Loading...
CC Minutes 2000 08 14CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 14, 2000 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Labatt, Councilwoman Jansen, and Councilman Senn COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Engel STAFF PRESENT: Roger Knutson, Teresa Burgess, Bob Generous and Todd Gerhardt. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution #2000-$9: Approve Plans & Specifications and Authorize Advertising for bids for Crestview Circle Street and Utility Improvements, Project 00-05. b. Request for Damages due to Sewer Back-up, 695 Pleasant View Road, Tom Meier, File PW05 lA. c. Resolution #2000-60: Approve Resolution Appointing Election Judges and Establishing Rates of Pay, as amended to include the attached updated list. d. Appointment to the Environmental Commission, Peder Otterson. e. Resolution #2000-61: Approve Resolution Authorizing Request for Additional Pooling Authority. f. Approval of Bills. h. Approve Certificate of Compliance, McGlynn Park 2nd Addition, Project 95-1. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mayor Mancino: Now we've pulled l(g) for approval of City Council minutes. Councilwoman Jansen, I think we wanted to amend some? Councilwoman Jansen: Well and actually specifically I would like to call for a separate vote if we could between the work session minutes and the regular City Council minutes and receiving the commission minutes. My reason being the work session minutes that we've been presented are all of the back dated City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 minutes from the year, which I appreciate that staff went back and made sure that we do have those summary minutes but I'm not comfortable going clear back to the beginning of the year and just giving a blanket approval. I for one did not have an opportunity to take those minutes and really do a comparison to my own notes and though I trust that staff has recorded what they heard and that's not my issue. It's that I, on two occasions now in backing up to check minutes went to do a comparison and I was at least unaware of the direction that staff had heard, or I had a different interpretation. So not to belabor this, I would just like to pull the work session minutes for a separate vote. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Can I have a motion then on the rest of the work session minutes please. Councilman Labatt: Motion to approve the regular minutes and receive the commission minutes. Councilman Senn: Second. Mayor Mancino: We're also pulling the July 24, 2000 and amending them next week. Is that okay to add as part of this? Councilman Labatt: Sure. Councilman Senn: No, no, but that's the work session. So that's in the item above. It was just the work session meeting minutes from the 24th that we're, are being pulled. Mayor Mancino: Yes, exactly. Councilman Senn: So we're not voting on that right now. Councilwoman Jansen: Motion is for the regular and for the commission. Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. Thank you very much. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the City Council Minutes for the meeting dated July 24, 2000 as presented and to receive the Commission Minutes for the Planning Commission meeting dated July 18, 2000 and August 1, 2000. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mancino: Then may I have a motion for the work session minutes please. Councilman Senn: Move approval of work session minutes with pulling the 24th work session minutes for later approval after they're amended. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and may I have a second please. Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the following work session Minutes as presented: January 3, 2000; January 31, 2000; February 7, 2000; March 6, 2000; March 20, 2000; April 3, 2000; April 17, 2000; May 1, 2000; and May 15, 2000. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Jansen who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION BY CHANHASSEN/CHASKA SOCCER CLUB. Mayor Mancino: Nice to see you Joe. Joe Scott: Thank you very much. Joe Scott at 7091 Pimlico Lane. What we'd like to do is we'd like to present this really cool aerial photograph of the Bandimere Soccer complex to you and the city and certainly Mr. Hoffman and it says, thanks for your support and cooperation in developing the Bandimere Soccer Complex from the Chan/Chaska Soccer Club dated August 1, 2000. And it's signed by the current Board members so it's a very cool facility. We're very excited about it and hang it in good health. Mayor Mancino: Can we all come forward and shake everyone's hands? (The City Council went forward and shook the hands of the representations of the Chanhassen/Chaska Soccer Club at this point.) Mayor Mancino: Anyone else here tonight wishing to address the Council? Please come forward. Dan Pfeiffer: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Dan Pfeiffer. I live at 1950 Bluff View Court and I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question or two of you this evening regarding the new library, or the referendum for a new library. It's a concept that I'm very much behind and support and want to take a little more proactive community action with helping the library become a reality for Chanhassen. I've been talking to Jill Shipley and getting some more insights into the project and one of the questions that I have. I understand a site has not been selected yet for the library so I guess one of the questions I have is, does the City have a preference for a site at this point? If not, is there a time frame for making a decision on a site? And if an existing city site isn't chosen, what's the plan after that and will you be looking to go purchase a site and if so, have those costs been outlined? I'm, as I said, interested in getting active in this, in support of this library. I feel a little uncomfortable going to my neighbors however without all of the information in terms of costs. Those are the questions I have. Mayor Mancino: Dan, all of that we have tried to answer pretty much in a brochure that will be coming out and you'll be getting I want to say in the next week from the city that answers a lot of your questions. And what the process is and when there is a consensus from the Council on the site in this area. Exactly where in this area it will be has not been decided and will be during the design process after the referendum, etc. Dan Pfeiffer: So a site won't be chosen until after the referendum? Mayor Mancino: Until after the referendum. Dan Pfeiffer: Will that be a city site that's already owned by the City? Mayor Mancino: That will be decided after the referendum but I would say with the dollars that we have, it will probably be land that the City already has. Dan Pfeiffer: Okay. That's just one of my, I'm a little uncomfortable ifa site has to be procured, it could add dramatically obviously to the cost of a facility so. City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Mayor Mancino: And with the amount of money that we are putting in the referendum, $6 million, actually covers what the size of the building should be. Dan Pfeiffer: Right. Mayor Mancino: The square footage and it doesn't cover. Dan Pfeiffer: It doesn't cover site costs, is my understanding is it, okay. I just wanted to confirm that. Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Dan Pfeiffer: When will that be coming out, that information? Mayor Mancino: I think this week. It's going to be mailed. It's at the printers. Was at the printers on Friday or whenever we got an e-mail from our city manager that it was going to go directly to the printers I think on Friday. So it should be. Dan Pfeiffer: And that details the process as you mentioned, I'm sorry to interrupt. That details the process and not a site as you mentioned which will be decided after the referendum. Mayor Mancino: It answers a lot of questions that you may have right now. I mean I could certainly call you and let you know about all the questions that it answers that you may have about how much the county participates with us. And what they do. I mean there's just a lot of description in the brochure that will tell you about the library, and if you have any more questions that you don't feel that it does answer, there is some copy in the brochure that tells you who to contact if you have more questions. Dan Pfeiffer: Let me just add one last question if I could. When are you looking to make that decision then? Let's say the referendum passes on the 12th, as we hope it does. Will the decision be made sooner after or? Mayor Mancino: What decision? Dan Pfeiffer: The decision on a site. Mayor Mancino: Oh. Then we'll go through the design process. And I'm sure that during that process we'll have a lot of community input for exactly where, very site specific. Not only the site but where on the site it does. That will all be taken care of during the design process which the entire community will be asked to participate in. Dan Pfeiffer: Okay. Thank you very much. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Anyone else? Debbie Lloyd: I didn't know if there would be an opportunity to ask a question tonight and I really don't know if this is the correct forum to ask it. City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Mayor Mancino: And I may not be able to answer it tonight. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. I'm going to ask it because I don't want to bring it up tomorrow night at the Planning Commission. I prefer to ask it tonight or in advance if I could. So in the Chanhassen City Code it says that amendments to the code must be brought forward by the Council, the Planning Commission or a petition of the property owner. Is there anyone else in the city that has the right to bring it forward? Mayor Mancino: I asked that legal question to our attorney Roger Knutson. Councilman Senn: Could we get a name and address and stuff? Mayor Mancino: Yeah could, I'm sorry. Debbie Lloyd: Sure. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. Mayor Mancino: Does this have to do Debbie with the Igel? Debbie Lloyd: No it does not. It has to do with amendments being proposed tomorrow night. They're on the agenda for tomorrow night. Mayor Mancino: At the Planning Commission, and I don't know what those are. Roger Knutson: Amendments can be initiated by those groups or the planning staff. Debbie Lloyd: I'm sorry? Roger Knutson: Those groups or the planning staff. Debbie Lloyd: Yes, it is initiated by Kate and they're for zoning amendments. Roger Knutson: Yes, the planning staff can do that as well. Debbie Lloyd: The planning staff can do that? Roger Knutson: That's taken right out of Chapter 462 of the Statutes. It lists who can do it. Debbie Lloyd: 462? Roger Knutson: 462. Debbie Lloyd: Okay, thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Roger. He kind of did that on the spot so check it if there's anything else. Roger Knutson: I'm very familiar with it. City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Okay. Okay. I just hate to put you on the spot like that. The Statutes are that thick. Anyone else? Okay, we'll move forward. PUBLIC HEARING: PUBLIC HEARING AND AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BC-7 AND BC-8 TRUNK SANITARY SEWER AND LATERAL WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 00-01. Teresa Burgess: Thank you Madam Mayor and council members. Tonight is the time set for the public hearing on the BC-7 and BC-8 trunk sanitary sewer and lateral watermain improvements. I've just been informed that it does require a 4/5 vote for us to get authorization for plans and specs approval so if any of the council members after discussion feel that they would like to vote against it, I would ask that we pull that portion and wait until we do have all 5 members present. This evening I do have the consultants here. Mr. Phillip Gravel from Bonestroo to do a presentation on the information. There is a typo in your staff report. If you'll notice the table at the end that has the city sewer and water funds listed as $476,900. That should be $91,160 so that the amount works appropriately. Mayor Mancino: It should be how much? $496? Teresa Burgess: It should be $91,160 for the city sewer and water utility funds. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Teresa Burgess: And I'll mm it over to Phil for his presentation. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Phil Gravel: Thank you Teresa. Good evening. I'm Phil Gravel from Bonestroo and Associates Engineering. As Teresa mentioned, this is a public hearing for the feasibility report for the, what we call the BC-7 and BC-8 sewer service areas. This report is the results of the petition from some of the property owners in the area. Some of the larger ones and it was authorized by the council last March and we began work on it in May. What I'll do now is go over some of the proposed improvements. The costs. The assessments from some of the revenue and then the schedule and then we can open up to questions and answers from the public. The area to be served is shown in this drawing.., computer enhanced photo or a video like the Y did but this will have to do. I think everyone's pretty familiar with the area. It's the area north of Highway 5 and either side of the intersection of 41 and 5. The major components of the project is a sanitary sewer. The sanitary sewer will be extended from Galpin Boulevard. This project has been, we've attempted to coordinate this with project 97-6, which is the north frontage road project. The sewer will be extended from a sewer stub that will be provided as a part of that project. It will follow the low area that follows kind of the Bluff Creek area, and eventually it will go under Highway 41 and further westward. Now off of this line future extensions could also be made to go as far west as Lake Minnewashta and north into the some of the area west of 41 that currently doesn't have sewer service. This alignment shown obviously will have to be refined during some of the final design process. Dave Hempel got a call today from Mr. Olson about sewer service to their property and I think one thing that would be looked at during final design might be to keep the sewer on the east side of 41 and go north before it goes westward to be able to service that property so things like that can be worked out during the final design process. The other component to the improvements is watermain. This isn't as much as the sewer but it's pretty important. The watermain shown here highlighted in yellow is meant to tie in with watermain that's existing and again watermain from the 97-6 project, the frontage road project. This particular watermain City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 along Highway 41 will provide a much needed loop that we've talked about for a number of years and needed and it will provide a loop once the Century Boulevard watermain gets in with the new water tower. And ifI live long enough I'd like to see the final loop completed. That would be a future project on the south side of Lake Minnewashta that's been discussed for several years. It's just shown roughly in dash here as a south Minnewashta loop. Of the lake. Currently the west side of the lake has a service that goes around the north side of the lake. That's how the water's fed there but it's always been discussed that there's a need for a second source for that area. This south loop would provide that second source. One other thing I wanted to mention with the watermain in particular is the alignment for both the water and the sewer west of 41 certainly will be revised from what's shown on these drawings once the church has a better plan of their layout. Both the sewer and water can be adjusted to facilitate their layout a little better so what we've shown here is just a guess as to what might fit in with their situation. The estimated cost for all this work and, or in Teresa's memo is $1,285,800. Those costs will be assessed to the adjacent properties, or properties in the area. Again this format tried to coincide with what was done on the 97-6 project. The people in this area were notified about tonight's hearing. A couple of things that you might want to know about the proposed assessments for this project in particular. As with past practice, those large acre residential homes are proposed to be assessed per one unit at this time. Even if they have a larger acreage we would just propose to assess them one unit and then if they ever develop they could pay that remaining units at that time. Similarly, and this is a little bit different from anything I've done here in the past is, the property that the University owns on the intersection and the property that the Campfire Girls own, in the preliminary assessment roll, those are only proposed to be assessed for one unit at this time as well. The thought being if they do develop in the future they'd pay the remaining units at that time. Councilman Senn: Phil, just a quick question. Phil Gravel: Sure. Councilman Senn: In terms of, is the normal formula one unit per residential or commercial use or structure or whatever or? Phil Gravel: The normal formula is based on land use and it's like 4 units per acre for single family residential and it goes up from there. Councilman Senn: 4 per acre for single family and what about for commercial and that sort of thing? Phil Gravel: Multiple, it's in the report. Multiple, it goes up to 6 and commercial is, it's on page 8 of the report if you have it around, but commercial is 4 units per acre. I'm sorry, single family is 2 units per acre and high density is up to 6 units per acre. Now one other aside on that. Inevitably it ends up being more dense than that. That's what you charge at this time and then when they come in with a plat or development, the city staff will calculate actually how many lots there are for residential development or how many equivalent units for a commercial development and they pay the remainder at that time. This is a minimum charge, the 2 or the 4 or 6 units per acre is a minimum charge. Councilman Senn: We don't have that report. Mayor Mancino: We don't have that report with us. Councilman Senn: So why don't you run through that real quick just so we've got a benchmark. City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Phil Gravel: Sure. I think it was handed out to you at your July... Teresa Burgess: That report was handed out on the July 24th meeting. Phil Gravel: But that's okay. I can actually probably get it up on your screen if you can get your screen to work. Councilman Senn: I'll just have to look long distance. Phil Gravel: And Mark, I think you remember seeing this table a few times. Councilman Senn: Probably have, but that's why I just wondered if it had changed at all. Phil Gravel: It hasn't changed. It's, this table at the bottom of the page shows the number of, the minimum residential equivalent units per land site and that's what the report is based on. Mayor Mancino: And Phil, you just said it was the minimum is 2 units for residential. Phil Gravel: 2 units per acre. Mayor Mancino: Per acre. Phil Gravel: For single family residential property. Mayor Mancino: But we're only doing it one unit? Teresa Burgess: That is based on past city practice. We have done that in the past. Phil Gravel: That's not for the large, not for the Puke development or the other developments. That's for the large estate lots. There's about a half a dozen properties in the assessable area that are not even large. Some of them are just an acre and a half. Single family residences. Teresa Burgess: They have existing homes. They're not undeveloped parcels. They have an existing home. Once those parcels have sewer and water, theoretically they could subdivide. However, city practice in the past has been to only assess them for the one home because they at this point are not subdividing. If they were to choose to subdivide in the future they would be required to pay their fees at that time. Mayor Mancino: The rest. Councilman Senn: That's when it would be the 2 units per? Teresa Burgess: It would be based on actual development at that point. Councilman Senn: Okay, the actual platting rather than the guidelines set. Teresa Burgess: Correct. City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Councilman Senn: Okay, and you have 2 for low as a 3. I'm having trouble. Phil Gravel: It's 3 for medium. 