. Receiving funding, etc. in contracting for that. While we have control over it, I've seen in the past year that the recycling contract really, and I've said this before, isn't a contract anyway. The way it goes up and down. Rarely down but up and up and up and it's really not a contract at all. What was bid really didn't ~mtter anyway I don't think. So I don't have any solutions and I just, I don't even see where the Council's leaning. CounciL.~an Johnson: I think what's happened to Eden Prairie, they've done this, the rates actually didn't go up there. They will eventually and they're in Hennepin County so their rates are a lot higher than ours but ours are going to go up. That's one point I wanted to ~mke earlier that I didn't ~mke is that when the Carver and Scott County composting facility gets built and all of our garbage has to go to the Carver/Scott County composting facility, you'll see everybody's garbage bills in this County double. Everybody better be ready to acknowledge that and the recycling is the only way to keep that from tripling. Right now I think this is one spot where the free enterprise syste~may work better than goverrm.~ent trying to run a business. This is where business nmy do it more competitively than what we will. I don't think we right now the City needs to add more staff to run another utility. I would hope that we could do it through the haulers with our present staff ~]t if we started doing our own, contracting for our own, that would be another quarter of a person or half a person to add to staff and I don't think that we need to add some personnel to staff right now. So I'm in favor at this point of going the way the co~nittee reco~ends. Mayor Chmiel: So am I. Jo Ann, maybe you best explain total number of haulers that ~ have presently picking up within the city and eventually when that 27 City Council Meeting - Nove~oer 2g, 1989 breaks down, be only 4 haulers within the city. The 16 haulers can haul from now ~mtil eternity. Jo Ann Olsen: Well currently there's closer to 9 or lg haulers that do pick-up residential and the way the ordinance is written right now, yes. Whoever's there can continue to haul in Chanhassen. If they choose to leave, then it would p~event the~ frc~ cc~ing back in or new people from entering the city until it's reduced to 4 o~ below 4. The whole reason that that was added into that was to try to reduce the n~m~oer of haulers. The num~oer of trucks entering the streets although the cou~'~ittee did want that removed. They agreed that it should be left open. That we should limit it to 4. Co~mcilwoman Dimler: So you're saying to remove (c) from Section 2? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. So that option would not really be, one of the pros is that it would be re_~oving the n~m~er of trucks on the city streets so that would not be doing it anymore. Councilman Johnson: One of the reasonings behind removing that is that it's a recycling co~m~ittee and not a garbage co~m~ittee in that if we want to consider overall garbage in the city, that should be a separate action. We tried to separate the issues to where we didn't confound the recycling issue with an overall garbage issue. That was my point. I was one of the people trying to get rid of that section. I do see at some tJ_~e that it would be better, I would love to have only one garbage truck and one recycling truck come down my street. Now I'm sure I have at least 5. It seems like every other person on the street has a different garbage man. I'd like to see that somehow organized but in the timeframe we're working with, we want to get the recycling straighten out and not try to confuse the issues with the rest of it. This is a viable thing to look at in the future as to ~mking things more efficient in the city. Maybe look at how the city of Champlin has their garbage collection, utility run. The haulers got together, fot~ed a company. All the existing haulers in the city fo~_~ed a company that became the Champlin Refuse Company or something. I'm not sure what the name of it is and then they all had their piece of the action. As the City grew, their business grew. }~]t it did restrict competition and there's a lot of issues that we didn't want to get involved in this recycling issue so we said just drop (c) and let's just do recycling right now. If we want to get involved in those, we'll do those next year. Mayor Ct~iel: Okay, as I was all gung ho when we started this recycling, I made some statements at that particular time about the con~ittee. I said they were innovative. They took the ti~e and they worked every R~]esday for hours on end. They took all the time that was needed to really sit down and work out a solution. I really applaud them because they really did a fantastic job. You really did. It was sort of neat to be part of it with Jay and I both working with you on the co~ittee. I too am~ going to go along with reco~endations of the conm,ittee and that being that we re,_lire all licensed haulers in Chanhassen to provide the curbside collection on those recycleables. All I've got to say is, good show. For the rest of them as well. Any other further discussion? Councilman Boyt: Yes. I didn't see it in the staff report but in one of the reports to the co~-~ittee that 4 of the existing haulers said they wouldn't be able to do this. Is that still true? 28 City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 Mayor Chmiel: No, I think all of them indicated that evening that we were ~here that they' re al 1... Jo Ann Olsen: There was one hauler who said he would have a difficult time doing it but actually he didn't say that it would prevent him. He actually didn't say that he'd stop working in Chanhassen. I don't know where you saw that there were 4. Councilman Boyt: I don't know either. So, what you're telling me is that these 9 to 10 active haulers can all do this if we ask th~ to do it independently? Jo Ann Olsen: They've been well informed. We've been having them involved the whole time to get their input. None of th~ have said that we would leave Chanhassen. They were all given the packet tonight. I can't say that for a fact none would leave but I haven't heard that as an objection. Councilman Boyt: And the rest of the Council's assured me that County funding is going to be there which ever way we go there. Jo Ann Olsen: Can I answer that a little bit? Mayor Chmiel: If we know that they're even going to get the money. Jo Ann Olsen: I did talk with Mike Lien about that, explaining that if we did have the direct billing we would be able to show how much money we're spending and if we do have the haulers because I brought up the same point that you brought up. Because we're already having a difficult time receiving funds. They said that we would still, what they're doing is looking at how much it would cost if they would have to provide the 1 per month pick-up because that's what they have to do at the very least starting in October. They still, even if we had the direct billing, they're not guaranteeing money. We're not in any worse position to receive ~ney or any better position to receive money. I don't think that that should be a deciding factor. Councilman Boyt: Alright. So it doesn't make any difference? Jo Ann Olsen: It doesn't ~ke a difference. CounciL,~an Boyt: And the sense is, or the sense of staff is this negotiation issue. How do we deal with that? Are we going to do anything to help these people find sources? I know that eventually Hennepin County's going to do that. Is Carver County going to do that? How are we going to help these independents? Mayor Chmiel: For the market is what you're saying? Councilman Boyt: If one thing will force them out of the garbage business altogether, it's when mountains of newspapers pile up and they can't find a place to put th~. Mayor Chmiel: Waldorf has just expanded their facility to require, double the a~unt that they have taken previously which means it would be very unlikely that there's going to be another glut of paper. 29 City Council Meeting - Nov~oer 20, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Well when we go from 25% participation to 60% participation~ it will be, the newspaper will be absolutely am~azing. Mayor Chmiel: True. Carver County is also sitting there, frc~ their standpoint of being able to shred that and ,_Me that for animals in barns and so on as they do the straw. So there's another back-up for that paper. To bale it as such. Council~an Boyt: Your sense is, this isn't an issue? Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think so right now. Councilman Boyt: I gather then that it would be the Council's cos~itment to devote some staff tise to solving this problem~ if it becomes a problem? Mayor Chmiel: I think so. Councilman Boyt: Then my last issue, as you solve these dile~as it's of course easier to vote for the plan that the study group recommends, is I'd like to see something drafted so at least we have the ability to treat this as a utility if we choose to in the future. Would the Council support the staff encouraging that action? Councilwoman Dimler: Do I understand this correctly, we'd have to be 100,0007 Councilman Boyt: Well right now but if Kelso and Schmitz would introduce a state statute that would allow cities of our size to do this. Mayor Cbm~iel: What benefit would it be for the City Bill? Councilman Boyt: Well because then we would have, should we choose, like Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington, to collect garbage as a municipality, we'd have the ability to do that. Right now we don't. Well, we do but it's much more awkward. Councilman Workman: But if people don't pay for their sewer and water bills, we can't even turn off their water. Councilman Boyt: Well we go through once a year where we, what do we call that? Roger Knutson: We certify the delinc~ent water bills to the County. I think it's twice a year now Don is saying. Councilwoman Dimler: DO they get assessed? Roger Knutson: Yeah. Councilman Boyt: It goes against their property taxes. Roger Knutson: And if you don't pay that, you lose your property. Don Ashworth: But if I hear Roger correctly, that hasn't really been litigated as to whether or not picking tip recycleables could be treated as garbage and City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 therefore legally put as a delinquent collection along with property taxes~ Correct? Councilman Johnson: But you can do it for garbage? Roger Knutson: For garbage you can, yes. Councilman Johnson: Our city can't. Roger Knutson: Yes. Your city can. Councilman Johnson: And first class cities can do it for recycleables as a utilitv~ Roger Knutson: They're two different things we're talking about. What Minneapolis can do is it can say, we treat collecting recycleables the sa~ way as a utility and all our utilities under the statute can be treated as one and one of your utilities is water. So the city of Minneapolis, when you don't pay your garbage bill or your recycling bill, they can pick up the phone and say, unless you pay your bill by a week frc~ tomorrow, we're turning off your water. That gets people's attention and they usually pay it. Mayor Chmiel: I think if we look at it from the standpoint of wanting to get back into that business, then we can make an ordinance change in that as well. Councilman Boyt: Well it has nothing to do with an ordinance. It's a State Statute and if they don't give ~ the authority to do that, we can't. Mayor Chmiel: You don't have the authority. Co,_~cilman Boyt: Now we don't. What I'm asking is for support to seek that authority. CounciL, lan Johnson: I would support any legislation of that nature and I'd like to say that if we can keep this thing moving, I'd just say I'd like to move approval of the haulers doing it with item 2(c) removed and that the Council support any legislative action to allow a city of our size to have recycling as a utility. Councilman Workman: And I second it. Councilwoman Dimler: I think I'd rather wait to see what the legislature is going to co~ forth and propose and then deal with that at that ti~. Councilman Boyt: What we're trying to do is shake that legislation. Send a signal to th~ that this is a tool that we could use. Councilwoman Dimler: I don't know if we as a Council want to do that now. I think as an individual if we call th~ and tell th~ the direction we wanted to go. Councilman Johnson: Why not? Why can't we have the sa~ rights as Minneapolis and Bloc~ington? Sure we're a little smaller but we're just as good. We're better. 31 City Council Ym~ting - November 20, 1989 Mayor Ctm~iel: We' re probably better. Councilwoman Dimler: I said that earlier. We're first class. Mayor CTm~iel: I'm not sure where it's really going. I just don't like seeing us making some kind of a motion as such. Councilwc~an Dimler: Just the third part of it. I like your other two parts. Mayor C%m~iel: Yeah, I like that too but it just doesn't set well with me right now because I don't know... Councilwoman Dimler: We don't know what direction they're going to take. Mayor Chmiel: And would we be satisfied with it? Councilman Johnson: Specifically it's just as a start if any legislation that would give us time same rights for making recycling a utility within this city. Councilwc~an Dimler: But that's not the direction we may want to go in the future. I'm just saying, if and when we want to go in that direction, we'll still have that avenue available. Councilman Johnson: Some other town might want to and I'd like to support that town. It doesn't say we have to make it a utility. Nobody can tell us we have to ~'mke recycling a utility. Well, they could. Actually the legislation could say that all towns must have recycling as a utility. That could be something that would go. I wouldn' t support that. