Loading...
CC Minutes 2000 11 27CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 2000 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Labatt, Councilwoman Jansen, and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Don Ashworth, and Matt Saam Due to technical difficukies with the audio video equipment, the first portion of the meeting was not taped. The following people were in attendance at the City Council meeting. Public Present: Name Address Roderick Franks Mark Kroskin Patsy Bernhjelm Deb Kind Robert Mortenson Frank Mendez Rolf Engstrom Barbara J. Vemes Mel Kurvers Frank Kurvers Ted Dorenkamp Norbert Kerber Don Huseth Deb Lloyd Jim Waletski Janet Paulsen Ann Kleve Tim McNaboe Rosa & Carmen McMeen 8694 Mary Jane Circle 9941 Deerbrook 9380 Kiowa Trail 2351 Lukewood Drive 7371 Kurvers Point Road 7361 Kurvers Point Road 7201 Frontier Trail 83 Castle Ridge Court 7240 Kurvers Point Road 7220 Kurvers Point Road 6370 Murray Hill Road 7216 Frontier Trail 7332 Frontier Trail 7301 Laredo Drive 7334 Frontier Trail 7305 Laredo Drive 7307 Laredo Drive 720 Bighorn Drive 9391 Foxford Road APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to approve the agenda amended to delete item 4, Request for Wetland Alteration Permit to Excavate a 100 x 50 ft. pond in a wetland area, 610 West 96th Street, Robert Boecker, per the applicant's request. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. 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: City Council Meeting - November 27, 2000 a. Resolution #2000-85: Receive Feasibility Report and Call for Public Hearing for Tanadoona/ Dogwood Street & Utility Improvements, Project No. 00-01-1. b. Approve Engineering Agreement with Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates for 2000 and 2001 Bridge Inspections in the City of Chanhassen. c. Arvidson's Addition, 6398 Murray Hill Road: 1) Final Plat Approval. 2) Approve Development Contract and Plans & Specifications, Project 00-12. d. Resolution #2000-86: Canvass Recount Election Results. e. Approval of Bills. f. Approval of Minutes: Regular City Council Meeting dated November 13, 2000 g. Approve Renaming Summerfield Addition to Summerfield 2nd Addition. h. Approval of Lease with Ridgeview for Ambulance Space at Lake Ann Building. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATION: None. LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE: Sgt. Dave Potts reviewed his memo to the Mayor and City Council dated 11/21/00, plus an additional incident relating to a juvenile drinking party which occurred near Victoria, a vehicle was stolen from the party and the vehicle was involved in some vandalism and then abandoned in Chanhassen. Mayor Mancino asked for clarification on the number of traffic stops and asked whether it was due to more enforcement or more speeders. APPOINTMENT OF NEW CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. Public Present: Name Address Deb Kind Robert Mortenson Patsy Bernhjelm 2351 Lukewood Drive 7371 Kurvers Point Road 9380 Kiowa Trail Scott Botcher presented the staff report on this item and recommended that the City Council appoint Craig Peterson to fill the vacancy because he received the most votes in the election. Mayor Mancino gave some background information on the reasons why Councilman Mark Engel was no longer on the council and asked for public input. Deb Kind spoke in support of appointing Craig Peterson and outlined his City Council Meeting - November 27, 2000 qualifications. Bob Mortenson spoke in support of appointing Craig Peterson. Patsy Bernhjelm spoke in support of appointing Craig Peterson to the council but expressed concern about the presumption of split votes and the reason to rush the appointment of the vacancy before January 1. There were no further comments from the public so Mayor Mancino asked for council member's input. Councilman Senn stated he supported appointing Craig Peterson to create a full council of five members. Councilwoman Jansen stated her opinion hadn't changed from the previous meeting where she spoke in support of Craig Peterson, but wanted the public to be properly notified, which she stated had not happened. This item was not in the agenda, which was published in the city's official newspaper. She further stated that she felt the present City Council of four members could decide on any issues until the end of the year, i.e. setting the levy, City Manager review, etc. She again stated she would like proper notification published in the city's official newspaper. Mayor Mancino asked the City Manager to explain what had happened regarding public notification. Councilman Labatt stated his position had not changed since the last City Council meeting which was he would welcome Craig Peterson after the first of the year but believes the current council members can finish the business necessary until the end of the year. Mayor Mancino asked Craig Peterson if he wanted to speak on the issue. Craig Peterson stated he felt confident he could get up to speed on items coming before the City Council, but leaves the ultimate decision up to the City Council to decide. He stated he was concerned about possible tie votes and the implications that might have on approving the budget. Mayor Mancino stated she had reviewed the Minnesota League of Cities Handbook regarding this issue and what actions the City Council could take. She stated she felt the public has had a chance to provide input and asked for a motion. Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to appoint Craig Peterson to fill the vacancy on the Chanhassen City Council. Councilman Senn and Mayor Mancino voted in favor. Councilwoman Jansen and Councilman Labatt voted against the motion. The motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2. Mayor Mancino appointed Craig Peterson to fill the vacancy on the Chanhassen City Council. RURAL SERVICE DISTRICT~ REVIEW EXISTING ORDINANCE. Public Present: Name Address A1 Klingelhutz Willard Johnson Gayle Degler Steven Berquist 8600 Great Plains Boulevard 1660 West 63rd Street 1630 Lyman Boulevard 7107 Frontier Trail Don Ashworth presented the background information on this issue. A committee has reviewed parcels in the rural service district and came up with a recommendation to remove six parcels because they were not being farmed. He recommended that the City Council should direct staff to modify the ordinance and bring it back for a public hearing. The committee members A1 Klingelhutz, Willard Johnson, Gayle Degler, and Steven Berquist were available to answer questions. (Recording of the meeting began at this point in the discussion.) Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Senn. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2000 Councilman Senn: You guys, one question. Went through the parcels. I think I know where most of them are and no questions on really any of them other than one, but wasn't the Savaryn Mills property, wasn't that still being farmed this summer? A1 Klingelhutz: What's that? Councilman Senn: The Savaryn Mills property. Is that the one on 5 and 41 ? A1 Klingelhutz: Right. Councilman Senn: Wasn't that still being farmed this summer? Gayle Degler: This summer it still was, right. There were soybeans I think on there. A1 Klingelhutz: Things that we looked at were things that were platted at the present time that we knew that very possibly in the next crop season they wouldn't be farming any more because if the plat was approved they would automatically, should be taken off. Councilman Senn: And I would agree with that but I'm just saying, what if it isn't? Mayor Mancino: Yeah, can you reverse it? Don Ashworth: The Council has until July of 2001 to make that decision. We talked about that particular parcel, recognizing a petition was in for sanitary sewer and it was currently being considered to be actively used. The point that we discussed hopefully when this comes back again, some more of a decision will have been made on that particular parcel and a decision will all be made to leave it on or off. Councilman Senn: So you have until July basically to reaffirm it or whatever? Don Ashworth: That's correct. A1 Klingelhutz: I would possibly suggest that we should meet a little more regular than 5 years because of the fact, Chanhassen is growing. Councilman Senn: Al, we set these at 5 years to make sure you make the next one. A1 Klingelhutz: If the MUSA line don't get extended, I can see a lot of open space for the next 5 years but if it should happen to get extended, I think there's probably quite a little more development will come. Mayor Mancino: We'll ask Scott to keep and eye on that. When you should meet. Councilwoman Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: No questions, thank you. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: The only question I had is on the one parcel, it's a landlocked piece north of Lyman between Audubon and Powers. This one up here. Well I can't read that number. Can you? City Council Meeting - November 27, 2000 Scott Botcher: 260232200. Mayor Mancino: It's the one. Councilman Labatt: Just north of Sunrise Road and Sunrise Trail. Or Sunset Trail. A1 Klingelhutz: There's a 12 acre parcel that belongs to Bill Goers back there and we know it's farmed because Gayle Degler farms it. It looks like it's landlocked but it actually. Gayle Degler: He owns the parcel right to the south of it. A1 Klingelhutz: To the south of it where his house is on. It's connected to his homestead property. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Mancino: So it is farmed? Gayle Degler: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Good, thank you. Thank you very, very much. Scott Botcher: See you guys in 5 years. Councilman Senn: Do we need a motion to set a public hearing or anything? Mayor Mancino: I think everybody feels comfortable about the direction that we're going, right? I haven't heard any contentions so. Councilwoman Jansen: Do you want it tabled? Was that what your recommendation was? Mayor Mancino: Do we need to table it? Scott Botcher: I mean if you wanted to, make a motion to accept the recommendation of the committee. That would probably be appropriate. Beyond that I don't think there's anything you need to do. Councilman Labatt: So moved. Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Senn seconded to accept the recommendation of the Rural Service District Committee. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Labatt: I've got two issues relating to snowmobiles, which aren't down here. Scott Botcher: Already? City Council Meeting - November 27, 2000 Councilman Labatt: Already. And maybe this actually more for you Scott to look at. Lake Lucy Road, east of Galpin. It's one or two driveways there. The one guy's put up the orange barrier fence between his fence and the curb and then 6 metal stakes on each side. So that's in the public right-of-way? Scott Botcher: Yep. Councilman Labatt: And that should be taken down, right? Scott Botcher: Yep. If it's in the right-of-way. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then the other one is at 7 and Minnewashta Parkway, when I was driving out there yesterday. They in essence have done the same thing. They've taken those green stakes, put them along the grass but they've strung like quarter inch nylon rope on the top of each one. So I think we need to look at getting those removed or somehow. We don't need decapitated snowmobilers. Scott Botcher: I got a call today too from a gentleman that lives on Audubon. He participated in a discussion last year with Mr. Hoffman and Mike Fahey, and apparently someone has put up signs that say, and I haven't seen them but apparently say grant...trail. Something like that. I checked with our staff. We did not put those up. I spoke to Mike Fahey today and we're both trying to figure out how they got there. And apparently they're on Audubon. Councilman Labatt: Practical joke. Scott Botcher: Well, I don't know but you know one of the landowners called who participated in those discussions and so that's my snowmobile plug for today. Mayor Mancino: Do they look legit? Scott Botcher: I guess so. Mike called me and then the landowner on Audubon called. For what it's worth. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: LIBRARY DESIGN PROFESSIONAL INTERVIEW PROCESS UPDATE. Public Present: Name Address Melissa Brechow Linda Landsman 8634 Wood Cliff Circle, Bloomington 7329 Frontier Trail Mayor Mancino: Do you want to give us an update on the library design? Scott Botcher: Yeah. Melissa's here and basically what we have done, we solicited for design services. We received 6 responses. We identified 4 parties that we wish to interview. And we interviewed those 4. We haven't formally come up with the short list that we're going to hand off to you all. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Is that going to be 2? Scott Botcher: We haven't decided yet. We haven't. It could be 3. It could be 2. Mayor Mancino: It could be 4. Scott Botcher: I don't think it will be 4. It will be 3 or 2. But Melissa wanted to visit a couple of the sites and I know that she and Kate are trying to arrange visitations to specific sites that she wants to see. Mr. Gerhardt and I have some other business in the city later this week and we're going to make some side trips on the way back and visit some libraries that were built by other folks on the stack. Mayor Mancino: Are you guys going to take pictures and? Scott Botcher: Todd and I hadn't thought we would. We thought we'd just visit them and look for specific things. And then when you get to the interview process, you know whatever you want to do is up to you. I guess what I was looking for tonight, and I guess a couple things. I'm making notes to myself so I don't forget. First of all, it's my belief that these interviews, when they come to pass will need to be stand alone meetings. You won't be able to, you're not going to pack them in. We tried to get Rick through. We couldn't get Rick through. We're not going to get 2 or 3 library proposal people through in a work session format. It's not going to work. So unless someone stands up and screams at me and says no, I don't want to do that, that's the way that we're going to go because I think we're just going to have to. And I think Melissa agrees with that as well. At least our little working group before, who I should identify as Melissa, myself, Todd Gerhardt and Kate Aanenson who's our Community Development Director. The other issue that I need to go by with you, or go over with you involves I guess more the methodology of soliciting a fee proposal. If you remember from reading in the RFP's, we didn't ask for the fees yet because we really wanted to see if we can take the decision based upon the merits of the applicant, and so we've done that. We haven't, I don't even think we've had a fee question yet. Which I think is good. But there is a question as to how you wish to move ahead in terms of soliciting the fee proposal. I think that one of the issues that is out there is that you're not buying a commodity good. We've had some discussions with some of the applicants