1d. City council minutes, Cctober 25, 1993 1 hi-
1
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
I REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 25, 1993
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
I
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf,
I Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Paul Krauss, and Kate
Aanenson
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
agenda amended to add item 11(b) Don Ashworth, HRA. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
I Bill Hickey: My name is Bill Hickey. I reside at 6301 Elm Tree Avenue in the Minnewashta Heights
neighborhood. I will be brief as my comments regard what has been old business for this Council. I am
concerned about the item which was voted upon at the last Council meeting. The items I wanted to make it
I clear are procedural rather than substantive. It has to do with regard to what is at Page 45 of the Minutes with
regard to the TIF agenda and a vote on the TIF agenda in District 2 -1 and 2 -2 at that meeting. First I would just
note that as a citizen I felt that the notice was somewhat inadequate and was difficult for me to look at the
I agenda and figure out what was being voted on. In fact as I read through the Minutes, what was voted on.
Secondly, in reading what the Council decided to do, I would like to call the Council's attention to Minnesota
Statute 469.176, Subd 4G and I'll just be very brief. I'll just quote it briefly. That Statute says that no revenues
I arrived from tax increment from any district shall be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation
or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality,
county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state and federal government. And I think
that raises some concerns and questions that I have about the legality of the proposal with regard to the TIF
I agenda. So those are the points I wish to raise tonight and I would ask that the Council seriously consider
reconsidering this issue and perhaps giving a little stronger notice to the citizens who may wish to speak to it.
That's all I have. Thank you.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor. We had presented that proposal to the city, or bonding attorneys. Not the City •
Attorney. Holmes and Graven. Received a response from them that TIF can be used. If you recall, part of this
proposal is a city park. So one half of the site is proposed as a park site. Clear authority under TIF to be able
I to use dollars for that purpose. Sitting on the park property would be the gymnasium and other community use
type of areas. Again, we had an opinion from the City Attorney clarifying that that is valid uses. Those are
valid uses of tax increment dollars. I can put a copy of that opinion in your next packet as well as sending one
to this individual and if he would disagree, potentially coming back and seeing us again but otherwise 1 think
that the opinion we have is pretty clear.
I Mayor Chmiel: Good. Fine. Maybe we can furnish Mr. Hickey with a copy of that as well.
Bill Hickey: Thank you. I'd appreciate that.
1 Mayor Chmiel: You bet. Richard. You had something you wanted to.
1 1
1
.1 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor and fellow members of Council. I'd like to just take a moment to clarify a
comment I made during the Colonial Grove beachlot discussions of this past summer. During these discussions I
suggested that one of the affidavits probably would not hold up in court and I believe I used the word, or words,
duress and/or pressure in describing the signing of this affidavit. Since then Mr. Whitehill and this mystery
neighbor if you will, to not editorialize, have discussed this matter. And in contacting the neighbor and the
affidavit in question, he has asked that I clarify the record accordingly. My use of the word duress or pressure
did not refer, nor was it intended to refer to the way in which the affidavit was extracted but rather the affidavit
signer felt under personal pressure or duress to sign it more as a friend, a neighbor, or to be helpful to the
neighborhood. I have been corrected by the Colonial Grove resident who has asked that I correct the record and
' merely state that the affidavit was signed in error, to use his word. In error by him and he was not under any
duress or pressure at any time. He has advised Mr. Whitehill as such. During the beachlot discussions, if my
use of any specific word or words in any way offended Mr. Whitehill, I would take this time to apologize.
1 Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Richard. We'll move along with the Consent Agenda.
1 CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the following
consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Resolution #93 -103: Approve Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement with MnDot (West 78th Street at
County Road 17), File No. 92 -3 -3.
e. Approve Liquor License Transfer, Chanhassen Dinner Theaters
g. Approval of Accounts
h. City Council Minutes dated October 11, 1993
Planning Commission Minutes dated October 6, 1993
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated October 14, 1993
' j. Resolution #93 -104: Resolution Opposing Unfunded Mandates by State and Federal Governments.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: So we don't go into a long dissertation other than having item (n), I would like to move the
balance of that Consent Agenda, unless there's someone here present that would like to discuss any of those
items that were pulled presently. We will move those to item number 10(a).
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor I would approve that with one exception. Item (i), just for clarification because I
1 believe there's someone here that would like to leave.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would accept that. Is there a second?
1 Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to defer discussion on Consent Agenda items c, f,
1 1 and m until item 10(a) on the agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1 2
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
1
L. BYLAW AMENDMENT, CHANHASSEN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, MODIFICATION
OF RELIEF BENEFITS.
Councilman Wing: On item (i), I just wanted to remove myself from the vote. It's a consent agenda item. I
have a conflict of interest and it would be inappropriate to vote on that item.
Mayor Chmiel: Being you're on the Fire Department?
Councilman Wing: That's correct. Other than that I have no problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. I'll move item (i).
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. '
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Bylaw Amendment,
Chanhassen Volunteer Fire Department, Modification of Relief Benefits. All voted in favor, except
Councilman Wing who abstained, and the motion carried.
N. ACCEPT DONATION FROM THE CHANHASSEN AMERICAN LEGION CLUB FOR THE
SENIOR CENTER.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to make a motion to, is Ozzie here?
Todd Gerhardt: He had to go to the Lions meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: That's why I pulled n. Being that he's not here, item n is accept a donation from the
Chanhassen American Legion Club for the Chanhassen Senior Center. What I wanted to do was express to him
our thanks and also from the Senior Center, their thanks for providing $1,000.00 to them and it's designated to
purchase a sound system for the Senior Chorus and other senior activities. On behalf of the City of Chanhassen
and the seniors, we thank the American Legion. Thank you Ozzie. Can I have a motion to accept item n?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to accept the donation from the Chanhassen
American Legion Club for the Senior Center. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ,
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Cindy Rouse: I'm Cindy Rouse. I live at 1690 Koehnen Circle. I'm kind of nervous because I think I didn't '
do it right the last time I was here. I was here last month on September 13th regarding the vacation of easement
on the lot we own next to our house. The new easement was already in place. At 5:30 that day in a letter I
learned the staff had recommended the easement vacation be approved contingent upon my husband, Dave and I
1
dedicating an additional 5 feet of drainage and utility easements on the east side of the lot where Deer Ridge
Road goes into Shorewood. I phoned my husband to tell him this since he had been working with Sharmin. He
said well I guess we have to agree because we need to get the easement off in order to build. I didn't feel this
was right. I phoned him again as I was leaving to go to the meeting. He said we have to agree. I felt we had
to say yes because we had everything in time for the planning meeting prior to the August 6th Council meeting
so that it could be the agenda at that meeting. We had planned on building this fall and selling the house we are
living in. First what I'd like to know is if, as Mark Senn said, there's a 10 foot easement on all roads. Why
3
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
this was not dealt with when approval was given for this road which serves no one in Chanhassen, why did this
become our problem? Secondly, why were we not informed when it was decided to change this from a simple
' vacation of easement to a matter of rectifying a different situation? The agenda and notice of public hearing
printed in the Villager listed it as only an easement of vacation. I realize city employees are busy but we
thought this was only a vacation of an easement since the new easement was already in place. I feel we should
' have been informed when this changed to a matter of rectifying past mistakes. After thinking about it I feel we
were purposely not told ahead of time knowing we would have little time to respond and feel more pressure to
agree and perhaps not realize what was happening. I've been bothered about this since it happened because I
don't think we were treated fairly. I feel I was set up by the people who I thought were working with and for
1 us.
Dave Rouse: My name's Dave Rouse. I just want to add that if the situation had been presented to us, I don't
think it would have been a problem to agree to the easement. I can understand the reasons for it. My main
concern is that if this is a standard procedure of operating, using leverage without fast discussion, that I think
that it's a poor example ethically and could leave this open to lawsuits and other types of things through the
actions of our city employees. And similar to LSGI or something like that in Minneapolis. I'm wondering what
kind of ethical standards that we hold and if there is training for our city employees or management. And if
there isn't I feel maybe we should send the person running the city, the City Manager or whoever is in positions
of decisions and policy in the city government to school to learn to practice proper ethics in all matters related to
' the city. And I'm wondering if there's a way of finding out what ethical practices and standards we have. And
if there are not policies in that regard, that Council set up policy. Thank you.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Dave. Anything you want to address on that now?
Don Ashworth: Well, I find it quite absurd to consider that in finding an error is, and reporting that to the City
Council can in some way be related to an ethical standard that staff has somehow purposely attempted to not
1 inform them that we didn't catch that error. I just, I don't buy it.
Dave Rouse: It's more a matter of error. A mistake was made that this is the only leverage that we have to get
this situation corrected. No one said, is it alright if we do this? It's not a matter of error.
Don Ashworth: Paul, did you?
Paul Krauss: Well I guess if we were to respond to it, I'd like to refresh my memory as to exactly what
pursued. As I recall it was just that. We were asked to vacate a right -of -way. Typically when that happens we
see if there's any replacement right -of -way we need. It was caught, as I recall, my staff person caught it at the
' meeting when the City Council was hearing it and we made the correction on the spot. When you're processing
400 to 500 new building lots per year and several hundred thousand square feet of commercialfmdustrial per
year, it's not uncommon to realize that you overlook something or that something has changed and you ought to
correct it. There certainly was no conspiracy involved. If anything, I think my staff was being ethical in terms
of representing the issue accurately. But if there's a further response, we'd be happy to prepare one.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Senn: Don, if I could. Just a question for Paul. I thought it was a swap, if I'm remembering the
situation right. I thought there was an easement area here which was being vacated and it was just swapped and
1 exchanged for, you were asking in effect for an exchange on the other side of the property I thought.
' 4
i
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 �•
Paul Krauss: Again, I mean the comment, this was not an issue that made a major impact on my memory to be
honest. Before I give the specifics, I'd like to have the opportunity to refresh my memory on it but yeah.
Whether it was presented as a swap or not, it was clear that we were asked to vacate one set of right -of -way.
We needed another and it took place at the same time. But I don't know if it was originally intended that way
or just as a simple vacation or not.
Dave Rouse: Actually what it was is the property line changed and it went right through another easement. We
needed to vacate this one. To vacate this one we had to add 5 feet of easement to the opposite side of the
property line.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. We understand.
Dave Rouse: There wasn't any other documentation prior to the meeting. It came up at the meeting and a
statement, well this is the only leverage we have. That's the impression that gives us the ethical situation. If
that was the impression given to us is that's the leverage we need to get you to agree.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I, yeah. I think I understand what you're saying and I have, yeah. I have some real
concerns as far as the ethics of staff. We do go through a process on a quarterly basis and different things that
we follow through on within the city. Ethics has always been one of the standards that we make sure that we
adhere to, and I think staff had done this with maybe a misrepresentation in a word or something as such. But
in doing what they did and at the time that you were not here and your wife was here, and I knew that she was
very nervous and I can understand that. But we were not trying to basically put this down your throat or force
you into this. I would suggest if you feel that you're uncomfortable with it, to have this brought back again for
discussion and so everyone can understand because I do like to keep an open kind of Council. If there's
anything that we do do, we do things open and above board. We don't try to put anything upon someone that
they don't want.
Dave Rouse: Again, it wasn't the act that we had to do it. It was, our objection to it was, the appearances of
how it was presented. And the fact that it was caught at the meeting. You know, I apologize for accusing.
Mayor Chmiel: And you have every right to question what you're doing. Right. Yeah, Mark. 1
Councilman Senn: My memory may be bad but I don't know. I know the Rouse's so I kind of remember the
item and I even recollect the staff report pretty well covered this lot for the exchange on the easement and stuff
but I don't think anybody on either side was doing anything deliberate one way or the other. I think there was
some problems that evening in terms of understanding and understanding what the swap meant and what the
exchange was and how the city normally gets 10 foot. You know just like my property. I've got a 10 foot
111
easement on every side of my property and I think most of us do or at least in recent developments or
subdivisions in Chanhassen but I think if anything maybe there were some communications problems prior to the
meeting...or whatever to the staff report but I think the information was covered but I guess if the Rouse's really
feel that they didn't really adequately understand or have a fair chance to explain it or ask consideration of it,
then I think we should probably look at this. Bring it back and reconsidering that, and I would move...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that was the position that I had taken.
1
Councilman Senn: Follow up with a motion on your suggestion.
5
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
Councilman Wing: I guess I'd go along with Mark's, if it even requires a motion. The ethical issue doesn't
impact me at all but I think they have a right to understand what occurred and feel comfortable with what
1 happened. That it's corrected and if we need to bring it back and if it requires a motion, I'll second Mark's
motion to bring it back.
Mayor Chmiel: If you would like us to do that, we will do that and bring it back.
Dave Rouse: Like I say, it wasn't what had finally occurred. It was the manner.
' Mayor Chmiel: In which it did.
Dave Rouse: And I don't know if everybody understands exactly what we're saying about it. If I could make
one small chart to clarify it. And Mark, you don't quite understand the whole thing?
Councilman Senn: Well Dave, again I'm going by memory but I remember the issue was that you were
changing property lines. That by changing the property lines there was an easement along the property line that
you're now getting rid of and was no longer going to be a property line. And if I remember the staff report
correctly, there was an exchange in effect saying okay, we're going to release the dedication of the easement on
that property and wanted to move it to the exterior property line so it's the standard 10 foot rather than I think 5
' foot which was on that line at that time. And that...but again, because I know you guys.
Dave Rouse: ...why don't I show you.
' Councilman Wing: Well Mr. Mayor, this is a visitors presentation and these things hit staff and Council cold. I
think it's inappropriate to continue on any further. I think we ought to get this put away.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I guess I would like to just see what he's talking about.
Dave Rouse: Our property line was there. There was an easement. We granted an easement to move the
property line. We asked this be vacated. All the documents were set up that way and plenty of notice. The
Monday of the meeting we got mail of the Council, or that the Planning Commission recommended vacation of
the easement if we would change this 5 foot easement to 10 feet for a new road that was already being put in
here. So they got 5 feet more here. I had a Tonka United meeting that I had to be at. Cindy had to come in
and do this so they granted this.
Councilman Senn: And this was a 10 foot easement?
1 Dave Rouse: This was, I don't remember what it was. I was an easement along the property line. This is the
new one that was granted when we changed the property line.
1 Councilman Senn: Of which 5, part was on your property and part was on the abutting property?
Dave Rouse: On the next one, yeah. And they added this piece as a condition of removing this piece. And
' that's purely what it was. And it was the fact that it was at the last minute without giving us a proper time to
prepare and.
Councilman Wing: We're saying he doesn't have to accept that. We're going to bring it back.
1 6
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
es.
Mayor Chmiel: No. No. That's what I was saying,
y y
Dave Rouse: The practical matter we accept. I mean I understand the benefit of it. It's the way that it was
done and I wanted, that is bothering us. And that's why we, so it's over now that we've got our...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Dave. Appreciate it.
Councilman Senn: I'll withdraw my motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Is there any other visitor presentation? ,
Resident: I'm just making a presentation off the top of my head. I just heard Don Ashworth talking about
conditions...to the school that you're going to be...I would just like to have some kind of a public hearing on the
way that you're spending the funds for this. I'd like to know how much money you're spending on this. I again
live in the Minnetonka School District and I think that you are not...everybody on this issue. I would like to see
the funds spent in another way to include everyone in Chanhassen. And I don't think...why is the city spending
money on a school district. I mean why are you doing that?
Mayor Chmiel: We have done this previously as well with the grade school right here.
Resident: ...Minnetonka schools are spending money. We're paying for two referendums. We're large
taxpayers in this area. We go over and over and over this and I don't understand how you can pull this over our
eyes all the time.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I would hope that we're not trying to pull this over your eyes.
Resident: You said how open you were to everyone. '
Mayor Chmiel: And we are. We did hold.
Resident: ...public hearing on this... 1
Mayor Chmiel: Madam, we did hold enough meetings regarding this. I have the Chair. I can speak when I'm
addressing you please. We do take the time and the effort to let everyone know how this is done. If you would
like to have the information that you're asking for, we'd be more than happy for you to come into City Hall and
sit down with Mr. Ashworth. We've discussed this. We've rehashed it. We've talked about it at meetings and
we've still concluded where we were going was the right way for us to go. 1
Resident: I'm just asking that you would get your information out to the public because I don't think most
people in Chanhassen understand this at all. I will make an appointment to talk with Don Ashworth.
Mayor Chmiel: I would appreciate that, thank you.
Don Ashworth: At that time I would like to take and show her the notices that were put in the newspaper. The
diagrams that were put in the newspaper. Again, the official hearing notice. And I think it has to be also stated
that the portion of the building that is going to be on city owned property will be used for city purposes and
there are no dollars being spent for the school portion of the property or anything that represents anything more '
f
.1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
than what the school district would normally provide. I would like to show her a report from the architect to the
school district which shows what they typically build for an elementary school. That is exactly what the school
district is going to build. They are not building more than that. We're not paying for any part of the
recreational component that is on the school district's property. We are enhancing the recreational opportunities
by building a gymnasium on our property that would be used for city nut activities. To the extent that we
would have an after school agreement allowing the citizens of this community, which includes the youth out of
the Minnetonka school district, the opportunity to use both of those gyms, we will do that. But again, the
meeting rooms, the gymnasium on our property will be under the exclusive control of the City of Chanhassen.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Senn: Don, I had a question if I could just. Being that Mr. Hickey that asked earlier, was your
objective over the State Statute?
' Bill Hickey: I wanted to point out to the Council that I felt that the State Statute that I read is clear that the
action that the Council had taken would be in violation of that statute. That's what I wanted to point out to the
Council. I also pointed out a personal opinion. I thought the notice for the evening the issue was being
discussed...I had two objections...
Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, I had to leave early last time because I was sick. Was there any, I mean did
1 anybody appear to speak on the issues at all?
Mayor Chmiel: No one addressed it at all.
Councilman Mason: You know, if I may. Every year in January we go through a list of things that Council has
to do to facilitate information getting passed out. The newspaper in town is the Chanhassen Villager and every
' notice of every meeting that is ever held that has to do with city business is in that paper. There have been
many notices about public hearings, about TIF districts. This district, what have you. At what point does the
responsibility of the city to disseminate information compare with the responsibility of the citizens of that city to
find out what's going on in the city. I mean after we've printed something in the newspaper, I'm not quite sure
1 what else we can do short of putting x thousand homes on a mailing list.
Councilman Wing: ...There weren't public hearings and that's not fair.
1 Councilman Mason: Well there were public hearings.
Councilman Wing: There were numerous public hearings on this issue.
Sue Morgan: My name is Sue Morgan. I live at 4031 Kings Road and just to address the question that you
brought up. I think it's an interesting one. I've lived in Chanhassen for a little more than 3 years now and I
was not aware that Chanhassen had a newspaper. I've not seen, you know I don't know if that's your fault, my
fault or the newspaper's. But that could be part of the problem is that people aren't aware.
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: They have a city wide distribution regardless of...It's a voluntary subscription.
Sue Morgan: We've never received it and part of the problem is that we're on Excelsior mailing list. Out of the
1 Excelsior post office.
8
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Or maybe even Victoria. I don't know. 1
Sue Morgan: Yeah. So there are groups of people that aren't receiving this so they're not getting the
information. So I think it's a poor assumption to think that because it's in the newspaper, people are getting the
information. You know because it's not being disseminated.
Councilman Mason: Well that's true but at what point. I mean I, what you're saying is true. If the paper's not
getting delivered to areas, that's a problem bur what else can the City do?
Sue Morgan: Right. Right, it's a dilemma.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, and maybe we need to take a look at that.
Mayor Chmiel: We're trying to get some of those Excelsior areas that would normally be going into Excelsior,
1
into Chanhassen with the proper zip code. Those with 317 just automatically get the newspaper in the mailbox
every Thursday.
Councilman Wing: You're 55331 aren't you? All 331 gets it.. The exception can be they run out and you live 1
on a road that I could imagine they run out.
Sue Morgan: Yeah, we live on a dirt road. 1
Councilman Wing: I know where it is. I bet you'll be getting it from now on.
Sue Morgan: I've never received it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else for any other Visitor Presentations?
Councilman Senn: What these people were saying. Don, if I understood you earlier you were committing to, in
effect dig that stuff out and bring it forward so we can see it.
Mayor Chmiel: Everybody can see it.
Councilman Senn: So we can see what notices or whatever there were and if there was an understanding or not
an understanding.
Don Ashworth: If you would like that. My first statement was that I would get a copy of the opinion and
provide that to the City Council and send it to Bill Hickey. The last lady who was up, I heard the Mayor asking
her to come in and have me go through the files with her. If you would like to have that modified so that I
provide, well a lot of the information I'Il be providing to her is going to be the larger boards. It makes it a little
harder to distribute to Council but I can get you all the notices and those kinds of things if you'd like me to do
that.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'd like to see those because I obviously people feel there wasn't any understanding in
the notice there of what was being acted upon or whatever. I think we should take a look at that and review it.
If that's next meeting or whatever.
9
1
.1
i City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
I Councilman you'll : I think ou'll have to cover the words tax increment and all the laws and the HRA. I think
that once again I'm going to make a pitch here. I think that the public, rather than come here on these issues,
I ought to be attending the real Council meetings which happen on the Thursday nights at the HRA. That's where
the TIF money is spent. That's where it's decided on. That's where these projects come from so you can look
at the Council and say, well naughty you but in fact they're HRA projects Mr. Mason.
1 Councilman Senn: This one's not an HRA project.
I Councilman Wing: No, well but it originated there because it had to do with tax increment expenditures and I
think that the HRA was the original one that heard and saw this. So when you get into tax increment, you start
getting into two separate worlds a little bit that are sometimes very awkward and difficult and they put me under
pressure as a Council member to try and coordinate the two agencies every once in a while. But let's not forget
I the word HRA when we get through these discussions Don.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Very good. If seeing no other visitor presentation, I'll move along with the
I agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT 90 -15.
I Public Present:
1 Name Address
I Jerry Kortgard` 3901 Glendale
Jerry Johnson 3940 Glendale
Ellen Hawley 3703 So. Cedar Drive
Terry Rixe 7456 Minnewashta Parkway
I Bill Engelhardt Chaska
Jerold & Jeanette Boley 7414 Minnewashta Parkway
Linda Scott 4031 Kings Road
I Sue Morgan 4031 Kings Road
Lowell and Janet Carlson 4141 Kings Road
Lisa Braff 7410 Minnewashta Parkway
I Jo Ann Hallgren
Dave Headla 6860 Minnewashta Parkway
6870 Minnewashta Parkway
Kevin Curtis Stratford Ridge
I Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As you requested following the public discussions
concerning Minnewashta Parkway assessment hearing of the last meeting, the project engineer has made a review
of the testimony given and has provided a response to each of the written and verbal concerns presented by the
I residents. Some of the questions and concerns raised were also presented to staff and the engineer prior to the
meeting and were responded to in written form and those have corresponding letters have been included in the
packet. Those property owners who questioned the number of units being proposed against their property, we
1 have met with planning and made a review of each of these properties to determine, to verify accuracy of the
proposed units. A few revisions were deemed appropriate. Revised notices were sent out to those properties.