6 for high. 4 for commercial industrial and 2 for public, which I don't think we've ever used. Councilman Senn: Okay. I mean is there a reason why you're classifying University operations and the Tanadoona operation as similar to a large single estate? Phil Gravel: No, there isn't a reason. That's one reason why I brought it up was just so you're aware of it. Teresa Burgess: That was based on staff discussion. When we looked at this originally we do feel that those two parcels do benefit. They receive benefit by proximity and they could eventually hook up. It was felt that by assessing them one unit, we're allowing them to hook up but we're not putting an undue burden on either facility. I have received communications from the University of Minnesota. They do intend to pay their assessment. I have not received any communication from the Girl Scouts, either for or against the assessment. Councilman Senn: From the Campfire? Teresa Burgess: From the Campfire, I'm sorry. They certainly would have the opportunity to object to their assessment. They have not contacted us either way and they were directly mailed for tonight's meeting. Councilman Senn: But if the University hooks up, or I mean assumes they pay if they'd hook up, correct? Teresa Burgess: The University would have the ability to hook up. At this point they do not have any facilities in that area that would hook up, however they are considering future development of the area and it would be available when they develop that portion where the sewer is available. They don't have any public buildings or private buildings up in that area. Where the sewer is. But when they develop that area they could. Councilman Senn: But then additional units would be added at that time depending on the scope of the development? Phil Gravel: Right. Teresa Burgess: If they were to do more than one equivalency unit, then yes. If they were to build a large visitor center or something along those lines, they would pay additional assessment at that time. It was felt that by assessing them one unit we were giving them the opportunity. Also we were setting precedence for future development of that parcel. Otherwise if they were to come in in 10 years it could slip through the cracks if they were never assessed. And so it was felt that this was the appropriate way we would assess them because it was in keeping with the way we were treating all of the other parcels and we would, rather than make their objection for them, we would require that they come to us and say they do not feel they should pay the assessment. Rather than we make the determination at this point. We feel it's appropriate. They have not objected. Councilman Senn: Okay. City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Phil Gravel: I'll just finish up. The proposed assessments then for the project. There are two types. There's a lateral benefit which is the assessment that people get if the pipe goes next to their property and they receive some lateral benefit. That is based on a front foot basis. The sanitary sewer is proposed to be assessed at $20 per front foot and the watermain at $24 per front foot. Then the other type of assessment are these area charges. The trunk hook up charges that we talked about. That's the number of units and those are based on the current rates at $1,300 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,694 per unit for watermain. What does all that mean to you? The revenue for the project is shown on this table and again as Teresa mentioned, there's a net project deficit of $91,160 on this project. When you take into account the total cost less all the assessments, there's still a net deficit of $91,160 and that money would come from the appropriate sewer and water funds. Previous projects, most of the previous projects have had a positive revenue from the area charges and the lateral benefit charges. This project, just because of more expensive construction has a negative revenue flow but there should be, the negative revenue can be covered by money from the sewer and water funds. Teresa Burgess: Looking at the entire, this is actually one of the phases of planned extension. Looking at it from that standpoint we are still in the black. We are still ahead with our revenues being higher than our cost of construction so we are still ahead. Mayor Mancino: Because of the eastern. Teresa Burgess: Because of the eastern portion. As we go further west, hopefully we'll be into less expensive construction again. Right now we're going, this section of the project does go through some wetland areas and that does have some impacts on the cost of the project. As well as the highway project. Mayor Mancino: So again, overall we're in the black? Teresa Burgess: Overall we are ahead. The money does balance overall. Phil Gravel: ...of one of the Longacres developments. That slightly adjusted the assessable acreage that's included in the preliminary feasibility report. So whatever adjustment that was made for 97-6 we would also make on this project. Lowering their acreage that they get assessed for. I think they lose about 8 acres that we were assessing them for. And the second thing is, I did mention it during the sanitary sewer discussion is that the Olson's contacted the city about seeing if the alignment couldn't be revised to provide service to their lot and I think that's something that would be looked at during the final design process. So with that we can open it up to any questions people have. Mayor Mancino: Phillip, can you before we open it up for public hearing, can you tell us the next step. So tonight let's say we go ahead and authorize plans and specifications. Then what happens next? Phil Gravel: Well Teresa can certainly chime in but the plan would be to get. Teresa Burgess: If you were to authorize plans and. Mayor Mancino: So that every, can everybody hear? Okay. Teresa Burgess: If the council approves authorize plans and preparations, we will go out to RFP for selection of a consultant. We did not include that in the RFP for the feasibility study on this project. We would then select a consultant. The Council would need to approve that consultant agreement and then we 10 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 would begin design. Hopefully this is a relatively straight forward project. The RFP process should be relatively quick so that we can get it turned around and get designs started. In addition we have since this feasibility study was completed, the city owned mound system at Tanadoona has begun to fail and we will be exploring whether we should add that onto this project. And we have also received some comments from neighboring property owners interested in extending the service there as well, so we'll be exploring whether we should do an amended feasibility study but that could begin with the plans already in process. We could do a small feasibility study to answer those questions and still begin design on this project. They're relatively minor. Mayor Mancino: And then once we get the final design back in and we'll look at final assessments and everybody will be able to come in again. Teresa Burgess: We'll do final assessments at the end of the project, after we know the actual construction costs. Assuming that our design estimate is in line with our feasibility study estimate. We're usually pretty close so we don't generally seeking to update the preliminary assessment roll at that time. We wait until after bids and final construction costs are known. At the end of the project we would do the assessment hearing in September of that construction year so probably September of 2001 and we would be able to do at that time an updated assessment roll. Notify those property owners being assessed and they would have the opportunity to come to the council at the assessment hearing. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And they have the opportunity then to come and say. Teresa Burgess: That they do not feel the benefit received is equivalent to the assessment. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from council members at this time before we open it up for public hearing? Okay. Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address the council on this? Please come forward. State your name and address. Kevin Farrell: Thank you Madam Mayor. My name is Kevin Farrell and I live at 7336 Fawn Hill Road. I have a couple of questions relating to the project. The first one is a completion timing. At the last council session we talked about completion of the frontage road and some of the utilities that were going to be completed and with this project, when do you expect that the water and sewer will be completed out to 41 ? Teresa Burgess: We're looking at fall of 2001. Beginning construction in November of 2000 and chance of completion in May of 2001 which would mean that we'd see minor completion items left out there, a punch list. Punch list items. And then the assessment hearing in September of 2001. Mayor Mancino: So the project will actually be done May, spring of 2001. Teresa Burgess: We are actually considering winter construction. With this one, in the wetland areas, winter construction would be advisable for those wetland areas. Rather than dealing with water in the trenches and those type of situations. Kevin Farrell: Okay, good. Thank you. That's pretty consistent with the last time frame with the frontage road. Mayor Mancino: And if you get it twice, then it's got to be right, you know. 11 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Kevin Farrell: The second part of the question is during your presentation you had mentioned that the water main could be adjusted based upon the church's plans. Are you talking about the Westwood Community Church plans? Phil Gravel: Yes I am. Kevin Farrell: Okay. And since we're working on those plans right now, what kinds of things should we be doing and communicating with you to adjust those plans going forward? Teresa Burgess: You'd want to continue to coordinate that with Dave Hempel and engineering office. The planning staff and the city inspections staff. As you're developing those plans, I'm sure you've had contact with them already. Continue that so we can get the most up to date information. Kevin Farrell: Okay, excellent. And then because of the completion of the frontage road that's going on, I know that completion of the water and sewer at the same time is very important as far as the overall planning purposes. What likelihood would you give for the completion of this project going forward? And meeting the May deadline. Teresa Burgess: Meeting the May deadline? Kevin Farrell: Yes. Teresa Burgess: The purpose of the feasibility study is to set that schedule so that we have it and... keeping in mind it is a preliminary schedule. Things do change as we go out to bid. As bids come into it, that makes a difference. If we get extremely high bids and we're forced to rebid the project or make changes to the project. The other thing is if we run into problems during construction that we're not aware of or if we get a very cold winter. All those things come into it but we do feel comfortable with the schedule proposed in the feasibility study. Kevin Farrell: Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you Madam Mayor. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Kevin. Anyone else? Can't wear shorts but you can come to, no I'm just kidding. Bud Olson: Madam Mayor, I'm Bud Olson, 7331 Hazeltine Boulevard and I'm looking at this project in a couple of ways. First of all, certainly how does it benefit my property on that particular stretch. I have just a couple staff questions. What is lateral benefit mean? I'm not that familiar with all this gadgetry of planning sewers and water but. Teresa Burgess: Sewer and water is divided up into the type of service and it's basically the size of the pipe is what it basically comes down to. The trunk is the major pipe that carries, everything funnels into the trunk. The lateral is the one that comes off of that and serves the neighborhood and then there's the service that actually serves your home. So the lateral benefit is the pipe that's coming up towards your home but is not just your service lines up into your house. Bud Olson: Okay. And how do you determine the lateral benefit? How is that determined? How is my 500 feet that I'm going to get to get assessed or that amount, how does that benefit me as a homeowner? 12 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Teresa Burgess: I'm going to have Phil answer how he did this assessment roll. Because we do have a set of criteria. Bud Olson: Okay. Phil Gravel: The methodology we used on this feasibility report was, and it's just not black and white but if a pipe that is a trunk pipe is located in an area where a property would need to build a pipe, whether or not it was a truck pipe to service their property. Meaning if the city wasn't involved at all and this piece of property wanted to develop, they have to build a pipe. If there was no over sizing involved at all. So if we can locate the city's pipe where that other pipe would have to be, then there is lateral benefit under our criteria and I think in your case we're saying to service that property there has to be a pipe the entire length along 41. Whether it's over sized or not, there has to be a pipe there. At least an 8 inch or 12 inch pipe so that's where the lateral benefit is on that piece of property. Bud Olson: Okay. Alright, thank you. The other question I have is that if for instance we do re-engineer or re-site that sewer line, am I also going to get an assessment for that lateral benefit on the sewer as well? Teresa Burgess: We would have to re-analyze it at that time. What we'd be looking at is, first of all what are we offering you as a benefit. We cannot assess you if there's no benefit to your property. And second of all, be looking at your sewer and hook-up, sewer and water hook-up's and looking at those. Certainly if you're not being assessed for sewer now and we were to redesign the project to provide you with sewer, then yes there would be some sewer assessment. Because everybody, we would treat you the same as we have all the other properties within the corridor that are receiving sewer and water. And again, at the end of the project you would have the opportunity to object to your assessment. We do have to notify you prior to putting you into the assessment roll. Bud Olson: Okay. Teresa Burgess: Roger, if you could address that. Do we have to do a second public hearing if he's adding sewer? Because right now he's not being assessed for sewer. Would we do a second public hearing? Roger Knutson: Yes. If you want to assess him, you'd have another hearing. Teresa Burgess: You'd have that opportunity to speak to the council again. Bud Olson: Okay. And on another question I have is that, is there a waiver where, there's only two neighbors affected by this property and by this whole project. This little jaunt here. Can we come and ask for a waiver not it be included in either one of these? Sewer or water, or is one a mandatory? Mayor Mancino: Isn't that about the proximity? Teresa Burgess: It has to do with proximity. If we come within the proximity of your home, then yes you are required to hook up. As far as should we bring this close to your home? We would be looking at public policy. We would be looking at it from that standpoint. I think it's good public policy for us to extend sewer and water to that area, as long as we're there anyway so that presumably some day your property will develop or someone living there will want access to sewer and water. So that we can do that with reasonable costs to that future development. 