Loading...
CC 2010 12 13 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2010 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Litsey, Councilwoman Ernst, Councilwoman Tjornhom, and Councilman McDonald STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Greg Sticha, and Roger Knutson PUBLIC PRESENT: Auro Hashu 12238 Jasper Lane Shane Weisser 7095 Green Ridge Drive Tom Devine 7640 South Shore Drive Frank Ernst 840 Cree Randy Cantin 6694 Nez Perce Drive Conrad & Gladys Heinemann 544 Lake Drive Len Japs 545 Lake Drive #408 Jeff Fox 5270 Howard Point Road, Excelsior Rollie Neve 7635 Nicholas Way Mara Souvannsoth 422 Santa Fe Circle Mark A. Sass 6275 Hummingbird Road Mike Corbin 8750 Sunset Trail Terrie Myers 14680 Jonathan Carver Parkway Amy Wenner Environmental Commission J.R. Relick Environmental Commission PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening and welcome to all those who have joined us this evening here in the council chambers, as well as those watching at home. We’re glad that you took the time to join us. At this time I would ask members of the council if there are any changes or modifications to the agenda. If not, without objection we’ll proceed with the agenda as published. First order of business this evening is to make a couple of presentations so I’m going to go down in the front and we’ll move forward with those. PRESENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AWARD. Mayor Furlong: Joining me here this evening is Amy Wenner and J.R. Relick, members of our Environmental Commission. This evening we’re going to present one of our Environmental Excellence Awards from the City of Chanhassen. The Environmental Excellence Award is presented annually by the City in recognition of environments improvements and stewardship Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 throughout our city. This award is assigned not only to recognized achievements but also to share ideas and encourage others to follow their lead and make a difference in our city from a stewardship standpoint of our natural resources. At this time I’d like to invite Nathan Ward and is it Brian Dapper? Nathan Ward: Actually Brian wasn’t able to make it. He’s home sick so. Mayor Furlong: Okay, Nathan. Good evening. Come on up, join us. Mr. Ward is a storm leader with the Kwik Trip store here in Chanhassen down at Highway 212/101. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or LEED program is an internationally recognized certification program aimed at improving a building’s performance in areas such as energy savings, water efficiency, indoor and outdoor air quality, emissions and resource stewardship. This year the Kwik Trip store in Chanhassen received a Silver level recognition by consciously designing the store to be built and run in the most energy and resource efficient manner. The store scored high marks for it’s energy efficiency and water conservation as well as diverting waste from landfills during the construction of the store. On behalf of the Chanhassen City Council and Environmental Commission, it’s my pleasure this evening to present this Environmental Service Award, Environmental Excellence Award, excuse me, to Kwik Trip store in Chanhassen. Councilman Litsey: I’m ready. Mayor Furlong: Come on down. Todd you want to join us? Todd Gerhardt: You bet. Mayor Furlong: This evening we’re going to present one of the City’s Maple Leaf award to Councilman Bryan Litsey for his service on the Chanhassen City Council the last 4 years. This is his last meeting so we’re taking this opportunity to recognize him. Bryan, you are passionate and committed servant to the public, serving both Chanhassen residents and businesses during your time on the council. You regularly provided thoughtful ideas and suggestions for strategic initiatives such as our key financial strategies and legislative priorities. You were committed to expanding law enforcement services and finding opportunities to balance… During your term on the council the City has strengthen it’s public safety services to a level where 95 to 99 percent of our residents feel safe according to our community survey. That’s an admirable number. During your term you provided leadership on many projects and policies that have improved our city and the high quality of life. Some of these include the construction of the new public works building, expansion of the City’s infrastructure and construction and reconstruction of many miles of roads and trails. The City’s credit rating has been upgraded from AA+ to AAA. This is the highest credit rating the City can receive. Only 16 other cities in the State of Minnesota have this same AAA rating as Chanhassen. Chanhassen was also ranked number 2 in Money Magazine’s 2009 Best Places to Live and this year’s citizen survey reflected very positive comments from our residents. 97% of them rated the quality of life in Chanhassen is either excellent or good. It’s my pleasure this evening to present this plaque to Bryan and it reads the City of Chanhassen Maple Leaf Award presented to Bryan Litsey, City Council member and Economic Development Authority 2007 to 2010. In recognition of outstanding service and 2 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 dedication to the City and it’s signed by the Chanhassen City Council presented this December th 13, 2010. Councilman Litsey: Thank you Mayor. I promise to keep this brief. And as you know brevity isn’t one of my stronger suits but I just wanted to quickly say that it really does, it seems like yesterday that I was standing up here getting sworn in. My son Joshua was 4 years old at the time. He’s 8 now. Maybe a future council member…but I do want to thank my family. You know when you serve on a council, as everybody up here knows, it takes away from your family time and I appreciate what they’ve gone through this last 4 years to let me serve the community and giving up some you know valuable family time. I also want to thank staff for doing just a truly outstanding job. You really do. It’s been my privilege to work with you and the quality of work is second to none and we’re really lucky in Chanhassen to have such a great staff, led by Todd Gerhardt. We’re going to talk about you a little later in your performance review. I want to thank my colleagues on the council too for their commitment to the community. They’re really making this a great place to live and work. I don’t think people really realize how much of a sacrifice these council members make sometimes with family and giving up other obligations, especially the mayor. Just a great ambassador for the City. He’s done just a terrific job. So in closing I’m just going to say it’s been a wonderful experience. It’s gone fast. I’ve enjoyed, you know there’s up’s and down’s with anything but overall it’s been just a really great experience and I’m proud to call Chanhassen my home so thank you. Todd Gerhardt: We encourage the public to stay afterwards. We’re going to have cake and you can come up and thank Bryan for his service and Joshua’s got to go home and we’ll make sure he gets a piece. Mayor Furlong: Let’s move on now with our agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 22, 2010. City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated November 22, 2010. City Council Work Session Minutes dated December 6, 2010. City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated December 6, 2010. Receive Commission Minutes: -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated November 23, 2010. b. 2011 Street Improvement Project 11-01: Accept Feasibility Study; Call Public Hearing. c. Approve Minnesota Department of Health Grant Application for Funds to Seal the West Minnetonka Middle School Well. 3 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 f. Approve Request for Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, Cana Dinner, February 5, 2011, St. Hubert’s Catholic Community. g. Approve Requests for Temporary On-Sale Liquor Licenses, February Festival and July th 4 Celebration, Chanhassen Rotary Club. Resolution #2010-: h. Approve Resolution Authorizing Certification of Hook-Up Charges to Property Taxes, JBJ Wine Holdings, LLP dba Haskell’s Wine & Spirits. Resolution #2010-: i. Approve Resolution Accepting $500 Donation from Community Bank for Senior Center Holiday Party. Resolution #2010-: j. Approve Resolution to Reapportion Assessments, North of Lyman Boulevard and East of TH 101, John Klingelhutz Property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY ND EASEMENT, HESSE FARM 2 ADDITION, BRAD MOE, 1425 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Again the applicant at 1425 Bluff nd Creek Drive has requested a side yard drainage utility easement platted on Hesse Farm 2 Addition be vacated at this time. This drawing here shows the location of the subject property just off of Bluff Creek Drive, south of 212. The lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2, the black line was adjusted administratively on June 26, 2006. There are no public utilities or private utilities within this easement. The proposed easement does not have any drainage issues that we’re aware of at this time and therefore no easement is required at this time. The lot, again this was nd Lot 1, back under Hesse Farm 2 Addition and here’s a portion of Lot 2 that was combined with Lot 1 back in 2006. So the drainage utility easement here proposed to be vacated is shown in the blue and a new drainage utility easements along the new property line are shown here. 10 foot drainage utility easement along the new boundary of the property line so. Basically that’s the easements to be vacated. There is a resolution before you for consideration as well so at this time if there’s any questions I’d be happy to try to answer them and I’d request that a public hearing be open as well. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. This resolution that was distributed here tonight Paul, how did that differ from the one in the. Paul Oehme: There was no resolution included in the packet so we’re just adding it to the packet just to clarify everyone. Mayor Furlong: Okay. What I would ask then is if one of the members would, in the end if we do make a motion on the resolution, let’s read the resolution in it’s entirety since it was not 4 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 distributed. If that’s the direction the council wants to go. Any other questions for staff? If there are no questions for staff from the council at this time then I will open the public hearing and invite all interested parties to come forward and address the council on this matter. Anyone that would like to address the council on this matter of the utility easement vacation? seeing none then, without objection we’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. Is there any discussion on this? Just for clarification, this was a easement that was put in place when the lot line was in a different location, is that correct? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Very good. Would somebody, if there’s no discussion, would somebody like to make a motion to the resolution? Councilman Litsey. Councilman Litsey: Sure, I’ll make a motion. And you’d like me to read it, right? Mayor Furlong: Well at least, it’s pretty short so. Councilman Litsey: A resolution vacating drainage and utility easements on Lots 1 and 2, Block nd 1, the Hesse Farm 2 Addition, Vacation File number 10-01. Whereas, the City of Chanhassen is requesting to vacate the drainage and utility easements on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 of the Hesse nd Farm 2 Addition; and Whereas, the existing easements were granted in 1979. Now therefore, be it resolved that the Chanhassen City Council hereby approves vacating the drainage and utility nd easements on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, the Hesse Farm 2 Addition as defined on the attached vacation description. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on this resolution? Resolution #2010-100: Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approve the resolution vacating drainage and utility nd easements on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, the Hesse Farm 2 Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. LAKEVIEW: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) AND MIXED LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R4) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW- MEDIUM (RLM); AND SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES INTO 66 LOTS AND 4 OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTCION OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 212. APPLICANT: US HOME CORPORATION (DBA LENNAR). Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This request actually has a couple items with it. Essentially approval of the subdivision and then a rezoning and with the 5 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 motion we’re also requesting that besides approving the Findings of Fact that you also approve the attached ordinance that goes with this property so the word ordinance was left off on the motion. The subject site for Lakeview Hills is located off of 101 and Lyman Boulevard, at the former property, the John Klingelhutz property. Abutting the new 212 and the North Bay subdivision. One of the residents at the Planning Commission did correct, it says the road is in error stated on the City’s records but the plat actually says Lake Riley Road East, which is adjacent to this property so that was noted. It is, will need to be corrected through the County system but I just want to state for the record that that was noted as a correction that needed to be made. So this property before you tonight did have a public hearing at the Planning Commission th back on December 7. The Planning Commission did recommend 6 for, none against and recommending approval of the subdivision. There was a number of residents in attendance on the North Bay area and I will summarize some of their concerns as we go through the process itself but I think the Planning Commission also had some concerns regarding noise management on this site in itself and again I’ll talk about that as we move through the project. So looking at the first issue, citing the land use. What’s around it. Again as I mentioned immediately to the east is the North Bay subdivision. This property was actually, as high density. This is the first application where the City looked at doing 0 lots. Those lots are about 3,000 so they’re less than the 12 units an acre which was allowed, and then immediately to the east of that was the old property which is now the Lakeside development, and we had condos approved on those and most recently amended that site plan to allow for some other twins and three plexes on that property. So then to the south of this site in the Springfield neighborhood, that was a PUD so within that PUD how they were applied back then, the lots could be as small as 11 but the average 15. So those are some of the factors that we looked at in coming to kind of what we felt was a good transition for this area. There is some large lot. While it’s guided low density currently not on sewer and water. Some large lot, agricultural type zoning immediately to the west of the site. So the zoning itself, again it is zoned residential single family. They are asking for a different zoning application. Again the staff looking at kind of what’s surrounding the area, as I stated, and then some of the design parameters led us to go, recommend the RLM and I’ll go through some of those design factors. Again it’s up against Highway 212. MnDOT put in a large drainage easement with the consent of the underlying property owner. There’s also a MnDOT, some other City drainage easements. A waterline running through. It’s in the shoreland district of Lake Riley so within 1,000 feet of the lake those lots have to be a minimum lot size so those are some of the factors that we looked at, so blending between kind of the larger lot, which ultimately go, would be subdivided when sewer and water becomes available, and then looking at what we have the North Bay and the Springfield subdivision led us to the conclusion for the RLM zoning. In your packet we put in the compliance table for the RLM zoning to show how that worked. In the shaded area, the highlighted area you can see those lots that have to meet the minimum 15,000 square foot area. In addition to that they have to have the 90 feet of frontage, which is different than the RLM which allows you to go as small as 50. These all have 65. What we asked the developer to do is bring in a variety of housing types so there’s numerous housing, house designs that could fit on the different lots. Again try to provide that variety which you have in the subdivision to the south. So this is a subdivision. When we saw it originally it was Lake Riley. I think what they’re using now for the marketing is Reflections at Lake Riley but this is the plat as it lays out. So this plat embraces the parameters that were set in place. The drainage easement coming off the ponding from 212. That would bring you down to this storm water pond. Looking at the wetland, there’s one large wetland on 6 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 the site and I’ll talk about that a little bit more. Tying into making a T intersection at this Springfield subdivision for an access control. Again this is a minor collector road, and then providing access, which is already required from the Lake Riley Road East access point, and then providing additional access to the property to the west again which will be subdivided in the future. This is the more horse farms and little bit more rural lot subdivisions over here. Again not on city services. So looking at that, some of the other things that went into consideration was the potential for a city park. I also want to emphasize when we looked at some of the design, working with the developer, they came in with a couple different iterations but looking at trying to provide the least number of houses up against the 212 and then also trying to provide the greatest buffer that was decided to put the cul-de-sacs going in the north/south direction. Again trying a better buffer. Less homes against the street itself. Councilman Litsey: Kate, there’s already a wall there, sound barrier right? Kate Aanenson: Yes there is. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I think that’s kind of a big jumping off point to maybe talk a little bit about the. Councilman Litsey: Sorry, I didn’t mean to. Kate Aanenson: No, it’s a good question and probably a good place to talk about it because the Planning Commission did spend a lot of time on this. There is a noise wall immediately to the east of this because the North Bay project was in place when MnDOT came along and built 212. MnDOT was willing to put a noise wall on this property but the underlying property owner at that time chose to take compensation for that and not build the noise wall. So under this, the developer’s working not with the underlying property owner but also with the financial institutions so for this developer to put a noise wall as opposed to providing some noise attenuation, landscaping, fencing, berming, those sort of things, it’s a different standard. The noise wall itself would probably be closer to between $600,000 or $750,000 so this developer doesn’t, this project wouldn’t happen if that was the requirement so the Planning Commission had concerns with that, as did staff and we’re working to try to resolve it and we think we can, through berming, landscaping, it’s not going to be the same as a noise wall, provide that noise reduction. And also letting the buyers beware of that circumstance as they move into the property. I think some of the neighbors to the east were also concerned that the noises would go that way but I think with the addition of the homes and the landscaping it should help again provide some of that buffer. It wouldn’t be the same as with the noise wall but I just want to put that out there on the record that, where that stands because that was an issue for the Planning Commission but it is a condition of approval and we are working with the developer to kind of look at more details of how well that will actually provide some buffer. Good question. The wetland itself, there is one wetland on the site. There is no proposed impact to the site. As a matter of fact we’re providing additional ponding in this area and this area before going into that wetland. The neighbors again to the east and the north they wanted to make sure that wasn’t disturbed. They liked the vegetation and the wildlife that was attracted to that area. There’s just 7 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 a couple minor modifications that need to be made to the plat. Those are conditions of approval and that’s in this area just to get the right, the correct width of those lots at the building setback line based on the fact that they are adjacent to the wetland. There will be a wetland setback and a wetland buffer and it does meet all those requirements and the line modification wouldn’t affect the number of lots. It’s just something that they can resolve when they come back for final plat. Neighborhood park. Again the Comprehensive Plan states that within a half mile there should be a neighborhood park so within this project it was proposed to do a park, and that park is located here on the site. Again Park and Rec Commission has looked at that and that’s what they are recommending, but the actual design of the park itself will come forward at a later date as kind of the plans develop but it will be typical of a neighborhood park with a play area and some open space. And the park itself would be 4.83 acres of land. Again it gives good access to the people to the south in the Springfield neighborhood. Creates a nice visible opening and kind of capitalizes on the adjacency to the wetland itself and the lake. So with that, the subdivision does meet all the requirements of the City Code. We are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. I’d just again would recommend regarding the, adding the ordinance for the motion but with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Changes in the conditions from when it went to the Planning Commission. There’s the one added there, number 39 I believe. With regard to looking for ways to lessen the noise which was raised at the Planning Commission. There’s also some information with regard to the park site. Can you tell me what the basis was for determining the cost of the acquired portion Mr. Hoffman? Todd Hoffman: Mayor and City Council. The per acre price has been added. It’s a net cost so it’s the cost that the applicant paid for the site less the undevelopable property so we’re paying the exact price that they paid for the net per acre charge for the 1.7 acres that we’re acquiring. Mayor Furlong: Okay, between the developer and the property owner. Todd Hoffman: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So really negotiated price. Todd Hoffman: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And the source of funding? Todd Hoffman: That would be the park dedication fund. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So not out of the general fund but the park dedication. Todd Hoffman: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Other questions for staff? Public hearing was held at the Planning Commission. We have received copies of the Planning Commission notes but I don’t know if there’s anybody here that would like to address the council on this matter or have 8 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 additional comments or questions that weren’t addressed at the Planning Commission. I would open it up for public comments at this time. Okay. Let’s bring it to council then for discussions and comments followed by a motion, if that’s in order. Thoughts and comments, Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I guess my first thought is, boy isn’t this good news. It’s been a while since we’ve seen one of these and it’s good to see it again and it’s good to see that there’s still some people willing to take a chance and go out there and build houses and so I just, I think it’s a great subdivision to have coming through town and it looks great to see it in our packet and I hope that we see more of these in the future. And thank you to the Planning Commission also for all they do wrinkling out any, or ironing out any wrinkles that they might be encountering with the subdivision planning so thanks to that and we look forward to Reflections at Lake Riley. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments? And just to share some other comments. One from a site plan design. I think it’s one of the things that we see here is a little bit different density here than what we see to the east at North Bay which is higher density and to the south in the Springfield neighborhood which is even lower density than this development, so again following our Comprehensive Plan and looking to provide different housing types, both from the standpoint of, well different types but also different price points and that’s what we’re always trying to do. The other thing I noticed here is the connection of the roads between the neighborhood to the east, the North Bay neighborhood. That road segment there was obviously planned for and development of this property was planned for back at the time the North Bay was put in place and so I think that a compliment to staff and Planning Commission for seeking those opportunities. I see the same road and the road to be extended on the west part of this parcel again to connect neighborhoods is something that this council has supported in our Comprehensive Plan over the years so appreciate you continuing to do that. Any other thoughts or comments? If not, would somebody like to make some motions? Councilman McDonald: I’ll make the motion. The Chanhassen City Council approves the Lakeview subdivision and rezoning subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Planning Commission’s Findings of Fact. And then what is the other one that you wanted to read into it? Was there another one? Roger Knutson: Rezoning ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Rezoning ordinance. Is that also include the approval of the preliminary plat? Is that part of it? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman McDonald: That the Chanhassen City Council approves the Lakeview subdivision and rezoning subject to the staff report. Where’s the language for the rezoning? Kate Aanenson: That was omitted from there. There is a rezoning ordinance attached there so that was the one thing that we needed to add and the rezoning ordinance. 9 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 Councilman McDonald: Okay. And rezoning ordinance which I read into it so it should all be there. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion for the motion? Again good to see a development coming through and more growth taking place in our city. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves Planning Case #10-12 to rezone 50.48 acres of property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District, and R-4 Mixed Low-Density Residential, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District for Lakeview Subdivision contingent upon final plat approval, as shown in plans dated received November 5, 2010, and adoption of the findings of fact and ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves the preliminary plat for Planning Case #10-12 for Lakeview Subdivision for 66 lots and 4 outlots as shown on the plans received November 5, 2010, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the findings of fact: 1.The applicant shall add 34 trees to its total for tree planting. The landscape plan shall show at total of 282 trees to be planted. 