CC 2008 01 28
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 28, 2008
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Furlong, Councilman Litsey, Councilwoman
Ernst, and Councilwoman Tjornhom
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Laurie Hokkanen, Kate Aanenson, Paul
Oehme, and Todd Hoffman
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Richard & Janet Cleveland 7380 Longview Circle
Bill Thibault 11712 Wayzata Boulevard
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: INVITATION TO FEBRUARY FESTIVAL.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and welcome to everybody here in the council chambers and those
watching at home. We’re glad that you joined us. At this time, as members of the council, if
there’s any changes or modifications to the agenda, if not we’ll proceed with that. First item
here is the, an invitation to February Festival as part of our public announcements. The City of
th
Chanhassen again this year is proud to announce our winter special event. This is the 15
Annual February Festival. This event is one of many events throughout the year that we sponsor.
The City sponsors along with Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce and in cooperation with many
of our local businesses who provide financial support for these activities and events. February
nd
Festival be held this coming Saturday, February 2. At this time I’d like to invite all residents,
their family, friends to join me and others out on Lake Ann for a fun day of activities. The event
will begin at noon with activities such as skating, sledding, and a bon fire out on the ice to warm
you up. Hot foods and concessions will be sold by the Chanhassen Rotary Club this year, as well
as Boy Scout Troop #330 will be participating again selling s’mores kits. Ice fishing contest will
run from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. That means you have to start after 1:00 Mr. Gerhardt this year.
There will be over 3,000 prizes for the fish. $4,500 in door prizes. It’s a fun event. You can
also play bingo by the Friends of the Library. The Friends are also hosting their medallion hunt,
th
which began today it looks like on January 28. The person who finds the medallion will
receive $750 prize this year. Very nice contribution by the Friends. You can purchase tickets
here at City Hall, the Chanhassen Rec Center and local businesses. If you’d like more
information, please check out the city web site and we look forward to seeing everybody out
there this coming Saturday.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, you could give me a day head start.
Mayor Furlong: Very good.
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated January 14, 2008
-City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated January 14, 2008
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Economic Development Authority Minutes dated January 14, 2008
Resolution #2008-04:
b. Lyman Boulevard Improvement Project 06-03: Approve No
Parking Resolution.
Resolution #2008-05:
c. 2008 Inflow/Infiltration Project 08-07: Approve Plans and
Specifications; Authorize Ad for Bid.
Resolution #2008-06:
d. Liberty on Bluff Creek, Project 05-16: Accept Streets and
Utilities.
Resolution #2008-07:
e. TH 101 Gap Project 04-06: Approve MnDot Landscape
Partnership Authorization Resolution.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
None.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening Sergeant.
st
Sgt. Peter Anderley: Good evening Mayor, council. First of all I’d like to start, January 21 we
did our switch over our personnel they have us here in Chanhassen. We did have 2 additions, or
two changes I guess and faces around here. During the day Deputy Robert Rudd is now
working. Deputy Keith Walgrave went to the general patrol which covers two. He’s still around
Chanhassen, Victoria, Laketown Township but definitely Robert Rudd will be working during
the day in Chanhassen. And also at night, Deputy Chad Smith is taking over some of the night
duties on Sundays through Tuesday. So if you see the new face around, introduce yourself and
I’ve advised them to do the same. I put in there the year end numbers. I’ll touch base on those a
little bit. They will change a little bit once we get our final stats, usually by 1 or 2, when those
come out. Overall our calls did go down. Total reported calls went down approximately 290 I
believe. A big part of that is the traffic stops. Traffic stops for the city in general, an officer
initiated stop dropped about 600 over the year so the actual calls from citizens, call in alarms,
driving complaints, those types of things, actually went up 300. Approximately, calls for
service. Our big one is December, you know traffic stops really went down a lot in the month of
December. If you look at that, that had a lot to do with road conditions. The weather you know
2
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
is a very contributing factor. Also the calls that we were taking, you know the alarms. Alarms
went up 158 calls on the year. Animal complaints were up 44. Driving complaints up 42.
Medicals were up 73. Those are some of our big increases in calls. If there’s any other
questions, I’d be happy to answer those as far as that. Otherwise it’s been a fairly quiet couple of
months. We haven’t had any major calls or issues to advise the council of at this time.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you Sergeant. Any questions for the Sergeant? Okay. Very good.
Thank you. Chief Geske is here this evening with the Fire Department. Good evening Chief.
Chief Greg Geske: Good evening. Just wanted to update you basically on our numbers so far
this year, and then give the report basically for what last year was. So far this year we’ve had 44
calls compared to the same time we had last year was 32 calls. And all of 2007 we ended up
with 571 calls, compared to 521 in 2006 or an increase of 9.5%. Breakdown of those, 31 or 5%
of all the calls were actual fires. 230 or 40% of the calls were rescue or medical response. 63 or
11% were hazardous conditions. CO calls would fall under that and then calls for gas leaks and
such. 92 or 16% were false alarm calls or false calls, and 11 or 2% were weather related so
basically that’s a make up for last year so we were ahead a little bit and hopefully our fire
education and fire prevention will keep us in check this year but it’s starting up a little bit. I
brought along Rick Rice tonight. I’d like to introduce Rick. He’s our new Assistant Chief.
Rick’s got 20 plus years on the department and I’ll let him go into some of that. Many of you are
familiar with him as your IS person here at the city but I’ll let Rick introduce himself.
Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you.
Rick Rice: Thank you Chief. I’m sure I’m not a stranger to anyone here.
Mayor Furlong: You were almost called up on an emergency tonight.
Rick Rice: Mayor Furlong and members of the council. You all know about me as the IS
Coordinator for the city. I’ve been here for about 10 years doing that work. I served on the fire
th
department for about 24 years. I’m coming up in March for my 24 year. I held the position of
a Captain. I served two terms as Lieutenant. I’ve done the Training Officer’s position. I’ve
been the SAA Coordinator. I’ve been, I’m currently the Secretary on I believe the Association of
the Trustees, so it’s been fun working for the fire department and I’m going to enjoy this stint as
Chief. Looking forward to serving in that capacity. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Congratulations on your election and Chief Geske, on your
re-election. Congratulations as well. I noticed by your badges, I saw in the paper we lost one of
the charter members of our department here recently so please extend our condolences to the
family.
Chief Greg Geske: Thank you. Any other questions?
Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts? Questions? Very good, thank you.
3
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
PUBLIC HEARING: 2008 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 08-01: AUTHORIZE
PREPARATION OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Debbie and Dick Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Anderson 7605 Laredo Drive
Charles Littfin 7609 Laredo Drive
Dave Johnson 711 Laredo Lane
Conrad Winkel 505 Highland Drive
George Lucas 410 Cimarron Circle
Barb Murphy 404 Cimarron Circle
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Annually the city considers street
improvement projects to improve the city’s street system. This year Laredo Drive area is
recommended for reconstruction. These streets were identified by the city’s pavement
management system as needing improvements. These streets can no longer be maintained cost
effectively with preventive maintenance such as sealcoats, or crack sealing or patching of
potholes. The past 5 years the city has received more complaints from residents and the
traveling public about the condition of Laredo Drive than any other street in our community.
Utilities in this area are old and are recommended to be replaced or repaired. Utility problems
include many documented watermain breaks. Sanitary sewer pipes that have separated joints.
Sanitary sewer service pipes that need replacing. Also the drainage system in this area is poor
and should be upgraded. Staff has held two neighborhood meetings and staff has also had
numerous individual meetings with property owners to discuss the project, and all facets of it.
Many emails and phone conversations have also taken place. Most of the issues have been
raised by the residents, have been identified in your background, or have been received in
correspondences directly with you. Staff has also met with Riley-Purgatory Watershed District
to see if they would like to incorporate and partner with the city on storm water improvements in
this area as well. Tonight staff is asking the council to hold a public hearing and consider
ordering the project. This hearing is not to determine assessment amounts but rather to
determine if the project should be completed to final design. Listening to the residents I believe
that the biggest concern with the project is not the project itself, but the assessment methodology.
The assessments were based on the City’s practice of assessing 40% for street improvements
back to the benefiting property owners. Staff did try to tie the commercial properties associated
with that onto the Laredo Drive assessment calculations…formula. The formula did make the
assessment calculations somewhat complicated and confusing to understand at times. Some of
the property owners that we’ve talked to had some…by benefit to the property, not by trip
generation. Staff also needed to take into consideration the other access points for the businesses
along Laredo Drive in the assessment calculations as well, so tonight we’d like to discuss the
aspects and the importance of this project with the council tonight. We would like to ask for
your direction and see if you’re comfortable with the assessment methodology that’s been put
together in the feasibility study, and presented here tonight. We did distribute additional
4
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
residential correspondences that we received. I think the council received some of the same ones
for you’re here tonight as well, but if there’s any questions that the council feels that would like
to be addressed, I mean we’re more than happy to try to address them at this time. And also
included in your packet was the updated resolution for the project as well so, at this time I’d like
to invite Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn Associates. They are the consulting engineering working
with the city on this project. Jon will give a brief presentation. Power point presentation on the
project. After the presentation, if there’s any questions that the council would like addressed at
this time, feel free to ask those and we would ask that after that, that a public hearing be opened.
So at this time.
Jon Horn: Good evening Mayor, members of the City Council. As Paul mentioned, my name is
Jon Horn. I’m with Kimley-Horn and Associates. We have been working with city staff on
developing preliminary plans for the 2008 Street Reconstruction Project. We’ve got a brief
power point presentation we wanted to run through tonight. Basically address a couple of things.