13 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Bud Olson: Okay, thank you. Final question. Mayor Mancino: And Bud, excuse me just so you know. The proximity is part of our city code. I mean we just, you can go right to that and see how close you're going to be and will be able to tell, right? Teresa Burgess: Yes. Bud Olson: Okay. Teresa Burgess: And before we leave that item. Bud Olson: Sure. Teresa Burgess: As long as we're talking about the city code. If it does come within that proximity you are required to hook up within one year of it becoming available. You should be aware of that. Bud Olson: Okay. At the present time though, the way the re-engineering, I'd probably have to hook up to water but not sewer based on your first drawings here, is that correct? Teresa Burgess: Correct. Bud Olson: Okay. And then the final one is, when a property owner's assessed, how long do you have to pay the assessments? Teresa Burgess: After the final assessment hearing you can pay your assessment, and you'll get a letter detailing everything but you can pay your assessment within the time period given. Typically 30 days. If you don't pay it in that time period in full, then it does go onto your taxes and you can pay it on your taxes at an added interest rate I believe right now is 8%. But it may be slightly higher than that if it was adjusted recently. If at any time you decide to pay it off, you can go into the county offices and ask the principle and there's no penalty for doing that. Mayor Mancino: And is that usually over Teresa 10 years? Teresa Burgess: We've gone 8 to 12. Mayor Mancino: 8 to 12 years. Teresa Burgess: It's up to the council. Bud Olson: Okay. And one final question if I might. That just gets the water and sewer to my house. Is that what I understand? So the additional cost of putting the lines to my house is another direct cost to me that's not part of this project, correct? Teresa Burgess: Correct. As well as the cost of abandoning your existing septic system and if you choose to keep your well that's fine, or if you choose to cap it, that cost would be yours. Mayor Mancino: It kind of keeps adding up. 14 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Bud Olson: No, this is great information and that I'm very interested in this project and see how it all shakes out. Certainly as my neighbor can't be here either but for two properties we're looking at, where all of this directly benefit and how great is it to our property versus a larger project like Puke or something like that so. Mayor Mancino: And those are just great, good questions so thanks. Teresa Burgess: From that standpoint you are better off to get it done with the big project than to come back. If this is something that you're looking at. Right now we're not proposing sewer to your property. If you're looking at wanting sanitary to your property, it would be better to do it with the large project rather than do that small stretch because it will be much more expensive in the future. Bud Olson: And that's why I called today to see about that realign so thank you very much Mayor. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Bud. Anyone else? It's going to be high for you. I mean we're tripling it tonight. Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra. I live at 1580 Arboretum. I guess, didn't you have another meeting on this a month ago? I guess I missed that so I'm here now to harass you. Mayor Mancino: Thanks Mike. Mike Gorra: I guess I just had a couple questions. I've got a map of reference C here, 134 acres. Am I being assessed for a sewer later on that? Phil Gravel: Not under this project, no. I think that was probably product 97-6. Product or project. And that I think you were being assessed for the watermain under that project. Teresa Burgess: We'd have to check the assessment rolls for 97-6 to see if you've been assessed there but I think he's correct. Phil Gravel: You are being assessed under 97-6. Teresa Burgess: You should have received a public hearing notice for that project as well and I can get you a copy of that, if you'd like to see me when we've finished with this item. Phil Gravel: And that was the hearing that was a month ago. Mike Gorra: So that's the same project as this? Teresa Burgess: That's a different project. Mayor Mancino: It's a different segment kind of of the frontage road project though isn't it? Teresa Burgess: The frontage road project. This is just the utilities that are being extended. We're coordinating between the two projects but they are two separate projects from a project development standpoint. 15 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Mike Gorra: Okay. Phil Gravel: This one tonight is west of Galpin. Mike Gorra: Okay. So mine was the first one, the first hearing. Okay. I guess I did talk to Dave Hempel on that and he answered a few questions but the only other question I had then was, I haven't decided what to use my property for and what I'm leaning towards now I wouldn't be using the utilities that you've set forth in this project. Teresa Burgess: Your property is in green acres, isn't it currently? Mike Gorra: Yes. Teresa Burgess: If you leave the property in green acres then your assessments would stay in that limbo is the only word that I can come up with in my mind. It would stay in that status of green acres. If you develop the property, it would be assessed based on the usage and unfortunately we have to make our planning documents based on what's zoned enough of it's been set. If you develop the property, and I understood from Dave you were looking at a golf course? If you develop the property you would be assessed and you could come to the council at the assessment hearing for that project and object to your assessment if you'd like to but at this point that assessment roll, that preliminary assessment roll has been adopted by the council. They'll adopt a final assessment roll following assessment hearings so you have an opportunity to come back. When you receive your notice of your assessment hearing and object at that time. Mike Gorra: Okay. So there's no chance of getting the same conversation that's between you and the Campfire Girls? That even though it is in green acres, there would still be interest. Teresa Burgess: It's a different situation. The University of Minnesota is the Arboretum. They have a development that shows it to remain as an arboretum. The Campfire Girls have no intention of developing their property. If they were to sell and develop, they would be assessed based on that development. If they were to subdivide that property and build homes, they would be assessed for every one of the homes they built. Mike Gorra: Oh I understand that, but they're not going to be assessed until that time. Teresa Burgess: You will not be assessed until you develop either. Mike Gorra: Because of green acres? Teresa Burgess: Because you're in green acres. Mike Gorra: But will the interest keep accumulating from now until that time? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Roger Knutson: You'll be assessed. It will be deferred. Payment will be deferred. It will be assessed. 16 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Mike Gorra: So I guess the time for me to really look at this is when the assessment, the next assessment hearing? Teresa Burgess: Your opportunity to object would be at the assessment hearing and you'll get a notice. You'll get written notice of the assessment hearing with the time and date and the dollar amount of your assessment and you can speak to the council at that time. They need to take formal action to enact your assessment and you have the opportunity to object prior to that. Mike Gorra: And this will be when? In the fall. Teresa Burgess: You'll receive a notice. It will be in the fall following the project completion. Mike Gorra: That's it, thank you. Mayor Mancino: Great, thank you. Anyone else? I mean before we go on with Bud or Mike or anyone. Mike, I was just going to say if you want to take the time or obviously you know that Teresa's available any time during the day. If you want to meet with her and go over some of the details, please do. And her number is 937-1900 extension 156. So please set up a meeting or whatever with Teresa or her staff if you'd like to have some other questions answered. Anyone else? Okay, then let's bring this back to council and may I have a motion please. Councilman Senn: I think though we should take a poll first on Teresa's question. Teresa Burgess: This item does require a 4/5 vote. Mayor Mancino: Oh okay. Councilman Labatt: With the plans and spec, is that going to show where the alignment is of the sewer line? Specifically along the south side of the swamp. Teresa Burgess: The actual preparation of plans and specs will quote the actual design. The feasibility study just looks at is it possible to do this project and approximately how much is it going to cost so we can look at do we have the money to do it. The actual design, we'll look into the design of the exact alignment and take into account those changes that may be appropriate as we get more information. We would do a full blown survey as well as soil sampling if necessary and look at the things that have come up as we've talked about the feasibility study. Did I answer your question? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. No, I just several of the neighbors at the end of the cul-de-sac today asked me about how many trees were going to be taken out as a result of this. Teresa Burgess: We won't know that until we get to the design. And certainly those issues would be explored further. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So this takes a 4/5 and the next vote after this then, is it a 3/2 then? Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: So are you feeling comfortable going ahead with this? 17 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Yeah, I am. Yeah. Mayor Mancino: Linda? Councilwoman Jansen: I'm comfortable going ahead with it. I'm certainly not hearing anyone saying that they don't want the project coming through. It's more the question of how much is it going to inevitably cost. But I'm glad to see the project moving forward with the applications that we had received to get the service going so I'm comfortable with it. Mayor Mancino: So you're comfortable with it. Mark? Councilman Senn: I'm fine. Move approval. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Resolution #2000-62: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council approve the feasibility report and authorize preparation of plans and specifications for BC-7 and BC-8 Trunk Sanitary Sewer and Lateral Watermain Improvement Project No. 00-01. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT; LOT 6, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER; BOEDECKER COMPANY. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, council members. As part of the Chan Business Center development the City was requiring a conservation easement over the westerly 50 feet of the southern 100 feet of the development, consistent with our buffer yard requirements. It was supposed to stop at Lake Drive. Unfortunately it was recorded against the property on the north side of the Lake Drive also. When Boedecker was doing their title search they discovered this error and therefore requested that it be vacated. The landscaping requirement as part of the city ordinance when you're adjacent to residential you have a larger landscape area and 50 feet of you adjacent to a road and 100 feet if you're directly adjacent to residential development. So staff is recommending vacation of the easement for Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much Bob. Any questions from council members at this time? Councilwoman Jansen: No. Mayor Mancino: Steve: Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I'll open this for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the council on this? Okay, bringing it back. Any questions? Councilman Senn: Move approval. 18 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Councilman Labatt: Second. Resolution #2000-63: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the vacation of the easement for Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2na Addition with the following condition: The applicant shall provide a legal description of the conservation easement proposed to be vacated and provide the correct legal description for the conservation easement to cover the area south of Lake Drive West. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CABLE TV FRANCHISE APPLICATIONS, CONSIDER RESOLUTION REGARDING QUALIFICATIONS. Mayor Mancino: Staff report please, and Brian if you could come forward also. Brian Grogan: Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Brian Grogan. I'm an attorney with Moss and Barnett working with the City in this cable television matter. We have before us tonight an application from Everest Connections Corporation in response to a request for proposal which the City sent out addressing their desire to obtain a cable television franchise in the city which would compete against Mediacom the incumbent cable television operator. The statutory process for this is we were required to go out for publication, twice in our local newspaper to let all interested parties be aware that we were considering a second competitive franchise. Everest was the only company to have responded by the application deadline. Their application did comply with the requirements of the city's proposal. The Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238 requires that a public hearing be held to consider Everest's application, and in particular their qualifications to operate a cable television system. I think you have in your packet a report prepared by Moss and Barnett dated August 7th with respect to their application. I will briefly go through that report. The first portion of the report deals primarily with state and federal law and it's provided to help give council members some guidance about the legislative intent with respect to competition in the cable television industry. A particular importance you may note that federal law indicates that a franchising authority such as the City of Chanhassen may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award additional competitive franchises. So the standard here is again one of reasonableness. The State statute describes the procedure that I just outlined. It also has particular requirements that any cable television operator must comply with. We included each of those elements in the city's request for proposal. The report also outlines a relevant case that one Minnesota city faced on this issue in the last year. That being the City of Marshall, Minnesota where a competitive operator came to town and the incumbent operator challenged the award that the city made to this competitive operator on the grounds that the operator, the competitor did not have financial qualifications to compete in the marketplace. I think it's significant that the Court in that case, this was a Court of Appeals decision. That the Court found that first of all the cable operator, the incumbent operator had no standing to bring the action but importantly the Court concluded that the City had properly focused on DTG's. That was the competitive operator's ability to construct and operate the proposed system and therefore that was the standard that the Court looked at in determining financial qualifications. I bring that up because that will be relevant in a moment when I describe for you the qualifications that Everest has put forward and some of the concerns that may arise with respect to how the system gets financed. This review is very similar to what this council has gone through when you've considered the transfer of ownership from Triax to 19 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Mediacom. You looked at the legal, technical and financial qualifications of Mediacom to own and operate the system. And as you may recall, there is a lack of guidance at the state and federal level about what standard we're supposed to apply, particularly as it relates to financial qualifications. There's no measure of how one determines a financially qualified cable television operator. We've attempted to retain, we being Moss and Barnett on behalf of clients that we represent, to retain a qualified CPA that would provide a written recommendation for City Council review. We are unable to secure any price for services of a competent CPA to provide that estimate because of the lack of a standard. There is no benchmark at which they can compare operators and so they're not going to be willing to come forward with an opinion. So I raise that to help you understand the nature of the report that we've prepared and why there appears to be some, or a lack of a recommendations, specifically from Moss and Barnett as it relates to financial qualifications. Looking at this particular company, Everest Connections Corporation, on page 15 of my report there is a chart describing the corporate structure of Everest. They have a significant interest provided by UtiliCorp which is essentially the NSP of the Missouri/Kansas area if you will. They have provided some capital to Everest. They also control seats on the Board of Everest, but Everest Global Technologies Group is essentially the parent company which owns 100% of Everest Connections Corporation. Everest Connections Corporation is the applicant in this case. That's the company seeking the franchise from you. They are going to be creating a Minnesota Operating Subsidiary. It hasn't been created yet. The intent of the company is to then assign the franchise from Everest Connections Corporation to the operating subsidiary and we would likely require a guarantee flowing back up the chain of command then to make sure that the assets of the company are on the hook for the operating subsidiary. But based on our review of the legal qualifications of Everest we find no basis on which the City could deny a request for a franchise. So that leaves us with technical qualifications. We've reviewed the... Mr. Kramer's evaluation is in your report starting on page 16. In general the system is quite impressive. It's an 860 MHz system, which is better than the system that