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I don't want to make it any more ct~ersome than it is right now either. Councilman Johnson: Well we'll simplify it like I said. Item (c) simplifies it. If it's going to be co,~licated with my third part there, I'll drop that if my second will drop that. Councilman Workman: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Then we'll have to do it individually. Councilwc~an Dimler: Okay, so the motion is? Councilman Johnson: The motion will be then to accept the co~ittee's recommendation incl~ing the dropping of item 2(c). Roger Knutson: That' s tine first reading? Councilman Johnson: As a first reading. Co~mci~an Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve re~]iring all licensed haulers in the City of Chanhassen to provide curbside collection of recycleables and deleting item 2(c) from Chapter 16 of the City Code concerning solid waste. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 32 .City Council Meeting - Nov~ber 20~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: Now somebody said they had some co~nents. Generally second readings come up on a consent agenda. Make sure the staff gets those cor~nents right away so that if there's something significant, there will be changes to it, then they'll be sc~.~ething other than a consent agenda, we'll have to talk aobut it. victor Hallberg: Just one final co~ent. We are going to meet on a week from tomorrow night, the Recycling Cor~.~ission so we'd certainly welcc~e sc(ne additional input if you want to cc~e and give us sc~e input on the ordinance itself, we can address it at that time. If anything significant cc~es up, we'll channel it back this way. Tne second thing is that I'm personally interested in this idea of the State mandate so I will make a call to Councilman Schmitz and see what I can dig out of there and channel that information through the co~ission because I think it should not be a stone left unturned at this point. Councilman Johnson: I think most of us will be in Atlanta at the National League of Cities Conference next week. AWARD OF BIDS: 1989 SEWER REHABILITATION PROGRAM. Gary Warren: The bids were opened Friday. This is the bid tabulation. Schurcon, Inc. 0 & P Contracting, Inc. S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. J.P. Norex, Inc. G.L. Contracting, Inc. Engineer ' s Estimate $117,544.00 $122,291.00 $131,160.00 $132,027.00 $138,106.66 $159,497.46 $124,984.00 We were very fortunate. I think we had a very good bidding climate. The engineer's estimate actually had misquoted, I had said in the staff report at $118,000.00. Actually we had an addition just before the bid documents went out which ~]t it at $125,000.00 and as you see in the ~mterial that I just handed out, the low bidder is Schurcon. I believe they're located in Maplewood. $117,544.00. If you throw out G.L. Contracting who was out of the ballpark there, the rest of th~ are grouped within an 18% range and we feel very comfortable with the bid and also with the subcontractor list that they're showing. Mayor Ctm~iel: Schurcon Incorporated. Have you had any, have we had any dealings with them previously? Gary Warren: We haven't had any personal dealings with them. Talked with John Horn today. He has talked to their President and vice President and apparently they're a ~re recent corporation here in the last few years but the individuals have extensive background in construction. They would be responsible for the sewer repair and rebuilding portion as you would see on the subcontractors list. visu Sewer and Solidification, whichever way they go there, I'm very experienced with both those fir~s fr~ the testing and sealing standpoint and they're very qualified. Similarly REO Construction. 33 City Council Meeting - Nov~er 20, 1989 Mayor Cb~iel: Other cities have used them? Gary Warren: That' s correct. Resolution #89-128: CounciL~an Johnson moved, Councilwoman Di~er seconded to award the bid for the 1989 Sewer Rehabilitation Program to Schurcon, Inc. in the amount of $117,544.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW PUBLIC WORKS AUXILIARY STORAGE BUILDING DESIGN CONCEPT AND AWARD OF BIDS FOR FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION. Gary Warren: I guess Mt-. Mayor, based on our discussion at the last ~=eting, staff went back to try to better define the cost estimate that we had for the building as it was proposed. As you'll recall, the original criteria that we've tried to stick with here is that we're going to replace the building with a comparable sized facility that we were releasing on 82nd Street and that's pretty much where the 54 x 88 footprint has come frc~, and that's exactly to within 50 feet almost of what we lost at 82nd Street. Maybe to start it off here, it is 2 separate item,s and I think we want to deal ~ith the concepts first recognizing that we haven't prepared design plans or anything obviously so these are cost est~ates that we're dealing with. But we did have a contractor, Zastrow-Nasset Construction from Shorewood was willing to give us a cost estimate and I just received this today and I'll hand this out. Councilman Workman: Gary, I thought we were going to have our staff possibly look at p~]tting out footings in. What happened to that idea? Gary Warren: Our staff w~uld be the excavation w~rk. Councilman Workman: Oh, just the excavation? Gary Warren: Yeah, we aren't licensed masons. Basically what you're seeing in that estimate there, there's a $5,000.00 contingency item on the bottc~_~ so basically the best estimate from the contractor on the building as EOS put together would be about $115,000.00 building. Jack Anderson is here tonight. Jack's estimate was roughly $141,000.00 if I reme~oer our earlier ntm~oer on it so a lot is going to depend on the bidding climate. I do have some overheads. You do have in your packet here the concept of the building. There's nothing fancy there I guess. Just to give yo,] an idea of what we're putting forward. When we look at the cost estimate, if you want to point at areas that, if you want to call th~ frills I guess. I don't think that's an appropriate word but there's maybe $1g,g00.00 worth of building facilities that could be modified or pulled out at this time. If we don't go with the cracked block face for example which is the face of the other buildings on the site there, maybe we're talking about $6,000.00 to $8,00~.00 worth of cost there. If we don't insulate the building, I don't know exactly if we have a cost for that Jack. We'd have to pull off the cap moldings basically on the walls if we ever did decide to heat it and I think that's a minor expense to keep our options open. Jack Anderson: I did look at...but when you start looking at that but when you start taking out the insulation out, the building won't meet energy...so if somebody down the road is going to heat it, you'll have to try to fill those. 34 City Co,J~cil Meeting - November 20~ 1989 Roof insulation, we' re taking out about $6,500.00. Approximately. Again, that would have to go in also at a later date if you wanted to heat it so it'd probably be an expense to have the insulation and block and...energy calculation n~m~ers a~d it's a little bit better than what it has to be but not enough that you should pull any of these items out. Again, that's the feeling... Gary Warren: So I guess we've had nu~ers from $141,000.00 to the current n~m~er here, $120,000.00. The bidding climate is going to be the real test I guess as far as that's concerned. Referencing Tom's co~ment, the Public Works would indeed do the excavation on the footings and the actual masonry work, the concrete block work would be part of the contract which would be the second it~ here that we'll be looking at in a minute so we are trying to save money I guess where we can. There's no floor slab proposed for this building. There's no pl~m~ing proposed for the building except for outside roof scuppers. We have set the building elevation at such a grade so that if it were to be hooked into the sanita.~y sewer, it can be done. ~nat's not in this element. So I guess we're looking for your direction recognizing that it's kind of, estimates are estimates I guess but... Mayor Chmiel: Can I ask a ~]estion on the mechanical and electrical allowance? Gary Warren: Certainly. Mayor Chmiel: $11,500.00. Jack Anderson: Do you want to know the breakdown roughly? Well, we've got exhaust and intake fans and approximately $3,500.00 in electrical lighting and power. $3,000.00 of...which ~y or may not have to happen. It would be $3,500.00 and then we've got... I think $11,000.00 we figured $10,000.00 and I think they have $11,500.00...they've bumped that up a little bit. Mayor Chmiel: Are there contingencies on each one of the costs all the way through here? Jack Anderson: I'm sorry, the $11,500.00 on the estimate from Zastrow-Nasset includes overhead profit in it. Our $10,000.00, that's included after. Gary Warren: That' s 20%. Jack Anderson: So you're looking at two different estimates in the w-ay they were put together. Gary Warren: Our estimate would have been $12,000.00 with the contingencies or with the general conditions and overhead on it. Jack Anderson: Would have been about $12,000.00, yes. The 400 foot service ...that we can get NSP to put a transformer back there, that will reduce that cost a lot. Bring it down ~]ite a bit. But as the building stands now, we'd have to go ~]ite a distance for that. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion or questions? Council,an Workman: Is this si~ly a review which doesn't require us to take any action here? 35 City Council Meeting - Nove~floer 20, 1989 Gary Warren: We're looking for some direction so that plans and specs could be prepared from this point forward I guess with that input. If it's a cost criteria or any other criteria that you w~ant us to shoot for I guess. Whatever you can give us. Mayor Chmiel: Total estimated of Phase 1 and phase 2 of $120,000.00 I still think that's darn high. I really do. Gary Warren: So you believe the bids would actually reflect the lower cost for what we're asking? Councilman Boyt: What did we sell it for? Mayor Chmiel: A hundred. Councilman Boyt: I'd say it's a bargain. Get a brand new building for $21,000.00 if it ca~e in at this. Mayor Chmiel: I had some work done on this by a couple civils and this is high. Fran~ the prices I was told. Councilman Boyt: The bids should certainly verify that. I'm just saying that even at this it's a deal. We've moved it so we're more centrally oriented. Mayor C[m'~iel: Right, I agree with that. Councilu~an Boyt: Ail those things we talked about when we sold the property. Mayor Clm~iel: Yep. Time saving and everything else. Councilman Boyt: And I hope you're right. I hope it comes in at $100,00~.00 or sc~ething. Councilman Johnson: Did your civils have txhe design standards rec~_]ired in our business part about the brick and all that other stuff that runs the price up on this? Councilman Boyt: Well, I'd move approval. Councilwo~an Dimler: Approval of what? Councilman Boyt: Well we've got approval of the design concept and rec~est bids for the foundation construction. Gary Warren: I've got the bid here. That ~uld be separate so we just right now are dealing with basically the concept. Councilman Boyt: I move approval of the building design concept. Councilman Johnson: Second. 36 City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 Counci/man Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the building design concept for the Public Works Auxiliary Storage building. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Gary Warren: The second ele~ent, I have another handout and I hope we' 11 eventually get away frc~ these Friday openings before Council meetings but, we solicited c}_]otes for the foundation work from DayCo and other local firms. Partly reflecting the busy construction...we got one quote. Even our local DayCo didn't choose to big on the project. They just didn't have time to get to it. But fortunately the bid which is shown on the back of that thing is a low bid of $13,055.00 is below our estimate for the foundation work as well as you'll see in the Zastrow quote there. They were quoting about $15,000.00 plus for the work. Wachholz Masonry is a reputable firm from Waconia. They gave us soe~e quotes on our earlier facility and we had bid an alternate just in case it was over $15,000.00 but I believe that it's a responsible bid. We'd like to have mo~e than one but in this case, recognizing the dollar amount and it's within the two check points that we have, I feel comfortable in recoem~ending award to Wachholz Masonry. Councilman Johnson: So moved. CounciL,~an Boyt: What about waiting? I'll second it ~lt what about waiting until the bid cl~mte is more favorable? We know in all likelihood it will be this winter. Jack Anderson: It appears that we do have a good bid here for one thing. We're talking about a fairly small portion of the job. If we went through this process...it worked out kind of nice for spring because then when all the rest of the building is ready to go, they don't have to wait for the frost to come out of the ground. What you might gain with a better climate for this small portion of the job by waiting, you're going to lose by having them have to wait in the spring for the frost to come out of the ground. Counci]_,~an Boyt: So you think the bids for the rest of the building will be better? Jack Anderson: I think ultimately it will be better knowing it's the first job out there. We're going to probably get, I think last time on the public works addition we had like 20 bidders. The first thing in the spring they can coe~e right out and it's ready. Gary Warren: It's a clean job plus they're able to order steel during the winter months when typically that's not as busy and they've got a lot more control over the project site and their destiny's. CounciL-lan Johnson: When everybody else gets their frost out of the ground and gets the masonry in, we'll be ahead of that. That makes a little sense there. As I watched them~ build houses in the winter behind n~ a few years back, I don't like to see ~ putting in masonry in the winter. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I agree. Any further discussion? Tom? Ursula? Councilman Workman: Are we approving this bid then? 37 City Council Meeting - Nove~J~er 2g, 1989 Gary Warren: That's right. Councilwoman Dimler: I don't like having just one choice but if that's all we've got. Gary Warren: I think we all wouid like more but I think we're comfortable. Jack Anderson: We called everybody who was on it before. There were about 8 bidders and we got 4 of them didn't want to bid it. They were so busy and...we thought we were going to get 4 bids. Councilman Johnson: Everybody's trying to get something in the ground right now. Gary Warren: It's a little bit different than say our north side parking lot project where we had a lot to gain and as we did we gained $6g,0gg.gg I believe the n~l~floer was in that case. Here I think we have... Councilwoman Dimler: $2,090.g0 or so? Gary Warren: Yeah, if that. I really think from our estimates that it's reasonable plus I think we have more to gain on the ultimate bid of the building that would compensate for anything, for fluff if there even is that. Resolution #89-129: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to award the bid for the foundation work on hhe ~blic Works Auxiliary Storage Building to Wachholz Mansonry, Inc. in the amount of $13,055.0~. All voted in favor and the motion carried. MARKET SQUARE LOCATED AT THE SOUTWWEST CORNER OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND WEST 78TH STREET: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. B. VACATION OF A PORTION OF WEST 78TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY. Councilman Boyt: I move approval. Does anybody have problems with this? CounciL,~an Workman: What about the bus? Councilman Boyt: That's taken care of. Jo Ann Olsen: We've got a condition in there that we will work with them to design, to have the~ pull off. Gary Warren: I did track down the MTC standards for bus acceleration, deceleration lanes and it is about 520 feet of length to accommodate a 10 foot inversion. Councilman Workman: Would they rather have half of that or none at all? 38 City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 Gary Warren: They don't like thsm at all from my understanding just because have to fight to get back into traffic and such which is a hazard. That's another safety. Mayor Chmiel: One question I have is regarding the sidewalk which would be located on West 78th Street will not be within the right-of-way but will be acco~odated by a sidewalk and trail easement. Why do we need both? Jo Ann Olsen: It's just a trail easement. Mayor Chmiel: One or the other? Council~an Johnson: It should be or. Counci]_-~an Boyt: It's the same piece of property. Mayor Chmiel: It should have said then, by a sidewalk or trail easement? Jo Ann Olsen: Sure. Roger Knutson: Sidewalk/trail easement. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Preliminary Plat for Market Sca]are as shown on the plat dated "October 31, 1989" with the following conditions: 1. ~ltlot A shall not be developed until it is replatted. 2. The final plat shall reflect the utility and drainage easements for existing and proposed city sewer and water lines over the site. 3. The preliminary plat shall be amended to provide the following: a. Show the 40 foot wide right-of-way along the south half of West 78th Street. b. A 30 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over the south 30 feet of the east 360 feet of Lot 1, Block 1. c. A 10 foot wide utility and drainage easement shall be dedicated around the perimeter of the plat. d. The preliminary plat shall be amended to show additional right-of-way on Market Boulevard to accommodate the city sidewalk and a bus turn-off as approved by the City and Southwest M~tro Transit Adminstrator. e. A trail eas~m~ent shall be provided accommodating the trail/sidewalk along West 78th Street. f. Cross access/pa~king and utility eas~ents over all parcels in favor of all parcels. 39 City Council Meeting Nove~oer 20~ 1989 4. The landscaping plan shall be revised to acco~odate additional right-of-way and the bus shelter on Market Boulevard. 5. Final plat subject to all conditions of PUD approval. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution #89-130: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Vacation #89-8 to vacate a portion of West 78th Street and maintain a 40 foot right-of-way along the southerly half of West 78th Street for the Market Sc~_]are plat with the following conditions: 1. A trail easement shall be provided acco~m~odating the trail and sidewalk along West 78th Street. 2. Final plat approval for Market S~]are. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. ERSBO ADDITION, FAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD JUST SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 5.~6 ACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. Bo WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST TO DEVELOP WITHIN 290 FEET OF A CLASS A WETLAND. Paul Krauss: The applicant's rec~.lesting to subdivide a 5 acre parcel into 7 lots. One lot with 92,g~0 sca]are feet which is the large ho~e site located on the right side of that illustration would contain an existing home and the remaining 6 lots would be available for new construction. Last year the City approved a s,]bdivision of this parcel into 5 lots for the same applicant. The plat was filed and is listed on the plat map. However, the improvements were never installed. The applicant has stated that he's unable to proceed with the development of that plat prJ_~,arily due to development costs and the need to distribute it over 5 lots rather than, or excuse me 4 new lots instead of 6 and of course it must be noted that the current plat does yield 2 additional lots over the original proposal. Staff generally supports the proposal. We worked with the developer to revise the plans which resulted only minor modifications were recruited. Access and a related variance were really the only significant issues surrounding this plat. The original plat utilized a 50 foot wide right-of-way along the west side of the property to provide access and then brought in a cul-de-sac off of that. The result of that was that the existing house site over there had frontage on a future street and did not rec~ire a variance. We took a look at that road design and came up with sc~_.~e significant problems with it. The property located just to the west of the Ersbo Addition contains a large protected wetland. The location of the wetland is such that construction in that road would probably cause sc~e filling into it and it's a Class A wetland. We also looked at the extension of the road that was illustrated further to the east to pick up these lots over here. We saw some problem,s with that as well in that there's a hc~e located on this lot which would be only 15 feet fro~'L the street. If in fact a road was built in this manner, you would have a bunch of double frontage hc~e sites and the backyards would back onto a major street which is not an optimal design. There was a 4~ City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 further, problem with the road extension on the west side of the property in that we couldn't figure out who it would serve. It can only have homesites on one side and it wasn't clear where it would go as it continued further to the south. Consec~]ently, we went with the, well we support the applicant's current design. We took a look at overall access into the surrounding area. What we think might happen in the long term is that right now the MUSA line is the property line of the Ersbo Addition. It runs down there. At such time as the MUSA line is moved out to the west, and if this property is developed, we think it's possible to bring a road down from Lake Lucy coming back up...Ersbo Addition and coming back out to Powers Blvd. and that's probably the better way to sel~e that area in the future. One of the problems that results from the plat that's being proposed. Councilman Boyt: Before you move that, I've got so~e questions about that one. Your proposed road, is it running across a wetland there? What is that light colored area? Is that trees? Paul Krauss: There's a drainage. The wetland itself is right ilo in here. There's a ditch that outlets the wetland out to the south. It's not the wetland property. It's a drainage feature that you have to cross. Councilman Workman: That's lake Lucy? Mayor CTm~iel: No, lake Lucy Road. Paul Krauss: Lake Lucy Road is... Councilman Work.mn: But what's the wetland in there? That's the pond? Paul Krauss: This is the wetlands. Gary Warren: I believe that outlets to the north. The inlet is what it would be crossing. Councilman Boyt: What's the terrain like in there? Is that really, I mean Gary is that a realistic place to put a road? It looks like they going up and down so~e steep grades there. Paul Krauss: Actually these are our new aerial topos. Gary Warren: When we had looked at the original plat when Ersbo ca~e in, that's where we came ~ with the concept of trying to service him off of Lake Lucy Road and we didn't extensively look at this because we didn't have the topo available. There's no question that you've got some ilo and down there. I haven't detailed study the magnitude of what kind of earth work would have to be done but there would be some involved. CounciL, lan Boyt: Okay. Well those are n~ questions about that. Paul Krauss: What we have resulting though from the plat that's being proposed is that there is a variance for Lot 2 in that it's entire frontage is I believe the, is it 30 feet along Lake Lucy. It's basically a neck lot. Staff supports the proposal. We think it makes so, e sense due to area topography and from an environmental standpoint in that we think it will in the long term provide better protection for the wetland. We also think that it makes more sense in 41 City Council Meeting - Nov~'~er 20, 1989 the long run for overall access. Therefore we are reco~ending approval of that variance. We also go back to so~..~ething that we've discussed several times previously is that there's an anomoly in the ordinance in that the subdivision code allows these types of lots to exist while the RSF district does not. We've currently scheduled a review by the Planning Commission of an ordinance amendment to propose a way to address that. The Planning Co~m~ission reviewed the proposal at their last meeting and reconmended approval of it. One of their concerns however, and it's a valid one, was a desire to reduce the n~m~er of curb cuts on Lake Lucy Road. One of the things that they had proposed looking at was methods of taking the private driveway and bringing it into the cul-de-sac so it would enter onto the cul-de-sac rather than on Lake Lucy. We took a look at that and it's impossible to do but it's quite difficult. The grades are such that you have 12 foot drops coming in off that existing home and since we really didn't think it was all that effective an idea, the Planning Co~mission recc~ended approval of it in the way in which you see it tonight. We also would like to add a condition that we discussed at the Planning Co~ission and that is that the street name be changed to Arlington Court South. We had a long discussion with the Fire Marshall in terms of what's the most easily identifiable street if you're on an smergency services run and came up with the answer that it would be best if there was one Arlington in the city and it was both sides of the same intersection and that way they know where to go. They have a localized area for their service calls. Sc~eday we may have 3~ or 40g cul-de-sacs in this city. If everyone of them has a different name, it's going to be a nightmare to navigate around. With that we are reco~ending approval of the subdivision with the variance. There's also a wetland alteration permit and that one's a little c~.]irky too in that the reason for having the wetland alteration permit is that the activity that will take place on this plat is within 200 foot of the Class A wetland. In point of fact, nothing will be done into the wetland besides outletting a drainage pipe from this project and this particular plat has less of an impact on the wetland than the original plat did. We are, Jo Ann and I are taking a look at the wetlands ordinance in total and will probably be bringing something to you in the next few months on that but we are reco~m~ending approval of the wetland alteration permit for this project as proposed. Mayor C%m~iel: Is Mr. D~sbo here? Roman Roos: Good evening. I just took my cigarettes and ~]t them in the bathroc~. After this evening I don't think I might ever smoke again. I do have Richard Ersbo here this evening and he and I will address any c~]estions you might have. We have as of the previous meeting with the Planning Co~mission, made the changes that Planning Cou~ission and staff recoumended. We have changed the name of the cul-de-sac. We've changed the sewer size of course up to an 8 inch pretty much as the Planning Co~ission wanted. Ended up with a fire hydrant inside the cul-de-sac and of course a potential loop for the watermain going between lots 2 and 3 and I guess staff's report is pretty comprehensive. The Planning Co~,ission's review you have before you so we're here to answer any c~]estions you might have on this particular site. Councilman Johnson: And for the record who are you? Rc~an Roos: Is this for the public record? My name is Roman Roos with Rome Corporation. 