2f Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNC/L
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2000
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge
to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino,-Councilman Labatt, Councilman Pctcrson,
Councilwoman Jansen, and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Bruce DeJong, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson,
Teresa Burgess, and Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve
the agenda amended by Councilman Senn and Councilwoman Jansen as follows: l(g) as amended;
l(l) as amended; l(m), amended to include per Minnesota Statue 469.176; adding to item 5,
Adoption of CIP; and moving discussion of item 5 to 12, and deleting item 11 from the agenda. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT:
Mayor Mancino: Actually the only'one that there is is that they've decided, the Supreme Court that BuSh
is going to serve two years and Mr. Gore will serve two years. They just decided to split it up. Just
kidding.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Resolution #2000-87: Accept Utility Improveinents in Lynmore Addition, Project 99-10.
b~
Resolution #2000-88: Accept-Street & Storm Drainage Improvements in Springfield 5th & 7th
Additions, Project Nos. 99-3 and 99-18.
c. Resolution #2000-89: Accept Utility Improvements in Marsh Glen, Project 00-06.
d.
go
ho
Resolution #2000-90: Authorize Preparation of a Feasibility Study for 2001 Street Improvement
Projects.
Approval of Purchase Agreement, Lots 998-1000, Carver Beach, Anita Benson.
Approval of Bills as amended.
Approval of Minutes: City Council Minutes dated November 9, 2000 and November 27, 2000
Receive Commission Minutes: Planning Commission Minutes dated November 14, 2000; and
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 28, 2000
Approval of Rezoning Request from Single Family ReSidential (RSF) to Office and Institutional
(OI), 6400 Minnewashta Parkway, Fire Station No. 2, City of Chanhassen.
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Site Plan Amendment to Allow Painted Block at the Entrances of an Office/Warehouse Building;
Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition; Andreas Development.
k. Set City Council Meeting Dates for 2001.
Resolution #2000-91: Approve Resolution Defeasing Tax Increment Bonds for Tax Increment
District No. 1 as amended.
mo
Resolution #20(}0-92: Declare Excess Tax Increment in Tax Increment District 3 and Authorize
it's Return to Hennepin County per Minnesota Statute 469.176.
Resolution #2000-93: Set Public Hearing Date to Expand the Project Area of the Downtown
Redevelopment District to Encompass the Project Area for Tax Increment District No. 2.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
POWER RIDGE APARTMENTS: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO REPLAT OUTLOT A
INTO 3 LOTS, POWERS RIDGE APARTMENT HOMES 2m~ ADDITION; APPROVAL
OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the Final Plat to Replat Outlot
A into 3 lots, Powers Ridge Apartment Homes 2"d Addition, and approve Development Contract
and Plans and Specifications. All voted in favor, except Councihvoman Jansen who opposed, and
the motion carded with a vote of 4 to 1.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE: UPDATE REPORT FROM SGT. DAVE POTTS, CARVER
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, AND JOHN WOLFF, FIRE CHIEF.
Sgt. Dave Potts: Good evening Mayor, Council members. This is the early edition of my monthly
reports since Christmas happens to be the normal date here. Drawing your attention to my memo, items 1
and 2 are the standard area reports. Number 3 is a table I inserted and it might have been a little
premature to put names with the different shifts scheduled for next year in Chanhassen but it does give
you an idea of how the Sheriff's office ;vill be covering the contract hours next year with the increase to
48 hours a day. For the most part the names will be in place at sometime in the first part of 2001, with
the exception of one name listed under Team 2, Chris Wagner. One of our other deputies was leaving
and Chris Wagner latched onto a shift out west so she actually won't be working in Chanhassen next year
at this point. But we do have a lot of changes still going on in the Sheriff's office so some of those
names may be kind of coming and going a little bit. But the main thing I wanted to point out is it does
kind of give you an idea of the hours and where they're going to come from for next year. You'll see on
there that we've added one deputy to each team so there will be a total of 10 deputies in Chanhassen to
cover the contract hours. Some of the more significant changes are Deputy Gamlin and Deputy
Walgrave, both of who have worked in Chanhassen for several years. Each were reassigned as corporals
and ;vill be more on a roving schedule throughout the county. For the time being, since some of our new
people are still in field training, Deputy Gamlin will be working Chanhassen until we can fill some of
those shifts and then he'll move into his roving spot. Deputy Bromwell is moving to, or actually already
has moved to investigation from Chanhassen. And for next year, Deputy Stalke and Robbins have bid
2
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
shifts out in the western part of the county, closer to home for both of those officers. Three of our
officers out west will be moving to Chanhassen. Not physically moving their residence but moving to a
Chanhassen shift. Scott Tautge, Mike Felt and Ben Geurs. Both Mike Felt and Ben Geurs have
previously worked Chanhassen. Have some experience over here. And three of our new officers,
namely Dewitt Meier has already started working Chanhassen and Larry Lasard and Jason Bruening are
still in field training. Will be coming to Chanhassen next year, and hopefully my presentation in January
I'll be able to give you some more information, maybe actually bring the deputies with me for
presentation to the council. Down into a miscellaneous items, I just wanted to mention some personnel
changes in the sheriffs office. Three kind of key people at the sheriffs office, not directly affecting
Chanhassen. Chris Dewitt, the accountant who is assigned to the sheriff's office is leaving us along with
Klm Weckman. The investigative assistant who's been with the sheriff's office for many years and one
of our long time dispatchers, Bob Brown is leaving. So those are three big holes in the sheriffs office
that they' 11 be filling down there. Two of our officers were promoted to sergeant recently, both on patrol
and one of our patrol sergeants will be moving into the office in charge of civil process. So some
ongoing changes down in the sheriff's office. Records code for special traffic detail. Something we'll be
using this coming year. Our new year actually begins December 18th SO next week we'll begin using
special traffic detail code within our records keeping that will allow us to better track some of our traffic
enforcement efforts throughout the city and we'll kind of tie that in with the Project Leadfoot. Also a
new records software is coming to the sheriffs office so hopefully we'll be able to produce better and
more accurate records. Our system isn't ali that old but as technology changes, it's already fairly
antiquated. And recently we fulfilled a request over at the Children's World Daycare for an officer
friendly type of visit. And a couple just late breaking items crime wise. Over on South Shore Court, a
homeowner over there interrupted a prowler inside their garage, apparently having gained entry through a
vehicle that was parked out in the driveway with. a garage door opener in it. They just clicked the button'
and opened the garage door but that woke the homeowner and they interrupted that and that person fled,
was not captured. And over a couple incidents of theft of mail over off of Hunter Drive and Bridle
Creek. Both off of Galpin Boulevard, both north of Highway 5 and south of Highway 5. So a couple of
different neighborhoods apparently experiencing some theft out of their mailboxes that we're currently
working on. And that is the quick version. I know you've got a lot of other business but any questions
for me this evening?
Mayor Mancino: Any questions?
Councilwoman Jansen: No questions.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much Dave.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE,
CHANHASSEN AMERICAN LEGION CLUB, 7995 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD
(CURRENTLY HOLDS A CLUB LICENSE}.
Scott Botcher: Well we've been, we can wing this together Todd. We've been working on this for a year
and a half anyway. The Legion has submitted a request for an on sale intoxicating liquor license and this
is one of the, this falls under the category of trying to do a good turn for a local civic organization and
State law does not, and Karen I think has a memo in your packet that's far more thorough than my
presentation will be but State law makes liquor license in general very complicated and in this case, you
know Karen's representation is full and accurate. StafFs position is we've been just trying to really work
3
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
with the Legion frankly as just a long standing part of Chanhassen, to assist them in their request. We
think we've met an opportunity here, or have found an opportunity to do that and so we are
recommending that they be granted their request following a public hearing.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff?. Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address
the council on this? This is a public hearing on the request. Okay, bringing this back to council. Any
comments from council members? Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen?
Councilwoman Jansen: No comments. Thanks to staff'for working with the Legion.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Peterson?
Councihnan Peterson: Looks good.
Mayor Mancino: Steve, an5, questions?
Councilman Labatt: None. I move we approve.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then can I have a motion and a second please.
Councihnan Labatt: Move approval.
Councillnan Senn: Second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the request for an On-Sale
Intoxicating Liquor License for the Chanhassen American Legion Club. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: TANADOONA/DOGWOOD STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS,
PROJECT 00-01-1.
Public Present:
Name Address
Donna & Martin Jones
Dick Lundell
Art & Amy Adamson
Jan Quist
Barbara Freeman
Jay Rubash
Laurie Johnson
7321 Dogwood
7341 Dogwood
7331 Dogwood
7331 Dogwood
7431 Dogwood
HTPO Inc.
HTPO Inc.
Teresa Burgess: Tonight is the public hearing for the above referenced project. The staff has met with
the neighborhood prior to this. The neighborhood also held a meeting that staff was not invited to to get
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
a chance for them to discuss the issues without staff interference or input. And based on that information
from the neighborhood meeting and feedback from several members in the community after that
neighborhood meeting, staff is currently recommending that Option 2, supplying sewer and water and the
upgrades to the street to the entire neighborhood on Dogwood Road not be approved this evening.
Instead we are recommending Option 1 which would be the servicing of the current city maintained
mound system. Three properties currently use that mound system. That mound system has been certified
as failing by the city's inspections department. We are required to address that system within 10 months
of notice which will put us in August of next year and it is our intention to hook those people to the city
sanitary system. This project is feasible because of the BC-7 and BC-8 project which has been
previously approved by the council. I do have the consultant here from HTPO to discuss the alignment
of that project. However I'd just like to reiterate that the feasibility study does find that this option is
technically feasible and cost effective with the comparison of alternative options that were evaluated by
that feasibility study being either comparable in cost or if slightly less expensive, more maintenance
intensive so more expensive over the life span of the... If council has no questions I'll turn it over to
HTPO for the technical end.
Mayor Mancino: I don't have a question. You're just, you're wanting us to authorize preparation of
plans and specifications?
Teresa Burgess: Correct. We'd like to do the plans and specifications with the BC-7 and BC-8 project
so we can let this as one project. We believe that we will receive a cost savings by doing it as one project
rather than two separate projects.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Are there residents here tonight on this public hearing? Good. Can
you hear everything?
Audience: No...
Mayor Mancino: Can't hear a word she said. Do you want to Teresa kind of turn around a little bit
towards them and just, or try the mica little better.
Teresa Burgess: I don't have a no switch. I'm assuming...
Kate Aanenson: You have to talk right into it.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I keep going in and out too so put it real close.
Teresa Burgess: Okay. Would council like me to just start over?
Mayor Mancino: If you could. Now, can you hear her? When you can't, please raise your hand. Thank
you.
Teresa Burgess: Tonight is the night set for the public hearing on the Tanadoona/Dogwood street and
utility improvement. Staff is recommending that council authorize preparation of plans and
specifications for Option 1. Option 1 is serving the three properties currently on the mound system that
is city maintained only. We are not recommending the project to serve the entire neighborhood that
would bring sewer, water and street improvements to the entire Dogwood road section. The reason we
are not recommending that is it is too cost prohibitive. The assessments at this time are not feasible for
the neighborhood to bear. We feel that the cost of the Option 1 which serves just the three properties are
5
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
feasible. Those costs are 100% assessed. The property owners have provided documentation that they
have been previously assessed for the mound system. That is not a trunk assessment. Their request to
get some credit for that does seem reasonable from the staff's standpoint, however we're recommending
that be addressed as it states in the staff report at the time of final assessment roll adoption and not at this
time. It is something we can discuss but it is a final assessment roll issue, not for tonight's project. I do
have HTPO here, the consultant's that did the feasibility study to go over the actual alignment and to
ans~ver any technical questions.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Let's go ahead and have HTPO give us that and please remember to speak
clearly and into the microphone for the residents that are here.
Jay Rubash: Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Jay Rubash and I'm with
HTPO Inc. I have brought some information here this evening.
Mayor Mancino: So it's up here residents on the monitor, right behind Mr. Knutson.
Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor if I may, for those residents that are here. These are the same, this is a
similar map to the one that was shown at the neighborhood meeting and it's similar to what is itl the
feasibility reports that were sent to you at your homes.
Mayor Mancino: Can you see it okay? Okay. Maybe we can turn off a light. Is that a little better?
Okay. You're welcome.
Jay Rubash: The objective of a feasibility report was to determine tile feasibility of serving the Dogwood
residents with sanitary sewer and domestic water. In the existing conditions the residents have on site
sewage treatment and individual wells. The road itself is narrow and varies from approximately 12 feet
to 16 feet and a portion of the road has been constructed in specific the cul-de-sac is predominantly
constructed outside of the right-of-way. Option Number 1 is to install new pumps at the location of the
mound system which serves the three residences located in Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Sunset Hills on Lake
Minnewashta. The route for the force main, which would be small, plastic, polyethylene pipe, roughly 2
inches in diameter, would be along Dogwood as indicated by this green line and along Tanadoona Drive
and down and connect into the ending point of BC-8. As the crow flies that xvill be roughly 1,200 feet.
However, follo~ving the road right-of-way it's approximately 2,200 and some odd feet. Option 1 does not
include any watermain improvements or roadway improvements. The total estimated construction,
excuse me. Total cost of Option 1 xvhich includes easement acquisition and engineering, legal and city
fees, is $117,678.60. If you have any questions I'd be glad to answer them at this time.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you Jay. Any questions from council at this point? And then we will open
it up for a public hearing. Thank you. Should we get the lights back on please. Is there anyone here
tonight that wishes to address the council? Please come forward if you could at tile podium. And state
your name and your address into the microphone please.
Dick Lundell: Thank you. My name is Dick Lundell. I live at 7341 Dogwood Road in Excelsior. One
of the properties involved here. Honorable Mayor and members of the council. Thank you for the
opportunity to make our presentation. I, along with my neighbors, wish to address this utility need issue.
First though we want to make it very clear that we are interested in a workable sanitary sewer. We are
not interested in having a system that does not work. However, we question whether or not the problem
really exists and maybe the solution is the right solution but I think we ought to explore a few others.
And by doing that I'd first like to go back a little bit as to how this system came about, and it's been in
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
place for 15 to 17 years I believe. And at that time two of the, the first if you had that map back up there,
there were five properties in a row and two of them they put in.
Mayor Mancino: Mr. Lundell, we'll get the map up so you can kind of show us as you're speaking. And
we'll try and track with you.
Dick Lundell: Yes. At that time the first two properties, this and this one, the solution was to put in a
private mound system and for the next three of us in the row, Jones, Quist and myself, was a private
mound system. Or a community mound system. And that was kind of just said, this is what you're going
to have. And it went forward. And now let me move ahead 15 years. We have not heard one word up
until a couple of months ago about this system, and I walk that road. The Jones' live across from that
system. Nobody was aware that there was any problem. So we were informed that why don't you pump
your tanks because we're having trouble with the system and we were informed to do that and I've been
out of the country and gone quite a bit this fall so my system, and I had to dig up my driveway to do it by
the way. Just got pumped on the end of November. Now our question is really back to what got us here
and that is, is the system really failing? And are there some other solutions? And the first notification
we had the system was failing, as I said, was within the last few months and at that time they said we
want each of the homeowners to pump their septic tank, which would be the first time anything was done
on this system in at least 15 years. So that has been accomplished. We would like to know whether or
not that system since that action was asked of us, has been tested to find out is it really failing. And
along with that is, is there another solution? Since it had, none of our tanks had been pumped for 15:
years, it just seems that isn't, aren't we kind of rushing 'to the final solution before we really say is there
another solution to this problem? Maybe,. you know in the old days and other peoPle I know pumped
tanks rather regularly. And maybe that's a potential solution to this saying maybe we have to pump those
tanks, our own tanks which feed into this other system. Those are the types of options that we'd like to
say we think ought to be explored before all of a sudden you come to us again like you did before and
said boom. Here's a new system and you guys got it. This just doesn't kind of play right. Doesn't feel
right. I think that's really the gist. As I Said, the other neighbors are here and 1'11 pass the mic on to
Martin or Art first if he wants to make some other comments but that's what we'd like to have that kind
of discussion.
Mayor Mancino: Good. Thank you for your comments. Have you, Teresa, have you met with the
neighborhood and have they asked these questions prior to this and etc?
Teresa Burgess: We have met with the neighborhood. I have met with a couple of the property owners
individually to discuss the mound system. The mound system has been observed as failing. The
inspections department, the City's inspections department went out and inspected the mound system, just
like they would a private system. We are treated no differently than any private mound system or septic
system, and sewage was observed as coming to the surface. Because of the location and the proximity to
the lake, that puts it into a highly environmentally sensitive area which is why we only have 10 months to
respond. I believe the council, if you remember back, saw one not that long ago that had 3 years. That
was because it was not as environmentally sensitive. The pores that normally the fluids would seep away
into are plugged. That is what is causing the fluids to come to the surface instead of to go down. We
have not tested since the property owner's pumped. At this time the city's inspections office has
informed us we must address the problem and we have not contested their decision or their action at this
time. We are moving forward to correct the problem with a long term solution. Mound systems have a
life of approximately 20 years. This one is already 15 years old and has had extensive...couple of years
so we do feel that this is an appropriate response to the inspections department informing us that the
mound system is failing.
7
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Are there any other alternatives?
Teresa Burgess: We explored possible alternatives. They are discussed in the feasibility report. We
did not explore them beyond are they a possibility and what would be the ongoing maintenance. All of
them require extensive ongoing maintenance similar to the mound system. The other problem that we've
run into is similar to the mound system and these are no different than a septic system and as such it
requires that the property owners do a certain level of maintenance. They are not a sanitary system like
homes that maybe on Lake Lucy or on just down the street where you flush and it's gone. You have to
maintain your septic system and so by going to a sanitary sewer system we are addressing the long term
maintenance issues as well as the current problem of the mound system. The other issue that was
brought up as we investigated this is that the mound system sits on private property. To correct the
mound system, if we were to build a new system, we would need to purchase property to do that. This
area has a number of wetlands. Finding suitable property to do a new system on, whether it be a mound
system or one of the other possible technologies, is a problem. We have a lot of wetlands. The soils are
not conducive. It's not the best situation, especially when we have a sanitary line so close to hook up to.
Dick Lundell: As I said, one of our responses is that it hasn't been tested. You know I just dug up a
brick driveway. If you had already decided that this thing wasn't going to go, why did you issue the
command that you have to pump your system and we have to find out what the problem is. It seems like
it was a foregone conclusion but again our concern is that, are there some other alternatives? Do we
pump yearly? Twice a year? I still don't think that's been addressed. You know the system that you
fostered on us wasn't our system. I mean we, you kind of said you'd do this and now you're saying it
was done wrong and here we are. You know it's our problem again. This doesn't quite feel right. But
Art, why don't you address, and I think Martin you should too because you live right across from the
pump station and it sounds to me like we've got sewage kind of coming out and I tell ya, if that's
happening none of us want to be there. And I walk that road twice a day. Any~vay.
Mayor Mancino: It also sounds like there needs to be some more meetings and some more explanation
and education.
Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, ifI could. I did ask the inspections department how often it would
need to be pumped. Would pumping need to be done if we did not address the mound system and their
response was that those would need to be treated as a holding tank, which would require those septic, to
have their tanks pmnped depending on use, at least once a month. Probably more often because it would
be, the mound system needs to be shut off is what they have informed me.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Arthur Adamson: I'm Arthur Adamson and I'm the et.al, of the Quist. And by the way we don't live
there but we're part owners of it. It came as quite a shock, it's about $30,000 we're going to have to pay
immediately and we don't want the problem. We want to be sure the problem is corrected. But a little
history and Teresa I don't believe you were here then, the federal government was the one that put the
specifications on I believe. And it was built according to their specifications. We always said what did
we do wrong and we went along with it and by the way we were assessed and we have all paid
assessments on this current program. I think there was some confusion or I don't 'know, said we hadn't
paid the assessment. I have the records if you want to look at them, and Teresa too. I think you're
satisfied.
8
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Mayor Mancino: It's been paid?
Arthur Adamson: The question is, what did we do wrong and there is no leakage in that system today is
there? In the winter right now.
Teresa Burgess: Right now? I have not been out there in the last week.
Arthur Adamson: Well we've been inspecting it but we'd be happy to go with one of the city inspectors
anytime.
Teresa Burgess: The city's inspection office has certified the system as failing. At this time the only
other option would be to certify, would be to have a consultant go out and prove them wrong.
Arthur Adamson: Well maybe we should call Sullivan's. Sullivan put it in and he's the local contractor.
I believe Martin has talked to him so I'll get him to address that. And it was made according to
specifications. They say the soils out in that area are very heavy and I know nothing about that Teresa
but it doesn't absorb. Well we can put in new soil if we have to and maybe it'd be better.
Mayor Mancino: Well also, some of the State regulations on septic systems has changed in the last two
years about what they will and won't allow so there have been quite a few of the septic systems in the
area that are 20, 15 to 20 years old that have had to individual homeowners have had to go in and spend
$20,000 to put in new septic systems in and around the city.
Arthur Adamson: ...
Mayor Mancino: I know but those were regulations back in the 50's or 60's, whenever.
Arthur Adamson: Well no, this was 80's.
Mayor Mancino: Well they've changed since then.
Arthur Adamson: Well who said they won't change another time? We're a little spooked about this.
Mayor Mancino: And they're kind of unfunded federal regulations that have changed so.
Arthur Adamson: Martin, maybe you want to address.
Martin Jones: I'm Martin Jones. I live at 7321. I guess my concern is, this was shoved down our throat
15 years ago. I wasn't for it then and I'm certainly not for a $30,000 or $35,000 horse feeding. I don't
like this. I think it should be checked out further. I feel that there's got to be other options than having it
done as staff has said it should be done. Why can't it be dug out completely and put new piping in? That
can't cost $117,000 to do that and put in the proper type of piping this time rather than ones with little,
tiny holes, put in larger holes. More sand. More gravel. I think that can be done.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Teresa, can you answer that or?
Teresa Burgess: It has been dug out several times by our staff, by our utility staff. It is not just an issue
of the pipes being full. It's the soils that are full. The pores in the soils are full and so it is not possible
for the current site to function. We would need to purchase new land and construct a new mound system.
9
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
As I said earlier, there are a lot of wetlands in the area. We do not own the current mound site so we
would need to purchase land fi'om a willing buyer in the area. The property in this area is very expensive
and so in looking at it, it is our position that comparison to building a new mound system, this is a cost
effective method of addressing the problem. A new mound system will require continuous maintenance.
Much more intensive than a sanitary system. The sanitary system is something that is much easier to
maintain because we do not have to worry about soil conditions. It is something that we have the lift
station already existing. We are not adding to the problems. The lift station is currently in place. We
are upgrading it to handle this situation but it is, we're not adding any more complications to the system
than already exists.
Martin Jones: You say that they have dug up the system many times. Where have they been digging?
I've seen a little area that's about 3 feet by 6 feet and that's the whole system. I don't think so. It's a lot
bigger than that.
Teresa Burgess: Utility crews over the years have dug up different areas in the system. They try to be
non-intrusive. But the utility crews have dug up pieces of the system at different times to address the
areas where they're seeing seepage.
Martin Jones: Okay, because I've been up, I go up on the mound system about once a month. Just to
look up there. I very seldom ever see any disturbance except for when the mo~vers are out there and then
the grass is cut. And like I say, I've seen just one area that has been dug up now, but that's all I've seen.
Mayor Mancino: Mr. Martin, have you had time to speak with our inspections department about the
activity that has happened?
Martin Jones: No I have not.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Martin Jones: I have called Sullivan's. I've asked them to come out and look at the system again
because they are the installers and I did talk to Pat Sullivan. He said it was installed according to the
directions that they were given so.
Mayor Mancino: I'm sure it was, yeah. We all know Sullivan. Well I'mjust wondering, get some more
feedback from council, if this is something some of the residents might want to spend some time with the
inspections department going over what has been done. Why the recommendation? Why there aren't
alternatives but to take the time to do that. Is timing wise if we don't go ahead with this tonight and wait
until January after the residents have really had time to sit down and talk with the inspections department
and engineering, can this wait?
Teresa Burgess: If we wait that will mean delaying plans and specifications and preparation design
time. That xvill delay our entire project. It may mean that we will have to do this by change order in the
spring rather than being able to bid it out in the spring with the other project. We do have a time limit.
We have 10 months. We are being treated just like any other property and so for us to ask for special
treatment is something we do have to be careful about. We don't want to be asking for an extension for
special treatment. And I'd like to stress for the council alternatives were considered as part of the
feasibility study. It's not that we just made up our mind and went that direction. We did look into those
alternatives with the idea that there was a potential at that time the BC-7 and BC-8 project would not go
10
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
forward. We are now in design phase for that but we did look at those alternatives and the biggest
problem is the soils are not conducive and we do not own property. So that needs to be kept in mind.
Mayor Mancino: And I think we understand. I think it's just taking the time with the neighbors to go
over that more so than for us. But if this came back in the January 8th, I think that's the first council
meeting next year.
Teresa Burgess: January 8th probably ~vould not be viable for us to bring it back. I will not be in town
that week and so it would have to wait until the second meeting.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. The question that was asked was if we bring this back on January 8th and give
some time for our inspections and engineering departments to meet ~vith you, residents that would like it
and bring it back on January 8th, would that work as far as timing and Teresa will not be here on January
8th but hopefully will be someplace vacationing so it would be the second.
Teresa Burgess: It would be the 26th.
Mayor Mancino: 26th of January. Mr. Lundell, you wanted to come back up and ask a question. Please
cotne to the podium again. Then we'll bring this back to council.
Dick Lundell: Thank you. Just for point of information. Who owns that property now that it's on? Is it
on a lease basis? One of the members there thought it was probably purchased with funds that.
Teresa Burgess: It's private property. It's on private property.
Dick Lundell: And who owns that? WhO's the private property that owns it?
Teresa Burgess: Thomas Wartman.
Dick Lundell: It's on that property so is there a lease on it?
Teresa Burgess: No.
.
Dick Lundell: I would think ifI were Thomas Wartman I'd be a little concerned about this too.
Teresa Burgess: Mr. Wartman is aware of it.
Mayor Mancino: Mr. Wartman is aware of it.
Dick Lundell: He just recently...
Teresa Burgess: It was something that came to light as we were investigating the mound system. That
when this project was done by the county using federal dollars, someone dropped the ball. The property
was never conveyed to the City as it was supposed to have been done. And so we do not own the
property that the mound system sits on. It was never properly conveyed to the city.
Dick Lundell: Did we pay for that?
Teresa Burgess: No.
11
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Dick Lundell: Didn't somebody pay for it? It had to be, the original estimate for the property, for the
system was about, I don't 'know. Anyway it was a lot less than...
Mayor Mancino: It must have been a lot less.
Dick Lundell: ...but anyway, again. It's just saying, I just feel like this is coming down the road and it
doesn't make any difference. We don't care, we want to do it this way and if you don't like it, that's just
the way it is.
Mayor Mancino: Well we're going to have to solve the problem.
Dick Lundell: But we appreciate the time and our question is now, from a process standpoint, what are
our remedies? ! mean one was, do we get our own inspector? Is that, to inspect the system. Would that
be a proper thing for us three to do? To have our own inspection done. We're just trying to look at what
the process would be to say, and we don't necessarily like what's happening and you know let's have our
day to talk about it.
Mayor Mancino: Mr. Lundell when we bring this back to council we'll talk about that. The rest of the
process and how it goes forward. Okay?
Dick Lundell: Alright, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Mr. Martin, did you want to come up?
Martin Jones: No, I was just curious about...purchased it originally but apparently...
Teresa Burgess: It was a glitch in the platting. When the plat for that property was.
Mayor Mancino: Can everyone hear? Okay, again.
Teresa Burgess: It's a glitch in the platting. When that property was subdivided, it xvas to be donated or
dedicated at that time. However it xvas never properly recorded so we do not own the mound system, the
land that it sits on. The county constructed that mound system and turned it over to the city' for
maintenance. When we initiated this project, when we were informed that the mound was failing and we
initiated this project, HTPO did a parcel search and did a tax information base search and it was
discovered at that time when we initiated this project.
Mayor Mancino: So it has been sitting on private prope~Xy since obviously the 80's. Early 80's?
Teresa Burgess: Since it was constructed. It's been in operation for 15 years.
Mayor Mancino: 15 years. Okay. Anyone else wishing to address the council? Might want to make
sure something isn't going on on your property. Okay, I'll close the public hearing prior to bringing this
back to council. Steve, your feelings?
Councilman Labatt: I'm curious, is holding this out for 30 days until the second meeting in January, is
that going to hurt your time line severely?
12
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
Teresa Burgess: It sets us back significantly. As I said, we probably will not be able to let it with the
rest of the project. We will have to add it on as a change order because we will not have plans and
specifications.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. I'm just trying, I want to try and have the residents get their questions
answered from the inspections department that they wanted to ask. And yet weigh that against the, your
time line. I mean obviously you've got a time sensitive problem here and you've got 10 months to fix.
Teresa Burgess: Actually I've already lost 3 in doing the feasibility study.
Councilman Labatt: So, when is your time line, when do you anticipate, if everything goes.
Teresa Burgess: In speaking with the inspections department, because of the time line necessary to
make this project feasible, they have agreed to the August that we are proposing to have the BC-7, BC-8
completed and we would be connecting into that system. That is slightly longer than the proposed, that
they came to us with the 10 months. However, that is in keeping with how they treat private systems is
that they need to be showing diligent effort and so we would be looking to have this project substantially
complete in the late summer of next year.
Mayor Mancino: If I may interrupt. If we're meeting on December 27th,'would that be more helpful?~ To
put this on the agenda on December 27th.
Scott Botcher: We could.
Mayor Mancino: Residents, Mr. Lundell, Mr. Martin, are you going to be in town and will you have time
to meet with the inspections department between tonight and December 27th, if we were to put this on our
agenda again on December 27th? '
Martin Jones: That's a Wednesday.
Dick Lundell: 1'11 let Martin address that but.
Mayor Mancino: Not a Monday. It's a Wednesday.
Dick Lundell: I'm getting lost here. The feasibility study was to do the whole project and that was going
to have to be done in the same time frame and that was going to be a million five, a million seven. We're
talking $117,000 job. Now I'm not quite following. Is it that complicated that that's going to push us, I
mean that's where I get back in to saying, how were we ever going to get the other one done, which is a
massive road change. I mean it was a massive change and that had the same time line so again, I'm
feeling real rushed here.
Teresa Burgess: IfI can answer that Madam Mayor. The reason the time line is driven by the rest of
the project. This project needs to connect into another project that will be completed next year and
cannot be turned on until it's all been tested. So your correct, that project proposed for the entire
neighborhood was much larger. However the pipe would not have been functional until August of 2001.
This is not just the Dogwood Road section. This is the piece that...and serves out to Highway 4I and
brings sewer and water out for Westwood Church.
13
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Mayor Mancino: So we're getting the whole.
Dick Lundell: And that's going to keep going anyway though.
Teresa Burgess: That is a separate project.
Mayor Mancino: But we're getting this bid at one time.
Teresa Burgess: This project cannot finish before that project.
Dick Lundell: Well but let's, again we're jumping to the conclusion before i think we've got, what if the
answer is, you can pump your system every 3 weeks and it's going to work and we don't have to do this.
I mean that's where I'm saying is, it just feels like we're saying the dog is wagging the tail here. I mean
this is just a little piece of that. But Martin can address the 27th because again, trying to find people that
can tell us you know what is. Again, the system hasn't been tested since we did what you asked us to do
and you're saying it's bad. Well, if it's all that bad we could have saved ourselves, we could have had
this discussion 3 months ago.
Mayor Mancino: Mr. Martin, if you have anything more to say. Then we're just going to keep it up here
at council.
Martin Jones: The 27th, this is when it's going to come before council again. When does inspection think
that they can do this?
Teresa Burgess: There's no one here from inspections to ansxver their schedule. We'd have to look at
their schedule.
Mayor Mancino: Yes, Kate Aanenson can set up a meeting tonight ~vith you to go over it.
Martin Jones: The problem is I work fldl time and I don't have a lot of extra time. I get home at about a
quarter after 6:00, 6:30 at night. I got here tonight at 20 minutes to 7:00 so my time is not the best. I
could do it at 8:00 in the morning.
Kate Aanenson: Otherwise if you want to just give us a list of the questions. If we can have somebody
else meet on the site that wants to meet with the inspector, Randy Debner, that wants to meet out there
and ask questions. There's other people that are in that neighborhood could meet. The ones of the
group.
Mayor Mancino: But also an 8:00 in the morning meeting would work too.
Kate Aanenson: We can meet right after this and try to get some consensus of how. you want to handle it.
At least it gives you until the 27th to get some additional information. Get some of your questions
answered by Randy and his inspection and what he found and make sure you understand the alternatives
and what direction he has. We can make that happen by the 27th. If there's other people in the
neighborhood that could meet on site. There might be other people in the neighborhood that wanted to
meet too.
Mayor Mancino: So after we're done tonight, Kate will get your name and number and set up a meeting.
Okay, Mr. Peterson.
14
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
Councilman Peterson: I think what we just discussed is a logical alternative. Move it to the 27th and I
think we should exhaust every alternative that we can, whether that's doing another inspection, I think is
reasonable after we've asked them to evacuate their tanks so it's, I know Teresa's probably assuming that
because of the pores are filled, it's not going to change it by draining the tanks but you know their
soIution may be, they may want to pump it every 3 weeks. I mean that's an alternative I guess. If they're
willing to do that per se.
Teresa Burgess: We would need to confirm that that meets the standards.
Kate Aanenson: Sure, that's part of the process of the meeting that we'll hold. We'll get all those
questions answered.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen?
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess the other piece of it that I'm hearing voiced is the previous assessment
and not wanting to need to double pay. And of course you've now noted in the staff report that you're
seeing it as reasonable to take those previous fees and apply it here to these assessments. Have you put
any sort of a schedule together? I know you're saying that probably shouldn't happen until this comes
back but I'm hearing the neighbors may be needing to see that information applied to this project so we
can see the.
Teresa Burgess: That information did not come to light until late last week and so I don't have a total
on what that impacts the project. They are not trunk assessments, which is what our fees are. These are
fees that were charged for the mound system. However it seems reasonable that if the project is still
economically feasible, that the city pick up that portion of the costs, even though that was assessed by the
county. But until I have time to do additional research What that dollar amount is, I don't know what the
total is.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Is that unrealistic to think you might be able to have that by this
December 27th meeting?
Teresa Burgess: I can attempt to have that informatiOn. What the total dollar amount is for the
December 27th. However, as I've put forward, I believe that is something that should be addressed by the
council at the time of final assessments because we will need to address what our debt load is at that time
and if we can sustain that much more to be added to our debt load or not. And looking at it as just this
project it may seem feasible where when we get to the end, all those little things add up.
Councilwoman Jansen: Understood. Okay, and then the other part of it that I'm hearing is wondering if
we're communicating properly what you're saying and that's that we are nearing the life expectancy of
the system versus whether it was done wrong. I gather if they've been out there digging it up numerous
times, maybe there are some issues with it but I mean right now we're maybe thinking it's going to last
another what, 3 to 5 years at best on whatever we come up with temporarily?
Teresa Burgess: Normal life span is 20 years, and that would be an optimum system. The system was
installed according to the practices at the time it was installed. There is, no one has ever stated that it
was put in inappropriately or not according to spec. The rules have changed and we have learned from
past mistakes but it is a 20 year life span is, usually what's used for forecasting. These soils are not the
best soils for a mound system.
15
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Council~voman Jansen: So probably just part of your communication then, and then also sharing that the
entire city has gone through a new septic inspections and that may help. I don't know if it spreads some
of the burden but all of us on septic systems have had now gone through these inspections and there have
been some that have come up around the city that we have had to address. So though it may feel as if
you're being, if you would, picked on or singled out, other systems also have been looked at and have
had to be addressed but I certainly hear tonight that a little bit more time with staff and asking some of
these questions would, or answering some of the questions would be helpful to the residents so I xvould
be in favor of pushing it off if we can. Oh the other question. You had mentioned that it would turn into
change orders on the project. Is that more expensive? Or just less convenient?
Teresa Burgess: It's a possibility of being more expensive. It depends on quantities. It depends on if
we have those items as bid items so we can just change quantities. If we reach a certain percentage of the
total contract amount, which hopefully we would not, then the contractor has the legal ability to negotiate
new bid prices for bid items that are increased over a certain percentage. So we would want to keep that
in mind.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, thank you.
Councilman Senn: Teresa, what are the, what would be the cost at this point of just proceeding and
getting the plans and specs part done?
Teresa Burgess: We currently have HTPO under contract for that portion. We already have a contract
for it. Plans and specs. Jay or Laurie, do you remember what that portion of the contract was?
Jay Rubash: Jay Rubash again. We actually did not break out'just the plans and specs portion. Our fee
included construction, staking and inspection so we don't have just an exact fee for the plans and specs
for this portion. However.
Councihnan Senn: So you've got the whole, total big project. This is just a small portion and under the
contract we pay the same amount either way?
Teresa Burgess: Under the contract they are authorized to do the entire project. We are asking the
council to authorize plans and specs for this piece before they start preparation.
Councilman Senn: But the point I'm trying to get to is...
Teresa Burgess: The dollar amount has already been.
Councihnan Senn: ...the amount on the contract regardless of whether we proceed now on the plans and
specs or later, correct?
Teresa Burgess: The dollars are negotiated.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So essentially if you proceeded with the plans and specs at this point you
would not lose the time you don't want to lose.
Teresa Burgess: Correct.
16
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilman Senn: Okay, but however at the point that we got the bids, okay, we could do this as a bid
alternative which means we could reject it and we don't need to include it in what is awarded under the
bid. Which is a far better situation than effectively throwing it out as a change order, which you and I
both know, at least as experience teaches us, is always more expensive. So why not get these
conversations and discussion going because I think they need to occur, but why not keep the time line
going because we're not losing anything by not keeping the time line going.
Mayor Mancino: Got it.
Teresa Burgess: Correct. We could certainly do it as a separate bid schedule to be decided by the
council at the time of bid award, which would give us the time that the council is directing to work with
the neighborhood and explain the situation. Just so the council is aware of it, we do have a request for an
increase but it is not related to this portion of the project for the consultant services contract. It is in
relation to geotechnical services that were HTPO and the other consultants were directed not to...
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And as you said, it doesn't have to do with this project.
Councilman Senn: If I could then I'd like to essentially move that we proceed with plans and
specifications. However that we, when we come to bid, that this be included as a bid alternative and
proceed on that basis and come back to council after, and you know that also gives you a little more time
through the holidays to get these discussions held and find out where everybody's sitting so.
Mayor Mancino: And also do you want to add inspections and the neighborhood getting together?
Councilman Senn: Well I'm assuming that's going to happen administratively anyway so.
Teresa Burgess: That would allow us to leave this Until February to come back to the council.~ Giving
us more time if inspections does have recommendations to be followed-up for the neighborhood to
respond.
Councilman Senn: To be honest with you, I think it's going to take you a little more time than 2 weeks to
resolve some of the issues I've heard raised here so I think it's a logical way to proceed.
Scott Botcher: Yep, I agree.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilwoman Jansen: I have a question on the motion. Once the plans and specs are, as we authorize
them here tonight, if any changes come up in the course of the neighborhood meeting, as you going to be
able to adjust for those then?
Teresa Burgess: If the changes from the neighborhood meeting are to eliminate that portion, which is
what I'm hearing from the neighborhood. They don't want the sanitary section brought out to them.
Councilwoman Jansen: If it's alternatives.
17
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Teresa Burgess: An alternative would be let separate regardless. Because it's not the same type of
work. It's a different type of contractor. So we would have to do separate bid documents and let a
separate contract if it's an alternative system to sanitat3/.
Councilwoman Jansen: And right now you haven't heard any objections to where it's actually being
proposed to be located?
Teresa Burgess: We have spoken with Mr. Wartman and he is at this time not opposed to the location.
He is willing to negotiate with us for the right-of-way that we would need to do the project. The other
thing is I have heard from a couple of people that they would be interested in, if we could make minor
adjustments to the systems connecting and that would decrease the cost per property owner, but those
properties are not mandated to connect because they are not on a failing system so they were not included
in the assessment roll at this time. So that can also be explored further.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, we've had a motion, we've had a second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to proceed with preparation of plans and
specifications for Project No. 00-01-1 for Tanadoona/Dogwood Street and Utility Improvements
with the condition that this be included as a bid alternative. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you for coming and Kate will, if you can give Kate your name and phone
number, she'll get in contact with you about setting up a meeting or going through Mr. Jones. Thank you
for coming.
Teresa Burgess: Actually Madam Mayor, ifI could. I believe the next item is Kate's so if people
would like to meet xvith me in the entryway, I'd be happy to take their name and address.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Mr. Jones, Mr. Lundell, Teresa's going to meet with you and get all the
information.
.
PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND ISSUANCE
OF REVENUE BONDS UNDER THE MUNICIPAL HOUSING PROGRAMS ACT, MOUNT
OLIVET ROLLING ACRES, INC.
Scott Botcher: We have a gentleman here tonight from Mount Olivet. As you remember from last month
and from your packet this month, they are seeking, or have negotiated a deal I guess with the City of
Victoria where the City of Victoria will issue revenue bonds under their authority and they will be used
to help capitalize some facilities within a list of cities and I think there's, I don't know, 12 or 13 cities
that are listed in your packet. Plymouth, Waconia, Mayer, Chanhassen, Minnetonka and Brooklyn Park,
Richfield, New Hope, Shakopee, those types of places. What they need us to do this evening is take
public comments on this and then secondly to authorize entering into a joint powers agreement with the
City of Victoria as well as the balance of these communities. Allowing the City of Victoria to issue
revenue bonds under the Municipal Housing Programs Act for the benefit of Mount Olivet Rolling Acres.
Confirmed with Mr. Batty and with Dorsey and Whitney who serves as counsel for Mount Olivet. The
City is at no risk. This is strictly, frankly the City of Victoria is not at risk on these either. Mount Olivet
is the responsible party, but if you would like a gentleman's here and he can address it briefly.
18
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Okay. If you'd like to come forward please.
Mark Beese: Madam Mayor, members of the council. My name is Mark Beese with Miller, Johnson,
Styton, Kennard and I am a member of Mount Olivet Church and Mount Olivet Rolling Acres is a non-
profit headquartered in Victoria and they serve developmentally disabled adults in our community. They
basically are doing a refinancing of their group homes and doing some improvements at them totally
$2,250,000. And because they're spread out, we're in 12 different municipalities. There's 14 homes and
City of Chanhassen actually has one home that we're refinancing for roughly $100,000. Any questions
I'd be happy to answer them.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. I'll open this up for public hearing. Anyone
wishing to address the council. Okay, then I'll bring it back to council. Any discussion? Any questions,
comments from council members? Steve?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Councilwoman Jansen: No questions.
Mayor Mancino: Then may I have a motion please.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Resolution #2000-94: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve a
resolution giving host approval to the issuance of revenue bonds and authorizing execution of a
joint powers agreement ~vith Mount Olivet Rolling Acres,/nc. Project. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A
COMMUNICATION TOWER AND 75 FOOT MONOPOLE AND EQUIP~NT PLATFORM;
7700 QUATTRO DRIVE, LOUCKS ASSOCIATES AND SPRINT PCS.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The request is to install the monopole tower by Sprint is located on the
Beddor property on Quattro Drive. If you'll recall it was a number of years ago that we looked at a site
similar in this area but it was closer to the tracks and Eden Prairie residents at that time had some
concerns. We were able to, through a series of negotiation, to put that on the Eden Prairie tower. When
this site first, site plan or request came to the staff.we again looked at the Eden Prairie site and the
Planning Commission also raised that as a concern, if that site had been exhausted. So that's one of the
issues at their public hearing on November 14th. They did request that we get something in writing from
Eden Prairie. We hadn't met with them and that has been done. Their site, their tower has been
exhausted as an alternative. We believe this site is superior in that area in the fact that it's further away
from the residents and is not directly on Highway 5 which was a concern at the time we were trying to
locate the other tower. One of the other issues is the co-location. The Planning Commission raised that
concern as far as the co-location ability. The applicant originally came in with 75 feet and had since
lowered it down to 65. While they believed that they had the ability to co-locate they had lowered the
height. Again we always try to provide two opportunities so we're not putting any additional towers than
necessary. So that was one of the conditions of the staff.report and the Planning Commission that they
19
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
do provide co-location abilities, which they have. So with that we are recommending approval for up to
a 75 foot tower on the site with the conditions outlined in the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any
questions that you have.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff?.
Councilwoman Jansen: No questions.
Councilman Peterson: When you say up to 75, are they going to go 75?
Kate Aanenson: Well that was a question w,e should also address with the City Attorney. They are
allowed to go higher. With this caveat it does say 75 feet and because it is a conditional use, we probably
still have to come back and revisit that. That's something we're going to look at in the ordinance. How
we can provide a mechanism that even though the first one comes in lower, that we give a higher height,
greater height so xve wouldn't have to come back and, because at this point if it does go higher than 75
feet, it's my understanding it xvould have to come back through the process. So that's another glitch that
we're looking at in the ordinance to remedy that. Because we want to make it expediate that they can use
these sites without making it burdensome so we have them on one piece of property. So that was
something we found with this. A nuance xve found with our ordinance that didn't quite accommodate
what we wanted it to that we'll be working on.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. is the applicant here and would you like to address the council
please?
Roger Behrens: Good evening Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Roger Behrens. I'nl
with the law firm of Faegre and Benson. I am Sprint's zoning attorney. Sprint is a communications
venture committed to providing an integrated offering of xvireless services by building a national wireless
network using PCS technology. This site at 7700 Quattro Drive is an example of such technology. Now
this proposed location is really the ideal location. One, the site complies xvith all the zoning
requirements. As you can probably see on the staff report, the setbacks are doubled, in some cases even
7 times greater than the required setbacks under the zoning code. And the height of the tower is well
below the minimum required as well. I'I1 explain why this is the ideal location from two standpoints.
The radio fi'equency standpoint and also a land use standpoint, and I'll begin with the radio frequency
standpoint first. There are two issues when addressing radio frequency. There's capacity issues and
there's coverage issues. I'll go over coverage first, because I think it's a little easier to explain. This
facility, and again it's going to be a 65 foot tower with the antenna at about 65 feet, plus the lightning rod
which may add up to 3 to 5 feet so we're talking maybe 70 feet in total height. That's why I think we
have the up to 75 foot language in there. It will be co-locatable as well by the way. Sprint agrees with
all of the staff's findings, as well as the Planning Commission's findings and will agree to all the
conditions, the 10 conditions set out as well. Again it needs to provide the Sprint service in an area of
high traffic and high public communications traffic. Now to show you the coverage issue I'll begin with
this plot here. Okay, I'll give the abridged version of this presentation if that's okay. I'll just quickly go
over. Well there's a gap in Sprint's coverage. The white and the blue there. The white represents no
coverage. The blue represents inadequate coverages and as you can see if we're to fill that gap we've got
to get somewhere where that blue dot is in the search ring. Our site, our proposed site fills in that gap.
The ~een and the yellow, and this should be green, even though it's blue there. The green and the
yellow represent coverage. As you can see the site fills in the gap that I showed you earlier. So from a
coverage standpoint this site works. Then there's the capacity issue that I had mentioned. Now with the
capacity issue, and again I will give the abbreviated version instead of going through all the details. The
20
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
capacity issue is very simply this. In order for the site to work the various antennas around the site need
to switch the call from it's antenna to another antenna. If the site is too close to any of these surrounding
antennas, the calls, the switching calls will be dropped. So it's not only have to cover the area, it's got to
be placed in an area where the calls can switch without over loading one particular antenna. Now
Sprint's explored alternative sites and I'll take you on a brief tour again of those alternative sites. The
first as was mentioned was the Eden Prairie water tower. Each of you should have received a letter from
the zoning administrator of Eden Prairie stating that the site was, the antenna would have been
inappropriate to have been attached at the side of the water antenna, and that the water tower, at the top
of the water tower is currently filled. Well, even still, even if the site could go at 150 feet at that water
tower, it would result in some capacity issues. The coverage would probably be there but the capacity
issues at 150 feet would result in overloading, it would be too far reaching. It would interfere with these
other surrounding sites. And again the city would not allow us to go on the stem of the tower as you can
see by the letter that you had received. Still our sites, candidate B here was a site and an NSP tower
located on 78~' Street east of Highway 101. And again it's too far south and would cause the capacity
problem issues, the lack of switching from the other antenna sites surrounding there. The same with Site
C. It's an NSP tower located on 78th Street east of Highway 101.
Scott Botcher: Did you shoot those NSP towers at different elevations or just at one elevation?
Roger Behrens: I'm not sure of the elevations on those towers. I know that it has to be a certain amount
of feet below the wires there and I think that's where we did it as high as we could on each of the towers.
And I think that's where these maps are based upon is the highest height we can go on those towers. I'm
not, is that correct?
Scott Botcher: Is that optimal location?
Dave Hagen: Yes.
Scott Botcher: Because higher isn't always better.
Roger Behrens: This is Dave Hagen of Loucks and Associates.
Dave Hagen: Good evening Mayor and members of the council. Yeah, the height that we used in
modeling what coverage we would get from the NSP, existing NSP towers was the ideal height for the
site. They have to be below the lines. They have to be 10 foot separation. I don't know what the exact
height it is. It may be indicated on those coverage plots that are in your agenda package. I don't know
but at any rate they were high enough. The towers were tall enough for us to get the antennas up high
enough to, for an ideal height. The problem was the location of those towers. Not the height of the
towers.
Scott Botcher: Okay.
Roger Behrens: And finally our last site was the AT&T Brown site located at Great Plains Boulevard
and Highway 5. And as you can see it was too close to our site in Chanhassen which is 1455 Park Road
in Chanhassen, and again would cause interference with that site. With our current site there.
Scott Botcher: Did you look at moving it? Did you look at moving it at another site? The pre-existing
site or eliminating it?
21
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Roger Behrens: Consider moving the existing site? Well then it would cause a coverage gap in this area
here though. Our current pocket is where the white is here.
Scott Botcher: So basically the analysis that was done, you just tried to peg one in. You didn't do
anything else to any other site?
Roger Behrens: As far as increasing?
Scott Botcher: As far as covering your area. You did not, in your analysis, perform any modifications to
any pre-existing site ~vhatsoever?
Roger Behrens: Oh I see what, xvell if we, the only thing we could have done, I would assume what
you're asking is, would be increase the height at that current site.
Scott Botcher: Just so I understand, no modifications were considered whatsoever for existing sites when
you did your analysis prior to dropping in what you'd like, prior to dropping in...
Roger Behrens: No. Yeah, these sites are based upon what's currently there. That's correct. These
plots.
Mayor Mancino: Dave, could you state your name for the record.
Dave Hagen: Oh I'm sorry. Yes, my name is Dave Hagen and I'm an employee of Loucks Associates
and we're a consultant to Sprint in acquiring and zoning the sites. I would point out, in answer to the
question from the City Manager that xve did not look at moving the location of the existing site. That is
correct. When Sprint establishes a site in the particular location, it invests a great deal of money in doing
that and considers that to be a given as we plan locations of future sites. The height of those existing
sites is sometimes something that can be changed without a great investment. The height that they're
located at at the present time is an ideal location as it relates to this particular site that we're proposing
and those existing sites.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Do council members have any questions? Councilman Senn? Have
any questions?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen?
Councilwoman Jansen: No questions.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Peterson?
Councilman Peterson: None.
Mayor Mancino: Mr. Labatt. Do you have any questions?
Councilman Labatt: No. I'll just save my comments for later.
22
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there anyone here tonight here on this issue? Okay. Let me bring this back to
council. Steve, you said you had a few comments.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. It seems like this is our third or fourth cell tower, as long as I've been on
council, and they all talk about co-locating, co-locating, co-locating but yet this is, we've never seen an
application for co-location. And I have a hard believing that 4/10th of a mile causes that much damage to
the coverage. I'm trying to measure things out and where did those pictures go? Oh, I've got them in my
hand. They're just, if you look at the NSP towers and utilizing that, I don't know. It just seems that
something else can be done here. I think Scott brought up a good point. You know what else could be
modified elsewhere? Maybe they need to do more homework before I'm satisfied, but I don't like it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Peterson?
Councilman Peterson: I agree with Steve. I don't like it. Never have liked them. We have seen a half
dozen of these in different forms over the last few years and unfortunately Roger hasn't let us turn them
down. And we have to take the advice, or seemingly we had to take the advice of experts in technology
saying that yes, it does make a significant difference if you move it 4/10th ora mile. And we've argued
that, at least at the Planning Commission we've argued that time and time again, so I'm kind of between a
rock and a hard place. Who do you believe? And that's what I'm struggling with and I'd like to deny it
but I can't see a compelling reason to do so.
Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: Well actually I guess I tend to have to follow the federal regulations and since it
is allowed to be in this location, it meets all of our ordinances and we said that this was a spot that we
would accept an antenna. I don't see an argument necessarily against it and if it's improving the
technology and the capacity for the technology in our.community, then I am certainly in favor of it and
xve have no neighbors that I'm aware of that are truly in objection to.this one and we've had then in
people's back yards so I see this as a location that even if we had reviewed our zoning, it probably would
have stayed as an allowable location. So I'm not opposed at all.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Nothing new to comment on.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you. I have nothing new to comment on either. Ditto on what's been
said so may I have a motion please. -
Councilwoman Jansen: Move approval.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit
#2000-6 to permit the installation of a communication tower and site plan approval for up to a 75
foot monopole tower and equipment platform, Sprint PCS, plans prepared by AEC Engineering
dated 8/30/00, revised 11/1/00, subject to the following conditions:
A building permit is required to construct the platform and tower; the tower must be designed for
an 80 mph wind load and include the effect of one-half inch of radial ice.
23
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
2. The plans must be signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota.
The contractor shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan
review and permit procedures.
4
The applicant shall submit a detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan for staff review
and approval.
o
The proposed use for the 12 foot wide gate opening must be shown on the grading plan and will
be used for access through the passage between the two buildings.
6. The tower shall be of a color that blends in with the sky.
A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of
the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for
shared use shall be submitted to the city.
The tower shall be designed to be capable of accommodating future co-location of antenna below
Sprint's proposed antenna.
_.
The txvo conifers proposed on the landsCaping plan are other than Colorado SPruce.
10.
The tower shall be designed and constructed such that it is extendable in the future to a sufficient' '
height to attach an additional antenna above Sprint's proposed antenna.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Labatt who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4
to 1.
REOUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW "THE LIFE" CHURCH TO
OCCUPY A PORTION OF AN OFFICE/'vVAREHOUSE BUILDING LOCATED ON LOT 1,
BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 8m ADDITION, ANDREAS
DEVELOPMENT.
Kate Aanenson: The New Life Church is looking at occupying a portion of a building that was approved
that's 43,000 square feet.
Mayor Mancino: Can everyone hear?
Kate Aanenson: In Chan Lakes Business Park. It's the building that's 43,000 square feet. The property
is zoned IOP. A church is an interim use in this district. The church itself will occupy approximately
half of the building. One of the concerns that the staff had obviously was the parking. Because of the
nature of the use ora church, the parking will be in evening hours and on the weekends so it shouldn't
conflict. The proposed seating is 237, which translates to 81 stalls. So staff is recommending approval
of the Interim Use and it does have findings in the report. One of the conditions that we did put in there
is that we have, with the Interim Use if there is a conflict with traffic or parking, that we would have the
right to review that. But the Interim Use, because the site is currently in Jonathan, they want to stay in
this area. Give them opportunity to locate in this area for up to 5 years. The building is owned and is a
taxable piece of property. They are leasing from the site, again which we think makes sense. We have
24
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
done this in other situations. Family of Christ where we actually, for the Family of Christ we amended
that district with the shared parking. Similarly we did with St. Hubert's where we provided, they actually
were looking at 40 acres. It got down to 10 acres because of the shared parking and we also in the
Jehovah Witness church, we amended that industrial park so we have a history of reviewing this and
making accommodations so again the interim use which runs out in 5 years, hopefully giving them an
opportunity to look for additional sites. But again it's still on a taxable parcel and provides the
opportunity to evaluate any parking or conflict problems that are in the area. The Planning Commission
did review this on December 5th at a public hearing and just made a minor modification regarding the
language about hours. Just limiting them to evening hours and then on weekends. So with that we are
recommending approval of the interim use and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, when you say limiting them to evening hours, what about as far as
administrative people?
Kate Aanenson: That's a good question that, that is a good question. If we want to talk about assembly.
General assembly or I don't know.
Mayor Mancino: Well it says worship services shall be limited to evenings during the week.
Councilman Labatt: What if you had a wedding?
Kate Aanenson: That is a good question. I don't know if the City Attorney has some wisdom on that.
What it would constitute so we would have some control.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, good question and the applicant can speak to that too.
Roger Knutson: I think worship service is pretty well understood term. If you want to further restrict it
in some other ways, then you'd better address it.
Scott Botcher: If I were to say that I believe a wedding to be a sacrament.
Kate Aanenson: Or worship service.
Mayor Mancino: It's not a worship service.
Councilman Labatt: That all depends on how you look at it.
Scott Botcher: ...your wife worship you Steve?
Councilman Labatt: Oh yeah.
Roger Knutson: I would not consider, if you wanted to restrict a wedding as being a worship service,
although you can argue.
Councilman Labatt: So a Saturday 1:00 wedding would be allowable?
25
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Kate Aanenson: Well we said weekends, right. If weekends, anything on the weekends or evenings. It's
a weekday issue so I guess we felt that accommodated it as long as, you know if you want to put
specifically define evening and after a certain time.
Councihnan Labatt: So how about like, in the summertime when some churches have Vacation Bible
Study during the day.
Kate Aanenson: Right. I think that's something that we may want to add a little bit more detail on for
parking.
Mayor Mancino: We can ask the applicant how pigeon holed they want to be in the time.
Scott Botcher: And frankly from our point of view, we don't want to be listing every single sacramental
nit because we'll never list them all. And we don't want to be in the interpretation business as it deals
with freedom of religion and expression thereof so I would hope that all just play nice.
Mayor Mancino: Good question.
Kate Aanenson: But on the interim use we do want to put reasonable conditions.
Scott Botcher: Just trying to draw a balance here.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions and then I'll let the applicant come up because he can answer,
maybe answer some of them.
Councihnan Labatt: I've got one more too. This is probably for Todd. Now there, this is a TIF parcel or
area. TIF, but there's no affect on that TIF...
Todd Gerhardt: The owner has been notified that if this use does go in the building they would exceed
the 15% of non-permitted TIF users so a church, production studio, whatever you want to call this, is not
one of the permitted uses under TIF law. So the owner is aware of that and the tenant and the owner are
discussing that issue. So if for some reason that they should move ahead with the project, we would ask
them to relinquish their rights under the private redevelopment agreement, that they will not receive TIF.
So you may want that to be one of the motions on this that they sign a waiver of their TIF rights. And
enter into an agreement. What do you call that agreement Roger?
Roger Knutson: I just drafted one today.
Todd Gerhardt: You just called it an agreement, right?
Roger Knutson: An agreement.
Todd Gerhardt: I haven't seen it yet.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Councihnan Labatt: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Please come forward. State your name and address.
26
City Council Meeting- December 1 I, 2000
Fred Haymer: Madam Mayor, Council members. My name is Fred Haymer. I'm a ministry assistant and
deacon with the Life Church. To answer some of your questions that came up, I could hear what they
were. We do, the primary use of the building that we want to lease is for church services on primarily the
evenings, Wednesday evening primarily, and the.., church which.is the administrative side which we are
leasing office space. We anticipate sometimes between 10 and 20 people being there during the day on a
normal 8:00 to 5:00 work schedule. We have no anticipation in our lease agreement with Andreas at all
of having any activities during the daytime other than the administrative use. Presently today we have
our services at Jonathan in Chaska and our office in Eden Prairie and what we're trying to do is combine
them. As far as the tax issue, we have discussed this with Andreas and we understand our obligations
there and the TIF issue and that will be part of our contract and that wording has already been worked out
as far as the contract. If there's any questions I'd certainly be happy to answer them obviously.
Kate Aanenson: IfI could make an additional comment. Administrative offices is a permitted use in the
district so maybe to answer Steve's questions, concerns, maybe we could just state something to the fact
that weekday use is limited to the administrative function or something to that effect.
Mayor Mancino: And we have sufficient parking?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: So they're looking at a 5 year agreement on this, correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: So what happens in 2 or 3 years if they add a summertime, daytime program for
kids.
Kate Aanenson: Well that's what I'm saying, the weekday use would be limited to the administrative
office.
Councilman Labatt: But if they want to come back, are they allowed to come back and...?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. They can always come back and amend an application. Anybody can. Request
that, and then we can evaluate it at that time because they would have that right to come back, either
extend the interim use. They may want to do that and you can consider at that time, evaluate the pros and
cons and then any other changes they would have a right to come back.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And it would require the same process. Public hearing before the Planning Commission
and then up to you.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Mr. Haymer? Thank you.
Councilwoman Jansen: No, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Bringing this back to council. Any other comments Steve?
27
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Peterson?
Councilman Peterson: I think it's reasonable with those caveats we already discussed.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilwoman Jansen?
Councilwoman Jansen: Nothing new to add.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: Nope.
Mayor Mancino: I have nothing new to add either. May I please have a motion?
Councilman Senn: Move approval of the Interim Use Permit with the attached conditions as outlined by
staff. Also contingent upon the owner signing a waiver of TIF rights and adding a condition that
weekday use be limited only to use by administrative offices.
Mayor Mancino: A second please to the motion.
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council approves Interim
Use Permit #00-3 to allow a church in an IOP District for "The Life", to be located on Lot 1, Block
1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition, and occupy 20,700 square feet as shown on the
plans dated Received November 1, 2000, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into an interim use permit a=m'eement with the city.
2. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval.
3. There shall be no outdoor storage of any equipment associated with the church or the auxiliary
uses associated with the church.
4. Worship services shall be limited to evenings during the week and weekends.
5. The Interim User Permit shall expire in 5 years from the date approved by the City Council.
Plans must be submitted to the Inspections Division for review and building Permit approval.
Meet xvith Fire Prevention Division for Fire Code requirements.
At any time if issues of parking arise, e.g. parking in public right-of-way, conflicts with other site
users, the City will re-evaluate this application.
The owner shall sign a waiver of TIF rights.
o
.
.
,
28
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
10. Weekday use shall be limited to use by administrative offices only.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR 2001 AND CERTIFYING FINAL TAX LEVIES
FOR 2000, COLLECTIBLE IN 2001, AND ADOPTING THE CIP.
Bruce DeJong: Mayor Mancino, Council members. Tonight we're here kind of the end ora long road
that we started back in July and August with the initial budget submittals from the department heads
coming down to a preliminary Truth in Taxation tax levy that was certified to Carver County back in
September. And we've had many meetings to look at individual departmental budgets. To look at CIP
expenditures for the next 5 years and what you have in front of you is a summary of that. What we're
really here tonight to talk about is setting the final budgets for each department and setting the levy that
will determine the amount of taxes that the citizens of Chanhassen pay next year. Last week, Monday,
we had a meeting, Truth in Taxation hearing mandated by the State where we were taking public
comment regarding our tax levy and at that meeting there were approximately a dozen people who
showed up and approximately 6 who spoke and their discussion was to somehow reduce the tax levy,
that the general level of taxes is too high, and that seems to be a common complaint. What we are
experiencing though is that we have certain expenditures that you've reviewed and in general those
expenditures don't seem to be excessive and we have not heard any general clamor for reducing
programs or services from the city which would reduce our expenditures. So what you have in front of
you is a budget and tax levy that fully funds the expenditures of the city without really adding any new
programs. There's been a change with one full time equivalent employee.from the recreation department
to the MIS department, but other than that there are really no new programs in this budget and no new
employees in this budget to fund. So I guess with that, we have a tax levy that we start, we use as a
starting point for our discussion of $6,957,375 and that is made up of a general fund tax levy of
$4,630,000, two debt levies of $1,699,000 and Southwest Metro Transit levy of $628,000. So above and
beyond that it's probably pointless for me to start rehashing some of these budget numbers but I'll just
turn it over to you for discussion of what you'd like to do with the levy and the budget.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much Bruce. Before I go forward I just would like to say to
both Scott and to Bruce that, I know this was in our packet a couple of months ago and that was the
Standards and Poors, the debt rating that we got from them that was the A- rating which went from
intermediate to a longer term of positive. So this was a very excellent report to get from Standard and
Poors about our bond rating and it certainly has a very positive effect on the city so thank you for that.