was recently upgraded and provided to the City of Chanhassen. It will provide a significant amount of channel capacity. High speed data capacity. Ability to provide digital channels. A number of advance services again all of which are outlined in this report. We also reviewed Everest's management capabilities. Their experience and expertise to operate a cable system. Everest, like many of these competitive cable operators around the country that are in the process of gaining franchises right now, takes much of their expertise from telephone companies, competitive local exchange carriers, other incumbent cable operators and they match that management expertise to go ahead and operate the company. Everest is no exception to these other companies in that they have very confident management. A significant amount of expertise in operating cable television systems. They do not have any operating history however. I could not contact any system that they are currently operating because they don't have any subscribers anywhere in the country that they're currently providing cable television service to. They have secured other franchises. Most prominently might be Kansas City metropolitan area where they're over building the incumbent in that market. They have obtained the franchise there and they're in the process of initiating construction but have not begun service. So what you don't see in here is any analysis of how they have served subscribers. What has happened with their rates, programming, etc because there is no history from your review on that issue. So based solely on Mr. Kramer's review of the application, their management expertise, we don't find a reason on which to deny but we qualify that by indicating that we don't have an operating history to review either so we can't comment on whether their track record is good, bad or indifferent because there is none to review in this case. Financial qualifications, just as when we reviewed Mediacom's qualifications, probably in the neighborhood of 12 to 18 months ago. Nothing has changed to give us any guidance about how we review the competency of a cable operator with respect to financial qualifications. And we indicate beginning on page 20 of our report that there are no state or federal standards on which we can review the qualifications of an applicant. What Everest has going for it is the infusion of approximately $300 million of capital from UtiliCorp, the company I referenced earlier in the corporate chart. They also have plans or are very near securing some 20 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 equity financing in the neighborhood of approximately $400-450,000 of equity financing. Excuse me, million. $450 million. Mayor Mancino: I was going to say, it wasn't going to get them too far. Brian Grogan: No. No, that's not going to get them too far. They are also, what most of these companies are doing is going out in waves of equity financing so in the first phase right now the market has received these financing plans very well. There's certainly a lot of money in the market to pursue these types of ventures. By year's end they hope to secure potentially another $600 million of additional equity financing. And then to make up the difference with debt financing. And again the marketplace, the lenders who generally work in this industry have received the concepts of a competitive overbuild and the business plans of these companies very favorably. But the bottom line on this company, and I'm referencing Everest in connection with probably a dozen or more companies around the country that are pursuing competitive franchises in major metropolitan areas, just like the Twin Cities. They do not have the financing secured today to build what they have on the books. In other words if the test is, does Everest have in it's pocket enough money to build out what it already has franchises for, the entire Kansas City franchise area, including what it's planned operations would be in the Twin Cities market, the answer is no. But, have they received favorable reactions from the marketplace in terms of the equity financing? In terms of potential for debt financing? The answer to that is yes and they will likely be able to secure the necessary financing. But as a result we cannot issue a recommendation to the city with respect to their financial qualifications. We cannot indicate whether this company long term will be successful. If their business plan will be successful. We have no idea what the reaction of the incumbent operator will be to competition. So I don't mean to belabor that point but I want to emphasize that that is the issue that we cannot issue a recommendation on that. Do you want me to pause for a question? Councilman Senn: Well my question is do you have to? Brian Grogan: Do I have to issue a recommendation? Councilman Senn: Yes. Brian Grogan: Well the Minnesota state statute implies, and the Court of Appeals confirmed this, that the city's obligation is to review the qualifications of an applicant. To the extent you have a qualified applicant, then you can consider what kind of franchise to grant to them. Councilman Senn: Okay but now take it, okay. So essentially the answer to that is no, you don't need to. Okay. You don't need to recommend. Brian Grogan: I don't, no. Ultimately of course whether I recommend or don't recommend the decision rests. Councilman Senn: No, I understand but the statute doesn't require you to, okay. Brian Grogan: Correct. Councilman Senn: Does the statute require us to? Mayor Mancino: Us to. 21 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Councilman Senn: That's kind of where I was going with it? Brian Grogan: I believe it's prudent for the City to consider a resolution making a determination of whether this company is or is not qualified. Councilman Senn: But again now you're hitting, qualified I have no problems with it, okay. Dealing with qualified, but now you're breaking down qualified into three key elements. Legal, technical and financial. Does the statute do that? Can require those tests or does it simply require us to make a finding that we feel they are qualified? Brian Grogan: The statute does not specifically use the words legal, technical and financial. The council, but the council. Or excuse me, the statute does require as part of the application that the company must provide plans for financing the system, their technical experience, their legal corporate structure, so implicit in the statute's application procedure, is that there will be a review of those elements. Now does it say council member specifically you must reach a finding? The answer to that is no, it does not. Councilman Senn: Okay. So essentially if we took the resolution that you have before us, and altered it basically to strike that element out, because we're not comfortable with it either let's say, okay. There's nothing that gums up the application effectively by doing that then. Because our ultimate goal is to give people the opportunity and get more competition in here. But I mean I hate to create a misimpression of something we're not qualified based on the information that we have to evaluate or even make a statement or representation on and have somebody come back later and say oh, well the city said they were financially qualified. Brian Grogan: Well, fair enough. I don't think that anything in the statute prevents you from taking that course of action. My recommendation is that the council reach a finding because I think the statute implies that you will conclude whether an applicant is or is not qualified. Then in our previous discussion just a moment ago about the meaning of that, and after which you will then consider what type of franchise, if any, to grant to that applicant. So in other words, even if you find an applicant qualified you may not be able to agree to the terms of the franchise with them and they be rejected on that basis. So this is hurdle number one of a two hurdle process. The other issue is, certainly councils around the country who have reviewed this issue have looked at this question and said well, even if we cannot make a determination about financial stability or qualifications, we may be able to protect ourselves by providing adequate construction bonds or insurance to make sure that if our rights-of-way are disturbed, and then the company were to go belly up. Of course I'm not suggesting they will but if they were to, you would then have a bond available to put your streets back into shape and to ensure that nothing was damaged. It was as if the operator never came. Now that's what some city council members, elected officials have been quoted as saying around the country as giving them comfort. That even if they can't protect themselves on that element, they can require sufficiently high bonds to insure that any damage will ultimately get paid for. Councilman Senn: That's kind of like though Brian level one protection. Which means it protects us. It doesn't protect anybody else who relies on effectively what you know, the action we've taken. Brian Grogan: Absolutely. I agree with that. Councilman Senn: Which is what bothers me. And that's what I'm just saying, if we could leave the second step out of that, and as we go down the road in this process maybe become more comfortable with 22 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 that or not, whatever but I mean I just, I really have a hard time with that up from. That's what I kind of wanted to really get into the definitions of it. Brian Grogan: And importantly the statutes are recited word for word in the from of this report so if you're looking for those, that's a good place to analyze that as well. Councilman Senn: Okay. Brian Grogan: As a result of that Mayor, what we have before you, well let me conclude this presentation by indicating that we went through and prepared in Section 8 of the report on page 24 a checklist to ensure that every step required by the statute has been successfully completed. First in the form of the process that we followed. Secondly in the form of the elements of the proposal and whether Everest application's adequately provided compliance and this is taken straight from the state statute. So finally, with respect to our recommendation, we do not believe the city has a basis to deny with respect to legal and technical. We are expressing a recommendation with respect to financial. We have prepared a resolution in your packet attached I believe as an Exhibit D for your consideration. This resolution would reach findings of a favorable conclusion with respect to legal, technical and financial. Obviously we can amend this resolution to make alternative findings. It is simply a document for your review and consideration, but I want to point out that it can be amended in any way, shape or form and it's not necessarily a recommended resolution but rather just the structure for what you might want to consider adopting as it relates to the applicant's qualifications. Mayor Mancino: And what are the next steps Brian after tonight? Brian Grogan: What would happen, okay. Mayor Mancino: Let's say we go ahead and we consider this. Then what happens? Brian Grogan: The next step would be to discuss with the applicant, with Everest, the type of franchise to be granted. Let's assume for a moment that we're moving forward. Obviously if we reject it at this point and we do not believe that the company's qualified. Mayor Mancino: We don't go forward. Brian Grogan: We don't pass Go. We don't collect $200 and we're done. If we move forward then we would sit down with staff, myself, the Everest representatives and we start discussing the terms under which they may be able to operate. We would likely start with the Mediacom franchise as a template. In part because our state law and our own ordinance requires a level playing field between operators. So we would start with that document and then we would discuss issues such as construction bonds and other things that may be appropriate. So that negotiation would move forward and it is not an overly complex negotiation and likely could be, an ordinance could be prepared and brought back to you within 4 to 6 weeks I would assume, depending upon meeting schedules and the time available with staff to get together with the Everest individuals. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Councilman Senn: The reference in this resolution does not need to be then contingent upon the satisfactory agreement and acceptance of the franchise agreement? 23 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Brian Grogan: At this time all this resolution attempts to accomplish is some findings of fact with respect to the company's qualifications so even if you found, even if you approved this as is tonight, you could still reject them because they are unwilling for example to provide a construction bond which you believe is necessary. Councilman Senn: Okay, so the two actions aren't tied? Brian Grogan: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Great, thank you. Steve. Councilman Labatt: Did you have a chance to review this letter I got from Mediacom? Brian Grogan: I flew in from Steven's Point, Wisconsin. Came right to this meeting. I got a voice mail from Mediacom that they were sending a letter to be reviewed but it's apparently at my office. I did not get a chance to review it. Councilman Labatt: On the back page, this Tom... same franchise terms, Section 4 in your resolution. Brian Grogan: The issue is, our recommendation is substantially the same. Apparently their position is, it should be modified to say that the franchise should be mandatory with respect to all substantive terms. I reject that inasmuch as the statute says, first of all you can go beyond what you've agreed with with Mediacom. Case in point is what we've just talked about. We may have required a certain construction bond with Mediacom based on the fact that they were upgrading their cable system. That's far different from going down every single street in the city and having to put feeder cable in which may require a higher bond. So for that example alone, it does not have to, this does not mean that we are stuck with what we agreed to with Mediacom. I would agree though that if we were charging Mediacom a 3% franchise fee and we attempted to charge Everest a 1% franchise fee, that that creates an unlevel playing field and that's a problem. But I don't think we have any intent to move that direction, certainly from talking to staff, that's not the direction that staff's intending to head. Councilman Labatt: And what about in the construction time? His comments about doing, top of the page. Brian Grogan: The, I'm reading this for the first time so bear with me. Councilman Labatt: No, no. I just read it too so. Councilman Senn: Of course for 10 years Mediacom... Brian Grogan: It's interesting, obviously I'd have to check the statute and check, and review this to make sure that what exactly they're referring to in the statute but I guess I would note with interest that I think the construction schedule for Mediacom's own upgrade allowed more than one year and they have an existing plant in place. Expecting a company to start from scratch and complete construction in a 12 month time period is probably not consistent with what your original franchise required of Mediacom's successor company. If I could review. I noticed one thing as I glanced at this. I noticed anything that talks about my report with a critical eye. 24 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Take a minute and read this. Mayor Mancino: I was just going to say Brian, why don't you take a minute and read it and we'll allow for any public comments and if you want to then come back to us on it, thank you. Does the applicant like to address the council please? If you could please state your name and address. Hi Jane. Jane Bremer: Hi, how are you Mayor? Mayor Mancino: Fine, thank you. Jane Bremer: Mayor Mancino, members of the council. My name is Jane Bremer. I'm with law firm of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren here on behalf of Everest Connections Corporation. I have not seen the letter from Mediacom either. I would love to read it. The number of interpretations of the state's level playing field statute has grown in proportion to the number of proposed competitors to existing monopolis but I will tell you is one of the authors of that statute on behalf of the Minnesota Cable and Communications Association. It was designed to do specifically what it says it's going to do and that is to level the playing field in three specific areas. The area served, the franchise fee paid and the PEG obligation. And there's no further obligation imposed by either state or federal law on the council. What this company has proposed is to accept the Mediacom franchise virtually in toto. We provided with our application a redline of the existing franchise that Mediacom has with the City of Chanhassen, and I think all we changed was the name. I don't believe that we made an substantive changes whatsoever. The only exception would be the construction schedule for a brand new cable system, which is significantly different than an upgraded system. And let me introduce first of all Dick Rogers, who's the Vice President of Corporate Development for Everest Connections Corporation. And he'll take a few minutes of your time just to describe the company but I thought that I should address maybe just a few of the points that Brian raised, and then would also like the chance to read the Mediacom letter. First of all, this company is proposing to bring the first true competition to residential telephone and residential cable that the people of Chanhassen have seen. Up to this point you have had one choice if you wanted cable TV. One choice if you wanted phone service. You are about to have a choice. And this network is being built and designed specifically to carry voice, video and data. It's not new paint on an old car that we hope can carry voice, video and data. It is a hybrid fiber coaxial system that is vastly superior to that which has been constructed by Mediacom. This