The URL can be used to link to this page

1986 11 03 I I I 185 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1986 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. .'!be meeting was opened-with the Pledge to the "'Flag. ' < MEMBERS PRESENT:" Councilman Horn, Councilman .Geving and Councilwoman Watson. MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman SWenson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Lori Sietsema and Bill Engelhardt APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson secondErl to approve the agenda as presented with the following additions: Councilman Geving statErl that he thought Mayor Hamilton should give a summary of the Southwest Metro Transportation results and Mayor Hamilton stated that he would like to discuss Art Partridge. All votErl in favor of the amended Agenda and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. :Resolution #86-81: Acceptance of Public Improvements" in Piper Ridge. c. variance to Ordinance 10-A for Alternative Septic System in Lake Minnewashta Regional Park, carver County. e. Approve Council Policy :Regarding Commission Minutes. All voted in favor and"motion carried. Items (b) and (d) were pulled for later discussion. VISITOR PRESENTATION: , " Donation from Chaska Lion's Club, Rick Nolan. Rick Nolan: As you are probably aware, about a year ago the City of Chanhassen allowed the Chaska Lion's to be involved in your community in chari table gambling. We have had some operations of that sort going on in the Pauly's and the Pony Express. '!be bulk of the proceeds of this is to go to the School District that we share with the villages of Victoria, Carver, Chaska and Chanhassen. As a side note in that area, we are very active in trying to put together with these proceErls a new drug awareness program that is being promoted by Lion's International across the United States with a tremendous amount of success. The particular program we are talking about works with 4th, 5th and 6th graders to develop skills in drug awareness that make them develop the skills to say no. Not telling them to say no but actually develop the skills to choose other methods of handling themselves except giving in to peer pressure to drugs. We were somewhat shocked to find out that 25% of all the 4th graders in the United states have had peer pressure for drugs and by the time a person is 12 years old, a young person 1 186 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 today his future in drug involvement is pretty well determined so it is the age group that we are trying to tackle. That is where a lot of work goes. Another portion of the proceeds has been promised to your community and I would like to present for your Park Development a check for $2,000.00. I Mayor Hamilton: On behalf of the City, I would like to accept this check for $2,000.00 fram the Chaska Lions and we appreciate the contribution. Rick Nolan: There will be more. Greg Fletcher: I'm from the Fox Hollow Development and we would like to present a petition to stop Fox Hollow Drive connecting and being extended west from Fox Hollow Drive, from where it is now to Pleasant View Drive. That is a pretty close street that is being proposed right now and I would like to see if we can have some discussion on it. Perhaps it is scheduled for another meeting. Mayor Hamilton: It will be on the agenda at a future time when they begin to develop your street. We will keep this on file until that time. Don Ashworth: I will notify you with the time that this item will go onto the agenda. I am anticipating, I don't think I will be able to get it onto next meeting so hopefully it will be the one after that so that will be the first meeting in December, December 1st. Susan Albee: I was referred back to this body by the Court System on an issue I that I am sure you are all aware of. I'll keep this as brief as possible. I have a copy for Mr. Ashworth, Mr. Knutson and Barbara and a copy for the City Council as well as yourself. What I am appeal ing to this body would be enforcement of Ordinance 22, Section 14 and Section 55 as addressed in the public nuisance ordinance. What needs to be said in it's entirity is in your envelopes. My one problem with it right now is that I have a November 7th deadline to meet and I know that is not a reasonable amount of time. Unfortunately, that is what the Court is addressing. If you could possibly review it with Staff and notify me as soon as possible, it would be greatly appreciated. Mayor Hamilton: Have the City Manager get a copy of the Court decision. Susan Albee: The decision was stayed. I was referred back to this body to try in ordinance context come up with the situation and it is stayed until that time. Councilman Geving: What do you need fram us Susan? Susan Albee: A decision on the Ordinance that I am appealing for. The two sections. Mayor Hamilton: I guess we're wondering what did the Judge say? He must have said something in his comments didn't he? I 2 I I I 187 City Council Meeting ~ November 3, 1986 Susan Albee: He referred me back to the City and stayed until the 7th actuall y . Councilwoman Watson: You mean he wants us to review the Ordinance and see if we have a legitimate... Susan Albee: He wants me to try and work the matter out with the City. Councilwc:man Watson: As far as the problem. Don Ashworth:' I.would suggest that the Council instruct the City Attorney's office to work with Ms. Albee and the Court to resolve this issue and bring back any documentation or any clarification that the Court requires. Susan Albee: I do have a copy for Mr. Knutson. Councilwoman Watson: And he could be in touch with her in the next day or sc:mething. Don Ashworth: I can have him contact her tomorrow. Susan Albee: That would be wonderful. As I said, unfortunately I'm not running the best of timeframes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting dated October 20, 1986 as amended by COuncilman Geving on pages 32, 39 and 43. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 22',' 1986. All voted in 'favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 24, 1986. All voted in favor and motion' carried. Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamflton.secondedto note the Minutes of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting dated October 16, 1986. All'voted in favor and motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to note the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated October 7, 1986. All voted in favor and motion carried. OFF-SALE NON-INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE REQUEST, Q-PETROLEUM. Mayor Hamilton: This was an item that was on the agenda a couple weeks ago. It was tabled for comments of our Attorney. We have those comments. We have it back that it has been recommended that we approve it. Is the aWl icant present? 3 188 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986. Marlin Besler:, I :am the President :of -Q'and I am here to answer any questions the Council may have in review of this application. I Councilman Geving: Are you open? Marlin Besler: No, we're not. We're probably scheduled for about mid-month. Probably the third week. Councilman Geving: So the NovEmber 1st.. here was a .Ii ttle bit ambitious.. ' Marlin Besler: .The weather in September -kim of-got everybody about 3. weeks behind. Councilman Geving: Marlin, if you did not get the requested liquor license for off-sale non-intoxicating liquor, what impact would that have on your business? Marlin Besler: Well, that is a very difficult question to answer in precise terms but I guess I would answer it this way, from a competitive stampoint it has been a recognized item that has been handled by our type of industry for many years. It has been debated on the national scene about whether convenience food stores should be handling intoxicating liquor or non- intoxicating liquor, whichever you would prefer am it has been tested in a number of states and a Court battle is raging in California right now. It looks as though it is kim of a Mexican stand-off. We don~t. know what..is I going to happen but getting back to the local scene, everyone in this state that markets the convenient food imustory is authorized to carry the product if they meet the requirements of the city in which they are doing business. From that stampoint I feel it would put us at a disadvantage with the other people in our business in this community and surrounding communities. Councilman Geving: , Is it a significant.amount of business that would prevent you from making a successful operation of your business? Marlin Besler:., ,I think truthfully, no it's not one product that makes or: breaks a business ;and:it wouldn't. in.this case either. but I stillwould-!be concerned if someone desired this particular product am had a choice 'of,,; buying it at our establishment and we didn't carry it because we were not allowed to, he would then go to an establishment that does carry it and therefore we are being put at very much a disadvantage. Councilman Geving: Let me ask one other final question. I'm sure the other Council members will key into this as well. What will prevent youths from buying any kind of off-sale non-intoxicating liquor at your establishment? What will you have in force in terms of personnel or procedures that will assure us that you will run a good operation am not sell beer to minors? Marlin Besler: First of all we have a Corporation Procedures Manual that specifically outlines the details in which you authorize to sell 3.2 beer' to any customer. There are 1.0. requirements, that there are specific hours I posted in the store as to when you can am cannot sell 3.2 beer. Those times that are not allowed for us to sell, we normally padlock the cooler doors that 4 I I I 189 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 this item is displayed in so those are ,basically. the actions that we would take and continue 'to 'take in other cbnumini bes. We market in almost every. other metropolitan community am would welcome the Council to 'investigate our record in any of those communities to find out if in fact we do try to abide by the rules as they are stated, not only in the local community but also in the State. I think our neighboring community, which I'm a member of, Minnetonka. Minnetonka has enacted an even stiffer Code as jit pertains to marketing 3.2 beer in their city and I think they look to us because we are located very close to the City Buildings that they see that we comply very strigently with their more stringent requirements which is a more limited thing than is the State Code which, is normally what governs this product. .. -". II . Councilwoman Watson: Basically,. Dal~ hi,t on the question. What is the normal age of the effiploye~s who work in tpese J;'itrl of establishments?' , Marlin Besler: OUr employees range from probably 17 years and sometimes in a case, if work permits with the city school systems, 16 but that is usually with an adult working but they range from that range all the way up to 65 years of age. Councilwoman Watson: So there will always be an adult working at any time that beer can be sold during those hours? Marlin Besler: It is against State Law for minors to sell beer so we,have to have someone on duty that is old enough to handle the product am of' 'cou'rse that can be anyone 19 years of age even they could not legally drink it they could still legally sell it. We have a very confusing law on the books since the raising of the drinking age and the grandfathering in of certa~n people that Were born' on a certain day but all 19 year olds can legally sell the. ,beer but they cannot all legally drink the beer. Councilman Horn: I'~uess my only comment is if I had my preference on what we would allow in all of these type of establishments migh~d~ffer from I,think we should do on an imividual case. I see no reason why we shouldn't go along wi~h .this reque~t. Mayor Hamilton: Just to clarify the law. I believe in Minnesota it states that anybody that is 18 years of age can sell liquor in an establishment. ,I also was curious Ori hoy.l' you lock your cooler." I have been in some ' establishments"in Wisconsin I think it was, where. they have. actually had; a wooden bar thatwertt across the cooler -do'ors. 'It' ,was nicely.done, nicely, . finished am they had engraved in there something!like beer sales from l0~i0 only or whatever and I think I would certainly like to see something like that rather then just saying you are going to padlock. This way with the bar across there it was quite obvious that it was closed. That nobody was going to get in there am buy anything so if this is approved I would certainly like to see something like that. Marlin Besler: We will certainly make every effort to whatever system we have to use or can use, we will try to make it as presentable as possible. We are speming a lot of money to make the store look presentable and we would like to have this look the same. . . 