Describe the project area to you to help familiarize yourself with that. Talk a little bit about the
scope of the proposed improvements, and talk about the reconstruction process and phasing of
staging. Run through the estimated cost, the proposed financing plan. Talk a little bit more
about assessments and then talk briefly about the schedule. This map shows the project area is
basically Laredo Drive, Laredo Lane, Longview Circle, Highland Drive and Cimmaron Circle.
th
About 1.35 miles of city streets is included as part of the project north of West 78 Street. In
terms of what’s out there today, the current streets in the area are bituminous, however they don’t
have any concrete curb and gutter. Generally ranging in width from about 26 feet wide to 35 feet
wide. It’s proposed as a part of this project that they be reconstructed to the city standard section
with concrete curbs and gutters on both sides. We’re proposing various widths for the roadways
ranging anywhere from 28 feet wide to…the southerly piece next to the school would be 36 feet
wide. North of that going to 31 and then the cul-de-sac roadways in the area are proposed to be
constructed to a 28 foot width… One of the things that the City does as a part of all their street
reconstruction projects is to look at the condition of existing utilities in the area. As Paul
mentioned, sanitary sewer condition assessment’s been done. There’s some repair work that
would be done as a part of the project. Sanitary sewer repair work that would be done. The
watermain in the project area is in poor condition and is proposed that the watermain be replaced
as a part of the project. Again the plan is to take care of all the underground utilities prior to the
street being reconstructed on top of them. Drainage improvements is one of the big challenges
of the project just because of the project sits right adjacent to Lotus Lake. Water quality issues
in Lotus Lake and one of the challenges is, what can we do in the project area to help improve
the quality of runoff being discharged to the lake. As Paul mentioned, we’ve been working with
the watershed district as well as Lotus Lake Water Quality Association to try to develop some
means in providing some treatment in the area, looking everywhere from treatment ponds to rain
water gardens, treatment manholes, really exploring a number of different alternative techniques
for the drainage. This map shows the general drainage areas in green and purple or blue areas
drain into Lotus Lake. It shows a number of circles on the exhibit that shows potential ponding
locations. Be looking at the possibility of constructing regional treatment ponds at a number of
locations in the project area, so that’s an ongoing process again working with the lake association
as well as the watershed district. Rain water gardens is something that’s becoming more and
more common around town. Basically the concept is, you identify areas. You have special soil
runoff runs into the rain water gardens and it infiltrates into the ground. There’s plant materials
5
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
in the rain gardens that actually use up the water and use it for plant materials. This shows a
cross section as well as an example rain garden that’s actually been constructed in the city of
Burnsville. Again, more common techniques trying to treat stormwater and that’s something that
as the project proceeds forward, we will look at opportunities to include some rain gardens into
the project scope. I mentioned treatment manholes. There’s also technologies out there today
where there’s actually a structure where stormwater flows in. It’s treated. It flows out. Another
technique that we would look at as a part of this storm water system. Construction process, a
couple of constraints we need to deal with. Laredo Drive, the southerly piece as a staging area
th
for the 4 of July parade so we certainly need to consider where the construction process or
stage, how to avoid that. At least until after the parade’s over. You’ve got the school to deal
with to try to make sure that all the construction activity, or a majority of the construction
activities happen during non-school times. Then we just got the issue of trying to minimize
impacts to residents. The intention would be as the project proceeds forward, to have multiple
stages of construction to help address all those various issues, and again a challenge that we
would have to deal with as the project proceeds forward with construction. In terms of estimated
costs. This table identifies the estimated cost for the project, a little over $2.9 million, including
the streets, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and watermain improvements. Financing summary.
About $1.6 million of that project cost is proposed to be funded through the City’s revolving
assessment fund, of which about $700,000 is assessments to benefiting properties that are
included specifically in this project area. The remainder of the project cost would be funded
through various city utility funds. A little bit more on the specific assessments. As Paul
mentioned, this has probably been the issue that’s raised the most question of the property
owners in the area. Consistent with past city methodology, the intention would be to assess
approximately 40% of the project cost to the benefiting property owners. Paul mentioned that
there is state statute that kind of identify how this would be done. One of the requirements is you
need to be able to prove benefit to the properties that are assessed. As a part of this process the
City has done an assessment, or appraisal review of the assessments to see if they would be
justified and whether the properties do benefit. As I mentioned, the total assessable cost is a
little over $700,000, with the City funding the remainder of the costs. One of the challenges of
the project, there’s a mixture of land uses in the area. There’s about 80 residential properties and
6 non-residential properties. A methodology was used that addresses for the non-residential
properties, they have multiple street frontages and multiple driveways and that was factored into
the assessment methodology. So that was kind of the technique that was used to try to sort
through how much of the non-residential properties should pay in assessments. And again these
are estimated assessments. The estimated assessment for the individual residential properties is a
little over $7,000 per unit. It’s proposed to be on a unit basis, but based upon what we’ve seen
for bid prices last year as well as what we continue to see for bid prices this year, we would
certainly expect good bid prices and it’s possible that those assessment amounts could drop after
the actual bids are opened and the construction costs are determined through those construction
bids. Paul mentioned we went through, we’ve gone through a public involvement process.
th
There was a neighborhood meeting on November 14. A number of resident comments and
questions came out of that neighborhood meeting and staff has been dealing with those over the
rd
last few months, and then we met again with the residents last Wednesday night on the 23. Ran
through a very similar presentation with the residents to give them a better understanding of the
project, as well as to take comments and questions. You can see by the number of people that
are sitting in the council chambers tonight, a lot of questions and concerns on the assessments.
6
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
Really focusing on a couple of different issues and I’m sure you’ll hear from a number of
residents tonight. One is the proposed share of assessments for the non-residential properties
versus the residential property is fair. The other concerns that due to the nature of the project
area being a collector roadway, with a school, a fire station and a post office, is that 40% city
share really appropriate considering the fact that this roadway provides access to a number of
different land uses, and again I’m sure you’ll hear a number of those comments from the
residents tonight as you take public testimony on the project, but there has been an ongoing
process. I know in the staff report background it suggests that council take testimony tonight and
certainly staff would be willing to work together with the residents to try to look at alternative
assessment methodologies if the council feels that’s appropriate. In terms of schedule.
Tonight’s the public hearing. If the council elects to proceed ahead, we would propose that the
council approve the final plans and specs for the project in late February. We’d proceed to a bid
opening in the end of March. Assessment hearing would then occur in April. We prepared a
th
final assessment roll, and that would go to council and we’d have the hearing on April 28. And
then assuming council still wants to proceed ahead with the project, construction start in May
and run through a majority of the summer to be completed in September. There certainly would
be some phasing and staging as I mentioned to address some of the specific constraints in the
project area. So that’s a really quick overview of the project. I guess we’ll open it up to any
council questions at this time.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Horn. Just one thing to, just from clarification
so that we don’t get hung up on terminology. I know words mean things, and that is the, how we
describe this road as a collector or a local road and a lot of people drive on different streets but
we have certain terminology in the report. There was some information about the differentiating
between local roads and collector roads. Is this considered a collector road in terms of our
overall transportation system?
Paul Oehme: It’s not considered a collector road in our street system. They’re typically it
doesn’t generate enough traffic to be considered a collector roadway. Typically you see volumes
of traffic well above 2,000 trips per day.
Mayor Furlong: I just wanted to clarify from a wording standpoint there. I’ve got some other
thoughts and comments. I’m guessing other members of the council too but I’d just as soon hear
from the residents, if that’s okay?
Councilman Litsey: Yeah, I’d just as soon move ahead.
Mayor Furlong: So at this point, why don’t we go ahead, unless there’s any other questions at
this point for staff. My thought is, and Mr. Horn if you could kind of stay close as people raise
issues, perhaps we can address them right there rather than trying to gather a big list for later.
What I’ll do is invite up residents to come. If it makes sense, we can try to do this by road. I
think there are a number of people that want to talk and that way rather than bouncing around
through the project area, if there’s specific issues regarding a particular street, those can be
addressed together. And what I would ask residents to do, if possible, is we’ve got a number of
people that want to talk. We want to hear everybody but we don’t need to be here all night either
so we’ll try to limit comments to about 5 minutes, if that’s possible for anybody. A lot of the
7
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
issues have been brought forth to us, but we want to make sure that everybody has an
opportunity to speak as well. So if that makes sense, at least we’ll set some ground rules that
we’ll try to live by and why don’t we start with any residents on Laredo Drive itself. We’ll open
up the public hearing here and if anyone on Laredo Drive would like to address the council, I
would invite them forward at this time.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I didn’t expect to be the first tonight. First
isn’t so bad I guess. Okay, is Laredo Drive a collector street? Based upon one 48 hour and one
51 hour traffic count, the City claims Laredo doesn’t qualify. There are some findings. Laredo
Drive is a unique street within Chanhassen. It wasn’t originally built or designed to be a
collector but it has lived up to the reputation of serving as one. Originally Laredo had a different
name, and it was just a short street. It came up to Highland from the cul-de-sac I live on, and
th
went down Highland down to Frontier. Ultimately Laredo stretched eventually up to West 78
Street and provided access straight up. Then later Frontier Trail opened to the west and provided
access to what is now Bryan’s neighborhood. So what was a short street with continuity, became
a very long street of continuity and it along with Frontier Trail connects the city from Kerber
th
Boulevard, which is a collector. Or arterial. I’m not sure. To, all the way up to West 78
th
broadly, or through the middle up to West 78. When they opened up Frontier Trail, the council
at that time felt it was very important to open it up for safety reasons, and maybe with the fire
marshal here he could address that point. But anyway, it wasn’t originally designed or built to be
a collector.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Excuse me, I don’t mean to interrupt you but do we have a map we
can put up so as she’s talking we can follow along. Thanks, that’s just helpful for me.
Debbie Lloyd: Oh sure. My map is a little bit different. It’s the same map but this is Laredo.
Where it started, originally it went like this.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I don’t think it’s up.
Todd Gerhardt: It has to be on the X so it can zoom in.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Why don’t you try again. Thanks.
Debbie Lloyd: Originally it was just a short street up here to Highland and down. Then it
eventually came up here and other neighbors who lived here at the time could expound on that.
Went up here through a swamp, which leads to some of the issues that we have on Laredo Lane,
which by the way I have to insert at this point. Laredo Lane, any time you hear double frontage,
this is a reason not to do double frontage. And you’ll see later in how many lots have frontage
on Laredo Lane plus Laredo Drive and what kind of cost that adds to the scenario for us. Then
th
eventually it opened all the way up to West 78. So Frontier Trail curves down here to Kerber.
Kerber, up like this provides access from the fire station to those neighborhoods and beyond.
Should something be closed on Kerber, this is how the fire trucks would go, is what we were told
at the time they opened up that roadway. And also Frontier of course goes this way. So Laredo
really is integral to the whole system here. The project area, you’ve identified 86 parcels of
property, but on my map here conservatively counting the homes that would naturally flow to
8
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
Laredo Drive, and I say conservative because there are segments of the neighborhood I didn’t
include at all. Conservatively all the neighborhoods that feed onto Laredo to go to the school,
the park, the post office, to go up to the City Hall, to go down Market Street for shopping, there
are 259 homes. Now you say that isn’t a lot of traffic. Well here is a collector street, Longacres
Drive. Longacres, between 17 and 41, 248 homes, and I was being really kind there too. I
counted almost every single home, even though that also has another out on Hunter. So this is
100% residential. Laredo had more homes conservatively plus commercial, isn’t considered to
be a collector street. Laredo Drive serves as the access to Chanhassen’s only U.S. Post Office,
which has over 1,000 active customers. Chanhassen’s main fire station is on Laredo Drive.
Chanhassen’s elementary school is on Laredo Drive. Bluff Creek Elementary, the other
elementary in Chanhassen is also on a collector street. Chanhassen’s City Center Park and
Kerber Pond Park are on this street. It is not solely a residential…street. It also serves
commercial properties. Another issue. Kerber Pond Park. Staff report that you have dated
th
January 28 says there is no vehicle access or parking associated with this frontage. We
maintain that the City should pay some fees associated with having that park there. In the, and
by the way, this is how much acreage the park has. Everything in yellow is Kerber Pond Park.
