The URL can be used to link to this page

Administrative Section1 1 t I Ll ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION Letter to Curt Johnson, Metropolitan Council dated November 20, 1996. Memo from Don Ashworth on Consumer Price Index dated November 20, 1996. Letter from OSM dated November 14, 1996. Memo from Karen Bowen, Hennepin Parks received November 20, 1996. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated November 19, 1996. Letter from Helen Merchant dated October 31, 1996. Letter from William Swearengin dated November 2, 1996. Memo from Henry Griner dated November 6, 1996. Memo from Richard Carr dated September 10, 1996. Memo from Colleen Dockendorf, SWMT dated November 4, 1996. Memo from James Miller, League of Minnesota Cities dated November 1, 1996. Letter from Adeel Lari, MnDot dated September 9, 1996. Executive Summary from Great Lakes Management Co dated November 11, 1996. Memo from Scott Harr dated November 5, 1996. Memo from Nancy Mancino dated November 18, 1996. Defendant's Reply Memorandum, John R. Fisher and SA Land Partners. Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, John R. Fisher and SA Land Partners.. Letter from Robert Lindall, Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition dated November 19, 1996. Memo from Don Ashworth re: CIP/Position Classification Plan dated November 21, 1996. w November 20, 1996 1 DRAFT , Mr. Curt Johnson, Chair Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: Transportation Development Plan Revision Dear Mr. Johnson and Members of the Metropolitan Council: You recently received a letter from the Southwest Transportation Coalition continuing to support the construction of Highway 212, but requesting that the document be amended to include using alternative financing, including toll roads, as a means to actually carry out the construction. By inference, it could be assumed that the City of Chanhassen endorses the construction of Highway 212 as a toll road. This letter is to confirm that the City of Chanhassen does endorse the construction of Highway 212, but has not taken any position in regards to whether such should be built as a toll road. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Donald J. Chmiel Mayor DJC:DA:k I 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 l MEMORANDUM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: November 20, 1996 SUBJ: CPI A picture is worth a thousand words. I believe the attached graphic does a better job in depicting what I was attempting to say during our last work session. C onsumer rice Index First half of 1995 Second half of 1995 First half of 1996 Second half of 1996 March October March October $24,OOJl $24,3 $24 $25 1.9% 3.3% 1.8% (est = 3.7% (est) � � ! M " an M � M M no 'm M = � = � M ' I November 14, 1996 1 ii 1 a' x ¢ iV • 300 Park Place East 5775 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 -1228 612- 595 -5775 1- 800 - 753 -5775 FAX 595 -5774 Engineers Architects Planners Lake Riley, Lake Susan, and Lyman Boulevard Area Residents Surveyors Chanhassen, MN Re: Resident Update Letter No. 9 Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements and Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction, Chanhassen, MN City Project No. 93 -32B OSM Project No. 5183.00 Dear Resident: We're getting to the point where we can now begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Items that still need to be addressed are the paving of the path and the wear course on the street, sodding and seeding, and water service availability. Each is discussed below. Paving - The paving of the final lift of asphalt and the bike path will be completed next spring. This is done to catch any settlements or cracking of the road that may come up this winter so that they can be corrected in the spring before the final wear course is paved. This is also true for the bike path. Waiting until spring will allow the ground to settle before the path is paved and will result in a better product. Sodding and Seeding - The sodding and seeding will get done in the spring as weather conditions have prevented this work from being completed this fall. Water Service Availability - The watermain is now available for residents to hook -up to. It has been tested and has met all of the necessary requirements for pressure and water quality. Before residents hook -up though, they need to get the necessary permits from the City of Chanhassen's Building Department. If you know of any other items on this project that need to be addressed before, please contact either Jason Wedel at 595 -5613 or Dave Mitchell at 595 -5699. To talk with OSM field personnel, you may call Fred Britzius at 889 -4029. Fred will be happy to meet with you at your convenience. If you do not reach us directly, please leave a voice mail message and we will return the call as soon as possible to discuss your concerns. Finally, it is important to note that since the road has been open with the new pavement, the City has been receiving numerous complaints from area residents regarding speeding traffic. The City asks that all residents make a conscious effort to abide by the posted speed limit of 35 mph. H:N5183.00\ctvtc\coaaES\ t t t496.aES Equal Opportunity Employer Lake Riley, Lake Susan, and Lyman Boulevard Area Residents Chanhassen, MN November 14, 1996 Page 2 OSM, the City of Chanhassen, and Richard Knutson, Inc., appreciate your patience and cooperation as this project progresses. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. David D. Mitchell, P.E. Project Manager c: Charles Folch - City Engineer - City of Chanhassen Anita Benson - City Project Engineer - City of Chanhassen Don Ashworth - City Manager - City of Chanhassen Fred Britzius - OSM & Associates, Inc. Mayor & City Council of Chanhassen Reuben Mausolf - Richard Knutson, Inc. DDM:ce 11:\51 ffi.00\civ1L\CORRES\ i i I496.RES 6C HENNEPIN PARKS NOV 2 p Q 1,,95 CITY G .': C� i.., ., ; ; , . Memorandum l November 18, 199 '" , I TO: LRT Community Representatives FROM: Karen Bowen, Hennepin Parks, Advisory Co ittee Chair SUBJ: Approved Winter Permits November 7, 1996, the Hennepin Parks Board of Commissioners unanim winter activity permits for municipalities adjacent to the Southwest Regional LRT Corridors. Enclosed is a chart indicating the activities for which ermit p shave been requested and approved. The Park District will be posting Trail Closed signs on the LRT segment included within the City of Greenwood, and news releases will be sent to local newspapers to inform the public of the Board's action. Tonka Bay, which has not previously been included in the permitting process, has been asked to participate this season. The Tonka Bay Council voted November 12 to request a winter activity permit to allow hiking, biking, cross - country skiing, snowshoeing, pet walking, and snowmobiling on the approximately 400 feet of trail within the City limits. Winter signage denoting approved activities and corresponding regulations should be posted immediately; it is acceptable to attach winter signs to existing LRT sign posts. Thank you for your cooperation and best wishes for a safe winter trail system. oh]1h1\bdpermit96 LRT WINTER USE PERMIT REQUESTS 1996 -97 oh 1 ArApermits.96 PERMIT REQUEST/ VERIFICATION OF INSURANCE CITY ACTIVITIES PERMITTED COUNCIL ACTION CERTIFICATION Chanhassen Yes /Snowmobiling Received Yes /expires 12/96 (need extension) Deephaven Yes /Walking, X -C Skiing Received Yes /expires 8/97 Eden Prairie Yes/Walking, X -C Skiing Received To Be Sent Excelsior Yes/Walking, Jogging, Received Yes/expires 1/97 Snowshoeing; Half Block Vehicle (need extension) Access to Pump House Greenwood No Permitted Activities Received Not Required Hopkins Yes /Walking Requested Yes /expires 1/97 (need extension) Minnetonka Yes /Walking, Biking, Jogging, Received Yes /expires 1/97 Pet Walking, Snowshoeing, (need extension) X -C Skiing (no track) Shorewood Yes /Hiking, Biking, X -C Skiing, Received Yes /expires 11/97 Snowshoeing, Pet Walking, Snowmobiling Tonka Bay Yes /Hiking, Biking, X -C Skiing, Requested Yes Snowshoeing, Pet Walking, Snowmobiling Victoria Yes /Hiking, Biking, Received Yes /expires 4/97 Snowmobiling, X -C Skiing, Snowshoeing, Pet Walking oh 1 ArApermits.96 l t I Ll t CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director DATE: November 19, 1996 SUBJ: Questions Raised on November 18 in Regard to Detailed Claims Roster of November 6 BRW, Inc. $1,391.06 Twin Cities & Western Railroad Easement Expense associated with the preparation of a legal description for a trail easement under the Twin Cities & Western Railroad. The railroad separates the existing Chanhassen Business Center trail from the Creekside trail which is under construction. A location map is attached. Barton Aschman Associates $2,304.65 Ballfield Lighting 2 Barton Aschman Associates was retained as the general consultant for the Lake Ann Park Ballfield Lighting Project. Holden and Associates is the electrical consultant on the project. This pair of consultants was selected to maximize efficiency and minimize costs. Both of these ' firms are also working on the Lake Ann Park access boulevard, an adjoining project. Barton Aschman's bill of $2,304.65 represents 31 hours of work over the months of June, July, August, September and October 1996. Barton Aschman's responsibilities included general administration, compilation of plans and specifications, bidding, communication, and other related services. I gApark \th%r- wbill.e I � � I �1' .��•• 1 �,, ,.\ f .. �.. , ,Coulter f ! timbenvoodp Y 1 82nd St. _ ; •♦ r m gb thaQ�! c � � � °�e seek (�I Cane W c� C3' J Lyman B / / � / .EN m Fe m o ...... r.. r.. r. . i Park • Court I iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillilllllllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII State Hwy 5 1 • Coulter BWtl - ,_ O I 1 e • 1 P °om c a m D °r '7• °ad a O Ri dge • � • State.'N . • Renalsx R : Court I o :3 • Court pt O Q m`^e�co m Fe m o ...... r.. r.. r. . i Park • Court I °ad a State.'N m� Gr a , IV f8 Lake _ Susan•♦ .moo ve'Pa Dr •tape Crt /eat n genre M ISSI Hills ccu e'h VallelAi thru � � t • J Crt �r Mar z ! •i • Place , ' \ Ito Sarah • a arhar C •� d ' ;:�� Ew a 0 1, PR f 4 60 6 Lyman Blvd • (C. R 18) / Ili ry //• . ' .. r. � I 1 • A,- Bar Q 1 He{ % II Q� 1 an • s e g •♦ / � 4 S/SI 1 C N , U J� ` -ti I iI a0 o W. 96th Street 0 `�!