5 190 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the off-sale non- intoxicating liquor license request for the Q-Superette with direction to the Ci ty Staff to: I 1. Review this matter to determine whether or not it would be desirous of the City to limit the number of licenses throughout the community in the future and if so, consideration of the number that the City might limit this to. 2. To see whether or not the City wants to allow any off-sale liquor licenses to these type of establishments in the future. 3. '!hat City Staff come back with a report to the City Council before March of 'next year when the City Liquor License issue will come up for review with their recommendations. All voted in favor and motion carried. REQUEST TO DELAY SEWER UNIT CHARGES, PRAIRIE HOUSE RESTAURANT, TED KORZENCM"SKI. Mayor Hamil ton stated that Mr. Korzenowski was not present at the meeting. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table this item until the end of the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. I SEWER EXTENSION REQUEST TO THE JAMES COMPANY PROPERTY, NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 16 (WEST 78TH STREET) AND COUNTY ROAD 17 (POWERS BLVD.) Don Ashworth: 'Ibis item was tabled to allow Mr. Burdick to be present. You have a letter from him saying he is in favor of this project for the Ordinance here in case the Council has any questions regarding this specific project. Councilwoman Watson: Are we expecting Mr. Burdick or Mr. Kelly to be present here tonight? Mayor Hamilton: I spoke with Mr. Burdick last week and he was very happy with the whole thing. He said he was upset with Mr. Kelly because he was talking our of turn and he said he really wasn't saying it the way he wanted to say it because he said'Iim very happy with it. Councilman Geving: For $14,mm.00 he would never get sewer in there. Councilwoman Watson: Do you think we need to do anything on this? Councilman Geving: I think we can proceed without him. Mayor Hamil ton: If I hadn't talked with Jim I would have wished he was here I but I talked with him personally and he is very much in favor of it. He wants to move ahead. 6 I I I 19] City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: He wants to get it going arrl develop his property arrl without the sewer he can't. Don Ashworth: So the action before the Council. You held a public hearing last meeting. You tabled action on that. Your action this evening would be to conclude the public hearing and approve this as a public improvement project arrl authorize preparation for plans arrl specifications. Resolution #86-82: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hear ing arrl to approve the improvement proj ect for the James Company property and to move ahead with the plans and specifications. All voted in favor arrl motion carried. REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 6640 DEERWOOD DRIVE, MICHAEL FERIANCEK. Councilwoman Watson: We denied the request an:] he chose not to stay an:] bring it before the Council. Councilman Horn: He is withdrawing his request? Councilwoman Watson: He didn't own the lot. His purchase of the lot was contingent on his ability to build. There is plenty of area for a house to be put on that lot without a variance. There is just no need for the variance. We couldn't come up with any reason why we should give him a variance so we denied it. He doesn't own the lot so I think, he was disaFPointed but I think he will just keep looking for another piece of property. He knows what house he wants. Councilman Geving: He actually had drawings of the house that he wanted to build before he picked out the lot. Councilwoman Watson: I think he will just keep looking for a lot that the house he really wants will accommodate. Councilman Geving: He was invited to come before the Council this evening but he decided not to. REQUEST OF WESTS IDE BAPTIST CHURCH TO LOCATE ON PROPERTY WITHOUT SANITARY SEWER ONIHIGHWAY 41, SOUTH OF MINNETONKA WEST~UNIOR HIGH, FRANK CLIFTON, DISCUSSION ITEM. - - - Brian pike: I'm the Pastor like Frank is and we have been working on this in searching for property. As you know, West Hr. High is moving everybody out arrl we are in there right now so we have been searching for property. We're looking at that site for a church arrl we're just wondering if that would be a possibility. I'm not certain on a building date yet but we're having to move arrl look for property right now arrl we're told that it is outside of the sani tary sewer line and wondering how you feel about that. Councilman Geving: Are you waiting for an action tonight? Are you looking for a decision or are you wondering how the Council might vote on this? 7 192 city Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 Brian pike: We're wondering how the Council might vote on it before we have to put in money into the whole... I Mayor Hamilton: I thought maybe we were going to act on this. Barbara Dacy: You can understand the church's point of view. It is kind of similar to another request that we had earlier in ,the Fall wanting to know what the Council's position would be in a certain' manner. As you can tell from the background, an Ordinance Amendment was being processed of the issue whether or not churches should be an urban use and "rural" use. - 'Ihisis kind of going both ways between the Commission and Council. That is why Staff recommended, we didn't have enough time for example to ask Mr. Machmeier, our septic system consul tant, what is a typical use for a church because it can be used as a community center, classrooms and so on that it may have a daily use and I think that was the primary concern that Staff had because the other conditions, it being located on an arterial roadway and so on, this case would go through so I think our primary concern is the septic system results. Maybe the Zoning Ordinance Amendment process could analyze all of those issues and be no cost to them. That is our recommendation that maybe you should initiate an amendment that could be taken care of this Fall one way or the other. Brian pike: I have seen the records about what she is talking about and it looked like at one time the Council passed an amendment apparently, if that is correct, that said that it would be alright if they came before the Council on a Conditional Use Permit and that way the Council could see'whether the sanitary septic system would be acceptable on that site on each individual I case. Then the Attorney got it back and there was a conflict as she said between the Planning Commission and the Council. The Council said it one way and he sent it back and it was voted in for the Planning Committee so that is fine if you want to wait I guess for, she is asking for a specific from somebody that you work with. Barbara Dacy: What I am saying is that we should research the matter first. You have the recommendation from the Planning Commission as well. Basically what our recommendation is saying is if so desired the Council can direct the Commission to initiate an long term amendment to look at the issue and through that research process we can answer some of those questions for the Council. Mayor Hamilton: That certainly seems like a reasonable thing ~o do. Councilman Geving: I think the applicant should be at least given the impression tonight on how we feel about this issue. I'm sure it is going to take some time to do this through the Plartning Commission and through Mr. Machmeier but you should go away from this meeting tonight with a feel at least from the four Council members that we are either in favor of the project or forget it ,because that is what it would take. An action, you mentioned on our part to approve it and I'll give my opinion. I'm in favor of this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow this outside the MUSA line provided it does have an acceptable sanitary sewer system. Councilwoman Watson: I certainly think this can be compatible with the rural area. In fact it is even more compatible with that area then a more urban I 8 I I I 225 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 area as far as any expansion or possible parking situations. All those things are easier in a more rural setting as long as we can accommodate, and I think we have to have some idea from you too at some point, what the use will be. How much use will this building be seeing? What would be daily activities? How many people could be eXPeCted to be using it so we would have an idea of how much stress the sewer would have and what has to be built into it in order for it to function. We have a lot of non-functioning kinds of on-site sewer systems in this City so we are very wary of setting up anything that is going to prove a problem for you or the City in the future. As long as we could establish those things so you could be too thinking about the use of the building and all the potential uses that would bring people in on a daily basis so those figures will be available when the time comes. Councilman Horn: I think the sewer issue and transportation issue are what I would want to look at. I don't think from a land use standpoint it would present a problem. Mayor Hamilton: I agree. I would like to see a skematic or plan on how the church would be situated on the parcel so that should the rest of it be subdivided, it could be subdivided well so that the next property could be accessed well and flow through the area. I certainly would like to see residential sometime along the church facing the road together... Councilman Horn: I think we might also want to know if there would be music piped from it or bells or that kind of thing too. Al Klingelhutz: The Baptist Church came to me 100kiI1<J for a piece of land and I do have this listed. '!he access to the property will be in the future through Lake Lucy Road and they have agreed that that wouldn't bother them as far as their church property. '!he total parcel is approximately 7 acres. I haven't seen any plans for the church because they have just moved out and they haven't built any plans yet but as far as access to the property, I think it really would fit very well with the proposed through Lake Lucy Road. Councilman Geving: I'm trying to think down the road just a little bit, how we might extend Lake Lucy Road at some future time. If we take the road west from Galpin over TH 41, have you thought anything about that Barbara? Where this might eventually be? Al Klingelhutz: D:> you have that plan Barbara? Barbara Dacy: No I don't. Councilman Geving: Eventually that is going to happen but I don't want to have to... Mayor Hamilton: We're not going to build a road to get to that property though. Al Klingelhutz: There is an approach to the property right now. 9 2'2~ City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: I was just thinking about a little bit down the road. We don't want to mess up an opportuni ty that we may have at some future time. I Barbara Dacy: Right. We would look at that as part of the site planning process. What Mr. Klinge1hutz is referring to is that originally this site was to be looked at for a 2 1/2 acre subdivision that Staff was involved on a preliminary basis. We were looking at it in terms of right-of-way for eventual connection. A1 Klinge1hutz: Actually this was shown as designated area for that road. They know all about it. Mayor Hamilton: Get your plans I guess and work with Barbara and have the Planning Commission take a look at them. SET SPECIAL MEETING DATES: A. MEETING TO CANVAS ELECTION RESULTS. B. SET JOINT MEETING WITH HRA, NOVEMBER 24, 1986. Mayor Hamil ton suggested Wednesday, November 5th at 6:1313 for the canvasing of election results. All Council members agreed. Mayor Hamilton: The Joint Meeting is recommende:1 for November 24th. That's a Monday. I Councilman Geving: We have a conflict that night and you know I really feel that this zoning Ordinance requires a whole evening. The better part of an evening and to share it with another big item of the Council/HRA joint meeting, I think that would be eluding our efforts a lot. I would like to recommend a different date then the 24th. I would even suggest to you the 25th or move it even further down the road but I do bel ieve that that zoning Ordinance is very important to us and I prefer to spend an evening on it. Don Ashworth: The HRA is going to nee:1 your guidance am that item is really hitting a peak. November 24th was picked out as a potential date. We could move the Zoning Ordinance to the first part of December. Potentially December 8th. Councilwoman Watson: Don, how close are we to finishing this Zoning Ordinance? Don Ashworth: '!his is your last review session. Mayor Hamilton: Have you guys comp1ete:1 it all? Barbara Dacy: we are still in the process. Councilwoman Watson: I just want to make sure that the Zoning Ordinance is completed before the first of the year. I 113 I I I 195 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: It is really important. I think it is so important that we should spend an evening on it. How about the 8th? What happens on the 8th? Let's make it the 8th. Don Ashworth: '!he 24th then is the joint meeting of the two groups? Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamil ton seconded to set November 24, 1986 as the date for the Joint Meeting of the City Council and HRA. All voted in favor an:1 motion carried. REQUEST TO DEIAY SEWER UNIT CHARGES, PRAIRIE HOUSE RESTAURANT, TED KORZENOWSKI. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded that there be no change in the Council's con:1i tion from the previous meeting. All voted in favor an:1 motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: , , - ., r; ,; . B. APPROVE REDEVELOPMENT PIAN AMENDMENT. CONTRACT. Councilman Horn: My only comment here was that, since I don't have the history of the Minutes to refresh my memory, maybe Don can help me but I believe that we approved this with the HRA before our last meeting am the question I have is if we want to go ahead with these kind of issues before we have a better feel for what our financial impact is. It is a question that hasn't been addressed by the HRA and I want to throw it out to the City Counc i 1. Don Ashworth: Did the HRA look at the proposal itself where we talked for the necessity to carry out the redevelopment plan update? Did we mention to the HRA that we were proposing for corrmuni ty developnent plan funds' for that? Barbara Dacy: Yes am that is the September 18th Minutes. Don Ashworth: Does it hurt anything if the City Council's action is delayed until after the Special Meeting because at that special joint meeting, Barb is absolutely correct, that would be the first opportunity to review the overall financial position of the HRA. We will also take a look at the specific design for the road improvements and costs, etc. for that project. Mayor Hamilton: It seems like that ought to be done first. Don Ashworth: Before we go ahead with the redevelopment plan. '!hen is there a timing problem? Barbara Dacy: No. Councilman Geving: with the contracted water? Councilman Horn: I don't want to just plan for x amount if there are other uses. 11 196 City Oouncil Meeting - November 3, 1986 Mayor Hamilton moved, Oouncilman Geving seconded to table this item until such time as the HRA has had time to review their budget am report back on what their financial schedule is. All voted in favor of tabling the item and motion carried. I Oouncilman Geving: we can bring this back then December 1st. CONSENT AGENDA: D. APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT TO PROCESS PARK AND RECREATION NEEDS -- SURVEY. Mayor Hamilton: I don't disagree with the theory and concept of doing this but I'm not sure what it is going to tell us based on the form it is in now. Lori Sietsema: The form is a rough draft. The Commission hasn't seen it. Mayor Hamilton: One thing, there isn't any explanation what the current park plan concept is or has been for the past 15-20 years. Along with this, .if we are asking people to comment on parks, you are probably going to be asking a lot of people who are fairly. new residents and they don't know where the parks are in all cases. It seems like you ought to have an area map showing where the parks are, each one delineated so everybody knows how many parks we already have. Councilwoman Watson: And what facilities we have at those parks. I have found in the last few days that people don't know, they haven't been to the parks. Maybe it is 1/2 mile or 1/4 mile away from their home, they don't really know what is there. I Don Ashworth: Are you saying that the proposed park or are you saying then what is available or about what is planned? Councilwoman Watson: If there is active play area there. If there is playground equipment for small children at this park. I don't think these people even know for instance from Chaparral, what is over at Meadowgreen Park. They haven't been there. They don't know if there is playground equipment for a 5 year old or baseball or softball or even what is available to them at that park. They honestly don't know. Mayor Hamilton: The difficulty in doing something like this is our concept has been to have neighborhood parks where we can put them into certain large neighborhood area and to have one city park which Lake Ann Park serves the entire city for the needs and services that that has to offer. Somebody that is new to the community isn't going to know that and they may think that their area is park deficient because they have a 3 or 4 year old that doesn't have a park right next door to their house. In fact it seems to me that if you have 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 up to what age, your yard serves as a park for those kids. That is where you play is in your own yard until you are old enough to get to the school playground or to go unsupervised to another location away from home so I I guess that theory and philosophy can be expressed to the people who are going to be looking at this and I did feel that some of the things were kind 12 I I I 197 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 of negative or at least they seemed to be that way to me. I guess also would people know what a neighborhood park is. Are people going to understand what a neighborhood park means? I don't know that. I have no idea if people will know what a neighborhood park is. If people haven't been involved in the community, I would suspect probably every person who reads this is going to say, a neighborhood park? Each one is going to have their own idea of what a neighborhood park ought to be or maybe actually is. Community park also, we're talking about neighborhood park, community park without really knowing what each one is. At community park you should spell it out that there is swimming, tennis, softball, soccor, baseball, all these things built that is what we have at a community park. It seems like a rather long form. I guess my experience has been when you send out a questionnaire out like this if you get 1% of them back you will be really lucky and I'm not sure that 1% is going to tell us anything. Don Ashworth: '!his is what I had discussed with Lori. Dale may remember this very well. The questionnaire sent out regarding Senior Citizens am it carne back and it was just totally negative. It showed that Chanhassen has absolutely no need for senior citizen housing of any kim am those involved in city government you know very well that there is a need here but the very small percentage that responded and I suggested to Lori potentially if the Commission wants to see this go into newspapers or send out, we should maybe supplement that or maybe even just have the total survey be done as a telephone survey. If you remember that is what we did with the marketing study regarding the grocery store facilities, regional facilities within the corrmunity. Councilwoman Watson: Then explanations could be made at the same time. Don Ashworth: The responses were far more accurate. Mayor Hamilton: I guess one question on here that kind of bothered me was 9(a) am (b) asking how much tax burden a resident would be willing to accept if an indoor recreational center were built. I think we are really asking for trouble there. This is merely a concept stage am already we are talking about assessing tax dollars. I realize this is just a questionnaire but often times people read more into a questionnaire then what you are really looking for. Suddenly they are going to say we're going to be charged the top number $300.00 a year for a community center. I'm all in favor of a community center. r:Xm't misunderstand me. I really want to get one but I'm not convinced that that is what we are going to do to get one charging $200.00- $300.00 a household. I don't know that. Lori Sietsema: I guess the night they decided a survey was what the Commission wanted to do was the same night that Brad Johnson carne and explained his whole deal am that was the only means by which he explained paying for this facility and they weren't very sure that anyone was going to want to pay for this out of their taxes either but they knew if they asked do you think the city should develop a recreation center everybody would put yes unless they knew they had to pay for it and if they still did, they wanted to know how much they would be willing to pay for it. If everybody said no then knowing that they had to pay for it, then. 13 198 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 Councilman Horn: '!he problem with that is unless you present to them what it is they are going to get with a community center, they aren't going to know what to do. Typically the way these things are done, if you have several public meetings where you go and explain what our communi ty center is going to have in it and you sell the program then you have the referendum to determine all that but to come out here before they get any information about what it is going to do for them, I don't know it is going to get the information you are looking for. I think it is also important too when you have a questionnaire to have it generated by people who are professional in getting the kind of information you want from a questionnaire because if you don't know how to ask the questions right, and I'm not saying that any of us do but there are people who know how to word questionnaires to get the right responses, you're not going to get the results that you are looking for. Mayor Hamilton: The other questions I had was dealing with the trail system. We have talked about a trail system in this community for a long time and we have partial trails here and there. Again, to ask people about a trail system if they agree, let's put a trail around every lake. Well, the realities of it is that you can't and if you ask if you want it. Well, sure we want it. Let's get it going. '!hen we'll have to turn around and say you can't have it because there is no way we can do it. You have private property owners right down to the water on several lakes. You're not going to go and buy that property. They wouldn't sell it to you anyway. Again, do you want trails on the streets or do you want trails off the street? I guess these are things that I was having trouble with because again, I'm not opposed to it but in reality I don't think we are asking the right questions like what Clark is saying. They need to have some information about what we are looking for and then to respond to the question. Perhaps on their answers it would be better and more useful to us because on the trail system, if you ask almost anybody in this town if you would like to have a trail system, absolutely, we would love it. What kind of a trail system? On the streets, around the lakes, through the town somehow. In a lot of cases we are already saying, as you know, we just can't make good trails 2/3 of the way around Lake Ann. Councilman Geving: '!hen it's a dead end. CUl-de-sac it and turn around and cane back. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'm afriad we might be asking for trouble then we are going to benefit from the questionnaire. That's not to say that it is not a good idea. I certainly see what they are trying to accomplish but I'm not sure they are going about it the right way. Councilman Horn: Would the people in St. Thomas assist in developing the questionnaire? Lori Sietsema: Yes. '!hat would probably take more time then 50 hours but she indicated that there were people there that would know more about writing the questions too and could probably assist us in that. I I Councilman Horn: I have been very impressed with the people at St. Thomas. I I think if they have that type of service available that you would do well to avail yourself of it. I think the other thing is, the question you ask then 14 I I I 10;0 .lLV'tb City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 is do we want a survey before we have information on such. Maybe they could help us with that answer too. Councilwoman Watson: Pecause building trails is only the beginning. '!hey have to be maintained and maintenance of trails is a very expensive proposi tion. By the time you keep them mowed and cleared and the issue of the fact that we can't possibly pOlice all of these trails. There is always going to be the certain risk factor on the trail system that runs through that we really have no way of policing. I think it is good idea and I think people need to be asked. Mayor Hamilton: But they need to know what is there first. '!hey need to know what we have. Counci 1 woman Watson: Yes, because there are people in Chaparral who do not Iknow what is at Meadowgreen Park. Mayor Hamilton: '!here are an awful lot of people in this town that don't know what is at rake Ann. They have never been there. Councilwoman Watson: '!hey need to know whether what they think they want isn't already availb1e, they just don't know that it is there or whether we really aren't meeting the needs. '!he kinds of parks they want really don't exist in this city or they are too far away. Mayor Hamil ton: Even if you asked the question do you prefer neighborhood parks or community parks and there was 100% response back that they would rather have neighborhood parks. Are we going to be able to change at this point? Are we going to sell rake Ann Park? I'm not willing to do that. That has been there and is something that we have worked on to develop and continue to grow with and added more land to it a few years ago. I don't think that is something we want to change. Lori Sietsema: No, I don't think it is the Commission either so much communi ty versus neighborhood they just wanted to know how many or how frequent neighborhood parks should exist. Councilman Horn: I think you have given us a trend of where we should head. Not that we can change what we already have but you can tell us whether we want to buy some large tracts for more central type parks or whether they want them developed in terms of neighborhood parks. Don Ashworth: Another possibility potentially exists, you have a number of neighborhood associations and some areas where you don't have associations, to call a public meeting for that area, notify everyone. With the number of park commissioners you have, you can literally divide up each of the neighborhoods that you have and someone from that group meet with each neighborhood. Present what the City has available. Describe what it is we are doing and ask them what would you like to see in your neighborhood. At least that way you get down into a specific neighborhood rather then generalized question about how far do I walk. 15 9. ,10: f:iI LdVV City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: We will know just how interested people are by how they I respond. Don Ashworth: '!here is no way that the people in let's say Near Mountain development even know that you have a good size park in that area. We are in fact in the process of letting bids and improving there. A number of them . don't even realize there is a park literally in their backdoor and it might be well to meet with those people and to show them what is on the board, what is proposed to be put in this year because we're talking about grading it this year. Get their input as to what else they would like to have. Mayor Hamilton: It seems as part of the information that we have to get out, not only about the parks in the city but if you look at the Arboretum, that is really a park. How many acres is that? Al Klingelhutz: 600. Mayor Hamilton: How many acres is the Regional Park? Councilman Geving: 300. Mayor Hamilton: How many acres in the Carver Park Reserve? Those are all within a very short distance. Those are three huge parks right within this Chanhassen District and that is all a part of the parks that people could use and I think that people have to be aware of that too. I Councilman Horn: I like the idea of having the Park Commissioners go to the neighborhood. Councilwoman Watson: I do too. It keeps the Commission more in touch with the people. Councilman Geving: Here is what I was thinking. I think if we are going to do this, we've got to do it right or you are not going to get the type of response that we are looking for. I'm talking about a nice letter signed ei ther by the Mayor or the Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission identifying what we are trying to do with this survey. Maybe on the back page there would be a map of the City of Chanhassen showing existings parks and what is in those parks. Showing the swings and ball diamonds and so forth and a very good mechanism for returning these responses back to us. I don't know how you do that but one thing was suggested here. I was thinking of the Park Commissioner's themselves who are very well known in their own neighborhood areas I'm sure. '!heir names could be listed along with their telephone numbers in this document am enlist the aid of the homeowners groups because they are probably the most active groups we have in this City to get things done. I was thinking that if St. Thomas has this capability, we ought to use it and originally when I looked at this I thought what ever happened to the good old volunteer spirit. That is basically what we always did with Park am Rec and there are people around who can do these things but probably not as I professionally or not as well as someone who has done this before so I don't mind the $500.00 we are talking about spending for the survey but we've got to do it right or you're not going to get the responses. You're just not going 16 I I I 201 City Gouncil Meeting - November 3, 1986 to get people to drive into City Hall and drop off this response. They won't do it so we've got to do that part right. Gouncilman Horn: I would suggest this survey be something that they hand out at the neighborhood meetings and do it that evening. Councilman Geving: That's even better. A one for one basis is the only way you are going to get a true response. A fairly good size sampling of the City but let's do it right. Like I say with cover letter, a map showing the parks, the concept that Tom was talking about that we have for the park, what is a neighborhood park, what is a city park and so forth. What I would do, some of the things that Tom mentioned, I think question no. 3 for example, please check the following facilities that would be unnecessary or excessive in a neighborhood park. To me that is very negative. I couldn't sell anything if I tried to sell a statement like that. I would turn it around and say please check the following facilities that you would like to have in the neighborhood park and then go on to list them. picnic benches, soccor fields, etc. One of the things I would like to see us do more of in all of our parks is just set aside areas for nature. There is nothing wrong with having an acre of just grass and bugs and whatever else grows in that natural grassy area or that we could promote an area that is maybe an acre or two of just plain woods. There is nothing wrong with saving an acre of woods so that kids can go in and find tree frogs and all the other creatures that might inhabit that area. We don't do enough of that I don't think as a city to preserve those areas so I think those are the kind of questions I would put in here. Open nature areas for example would be one of the alternates that I would put in there. As far as the rest of the survey is concerned, I too would agree with the comments that were made. I would pullout these dollar figures. Item 5(c). Would you be willing to pay higher taxes for a city-wide trail system. That is crazy. This is not the kind of information we want at this time. That will come later on but don't ask if they are willing to pay the $50.00 or $250.00 a year for trails. Pull that kind of stuff out. That is extremely negative. Councilwoman Watson: In a referendum... Gouncilman Geving: That's what I'm saying over here on 9 for example. Here you would say do you think the City of Chanhassen should develop an indoor recreational community center? Yes or no. Should this be a referendum issue? It obviously should be I think and give them a chance to say yes or no and drop the dollars. We're not interested in that. I have my own thoughts about what should be included in some of these lists of things and I will give those to you Lori but I think if we do this right it can be done properly and we will get the kind of response we are looking for. This is probably a fairly good draft and that is where we're at but I believe a letter from the Mayor with the parks shown on a map so they can associate their own area with the Lotus Park or close park that would be very convenient. I have no other comments Mr. Mayor. I did want to say just this. I know you have all had a chance to read my comments to the Park and Rec Commission. I won't say anymore about it. I just felt it was necessary to meet with them that night and I won't say anymore about that. I thought it went over very good and I think we are a pretty good team right now working together. 17 202 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: Lori mentioned that Todd has had some experience in survey work too. He is here and available to us. I don't know what kind of survey work he has done. I Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to table this item until the City Manager and Lori Sietsema can get together to revise some of the questions and bring it back to the City Council. All voted in favor of tabling the issue and motion carried. Don Ashworth: We will summarize your comments that the Council has given and bring it back hopefully for you at the next meeting. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Hamilton: The next item was I was going to talk about Art Partridge. I guess most of you know that he apparently is going to sue the City over the neighbor's problem. I don't know what else we can do to accommodate him other then, I've been up there and I talked to his neighbors and my goodness, it certainly is as nice a looking yard as anybody who lives around me or anyone else so I don't see the problem but Art is still furious and it seems like more of a neighbor dispute then anything else. Councilman Geving: Excuse me Mr. Mayor. Do we have an official letter or something from Art on this? I'm not familiar with the situation. I Councilwoman Watson: Did you not receive a letter from him at one point? I did. Councilman Geving: It was some time ago. Councilwoman Watson: Yes, it was some time ago. Mayor Hamilton: It was this summer, June or July. He didn't say anything for a while. Don and I went up there one day and their yard wasn't a mess at all. There wasn't anything laying around. Councilman Geving: So what is his complaint against the City? That we're not doing anything about it? Councilwoman Watson: That we have an Ordinance and we aren't following our Ordinance. That we ignored the issue. That we have not responded. I had a most unpleasant conversation in regard to this on Saturday. I asked Don to get together for me every correspondence that has occurred since the first time this issue came to us. Don Ashworth: I will make that available to anyone else who would like a copy of it. Councilwoman Watson: I felt I needed to see this all at one place at one time because I felt reasonably comfortable. I realize there is one letter from our City Attorney in here that I'm sure Roger and everyone else wishes we could take back. It is a very poorly written letter. One easily taken apart which I 18 I I I (1) OJ c:) ;;d"('J> City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 it has been since. It does not misstate or misrepresent anything, it is just poorly stated. I just wanted to be assured that we have indeed done everything that we could have or should have done in regard to this issue. We have looked at the Ordinance. We have looked at all possible sides of the Ordinance and it's application to this problem. The City Attorney has looked at it am presented it accurately because we are indeed going to be sued we might just as well as have all our ducks in a row when the time comes. Mayor Hamilton: Just so you are aware of it that Art is on the rampage in case he calls any of you. The next item was SWAT which is Southwest Area Transit Commisison was formed some time ago to look at opting out the M'IC am we were going to form our own transit system. We have worked very extensively on this am the SWAT Commission passed Thursday evening selected a carrier. We had five very good bids from five different companies. One company had to withdraw their bid because of a conflict with the MTS. ATE is a company in Cincinnati