42 City Council Meeting - Norther 20~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: My only discussion is, I liked it. Staff's done a good job working with the applicant and we've i~oroved a plat here. I think putting a driveway through that little subdivision w~uld be more of a problem than having it loop around the edge of it. I lived with a driveway behind me going back to Kerber's farm for about 4 years before he ended up having to sell out for tax reasons I guess and it really wasn't much of a problem. I think cutting through to the cul-de-sac with a driveway would be far more of a problem. Having a driveway between 2 people's lawns. There's not that many cars. The name of the street I think should be exactly the same as what it is on the other side. If it's Arlington Court, I like we just call it Arlington Court because they'll have. Why South? It's not on the south side of town. Is the other one Arlington Court North? If the other one's Arlington Court North, we could call this one South. Just Arlington Court. It will have different street numbers. You'll have lower street nuzzlers to the south than they have to the north or vice versa. Councilwoman Dimler: What did you call it? Did you name it already? Rc~an Roos: No, we're in the process. We're going to change it to... Mayor Chmiel: It will be south of Lake Lucy Road is basically what they're saying. Councilwc~an Dimler: I guess are we approving the 15 conditions and I had the other 2 down there and that was exactly what it was to call Eagle Circle Arlington Court South I had but it doesn't matter to ~. But I wonder, does condition 17 have to be the fire hydrant located at the end of the cul-de-sac with a 10 foot clear radius around the hydrant. Does that have to be specified? Paul Krauss: We got it down to 7 conditions. Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, where are you? Paul K~auss: It was intially quite a bit longer but the plan was amended before you got to see it so it's on page 8 and 9 of the staff report. Council~mn Workman: Tnat was the Planning Commission right? Councilman Johnson: Five conditions for wetland alteration permit and 7 for the plat. Councilman Workman: Tne Planning Cc~ission didn't make any changes then? Ro~lan Roos: No. Gary Warren: To answer that c~]estion another way, plans and specs review would also look at that. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Bill, you've got something? Councilman Boyt: Sure. Tc~n, you've got something? Councilman Workman: I was just going to ask Paul, I'm not clear as far as what we're going to be doing. He said that the cul-de-sac will affect the wetland? 43 City Council Meeting - Nove~'~er 2g, 1989 Paul K3~auss: No. The cul-de-sac won't directly. The alteration permit is beca,_%se it's going to be grading activity within 290 feet of it. We'll make sure that there's erosion control but the only physical thing that's going to happen in the wetland is that there's a storm...outlet into a corner of the wetland. Councilman Work~'~an: I thought you said it was going to fill some of it? Paul Krauss: No. The original plan had a potential for doing that. Roman Roos: Tom, that's a blacktop road r~ming along that western front of the property. We'll be putting a Type III erosion control barrier all the way along the inside edge of that road if you will which would totally preclude anything going into the wetland area. But the holding pond he's talking about on the drainage plan that I think you have a reduced size there, there is a holding pond that's going to pick up the retainage surface water runoff of this site along Lake Lucy Road and of course r~n ~_~nderneath a culvert underneath Lake Lucy, the cul-de-sac c~ing in and then along across to the holding pond. Then from the holding pond, then into the wetland areas so it's a settle~ent, basically a settlement pond. Gary Warren: If the alternate road concept here that Paul has volunteered would co~e to pass sometime in the future, it might be appropriate since the real interest even in the first submittals here was to try to minimize the curbcuts on Lake Lucy Road. It might be appropriate to have a condition that if that road does materialize, that the c~'rent hc~e be rec~.]ired to connect to that road and that this connection to Lake Lucy Road then would be abandoned. I think it'd be a more direct access to that property anyway. Mayor Cbmiel: Do you have any concerns about that? Roman Roos: Again, Dick I'll refer that to you. We do have, it's a blacktop paved driveway at this point in time on that easement on the west hand side. Dick, what about that? Dick Ersbo: I'm Dick Ersbo. I'm the owner. The blacktop road going down the side is going to be a private road and n[m~oer 2 block, where my house is, it's not going to be touched. It'd not going to be developed. I'm only interested in the front to get developed. I'm only interested in getting a little tax relief and I'm tired of _being a caretaker. Right now this is the third time this was going to be approved. It's been approved twice before and we've got it the best right now and the way we got that thing set up with the cul-de-sac, facing these h~,~es. The way it was before, the back of the homes would be facing Lucy Lake Road which would be terrible driving down Lucy Lake. This way it's going to look nice. Councilman Johnson: Dick, the question is, you see the green line going from Powers down around your house and back over to Lake Lucy. That's a potential future road. Gary Warren: We're not going to...with this at all. I'm just saying if that doesn't, the driveway and this house sweeps around and actually is on the south side of the house isn't it? So I'm just saying, if indeed this materializes, 44 City Council Meeting - Nov~nber 201 1989 and who knows. That's going to take some doing too but the interest in doing a road of this nature and our initial review of the plat and we're trying to get the access in here was to eliminate this. Dick Ersbo: That has nothing to do with me. It's not even going to be on our property. Roman Roos: ...if that green line becomes a road in the future, they'd like to consider the possibility of that blacktop driveway being wiped out. Dick Ersbo: Heck, I'll give them the blacktop driveway if you want to maintain it. Councilman Johnson: We don' t want the blacktop driveway. Dick Ersbo: I'll give it to you. I can see where Lucy Lake is up in the red there and, that's no problem I don't think. As far as I'm concerned it isn't. Roman Roos: Gary, probably the biggest concern would be the elevation change. Dick Ersbo: What you've got to understand is where my house is and where those lots are in front there, you've got what is it? About a 25 feet raising that's a~ost ~possible with those other 2 council guys, well the Planning Cc~ission. The ones before was talking about putting another round cul-de-sac in there. Well, you'd be better off putting a ski jump in there. %~nis is the only practical way that this will work and it's better looking. I'm not a professional developer and a lot of these things I'm learning from just by doing things like this. Councilman Johnson: What we're saying is some time in the future, years from now. Who knows when. It could be next month. Who knows. Somebody's going to want to develop so~.~e other property and this green line may become a road running right next to your property. Dick Ersbo: Heck, as far as I'm concerned, it's okay. They can take it. Councilman Johnson: Okay, what we want to do is ~mke a condition because the less amount of roads that go onto Lake Lucy, the safer Lake Lucy is. So what we'd like to do is make a condition that if that road is built, that you would connect your driveway onto this new green road versus going out your private drive to Lake Lucy. Dick Ersbo: That'd be fine but if you go over and look at where that blacktop road is, you'll see that you've got a big probl~ there and it's not going to be feasible. Council~an Johnson: You mean where that green line is? Dick Ersbo: Because of the hill there. Councilman Johnson: It may not ever be feasible. Dick Ersbo: Well, if you want to think long enough. Get about a thousand trucks out there to take that dirt away. 45 City Council M~eting - November 20~ 1989 Gary Warren: It will all depend on what the road grade is. There may be enough challenge to... Dick Ersbo: I've got no objections later on but right now I'm not going to develop that back part there. Councilman Johnson: Do you own that too? Dick Ersbo: Yes. I own that. Council~an Johnson: To the south? Dick Ersbo: I own the home there. That's where I live. Councilman Johnson: No, further south. Dick Ersbo: No, I don't own that. That's Kerbers. Mayor Chmiel: Larry owns that to the south. Gary Warren: He owns to the south along Powers Blvd. but I don't think... Paul Krauss: Actually I think it's Ortenblat. Councilman Johnson: I don't think he's in any great hurry to develop that property to tell you the truth. I don't see a problem there. I think that has answered my c~_~estion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other further disc~msion? Councilman Boyt: Yes. How wide is the blacktop now? Dick Ersbo: It's got to be about 18 foot wide roughly. Council~an Boyt: It's my understanding that 3 houses can access off a private drive? Paul Krauss: The subdivision code I believe says 4. Councilman Boyt: Four? Do we need any additional right-of-way if 4, are we going to be satisfied with 4 houses accessing off an 18 foot piece of asphalt? If they came in with 3 more houses that they were going to use for ~natever reason? Gary Warren: If he'd f~]rther subdivide Block 2? Councilman Boyt: Yes. I know it's never going to happen and all this sort of thing but if it did, conceiveably 4 houses could access off this private drive. Gary Warren: I think there's a 30 foot right-of-way. Paul Krauss: Could we approach that a little differently though? Right now the ordinance does say, there's that ano3~aly and it does require a variance to get 46 City Co,.uncil Meeting - November 20~ 1989 any of these. We' re going to bring you a comprehensive change in the Code that looks at the entire issue of how to access lots such as this. I don't know what the n~m~er will be on how many we would propose you allow but there certainly would be road design standards that would be required if these things were allowed to occur. For example, if you have more than one house on a private driveway, it should be paved to a width of 18 feet so you can get a fire truck down it. ~]ilt to a 7 ton design. ~nose are the kind of things we'll be bringing up in this ordinance proposal. Councilman Boyt: Okay, well that's good but we don't have it so my question is, is 18 feet wide enough? I know it is for your current needs and I'm not proposing that you go out and pave it to 24 feet tomorrow. I'm simply saying that for the City's, frc~ the City's standpoint, are we protected? Are we going to be able to have a sufficient road here if for sc~e reason it would have 4 houses on the end of it or do we need sc~e easement that we don't now have? Gary Warren: As you're well aware, our standard right-of-way is 50 in the urban area with curb and gutter. If you would allow this to subdivide, and I think the land would be in question whether it would even allow that with the topography there but if you would give th~ a rural section. I mean a rural standard is 60 foot right-of-way with a 24 foot paved surface. I would say that it would be pretty reasonable. That he's very close. I think within the 30 foot right-of-way you could do a private drive that would access the property reasonably. Councilman Boyt: I'm just thinking of the situation we have off Frontier Trail there where Brad put in those houses. Now I have a c~]estion for staff. When you discussed flag lots, one of the c~]estions that I have about flag lots is where are your setbacks? Where do you measure th~ from? That's not clear in the ordinance right now. We don't have flag lots now so we don't need it. Paul Krauss: That's another thing that we would have to address. CounciL,~an Boyt: I think when you're looking at that, figure the answer out to that one. Do we have, I haven't seen this or I haven't gone out and walked this particula~ piece of property but generally aren't there trees in this area? Rc~an Roos: Actually there's two co~ents. You can see the topo here and the lines get narrow and it's a pretty severe grade. Okay? This basically is cc~ing to a hilltop in this area. This grade comes around and...so that addresses your first ~estion. The probability of subdividing this downstream is...but we do have a 30 foot access which I think we can meet. Councilman Boyt: That's covered. Let's talk trees. Rc~an Roos: Okay, as you walk up this tree line, this is a fairly open area with no trees on it. As you get about halfway up this hill, you'll start seeing the treeline coming at it. That was addressed at the Planning Con~ission and one of the criteria was that we would take staff out there to try to create a no build type line on that hillside so I think that's the way we brought it in. But there's no trees down here whatsoever. It's just on the hillside. Councilman Boyt: Right which is where you're putting your cul-de-sac and several houses. 