� ;�' -•mil' ) oc ��a -- ,� Pt i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �6M sa."- e e - •✓.�- NOV 0 5 1996 CITY OF CHANHASSEN. October 31,1996 Dear Don, Thank you so much for giving the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students an opportunity to vote in a voting booth at Chanhassen Elementary School. The upper elementary grades have been studying the election process, and discussing candidates qualifications during the past month. Your timing was absolutely perfect. Thanks for taking the time to organize this beneficial learning experience for our students. We greatly appreciate your valuable support. Sincerely, Helen a IAsk .I WILLIAM V. (BILL) SWEARENGIN " {' 635 S CLEARVIEW AVE , MESA, AZ 85208` Home Phone 1- 602 - 396 -9092 NOV v o 7 1996 CITY November 02, 1996 1 Nancy and I are grateful for the personal attention everyone showed us during the subdivision of our land on Chaska Road. The process may seem old hat to the larger land developers, but to the uninitiated it is an intimidating process. Sharmin made it possible for us to accomplish the task without pulling the rest of our hair out. Our thanks to the Planning Department staff who took a personal interest in making the subdivision acceptable, the members of the Planning Commission who squeezed us into their agenda, and the Mayor and City Council members who recognized our problem and acted swiftly to solve it. Our best wishes to you as you face the formidable task of managing the exploding growth Chanhassen is I experiencing. We think you have done an excellent job so far. Sincerely Wily V wearengin ' L! 1 Todd Gerhardt Assistant City Manager City of Chanhassen ' 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Todd: We were delighted to receive your letter of the 21 st of October which included the check to close our escorw account with Chanhassen. Thank you very much for the extra effort you gave to provide a resolution to the issue. Nancy and I are grateful for the personal attention everyone showed us during the subdivision of our land on Chaska Road. The process may seem old hat to the larger land developers, but to the uninitiated it is an intimidating process. Sharmin made it possible for us to accomplish the task without pulling the rest of our hair out. Our thanks to the Planning Department staff who took a personal interest in making the subdivision acceptable, the members of the Planning Commission who squeezed us into their agenda, and the Mayor and City Council members who recognized our problem and acted swiftly to solve it. Our best wishes to you as you face the formidable task of managing the exploding growth Chanhassen is I experiencing. We think you have done an excellent job so far. Sincerely Wily V wearengin ' L! 1 �tion Results mailbox: /C %7C/ Program% 20Files/ Netscape/ ... 1744.00687dac @hartle ^ gis.com &number =28 �0 N ' Subject: Election Results Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 10:17:45 -0600 From: Henry Griner <hvg @hartley- gis.com> &00& To: choffm m gr @ci.chanhassen.n.us -- ` rk r� I �f CC: chmgr @ci.chanhassen.mn.us / >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:44:55 - 0600 (! >From: Stu Bodmer@datacard.com (Stu Bodmer) > Subject: Election Results >To: gta@elknet.com t / " t,s e- •1 i ' >Content- Description: cc:Mail note part > > Thanks for posting this information. I was having a difficult time ' > locating Chanhassen election results on TV. > Stu Bodmer nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Henry Griner, Web Developer /Trainer hvg@hartley-gis.com Hartley Associates, Elk River, Minnesota Technology Managers GIS, Network Management Services and Internet /Web Site Development [MIME MS Word OK] Visit Elk River at, http: / /www.elknet.com nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn t Of I 11/6/96 1:49 PM Chanhassen Election Results mailbox: /C %7C /Program %20Files /Netscape / ... 3 858.006a7924 @hartley- gis.com &number -I Subject: Chanhassen Election Results Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 08:39:00 -0600 From: Henry Griner <hvg @hartley- gis.com> To: choffmgr @i.chanhassen.mn.us >Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 06:47:58 -0600 >From: "M. Andrew Peter" <andy.peter @internetmci.com> > Subject: Chanhassen Election Results >To: gta @elknet.com >Reply -To: andy.peter @internetmci.com > >Thank you for posting the election results for Chanhassen's mayor and , >city council on Chanhassen's web page. It was nice to have access to >the results in such a timely fashion. > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ' Henry Griner, Web Developer / Trainer hvg@hartley-gis.com Hartley Associates, Elk River, Minnesota Technology Managers GIS, Network Management Services and Internet /Web Site Development [MIME MS Word OK] Visit Elk River at, http• / /www.elknet.com AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA loft 11/6/96 1:49 PI �wd: Thank you] mailbox: /C %7C/ Program %20Files /Netscape / ... 328029E0 .6108 @hartley- gis.com &number =23 ' Subject: [Fwd: Thank you] Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 00:02:08 -0600 From: Henry Griner <hvg @hartley- gis.com> Organization: Hartley Associates To: Karen Engelhardt <choffmgr @ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Thank you Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 23:49:56 -0600 From: Verne Severson <veeverson @commstarinc.com> ' Organization: CommStar, Inc. To: gta @elknet.com Thank you so much for providing the election returns for the local Chanhassen elections - mayor, city council, and school board. Thank you. I r O f I 11 /6/96 9:24 AM Z / ® DLR Group 1 Interwest Management, Inc. DLR Group 2525 East Arizona Biltmore Circle Suite 135 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 602 955 -1187 September 10, 1996 Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lame Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiele On behalf of Interwest Management, Inc./DLR Infrastructure Group, thank you for the consideration given to our proposal for construction of New TH 212. We continue to be encouraged by the support that has been articulated by communities throughout the Southwest corridor and realize that this may well only be a temporary set back. To that end, we will continue to work with local government units, as well as MnDOT if a decision is made to further pursue the building of this much needed roadway. We realize the process required you, at the local level, to be responsible for the final decision. There may be a need to reassess this process and we encourage MnDOT, and possibly the State Legislature to address that issue. Rest assured, our interests and yours are the same in the desire to bring Minnesota's Southwest region a roadway that is saife, redu c on gestion and promotes eco*2omic vitality. Sincerely, &/�W �" Richard Carr President 1 1 �l 216421 -1 DLR Group Offices: Phoenix Appleton Colorado Springs Des Moines Farmington Kansas City Mexico City Minneapolis Omaha Pierre Portland Sacramento Seattle Tampa P� SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT MEMORANDUM RECEIVED NOV 0 6 1996 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Chanhassen CITY OF CHANHAS5; -c, David Pokorney, City Manager Chaska FROM: Colleen Dockendorf, SWMT DATE: November 4, 1996 Don and Dave - L� t Attached is a letter from Southwest Metro's attorney, Ric Rosow, in response to a question raised by Carl Jullie, city manager of Eden Prairie. Carl was curious as to the financial responsibility of the city for SWMT operations, particularly in light of the new local levy authority. As Ric's letter states, the cities are responsible for any debts that exceed revenues; however, this has not occurred in the past, and we do not anticipate it occurring this year or in the near future. As you are aware, we will be facing a cash flow crunch due to the change in timing of revenues. We are working with the Metropolitan Council to assist us in bridging the gap until revenues are received in early July. Please feel free to give me a call if you have questions. LANG, PAULY, GREGERSON & ROSOW, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW ROBERT 1. LANG ROGER A. PAULY DAVID H. GREGERSON- RICHARD F. ROSOW MARK J. JOHNSON JOSEPH A. NILAN° TODD A.SATSLFR JENNIFER M INZ GERAINT D. POWELL MICHELLE L. ROGNLlEN JERRY D. PFRRON *Also Admitted in Wisconsin Mr. Carl Jullie Eden Prairie City Offices 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 -2230 October 28, 1996 RE: Southwest Metro Transit Commission Dear Mr. Jullie: EDEN PRAMIE OFFICE SUITE 370 250 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MBiNE.SOTA 55344 TELEPHONE: (612) 829 -7355 FAX (612) 829 -0713 REPLY TO MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE You and the mayor have asked what the financial responsibility of the City is for the operations of Southwest Metro Transit Commission. The Second Restated Joint Powers Agreement addresses this issue in paragraph 7.C. I enclose a copy of that section for your reference. Each party to the Joint Powers Agreement is responsible for a financial contribution to the Commission equal to a total amount of assistance that each party receives under the opt - out statute including any local tax levied. In addition, each party is responsible for the annual debts and obligations of the Commission which exceed annual revenues in accordance with a formula by which each party is liable for that percentage of the total debts and obligations which exceed the total revenues in proportion to that parry's primary annual financial contribution in comparison to the total primary annual financial contribution of all parties. In other words, if Eden Prairie's financial contribution is equal to 50% of the total contribution of the three members, then Eden Prairie is liable for 50% of the Commission's debts and obligations that exceed the Commission's annual revenues. If you have any questions, please call. RFR/smk Enclosure cc: Colleen Dockendorf rfr\ep \genera) \j uWe2.ltr FIRST BANK PLACE 1600 IBM PARK BUILDING 650 THIRD AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 554024337 TELEPHONE: (612) 338 -0755 FAX (612) 349 -6718 Very truly yours, LAN Y, GERSON & ROSOW, LTD. B 'c and F. Ros w 1 1 I� 1 ' c) Financial Liabilit The primary annual financial contribution to the Commission of each party shall be equal