1 10
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
We've also included in your staff report a general response section which addresses questions and concerns that
are not property specific that were raised at the public hearing. A couple of the main issues, there were 4
properties that identified at the last meeting, they're also in your packet tonight. These owners claim the
properties are unbuildable and a review with planning staff determined that they would be buildable with a
variance situation and staff is recommending that if the property owner is willing to dedicate a conservation
easement over the lot of those properties, that they would not get an assessment. Being that it would guarantee
that the property's unbuildable. One of those corrections, I've passed out a revised page 47. There was a typo
on the size of property in the...listed in your packet and that typo was corrected on the revised sheet passed out...
At this time I'd like to turn it over to the project engineer, Bill Engelhardt to run through the formal responses
and the questions raised at the public hearing and also provide a review of the general responses and questions
raised. And then once he's finished, I'll provide a concluding statement-continue the public hearing.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. 1
Bill Engelhardt: Your honor, members of the Council. My name is Bill Engelhardt. Project engineer for the
Minnewashta Parkway project. Contained in your packet is a review of the various property owners properties
that had an objection or a question at the last hearing. And if you'd like I'll go through those and just make
comment on it and let Charles address some general comments on the project... There's Mr. Nelson that
objected to the assessment. Let me back up a little bit. A lot of these objections were basically just objecting to
1 the assessment. And there wasn't any specific reason for the objection that I could find other than they objected
to it and those people should know that this was not their last stop. That they do have the appeals process to go
•
through and if they have filed their appeal or file their written objections, that they can object to that and carry it
on through the courts. So this is not their final step. The purpose of the hearing tonight is to establish the
amount of the assessment. The amount of the assessment is $760.00 per unit. The original proposed assessment
was $758.00 per unit so we're reasonably close to what we projected. Mr. Nelson objected to the assessment of
one unit and my comment is no change for him. Mr. Kortgard objects to the assessment requested that the
interest on the assessment on the units be deferred until developed. He had 6 units that were proposed. Charles
sent out a letter to Mr. Kortgard. We'd like to maintain that 6 units on his property. Of those, he would only
be assessed at this time...one unit and the other 5 would be deferred. Mr. Johnson objected to the assessment.
Basically he had no benefit to those living on Glendale Drive. He felt that he could access Highway 7 via the
access directly onto Highway 7 close to his house. The policy has been that all the people in those subdivisions
in that area will use Minnewashta Parkway and we're recommending no change for him. Mr. Langsweirth, again
no benefit because he lives on Glendale Drive. He's being assessed one unit and we're recommending no
change. These particular people, again if they choose to appeal the assessment, they can go through the Courts
on this and that would be the next step. Mrs. Borris, Marjorie Borris objects to the assessment on Kings Road.
She said the assessment was too large for the property. She's being assessed for 2 units. As far as the
assessment goes, we recommend no change. She also brought up the question about the residents in Victoria
that live at the end of Kings Road. They were not being assessed. The policy on assessment was that only
residents in Victoria who were being served by Chanhassen's sanitary sewer and water and had the possibility of
being annexed at any time basically there was an agreement for the property owners who choose to be annexed,
those are the only property owners in Victoria that were assessed. Mr. Winter did not feel he should receive 2
units of assessment and we're taking that down...or he originally had 1 unit and it went up to 2 units and that's
been explained in the city letter of October 7th. Mr. Forbord who was representing the developer, Lundgren
Bros, for development of the Boley property. We reviewed their plat with the Planning Department. That is a
very difficult piece of property due to Lake St. Joe being a natural resource and therefore the number of units
that they indicated that they could get on that property would stand and so their units would be reduced. James
1
Hoffer. He objected to the assessments until after the project is complete. There's 1 unit assessment on it In
11 1
1
.1
.I City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
I that particular case we're projecting out what we feel is going to be the final contract amount. We are only
assessing 20% of the cost of the project and we feel very comfortable that 20% of the work has been complete.
I Mr. Teary Rixe objects to the number of units of assessment. He had 4 units. We feel that the 4 units is
correct. In fact his property is shown on the Boley property as being the adjacent property. It's not shown as
being developed. It's very clear that that property could sustain 4 units. The wetlands are defined in that
I preliminary plat and there's absolutely no reason that he couldn't get 4 units out of there. He also questioned
the storm water entering his property and review of our drawings and our calculations, we feel that we actually
reduced the amount of storm water going on Mr. Rixe's property prior to the project. David Kramer objected to
the assessment for 1 unit. He also had a question on the access for Pleasant Acres roadway and I'll speak.to
I that issue later. Jo Ann Hallgren, she was originally assessed 28 units. She says there no special benefit to
market value. Her units were reduced to 16 units. The original 28 units were based on a sketch drawing of that
particular property in conjunction with some properties to the south all being developed as one property and
I since the time of the original sketch drawing, that has been changed and it does not appear that her property is
part of that other plan development. Janet Carlson objected to the number of units. We had 8 units down for
them. We feel that is correct. Again, only 1 unit will be assessed at this time and the balance will be carried
until the property develops. Kathy Paradise questioned why she had 2 units of assessments. She does in fact
I have 2 parcel numbers. 25- 6600231 and 25- 6600250 and therefore she was assessed for 2 units. Mr. Wenzel
wants the assessment on the house now and leave the remainder deferred. He had 18 units and again that is the
plan to defer those units. He questioned how the unit calculation is made and we looked at their gross area of
I their property. Removed 50% of the property for any future right -of -way, which is the standard in the industry.
And then we took out any wetlands, non - buildable properties, steep slopes, and the result, we came up with a net
area that's the area that the units were based on. Mr. Headla. Again, he wanted 1 unit now and the remainder
I deferred. Both of these property owners along with Mrs. Hallgren talked to the issue of the interest to be
charged and I'll cover that a little bit later. Mark Rogers ...objected to the assessment until the project is
complete. We're recommending no change in the assessment. The question of the dedication of the right -of-
way. That right -of -way was dedicated in 1957 on a plat for Pleasant Acres. That's very clear that Minnewashta
1 Parkway right -of -way was included in that. Nicholas Hawley...parcels were unbuildable lots. The city's letter .of
October 6th explains that circumstance. Sue Morgan objected to the number of units assessed. She was sent a
letter on October 8th from the city. Her units were reduced from 4 to 3. Susan Schilling objects to the
I assessment. That was 1 unit. There's no change. Scott Folsom objects to the assessment and wants reduction
of $300.00. His comment was all residents assessed equally on or off the parkway and he felt that was unfair.
We feel that the method of assessment, assessing it as an overall area basis for people that use Minnewashta
I Parkway in that particular area should be assessed. Craig Lamm objects to paying before the project is complete
and that's basically the same answer as before. Willard and Rhoda Aanenson objected to the 1 unit. There'd be
no change. Charles Anding objected to the unit because one parcel of land and that's explained. We feel that
that lot is buildable. It would possibly need a variance on it. There are variances in the area identical to that
I particular lot. A precedent has been set for the variance and if Mr. Anding would like to put a conservation
easement across that property, we could remove the 1 more unit. Bethany Lockhard is in the same situation.
Marilyn Larson wants 1 unit for the single family and the remainder deferred until development. We had
I proposed 3 units of assessment there. Louis and Gladys Zakrieson objects to the assessment that their
landlocked property. That they've got a landlocked property. They're retired. They would qualify for the
deferment on the assessment. We would like to maintain the 3 units that was originally assessed for them. I
think they should note that if they request a deferment, that the interest does run on that and sometimes it's more
I difficult to pay it later. Richard Palmer objects to the 2 units of assessment. He went from 1 unit to 2 after
review of his property. Leonard Hine. The project assessment. He just objected to it. There's no change in
that. Mark Milonowsky did not appear but he sent a letter and objected to the 4 units of assessment. After
1 review of his property, since it is right on and adjacent to Lake St. Joe, due to the difficulty and...of that lake,
1 12
1
Ci ty Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1.
1
we reduced his assessment to 2 units. The general comments that I have speak more to the overall project.
There were several residents that spoke to the issue of number of lights and the type. The lights are a separate
contract. They're not part of the Minnewashta Parkway expansion. They're being installed by NSP. The area
in question, the schedule, they questioned an area that was dark. That is scheduled for lights and there are lights
up in... They're working on those areas. They questioned the type of light. The type of light pole. They were
concerned that it was a fiberglass pole and that light pole is the standard for the city of Chanhassen, in a
residential area. In fact it's a standard for NSP and in most residential areas they do have other types but before
you can install them, they have to be approved. But that's the same light pole that's used in all the residential
areas of Chanhassen. Again as a general comment, we're assessing prior to the project being complete. The
project is complete to where the remaining work we did estimated the project completion. In some cases
projects are even assessed prior to work beginning and it was contemplated, on the staff level at least, that this
project could have been assessed right from the start because they were very comfortable with the numbers and
it was being assessed at only 20 %. But that was because of a State Aid participation. Third general comment
concerns the Pleasant Acres boat launch. One of the residents had a concem about the grade coming up to it.
That particular boat launch, the difference in elevation of 20 feet from the, not even the lake but from a flat area
down at the lake up to the road. It's 20 feet, or 100 feet. It's at 20% grade. We've done as much as we could
possibly do on that boat access in lieu of reconstructing it and spending a lot of money. If the city so directs,
we will do that. We will build that boat access but we would be building the boat access for those private
property owners. The other thing that comes into play is that that's adjacent to another piece of property that in
all likelihood would be infringing on that property and there has been some question about, of actually where
that boat access should be and who has the right to use it. I personally didn't want to get involved in a
neighborhood dispute. It was difficult enough in that particular area not to get into another dispute. But as far
as what we can do with that boat access, in lieu of reconstructing it which would be major work, I don't know 1
what else we can do at this point.
Councilman Wing: Before you leave that one. What was the status of it before?
Bill Engelhardt: Basically the same. We reviewed the, we videotaped this project prior to construction and we
videotaped it twice. One without the centerline stakes and one with the staking and the right -of -way is marked
and there's very little change. It still had a 20% grade. We tried to flatten it out up on top as best we could but
there's just no way to make that grade up unless you start filling down towards the lake. And that's a totally
different thing from what this project was intended to do. The fourth comment, general comment has to do with
interest rates. The proposed rate of interest is 7 1/2% based on 1/2% over the bond rate of 6 %. By State Statute
the city may charge 3% over the bond rate to cover costs incurred by the city for the life of the bonds. Past
policy of the city has been to recover their costs for projects adding 1 1/2% to 2% over the bond rate. Our
recommendation is that the city should collect the interest on the deferred assessments to cover that cost. We
think this is a policy decision but we'd recommend collecting the interest. Project completion and final
restoration. The wearing course is down. We've had a number of questions on mailboxes and when we'll be
putting the mailboxes up. When we're going to sod. We've had real difficulty with the subcontractor, the
general contractor for sodding and if you want to look in my telephone log you can see the number of times that
we've called both the general contractor and the subcontractor. I don't specifically know what the problem is.
I've heard that one of the issues is that the sod company's fields were under water this summer. They were
having to purchase sod from other sod companies. I do know that on a number of our projects, in other
communities, the sod has been a problem. Getting the sod and it's basically due to the wet weather this year
and that they're all back logged. It's very difficult to get sod and it's very expensive. I think they just don't
want to spend the extra money to get the sod. My hope is that that they will be in this week and this isn't the
first time that they've promised that they would be but I can guarantee you that there is no one in this room
13 1
.1
1 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
more anxious to get this project over than I am. And I will get this sod in this year. I think the other thing that
the residents have to remember is that we do a final punch list and a punch list prior to final where the project is
1 actually accepted by the City. At this time the project has not been accepted by the city until final payment is
made. We are withholding over $70,000.00 of retainage of work complete and there will be recommendation
from us in reduction of that retainage until the project is complete. We will do a punch list this fall and we will
do one in the spring. And then at that time when all those items are completed and everyone is satisfied, the
project will be recommended for fmaling and the dollars can be reduced. So we do have some leverage to get
some of these things done from the contractor. Item number 6 I spoke on briefly earlier. It was between the
residents in Victoria and again the residents that are being serviced by this city for sewer and water are the
residents that are being assessed. They're in the upper end of Minnewashta Parkway and there was actually
discussion about annexing them. The other residents at the end of Kings Road there was no discussion with
Victoria at all about any annexations and they're not being serviced by any of Chanhassen's utilities. Item
' number 7. There was a lengthy display on how to get into Minnewashta Parkway off of Highway 7. Off of
Highway 5. He was pretty good.
Councilman Mason: You're going to repeat that for us now aren't you?
Bill Engelhardt: Can't do it.
1 Councilman Wing: I could.
Bill Engelhardt: I don't necessarily disagree with him but Minnewashta Parkway was dictated...those
intersections were dictated to us by the Highway Department, by MnDot for entering State roads. Previous to
the parkway those intersections did not come in at 90 degree angles. It's a very dangerous situation to not come
in at 90 degree angles. They will not allow you to come in on new construction or anything that's being
reconstructed. They will not allow you to come in at an askewed angle. You have to come in to the intersection
' at a 90 degree and then in order to fit into the adjacent right -of -way, you need to have a 30 mph curve or curb
come around it to meet that 90 degree angle. That's why before it was probably before easier to drive.
Depending on which way you were coming. They could slip right off but technically if there would have been
an accident at that intersection, there was some potential for some real liability because those roads were not
constructed to MnDot standards. The other consideration at those intersections, if you recall during the public
hearings the intersections are scheduled for signalized intersections. And at the time they were talking about
'94 -95. Now I don't know if that's been kicked off, depending on funding to '95 -96. Those particular
1 intersections are scheduled for signals. At that time they would build turn lanes and put in the signals. We felt
it was better for MnDot to spend the money to build expensive turn lanes than for the city at this time to spend
the money through State Aid funds to build the turn lanes. And then we wouldn't have, you'd have the turn
' lanes but we'd be waiting for the signals and we'd have a real confused area. So what we've done is we built
the interim section until MnDot comes in and finishes off the turn lanes and signals. Item number 8 on our list
addressing the property owners...Hawley property and again we feel those lots are buildable. Certainly if they...
put a conservation easement on and still challenge the 'assessment again, this is not the last stop and they
certainly can challenge it in the courts and see what happens there. And that's the case with all the property
owners. Right now we're establishing an amount tonight for the assessment to be levied and they'll still have
their opportunity to challenge their assessment and present their documentation and their evidence to the courts.
So with that I'll let Charles conclude. Thank you.
Councilman Mason: Can I. Time for questions now or later?
1
1 14
1
1
it Meeting - October 25, 1993
City Counc e g ,
1
Bill Engelhardt: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, you can ask questions.
Councilman Mason: One real quick one. The Lundgren Bros property, the reason, just to clear this up. The
reason that was reduced is we initially thought there were x number of plattable lots but it turns out there were
fewer than that and that's why their assessment was decreased, is that right?
Bill Engelhardt: That's correct. And we reviewed that very thoroughly. We did not want to lose those units.
We reviewed that very thoroughly and we looked at it from the standpoint is that what they wanted. Because a
lot of times developers will say we'd like to have this number of lots and when in fact they could have maybe
had more but that was not the case. They were very limited with what they could do with it.
Councilman Senn: Were any changed as a result of the objections? You know that did not object? You know 1
decided that St. Joe Lake is a general exception. I mean would then all the people on St. Joe.
Bill Engelhardt: They were all reviewed. 1
Councilman Senn: And changed?
Bill Engelhardt: They were not changed because we had already deducted for wetlands and that type of thing on
those particular pieces of property. The difficulty with the Lundgren Bros plat was the configuration of the
property and how they'd bring the cul-de -sacs in and things like that but the other properties, the Lockhart
property and Carlson property...
1
Councilman Wing: I just want to discuss our policy and what we're doing and where we're going and cite some
examples of problems that that's created. I think it's a major issue and, is that kind of ahead of ourselves on the
public hearing?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, until we get to hear from the balance of the people and I think it'd be time to. Charles,
do you want to?
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. A short response to the people who had questions. I
believe the City Manager...the issue of deferred assessments and what the impacts are and what the staff's
position is concerning deferment and...but in conclusion to our staff level presentation, the project engineer and
staff have made as thorough of review as possible for each of the verbal and written concerns and..at this time,
we believe we've addressed them as best we can in the staff report and we believe that we're comfortable in
making a recommendation to adopt the revised assessment role which is contained in your packets.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to
address the Council in regard to the assessments that were discussed even this evening? Please state your name
and address one more time.
Sue Morgan: Sue Morgan, 4031 Kings Road. I just wanted to clarify that the assessment is being based on
those homes or those properties that currently are being serviced by Chanhassen city water and sewer as well as
those properties that may be serviced in the future. Is that correct?
Charles Folch: No. Well. 1
15 1
.1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
Sue Mo rg an: So that right now the people that live on Kings Road have septic and wells whereas people in
g
Victoria...
Bill Engelhardt: That refers only to the Victoria residents...Victoria where we could annex them and provide
them...
1 Sue Morgan: We're in the city but we're not being serviced by the city...so just to clarify why am I being
assessed for Minnewashta Parkway.
1 Charles Folch: Your property has been basically defined in the service benefit area for this project. It was
defined and included in the feasibility study. You need to access Kings Road via Minnewashta Parkway.
Certainly there is benefit...from the project.
Sue Morgan: Because I happen to be in Chanhassen city limits...Minnewashta Parkway. The people that live in
Victoria, they've got to use Minnewashta Parkway. That's the only way they can get in and out of their homes.
But because they live in Victoria, they're not being assessed. That's the only difference between my house and
their house. My assessment and they're not being assessed. It's just a matter of location. Is that correct?
Charles Folch: That's correct, and certainly the City Attorney can address this more thoroughly than myself but
we have no mechanism to levy any assessments against the properties of Victoria without the cooperation of the
Victoria city officials. Therefore we don't have the authority, there would have to be some sort of agreement
and that basically is, as Bill mentioned, the properties in Victoria that are currently serviced with sewer and
water potentially could come on line for development and possibly...Victoria residents. There was also an
agreement to this with the city of Victoria addressing this issue.
Sue Morgan: And they...if that's the way Kings Road will be developed and those people that are now paying
for Minnewashta Park in assessments will have to pay...assessments. Is there anyway to clarify the existing
Kings Road and the description of those people that live on it that are in Victoria. It would be nice to have
them share in some of the expense if Kings Road going to be developed. If they're going to be driving on it.
And if this has happened once with Minnewashta Parkway and they're not being assessed for something that
they're benefitting from, is there some way in the future to make sure that they are subject to...gaining from
benefit from Kings Road...so I'm just trying to find out from the board maybe what we can do now to try to
' anticipate what's going to happen to Kings Road in the future so that...I don't expect them to be annexed or
with...but they should be paying for the services that are...
Mayor Chmiel: I don't disagree with you one least bit. The only thing that we can, we cannot assess another
community unless the other community agrees to it. And there's been many things that have been done on that
road that, as you're saying, directly benefit those people and we don't have that right. Maybe Roger, you'd like
to.
Sue Morgan: Is there any way we could just clarify the existence of the road. Who owns it...
' Roger Knutson: Our ability to assess in Victoria is based on...
Sue Morgan: So basically what you're saying is if Kings Road was developed, for example this development...
we would then assume all of the assessments for Kings Road?
1 16
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
Roger Knutson: I really wouldn't say that. It depends on the situation at the time. Until it occurs and until the
facts are known of the development.
Sue Morgan: Yeah until it occurs it's too late. When it occurs it's too late. Just like...
Roger Knutson: I can't tell you what the facts are going to be 5, or 1 year, 5 years, 10 years down the road...
area is annexed into Chanhassen and maybe this or that. It's possible...
Charles Folch What I can tell you, in terms of if there is a future project to improve Kings Road, whether it be
approved by a developer. What I can tell you, it is proposed to be approved under a public improvement
contract. There will be the proper steps and necessary hearings in the process to go through before the project's
even ordered and that would entail beginning with the feasibility studies that define the elements of the project.
Define the properties that are gaining benefit from the improvement and then we'll have another, probably a set
of neighborhood meetings and public hearings to address all those issues and as Roger mentioned, it's very
difficult to say what's going to happen at that point in time but there will be necessary studies done and the
necessary hearings to address those issues before the project is even ordered.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. One of the other things too, and I'd just like to reiterate it because I sat here when it
came time, and there are a couple other Council members that sat here as well regarding the total assessments.
We started out with an assessment on that road at about $2,500.00. We worked it and sort of massaged with the
State Aid funds that we had gotten to bring it down to around $1,200.00 and we still didn't like that figure. So
we tried to do some more massaging to make it so it's not a real burden on all the people within and the
position that we were taking is that we didn't want to force someone off of their property. So we did massage it
and we came up with that $758.00 which I thought was great and I didn't think we were going to have as much
problem as what we have right now. But with that $758.00 we were just a couple dollars off and being $2.00
off from the $758.00 total figure to the $760.00 which is being assessed, I thought we did a tremendous job in
trying to do that. But I feel and I can understand your feelings with the problems that exist. Why do the other
people go free from the other city and we don't? And that's part of the whole project, unfortunately. And so I
just wanted to sort of clarify some of those things that we, I know we worked many hours, many nights trying to
come up with that kind of conclusion.
Sue Morgan: And we all appreciate your time and your effort. It's impossible, you can't make everybody
happy.
1
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. As much as we'd like to.
Councilman Mason: I think also in a situation like Kings Road, we have to accept a feasibility study before 1
anything can start and I'm certainly only speaking for myself but in a situation where both cities like that would
be affected, I'd be real hard pressed to vote for a feasibility study that will affect both cities but only one city
will pay for it. So there are some other things that I think they would play into something like that.
1
Sue Morgan: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good point. Is there anyone else? Please state your name and address. 1
Jerry Johnson: I'm Jerry Johnson at 3940 Glendale Drive. I'm also a member of Pleasant Acres. I have one
question for Bill there. What's the status of the punch list and the stairs? Specifically our stairs. We haven't
17
1
•
•
.1
1 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
1 heard anything on that.
Bill Engelhardt: The stairs will be going in by the restoration of the contractor.
Jerry Johnson: That's the same guy, the sod guy or?
1 Bill Engelhardt: I know that's not a good answer for you but...
Jerry Johnson: Secondly, the road thing and I know there's quite a dispute with our neighbor down there
regarding the road but currently he happened to save his trees and we lost 3 or 4 feet on our side because the
bike path had to get switched from one side of the road to the other. So therefore we get steeper grade.
Bill Engelhardt: No. There was very little grade change in your particular area because your area is more on
1 the curve and as we came past his house and through the curve, we modified it very slightly. There was very
little grade change.
' Jerry Johnson: Did the road move 3 feet?
Bill Engelhardt: We couldn't do as much as what we wanted to do for you. I know we talked about a number
of times in trying to get that boat access in there and make it easier for you. I can't do it without filling down
towards the lake. And again, if the Council so directs we will fill down to the lake but I don't feel that that's
part of the scope of this project.
Jerry Johnson: What it's going to take now is a good running start and get your nose out onto the highway.
Bill Engelhardt: It did before.
Jerry Johnson: But that wasn't what we were told at the initial meeting. Is that we'd have a better platform at
the top to land on. Anyway we didn't. It doesn't look like we got it and won't get it so. The other question I
had is on total cost. How did the $760.00, what are we actually paying for? How much is road and how much
1 is sewer, curb and gutter and bike path?