47 City Council Meeting ' November 2g, 1989 Paul KI-auss: Co~mcilman Boyt, we did look at that and there's no c~.]estion there are sc~e trees that are going to be lost as a result of this. However, the grading rec~_]ire~Lents of this plat are pretty similar to the grading rec~_]irements of the approved plat. That hill is being cut back to about the sa~e point as it was on the original proposal. Councilman Boyt: Since the original proposal came in I think we've developed a little bit better sense of what we want to do with trees. I referenced here to just 2 weeks ago when we went through this and so~e of the things you had in there you don't have here. I'm just a little curious why we don't have the~. I think that one of the things, certainly when you do this review with staff, that all the trees that are going to be saved have to be staked off at the drip line prior to grading. Roman Roos: Bill, I understand your concern with trees and I surely am one as you know frc~, ~ last one...so I can relate to the cause for trees. ~nen yogi take a site of this nature with the topography we've got on that site and make it useable and marketable, which is what development is all about, either for the private individual or for the developer, there is a point where you have to draw a line where sc~e trees have to go. Councilman Boyt: Right. I understand that. Roman Roos: This hillside is extremely and we're willing to work with staff but there's got to be some reasonable, we're cutting part of that hill away naturally as you can see on the grading plan that you've got a copy of Bill so we do have to shift that line somewhat. Councilman Boyt: Well I'm not saying you can't cut any trees down Roman. What I'm saying is when you decide what trees you're going to save, let's be sure they're saved. The other thing that I liked and we put in this development a few weeks ago was a situation about tree replace~ent. When you reprove trees I believe that was 10 inches. You were going to look at replacing. I think we should have cc~parable sorts of language in all o~r proposals. That's city ordinance. I'm talking about when you re~ove trees Roman that you should ~e replacing them. Now you don't have to replace th~ caliper inch for caliper inch. Not only would that be ~possible, it would be extremely expensive but I think you have to replace them not with a cc~parable size tree but with trees that amount to a comparable caliper inches when you divide them out. I think I would like to encourage staff when they do this tree review to be particularly careful to note trees that are 2g inches or greater in diameter. Dick Ersbo: No more trees will be cut down than is necessary. Councilman Boyt: I appreciate that but if I had a dollar for every time I've heard it, I wouldn't have to do this. Roman Roos: On the...which is the entrance if you will, we will do some tree... so I know your point and like I said, I've been on both sides of the table. I know what you're saying. Again, to make this ~mrketable, we're going to be doing sc~e landscaping on it Bill and we'll work with staff as best we can but we are going to have to take some trees. I don't know if there will be anything of that size... 48 City Co~cil M~eting - November 20, 1989 Councilman Boyt: I'm not telling you, I don't think the Council even if I wanted to, tell you you can't cut trees. Yes, you can cut down trees. I'm saying that these trees represent investment in the whole co~nunity. You own them but the co~nity benefits from them. Dick Ersbo: Cutting the trees down will cut down the beauty of this property. I don't want to cut these trees down unless it's a necessity. Councilman Boyt: I would propose two conditions be added to the list. One of them I think you agree with completely and that's staking off the trees at the drip line that are to be saved. The second one, I don't know what the council feels about this but I think anything over 10 inches should be replaced by other trees. Not meaning they have to be equal caliper inch. The total caliper inches need to add up to that same thing. That's what we put in there 2 weeks ago I believe with that one. The earlier proposal and I think it should be in this one. What's the sense of the Council on those? Councilman Johnson: I'd say 6 inches maybe rather than 10. Mayor Chmiel: Where will those trees get put once they get cut? Who's determination where they go? Councilman Boyt: I think the developer can determine where they go and I'm sure the developer will put them where they' 11 be most advantageous to the homeowner s. Paul K~auss: The front 4 lots will have no vegetation on them~ at all. In fact they are attempting to build a little bit of a berm between the lot and Lake Lucy so some of the trees could certainly go up in that area. Roman Roos: I think our next step will be to work up an overall landscape... Bill I read you loud and clear. Councilman Boyt: I think the DNR Forester will come out and tell you which trees won't make it and suggest all kinds of things like that. Usually we put in the DNR forester should work with you in developing a plan. Mayor Ctm~iel: Any other further discussion? Councilman Johnson: I ' 11 move with Bill ' s two additions. CounciL, lan Workman: Second. CounciL,~an Johnson: And the third addition from staff on the access for the future road and what are you waving for? Paul Krauss: Street name. Councilman Johnson: Street name to Arlington Court. Councilman Workman: South? 49 City Council l~eting - Nove~_~oer 20~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: I don't care. Why have it different than the one on the other side of the street? Councilman Boyt: Why don't we let the fire marshall decide. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. If the fire marshall wants to call it south. I think anything south of TH 5 is south. Councilman Workman: I wanted to ask Roman why he wanted Eagle. Councilman Johnson: Because he likes the crackers. Mayor Chmiel: Because he doesn't want to be with turkeys like us. Councilman Workman: He's got an eagle fettish. Roman Roos: Could I make just a conm~ent on your motion? Or your amendment to the motion? Is that in order Mr. Mayor? Mayor Ct~iel: If you can understand what our motion is, you can respond to that. Roman Roos: In regards to the proposed green road in the future. We have spent quite a lot on that blacktop road coming in right now and of course I would think, I ,~nderstand what staff is trying to do in tel~s of curb cuts on Lake Lucy but at the same token, if you notice the length of that driveway~ there's a tIemendous expense at this point in time and for him to have to negate that road or recut a new road down if it is indeed possible which we don't know at this point in time, I would say he would at lesat look at that possibility but at the same token there is a major cost factor involved so I don't know Jay if we can make that a condition of your motion. At least that's my feeling at this point in time. Now perhaps when something happens with the Ortenblat situation, maybe at that point in time but I would hate very much to have that be a condition of the motion at this point. Cotmcilman Johnson: To tell you the truth, it's kind of a useless condition in that your plat will be completely built and all the houses will probably be on it prior to that road even being around but what we're establishing is the intent so that in the future if that road comes in there, and it's a reasonable thing to connect to, that the future Council will have something to say. Okay, we gave you something, you're giving us something. We give you a variance so that you can have that road now without having to go through your new subdivision and ruining your new subdivision. We're giving you sc~ething. What we're saying is that we w-ant something in return and that something in return is if in the future that road goes through, we will make Lake Lucy a little bit safer for the drive~:s of this town and he'll get a better access out to Powers. Roman Roos: I ~]nderstand what you're saying Jay but again there's a tremendous amotmt of economics in it and I think we would definitely do that kind of thing if indeed it happened in the future but I would think there would have to be some kind of economic consideration because we have spent a lot of money to date on that road. 50 City Co,~cil Meeting - November 20~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: The econc~ic consideration would come from so~ future~ future Council. Roman Roos: I understand but as long as that's part of it. CounciL, lan Johnson: Well yeah. There's always the reasonableness has to be brought into it. What we're saying is that this is the plan at this time. If in the future it's going to cost you $100,000.00 to do it, obviously they're not going to make you do it. No reasonable Co,~ncil would and I would assume this town's only going to elect reasonable Councils. Gary Warren: Maintenance cost savings could ec~]al the cost of a new road over several years too. That's a long driveway. Roman Roos: But again, I just wanted to make that co~m~ent to your motion. I understand what you're saying Jay. CounciL, lan Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Subdivision #87-36 as presented on the plat stamped "Received October 11, 1989" with a variance to allow a 30 foot lot width on Lot 1, Block 2, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide final detailed plans of the streets and utility improvements. 2. Lots 1 and 6, Block 1 are to gain access solely by driveway to Eagle Circle. Access to Lake Lucy Road is prohibited. A notice of this limitation should be placed in shared title of both lots. 3. Provide final erosion control plans acceptable to staff. Type III erosion control will be required along the western perinleter of the site adjacent to the wetland. Prior to the initiation of grading, staff will walk the site with the developer to mark out trees designated for preservation. Staff will modify the plans as re~]ired to improve tree preservation efforts. Drainage swales are to be provided around each of the ho~s. The berm located in the Lake Lucy Road right-of-way is to be relocated onto Lot 1, Block 1. 4. Provide final drainage plans for approval by City Staff. Watershed District approval is required. 5. Easements to be provided: a. Right-of-way for Eagle Circle. b. Rec~]est the City Council vacate right-of-way for existing streets and easem,ents approved under the original plat. c. Utility easements are required for the proposed watermain and sanitary sewer pipes on Lot 6, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; and based upon final engineering design may be re~]ired over an adjacent parcel to the west. d. Drainage and utility easements are required over the pond and storm sewer pipes on LOt 6, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; and based upon final 51 City Council Meeting - Nov~er 2g~ 1989 engineering design may be rec~_lired over an adjacent parcel to the west. e. Standard utility easements around the perimeter of each lot. 6. Enter into a development contract with the City. 7. Cc~pliance with the conditions of Wetland Alteration Pe~it ~88-7. 8. Change the street name to Arlington Court. 9. At such time as a new public street is provided to the south of Lake Lucy Road, the private driveway currently serving tJ~e existing home shall be removed and the driveway shall access to the south off the new public street. lg. Stake off the trees to be saved at the dripline. 11. All trees 10" or more in caliper need to be replaced. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson: I will move the wetland alteration permit. Councilman Boyt: I will second that. I think we should add a ski~m~er. They talked about a skimmer. They pulled the ski~er out. Councilman Johnson: Why don't we have a ski~er? I missed the ski~er. Roman Roos: We've got a sedimentation pond. A ski~er's cost is not that great but that's really the lm]rpose for a sedimentation pond before it outlets into the Watershed. Councilman Boyt: And that's what the ski~er does isn't it? It ensures that the sedimentation pond is doing it's job. Ro~mn Roos: Not necessarily. If the ski~er's ~.~ed on a main outflow into an watershed type situation, all we did was put a sedimentation pond in it's place. It was a reco~endation of Planning Co~,isssion if I recall Paul, but again knowing what they do and how they function and I guess engineering, Gary can address that issue. That ski~er's really not going to perform any real function as it sets as we've got it laid out on a drainage situation. Gary? Gary Warren: I don't know all the details of a ski~er. I would suggest that when plans and specs cc~_.