to the total ' amount of assistance which each party receives pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §473,384 and Minnesota Statutes §473.388, including any local transit tax levied pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §437.388, Subdivision 7. ' Upon receipt any such assistance, including all revenues derived from any local transit tax, shall be promptly remitted to the Commission. In addition, each party shall be responsible for annual debts and obligation of the Commission which exceed annual revenues in accordance with the following formula. Each party shall be liable for that percentage of the total annual debts and obligations which exceed total annual revenue which is directly proportional to that party's primary annual financial contribution in comparison to the total primary annual financial contribution by all parities tc the Commission during the year in question. The Board shall submit a monthly bill to each party for its proportionate share of actual expenses which exceed actual revenues. At the end of each fiscal year, each party shall be credited for any excess payments made by it during the year, or billed for its proportionate share of actual expenses which exceed actual revenues for which it had not previously been billed. Upon receiving a bill from the Commission, each party shall remit payment of the same within 30 days. To the extent that each party is financially liable pursuant to the above formula, each party hereby agrees to indemnify any other party which for any reason assumes payment of its debts in connection with the operation of the Commission. I� 1 LMC League of Minnesota Cities Cities promoting excellence November 1, 1996 PC 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, .111N 55103 -2044 Phone: (612) 281 -1200 - (800) 925 -1122 Fax: (612) 281 -1299 - TDD (612) 281 -1290 TO: City Officials Registered for the 1996 Congress of Cities and Exposition FROM: James F. Miller Executive Director SUBJECT: NLC Congress of Cities Breakfast I'm pleased that your have registered to attend the NLC's 1996 Congress of Cities in San Antonio. Like last year, a joint breakfast has been scheduled with the League of Wisconsin Municipalities local officials. The League of Minnesota Cities will host this year's breakfast. The joint Wisconsin/Minnesota breakfast is scheduled for: Date and Time: Sunday, December 8, 1996, 7:30 - 9:00 a.m. Place: Marriott Riverwalk - Salon E/F Speaker: Frank Shafroth, Director Policy & Federal Relations, NLC Cost: $15.00 per person If you would like to join your colleagues from Wisconsin and Minnesota, please complete and return the enclosed reservation form by Wednesday, November 27. You may fax the reservation to 612 - 281 -1299 if you wish and you will be billed based on the information provided. I look forward to seeing you in San Antonio. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRA ATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 1 1996 Breakfast Meeting Wisconsin and Minnesota Local Officials Sunday, December 8, 1996 7:30 - 9:00 a.m. Marriott Riverwalk Salon E/F I plan to attend. My check for $15.00 is enclosed. Name City Please make checks payable to the League of Minnesota Cities and return by Wednesday, November 27, 1996 to: League of Minnesota Cities Attn: Elma Ann Lyon 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55103 -2044 o %NNES0 � Minnesota Department of Transportation /� ! Office of Alternative Transportation Financing Mail Stop 440, Room 214 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 -1899 September 9, 1996 City of Chanhassen The Honorable Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: Office tel: 612/ 282 - 6148 Fax: 612/_282-2-53& �L- -- 7s"' ' i 1 Thank you for so thoroughly examining the toll road proposal for TH 212. Your assistance in holding public hearings and welcoming community dialogue on this issue helped us reach our goal of garnering citizen input in this toll road process. In fact, the efforts of your council and staff helped reinforce the importance of balancing public sentiment with project development. Please convey to the City Council my appreciation for the fair and respectful treatment that was given me, other Mn/DOT staff and the toll proposers during consideration of this volatile issue. Your efforts in acknowledging Hwy. 212 as a neceassary project have made this and other transportation issues of greater importance to the City of Chanhassen community at large. Your concerns, as well as those expressed during the many public hearings held, have been heard. I and my staff are available should you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further. I look forward to working with you as together we attempt to find a solution to the growing transportation needs of this area. incerely, Adeei Lari Director e -mail: adeel.lari @dot.state.mn.us Encls. n An equal opportunity employer ' 11/11/96 16:58 V612 377 7387 GREAT LAKES MGMT 10 002 e e i✓y 1 nsa►�ra,�g &PP►a" 1 Co. 7'�, /.T 9 C or o r#% w k s ED EDIELANCABTEB 37 375 -1875 LL9AGERINGER E64 -071E (^/ � / -W, PAGH 377.1800 SHARON BENEDICT ^ n N • • �, JAY PORTZ 377.7089 JULIE FRICK H G d N G/- 14 f/ 0 CHRYSTALiNA 37641598 DONASHWORTA 937.5739 fa--- • `' ! j'f (�/I f► � • / /�y / s 0- �� / • r&t C CENTENNIAL HILL APARTMENTS �� S`7�i.7G�►aav7 CHANHASSEN, MN •! ow WEEKLY MARKETNG REPORTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NOV 4 - NOV 10, 1996 ' TWO ONE BEDROOM ONE + DEN BEDROOM TOTAL ' TOTAL UNITS 39 23 3 65 LEASED THIS 0 0 0 0 ' PERIOD TOTAL ' UNITS 39 23 3 65 LEASED TOTAL ' LEASED 100% 100% 100% 100% TOTAL UNITS VACANT THIS PERIOD TOTAL UNITS 1 1 0 2 ' VACANT TOTAL UNITS 38 22 3 63 ' OCCUPIED TOTAL % ' OCCUPIED 97% 96% 100% 97% 5000 Glenwood Avenue Suite 150 Golden Vallev. MN 554 ?9 -514F CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director � DATE: November 5, 1996 SUBJ: Animal Control Contract Attached please find a very kind note from the City of Shorewood regarding animal control services we provide to them. I must admit, I find this somewhat bittersweet... On one hand, I am struggling significantly with whether Chanhassen can continue providing animal control services beyond 1997 because of the strain it puts on service levels provided here in our own city. A letter like this about Bob and our CSOs, combined with the pride you and I share in providing government services through multi - agency cooperation, makes me feel awfully good about what we are doing. Let me make it clear, Don, that these significant increases in service in an area that Shorewood City Administrator Jim Hurm definitely puts is "not the most popular of municipal functions" speaks directly to the quality work that Bob Zydowsky and the CSOs are providing. And for that, I thank them. SH:cd PC: Bob Zydowsky, Deputy Director Public Safety CSOs gAsafety \sh \daanim r] I� October 29, 1996 CIT.Y..OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (612) 474 -3236 Scott Harr, Public Safety Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Scott: Thank you for your animal control status memo of October 17, 1996. On behalf of the City of Shorewood, I hope Chanhassen continues to offer animal control services. This has been a fine example of cities working together for the benefit of all to provide a service in a cost effective manner. Given that "animal control' does not perform the most popular of municipal functions, we are very pleased with the positive trend of your department in the results of our annual citizen evaluation survey. The results of the last three years are shown here of those respondents who had contract with animal control: Courteousness /professionalism 62% 77% 80% (good or excellent) ' Keep up the good work! Sincerely, ' CITY OF SHOREWOOD L ' James C. Hurm. City Administrator ' cc: Mavor and City Council Don Ashworth, Chanhassen Citv administrator Don Chmiel. Chanhassen Mayor Animal Control Cities r A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 1994 1995 1996 Helpfulness of animal control 49% 64% 71% (helpful and very helpful) Overall service (good or excellent) 33% 53% 51% Response time (good or excellent) 42% 50% 55% Courteousness /professionalism 62% 77% 80% (good or excellent) ' Keep up the good work! Sincerely, ' CITY OF SHOREWOOD L ' James C. Hurm. City Administrator ' cc: Mavor and City Council Don Ashworth, Chanhassen Citv administrator Don Chmiel. Chanhassen Mayor Animal Control Cities r A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore NOV 18 ➢96 11 :35 HERMAN MANCINO FlIMMIOWNC FAX 1 To T , odd Hoffman Company City of Chanhassen ' From Company Nancy Mancino Park Referrendum Task Force Member - City of Chanhassen ' Message This is a quick conffimtion for tomorrow's meeting at Herman *Mancino. ' Where: Herman* Mancino ' 5030 Norwest Center Mpls., MN 55402 ' Tune: 12:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. ' Agenda: Lunch -12:00 to 12:30 Survey Brainstorming Session -12:45 to 2:15 ' * facilitated by Bill Morris Next Steps - 2:15 to 2:30 , * facilitated by Alison Blackowiak There will be a total of 12 people in our meeting , Please call me if you have an questions, y q , otherwrse we'll see you tomorrow. Date 937 ' Fax Number -5739 Pages Number of pages including this cover sheet: 1 ' H *M Phone 612- 332 -5190 H *M Fax 612 -344 -1196 ' November 1996 ......MMMM..................MMM December 1996 Sundav Mondav Tuesdav Wednesdav Thursdav Fridav Saturdav 1 2 3 - 6 7 *DR makes revisions ,4 -DR makes revisions -Survey goes into CC to survey to survey packet Review 1 st draft of survey by Task Force & TPL. 10 11 12 13 14 . DR makes revisions *DR makes revisions -DR makes revisions *DR makes revisions ..... . ........ . to survey to survey to survey to Survey City Council Meeting CC reviews survey - presented by Task oU Force. �f/ r 5 /A r,f __ 110 17 18 19 201 21 *Pro-test survey *Pro-test survey •Pre -test survey *Pro-test survey Survey Com. Meeting Review pre -test results with DR & TPL & make changes. 