1h. City Council Minutes October 9, 1995.0
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 9, 1995
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf,
Councilman Mason, and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, and Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda as
amended to move item 2(a), Forest Meadows, JMS Development, to item 10 per the applicant's request. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER 28 AS "RAKE- A -THON DAY - YOU CAN MAKE A
DIFFERENCE ".
Mayor Chmiel: One is a resolution proclaiming October 28th as the 9th Annual Rake -a -Thou, you can make a
difference day and it reads, Whereas for the past nine years Minnetonka Community Education has sponsored a day
in the fall when volunteers rake the lawns of senior citizens. Whereas, the Tonka Rake -a -Thou is a win/win situation
as the needs of seniors are met while young volunteers have a chance to realize that they do make a difference for
someone else. Now Therefore, I, Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor of the City of Chanhassen hereby proclaim Saturday,
October 28th as the "Ninth Annual Tonka Rake -a -Thon - You Can Make a Difference Day. Be it Further Resolved
that citizens are urged to contact Jan Gray at 470 -3488 to volunteer for the Rake -a -Thon project. Passed and
adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this day of 1995. Is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf Yes.
Resolution #95 -101: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve a
resolution declaring October 28th as "Rake -a -Thon -You Can Make a Difference Day ". All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER AS QUALITY MONTH AND OCTOBER 9 -13 AS
COMMUNITY QUALITY WEEK.
Mayor Chmiel: The other public announcement is another proclamation. This is a resolution proclaiming Quality
Month and Community Quality Week. It reads, Whereas, achieving high customer satisfaction, as well as producing
quality goods and services are crucial to the continued economic growth of the country, our community and well
being of each American family; and Whereas, our nation has long been recognized for its leadership in producing
quality goods and services; and Whereas, the quality improvement principles apply to small and large companies to
service and manufacturing industries, to the public sector and private enterprise, and to families and individuals, and
Whereas, all individuals and organizations of the City of Chanhassen believe quality is essential to their success; and
Whereas, the Southwest Metro Quality Council, our local Minnesota Community Quality Council is actively
engaged in the 11 th anniversary celebration of National Quality Month. Now Therefore, I, Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
D
of the City of Chanhassen hereby proclaim October 1995 as Quality Month and the week of October 9th as
Community Quality Week in our city. Is there a motion?
Councilman Berquist: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #95 -102: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a resolution
proclaiming October as Quality Month and October 9- 13,1995 as Community Quality Week. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
b. Lake Susan Hills Townhomes, Jasper Homes:
1) Final Plat Approval.
2) Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications, Project 95 -19.
c. Approval of Private Redevelopment Agreement, Control Products.
e. City Council Minutes dated September 25, 1995
Planning Commission Minutes dated September 6, 1995
f. Resolution #95 -103: Resolution approving Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Suburban Transit
Association.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: With those two items pulled, we'll move that to item 11(a).
Councilman Senn: Excuse me Don, unless you want to.
Mayor Chmiel: Is it going to be real quick?
Councilman Senn: Well with (d), it's just one item to pull out of it. Charles isn't here and can't answer the question
so if we just pullout on page 2, item 00133533 which is a $61,000.00 check to Barton - Aschman. Just pull that out.
The rest was fine.
Councilman Berquist: I had another question on that. Hartley and Associates. Who's Hartley and Associates?
You're talking about Barton - Aschman. Who's Hartley and Associates?
Mayor Chmiel: Hartley and Associates is our computer.
Don Ashworth: He does all of our data processing. Put the network in and provides the support service for that.
Councilman Senn: He went through the big...
Don Ashworth: Well yeah. He helped as a part of that process.
2
0
1
7
L
Fl
—1
0
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that, is there a motion? We did and we moved and we'll discuss those other items as
I I (a).
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF AN EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT, OUTLOT
A OF CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2ND ADDITION, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION.
Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. On September 25th you approved the site plan for
Control Products and also the final plat for the Chan Business Center 3rd Addition. As a part of that on the
preliminary plat there was an easement that runs down the middle of this lot. There was a condition on the plat that
this lot had to have the easement vacated. As a housekeeping measure it wasn't noticed as a part of that. Legally we
have to notify the vacation so this is in order to make the conditions comply with their final plat. We are
recommending approval of the vacation.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Kate.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I get the public to say something first? That's what's called a railroad. Is there anyone at this
time wishing to address this specific hearing? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #95 -104: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve vacating the utility
and drainage easement located in the center of Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Third Addition as
shown in Attachment Number 1. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING, GALPIN BOULEVARD /COULTER
BOULEVARD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 93-26A.
Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing.
Don Ashworth: I would again suggest allowing anyone who wishes to speak but I would also recommend that we
table action on this item. I was not able to balance out the numbers that I had received for this project and I set up a
3
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
1 District for hopefully et this week to review those and insure that all '
meeting with the School p y parties are fully in y p
agreement with the numbers that were presented to you. So with that I guess again, I would recommend tabling for 2
weeks. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone at this time wishing to address this? Not seeing any.
Councilman Senn: Do we need to keep the public hearing open then? '
Mayor Chmiel: I would suggest that we do, yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so just move to table. '
Councilman Mason: Second. I
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table action on the special assessments for Galpin
Boulevard and Coulter Boulevard Reconstruction Project No. 93 -26A. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING, LAKE LU_CY ROAD AND UTILITY
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 92-12. '
Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing.
Don Ashworth: Bill Engelhardt, Engelhardt and Associates is here to go through the project. '
Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council. You did receive an assessment roll in your packet. We met
with the property owners of the project and there have been some adjustments made in the assessment roll. You did
receive tonight a final assessment roll. Gestach - Paulson... major factor in the assessment roll, where there's an
'
assessment credit... and how that is applied there on front footage. The cost per front foot for the street is $67.77 per
front foot. That was for a city standard street. The over sizing cost, extra depth of base, bituminous to State Aid
standards, State and local funds. Storm sewer is a 50150 split between the properties of Carlson, Gestach and the
'
City. A sidewalk is a split between the local funds. When I say sidewalk, I'm talking about the trailway along the
road. Lake Lucy Road on the Gestach Paulson and Carlson split that's based on a front footage, or lineal footage of
$3.87 a foot. The watermain, the two property owners are paying for the over sizing or are paying for the
construction of an 8 inch main. Over sizing cost is being paid for by a trunk fund. This project extended the 9 inch
'
main all the way up past the school up to an approximate location of the service station to the west of the watermain
and that connects into the new well site that's presently under construction. Sanitary sewer was strictly the Gestach
Paulson dollar amount and the city assessed a credit for the Well House No. 7 for the total amount of the assessment.
'
The project was $654,875.15. That's the total project cost. The total construction cost is approximately 1 %. A
little over 1% over the contract amount of $556. So all and all the project I think turned out fairly well and again
we ... property owners to make adjustments to the assessments that reflect the assessment credit for the Well House I
No. 7. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Does Council have any questions? '
Councilman Senn: Just a quick one. You said $556 was the.
I City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Bill Engelhardt: $556 was the contract amount.
' Councilman Senn: Okay. And then ... $654?
Bill Engelhardt: $654. The soft costs ran about 17 %.
' Councilman Senn: Alright.
Councilman Berquist: I've got a question. I'm curious and I'm not familiar with road construction enough to know.
Why for roughly the same footage would the road at Lake, between Galpin and where it ends at the school property
and this road, cost. You know we have $654 versus $1.46 million. What's the significance, just educate me here.
What's the significant difference between those two roadways?
Bill Engelhardt: I think probably width. This one is a 34 foot road back to curb, back to curb. And during the initial
discussions we were looking at starting off with a 36 foot wide roadway and I believe that Galpin Boulevard is well
over 34. It's probably more like 38. I'm not sure what that is. Well that's the 9 ton road design. State standard. In
fact this section, there was an increase in cost after State Aid review because a section of Lake Lucy Road they
wanted 18 inches of rock, 5 inches of base, 2 inches of binder, bituminous another 2 inches.. I don't know what the
section that they required for ... based on traffic volumes.
Don Ashworth: Councilman Senn had called earlier and asked me the same question and again with Charles not
being present I couldn't respond but I told him that I would have an answer to that question by the time Galpin came
back up in 2 weeks.
Bill Engelhardt: I guess Galpin's got a 64 foot so it's almost double. That's the...
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time?
Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion for these construction project 92 -12.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #95 -105: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the assessment roll
dated September 19, 1995 for the construction, storm drainage and utility improvements associated with the
Lake Lucy Road (east of Trunk Highway 41) Improvement Project No. 92 -12 and that the assessment rate
and term be established at 7 1/2% and 8 years respectively. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
5
I
u
n �
0
'
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
'
PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE, CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE III URBAN/RURAL
SERVICE DISTRICT• CHANGING THE BENEFIT RATIO FROM 75% TO 90% FOR PARCELS IN THE
RURAL TO URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT. FINAL READING.
,
Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing.
Councilman Mason: Your Honor, if I could. I had a call from a citizen last night who because of back surgery could
'
not be here. Asked that if possible it be tabled for 2 weeks from tonight. At some point I will be making a motion to
that effect. Just so everyone knows.
,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I also received a call. Probably not the same person. He was not able to make it this evening
and is going somewhere else but he also asked if we could table this for 2 weeks and discuss it at that particular time.
But we will, let us go through the motions here and at least for any of those that are here for it this evening to review
,
that. Don.
Don Ashworth: This City Council elected to place this on first reading. The redraft was prepared by the City
Attorney's office. The qualification has stayed exactly the same since the ordinance was first drafted in 1967. The
'
rate portion is what is different from the previous ordinance and the 90% rate has been in effect from what we could
tell, for at least the last 5 years. Staff is recommending that we maintain the 90% level.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? Yes. Would you please come forward.
'
State your name and your address and your concern.
Gayle Degler: Yeah, I'm Gayle Degler. This is my wife and mother. 1630 Lyman Boulevard and 9111 Audubon
'
Road. We're the last dairy farmers in Chanhassen. I would like to speak a little bit, but if I knew you were going to
postpone it, I would rather wait. My concerns are, are we being taxed at the 90% level now?
Chmiel: And have been,
Mayor yes.
Gayle Degler: Is that legal? I guess that's the basic question. Is that legal? I mean if the ordinance said we're
supposed to be taxed at the 75% level.
,
Mayor Chmiel: To the best of my knowledge, it is but let me refer it to our legal counsel.
75% doing it 90 %. How this happened, I don't know.
'
Roger Knutson: Our ordinance requires, was set at and at
Gayle Degler: Yeah, those are the facts but my question is, without us being informed of the change, is the
procedure, I guess the word is legal? Should we have been or are we due a refund?
'
Roger Knutson: I have no idea how come the Auditor did and why they did it and I guess we'd have to check with
them just to see what the basis for them changing it was.
'
Gayle Degler: Okay, so if I understand this right, the city told the County to tax us at 75% and somebody in the
County is automatically taxing us at 90 %.
'
Roger Knutson: I know what the ordinance says. I don't know the mechanics of what happened.
I
u
n �
0
L
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Gayle Degler: Okay, but what I'm getting at is, it's going to the County. Somebody in the County level is doing it.
Nobody at the city level is doing it.
Roger Knutson: Not to my knowledge.
Gayle Degler: Okay.
Don Ashworth: I am sure that in previous years there's been discussions and I wouldn't doubt at all that the question
has been, well is Chanhassen changing the ratio and I'm sure that the response every year has been no. But I don't
know that Jean or Lori ever said well let's make it 75% or let's make it 90 %. I mean I don't know that to be the case.
I am confident that Lori did talk to somebody here and did say what should that be. And my guess is that the
response was, just leave it the same. I don't know.
Councilman Berquist: When would this have taken place?
Don Ashworth: We know it was more than 5 years ago.
Councilman Berquist: How does the ordinance read? Does the ordinance put the onus on Council on every year to
reaffirm the rate?
Don Ashworth: I believe so.
Roger Knutson: The ordinance says set percentage. And that was the problem. It was 75 %... It's possible and I
don't know this that the Council by motion or by resolution changed it and it didn't get into the ordinance. That
would have been effective, I have no idea ... the County has been doing it at 90 %.
Councilman Senn: I mean Roger, the onus was on Council effectively to review what parcels are included or not
included, was kind of my understanding.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But not the rate.
Councilman Senn: Not the rate itself but if the rate were ever to be considered, I would assume that would have been
the logical time to do it. I talked with the auditors office this afternoon and from what the auditor said, it may help
answer your question. The way the auditor put it was is that the State law governs. Effectively that a person can go
file an abatement for the current year and two previous years if an error has been made, and that's up to the property
owner to file with the County. But by State law you can't go back any further than the current year and two previous
years was the answer that I got.
Gayle Degler: So it doesn't make any difference who made the mistake. Somehow, it sounds like to me that
somebody in the County made the mistake and obviously the Council has never been notified of it or never has gone
along to verify this and now, from what you had mentioned, it would be up to the landowner to try to rectify for the
city.
Councilman Senn: Well I think we need more answers to the questions. I mean I asked the County Auditor how
long they've been charging 90 and they couldn't even answer the question. In fact Don, you were on the phone with
me at the time. They didn't know and we asked them what dollar amount was involved, they didn't know the answer
7
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995 '
so I'm assuming we've kicked some bolts loose and we'll get some answers to the questions but we didn't have them '
before tonight. '
Gayle Degler: Well that's basically the crux of my concern. I mean obviously nobody wants to pay more taxes than
they have to but I think the fact that, if you look back I don't think there's been that many agricultural parcels that
have actually complained about their taxes, which is an indication that we are willing to pay our fair share. But when ,
a mistake has been made I think if a refund is due, I'm like anybody else, I would like to see my refund and until the
Council changes the law, which obviously you do have the power to do. Obviously I'm against the change but that's
another situation, but until the Council does change it, I think the past refund, the past mistake should be made '
corrected. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Berquist: We don't know that it's never been changed either do we? ,
Don Ashworth: No. The Council could very well have acted. It could have been in the form of a resolution. Quite '
frankly I had not seen that ordinance until I had asked Roger to go through this whole thing and we needed to I guess
bring that up current. That's when he came back and said no, this is in the form of an ordinance. We know you need
to change that.