It’s comprised of 5 different parcels. There are two accesses to the park. One is off Sierra Trail
and the other is off Laredo Drive. In the 2030 comp plan, which you just looked at, it states that
there is on street parking, and this was part of the comp plan. The image. So it states an
entrance is off Laredo and there’s on street parking which is on Laredo Drive. Here’s a picture
of the access to the park. City of Chanhassen park hours, 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. No person or
vehicle allowed in park after hours. Person or vehicle. Vehicles prohibited from off road travel.
Okay. Despite the fact that in the report, and in our public meeting we were told that vehicles
don’t go down that road. Well guess what? City vehicles maintain that road. It’s critical for
emergencies should anything happen down there, the two ways in are off Laredo Drive or off
Sierra Court. The entire city benefits from the park and we believe that the park should properly
be assessed in this deal. The apartments on Santa Vera Drive. That’s another question.
Mayor Furlong: How much longer are you going to…
Debbie Lloyd: I’ll take my husband’s time okay? Is that okay with you Dick?
Dick Lloyd: Sure.
Debbie Lloyd: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. We’re coming up on almost 10 minutes already.
Debbie Lloyd: Maybe there’ll be someone else that I can…too. This is an overview of the
apartments. The apartment’s assessment was one-half of the total acreage of the parcel. The
reason there’s a wetland on the property. The finding is that the wetland has not been delineated.
We believe it was an arbitrary decision. Here’s photos of the trees and the wetland, and I have to
ask, does the city have another purpose in mind for this land? And is it fair for the taxpayers on
Laredo Drive reconstruction to pay for whatever that other purpose is, but you’re not assessing
this parcel’s property to the full value. I’ll end with that, thank you.
9
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. One question I would ask Ms. Lloyd before you leave, and
I forgot to set this at the beginning so that’s why I’m calling you back. One of the questions
before the council tonight with regard to authorizing plans and specifications is whether or not,
the real part of the public hearing here, but we’ve slid over into the assessments, whether or not
the road needs to be upgraded. Whether there is a need to upgrade the road, so I guess I would
ask you and I would ask others that come up too, to make sure you at least address that with all
your comments so, do you believe the project should be done?
Debbie Lloyd: Yes, and I did send an email today. I obviously the road has a lot bumps in it,
but I’d like to know what year it really came up on the study on this street improvement plan to
be reconstructed? How many years it’s been delayed. How many years it’s been put off, and I
also heard that there’s a lot of complaints about it. I’d sure like to know you know where the
complaints are coming from. Are they coming from the neighborhood? Are they coming from
outside the neighborhood, which I can tell you they are because I sat in here when other, there
have been other reconstruction projects in the city and people always point to Laredo Drive. So
that also tells me they use it. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so the answer is yes, it needs to be upgraded?
Debbie Lloyd: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Let’s address some of her questions if we can.
Paul Oehme: Sure. Real quick, Ms. Lloyd is right that you know the southern half of Laredo
th
Drive does take quite a significant traffic. I mean it’s the first block from 78 Street to Chan
View and then basically north of there onto the school so, but again it’s not considered, we
haven’t defined it as a collector roadway just based upon the criteria that we have based upon
engineering documentation and criteria used for categorizing collector roadways. And again
north of Saratoga, if you’re south of Saratoga and Laredo Drive is 1,200 to 1,800 trips per day.
North of Saratoga we’re down to 300 trips per day, which tells me that the neighborhood, this
area is functioning as a neighborhood roadway system and not functioning as a collector
roadway. Just as a clarification too on the Kerber Park Pond, Todd Hoffman our Park Director
can chime in if he wants to but there are definitely, at least 3 access points to Kerber Boulevard.
We did not include this parcel in our assessment, preliminary assessment roll based upon it’s,
can you consider it an outlot? There is no vehicle access. No driveway access to the park at this
time, and we did not consider that a benefit since everything is coming off of Laredo Lane and
other access points. No parking in the park as well so, this access point can be more considered
a local access point and parcel, or the access point on Kerber Boulevard, I think there’s more
public benefit access points out on Kerber. The apartment question that she had, we did decrease
the size of the apartment complex lot based upon our judgment. That being a wetland or water
resources coordinator did recommend that be looked at in the future and preserved as a wetland.
Potentially upgraded. Also the apartment complex does access off of Saratoga and other streets,
so we did have to consider that in the assessment calculation as well for benefit so.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
10
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I’m sorry. I had one question.
Mayor Furlong: Please.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I am sorry. Can you review or explain to me what our policies are
when we are assessing parks in the city? Do we have one set design that we use? For parks.
Paul Oehme: I’m trying to recall.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m sorry.
Paul Oehme: I’m trying to recall.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: We’ve had this happen before.
Paul Oehme: Yeah. South Shore Drive. Last year’s project. We did look at access to that park
and specifically the boat landing and the parking lot associated with that park and we did do a
benefit analysis on that parking lot and access to the park and we did incorporate additionally
units, assessment into the park, which the City did pay for based upon the percentage that we
had. So we did increase, and it wasn’t just one single family lot. It was, I can’t recall right off
the top of my head but there were several units that we used in that scenario that the City did
contribute to that project.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But we’re using that same formula in analyzing Kerber Park also.
Paul Oehme: Right. I mean using that same criteria. I mean there’s no, the trail does have to get
maintained so there is maintenance vehicles that have to get down there. Obviously you know
we need to get emergency access vehicles down there if there is an emergency so, but on a daily
basis on a public benefit basis, we did not see that being a benefit right now for this project.
Councilwoman Ernst: A question.
Mayor Furlong: Sure, Councilwoman Ernst. Follow-up.
Councilwoman Ernst: Paul, did you say that there are 3, approximately 300 trips a day going
down that road? And that’s why, is that, did I hear you correctly on that?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I mean north of Saratoga. The trips do significantly drop off, or north of
Saratoga the trips do significantly drop off versus south of Saratoga. South of the apartment
complex. That’s where the commercial and the non-residential units are. You know a lot of the
trips can be generated, or are generated by the apartment complex or the, the apartment complex,
the school district and the post office. Those are the ones that generate the most traffic.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thank you.
11
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
Councilman Litsey: Just a quick follow-up on that. Do you ever do dual classifications on
roads? In other words, if a portion of it’s taking a heavier load, or do you look at the totality of
the road and average it out? That sounds like what, that’s what we’ve done here.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, typically you want to look at for collector roadways, you want to look at
where does the collector roadway go. Typically you want to have collector roadways start from
a collector roadway and end at a collector roadway. The connection points so that’s the way our
system’s set up. Here, in this case it really doesn’t go to another collector roadway and based
upon the volumes of traffic, you know that’s the reason why we haven’t had a dual designation.
Councilman Litsey: But because they kind of go up and back presumably on the same segment
of roadway there, perhaps would that not be a justification for separating that out or?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I.
Councilman Litsey: One part being you know a main.
Paul Oehme: I mean we can look at that again but I, again it gets back to how much is the
traffic, how much is it generating and based upon our criteria, it doesn’t generate enough traffic
to push it into that category.
Councilman Litsey: As a whole?
Paul Oehme: As a whole.
th
Mayor Furlong: Even, as I understand it, even the southern part of that road from West 78 up
past the school to the apartments.
Councilman Litsey: Does not generate enough?
Mayor Furlong: Doesn’t generate enough to get the, it’s more than the northern section.
Councilman Litsey: But not enough to meet the criteria we’ve established for collector road?
Paul Oehme: Right. I mean, right. That’s where our standard.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Next Mr. Paulsen, good evening.
Jerry Paulsen: Mr. Mayor and councilors. Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive and due to
emphasize the bottom of Kerber Pond Park and not permitting vehicles and the sign says
vehicles are not permitted after park hours close and I can, it’s perfectly legal for me to drive my
car from the Laredo side up and exit onto Sierra Trail. There’s no, there’s nothing illegal about
that from my understanding. Any car can drive over that route, according to the sign that’s
posted there. I’d like to address two issues. Traffic a little bit more, and then the assessment on
the school. The City, you conducted two traffic counts, as Paul said. One was at the southern
end, one was at the northern end of Laredo. I took it upon myself to do a little bit of counting.
12
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
The City came up with an average of 1,450 vehicles on what they considered the heavily portion,
out at the south end, per day. 1,450 per day. I did three manual traffic counts during November
and January and last week I gave the City a copy and you might have gotten those graphs. The
three graphs showing the three different points of study, and if you didn’t, I’ll get you a copy.
The City has a count on Laredo just south of what they call Chan View so that, I think it was the
same week that I took mine anyway. I counted over 300 vehicles per hour for a couple hours
there in the afternoon, and I estimated traffic to be about, a little over 3,000 vehicles per day. I
didn’t stick it out for 24 hours. It got a little cold sitting in the car at times so I didn’t take a
complete sample, although I tried to stretch it over several hours at three different points. One
reason that my count was a little bit different from the City’s is they had their’s opposite the Post
Office, south of Chan View so the traffic coming from Chan View, turning north or coming from
the City Hall, Post Office from there and turning north would not have been counted by their
counters. So that accounts for a fairly good chunk of traffic which they would not have picked
up from their counting. The City also set up a counter at the north entrance to the school, and I
haven’t received any results from that back from the City to indicate what they might have
counted, but there are in fact two entrances to the school there so they may have only have
picked up half the traffic that was realistically. So the staff report that you’re reading says that
local, excuse me, local traffic, or the local streets carry something in the neighborhood of 2,000
vehicles per day. If you bump it up to 3,000, which my statistics show at least at the south end
here, where you are in the category of a collector street and the collector street is the city is kind
of admitting they’re doing this because they’re building it 36 feet wide, which is the width for a
th
collector street, from West Main, from West 78 up to Saratoga. So we’re, at least that chunk up
there, that portion could justify being called a collector street. The other issue then I’d like to
address on the assessment on the school itself. The 15 acre parcel is owned by the school. It is
titled to the school. The City has calculated the school assessment on the basis of the school
having about 5.2 acres of that 15, not the 15, so they’re not assessing on the basis of the full 15
acre. The City says they have a verbal agreement with the school to utilize that land jointly with
the school. There is no formal agreement so it’s, the school does own that land and the 15 acres
is under their title. The comprehensive plan, the City shows the City Center Park to occupy a
portion of that lot. As a matter of fact it shows the whole area, including the school in green if
you look at the city map. But one thing that kind of…after a while, it said the fire station had 4.6
acres and it didn’t seem to jive with the size of the bank or the other ones, and that 4.6 acres in
fact goes from the fire station all the way back to what they call the warming area back in here.
But the comprehensive plan also, it’s kind of ambiguous and it says that the 3 of the 15 acres of
school property is part of City Center Park, and I don’t quite understand what’s going on there.