28 22 23 24 25 26 .Holiday Season Begins 29 30 31 2' C'4� # $` ' F f ° { a ? )' January 1997 M Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday R 30 31 1 2 3 4 „ *Holiday Season Ends *Field Survey -Field Survey �� , `�1 }l J 4mztY 5 7 8 9 10 11 *Field Survey Y *Field Sur Y -Field Sur Y *Field Sur y . Field Survey 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 *Field Survey -Field Survey *Field Survey -Field Survey *Data cleaning, tabulations 19 20 21 22 23 941 25 -Data cleaning, •Data cleaning, •Data cleaning, •Data cleaning, ..... tabulations tabulations tabulations tabulations .............. Survey Com. Meeting Review interim findings w /DR & TPL. 25 27 28 29 30 31 1. *Detailed Analysis *Detailed Analysis •Detailed Analysis •Detailed Analysis *Detailed Analysis nE d• d Februar y 1997 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 2 27 28, 29 30 31 •Copy & design of •Copy & design of •Copy & design of l program program program program program 3 S 4 5 6 7 8 *Conceptual dev. of *Conceptual dev. of •Conceptual dev. of •Conceptual dev. of .... . ........ ad. program ed. program ed. program ed. program CC Work Session Final survey report presented by DR, Task Force & TPL. 10 1 2 13 4 *Copy & design of -Copy & design of •Copy & design of •Copy & design of •Copy & design of l program program program program program 16 17 18 19 -Copy & design of -Copy & design of *Copy & design of program program program Task Force Meeting Review & comment on program elements. 23 24 25 26 -Copy & layout *Cop y & layout *Copy & layout revisions revisions revision Sub Com. Meeting Review final copy & layout for all elements. 21 W 15 22 s i 9 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF CARVER John R. Fisher and SA Land Partners, a Minnesota general partnership, Plaintiffs, VS. City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Defendants. A, -, '" ee -,A DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL Court File No. C4 -96 -1340 DEFENDANT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION Defendant has made a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint challenging the City's denial of an Application for a Comprehensive Plan Land use Map Amendment and rezoning of his property. This memorandum is submitted in reply to Plaintiffs' memorandum opposing this motion. There are a lot of legislative policy issues in the background of this case which the Chanhassen City Council must continuously address as it does its job. The legal issue in this case is very simple and straight forward. Plaintiffs' memorandum does everything possible to avoid it. 44417 ive Land Use Plan designates this roe for Office ' The City's Comprehensive g property riY Industrial use, not residential. Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the land cannot be ' reasonably used for Office Industrial. They do not even make such an argument. ' That ends this matter; the Complaint must be dismissed. ARGUMENT ' 1. There is a complete record of these proceedings. i Plaintiffs have submitted additional materials primarily in the form of letters to Council Members and City Staff contained in the City files from individuals most of whom PP express opposition to the proposed development, some supporting the project , P and others requesting information. While this correspondence was not part of the materials submitted to the City Council, the City does not object to their inclusion in , the record. Plaintiffs have also submitted a copy of a Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet ( "EAW ") dated July 2, 1996 relating to this project. The City ' determined no EAW was necessary. While this EAW petition is handled separately from the consideration of this development application, the City has no objection to its inclusion in the record. The City does object to the inclusion of newspaper articles dated August 14, , 1996 and August 16, 1996 reporting and editorializing on the Council's August 12, 1996 action denying Plaintiffs Application and directing staff to prepare written 44417 2 [1 Findings of Fact. They are clearly not part of the City's administrative record upon which the Ci ty Council based its decision. Finally, Plaintiffs have included in its submission documents relating to the City's voluntary participation in the Metropolitan Liveable Community Act, which provides incentives to cities to assist the development of affordable housing. As discussed below, this funding program is not relevant to the issues before this Court and the documents should be excluded on that basis. There is a complete record of these proceedings upon which this Court can affirm the City's decision and dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint. i 2. Plaintiffs memorandum ignores the controlling fact that this property has a reasonable use under its current designation as Office Industrial. e e 1 s f This property is clearly designated in the Land Use Map in the City's Comprehensive Plan as Office Industrial. Plaintiffs' application is for a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment to change the designation to Residential Medium Density and for a rezoning to a Planned Unit Development ( "PUD ") District with townhomes in this redesignated area. In order to prevail in this case, Plaintiffs must show that this basic legislative decision by the Council to retain the Office Industrial designation does not permit him a reasonable use of his land. Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope 300 Minn. 335, 220 N.W.2d 356, 261 (Minn. 1974); Honn v. City of Coon Rapids 313 N.W.2d 409, 419 (Minn. 1981). Honn states the standard clearly and succinctly: "4» 3 1 e as single-family residential is The original classification of this property g y presumed to be well planned and intended to be more or less permanent. See Sun Oil Co v Village of New Hope 300 Minn. 326, 335, 220 N.W.2d 256, 261 (1974), quoting Hardesty v. Zoning Board 211 Md. 172, 177, 126 A.2d 621, 623 (1956). The burden is on respondents to show either some mistake in the original zoning or that the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent no reasonable use can be made of the property in its current zoning classification. Sun Oil Co. 300 Minn. at 337, 220, N.W.2d at 261- 262. So long as the existing classification of Office Industrial provides a reasonable use for this property, Plaintiffs have no basis for complaining that the City is acting i arbitrarily. The existing Office Industrial classification provides a wide range of valuable PP development opportunities. Plaintiffs do not even attempt to argue to the P contrary. As discussed in the City's initial memorandum, the decision of choosing between competing reasonable uses of land in the overall designation of land in its Comprehensive Plan is what City Councils are charged with doing in performing their legislative function. The extensive Findings of Fact adopted by the City Council, which are fully supported by the Planning Staff Reports, set forth the Council's rationale in designating this property Office Industrial. The relevant Findings of Fact are as follows: 4. The Subject Property was one of four areas in the City that was designated for Office /Industrial use as part of the City's 1991 Comprehensive Plan Update. At that time, there was a remaining supply of 95 acres of vacant industrial land in Chanhassen. For the continued well being of the community and in interest of promoting a balance of land uses, Chanhassen established a plan that would accommodate a reasonable amount of industrial office development in the future. 44417 4 5. The Subject Property was designated for office /industrial use in 1991 partially because it was being used for non - residential and non- agricultural purposes and was adjacent to the industrial expansion coming from the south in Chaska. In addition, the site is adjacent to two ' collector roadways, providing high levels of access. Having decided to leave the property classified as Office Industrial on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, the denial of the rezoning request to a PUD District to allow Medium Densi ty townhome development automatically follows because the use would be inconsistent with the land use designation in the I Comprehensive Plan. Minn. Stat. 473.858 subd 1 (1995 Supp 1) states: "After August 1, 1995, a local government shall not adopt any fiscal devise or official control which is in conflict with its Comprehensive Plan." See also Larson v. County of Washington 387 N.W.2d 902, 907 (Minn.App. 1986). a sufficient reason to den (Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan is a legally su c o y j� rezoning); R. A. Putnam & Associates v. Mendota Heights 510 N.W.2d 264, 268 (Minn.App. 1994) (A municipality should not adopt zoning that conflicts with its comprehensive plan); Chanhassen City Code Sec 20- 501(6) (PUDs are to encourage 44417 5 8. The history of the site is consistent with its office industrial designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Since 1980, at different times, portions of the property have been used for a contractors business and storage yard, storage and repair of garbage trucks and landscape contractors yard. 9. The original designation of the Subject Property as office /industrial in the City's 1991 Comprehensive Plan Update was not a mistake; nor has there been any changes since that time which necessitates a redesignation of this property to some other use. e property to a Planned Unit Deve 10. Rezoning th p p ty District to allow p medium - density housing on the northerly 22.6 acres would be inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Having decided to leave the property classified as Office Industrial on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, the denial of the rezoning request to a PUD District to allow Medium Densi ty townhome development automatically follows because the use would be inconsistent with the land use designation in the I Comprehensive Plan. Minn. Stat. 473.858 subd 1 (1995 Supp 1) states: "After August 1, 1995, a local government shall not adopt any fiscal devise or official control which is in conflict with its Comprehensive Plan." See also Larson v. County of Washington 387 N.W.2d 902, 907 (Minn.App. 1986). a sufficient reason to den (Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan is a legally su c o y j� rezoning); R. A. Putnam & Associates v. Mendota Heights 510 N.W.2d 264, 268 (Minn.App. 1994) (A municipality should not adopt zoning that conflicts with its comprehensive plan); Chanhassen City Code Sec 20- 501(6) (PUDs are to encourage 44417 5 comprehensive plan). Plaintiffs admit that b I development consistent with the compre " p ) Y definition" putting townhomes on this property is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (Plaintiffs' Memorandum, pg 13). At page 11 of its Memorandum, Plaintiffs' counsel totally mischaracterizes a 's Planning Staff relating to the issue of consistency Re paragraph from the City g P with the Comprehensive Plan. The first sentence states that "The Office /Industrial portion of the site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan." It then states that "The Applicant is requesting a Land Use Map Amendment for the residential portion of the development. This is entirely consistent with the City's handling of this matter in accordance with its land use regulations. The City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map controls the use of the property. It must be amended to a Medium Density Residential classification if townhome development is to occur. The City Council decided to stay with the existing Office Industrial designation. So long as Plaintiffs have a reasonable use of their property as Office Industrial, the legal basis for their claim in this lawsuit goes away. All the additional discussion of overall goals and policies relating to the use of this property is legislative decision - making not subject to second guessing, by this Court. The final sentence in this paragraph of the Staff Report states: The proposed residential development complies with many elements of the Comprehensive Plan including community development, land use, housing and transportation goals and policies." 