For the second year in a row and upgrade. A longer look at the city and how we're doing so again we
really didn't talk about that publicly yet but I wanted to thank you both for it. All the work you did on
that. Going to the budget, why don't we take any public input right now on general budget questions or
concerns that you have, because I see some people. If you'd like to come up, state your name and
address. On any questions, any comments that you'd like to make on the budget. Okay, seeing none I'll
bring this back to council. Let's ask questions. We did not get any time during our work session to ask
for budget questions. Steve, are there any questions that you have on our 2001 budget?
Councilman Labatt: So you said there's a shift in the allocation of funds for the employee from the rec
center to the one in MIS? Did I hear you right there?
Scott Botcher: We had an unfilled, yet budgeted I think for at least, well for two consecutive budget
years position that in this budget I removed from parks and rec and then sort of the offsetting entry that
he mentioned is the addition of the MIS position so that's what that trade off was.
29
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilman Labatt: So it's a trade off. So MIS will get their person in 200t?
Scott Botcher: Well you guys obviously.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, we haven't sold but that's xvhere the, so we're not seeing an increase for that
extra salary and benefits and all that stufP?. That was already figured into the 2000 budget. 2001 is just
physically the moving the person from one place to another.
Scott Botcher: Well I think the salaries for the MIS person are slightly higher than that for the park and
rec person. I don't want to say they're identical because I don't think they are but as far as FTE's to
FTE's, that was the idea.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. Okay. That's all I had for right now...
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So no other budget questions. Craig.
Councilman Peterson: Well I think Bruce is probably sick of me asking stupid questions so I think I'm
past the stupid ones now and, I think the only issue I spoke, I struggled with some of the capital, and
whether you want to have that as a secondary conversation or not.
_
Mayor Mancino: The CIP?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I thought maybe we'd just talk about bUdget now and then talk about CIP.
Councihnan Peterson: No, I think it's reasonable.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: Actually after coming through all of the meetings with the department heads,
first of all I guess many thanks to Scott and Bruce for working these numbers through and giving us all
the detail that you did and to all of the department heads for going through the numerous meetings that
we had. Just going through all of the different expenses and all of our questions that we've thrown to
them over the past couple of months and I guess the only expense, cutting tool that I mentioned back in
August that we addressed as possibly being able to start implementing in budget year 2001 would be an
incentive program to the staff, since they are so intimately familiar with what all the costs are rather than
maybe it coming from us. If we can set a goal for the year as to where we would like to bring some of
these expenses down and incentify the employees to go in and find those cost efficiencies and maybe re-
configure some of these expenses and possibly we can sit down as a council and evaluate some of the
programs. I do think there's some things that we can do as a council working throughout the year as we
approach the next budget period to be sure that we have everything as tight as we can so that as we are
coming through these difficult financial times as we're working through all of these debt service issues, if
there are things we need to add or we could spend more wisely for our taxpayers, that we're addressing
those. So that we are putting as small a burden as possible on them. Of course this year the issue is the
debt service and getting that taken care of. But no, I'm comfortable with the budget. I think you've
done a nice job with it and I don't have any questions at this point. Just encouraging that we go forward
with that incentive program that we had talked about in August.
30
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Scott Botcher: The only thing on the, and I agree. I think the incentive program is well done. It will take
time to put it together because obviously the issue is, I mean if you give Bruce, Todd and I a pencil and
about 15 minutes we can incentivize a whole bunch of stuff, but whether or not that's in the best interest
of public policy, you kmow we serve a larger constituency base and so we have to figure out a way to
balance the incentivation.
Councilwoman Jansen: Absolutely.
Scott Botcher: Incentivizing, that's not the word I'm looking for. Sorry Bruce, it's late. Again it's the
public policy issue, aka lifeguards, right Todd? Lifeguards at Lake Ann and those types of things but I
think it's a great thing to pursue. It's just we have to be careful how we put it together.
Mayor Mancino: Well and that's also assuming them is fat. So you'll know that.
Scott Botcher: No but there just may be some alternative ways of doing stuff. ! mean Bruce and I are
still holding out for commission on the bond rating upgrade. Maybe Bruce is, I don't know but I think
it's a good idea.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: As far as the operating budget goes,-I've gotten answers I think pretty much to all of
my questions. Between the work sheets and the work sessions and stuff. There's only one thing I'm
continuing to have a difficult time to reconcile and Bruce, maybe you could help me out. Essentially but~
looking at all the work sheets essentially, all the numbers, and rather than picking them apart by
department or whatever, let's just kind of go down to the total because I think it's reflective of the same
question. But if you essentially take the work sheets that you guys put together, which I assume is your
best indication of where those numbers are at this point. The actual through November, you're showing
expenses of $5,891,503.
Councilman Labatt: Mark, what page is that?
Councilman Senn: This is on the budget work sheets.
Mayor Mancino: And what's the total that you came up with?
Councilman Senn: Well it's right at the last page of the budget work sheets. Which is the grand total
column. Okay. It has an actual through November expense of $5,891,503 and estimating a year end total
expense of $6,959,547, which is approximately $1.1 million dollars during the month of December. And
I'm just trying to figure that out. It's been a problem around here time and time again. Every year as far
as year end spending goes and this one I just can't figure out because no where in my mind can I fathom
that we can spend $1.1 million dollars out of a $7 million dollar budget in one last month of the year. So
I'm kind of trying to figure out how to reconcile those numbers.
Bruce DeJong: Quite honestly I haven't updated those numbers since they were put in there in, back in
September I guess. And I don't believe that we will spend $1.1 million in December. In the general
fund.
31
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilman Senn: But then the necessary question to follow is if our expense level as of November 30th,
which is supposedly updated numbers, is $5,891,503. Why are we starting from the premise that we once
again need $7 million base to start from before we talk about increased expenditures for next year?
It seems to me we ought to be going more fi'om a $6 million base than a $7 million base.
Scott Botcher: I don't think we started at a $7 million base. I mean I think 80% of our costs is a human
services cost and we run exact spread, I mean we run spread sheets identifying by salary grade and by
individual what those costs are going to be, including the benefit costs, including FICA. That's by far the
biggest part of this budget. Always has been, always will.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand.
Scott Botcher: So we don't start from a base. I mean that, if you ~vanted to make the argument of zero
base budgeting.
Councilman Senn: No, no. You're misinterpreting what I'm saying then because what I'm saying by the
face is your original budget amount, which is right here on the same sheet and the same line item. $7
million dollars. Okay.
Scott Botcher: Okay.
Councilman Senn: You're telling me you had a budget of $7 million. You've spent $5.8 through
November, okay? And if you're not going to spend $1.1 in the next, in the next 2 weeks or 30 days from
the point that this last report was done, okay. That $7 million budget was about a million dollars
essentially higher than what you needed for this year based on your actual expenditures. So all I'm trying
to do again is reconcile why there is that $1.1 million dollar difference and if that difference is in fact
fair, why aren't we effectively starting from a needed amount in year 2000 of $6 million rather than $7
million?
Scott Botcher: And I guess the answer is, because I think that the recommended budget amounts aren't
put together off the base. I mean I don't care, frankly they're not. They're not put together off the base.
We run a spread sheet.
Councilman Senn: Maybe I'm not understanding. You define base to me. When I say base I'm saying
this is the amount you budgeted in the year 2000, $7 million dollars. That's your base.
Scott Botcher: That's not my base. That's my.
Councilman Senn: That's your base of this work sheet.
Scott Botcher: No it's not. That's my 2000 budget amount. When I build a 2001 budget amount, we go
back and we run a complete spread sheet identifying our human resource costs. And we plug those
numbers in. Those are real numbers without us going back, unless Bruce does and say oh geez, last year
we had a $7 million, $6 million base. Whatever the number is. That's where we start from. That's not
how we do it. We run actual numbers for 80% of that budget. Then we go back and we look at every
single line item. And some of those that have been far under what we have budgeted in the past, we do
cut. Those that are higher, or have over shot the expenditures, for whatever definable reason, we try to
make adjustments. We don't always make them as much as department heads would like, but we do do
32
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
that. So it's not like we start with a total gross budget base because that's not how the budget's put
together. We look at every single line multiple times.
Mayor Mancino: But we still have a $1.1 million dollars.
Scott Botcher: But Bruce, I mean Bruce just said though that the $5.8 million number needs to be
updated and the $7 million budget or whatever Mark said was the budgeted amount, we can all sit here
and say well geez does that mean we're going to have excess revenues going into a general fund this
year.
Mayor Mancino: That's right.
Scott Botcher: Yeah, you can maybe make that argument if those numbers hold true, but that's an
argument a little bit separate and distinct from what the expenditure levels are for the 2001 budget, which
is what you're getting at.
Councilman Senn: Well Scott yes and no. I mean I understand how you're responding in relationship to
building an expense budget okay. But part of the relationship of building that expense budget is
essentially that if you only needed $6 million dollars in the year 2000, and your not adding any new
programs or staff or anything like that okay, and you are purely you know essentially just adding you
know the additional things you need to add on to it, then essentially we're going from roughly $6 million
in expenditures in the year 2000 to a proposed level expenditure under your budget of almost $7.7
million. Okay.
Scott Botcher: And we need to figure out what makes that difference up. It's not an issue of working off
of a base. You want to know what makes up that difference.
Councilman Senn: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Yes. What makes up that difference?
Scott Botcher: I just want to make sure I understand the methodology because we don't work off the
base.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I understand working off the base but there's a lot of excess there. And maybe
we need to give you some time to do that.
Bruce DeJong: Well part of it is a function of the way we budget. And the way we budget is you're
setting a maximum expenditure budget. Certainly you don't want to set something that is, you know that
has a 50/50 likelihood of being exceeded. If you wanted to do that, you know we could do that but with
the expectation though that we're going to come in you know, at least half of the time and say, boy. We
really missed it here and we're going to have to raise our expenditure you know, our expenditures are
going to be substantially over budget versus our revenues. Now if you want us to predict accurately as
possible what the maximum expenditures, that's what this budget does. If you want us to predict you
know some actual expenditures, you know we could certainly reduce that amount but you have to
understand that we're probably going to come in at least half of the year and say, boy. We've exceeded
this and you know there's some good reasons why but gee, we didn't budget enough revenues to cover
those costs.
33
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Mayor Mancino: But Bruce, this is kind of an anomaly. In the last 5 or 6 years we've always come in
under expenditures. Under projected expenditures. We've always come in under but it's been maybe 3,
4, 5%. I mean this just seems like a fairly big number is all we're saying.
Bruce DeJong: But it's going to be higher than what you think based on that. We've got about 11% of
our payroll expenditures yet to be paid out, which is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of
$420,000. Because of the way it falls, that 26 pay periods during the year, every two weeks, we have
three of those pay periods falling in the month of December. So that's $400,000 right off the top and,
plus what generally happens with our department heads, and other employees, is that they are by nature
conservative and they do not take a look at their budget and say oh boy. I can spend all of this money
right away at the beginning of the year. What they do is they say, you know I'm really worried that
something's going to happen and I'm going to have to spend this money on something I didn't plan on.
And so they save that, even though there are planned expenditures in there, and do spend some of the
money in December. That's certainly the case in a lot of the materials and supplies area that, it's a
function of how they operate. Saying gee, if we have something unexpected happen in one other area,
I've got this reserved so that ifI don't have to spend it, I can put it towards some other type of
unexpected type of budgetary problem.
Scott Botcher: And similarly, you know to the extent, and I can, I would encourage you to go back and
look at last year but I know last year my sort of edick was, we didn't xvant to have that because I heard
stories that's what always happened. I didn't see that happen last year. I don't see them going out and
just blowing money in December for the heck of it. In fact I had department heads come to.me and ask to
spend money and we considered each request on it'smerits and some are denied and some were not
denied and that's just management. But given the fact that expenditures do come in under budget I guess
is maybe more of a testament that department heads don't go out and blow all of their expenditure
monies because if they did, then they wouldn't match up. Any expenditures would come much closer to
matching up to what the budget said they would.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah last year we came in $t 17,000 under budget. Expenditures.
Scott Botcher: Right. And you know we've got all sorts of, as Bruce said, we've got these issues this
year. We've got the couple hundred thousand dollars that we're pulling in out of TIF that were salaries
and expenses. This year, you know let's be honest. We budgeted for a public works director and a city
engineer. We don't have that. We had some of these issues happen that are six figure issues.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, partway through the year we had a number of adjustments...
Councilwoman Jansen: Can I ask one question?
Councilman Senn: Don't let me, I mean I don't want to belabor where you're going with it essentially.
I'm not essentially going to the point that I want to create the impression or even imply that that was the
case. Okay. All I'm trying to say, and we can see where the rest of this goes tonight or whatever,
because we have to talk about the CIP and tax levy issues but I'm just saying, as an operating budget
issue, I would like to understand what essentially goes into making up that $1.1 million differential at
some point. Now I mean granted, we kind of backed into the tail end of the budget process here. We've
only had this information for a very short period of time, for a week or whatever, and we've had a lot to
digest and go through. We solved a lot of questions, answered most the problems. This is one I'm still
having trouble with. So all I'm saying is, if you go back or somebody go back and kind of close that gap
for me and tell me why. That's all I'm trying to understand.
34
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Scott Botcher: And we can certainly have Bruce and the finance department go back and just reconfirm
the $5.9, $5.8 million dollar figure and make sure that's tight. And then actually, I mean and this has
been something that we frankly debated in Delafield. Do you estimate your expenses at the budgeted
level, which is a conservative way of doing it. Or do you guesstimate them to be somewhat short of
what's budgeted? So in this case if the budget amount was, I don't know what you said, $7 million.
Bruce goes in and looks at it and says well, it's really going to come in closer to $6.5 so he tells you $6.5
as a non-conservative representation. We get to the audit next year and oh, guess what? It was $7
million bucks. You then make levying and finance decisions based upon something not as conservative
as he might otherwise have provided you and then you all sit there and say well what the heck happened.
In my own personal experience I had that debate with the councils in Delafield and we generally as a rule
said okay. What we budget is what we'll set as our estimated expenditures unless something was really
way out. That was just a very conservative policy to take. It's not right or wrong. It's just a choice.
Councilwoman Jansen: Bruce, if you don't mind my asking. On the sheriff's contract it would appear
from this 11/30 statement that we've only paid for halfa year. Might the rest of that invoice be due?
Scott Botcher: It's in the bills now. That's the second half.
Councilman Labatt: We approved $603,000 in bills today so there's half of the $1.1 million.
Councilwoman Jansen: It's like $400,000 that isn't in here so I was just looking for a big invoice.
Assuming that you've got something so there's 600 of it right there so, to have the rest of that.
Bruce DeJong: 600 encompasses quite a few months but yeah.
Councilwoman Jansen: Well this is 400. This is $400,000. '
Scott Botcher: The other ones are disparity funds.
Councilman Peterson: Mark isn't your question more fundamental? Isn't it? Let me finish my question
though. If the original budget was $7 million for 2000 and we said that we have that.., at $6 million, or
$6 IA million. Fundamentally I think your question was, can't that $500,000, whatever that number is, be
applied towards the ensuing year. That's what I'm missing.
Councilman Senn: Craig fundamentally that's where it ends up but I'm trying to understand the gap first
before you talk about what goes where and that's all I'm trying to do.
Scott Botcher: Well maybe one of the issues is, and Bruce if you can go here, that's great. If you can't
then just tell me I'm wrong. I know in internal discussions we've been trying to estimate what our fund
balance addition or deletion would be at the end of the year. And to the best of my recollection, and
Todd you were there as well, it was in the neighborhood of 3 ½. Is that about right? At this point?
Bruce DeJong: Well right now I think it's $380,000.
Scott Botcher: That's the informed estimate at this point.
Bruce DeJong: That's the difference at this point. Between expenditures and revenues.
35
City Council Meeting - December 1 t, 2000
Scott Botcher: Estimated on both sides. Estimated expenditures, estimated revenues or current?
Bruce DeJong: Actual.
Mayor Mancino: At this point.
Bruce DeJong: At this point. I'm guessing that it's going to be about $300,000 but I don't have any
solid figures or analysis to back that up.
Scott Botcher: Okay. So in order to come up with that $300,000 number, then you simply just took
actual against actual. Made a guesstimate for cash flow in November and December to drop off that
$80,000 and that's how you come up with 300 grand.
Bruce DeJong: That's CO~Tect.
Scott Botcher: Okay. And so, that's the, and I didn't know if you were part of that discussion but that's
that 300 grand that we had thought would be added to fund balance, which we have recommended in this
budget being, you know hoarded I guess xvith the balance of the cash, to use for defeasances and
whatever else we want. We do with it ~vhat xve've talked about ad nauseam in the past. Does that help at
all? I mean that's sort of how, I asked that question sort of so you guys could hear the answer but that's
how Bruce came up xvith that gap because we sort of knew what the additional fund balance would be.
Councihnan Senn: You know I understand Bruce's number. The estimate of the 300 and some thousand
dollars. We've talked about that. You know again, I'm just not reconciling that with what I'm seeing in
the work sheets. Again, all I'm trying to do is understand the gap. I.think he understands what I'm
saying. Okay, and it's easily done.
Bruce DeJong: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, okay. End of question.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, any other questions on the budget?
Councilman Senn: Not on the operating part, no.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, any questions on.
Scott Botcher: Does everyone understand the fire relief and all the other ones? Just want to make sure.
Mayor Mancino: Bruce, one of the things you and I had talked about is rolling the fire relief fund into
the general fund.
Bruce DeJong: That's CO~Tect.
Mayor Mancino: And is that something that you would suggest that we do now?
Bruce DeJong: Well I have not made any recommendations for fund closings or for equity transfers out
of any of the funds, simply because we're still struggling with some of the basic accounting and I want to
make sure we get that done correctly before we actually close out funds and transfer monies that may or
36
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
may not be available. The fire relief fund is pretty straight forward and I'm certainly recommending that
we not levy any taxes for that this year. You know for collection next year, and that we put those
expenditures inside the general fund. That ends up being an annual payment of something approaching
$85,000 and there is a substantial fund balance in that fund. Probably about $240,000 at the end of this
year that certainly would be available for transfer to the general fund or any other place that the council
sees fit.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. What about the environmental protection fund. I know this is getting off the
issue for one second. Would you also suggest doing that with the environmental fund? Protection fund?
Because again we're not levying for that, and I'm talking about in the future.
Bruce DeJong: I guess that's one of the deferred decisions. What we're really anticipating doing is
using the fund balance to run that program for the next several years until we identify either a different
operating resource to fund it, or make the determination that we want to include that into the general tax
levy. We made kind of half stab at trying to incorporate that along with the surface water management,
which at least at this point I think those discussions probably were a little fruitless. Yeah, there's some
statutory restrictions from the state standpoint as to what you can fund out of surface water and there are
some ordinance restrictions based on our own city code that say how we're going to use that. It seems to
me there is some overlap in those two and perhaps that fee that we levy along with the sewer and water
fees on the utility bill may be a possible way to fund the operations of that particular department.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.'
Scott Botcher: In other words the attorney shot us down. It wasn't you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, those were questions on budget. Questions on CPI. Final questions on, I'm
sorry, CIP. And then we'll go to levy. Steve, any questions that you have on CIP? .
Councilman Labatt: No, I had mine answered in the work session. And they dealt specifically with the
annual street maintenance program. And those were answered by Ms. Burgess. The telecommunication
purchases. Craig brought that up... The other one had~to do with 800 MHz, but that's not til 2004, and
we said we're jumping that up to 2003 or Something. And then Scott addressed the dive equipment and
he already reduced that but I'm okay with the 15,000. I think it's a worthy program and we need it here.
Other than that, that's all I have.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Craig.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah I'm still struggling with laptop computers for the fire department. I'm a
little leery of spending thousands of dollars with a consultant to pick out, help us pick out what we need.
I'd like to think it's more obvious than that so a substantial portion of that in 2001 is just having a
consultant tell us what to do. I'm leery of approving it on that basis. I just think it's a lot of money for
not knowing exactly what we need. I think it should be more self evident. The dive equipment, you
know it seems logical that if we've got Carver County is able to do it, and I'm reluctant to dedicate funds
to providing for it ourselves if we have an alternative that seems viable. I guess I wasn't convinced we
don't have a viable alternative but at the end of the day I'm nickel and diming as it relates to the
percentage of the total so I can certainly be convinced otherwise and wait for other comments.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen.
37
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: As I mentioned in the work session, I just want to have held back this
telecommunications purchases, the $115,000 until we can have a discussion over what has already been
spent and allocated from the 2000 CIP amount.
Councilman Labatt: When you say hold back, you mean?
Councilwoman Jansen: Not approve. At this point.
Councilman Labatt: Delete it?
Councilwoman Jansen: That's probably the, I don't kmow about deleting it. I mean it's probably the
easiest thing to do. It sounds as though the 2000 amount may cover our needs. At this point I think there
needs to be more discussion around that item. So that it's not just a blanket approval with tonight.
Mayor Mancino: So not approve?
Councilman Peterson: We can just ask staff not to ~nake any commitments prior to further discussion
with council.
Councilwoman Jansen: That was one of my issues. The other was, wanting to include the
recommendations from the Park and Rec Commission that they had made to be included in the park and
trail fired. So the Marsh Glen trail connector, we all noxv have a copy of that. That memo. It was the
Marsh Glen trail connector at $68,000. The skate park improvements for the $35,000. The Recreation
Center illuminated Wall sign at 10. And then they had three miscellaneous that came to like $13,000 that
they requested as part of that fund. Not the general. And as far as the laptop computers and the trucks,
you know to follow up xvith what Craig said, that does seem like we need to get that tighten up before we
do any sort of approval on that. To just send them out with consultants. And on the dive equipment, I
guess the difference between the county and city services, as I heard it, is that we would be providing
rescue whereas we rely on the county for recovery. And I guess if we can manage to avoid having
someone drown, to kno~v that we have at least the ability to get there and try to rescue those people,
knowing that we have 3 minute response coming from our emergency team, I guess it seems worth the
$15,000 that that might enable us to save a life so ! guess that's what I heard in the course of the
explanation but. Those are my issues. I brought up the water treatment plant and of course Teresa was
suggesting we wait before we move that to sooner. In the feasibility that she'll be able to tell us over the
course of the year what type of a water treatment facility we'll actually need before we go moving that to
sooner, so I'm okay with that, though I'm anticipating that it will probably end up being a 2002
expenditure versus 2004. Those are my comments.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: My issues CIP I think pretty much mostly were discussed in the work session. I still
have an issue just to find the need for three thermal rescue devices. When we just purchased one and
really don't know the impact of it yet. Laptop computers I also had down as I think some of the other
council people did. The telecommunications issues we talked about relating to 2000 expenditures and
xvhere we're sitting there and what fund balances that are left to want it going for~vard and the actual
need for 2001 being 115, was that a questionable. Let's see here. The problems with the dive
equipment, another one. The water plant stuff is still an issue to me. To me it's a water quality issue that
goes beyond the arsenic regulations which are going to be revised next year because I think we had water
quality problems that we receive a lot of complaints on that are based on other factors. But something I
38
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
think we need to take a harder look at. And the only other one was based on current estimates that
Teresa's come up with and stuff. Our expectation was to be kind of funded on our trail level for 101 and
we're quite under funded at this point given her current estimates. So that's another issue. So that was it
on mine.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I don't think anyone brought up anything new for mine. Then we'll have to
come to some consensus on this. One of the, on the laptop computers, what about funding $10,000 this
year for a consultant for the fire department, for a consultant to let us know, let the council know what's
needed? Much like we're doing for telecommunications. Where are we at this point? Keep a hold on it
and do some sort of a, some money there for consultant working for the fire department and really
developing a plan for the laptops. Before going ahead and approving any acquisition or anything else.
Discussion around that.
Councihnan Senn: Were you saying plans or needs assessment? ...different issues.
Mayor Mancino: Well really needs assessment.
Councilman Peterson: On the surface that seems like a lot of money for, there are few other fire
departments out there that probably have done this that, I'm having a hard time thinking about spending
$10,000 for them to do a survey of departments when we could pick up a telephone and figure this out.
Mayor Mancino: Well come up with an amount or say.
Councilwoman Jansen: I think we just handle it-as.
Councilman Labatt: I think it can be handled internally, yeah.
Councilwoman Jansen: Staff has a conversation with the fire department and let Scott work it out with
all of us and them as to how we can better accomplish this without a consultant.
Mayor Mancino: Have you sat down Scott with Rick on the fire department laptops?
Scott Botcher: Last year, I mean we did last year and over the summer on the... This, I would tend to -
agree that this provides an opportunity to take 50 grand out of the CIP because I agree. I think we can
learn and steal from others. We haven't had a discussion specifically about this application. We can. So
if that's an opportunity you want to take, then we can do that.
Mayor Mancino.' Are you comfortable with that?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. I'm thinking that, I'm trying to look beyond the city limits of us and say,
what does Chaska have? What does Victoria? Maybe we can pool the intelligence of all the fire officers
from three departments and say, you know maybe we can come up with something where we all can
share in the cost and yet come up with a program where if they have a big structure fire or a structure fire
in Chaska, we're going to be responding to assist them. We can share each other information to them.
So I can support removing that. But I just wanted to talk about the dive equipment.
Mayor Mancino: Couldn't we do that with the dive equipment too? Between us and Chaska, do some
sort of a.
39
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilman Labatt: Well see I don't kmow, they don't have the personnel. And I can just, I'll share, I
worked 5 years on Lake Minnetonka in water patrol enforcement and when I hear that our fire officers
say that response time to get the deputies who are not working in to the office, and for the response time
for the deputies that are working on Lake Waconia, to get them over to Lake Minnewashta or Riley or
Lotus, it's hours. I did it for 5 years on Minnetonka and when we had to leave Lake Minnetonka and go
down to the Mississippi River or go up to Robbinsdale and that time is, it's going to be like the lifeguard
issue. We're going to save $15,000 and we can wait an hour or two hours for Carver County, that's
ridiculous. Fire fighters are first on the scene a lot of times, even in water emergencies. They can be the
ones to initiate the recovery. We don't have to, or the rescue. We don't have to wait for Carver County
to do that so I'll leave my two cents with that and let's not create another lifeguard issue for $15,000.
Councilman Peterson: It's more than $15,000. Isn't there some T and E and travel and training in there
too?
Councilman Senn' Yeah, there's an additional $2,500 in training.
Councilman Peterson' Insignificant.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, it's a $20,000.
Councihnan Peterson: I'm won over.
Mayor Mancino: Telecommunications. I think we're all in agreement on that. Holding on it. Park and
trail acquisition. Anyone have any problems with the additional from the memo coming out of 410?
How do we deal with 101 north? That is something that xve certainly know fi-o~n MnDot that we'd have
tojump through quite a few hoops to get that trail built, but it's also something that we also told the
neighbors in that area that we xvould be xvorking on diligently. So how do we set aside money to
construct the trail?
Councilwoman Jansen: I don't know how we set aside money at this point until we proceed with the
discussions over whether or not we're even going to be able to get the approval to function in their right-
of-way and that meeting, according to staff, will happen and that discussion in the second. Is it the first
or the second meeting of February?
Councihnan Labatt: Sometime in February.
Councilwoman Jansen: In February. Teresa mentioned in the work session, and then otherwise all we
have is a guess on MnDot's part on what they think all of their suggested changes might do to the project
as we apply them. So to go from that kind of a guesstimate before we start working through what all the
issues are, I don't know how we start allocating funds in the CIP. There's certainly a commitment on the
council's part to move forward and we've got the date in February to discuss MnDot's information again
but I don't kno~v how we start allocating in the CIP before we have those conversations. I guess would
be my two cents.
Councilman Peterson: But could we do anything, if all the moons align and we could begin without
allocating now, xve wouldn't be able to right?
Councilxvoman Jansen: Sure we could.
40
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilman Senn: Well the $600,000 was a number at the time that this was made up and put in that
reflected the then current best guess or estimate on that issue. But since then we've done a plan and that
plan has been estimated out and that plan number is now higher. Forget the MnDot add on's or
whatever. That plan itself is higher essentially than the original estimate of the $600,000 so the question
is, do you want to increase the commitment to at least cover the estimate in our plan effectively.
Mayor Man¢ino: And what's that estimate, a million?
Councilman Labatt: A million.
Councilman Senn: No, no. That's what MnDot all attached is a million. Teresa's number, based on the
plan that we sent to MnDot was.
Scott Botcher: Yeah but tonight she said a million bucks.
Councilman Senn: No, no, but that's...
Councilwoman Jansen: That's MnDot's number.
Councilman Senn: ... letter. I'm saying aside from MnDot's letter, which we may have a lot of issues
with'yet, I don't think we should make that leap. I'm just saying I think we should at least leap to the
point to the plan that we were comfortable with that we sent to MnDot effectively that she came back
with an estimate on, and I thought that was, I thought it was, was it 750 or?
Councilwoman Jansen: I thought it was 600.
Scott Botcher: I don't recall her speaking to another number tonight.
Councilman Senn: No, I'm not saying tonight. She just referenced a million but I'm just saying, at the
time that we sent the proposal into MnDot and they costed out that proposal, she gave us a new number
that was not the $600,000.
Scott Botcher: Oh previously she had said % of a million. 750.
Councilman Senn: I thought it was seven something.
Scott Botcher: But that was, I mean in defense of Teresa, that was a wag.
Councilman Senn: Right. Based on her plans.
Scott Botcher: No. It was based upon.
Mayor Mancino: Based on the preliminary plan.
Councilman Senn: Well but Scott, that's when we had a plan. We never had a plan before.
Scott Botcher: Oh yeah. Yeah.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And she has a consultant come up with that number was my understanding.
41
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
Scott Botcher: I xvant everyone to understand what kind of reliance is put on that number.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand.
Mayor Mancino: It's a place holder.
Scott Botcher: Tonight we found 50 grand though...
Mayor Mancino: Well let me do it another xvay of looking at it. If we put it in, it doesn't mean obviously
that we have to spend it. But it does show a commitment that we've thought about it. We want to go
forward. It's in our plans. IfMnDot won't approve it, if we can't go ahead, then obviously we don't
spend the money because we can't do it, but it does show our commitment, our serious commitment that
we've got it in our plans and we're, we will go forward and we're going to push it unless obviously we're
stopped. So that takes kind of an opposite viewpoint fi'om Linda's of just waiting and then putting it in,
but starting up the year and saying here it is. We are committed to it. We've got it in our budget. Now
whether we can proceed or not, obviously funds aren't going to be spent unless we do get the go ahead.
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess versus it being opposite what I'm saying is that there's a $600,000
commitment that's already in the CIP that is as squishy as any of the other numbers and we have a great
deal many more discussions still to have and we're already committed to further discussion on the 101
trail where we can maybe fi~Tn that number up a little bit more in reviewing what MnDot said and at least'
get a better feel for what or if this is going to happen. So I'm saying it's committed. You've got the
money in 'the CIP. There needs to be more discussion around this. You 'know if we're just taking a
whack at this to make it seem as if we're more committed than $600,000, I don't see the point of it.
Councilman Peterson: Let me go back to my planet alignment again. If everything does go ideally,
what's the probability of us being able to spend, even iflt is $750,000, in 20017 I mean will it be able to
get done in that kind of time fi'ame?
Councilman Senn: Depends on what MnDot does.- Depends on what the legislature does. Depends on
what the city does.
Mayor Mancino: But can you do it, yes.
Councilwoman Jansen: As we were requesting, weren't we requesting some funding Scott from MnDot
and wasn't that for the year 2002 as we were asking for them to participate?
Scott Botcher: Well Teresa's making you know taking that run up the flag pole with that funding source.
Councilwoman Jansen: So we're still pursuing that?
Scott Botcher: I guess my answer is, if you put a gun to my head I'd say no. I think the chances are
greater that you would not complete the project in the fiscal than the chances would be that you would
spend all the money in fiscal year.
Councilman Peterson: That's all I wanted to know.
42
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: And then we are still pursuing the funding with MnDot. Okay. So that might be
a potential other source.
Councilman Labatt: So could you, and I don't know if we can even do it with the fund in 2002, an
additional amount.
Councilman Senn: I mean nobody was contending this project was going to be built in one year.
Scott Botcher: No, I was just answering Craig's question.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, but I mean you know essentially all that's budgeted there now is money in one
year.
Scott Botcher:. I mean if you really are serious about, if you think that the $600,000 number, albeit
squishy, is too low and you wish to throw some money at it, equally squishy to try to make it look like
you on paper have the money to do this, Steve's idea is probably the best one. Because it's going to be a
two fiscal year project. You say okay, and I don't have it opened up right now but say you've got
$600,000 in one year. If you throw another whatever number you pick Steve, I don't care. Throw
another $200,000. Pick a number out of the air, and in that fiscal year, in the CIP portion.
Councilman Labatt: It's not affecting this budget year at all._ I mean and that's showing a commitment. I
mean I don't think any one of us are up here saying, based on MnDot's letter, let's stop the trail. Let's
stop any progress on it.
Scott Botcher: And we frankly are going to need to figure out how to finance it if cash is not the way. I
mean there are some significant hurdles absent DOT that we're going to have to deal with. Just so
everyone knows that. Putting it in the CIP doesn't mean we have the cash. Money's fungible but it's not
that fungible. And so as far as representing your wishes and the vision of the community based upon a
CIP, that's a reasonable approach.
Councilman Senn: The program though is priorities though.
Scott Botcher: Sure, it's a programmatic questioning.
Councilman Peterson: I think it's a reasonable alternative.
Councilwoman Jansen: Agreed.
Scott Botcher: I say that as much for the neighbors who might be reading the minutes as anything else
because I don't want to mislead anybody.
Mayor Mancino: Well and the other thing is, we do have the funding for it. We do have the funding in
410.
Scott Botcher: If that's the choice that's made to do that.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah. There is the money that is sitting in that particular fund. The $1.3 million and
what we will have made another $500 to $600,000 again on fees. So there's quite a bit of money in the
410 fund to pay for the trail in 1 or 2 years and that is money that is sitting there. There have been so
43
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
many, I remember in the park and trail referendum in 1997 and when we wont to the community in 1996
to give them information in that area, we told them that a trail would be coming soon at that point in '97
and '98 and it still hasn't happened so it is, and this has been going on for years and years and years and
everybody says wait until we update the road and of course the roadway has never been updated and
improved, etc. So all those people have been waiting, all those residents have been waiting for a trail for
many, many years and I think it's incumbent to take it seriously. To have the money set aside and
hopefully to go forward. And I don't even live on 101, but I think it's important.
Councilman Senn: Can I get back to your initial question?
Councilman Peterson: Which was what?
Councilman Senn: Which was the part over the park and trail, or the parks commission
recommendations essentially and a few that differ. Can somebody from a staff perspective explain I
guess why those items...
Bruce DeJong: I'm sorry, what was the question?
Councilman Senn: If these are the recommendations that came out of the parks and rec commission,
okay. You've been going through budget process internally staff wise and all that sort of thing and now
you've come forward with a recommendation to us. Including a CIP one. CIP does not have several
items here that came out recommended by parks and rec. I'm trying to understand the why. I mean so
you understand both sides of it before you say let's put those back in or whatever. Obviously somebody
took them out for a reason.
Bruce DeJong: ! don't think that anybody took them out because I don't think they were included in the
last year's CIP. That's new stuff that the council did not take any action on.
Councilman Senn: So you did not, you didn't want, I mean for that reason you didn't add it into the 2001
recommendation?
Bruce DeJong: That's basically correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Alright. And the items xvere the what? The skate park and.
Bruce DeJong: Marsh Glen.
Councilman Senn: Marsh Glen.
Bruce DeJong: The wall sign out at the rec center.
Councilman Senn: And the sign. Those three?
Bruce DeJong: And there were a couple miscellaneous for tree plantings. Some new park signs. Picnic
tables.
Councihnan Senn: Okay. Todd, are we ready to go to the next step on the skate park? I mean we had a
great deal of discussion this year over the skate park and going to the second step and putting the
additional money into the park, which we did essentially to double size the park and all that sort of thing.
44
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
At the same time we talked about a number of operational and other issues that we thought needed to
kind of get under control and we needed to get our hands around and stuff before we went further. I
mean is that, you know to me that bears heavily on this. It seems to me yes, that's been very popular and
I think we've all been happy about that. That's why we made the additional commitment, even at year
end 2000 to put more in...but I mean is it time to kind of now sitback and study what we've got and
what's working and how it's acting and you know, before we, and this seems like a pretty significant
jump in scope of service so to speak compared to anything we've talked about before.
Todd Hoffman: Sure, Councilman Senn and the council. The improvements we're talking about have
nothing to do with the facility. Excuse me, the ramps and the jumps themselves that the council
approved in the second addition this past year that was purchased and we now have $30,000 worth of
equipment on site. What we're talking about here, the primary needs are the access stairway or access
route to the skate park. You've all noticed as you come out of the City Hall parking lot, it's just a worn
dirt trail up the hillside right now which is not very appealing. And not very accessible either. And then
some seeding and a covered shelter to provide shade. There's a single tree out there, the lone maple tree
which has held off from the disease. The other maples in that area have all died from disease and if you
notice that area on a hot summer day, it's packed with the visitors and the spectators. The operational
concerns you spoke to are absolutely present. I deal with them most every day out at the skate park,
working with Helen Merchant our principal primarily, and talking to the other folks in the area. The
parents about how they see the operations of the skate park taking place. The 3/4 fence that you saw that
was approved by the council and put us has taken care of many of those issues. Access issues inbetween
the fire department and'the skate park and school and skate park. It still remains at a $30,000 investment
plus you know you have an investment of space and lights and some operations. The most highly used
recreation facility that the city has ever invested in. So to make this additional commitment to provide a
better environment for our parents, because primarily what we see in operations is that the-more parents
we can attract and maintain on the property during the times when the facilities is being used, the better
the behavior at the skate park so if we can provide a shelter with some shade and some seating, and a
comfortable location for those parents, we feel that the improvements or the operations will only
improve.
Councilman Senn: Alright, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Todd, can you tell me the difference between the plantings here and the plantings that
are under reforestation? There's another you know pretty significant amount in that.
Todd Hoffman: Yeah. Annually the park department in fall does tree plantings to either replace dead
plant material in our parks and reforestation is a different area from what I'm working on an annual basis
out of park development.
Mayor Mancino: So you're going to put another tree next to the skate park?
Todd Hoffman: Traditionally we've been fortunate to have trees donated and then we move them for
about $25 a piece so our money can go pretty far, but if we have to purchase trees, yeah that's a different
story.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions for Todd?
Councilwoman Jansen: No.
45
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Steve, any questions?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Mancino: Craig? Let's see, the other thing that was brought up was the thermal rescue device.
Mark you had a concern with 3, 2, 17 I mean we've already purchased one. What's your concern?
Councilman Senn: We just purchased one this year. Now we're talking about a second one for $20,000
and a third one next year for $20,000. i'm just having trouble justifying that in my mind when we
haven't even seen the benefits of one.
Councilman Peterson: Has it been used at all? Do we have any idea?
Scott Botcher: I don't know. I just remember during the presentation the issue was, and I'm going to do
a terrible job of representing the fire department's position on this but, that you needed two because you
go in in pairs. One doesn't do you a whole lot of good.
Councilman Senn: No, he was saying they needed one at each fire station. One at Minnexvashta, one at
central and then they wanted a third one for the...
Scott Botcher: I thought they needed to go in buildings in pairs.
Todd Gerhard: You're both right.
Councilman Senn: But essentially if we're going...both fire departments.
Scott Botcher: That's what I recall.
Councihnan Senn: No I guess I'm going back to when we had the original presentation on buying the
first one though. You know we were told on the basis kind of that well if we had one of these, typically
it would go in the command vehicle and it would be out at the fire, wherever the fire is, and that's where
it did the most good because that person's directing effectively where people go and what they do.
Scott Botcher: That's true. I remember that.
Councihnan Senn: So I mean to me it seems like yes, that was a good $20,000 and we should do that and
we did it and noxv xve should try it and see hoxv it works. I just kind of hate to just kind of leap into
another $40,000 you know, without really having an evaluation period or utilizing that. So that's I'm just
saying is my only problem.
Councilwoman Jansen: Actually the original request did anticipate the 3 units being purchased out over
the three years so from our original understanding, this is just the continuation and at that time they had
also mentioned one at the west station, the downtown and the chief's vehicle. So I guess it is as it was
originally portrayed. I guess I don't have.
Councilman Senn: I'm saying I have a problem with it.
Mayor Mancino: You have a problem with it, okay.
46
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess from the work session and the explanation from the fire chief, I'm
comfortable with the additional units.
Councilman Labatt: Can I just get a clarification point on the 101 trail? So do we need to make an
amendment to the 2002?
Mayor Maneino: Yeah, when we go through here.
Councilman Senn: I assume we're going to kind of have to go back through each one of these.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
Scott Botcher: Or as you make a motion to amend the CIP, you just have a laundry list of changes that
you wish to make. I think that's...
Mayor Mancino: Any other issues? We've talked about telecommunications. Thermal rescue device
that people had concerns with. 101 north trail. Guide equipment. Laptop.
Scott Botcher: Lights for the rec center gym.
Councihnan Labatt: That's it. That's all I had.
Mayor Mancino: Lights for the rec center gym?
Councihnan Senn: Well I mean again, there's no answer to this but my only other, I'm not sure there's
an answer before us right now or whether we talk about it tonight. The other issue I raised was over the
water treatment thing and I'm still really worried about that as a water quality issue. Again, aside from
the arsenic regulation which will make it's own call so to speak next year.
Councilwoman Jansen: So what staff had shared with us, and I too share Councilman Senn's concern,
but we can't move forward with a plant or we're not being economically prudent to move forward with a
plant for just the water quality issue if it's going to have to be enlarged for the arsenic problem and you
need more land. So it seems like with that pending decision coming this next year, we can make that
judgment call based on better information and it does sound as though we would be moving it forward.
Councilman Senn: Well 2001 we'll have that call...
Mayor Mancino: So you're saying put it in 2002 regardless.
Councilman Senn: My issue is I don't think we can wait until 2005 to solve our water quality problems.
Scott Botcher: Oh yeah. If you wish to accelerate it to something like 2002, that seems to be... what
Teresa said but I agree with, I'd hate to just throw money away at a study that doesn't mean anything.
Councilman Senn: Nobody's saying that.
Councilwoman Jansen: The specific before we go with it.
47
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilman Senn: Wait for that. I just think we need to move those 2005 numbers up into 2000, you
know, into an earlier timeframe.
Councilwoman Jansen: The other part of that xvas whether we're moving that large.
Councilman Labatt: W011.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, it's under the water treatment.
Scott Botcher: So you wanted it in the 2002?
Councilman Labatt: Which one? Do you want the $500,000?
Councilwoman Jansen: On the feasibility study?
Scott Botcher: Yes.
Councihnan Labatt: In 2002?
Mayor Mancino: Well remember the $500,000 also included land and includes design feasibility study
and...
Councilman Labatt: So tile $3.5 million goes where then?
Councilman Senn: Wait now. If we have the decision next year on the essentially in 2001 on the arsenic
issue, then it seems to me that's the point we should begin our study of where we go and what we do
because that's the only, how would you say, variable that we're waiting for an answer on. So it seems to
me we ought to look at funding some of that in 2001, later part of the year unless it's December, I don't
know Scott, is it December we're going to find out the arsenic regulations...
Scott Botcher: In your correspondence packet tonight I put something in there about water regs and
frankly with tile EPA you never know.
Councilman Senn: So you think it's highly questionable whether...
Scott Botcher: All the representations are, is that we should get one next year. But I'm not going to
stake my reputation on saying it's going to come next year. I don't know.
Mayor Mancino: We could put 250 in 2001 and 250 in 2002.
Scott Botcher: But I think, I mean you could do that. It's sort of, I mean you want your plan to be as
accurate as possible. If for some reason you get a word in the late part of the year, you can always go and
amend it and say we're going to accelerate this plan. You may not actually end up encumbering funds or
needing to encumber funds until 2002 anyway. If you're just trying to placate citizens with numbers on
paper, that's one thing but I'd hate to just, I mean there's ways that you can deal with this in 2001 if you
need to.
48
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: Well and Teresa and Kate also mentioned that they'd be siting a water tower in
the course of the year 2001 and they could potentially incorporate some of this information into those
studies to evaluate sites. So it wasn't as if they were saying they wouldn't be doing anything in the year
2001. Just that we may not need to be moving this capital expenditure in order to get it accomplished.
Scott Botcher: And there's a question as to whether or not, and Teresa and I have just had this
discussion briefly and it's a tough call because the audit has indicated that our rate structure in the
enterprise funds is acceptable. There's a general comfort level with what we have in terms of our rate
structure in the water side primarily. At the same time we did this year have a rate study in the budget.
We sort of set that aside and said we've got a good audit. Let's just save the money and push it back. If
we know that we're going to be doing a feasibility study for a water treatment plant, it almost, and we
have to finish this conversation but it almost makes sense to talk about whether or not you do the rate
study before that feasibility study's done or you wait until the feasibility study is done and say okay,
what's the probability that we're going to do this and this size plant, 2 times 3.5 million dollars, whatever
the number is, how does that then impact the rates because based upon that rate analysis, you'll have to
tell your citizens oh by the way. Your water bill's going up, fill in the blank. That to me seems to make
more sense, but Teresa may walk in and say you big dummy, there's a reason that we need to do it. But I
just, don't be surprised if next year that gets held off again, just to sort of see what happens. My main
concern in the rate structure for the enterprise funds is to make sure that we just have enough money to
make it go. That our cash flow's okay. That our terms are okay. All that sort of happy stuff. If the
auditor's happy, I'm happy.
_-
Councilman Senn: How about if you just take those 4 and_5 numbers and just move them to 2 and 3?
Scott Botcher: That's certainly your choice. I guess I brought that up as an aside. Just so I wouldn't
look at it.
Councilman Labatt: Mark, on your comments, if you lo0k at 2003, this water system improvements,
we're only at $130,000 for the year. The bottom line so if you take 2004 and go to 2002 and take 2005
and go to 2003, that might.
Councilman Senn: Yeah the bulk of it would go into 2003 because the study would be in 2002 and if you
start to implement something, it'd be 2003.
Councilman Labatt: I'm okay with that.
Scott Botcher: Additionally, and I'm just sort of eye balling this and I don't know what the cash flows
are going to show this year, although I can come to a pretty good guess. Your sewer and water expansion
fund in your coffer as of 12/31/99 shows $1.9 million and some change as your cash and cash
equivalents. You know certainly funding a feasibility study out of that balance, which I would expect to
break through $2 million this year unless I'm missed some large expenditure that ! haven't seen, is very
doable and will have very possibly no impact on the debt situation. So that in mind, I think it doesn't
mean you want to waste your money, but I think at least there's a comfort level I have there that moving
it into 2002, which is otherwise a pretty terrible year for debt purposes, is probably okay as you're
dealing with this enterprise fund. For whatever that's worth. And that also then could carry over to
2003. Unless people quit drinking water.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, any other concerns? Any other discussion points? Does somebody want to pull
this together and go about approving the CIP with some of the changes?
49
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilman Senn: Why don't we do one motion incorporating it all, but before we do why don't we go
down here and decide where we've got a majority yeah or nay on what.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: On the laptop.
Councilman Senn: On the laptop.
Mayor Mancino: I think we have.
Councilman Labatt: I think we have a majority there.
Councilwoman Jansen: Delete.
Councilman Senn: I'd say no.
Mayor Mancino: No, and develop a plan internally. Okay. Dive equipment. Keep it as is.
Councihnan Labatt: Wait now. Can xve just go right down the order of these?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, why don't we.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Senn: The~wnal's the first one if you go on the list.
Councilman Peterson: That seemed to be a yes.
Mayor Mancino: Keep going. Just.
Councilman Senn: Thermal's the first one.
Councihnan Labatt: Yes.
Councilwoman Jansen: Leave it.
Councilman Senn: Okay, I'm a minority on no. Laptops was the next one. We all said no. Everybody
no on that.
Mayor Mancino: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. The telecommunications, $t 15.
Councilman Labatt: No.
Councilman Senn: Put it on hold?
50
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Hold.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: But you're leaving dollars in there. You're just.
Mayor Man¢ino: Yes. On hold.
Scott Botcher: No expenditures without authorization.
Councilman Senn: And dive equipment.
Councilman Labatt: Yes.
Councilwoman Jansen: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Was yes.
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilman Senn: And we had two, what was it? 200 in 2002?
Councilman Labatt: 250 in 2002 for 101. Trail north.
Councilman Senn: And we had 500 in the 2002 for Water treatment study and $3.5 million in 2003 for a
water treatment. Is that everything? Then we had the parks and rec.
Councilwoman Jansen: I'm sorry, Scott were you okay with moving the 3.5 into 2003 or are we just
moving the feasibility study for now?
Scott Botcher: No that will be, Bruce that will probably be a revenue bond but it's solely off°f the ·
proceeds of the water bills so that's okay.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So we're okay with that.
Scott Botcher: On the trail though, you moved a quarter million dollars to 2002. Did you roll something
in the 2003 behind it? Did I miss that or did you not?
Councilman Labatt: Where?
Scott Botcher: The 101 trail.
Councilman Senn: No, we didn't. We already had 600...
Bruce DeJong: I would like to clarify. Would you like to move the $400,000 that's in the capital
replacement now to the park dedication?
Mayor Mancino: To 410.
51
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: No.
Mayor Mancino: I would.
Bruce DeJong: That's why I'm asking.
Mayor Mancino: Because we know we have the money there. We don't have it in capital replacement.
Councilman Senn: You don't have the money in capital replacement yet to bond for it and this has been
bought and paid for by all the residents in the other fund ah'eady.
Councilwoman Jansen: I'd like to have that discussion when it comes up as to how it is actually funded.
I mean right now we're saying it's going to be funded.
Councilman Senn: We have to identify a budget.
Scott Botcher: The 101 trail you mean?
Mayor Mancino: We have to identify a funding source.
Councilwoman Jansen: Correct.
Scott Botcher: Oh geez yes.
Councilwoman Jansen: I'd rather leave it as is.
Scott Botcher: That discussion is down the road. You're more concerned about the fund balance but.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, Linda would like to keep it the way it is. I would like to take the whole 600 and
put into 410 because I know that we have the money there.
Scott Botcher: Okay, but Bruce, tell me.
Councilman Senn: That's where the money they paid went.
Scott Botcher: Taking money from where to 4107
Mayor Mancino: I'm just changing the funding source.
Bruce DeJong: It's in the capital replacement fund because no funding source has been identified other
than...
Scott Botcher: Okay, but the capital replacement fund is a more unrestricted revenue source than the 410
fund, correct?
Bruce DeJong: Co~q'ect.
Scott Botcher: So why would you make that move?
52
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
Bruce DeJong: There is a significant fund balance.
Scott Botcher: Why wouldn't you put it in general fund? Or just leave it alone. I'm just asking. I guess
the whole theory of moving it from.
Bruce DeJong: Park dedication fund is to fund you know parks, trails and open space outside of what
you bonded for a couple years ago and it seems to be a better fit than what we're generally using as
equipment out of the capital replacement fund.
Scott Botcher: And that's fine. I'm just, I'm taking the theoretical argument, taking funds that are
largely unrestricted, or less restricted, and putting them into a fund that at least has the appearance of
being, having it's uses more restricted. Does that make sense?
Bruce DeJong: Well we're not taking money, we're just moving the expenditure.
Scott Botcher: I thought you said transfer fund balance.
Mayor Mancino: No. No, no, no.
Bruce DeJong: No.
Scott Botcher: You could call it sewer and water for all I care. It doesn't matter. It won't matter until
we get there. Can you tell I'm pretty anal on these. Don't be touching stuff. Screwing up my plan.
Mayor Mancino: Craig, you want to take it 410.9
Scott Botcher: Because frankly it's not going to matter.
Councilman Labatt: You know I don't know why we're worrying about where it's going to come out of
so I'm going to say no...change.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we have three that say yes. Two that says no.
Councilman Senn: ...you have the items there of Marsh Glen. You have Marsh Glen 68,000. Is that a
yes with everybody?
Mayor Mancino: No problem.
Councilwoman Jansen: Yep.
Councilman Labatt: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Then we have a condition of $35,000 for skate park improvements, covered shelter,
seating and access stairs.
Councilman Labatt: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Is that a yes for everybody?
53
Cio Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: Yes.
Councihnan Senn: And then we have.
Scott Botcher: Are you going to get a stereo in there too?
Councilman Senn: Then we have the illuminated sign for the rec center.
Mayor Mancino: Illuminated?
Scott Botcher: Now tell me where that's going to go again.
Councilman Labatt: North side of the building. You're going to take down that banner?
Scott Botcher: Is that the one we looked at? I'm confused then. We looked at that already. So why is it
in here?
Todd Hoffinan: We looked at it. Financing it out of the $15,000 for the monument sign which we used
excess revenue.
Scott Botcher: Right, and I thought we were going to maximize those dollars. .
Todd Hofflnan: Yes xve can.
Scott Botcher: So why is it in the budget again next :),ear?
Todd Hoffman: Well we're not fully funded out of the...
Scott Botcher: I know but v,,e were going to make due with what, we had a couple thousand dollars and
we were going to try to make due with what we did or utilize, hold other expenditures down and try to
use them for this purpose, I thought.
Todd Hoffman: We haven't transferred money over. This expenditure will not occur until 2001 so ~ve
have to transfer those dollars over so they should be included here if we're going to expend them in 2001.
We're not writing the check this year.
Scott Botcher: You could. If you can cover the funds. Does it matter?
Bruce DeJong: I don't think he can get delivery this 5'ear.
Scott Botcher: You don't have to have delivery though. I'm just trying to save us some money. Bruce
and I need to have this, just for a second. Does it matter to you at all? I mean it's not a huge deal.
Bruce DeJong: It doesn't matter to me.
Scott Botcher: Fine. But then those dollars then will be rolled into general fund balance, you understand
that?
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
54
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilman Senn: Okay, so do we want to amend it?
Scott Botcher: Leave it in there then.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And that's an okay with everybody?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilwoman Jansen: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and then you have.
Bruce DeJong: So that is a yes. We're going to add $10,000 into.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. And that's it then offofthat list then, those three items.
Mayor Mancino: That's it.
Councilman Labatt: Four.
Councilwoman Jansen: There were the tree plantings at 5. The new park sign at 4. And the picnic tables
at 4 were the other three items on the commission's list. Are we adding the last three?
Councilman Labatt: Yes. I mean it's in there...
. -
Mayor Mancino: Yes. We all said yes. The only other point of discussion that I think we need to look
at, and obviously everybody feels comfortable with it but what about the public works expansion.
Councilman Senn: You're really a glutton for punishment.
Mayor Mancino: I know. Well we've changed that to $200,000 in 2005. Everybody comfOrtable with
that?
Scott Botcher: Our position is, staff's position is we are just going to have to make due as best we can
utilizing some of this space in the Lake Ann building and frankly looking at our debt service schedule
and the water treatment plant possibilities. Teresa, we're not going to have staff time. I mean it just
makes sense for a lot of different reasons, unless you're in the public works department. I mean I would
defend their right, or their need sorry. Not a right. Their need to have a facility because they need a
facility. Frankly last time, our previous public works director and Amcon, is it Amcon? Just did frankly
a terrible job in their needs assessment. It wasn't a needs assessment. It was horrible. Even we couldn't
recommend it. But then other issues came up, well it was. We had the debt study. We had the budget
issues. We've got the water treatment plant. We've got the library. We've got the Lake Ann Park
building. Enough's enough. I mean we're trying to maintain control here a little bit and that's why we
pushed it off.
55
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilman Senn: So if we do a motion now then essentially to adopt the CIP budget as submitted with
the following amendments, as indicated, and you've written those down now, then essentially we're all in
the same and that's the motion.
Councilwoman Jansen: Yep.
Scott Botcher: And the CIP is considered approved.
Councilman Senn: That's the motion.
Councilman Labatt: For the CIP?
Councilman Senn: Right.
Councilman Labatt: So I'I1 second that motion.
Mayor Mancino: All those in favor? Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council adopt the submitted
C1P as amended by the Council in their previous discussion. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
Mayor Mancino: And if we can see a revised list for us to review to make sure that it's in sync ~vith what
wejust discussed, that'd be great.
Councilman Labatt: What about the 2001 budget? Did we already approve that then?
Scott Botcher: No, xve have to do that yet.
Mayor Mancino: We got the CIP. Okay, let's talk about levy. Because we've talked about budget.
Steve, any questions that you have on the levy?
Councilman Labatt: No. I think Bruce said it so eloquently last year or last week. That the taxpayers of
today need to pay for the services of today and go with the staff recommendation.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Craig.
Councilman Peterson: Well Bruce knows what I've been struggling with over the last couple weeks for
sure, and what I'm trying to sort through yet is surplus and how do we define surplus and applying that
towards the increase in the levy and I really need some help from fellow council members. Kind of walk
through that. Because if we truly have a surplus then I think it's, that should be applied to the levy. So
those are my preliminary comments I guess.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Further discussion. Linda.
Councilwoman Jansen: If we truly had a surplus I would be in absolute agreement. But unfortunately
through all of Bruce's hard work and Scott's hard work trying to pull together where we're at on these
debt service issues, we're looking and being advised by staff at needing to hoard, as using his term, as
much cash as possible. And I don't think they would have gone to all the difficulty that they've gone to
56
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
to demonstrate that to us if it wasn't a significant issue. So though we're looking at having that cash,
we're also hearing staff saying that they need to address defeasing debt and trying to look out to some of
these increasing debt service issues. The debt service went up by 40% just this...the debt service is
going to continue to be a burden we need to address. One of the things that Bruce had said to us early on
in our discussions is that if there were, and there aren't right now, levy limits, we would still be able to
levy this year another million dollars. So we're below where a levy limit would be able, or enable us, or
allow us to levy to. We're looking at this year in the legislature a possibility of levy limits reoccurring.
And if we've locked ourselves in at so low of a revenue stream from our taxes that we can't address that
escalating debt, we're not out an option and that's one thing that I keep hearing Bruce say. I keep
hearing Scott say is we need to keep our options open. And they're not wanting to penalize our taxpayers
any more than we do. And I certainly heard everyone's concerns last week as they were telling us how it
had impacted them to have this 18% levy increase come across. Fortunately because of our ~owth some
of that burden was you know at least taken off of our current taxpayers by growth. We certainly want to
address the expenses as we go into next year but we all went through the budget, department by
department, and there has been prudent expenditure on the part of staff trying to not increase services.
Not increase staff people. So it seems like a conservative budget which is what would then allow us to
be able to bring this levy down. Would be one of the controllable so with everything that we're being
presented, and there is still the possibility of another tax compression happening. I just had been going
through some of my old issues of the AMM, the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. The August
issue was again addressing that we could have another class rate compression. If the property taxes
significantly changed in 2001, levy limits will be in place depending on the amount of class rate
compression, the city's tax capacity could decrease and the relative portion of the total for each class
could change. So immediately I go to remembering what Bruce was saying as he worked through all
those options on TIF. If this thing compresses on us again, our problem has now increased again. So I'm
looking at what staff has put together for us as somewhat uncomfortable. I would just as soon be able to
use some of the cash that's out there but I'm feeling fortunate that it's there because now we can react
and take care of some of these situations. And looking at the revenues that have been projected in this
year's budget that have been brought up significantly. That have been brought up 40%.
Mayor Mancino: $700,000.
Councilwoman Jansen: Over to, well last year for permits, and I'm looking at the permit number because
that's always been our windfall number. Where the permits have come in overl We're right now sitting
at a million. Million 43 in permit revenue and Bruce has projected a million 113. So he's being
aggressive with the permit revenues so we can't anticipate that we're going to have this windfall coming
in. So he's been aggressive on revenue which he's been challenged to do in order to have this at least be
a truer picture for us. So looking at that I think itis a tight budget. It is, it's well crafted and definitely
meticulously thought through and Bruce, thank you. Much appreciated for all your hard work on it but I
guess that's where I stand. I'm supporting the budget as submitted by staff and I'm supporting the staff's
recommendation on the tax levy. And we have our work cut out for us.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Over the last 8 years saw more and more funds created kind of just bordered on the
absurd. I think what we'd do? What we'd get to a point? We had a hundred and some funds I think.
Scott Botcher: 56.
Councilman Senn: Under our previous city manager or something. It was 100...
57
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Bruce DeJong: ...all the debt service.
Councilman Senn: It's over 100. I understand but it's over 100. We had like 100 of these special little
funds and the slush funds or whatever. There were tremendous shell games played with each one of
those funds you know. If the council, I remember the time the council found the City Hall expansion
fund and a bunch of money sitting in it and then all of a sudden there wasn't any money in the City Hall
expansion fund anymore and now it got moved to a new facilities account. I mean that's just kind of
been really interesting to watch and put up with over 8 years. I'd really like to commend Scott and Bruce
for coming in and finally presenting you know essentially a full and honest picture to us as it relates to
the funds. And I applaud their efforts in getting those funds consolidated to get rid of all these special
little funds. Bruce, I've kind of been cranking numbers a little bit ad nauseum but essentially would tike
to kind of just run through the scenario or some numbers xvith you. Okay, because I want to make sure I
understand what your, I guess I want to see if there's a hole here somewhere okay. You know essentially
we started here with this 11-27 document that you gave us here showing roughly $29 million cash
balances the city. Okay. Now, extracting from that okay, try to analyze and create at least a picture in
my laymen's or lay person's mind what really is or isn't there as far as surplus. Okay. What it started
with xvas your general fund balance of $5,265,965. Okay. And please disagree with any of these
numbers if they're not correct. And I then deducted from that as per our financial policy $2,700,000.
Which is the amount in our financial policy we say we should take out of that balance and hold
essentially, okay. So that to me out of that general fund left surplus funds of $1.9 million. Okay. Any
disagreement so far?
Bruce DeJong: No. I want to throw out the caveat that quite honestly working through the audit, I
finally got the final audit adjustments from Tautges Redpath back in the middle of November so this is
the first run through really of the balance sheet in over a year. And I'm not sure that those numbers are
entirely accurate in that I may have journal entries where they're, you know the cash has been gone but
there are off setting liabilities you know that the payables haven't cleared for some reason. Particularly
in the case of the payroll clearing fund. I know that there shouldn't be any cash in there and so that's
why I stamped draft all over these projections because I'm extremely nervous about relying on those. I
think I've expressed that probably to a couple council members. It is the first run through and quite
honestly I don't knox',,. I may have made some...
Councilman Senn: Okay, so let's come back and deal with this.
Bruce DeJong: ...put those journal entries in. I'm very nervous about that and I want to make sure that
you understand that.
Councihnan Senn: I'm not making light of that. Let's come back to that, okay. And stuff. I mean
essentially what I was going from here is I mean your estimates had been about a $1.6 million reserve
which you recently upped about a few hundred thousand so I mean that tied out to me $1.9 million made
sense. Okay. And so just given what we know that was a number that I could carry out to the side and
say okay, I think we both understand that that's the debt excess okay, or surplus. Okay. Then I took the
fire relief fund of $327,457.60, which you've now consolidated into the general fund and funded out of
the budget effectively to what we have to fund at this current time and stuff. So essentially this
$327,457.60 is excess surplus funds. More or less not allocated or spoken for.