Anyway, these three additional acres supposedly being part of 3 out of the 15 being in City
Center Park, they are still owned by the school and therefore the school should be assessed the
full 15 acres that are not being assessed them. So my question is why the City not intending to
assess those 15 acres in their entirety. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: And Mr. Paulsen again, the question I asked Mrs. Lloyd in terms of the need for
the project and the upgrade. What are your thoughts there. Whether or not it’s needed.
Jerry Paulsen: Pardon me, how’s that?
13
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Is the project, do the improvements need to be made? To Laredo Drive and to
the other roads.
Jerry Paulsen: Considering they haven’t, the way that they’ve patched the street, they haven’t
tried to make it long term and so it has degraded, and especially around the curve I think is the
worst part, which is admitted…by the swampy area. It probably didn’t have a good enough base
and Laredo is probably worthy of reconditioning. I’m not sure about the cul-de-sac.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any follow-up questions for Mr. Paulsen from anyone?
Otherwise Mr. Oehme and Todd, there’s probably a question coming to you too but why don’t
you start.
Paul Oehme: Well I’ll hit on maybe what Todd was getting at, but you know our trail system’s
not designed to take commuter traffic. I mean nobody should be driving their private vehicles on
our trails. Even motorized vehicles, mopeds or those type of vehicles are not allowed on our trail
system so you know if the trail, or if the sign is wrong, I mean we should address that issue in
terms of vehicle traffic on our trail systems in Kerber Pond Park so.
Mayor Furlong: Our ordinances don’t just restrict it during park hours?
Paul Oehme: No. It restricts it all the time.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Paul Oehme: Real quickly too. In terms of the street width and the collector roadway issue, I
mean the City is picking up the over sizing cost already for the roadway width from a 31 foot up
to a 36 foot road right-of-way, or roadway width so in terms of the cost there, that’s you know
the City’s already doing that in conjunction with the commercial properties. It’s not, that cost is
not being distributed to the residential properties along the street. The fire station, I think when
the property was purchased I think it was 4, a little over 4 acres worth of property there. It has
been split off into park and to the school district. So I’ll leave it at that but in terms of the school
district assessment, we did decrease the total amount of acreage for the school district based
upon you know half of their property is ballfields and other associated outdoor activities that take
place there. It’s really, there is access off of Kerber Boulevard for those type of uses. As you all
know Mayor that in the summertime the City Hall parking lot is packed with residents and
parents going to ball games and soccer games so, that’s kind of the methodology behind how that
was, that assessment was determined for the school district.
Councilman Litsey: It seems to me just from personal observations, the majority of the people
using that park for the soccer and so forth are parking on Kerber, or on the City Hall parking lot
because I see them…
Paul Oehme: That was our rationale behind decreasing the amount of total acreage in our
assessment just because.
Councilman Litsey: It’s hard to get through there sometimes.
14
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I mean and people are going to want to walk the closest they can. They
don’t want to walk as far from, Laredo Drive, from the parking lot over to the ballfields. I mean
they’d rather walk closer from Kerber Boulevard access points and City Hall parking lots.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. You know when the fields are being used, the
majority of the people, no question use City Hall and Kerber but there are people that do park
over in the school parking lots. It depends on what location you’re coming from but it is utilized.
Primarily June, July, August timeframes when youth activities are going on so you know, and
that’s why the school district did get an assessment for Laredo.
Councilwoman Ernst: Paul, is the City paying for the difference between the 31 and the 36 foot
wide road?
Paul Oehme: Yes. Yeah, they are. I mean that’s not in the assessment calculations for the
residential piece.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. And then can you address Mr. Paulsen’s comments about the
differences with the counts. I mean he was talking 3,000 versus 300 or.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I’m not sure exactly when he was out there, what that criteria was but I
mean we’ve got our standard 48 hour counts that we use based upon what MnDot recommends
so, and those are the counts that we took. Maybe on another day it would be slightly different
than the counts that we had but.
Councilman Litsey: Would the count down towards more of the southerly part, was that done,
this can sound confusing now, north of Chan View?
Paul Oehme: I believe it was south of Chan View.
Councilman Litsey: It was south of Chan View, so would it have picked up, because there was a
comment made that wouldn’t have picked up like post office traffic and that kind of stuff.
Paul Oehme: Well to get in the post office you need to go onto Chan View so, so you would
have to go through that block of roadway to get to the post office. And you have to go access
onto Chan View so it would have picked up the counts from the post office.
Councilman Litsey: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. Any other follow-up questions at this time? Okay.
Anyone else from Laredo Drive at this time?
Debbie Anderson: Hi Mayor and council members. My name’s Debbie Anderson. I live at
7605 Laredo Drive and I just actually have a quick question because I haven’t been able to attend
any of the prior meetings and so I apologize if I’m the only person in this room that doesn’t
15
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
know the answer but, what exactly is the difference between a collector road and a non-collector
road in terms of assessments? And that’s just my question so.
Paul Oehme: Sure.
Debbie Anderson: And I think we definitely need some.
Paul Oehme: Thank you. You know we’ve dealt with this on other projects as the council
knows. Lake Lucy Road’s a good example of that. We milled and overlayed that road a couple
years ago. That roadway is a collector roadway. It was over designed to handle the additional
traffic, especially on that roadway.
Audience: A little louder.
Audience: Yeah, we can’t hear you.
Paul Oehme: Okay.
Audience: We can’t hear you back here.
Paul Oehme: I don’t know if my mic’s on or not?
Mayor Furlong: Nann, are the mic’s working? That’s fine. Just, let’s everybody speak up then.
Paul Oehme: Okay. Lake Lucy Road was, is a collector roadway. The City did overlay that
roadway. Include that roadway several years ago. There is residential benefit for those
improvements but what the City did, we took out the over sizing costs and looked at the over
sizing from a collector roadway system down to a residential roadway. Kind of the same
methodology we’re doing here. The pavement section that we’re proposing is the exact same
where this section of street is, is for the residential section of street. The only difference is the
roadway width. The roadway width cost right now is being proposed to be paid for at 5 foot wide
over sizing be paid for by the City. It’s not being assessed back to the property owners, so we’re
trying to treat everybody that lives on a higher volume road versus a lower volume road the
same. That’s the practice that the City has been working with. Successfully for the last couple
years.
Mayor Furlong: So to clarify, just from my understanding, if the project included a 31 foot
th
width road all the way from West 78 up north, the cost of that is being included in the
calculation for the assessments. The fact that we’re building the road wider at one segment is
being paid for entirely through the city by taxpayers.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: My understanding? Okay. Thank you.
16
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But I mean just to jump in here quickly. Let’s assume that this
already was a collector road. It already was the width of a collector road. Would the properties
be assessed different because of that?
Paul Oehme: No. They’d be assessed.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Because it was a collector road.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, they would be assessed.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is that what you’re asking?
Debbie Anderson: Yes, thank you.
Paul Oehme: What they’re being assessed today. There’s again.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So there’s no different standards or rates for collector roads…
Paul Oehme: …we try to standardize roadway assessments from a person that lives on a cul-de-
sac versus somebody that lives on a 10,000 ATD street. Standardize it in terms of benefit and in
terms of how much that cost is for that section of roadway based on the residential street section
that we have today.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So then if I live on Laredo Drive, it really is no benefit to call part of
that, beginning of Laredo a collector road because it’s not going to change any numbers?
Paul Oehme: It’s not going to change the assessment that we have in the, as a preliminary
assessment.
Councilman Litsey: So quite simply put, it’s a standard methodology used for all streets in the
city and the designation really is not going to impact the amount of money that someone is going
to pay getting that changed.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, the designation is irrelevant.
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Paul Oehme: We’re trying to get back down to what the benefit is for a resident on whatever
street we have in the community.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and council members, we call that a residential equivalent. You know if
you were to build a brand new street, if you were to build a brand new street in a subdivision,
there would be costs associated with that street for that single family home. And that is what
we’re doing here is looking at it as a residential equivalent for the cost of doing that. Paul’s
already stated time and time again that over sizing the road is being picked up by the City. It is
17
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
not included in that $705,000 so I don’t think we need to talk about collector roads anymore
when it comes to this project.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any follow-up questions? I think, does that answer your question?
Debbie Anderson: You know I still just don’t understand if we’re talking the difference
between, I mean I understand that part of Laredo Drive is used more than the rest of it, although
…the only way to go but that, my question really I think is different. If you have a collector road
that is definitely a collector road and the entire road would be called a collector road by your
criteria, which I don’t know what that is, but would that be assessed differently than Laredo
Drive than this project?
Todd Gerhardt: No.
Debbie Anderson: Based on percentages and.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and the simple answer I hear is no.
Debbie Anderson: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Others from Laredo Drive. Good evening.
Charles Littfin: Good evening. Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Charles Littfin. I
live on 7609 Laredo Drive. Right across from the elementary school. I’ve lived in Chanhassen
since 1960. I grew up one block over east of where I live now. Those two roads are night and
day. Laredo Drive is so busy, traffic starts from 6:00 in the morning. The first delivery truck
goes to the elementary school, which is an 18 wheeler, and this thing runs even when there’s
road restrictions. Other traffic rolls in about 6:30. That’s when parents who work drop off their
kids. And if these parents are late for work, you don’t date go out on that road because they
drive fast. And that goes til 6:00 when that shuts down and they have to pick their kids up.
After that, sports goes on up at the school. That goes til 9:00 every night. Saturday, sports is up
at the school from 8:00 in the morning til 8:00 at night. These are all city programs. Parking on
Laredo Drive can be a real problem too when there’s a function at the school. Or any day.
There’s cars parked on Laredo Drive all the time. They park in front of my mailbox. I don’t get
delivery service. White Bear Lake, where my wife grew up, has an ordinance if there’s a school
in a residential area, no school parking on that road. That’s strictly residential parking only.
From what I heard tonight from the sheriff, or not the sheriff’s, but the police officer, and fire
department, they’re getting a lot more calls. That just means the fire department’s going to be a
lot busier. Saturday’s paper had an article about growth in Chanhassen. It hasn’t slowed down.
That means this road is going to get busier and busier all the time. Let’s see where I’m at here.
If anybody saw the Star and Tribune on Sunday, there was an article in there about assessing
roadways. Apparently we’re not the only one that has the problem. There was a special session
that they said, or there’s a special assignment by law supposed to be provide a financial benefit
to the homeowner that is roughly to equal the cost they pay for the project. This project’s going
to cost me between $7,000 and $8,000. I am not going to benefit at all like that from this project.
As a matter of fact I’ll probably lose ground because it will be widened where I live. That will
18
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
take ground cover away from my property. And if I ever plan on doing anything in this town,
ground cover is huge. They talk about businesses paying less. I don’t think that’s right either.
