The URL can be used to link to this page

1f. City Council Minutes July 22, 1996.1 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 1996 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEM 3ERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf and Councilman Senn COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Mason STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, and Todd Hoffman APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda with the following changes: Councilman Senn wanted to discuss items in the Administrative Section, Highway 101, School Arbitration and the Bluff Creek Watershed plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve Request for Extended Work Hours, Chanhassen East Business Center, Project No. 95 -23. b. Resolution #96 -60: Accept Utility Improvements in The Woods at Longacres, Project No. 93 -28. C. Resolution 496 -61: Accept Street & Storm Sewer Improvements in Bluff Creek Estates 5th Addition, Project No. 94 -10. d. Resolution #96 -62: Accept Street & Storm Sewer Improvements in The Meadows at Longacres, Project No. 94 -7. ' e. Final Plat Approval, Song Addition. f. An Amendment to City Code Section 18 -61, Landscaping and Tree Preservation Requirements by Amending Section (a)(50) to Clarify Location of Fences along Collector and Arterial Streets in relation to Landscape Buffers, an Amendment to Section 20 -1018, Commercial and Industrial Fences; and Section 20 -1029, Location of Fences; Second and Final Reading. g. Approve Purchase of Lot 1, Block 2, Schneider Park for Future City Hall Expansion. i. City Council Minutes dated July 8, 1996 ' Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 25, 1996 1. Wetland Alteration Permit for Coulter Boulevard Phase II, Improvement Project 93 -26B to Fill 0.72 Acres Type .3 Ag/Urban Wetlands and Mitigate by Creating 1.42 Acres of Type 3 Natural Wetland Located Between the Bluff Creek Elementary School and Audubon Road, City of Chanhassen. ' n. Resolution #96 -63: Approve Resolution Requesting Triax to Provide Customer Service Information. 1 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Resolution #96 -64: Approve Resolution Changing Polling Places for Certain Precincts. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: MRPA AWARD OF EXCELLENCE; BLUFF CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL/CHANHASSEN RECREATION CENTER Jon Carter: My name's Jon Carter. I'm with Minnesota Special Olympics and I'm a member of the MRPA awards committee. The purpose of the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association is to improve the quality of life by promoting the profession of parks, recreation and leisure services within the State of Minnesota. It provides members with continuing education opportunities to serve as an information resource on new trends and to provide recreational services, such as tournaments... and sport management of services. MRPA was founded in 1937 and currently has over 1,500 members throughout the State of Minnesota. MPRA Awards Committee was established in 1987 with the purpose of recognizing and honoring individuals and agencies for their excellence, outstanding and unique achievements in the field of Parks and Recreation and the Leisure Services. One major goal of our committee is to increase the awareness and the appreciation for the great parks, trails and recreation programs and services throughout the State of Minnesota. The awards of excellence are presented each year to those cities determined to have the best new programs, facilities or volunteer efforts. This is a very prestigious award and we hope that you as city officials realize what a great accomplishment this is. Nominations are submitted to our committee in mid -April and then they are rated in the areas of funding, planning, inter - agency cooperation, community support, originality and the evaluation of the project. It is a very rewarding task for our group and committee members to present the awards to ... responsible for the success of this project. It is my pleasure today to present the Award of Excellence in the area of Facilities to the City of Chanhassen for the Bluff Creek Elementary School and Recreation Center. This project was nominated by your Park and Recreation Director, Todd Hoffman. I have two things for you. First will be a plaque commemorating the event and also a poster from the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you Jon. Thank you very much. It is indeed a pleasure to accept this on behalf of the Park and Recreation Department and I am sure that it is not always that we make... deserve a lot of credit to the Commission and to Mr. Hoffman... On behalf of City Council, we thank you. Todd, is there anything that you'd like to say? Todd Hoffman: Other than I gave a whole lot of credit to the City Council in my application. Mayor Chmiel: I know, but you did all the work though. Todd Hoffman: Because it is indeed a unique facility in the State of Minnesota. There are few others like it but the most positive aspect of the project is the cooperation between the School District and the City Council. It's truly, when a customer walks in the door, they're both a customer of the school district and of the city and they just want the best service possible. And by the two groups teaming up and putting that building on the ground out there it really did serve those customers... Mayor Chmiel: You're right. Very good. Thank you. 1 s L d r City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 VISITOR PRESENTATION: AFFORDABLE HOUSING STUDY, LUANN SIDNEY. LuAnn Sidney: About a month ago I wrote a letter addressed to the City Council and to the Planning Commission discussing the need for an overall plan to discuss affordable housing in Chanhassen. While the current plan developed by the City deals with the overall goals, it does not appear to deal with the details in affordable housing that will personally affect every citizen in Chanhassen. We the residents that live along Galpin Boulevard ... of the city implementing affordable housing plan without sufficient details. It only makes sense that affordable housing should be looked at by ... other land use issue is looked at in the larger, overall ... of the land use plan process. This would include a detail investigation about the impact that it would have on a neighborhood. That is especially important because once the property is developed, the impacts are irreversible and the community must live with those impacts forever. Because it is so important to look at an} type of development in the overall comprehensive manner, we are calling on the City Council to further define their affordable housing plan to include some comprehensive planning components and to include citizen input into this important land use decisions. For this reason we are proposing the City Council form a volunteer citizen committee to address the issues associated with affordable housing in Chanhassen. Let me be the first volunteer here tonight. This committee would hopefully be made up of people from a wide cross section of the city, not just one neighborhood. The committee would be charged with the task to determine the wishes of all the citizens of the city in conveying that information to the City Council so that an informed and educated decision on how affordable housing issues can be made. Thank you for your time and we plan to discuss many of these ideas with you in detail at a later time. And I also mentioned, I had some conversations with Council, that we also have a survey which we would like to present at this time. This has to do with an opinion survey of the residents in and around Galpin Boulevard and since we didn't have a chance to present that on July 8th, I'm wondering if we could do that at this point. Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. LuAnn Sidney: Thank you. Mike Mullins, who lives in our neighborhood ... will present the results of the survey. Mike Mullins: Hi. I'm Mike Mullins, 2647 Bridle Creek Trail and my task is very straight forward, which is simply to present the results of the survey that we took. I have hard copies here if the Council members would like. First a word about the methodology employed. A survey like this was handed out to people. 30 of these were handed out. It had a space for person I and person 2. A total of 60 possible respondents. We have a ' survey that shows responses from 46. Or at least we had 46 responses. And these responses offered 8 choices, or these sheets offered 8 choices and the sheets have first choice through eight choice that shows the number of people wrote down. So a person for example could write down number I someplace in the middle under 2 up ' here, number 3, etc so we compiled those numbers. The eight choices that were, do you want me to ... what they were or not? Is that useful to you? Mayor Chmiel: I don't think that would be necessary because it's pretty short. Mike Mullins: Alright, that's fine. The first choice indicates what the majority of people wrote down as their first choice and it describes 26 were counted as saying all single family homes was their first choice. The ' second choice, or the second highest count of first choices was other, and there's a wide variety of different kinds of choices. The second choice page shows that most people had single family homes north and industrial site south as their second choice. A total of 23 people chose that. Of interest is that all single family homes was the second choice of 10 people. So between the first and second choice we had 36 out of 46 respondents City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 1 chose single family homes as their preference. Third choice shows IS people chose corporate headquarters. 14 , single family homes north and industrial sites south. The first three choices together, if I could just evaluate a tad, shows that there were some 37 people who chose all single family homes as their first, second or third choice and 39 who chose single family homes north and industrial sites south. Going through the rest of this, it kind of brings it down ... until you get to the eighth choice, if you could turn to that page please. Of the 46 respondents, 30 people listed their eighth, or last choices really as entry level townhouses north and industrial , site south, which is the Town & Country Homes proposal. That's the end of my presentation. If you have any questions I can help with. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions by Council? Councilman Berquist: I think you said it before. How many people received this survey? You had 46 respondents. , Mike Mullins: A total of 30 sheets with two possible respondents on it so a total of 60 possible. These were handed out and this is how many came back. ' Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you. Councilman Senn: The first time around on this, when there was a proposal to have all industrial on that site. Pretty much everybody came in and said they opposed all industrial on the site and would accept a lot different alternatives. You know including staging some housing to industrial or whatever. Okay. Was that address? Mike Mullins: Excuse me. Councilman Senn: Was that addressed in your survey here? I don't see the classification here. Mike Mullins: I'd have to ask LuAnn. LuAnn Sidney: An all industrial site? ' Councilman Senn: Yeah. We've seen office /industrial here. I'm just wondering, I mean was that an all industrial classification? ' LuAnn Sidney: Yeah, we did have all industrial with it, and that actually was the least next preferred to... Councilman Senn: So that would be the ninth choice you're saying? ' LuAnn Sidney: Second. Councilman Senn: Oh okay. So office /industrial is really clear industrial. Okay. ' Mayor Chmiel:- Okay, any other questions? If not, thank you. ' Mike Mullins: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to make a visitor presentation? 1 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 VARIANCE TO THE PARKING LOT REQUIREMENTS AND A SIGN PLAN REVIEW OF A 10,000 SQ. FT. RETAIL FACILITY ON 1.06 ACRES; 501 WEST 78TH STREET, HIWAY 5 CENTRE, ROMAN ROOS/ ' MIKE RAMSEY. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Just to remind where this is. It's on the site of the old Prairie House on West ' 79th Street. As you recall the Council did give approval to the site plan but the variance wasn't noticed and it was remanded back to the Planning Commission for their consideration. In addition the Planning Commission wanted the opportunity to review the sign proposal. So the two issues before you tonight then are the variance request and the sign package. The variance request involves the front setback, and reviewing and supporting ' this, staff looked at the surrounding properties in the area. The intensity of this hasn't increased from what it was originally at the Prairie House and is consistent with the properties on either side. In looking at variance requests, generally staff surveys within 500 feet. The Planning Commission is concerned about sidewalk. We are trying to encourage pedestrian and staff is cognizant of that. We do have the sidewalk project under development on the other side of the street. The Applebee's and the Tires Plus, and we believe the continuation of sidewalks should occur on that side of the street to bring it over to Great Plains. But we would support the ' variance request. There is the possibility of eliminating these parking stalls and providing joint parking with the hotel, in order to get the additional, which is a possibility but again staff supported it based on the fact that it's consistent with what's in the area. As far the sign package. The ordinance does allow a pylon sign on Highway 5 and a monument sign on West 79th Street. Both signs would be architecturally compatible with the building. ' And as far as building signs. Signs are proposed on three facias. The ordinance allows only two so we are recommending elimination of the one facia sign. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, are there any questions of Kate at this time? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Kate, what under our ordinances, how many frontages do they have? Two or one? Kate Aanenson: They have two. They have frontage, the property abuts Highway 5. And it does abut West 79th Street. It's consistent with what we did on the Target. They've got one pylon sign for all those uses and each individual tenant, Target, Boston Market, Perkins, and Taco Bell, all have their own monument signs plus wall signs so it is consistent with that. The only place in the city where you are allowed a pylon sign, if you have frontage directly abutting Highway 5. ' Councilman Senn: No questions. Do you want to hear comments? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are we going to see better pictures on the signage? Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure if Roman has pictures. ' Roman Roos: I can go get them. They're in the car. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, it's not necessary: Kate Aanenson: We are recommending that they be consistent with the display area, and that they be integrated into the building as far as the architecture. I guess based on the fact that the use specifically on seeing the signs ' as part of the architecture... R City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Do you have any comments? Councilman Berquist: No sir, I don't have any... Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, it just seems like such a small building to have a pylon and the additional signage. Kate, their main view, at least the front of the building is going to be, you're going to see it from the north. Or excuse me, from the east. Kate Aanenson: There is some duplication of sight lines but as far as the landscaping in this area, the visibility of walls with mature landscaping, I'm not sure. The main entrance is, you know certainly the main entrance is coming off of West 79th to locate it. I mean that wall sign would probably have better visibility. Councilman Senn: I called Kate today with the same issue, because I thought given the small size of the site, they're already allowed basically building signage on two sides. Plus you have a monument now and you have a pylon. This is a variance so we can restrict it because it is a variance, but I did talk to the applicant and they said they didn't have a big problem just giving up either the pylon or the monument... Kate Aanenson: Let me give clarification. There's not a variance on. Councilman Senn: I agree. It was really signage intensive for a very small piece. Kate Aanenson: There's not a variance on the sign, but there is a variance on the front yard landscaping. I guess what I was saying, if you felt like that's too intense, as far as the variance, the trade -off may be, because it is smaller... maybe the sign would be larger or disproportional to that. Mayor Chmiel: Kate recently, didn't we just work on something like that? We addressed about two months ago or something. Kate Aanenson: Yes, Applebee's and Tires Plus came in based on sight lines. Now they did not have Highway 5 frontage, although an exposure that they were trying to capture so we had a long discussion on that. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, but this does have both Highway 5 as well as 79th Street. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Senn: Well the ones that were in before were asking for the monument and two building sides and we denied that saying they could have one building side and share the monument basically. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Senn: Which was a lot less intensive. Councilwoman Dockendorf I don't know the ordinance by heart Kate but is 14 feet. Kate Aanenson: As far as height? 0 t City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. How is that determined? Kate Aanenson: 20 feet. Oh. Oh, based on the parcel size and when we redid the sign ordinance we tried to have some, so people that had small parcels there was some ratio so the larger the parcel, you could go up to the maximum which is 20. So it's based on frontage. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well Roman what we've been discussing is it seems a little intense. We're wondering what makes sense to you to give up. Councilman Senn: On signage now we're talking. Not building. Roman Roos: Again I thought we had passed the project... in it's entirety but we were going to come back on the variance and the signage itself. The building signage. Both the signage and the monument signage ... we were looking at for approval, as I understood it. And the ... signs on the building. To us it makes no difference... The building faces north /south, and therefore the signage coming from the east to west direction, is a little more critical on the building in terms of the signage on the east and west side of the building for identification. The monument sign we think is the most appropriate to stand alone signs and the monument sign is an identification sign in the front. I don't have a real problem with the elimination of the monument sign. If you think of West 79th Street, now that I think about it, most of the new projects on 79th and 78th, a monument sign doesn't do a lot for us because you'll see it on 79th. But the identification along the highway is extremely important, therefore a pylon sign and dual signage on the building I think is probably more important. We have, in terms of the letters on the building, again 24 square foot per sign per tenant. Five tenants in the building, and allowing it on two sides of the building. Now that will only happen on the two south most bays of that building because how they would in fact remain --- so the north bay, which is the 40 foot store within the sign on 79th, and on the west side which is the front side of the building, if you will. In the case of the south tenant, that would be signed on probably the west side and the east side again, for the same reasons I mentioned earlier. As a representative of the owner I would like to of course have a pylon sign, a monument sign, and the other two signs because we think we fall within ordinance. But I'm open to the Council's recommendations at this point in time. We are open to the sign ordinance, in terms of square footage per tenant. Per location on the building. I don't know if I answered your question Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, you did. Well I think your pylon, I agree. Your pylon sign is going to be critical. Roman Roos: Critical. Critical. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I don't have a problem with that. I tend to agree that monument signs don't do a lot. They're so low. Roman Roos: It's only 6 foot high when it's identification. Those signs are strictly identification ... No specials. No Saturday night whatever. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve. Councilman Berquist: No, I really don't. As long as the signs are meeting the sign ordinance, it's a 15,000 square foot structure and there's buildings along that area that are smaller that I think are as intensive, if not, perhaps not more intensive. It meets the ordinance, I don't have any problem with it. %I City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I don't have any problem with the variance on the setbacks. I still think that the signage is a little intense. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I don't have any problems with the variance but I have to agree on the intensification of the signage. I think we have too much. I liked to see the elimination of the monument as a condition of the variance. Mayor Chmiel: Now when you hit the point ... of the City and they are able to have that amount of signage, I guess I really don't have any problem with it either. ...times I feel different about is when it gets outside that spectrum. But now we're eliminating things that are already permitted use with that facility. All except for the 13 foot variance, and I just feel that we're just trying to do something that we probably shouldn't... preference because I don't like the looks of it. That's all in the eye of the beholder. From a business person's standpoint, I think they would love to see those. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would agree, with the exception that we're also allowing a variance that significantly cuts back the amount of frontage and therefore I feel comfortable in pulling back from our signage ordinance, only because they're going to be closer to the street as is. So typically a monument sign is put out closer to the street so you can see what's further interior and right now, you know they're 20 -30 feet away from the street frontage. Therefore, I think the monument sign is the one to go. Roman Roos: Can I just comment to that? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure. Roman Roos: Only number one... The two signs are quite attractive. What I did is I ... the signage to match the building. Basically there are two foot pier columns in both locations with the piers being the same decor as the building itself. The monument sign only being roughly about 6 foot high. The panels, the identification panels, of course fitting between the two piers. The pylon sign, of course is a duplicate only it's now 16 foot high... With respect to the variance, which is as you are saying may be a compromise. Initially this whole project along 79th Street was ... As I said earlier in the previous meetings that we've had, we didn't think that we had a setback situation in that it be Highway Business versus CBD. What we're talking about is a very fine line between one side of the street and the other side of the street. Therefore in order to conform we didn't ask for that 13 foot variance, versus shifting the building further to the north. And part of the reason behind that is we need to have as much visibility on the north ... and like I said, if my memory serves me correctly, when I came through for the approval process for the Planning Commission and Council, that everything had been okayed from the signage point of view other than the view of ... and that had been approved as far as I know in terms of 24 square foot per sign, per the ordinance. Both for the monument and pylon sign and on two sides of the building. Now—serve no purpose and it's strictly, we're really talking about the last two... So I guess I'm - reluctant to give up the monument sign; acting on behalf of the owner of the project, because it does serve a use ... there's absolutely no question, through staff. And their ability to either have ... so what I'm asking the Council this evening is to at least try not take away the one additional sign that we have on that site. We do have a major sign, and it was a pole sign, and what I mean by pole sign is strictly ... but I think from a stakes point of view, I know what it's costing to build the si and I have to believe that... C 1 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Kate did we in fact approve the sign locations and number of signs'? Kate Aanenson: I'll have to look to Roger on that. What is said is that they were supposed to come back to staff but I guess the way I was looking at it was part of the variance request. If you wanted to attach a reasonable condition on that. Looking at the monument, monument sign. That was a condition you may to look at as part of a variance. You could it that way. Is that correct? Roger Knutson: Correct. Kate Aanenson: That was my interpretation. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other? If not, I'll call the question. Or ask for a motion. Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of the 13 foot parking lot setback variance and sign plan for a 10,000 square foot retail facility, excepting the monument sign. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are you saying accepting? Excepting? Councilman Senn: Excepting. In other words, not including. Mayor Chmiel: If there is not a second, it dies. Is there another motion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would approve the 13 foot parking lot setback variance and sign plan review as shown. Mayor Chmiel: Based on the following conditions that are contained? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? I'll do the second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve a 13 foot front yard paddng lot setback variance and a sign plan review fora 10,000 square foot retail facility, Hiway 5 Centre, with the following conditions: 1. All businesses shall share one monument sign. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 8 feet. The sign must maintain a 10 foot setback from the property line. 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. The total of each wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 24 square feet per tenant. 3. All signs require a separate permit. I City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights. 6. Wall signs shall consist of individual dimensional letters and logos and be back -lit if illuminated. 7. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height. 8. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. 9. One pylon sign is permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 16 feet. The sign must maintain a 10 foot setback from the property line. 10. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. Mayor Chmiel and Councilwoman Dockendorf voted in favor, Councilman Senn who opposed, and Councilman Berquist abstained. The motion carried 2 to 1. Kate Aanenson: Does that ...variance? Roger Knutson: You need a majority vote of the Council. Kate Aanenson: For a variance. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn: In terms of? Roger Knutson: A variance. Councilman Senn: Majority vote of the sitting Council or the majority? Roger Knutson: The full Council. You need 3 votes. Councilman Senn: Well I'll change my to yes then. All voted in favor, except Councilman Be►quist who abstained, and the motion carried. CONSIDER DESIGNATION OF CHANHASSEN LIONS FIELD ORDER PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS LAKE ANN BALLFIELD LIGHTING PROJECT. Todd Hoffman: First of all, other than Roman, I'd like to acknowledge any other Lions members. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone wish to be a Lion? 10 I L City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Todd Hoffman: Sign up tonight. See Roman. Roman was the President when we initiated this project. Has since passed that duty on to Mr. Earl Erickson and Earl has worked with me right along on this project. First of all a little background for the City Council. The Park and Recreation Commission has recognized over the past 4 to 5 years that they're having trouble keeping up the athletic facilities within the city of Chanhassen. And open space as well, as you're well aware. So working on behalf of the ballfields, there's two ways to look at it. Either acquiring additional land, such as Bandimere that we got already, and build a future ballpark on new land, such as we did with the Chan Recreation Center. Or light or intensify existing fields such as the ones we have at Lake Ann and Lake Susan and elsewhere. The Park Commission talked about lighting Lake Susan, or the Lake Susan ballpark. In fact they went so far as to talk about a town baseball team as a concept where you put in lights and... bleachers and those type of things. And they talked about that for a couple of years and it never really took off. Some of the folks at the Athletic Association also contributed to that conversation. The Park Commission put a small amount of seed money in their CIP, their annual capital budget, $10,000.00, but nothing materialized. So last year in developing the annual CIP, the commission focused, re- focused their attention on Lake Ann. Lake Ann is the largest athletic facility in the city of Chanhassen. It's the most widely used athletic facility and they knew they would get more attention if they turned their attention to Lake Ann. If you've noticed over the years, when we had three fields at Lake Ann, the majority of the use was adult activity. Then the other three fields came on line and for the past 3, 4, 5 years a lot of that use has been switching to youth. In fact we went so far as to completely redesign Field No. 2 to make it a Little League field. The youth in the community also use Field No. I ... for baseball. And Field No. 3 for softball. So what ) see now is the west half of Lake Ann is really a youth complex and the east half serves for the adult activities. What the Commission chose to do on the CIP for this year was to plant $60,000.00 in seed money in the budget in hopes that something would materialize. Then this spring they asked me to send letters in inquiries of other potential funders. Four letters were sent. One to the Chanhassen Lions. One to the Chanhassen American Legion. One to the Chanhassen Athletic Association and the fourth to the Victoria Lions, who are doing a heck of a lot of work in Victoria but also who recognize that they have children who participate in Chanhassen as well so they're not... participating in future projects in Chanhassen either. The response received, we received was as follows. The American Legion would like to donate $2,000.00 to the project, which you accepted in hopes that the project would go this meeting. We accepted that last meeting. The Chanhassen Athletic Association really, with influence from their sponsors chose not to contribute. What the sponsors of the Athletic Association see as really a pass through so if you're a local business giving $5,000.00 to the CAA and then CAA in turn gives money to the city, they didn't see that as an appropriate use of their funds so they chose not to contribute. However, the big catch of the day was the Chanhassen Lions and they would like to pledge $98,000.00 to this project if the Council sees fit to go ahead and authorize the project this evening. The City share is about an equal share to that. You can see by the numbers which I have here on the chart, that the total is just over $10,000.00 to get the budget underway and that would be lights, athletic field lights for both Ballfield No. 4 and No. 5 on the site. So everybody recalls where those fields are. The park is split into two halves with the beach to the north and Fields 4 in this configuration and Field 5 is here. And then the concession building is up top so Highway 5 is at the bottom. Field 1 already is lit. Field No. 2 is the Little League field. Field 3 is the softball field. Fields 4, 5 and 6, and then the soccer field. Originally we had talked about letting fields 5 and 6 kind of keep things down towards the highway, if you can continue. However the Lions, it's their thought process in becoming involved to really make it their field a centerpiece. They're interested in continuing the Chanhassen Lions tournaments which they have out there on an annual basis. And if you've ever stood up at that concession building and you look over Field No. 4, it really lays out right before you and so they'd just as soon make Field No. 4 the Lions Field. We've got a concept plan that shows that. Again I'll take questions on the financing here. That shows Field No. 6. The enhancement of the seating, or spectator seating will go right near the existing shelter, and then the sign designating the Lions Field and gateway sign and monument would be at this location. The crest of the hill as we drive up to that back entryway. The concept for that sign is City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 something like that. Some type of design which is attractive and... Chanhassen Lions that would be to designate their involvement in the project. Detail in the city share of the project, which is estimated to be $107,014.00. We talked about the $60,000.00 in seed money. The commission, or the City Council has $30,000.00 in the Chanhassen Recreation Center fund which was completed tonight. The thought behind that designation on the part of the Park and Recreation Commission was that we had a new facility with a lot of things going on and if there was something which was missed, that we would need to then invest into 1996, we'd have those... We've not found that necessity... that money can be shifted to benefit this project and bring that total to $90,000.00. Fees for service, and take the $10,000.00 of the consulting and other associated specialties and then about $7,000.00 would be picked up by contingency, which is what is directly into Fund 410... Then the Lions' share, which really gives the city 50 cent dollars, if you will, on the project. Comes in two forms. First we have a check upstairs for $24,000.00 payable to the City of Chanhassen, which can be cashed by the City Council. And then the City Council would have to underwrite the remaining $70,380.00 for about three years until such time as the Lions can pay that back on an annual basis. Their annual payment would be $24,000.00 for the next three years with the final payment making up the last dollars. With that, the recommendation being forwarded by the Park and Recreation Commission is written and it Nvas made on June 25th of this year. It says, upon conclusion of the discussion that evening, Commission Meger moved and Commissioner Scott seconded to accept the proposal to designate Field No. 4 as Lions Field and to recommend the City Council accept the $98,000.00 pledge from the Chanhassen Lions Club and transfer $30,000.00 designated for contingency items at the Chanhassen Recreation Center to the Lake Ann Park Ballfield Lighting Project. All commissioners voted in approval that evening and the motion passed unanimously. If the Council concurs with this recommendation, it is recommended that you authorize the preparation of the final plans and specifications for the project. That would get it started and hopefully... I'd like to answer any questions for the City Council. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Steve, do you have any questions? Councilman Berquist: I've got a few Todd. The intent all along was to try and light 5 and 6. 4 seemed to be a little bit viable from a promotional point of view for any major ... so that's how 4 and 5 got decided. There's a need to light two additional fields or those two fields to add two more fields lit'? Todd Hoffman: Yes there is, and the eventual plan is to light all the fields at Lake Ann and to accommodate future increase in needs for both league play and recreational play and tournaments. Councilman Berquist: You project that to continue to rise`? Todd Hoffman: Yes. Councilman Berquist: We're going to end up underwriting $70 grand with 3 years, did you say? And I hate to even bring this up. Number one, I'd like to know where we're intending to fund it out of. And the reason I hate to bring it up is because, I'm sort of questioning the charitable contribution and I don't like to do that. But is there any assurance of those funds forth coming? Aside from good faith. Todd Hoffman: Not other than the good faith of the Chanhassen Lions and the fact that if their gambling does go away, they will not be able to do... The money would be underwritten from Fund 410, which has a current cash balance of approximately $800,000.00. Commitments to that fund currently total approximately $500,000.00... this year's CIP and any reserves of the fund automatically carries the $300,000.00 reserve which we always keep in there... 12 l J F� City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Councilman Berquist: So there's $800 in there. $500's allotted. $70's coming out of here. No other anticipated shortfalls here...? Todd Hoffman: Shortfalls aren't my concern and it shouldn't be your's. Spending more money... Councilman Senn: Well said like a Park and Recreation Director. Todd Hoffman: I like the poster this evening. Parks and Recreation. Your best investment. I thought that was... Revenues in Fund 410 have out paced our projections for the past 6 years, and we have been conservative in our expenditures. Budgets are prepared to serve the residents of our community, however they're never perfect and when the chance for 50 cent dollars come along, I'll come before you ever time and tell you to dip into your reserves to buy those 50 cent dollars. Councilman Berquist: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is this strictly on a match basis in terms of would the Lions donate the money without a match to it. Our match to it. Todd Hoffman: The Park Commissioners asked me the same question and I said it certainly would be in good faith to do that... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Was any consideration or any discussion talked about Bandimere? Todd Hoffman: Not with this designation. The Park Commission is getting pretty antsy about Bandimere, with the increased pressure they're receiving. In fact ... start a reserve in that fund as well of $50,000.00 per year for x number of years. And that will be designated in the event that the referendum... Councilwoman Dockendorf: And there's no interest by the Lions given that it's not as visible? Todd Hoffman: Well it's a million dollar plus project. Bandimere... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Was any thought given to phasing this project so we wouldn't have to upfront so many dollars? Todd Hoffman: Yes, we talked about that and Mark Holden, the electrical consultant and I talked. The thing we're buying here is real economies of scale. At least... start putting wires in and NSP has agreed to trench in the ... power without charge. And having concern for a while there, the last time... Councilwoman Dockendorf: The contingency fees from the Chan Rec Center. Those were just capital contingencies as opposed to operational budget contingencies? We are running a little short on operational revenue? Todd Hoffman: Correct. The short... operational is about a thousand, or a little better a month but I'm confident... 13 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 1 Councilman Senn: No additional questions. I think, I assume we're going back for comments. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Berquist: One more quick question if I may. You're including transferring the switch gear to the, ' the switch gear now is in a little shed. I think it's still there, isn't it? Todd Hoffman: Yep, still there. Councilman Berquist: Is it ... to move that? Todd Hoffman: It will be moved to the building on top of the hill... that one disappears... all the electrical I components will be moved up to that permanent location. Councilman Berquist: That then is part of this? ' Todd Hoffman: Yes it is. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and just to get NSP to off set some of those costs by putting in at no charge, there's ' probably anywhere between $25,000.00 or $30,000.00. So there's some more cudo's that we get. Okay. Are there any more, do you have any comments on that Steve? Councilman Berquist: No sir. No comments. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: You know looking at this, I guess the first thing I'd like to do is really commend the Lions because I think what they're coming through with is just great. And in a big way. I understand the risk we take as it relates to just assuming that their gambling dollars are going to continue over the next 3 years, but I think that's probably an acceptable risk. Because I think they're good for it in every way, it's just a matter of what the State does. Who knows. But I'think that becomes a manageable number to deal with if something does happen ' anyway. I think at this point I think it'd be more prudent on our part though to accept the Lions donation and approve effectively going ahead with Field No. 4 at this time and making a commitment I think to go ahead with Field 5 within the next, I'm going to say 2 to 3 years. I'm just not sure that's a decision that we should be making tonight, and I guess one of the parts that really concerns me on that is the allocation of the $30,000.00 14 1 ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: You're always confident. Todd Hoffman: The only way to be. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I suppose. Steve asked the lion share of the questions. I have no further. Mayor Chmiel: That's it? Mark. ' Councilman Senn: No additional questions. I think, I assume we're going back for comments. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Berquist: One more quick question if I may. You're including transferring the switch gear to the, ' the switch gear now is in a little shed. I think it's still there, isn't it? Todd Hoffman: Yep, still there. Councilman Berquist: Is it ... to move that? Todd Hoffman: It will be moved to the building on top of the hill... that one disappears... all the electrical I components will be moved up to that permanent location. Councilman Berquist: That then is part of this? ' Todd Hoffman: Yes it is. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and just to get NSP to off set some of those costs by putting in at no charge, there's ' probably anywhere between $25,000.00 or $30,000.00. So there's some more cudo's that we get. Okay. Are there any more, do you have any comments on that Steve? Councilman Berquist: No sir. No comments. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: You know looking at this, I guess the first thing I'd like to do is really commend the Lions because I think what they're coming through with is just great. And in a big way. I understand the risk we take as it relates to just assuming that their gambling dollars are going to continue over the next 3 years, but I think that's probably an acceptable risk. Because I think they're good for it in every way, it's just a matter of what the State does. Who knows. But I'think that becomes a manageable number to deal with if something does happen ' anyway. I think at this point I think it'd be more prudent on our part though to accept the Lions donation and approve effectively going ahead with Field No. 4 at this time and making a commitment I think to go ahead with Field 5 within the next, I'm going to say 2 to 3 years. I'm just not sure that's a decision that we should be making tonight, and I guess one of the parts that really concerns me on that is the allocation of the $30,000.00 14 1 1 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 contingency for the Rec Center. You know having just read in the newspaper about our anticipated fund shortfall, I guess I'd like to know a lot more about that, and the dollars involved before we made that decision and I think secondly, and more important, I'd like to know a lot more about the potential contribution we may face in the arbitration case that the School District lost in relationship to the facility, which could eat up some pretty big dollars very quickly so. Maybe I guess what I'm saying is I'm not necessarily against going ahead and funding and doing both but I think we need to know, I'm going to say a little more information than we know tonight before we would commit to the second field. We should leave the door open to do that. Get the information as well as examine other funding sources to see if there's ... or if by utilizing this, we're still okay on the shortfalls of the Rec Center and the arbitration suit. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Todd with your budget, in relationship to the Rec Center as opposed to this particular project. I know it's an overall dollar. Maybe you could just sort of address that. Todd Hoffman: The operating budget at the Recreation Center, as was highlighted in the Chanhassen Villager this past week. In the management plan to recoup 50% of our investment, which was about a quarter million dollars in 1996 in it's first year of operation. As a staff and as an agency we need to evaluate a variety of consumer trends at that center. And what we had guessed would be our strong points, ended up not being our strong points. The second, and I'll touch on that a little bit more. Our second year, our goal is to recoup 75% of our cost. And the third )'ear and every year thereafter is to pay for the operation of the facility in staff time, heat, lights, electricity, etc. We don't have to pay for the building, thank goodness... and the cleaning of the building is completed by the school staff in exchange for the city maintaining the upgrade of a portion of the building. This first year, as our report shows, we're behind $1,200.00 a month. Something of that nature. That's kind ... January, February and March, and then everything dropped off and that will remain throughout this summer. Traditionally very little activity takes place at the recreational center at this time... Next year when we have five fields and playgrounds fully activated right next to the building, we'll have a lot more dynamic center. And again I believe we'll surpass that 75% next year—we will surpass that 50% this year. And that... If we can't do it from the bottom, if we can't do it with revenues, we'll do it from the top and we'll decrease expenditures on the facility. I think it's always a fine line between meeting customer needs and the services that we have to deliver and shaving those costs. I don't see the two as crossing over. The capital money which was designated for the Recreation Center was for such things as expansion of parking or additional amenities on the site. Some capital investment and I don't think the Park and Recreation Commission would start to take a look at taking capital dollars to buy down the operating dollars from a Park and Recreation... so again, there's a crossover in my mind that doesn't really match. And again, I think the investments this year, I hate to put up $60,000.00 in bait and then get the catch and then take the bait away... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. In just saying some of those things you're saying. Do you recall what fall and winter monthly dollars were derived from the activities? Todd Hoffman: $10,000.00 to $12,000.00 per month. Mayor Chmiel: Okay we're running roughly, you're saying $1,200.00. What's your expectation from the later part of fall through December ?. Todd Hoffman: Again we'll be back at 10 or 12 and then we should surpass those... People become more familiar with our facility. What we thought we were going to really make the heavy hits with were the meeting and conference areas. What we're finding is that businesses out in our community think of that building as a school and they don't think of holding business meetings and conferences at a school so eve have to do a better 15 r. City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 job of marketing that aspect. It's the nicest meeting space in town. It's the largest meeting space in town, and we're not getting that market. Where we were very successful was in the fitness and aerobics room where people dropped their memberships at U.S. Swim and Fitness and the other clubs by the dozens and started turning to Chanhassen Recreation Center ... and they bought those $40.00 punch cards at some pretty phenomenal rates there the last half of January and February. We see that trend continuing with the punch cards and then we're going to pick up that meeting... Councilman Senn: Todd, the reason I'm concerned about it is, I understand what you're saying and you're saying let's be optimistic, okay. But I look at the revenue picture and what I see is from January through May, we've got $43,000.00 in revenue towards $250,000.00 for the year. I don't see how, even at $10,000.00 to $12,000.00 a month, after a dead summer through the fall and going into December, we're going to even hit like a halfway point to $250,000.00 we assume is coming from revenues. And so I mean, explain to me, how are we going to get there? How do we get from $43,000.00, after January, February, March, April, May. Now we're going through June, July, August, which we say are dead. How are we going to make up that kind of differentials September, October, November and December, in four months? Todd Hoffman: When we talk about the $200, the actual 50% mark and the 50% line is down around $108,000.00 - $107,000.00 by the time you get, that 50% shot so that's what we're looking at. Councilman Senn: So not $125 you're saying? Todd Hoffman: Yeah. Councilman Senn: Why is that? Why is 50% of 250? Todd Hoffman: Well the actual budget is not $250,000.00 and then when we took out the items which were not a part of, there were some capital costs that were in there. Not operating costs and the goals were to keep our operating costs. Again our capital budget, our operating budget was separate so we had equipment and capital costs in the budget which totaled up to $30,000.00. We were at $240 and odd change in the total budget. When you take out that capital cost and our operating budget we still have $200,000.00 and when we took 50% of that, we got it down around $105,000.00... and how we're going to do that is promote the building and raise the revenues at that... Councilman Senn: So that means 60% of it in the last four months of the year? Todd Hoffman: If those are the numbers. Councilman Senn: Well when you're sitting at 43 at the end of May. You're saying almost non - existent revenue for June, July, August. Todd Hoffman: No, we're saying $5,000.00 to $6,000.00 in June, July and August. Councilman Senn: Almost nori-existent revenue. So let's add that up, 43 and now we're at 49 so we're at less than 50 so what you're saying then is $107 -$110, roughly 60% of it we're going to get in the last 4 months. Todd Hoffman: Correct. 16 r L r 1 J City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Councilman Senn: Well, I have my concerns on that I guess. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question. As long as you're dealing with the Rec Center, and I realize we're really stretching this. The contingency fund for the construction of the building is different from the contingency fund for the Park and Rec facility... okay. So it's our supposition that the arbiters award, our portion of it would come from the overall construction fund as opposed to capital costs? Councilman Senn: Except we spent most of the construction contingency... Mayor Chmiel: Anything else? Councilman Berquist: Well, I mean I understand what Mark, or what Councilman Senn is saying. He's concerned and he's rightfully concerned with where the dollars are coming from. On the other hand I admire Todd's optimism and I wish I shared it as enthusiastically as he does. 50% dollars are 50% dollars. What we're approving tonight I think is the go ahead of plans and specifications to take it to the bid process. Is that correct? Todd Hoffman: Correct. Councilman Berquist: And we're approving tonight the acquiescence to have the field called Chanhassen Lions Park. I don't have any problem with either of those. We still have an opportunity once the bids are taken, to review them and by that time we'll have a little bit more data from a financial point of view as to what our liabilities are and what, I mean this is going to take place in August. We're looking at a bid time the middle of August perhaps? Todd Hoffman: Hopefully yes. August, first of September. Councilman Berquist: Well, I would make a motion that we proceed and just take very close track of it as it comes to the bid date and keep track of revenues of the Rec Center. Liabilities regarding the arbitration award and everything else that has anything to do with cash. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will second it and irrespective of all the discussion, I would gratefully thank the Lions for their generous donation. Councilman Berquist: As would I. Councilman Senn: As would I. Mayor Chmiel: And I put a ditto on that as well. Okay, we have a motion on the floor with a second. Resolution #96 -65: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for Lake Ann Parii Ballfield Lighting Project for the Chanhassen Lions Field. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 17 City Council Meeting m July 22, 1996 1 CONSIDER SEPARATING THE ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX PROJECT INTO TWO PHASES. ' Kate Aanenson: Back on January 22nd the Council gave approval to the site plan for the entertainment complex and there's some other peripheral issues involving this that you may want to have Todd address but the reason that I'm here speaking on this report is the site plan itself. The applicants were given approval to go forward with the bowling center and the theaters, in addition to some support retail and the Pauly's restaurant. It appears now that not all parties are able to go forward at the same time, specifically the two larger uses. The theater and the bowling alley. So the applicants are requesting consideration of would you even look at doing this in a phased approach. Obviously the Planning Commission saw this in one phase. The issues really, there's some ' internal and financial issues I'd like to have Todd answer those questions but for the Planning staff are external as far as what it would look like. How can it be done in a two phased approach, and parking considerations. We're looking for some direction from the Council. If you would consider it going two phase, we'd like it to go back to the Planning Commission for their consideration as far as some of the architectural treatments and how ' that could be done in a two phased approach. So what we're looking for is some direction and if you would even give consideration to a two phased approach at this time. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any questions Steve? Councilman Berquist: Well, nothing that probably won't be covered in a few minutes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not at this time. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: Nope. Not at the moment. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm wondering if the applicant wants to make a presentation? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we'll have them come up. Okay. Brad. Brad Johnson: Yes, I'm Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. Lotus Realty. The reason for the request is that we have different things going on and the parties got together and determined that it would be nice if we could 1 move ahead in a phased development so that one party could move without the other party having to be there and there are a number of elements that provide financing questions, cost questions and that type of thing. I agree with Kate at this point that I think they have to figure out how ... make a presentation to the Planning Commission as to how... mechanically done. I don't have a solution as to how it will be done—unless you ask specific questions about how you would—going back to the Planning Commission and coming back with a ... and that's kind of where we are... All three parties are here so each one can have their own say. Clayton Johnson: Clayton Johnson, representing the Bloomberg Companies. I just want you to have an ' understanding that there are three property owners involved here and in filing the plat and bringing the financing together in such a way that we can all proceed on the same schedule has proven to be difficult. And at this point in time we feel that the retail in the Frontier Building is ready to proceed. The financing is in place and 18 1 7 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 in the process of doing that and going ahead with the theater, we would be constructing all of the new parking. We would not address some of the issues of parking on the existing bowling alley property. Part of the overall plan is to improve that parking. Build some islands and so on and we do not have a solution for that. The phased plans that would come to the Planning Commission is going to be one that allows us to proceed and plat each parcel separately and then construct the majority of the parking, which would be the parking behind Frontier, which we feel would serve an immediate parking requirement. We might have to ask Fred Hoisington to look at that but we think that it would certainly meet our parking needs for the retail and for the cinema. And we brought it to this point in time. Everybody's got a lot of money invested and would like to be able to proceed. Now we're running a risk too because if we proceed with the bowling alley, I mean with the cinema and with Frontier, we do have this issue of the balance of the bowling alley not being finished. And that is a risk because we are putting a lot of money into our property and we're obviously concerned that that happens. But we think the overall plan is so good and the uses are so strong, that it will eventually, the whole project will prevail and that's what we're willing to bet on. Any questions? Mayor Chmiel: Any questions? Councilman Berquist: Yeah I'd like, I mean originally when this whole thing came before us, the initial approval process, the problems that were contemplated in the developer's mind had solutions. Something's changed. My questions are, while I'd like to know your real number one reason for difficulty. How is that reason going to be addressed during the initial approval process, because obviously you knew that it was there. Maybe not as strongly as has come. And what's changed? Clayton Johnson: Well I can't speak for the reasons why the bowling alley project, Pauly's project's not ready to proceed. I can't speak to that. We're a property owner. We're one of the three property owners and we have our plans completed. We have our financing in place but the way that it went through the City originally was as one plat and the plat cannot currently be recorded because we're only one party to the plat. Councilman Berquist But you've always only been one party to the plat. Clayton Johnson: Right. But we did not know when we started down this road that the whole project could not proceed as one. We thought that when we got here everybody would be prepared to follow through and act. We're here at this point in time and that's not the case. So we've had to consider whether or not we want to proceed. And we're willing to take the risk and proceed with the improvements to our property and the front of the cinema portion and the Frontier. Basically I'd want to have somebody to speak to where they're at. I really can't tell you. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Councilman Senn: You're the only, as far as the Frontier Building goes, you're the only free standing entity in this. Clayton Johnson: We happen to own both the cinema portion, the portion where the cinema is going as well as the Frontier Building. We own both portions. We would be selling the cinema portion but we currently own it and our position... Councilman Senn: So the cinema portion does no[ infringe on the bowling alley portion at all? WE r City Council Meeting _ July 22, 1996 Clayton Johnson: No. Kate Aanenson: Right, and I spelled it out in the report. I mean a wall can be put down, an interior wall to solve that problem and it can be developed in phases that way. I mean I guess we're looking at it from a planning perspective is the exterior. How you do that but internally you can put a wall up and do that in phases. That's fine. Clayton Johnson: Yeah, would it have been easier if we could have all proceeded at the same time? Yes, and that's why we had the plat prepared the way we did because that was the easiest obviously. But at this point in time that may or may not work. But we're at the point where we've got a lot of money invested and we want to proceed and we're concerned that not all parties can perform where we stand. Councilman Senn: You're saying you're willing to go ahead and effectively construct the entire parking area then? Clayton Johnson: We would construct the entire parking area that is behind Frontier, and behind the current, what would be the cinema but we can't go over on the bowling alley property to construct those improvements. Councilman Senn: I understand that but what portion is that of the overall parking improvement? Clayton Johnson: It's not, it doesn't represent any significant parking spaces. In fact I don't think it represents any but ... we represent 90% of the cost. Councilman Senn: Okay, let me finish the question. What portion of the parking, okay, is then completed, okay, under your development in comparison to the entire parking scheme which we will pay for under the TIF? Clayton Johnson: Okay, I can't answer that specifically but I would say that all of the parking surface area has been constructed. What has not been done is we have not gone on the bowling alley property and constructed some items. Changed the driving lanes and landscaped that portion. That would not be done because it isn't on our property. But as far as the surface area, I believe that we would hard surface everything. Councilman Senn: Okay, but the City's affected portion of this project which comes out of the TIF, and effectively comes from the fact that you would take these properties and freeze them again and take them off the tax rolls for another 20 -25 years, which is purely for the purpose of gaining a uniform facade improvement across there as well as the parking improvements and the landscaping and everything that goes with it. Clayton Johnson: And some changes in use I believe. One of the things you were trying to accomplish is taking warehouse use, which is currently $2.00 to $3.00 per square foot, and change it's use to something that's more consistent with the downtown business district and would pay significantly more taxes. Councilman Senn: Well it's ... anyway the market but I mean I'm just saying. Clayton Johnson: Well no I can't say that it won't and we will but I guess one of the, if you've been through what we've been through in the last year, well I'm going to say in the last 10 years, doing all these projects up and down downtown, you know that there is a reason there is an HRA. These redevelopment projects are extremely difficult. Some of the issues we're dealing with here on this project are very typical of what we've 20 I f i 7 I City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 been dealing with up and down the street. Just very typical. It's not easy. That's why people go out on the vacant land and build new buildings. Councilman Senn: How does the City have protections that that can still be achieved since those were the fundamental basis of the approval of the project in the first place? ' Clayton Johnson: Basically it's a pay as you go project. There's no bonding that's going to take place so as far as any increment that would include us, it's going to be our increment that's going to pay for that. The risk that the City would run is the same risk that I guess we're running as private developers is that we don't want to sit and look at that. We're going to make this major improvement to the facade of the Frontier and the facade of the cinema and we run the risk that if the rest of it doesn't happen, that we sit there. I happen to think that's an extremely valuable piece of property. Over the years when we've brought various tenant represents into town to look at space and so on, that's a prime piece of property and so I believe that that development will happen and that's a risk. No question about it. ' Councilman Senn: So what you're saying is off your increment then, you can pay for the facade improvements, the hard surface coverage but you will not have money to pay for the landscaping. Clayton Johnson: No. It's not a matter of money. In other words what we would do is reallocate in increment, because that's the only thing increment can be used for. Those kinds of costs. The problem with improving the bowling alley site is that we do not own that land. We cannot go onto that property and construct those improvements. We physically, I mean legally we can't do it. That's the reason. And that's the reason that the ' proposal was made with those two options is we're also, obviously we're very interested in doing whatever can be done. In order to achieve the City's overall plan, we want you to do everything you can to see that the bowling alley portion happens and happens now. We speak very highly in support of it because obviously we don't want to run the risk of that project not happening and I think that is in the best interest of the city. But at the same time, we realize that that process may take some time and so what we're asking you to do is allow the project to be split and get the staff and the Planning Commission to work with us in figuring out a way that we can proceed and file the plat separately. And proceed. t Todd Gerhardt: To answer Mark's questions. All the costs associated with the parking lot, landscaping, boardwalk and facade improvements were prorated back to each of the three individuals as a benefit. So parking lot facade benefit to the bowling center was close to $700,000.00. The remaining costs were spread back against movie theater and the Frontier Building. So if Clayton moves ahead with those two phases of the project, Frontier and the movie cinema, the costs associated with building that portion, or 2/3 of the parking lot, that is their estimate. That is their cost. So the deal would not change. ' Clayton Johnson: ...reimburse for what we incur. ' Councilman Senn: No I understand, but in the budget you gave us as it relates to, in fact just a recent reallocation as it related to repayment on the TIF, you know the largest majority or portions of repayment on the TIF was coming out of the bowling alley portion. And that's what I'm having trouble reconciling in my mind. How does the largest portion of repayment. Todd Gerhardt: No. It's the smallest portion of increment generated is from the bowling center. Councilman Senn: No, you just increased it. 1 21 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Todd Gerhardt: No. We haven't changed any of the increment dollar amounts. Councilman Senn: Okay, so how much increment was coming out of the bowling alley? Todd Gerhardt: I want to say it was $23,000.00 I think. Each year. Additional. I mean they're going to pay substantially more than that in taxes but I think their increment was around $23,000.00. All of the parties were also sharing into the increment and the hotel expansion. Councilman Senn: Okay, so you're throwing that into this? Todd Gerhardt: Right. They would still get their pro - rated...on the hotel expansion. So everybody got their pro -rated share out of there. Councilman Senn: Okay, so you're taking it out of there? Todd Gerhardt: Right. Councilman Senn: Okay, then I understand. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? We've heard from two parties. What about our third party? Jerry Rommel: Good evening. My name is ,Terry Rommel. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Dahlin, who is also present this evening. He is moving along as fast as he can, on his end of it, which involves also a lease with Mr. Pauly. That lease is in place now conditioned upon his getting his financing to do substantial leasehold improvements to the property. He is working on that and has got two different options he's working on. I discussed with him last week and he doesn't have it totally finalized yet but feels that he will have shortly and then be able to proceed with reconstruction inside. At the same time, as far as the platting goes, the one problem that has arisen is the fact that, as the Council is aware, there were back real estate taxes owed on this property and until those are paid we can't get the final plats recorded with the County so they can move ahead on that ground. My client is pursuing avenues of raising funds to be able to square out that tax matter and we are confident that we can get it done. Not moving quite as fast as the other two participants would like right now and that's why I think the question came up to go over and we started meeting with staff to try and figure out a way to keep the project moving and the issue of phasing it was one that was brought up. If you have any questions, I can answer them, or my client can. Mayor Chmiel: Any questions? It doesn't look like any at this time. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have one. Mayor Chmiel: Do you? Councilwoman Dockendorf: What is your anticipated timing? Jerry Rommel: I can't give you an exact date on that. We're working on it day by day and with Mr. Pauly day by day on raising the necessary financing and getting his financing finalized. We had hoped to already have it done by the first of July and that didn't occur but we got it continuing I would assume that by probably the end of August at the latest. 22 L r I I L City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf: So how does that differ from Bloomberg's? Jerry Rommel: Well Bloomberg's want to be already in the construction phase right now. And of course we did too but, and they're as they say, ready to go. And we're not quite ready. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Todd, the lease on Pauly's is up the end of August, come high water or you know what, isn't it? Todd Gerhardt: The HRA has extended Pauly's lease is in a month to month basis. So depending on how things work out with the bowling center, it's almost been ridiculous to continue to bring it back every 3 months so they've just extended it on a month to month and weigh the odds each month. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Todd, where are we going Nvith that last... with Mr. Dahlin? Todd Gerhardt: At our last HRA meeting the HRA reviewed options in looking at how to potentially provide a loan over to the bowling center to assist in gap financing to clear up the title work so deeds and title can be recorded against the property. One of the options that they looked at was Mr. Dahlin coming up with $115,000.00 cash and the HRA looking at financing $335,000.00. And then looking at securing that by means of keeping increment generated off of the redevelopment to capturing some revenue off of the rents with the new tenants in the building. And a third option was to secure the loan by first mortgage recorded against the property. After discussions with the Mayor, who wasn't able to be at the HRA meeting, he provided a fourth alternative which I discussed with both the City Manager and the HRA attorney today, which is a viable option and is providing short term gap financing and that the $335,000.00 be provided over a 6 to 8 month period. Once Mr. Dan Dahlin secures a permanent mortgage or construction financing on the facility, that he also receive $335,000.00 in addition to the remodeling cost to repay the HRA for that loan. With that the HRA would have to take a look at financing on the thing. With not doing that, Mr. Dan Dahlin would have to find an individual to invest that kind of money currently and he hasn't been able to find somebody, is why this project has been delayed out. hlvestors won't take that kind of risk. They don't want to come up with $335,000.00 and then down the line have to go out and get financing so in providing the gap financing, you can clean up the title work and get deeds recorded and move ahead that way. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? Councilman Berquist: Well, just when you think you've got it all figured out. There's no doubt about it, the new uses are strong. And the users are needed and the whole development is positive. To have this come up is a little bit disconcerting but the world revolves around problems. I'm really reluctant to, at first blush I, myself are much more amenable to looking at it as a phased development. I am, the time of the phasing. You know, who first. I can pretty much guess who first. Who last. I can pretty much guess who last. The win's. The win questions are sort of an issue for me but it's not as if this will never happen. It will happen at some point. The discussions regarding gap financing leave me a little bit non—insofar as that, if we as a City choose to provide in excess of $300,000.00 in gap financing in order to achieve something from a facade point of view, and we're in essence doing this so we can finish dressing the building. It's kind of what it boils down to, and the gentleman, the folks that currently own the property are unable to obtain financing on the private market, I find it hard to believe that we know more than they do. If they're not willing to invest $300 grand of their money, I find it hard to think that we should be willing to invest $300 grand of the City's money. So anyway, I would be reluctant but willing to look at it as a phased development. 23 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I quite frankly feel our hand is forced, as is the investors in the cinema and redoing the Frontier Building. I have some strong concerns about how it's going to look. I have no doubt that if it was an old barn you'd still get people going to the cinema. So I think we should go ahead with the phasing given that we don't know when the other party's going to get their ducks in a row. It's going to be up to you guys to figure out how it's going to look, because we may be dealing with quite a period of time before the whole thing gets completed. I won't comment on if we're going to be helping out with financing for the bowling center. I don't think that's part of this discussion, as far as I'm concerned so I believe it's up to the Planning Commission to help figure out a way to make it work. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: One question I guess before I comment. Todd what, under a phased approach, how do you set up the TIF district? Todd Gerhardt: Just as it is today. Councilman Senn: So effectively a TIF district betting on the come for a major component? Todd Gerhardt: As say 3 to 4 years down the line the bowling center comes in and is prepared to do their development, they're going to have to come up with the additional equity that they've lost through the increment. There's only going to be so much increment available due to lost time. But the property's in a TIF district and so it's just lost increment on their behalf for not starting today. So they're going to have to come up with additional equity. Councilman Senn: Okay. Well, and do you feel that you can adequately protect the City's components of that TIF on staged construction where there is no longer you know a completed project effectively? Todd Gerhardt: It's a pay as you go program. They only get what they create in increment. The bowling center will not receive anything unless they make the facade improvements and increase the value of their property so they will not receive any increment unless they do that work. Movie theater makes the necessary improvements and signs the private redevelopment agreement. Establishes a minimum market value. They've lived up to their end so they should receive the increment generated from the development. Same thing with Frontier Center. Based on the time that would be left, if they make those improvements by the end of the year. As to the gap financing, you know. How we would secure that is a good question and that's one of the things that I talked to the redevelopers about. That we want to see the title commitment that is currently on the bowling center and looking at ways of trying to secure that loan to insure that if the}' do not perform, that there is a mechanism for us to get repaid that money. Councilman Senn: Well, I guess I have to kind of look at this in sections. I'm really apprehensive on splitting the project, you know because I did go back and look at all the Minutes and I mean the major focus on the discussion and the approvals was the overall accomplishment t of the facade improvements and parking improvements and landscaping and everything else. I don't see what guarantees there are to that at this point. But I mean admittedly I think there's been a lot of work put in on the Frontier and on the Bloomberg's and the theater's part and the more and more I thought about that, I guess the more and more I have a tendency to at least think clear of going along with it but the only way I get real comfortable doing that is by putting a lot of 24 1 J J 7 1 L 1 J City Council Meeting - Jul) 22, 1996 conditions on it because there's no way I want one to be viewed as an endorsement or avenue for the other for remedies. I was at the HRA meeting the other night and I think the HRA was effectively looking to the City Council for some direction first, if they were willing to do this approach. And if they were willing to do that, then they viewed that as kind of a charge to them to look at something on the gap financing and I think this Council should take a very strong position in this case and not in any way, shape or form participate in the gap financing nor, and I think make a statement to the HRA not to do so either. I just think, I see some real problems here. I mean we were talking about the bowling portion of this, over three months ago and we stuck a condition on it that the first half taxes get paid and that substantial progress get made on the back taxes and there's been no progress to date on the back taxes at all and it's been over three months. So technically tonight we should really be reconsidering the liquor license as part of our motion. All be that as it may, effectively the bowling center people were there the other night asking for a $335,000.00 loan that they can't get from private sources and I have a real problem with the City going at risk to do it, especially when the loan's to pay for back taxes. And I look at it as a real poor public policy to have the City start lending money to people to pay back taxes. And I've heard the argument that if we lend them the money they can give us a first position. Well if we have a first position on the building of $335,000.00, I don't know how they're ever going to get the other million they need to complete the project they're supposed to do. I don't know a lender in the world that would do that without a first position on that mortgage so the, I think there's some real separate issues that need to be dealt with as it relates to that component of the project but I think if the City Council's going to buy off on the phased approach, I think it's critical that the Council keep very tight control on what happens of what do we call it, the third phase? Assuming that the Frontier's phase one and the theater's phase two and the bowling alley's phase three. I mean if the City's going to put that kind of money at risk, I think there's better avenues for the City in terms of taking the property and control of it and things like that. And I'm not sure, I guess while I'm willing to sit there and say, okay let's go ahead and do the phased approach and give Frontier and the theater an opportunity to go ahead, and I get more and more comfortable with that. But then I say, well how do we guarantee that we keep control over the third phase and that's kind of where I get out of comfort again right away because I don't get a clear understanding of how we can do that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Don, is there anything that you can put any light on? Don Ashworth: In terms of the phasing? Mayor Chmiel: Well, not only in terms of the phasing but I'm just looking at Mr. Dahlin's aspect, and I don't know whether he is the full owner of that property or if there is anyone into that as well. And I don't know where that's at. The only reason I brought up the gap, I thought it'd be just another avenue from the first three to go to a fourth one, just to have assurances that in the event something were to go on. that the city would then be a little more comfortable in acquiescing that property. So I guess that was one of my major concerns within that. Was looking as to see how we can protect ourselves to make sure we're going to get some of this back. In fact all of it back. Councilman Senn: And Don, I don't disagree with your idea. The problem is, when I go through that and ask that question, I don't see a way we can get it back with a guarantee. Any more than the payment of our taxes is guaranteed. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Todd, is there something? Todd Gerhardt: Don could talk about the taking of the property as an option. The down side of that from the City's aspect. 25 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Don Ashworth: Well I don't think we really want to look at condemnation. I think there's far too many down sides with that. And we don't really know the ownership position as it deals with the lanes and deals with having to pay relocation. Relocation for a bowling center. I think it would be very difficult. The value of the property, I think I do agree with Mark's position that if you went ahead and obtained, I think that they could find financing that would include the dollars associated with the back taxes and include the total renovations plus the back taxes for the facility. I guess I'll have to take that. Todd Gerhardt: You can't get any financing until the taxes are paid off. Don Ashworth: I think that that's been the real problem, but I think that if that were still a contingency as a part of the actual closing, that in fact if financing was in place, would that not be achievable? Isn't that what Brad basically said back to ourselves? Brad Johnson: The reason for where we are is that, the lease itself with Pauly's is not truly in place. And it's only in place when he has financing so you have a major tenant that's not fully financed. And we anticipated that financing... would be completed on July 15th. Now they say it's going to happen during the month of August. So we're caught and we have other partners in the transaction that want to move ahead so we're just trying to figure out how to do it. We recognize that we have to pay the taxes in order to move ahead. Councilman Senn: To move ahead on your portion? Brad Johnson: Pardon me? Councilman Senn: To move ahead on the other portions? Brad Johnson: Yes. Councilman Senn: Why? I just thought... Brad Johnson: To file the plat—isn't that correct? Councilman Senn: Well I just heard the plat is going to be separate. I mean I'm hearing two different things. Brad Johnson: If we go separate, then we don't have to pay the taxes, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Right. Councilman Senn: Oh okay. Alright. Brad Johnson: So where we're at is that we're working on paying the taxes and we have been working with the staff. It came up in this process that they came up with to get ... that that would be one way to do it. I look at it a little differently. I think the tax money that's actually being loaned is money that's coming to the City through the County and because it's the HRA, it's really a net gain and cash to the City of $115,000.00 that you don't have at the present time in the HRA, is that correct? Don Ashworth: Correct. W91 I J r City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Brad Johnson: So really this is a net positive for the City as far as the HRA is concerned. Should this go back, we only get 20 %...I think is the way it's set up. I think the way to handle this one, and I agree that there should be some security and everybody should be comfortable with the whole transaction at the present time. We're not prepared to present that issue ... at the HRA meeting we were willing to discuss and really prepared to present the various alternatives at that time. When it was on the HRA meeting on the first. I think that's the problem with ... I would be concerned too. We have a property that has value. But one of the problems with dealing with this type of property that has had a history of losing money, and just applying say directly for a loan for the taxes by itself, the banks are asking for a performa that would show that the building can pay it back, even though they have security. They have cash security and they have the building as security. But the banks requirements are, even in a loan for the taxes, that we provide them the fact that the building is making money, and that's a problem. It's not a matter of guarantees. It's not a matter of ... and this came up at the HRA meeting. I think we'll work through it. It's an issue that we're all trying to accomplish. Should Mr. Pauly not get financing, he'll probably have to go find a different restaurant. But I still think they can pay the taxes one way or the other. Councilman Senn: Well I understand what you're saying but at the HRA meeting the other night, none of the information was there that you're eluding to, and we've still seen none of the information that you're eluding to. Brad Johnson: Well I believe they tabled that. Councilman Senn: No, I understand that but the request was still on the table in terms of the loan. Brad Johnson: ...as you suggested, a program for this... Councilman Senn: Let me ask you this. If you and the partners feel that the important approach here is to move ahead. Brad Johnson: And phase it. Councilman Senn: Well is that? Is that what you say, phases now rather than ... where you pay the taxes. I'm hearing two different things. I thought you just said that you'd like to deal with the issue of paying taxes. Brad Johnson: ...the issue of paying the taxes. We also need permission to go forward in phases so we can file the plat in phases. That's exactly what we're after. And we're kind of going at it in two fold. Councilman Senn: Okay. Well why then do not, why then do not the other partners simply lend them the money to pay the taxes, if that's an appropriate risk that you're willing to ask the City to pay? Clayton Johnson: We're not partners. Brad Johnson: They're not partners. Clayton Johnson: It's three properties. Brad Johnson: Did I say partners? 27 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Councilman Senn: No, but you're saying everybody's interested for all the phases to go. You're saying you're working on getting the taxes paid. You say you're all working on the taxes getting paid. Brad Johnson: That's right. That's Dan and myself and Jerry and everyone. All of us. When we met with the City, this was one issue. Okay. This is one issue and the City came up with a solution. I think we recommended a solution. They're checking out to see whether it's a good idea or not. That's where we are. We're going to bring it back to the HRA in full context. So I mean ... HRA, that's the first but afterwards ... I think it's a good issue and we recognize we should pay the taxes and that's where we are. All of them. Councilman Senn: You're arguing it's a good issue that the public front the money to pay the taxes. Brad Johnson: I didn't look at it as a public funded money for what I just said. I think the net cash to the City at this point is $115,000.00 out of that transaction. Councilman Senn: That's if it ever gets paid back. Brad Johnson: No. You'll get $1 15 up front. Now. That's the net cash to the City through the IIRA that they can use for whatever they want. Councilman Senn: The only way they get that $115 is if they pay that $115 in taxes and more or less make a loan of $400 and some. Brad Johnson: I agree Mark. Mark, at the HRA meeting I think we'll be better prepared to present that, and I think your concerns are correct. And I think we can present that case. If the HRA turns that down, then it's turned down and that's not the only way to solve the problem. I think the issue today is can we phase this project and that's where we are... Councilman Berquist: Can I throw out a resolution and see where it goes? Brad Johnson: I think what they came out with was obvious concern. What this would look like during the interim. Those we'll have to do at the Planning Commission. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What's your suggestion for a motion? Councilman Berquist: Well, it really appears that they're looking for a resolution and I would resolve to consider and permit phasing of the Entertainment Complex project and any discussion concerning Chanhassen participation in any monetary format, or actively promoting any or all phases be done with Council approval. I'm not certain what that does in, as far as the HRA's perspective is but I would really prefer that the Council be involved in any sort of financial discussions. Councilman Senn: Steve, I would second that motion if it's plausible because. - Councilman Berquist: What's implausible about it? Councilman Senn: No I'm just saying. If it's plausible. I mean the only thing your question is whether we can have that control or not. The other way to approach it would be to simply approve and take the approach, contingent upon the City not giving any additional financial, the City or HRA. 28 7 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think that has to be explored. Councilman Berquist: And I do too. Councilman Senn: Well again, but you can come back and change the... Councilwoman Dockendorf: So does the question go to Roger as to. Councilman Senn: Well if the first one works, that's fine. Everybody's looking at you. Roger Knutson: You can't directly tie up what the HRA's going to do, unless the HRA needs your approval for something. And the financing plan's already in place, right? Councilman Senn: I assume it's got to be amended at this point. Roger Knutson: Like I say, assuming this is a significant. I don't want to assume or guess or speculate. I guess I'd have to say I'd have to go back and review to answer your question as to whether you can tie up, whether you can accomplish that goal of being able to approve or disapprove financing which the HRA is directly involved in. Councilman Senn: Because this Council already approved the financing plans, didn't they? ...changed at this point... amending it, does that not require then a new Council approval? Roger Knutson: I would have to see how it's written to see whether what they're doing now could be done based upon what's already been approved. Councilman Senn: Okay. Well ... I'd prefer the contingency, which requires them to come back here if they're going to finance something. Councilman Berquist: So in other words... Councilman Senn: We approve meaning phased approached be contingent upon no additional public assistance going towards the project. Mayor Chmiel: But that isn't what Roger said. Councilman Senn: Well Roger said we couldn't do the first thing we were talking about doing. Mayor Chmiel: Well I don't think you can control the HRA's dollars as to what they are planning on appropriating. Councilman Senn:. We're not controlling. We're simply saying that we're not going to give approval on a phased approach, which we do control until that decision comes back before us for review. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. WE City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Roger Knutson: As you know what you're really doing technically is you're not really not technically approving anything. You're just giving them consent to go to the Planning Commission. So you're not approving a phasing plan tonight. When it comes back from the Planning Commission, if you don't like what you see, you can always say no. And in just chatting with Don... Councilman Senn, almost undoubtedly you would have to amend your financing plan that you approved. The HRA would have to send it back, almost a certainty. I can't say that with certainty because I don't have the plan in front of me to see what it says. Kate Aanenson: Can I get clarification on what Roger said? That's why I said before you approved this as a one lot subdivision. Site plan review. Now they want to do a subdivision. They're going to do it in phasing... subdivision so that's why we're asking for your consideration. Do you want, if you're interested in considering, at least go back to the Planning Commission for the subdivision process. Councilman Senn: Right, but you're going to subdivide into three now, correct? Kate Aanenson: That's what they're looking for. For ownership transfer, I'm assuming... Roger Knutson: ...preliminary plat for the whole thing and just final plat whatever they put into final plat. So this is, whatever you do here tonight, you're not committing to anything. Mayor Chmiel: Just giving direction. Roger Knutson: You're just giving direction as to, do you want them to go to the Planning Commission or do you want them to...? Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Everyone understand that? Councilman Berquist: Well I still resolve to permit phasing of the project and return to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendations and let's get going on it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councihvoman Dockendorf seconded to pennit phasing of the Entertainment Complex project and that the item be returned to the Planning Conmussion for their review and recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION: UPDATE ON CONGREGATE DINING AND MEALS ON WHEELS (CDBG FUNDS); CHANHASSEN SENIOR CENTER, PLANNING DIRECTOR Mayor Chmiel: There's a quick one that Kate would like to take up on item 8(a) in regards to our seniors who have been sitting here. Kate Aanenson: And I told them 8:30. Mayor Chmiel: So if you'd like to Kate. Kate Aanenson: Yes, thank you. This really is for your edification. We did receive $50,000.00 this year and with last year's allocation we have over $100,000.00 that we have designated towards our commercial kitchen. 