Bill Engelhardt: Well it's not broken down to a specific items. It's 20% of the project cost. For the total
project, roads, sewer and water, storm sewer, bikeway came up to...There was a question about who was paying
for the storm sewer. Whether that was part of the $760.00. The way the storm sewer works then, State Aid was
between I believe 65% of the cost-that they would contribute 65% of the cost for storm sewer. The city's
policy is to pay 50% so in all, in all reality the storm sewer was not part of the project cost but you still in effect
the $760.00 had to be calculated on the total project cost, including the storm sewer. So maybe out of that
$760.00 you're paying $5.00...
Jerry Johnson: Okay. How about for the bike path? It's my understanding that that was coming out of park
money? At the first hearing.
' Bill Engelhardt: The State Aid changed their rules between the time that the project was initiated The initial
public hearings...State Aid would not pay for the walkway. Just within the last, oh 6 months or so they've
changed their rules. Now walkways and sidewalks can be paid for State Aid dollars.
1
18
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
' exception Johnson: Okay, so basically you're saying the State of Minnesota, with the a ceptio n of the sewer.
Bill Engelhardt: No. Not the State of Minnesota.
1
Jerry Johnson: Or State Aid money, I'm sorry. The State Aid money can be used to pay for everything except
for 35% of the sewer?
Bill Engelhardt: Yeah, that's correct.
Jerry Johnson: Is that right? So it could be used for the bike path. It could be used for the mad. Could be 1
used for the curb and gutter.
Bill Engelhardt: It can be used for curb and gutter. It can be...any other costs associated with it
1
Jerry Johnson: And then the city money was just a general contribution? It was not earmarked then for.
Bill Engelhardt: It was not earmarked for a specific part of the project, no. 1
Jerry Johnson: And that's the reason for the, just throw it into the pot and...I think that's all I have.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor...Todd, are the mic's not working?
Todd Gerhardt We're getting some...if you talk more directly into the mics that helps.
Councilman Wing: It just, some people look like they're having trouble hearing.
Todd Gerhardt They're voice activated mics so you have to speak directly in them in order to activate them. 1
(Councilman Wing was speaking too loudly into the microphone and over activating the microphone)
...suggest we take a look at that one or Council take a look at it. 1
Mayor Chmiel: You can take a look at the videos that Bill has.
Councilman Wing's statement was not understandable on the tape. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Lisa Braff: My name is Lisa Braff and I live at 7410 Minnewashta Parkway. I live on the part of the Parkway
where the mailboxes are across the street and they put the path way right up to the curb so we really can't put
our mailboxes there. And the mailboxes have been put back. The guys were out there and did it and they put in
the Hawthorne Circle cul -de -sac and I'm really disappointed that I'm not going to get my mailbox across the
street from me. It's a real reference point for people to find my house. We live up on a hill back a ways so
people can't even really see the address clearly and I just want to make sure that's done. 1
Bill Engelhardt: We've got your name.
Lisa Braff: Yeah, and there's 6 people that I think are involved. The Boley's. 1
19 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
Bill Engelhardt: We'll look at that.
Lisa Braff: My question, why wasn't that pathway bumped over enough to put a strip there. There's like almost
a whole other pathway left.
Bill Engelhardt: I can't tell you that. I don't know specifically where you live but I would think...
Lisa Braff: Okay. And when it comes to maintenance of that path, are they going to be shoveling it in the
winter or does everyone do it themselves or I mean, what's the.
Charles Folch: We'll be plowing that trail.
1 Lisa Braff: Okay, and what about all that grass. Is that going to get mowed in the summer?
Charles Folch: Boulevard areas.
1 Mayor Chmiel: You could save the city money if you were to mow it.
Lisa Braff: ...that little strip.
' Charles Folch: That's something we'll have to keep our eye on. It's hoped that where the property, where the
boulevard's in front of a property that's directly their front yard, that the people will take the initiative.
Lisa Braff: That's obvious, yeah but there's a lot of land.
Charles Folch: But we'll have to keep an eye on it and if there's other areas where there's no direct property
1 owner that...responsibility for it, we'll take care of that.
Lisa Braff: Okay, just one other note. Right across the street is a lot of...and I've got kids and I'm concerned
1 about them getting hurt and.. junk and stuff so I'd like that cleaned up.
Bill Engelhardt: The last leg is to get things cleaned up so we will do that.
' Lisa Braff: Thank you. Overall...Thank you.
Councilman Wing: ...mailboxes going to be...?
Bill Engelhardt: I'm going to check and see if we can't get those in the walkway. We do have an 8 foot
walkway there. If we can work something out to get them in there where they can...
1 Councilman Mason: You know if I could just quickly add. The Mayor is also the Acting Weed Inspector, if
I'm not mistaken so if you've got weeds, give him a call.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Especially if they're noxious. As that statement. Okay, anyone else?
Jo Ann Hallgren: I'm back. Jo Ann Hallgren, 6860 Minnewashta Parkway. I don't think anyone objects to the
1 $760.00 per unit. For me I would be more than happy to pay it tonight. I'm harping again on the unit
1 20
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
v to for 15 or 16 families that aren't even using for non-existent use. Why do I have pay 8 it? That to
me it's discriminatory against parcel owners and I can't help that I own the 12 acres. Or the 11 1/2 acres but
when the place is sold and developed, you have to have a building permit to put a house there. Why can't you
tack the $760.00 onto that building permit? You'll get all your money. The other thing is, I really feel that this
has caused a lot of bad report with the residents and the Council because you people have homes. I can't
believe that you can't see why we're griping. I just can't believe that you can't understand it. And I guess
maybe you do but somebody says well, you can't fight city hall and I'm beginning to believe it.
Councilman Wing: ...I don't have it in front of me. 15.
Jo Ann Hallgren: I have 11 1/2 acres and I had it reduced from 28 to 16....that was a preliminary plat from just
a couple months ago. That 28 units was assessed to me in 1991 and nobody would listen to me then. I wrote
letters and never received an answer from anyone about that assessment. 1
Councilman Wing: ...I mean that's been our policy up to this point. I don't see that changing tonight and
it's...interest gain on that. Because if you were to keep it on for 20 years, you'd wind up owing so much interest
you couldn't sell it.
Jo Ann Hallgren: Well that was another question. I just got this tonight when I came. I'm the Treasurer of a
credit union and I deal with interest and loans and finances every day and I would like to have a clarification on
the deferred, so called deferred interest. What are you offering, you're not deferring the interest. You're
charging 6% if it's deferred. I don't see how it can be deferred and still charge 6 %. And then after a certain
time frame it's going to add 30% to the original assessment? 1
Councilman Wing: Come back later. Come back later because I wanted to bring that up and get us through the
public hearing because that concerns me...I intend to bring that up. I want a clarification on that also.
Jo Ann Hallgren: Okay. The other thing is Mr. Engelhardt is talking about appeals and I would suggest to
people here, it cost $100.00 to file an appeal and it costs the city a lot more than that to hire an appraiser to
come out and appraise your property. So that's one handle we might have. 1
Councilman Mason: Keep in mind that you are also the city. I mean I understand you've got to do what you've
got to do. I don't, that's fine but you know you talk about not fighting city hall but yet you're also the city and
any expenses the city incurs has to be made up by everyone. So you've got to do what you've got to do. I
don't have any trouble with that but.
Jo Ann Hallgren: I'm fighting for equalization. That's what I'm fighting for. 1
Councilman Mason: Right.
Janet Carlson: Janet Carlson at 4141 Kings Road. I guess one of the questions I have is, like Jo Ann, she did
get some of her's. Her's dropped what 12 -14 of them. Who picks those up? Then in another place another one
drops and there's another one dropped and there's another one dropped. I'm wondering, who is going to be
paying for those because apparently you wanted x number of dollars so everybody was being assessed at
$760.00. So somebody's going to have to pick those up. Then I guess I don't understand like our's is 8, I think
we have 8 deals. So our's comes to $6,000.00. A little over $6,000.00. Well if we have 8 years to pay off will
we?
21 1
1
.1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Janet Carlson: Okay. At 7 1/2% interest, that should boost our taxes about $1,000.00 a year. Right?
Mayor Chmiel: I think but I'm not sure.
1 Janet Carlson: ...so then they're more than likely going to develop Kings Road and we're going to have curb
and gutter, which we'll have to pay for and nobody else isn't. We're going to have a road to pay for and all the
' sewer and water. We'll be taxed out.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that's not our intent really. As Roger explained before.
' Janet Carlson: It's looking that way. But anyway, another thing. I do feel that we should have a good
maintenance on that walkway. My husband almost killed somebody there Friday morning because they're on the
road. Now if they want to be on roads, we'll drive on the walkway.
1 Mayor Chmiel: I understand what you're saying.
Councilman Wing:...
' Janet Carlson: No, he was rollerblading. Some man was rollerblading on the road. I mean he never even
moved and he was coming right head on at Lowell.
Councilman Wing: I've seen that.
Janet Carlson: But I mean it's just, it's too muddy. There's too many leaves. It's too dirty. Fine. We'll drive
the walkway. And I think they should...
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Bill Engelhardt: Don, can I respond to that? In the case of the Carlson property. Again, we did review that.
We went through it and felt that the 8 units that they applied is a correct number of units. The question or
comment about we reduce the units and we're losing some units and we're gaining some units also, where's the
other money coming from? It basically comes from the State Aid fund and we're still going to be assessing the
20% of the cost...I guess her other comment about, and I think one thing that people have to understand,
including Ms. Hallgren is that the proposal is to assess only one unit at this time. Payable one unit. Any
' additional units will be deferred until the property is developed. I think the question is, and that's been the
proposal all along. From day one those units would be deferred. The question tonight probably that will come
up... past city policy has been to include the interest. That's totally at to the discretion of the Council. Most of
these properties, including the properties of Kings Road, there's major plats out there. Preliminary review and
final review right now. I think when they say we're going to be assessed for Kings Road, these people have to
understand that generally the case is if those areas developed, the developers are developing both sides of Kings
' Road, they are going to be responsible for upgrading that roadway as part of their development cost. That's
generally the way it works. Now if sewer and water was going to be extended back to these properties, and they
were going to benefit from that, they were going to benefit from that. They were going to be able to hook up to
that sewer and water, in all likelihood they might be assessed. It all depends on what the development pays for
and how far the line goes so it's a misconception that they're being assessed right now. They are being assessed
1 22
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
i We need to show in the roll the total number of
one unit. possible units. In the case of the Hallgren property,
that property had a sketch plan on it with 28 units. It was in conjunction with adjacent properties. I don't
necessarily believe that the sketch that was shown was a good sketch because it was grid. It was on a grid but 111
you could get the 28 units and after review of that property and finding that now it is not part of the adjacent
properties proposed for development, but it can still sustain the 16 units.
Janet Carlson: ...like say you have what 8 years at 7 1/2% interest. So I guess, I mean if I paid the $760.00, I
would have no problem with that until what time as this land was ever developed or anything but the interest.
That's the, you know that will eat you alive.
Bill Engelhardt: That's exactly what the Council's going to decide.
Janet Carlson: Okay. I mean I don't have a problem with $760.00. I'll pay that...
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Kevin Curtis: My name is Kevin Curtis and I live at 3860 Stratford Ridge. I guess I've got just a couple 1
questions. One is that, when was the...actually assessed as part of, was it before or after the completion of the
project and I guess from my standpoint, I want to go on record from the Stratford Ridge Homeowners
Association that we have a couple of projects down there that need to be completed yet. One being the path
going down to the lake...The other is we have about an 18 inch drain tile that goes down and goes across our
area. This summer we got our second application from the DNR to put some sand down there and you want to
know what 45 tons of sand is...down that hill, it gets a little tough so we'd like to see that completed before...
because it's...just wash back out to the lake because that is a problem for us. It does wash out and we just want
to make sure that that gets completed.
Bill Engelhardt: I met with Mr. Curtis a number of times. I've assured him that that will be done. I can't
physically go out and do the work myself but we're doing everything we can to get that completed.
Mayor Chmiel: It's on your punch list.
Bill Engelhardt: It's on the list.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Yes sir. 1
Jerry Kortgard: My name is Jerry Kortgard. I live at 3901 Glendale and I have property also on 4151 Kings
Road. At the last meeting I was here for this parkway thing and I didn't know at the meeting they were talking
about Chanhassen Estates and the amount of work and Addition 1 and Addition 2. I just want to comment that
the people who live up there are being assessed accordingly to how much work is done on the project. The
number one project had narrow streets and they were going to widen the road and accordingly they got assessed
more for what they're doing on their property than further down. It got down to like to $400.00 or $500.00 but
the beginning of the project would be about $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 depending on where you were. I just wanted
to say that a lot of people got a lot of nice things out of the thing. They got their gully fixed in Stratford Ridge.
They've got a nice yard instead of a big ugly ditch that drains into the lake with all the lawn chemicals and nice
new sod. They got something really nice out of it. My property on Kings Road is vacant now. It's a piece of
property I want to hang onto and every time I looked around another developer came in and grabbed off another
piece of property. I want to preserve it. And I just bought this property...you've got to buy it before some 1
23 1
1
1
1 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
developer gets it. And lo and behold I had it about 30 days and a developer came to me, want to sell you land.
I said no, I kind of bought it to keep you ought. And they said, well Mr. Kortgard it's a window of opportunity
I and I just say well, that's fine if you want to sell it but I want to preserve it. And the assessments don't help
with anything when we shell out a lot of money for the deer to run down a bike path that you never use. I just
want to state my position on it. Thank you.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else?
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, if I could address the Chan Estates question quickly. The proposed street
I assessments in that neighborhood range, at this point in time from $2,800.00 to $3,000.00 per lot. On top of that
there's an additional storm sewer assessment depending on the property could run from $500.00 to another
$1,000.00 so most of the properties up there are looking at a $3,500.00 to $4,000.00 street and storm sewer
assessment. Per lot.
I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
I Terry Rixe: Yeah, Terry Rixe. 7456 Minnewashta Parkway. I live on the very south end of it. When this
project started again Bill Engelhardt and his associates, Al Larson came out to my house. Told me I had three
buildable lots. One was lowland. During this project, now I've got a 3 foot cement storm sewer culvert running
I through the property on the bottom which I didn't have before. And now he told me this improved my property
to make it buildable for 4 assessments. Is that correct?
Bill Engelhardt: That's correct and again, all I can say is that Mr. Rixe disagrees with the assessment amount.
I He certainly can appeal it but when we reviewed his property and we looked at how the property lays out and
with the number of acres that he has, that property can be developed to the 4 units. The 4 buildable lots.
I Councilman Wing: The issue...concerned about is the assessment. Again, most likely he would be assessed for
one.
1 Bill Engelhardt: He would be assessed one unit. The policy is to assess one unit. When his property, if and
when his property was developed, then the other 3 would trigger.
Janet Carlson: Okay, there are some properties out there that are 2 acres plus and are being assessed for one,
I only one. There's two people that live next door to each other on Minnewashta Parkway and they both have 2
plus acres and each one got one assessment only.
I Bill Engelhardt: Well if you can give me their name, we'll be happy to.
Janet Carlson: Well I'm not going to tattle but you guys didn't add all this up. But you know what, you had
trouble with one because last time when we were here, 2 weeks ago, he said well I've got 2 1/4 acres. He said I
got one assessment. I said well what are you here for. I wouldn't complain on that.
Bill Engelhardt: We'll check it but I don't think that's correct.
I Mayor Chmiel: Good. Anyone else?
1
24
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 I
and their
Lowell Carlson: Is this kind of city policy, as far as putting in a road and anything that can reach beyond
you know, that they assess this property. How far does this property go on a non - useable road? I use it.
There's no doubt about it. But the use of it, is that why my property is being assessed this for the use of that
road, for me using it. Or what's the story?
Don Ashworth: If I may respond. State Aid roadways have typically been a real problem for the city. The '
person that lives on a Kerber Boulevard doesn't feel that there is a great benefit to him by having this type of a
collector roadway adjacent to him. Bluff Creek is another good example. Minnewashta Parkway. There's a lot
of traffic that goes on that roadway and to think that only the people that front that roadway are going to pay the
I
cost is also not reasonable. And it was for that reason that we held the public hearings and we tried to get input.
I think Minnewashta, like Kerber, like Bluff Creek, took a number of times through the process before we could
finally come back with a solution that appeared to be supported by a majority of the people. And I agree, at the
final hearings there were some people out there who did not agree with the final assessment but generally the
neighborhoods that are served off of that collector roadway should reasonably pay a cost of the collector
roadway. That's what we did with Bluff Creek. That's what we did with Kerber Boulevard. The road right
here. So each of those subdivisions, off on either side. Saddlebrook received a part of the assessment and Dick,
if I may interject at this point. Your comment in regards to we've only levied one assessment, even though we
may have known that some of these properties could develop to a higher standard, deals with sewer and water
projects. You've got a large pool of money standing behind those kinds of the projects because you collect
trunk sewer and water charges. So the potential of somebody going out into the Upper Bluff Creek area and
developing and somehow we lose that assessment, and it's not logical because we recalculate the number of
sewer and water units that they are supposed to pay and we subtract the one that they initially were assessed for.
But if you look back on the State Aid roadways, and again the Saddlebrook area. We assess them for say 30
units and at that point in time that was kind of a vacant field out there. It was important to have that assessment
marked down and literally everyone knew that that 30 units was there because as in this project, if we don't
mark that down and Mrs. Hallgren sells the property, and we may not be made knowledgeable of that fact. Well
I
now you're going to have a secondary and potentially a third buyer who never knew that these 12 units were
sitting out there. So as long as Jean can mark them down, we have a way to insure that we don't get an
unsuspecting buyer and again the thing turning around on us. As it deals with the interest rate issue, we sold the
bonds for right at 6 %. 5.98 %. The general rule is we collect 1 1/2% above what we actually sold the bonds for
and that becomes the interest rate. The reason we add the 1 1/2% is the city has to administer that assessment
for each of the next 8 years. They pay it off in advance. They don't pay the interest. So therefore we don't
have to administer. But in that fast 8 years we have to certify it down to the County Auditor's Office. We
have to go down there and verify that the assessment was paid. We have to bring our assessment rolls back up
current to show that actual collection. We go through the audit process. I guarantee you, for 1 1/2% we're not
making money. The solution, the suggestion that I made in my report was for all the parcels that we would be
assessing and it would be going on. The $760.00, if the assessment rate stay at the 7 1/2 %. But for those
parcels that you are going to defer, and assess one unit to Ms. Hallgren but defer the other 11. Actually I don't
think her's is a good example because she's on green acres so we can't even get her really for the one. But in
that instance, yes. After a 5 years period. She sells. We would add 30 %. In other words, my recommendation '
is not to charge the 6 %. Drop off the 1 1/2% because we're not going to be doing anything with her's over the
next 5 years. It just sits there in Jean's office. We don't certify it down to the County. We don't go down and
get collections. We don't do anything. We do pay the interest on those bonds though. So we do pay the 6%
and so my suggestion is after the 5 year period of time you would take that simple interest amount, 6 %.
Multiple it by the 5 years. It would be 30% would be added onto the original assessment. I firmly believe that
if you built that project out in 5 years, it would cost her basically the same amount of money. But I hit a whole
1
bunch of issues at once. Sony.
25 1
I
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
Lowell Carlson: Of all the projects I can remember...sewer and water, curb and gutter and blacktop and it goes
by and an individual owns the property, he's assessed for that particular part of it. I mean this is the first time
' that I've ever even run into a mess like this. I realize it, now I use Highway 5 and I use Highway 7 but I hope
the State don't come and assess my property for that highway if they go by with a 4 lane or something. I don't
quite really understand this totally ...and so now I don't, I don't mind helping out. And I've got to help my kids
in life too but to help everybody out, I'm kind of tired of it. Now when we go, say that Kings Road gets
developed. Sewer and water and curb and gutter and blacktop goes up that baby, who's going to help me pay
for it for a change? You know. Is there going to be any help around? Any ideas of who can help pay for that.
I think we're going to be stuck for this. So we'll be assessed again on that same property. Is that what you
' guys are saying? When that comes by I'll be assessed again $6,000.00 and $20,000.00 later, and whenever it
comes...and one individual keep on paying. That's where kind of the cheese gets a little...I don't mind just
trying to make a living but I mean to be assessment on assessment on assessment, and that's the way I look at it.
I look at that curb and gutter and blacktop...I don't think anybody from Minnewashta Parkway's going to help us
' pay for it, that I know of. I haven't heard nothing anyway. I guess I'm looking for an answer on that basis you
know. How many times are you going to keep on assessing the property and continue this deal. I guess that's
all.
# Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Lowell. Okay, we've addressed some of those things and it is a repetition kind of
question. I think that we have tried to give an answer on that. We don't really know because we can't really
' give you an answer. As was mentioned previously, if you have a developer go in there and acquire those
properties, and it's going to be his responsibility to put that road in. So with that, is there anyone else wishing
to address this?
' Lowell Carlson: If the developer comes in there, he will control that amount or does the city control that
amount of assessment?
' Mayor Chmiel: No, he's required. When he puts in a development, the developers are required to put roads in
to a development.
Lowell Carlson: But if somebody decides to develop the road...
Don Ashworth: That's correct. I mean it would have to go through a feasibility study process.
' Councilman Wing: ...Lowell. There's a difference between an area assessment, which you're involved in, and a
local assessment and those are the facts of life...but the local assessment you are on your own and...well
obviously nobody because there's a big difference between area assessment on a major project and the local
assessment. That's I agree, a little hard to swallow.
Lowell Carlson: An area assessment though, does that mean that they pick a vacant area and this is you and you
and you. This is across Highway 7. I don't think those people were assessed that use the access down there by
' on Minnewashta Parkway. On the north side of the road.
Bill Engelhardt: We attempted to but the Attorney said we couldn't do it. So we tried to assess them.
' Lowell Carlson: Hennepin County or?
i
1 26
#
111.
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
' benefit from it. I think we get into the area assessment.
111 Engelhardt: No. It's that we couldn't show the be e t g
This type of assessment is basically, as Mr. Ashworth said, the same type of assessment that we used on the
State Aid for Bluff Creek Drive and because it serves a large area of Bluff Creek, served a large area. The
people that actually had private roads coming in off of Bluff Creek. This one, Mr. Carlson, the Parkway is his
only way in and out. He cannot get anywhere without using Minnewashta Parkway and that's why they're being
assessed on an area basis.
Councilman Senn: Charles, I understand that but what I picked up from several people tonight is, is that I don't
live on Minnewashta Parkway. I live on a side street and I'm going to have to pay an assessment on that side
street. Why is my assessment the same as the people living on Minnewashta Parkway who aren't going to have
to pay a side street assessment because their improvement is totally being taken care of now by this project. My
question is, a lot of them have asked the question. I'm not sure I've heard an answer and I guess, you more
directly is, why doesn't our formula allow us to have that type of a scale from whatever set up within the
assessment. You know out of fairness to those property owners. I haven't heard anyone address that.
Don Ashworth: You could do that. It's the type of issue in my own mind that should have been brought up in
the initial feasibility study and so everyone knew what the likely assessment would be. Because I mean we did
go through the process and we did come up with the $760.00. I think that the reason at least staff didn't come
back with that as a recommendation was we went through at least 4 different feasibility studies on Bluff Creek
and the project continued to fail. And to this day I would ask you to go down and talk to Nick Waritz and ask
him whether or not he thinks that that improvement is worth twice as much as to somebody in Hesse Farm. I
mean he would tell you he has to live with all the traffic going back and forth whereas the people in the Hesse
Farms, they just use the road to get back and forth in front of him.