Businesses that are on Laredo Drive, they make money. I don’t make any money on this road,
and there’s a lot more businesses than just the 4, or whatever the City says. Axel’s for instance.
All their delivery trucks end up on Laredo Drive, and they’re not even being assessed anything.
That alley way that runs behind the little mall, all the delivery trucks go down there and they end
up on Laredo. If this is a residential road, which I don’t think it is, when that gas tanker pulls in
to fill up at the gas station, that blocks off traffic til he can back that thing in there. Not to
mention all the trucks that go to the post office, 2 to 3 times a day to pick up their deliveries.
Armor cars at the bank. They’re all on Laredo. And as far as not being a collector road, Chapel
Hill, when they pick their kids up, they come across to Laredo to bypass that intersection right in
front of their school. So it is a collector road. Even the President shut it down. Laredo Drive
was blocked off when he was in town. Thank you for letting me speak.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. And Mr. Littfin, appreciate that. Do the improvements need to be
made?
Charles Littfin: Yes. You probably don’t see it right in front of the school because the City
comes through every year before the parade and they patch everything. You go north of Santa
Vera, it’s bad because the City doesn’t do anything up there. Come spring time, drive along and
you’ll see where the curb and gutter used to be. Over the years of the buses going to the school,
if there’s one that gets their early, they’ll pull over on Laredo and wait for the bus in front of
them. Over the years of them doing this, they’ve probably pushed back the road 1 foot. There is
no curb and gutter there now. There was. It was just grass to the tar. Right now there’s
probably that much mud along Laredo Drive where the tar starts and it goes to grass. You can
see that in the spring. One other thing. Traffic on Laredo. Few years back they sealcoated the
frontage road in front of Lake Ann. That summer there were hundreds of dump trucks hauling
gravel to and from the north parking lot at the Chanhassen Elementary School. That’s where
they stockpiled it. They brought it all the way into town. Stockpiled it and then they took it all
the way back out to do the frontage road that goes all the way to 41. All that gravel was in that
parking lot. All summer long. Hundreds of dump trucks. All day long. It was terrible. So it’s
not a residential road by no means.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Charles Littfin: Because everybody uses it. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Question on a, please. Thank you. Question on the width of the road, because
Mr. Littfin brought that up.
Paul Oehme: Real quickly. Laredo Drive.
Audience: Could you please talk louder?
Paul Oehme: Sure. Laredo Drive in front of the school, north of Chan View, it’s approximately
what, 35, 36 feet wide. We’re not proposing to widen the roadway in this area. It does meander.
19
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
The edge of the mat doesn’t meander so trying to straighten it out. Put the curb and gutter in
there. What we’re proposing, if we need to widen it, or move it, we’re going to shift it as far to
the west as we can on the school property and the commercial properties as feasible. So in terms
of ground cover, we’re not going to be, you know the gentleman’s front yard, we’re not going to
be taking any more of his sod away from him so, there’s going to be obviously construction
equipment and disruption during the process but in terms of losing ground cover from his
property, you know that’s something that we’re mindful of and we’re going to minimize as much
as we can. And again we talked about the traffic issues already. Is there anything else there?
Mayor Furlong: No. I think that’s what I had. Any quick follow-up’s? Otherwise we’ll keep
moving here.
Councilman Litsey: Just that I hope it, I mean it’s apparently not real clear yet that the
methodology’s the same with whatever designation that road has. I think in the last comment the
traffic and so forth on there isn’t factored in there because you’re being assessed the same
whether it’s designated as a residential street or a collector street. It’s the same cost to you. I
don’t know how else to better get that point across but we keep losing I think item in all these
talks.
Todd Gerhardt: Paul, there’s one other comment regarding no parking. The school zone. I think
we have that designated no parking during the time of loading and unloading. Is there a practice
we typically use on that?
Paul Oehme: On Laredo, I don’t know if it’s signed for that right now. I know that’s on street
parking during special events for the school, but we do try to minimize those type of conflicts in
other areas of the city.
Todd Gerhardt: If it’s an issue with the neighborhood, maybe that’s something we can take a
look at as a part of the project to put no parking. We’d like some feedback from some of the
affected property owners maybe in that area, if that’s something they want to see or not see, we
can look at that.
Councilwoman Ernst: Paul, it keeps coming up and I keep hearing it. That Councilman Litsey’s
point, when he was talking about the business owners versus the residents. Are you going to be
addressing that later on after all the residents have had a chance to speak because obviously it’s a
very important issue and I would like to hear how that benefit is going to play out.
Audience: Could you speak up?
Councilwoman Ernst: I just asked Paul if he was going to be speaking to the distribution of the
assessment because that keeps coming up and Councilman Litsey had mentioned it as well. How
is the assessment going to play out as far as the benefit, and I think Paul’s going to be talking
about that but I’m not quite sure.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I mean Jon Horn or I can address that. I think in your background we’ve
kind of identified how the methodology was arrived at and kind of showing what that
20
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
assessment, the preliminary assessment amount is right now. So I mean if you want us to talk a
little bit more about that, we’ll be more than willing to talk about the, how that was calculated
but in terms of, we’re just looking for feedback even though, is the assessment methodology
appropriate? Do we need to make some changes? You know those type of things so.
Councilwoman Ernst: Well you know I guess I’m wondering, does it make sense to break the
cost down so that the benefit plays out equally for the residents. You know so that the benefit is
equal, and I guess that was, you know how does that play out against what the businesses are
paying?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, again we’re, we looked at benefits for the residential versus the non-
residential and there’s a drawing showing what, you know if we would incorporate it. If we
eliminate all the non-residential pieces here, parcels, and replace them with single family, typical
street frontage widths, parcels, that are consistent with other properties in the area, we would
anticipate adding about 19 additional lots to that street. I mean that’s how much we think we
could fit in there. Based upon those analysis, you know again we looked at several different
methodologies and this was, under this scenario it would actually cost the residents more if the
commercial properties were removed from the project area and replaced with single family
residential so. In terms of, I don’t know if that really answers your question or not but you know
we did look at several additional methodologies and this is the one that we kind of, we’re using
at the present time so.
Councilwoman Ernst: And it’s one that we’ve used in the past.
Paul Oehme: And again, the 40% assessment, back to the benefiting property owners, that’s
been consistent. And we had a look at benefits for both the non-residential and the residential
pieces and this is I think is assessment practices…that we can get for this project.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Let’s continue on with the public hearing now. Let’s
continue with any residents along Laredo Drive. Anyone else from Laredo Drive. Good evening
sir.
Dave Johnson: Good evening. Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. My name is Dave
Johnson. I live at 711 Laredo Lane and to answer your question, as I did in an email yesterday
Mr. Mayor, we do think, or at least I do and my wife does, think the improvements need to be
made.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Dave Johnson: And to go ahead and set aside the question of collector or not a collector, I think
you’ve got a street here with different characteristics and it’s difficult to go ahead and fit into
your existing categories. Maybe you have to find another one. I don’t know, but whatever
you’ve got now isn’t working real well. The problem is not collector or non-collector. It’s again
the assessment between business owners and the residents, and that’s the issue really to get
anywhere. The other issue that’s related, as I mentioned before, there’s a problem with exiting
21
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
off of Laredo Lane onto Laredo Drive. I didn’t see anything in the plan that shows how we’re
going to go ahead and address that.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and that’s specific to the project itself. Mr. Oehme, do you
understand that question?
Paul Oehme: Sure. We’re familiar with the issue here is the access point from Laredo Lane to
Laredo Drive. The access point is a key intersection right now. There’s poor sight lines,
especially on the south that we’re trying to address. I’ve talked with our consultant about this.
We’re trying to straighten out Laredo Lane, Laredo Drive in this area as much as we can and still
stay within our right-of-way. And then also look at keying up Laredo Lane here as much as we
can so we can give it better sight distance from Laredo Lane to Laredo Drive. There’s
additionally several pine trees in, I think they’re in the city right-of-way that we need to look at
and see if that would actually help the situation if those were removed and replaced with some
other vegetation.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. So you’ll be sure to take a look at that as we move forward.
Paul Oehme: Yep. We’ve heard that…
Mayor Furlong: Look for opportunities to improve it.
Paul Oehme: …that was one of the things we wanted to address…
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Anyone else for Laredo Drive at this point? Might as
well continue on Laredo Lane. Anybody else on Laredo Lane? How about, go to Longview
Circle. Anyone on Longview Circle? Highland Drive. Any resident from Highland Drive wants
to comment? Sir, please. Come on forward.
Conrad Winkle: I’m Conrad Winkle, 505 Highland Drive. We’ve put together, went around and
got a petition, there’s 8 people that live on Highland Drive, he said it’s included in this project.
First the real question I have is, if they’re going to put Highland Drive in, if they should put the
whole works in because all we did was pick up, I think all he did was pick up 8 people so he
could pay the bill is really want it amounts to because there’s nothing wrong with where it’s at
right now. We put a petition together and I brought the thing in and I think, thank you. I just
wanted to make sure that you had it so you’d know.
Mayor Furlong: We do and I think that’s a question that we can address here this evening. Two
questions. One, should the segment of Highland Drive that’s included in the project, why should
it be included and why not the rest of Highland Drive down towards Frontier?
Paul Oehme: Highland Drive, the cul-de-sac, the portion west of Laredo Drive is proposed to be
included in the project. The street does rate low on the pavement condition index that we have.
It’s at about a 56. The area to the east of there does rate a little bit higher than Laredo Drive,
based upon the 2004 information that we have. We did find when we went through and televised
the sewer system, we did find that there was a service line that needs to be replaced and some
22
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
other cracking of a clay pipe that’s out there that we would like to address with this project as
well. In terms of.
Mayor Furlong: Can you hear sir?
Audience: No.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Louder.
Audience: You know we’re old people. You have to talk louder…
Paul Oehme: Alright, well again. Highland Drive was included. I mean it’s.
Audience: Why, why didn’t the, why isn’t the lower road included? That road is older than our
cul-de-sac.
Paul Oehme: It is.
Audience: Yes.
Paul Oehme: I think it was ’67 it was put in.
Audience: You want us to help pay for the project.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Paul Oehme: Highland Drive on the cul-de-sac I think was built in ’69. Again it did rate lower
on our pavement condition index. Highland Drive, the cul-de-sac to the west. We did not find
any service issues or utility issues that we would like to address right now on the stretch from, of
Highland Drive east of Laredo Drive so. It has to do with both the utilities. It has to do with the
pavement condition. It does not in any way, shape or form have to do with paying for the
project. I mean the City does pay 60% of the street improvement project. We are sticking a lot
of money into a cul-de-sac. If we didn’t feel justification for you know, not putting a street in,
we wouldn’t put it in based upon you know the cost to taxpayers so.
