Loading...
12-03-12-cc CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 3, 2012 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilwoman Ernst, and Councilman Laufenburger STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, and Greg Sticha PUBLIC PRESENT: Anne & Lydia Tabat 772 Lake Point Drive Will & Mary Van Sant 4175 Lakeridge Road Rollie Neve 7635 Nicholas Way Steve Wanek 6615 Horseshoe Curve Paul & Jacob Anderson 7025 Cheyenne Trail TRUTH-IN-TAXATION HEARING: PUBLIC MEETING ON THE PROPOSED 2013 BUDGET. Mayor Furlong: Thank you and welcome for those here in the audience as well as those at home. We’re glad that you joined us this evening. At this time the only item on our agenda as published this evening was the Truth in Taxation hearing. I would like to add just a quick administrative presentation so our City Manager can update the council on just some timing of some information prior to next week’s council meeting, and anything else that’s appropriate. With that let’s go ahead. The item on tonight’s meeting is our Truth in Taxation hearing. A public hearing related to our proposed 2013 budget. Let’s go ahead and we will start with the staff report and after the staff report we will open it up to public comments. Mr. Sticha, good evening. Greg Sticha: Good evening Mayor and City Council. Going to be presenting my power point presentation with you. For those of you that are just walking in, there’s a copy of the detailed budget on the desk over here, as well as my power point as well as a taxation rate information sheet survey that we just got back this last week. Well the budget process actually starts long before this evening. This is nearing the culmination of our budget process. The Truth in Taxation hearing is what it was formerly called. Some call it now public budget meeting. In either case the point of the meeting this evening is to review the Truth in Taxation statements that were sent out about a week and a half ago to local residents and to have the residents be able to give their opinion in the public hearing format on what the City Council set as a preliminary levy back in September so all of the information that you will see presented th tonight was based on the preliminary levy that the City Council set on September 10. Just to kind of briefly go over the budget process for the City for the year. We begin our budget process in June and early July with the department heads submitting their budgets to myself and the City Manager. We review those. Make any needed adjustments at that point in time. We present that information then to the City Council in August which includes a detailed budget meeting that’s held I believe the second meeting in August where all the departments are reviewed in detail with the City Council. A preliminary tax levy th is then set on September 10. We also have a number of other budget and CIP meetings between then and now. We had I believe one in October and another one in November that discussed the budget and this evening we’ll be holding the public budget meeting, or formerly known as the Truth in Taxation hearing and then next week the City Council will adopt a final levy, CIP, budget and rates for 2013. So going over the general fund budgeted expenditures, again these amounts are based on what the City Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2012 Council set for the preliminary levy in September. Total budgeted expenditures for the general fund, based on the preliminary levy show an increase of 1.4%. Not really any one department that has a significantly larger increase than any other department. The majority of the increase has to do with cost of living or wage increases for employees as well as some costs for increase in health care costs contract for 2013. On the revenue side, again for the most part no significant change in any one revenue source for 2013 as compared to 2012. The amounts between each of the revenue sources remained relatively unchanged. We left for permit revenue at the preliminary levy discussion pretty much the same number that we had for 2012 for permit revenue. This graph takes a look at general fund budget versus actual spending over the past several years. The purple bar indicates, with the number on top of it, the actual budget that the City Council set for each of those years. One asterisk in 2009 the City Council amended the budget from $9,859,000 down to $9,526,000 to address some of the shortfalls we had because of the downturn in the economy. And the black line indicates the actual spending in each of those years with 2012 being an estimate at this point, as we’re not fully finished with the 2012 calendar year. Taking a look at general fund budget revenues, budget versus actual, again the purple bar is the budgeted revenues for each of the years. The past several years and the grayish greenish line is the actual revenues received by the City in each of those years. As you can see in each of the years budgeted revenues, actual revenues exceeded budgeted revenues except one year, 2009. Again the City Council amended the budget for the revenue side as well in 2009. As we’re all aware 2008 the downturn in the economy came about. The one thing on the revenue side that was most impacted was permit revenue which saw significant decrease in 2009. And as you can see going from 2007 down to ’08 and ’09. And since then permit revenue has rebounded for the city. So what factors changed the budget for 2013 as compared to 2012? The general fund budget has an increase in expenditures of 1.4%. $130,000. 