44497 6 In addition to this specialized Land Use Map designating the use of specific property in the City, the City's Comprehensive Plan has generalized goals and policies. They do not relate to the specified use of a particular piece of property. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map does this. As Plaintiffs' counsel admits, townhome development directly conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan designation of I this property. The statement of City Planner Bob Generous in presenting this Staff Report to the Council bears repeating: "The basic issue revolving around this project is, is it appropriate to reguide this property and rezone it from Office Industrial to the Medium Density Residential. And that's one of the issues that the City Council will have to resolve." 0 (August 12, 1996 Meeting Transcript p 52, City Record Exhibit 5). In performing its legislative function, the City Council must arbitrate all the competing goals and policies of the City. That is what it did in 1991 when it concluded that the City needed more Office Industrial development, and designated this and other property for that use; that is what the Council did in 1995 when it turned down a request to designate this property for traditional single family detached dwelling; and that is what the Council did in this case. These are all legislative policy decisions not subject to review by this Court. 1 3. The City made a legislative land use map decision in this case. Plaintiffs' Memorandum spends considerable time discussing whether a City is engaging in legislative or quasi-judicial decision-making in reviewing a PUD 44417 7 application. Again, this whole discussion is irrelevan t b ecause Plaintiffs first needed I approval of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designating this property Medium Density housing before a PUD townhome development can even be considered. si- judicial decision making As to this legislative /qua � g distinction, the Court in Honn aptly describes the different functions a city is performing in the rezoning of property, which is legislative, and issuance of conditional or special use permits, which is quasi-judicial decision - making. The Honn court stated: In enacting a zoning ordinance or in amending an ordinance to rezone, the approach is legislative; what is involved is a kind of municipal planning in which a wide range of value judgments is considered. On the other hand, in t granting or denying a special use permit, the inquiry is more judicial in character since the zoning authority is applying specific use standards set by the zoning ordinance to a particular use. State by Rochester Association of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester 268 N.W.2d 885, 889 (Minn. 1978). Honn v. Ci of Coon Rapids 313 N.W.2d at 417. Chanhassen classifies PUDs as zoning districts which are established by an ordinance rezoning the property to a PUD District. Chanhassen City Code 20 -201. PUDs are not treated as conditional uses. The establishment of a PUD district is a der the Chanhassen zoning legislative decision under g ordinance. Even if the PUD is considered to be akin to a Conditional Use Permit as Plaintiffs contends, there is still the requirement that the conditional use be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Chanhassen City Code Sec 20 -232 (Council shall issue conditional use P ermits only if it finds use at proposed location will be consistent with 44W 8 L the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan);, Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of Afton d 7 75 763 (Minn. 1982. (City's 323 N.W.2d 5 (M ) ( ty 's determination that the proposal was inconsistent with its Comprehensive Plan was a legally sufficient reason for denial of a special use permit). Two cases cited in Plaintiffs' brief on these general issues require comment. In Chandler v. Kroiss 190 N.W.2d 472 (Minn. 1971) the City of Shoreview Ordinances established a process by which PUDs were handled as special use permits. Id. at 474. The Court's comment that the PUD process was actually a hybrid of sorts between a special use permit and variance relates to the zoning scheme in place in Shoreview in the late 1960s. It does not in anyway stand for any general proposition that PUDs are I like variances or special use permits. Scott County Lumber v. City of Shakopee 417 N.W.2d 721 (Minn.App. 1988) involved an application for a condition use permit to operate a gravel pit. Plaintiffs' I memorandum (at pg 7) misquotes the case. The holding is expressly limited to conditional use permits, not "permits" as Plaintiffs' memorandum states. 4. Neighbors have the right to voice their opposition to development proposals; the relevant issue is whether the City has a legal basis for the decision it made. 1 I'll None of the cases cited by Plaintiffs relating to neighborhood opposition involve situations where the City is exercising its legislative discretion to rezone property or, in this case, its even more basic legislative authority to classify property in its Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Swanson v. City of Bloomington 421 N.W.2d 307, 444tt 9 ' 313 (Minn. 1988) (subdivision denial); No rthwestern College � v. Ci tv of Arden Hil 281 N.W.2d at 869 (special use permit); Scott County Lumber v. City of Shakopee 417 N.W.2d 728 (Minn.App. 1988) (conditional use permit); Chanhassen Estates Residents Association v City of Chanhassen 342 N.W.2d 335, 340 (Minn. 1984) (conditional use permit). The case law simply says that neighborhood opposition cannot be the sole basis for denying a conditional use permit. So long as the City has a legally sufficient basis for its decision, it must be upheld. Zoning issues are required to be a very public process. City Councils obviously must consider the input of its residents. The s s. ty Y Council does not control how many people write letters or show up at meetings. Here, the City was considering a request to legislatively change the rules established in its Comprehensive Plan; not a request to do something the City already determined was allowable under its zoning rules as in the cases cited by Plaintiff. Again, we return to the only relevant fact in this case, Plaintiffs have not established that this property cannot be reasonably used for Office Industrial development. 5. The Livable Community Act affordable housing goals are irrelevant to the issue before this Court. Affordable ho g housing and legislation called the "Metropolitan Livable Community g Act" are referred to in Plaintiffs' memorandum and the City record. While it has no relevance to the legal issue in this case, Chanhassen is way ahead of other communities in addressing this public policy issue. 44417 10 In 1995 the Minnesota Legislature in an effort to provide incentives to municipalities to expand the opportunities for affordable housing in their communities, enacted the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, Minn. Stat. 473.25 et seq. The statute provides that each community which elects, at its option, on an annual basis to participate in the program is eligible for certain funding from the Metropolitan Council. Minn. Stat. 473.253; 473.254. Chanhassen elected to participate and adopted certain 15 -year goals for affordable and life -cycle housing which was approved by the Metropolitan Council in 1996. The definition of affordable housing that applies in Chanhassen at this time is $115,000.00 for owner occupied units. Affordable rental units are pegged at a $625.00 month rental. (10/16/95 Memorandum to City Council, pg 7). The housing goals adopted by the City Council on December 11, 1995 cover a 15 year period cowmen ' e goal is to have 50% of all future housing cmg m 1996. Th g g units within this affordable range. (Housing Goals Agreement, pg 1). The record shows that Chanhassen already has much more affordable housing than many suburbs and is well on its way to increasing the affordable housing mix in the City: ' • According to 1995 data, 32% of Chanhassen homestead homes and 37% of rental units are classified as affordable. (10/16/95 Memorandum to City Council pg 7). • In 1995 more non - single family residential permits (e.q. townhomes, etc.) were issued than permits for detached single family dwellings. - (June 20, 1996 Housing Action Plan pg 3). 