Councilman Senn: Don, I understand but I mean any residential street could make the same argument of going
over to the one we keep revisiting. The Nez Perce and Lake Lucy. I mean all streets need other streets unless
you live in a cul -de -sac and even if you live in a cul -de -sac, sometimes there are a few people that use that, even
though it goes nowhere but coming back to their question. I mean it seems to me there's a good question there.
Why isn't there some sort of scale involved in that?
Don Ashworth: Well again. 1
Councilman Senn: I know what you're saying. You said it wasn't dealt with in the feasibility study but I mean
we hire all the consultants. Why aren't the consultants raise that issue in the feasibility study?
Bill Engelhardt: Councilman Senn, those issues were basically raised at the initial public hearings and the
1 volumes of traffic that were being projected, and we didn't necessarily agree with those traffic studies but there
were major traffic studies that were done for the parkway that were projecting volumes of upwards of 12,000
vehicles per day. And when we started looking at this project and having homeowner meetings and
neighborhood meetings. I mean we had meetings for at least a month on this and what we arrived at is the policy
you see tonight which the majority of the people felt was a fair and equitable policy for all the people. Granted
the people that are on the parkway are not paying for the curb and gutter per se but they're going to have traffic,
you know the traffic projections are showing 12,000 vehicles per day. I don't think that they're probably going
to be that high but it was a major concern of the people. It was basically bringing everybody together and
getting a consensus of agreement. There may be one or two people that don't agree but it was a consensus of
agreement on the people out there that this was a fair and equitable way to do it.
27 1
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
Councilman Wing: I think that's true but I think Mark's position...
' Councilman Senn: I'll get into it more later because I don't see a big problem with $760.00 and I'll tell you
why later but to me that's an ultimate fairness question that I think needs to pass you know, the mustard so to
speak and I don't think it does the way we've done it. And the fact that everyone's talking around a direct
answer to the question tells me that because I haven't heard anybody give a direct answer to the question.
Bill Engelhardt: You're right. It could have been done that way. There's no question about it, it could have
been done. It was not defined that way through the public hearing process.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Lowell Carlson: One other thing.
Mayor Chmiel: One more time Lowell. We've got a few more public hearings.
Lowell Carlson: On these people that use this parkway...before the whole thing started is that 3 people with
baby buggies and kids, 3 side by side. There's a car coming. He's got to stop. Wait for them to move out of
the way. And it hasn't ended now. My wife just mentioned that I just about killed a guy 2 days ago. I've lived
' there 20 some years and I've never come that close to hitting anybody or having an accident of any sort...I was
coming with my truck and these guys were putting the mailboxes up and had, on the left hand side of the road
they had their cars facing the opposite direction along the curb. I was coming with the truck and I had some
concrete. Another car was coming this way and this skater going right down the middle of...and I don't know if
he went to sleep on those skates or what. But he got up within from here to that counter and he was, I was
slamming the brakes for all they were worth and he took one jump and he jumped about 4 foot off to one side
and I pointed to the walkway and of course I wasn't in a very good mood and I stopped the truck. And in the...
' I got a little carried away and I'm sure that, I knew him. I've worked for him. A real nice neighbor besides but
I come unglued with this parkway deal. And something, you know when you talk about when we first started
this thing how accidents you know. How it's proven to help and these kids and so on and so forth. Well
' a...walkway over there. It's too muddy. And when I got done with this guy he said well there's too many
leaves up there. I can't roller on the leaves. Well, here nor there fellows. Whatever. But there is a cop sitting
down there all the time checking speed but I don't know what you're going to do about the rest of it.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else?
Lisa Braff: Just something real quick. I think the reason that the walkway's dirty, he just needs to do the tail
end cleaning up and everything but now that the parkway is widened and it's smooth and it's great, the cars are
really clipping along and the...Is there going to be more police cars? Stop lights? Street bumps?
' Councilman Wing: Let me address that...the speed is no different than it was before and there are no
complaints. The cars have been right there...I just want you to know that because I've taken that on personally.
' Lisa Braff: Okay. Well, you live on it.
Councilman Wing: ...that are being checked...
Lisa Braff: Well I hope so.
1 28
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? If seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard.
Councilman Mason: I'm ready if you're not.
Councilman Wing: I'll go last.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought you'd deal with the interest issue so I wouldn't have to bring it up.
Councilman Wing: I'm dying to.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think the city is being fair in saying pay what, you know on the people who are
disputing the number of units being assessed. Pay what have for now and when the land, if and when the land
is developed, we'll get the original, or the additional amounts. The question is the interest and that can add up
because many people like large lots and they just want to hold onto them for a while. But we have to realize
that the city does have a cost in carrying that money. I mean we're paying interest on a bond. And I think
really the problem is how do we track that and make sure that the secondary or tricary owner eventually pays on
those lots, on those units when they are developed so. And you know we have the ability to charge up to 3%
interest and we're taking half of that and as Don said, we're not making money on it so I'm, that's kind of the
side I'm leaning towards on that issue. Other than that I think we have to look at the boat access. For Pleasant
Acres. I'm not certain that that has been adequately addressed. And lastly I want to compliment Bill, you've
earned your money on this one and Charles on answering people's concerns. I thought it was done very
thoroughly. It's been a pain in the kiester from the very start and I came in halfway and it's been over a year
and a half that this issue's been dealt with so, we all know it was a tough one. That's all the comments I have 1
right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Real quick. With this interest. If someone has 12 lots, 12 buildable lots. They're only
charged for one. They sell off that property in 3 years, who pays the interest? The developer or the person that
owns the property. 1
Don Ashworth: Well, it's recorded against the property. They know full well that that assessment is sitting
there. It's up to them to negotiate that with the buyers so they can. I think generally assessments are looked at
on the basis that, now I'm talking about if you went out and had an appraisal done of the property and so here is
the true value of this. You, as a seller would pay the assessments but in most of the deals I've seen negotiated,
they turn it around and insure that the developer pays that cost.
Councilman Mason: That takes care of my questions on interest. You know I know, I guess the other side of
that coin for me is, if somebody owns that much more property, maybe they should be paying more money. I'm
not, I heard the term equalization and I, philosophically I guess I have a little trouble with that concept. I mean
29 1
1
1
1 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
I if I own 5 acres and somebody else owns 1 acres, it seems to me if a road's going by it, if I own the 5 acres, I
should maybe be paying more than the person who owns the 1. Of course then the flip side of that is, you can
I sell off that property when you choose and the developer pays all the interest on it anyway. So I'm not real sure
where all that concerns come from. With that in mind I think the $760.00 is a real steal. Yeah, the only other
thing is I concur with Colleen on two things. I want to take a look at that access. On the other hand, I don't
I want the city to spend a whole lot more money taking care of it and I don't want anyone else's property any
more torn up than it's already been. And I agree. Bill, I've given you some pot shots on this one but you've
earned your money on it. Thanks. However this works out. I'm done.
I Councilman Senn: I have to come at this issue I think from really two different sides. You know reading
through the Minutes from last meeting and also listening to the comments tonight, I really don't hear a lot of
people objecting per se to the amount of money, you know the cost of the unit per se. I think what I hear is a
I lot of, how would I say. A lot of underlying questions and probably the biggest underlying question is the one
we've been dealing with for almost 2 years which is, how would I say the, I don't know Murphy's Law
principle relating to this project. Whatever could go wrong, will go wrong. And I think it's built up a real sense
I of frustration overall. A good time to show it is when assessment time comes out. You know out of all
honesty, I live over off TH 101 and if somebody came to me and I think came to most of my neighbors and said
that TH 101 was being improved and we'd get curb and gutter and sewer and a bike trail and pay $760.00, most
of us would turn cartwheels. And say start tomorrow. So from a cost basis, you know to me it's real hard to
I look negatively at the dollars we're talking about. This is the first assessment project I've ever heard of where
we've struggled to make sure we had people paying 20% of the assessment. At least that I'm aware of. And
not only in this city but other cities. Usually it's substantially more than 20% but the homeowners are actually
paying for it. So on a pure equity basis as it relates to overall dollar cost, personally I can't break down that
argument and do anything other than say it's fair. A number of the other issues that have been raised and
addressed, I look at and I try to base decisions more on what, kind of what's I'm going to say common sense
and fairness combined and I keep running into some problems on that in this project. .The deal that we've talked
I about, maybe it's too late on this one and I wasn't around when this one fast started but to me there ought to be
a delineation or a differentiation between people who live on side streets and people who live directly on the
roadway. Because there is that, how would I say assessment upon assessment approach. And it's a definite. I
I mean that's not something we're guessing's going to happen. We know it's going to happen. And I think that
somehow that ought to be dealt with and I guess if it even could be here, I'd like to see it but it may be too late
for that. As far as the interest rate goes, you know it seems to me all I've really heard over interest rates is a lot
of confusion due to very poor semantics. I mean really what we're talking about is everybody paying for one
I assessment and I think that's quite fair. What we're talking about doing is deferring the payment of accrued
interest. And I guess I'm going to underline payment of accrued interest. That's what we're talking about.
We're not talking about deferring assessments. We're not talking about deferring the interest. Those are
I improper terms and I think sometimes we get locked up in semantics and that's where a lot of the
misinterpretation occurs. And I don't think it's unfair to defer the payment of the accrued interest because as
that's being deferred, that land is increasing in value and that property owner can sell it for more money later to
I a developer and yes, the developer should come in and pay the carrying costs associated with that. But again, I
don't think out of fairness we should penalize the existing landowner because personally I like to see the large
parcels say and I'd love to see them stay as long as they will. I have one and I hope it stays that way forever.
The issue of punch list items. That goes back to I guess my original point. I mean that's a real underlying sore
I point on this whole project is just all the problems that have occurred on it. The fact that it's still not a finished
project and here we're asking people to dish out money. And I have to really sympathize with the people on
that point and I've said, I think we've paid out too much money already on it and I think we've paid off too
1 much money in advance of the work that is being done. I think the contractors or some of the subcontractors are
1 30
•
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
comfortable position. They don't have to worry about
really in a c po y 1TY going and buying sod at a higher price. And I g
think in the future we really ought to look at sticking in some real performance criteria that require that. I mean
that contractor's not in offering to give us money back when everything goes right. And...he's padded it and
he's figured that in in the first place. But when you end up with a wet season like this and everything goes
wrong, he's required to go spend a few more dollars. That to me should be part of the deal. Sometimes you
pay a little more, sometimes you pay a little less. But I think we really ought to start putting those perfonnance
criteria in our contract to require those people and give us some teeth to require these people to finish these
projects rather than come back with lame brained excuses about sod and everything else because it was a poor
growing season or whatever the hell. I think that's ridiculous and I think we ought to do everything we can
within our power to enforce those contracts this time, but from what I'm seeing, there's not a lot we can do but
let's not repeat the mistake in the future and let's start sticking some teeth in those things so we can get them in
the end next time. I guess that's basically about it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. 1
Councilman Wing: ...at the end of the 8 year bond or does it continue to accrue? Let's take Mrs. Hallgren.
Let's say she keeps her property for 30 more years. Does that 7 1/2 just keep rolling and rolling or does it...
Mrs. Hallgren might be better off simply paying the whole thing now rather than leaving that property for 10,
15, 20 years...incredible interest...has just gotten excessive because even if the bond is paid off, this interest just
keeps on accruing and accruing and pretty soon it doubles and then it's going to be tripled and pretty soon it's...
unreasonable and unfair and where we do draw the line on this...save these open parcels even though they're
maybe not fair. I just happen to like the open land versus the developer coming in and grabbing them...if they
choose to hang onto it for long periods of time, which I would like to do.
Roger Knutson: ...a little bit of consolation. If you hang onto your property for 31 years, the deferred
assessment goes away. If you it's been deferred for 30 years, after 30 years it just cancels... Not many people
1 own the property for 30 years. Or if the property isn't developed by 3, 4 or 5 generations...
Councilman Wing: I think that's truly a consolation...
Councilman Senn: Dick, can I offer an analogy to maybe help you out on that? 1
Councilman Wing: Please.
Councilman Senn: Okay the analogy is, if you or I were going to go out and buy a car now we can decide
whether we're going to pay for it in cash or we're going to finance it. Okay. If we finance it, okay. The
reason we're financing is we have other uses for our money at the time. If we pay for it in cash, we could take
that same amount that we would be paying for a monthly payment over time and put it in and gain interest or
more or less increase our holdings as a result of it. It's called time value of money. And that basis is there. I
mean somebody can take advantage of that time value of money and when you look at property as an
investment, you have to look at it in one of two ways. I mean how am I going to get the best return out of my
money. Is it paying for the assessment now in cash. Not having the interest and just simply getting my money
all in the end when I sell the property or is it, let's let the city finance the project for me because it's a low rate
of interest, which it is in today's market, and that's a set rate which is another nice thing. I mean if interest
rates are back up to 14% or 15% in a few years, you know it becomes an excellent interest rate. To me again it
comes back to the fairness and common sense approach and I really have a hard time poking a hole in that
saying, you know... '
31 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
Councilman Wing: ...that was the way he chose to.
' Councilman Senn: No, I contend he will get more cash in the end because over those 15 years his property is
going to continue to evaluate every year. And we're helping to finance that evaluation.
Don Ashworth: And another way to look at it is, just what has happened in the past. We put deferred
' assessments on the Mel and Frank Kurver property when their mother was alive, and those were a relatively
large amount. But it wasn't that $8,000.00 assessment that made the difference as to whether or not they ended
up developing that property or not. Same way with Brose. The Brose farm. Mrs. Hallgren has a piece of
property that's worth a lot of money and quite truthfully this $7,000.00 assessment and the potential of 30%
interest after 5 years is not going to be the driving force in whether or not she sells that or keeps it green. I
mean in comparison to that overall value, this is just a very small amount.
Councilman Senn: I keep asking myself, where you guys were about 15 years ago when I had to pay a
$6,000.00 or $7,000.00 assessment on my house. When they brought in water and sewer and street.
1 Councilman Wing: I paid $9,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: I can top you. I paid 10. And that's true. You're right. Because over a 10 year period we got
' the $10,000.00 assessment plus we also had to hook up the water and sewer as I mentioned before.
Councilman Wing: ...going along with Don's. I think we've protected Mrs. Hallgren and the other parcels as
much as we possibly can...because I know we've gone through this before.
Mayor Chmiel: And I don't think I've got much more to offer to this because I think everything's been
discussed. And everyone I think is protected to a certain point but the thing all boils down to, is if we ever have
' to go through it again, we'd better go through it a little better than what we did this past time. I don't think we
can do it any better as far as the total dollar assessment is concerned, per unit. But nonetheless, 1 think we leam
as we go through the process and unfortunately the other people are going to pay for it just like we all had our
own assessments to pay for at one given time or another. So with that I would like to have an approval for the
' assessments levied for the Minnewashta Parkway Improvement Project #90 -15 with the unpaid balance of said
assessments to be paid over the 8 year period, and anything you might like to add to that.
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval but I would really, and I don't think it's really appropriate to make it part
of the motion but I think it's really important that we look at our assessment policy. I mean I think the thing
that's saving us here from the fairness and equity test is the fact that we've got a lot of State Aid go into this
' project and it's bringing the overall dollar amount down to something that's very reasonable. Boy I tell you
what, if we had one of these that wasn't, I tell you. I'd be sitting out in the crowd next to those people who
were complaining about doubling up on assessments on side streets versus being on main streets, you know and
1 that sort of thing and I think our policy really needs to look at that and address it and I don't know how to say
that more vocally or whatever, so I'm going to say it that way but move approval as we've got this one.
Councilman Wing: And I'll second. I think every time we've done one of these things since I've been here,
Don has reviewed that policy and justified it fully to the point where I simply said, huh. I'm very comfortable
with this. With the exception of the area assessment with the side street. That I think is significant that if it
occurs again, I would clearly want to look at differently. Again, the...so I'll second that.
1
32
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
Resolution #93 -105: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded approval of the assessments 1
levied for the Minnewashta Parkway Improvement Project #90 -15 with the unpaid balance of said
assessments to be paid over the 8 year period. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Wing: Just a clarification...
Bill Engelhardt: My understanding is we should look at that boat launch and get a price and come back to the
Council for direction.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Or more just seeing, I mean I'd like to really...that it's completely unusable now
and it was usable beforehand. I'd really like to know if we are somehow liable for that.
Bill Engelhardt: We'll see if we can get it fixed.
Jo Ann Hallgren: Sir. I asked about this 6% deferred or whatever and the 30% and you would not let me ask
the question when I was up here. The motion did not say one word about this. I'd like to have it clarified and
I'd like to see it in black and white. What exactly is the 30% figure. It's not clear.
Councilman Wing: For the record I did ask her to defer her question and clearly that's reasonable.
Councilman Senn: Don dealt with that I thought in relationship to our motion and that was the 6% was 5 years 1
at 6% equally 30 %.
Don Ashworth: A simple interest calculation. If she has it 2 years, it would be. 1
Councilman Senn: Not compounded interest. Simple interest.
•
Don Ashworth: Right. If she had 2 years, it would be 12 %. And I made the assumption that the City Council's 1
motion was to approve the roll, the revised roll as recommended by the City Engineer including the
recommendations made in my report. So that is the way the resolutions will be prepared and brought back to the
City Council and you can verify that in fact is what you.
Councilman Senn: Are you clear on that ma'am? You look puzzled.
Jo Ann Hallgren: No. Could you take a $20,000.00 figure and carry it through here for me and tell me what.
$20,000.00 at whatever. 6% for 5 years. What happens after 5 years?
Don Ashworth: $20,000.00 then would take and have a $6,000.00 interest add to it and so after 5 years, if you ,
develop the property at that point in time, the assessment would be $26,000.00. I think it would be better to use
the actual amount because your assessment is closer to $8,000.00.
Jo Ann Hallgren: My assessment is over $12,000.00.
Don Ashworth: I thought you said there were 11. 1
Bill Engelhardt: 16 units, yeah.
1
33
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
Don Ashworth: Oh I'm sorry. I thought you had said 11.
Bill Engelhardt: No, she has 11.5 acres for 16 units.
Councilman Senn: Let me see if I could help you out. If I'm taking your question right. What you're going to
I pay to start with is $760.00.
Jo Ann Hallgren: Right.
1 Councilman Senn: Okay. And you're not going to pay any more. Okay.
Jo Ann Hallgren: Well I don't have all that cash laying around that I can.
1 Councilman Senn: No, I understand that but I'm just saying now, as far as interest accrual goes, if you have
$20,000.00 going forward that you're not going to pay and if it's at 6 %, okay that's going to basically accrue
I about $1,200.00 per year in interest, if my math's right. So I mean you're going to be adding on $1,200.00 per
year in interest accrual to that principal amount of $20,000.00. Now, ultimately when you sell the property okay
and it's developed, that person will have to pay that.
1 Jo Ann Hallgren: I don't intend to sell it to a developer.
Councilman Senn: Okay, if you keep it 30 years ma'am, you aren't going to pay a cent of it.
1 Jo Ann Hallgren: I intend to sell it to a single person. Just one resident. What happens then?
I Councilman Senn: If the property isn't developed, as I understand it, that assessment still goes away after 30
years. Well, what I'm saying is that nobody's getting hung.
Jo Ann Hallgren: If I sell, I can't sell without getting paying my special assessments.
I Councilman Senn: No. That's not true. Not true. You can negotiate.
I Roger Knutson: Your lender may require it. Or some mortgage companies may require it. The City does not
require it. You can sell your property and the special assessments can just be assumed.
I Councilman Wing: ...accrue, there's no question about it.
Mayor Chmiel: And I respect your position as to what you're going through but I have seen over the past 5
years people coming in here and saying I am not selling and within a short period of time, it's being sold.
I Unfortunately those kinds of things happen and one of the major concerns that we had with this whole project
was that we didn't force anyone off their property. Because I have seen that happen and I don't want to see it
happen here. So thank you. Thank you for coming.
1
1
1 34
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
PUBLIC HEARING O N FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO I
TANADOONA DRIVE AND DOGWOOD ROAD, PROJECT 93 -27.
Mayor Chmiel: This is a public hearing that was to be for a feasibility study but it's basically a cancellation of 1
the public hearing on a feasibility study for street and drainage improvements, Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood
Road which was project #93 -27. Charles, would you like to just reiterate the reasons why?
I
Charles Folch: Sure, Mr. Mayor and Council. Subsequent to the feasibility study being presented to the Council
about one month ago and calling for the public hearing, staff and the engineer have been contacted by a couple
of residents who had some concerns and issues that were basically new to the game that we're unaware of. I
Discussions we had during the neighborhood meetings...we would like to make some revisions and investigate
some of these concerns. Have another neighborhood meeting. Revise the feasibility study and bring it back to
Council that way...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I would like a motion to cancel the public hearing.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to cancel the public hearing on the 1
feasibility study for street and drainage improvements to Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Road. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF
ORGANIZED COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE IN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Public Present: 1
Name Address
1
Mike Berkopec Waste Management
Cyrus E. Childs 413 Del Rio Drive I
Marcus Zbarche 1540 Millpond Court
Gary Love 731 Victoria Drive
John Siegfried, Carver County 110901 Von Hertzen Circle, Chaska
Dean Johnson RSC
Pat Gunderson 6660 Lotus Trail
David & Cindy Rouse 1690 Koehnen Circle
I Linda Scott and Sue Morgan 4031 Kings Road
Jack Thien 7570 Canyon Curve
Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Hans Skalle 780 Santa Vera Drive
Uli Sacchet 8071 Hidden Circle
Diane Harberts 7190 Frontier Trail
Londa Blawn 7100 Derby Drive
Fran J. Hile 7061 Derby Drive
Il
John & Anna Siefert 6331 Near Mountain Blvd.
Nancy Lee and Patrick Blood Admiral Waste
1 Pat & Perry Harrison 2221 Sommergate
35
1
•
1
,
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
1 Dick Nelson 1070 Lyman Court
Russ & Ginny Hamilton 8019 Cheyenne Spur
I Tom Moline BFI
Bill Swearengin 6250 Chaska Road
Willard Johnson 1660 West 63rd Street
Dave Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway
I Mayor Chmiel: I'll open that public hearing up at this particular time. Paul.
I Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor. This originally started last spring as a concern that was brought to you by the City
Engineer relative to significant road damage that appears to be stemming from having overweight trash hauling
trucks using city streets that weren't designed for that purpose. It's clear that we have 6 active haulers in the
community and many streets, most streets have multiple haulers on them. When the engineer brought this
I concern forward to you there was some background information provided. Basically indicating that the State has
provided the two phase process that allows our community to look at organized collection. The city went out and
retained Dean Johnson of Resources Strategy Corporation to work with the city on a phase 1 study for organized
I collection. The Phase 1 study was prepared by Dean in conjunction with the Recycling Committee. They have
reported back their recommendations to you. Essentially they found that organized collection seems to have a lot
of merit and for a lot of different reasons and they're recommending that you proceed with the Phase 2 study. I
I think it should be clear however that there is no proposal to undertake organized collection at this time. There's
no proposal on the table that specifically says this is how it's going to operate because right now nobody really
knows. There's a variety of strategies that have been looked at. Some are being recommended for further study
and that's what's being brought forward tonight. With that I'd like to turn the meeting over to Dean Johnson
III and he can give you an overview of the fmdings and conclusions.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Dean.