that manages the M'IC and several other transit companies across the country am they submitted a bid not knowing that the M'IC was going to submit a bid also. Consequently they were in violation of their agreement with the M'IC so they had to withdraw their bid. After a lot of del iberation am discussion the M'IC was selected as the new carrier. That may seem kind of funny because we opted out from the M'IC system am then we pick them as a carrier for our system. OJr system by the way will be known as the Southwest Metro. M'IC had the highest bid but they still fell within our guidelines for the service that we wanted to have plus they, probably more then any of the other people bidding, could be ready by December 1st. They have the equipment. They have the people and everything in place so they can start. It wasn't my choice but it was the choice of the other Commission members am that is who we will be working with. I think the other bidders were Commuter Express which is St. Paul Suburban which is perhaps one of the largest privately owned carriers in the United States. They are a huge outfit. Councilman Ceving: But you know something, their bid didn't reflect that. They had a very poor bid. Mayor Hamilton: They called themselves Commuter Express and nobody knew who they were until they said they were St. Paul and SUburban. Hanus Bus Company bid. They had the low dollar bid. They didn't really have the management experience that most of the others had am they were kim of ruled out. Although I think they could handled it, it might have been tough on them because they didn't have much time to get ready. ATE, Metro, Hanus am Medicine Lake was the other one. We are looking at we expect to be on the road on December 1st with the Southwest Metro Transit that will link up with the M'IC itself. All transfers within the system will work. Actually what we accomplished was getting a lot of money out of the MTC. The same dollars we are spending today we are going to be spending a little less then that in the future am we are going to be getting 2 or 3 times the amount of service. Councilman Horn: I'm curious how you could not accept the low bid. Mayor Hamilton: We were told we didn't have to accept the low bid based on other factors, management was one of them that weighed heavily. Hanus just has not had the management experience with a transit system. They do school 19 Gi'fttd. .<C'.J U _'~ City Council Meeting ~ November 3, 1986 bus work. I guess personally I wasn't as hung up on the management aspect as I some of the other people were because I felt they have all, like Hanus has been in business for 25 years. If they can run buses, whether it is school or otherwise for 25 years they must have some management skills to know what they are doing. Councilman Geving: Qlr Attorney advised us that if we did not accept the low bid we must have a number of good reasons for that and the management experience and a number of other factors in the bidding process itself kind of leveled off all the bids so that we were really talking about $100,000.00 as the difference between the low bid and the second low bid and even the third and fourth. They were very close in real i ty and I bel ieve we were able to satisfy our Attorney's information needs in why we didn't select the low bid. I felt that was a very strong point for Hanus but at the same time the management experience that we were getting from the Metro people as well as Corn.~uter's Express or from Medicine Lake Lines, all three or four, actually we had four really good bids. We could have selected anyone of them and they could have produced a good product for us so it was a very difficult decision to make. Mayor Hamilton: After it was allover the other carriers were not dissatisfied with our decision. In fact several carne up after up afterwards and congratulated us and said we think you made the right decision. You made a good decision so that helps. Councilman Geving: We have picked a name, Southwest Metro. We have a logo. It is going to be a SW on the side of a red stripped white buses. They are all going to be brand new buses. We do have an administrator in place and I believe she starts work today. Today is her first day and she is housed in the Eden Prairie City Hall and we do have an operator and we are ready to make it roll December 1st. I Mayor Hamilton: What's her name? Councilman Geving: Beverly Miller. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to interject while we're on the Council presentations, I'm just curious as to what is happening with Lake Lucy Road. Is that construction going to begin this year? Bill Engelhard: They have started on the west end and they have got, I would say about 60% of the grading done on the west end and they are going to leave the east end until next year before they open that up. The completion date is next summer or next fall and they will be pursuing that pretty diligently corne spring. They have got the storm sewer in place on the east end and I think they are corning along fairly well. We have had a couple of calls from neighbors up on the east end wanting to know why the road is in such tough shape and why we had started on the west end when all the people live on the east end and the reason for that is that there were a number of reasons. One of them was that there were some utili ties that needed to be relocated. '!here were some gas mains that had to be cut and realigned. Another reason was that they were afraid with the weather and the timing of the schedule that if they I 20 I I I 205 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 opened up the east end they wouldn't be able to get it finished and they would have a real mess out there so it was decided that they would do the heavy duty grading on the west end first and when the weather gets nice in the spring they can come in and finish off that east end very quickly. I did drive that after we got the calls on it. I did drive the road to see what condition it was in and in general it wasn't in too bad a shape. I drove it at 20-25 mph and there were a few potholes but nothing that I thought was major. '!he soft spots where I think the PeOple were having the problems where the storm sewer had gone in and I instructed the contractor to fill those in with rock and keep looking after those and get them upgraded during the winter. Councilwoman Watson: Yes, because those are bad. You sink right into them. Bill Engelhardt: So once it freezes up we won't have a problem this winter, then next spring we will probably be getting a lot of the problems again but we'll just have to stay on it and keep the rock in am keep those areas built up. I would say that it is slow. '!here were some delays in the beginning with the fuming of the program. The contractor is pursuing it. He could have probably worked during a couple of weeks when we had nice weather and I really don't know why he didn't. Maybe he was scheduled somewhere else or if his operation didn't fit in. If he wasn't able to complete something in a timely fashion. I don't know but that is basically where it is at. Councilman Horn: I guess I drove that too and I didn't think the potholes were all that minor. I would be quite upset if I had to live with that road all winter the way it is. I had a complaint about an exhaust system falling off from pounding over those potholes. I wouldn't want to drive over that thing all winter. I think it could be graded or something. Bill Engelhardt: They have graded it once, I know that. I drove it, this was probably two weeks ago when I drove it and I did drive it, I watched my speed am it was a 20-25 mph that I was driving I didn't have a problem but they will have to maintain it to keep it upgraded from there. Councilman Horn: Were you driving your vehicle or a company vehicle. Bill Engelhardt: I was driving my brand new car. I think that we can instruct and keep it bladed up and like I said, when I drove it it wasn't that bad. It can deteriorate quickly too. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: TH 2 CORRIDOR STUDY, CITY PLANNER. Barbara Dacy: I do have some overheads that I would like to go over the alternatives am the major fimings in our report. This culminates a year long process and November 12th next Wednesday evening is going to be the third public hearing regarding this matter to review the consultants report which you have in your packets. '!he first meeting Mr. Horn and I went to that. '!he secom meeting Mr. Monk and I went to that one. Then between that meeting am this one coming up we met with the Lake Minnewashta Homeowners regarding the study and as a result of that you see kim of a consensus of opinion from the Homeowners in that particular area. However, the third upcoming meeting is 21 2G8 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 important in that a representative of the Council Staff should attend the I meeting and we will be making the same recommendation to the Planning Commissions so the Planning Commission can be there also. From here what happens is that this is the professional consultant's recommendation to the communi ty, Met Council and MnDot. After the public hearing next Wednesday they will amend the draft and issue the final report and send that to the Met Council for distribution to all the communities. Then the communities will have a certain amount of time to comment, issue a resolution, identify your support/disagreement whatever and submit those back to the Met Council. We're looking at a tentative date of January 1st of 1987. At that point Met Council will recommend the document to MnDot to be used as a continuing planning guide for future improvements to TH 7. Those improvements identified in here as local improvements will be up to the communities involved to establish their own implementation schedules. Given that, during comment review period, our Council may want to look at preparing comments to Shorewood, Excelsior and MnDot as to the improvements in the Chanhassen area. I will just briefly review the highlights of the report. We may have members of the audience here too that are interested in this. As you noted in here, there are a number of typos. Chaska rake Road, incorrect street names but we have got those corrected as far as the typos are concerned. As far as the meat of the report is concerned, consultants have recommended to chose an expressway design concept. This graphic depicts the existing condition. Discontinuance frontage roads, numerous amount of access points, intersections are located too close to one another. Under the expressway design concept they recommend specific guidelines. For example, to try and connect those frontage roads I where possible to separate local traffic from the flow through traffic. Separate intersections at approximately 2,000 feet apart. Minimize, combine, reorient access points that were necessary. The reason being TH 7 is a regional highway and it's classification is a minor arterial so there is always the position there it serves a local area but then again it is acting as a major artery from out-state into the metropolitan area. The project management team which included myself on behalf of Chanhassen and Bill Monk at that time and Bill Engelhardt was the representative for Greenwood and Deephaven so it was good to have him because he was aware of the Chanhassen perspective as well. In any case, each of the members of the project management team identifed goals and objectives for the operation of the TH 7 and weighed each one. Each community, each government body, MnDot and Met Council and came up with a prioritization of evaluation criteria to look at different alternatives. As you can see the number one goal in the evaluation of alternatives was to maintain safety, the second one was mobility and the third one was the mainline capacity and on down so all these weights computed out to this ranking. As you go through and when you look at the alternatives, maybe some of them were within one or two points of each other, 152 or 153. What that meant was that one of the evaluation criteria had a higher ranking, was more safe, provided more mobility for example then the other. We will see that when we get to the Excelsior area west segment of the Corridor Study. This was, during the second public hearing in this particular area, very controversial. Alternative 1 was to close the access at Galpin Blvd. and extend the frontage road into Chaska Road and realign Mayflower. During the public hearing there were suggestions made, can't you look at maintaining I Galpin Blvd. intersectin and look at realigning Water Street or County Road 19 or look at some