Mayor Mancino: I'd say not allocated. It's not allocated.
58
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
Councilman Senn: Not allocated. Not allocated. Not spoken for.
Scott Botcher: Minus the obligation you'll have to make because there's no levy for it.
Councilman Senn: No I understand but we've already, we've budgeted for that.
Councilwoman Jansen: You haven't shown it as an available.
Bruce DeJong: But that expenditure for this year's.
Councilman Senn: 107,000.
Bruce DeJong: Hasn't been made yet.
Councilman Senn: No I understand but that's in our budget unfunded there, okay. Alright.
Scott Botcher: But then you need to take the three some number and reduce it.
Bruce DeJong: Yeah, that's where I was coming from that $240,000.
Mayor Mancino: Because that's in the budget. '
Scott Botcher: Because that's not yet been made out-of that fund.
Councilman Senn: Alright. So I moved that number over to the side then. Okay. Then I took the
environmental protection fund, which was $562,656. okay. And there's nothing allocated essentially
against that or spoken for against that fund. Except yes. Except one thing, there was an $85,000 item
coming out of the 2001 budget. So that wasn't reflected in that number. So that should be deducted from
that number. Okay?
Bruce DeJong: Yeah.
Councihnan Senn: And that was, by the way that was for three salaries.
Mayor Mancino: Or portions of.
Councilman Senn: Or portions of three salaries which surprised me a little bit because I thought we were
trying to take all the salaries and put them in the general fund or whatever but again, I don't want to get
hung up over that detail at this point. Let's just deal with the framework, okay.
Bruce DeJong: Yep.
Councilman Senn: Framing of the whole thing. Okay, then I went to the debt service fund. The debt
revolving fund. And we had $413,636 there. Okay. And again, unallocated, unspoken for so I moved
that over to this column, okay? Then I went to the capital projects fund. I went to the general capital
facilities account where there was $1,027,225.72 and that's unallocated and unspoken for so I again take
that and move that over into this column, okay. I then went to the vehicle and equipment fund. And
there was $427,826.55 there. And again that was unallocated, unspoken to so I moved that over into the
excess fund.
59
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Bruce DeJong: With the caveat that when.
Councihnan Senn: When we pass the budget, I'll come back to that.
Bruce DeJong: Okay. But the assumption was at the beginning of the budget hearings that we would
combine that with the capital replacement fund. And that would fund this year's expenditures so there's
a deficit in fund 400 that needs to be filled, and this is kind of a complicated fund because we really
made it to maintain it as the internal service fund and we have to unwind those accounting transactions
you know with depreciation calculations that we were doing. Moving the fixed assets out of there and
then move the cash back in so there's much less available than the...
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'll come back to hit that at the end. Right now I'm just trying to deal with
framing you know, as of this date, you know which is a date fixed in time, you know basically the first
part of December of 2000. Okay. Alright. Then I went to the trust and agency funds and went to
historic preservation and there was $3,266,360.89. Okay. And after taking the money out for
defeasance, that left $2,119,360.89.
Scott Botcher: Is that last year's defeasance or this year's?
Bruce DeJong: After taking out the money for last year's grant.
Councilman Senn: Grant, correct. Right. I'm sorry. Okay, grant. Yes. Okay. So lhad $2,119,360.
Move that over. Okay. Then I had investlnent earnings, $2,375,211 and I moved that over.
Bruce DeJong: And that's another one of those that there has to be something wrong because that would
imply investment earnings of someplace around 10%.
Councilman Senn: I thought it came out about 7. Average.
Bruce DeJong: Well what you have to look at is the year end total cash. And project that because it
fluctuates during the course of the year. Our cash balance right now is really high because we just got
some tax dollars out.
Councilman Senn: Right, okay.
Councilwoman Jansen: And not to interrupt but when ~ve went over that you also noted that the earnings
are split out to some restricted funds so even some of those numbers aren't available to just cash out.
Bruce DeJong: Yeah. That's been the practice to split those out at year end.
Councilman Senn: No I understand but let's just.
Bruce DeJong: ... straighten out, we'll do that on a quarterly basis.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Because these aren't all available cash balances.
Councilman Senn: Let me just focus again on framing this so we can keep framing it and just do it, okay.
We'll come back to how you put a fudge factor in for that later. Okay so you have investment earnings
60
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
essentially of $2,375,000. You know granted you said you know, you're not real, real positive with that
number but that's the estimate that's in there that we've been working with. Okay. Then you have TIF
number 3. And you have essentially $150,000. That's $240 you know, basically. You know we had to
pay a portion back, right? And so there's 150 balance.
Todd Gerhardt: That's our money back from the excess TIF, paying it back to the county.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Yeah. The excess. I'm just talking the excess okay, which is the 150. Okay.
So I moved that over. Okay. Now ifI take all of those numbers we just went over, and basically could
be put in that column, that's essentially $9,303,375. Okay? And remember now back up on the general
fund I took the 2 million 7 out. It was in our financial policy as a reserve to hold. So essentially you've
got a $9,303,000 number but if you include the excess or the reserve that we created under the financial
policy and the general fund, it's really $12 million. Which is essentially a number you and I have been
bantering about over 3 months now. Being roughly in that neighborhood. Okay. And we're in kind of
agreement that that was the neighborhood of the number but that you know, didn't have all the details of
how getting there so that's kind of what I went through the exercise of getting there. Okay. So now if we
take that, okay. And we say that, let's take the most conservative TIF approach assumptions you know
that we talked about, okay. Essentially taking those most conservative numbers. We had roughly around
$3 million, just under $3,200,000. Essentially in terms of the dollars we needed to effectively, well let
me back up okay. Maybe we need to go through each TIF district independently .... lose everybody else.
I'm sorry. Maybe I shouldn't do that. Okay, TIF District 1. _Option 1. Most conservative, okay. We
had essentially a gap needed to repay debt of $4,000,030. Okay. We identified general fund surplus of a
million 30 and we identified historic preservation fund Surplus of $2,119,360 and we also talked about
how the new general fund tax revenue coming in in that first year beyond the district was a million
dollars. There's your $4,149,360 to cover that problem. So essentially if you take the $4 million 30
problem. If you take those general fund surpluses ofa'million 30 and take the historic preservation fund
surpluses and the million that's going to come in District the last year for the first year out, that covers
that problem in District 1. Under your most conservative assumptions, correct?
Bruce DeJong: There is some difficulty because we're also using in Mark RufUs projections of how
we're going to fund all of that GO and special assessment debt. There's an additional, there's a jump of
a million 2 in the year 2004 when that district comes back on. That assumes that we'll use all of that
increase in tax revenue to fund some of these GO things and not towards the.
Councilman Senn: Which will continue at $1 million a year rate basically.
Bruce DeJong: Right.
Councilman Senn: Right.
Bruce DeJong: But all I'm saying is they can't use the same million and 2 to fund both GO debt and to
pay off our TIF debts.
Councilman Senn: The same million 2?
Scott Botcher: You count it twice. Is fiscal disparities part of that puzzle?
Todd Gerhardt: I think it's taken out.
61
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilman Senn: No. 2004 I'm just using the million dollars. The other two numbers are coming out
of fund 101 and fund 800.
Bruce DeJong: Right. But the debt that Mark Ruff estimated us spending shows that in the year 2004,
that we're going to jump up our, yeah. In the year 2004 xve're going to jump from a debt levy ora
million 8. Okay, I guess it's actually about $950,000. Going from a debt levy of $1,802,000 up to
$2,752,000 so the assumption in putting together that number is that we're going to use those funds for
our general levy for pre-existing debt rather than putting it towards the TIF deficit. So there's still
roughly a million dollar gap.
Councilman Senn: That's left at that point.
Bruce DeJong: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: So is that the $841,397 GO debt in 2003? And the 1.97 Are those the two numbers
you're adding?
Bruce DeJong: Yes. It doesn't show a total I don't think for what the improvement that is versus what's
the GO debt but there is only one GO issue and that's the park bond funds so whatever the difference
is... and the $2 million 752.
Councilman Senn: Okay so by the numbers I was giving you though, then the worse case, forgetting
about that.
Mayor Mancino: You can also levy for it.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean you can also levy for it but I mean let's not go with that scenario for the
moment. Let's, if you basically take essentially those numbers, that $3 million, roughly $3,150,000 or
whatever it is, okay. In terms of those coming out of Option 1 or coming out of those funds. The historic
and the general fund surplus, okay. And forget about the million of additional 2004 revenue, okay. But
noxv plug in the million dollar difference you were just talk about. Essentially that makes that total
problem then about well, essentially still $4 million then. Right? Okay. Alright. So if we take, now if
we go back to our $9 million 303, okay. And we deduct this $4 million problem from it, okay.
Essentially that leaves us a little over, well what? $5 million 3 or whatever, as far as what that $9.3
million excess or allocated number is now $5.3 essentially. Okay. Are we in agreement on that?
Bruce DeJong: If I'm following you. I think that makes sense.
Councilman Senn: Alright. So essentially then, as you frame this out then, we have this $5 million 3.
Okay. Now if you take that $5 million 3 and essentially say okay, we have $1.1 million roughly of
increased levy you know proposed in this budget. Okay. That's now $4.4 million, okay? And even if
one would then provide a couple million dollars more of surplus return or relief or whatever you might
want to call it back to the taxpayers because it's their surplus they created in the first place, it still leaves
you a couple million dollar gap. Or not gap but a couple million dollar excess number sitting there,
which essentially comes around to some of the things we talked about like I'm not sure this number is
super firm or that. You 'know I wouldn't want to rely totally on that number etc, but $2 million is a pretty
good cushion. So under this framework then we've dealt with the TIF issue and the debt issue and we've
62
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
identified the excess or the surplus. Now just, all I'm saying is, help me break down that argument
because that's the number I come up with.
Bruce DeJong: Well the problem that I have is that there's, even beyond that there are other deficits that
we have not identified a method of funding. That exist today in those areas.
Councilman Senn: In the areas we went over or in other areas?
Bruce DeJong: In some of those other funds. You've got deficits there that you need to transfer
available funds from somewhere to plug those holes and to close those funds out. The operations or
activities of those funds have been in some cases long since cease to be around, but yet those deficits
remain. And we have to, so we have to offset those.
Councilman Senn: Just as we have other surpluses though and other funds though too in your $29
million cash analysis. I mean yes...
Bruce DeJong: Yes. Yes, there are some other surpluses but those are dedicated monies. Those are not
available to be transferred to fund, you know to cover the deficits. And we have a significant deficit in
the McGlynn district that isn't included in TIF 1 in the downtown stuff. Basically what I've found out in
the last week is that...this year and we have no place to fund that from. That's identified anywhere. So
it's going to be a million dollar problem in that fund.
Councilman Senn: It's a new problem. That's a new problem in the last week?
Scott Botcher: Well part of it was pr°mlegated by the grant response where they didn't play ball in the
McGlynn debt service.
Councilman Senn: That was the $400,000 reduction?
Scott Botcher: Part of it.
Bruce DeJong: That was the $464,000 from 1999 that we're not going to get funded, and it's another
$600,000 in 2000 that's not going to get funded.
Scott Botcher: So your 2 million cushion's just become 1 million with what you just said?
Bruce DeJong: With the existing deficit. Did you get a...
Scott Botcher: Look at this. Just waiting my turn.
Bruce DeJong: What is the deficit in the McGlynn?
Scott Botcher: McGlynn. I think it's at 251 as of December 31.
Bruce DeJong: So $251,604 and $464,000 so.
Todd Gerhardt: Then there's the possibility you're having to pay the $800,000.
63
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Bruce DeJong: It brings it down to essentially no cushion...The McGlynn district that we've included in
there revenues of $712,000. But State Auditor has told us that we need to pay that back. That's what
we're contesting right now.
Councilman Senn: Okay, that's that ongoing argument.
Bruce DeJong: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay. But that's included in your $1.3 then, or not?
Bruce DeJong: No. That's not included. That deficit goes from you ~know 251 up to 970...
Councihnan Senn: ...I thought it was 7 something was the top end.
Bruce DeJong: Well that's the $700,000 that's in dispute but what's not in dispute is that we have an
existing deficit of $251,000 in that fund without including that. If we have to pay it back, then we go up
to $960 some thousand deficit in that fund. And we don't have an identified funding source for.
Councihnan Senn: So we've just eaten up the $2 million cushion? Okay.
Bruce DeJong: It's gone.
Councihnan Senn: But now we've ah'eady taken $2 million out for relief and $1.1 to keep the levy the
same, okay. So now, so essentially then let's just back out of the framework okay. So let's say now that
you don't provide additional relief of $2 million but you just take the $1.1 million out to leave the levy
the same. Now same thing. Tell me how do we make that $2 million disappear?
Scott Botcher: I'm confused. Back up. You said you had $2 million for relief, is that what you said?
Councilman Senn: Well Scott, when I started, yeah I deducted out the $1.1 million then I just took out
another $2 million and said let's set it aside for the moment.
Scott Botcher: Tell me again what the 1.1 is.
Councilman Senn: The 1.1 I backed out because that is the difference between, that is the additional levy
effectively being added on, or the 18% increase in levy. Tax levy increase. More or tess keeping the tax
levy the same. Equalizing it. That was the 1.1.
Scott Botcher: So reducing the rate.
Councilman Senn: Yes. Okay. And then I took out an additional $2 million just for the moment and set
it aside and I just said well that was for relief or you know whatever. Okay. And stuff and got down to
the $2 million, you know the other $2 million which has now disappeared over our original discussion
essentially but now I still have the other $2 million that we took and set aside for possible rebate or relief
or whatever. So now can we make that disappear Bruce?
Bruce DeJong: Well you're talking about cash balances though. You're not talking about available fund
balances, and we're going to spend $10 million worth of cash in the next txvo months.
64
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilman Senn: I understand that but I didn't touch that $29 million. All I did was pull out those
funds which we agreed were unallocated, unexcess, not programmed for expenditure .... pulled out, as
we've gone through this exercise.
Bruce DeJong: But they are programmed for expenditures through the CIP. I mean you're going to
spend money on capital facilities in the CIP and what you're saying is that there will be no cash balances
expended then in the CIP. It's all going to be new debt issued after we do, after we take care of our
problem.
Mayor Mancino: Yes and no. I mean all the streets and sanitary sewer and water all comes out from the
enterprise funds. And those cash balances.
Scott Botcher: No...
Mayor Mancino: Have you used any of that?
Councilman Senn: Plus a lot of those capital outlay numbers are also included in your general fund and
budget which we're fully funding. Already are fully funded. I mean that happens by just simply levying
the existing levy. So I mean it's not an issue that I'm creating unfunded. I mean that's funded. It's
funded because you're going to send the tax bills out regardless of the same level this year as last year so
then you're funded.
Scott Botcher: Except to the extent that I'm not.
Bruce DeJong: Well, but we create a problem the following year because we haven't reduced any
expenditures so then we have to increase whatever the inflationary increase is, plus the additional $1.1
million.
Councihnan Senn: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just, all I'm trying to, well but Bruce.
Councilwoman Jansen: We're just delaying the inevitable.
Councilman Senn: You're not delaying the inevitable. What you're doing is, you've created a surplus
from taxpayers who have been paying taxes, okay. And if you give them back part of that surplus and
say, don't worry. Next year we're going to go back to the normal, at least they've gotten something back.
Is it better to tax them more this year and next year when you don't really need the money? I have a hard
time following that logic.
Councilwoman Jansen: But those dollars are going to debt that it probably should.
Councilman Senn: Not they're not Linda. There's no debt...
Councilwoman Jansen: That it should have been paying for, which has now accumulated because we
haven't been fully levying and we haven't been paying for our operating expenses out of the operation
budget that have been being paid for out of these other funds and now we're bringing them back in and
yes, in order to bring them in and pay for them, today's taxpayers end up with that increase coming in. I
am not willing to open up these numbers like this after our experts have gone through them and presented
as prudent a plan as possible. Just sitting here tonight and listening to you know Bruce explaining some
of the pitfalls that we still have to face. A year ago I never would have imagined that we'd be sitting here
65
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
tonight even facing that debt situation. We knew and Bruce was telling us and Scott that they needed to
get their arms around it. They've put the hard work in. They've brought through to us a
recommendation after countless hours. I mean I can't even imagine the time that they've spent going
through these numbers, and I have a problem now sitting here and tossing all of this out and saying that
we have a better solution. I don't feel confident that we can come up ourselves with a better solution
than staff and our experts that we have seen work with all of our finance advisors. And ~ve know the
back-up that these gentlemen have and the experts that they have to rely on to come up with these
recommendations and I'm certainly not comfortable now tossing around these cash numbers as if they're
actually available when they may not be.
Councihnan Peterson: I think the real question is, and I think the question that I asked you last week
Bruce was, we do have unallocated dollars.
Bruce DeJong: Yes, absolutely.
Councilman Peterson: So the question is how much do we need? And that was a tough one for you to
answer. And do we need $5 million? Do we need just the $2.7? Do we need somewhere inbetween?
And that's what I'm struggling with is how much we need.
Scott Botcher: And you know the problem is, and this city as much, I can't even imagine. I mean
sometimes we sit around here and Bruce and I will spend hours on the marker board and we just wonder
what, pardon my French, what the hell was going on around here. Because we just, and then we go to
Houlihan's on Guinness night and have Newcastle's because that's the only way we can figure it out but,
it's just, the future is so unknown and you look at our debt study and you look at the stuff that, and Bruce
was talking about you know, his cash balances that he's trying to get-figured out. We move into these
things with trepidation because we've been absolutely amazed at times at some of the stuffxve found. It
blows me away. You pull open the gaffer, page 11. Our net bonded debt from '97 to '98, one single year
nearly quintuple& It just blows me away. You know and you go to the comments, and I don't ~vant to
make this endorsement because I don't always buy the comment but today's citizens pays for today's
services. I don't think it's as clean as that, but quite frankly today's citizens are now having to pay for
these services, these debts that frankly in the past they didn't have to. I mean the City went out there in
'97-'98, and in '99 to some extent, and they were not levied for what shows in the gaffer. They were not.
Simply were not and unfortunately we're paying for the sins of the father at this point. We need to make
sure, because $2 million isn't a lot of cash for an organization this size. It simply is not. It's a lot to me.
I like it when my wife hands me a 10 dollar bill. But 2 million bucks for us is not that much cash because
we have so many unknowns out there and I would much rather be prudent with our taxpayers, given all
the other things that are out there. We know rate compression is going to happen. It's probably going to
happen more than once. It will probably happen 4 times between now and 2005. You can pretty much
bank on it. As long as Ron gets re-elected and run unopposed and people in Minnetonka keep voting for
him, he's going to be there. And he's going to push rate compression every single time. It's going to
happen. Bank on it. We are going to have to fight that battle until that downtown district is closed.
Bank on it. It will happen. We've got McGlynn issues. You know we've covered some debt and we ran
the debt service series today on the marker board. We've covered that debt service out of other funds
because we've had to. We've got to pay those back and I just frankly think, and I don't like, I mean God
knows I'm the one who is as cheap as anybody around here but dang it. I'm looking at this thing and I'm
looking at the absence of the levy. I'm looking at my tax bill. And maybe that's how I do it. I don't like
to pay more but my tax bill's going up 5%. I said that last time. If my tax bill goes up 5% and I have a
better feel that the City of Chanhassen is finally getting it's crap together, I'm okay with that. I'll pay 5%
for that. Because I'd rather pay 5% today then have the City come back to me the next 2 years and say
66
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
oh, we gave it all back to you but we need it back today. And I would just rather have it today, and this is
purely organizational, cash in hand today for the benefit of all the taxpayers that have to fight with them
to get it back over the next 2 years. If we have to do that, and I think that's a very real possibility if we
go too far into these cash balances. I mean this is just, the gaffer is clear. The gaffer is extremely clear.
Percent of market value. I mean these numbers are just astounding. We have not, as an organization,
levied responsibly for these numbers. We haven't even gotten close to it. And I'm sorry, it's time.
We've got to, we unfortunately have to pay our bills. We have to pay our bills. I'm not going to argue
with, the debt service is one thing. Bond indebtedness is another. We can play all sorts of games with
the stats on this thing, but it's prudent for us to hang on to that cash. It simply is.
Councilman Peterson: What's enough? I mean have you in your mind decided what's enough?
Scott Botcher: I think that's enough is what's in the recommended budget. I think we need, because we
have so many unknowns and I think that some of the numbers that Mark pulled out, especially in the
environmental funds, I'm not sure they're as unrestricted. Part of the problem is that when we set up
funds, and I know Mark said this before and he's right. We just sort of created funds. We never really
went through the process of having enabling legislation identified what they were for. State statute
governs in some cases. Gap governs in some cases. So I mean we could be doing that for hours. Trying
to delineate which dollars are actually unencumbered and which dollars are not. But just looking at these
numbers, I think we need to, I mean last year we gave some back. We did. We used some fund balance
for tax levy reduction last year. We did. This year we have a better picture of what's going on and our
recommendation is that we don't do it. I'd rather be able to pay my bills. I'd rather be able to go to
Moody's and Standard and Poors and say look at our cash balances. Give us a bond rating upgrade. Our
cash balances are a big reason that we got our bond rating upgraded. It's certainly not our debt service
schedule. They know what it is. You know we sat there and said, we are going to hoard cash. Straight
out to them. We're going to hoard cash. We're going to take care of our bills and we're going to try to
straighten out these funds. That was basically our three prong approach. That and we talked really nice
to them.
Mayor Mancino: But so far what you've really told us about debt concerns that you have is with tax,
wait. Just a minute. Is with tax increment. I mean when you talk about levying, we've been levying the
right amount. That has nothing to do with our tax increment and where we're having our problems now.
Scott Botcher: It's your turn to swipe at it. I don't believe that to be true. We have not.
Mayor Mancino: Bruce. Bruce, answer that.
Bruce DeJong: We have not levied in those debt service funds adequately because we've got some GO
and special assessment debt service funds that are in deficit. That situation should not happen were we
following a bond resolutions that we passed.
Mayor Mancino: And we have a surplus built up in the general fund to pay for that debt. I mean all the
time that we didn't levy, we do have a surplus sitting there that can go back and pay for that debt that
wasn't levied. Correct Bruce?
Bruce DeJong: Yeah. There is some surplus there. I mean quite honestly, I've not been able to do an
analysis to show you, you know to hand you a piece of paper that says, you know, the general fund
surplus will cover all of those deficits in those GO and special assessment debt service funds. I don't
know what that is as I sit here today. And that's the problem you know. We've had such a difficult time
67
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
getting our arms wrapped around it. Just the TIF issue and god knows it's difficult because our
defeasance amount xvent from $3.6 million last week to $4.6 million. And I guess it just doesn't seem
very prudent to me to use a lot of our cash in this manner without really knowing and I think we'll be
more comfortable next year. I'm probably comfortable with using some cash to reduce the levy. I
wouldn't reduce any of those debt service levies that we've got in there. You know we haven't had much
discussion about it, but I don't think that there's any unanimous or real consensus on the council to
whack the Southwestern Metro Transit levy you know. We're to the point where we're kind of levying,
xve're pretty much levying the same thing as the other participants in that. So that leaves your general
fund levy and if you want to reduce that, you know maybe it's a progression kind of thing. If you want to
reduce the levy, you know we were at $367,000 last year. Maybe do half of that. But certainly don't
spend all of your available or you know a large percentage of your available cash balance because you do
have to levy again for it at some point in the future. When those surpluses are gone, if they're gone you
can't do that and then you've got a double whammy. Not only the increase in your operations but also
the amount that you didn't levy the previous year.
Scott Botcher: And last year we retired nearly $9 million worth of debt. A lot of it was scheduled.
Some was defeased. Some was pre-paid. We called it probably a little, a lot of our debt doesn't have a
very strong call feature in it. Wejust, this city has never really done that.
Mayor Mancino: Let me just ask this philosophically. Excuse me, I need some xvater. Do we have any
more water? Thanks. On our TIF debt, our tax increment debt, because that's where .we have so much of
it and where xve're fighting with the rate compression, etc. Conceptually or philosophically I'd like to
see not residents pay for the TIF debt. I know. I know. Take that off of the backs of the residential
taxpayers and is there a way to, even though the TIF district is decertified and that money comes into the
general fund and we refinance that debt to have it paid for by the businesses that got the business
subsidy?
Scott Botcher: I don't 'l, mow how you do that. I mean.
Councilman Senn: I don't think we can do special districts...
Mayor Mancino: Can't we?
Councilman Senn: I don't know, Roger can we do special taxing districts?
Roger Knutson: Yes you can but it has nothing to do with what you're talking about. You can set up
special taxing districts. You have to petition the property owners to do special services...
Scott Botcher: Oh they'll be right in, yeah. I think, I mean we can try to make the delineation between
the TIF debt and the non-TIF debt. The reality is, xve're on the hook for it.
Mayor Mancino: I know.
Scott Botcher: And we don't have a lot of opportunities outside of the grant and we try to use the
liquidity as a tool and Mark, we've talked about. You know that. Try to use liquidity to leverage as
much cash as ~ve can out of the state and other sources. But if we don't have the cash in the future for
un'known things that quite frankly we have to be realistic. The State's going to do stuff to us and we have
to be ready for it. And sometimes they give us opportunities, like the grant fund. I mean liquidity in our
case, given the lack of financial stability, and that sounds negative. I don't want to make it sound
68
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
negative because it's not like we're on the brink of disaster here. But we're trying to pull together our
financial puzzle and liquidity, especially to the tune of a couple million bucks, again in an organization
this size to me is appropriate. That's my opinion.
Todd Gerhardt: Bruce, in 2005, won't there be a tax decrease then? Won't we have most of that debt
taken off?.
Scott Botcher: Yeah, once you get past 2004, the picture changes but again, yeah. Absolutely.
Todd Gerhardt: ...and to answer Nancy's question, in 2005 is when people are going to get, see the
impact of what the industrial, commercial has done.
Councilman Peterson: If they can afford to pay their taxes between now and then.
Mayor Mancino: If you haven't taxed them out.
Councilwoman Jansen: I'd like to propose a motion to adopt the budget for 2001 and certify the final tax
levies for 2000, collectible in 2001 per the staff recommendation.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilwoman Jansen moved, CounCilman Labatt seconded to adopt the budgetfor 2001 and
certify the final tax levies for 2000, collectible in 2001 per the staff recommendation.
Councilwoman Jansen and Councilman Labatt voted in favor. Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn
and Councilman Peterson voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Councilman Peterson: You know I'm not necessarily ready to make a decision tonight. You know I
think we tossed around numbers and I got a headache when you were walking through them. I stopped
copying them down. I just, whether or not, we need to spend more time with Bruce. It all goes back to,
there are unallocated funds and what I'm hearing tonight is we're assuming the absolute worst in every
scenario. The odds of it going across the board being the negative of whatever the State does to us.
Whatever McGlynn does to us, you add these up, you know probability says you're not going to have a
negative on all of those. So then the worst case scenario, and it goes back to my earlier question. How
much cash is enough? And I think my sense is we've got enough not to raise the levy 18% and still have
the comfort across the board. And what I heard tonight hasn't convinced me otherwise.
Councilman Labatt: What do you need to hear then Craig to convince you? The professional staff's our
experts.
Councilman Peterson: It goes back to, you know is $10 million too much, is enough cash to use that to
apply to the levy. You know and _are we taking a pessimistic view of what's going to happen in the future
at the cost of today's taxpayer?
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess what we've all heard however is that the picture keeps getting bleaker
and bleaker, or those of us who have to live with this as we go into next year, we would certainly want to
be sitting here and being just as darn conservative as we could be because you know, we're feeling this as
well. But every time something else has come along, it's been negative. And Bruce has tried to give us
69
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
the down side to these things and as we're kicking cash numbers around, keep in mind, yeah. Bruce did
reflect us this $5 million. Well, you start hearing other cash numbers and you're hearing Bruce say he's
only just gotten the final audit. You ~know I don't see us sitting here next year rolling in cash and unable
to find one of these problems to be able to address. And we're questioning the experts as they've been
digging into these numbers and it's a rather conservative proposal which fortunately, yeah 18% sounds
like a lot, but a lot of that was picked up with the additional growth. And it's balancing our budget. It
balances the budget. It's not as if we're looking to put cash in the coffers because Bruce has now raised
our revenue projection to the point that quite frankly, if we were going to sit here and pull it apart, I think
it's a little aggressive to be using that number. It should be maybe $200,000 less. Well so now if we're
talking about bringing the levy down, okay. Well what about if we miss that revenue projection? We're
now not covering it. I think we can be good fiscal stewards next year by starting from the beginning of
the year trying to address with staff an incentive program to go after some of the cost. Look at some of
the possible savings we can procure out of the budgets but we haven't done that.
Councilman Peterson: So when do we start giving it back the unallocated funds? When does that
happen? Do we wait until 2004 when all the potential negatives are gone? When do we start doing it?
Councilwoman Jansen: We have the potential of those unallocated funds being gone very quickly as
we're trying to address the problems over the next couple years so.
Councilman Peterson: We just added it up and again, numbers are squishy but we took the worst case
scenario and applied those and we still had monies left for unknown things, so how many unknown
things do we prognosticate?
Councilxvoman Jansen: When you say we, you're referring to Councilman Senn xvalking through
numbers that I don't follow. I'm following.
Councilman Peterson: I'm not agreeing with that but I'm saying.
Councilwoman Jansen: I'm following the numbers that Bruce has put together because those, he's the
one who's closest to the finance numbers. He lives with these every day. He's probably dreaming these
numbers unfortunately. I have to put my trust there and it makes me very nervous for us as rookies if you
would, laymen, to be trying to pull these cash numbers out and about when, and you heard Bruce and
Scott both say, it's been surprises, unanticipated things.
Mayor Mancino: Mark, are you a rookie after all these years?
Scott Botcher: Craig, I guess the only thing I'd say is, and I don't disagree, you know and I was the one
last year who applied fund balance to it so I'm comfortable with it but I guess what I'm saying is, we do
live with it every day and there are just things out there we don't know and quite frankly, you know I
guess I could make the argument saying that when these tax increment districts were set up, or when
these bond schedules were put together, city took, I'm assuming here. I'm taking a leap of faith. They
made what they thought were conservative projections and then they put together the revenue streams for
the tax increment districts. And in some cases.
Councilman Senn: Not true but go ahead.
Scott Botcher: Well, but the council had the ultimate obligation to do so. They did not and in fact they
turned out far worse than anyone ever could have imagined. And so I guess, and it is without question a
70
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
conservative bent but I don't want to have to, and again a personal antidotal test, come up to my
neighbors next year and say oh by the way, in addition to using up fund balances that we might otherwise
use, or have, our building permit revenue stream plummeted, and it's short. And we're going to need to
increase your taxes by X. But isn't that great you got it back last year. That argument doesn't wash that
well. And I mean I think part of the test is...I think we've done as good a job as we can because frankly I
know the phone for Bruce and I has been ringing from citizens calling us. They want to know what's
going on. Melissa's tried to put her arms around a really complicated issue and I've spent time with
people who are convinced that (a), we're going bankrupt. And we explain to them what really is and
what really isn't. Just look at the seats. I think that people understand our situation maybe more than
sometimes we give them credit for. Personal opinion and maybe I'm being naive, but I think they
understand that things were a little messy. That there are unknowns out there and that, I know Nancy and
I had this discussion. I don't think people should assume that the fund balances there are strictly from
advoloran tax revenue sources because they're not. And to assume otherwise I think is incorrect, and
certainly an argument can be made that if we're going to return them to people, you could make the
argument and I'm not making it here, that there are a lot of folks beyond advoloran property taxpayers in
the City of Chanhassen who have generated that fund balance. So there's all sorts of different ways to do
this.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, you can spin it.
Scott Botcher: Any way you want.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah. My head is spinning right now so what, do we have, do we have to make
this decision tonight? "
Scott Botcher: I'm going on vacation. I'm kidding you.
Mayor Mancino: When's the date we have to make the decision by Todd? If~ve want to spend some
time? Is it the 28th of December?
Scott Botcher: No, it's 6 working days after the 20th. Something goofy like that. I've just been saying
Christmas.
Todd Gerhardt: The 27th. In there. Not including Saturday and Sunday is part of that.
Scott Botcher: And the holiday. Monday is Christmas.
Councilman Peterson: Can we move it to the meeting on the?
Bruce DeJong: One or more days after the public hearing, but no later than December 27th, cities must
adopt their final payable 2001 property tax levies and payable 2001 budgets.
Scott Botcher: That's adoption to us.
Mayor Mancino: So we're, and we're meeting on the 27th?
Todd Gerhardt: Potentially.
Mayor Mancino: At 5:30.
71
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Todd Gerhardt: Are you talking about the TIF modification meeting?
Bruce DeJong: Yeah, we've got a public hearing scheduled.
Scott Botcher: You're also going to be in closed session on the 18th. I mean again, I'd rather have more
time than less to get our paperwork done and get it to the county. I mean no offense. Don't really
appreciate the 27th. I want to get my work done as xvell but if it has to be, it has to be I guess. It's out of
my hands.
Councilwoman Jansen: This was one of the concerns and why you know, we encouraged that there
needed to be a lot of footwork up front in order to address the numbers. And you know further
conversation with Bruce and Scott, I hope what you're going to hear is that the experts are pretty firm on
the recommendation that they're making.
Councilman Peterson: Well even Bruce tonight has offered up a few hundred thousand as being
plausible so.
Councilwoman Jansen: So let's go back and let's address that revenue number. You know it could be
too aggressive because I mean there's.
Councilman Peterson: Then why would he have put it in there? So I mean it goes back to, I'm looking,
if you believe part of his numbers, you've got to believe in all of his numbers.
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess that's where I'm putting the trust in all of the numbers because he's gone
out and been aggressive in that revenue number so that, and otherwise he would have had to have
increased the levy even further in order to cover whatever he wasn't going to put in that permit number.
Councihnan Peterson: Or you use the unallocated fl~nds.
Councilxvoman Jansen: Not if you're going to balance the budget, which is what we're trying to do.
Councilman Peterson: You're using whatever funds you can. It goes back to, no different than the State
of Minnesota. It's very similar to that and they may not have used all those funds, so they're providing a
surplus back. I'm not pretending to do that tonight but.
Scott Botcher: Frankly though, and this is going to be really cynical but it's, I'I1 speak the truth anyway.
If we're sitting here xvasting 2 weeks over a couple hundred thousand dollars, throw a couple hundred
thousands dollars in and call it a day. I mean god dang it folks. I'm sorry. It's not worth our time.
Mayor Mancino: Scott, I don't think it's wasting it. I think it's taking what we've heard tonight.
Looking at those numbers and coming back and really feeling comfortable.
Scott Botcher: I guess I'm responding to you know, Craig's comment. If that's what we're going to
come down to, then.
Councilman Peterson: All I commented was what Bruce was being offered tonight.
Scott Botcher: Yes, and I recognize that.
72
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: Well I won't vote for a deficit budget. Again, just so it's on the table.
Scott Botcher: Understand though, and I do want to be fair, because I don't want to debate this, but
utilization of fund balances as a revenue source is not a deficit budget. Never has been. Never will be.
And so it is a tool. I'm not recommending we use it. Be very clear.
Councilwoman Jansen: I won't vote for anything where our operating revenue doesn't cover our
operating expenses. Cut it however you want to cut it.
Scott Botcher: I just want to make sure that, you know you make the correct statement.
Councilman Peterson: So what do you do with those balances? You never, ever use them then?
Councilwoman Jansen: Oh they're not just going to sit in our scenario, we're not in a normal scenario.
Yeah, if we were in a healthy situation, absolutely. If we were sitting in a healthy situation without all of
these pending situations where our finance direction continues to say we need to hoard cash because our
situation right now keeps getting worst. We're looking at a legislature that's being projected to put levy
limits on and doing tax compression. Yet those are all things that we can sit here right now and hope for
the best but these are our taxpayers.
Scott Botcher: So, just so I understand from a staff perspective. Whatever-date we pick, what do we
need to provide for the council?
_
Councilman Labatt: Nothing for me. I've got everything I need.
Scott Botcher: I mean because I just would like to know because we want to get our work done.
Councihnan Peterson: Yeah I mean I'd like to see those worst case scenarios. You know ifMcGlynn
goes south. If this goes south and see the worst case scenarios to how you'd spend the surplus that we
have. The unallocated dollars. I'll use that vernacular.
Scott Botcher: So we'll need to run what we believe are the unallocated dollars? Okay.
Mayor Mancino: So when would you like to, when can we meet back again? Can we do that on the 27th,
during that meeting?
Councilman Peterson: Well can we do it on the 18th?
Mayor Mancino: Or on the 18th. Does that give you enough time Scott?
Scott Botcher: When do you want to do it?
Mayor Mancino: Can you do it on the 18th after we've had our closed session?
Bruce DeJong: Yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And do we have enough time to post it, etc legally?
73
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2000
Scott Botcher: Well ~ve've got to post a closed session anyway so... Is that going to work?
Bruce DeJong: Yeah, I think we can get some...numbers by the time...and find out what those
negatives are. I think what makes us all nervous from the staff side is the surprises for the last year and a
half, really none of them have been positive. And it does color your perception that we, we keep finding
more negative things out and they're always six figure negative things.
Mayor Mancino: Well that has to stop at some point.
Scott Botcher: Well we get to the point though, and Mark's right and I'll use Mark's quote because then
I can say I cited him as a source but the shell game. ! mean people do that. They don't do that for
positive cash flow reasons. They do it for negative. For bad. To quote, to cover bad stuff. And Bruce is
right. I mean we were brought in and handed sort of the gaffer, well I was brought in here and handed
the, I wasn't even handed the damn gaffer. Say well the budget's in here somewhere, get it from Pam.
She's gone. Couldn't get a cash balance out of Para. Was fortunate enough to go steal Bruce away from
Dave Childs and I just, I told him, I don't know what the hell we have here. Couldn't tell him and we
continued to find these things and I'm, the problem is, it will be a piece of cake honestly Craig to show
how that whole cash balance will be gone.
Councilman Peterson: Well I hope it is.
Scott Botcher: Whether or not you all choose to believe it or not is entirely up to you. You know we
can, you know w,e can make numbers do whatever you want them to do. We can.
Councilman Peterson: Well I don't want you to say it that way. I want you to give me a reasonable
estimate.
Scott Botcher: Oh yeah, I understand but we can do that. But we've tried really hard to give you what
we think is in the best interest of the organization and so we'll try to get you those numbers but that's
why people do shell games because things aren't good because the surprises are there, and let's be
honest. We did have over 100 funds. There are surprises we haven't found yet. I guarantee that.
Councihnan Labatt: How many of those surprises were you guys able to foresee? I mean all these
unforeseen surprises coming up, all six figures.
Scott Botcher: I don't know. You know, you don't know.
Councilman Labatt: ...who knows? Either when you run out of money or...
Scott Botcher: I think by the time we get to 2004.
Mayor Mancino: It's your tax increment.
Scott Botcher: Yeah, a lot of it is. Some of it's just not, you know not doing 105% of debt service levy
like you're supposed to. Some of it involves relationship with the county. I mean there's still that
question, does Carver County have the obligation to levy what we've given them if we haven't really
officially rescinded our levy. I'm not here to get into...with Carver County but that's still a question.
We're going to continue to have battles with the State Auditor. I mean if you think the State Auditor is
not going to come in here and audit us, and give us a proctol like you've never seen and find, I mean if
74
City Council Meeting- December 11, 2000
you think she's not going to come in and say oh by the way, you owe me more money. We're ail naive
because it's going to happen. It will absolutely happen. We need to have the resources to deal with that.
And I can't tell you how much it is. And how much that is.
Mayor Mancino: That's true. You make it public. You tell the taxpayer and they understand why.
Scott Botcher: Except then.
Mayor Mancino: I'm not going to say they're going to like it.
.
Scott Botcher: No. No, I understand but we just, from our point of view, it's nicer and easier for us to do
our job if we have those resources. You guys have to decide how much is appropriate.
Councilwoman Jansen: And if levy limits are in place again, our options are then restricted.
Councilman Peterson: I motion to table until the 18th.
Scott Botcher: What time do you want? Can you do 4:30?
Councilman Peterson: For that I would.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Labatt: I'I1 have to make it obviously to break the tie.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second to the motion?
Councihnan Senn: Sure.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Senn seconded to reconvene the City Council meeting
on Monday, December 18, 2000 at 4:30 p.m.. All voted in favor, except Councilman Labatt and
Councilwoman Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried 3 to 2.
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
75
CHANItASSEN CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 2000
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge
to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Peterson,
Councilwoman Jansen, and Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Bruce DeJong, Todd Hoffman, and Todd Gerhardt
Mayor Mancino: Thank you and thank you all for coming. Following tonight's session, budget
discussion, we will have a closed meeting on the City Manager's performance review and if no one
mind's, I think we'll move that up to the courtyard room instead of here in the council chambers since it
is closed. If anyone should have a concern about that. Is that okay with other council members? Just
making it a little more comfortable to sit around a table together. Anyone have any concerns? Seeing
one, we'll go ahead to the budget.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR 2001 AND CERTIFYING FINAL TAX LEVIES
FOR 2000, COLLECTIBLE IN 2001.
Mayor Mancino: Tonight, we got a little further in the budget discussion last week and have to really
kind of finish it up tonight. We did approve CIP. Just a couple of factual questions Bruce. What
happens, just so everyone knows, that we all know. We do want to get somewhere tonight. If we were
not to approve a budget and a levy, what would happen? We couldn't get a majority to approve a new
budget and a new levy tonight.
Bruce DeJong: Tonight?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Bruce DeJong: You can reschedule meetings up through December 27th I believe my sheet said and you
have to have that certified if you're going to increase the levy, it has to be certified to Carver County by
December 27t~. So you could still have meetings the rest of this Week, up through next week.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Bruce DeJong: If we don't adopt it, I can dig up the information while you're discussing something else
but I believe that if we do not adopt a new levy by December 27th and certify that to Carver County, that
we are restricted to what we levied last year.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So it would fall back to the 2000 levy amount?
Bruce DeJong: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: And the budget amount also?
City Council Meeting- December 18, 2000
Bruce DeJong: I don't know what the effect is legally of not adopting a budget. Quite honestly you
could continue to function without a budget. You know unless there's some restrictions that Roger could
tell you that I'm not aware of but I know you're supposed to adopt a budget but if you don't, my
assumption is you could continue to operate.
Councilwoman Jansen: Well if I could piggy back on that question. The budget can be adopted then
after the beginning of the year. It's not as if you go without an adopted budget per se. We just, if we
don't approve it tonight, because we can always amend anyway in January, correct? But the levy.
Bruce DeJong: Certainly. The budget can be amended any time.
Mayor Mancino: Throughout the year.
Bruce DeJong: Throughout the year and even after the year's done. I've seen that done in the minutes a
couple of times where we get out to March or April and they're amending the previous year's budget so.
Mayor Mancino: Sure.
Councilwoman Jansen: But once the levy's set or not, after the 27th, that's the last that it can be
adjusted?
Bruce DeJong: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: And I think we did do that, or attempted to do that one year with the budget because we
saw that revenues were not coming in as projected so we went back and looked at the budget and I think
made a couple cuts or at least contemplated it. I don't know who would like to start. One of the things
that just philosophically that I've been thinking about for the past few days, and obviously before we
talked about the budget last Monday was my concern about a double digit, almost a 20% increase in one
year. Especially when the last couple years we've increased the levy by 3 and 3 ½%. At the same time
we increased our cash balances, our overall city cash balances have gone from 15.6 million to right
around 28 million in cash balances. We've also over that time period been able to increase our general
fund balance by over 100% with a surplus of 1.6 million, over and above our stated financial policy. And
I think our financial policy, we really did renew and update that in March of 2000. So I do have a
concern, a real problem with thinking about an 18.4% increase all in one year with those kind of cash
balances and with what we've been able to do in the general fund. So I'd like to back offofa double
digit increase. One of the things I'd like to do is go back and to look at the budget and to say instead of
an 8.8% increase is to do, is to look at that and suggest instead of that big of an increase in the budget for
this year, go back to a 5-5 ½% increase. I'd like to hear some thoughts on that.
Councilman Peterson: I missed the last thing, I'm sorry.
Mayor Mancino: I said in the budget to go from, kind of stepping back on the, my concern with the huge
levy increase and looking at our budget and taking that from an 8, almost 9% increase to more like a 5-5
½% increase.
Councilman Peterson: A couple questions before I'1I respond to that. Bruce, in the information you sent
today there's some items in there that are circled. Is there a significance to those items that are circled or
not?
2
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
Bruce DeJong: Yes. The items that I made notations by are really items that we know there are
remaining amounts to come in. Or that will not be used in the same sense. If you want to turn to that,
page 1 of that revenue report.
Mayor Mancino: Is this what we're looking at Bruce?
Bruce DeJong' Yes. The information that I handed out. I did e-mail that this afternoon but I realized
that not everyone may have had a chance to get that. So I did place one in front of each of the council
members. But if you look at what's happening at our current property tax, the vast majority of the
property tax has come in already and there still remains a delinquent, final settlement for delinquents to
be collected approximately February 1st. It looks to me that based off of past history, we're probably not
going to have any delinquents which that allowance for delinquents, the minus 60 that shows up on top of
there, is really designed as an offset. That's in essence allowance for bad debts off of the total dollar
amount that you levy. So what you're really levying is a net tax, you know from the 4 million 036 minus
the $60,000 dollars for the delinquents. Now if we collect all of the property tax, that means that we
really didn't have any delinquents under that addition. Plus we've been collecting the delinquent
property tax at a fairly rapid pace. So what it really means when you're looking at it is that there's
$60,000 that we anticipated not getting of property taxes that we are getting. Then the next line down,
the homestead and agricultural credits.
Mayor Mancino: So there's some good news.
Bruce DeJong: Is that our property tax collections remain high, yeah.
Mayor Mancino: What, 99%?
Bruce DeJong: They have been over 99% for the last several years and once again will be. Now the
next thing to take a look at is the homestead and agricultural credit. We note that that will be coming in.
That does not get paid out until December. December 26th I believe is when the Department of Revenue
issues that. So we know that is yet to come in. We know that we haven't received the traffic violations
from Carver County for December yet. That's been, looks like about $3,500 based on the last several
months activity. We know that there's some aid from the State for basically they increased the rate that
the city has to pay for PERA pensions on our employees. But then they offset it with some aid and we
know that the second half of that aid payment is yet to come in. That's the $9,733. And the investment
management fee has not been recorded because our past practices has been to split investment income
and to pay the fee at year end. So we have that $65,000 coming in and we have then roughly $147,000
worth of interest that has not been recorded yet. For the general fund. Splitting out of our investment
fund. So when you add all of that up, if you take a look at the sheet that I've prepared which is the 2001,
or the 2000 estimate on the budget. Right here. When you add those in and then put the actual dollar
figures for the other amounts, and I've...detail on that revenue report. It looks like in total we're going to
have general fund revenues of approximately $7,139,000. When you lay that against our expenditures, as
estimated in the documents that were sent out I believe on Friday with the agenda for tonight, if you put
the estimated expenditures there you can see that there's a net gain in fund balance or surplus of
excessive revenues over expenditures of about $180,000 for this year.
Mayor Mancino: Of revenues over expenditures.
Bruce DeJong: Correct. I have done this because I was requested to by Councilmember Jansen to
explain where I came up with the $300,000, 2000 general fund surplus on the information that I had sent
3
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
out on Friday. So I've taken that figure off the top of my head rather than going back and analyzing it, so
this is the supporting analysis. That figure really should be $120,000 less based on this analysis that you
have in front of you tonight.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you for correcting the numbers for us. I appreciate it.
Bruce DeJong: You're welcome.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, going back to I think Craig you were.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah. I'm probably in the same area that I was last week. That I'm not
comfortable with the 18. I'm comfortable with something less than that and I think that why I'm not
comfortable really goes back to the crux of we really don't know with a clear, succinct vision of whether
these numbers and the balances are positive or negative. You l~ow it was, to use a cliche, they're a little
bit squishy and they can go either way. And what that is driving me to do is to say, let's give ourselves
time before we raise taxes on the citizens. Let's be sure that we don't have excess. We don't have a
need for additional and I don't sense we've got that 100% yet. I also don't sense that we need to have
funds in 2001 to require any of these payments. We've got more than enough cash to pay any obligations
that will happen in 2001. And by the end of 2001, I certainly hope that Bruce, you have a much better,
you can sit where you're sitting and say with 100% accuracy, these are what the numbers are. This is
really xvhat the outlook looks like with a much greater degree of confidence than you can now. I mean I
don't blame you for not being able to do that now by any means. So I think before we raise the levy,
inherently raise the taxes on everybody, let's find out whether we really have to or not. That's really
what's driving me tonight. And that really is the crux of where I'm coming from and I would recommend
that we also not lower the, not increase it 18.4 but I'm thinking, I'm in that 5 ½-6% range and also to ask
staff to go back and look at, I think Nancy you said look at the budget for reductions in that area. I'm in
that 2 to 250,000 dollar range to say, what can we do to present to council to lower the budget by
$250,000. To present thoughts to us and ideas. So that's probably where I'm at.
Councilwoman Jansen: Just a couple comments to follow up on your comments Craig. Actually starting
from the very beginning when we were first presented the budget back in August. My position had been
to challenge staff to hold the expenses flat to 2000. So that would have completely eliminated the 8%
increase in expenses and it would have kept the levy flat to last year. In looking at that, and I don't know
if you realize this. There is such a big increase in the debt service levy that even before we raise the
general fund levy amount, we're already at an 8% increase in that levy because it was a 42% increase just
on the debt service alone.
Councilman Peterson: It went up $700,000, right at that. Yep.
Councilwoman Jansen: So a big chunk of this is that debt service number. And what staff had shared
with us back in August, as I was challenging that 8% increase, are the same numbers that Bruce has
reviewed with us a couple times but there's txvo funds, or two amounts. The $200,000 in salaries and
there's also $85,000 in the fire relief contribution that have been brought over into general fund so we're
already starting with $285,000 in expenses above what our base was from last year. So if you pull that
number out, what staff has proposed to last year is a 4.2% increase. So I started out philosophically in
the same position that everyone else is currently. So challenging it back in the beginning would have
been the period of time in which we probably could have done more of the in depth analysis but I have to
share with you that ! really think that Bruce and staff and Scott went through those numbers and as
Bruce keeps sharing with us, there's no increase in services. You know they haven't added above and
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
beyond and they've been very cautious in what they have proposed. So as you know I was hearing you
say last Monday, you know 200, 250. I asked Bruce today is there a cushion? You know did I miss
something back when we were talking in August? You know could I have whacked that 200-250 out of
there and basically his response is, whatever we tell them to do, they'll do but it will be a cut in the
service levels. Because whatever they cut now will take out of the cost of living and it will take us then
down below the base that we're starting from and coming pretty much in line with this year in 2000. So
it's not an easy cut. We're going to feel something if and as we do that. My hesitation then is as we
continue to try to challenge staff on their position that they don't want us using the cash balance. We're
dealing with two people from last year who adamantly supported using fund balance for the year 2000.
So now they've had enough experience over the last year with what's been happening with our numbers
and trying to look into the financial security of Chanhassen and they're saying don't touch the cash
balances. Having seen them make that philosophical change themselves, I have to give that a great deal
of weight in consideration of not using the cash balances. If in fact it was still something that they
thought was prudent, I believe they would have brought forward numbers to use cash balance but there's
all sorts of what if's in the numbers that we've even been presented in the budget. One that struck me
today as Bruce and I were walking through these revenue numbers. This surprised me, and Bruce correct
me if I repeat this wrong. Of our revenues, of our permit revenues of the million one, 600,000 of that
came from one project.
Bruce DeJong: That's right.
Councilwoman Jansen: One project. If one project hadn't come in, our revenues would be decreased,
would have been decreased by 54%. One project. And I think of sitting up here on this council and
having a project in front of us and I would hate to feel the pressure of passing something because we
need it in order to make our revenue numbers because now what we've done is we've taken out that
guess work. We're being planned comparable to the 2000 revenues when in fact we're reflecting in
permit revenue a decrease. '99 over '98 was a 6% decrease. 2000 compared to 1999 will be 19%
decrease. So the permit revenues are on their way down. We're planning them now flat and of that one
project could tip it 54%. So even though they're not recommending that we use cash balance, I'm seeing
that as our security for these sorts of projections because conceivably we could end up having to go in
there for 600,000 if we don't make that number since we don't control it. We sit here and it's so
different from private industry because private industry, if you're not making your revenues, you pound
on your company and you get out there and you hit the street and you start trying to increase your
revenues. Here we sit and we wait for the projects to come to us and that generates the permit revenue.
So unfortunately if we're not making these numbers, there isn't something that we can do to go out there
to generate it. It has to happen. So we're in a, we're not in control I guess is part of it and to not be in
control and start gambling with the cash balances when staffhas reflected all sorts of what if scenarios,
and they haven't even been able to project for the further rate compression, which now I did share with
you the discussion that I had last week that Ron Abrahms will probably be coming out to discuss what
rate compression is going to do to Chanhassen. So it went in my mind from a possibility to a likelihood
that we're going to have this rate compression happen and of course it's all based upon what happens in
the legislature. But it's not idle speculation. You know it's hanging out there. It will affect our ability to
generate revenue and the levy limits, everyone is speaking to the fact that levy limits will undoubtedly go
back into place just because that is what happens when they start doing tax reform. So I have a great deal
of difficulty challenging staff and over riding what they're recommending that we do for the future health
of Chanhassen. They're asking for one year to be able to get through these numbers and though it sounds
like a great deal of increase when you look at 18%, you've got to back down out of that and realize how
much of it is that debt service. It's not as if it's expenses that are generating that 18%. We've been hit
with a higher debt service which I guess again I see the irony of touting all this cash that we're sitting on,
5
City Council Meeting- December 18, 2000
when at the same time we're getting hit with the burden of now having to pay for deferred payments on
debt. You know maybe it should have been used back then. We weren't fully levying to cover the debt
service payments so I guess I'm not looking at it as a windfall, and those numbers that the Mayor shared,
include the dedicated funds. Not all of that is available. It sounds significant, but we can't go into these
numbers in order to cover a general fund expenditure or to apply.to our TIF situation. So though they
sound good, we're not dealing with that amount of cash. It's the cash number that you requested in the
last meeting that now inaybe is 6 million with 7.6 million that might be attributable to needing that cash,
and though we wouldn't spend it in the year 2001, my understanding from Bruce is that they're looking
to have as many options available so that they can deal with these and if we take that option away in
2001, it might have been one of the more financially prudent decisions that we end up ruling out if we do
it just to have a little bit smaller tax increase to the residents. I don't like hearing 18%. But because
we're sitting up here and because we're well informed by staff, we know that 8% of that is attributable to
new growth and fortunately it's taking some of that burden off of our existing taxpayers. And the 10%
isn't reflected to most of the residents as 10%. I'm hearing 5% is more the average as far as what
people's increases are. So we're not placing this 18% heavy burden on our existing taxpayers. We're
showing them that we're doing the most prudent step that we can and I would, I shared my philosophy,
2001 the council very early needs to reflect to staff where we stand on expenses and they have already
agreed to put into place an employee incentive program and I very much want the employees to really
have a stake in cutting these expenses. And if we force back a quarter million dollar budget cut, staff
isn't going to be on board with us as we do that. That's political. If we were going to do the cutting and
we thought that was prudent, you know I would have liked to have seen it done back in August so that
staff could then sit down with their budgets and try to figure out where to get it. Whereas now I think if
we come on board as early as possible in the year and start with the philosophy that we want to see the
budgets get lean and prepare for 2002...this is such a lean budget as it's been presented, i don't see the
fluff. Bruce has spoken to the fact that services would have to be diminished and then I have to weigh
the burden that's going to be felt by the taxpayers if we then decide to cut, if we decide to bring it down
and it has to go below this year's expenses, our taxpayers are going to feel the brunt of it in their
services. And though they don't like the high taxes, one of the survey results that had come through was
they also don't see that they're getting the quality of service that they expect for the tax level that we're
at. So we need to also evaluate the service level that's there and how do we improve that versus diminish
it by stepping back. So I am in full agreement with the philosophy that's being kicked around here. I
don't want to increase the taxes, and ! said that back in August and I tried to go after it back in August.
But to be sitting here now and suggesting that we just cut these things out and ignore Bruce and Scott
when they're saying leave us with the cash, we need the options, I can't question their credibility that
way. I've seen the time that they've spent with seeing them sit with the financial advisors and go through
these numbers and unfortunately we're second guessing them if we start questioning the options that
they're looking for.
Scott Botcher: I guess the question, and we are all paid to be second guessed and that's okay. I guess
the question that I have is, and you guys have talked about expenses and you're a finance guy Craig.
Expenses is, an expense is simply a singular measurement of financial activity. And you can do all sorts
of fun things with a statement of cash flows or with a balance sheet to make an organization look anyway
you want it to. You know I've had this talk. I mean we can make these numbers do whatever you want
to make them do. Just like we can make the numbers for Rosemount do whatever we want them to do. If
we got their balance sheet. But I guess maybe from my own edification, now what I'm hearing is all of a
sudden expenses are an issue whereas last week the levy was the issue and they're not necessarily
directly or causally related. So I need some direction. Or maybe clarification. Expenses are not the
levy. And we can do whatever we want to with the expenses and the levy can go up and down opposite
of what you would think it would happen. I know Nancy talked about expenses. Well again, same thing.
6
City Council Meeting- December 18, 2000
I mean expenses are a singular measurement of financial activity within the organization, but it is not
necessarily impactful on what it is you want to levy. I'm trying to frame a discussion here because we're
going off the road saying cut $250,000 out of the budget as an example.
Councilman Peterson: Let me clarify that.
Scott Botcher: So I see two somewhat related, not distinct but they are somewhat distinct issues.
Councilman Peterson: The levy certainly helps pay for the expenses that are incurred within the budget
so I don't think you can argue that. And really what, the impetus of my comment or my question to the
group was, and I didn't sense throughout this process that we as a council really challenged staff. The
way I normally approach a budget is, you know I don't like to take a red pen and whack. I like to hear
what the opportunity costs if something is reduced and that's really what I'm asking to do in my quasi
proposal tonight. That I'm a proponent of show me some alternatives and show me the impacts if we cut
$250,000. Will services be cut? Is it a prognostication with merit to it and facts or is it just a guess right
now, or can we cut $250,000 from your team getting together and saying how can we help maintain taxes
as low as we can.'? Meaning lowering expenses.
Scott Botcher: Right but again though, we could touch the expense level and not touch the levy.
Councilman Peterson: Agreed.
Scott Botcher: So I'm just trying to understand maybe the point. Because if we have a $7 million
budget, and you want me to find $250,000 in there, I could find an infinite amount of ways to make
$250,000 come out of there and you would have an infinite number of choices as to whether or not you
thought that was good public policy or in the best interest of the organization. So that's not the
challenge. I mean frankly that's, Bruce and I could go back and do it in about 10 minutes. If you just
want to find $250,000. I think the issue is far more complex than that and again, I'm not sure that that
necessarily directly relates to your issuing a levy. If we're talking about the levy on the revenue
generation side, you know I think that's really where this discussion has been. It's been a revenue
allocation, revenue generation issue. Now all of a sudden we're jumping over and say well, we're going
to tie expenses to this and certainly, we could go back and Ms Jansen is correct in terms of the allocation
of the salaries. We could go back and start playing shell games again. That's sort of what got this city in
trouble in the first place is that they made the statement, we're going to keep taxes flat come hell or high
water. I've asked Todd and Don at length about this as to the budget philosophy that were in place in the
early to mid 90's. And that in a nutshell, and I wasn't here and it's hearsay, but that's what I've been
told. And so partially in response to that, I think, we started setting up these funds. All over the place
and we did things like put salaries in TIF funds and charge salaries against capital funds, and the reason
we did that is that we can go back to the council and say hey, our expenses are the same as last year.
General fund and you guys all picked this up, well not you guys because none of you were here but you
picked this up and you say oh, isn't this great. Expenses are the same. Let's pass the budget when in fact
they weren't. And what we've tried to do is just lay this down and say folks, we're all big boys and girls
here. Here's what the numbers are. Here's what we think you ought to do. This is a responsible thing to
do. If you want to have a lengthy expenditure discussion, I would agree and we have no problem,
department heads have no problem engaging into a lengthy expenditure defense discussion. So long as
the council's willing to engage into a lengthy service delivery discussion with it's constituents because I
think that necessarily follows. But here we are December 18th and all of a sudden we're going to go back
and say Scott, find $250,000. We can do that. I question whether or not that's the way to make financial
policy in a city. I guess that's my response. Bruce. I'll be bad cop.
7
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
Councilman Peterson: And I fully respect that. I mean it's a position that I would expect you to take. I
would take it ifI were sitting in the same chair. I think that responding Linda I think to more of your
comments. I think first and foremost, I certainly am not questioning the credibility of either Scott or
Bruce. What I'm doing is raising a different perspective. I think the perspective really correlates back to
three driving forces of what particularly Bruce has shared about his position as it relates to the need for
additional surplus cash per se is, it goes back to how strong do you believe in a levy freeze and levy
limits will be there, number one. Rate compression, number two. And the tax reform plan, the "Jesse
Plan". I think that, I think the crux of this is you see those as a high probability of happening and how do
you assess the impact of those things happening? Are they multi million dollar impacts to the city over
the next 2 to 3 years or are they a few hundred thousand and what's the probability again that they will
happen next year? I don't assess the probability as being that high. Okay, right or wrong, I don't assess
it being that high and that's why there's so many things that are going to happen in the next 12 months
that I just want a longer window. That's really what's driving me in my perspective today is, 1~ can't see
that this city will be harmed at all by waiting another year to assess where we're at, both from a financial
perspective and from a political perspective, so.
Scott Botcher: And that phrase, because I was listening outside believe it or not, you can do that and
that's not necessarily an expense issue. I mean you ~know that.
Councilman Peterson: Agreed. They're two different things. We're talking about the budget and we're
talking about the levy. I didn't, we happen to join both things at the hip which.
Scott Botcher: No I just, but both you and Nancy started down the expense road and that's a fair issue in
terms ofa...budget. I'm not saying it's not.
Councilman Peterson: My opinion is just to challenge, which I don't think we've done, and if anybody
agrees with me, fine. If they don't, you know.
Councilwoman Jansen: Well I guess the challenging occurred from August until this date because we
were given all of the detail on the budget back in August and we've gone through with each of the
department heads so I guess that's where I keep coming back to the fact that the increase in the expenses
largely has to do with the funds coming back into the general fund that should have been but weren't.
And a cost of living increase. So yes, they've been challenged and they've held the line and they haven't
increased the services. But then that other part about assessing the probability of these things happening.
I guess I would suggest that we all fall back and listen to the experts instead of making our own
judgments as to what the probability is. These gentlemen have been doing this much longer than we have
and they're trying to account for the fact that they have assessed that the probability is higher than you
seem to think that it is. And I would suggest that their experience is worth listening to.
Councilman Peterson: You're evaluating political.
Mayor Mancino: Well they're doing worst case and that's what they are supposed to bring to us. What
they feel would be.
Councilwoman Jansen: But they didn't factor in, I mean the numbers don't include what would happen
with rate compression or what would happen with levy limits. Those are not in their figures.
8
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
Mayor Mancino: But also on the other side there isn't growth that's in here. There also isn't the 2.7
financial stated policy that we have also, the available cash or the environmental protection fund as
available cash so there are a few things also missing in the cash here. And I know again that Bruce has
been very, very conservative because he said that and that's what he is supposed to bring forward to us
and then have us look at it in that perspective.
Scott Botcher: The biggest issue that's potentially out there is the big plan. I mean that beats rate
compression. I e-mailed to every one of you the article came out the day after our last budget hearing.