2.All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading. 3.All work and drainage discharge within the MnDOT easement must be approved by MnDOT. 4.The public drainage and utility easement on the north side of the development must be vacated. 5.The existing building and driveway on the north side of the site must be removed. 6.Based on the proposed grading a low area will be created west and north of the Street C stub. The developer must work with the adjacent property owner to either grade out the low area, or install storm sewer to prevent water from ponding in the area. 7.The developer's engineer will shift the storm sewer at the back of Lots 38 to 41, Block 3, further north in order to provide a larger unencumbered backyard area. 10 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 8.The storm sewer alignment at the back of Lots 19 and 20, Block 3 must be adjusted to minimize the required drainage and utility easement. 9.The lowest opening of a building must be minimum 18 inches above an adjacent emergency overflow. 10.Additional information must be shown on the final grading plan to show how drainage from the Highway 212 berm will be directed into the existing flared end section located north of proposed Lot 27, Block 3. 11.An encroachment agreement is required if the developer wishes to install an entrance monument at the Street B intersection of Lyman Boulevard. 12.A temporary turnaround is required at the western end of Street C. 13.The development is adjacent to Lyman Boulevard and is therefore subject to the arterial collector fee at the time of final plat. 14.The developer will not be reimbursed for the relocation cost of the 12-inch watermain since the work is development driven. 15.The watermain within Street B between Lyman Boulevard and Street A shall be 8-inch. 16.The delineated wetland boundary must be moved so that no portion of the boundary is located at an elevation less than the 868-foot contour. 17.The delineated wetland boundary will not be considered approved until the public comment period has ended on December 13, 2010. 18.The wetland buffer behind Lot 7 and Lot 8 of Block 4 shall be minimized to be coincidental with the rear lot lines. The area of buffer that would otherwise be present shall be compensated for elsewhere along the wetland boundary. 19.The applicant, with the assistance of the City, must show that adequate capacity exists within the North Bay storm sewer system to accommodate the proposed drainage area to be directed to North Bay. 20.The NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity must be applied for and obtained prior to any earth-disturbing activities. Proof of this must be provided to the City. 21.Reasonable efforts must be made to provide a maintenance access road to ponds 100 and 200 in compliance with City Code and the NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity. 11 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 22.Additional data must be provided for cul-de-sac D to demonstrate sufficient grade for adequate drainage. 23.A minimum of two feet of separation must be provided between the emergency overflow for the MnDOT drainage swale and the low floor opening for Lot 5, Block 2. 24.Two-foot sumps shall be included with structures CBMH-104, MH-203 and MH-222. 25.All storm sewer shall be within a drainage and utility easement. 26.Hydraulic calculations shall be provided to the City for review and approval before the final plat can be issued. 27.Mulch, MnDOT Type 3, certified weed free shall be used in all of Block 4, Outlot A and Outlot B whenever mulch is called for. 28.The remainder of the gully which originates under Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 shall be filled in. This shall be done in such a manner as to avoid additional tree loss and the introduction of weeds and invasive species. 29.The estimated SWMP fees, in the amount of $82,228.55, are due at the time of final plat. 30.Phosphorus removal will need to meet the minimum 60% removal rate and should maximize that to the greatest extent practicable. 31.The applicant shall be responsible to assure that all other agency permissions are applied for and resulting conditions are met. 32.A Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form will need to be filled out and submitted to the LGU (City of Chanhassen) and the DNR. The form can be found at: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/forms/Contractor_Responsibility.doc 33.Appendix A C.1 and C.2 must be addressed including: a.Exposed soil areas must be stabilized as soon as possible but never later than seven (7) days. b.A discussion of the feasibility of infiltration and the appropriate response to these findings. 34.Building Official Conditions: a.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigative and proposed mitigation reports. 12 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 b.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. c.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and require permits, inspections and final approval. d.Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. e.The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 35.Fire Marshal conditions: a.Submit street names to Building and Fire Marshal for review and approval. b.No burning permits will be issued. Tress, scrubs etc. must be removed from the site or chipped. c. Mains and fire hydrants shall be installed and made serviceable prior to combustible construction. d. A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. e.Temporary street signs shall be installed as soon as construction begins. Signs shall be of an approved size as required by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. They shall be weather- resistant and maintained until replaced by permanent signs. f.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. g.The proposed hydrant between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 must be relocated to the intersection of Streets B and C. h.The proposed hydrant between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 must be relocated to intersection of Street B and Lyman Boulevard. 36.The lot width at the rear setback line for lots 1 and 2, Block 4, must be adjusted to reflect 90 feet as required in the Shoreland Ordinance. 37.Successful transfer of Outlot B (4.83+ acres) to the City of Chanhassen concurrent with the final plat through a combination of dedication (3.08+ acres) and fee purchase (1.75+ acres) at a cost of $112,716 per acre, for development and use as a public neighborhood park. 38.A sign reading “This Road Will Be Extended in the Future” shall be placed at the west end of Street C. 13 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 39.The applicant shall work with staff to evaluate the use of a privacy fence and vegetation along the north edge of the property to lessen the noise impact from Highway 212. A ” solution will be presented with the final plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 2011 BUDGET: APPROVE RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL LEVY AND 2011- 2015 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Greg Sticha: Thank you Mayor and City Council. Before I get into a power point for this evening’s presentation on the budget and tax levy I just want to put into perspective a few items that we discussed at our work session after last week’s Truth in Taxation hearing. The numbers you see listed on the screen are budget adjustments that staff reviewed with City Council at our work session last week after the taxation hearing. The numbers that you see on that spread sheet on the screen right now will be part of the power point presentation this evening so the final numbers in the power point have each of these numbers reflected in the power point, so I just wanted to give those perspective who were in attendance last week or watched last week, what the difference is between the power point from last week and this week’s power point is essentially the numbers you see on the screen right here. For those of you that were in attendance last week or watched last week, you’ll have to forgive me. I’m going to go over some information that we did go over last week just to give those that have not seen the information the same opportunity to view the same information that those saw last week so some of this might be repetitive for some people who were in attendance last week. Quickly I’m going to go over the budget process that staff and council have been through essentially for over the last 6 months. Preliminary budgets were submitted by the department directors in early July. The budgets were then reviewed by the Finance Director and the City Manager in late July. Staff met with City Council to discuss detailed budgets in August. This was moved up from previous years in which we had discussed them in October. City Council wanted to be able to see the detailed budgets before they set the preliminary levy so we accommodated the City Council and th were able to do that this year. We then set a preliminary tax levy on September 13. That number was then used for the Truth in Taxation statements that the residents received here in the th middle of November. A public budget meeting was held last week on Monday, December 6 and this evening we need to adopt a final budget and tax levy to be certified with Hennepin and Carver Counties. First let’s go through the general fund expenditures and how they compare from 2010 to 2011. Again the changes that I showed on the spread sheet previously will be the difference between this week and last week. General government expenditures saw a .5% decrease from the previous year. As you look across the line items, most of them remained relatively flat. A couple of items to note. The law enforcement/fire category saw a 4% increase. The largest amount of that increase is due to the increase in the required contribution for the volunteer fire fighters retirement. That increase alone was $70,000 from the previous year. As we discussed with council in previous meetings, that number is based on a projection based on in part what we had from this year’s actuary. We are anticipating a similar required contribution for next year so staff felt it was prudent to increase that line item by $70,000. That accounts for the majority of the 4% increase in that budget category. Rest of the categories for the most part remain relatively flat. The total increase in expenditures from the previous years is .6%. At the presentation in last week’s meeting where I believe it was .84% so that number changed by .2% 14 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 from the previous meeting. On the revenue side, a couple items of note here. The licenses and permit revenue line item increased 11%. We based this year’s permit revenue line item on what we actually plan on receiving in 2010 so we did increase that line item by almost $100,000. On the charges for service line you’ll notice a 9.2% decrease. The majority of that decrease was due to the fact that in 2011 we are planning on less utility projects that staff is going to be reviewing and therefore there won’t be a 5% administrative charge to those utility projects which would be revenue for the general fund. That amount is I believe the difference in that budget from the previous year, that line item was about $60,000. And other revenue, the 15% decrease is almost all because of the change in interest income within the general fund. Re-evaluating that line item and adjusting that line item. In 2010 that line item was $200,000 budgeted and for 2011 we now are budgeting $100,000. At the preliminary levy we had budgeted $130,000. After discussion with City Council last week, staff felt it was prudent to lower that number down to $100,000. Taking a look at the general fund expenditure history, comparing 2010 to 2011, expenditures increased .6% from the previous year. We wanted to give our residents and City Council perspective on how we compare to our other communities that we do annual comparisons on called our key financial strategies cities so we went to the Minnesota State Auditor’s web site and got the City budgets from our kfs cities and broke it down into a per capita spending for general and special revenue funds which is what the State Auditor report is based on. As you can see Chanhassen as compared to some of our other cities, comparable cities, have per capita spending of about $400 per resident and you can see where we compared to the other cities. In the far right column very comparable to Prior Lake, Chaska, and Champlin and then a few of our other cities listed below. Savage, Oakdale, Rosemount and Farmington. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry if I could interrupt. You mentioned kfs cities. Can you explain why, I think that’s an acronym for key financial strategies that we use, is that correct? Greg Sticha: Yeah. Maybe I’ll let Mr. Gerhardt explain that one. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Why these cities? Why were these cities included in this comparison? Todd Gerhardt: About I want to say 9-10 years ago the City developed a program called key financial strategies and the main emphasis of that program is to establish our annual goals and also to compare and contrast other like communities to Chanhassen. That would be a second ring suburban community with a population this year of around 24,000. Anywhere between 20,000 and 30,000. Those communities are still growing. They have land available. They’re servicing with sewer and water so if you look at the populations of these like cities, they’re very similar to our’s. Some are higher. Some are lower but it gives us a basis to compare and contrast ourselves to like communities. Greg Sticha: Continue on with the presentation. This chart shows a history of our general fund actual spending versus budget the last 7 years. You can see pretty consistent with budget generally typically finishing the year about a half a percent, maybe to a percent under spent in an average year each of the last 7 years. What factors changed the budget for 2011 as compared to 2010? As I pointed out earlier most of the expenditure line items did remain flat for this year. Expenditures within the general fund did increase .6% or $60,000. If you look at the biggest impact to that from an expenditure standpoint, the fire fighter pension relief contribution line 15 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 item increased $70,000 so you know I guess you could argue that if that required contribution had not been, had not, will not be…to fund it, then you know the general fund would see an expenditure similar to the last, to the previous year. Wage increases of 1% were included in the budget and budgeted permit revenue, as I discussed earlier, we increased about $80,000 from the previous year at 12%. Some notes on 2011 budget saving items. Todd wanted to go through a couple of these with you. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members and public. One of the things we wanted to make sure that the public understood is that we did bid out our health insurance this year. Based on our experience, Preferred One was the only bidder that submitted a quote and their quote was 25% higher than last year. The other 5 health insurance companies said that they couldn’t match Preferred One’s quote and that would have been somewhere between 30 and 45 percent higher than the previous year. Another cost savings item that we benefited in, last year the City entered into a joint purchasing agreement with the State of Minnesota. We now buy our fuel for our vehicles through a joint purchasing option and we saw a savings last year of around $30,000 to $40,000 and this year the savings will be about $10,000. We did bid out our general liability insurance. There was no change from 2010 to 2011. We also bid out our life and long term disability insurance. We saw a decrease of 38%. Savings of $5,200 and long term disability decreased 39% with a savings of $5,800. We also refunded our library bonds. The net present savings on those was $179,000 with a return of 4.75%. Over the life of the bonds a reduction in our levy of about $40,000 per year. Greg Sticha: We also wanted to, and council had asked for information on the impact of the compensation as it relates to each of the employees at the city so I put together this chart that kind of shows 6 employees employed at the city. I chose 3 single coverage employees and 3 family coverage employees and what 0, 1 and 2 percent would impact their net paychecks and as you can see at 1% the family coverage employees would still see a net decrease in their pay and at 2% those in the range of $38,000 or approximately there would also still see a decrease in their net paycheck at even 2%. So then the actual levies that the City has based on each of the categories of levies. The general fund levy based on the budget that I just presented would be a levy of $7,508,200. A 1.7% increase in the levy from the previous year. The capital replacement fund levy as we discussed in our work session last week was for a decrease of $74,000 or 9% from the previous year. All other levies for the most part are either flat or required by a bond or statutory bond requirements. And the library referendum levy there was a very small decrease from the previous year. The net tax levy effects the general fund levy increase of 1.7%. The total levy increase of $54,000 or .53%. This is one-half of what we experienced for new growth for 2011. New growth was 1.06% so this levy would be half of what we experienced for new growth in 2011. The effect that the homeowners would see based on a preliminary levy. These are based on actual Truth in Taxation statements from the preliminary levy. To calculate what it would be for each of these parcels, I would probably have to have the County do the exact calculation but on example for Parcels 1, 2 and 3 you’d probably see about a $4 decrease in these numbers if you were to set a levy at the .53% rather than the 1.06%, which is what the preliminary levy was based on, so those amounts would come down by about $4 for Parcels 1, 2 and 3 and for 4, 5 and 6 it would be you know an amount more than that. Maybe $5 to $8 in that range. But this gives you a perspective of where each of the different valued homes in Chanhassen would be paying for property taxes. The average home in 16 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 Chanhassen decreased in value 5.3% so if your home decreased in value more than that you would likely see a property tax decrease more than just the $4 that I was talking about a few minutes ago. If your home decreased less in value than the 5.3%, then you would probably either see a small increase or about a flat property tax for the city property tax line item. We took a look at an actual property tax statement and what percentages go to what jurisdictions. This is actually from one of the parcels listed previously. 30%, just under 31% of the property tax bill goes for the County. 44% to the school district and in this case it was School District 112. Just under 21% to the City and 5.6% to all other jurisdictions. Staff’s recommendation this evening is to set a final total tax levy of $10,267,390. We also need to pass a capital, CIP amount and I believe the amount that, for the CIP is listed in the motion in front of you. We’ve had a number of work session discussions on the CIP document in previous meetings. That number is listed in the motion in front of you. I believe it’s $72 million for over the 5 years, as well as assuming a final levy of the general fund as presented in this power point. Total expenditures in the general fund of $9,617,600. Again that levy is a .53% increase in the previous year’s levy, which is around $54,000 more than the previous year’s levy. That’s all of our my slides I have. I’d be happy to answer any questions any of the City Council members would have. Mayor Furlong: Questions for Mr. Sticha. Councilman McDonald: I’ve got a question concerning last year. Now last year we did not provide a pay raise for the employees, correct? Greg Sticha: That’s correct. Councilman McDonald: And yet the health insurance did go up last year? Greg Sticha: That’s correct. Councilman McDonald: So the employees were in effect taking home less than what they started with. Greg Sticha: Those with family coverage, yes. That’s definitely the case. We also experienced an increase in the required contribution for the retirement program that the City’s participating in called PERA last year and this year. Councilman McDonald: Do we have any choice in that retirement program to opt in or out? Greg Sticha: No. Councilman McDonald: That’s all I got for right now. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? On the CIP, one of the changes subsequent to the Truth in Taxation hearing was the reduction in the levy. Capital improvement fund. Was there a corresponding reduction in budgeted expenses then too with that fund? It looks like there’s some changes between the two accounts. 17 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 Greg Sticha: We did not change the actual CIP document. We reduced the levy. Our plan after our last week’s discussion with City Council is to go ahead and try to fund the same equipment at the reduced levy of the $750,000. However did not modify the CIP document itself. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I guess what I’d like to see, and it’d be my suggestion to the council is that there be a corresponding reduction in that planned expenditures as well across the different line items. It looks like the number has been changed from an earlier version that I had. Maybe there were some other. Greg Sticha: There were some other minor adjustments to a few of the projects but the total amount of capital replacement fund, actual spending you would have to reduce then the total number by $74,000. Mayor Furlong: Right. Would that be a reduction then in the CIP total fund? Greg Sticha: Yep. Mayor Furlong: That’d be a way to accomplish that? Greg Sticha: And I can give you that number if you so desire. Mayor Furlong: Okay. As we think about this I think that would be a prudent thing to do is to correspond the change in spending, or the reduction in spending with the reduction in the proposed levy. Todd Gerhardt: Just to note Mayor, City Council members. You still have to award the bid for those items as they come across, anything over a value of, I think our policy is 25. Greg Sticha: Well anything, our policy requires anything over $25,000, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Anything over 25 has to come to us, and I realize that maybe looking at the individual items, maybe something might be deferred to later in the year to see how the budget’s coming out relative to that you know so I understand there may be timing changes there but I think trying to make that representative for the proposed levy would be appropriate. And I would certainly suggest that to the council as we’re looking at that dollar amount. What was the real growth in the tax base this last year? Greg Sticha: 1.06%. Mayor Furlong: 1.06. And that was the, that was the percent increase of the preliminary levy that we established back in September. Greg Sticha: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And this increase is what percent? 18 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 Greg Sticha: .53%. Roughly half. Mayor Furlong: 0.53%. Greg Sticha: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. When we define new growth, new growth is any new construction that has occurred from the previous year. That is new homes. New commercial, industrial buildings that have been constructed from the prior year. Not an inflation growth onto existing properties so it’s those properties that did not exist in the prior year. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this time? There may be some as we discuss this so certainly if people are interested in asking questions for clarification, that’s fine. Thoughts and comments on the budget discussion. Councilwoman Ernst: I have some. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: You know when we had Todd’s performance review, which is going to come up a little later, Todd had talked about the situation this evening where some of the staff members are really in troubled times and I am truly compassionate to those employees and the times that they are struggling with. I’m also compassionate for those in the private sector. I would like to remind my colleagues that we had a number of citizens attend the budget hearing last week and they expressed many concerns and reasons why we should cut spending. They did express very valid concerns and we have a fiscal responsibility to dig deeper and discuss tonight I believe there is additional money to cut from the budget. I don’t believe that we should spend any more than we did last year, including wages and benefits and I believe that the general fund budget last year was $7,380,000. Greg Sticha: That is correct I believe, yep. The levy was $7,380,000. Mayor Furlong: Please. I’m sorry Mr. Sticha, you were saying. Greg Sticha: The levy last year was actually $7,210,000 for the general fund. Councilwoman Ernst: For the general fund? Greg Sticha: Yep. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thank you for correcting me on that one. Mayor Furlong: Any other comments? Other comments from other members of the council. 19 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 Councilman Litsey: Yeah, I’d be happy to comment. I hope that the public understands and the residents how hard this council’s worked with staff to try to get to a balance between providing services and the cost of providing those services and this started as we had on that slide presentation, months ago and we’ve made changes in how we do the budget process so that we get information earlier on so we can identify areas to cut earlier if we need to and so forth and even as late as last, well we even discussed it at a work session before we had this regular meeting tonight. Taking a look at it one last time. I mean we’ve been going over and over and over it again but there are a level of service too that we want to make sure that we provide for the residents and I feel very comfortable that after going through the process with staff, amongst the council here, listening to what residents have to say and the services that they would like to see from the city, not just those that are in attendance, which I appreciate their comments but hearing from all residents throughout the city, I think that we’ve come to a good point in time that this will provide for the services that the residents want to see at a good value with keeping costs down as much as reasonably possible. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments. Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Yeah. You know this is, has probably been one of the more difficult budgets that we have had to put together. The past couple of years you know each year we’ve had to go through and really kind of examine where we’re going. We did start the process quite a bit earlier this year just so we could look at things and make decisions as far as services as to what’s necessary and what’s not. At this point, I mean Councilwoman Ernst did bring up some suggestions today at the work session. We’re willing to consider those but they do have policy implications. To start cutting the budget on policy at the last moment is dangerous without a thorough review and understanding of what you’re doing. I think this past week is an example of services that the City renders. That’s something that we need to look at and again I’ve heard what the residents have said as far as services. What you’re willing to give up and what you’re willing not to give up and as I said last week, I still come down to individuals will come forward and tell me that the parks are spending way too much money. I’ll have the other individuals come forward and tell me the parks are not spending enough money so there’s a balance that we have to arrive at in doing this budget. I would like to see a few other things have changed within the budget but at this point I’m willing to accept this as a compromise. This is the first year that we’ve done this that it actually came down from the preliminary budget to the final budget so I think at that point we have listened to the residents to go and cut beyond that has implications throughout the city that have not been reviewed and discussed. So as I said it in the meeting today I’m more than willing to look at these suggestions and to study them and ask staff for input so that we can make a valued decision and as Councilwoman Ernst says we do have a fiduciary duty to the city. Part of that duty is to make sure that we provide the services to the city that the city requires, wants and needs. In order to do that I think this budget meets that. We have given up for the first time new growth, which is something the city has never done before. We have always tried to capture growth because with that growth is additional costs. It’s additional road miles to be plowed. It’s additional streets to be taken care of. There is a cost associated with all of that so we have tried to come up this year and find a way to reach compromise on this and I believe we have so I’m in support of the current budget the way it stands. 20 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Tonight I reflect back to when I was first elected 6 years ago and we were really riding the crest at that time with new developments coming through and new opportunities and here we sit today. Those opportunities have kind of dried up and now we’re all having to work together to figure out what we do next. After our last meeting and the residents came and spoke, a lot of them looked at me and said follow your heart. You know vote with your heart. Do what you think is best, and I thought about that and that would be easy. That would be just me saying no. That would be me saying no. We’re not going to increase spending. You know I don’t have the answers to what we’re going to do but I’m just going to say no because that I know would be the right thing you would want me just to say and I see it comes down to responsible spending and if you live in our city you know that I think we all enjoy our roads being plowed. I mean Minneapolis schools and St. Paul schools today were closed because their roads were still impassible. You know I think we try to spend our dollars wisely where your tax dollars that come in go back out to you, at least I think that’s the way city government should work at least but when you write a check for your property taxes that means that your roads will be plowed. That means that your drinking water will be safe. That means that public safety is a priority, and if you look at this budget some of those large numbers do have to do with public safety and parks and your water supply and everything else. I know a lot of people are feeling tension about the employees wage increase. When I first read the preliminary proposal from staff about wage increases and I saw 2% I immediately said no. No way. For years when I’ve read 3, 3 ½ I’ve wondered why. You know I don’t get 3 ½ percent in increases just because I show up to work every day so why are they, and once again this year I saw 2% and I thought I can’t do that. I’m not going to give them this extra spending money to have when the rest of us don’t have anyone else to give us extra spending money. But then when we really got down to the nitty gritty of what we were doing and Greg I don’t know if you can show that once again. When it came to health care and what was happening that, I think all employees, this whole country is in a crisis when it comes to health care and I’m not going to blame fingers tonight about who’s to cause that or who’s to blame for it but we’re all paying a lot more for our health care and Vicki brought up the fact that our City Manager brought up some stories at city hall and I know a lot of people tend to be angry at government and they want to take it out on employees but he mentioned that we’ve had members husbands been deployed to Iraq. We’ve had members who’s been on disability for 2 years because of illnesses. We’ve had members where their husbands have been unemployed for 3 years so we all, and that means employees that work here too, are trying to get by and when I look at this chart and I see that I’m not just increasing their wages to give them extra money in their pocket, it’s to pay for their health insurance that probably their spouses can’t provide, or it’s to pay for PERA which they really don’t have a choice whether they’d like to invest in it or not. And so it’s hard for me tonight to say that yes I’m going to vote for this 1% wage increase but I’m not following my heart, I’m following my head knowing that when I go home tonight that’s going to be the right thing for me to do and so I too will be supporting this budget. Councilwoman Ernst: Mayor, I do have a question to make. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst. 21 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 Councilwoman Ernst: Greg, just a correction. You had told me that the general fund budget for 2010 was $7,210. That was actually the property tax 2010 budget and I was referring to the general fund that was $7,380,000. Greg Sticha: I’ll quickly bring up a document and show you the difference in the two. The total property tax levy last year was $7,380,000 for the general fund. Then after we take into account the delinquent taxes that we plan on for the year and the collection of delinquent property taxes from the previous year, that got us to the $7,210,000 that I was referring to, so comparing apples to apples in this case, looking at the general fund property tax levy, what we actually will be collecting in property tax revenues would be line 17 here which shows the $7,210,000 which is what we’re collecting for 2010 and the $7,338,200 for 2011. If you take a look for just the property tax item before delinquencies and collection of delinquencies, the difference in the two numbers is identical. There’s only a shift within the accounting for the delinquencies. Councilwoman Ernst: Well but I’m referring to just spending in the general fund. Greg Sticha: Okay if you’re looking at just spending within the general fund. Councilwoman Ernst: That’s what I’m looking at. Greg Sticha: Comparing those numbers would be on this spread sheet. Last year the general fund spent $9,557,400 and this year it’s $9,617,600. That’s a .6% increase from the previous year. Councilwoman Ernst: But that’s including everything and I’m talking about just the general fund numbers. Greg Sticha: That is just the general fund. Councilwoman Ernst: So we’ve been talking all along that it was $7,380,000. Greg Sticha: That’s the levy for the general fund. Councilwoman Ernst: Right. That’s what I’m referring to. Greg Sticha: Yep, and that’s this number right here. Councilwoman Ernst: Correct. I just want to make sure that we’re on the same page with what I’m talking about because when we’re talking about the general fund expenditures for the tax levy it’s $7,380,000. Greg Sticha: That is correct. The levy for the general fund last year was $7,380,000 and if you look at comparable numbers it would be $7,508,200. That’s the same difference between the $7,210,000 and the $7,338,000. That just takes into account delinquencies. 22 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 Mayor Furlong: Well to follow up then, the levy on the property tax for the property tax levy that goes into the general fund is going up 1.8%. But you said the total levy is going up .5%. What’s going down? Greg Sticha: The levies that are going down, I’ll pull up the levy impact. This is what would actually get certified to Carver and Hennepin Counties. Here’s a look at the actual levies. Here’s the $7,508,000 that you saw previously on this spread sheet right here. We’re reducing the capital replacement fund levy by $74,000. All the other line items have remained either flat or close to flat. These numbers in lines 11 through 14 are bond payment requirements and we really don’t have an option to adjust those levies. They’re required by buyer bond payments and by statute. So as you can see the total levy increases $54,200 for a .53% so some of the general fund levy increase is being offset by a decrease in the capital replacement equipment fund levy. Mayor Furlong: And that’s why to the council I would suggest that we also correspond that, that levy decrease in the CIP fund or the capital replacement fund with that corresponding reduction in budget expenditures. Any other comments at this point? I think the budget discussion has taken on a lot of interest this year, and rightfully so. I think this is a major decision that the council has to make each and every year. One of the most important decisions on how we’re going to, what services are going to be provided and how we’re going to fund those services. Ultimately our goal, it’s everybody’s goal is to build the best city we can build, but do it with the best value. Not anybody can throw money at something but how do we do what’s necessary and what’s right but do it at the least cost and get the best value because ultimately it’s a value equation that we’re looking at. Earlier tonight there were some, the list that you had Greg on the, that Mr. Gerhardt talked to. No, if you go to the power point presentation on some of the other areas that the city has looked at and activities. We received as a council, and it’s very helpful. We received some general comments and some specific comments at last week’s Truth in Taxation hearing, which is helpful. We also received, for purposes of disclosure, some emails this week. I think all the council did. I certainly did with some other specific recommendations on ways to change or reduce spending. All those, most of those had policy decisions impacts to them. Effects and what, regardless of where the council ends up tonight, what I’m going to encourage the council to do, and we talked about this at the work session and I got agreement from everybody I think, was to take every list, every item that’s been suggested. Last week over the course of the last few weeks that we’ve been going through this discussion, as well as other items that we brought up as a council to talk about in going forward and let’s look at them from a policy standpoint after the first of the year. And to the extent that there’s a desire for change, we can make those changes often mid year if appropriate but do it in the context of full understanding of the implications. Not just looking at a line item and making a change, and it’s not deferring action. I think it’s trying to be prudent and thoughtful in the actions that we take. The challenge here, and I think this is a budget that probably not everybody and very few people are going to be happy with, the way I see it going. There is, there’s a goal or need to seek a balance. Clearly I understand, I think the council understands the desire to reduce spending year after year. We’ve been working towards that. We continue to do that in other areas, but also recognize that we’re a growing city and when our population grows, we have to support that growth with the same level of services that we’ve supported, otherwise we’re all going to see a reduction in our quality of lives and I don’t think that’s something that people want. I do think that people want to make sure that our, that we’re not spending more for that than we absolutely 23 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 necessarily have to and that ultimately means that we need to be good stewards of our public assets, whether those are natural resources. Our financial assets are public property and all the while seeking to balance those demands with the cost of those demands. There are some concerns I have that have been expressed, rightfully so with the budget that’s being proposed here tonight. Not capturing our real growth in the tax base is a concern. I don’t think that’s, I don’t think that’s a sustainable public policy on a long term basis. As we continue to grow there will be more demand, there are more people here and more streets to plow. There’s more need. This city is different than it was 10, 15, 20 years ago just because of the size. So long term I don’t think we can do that. In the near term, given the economic situation we’re in, I think it is justifiable to do so here tonight. This is a change from our policy for a number of years. The net effect of this final budget is going to be a reduction in the city’s property taxes, most likely for every, relative to the preliminary tax statement that people received in the mail. This levy is lower than what the preliminary levy was and as such the city portion of property taxes will be lower when levied next year. We are still looking at, we live in a very desirable community and as such our, the cost to provide those services that are necessary that people want do cost money, but I think if we do it in a prudent or responsible way we can do it in a manner that doesn’t necessarily put us in a position where we’re spending more, and here I’m thinking on a per capita basis. That we’re spending more than other cities and yet we’re enjoying better value for that and I think that goes back to the slide, and Greg if