is an 860 MHz cable system as opposed to a 750 MHz system. And the results of that for people in the community will be absolute crystal clear pictures as well as a much broader array of services and channels and features. We will be serving approximately 125 homes per node, which is about one-third of what the existing franchise requires or one-fourth, which is about 500 homes per node. And the importance of that is for the people that are interested in internet service. If you try to subscribe to internet via any cable television system today in the Twin Cities, upgraded or not, the minute your neighbor tums on, everything slows down. And right after dinner when 200 or 300 people slow down, nobody can get through. With fiber optics being so much deeper into the neighborhoods, and so many fewer homes being served per node, those kinds of slow downs and speeds will simply not occur. Which creates an enormous benefit in the community in terms of economic development opportunity, home based businesses and making sure that everyone that wants access to high speed capability can have it, whether they are a business or a homeowner. And finally and perhaps most interestingly for many people is the opportunity to subscribe to somebody other than US West for telephone service. The opportunity to choose another residential phone provider and to compare services. Compare rates for both local service and long distance service is not to be under estimated and it's happening only for the first time in the country right now with the advent of these fiber optic systems. And perhaps most interestingly for people is the opportunity to receive all services on one wire, one provider, one bill. Which I don't know what you all think about 25 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 getting 4 or 5 bills a month but I find it very confusing and for many people the opportunity to have one provider, one bill, one wire, also means the opportunity to have a lower rate because there are clear efficiencies being built into the one provider, and building a system that's designed to do all three things as opposed to simply the one thing. So, we have worked with Brian on some of the issues that have been raised by the report and the council. I would like to assure the council that this company is a financially qualified company. They have secured $300 million in equity. They are about to announce the addition $450 million that Brian made reference to. And perhaps what is difficult for the accounting community today is that these are start-up companies as opposed to existing companies. This is a very common technique for financing cable television systems in that the obligations must be finite before you can go to a banker. You can't just take a business plan to most banks, they will say, how many miles are you going to build? How much is it going to cost per mile? How much of it is underground? How much of it is aerial? How many years are you going to build it out over? And then and only then do they put together the terms and conditions of particularly that vehicle. So I think to see a company in a start up phase going through that process at this point in time as opposed to having lots of assets in the ground, is part of the difference between an existing company and a new company. But we are sensitive to the concerns that have been raised and certainly with the history that this community has had with certain of it's incumbent providers, we are more than happy to provide assurance in terms of performance bonds, parent guarantees. All of those items that profess not only our good faith and good will but also protect the people of Chanhassen so I'll let Mr. Roger's take over. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Dick Rogers: Thank you Jane. My name is Dick Rogers and I'm from St. Louis, Missouri. Everest Connections is located in a suburb just west of St. Louis in O'Fallon, Missouri and Jane, I don't know what I can add. I mean your speech is very good and you tell very thoroughly what we plan on doing in the Twin Cities. Everest Connections grew out of a company formed in the early 80's, early 90's called Brooks Farmer Properties. They built a competitive local exchange network in Minneapolis-St. Paul and about 44 other cities. The management from, a lot of the management from that organization came together and formed Everest Connections early last year. We've just been active in securing franchises in the Twin Cities. We retained Jane and Larkin-Hoffman to work for us in this area. As you know Jane, she's very well qualified. Has been through this process many times and I get to see Brian Grogan almost on a weekly basis. But it is very exciting to have choice on the local cable TV side. On the local phone service side. To have a very high end internet product and just the basic product will really just be much more vibrant and enhanced over just the existing dial up products that they have today. We have a very strong financial background. We have $325 million in equity. We have a $450 million debt side soon to be announced. We are planning as we talk today to go out for additional financing. I want you to rest assured that we will build this network within the prescribed time. I think in the application it's 48 to 60 months. We will raise the necessary monies to do that and our plans are to build out the entire Minneapolis-St. Paul area. So last week we were at Eden Prairie. This week we are here and Jane keeps me apprised of what our schedule is but we're in the process of locating a head in switch site in New Hope. Building a fiber optic sonic ring which will provide service to this area and commence our operations this fall. Mayor Mancino: Mr. Rogers, on the 48 to 60 months of the build out in the metro area. The 14,000 plus miles you're going to be laying. When will that get to Chanhassen if we were to go ahead and say yes and get an agreement. When would that happen likely here to our region? Our city. Dick Rogers: Well, it's really dependent upon, we've applied probably to 12 to 15 different franchise authorities and it's really going to be based upon in what order these franchises come in. We believe that 26 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 our first franchise will be given us, or granted us in the northwest cable commission. I think Eden Prairie's very close behind that and you're just west of Eden Prairie. We build the infrastructure. Build our sonic ring. Those who provide franchises to us first, get the service first. It's just a matter of, I don't have... Jane Bremer: ... approximately in 3,000 to 4,000 miles per year and the northwest system alone for example is about 900 miles. And then as we come south of St. Louis Park in the southwest suburbs and then into Chanhassen. I mean you can see how quickly, you know we hit 3,000 miles in the first year. The first year is back bone and head in, but then once we start building out from the back bone, it's at that rate so I would guess service would rapidly be in Chanhassen. I would think we could be here as soon as next year sometime. Not the entire community but perhaps the first service. Mayor Mancino: The first service, okay. Dick Rogers: It's a very logical process once we get our back bone in place and I could sit down with engineers and give you a fairly accurate time based upon when their franchises come up and are warranted. But we're very excited about it. We feel we're the most financially qualified over builder in this market to do that. Have a very fine technical staff. We built one of these networks before in Rapid City, South Dakota. The utility in Rapid City to build one of these we were an equity investor in that. We've sort of backed away from that project and it's alive and doing very well. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Rogers from council? Councilwoman Jansen: No. Dick Rogers: Thank you much. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Brian Grogan: Mayor, Brian Grogan, Moss and Barnett. I've had a chance to review the letter dated August 14th from Mr. Tom Bordwell directed to your attention. If I might spend just a brief moment reviewing these. The first point that's raised is the level of scrutiny to make sure that it's even with that which was applied to Mediacom last year. The review is virtually identical. In fact we are reviewing it with the same standards. We're applying the same exact analysis to this company, if not a little more aggressive analysis because it is an initial applicant proposing quite extensive operation in the city. The conflicts within my report, I think I've explained that we presented that resolution simply as a resolution for your consideration. It's not a recommended resolution. We've laid out our recommendations as it relates to the financial qualifications so it will be up to the city as far as how you choose to proceed or if you decide to direct us to scrap that resolution in it's entirety. Requirement for procurement of authorizations. Any franchise that is ultimately granted will obviously have to comply with all State statutes. There's no question at all. That issue will be incorporated. Inarguably it must be incorporated also into Mediacom's franchise so to the extent it's not in their franchise, they have a problem equally as well. Construction time on page 2. I've addressed that but I think the main issue there is their cherry picking argument that somehow an applicant may come into the city, build the north end of the city and not choose to build the south end, which would be particularly aggrevious if we had more expensive homes in the north end than the south end, however that may lay out. The fact is, any franchise granted would be for the entire city's jurisdiction and if construction stopped halfway through, that applicant would be in violation and in all 27 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 likelihood you would pull their franchise for failure to complete the construction and comply with the franchise. So that is an entirely enforceable provision. We intend to I'm sure pursue as aggressive a standard as we have against Mediacom and make sure everyone gets extended. Financing the Kansas City system. I don't know if that really asks for an answer as much as it poses different possibilities of how something may or may not get financed. And then with respect to the same franchise terms, again I've addressed that already in response to the council member's question. Finally, I think it's important to state for the record that Mediacom only received the report last Friday. The City received the report on Wednesday the 8th from my office for inclusion in your agenda packet. I received a call Thursday afternoon at about 5:00 p.m. from Mr. Bordwell. That's on the 10th of August. I got the late night secretary to Fed Ex to both Mr. Bordwell and to his attorney for Friday morning delivery a copy of the report and Everest's application. So they had it as promptly as I could have gotten it to them, which is only important for the record as it relates to their claim that they haven't had sufficient time. That's as soon as we could have gotten it to them. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you Brian for answering that. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the council. Okay, let's bring it back to council. Any comments from council members? Councilman Senn: Yeah I had one. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: I think it's wonderful and I'd love to see more competition get in here as quickly as we could possibly get it in here. Because I think somehow I feel that will benefit everybody, especially the service we've been getting. I would however really like to see us change article 12 in the recitals and article 2 in the therefore's and let's just not get into ground where we're not really qualified to judge and don't have a recommendation on and in each case just strike and financial and insert between legal and technical and and. Mayor Mancino: So again on 12, it's the last sentence. Councilman Senn: Yeah, it would basically be after the comment, the city council has reached conclusions regarding Everest's legal and technical qualifications. And likewise on the 2, under Therefore's would be the City finds that Everest possesses the requisite legal and technical qualifications to construct, own and operate a cable system, etc. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other comments Councilwoman Jansen? Councilwoman Jansen: I agree with making both of those changes and from what I've heard Brian say, it sounds like we can address any of these other issues when we get down to actually doing the contract with Everest so I'm certainly comfortable with this tonight. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman. Councilman Labatt: No. All the questions I had were in the letter we got dropped off today so... answer those. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Brian? 28 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Brian Grogan: Mayor, in light of those proposed changes to the resolution I guess I might just add that, to the extent the council moves forward and ultimately considers an ordinance, we'll likely want to address in the ordinance the issue of financial qualifications, particularly as it relates to the requirement of an additional bond or other security the council deems appropriate to protect it's own infrastructure as well as the operations that the operator is going to be conducting in town. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you Brian. Councilman Senn: And I just want to be clear on that. The way you answered my question earlier though I was assuming that this is not the appropriate place to deal with that but in effect the franchise agreement is the appropriate place. Brian Grogan: Well, I think to answer your question is, the state statutes specifically require that type of a finding and the answer is no. Councilman Senn: No, I meant in terms of the bonds and the protection. Brian Grogan: That's absolutely correct council member. Yes, you are correct. Councilwoman Jansen: The next step, okay. Mayor Mancino: Than may I have a motion please. Councilman Senn: I'd move approval with the changes as specified... Mayor Mancino: And a second please. Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Resolution #2000-64: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council approve the resolution regarding findings of fact with respect to Everest Connections Corporation's proposal for a cable communication franchise as amended on item 12 of the Recitals and item 2 under Now Therefore. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mancino: So going forward with the terms now. Thank you. Thanks for coming. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XXV~ SECTION 20-1176~ LANDSCAPING & TREE REMOVAL TO CHANGE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT. Bob Generous: Thank you. Madam Mayor, council members. This ordinance is back to you after review back in July. There was a public hearing in June with the Planning Commission. Basically there's four major elements of this. We delete the plant unit multiplier. In working with the developers they're all having problems understanding what that is. Instead they said tell them to count the trees in the picture and that's what you have to provide. The second one is to require 100% of the buffer plantings adjacent to roadways and public facilities or public property. The ordinance right now says you can calculate 100%, then you'd only provide 75%. Again adjacent to the public right-of-way's there's no adjacent property to in essence put the other 25% of the plantings there so we'd recommend that it'd all be put in the development property. Another addition was the substitution of berms for one half the shrubs and 29 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 understory plantings. The idea of the buffer yard is to provide screening. When we do use berms we can provide most, not all the screening so the requirement to put plantings on top of that is really redundant in meeting the screening requirement as a buffer. Finally they wanted to permit the use of conifers for overstory trees. This makes a lot of sense. A lot of our screening we like to have it 100% of the time rather than seasonal and so this would permit us to do that with development. I did provide a definition for landscape density transfer for you. It was suggested in the ordinance amendment but it was never provided to you and so basically it says if you can't put the landscaping in the spot where the buffer yard is, you can transfer it to other spots within the property and give us the number of plantings that would have been required that way. Staff is recommending approval of the ordinance amendment. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Roger Knutson: Mayor I'd just point out, this also requires 4 affirmative votes for passage. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff? Councilwoman Jansen: I had one, and that was, actually in reference to this definition that you just gave us. On page 3, the top of the page. Where it included the statement, if there is insufficient room for all plantings. Do I gather that that is not in the staff recommendation? That sentence. Bob Generous: I didn't find it in there, no. This came out of I believe the discussion of the Planning Commission where they wanted all the plantings and that would be a way to do that. Councilwoman Jansen: So should this, I don't think so. Okay, so if we flipped over to page 4. The bottom of the second paragraph, should that be amended to read the way this page 2 to 3 reads? Bob Generous: I believe so. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So we would. Bob Generous: If you want the landscape density transfer. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I guess I like that. I wasn't, I guess I'm not clear now as to whether you're recommending, is that part of staff's recommendation or? Bob Generous: Yes. Councilwoman Jansen: It is? Okay. Bob Generous: It just didn't get. Councilwoman Jansen: It just didn't get picked up that way. I'm liking including that statement. If there isn't sufficient room for all plantings, the applicant may choose to either plant excess materials on public property or employ a landscape density transfer. With that definition I thought that looked okay. That was my only point of clarification. Mayor Mancino: Do you have any questions? Councilman Labatt: No. 30 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Councilman Senn: Bob so where are you, the definitions? I mean that's not even within the framework of what you gave us. You're talking about inserting that after 20.1. Bob Generous: That would be 20.1 would be the new section. It was discussed but they never provided that. Councilman Senn: Okay. That's where I was getting confused. So the new language you're suggesting be inserted but it be inserted not in the context of what we have here but elsewhere in the ordinance under 20.17 Bob Generous: Which is a definitions section of the zoning ordinance. Councilman Senn: Alright. Councilwoman Jansen: I get it. Okay. Mayor Mancino: Bob, I had called earlier and asked about the Springfield Addition. If that big berm has 100% of the plantings on it right now. Bob Generous: It exceeds the minimum requirements. It's just so. Mayor Mancino: And we would have somebody just do half of those if another berm that size that is parallel to 101, it's the only example I could think of. So according to this ordinance, if someone built a berm that tall. Bob Generous: The city may. Mayor Mancino: Then there'd only be half that amount of landscaping on that berm like half of what there is today? Bob Generous: You could reduce it yes. Mayor Mancino: No. According to this ordinance. Councilwoman Jansen: Under the staff terms, if approved by the city. Councilman Senn: It's just a may. Bob Generous: I think the intent there is if you have a really confined area adjacent to a parking lot and a berm would serve better to provide that buffer. We'd go with the berm instead of having them put a berm and then try to squeeze all these plantings into it. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you for pulling out the word may. That helps me a lot. Thank you. Councilman Senn: I'm glad you really put the pictures in here because I think the pictures really show what the 100% requirement was. Roadways and whatever else it's kind of excessive. 31 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Oh, I don't think so. Councilman Labatt: These pictures? Councilman Senn: I mean you're crowding them like crazy just to make it fit. Councilwoman Jansen: Not for the different heights once they're grown. Because those are over, under in shrubs. Mayor Mancino: They kind of sit and tuck under. Is everybody feeling comfortable with this? Going forward. So we have one that's not. Well. Councilman Senn: I'm still not comfortable with the 100% requirement... Mayor Mancino: Okay, and we need 4/5 so. Councilwoman Jansen: Move to table. Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to table an amendment to Article XX¥, Section 20-1176, Landscaping & Tree Removal to Change Buffer Yard Requirements for new development. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A COMMUNICATION ANTENNA ON THE CITY WATER TOWER AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 17 FOOT BY 17 FOOT EQUIPMENT BUILDING, 2953 WATER TOWER PLACE, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 2N~ ADDITION, SPRINT PCS. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, council members. As stated, the applicant Sprint is requesting approval to install antennas on top of the city's new water tower in Arboretum Business Park. As part of the design standards for our Arboretum Business Park, antennas and towers were made a conditional use. To run the antennas, the equipment building would be located in the southwest comer of the site. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit and the site plan for the building with the conditions in the staff report. The Planning Commission did recommend unanimously to approve the conditional use permit with the additional landscaping requirements. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you would have. Mayor Mancino: Any questions for staff'? Then may I please have a motion. Councilwoman Jansen: Ooh, are we going that quick? I'm sorry. I did have a question on the panels. I know that when the tower, the water tower was put in, the Arboretum had a concern with the color of the tower and so they had gotten involved as far as determining that. These panels as they're being added, I'm assuming they're going to blend color wise with the tower. Bob Generous: That is correct. That's a condition of approval that they... Mayor Mancino: It's number one. 32 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Will it be reflective? Is there going to be any sort of a reflective quality to them? Bob Generous: Not really because it's that powder blue color. It's almost sky. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, so they're not actually metallic. Bob Generous: That was, the Arboretum actually called and that was their only comment. That it be the same color. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I didn't see where they were actually listed in here. Alright. Mayor Mancino: I think it's condition number 1. It says, it's one of those real short ones. It says the antennas must be painted the same color as the water tower. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I missed that. Alright. Mayor Mancino: Good. Any other questions? Councilman Senn: Move approval. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Anybody want to second it? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council approves Conditional Use Permit #2000-4 to permit the installation of a communication antenna on the city water tower and a 17' x 17' equipment building in the southwest corner of the site, subject to the following conditions: 1. The antennas must be painted the same color as the water tower. 2. The applicant must notify the City of Chanhassen Utility Department at least 24 hours prior to needing access to schedule an appointment to enter the water tower. 3. The applicant must enter into a lease agreement with the City of Chanhassen for use of the site. 4. The west and south walls of the building just be of one-hour fire resistive construction if located less than 20 feet to the adjacent property lines. 5. The antennas and their attachment must be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 6. The applicant and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division prior to applying for a building permit to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 33 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for City of Chanhassen approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The equipment building shall be screened with appropriate materials to hide it from surrounding uses or surrounding neighbors. A bituminous parking area 10-12 feet wide shall be paved along both the west and east sides of the proposed building to provide parking areas. The plans will need to be revised to address this parking and rive aisle expansion requirement. The contractor and all sub-contractors should be aware access to the water tower site will be restricted. It will be necessary to contact the City's Utility Supt a minimum of 24 hours in advance to access the tower. In addition, the city will require the engineering firm of AEC to inspect and supply a written report to the city of all welding/construction activities involved with installation of the antennas at the cost of the applicant. 10. The city has a private driveway agreement with these property owners, which should be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office to see if the easement permits access rights to other parties. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF CITY MANAGER MERIT PAY AND TASK WORKSHEET. Mayor Mancino: I think Mr. Benson's going to present that. I saw him out. Bob, if somebody wants to get him. You didn't think we'd ever get to you. Bob Benson: It's been a number of months. Mayor Mancino: Nice to see you Bob. if you could state your name and address and. Bob Benson: I'm Bob Benson and I'm affiliated with Safety and Associates, St. Louis Park. I'm here tonight to follow up on a request by the Mayor and Council to put together a City Manager Performance Evaluation and Merit Pay Plan. So I'm going to kind of go through a little background and then i'll discuss briefly each of the plans and then summarize that. Probably in... 5-10 minutes. Historically Chanhassen has been more reactive in their evaluation process because in part the city was focused on building infrastructure and how well people met the demands of an incredibly rapid growth. Today Chanhassen is entering a more mature phase of it's growth cycle and there is less need to play catch up. As a result there is a greater priority to fine tune Chanhassen's management systems to extract a greater effectiveness and to put the city in position to achieve it's long range goals in future years. Since the city manager's role is crucial to the successful development and execution of any long range plan, it makes sense to use the city's strategy plan to assess the city manager performance. Toward that end the proposed performance evaluation is tied to the city's strategic plan by establishing a task plan which will be accomplished each year by the city manager. These tasks are reviewed with the council in a quarterly progress discussion using mile stones to support the deliberations, and that will occur every quarter. Before proceeding with the specifics of the proposed evaluation plan, i want to provide a brief review of what evaluations have taken place since the current city manager came on board in May of 1999. The city manager's initial 6 month evaluation was completed in December of 99 with an annual evaluation to take place in December of each year. As an added note, the merit pay plan, if adopted, would be based in part on that initial 6 month evaluation. Additionally the city manager did not receive a merit pay increase after the 6 month review. Nor has one been awarded thus far in 2000. i'll take a moment to provide a brief 34 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 summary of that 6 month review that took place in December of '99. The council selected 7 key behaviors, those deemed most important to exhibit during the first 6 months in his job. Integrity and trust, political savvy, drive for results, standing alone, customer focus, business acumen. The evaluation not only provided comments from each council member, but also how the city manager rated himself. Thus the evaluation pointed out any gaps produced from differences between how the city manager judged his own performance versus how the council viewed his performance. The consensus among the council was to rate the city manager very positively. The summary section of the evaluation states, he is seen as bringing an enthusiastic leadership style to establish higher expectations for council and staff. He is establishing himself as a person who will confront issue directly without taking personal offense for those that don't agree with him. In driving for results he has exhibited an ability of standing up and being counted in addition to anticipating and organizing the process to get tasks accomplished. His ongoing result performance during his first six months is continuing to build the trust of council and staff. As we plan the next review, research suggests that there is really no one best way to evaluate a city manager. However in general the following features can increase the chances of success. The evaluation document allows the council to focus on job related topics and using an executive session to secure a range of comments in linking the evaluation to decisions about a manager's salary and benefits. Additionally, the successful use of any method depends on the conditions in which the evaluation occurs. Kind of setting the culture of the council. The constructive use of the evaluation process rests on the basic commitment of a council to establish a cooperative relationship. One based on trust. If cooperation is exercised, the performance evaluation can help produce a learning community, something which Chanhassen is wanting to work toward. Continue to improve. By serving as a means to clarify the performance expectations and the general nature of the council manager relationship, the core elements of a Chanhassen performance evaluation process consists of two things. The task plan and the merit plan. Two separate things. The evaluation would be scheduled to occur as I mentioned annually in December. This timing isolates the city manager's evaluation from the budget process as well as the manager's efforts to evaluate other city employees during, both of which occur during the spring. The task plan lists baseline responsibilities that the city manager needs to address during the year. In addition, the plan supports each of the six primary strategies set forth in the city's strategic plan. Something all of you have worked on very hard over the last year or so. Each task has a deliverable and a time line developed by the city manager and reviewed by the city council. Successful completion of the task plan is the city manager's core job. A 4 point rating scale would be linked to each of the six primary strategies. The rating scale allows the council members to indicate if the manager exceeds expectations, meets expectations, needs improvement or is unsatisfactory. Additionally, each council member would have the opportunity to add written comments. As previously mentioned, once a quarter the council and city manager will meet to discuss progress towards achieving the plan. At the conclusion of the year, December of every year, his performance in executing this component will be evaluated by the City Council. The successful completion of the task plan will result in a CPI increase and at your discretion, a possible increase in base salary. Since base salary under the new plan would be only adjusted during the annual review, the city manager would no longer receive a possible base salary increase in July using the current merit pay plan. As you all know the current merit pay plan increases base salary and that increase stays forward as the years go forward. A city manager merit plan. Now we're moving from the task plan now to the merit plan. Can be fashioned in numerous ways. In today's world where talent runs free and organizations retention, attraction and motivation strategies can use the element of a merit pay plan as a viable tool. Generally city manager merit pay is calculated as a percent of base salary with a range of 8 to 12 percent. It is a subjective decision made by the council after... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) 35 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Mayor Mancino: And because we had from the December to December, and because we have the strategic plan using it as a guide. So. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I would just clarify though where you say we were all so comfortable. I was comfortable with a warm fuzzy evaluation at 6 months without any true analysis knowing we were then moving into another review at the year. And so that would have been May. That was my understanding so that is where this evaluation to me was that touch base, as we talked about it. You know is there a good fit, but it wasn't a true performance evaluation. So again, that's where I wish... Mayor Mancino: But that was the true performance evaluation. Councilman Senn: Well go to the performance evaluation. We all filled out forms. We all rated every element... Councilwoman Jansen: Yes. Yes we did but. Councilman Senn: How that became a warm fuzzy is beyond me. Bob Benson: The behavioral evaluation was, one could certainly look at it as you characterize it but also it can be looked at as a character, elements of his character which are extremely important in any leadership position. For example, is widely trusted. Is he a direct, truthful individual? Can present the unbiased truth in an appropriate, helpful manner. Keeps confidences. Admits mistakes. Doesn't misrepresent himself for personal gain. Those are real core character issues of any leader and are very important issues in my view. Councilwoman Jansen: And I don't disagree. One of the things that I did do in an effort to understand why we seem to be re-creating the wheel is I went to at the League of Minnesota Cities Conference in St. Cloud, I attended the performance evaluation seminar. From that they gave us direction that there are city manager performance evaluation forms available through League of Minnesota Cities. So I did request those just recently and got them and I know we're all familiar with Brynmeier. I was surprised to see their name on some of these and I can share them. But this is more what I was expecting. I mean the titles are policy, planning agendas, supervision, leadership, department performance, professional reputation and then underneath those come some of these other bullet points. Well respected by fellow managers. Represents city and professional organizations. Getting into more the detail and I realize that we still have those conceptual things to look at. Bob Benson: What I did is I looked at numerous case studies in numerous cities and there was a very broad spectrum of forms as it were and the way you look at evaluating a city manager. So my goal is to create something that would be practical and not too convoluted and yet insure that there was ongoing communication between the city manager and council to insure that important issues were being handled and moved forward so it didn't become a micro managing issue, nor as a overwhelming issue from the council individuals to fill out. For example the City of Hopkins, just as a little antidote. The Mayor there refused to fill out any forms and it's interesting that in many cities council people refuse to fill out forms. What he does, he says I'd like you to bring in a secretary. I'll sit down. I'm going to dictate exactly what I think about the city manager and you take the dictation and type it up and that's my review. I'm not filling out any forms. So there is a balance there of, what it really boils down to what the Mayor and Council want and that will suffice as long as there is ways of tracking performance and I think in a lot of these annual evaluations they're only done once a year. There's not a tracking method on a quarterly basis to insure that people are staying on track. 