Councilman Berquist: Am I going to find the original for this in my Chanhassen Code Book? ,
Roger Knutson: Yes.
'
Councilman Berquist: I will. Good.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you should.
'
Roger Knutson: Excuse me. I shouldn't say original. You'll find the codification. The codified portion which
happened, was it in '84 Don? There was an ordinance that preceded that codification but when it was codified, that
ordinance was...
'
Councilman Berquist: And that'84 codification still reads 75 %?
'
Roger Knutson: That's the date for the codification.
Councilman Berquist: One more item and I'll drop it. Does the ordinance provide the method by which it gets
reviewed every year? Does it speak to who reviews the, whether or not the rate has to be set? Does it speak to
,
identifying the individual properties?
Roger Knutson: It doesn't, it refers to a map. It doesn't say you have to review it every year. You have to redo it to
'
make changes. If you want to change the 75 %, you have to do, follow a process. And the process is laid out in the
Statute itself. Not the ordinance. Requiring a public hearing and...
Councilman Senn: And was supposed to be mapped each year just basically to identify the parcels included or not
'
included. That's the one answer the County did have. Currently 155 parcels.
8 1
I�
n
Ll
1
0
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf Really?
Councilman Senn: Yep.
Councilman Berquist: So conceivably all 155 parcels are affected in one measure or another?
Councilman Senn: Today, yes. I mean if you go back from this year, it's 155 right now. That number's been steadily
dropping each year.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. I'll move to table.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the final reading on an amendment to the
City Code, Chapter 2, Article III, Urban/Rural Service District, changing the benefit ratio from 75% to 90%
for parcels in the rural to urban service district. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
35,000 SOUARE FOOT BUILDING ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER THIRD
ADDITION, BUILDING MANAGEMENT GROUP.
Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing.
Todd Gerhardt: I think you said it. It's a request for industrial revenue bonds and we're here to solicit public input.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone here this evening wish to address this issue? If so, please step
forward and state your name and your address and position.
Audience: We're here with the firm. We have no statement to make other than...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Now to review the staff recommendation. Favorable review authorizing the sale of industrial
revenue bonds for Building Management Group. Is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #95 -106: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the resolution
authorizing the sale of Industrial Development Bonds for Building Management Group. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
E
1�
L
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995 '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: He's not? Okay.
10 1
AWARD OF BIDS: LYMAN BOULEVARD RECONSTRUC AND LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK
UTILITY PROJECT NO. 93-32B.
,
Dave Mitchell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I guess I couldn't have timed that any better tonight. One
minute. Basically, just to surmise Charles' report. We did get bids on Tuesday. Bids did come in approximately
12% higher than our... engineer's estimate. In talking with contractors after the bid, the primary reason for the extra
cost revolved around the jacking work in the neighborhood of the Al Klingelhutz farm which included a lot of
'
jacking in that area to preserve the existing homestead as it sits. The comments from the contractors that I heard
were things such as, that's a long ways to jack. We can do it but it's going to cost... the jacking that we've done of
this size in the last couple years has run approximately $400.00 a foot. The bids received on this were approximately
'
$700.00 a foot. The primary concern that I heard from contractors is that area right there. Around the barn and the
house. Protecting those existing structures were the reasons for those bids being as high as it was. As the report
states, the bids were very consistent across the board so ... therefore as Charles states and I state in my letter of
recommendation, I feel that the Council should go ahead and award the project as it was presented. The only change
,
I would make to Charles' report is we are still awaiting State Aid approval and also some permits to go
through... State Aid approval and the necessary permits to do this project.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Dave. Is there any questions?
Councilman Senn: Now it would be basically $305,000.00, how does that get covered? I mean if award of bids take
I assume, assessment notices have already gone out. That's all set so now, how does this gap get taken up?
Dave Mitchell: The assessment notices of the preliminary assessment has been set. As we go back and look at the
feasibility report, the $300,000.00 we're seeing in this bid is similar to, or it would be over the feasibility report
,
approximately that amount. The funds would come from a combination of the potential added assessments as well as
State Aid funds.
,
Councilman Senn: Do you know what that proportion is roughly? I mean more or less what I'm saying is, how big
are the assessments notices going to be over and above what people are already expecting?
Dave Mitchell: Yeah, I guess we're not, I don't see us looking at a 12% increase in assessments by any means.
'
There's also some contingencies that we typically throw into our bid packages. I would suspect the final construction
cost to be that 2.7 ... to, I don't want to say insure we're covered on these things but to make sure that we are covered
in the event that we have overages. We don't want to come in before the Council whether it's going to be $2.5
,
million and it ends up being $2.8 ... covered ourselves in that respect ... The other option that we're looking at also is
there's a couple of properties that we've proposed jacking on at this time. That may change the result of some ... TH
101 work that's proposed in the future...
'
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: How bid is the assessment roll? Is it worth, I mean I would assume that Al Klingelhutz
is paying for a good portion of this. Is it worth warning them that the bids are coming in that much higher? Is he the
'
predominant?
Dave Mitchell: No.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: He's not? Okay.
10 1
Ll
1l
1
I,
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Dave Mitchell: No. It really gets spread out among the.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So the roll is pretty big?
Dave Mitchell: It is huge. We've got Lundgren Brothers is involved with it in their proposed development south of
Lyman. John Klingelhutz development north of Lyman. The Rottlund development... Lakeview Hills apartments
there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. I'm just wondering if it would be worth it to write a short letter to the largest
properties on the roll and let them know that.
Dave Mitchell: I can certainly do that. I can go back to the office and work up what the changes are based on what
our bids received are.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You know I just don't want a line a mile long here assessment roll night saying this was
my estimate and.
Councilman Senn: If I'm hearing you right, you're saying between State Aid and the contingency, we're not going to
be anywhere near 12 %.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But even a 5% we hear.
Dave Mitchell: Anything's possible I guess but we can certainly...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: A short letter of warning just might be...
Councilman Berquist: Maybe I'm mixing up my projects but 8 weeks ago we approved the contract for surcharging
some land. Wasn't that part of this project?
Dave Mitchell: Yes it was.
Councilman Berquist: And that land, that cost was significantly under because of an abundance of material on the
old, on the new senior high site. What was the savings of that? The reason I bring it up is because we see this, I see
this and it says we've got a 12% overage in contract. With that surcharge.
Dave Mitchell: We were 40% under on that one. We're talking $100,000.00 project where we had a $70,000.00 bid
so we've got a $30,000.00.
Councilman Berquist: $30,000.00. Well that's 10% of your $300. It would be nice, and I don't know why from a, I
mean it doesn't seem as if we get a project, a total project recap. We get this stuff in part and parcel. Why is that?
Dave Mitchell: I guess this project was actually let in three separate contracts. One was approximately a year ago
for some watermain and sewer...I certainly could have put that together.
Councilman Berquist: A little window is real deceiving. I'd appreciate it if you would.
11
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anybody wishing to address this specific issue? And if so, please state your name
and address.
Don Jensen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Don Jensen with the Rottlund Company ... 2681 Long Lake Road.
We're very anxious that the project move forward as you have approved our project 4 weeks ago. The density of that
particular site was less than the guide plan and that which went into some of the planning for this project that's due to
be awarded tonight. We would presume that the consultants that the city has selected will look for additional cost
savings throughout the project, throughout the project's life which are... assessment roll as is. I understand the
premise that contingencies and potential other cost savings could make that number in that spread be less than what
might appear on the memo tonight. So we're here to speak in favor of the project moving forward. It certainly need
the utilities in order to provide the dwelling units ... pay off the assessments in the timeframe anticipated. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to Council. Do you have any other specific questions
Steve?
Councilman Berquist: No sir.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: None.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #95 -107: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the Lyman Boulevard/Lake
Riley Boulevard Reconstruction and Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32B be awarded to Richard
Knutson in the amount of $2,763,482.53. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
SITE PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW FOR A 48,800 SO. FT. EXPANSION TO THE STORAGE FREEZER
SHIPPING DOCK AND RECEIVING AREA, PILLSBURY BAKERIES, 1800 MCGLYNN DRIVE.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. As you indicated, this is an expansion for the
Pillsbury, expansion of storage freezer space, shipping dock and a receiving area. To get your oriented, this is
Audubon Road. There's two entrances off of Audubon. It'd be the freezer area here, receiving area, and the new
loading dock right here. As proposed, there should be no additional employees with this. It's just to manage internal
control of shipping and receiving so we're not anticipating any additional employees with this. One of the concerns
that the staff has raised and the applicants are certainly aware of this, is the stacking of trucks on Audubon Road and
that's why we came to this point in time where we're asking for a resolution to this. Providing additional shipping
area is helping resolve this. We also believe that in the interim there, because this will take through December, that
12
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
there is internal measures that they can do. This area right here will be a staging area for trucks to, actually a trailer
can actually park on site while they're to load instead of on Audubon Road. We believe that will resolve some of
' that issue. We also believe as the applicants will explain some of the other techniques that they will use to get the
trucks off of Audubon. The architecture itself will similarly match the existing building. It is in the Highway 5
overlay district so it will continue the use of the random ribbed tilt up concrete panels and the building height will be
varied. The applicants are providing additional trees and to provide screening for the loading dock, they will also be
providing additional lighting for the parking lot which must comply with the ordinance and then also no additional
signing is being proposed with this. At the Planning Commission meeting on October 4th, the Planning Commission
voted approval, although there was concern that even though this project won't be completed by December 1st, that
' we believe, and the Planning Commission recommended that they apply some of the proposes that they had
recommended for the staging area right now. And I believe the applicants will speak to that but there are some
techniques that they can use to provide that staging on site right now until that addition is completed. The Planning
Commission did recommend approval and the staff has recommended approval with the conditions in the staff
report.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? And if so, please come
' forward. State your name and your address and who you are representing.
Ric Moore: Good evening. I'm Ric Moore with Pillsbury Bakeries and Foodservice located here in Chanhassen.
' Speaking tonight, we wanted to address we had some issues that came forward from the community last week, and
I've also ... Mayor and Councilwoman Dockendorf and Kate on the trucks backing up on Audubon Road. And so
we've done an engineering firm, I've got some representatives of the firm with me tonight who made some changes in -
the initial design to allow more truck staging on our property. Right now we have 7 docks that trucks can wait on so
' if more than 7 trucks come, they end up waiting on Audubon Road. This design which is under approval tonight we
think we would have this in place by December 1st. We'd have 23 more on site staging places to give us a total of 30
places for trucks to wait. Effective December 1st. Then at the end of the project, in May of 1996, when the freezer
' and dock is complete, we'll have an additional 5 more docks giving us a total of 35 loading spots for trucks. So we
believe this will address the needs of the community. Get the trucks off of Audubon Road and onto our property.
Any other questions? I've got the engineering firm here to answer questions or I can answer questions. Thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. What can we do from now until December 1?
Ric Moore: Between now and December 1, starting October 22nd, we are going to schedule appointments for a
large portion of our business, which is buyer pick -ups and full truckload shipments. We've already got that design in
place and we've sent out the communications for our customers so that's another big improvement we believe. And
' I'll tell you, on Mondays and Fridays are busiest days. Today—we only had 2 trucks on Audubon. As the community
pointed out, lots of days we've had a lot more than that in the past. We've had up to 15 -20 trucks on Audubon so
we've already gotten some measures in place that are working and in addition to the ones we have in place now,
' starting October 22nd we'll be scheduling appointments which should smooth out the arrival of trucks. What hurts us
now is that 20 trucks show up at one time. You know obviously we can only get 7 at the dock and ... so between now
and December 1st we'll have the scheduled appointments. We'll continue with some of the moves we're making now.
We think that will keep almost all the trucks off Audubon and then as of December 1 st, we won't have an issue
' anymore.
I F
' 13
i
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
control over independent truckers but I'm in '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What, I know that you have limited p trying to
understand what the effect of no parking signs would be on Audubon right now because I'm at that point. And are
they, I'm trying to understand where they're coming from. Why they're sitting there for such a long period of time. I ,
mean it doesn't seem like they're queuing up. It seems like they're just waiting because they know they can get their
goods at 6:00 p.m. but they happen to be in town at noon so they're just going to sit there.
Ric Moore: There's a couple factors. One is they have to unload somewhere before they get to our place. So they're
on a fine time line so you never know when they're going to get there. Currently we don't have scheduled
appointments so we don't know when they're coming. A lot of the orders that we ship take 6 hours to pick and stage. '
We might have 143 different items. So our people have to stage these items and one of the reasons, another reason
we have the expansion project is we don't have enough room to stage a lot of orders.
Councilwoman Dockendorf So, excuse me. Are you saying that they may come pick up part of their load and then
have to wait for another part of their load?
Ric Moore: Possibly. They may come up to the dock and the load isn't picked yet because we don't know when ,
they're coming.
Councilwoman Dockendorf So what would the effect of no parking signs be?
Ric Moore: Right now it would be a problem. They'd have to go somewhere. We'd have to send them somewhere. '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Would it be their problem or your problem?
Ric Moore: Well it'd be our problem too because right now we have a problem that we have customers and trucking
firms both, as well as the community all are upset with the way we're loading, because we're not loading fast enough.
And you know carriers don't have to carry our loads, especially in this time of year. They can carry turkeys and '
things like that for Thanksgiving so we would have a lot tougher time getting trucks, which ... so that's why I
proposed, let us continue with what we're doing. We are making steps and I think if you measured the trucks that are
waiting on Audubon from now going forward, you're going to find a lot less than the community has seen June, July, ,
August. We have made some positive inroads and we'll continue doing that. The scheduled appointments are in 2
weeks. And December 1st, the day that's ... it may be faster than that. What we have to do is, this section here, we
have to expand the parking to allow, move employees that are parking here over here. As soon as that is done, we're
ready to go. We can stripe it in a day. So as soon as we get approval from the Council, and we're trying to beat the
freeze, the engineering firm will put that parking lot expansion and we'll start working on it tomorrow or whenever
we can. Get that done. Move the employees out of the way and then we'll spot trailers.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So even prior to December 1 it could be. ,
Ric Moore: Sure, it's possible. I just picked that date because I want to make sure we had enough time to get it done
but we have to beat the freeze so we're going to start working on the parking lot as soon as we get approval. As soon '
as the parking lot is done, the employees get moved out of the way and the trucks can park on site.