you can pull that up on the key financial cities. We saw this tonight as a council for the first time and this was really predicated out of the questions from the, from the residents in the Truth in Taxation about spending. When I look at this, we know that we live in a great place. Quality of life is I believe second to none. We’ve been nationally recognized for that. When I look down the list of these cities I’m not aware, perhaps there are but I’m not aware of any other city on this list that has a AAA bond rating. For a growing city, for a city, I know there are, if there are only 16 in the state I don’t know that this, that any are included in this list. Can we do more? Yes we can. Have we been doing it all along? Yes we have but I think what this budget does is appropriately, having started out with a preliminary levy that would have maintained taxes limited to real growth, it appropriately reduces it from that given the times. I am very hesitant to get into the discussion and the single line item discussions. We need to look at public policy. As I mentioned, one of the public policies we’re going to look at all the list, all the items suggested. One of the items suggested from the council was to look at the total compensation package for our employees and how does that compare both in terms of wages and benefits. How does that compare to other cities? How does that compare to the private sector? I can tell you that there will be differences between other cities. There will be differences with the private sector. So the key there is what are reasonable policies that we want to establish with regard to compensation for our employees. I am convinced that, well I know. It’s not convinced. I’ve gotten to get to, I’ve gotten to know a number of the employees and the work that they do. Not just personally as individuals. I’ve done that too. That’s enjoyable but really the quality of work that the employees do for us as residents, I am always pleased and impressed with and I think it’s prudent for us to make sure that we provide a fair and reasonable compensation package for them. The budget that’s being proposed I think at this point in time does that. I think it’s prudent upon us to take a look at the entire package going forward next year along with the other components. Is this one that this is not an easy vote to approve but I think it is one that is reasonable and prudent and responsible for the council to approve this budget with the proposed changes I mentioned in the CIP so Greg if you can have that adjusted number yet just in case whoever makes the motion. 24 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 Greg Sticha: I have the number whenever you’re ready for it. Mayor Furlong: …that would correspond and look at a reduction in spending on capital investment along with the reduction in the levy. Any other comments or suggestions or is there a motion that somebody would like to make? Councilwoman Ernst: I’ll make a motion. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: I make the motion that we spend no more than in 2010 which was $7,380,000 in the general fund to include holding wages and health insurance the same as 2010 and to reduce the CIP accordingly. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, could you repeat the motion? Councilwoman Ernst: I make a motion that we spend no more in 2010, which was $7,380,000 in the general fund to include holding wages and health insurance the same as 2010 and to reduce the CIP accordingly. Greg Sticha: I can give you the number in terms of the impact setting the general fund levy to the previous year’s general fund levy. The numbers that you mentioned within the motion in regards to impacting benefits. That one I can’t just calculate right now. We would have to go through and recalculate all of our documents so that number I can’t give you but I can give you the number that would adjust the general fund levy to the previous year’s general fund levy if you just give me a minute. Mayor Furlong: You said spend no more in 2010, is that right? Councilwoman Ernst: Spend no more in, spend no more than we did in 2010. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. I’ll ask for a second to the motion. Is there a second? That motion fails for lack of a second. Would anybody else like to make a motion or comments? Any other motion with regard to the budget? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilman McDonald: If you find that you can’t, I will. Okay I’ll make the motion. Mayor Furlong: Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: I recommend that City Council adopt the following motion. The City Council adopts a resolution establishing the 2011 final levy at $10,267,390 and approves total 25 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 general fund expenditures of $9,617,600. It also approves the CIP for the 2011-2015 in the total amount of, is that correct what’s in there? Greg Sticha: No. The new number as referenced by the mayor’s comments from earlier would be $72,591,531. Councilman McDonald: $72,591,531. Okay. And the total amount of $72,591,531. Councilman Litsey: I’ll second that motion. Mayor Furlong: Motion’s been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Resolution #2010-101: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council adopts a resolution establishing the 2011 final levy at $10,267,390, total general fund expenditures of $9,617,600 and the 2011-2015 CIP in the total amount of $72,591,531. All voted in favor, except for Councilwoman Ernst who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE: CHAPTER 19 CONCERNING UTILITY BILLS AND USER RATES AND CHARGES AND CHAPTER 4 CONCERNING FEES. Greg Sticha: Mayor and City Council. Staff is proposing two changes to two different chapters of city ordinances. I’m going to talk about each of them individually real quick and then I’m going to go over a power point presentation which will compare water rates for 2010 versus 2011 based on two alternatives that were presented to City Council at previous work sessions in regards to the water rates. First Chapter 19 is in regards to amending the city ordinance on, concerning utility billing. There are two items within this ordinance that staff is proposing for change. One is to change the billing process for city utility bills to be sent directly to the property owner and no longer allow for utility bills to be sent to renters of the property. The bills would now only go to the property owner rather than to the renter of the property. The second change would be to allow for monthly utility billing within the City’s utility billing structure. Currently the City’s utility bills are billed quarterly. Staff is proposing a change to allow monthly utility bills to be given to residents who so desire to do so. In order to be able to opt into monthly utility billing the resident would have to sign up for electronic withdrawal out of their checking or savings account and also require the resident to get a electronic copy of the bill each month. Each of these measures are cost savings measures to the city. So that’s what Chapter 19’s changes are in regards to. Chapter 4’s changes is ordinance in regards to amending City Code in terms of water, sewer and storm water rates. As we spoke at previous meetings staff’s proposal has been to, in terms of rates for connection charges, storm water fees, sewer fees and water fees is to go with a zero percent increase on all of those fees for 2011. The one I guess modification from that in staff’s proposal is to add a fifth tier to the water usage rate. Currently the city has 4 tiers for water usage rates and staff’s proposal is to add a fifth tier and I’m going to go through a power point that will kind of break down the impact of adding that fifth tier to a utility customer in the city will have on five various levels of users and the other proposal that we researched, along with our financial advisors was to maintain the four current 26 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 rates and increase each of those rates 3%. Each option would net the City about an extra $150,000 in revenue per year for water collections within the water fund. So first I’m going to go through a winter quarter bill and how it compares in each of the tiers from the 2010 actual adding a fifth tier, which is staff’s proposal and keeping the current tiers system in place which is 3%. Each of these changes takes into account the minor modifications we made within the tiers to allow for monthly billing. We adjusted some of the tiers slightly to allow for our utility billing system to generate a monthly bill rather than a quarterly bill. As you can see in the lowest tier somebody consuming just 5,000 gallons in the winter, either in the fifth tier proposal or the current tier proposal of 3%, the impact to that user is somewhat minimal. Each of these tiers kind of goes across the board. You can see tiers 2 and 3 and 4 are users in the 20,000, 39,000 and 68,000. These are average users within each of those ranges and the impact that each of the proposals would have on their water bill for each of those ranges. The next slide shows the difference between each of those so as you can see the $10 to the $10.01 would be a 1 cent increase in that tier, so this slide shows the increase for each of those levels. Between each of the options. Then taking a look at a more typical summer quarter bill. Again having each of the five tiers represented at 5,000, 23, 46 and then the fourth tier a more typical bill in the fourth tier would be around 95,000 gallons and in the fifth tier a more typical bill would be about 163,000 gallons per quarter and the impacts that each of the proposals would have on each of those bills in each of those tiers. And this slide shows the difference between each of them from the previous slide and the impact on them. You’ll notice the largest or most significant increase is in the fifth tier that staff is proposing to add, and as we’ve had at previous discussions with council the intention behind I guess the fifth tier has been to afford those residents that wish to have or consume that much water, they’re the ones that typically are driving the cost behind the infrastructure to provide water at those peak demand times and so staff’s proposal is to allow them the ability to use that water but also to make them pay for that additional infrastructure that we need to produce that high peak demand time water usage. The other changes that we discussed previously, again the rental property change in billing. Having the bill sent to the property owners. We’re going to phase that out rather than change it immediately as of January st 1. Current property owners will still get their utility bill from the City. As those renters change hands the new bills will be sent to the property owners only. On monthly billing, again as I discussed earlier, there’s an option for residents to receive monthly bills. Some residents have expressed an interest in that versus quarterly. It helps them budget their incomes as well, and then lastly we haven’t talked about but we’ve already begun the process of redistricting the city for utility billing. In an effort to get more of our resident’s bills geographically located in similar districts and avoid a disproportionate amount of utility bills in one district, we’ve redistricted the city for it’s future growth impact so the new districts will now take into account any new growth that we have will be in, will also be included in those districts. Therefore avoiding a particular district that might for example have 40% of the accounts in it versus another district that might only have 20%. Those notices have already gone out in the mail. Whether or not, whether which option we would approve this evening really has no impact on the redistricting. It’s something that administratively needed to be done at some point anyway going forward into the future as the city grows. Otherwise we would have been left with a number of districts that has a disproportionate amount of utility bills in it versus some of the other districts. So I’d be happy to answer any questions about staff’s proposal for the water rates or the storm water, sewer or the billing changes that I discussed in Chapter 19. 27 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff on these items? The, if you could go back to the comparison Mr. Sticha. Greg Sticha: Winter or summer quarter? Mayor Furlong: Let’s go to summer because that’s the one where it is driving it. When we received a presentation from a representative from Ehlers and Associates who we used to assist us in developing the rate study, one of the components that was brought up was the need for continual investment in the infrastructure. In the distribution system for our water system and demand that is placed on that system by our summer use. Whether this is a question for you or Mr. Oehme, our City Engineer but these two different proposals here, they raise, financially they raise about the same amount of money for funding our water utility, correct? Greg Sticha: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: So it’s just a question of who pays for that funding source. Greg Sticha: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme if you’ve got just a second. The demand on our distribution system, our water distribution system based upon summertime watering and usage, if you could tell us a little bit about that and what the impacts would be of not seeking to fund those capital improvements. Paul Oehme: Sure. Well the main issue is making sure we’re meeting those peak demand periods. You know right now we see typically a 5%, 5 times as much water use on a winter basis versus a, or winter basis versus a summer peak demand period so there is a significant amount of infrastructure and capital cost. Chemicals to treat the water properly. Distribution of power to generate those pumps to get the water into the system so there is a huge capital cost when you compare it to our lower rates or what we typically use in winter months versus what we use in the summer months. The point that we’re trying to make here is that, that 5 times the amount of what we use in the winter months versus the summer months, those higher irrigating users typically that’s what we’re seeing in the summer months is that the irrigation systems driving those capital costs and those expenditures. We’re trying to distribute the cost for those users equitably. If you’re using the water, we feel that user should be paying for that usage so you know if we’re not budgeting and making the capital investments to meet those higher demand periods, you know we’re going to be falling short potentially so that means restrictions during the summer months. Potentially doing something else to try to limit the amount of water we’re using during the summer months. Shutting off water. I don’t know, there’s a number of things we could potentially look at but you know we’re not trying to limit the amount of water, you know property owners are wanting, if they want to irrigate, you know we encourage that to make their lawns you know look nice. But we’re just looking at it from a financial standpoint and the cost of distribution standpoint that you know if you’re using the water, those are the property owners that really should be paying for it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. 