You know I just know in the State of Wisconsin went through the same thing where Tommy decided that
he was going to take over. It wasn't 100%. I want to say it was like 75 or 80% of the school financing at
the State level. There was a significant drop in taxes and there were tax increment districts in Wisconsin
which is far more conservative in utilization of tax increment, but they still have them. That were
detrimentally impacted. Significantly impacted. And I'm not going to make any guarantees as to what
the Governor's going to do. The Governor can't even make any guarantees what the Governor's going to
do, but if we are to adequately represent, you know we're paid with the tax dollars of the citizens and the
taxpayers and you know I'd much rather be sitting here a year from now and saying you know, things
didn't turn out so bad and we're able to do something things because we took the conservative approach
as opposed to having to say, guess what? We cut your taxes, you didn't have to pay that 5% last year but
by the way it's going to be 20 this year because you know, so there's no right or wrong choice on that. I
mean none of us have a crystal ball. We don't and I don't want to represent that we do. It's just a choice
and if I'm serving I guess as a caretaker in part, and I realize I'm not elected. We are caretakers of what
we do for the citizens. I want to do my best to make sure that I eliminate surprises. Negative surprises.
I'd much rather deliver positive surprises just like you do in private business. You want to deliver
positive surprises to your customers. And we think it's prudent but you know again if the discussion's
going to be utilization of revenue and how we're going to generate it, then we need to have the
discussion. On the environmental thing, I mean I guess the question that, or the position that Bruce and I
took is that, we've been levying those dollars for the environmental funds. Now all of a sudden we're
saying oh well, they weren't really for environmental funds. They were general fund. We'll use them for
whatever we feel like. I don't think that's being straight with the taxpayers that pay these taxes. I think
if you say I'm levying for this, and you've passed budgets for I don't know how many years saying,
environmental fund will be levied for 80 grand, 40 grand, whatever the number is, every year then those
funds at least maybe ethically, you told the citizens that's what you're levying for. Now the fund
balances are in there say well, we kind of need them. We're going to take them. I realize you have the
legal right to do it. We took again the more conservative position saying you know, this is what, the
pretense under which these taxes were levied and we stuck with that and that's why it's not included in
the list.
Mayor Mancino: No because the environmental fund can always be used in the general fund for
environmental purposes. I mean I'm not saying don't do that. I'm just saying that it is cash available if
and when we need that in the general fund. Whether it's in park or rec or whether it's in community
development. Right now we're using those funds to pay salaries. Three salaries of those in community
development so.
Scott Botcher: Yeah, you're correct. We would be hard.
Mayor Mancino: We are using that.
9
City Council Meeting- December 18, 2000
Scott Botcher: We would be hard pressed though to define an expansion of utilization of those fund
balances for environmental purposes under the general fund. It would take some creativity on our part in
terms of defining.
Mayor Mancino: ...lift station or the tree planting that the park and rec is doing, etc. I mean there's a lot
that you can co-mingle there that.
Scott Botcher: It would be a definitional argument.
Mayor Mancino: It's under the category of environment is all I'm saying. That you could use those for.
Bruce DeJong: I guess the position that we took is that, absent of direction from the City Council to
eliminate that, that over the course of the next several years we are intending to use those funds for the
stated purposes. And we need to find an alternative revenue source in order to fund that program four
years hence if we don't, you know start levying for it.
Mayor Mancino: And again if you don't start levying for it because in four years hence the general fund
has grown because a lot of the TIF districts come off line and into the general fund and you may not have
to levy for it.
Scott Botcher: But you don't know that your fund balance.
Bruce DeJong: ... start mingling the expenditures with levy again and that's not necessarily...
Scott Botcher: And you don't know if your fund balances are actually going to grow in that interim.
Mayor Mancino: I'm just saying you may not need to levy.
Scott Botcher: You will need to, you will probably need to levy for those functions at the end of four
years unless you direct other revenue sources to those projects. You absolutely will have to levy for
those. And it may show up in the general fund levy. It could, again, we could put the revenue, just like
an expenditure, we could make it show up anywhere. Just about.
Councilwoman Jansen: Bruce, the other question that had come up that you and I reviewed on the phone
today, 2002. I guess you were asked to do some speculating as to what would happen with the levy
amount and it's my understanding that what you were sharing was based upon the general fund levy and
the possibility that that could conceivably remain fiat. That would not include the increases that would
have to occur and are planned for the debt service levy. Possibly library coming on line as far as repaying
those bonds because that would be a levy. And the park and trail also being a levy. So as to what
happens with the 2002 general fund amount, that will be more dependent upon budget, correct?
Bruce DeJong: Yes, it will be dependent upon the budget but there's an upward bias built into our levy
through the adoption of the CIP because we've got several things that will necessarily have to come on
line as additional debt payments based on the adoption of that program last Monday. We know that we
will have to levy additional monies for the Lake Ann Park building, which was passed by the City
Council a couple weeks ago. We know that next year's debt will be going up as scheduled by Mr. Ruff.
And we know that, or excuse me, the debt levy will be going up based on the schedule for debt by Mr.
Ruff. And we know that next year's CIP is not fully funded. The capital replacement portion of that is
going to be several hundred thousand dollars above and beyond the available amounts in those two funds
10
City Council Meeting-December 18, 2000
that the council suggested last year that we combine. Which is the Fund 400 and Fund 950. So what that
means is that we can issue equipment certificates but we have to pay those back over the course of 5
years so it's a built in upward bias of a couple hundred thousand dollars automatically just for debt
service, not counting how much we're going to have to pay back for the library referendum. And quite
honestly I do believe the taxes should go up for that. The levy should go up because the voters you know
asked for additional services to be provided. But there's a built in bias to increasing that and I don't
know that there's a built in inflationary bias in a lot of our general fund revenue numbers outside of
perhaps the building permits.
Mayor Mancino: So you're saying 2002, I'm sorry. Go ahead Scott.
Scott Botcher: No, I was just going to say that, and the other thing with the capital plan, much like we
did this year, is that it is a plan and we will get to things in there. The rate study comes to mind. We will
simply get to and not do. I mean we'll make a decision internally not to do something that was
scheduled. So what I think you adopted in your CIP is, you know outside of a place like Plymouth that
has $50 million of pre-paid assessments and everything else, is not that uncommon. You want to, you
know you're in a situation where you want to maximize the utility of your assets, of your cash and
sometimes utilization of debt is a good way to do that. In theory could we have written a check for the
Lake Ann Park building? Sure. When you can sell debt for 30 basis points above AAA insured debt
invested in arbitrage, do you do it? In a second. Absolutely in a second. And it's a management issue.
It's a financial management issue and so in terms of the CIP andthe upper bias, there is some there. I
mean the upper bias in the CIP to me is the big stuff. The water treatment plant is a huge thing out there.
Recognizing that the utility bills and utility funds generally cover those, the bias is probably you know
covered somewhat by an alternative revenue source. Not a levy. But there are things in there that we do
need to keep doing. We have a growing community. And expenses are increasing, just like it costs more
to buy a new car every year. It costs more to pay for your natural gas. It costs more to buy snowplows
every year.
Councilwoman Jansen: Well just the park and trail levy alone Bruce, wasn't that $500,000 that we talked
about was going to be added back in again to the levy amounts next year?
Bruce DeJong: Yeah. I think that was $489,000. Yeah, but the...
Mayor Mancino: But the big hit's this year.
Bruce DeJong: ...but I mean the total is increasing about $68,000. Of course that's a rough schedule.
Mayor Mancino: But the debt service hit is this year of an additional 700 plus and next year it's 100 and
something plus. 2002, so.
Scott Botcher: Yeah, are these the '98 Al's Bruce? GO 90-8A. Of the park bonds?
Bruce DeJong: Yes.
Scott Botcher: So then you work your way out and I guess maybe this is one of the issues that you take a
longer term approach. I mean 2002-3 it jumps up another $50,000. Then 2003-4 it goes up almost
$300,000 and this, as I said before and you've heard me say this, this park and trail levy is really back
loaded. And I think it was in a library discussion when we gave you the straight line on the library. So
again longer term, if you want to try to avoid some of these spikes in the levies or work your way out,
11
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
setting aside some cash for some of these purposes also might be in your interest and that's just an
example of a single bond issue that has that kind of impact.
Mayor Mancino: There is some cash set aside. Also, wasn't it timed out again, Todd's not here. I
thought some of that was timed out to look at when the TIF districts come back on line for the general
fund. So that was looking out into the future.
Scott Botcher: Some, but they're not going to general, they're not generating that much cash. I mean
we've got them, we keep counting for them.
Mayor Mancino: A million dollars.
Scott Botcher: Yeah, that's before fiscal disparities. I mean we keep counting this money for a couple
different places. We've got to be really careful about doing that. It's going to help. I'm not saying that
it's not. But you ~know between 2003 and 2007/8, the debt service just on that one bond issue is not quite
going to double. I mean it's going fi'om 540 to 1.027 million dollars.
Mayor Mancino: How many years is that debt? 107
Scott Botcher: Retired in 9. 10 years.
Mayor Mancino: Is it a 10 year debt?
Scott Botcher: Retired in 2008 and 9 so that would be 10 years. That's just, obviously you're going to
set that up. I'm just reading the CAFR.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just thought xve had set it up fora longer debt payment.
Scott Botcher: No. But there's some big balloons in the back. Not balloons but they really take off.
Mayor Mancino: In the brochure. Any other discussion?
Councihnan Labatt: Yeah. So Bruce. So if I give just in your numbers right here from your sheet in the
packet. So we're actually at.
Bruce DeJong: Which page?
Councilman Labatt: Cash becomes 6.133.
Councilman Peterson: Today's packet?
Bruce DeJong: It's in the agenda packet.
Councilman Labatt: The agenda. By adjusting that 300,000 from the 2000 general fund surplus, correct?
Bruce DeJong: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then our potential commitments, as you listed here, are 7.626 million so
that gives us a net deficit of 1.493 million dollars. IfI punched the calculator right.
12
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
Bruce DeJong: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. So as I look at this, the five us up here are the crew of a cruise ship. Okay?
And we're going to take the city on a cruise. We're now deciding what sort of safety equipment we're
going to take with us. And we're arguing over here as far as how many life jackets we're going to put on
this boat with us. Life jackets are these fund balances we have. And some of us up here are taking a
very safe, cautious approach through all these unknowns. Other ones that are frankly, have less regard
for these safety measures we want to take. We don't know what potential impacts we have coming
down. We don't know what our surprises are. Our experts have told us this. We've hired out
consultants. Our two professional employees here have said folks, this is a problem. Or a potential
problem. We don't know whether it's surprises but let's take a safe approach for 2001. Yeah, they've
given us the worst case scenario here and you know, we're elected by the people of this city to be
responsible with their money. Now okay, so if a 5% budget gets passed for 2001. What impact is that
going to have for 2002? Are we going to be going back to folks and saying well geez you know, we
really screwed up. And now we're going to be faced with a 25.7% increase for 2002. You know, I don't
know. I don't have the magic ball here but I don't, I mean you take it over politics or being responsible.
What tips the scale? Okay. You know frankly I don't care about politics. It's just, we've got to be
responsible. You know we don't know the impacts of the rate compression. Okay. Craig you said you
feel it's a low probability. I don't know. You know Jesse's big plan. Frankly that scares the h-e-double
hockey sticks out of me. You know there's too many unknowns out there. Let's take, as I said before,
I'm going to take the safe approach. In looking back at what Bruce and Scott have done here, they've
removed the shells from the shell game that's been played the last 10 years. Last 8 years with all these
funds and money here and there. They did the job that we hired Scott to do two years ago. To get our
finances in order. He hired Bruce. Brought Bruce on. Bruce has done a fantastic job of reconciling
things and saying okay foIks, by god we did the shell game. We pulled the shells off. Here are the
problems of what's gone on for the last 8-9 years, 10 years. Your past practices of not levying to cover
your debt service has put you in this spot so. I-'11 leave it at that. Bruce, thank you for your hard work.
Thank you. It's hard to speak the truth sometimes when you can look at 1.493 million dollar deficit.
Councilman Peterson: Well I think just as an aside, you have to add in the 2.7 that's already in there for
the policy reserves.
Councilman Labatt: Well I'm not even, that's a policy. That's there. But this is the cold, hard truth.
Councilman Peterson: Well the 2.7 is for you know if you want to call it...to be used for so.
Scott Botcher: Except that I don't think debt service is an extraordinary expense.
Councilman Peterson: Pardon me?
Scott Botcher: I would never argue that debt service, the 95 B and C is an extraordinary expense.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, you're right.
Scott Botcher: That we just screwed up.
Councilman Peterson: We've got other funds to pay for that so.
13
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
Scott Botcher: Sort of.
Councilman Peterson: This comes down to philosophically, you know I haven't got a problem, you know
god willing I'll be sitting here in a year. I haven't got a problem by saying minimize it unless you're
absolutely sure, which I'm not absolutely sure and I'll go higher next year. I haven't got a problem with
that. That's philosophically probably where the biggest difference is. And it's right or wrong, that's how
I feel.
Scott Botcher: And if you all, I mean if you, the five of you are going to figure out what it is you want to
do but I think my recommendation would be that in order to facilitate the discussion, and maybe I'm just
missing the boat. I think what Craig said, cruise ship yeah. I think what you said is true. I mean you
need to figure out what you want to levy and then assuming that it's less than what's recommended, I
then draw the assumption that you think that there's fund balances there that you wanted to apply the
revenue sources alternatively to a levy, you just need to tell us what that amount is. Sort of like I said
last week. And if you don't, then say zero. We say, Bruce and I have been firm, we think you ought to
not use them, but obviously we don't vote.
Councilwoman Jansen: Well and to that point, that's where I'm going in and looking at expense cutting
in the budget as directly impacting the levy amount because we don't want to be using the cash balances.
I'm looking at any cut that ~ve take in the levy as being a direct cut in the budget. And whether, and we
don't need to do that tonight. I do get the sense that the majority of the 2001 council is not going to be in
favor of using cash balances so the budget will be affected by whatever cuts we do tonight. Which could
be significant but.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn.
Councihnan Senn: I don't think I have anything more to add at this time.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? Just so everyone knows, I was just checking
to see if Mr. Benson was up there and kind of timing wise so we're fine.
Scott Botcher: Elvis is in the building.
Mayor Mancino: Elvis is in the building. A motion from any of the discussion that we've had.
Councilwoman Jansen: I'll move approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilman Labatt: Second. Let's get it over with. I mean xve're arguing over nutshells here folks.
Let's go. We know how it's going to come down. I seconded it.
Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, what was your motion?
Councilwoman Jansen: That we approve the staff recommendation on both the tax levy amount and the
2001 budget.
Mayor Mancino: Alright. Steve's already seconded it.
Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adopt the budget for 2001 and
certifying final tax levies for 2000, collectible in 2001 as presented by staff. Councilwoman Jansen
14
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
and Councilman Labatt voted in favor. Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, and Councilman
Peterson voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Mayor Mancino: Let's have another motion.
Councilman Peterson: I make a motion that we reduce the levy by $500,000 and request staff return to
us with $250,000 in budget cuts and the ramifications of each of those presented.
Scott Botcher: And the balance?
Mayor Mancino: And the balance?
Councilman Pcterson: To be taken out of surplus.
Mayor Mancino: And applied to?
Scott Botcher: It'd just be an alternative revenue source.
Mayor Mancino: For debt? For debt payment?
Scott Botcher: Well it'd be applied to the levy. For purposes of cleanliness as we go into the future I
guess I'd recommend we apply it to the general fund levy leaving the debt services understandable as
possible so we don't start thinking it's less than it is. If that's okay Bruce.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: I've got a question. Where does that leave us then as far as levy?
Scott Botcher: Percent? Don't know. Craig do you know? Did you run it?
Mayor Mancino: Bruce, do you know?
Councilman Peterson: 5.9% increase at $500,000.
Mayor Mancino: Bruce, could you check on that? Do you mind taking a minute?
Councilman Senn: And while he's figuring that, secondly is your 250 that you're suggesting in budget
cuts then also a reduction in levy?
Councilman Peterson: This goes back to the discussion earlier with Scott. It would be my desire that
they would present to us a plan that would reduce expenses so inherently we would not need to raise the
levy by that equivalent amount.
Mayor Mancino: So it would affect levy?
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Councilman Senn: It would be levy reduction?
15
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Councilman Senn: So what your motion entails is basically $750,000 in levy reduction of which
$250,000 would be expenditure cuts.
Councilman Peterson: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait, wait, xvait, hold on.
Councilwoman Jansen: He said $500,000.
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me. No, wait, wait, wait. Let's just ask Craig to say it because Craig what we
heard was $500,000. We heard 250 in budget cuts which would have, from what Mark just asked you, a
direct relationship to the levy. And another 250 from surplus or alternative budget sources so that's a
total of 500 total.
Councilman Peterson: It would be 5.9% increase in levy is what gets me to the 500 so I misspoke.
Bruce DeJong: Reducing the levy by $500,000 leaves approximately 580 some thousand dollars and it's
still the 9.9% increase in the levy year over year.
Councihnan Peterson: So you've got a million 83 from the year to year.
Bruce DeJong: So the 583, there's 9.9% increase in the tax levy over last year's $5,874,000 tax levy.
Scott Botcher: And I don't know how you calculate, if you are. You don't have to because.
Councilman Peterson: Well I did it in my head but.., inaccurately, $500,000.
Scott Botcher: But if you do the growth factors an issue, you know the 8%.
Councihnan Senn: Growth factor? You don't have a growth factor in here.
Scott Botcher: In that 8%. Correct? Or am I just on too much caffeine? Say that again? It shouldn't be
this hard. Oh no, you're right Craig. I'm sorry. You're right Mark. Move to strike. You're right. I was
thinking of something else.
Mayor Mancino: So again, that would be a 9.9% decrease in the current levy. Instead of, I'm son5,.
Bruce DeJong: Instead of an 18.4% increase...
Mayor Mancino: It's a 9.9% increase, yeah. Which is almost 18. Okay, is there?
Councilman Labatt: Almost 18 or almost 5.47
Councilman Senn: Okay so again, I just want to clarify. Okay, what you were suggesting then is that
you're talking about a $500,000 reduction in levy of which $250,000 would be in expenses and $250,000
would be used from surplus?
16
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
Councilman Peterson: No.
Scott Botcher: That's how I understood it.
Councilman Senn: I'm not tracking.
Councilman Peterson: That's not how I meant it. So it really is a total of $750,000 is what I'm
recommending in my motion.
Scott Botcher: Okay. Just so we know.
Bruce DeJong: Just so we're clear what you're asking for is, are you decreasing the debt levy
arbitrarily?
Councilman Peterson: I'm not decreasing the debt levy per se. Again, you can take the funds from
wherever. In my motion my intent is that we will need to raise the debt levy, general operating levy less
$250,000 because the budget is now $250,000 less. Again whether we need to.
Bruce DeJong: And you're using $500,000 of fund balance towards that? Is that, I heard $750,000 and
it's not very clear.
Councilman Peterson: It goes back, you've got two things are going on here. We've got the budget that
we need to fund with the general levy, right?
Mayor Mancino: You're right.
Councilman Peterson: We need to, I'm saying is consider lowering that levy by $250,000 and a
corresponding drop in expenses by $250,000.
Bruce DeJong: Alright.
Councilman Peterson: So that aside, now I'm saying to decrease the levy, general or otherwise, by an
additional $500,000.
Scott Botcher: Utilizing.
Mayor Mancino: Fund balances for the debt.
Scott Botcher: Now I understand what your motion is.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Then I do too. But now could you tell us what the percentages are based on
that?
Scott Botcher: So it would be $750,000 reduction in the levy. It should be right around 5%. 6%.
Councilman Peterson: That's 5.9. That's my original number so.
Bruce DeJong: Yeah. That's, I didn't run out all the dollars but just using round thousands, it looks like
an increase of approximately 5.6% increase in the levy.
17
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: How does that work without affecting the debt levy?
Bruce DeJong: Where the difficulty comes in, well then you just decrease the general fund levy. I think
what happens then is that next year, if you don't have the surplus cash available and please try and
understand that because of the vagaries of fi~nd accounting, we have deficits in some funds. We have
surpluses in others, but cash on cash, the cash has already been spent. We're balancing it with balance
sheet entries that there's a due to one fund from the fund that's in deficit and there's a due from, the fund
that has the cash surplus, it's due from somewhere else.
Mayor Mancino: So we're transferring it from the general fund surplus into the debt service fund to pay
for that debt.
Bruce DeJong: In essence it's already been transferred. We just haven't recognized it on our balance
sheet and done the accounting entries for it. But what happens next year then is, if you do not have
$500,000 of fund balance to use, you start using, you have to start that as your base. Whatever your
expenditure base is, you have to levy $500,000 more than you did this year just to stay at zero, plus
whatever programmatic increases are above and beyond that. And we've already discussed that the levy
for debt purposes is going up a couple hundred thousand dollars so that implies that the increase next
year will be larger than the increase that you're proposing this year.
CounCilman Peterson: Assuming that you don't have cash balances. That's the key question.
Bruce DeJong: That's correct.
Councilman Labatt: Assuming that we continue deficit budgeting too.
Bruce DeJong: The problem is that this is different than commercial accounting in that using other
people's money doesn't make you more money for a city. You know, leveraging yourself very highly
does not mean that your returns are higher. You're just mortgaging the future taxpayers rather than the
current taxpayers.
Scott Botcher: The only place we've ever done that is TIF grants. That I've ever seen where we've
leveraged money that we didn't have to get grants and then turn around a second year and leverage the
State's money to get more of the State's money. That's the only place I've ever seen that.
Bruce DeJong: Correct.
Scott Botcher: And that's why we've been so anal about it.
Councilwoman Jansen: Well and just so I understand, if we take $750,000 out of the general fund levy,
the general fund portion of our levy becomes $3,880,000, which is less than 1999, let alone 2000.
Mayor Mancino: So you're only taking 250 out of that part of the levy.
Councilwoman Jansen: No.
Bruce DeJong: Well if you leave the debt service levy alone, and nobody's talked about Southwest
Metro Transit. If you leave those two things alone, the only place left is the general fund.
18
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Is the general fund. I'm understanding that but that is not what I understood that you
wanted to do.
Councilman Peterson: I don't care where it comes from. I mean again I'll let.
Scott Botcher: The internal accounting we can do some different things with. I will tell you that neither
one of us, Bruce or I will touch the debt service levy and so whatever else we may go to net out the
bottom line is going to be a council decision. One of the things that Linda said is possible. It's possible
to do that.
Councilwoman Jansen: Well I'm just wanting to reflect the significance of what this does. I mean it sets
us back before what was even done in 1999, and I'm trying to figure out why we would do this to
ourselves realizing that we're going to be sitting on this council in a year. I would think at minimum
keep it flat to what 2000 was. I mean we're trying to cushion, what I'm hearing you trying to do is
cushion the current taxpayer. Well that's the same taxpayer we're going to whack a year from now.
Councilman Peterson: Potentially.
Bruce DeJong: And quite honestly it's the same taxpayer that hasn't been paying the full boat for the
past several years.
Councilman Peterson: I want to have the option not to whack them either time. There's a possibility we
don't have to do it either time.
Councilman Labatt: How?
Councilwoman Jansen: I just can't even imagine banking on how slim that possibility is because you've
got all of, you sat through that TIF meeting. I mean you've got that debt looming out there.
Councilman Peterson: We allocated it. We've allocated it in the surplus funds already.
Councilwoman Jansen: From this. So now you've, we are so depleting our options by doing this. Right
now what is recommended in our levy is a million dollars less than we legally, if there were levy limits,
we're a million below what we could levy this year. So in looking at the responsibility factor on this, it's
a responsible levy. You're reacting to that 18% and that 18% isn't being seen by anyone, not in their tax
bills. There isn't a single person.
Councilman Peterson: I'm not reacting to it. Don't assume I'm reacting to 18%. I'm reacting to increase
in taxes. I'm not reacting to the 18%. It's inclusive of that. Plus we don't know what the levy limits will
be if they will be there, because there will be a growth factor in there and we don't know what they're
going to do.
Councilwoman Jansen: But you're hearing that whatever we now step down from, we ultimately are
going to end up having to levy it next year.
Councilman Peterson: No. I'm saying we may or may not depending upon what the fund balances do
next year. We have surplus that we, you know I'm recommending that we use part of those surpluses this
year and we may not do that next year. We may do it again.
19
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: And we conceivably could fall a half a million short in this revenue forecast that
could then.
Councilman Peterson: But we could be a half a million dollars high. It goes back to is your glass half
empty or is your glass half full? Mine happens to be full.
Councilwoman Jansen: But, yeah well, if you look at the trend though. Look at the trend. I mean where
xve're sitting up here without numbers to get our arms around, these gentlemen came up with this
proposal working these numbers. They're not just pulling them out of thin air. I'm you know, forgive
me but I feel like this is getting pulled out thin air and we're going to have to live with this and it's going
to get xvorse.
Councilman Peterson: See I won't agree with you that it's going to get worse. You haven't presented a
plausible argument that it's going to get worse.
Councilwoman Jansen: Staff has presented the most detailed information to support their
recommendation. They've gone beyond what I think is appropriate for a City Council to be putting them
through as far as an exercise because they are the ones that are working these numbers. We're now
interjecting personal opinions instead of relying on professional advice. If we all come to these finances
and interject our personal opinions, we don't want to raise taxes. In fact we'd probably sit here and well,
we'd do what you're doing. We'd back down below '99 and just keep backing off. Well it is our
taxpayer that's ultimately going to get hit with it, whether it's in services that we end up cutting or this.
You knoxv the potential of defaulting. You're hearing staff wanting to take the cash and improve our
credit rating. You're getting cash back then for our taxpayers by improving our credit situation. This is
probably the worst outcome that I can even have tried to imagine as you were sitting down with staff and
trying to get your arms around these financial numbers because you haven't lived it. And to interject a
personal opinion.
Mayor Mancino: Let's not get personal.
Councilwoman Jansen: Above and beyond staff's recommendations is stretching.
Councilman Peterson: So then you're inferring that every single thing that the staff would recommend in
the last 2 years that you've been involved in council, and the ensuing two years as mayor, that you're
going to listen to ever3, single perspective and agree with the staff's perspective on everything then?
Councilwoman Jansen: I'm saying on these financial recommendations.
Councilman Peterson: So you're portioning out that you're going to listen to them on finances and not
listen to them on other things. That's what I'm hearing you say. And I would think that our personal
opinions should be heard and listened to. That's what we all make our business judgments on or
judgments as you make decisions, you have to use your personal experiences and personal opinions. I
mean I can't fathom that you wouldn't do that.
Councilwoman Jansen: The financial health of the community is a whole lot different than factoring in
xvhat personal latitude you have on some of these variances and development proposals so to compare the
two is difficult at best. But when you're looking at these financial numbers and trying to figure out the
bias in them, and whether or not they've overly gone conservative, you're not basing it upon trends.
20
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
There's no trend here to suggest that they're wrong. The trend, and historical track that we're on is that
they're accurate. You heard Bruce say last week, every surprise has been a six digit negative surprise.
They're basing it on factual, historical trend. Same thing as I'm pointing out within our permit revenues.
It's a trend. It's not just speculation. They're looking at what's occurring. Yeah, I tried to challenge it
back in August and that's why I've thrown out for you the defense that they raised when I went after the
expenses in August. They're legitimate. And we went through the budget discussions department by
department. And looked at the numbers. And they're not projecting any new programs. No new
services.
Mayor Mancino: Well, let's go forward. See if, call for a vote. I don't even know if it's been, yeah just
a minute. I don't know if it's been seconded or not but I think we do want to kind of bring this to closure
in the next couple minutes. Is there a second for Craig's motion? Any other motion?
Councilwoman Jansen: How about if we try a motion that maintains Councilman Peterson's challenge
that staff go back into the budgets. Try to find the $250,000 in cuts. Prior to taking those cuts though
they come back to council.
Mayor Mancino: And you're saying reduce the levy by $250,000?
Councilwoman Jansen: Reducing the levy by the 250.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second? Are you done?
Councilwoman Jansen: Nope, just a sec. I just want to calculate what that actually does then compared
to the general fund levy from last year.
Mayor Mancino: Could you give us Bruce what that would do to the levy?
Bruce DeJong: Scott just took my sheets so I'm not sure.
Councilwoman Jansen: It's like an 8.5%.
Mayor Mancino: What does that actually do to the levy.
Bruce DeJong: I'm not even sure what the question is.
Mayor Mancino: Okay Linda, would you please ask it to Bruce so he can kind of double check your
numbers.
Councilwoman Jansen: I was taking the $250,000 in budget cuts out of the general fund levy amount,
which the recommended is the $4,630,000. And then what that increase is then over the 2000 levy in just
the general fund. I come up with 8.5.
Councilman Peterson: Overall it's 14.1 for the total levy.
Councilwoman Jansen: And that's that difficult nut to crack because you've got that leap, it's a 42%
increase in the debt service.
Mayor Mancino: If you could, I'm sorry, I don't mean to rush you.
21
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: So then if you factor out the 8% growth that went to new tax base, it's a 6%.
Mayor Mancino: 14.17
Bruce DeJong: 14.2.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, 14.2. So is there a second to Linda's motion?
Scott Botcher: So what we're doing is whacking 250 out of it?
Mayor Mancino: Yes. 250 from the.
Bruce DeJong: Reducing the levy and the budget by $250,000.
Mayor Mancino: $250,000. So it would be an overall levy increase of 14.1 which would cover the
general fund levy and the debt service levy. So an overall levy increase of 14.1. Is there a second to the
motion?
Councilman Labatt: I'll second.
Mayor Mancino' Okay, there's a second to the motion.
Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adopt an amended budget for 2001
and certifying the final tax levies for 2000, collectible in 2001 by reducing the amount
recommended by staff by $250,000, ~vhich results in an increase of 14.2% in the tax levy.
Councilwoman Jansen and Councilman Labatt voted in favor. Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn,
and Councilman Peterson voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Mayor Mancino' So is there another motion?
Councilman Labatt: So let's see, we started out at 18.4. Then Craig's was 5.9. Then Linda tried 14.2.
Let's get a middle ground so all of us can get back to our families. Okay, enough of this you know. I
mean we're splitting hairs here trying to come up with some sort of solution. You don't want double
digit figure. Do a 9.9 then and let's get out of here. Let's just tell Bruce okay, 9.9 is what we'll give you.
You figure it out.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, do you want to make that motion?
Councilman Labatt: I did.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second to the 9.9? There's no second.
Councilwoman Jansen: Well let me ask this. The 9.9, that's taking, I think that's taking $500,000 out?
Councilman Labatt: I don't know. I just threw it out frustration.
Councilwoman Jansen: It goes back to the $500,000.
22
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Councilman Labatt: We're not doing any good...future of the city by sitting here arguing about this.
Councilwoman Jansen: So it's a $500,000 decrease in the levy amount and next year's council then
would have to decide if it comes out of the budget? Instead of cash balance.
Scott Botcher: Well yeah.
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry. Are you talking about Steve's motion?
Councilwoman Jansen: Yep.
Mayor Mancino: The 9.9. Okay, all those in favor. I think we've done this, the 9.9.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to adopt an amended budget for 2001
and certifying the final tax levies for 2000, collectible in 2001 by reducing the amount
recommended by staff by approximately $500,000, which results in an increase of 9.9% in the tax
levy. Councilwoman Jansen and Councilman Labatt voted in favor. Mayor Mancino,
Councilman Senn, and Councilman Peterson voted in opposition. The motion failed-with a vote of
2 to3.
Mayor Mancino: Craig, your's was a 750 with a 250 for budget cuts and the other 500. Bruce, where
would a 700 get us? Going a little bit higher than Craig's. As far as increase if we took 700 out of the
levy. $700,000.
Councilman Peterson: You're saying that versus the 750?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: Probably about 6.6.
Bruce DeJong: 6.5%.
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me, pardon Bruce?
Bruce DeJong: 6 ½%.
Mayor Mancino: 6 ½%. A motion for $700,000 or a 6 ½% levy increase. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: You made the motion?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilman Peterson: Can you do that?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
23
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
Councilman Peterson: I'll second it.
Scott Botcher: For clarification purposes, this is all reducing the levy and applying fund balance?
Councilman Peterson: And budget.
Scott Botcher: Well you need to define what you want. Or the motion maker and seconder need to
define what they want.
Mayor Mancino: Motion maker will say 200 budget, 500.
Scott Botcher: 500 levy, okay.
Mayor Mancino: Fund balances.
Scott Botcher: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: And do you feel comfortable with that, making a second?
Councihnan Peterson: Affirmative.
Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adopt an amended budget for 2001 and
certifying the final tax levies for 2000, collectible in 2001 by reducing the amount recommended by
staff by $700,000, ($200,000 from budget and $500,000 from the levy), which results in an increase
of 6.5% in the tax levy.. Mayor Mancino and Councilman Peterson voted in favor. Councilman
Senn, Councilman Labatt and Councihvoman Jansen voted in opposition. The motion failed with a
vote of 2 to 3.
Scott Botcher: You wanted to know why I wanted to fill that fifth seat.
Councilman Peterson: You now know why I didn't really have a strong desire to do this.
Scott Botcher: But you get paid for it though Craig.
Councilman Peterson: That's what I'm doing.
Scott Botcher: At least until we cut council pay.
Mayor Mancino: We'll go to 6:30.
Councilman Peterson: Do you have any brilliant ideas Mr. Senn?
Councilman Senn: No... so it doesn't make any difference.
Councilman Peterson: What was the last percentage?
Scott Botcher: 6 ½.
24
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
Councilman Peterson: Got your calculator? What does 7 do? What does 7% do?
Scott Botcher: 735.
Bruce DeJong: That would be $411,000 increase in the levy over last year. That would be $672,000 cut
in the levy.
Mayor Mancino: I'II offer the 6.5% or the $700,000 again. I'll go back to one of the other motions and
that is a $200,000 decrease in the budget levy and a $500,000 in using fund balances. For again a levy
increase this year of 6 ½%. Which is twice last year's. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: I'll second it.
Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adopt an amended budget for 2001 and
certifying tax levies for 2000, collectible in 2001 with a $200,000 decrease in the budget levy and a
$500,000 in using fund balances for a levy increase of 6 ½%. Mayor Mancino and Councilman
Peterson voted in favor. Councilman Senn, Councilman Labatt and Councilwoman Jansen voted
in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other motion?
Councilman Peterson: I'd make a motion that we do, instead of the 500 and 2, we do 450 decrease and 2.
Mayor Mancino: Pardon?
Councilman Peterson: We would decrease it not by 500,000 but by 450,000, so it's going to be in that
7% range.
Mayor Mancino: So how much is out of the general fund levy? What's the decrease in the general fund?
Councilman Peterson: The decrease in the general fund would be 450 and 200 in the.
Mayor Mancino: In the debt?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah. No, in the budget.
Mayor Mancino: Budget. So a total of 650?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Mayor Mancino: And Bruce, what is our percentage increase at 650? Total levy please. 7.2?
Councilman Labatt: Out of my back pocket on that one too.
Bruce DeJong: 7.4.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there a second for that motion? And if we don't pass a levy it goes to the
2000 levy which would be 5.8.
25
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
Bruce DeJong: Correct. I've looked at the information and I did give you a wrong date. It's a day later
this year. It's on or before five business days after December 20th, which would be December 28th. YOU
have to certify your levy to the County according to information received from Minnesota Department of
Revenue. ][fa county, school district, city of any size, town or special taxing district has not certified it's
final property tax by this time, it's property tax shall be the amount levied by them in the preceding year.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Well I'm going to give us another minute or two. Otherwise we go back to the
levy unless everyone would like to meet again.
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess what I'm having difficulty accepting is that the numbers that are fixed, if
you would, and Southwest Metro is of the understanding that you know we are levying the same amount
that the other two communities. It is a joint powers agreement. We've had the discussions with them. I
would hate to pull a last minute surprise on the other parties that are involved in that, so I am looking at
these three as set. That by itself is an 8% increase in the levy. So to hold the general fund at, the general
fund levy at the, well even less than, it's less than a cost of living increase. Because I am looking at
whatever comes out of this general fund is it's a direct correlation to what we've got in our budget.
Mayor Mancino: Linda, I do believe there was a 7.5% increase on the table. That was your last one.
Councilman Peterson: Whatever the 650 total is.
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilwoman Jansen: Excuse me, I thought you moved the meeting on because there wasn't a second.
Mayor Mancino: I did. There wasn't but your concern was that we be at 8% just with leaving those so I
thought you ,,',,ere going, why couldn't we get there is where I thought you were going with it. Why
couldn't we get agreement on the 8%.
Councilwoman Jansen: Because we're not factoring anything in at all for the budget. If you're at
650,000, correct? That you would be taking out.
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Councilwoman Jansen: So now you've got.
Councilman Peterson: 450 would come from fund balances and 2 would come from the budget.
Councilman Labatt: And that's a 7.4, right?
Councilman Peterson: Is that the number it was?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilwoman Jansen: So all we're doing is covering what we weren't responsible for receiving as a
problem. I mean this is all those deferred debt payments and we're not then putting any latitude in here
at all for any increase in the general fund expenditures, which this is where we're.funding them from. So
I'm looking for the incremental, if you would. You're saying 7.4%. That's just barely shy of covering
the debt service and our joint powers agreement.
26
City Council Meeting- December 18, 2000
Councilman Peterson: It goes back to using the fund balances again. I'm tired of going, restructuring
that conversation again. Let's, you're using fund balances to cover it.
Councilwoman Jansen: I certainly understand that. Philosophically we're not generating annual revenue
to cover annual expenses and that's a minimum that we should be doing for the community. Is making
sure that our annual revenues are covering those expenses and if then, and this is what I would like to see
happen is that we work with staff to identify any one time expenditures and if council then in the future
wants to say that those could be allocated to be used for cash balance, it's a one time. Other~vise we're
not generating revenue to sustain the expenses that we're incurring. And that right now is by fault of
expenses being out in other funds that weren't being accounted for. I mean all of this has come to bear
this year and I guess I'm looking at the new growth having picked up 8% of that 18% increase. I mean
we were really lucky. Now we're down to this 10% and expenses didn't go up by that amount. The
revenues being brought up into line with covering them, and I guess that's where I go back to your
challenge is where I was back in August, and that's why I can support, although I don't like pulling it on
staff at the last hour, doing the $250,000 cut from the budget, cut from the levy. When we start going
after the cash balances, again to your point and this is where we're on opposite sides of these cash
balances. You're hearing that staff isn't sure one way or the other whether we're going to need them.
They want another year. I tend to favor giving them that other year with what they have so that they can
work through that situation versus our taking away any options that they might be able to exercise. I
can't come up with what foul is being committed if we go with their recommendation to not use the cash
balances realizing we're going to use them once we know their surplus. Right now we don't know that
they're truly a surplus. And right now they are helping our credit rating get improvement so it's not as if
we aren't getting a benefit from them. It's not as if they're sitting there and we're losing out on not
shifting them. Because there will be an increase in 2002 just from all the debt and the library and trails
and those things. So there's already that increase that's going to be out there for 2002. We could be
shifting this further out into and impacting that and making that worse.
Councilman Peterson: Could be. Maybe not. I guess that's a deep philosophical difference that we're at
so. I'm not the only vote here so.
Councilwoman Jansen: Well it's just that you are the vote that will have to live with this. And I.
Councilman Peterson: And I'm very comfortable doing this. I said that before and I won't say it again.
I'm very resolved and comfortable in the perspective that I presented tonight.
Mayor Mancino: Craig, do you ~vant to do one last motion and we'll just, meeting will be closed.
Councilman Labatt: Bruce, what is the impact if we can't come up with a decision here and we go back
to 528? 2000. What obviously negative impact is that going to have on the city financially because this
group can't make a decision here for the future of the city?
Bruce DeJong: Well I think it's a very large negative impact. Because as I stated strongly before, you
need to start levying for that debt service and what we've got is a work out plan. We're still under levied
from those scheduled levies that are in your bond indebtures. Now I believe the City of Chanhassen to be
in technical default on it's bonds. If somebody comes in here and says you know, what are you doing
and you say, you know gee. We didn't levy for it. You know because we didn't want to or because we
couldn't make a decision. That's going to be a problem. So if you go back to last year's levy, you have
27
City Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
to take an additional $500,000 worth of fund balancejust to get to the work out position that's in that
debt study information that...
Mayor Mancino: Needed to take from your excess reserves.
Bruce DeJong: And then you eliminate almost any flexibility because where, the majority of your
expenses are fairly fixed expenses in the general fund without cutting programs so you can cut park and
recreation programs. They have four full time staff. You know program less of that. You know the
council made a decision a little while back that you actually want more law enforcement. That you xvant
to increase the amount of services you're getting from Carver County. So that's not really available for
cuts and that's a fairly large chunk of the budget.
Scott Botcher: It certainly is available for cuts.
Bruce DeJong: What?
Scott Botcher: It certainly is available for cuts. Everything in that budget's available for cuts under that
scenario. I mean it comes down to xvhatever services are provided through that fund are eligible and I
don't know what those could be. They could be whatever the council ultimately decides would be. But
again, with your human service cost and...
Bruce DeJong: ...programs cuts.
Scott Botcher: Oh yeah. I mean and that doesn't make it good or bad. It's a philosophical question. I
mean you can take the libertarian approach. You could take the opposite approach. I'm just suggesting
to you that what we hear from constituents, and what you hear from them in terms of adding services, and
you have added services as the cormnunity has grown. It would be a step away from that. And that's a
choice you can make certainly, but it would have serious ramifications in terms of se~wice delivery.
Bruce DeJong: And I guess my judgment is that there's probably a 50/50 chance that levy limits will be
re-imposed and if you.
Scott Botcher: I'll take that bet.
Bruce DeJong: Well that's my guess. That's my judgment and certainly that's open but even if it's a
10"% probability, and those levy limits do get imposed, if you have this low a levy, you are really
handicapping yourself for the next you know, for a long time.
Scott Botcher: Until caps are removed again. You never make that up.
Mayor Mancino: But again the levy limits don't apply to the debt part of the levy.
Scott Botcher: No.
Mayor Mancino: Only to the general tax levy.
Scott Botcher: That's correct.
Mayor Mancino: For the last 20 years that's how they've done it.
28
City Council Meeting- December 18, 2000
Bruce DeJong: But I think you 'know, I'll make my viewpoint known. I think it's irresponsible of the
council to significantly cut the levy without identifying some areas, some programmatic areas that you
want to cut. You know if you go cut 5% or 10% out of your operating expenditures, we can do that. But
if you want to cut significantly out of the general fund yearly expenditures, you need to identify some
programmatic areas and say we want less of service X. Whether that's park and recreation. Whether
that's you know street maintenance and snowplowing. Whether that's accounting. Whether that's
planning. You name it but I think it requires some type of philosophical equivalent saying that if we
want to cut the levy, we need to cut expenditures and here are the areas that I favor cutting.
Councilman Peterson: So philosophically though, when you say that, where is, then the question I asked
a week ago. When is enough ora surplus enough? If you had 20 million ofunallocated cash, that
philosophy wouldn't...
Bruce DeJong: Every single program other than the general fund, then I think you need to have the $2.7
million that we've got put aside there because you have no money at the beginning of the year. You get
your settlement for taxes in June so you have to have at least $2.7 million there. You look at those debt
service funds, whatever is in there is in there for a reason and that's because you have you know, we're
structured around that payment timeframe where you get your tax settlements in June and in December
and then you turn around and you pay your bonds off August and February. So any surpluses that are
there are there to make those payments coming due on February 1st. So those are out of the mix. You
can't, you've got legal obligations on a bunch of those funds which is why we left them out of the mix.
And certainly if you're going to run a utility system, I don't know. Maybe the city can make some
money trying to sell it. Maybe that's what we ought to do. Sell the utility system and get out of that
business and not cash flow it, but you have to cash flow that business too. And right now we're not even
putting enough money aside in there for replacements and we'd probably have a hard time going out and
making a specific special assessment case against individual property. Once you've got water and sewer,
if the city's not having rates high enough to fund replacement of that system, you can't go out and special
assess it because there's no increase in property value due simply to the replacement of water and sewer
lines.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. The recording from this point on was very poor
quality.)
Councilwoman Jansen: Let me give this a try. You know I ultimately want to be at zero as far as what we
give up here. 250 I'm more comfortable with. You're at 750. Can we come to the middle on this
because what I heard you say early on is that you would like for an increase to be less than double digits.
Your $500,000 number thrown out in the initial conversation that was quoted with a 9.9%, and I realize
that's barely under. But that at least eliminates a smaller amount of cash balance and puts a little less of
a burden back onto cutting so much out of the budget to try to hit that And we talked very early in the
year and we can get this employee incentive program going on cutting expenses, then maybe we can
achieve both goals. If we can start to affect the expense line more from a department.., and having them
come up with some of those savings, we work our way towards getting this out of the budget. And we're
in a better situation as we go into the 2002 budget because we've been bringing down the expense line.
So I would ~nake a motion, unless you wanted to talk about it.
Councilman Peterson: Just to give you a background. I came on with...2 ½-3 ½% is where I was coming
from so I'm not starting from 5 to 750. Just to give you some background...
29
City Council Meeting- December 18, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: Was that before you knew that our debt levy increase was already putting us at
8%?
Councilman Peterson: No, I knew that the debt levy was going up... 42%, whatever that is. I knew that.
Councilwoman Jansen: Even though that was at 8, you were.
Councilman Peterson: Again it gets back to the fundamental question and point is, I'm not at all
concerned about using fund balances to get us through another 12 months to ascertain really where we
stand. I'm not concerned about taking $450,000 out of fund balances for 12 months and, I don't see it as
being a big factor. We used 300 and some thousand last year.
Councilwoman Jansen: Actually not because the revenue was forecast so conservatively, it was picked
up in the permit revenue and that's one of the differences in how the accounting and the budgeting is
being done for next year. We don't have that cushion in there anymore.
Councilman Peterson: You lost me. Didn't you when you approved the budget approve a 300 and some
thousand dollar application of funds for.
Mayor Mancino: Every year in the past the pattern has been that our revenues have been over projected
anywhere from 3 to 500,000 since 1996 and our expenses have come in under by 100 to 200,000. So
there has been this kind of 3 to 5 to $700,000 surplus in the general fund over the years. That has been
the pattern and we have always, always come in over projected revenues because they have been so
conservatively and some would say prudently projected that we have always go, if you look at the
pattern. I don't think there's been in a year in the last 5 or 6 years where revenues haven't come over at
least by 250 to 300,000.
Councilwoman Jansen: So what I'm saying is that Bruce projected to us and mentioned in his last memo
is he's taken that cushion out of there because he's upped the projection to a million one. So instead of
being at that $800,000 number like we were this year and we came in at a million one, we're starting at a
million one so and we're losing some of that possibility as far as our having additional revenues. In fact
what I was hearing was that in the year 2000 our permit revenues are going to come in down 19% from
last year and 99 to 98 they were down 6. So we've gone down 6 and then 19 and now we're projecting
flat for 2001. If we continue in this historical pattern, coming in fiat would be a good thing with it
showing could potentially come in below that and then again we're dipping into fund balance to cover
whatever we're off there...
Councilman Peterson: Well... I mean. I hear you. You know unfortunately a couple of months ago
quite a few thousand people.., both a private and a public commitment not to raise taxes and here I am
being forced to consider doing that you know a few weeks after that election... I think I've gone, from
my perspective and again I'm one of five votes here. I think that my proposal of 450 and 2 is a good
proposal. Not where I wanted to be and not where anybody else wants to be, because I haven't gotten a
second on the motion.
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess as far as asking if we could come to a compromise that neither one of us
likes and I don't think even Councilman Labatt, I don't mean to exclude him, would particularly care for
but maybe we move a little closer to center. We manage to not have the double digit increase and in fact
at 9.9% with 8% new growth, you're then just projecting a 1.9%. So I mean that new growth number
30
City Council Meeting- December 18, 2000
does take away some of the pain of whatever we're setting the levy at. It's not a direct impact onto each
taxpayer.
Councilman Peterson: I'm comfortable with my 450 and 2. Now if others here are going to a different
one, you know...
Councilman Labatt and Councilman Peterson had a discussion back and forth about the use of fund
balances.
Mayor Mancino: You've already got a deficit budget in the budget right now...In this budget it is a
deficit budget... It's using the environmental protection fund... I mean if that's the term and that's what
everybody is going to hang their hat on and .... that it is a deficit budget. You use those fund balances.
That's why they're there. And when you have a surplus, when you've had revenues...revenues come in
higher than projected, everybody should be excited that we have that extra surplus, that extra money and
that you can use it for next year or the next year for either.., give it back to the taxpayers by reducing the
levy...and we've done a lot to keep them there by trying to reduce expenses. And we've kept those
surpluses there in place. We haven't used them. We've been very judicious the last couple years about
using them. But it does mean when you do the fund balances, it does mean that you will have...a deficit
budget...
Councilwoman Jansen: But the point here tonight is that you can't call the cash balances a surplus until
you can show that they're nOt needed. And right now we're being told that what we have on hand is
needed. In fact we're being shown it may not be enough in worst case scenario. And that's not
extrapolating on to that what could conceivably even...even more. And when we're saying it's a deficit
budget, we're saying the operating revenues are not, the annual operating revenues will not cover the
annual operating expenses and that means we're not covering the cost...
Scott Botcher: The term deficit budget.., given the situation the city has been in and.., different
methodology of cash manageinent. That's what it is. But again, I think that given where we are and
given the situations that are in front of us...
Mayor Mancino: ...would like to come back and discuss this.., go forward onto the performance review
if we want to...but I will be closing the meeting.
Councilwoman Jansen: Councilman Peterson would you consider, instead of your 650, 600 which would
then leave the general fund levy at least flat to last year?
There was discussion between Councilwoman Jansen, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Labatt
about trying to reach a compromise position on a number that would work for a majority of the council.
Mayor Mancino stated the council was meeting on December 27, 2000 and could finish the discussion on
that day. Staff stated their concern about the time needed to complete the paperwork and get the levy
information submitted by the deadline. After further discussion Councilman Peterson made a motion to
increase the levy by 7.4% with $450,000 being funded out of fund balances and $200,000 taken out of
the budget.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, I'm going to second this so we can discuss it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. It's been seconded. Any discussion?
31
Civy Council Meeting - December 18, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: Councilman Labatt. We're kind of between a rock and a hard place. Since we're
not getting any cooperation as far as...I'm going to suggest that we may have to go with this in spite of
the fact that we don't think it's in the best interest of the community because I quite frankly, am not
comfortable...coming back on the 27th or the 28th and I'm not seeing any wiggle. I'm not seeing any
move here...not even $50,000 as a token...up to 7.4% increase that doesn't even, doesn't even meet our
growth number.., but to come back and put staff through this again...
Councihnan Labatt made a comment at this point expressing his disappointment in his fellow council
members.
Mayor Mancino: And Steve I'm really disappointed in you for being quite so rude about it...People can
have philosophical differences and always will have on a council and it's... I certainly hope that...that
the discussion will be respectful...because they were elected too... We have a motion and we have a
second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councihvoman Jansen seconded to adopt the budget for 2001 and
certify final tax levies for 2000, collectible in 2001 amended to reduce the budget by $200,000 and
reducing the levy by $450,000 out of fund balances for a total increase in the levy of 7.4%.
Councilman Peterson, Councilwoman Jansen, and Councilman Labatt voted in favor. Mayor
Mancino and Councilman Senn voted in opposition. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Mayor Mancino adjourned the special meeting of the City council at 7:10 p.m.
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
32
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
DECEMBER 27, 2000
Mayor Mancino called a special meeting of the Chanhassen.City Council to order on December
27, 2000 at 4:30 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Mancino, Council members
Labatt, Senn and Peterson. Council member Jansen was absent. Staff present: Scott Botcher,
City Manager.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING CITY MANAGER'S
PERFORMANCE EVAULATION: The Mayor read the summary of conclusions from the
closed session held on Monday, December 18, wherein the City Council conducted the
evaluation of the City Manager. The Mayor first referenced the December 1999 review, which
was the six-month review of the City Manager. The unanimous consensus of the Council was
extremely positive. The second reference made by the Mayor was regarding the annual
evaluation recently completed. Three categories of performance were included in the evaluation.
There were eight statements indicative of management capabilities and measurement against the
2000 Task Plan, which represented baseline responsibilities in support of the six primary goals
indicated in the Action Plan. Successful performance under the 2000 Task Plan made possible a
base salary increase of 5% to 7%. Additionally, the Council looked at a 2000 salary survey
comparing the City Manager's salary against the salaries of nine communities closely resembling
Chanhassen in terms of size and responsibilities. The Council unanimously recommended
giving Mr. Botcher a 7% salary increase, which was then rounded to $88,000 per year effective
January 1,2001.
The next item was performance under the merit plan. This is additive to the Task Plan and under
the City's Compensation Plan for the City Manager, a bonus of 8% to 12% is possible. The
results of the six month and overall 2000 evaluation was considered. Any bonus payment made
would not increase the base salary. As part of the merit plan, the City Manager was to develop a
Direct Report Development Plan, which Mr. Botcher has done. He has begun to identify core
competencies and competency gaps for his Direct Reports and then in 2001 will be identifying
steps to address these gaps. A majority of the Council rated his performance under the merit
plan high. Council members Labatt, Senn, and Mayor Mancino recommended a bonus payment
of 10%. Council member Jansen disagreed. Overall the Council was pleased with the City
Manager's performance.
PAYMENT OF BOB BENSON'S BILL: The Council considered payment of a bill from Mr.
Benson for services provided consistent with his submitted invoice. Motion by Senn and
seconded by Peterson and all present voted in favor.
At this point the meeting adjourned.
Prepared by: Scott Botcher, City Manager
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 5, 2000
Chairman Burton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Burton, Uli Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Matt Saam, Project Engineer; and Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator
PUBLIC HEARING: -
REQUEST FOR LOT SIZE, LOT COVERAGE AND BUILDING SETBACKS TO PERMIT
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON LOTS 998-1000, CARVER
BEACH, 960 CARVER BEACH ROAD, ANITA BENSON, TWIN CITIES HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY.
Public Present:
Name Address
Nancy Hall 941
Dennis Schilling 941
Matt Jacobs 921
Wallace R. Christensen 100
Robert B. Nelson 970
Kermit Austad 980
Keith Peterson 921
Wally & Cheri Schwab 950
Western Drive
Western Drive
Western Drive
1 Western Drive
CarVer Beach Road
CarVer Beach Road
Hiawatha Drive
CarVer Beach Road
Bob Generous presented the staff repOrt on this item.
Burton: Any questions for staff?.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair. Bob, can you talk to us a little bit about the front setbacks for the two
neighboring properties, both on the east and on the west.
Generous: I tried to look in the building permit data. The houses are too old so we don't have a
Certificate of Survey so I had to base my calculations off of an aerial topo. And the one to the east is
approximately 30 feet and the one to the west would, is significantly more than that. It's 50 or 60 feet
back.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Generous: And then from the side lot line the property to the east is about, apProximately 10 feet. It's
hard to tell because I don't have the exact lot line configuration and the property to the west is
approximately 30 feet off the side lot line.
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Blackowiak: Okay. And then a second question. Were any other styles of homes explored for this small
a lot or are we just looking at the standard Habitat home at this point?
Generous: It was specific to this request for the Habitat home. I.imagine that you could go with a two
story and have a smaller pad.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Mr. Chair. You state there have been many problems with non standard lot size developed
there. And you state there have been several that were 10,000 or below. I'm actually curious, was there
any significant number of that small a size? I mean 6,000 is more or less half of 10,000 and you make a
statement, many properties that do not comply with the current city code have been developed in Carver
Beach area. My question is well, how many were as severe, because we're looking at a very severe
variance request here.
Generous: I tried to look at some of that but I tried to also limit my search. I did go to GIS training today
and learned to make some maps up and I did a query to determine lots that are less than 10,000 square
feet in the general area. I don't know if it shows up very well. I just did this quickly before staff meeting
but they show up as the highlighted spaces on the map and that is, the property in question is right in the
middle of that. It's where the road is.
Sacchet: So in other words there is a significant number?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: So that would lead to a second question then. How many of those little ones have been
developed recently?
Generous: The one just katty corner was developed within the last 4 years? 3 years?
Audience: '94.
Sacchet: So like 6 years, okay. Yeah, I have more questions but for now I think will suffice.
Burton: Any other questions for staff?.
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Bob? If the applicant had a 1,000 foot footprint, would it fit on the lot without
setback variances?
Generous: I was trying to figure out if a 960 square foot...
Kind: Well 960. I was just rounding up but yeah, 960.
Generous: It'd be tough with the garage addition. Because that's what kicks it over on the one, at least
the one side.
Kind: So it's your opinion that a variance is required for this?
2
Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000
Generous: Yeah. There's a variance necessary, well minimum for the lot area, lot width and impervious
surface.
Kind: But the house size.
Generous: It could be, possibly it could be shrunk down. But then the living area gets smaller, then you
need a separate variance for that.
Kind: But a two story with a smaller footprint would get you enough square footage for a living area.
Generous: That sounds very feasible, yeah.
Kind: Okay. That's all.
Burton: Any other questions for staff?.
Conrad: Yeah, the code dictates the size ora house. How do we do that? There's a code that does say
that huh?
Generous: In the supplemental regulations.
Conrad: No kidding. And what's the point of that? I've never heard that before.
Aanenson: We haven't had too many problems with that. Actually housing in Chanhassen tends to run
well in excess of that. But we do have a minimum that was put in a number of years ago-with the original
ordinance and that's to protect, and we do require two car garages.
Conrad: Yeah, I know that.
Aanenson: Right, and that was the same, part of that.
Conrad: Code is dictating the size of the house?
Aanenson: Yes. Depending on style. There's a different square footage for rambler, two story.
Conrad: Second question. How does this fit into the neighborhood, regardless of setbacks and whatever.
How does this fit into the neighborhood? Does it look right?
Generous: I think so. It's oriented differently from the neighbors homes. They have ramble styles that
are long, lengthwise in their lots. This one is diagonal within it's lot. They've tried to, I call it a split
entry but really it's not. It's a ramble with a basement because they have, they don't have the entry
where it splits in at the foyer. The sizing's about right. Unfortunately again there's not a lot of data for
the older Carver Beach neighborhood to look at.
Conrad: Does it look odd or does it fit?
Generous: Well I believe it fits in.
3
Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000
Burton: Other questions? Okay, does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning
Commission. Could you please state your name and address please?
Ryan Carras: Yes, I'm Ryan Carras. The land development manager for Twin Cities Habitat for
Humanity and I can speak very briefly to a couple of the concerns. We're co-applicant with Ms. Benson,
the current owner of the property. The need for the variance occurs having only 40 feet of buildable area
and the requirement for a two car garage. Minimum size for a two car garage would be 20 to 22 feet
wide, and on the width then you're left with only 20 feet of a buildable area. Minimum, even on the two
story would be about 24 foot wide house, therefore we would still have side yard variance necessary,
even if we were to manipulate some of the other dimensions of the proposed structure. We did propose
in this case a house that has been built by Habitat in several Twin Cities suburban communities again to
meet the requirement of the minimum square foot of living space and the two car garage requirement and
virtually any configuration will require a variance, side or front, back setback. As has been stated in the
staff report we feel that this proposed style of house and structure that we are planning to build will fit in
the neighborhood, which is predominantly rambler and split entry style houses. Again looking at
achieving the finished square foot space, you could go to a two story that is not the dominant style in the
neighborhood. We would prefer to stay with what's in the neighborhood and go with the split entry.
And because of that we feel that this is a reasonable use and consistent with the style of housing in the
neighborhood.
Burton: Any questions for the applicant?
Sacchet: Yeah. Do you have houses with smaller footprint that you build?
Ryan Can'as: The house that we are proposing, the living space is 26 wide by 44 long. We do have one
model that's 24 feet wide, but again added to the required garage that is not limited, it does not change
the need for a side yard variance in that particular configuration.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you.
Burton: Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Burton: Anybody like to address the Planning Commission on this matter may approach the microphone.
Go ahead. Can you please state your name and address?
Wally Schxvab: Good evening. My name is Wally Schwab. I live at 950 Carver Beach Road, directly
east of this proposed anomaly. Needless to say I'm the one probably most directly impacted by this
proposal. We would like to state that when the property went for sale I inquired in the Chanhassen
Planning Commission whether or not it was a buildable lot. After doing a little bit of background work I
reported back to the Planning Commission, the person who's name I can't remember. I was told by this
person that it was not a buildable lot. In conversation with the seller, Floyd D. Osmundson, the previous
owner, he was also told by the Chanhassen Planning Commission that it was not a buildable lot. I
referred to the proposal earlier as an anomaly. That is what I feel it is. A deviation from the normal. If
you look into the plot size of the upper end of Carver Beach Road, the planning people initially set out
there to make spacious lots with reasonable setbacks. The entire area is laid out that way. This proposal
would be a disruption to the continuity of the neighborhood. The one version of the layout that I saw
shows my garage being 25 feet by scale from my property line. In actuality it is 10 feet. That means I
4
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
will have this property 17 feet from my garage. To put a house, of any size for that matter, in such a
small lot smacks of stuffing them in wherever we can, ala Minneapolis. Have we in Chanhassen come to
that point? Thank you.
Burton: Thank you. Anybody else like to address the commission?
Keith Peterson: Hi. My name is Keith Peterson and I live at 921 Hiawatha Drive, Chanhassen. I'm just
kind of kitty corner to this lot. Basically what I was going to approach tonight is variances are approved
because of undue hardship, if I'm not mistaken. That's what Bob told me yesterday. And basically that
means a property cannot be put into reasonable use because of it's size. I was reading through city code
on another one that was denied back in '96 and city code, Section 20 through 58 provides that a variance
may not be granted if all of the following criteria are met. And number 4 that was listed there is that the
alleged difficulty or hardship is not self, a self created hardship. And Anita Benson, I've never met her
but she knew before she bought this lot. She was a City Engineer from what I understand. She knew
before she bought this lot that this lot was too small. So I would presume that would be a self inflicted,
or a self created hardship. The way ! look at it. And then number 3 in that same thing is, that the
purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the land.
She bought this property for $4,200 in Chanhassen. The person that sold it is a realtor. If he thought it
was buildable, do you think he would have sold it for $4,200 in Chanhassen? And I understand that right
now she has an offer from them for $27,200. So to me that looks like an income and she's not living
there herself so to me that looks like potential for income. So I would think number 3 and number 4 are
not met. And I didn't have time to get detailed any others and I know on Western, which is, or I could
throw a rock from this lot to the lot where it was denied because of income. The variance and that was a
14,000 square foot lot that was denied because it was 1,000 feet too small so. And then another thing.
You know the profit here, it's over a 2 year period and the city employee never once mowed that lawn.
The neighbors had to take care of that property so we should have just let it go and let the city come in
and do it but so. And then another question on this map that you had here. What was the qualifications
-.
for those lots? Was it under 10,0007
Generous: Equal to or less than 10,000.
Keith Peterson: Equal to or less to, okay. So anyway, that's what I have to say.
:
Burton: Thank you. Okay, would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Please state
your name and address.