I Dean Johnson: Thank you Paul. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As Paul mentioned, it was actually 5
months ago this evening that the Council adopted a resolution of an intent to evaluate the feasibility of organized
I collection in the city of Chanhassen. As Paul mentioned, we followed the State process which prescribes a two
phased approach to evaluating organized collection. The first phase involved the planning process. The planning
period to which we evaluated the existing conditions of the open collection system in the city. We conducted
four different surveys during the process. One a haulers survey to look at existing services... and organized
1 collection survey of communities throughout the Twin Cities. There are approximately 40 which have organized
collection at this time. We did a survey of a comparable number of cities with open collection pretty much
evenly spread throughout the 7 county area and we completed a random phone survey of residents in the
I community. Also presented alternative collection methods to study for review. Evaluated the environmental
impacts of collection in general. Conducted 5 different meetings which involved the organized study. We
invited the haulers as well as notices to the general public. And on September 21st presented a final report
I which included findings and recommendations which have been summarized in a cover sheet in your
memorandum. The findings from the study, I'll briefly touch through these for the benefit of the audience,
include there currently is as many as 6 solid waste collection vehicles and 6 recycling vehicles can be seen
serving existing neighborhoods currently in the city of Chanhassen each week. Certainly there are garbage cans
I or recycling bins present throughout the community on any given weekday in the community. The current open
system results in approximately 5 to 6 times the necessary mileage of heavier vehicles on city streets in a given
week as compared to organized collection. A typical solid waste collection vehicle and recycling vehicle
1 meeting weight restrictions have a combined cumulative effect on residential pavement as approximately 1,650
1 36
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 i
automobiles. With that current...system in a given week you may have an impact on a particular residential
street of the equivalent of 10,000 automobiles. Organized collection will reduce current collection vehicles air
emissions. Vehicle noise. Vehicle fuel consumption. Total vehicle trips. Total vehicle miles. Residential
street wear and the different aesthetic impacts. Surveys we looked at, the cost of organized collection are lower
than the cost of open collection within Carver County as well as most other counties within the Twin Cities area.
Also discussed to any change in the current system of open collection will result in varying impacts on the
haulers that currently serve the city. The committee favored an organized collection system which did include
utilizing the existing haulers to continue providing service to the community but while also minimizing the
negative impacts of collection. In a survey that was done of Chanhassen residents. This was a limited survey of
80 residents polled randomly through phone books by the study committee. 27% of the respondents were not at
all supportive of organized collection. 48% were neutral. 25% were very supportive of organized collection.
Finally residential organized collection will allow the city to comply with and enforce provisions of Minnesota
Statutes which do require cities over populations of 1,000 to ensure that every household in the community does
have a solid waste collection service. The recommendation then included in the report, in view of the findings
as summarized by the committee include for one that the Council accept the City of Chanhassen Organized
Collection Study. Secondly, that the City initiate licensing and/or ordinance provisions to limit the number of
solid waste collection licenses with the current maximum of 6. With a declining limit based on any turnover that
might occur with the existing haulers. Three, that the city consider adopting a resolution of intent to organize
solid waste collection. And lastly that the city consider proceeding with Phase 2 of the study to discuss
arrangements for organized collection with existing licensed haulers. Very briefly I'd like to comment on what
you might expect in the second phase of this, should the Council decide to go ahead. As mentioned earlier, the
study committee was rather opposed to a concept of going out for bid with a single hauler. There was some
interest in creating a system of collection that utilized all of the existing haulers. At the same time the
1
committee acknowledged the impacts that are inherent to an open system and discussed what staff had labeled.
This was not part of our report but a concept of managed competition which is an opportunity for the city to
incorporate the growth that's going to occur as has over the past number of years, into a system where you have
some performance standards and the base level that all of the haulers may start with in an organized system •
and...automatically go to each hauler based on a 1994 or 1993 level of accounts but be based on some sort of a
system of reward or penalty based again on certain performance standards. These things are not elements that
have been discussed in any detail. Those are the sorts of things that we develop if Phase 2 is proceeded with.
The haulers in general participated extremely well in this process. I can assure that none of them are in favor of
organized collection. Most of them are here this evening and I'm sure they wish to share their comments and
concerns with you. Also there are several members of the committee that are present, who along with myself,
might be able to answer any questions you may have. With that I would turn it back to the Council.
1
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address
this at this time? If so, please state your name and either the company you're representing or the address where
you live within the city. Or both. As I said, this is a public hearing.
Mike Berkopec: My name is Mike Berkopec. I am the Division President for Waste Management and I do
appreciate the process so far. I think that it's been helpful that we've been able to express our views and that's
what I'd like to do today. I understand that this is simply a public hearing and you want to hear viewpoints. In
Chanhassen we're a relatively small hauler. We don't have a lot of homes here in Chanhassen but obviously
we're like any other business. We like to see our business grow and Chanhassen is a growing community. We
think we offer a unique service and we expect and hope to grow with the city of Chanhassen. I guess
throughout this whole process, what I'm very concerned about is to make sure that we specifically define what
we're talking about when we're talking about it and there's, organized collection I think as you know has got a
37
1
1 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
I lot of different ways for it to be. When we talk about 40 people, 40 communities with organized collection.
That doesn't mean they're all the same. They all have different types of organized collections and specifically
what I'm concerned about as we move ahead with this is not only limiting my opportunity to grow. Limiting
I my customer's and potential customer's freedom of choice. And then specifically the one option that I know is
is out there which is a negotiated contract. I think that's the proper term. The bottom line is that in my opinion
it's a matter of the haulers get together, they guess along with the city in sitting down and trying to figure out a
I price and I personally would like to see you continue to have competition in your system and I appreciate Dean's
comment about who's term management competition was. If that's a system where there truly is competition,
that's something that I, myself and my company would consider. But a negotiated type situation is something
I I'm not comfortable with. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thanks Mike. Is there anyone else?
I Sue Morgan: Sue Morgan from 4031 Kings Road. I guess being a resident and consumer and...person, to me
service is more important than...but it's important I think in this process to take into consideration what
resident's needs are and I don't think a survey of 80 residents in the Chanhassen area is a good segment to get
I feedback from. I think that it would be important in a survey to find out through the questions people
specifically on what their needs are as far as waste collection pick -up. I know personally we use BFI and they
collect within our garage. So I don't have to haul my garbage out onto the curb. They pick it up directly from
I my garage. And to me that's important and I'm willing to pay for that. I wouldn't necessarily want a hauler
that's cheaper and then I'd have to haul my refuse to the sidewalk and have them pick it up, just because they're
cheaper. I'd like to know also how the system will be evaluated. How often it would be evaluated if we did run .
into...What would be the procedure for filing a complaint if the garbage isn't picked up on time or if it's strewed
1 all over the sidewalk or whatever. And exactly what the cost will be so that I as a resident can make some
comparisons with my current service. Also being a homeowner and being head of a household, it's nice to have
control over something. Some things just kind of run like clockwork. You don't have to worry about them.
I And the garbage collection, the service I've had with Woodlake has been very good and I'd hate to see, I'd hate
to lose...
I Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks Sue.
Hans Skalle: My name is Hans Skalle. Hive at 780 Santa Vera Drive and I also concluded the same opinion as
the previous speaker. I definitely like to have a say in...They have excellent service with Woodlake Sanitation
I and I...to continue in the same manner we have... We have been living here for 3 years now and I have...Thank
you very much.
I Chris Fulbright: Good evening. I'm Chris Fulbright with Aagard West Sanitation and earlier a resident eluded
to the fact that the poll of 80 people was a relatively small survey. Two months ago Aagard West did a survey
of it's own customer within the city of Chanhassen. I have 350 of their responses right here which were
I presented to the Recycling Committee 2 months ago and verified by Jo Ann Olsen for their authenticity. I guess
I would like to share some of the highlights of this survey and offer to the Council, if they're interested. We
asked 8 basic questions, if they were interested. I want to highlight two of the questions. In the issue of how
strongly do you feel about wanting one hauler in your neighborhood. 5% of the residents were adamant that
I they only wanted one hauler in the neighborhood. On the question of I want a choice, 90% were adamant that
they wanted to retain their choice. I'm a little dismayed that this did not end up in the final report. This
represents a little over 10% of your population in the city of Chanhassen and they've spoken quite clearly here I
I think. As a hauler of course you know I'm not in favor of this organized plan but I think here's the
1 38
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
consideration is of Y our own constituents.
Councilman Mason: If I can make a quick comment. I talked with you on the phone quite a while ago Chris.
I'm glad to see that Aagard West did that and I'm glad to see that all the carriers are getting involved m this. I
think you also have to ask the question, is how objective is your survey. I mean was one of the questions, is are
you concerned about damage to the roads. I mean I'm not saying I'm taking that position but I'm hoping
1
everyone on this Council is being very open minded about this. And I think we are.
Chris Fulbright. That's fair and the Recycling Committee also, the haulers were very concemed, would they be
objective as they led verbally people to their conclusions and we were very unsure on that.
1
Councihnan Mason: And I don't know the answer to that either but I just want all the cards out on the table
here all the time, so.
Bill Swearengin: I'll speak to that question. Bill Swearengin, 6250 Chaska Road. I wasn't going to speak
tonight but I do have service with Aagard West and have for a number of years and prior to that the company
that they bought. I don't know if I completed your survey but I did send the Council a letter approximately 6
months ago and I'd like that to become part of your Minutes if you would please regarding the service. My end
point was, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Council has plenty of time to work on items that are more
important than this I believe. I would like competition. I'm satisfied with what we have. My main concern is
the recycling. I have 10 neighbors and I watch them every week carry out a bag of cans, 7 newspapers, and a
few bottles and put them out in the street and that recycling truck has to stop. The guy gets out of the truck.
Goes over. Picks up each bag and dumps it in. This is horribly costly. The Council should require that
recycling occurs only once every 2 weeks or once every month. Put it in a big can. Does it work? Yeah. Is it
more efficient to have once a month recycling on cans and papers?
Dean Johnson: Every other week would be probably appropriate. 1
Bill Swearengin: There's where you could really save some cost. Thank you.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: If I could just address that. It's something that we would love to do but what 1
we've heard from haulers is that people get off schedule and they forget which week it is and therefore they just
start throwing things out. Unfortunately it becomes people don't recycle because they don't remember when and
you're absolutely right. It's a problem but what we've heard from consultants and from collectors is people
don't recycle as much if it's not available weekly, unfortunately.
Bill Swearengin: I do it voluntarily and I only recycle when my garbage can fills up with bottles or with tin
111
cans or with newspapers. The truck simply doesn't stop when I don't have anything out there.
Tom Moline: My name is Tom Moline. I'm District Manager, BFI Woodlake Sanitation. We haul in
approximately 75 cities. A little less. Virtually all of those have considered organized collection over the past
few years and...organized collection of the consortium type. The other organized collection cities, a lot of them
are contracts dating way back. Of those there are four, out of those roughly 70 some cities that have decided to
1 go consortium type organized collection, after all of them considered. We also did a mailing to our customers.
We did it last week. We made it very simple. We are biased. We're in the business. Yes, we're biased. It
was a simple question we put to them or a simple statement. They could sign their name and return it. I would
like to see the city of Chanhassen remain as a current open hauling system and sign their name. In one day we
39
1
1 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
1 have gotten 11% or 120 responses back. Okay. That's in one day that people have had a chance to respond to
it. I'm going to address just a couple more issues here. Price between open and organized collection. You're
really talking apples to oranges here. The service levels are set by contract and these service levels by the
I contract are limiting to haulers. We're used to responding in a competition manner much more quickly than if it
was set by contract and so when I stated to the committee that service levels suffer, they automatically meant
that the haulers weren't doing their job. No, they are doing the job. They're going by the - contract but we can't
1 respond very quickly to that. And it limits us. When you look at price organized collection cities, one of the
things that's not readily apparent is what are the services that are cut out of that. Does it include yard waste and
so forth. As far as the roads go and the weight restrictions. It was stated in the report that virtually all the
vehicles exceed the road limits during the spring weight restriction time. I do take, I don't agree with that. Last
I spring we had a meeting between the haulers and the city. Charles was there. Two years ago we rented a small
truck from St. Louis just to bring into Chanhassen. We were able to purchase another one. Now I have two
more coming on the way to use in cities such as this which are very sensitive to road conditions. Other haulers
1 also have adapted their hauling schedules or whatever to bring small trucks in to go easier on the roads. It's a
capital improvement. It doesn't happen overnight. But we're working with the system. I kept my larger trucks
on the 9 ton roads. I told them don't fill the thing up. Fill it half full so we are trying to work with the city on
I this. One mom point I want to bring up is super fund law. Currently we haul for our residents. Under super
fund law, as it stands now, and this is my understanding of it. I'm not legal expert but we have asked questions
of the experts. They say number one, responsibility in a clean-up or liability situation is the owner operator.
I Number two is the arranger for transfer. Number 3 is the disposer and generator...the community did discuss
liability under this. If you designate the waste to a certain site, something happens. What is the liability. With
the questions we asked, the liability is there whether you designate or don't designate. By signing the contract
you are entering the garbage business and hence we no longer haul for the residents. We haul for the city.
1 Thank you.
Diane Harberts: Diane Harberts, 7190 Frontier Trail. I support open hauling. When you talked comments with
I regard to the weight restrictions. Is it just the garbage trucks or is it the entire collection of vehicles of similar
size on the road such as school buses, such as public buses, such as semi's. I just seen pull down Coulter to
Target tonight so I guess I would just suggest that you look at the entire picture. Is it just garbage or is it maybe
a whole collection. You talk about performance standards. The only way you're going to be able to really
I identify performance standards is if you also have a way of monitoring them. Does that fall then into the realm
of the city to a sense get into the garbage business? I'm a firm believer that I think there's an opportunity here
for the Council to maybe share their values or their vision in terms of what they'd like to achieve for the _
I community. Maybe give that to the experts. The garbage collectors. See what kind of solution they can
provide. They are the experts. They've been in the field. I don't think it's appropriate at this point for the city
to get that involved with the garbage but I do think it's appropriate for you as a Council, as our community
I leaders to set the vision in terms of what kind of objectives you're trying to achieve here. But leave it to the
experts to come up with solutions. If they aren't able to in a sense meet your values or your vision for the city,
then it may be more appropriate for the city to get more involved. I'd like to maybe just remind the Council
that to me the importance of a community is the partnership between the residences and the business. And as
I my community leaders I look for you to try and make those type of partnerships stronger. I look at any garbage
hauler, if it's 1 or 6. The same as having store front in the community of Chan and I think Chanhassen
certainly welcomes the business community into the city because of what it provides to us. Be it you know...
I donations at the time of winterfest or whatever, I think there's a real partnership there that you certainly don't
want to in a sense sever because it is very, I think the economic environment is certainly fragile at this point so
we certainly have to keep our door open. And welcome all that are interested in providing that community
service, doing business in Chanhassen. I think it's important that we maintain our choice. I personally am
40
i
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
served by BFI and it's not a matter of money. In my preference it's the day as well as the level of service that I
receive. Those are what's important to me to my lifestyle. So as I said, in conclusion I appreciate the time that
the community leaders to hear and identify what those values and visions are for this city but I think at the same
time there is an opportunity to turn those values and visions over to the experts and see what kind of solutions
they can provide to help us in a sense meet their new partnership arrangement. Thank you.
Marcus Zbache: I'm Marcus Zbache. I work with the Carver County Environmental Service Department. I'd
like to say that the County does support organized collections for all the obvious reasons which-lower street
repairs, public safety, noise, energy consumption, air quality and litter. However, if the Council does decide to
go with the second phase of this project, we'd also like the City to consider a requirement that haulers do bring
their waste to a process facility rather than directly to a landfill. And I've discussed this with Paul and some of
the other planners already and I've been talking to the Recycling Committee and I will share with you the same
concerns that we have. Landfills can have a negative impact on the environment and that's basically why our...
The Metropolitan Council policy requires that metro waste should be processed prior to landfill and using the
landfill only as a last resort. The County could lose grant funding that will affect all city programs that the
County does sponsor right now. And I think the County Board really believes that waste should be processed
rather than squandered in landfills and they should be used as a given resource to composting or as an energy...
1
Councilman Wing: ...does that exist today? Is that a variable ?...cost to do that. Landfill is kind of getting to be
a dirty word. Is that processing available? 1
Paul Krauss: Well in my discussion with Marcus, it appeared as though Carver County has negotiated or is on
the verge of negotiating agreements with Hennepin County...involved in Anoka County to take waste from
Carver County. However there are cost concerns. There's potential, I don't want to say there's a liability issue
but there's a liability discussion. There's also some question of how the fells review constraint of trade.
Restraint of trade. Those types of issues. I think the jury's still out on that. We indicated with the County that
if we proceed with Phase 2 we'll certainly take a good hard look at the merits of it. From an environmental
standpoint it may be meritorious but on the other hand there's a lot of people that are concerned burning isn't an
ideal solution either. I think what Marcus is saying though is accurate. I mean putting it in a hole in the ground
is not considered current technology or the right way to go...but there's a lot of other issues. Cost is one of
them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That's very true.
Councilman Wing: Well, if we want to visionary.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm afraid I understand some of the...garbage business but I'll hold that until I get ready to
address it. Anyone else.
Gary Love: Mr. Mayor, Council members. Gary Love, owner of Chaska Sanitation. Not to be repetitive of our 111 fast public hearing we had here 3 months ago. I'm not going to get into great detail on that but I would like to
thank the committee we were working with and staff. It's been informational to me. I'm currently not involved
in any communities with organized collection right now. My mind basically has not changed from the open
system from our first public hearing that we addressed. And I'm not totally against it either. Just to...different
market needs and things that have been coming in the last few months in our business that it has been changing.
I think for all the valued customers I'm currently servicing in Chanhassen, it'd be a major disappointment for me
to lose any of those. I mean our loyalty from our company being family owned and operated has been '
41 1
1
I City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
I unbelievable and we do a large number of residents in Chanhassen. And I just, I'm basically open to the fact of,
I'm very thankful. Don, yourself had said that no, we're not trying to run anybody out of business and we being
the smaller business person in this industry today, it's tougher and tougher all the time. And I appreciated that
the city is willing, if they go ahead with organized, to work with the existing haulers. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Tim Markum: My name is Tim Markum here for R & W Roll off and Sanitation. I just wanted to speak up for
I the smaller hauler and hopefully we have a fair chance of things too. And to say that having worked with some
of the haulers over the years, there's not a one that hasn't conformed to the city's wishes as far as finding the
smaller trucks and lightening the loads a little bit the city's demands and wishes. So open hauling's the right
I way to go.
Willard Johnson: Willard Johnson, 1660 West 63rd. I'm...to open hauling. I have Woodlake and the prices are
right and I feel...If they don't do the job, I can always complain to somebody...
I Dave Headla: Dave Headla, 6870 Minnewashta Parkway. I had a question for Mr. Johnson here. What are the
three disadvantages of organized hauling? That's what bothers me about your report. When I was young I used
I to follow those studies. I thought this is the only way to go. Now I look at it and I don't believe studies when
they don't tell me the pros and cons. There's got to be disadvantages and when they don't do that in a study, I
feel that it's too one sided and I don't... Then I am, I don't want to see our haulers controlled and I hear these
I fellows talk and my priorities are the environment, cost and convenience. And right now I'm getting, I had to
look a long time to find the right hauler but he serves my purpose and I'm very happy with them. And I hear
talk about the environment, the way it's organized hauling we can do these things. I don't believe that we have
to go to organized hauling to do better on the environment. I think there's many ways our haulers are willing to
I work with us, or whoever and we can get the same thing done. It isn't a one sided issue. And then one of the
things on organized. You didn't talk about cost at all. That money's coming out of my pocket and when I have
competition, I think I have some control over that. But when I'm told these are the few that you can look at,
I that competition's gone and I can see the cost going up. So I've just got to support the free enterprise system.
Tim Swietzer. My name is Tim Swietzer. I'm a resident of Minnewashta Parkway. I also am the owner of
Aagard West and I also own TBS Carver Recycling Center. I wanted to talk just a minute about recycling.
I We've heard a lot about volume. I'm sure you're going to hear more. I'm pretty impressed with what I hear so
far. You've got a big decision ahead of you. It's not going to be easy. Recycling is a big responsibility that a
lot of people don't want to bear the cost of. The County had a challenge with taking on the responsibility of
I recycling with Carver County here and for a couple of years of handling it themselves decided it was a little bit
more work than they cared to deal with and they put out a request for proposals to manage the recyclables. I put
in a bid for that request and it was to build a building and we built that in Norwood. And it was to handle and
I manage a recycling...be available to the public to accept recycling materials from all residents and any haulers
that choose to use the facility. They understand that in order to make this work it's going to take some subsidy.
We made a financial commitment to make this happen on a 5 year agreement. I bid this 5 year management of
recyclables based on several things which included a subsidy from the County. Also myself being in the hauling
I business I have 3 recycling trucks that cover the community here. A large part of my business counts on
receiving material. Recycling is not a profitable business. It takes a lot of effort to make it go. I feel that part
of your decision here has sort of an ecosystem to it if you will. If you are talking about pulling or removing a
I portion of my recycling stream, which I will have no control over, that will have an effect. A cause and effect.
If I'm barely making ends meet now running a recycling center, and I lose all of my Chanhassen recycling
material which keeps me afloat, them is an effect that it may be far beyond what we're looking at and talking
I about right here. I'm talking about just recycling. If an organized collection system is developed and I do not
42
I
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
have a part in it, which is not clear at this point in time whether I will be a part of it or not, it affects my
livelihood. It affects my business as a hauler and it affects my recycling center. And it puts my recycling center
in a very precarious financial position. And I still have to pay my assessment on Minnewashta Parkway so. 1
John Siegfried: My name is John Siegfried. I'm a Carver County Commissioner. The County Board has not
taken a position on whether it supports organized hauling or not. It's something that is completely up to the
communities. Nevertheless, in the smaller areas of the County we do have to enforce the fact that organized or
collection does have to occur in townships or towns over 1,000 in population. However we are moving forward
with the licensing process of all the haulers and that should be completed by the end of the year. We're actually
going to have that...tomorrow. The Board policy as far as disposal of the solid waste is to see that it is
composted or utilized in some other manner as opposed to landfilling. Now we are looking at a subsidy as
opposed to a designation or full control to ensure that this does happen. And I know that philosophical choice
for disposal is composting rather than...fuel. However these composting plants aren't operational very well. The
product that they're turning out isn't particularly usable so therefore these compost plants are actually being,
having a recommendations to add the capability of turning this more into RDF so that it can be bumed...and
electricity generated. So the actual Board decision is that we will be pursuing to make it attractive enough for
Carver County haulers so that they do take the waste to a facility that will process it in some form and more
than likely that will be...the dry fuel. Thank you.