Councilman Senn: Your asphalt plants typically are closed by November 15th so I'm assuming you're going to have ,
it done before then.
Ric Moore: I sure hope so.
14 1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Councilman Senn: And I'm assuming you're going to have Class V in fairly soon. Coming up here now which
makes it usable even until you get the asphalt in, right?
Ric Moore: We will get into it as fast as we can. That's my intention. I mean if we can do it in a week, we'll do it in
a week. But our engineering firm wants a reasonable time.
Philip Kelly: The Class V, we can put the Class V down in the parking lot area but they're going to be working in
that area also to try to get ready for the asphalt so it would be best to leave the cars where they're at... I think we
could meet that schedule but I think...
Mayor Chmiel: Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday this week it's going to be sunny so you can...
Councilman Senn: ... scares me because if you get past November 15th, you're not going to get it done.
Ric Moore: I just picked a date. November 15th sounds good. I mean we're going to get working on it immediately
upon your approval. Our number one priority.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Is there a motion? Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I have a little bit of discussion. I know it's been frustrating for all sides. For Pillsbury,
for the Council and certainly for the people who drive that road. Present company included. I guess I don't want to,
I don't know how we can make it a condition of this approval but as a separate item I would like to instruct Public
Safety to at least put no parking signs on one side of the road. Probably the east side of the road. Let's see, what
would make more sense. Maybe the west side of the road because that's where we're getting.
Councilman Senn: That's where all the parking is.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yeah. So at least no parking signs on one side of the road to cut down on it somewhat.
The sight line problems.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I don't think that requires a motion but I'd certainly like the support of the Council in
directing Public Safety to do that.
Tom Christensen: May we say something?
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. Just state your name and your address please.
Tom Christensen: Tom and Carrie Christensen, 8681 Alisa Lane. You had talked about putting the stop, or not stop,
I'm sorry, no parking signs on the east side.
Mayor Chmiel: Then west.
Tom Christensen: Then west, okay. I would say both sides because both sides, I mean when you come off of TH 5
going towards the south, and you've got trucks sitting on the either side or coming off of Park Road, or Park Drive,
I'm sorry. You have a traffic hazard on both sides of the road. Because we own a business in Steve's building and
15
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995 ,
Councilman Senn: If a problem persists.
Ric Moore: I don't have an issue with that after November 15th.
Carrie Christensen: Worst case scenario, what if something happens and you don't get your parking lot done before ,
the asphalt plants close and you can't make your parking lot, then what? ...what happens?
Ric Moore: The engineering firm ... make sure that that happens. They'll have them park on the gravel or whatever.
Engineer. I stand to lose a lot of money if it doesn't get built. I can assure you that it's going to get done. Ric's put a
lot of pressure on us and we've got people out there now...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I would still encourage that we put no parking on the east side. At least one side.
Ric Moore: The east side would be probable with us because they line up, they come in on the west side. '
Councilman Senn: ...problem is getting in and out of the side roads. That's the side...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah but there's a lot of problems with trucks coming out of their parking lot as well,
not being able to see past the trucks parked on the west.
I�
16 1
'
we come down Park Road, or Park Drive is it? I get the two confused. Park Road, and we take a left to go down the
road and we've been almost clobbered I don't know how many times by trucks sitting there. Why, I mean put no
parking zones on both sides. Let them park on Coulter. What's wrong with that? There's nothing wrong. We'll
'
give them, you know a little bit of the benefit. Let them park on Coulter. Don't let them park on Audubon. I mean
it's get them off the road, because there's plenty of room there for the trucks to sit along Coulter Road there and get
them off of the busy street.
'
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would agree that that would be my first inclination to do that, and I've been asking for
that for the past several weeks. However, we're trying to reach a compromise. They are trying to work it out. Is
there room on Coulter to stage trucks? Or to park. Is there room on Coulter?
'
Ric Moore: The problem with Coulter, number one, I don't think... change it back out. The second thing is, during
construction we'll have construction traffic on the road. I'd like to compromise and say, we can move the date like
November 15th. You know if we don't have it done by November 15th, put no parking signs up. We don't have a
problem with no parking signs after we get the parking lot done, but if you put no parking up there now, the truck has
to go somewhere. I don't know where they'll go. They'll have to go somewhere. Along Highway 5 or ... November
15th. That will give us some extra incentive to get the parking done.
'
Tom Christensen: I guess what you're saying, if I'm hearing you right, you'll go no parking signs on both sides of the
street up to November 15th or after November 15th.
'
Councilwoman Dockendorf: After.
Tom Christensen: But we won't give it to you before then? Is that what you're saying? In other words, you'll give us
no parking signs on both sides of the street after November 15th?
Councilman Senn: If a problem persists.
Ric Moore: I don't have an issue with that after November 15th.
Carrie Christensen: Worst case scenario, what if something happens and you don't get your parking lot done before ,
the asphalt plants close and you can't make your parking lot, then what? ...what happens?
Ric Moore: The engineering firm ... make sure that that happens. They'll have them park on the gravel or whatever.
Engineer. I stand to lose a lot of money if it doesn't get built. I can assure you that it's going to get done. Ric's put a
lot of pressure on us and we've got people out there now...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I would still encourage that we put no parking on the east side. At least one side.
Ric Moore: The east side would be probable with us because they line up, they come in on the west side. '
Councilman Senn: ...problem is getting in and out of the side roads. That's the side...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah but there's a lot of problems with trucks coming out of their parking lot as well,
not being able to see past the trucks parked on the west.
I�
16 1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Councilman Mason: We can't shut them down either.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. No, that's my point. We need to compromise. It's certainly not our intention. You're
an excellent corporate citizen. I mean we appreciate the fact that you're in Chanhassen but we do have a problem
' here and we all recognize that.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that the time frame that they're talking is something that they can accomplish. The other
thing I keep looking at too of course is cost associated with each one of those signs.
' Councilman Senn: For 30 days.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. It's probably about, pretty close to anywhere from $80.00 to $100.00 per sign.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do we have temporary signs then?
' Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Mason: I mean that's what, about a month away.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess if they're shooting for where they're at, if they could really push as hard as they can, I think
we could get this accomplished and alleviate that parking on that street.
' Councilman Berquist: And October 22nd, a large part of the problem will disappear anyway simply because of
better planning on your part, right?
Ric Moore: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: And I do have concerns with the citizens as well because there are some safety factors and I know
those truckers do sometimes move without their big, you stop for me and if you don't, you're in trouble. And it does
' happen unfortunately so.
Councilwoman Dockendorf You have to to get on TH 5.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you're right.
Councilman Senn: How about if we basically move approval but have a revisit date, November 15th to make sure
' that everything is where it's supposed to be and if not, then we could take some actions at that...
Mayor Chmiel: That would be my.
' Councilman Mason: And maybe we can get some kind of progress report for the next Council meeting also, which
would be the 23rd.
Mayor Chmiel: If we could get information back, when you get back to Council stating where you're at and how
quickly you're moving along.
1 17
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Engineer: ...some of the landscape berms is there ... city inspectors so I guess we can present you the information...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think we're asking if you'd just furnish us where you're at.
Engineer: Not a problem.
Mayor Chmiel: And we would appreciate that.
Engineer: ...do that on any regular intervals ... or should we set a date so that I'm focusing...
Councilman Senn: The other thing that might help here Don is make sure it talks to Scott and Steve to make sure
that, maybe we can make a little exception here and try to expedite in terms of some of the inspection approvals. I
mean that can cut 5 days or more out of each little step in this thing so.
Mayor Chmiel: The other thing is, we do enjoy seeing your smiling faces here and you could come under Visitor
Presentation and just update us at that particular time too.
Engineer: What date is that?
Mayor Chmiel: It would be every 2 weeks.
Councilman Mason: Well it's the 23rd of October.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, it'd be the second and fourth Mondays of the month. If that would be acceptable. Good.
With that in mind, is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: Move approval of site plan amendment for Pillsbury Bakeries.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded.
Councilman Senn: And then we're going to have...
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. As we've indicated in discussion.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Site Plan #95 -17, Pillsbury
Bakeries and Foodservice expansion, as shown on the plans dated September 15, 1995, prepared by the
Steller Group, subject to the following conditions:
1. Revise Sheet C -1 to show 12 handicap spaces complying with MSBC 1340.
2. Parking on Audubon Road shall be eliminated and alternative truck stacking or parking areas shall be
accommodated in the parking lot on site. The applicant incorporate on -site semi - trailer truck parking and
staging area and shall revise the site plan accordingly.
I
iJ
A
n
I II
I
I
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants.
4. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs must be installed per Fire Prevention Policy #06 -1991. Copy enclosed.
5. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #07 -1991 Pre -Fire Plan. Copy enclosed.
6. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04 -1991 "Notes on Site Plans ". Copy
enclosed.
7. All disturbed areas as a result of the site grading with the exception of the building addition area should be
reseeded and mulched within two weeks after site grading is completed.
8. Install additional Type I erosion control fence along the north curbline of the southerly access drive off of
Audubon Road.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: We're going to move to item number 10, JMS. We moved them from Consent. Are they outside?
Kate Aanenson: I can check. I told them it'd probably be 8:30.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, maybe we'll just leave that one for right now and get back to it as soon as they are back here
in the Chambers. We'll move right along to item number 11 then and then come back to 10.
AUTHORIZE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. CITY HALL EXPANSION.
Don Ashworth: I asked Todd Christopherson to put together a new budget that would just be associated with two
items. Insuring that we have the property in the front for a future addition to the structure. And secondly, for the
public safety wing, including a new parking lot that would be associated with that wing. And I did provide the
upside figure as far as the budget. Todd has done that. It's on the back of your cover memo on this item. I sincerely
believe that by moving ahead with that public safety addition, that we can delay an addition to the front for a 3 to 5
year period. And in fact in kind of looking at this item ever since that time, I feel that when we do do that addition in
the front, it's going to be a much larger structure than what we've been looking at from before. And I've kind of used
the analogy that I think if we maybe would have moved ahead from before, we would have been in a position saying
gee whiz, we need another 30 or 50 feet to be added to this addition to the front and at that point in time you just
can't do it. So at least this alternative assures a future City Council that they can walk to some form of addition in the
front. That it has been planned out and how it will work and we will meet at least the space needs that currently
exist, at least administratively.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve. Any questions?
Councilman Berquist: Well now that I understand what the 30, 40 or 50 feet is, that was not even in the memo. That
wasn't really clear to me what it was that you were attempting to accomplish. Todd isn't here so I can't ask him about
the square footage costs. Christopherson. In going down the line items, this is his presentation right? This isn't
something.
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: 1. what? What's that? '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: 1.15.
Councilman Berquist: 1.15. 1
Don Ashworth: Well, in that figure you are doing some renovation of the existing structure. So you've got 6,000 '
square feet there. Todd wanted to see that higher but I continue to try to reassure him that I cannot see blowing up
any existing offices. So you've got a nice bank of offices on the east side of City Hall. There's no reason that those
need to be touched at all. You've got existing offices over in the public safety wing. There's no reason that those
20 '
u
,
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. We've got $110,000.00 worth of site improvements. I find that a little bit, storm
'
sewer, grading, landscaping, parking lot. Is that parking lot in parking lot as part of the, if you build a public safety
wing, that parking lot that's there disappears and that $110 is all of that? And the storm sewer and grading associated
with that phase?
'
Don Ashworth: It would take out the existing driveway that comes up. It would put a new curb cut off of Kerber
Boulevard. And it would then build a parking lot that would house about 50 to 60 vehicles. I think it would also
include bringing that roadway around or from the parking lot, bringing that back to connect over to this other parking
lot on the top.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, so that's about 20 more vehicles than is there now. Okay. So that would be a function
of that addition no matter what, is what you're telling me?
Don Ashworth: Correct. There's 32 existing stalls in the public safety lot. That's entirely filled. If we were to shift,
I'm just picking out a department, let's say engineering over in the public safety wing, that would take an additional 8
'
to 10 vehicles for just the employees that would be moved over there. So now you're up to a 40 plus bracket. I
would also like to see that house all of the existing administrative vehicles so that we can preserve spaces for the
library on this other side. So that would be an additional 10 and the customer parking, we were looking to a lot of
about 50 to 60 vehicles.
Councilman Berquist: I don't know what other items. The last Minutes we were talking about divorcing the two
items. The two issues. The two sites. And you, to me I look at this and there's a lot of mixture involved, especially
in the soft costs. This is hardly a segregated construction statement showing two phases of construction.
Don Ashworth: I know what I had said and you're absolutely correct. The other has been though, how are you going
to properly show that we are purchasing the land in front and insure that we have that for the future? So the only
intermingling of figures, as I can see it, is really the $750,000.00 for the three lots below and demolishing the old
bank building.
,
Councilman Berquist: So to put on the public safety wing we're looking at $1.25 million. $1.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: 1. what? What's that? '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: 1.15.
Councilman Berquist: 1.15. 1
Don Ashworth: Well, in that figure you are doing some renovation of the existing structure. So you've got 6,000 '
square feet there. Todd wanted to see that higher but I continue to try to reassure him that I cannot see blowing up
any existing offices. So you've got a nice bank of offices on the east side of City Hall. There's no reason that those
need to be touched at all. You've got existing offices over in the public safety wing. There's no reason that those
20 '
u
L
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
need to be touched at all. You do end up putting in an additional restroom over there. You've got to do something
as it deals with finance, which means that you're going to remove some walls in that whole section. But generally
we're not doing that much with this structure. It still is $120,000.00.
Councilman Senn: You started to get into that and then I think stopped.
Don Ashworth: That would be the existing City Hall space and the costs necessary to literally move everyone
around and, you do have areas where you're going to take and want to replace carpet, which you reasonably do
painting. You're going to have some additional furniture costs. Todd had felt that that figure was very low. The
$20.00 a square foot. If you look back at the previous one, that was higher than that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other? Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf. No.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess I truly wish Todd were here. I just don't, I have real problems with the numbers here. I
build up old restaurant spaces including all the equipment for $100.00 a square foot, which is the most expensive
construction that exists. You've got $105.00 for office space which normally you build out for $55.00 a square foot.