36 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Well we have used Brynmeier before. We have done that before and have used his methods and I've checked and looked at a couple cities also. This is more specific in task and brings in our strategic plan as really the alignment for us as a council, for our city manager, for our staff. Hopefully the strategic plan can guide us and we can have some of these over arching management statements. I don't know ifthere'd be anything we'd want to add to the statements. One or two that might not touch on specific areas. But you know maybe there are a couple statements to add that touches on areas where we want to be more specific about, which would work fine. Councilwoman Jansen: And maybe even where you've got them as statements, if those can be broken out. Some of them are similar to some of the categories that they've shown but you're actually commenting then on each of the qualities instead of a rating for the block. The anticipates problems might be completely different than communicates appropriately. Mayor Mancino: Well and hopefully we would put that in our comments. Is that what you're thinking? Bob Benson: Yes, absolutely. Mayor Mancino: Because that's what we did with Brynmeier kind of as I remember Linda. So that people can do that. Bob Benson: The over riding, my over riding goal is to create a balance so that we're creating a method and a process to see how we're doing back and forth between council and mayor. In fact we could even incorporate into this how he would rank or rate the council. In fact only if I recall through the research, only 6% of the cities incorporated that into their element. They didn't, the council did not want to be ranked or rated. So they would not institute that. But yet that's one of the more effective, from the research that's been performed, is one more effective elements in an appraisal. Councilwoman Jansen: Well, and interesting, not to interrupt. I think you had brought it up in our previous meetings is the 360 degree evaluation. And having that done I thought was also appropriate so that it's manager up and the spoke at the conference about it being confidential so that they could comment as well as seeking some of that input from community members. You know how is he being perceived. How is he interacting. That's very important to the community I think that they also have that ability to comment. Bob Benson: Correct. And yet it's only implemented by such a, it's a very small percent of the cities. My over riding thought would be to recommend starting with this plan.. Getting some traction with it and then moving forward. It's going to be like the strategic plan. It will be flexible. It will allow changes to be made and that's one of the key elements in any plan is to create that flexibility. Mayor Mancino: I know the ones that I know that do the 360. I think Eden Prairie does it and it's interesting. They have the 360 includes the council, direct department heads and a few community members that the city manager picks. Selects the community members. And you know I kind of, I looked at that too and talked to Dr. Harris a little bit about it and they have an HR department so I don't know if that makes it you know easier or not but that might be something that again, as you said as we go through, start making these evaluations more disciplined and more sophisticated, that we might want to look at you know some point going into that. 360. 37 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Councilwoman Jansen: I had mentioned it to Scott at one point out on ICMA web sites they have a 360 degree evaluation available to cities so I mean there is a template out there. Mayor Mancino: What else do you have for us? Bob Benson: I've got the process and time line and the compensation survey. What I'm handing out here is the time line between now and December. What items have to be accomplished and when. Mayor Mancino: So are the, these just 8 comparables. This is just for our information and these are mostly what? Cities in the metro area around our size or what? Bob Benson: Correct. They were all comparable in population and somewhat the same in terms of budget. You'll notice that Golden Valley is the highest. And also talking about development training in terms of once this gains some momentum here is looking at tuition policies and what not to get a sense of what other people are doing here also. There's a lot of variation obviously. Councilwoman Jansen: Just glancing at this, do you have how long each of these individuals have been with their cities? Bob Benson: No I don't. Councilwoman Jansen: Length of tenure. Okay. Mayor Mancino: But it kind of tells us the market. Competitive market. Bob Benson: Correct. For example, Hopkins City Manager recently received a $7,500 bonus. That's a new concept for many and the issue there, to be quite direct is retention. That's something that's motivating for the city manager and he has been recruited and the city feels strongly about what he's done and they're looking at ways of playing into what his motivation is. For him a bonus, or excuse me. A merit plan is something that was something that he felt comfortable with. Mayor Mancino: So you have, let's see your time line. September 18th, during a work session, city manager to update us on the ongoing task plan. November 6th. City manager to update task plan with again all of council, and I'm assuming that that means the merit plan too? Bob Benson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So it'd be task plan and merit plan. November 6th you would hand out and discuss performance evaluation form and that's this? Bob Benson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And if we Bob wanted to add a couple more statements, is that a problem? Bob Benson: Not a problem. Once again these are your documents. Your evaluation plan and I know the ICMA has their templates but when you look at cities across the country, there is a huge variation. It's what the mayor and council decides is important and what's going to be helpful for them. The key is 38 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 consistency and the key is open communication. You can have all the forms in the world but that's not going to gather and create results. Mayor Mancino: Well it's really our getting together and talking about everything. Bob Benson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: You have down November 6th. I'm just going through this. Council to select performance evaluation team. Correct? Bob Benson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And that evaluation team's job is to, I think what we talked about when we did the 6 month review, I think I did the 6 month review with Scott and then the next time two of us would do it from council. Bob Benson: So in essence you have a veteran and somebody who's perhaps new so it's passed on. Next year, the following year that junior person as it were, on the team, becomes the senior person and then another person joins that team. Mayor Mancino: So everybody gets a chance hopefully. Bob Benson: Absolutely. It's rotated through. So if you're paired with someone, that person has already been through the process. So it's not as it you're hanging out there on a limb. Mayor Mancino: Now you have down November 6th through the 20th. Completion of performance evaluation forms by council. So after Scott gives us an update during that work session, then we'll get the performance evaluation forms and fill them out to get them back to you on the 20th. Then on the December 4th work session, it says Bob Benson presents summary performance evaluation and merit pay recommendations to City Council for discussion and approval. So that's when we'll really meet and make decisions. Bob Benson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: And that will be a closed session, because that will be a performance review. And then December 6th, the evaluation, council evaluation team, those two people will meet with the city manager to present performance results and merit pay award. Bob Benson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: From our decision at the closed session. Bob Benson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: And then on December 11th the council meeting, we will, the council evaluation team, those two will provide a public over view of the city manager's performance results and merit pay award during that council meeting. Okay, to the public. 39 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Bob Benson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: And then in January we will start the strategic plan. We'll revisit that and establish goals and objectives. And so at that point we'll do a city manager's task plan and merit plan too? Bob Benson: We'll start that process. Mayor Mancino: Start that over again. Okay. Any comments on that? Steve, any overall comments that you have? Councilman Labatt: On the time line, no. Obviously we have our work cut out for us. You know and I was just trying to think back here when we did the 6 month eval and then we talked about the one year eval after that. You know without my, I know it's from the city manager review. The best I can recall is we agreed, or thought that our focus was going to be a one year review, which would put at the December, 2000. Whatever that's worth. And no, I've got no other. Bob Benson: With quarterly reviews also. Mayor Mancino: I think that's a good idea. Councilman Labatt: Yeah, yeah. But I mean the annual review was going to be at the end of the year. Mayor Mancino: And from now on, I'm assuming Bob that that means there will be no, again. There will be no 6 month reviews at all. We'll just do annual reviews but we'll do quarterly updates. What we call quarterly updates. We're not going to sit and try and review, or we won't be having a review at these quarterly meetings. We'll just be updated on to how we're doing with the task plan. To the merit pay. Bob Benson: Correct. Are the tasks still realistic? Are there extenuating circumstances that have occurred? Also one could take notes and kind of do in their own mind, in your mind kind of a quick over view of how well he's doing that first quarter. How well did he present his issues and problems? Does he look like he's on top of what he's talking about doing? Are his extenuating circumstances in your view real or are they just, for whatever reason. In other words, there is kind of an evaluation process going on there, but the real key is communication and are we on track at that point? Are we still on track? Rather than letting a lot of time go under it, it's like testing an athlete. How are you doing? And from that do we need to make some changes. Mayor Mancino: Roger, just a legal question. As we're doing these quarterly updates, or whomever is doing the quarterly updates. The council is doing the quarterly updates with the city manager. And if people start, you know talking about and we're just looking at the task plan and we're looking, are those closed sessions because we're, if we get into performance things? I know that's kind ofa. Roger Knutson: First, I don't know, is the quarterly's. I understand the annual is being done by the full council. Who's doing the quarterlies? Mayor Mancino: The whole council and the city manager. Roger Knutson: If you're going into a performance evaluation during that time, then it would be closed. If it's not a performance evaluation, if it's something else, than it would be open. 40 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Councilman Labatt: So it's a chance for Scott to give us an update on wherever he is with his task plan, would that be. The other way would be just to give us an update. Roger Knutson: If that's what, if for example you went through your checklist and said here's where I am on these checklist, that would not be an evaluation of him. His performance so that would be open, if that's all it comes to. That'd be open. Councilman Senn: But if we start critiquing his performance. Roger Knutson: If you want to critique his performance and evaluate his performance, then it becomes a closed session. Councilman Labatt: I've got a question for Bob. As far as, you talked the 8 to 12% standard. Where does that come from? Bob Benson: Actually I did a literature search on all merit plans throughout the country and quite frankly there was a huge range. I mean there were some that were up to 20-25%. Surprisingly enough. So using that as a method and looking at what Hopkins has done, coming up with a range. Developing a range. Councilman Labatt: So how does that equate to the park and rec employee or the street maintenance employee who's going to get a 2.5 or 3% raise? I mean I'm just trying to. Bob Benson: I hear you. Councilman Labatt: I mean how does it, I mean how do you justify giving a guy 12% when someone's only going to get a 2 ½ to 3 ? Bob Benson: Couple factors. First one is he's on a contract but to the guy out there in public works that probably doesn't mean a whole lot. The individual in public works for example, his base pay is increased by 2 1/2 %. The city manager's base pay may not be increased. That's discretion. Up to the council. So the two merit plans are a little different. One is an increase in base pay that remains. Mayor Mancino: It's cumulative. Bob Benson: Cumulative, right. And this is a one time evaluation, discretionary amount that's decided among all of you. Councilwoman Jansen: Is there flexibility outside of the 8 to 12%? I mean are we passing eventually a policy that is setting 8 to 12 or can council's go less or more? Bob Benson: You could decide you're going to give him 3%. Councilwoman Jansen: Or 20%. Bob Benson: Or 20, absolutely. Councilwoman Jansen: So it's not as if we're setting a policy that council's in the. 41 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Bob Benson: It's totally discretionary. Councilman Senn: You've just come back and said you've hit a range from 0 to 25% and the majority of them have fallen in the 8 to 12%. Councilwoman Jansen: I was just clarifying that we're not setting anything in stone here and it's loose. Bob Benson: It is discretionary, absolutely. And quite honestly that's what the city of Hopkins just recently did. It was a judgment call as they would say of what they felt was appropriate based on his accomplishing some tasks that they had set up for him. So it's very subjective. Mayor Mancino: And I would also add on to it, or I would also think that the other part that would be discretionary is base salary. Whether you wanted to at some point, if the council wanted to in a couple years say they thought the base salary should go up to, they saw it going up in other areas in the metro area. You know in other cities in the metro area. They also might want to look at insurances and making sure that some of those benefits are kept up to date too. I mean it's all discretionary. Bob Benson: Absolutely and it's more important to do it on a local basis rather than national basis because we all know it's not relative. So we look at what's happening in our market here, and that was the purpose of putting together the overview of pay. Actually it's total compensation and we talk about base salary but it is the total cost of that individual. And that's the important thing. Where is the Chanhassen City Manager stack up relative to similar cities in the area? Total compensation. And I wanted to provide that as a perspective so that in any discussion regarding salary and benefits that we could use this as a benchmark. Mayor Mancino: Steve, any more questions? Councilman Labatt: Did you think about looking at Champlin at all? I mean they're similar growth. Bob Benson: I could. I didn't consider that. Councilman Senn: I may be wrong in this but I don't think they have a city manager. I thought they had a city administrator. Councilman Labatt: Oh I don't know. Councilman Senn: I thought I remembered that on a project we had up there that it was an administrator. But I may be wrong. Councilman Labatt: I'm just looking at similar cities. Bob Benson: And you know philosophically you can almost look at two different systems. One is the system of entitlement. The other is a productivity increases of accomplishing things and rewarding individuals on that. For example, Stillwater is a completely unionized city. Their city manager, as you can see, is a lower end. That individual has not, I don't believe had an increase for quite a while. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions you have Linda? 