2% wage increases were included for employees and we left budgeted permit revenue the same as the previous year when we set the preliminary levy back in September. Every year we do a salary comparison of our key financial strategy cities. We surveyed all 10 of our kfs cities for what they plan having for proposed wage increases for 2013. Two things to keep in mind, or really one major thing to keep in mind, Chaska and ourselves are the only cities that have a pay for performance only system. The other cities have, in addition to a cost of living, they all have step, what are called step increases included within their pay plans. What that typically means is employees in the first several years of their employment will get step increases on top of their cost of living increases so the numbers that you see for all of the other cities, aside from Chaska and Chanhassen would be just their cost of living increases. In addition to that all the employees that are within the first several years of their employment will be getting cost of, will be getting step increases as well. A few of the cities did not reply. Two of them I know are transitioning finance directors so I think they’re just in a difficult time right now. Taking a look at all of our levies as compared from ’12 to ’13. First at the top the operational and capital levies shows total operational and capital levies with a 2.19% increase as compared to the previous year. And then the debt levies show the identical debt levy from the previous year. As the council is aware one of their strategic goals over the past several years is to either maintain or reduce the debt levies of the city and again that is the case for 2013. About 4 years ago our debt levies were right around $1.9 or almost $2 million and we’ve brought those down to $1.7 million and the debt levies for 2013 are identical to 2012. Total levy increase of 1.82%, which is the new growth slated for the city for taxes payable in 2013. Taking a look at our history of our final levy versus what the new growth in the community was over the past several years. If you take a look at 2013 the preliminary levy was set at new growth. That’s why the purple and green bar are identical. If you look in previous years, in every year but 2008 new growth actually exceed what the City actually levied for that particular year. In 2008 the City added 1.25 police officers to the force resulting in the levy being higher than the new growth for that particular year. So what’s the impact on homeowners based on the preliminary levy? The average home in Chanhassen dropped about 2.8% in value for taxes in, that are payable for 2013. The average home in Chanhassen is around $310,000 in value so the two parcels that you see that fit the average build of an average home in Chanhassen would be Parcel 2 and 3. These are based on actual Truth in Taxation hearing statements that went out to actual property owners in the city of Chanhassen for taxes payable in, proposed taxes payable in 2013. In theory 2 Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2012 when the council set the levy, they set the preliminary levy for 2013, setting the levy at the 2.8, at the new growth of 1.82% knowing that the average home dropped in value 2.8%, in theory any home that saw around a 2.8% decrease in value and was about the average value home should have seen around no change in their property tax bill on the city line of their property taxes. What we’ve come to find is that actually those homes are seeing around a 1 percent decrease in their property tax bill. We discussed this impact with Carver County and we believe there’s several factors that are influencing that. What the City receives in fiscal disparity dollars or contributes in fiscal disparity dollars, what the TIF values of some of the TIF properties were and most significantly probably the change in the state legislature this past year shifting some of the tax formula from residential property owners to commercial industrial property owners so the legislature made an intentional decision to go ahead and shift some of that burden away from the homeowners onto your business owners or commercial property owners within all the communities in Minnesota, not just Chanhassen. So the impact on a homeowner was a positive impact of about 1 percent so even with the preliminary levy that was set at 1.82% increase, the average home should still see about a 1 percent decrease in their city portion of their property tax bill. Taking a look at some of these property tax bills for the county and school district portion, one of the things I noted for the county levy and the school district levy, either school district still resulted in a property tax increase for the average home for the county and for the school district so Chanhassen was the only major jurisdiction that showed a property tax decrease for their line item or for their preliminary levy. Here’s a look at an actual proposed property tax statement for 2013. This is in school district 112. This home’s valued at around $310,000. Chanhassen makes up 19.8% of the total bill and the school district 45% and the county 30% of the total bill. One thing we do every year is we again compare ourselves to our key financial strategy cities. In this particular graph we’re comparing ourselves on budgeted expenditures. This data comes from the Minnesota State Auditor’s Office. They do a report every year on budgeted expenditures. The only, the most current data that is available is 2011 and ’12. The 2013 budgets obviously have not been submitted to the State Auditor’s Office because we’re still passing them at this point in time but taking a look