Mayor Furlong: Well the cost is 60% on the street improvements but 100% on any of the utility
work underneath.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct. We do have cast iron, the watermain that’s out here is very
susceptible to breaking, especially in this climate so we have not identified any watermain breaks
on Highland Drive fortunately, but we do feel that as long as we’re out here, take care of as
much of the issues as we can to decrease the amount of disruption to the neighborhood at one
time so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anyone else from Highland Drive? Cimarron Circle?
23
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
George Lucas: Could you turn that on so the map is on again? I’m going to need that in a
minute. Thank you very much. My name is George Lucas. I happen to live at 410 Cimarron
Circle. I wasn’t really planning to make a formal presentation tonight. I just have a couple of
comments. I’ve been involved in some discussions with some of my neighbors and some other
people. I feel I represent a gentleman named Larry Anderson who happens to be in Arizona who
has some feelings on this as well. He lives at 401 Cimarron I think his address is. I’d just like to
make a, if you could turn that back on so I can see the map.
Laurie Hokkanen: It’s going to take just a couple minutes. I’m sorry.
George Lucas: I’m sorry. One of the questions that came up in some of the discussions was on
Laredo Drive itself, and I kind of need the map to show you this. There’s a very large
percentage of the frontage that is not assessed for a number of reasons. And if she can get that
up I’ll.
Laurie Hokkanen: The projector is taking a cooling break so I apologize.
George Lucas: I really don’t want to continue until I can do that.
Laurie Hokkanen: Do you still have it up on your screen?
Mayor Furlong: No. We’ve got, I mean we can see the map on our staff reports here.
George Lucas: The issue is, if I understand correctly from discussions with Paul, is that the
whole way, the property was going to be associated with the project or not associated with the
project, was if the driveway accessed one of the roads. Either Laredo Drive, Laredo Lane,
Cimarron Circle, Longview, a portion of Highland, etc, etc. Well as it turns out, there’s a
number of properties, pretty large number of properties that border on Laredo that do not have
access. If you can blow that up now, appreciate it. Can you get it up there? That projector’s not
working.
Councilman Litsey: It’s up on the other ones.
Mayor Furlong: If you could put it over the X so the camera. Slide it down a little bit please.
George Lucas: All these properties, is that showing now?
Mayor Furlong: Yep.
George Lucas: All these properties, these properties are not assessed. In addition though, all of
these properties have frontage, or have driveways not on Laredo but on Laredo Lane. The other
properties that really have driveways that are assessed to Laredo Drive itself are here, here, here,
I believe here, and that’s about it so there’s a large section of this part that is not because all this
down here and down here. The majority of this is commercial. We know that. That’s being
assessed under a different formula than the residential, and it’s different because the calculation,
and I’m not going to go through the complex part of the calculation is based on the square
24
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
footage of the property over the frontage. For the residential, that’s it. For the commercial then
they look at all the other frontages and make a percentage. For the residential that have multiple
frontages, they don’t do that. So there’s a different methodology in the way assessments are
done. I think to be fair that should be the same. But all of the problems that have been discussed
tonight in terms of the assessment differences in terms of all the other discussions of property
use, the parking, the number of trips, on and on and on, basically they address this part of the
drive itself. They don’t address any of the cul-de-sacs. It would seem logical, and I’d like to
maybe have Paul look at this. If he could look at a different formula or different way of looking
at Laredo itself either down to Saratoga, or like Larry’d like to see it clear down to Highland as it
was to Frontier Trail, that has all these properties that aren’t being assessed on it and look if
there’s a different methodology there. And Paul and I’ve talked about this a little bit and that’s
something I think he could do and that might be a reasonable way to look at how this could be
done differently. I think one of the feelings that a lot of the residents feel is that why are the
resident, or the commercial properties have an average of $70 per frontage foot. The residential
$82 of frontage foot. Does that seem reasonable? That’s based on the fact that they have a
different assessment methodology. Not based how much they use, and I understand all that, but
it’s based on a different assessment methodology. It seems like if we were to split that up into
two different sections, maybe we could make a more fair allotment. That’s the first question.
We don’t want stop, I don’t want to stop this project. I can’t speak for everyone. This project
needs to be done.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
George Lucas: This portion of Laredo is pretty poor. Anyone that’s driven down it, I mean it’s
like going over a roller coaster. It doesn’t get any better. It’s kind of fun if you like roller
coasters. It does the same kind of a thing. It shouldn’t be that way and that’s because of the
drainage issues. Some sub-grade issues. It wasn’t made originally to be a heavily used street but
you know all these issues. So it needs to be re-done. There’s no question. Especially this part
right through here. Is it, you know you look at all this frontage that’s not assessed, it seems like
there’s some other way we can do something, and I’d like to leave, let Paul give a try at
something like that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Very good. I guess the question then of which ones are in
and out and they’re double front properties and if there’s some other things to look at or other
ways to run, look at some of the numbers.
Paul Oehme: I did have another drawing up here but I want to talk a little bit about past
reconstruction projects and how they kind of relate to this project a little bit. 2004 the city did
reconstruct Santa Fe Trail and a portion of Del Rio and it’s about a third of a mile from Laredo
Drive. Anyways there is a lot of double frontage property on that section of roadway as well,
and in terms of double frontage lots, and that’s shown here in blue. And when you calculate,
when we calculated the benefiting property owners versus a double frontage lots, there was
about, in this project it was about 23.4% of the frontage on the property, on the roadway that’s
being reconstructed as being double frontage or some other non-benefiting use. When we look at
last year’s Koehnen project, this is a little bit harder to show on here but there’s a number of
double frontage lots here as well. Along a good portion of the roadway here too, and when we
25
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
looked at the benefiting properties versus the double frontage lots, we calculated about 25% of
street frontage that had the double frontage or outlots or did not have any benefit. And then my
other drawing, and I don’t know where that went but when we looked at the Laredo Drive project
and the areas that we just talked about, that came in right at 25% of non-benefiting or double
frontage lots. The 25% that was you know either outlots or double frontage lots so what I’m
trying to say is, from the past projects, I mean we’re being consistent. It’s right around that 25%
of frontage that is, you know that’s not assessable. Based upon our current methodology. One
thing that I do want to caveat is you know again, I think what George was getting at, Mr. Lucas,
was the issue of combining the commercial assessment rates with the residential and is there any
other clarification that we should be making with, or trying to separate those two calculations
out. I think that’s the crux of the issue.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Still on Cimarron Circle.
Barb Murphy: My name is Barb Murphy and I’m at 404 Cimarron Circle and I do have one
question. Is the post office being assessed for this project?
Paul Oehme: Yes.
Barb Murphy: Okay. Also just in the discussion tonight I just hear about all these different ways
to work the numbers and I can’t help but feel like I still am subsidizing the reconstruction of
Laredo Lane and that’s my big objection. I still feel like our house, that our homes are going to
be subsidizing Laredo, whether the methodology is leaning more towards residential or
commercial. I don’t know how to work that out but that’s just the way that I feel. I would like to
th
just read two sentences out of the Star Tribune from January 27 where it just backs up the deal.
Where it goes back to the basis if how do we pay for our roads, and it talks about a task force
that examined ways that cities funded road construction and ended up abolishing assessments.
The conclusion was that roads benefited everyone and everyone should pay, and so I also
challenge the council to step back and say, do we do all these little different calculations for each
different road project or do we step back and maybe have a task force established and re-assess
how we tackle this so that you don’t end up spending your nights listening to people complain,
and you can be more consistent with how you apply your policies. Also another question I do
have is, I do support that the road does need to be done. However, the curb and gutter, I know
that the neighborhood did question. When the economy is getting weaker, is this the time to be
assessing us and doing the curb and gutter and doing improvements that you feel are necessary?
Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I guess Mr. Oehme, in terms of the curb and gutter, the design
standard that we’re reconstructing…if you could address that.
Paul Oehme: Sure. The curb and gutter. Our standard street section does include curb and
gutter. There’s several benefits for including curb and gutter. One is drainage off your property.
It does allow for better drainage for the roadway and it does improve the function of the roadway
I think. It does help with keeping the roadway together. You know it keeps the outer portion of
the roadway structurally strong so it helps longevity when we come in and potentially mill out a
street in the future, it does provide a benefit for future improvements, it’s not going to cost as
26
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
much for those type of improvements down the road. But I think the main point I want to just
get across is it does help with the drainage and help with those type of issues, especially in this
neighborhood. I know Cimarron Circle, that’s a very flat road. I know they have some drainage
problems on that road to begin with and that’s a perfect location for our example of why we need
curb and gutter.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I guess just another question on our practice of assessing roads.
Maybe just a short history of the current practice…just a real quick history Mr. Gerhardt. How
long have we been doing this?
Todd Gerhardt: I think we established this practice about 6 years ago. We went through an
extensive study in determining how we were going to go about reconstruction. Mill and overlays
and we reviewed probably 4 or 5 different alternatives. If you did read that article on Sunday,
you can see in that article that there’s not one city that does the same thing, and I think we kind
of went in the middle. This practice that we’ve been doing, I think is fair. It’s one where we
have to show true benefit and that’s what that appraisal report that some of you have seen, and I
don’t think we’d be here if we were trying to push on a cost that we could not justify, and I think
that’s the key thing here. As to the storm water, everybody pays into the storm water fund and
we’re picking up 100% of curb and gutter, and in this project. And it has a variety of different
benefits. As Paul mentioned, it keeps the blacktop, the road into a nice square shape. It guides
our plow trucks as they go along the road, and it really helps the environment. With the
environmental manholes. The bioswales. Storm water ponds. We pre-treat that water before it
goes into our lakes and streams so it plays a very key role in the environment so you know this
practice, if you kind of look at some of the history of some previous projects like Santa Fe, this
last year on Yosemite and the Koehnen area, it’s very similar costs for what was assessed against
those, and that’s where we talk about this residential equivalent and I think we’re being
consistent in how we implement this.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else from Cimarron Circle? No? I think then if I’m not
mistaken, I’ve gone through those streets which are part of the project so at this time I’d invite
any other interested party to come forward and comment at the public hearing. Okay. Nobody
else? Alright. With that then I’ll just make a final call. If anybody else, if I passed up your
street and you heard something that you want to come back up and clarify, this would just be a
final call then as part of the public hearing. Yes, Mr. Lucas.
George Lucas: Can I just ask one question?
Mayor Furlong: Why don’t you come back to the microphone if you would.
George Lucas: Just a question. I just heard the city manager say that curbs and gutters were not
being assessed. If I read the proposal, that is part of the street cost. That is part of the 40% being
assessed, unless I’m missing something. Has something changed?
Paul Oehme: No. The curb and gutter I think we have included in the details…being assessed at
40 and 60%.
27
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
Todd Gerhardt: Okay.
Paul Oehme: The storm water assisted with the drain tile and the storm water piping, the
manholes, those type of things, that’s 100% the city cost so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the reason is the curb and gutter is part of our city street standard
now.