type of alternative to maintain this access in. The 22 I I I 207 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 consultant did that and came up with an Alternative 2 which closes the Chaska Road access, realigns Galpin to the northwest to hook-up into the Water Street access for a full intersection whereas in Alternative 3, the next one, Galpin Blvd. is maintained in it's present alignment and the access into CR 19 is aligned opposite that. When you look at the evaluation of each alternatives they are evaluated against a no-build option which is the first one and those are all given equal weights of all the evaluation criteria. You can see the first alternative scored 137 below the no-build alternative whereas the second one which realigned Galpin Blvd. slightly to the northwest received the highest amount of points, 152 and Alternative 3 was 151. The reason b€ing that Alternative 2 is seen by the consultant as being more safe and provides better design standards. The Alternative 2 is safer in terms of the intersection geometrics. It is a 90 degree angle whereas Alternative 3 has to make a sharp left turn to go eastbound on TH 7 and the curvature there the consultants feel is not appropriate thus their recommendation is for Alternative 2. Moving down the Corridor into the TH 41 area, the consultants basically talk about two options in this area and in the Lake Minnewashta area. Upgrading major intersection points, close accesses, opportunities for frontage roads or the second alternative is what they call a five lane section. They have identified the report but that would be the ultimate long term goal given the predicted traffic counts in this particular segment of the Corridor. The five lane section would be four lanes plus a center left turn lane. The consultants recommend as an ultimate solution of the five lane section so the alternative that they picked represents that. During the public hearing process the public came out and said that we would prefer to keep the Sandpiper Avenue intersection open because originally it was proposed that Washta Bay Road is going to be kept open but upon looking at the sight distance at that particular intersection, the homeowners had a very good point that that should be the point of access into that part of the neighborhood. It also is clear in the TH 41 area that the Oriole Avenue intersection be left open and remain as a closed intersection so Alternative 2 in the TH 41 area is the recommended alternative by the consultants for an ultimate five lane section. Councilman Horn: Wasn't Oriole the one that we had suggested being having a left turn into? Barbara Dacy: The second time through with Tomac it was to remain as a full intersection and a right-in off of TH 7 and a right-in off of TH 41. Councilman Horn: What is that road there then? That is Oriole, the next one in. Barbara Dacy: That is the right-in only off of TH 7 into the Tomac. Councilman Horn: Okay, I guess that is what we suggested and then it extends the median out so you can't make a left turn. Barbara Dacy: That is correct. The consultant was originally looking at eliminating that and only having a right-in off of TH 41. OUr concern was in that case eastbound traffic would use Oriole to get in there so our recommendaton was to leave that in. In the Lake Minnewashta area, again the 23 2q,~ :md V '-" City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 Homeowners meeting that Bill and I had went really well and the recommended alternative that you see in the report I believe recommends what the haneowners were saying. I guess I'll find that out at the meeting. I Councilman Geving: Did you have a lot of people there? Barbara Dacy:Yes, approximately 20 people. It was a very good meeting. What we propose is that the three major intersections, Arbor Avenue across from the Seamans Drive in Shorewood, the Dogwood Avenue intersection and Minnewashta Parkway Avenue intersection be improved. A frontage road from Ironwood west into the Minnewashta Parkway Avenue area, keep Dogwood Avenue open, cul-de-sac Elm Tree and Cypress to the east of Dogwood and there is an existing frontage road there now. Originally the consultant was looking at constructing frontage roads all the way across. upon site inspection it would have involved a lot of acquisition, a lot of cost and the whole design of that Dogwood Avenue intersection would be really questionable. We checked with the Public Safety Department to see if these cul-de-sacs would be acceptable to someone as far as fire prevention and emergency access prevention standpoint and they said that that would be no problem. Alternative 2 I believe was also recomnended. Councilman Geving: So you are going to leave Dogwood open then? Barbara Dacy: Right am that aligns with supposedly another major entrance into a development into Shorewood. Councilman Geving: What is the next one to the east? I Barbara Dacy: Arbor across from Seamans Drive in Shorewood. Councilwoman Watson: And Greenbriar will be a service road to Minnewashta Parkway? Barbara Dacy: Greenbriar will still maintain direct access. It is the next one over, it is a gravel road, Ironwood am the four homeowners that were there at the meeting said we would prefer if you would shift that frontage road and go this way. Originally we had it going to the east. Staff felt that was fine because as this area develops, it is now vacant, then we have all that traffic going to Minnewashta Parkway which is fine. Councilwoman Watson: will Greenbriar be a right-injright-off? Barbara Dacy: Ultimately if a five lane section is created there could be a median there that you would have a right-injright-out situation but that would be fine because we still have Minnewashta Parkway, Dogwood and Arbor as full intersections. Councilwoman Watson: '!hat was what I was wondering. Greenbriar is kind of on a curve there. It really isn't a very good street. When you stop there you always hope the guy behind you knows you are there. I 24 I I I 209 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 Barbara Dacy: Unless you have other questions, I think the major issue as far as Chanhassen is concerned is the Excelsior area west segment arrl the future of Galpin Blvd.. According to some of these, Shorewood agrees with the consultant's recommendation of Alternative 2 but I think we are really looking forward to the public hearing to see what the corrments are. Councilman Geving: Did you answer all the questions on page 5? Items 10, 11 and 12? Particularly 12. Barbara Dacy: Number 10, as far as the continui ty, I think with ei ther alternative 2 or 3 you are providing for continuity of north/south. Number 11, now again this depends on what the public has to say about the design of that particular intersection but the consultant felt that what is being proposed would be adequate to serve that area. Design of CR 15 and TH 7, that intersection has always been designated in our Comp Plan as one to be upgraded and to take the skew out so the construction... Councilman Geving: How would you do that? It is such a wild angle there with the Fire Station. Barbara Dacy: What is being proposed is that after the access to the Fire Department is that the remaining section be vacated arrl reconstructed to the east so you end up crossing at a 90 degree angle. We could, if this piece develops, it might be food for future thought to require that as part of that deve10pnent. Councilman Geving: Are there any decisions that have to be made now on what we are going to do with CR 41 and TH 7 with the commercial aspects? How does that enter into the road design? Barbara Dacy: Again, after the public hearing and so on, the Council will have an opportunity to make formal comments. If you want to state in a resolution that this is not to approve any future development plans at this particular intersection, you certainly have the right to do that. I think the intent of the plan is just to give the community some tyPe of guidance as far as traffic engineering concepts are concerned arrl take into account some of the more... Councilman Geving: You've done a good job Barb. Mayor Hamilton: Now you need someone to go with you on the 12th to City Hall. Is anybody vo1untering. Councilman Horn: What time is it? Barbara Dacy: 7:00 at Minnetonka City Hall. Councilman Horn: I will try arrl make that. Mayor Hamilton: If you can't let me know because I should be able to make it too. 25 210 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 A1 Klinge1hutz: I am wondering, have you and Roger and the County Engineer met on this so that you correlate what the County and City is asking? Barbara Dacy: No I have not met with them. Al Klingelhutz: We went over this quite thoroughly at one of our Commission meetings and I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea for you and Roger to meet with us and correlate with the County what they want so we can come in with a two fisted punch instead of one. Mayor Hamilton: We have no further business but I see that Ted Korzenowski is here. We had your item on the agenda earlier and didn't make any change in what had happened. ~ delayed it until the end and we were at the end. Councilman Geving: We did, we put it right on the end of the agenda because we knew you might be late Ted. ~ waited until 15-20 minutes before you came. Ted Korzenowski: Can I say something? Mayor Hamil ton: SUre. Ted Korzenowski: Did you see the letter I wrote to Mr. Ashworth? I just want to repeat that issue and restate the way the situation passed. We had a turnkey operation, totally financed the operation of the restaurant and the buiding permit issued without SAC charges, I think is a violation. A permit should not have been issued with SAC charges not being paid. He said I was going to pay them but why nobody bothered to check for a sum of $18,000.00, I think I should have gotten a phone call or something and now I get a surprise for $18,000.00 which really puts me in a hole. I'm not saying, right now I can't pay that. 'Ihat's why I'm asking for a deferment. I know the City has made concessions over at the bowling alley, done a few things around and I don't see why I couldn't get some consideration for some kind of deferment. I noticed that Mr. Monk isn't here now but at the time he changed some procedures so this will not happen again. 'Ihere is some procedure or he told me there is some mechanism so there will be some contact made with the owners to make sure that it is approved. It just so happened I got to be the guy that got stuck with it. Most of the other ones, construction going on, some of the companies are doing their own contracting and therefore they are making all the payments so if my situation isn't like and some of the others to...other in construction. I was not doing my own. It was turnkey operation and he paid for the whole thing. That is really putting me at a disadvantage. Councilman Geving: Ted, I just want to ask you this question. You indicated that you felt we had made a concession and you referred to the bowling alley and others and I want to set you straight on this issue. We have never, ever made a concession to any business that I know of in deferring assessments. Ted Korzenowski: I'm not referring to assessments. I I Councilman Geving: Well, that is what we're talking about here is assessments I and we've never made an assessment deferment for any business. 