It's brick construction. I don't know. Basements cost $20.00 a square foot to build, not $35.00. 1 asked what 6,000
square feet because the only way you're going to get $20.00 a square foot on renovation is if you're doing existing
redo's on mechanical systems and plumbing. And normal redo on carpet and walls and paint, they can take down for
about $10.00 a square foot. I don't understand these numbers at all. They aren't making any sense to me in
relationship to what I'm used to seeing so I just am very uncomfortable with it. I had the same concern Steve did
because I thought we were going to segregate the two and they're not but I guess that's easy enough to not understand
what's what.
Don Ashworth: We have a work session Monday evening. If you'd like to have Todd attend, I'll be more than happy
to. I'd be more than happy to.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean the recommendation here is that ... concept plan which I'm somewhat confused over
because I thought we already did that and it's taken several times to do that. I thought we had a concept plan in place
that shows the public safety wing expansion.
Don Ashworth: We did a space needs analysis and that showed the total square footage associated with each
division type of thing. I did show you a concept plan that actually I had designed but.
Councilman Senn: Well, what were those three options that KKE were in showing us that one night? I thought they
were a product of KKE. Like Option 1, Option 2, Option 3. You know giving what we want to proceed with or not
proceed with.
21
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Don Ashworth: I don't recall. I'll look around and see but they, Steve Kirchman has prepared a site plan for how he
would see that public safety area laid out. But I know of nothing that KKE. KKE just stayed in the realm of how
many square feet. It went back and reviewed employees. Work spaces. What that came to as far as the total square
footage associated with each function. Then they measured each of the areas of City Hall and saying okay, this
function will lay out here. This will lay out there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. But didn't they also give us, like Mark said, three options of what the expansion could
look like? Who did that?
Councilman Berquist: A bird's eye view.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yeah.
Councilman Senn: The size of things. The positions of things. It did everything you need to do with a concept plan.
You know beyond that it seems to me we need to provide a lot more direction before we go to the next stage, which
is design and I guess I would like to really see a justification or rationale from Todd or whoever on these numbers
and how they're coming up with them and I'd like to understand, when you say 6,000 square feet of remodel, what we
are remodeling and to what extent we're remodeling and where, etc. I mean I'd like to see more specific definitions
so when we turn around and charge the architect to design something to the budget, you know we in fact know what
we're doing versus just kind of saying, here.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's just table this and have Todd in at our next work session this coming Monday to explain
some of these cost factors and address it at that time. So would there be a motion to table?
Councilman Berquist: So moved.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table plans and specifications on the City Hall
expansion. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
FOREST MEADOW JMS DEVELOPMENT, FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
AND FINAL READING OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM A2 TO RSF; AND
APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS,
PROJECT 95 -18.
Mayor Chmiel: Kate.
Kate Aanenson: I have nothing to say. We recommend approval of the plat as per the conditions in the staff report.
The applicants requested to pull it.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Okay, you're on.
22
1
u
I City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
' Jeff Schoenwetter: Good evening. My name is Jeff Schoenwetter and I'm with JMS Development Group. I'm here
tonight because I'm disappointed. I didn't plan to be here tonight and I had hoped that our approval as stated could
have been accomplished on the consent agenda. However, here in the eleventh hour there's some business issues that
remain unresolved, or certainly not resolved to our satisfaction. There needs to be an understanding formalized
between JMS and this Council. The deal that we contemplated is made up of several components here. This is a
' multi- faceted plat ... outlot and the park. These components were not ... priced but more importantly terms. Some of
those terms, we were to retain our fill for our residential lots. We were anticipating a much earlier approval than this
date in time and yet we were able through this deal that we had discussed with staff, anticipated being able to keep
our models and therefore keep our absorption budget. Three, we were to maintain significant input to the park
' design, including things such as name, amenity levels and most importantly the timing of the completion of that park.
I'm here tonight in the hope that we can maintain forward progress. Forward progress saves all of us money. Delays
cost us all money. Please understand that at the city staffs request, we went down the park path. The goal in doing
so was to facilitate an expeditious approval so that we could commence development this fall. That goal would have
equated to a presence in the Spring Preview of Homes. If that goal is absent, our motivation to continue this path
will cease, and the reason for that is that our delay in costs will continue to increase. The basic business deal has
changed. That has forced us off the consent agenda and to be here tonight to formalize an understanding and
hopefully yet seek an approval. You as a Council control my costs very directly. If my costs go up, my revenue for
my wholesale pricing of a sale also has to go up. I brought along three partners with me tonight that will make brief,
5 minute presentations. At any point during their presentations I invite you to ask them any questions you want and
I'll come back with a brief summary and we appreciate you hearing us tonight because we can't go forward per the
staff report. Dave Sebold, our Development Director will speak first talking as to exactly what has changed. What
is different than his expectation. Roger Anderson, our engineer with the firm, his understandings reached with staff.
And Gary Edson our legal counsel for some 10 years will summarize three options that will be your choice as to how
' we can reach resolution hopefully to proceed.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Mayor?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: May I ask a question first? Jeff, if I understand you, I've got two of your items. The
' amount of the fill and the design of the park. What was your first item that you take issue with?
Jeff Schoenwetter: Model homes. If we had been in there, we originally anticipated approval on this the second
' week around the 9th of August, which would have facilitated grading and fairly rationally anticipated blacktopping
by Halloween. Thank you.
Councilwoman Dockendorf Thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Maybe you could put those up next on each side of the podium so the camera can also pick that up.
' Dave Sebold: My name is Dave Sebold. I'm the Development Director with JMS Homes. Just to expand on Jeffs
issues as it relates to the city's staff report. Our original plan, and the current plan you see before you, contemplated
grading the park area with limited grading with this dotted line. We need to grade that area because we need
additional fill for our lots up in these areas and the amount of 13,000 to 15,000 cubic yards. When you're
' negotiating with the city staff, the concept plan that's presently before you, was constantly talked about and having an
open playfield area. A flat area for pick -up football games and soccer or whatever, to be in this area right here. We
have always, in our concept felt that we would take the fill as part of the outlot and balance our site. As of this week,
0
23
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Steve. '
Councilman Berquist: I'm just curious as to when this discrepancy came to the floor. In reading over the documents
that were provided with the preliminary plat, Park and Rec conditions item A is that it be platted as an outlot A and
the general configuration shown on the proposed plat. Now the proposed plat, and I haven't studied this terribly '
much but it appears to read very little grading. Am I correct here?
Dave Sebold: No. We always contemplated that this area would be graded. I think our engineer can speak to that '
too probably better than I. We were always contemplating that we needed fill from that area.
Councilman Berquist: Uncut, what's the elevation of the top of this knoll?
Dave Sebold: The elevation is 9981 believe. Yes, 998.
I
24 1
'
I believe Wednesday when we heard from the Park Department and today got the staff report, the recommendation
was to delete that area out of our plat approval and grading plan. That will eliminate 13,000 yards of fill that we
need on our site. We looked at the overall grading and our site is really controlled by sewer access from the
Lundgren property to the north. The depth of that sewer is a set depth that we cannot change and that controls the
'
depth of the cul -de -sac. So there's no way that we can adjust the grading on the site down. We need to either get the
fill out of that park area, which was always contemplated in the plan, or we have to acquire it on site then if possible.
If we can... The additional model, which really has to do from the sense of time that we were planning on having
'
two models at the entry of the development. One across from the other. We were clear in our staff negotiations that
because of our delays in timing we are going to bring on an additional builder in the development. We just feel that
the absorption rate and the timing have to be increased because of...so we require two models to increase sales.
'
We'll provide, and we agreed with staff that we'll provide any temporary Class V material for emergency vehicle
access to the models, and there would not be any homeowner occupancy until the utilities were hooked up and the
street was blacktopped. Those two issues were just unilaterally deleted in the staff report. What I had over here is
today we received a report from a consultant to the city, by the way who appears to have prepared the original
concept plan. What we've done with this drawing is really just taking a cross section through the park and the
development, in two areas. The lower cross section runs from Galpin pretty much straight across the knoll area
where we're getting most of the fill. As you can see that this is Galpin Road here, that elevation. That's basically this
'
property line right here. The outlot and our lot property line is approximately right here. So it'd be this line right in
here. And then this would be the basement floor elevations pads and then the upper pads for the lot. The blue area is
the cut area. The orange area is the fill area. The grade for the park will not be down in a hole at all. It's constantly
rising our proposed grade from Galpin up to our property line in that location. This is a cut on the other side of the
run right through here. And it shows that our cut area up in this area is a little shallower. Again, the grade from
Galpin to our property line is a constant upgrade. There's no, the park will not be in a hole. We are not removing
any trees from the park area. The outlot area. We feel we presented a good ... that works and will be a good park. If
'
the city chooses to grade that area further or add some fill, that's fine. We'll work it in. If we lose that fill, it's going
to make our project economically unfeasible. Now we have three other minor issues and I think that we can handle
at staff s level. And those are we will be wanting to adjust the width of this lot... there's plenty of room on a lot
further down in the development to take it out of there. So there will have to be some adjustments to David
'
Stockdale's entrance to accommodate his driveway and the park and we'll need to provide a sewer easement through
the parkland to Dave's sewer to his house. Those things can be handled at the staff level... In general the engineering
and the planning staff has been very helpful on the development. Where we've gotten hung up here is really with the
Park Department so...
Mayor Chmiel: Steve. '
Councilman Berquist: I'm just curious as to when this discrepancy came to the floor. In reading over the documents
that were provided with the preliminary plat, Park and Rec conditions item A is that it be platted as an outlot A and
the general configuration shown on the proposed plat. Now the proposed plat, and I haven't studied this terribly '
much but it appears to read very little grading. Am I correct here?
Dave Sebold: No. We always contemplated that this area would be graded. I think our engineer can speak to that '
too probably better than I. We were always contemplating that we needed fill from that area.
Councilman Berquist: Uncut, what's the elevation of the top of this knoll?
Dave Sebold: The elevation is 9981 believe. Yes, 998.
I
24 1
I City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
' Councilman Berquist: This concept plan that you just handed out, the top elevation there is 990.
Dave Sebold: I cannot, just looking at it, they show a grade there of 990. I don't know if that's the existing, what
they show on the existing grade there.
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, it comes across on the other side of the berm though. Does it come all the way across
there?
Dave Sebold: This was a concept plan that was done for the city and I can refer the Project No. 9255, October,
' 1993. This was provided to us by city staff ...and we were told to use it as a guide for the development of that park
area... This is a 6 acre, appears to me ... 6 acre park. During all of our negotiations we were told that that play area
was going to be incorporated into the development of the park.
' Councilman Berquist: Okay. So initially you were told to pay attention to this, if I'm hearing you correctly, which
obviously would include pay attention to elevations but.
Dave Sebold: Create a flat area for soccer and pick -up games. I think we've pretty much shown that... The knoll
was an issue that came up in my review of this...
7
7
C
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Was that addressed anywhere? Was the 15,000 yards of fill addressed anywhere
within the development agreement.
Dave Sebold: There is no development agreement.
Councilman Berquist: Or within the preliminary plat. Is there any mention at all that we're going to bring in or we're
going to.
Kate Aanenson: There's a development agreement.
Councilman Senn: Let me understand now. When you say knoll, are you talking about the berms?
Dave Sebold: No. I don't know if you can really read, or pick it up here with the site in general climbs from Galpin
and then up. In this area right here there's a little knoll. It climbs up about 5 -6 feet at a time. And that's what we're
looking at. The majority of fill coming off of that, correct?
Councilman Senn: You're talking about the we leave most of the grade where it is and just removing that one little
hill out there?
Dave Sebold: Taking that knoll out of here and yeah, that's where most of the fill is coming out of. Our limits of
grading are right pretty much here and we don't go into the trees.
Councilman Senn: Well if your limits of grading are going way up there, that's way beyond where you're talking
about this knoll. I'm trying to understand, what are you talking about in terms of the area you're going to grade?
Roger Anderson: Mayor and City Council, I'm Roger Anderson: I'm the Civil Engineer on the project and we've
done quite a bit of the background. I can answer specific questions about the area that would be proposed to be
graded. There is a knoll, as Dave mentioned here but the area approximately 200 x 300 feet would be graded to a
25
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
configuration that would allow the grading to take place at approximately 1% grade across the open field area. A
swale is proposed to direct that water to the temporary storm water management plan that we have shown on the
drawings. In this area, long range draining for this particular site is going to be handled by one of the regional
ponding facilities that will be constructed at a future date. When that happens that pond will no longer be necessary
Councilman Senn: Let's go beyond the word grading. Now let's talk cutting. How much cutting are you going to
do?
Roger Anderson: I believe the largest cut there would be about 8 feet. 7 feet on the highest part of that knoll.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so other than that you're not going to be really changing the elevation other than the top
part of that knoll?
Roger Anderson: Correct. When we do grading there, we'll leave the site in a configuration that would be suitable
for the sizing...
Councilman Senn: ...elevation, you're leaving the elevations pretty much as they are now with the you know.
Roger Anderson: Close to what they are now. The earth work process is a cut and fill one. Not just I cut one.
Councilman Senn: So it will be perfectly level out there?
Roger Anderson: Right. And the intent there is to, well that knob would be taken down. We'd also be reworking
some of the earth work in the immediate vicinity to prepare that area as a reasonably flat play field area to be utilized
for the field games that were anticipated.
Councilman Senn: See that's what I'm trying to really get a handle on because I'm hearing two different things.
From staff I'm hearing that you're going to effectively change the grades of that entire area and bring it down, and
that's not what I'm hearing you say here. I'm hearing you say you're simply going to cut off the top of the knoll and
keep the rest of the elevations basically where they are, except granted, they'd be some infilling because everything's
not perfectly level. Now I'm trying to establish, so which is it?
Roger Anderson: Right now there's a berm here created by the preparation of the Stockdale farm. This entire area
would require some grading. Because that area is approximately well 250 x 300 feet. In some areas that could be
fill. In some areas it could be cut but when our project is completed, it will be the equivalent of approximately a
football field in size and it would be suitable for field games. And that largest cut is approximately 7 feet which
would be the top of the knob taken down to the finished grade. But in other areas the difference in elevation is going
to be a matter of a foot or two.
Councilman Senn: I'm confused.
Councilman Mason: Me too.