and they've raised the question, it's a fair question. Are you going to specify for example, 6 public meetings. Just pick a number out of the air. And for 6 public meetings and doing all this work it will cost you X. My response has been, and I think the committee's response has been, we're not, we don't want to sit and tell you exactly the best methodology to do your job. Different firms have different levels of expertise in different processes. And they have different experiences and different successes in their backgrounds in terms of how they've approached public input. We've been very obnoxiously obvious with the candidates, in fact it's the first question. In terms of identifying the importance of a public input process in terms of library design. And we have probably about a 15-20 minute question on that. It's the very first one. So we've made that very, very clear. That being said, we've got some very good answers. I mean these firms have good experience and good background but they're not identical, which is good. You're not buying a commodity good. You're not buying apples and apples and oranges and oranges. So that means when somebody comes before you and does a presentation and you question them, whatever else, you're probably going to have a couple different methodologies before you to choose from. And you may say, I like this one. This one's okay. This one I don't like so well. And I guess the question is, at what point do you bring in the fee issue in terms of making your determination. It's really what you want to do is make, I think it is. Certainly fee's not to be ignored, but you want to make the determination upon, based upon the merits of the applicant and secondly, who's going to provide you with the methodology, the experience and the expertise to solicit the public input and incorporate it into the design process in a fashion that you want. I mean if someone has a process that they just think is the greatest thing in the world but City Council Meeting - November 27, 2000 you don't like, you're probably not going to pick them even if the fee's really good. And you shouldn't. I guess my recommendation is probably as follows, and I guess I need some feedback on this. I would recommend that we bring these folks in following our due diligence Melissa, and have them meet with you. Following the identification then of either a ranked order or just a first place person. We then can enter into negotiations for a fee proposal from them. If that doesn't work then we move onto the second one. Now that does eliminate to some extent I guess the competitive bid nature of the fees. You know A versus B. And we can certainly do that if you have two that you like, you know but I want to, I guess I want to drive to the issue that I hope you select or at least give strong consideration to selecting the firm that has the methodology and the process in place to really get that public input in the fashion that you want. I think that frankly to me, we're building this building for 50 years plus, you don't want to screw up the public input process, even if it costs you a little bit more. That's my personal opinion. You all can disagree with that. I'm trying to walk through this. Melissa am I, that's pretty much the question of the committee. And so I'm looking for some input on how you wish to go about with the fee solicitation. Mayor Mancino: Steve, do you want to start? Councilman Labatt: Yeah, I not sure about it as far as get it down to being competitive between two companies. The first question I have is, what's your time line for the interviewing the. Scott Botcher: I think it will be early January. It won't be before the first. There's no way. Councilman Labatt: Okay. But then as far as narrowing it down from the 4 or 3 are your picks down to 1 or 2 and going.., will you play them against each other to come up with the best thing to save a couple hundred bucks. A thousand dollars. I don't know. You know if you've got the company you like and they're your first pick, I'm okay with going with them and just try to negotiate the best cost. Scott Botcher: And you could, and I should say this too because this is another method. You could go through the interview process and see how it shakes out. Say you like two of them, take your example. Say you like two of them regardless of the process they put before you. Maybe then go back to two of them and say give us a competitive bid from you two based upon what you gave us. I think that's what you're saying and that's certainly, that would be acceptable. Councilman Labatt: Or if one company comes up above all, you know I don't see anything wrong with working with that company. Scott Botcher: I just want to see what you're comfortable with. Mayor Mancino: Linda. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I hesitate to not have the fee proposal along with the public process proposal. And then it really is our choice as to how we're actually weighting those factors but if for instance somebody has the Cadillac of public process and it's also the Cadillac of prices, I think we also are going to be weighing that into the equation. I don't know that we're serving the public's best interest by leaving the free proposal as a surprise once we get through looking at all of these processes. And let's say that we do like the Cadillac of processes. Well then, as I think you were saying to Steve's point, we have the others bid on that same process if that's where we want to go. But I don't, to not have the fee proposal for each of their plans. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2000 Scott Botcher: It's more a matter of when you get it and what impact the fee proposal will have upon your decision making process. We've talked, there's no right or wrong way necessarily to do this because there's not, and I'm not trying to represent that there is because I could argue 3, 4, 5 different ways. I just sort of need to know where you want to go. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I would want the opportunity to be able to weigh that right up from in the whole process. Scott Botcher: And I guess the reason I ask is, then I need to call, I mean we need to do our stuff but at some point I need to communicate to these people then okay folks, here's the date for the interview. You need to have to us then, if you want to go your way, the fee proposal by date Y so you all can have it and review it prior to the meeting, if that's what you want to do. Just trying to coordinate. Mayor Mancino: Mark. And again, these are just design fees. Scott Botcher: Yeah. Mayor Mancino: This is a service business. This is. Scott Botcher: Not the real thing. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I don't think we should put ourselves in the position where the council potentially gets down to one favored candidate and then requests bids because then you've taken all competition out of it and I don't think that's beneficial to the city. I think you should, if you're talking about a short list now of 2 to 3 people coming to the council, I think we ought to have the bids, you know you ought to have the pricing with it. Now you have the negotiation, or I mean you have the ability in your selection process to alter that through negotiations. So I mean if you have 3 firms come in and one has a higher number, another has a lower number because of the public input process or the number of meetings or something, then if it's broken down properly like it should be in a fee proposal, you can then simply negotiate that and make the adjustments if there's somebody that you favor one way or the other but I think for taxpayers to appropriately represent the taxpayers, I think it's also important that that be also an important element of the selection. But it is again, only one element as you've said. And you've got the rest covered so let's bring it into the process and get it there quickly. Scott Botcher: My other question is Roger, if we solicit bids and we get X and Y, and we identify one, do we then have to, I just want to make sure we do this legally right. Do we then check both bids and enter into negotiations or do we just say. Roger Knutson: First, we're not asking for language. It's not a bid, it's a proposal. Councilman Senn: Yeah, request for proposals is what we're doing, right? Roger Knutson: And you can negotiate and you don't have to take the cheapest. You don't have to take the most expensive. You take what's the most appropriate for the city. And normally you don't reject everyone until you've made an award. Entered into an agreement because you might want to, if things don't work out with the one because of a contract issue, you have the others to fall back on. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2000 Mayor Mancino: I'll just add my two cents worth. I agree. I mean I don't think that you'd ever want to, I don't care whether it's public or private business, not have the fees associated. There's always a price value relationship with any sort of work and if the council in the future sees that the highest bid is, or the highest proposal is the best because it gives the fullest amount of public participation or for whatever reasons, is a much more seasoned company and they like the output better, whatever it is, then they should be able to go that way. But they're certainly going to have to see the fee that's associated with what's in the RFP. So I would agree with that. I think it would be also great to see some of the finished products as you go around, as everybody goes around to see what they've actually done. I would think that would be helpful. Scott Botcher: I mean Melissa has, in the next couple weeks for me are pretty ugly but I know Melissa is going to take Kate and they're going to do some tours... All right, we will set that up. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you for coming tonight. Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim Immediately following adjournment of the City Council meeting, Craig Peterson was sworn in by Roger Knutson, City Attorney. 10