4"17 11 n J • A large portion of the residential land area in the MUSA (has sewer available) is designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Map for medium or high density development. (June 20, 1996 Housing Action Plan pg 3). • The City has worked with Carver County to provide a 65 unit Senior Housing project with 39 units in the rental affordable range. (June 20, 1996 Housing Action Plan pg 3). • The City's HRA has approved the creation of a tax increment district to provide assistance to 35 of 76 single family detached units. Price ranges for 35 units will be from $105,000.00 to $115,000.00. (June 20, 1996 Housing Action Plan pg 3). • On August 12, 1996 the City Council approved Villages on the Pond project, a dense mix of housing, office and commercial space that will have as many as 300 living units. Half of the owner - occupied units and 35 percent of the rental units will be affordable. As stated above, the City already has a large portion of its residential land area designated for Medium and High Density development. As discussed extensively in the Planning Staff Report, the City also has the goal of increasing it Office Industrial development. That is why this property and others were designated for that use in 1991. Balancing these kinds of competing goals are what City Councils do; not courts. The Court's role in this legislative process is to determine whether the property owner has a reasonable use of his property. Plaintiffs clearly do in this case. t 0 a 44417 12 1 CONCLUSION There is a complete record of the proceedings in this matter. Defendant is entitled to judgment dismissing Plaintiffs complaint. Dated: November 15, 1996. CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. B 7Deifendant T omas M. 98498 Attorneys fo 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: (612) 452 -5000 4"17 13 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF CARVER DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL John R. Fisher and SA Land Partners, a Minnesota general partnership, Court File No. C4 -96 -1340 I Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM Il OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT' V. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMEN City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota Municipal corporation, Defendant. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs challenge the City's denial of their request for a Planned Unit Development ( "PUD ") allowing a mixed use of industrial and residential development on part of a 45 acre parcel zoned for office industrial. The City has moved this Court to dismiss Flaintiffs' Complaint based upon the Findings of Fact made by the City. Plaintiffs request this Court to deny Defendant's motion. FACTS John R. Fisher is the landowner of the entire 45 acre parcel (the "Property "). Plaintiff SA Land Partner is a co- applicant, together with Town and Country Homes, Inc. and Industrial Equities, LLP, requesting the PUD designation. See, Exhibit 1, Development Review Application, attached to Defendant's motion, Affidavit of Karen Engelhardt, p. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "Engelhardt Affidavit "). 1 In 1995 the Chanhassen City Council in responding to a proposal from another developer directed that developer to revise its plan to include a PUD for the Property incorporating high density residential development, such as apartments or townhouses, along with industrial or office space to provide a transition between the residential areas surrounding the property. Following this directive, Plaintiffs designed their PUD to respond to the direction of the City Council. Also in 1995, the City of Chanhassen entered into a housing goals agreement based upon the Metropolitan Council's "Metropolitan Liveable Communities Act." See Affidavit of Philip J. Darren (hereinafter referred to as "Darren Affidavit ") Exhibit 3. The Metropolitan Liveable Communities Act requires cities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area to adopt resolutions to participate in the Metropolitan Council's affordable housing goals in order to continue to receive funding from the Metropolitan Council. The City Staff identified the Property as a good site for affordable housing to meeting those goals. In accordance with the City's request, approximately 60% of the townhomes included in Plaintiffs PUD were classified as affordable housing. ' Shortly after Plaintiffs applied for the PUD residents of the nearby Trotter's Ridge neighborhood began to express their opposition to Plaintiffs PUD . because it included affordable housing. The City Councilmembers held meetings with the neighborhood ' opposition group. Moreover, neighborhood residents voiced their opposition at both planning commission meetings as well as the final City Council meeting in which Plaintiffs application was denied. 1 v 1 Residents of Trotter's Ridge sent numerous letters to individual council members. See Danen Affidavit Exhibit 6. In addition, Mayor Chimel admitted at the August 12, 1996 , City Council meeting, that the councilmembers were aware of all of the letters sent to City hall. Included in the City's file of Plaintiffs PUD application were numerous newspaper articles and editorials (together with letters from residents referring- to the articles) which further demonstrated the neighborhood resident's opposition to Plaintiffs PUD application because it included affordable housing. See Danen Affidavit Exhibit 6. The video tape record of the August 12, 1996 City Council meeting shows the loud ' burst of applause from the residents, cheering the denial of Plaintiffs PUD application. See Danen Affidavit, 1[ 3. During this demonstration, City Attorney Tom Scott reminded the City Council that Findings of Fact would be necessary to deny Plaintiffs PUD application. Id. Only then. was a motion made for Findings of Fact to be drafted. Two weeks later, the , City Council adopted Findings of Fact based solely on the fact that Plaintiffs application ive plan. See En �. was not consistent with the comprehens Engelhardt Affidavit, Exhibit p g ARGUMENT I. THE RECORD PRESENTED BY THE CITY IS INACCURATE AND INCOMPLETE. , The City's assertion of the record is not complete or accurate. The review of a . . municipal zoning decision should be conducted on the record if the record is cle ar and complete. Swanson v City of Bloomington 421 N.W.2d 307, 313 (Minn. 1988). Only if contemporaneous findings are made and there is an accurate verbatim transcript of the ' proceedings, is the record likely to be complete and clear. Id. When the review is conducted on the record, the district court should only receive additional evidence that is °3° J I I I material to substantive issues raised and considered by the municipal body. Id. In this case, the City of Chanhassen has not included material evidence of neighborhood opposition in either its record on appeal or in its Findings of Fact. This is evidence that was clearly presented to the councilmembers, on numerous occasions, and was included in the City's file of Plaintiff's PUD application. The transcripts attached to Defendant's motion papers are not completely_accurate. The transcripts are not made contemporaneously with the meetings. They are typed some time after the actual meetings from audio tapes and /or video tapes made at the meetings. On their face, the transcripts include many ellipses where the transcribers do not record many of the statements made on the record. See Engelhardt Affidavit Exhibits 4 and 5. The actual video or audio tapes reflect a more complete and accurate record of the proceedings. See Danen Affidavit, 1[1[ 3, 4. The record proposed by Defendant's in their motion is not complete. The City has included for review only the (inaccurate) transcripts of the two Planning Commission meetings and the City Council meeting, together with Plaintiff's application, the Planning Staff Report and its Findings of Fact. Nothing in the City's Findings, nor in its motion papers, shows the voluminous evidence of opposition which pressured the City Council to deny Plaintiff's PUD application. The City's file of Plaintiffs PUD application includes almost 50 letters from citizens, mostly Trotter's Ridge residents voicing their opposition to any affordable housing in their area. Many letters refer to newspaper articles about Plaintiff's application and its affordable housing proposal. Clippings of these articles are also included in the City's files. Lastly, the neighborhood opposition group petitioned the -4- a , City Council, with 188 signatures, to require Plaintiffs application to be scrutinized in an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The City Planning Staff found that there was no , basis for the environmental assessment because Plaintiff's proposal has "no negative environmental effects." See Danen Affidavit, Exhibit 5, City of Chanhassen Memo. dated July 2, 1996, p. 8. All of this evidence is included in the City's files of Plaintiffs application ' but not in the record Defendant has offered to this Court. Moreover, all of this evidence was presented to the City's councilmembers, throughout the entire process, and clearly influenced the City's denial of Plaintiff's application. In order for there to be a true and fair review of the City's action on the record, the audio and video tapes of the Planning Commission and City Council meetings must be considered the only complete and accurate transcripts for the record. Moreover, the record p must include all items presented to the City. Especially those items included in the City's files. IL THE CITY'S DENIAL IS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND INVALID. The analysis of a zoning change decision is affected by whether the process is considered legislative or quasi-judicial. Mandelker, Land Use Law § 6.26 (3d ed. 1993). ' A court will review a denial to rezone more rigorously if the rezoning .is 'considered q uasi- judicial, rather than a legislative act. Id. However, the issue as to whether the denial of an application for a PUD is quasi-judicial or legislative has not been clearly addressed by Minnesota courts.' "Delegation of PUD approval authority to the legislative body does not l Administrative or quasi-judicial are decisions concerning a particular development request which directly affects the applicant and adjoining land owners. See, Developments in the Law of Zoning 91 Harv. L.Rev.1427, 1508 -13 (1978). That is clearly what is involved in this case. -5- 1 I � I� P i 1 necessarily mean a court will characterize the PUD approval process as legislative. A court could hold that the PUD review process is quasi-judicial because the PUD ordinance contains standards that are applied in the review of PUD applications....Other cases upheld the delegation of PUD approval to a board of zoning adjustment or governing body as a special exception and characterized the PUD review process as adjudicative." Id. at § 9.26 citing Chandler v. Kroiss 190 N.W.2d 472 (Minn. 1971); cf. R.A. Putnam & Assoc. v. Mendota Heights 510 N.W.2d 264 (Minn.App. 1994). If a rezoning decision is quasi- judicial, the denial is given close judicial scrutiny and the burden is placed upon the municipality to support its decision. State by Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester 268 N.W.2d 885, 888 (Minn. 1978). In Chandler v. Kroiss the Minnesota Supreme Court explained the application of the I F1 PUD process was neither like a variance nor like a special use permit, but rather a "hybrid of the two." 190 N.W.2d at 475. As such, the PUD acts to amend the comprehensive plan of the city, like a variance, but it is secured by meeting certain criteria set forth in the ordinance, similar to a special use permit. Id. at 476. Both special use permits and variances are quasi-judicial decisions. See, Scott County Lumber v. City of Shakopee 417 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. App. 1988) (Special Use Permit), and Van Landschoot v. City of Mendota Heights 336 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. 