Councilman Senn: ...talked to Todd and Todd made it sound like the level of this whole thing was going down so
much that it was not usable for park purposes. Now if this is in effect what's being done, I don't see a problem. I
mean the knoll has to come down to make it into the level area we want it. I'm sorry, I'm real confused if this is the
mayor issue.
26
1
i
0
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Roger Anderson: That would be our position. Our intent all along was to utilize that material but leave behind a
suitable area that could be incorporated directly into the park.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Can I give some background. Let's back up a little bit further here. If you recall when they came
back for final plat they said that they were, had unanticipated fees that made this project unfeasible based on what
Todd had recommended at that time. If you recall that discussion? Council directed staff to work with the
applicants to see if there was a way we could get closer, because they said that the project was undoable at that time.
Okay. Staff worked with them to see what we could do as far as park and Dave Hempel spent a lot of time.
Actually redesigned the plat and came up with an additional lot, which we felt added some value to, to try to get
those numbers closer. Again Todd's been negotiating trying to figure out what the fees were. Through that process
they wanted a further refinement on what the park should be. Unfortunately we don't have an engineer here to
counter a lot of these discussions. Again it's, that's their representation. I'm not going to comment. I'm not qualified
to comment on that but I think you have to keep in mind that Todd and Dave did look at it and it was, even though
they got the staff report on the park design, it is in Dave's report that there is not concurrence on the grading. That
has been known for a while. That didn't happen at the eleventh hour. Those have been part of the negotiations since
the plat. What didn't happen until the end is that Todd did not get from the consultant a further refinement of the
design. There's two options in here that were presented to you. And those were, based on.actually walking the site.
Again what they felt would be appropriate. Part of the negotiations with the park fees were they're recouping some
of their costs to spread the dirt and then we're stuck with a different site as part of the price. So we're saying if we
have to go back in and bring in fill, that's a cost to us so that's something that I think Todd felt should be considered
in the price of land. I'm uncomfortable at this point, when there's not an engineer or Todd's not here, to try to resolve
a lot of these issues when again you're just hearing that representation. Unfortunately we can't duplicate what Todd's
intent were on a lot of that but my understanding is that this is what the staff s recommendation and Todd's comments
to me, if there's something different, he'd like to bring those back to the Park and Recreation Commission but that
was, this is what they proposed for that site. Yes, there still is a play area on there. And the intent is to have the same
components and a little bit different configuration. But it's his opinion that changing the grade we believe is more
significant than is being represented here affects their park plan.
Roger Anderson: Might I interject that these are our red line drawings from the city's engineering staff, and we
submitted these I believe on the 28th and we got real prompt turn around time. Dave Hempel got these back to us
very quickly so we could take a look at the changes. We've made the changes recommended in this plan and they'll
be submitted to the city tomorrow. This will be our final construction document. The grades in here, even as
marked up by the engineering department, are exactly what is represented in this drawing. This we got back the fast
of October essentially. That's two weeks ago. We've been in this process since May I believe and we've gone
through several generations of changes to make our plat work as well as we can with the park and up until 2 weeks
ago, our expectations, or at least based on the project review has been that we would grade the site and utilize the dirt
and we'd move ahead. And now, just within the last few days a brand new scenario has been presented to us that
turns all the things, many of the things we've done before around completely so. We're a little bit at a loss as to just
how these changes have come to play.
Councilman Berquist: Are you saying that the red lines from the engineering staff contradict what the Park
Department is telling you? Are you telling me that the red line drawings that you have from engineering fly in the
face of what you're hearing as far as grading from Park and Rec?
27
l
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995 ,
Roger Anderson: I'm saying that the, we just received that today and I haven't compared it to this one. But as of two '
weeks ago we were proceeding with the understanding that we were going to grade the site. We presented grades to
show how that would work. The engineering staff commended on those and with very minor changes gave them '
back to us and said, make these changes. This is the way the grading should proceed. And this has been a very
recent turn around in that scenario on that. Quite frankly we're a little bit at a loss. We can't incorporate them in
these plans. We've had many, many meetings with the city. The city has in fact asked us to incorporate the concept '
plan that was dated October '93 into our plans and that is shown. This is a very late addition to that situation.
Councilman Senn: I want to stick with the engineer for a minute. Have you seen this? This is what, a concept?
Roger Anderson: ...came today ... copy that we got late today it was faxed. '
Councilman Senn: Between Alternate #2 here, the grades seem to be much more severe than what they're even ,
proposing.
Kate Aanenson: Well I don't think, I think we need to have somebody from the engineering staff here. Again, you
have to realize that there's a negotiations...
'
Councilman Berquist: He's also saying he wants 15,000 yards and this worse case is only 6,200.
Councilman Senn: Well but that's what I'm saying. Nothing's jiving. I mean I'm hearing you say you want 15,000
'
but I look at their own plan and they're not going to get 15,000. I look at this and this is even more severe than what
they're telling me and it's only, according to this, 6,000. You know I mean, like I say nothing's coming together.
'
Jeff Schoenwetter: If I can answer two points that were incorrectly stated so that there's no misunderstanding and
then I would ask that Roger be allowed to complete his presentation of the plan because he hasn't been able to make
the points that he planned to make. Then we'll finish our presentation. We'd appreciate that. Two things. The
grading issue wasn't at all how the grading plan should be built. That wasn't the issue. The grading plan was who
'
should pay for the grading of the park. That item in the staff report has been deleted. That was the issue. It wasn't a
question of quantities or cut and fill. The grading plan that Roger had that was red lined and returned by city
staff ..to make those changes, we're perfectly happy if that's the plan that's approved. What we're completely
'
unhappy about is in the last 4, in the last 3 business days being told we can't do any grading on our outlot. That's
total news and the grading plan that is red lined, yields us the fill off that site that we need and that was our
understanding that that was the approved plan, red lined and given back to us so we assumed we were in great shape
until Wednesday of last week when suddenly we were told don't touch the outlot. So the grading issue again wasn't a
'
question of cut and fill or highs and lows. It was who's going to pay to grade the park. And I feel Roger should be
able to finish his presentation and it's my opinion that the parks department is the one that came into this and changed
the agenda at the eleventh hour. Not engineering and not planning who have been super cooperative and helped us
'
when they decided to extend the street to the south. That yielded us a lot loss. They're the ones that came back to us
with the idea of how to have no lot loss so that's been a positive experience.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Jeff. Michael.
,
Councilman Mason: You know go ahead. I guess my comment is, you know go ahead and give whatever
presentations you want but I can't imagine we're going to be voting on anything tonight without talking with Park and
'
Rec and Engineering.
28 1
I City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
I Councilman Senn: We'll have to sit through it again because we're going to need both.
' Councilman Mason: Yeah, I just yeah. I think anything you say tonight you're going to have to say again anyway. I
mean I think that's kind of bottom line here because I'm certainly, there's too much out here that needs clearing up. I
mean I'd move to table it but. I'm certainly not opposed to listening tonight but it's all going to need to get repeated
again.
Councilman Senn: Our staffs going to need to hear what you're saying and we want to hear both parts of it together.
' Todd Gerhardt: ...Todd comment and he was concerned, last Wednesday when they had the meeting he came in and
expressed concern and JMS came in and stated that we're going to take dirt off your site that we need on our site and
' oh yeah, by the way, we're going to charge you for taking that ... and grading your site for a park. And Todd said, wait
a minute here. You know I'm not aware of any of this so that's where Todd's position was on this.
Kate Aanenson: It's new information to us too so.
Todd Gerhardt: That's where the two need to get together and come to terms. And Todd was working on a plan and
trying to come up with an estimate of how much it would cost for him to grade it and what the benefits ... his site
going over to the JMS site would be and...
Mayor Clu el: Okay. I guess that's probably where this is all at. Is there something you'd like to say?
' Gary Edson: If I could Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'm Gary Edson. I'm an attorney with... representing
JMS and I'd like to, if I could just have a few minutes, summarize what I think are the issues here and propose a
couple alternatives and that would get us all where I think we need to be. You know we're here essentially to
'
confirm what we understand to be the original agreement and there are three central features to that agreement. One
was the developer would have the right to remove up to 15,000 cubic yards of fill from the outlot. Second ... the
developer is entitled to put two model homes up at a fall start. And the third is that the developer would sell the
outlot for $26,000.00 per acre to the city. Now I've heard engineer...on those residential lots. It's essential. And city
' staff expressed to us their interest in having a flat play area in the location of the outlot where the house is removed
so it was a win/win and that was the essential basis for the agreement we thought existed all along. We would not
have reached agreement to sell the outlot for $26,000.00 an acre without the right to remove that fill. We're here to
' get an approval in a manner that is consistent with that agreement that will leave us in the same position that we
would have been in if that original agreement was being performed. It seems to me that there are three alternatives
that we can look at to get us there tonight, and we'd ask that you consider it and choose one... One would be to
approve this plat with the condition that would permit the developer to remove up to 13,000 cubic yards of fill
' and... developers sell the outlot to the city at a price equal to $26,000.00 per acre. That is in essence what we thought
our agreement was. The second alternative is to approve the plat with the condition that would prohibit the
developer from removing any fill from the outlot and require the developer to sell the outlot to the city at a purchase
' price equal to the sum of $26,000.00 per acre plus the cost of...fill from off site. That would put the developer in a
position he would have been in if he had been ... and give the city the existing topography on the site, on the outlot.
Their alternative is to approve the plat with the direction that the outlot be condemned and let the value of that outlot
be determined by a condemnation commission. You know frankly you can ask Mr. Knutson but any condition that
' requires a development to sell property to the city under terms and conditions that the developer doesn't agree to is a
condemnation. And I have a couple observations on condemnations. One is primarily in a condemnation the city's
going to have uncertainty on valuation. This parcel's 5 acres and the price of $26,000.00 per acre is a total price of
29
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
$130,000.00. You can accommodate about 10 lots, maybe 11 so that price is $13,000.00 a lot, maybe less. We
think that's an exceedingly good price. This is a bargain for the city and I mean reasonable people can differ on
value but for example one of the comparables is the plat that we were recently involved with and you guys probably
have some familiarity with. The Tower Heights plat, that's comparable property. Comparable size. That actually
was sold for 3 times this amount. This is a very favorable price and tonight we're at least... The other observation
about condemnation is, the developer will be entitled to compensation not only for the market value of the property
but also for the value of the fill... I guess so those are the three alternatives we have outlined and I think you're in a
position to make that decision tonight. If we delay it further, if you table it, put it off for several weeks, the park
alternative is one that's no longer attractive. There's an opportunity here to buy a park at an exceedingly cheap price
but we need to make progress... The condemnation of the outlot is fine too. We're very comfortable with that... The
three points I just want to highlight in closing is the original agreement would ... the city to acquire that park in a very
reasonable price. The City's park department now wants to change the deal and not allow us to remove fill. That's a
substantial economic detriment. It changes the deal from our discussions significantly. We're willing to go forward
but we want to be in the same position we would have been if the original agreement... There's a couple of side
points I just want to mention in closing regardless of which alternative we come across tonight. We understand... sale
of the parkland and understand that there will be a closing within several days of final plat approval... That there will
be no ... and that the development of the park will be completed sometime in mid -1996. With that I'd turn it over to
Jeff for a few closing remarks.
Councilman Mason: Well no, you know now wait a minute. Well this is going to get tabled one way or another
tonight anyway. I believe I stated that a few minutes ago. I mean even with Todd here, I've got to hear from our
City Engineer and I understand the predicament you're in but we have so much mixed information in front of us, I
can't believe you would actually want us to make a decision based on this myriad of stuff that's going on right now.
I mean we have a responsibility to do what's right for everybody here and we're hearing your side of it and I
understand that but we don't, our City Engineer isn't here to comment on what you folks are saying or anything.
That's my call but if I'm in the minority, so be it.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well I find it really frustrating. You were here 2 or 4 weeks ago and we haven't gotten
anywhere or, I don't know what's going on with negotiations with staff but it seems that the two are either not
communicating or you're coming out with completely different conclusions. What's going on, I guess is my
question? You know. I don't want to debate this in a public forum. I mean this is stuff that needs to be worked out
at the staff level and I guess I'm real frustrated with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I concur basically with that position. In fact that was going to be the recommendation I was
going to make as well because I don't think this is decision making time frame right now without having staff s basic
background information and we hear hearsay as to one to the other and I just am not comfortable with it. Mark?
Councilman Senn: I had a few questions on your presentation. Approximately ten times you referenced the original
agreement. What original agreement are we talking about? To me that clears up a lot if somebody can put an
agreement in front of us. An agreement or memorandums going back and forth saying here's what agreed.
Gary Edson: There is no agreement. There's no purchase agreement. The city has no right...
Councilman Senn: There's no memorandum? There's no progress? There's no nothing?
30
fl
I
I�
f]
J
P-j
u
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Gary Edson: No. There's a grading plan, a concept plan. There's been submittals that we've had as late as
September 28th ... grading plan...
Councilman Senn: I understand. I'm just asking.
Gary Edson: No, no. There's no written agreement. Our understanding was those... development.
Councilman Senn: Okay... The other thing you said was, it's not an issue of who's going to pay for the fill, it's
whether the fill's going to be removed or not. I want to make sure that's clear because I've heard a couple different
things out of your side tonight. The issue is whether the fill is going to be removed or not. Not the quantity. Who's
going to pay for it.
Gary Edson: Well, if I said that maybe I misspoke. I mean the cost of the fill is the essential issue.
Councilman Senn: But the cost of moving the fill is not at issue?
Gary Edson: No. No, no. That's not.
Councilman Senn: Who's going to pay for moving the fill is not at issue.
Gary Edson: No. Our understanding is was, we would be able to take it and move it at our cost.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Gary Edson: That was our cost.
Kate Aanenson: I don't think that was completely answered by Todd though. I think you have to listen.
Councilman Berquist: That flies exactly in opposite of what you said.
Kate Aanenson: Right, that's what I'm saying.
Councilman Senn: I understand. That's why...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Berquist: Let's try and figure that out...
Mayor Chmiel: If you feel there's some specifics that are entailed in here that are not correct and yet we don't have
all the basic information back and Todd is here. Maybe we can go back to Mr. Hoffman before we get to that
particular point. Do you have any additional feed that you can put in from what the memorandum has done to the
discussions that we've had here this evening in relationship to the removal of those 15,000 cubic yards. Can you add
anything more to that?