Bob Nelson: My name is Bob Nelson. I live at 970 Carver Beach Road. I have the property that is
directly west and directly north of this property. My property line to the west is 124 by 200. I also own
the property directly behind this which is 60 by 100, exactly the same size lot. My question is with
integrity. Two parts. Integrity of the neighborhood with the size of lots that we have. Wally's lot and
Keith's lot are both at least 10,000. Actually they're both 12,000 now. All the lots behind me are in the
15 to 20,000 square foot. I have about 26. So the integrity of that area, and all the lots to my west also
are at least 100 by 200 foot so I disagree with Mr. Generous' assumption that this fits right into the
neighborhood. It does not fit into the neighborhood. It's a small, small lot. 6,000 square feet when
everybody else is at 12 to 20,000. And the second part of my integrity question is with the information
that we received by inquiring with the City of Chanhassen. In a chronological timeline, Wally had
questioned the buildable, or buildability on this lot and we were told no, it's not buildable. The lot went
up for sale, we questioned it and the realtor who owned the property bought it evidently for some
speculation or whatever, decided to sell it at much less than what the current offer is on the property. So
5
Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000
my question is, we have somebody that's employed by the City purchasing this lot. We were told it's not
buildable. Now after this person has purchased it, it goes up for sale and now we find out it's a buildable
lot. So ! do question integrity, both of the neighborhood. The continuity of the neighborhood and I also
question the integrity of whoever' s giving these answers. I was told it was a commission. I don't know
if it was people before me here, but somebody is telling the wrong thing at the right time so to speak. So
i'd like to take that into consideration. I know this is just a preliminary action here but I can promise that
we are going to continue our discussion on this. I'd like to get a show of hands of all the neighbors that
are here that disagree with this proposal. Any neighbors on this side? No? That's a different story there.
Well there is a considerable number of people here that disagree with what the City is finding or what the
Planning Commission so we are asking that this is denied, not only the variances. We do not want
anything period built there. I don't know if anything can be done about that but that is our quest. Not
just to deny variances. We want nothing built there at all. Thank you.
Burton: Thanks.
Wally Schwab: May I re-address the commission?
Burton: Very briefly. We've got a lot.
Wally Schxvab: Very briefly. May I ask if any of you or some of you have actually seen the site in
question? Okay. For those who haven't, may ! submit some pictures that I took of my lot, Bob's lot, the
lot that is in question and the general area in regards to the setbacks, the-existing setbacks.
Burton: Why don't you just give them up here and we'll pass them around and then we'll move on.
Wally Schwab: Then also may I inquire, have you all need the absentee letter from one, Mr. Dick Roe?
Burton: It was in our packet.
Wally Schwab: Alright. Then I would just submit my pictures and be done with that.
Burton: Okay. Anybody else like to address the commission on this matter?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burton: Commissioners comments on this? Want me to pick someone?
Sacchet: I can start.
Burton: Okay.
Sacchet: Bob, I have a question for staff. I mean there is this letter in the packet that states that the City
has at one point declared that this lot is unbuildable and we have heard it from somebody different now
that it was actually known at the time this was purchased that this was unbuildable. Do we have any
information about that from the City side?
Generous: I don't.
Aanenson: No.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Sacchet: We don't? Okay. In all respect to Habitat for Humanity, I do have a problem with this
variance and I think it's important for me to separate it into two types of variances. One is the variance
for some setback variances, which is one thing. But the big thing to deal with is the variance for the lot
size and the frontage. And I'm well aware that there have been lots of variances in the Carver Beach
area, but the examples that are given in the report at least are for lots that are 10,000 feet. I mean there's
no example that is that severe as we are looking at here. And to me it looks like we're trying to shoe
horn something in there and I personally am opposed to that. That's my comment.
Burton: Okay, thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: I didn't raise my hand. Two quick questions. They may have a right to build, but I guess I
would have, I'll start at a different place. Variances are severe and it doesn't look like it really fits. And
the neighbors, and a variance you listen to neighbors. I think if the neighbors said that this is
comfortable, then I'd pay attention. In this particular case they're obviously not thrilled with this. The
owner ~nay have a legal right to do this but I guess I'd force them to exercise that proof, whatever legal
matter, methods they have. Right now, so that may go with the property and probably does but at this
point in time, I think the variances are too severe for the lot. I would turn it down.
Burton: Alison.
Blackowiak: I had a discussion with Kate yesterday I believe about lots of record or was it today? I'm
not even sure. And according to what Kate said, any lot of record is a buildable lot, and that kind of
surprised me a little bit. So regardless of how small a lot it is, I guess legally you have a right to build
something on it as long as the zoning is consistent with what you want to build. Having said that, I do
not like the variances on this lot. I think that there might be a possibility if it were a different style house. '
If it were tuck under garage or something so the variances wouldn't be quite so severe, but it does look
like it's shoe homed in. That was part of my reason for asking the question in regards to the setbacks for
the two neighboring homes because I was wondering if we could do something in terms of splitting the
difference on the setbacks of the homes or something and that doesn't even seem possible. So based on a
lot of things, I just don't think it really fits as presented to us. And like Ladd said, whether or not they
have a right to build is really not my questions right now. The plan before me I don't think fits and I
think that something different may change my mind in the future but I'm not convinced that the plan we
have tonight is appropriate for this lot.
Burton: Thank you. Deb.
Kind: I don't really have anything to add. I agree with my fellow commissioners.
Burton: Okay. And I agree also. I like going through the variance analysis and looking at the different
elements. I question whether there's an undue hardship and I don't know what other reasonable uses
there could be to this property but perhaps there are other reasonable uses and I don't think that's been
fully explored. I question whether this is a project designed to increase the income value of the property,
and I also question whether this was a self created hardship and I think that also this may be injurious to
the other land in the neighborhood, so for those reasons I agree with the comments of my fellow
commissioners. So with that can I have a motion?
Sacchet: Yeah, I can make the motion. I move that the Planning Commission denies Variance #2000-14
for a 9,000 square foot variance from the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size and so on.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Blackowiak: Second.
Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #2000-14 for
a 9,000 square foot variance from the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size to permit development
on an existing 6,000 square foot lot, a 30 foot variance from the 90 foot lot frontage requirement, a
15 percent variance from the 25 percent site coverage to permit site coverage up to 40 percent, a
seven (7) foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback and a three (3) foot variance from the 10
foot side yard setbacks for the construction of a single family home at 960 Carver Beach Road. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Burton: This matter does not pass and the aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the City Council
by filing an appeal, my notes say with the Zoning Administrator within four days after the date of the
Board's, our decision, and it ~vill be placed on the next available City Council agenda. Which may be
when?
Aanenson: Probably January.
Burton: Probably in January. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CHURCH TO BE LOCATED IN
AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING LOCATED AT 8170-8190 MALLORY COURT,
ANDREAS DEVELOPMENT.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Burton: Any questions for staff?.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I have two quick questions. Bob, parking. Are you happy with the day to day
traffic parking requirements? I realize they're taking almost half the building so I'm assuming what's
there ~vill suffice, but.
Generous: ...their peak hour usage is complimentary to the other uses...
Blackowiak: For the worship services but for the other uses, they sound like they're fairly 9:00 to 5:00. I
mean I could be wrong but.
Generous: Yeah. It's a minimal part of their actual occupancy.
Blackowiak: Okay. It just, there was a fairly long list. I just wanted to make sure you're okay with that.
And secondly, the applicant is, I'm assuming okay with the limit to worship services evenings and
weekends?
Michelle Underdahl: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright, those are my questions.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Burton: Any other questions? Go ahead.
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have two questions. For staff. One thing that I kind of found interesting is
that in the administrative area, which by my account accommodates something in the neighborhood of 20
people, if they're all there. There's only one men's room and one women's room. One stall each. I
mean there's a lot of bathrooms with the sanctuary which is way on the other side so I wonder, does that
fulfill the requirements to have one for each sex? I mean that sounds like a little small for 20 people
office. I don't know. I really don't know. It's a question.
Aanenson: It has to go through plan check so I'll leave it up to the inspector.
Sacchet: Okay. And then the other question is, in the condition you stated that their worships would be
restricted to evenings and weekend mornings. Is there a reason why we wouldn't want to let them have
worship service on a Sunday afternoon, if that's what they want to do?
Generous: No.
Sacchet: Okay. So anytime weekends or.
Generous: The only prohibition we'd want is not during the weekday mornings.
Sacchet: Weekday during the day, okay. That's my questions.
Burton: Okay, any other questions? Would the applicant or their designee like to address the Planning
Commission?
Michelle Underdahl: No. Our goal is to...
Burton: If you're going to talk, you've got to go to the podium. And please state your name and address.
Michelle Underdahl: My name is Michelle Underdahl and I'm with Andreas Development Company.
Our office address is 7525 Mitchell Road in Eden Prairie. Suite 110. And there's really nothing for me
to say other than we feel this is a good use for us. Our building pad's been vacant for a couple of months
now and we think this would be appropriate for the area and the parking is just, is enough to
accommodate them and as I said before, the hours are complimentary to that neighborhood so we don't
feel we'll be causing additional traffic issues.
Burton: Okay. Go ahead. Have you got a question?
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a question for the applicant. I'm kind of curious. I mean this is a request for an
Interim Use Permit for 5 years. You're saying they have a 5 year lease. What's going to happen after 5
years?
Michelle Underdahl: We hope to find another tenant. The church group is looking for a permanent
home. A home where they can build their church facility. More of a campus setting. So our goal would
be as a developer, of course to build them that church. Keep them as long as we can, which would be the
5 years, and in the meantime find another tenant.
Sacchet: Thank you.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Burton: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Motion for a public hearing.
Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Burton: Anybody like to address the Planning Commission on this matter? If so, please approach the
podium. Going once. Motion to close.
Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burton: Comments? Deb do you want to?
Kind: I think the proposal seems very reasonable. I agree with the staff report. I like Uli's idea of
clarifying the worship times by just saying, shall be limited to evenings during the week and weekends.
Something like that but I think it's a good use and a good interim use.
Burton: Okay. Any other comments? Then if somebody would like to make a motion?
Kind: Mr. Chair, I'll make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use
Permit 00-3 to allow a church in an IOP District for the "The Life" to be located on Lot 1, Block 1,
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8tl~ Addition and occupy 20,700 square feet as shown on the plans dated
Received November 1, 2000, subject to the following conditions 1 through 8, with number 4 being re-
worded to say worship services shall be limited to evenings during the week and weekends.
Conrad: Second.
Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim
Use Permit #00-3 to allow a church in an lOP District for "The Life", to be located on Lot 1, Block
1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition, and occupy 20,700 square feet as shown on plans
dated Received November 1, 2000, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into an interim use permit agreement xvith the City.
2. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval.
3. There shall be no outdoor storage of any equipment associated with the church or the auxiliary
uses associated with the church.
4. Worship services shall be limited to evenings during the week and weekends.
5. The Interim Use Permit shall expire in 5 years from the date approved by the City Council.
6. Plans must be submitted to the Inspections Division for review and building permit approval.
7. Meet with Fire Prevention Division for Fire Code requirements.
8. At any time if issues of parking arise, e.g. parking in public right-of-way, conflicts with other site
users, the City will re-evaluate this application.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Burton: Okay, it passes and goes to City Council for their next meeting I assume?
Aanenson: Yes. It's going December 11th.
Generous: Quick turn around.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A REZONING REQUEST FROM A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW
DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO
MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAi, AND PRELIMINARY
PLAT SUBDIVISION OF 120.93 ACRES, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT
AND RECOMMENDATION AND REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET FOR A MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (393 UNITS) CONSISTING OF
CLUB HOMES, MANOR HOMES, COACH HOMES, VILLAGE HOMES AND RENTAL
TOWNHOMES ON 89.5 ACRES AND 2.9 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES AND ON
PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF HWY 5 AND HWY 41, ARBORETUM VILLAGE, PULTE HOMES. -
Public Present:
Name
Address
Brian Evans
Leah Hawke
Shelly Christy
Laura Papas
Steve Hanousek
Susan Cohoon
Anne & Mike Ryan
Mike Zumwinkle
Michelle & Kurt Oddsen
Allan Vargas
Kathy & Tony Larson
Scott C. Rile
Bill Naegele
Peter Prosen
Bruce Buxton
Ton Green
Dave Sellengren
Dan Cook
Susan McAllister
Dennis R. Griswold
Tom Standke
Kevin Farrell
2585
7444
7377
7434
7501
7525
2595
7250
7325
2596
2631
2665
3301
Southern Court
Moccasin Trail
Moccasin Trail
Moccasin Trail
Bent Bow Trail
Bent Bow Trail
Southern Court
Hillsdale Court
Moccasin Trail
Southern Court
Longacres Drive
Longacres Drive
Shore Drive
2701 Longacres Drive
Brainerd, Minnesota
Mills Property
Minneapolis
Eden Prairie
7461 Hazeltine Blvd.
Pulte Homes
Pulte Homes
7336 Fawn Hill Road
11
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Burton: Questions for staff. Deb.
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I have a few questions. Let me find my place here. The primary benefit for doing
a PUD is this concept of density transfer and preserving these large stands of trees in that Bluff Creek
primary zone. Our city code does not allow clear cutting of trees so if they develop this as a standard
subdivision, they would not be allowed to cut down all the trees. So are we really saving that many more
trees by doing this a PUD?
Aanenson: That's a good question. We've walked, there's a couple of subdivisions that were heavily
wooded. One is the Woods at Longacres. Another one would be Stone Creek. Heavily wooded. When
Stone Creek came in we recommended doing large lot in the treed area and clustering outside. The
Planning Commission and the Council at that time had recommended no. There was a lot of trees lost in
both those subdivisions. It happens when you grade. Even when you custom grade. There's just, the
clear cutting says you can't go in and cut down all the trees and then come back and alter the terrain. The
purpose of saving the trees is it forces the maintenance of some of the natural topography, which is one
of the other goals we're trying to achieve, but yes you will get a lot of tree loss if you did a straight
subdivision.
Kind: I gmow I have other questions. Oil, on page 9 of the staff report it talks about that it appears it will
be 41% owner occupied units. I xvas at the City Council meeting. I was the designated Planning
Commission person at the meeting xvhere the Livable Communities Act was approved unanimously by
our City Council, and it was 30%. I'm assuming that the reason this is 41% is that we, this is the only
13,pe of area where we are going to get affordable homes so we need to have a higher percentage here.
Because the 30% is for all new units built in Chanhassen. Is that how it xvorks?
Sacchet: May I jump in here? Because the 41% is not accurate anymore. It's actually between 20 and
25% now because the price of the coach homes went out of the range of affordable so only the village
homes are considered affordable and there are 82 and 82 out of 383 is about between 20 and 25%.
Kind: So xve're not even making up anything with this?
Sacchet: So yes.
Aanenson: I don't think that's a right number. The village homes is the predominant use and that's the
most modestly priced ones.
Sacchet: Oh excuse me, there are 160 village homes.
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: Yep. So it's 41% about.
Aanenson: It's 41%.
Kind: But tile reason for the higher percentage is because it's for all, well go ahead.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Aanenson: It'd be nice to accomplish it, you know our goal would be to try to accomplish it in any
subdivision. Economically it's impossible to do a single family detached home, in a traditional
subdivision, and make it work because the economics are such that when you have a three car garage,
two story home, you're not going to get one under 134. We haven't built one under 134 for a number of
years. So the only way to accomplish some of the affordable owner occupied is to do some other type of
product, and that tends to be townhome or condominium type product. The only product that we've done
as single family detached, that's affordable, is the North Bay one that the City participated in. That's
been the only one that we participated owner occupied in a number of years. And that's off of Lake
Riley, Lyman Boulevard and that's a detached type home. And the City participated in that.
Kind: So with the 41% for this project, does that put us on track for meeting our overall 30% goal?
Aanenson: It moves us towards it but we're still quite a ways from it.
Kind: Okay. On page 10 of the staff report it talks about setbacks and I'm curious, I think elsewhere in
the staff report, I couldn't quite put my finger on it, it talks about the distance across the wetland to the
neighboring homes. What is that distance?
Aanenson: 700 to 1,000 feet.
Kind: And then how about across the smaller Wetland to the new proposed.
Aanenson: That's also approximately about 600-700 feet. Let me just, as long as We're on that topic.
That was another one we looked at this, doing the density transfer because this neighborhood is isolated.
You're not connected, as I showed on Walnut Grove, you had two neighborhoods that are connected,
which is much more sensitive to the traffic patterns. This neighborhood is not connectedto another
neighborhood in that way. They won't be able to get, except for the West 78th Street extension, to
connect to another neighborhood. And they're at the end of a line. Looking at access onto collectors.
Kind: On that same page, under the commercial development standards it talks about under point
number 2 that curtail walls would be allowed on office components. Standing seam curtain walls. Do
we really want to say that?
Aanenson: No, we want it as a support material. I think if you're talking about a long, where we don't
want it as a long unadorned wall. If it is standing seam siding, it could be monotonous so, I mean if
that's a concern I would recommend that you strike that language out.
Kind: It's a concern so I agree. Next staff question. Oh, on page 12 where preliminary plat subdivision,
where we're talking about conservation easements and the common spaces and the outlots and that sort
of thing. It brings to mind that these conservation easements are, are they, who owns them when they're
dedicated? Is it the City?
Aanenson: Well it's staff's recommendation that we put, that we put them in a conservation easement
but if they're left with the homeowners association, there's only so much density. This has come up in
other PUD's, with this project. If they wanted to put additional units, they'd have to come back and ask
for a rezoning because a fixed number of units goes with the project and that's the beauty of the PUD.
They can't make alterations without coming back and asking for amendments. As far as the Wetland
Conservation ACt, I mean they're bound by law as far as what they can do to that, and those also have
utility and drainage easements over them. That they cannot alter those either. That;s based on the
13
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Wetland Conservation Act. If you wanted another level of assurance, you can speak to the applicant
about if they wanted to put the conservation easement in the name of the City or something so they make
sure that the homeowners association didn't decide to put a gazebo in that area or something like that.
Kind: I think that might be a good idea. So that dovetails into my wetland question which is, are they
being dedicated to the City as well?
Haak: Yeah, I knew you were going to... Yes, what the proposal is and what typically happens with
wetland issues is that the existing wetlands are dedicated to the City in drainage and utility easements.
Any replacement wetlands are under separate drainage and utility easements and there are some other
restrictions and covenants that go along with those replacement wetlands. They will be replacing it 2 to 1
as is required by law.
Kind: Okay. And the large wetland, what if it becomes not so wet anymore and basically dries up and
all ora sudden could they build on that?
Haak: Well that wetland has existed for quite some time. I wouldn't anticipate something like that. if
that were to happen, there's a number of exemptions that could be applied, if the Wetland Conservation
Act stays the way it is right no~v. But like I said, with a historic wetland like that, it's part of the Bluff
Creek Watershed. I wouldn't anticipate anything like that happening.
Aanenson: Can I just add to that question? It's a good question. Again, that's the density question so
any alteration of that, they would still have to come back and ask for one, any exemptions of the wetland
act if they use them. Then they'd also have to ask for additional density because you've given so many
units. So it would take an amendment to the PUD.
Kind: Brings to mind another question which is, I know in Longacres some of those home's properties
actually go into the wetland so that's counted as their square footage, their 15,000 average or whatever.
In this development, are we giving the applicant any credit for any of that wetland?
Aanenson: No.
Kind: Anytl(ing that density transfer...
Aanenson: ...taken out of the net density.
Kind: Okay, so the net density is just upland?
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: Okay. I'm sure I have another question. Oh! On page 19, there's a park and trail section and this
is an area I don't think we should get into. I'm just wondering if it makes sense to direct planning staff to
take a look at what we've done with other multi-family home projects as far as totlots and prepared some
sort of document for City Council. Just not even get into that discussion.
Aanenson: Well yeah, the Park Commission's recommendation goes directly to the City Council. In the
past the Planning Commission and Park Commission may not always have been in agreement where the
Park Commission may have wanted something more active. Maybe the Planning Commission wanted
something more passive. The Planning Commission has asked to see what the Park Commission's
14
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
looking at. You don't have to be in concurrence. You don't have to review what they're doing. Their
commission, their recommendation similar to your recommendation, goes up to the council and they'll
consider both of those in the evaluation of the project. So you don't have to be in concurrence or review
what they're doing. It's just really for your edification.
Kind: What do you think about preparing something relative to what we've done in other multi family
housing developments?
Aanenson: Sure. That seems like a reasonable request.
Kind: Okay. Page 22. Street. The traffic analysis and the EAW, on page 19, shows a C and D level of
service as acceptable. Do we agree?
Saam: Yes. Yeah, I agree with that.
Kind: I just had never thought of a C and D as being a good grade, but for streets it is huh? For traffic it
is?
Saam.' Well acceptable, yeah. I guess it's better than what was it the Gateway EAW. Kate and I had
discussed this before the meeting. I wasn't around when the Gateway EAW came about so.
Aanenson: The C or D means it's adequate. It's not performing but Highway 5 is functioning at C or D
and it will with the upgrade so.
Kind: How about if this parcel is developed as commercial or as a standard subdivision, how would that
affect the traffic?
Aanenson: We had put that in the other packet. Matt'S new here. We had put that in the concept, the
different scenarios under based on what we estimated for trip generation. We kind of review our math,
what we had put in there. It's one of the attachments.
Kind: It's one of these attachments?
Aanenson: One of the attachments at the very end. Under the original concept you wanted to look at
population projection for students, tax capacity and population for...
Kind: Excuse me Kate, but what page are you looking at?
Aanenson: The last page. The estimated students on the top, that was the name of our thing but it's
actually trip generation rates. The top heading's going to say estimated student projections. Right under
trip generations.
Kind: Yeah okay.
Aanenson: I can go through those with you but I think if you look at What the EA projected and if it was
industrial and commercial, you're over by 1,000, a little over a 1,000 trips a day from what, so our
estimate was prettyclose.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Saam: Yeah, the EAW had predicted 4730. What Kate modeled for what Pulte's actually petitioning or
applying as is 6176 so that's about 1,400 more. If it was all commercial it'd be even higher. 7,700 so.
The traffic would definitely increase if it was all commercial.
Kind: Let's see ifI have another one. Oh, speaking of streets. There's one dead end street in the
proposal that abuts up to the McAllister property. Will that road be posted as possibly being extended in
the future or something like that for clear communication purposes?
Saam: Yes. That's something ~ve typically do. Put up a barricade and say this street will be extended in
the future.
Kind: Do we know that it will be? Should the language say maybe or?
Saam: Yeah there's no, we don't know for sure. It's not set in stone but that's what we're planning for.
Aanenson: Right. There's txvo anticipated access to the McAllister property. One would be directly off
of West 78th. The other would come through that street. She is requesting sewer and then possibly for
sewer and water, way may come through that way too so.
Saam: Both we'd want through.
Aanenson: Right. So it gives you two options so it's probably, that may be a good idea to post it.
Saam: Yeah, it's dependent upon development of course. If she never wants to develop.
Kind: Then it ;von't happen. Well and there's a few streets like that that the roads never did go through
and I can think of one in Stone Creek where it abuts Timberwood ;vhere the street never did go through,
even though it could.
Aanenson: The staff recommended approval. The neighbors didn't want it tied in.
Kind: Right, and so it didn't happen. And then there's another one in Chan Estates abutting the
Brookhill development too, yeah. Where that road never went through either so a'couple examples.
They don't necessarily go through, but the possibility I think should be told.
Aanenson: I think for the Stone Creek one, staff had recommended approval. It's still posted there. If
for some reason some future council changes their mind, so the bus can go through.
Kind: We won't get into that tonight. And speaking of Miss Rosie's, I'm wondering if it makes sense
again under the heading of clear communication, that if this proposal goes through, that the future buyers
all sign some sort of disclosure statement saying that they're aware of Miss Rosie's petting farm and also
we're not sure xvhat's going to happen with the Gateway. You mentioned that they are selling but maybe
disclose that there's a Gateway group home there and then the possibility that that road could be
extended in the future. The next thing on that page talks about the EAW. I'm still on page 24 guys. I
think they're trying to keep track. It talks about the EAW and the plans that are shown in the EAW are
different than the current proposal. Is there any problem with that?
Aanenson: It's less intense so xve scope for the maximum. This actually has less units and it's been
modified so. And we'll comment on that when we send it.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Kind: Okay. And in the EAW it also talked about noise abatement and it recommended that air
conditioning, it recommended that there be year round climate control which.
Aanenson: I believe all the units are air conditioned. So that issue has been resolved.
Kind: Sorry guys, ! got a lot of questions. Oh, on page 26. Under the fifth finding it talks about, staff
report talks about the code does allow for a density bonus for affordable. Are we, does this proposal
include a density bonus?
Aanenson: No.
Kind: No. And then there's also a couple numbers in there that that are different.
Aanenson: Those are the older densities.
Kind: The older. It should be 8.3 units on the, let's see. On the south side of West 78th Street and then
5.6 overall.
Aanenson: Right.
Kind: And that's it for now.
Burton: Other-questions for staff?.
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have a lot of questions but I feel a little torn. I mean we have a lot of people
here that want to give input to that and I have at least as many questions as Deb had so I would want to
ask whether it's acceptable that we can ask more questions as we move along because we have people
with small kids. I think it'd be fair to them if we moved this thing along.
Burton: I think we've typically asked questions as we go anyway so I don't have a problem with that.
Anybody else want to ask questions?
Conrad: A couple. Questions before you open the public hearing?
Burton: Or the applicant.
Aanenson: I think the developer would like to finish his presentation.
Conrad: Kate, would you just...developer, give me a history of this. We saw it in concept form. Tell
me what's happened since that concept.
Aanenson: Sure, I'I1 go through those changes again.
Conrad: And then, so that's one thing I need to know. And then two. In the staff report it appeared that
there were two issues that City Council brought up. That were of concern to them so I'd like to know the
history, public involvement and then I'd like to know the major City Council issues. If you could
summarize them based on your memory.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Aanenson: Sure. The council had an issue regarding the density on the north side. At a minimum all,
my understanding is a minimum of all twin homes along the perimeter. And that wasn't able to be
accomplished on the eastern side of the property where the rental homes was. They had Pulte didn't have
control of that. The applicant...Mr. Deannovic wanted to do the rental.
Audience: Could you speak up please.
Aanenson: Mr. Deannovic wanted to do the rental. To date it appears that Mr. Deannovic won't be
doing the rental. That has been dropped from the project and Pulte is trying to acquire that piece and it's
their desire to put the manor homes, which is this product, along that perimeter property. So it will be all
owner occupied. So that was one of the concerns that council also wanted to see the twin homes along
the entire perimeter was one of the issues. Also the open space and some of the density transfer, how
that worked. I'm not sure that was clear so we tried to show that in the staff report. How that worked.
Again we treated it like Walnut Grove where we gave them again Pulte is dedicating West 78th. If this
project does not go through, it's a separate letting project. West 78th would terminate at Century
Boulevard, which is this street right now. That's where the project right now contemplates. The water is
running along West 78th Street, which goes over to 41 which would service the future Westwood.
Sewer's running along the edge of that wetland so this project provides the mechanism for the next
project to go. So that's the history. Neighborhood meetings. A neighborhood meeting was held last
week. I'm sorry.
Conrad: Go back further. When did we see this?
Aanenson: Over a year ago. Over a year ago.
Conrad: And we've seen it once?
Aanenson: Yes.
Conrad: And then it went to council for their concept so they saw it and they gave those
recommendations, they gave them two or three recommendations. And then since then.
Aanenson: Right. And they also said it didn't have any legal standing. It does take, it does a rezoning
does take, you have a lot of discretion as far as changing the comprehensive plan. And ! think it was
clear that the concept didn't have standing but they wanted to give them some direction on which way to
go.
Conrad: And then the neighbors were brought in at what point in time?
Aanenson: Well we've been in dialogue on the, I'm not sure there's been always a lot of concurrence on
some of the issues but they did meet last week, been a bit of dialogue.
Conrad: So you've got City Council input a long time ago and now we're back.
Aanenson: Yes.
Conrad: Okay.
Burton: Alison, do you have any questions?
18
Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000
Blackowiak: No, not at this point.
Burton: Alright, we'll move on then, unless there are other questions. Would the applicant or their
designee and if they'd like to address the commission, please approach the podium and state your name
and address.
Tom Standke: My name is Tom Standke. I'm with Pulte Homes, 1355 Mendota Heights Road in
Mendota Heights.
Dennis Griswold: Dennis Griswold, the Director of Land for Pulte Homes. If you'd like I'd like to just
make a few comments about the site and then we'll go through the product in more detail and show the
elevations and then answer any questions you might have.
Burton: That's fine.
Dennis Griswold: Just to start. We are very proud of this proposal that we have before you tonight. We
feel it's a planned unit development that is a perfect use for a site that has many things happening in it
and around it. And the aerial photo that we took earlier this year indicates the different areas as they
exist now, and I'd like to just point out so you can see in photo form how it does relate. Kate did have an
aerial map but this is a little bit at an angle and I think shows the vicinity. The Longacres property is to
the north. We have the generous wetland immediately adjacent to that in this area. The area that will be
the primary development area is the tan colored open field area through here, and the dashed line that you
see through here is the northerly extent of where our buildings will occur. So you can see we are backing
up to the wetland. We're not violating that wetland. We're backing up to the wetland on the north and
the east, but we're respecting that buffer and we're not violating it. The two little white rectangles that
show up, these are the locations are actually the dimensions that we are from the, where the back of our
buildings will be and the path that is along the back side of the homes in Longacres. You can see on the
map, the path kind of coming into the right. That continues through the trees. We're 658 feet at the
closest point diagonally across here and we're about 1,317 feet through the balance of that buffer area.
The property west of 41 is about 11 acres and you can see that, where it's, the tree mass through here and
the open area on the north. The other tree masses on the main part of the site are down along Highway 5
and then up north of the McAllister exception up along the wetland. And part of the proposal here of
using the PUD concept again is to save those natural areas as much as possible and to make sure they are
saved from here on. In doing that we have proposed the site plan that you have seen tonight and as part
of that, thanks. Part of that site plan and the platting is that the wetlands and the property west of 41 will
be saved within outlots. And I know it's been stated either in a conservation easement or whatever to
convey that so there's an assurance that those will not be developed in the future. Those will be
dedicated as outlots and they'll be dedicated to the city. So it will be under city ownership defined
within an outlot and therefore it will be your responsibility and great effort to maintain those as is. That
is a common practice in many cities so the city does have the right to go in and do any small maintenance
or whatever on the boundaries of the wetlands and do what you need to do there. The development then,
the proposal again is planned unit development. That allows us to work with the natural features. It
allows us to put our density in the right areas of the site. It allows us to work with also the other features
such as the 78th Street, Highway 5 to work with how we will have access to those and how our buffering
would work. And again we have worked extensively with staffand I don't mean to go through each
detail of the site but we are providing an ample interacting open space or green space throughout all of
the different products. Most of them with a path system so you do have good circulation through. Just
for scale, the open space down in the southwest comer, right in this location is 1 ½ sizes of a football
19
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
field. So you can get the sense of scale that that is a large open space that we are providing. We actually
have about twice that much up in the open space up in the manor home area of the site. A little bit
different character because it has trees and wetlands and a little more undulating. All of the open spaces
have the play features that we are proposing. Totlots, half court basketball, volleyball courts, horseshoes,
shuffle board, all of those types of things. Again we're trying to provide a plan that integrates the life
cycle community aspect of homeowners in different stages of their housing needs. To work together not
only with the natural corridors but also the transportation corridors and we feel that this particular site
plan is an excellent site plan for this particular site. It's a very intense site with 41 and 5 and 78th Street.
Those are all very major streets. We are integrating the density out in the area where the density should
be according to comp guide plan. And we're transitioning for the more intense density on the south to
less intense on the north. And that's a transition that works well with the man made and the natural
features. So with that just a couple quick things that the planned development gives you that a straight
zoning would not. First of all MnDot would not have to pay for 78th Street right-of-way. We're
dedicating that. We are dedicating the 11 acres west of 41 that will be part of your natural corridor
through there. We're providing the tree buffering along 5 and 41. We're not only saving the tree mass in
this area, but we're also planting about 1,200 or so trees on the site that are primarily along 5, 41 and 78th
Street. From the City's standpoint also, with the association owned green space that we're providing
these recreational amenities and path system, those are not park dedication. Park dedication will be
approximately $275,000 cash dedication per your per unit dedication requirement. So the City is getting
a definite advantage from that standpoint. I think that the bottom line from our standpoint is the site and
the uses fit with the area that we're dealing with. With that I'd like to, with Mr. Standke, do a quick run
through on the units themselves so you can see what they'll look like and what they will cost and so
forth.
Burton: Okay.
Tom Standke: Thank you. I believe we'll start with just leaving the plat map up there. Talking a little
bit about the prices, the sizes and the basic demographics of the specific products. As Denny had
mentioned on the south side of the property is the village homes. These are the 160 units that was
mentioned before as far as the affordable housing. Down in the, again in the south and the western
portion of the site. This is the fourth community that we will be building village homes in. We
redesigned this particular product. You may have recalled, it was in an L shaped building before. It is
now in a different characteristic. Our estimations are, and again based on our history with this product,
of approximately 21% children. That's 33.6 or 34 children. They are two story homes with tuck under
garages. The finished square footage range is from 930 to 1,000 square feet. And the approximate
selling prices go from $110,000 to $120,000. The piece that you see covered up is the L shaped portion
of the building, which is why we put that there. Obviously you will now have just a straight run as we
have shown on the plat map. This is the front door on the garage for the homes. We do have a rendering
of the rear of the home that is a black and white. Here you see a typical four unit building. The entrance
to the homes on the side comes in through the side of the home over in this area. Each of the home has
it's own patio onto a green space as was indicated on the original plat. Here you see the side elevation of
the drawing of the building where you have the side entry for the home that would be on the end of the
building itself in it's totality. The next product is the coach home which is in this area. IfI don't take all
of our things down. And again that is a coach home. It is a product that we developed for here. It is an
off shoot of something that we called a court home. We have been building this product probably 15
different communities in the Twin Cities area. This particular product has all two car garages. These are
back to back buildings meaning that there's a mirror image of the product that you see there. The coach
homes, there will be 82 of them that are planned, again ~vith approximately 21% children which comes
out to 17.2 or 18 children. Finished square footages are between 1,200 and 1,350 square feet.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Approximate sales price range, $135 to $150,000. And again the other side is a mirror image. The next
product is the manor home which is in the center portion of the plat. These particular homes are a front
to back townhome. They're all two car garages. As a matter of fact, they're ali oversized two car
garages. With the inclusion we're looking at as far as the rental homes going away, and this particular
product being added to the east side of the property, we would go to 105 manor homes. Here we're
looking at approximately 18% children, which is 18.9 or 19 children. These are split level townhomes
with basements. Finished square footages range from 1,200 to 1,600 square feet and the approximate
sales price from $150 to $180,000. The architectural drawing that you see on the bottom is the end units
and then the rear elevation of a typical building. And then the last product that we have is on the north
end of the property. These are club homes. Club home is a product that we have built in the Twin Cities
for the 10 years that our company has been here. These are all two unit buildings, front and side loaded
garages. They are all one level homes. They do have basements and the next drawing you see there is a
walkout basement. The rear elevation of a walkout basement ora two unit building. That is a, as I say, a
one level townhome. Active adult are the typical buyers. Finished square footage goes from 1,400 to
2,200 square feet. The approximate sales price from $185 to $220,000 and again for the last 10 years
we're finding approximately 12% children in that. In the 36 homes would be 4.32 or a total of 5
children. So what we're really looking at in the 383 homes would be a total of 76 children, which is
about 1 child every 5 homes. There were some questions at the neighborhood meeting about the impact
on schools. Obviously if it was a straight single family community you'd probably have approximately 2
children per home. Here you have 1 every 5 homes. So this is a basic of the plans, what they look like
and the price ranges. We do have some exhibits here for_the eXterior color packages and we can
certainly send those around. I'm not sure how good that shows up but what we have here is on the top
left is the siding color. The middle is a vinyl shake. Then the roofing material. On the bottom right we
have either stone or brick and then the accent color would be for shutters and front door. We do have,
and that will be passed around. This one shows the brick and Denny will pick up the cultured stone and !
don't think we'll pass that around because it's a bit heavy.
Aanenson: We'll pass them. Do you want to see them all? All the COlors?
Burton: Why don't you just quickly hold them up. Why don't you go through and show them to the
audience too so people can see them.
Tom Standke: All of the homes are maintenance free exteriors with vinyl siding and vinyl shakes. As
was mentioned before, there's a homeowners association that handles the lawn care, the snow removal,
sprinkler systems, trash pick-up so it's a combination of things that we have done in the past quite a few
times and if I've missed anything please let me know. Otherwise I'd be more than willing to take any
questions.
Burton: Questions for the applicant? Uli?
Sacchet: Yeah, I would like to ask you a few questions. I don't have too many issues with you. Most of
my issues are more staff issues but if I can just clarify a few things. The one thing, I want to clarify, in
the staff report it says if Pulte Homes is to offer it, then the rental units will be manor homes. So is that a
done deal or is that if?. Are at this point, is that a done deal that instead of rental units you are proposing
to have manor homes there and they will be owner occupied or what's the meaning of the if in there? Or
is that just a remnant from previous times?
Dennis Griswold: If I may address that. That has changed primarily because of the input last week from
the neighborhood meeting and we found that there was a lot of concern on the rental component and so it
21
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
was decided by Mr. Deannovic that he would give up that particular item and would sell it as owner
occupied .... with Mr. Deannovic. It's my intention to pursue that very heavily and I think he is receptive
to negotiating that with us. So we would like very much to purchase that part too and have the manor
homes there.
Sacchet: So that's not a done deal but it looks like it should go through?
Dennis Grisxvold: I would hope so.
Sacchet: My second point was the coach homes originally were proposed in the price range of $112,000
to $130,000 and now it's gone up to $135 to $150,000. Can youjust briefly give us an idea of why.
Tom Standke: Well first of all the, pardon me. The initial application was over a year ago. So there's
the increase in costs with both building materials as well as some additional changes and adjustments that
xve've made to the product. There's also building code issues. We have changed all of our product to
meet the energy code that was supposed to take place 3 or 4 different times. It was a moving target. It
never did happen. However, all of our homes are built to that design which added several thousands of
dollars in cost so. With all of those things and passage of time, that's where they're at.
Sacchet: Okay. In our package we have a letter from the Lundgren Brothers where they're hope, they're
expressing their desire to have some buffering also on the east side towards the area that they're planning
to develop. Is that something you're planning to accommodate to any extent?
Tom Standke: Well there is a wetland inbetween the properties that Mr. Griswold is showing you now.
Dennis Griswold: We do have the wetland which is again about 600 feet. There are trees, our side of the
wetland and on the Lundgren side. The 78th Street location is approximately through here so the primary
interaction between our residential pond and their's would be essentially across that wetland. The area
down in the southeast corner of our's and southwest oftheir's would be a commercial component.
Sacchet: So your answer is that there is a natural buffer in place that fulfills that requirement. Okay.
There is some discussion in the wetland context that in some areas you're actually proposing a 20 foot
buffer where you could get away with a 10 foot buffer. And then there are some lots that are mentioned
that are actually encroaching. I assume those are issues that you're working out with staff. And there
was also talk about the northern cul-de-sac being moved in that context. Are those issues that are being
worked on?
Dennis Griswold: Yes. Those are minor site plan adjustments.
Sacchet: Okay, so we don't need to spend time on that. And then finally in the context of the petting
farm next door, I saw on your grading plan that by putting the road all the way to the lot line you actually
do some grading on that property. That it goes about 20-30 feet onto their property. Is that something
that,, do you have agreement from the owner there to do that?
Dennis Griswold: At this point we don't have any written agreement to that effect. If blending such is
that is very technical and ! would hope that we would be able to work that out...
Sacchet: Okay, it shouldn't be a major issue.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Dennis Griswold: If not we would have to deal with a small retainer or something right at her property
line, but it's very difficult and you are stubbing a street right to her property line. To not actually
encroach into that property on a very minor basis.
Sacchet: And then my last point real quickly, and I don't expect to get to the full bottom of that because
it's as well a question for staff. Our city ordinance for petting farm has setback requirement I believe of
300 feet from the closest structure, and I would assume if it works that the petting farm has to be 300 feet
away also. Your buildings have to be 300 feet away from the structure of the petting farm. Is that
something that's being looked at at all?
Dennis Griswold: I think staff has reviewed it and feels that we comply with that. From our point of
view we did not have a problem with the location of our townhomes relative to the activities on the
petting zoo area. Now I know there was setback issue of how many feet from the barn and I guess...
Sacchet: We'll address that with staff further to see how that exactly is supposed to work but that's my
question. Thank you.
Burton: Okay. Other questions for the applicant?
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Could you explain why there's a dramatic price change from the last time that we
saw this? He did that?
Sacchet: Yeah he did.
Tom Standke: But I'd be happy to do it again.
Kind: No, I don't want you to do it again. Where was I? I'm sorry.
Tom Standke: The passage of time as well as changes in the way we build the homes as far as energy
code was the main reason.
Kind: I'm sorry. I really apolOgize.
Tom Standke: That's quite alright. I hope all questions are that easy.
Kind: I was hoping you were going to say they were dramatic architectural improvements or something
like that.
Dennis Griswold: If I may. I would say that the improvements to the site that the community is
benefiting from, our portion of that as well as what Mr. Standke had indicated but the 11 acres on the
west side of 41. All the different items that we've talked about do get included in that bottom line price.
Kind: I'm sorry. I obviously was out listening as in not. I do have some concerns about quality of
materials and the elevation that we were shown recently. The manor homes, the back elevation, you
might want to put that up again there. I think the amount of windows is great. I have a concern about the
back elevation. The roof being one continuous line. Would you consider adding gables or maybe
cantilever some of those windows out and put gables above them to create a little more architectural
interest on the back elevation?
23
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Tom Standke: Well I think it's difficult for you to see the true effect of the rear elevation because the
homes are staggered. Okay, so and again, yeah. Denny's pointing it out. You can see it more on a side
elevation how you've got the roof lines moving and so I think again, a fiat perspective does not really do
itjustice, just as our colored elevation of the front.
Kind: How dramatic is the stagger? How many feet are xve talking?
Dennis Griswold: There's 4 foot horizontal at these two points. And then you have the decks projecting
out. So there are quite a fexv things happening.
Kind: On the back side of that.
Dennis Griswold: The other point if I may add is, typically those are oriented within...
Kind: Which leads to my next question, which is the back elevation of the village homes, which is
exposed to that intent intersection that you talked about of Highway 5 and 4 I. That back elevation
appears to me to be one continuous roof line as well.
Dennis Griswold: Our intent from the site, and point ifI mayjust talk a little bit about that first. Is first
of all some of the things that we're doing from the site here, we're preserving the tree stand which is a
buffer for these units. Both for people looking in and people here looking out. Through here is probably
at least half of this 1,200 trees around. Those are primarily evergreens and ornamental trees such as crab
apple.
Kind: Will there be a buffer that they're on tOp of?. Or a berm I mean.
Dennis Griswold: On a berm that undulates 4 to 8 feet.
Kind: So it will hide the garages perhaps or?
Dennis Grisxvold: Well the garages are basically internal. The garages are facing each other in these
cases and that back elevation you were talking about is out toward this patio court in most cases. So it's,
xvhen you're looking at it from different directions, typically you're oriented more toward the end of
those buildings and that was the concept in doing that. You don't have in any of these village units
paralleling the street so you get the width of the building if you ~vill.
Kind: And the end unit has entryway for the end unit and is there an overhang for that door? I went and
looked at the village homes that were built in Apple Valley and I'm assuming these are very similar to
those and I did not see any sort of protection from the elements, that sort of thing. On the sides.
Dennis Griswold: The horizontal shift is at this point where this total area is shifted out. There's not a
roof over the actual entry itself.
Kind: Is that something you'd consider adding?
Dennis Griswold: I guess one reason we haven't in most of the areas is because that also deals with
setback issues so you're, in addition to the building you're tacking that onto the building envelope for
setbacks.
24
Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000
Kind: To me, and also in the front elevation those entryways, they're alljust kind °fflush. There's no
overhang or pillars. Nothing like the charm of the manor homes which I think are quite nice. I'd like to
see some of those kind of details on the village home. It seems to me it seems quite easy but I'm not the
one doing it so.
Dennis Griswold: We do have on those, and again the elevation here is flat but we do have the base
jutting out. We have the horizontal shift at these areas. Whether it's 4 unit building or 6 or an 8. And
each of the entry areas juts out and has a roof, either this style or a gable or a shed type roof so there are
three different styles of that roof over the entry.
Kind: In Apple Valley none of them offer any protection though if it's raining. It's got the roof but the
doors are flush with the, they're on the same plane. I know a shadow is drawn but it doesn't cast much of
a shadow. There's not much of an overhang there. It's just an idea for how I think it could be made a
little nice. I also have a concern with the product of shingles. In Eden Prairie the club homes have much
nicer looking shingles than the village homes. I can't tell from that flat little piece there. Is that the
higher quality shingle that's on the club homes in Eden Prairie that will be used throughout this
development or what is the roof material like?
Dennis Griswold: This is an upgraded shingle from what you saw in Eden Prairie. So just the overall
aspects of the village buildings. I think about everything you would look at in the Eden Prairie village
home has been upgraded.
Kind: Good.
Dennis Griswold: ...doing it there and learning from ~vhat the buyers would like and what we want to
provide.
Kind: The Apple Valley one looked much better. I was relieved when I saw that. I had some concerns
about the shingle quality. I know in the summer time the flat shingle tends to kind of buckle and
something that's a little bit more textured like on the club homes is something I'd like to see in all of the
units. Are you proposing using the same shingle products on ali of the units?
Tom Standke: Frankly I don't 'know that. We also have to remember something that, first of all the
shingles that we use are a national manufacturer. They're warrantied for a minimum of 25 years. You
know it's a typical building shingle. As far as is it the same shingle that we would use on a club home?
Club home might receive a totally different shingle because you're selling a product that's up to
$220,000. Here we're looking at affordability. It's not an inferior product. It's a product that is again,
25 plus year warranty and.
Kind: I just want to make sure it looks good. That's my, that's where I'm going.
Tom Standke: Okay.
Kind: Oh. Also, on the...it's difficult to tell. The original coach homes, let me see. Could you put the
coach home visual up? I don't know what they were called a year ago. They weren't called coach
homes.
Tom Standke: Court homes.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Kind: Court homes, thank you. The court homes in Eden Prairie have a ship lap siding, andjust so you
'know where I'm going. I hate that stuff. So I'm hoping that none of this siding is going to be ship lap.
Dennis Griswold: No it's not.
Kind: Good answer. Tip my hand a little bit here. Oh, the side entries of those village homes have an
awful lot of foundation showing. Are you proposing to put some sort of brick faCade or some sort of
stone to cover up that foundation?
Dennis Grisxvold: We do have retaining that works around the corner of that building that brings the
grade up.
Tom Standke: And there's also landscaping that goes in that area. As you go up the grade.
Kind: It'd be nice to have rules to only so much of the foundation can show. Just quickly checking to
see if I have any more questions. Oh, the air conditioning. You said that that was included in the base
price?
Dennis Griswold: Yes.
Kind: Because out in Apple Valley it's not. It's an option.
Tom Standke: It's standard here.
Kind: I think that's it for the applicant. Thank you.
Burton: Any other questions for the applicant? No? Ladd?
Conrad: Diversity of color choices in the project is within a housing type, the product. The colors are
the same? Exterior colors.
Dennis Grisxvold: There is a range of colors. Kind of the range we've seen here. They're not drastically
different but they are different.
Tom Standke: I believe we have 10 color packages.
Dennis Griswold: And you do get the differences in color on the buildings too. You know from the
siding to the shade area and so forth.
Conrad: But the buildings won't look alike and they're sitting next to each other in terms of coloration
on the outside?
Tom Standke: No. We choose the different color packages and we do not put them next to each other.
Conrad: A year ago I had one point and you probably remember what it was. I have more than one
point. I xvas concerned with sort of the entry feel to Chanhassen on the intersection of 41 and 5. And
was curious what you were, we were talking some gazebo look or some fountain look or something at
that intersection to kind of signify that the site, that it fits in the project here. Right now I'm not sure
what that is. What are you planning?
26
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Dennis Griswold: What we have planned is basically the berming and the landscaping for screening and
really continuing this plant mass around the perimeter for that we're providing screening. In terms of,
and then there is also a wetland down in the comer. We explored that potential of a pond and we also
were trying to explore other elements and I think it was talked about what could that be and quite frankly
I didn't get enough of an answer to put it into the plan. I really just went with the berming and the
screening and felt that that in itself and making the different housing units that we do have here, blend
into that comer and have the screening not only for the people living in the units, but for the people
driving by. And I think that's fairly comparable to what you see in a lot of different developments or
communities around.
Conrad: So that comer you're under highway grade, right? So what's the berming going to do? Is that
just, does that bring it up to highway grade? What is it doing?
Dennis Griswold: No. It won't be that high. It will give you undulation and eventually when the plant
materials get up to a bigger size, you will get screening that way. But I think you know, that is a very
intense highway there and I don't want to try to say that we're going to have total separation because we
won't. We will have I think probably better separation from that standpoint than if we created a pond
which we would want to develop relatively on elevation and a view across the pond obviously would be
open to the highway.
Conrad: So right now it will be a wetland at that comer? It will be a pond? What will it be?
Dennis Griswold: We're leaving the wetland that is in the comer. If it gets disturbed it would be by the
Highway Department and I don't know where they're at in the details of that part. The major feature I
think is going to be the larger pond here with the tree mass. I think that's really where you're going tO
get the most impression from the highway.
.
Conrad: Okay. Into the different recreation areas within the site. The common areas. It looks like you
have one trail coming through it. Are there other access points? Is it really intended to be a community
park or, it looks like on the plan that I'm looking at, which is old, it looks like there's one trail going in.
Dennis Griswold: Into that area?
Conrad: Yeah, into that area. Yeah.
Dennis Griswold: Well there's a perimeter walkway that connects to the 78th Street pathway. It comes
along this public street out to 78th Street walkway again and then from that walkway we connect through
to where the half court and the volleyball and benches and so forth are. And there's also plans for a
totlot in this area. And that connects out to this point which would give access to these units.
Conrad: So what is that space? It's green space and it's got some recreation value. What's it's intent?
Dennis Griswold: The intent is that it is association owned green space that is at a size that it's useable
for various recreational needs for that neighborhood. It's not meant to be a community park. There's a
community park in this particular case...And we do have this same path connection concept going
through this area of the site, and that also crosses the road here to the public path along that wetland that
goes this total length along the wetland. So that's where the public would be.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Conrad: Have you done other sites with this type of common area? Other projects?
Dennis Griswold: We've had common areas with paths but quite frankly not to this extent. This is quite
a bit more than we proposed in many communities. One of the, ifI may just add to that. One of the
major recreational needs in a mixed use community like this is a path system for jogging and for walking.
And for the active adults up on the north, they like to be able to make a loop walking and same with the
younger people. They go out for a jog and not have to be in the street. So that is making a big loop
there.
Conrad: Okay. Just a footnote for staff. I think it'd be, and it's obvious you went to Park and Rec and I
read their notes and their notes talked more about totlots than they talked about some of these other
things in the public comments so. I wish we would have had their comments for this meeting because it
does affect our recommendation. How we move to the City Council but that's going to take place next
week or sometime so I guess that will be an independent process. That's all I have Mr. Chairman.
Burton: Any other questions? I just have one quick question. On the site plan, there's the totlot in the
east corner kind of it by itself. Is that still in the plans?
Dennis Griswold: This is still on the plan. At the time we talked to the parks commission, they were
concerned about whether that was the appropriate kids and size and so forth for rental housing because
their estimation was that's where you have more kids. Now that that's owner occupied, it's really down
to about 10 kids instead of the estimate of about 60 or 70 in there so we would still be proposing that but
there would be more of a connectedness over to these other features here through the path system. And
there's also the walkway along this whole road up and connecting to the public path to the north.
Burton: Okay. That's the only question I had for now.
Kind: Mr. Chair I have one more question. You mentioned that there were 10 color pallets. There are 6
here. Do you have 4 more in there that I could take a peak at? I'm reluctant to approve color pallets I
haven't seen.
Burton: Do you want to do more than look at them?
Kind: That's it.
Burton' Okay. Question? No? Let's move to public hearing. Okay, any other questions for the
applicant?
Blackowiak: Not right now.
Burton: Okay, we can ask them if we have them as we go somewhat. Thank you. Open this to public
hearing.
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Burton: Okay, anybody wishing to address the commission maybe after these guys clear out a bit.
Approach the podium. State your name and address and we've got a lot of people that want to comment
so try to, I ask that we try not to be repetitive and keep things moving here.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Kathy Larson: My name is Kathy Larson and I live at 2631 Longacres Drive. And I'm relatively new to
this area. My husband and I chose where we live after checking with zoning here in Chanhassen as to
what would be built behind our home. I feel like this is becoming more like Brooklyn Park and with
some association in the northern suburbs. I know the properties at the Edinborough Golf Course have
been in a drastic slump for years and Brooklyn Park is just digging out now from their crime rates and
their property values that have been slightly depressed due to all this high density housing and I'm just
wondering why it has to be at that location. I also have somewhat of an issue with the whole affordable
housing piece. I sometimes think by neighbors feel that it's maybe the affluent versus those that don't
have wealth and I'm an individual that lived in affordable housing. Was a single mom that was never,
ever zoned by the government and I really take issue with the fact that people who worked hard and are
paying the taxes that Chanhassen provides in this location are now being asked to pay taxes for some
agenda that the constituents haven't necessarily approved. And that's all I've got to say.
Burton: Okay, thank you. Anybody approach. State your name and address please.
Allan Vargas: Yes, my name is Allan Vargas. I live at 2596 Southern Court. And I'm here really for
two reasons. One of them is because my house is right on the buffer and it's my understanding that was
to be low density housing behind that. I'm obviously in favor of low density versus... I think one of the
concerns I also have is as a citizen here of Chanhassen is that I'm really concerned about the, it's one of
the things you have in Chanhassen. One is problems with the water. We were on water rationing most of
the fall and...and you know if you don't have a sprinkler system, you know what's going to happen to
your lawn if you don't get up at 3-4 in the morning to go-and water. And apparently that's going to be
happening again this year and the question that you have is why is that in a growing community. What's
going to happen to our services? The other thing that I have to ask too is about our taxes. I also
understand we' re probably one of the highest property taxed communities in the State. And the other
thing, I don't know whether a lot of people saw your bills yet or not or if I'm the only one, but my taxes
or my city taxes are proposed to be increased 1'5% and I'd like a show of hands here, how many here got
a raise of 15% in their salaries this year. There's another little item there that it just says} actual...goes
up 25%...as far as the growth and everything we're going to have. The other thing that we talk about is
what's going to happen. You know we're saying about what is our community going to look like and
we're supposed to be having an impression as people are coming in, as they're going out. If you take a
look at it on 5 and Dell Road, What is the first things that We see. We see the townhomes and then the
next thing that we see is industrial. Going out you see the four comers of 5 and where 41 is, you'll find
you see a lot oftownhomes, Galpin Boulevard and also in the proposed area and the question you've got
to have is what... Is there going to be one anywhere else? Let's see, I've got some notes here. The other
part that also speaking about the taxes and one of the things that I really don't understand is on, it hasn't
been explained to me, is on the affordable housing. How does that really work? Okay. And apparently
the rental units have been taken out. Things like that. One question that I have is, if the market value of
property, say it's $1,000. Okay? And with a life style home you can now rent that property for $700,
okay. Who makes up the $300? The value of the property. Does that come in in taxes, either directly or
indirectly that we're being taxed? Now I think these are the things that we've got to ask as a city
government. You know if our taxes are going to be going up 15% per year in city taxes and are being
just under 6 years, they'll be doubled. I thought one of the things that city government is supposed to be
doing for us is really kind of protect us and protect our lifestyle. And I guess that's all I've got to say.
My recommendation is no on the medium-medium.
Burton: Thank you.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Mike Ryan: Hi, my name is Mike Ryan. I live at 2595 Southern Court. I've got a lot to share and
express with you xvith respect to this project and I'll try to be fast. I'm not sure I can be brief but I'll do
my best so please bear with me. I'd like to thank the Planning Commission my first time before all of
you and for the opportunity to speak on behalf of many of the residents adjoining this, project. First we
want to, many of us want to immediately address the impression that may be out there that we are against
affordable housing, and I can say that that is not the case. What we've got here is what we need to do is
talk about the facts. And there is a perception and I think a valid reality here that there is an
unacceptably high percentage of affordable housing that is being located at our western gateway. And
until a couple of the neighbors commented that's not really being addressed I think properly. Secondly,
we genuinely want the best product for our western gateway. What we'd like to review tonight are some
of the ordinance and issues that affect this product at our main entrance. I have spent a great deal of time
with my neighbors trying to understand our ordinances and our comp plan and the housing guidelines.
It's not an easily digestible subject and frankly at times appears to be a house of mirrors, and I l~mw you
guys live this all the time. We, many of us, we moved in over 5 years ago and we did our due diligence
and we did do that Pulte. We looked at the property. We discussed this with Lundgren about that
property at length and understood fairly clearly what that property was guided for. North of the frontage
road, low density, single family detached, residential PUD. Minimum lot size 11,000 to 15. South was
the medium density, multi-family cluster with up to 8 units per acre. We moved to Chanhassen
understanding the comp plan and the plans for that property. We believe that the zoning guidelines are a
covenant with the residents and we honestly planned and purchased based on the comp plan. What city
staff and Pulte are proposing is in conflict with that covenant and the neighbors and all that enjoy the
western gateway potential. Excuse me. I'd like to address some of those ordinance and issues that need
to be addressed productively. First, the current guide and zoning which I just listed. Pulte and city staff
would like to imply that the net densities are in line with the guide, but the building structure and the land
square footage allocation is out of alignment. The building structure does not allow cluster homes north
of the frontage and does not allow high density of these 9.5 units per acre. And there is some need for
clarity as to what in fact really is the amount of units on the south side of the fi'ontage. It is important to
note the PUD is allowable for that property as is guided. I have the application of Pulte where they
specifically acknowledge the current land designation, and I'd like to share this. And on July 30th you'll
see here, if I can use this fancy... Not once but twice, okay can you zero in on that? The present land use
designation, low, medium and density residential requested. Low, medium density. First time.. Second
time. Same thing. Low and medium requested land use designation. Low and medium. All this change
though it was never demonstrated right from the beginning from the original concept plan. Again, we did
our due diligence and I'm confused and it appears Pulte has not done their due diligence and with the aid
of the city staff has made convenient changes, I think at the expense of the neighborhood and of the city.
Also, there's been discussion tonight about the somewhat magnanimous offerings that Pulte is making
about this land that's up north. This 11 acres. If you look here, again Pulte knows however, this request
does not require, Pulte's request does not require any density transfer from the property west of Highway
41 for their tabulation. The other aspect to that is that that's in the Bluff Creek watershed. They can't
build on it. So they should have done their due diligence with respect to that property. So it's baffling
that the city staff seems to accommodate and enables the developer at every turn then respecting the
current comp plan. I realize there has been a need to make changes with the staff report but there are
many discrepancies in the staff reports that I'll do my best to outline that this has been a moving target.
What was noted tonight with respect to the affordable housing guidelines, that the city has just
acknowledged the importance for all new construction to be at a maximum of 30% for affordable
housing. Two, I think it was 2 or 3 weeks ago Pulte was supposed to be before you and I got a call the
day, I think the day before they were to be before you saying that there's been all these changes. There's
been a change with respect to the densities and as I tried to peel the onions, the layers of the onion to find
out that they raised, they just simply, it's the same product, they just raised the prices. And this was I
30
Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000
believe from my side, and this could need to be clarified but about 48 hours to 72 hours that they were
supposed to be before you. That's why staff says tonight that it appears now to be 41% simply with this
price raise. Well, so I called the Met Council to find out when is the next time that they're going to be
raising the threshold for affordable housing. In February they're going to raise it again so what they say
is that now it's been dropped down to 40%. Come February it'd .be 70%. Right back up to where it was
3 weeks ago. So when we talk about affordable housing, not so long ago I guess it was 1999, November,
Maple Grove was acknowledged for their winning strategy using your fan dangled thing here and what
they're receiving awards for and accolades from the Star and Tribune is working with properties that are
in the 5 to 20% affordable housing range. Not this 51%. This 59%. This 40 to 70 percent that is being
offered to our community. So what we have here is the third affordable housing project in Chan. I
thought this was almost in as many years, and they all exist within 5/10 of a mile on, all on the Highway
5 corridor and as Mr. Vargas pointed out, now we're book ended by this look of row housing and
affordable housing look. It's all in one concentration and if you go to page 31 of the Chanhassen guide
lines, it clearly says the City will promote the integration of life cycle housing opportunities throughout
the community. That's throughout. Affordable and subsidized housing shall not be overly concentrated
in one area of the city. I think this is overly concentrated with the last two and now we have three
projects and it's basically bang, bang, bang. All within a half mile. We have to ask ourselves, if this is
the western gateway, is this the best Chanhassen can do. It's the main entrance. It's our first and last
impression of Chan. This is built for conception, this is a very poor view scape of Chan. Now I could go
in great detail, I'm happy to, to list all the ordinances here. I don't know, that I see are in challenge here.
Do you want me to?
Kind: Go for it.
Mike Ryan: Okay. In our current PUD in the intent. Number 1, preservation of desirable site
characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, blah, blah, blah,
mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. High quality of design. Higher quality of design
than is found elsewhere in the community. Sensitive development along significant corridors within the
city. Development which is consistent with our comp plan. Consistent with our comp plan. Such park
and open spaces shall be consistent with the comp plan and the overall trail plan. Fast forward. The city,
well I'll skip that one. Moving on. Next isSue is park and land dedication requirement. The Pulte
project is severely deficient with park and land dedication. As noted tonight by Mr. Griswold, they're
paying cash for parks. They're basically selling out the future residents of that project and you know,
cash for parks. With the estimated, and at least at the neighborhood meeting there were 700 estimated
residents. There should be 9.33 acres. There appears to be, if you include that central area, and I need
this to be confirmed but approximately 2.5 acres and I don't know if that falls under the park category,
but the question is, is this right? To me it seems very short sighted. People will have to cross the major
thoroughfare on 78th Street. They will potentially place demands on Longacres parks and, if I was
Lundgren I'd be very concerned about this with any parks that they want to put on their property. It's
going to place demands on their's. So if we can we should do better for these residents. So as we take a
look at the ordinances for parkland and dedication requirements, 1879, land area conveyed or dedicated
to the City shall not be used in calculating density requirements of the city's zoning ordinance and shall
be in addition to, not in lieu of open space requirements for PUD's. Now, if we fast backwards here to
Mr. Griswold's comment of paying cash for the parks, it appears here, if we do calculate those 2 ½ acres
that he's allowing for that center area and for the totlots, that is 6.8 acres and if you, I'm trying to do a
rough calculation of what the value is of those acres, and it's $36,000 of acre that he may be paying out.
This is calculated based on his $250,000. The City I think is being chumped here and more importantly
again I think the Pulte residents are being thumped as to what is, to me I think a great motivation for any
developer to pay out and put more density on a piece of property. Next is the Bluff Creek Overlay
31
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
District. This famous document that is very important to the city and the watershed and what takes place
and building in that project is a lot of natural site management. It's taking care of the trees and the forest
and I do want to share with you, sorry. Is that an interesting discrepancy here is, if we look at the city
staff report going back to September 1, 1999, Pulte is being allotted saying to their credit the developers
are proposing to preserve the larger wooded area near Highway 5 and the tract across 41. This would
benefit the area greatly by providing natural area within an intensely developed one and some buffering
and staff strongly recommends that the applicant be required to maintain these preserved areas when their
preliminary plans are submitted. That's September 1, 1999. Moving to October 21st staff report saying
this plan proposes saving the large stand of trees as far as the gateway vision of the corner. Moving to
November 14t~. The plan does, excuse me. The plan does propose preserve vegetation of the two
significant areas on the wooded on the site as well as providing perimeter landscaping and it goes so far
as saying that, allotting them and saying that they are retaining 50% of those wooded trees. So from
being strongly for it, all of a sudden that was now being watered down to being 50%. Again, all on the
behalf of the developer. Not on behalf of the city. Okay. The Bluff Creek overlay district states very
specifically, the development within the corridor must be designed with utmost sensitivity to the
environment and development pattern must be of quantity and quality other than what might occur in the
absence of specific standards. Protect the Bluff Creek corridor wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of
mature trees through the use of careful site design. Development in the corridor should be ecologically
designed, built around natural features such as the trees, wetlands and bluffs. Significant natural features
should impact development rather than development impacting significant natural features. Promote
innovative development techniques such as cluster development, open space and I think they're doing
that to excess in the southern part of that frontage road. Okay. The other aspect here and I've heard
various different numbers of how many students are going to be introduced into the school system. I
thought I heard at the neighborhood meeting that there was going to be 150 students. Tonight we heard
76 students and the staff report I believe it says 50 students. So what is it? And it keeps moving all the
time. And I know that there is this supposed profile of what this life cycle housing is but if you guys.
can't get it right in trying to factor and determine what this profile is and the planning, What this is going
to be on the city, how can we have faith in this whole process? And again there are discrepancies with
the car movements. It's anywhere from 6,000 in one report and it's 5,000 in another. Mr. Vargas
mentioned about the concern about water. The projection is about 118,000 gallons of water use a day.