1987) (Variances). In all zoning matters, the standard of review is whether the zoning authority's action was reasonable. Said another way, is the decision to deny Plaintiff's application "arbitrary and capricious ?" Swanson v. City of Bloomington 421 N.W.2d at 311. The City of Chanhassen has acted in an unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious manner in denying M 1 I Plaintiff's application for a PUD. The issue is whether the denial is determined to be arbitrary because of Plaintiffs right to a PUD (similar to a conditional use application) or if it is arbitrary in its application because there is a legally insufficient factual basis. However, it is clear that the denial is arbitrary, and thus, invalid. III. PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION SHOULD BE APPROVED AS A MATTER OF ' LAW The denial of Plaintiffs application for a PUD is similar to the application for a , conditional use permit ( "CUP "). Where an ordinance sets forth specifies standards which , CODA �'''o�- u w must be applied, and the applicant meets those standards, a denial of a IN is arbitrary as a matter of law. Scott County Lumber v. City of Shakopee 417 N.W.2d at 727. The , Chanhassen Planning Staff found that Plaintiff met all of the standards specified in the PUD ordinance. ' According to the Chanhassen Zoning Code, in order for a PUD to be approved, nine specific criteria are evaluated: r 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, ' creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities , through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. 3. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the City. _ 5. Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. -7- t 1 ' 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the City. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail plan. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD. ' 8. Energy g conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. ' 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for g g q P - traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections' may be ' required as appropriate. Chanhassen City Code § 20 -501. (Darien Affidavit, Exhibit 2). Similarly, a conditional use permit is issued if the applicant meets 12 criteria set forth in § 20 -232 of the Chanhassen City Code: ' The planning commission shall recommend a conditional use permit and the council shall issue such conditional use permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: (1) Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. (2) Will be consistent with the objectives of the City's comprehensive plan and this chapter. (3) Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. (4) Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighborhood uses. (5) Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served ' adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. -8- 1 �1 (6) Will not create excessive requirements or public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. ' (7) Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, ' property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents or trash. - do , 8 Will have vehicular approaches to the property which not create () traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. (9) Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. , (10) Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. e reciate surrounding . (11) Will not d p 8 roperty values P (12) Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this , article. Chanhassen City Code § 20 -232. (Danen Affidavit, Exhibit 2). r Clearly, the overwhelming majority of the criteria in both the PUD procedure and the CUP procedure are similar, if not identical. Both typ es of p rocedures involve the City's administrative or quasi-judicial powers. , In practice, a PUD is almost identical to a CUP. The CUP is an allowed use for the zoning area, if certain requirements are met and followed. Similarly, a PUD requests a land use and it is then required that "the use and method are strictly limited to the plan , presented to and approved by the City Council." Amcon Corp v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 66, 73 (Minn. 1984) citing Moore v City of Boulder 484 P.2d 134 (Colo. 1971). The City-of Chanhassen Planning Staff Report applied each of the nine criteria set forth in the PUD ordinance and found that Plaintiff's proposal met every one of them. See �1 Engelhardt Affidavit, Exhibit 2. Furthermore, the Planning Staff set out forty -one (41) conditions which Plaintiff had to meet in order to maintain the PUD. None of these requirements were an issue with the City Council in denying Plaintiffs application. In Scott County Lumber v. City of Shakopee the court held the city council had acted arbitrarily as a matter of law in refusing to issue a conditional use permit because of ' neighborhood opposition. 417 N.W.2d at 728. The court found that the city did not present ' a sufficient factual basis to uphold the denial after the city staff, planners and environmental assessment all recommended approval. Id. at 727. The applicant met all the criteria of the ' ordinance. Furthermore, twenty additional conditions were imposed upon the applicant to secure the permit._Id. The court held there is insufficient factual basis to legally deny an applicant based only on neighborhood opposition. Id. at 728. ' This Court's review of the denial of Plaintiffs PUD application by the City of I Chanhassen should be subject to exactly the same reasoning as the Minnesota Court of Appeals used in Scott County Lumber Plaintiff's application meets all requirements of the ordinance. There is no issue as to the additional requirements set out by the City Planning ' Staff. No factual basis is given for the City Council's denial of Plaintiffs application. The Findings of Fact totally ignore the evidence presented to the City Council. All competent and legally sufficient evidence recommended approval of the PUD. The true reason for the ' City Council's decision is the pressure from the neighborhood opposition. This cannot be ' the basis for denying Plaintiff's application. Plaintiff has met all of the criteria set forth in the ordinance and the additional requirements created by the City. As such, the application should be approved as a matter of law. � ,a 1 Finding. The office /industrial portion of the site is consistent with the ' comprehensive plan. The applicant is requesting a land use map amendment for the residential portion of the development. The proposed residential development complies with many elements of the comprehensive plan ' °11e 1 IV. THERE IS NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE CITY'S DECISION. In determining whether a municipal body's decision is unreasonable or arbitrary, "the ' review is focused on the legal sufficiency of and factual basis for the reasons given." Swanson v City! of Bloomington 421 N.W.2d at 313. The Qnly reason given by the City for its denial of Plaintiff's application is that it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This "fact" ' is not legally sufficient. Indeed, the City's "Findings of Fact and Decision" are entirely , conclusory. There are no facts to justify the denial. City's , The "Findin g of Fact" No. 9. comes the closest to an explanation for the decision: 9. The original designation of the Subject Property as a office /industrial in the City's 1991 Comprehensive Plan Update was not mistake; nor has there been any changes since that time which necessitates a redesignation of this property to some other use. See Engelhardt Affidavit, Exhibit 7, "Findings of Fact and Decision ", p.2. However, "changed conditions are not a prerequisite to the establishment of planned unit ' development:' Moore v City of Boulder 484 P.2d at 135. Thus, the City's only "reason" is not legally sufficient. The City's denial of Plaintiffs application for the sole reason that it was not ' consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan is not established by the evidence presented , to the City Council. . The City's Planning Staff specifically found that Plaintiffs plan is , consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: Finding. The office /industrial portion of the site is consistent with the ' comprehensive plan. The applicant is requesting a land use map amendment for the residential portion of the development. The proposed residential development complies with many elements of the comprehensive plan ' °11e 1 i 1 including community development, land use, housing, and transportation goals and policies. See Engelhardt Affidavit, Exhibit 2, City Staff Report, p.10. Moreover, the City's denial is contrary to the stated goals of the comprehensive plan and the purpose of a PUD. The City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan states: "The Comprehensive Plan is designed to be a flexible tool which can be adapted to new objectives to attain stated goals." See Danen Affidavit, Exhibit 1, "City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan" p. 1. The stated intent of a PUD is to employ the flexibility of land uses to allow for development