~e back, we will definitely be looking at along with the Watershed District to have the appropriate, whether it's a skimmer or not. To have the appropriate facility put in. Council~an Boyt: The City has im]t that in several of it's holding ponds. Gary Warren: And I've been on record, I don't like the wood skin,Lets because they're going to be, not too far in the distance we're going to have a lot of repairs and maintenance on them but I'd say, the plans and specs phase would be appropriate to work out that detail. 52 City Council M~eting - Nove~er 20, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Which Watershed District has this? Gary Warren: Their boundaries, we just got, this actually flows, that wetland flows up ultimately to Christmas Lake so that's Minnehaha Creek but the boundary fro~, what Mr. ~]anbeck has told me, doesn't necessarily follow. My gut reaction is that it's Minnehaha but it could be in Riley-Purgatory. Councilman Johnson: So I have some review of the skinnier. Gary Warren: You ~y have sc~ influence. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit Rec~lest #88-7 as presented on the plat stamped "Received October 11, 1989", subject to the following conditions: 1. Acquisition of a drainage easement frc~, the adjacent property owner. 2. Approval of a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 3. Creation of a storm water retention pond in the northwest corner of Lot 6, Block 1. 4. Installation of Type III erosion control between the development and the Class A wetland. 5. Compliance with conditions of the Preliminary Plat #87-36. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSIDER PLUMBING PERMIT FEE REVISION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A PIPING FEE. Councilman Johnson: Can I ask a question? Why aren't we doing this with our normal fee review that we do every January? Don Ashworth: This is a new fee schedule. J~ is present. Do you want to go through it Jim? Councilman Johnson: It seems that that would be a logical time to implement a new fee when we review all our fees. Maybe not. Jim Chaffee: I didn't c~lite hear your question or what the answer was. This is a new fee that we're asking be implemented. One is a new fee and another is a revision of the pl~m~ing fee. We've not revised the plumbing fee structure for c~]ite a while. Our plumbing inspector took a look at this several months ago. Asked if they could come up with a schedule that would be conducive more to what they do and also more in like with what the other cities in our surrounding areas are doing. They have done that and after considerable amount of research, they have revised the plu~ing permit fee schedule to reflect more of what we do and they've also asked that we implement a gas piping fee schedule which we've never had in the City of Chanhassen. We didn't even look at this until we started doing our mechanical inspections ourselves. I think it's a needed area. 53 City Council Meeting - Nove~floer 20, 1989 They've asked the Council to approve it so they can get on with their business. In doing this, they have indicated that they would spread the tax burden amongst, well to take the tax burden away from the citizens of Chanhassen and put it on the developers so all the citizens are not burdened with this tax issue. So everybody's not paying for the select few people who use our services. It's just like any other user fee. Councilman Johnson: Sounds good to me. Councilman Boyt: Okay, I'll ask a question. How much did your fees collected, if you know off hand, exceed your expenses last year for the building department? Jim Chaffee: In 19887 Councilman Boyt: Sure. Jim Chaffee: I'm guessing around $149,000.00-$150,000.00. State that c~.]estion again Bill? Councilman Boyt: How much did your fee income exceed expenses in 19887 Jim Chaffee: Just for code enforce~ent I would guess about $300,000.00. Councilman Boyt: Okay. This is too good an opportunity to pass UP. This is crazy. I'll say it one more time. The building department is subsidizing the City and we've got to cut that out. To come back now and for the building department to say well we need more money, they're not spending what they're bringingyou.re bringingin now. inThey'rev n.ot spending, well if you've got $300,000.00 more that than .ou re expending, now to'come back and say, well if we don't charge this, the taxpayers are going to be underwriting it is a joke. The building inspection department is underwriting the city. So that's one problem. I wish we could resolve it. We ought to resolve it but there's another proble~ that I think is just as big and that is that people routinely in my estimation wire their house, plumflo their house, build their decks and they don't come in and get a permit. Then there may be the q~]estion of when they do come in and get the permit, maybe we don't do the inspection. I'm not sure about that one but I know that a good many of them do it without getting the permit. We have to address that and I don't mean by going in and inspecting door to door but we have to figure out a way to let people know that 'this service is available to them and the advantages of ,]sing it and we've got to make it cheap enough so they will use it because they'll see the advantages outweighing the cost. There's no c~estion we should, in ~ mind, that we should be doing the inspections that you're reco~ending that we do. My two c~estions are, one. We sure as heck don't need to charge more permit fees because we're bringing in more than we're spending now. Two, we've got to get people to use them. New homeowners or new home builders ~ndoubtedly use it but what about the citizen who's putting in a new piece of wiring to wire a flourescent lamp or plumfloing something or building a deck so I don't think we're really addressing the problems that we've got with this particular thing. I can't vote to support it when we're bringing in more money than we're spending. Councilman Workman: I'm not sure Bill I understand the second part of that. 54 City Council Ms, ting - November 20, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Bringing in more money than we're spending? Councilman Workman: No. That's the first part. The second part being the people who are plumbing their own thing, wiring their own thing. Councilman Johnson: Different issue. Councilman Boyt: Well it's really not addressed by this but it touches on it and I'm just saying that scmehow we're not matching up with those folks. I think they're not coming in to get permits. I don't know. Councilman Johnson: Some do. Scm~e don' t. Councilman Boyt: And they should. It's a safety issue. So how do we get them to do that? How do we get them to know they have to do that? That's a separate issue. Councils~an Workman: I guess I've never met a fee I like and so the issue of the building department subsidizing the city I think might be appropriate now. I don' t know about later. CounciL-~an Boyt: When's later? Councilman Workman: I mean it's going to rise and it's going to fall so later it's not going to be subsidizing. Councilman Boyt: Right, so then what do we do for money? What would you do if suddenly, for scm~e reason there was a stop in new home construction? We would lose $300,000.00 that we're now funding the City with. It would be gone. To ~ that sounds like when you're running your basic city services out of money that comes in on a fee structure, we're at risk. Councilman Workman: Yeah, and I understand that. I'm just saying right now we have a glut of it and when we don't have a glut of it, we're not going to have this $300,000.00 but does that still, I still see that as maybe being a little bit separate from this also. Councilman Boyt: Well you're saying add to it. Councilman Workman: What. I'm sayin, g is and what the Public Safety Department is saying, the building offiCial is saying, right now we're all being charged for when somebody has this done and it's unlike everything el.se we're having people do. We're charging them a fee but for these things, we're all paying for it. So regardless of how much money we're taking in, and I understand that as being an issue. I think the real issue is, should these people be paying for this themselves when they have it done or shouldn't they. I think separate of your issue of the fact that the City is basing all this on should I be paying and subsidizing when somebody has plu~ing, gas piping or a fireplace done. Councilman Boyt: But you're not. Councilman Work~an: Well as it states here I am. 55 City Council Meeting - Nova~oer 20, 1989 Council,,an Boyt: But they're wrong. They're wT:ong because they're bringing in $300,000.00 that they're not even spending. So when they go out and do these inspections, maybe they're taking it o~]t of that $300,000.00 but they're sure as heck not taking it out of anything we pay. Councilman Workr~an: But you're talking now. I'm talking what about in the future. Co~mcilman Boyt: I'm talking about now. I'm talking about last year. I'm talking about the year before that. How far back do you want to go? Council~an Johnson: He wants to go the other way. Council~an Workman: I want to go forward. Co~mcilman Johnson: 2 years from now when the ho~]sing's way do~m. Councilman Boyt: If that sho~lld happen to us, the way we r~.m the budget on this item today, are you going to choose to not plow the streets or not have a police contract or what are you going to give up because you're not going to have the money beca~]se these guys are underwriting you and now they're coming back and they're saying well other ca~unities are charging for this, we should charge it. I agree with that part of ~/nat you said. We should ~mless you run a $300,000.00 surplus ar~ then how do you j~]stify it? We're not adding to staff to do this are we? There you go. They've already covered themselves and they're running a $300,000.00 surplus and they're saying give us more. I can't buy it. Councilman Johnson: We sho~]ld r~]n the finances of our city pure. Not like the rest of the world but a little more pure and be purely legal and...pay for what services those folks get. We shouldn't have this surplus. Which would mean increased taxes to the rest of us in comparison to Eden Prairie and everybody else who also is in the saF'.e boat we're in. It's probably universal throughout aL~ost any city as an income maker in the inspections department. _Mayor CTm~iel: JIF,, what's our average cost for an inspection of a residential and commercial businesses? Ji~ Chaffee: I don't know if I can answer that just right off hand. Councilman Workman: It's like this co~unity center that's being proposed. Some parts of the co,~.mity center make money and pay for the others. Some don't so we're not ever going to wash that out you know. I'm not going to stand here and defend the fee, that's for sure. That's not what I'm defending. Councilman Boyt: What are you defending? Councilman Workman: I defending the logic of what we have and should we choose to ignore this half because of this pile of money that we're sliding around City Hall and I'm looking to the f~]t~]re to say well we have the money now b~t we aren't going to have it later. Can we then come back and say because we'll all be on the Council in 10 years or whatever. Then we'll be able to say, see we told you but now we're going to have to start getting and pulling these fees out of everywhere else. 56 City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: Well when it's a fee for service situation given that you need so~ sort of surpl~.~ there so you can absorb...for slow down periods but generally if the need for the service declines, then you cut back. That's a variable cost so you cut back in your inspection staff. What we're doing now is if there's a decline, we cut back in hard city service and the stuff that we all think our tax dollars are paying for. Councilman Johnson: Or we increase taxes. Counci]_-~an Boyt: (k4 we increase taxes. Don Ashworth: I don't know if I would really agree with that Bill. From the standpoint that over the last 2-3 years surpluses that have been built up, I've advised the Council do not spend these dollars on reoccuring operational expenditures because you don't know if you're going to get th~n again. So so~ of the areas that we've spent those dollars on are the addition to City Hall. I ~an that's $550,000.00 just in the physical plan not including any type of desks and anything else. That's really not in Jim's nu~er. We fund the equitm~nt purchases out of a separate fund. That's not in those n%~nbers. I would say if there is a down point, you're not going to have those surpluses that we've built up over the years but I don't know that I'd be willing to state that we're going to have to give up hard services for that. I don't know that I'm in a position to totally agree or totally disagree but I mean I question the total logic there. I'd like to respond to that part of the ~]estion. I'd like to research that issue a little bit further. Councilman Boyt: You've looked at this issue for 3 years. There's nothing new about this issue and you're telling ~ you still don't know?. Don Ashworth: I don't think that the numbers that I had presented to you a year ago were that far off as far as being a great money maker. I thought that we had continued to close that gap as far as the difference between the amount of money taken in from revenue and the expenditures associated with the inspection department. Councilman Boyt: I agree that you've worked to close the gap. I agree with you there. I'm just saying there's still a gap and how do we justify charging people more when we're taking in more money than they're spending. That's n~ point. I mean you guys can vote anyway that you see it. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Jim, in determining these fees that you did come up with. Is this out of the UBC? Jim Chaffee: Portions are out of the UBC but the plu~ing portion is based on surrounding communities. What we've traditionally had and the percentage inflation factor for the past several years that this has been revised. Mayor Ctm~iel: In comparison with the other co~unities, where are we at with what we have existing? What you're proposing, is thiS where we're the two differences are? Jim Chaffee: Right. Where we are at right now is the lowest. What we are proposing is in the middle range, slightly on the low end of the middle range. 57 City Council Meeting - Nove~oer 20, 1989 Mayor Cfm,icl: How many co, munities did you review to come up with the conclusion? Jim Chaffee: That I'm not sure. Mayor Chmiel: Eden Prairie is mentioned in there. I'm wondering if there are any more besides Eden Prairie like Bloc~ington or Burnsville. Jim Chaffee: I think they looked at, I'm guessing but I think they looked at growing co~-~unities like Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville. Mayor CTm~iel: On the gas segment of this. Has Minnegasco done any of those inspections when they co~e in to connect or when they bring in that meter. Do they do any kind of inspections at all? Jim Chaffee: Not for Code, no. We do that. Councilwoman Dimler: I have one c~_]estion Jim. I don't know if these figures are good or bad but do you have any evidence...develolm~ent? Jim Chaffee: No, we haven't seen that. We went through this when we raised the building pek~it fees about 2 1/2-3 years ago. Didn't scare off anybody. Co~mcilman Boyt: I'm sure they'll pay it. Jim Chaffee: What we did then is we just increased the fees to match the UBC at that time. So what they were getting as a bargain, now what they were paying for throughout the entire state. Councilman Johnson: This won't slow down our growth. Mayor Chmiel: No. The only thing I was thinking was how long does it take an inspector to do that inspection and what does it cost that we pay that inspector for that? Jim Chaffee: Those figures I don't have right before me but I think I can get those. There's like 2 or 3 t~es yogi have to go back for a pltm~ing inspection. Heating inspection you have to go back twice. We have all those. Mayor Chmiel: Are all those additional trips taken into consideration as well? Ji~ Chaffee: Right. When I get those figures, we would take those trips into consideration as far as our cost goes. As far as manpower. ~Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other ~]estions? Councilman Workman: I guess I see it as fitting in line with everything else that we're doing. Not proud of that fact but the iss~]e of where we stand with our fees, fees for services and our reliance on them for our budget, I guess I would like to see if they've been done in the past 3 years. Maybe it's time I saw sc~e of it but I don't... Mayor Chmiel: Is that it? 58 City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 Councilman Workman: Yeah. I just don't know how, I mean I'm not sure that I c~]ite follow Bill's logic. I see the things in there and why but to charge for so~ services and not for others, maybe we need to charge for this and lower the cost of all the others if we want to bring that surplus down or so~ething but we're taking a certain segment of the building out and we're not charging a fee for it. Councilman Johnson: There's some inspections that I know we're spending more money on. Say what I paid for ~ building permit and they've come out twice already to do inspections and they have one more yet to do if I ever get back to getting the dry wall finished. For these little fix it up your own self home jobs, what you pay for a building inspection is far less than what the City puts into it but for a new home, it may go the other way. Mayor Chmiel: So what you're saying is it ec}]alizes maybe one to the other? Councilman Johnson: A little. I think we are at this point in our town doing some subsidizing. I believe that every other town in the Twin Cities and the state of Minnesota is probably doing exactly the sa~ thing. I don't want to be actually the first one to be ccm~pletely pure with our budget the way it is right now. Councilman Boyt: If I could make one more attempt at explaining the logic. I agree with you that there should be a fee for inspections. That we certainly should be inspecting these t~o areas. What we're really doing is taxing new hc~eowners and I think we need to be very careful when we do that. How do we justify increasing a tax when we are making a substantial income over expenditure surplus? I mean if you want to take it out of sc~e other area and call it pl~m~ing and gas piping fees, that's fine by me. I'm just saying that how can we justify to new home owners we just increased the cost of moving them to Chanhassen and we're already making, cut it in half. $150,000.00 over what it costs us to do this. Mayor Chmiel: But you're talking Bill about a $103.00 difference in that new hc~e price that you're talking. Councilman Boyt: Well, whether it's $10.00 or $300.00, we've got a surplus and we're not adding to staff. Add somebody to staff. Justify your need for... Mayor Chmiel: No, we don't need to do that. Councilman Boyt: Another way of looking at this is that we're d~anding these inspections out of our existing staff. Well anyway, my plan would be to vote against this. I think we have to send a signal to the City that more is too much. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Do you want to discuss this more? Councilman Johnson: I don't. Councilman Workman: I ' d move approval. Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. 59 City Council Meeting - Nove~oer 20, 1989 Resolution ~89-131: Councilman Wo~'kman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the revised pl~ing permit fee schedule as indicated by staff and approve the gas piping pek%,~it to include the associated fees as indicated by staff. All voted in favor except Councilman Box~ who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Bill, get your t~]blic Safety Minutes. Councilman Boyt: Okay, this is quick. J~t already is working out an answer to this but tlae t~.]blic Safety Co~ission asked me to come to the Co~]ncil and seek Council direction on whether or not you want to continue to have the Minutes typed. It's expensive and there was some c~.]estion as to ~nether there might not be better alternatives that wouid be less expensive so that's why I brought it here. Councilman Johnson: But you're doing tJ~at with building pe~.~it money though. Mayor Chmiel: I would make a motion that we continue with the verbatim Minutes, or that's my feeling. Councilman Workman: How did that discussion come up? Mayor Ctm,iel: I was at that meeting too. It was, depending upon how it was discussed back and forth. Councilman Workman: I mean it was brought up as an agenda item? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Council~mn Work~an: But a group? Councilman Boyt: I might have brought it up. I don't remember honestly. Councilman Workman: And what was the, they voted on it? Councilman Boyt: Dick Wing said, I want you to go to the City Council and find out what they want, as I recall. I don't have the Min~]tes yet. Councilman Workman: I might add that HRA on Thursday approved verbatim Minutes. Mayor Chmiel: Right and I think we should have them. Councilman Workman: 7hey felt that there's a lot more legalies and co~itments in words that they're saying and they thought that maybe they ought to have them because things are getting left out. Mayor CTm~iel: If you don't have f~]ll verbatim Minutes, you don't get the full picture of what the discussion was. It's their interpretation of whoever is pulling those Minutes together. 60 City Council Meeting- Norther 20~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: I do not want to see Dick Wing's Minutes~ Councilman Boyt: An alternative would be, certainly there are some items the ~]blic Safety Co~ission discusses that are going to end up on your agenda and you want th~ but one alternative was that the Minutes would be taped. ~he tapes would be kept. If there was a public hearing or if there was an item that appeared to be controversial, that those portions of the Minutes would be typed ~. The rest of the Minutes would si~lybe su~arized. Mayor Cb_,~iel: You're still not getting the full picture of what was done at that particular ~eting. Councilman Boyt: $4,000.00 to do that. J~ Chaffee: That's where Bill and I disagree. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there was a lot of figures being tossed back and forth on those total dollars. Councilman Boyt: Ask Don. Don Ashworth: For verbatim Minutes. The figures from finance show $3,500.00 to $5,000.00 is ~ recollection. Mayor Chmiel: I don' t believe that. Councilman Boyt: That's what's in the budget. $4,500.00. Council~an Workman: I don't rem~nber the last time I saw a Public Safety Minutes. Mayor Chmiel: How long does it take to type up the Safety Minutes? 20 hours. Okay. And that's normally once a month right? Councilman Boyt: The last ones were also the shortest of the year so far. (Everyone was talking amongst themselves at this point.) Mayor Chmiel: We j~t did a real quick calculation here and you come up with anywhere between $2,500.00 and $3,000.00 but I think they're worth something in itself. You still get the full scoop of what's happening at that particular meeting as far as the information is contained in it. If they were just to pull the half out of the Minutes as they do in some of them, you lose some of the thought that' s there. Councilman Boyt: You do. I agree. You do. Mayor Chmiel: And you don't know what's happening so in ~ opinion, at least as I see it, I would just as soon see the verbatim Minutes contained within. Councilwoman Dimler: What about the issue that they come out only once a month and a lot of times Council's already dealt with the issue before the Mintues . come out? 61 City Co~ncil Meeting - Nov~oer 2g, 1989 Jim Chaffee: I gl]ess that's because I'm so quick. We did get th~, real c~ick this time. We' re going to try and get them a lot c~]icker so it's before the Council as the issue. Co~mcilman Boyt: Real c~]ick. That ' s October 12th. That ' s over a month. J~ Chaffee: No, no. We've got what, last week's Minutes already. Councilman Boyt: We don't have them. Ji~ Chaffee: No. I haven't sent them out yet. I just got them Friday and just say the~ today but T~ saw them. He had them tonight because he had the~ for the cigarette issue. The s~'~oking issue. Councilwc~an Dimler: So you're saying that you would have them but you're not going to give them out but you'll work on the next Council meeting in the packet. Jim Chaffee: Well ideally what we'd like to do is as an issue co~es before Council, we'd like to have the b]blic Safety couments with that issue. Just like the Planning Co~ission or Park and Rec Cc~_~ission it~ would come. That's ideally []ow we'd like to do it and I think we can get that and do it. We may have to hold back one more Council meeting than I normally like to get it before the Council but I think it can be done. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but you're not planning to have any to our homes or? Jim Chaffee: No, you'll get them in the no~,al Council packet as it comes out as I get them. Councilman Boyt: Well it hasn't happened yet. That's why I'm smiling. Mayor Ck~tJ. el: Okay, any other discussion? Councilman Workman: What is again, the ~]blic Safety's overall, they split right? Jim Chaffee: Yeah. If you want to table this for a second I can go ~]pstairs and I can tell you exactly what it is. Councilman Boyt: Do you have the Minutes? J~ Chaffe~: I took them back upstairs Bill. Councilman Workman: I gave those Minutes back to you didn't I? Jim Chaffee: Yeah. I took them upstairs again. Councilman Woxkman: No, I think they're split. I don't think it changed any really. Council~an Johnson: I almost like that option that something that isn't coming before us could be s~mmarized and whateve~ is going to be cc~ing forth that we'll be acting ~]pon be typed ~1o. Could save some money. A lot of the issues 62 City Council Mee%ing - November 20, 1989 they may, but see what they may not act on this time they may act on next time. Mayor Chmiel: Of course some of the things they're discussing too, to give you a little better perception on some of the things that you're talking about and even give you some other insights on other things that they're talking about. Co,~cilman Johnson: Unfortunately I'm so involved in so many co~nittees and everything, I don't have ti,~ to read every cor~ission's verbatim minutes. It's just impossible. Mayor Chmiel: It doesn't take too long. Councilman Johnson: Well I can't read them as I drive to work. Mayor Chmiel: Oh yes you can. When you sit on TH 5 like I did this morning. Councilman Johnson: I take TH 101. You can't read and drive on TH 101. Councilman Boyt: So what's the wish of the Council? Mayor Chmiel: I will make a motion to keep the verbatim Minutes with Public Safety. Is there a second? Councilman Boyt: Well I'll make a motion that we go to a modified Minutes situation with items appearing before the Council typed up and in the appropriate Council packet and tapes kept of all ~=etings for referral should the need ar ise. Councilman Work, mn: I guess I would just say that... CounciL,~an Boyt: Well, is there a second to that? Mayor Chmiel: It's discussion. You don't have to ask for it? Wait for it. CounciL,,an Johnson: I'll second it so we can get sc~e discussion on it. Councilman Workman: I'm just unsettled because Public Safety is so unsettled about it. Councilman Johnson: They're looking for some direction. Let's give them some. CounciL,~an Workman: I don't know. They haven't been real valuable to me because of the timeliness and a lot of cash. I don't know. I would be in favor of going all the way around to less minutes. I know that isn't going to happen real soon but that ' s why I 'm unsettled I guess. Councilwoman Dimler: I voted against the measure in the first place and I guess j~.