And we're at this point severely deficient with our water supply and coming off a water ban and shortage
at this point in time, can we believe that we're going to be in good shape with the project of this
magnitude. And lastly is, too many papers. But if we go to your staff, the staff report finding 5. I think
that there is a very general and liberal use of wording here. Number 5 in the finding. It says
development which is consistent with the comp plan. It is not consistent with the comp plan. And they
go so far as saying here the development is consistent with the comp plan if the city and the Met Council
approve a land use amendment. How does that work? You ka~ow. If it's consistent with it if they
approve it. It's not consistent. So with that you can see, I think my frustration and the frustrations of us,
the taxpaying residents, stakeholders, shareholders in the city. There is a feeling of very disingenuous
information approach truly dealing with the facts and it's very hard to have confidence in a product that
is as important as this is for our western gateway and we think that the city and we hope that the Planning
Commission will do a very good, thorough analysis in understanding of this project. So thanks.
Burton: Thanks. Go ahead.
Kurt Oddsen: My name's Kurt Oddsen. I live at 7325 Moccasin Trail. You know kids are great. They
get frustrated with a meeting, they run outside and scream. We have to sit here and listen to me. But I'm
sitting here ready to explode because I have to say something in listening to all this so I appreciate your
patience. Is this what we want in our neighborhood? That question was asked earlier and I thought it
32
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
was very significant because I'm not sure this is what we want on the western side of Chanhassen. The
comment was also made on that particular zoning ordinance, are we trying to cram too much in a small
area? ! believe on this site we are. And I think we need to take a real serious look at how we plan these
developments. Staff has already said there's two other projects in very close proximity to this. It's been
stated that we should take the housing and spread it out throughout the community. It doesn't appear to
me that we're doing that in this situation. A lot of discussion is made about wetlands, and boy we love
them here in Minnesota. They're not swamps. They're not marshes, they're wetlands. And they're
great. I love them. And they're talking about 600 feet clearance and people are talking about buffer
zones on the east side of the project. Lundgren is even saying gee, maybe we want a buffer zone. Maybe
they're concerned about what's going there too. They have a lot more pull than I do so they may be able
to accomplish that. But 41 and 5 is a major intersection. In our meeting the other night with the
developer I asked him what the setback was going to be from the right-of-way and it's 50 feet. The
comment was made earlier how high will the berm be? 4 to 8 feet rolling, but the grade is below
highway grade. Comment was made about earlier, a year ago I believe, because I think I was here too in
front of the council, talking about putting a pond in that comer. Setting those units way back. Making it
look more like an entrance to a city rather than bringing buildings, flat side of the buildings that don't
appear to be very attractive. There's been comments made about that tonight. That's not my opinion, but
I do agree with it. And they're going to be 50 feet from the right-of-way with a 4 to 8 feet berm. And yet
we're worried about 600 feet on another side and other buffers. I'd like to ask the Planning Commission
to think about that and maybe talk about making that wider. Maybe it makes the property unfeasible for
the developer. So be it. We have to go back and ask the question,, what do we want in our neighborhood.
Traffic is a big concern to me. You look at the map, ifI can use their map. You've got approximately
two major exits coming out of here. A possible third one and I know there are traffic studies and all that
but I don't think that people are going to get on this road, run all the way down to another highway,
maybe Galpin Boulevard, maybe one of the other boulevards closer to the city before they get onto
Highway 5. These are going to be major exits. And somebody brought up the amendment. It appeared
to me if you look at the amendment and the traffic patterns, on-the low density and medium density,
you're looking at numbers of 1,200 trips a day, 1,400 trips a day. 'I don't have the document in front of
me but I'd ask you to refer to it just for clarification. But they're looking at the development of, I think it
was 6,176 trips a day. That's a lot of traffic coming out of there. I live up in Longacres. Most of the
residents don't go out, exit on 41 unless they're heading north, because trying to turn left is dangerous. I
don't even come down from the north side to make a left hand turn because I looked in my rear view
mirror and I see people coming at 60 mph for me, going around me about a foot and a half to two feet
from my car. It scares me. I come in Galpin Boulevard. I go out Galpin Boulevard so I have a light. I'm
very concerned about the traffic in the area and I'd like the Planning Commission to think about that.
Now, that gets back to the density. I understand it's the way thing are done. We shift this. We move
this. We plan for this, but it was stated earlier what this was zoned for. We met with the council and the
PUD and all they kept referring to was the 5 year plan. The plan that was done 5 years ago and this was
all agreed upon. Now we're able to change it? I need some help here. I'm not real fast in figuring this
stuff out, but why do we agree to it on one hand and 5 years later because somebody says oh, maybe we
ought to change it so everything fits in. I don't like that. Somebody needs to explain to me why we keep
doing that. And the density on the north side of 78th Street versus the south side is not zoned for that. If
you blend it altogether, it works our perfectly. I just have a hard time with that and I just want you to
consider that. The so called wetlands down here, ooh boy. I tell you what. If that's defined as wetlands,
I have a problem with that. It's a bunch of grass in a wet area. The wetlands that are in here contain
some water in certain wet seasons. So now they're going to fill that one in and move it to another site. I
understand that's done. I'm just saying that I wonder how many more variances and exceptions and
changes are we going to listen to before we finally say you know what? We're trying to make something
fit that doesn't fit. Green space is an interesting issue. I've got to touch on that, and I apologize. We
33
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
passed a park referendum. I don't know the numbers. Millions of dollars, and we're buying up land and
building parks all over the city. I voted for that. Now I look at this and I say wait a minute, we're going
to have 380, 70 units in there. I don't know how many people. I can't keep track of the numbers
anymore but we're going to designate only this amount of land and we're going to get $250-275,000 for
the city. I'm wondering when we are going to start looking at these developments and say you know
what, I don't want to pass another referendum. If you're going to build in this city, then you put in some
parks and you put in some recreation. You're going to foot the bill for it. If the project doesn't fit it,
then we aren't building. And I don't think this is enough space in that area. I'm not a planner. I don't
have all the numbers but I'm looking at this from just a common sense standpoint, which ! would ask you
to look at it. I mean we can bring out all the rules and regulations but let's look at it from some common
sense and say maybe we ought to start thinking about this. Taxes and children in schools, we've touched
on that. I can only be redundant by bringing it up again. So I think what I'll do is I'll end and I don't
know what all the legal procedures are, how it goes to council. How staff gets involved. How the
developer gets involved. Heck, I'm not even sure how I get involved and yet you're nice enough to listen
to me up here and air my grievances. ! would ask you not to make any decisions at this point...I don't
know how that's done and I'd volunteer to help you with that so I can learn myself, but I just see a lot of
moving targets here and it concerns me and I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Burton.' Thank you. Anybody else?
Susan Cohoon: My name is Susan Cohoon and I live at 7525 Bent Bow Trail. And I'm just going to be
real short. I pay over $12,000 a year in taxes. I feel like I'm being boxed in with this cluster housing. I
know this is a redundant fact. We know now that within a half mile we're looking at possibly three
projects. Two terms come to mind regarding this whole thing. One of them is payola and the second one
is the City's not dealing in good faith with it's citizens. I'm very disappointed.
Burton: Thank you.
Leah Hawke: My name is Leah Hawke and I live at 7444 Moccasin Trail and ! just wanted to make a
couple of points here tonight for the record. The first one is the neighborhood meeting. We had a
meeting a year ago with Lundgren. I'm sorry, with Pulte when this thing first started and it was agreed
there would be a second neighborhood meeting. That neighborhood meeting was not conducted until
after we requested it because we found out it was going in fi'ont of the Planning Commission.
Additionally, this was taken to the Park and Rec Commission prior to the neighborhood meeting. I went
to that meeting to ask them to hold off until the neighbors had been heard. So I kind of have a hard time
believing that Pulte is really wanting to work with the neighbors when they're asking commissions to
approve it before they've even given us a chance to be heard. Additionally, many members of the
neighborhood didn't even hear about these meetings directly from the City or from Pulte, even though We
were on the list of interested parties way back when. We found it out from Mike. We had to have Mike
calling people to let us know what was going on. I think that's unfortunate. The second point I'd like to
make is I also attended the council meeting where the Livable Communities Act was approved, and what
confuses me here is this 41%. This 30%. It's my understanding that our City Council approved 30%
maximum in new development. Kate, correct me if I'm wrong. There was a lot of discussion between
Councilman Mark Senn and Mayor Nancy Mancino on what that 30% was. And it was nailed down that
it was a maximum of 30% for new development. It wasn't 30% across the city.
Kate Aanenson: That's not how I understood it.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Leah Hawke: Am I, then I would ask for the record that we let the person that voted on it speak. Kate, I
mean they sat there and they argued to and for and you were asked what the numbers represented and
Mark Senn said I thought it always was 30% for the new development, and you responded yes. And that
was what went into the record so I also want to be clear about what the City Council has said should
happen in Chanhassen and what has been approved. That's not what's happening here tonight and I think
if you say 30%, you need to live by 30%. Because that's where residents go, what is going on? You're
saying one thing and you're doing something else. I was also at the parks and rec commission where this
was discussed and I don't think that they were comfortable with this proposal. That's why they tabled it.
That's my opinion. I do know that they mentioned the gateway. That was also mentioned the first time
that this went in front of the City Council. Is this what we want the gateway of Chanhassen to look like.
The other issues that came up that haven't really been spoken about here tonight are locations of
recreational areas and the proximity to the street. As a parent, I mean my point to the Park and Rec was
if you're going to build it, build it right. If you look at totlots here, they're right on 78th Street. Which
parent is going to send a 3 to a 5 year old or 7 to 12 year old to one of these totlots that on what's going
to end up being a very busy road. So those are really my three points. Very offthe cuff. I have to go
relieve my babysitter and get my kids to bed, but I really think there's a lot of misinformation that's been
circulating about this. I for one would like it nailed down what this is and what the rules actually are and
then have it presented to you. Thank you.
Burton: Thank you.
Hugh Bishop: My name is Hugh Bishop. I'm here on behalf of Miss Rosie's Farm, Susan McAllister's
property which is being surrounded almost by the Pulte development. We're here to speak just briefly to
two issues. The first is affordable housing. A good concept that should be embraced. I'm not going to
speak to that but Susan McAllister would like to speak to it herself. And I believe her answer is yes it
should. The issue that I am speaking to is should the proposal for the rezoning PUD-R be approved. And
we believe that you should recommend that it is approved with one sentence added to the conditions
under which it's approved. The background of this is that, as you probably know Miss Rosie's Farm is
the only petting zoo in Chanhassen and has, after some amount of work and back and forth with the City
gotten established that yes, we're in a transitional zone and we're changing from agriculture to higher
density but for a period she's been given permission to continue operating the petting zoo. Not petting
zoo, petting farm in a way that it has been set up. And there's a 10 year period for a limited use_. Now-
_
one of the provisions when the City modified the zoning code was to provide setbacks for petting farms.
We had to create these last spring. So we have now a new setback requirement of 300 feet for any
structure or storage area from an adjacent single family residence. Well you know we comply with that.
There's no single family residence within 300 feet of any structure or barn on Miss Rosie's Farm. So
that's great. Now, the Pulte development as it's presently proposed is not going to cause any problem
there either because there's no single family home that is proposed for within 300 feet of where she
might have the barn or storage area so that's great. Now the concern would be this. What if there were a
change at any point down the road and maybe a double changed to a single. Well, now is the time to just
add this one sentence for clarification and what we'd like to contemplate is there are three possibilities
you know. If there were an application for a single family to go in within 300 feet of where we are right
now. One is, they could say well you know, we're here now and so you need to take down your barn.
Well that doesn't seem quite right. Susan could say well you know I was here first so you can't build.
Well, she's not really interested in saying that. So what we would like is to have the one sentence
addition of a condition upon which the PUD would be authorized to provide the interpretation or just a
provision that neither of those would happen. That the owner of adjacent land would not be able to
enforce the existing setback requirements 300 feet so as to prohibit development of the Pulte property by
it's successor's or by Pulte themselves. And consequently, fair for the goose, fair for the gander, just
35
Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000
make it clear right now so it's not an issue that needs any discussion later that the developer of the PUD
property will not enforce our existing setback requirements in such a fashion that it's required to take
down her barn. That's all that I really want to propose. I do have a handout for you and then I'll
recognize Susan McAllister for the other issue that she wishes to speak to herself. Unless you have a
question.
Burton: No, thanks. We'll take a look at your handout. Why don't you go ahead Susan.
Susan McAllister: My name is Susan McAllister and I am at 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard. I've heard a lot
of the stories about the Longacres people, how they don't want it in their neighborhood and they don't
like possibly the type of people or whatever they believe they have too nice of houses to be in that area
with the affordable housing in their back yard so I have one really good suggestion. I'll take it in my
back yard and I'I1 take it in my side yard and I'll take it in my front yard because I don't see anything
wrong with it. I think that you know being a person that's lived here since 1959 I am somebody that
needs to be responsible to the other people that are coming into the city and that it's the new way that we
have to do things. Chanhassen is not growing any more land but we're growing people and we need to
house people and this is the new, I don't like to use the word trend but I believe this is the new way that it
has to be. I'm a person that designs trends for mass merchants. They pay me to come up with a good
way to get a good product. I believe that what Denny Griswold and Pulte have proposed is a good
product. I'm also talking as a member of the, 5 year member of the Environmental Commission for the
City of Chanhassen. As a member, past member of the Highway 5 task force in 1995 which chose, you
know did the recommendation for this. Also a member of the Highway 5 overlay district and a member
of the Bluff Creek corridor. I believe all aspects of this development fit everything that was on, I was on
those committees for. It's different and it's scary and I have to tell you that a year ago I was not, I was
right where Longacres was now and it took me you know quite a while of bending and stretching and
thinking and you ~know really soul searching and I believe that where ! am now is looking at it totally
objectively. IfI weren't living there, you know it's the perfect place for it. It's segmented offand it only
works in masses, okay and I believe that what's being done is the right way to do it and I think if we're
going to do it, let's dig in our heels and do it right. Don't just put our little toe in the hot water and say
oh, that's a little bit too hot. Take the dive. You people are there to start helping us with the new trends
and to house people so I expect that's what you should do and I'm hoping that's what you will do. That's
what I have to say. Thank you.
Burton: Thank you.
Brian Evans: My name is Brian Evans. I live at 2585 Southern Court, on the northern edge of the
development. ! really don't have anything new to say. Everything's been said. Hashed over. I think it's
kind of nice to see the American way here. Everybody getting their say. I just want to say that this is
what I feel. I bought my first house in Chanhassen in 1976 and I've seen a lot of changes and there's
only one opportunity here and I think you know that as a Planning Commission. We want to get it right
the first time. I'd hate to look down the line 5 years and say we did it wrong. We should have used it for
corporate. We should have done something else with it. I guess my other concern is, and it may be
frivolous to some but there's one flock of wild turkeys on that field and my hope is that flock gets
captured and relocated before any kind of a development takes place there. Thank you.
Burton: Thank you.
Pastor Tony Larson: My name is Pastor Tony Larson. I live at 2631 Longacres Drive and I wanted to
address the issue of traffic that wasn't considered earlier as we look at this map here. All the traffic
36
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
that's coming out there on the Highway 5 and then the traffic on the other end going to Highway 41. I
just wanted to bring up the, that I'm well aware of the Westwood's plans of building a church on the
other side. The northwest portion of Highway 41. I know the staff there very well. I have been on a
pastoral staff of a very large mega church in the past and this is what Westwood is and is becoming and I
just wanted to also add the idea of not just Sunday morning traffic coming from the other side of 41, but
also throughout the week. When we're talking about a mega church, the impact of traffic not just on a
Sunday morning or Sunday night or a Saturday night or when they get into multiple services on multiple
nights, then you talk about Wednesday nights and then their plans are to also include some offerings into
the community that would invite more traffic throughout the week, during the day as well as in the
evening and I just wanted to bring up that point that needs to be taken into consideration along with this
development. The impact of further traffic from the other side of 41.
Burton: Thank you. Any other comments?
Steve Hanousek: My name is Steve Hanousek and I live at 7501 Bent Bow Trail in Chanhassen and I
echo what my fellow residents have said tonight. I'm not going to go over that again but I would like just
some clarification. The rental units, are there going to be rental units or are they going to be manor
homes? I know we covered that briefly but that means there needs to be definition of that and I just want
to leave that out there. Thank you.
Burton: Thanks.
Tom Green: My name's Tom Green. I'm Vice President of Mills Fleet Farm. Mills property that owns
that property and I acquired that property for our company back in 1987. I see some familiar faces here,
especially Mr. Conrad.
Conrad: It's too bad isn't it?
Tom Green: Yeah, still there. I've gotten a little older also.
Conrad: Why did you buy that property?
Tom Green: I don't know. But I'd like to go through the history of that land. Some of you folks don't
realize it. Somebody asked about corporate. The original purchase, proposed purchase of that property
from Dr. Savaryn was Minnetonka Inc. The Soft Soap people and they wanted to put a corporate
headquarters there and the City of Chanhassen didn't want it. Mills Fleet Farm came along, and
obviously you know what we wanted to put there, and that such a...cry came up that we ran back to
Brainerd with our tails between our legs and we sat on that property now for 13 years. The Pulte people
came along and frankly it's been zoned for this type of a project and that's apparently what the City
wants and so they've got a reasonable, in my opinion, a reasonable project together and you don't want
that. And so I'm at a loss what we should do with that land and if somebody would want to buy it for
what we're paying taxes on or more, we'd have to consider it because it seems to be impossible to
develop in the city of Chanhassen. Thank you for your consideration.
Burton: Thank you. Any other comments?
Jim Deannovic: I'm Jim Deannovic. I live at 9455 Amsbury in Eden Prairie. I'm the person who owns
the north side of the piece of property who was going to originally do rental townhomes. And it seemed
like there was some indication that Pulte didn't try to make this thing work. Well in fact they have and
37
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
so have I. With the rental townhomes there was never a subsidy from the City taxes. And I think there's
been a lot of miscommunication in that regard and we've tried to work with Pulte to make this happen. I
know that Pulte, I've been at some of the meetings. Pulte's been in here and he's tried really, Pulte's
tried incredibly hard for a long, long time. I feel the same way as Fleet Farm.
Burton: Thanks. Anybody else like to address the commission before xve close the public hearing?
Alright. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burton: Noxv it's our opportunity to discuss the matter. Anybody want to venture forward with their
comments?
Sacchet: Well, I'll get started. You know as I said when I asked, started asking some questions of the
Pulte people, I don't have that many issues with the Pulte thing in front of us. I do believe that in a
traffic location like that, where xve have a highway and another major through road going through, that
that's a good location for high density. I do believe that we need more affordable housing. It's actually
interesting, just a week ago there was a headline in the Star Tribune that reads Met Council tells suburbs
to add affordable housing and then goes on that if the suburbs don't do that, that there will be penalties.
That it's actually going to be pushed with some additional incentives. So it could be costly not to pursue
that. Now the question whether this is really cooked enough, to use an image. I don't think this is
cooked enough. I think that the staff report we have in front of us is not sufficiently working the issues to
the point that I'm comfortable with, that I feel exactly what's in front of me to approve or recommend
approval I should say. I do believe that, my concern is surely with the densities there are issues that some
of you have mentioned a little bit of being a moving target in this process and we need to be very, very
clear about what that aspect is. We need to look at how does it fit into the context and I don't live too far
from there myself. I do believe that the general concept that Pulte puts in front of us with having a
~adual transition from the high traffic area where it's higher density to go up graduallY to lower density,
it makes a lot of sense to me. I support that. I think the proposal has a lot of merits. However I want to
be very clear in terms of what is in front of us with the densities. In terms of the western gateway, well I
have a little bit of issue with that. ! mean for me the western gateway to the city is not the 41 and 5
crossing. For me the entrance to Chanhassen, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is the Arboretum.
And what's that neighborhood there called, Crimson Bay or what. That to me is entering the city. Once
we're at the crossing of 41 and 5 we're unfortunately, I mean I like rural too and I just moved out that
way because it got a little too urbanized here to what's at that part of Chanhassen, but that's what's
happening. And Susan you mentioned it, it's the trend of our time. We can't stop progress so I think the
gateway issue for me is not really an issue. The aspect with traffic that was brought up. Well, as the
traffic increases there will have to be traffic lights. It's just as simple as that. I'm trying to get onto 41
from a little further up north than you guys are in the Longacres area and I do take those left turns and I
have my kids say dad, there's enough room to go. I say no it isn't. I live with that every day but as these
things become issues, as the city we address them and maybe put traffic lights there so my position, to
sum it up and I'II take everybody's time here excessively. I do believe I would like to propose that we
table this here to address a lot of these issues that are still open, but in general I'm thinking this is a great
proposal. It needs to be fine tuned more. All the issues need to be addressed. We have to be very clear
what's in front of us and I think all the questions that you've been raising, especially you Mike Ryan, I
really appreciate all the work you've put into this and ! think we have to be sensitive to all the comments
that were brought up. But then at the same time it's as important as we are sensitive to the comments of
the landowners. I mean just having built a house lately in this city, I have to agree that it is not the
easiest place to build something. Put something in place. And if we have people that have major tracts
38
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
of land and at least in one of the cases have made an effort to develop it, one way or another way. And
then one way we say no. They try to do it the other way, we say no. Well, it's tricky you see. We want
to be consistent with our agreements. We want to honor what we've agreed to do and at the same time
we don't want to be so rigid that we can't do anything anymore. So when we say this is not exactly in
line with all the visions that were there before, well let's be reasonable. It has to be give and take from
everybody. It's a transition from higher density to lower density. The houses that are going to be at the
edges there, yes. They're proposing a duplex home which in that sense is something they're asking us to
approve. Now is that such a bad thing? I personally don't think it's a hurdle that is unsurmountable. I
think we can come across and we have to look at with the PUD the amount of green space that stays there
and yes, you're correct. I did the math myself from the significant trees, depending how we define
significant trees. If we define significant trees as being a tree that is 30 inch or 40 inch or bigger, half of
them will be cut down. And that's an issue I'd like to dig into a little further too. That how much would
be cut down if it would be the traditional development? I would expect more than half. But so what
we're in a position to trying to make it as workable as possible but I think I said my piece so apologize. I
took a while.
Burton: That's alright. Anyone else comments?
Kind: Mr. Chair, I have a question of staff. One of the things that Mike Ryan brought up was the density
transfer from the, how are we describing it? The northwest, I think it's Outlot F. Is in the Bluff Creek
primary zone and so they would not be allowed to build there anyway so we shouldn't allow a density
transfer. Will you, I don't have my Bluff Creek thing here right now. Will you talk about that.
Aanenson: Let me clear up some. When this project originally came in, again there were the two
property owners. Pulte and Mr. Deannovic. Mr. Deannovic owned the Savaryn property. -Owns the
Savaryn piece which is this property right here... Okay. From the beginning the staff has tried to work
the two projects together. The Bluff Creek ordinance is under the jurisdiction of the City of Chanhassen.
We regulate the primary zone. What we have done under the ordinance is said, you can transfer that
density out. That's a way to accomplish the preservation because our goal is to preserve in the primary
zone. If we don't allow the transfer out, we are obligated in the ordinance to allow them a variance to
build within that. We have to give them some property. Now Mr. Ryan is right when he showed that
letter because Pulte's original position was, and we said as staff from day one, our position is we don't
want that property built on. They had no control of that so their letter stated, we're not asking for
anything. Well they weren't because they didn't have control of that property and they have been trying
to gain control of the entire piece and as of late last week, when Mr. Deannovic appears that he's willing
not to do the rental property and Pulte's still trying to get control of the entire piece. That's been our
goal. To have one property owner to work with. It makes it much easier and that's why some of the
ambiguity and that's why it got tabled because Mr. Deannovic came in at the last minute with three
different products and it confused us. We didn't want to come here saying we're not sure exactly what
that's going to be so we recommended that it be tabled until we resolve it. That they again try to have a
neighborhood meeting. So that's where that came from.
Kind: So the proposal before us tonight is one owner, one parcel?
Aanenson: Well they haven't secured that yet. They're working to do that. Right. And that's some of,
what I'm hearing from Uli some of the things he wants to make sure has been resolved. It's a control
issue.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Kind: That makes sense to me. With that I'll expand on my comments if that's alright. I'll try to keep
them short. First of all, all compliments to staff and Pulte and the neighbors for all your comments and
input and hard work on this. I know I spent a lot of time looking at this packet too and I'm sure you all
have spent a lot of time as well and I think it's come a long ways in one year. I can't believe it was a
year ago already that we looked at this. I do have some concerns that need to be addressed, especially if
we table this. If we need to button some of this stuff up. The totlot issues obviously. I don't think that
that is our role as a Planning Commission to get into what we think it should or shouldn't be, big or small
or whatever. That's Park and Rec Commission's role. But from a planning perspective I think we need
to make sure that xve are being consistent xvith other family neighbors, multi family neighborhoods and I
guess I'd like to direct staff to take a look at what we've done in other multi family developments and
give us some information about totlots and that sort of thing. ! do have the same concern I had a year ago
about clustering all the one car garages together. I prefer having one car and two garage units mixed
together. However I think that the village homes, those are the one car units, could be acceptable as far
as quality goes with some of the changes in architecture that I talked about with the applicant. My main
concern is that the back elevations look better and the front entries have the same quality as the other
products. The coach homes and the manor homes and the club homes I think all look quite nice and the
village home in Apple Valley looks a lot better than the one in Eden Prairie so I was pleased about that.
The other concern I had is that, the expectations have been changed for the neighbors and that's the part I
wrestle with. If I was a neighbor, would I feel like the rules have been changed on me? And when I look
at this I see that the housing type has changed. They knew there were going to be possibilities of twin
homes and...to change and I'm trying to sort out how I would feel about that compared to saving that
large stand of trees on 41. And I know that our PUD planning tool is the only way we could transfer
density and save those trees. So next time this comes to the Planning Commission I would like to hear
the neighbors talk a little bit more about whether it's worth it to save those trees or not to transfer the
density. Because we've established now that the density needs to be transferred to do that. Or whether
you feel like the rules have just been changed. So that's my struggle there. On the plus side I think that
the twin homes along the perimeter of the wetland are not changing the rules and the view from
Longacres is the same as it would have been if it was low density housing because then there would have
likely have been txvin homes there as a transition from the medium density on the south side of West 78th,
so I think that ~vould have been a reasonable expectation that there'd be twin homes there. And that
appears to be not changing so that makes a lot of sense to me. And the buffer is a natural buffer that that
large, large wetland seems quite sufficient to me. In fact I think it's awesome. IfI overlooked that I'd
just be so excited. It's very nice. I would also like to see for our next meeting some sort of, I don't know
if proof is the right word or a ghost plan showing how many units could be put in there if it was a
standard subdivision. A ghost plan or, that's what I call it. Not real but just if they complied with our
ordinances, how many trees would we really lose and can you really get 383 units in there on the upland?
I like the idea of providing a different housing style. A non-traditional single family home is important in
this city and it is the only way we're going to meet our affordability goals and ! heard it the same way
Kate did. It's funny how people at the same meeting can hear different.
Aanenson: Maybe ifI could just comment on that. I guess the intent was that we do it per project. What
I heard was new construction.
Kind: I heard all new construction too.
Aanenson: So I just confirmed it with Bob too. That's the way we heard it but obviously there was some
other.
Kind: It's per project.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Aanenson: Well I think that's what other people's expectations were is being per project. I'll go back
and look through the minutes. That certainly wasn't my intent. I'll go back and review the minutes and
see what exactly took place and report that back.
Kind: Okay, so that would be helpful information included next time around. Overall I think PUD's are
good planning. I think if you take a look at the intent of our PUD ordinance, code, this project meets the
requirements of that. We've told the landowner that we don't want a corporate campus there. Soft Soap
was no. We told them we didn't want commercial venture. Big box. No. And we put in our comp plan
that we wanted this to be housing so I think we need to live by that. And it does meet the intent of our
planned unit development standards so I do think it is a good candidate for PUD. I guess that's it.
Blackowiak: Sure, I'll take a stab. I just had three main issues with this pretty much all night. My ,first
big issue is traffic. I'm very worried about access to and from 5 and to and from 41. I know that means
that there will be other lights. I believe there's something scheduled for Century, is that correct Kate?
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: And then more than likely that type of number would necessitate some type of a light to
exit on 41 and I don't know what that street is going to be called.
Aanenson: That's West 78~'.
Blackowiak: Oh it's going to be West 78th? Okay. So have you heard anything, I mean I know it's a
state highway so there's not much.
Saam: On 417
Blackowiak: Yes.
Saam: Stop sign is what I heard.
Aanenson: Right. Not a signal at this point.
Blackowiak: Not signalized?
Saam: No. It's a 3 way stop on the west side. Or the entrance on the west side, yeah. A stop sign.
That's what's shown in the EAW also.
Blackowiak: Okay, so no light huh?
Aanenson: Right. Again let me just rephrase it. That's one of the issues we brought up if this was to go
office industrial. The traffic goes up significantly so I mean the issue doesn't go away if you flip.., in
there, right.
Blackowiak: No, no. But yeah, just overall traffic is an issue for me. My second major issue is that the
rental versus the manor homes has not been resolved and until that issue is fully defined, I don't even, I
don't feel that I could, I would want to really make a vote on that because I think that that issue is going
to really drive a lot of what happens in terms of the neighbors and in terms of school enrollments. In
41
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
terms oftotlots. Just a lot of different things are going to change depending on whether the eastern edge
of the property is rental versus manor homes. And finally, I would like to have a little more input from
park and rec because if they're comfortable with what's on the plans right now, I guess I would have to
question how they got their numbers because I don't think there's enough green space in there. I would
like to see a little bit more. 275's the number that's been bandied around for the cash outlay. That's a
park and rec number so they're going to have to, I mean it's the number that they came up with so I guess
I'll have to, I would like to hear how they arrived at that number and find out if indeed they're
comfortable ~vith that number because it doesn't seem like an awful lot to me either. Short of owning the
property there's not a lot you can do to stop development so I think one of the things that we all have to
remember is, if we have an idea of what we want we have to work to get the best project and I don't
~know if we're quite there yet. I think we're moving in the right direction but I think if we see this again
or maybe a couple times, who knows, we're moving in that direction so I hope that we can continue to
work together and get a product we can all live with.
Burton: Ladd.
Conrad: 100 years ago when I was here I probably was for the commercial development of this. Then I
was for Fleet Farm. I liked that idea. It pays taxes. And we're probably under commercialized in
Chanhassen meaning it's not going to, the percentages are at the low end and it's right now fixed. So in
te~ms of sensitivity to some of this stuff, I think I've lost almost every issue so, and I think the City
Council put a moratorium out here and tried to figure out what to do with it. And they probably, I
probably disagreed with what they wanted to do. That's a set up for my comments I think. This is a
perfect spot that we don't see very often for a PUD in terms of buffering. Normally we're talking about
20 feet. Normally we're talking about 50 feet of three story. We're in a different area here so some of
the comments from the neighborhoods, which I really appreciated. I think everybody's done a terrific
homework and thinking. But from what we're used.to, we're here every 2 weeks. Some of us maybe too
long. This, in my world, is a terrific project based on other things I've seen come in. The neighbors said,
you M~ow a lot of what you said I disagree with but I'd have, we'd be here until midnight and I tell you I
give you why and it'd be fun just to stop your comment and tell you and you should know. You should
know what some of us have been thinking. You really should and I don't want this to go forward
because you may not like what we do but I want you to understand what we might do. I think that's real
important. It's important to be involved. As somebody said, this is the best form of government and to
bundle you in is wonderful. You may not get what you want but you'll hear why and we should do that
job and I think we can make staff do that. My recommendation is to table this and not because I don't
like what I'm seeing in general, because I do. Somehow we have to explain some of these things.
There's too many good things that, they still may not agree with once we explain to the communiW but
they've got to know. So for minutes I think Kate, we've got to go back, and I'm not sure what the
motion's going to be. Well no, I do. We're going to table it but you -know, I think we've got to go back
through the couple hours that we've been here and really pay attention to what the neighbors said. And I
really want to be able to go through and dialogue a little bit about why, the why's. If we can. And that
means you've got to come back and whatever and so, come on back. We've got to do it but you said
some things. The things that I'd like us to take a look at. One, I want park and rec's input. In most
cases, it's a double stream. We are, they're recommending to the City Council stuff and we don't see it
and here's a case where I think their recommendation should be involved with us in a PUD. They
should. We should hear what they're saying about totlots and access to common areas in general. I'd
like to use them that way as a resource and we very seldom do. I want to be totally confident that we
have a diversity and look of colors, materials and whatever within the project. When we put a big project
in, I just don't xvant it stamped out. And there is economics that Pulte is doing that they have to, but
again just to make sure we have the diversity and they said the right thing. I want to make sure Miss
42
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Rosie's comments are bundled into our review in terms of the, it's hard for me to understand what they'd
like in terms of the 300 foot deal so I need staff to advise me on that. I do think Pulte needs to take a
look at the back of the village home. It's not, most of the designs look pretty good to me. I like them.
But that side of the village didn't look quite right. I'd like the city staff to look at the water issue just so I
know what this means. The watering at 2:00 in the morning is ridiculous and that's so stupid, but let's
talk to everyone, me, about it. I don't get it. The tree preservation, I'd like to know a little bit more
about that and what we're saving. I think it was brought up the part, and some of these you'll get offofa
tape but the park dedication calculations, I'd like to explain that and make sure we're on the money there.
The projected students, I'd like to know what they really are based on that. I think a year ago we were
concerned, just like you may be in terms of taxes and what are we bringing in and I think one of the
reasons we were sold on this is it was probably developed for people that really, there weren't that many
kids that were going to affect a school system at that time and therefore the taxes necessary to handle it
may not have to be increased but, and that's funny thinking you know. To get a handle on that but again
I'd want to know. I think I want to know for sure and say well then, just for your benefit, the neighbors
around, that it's probably the same as a single family, 15,000 square foot subdivision or something like
that. Just for your edification. The affordable housing number we need to know what that is. I don't
have a bet on affordable housing. We do have some commitments. I think it's become more of an issue
than maybe it needs to be. Diversity of home styles is, it's the same thing but the offering diversity here
is pretty good. I think you want it. I think you don't want your kids moving some other area. I think we
want a place for senior citizens or people that are moving to a different life style. I think we need that
here. There aren't that many places to put this in the future, and we're here looking at places to put these
type of projects and there aren't many left. There just aren't in Chanhassen. It's, this is one that it may
work. We have the right transportation systems. Logically from a planning standpoint it's not bad
planning. We've got to sell you on that. You may not like it but we should sell you on it. The traffic out
at 41, I need the engineering staff to take a look at it. Make sure it's right. Tell the neighbors it's right.
Tell the neighbors it's wrong. Whatever it is, let's give them the feeling that it's not stupid. We don't
know that. I think we've seen some EAW's but let's take a look. The turkeys on the thing, I'd love to
take the turkeys somehow and make sure it's bundled into this project. We should do that. The design of
the former rental units, I need to -know what that is and I'd like to have staff review the, that corner. I
think the folks from Pulte are probably telling you the right thing. I think the narrow profile, the trees
buffer on that intersection, it may make some sense but I want staff to tell me that. I want in their words
to tell me that it makes some sense. I always thought I wanted to make it the gateway down there but a
low profile and some, a bunch of trees may be a good thing. I'd like our staff to do that so those are my
comments. I'd like staff to review them and hopefully we can, and I only captured some of your
co~nments unfortunately. They're good. They're good comments. I think there's reasons that you're
wrong in some of those comments but I think we should make sure. Make sure that's true. Anyway,
those are my comments. I think it should be tabled for another meeting so somebody can go through
some of these.
Burton: Okay. And I could just simple mirror everybody's comments but I think I agree with everything
you all said but I'll go on and add my own comments anyway. First I want to thank everybody for
coming tonight and also to thank everybody for handling this in kind of a civil and democratic way and
not making this a heated exchange. I think it's a lot more productive to do it the way we're all doing it.
This isn't my dream project. It's not what I would ideally like to see there. I love the rural feel of
Chanhassen. I'd like to preserve that as much as anyone but regardless of what we all want, this is going
to get developed. We can't stop that and that's all been discussed tonight. So I sit back and kind of look
at what the benefits of the project are and the detriments and I do think there are a number of benefits. I
think it's a good way to get the street here. It's a good way to work on meeting our affordable housing
goal which my understanding is historically has been a very important goal of this city and it's becoming
43
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
even more important as the Met Council is directing. This may be a better way to preserve the trees than
other alternatives. I think il~'s also a good and natural way to have transition from the high traffic areas to
the lower density housing. And I also think, as I think Ladd mentioned it, it is good planning practice.
We've got a plan for development that's going to happen west of even here and I think this project takes
that into consideration. The detriments again I think they're, and I can't get around this one no matter
what comes. I'm saddened that we lose the rural flavor of the area, but you can't do anything about that
really. The neighbors concerns are all detriments of the project. I know the tax issues, city services
issues with the water. I think it's important that we consider the neighbors expectations of when they
originally came to the area. And what's coming here now. The wildlife's an issue and also perhaps even
the additional traffic from the church. When that is ultimately developed. Additional concerns that I
have, and I'm sorry my notes, I'm trying to read some of my notes and my handwriting is just atrocious
so it's kind of hard. I do have concerns about the adequacy of the recreation areas and the totlots. I
would also like to have the input of the park and rec commission on that. Our PUD ordinance, and it's
intent says that it's the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality
and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with other more standard zoning districts, and
I'm not sure if we have that yet. I think that's part of what we're asking staff to clarify. I have, I'd like
to see something kind of special and different here. I'm not sure that we have that. And I think that's
sort of what some of Deb's questions were directed toward is improving some of the getting a little bit
more higher quality of the development and I'd also like to see a more sensitive proposal to the
environment and the neighbor's concerns. And I don't know what to do about the gateway issue. I guess
I could be convinced that this is satisfactory too. Another element is again weighing the neighbor
concerns versus the affordable housing goal. I think that we can still have an affordable housing element
to this project and still meet the neighbors concerns. And ! also would like to make sure that we have
something in our proposal next time that addresses protecting the McAllister property. I know that there
are a number of lawsuits where people move into a, it's called moving into a nuisance, i don't think their
property's a nuisance but that's what they call these type of suits and I want to protect the McAllister
property from those type of claims. I don't want anybody to be complaining about the animals when
they've known it's been there all along. We do have a high amount of discretion in reviewing these
things. I think it makes sense to table this and I'd ask that the neighbors stay involved throughout the
process and keep helping us out with our decision. And with that, I guess we need a motion.
Sacchet: I want to make sure we do the best we can do so, and I'm making a motion to table this.
Burton: Is there a second?
Blackowiak: Second.
Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to table action on the request from Pulte Homes for
Arboretum Village at the corner of Highways 41 and 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman a point. Can we make sure we know what we're doing by tabling it? And the
process. Will we be, Mr. Chairman will staff be addressing the issues we just brought up? And it's
going to be that simple? Is there any kind of neighborhood involvement that's necessary before that
meeting? Is there anything you'd like to have done with the applicant present to the neighborhood?
Anything on that?
Burton: ! think it would make sense to have a meeting with the applicant and the neighbors before we
see it again. And incorporate whatever comments they have to staff.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Conrad: I'm not sure.
Aanenson: Can I address that? We are clicking on a clock of timeframe to get this reviewed. I
anticipated this is going to take longer. Have spoken to the applicant and he's willing to give us extra
time. At least 120 days. The next Planning Commission meeting is January 2nd. It is a hard time to try to
get together and the Park Commission, I believe their next regular meeting is not until January. So if you
wanted their input, we're kind of pushing us back into January to resolve some of these issues. Certainly
there needs to be some clarification communicated. As Ladd pointed out, understanding the ordinance,
that sort of thing. I think that's going to take neighborhood input. Some redesign between the applicant
and the neighbors and staff. So we're probably looking probably towards the end of January. I just need
to make sure that the applicant's going to give us that extension to meet the State... If you wanted to ask
that, if we can do that.
Burton: Would the applicant, can the City have that extension of time?
Dennis Griswold: Until the end of January?
Aanenson: Well for the Planning Commission I mean but by the time it goes to Council, you're talking
February. I have the date starting the 60 day, October 23rd. So in December we're at 60 days and I'm
telling him we need another 60 days at a minimum and then we have to re,evaluate that.
Dennis Griswold: Is there not a Planning Commission first half of January?
Aanenson: Yes there is but if they're recommending that they want input from the Park Commission, I
don't believe they meet until later in the month. They may be having a special meeting this month. I'm
not sure what their agenda is. I'm just saying...
Burton: Yeah, I think we come before the Park Commission in January and we need, we're asking for
their input before we meet so we would probably be the 16th of January would be our next one? It'd be
two weeks after the 2nd.
Aanenson: Correct.
Burton: So that would be our next one. And then we go to council so we're just looking to have time so
it goes to council, came to the council in the time frame that you require.
Dennis Griswold: We'll go with that extension but I would ask your indulgence if we could have the
information together to make a decision at that point. And I know you don't know what we're bringing
back to you but I would want you to understand that...very critical and very important to us. We want to
work with the city on the time issue too but give us a decision.
Burton: And I can't tell you what will happen in our next meeting but we understand your concern and
we understand that we need to make a decision. We have to make a decision because the time's going to
run anyway so we're going to be forced to make a decision.
Conrad: Mr. Chair, can we ask to see if this could get onto the Park and Rec's agenda?
45
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Aanenson: Did anticipate that question coming up. I spoke with Todd. They are having a special
meeting. I'm not sure if you can get it on. Certainly the neighbors want to have input too. I'm not sure
what their timeframe is. So we'll just have to see what we can do to communicate that. I just want
everybody to know that's part of the process.
Conrad: We conduct public hearings, excuse me Mr. Chair.
Burton: That's fine.
Conrad: We conduct the public hearing. I think the public made their comments known tonight. At least
about the part of the totlots. Are there other issues? There are. Okay.
Audience: Can I make a comment? Or not?
Burton: Quick.
Audience: Very quickly. I just think what we want to make sure is that we take the time and if this is
going to happen, which I heard from a couple people that it's going to. Or at least under very serious
consideration, from my standpoint and ! won't talk for everybody. From my standpoint is, I just want to
make sure we do do it right. And the density issue and quality issue and some buffering, some things like
that are important. We think...gateway and I would just love to sit down and talk about that. Really I
would because I think it's important. But that's what we would like. I would like to have input on is
what happens. And I think time is understandably for the developer is important.
Burton: Yeah, we're trying to accommodate all that. So I just want to be clear on the extension that we
have.
Aanenson: I'm saying, I just don't see, even if the park commission met sooner, I'm not sure based on
we're getting towards the holidays, we can work with the neighbors and get that through the process in
that first meeting. I think w'e're going to need at least until the 16th meeting in January to, for the next
Planning Commission.
Burton: For the extension that we actually need from the applicant though, is itjust through the 16tl~ of
January we need or do you need to make sure it gets...
Aanenson: Well I'm telling him we're taking the extra 60 days. It may go longer than that. Just so he's
aware of that and, otherwise you're going to have to make a recommendation, whether it's favorable or
not, and get it up to the City Council so we stay ~vithin that.
Burton: Okay. Anybody have any other issues they need to? Okay. Alright, we're actually going to
move on to old business.
OLD AND NEW BUSINESS.
Aanenson: ...Anyways I just wanted to share with you where the park design is going on this project.
This is an area again that we got through the projects. The PUD on the one side and it's been left natural.
It's a very nice, natural area. 100 acre park. And the high area to the wetland. This is the Trotter's
Ridge subdivision with Coulter going through it. Now looking at the parking for this area and the trails.
As you recall this is an area we also looked at using as a place for the school kids to go over and use
46
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
some of that. Do some of their field work so the park commission is now just putting together a design
and I just wanted to share that with you what's happening on that piece of property.
Burton: Thanks. So that was old? How about something new?
Aanenson: Our first meeting in December, we do have one. January. January 2nd. We do have one
subdivision on. Sorry, a rezoning. It's a lot that has...be seeing that. As part of the application for that
first variance you saw, there is another request that Anita may be coming through with her own request
on that. She wanted to do it the same meeting but we wanted to keep those two separate issues. But as
part of that application so you may be seeing that too to come back through. So that's it, and again we
wanted enough time to resolve all the issues on this. That's all.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
dated November 14, 2000 as presented.
OPEN DISCUSSION.
Aanenson: I do have an open discussion. We do need to advertise. In the past, this time of the year
Mayor Elect asked about that. Ms Jansen asked about when we're going to advertise. We found in the
past, we moved it to April expirations. This is a difficult time of year to advertise for replacement of
Planning Commission so we'll be looking at doing that the first of the year. Until then, until we get a
replacement, I'm not sure what you want to do as Matt.
Kind: You did a fine job tonight.
Aanenson: If you want to wait until we get somebody else involved and then kind of restructure that
whole thing so we'll just kind of leave it status quo, if that's okay. And then LuAnn should be here at the
next meeting too so we'll just kind of run it that way until we get somebody else on bOard and then we
can make it, if that's okay to make those decisions. We just found in the past that there's so much other'
things going on, people aren't reading the paper to look for those ads so we'll do that right after the first
of the year.
Kind: Mr. Chair I have one more open discussion item.
Burton: You can do whatever you want. It's open right?
Kind: I don't even have to talk to you?
Burton: No.
Kind: The concept of using upland only for calculating lot sizes, this came up tonight and I was just
wondering if staff could take a look at our ordinance and make sure that that is what we have in there.
That you can only use upland to calculate. My intent is to avoid having situations like Longacres where
the lots included part of the wetland to calculate...
Aanenson: The lot lines went out. They still had to have so much upland so that, yes. That's a good
question. The lot lines went out into the wetland. Generally we don't do that so that's, while the
property lines go out, they still have to have so much upland. It doesn't count towards the density.
47
Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000
Kind: ...prohibits that from having lot lines going into the wetland?
Aanenson: Sure. When you review each subdivision. That one was done in like 1991 or 2. We don't do
that as a general rule, but as far as their density calculation under that PUD, they were given based on
upland. The wetlands weren't included. The lots go out. I mean the smallest lots in there could be
11,000 but they had an average of 15. But they weren't counted towards that.
Kind: The wetland portion wasn't counting towards the 11,0007
Aanenson: No. The lot lines just extended out there.
Generous: Or 15.
Kind: And do we currently have an ordinance that prohibits that fi'om happening again where lot lines go
out into the wetlands?
Aanenson: I can't think of another example where we have that. There might be one or two. As a
general rule we don't, and that was done before we did the new wetland ordinance. Again that was in
'92. We've done the new wetland ordinance that requires the entire buffering and the averaging. I
believe that was done before that.
Kind: I was just wondering if there was some aspect of our code that we should be taking a look at just
to make sure that that doesn't happen.
Aanenson: Sure. We'll look at that.
Kind: I'll go home and pour over it.
Conrad: Kate a quick update. What happened to that one parcel on Lake Riley where we wanted a
buffer. What did council do?
Kind: The Witt's.
Aanenson: I don't believe they had to put anything in. Lori just left but she had to evaluate the runoff.
If there was additional runoff, then they had to put something on.
Generous: What they did install was found sufficient I believe.
Conrad: What they did install, which was nothing right?
Kind: Rip rap and blue grass.
Sacchet: Here's another ordinance thing that came up in this Pulte thing with the boulevard tree planting.
Do we allow them to do it 55 feet while the ordinance says 30 and it looks like the ordinance was done
by somebody who doesn't 'know trees so we should change the ordinance.
Aanenson: Right. With Jill's had that discussion before with the Planning Commission and with the
City Council because her feeling is that instead of stamping them in places that you maybe want to
cluster them, get better you know, and then spacing them out. And depending on the topography, if
48
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
you've got an area that's going down. Maybe you want to skip that space so we've tried to say, you have
to have trees equal to that spacing but then we sometimes would group them if you have maybe a
deciduous and a conifer or something like that along the street. So we'd say you have to have that
quantity. But they may not always be 30 on center. Sometimes you need more. Sometimes you need
less, depending on that.
Sacchet: So there is actually a rationale in 30 is what you're saying?
Aanenson: Yes. We've had that in a work session I believe that's come up. I lmow that's been asked by
the council, which is a segway to another one. We do have two work sessions again scheduled for next
year and I believe the first one will be in February. So if you're thinking of topics to discuss.
Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was
adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
49
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
Chairwoman Lash called the Park and Recreation Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Fred Berg, Mike Howe, Jim Manders, David Moes, Jay Karlovich,
and Rod Franks
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent; and Cory Hoen, Recreation Supervisor
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was amended to show there was a report in the packet for
number 8, Park and Trail Maintenance.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Franks moved, Karlovich seconded to approve the Minutes of the
Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated October 24, 2000 as presented. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
ESTABLISH 2001 PICNIC RESERVATION FEE.
Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Lash, and rest of commissioners. As you know we review this item on an
annual basis. Take a look at kind of where we've been and where we're going in the future. Right now,
this past year, the year 2000 we did book 135 picnics. Separate reservations with a total revenue of just
about $10,500 with that which is up about $1,000-$1,500 from last year. We talk about this on an annual
basis and we talked about this at length last year and it's still my belief that we-maintain the same fee
structure as we have in the past with the fear of backlash so to speak if we do have a rate increase. We
do provide a good quality service for the price. We are a little bit on the higher end as you know for fees,
but I believe we offset that with quality facilities so what I want to do, or make a recommendation is that
we maintain the same fees as we've had for 2000 and carry that into 2001 and review it again next
November or December.
Lash: I'm sorry, what's the amount that you said we have that's an increase.
Ruegemer: It's about $1,000-$1,500 from last year. With a total of about 25, approximately 25 to 30
reservations. Increased reservations.
Lash: Okay. Anyone who has comments or questions for Jerry.
Franks: Do you know overall Jerry with the reservation fee, the most negative comment that we had on
their comment return sheets?
Ruegemer: That certainly is, I mean certainly taking phone calls and Cory can attest to this too. He took
a number of phone calls on picnics this summer too. That is really kind of the number one reason for
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
people not booking with us is reservation fees. Neighboring communities, Chaska for example, their
resident fees are relatively inexpensive. Under $50.00 where our's are higher than that obviously but I
don't think their facilities compare to our's either. So we do have a little bit of advantage. But certainly
when you get to non-residents, businesses, that rate which is really a big part of our business on the fees,
you start to get high.
Berg: How close would you guess we are to maxing out in terms of using the facilities to the maximum?
Ruegemer: You know statistically, we're at about 35%. If you book out everything. If you do a master
report of everything. All the, you know basically you know Friday, Saturday, Sunday are really the main
dates. I do a picnic Monday or Wednesday every so often. But for the most part it's the weekends right
now and I think it was, I looked at it, it was like 35 to 37% approximately.
Lash: Of,just the weekends? Or total including all the weekends?
Ruegemer: Total number of hours available for rental.
Lash: So you're counting during the week too?
Ruegemer: Right.
Lash: But of the weekends?
Ruegemer: Weekends, I didn't break it down that far but weekends for the most part were pretty well
booked for the two pavilions. We certainly can increase Lakeside and the Parkview sites.
Moes: Yeah I thought when we had talked earlier in the year it sounded like even back in the March-
April timeframe that the weekends were more or less booked already for all of them, which was good
news.
Lash: Any other comments or questions fOr Jerry? Okay, is there a motion to send on?
Berg: I move we recommend to City Council that we maintain the reservation fees for 2001 to be the
same as they were for the year 2000.
Lash: Is there a second to that?
Moes: Second.
Berg moved, Moes seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approve the fees for 2001
Group Reservation fees to remain the same as the fees for 2000. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
PULTE HOMES: REQUEST FOR A REZONING REQUEST FROM A-2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ~
OFFICE TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL, AND
PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBDMSION OF 120.93 ACRES, WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF
2
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REVIEW OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR A MIXED HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT (383 UNITS} CONSISTING OF CLUB HOMES, MANOR HOMES, COACH
HOMES, VILLAGE HOMES AND RENTAL TOWNHOMES ON 89.5 ACRES AND 2.9 ACRES
OF COMMERCIAL USES AND ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND
LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND HIGHWAY 41,
ARBORETUM VILLAGE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dennis Griswold
Leah Hawke
M.K.
Sherry & Bob Ayotte
Linda Jansen
Pulte Homes of Minnesota
7444 Moccasin Trail
9911 Deerbrook
6213 Cascade Pass
City Council Member
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Lash: Does anyone have questions for staff before we hear from Mr. Griswold? Okay.
Dennis Griswold: Thank you and good evening. Dennis Griswold with Pulte Homes. I'm the Director
of Land with Pulte. I think the site was summarized very well in terms of the open space and systems
that are involved. I'm very pleased with the site plan and I think it will be an excellent place for the
various residents that we're providing homes for to live. We are providing a life cycle community that
will be a combination of active adults down through first time home buyers so we'll have quite an age
range in the community and quite a difference in recreational needs. The common elements that will
connect those different housing areas are the paths and open space. I think the general character of the
site with the tree stand down by the pond along TH 5 and the large tree stand up in the northwest comer
by the marsh, the wetland coming up through the middle of the property in the manor home area, which
is right in here. All of those elements will retain the natural features of the site and I think it will be a
very nice blend with the housing and the natural features. The one area that is somewhat off of the,
there. It shows now. The outlot over here, will be receiving some wetland mitigation. Kind of
reworking the north part where it is an open field to accommodate the mitigation that we will be needing
for actually two wetlands that we're dealing with. One was located down in the southwest comer here
that's fairly visible from Highway 5. And then one is just a minor crossing one street. Needs to cross
that drainageway on the north. The net effect is that that whole 11 acres west of TH 41 will remain
essentially a very nice natural area. A combination of the woods on the south 2/3 and the upland buffer
and wetland on the northern part. So that will be a very nice natural part of your green space corridor
going through. And it will connect to the trees along the marsh on the northwest comer that will remain.
I think those are benefits that are benefits to the overall community. They're somewhat benefits to the
residents who will be living on this site but they do definitely help the overall community in the larger
scheme of things. We do have two things I just wanted to touch on. I guess I just want to make sure you
have the total picture of some of the path systems. The one that was not indicated as along here. There's
a walkway that comes along this easterly street as part of the overall system. There's a walk along here
and the internal path that connects to the public path so there are a lot of different options interconnecting
through the total site so that people on both sides of 78th Street will either be able to connect to the public
path along the marsh or to the public sidewalk and path along 78th Street to possibly go down to the
3
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
commercial area or elsewhere. I think it's, the other point that I wanted to make too is this, one of the
major revisions that we did on this particular site is we reconfigured the village homes into 4, 6 and 8
plexes instead of 12 plexes that were L-shaped and that allowed us to open up that area in the middle
there. That green space area is actually 1 ½ football fields. There's a football field size on the south 2/3
and then the north third is where the volleyball and half court and totlot will be. So it's actually 1 ½
football fields or an acre and a half there. On the north side, in the manor home area we have that acre of
open space right in this area and then about an acre and a half to 2 acres through here. In fact I think the
total is a little more than 2 acres. So I think even though we are saving some of those major areas, the
wood stand, up along 41, and the wood stand down on 5, we are able to get some very meaningful green
space corridors interconnecting throughout the total community. With that I'd be happy to answer any
questions you might have. I think we've addressed most of the concerns that we understood were
brought out at future meetings. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Lash: Okay. Thanks Mr. Griswold. Mike, can we start down at your end?
Howe: I don't have any questions.
Lash: You don't have any? David, do you have any?
Moes: Yeah, just maybe a couple of updates for me. I'm seeing there's Phase I and Phase II. What's the
timing difference between the two phases?
Dennis Griswold: 12 months essentially. The Phase I xvould be this portion through here and Phase II
would be this portion. This being the phase line. And our endeavor would be to start first thing in the
spring of next year '01 with Phase I. And the spring of '02 for Phase II. It would be a 12 month
increment.
Moes: Well the reason I ask the question is just in looking at the map here is we've got the one totlot
located down in the bottom right hand corner there and that seems like that's the one that ~vould support
Phase I development and individuals moving in there. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it looks like the other
totlot and the major open area here comes in to play with Phase II. Am I reading that correctly?
Dennis Grisxvold: Yeah, they're actually shown within the Phase II but I think from an actual approach
to the development, the Phase II will be underway and those rec areas would be put in timely with any
meaningful move in's in Phase I. So we'll have essentially all of next summer through fall to do the
Phase I site development. And we would have models open hopefully by Parade of Homes in September
of next year and then the first actual closings don't happen until at the earliest November but typically
December of that year. And then in the following year. And that's when Phase II development would
be happening that following year and that's when you actually get to the landscaping of some meaningful
unit count.
Moes: Okay. And just I raise it because it just comes to mind as I'm thinking, you know with a
development there's probably one place where families are moving in that the kids can go without being
in the way of trucks and mud.
Dennis Griswold: Oh sure.
4
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Moes: That would be the play areas and you know 12 to 18 months further down when people start
moving in, that initially to me kind of is a concern. The timing of that all. Just putting that out there as a
thought.
Dennis Griswold: Sure. Those, the recreation features would be put in just as quickly as we would be
able to landscape around the occupied units and completed units. So I think they will be timely when the
people actually move in.
Moes: Okay.
Lash: Do you have anything else David?
Moes: Not now.
Lash: No? Okay, Rod.
Franks: How many units total are you proposing in that plan?
Dennis Griswold: Total unit count is 383.
Franks: And how many of those are village home units?
Dennis Griswold: Villages are 160. They're the yellow ones down toward Highway 5.
Franks: Right. And then the 6 plex ones are the club homes?
Dennis Griswold: No, they're the coach homes.
Franks: Coach homes. And how many coach homes units approximately.
Dennis Griswold: There are 82 coach. So there's a total of 242 south of 78th Street.
Franks: Thanks for doing the math for me.
Dennis Griswold: Then just to carry it on. The manor homes are the darker townhomes kind of in the
center north of 78th. There are 73 of the manor homes. And then 36 of the club homes which are the one
level, walkouts for the active adults up on the north side along the marsh. And then the 32 units to the
east are the rental townhomes.
Franks: Okay.
Dennis Griswold: And the small area down in the lower right comer is 2.9 acres of commercial.
Franks: Neighborhood commercial?
Dennis Griswold: Correct.
Franks: That's Outlot D.
5
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Dennis Griswold: Yes.
Franks: And I know that you have formulas for figuring out, for all the demographics for all the different
homes but I don't know if you've added them all up but, what is the number of children that you're
expecting? Based on the demographics that you've put out in your proposal here. Have you ever
multiplied that out?
Dennis Griswold: I'd have to do the math on it myself. I'm afraid to say. And I should have done it.
The club homes, there are 36 club homes and our demographics show .14 kids per unit. Or kids per
household there. So that's roughly a half a dozen. The manor homes are .32 so that's a third, roughly 24
so that's 30 between the 2.
Franks: 1.4 children per unit in the club homes?
Dennis Griswold: In the club homes, right.
Lash: Point 14.
Franks: Point 14.
Dennis Griswold: i'm sorry, .14. They're active adults so kids in those units are typically high school or
college kids coming home periodically. The coach homes, that's .16. So that's roughly what, 15. And
then the village homes are .25. So that would be 40 total. And the village and the coach are typically
beginner home buyers so the kids in those units are the younger kids. I think it was mentioned that the
totlot in that area would be for the 3 to 5 year olds. Very young kids. And then the older ones xvould be
north. North of 78~h. So that adds up to 84 total kids in the development, if I did my math correctly.
Franks: That's not including the rental area?
Dennis Griswold: No. I'm sorry. The rental, I don't have his demographics on those exactly. I would
think it would be more comparable to our manors of about a third but, .32, but I don't know that for sure.
Lash: Can I just jump in for a second right here?
Franks: Go ahead.
Lash; Under your, the thing with the rental, it says typical people going in would be a single mom with 2
kids or a family with 4 or 5 people. So that would tell me the average would be 2 kids.
Dennis Griswold: 2 kids, yeah.
Lash: And how many rental units are there?
Dennis Griswold: There are 32 there. So if that's the case, if we had 2, that'd be 64 so...
Franks: Do you have proposals about the level of equipment that you're considering in providing in
these totlots?
6
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Dennis Griswold: At this time I don't. I just put a square on the map to show where they would be
located. My thought would be that we'd be working with staff to get the appropriate design.
Franks: Do you have a dollar amount that you typically budget for a totlot?
Dennis Griswold: Usually in totlots we're in the 10 to 15 range is kind of an average.
Franks: And is that $10,000 to $15,000 worth of equipment or is that including the basketball pad and
the benches?
Dennis Griswold: No, that's the structure of just the equipment for the totlots. It's not the half court or
the volleyball.
Franks: It's 10 to 15 in play structure equipment.
Dennis Griswold: Correct.
Lash: So that's not your pea rock and border and all that too?
Dennis Griswold: That's typically our package for the totlot. Again, when we get to that detail we'd
really like to kind of work with staff on it.
Franks: Are we going to have time for comments?
Lash: Yes.
Franks: Okay, thank you.
Lash: Okay. My questions, I think most of them l~ave been answered already. ! certainly do want to
have either the commission or the staff have input into the totlot. That was a concern for me after
viewing the one that's over on Marshall in Shakopee. I drove through that one and I really do not feel
like the equipment in there would be adequate for the needs of 40 children. And Todd had made a
suggestion, and I made a note of it too, but now I lost my note. That one of them be for, you had one 3 to
5 and two 5 to 12. Were you recommending which ones were which?
Ho£fman: I think Mr. Griswold talked about this would be 3 to 5 down here. For the type of unit that is
located in this area.
Lash: So the demographics of the children are that they would be younger there?
Dennis Griswold: Right.
Lash: Okay. Then my other, so then the other two would be 5 to 7. Is that correct?
Hoffman: 5 to 12.
Lash: 5 to 12. That's what I mean. Then the area down in the far right by the rental units. How big
would that play area there be? I mean are you talking about a typical totlot there or?
7
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Dennis Griswold: Again I haven't detailed it but I showed them all the same size.
Lash: No, I meant area wise. Footage of the play. Not the equipment but the space itself.
Dennis Griswold: [ think what I had was a 50 foot square on the map to show the totlot designation.
Lash: So that would be, according to just our quick math, that would be the area that would probably
have the most kids. That would be the one that we estimated having 64 kids using that and that looks to
me to be the smallest of the three areas so, I think that's something we might want to look at. I don't
know what you can do about it but.
Hoffman: It may end up as well to be a concern for that unit. One thing I don't think any of us want to
get into is having, you know that back yard seem like more of a park than for those folks that are located
there so I'm not sure, so you guys will have to take a look at that.
Lash: Okay.
Hoffman: In the recommendation I stated minimum of 40. I didn't want to get in the business of telling
them what they should spend on these but at a minimum of 40 children, they'll be a little bit higher than
$10,000 to $15,000. It's a good starting point. What you feared, you don't want to end up with a single
deck with a slide and...