28 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Oehme, can you guarantee that we’re going to see grass by July 1? Paul Oehme: I hope. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff on this? Comments. Discussion points on the proposals before us this evening. Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: You know we had this before us at the work session. A lot of questions were asked and answered at that point. One of the questions that I bring up deals with conservation of water. I know that water is going to be a problem into the future. I’m not in favor at this point of limiting anyone’s ability to you know put water on their lawn but by the same token that is costing the City money and I’m basically in favor of going to the five tier system because I think that gives us the advantage to implement in the future as things maybe get a little bit more difficult, some conservation at a little finer detail than just trying to hit everybody with cost but I am convinced that yeah, water is going to be one of our next big crisis that we’re going to have to handle so I’m satisfied that going to the five tier system will address those issues, or at least it puts into play the tools to address those issues so I’m in favor of doing this. It currently, as I understand it, it will hold the first three tiers at no increase for 3 years I believe and I think that’s fair to those users. The users that again are irrigating, that’s fine. Go ahead but again you need to pay for the cost of doing that. So that’s kind of where I’m at on this. That’s the only comment I’m going to make. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments. Councilman Litsey. Councilman Litsey: I’m willing to support the fifth tier proposal because I think we do need it for the infrastructure and I think it’s important to stay ahead of the game. We had some issues a couple years back here and we were able to get through them because we had enough funding in place just to do that. I would like to see in the future a closer look at conservation too because there is a limited amount of, it’s a resource and there’s a limited amount of it available so you can say we’ll make the people that use it pay for it but at some point there’s not going to be enough water to even go with that kind of concept so I think the Chanhassen Villager did a real service by putting an editorial in the paper talking about that. I personally would like to see, and I know it’s not going to happen tonight and I’ll support the proposal because it’s needed but I would like to see a tightening of the ordinances some so that there was banning of lawn irrigation during the day, and I really think it’d be helpful to have year round watering restrictions. Perhaps maybe not this coming spring with the massive amount of snow but I think we also have to look at conservation because you can say on one hand, well yeah people that use it pay for it, but we all share in this resource and you know we’ve had some people come in and talk to us about the, you know the availability from the certain aquifers and so forth and how much is left and how long that will last and so I just hope that in the future, as I leave the council, that the council at least take a look at looking at some of those conservation measures as well. But I will support what’s on the table tonight. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments. Discussion. Councilwoman Ernst. 29 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 Councilwoman Ernst: Well as I expressed in the work session, I don’t support the fifth tier and I think we need to look at separating our infrastructure from our usage and once we can do that we can find a more sustainable cost, but right now these costs are so variable with combining the infrastructure with the usage and I believe we need to take a look at that and how can we break that out. Connection fees versus usage. And the infrastructure related to the connection fees. Mayor Furlong: By connection fees you’re referring to new growth and development? Councilwoman Ernst: (Yes). Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Any other comments? Discussion. This is, conducting the utility rate study is something that we have been doing, well I think probably about 6-7 years ago when we looked at adding the water treatment facility. Recognizing that major investment that we needed to do into our city to improve the water quality of our potable water. Drinking water. And at that time there was policy decisions made with regard to how to fund the improvements. Rather than just conduct that study and then stop there, one of the things that this council has done is annually look at these rates in conjunction with needed investments in our distribution system, whether it’s the pumps. Or excuse me, the pumps. Wells. The watermains. The maintenance and replacement of old watermains as well as expansion of water towers and other aspects to make sure that we have a system that can support the demand going forward. In conjunction with that, so that gives us a good financial plan but also we recognize that back in 2007 when we were going through a significant drought and a couple of our wells went out on us, we recognize too that there was a water conservation aspect as well. Not just financial. Some of these costs may change habits. They may not but we worked towards developing it with the help of our Environmental Commission and staff developed the Water Wise program that focuses significantly on irrigation and that’s ultimately where the water usage takes place, as Mr. Oehme talked about. And so to the extent that there are opportunities for individual property owners to reduce their use and still maintain their water at the level that they want to, we, I think everybody up here would encourage them to do so. That just makes sense. It’s just being good stewards individually and as a city publicly for our natural resources. I do think from a rate study standpoint and the proposed changes in billing structure, that we have an opportunity to create some efficiencies in our administrative process, but also that we better match the cost of the services being provided to those creating the demand for those services. That’s something that we’ve tried to do time and time again as we look at providing services. Public services and I think adding the fifth tier does that. It is a method for again better matching the benefit, the cost with the benefit. So I’m supportive of it and I think it’s, I appreciate staff and our advisors bringing it forward as an alternative to think about because for the vast majority of people we can keep the rates flat and still fund the demand that’s being created by those that are irrigating at the higher levels so I would propose and support the council moving forward with the resolution that supports the fifth tier. Any other questions or comments on this? Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: I have a question, kind of a point of order. With the way the proposal is put together, how is the fifth tier structured into this because it’s not really in the ordinance. All that does is, unless I’m misreading it. 30 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 Greg Sticha: The fifth tier is added in the attached amended ordinance. If you see the, it’s under water and it’s the bolded line. 99,001 plus gallons per quarter. That’s essentially the fifth tier. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is that clarifying? Any other questions or discussion? If not, would somebody like to make a motion? Councilman Litsey: I’d like to pass the honor to Mr. Litsey since this could be the last. Mayor Furlong: Well we still have to adjourn. I mean that one’s, but that’s fine. I’ll recognize Councilman Litsey. Councilman Litsey: At least maybe get a majority. So 5(a), right. We’ll start with that. I make a motion that the council adopts the attached ordinance amending Chapter 19 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning utility billing. Do you want to do these together or separated? Mayor Furlong: Together I guess. Councilman Litsey: Together, okay. And also adopts the attached ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code as discussed here. That okay? Councilman McDonald: Yep. I’ll second. Mayor Furlong: Mr. McDonald seconds that. Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Litsey moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the Chanhassen City Council adopts the attached ordinances amending Chapter 19 concerning Utility Billing and Chapter 4 concerning Utility Rates. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Ernst who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF CITY MANAGER’S PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Were you ready to take council presentations? Mayor Furlong: Yes I am. Council presentations. Councilwoman Tjornhom: We just gave Councilman Litsey his Maple Leaf award and usually after that we can sometimes give a little feedback or a little goodbye and so I’d like to just Bryan, this budget process has been interesting because I think in the 4 years we’ve done it together, this is the first time we haven’t fought, you know. And I want to say that it wasn’t a bad thing. You know being challenged is sometimes a good thing. You offered up ideas that I didn’t necessarily always agree with but still I respected them and I respected you for how passionate you felt about what you were fighting for and I think that this council will miss that. You know we will miss your insight and we’ll miss the fact that you really enjoyed being on this council. You 31 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 know you were here to serve the people and I just want to thank you. And I mean that sincerely. Thank you for your 4 years and for what you taught me so I wish you luck professor in your next endeavor. Councilman Litsey: I’ll need luck with that. Councilwoman Ernst: I have some comments I’d like to make as well. Mayor Furlong: Sure. We’ll go to Councilwoman Ernst and then Councilman McDonald. Councilwoman Ernst: Bryan, you and I have had many disagreements over the past 4 years. We’ve agreed to disagree and the funny thing about it is after we would have our confrontational disagreements we could have these discussions afterwards and laugh and still have a relationship and I want to thank you for those discussions and those times. I’m going to miss that here and I want to thank you for serving here on the council and I want to thank you for serving as Chief of Police in your public service position and I wish you the best of luck and thank you for everything. Councilman Litsey: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Well I was going to save my speeches for Councilman Litsey for later over a piece of cake but I do just kind of want to second everything everybody has said. You know I have enjoyed being on the council with you, even though at times we probably fundamentally do not agree over some things but who knows you may be changing and coming more our way so. Councilman Litsey: It only took 4 years. Councilman McDonald: It only took 4 years but you know if we get just a little bit I’d be happy with that but the other thing that I did want to bring up is that Clark Horn died over the weekend and he’s a former City Council member. He’s also very prominent within the Rotary for a number of years and I just kind of wanted to recognize his service and you know the things that we did for this city, the community and for this council. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Well said about former Councilmember Clark Horn and about current, soon to be former member Councilman Litsey. Bryan, we’ll focus on the areas of agreement because everyone wants to go home at some point but I think the key component is, and where you really need to be proud and where I’m proud having served with you is your passion for doing the right thing for the right reasons and making this city an even better place for all of us to raise our families and to live and work and I think there was never a doubt in my mind that your goal and objective was to do just that and that’s to make Chanhassen an even better place for all of us and on that we do agree. Councilman Litsey: Yes. 32 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 Mayor Furlong: And for that I thank you. You should be proud of your service to Chanhassen on the City Council and we thank you for your leadership and all of us wish you the best in your next endeavors as well. Councilman Litsey: I appreciate that. I didn’t think I’d get emotional but I’m getting a little teary eyed so I do appreciate the nice comments and as you stated we haven’t always agreed on everything but I too have always had, I know that everybody on this council has the best interest of the city in mind and is doing it for the right reasons and I’ve learned a lot. I think I’ve, maybe it took me a while at times but you can be passionate but yet there’s a way to try to bring consensus together and I take away from this a lot of good things so thank you all and I know that the City’s going to be in great hands moving forward. There’s going to be some continuity because this could be basically the same council with Denny joining in and I’m sure he’ll do a great job too so thank you for the honor to serve from the residents and for putting up with me for the last 4 years. Mayor Furlong: Sounds fine. I do want to also make a verbal announcement regarding the activities that the City Council has been involved with in executive session. City Council went into executive session, by that I mean it was not an open meeting to the public the purpose of which was to discuss our city manager’s performance and compensation. The City Council met th in executive session on December 6 and again earlier this evening and I’d like to share with the public a summary of those discussions. Mr. Gerhardt’s performance this year was ranked exceptional by the City Council. This rating recognizes that Mr. Gerhardt’s performance during this last year, 2010 was one that consistently achieved the highest level of performance in his duties and often went above and beyond anyone’s expectations. He accomplished many of his personal goals, those of the City Council and together with the City Council and his staff coordinated and executed a number of strategic initiatives for our city. Some of the major accomplishments this year include a completion of the new public works building, which was built on time, under budget along with various street and utility improvement projects that will improve our city’s public services and infrastructure and lake quality for years to come. Working actively to promote economic development within the city through changes in our City Code as well as activities such as the working together program that develops relationships between our city government and local business leaders. Continuing to improve the City’s financial position, planning process and outlook. In spite of the difficult economic and financial times in which we’ve operated, this position remains strong as exemplified by Standard and Poor’s reaffirmation of it’s AAA bond rating. A level that is only enjoyed by those most financially strong and operationally sound cities in the state and across the country. Working closely and effectively with other government organizations such as the School Districts 112, 276 and Carver County and other cities. This is probably best exemplified by having the City initiate and lead the coordinated bidding process among multiple cities for our annual sealcoating projects on our streets. This reduced the City’s cost without sacrificing quality or quantity of our road maintenance system and indirect benefit as it improved the financial situation and ability of our neighboring cities to provide services for their residents. Working closely and building relationships with our citizens. Prioritizing a philosophy of customer service by listening to issues raised and seeking solutions for the benefit of all. All told the City’s accomplishments in 2010 under Mr. Gerhardt’s directions were numerous. Each is built upon the many successes 33 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 that we have seen in our city over the years. Mr. Gerhardt’s service as a city manager these last 9 plus years is one of the many reasons that Chanhassen has become nationally known as a great place to live, work and raise a family. In consideration of his performance the City Council discussed with Mr. Gerhardt his compensation package. Notwithstanding his exceptional performance and in consideration of our current economic and financial conditions, in conjunction with the anticipated budget that was passed earlier this evening, there will be no changes to Mr. Gerhardt’s compensation package in the coming year. At this time I’d like to extend an invitation to other council members to share any comments that you might have with Mr. Gerhardt regarding his performance as city manager this year. Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: Todd, thank you. Had a great review and we talked about a number of different things. I want to say that I cannot express my appreciation enough and my respect for you for having the conversation prior to the work session tonight about the compensation and so for that, that shows just what a great leader you are and the compromises that you’re willing to make and so thank you for that. Todd Gerhardt: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Others? Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I guess maybe because Bryan’s leaving or something we’ve become reflective of the past 4 years and I guess the past 6 years. I don’t think I’ve ever had a bad thing to say about our city manager and that’s a good thing. You know I’m proud that you are representing Chanhassen. I’m proud to live here and I think it’s you and your staff that are, or at least play a big part in people feeling that way and so Todd it’s your direction and it’s your leadership and your strength and you know I always say, he’ll get it done no matter what it is. I never worry because Todd will take care of it, and he does and so I want to thank you for being that strong city leader that we need so thank you Todd. Todd Gerhardt: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: You know there’s not a whole lot I can really add to that. Yeah, I think I said it all as we went through the performance review itself. You know leadership starts at the top. I think you provide an excellent example for staff that’s reflected in the way that they work and treat other people. I believe that everyone gets treated with dignity that comes before the city. As we said earlier everyone’s not going to agree with the decisions that come out of it but as long as they were treated with respect and dignity, I think at that point you’ve received your fair process so thanks Todd for doing a good job and as I said, when you stop answering your own phone then we’ll know we’re in trouble so I think we’re in good hands. Thanks. Councilman Litsey: Yeah I’m glad that one of my last official acts is to recognize Todd because you have done just a tremendous job during my 4 years as the city manager. Your leadership truly shows. You lead by example. You’re inspiring to staff. You’ve assembled a great team. I mean all the department heads do a terrific, just a great job and as well as other staff. Obviously 34 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 other people that aren’t in such high profile positions but also do their job day in and day out. I think Mayor Furlong summed it up best earlier about how just what a great staff we have overall and it’s due a lot in part to your leadership so you have a high standard here to maintain but, and I wish times were better because you truly deserve additional compensation and your willingness to forego that too for another year also shows to your character and leadership so it’s, I’m going to miss working with such a talented group of people. I’ll still watch you occasionally on TV but, and not show up too much to get in the way but thank you for all you do so you deserve all these comments. You’ve just done a great job and to everybody. The whole city. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt. Todd Gerhardt: Again I’ve got a talented staff. You know it’s a pleasure working with them. Somewhere along the line we have some fun. Mayor Furlong: Got cake. Todd Gerhardt: We got cake. Bethany wanted cake tonight so. Councilman Litsey: Thank you Bethany. I know how you feel about cake. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know if I were. Todd Gerhardt: No, we have to save the face for Josh so, but you know I want to thank Bryan for his leadership these past 4 years. I don’t know what meetings you’ve been at but I haven’t heard of any disagreements or fighting or whatever you have said. Mayor Furlong: Why did he get such a good rating as city manager? Councilwoman Tjornhom: That wasn’t a category. Mayor Furlong: That wasn’t a category? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Paying attention. Councilman Litsey: Notice he waited until after he got rated. Todd Gerhardt: But if you want to see fights or arguments you should come to our Tuesday staff meetings. Those will set you back but you know what a great team I have. Not just the staff but council. We don’t all have to agree. We challenge each other and that’s what makes this community better. I can tell you talking to my peers that I’m glad I’m sitting here and not someplace else. Financially but just because of the people that I get to work with, especially Laurie Hokkanen. She makes sweeping changes when I’m gone that makes this place great. You know we all seem to help each other. When somebody’s down, somebody else picks somebody else up and they work together and they communicate and that’s the key thing. There’s different forms of communication and that’s how we challenge each other and thank you. This is a great community. It’s special. Even with all the snow, it’s a beautiful community 35 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 so thank you for the great review and I look forward to working with Denny next year to be a part of the team and accomplish more next year and the years to come and make sure that this city maintains it’s high standards. I just know that the staff is up to that challenge. And thank you for recognizing their efforts too. It’s appreciated because they do work hard. One of the things they did this past week, especially the public works guys spent 18 hours out making sure our roads are travelable and I would also like to reflect a little bit on Clark Horn who was on the City Council when I was first hired here in 1986. Clark has been a big supporter of mine during his time on the council and then as Chairman of the HRA and Clark is going to be missed by many. He was a very bright man and provided a lot of leadership when we were starting to redevelop the downtown and through that leadership we get to see the benefits of it today so he’s going to be missed. That’s all I have. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. It’s just as some quick comments. You talk about, we’ve talked about Todd and his involvement but the staff too. I can’t help but as these comments are th taking place think about the 50 anniversary chamber event that we, the luncheon that we had a few weeks ago and the number of people that were there that talked about the great relationship they had with the City, and specifically weren’t talking about the City as an organization but the City as a people and those people include Todd. They include Kate and Todd and all the people that have been around for years and years and it’s a credit to all of you to be able to work your passion for serving other people. Todd, we appreciate all that you do. You know that. We’ve talked about that. I think that should be clear but clearly there is a dedication and passion within the employees of this city that is I believe second to none in terms of what they do. There have been a number of examples. Some recently where it’s just in people’s hearts to help other people and even if it doesn’t turn out the way you might expect it would at the time, know that everybody needs to know that their efforts are appreciated and so, and that’s I think Todd as we’ve talked about you know when it’s inbred to help other people it’s hard to say no, but we’ve got great people in this city. Not just all our residents. That’s part of being in these positions. I think all of you would agree is the number of good people we get to meet but we have good people serving us every single day as well and so as we end our year here with this council meeting, there may be a few more comments but I want to make sure it’s on the record that, for myself, and I know I speak for the rest of the council, that we sincerely appreciate everyone’s efforts day in and day out to make Chanhassen such a great place for all of us to call home. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: Administrative presentations, anything you want to share with us? Todd Gerhardt: Snowplowing went well. The guys did spend quite a bit of time out there. About 18 hours and slight property damage to a couple street signs and a couple mailboxes. No vehicles were damaged and the guys did a great job of keeping the fleet going. No major down time for any of our drivers so they were constantly on the road so, you know for that type of event the guys did a fantastic job and appreciate their effort out there. It’s a challenge. When you have white out conditions and you’re in that truck and you’re pushing snow and then you’ve got blowing snow, the only thing you can really go on is the feel of that curb once in a while so, they do a great job. 36 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 Councilman Litsey: Yeah, it was a great job cleaning up. I don’t know where you’re going to put the snow after this but. Todd Gerhardt: Hopefully it goes back in the ground. Mayor Furlong: Infiltration. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? No? CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 37