~t for consistency sake I will stay with that position. I don't have time to read the~ either. I don't find them that helpful and when there is an issue, we can go back to the tapes and check with Jim. Councilman Johnson: I like the modified version. 63 City Council Meeting - Nov~loer 20j 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. And I do think the expense is significant if that's actually what it is. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to accept mod].fied Minutes fra~, the t~]blic Safety Co~,ission with items appearing before the Council typed verbatim and in the appropriate Council packet and tapes kept of all meetings for referral should the need arise. All voted in favor except Mayor Chmiel who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Cb~iel: Okay, let's move onto the next one. Ursula? Councilwoman Dimler: About Chanhassen Tobacco Free Youth Project. Seeing that we just passed the ordinance of cigarette and vending _machines. One of the recor,~endations was to have the co_~unity involved in a tobacco free youth project. This ~uld be any men'~oer of the co~,unity that would want to be involved. It wo,]ld be mainly to ed,]cate, which is ~/nat we talked about. We need to get o~]t there anti educate and these cost,unity men,ers would go out and they would talk to our business people and tell them, make them aware of the law. A lot of them aren't even aware of the law abont the new changes and that -they are liable if they do sell to minors. Also they could get stickers that say, p~]t them in their store and say we check ID's which might scare the youth to try to go and get over the counter. There's just all kinds of ideas that the public could get involved in in helping to enforce the law and helping to educate the ad~]lts. How we can all better deal with it. I talked to Margie Karjalahti and she said that she would be willing to head up that project. I'm just bringing it up for discussion. I think it's a good direction for us to go. Councilman Workman: Police Contract. I guess I'm bringing this ~]p because I think the City needs to set a direction Deca_]se I think we've gotten off our direction. This goes back to the approval of the contract whence we had an amendment to the contract for us to research the idea of getting other entities to bid and take care of our police contract for us. A neighboring co~,unity has taken it upon themselves, and I'm not c~]ite s~]re of the details but were asked by a person frc~, the City of Cnanhassen to research the idea of doing this for our city. I think to the detriment of all of ~]s. I thought we had an ]~plicit understanding that it wo~]ldn't be done and it's being done. I think the [~]blic Safety Director backs ~.~e on this. We have in place basically a co~ittee with Jim and A1 Wallin and I'm not sure who else to look at the situation of our police situation. I guess I would like that to work itself through and wait for those res~]lts before we, as a City Council, look to take bids and offerings from neighboring co~unities. I'm perplexing you Jay. Councilman Johnson: I'm perplexed, yes. We're taking bids? Councilman Workman: A neighboring city has prepared a doc~m~ent, ever so briefly and c~_]ickly to basically bid or take, it's telling us what's wv~ong and what we're doing wrong and everything else and I think that's so3~ething... Councilman Johnson: An unsolicited proposal? 64 City Council Meeting - November 20~ 1989 Mayor CTmtiel: I don't know. I'm in the process of doing some checking on that Tom. I' 11 let you know. Councilman Johnson: What we heard a while back was that nobody was interested in doing this. Mayor CTm~iel: And that's what I'm saying but I'd like to send direction to Chaffee and Company that we're in the middle of a study but we're not taking bids from neighboring co~l_~ities yet. Councilman Johnson: You know we get this, this is a good bargaining chip. If somebody sends in, we've been saying we have no bargaining chips. What have we got to bargain with? We've got one provider providing one service and he's the only provider that can possibly provide that service. That's what the people keep saying. Now we might have a bargaining chip. Not that we want to use the chip b, lt we might have a chip when we go to bargain on our contract. We've never bargained on the contract. It would be kind of a new concept. You know it's take what you can get contract. Councilman Work,,an: Well Jay, what I'm saying is... Councilman Johnson: It surprises ~ that anybody's bidding without our fee out. Co,.mciD~an Work.mn: That's right and so, the co~_..~lmity is in another county and you know what that might create. Jim Chaffee: A1 Wallin and I have seen a copy of the study. They're not< going to provide services for us. They're not even going to recommend it. What I was looking for is direction from the council so I could officially write to them and say, we don't want this. Please don't even pursue it. Councilman Work.lan: Because it was ~ understanding that we were going to be happy with the contract and we've got a contract and when that t~e co, es again, so~.~time then we can look at it but I think for harmony sake, we ought to let a sleeping dog lie and that's what I was hoping we were going to do. That hasn't occurred. Mayor Chmiel: Let's get it on the agenda. Councilman Boyt: Every time we bring this up it just creates more unrest. There is I think for the last 2 months at least, if not longer, I've been trying to work through t~]blic Safety and get that effort stopped. I wasn't involved in getting it started. I don't have the slightest idea how it ca~e to be but I think, Tom I agree with you that we're working on something here with the Council in an effort to get this issue resolved. We know that it can be extre~ely controversial. Councils~an Johnson: I like the co~_.m~ittee. Councilman Boyt: I was surprised when it came up in the Public Safety Co~mission at the last meeting and frankly disappointed that it did. I'm disappointed that we're talking about it right now. I don't think that we need to treat this as a serious matter. We have in front of us an opport[unity to work with the County and we should be pursuing it. 65 City Council Meeting - Nov~tber 2~ 1989 Councilman Workman: I gl]ess I would just like to, if we can, I'd just like to direct staff at this point, basically I would call it outside interference almost. That we weren't looking for them at this tire ard we're getting one and I think it's going to ca~]se the problems. I think we are working along. Councilman Johnson: That little extra knowledge is going to cause a problem? Councilman Workman: Yeah, I think so. Jim Chaffee: Sheriff Wallin thinks it will Jay. It's not that we're not going to get the report. We will get the report and we will ~]se it in o~]r co~ittee to further our study efforts. What Sheriff Wallin and ~self are afraid of right now is that if it gets out to the public and the deputies are made aware of it, there's going to be a decrease in moral. There's going to be some upset deputies and it's not needed at this point. And the probl~'~ that I'm faced with right now is that I'm still ~mder the g~]idelines from the Council to pursue alternative police services. There was no change in that. That's what I'm directed to do. Now if the Council decides otherwise and tells me no, I'm not directed to pursue alternative police services, then I would feel comfortable wv~iting to Chief Yo~zng saying the Council has directed me not to pursue alternative services. Please don't submit this report and I'd feel comfortable doing that. That' s where we' re coming from. Councilman Johnson: I move we suspend our r~]les on Council presentations and we move on this tonight and we direct them not to p~]rsue this. Councilman Workman: Second. Mayor Ctm~iel: I would fully agree. Councilman Johnson: Keep that study co~ittee moving on how we're going to make this transition in the future. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to suspend Council rules on Council Presentations and direct staff to not purs~]e alternative police services at this time. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: I already disc~]ssed previously when I indicated about Drug Awareness Week so I won't have to pursue that. Jim Chaffee: Ursula's set ~]p a, or is going to be setting up a program where we'll have, and I think she's host of the talk show cable, and she'd ask that representatives from the Sheriff's Department and [~]blic Safety Department and the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force join her on this on her cable show to discuss Cities Fight Back Against Drugs Week. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Ail the awareness we can make people of, that's the way to go. Councilman Johnson: You have a cable show? 66 City Council M~eting - Nove~-~er 20~ 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, I have a cable show~ Mayor Chmiel: We have a celebrity. Councilwc~an Workman: In Bloc~ington. Councilwc~,an Dimler: Well we can show it on regional. We can pick it up. Mayor Chmiel: Have we had any response from any of the other cities regarding the letters that we sent them? Jim Chaffee: Yes we have. Mayor Roepke called ~ today from Chaska. He indicated that he probably wouldn't be able to get as many red ribbons as we had asked for and kind of said they would do their own t]~ing in Chaska. That he was working through his Police Chief, (keg Skol to do so~ething. He is going to call me next week to let me know whether he' 11 be at the ribbon cutting cer~nony in front of the grade school. I have not heard back from Victoria or Greenwood, Excelsior, or Shorewood. Scott did put out an invitations to them since they're also involved in the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. Mayor Chmiel: Do we have a great big large ribbon that we could affix to the school? Jim Chaffee: It's up in my office right now. Mayor Chmiel: Great. Wonderful. Council~an Johnson: Roepke was going to get you ribbons? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I had discussions with him. He and I have been talking about this and being that he works for 3M and 3M has those ribbons, I thought ~ybe we could get a good deal and he could buy it for a reasonable price. ~]ch more reasonable than what we would have had to pay. Councilman Johnson: I think if you went through 3M's PR people you'd probably be better off. Mayor Chmiel: Well, I thought of that too but they've been giving so many away, they didn't have many left to give away. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION: REAPPOINTMENT OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Gary Warren: An update of the staff report Mr. Mayor. Mr. Hamilton has indicated via the City Attorney that he also would be interested in continuing to serve on the Citizen's Advisory Cc~ittee so basically all foyer of the existing men,ers have expressed a willingness at the Council's pleasure to continue to serve in that role. Mayor Chmiel: I would like to make sure that the people who are on that particular co~ittee attend those meetings. I don't know, do we get an attendance or anything on that? 67 City Co~mcil M~eting - Nove~oer 2g, 1989 Gary Warren: Q]ite honestly they've been relatively inactive for the last year and a half or a year. They kind of get called on and that's why we want them to update their interest here because of the EIS hearings coming ,]p so they will probably get more involved as we go along b~lt there's no attendance that I'm aware of. Councilman Johnson: Is Chaska's old mes~oers going to be the same too do we know? Gary Warren: I don't know Jay what their status is. Mayor Chmiel: Now 4 people is what we've had. Is 4 people sufficient? Gary Warren: From my perspective, it' s probably more than enough. Councilr,an Johnson: These are all ex~Les~oers of the Council. Mayor Cnmiet: Do we need a motion on that? Gary Warren: I think it'd be appropriate for the Council to reappoint. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to reappoint To~ Hamilton, John Neveaux, Clark Horn and A1 Klingelhutz to the Trunk Highway 212 Citizens Advisory Cos~ittee. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council set Dece~oer 11, 1989 for a budget hearing at 7:30 p.m.. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at ll:3g p.~.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 68