Lash: That's what they have over in Shakopee.
Hofflnan: One platform off of it so at 40 children, they'll probably be a little closer to $20,000.
Lash: Okay. I think that's it for my questions for now for you Mr. Griswold.
Dennis Griswold: Thank you.
Lash: Fred, do you have anything?
Berg: Just a couple left over. I know one of our original concerns when you first came to us in August
was what this was going to look like from Highway 5 and Highway 41. Sort of as the gateway obviously
from the west. What is it going to look like? What am I going to typically see coming into Chanhassen
from Victoria for example?
Dennis Griswold: Well what we have is a pretty thick band of vegetative and berming screening along
both 5 and 41. And then the way it's designed, the end of the buildings are generally pointing to the
street so you're not getting the full shot of the back of a building. So we're trying to minimize that
impact and also make the spaces between the buildings, somewhat enclose the back of the buildings
coming out with plant material coming through here. And that would enclose these court areas behind
the buildings. But the generally the view would be plant material that would supplement the existing tree
stand over by the pond.
Berg: So are you talking trees? Are you talking shrubs? Coniferous? Deciduous?
8
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Dennis Griswold: Essentially all of those. A lot of evergreens. A lot of half trees. Ornamentals. Shade
trees. Kind of a combination of all those. At this level I haven't gotten into detail of shrub massing but
we typically, we put that in conjunction.
Berg: There'd be a berm besides? Or would it be relatively flat?
Dennis Griswold: Berming where we can and I don't think it's really flat in any space. It's somewhat
sloped in some areas and a combination of slopes and berms throughout the whole area.
Berg: What was the original plan, staff, Todd maybe you know too. What was the original plan for
Outlot E?
Hoffman: Up here?
Berg: Yeah.
Hoffman: At one point they were discussing the sale of that property to the adjoining landowners.
Berg: Okay. So this is a change from what we heard the last time?
Hoffman: Well, yeah. There were no specific proposals on what it would be at that time. It was kind of
one of those things that was still in negotiations but I think.
Dennis Griswold: If I may add to that. The original proposal was that we were not purchasing Outlot E
and the underlying property owner was going to develop the appropriate number of units per the guide
plan on that site. I think that was somewhere in the 30 or 34 units over there is what he thought he'd be
able to get. During the process of going from the concept to preliminary plat we have acquired that as
part of this proposal and have incorporated that into this proposal so we are controlling that and we'll be
keeping the existing trees and the wetlands that we were talking about. So that will remain natural over
there.
Berg: So you don't have any plan to develop that?
Dennis Griswold: No. In fact this, as part of this planned unit development, that would have covenants
and restrictions on it that it will be forever natural as part of the natural corridor through there.
Berg: Okay. That's what I thought ! understood before. Last question, and I don't know if it's fair or
not. When we talk about losing 50% of the trees, what kind of numbers are we talking about?
Dennis Griswold: Numbers of trees?
Berg: Yeah.
Dennis Griswold: I don't know ifI can give you a couple exactly. All I can say is it's significantly less
than the number of trees we're planting and I know we're talking about existing trees of different
varieties and proposed trees that would be nursery stock but we are planting a significant amount.
Berg: What's a significant amount?
9
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Dennis Griswold: Oh, over a thousand trees. It's large.
Berg: So is 50% 500 trees would you guess?
Dennis Griswold: I'd have to revisit the exact numbers.
Berg: Okay. It's not necessarily a fair question anyway. I'm just trying to put a number to...
Dennis Griswold: My understanding was that it met the guidelines of percentages and so forth. And we
have worked very hard trying to save the trees that we can. And if you can bear with me on this, this is a
very complex site to deal with in terms of the natural corridor. The natural amenities. The man made
corridor of'78th. The upgrading of 5. The new creation of Century Boulevard. All of those features
interact and I think this planned unit development works well with melding between the natural and the
man made corridor so.
Hoffman: This will give you an idea of materials.., show the tree stand as it's present configuration.
Each one of those symbols represents a tree on that site. And that's approximately taken out right about
there.
Lash: Could you count those up quickly?
Karlovich: In the plan here it says that 106 trees are lost to the MnDot improvements and 300 due to the
residential improvements.
Berg: Okay, so close to 5.
Karlovich: 406.
Berg: That's all I had.
Lash: Okay, thanks Fred. Jay?
Karlovich: My first question is probably for staff. Todd, can you explain to me the north trail and the
south trail and when those are going to be built? I'm looking at, the north trail I think is somew, here up
off of the map here that we can see.
Hoffman: The north trail would be this, you're referring to this trail. And then south public trail, there's
a trail along West 78th that is being constructed as a part of that project next year. So this will be the two
public trail elements as part of this along with the trail and down along Highway 5 and 41.
Karlovich: And is there some other trail on the north side of the wetland?
Hoffman: There's an existing trail there through the Longacres development.
Lash: And this hooks up?
Hoffman: It will hook up, yes.
10
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Karlovich: And then when you say the wetlands will be deeded to the city as a park, there's a couple
different wetlands. There is one along the north. One along the east and kind of one along the south. Is
that, or which wetland is getting deeded to the city?
Hoffman: Working with Kate Aanenson, in other locations in the city, this was a part of the association
for the lot lines in a single family if they went out. Then you would be seeking an easement and what
that causes is some property management issues between the existing landowners. For example in the
Longacres you have lots, private lots on both sides of the trail, and then the public trail goes through and
there's instances where people want to cross that, they walk their dogs across it... So we would like to
see a line established here along the trail and then to the north it'd be a public outlot or a park outlot.
And it's not that we were going to do anything. I don't care who owns the wetland, who has the
underlying ownership. Nothing's going to happen to it. It just allows us access to our trail and mitigates
those broader management issues.
Karlovich: And then that like 40 foot buffer line is kind of somewhere around there that it shows up?
There was like a 20 foot line that's kind of the line along the.
Hoffman: Wetland edge?
Karlovich: Right. We can fit our trail in there and?
Hoffman: Yes.
Karlovich: But they actually even construct that?
Hoffman: Yes.
Dennis Griswold: I might add to that, the trail along that marsh will essentially coincide with the
location of the public improvement for the sanitary sewer that will run along there so we won't be just, or
the city won't be just cutting a path to put the trail in. It will be sanitary sewer installation. A trail put on
top of it. And so we'll get double duty out of that scar if you will through there. So that alignment will
be determined through survey to coordinate with the sanitary and then we would define that easement or
outlot relative to it.
Karlovich: And another question. How would that property line go kind of north of the large rectangular
exception? Do you know what I'm saying Todd?
Hoffman: Here?
Karlovich: The wood land. Who's going to own the wood land there?
Dennis Griswold: That would be part of our common open space. Association land with the townhomes
here. There's a slope through here. Maybe a path would be essentially toward the bottom of the slope.
And upslope would be an association property. Similar to what's happening over here.
Lash: So would that be part of the conservation easement also? Or are you talking about.
Dennis Griswold: That common space?
11
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Lash: Well the outlot.
Dennis Griswold: The tree area?
Lash: Yeah, well the outlot on the other side of 41 is supposed to be conservation easement. So would
also that wooded triangular piece be a part of that so it would always?
Dennis Griswold: It would be part of the association area and part of the covenants would preclude
clearing it.
Karlovich: The conservation easement for Outlot E, the one on the west side of 41. Is that an easement
that's granted to the City? Or is that just handled by homeowner association covenants?
Dennis Griswold: That would be to the city.
Karlovich: And then the other piece north of exception then, the other woods down here is just regulated
by your covenants then?
Dennis Griswold: Con'ect.
Karlovich: I have no further questions at this time.
Lash: Okay, thanks Jay. Todd?
Hoffman: Just to follow up. Dennis, now knoxving the numbers that we might see in the rental units.
Would you be willing to work with, the sidewalk is on this side. Currently on this side. I'm wondering if
we should look to that sidewalk on the east side to allow easier access to this totlot. What's going to
happen now is these residents are going to start to discuss how their children will have to cross the street
to gain access to that sidewalk and then cross the street again. Or walk on the street. Or go through these
back yards to gain access to this totlot. So I think we could probably do a better job for everybody trying
to gain access to this location.
Dennis Griswold: That xvould be fine with me. I don't see a problem. If that would work better for the
overall, it doesn't matter if it's here or here. And I'd agree with your... We would still have a crossing
going into that to come to that. And being that this is kind of an interior street, I don't think crossing it...
The one thing that I failed to get on this map is I would see putting a path connection here too as part of
the loop. And I think that just got missed.
Lash: I have one quick follow-up question on Fred's, on the trees and the plantings on the berm. And
know this probably falls more under the Planning Commission's jurisdiction but we like trees too so.
When you're talking about all the trees along the berm, are you talking about like you know, cute little
trees like this or are you talking about real trees that we'll see when we come down 5? Because
sometimes we just get little bitty trees.
Dennis Griswold: Well I think we have, let me get to the actual plant list. Right now they're showing as
a 2 ½ inch deciduous and 6 foot evergreens throughout.
Lash: Okay.
12
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Dennis Griswold: I think that is your standard.
Lash: Yeah, that sounds like a real tree. 6 foot. Okay, thank you.
Berg: Because in the perfect world it would be nice coming in on Highway 5 and one day noticing, oh
there's houses back there.
Lash: Behind all those trees.
Berg: Behind all those trees.
Dennis Griswold: Well you'll be able to do that until the trees grow up but then it will be pretty thick I
think. But I think in the overall, you do have better luck, at least in my estimation, in mass plantings to
have the 6 to 8 foot sizing that are B and B. You have better survival rate and you just end up with a
better product. And you do have a few more years to get up to that size where you'd like to see them but
I think the net effect is better.
Lash: Okay. Rod, did you have something else?
Franks: Yeah, just one question I hadn't played on but my kids are going to be putting, looking for senior
housing for me by the time that those trees grow up tall enough to' cover the 3 story view of the village
homes from 41 or 5. But we're looking at, what about 90 acres where all of the homes will be built. So
we're not counting Outlot E or the wetland area. You're looking at placing about 383 units in about a 90
acre.
Dennis Griswold: Roughly that, correct.
Franks: And that's not inclusive of the Outlot E and Outlot D where the commercial is. Is that about
right?
Dennis Griswold: That's pretty close, correct.
Howe: That'd be the biggest on the Chanhassen right, when it's completed? Is that right?
Franks: I know Mission Hills is 208.
Hoffinan: Largest PUD?
Lash: Yeah. How about Chaparral when that went in?
Hoffman: I couldn't tell you. Overall Lake Susan Hills was the largest PUD.
Lash: But that's single family homes.
Karlovich: Can I ask another question of staff'?. What is this big exception piece, what do you see
happening with that in the future?
Hoffman: Miss Rosie's Farm.
13
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Karlovich: Is that ever going to be a site we want for a park or something?
Hoffman: At one point Susan told me she was going to leave it to the City when she was done with it so
that may occur. Or she'll have her farm there, as you can tell the road to the east, it allows for future
development if that should occur.
Karlovich: The reason I bring it up is just, the woods to the north, if I was part of the homeowners
association and you know the city wanted to buy it for park. Then I'd tell them to also buy our piece for
park. The woods to the north there. Or seek some compensation. I just don't know if we have that much
vision into the future as to. I mean we'll have a conservation easement on the west side of Highway 41,
but you know if we're going to buy that for a park in the future or if we had that vision, then we might
want to I don't know, talk a little bit more about that little wooded piece betwveen the path and, I don't
know. ! guess it's not that big of a deal but I was just throwing it out for discussion.
Hoffman: No, that's a good thought. Nobody to date has talked about acquiring that property for future
public space so.
Lash: The covenants, I mean those expired so something, I mean eventually if the association so chose,
once the covenant expires, then if for some reason it wasn't renewed, they could do what they ~vanted
with that, could they not?
Dennis Griswold: No, the covenants go with the commons space forever as it's platted that way.
Lash: Okay.
Dennis Griswold: And that's part of what they're buying into is a common element that they know is
going to be that way forever. If you're contemplating that tree stand for park, I'd consider that as park
dedication as part of our park requirement. If you'd like to do that.
Karlovich: No. i think we all kind of realize there's, you know the package is a very good deal and we
are still getting our park dedication fees. I think that's all still in the back of our mind. I just, I don't
know what the vision was for that exception piece.
Franks: You can see that since the road there, it doesn't cul-de-sac. That there's some intention that you
probably wouldn't mind developing that piece out at some future point.
Karlovich: I don't know ifPulte would do that. Some smaller developer would crop up.
Hoffman: If you required it...
Dennis Griswold: Well that's a public street platting up to it so, so that property would have access other
than Highway 41. And that's the point of it and I guess our vision was that at some point you could
extend that road in as a cul-de-sac and have townhomes around it of similar type and have a nice finish
there if you will with a similar use. Now I don't know what she's going to do with the property. You
know we haven't really talked about that so I don't want to put any thoughts on the table. We have no
control on that particular property.
Lash: Who knows how long that will go. Does anybody else have questions before we open it for public
comment? Any other questions for Mr. Griswold?
14
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Berg: Can someone assure me that that totlot is big enough? For the, the totlot in the development. First
phase of the development where we're seeing 64 kids in the rental units and who knows where they're all
going to come from and is that adequate? Is that size adequate? It doesn't seem like it to me.
Hoffman: The size of the totlot I think is adequate. I think we can take a look at perhaps trying to mold
out a little bit more space in there based on the anticipated number of children in that location and how
they're going to gain access to it.
Berg: Because it seems like, no offense intended, that developer's estimates of children are usually
pretty low.
Dennis Griswold: IfI may differ. Our numbers that we have here are based on accurate counts from
developments that we've done around town and we've done a lot of them and we keep information on all
the buyers and have very good information relative to that.
Berg: Okay, I'll give you that one. Just a conservative estimates says 150 kids. Throughout the entire
area.
Dennis Griswold: If that's right for the rental. I can only speak to the owner occupied.
Berg: There may be some riff raff that drift in from someplace else too. I'm curious about, in all
seriousness, I'm curious about the size of the lot and worried that it's not large enough.
Dennis Griswold: What I would anticipate as part of working with the staff on the exact design of the
structure, the shape of that outline, I'd be the first to admit that I don't really want to see three squares
out there for totlots. I'm envisioning more of a free form that matches the equipment that's put in there.
Berg: That's it for now.
Lash: Okay, anyone else before we open it? Okay. Thanks Mr. Griswold. We'll probably have to get
back to you in a few minutes. Okay, we'll open the podium for public comments so if there's anyone in
the audience wishing to address the commission, if you can come forward. State your name and address
for the record.
Leah Hawke: My name is Leah Hawke and I live at 7444 Moccasin Trail in the Longacres development.
Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight. I have to confess that I've not seen this new plan. I'm still
working on the old plan from Pulte. The neighborhood with the Longacres residents is not until
tomorrow night so we have yet had the opportunity to voice our concerns about this plan, so I'm a little
surprised it's up in front of you for approval. But that's probably besides the point. I've been watching
the Pulte proposal pretty much since inception and my purpose here tonight is to encourage this
commission to continue to stand firm in it's resolve to build this right. Minutes from your August 22nd
meeting indicate your desire to see increased park areas allocated in this development. I agree and
support your recommendation. It sounds like some of you have had the opportunity to go by PuRe
developments and take a look at their recreational areas and their totlots. ! actually have some sample
pictures of what those areas look like, and ifI can I'd like to give them to you today. This is the totlot in
Eden Prairie. This is the totlot in Shakopee.
Lash: Yeah, I've seen that one.
15
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Leah Hawke: It's my opinion that these areas are tiny in comparison with what residents will need. I'm
also concerned with the location and again these locations are new to me. We don't have a public safety
commission anymore but it would seem to me that...would not as a parent be giving my child freedom if
it's so close to the street. I don't know who addresses that. It sounds like it's outside your realm but I
really think that we need to think about location. I actually live in Longacres and we are very fortunate,
we dealt with a good builder, Lundgren and they put in pretty sizeable recreational areas and well
constructed playground, but those play areas are packed full in the summer. And I think of the size of
those areas compared to what I've seen with Pulte and again I really remain concerned that we're just not
allocating adequate space. If we truly are committed as a community to integrating affordable housing in
this city, I think we should be committed to doing so in a manner that will provide the same quality of
life for those residents as ~ve enjoy today. I'd urge you again to recommend that Pulte increase the size
of it's recreational areas. Don't compromise and stand firm. I have an article here from the City of
Eagan that has worked very closely with Pulte and there was great compromise given to the City of
Eagan to build this right. I didn't realize Mr. Griswold would be here today. I was going to quote him.
Upon completion 313 units will occupy this area along with a large community pond, two fountains and a
gazebo. Approximately 2/3 of wooded areas will be preserved and integrated with the development.
Streets are being designed to minimize their effect on wooded areas. Residents will drive through a stone
entry monument and landscaped boulevard on route to their homes. The end result will be a good place
to live. I would just encourage this commission to ensure that whatever we build on the corner of 5 and
41 is a good place to live in Chanhassen. And I'd also like to submit this article for you to review.
Thank you.
Lash: Thank you. Anyone have a question for Leah? Okay.
Franks: Leah, have the residents in Longacres had any chance to get together to talk about this? Not that
I want to pick you as their representative but.
Leah Hawke: Well we met with Pulte a long, long time ago. I don't even remember. Todd, maybe a
year ago and since then there's been much evolution to this project in how it looks. I think it's fair to say
that there were significant concerns from Longacres residents. ! found out about the parks and rec
through Mike Ryan who's really attuned to what's going on here. But like I said, the residents haven't,
the Planning Commission tabled it's meeting and discussion of this project until after Pulte had met with
the neighbors in the Longacres area to discuss their concerns. So we had an opportunity a long, long
time ago but as things have changed and it was supposed to be tomorrow night back here in council
chambers.
Berg: What are the concerns of the Longacres residents regarding this development?
Leah Hawke: Well I don't know anymore to be quite honest with you because we haven't seen this new
plan. But I think there's a lot of confusion with the movement of densities. There's a lot of confusion
around what the comp plan says will be where. There's concern about the rental. We were actually
under the impression that there would be no rental anymore as part of this development. That was
communicated to a Longacres resident by the current Mayor so I think that's going to raise a lot of
questions tomorrow night at the neighborhood meeting. And there were concerns about the lack of the
recreational area that were raised. And also the look and feel of this development on the gateway to
Chanhassen and what could be done to buffer it. You know I'm still not convinced that the buffer under
discussion is really going to do what we think or would like this development to look like.
16
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Lash: And Longacres is to the north, right?
Leah Hawke: Right.
Lash: On the other side of the wetland.
Leah Hawke: Actually once again is news to me and maybe it's just because I have not looked at the
plans real carefully. I'm actually on the trail on the other side. I own property that backs onto the trail
that I now understand will connect in with the Pulte project. I'm thinking that through.
Lash: The trail you're talking about?
Leah Hawke: Yeah. My home is, now you said that the Pulte, this trail would join in? Yeah, my home's
on that.
Lash: That always was the plan so. I mean as far as we're concerned. What is going to be, or supposed
to be directly to the east of this? Of the rental homes.
Hoffman: Lundgren development, single family homes.
Lash: Is that wetland that's shown in that little bitty triangle, and how big of an area is that?
Hoffinan: It's a large wetland which separates both the projects.
Karlovich:. I had a question. How many acres of, I've gone through Longacres quite a bit but, there's
kind of the park that, off of 41 and then there's the one off of Galpin that I've even taken my kids to but,
how much of an acreage there are those parks?
Hoffinan: I don't know. Leah, do you know exact acreage?
Leah Hawke: No. I mean we have two full tennis courts and two basketball areas and two quite
significant park areas.
Hoffman: The one closest to 41 is probably a little over 3 acres. Maybe 4 acres. And the other one's a
little bit smaller than that.
Karlovich: And with regards to this development, either are looking at how much cash or how much
park dedication for the size of this development. For the Pulte amount of acres, how much, if we wanted
to say we want a block of property, how much can we get from this 89 or 90 acres?
Hoffman: 10%.
Karlovich: 10%. And usually don't want a park less than 5 acres.
Hoffman: A public park, correct.
Karlovich: A public park.
Leah Hawke: You know you can help me understand something. What's the park dedication fee?
17
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Lash: Go ahead. You can probably explain it way better than I can.
Hoffman: The amount or what the formula is?
Leah Hawke: Well, I'm just hearing you can do one or the other. You can put in the lots or you can do
some park dedication.
Hoffman: Or anywhere inbetween.
Leah Hawke: Okay, so what is the park dedication fee though?
Hoffman: Park dedication fee is a mechanism to ensure that residents of the community are served in
public parks and open space and in trail systems. And so in order to do that we either extract land from
developers, up to approximately 10% of their net land acreage, or we take cash in lieu of that and then
invest that in other community facilities and trails throughout the city.
Leah Hawke: So you don't use it to build actually in the development that needs it?
Hoffman: Sometimes we do.
Lash: It depends.
Karlovich: The issue that's kind of before us is, we have a plan here in which they're putting in three
different kind of recreation areas and the city would be getting an outlot. A conservation easement and
be getting a large chunk of cash that we can build other parks and recreation facilities. Otherwise, you
~know the other road to go down is to say sorry, we want our so many acres right here. We want our 9
acres or 5 acres or anywhere inbetween out of here and take less money and that's kind of the struggle
that we're going through as to you know, what do we want to do or what do we want to recommend to
the City Council.
Berg: Because that's our only source of income. That's the only way we get money to improve the other
parks.
Leah Hawke: Yeah. I would just recommend that if you are, I mean ifI were to move into this
development with children, I would like to see it in the development that I'm going to live that I can walk
to. That I don't have to get in my car and drive to. I mean the closest park area that these people have
that will be of any significance is in the Longacres development. Which I'm sure will end up causing
more friction than... I think it needs to be built in there.
Lash: Part of our, also part of our guidelines and our formula is looking at a radius. A user radius and is
it ~A mile?
Hoffman: Half mile.
Lash: Half mile. So we usually will plot that out and if there are other parks available, and I don't think
that we would consider Longacres because those are not public parks, but there's the one on Galpin and
there's the Rec Center and there is Minnewashta Regional Park on the other side of 41. So if you plotted
this out, this really is within some of the service areas, is it not Todd?
18
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Karlovich: Well isn't that for neighborhood parks?
Hoffman: Correct. Neighborhood park facilities. Yeah, most of those are out on the fringe and that was
the full intent of the discussion of, as a PUD you can ask for these association play areas to fulfill that
local park. Maybe a socialization for the community play areas, but then in the same time, garner the
park and trail fees not unlike Longacres. Longacres paid full park and trail fees for community, quote
unquote, park and trail amenities throughout the city and then also built the private association parks. So
it's the same concept on this proposal.
Howe: Kind of along those lines, is there a plan ever to connect a trail from this development to
Sugarbush Park? Would that ever be feasible at some point?
Hoffman: Yes.
Howe: That's the closest park.
Karlovich: It's a tough struggle. We're not very flush. We had like kind of a budget of no more than
$200,000 a year to provide facilities to all the parks in the City of Chanhassen. And so it's not like we
have a whole lot of money. So there's always kind of the struggle back and forth.
Hoffman: Just to give you an idea. The approximate cash equivalent here is about $350,000 that we're
talking in park dedication.
Leah Hawke: Again I just think it's a hike. I don't even go to the Sugarbush and that's on the other side
of our development, and I'm certainly not going to go across 41. No, I'm sorry, 5. I'm not going to
allow my children to go across 5 to get to the Rec Center. And ! have older children so, that's just a
parent's perspective on, if we're going to do it, let's do it right. Thank you.
Lash: Thank you. Anyone else from the audience wishing to address the commission? Okay. Anyone
on the commission who's got other questions now that come to mind since your last opportunity? Of
either Mr. Griswold or staff.
Moes: Just a follow-up, who manages the rental properties?
Dennis Griswold: That, Jim Deanovec is the owner of that. As I understand it, he has an on site
management company who, there will be an on site manager that's part of an overall management
company that does other amenities too. That's about the extent of what I know of his operation. But he
did say there would be an on site manager.
Leah Hawke: Can I just add something? I don't know if it's pertinent but we've heard that he lost the
funding for the rental...
Karlovich: That's not really kind of our concern.
Leah Hawke: Well it is if you're going to put a totlot on there. If he's not going to develop it.
Dennis Griswold: Well he, I think what you heard was possibly the part about the subsidized portion of
it. As I understand it, he's going to market rate rental or a formula that only allows a very small number
19
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
of subsidized units, like 5 or 6 out of the 32. So it will basically be a market rate rental town home
community, as I understand it.
Moes: Who is the he you were referring to?
Dennis Griswold: Jim Deanovec.
Lash: Okay, anyone else? Questions for Mr. Griswold or Todd?
Karlovich: We're still going to discuss it though, right?
Lash: Yes.
Karlovich: No, I don't have any questions.
Lash: Okay. Do you want to start Jay?
Karlovich: Yeah, one of the things that I'djust like to throw out for discussion. I don't know if, what,
I'm torn as to what the right thing is to do here. I think we should give some type of clear direction to the
applicant, whether we're going to go with this type of plan and take the cash and take the conservation
easement, or are we going to say we need our, you_ ~know up to 9 acres here. Do we say we want 9 acres
along Highway 5 and we're going to have a neighborhood park there and that will help to show our
entrance way? I don't know what is the right thing to do. This is a large development for the City of
Chanhassen and kind of a, not something to be taken lightly. I'm kind of personally torn back and forth.
I think this is an improvement over the original plan which just showed three totlots and they've been
working xvith staff and we have, you know kind of a staff direction that they recommend, or staff
recommends approval. I'm just kind of torn back and forth. I don't want to be a stick in the mud I think
for what the, at least the Longacres development has to understand though that, you know this is part of
the comprehensive plan is to have multi family between you and the major corridors. This is not a bad
thing or bad development. I think our big struggle here is xvhere are we going to go with this? So I guess
I've just thrown out a lot of question marks and don't have any conclusions.
Lash: Thanks Jay.
Berg: Thanks for the direction Jay. It's not like you to waffle.
Lash: We'll come back to you because after everybody's talked, maybe you'll be more clearly decided
what you want. Fred.
Berg: Well I frankly was sitting here hoping Jay would land on one side of the fence or the other so I had
some idea what to gauge where I'm at, and I'm sort of feeling the same way at this point. I like the idea
of Outlot E. I'm not happy with the one acre large park in the middle and I'm not happy with the size of
the totlot and I'm not happy with what the entrance to our city is going to look like. I don't know if that
equals, if all those not happy's equal wanting to send this back and look at it more or not. I've got to
pass at this point and just listen to what everybody else has to say. You're welcome.
Lash: Okay. I have a couple of different things that I would have to feel more secure about before I
would give this the nod. One being, I know there was discussion that the play area would go in in an
appropriate timing with Phase I, but I would want something a little more concrete so that we ~know that
20
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
that whole Phase I area is not developed and inhabited and then in 6 months or a year down the road, then
the play area going in. So we'd have to have that firmed up more I think in writing. I'm very concerned
with the size and the location of the play area for the rental. I agree that I don't know that it's set back
far enough and West 78th Street I think will be a fairly well traveled route so I don't know that that's a
very safe location for that with the anticipation that there could be 32, at a minimum 32 children there at
any given time. And I'm wondering, I'm not a developer, I'm just throwing this out as an idea, that
another unit could be moved down there and the play area be somewhat more centrally located. And also
somewhat increased in size. I'm concerned about the size of it. And my third concern is the equipment,
and again I voice this but I would want this to be firmed up that what will be going into the totlots and
the dollar amount there because I already have been on the record as saying that the one that I have
visited in Shakopee would be, in my opinion, to be considered unacceptable as a totlot for this
neighborhood. Those would be my three biggest concerns. I like the way that the developer has arranged
the location. I think they took into consideration our input last time for the location of the two larger
sized ones. We talked about having them on either side of 78th Street for safety issues and they are set
back away from the main road, so I do appreciate the fact that they took those comments in and I do think
that they are somewhat enlarged. But I would want to see some definite information on those three areas
before I would want to move ahead with this. Rod.
Franks: Dennis, I'm glad that you did take some of the comments that we had the last time we looked at
your previous proposal and tried to incorporate it and I was going to start right where Jan let off.
Increasing the size of the interior play area. Locating one on either side of West 78th. And looking at
having three. I would agree with Jay too, just looking at it as a development, you know I'm not a planner
but this doesn't look like a bad development but I am strongly of the opinion that this doesn't necessarily
fit with the character we've created in this city. When we talk about what a standard neighborhood park,
Todd I think you mentioned tonight even we're looking at about 5 acres. And we're putting those in
neighborhoods where most people are having their own yard as well and here we're looking at a pretty
significant density and where people aren't having that luxury or ability to recreate in their own yard and
yet we're really decreasing the size of their public recreating space as well. This is also the creation of
an entire neighborhood, 383 units. Bigger than the neighborhood I live in. Much bigger. And yet there's
no other neighborhood park really within a reasonable distance. It's also pretty bordered by a busy
Highway 41 to the west and busy Highway 5 to the south and wetland to the north and wetland directly to
the east. It's pretty isolated, island type area. I really think we may need to take into account that we're
going to maintain that integrity for our residents to have that physical open space and recreation
opportunity that we've maintained for everybody else in our city. I do like seeing that in the' wooded
stands just north of Highway 5 that the view shed is maintained from Highway 5. That is a very
important piece. I know the first proposal, the way that it was cut really took away the majority of that
view from Highway 5. I'm not real happy with losing 50% of the trees though, but at least that was
maintained so I appreciate that you listened. The reason why I'm making these comments is because it
appears that you really do pay attention and try to take this things into account. I did come across that
article, I have a different copy, from City Business about the development in Eagan and when I read that,
part of what I was thinking really was like yeah. Yeah. That's a little bit more of where we're headed.
And it looks like you really went all out to really work with the residents. Work with the City to come up
with a development that took into account density, but not the type of density that was originally
proposed but yet creating an entire product. So it was more keeping in line with what we're looking to
do and I really like seeing that they had that gazebo. I've seen the gazebo in Longacres Leah and you
know it looks pretty sharp. But those are the kinds of touches I think that we'd be looking for. The
interior play lot in, on Block 2, I like seeing that that was increased from the original totlot idea, and that
you did decrease the village homes from the 12 units L-shaped models to the 4, 6 and 8 units. But when I
drive by 212 through Eden Prairie off Anderson Lakes Parkway and look, there you can see the village
21
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
homes off 212 too and they look fairly imposing with that, the garages underneath and two stories above.
At least from that angle. And when I think of those ringing that interior park, I get the feeling of being
out at Fort Snelling and being on the parade ground with buildings all around me instead of, sorry Bob. I
saw that look.
Lash: We like Fort Snelling.
Franks: We like it. But it doesn't necessarily have that feel of a park. It has that feel like we've
sandwiched this in. I ~know that we've complained forever, or at least I have, about what happened on
Power Hill Park. So instead of having the park come all the way down to Flamingo Drive, there's those
three homes there and that little teeny trail to get to it and nobody's been happy with that. Nobody's
been happy with that. And you also mentioned earlier about, Todd about not having park in people's
back yard. I think what I'm looking at there is, that park is in everybody's back yard. And I just don't
think that's going to be real, although you've made the effort to make the space, I don't think it's really
conducive to the creation of space that's going to be required for people to really recreate. Now just for
my personal point of view. I really don't want that barracks kind of look when you're coming in from
Waconia and seeing that so I'm wondering if there couldn't be more that could be done with really
shifting how we're looking at our open space here and how that approaches the gateway at 5 and 41 into
our city. Really attempting to incorporate some of those elements and Jay, as you were talking, that's a
struggle for me as well as we look at our funding sources and knowing that we need to rely a lot on
development for funding and those funds are used throughout the entire city but, part of my thinking is,
you know there's more potential to find a creative way to raise money in the future than there is to create
more land. Once those buildings get built, there's not going to be any way we can undo that kind of
mistake. If we go like boy, I wish we would have taken some more time to figure out how we could
increase some of that space because it's not adequate.
Karlovich: The thoughts that are going through my mind is if we had a concept here that showed a 5 to 9
acre park and we had this concept and we were going to vote between the t~vo ofthern, which way would
we be leaning. The other thing is that $375,000 in our pocket now, if we probably go to the exception
piece and tO' to buy that, I don't think we'll get it for 375. You know so if you're going to get the
property here in this area now to put in a park, it's kind of now or never.
Franks: Now or never.
Karlovich: 375 won't go a long way for ~vhat, what was the name of the woman who owns that piece?
Hoffman: Susan McAllister.
Karlovich: Yeah. I mean I can't tell how many acres it is but it's, it is a big piece but ! doubt down the
road we'd be able to take our $375,000 and give it to her and get the property.
Lash: So was that your thinking initially?
Karlovich: You know at least [ was trying to rationalize in my mind that okay, if we did this and there
was no place for these kids to play, we'll go buy that piece but when you think about it, we'll take the
375 and we'll never have the money to buy it.
Lash: I never went into this thinking that the fees were going to help us to acquire more parkland in this
particular plan. My thinking was the fees were going to help us to put the trail along 101 and to do some
22
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
of these other kind of big projects, and a warming house that we need. For me, this particular project,
and I can't even believe I'm saying this because I'm the last one to be, ever believe the demographics that
we get. No offense. But you know if you look at the numbers, the largest area that would have children
would be down in this Block 2. That would have a potential, if you go by the demographics of 55
children, and it's one and a half acre site. It's got a fairly big running around space. It's got some things
for adults. I don't have as big a problem with that. Personally I would rather see some smaller ones
scattered throughout than to have a large 5, 7, 9 acre park somewhere in the middle of this that is going to
be difficult for children to get to. Having to cross 78~h Street. That's my own personal opinion.
Franks: I'm looking at it more, more than just an ability to have a play structure or a basketball pad. And
we all know that parks bring more than just that ability to get your hands on some equipment. We talk
about one of the greatest amenities that people like in their neighborhood parks now are the loop trails.
Well that's why we put them in. And it's a place for people to go for a walk that's not on a street. It's a
place for people to have some sense of openness and spaciousness and not being cramped in and if we're
looking at this type of density, to me it even becomes more imperative for us to ensure that people have
that ability, especially since they really don't have access to any other neighborhood park. Not with any
ease anyway. You're not going to be toting your kids across Highway 5 or Highway 41 into our, you
know pushing them in the stroller way over to Sugarbush Park.
Karlovich: So your thought though is we need something on both sides of 78th Street?
Franks: Well, you know in a perfect world, yeah. That's what I'd look for. We all know that West 78th
Street, when that completes all the way through to 41 is going to be a busy feeder frontage road. It's
going to be busy. Especially if we're looking at the amount of cars. I don't know if you saw those
pictures, the one thing, I know those pictures were for the totlots but I don't know if you looked, there
were a lot of cars parked all around those streets. I mean we're talking about a lot of vehicle traffic. If
this would be the same, and I'm assuming it is. But I think, I would be agreeing with Jan that I'd be
wanting to place the majority of any kind of park or open space that we'd create here where there's going
to be the highest density of kids and it just seems to make more sense to me. And when we go south of
West 78"' Street, we could also possibly include that into the comer gateway area of 5 and 41 and try to
maybe create some kind of entire package there.
Lash: I just had a question on one of your comments. When you were talking about where this is located
with the Fort Snelling look. Last time, and I'm just kind of playing devil's advocate because I'm trying
to think well you know, I don't know how you can answer some of these. The last time we said well we
don't want...seems like it's all closed in so if we can't have it on the street and we can't have it
surrounded by houses, what would be your suggestion?
Franks: Well our parks are always going to be bordered by some kind of street. I mean that just happens
because we require parking access for all of our parks too as well.
Lash: But we wouldn't necessarily want it down here because then it'd be bordered by 41 and 5. And
there you've got an open field.
Franks: Yeah, I'm not saying it needs to be right there. You know my degree's not in city planning or
park planning necessarily but what I'm looking at is making, creating some kind of a package to
incorporate this things together.
Berg: So at a minimum you're saying that you'd like to see more land dedicated?
23
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Franks: I'm saying at a minimum it's necessary to have that happen.
Lash: Do you have a figure in mind?
Franks: Well the one thing that I do know is that originally I thought when we talked about it, 2 ½ acre,
taking a look at it considering what my neighborhood park is like, it's barely going to be adequate. And
we're seeing that an attempt was made but we're still looking at only an acre and a half, but that includes
everybody's back yard and ringed by three story structures. You know when is the sun going to shine in
that area? I mean yeah, go ahead Dennis. I'm getting a little negative here. Snap me out of it. On a roll
down a hill.
Dennis Griswold: Thank you. First of all, my definition of this is the common association green space.
It's not a public park is the way the site plan is defining it. And what the other thing.
Franks: What's I'm saying is let's make a public park.
Dennis Grisxvold: Okay, I understand that but the other point is that where it is within the back areas of
the village homes, those are two story on that side and it would really function as a back, a common back
yard for those units that is 1 ½ times the size of a football field and I, to me in my sense of scale says that
is more than adequate to handle the recreational needs of that particular neighborhood. The other point is
that that size is more than duplicated on the other side of 78th SO yOU do have, essentially have your 10%
park dedication. It's just strung out within the open spaces of the site.
Franks: I don't see where there's 12 acres set aside there.
Dennis Griswold: Well, we don't have 12 acres o£net site. We have about 60 acres of net developable
site so I think.
Franks: I thought I asked that question and I thought it was about 90 acres of net development site.
Dennis Griswold: Well xvhen we're going by density, we're talking about net site as being 62 or 3 acres
and I would presume that net site is the same, depending on what your computing.
Karlovich: Can I ask just a question here? Is there some way, I mean from the Park Commission, we
understand that you know that your density equals into profitability of the whole site and the project and
everything and maybe the Planning Commission and council has more input into density but I think what
we're struggling here with is, we'd be happy if you got your density in there some other way but if there
was a 2 ½ acre or some type of little bit area for all the kids to go on each side of 78th Street, we wouldn't
feel so guilty that we pocketed the park fees from this and let this development go in and you know had
most of the kids playing in the streets and everything back and forth. And I know each time these plans
cost a lot of money towards the Pulte to put together, or have them to make some profits but the, I guess
our input that even if you had your dense area and got a few more units in there we could at least sleep at
night 'knowing that there's a big area on both sides of 78th Street. The kids didn't need to cross and we
didn't shirk our duty to make sure that the people on here have an area to go to.
Dennis Griswold: Well I think on both sides of 78~h we have, when you combine it out, we have really 3
to 4 acres at least on each side. You have an acre and a half on the south side, just on that center core,
and then you have that whole area of the woodlands that is another 2 ½ acres in there that we're showing
24
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
it as being left preserved in a natural state. If that's defined within a park setting, then maybe that gets
integrated with some of these play elements and other functions. On the north side of 78th we're again
leaving 2 ½ to maybe 3 acres up in the northwest of the woods left in a natural state that's only
encumbered by the public trail. And we have about 3 ½ acres integrated into that central area where the
manor homes are for open space. It's not just one open piece, but I don't think, maybe my definition of a
park is wrong. My definition of a park isn't necessarily a big square that has 4 soccer fields on it. My
definition is some of the things that are happening here but this isn't even the definition of a park. This
is the common association owned green space that is in addition to the park.
Franks: And I'm not going to argue with what your definition of a park is. And I'm not going to argue
that this is a bad development on it's face. What I'm saying is what we're creating here is not this
development but we're creating a new Chanhassen neighborhood that's equal to many of the other
neighborhoods that we have here. That they're more dense than all of them. Than all of them when this
is done. And all those other neighborhoods, there's an expectation about what our park system is like
and I think we deserve to give the people that will be neighbors in this neighborhood the same kind of
consideration as all the other neighborhoods in our city. This maintains the character and integrity of the
city that we're trying to create here I think as far as parks go. And so that's my concern that we just
don't, when I think of the battles that have been fought to maintain exactly what I think I'm talking about
here and I don't know if we just really want to give that up without consideration of what the other
possibilities could be for the site. It doesn't look like the City of Eagan gave up on that either, and it
looks like everybody's happy with that, with what that result was. And I think maybe we all need to try a
little harder as well here.
Dennis Griswold: I'm not sure how you're reference to Eagan but the point in Eagan, ifI can just talk
about that development just a little bit.
Franks: Please.
Dennis Griswold: Is it was a rolling, partially wooded, partially open site similar to this. It has physical
amenities. On that particular site there was cash dedication for park and there was association land on
half of it and the other half did not have association. So there were the on site amenities in terms of
physical structures within an association were grand total of one gazebo and the rest was park cash
dedication. There were not totlots, ball courts, volleyball courts. Any of that type of amenity. We do
have one.
Franks: I have to admit I didn't go up and look but from the article it talks like there was more of the,
you know natural wooded areas where really looked at preserving.
Dennis Griswold: It's a beautiful site. And I think this one will be too. In fact, ifI may add, this will be
a better looking site in the final analysis because of what this site has going for it with the trees and the
marsh and everything involved. The rolling aspect. And there was a common element on the Eagan site.
We had Johnny Cake Road going through the middle as a collector so there was a division from one side
to the other, very similar to this. It's not quite as intense as 78th but it was very similar in that regard.
The thing we didn't have on that site was 11 acres across the road that we're buying and essentially
giving to the public.
Franks: It says here there's 27 acres of woods.
25
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Dennis Griswold: Well 27 acres of woodland. That essentially was on the, in the back yard areas of the
homes and in the association areas. So it's kind of intermixed like we have 2 ½ acres down on the
bottom and 2 or 3 up on the top and 11 across the road and you 'know some in the middle where that
wetland strip is and kind of scattered throughout. I don't want to burden you with that discussion but my
personal view, and we've done a lot of communities, is that the public is well served by this community
for the amenities that we will be giving as part of the PUD and the park dedication that you will be
getting to accommodate other parks and wherever in the city. Thank you.
Franks: Jan said I chewed up enough time.
Lash: Well we didn't even get down to David but are you all done Rod?
Franks: I'm done.
Lash: Okay, thank you. David. Anything left for you?
Moes: I think a lot has been covered ah'eady for the evening. A couple of thoughts or additional, just to
reinforce is, I do like the way as you go around, the units have been changed from the L-shaped ones to
the 4, 6 and 8. I think it really adds a lot to the look. Not being an expect as well in regards to how a
definition ora park versus an open area would look like or should look like, you know I try to think
through what a neighborhood is with single family homes, which is what I'm familiar with and
accustomed to versus a development like this which is the multi-family. I'm not a good, I can't gauge
very well as to how much open space in addition to the existing park is needed. There are a couple of
things though that in looking at this I would like to add to though is, you know the layout looks, the area
open from my level is somewhat appropriate, and there's different phases, although I do have a concern
that if this was to move forward, that the playground areas would be incorporated into Phase I. Just to
make sure that there are the open areas and the facilities for the incoming residents to utilize. And I do
also I guess have an additional concern on just the whole rental area though. I'm not quite sure who
owns that. Who manages it. I've heard different comments tonight in regards to the funding and what
I'm struggling with is, who has the commitment or the guarantee of putting in what we're currently
calling this totlot and then making sure that that is put in? I'm hearing there was a Jim Deanovec. Is that
individual responsible for xvorking with the City in regards to that totlot or is that a Pulte responsibility as
this would move forward? I'm confused as to how the parties in that transaction play out.
Dennis Griswold: As a part of this PUD, the overall plan would be approved and that rental area would
be part of the PUD that would specify those types of details and he would have to adhere to those. He
has, by the way, agreed to it verbally, off the record, and the way we are dealing with the transition of
what we're buying from him and what he will retain is under his ownership will assure that those things
do happen. Because there will be some joint development that has to occur and we will have security to
assure that those types of things happen. So if you approve a particular item as part of this PUD plan,
and it happens to be in the owner occupied or rental, it will all be part of the specific approved plan and it
will definitely happen. The other point, just very quickly and then I'll sit down. That phase line is
basically trying to capture 50% of the unit count in two phases, and I can easily adjust that to make sure
that those green spaces, including the play areas, are part of Phase I because they're both right along the
phase line.
Lash: So you'd just move the line over a little?
26 ~
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Dennis Griswold: We can just move it over to accommodate those. And one thing, to give you the
assurance is that we are purchasing the total property in one take down so it's not a deal where, well
we'll do half of it and maybe we'll take the other half and maybe not. It's, when we're committed, we're
committed 100%. Thank you.
Berg: How large is Meadow Green?
Hoffman: How large is Meadow Green Park? On the playing field side probably about 7 acres.
Berg: Okay. Just for a frame of reference I needed, okay.
Lash: Did you have anything else David?
Moes: That really summarizes the additional points that I had.
Lash: Okay. Michael, do you have any?
Howe: Thanks. I just think the developer's done pretty much what we've asked him to. Going back a
year ago. ! remember that was a contentious meeting and this was a hot topic and this is a much
improved plan from what I see, from ~vhat they had then. I think it's a reasonably good deal for
everybody. The City and the people who live here. We're getting some good open space, up in the north
corner that is not going to be touched ever. We're getting some trails built that eventually will connect.
We're going to get some money. Frankly there aren't a lot of these things left out here. I think we've
got to act on that to some degree now. I do have some concerns, I think some of the totlots could be
bigger and moved differently. I agree with Fred. I do not want to see a Highway 5 and Dell Road
development coming in from Waconia. You need some artistic landscaping in there. If I'm correct, by
the time this is complete, aren't there going to be two tunnels under Highway 5 to trails?
Hoffman: Yes.
Howe: See I walk now to Galpin, to the school, and it's, you can walk or bike there but if you want a
bigger space or fly a kite or something, you can certainly do that and I think in two years you'll be able to
go under TH 5, which is, that's a concern as a parent. I'd share that but that's going to be taken care of,
but I think they've opened up some spaces in here and changed things around a bit that, I'm comfortable
with it. That's all I have.
Lash: Okay. So Jay, did it help you at all?
Karlovich: I kind of disagree with one of my, with some of the statements. I guess my understanding is
that our comp plan says we should have neighborhood parks you know all covered within a mile radius
and that this isn't within a mile radius of any of the parks, right?
Hoffman: Half mile.
Karlovich: Half mile. But it is not.
Hoffman: Correct.
27
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Karlovich: And so if we're being consistent with our comp plan we should probably be putting a
neighborhood park in here, and that would probably relieve the concerns of Longacres and I guess I
wouldn't feel so guilty. We're getting the triangulated piece on the west side of 41, and we're getting
some cash and then we're getting a huge development here with totlots and kind of an acre, kind of a
common space between those, you know a bunch of buildings here. I don't know if we're really doing
justice here. My feeling is that we should probably follow our comprehensive plan and ask staff'to work
with the developer and show us a concept that's consistent with our comprehensive plan.
Lash: Okay. Fred, did that?
Berg: Yeah, I'm going to follow along like a dutiful little whatever that I am and say that's exactly what
I was thinking too. What sways me is the fact that this was so different than what we've got other places.
So we have other places in the city, excuse my English, and I'd like to see us also look at something that
is closer to the comprehensive plan for a neighborhood park. I'm done.
Lash: You're done? Well I'll have to, other than the things that I voiced already, I don't have as many
problems with this. I tend to agree more with Mike. I think we are getting some green spaces that will
always be green. They're trying to preserve as many trees as they possible can out front. You know
yeah, we'd like to see more but I think with what we gave him, direction a year ago, I think that they tried
to do the best that they could with this. I think right now, to go back and say we want a 9 acre
neighborhood park is giving them a totally different message then what we gave them a year ago. We
told then before we wanted a couple of 2 acre sites and they've got a acre and a half and a 2 acre site,
whatever. My biggest concern again is in the rental area. That area there I think is just totally too small
for the number of children that will be there. The other thing, and I think you all know, I'm probably one
of the strongest supporters of neighborhood parks and putting in decent sized parks. I do think this is
somewhat different considering the fact that it's townhomes and you have many, many single people
living there and you have retired people living there and you do not have the amount of small children
that you have in a typical neighborhood of single family homes. You know those are going to be busting
with kids. So when you've got lots of 20 year olds, you know 25 year olds, first time homeowners, yeah
they might like to go out and shoot baskets and stuff but they are not going to be the ones out
congregating and wanting to sit around the park and watch their kids play like their, like most the rest of
us have done in our lives so I don't have the burning desire to get an 9 acre park in this particular site for
those reasons. I think it is unique. I think the clientele that is living there is different than a single family
development and I think we need to remember that. And we need to remember also that we do, while we
have a duty to preserve land when we can, we also have the duty to recoup some money when we can and
this is one of those opportunities to do that. I'm usually the last one to sell out for the money. I usually
go for the land but this is one of those few times ~vhen, ifI saw the rental thing take a better form, and I
knew that the totlots would be equipped adequately, and I think we all know what that means, I would be
okay with it. So those would be my two biggest hang-up's.
Franks: Do we all get a last word in?
Lash: Yep. Then we'll call a vote.
Franks: We have yet to see anywhere adequate totlots. It has not been created yet. And I'm not going to
expect that it's going to be created here either because it's being called a totlot. It's not a park. This is
being termed as life cycle residential community housing. And I think all the residents in their life cycle
here, young, old, single, kids, kidless, all dese~we the same amenity. They're all going to use it in their
way and I'm, you know my kids use the park and I use it too and I jog through it when they're not with
28
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
me. And other people are walking and we're putting in a senior garden in our City Center Park. And
because those parks are used by everybody and the land is available for everybody to use it in a way that
is going to work for them. And so you know I can look at this and I can say, you know I really am okay
with everything north of 78th Street. And I'm really not okay with what's south of West 78th Street.
We're not just talking about a neighborhood here I don't think with everybody's got their, the 11,000,
15,000 square foot lots. You know we're talking about some pretty significant density here and I think it
becomes even more important to provide the type of open space. Whether that's all in one shot or really
integrated more throughout the entire development. I don't know. Maybe that's what a high density
development's going to require instead of one big 5 acre spot but I'm not saying it necessarily needs to be
9 acres either. You know maybe our average neighborhood park size of 5 acres is sufficient. But I would
really like to see the developer, the applicant hear what some of the other neighbors have to say to really
take some of our ideas and I remember that meeting way back. We also talked about an 11 acre park at
one point. I mean that was a long discussion just like this one and we agonized it over again and there
was no clear consensus out of that initial meeting from this commission. But I do know that traditionally
we have had a consensus to provide neighborhood park facilities for neighborhoods. And that's what
people expect when they move here and I think that we can continue to be consistent with that here as
well. I'm in no rush. I don't think we need to be. My proposal would be to really table this. Let the
applicant really work with some of the adjoining residents. For them to take some of these ideas that
we've talked about here and for us to really consider or maybe we need to do some work about, direct
staff to be what would a typical neighborhood park look like on this site. So we have actually Jay
something what you consider, something that we can compare so we can make more of an informed
choice.
Howe: I don't see what the adjoining residents have to do with what's here.
Franks: Well it could be that what they have to say impacts what the development looks like. It looks
like that happened in the Eagan development and then that may have an impact on what we're looking at.
Karlovich: I think the reality is Longacres was done right and we got full park dedication fees but we
also got little neighborhood parks in there and so we got our cake and we ate it too.
Lash: No we did not. And that was a huge bone of contention for us, just so you know Jay. Those are
not city owned parks. I know you weren't here. And we said we will never, ever do that again. As a
commission we said that was a huge mistake.
Franks: But these aren't city owned parks here either.
Lash: No they're not.
Franks: They're association owned so, I mean.
Lash: But that was a single development. Single family development. This is more, when you have
townhouses you do tend to have associations. That's the way those things usually are.
Franks: Longacres has an association.
Lash: Well yeah, my neighborhood has an association too. Lots of neighborhoods do but it doesn't
necessarily mean then that you have a private park in your neighborhood. Not under city control.
29
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Franks: Well, but that's what this is Jan.
Lash: I know, but this is, it's just different than, I mean it's a townhome development. It's like Mission
Hills. There's other places that have association things but when you have single family residential
developments going in and we are not in control of the parks anymore, then we've kind of lost our whole
mission of acquiring park property for the city and all of a sudden we don't have any park property any
more. Were you here back when we went through all that.
Franks: Are you making my point?
Lash: No. I don't know, maybe I am. Do you want to have all the developments own their own parks.
Franks: No, I'm saying I don't and that's what I'm seeing happening here.
Lash: But you just said Longacres that was the way it was done there and I'm saying we don't want that,
when that happened.
Franks: But there's also neighborhood parks within a half mile of Longacres development. No?
Lash: There wasn't. I mean Sugarbush came in after. That came in after and that was part of the
problem.. We had people building across the road from Galpin who didn't have a park to go to. Did not
feel that they could use the ones in Longacres so then we had to go back and con'ect the problem by
acquiring more park property to fill that need for people who didn't feel they could go into Longacres.
Hoffman: There's a consideration at this location concerning the public park in that there really will be
no other neighborhood, outside neighborhood access to that location so if the commission chooses to
invest public resources in a facility here, it is to serve this neighborhood which in itself is deserving of
that, but the larger user area is really not going to expand beyond that. I would assume Lundgren will do
something similar to the east as they've done in their other developments, Springfield and Longacres. If
it's large enough, they'll look to a private association park at that location as well and then you have the
highways and the other property uses.., isolated out by itself.
Lash: Okay. Well we need to get moving. Did anybody else down here have another, okay. Because
then we're going to need, somebody's going to need to make a motion. Of what to do with this.
Hoffman: Back to the drawing board. Table it.
Franks: Table it.
Lash: Is that your motion?
Franks: That would be my motion. To table the proposal of Arboretum Village and to, if we could, if it
would be appropriate Todd to direct staff to take a look at what would some of the options of more
traditional neighborhood park on this site look like. I know our meeting comes up early in December. I
don't know if that would be.
Hoffman: Yeah, we'll talk about timing and the Planning Commission meeting and such things. Our
meeting in December is the 12th.
30
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Lash: Will this go to planning before then?
Dennis Griswold: Yeah, December 5th is Planning Commission.
Hoffman: So we won't see it again until.
Dennis Griswold: May I make a comment?
Lash: Sure.
Dennis Griswold: I understand your concern about having neighborhood parks that are purchased or
dedicated. In this location the demographics of the people south of 78th are essentially singles, young
professionals. Very, very few kids and the type of recreation they're looking for is reflected in this plan.
They would be able to, because they are adults, migrate across 78th and use that total path system for
exactly what you said you use a park for. Jogging, walking, those types of things. They also have the
basketball and other features. They've got a football sized green space if they want to have a pick-up
game. If you put a neighborhood park in there, what you're doing is trying to attract the young kids from
the other side of 78th to migrate across the street to use the park dedication. And they right now have
adequate green space within their association to accommodate them. I don't know if you put a full 6 or 9
acre park on the south side of 78th, who could come to it without coming on you know 78th, a major
crossing. Some of those issues that you're trying to avoid.
Berg: I really addressed it, in going with that theme. Interested in seeing if something could be
configured to put let's say a 5 acre, just to pick a number, to the north of 78th Street where you're going
to have more kids if in fact there aren't going to be very many children in that area south. I'd be
interested to see if we could work out something where we could have a neighborhood park to the north
of 78th Street, and maybe consolidating the totlots and just thinking out loud here. The totlots and all the
other areas dedicated as open field or totlots and see if something can be worked there.
Dennis Griswold: You essentially have the 5 acres within the green space and the public path and the
open treed areas. If you're talking about a kind of rectangular, more conventional park, then I guess
you'd talk about serious unit loss and you'd probably then talk about major reduction in some of those
other amenities that are put in as part of the association.
Franks: Jan, I'd like to move forward.
Lash: Yeah. I want to just address Fred's thing with the kids. The way I understand it Fred, the
breakdown is in these yellow ones around here, you'd have approximately, according to the
demographics, 40 kids and then in these you'd have 15.
Berg: So it all depends on where you're looking.
Lash: Right. You'd kind of have to go by where they're located so you're talking, you know in this area
you're talking approximately 55 kids living in this whole area. In this area up here, this would be
according to the numbers, 24 in these pink ones and 6 up in this whole area.
Berg: 64 here.
31
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Lash: Yeah, no. No, 32. 32 there. There's a total of 64 if you add them all together I think somebody
came up with. No, it's got to be more than that. 32 units, yeah 64 kids. Yeah, you're right. 64 here.
This is where, that's where I've got the biggest concern. This whole area right here, 55 kids. You're
talking this little bitty area over here 64 kids.
Karlovich: It'd be nice to see a plan with a park on either side.
Lash: Either side of what?
Berg: 78t~.
Lash: There is. One here and one here. This one's just smaller. But then smaller kids too. Okay, yep.
We'll move on. So you had a motion that we table it and I'm hearing, looking for a second.
Berg: Second.
Franks moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission table action on
Arboretum Village development and direct staff to take a look at options of a more traditional
neighborhood park on this site. All voted in favor, except Howe and Moes who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2.
Lash: I would be comfortable with the plan but I don't hav~ a problem with'tabling it until we get input
back from the residents and it going to planning.
Howe: ! think we're ready. I don't understand what staff might have to say or their input but again, I
think we've done, they've done what we've asked them to and I don't see what that's really going to
accomplish. That's my feeling.
Lash: And I'm very close with you Mike. The only thing I'm concerned with is the rental. The size of
the rental I don't think is adequate for 64 kids. So I'm concerned with that. Okay. So it's tabled.
RECREATION PROGRAMS:
2000 TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY.
Lash: Welcome Cory.
Hoen: Thank you Chair Lash and rest of commissioners. This year's annual tree lighting ceremony will
be held Saturday, December 2nd. Starting at 5:00 p.m. in the City Center Commons. In addition to the
actual tree lighting ceremony we'll have a visit from Santa Claus, Christmas Carolers, refreshments in
the senior center and a small bonfire. That will get underway at 5:00 with students from Chapel Hill
Academy singing Christmas Carols around the bonfire. Shortly thereafter Santa Claus will be making his
appearance and at approximately 5:20 the holiday tree will be lit. After the tree is actually lit.., singing
Christmas Carols for another 15 to 20 minutes and then the evening will conclude at approximately 6:00
with refreshments in the senior center. I've included a copy of the flyer that was sent out November 23rd
in an edition of the Chanhassen Villager. Back of a memo. I look for this event to be a fun and festive
evening for all those who come.
32
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Lash: Okay. Anybody have questions or comments for Cory? Okay.
Franks: Is Santa coming in on the cherry picker?
Hoen: We don't know that yet for sure. We're working on that.
Franks: Are there going to be s'mores kids for the bon fire built by the Boy Scouts?
Hoen: No.
Hoffman: Santa's going to be in town all day. Santa is at Market Square that day and he's over...
Howe: Is it the same guy I think it is?
Hoffman: There's only one.
Lash: He just does get around.
Franks: Who's officiating for the tree lighting ceremony?
Hoen: It's going to be Nancy Mancino or Santa Claus.
Ruegemer: We're in negotiations.
Karlovich: Is Fred going to be Santa Claus?
Hoffman: No.
Lash: Fred's not Santa. Fred teaches school. He has a full time job. Okay, thanks Cory.
2000 HALLOWEEN EVALUATION.
Hoen: The Halloween party was October 28th. We had over 800 kids and parents who attended. Party
was a big success. Numbers were down from last year but I think it was, it worked out fine. The
numbers, it wasn't so crowded, so congested. Here's some general comments that I have. The hay rides
worked out great using the north entrance for the Recreation Center. Lines were no more than 5 minutes
in length. Musical entertainment worked out well. Giving them a full gym. They only complained, I
guess I can add was that they should have some sort of sound system. It was tough to hear with all the
background noise. Face painters, we had four face painters this year. I'd recommend cutting that down
to three. There was never a line waiting for the face painters and I don't think we need four face painters
for that. Refreshments. It worked well using Room 3 and 4 for refreshments. I think it'd be nice to get
more volunteers in there to kind of keep the tables clean. Keep that running smoothly. Games worked
out well. They were a big hit. Kids enjoyed playing video games. The other thing is, games...I think
it's worth it because kids have been at this activity to do. Volunteers were very key in the event. The
Boy Scouts... park commissioners and local business volunteers, which were a great success for this
event. Another general comment I had would be maybe shortening up the event. Having it from 5:30 to
33
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
7:30. And I think twvo hours is probably is plenty. Enough time for everybody to get in everything that
they want so we'll be cutting it down to 5:30 to 7:30. That's all I have.
Lash: Okay. Anybody have questions or comments for Cory?
Franks: Great job.
Howe: We had a lot of fun always.
Moes: I thought it was a great evening. When I talked to the others, good time.
Lash: Do you have any speculation on why the attendance was down?
Hoen: Chaska had their Halloween party the same day.
Ruegemer: If the commission probably remembers that we ,,vent a week later this year with our party to
get it a little bit closer to the actual Halloween date. We have had phone conversations already with
Chaska for next year and it looks like they're going the same day. I think we're still kind of up in the air
as to what ~ve're going to do. You know we still have 800 kids, or 800 people, kids and parents was still
plenty. Obviously. But it seemed like the flow of it really was better so you know, having it on the same
night you know isn't that potentially a big ora problem.
Franks: Did it affect revenue?
Ruegemer: Yeah obviously it did slightly. Their party is over with by, I think it was 6:00 or 6:30 so it
still gave, I mean if people wanted to make that choice they certainly.
Howe: The real candy grabbers. Double dippers.
Ruegemer: They could have made the circuit that night, which I think some did but I don't think.
Lash: Okay, thanks Co~3/.
SELF SUPPORTING PROGRAMS: 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL WINTER SEASON.
Lash: And Jen'y we've got the 3 on 3 basketball reports.
Ruegemer: The winter season again starts January 15th. For that we have room for 16 teams. We
currently have 6 teams signed up right now, which people are actually getting the stuff in early. The
registration forms. The actual deadlines are next week, the 6a' through the 8t~' so. We won't have any
problem getting the 16 teams and it's a fun league. People have a good time, break into txvo divisions
and have a playoff at the end and it's a good form of socialization and exercise for those teams so. Just a
letter that went out in November. Rosters, basic information. Anybody have any questions?
RECREATION CENTER REPORT.
Lash: Anybody have any questions about that? I was kind of curious about the comment under number
4. It says although the rate increase is 33%, we do not expect punch card revenues to increase
accordingly as our fitness offering may not be perceived as a good value.
34
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Hoffman: That's what Rod was talking about. When you raise the rate, your quantity's going to go
down. And in some areas particularly, when you raise the rate for a resident, that's going to be a $4.00
punch for aerobics for a non-resident. Excuse me for a non-resident and then $3.00 for, no. That's
resident and then it will be $5.00 for non-resident, excuse me. So you're going to lose some people, non-
resident in aerobics classes at $5.00 rate per time.
Lash: How long are the classes?
Hoffman: Aerobics?
Howe: At least an hour.
Hoffman: 45 minutes.
Lash: I used to go but I forget. Okay.
Franks: Just a question on that then. You know if things really start to take a dive, you will, or someone
will inform us right away so if we need to look at making a change we'll.
Hoffinan: Yeah, I don't anticipate that's going to happen. I had one call in the rate increases. The
individual was concerned about where are we going to take that 50 cents. What were we buying with
that? Who was going to get that money? I assured him that we were still losing money at the Rec Center
and the person who should be more concerned is the other resident who doesn't use the facility and is
subsidizing his use of the facility and he said yeah...
Lash: Never mind.
Berg: It's an anonymous call.
Lash: Are you still having the promotion where you buy the card and you get a 10, okay.
Hofflnan: Yep. That's the pacifier. 'That's the soft sell...33% increase.
SENIOR CENTER REPORT.
Lash: We've got a pretty good idea of what's going on there. Anybody have anything you want to say
about it?
Howe: They're in Branson right now.
Hoffman: Branson?
Lash: Sounds more fun...
Hoffman: Rachelle Tungseth, the summer playground director will fill in for Kara on her maternity leave
starting in February.