Kevin Trist: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. My name is Kevin Trist and I live at 3851 Stratford Ridge and
most of you know that I also work for BFI. I guess the haulers in the industry altogether have really come up to
the plate and gone to bat several different times. When the recycling came in and the haulers were asked to do
recycling, we did recycling. When the issue of smaller trucks came up, as a company we went ahead and looked
at going to smaller trucks and many of the other companies did the same. So I guess from our standpoint we
definitely what to work with the system and we appreciate working with the city regarding that there. I think
when it comes to the issue of organized collection it gets to be, it's very complex. Like Tom mentioned earlier,
we've looked at this issue in 75 different cities and we probably got 75 different answers. There just gets to be
many, many tangibles that gets thrown in. I guess one of the ones that, the one that I would like to just
comment on is when you always hear about the issue of the heavy trucks and the garbage trucks tearing up the
streets and what have you. Living on Minnewashta Parkway, and being in this industry I'm very aware of trucks
that go up and down that street. And as everybody knows, we've just gone through that issue earlier with the
amount of time that it's taken to fix that road but when you start looking at garbage trucks versus school buses
versus the dump trucks and the different heavy equipment that's out there, you'll find that there's probably a lot
more school buses and other trucks that go up and down the road. So when the issue of truck issue, the roads
and the damage comes in, I think it's got to be looked at not only garbage trucks but everything else and if
we're looking at organizing the haulers, maybe we should be looking at organizing other things...with the
situation that I guess...industry. I think that really should be looked at.
1
Councilman Wing: ...What does that do to that cost? Has that impacted my costs?
Kevin Trist: Generally what we have done in the past is we're running with 2 or 3 smaller vehicles, leaving the
larger vehicle on the main roads and then going back and carrying it back and normally if you're working with 2
or 3 trucks, you're generally working with higher productivity so generally there's not a cost differential.
Councilman Wing: ...with the large truck isn't necessarily cheaper or more expensive either way than with your
truck with smaller trucks? You're saying it's balancing it out?
43
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
Kevin Trist: It's balancing.
Mayor Chmiel: It's nice to know that you moved back to Chanhassen from Eden Prairie.
Ginny Hamilton: Hi, I'm Ginny Hamilton and I live at 8019 Cheyenne Spur. I just wanted to make a statement
that I do not want to see the refuse hauling changed in any way. I like having a choice. I like having control. I
' like being able to deal directly with my hauler if there is a problem or a concern. I don't want to lose that
ability, that freedom of choice that I've got. I haven't heard anybody ever complain at all about their trash or
their hauling or anything and I guess I was living in the dark somewhere but I didn't even know that there was a
' big concern on your part for the refuse situation. It comes as a shock to me. But this is how I feel and I just
wanted to let you guys know that.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Maybe just to let you know a little bit too. When we have looked at some
of this to see what it would cost us to repair all of our streets and I think we had 106 miles of city streets within
this city. Some of those are County State Aid roads and the balance of that is about 94 miles of roads within the
city. My question was, if we were to have to replace all the streets within the city, what would our total cost be.
' If I remember correctly it came up to somewhere in the neighborhood of about $10 million. When it comes up
to those large numbers, it's something that you think about and saying what can we do and that's why we're
going through the process of what we're going through right now. So with that I'll open it up for anyone else
wanting to come forward.
Vernelle Clayton: You never know what you're going to be doing when you get up in the morning. I didn't
expect to be talking about garbage today. I'm Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle. I'm one of the
people who have lived here long enough so my hauler too will offer come and pick up the garbage from the
garage and that's kind of handy but I'm not here to speak about my personal hope that, for my sake as a resident
that you'll not consider passing this. But rather to say that I haven't heard anyone speak about commercial
haulers. And I heard everyone speak about how wonderful things are and I'd like to pass onto you an
experience that I have with the past year...big enough account so it does attract bidders from a lot of the folks
that are here this evening. We chose the lowest bidder. Well qualified and it's just a nightmare. We do not get
good service. No communication. Misrepresentation of what has been done between the hauler and just the
desk supervisor and thanks heavens we've got a choice because those sorts of...are a disadvantage to not only the
budgets of the tenants over there but to the looks and appearance of the shopping center which we really want it
to look nice. Thank you.
1 Uli Sacchet: My name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 8071 Hidden Circle and I just want to make one thing clear,
having one of these...that is trying to take freedom of choice away and...I'm one of the members of the
1 Recycling Committee that has spent a significant amount of time here in the last 4 months or so studying that
issue and discussing it with the haulers. I just want to make it very clear that in no way are we trying to take
freedom away from people. In no way are we trying to negatively impact free enterprise. As a matter of fact I
think it was always very clear from our side that the only way that we are favoring organized collection is if we
' preserve the element of choice and the element of competition. I do not see that exclusion of these elements by
considering organized collection. And what I've heard said here tonight is I see a lot of people see that very
clear cut, very black and white and it simply isn't. Certainly not the way we envisioned it. It's relatively
difficult for me to see the wisdom in having every week 6 different garbage haulers driving through every
neighborhood and having garbage cans out every day of the week. That to me is not naturally sound and
environmental...where we have very tangible element that if you put a dollar figure to it. However I think it's
common sense. What's the price of having 6 haulers go...to have competition. Is that really necessary? Is that
44
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 i
I
the way we want to set a balance. And I think that's where the city comes in to some extent because we have
the collective responsibility and it's not actually a new concept. Quite a number of neighborhoods and where
there have been efforts where the neighbors got together to choose a hauler...neighborhood and I consider it to
some extent a natural evolution. Natural growth. As the city grows, that the element of choice becomes more
an element of choice as a group. We make it very clear that we don't want to put this on a level of the city
choosing one hauler but I think the ideal vision, I would very much support if neighborhoods choose one hauler.
I
Now that might be a little too big a step and if you look at the resolution in front of us, we're not really stating
that we want to specifically organize. But if I remember the wording correctly, it's very clear that we are
proposing to further study the issue and look what are our possibilities to improve the system. Now the .
I
resolution also includes that we would try to not have more than 6 haulers. That we would try to...bring the
number down as a minimal first step to reduce the impact on the city's streets, on the environment. There could
be an intermediate step between neighborhoods choosing one hauler and us just with this first step limiting how
many more haulers could be added. It could be maybe a choice between a number of haulers per neighborhood
as an intermediate step. These are type of ideas that need to be studied and I think one of the key issues that
needs to be studied, if you so choose to go further in this process, is how can we actually realiie this concept
over managed competition. How can we elevate the choice of the hauler to a neighborhood level and have a I
mechanism in place that guarantees that people have input. That as such people choose their hauler and have the
sense that they personally are involved in choosing the hauler. If they have problems, that they can change
hauler but that they hashed it out in a neighborhood setting without...individual setting. That's basically my
I story. I do want to make a few quick comments about some of the aspects that were questioned in the process
that we went through during the last 4 months. One of the things was that we only surveyed 80 local residents.
It takes quite a while to survey people for one thing. I think the people that actually participated in that put in a
lot of time to reach the number of 80. Statistically I don't think it's all that bad. Our goal was to survey
between 100 and 120 and I believe if my math is right, that would have given us an accuracy of over 90%
statistically speaking. In terms of getting a sampling. Our purpose of this survey was not to have a conclusive
measurement but to have...approximation of what people think. I think a 90% statistical accuracy is well
•
sufficient...
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone else?
Dick Nelson: My name is Dick Nelson. I live at 1070 Lyman Court and I don't think the city should be I
involved in picking our garbage collector. If you look at the problem with this mad you were discussing earlier,
you can't even get it sodded. Six of my neighbors have put in sod in the past month. No problem at all. One
phone call and you can't even put sod in my street. What makes you think you can handle garbage collection
properly so I think it should just be freedom of choice. Free enterprise. This is still America. It's not Russia or
anyplace else.
I
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Dick. Anyone else? If seeing none, I'd like to just sort of discuss this a little bit.
What I'd like to see done. There's a lot of points that were brought up this evening. I'd like to see.
Councilman Senn: Should we close the public hearing? 1
Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't want to close it. I want to get to that point yet. What I'd like to do is basically
I
table it to get some of the answers and responses back from what has been provided and then at that particular
time probably have this on our next Council agenda. Sit back and then debate it at that particular time. So what
I would like to make a motion is that we table it at this time and carry it through to our next Council meeting.
45
1
I
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm not certain Mr. Mayor why you want to do that
Mayor Chmiel: Well because we're getting a lot of different responses back and I think we should study and
listen to what people are saying. For us to review that and come up with conclusions and then once we reach
those particular conditions, then I think we have a little better handle on at least knowing the answers to the
questions that have been asked and some of the discussions that were done.
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: But at this point it's my opinion that we can't answer any of those questions
because what we're being asked to do tonight is to recognize that yes, there may be a problem. Or maybe there
is a better way to do it in the city and yes, let's go ahead and look at some solutions. We don't have any
answers yet so I'm not certain if we can answer questions if we table it.
Mayor Chmiel: We don't but we also have a nice long agenda after this to try to get accomplished. Rather than
going with the long dissertations as to what's happening and that's one of the reasons that I'd like to see us table
this.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just so I understand your reasons.
Councilman Senn: Maybe my expectations in coming into this tonight were wrong but you know it seemed to
' me what we were doing tonight was getting the initial public input. We were accepting a report from a
committee and beyond that we were agreeing to go to the next stage of study which personally I felt the Council
needs to provide some real direction on. And I'm not sure the Council's prepared to necessarily provide that
direction tonight but now we have the report. I'd like to see maybe the Council go into a work session and
discuss it and come out with some direction but I don't see why that precludes us from tonight (a), accepting the
report and (b), moving to the next step to do that. And I'm assuming, at least I'm going back to what I think
Don describes earlier is that there is this complicated process we're in which goes over many months. As a
' matter of fact I thought you said a few years time or something like that. Entails numerous levels of public
hearing and stuff and this is, what I thought was just the initial or Phase 1 and I just, I would really be against
delaying that at this point. I like to see it move to phase 2 and I would like to see the Council provide some
1 more definitive direction on where we would like it to go as part of that process.
Mayor Chmiel: But there's a motion on the floor to table. If there's a lack of a.second, then we can move in
that particular direction.
Councilman Senn: Oh I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you said you'd like to see a motion to table.
' Mayor Chmiel: No, I made a motion to table. Is there a second for tabling?
Councilman Mason: I'll second it.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Wait a minute.
Councilman Mason: Well I can still second it and still tallc about it. My understanding of the reason for tabling
this is so we can all have some time to take a look at what's going on here. Discuss this topic further. Is that
46
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
kind of where you're at?
1
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
1
Councilman Mason: Okay. I'll second it with the caveat that I'm in favor of moving ahead with this and I
liked, I think everyone has had a lot of really good and informative things to say and in the event that we do
move ahead with this I hope nobody thinks that anything is a done deal yet in terms of what direction we're
going to go or anything like that. I think there are hours of discussion on this topic, even going beyond
organized and open collection. You know education. Other ways we can reduce garbage. This, that and the
other thing. And I don't, I guess I don't see not, whether we table this or not, I don't think is going to stop that
discussion and I mean whether we pass this tonight or 2 weeks from now, my guess is just from what I'm
hearing on Council that we're going to, we will enter into the Phase 2. But I think we need to go very slowly
with this because this is a high impact thing here. So that's why I'll seconded it.
1
Mayor Chmiel: Good. We have a motion.
Councilman Wing: Is it still discussion? 1
Bill Swearengin: Inasmuch as the public hearing is still open, I'd like to speak.
Mayor Chmiel: We're still in discussion. When we get done, I'll be more than happy to have you come up and
indicate what you want to say.
Councilman Wing: ...Council having objectives and being visionary and we're talking long term issues here.
And the best interest of the city long term. That's what my interest is. Unfortunately the testimony tonight was
me and today and I and choice and what's best for me. Nobody really addressed the city other than the
gentleman from the Recycling. I appreciated your comments. I thought it kind of put this thing together. We're
not going anywhere with this or doing anything but I think it's worthy of looking at. I would also caution the
people submitting these reports to be very objective and not be defensive in any way. I think some of the pros
and cons here have got a lot of validity so I would...I don't think you're getting paid to push this through. I
think you're being paid to also not push it through if necessary. So be very cautious not to be defensive. To
table this we deal with it at the next meeting and in my opinion vote to go onto the next phase. I'm assuming
we have the majority to do that because I think that will start to answer some questions. The only other reason I
would support the tabling is if we can get...work session here which I certainly support him on and I think it's
proper to deal with vision, objectives and some of the long term issues here. Maybe to get into some of the
choices that this thing might allow us. But that's...hasn't opened my eyes to anything except it might affect me
personally and it might not be best for me and it might affect my business and that's not necessarily what my
concerns are right now. I think those are secondary issues as we get going here. So whatever you want Mike.
Councilman Mason: Before we vote. This thing on a work session. I think this discussion has to always be on
Monday nights where everyone can be at. I mean it's too easy to do a 5:30 work session and just have a very
small group of people show up for it.
Councilman Wing: ...to address vision, objectives and long term issues so that if we're challenged as such, we 1
can do that...discuss those challenges if they should occur and I couldn't do that right now. If Diane had looked
me right in the face and I'd say, I don't know.
47
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But I don't think passing this tonight is going to preclude that discussion. It's
going to be necessary one way or another and I think the preponderance of Council is ready to continue to look
at this so I don't see what tabling it for 2 weeks is going to achieve.
Mayor Chmiel: Other than the fact of what I said...
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table consideration of a resolution of intent for the
proposed establishment of organized collection of solid waste in the city of Chanhassen until the next City
Council meeting. Mayor Chmiel and Councilman Mason voted in favor, Councilman Senn and
Councilwoman Dockendorf voted in opposition, and Councilman Wing was silent. The motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 2.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll have this back on Council on the first meeting in the month of November.
Councilman Wing: ...just state for the record that I support Colleen and Mark. My not voting was just because
' I don't think there's any big rush and I'm patient enough to delay it 2 weeks.
Mayor Chmiel: And let me say hold onto that particular piece of material so we don't have to have it furnished
again. Yes sir, you'd like to say something.
1 Bill Swearengin: Dick Wing, I did address the city in my comment. The City has a lot of issues to deal with. I
don't hear any ground swell for an organized garbage collection system from the people tonight. They had an
opportunity to come and say we need this badly. I didn't hear anyone address this from anywhere in the
audience on either side as to proposing the solution for the wear and tear on the roads. Thirdly, I didn't hear
any direction or any discussion of cost of this preliminary study and secondary study. My one question I would
like to know, how much did the first part of the study cost. How much is the second part going to cost and
' what is your overall estimate of the total cost of the studies, not counting the time that you're spending for the
Council and the staff.
Councilman Mason: I want to make a quick comment. I think first of all I don't believe in, if it's not broke,
don't fix it. I think there's a difference between being reactive and proactive. And if civic leaders or
community leaders see a concern on the horizon, we need to do something about it. Just letting it lay there is
not a solution.
Bill Swearengin: My only thought is to prioritize the problems.
1 Councilman Mason: And I think that's what we're doing.
Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly what we're trying to do.
Bill Swearengin: The cost?
' Don Ashworth: $15,000.00 first phase. $15,000.00 second phase.
PUBLIC HEARING: CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS.
' Public Present:
' 48
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
1
Name Address
Roberta Misslin 8231 West Lake Court
Don Ashworth: I passed in front of you a revised listing. In other words, what you had in your previous packet,
we've had a number of payments since then. So this represents the most current list. Those people who have
paid have been deleted.
Councilman Wing: Don, I was going to ask this and I forgot to call you today about this. Why some of the 1
matters are really minor. Some of them look like they're just taking us on. Why does this list exist? Why do
we have this problem? Why aren't they paid? Why are they delinquent? What's just the general gist of it?
Don Ashworth: I think there's a whole variety of answers. I think that you have those on here who just
constantly are behind in all of their bills and I think you have some who feel that this is something that they can
legally take off of their income tax form.
Mayor Chmiel: And whether that's legal or not, that's another question.
Councilman Senn: ...if they don't pay their bills, you can't...why don't we just cut the things up instead of, how
much money does this cost us to go on and maintain every month?
Mayor Chmiel: It's quite a bit if you look, go through the total amount.
Roger Knutson: You can go through a procedure to turn off the water. Have a hearing and stuff like that, yes.
You can do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Some of these I see some real big concerns. When it gets up to the thousands of dollars.
Those are the ones that really make me sit back and say. Well anyway, is there anyone wishing to address this
at this particular time? This is a public hearing. 1
Roberta Misslin: My name is Robert Misslin. I live at 8231 West Lake Court. We are gladly back after a year
having spent in Rhode Island and we...rented our house not knowing some of these little things like check with
the..xequire you to pay these assessments...We didn't know we had these options. I did not know that if my
renter did not pay their utility bill, and I can't-out of town is that I have renters. Please put it in their name. I
just thought that the computer system would identify them, right? No. We get back into town...after not having
paid a months rent, too late to catch them and say, Mr. Sheriff. Please remove these people. They are not
responsible. I am now going to have to pay...It doesn't seem very just and we came in and the city worked
very well with us and Mr. Chaffee worked very...with us. With a lot of hard work we did manage to get some
of it paid but these people have...It's too late. Can we please, I would like to request that a policy or procedure.
Someway of identifying them on the print out that could...and say there's a red flag here. Maybe we should
notify the owners. When it's something that can be done about it. Granted we don't want the city to have to
fork over the bill. We had to pay it in the long run and we recognize that you do need to have a recourse but
you know in all fairness you can't just dump it on the owner. We were innocent. We did not intend to incur
this bill and for us to have to go through all this process and the court costs and all the things...and all the stuff
out there that the courts need to deal with that let's people...a little red flag or some kind of thing that could
identify. Maybe on the second billing just have it say, please call the owner. The numbers are there. We
supplied them with our phone numbers and our address and if something could have been done, I would have
49 1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
1 much appreciated that...
Mayor Chmiel: And I understand your position of where you're coming from, except I don't know how the city
is going to be aware as to whether or not you have your property, which is homesteaded. Then you rent it back
out because then the County doesn't come back to us unless you report it to the County.
' Roberta Misslin: I reported it to both.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and if you did, we don't get that information back either.
1 Roberta Misslin: Until a year later.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right.
1 Roberta Misslin: That's why on the utility bill there should be something that says this is not the homeowner.
Maybe the homeowner is maybe copied on the bill.
Don Ashworth: Well this is what I don't understand because we have a lot of accounts where we do exactly
that.
' Roberta Misslin: ...report that we were going to be gone and that we had renters. I thought it was going to be
taken care of...That's basically it. It's kind of a back to the dumping on people...the cost becomes phenomenal
and when...and I'd like to recognize that yes, I am the city. I'd like to have this little problem...
1 Mayor Chmiel: Good point. Thank you.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we do have a mechanism for putting the property owners on the bill?
' Don Ashworth: Right. There are a number of bills right now where the tenant, that the actual billing goes over
to another address. Where both the owner and the renter receive a bill.
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: So somehow this was missed it appears?
Don Ashworth: Well the only thing I can assume is that it wasn't made clear that both names were to be on the
bill. I just, I don't. The other problem they faced is the fantastic amount of water that was used by the renters
of the facility. I think there were some violations as they deal with, you'd anticipated 1 or 2 people and found
out there was 8 or 10.
Roberta Misslin: Exactly. We had numerous violations...but each one was a little incident and we were nice
people and we just kind of overlooked them until we got to the end and came home and went, oh. Geez. Now
' we have this bill of $500.00 which is going to keep getting that interest added on which is another one of my
points. So then if it was sent to our...for what their cost is. We're already having trouble getting on one. Can
he make this letter very precise. Worded so they understand exactly what their cost is and when. Now we've
got the first session it can come up on taxes but there's another chunk. And to have to go through the same
process to get the other part of the money and if we could just get them to have that whole bill and please pay
this now of this will be your total and...
50
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
1
Don Ashworth: I have no problem working with this lady and developing whatever form of letter she wants.
Roberta Misslin: ...and say yes, 1 understand what you want because I'm a teacher and I can work with... 1
Mayor Chmiel: What's the address?
Roberta Misslin: Pardon?
Mayor Chmiel: Your address.
Roberta Misslin: 8231 West Lake Court.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. Again, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone else wishing to 1
address this? If seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like a motion.
Councilman Senn: Well I'll make a motion to approve but I'd also like to add a comment with this. I really
would like to see us look at developing a policy...procedure set in place to send out notices and have a hearing
and do something about it rather than just let it keep building. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Are you looking at total dollar amounts too or what are you looking at?
Councilman Senn: Well I mean, I guess I'd like to see staff look at that. I know there are quite a number of • 1
cities who already have that type of a policy. When it gets to a certain dollar amount, they simply have a
hearing and go towards disconnect. I think at that point you have everybody's attention, whether it's renter
owner or whatever and the problem gets resolved. But looking at some of these dollar amounts, I just think it's
absolutely ridiculous that we're up at those amounts and absolutely nothing's been done and now we're just
saying...we've washed our hands of the problem. To me that's not good management.
Don Ashworth: Again I think that these people are literally on here every year. I mean if you look at this sheet
plus comparison to last. It's a severe penalty. I mean it's 10% of the unpaid balance each quarter and that's
compounded so I mean the effective yearly rate is like 47% and then you add another 20 %. I can assure you
this much, the city does not lose money off of these accounts. I mean if you're getting 60% to 70% return. I
really feel bad on this lady who I think, she got into leasing property without really understanding what that's all
about and what some of the pitfalls of that can be. And I think that that occurred during a time frame where 111 we've had some temporary people in the utility billing area. Temporary service that I think was cost effective
but the little things like making sure that you ask the right question. Oh well, do you want me to put it on both
names? Do you want us to take and send this bill to you and wherever she was. Connecticut or wherever. As
well as to the tenants was never asked.
111
Councilman Senn: Are you hinting that she is a, and I mean a, isolated incident on this list where a taxpayer is
getting stuck for a bill rather than the person who incurred it?
51 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
Don Ashworth: I am saying that she is an isolated incident from the standpoint that this list knew fully well...
' Councilman Senn: What I'm after Don is how many other people on this list. I mean I understand what you're
saying. Beg to differ with your logic is that if it isn't the person who's ultimately paying the taxes, it isn't
ultimately the person who's paying the bill so I mean it's real easy each year to just say, let's forget it and we
know it's going to be assessed to the property taxes and it will be somebody else's problem.
Don Ashworth: I'm saying that 100% on here, with the exception of her, are the owners and they know full
' well that this.
Councilman Senn: Okay, she is the only one then?
Don Ashworth: She is the only one.
Mayor Chmiel: This is the only one I've seen or heard within the last 5 years.
Don Ashworth: And I think that we share a part of the responsibility, at least from what I've initially heard.
Finance did make me aware of her situation. Maybe not to the extent that she had requested that her name be
on the bill as well. But I mean if that's true and we fail to do that, then I feel that these compounded penalties
1 of 65% or 70% whatever percent it is should not be put onto her. I mean maybe 10% on the total but not 70 %.
1 Councilman Senn: So that means our collection rate is 100% then, is what you're saying?
Don Ashworth: You're guaranteed of 100% collection.
1 Councilman Senn: So there's no negotiated settlements or.
Don Ashworth: You're guaranteed of 170 %.
Councilman Mason: I don't know if we need to make a motion on this one isolated incident or not but I would
like to.
1 Roberta Misslin: As the city grows I think you do need to...
Councilman Mason: Now let me finish...well I was just going to go to bat for you so settle down...needs to see
what can be done in this one case. I really do. I agree with what you're saying Don. So what's the motion
we're looking for?
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: To approve it
Councilman Mason: With this one exception.
Don Ashworth: Which staff is to try to work out.
Resolution #93 -106: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Certification
of Delinquent Utility Accounts with the exception of the property at 8231 West Lake Court, Mrs. Roberta
' Misslin, which staff will work to resolve. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1 52
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE YEAR XVIII STATEMENT OF 1
PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I think we know what it all is. We know we have the money. I would to have you just briefly
give a quick synopsis. It's something we worked on very hard, very long and we finally got it back again.