Todd Hoffman: Additional information based on my memo that I sent this afternoon?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
31
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Todd Hoffman: Well I can respond to questions but.
Mayor Chmiel: Some of the discussions that have been had here, it appears from what they're saying that there's not
going to be a depressed site and not be like a bowl once they even remove the 15,000 cubic yards.
Todd Hoffman: And that's simply not the information that we concluded. If you take a site which is, has the
physical limitations, it's only so hard to ... based on number one, an optimum plan for a city park... And then a more
aggressive cut where we have to try to get closer to what the applicants desire with the 6,200 cubic yards of cut. But
again, that's not optimal for the city's interest. We're simply here to represent you. Why would the city purchase a
piece of ground and then damage it's interest, part of it's interest on a piece of property? A conversation to ... this
afternoon from ... those sketch plans was that the 15,000 cubic yards of material is taken out of there, that's
approximately 1,500 loads of material removed from that small site. We will be in a depression. There's no doubt
about that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: Could we ask Gary to come back up here? What I'm trying to get at is you showed us a grading
plan. The grading plan you have showed us shows less severe grading than his Option #2 which brings out 6,000
yards of fill. Now will somebody please tell me how his Option #2 can show 6,000 yards of fill and you want 15,000
off the site and you're showing me finished elevations that are about what he is showing me taking out 6,000. Where
are we going wrong?
Roger Anderson: We just received this drawing today and I really didn't receive it so I haven't made the comparison
between the two drawings. Earth work is not a precise process and there are many factors that come into play.
There needs to be room for a little bit of adjustment on this but generally we can say we need 13,000 yards. It's
available here and we can leave that site in a good usable condition.
Councilman Senn: I want finished elevations and if what you're showing me on finished elevations is true, that's
where my confusion's coming in.
Roger Anderson: I can take a look at the red line. The one we got back from the engineer. He's looking at a 92 and
a 93 elevation through there. The top of that knob was at 986 so that's approximately 5 feet difference but you have
to remember the site is not smooth and graded right now. It's a rolling, there's some topography there on that site.
So when we come in the amount of cut areas throughout the site, the amount of top soil varies throughout the site and
to quantify that takes a good deal of calculations on it ... necessary that we sit down and calculate it out. That's what
we do on the entire thing. So for me to capsulize an answer is tough. We feel that what we've shown there will
generate the approximate fill that we need. And apparently the park plans differ from that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But to be 9,000 yards off. I just don't understand.
Roger Anderson: That's a substantial amount and...
Jeff Schoenwetter: The city reviewed our plan that they red lined and sent us back and we're okay with that.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand that. The problem is ... What are, I'm just curious, what—what's important to
you? Trying to get model homes built.
32
L
1
L
C
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Jeff Schoenwetter: I'm going to close with Dave Stockdale.
Councilman Senn: No, no, just tell me what's important please.
Jeff Schoenwetter: And I'm not going to go on paying Roger to redraw plans. What's important to me is to get a plat
approval tonight so I can get two model foundations in the ground before the frost comes. And that's all that's ever
been important here.
Councilman Senn: And you need to move the fill to do that?
Jeff Schoenwetter: No. No, I can move the fill next week or next month or next year. But I need an approval to get
the two permits to get in the ground so I can have a house done in February, two homes to have in the Spring
Preview and it's the end of October. I can't come back in November and still expect your staff to review a building
permit and issue it by the end of November, or the 15th. I won't have a house done in February. We anticipated
approval on this in early August and I feel to hear about this 2 to 3 business days ago, I don't know what agenda
Todd Hoffinan's working on but we've got a red lined grading plan back from the engineering staff that we
anticipated was a green light to go. I paid Roger Anderson to redraw the plan to conform with it. And now I hear
no, that isn't what we want to do. Well I don't want to do it either. I'm here tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Jeff, Jeff, let me just. Settle down a little bit. You're getting just a little bit excited and I can
understand that. But I think really where we're going with this whole thing, what we really should come up with a
conclusion is one, get those elevations. Number one. Number two, how many trees are going to be removed from
the site to see, and you're saying none. Then I'd like to also see what the mass grading would be of the entirety.
Councilman Senn: But it seems to me Don that the only issues of mass grading as it relates to the park site. Okay.
And I'm just, I'm trying to think through something here. I mean again, I appreciate a little bit the position they're in
with the time of the year.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh yeah, and I understand that too.
Councilman Senn: It seems to me we could go ahead and approve the plat but carve out the section relating to the
park as an issue that still needs to be resolved because if they don't need the fill from there to go ahead with the rest
and do the models, it seems to me that gives staff and them time to get back and work out that issue and it seems to
me nobody is handicapping each other one way or another because ultimately staff can simply move to
condemnation if that's what we've got to do.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. My only concern there of course is the alternative is the condemnation is the $26,000.00 that
we're paying and then if in the event that that doesn't move, and they're saying we have to bring in dirt to provide
them so they can do what they need to do on site, bring it back up to their grade.
Councilman Senn: Well I'm not as confident as they are that they'd win on that issue of the fill but I've seen a lot of
condemnations that went exactly the opposite way too.
Mayor Chmiel: Well sure. I don't feel uncomfortable...
33
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Councilman Senn: I'm just saying that's an issue that I think can be resolved independently but we could still let
them get started and go ahead without hurting ourselves. Or I don't think handicapping ourselves in any way, unless
Roger wants to...
Mayor Chmiel: Well I don't know where our leverage would be. Roger.
Roger Knutson: Maybe I can ask a question. If the grades on your grading plan don't yield 15,000 cubic yards, are
you going to change the elevations on your grading plan? Ignore them so to speak to get 15,000 cubic yards? Are
you going to go until you've got 15,000 cubic yards or are you going to stop when the elevations are on the grading?
Roger Anderson: Based on the earth work involved, we could take less than that or in that range. Because of soil
behavior we can't predict that number precisely so it could well be 12,000 yards or whatever but we would like the
site to balance because that is the best we can do with it.
Roger Knutson: Are you going, to make myself clear. When you hit the elevations on your grading plan, are you
going to stop grading if you don't have the dirt you need?
Roger Anderson: We'll grade to these elevations that we've shown.
Roger Knutson: That's on the grading plan that Dave Hempel has approved?
Roger Anderson: Yes. And that's what we've tried to...
Roger Knutson: So if you don't get 15,000 cubic yards, you're done?
Gary Edson: We'll have to find it someplace else. We're trying to move this forward. That's been our agenda all
along.
Councilman Senn: They have an approved grading plan by Hempel.
Kate Aanenson: No. You're approving the grading plan tonight. That was the revisions. Again you're missing
some. Dave sent it back but Todd still was negotiating trying to resolve some of these issues. There's another issue
too about the two permits, if you look in the staff report, the model homes. There was a recommendation for one so
if you go with two, that would be a change from what was in there. Because we normally only recommend one
permit and they wanted the two.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I go back to what Mark said. Is there somehow that we can move ahead with the
preliminary or whatever we've got here, final and still keep the issue of the outlot undecided or open? I mean is there
any way we can do that?
Mayor Chmiel: Somehow we're still going to make commitments.
Roger Knutson: I don't see why not.
Councilman Mason: You don't see why we can't separate the two?
34
I City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
t Councilman Senn: No. He can't remove any fill from this thing in the meantime. I mean that's what we're saying.
We're going to leave that alone until it's resolved.
' Roger Knutson: Unless that's the first thing he has to do.
Councilman Senn: Well but he just told me he doesn't need to do that. He said a year from now he said so that's
what I'm saying. Let him get going on the model homes or whatever so they can at least somewhat come closer to a
time line for spring. I don't think we're trying to cause financial harm and turn around and make it even tougher to
negotiate. It seems to me reasonableness here can carry it forward but leave the park issue to be resolved.
' Roger Knutson: There's also a fourth option of not acquiring it if you don't like the price.
' Councilman Senn: That's right but, all those options still exist under what I'm suggesting. It just means we have to
look closely at the options relating solely to the park and either work them out or go after them or forget it.
Councilman Mason: I think that makes a certain amount of sense.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure it does.
Councilman Senn: Well, I'll move that then.
Mayor Chmiel: Put it into words again.
Councilman Senn: Okay. I would move that we, I would move approval of the final plat and the - development
contract on the basis that the park, or the outlot. How should we refer to it? The outlot property. Okay, so the outlot
property is left alone and left an unresolved issue to be worked out in the next 4 weeks let's say with the staff and
back to Council within that time frame, and in the meantime though it would ultimately go ahead with their plans
accepting or leaving the outlot alone.
Roger Knutson: Otherwise the conditions set forth in the planning report are the conditions you're adopting, is that
correct?
Councilman Senn: Yes, correct. I don't have a problem, I mean inherent in that I don't have a problem with the two
' model homes myself. I mean to me that's a non - issue. That's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. As long as they have the tar in and they're set for that so it can accommodate an emergency
vehicle. Okay.
' Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Berquist: I've got a question for Kate. Kate, is there a trust issue involved here with what's gone down?
What's happened amongst the participants.
Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Have they negotiated in good faith? Has the city
negotiated in good faith? Is that what you're asking?
1 35
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I think that's what I'm asking.
Kate Aanenson: I certainly think we are trying. Again as you remember, when this plat came in their first response
was, they had unforeseen costs and that's been the issue all the way through for them and we've been trying to work
with them to resolve that and we're protecting we believe the city's best interest. That's the position we've taken just
like they're trying to do what they need to do to make this project happen and that's looking at their financial
considerations.
Councilman Berquist: But from our point of view, if in fact it's a bad deal financially the city can't be expected to
provide 15,000 yards of fill and have it be brought to our attention as part of the original agreement, which is almost
what I'm sensing is taking place.
Councilman Senn: Part of Steve what I'm sensing too though is, and correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds to me like
there really hasn't been a point in time where you and Hempel and them and everybody were together in one room
talking about the same thing.
Kate Aanenson: That's not true.
Mayor Chmiel: No that, and from my understanding they have.
Todd Hoffman: We have had meetings but the issue of the 15,000 cubic yards.
Councilman Senn: I'm coming down to the fill issue.
Todd Hoffinan: The fill issue was a new issue to me, which was brought up as I walked into a meeting which I was
not participating at and then it was brought up in subsequent conversation and so I classified it as an assumption
made by JMS that they would help themselves to 15,000 cubic yards of fill and I said well wait a minute. How's that
going to affect the park and that's where it became an issue.
Councilman Mason: I'll admit when I heard the sentence, we need to grade the area because we need the fill, my
antenna went up as to there was some kind of problem but hopefully that's something that's going to be worked out. I
think the motion Mark made and I seconded is a good compromise at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other? If not, I'll call the question.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the final plat for 18 single family lots and
the final reading of an ordinance rezoning the property from A2 to RSF for Forest Meadow, JMS
Development; and to approve the Development Contract and Construction Plans & Specifications, Project
95 -18 as set forth in the staff report amended to delete the items relating to the outlot which are yet to be
resolved between staff and the applicant. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA: D. APPROVAL OF BILLS.
Mayor Chmiel: We didn't move that one so if you want to.
Krol
i
i�
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Councilman Senn: Do you want me to move, what is it then, 2(g) with the one exception. So Charles can get back
and answer the question.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn: Michael seconded it.
Mayor Chmiel: Did you second it?
Councilman Mason: Yes I did.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the approval of bills with the one item
deleted by Councilman Senn to be answered by the City Engineer. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
G. ESTABLISH INSURANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP.
Councilman Senn: On (g) I guess I wanted to talk about (g) a little bit. My first concern was is I saw the ad that
went in the newspaper calling for applications and have asked the public to reply and we set November 14th as a
deadline so it strikes me as a little bit odd that we would now go ahead and appoint a commission a month in
advance of that cut off, unless I'm not understanding something.
Don Ashworth: I think that's the one from a year ago.
Councilman Mason: It says 11 -3 -94.
Councilman Senn: Oh excuse me, I can't read the top part. I just read the ad.
Don Ashworth: That's what, I had gone back again in the spring and tried it again.
Councilman Senn: So we have not advertised is what you're saying?
Don Ashworth: Yes, we have advertised twice. We did the November of a year ago and then we did one in spring.
Karen couldn't find the spring one but I know we did it. We had all the other appointments.
Councilman Senn: And we had no applicants one way or the other?
Don Ashworth: You had two applicants but both of them I perceived as having a conflict of interest.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's indicated in the memo.
Councilman Senn: Okay. That helps clear that one up. The second one was, you mentioned in terms of some
consistency in the committee and not a lot of turnover. To me that's inconsistent with asking the attorney and the
auditor to sit on the commission because those are annual appointments.
37
0
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995 1
Mayor Chmiel: I'm using the generic so if you would switch auditor or attorney, somebody from that firm.
Councilman Senn: Based on who that new auditor was or whoever the new attorney was. I
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I
Councilman Senn: Okay. The, oh by the way, does that mean that the attorney and the auditor are going to
volunteer their time ... so we don't have to pay them for every one of those meetings too?
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think they're city orientated that maybe they would. '
Roger Knutson: We can discuss that.
'
Councilman Senn: Well that, I'm being a little facetious but at the same.
Roger Knutson: I don't mind volunteering one evening or one afternoon to that.
'
Councilman Senn: I'm being a little facetious but I'd hate to appoint a committee of all people that we have to pay to
be there. If that in fact is the case so that was the point I was trying to make. And I guess the last point is, I would
really like to, and maybe the way is just simply to make it a committee of four but I would like to see the committee
'
not be totally all staff and maybe a Council person to, it does not look like a big time commitment but maybe a
Council person can sit on it and if nobody else wanted to do that, I'd be happy to but I think we should have
somebody effectively in that committee looking at things from a non -staff perspective.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that'd be alright. I don't have any problem with that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: As long as you're volunteering.
'
Councilman Senn: As long as it doesn't take much time, I'll volunteer.
handle Roger?
'
Councilman Berquist: How do other municipalities this
Roger Knutson: I've not worked with a community that's put together a committee to do it. It's usually just been city
staff has made a recommendation to Council and the Council has acted on it. You can do it any way you want to.
'
Councilman Berquist: Because how much time we spend in looking at, analyzing our insurance package every year
and it's more than an afternoon. And our's is piddly compared to the city's.