at budgeted expenditures from 2011 to 2012 in a comparison and then taking a look at the per capita spending, we’ve done this graph the last 3 years I believe in the presentation of the Truth in Taxation hearing. You’ll notice some communities had decreases in budgeted expenditures, in particular Andover and Lino Lakes. Both of those communities had significant increases in the prior year, in 2010 from ’11. One thing to note about Chanhassen’s budgeted expenditures over the last 3 or 4 years in particular is that we’ve maintained relatively flat or very close to minimal increases in budgeted expenditures whereas some of the other communities you can see 3, 4, 5 percent budgeted increase in expenditures. In some years they might have a 3 or 4 or 5 percent increase and then in other years they might have a couple percent decrease. They’ve kind of taken on the trend of up’s and down’s a little bit whereas we’ve kind of taken the approach of steady, slow amounts of budgeted expenditure increase from year to year. Our per capita spending is second best amongst our kfs cities. We’ve even leap frogged one city. Chaska has actually leap frogged two cities higher. They were the second rated city of our kfs cities last year. Now the only city that has a better per capita spending than us is Andover. This takes a look at Carver County. A few of the Carver County cities. I think these are mostly the eastern Carver County cities and their per capita spending. Again their budgeted expenditures from 2011 to 2012. The percent increase in Chanhassen .11% and the average in the county 1.6% and our per capita spending is the lowest in Carver County. Taking a look at the Carver County tax rates proposed for 2013. Again these are proposed tax rates for 2013 so all of these communities are doing the same thing we are tonight. Holding their Truth in Taxation hearing and then they’ll set a final budget next week and that will impact what the final tax rate will be but based on the preliminary levies that each of these communities set back in September, this would be the proposed tax rate for each of those communities if they went with that tax rate as a final levy for 2013. Chanhassen’s tax rate 28.785. Second lowest in Carver County I’m sure some of you can recall, if you go back 10 or 12 years the City of Chanhassen’s tax rate was around 40. We’ve certainly made progress in lowering our tax rate the last dozen or more years. Another item of note is Chaska’s tax rate is very close to our tax rate. One thing to keep in mind about Chaska’s tax rate is they do have a franchise fee that collects about $2.5 million dollars for the city. Our city does not have that same 3 Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2012 franchise fee for that particular utility. If Chaska would levy for those dollars rather than use the franchise fee to collect those dollars, their tax rate would probably be above 30 or significantly higher than our tax rate. Staff will be discussing the budget again next week with City Council to come to a final budget for 2013. Next Monday evening the City Council will need to pass a final levy and budget for 2013 as well as a final CIP. I would be happy to take questions from council and I’d also be happy to take questions from anyone in the audience or anybody that wasn’t able to attend this evening, they can either email, call me or stop by and visit and I can relay any of their comments or concerns to the City Council after I’ve gotten those. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Sticha. Let’s start with any questions from council and then we’ll open up the public hearing. Any questions from council at this point? Councilman Laufenburger: I just have one Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Greg, could you go back to the salary page for just a second and just explain the Rosemount one and one. What was that? Greg Sticha: Rosemount has decided for 2013, or at least preliminarily decided for 2013 to give a one percent increase at the beginning of the year and a one percent increase halfway through the year. Councilman Laufenburger: Ah, okay. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilman Laufenburger: That’s my only question. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Sticha on the next slide, total levy versus new growth. That one there. What’s the effect I guess in this one in terms of property taxes or residents property taxes if the levy is increased at a rate different than the real growth? If it’s higher than the real growth or lower in general. Knowing that there are a lot of factors that affect property taxes but in general. Greg Sticha: There are but in general. Mayor Furlong: What would it take away from this? Greg Sticha: In general if you lower, or if you change your tax levy by the amount of new growth, the impact to the average home in that community should be around zero. Now that will make the assumption that that average home either increased or decrease in value by the average amount in the community. So when we spoke earlier the average home in Chanhassen for example dropped 2.8% in value. If your home dropped 2.8% in value or around that number, based on the preliminary levy council set of just new growth you would see approximately a zero dollar increase to your city portion of your property tax bill. Now if your home saw let’s say a zero percent increase in value. Let’s say your home was the exact same value as the previous year and the city issued the same preliminary levy that they did, your home would probably see a slight increase in your property tax bill. If your home saw a higher. Mayor Furlong: Why? Greg Sticha: Because. 