Paul Krauss: As the Mayor indicated, the big story here is that we maintained our eligibility for Block Grant
funding at least for another decade...somebody tries to throw us out again at the census. But I think that we've
I
fixed the problem long term. What you're being asked to act on tonight is a reallocation of last year's funds.
We allocated approximately $6,000.00 to the HOME program operated by Senior Community Services which is
a chore program to support seniors in their homes. The program didn't turn out to be as successful as we had
hoped. It was utilized to some extent but it wasn't utilized to the extent we would like. In fact we're looking at
I
an alternative program right now offered in Carver County. The upshot of it is is that when they computed what
they needed to fmish the year out for that program, it still left a balance of $3,494.00 and Senior Community
Services asked if we could reallocate that to South Shore Senior Center which is running at a deficit this year.
For those of you who aren't aware, we have funded South Shore Senior Center since we got our block grant.
When we opened up our own senior center, we knocked down the amount of funding by half but a lot of our
residents still continue to go there. I'd also point out that the city of Shorewood has been quite helpful to us in
maintaining our block grant eligibility through the land swap. And we would like to be able to repay that debt a
I
little bit. We took this before the Senior Commission. They agree to go with it. They recommended approval.
They did however say that they wanted the South Shore Senior Center allocation came up in this current year's •
funding which will be March. Sometime in March or April. That they want to talk to Senior Community I
Services about getting their support for our programs but in the meantime they did recommend that this transfer
take place. I don't have anyplace else relative to city programs where we need the money so we're
recommending that you approve it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Paul. Is there anyone wishing to address this issue at this time? This is a 1
public hearing. Seeing none, I'd like a motion to close the public hearing.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in 1
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion to accept the recommendation? 1
Councilman Senn: I have a couple questions if I could first.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 1
Councilman Senn: Paul, in terms of the referenced deficit at South Shore, who else is contributing to solving the
deficit problem?
Paul Krauss: They get their funding through the United Way. Through 3 or 4 other communities. Excelsior, 1
Greenwood, Shorewood. Maybe Deephaven.
Councilman Senn: Okay, but what I'm saying is, are those other entities, other cities helping to make up the 1
53
1
1
1 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
1 deficit or...
Paul Krauss: I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know Mark if they're being asked for additional funds.
They also collect from the seniors who use the center. We happened to have this funding laying around,
unfortunately because it wasn't used by our residents and with the Block Grant being set up the way it is, we
can't create a new category for it and we can only use it for eligible programs. We didn't need it for any of
1 our's. That was the first thing I checked. Therefore we thought it would be reasonable to honor their request.
Mayor Chmiel: Just only approved programs that we had moved on previously, yeah.
1 Councilman Senn: But I understood that there was some reluctance on the part of the Senior Commission to
approve it.
Paul Krauss: The Senior Commission is concerned that, we originally were going to contract, we originally
contracted for services from Senior Community Services. When we opened up our center and before we opened
up our center. And while we've had an excellent working relationship with them in general, there was concern
' that once we entered that phase, the support wasn't there. That their primary focus was on...South Shore
community center and that the Senior Commission had some concerns relative to that. For example they
published a newsletter and they don't publish our activities but they publish their's kind of thing. I think they
are kind of rough spots in the relationship that will be worked out and the Senior Commission indicated that they
did want to have a representative of Senior Community Services before them in March to...through all these
things and I think their premise was, was that if they, the Senior Community Services wants Year XXI funding
from the City of Chanhassen. But then they're going to have understand that it come with conditions...in the
form of support services for our center. In the meantime, the fact is that a lot of our residents continue to go
there. Seniors we have found are...highly mobile. They'll come here 2 days a week or up there 2 days a week
and go someplace else and a lot of our residents continue to use it and we've always taken the attitude that
anything we can do that makes it a little easier for all concerned is something we're willing to support.
Councilman Senn: Couldn't we in effect allocate this to our Senior Commission which was valid.. joint efforts
' or whatever...South Shore.
Paul Krauss: No, you really can't. This money has to be under contract by December 31st. I think...that you
approve the Year XVIII. The only program we have supporting our senior center in the Year XVIII, and XIX
for that matter, is it pays half the salary of Dawn Lemme...There are no capital expenditures that were allocated.
We can't create one at this point in time...
Councilman Senn: We have no...other than the salary?
Paul Krauss: Right. We've also, we've allocated significant funding to Sojourn Senior Daycare...
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd move approval.
1 Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #93-107: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a
54
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
resolution authorizing the reprogramming of $3,494.00 from the HOME program to the South Shore
Senior Center operations for Year XVIII of CDBG funds. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously. ,
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 26,023 SO. FT. INTO ONE SINGLE
FAMILY LOT AND AN OUTLOT TO BE COMBINED WITH A LOT LOCATED IN SHOREWOOD,
6200 CHASKA ROAD, JEAN ADDITION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Frank Reese 6200 Chaska Road
Bill Swearengin 6250 Chaska Road
Kate Aanenson: This is definitely a pretty straight forward subdivision except for a couple issues. One being
there is a wetland on the property and the other is that there's a significant amount of trees. Mr. Reese, the
applicant is proposing to split this lot. His home technically is in Shorewood here and what he wants to do is
create a buffer lot to the lot he's creating. The lot he's creating has to maintain the wetland setbacks. In order
to do that, it has to pushed into this corner right here. And as the staff has noted in the report, there's a tree, a
significant amount of trees. So what we're recommending is that when the building permit comes in, that we
work with that in order to site the home in such a way that they can preserve the most trees possible. The
property owner here, Mr. Swearengin has put in a letter that you have a copy of in your report concerning about
the location. It is his feeling that he would rather see the home being placed closer to the wetland and preserve
more trees than maintain the wetland setback. Lot 1, they'll meet all the standards. It's got the street frontage.
It's a buildable lot of 27,000 square feet. The outlot is 8,000 square feet. The applicant has stated he may at
some time annex this lot to Shorewood. At this time that's not a consideration and we would be classifying it as
an outlot. It will not be buildable at this time. The conditions that are in the staff report, I mentioned the tree
conservation. There was some concern about whether or not it would be a full basement based on the location
of the sewer so the engineering department reviewed that too. There may be a type of home may be limited so
the applicant is aware of that. So the staff is and the Planning Commission did recommend approval with the
conditions I've outlined in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Kate. Is there anyone wishing to just address this at this time? Okay, is the
1
applicant here? Are you in agreement basically with what the staff report has indicated and the conditions that
are contained?
Frank Reese: Fine. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussions?
Councilman Senn: I guess I look at this and I really have some problems with it because I'm sitting there trying
to reconcile in my mind why we're creating this kind of goofy little outlot that goes into kind of a no man's
classification. You know to me is that productive land and there ought to be part of the residential tax base. I
don't know. I just think down the road it might be, well geez now we've created this lot you can't do anything
with and the next thing they're going to be in to say well geez, we should have our taxes lowered because it's
not buildable and not developable lot. This, that and the other thing and it just doesn't make good planning ,
55
1
1 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
1 sense to me that we should be creating some kind of a splinter parcel for no purpose at all. It seems to me that
if there's a concern over the development of the property, or whatever, and how it's developed in relationship to
I the other houses, the wetlands and the trees and that sort of thing, that's something that should be handled in
relationship to the planning process. But I just have a hard time going along with creating this type of a parcel,
especially when it's on the boundary between the cities and probably would complicate it further in the future
and what happens when ownership changes and some of the situations where I feel someday somebody's going
I
to come back and say well geez, I want to build on that property because you know, changed hands so many
times and everybody's forgotten the original intent and it's different people involved and it seems to me it
doesn't...good out of it. That's my comments.
' Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
1 Councilman Mason: Well I think Mark does raise an interesting point. What is the rationale I guess for having
now an 8,700 square foot lot that nothing's ever going to happen to?
Kate Aanenson: Mr. Reese wants to make a buffer between himself. I mean he owns all that right now. It just
.1 so happens that his property falls in two different jurisdictions. That's all his lot right now. Okay, so he wants
to allow a split but he wants to maintain a buffer between himself and the lot he's creating. He's always
enjoyed this full yard. He still wants to enjoy it...
1 Councilman Mason: So okay, so outlot A then still remains a part of his property?
Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Now it'd be nice to say let's make it all one tax ID number but we've got two
I
different jurisdictions...we can't.
Councilman Senn: There is another solution though. Why don't you take the whole parcel and put it together in
1 Chanhassen and put...
Kate Aanenson: He could annex Outlot A.
.' Councilman Senn: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying if you took this whole lot and made it a lot in
Chanhassen, and then put a covenant on that, for as long as he's there that nothing can happen to this area
defined on the property, you've accomplished what he wants at the same time and we don't create this.
I Kate Aanenson: It is one lot right now.
I Councilman Senn: Yeah, then leave it the same.
Kate Aanenson: He just wouldn't do the subdivision, because it is one lot right now.
1 Roger Knutson: He could also consider, just throwing out ideas, including his house. It just occurred to me, in
this plat.
111 Kate Aanenson: Right. Bring him into the city.
Roger Knutson: No. He stays where he is and you can have a plat.
1
1 56
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 I
Councilman Senn: You can have a lat cross city boundaries. It makes it a little go
complicated. He has to
P tY P 8
through hearings here and there to do approvals but it can be done.
Frank Reese: Mr. Mayor, could I address this question? That was my first feeling Mark. Then in talking with
the realtors, it's unmarketable. You cannot, really you cannot sell...Yes it's legal but it's not marketable...so that
was why we went through this process and paid the surveyor.
Councilman Senn: I'd love to know the realtor you talked to because to me that would enhance it's value
because property, somebody who comes in and buys that chunk of property, which is a bigger chunk and know
that nobody can infringe upon their house either...
1
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Roger Knutson: There are certainly very distinct disadvantages to the property owner. He's got a little piece of I
property here and he's going through a lot of work to get the job done.
Councilman Mason: Well I'll wait and see what the pleasure of the rest of the Council is. I guess I don't have
I
a real strong opinion one way or the other.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Ditto. I don't have a real strong opinion one way or the other.
1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well he's doing exactly what I would have done and what I would prefer so I don't have a I
problem with it. It's insignificant I think.
Mayor Chmiel: And I look at it the same way. I don't see much of a problem with it. I looked at it and .
1
looked at it rather closely and I just, being that there's that much of a wetland involved with it as well. It can
make it rather difficult for anything to be done but funnier things have been done. But nonetheless, at this
particular time I don't have any real questions. So with that.
1
Bill Swearengin: Your Honor, Mayor. May I make a suggestion. I was overlooked in the public hearing. I
wasn't notified because I'm part of Lot J and when Frank notified Carver County Abstract and he indicated that I
Lot J as being subdivided and they thought that I was part of the transaction, which I'm not. My only question
was, in your motion for subdivisions...recognize a variation in the setback from the wetlands from the required
amount the...trees on the southeasterly... There are 4 walnuts, 1 red mulberry, which is an extremely rare tree in
I
Minnesota, and 4 young maples that are healthy. If the house were moved from a 10 foot setback from the
property line to a 50 foot setback, all 10 of those trees would be preserved and it wouldn't impinge on any other
trees on the property because the center of the property is basically void of trees anyway. Some scrub elm and a
few scrub basswood. It would center the house more on the lot which would give a more aesthetic appearance I
from the road and also make a better access as far as the driveway goes because the lot tends to slope down
slightly from the point of view. It would give the buyer more flexibility and all you'd have to do is set back,
rather than the 55 feet you're talking about, I believe it would set back something like 40 feet from the wetlands I
and the wetlands is a decaying wetland anyway. It was done in 1953 when Highway 7 was pushed through by
the State. They filled in most of that pond. Right now if you look in the middle of the pond, trees are coming
up through that and it's fast on it's way to becoming bottom land which is to the point where no longer,
1 probably in 10 or 15 years be a wetland at all. It's running it's natural course so I would simply plead with the
57
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
Council to make a variance on the setback from the water to allow more variation in placing the building...to
preserving trees on the southeasterly corner. Thank you.
Roger Knutson: Just a comment. To do that you need to go through the variance process, which has not been
done here. You're not in the position to grant a variance tonight. -
' Councilman Wing: ...I'd like to move to table this allowing staff to work with the applicant to review the
further options...including the issue of the trees and that entire subdivision...
' Kate Aanenson: No, we looked at the trees and we said we want to move the home and place it specifically
where we can save the most trees. We asked.. just to show whether or not we could get a house on there and
meet the wetland setbacks. This is by no means binds him to that footprint. But whether or not you feel
' comfortable saying, well we'd rather save more trees than give on the wetland, that's where the issue is.
Councilman Wing: ...the other issue is the other options that were brought up...and perhaps if you have a chance
to discuss this with the applicant it may be to his benefit to...so I'll stand by my motion to table.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd second that as well. There are enough questions here.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table action on the preliminary and
final plat to subdivide 26,023 square feet so the staff can discuss further options with the applicant. All
voted in favor, except Councilman Mason who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
' PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 2, BLOCK 1, OUTLOT C AND D, BLOOMBERG
ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS, INCLUDING SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A HOTEL EXPANSION AND
RESTAURANT BETWEEN THE COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL AND FRONTIER BUILDING;
LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND WEST OF
GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD; LOTUS REALTY SERVICES AND BLOOMBERG COMPANIES.
Kate Aanenson: I apologize to the applicant. All the site plans and renderings were thrown out that were left
down here so unfortunately we don't have...wanted to show you tonight.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Kate, can I interrupt you for a second? Mr. Mayor, what is our policy about
' bringing new issues past a certain hour?
Mayor Chmiel: 11:00 is our cut -off time. Basically. We can continue and go to 12:00.
' Councilman Senn: On an item that's already on, right?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just see this issue taking quite a while. I, myself have lots of questions about it.
I'm just wondering if we should enforce that this evening. I realize that the applicants stayed here through this
' horrendous meeting but.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, they've sat here through most the evening and there are some questions that are there as
' well but Roger. What position legally?
' 58
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
Roger Knutson: You certainly can enforce your rules or you have a procedure of waiving those rules.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
1
Councilman Senn: If we waive them, do we have to waive them all the way? Can we just waive one item or
what?
Roger Knutson: It's your call. You can do whatever you want.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you can basically do what you'd like.
1
Roger Knutson: You're running the meeting.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that we enforce that rule for the balance of the agenda. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion to enforce our rule regarding the balance of our agenda. A time frame.
Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: That includes consent items too?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. 1
Councilman Mason: It is late and I agree with the people who made the motion and seconded it. But I think
that the time to tell people they're not going to make it should be at 10:30. Not at 11 :40.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Agreed.
Councilman Wing: ...knew this at 8:00.
1
Councilman Mason: Well then we should have said something at 8:00 and I.
Mayor Chmiel: Well it's something that can't be done but I too feel that if you've sat as long as they have, I
know we're getting to the point of making good, rational decisions. But I still feel that they've sat here for this
period of time and Richard's hungry besides. So there's a motion on the floor with a second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to enforce the curfew rule for the meeting
and table the remainder of the agenda until a subsequent meeting. Councilwoman Dockendorf and
Councilman Senn voted in favor, Mayor Chmiel and Councilman Mason voted in opposition and '
59
1
1
I City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
1 Councilman Wing did not vote. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
I Mayor Chmiel: You didn't mention anything on the first one so that means, that would go as an aye vote. So
that would make it 3 to 2.
I Councilman Wing: That's fine and.
Councilman Mason: Which is fine?
I Councilman Wing: I guess that was intentional because I don't think it's fair to have, as Mike said, to have
them stay this late and not do anything. However, there's enough issues that we're not going to get this done.
So that'd be a table item.
1 Councilman Mason: Well, then maybe we should give them the consideration of at least getting started tonight.
Councilman Wing: I agree.
I
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's fine.
1 Councilman Wing: Absolutely. I would favor that.
Mayor Chmiel: We allow then, how much time do you think it would take to do the quick presentation.
1 Councilman Senn: How about we're history at 12:00. The meeting's over.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: How about we ask them how long it's going to take.
•
I Councilman Wing: What about item 10 also?
I Mayor Chmiel: Well item 10, there's a lot of questions too that I have many questions on that. I couldn't come
up with a conclusion even tonight on that one but that's besides the point.
I Councilman Wing: We're not going to get at both are we?
Councilman Senn: Well the motion failed. You still have to pass a motion to waive the rules. Somehow as I
understood it. Waive the rules and go forward.
I Mayor Chmiel: Well a motion's been done so it's already been completed. Unless you so choose to rescind
your motion from the first as well as the second.
1 Councilman Wing: Would you clarify where we're at here. First of all we have the Bloomberg project. Item
number 9. Following that is Centex with number 10.
1 Councilman Senn: Neither of which are short items.
Councilman Wing: Neither of which are short items. And there I get into consent agenda which is not a lot of
1 major items tonight. Nothing long term...all of it or part of it or none of it? I'm missing this.
1 60
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
Mayor Chmiel: Well, from what you have right now we were dead in the water. That means that nothing else
Y g
would be done. But the additional discussions that's been pursued right now is potentially of giving them an
opportunity to start there, and that would be for Bloomberg's to start their preliminary discussion on it for 15
minutes and I don't think anybody can get done within that 15 minutes either. As being established as 12:00 as
the bewitching hour.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Don Ashworth: The City Council can close this session and reconvene Tuesday evening, Wednesday, whatever 111
to fmish your agenda. Or we do have a work session next Monday on budget. Do the work session and then
pick up what's left starting at 7:30. 1
Councilman Senn: I think the budget requires, doesn't the budget require the attention...
Councilman Wing: Yeah, but it doesn't go all night.
1
Councilman Senn: Well there's also that Vision 2002 thing.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's coming up. Yep. That's exactly right. So with that.
Councilman Wing: Well I'm willing to stay a complete this next item, even if it takes until 1:00.
Mayor Chmiel: Then we'd have to rescind the motion and you were in the majority of a 3 to 2 vote.
Councilman Mason: I can't. 1
Councilman Senn: I can't either.
Councilman Wing: I'm just asking what you want to do.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone that would second Richard's motion? If there isn't, it dies and we then
terminate this for any other discussions with the balance of the agenda. Balance of the agenda can be carried to
when?
Don Ashworth: You can set a special meeting date or.
1
Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to do this tomorrow night?
Don Ashworth: Or the rest of the items can then become unfinished business as a part of the next regular 1
agenda but I think that they've got some real concerns with timing.
Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, if I'm out of order gavel me but I think this is a cheap shot to the people who
Y g �P PAP
have been here since 7:30.
61 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
1 Mayor Chmiel: Well that's my position as well Michael.
1 Councilman Wing: So what am I supposed to do? Because see I got lost here. I was listening to both sides
and then I didn't vote and I got caught here now. So...
Councilman Senn: I don't understand. I mean we're in a vicious circle. I mean this is only one item. That's
' remaining. You have an another item after where you have somebody that's been waiting since 7:30 too so how
do you...
Councilman Mason: So maybe we stay here until 1:00 tonight. These people have a lot of time and effort
invested in what's going on tonight. And I think if we can't suck it up for another hour and a half I, well I'm
disappointed.
1 Councilman Wing: How do I do this on the record? Last time I used the word duress or pressure...
Roger Knutson: As a point of order. There's been a vote to.
1 Mayor Chmiel: There's been a vote to, 3 to 2 with one no voice vote which means it's an automatic yes but
now has changed his mind from his yes vote.
1 Roger Knutson: So you have 3 votes to essentially adjourn?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Roger Knutson: You want to change your mind and not adjourn?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Roger Knutson: Then someone who voted in the majority to adjourn votes to reconsider.
1 Councilman Wing: Sure, I move to reconsider.
Councilman Mason: I can't second this. It's got to be one of you two.
Mayor Chmiel: It's got to be one in the positive aspect right?
' Roger Knutson: The only requirement is the person who makes the motion has to be in the majority.
Councilman Mason: Oh alright. I second it then. I was not aware of that. Thanks. I'll second Mr. Wing's
I motion.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to reconsider the motion to waive the rules for
adjournment. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn and Councilwoman Dockendorf who opposed,
' and the motion to reconsider passed with a vote of 3 to 2.
Mayor Chmiel: Now, can we have a motion to continue the discussion.
Don Ashworth: Just one quick point so you know. I have talked to Dan and they will pull off item number 10.
1 62
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
11, I've talked with Kevin. He's, as far as I see it, this is the only item you have left tonight.
Councilman Wing: That would leave us with the Consent Agenda. 1
Kate Aanenson: You've got the consent.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we still have the consent agenda. And those are not any, there is 1(1), (n), (f) and (c). 1
Don Ashworth: Can't we just handle the one dealing with Lundgren?
Councilman Wing: That's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, i was already addressed.
Roger Knutson: c, e, f. •
Don Ashworth: But we don't need to do all those. 1
Mayor Chmiel: So we have, we have c, f, 1, and m.
Councilman Senn: (i) Dick said. 1
Councilman Wing: No, that's been passed.
Mayor Chmiel: That's been passed a motion on that so that's already done.
Councilman Wing: So I would move that we move the consent agenda at this time, out of order and then finish
item number 9 prior to adjournment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, what are you doing?
Mayor Chmiel: Moving item of the consent agenda now and then going to item number 9. 1
Councilman Senn: But I don't understand what you're moving. I mean are you moving to say let's approve the
consent agenda?
1
Mayor Chmiel: No, he's moving the Consent agenda from item 10(a) to item 8(a).
Councilman Senn: How many items on the consent agenda that have someone here? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone addressing the consent agenda?
Mike Pflaum: C.
Mayor Chmiel: C? 1
63 1
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
Councilman Senn: Let's just move c then.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, let's just move c.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Yeah Richard, you had that one.
1(C). HIGHLANDS ON LAKE ST. JOE (FORMERLY THE BOLEY PROPERTY): FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL AND APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT
CONTRACT.
Councilman Wing: ...is it's going to impact Lake St. Joe and as I looked at the...landscaping, it just didn't meet
my expectations...Whether the changes occur or not, I think it should be reviewed and looked at in greater depth.
' I think there's need for additional trees...on the next agenda with an upgraded landscape plan that I believe
Kate...going to be improved upon.
' Mike Pflaum: My name is Mike Pflaum. I'm the Vice President of Lundgren Bros Construction. I appreciate
your patience in indulging us at this late hour. I'm a little bit at a disadvantage in that I do not have very firm
footing on the history of this particular project. My area of involvement is principally in development. I was
unaware that there were any outstanding issues at this point. I certainly am agreeable to working with staff to
' refine the landscaping plan. However, we are looking at a very narrow window of opportunity to get started on
this project. I would not like to see a 2 week delay while we erumenate over some of the landscaping for back
yards of some of these homes. I think we've got a track record of accomplishing what we say we're going to do
' and generally doing more than anybody expects us to do and I don't feel it should be necessary for us to delay
this project for this particular reason. So my request of the Council is that they direct staff and Lundgren Bros
to revisit the landscaping plan but not hold up the approval for it.
1 Councilman Wing: Kate, what's your pleasure on that?
Kate Aanenson: I'll go whatever your direction. We can certainly work that out. It's just whether or not you
' want to see it again.
Councilman Mason: Can the motion be, it will carry on as planned assuming that staff is comfortable with the
' changes.