'
Roger Knutson: This wasn't to analyze the insurance package. This was to find an agent of record.
Councilman Senn: Well to select the agency and...
'
Roger Knutson: This isn't to go through insurance policies.
Don Ashworth: Oh yes it is. After you select an agent of record, he does most of the work. So the next time that
you meet he has obtained, well first of all he's gone through all your coverage and he makes various
38 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
recommendations to, when we go back out to bid, here are the deductibles that I'd recommend that we go for. Here
are changes and he literally walks through each of the lines. We agree. Disagree. Give him some direction and he
goes out and obtains bids. Brings them back in. We look at them and say oh, St. Paul Company has bid. They've
got a good bid. The deductible there looks good. Let's go ahead and place it with St. Paul Companies.
Councilman Senn: I was referring to just the first step and the first step is to select the agent of record.
Mayor Chmiel: The format is there. It's already been established. But you look to see an update. That's what it is.
Okay.
Councilman Mason: A question on this. How, what, and maybe now's not the time or the place and Don maybe I
should just call you on this but what is the criteria? I mean how as the needs of the staff changes, I mean. What I'm,
I guess obviously I want the biggest bang for the buck but I also want to make sure that staff is covered in an
adequate fashion. I mean how does this play out?
Don Ashworth: Well I think with the attorney and the auditor's office, I think you're going to bring in two people
with a slightly different perspective. I think Roger will look at the coverage in terms of are they adequately meeting
our legal needs and Deloitte will be bringing in more of a perspective of costs and they know a lot of the companies
out there. I think they can actually do, put some pressure on and make sure we're getting some good bids. It's really
not that long of a process.
Councilman Mason: Well okay then, as long as, you brought up the, you know Roger's looking at the legalese and
the auditor's looking at the, well who's looking after the needs of the staff then?
Don Ashworth: Well I would hope that all three and again.
Councilman Senn: I think we're misunderstanding here. I think you're asking about insurance coverage for staff.
Councilman Mason: Well yeah but it sounds to me like that's one thing you go over once you get the agent of
record. I mean isn't that what all this committee does?
Councilman Senn: No because.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. We're talking about liability insurance.
Councilman Senn: Yeah we're talking about loss prevention policies.
Councilman Mason: I retract everything I said. I retract everything. You're right. Thank you Mark.
Don Ashworth: This just deals with the liabilities associated with...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let's get a motion.
Councilman Senn: So I'll move that then.
Councilman Mason: Second.
9M
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Resolution #95 -108: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to establish an Insurance
Committee membership as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Senn: And let the record show that Roger said we could talk about that, by the way.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCING. CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: 12(a) is more informational. Kind of a follow -up. The School District has made kind of urgent plea
to have the City consider using some of the tax increment dollars that might be generated because of their school
referendum. As it turns out, the State legislature had already put that fix in. It's not an item that would be either
approved or disapproved. They basically get to capture the market value of the tax increment districts when doing
their calculations associated with this upcoming referendum. They would still like to take and formalize the previous
agreement where they had gone back to voters for $15 million and as a result of that, it increased the tax capacity
rate and thereby increased the number of dollars that came back to the city through our tax increment district. They'd
still like to formalize that.
Councilman Senn: But one equals the other. I mean that to me is the only key question in my mind.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Senn: So under all circumstances one equals the other.
Don Ashworth: If they don't, let's see. Insuring that if we don't get it, they don't get it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we don't get it, they don't get it is what it boils down to.
Councilman Senn: So what, if we do the agreement, what is it? I mean it accomplishes nothing so why do it? What
if the legislature turns around and changes their policy this coming session? Would we be better off or more flexible
as it relates to that policy by not doing anything beyond that?
Don Ashworth: Well the first part of the memo basically says we don't have to do anything because they get the
money directly as it would apply to this upcoming referendum. The second part of the referendum says, they'd still
like to formalize the additional dollars that they generated and therefore that they'd like to see passed back to them as
a part of the first referendum which was the $50 million.
Councilman Senn: The old one you're talking about.
Don Ashworth: The old one.
Councilman Senn: Okay, but that does not apply with the legislature is what you're saying.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So one does not equal the other. On the second referendum one equals the other. On the
first referendum it would be strictly a one way flow back from up to them.
all
I
r
I
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Don Ashworth: Correct, except that they created the flow back over to us and so that's where my statement comes in.
If for some reason we don't get it, they don't get it.
Councilman Senn: Okay. But that we taken an action to formally give them the stuff off of the first referendum?
Don Ashworth: Well the first pass back did occur this year.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So we've already taken that action.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Wasn't that a three payment deal if I remember right or something like that. I thought there was
some multi - payment deal as far as that.
Don Ashworth: Well it all ends in 2000.
Councilman Senn: No, no. But I'm just saying, I thought when we passed the one on the fast referendum, there was
some kind of payment schedule set up so that it gives multi - payments or something.
Don Ashworth: Yeah, they had created a payment schedule but it was on this real weird formula thing that would go
through measuring how much additional debt they had created as a result of this $50 million and how that played
with the existing debt and I kept saying, why are you going through these additional efforts. I mean it's quite simple
if you look at what the tax capacity rate was in 1992 and what the total valuation was and what you created since that
point in time. That's the amount of additional dollars that are being received by the school district.
Councilman Senn: I like your approach the best. Let's just leave it alone. I mean that's really what it is. What we
get, they get.
Don Ashworth: Right. Right. Which they ... agreed.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So let's just leave it alone rather than do anything beyond or formalize this, that or the
other thing.
Don Ashworth: So you'd just soon not formalize it?
Councilman Senn: I thought we already did, it sounds like. I mean that's.
Don Ashworth: I think that they would like to know that. They led me basically a year in advance and so their big
plea coming back this year was, hey we put, we anticipated those dollars. If the City of Chanhassen is somehow
considering changing those, we're in big trouble. I believe all that to be true.
Councilman Senn: I'm confused about, I thought we already took action to give them those dollars.
Don Ashworth: We did as it would apply for 1994. Which was paid in 1995.
Mayor Chmiel: '96 would be paid in '95. It just goes one year.
41
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995 '
Don Ashworth: And what I'm proposing to do is to develop a contract to show exactly what those dollars are. So
that you know what they are and they know what they are. I
Councilman Senn: And if we don't collect them, they don't get them.
Don Ashworth: If we don't collect them, they don't get them.
'
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. That's what it boils down to. Okay, 12(b).
'
Councilman Berquist: Are we saving Council Presentations for last or what?
Mayor Chmiel: I didn't see any Council presentations. '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You've got to tell us at the beginning.
Mayor Chmiel: At the beginning of the agenda. ,
Councilman Berquist: Oh I do?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah it's not part of the agenda.
Councilman Senn: Say Steve, but you can just bring it up under Administrative Presentations you know.
Councilman Berquist: Alright, I'll do that. '
HISTORIC TRUST FUND, CITY MANAGER. '
Don Ashworth: On the Historic Trust Fund. On Monday night, we were going through each of the various operating
budgets and as the Council noticed in each one of those there were a number of areas where it would show a transfer
to the Historic Trust... '
(There was a tape change during Don Ashworth's presentation.)
Don Ashworth: ...underlying cost should be paid by the Historic Trust. A separate budget was the Historic Trust '
itself which was $200,000.00. The second one, where we have direct costs, are $300,000.00. My concern is that we
maintain the Historic Trust in the healthy position that it's currently in. My concern is that we are able to make these
kinds of payment through the Year 2000. In looking at some of the investments, especially since historic trust was ,
the one that basically purchased some of those, that we have an opportunity at this point in time to be able to sell and
guarantee the financial stability of Historic Trust by the sale of the 165 SW. We have a cost basis on that of roughly
$1 million. I feel that as of today I can sell that for $2 million. I am assuming that I have the authority to sell, unless '
the council acts to the contrary, when the market is favorable to us in order to protect the balance in the Historic
Trust Fund. And my reference to this "mystic derivative," recognizes that as of right now it does have a market
value of $1 million more than we have it on the books for. But if we see even a slight increase in interest rates, that
will go back down to the $1 million that we had it in there in May. If you have another interest increase, it's cash
value drops to $500,000.00. Another interest increase and it goes to zero. It's simply the down side is too far down
and there is virtually no upside. I mean it just doesn't make any sense to be taking this kind of a risk with this kind of
42 1
1
Ll
I
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
a volatile derivative. And that does not consider the fact that we are going back into the market in November and at
that point in time Standard and Poor are going to say, are you making progress on getting rid of some of those
volatile derivatives? And I'd like to be in the position of saying yes.
Mayor Chmiel: So would I.
Councilman Berquist: Can I, does anybody want to go first or can I just right in here. I want to just kind of take it
item by item and go right down the memo.
Mayor Chmiel: On the Historic Trust?
Councilman Berquist: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, go ahead.
Councilman Berquist: In the first paragraph, we're talking about a $200,000.00 allocation. You talked about a
$300,000.00 allocation. That totals a half a million dollars to maintain the downtown area. Is that correct?
Don Ashworth: Yes. Downtown and business park.
Councilman Berquist: That's an awful lot of money for maintenance. That's $1,370.00 a day.
Don Ashworth: Well I think it's larger.
Councilman Berquist: Well I know a lot goes into that.
Don Ashworth: Correct. I mean you're taking 10% of the costs of the engineering department. 10% of public
works. You're taking direct costs of Charlie Eiler. You're taking all of your electrical bills.
Councilman Berquist: $1,400.00 a day to run the, maintain and operate downtown as it is? And the last sentence in
the first paragraph to quote, to ensure the viability when tax increment financing is not available. That means after
the year 20001 would assume.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: How come you don't state that? I mean I have to read the memo and read the memo and read
the memo.
Don Ashworth: Sometimes sentences get to be too long and if you chop words out it may be ... I apologize.
' Councilman Berquist: First sentence, second paragraph. historic trust fund is a fund that would be able to take the
hit from 2 years ago. I didn't realize there was a choice of funds that we assign it to. We can actually go down this
list of securities and say okay, the historic trust fund is going to be the best able or the least, it's going to hurt us the
least if we take the loss in that fund?
' Don Ashworth: Correct.
43
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Councilman Berquist: Okay. You also mentioned paying down the cost basis for 1990 through '94. The two
floaters that we're specifically talking about, 165 SW was purchased two years ago, 10 -29 of '93. And the other one
was purchased 12 -30 of'93.
Don Ashworth: The question becomes one of where did the monies come from to make that purchase. And my
point there is that really those dollars ... over the time frame that would be much earlier than that and again my point
was, the historic trust didn't exist 5 years ago. You'd have to come up with monies from somewhere.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, so the point is not that the interest had been, you had been accruing funds.
Don Ashworth: I think if you looked during that whole time frame, you could see a constant buying and selling of
investments. The overall value continued to increase and I guess that was the point that I was trying to get at.
Councilman Berquist: That's why you're saying that you really can't say what things were purchased.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: For, although if I do a little cross analysis I would guess, which is a nasty thing to do when it
comes to this kind of stuff, but I would guess that that 165 SW was purchased, really had an out of pocket expense
when the bond was purchased for about $3 1/2 million. $3.4.
Don Ashworth: That's my recollection. I know in some of those years that we took interest earnings and if normal
rate of return was let's say 6% or 7 %, we did book that. But the remaining portion of that was actually used to
reduce the cost basis of whichever investment.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. And the other one then, using that same process would have been purchased for about
$1.7. So we're looking at selling the one for $1.7 at $1.15 and the other one at $1.65.
Don Ashworth: No. The 165, that will go for very close to $2 million as of today. I realize that you're looking at a
report saying 930 but that is the value as established by Prudential. Prudential really doesn't want to buy derivatives
so they lower the price.
Councilman Berquist: Well I went back and dug up the one that I had from the end of June and it was $1.64. But I
mean you've gotten a quote on the open market of about 2?
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: So regardless we're going to end up, our true loss is going to be about $1.8 million the way I
figure this out. $1.6.
Don Ashworth: Again, the statements are more general in nature and the 165 SW is very definitely the most volatile
security that you own. The 1614 VB, my recollection is the interest earnings on that are still quite high but you've
got another one in there that I think is 169 and that also is a derivative but that has a close out date of 2000. And
there's another one in there which also, that 165 SW is in like a 2% to 3% paying bracket. There's another derivative
in there that also gets that 3 -4 -5% bracket and that should be another key I think we should be looking at. The
biggest issue is we're carrying far too many of these and there should be a staged approach to weeding those out of
there and moving in more conservatively.
..
1
I �
u
r
1 City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Councilman Berquist: Who's buying speculative? Who's buying this kind of stuff now?
Don Ashworth: Well, Houston is where we're going to go to, but they have already tentatively sold it to a large
insurance company at the time they give me a bid. What they're doing is selling to a large corporation who will buy
both sides. They'll buy pieces that increase in value as the interest rates go down and they'll offset that with paper
that increases in price if interest rates go up. They stabilize the investment at a fixed rate which is not interest
sensitive.
Councilman Berquist: It's no different than what we did when we bought.
Councilman Senn: Well except they buy them discounted though.
Councilman Berquist: Yeah right. I've got a few other comments on the way the letter was structured and I think I'll
just hold those until the end if nobody minds.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions?
Councilman Senn: I've got a couple.
' Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Councilman Senn: Don, in keeping with our new financial policy, I think it'd really be helpful if you would put
' together kind of a lay person's explanation as to the status of each one of these funds and include in there an
explanation you know as to the volatility and that sort of thing and also you some projected outcomes so we at least
understand what the current market conditions, where you're projecting outcomes to be and when. You know that
would really help much better than you know the last 5 minutes here, this is a derivative, this is a derivative, or
whatever. I mean you know come on. We can't tell any of that from this. I mean it really would be helpful if we had
a good picture of what's what and more beyond just reciting current numbers or...
' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Can't you get that from the cost basis compared to what market is now?
Don Ashworth: The Mayor had asked for that. In fact I told him I'd have it available for this evening. When we
' first got into this, I know that Steve had come in. We had, we ran Bloomberg on each of these. That hasn't changed
a whole lot in terms of the sensitivity thing. But yes, I'll be more than happy to take and provide that to Council.