Paul Oehme: Right, exactly.
Todd Gerhardt: My fault. When I see storm water improvements, $389,000, city storm water
fund’s picking up $400 so you threw curb into the street improvements? Not into the.
Paul Oehme: Right.
Todd Gerhardt: My apology. And our practice on that, which I was a little surprised that
typically if you do not have curb on your property, we usually do assess for that and so
appreciate the correction.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. So anybody else then that would like to speak at the public hearing
on this before we get it back to council and we ask some questions and comment to move
forward? Okay. If nobody else, is there a motion at this time to close the public hearing?
Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to close the public hearing. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The public
hearing was closed.
Mayor Furlong: Let’s bring it back to council then. There may be some follow up questions that
we have. Maybe we could just start with questions or clarifying questions. If anybody has any.
Councilman Litsey: I do have one. It was brought up here but there seems to be an
inconsistency. I didn’t see it that way but with the way we’re looking at commercial properties.
If I heard you right before it talks about if we actually parceled those out as residential properties
they’d be paying more, or they actually are paying more now than if you treated it as residential
property, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: Well, yeah under the scenario that I presented before. They would actually be
paying a little bit more if the commercial properties were removed and replaced with single
family residential, and we calculated about 19 lots that would be, could be substituted. So under
that scenario they would be paying a little bit more.
Councilman Litsey: Right, okay. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Just a couple questions from a design standpoint, and maybe this is in there.
Driving through the neighborhood, some of the cul-de-sacs and the width of the cul-de-sacs, I
think Mr. Oehme we talked a little bit about that. Is that something you can look at? We want to
28
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
make sure that the width is necessary for public safety but if there’s any opportunity to narrow
those in, especially at the end of the cul-de-sac. Some of those turn around’s are pretty close and
closer to the homes than I think we see in our current design standards, or standards in terms of
development so that would just be, is that something that you can look at? And if so, would you
look at it?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, definitely we’ll take a look at that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. And then we also received some emails earlier. We didn’t
get a lot of comments tonight on that but that was with regard to doing what we can to improve
storm water management and runoff and I know you had mentioned that you’ve had some
meeting with the watershed district already. I assume as we move forward with, if we move
forward to finalize the plans and specs we’ll look for opportunities to build in flexibility there as
well. Since we start at the top of the hill and go down to the lake so.
Paul Oehme: Absolutely.
Mayor Furlong: I know there’s limited opportunities there.
Paul Oehme: We’re looking at every opportunity we can. We’re meeting with the watershed
district regularly and their engineers and actually their engineers are talking to Kimley-Horn and
we’re, under specific plan. What we’re proposing is…design, 6% design and such. The
Watershed District’s engineer would have an opportunity to critique Kimley-Horn’s plans so, to
see if there’s any other opportunities…if they don’t see them so. We’re working together on
that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Good to hear. Alright. Any other questions I guess at this point? If
not, thoughts. Comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom, your thoughts?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sure. Believe it or not I actually enjoy these meetings because I
learn a lot and I think everyone in the room learns a lot about what’s happening and it’s a healthy
discussion to have. Tonight though I think we’re here to kind of finalize that we all agree that
something needs to be done with Laredo, and I think everyone in the room has agreed. Or those
who spoke have agreed that it is a problem that needs to be resolved. And so at least we can all
agree on one thing tonight. So I too have many questions about methodologies of assessments
and who should pay and who shouldn’t pay and why some roads aren’t being assessed and some
are, but those I think, you know there’s many more nights to come where we can really delve
into those questions and get them answered and so tonight, myself, I just want to focus on should
we go ahead and order the plans and specs for this project and so I have to agree with everybody
in the room that we should go ahead. Move forward and keep this emotion and then move onto
the next step which is talking about assessments and what’s fair and what’s not fair and I am not
convinced of anything so far so I think we need to have more of these discussions and really
figure out what direction as a city and as a staff we should go in resolving some of these issues.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Ernst.
29
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
Councilwoman Ernst: Well I too want to thank everyone for showing up tonight. And thank you
for your comments and your suggestions and even challenging council. I think that we always
need to be challenging ourselves to look at different ways to do things and different
methodologies. But I do support, as Councilwoman Tjornhom said, that we need to continue to
move forward. Everyone does agree to that so I too would support and moving ahead in ordering
this, plans and specifications for the project.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah, I agree with what’s been said. Everyone’s in agreement. As was
already been stated that something needs to be done. I walk and jog along that road quite a bit. I
don’t drive along it a lot but I do walk along it, but. Yeah, if it’s any consolation, I got assessed
on Big Horn Drive so, welcome to the council and here’s your assessment last year but, so I
think we’re all in agreement that we need to do something. We need to move ahead. We’ve got
a time table here we need to stick with so that we get this project done in a timely manner and
before next winter. So we have the full benefit of the construction year there as much as
possible. That we can do this project. I do think that it’s, I take to heart with what has been said
here. It’s very nice that people are willing to give of their time and come here to express their
opinions and I do appreciate that too. I do think that this project consisted with past practices. A
methodology in terms of what the City picks up in terms with what the residents pick up is kind
of a larger question in terms of past practices and probably won’t be settled for this project if
there’s a movement afoot that the residents would like to see that changed. But I think we still
have time to take a look at like how the commercial properties are assessed and keep working at
that and keep the dialogue open and hopefully that will be resolved too. Not necessarily to
everyone’s satisfaction but at least knowing that we’ve looked long and hard at that and that we
take to heart what you’ve said so. But tonight I too support moving ahead and getting the project
going.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I’ll reiterate the thanks to everybody that came not only this
evening and I know it’s not always easy to stand up under the lights with the camera going and
talk but for everyone that did, and even for those that didn’t tonight but came to the public
meetings, the open houses to express their concerns and send us emails, all that is helpful and it,
for myself I know and the other council members, it causes us to really look behind just what’s
being on the surface presented, and make sure what, it’s being done for the right reasons and
ultimately that’s what I try to look at each and every time as something’s questioned is, when I
listen to the issue, is the proposal being done for the right reasons, and not for the wrong reasons,
as some people suggested it might be here tonight. To the question of does this project, and this
entire area need to be done. I think Councilwoman Tjornhom said, if there’s anything that we
can all agree on in this room it’s probably that, and I would include some of these other roads as
well as Laredo Drive. The ones that are included in the project, is that they need to be done.
Between the surface condition of the street and what we’re hearing from our engineering
department in terms of the poor condition of the utilities underneath the street, those need to be
improved. Just there’s capacity issues. We can’t do the entire city and everything that needs to
be done. This project has been on our schedule to do since we put together a long range plan
back I want to say probably about 5 years ago or so where we started looking out ahead so
people can see when their area, when their neighborhood might be scheduled for some of these
30
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
types of improvements so people can get ready and plan and ultimately be involved, as many of
you are. So in terms of should we move forward tonight ordering the plans and specifications, I
think the answer there is simply yes. In terms of the assessments, we will have time to review
that. I think staff picked up some ideas tonight and clearly all of us, the concerns, and I know
that they’re going to spend time and we will spend time with them taking a look and making sure
that methodology we use is fair. And by fair, it has to be fair to those property owners that are
associated with the project and benefiting from the project and it’s got to be fair to the taxpayers.
It’s got to be consistent, not only with past practices but with state statute, and it needs to be
done I believe in an objective, logical manner. It’s something that should be consistent and be
able to be applied consistently going forward as well as looking back so, we’re not done on that
side of the equation and that’s fine because we don’t need to do that. One of the things that
didn’t come up tonight, or I think it did. Mr. Horn mentioned that last year when we went out
for some projects, we received very favorable bids on that and that we’ve attributed historically
to the slow housing market. One of the questions came up, doing it now versus doing it later.
Right now, and last year we saw that there were a number of construction companies, because
they weren’t being hired to put in new developments around the area, they were very interested
on working on public street projects, and that’s another reason to move forward now to get out
there and get those bids so that whatever the cost is, and again from our allocation methodology
and assessment, it’s a percentage of the overall cost. So it’s not this number and then if there’s,
if the bids come in less, everybody does benefit. It’s not that the city benefits and the residents
don’t. Clearly that wouldn’t be fair. So I think we have some work to do there, and we have to
relook at them. Make sure that what we’re doing from an assessment is fair to the parties
involved. To the other taxpayers. It’s consistent. It’s objective and logical and it’s something
that we’re doing for the right reasons. And then the results should be, may not be what
everybody wants or would like to see but at least we’ll all know how we got there and that’s
what we’re looking for. So I think moving forward with the project makes sense. Unless there’s
any, is there any other comments or follow-up at this point? If not, there’s a resolution here
that’s been distributed with regard to this project for ordering the plans and specifications as
requested tonight. Is there a motion to adopt this resolution that’s been distributed?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Motion to adopt the resolution as distributed.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Litsey: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any final, I’m sorry Mr. Gerhardt.
Todd Gerhardt: One minor modification to that resolution. Roger Knutson, City Attorney
th
suggest that we cross out council resolution adopted January 28 and say ordered as proposed in
the feasibility study.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, we’ll make those amendments to this resolution. I’m sure that’s okay to
the maker and to the seconder?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah.
31
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
Councilman Litsey: Yep.
Councilwoman Ernst: Mayor just to make sense that they know what the resolution is. I mean it
talks about moving forward but reviewing.
Mayor Furlong: The resolution states, and I didn’t write down the proposed changes here but it
states such improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible. It’s hereby ordered, and this is
where I think is it the second bullet point?
Mayor Furlong: Proposed in the feasibility report.
Mayor Furlong: Proposed in the feasibility report and that we approve the feasibility study and
authorize Kimley-Horn and Associates as the engineer of the project. To prepare the plans and
specifications for the 2008 street improvement project. So then just for clarification, those I
think on the schedule then, once the plans are finalized they’ll come back to the council for
approval of those plans and authorization to go out for bid, and that will be done within a matter
of I think 2 more council meetings, is that correct?
th
Councilwoman Tjornhom: 25 I think.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Now that generally is more of an administrative process. That’s not
going to, there’s no public hearing associated with that, if I’m correct.
Paul Oehme: If we find some big discrepancy between the feasibility study and the final plans
and specs, that’s a time we bring that information before you and see when you consider moving
the project forward.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, but generally if the final plans and specification process reaffirms what
was anticipated in the feasibility study, that will come back likely as part of our consent agenda
items, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so the next time this will come back from a public hearing
standpoint is after we get the bids back in. We know what the project costs will be. We will
have had an opportunity to look at some alternatives for the assessment and then we’d be
considering authorizing the project and adopting the assessment roll at that time, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. With that, we have a motion to adopt the resolution. It’s
been seconded. Any other discussion?