30 J 1 L City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 That would provide congregate dining as well as Meals on Wheels and this is really to let you know that we are going forward. We're putting together a bid package, as well as a proposal of how we will administer the program. We have been working CAP agency, which is a Community Action Program which does support for Scott, Carver and Dakota Counties. We've looked at how they've run some of their services with congregate dining. What they found the most cost effective way to run the program is to have a group prepare the meals off site. You get a better price and that lowers your administrative cost so really what they've found in the past, generally some of it's already providing some of the senior services such as right now we have someone that does senior programming. That should pick up the additional hours which would be about 20 hours a week to provide that so really what you're doing at that point is just heating the meals and running the program. Some of the administration will also be done on a volunteer basis, such as Meals on Wheels. So this is really to let you know that we are coming back to you with a bid proposal and showing you an area that we're looking at. We're going to be using the existing seating area in the senior center. Approximate area for expansion of about 500 square feet and then we will be serving the meals actually in the existing Senior Center. So I just wanted to let you know that we'll be coming back with a bid package for that. If you have any questions. Councilman Berquist: So you're talking about having meals prepared somewhere else? Kate Aanenson: Right. That's the most cost effective way. That's how CAP's programs that they run right now, most cost effective. What would happen if we did the meal preparation on site, is we'd have to do all our own food ordering and ... as far as waste materials and that sort of thing so... Councilman Berquist: I was wondering why we had a gas range. Kate Aanenson: You still have to have a convection oven, you still have to preheat it as far as the Federal regulations. As far as, and same with refrigeration temperature. Councilman Berquist: You're not planning on putting anything, you're not planning, are you making it a kitchen or to reheat? Kate Aanenson: It's a commercial kitchen. It's a full kitchen. Councilman Berquist: Requiring ventilation... and all that other stuff that's going to have to go up through the first floor? Kate Aanenson: We did make provisions with the expansion of City Hall. Councilman Berquist: You did? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Senn: That's where this is going, in the expansion. Councilman Berquist: I understand but I don't remember ever seeing any soffited areas Kate Aanenson: We did try to look at that as far as, I mean none of the spaces were finished but we did have them provide space so we wouldn't have to go back and move things. We did try to make it flexible. Obviously this cost of carrying it's own ... as far as expansion but we did look at siting of offices to make sure 31 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 that we had the proper spacing, if that was to go forward, so we wouldn't have to go back and relocate. So we met with Amcon during the construction and design to make sure that we wouldn't be interfering with any other utilities or services as far as trying to put this in. Councilman Berquist: Alright. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other questions? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Chances are slim that we would get any additional CDBG funds for the administration. Kate Aanenson: Right. As you're aware, and that was one of the concerns that we had before was we were over in admin costs. You can only use 20% of your budget for that and Hennepin County is being more stringent and they passed a resolution that you're seeing that they're looking more at providing, or using their Block Grant money towards housing programs. But we believe there's some other resources... we're going to come back because I know that's a concern... commercial kitchen would be under the $100,000.00, which we certainly believe we can. We're looking at approximately $10,000.00 a year or two to run the program and where's that going to come from and that's what we're going to come back in our proposal to you. Show you where we think that money can come from. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Off the top of your head, where do you think it will come from? Kate Aanenson: We've done some interesting, Sharmin's done some interesting collaborative, working with, talking to Byerly's and some of the other. And so there may be some volunteer but we believe there will also have to be some paid and we're using the existing... Councilman Senn: When I talked with Kate today said she has also ... want to make sure when we do get the bids back, that it does spell out the operations and who's going to operate it and who's going to staff it and what our portion of staffing's going to be. What the level of other city's development is going to be. What happens if it doesn't break even or profitable. Include an operating budget and performa which will include the amortization of equipment for replacement purposes as well as maintenance of equipment and that sort of thing. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Kate. We'll move onto item 7(a). COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: A. TRUCKS ON AUDUBON ROAD, COUNCILWOMAN DOCKENDORF. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I hope and pray that it's been resolved. I've talked to Ric Moore on a number of occasions. Talked to Scott and talked to Charles and talked to everyone about putting no parking signs up along Audubon. That seems to be not necessary. They were certainly running behind on their time lines of completely their expansion but in the last two weeks in mornings and at noon time is when I drive by and there have not been any trucks out there. I don't know what, Steve you're closer to the action. Have you seen any? Councilman Berquist: Well I guess I saw one on the street a few days ago. The first one I've seen in a while 32 r� C 0 a l City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: I as well was driving by there two days there weren't any. One day they did have one, or two, but one was just getting ready to go. I think they're going to hopefully get this thing resolved once they get the timing for each of those vehicles. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. I think it's being resolved so. B. SET MEETING DATE, TH 212 TOLL ROAD PROPOSAL, COUNCILMAN SENN. Councilman Senn: At the meeting the other night, probably the item I'd say I got hit the most often on was a lot of people saying why don't we hear, why don't we have a public vote or whatever on the issue. I pointed out effectively how I thought that was pretty impractical given the timing because once we get the Commissioner's Report, we'll only have 30 days to react and there's no way we can get a public vote together in that type of a time frame. That point kind of turned the discussion more towards why don't we make sure that we set well in advance, like 30 days ahead of time and get printed notice and information out so people know there is going to be a public input time and place and I would like to see us possibly even given the turnout that was there some consideration. Maybe a special meeting for that. Mayor Chmiel: Can I just stop you for one quick one'? Councilman Senn: Sure. Mayor Chmiel: You said reconsideration for it. Councilman Senn: No, not reconsideration. I mean we have. Mayor Chmiel: But consideration and reconsideration are almost two things. Councilman Senn: No, again I'm losing you on reconsideration. I mean there's... ' Mayor Chmiel: ...as I'm listening, I think you voted no on that particular project back at that time, is that correct? u J Councilman Senn: This has nothing to do with what we voted on before. This is a new action that's coming before us as a result of a new Commissioner's Report coming out of the State which is supposed to be forth coming in the next 2 -3 weeks. Mayor Chmiel: I know but it still ties back into the 212 project, does it not? Councilman Senn: Well I mean it all relates to the 212 project but it has nothing to do with the consideration that this Council already made one way or the other. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Well that's why I was just going to say, you were in a minority at that particular time with your no vote and. Councilman Senn: Again, this has nothing to do with that Don. I mean I'm not bringing, I'm not asking for reconsideration of any issue. I'm asking in relationship to a new issue which is coming up, which we're going to get a Commissioner's Report on in the next 2 to 3 weeks, which we then have 30 days in which to respond to. 33 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Again I'm asking that we now set and schedule a public hearing date on that proposal so it is set well enough in advance to notify all parties and making the suggestion that we do so in a fashion so which to allow an appropriate facility and time to do it in rather than simply try to mesh it with a whole bunch of other things. Mayor Chmiel: Did we not hold a public hearing on this at one time? Decisions by each of the respective cities and Carver County. Don Ashworth: I know the City Council did vote on supporting the construction of 212. What form that was in, I do not recall. I do not know if the City Attorney knows. I don't know if it was an official public hearing. I don't know. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you check on that? Don Ashworth: Sure. Mayor Chmiel: Not that I'm saying no completely to this, but I just don't want to have to go through the hoops again as we've gone through previous... Councilman Senn: I believe if you'll check the State Legislature who effectively put the process in place, dictated the process and that process says that once a final agreement is negotiated and signed by the Commissioner, then that agreement is given back to all of the participating cities, which then those cities have a 30 day period in which to conduct whatever they want to conduct and either veto or accept at that time. That is going forward. It has nothing to do with what has happened in the past. Mayor Chmiel: And I guess I'm ... is the fact that having another public hearing. Councilman Senn: The public hearing's required under the process the legislature has set up. Check it if you don't believe me. Mayor Chmiel: We'll take a look at that. Okay. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean whether it is or isn't, I guess is immaterial. I think the people have said that they would like an opportunity to provide input. I think they should be given the opportunity to provide the input. Mayor Chmiel: I don't disagree with that. But I just want to make sure that we're doing things procedurally as we are. Councilman Senn: So what I'd like to do is have consideration then of setting a tentative date for that meeting. Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if we can put down a tentative date yet because they still have not finalized it between the association putting in 212 with MnDot as yet. And I think once that is completed then we can go ahead and set.that date too. Councilman Senn: Now they said at the meeting the other night that would be done by the latest August 15th. Mayor Chmiel: No I heard the 30th... 34 n 1 J n 7 u u F1 L L City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf: But can't we have a public meeting irrespective of when we do that. It doesn't need to be within the 30 day period. I think there are a number of people who just didn't feel they had enough information or enough time to digest and I think regardless of what the time frame of the State is, we need to have a public forum for people to. Mayor Chmiel: I'm not saying that we shouldn't. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No I'm just saying, we may as well get staff working on some dates for facilities and things like that. Mayor Chmiel: I think they can. Councilman Senn: Yeah, what people were asking was let's not have the typical thing where we get a notice in the paper on Thursday and the hearing's on Monday or two weeks. What they were asking was, let's get it set in advance. It's going to involve a lot of people so people can set their schedules. Take care of child care and stuff like that so they can get out, and I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't think we can have it in here either. Have it over at the school. Councilman Berquist Are you advocating that we have a forum, there were a couple of people that asked me, who's in charge of this. Who's going to get up and explain this all to us. Mayor Chmiel: I think we should have representatives from the group itself. Don Ashworth: Yeah. I guess what I would suggest as the general consensus is that you would like to set that date. Turn it back over to myself to take and try to coordinate building, dates. What works well for the group and try to make sure that we can get the advertisement. We're at the 22nd. I might be in a position to be able to complete that work. We're going to do a work session this next Monday and all the Council really needs to do is just confirm that a particular day is open for you. I mean we're not really taking any action and so I'll try to, by Monday night have coordinated a date and a place so we can kind of reach consensus on that and we'll move ahead with advertisement. Councilman Senn: Sounds good. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Let's move on. Are there any committee reports? Housing and Redevelopment Authority. I was not there. I think that's the first one I've missed unfortunately. Do you have anything on Southwest Metro, Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just to let everyone know that we're gearing up for the next legislative season. We will probably be employing the use of ...and Kramer which is a lobbyist firm. It won't be the offensive position we took. That's probably a bad term. The position we took this last year in getting any legislation passed. It will be more defensive in terms of what comes down the line to perhaps impact our funding. That's the latest. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Steve, how about your Park Task Force Councilman Berquist: There hasn't been a meeting. 35 City Council Meeting e July 22, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Bluff Creek Corridor. Can you respond to that Kate? Kate Aanenson: Sure. We completed the draft study. A work session's been scheduled for the City Council with the Planning Commission and Council and the Park and Rec are also invited to that. It is set for our regular Planning Commission meeting on September 4th. We're starting a little earlier. One of the consultants had to go back through the whole document and that public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission and then brought to you for adoption. And as part of that, there will be recommendations as far as implementation and financing and the like. We hope to have that done by this fall. Councilman Berquist: September 4th, at what time? Kate Aanenson: We're hoping to start at 5:30 or 6:00. Councilman Berquist: At the Rec Center. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Senn: What evening? Kate Aanenson: September 4th, which is a regular Planning Commission meeting. And the Park Commission will also be invited. It's kind of an education curve to get everybody else up to speed in what the plan's about and have the consultants... Councilman Berquist: Mind if I ask Todd if he's got anything to add on the Park Task Force? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Todd Hoffinan: Or Nancy, she's gone. They took the months of June and July off and they'll be back at work the end of August... and their scope has broadened considerably from the beginning of simply just...preservation efforts ... Back by the citizenry—so they're looking at some really complimenting trail connections for example... north along TH 101... The same goes for Highway 7. The north... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Don, why don't we hit you with that special meeting dates. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: B. SET SPECIAL MEETING DATES; 1997 OPERATING /CAPITAL BUDGETS, STRATEGIC PLANNING, OTHER; CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: Break it into two components. First of all we would really be looking at the budget side. That is called for in our Financial Management Policies that the Council actually set the various dates associated with the budget. Second part was just other meetings that really included continuing on with strategic planning meetings and I called it other, which really included a recommended meeting date for the City Council would interview the top three candidates for City Auditor. With that I guess it's kind of back to the Council in terms of does this appear to meet your expectations. At least the budget portions pretty well parallel those as we went through them last year. You get a little more flexibility towards the end of the year. If we start slowing down, they should be able to fit some additional dates in there. And I should note that we're also trying to ensure that 36 r r L� r� 11 L I L� City Council Meeting - Jul} 22, 1996 when department heads present their proposed 1997 budgets, that they would include with that changes to the 5 year capital plan. You're going to have a little more information than in previous years. And especially this year's capital budget, one of the emphasis will be to expand on the proposed improvement projects that you anticipate coming up and I know that that has also been a concern of City Council to take and say, you know we need to take more of a policy position as it deals with any one year's bonding and this will take and give you the chance to do that. We think that you've got to walk before you run. Councilman Senn: Don, can we do something with August 5th? That's a couple weeks away and given that we had nothing scheduled, I'm scheduled to be out of town there and I'd really just as soon not miss a budget session. Don Ashworth: The September 9th is regular. September, no I'm sorry. September 9th is Labor Day I believe. September 2nd? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Don Ashworth: 9th is regular. 16th is off. Councilman Senn: If you could stick in 23rd instead. Kate Aanenson: There's a 30th. Don Ashworth: Is there a 30th? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Don Ashworth: So it would be possible to take, and your staff would love that to be able to... We've really been scrambling and so that really would help us so could we just move. Councilman Senn: Do you want to slide everything or do you just want to move that component? Don Ashworth: Why don't we just set the 16th as the first and the 30th as second and then let me work with staff as to who's going to be presenting what on which dates. Councilman Senn: Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I lost you. Councilman Senn: Scratch August 5th. And add September 30th. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. C. STATUS OF BLUFF CREEK DRIVE, CITY ENGINEER. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members o -the Council. Tonight you've all been given an update form that unfortunately due to timing, being able to get some of the information that we needed to gather wasn't able 37 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 to put together in time to be included in your packets but in any case, I did want to get some of this information out to you at this point in time so that you will have some time hopefully to digest it over the next couple weeks, and also might help you out if you continue to get questions or calls from residents regarding the road situation. Basically maybe I'll do an executive summary of what you've been given tonight. Going back in history and doing some research, Bluff Creek Drive was designated as one of the first five State Aid road segments. Basically one designation in the fall of 1972. This was just prior to three major subdivisions that occurred in that area back in '72, '75 and '78. The road was again improved to an urban roadway in 1989. MSA funds were used for that. Basically MSA funds paid for about 85% of that $740,000.00 investment. Looking at some traffic count status, basically that road carries about 2,200 cars a day. That's pretty typical of what you see on Galpin Boulevard south of TH 5. It's about less than half the volume you see on segments like Kerber Boulevard, TH 101 south of TH 5, and Powers Boulevard, County Road 17 south of TH 5. Follow -up with State Aid. I believe one of the residents pointed out there was some option of redesignating the corridor to a parkway or something like that. I checked that out with both State Aid officials in the Metro Division Office and also Central Office in St. Paul. Both offices indicated there is no such provisions in the State Aid operations to allow for such a designation. They also indicated that they had some concerns that if the road posting or road classification was changed, or limited, that they would have some concerns with keeping that road segment on the State Aid system. That could potentially have some funding and financial disincentives for the city as was also indicated in the staff report. Basically if the road was eliminated from the State Aid system this year, we would be responsible for reimbursing 18 /25th's basically. 18 years left on a 25 year cycle back to State Aid amounts to a little over $400,000.00 which the State would withhold in the future construction allotments if we lost designation on that roadway. I have talked with Scott. Scott has been working cooperatively with the County Sheriffs office in the last two weeks. They've been doing some speed studies down there. That work is not yet completed so we don't have the information tonight but he has told me that to date, or they had no tickets written along the corridor that they've been doing, during the time they've been doing the study on that. Pretty much from what they've been seeing is most the vehicles have been within the general range of the speed limitations. Councilman Berquist: What is the speed limit? Charles Folch: 30 mph. I've also provided some information background. Pros and cons of a couple options that were suggested regarding the roadway. Elimination of trucks. Possible installation of traffic stop signs and other type of controls. And also addressed a little bit about what I've been able to find out in terms of the issue of regulating haul routes on both public and private improvement contracts within the city. A couple potential problems with the specking is that we'd also need to do that with development contracts because to be able to limit the hauling on Bluff Creek Drive. Although unfortunately there is some development now occurring in that northeast corner of Chaska, and I'm sure Moon Valley is a nice close site to supply materials so it might be difficult to control from a spec standpoint we can't control what happens in those developments along in Chaska. The other concern that may arise out of that is I have had some discussions with Moon Valley and there is some concerns for potential loss of market competitiveness should they lose use of that road corridor. Whether that's justified potential claim or not, I can't be the judge of that but that is something they may consider so. At any rate, it's not an easy issue. There's a lot of pros and cons associated with the issue and again, all I want to do tonight is just get the information in your hands. I know we've committed to the people that before any decisions were made we'd bring it back as a. formal agenda item and allow for public input and discussion on any measures we may take. I'm not sure what those measures would entail but certainly staff would entertain any further direction from the Council regarding those matters. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Charles. Any questions? M J City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Councilman Berquist: Yeah. The memo is pretty informative but it does generate a couple of questions. When you talk about the MMUTCD and the first question that comes to my mind is, I mean that intersection doesn't meet the criteria and if an accident were to occur, given the fact that we've got those two residential areas entering into that area on Bluff Creek Drive. If an accident happened there and we didn't, and we have chosen not to put a stop sign there. In other words, not to be proactive to what we see as a potential problem. Isn't our liability just as great? Charles Folch: Well you certainly have liability, the City is going to have liability in anything. Any type of situation but I think in a situation where, I think... liability issues, potential liability problems you may have in terms of dealing with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices is one, to take the position that an intersection or a road situation that warrants some sort of traffic control that justifies and is called for in the manual and the action is not taken, I think that leaves you very much wide open. As is the converse where an intersection does not merit the certain type of traffic control but it's arbitrarily or for whatever reason determined to put it in anyway and subsequently something happens. At this point in time I mean we don't have any accident records from that intersection that would indicate that it's currently a safety problem. If we had that now, certainly that would lead us to want to take a look at what we should do because you're right. I mean if it's a known safety problem and we don't do anything about it, the exposure is pretty great. Councilman Berquist What about at that trail intersection? Does the same criteria apply there? Charles Folch: That would be even a more difficult place to put a stop sign from a warrant standpoint because the main criteria, it's not all the criteria but the main criteria for justifying stop sign control intersections is both main line volume and intersecting traffic, minor link volumes of cars and pedestrian movements. And at that crossing there you have no pedestrian, or you have no vehicle volumes so you lose out of that category right there. I'm not sure what the pedestrians volumes are but without having a road crossing there with minor leg traffic volumes, you're not going to justify having a stop sign there. Again unless some other things happen that make it obvious that it's a safety problem. Let's say we have a few accidents in a couple years or within a year with bicyclists or other people using that trail. Then there's some other discretionary warrants that can come into play. Councilman Berquist Another question I had, you referenced Moon Valley making a claim on the Powers Boulevard project for additional costs associated due to weight restrictions. And we've got a 9 ton road there. Those boys are either over weight or the road was improperly constructed. Charles Folch: Well, I can't speak to what weights they were running, although we can certainly put scales out there to check but I did observe the two locations where we had the failures. Both those locations, over the past recent years, the areas that actually have kind of settled if you will on the roadway, and so water has puddled there and the drainage has certainly not helped the problem. Unfortunately when that road was upgraded, I'm sure due to financial concerns and things like that, there really wasn't any storm sewer placed along that corridor. Councilman Berquist: .Didn't the contractor go belly up during the project? Charles Folch: Not to my knowledge, no. That was a design decision probably made between the City and the consultant at the time the project was ordered. From that standpoint. But at any rate, it's basically too isolated locations where we would basically cut out those areas. One's about a 12 x 16 area. The other one was much smaller. Probably in the neighborhood of 10 a 10. We've cut them out. We've repatched them. One thing I 39 F1 U City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 did also take a hard look at in terms of an easy way to tell whether the overloads are occurring on the road. They'd be normally trucking northbound loaded, southbound empty and you look at the two lanes of traffic. You do not see any distinguishing rattling if you will, or rubbing in the tracks of the northbound. The northbound doesn't look any different than the southbound in terms of the pavement surface. When you look at the average number of cracks per 100 feet, they're both on the same side. There's no distinguishable difference so I, at this point with that kind of ... of the roadway, I don't feel that it's necessarily an issue that they're running heavy trucks because I just don't see it in the roadway. Councilman Berquist: At the last Council meeting when we had this come up. I think I called you on Wednesday and asked if you had a conversation with Moon Valley and you mentioned that Moon Valley's attorney had called Roger's office. Charles Folch: That's the message I had but as it turned out, they hadn't contacted Tom Scott I guess or maybe Roger had talked to Tom about the events of the meeting and so he was trying to get a hold of me but the message that I had gotten second hand was that Moon Valley had contacted Tom Scott, but that was not the case. Tom was following up on Roger's information from the previous night's meeting. See Toni Scott has been dealing with Moon Valley on the previous. Councilman Berquist: Alright, so you said that you were going to call Tom Scott before. Charles Folch: Before I talked to, right. So that afternoon I talked to Tom Scott and he informed me that no, there was no pending contact or no contact from Moon Valley's attorney so subsequent to that I have talked to Moon Valley regarding this issue and naturally they're very upset with what's happening out there too in terms of being regulated off the roadway and basically they've got the other side of the coin, or the other side of the fence position so they feel they have right to use of the roadway. They feel they pay their fair share of road taxes. You know the whole 9 yards and that why is the city trying to take away their competitiveness in terms of supplying material in the area and I can go on and on and on. We had probably an hour and a half conversation so, but I know they were concerned as to how long the road was going to be interimly posted at 5 ton while we were making repairs and they were basically, his contention is, they were adding a couple miles, about 15 minutes to each round with their runs and that they may consider, depending on how long the interim restriction goes on, or stays on, they may make a claim for extra costs on the County Road 17 project and that if we restricted the use of the roadway on a permanent basis, that they would find out what rights they had to loss of competitiveness in the market share. Mayor Chmiel: Roger has something. Roger Knutson: I was just going to say. What we checked on is, the Council issued a conditional use permit for the mining operation several years ago and what I was looking at, because I couldn't recall if there were any conditions on haul routes or not. So that's how we just check that... Councilman Senn: And what's the rules on reviewing conditional use permits? Roger Knutson. Once they've got them, they've got them. You can't go back. His comment on the... competitiveness and loss... Councilman Senn: I mean it seems to me that there's some easy actions we can take, like in terms of city contracts and setting that in, in terms of designated routes. Setting up a regular enforcement effort on that street go] r 1 I City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 and maybe even setting up a regular weighing schedule or something on that street. And I don't know, I mean from reading your memo and all the different things you went through, I'm still leaning strongly towards just ' going ahead and doing the stop signs anyway. That's the only way we're going to control it. But that was my opinion. I think we really ought to set up some mechanism for us to get to a conclusion effectively. ' Charles Folch: Again from a staffs standpoint, we want to get the information out to you and we certainly want feedback in terms of what direction you want us to take but I don't expect that tonight from you so you've just got the staff report tonight and it's certainly crazy to think that you would read through it and think about it and digest it and we can come back and set up a meeting with the residents to come in and discuss which options ' you want to take but I guess I wasn't necessarily looking for anything cut and dry from you tonight as to which direction we should go. ' Mayor Chmiel: Review and come up with your suggestions, right Charles. Okay. Don Ashworth: Do I understand then, this is going to be a future agenda item. Is that what you're saying? ' Charles Folch: I think the Council committed to a couple residents that had inquired at the last meeting that they would be, basically... would be brought back for consideration in terms of whatever action would be taken and I think it was responded to them that it would be listed as a regular City Council agenda item that they ' would see in the paper. Don Ashworth: So with advertising and the item would come back on the agenda. At that point in time we'll ' provide suggested recommendations, kind of following up on Mark's point in terms of things that we potentially could do. Councilman Senn: Wouldn't it be better for us to provide you some direction so you can. ' Charles Folch: If you're ready tonight. ' Councilman Senn: No, no, I'm saying, I mean so you can go meet with the neighborhood group and see if you can work out a middle ground on that and then come back to us for an action effectively kind of... Mayor Chmiel: Well I still think his suggestion, to review it and come up with your suggestions and recommendations and establish a meeting date from there. That way I think he has a little bit better knowledge as to how he's going to approach it. Right now he has the answers for most of it... ' Councilman Senn: Well why don't we just make it an agenda item for the next meeting. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well yeah. ' Mayor Chmiel: Or you can do that too. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think we're ready to move on this. Let's just advertise it for the next meeting and ' discuss it at that time. Charles Folch: The next meeting I'll be on vacation. I don't know if you want to do this one without me but you're welcome to. You can put stop signs wherever you want. 1 41 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Don Ashworth: Well providing that, I think we should go to the second meeting in August. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well let's send out the information to the neighbors in advance so they know what the staff report looks like and they can cogitate ... Mr. Mayor, I have to leave. Will you excuse me? Mayor Chmiel: I suppose. Okay, we have Consent. (Councilwoman Dockendotf left the meeting at this point and did not vote on the remaining items.) CONSENT AGENDA DISCUSSION. H. APPROVAL OF BILLS. Councilman Senn: Don, on page 2. There's an item, U.S. Conference of Mayor, deferred accounts program. Retirement fund. The answer I got back is a voluntary employee deferred compensation program. I still don't understand that. You mean a deferred comp program for volunteers? Don Ashworth: No, no. Councilman Senn: Well that's what the answer says to me. Don Ashworth: No, actually this is you recently approved the resolution establishing this as a valid company for employees to put dollars away for retirement, and I think Steve asked the question because I was the only one who was going to be going into this particular thing. So those are dollars out of my paycheck, none of which are city dollars. Again for retirement. Councilman Senn: They're just pre -tax, not matched or anything like that? Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Senn: But this is available to all employees? Don Ashworth: All employees. Councilman Senn: Okay. And so weren't we using a different one before, ICMA's or something? Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. Don Ashworth: I switched out of ICMA over to this one. Most employee are still in PEPSCO. , Councilman Senn: Let's see. here. Page 1 -of the 7/17 listing. Ameon. City Hall expansion. $16,793.00. Why are we paying Ameon for the electrical? I thought that was a separate subcontract and why are we paying a ' construction manager for that? Don Ashworth: In this packet of materials I gave to you was. ' 42 , J rJ LJ 1 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Councilman Senn: It's a line item for electrical. Don Ashworth: That's payment to the electrical contractor. Councilman Senn: Correct, not to Amcon. Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Senn: But what's in the payments here is a payment to Amcon, not to the electrical contractor. For that line item. Don Ashworth: No. I think what he shows in there is all the contractors that are being. What each one is completed and what it was for. Councilman Senn: No, look on page 1 of the 7/17. Back side of the fourth page. It says to Amcon. Construction Manager. Electrical City Hall expansion, $6,650.00, which matches the item in the expansion budget. Electrical subcontractor. Don Ashworth: I'm not sure. I'll pull that one and find out what it is. Councilman Senn: Okay. The other thing is, looking at this, Amcon has now drawn down 77% of their construction management fee, which concerns me a little bit. Given the extent the project's been completed. That seems a little unusual. Don Ashworth: Where are we? Councilman Senn: 77% drawn on the construction management fee at this phase of the project. On page 3, there's an item for $33,724.00 for the Centennial books, which we approved... based on private funding. As I understand it we only had $2,500.00 in revenues towards that. I mean what's the prognosis or outlook on that? We have a large gap between $2,500.00 and $33,000.00. Don Ashworth: I think very good. I'll get answers on that as well. Councilman Berquist: Revenue to date on sales is $2,500.00? Councilman Senn: Yep. That's the number I was given. Let's see here. I see page 22. It's an item called Virginia Harris, June services. The response you gave me was election. I still don't, is she the one who conducts our elections or what? Don Ashworth: She will be for 1996. I entered into a contract with her. Actually Roger's reviewed it and he says we should just have her as an employee. I haven't had a chance to get back to her and actually switch her. Just over, as a part -time employee. So we're paying her right now $10.00 an hour plus she figures the additional amount she needs to pay, what is it. You've got to pay, if you're an independent you've got to pay your own social security, whatever. Anyway, that amounts to $1.80 so we pay her $11.80 an hour. She just does jobs whenever they kind of need to be done. So recently she put notices into the local church fliers trying to get volunteers to work for election days. She's watch ng the schedule. She took stuff up to, or made arrangements to have stuff hauled to St. Cloud. 