What it will show is exactly what I was saying in terms of, if it goes down a half a percent, you move back to the
million. If you lose another half a percent, $500,000.00. I'll provide that for you.
' Councilman Senn: Yeah but I'm just saying, by your list here I can't even tell you which ones are derivatives. And
you say it's a volatile one. I mean I understand that but tell me about the other 20 then. I mean if these are the two
' most volatile, kind of give me a grading on all the rest of them so we understand the volatility of all of them.
Don Ashworth: I'll make copies of those. It becomes very easy to see which ones are volatile. If it swings a million
' dollars either way you know it's volatile.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let's move on to the item (c).
45
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995 '
SET CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TO DISCUSS ORGANIZED COLLECTION, PLANNING '
DIRECTOR.
Kate Aanenson: During my budget presentation we raised the issue that we still had that task not completed and we ,
had put money in there for the completion of the, implementation actually of the organized collection study. Just to
refresh your memory, we left it, we had the staff had completed the districting. We actually completed the contract ,
language. The fee schedule and the servicing and even actually looked at pricing. At that meeting how we wanted
another opportunity to meet with you and to discuss their perspective and the Council chose at that time not to go
forward with any action and wanted an opportunity to possibly meet with the haulers. You asked during the budget
presentation to put this back on the table so we've given you some possible meeting dates. If you want to just pick '
one of those and we'll bring back all the background information if you'd like then.
Councilman Senn: ...I thought the last direction was, not only that we wanted to talk again but I thought they were
supposed to go back.
Kate Aanenson: No. Where it got left is, their preference is not to have the organized collection.
Councilman Senn: I understand. i
Kate Aanenson: So they wanted one more opportunity to now. '
Councilman Senn: But we said you're going to have one I thought. -
Kate Aanenson: Well you wanted one more opportunity to meet with them. So if you wanted to meet and discuss ,
where we left it, that's fine. If you wanted to give me direction on what you'd like to meet on. We can bring you
back where we left it. All the meetings. Where we showed the districting or if you want an opportunity to meet with
the haulers again or whatever direction you'd like, we'd be willing to do. '
Councilman Senn: But I thought at the time we went around and stated this whole thing and I thought there was a
consensus on Council that there was going to be organized collection. Now that you understand that haulers, go sit
down with staff and either come up with a plan that you can jointly agree to, or we're going to simply go with staffs '
plan. Now I thought that's where we left it.
Councilman Berquist: More or less I thought that...
'
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought that was it too.
Councilman Berquist: Who cancelled the meeting? Back in May.
'
Councilman Senn: Well see I don't think it was ever...
Kate Aanenson: They wanted to meet with Council.
'
Councilman Berquist: They wanted to meet with Council?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
46 1
n
1
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Councilman Senn: They came and met with Council and that's when we all went around and told them, gave our
consensus. Go sit down with staff but I mean that was in a regular Council meeting. I can't remember if it was a
Visitor Presentation or if it was under the item but we said, you're going to have it. Now go work it out with staff or.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I don't want to have the haulers back.
Councilman Senn: I don't want to bring the haulers back again to try and change our minds. I'm sorry, I'm just not
open for that. I'd rather vote on it. If you and the haulers sat down and agreed to a plan that alters what you guys
came up with before, I'd love to see it.
Kate Aanenson: We haven't done that.
Councilman Senn: That's what I'd love to see happen.
Mayor Chmiel: Did you see that memo that you just got? Did you get an opportunity to read that?
Councilman Senn: No.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well it's nice that Chaska gave us this information but we don't know what kind of
information they gave to the residents before eliciting their reactions.
Mayor Chmiel: There was a certain amount of that done, wasn't there? ...ordinarily satisfied with their garbage
collection service. 89% rate it as excellent or good with only 6% thought it was only fair or poor.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I would think that we're going to get, you know we would get similar results here
and I think in fact we did but that doesn't address.
Councilman Berquist: That doesn't address our concerns.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Exactly.
Mayor Chmiel: Not it doesn't but then it's just another thing to look at.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You know I concur with Mark. I thought we gave clear direction that it was going to
happen and we were giving one more opportunity for the haulers to get together and decide how they wanted to do it,
or at least the pricing schedule I think was the issue that was...
Councilman Senn: Yeah the only complaint calls I got from residents was the haulers had been going back to them
saying if you go to organized collection your rates are going to go up. Kind of a scare tactic.
Kate Aanenson: Well ... the only issue that was unresolved is that we agreed to, we picked the lowest pricing
schedule and it appeared that the service level would remain the same and that the question was, there was a question
about yard waste. That there'd be some way to accomplish covering that, I mean at least even twice a year in the
spring and the fall. That was really, because we had basically negotiated a deal and put the contract together so the
staff had done.
47
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995 1
Councilman Senn: Yeah and they were saying that they didn't like that and that's kind of when we said, you're going '
to have it so go work something out with staff or that's what you're going to get was what I remember.
Kate Aanenson: So I guess you'd like us to meet with them again? '
Councilman Senn: See if you guys can work out some compromises. If you can't, I think you should bring staffs '
plan back.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I think we need to meet with them again because there has been such a time period
since we last met so I think the staff should have a discussion with the haulers saying you know we haven't dropped '
this issue. This is where we last left it. Council wants to go ahead with this plan.
Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily all Council.
'
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: But, no that's the direction we can go, fine. But I think.
,
Kate Aanenson: Just so I'm clear. We'll meet with the haulers and...
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to just sit in on that to see what they might come up with as well so let me know. Is there
anybody else from Council like to sit in?
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I might like to.
,
Councilman Senn: Well then why don't we just have them come in Council.
Councilman Mason: Well yeah because we can only have two of us, right? Well then maybe they should come in.
Kate Aanenson: Well I was thinking they would come in after we met with them once ... so we'll meet with them ... and
put them on the agenda.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Okay, with that.
Councilman Berquist: I've got a couple of issues I wish to discuss briefly.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, go ahead.
'
Councilman Berquist: First of all I want to talk about... necessarily in order here. I guess maybe I do have an order.
I want to talk quickly about this industrial park issue. The painted block versus dyed block versus painted pre -cast
versus tile. I want to just try and find out where that direction came from in the last and the latest and greatest
industrial park. Over on the other side of Audubon. The PUD agreement calls out that if there's going to be a block
'
building, it has to be a dyed block rather than painted and I don't know if there's some wordage that refers to
durability that could be misconstrued in meaning dyed block. I understand the paint adhesiveness of pre -cast is
better than block but the paints that are on the market now for block are much better than they used to be and I
wonder whether it was Council's intent to add roughly a buck a square foot to a building when you're talking about
30,000 foot and more than that, if you're talking about less. By requiring dyed block.
48 1
J
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Is that over a long haul Steve, the particular buildings with the maintenance and upkeep?
Councilman Berquist: No, it's the initial up front cost.
Mayor Chmiel: What is the additional up front cost if they have to go through the repainting of those respective
buildings?
Councilman Berquist: Well I don't know. If you take my building for instance, I can get that thing repainted for
about $7,000.00 - $6,000.00 and I hope not to be, not to have to do it for 5 or 6 years.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Berquist: But I can expense that out whereas if I dye the block I have to amortize it over 30 years and
that's difficult to do. Well you can do it but.
Councilman Senn: You know one of the backlashes on that you know, and that's not just something I think here in
Chanhassen but I mean one of the reasons a lot of the communities went to the dyed block was not the responsible
landlord but the irresponsible landlord because what would happen is 6 years down the road you'd have peeling paint
and they're just couldn't afford to do it or this, that or the other thing and it just simply eliminated that as a concern.
That's kind of what the movement fostered out. Now if there's been improvements in paint to get longer, more
longevity out of them I think maybe that's an issue to look at but I don't know.
Councilman Berquist: I don't know that we can really legislate ourselves, protect ourselves from owners.
Councilman Senn: Well but that's what we try to do. I mean we try to set things up as...worse case in terms of
maintenance.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you've had cases were people who were putting these respective buildings in are questioning
this.
Councilman Berquist: Yes I have. I have and I really didn't realize that it was a mandated item until someone called
and told me exactly what it had cost. And then only to realize that the building directly behind it had been painted.
And it seemed to me to be an exorbitant requirement so I wanted to bring it up. You know I don't, you look at the
IOP that our company is in and all the owners there I believe to be fairly responsible and they, I mean I don't know
that there's a building there that looks poor. That looks bad. That has peeling paint. Not to say that that won't
happen down the road, in 10 or 15 years more. But as an area matures, I just have a problem with adding that kind
of cost. The City of Chanhassen is probably the most costly community to build in as it is. And we talk about tax
bases and we talk about commercial versus residential. Industrial versus residential.
Mayor Chmiel: And yet people are still coming.
Councilman Berquist: And people are still coming and I'd like to know the rationale. If the rationale is simply to
keep a building looking good, I don't think, I don't necessarily think that that's enough. Especially when we've got a
building right behind it being painted. And if the intent was one of the durability, then perhaps the ordinance needs
to be re- examined. Is it an ordinance when it's in a PUD? Is that how it's structured?
.Z
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995 '
Mayor Chmiel: Kate? '
Kate Aanenson: Yes. That's the criteria, yes. Just like now on Highway 5 there's also an overlay district that has '
architectural standards. That will give us different standards architecturally.
Mayor Chmiel: And when this top one, when this discussion took place, there were Mark eluded to other ,
communities that require dyed block.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Because we've gone through it...
Councilman Berquist: Really? Which ones?
Councilman Senn: Let's see, Plymouth. Plymouth was one. '
Councilman Berquist: We just put a building up in Plymouth and we didn't have to dye the block.
Councilman Senn: Well but did you use, what did you use? If you use a rock faced block, or a... '
Councilman Berquist: Light weight aggregate.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean something like that you don't need to. I mean the issue.
Councilman Berquist: So it's only a flat face that this takes...
Kate Aanenson: Concrete block.
Councilman Berquist: So if we use a split face block.
Councilman Senn: Or an aggregate faced or whatever, then you're fine.
Councilman Berquist: So flat faced is the only one that the dyed block is required on, is that correct? '
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: So the Eden Trace's and the Paulstarr's, those two buildings that have come in here recently '
are all flat faced block, not split rock, not split face?
Councilman Senn: Many communities even go so far as to not even allow concrete block period now. Dyed or '
undyed. It doesn't make any difference. They simply disallow it.
Councilman Berquist: The generalization, I take exception with the generalization. We're working in a lot of '
communities and I'm not cognizant of that kind of stuff going on in a wholesale fashion
Councilman Senn: Okay, in the 7 county metro area, I'd challenge you to right off the top of your head, in the last 5
years name any building that's been built with plain, old block and painted. You're not going to find very many. ,
There's a reason for that. They don't allow it.
50 '
0
I City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995
' Councilman Berquist: Well it's interesting. Okay, we can move on. I can do a little bit'more homework in that.
Okay. Another item that I wanted to bring up. I wanted to talk about the HRA position that's open. Whether there
had been any thought to going, to doing anything there or is that thing just going to go on ad infinitum.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it could.
' Councilman Berquist: It could.
Mayor Chmiel: With the position I've taken. With the recommendation.
Councilman Berquist: So that's your position this is going to go on forever. Alright. I'll go from that end. Roger,
what's the, you and Mark had had some conversations regarding the cost of an EDA. What was the budget for that?
1 Roger Knutson: I said legal fees from our end would be $2,500.00. We said $2,000.00 to $2,500.00. Not to
exceed. What I added is I have no idea internally what the staff time would be...
' Councilman Berquist: Internally here within the city?
Roger Knutson: Yeah.
' Councilman Berquist: Okay. Well, then I know which way we're going to go. Where is the Beddor/Nez Perce
agreement?
' Don Ashworth: Beddor is up on some mountain in India and there's...
Roger Knutson: If you would like me to bring the agreement to him, I will do that.
' Councilman Berquist: Okay. We get it, it's a consent agenda item and then we're going to have a special session. A
Council session and then that was what, 3 meetings ago and then boom, it disappears. Haven't heard squat.
' Don Ashworth: We haven't heard squat from him.
Roger Knutson: He's still out of town. We are very, very close.
t Mayor Chmiel: Anything else?
' Councilman Senn: I had two quick Admin's if I could. The Admin packet was inundated almost totally with Mason
Homes deals. What?
Kate Aanenson: Well we just wanted to let you know that there's a lot of phone calls to the staff and we just wanted
' to let you know, so you had the background in case you got calls from residents. So you had the background and
that's really just for your edification so you can understand the position we were taking on that, just really FYI. So
we gave you all the history just so you would know.
' Councilman Senn: The other thing was it's now been 2 months. When are we going to get the info on the overall
budget for the school project? The contingency of where we sit. How that contingency is doing?
r
51
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1995 '
Don Ashworth: Todd came in my office again yesterday. Showed me the whole list that he had gotten from Dockel. '
I mean how much time do the two of you spend every week trying to get these answers and we just, go ahead Todd.
Todd Gerhardt: We got the list of change orders. You would be appalled if I were to put the list in the packet and
there was 1 through 12 and it didn't describe a single one. It was Change Order 1. Change Order 2. The dollar
amounts and you would have said, I mean what was 2? What was 3? I mean there's two piles of documents like this
that describe that. Todd and I have a meeting tomorrow morning at 8:00 with David Leschek to sit down with some '
type of small summary of these items...
Councilman Senn: And Gockel is with? '
Todd Gerhardt: He's the construction manager of the project.
Councilman Senn: Right, that we are helping to pay correct? '
Todd Gerhardt: No.
Councilman Senn: We are not? r
Todd Hoffinan: Gockel is hired by District 112 as the owner's representative. '
Councilman Senn: As the owner's rep but who's doing the management on the project for us?
Todd Gerhardt: HGA. '
Councilman Senn: That's what I thought and HGA's also doing it for the school district. So why can't HGA simply
put it together and give it to you. Why do you have to sit there and beat your head against the wall 5 times to get '
what should be automatically been done months ago?
Todd Gerhardt: These documents are like this. They're very detailed information.
Councilman Senn: That's why we pay them the big fee Todd. Come on. Get the information. Tell them to forget '
about asking for additional fees to do it. That's normal construction management. I mean get hard on them a little
bit. I
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anything else? Is there a motion for adjournment?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the I
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth '
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
52 1