that does not fit strict zoning standards: Planned Unit Developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of other, more standard zoning districts. Chanhassen City Code § 20 -501. ( Danen Affidavit, Exhibit 2). "Courts have rejected arguments that the approval of a PUD was invalid because it was inconsistent with a local comprehensive plan ". Mandelker, Land Use Law § 9.25, (3d ed. 1993). More importantly, a city's comprehensive plan "is advisory and does not unalterably bind a city." R A Putnam & Assoc. v. Mendota Heights 510 N.W.2d 264, 268 (Minn.App. 1994). The Chanhassen Zoning Code (Chapter 20 of the City Code) does not create specific zones for planned unit developments. Rather, the PUD is a device where unique developments are created. These developments are, by their definition, not consistent with -12- the strict requirements of the zoning standards set out in the comprehensive plan. As described above, the intent of the PUD is to mix land uses to achieve greater diversity and , more sensitive developments. Chanhassen City Code § 20 -501. If all PUD applications ' were to be strictly consistent with the comprehensive plan, there would be no need for the unique characteristics of a PUD. Conversely, if the City can deny a PUD solely because it ' arbitrarily feels the plan is not strictly consistent with the comprehensive plan (with no ' further facts), then all PUDs can be summarily denied. The law requires the City to have a legally sufficient b , grounded ounded in fact, in order to deny Plaintiffs application for a PUD. , Swanson 421 N.W.2d at 313. ' . The City of Chanhassen cannot be allowed to justify its arbitrary denial by claiming for office industrial. The City suggested, in 1995, the obvious. The land is clearly zoned office/ industrial. a transition area of townhomes would serve as an excellent buffer zone between any industrial or office park and the neighboring Trotter's Ridge subdivision. There is no ' 1 , allowance in the City Zoning Code or map for any residentia development in an p office /industrial zone. Therefore, by definition, the idea of putting townhomes on the , property to buffer the Trotter's Ridge neighborhood is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan....However, the flexibility contained in the Comprehensive Plan, together with the flexibili ty of the Zoning Code, utilized in the PUD process, allows for such unique , development as proposed in Plaintiffs application to change the strict requirements of the zoning standards. But after the neighborhood opposition voiced their displeasure, the City Council it buckled under the pressure and cowardly denied the PUD. ' -13- 1 t J I I A review of the City Councilmembers testimony at the August 12, 1996 meeting evidences the complete void of factual reasoning for denying Plaintiffs application. Councilman Berquist testified that although he was in favor of affordable housing, he isn't sure this is how he would envision the development. Councilwoman Dockendorf states that she believes, after suggesting the townhome buffer zone the year before, that "we've taken a really circuitous rout to find out that perhaps industrial is the best use for this piece of land..." Meanwhile Councilmen Mason and Senn, reiterating the comments of Councilman Berquist, stated that they had met with the neighborhood opposition group and felt that the entire concept of affordable housing should be more closely addressed. None of this testimony provides a legally sufficient basis to deny Plaintiff's application. In fact, all of the testimony merely evidences the City Council's awareness of the Trotter's Ridge opposition. There is no discussion regarding any issues. Nothing is specifically cited, at the City Council meeting or in the Findings of Fact, as to why Plaintiffs proposal fails. Only a conclusory statement of the obvious that the proposal is not strictly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Likewise, the Planning Commission meetings do not provide evidence of a factual reason to deny Plaintiffs application. After each of the two Planning Commission meetings, the Planning Staff revised its Report. The Planning Commission, faced with the neighborhood opposition, tried to placate the neighbors by sending Plaintiff back to the City Staff to revise the plan in order to satisfy the issues raised by the group, such as the wetland assessment. However, after finding that the issues raised by the group were baseless, the -14- nded Plaintiff's application for ' City Planning Staff, again, recommended pp approval. See Danen Affidavit, Exhibit 4. ' As stated above, the only reason Plaintiffs application was denied was because of the ' neighborhood opposition. While neighborhood feeling may be taken into account, it may not be the sole basis for a zoning decision. Swanson 421 N.W.2d at 313 citing Northwestern ' College v City of Arden Hills 281 N.W.2d at 869; see also Scott County Lumber 417 , -N.W.2d at 728; Chanhassen Estates Residents Association v City of Chanhass 342 N.W.2d 335, 340 (Minn. 1984). The Chanhassen City Council arbitrarily denied Plaintiffs ' application in order to avoid upsetting the Trotter's Ridge residents. The City now attempts to bravely hide behind their decision: '"The City's legislative discretion in this regard is virtually Y untouchable b this court." Defendant's Memo. in Support of it's Motion, p. 6. , However, this bravado will not suffice as a legally sufficient factual basis justifying the denial ' of Plaintiffs application. ' CONCLUSION ' The City's denial of Plaintiffs application for a PUD is patently arbitrary and , capricious. The conclusory statement by the City, tha t the proposal is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan is contrary to the evidence. The only reason for the denial is the ' neighborhood opposition. Without a legally sufficient factual basis, the City's denial is ' invalid. -150 ' V' Dated: November 12, 1996. 51111296-I -20735 \002 -01.MEM 0 Respectfully Submitted, By: ( 4- , Gerald S. Mffy 703) Philip J. Danen 234837) SIEGEL, BRILL, GREUPNER & DUFFY, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1300 Washington Square 100 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 339 -7131 -16- SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION COALITION ' 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 ' (612) 337 -9300 /1/ -le . .,7 November 19, 1996 Y y �" /�ti Q�Gt E( , R . SAP" NOV 21 1996 ;Pro C 1NG lw�jr� !r'i •J 7 C4 rle� C c j f d1 re S ' ot�iF�s — Don Ashworth C ITY City Administrator ' City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 -0147 ' RE: Appropriation to Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition ; Our File No. LN400 -51 Dear Don: The City of Chanhassen has appropriated $3,500 to the Coalition to assist it in carrying on its efforts in advocating for the construction of New T.H. 212 and improvements to T.H. 41 and T.H. 5. To date we have not received the City's appropriation for 1996. Please arrange for issuance of a check in that amount and send it to me at the above address. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Please also include the Coalition in the City's budget for 1997, in at least the same amount. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Thank you. RJL /cm Yours very truly, da l Robert J. Lindall \ i L: RJL113289 LN400 -51 ' �I L,! MEMORANDUM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager A �Ll DATE: November 21, 1996 SUBJ: CIP /Position Classification Plan • CPI: Councilman Senn had requested information on the cost of living for the past ten years together with cost of living adjustments that actually occurred during that time frame. The following represents the information obtained by Pam Snell /Todd Gerhardt: Year 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 Total City Budget Cost of Living 3.0% 2.5% 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 4.5% 5.0% 0% 34.0% -3.1% Actual Cost of Living 3.3% 2.9% 2.6% 3.0% 3.0% 4.3% 5.4% 4.8% 4.1% 3.7% 37.1% *Note: In 1988, the city completed a major revision to the Position Classification Plan, re- benchmarking each of our positions to comparable cities within the Twin Cities area. Accordingly, no cost of living increase was given as the position ranges were current. • Position Classification Plan: The current Position Classification Plan, as it applies to salary adjustments, really isn't working. The attached two graphs best depict my point. Mayor and City Council , November 21, 1996 Page 2 , The ideal graph has an average employee starting at approximately 85% of the midpoint for the position. After 4 -5 years, he /she gets to the midpoint and during the following five years has an opportunity to move to 115% of that midpoint. It should be remembered that most , positions throughout the Twin Cities area are governed by labor contracts with public works, public safety, and clerical /technical being the primary unionized groups. If you start work in Maplewood as a light equipment operator, you will paid the hourly rate for that position on the first day you start. You don't have to wait 4 -5 years and go through evaluations determining whether or not you are mastering all aspects of that work function. In light of the fact that you had started at 85% of the midpoint, the Position Classification Plan intended ' to allow you to regain your financial position by being able to go to 115% of the midpoint logically by the time you achieved ten years of service. As the percent increase is so minimal after you get to 100 %, a true graph of how our plan should work would have you getting to , the 115% after 15 years of service. But in reality, it hasn't happened. The second graph, "Actual Salary Trend," shows that the average for all city employees with ten years of service or more is 98.95 %. This low percentage surprised me, but on the other side, I knew it would ' not be 115% because there is no one that is over 105 %. This statistic is also slightly deceiving in that virtually every department head or other form of promotion has come from within, which hypothetically would restart the 85% beginning salary. This factor should not have been overly dramatic in that virtually none of the public works positions have changed with the same comments being made in most of the clerical /technical area and public safety , arenas.