Resolution #2008-08: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that
the City Council adopt a resolution, (amended to delete the phrase council resolution
32
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
th
adopted January 28 and replace with ordered as proposed in the feasibility study),
ordering the preparation of plans and specifications for City Project 08-01. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Why don’t we, given the hour, why don’t we take just a short recess and we’ll
come back at the call of the Chair. Thank you.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARD TO
CRAIG PETERSON.
Mayor Furlong: It is my pleasure, bittersweet but still my pleasure to recognize Craig Peterson
for his outstanding service and dedication to the City of Chanhassen these last 12 years. Craig
has devoted a great deal of his time and talents to this city which includes being on the Planning
Commission from 1995 to ’99 and serving as Chair for the last 3 of those years. Being on our
Economic Development Authority from the year 2000 to 2007. Southwest Transit Commission
from 2002 to 2007, and serving as it’s Chair from 2004 to 2007. And two terms on the City
Council, from December, 2000 to December, 2007. Things that stand out most about Craig and
his excellent leadership skills, his commitment to what, to do what it takes to get the job done.
He has been a leader by example. Always prepared for our meetings. Constantly tries to raise
the bar by providing thoughts and ideas that enhance the process and the project. Because of his
efforts and work ethic, he has earned the respect of City Council, commission members,
residents, businesses and staff. During his term on the City Council Craig provided leadership
on many projects and policies. The results of which have been demonstrated by Money
Magazine’s naming of Chanhassen as one of the Best Places to Live in 2005 and by Family
Circle Magazine designating Chanhassen as one of the Top Ten Towns to Raise a Family in
2007. Craig has been involved in many projects over the years for which he should be very
proud. Construction of Highway 212 and 101 gap project, the new library, numerous
developments and redevelopments throughout the town, development of our city’s first water
treatment plant, miles of new and constructed roads, trails, parks throughout the community,
leadership that created fiscal policies that improved our city’s financial value, and in the end
resulted in 4% reductions in city’s tax rate over these last 5 years. Craig, your leadership, service
and dedication to Chanhassen has been remarkable. We thank you for that. You have to know
that you did make a difference during that time and that is key. I know that’s important, but it’s
important to us. You have touched many lives and many of whom, they know about it and many
may not but rest assured they all… Thank you. What I just presented Craig too is our Maple
Leaf Award. Let me just read that quickly. Presented to Craig Peterson…years of service on the
City Council, the Economic Development Authority, the Planning Commission, Southwest
Transit. It states in recognition of outstanding service and dedication to the community by the
Chanhassen City Council and the residents of the city themselves. Thank you very much.
Craig Peterson: I won’t do what Roger does and go into the mic like this. You know I think
that number one, I certainly thank you for this and those comments that I don’t think I can live
up to. I certainly participated and happened to be sitting in the chair when those things happened
and certainly staff was the primary driver of the things mentioned and I absolutely am proud to
have worked with the staff that the city has and I will remember that for a long time. The word
honor I think is used by politicians a lot. Perhaps over used, but I was thinking in the drive over
33
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
today that there isn’t a better word. There just simply isn’t. Honor to serve the public is
something that few people have the opportunity to do, and I think that my goal was always to
approach it that it was an honor and a privilege and hopefully at the end of the day when the
public looks at what we had done and what I had done, that when they look at that, they will
think that I did make a difference Tom, and you know what that phrase means to me. A number
of years ago I was walking by a construction site in a city, not dissimilar to the city of
Chanhassen and I was watching, I wanted to know what they were doing. There were 3 guys in
a row and I went up to the first one and I said, excuse me sir but what are you doing? And the
guy said I’m laying bricks. You know that didn’t really help me very much, you know. And so I
went up to the next guy. Tapped him on the shoulder. Excuse me sir but what are you doing?
Well I’m building a wall. He still didn’t help. I went up to the third person and tapped him on
the shoulder and he turned to me and smiled and he said, I asked him the same question. What
are you doing? And he smiled and said, I’m building a cathedral. In many ways what you are
doing this evening, and what I did for 12 or some years is build a cathedral, and I think the
challenge that I want to leave you and those that will come after you tonight, is that always
remember that you’re building a city. You’re not sitting through an assessment hearing. You’re
not making a variance. You’re building a city and I think that’s what I tried to do, keep in the
back of my mind and sometimes it’s hard. You know like tonight, it was hard. But you know
what I strive for and what I set the challenge to you and others is to remember that you’re
building a city and let the public judge whether you made a difference and that’s what I’ll wait,
you know as I drive home, I’ll think about the word make a difference and hopefully I have. So
with that, thank you very much.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts and comments.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: The Mayor said I have more than 5 minutes. It’s not on record so,
and I want to first say that Craig I think you were kind of gypped tonight because of your 12
years experience and your whole resume that took the mayor more than 5 minutes to recite, I
think instead of just a single maple leaf award, they should have given you the whole tree, but I
guess you know that’s my perception of the whole thing but. One of the first memories I have of
you and I together was our, me running for office for the first time and it was my first debate and
I was shaking in my shoes and we were sitting next to each other and I had this statement
prepared and I was thinking oh, and you were first of course and you were so eloquently were
speaking and the first thing you said is well, I don’t have anything prepared because I don’t
believe in having prepared statements for these debates and I will never vote for anybody who
does. And so of course there I have my prepared statement and I proceeded to read it and I don’t
know if you voted for me or not. And that I think was the kick-off of you really being my
mentor and really respecting what you had to say and we got to be friends. You know we had
council in common and we have something else that we both love to cook. And so I was kind of
comparing the two and what they kind of meant together and you and I both know that we can go
to the store and buy a cook book. We can watch shows on it. It doesn’t make you a good cook.
You know you have to have a heart and a soul and the passion and the instinct to really do that
well, and I think that’s the same thing with being an elected official. Is that you can read books
about how to be a good speaker. How you can make good public policy. You know how to be a
good council member. You’ve got seminars on it, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re
going to be successful, and Craig, I don’t think you needed book. I don’t think you need a
34
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
seminar. You just had that instinct and that passion and that will to be a public servant, and you
really were and you’ve taught me so many things. I probably need to go buy some more books,
but you really were a mentor to me and this isn’t good bye. I think the glass is half full. You are
leaving us and going on to a better place where you can be a voice for us in Carver County.
Councilman Litsey: That didn’t sound good. I’m sorry.
Mayor Furlong: Different place.
Councilman Litsey: I’m sorry.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But really I mean, we need that representation that you had for our
citizens here in Chanhassen, to be moved onto that next level at the Met Council and so I am
thrilled you’re going. I’m sad you’ll be gone. But I always know we have Monday nights. I’m
sure you’ll be sitting with your wonderful dinner you prepared and watching us on television so
I’ll have to have a signal or something to say hello.
Craig Peterson: You don’t want to know what I had for dinner then.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So thank you Craig.
Craig Peterson: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Vicki.
Councilwoman Ernst: Well I was not prepared. I didn’t know that I was going to be speaking
tonight.
Craig Peterson: I was hoping nobody would so we’re in the same boat Vicki.
Councilwoman Ernst: But I’ve always been a woman of very few words, but I will try and
express my appreciation for what you’ve done, you’ve always been there for me and I want to
thank you number one. It was very, a rewarding experience to serve with you on the Southwest
Transit Commission. I saw you in action there. I saw you in action here at the City Council, and
you are a man I’ve always respected and will continue to respect. You’re a teacher to me and I
really want to thank you for everything that you’ve done for me, as well as the city of
Chanhassen and as well as Southwest Transit Commission and congratulations on your new
appointment and I’m excited to see how you’ll grow in this, in your new endeavors and best of
luck to you.
Craig Peterson: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Litsey, thoughts.
Councilman Litsey: Yes, echo some of the things that have already been said but, and I haven’t
had the opportunity to know you quite as long as some up on the council but having said that, in
35
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
the year that I have gotten to know you well on the council, you’ve been just a terrific mentor.
You’ve provided me with some guidance and you’ve tempered some things at times that perhaps
I’m better off for for having listened and watched you in action. A lot of your mentoring was
just watching how you handled situations and dealt with them. Thoughtfully. Some of the
comments you made in your remarks, I’ve taken to heart because I’ve seen you do that in
practice. It’s not just what you say, it’s what you do. To me that distinguishes the people that,
the difference between people that are just there for other reasons and the people that are there
truly to serve and you’re one of those that’s here to truly serve and so I thank you for that. From
the very beginning you’ve been very. Excuse me.
Craig Peterson: I’m the one that’s supposed to be choking.
Councilman Litsey: From the very beginning you’ve, like I said, you’ve been a terrific mentor
and I really do appreciate that. I’m going to miss you a lot on the council, I already do, but
having said that, you are off to hopefully bigger and better things. That you can carry on the
legacy you left with the city with the Metropolitan Council and do even bigger and better things.
More regionally, which will have impact, still have an impact on Chanhassen obviously, and it’s
going to be nice to have you there. So thank you. For your service to the city. For what you’ve
done for me and stay in touch obviously and keep up the good work on the Met Council.
Craig Peterson: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt.
Todd Gerhardt: Well what can I say? On behalf of all of city staff, I think you used the one
word I think that we, I think would all agree with is that it’s been our honor to work with you.
Your leadership. Your direction. I think you always used the word, leave your finger prints on
projects throughout the town and we definitely see a lot of that as I drive around town, seeing
your direction and leadership to staff. On the library. On commercial businesses. Trying to
always improve the architectural style of residential or commercial businesses here in town and I
really appreciate your guidance over the last 7 years on the City Council. 12 years on the
Planning Commission. You’re definitely seeing your finger prints all over this town and we
really appreciate you challenging us to make Chanhassen a great community to live in and thank
you.
Craig Peterson: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: I’ll just finish briefly. Craig you’ve been a friend and a confidant and I
appreciate that. Not only the opportunity to work together but our friendship that has developed
during that time. I’ve always appreciated your vision, your strategic thinking and your
dedication. Not just to get things done, which is important, but to get them done well, which is
equally important, and we’ve done that and you’ve been a big part of that. Todd mentioned, it
has been an honor. It is an honor. Continues to be a honor to work with you and be proud
because you did serve honorably and we appreciate that. Thank you for that as well.
Craig Peterson: Until we meet again.
36
City Council Meeting - January 28, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you. Anything else for council presentations this evening?
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: Nothing this evening. We had a work session item that we were talking about
strategic planning. Go through that list one more time. If you have any questions, why don’t
you give me a call here in the next 2 weeks. We’ll schedule it for our first meeting in February.
I don’t think we’re going to lose any time on that. Also, have an opening for City Council so
with Craig’s departure we are advertising in the Villager again. The closing for the council seat
is this Thursday at 4:30 so anybody viewing this, we’re looking for great applicants like Craig
Peterson to serve in his vacancy for one year so go to our web site. There is an application there
and also a little job description so anybody interested, go to our web site.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt?
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
None.
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City
Council meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
37