4 Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2012 Mayor Furlong: With zero change in your assessed value. Greg Sticha: Because the value of your home did not change as compared to everybody else’s in the community. Your value maintained it’s value whereas the average home dropped 2.8% in value so you’re in essence paying more of the pie because your home actually maintained it’s value. Conversely if your home decreased in value more than the 2.8%, let’s say your home dropped in value 5%, and we went with the same preliminary levy scenario again, you would probably see a reduced property tax bill because your home dropped in value more than the average home did in Chanhassen. Therefore you would pay less of the total levy, piece of the pie. Todd Gerhardt: Can you bring up the slide Greg, the effects on the homeowners. The two scenarios that you just went through was Parcel number 2 and Parcel number 6. The Parcel number 6 you saw a zero percent change in the homeowner’s market value. Thus saw a 1.8% increase in their city portion of their property tax. And then on Parcel 2 you saw a 2.6% decrease in their taxable market value where they saw basically a net decrease of almost 1%, or .7%. Greg Sticha: The one enigma with this year’s property tax I talked about earlier was that based on the changes in the state law and a couple other similar factors related to the tax calculation, what we thought might be a zero percent increase for those homes right at 2.8% drop in value, actually turned out to be about a 1% decrease in their property tax bill. So with the preliminary levy that was set, even the average home still saw a property tax decrease. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: And that works into the 1% on Parcel 2 and the 1.8% on Parcel 6 because you saw a 2.8% decrease in market value. With no change you saw a 1.8% and the other 1% picked up by fiscal disparities and the shift to industrial and apartments. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. And if you go back to the chart before, in those years, so the effect is just the same direction. In those years where the levy actually increases at a rate lower than the rate of real growth, then there would be more homes that would see a decline. Not just the average would see a decline, or would be expected to see a decline, but others as well. Greg Sticha: Yep, others. Mayor Furlong: Who’s values maintained, or maintained greater if the overall, well is that correct? Greg Sticha: That would be correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. The other comment you made, if you go to the slide, the pie chart. That one right there. If I understood you correctly you said that in the examples you looked at the county and school district portion of the property taxes showed increases on Chanhassen homes? Did I understand you correctly? Any why would that be? Greg Sticha: Their levy increased by more than what we set our preliminary levy at. So their preliminary levy that the county set and that the school district set, and this was true for both school districts, or at least on all of the property tax statements that I looked at, their levy increased by more, a bigger percentage than our’s increased. Mayor Furlong: For those Chanhassen properties? 5 Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2012 Greg Sticha: Yep. Mayor Furlong: What would be the effect of that because I think the County was showing kind of a zero or matching real growth. In relative values of Chanhassen versus other cities, are they maintaining more do you know would cause that type of shift? Greg Sticha: You know I’m not quite certain. I’m also not certain what the County sent for a preliminary. I don’t believe the County set an identical preliminary, did they? Todd Gerhardt: No. Greg Sticha: I thought their preliminary was higher. If my memory’s correct but it’s a combination of mostly going to be because our levy was set at new growth, the assumption would be if they set their levy at or near new growth too that they should see a similar situation that we have seen to our’s, so it would make me believe that whatever the preliminary levy they set, they set at higher than what we set our preliminary levy at. Mayor Furlong: Unless there’s a shift in the allocation. If property values maintained higher levels in Chanhassen than they did in other cities. Greg Sticha: That is a possibility I guess. Mayor Furlong: Could that be a possible effect too? Greg Sticha: And which did occur. We do know that property values in Chanhassen did maintain their values significantly better than the rest of Carver County. Where we saw 2.8% decrease in the average home, I think the next closest was about 5% or around 5% so that certainly would have an impact on it as well. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Councilwoman Ernst: Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst, question for staff? Councilwoman Ernst: Greg, could you explain to me, and I’m sure you spoke to this but just for my clarification purposes, can you clarify for me Parcel number 1? When property value went down in 2013 but their was a percent change of a positive. Greg Sticha: Yep. The property did decrease in value by 1.8% but again the average home decreased in value by 2.8% so it decreased less in value than the average home did. Therefore it’s seeing an increase in it’s property tax bill because it did not decrease in value by as much as other properties did within Chanhassen. Councilwoman Ernst: Being the average home and this not being an average home? Greg Sticha: Well. Councilwoman Ernst: Well because it’s an average value of a home in Chanhassen is what, 300 and? 6 Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2012 Greg Sticha: Right around $310,000. It has some to do with the total value of the home but it has more to do with the change in value from the previous year. In all of the cases that we’ve looked at, if your home maintained it’s value right around that 2.8% you saw a reduction on your city property tax bill of around 1%. This particular home did not have that experience. It had a decrease in value of only 1.8%. Had it had a decrease in value of 2.8%, my guess is the percent change wouldn’t be 1.1% increase. It would be maybe around a half a percent decrease in it’s city property tax bill. It would be some type of decrease but it wouldn’t be an increase. Councilwoman Ernst: The logic there just isn’t, I mean it’s not you. It’s just the logic just doesn’t seem like it corresponds to what’s really going with the property value here but it’s the formula I’m sure. Greg Sticha: It’s a complicated formula, there’s no question about it and any change the state legislature makes in that formula has a direct impact on every jurisdiction and their levies and their tax rates so if you remember last year the state legislature changed the market value homestead credit program and that had a significant impact on all the property tax statements from last year. This year’s change was to put a little less burden on the homeowners and a little more on the commercial industrial properties so that was the impact of those changes this year. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for council for the staff? Okay, very good. Thank you everyone. Let’s go ahead. We’ll open up the public hearing and invite interested parties to come forward to address the council on questions about the budget or comments related to next year’s budget and levy. Rollie Neve: Good evening council. My name is Rollie Neve. I live at 7635 Nicholas Way in Chanhassen. I think the last time I was here I had some petitions from citizens of Chanhassen urging you to decrease spending and specifically to not increase the budget for this year. I have some additional petitions here that I have. And so essentially what we’re saying is don’t increase the budget. It’s pretty small increase that you’re looking at we grant that but we don’t think it should be increased at all. In looking at the figures that were presented this evening, the budget versus revenues, it appears that in 2012 your revenues exceeded your budget by, looks like a comfortable amount. And I look at 2013 and it looks to me like the revenues will probably exceed the budget by a comfortable amount also. This leads me to believe that there is opportunity here to lower taxes and to bring the revenue more in closely aligned with the budget. Things that come to my mind as far as how you can reduce spending would be to explore your obligations under the Met Council. My cursory review of the Met Council is that they have taxing authority over our jurisdiction and that taxing authority is by unelected members appointed by the Governor. To me I believe that’s taxation without representation. It’s something that should be examined. That we should not have to submit ourselves to taxation without unelected representatives because there is no recourse by the public. Another thing I would recommend is that you take a look at federal mandates. I think there’s a lot of federal mandates that are unconstitutional and they could be examined and eliminated. By the same token I think that the state mandates are also an area that could be investigated and to see whether or not those mandates basically are constitutional or infringe on your obligation to the people of Chanhassen as our elected representatives. And then when I looked at the budget I see a huge amount for the schools. Something like 45% and I’m wondering what course does the City Council have over the city budget. Do they present it to you and you just rubber stamp it or are your able to analyze that? In my investigation of the school budget it turns out that it costs us $13,000 a year for every student in District 112. That to me is kind of a horrendously high figure and it’s something that I think we should take a look at and see how we can achieve some economies there. Finally I think that as a council if we reduce taxes in the city of Chanhassen we will make it a much more attractive place for people to come and also for businesses to locate. If you can have a lower tax rate you’re going to attract I think a lot of businesses and I think that would increase the tax revenue and your tax base. And so I think 7 Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2012 there’s a very strong argument for lowering taxes and lowering taxes could probably have a very positive effect on the total revenues to the city so I thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Neve. Just a couple questions Mr. Sticha that Mr. Neve raised. With regard to the Met Council and their taxation, does that come through the City’s portion of the tax or is that separate? Greg Sticha: That’s separate. Mayor Furlong: So it’s a separate line item? Greg Sticha: Yep and they would have a separate hearing, as well as the school district would. The only Met Council I guess bill you could say that the City would be paying would be for sewer services and that would be part of the sewer rates that we set. Not part of the levy that we’re talking about this evening. Mayor Furlong: But we don’t set our costs for the sewer services. The Met