PARK & TRAIL MAINTENANCE REPORT.
35
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Lash: I didn't get a chance to look at it yet.
Franks: The tree is beautiful.
Hoffman: Out front?
Franks: Yes. I don't remember that tree being...
Lash: So could we just leave it out there?
Hoffman: It's the scale Rod. The scale is going to get larger so you don't see the tree. The water was
just this week, Monday moming they put the water your yard hydrant up into the community garden so if
you see a community garden developing up here on the comer of Santa Vera and Kerber so next year Jill
will, Jill Sinclair will handle the reservations. We'll put a fence up in the spring and garden plots will be
assigned. Water is there so it's one more element to the park system.
ADMINISTRATIVE: INITIATE DISCUSSION ON NEW PARK RULES SIGN.
Lash: Are we ready to tackle the park rule sign? The fight's been taken out of me so.
Hoffman: We can start.
Lash: Okay, we're not getting any subtitles.
Hoffman: Issues with the sign with the law enforcement folks, they believe it's too park colored. It
should stand out and prominently exposed. They're always asked to enforce the ordinances that are on
the books when they approach these people. They always Say that they didn't know tile rules and they
didn't see that brown sign located at the location that we currently have them itl the parks.
Karlovich: I didn't know you could have canned beer.
Berg: I thought ignorance was no excuse.
Hoffman: It isn't.
Lash: We labored extensively over the wording.
Franks: The only one that needs to be changed, really the line about pets.
Hoffman: That's about the only one on this rendition, yes. There are other things that could be added or
things here could be changed.
Howe: Or the color too, right.
Berg: Well if you want to get real picky, the 21st century phenomenon is plastic beer bottles now. So
there's nothing wrong with plastic beer bottles.
36
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Lash: Well I don't know, do we even need to have alcoholic beverages restricted to canned beer. Why
don't we say no glass? Doesn't that cover it?
Hoffman: No, because they can't have wine. Booze.
Lash: Yeah, but that's in glass.
Hoffman: The box.
Lash: Oh yeah, I suppose. I forget about that.
Hoffman: Because you can drink beer in any park in the city.
Franks: You can? Without getting like the permit or anything? I didn't know that.
Lash: Well you can't sell it.
Hoffman: You can have a keg in every park.
Lash: It's been done too.
Howe: Voice of experience there.
Hoffman: Across the metro, about 50% of the parks allow alcohol. About 50% don't.
Lash: Well and that kind of goes back to the softball leagues when they would have their kegs and stuff
out there.
Berg: And it hasn't really been a problem. With intoxication.
Hoffman: So I can propose a change of rules. I can look at other issues.
Franks: Is there anything else that you feel needs to be added? I mean we could change the line about
the pets and say something like, alcoholic beverages restricted to beer in non-glass containets. I mean
those are simple changes but is there anything else that you see needs to be added?
Lash: What about the snowmobiling thing?
Ruegemer: Motorized vehicles.
Hoffman: Isn't that mentioned on there? Snowmobiles on designated trails only. And that rule might be
dated as well because there's going to be a bigger push here, in the coming years to have...
Lash: But if we don't have something on there now, and they're still legal, then people will say well,
nobody said I can't snowmobile all through the fields.
Franks: It's posted.
Ruegemer: Address the dog on the leash issue.
37
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Lash: Leashed dogs on trails only or something like that. And pick-up.
Karlovich: Oh, do we have to put that? We're going to put like a little picture like those others...
Lash: Baggies required.
Karlovich: Where the people are right there down with their catcher's mitt or whatever...
Hoffman: Also, I'll send a message over to Sgt. Ports asking to kind of do an informal survey of deputies
and perhaps we can do a more formal survey of the type of incidents that they do run into. There's lots
of parking after hours. Hours are important.
Lash: Well and parking, we've got something on that, right?
Hoffman: Designated areas only.
Lash: Yeah. So maybe we just need to be more specific, no parking on the grass? I mean it says in
designated areas only, which means not the grass because that's not designated, but then.
Ruegemer: Too much interpretation.
Lash: You probably noticed in the rule signs around the world that many times they just go right out of
the ordinance book. Just boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. I'm not so confident that our
ordinances are in such good condition that we want to be quoting all of the ordinances.
Berg: Let's be careful and not get too picky here.
Howe: Let's keep it in English.
Berg: I mean these people are not idiots I hope. I can't park on the grass but can I park on the dirt? How
about if the top of my beverage is not made out of plastic but it's made out of metal...I know you're not
going to but let's not get real, real picky...
Lash: Well what's the whole...they think they want that's not a park code?
Hoffman: White with red letters.
Franks: No, no. Can't we go like grayish with green? You know, could we do. What I'm thinking,
could we do white with orange. Or beige with orange. I mean I'm trying to think of those colors of the
maple leaf. You know trying to like work that in here...
Howe: But you want people to see them.
Hoffman: Have the maple leaf red.
Franks: There you go. Get that maple leaf red...
Lash: How about cream?
38
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Berg: We'll trust you to come up with something.
Lash: Yeah, make sure you avoid the Chapter 74, Subtitle 3, Paragraph 4.
Hoffman: I've seen those everywhere. They put them up there.
Lash: I thought that was directed personally at us.
Hoffman: No, no.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS.
Lash: Fred, do we have anything about the Memorial Committee? Is there something happening with
that or are we waiting til.
Hoffman: December meeting, you'll have a presentation on the memorial plan. The brochure. It seems
to be quite popular among staff and those people that have seen it so far.
Lash: You mean there's going to be a presentation here? At the park commission?
Hoffman: Correct.
Berg: That will be great.
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS:
Franks: Just one quick thing. What I'd like to do, and maybe get some feedback from the commission, is
start thinking about next year and the presentation we had from Brian Hubbard from the YMCA and what
we might like to do with that. I know one of the things that we talked about earlier was to set a time for a
work session where we could actually talk about what it is that we'd be interested in or maybe hear more
in depth about what the Y is interested in doing or maybe have some informal discussions back and forth
about what we consider for our community and then like what the Y's process would be and what that
process would be.
Lash: So could we do that first just as a commission?
Franks: Well, I think that we can. I'd prefer that we'd just maybe get together and have a little...
Lash: Without him? Yeah, me too. And I think we talked about that the last time that we wanted to
have just a work session but then you know.
Franks: Because the idea is if we decide what it is that we're looking for, we can tell them and then they
can decide whether that's something they want to be a part of or not. Then if not, then we all can move
on.
39
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Howe: Did you read the thing in here about the?
Franks: I did.
Howe: That was very interesting, wasn't it?
Franks: Yeah. That's old story.
Lash: But I would like to feel free for us to exchange ideas without being totally on the record and in
front of him.
Franks: Could we schedule that prior to a commission meeting or would we need to do that?
Hoffinan: You can do either. Prior to or second Tuesday of January or second Tuesday of February.
Franks: it doesn't matter to me.
Lash: Anybody have any good preference?
Howe: Do it soon.
Berg: Sooner the better.
Lash: I think January would be a good time.
Franks: The second Tuesday in January.
Lash: Okay. I don't have anything. Do you have anything? You guys have anything? Fred?
Berg: Me, no.
Lash: Jay?
Karlovich: No.
ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET.
Berg: Jerry, this business on youth basketball getting so many hours. Is that getting to be a problem?
Are they way out of proportion with what they need, or what other people want and can't get?
Ruegemer: That's been some of the arguments with that. There's the whole debate whether it's
recreational type of in-house leagues versus traveling and how they're distributing those hours within
their own associations. Are you referring to the Tom resident e-mail?
Berg: Yeah.
Ruegemer: I mean certainly that has been the priority as of late with the, some districts and some cities
as priority is given to the children during certain times and they come as a little self serving with these
arguments. His adult leagues were being booted out of those facilities because of the growth in
40
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
population of kids so. Certainly it needs to be looked at and we'll certainly try to work with the school
districts on trying to come up with fair policies and for the distribution of those facilities. Tom is a little
self serving but he has some points.
Berg: Having been on the side of coaching and dealing with the kids, I hope we err on the side of too
much time for them. They can't get into a car and go someplace else.
Lash: But if it's at the exclusion of other sports.
Ruegemer: There certainly has to be balance.
Berg: Yeah, I'm not saying exclusive right but in the sheer numbers dictates that they have a large
portion of the time.
Ruegemer: They are getting the significant number of hours.
Moes: I'm sorry, Tom Redmond was coming from what angle?
Ruegemer: For the adult athletic angle.
Lash: Because the kids playing basketball are hogging the gyms.
Moes: Speaking from experience, you know I mean when the Chanhassen league, when you've got first
and second graders that get to play you know October-November and part of December and then the third
and fourth graders play January, February and March because we have limited space availability. Now
when you look across at the other communities where kids have 4 to 5 month seasons, I mean I look at
these kids already being at a disadvantage with the gym space and the gym time that they have cUrrently
so, that's just speaking from experience as well as comparison across other communities that you know,
through fourth grade, kids in Chanhassen are actually disadvantaged to some extent with gym time.
Berg: So let's not take away what they already have.
Moes: Exactly.
Lash: Okay. I had one quick question on this Plymouth Creek Center. What was the point of that?
Hoffman: Just FYI. They had a meeting and I grabbed their stuff.
Lash: Is this something that could possibly be incorporated in within the library? Could they ever have a
room like this in the library or not?
Hoffman: Probably.
Lash: Because that'd be kind ora cool thing, right?
Franks: I'm assuming that they probably will get that type of community space.
Berg: Yeah, that was discussed.
41
Park & R¢¢ Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Franks: Big thanks to you guys for the soccer group. And 1'11 pose the question about how involved the
park commission, if at all, would be in planning for the new library? Well because I'm wondering how
much of that will involve the City Center commons area.
Hoffman: As I understand it presently, there will be two prong approach. One talking about the space
and one talking about the library itself. And how those integrate...
Berg: ...after we get done looking at everything we may proceed with building the library. That was just
a misquote.
Hoffinan: I would think so.
Franks: They're creating a short list of architects. That's where they are right now.
Lash: Anybody have anything else? Now that I sat and squinted for a very long time at this teeny,
weeny print to read this. And I read it all. Then when I got to the end, it was all typed in big print. I said
and read all the little print, and I'm like man...
Hoffinan: Should have read the big print first. There's some correspondence on 101 in here. There's an
update and I don't want to misrepresent it but to my understanding, MnDot has responded back to the
city on our application for a limited use permit to construct a trail on the Highway 101 north corridor. By
saying they wouldn't consider it but they put many, many conditions with that occurring. And it's not
going to be easy from the information I currently have so when I get that in a printed form, I'll include it
in your packet at the next meeting. It was something like it would be much easier to build this trail
alongside of a road improvement.
Lash: So is this an indication that we will now be included in the 101 trail project from this point
forward or?
Hoffman: I haven't seen any indication of that.
Lash: No.
Berg: We being the commission?
Lash: Yes.
Karlovich: What were some of the conditions...or do you know?
Hoffman: Oh, there's all sorts of them. I'll find them.
Franks: So we're back to that nowhere zone of the trail would go in with the road but the road's not
going in?
Hoffman: I think so, but I don't want to interpret it that way. I'll try to keep you informed as much as is
possible...
42
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Lash: Then the other, the only other last comment I had was on our, I forget what this thing's called.
The WEX or, isn't that going to come back to us every year to review the information? Is that what this
is for or are we just in it forever?
Hoffman: No, not in it forever.
Lash: That's kind of what I was thinking we were supposed to look at it because we didn't have hardly
any. We had one person participate so.
Hoffman: Jerry and I talked about that. Jerry went to a meeting last week and we were very up front
with these folks. Yeah we want to provide these services. We're willing to do that and we have a
responsibility to do that but at some point you have to kind of say well, zero or one. So right now we're
evaluating how we can communicate this to that population...make sure that we make every effort to get
those to make.., so we'll attack that angle first before they say it's not working.
Lash: But didn't we have a flat, because we have a flat fee every year we have to pay no matter.
Hoffman: Yep.
Franks: And then on top of that how much is used.
Hoffman.' Correct. But not...
Lash: But what's the flat fee?
Hoffman: $2,000.
Lash: So I mean that's an expense...
Ruegemer: I told them at the meeting that you would put the calculator to the one person...and I said.
Hoffman: He said it was Jan too.
Lash: Did you?
Ruegemer: The contract I believe expires in May or June, 2001 so.
Lash: Well is it their obligation to find the people?
Ruegemer: Correct.
Lash: Yeah. Okay.
Ruegemer: They certainly have concerns about that too.
Lash: Okay. Anybody have anything else? Is there a motion to adjourn?
Howe moved, Moes seconded to adjourn the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
43
Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
44
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 12, 2000
Chairwoman Lash called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Fred Berg, Mike Howe, Jim Manders, David Moes, Jay Karlovich,
and Rod Franks
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent; and Corey Hoen, Recreation Supervisor
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Todd Hoffman added under Administrative Presentations discussion of
the agenda for the January 9, 2001 Park and Recreation Commission meeting.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Howe moved, Moes seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park
and Recreation Commission meeting dated November 28, 2000 as amended by Jan Lash on page 38
and showing Jim Manders as absent.
MEMORIAL PARK, PROJECT UPDATE.
Hoffman: Thank you Chair Lash, members of the commission. Memorial Park is an exciting project that
we've been working on with the folks from Hoisington-Koegler for the last few months. Lillian Leatham
and Paul Paige are here this evening. Our sole audience members and we'll give them some time to go
through the plan. Really we're at a point the plan had developed quite nicely. We're at a point where we
need to complete some refinements and then also talk about timing and that's the primary subject
addressed in my cover memo. When do we want to hit the streets with the project. When do we feel that
is appropriate. The trail is about, well about 50% complete. That will take you around the perimeter of
the wetland. It stops right here at this point and then comes around. If you can zoom in Jerry. There we
go. So when Autumn Ridge apartments went in, this section of trail was completed. It dead ends there at
Highway 5 so anybody walking to the north, they stop and then turn around and come back. And then
this section was completed that runs down through here to Galpin and then it goes on street on Galpin
and then it comes along to the back of, what's that called?
Franks: Trotter's Ridge.
Lash: And then does it stop right when it gets to the park boundary?
Hoffman: Yeah. Do it dead ends here and here. These two industrial lots, the large one in this location
and the smaller one here which is really a commercial lot, will most likely be a restaurant. As a part of
their development contract they were responsible for building the other two quarters of that trail when
they develop. And most likely that will occur when this intersection of Century Boulevard is completed
at Highway 5 which will be started next summer and probably completed the summer after. Once this
developer has access here, then these two lots will be sold or most likely will sell and then we would see
those trails. In addition to that, if we're selling a product which we are asking people to make some sort
of a significant investment in, it would be nice to have this park and trail head and some sort ora kiosk
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
explaining the program and giving directions. And then from that point they could walk out to the
perimeter trail. Walk the entire preserve and get the feel for where they would like to see their memorial
invested and come back to their vehicle and give the entire experience. Now the timing of these things is
uncertain so we would like to see the project...prior to that time. We just want to start earlier and not
have a trail so, that's what I'd like to hear from the commission tonight. Then we also want to go
through the whole plan with you and ask for questions or refinements on that. The timing that I see is,
we'll take the input from the commission. We will involve one more rendition of refinements, and we
want to talk about all areas this evening. The elements and then this contribution if you recall when we
started that we talked about how are we going to manage that and how are they going to contribute? Are
they going to buy a specific item or general contributions so we want to go through that. And then we'll
do one more rendition of the plan. Run it through the Planning Commission. Their impacted here in the
fact that we're working in the Bluff Creek Watershed and the Overlay District and that commission
would permit...how this affects Lori Haak and her water resource position. And then after approval
we're going...to the City Council for their authorization in the first half of 2000 or the first quarter.
Probably the first half of 2001. At that time we'll know more about the timing of these other proposals.
There are these other elements of the park and then we can make a final decision on when we want to put
this out for the vote. I'll turn it over to Paul.
Paul Paige: Thanks Todd. You hit on most everything. The only other item that we're really looking for
input on, of course all the elements and the approach for the fund raising but also just a general layout for
the brochure. There was a draft brochure that we sent, getting at aspects that you like about it. Scale.
The way it reads. Is it complicated? Do the graphics read? 'I mean we've been looking at it a lot.
Probably too much and it's great to get a fresh eye... And then of course all the individual items which
Lil ~vill go into further detail on describing here. In fact I'll just turn it over to her.
Lillian Leatham: I'm going to run through the plan and describe the plan to you guys and then also talk
about fund raising program that's being proposed in the brochure .... stored natural area or a place where
the people can go for a ~valk, that has some wildlife habitat and areas where environmental education.
And so the main elements of the park really draw on the existing natural features and there are three main
natural habitats in the park. There's prairie, or there's upland grasslands which are probably former farm
fields. And there are woodlands and extensive wetlands on both sides of Coulter Boulevard. The plan is
to, for the upland grassland is to restore them as native prairies with grasses and native flowers. For the
woodlands there's some areas that have been invaded by buckthorn and other invasive species and these
would be restored, removing the buckthorn and reintroducing native plants. Forest plants. For the
wetland areas, our proposal is to create south of Coulter Boulevard a large, open water area to increase
the wildlife habitat and also to provide a focal point for the trail system. And along side the open water
area, to restore native wetland vegetation and provide more vegetation for birds and other wildlife.
Similarly these existing storm ponds will be reconfigured and revegetated. Now weaving through the
entire natural, the entire site is a network of trails and overlooks and benches and the main goal of these
trails are to provide access for the site and multiple loop, hiking loops. The trails all convert, oh. Along
all the trails would be interpretative signage and the signage will cover mostly topics about the
environment and also the history of the site. So for instance in this prairie area there might be a sign that
talks about how the area was farmed and then some other signs that talk about plants and animals of the
prairie. All the trails converge at a trail head shelter, the kiosk and parking area and also in this area
~vould be an outdoor classroom which would just be terraced seating and a small stage for groups to use
and a nature center which environmental programs could be run from. And it would also have a display
area and some classrooms, meeting areas. So that's basically the plan. And then how people can
contribute. Right now we're talking about letting people contribute in two different ways. Either giving
with a monetary contribution or with donating a specific element. And the monetary contribution would,
2
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
how that would work is people could donate any amount of money and that money would go into a fund
and then annually the Park and Rec Commission can decide what should be funded based on how much
money there is and what needs to be done. People can also donate elements and this could be any
amount also from a bench to an entire prairie restoration or wetland restoration. And people who want to
donate a specific element would have to contact the Park Department and talk to somebody who could
talk to them about how much and what they want to donate. All the donors would be recognized in the
parks in some way. Probably a plaque that would either be at the trail head kiosk or in the nature center
when it's built. So that is how we're seeing the fund raising program and it's in process so any input
now and in the next few months would be appreciated. And then you guys all have the brochure and also
I need input into how that's laid out and what information should be included on that.
Lash: Okay. Can we, are you ready for some questions?
Lillian Leatham: Yeah.
Lash: Okay. Who's prepared to start?
Berg: I've got a couple.
Lash: Why don't we go in order, otherwise I'll get mixed up. Jim? Would you be ready?
Manders: In terms of the entire wetlands, is there, the way you've got the woodlands and the open water
and all that. You know the trees must be there but the water and everything, was there much needed to
reconfigure that at all or is it just a matter of using ~vhat's there now?
Paul Paige: As far as developing the open water?
Manders: Yeah.
Paul Paige: I think the water table's right there and the water is evident in the cat tails around it. It was
formerly sort of a low woodland, wet woodland with the dead standing trees and the history...kept it wet
for a period of time. So as far as getting open water there, it's just a matter of removing some of the
growth that's there. That sounds simple but the complicated side of that is the permitting and that's what
we're just in the process of exploring. I think there are, if this is brought about in the perspective of
enhancing the diversity of the wetland, which that would achieve. Not only just open water but those
transitions from open water to more of the cattail, swamp. There's probably 3 or 4 layers of different
plant communities that would grow there at different depths. Each providing it's own benefit to different
habitats and ecology independent ecologies. If we went through the DNR, the Corps of Engineers and
said we want to dredge this wetland and create open water so it looks nicer, that wouldn't go anywhere.
It's about creating diversity and increasing the habitat. Open water is a legitimate habitat. It's also in
this case would be very nice to look at and add a little bit more character to the site.
Manders: Relative to the evolution of this, I mean this is obviously something that will take years and
years to complete, is there any thought in terms of some type of phased activity? Probably the trail
system being part of the early piece and then...pieces kind of as funding is available?
Paul Paige: It's a little complicated. Todd mentioned a loop trail and I think that's a great idea to get
that in place so that people can really, the framework of the perimeter is in place. People can tour it and
people are starting to use it and walk before things can happen there. As far as other phasing, I agree
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
with the parking lot. I don't think that's a legitimate donor sought element. I think the city should
provide the parking lot and the kiosk and then have on the plan somewhat, I mean what would be
wonderful if there was this grand donation for a nature center. That's the really big dollar, physical icon
donation here. If that were to happen, then lots of other things could spawn from it but as far as could
one work without the other? Yeah, a lot of these trails could come together at this parking lot without a
nature center. They would still function as a useable park. You just don't have quite the educational side
of things there.
Manders: There was some mention about the buckthorn that's out there and at home or the farm where I
grew up, you know we'd try to get that out of the woods for years and years. And I'm wondering how
successful you think you'll be in trying to remove that from this area? You could take it out and it's
going to be back.
Paul Paige: Right. Buckthorn isn't a one time removal unfortunately and it's easily reseeded and easily,
and very hard to permanently get rid of but as part of a longer range management plan for the forest, and
it's something that is manageable from, if it's part of the long range endeavor and it's not just people.
Some people get fi'ustrated because they get all these volunteers together and they rip out this buckthorn
and then 2 years later here it comes. Like what good was that? And I mean you have to acknowledge
that it's very aggressive and you have to be just as aggressive to it? It's a legitimate practice.
Management practice.
Manders: That's it.
Lash: Okay, Jay.
Karlovich: The only question I had was, it seems like there's an old shadow path on here. What is that?
Hoffinan: There was an alignment that was put onto the map prior to having these boundaries so it's just
an old, it's a depiction of where the trail alignment should have gone or wanted to go and so it's been
redefined.
Karlovich: Okay. So that will come off the final brochure or whatever?
Hoffman: Co~Tect.
Karlovich: That's the only question I had. I really like the floating boardwalk. It makes for a nice walk.
Lash: Fred.
Berg: Do ~ve have any idea of time or cost for new plantings and the restored vegetation and all of these
things? Are we looking at a timeframe for this? Will some of it just happen naturally?
Paul Paige: Most of it won't happen naturally as far as evolving the farmed open grasslands back to a
native prairie. They're going to remain invasive species until they're removed and replaced. And as far
as the cost, there are more aggressive and less aggressive approaches to doing that depending, I think
someone's going to be like how much funding wants to be pushed in that direction? You can get a pretty
quick prairie in an area in a matter of a couple seasons if you use a lot of plugs versus just straight seeds.
Use small plants. There are a lot of extras out there that do that now. It's very popular to do and a lot of
good reasons to do it so, but it needs to be done purposefully.
4
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
Berg: Because it seems like we'd have a harder time getting money for something like that to be
donated. I mean trust us. It's going to look really nice in 2 years.
Hoffman: At the planning meeting that Lil and Paul and I had we brought in Jill Sinclair, the
Environmental Resource Coordinator and Lori Haak to talk about their potential involvement with the
Park and Recreation Department on this site. Lori is very involved in the Bluff Creek standpoint and Jill
in the environmental restoration so if we can get some ownerships and buy in from those two areas. In
the future if Jill had the opportunity to restore prairie, why not at Memorial Park. Or some of the wetland
issues, the surface water management money that comes in that you see on your utility bill. Those are the
dollars that Lori's investing in projects throughout the city and so, this is a pretty large project to create
this open water area and Lori can participate from a city basis on that project. You would just advance
the park that much quicker and really leave opportunity for the enjoyment of those respective donors.
Berg: So we could potentially be getting some money, earmark some money from three different areas if
we play our cards right.
Hoffman: Correct.
Berg: If we bring them on board.
Hoffman: Yep. Which we have and these two are working with those individuals as we move forward.
Berg: The only other question I have, Lil you mentioned about the donating money. Just straight money.
Do we want to talk at all about ifI donate $100, where I'd like to see it spent? Do we want to have that
on the brochure? Do we want to say that someplace or do we want to just let them trust us?
Lillian Leatham: Well it makes it more complicated. Definitely.
Berg: Yeah. But if I want to contribute towards a nature center.
Lillian Leatham: Yeah. I mean it probably could be worked out but it could be earmarked towards a
specific element. Now it might be years and years before that element is built so if you say I want it
towards the nature center and it's a hundred bucks, it might take a while.
Hoffman: The accounting for that.
Berg: I know. Maybe we don't want to give them the idea.
Hoffman: Yeah, you know we came up with those two areas. It's either you contribute and then you're
on a plaque. There's a memorial there. There's a $250 contribution. Hopefully Memorial Park is such a
nice place that simply saying that you contributed $250 towards making Memorial Park what we hope it
will be will be significant enough. Now if you have a particular interest, then you have that opportunity
where you can say you want to donate a specific feature in the park. But as you can imagine, 10 years
down the line and somebody's trying to keep track of where this $50 goes and that $100 and that 80, I
think it would be too complex.
Berg: That jogged ~ny memory for one of our committee meetings though. We were going to say
something in here, I know we're not going to put it in here. That you have a list of how much a bench
5
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
costs for example so they can find out, they can ask you, I want to donate a bench. How much is it going
to cost? You'll have a price range of the different kinds of benches and whatever? We did talk about
that didn't we?
Hoffinan: Yeah, ~ve talked about that and we talked about creating that in a follow-up larger format
brochure.
Berg: Okay. That's all I had.
Lash: Okay. ! had a couple different things. I thought it might be nice on the front if we mentioned the
acreage so people have an idea. Of how large it is and also the miles of trails that are provided. So
people could see that.
Hoffman: Or planned.
Lash: Planned, right. And then another question I had is do we need to take some kind of action to make
a recommendation that we officially changed the name of the park because is it still not Chanhassen
Nature Preserve or something?
Hoffman: Yep.
Lash: So we would need to, we could do that tonight could we not?
Hoffman: Sure.
Lash: And then, so that we've just taken care of that business. And then just because I'm a teacher, you
know that I'll be looking for typos and misspellings so. I'm surprised that Fred didn't already do this, but
on the very first paragraph park should be capitalized. Should it not, the second line? Memorial Park.
And then you guys can help me with this one. So you use, put an s on the end of towards or do you just
say toward?
Berg: Where are you?
Lash: In the very first paragraph, under park elements. Your donation will be used, is it toward or
towards?
Howe: I'm with you, I'd strike the s.
Lash: I think you're supposed to but I'm not necessarily positive. Okay. And then I wondered, and I
don't 'know if this can be on. This is just an idea but for an average person looking at prairie restoration,
woodland restoration, would it be possible to somehow put like what some examples of that would be so
that people would know?
Paul Paige: Local area?
Lash: Well like prairie restoration, example seed or plugs or you know, I don't know whatever kind of
things.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
Hoffman: Yeah in our last planning meeting we talked about what we'd like to see is, we talked about,
what did we call it? Almost a poster with the parkland on one side and then go through these natural
features. Park mnenities, education and plot them out on the back and say here is what a prairie
restoration involves and here's a potential dollar amount. If we want somebody to, if they're going to
donate $5,000 for prairie restoration, they'd better have a little, we better provide them with a little bit
more detailed information.
Lash: That was my other question. Well can we provide a little more detail and also some cost estimates
so if someone picks this up they could say, prairie restoration. That's $10,000. That's out of my league
but I could do you know, I could contribute a tree, a tree to the wind break planting or whatever, if I
knew what that involved. But looking at this would be kind of general for me to know.
Hoffman: Would it be best to do as an insert of this?
Lash: I don't know.
Hoffman: Because it's going to change and evolve over time.
Lash: And then also under the next one where it says park amenities, I wondered if, and I'm just
throwing this out as an idea. Should it say planned amenities include? Because it's really none of them
are there right now. I mean overlooks, the benches, the classroom, the shelter, nature center.
Howe: That's a good idea.
Lash: So that they don't think they're already there. And then I thought somewhere in there you might
want to insert donation opportunities include so plans, donation are planned amenities. I don't know. So
that they know that that's where some of their, I don't know. Think about it? And then down in the
education paragraph, I think self guided, I don't know that you're supposed to have a hyphen in there.
My computer always sticks hyphens in so I don't know. Maybe your's does too. And then I was
wondering on the $50 donation, when it says individuals and organizations who donate $50 or more will
have their names inscribed on a plaque. So is there going to be like a big plaque with a whole bunch of
names that we can just continue to add to? And will the $50 even cover the cost of adding a name to a
plaque? Or are we going to be operating in the red here?
Hoffman: No, it will cover it. It could be the wall with the brass nameplates.
Lash: Okay. So the nameplate doesn't cost, how much do one of those cost?
Hoffman: 6-7 bucks.
Lash: Oh okay. So that's cheap. Alright. And then under the next paragraph, donation of park features.
I thought maybe we'd want to strike of any size from the second line. If you'd like to donate a specific
park feature from a bird nest box to just because that sort of duplicates the idea. And then on the back I
think the phone number for the city hall is incorrect because that's the fax number isn't it? On the top.
Hoffman: Yep.
Lash: Yeah, okay.
7
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
Hoffman: And it's 952.
Berg: You're catching the details. I can't tell you know happy I am that I just have to be with you once a
month.
Lash: I know. Think if you had to work with me... Okay, now don't embarrass me. I'm not done yet.
Okay, then under the, on the bottom part it says I'd like to make a monetary contribution to Memorial
Park. Please fill in the amount of your, there should be a r there instead of you, your donation and down
where it says expiration date under VISA or Mastercard, expiration is misspelled. And also at the very
bottom where it says in, so you want the person's name or in honor of, and then do you want them to put
fi'om? Because I don't understand what the purpose of having from is there if you have the donor's
name, that's already who it's from isn't it?
Lillian Leatham: Maybe if you were to donate in honor of somebody besides yourself.
Lash: Yeah, but wouldn't that be the donor's name? You know what I mean? So it's in honor of Todd
Hoffman. Donor's name, Fred Berg. From would be the same as the donor's name. Yeah, okay. And
then from Todd I had just a couple of questions. I'd be interested in finding out if we wanted to try and
move fo~wvard as a city with the parking lot and a kiosk or some of the things to get started, I'd like a
ballpark.
Hoffinan: Estimate?
Lash: Estimate of that. And I had grant money available too so I was kind of on the same line with those
ideas. And then one other question with the planting of trees and those kind of things. Is it possible,
would this area provide a place where someone wanted to plant flowering trees or flowering shrubs, is
there an area where that could be done or not?
Paul Paige: I think there could be a palate of more native based ornamental trees. I don't think we want
to put a lot of crab apples.
Lash: No.
Paul Paige: But...berry. Other flowering, even middle story shrubs.
Lash: Or like sumac or lilacs or, you 'know because sumac.
Paul Paige: I ~know what you're saying. Different types of trees.
Lash: And different seasons so you've got the lilacs in the spring. The sumac color in the fall and just to
give a little diversity there to some of that stuff. Okay, I'm done nit picking now so that's it. Did you
find any typo's? Sorry Jay, did you find one that I missed? I'll be embarrassed.
Berg: I'm surprised you missed this.
Karlovich: I was just wondering under make checks payable to City of Chanhassen, should check and
payable be capitalized? We just wanted to see if we could find one.
8
Park and Rec Commission Meeting- December 12, 2000
Lash: Actually I even screwed myself up because I circled occasion because it looked like it was
misspelled but then I think it's right so.
Berg: Well there is one, how to contribute your contribution to Memorial Park. Probably the
contribution shouldn't be capitalized...well you capitalized Memorial Park.
Lash: Yeah, but then it's got touching and.
Berg: Right here.
Lash: Oh, I thought you were talking about here.
Berg: No, down below. In the middle of the paragraph.
Hoffman: Jan, back down to the bottom of the page with the in and of. Do you see the examples up
above?
Lash: Where are you?
Hoffman: Down at the bottom of the back page where we talk about the of. And we said.., of and then
the exmnple right above it, for example in loving memory of John Smith. So they just put the of in there.
Lash: Right, no I get that but then it says from under it. What's that supposed to mean? The person
who's donating?
Hoffinan: I would think so, yeah.
Lash: Okay but then it says donor's name. So pick one and go with it. I'm done.
Franks: It's a jewel and I think what a lot of us sat here and really envisioned years ago so I think that
it's great and that it can come about in this way. And when I think how this will put Richfield's
Woodlake Nature Center to shame because of the increased bio-diversities that we'll have in this park
that they can't have. So I'd like for them to show me an oak savannah. It won't happen. Todd the
question for you, or maybe any of you is, when I looked at this plan the one thing that I thought was to
start with the parking lot and bend the trail extension up to the overlook south and north of Coulter. And
then doing that in conjunction with creating the open water space and reconfiguring the ponding. To
give it a sense that people can pull in. They can walk to either one of the overlooks and then kind of get
a sense for what this is all about without us having to maybe put all that expense into creating this loop
trail because that's not going to happen really it seems to me until the development really goes through or
we have some serious money. So I'm wondering if that would appear to be a viable alternative to get
people introduced to the park without having to necessarily create the loop trail.
Hoffman: The one issue there is that the overlooks are overlooking areas which also need time and
money. The open water areas.
Franks: Well what I'm wondering is, if we could looking at starting really with getting the ponding done.
Creating open water areas and start moving on that quickly.
9
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
Hoffman: Yeah. It's also a primary goal of the planning group. Paul, can you think of what these or
will, what those two ponds are cmTently and what we would be doing with those?
Paul Paige: Those are really stereotypical retention basins that were developed as part of the industrial
development here and the idea would be to make them more wetland like and less engineered.
Franks: Well they're square now aren't they?
Paul Paige: Yeah. Shapes are bad...and the edges are bad... I think there's an opportunity there to more
easily adapt these and diversify the edges which will I think will help us in the permitting of this. I think
that's where we shoxv the core of the DNR that we're taking seriously about the habitat question and
what these wetlands really are and how they function and we want to carry the same idea into this
other...
Franks: So is it necessary to secure permits to alter the ponds that are ah'eady present?
Hoffman: The permitting, coordination with other departments, planning will take just as much time as
the probably the trail...
Paul Paige: But the per'mitring for those is in essence simpler because they're not a very high classified.
They're classified as a wetland but they're not classified as a very high quality wetland at all. So it's a
different threshold in the permitting than it is for the.., fairly high quality wetland.
Franks: Well other than the spelling mistakes, I think the brochure looks nice. I like the idea that instead
of your classic kind of tri fold, that you actually have something that opens up and draws your eye out
across the pages and really gives you a nice presentation of what the concept is of what we're trying to
accomplish so I think the brochure looks really nice. Another question I had too about people putting
money into the fund. That is set up as a dedicated fund? Or how does the accounting for that work? So
people are just donating cash to the development of this park and we're figuring out how to disperse that
cash. Does that go into general fund account or does that stay in some kind of a dedicated memorial fund
or how does that work?
Hoffman: I xvould hope it would go into a dedicated memorial fund. We'll have to talk to Bruce DeJong,
the Finance Director about that. There's a trend as of late to minimize the number of funds but for this
D:pe of project you'd want a separate fund.
Paul Paige: Another idea I had while I was standing here and you were talking about phasing and how
the dollars can come in and how people are really going to want direct their donation. The idea
with...pricing might be also a way to market year by year specific elements. It might be you -know this
year we're focusing on this boardwalk. Contribute to the boardwalk to be part of the Memorial Park so
people are, and that way that gives you direction. They understand where it's going before it even comes
to you...
Lash: Do you have anything Dave?
Moes: Yeah just a couple real quick. And we were just talking about the insert and kind of looks upon
the current year agenda. How do we prioritize those items there? Is that something we discuss and then
determine what the priorities are from donations that are made?
10
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
Hoffman: These items?
Moes: Yes.
Hoffman: Yes. It would be similar to a capital improvement program discussion of you know 3 or 4
years go by kind of, it depends on what you set your sights on. 3 or 4 years go by and you collect,
depending if the number of dollars you collect is $2,000 or $20,000 and how far you can go with it and
then you would make a recommendation and again, all the dollars that are donated then would be in
control of the City Council and make recommendations. They would go and approve that and then the
project would be initiated.
Moes: Okay, or do we maybe put a step in front of that which is we go in there with the one or two
priorities which then the people know they're donating to? Is that the other part of the insert thought
there as well?
Hoffman: Potentially.
Lash: If it was big...
Moes: I'm just trying to put it down into smaller pieces which is, the end picture looks really nice and
it's just a matter of how many steps are there to get there and if I'm donating my $100 or $200.
Paul Paige: It's like a church fund where you have building funds.
Moes: Right, oh I understand. So okay. Then just one other quick one ~vas, if someone is like donating,
I'll use bench as the example. Is like a plaque put on the bench then specifically that they're donating or
will that be part of the other big plaque?
Paul Paige: That's something we need to discuss. The idea was that, because this is a, the bench may be
the, because this is a natural area restoration, that it wasn't entirely appropriate to have plaques by a
bunch of trees as you walk through more like an arboretum or another memorial or refined memorial
park. But that a lot of those can be consolidated into that kiosk or into the nature center. Specific
donations for just benches in the park are give thanks to so and so, the following people have put the
benches in the park so it's not really a specific bench, even though they may know which bench they
contributed, but it's more attributed to the benches. That's my personal reaction because we don't want a
lot of plaques for other reasons...on a lot of different things.
Moes: I was going to use the nest as an example but I thought better of that. Okay, thanks.
Hoffman: Some of these things over time are going to disappear. Be replaced and so we feel a
permanent location for the memorial is on a kiosk or this plaque presentation so if over time that
particular contribution is invested, has served it's useful life and is gone, and 50 years from now the
memorial is still going to be there.
Berg: And I like Paul's idea of let me know which bench is mine so that I know. That's all that really
matters is that I know which one it is.
Lash: I think as a committee we kind of talked about that and talked about when the day comes and the
bench falls apart and it needs to be replaced, you know how do, we thought that'd be kind of a book
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
keeping nightmare to keep track of so we decided it would be better for us to not... There was one other
thing I forgot it now. I'll think of it.
Hoffman: You may.., if you look at it, it's almost, they'll say you were responsible for replacement. I'm
thinking who's keeping track.
Lash: Mike.
Howe: First of all, I was very impressed with how this came out and despite the typo's, how it looked
and I could envision this and I'm fortunate enough now to live near enough to this that I can run through
here and ride the bike through here. It's wonderful. But do you have experience Paul or Lil with fund
raising with cities? Doing something like this?
Paul Paige: No.
Howe: I work with a couple non-profits in Minneapolis and it's, it may actually be easier here because
we have, you know who it's going to go to. The people of Chanhassen. It's not like anybody would do
this. You have a dedicated target. I like Rod's idea that it might be nice just to start and give them a
taste of what this could be. Boy if we had more money we could extend this trail around or we envision
this great interpretative center here. But I think if you don't want to be, from my experience, you don't
want to be in the position that every year you're coming back. Well this year we're going to build the
trail. Well this year we're going to build the interpretative center. This year we're going to build these
overlooks because people get tapped out I think so fund raising is a science and I don't know anything
about it but I know that it can be very tricky and you have to be very careful how you do it and it takes a
lot of time and a lot of work. So that's one caution. Did the neighbors here, these apartments or the
people in Trotter's Ridge have any, would they have anything to say about this? Are they going to?
Hoffman: We can invite them in, sure.
Howe: I just, I don't see why anybody would complain other than more mosquitoes if you add water but
then for what this is going to be, that's a huge...
Paul Paige: Your corporate citizens might be very interested in this plan also.
Howe: And I was going to say, tie in with the, you have a school across the street. I mean it's a huge,
and maybe if somebody can't give 50 bucks or $500, but and I don't know if you can do this but as far as
groups of volunteers or churches or people coming through and cutting down buckthorn or putting those
plugs in. You know labor is huge and if you...do that or we can get away with that in the future, that's
something you could suggest too. The Arboretum would be someone. They did the same thing just on
the west side of 41 which turned out very nice I thought. I don't know if they'd have an interest in this
but I think there are a lot of people you could talk to. Great looking idea but fund raising is something
that has to be I think approached very carefully.
Hoffman: I would hope it would turn into one of those things where it's like the bricks that are down at
the old depot where, and that was a one time opportunity to get your name into the depot brick yard there.
Where people once it got going, all the groups, the service organizations and my fear is it would be you
just don't want to set your sights too low because like the Rotary is going to contribute. The Lions are
going to contribute or the businesses are going to contribute and.
12
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
Lash: I could see the Legion you know for members there that.
Hoffman: So you're right, you want to be smart about it because once, you could even a community the
size of Chanhassen, you could tap out the business community in 2 or 3 years and then you're done.
You've got a big surge of money and then after that it could be difficult.
Howe: Did we put any money aside for anything like this? Don't we have any money in one of our
accounts? The 4 year plan. 5 year plan. Nothing for this?
Hoffman: That would be, that's what Jan's asking for for future capital plans for the cost of the parking
lot.
Lash: Figure out when we want to budget that in under the CIP. Are you done Mike?
Howe: Yes.
Lash: Okay. And then the other thing I think we need to talk about is when we want this to break you
know because it will come out in the paper and we need to be prepared once it comes out in the paper so
that if we start getting phone calls we've got intelligent answers and a plan. And then how often we want
to revisit it. Ask the paper, now do we want to do it every spring? Do we want to do a mass mailing and
send this out to everyone in town to kick it off?. You know how do we want to kick it off to get the
attention to get it started and then, I do think it's something we need to continue to advertise but we don't
want to do it too often but we might want to pick a time of year that we just remind people that it's
available and new people in town... Jay, you had a couple other things?
Karlovich: I just had one question with kind of the location of the parking lot. I was looking at this and I
pictured myself wanting to cross the street and walk over here before taking my children up next to the
four lane Highway 5 and hearing the back and forth so I don't know what, where it says restored prairie
over here. Whether it makes more sense to have the parking lot on the kind of bigger and nicer side of
the park as opposed to the north side of the park there.
Lash: I think there's only a couple places sturdy enough to support it. The other's too gooshy.
Hoffinan: One.
Paul Paige: There's a little bit of high ground.
Hoffman: Yeah, high and hard ground. There is some high ground on the other side but it's not firm
enough to support building a parking lot.
Lash: Jay, would you be more excited to take your kids up on the north part if there was a wind break
along 5 too so that you didn't see the highway and hear it? If we had a nice row of pine trees or
something.
Karlovich: Yeah. I mean that will help. Plus I think there's a grade separation.
Hoffman: Big grade separation there.
13
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
Manders: I think a perfect opportunity for the city though is that Highway 5 can see into all instead of
trying to block the view to the road. Allow the viexv out to this.
Hoffman: That's what the Highway 5 corridor study talked about is the view shed area. I am working
with the engineering department and MnDot to make sure that that trail grade is benched in there as part
of the Highway 5 project. They will not build the trail but we can work with them on grading. And then
when the contract, the property line is right there for their property and our trail stops over here. When
they get a contractor we'll hire them on to complete that...
Manders: I had m,o other things I was going to ask about. One is, and you're talking about marketing
this and all that and something that catches my eye are the pictures and to the extent possible we can add
any more, I think that's a real valuable component. Now that might be something as we're marketing
this. You know the next year or the following year you put in different pictures or something in an insert
or however you do this but I think that... And then the other part is with the naming of the park is
signage so that people know where this is at. I mean I think people would recognize it but are there 2, 3,
4 signs or I would think we'd want a pretty visible signage that people would recognize that this is what
this area is. Does that make sense?
Berg: Or if we even want a sign out on Galpin. Maybe Galpin and Coulter.
Hoffinan: It would be nice but we can't get one for the Rec Center because of the County right-of-way
issues. I don't think they'll allow us a permit. We could try. We can alko, essentially it would be easier
since it's a city street.
Manders: Something that I'm thinking of is just visibility from 5 or a sign that you would see from 5 that
this is what this area is because there's going to be so much traffic there.
Franks: You're talking like a brown highway informational sign?
Manders: Not necessarily. A park, some type of park sign I think you know.
Hoffman: Any time we're in MnDot right-of-way or County right-of-way we have to meet warrants for
any type of sign. Bandimere was a stretch. We only received that, it was paid through the issue of safety
at the access. Lake Ann is a regional destination for a much larger area so they'll allow that. MnDot
would not put a brown sign up for this park on Highway 5. We own Coulter and Century and we could
put signs up there. I would think a nice large park sign out at the parking lot but yeah.
Manders: I'm thinking of one large typical park sign that would be visible from 5. And it wouldn't have
to be in their right-of-way but still be visible that people would recognize what this area is.
Hoffman: Okay. We can think about that. We can hang a banner on the Rec Center.
Lash: I guess when you're talking about the pictures and the pictures...and I know there's pretty much
nothing there. It's not developed.
Hoffinan: These pictures are for examples.
14
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
Lash: Yeah, okay. Because I'm not particularly fond of the one in the front. It sort of makes it look like
Death Valley or something with those dead trees. I mean it would inspire someone to want to donate
money to perk it up but.
Hoffman: Once we go to press with this, we'll have some professional...
Lash: Even the one down here just looks a little, have the dead trees.
Karlovich: I like the floating bridge.
Lash: You like the what?
Karlovich: Floating bridge.
Hoffman: That's a Richfield picture.
Karlovich: That caught my eye.
Lash: I'm so excited. This is one of the most exciting projects I think we've taken on in years. I think
this is going to be really fun to see happen. So thank you for your work on it. Anyone else have
questions or comments? No? Okay. So there's a couple of things we need to decide tonight. Right
Todd? We need to act on this name change.
Hoffman: I don't know that, now that I think about it. We need to be presumptuous and change the
name before we go to the Planning Commission or Council with the idea.
Lash: Oh. Kind of thought they had done that so, okay. So we can do that the next time.
Hoffman: Yeah.
Lash: And then also at that time talk about how to.
Hoffman: Market it?
Lash: Yes. When to do that.
Hoffman: Well the question of when yeah, is really the more time we allow ourselves the more we'll
know about these other improvements or potential improvements on permitting and the development of
the industrial lots. I would think once this brochure is printed, just a mass mailing to all residents would
kick it off. All business and residents and then there would be some newspaper coverage.
Lash: How about a tie in with Memorial Day? I mean would that be a logical connection? I mean
we're not going to be able to start anything really until spring anyways so, I mean as far as any work
there.
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: So ~naybe it would just be a natural connection to mail it out in May sometime and say, you know
in honor of Memorial Day, this has been the idea and it's going to be called.
15
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
Hoffinan: Memorial Day 2001 I would think would be aggressive. I think it would benefit the program
for us to have everything kind of dressed up with red carpet laid out before we invite people down to the
park. If we don't have a trail head and we don't have a trail system and we splash out the brochure, we
have to make that conscience decision, is that what we want to do? Or do you want to wait until you're a
little bit better prepared and you have the kiosk prepared and the nameplates are up and the plaques are
all empty and people drive in and they go, there it is. That's what I get.
Franks: That's what I'd like to see. I think we'd get a great response from that.
Moes: Yeah, I think a little more established for a drive by person to see.
Hoffman: Just getting it through the Planning Commission and the council and answering some of the
permitting questions, I don't think we would make 2001.
Lash: Okay. Well better to take the time and do it right.
Howe: Absolutely.
Hoffman: These lots could go quite quickly. The industrial lots. That may happen you know.
Lash: The what?
Hoffman: These industrial lots that are tied to the trail development. Once that stop light and that
Century Boulevard goes in, I would think they're going to want to push those and if you've noticed that
industrial park is kind of dragging behind and I would think they want to market their properties.
Lash: Okay. Anyone have anything else? So will we, do you think that you might have answers to some
of these things by January or February or ho~v long do you think it will take for you to get?
Hoffman: Probably February.
Lash: Okay. So should we table any action on this until February?
Hoffman: Do you want to see this back before I take it to the Planning Commission and Council?
Lash: No. I just think we need an update.
Berg: Maybe get some answers to costs.
Hoffman: Alright. So then, and currently I'll schedule those in February and March for the Planning
Commission and Council and bring back the refinements so.
Franks: My guess is Todd, when you take this to council they're going to have the same questions about
cost of the parking lot that we'll have so.
Hoffman: Let's shoot for the second meeting in January for an update and then we'll schedule...
Lash: Okay, sounds good. Thanks.
16
Park and Rec Commission Meeting- December 12, 2000
RECREATION PROGRAMS:
A. 2000/2001 ICE RINK PROGRAM.
Hoen: Thank you Chair Lash, Commissioners. Quick update on the ice rinks. The park maintenance
department started flooding the rinks last week. We were scheduled to open up this Saturday hopefully.
Karlovich: It's this warm weather.
Hoen: Yeah. They began flooding right after the... Yeah, so we're opening this Saturday. Is our
scheduled date to open the warming houses. But our one house is going to be delivered this Thursday
and we'll hook up the phones at that time. We have 11 ice rink attendants right now and we'd kind of
like to get maybe 1 or 2 more attendants.
Lash: Would you like any substitutes?
Hoen: Yes.
Lash: I might have a name of a substitute.
Hoen: That would be great. You never know when people, kids are sick and what not so that'd be great.
The warming house is going to be at the same parks as last year. Chan Hills, the Rec Center, City Center
Park, Roundhouse and North Lotus. So do you have any questions?
Franks: What hourly rate do you pay the rink attendants?
Hoen: The new ones are $6.75 and there's a couple that returned from last year so they're getting $7.25.
Lash: Okay. Anyone have anything else quickly on this?
B. HOLIDAY TREE LIGHTING EVALUATION.
Hoen: The tree lighting ceremony was held last Saturday with 125-150 people show up. Came up and
braved the cold. It was a chilly wind. It was a great turnout. It went well. We had refreshments that
were donated. Nancy Lipinski was in charge of getting all the refreshments from Applebee's, the
Chanhassen Inn, Velvet Green Coffee and Tea, Festival Foods and Chapel Hill baked cookies, which
worked out great. We had a bonfire going which helped out with the cold weather. We kind of gathered
around the bonfire. We had kids from Chapel Hill singing Christmas carols so that worked out really
nice. Santa Claus was played by Brian Beniek. Did a great job. He arrived by fire truck with red
flashing lights and sirens going. Kids really kind of enjoyed that.
Lash: Did anyone think that that was not like really real? Like representative of Santa that comes by fire
truck.
Ruegemer: His sleigh was in the shop.
17
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
Hoen: ...telling the kids so yeah. The only thing is the kids wanted to pull on his beard as they were
following behind him but otherwise everything worked out great. I will continue to do the exact same for
next year.
Lash: Anybody have questions on that? Sounds good Corey, thanks.
Hoffman: Probably one of the biggest.
Lash: Yeah, that's a lot of people. I was surprised.
Hoen: Very good turnout.
PARK AND TRAIL MAINTENANCE REPORT.
Lash: This is kind of self explanatory I guess, right?
Hoffman: Coldest year since '88.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Lash: Then under the administrative thing we have the update on Pulte.
Hoffman: The letter that I drafted to Kate was sent off to Mr. Griswold. Planning Commission tabled
Arboretum Village as well. They want Pulte to respond to the issues raised by the Park Commission and
they raised some questions of their own. I hope to have Mr. Griswold back on the 9t~ of January for this
special meeting that the Park and Recreation Commission has called. Currently Kate Aanenson is
coordinating a meeting with Dennis that I will be attending and we'll sit down and go through some of
these issues. There's some larger issues on the table as you can recognize. The State of Minnesota
would like to complete the access boulevard. In order to do that through this subdivision Pulte needs to
be approved as a project for them to dedicate the right-of-way to the State of Minnesota. So if that
timing is to occur, the State of Minnesota would like to complete the project next summer. IfPulte does
not receive approval, then the State would stop at Century Boulevard and that intersection and not
continue on to Highway 41.
Berg: Did he have any reaction to our meeting? Have you talked to him at all?
Hoffinan: To Dennis?
Berg: Yeah. Did Mr. Griswold have any reaction to our meeting?
Hoffman: No. Not that I've heard to date.
Lash: So other than the Planning Commission did you get reaction from anyone else? Okay. Well I
appreciate the fact that they're...commend Commissioner Franks on his well worded quote in here.
Franks: I'd like to commend Park Director Hoffman for the editorializing of my well worded.
Lash: No, that's exactly how you said it. I remember.
18
Park and Rec Commission Meeting- December 12, 2000
Berg: Word for word.
Lash: It's in the minutes.
Karlovich: He had some written notes though, didn't he?
Lash: Yeah I think it was probably prepared. Was it prepared?
Franks: No.
Lash: Oh. It was smooth. Anyone else have anything on the Pulte?
Franks: Just one thing. This brings up a different issue but Pulte's related to it. I also was very pleased
to hear that the Planning Commission was really interested in wanting to work with what we had as
feedback as well and it strikes me that the process between the two commissions is not real smooth. And
I don't know if historically there's been other means or on large scale projects like this where I mean this
is in the Bluff Creek overlay district and it's a big development and park needs and out of other services.
I mean we're really coming together. If there's other ways to work with that I don't know.
Hoffman: I've thought about it and in the past we have had some joint meetings with the Planning
Commission. That's one step towards doing that. At least in putting some, sitting down face to face and
gaining that mutual trust and respect for each other's jobs.
Franks: Now that you mentioned that, we did do that once. I can't remember what it was for but that
was years ago.
Hoffman: Yeah, I believe it was just for, just like having a joint City Council meeting. We just had a
joint Planning Commission meeting which could easily be completed again. And it's a good opportunity
to talk about these other long range issues in the city. Where are you guys headed? What's your vision?
I'll talk to Kate about that.
Franks: Great, thank you.
Lash: Anything else on that? Okay, move on to the directory update. Anyone besides me with updates?
Karlovich: I was wondering why David's still here. It looks like his commission has expired.
Hoffman: Oh, it does. Jan you're in there?
Lash: Am I expired?
Hoffman: No. 02.
Lash: Okay, is that it for that? I mean you wanted to the January 9th meeting right Todd?
Hoffman: I had a meeting with Brian Hubbard of the YMCA. I informed him that the commission
would be having a work session to discuss issues pertaining to the YMCA. He asked if there's anything
you would like to receive in your packet for that meeting. From him or the Y. You probably remember
you got that binder.
19
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
Berg: Do we know how much land they need? Is that somewhere in the binder? Is that somewhere in
the information? The kind of area we have to find.
Hoffinan: I doubt it.
Berg: That might be nice to know. If they envision between building a parking lot.
Lash: i have some kind of recollection that we talked about that. Wasn't it like 9 acres?
Howe: Yeah but if we combined it with something else it was less.
Lash: Yeah but if we didn't put in fields it was less. I think. But I was thinking it was more but it was 9
ballfields.
Howe: 9 or 10 kind of rings a bell with me but.
Berg: It'd be nice to get that nailed down a little bit.
Franks: I'm sure it's pretty similar to the Lifetime kind of proposal and they were between 8 and I0
acres. 8 at a minimum.
Hoffinan: That's another call as well.
Berg: And if we could have some idea of where we have, where that kind of space is available, that
wouldn't be fi'om him or course but.
Franks: And the other thing that would be helpful for me would be, what is their standard kind of time
line process? Maybe not nailing down dates but there's Step 1 and there's Step 2 and there's Step 3.
Hoffinan: Okay.
Berg: And did he talk about benefits to residents?
Lash: I believe it was reduced, was it not reduced membership?
Berg: Is that what it was?
Lash: That's my recollection but I think those are things we can kick around at our meeting. What are
we looking for in trade for what they're asking.
Berg: Right. It might be nice to know what they've done in the past so we have some idea where they
bargain.
Lash: I think the video and the booklet gave us a pretty good overview of the types of things that they
could provide. If everybody still remembers. Does anybody need refreshing on?
Hoffinan: I'll print the packet in paper form and send it out as a part of the agenda,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
Lash: He's not coming that night?
Hoffman: No.
Lash: Okay. It's just us right? Anybody else have anything they want to know for that night? And then
did you say you're putting, is Pulte on that night too?
Hoffman: Yeah. The other items would be Pulte and so you would have their representative here to talk
about an update plan, we hope. That is if they respond to updating the plan.
Lash: Can we have that first then so that anyone who comes for that can leave and then we can get into
that.
Hoffman: Sure. Third item is the Round House 'Park. We had the bid opening on December 6th. The
low bid is $119,000, which is 50% over our $80,000 project. So the major factors there are the
architect's design with the you know brings in some cost elements. The lead base paint on the exterior of
the building and then there's some asbestos, those create some costs. Anytime you include those
elements into a project, I don't care how minor or extensive they are, the costs will go up. So folks from
Locus will be here to talk about what the options are. We obviously need to talk as a commission about
if you want to scrap the project. Recommend that the City Council increase the budget, or you reduce
the scope of the project and try to reduce the cost. The bids were 119, 124, 131,000 and 168,000. So
four bidders so the market tends to estimate right around that $125,000, or at least the plan that we had
for Round House. How do you like your agenda so far?
Howe: It's going to be fun.
Berg: It's not going to be a short night.
Hoffman: And the last item is the 2001 park and trail dedication fees. We have not raised our fees in 4
or 5 years. Land cost continue to raise so I will be bringing you a recommendation to raise the fees.
Lash: Can we have some comparisons to other communities to see if we're in the ballpark?
Hoffman: Yep. And that's it for January 9th. We will also have a meeting on the 23rd and if there's any
items that commissioners would like to see, we should talk about those now.
Lash: Will Pulte be back, they'd probably be back by then wouldn't they?
Hoffman: We hope so. It's hard to predict what they're going to do.
Lash: And you'd have an update on some figures for Memorial Park thing.
Hoffman: End of January.
Franks: A discussion on the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
Hoffman: Rod and I talked about that today. The commissioners that have not been around since the
Bluff Creek Overlay District was initiated by the City and I've asked Kate if she would like to talk about
that or if we just send the packet through, just to bring people up to speed. Many of our projects are in
21
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
that Bluff Creek Overlay District so I'm understanding what those guiding principles are for that is
beneficial for all commissioners.
Karlovich: I don't 'know if this is, one of the questions I have in mind, are we ever going to get a briefing
on you know our financial condition. Our TIF problem and how that's going to affect us or are we going
to keep on sending you know projects that we want to do and then we don't have the money. Can we be
kind of in the loop on that? I don't know how too well off we are.
Franks: I think that'd be a really good topic for, if we do like we have in years past, that joint work
session with City Council. Do you think that'd be an appropriate forum for that Jay?
Karlovich: Yeah. Ijust otherwise we put a lot of time into a project and if we say we want to do it and
then all of a sudden we get shut down because they don't have the money.
Hoffman: Always think about two different lines. General budget or the park dedication funds. The
things you've been reading in the paper about general obligation dollars is true. The times are going to
be leaner until we paid off some of this debt between now and 2004, 2005 but the park dedication fund
has never been doing better so last year over $600,000 in park dedication fees generated, primarily due to
all the industrial/commercial stuff between Audubon and Powers Boulevard so large projects coming on
line but that money is going to dry up. Residential permits are estimated to be down significantly in
2001. Industrial permits will flatten off so the good times are not here for a lot of years so.
Lash: I hate to sound snippy but let's not forget that that money's not our's. That budget's not our's.
Karlovich: No, I'm just wondering, I mean that would even be helpful. Having an understanding of
where we are you know with even that fund. So that we can be realistic and financially responsible or
know where we're at.
Hoffman: I'll also bring up as a part of the project capital improvement discussion we'll be having in
2001. Each year we update because we have to go out that extra year and we'll talk about the allocations.
City Council also elected last evening, as a part of their capital plan to increase the budget for 101 north
trail from $600 to $850,000 over 2 years and they earmarked Fund 410, park dedication. It's actually
called Park and Trail Acquisition and Development Fund for that project so that would consume
$850,000 of that about $1.4 million that's in there if that project did come to bear and those dollars were
used.
Berg: That's money fi'om the referendum?
Hoffman: No. Dollars, Fund 410, Park Acquisition and Development. Those are the fee dollars that
you, that the City collects. The estimate on that now, it's in your Admin Packet for the 9th meeting is at
about $1 million for that trail section.
Lash: Which initially.
Hoffman: Was about $400,000.
Lash: But that was not initially coming out of our fund, was it?
22
Park and Rec Commission Meeting- December 12, 2000
Hoffman: No. Your recommendation was to take the money from Highway 101 South, $200,000 and
pledge that to the project and Council said, you know that's fine but we want to identify a funding source
for this and the only one we see available is Fund 410 so that's not that, if the project ever comes to bear
that that's where all the funding will come from but it is a designation.
Karlovich: I just think, I know it's a moving target all the time. I just don't have a good feeling of where
we are.
Hoffman: You bet. You want to know where the checkbook is.
Karlovich: Yeah.
Commissioner: Do you do this at home too Jay?
Karlovich: Yeah. Somebody's got to.
Hoffman: Funny, I know it's a moving target .... I do that too Jay. I know exactly what you're talking
about.
Lash: The funds are fluid...Okay. Under Committee Reports. Does anybody have a committee report?
Our committees, we don't really have much for committees anymore. Do we have any commission
member presentations? Anyone? Under the administrative packet, anyone have anything under that? I
made a little note, this Herman Field vandalism.
Hoffinan: Pretty constant.
Lash: I'm becoming disenchanted with our clientele in that park. So how damaged is it? Is it damaged
to the point it needs to be removed?
Hoffman: No, they removed the graffiti.
Lash: That was able to be removed?
Howe: But there's holes in the slide. The slide melted.
Hoffman: On this one or the previous one?
Lash: This one.
Hoffman: Yep. Haven't talked to them about that.
Lash: You know it's just, if it is damaged to the point where it needs to be removed, then we need to
remove it and at this point I'm kind of disinclined to replace it. You know pieces are just going to be
completely demolished there and...
Hoffman: I stopped reading when I whited out the phone numbers so I'll find out about the slide with the
hole in it.
Karlovich: Just need to put on some cameras.
23
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - December 12, 2000
Manders: You might not want to see what you see.
Lash: And then was there something with this benchmarking that we were, I mean is this just supposed
to be kind of FYI in the future if we want to do some kind of?.
Hoffman: FYI from the national conference.
Franks: Was there a point that you gleaned from all this? Being a people person, the bar graphs and
numbers kind of escaped me.
Hoffinan: The point I gained from this is that, I tend not to have to want to find out where everybody's at
before I decide where I want to go. And this is for people who tend to want to know or have to know
because of the governmental system. Where other people are at before they can decide where they want
to go. I think of Chanhassen as an individual community doing things that we see fit for our community
and our citizens and I don't necessarily need to know where everybody else is at to make that happen.
But in certain areas, I mean data such as event parking has a limited life span. It's not always good for
your com~nunity. It can do damage depending on what the statistics are and I think of the community
needs to, if they're talking about do we have to, like for the Y. Have to have a survey you know. So
yeah, you do that one time for a specific issue. What these are, in Missouri. I think that's Missouri what
they're doing is state wide to give ail park and recreation agencies kind of a snapshot of what's going on.
And I just tend to, I don't like to pay for that. I just like to steal somebody else's and take a peak into it
and then say alright, see. We're either above or below and that confirms where I think we're at and then
move on so. I'm not in the, in fact we had a benchmarking conversation at a Minnesota Recreation and
Park Foundation meeting where the foundation, some of the members would like to see some dollars
from the foundation being generated for statewide surveys. If it's salary surveys or those type of things.
I just don't have an interest in that.
Franks: I'm glad to hear that because I'm not particularly interested in us spending any of our money on
stuff like that.
Lash: Anyone else have anything before we adjourn? Okay, is there a motion to adjourn?
Berg moved, Howe seconded to adjourn the Park and Recreation Commission meeting. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Hoffinan
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
24