43 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Councilman Senn: So she's effectively our new election coordinator in the budget or whatever? Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Senn: Alright. Page 22. Engelhardt, Minnewashta Parkway. Are we ever going to close out Minnewashta Parkway? Charles Folch: That was some warranty replacement of trees on the job. There's about a dozen trees that we've been very diligently and determiningly been trying to get them replaced with the subcontractor and unfortunately haven't had, we've having too much success with that company but that's where the time goes to. Just a side note is that I may be bringing back some further information to the Council regarding that subcontractor in the future but hopefully I won't have to do that before we get it resolved so. Mayor Chmiel: Anything else? Councilman Senn: Let's see here. Not on accounts payable so I'd move approval with the exception of those ones that Don's going to get the additional information on. Councilman Berquist: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to appiuve the Accounts Payable with the exception of the ones the City Manager is going to get additional information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. P. AUTHORIZE APPRAISAL, NOTERMANN PROPERTY AT LAKE ANN PARK Councilman Senn: In here basically it says that, recommend that the City authorize an appraisal of the property with the intent where we would be able to enter into a purchase agreement providing a relatively small initial payment with an agreed to final purchase price at the end of the specific timeframe, 2 to 5 years. Or what you're suggesting here basically is that we enter effectively an effort to turn around and purchase this property now. Don Ashworth: Lock in exactly what the value, the cost of buying the property is. Councilman Senn: Okay, and make some kind of a, like an option payment or something now you mean? Don Ashworth: Right. Put $10,000.00 down with $210,000.00 due on or before August 1, 1999. And probably have something in there for increasing the value by $10,000.00 per year for each year it goes after that. Whatever. Councilman Senn: And the intention would be to actually close or take the property then when? I mean what's the trigger I guess is what I'm trying to say. The Highway 5 improvements? Don Ashworth: Correct. But I guess the way I envision it is just pick a year out. Put that year in there. August 5, 1999 and if everything has fallen apart by that point in time, they can walk away from it and we've lost $10,000.00. If on the other side things are moving ahead with the State, we've got a known purchase price of $210,000.00. 44 II Il City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Councilman Senn: Okay. Under either scenario then, in terms of the down payment or in terms of the closing, I mean if we don't have State money, do we have a funding source for this? Don Ashworth: Actually it'd be a couple. We made a commitment to pay a portion of the Highway 5 improvement cost. This goes back to the days that we were meeting with Crawford, 7 -8 years ago. And at that point in time the HRA had modified the redevelopment plans so as to allocate dollars associated with that frontage road so legally the HRA, legally and in terms of any previous projections by the HRA, we've included some dollars in there associated with what we thought to be our side of the cost. Second source is that's also eligible for State Aid dollars. I can see that as a secondary source. But in either case we're talking about relatively minor dollars as it deals with Notermann. Councilman Senn: Yeah, and sometimes a real lengthy waiting period then is my understanding. Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Senn: Alright. Move approval. Councilman Berquist: Second. Resolution 996 -66: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to authorize an appraisal for the Notermanm property at Lake Ann Pat1c All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Let's see, you have two more items. School arbitration. Councilman Senn: Yeah, three items under Council presentation. TH 101, school arbitration, and Bluff Creek Watershed. Maybe Bluff Creek Watershed plans first. There's a memo in the administrative packet, there's no page number so it's kind of hard to I guess describe exactly where it is but it's a memo to Don Ashworth from Phillip Elkin, Water Resource Coordinator. The memo says basically that the City of Chanhassen in June 27th '96 we were given a grant of $100,000.00 to be used in the implementation of the Bluff Creek Watershed studies. I mean does that mean now that that grant finally came through? Kate Aanenson: No, this is additional money. The watershed plan is being paid for and the City allocated $10,000.00. We've got $20,000.00 from the DNR. $20,000.00 from the Watershed with a commitment that we come back and ask for more. This was a grant that Diane put in the year before. If you recall we tried to get the LCMR money which the Arboretum got and purchased the property. Councilman Senn: Yeah, we... Kate Aanenson: Right, and the reason we didn't get it is the $100,000.00 is because the Watershed District didn't have their plans, their watershed plans for the final ... plans approved so we resubmitted it with positive feedback from the Met Council. They thought it was a good project so, but you can see that what the money has to be used for so what we've done as part of the watershed plan is we've given specific projects and cost to that so this is money that we can be using for, not the plan but land acquisition or any of the other improvement ' projects along the corridor so it's just an extra money towards those projects. Not the planning cost itself but certainly, and that's what we were saying before. That $10,000.00 that the Council put forward is the seed money. Steve's got it. Seed money to get more money so yeah. I think it's pretty exciting. 'J 45 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 1 Councilman Senn: Okay. Let's see here. Borson versus School District 4112. On again, I guess I don't know ' what page but it's to Mayor and City Council from Don Ashworth dated July 18, 1996. Subject, Borson vs. School District #1112. In the end of the first paragraph Don it says, this is the School District's sole decision because all the contracts are between the School District and HGA. And the School District and Borson. And then it says with the exception that we get to participate in the payment if that becomes a decision. Now that's totally contrary to what I thought we had previously discussed saying that you know, everything we put together ' before showed the City had no fault on it. If the School District came out on the short end, that was going to be a whole separate discussion as to whether we participated, how we participate and if we participate. Now it's kind of like a fore gone conclusion that we're simply going to kick in 24 %. Don Ashworth: No. The original agreement that we entered into had the City paying 24% of the costs associated with building that facility. It's the City Attorney's opinion that as this arbitration approached, that in fact if they were to prevail, that would increase the cost of the construction and would be a cost that we would ' have to pay. He followed that up with a separate document that basically re- stated that position, formally presented that position because it was felt that by the two parties before the arbiters together and not trying to point fingers at each other, would be a better thing to do. So again we put in writing what we already knew we were responsible to do, which was to pay 24% of those construction costs, or the arbiters award, whichever way you want to look at it. Councilman Senn: Why would we pay 24% when what we were given previously showed that, I mean we weren't any part of the problem with the additional claim. Don Ashworth: Well I think the School District would say they're not, they didn't do anything that would justify a 76% payment by themselves. They felt that the award would be zero. We felt that the award would be zero. Councilman Senn: Do I take it by this that you're saying then that's an automatic action that you're taking versus asking the Council to do or? Don Ashworth: We've already asked the Council and the Council has responded with approving a written ' agreement between the School District and the City that says that we will pay 24% of any arbiters award. That was presented to you and the City Council voted on that specific document. Councilman Senn: When was that? Well, I mean now it's not zero. You reference in here that we have a cushion because $120,000.00 contingency. Looking back at my notes, we've already spent the $120,000.00 contingency. How can we have the cushion? Don Ashworth: If the Mayor would pass those down. These are the, well shoot. I don't even show a date on , that but this was our itemization of costs to date. This one had been distributed, I can't remember when. There's some issue that had come up within the last couple months so we had prepared this. Todd, you were ' the one that actually did this. Councilman Senn: It's on the back of a sheet from May 23rd, 1994. Don Ashworth: The only reason I put that on the back from May 23rd was that was when the City Council established the original budget and wanted to show whoever the reader of this sheet was, what the original 1 46 1 1 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 ' budget was, and then the accounting on the back side is work that Todd had completed and that dealt with some question that the Council had, not dealing with arbitration but dealing with something else. ' Todd Gerhardt: Change orders. Don Ashworth: Change orders. That's right. The City Council wanted a detailed list of all change orders. You know has there been any change orders processed since 412? Maybe I should give you a copy. Councilman Senn: Well I thought there was a huge item that we agreed to on soil work that I don't even see in ' here, that we agreed was going to come out of contingency. I mean that's. We had that additional soil work that was encountered and at least according to the notes I had, we agreed to then take that on and absorb it out of the contingency but it absorbed most of the contingency. ' Don Ashworth: I mean Borson was contending certain things associated with soil but is there a separate? So I'm having problems differentiating what would be Borson's claim and arbiters award versus some change order that ,ve initiated. Councilman Senn: Did it relate to the road and placement of the road. Retaining walls. Movement of a trail or addition of a trail. I mean there were a whole bunch of items that were kind of part of the same consideration. Don Ashworth: I mean whether or not there's been some type of action by the City Council as it deals with Coulter Boulevard and some changes that may be necessary there ... but I mean that's totally separate. Todd Gerhardt: The soil correction is when John Gockel same in and explained the road situation and that related back to the road project. Not towards the construction of the building as a change order. Because the earth work was associated, we did some of the earth work for the school site and the road. And that change order was associated back to the road project. Not as to the structure of the building, as the $2.3 million. Councilman Senn: I thought we took on some additional soil work as it related to the. ' Todd Gerhardt: To the building? Yes. There was a portion and that's, my guess is in that $26,000.00 because in that we only pay 50% of it to the grading. But if it ... with the structure of the building itself, we only pay ' 26% of it. Don Ashworth: Yeah but all these change orders Todd went clear up into, all of the miscellaneous things. Doors, frames. There's no big ticket item that's left out there that I'm aware of. Todd Gerhardt: We stayed within the contingency. We did not go over contingency. There's certain things that we wanted to see done but we got to the end of the contingency and we couldn't do it. We wanted to ' change out the window and things like that and there's no money left in the contingency. Councilman Senn: So you're saying these change orders came out of contingency of $99,000.00. ' Todd Gerhardt: Right. Don Ashworth: Well, the original budget of 293. Original contract, including all the change orders, total was ' $2,200,000.00. 2925. That leaves you with $116,000.00 under budget. Now whether you call that. 47 City Council Meeting s July 22, 1996 Todd Gerhardt: Contingency. Don Ashworth: There's a surplus in that account of $116,000.00. It doesn't matter what we label it, or how we got to it, there's $116,000.00. Todd Gerhardt: And that's why the School District didn't want to take on any additional changes because they... Councilman Berquist: Now wait a minute. Let me just talk about this school a little bit more. From what you said, you fully expected the School Board on the meeting of the 18th to authorize payment to Borson. Don Ashworth: Which they did. Councilman Berquist: They did? I talked to a School Board member and it wasn't even on the agenda. Don Ashworth: According to Kaufman on Friday, it was approved. It was approved without discussion. Now maybe that's one of the problems but that's what Kaufman related to me. It was approved without discussion. Councilman Berquist: Okay. So they cut their check or they will be shortly. Don Ashworth: Again I would have anticipated, well of course me has my memorandum. In fact he distributed that to the School Board. But and importantly, he's not in the position... Councilman Berquist: Well it's interesting. I had read your memo and I had not realized the issue of how many schools with that contractor building at the same time. Was that ever testimony? Don Ashworth: I thought that was a major factor myself, that I did not become aware of until a very few days in advance of writing that memorandum and in making sure that I was correct of what I'm saying, I faxed copies of that back to Gary Fuchs and to the attorney for the School District. Which I then got back a call from Gary Fuchs and he said you know, for the life of me I've been trying to look for an explanation of how this arbiters came up with this decision and he said you know unfortunately I've been looking at this case solely from a legal aspect. He says until I read your memorandum, your's was the best explanation I could come up with in my own mind for how and why... because up until that point Gary was looking at each technicality portions. The only remedy available to the arbiters in a dispute over time is the extension of time and Gary was relying on his training as an attorney to say that this decision's going to be made in this way. The arbiters looked at it in terms of what would have happened to the School District if they would have stayed to that fact and required a 6 to 8 week extension. It would have been devastating to the School District... The only decision that's left out is the amount of money that's going to be paid by HGA because without question the School District and the City believe that HGA should not go unscathed. Councilman Senn: Well I was waiting for Steve to get done but that's kind of my next thing. What happened to the discussion of going back against HGA as it relates to you know their insurance and... responsibility and all that sort of thing. You know if we simply just pay this, I mean is that going to get followed through on? I mean again I see the School District's the one who has to do that because again the School District's contract is with HGA and not our's. How do we assure that that gets the proper attention... Don Ashworth: ...and then I will keep you posted in terms of what it is that they have done. 48 it L I City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Councilman Senn: Okay, and you feel that that's in their best interest to do? Don Ashworth: Yes. Councilman Senn: And they don't have a bunch of other projects going with HGA or something that they ' haven't contracted out with or something like that. Don Ashworth: The high school project... another year and they will continue to make payments to HGA on that. ' Councilman Senn: Well you know Don, that's my concern. I mean maybe I'm going to defer to Roger on that but I mean, my concern is that the School District's interest in this and they're negotiating a settlement or pursuing a settlement is different than our interest. I think is a fair statement and I want to know how we protect our interest to make sure that it gets pursued and looked after and that accomplished. ' Roger Knutson: Mayor? I think you're right, they do see it a bit different but one thing to remember if you have an ongoing relationship with HGA, HGA has also an interest in making the School District happy. If they look forward to working HGA in the future. I mean we will pursue it and we will keep on them but like you said, we don't have a contract with HGA. Councilman Senn: But we have another contract with HGA which relates to the City Hall expansion. I mean should we be sitting here just simply forking out money to HGA on that contract based on the fact that they just ' lost us a whopping sum of money. Roger Knutson: I wasn't aware of another contract. Don Ashworth: I'm proposing using for a furniture contract but we're talking about a real miscellaneous type of expense. Councilman Senn: Well I think there's two contracts. I mean I thought HGA was on the architectural contract as it relates to the City Hall expansion. They're not at all? No element of it? Don Ashworth: Except for what I just was referring to. It's providing help as it deals with is this furnishing. Todd Gerhardt: The interior arm of HGA. They did an excellent iob of getting and putting together the equipment purchases out at the Ree Center. All the furnishings and Laurie was just great to work with. Don Ashworth: All architectural services for the City Hall expansion are being provided through KKE. As it came into this furnishing issue, since HGA had completed such an excellent job, and I think... weren't enamored by the KKE arm, that's the reason we came back to contract with HGA. HGA's under no other contract with the City of Chanhassen. ' Councilman Senn: How big is the contract on the furnishings and fixtures? Don Ashworth: $6,000.00. It's in there. 1 49 City Council Meeting - July 22, 1996 Todd Gerhardt: They're going to come in and do the inventory of our current equipment. Specifications to solicit bids and to assist in meeting with staff and organizing needs for new area plus redeveloped areas. Councilman Senn: $6,000.00 then total is all? Todd Gerhardt: I think that's around it. Councilman Senn: Okay. And that's the only contract... I had a number of comments as it relates to the redraft on TH 101 but rather than keep going, it's getting late. I can just bring those up separately with Don Ashworth. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion for adjournment? Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjoumed at 10:50 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 50