Council tells us what we pay. Greg Sticha: Right, correct. Mayor Furlong: And then we try to fund that. Greg Sticha: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I think you answered, made a comment about his question on the school districts as well. The school district budget. They don’t come to us for anything there, at least as I recall. Greg Sticha: No. No, the only involvement I guess you could say with the school district we have is, we do get reimbursement for a portion of a police officer. The school resource officer and we do share a building with them that we share the expenses on, but other. Mayor Furlong: But those are under agreements. Greg Sticha: Those are under joint venture agreements or joint powers agreements, excuse me. And so other than that we have really no like I say in what they set for a budget from year to year. I know that their meeting I believe, I wish I had the tax statement in front of me. Councilman Laufenburger: It’s on the right. th Mayor Furlong: Right here. December 13. Councilman Laufenburger: Is the school district. Mayor Furlong: School District 112 has a budget tax hearing December 13, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the District Office. Greg Sticha: And they should go over the same exact information that we’re going over tonight except for their budget. Mayor Furlong: So, and I don’t have 276 would also have a similar meeting I assume. Greg Sticha: Correct. 8 Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2012 Mayor Furlong: I don’t know the dates to that but on the Truth in Taxation notices that you received, on there is a column that shows when each of the different government units will be having their meeting. Metro, special taxing districts. Met Council was the other one mentioned and it looks like by this th statement that it’s December 12 at 6:00 p.m. at the council chambers in St. Paul so again people can look at their Truth in Taxation statements for when those public hearings will take place. Greg Sticha: And we have had representation on the Met Council board in the past, I believe have we not? I think a representative from. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, those individuals are appointed by the Governor. Not elected. Mayor Furlong: Our local representative, Gary Van Eyll is the current Met Council representative for our district which includes Carver County and Scott County so I know people can get his contact information off the Met Council website as well if you’re unable to attend that meeting. That would be another opportunity for people to comment on the Met Council aspect. Thank you. Others that would like to speak this evening. Anyone else that would like to speak as a part of the public hearing? Richard Crawford: Richard Crawford with the Chanhassen Villager. I just have a question on the effect on homeowners. I’m questioning the percentage change on that $275,000 home that goes to $270,000. It says 1.1% but it looks like it’s only a dollar difference so that doesn’t make sense to me. Mayor Furlong: Which item was that? Todd Gerhardt: On Parcel 1 on the effect on homeowners. Richard Crawford: There’s a decibel point missing too. Councilman Laufenburger: How about .11%? Greg Sticha: I think it’s .11%. Mayor Furlong: 0.11? Greg Sticha: 0.11. Good catch Richard. Richard Crawford: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Anyone else who would like to speak this evening as part of the Truth in Taxation hearing? If not then is there a motion to close the public hearing? Councilman Laufenburger: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion? Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to close the Truth in Taxation public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 9 Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2012 Mayor Furlong: Again I would say there’s going to be no decision made tonight. No discussion on our part tonight. The purpose here was to take public comments and appreciate everyone who came and listened as well as those who spoke. If you do have other questions, Greg could you put up the last slide of your presentation? Feel free to contact Mr. Sticha and over this week. This will be an item on our th agenda next week at our regular council meeting on December 10 which starts at 7:00 in the City Council chambers here as well. The only other thing then for tonight, Mr. Gerhardt just a quick administrative update. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, at our regular council meeting for next Monday the proposed apartment complex that is trying to locate on the old Swings Golf Course will be on your agenda. When we set the preliminary agenda we didn’t think we’d have enough time to do the minutes but what we’ll do is try to get the packet out on Wednesday and then work with Nann in getting the Minutes out to you on Friday so we can put some closure and give some direction on that item. Mayor Furlong: And part of the issue there is the Planning Commission, which will hold the public hearing on that proposal is tomorrow night. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Mayor Furlong: 7:00 here in these council chambers and with our meeting next Monday we just have to physically get the Minutes out so the Minutes may not come out with the packet originally but you will get those as soon as they’re ready. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. If there’s nothing else to come before the council this evening is there a motion to adjourn? Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to adjourn. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 10