Councilman Wing: ...approval Lake St. Joe contingent on staff's satisfaction with Lundgren Bros on an
improved, not status quo but improved...and landscaping plan for that property.
Councilman Mason: Second.
' Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Final Plat and approve Plans and
Specifications and Development Contract for the Highlands on Lake St. Joe contingent on the applicant
providing an improved landscaping plan which meets with staffs satisfaction. All voted in favor and the
' motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll go back to item number 9. Kate.
Kate Aanenson: There's two issues that we'll be looking at here tonight. One is the subdivision of the property
64
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
and the site plan review. There's two components in here. One is the expansion of the hotel which is 36
additional units and attached to that is the remodeling of the existing Animal Fair building which will become a
restaurant. The subdivision itself is pretty straight forward. It meets all the requirements of the CBD zone
except for the fact that it doesn't have the correct lot frontage requirements. Staff supports a variance to these
request. It would be required to have 100 feet. They're at 99 and 5 feet respectively. We support the request.
What they want is underlying ownership to be allowed...so the staff does support the variance on that. The
general site plan architecture. As mentioned before, the Animal Fair building is kind of a mansard roof. The
existing hotel will have the same materials and the pitched roof. What they've tried to accomplish and I'll let
the architect go through that briefly. He's tried to blend those two and then he feels that that's been
accomplished. He's trying to draw those two different styles of architecture together. The biggest issue that we
had, this did go to the Planning Commission twice with the original site plan was the amount of parking
provided. We were concerned that there wasn't enough parking in front of the building with the amount of uses
with the restaurant and the hotel itself. We did contract Fred Hoisington to do a study and he felt that there was
sufficient parking 90% of the time. But we did want to make sure that the Park and Ride facility and the
bowling alley parking wasn't encumbered with this site plan because you know, we've talked about other uses in
that bowling alley and we don't want to tie any future uses of that based on the fact that the hotel's using that
parking. So what we recommended is that we felt that, and the Planning Commission concurred that there's
sufficient parking 90% of the time. If that does become a problem, that there is sufficient property owned by
Mr. Bloomberg behind the building and that could be accessed in this area here. This was taken out and there
was modifications made to the site plan so this would become a pedestrian area. And the other modification was
originally parking and loading was shown in this area. Now just small deliveries will be from this direction,
which is West 78th and all the deliveries will be made to the back. So our recommendation would be if parking
does become a problem, that they would pedestrian landscaped to make it friendly to go through there and have
the parking to the rear of the building. The other issue was the landscaping interior. We did ask them to get up
to as high a standard as we can. This is an existing site plan with the 8% that we're looking at with the new
landscaping ordinance. What they've come up to now is closer to 5 %. Where we were just talking about the
interior, there will be two court yards as you can see on here that do have landscaping. Then the other big issue
was the sign. We...that they keep the monument sign and not have the pole sign that they had existing so they
did come forward with a sign package. One monument sign for the Frontier Building that they wanted to use so
they are bringing in a new sign package for that. I'll let the applicant go through that. Channel letters. So we
have a uniform sign package for the existing Frontier building and for the hotel when we get a restaurant. So
then we'll get additional monument sign for the restaurant. So there will be two new monument signs going on
this site. Again, they're both architecturally compatible. One would be the more mansard style to go with the
Animal Fair building and the other would be pitched to go with the hotel. Other than that, the Planning
Commission, because this did go through the Planning Commission twice, recommended approval with the
conditions attached in the staff report.
Councilman Wing: Kate you mentioned some graphics have been lost? 1
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Wing: What specifically what are we missing here?
Kate Aanenson: What we had is we had asked the applicant to provide some perspectives so you could see the
views from West 78th. Again, this is in the highway corridor so you could see what the view would be with the
pitched roofs. From Highway 5 and there were also perspectives from West 78th showing what you would
65
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
1 actually see as far as building heights. We do have some drawings that will show you the whole...building with
the sign package. And a lot of what you've got in what we handed out in the packet tonight, although they're
not colored, shows...
Councilman Mason: Don, we saw those at HRA didn't we?
1 Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Yeah.
1 Councilman Wing: Okay. I'm going to just...right here then. The HRA...we had artist renderings.
' Councilman Mason: We had computed assisted.
Councilman Wing: Is that true Kate?
Kate Aanenson: No, they were photographs. They were just photographs with a mylar overlay.
Councilman Wing: My concern is, here's one of the biggest projects that's going to...downtown for a long time
as far as length and...and this is sort of what I have to go by.
Kate Aanenson: I apologize. They got left down here and were thrown out. We made a boo boo.
Councilman Wing: ...that whoever's doing it should have the expertise and the knowledge to come in with full
computer generated pictures of exactly what we're doing. With landscaping. With the signs. With the back
ground. With the...view and I don't think anything should be coming before this Council or even being
i considered by the HRA...My wife's an architect and that's all they do. That's not even a consideration any .
more. There's no more of this building little models and coming in here with blueprints of some artist-This is a
big project and this ought to come to us big time presentation and if that was lost, then I'll withdraw my
' concerns.
Kate Aanenson: They have a separate sign package with specific architectural drawings. There is a specific
landscaping plan that was done by...landscape architect and there was perspectives that we had asked for and
1 unfortunately the perspectives were lost by the staff.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions? Does anyone from Bloomberg Companies have anything to say
...with the conditions that were set in, Brad?
Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. We do apologize for having those thrown away. They
' were beyond our control. Two of your members have seen them and you can discuss that with them. I think
they were comfortable as well as the HRA and we went back through the Planning Commission twice to try to
refine those and deal in different directions. They were not computer generated so much as they were
photographs and then we took the photographs and rendered the building into the photograph from the locations
' that people were interested and I think that's actually a little better than a computer because you actually see the
building. A computer gets a little bit abstract. What we'd like to do is that we had presented this now 3 times.
We've taken the input that we've had at each of these meetings and basically work in, and we agree with the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and what's currently on your agenda. What I'd like to do is
66
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
explain what we were trying to do...and we didn't' find out that they didn't have the drawings until like 2 hours
ago so we pulled up some things to try and correct that but, and I think we've done a pretty good job of that so
far but it...about $5,000.00 worth of things currently missing and nothing we can do about it. So I'd like to say
with that, say just remember that we're platting two lots and so that's what has to be voted on. So if you have
any questions on those. And then our three site plans we're approving. One, they're combined in our
presentation. One is for the hotel. One is for the restaurant and one is for the Frontier building. Because we're
trying to redo the Frontier Building. Later on we'll come back and do replatting. This is not by any means
completion of the project...buildings. It's just that we have to get on with our business as we don't have a use
yet for the back and until we have a yes, we can't do much about it. Tim Howell the architect is here and
Kevin Norby is also here to do the landscaping so I'll let them kind of present it and maybe you could ask your
questions because that way, they'll do a quick presentation and then if some of you have some questions you
would like to have answered, I think that's what we'd like to answer as best as possible. So Tim.
Councilman Mason: While they're coming up, and I don't expect the Council to, I mean aesthetics is a pretty 1
judgmental thing. I know what HRA saw that night and what I saw that night I thought looked like it would be
a definite asset to what was going on here. And Richard, I hear what you're saying about not seeing things and
1 I don't know what we can do about that tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: The only thing we don't know is what the Planning Commission had indicated as opposed to
what we had basically seen. 1
Councilman Wing: And after seeing what the Planning Commission sent us on Target, I'm a little nervous. We
really had a, you know that didn't come up to us very, I didn't think it was a very good project that they sent up
to us. It didn't show a lot of vision or, but anyway these are side issues. Excuse me.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, go ahead.
Tim Howell: Well I apologize for bringing back preliminary drawings. I think that if you had seen the
perspective that maybe some of you have seen, I think you would find it much more appealing project than you
saw initially because as I recall you were here that night. And we talked about that at some depth. I think to,
while it's nice to do computer rendering documents, I guess there's a still an argument out whether or not that's
the best way to do it at this point. To go over the plans and the elevations and things will be computer
generated as we develop the design documents. One of the major concerns was the front of the area we're.
dealing with and trying to connect it architecturally. What we developed is the arch...these two in freehand just
tonight, because that's all I had in my little bag with me but basically there was a concern about the connection
between the Frontier building and what will be the restaurant. And we developed two arches there to be
compatible with the other arches. We wanted to allow for delivery of goods basically to the restaurant. The
other to provide pedestrian access to the spaces behind the building. The restaurant will be in the existing
Animal Fair building. The hotel will be sited with courtyards on both sides with the architecture of it being
compatible with the existing building. The plots that we're talking about, and again this is a preliminary sketch
but I think it will maybe give you an idea. This is the one parcel here and the restaurant. One parcel here for
the expansion of the hotel. This is the Frontier building here. This is the connection for the colonnade that you
see on the drawing. The expanded hotel behind it and the Frontier or the Animal Fair building located here
converted to the restaurant. These then are the courtyands and here on this side and here on this side that will be
landscaped. This is the parking in the front here. Kevin has a much more complete plan that did not get thrown
away on the parking and landscaping that he'll show you in a moment. What we discussed concerning the,
again please forget the colors here. This is what I had in my pocket. The color of this building will be the 1
67 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
color of this existing. The sign package that we discussed was a 3 foot band here with the mounted letters
similar to what we see with Team Sports that's over there now and we're basically using that as the criteria. It
will be consistent on down the building clear to the Theatre. The signs for the restaurant. We're requesting a
64 square foot sign on the face of the building here. An entry location sign at the canopy that would be brought
out and the perspective that comes out to the sidewalk. There is a covered entry. The colonnade, we have two
small shops inside on the first floor of the new expanded hotel and we're asking for two small signs there. We
have then requested monument signs. Two monument signs, both to be within the requirements of the new sign
ordinance. 8 feet high. One will identify a restaurant, the two small shops. The other would identify basically
the second floor tenants in the Frontier building. The first floor tenants then would be along the face of the
' building basically where you see them presently now. The only other sign would be the sign on the back of the
hotel. It would be facing, 64 square feet facing Highway 5...Kevin if you want to bring your site plans that
identify, unless there are questions at this point.
Brad Johnson: It might help them to see the site plan.
Kevin Norby: My name is Kevin Norby. I'm a landscape architect. Fortunately these drawings I brought with
' me tonight and so they're current. I think you got some reductions that you can look at. What we tried to do
here was to provide through the use of primarily overstory trees from the approved landscape tree list. The
overstory trees and lower shrub and ground cover provided to enhance the front of the proposed building as well
' as minimize some maintenance. Look at safety and circulation in and around the parking lot. We also took a
look at this court yard area here and I've got another drawing that looks at that in greater detail but basically the
•
three areas here, these three lots, we've used 4 different species of trees off of the list. We've got American
linden. We've got sugar maple. We've got common hackberry and we've got green ash. Some of that. We've
got those in equal quantities. I think the sugar maple's got one more tree than the others but there are 12 trees
in this parking lot area. Not including the boulevard trees which exist here. Not including the trees which are
up along the building in this interior court yard area. There's also one large existing ash tree which we'll work
' to save. There's a deck around the restaurant that will be near that but shouldn't pose any problems as far as
saving that. Again, in the parking lot the landscape islands are 10 feet wide, about 32 feet long and about 320
square feet. We've located some of the existing lights here. One of them, which will be in one of the planting
' islands and those planting islands will have a combination of again, lower ground covers and shrubs. Some are
going to be evergreen. Many of them being deciduous. We selected them for various reasons. Mostly because
of their salt tolerance and the heat tolerance and low maintenance. They're all relatively short, knee high. 2 feet
or shorter. Again these tree exist out here. This area here with the new realignment on West 78th. It's our
' feeling is much too narrow for trees so there won't be any there. There are some projections into the parking
lot, two of which will be occupied by signage. One of which will have some trees and additional plantings.
There will also be some lower plantings around the signs. Those are daylillies in these two cases. Up along the
' building we've got again some additional trees. That again is hackberry. Same trees. Hackberry, linden, maple,
ash. We tried to make this area comfortable for, visually attractive but also comfortable for people to walk
through. We've got a change in paving materials here where people might walk across this loading dock
' area...indicate to provide some safety element. We've got a little bit of lawn back in here. Berming and some
lighting provided by bollard type lighting. Lights at probably 42 inches high. Again, daylillies, iris, perennial,
juniper, spirea, that sort of thing. So I guess I'll open that up to any questions.
Councilman Mason: Kevin, I'm not sure this is your question but I thought the loading dock had been moved to
the back.
Brad Johnson: It is.
68
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 1
Councilman Mason: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Well most of the deliveries. The loading dock is in the same location. It's the larger truck
delivery is in the back. The original drawing had a garage door and that was kind of bogus and out of place and
the staff and the Planning Commission concurred. So what we felt like, especially there may be a chance of
where for a time when we need to put additional parking. We wanted this to be a friendly, pedestrian friendly
where it appeals to you to go walk down there. So he made those changes and put the landscaping in and
lighting.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So the eating doesn't overlook.
1
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Kevin Norby: It should be a very pedestrian friendly space. The only concrete is really along the edge here and
then this overhang. The rest is all planted with plants all along the deck and restaurant with a number of
overstory trees. I think it will come off really nice. It will be irrigated and well lit.
Mayor Chmiel: On the other plan that you had, you indicated that where your, either the plantings or the
deciduous trees or wherever, lights are going to be put right within that same specific location. How is that
going to project the necessary lumina output to spread?
1
Kevin Norby: Existing lights are here. We purposely looked at those...
Mayor Chmiel: Oh I see. I thought you said, okay. 1
Kevin Norby: There is one existing light here that will be located within the planting area. We've used a
shorter species of tree there.
Mayor Chmiel: What light standard and height?
Kevin Norby: Those are the existing... 1
Mayor Chmiel: The ones that are all there? Okay.
Kevin Norby: Right. We're not adding anything extra. The only lighting we're adding that I'm aware of at this
point is some bollard type lighting. Pedestrian type lighting along that walkway for safety and visual.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Just in looking over some of these plans that you've provided, the preliminary plat plan.
You have the hotel listed as a motel. I think there's a little.
Kevin Norby: That's my error... 1
Kate Aanenson: We have planning...hotel.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's just a little typo and I just wanted to call that to your attention. The other point being
too is the fact that on the two other exhibits that you've given us, there's not a PE signature on those. Normally '
69 '
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
in receiving this, even though it's preliminary, those should be signed.
Kate Aanenson: On the site plan?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Site plan as well as the Exhibit A. No signature.
Kate Aanenson: The subdivision is...the site plan was done by the architect.
Mayor Chmiel: Neither nor have those and they should have them.
' Tim Howell: These are signed by myself. We don't have a PE involved.
' Councilman Wing: Kate are these, the trees that are in the islands, are these survivable planters? Unlike Target
where we put them in flower pots.
Kate Aanenson: Well, what we looked at the new landscaping ordinance is 10 x 20. 200 square feet. This is
1 320 so.
Councilman Wing: Okay. Kevin...with you. Are we putting these in a survivable setting? Is there adequate
space there for these trees to survive?
Kevin Norby: Yes. I think we are. I had some input I think, not so much in the trees but in the redesigning of
1 the ordinance that restricted the size. And I think those are acceptable. I wouldn't expect any problems if there
was irrigation and...
Mayor Chmiel: There's one other thing too Kate that I read in your report. That was covering the Uniform
Building Code, UBC. In the last, the currently proposed subdivision creates many of the same problems. These
problems need to be addressed before the property is replatted because their resolution may effect the location of
property lines.
Kate Aanenson: They have met with the building officials. It's really a building code issue. They have to put
certain fire wall and that was the building official and they have agreed to meet whatever the building official
' say is a code requirement. And that hadn't been reflected in the conditions...
Councilman Wing: So they're going to be going through and sprinkling this entire building.
' Kate Aanenson: Well, whatever it needs to do to make the building meet the requirements because they're
splitting part of the existing Instant Web building and the change of occupancy. Whatever the cost requires.
They understand they have to meet that.
Tim Howell: We have to put in two walls basically...right here. And that would become then the property line.
It'd go down between those two walls...
1 Councilman Wing: If they were sprinlded now, how about for the hotel then on down.
Tim Howell: These are sprinklered here.
1
1 70
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
1
Councilman Wing: You're going to sprinkler them or they are now?
Tim Howell: No, they're going to be. 1
Councilman Wing: Okay. So everything you're doing is going to be up to code?
Tim Howell: Oh absolutely. We're not going to try to avoid...
Councilman Wing: That was, wish I could retract that one.
Mayor Chmiel: It's late.
Councilman Wing: In the existing buildings there, what exists is going to be brought up to code and sprinkler.
1
That's what I was trying to say.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Okay. If there are no other questions, is there a motion?
1
Councilman Senn: I'd like to ask staff I guess a couple questions.
May Chmiel: Go ahead. What happened on the curb, median issue?
1
Kate Aanenson: The Planning Commission recommended that they leave the existing channelization in place
and we did get a report from Strgar - Roscoe. They also concurred that that channelization should be left in place.
There will be a signal at Laredo and they felt that having the ability to turn right away might cause some
problems so they felt having longer stacking was more appropriate. So they are going to be leaving the long
curb. I don't think it's reflected on that.
Tim Howell: Yes it is. It's right here.
Brad Johnson: It's in the recommendations. 1
Kate Aanenson: Number 7. The entrance to the hotel intersection shall be left as it exists today, to extend the
curb line. It's number 7. Then the other one, number 11 technically has been met. Kevin reflected that in his
site plan. The second rendering that he showed you about the safety. He's shown the crossway with the change
in the brick pavers so when you walk between the restaurant and the Frontier building, just so you know that
there will be some trucks going through there. And again on the landscaping so number 11 has been met.
Councilman Senn: I have a lot of concerns over the parking issue. I mean not too long ago it seemed the
applicant was just devastated by the fact that they might lose some of their parking. Now they're putting all this
1
additional use of the property and it's way under the parking requirements...I don't know. If it's all been
reconciled and everybody's...
Kate Aanenson: We had the same concern and that's, we were reluctant to approve it and that's why it was
tabled at the Planning Commission. Fred Hoisington prepared the study and really he felt the peak time was
probably in December. Over the holidays where the Dinner Theatre has a lot of things going. And then maybe
one other time in mid - summer. And that's why we left the condition that if there is a problem, that they do
provide...hard surface parking with landscaping but he felt that 90% of the time there is sufficient parking. He
71 1
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
1 felt like most of the restaurant use would be probably daytime meeting use there. There's meeting rooms there.
And the Dinner Theatre's at night. Our main concern is that they don't use the bowling alley parking on the
' southwest. Not encumbering that so we have the ability to change uses there...
Councilman Senn: But the whole, if I'm reading this right, the whole concept is based on some kind of cross
parking agreement.
1 Kate Aanenson: That's the other issue. They've got the...cross parking agreements between the Frontier
building and.
1 Councilman 'Senn: Personally I'd like to talk more specifically with Hoisington on that.
Councilman Wing: I think that parking issue though was the known from the very beginning. That clearly was
1 lacking and there's nothing to be done about it.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean the ability's there to do something about it He has more property...
1 Councilman Wing: Yeah but still, my interest is parking in front and I'm not going to park in back to access
this. I'd park across the street at the Riv before I'd do that.
1 Councilman Senn: Well, but there's a lot of people that could park in back. A number of people could be
required to park in back. Employees.
Kate Aanenson: We looked at that issue too. Required parking...
Mayor Chmiel: If you see the kind of parking that's back there right now. The other question that I just want
to ask, that delivery access is not going to be done through the front but will be done through the back side of
that building?
Kate Aanenson: I'll make that clear. There will be small step van type deliveries in the front. Larger loading
1 vans will come around the back.
Tim Howell: The trash will be taken from the back and the large trucks will be unloading in the back. The
' only things that will be coming through are small vans and they will be coming through. You probably won't
even know that there's a dock back there...with the wall and the arches.
' Kate Aanenson: There is a big slope as you go back to where the dock is...
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions that we have. If not, before anybody else leaves, can I get a
recommendation.
Councilman Mason: This is a preliminary plat. I've had the pleasure of seeing this. This is my third time and
every time I see it gets a little bit better and I thought it was passable the first time so we're definitely heading
' in the right direction. I would move approval at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: We need two different ones. The preliminary plat. Maybe if you were to go to page 10. That
1 would cover it
72
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993 I
1
Councilman Mason: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I'll try it again. Page 10? Okay, I would move approval of
preliminary plat for Bloomberg 2nd Addition #89 -9 with a variance for lot width on Lots 1 and 2 and site plan
I
review #89 -2 for the addition of hotel, restaurant and modification to the Frontier Building as shown on the plans
dated September 23, 1993, and subject to the following conditions 1 thru 11.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there a second? 1
Councilman Wing: I'll second that for discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Second with discussion.
Councilman Wing...
Councilman Mason: Oh I'm sure it will be good. I
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to move approval of preliminary plat for
I
Bloomberg 2nd Addition #89 -9 with a variance for lot width on Lots 1 and 2 and site plan review #89-2
for the addition of hotel, restaurant and modifications to the Frontier Building as shown on the plans
dated September 23, 1993, and subject to the following conditions:
I
1. All mechanical equipment and loading docks shall be screened with similar building materials or
landscaping.
2. Right -of -way along West 78th Street shall be dedicated at 40 feet from the proposed center line. I
3. All trees located in the planters shall include an equal mix of sugar maple, linden, ash and hackberry.
4. All signs must be in compliance with proposed sign plan as proposed as shown on plans dated September
23, 1993, except monument signs shall not exceed 8 feet in height.
5. Cross parking agreements between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and Outlot A of Bloomberg Addition and Lot 3,
Block 1, Chanhassen Mall and Frontier Development Corporation shall be recorded at Carver County.
6. Compliance with conditions of Building Code requirements regarding lot lines through buildings. I
7. The entrance to the Hotel at the intersection of Laredo shall be left as it exists today, the extended curb
I
line. If safety problems are experienced, the applicant may petition for a modification of the access
points.
8. Sign covenants shall be created and filed with the development/tenants.
1
9. A variance to the 100 foot lot width requirements in the CBD zone for Lot 1 (96.02 feet) and Lot 2 (90.12
feet) of Bloomberg Addition.
1
10. The City shall monitor parking and if parking is a problem, the applicant shall provide a landscaped hard
surface parking at the rear of the hotel site on property owned by Bloomberg Companies.
I
73
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 25, 1993
1 11. Pedestrian safety shall be re- evaluated for north/south walkway between the buildings. If staff has
concerns, a rail or other means shall be installed to separate vehicles and pedestrians for safety.
1 All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn and Councilwoman Dockendorf who had left the meeting,
and the motion carried.
1 Councilman Mason: What's happening then with item number 10 and the two consent?
Mayor Chmiel: 10 has left. The other items under administrative presentations can be carried on through for
' next week and.
Councilman Mason: Next week?
1 Mayor Chmiel: In two weeks, excuse me. But there are still discussions for item 2(0 which we will carry
through, 1 and m.
1 Councilman Wing: What happened to a?
Councilman Mason: And 2(a) I believe also Mr. Mayor.
1 Mayor Chmiel: No. We approved that
Councilman Wing: Didn't you pull it?
Councilman Mason: I didn't pull it.
' Mayor Chmiel: I didn't pull it.
Don Ashworth: I may be putting out a memo to you regarding the Chanhassen State Bank. They want to do a
closing this Friday and Kevin felt that I should make sure everybody knew, well really what the HRA already
1
knows.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
' City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
' 74
1