'Ihere has never been a precedent for that fact. 26 211 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 I Ted Korzenowski: But I'm not referrir>;J to that. Councilman Geving: '!hat's what this is. '!his is a deferment of an assessment for SAC charges. I I Ted Korzenowski: You made other concessions on the bills. Councilman Geving: Of course we have. We have made incentives. We have given businesses incentive. Ted Korzenowski: Why can't that be an incentive? I'm already here. I'm in the hole right now. Councilman Geving: '!he comment that I made at the last Council meeting still stands as far as I'm concerned. I made this statement Ted that if it meant the difference between a business being able to stay in business in Chanhassen financially or not being able to stay in business in Chanhassen, I personally would say that we make a business incentive for that individual. Ted Korzenowski: Well, that's where I am right now. Councilman Geving: I would do so only if it was under a case where we could audit the difficulty and assure ourselves that it was truly a financial hardship. '!hat was the statement that I made and I would still stand behind it. Ted Korzenowski: Well, you could call the State Bank of Young America and ask them because they are ready to foreclose because the taxes aren't paid. You can talk to Mr. Smith and see what they are doing because they are just holding off right now depending on what we're doing here. I can't come up with that dough and if I can't they will foreclose and if they foreclose we close the doors. It's that simple. You can call the bank, sure. They have been in tune to it. '!hey are on my back. Councilman Geving: I still stand behind what I said. If in an audited situation and it meant the difference between keeping a good business in Chanhassen then I certainly would recommend it to the Council that we would make a concession of whatever was necessary and reasonable but remember one thing. Again, I say this for myself and it too would be a precedent in and of itself because we have never done this before. '!hat's how I feel. I don't know how the rest of the Council members would react to that. Mayor Hamilton: It would seem to me you should be seeking out the contractor because. . . Ted Korzenowski: He has filed for bankruptcy. He is long gone. '!hat is the first step but he has filed bankruptcy and is long gone. That is the first step but still as a Council and here I'm a businessman building, somebody should have called me and told me that these things aren't paid. It just makes commen sense to me. 'Ib let that go. He made a promise for me and I didn't know anything about it and you took his word for it. Therefore I should get some kind of consideration. It's a business situation. 27 21f13 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: How often do we need a thing like that? I mean between the developer am the person who has ordererl the development, would it be normal for us to question who is paying for what? I Don Ashworth: The certification of sewer am water permits goes back against the property is something that literally has been done in every business permit that I'm aware of. The City Attorney's office was involverl with this because, just as Mr. Korzenowski mentionerl, was there proper notice given to him am in that process Roger did make a suggestion just to make sure we didn't run into this kind of problem again but it did not change the legality or the steps the City had taken at that time to make certification. That is really where the thing stands at this point. I believe you had come in a year ago asking that the thing be put off to 1986. The Council had approverl that at that point in time. Ted Korzenowski: I had asked originally to forgive the whole thing. Councilman Geving: I don't believe we could ever do that. That money has got to be paid. '!he SAC charges have got to be paid and we're not going to and the cornnunity is not going to pay for your... Ted Korzenowski: If I were building another building and I walkerl in now and I wanterl to get a building permit am you say you owe me SAC charges and I would say well the owner is going to pay it, would you give me a permit? He ownerl the land. No. Why did they issue it in the first place? The guy wasn't even the owner. I was the owner and they issued him a permit without things being paid which I think was a violation. Somebody gooferl at City Hall. '!hey shouldn't have issued that permit without checking is what I'm saying. I could have derlucterl it fran the final payment. I Councilwanan Watson: Is that a question that we would normally ask? Don Ashworth: At this point in time we require both the homeowner am the builder to sign off. Councilwoman Watson: Back when all these business, now like he said Bill Monk updated that process because of the circumstance but prior to that time, we didn't question who was going to pay these things. Don Ashworth: Any more so then as part of any type of construction or sale of property the owner involved will call City Hall and ask for an assessment search. Once we have made an assessment search and put our name on the 1 ine the we have a certain responsibility there. As far as I'm aware of there is not a request back fran the City in that whole process. Councilman Horn: Have we given out any building permits to contractors without consulting owners? Don Ashworth: Yes. Like with CPT coming in, in fact that developed into quite a problem between the contractor and CPT in that instance but that certification was made in that instance and the two parties involved handled the thing privately. The City never became further involverl in that entire I 28 I I I 213 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 issue. In fact, that is the way this issue really stood for the last two years and at this point in time, as Mr. Korzenowski noted, the contractor has gone bankrupt so he no longer can pursue that option. He is back before us. Councilman Horn: What do other cities do? Don Ashworth: Are we talking about the technicality of how an application? I'm not sure but Roger and Bill went through this particular issue and the only thing that I'm aware of is that Roger asked Bill to change the forms at that point in time just to insure that this form of a question could not corne forward again. Mayor Hamilton: How long has this whole situation been going? Don Ashworth: This is three years. Ted Korzenowski: I didn't know about it until last year though see. I didn't know until I got last year's tax statement and all of a sudden there was this huge assessment appeared on there. Where did this corne from so I called up the City and that is when Bill said this is your SAC charge. I said what do you mean. '!hat has all supposed to have been paid so that was two years after this was completed that I find out about it. Mayor Hamil ton: Did you have a written agreement with your contractor? Ted Korzenowski: Oh yes turnkey, he pays everything including SAC charges, all permits, everything. Councilman Geving: Did it say that you would pay those at time of permit? Ted Korzenowski: Well, he said he would pay all permits. Whatever is necessary to get the construction completed. Councilman Horn: Are those suppose to be paid when the permit is issued? Don Ashworth: At the time the permit is taken out the owner and contractor are notified as to the costs associated with that permit. The question being presented by Mr. Korzenowski is his agent did not represent those same figures back to him and that he was not aware of what those figures were. Mr. Monk, his position is that Mr. Korzenowski was made aware of the fees, etc. but he may not have been aware of them at the time that the contractor made application but he was aware of it shortly thereafter. Within the next two month period of time. Councilman Horn: Before the building was put up? Don Ashworth: During the period that the building was being put up. That is the position from Mr. Monk and again, Mr. Korzenowski is stating to you that he was unaware of it until literally two years later. Councilman Horn: Unaware of what the values were or unaware of the fact that the guy wasn't going to pay them? 29 214 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 Don Ashworth: Unaware of the fact that the contractor in making application signed a form stating that we give the contractor/owner the option of having the sewer am water units paid at time of application or having those deferred. The contractor acting as an agent for Mr. Korzenowski signed the forms stating that these were to be deferred over the typical 7 or 8 year period of time. What Mr. Korzenowski is stating to you is that the contractor never relayed that information to Mr. Korzenowski am if he would have Mr. Korzenowski would have objected saying that under the terms of the contract, that the contractor was to have paid those fees. I Councilman Horn: And Bill claims that he made him aware of that before the contractor was completed? Don Ashworth: That is correct. Ted Korzenowski: He didn't make me aware of it. The contractor but not me. I wasn't notified but I got a copy of the permit am right on there he made a notation that Mr. Reichle said that I would pay for sanitary. It is written right on there. Councilman Geving: I think though that Bill was working with the contractor. He probably wasn't even aware of who Ted Korzenowski was. He may not have even met you Ted. He was working with the contractor. Ted Korzenowski: I was down there plenty of times with the plans am we were there at the meeting to approve the plans and so forth. I Councilman Geving: But what I'm trying to say is that I think it would be appropriate for Bill to have worked closely with the contractor because he was the one who submitted the application am carried this whole procedure through the process that he goes through here at the City so it would be natural for him probably not to have contacted you but to work closely with the contractor and that is why you weren't notified. You should have been notified by your contractor not Bill Monk. I don't believe that you can place, any of 'us can place any blame on Bill Monk's actions. I think he probably acted in the best manner he could have in working with the contractor am in the best interest for the City. Councilman Horn: You could turn it aroum and say that Bill Monk wasn't informed of the private situation or he would have raised the issue. He had nothing to tip him off that there was anything unusual, but I think we should explore. Do we have a hardship policy? Don Ashworth: There is associated with senior citizens process for special assessments. I have never seen that policy used solely for imividuals. In any of your work have you seen a hardship policy established for assessments other then senior citizens? Bill Engelhardt: Not really and especially when you are talking about SAC charges, if it is the same thing that I'm familiar with that they are paid directly to Metro, if that is the same thing so the City really has no involvement in it. They aren't getting anything out of it am you em up I 30 I I I 215 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 carrying it and paying it so it is just money that is in and out and that is why there is never any deferment. Councilman Geving: '!hat's why we have never had a case of this. Never. I remember the case we had with CPT am it was a lot of money. It was like $65,000.00 or $70,000.00 and it came up quickly. We knew there was a problem am before I knew it they had resolved the problem, paid the $65,000.00 and that was the end of the situation. We have never had a case, that I'm aware of where we have given a deferment for a SAC charge. Don Ashworth: '!his is for the sewer and water charges and you have carried over those over a number of years. I think what you are saying, and I totally agree with you, you have never wai vered from the position of requiring the owners to pay those am you have given them the option to carry them over like five years. Councilman Geving: Here he's asking for something quite different. He's asking for a five year deferment without interest. Now even if we were to do that we certainly would charge interest because we have to pay the interest, somebody has to. We're borrowing money all the time to pay for these same bills. Don Ashworth: I think there is an additional problem in there that I guess I didn't recognize to begin with. You're not only looking for, let's say relief for taxes that would be payable in 1987, you are also looking for relief for taxes that are due in 1986. Is that not correct? Ted Korzenowski: Yes. Don Ashworth: '!he concern with the bank though is that these amounts have not been paid in 1986. Ted Korzenowski: Half of them have been paid. Don Ashworth: So it is the second half. The City Council can deal with taxes as they would be certified for the following year but any current taxes must be paid in full to the County Auditor. There is no process under State Statute that would say on this particular parcel we're not going to require payment of let's say the second half. Once they are certified to the County Auditor you can't do... Councilman Geving: I think you have to give us a little more to work with Ted. Even if we were to be very generous and decided to go ahead with this request of yours, five years is a long period of time and maybe too long and secondly, without interest I would certainly not. That's just not going to happen. If this were modified to 2-3 years maximum with payment of the going rate of interest that we would have paid on this project. I don't know maybe the Council would at least take it under consideration. Councilwoman Watson: After verification of financial... Councilman Geving: hardship situation. You have to give us a little bit more 31 21'6 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 to work with. I Mayor Hamilton: Where does that put us looking down the road 2-3 years? Where does that put us? If Ted is back here again and he still doesn't have enough money to pay for i. Councilwoman Watson: with the downtown redevelopment coming up and hopefully a lot more development occurring, how often can we go into... Mayor Hamilton: We're putting ourselves in the middle of a situation we don't want to be in. Councilman Horn: If we did consider this I think that would be one of the questions that we would want to ask ourselves is what the probability is of Ted making the venture successful. Mayor Hamilton: First thing is I don't think we can get involved with anything like that. The more we're involved in it and then there is the work force and we're spending city dollars to do private work. It just snowballs. I'm sorry but. . . Ted Korzenowski: I can revise it if you give it consideration but if you're not, there is no point in wasting your time or my time... Councilman Geving: The consideration is this. There truly has to be a hardship situation, truly. That is number one and it has to be modified. The way you have it here, it is just not going to happen. Five years with no interest and then as the Mayor indicated, we have to at least get our accountant's feelings on this and professional opinion on whether or not this is a smart thing for us to do. I Councilwoman Watson: How much do you actually, is this what has gone on the taxes then this $18,000.00? How is this $18,000.00 being paid? Ted Korzenowski: It hasn't. Councilwanan Watson: It hasn't. Don Ashworth: If you have paid your first half taxes. Councilwoman Watson: What are we talking about this year? Don Ashworth: '!he amount for the deferment is a 8 year period of time so right now it is getting paid from 1986 through 1994 so it is... Ted Korzenowski: I think it carnes to $4,500.00 a year. Don Ashworth: So it should be about $2,200.00-$2,300.00 principal and the interest rate is at 7 1/2% so it is right at $4,000.00 per year and if you paid half of that you would have to pay $2,000.00 in December. I Councilwoman Watson: And $4,000.00 per year. 32 I I I 0l~fl1I LllLb City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 Don Ashworth: It's a decreasing amount because of interest on the unpaid balance. Councilman Geving: What did you say Tom that you would want to get Voto involved and get his professional ideas? I would agree to that. Mayor Hamilton: I know he would do it but that's going to cost us money that we haven't budgeted for also and normally we would pass that cost back to Ted but he can't pay what he's got now. It's not going to help him any to have another bill to pay so I certainly don't feel comfortable making a decision without a professional opinion. Councilwoman Watson: Like Clark said, what are the possibilities of this occurring again and once we have done it, we all know that once we do something that it seems to come back. Coucilman Horn: 'TYPically in business when you find something like this, what you do is you establish a recovery plan...what you plan to do, what has gone wrong in the past and what you plan to do in the future to make sure it is a successful venture. It appears to be a business plan. Don Ashworth: Has the bank supplied or do they have the current posi tion of the prairie House so that if the auditor's office was to a confidential audit, go to the bank and ask to look at the books they would be in a position to find something there which they could actually make a reviewal of? Ted Korzenowski: Yes, if I told the bank to let them go ahead. Don Ashworth: If that were to be done it involves sending the auditors over there, that would be the easiest way and where you would generally say senior citizen things before, the auditors have not come back to the Council with the individual statistics, none of the operational numbers would literally come back to the City Council but it would represent a recommendation. In other words, based on our professional opinion the proposed request makes sense or doesn't. We would have to modify your existing policies so that you would allow for this type of reviewal should an applicant make a request like that in the future so that we're not in a position to be accused that we treated somebody differently. Councilman Horn: Let's look at what other al ternati ves are. Assuming we don't do this and the business goes under and goes back to the bank, will we get paid? Ted Korzenowski: It's a tax lien on the property. You sell the property and if it goes for 50 cents on the dollar you will maybe get 50 cents. I don't know. Councilwoman Watson: If we were to go into this arrangement and certainly not at this rate, it would never be interest free, would this actually save the business? Does this $2,000.00 for instance that was due in October mean the life or death of that business? 33 220 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 Ted Korzenowski: Well, it certainly would help. There is still no assurance of anything. I can't give you any assurance on anything. I Mayor Hamilton: I think that is one of the things that the auditors could give the best conclusion about. Based on past performance is this going to, I mean they can tell by looking at the numbers if that in fact will help. Councilman Geving: I don't want to see us lose a business. It is so hard for us to acquire a good business. We have been working for years to get a restaurant in the community arrl we have one now with Ted. We want to do everything we can to keep it going but we want to do it so we're not hurt too Ted arrl if it is the wish of the Council to do this. Don Ashworth: I'm against an allocation of $300.00-$400.00. Councilman Geving: For half a day do you suwose? Don Ashworth: What I try to do is I need to have the auditors come out here anyway. I would hate to see travel time just for this one project so I would be sure that we got all of them on the same day. The problem with that is that I'm looking to sometime yet this week or the first part of next week so Mr. Korzenowski would have to get that authorization imnediately. Councilman Geving: Here's another deal too Ted, we don't want to sperrl $500.00 of our money to review your books. If you tell us that for this favor or what you are asking here of us that you will pay those auditor's cost even though it may be a negative reply, you might not get anything out of it, that is the only way I think we can proceed. Why should we sperrl our money to get our auditors to review your books? I Ted Korzenowski: Why should you spend the money? Why not just visit with the bank. The bank is certainly independent. They're looking after their skin let me tell you. Councilman Geving: We're looking for our professional assistance here. We rely on our auditors. They've pulled our bacon out of the fire lots of times. We rely upon them. Councilwoman Watson: It has to be done in a professional business like manner. Councilman Geving: We've got to do just the way we would do any other action in a professional arrl discreet manner. Mayor Hamil ton: I didn't hear you answer Dale's question. Would you be willing to pay our auditor's cost? Ted Korzenowski: Not right now I wouldn't, no. Councilman Geving: You just pushed us right in a hole then. We're trying to give you... I 34 I I I 221 City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 Ted Korzenowski: I've been pushed right in a hole too and I'm going to start pushing back. That's all I can do. I'm being pushed deeper an::] deeper all the time and we're not really getting the support from the community that we should. I don't mean the Council but I mean the PeOple living in Chanhassen are not supporting us like they should. M3yor Hamilton: M3ybe there is another reason for that, I don't know. Councilman Geving: We're trying to help you Ted but you have got to meet us halfway here. If you will tell us that you will cover the cost of our auditor's time which could be half a day, I don't know how long it would take but I assume 3-4 hours, we could make it happen. Ted Korzenowski: You forget, when you get a CPA and an auditor and they aren't going to spend an hour looking at it and tell you something. They are going to spend a lot more time then that if they want to give you an adequate. Don Ashworth: That was my question was whether or not the bank has the financial positions that in fact the auditors can audit. Ted is absolutely correct. If they have to go back an::] put the thing together, you are talking about a lot more hours. Ted Korzenowski: '!hey're not going to just go in for an hour and give an opinion because they will leave themselves oPen too. I know what they charge. You're not going to get it for $300.00-$400.00. Councilman Geving: It's about $65.00. Don Ashworth: '!hen how could we, using your suggestion, just call them up and visit with them. Ted Korzenowski: I'm not saying you forgive the money. I'm just say you are deferring it. It is still on the books and it is going to be there. We owe it. We're going to pay it sooner or later. I'm not saying forgive it. I'm not saying wipe it off the books. The liability is still there. It attaches to the property. It can become a lien. If the business goes under, it is attached so when you sell it you are stan::]ing first in line, tax liens are first. As far as I see you're not really exposing anything. '!hat's what you're going to have to do in the long run. If I do you're going to have to do it anyway so you know. Councilman Watson: I just wonder how many business struggle with these charges an::] we haven't helped. Ted Korzenowski: OUr situation is unique because most of the other businesses here are big corporations an::] they handle their own construction. Councilman Geving: '!hat's not true. I don't believe that statement. M3yor Hamilton: What does the Council, what would you like to do? 35 2. 0) fJ1,. ::d ~ .t.;J City Council Meeting - November 3, 1986 Councilman Horn: If we decide we're not going to pay the auditor I would at least like to get a legal opinion from Roger as to what kind of precedent we're setting. It seems to me we're probably setting a precedent here. I Don Ashworth: For which program, I'm sorry? Councilman Horn: For deferring. I would like to know what kim of a fuming we can judge that on to give reason why we would deny this request for someone else. Don Ashworth: To grant the request to someone else. Councilman Horn: To not grant it to someone else and not being arbitrary. Councilwoman Watson: If someone should come back again and decide they want it too, how are we ever going to be able to stop doing this over am over again with a deferment? Would we? Don Ashworth: In taking this action you are pretty much saying that if someone else had some other business with a demonstrated financial need came in front of you, you would have to give that... Councilman Geving: It would be difficult for us to deny them. Councilwoman Watson: Just like the liquor license business. Ted Korzenowski: Don't take the financial need approach. You see you are going on the financial need approach and I'm saying go the other approach that there was a lapse in your City procedures am therefore you are just deferring on that basis alone. You're not forgiving anything. I Mayor Hamilton: But they were working with your contractor. Ted Korzenowski: You're not forgiving a dime. '!he money is still owed. The liability is still there. Mayor Hamilton: '!he City has still paid that money out so it is a liability on the citizens of this community. Dale does your statement still stam? Councilman Geving: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Carol, do you have anything to add? Councilwoman Watson: I'm concerned about the precedent. I really am. Especially with the downtown redevelopment project. We could have businesses that come in, don't do as well am need am want some tax relief too am I don't know how many there are out there who struggled to make payments who didn't know they could come here am see if they could possibly gain some relief from the City plus any costs would have to be paid by someone. There is always going to have to be interest paid because we pay interest. You are going to have at least cover our costs. It isn't fair to the other businesses am citizens. I 36 I I I City Council Meeting ~ November 3, 1986 Mayor Hamilton: I agree am we voted on this issue earlier am we voted to deny it and I think Don has a couple of questions to answer and get back to you based on what he fims out to see if it should be reconsidered. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9: 50 p.m.. Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 37 2'23