42 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Councilwoman Jansen: No other questions. I'm fully in favor of going to a more frequent review or evaluation of performance. I think that's what is underlying why I'm feeling uncomfortable with the fact that we haven't done anything since December. To now go 12 months seems inappropriate. We're not communicating so to see this quarterly coming before us I think is a very positive thing. A very positive thing. Hopefully we manage to stick with that frequency. Bob Benson: Absolutely. Councilwoman Jansen: But I do think of these as very informative months if you would in that first year that we're all together and to be going that long without this sort of a tool to be used just, I would have liked to have seen it happen sooner. But nice job. You've pulled together some good information for us and I certainly appreciate it. It's very professional. I didn't mean to get all hung up on wanting something sooner. Mayor Mancino: Well and please know, council members and this is something that we talked about with Brynmeier, that if any council member wants to meet and do an update with the city manager at any time, please do. Have that talk. Councilwoman Jansen: Oh, I suppose we all realize that. But that's a little different than full council. Mayor Mancino: But I just wanted to make sure that everybody knows that too. If there is something that has come up. Mark. Councilman Senn: I like Bob's plan. Bob, obviously a lot of work went into this. Looks good. I like the framework I guess is what I call it more than a plan. And stuff, but at the same time I fully support I mean essentially it's a framework but everything within is discretionary and that's as it should be. You know with the council because that's the council's authority and what this council versus next year's council and whatever. That's totally up to whoever is there. And stuff, but I think this gives us a real good framework to go from which is what I thought we were looking for and I like the, I really like the dual approach with the major management issues and the actual performance evaluation as it relates to the task or in our case the strategic plan which was the primary basis of that so I think that's good. And I think the other thing is is just, in December then we do the review and we make a merit increase decision but again I think we also just need to keep in mind that that's really the point for us to discuss the overall, not only performance issues but the overall compensation issues as it relates to his contract. Because I'm assuming that's going to kind of be our annual examination of his contract and/or.., being under contract rather than other methodologies. Essentially that the time effectively that you'd kind of be doing both sides of that equation at the same time, right? Bob Benson: Correct. Councilman Senn: Alright. So I think that would be great. Mayor Mancino: Comments. It's pretty comprehensive. I like the idea of quantifying a little bit more the, a merit increase. Exactly why we're giving it and having certain tasks. I like the idea of tying it to the city's over arching strategic plan. And I like the, some sort of the statements that take it more qualitative than the quantitative and the task so there seems to be a combination of looking at our city manager and his or her performance. And I also agree with Linda that I like the idea of... 43 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Councilman Senn: Well I'd move approval of the City manager's merit pay and task worksheet. I mean that's essentially what we've got as the framework. Bob Benson: Correct. Councilman Senn: Yeah. Councilman Labatt: I'll second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the City Manager Merit Pay and Task Worksheet as presented. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Jansen who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Councilwoman Jansen: No, and my only statement is I'd like to spend some more time with it before I actually approve it. But that's just me obviously but thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Labatt: Thanks Bob. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much Bob. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilwoman Jansen: Actually probably under council presentations I thought you might like a just quick update on the Vote Yes Committee and what they're up to. Mayor Mancino: Oh good. Councilwoman Jansen: On their fast time line. They met on Thursday morning. The majority of the conversation was focused around putting their brochure together to get more the vote yes message. Being very careful to use same sorts of verbiage and direction from the city brochure. And in fact when Jill popped up here she brought copies. These are the copies of the brochure that Scott was going to try to leave and apparently we can't find. Mayor Mancino: Now where did she get these? Councilwoman Jansen: She had come up here earlier today and gotten a Xerox from Scott. Now what seems to be missing could potentially be the back page to this, which are all of the questions and answers that we had, yeah. And the tax grid. So I'm sure am hoping that it's just a page that's missing. Now this came from Deb saying 3 pages and these are 3 pages. Mayor Mancino: Now wait, wait. Since I've been in the business I'll tell you. Councilwoman Jansen: It does overlap so I'm assuming there's a back missing. 44 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Mayor Mancino: There's got to be a back missing. Councilwoman Jansen: I think so. Yeah, because it doesn't even have the property values and tax impact so I'm assuming that's what it is. Councilman Labatt: Well it's only 9:25. Let's call up Deb and ask her. Councilwoman Jansen: It's gone to press so. Councilman Senn: Deb, if you're watching this. Councilman Labatt: Yeah, when are we going to have those live broadcasts anyway? Mayor Mancino: I like the, which reminds me of the Chanhassen Connection. The artwork in here. That's kind of fun. What's on the cover? We're missing the cover, right? Councilwoman Jansen: So Todd, if you can still chase this down. Todd Gerhardt: I will get you a hard copy and also e-mail you an electronic one tomorrow. Councilwoman Jansen: That'd be wonderful. Todd Gerhardt: So you'll have both. Mayor Mancino: I would just like a hard copy. You don't have to e-mail me because I'll never be able to bring it up. There are a lot of e-mails I don't get, just so everyone knows, because I can't open, I'm like Steve. I can't open them up so if you ever think I don't know something. Councilman Senn: Sure blame it on the machine. We know who the fault is. Councilwoman Jansen: If you wouldn't mind, and then I don't know if you have Jill's e-mail. If you can also include her. The reason being that they are being so careful to try to use the same language and numbers and verbiage. And they of course have to get theirs into print too as we are. They also have organized already the phone bank so there will be phone calls being made throughout the community starting this coming Saturday and Sunday. No, Friday and Saturday. Mayor Mancino: Why are they doing it so early? Councilwoman Jansen: They're trying to also get an indication through their questions, which are being drafted by Decision Resources, of what some of the issues might be. Some of the other information that we need to share with other people as well in case there's questions that are coming up that we haven't thought to address in the brochure or in the Vote Yes. If we can flush those out early, we can also then get them into say the 12 fast facts that are going to be in the library. So that there's another mode of being able to communicate them. But Decision Resources is coming up with all of that so they're getting some good direction on how to do that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. 45 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Councilwoman Jansen: But those were the two. Mayor Mancino: And then they will. Councilman Senn: I suppose you have to put some stuff.., based on what they get from Decision Resources. Councilwoman Jansen: Yes. Mayor Mancino: I'm assuming. And then are they going to do a second follow-up phone bank right before? Councilwoman Jansen: Yes. Mayor Mancino: That's what I wondered. If you were going to do it first and then do a follow-up with anything that they saw was missing. :Councilwoman Jansen: Yes, absolutely. Now they did request, and I think you probably saw my e-mail and Roger was cc'd on it also. What they were requesting the extra copies of the city brochure for are when they're also talking to people and they say well no, we didn't get the city brochure and we all know they probably did in the mail and chucked it. To be able to give them this information because it isn't an exact duplicate of what they did. In fact it's very different. They just made sure that they used identical terms if they were referring to the same information. But so they were hoping to be able to have some fees for those people that ask for this type of information. Is that possible Roger if they're not actually doing it and handing it and saying vote yes? Because they do have their own brochures. Roger Knutson: The problem is the city can't spend any money in support of the vote yes campaign and so we couldn't run off large quantities for the vote yes campaign use. If for example you took, and this is I apologize. I'm sure it's awkward. If you took down the name or the address of the folks who didn't get them and then you, they say they didn't get them. Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah. Roger Knutson: And brought those to City Hall, and then the city as part of it's normal mailings, I probably could look at that. I don't know how feasible that sort of thing would be. Councilwoman Jansen: If, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. If they were to pay for the extra copies, does that take care of that legal issue of our actually supporting them and spending money to give them to them if say they were to give us money for 300 of them. Roger Knutson: I think that would be okay but I think it'd be preferable even then if you stamped them, provided by the Vote Yes Committee. Mayor Mancino: Or paid for or something so the taxpayers. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. 46 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Roger Knutson: And you could just have a rubber stamp. You can get those made up in an hour I think. That way no one will, we don't want anyone suggesting. I can't imagine anyone's out there, well maybe someone's against the library. I don't know. Saying it's improper expenditure of city funds. You shouldn't be working with the Vote Yes Committee and here we have the seal that says no. You paid for it. Mayor Mancino: And the other thing I thought of if we had a taxpayer say, I've already gotten this in the mail. Why am I getting a second one? You know why did we spend taxpayer money for that or something. Again, I'm just thinking. Councilwoman Jansen: I think the stamp. Being able to stamp it idea. That doesn't seem like. Todd Gerhardt: You'll probably have to stamp all 300 just so you understand that because they'll already be printed without the name on them. Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah, understood. Roger Knutson: But you know, that shouldn't take more than an hour. Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah. We've got a lot of kids around. Because I'm assuming if they did a couple hundred extra they're planning on putting some in the library. Because that was the other location that they were wanting, they cannot put the Vote Yes material in the library so they have to have the bipartisan piece. Mayor Mancino: I don't know, I was amazed at, and I didn't go door to door Linda but I was amazed at how many people said and kept the park and trail brochure right before the vote and read it. Because they knew it came from the city. That people didn't toss it as much. They keep those things. Councilwoman Jansen: We'll hope so. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, exactly. Councilwoman Jansen: I think those were the main points that they covered. Mayor Mancino: If you don't mind I have a question for you Linda on the, what was in City Business. I thought it was interesting on the Southwest Transit Coalition Commission picking the new development. Did you see that? Councilwoman Jansen: No. Mayor Mancino: That the commission picked, I guess I have the article. Councilwoman Jansen: I just thought it was interesting. While you're digging for that, when I was reading the Chanhassen Connection, there was a mention in here that made me wonder if this was a conversation that maybe as a council we should review. Under the public works and engineering, under the sprinkling restrictions. The statement was, Chanhassen has chosen to implement sprinkling restrictions rather than construct excess storage for use during maintenance of the existing tanks in the system. And I guess that made me ponder if there had been a policy discussion at some point that that decision was made, and now 47 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 looking towards the future if we need to be having that policy discussion in regards to if we're ever going to be in a position like this again. So I guess, if we could get that potentially on a future agenda to. Mayor Mancino: Just real quickly.., water storage. When we build another water storage, will that take the stress off Lake Lucy tower? Councilman Labatt: I thought Scott had discussed that... Mayor Mancino: I thought he did too. Councilman Labatt: We'll build it so we don't get ourselves in... Councilwoman Jansen: But that's why I'd like to have that conversation and make sure that it's stepped because this almost makes it seem as if we're saying to the public, this is going to happen again because this is our policy. Councilman Senn: I agree with Linda because if that was ever a policy discussion, it went right over my head. Mayor Mancino: We never had it. We never had it. Councilman Senn: We never had that so I mean I have... Councilwoman Jansen: So I guess maybe you know to Teresa, you know they can review the scheduling for us of the next maintenance that's going to occur on a water storage facility. Will there be another tank? Will we have to. Todd Gerhardt: Well I remember Scott mentioning that the next water reservoir tank that we're going to build is going to be big enough so we can take down this other one but I don't know if he's ever talked to an engineer. Even if you do build a bigger one, is that going to solve the problem? I mean you can build the biggest one in the world. Councilman Labatt: But you've got to fill it. Todd Gerhardt: Well you can fill it but is it going to pressurize the Minnewashta people if it's over on 101 or south of Highway 5. Councilman Senn: Well no, but my recollection of the plan in which Bonestroo I believe, Bonestroo put together was there were a couple of holes in the system were planned for the future. One is on the far east side, okay. And as soon as those holes were filled as planned additions to the system, then the whole system looks fine and you could take elements out of service. But right now what was causing problems on the system was the fact that those holes were there and once you took that one out. Todd Gerhardt: Well that makes more sense than saying the next one we're going to build is just super big and that's going to solve all our problems. I mean you may need to build two and they have to be strategically located in the community to balance the system. 48 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Councilman Senn: I can tell you our water pressure has really sucked the last week. Noticeably gone down. Very, very much. Mayor Mancino: But we haven't started. Councilman Senn: Yes you have. You've drained the tower. Mayor Mancino: Oh that's true. Councilman Senn: Not only have we noticed. Councilman Labatt: The showers? Councilman Senn: All. I mean it used to be you could flush the toilets while you're taking a shower and no big difference at all. Now you flush the toilet while you're in the shower, forget it. There's no water almost. So it's a big, big difference. Big difference in water pressure. And maybe that's just... Mayor Mancino: Any other discussion? You can have that... Councilman Senn: Are we under general points or whatever? Mayor Mancino: Admin Section. Councilwoman Jansen: Or council presentation. Well, and general points. Whatever. Councilman Senn: Todd, on the Admin Section. There was that Class Rate Percentages of Real Property stuff in there. But you can't read any of it because of the black back grounding. Could you get copies out to us that are readable because I think that's really good stuff but it'd be nice to be able to read it. So that would be nice. And also, would you make a note, and I don't know maybe it's Teresa but there's a letter in there from Tinklenberg, MnDot. From July 11th telling us about, in effect it was amending our allocation. But it doesn't say what our allocation was. So I mean I don't know if it went up or down or he's not changing it at all. Could you find that out for us? Mayor Mancino: I know. I'm assuming they're giving us more money. Councilman Senn: Sure. That's why MnDot always amends things right. Councilwoman Jansen: Otherwise it would have been on there. Mayor Mancino: It didn't say minus. It wouldn't have you know... Councilman Senn: And the last thing I had was all these silly e-mails I've been reading back and forth about Scott going ahead saying, he's paying for his education or his masters degree or whatever and that's all going on and on and on, but now this latest one says now that he's going to take vacation time for a few days because he needs to do it which to me seems really kind of silly for a guy that's in a salaried position and puts in 60 hours a week, etc, etc so I think as a council we should kind of say that we're not requiring him to do that. 49 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Not requiring him to? Councilman Senn: Take vacation days to miss an occasional day to be working on his education. Councilman Labatt: Well is it going to be every Friday or is it? Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I want to see what the days are. How often it is. Councilman Senn: My understanding is it's like 4 days or something like that. Councilwoman Jansen: He didn't designate. Mayor Mancino: Why don't we ask him that. Councilman Labatt: He's going to e-mail us his calendar or schedule so. Councilman Senn: Yeah but I mean it's kind of like the deal, I mean regardless of what it is, I mean are we going to put him on a time clock? Seems kind of silly. Mayor Mancino: No. I understand. Why don't we talk about it when he give us an update on September 16th. Is everybody comfortable with that? When we get an update on his task plan, etc. When we meet with him. Councilwoman Jansen: Yep. Mayor Mancino: Okay. You okay with that Steve? Councilman Labatt: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Great. That's it. Thank you all for coming. 50