The URL can be used to link to this page

2. Public hearings on utility improvements, plans & specs 1 CITYOF CIIANHASSEN COULTER DRIVE • P. . BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINN 690 COU O O C SS MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer DATE: December 9, 1992 SUBJ: Continuation of Public Hearing on Trunk Utility Improvements in Sections 10NW and 9NE; Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications Project No. 92 -5 1 At their regular meeting on November 23, 1992, the City Council continued action on the Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 92 -5 in an effort to afford the major landholders (i.e. 1 Lundgren Bros., Song, Carlson) the opportunity to discuss and possibly resolve the issue of timing of development. Terry Forbord of Lundgren Bros. expressed concern for the need 1 to prepared the project plans during the winter months to avoid losing another construction season in 1993. In response, the Council posed the question as to whether Lundgren Bros. would be willing to put up security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to cover 1 the cost of preparing the project plans and specifications. Terry Forbord was not in a position at the hearing to provide a response to this question. 1 During the past week I have had further discussions with both Terry Forbord and with Don Jensen, who represents Rottlund Homes, on the issue of securing costs for the preparation of the project plans and specifications. Don Jensen reiterated Rottlund's commitment to share in securing the cost of preparing plans and specifications. Terry Forbord informed me that Lundgren Bros. would be willing to secure the costs of preparing the project plans and specifications as a guarantee that they will fulfill their development commitments within an agreed upon period of time. However, Lundgren Bros. is concerned that, if a construction contract is not awarded soon after the completion of project plans, their ability to acquire an extension to their property purchase option time needed to complete the improvements during the 1993 construction season will be lost. Therefore, Lundgren Bros. requests that if the Council does not proceed with the project construction within an agreed 1 timeframe that the City will reimburse them for the cost of preparing the plans and specifications. «►: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 Don Ashworth December 9, 1992 1 Page 2 ' Unfortunately, it does not appear that any progress on development commitments from the Song/Carlson property has been made as of yet. Therefore, Lundgren Bros. is opting to agree on securing the costs for the preparation of the project plans and specifications. It is ' recommended that prior to authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications, the Council and Lundgren Bros. should reach a mutual agreement on a "drop dead date" for awarding a construction contract which would release Lundgren Bros. from their financial obligations. ktm ' c: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician Jerry Boucher, Utility Superintendent Terry Forbord, Lundgren Bros. Don Jensen, Rottlund Homes Manager's Comments I read Charles' comments in regards to Lundgren Brothers' and Rottlund Homes' willingness to 1 guarantee costs of preparing plans and specifications. They would be on the hook for these costs if they failed to meet their obligations. Unfortunately, if there is a player at the table who is likely to not meet their obligations, it is not Rottlund or Lundgren Brothers - -it would be the city. 1 For the project to be a project, we must make a decision as to whether all lateral benefitting properties will be assessed the costs for the construction. Legally and financially it is not possible to consider an option of assessing "some." At issue is the Song (potentially Carlson) property. If we wait three, six or twelve months to make a decision that Songs should not be assessed and therefore that we are not going to do the project, we will become the one liable for the plans and specification costs. I would invite Council members to reread my comments from our previous meeting (see attached) in regards to previous actions and policies for the past 10 -15 years in regards to public improvement projects. The fact is that you will never have a situation where all property owners are supportive of a project. You establish a project area which produces orderly development, extend the sewer and water systems through that area, and appropriately charge the benefitting properties for those services. The Chanhassen Lakes Business Park project has the greatest similarity to this project in that it did represent a sewer and water project and the first of the two property owners through which the sewer and water systems would traverse were against the project -- Martin Ward and Victor Schmieg. Ironically, it was because the Council did order the sewer and water project that the property could develop and eventually be the home of Instant 1 Web, United Mailing and Victory Envelope. 1 1 1 Don Ashworth 1 December 9, 1992 Page 3 1 One of the primary points 'which appears to be delaying a decision on this project is time. Mr. Carlson does believe that he will be able to achieve agreement with the Songs, but it may take a period of time. The point that needs to be made is that assuming we were able to authorize the project now, it would be spring/summer before plans and specifications would be completed and an award of bid made. Construction would not be complete by fall which is the time frame during which we would normally assess public improvement projects. Accordingly, the first time an assessment hearing could be held on this project would be in the fall of 1994 for first collection in 1995. It would seem that this should be an adequate time frame for the Songs and Mr. Carlson to reach agreement and potentially determine how the property is to be used (unless the true desire of the Songs is to simply speculate on future land values). My personal belief is that the negotiation process would be better enhanced by moving ahead with the project rather than to delay it or to deny it. Recommendation This office would recommend that the City Council require Lundgren Brothers/Rottlund Homes 1 to put in place a letter of credit or other security to guarantee the costs of the plans and specifications. If they decide not to move forward with their development plans or ask that the city not award the construction contract, the letter of credit would be cashed. Simultaneously, I would recommend that the City Council act to approve this project as a MSA 429 public improvement project with the costs of the project assessed back to all lateral benefitting property owners. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF -- 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer UX\ ' DATE: November 17, 1992 SUBJ: Public Hearing on Trunk Utility Improvements in Section 10NW and 9NE; ' Authorization Preparation of Plans and Specifications Project No. 92 -5 At their regular meeting on Monday, November 23, 1992, the City Council is scheduled to continue the public hearing for trunk utility improvements in Sections 10NW and 9NE 1 (Johnson/Dolejsi - Lundgren Bros. development), Project No. 92 -5 which was first presented to Council on October 26, 1992. The primary purpose for the hearing continuation was to afford staff the opportunity to have further discussions with the affected large acreage property owners, ' i.e. Lundgren Bros. and Songs and to evaluate the financial aspects of the project. During the first public hearing, Mr. Charles Song testified that he has had some discussions with Mr. Jerome Carlson on potential options for his property but he is not ready to develop at this time and it is likely that the large northern area of his property may never be developed. Following the hearing, Mr. Song was contacted and, at his request, a meeting was held with Mr. Jerome Carlson concerning the Song's property. Although an official purchase has not yet taken place, discussions with Mr. Carlson indicated that his purchase of the Song property is imminent. ' Mr. Carlson also explained that, once acquired, he intends to reserve a large segment of the northern portion of the Song property in its natural state and that any future development would occur adjacent to and south of the future east/west street which would extend through the Lundgren Development. Mr. Carlson indicated that he is not necessarily opposed to this project; - however, he is concerned that the timing of the project and associated special assessments be compatible with the timing of his development, which is not yet known. At the public hearing testimony was given that Rottlund Homes, Inc. has secured a purchase option for the 17 -acre Klingelhutz property. Staff has also been informed that Rottlund Homes is interested in acquiring the 13 -acre Davidson property immediately north of the Klingelhutz parcel. However, no information has been received as to whether an agreement between Rottlund Homes and the property owner, Mr. Davidson, has been reached. I's to, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Don Ashworth 1 November 17, 1992 Page 2 1 Given this information, staff has reviewed three likely scenarios for initial development associated with this project. In all three scenarios, the policy of assessing one unit per 10 -acre increment of property with an existing dwelling that is not intending to develop at this time and full lateral assessment benefit for those properties for which the trunk utilities will also serve the function of a lateral line. In all three scenarios, it is also anticipated that this improvement project would . be constructed in 1993 and that the assessment hearing would not occur until the fall of 1994 with first collections occurring with the 1995 property tax statements. 1 Scenario #1 assumes that the Lundgren property and part of the Song property, as described by Jerome Carlson, would be ready for development in conjunction with this improvement project or soon thereafter. The estimated project cost of the trunk sanitary sewer and water improvements is $605,000. The initial assessment levy is estimated to be $616,013. However, $1,977 of the assessment is levied against green acres property and would be deferred. 1 Therefore, the initial assessment revenue schedule would generate a $9,036 balance. Scenario #2 makes the assumption that the Lundgren property, part of the Song property, as described by Jerome Carlson, and the Klingelhutz property (Rottlund development) would be ready for development in conjunction with this improvement project of soon thereafter. Additional trunk watermain would need to be extended south along Gaipin Boulevard in order to serve the Klingelhutz property as petitioned by Rottlund Homes. The estimated project cost for this scenario is $845,000. The predicted initial assessment levy is $787,183. Approximately $12,177 of the initial assessment levy would go deferred due to green acre status properties. Therefore, the initial assessment revenue would incur a shortfall of approximately $70,000. Scenario #3 assumes that the Lundgren property, part of the Song property, as described by 1 Jerome Carlson, the Klingelhutz property and the Davidson property would be ready for development in conjunction with this improvement project. The estimated project cost for the improvements is $845,000. The predicted initial assessment levy is $829,631. Approximately $8,309 of the initial assessment levy would be deferred due to green acre status properties. Therefore, the initial assessment revenue is anticipated to be a shortfall of $23,700. In all three scenarios, the commitment of a portion of the Song property is a critical factor in whether this project proceeds or dies. Scenario #1 involving the Lundgren property and part of the Song property predicts a $9,000 assessment revenue balance. This is the only scenario of the three which predicts a positive initial assessment revenue schedule. Scenario Nos. 2 and 3 both expect a negative initial assessment revenue generation. It is staff's opinion that it would not be prudent to add the additional scope of work and costs involved in serving the Klingelhutz property unless the Davidson property or another comparably sized property in the defined service area were committed to the improvements and the associated special assessments in conjunction with this improvement project. In essence, only scenarios #1 and #3 are valid for 1 1 1 i Don Ashworth November 17, 1992 Page 3 consideration. It should be noted that ultimate development conditions predict a positive 1 assessment revenue schedule. In summary, the key to whether this project lives or dies depends on which properties within the I defined service area, particularly the larger ones, are willing to commit to these improvements. Based on discussions with Jerome Carlson concerning future development of the southerly I portion of the Song property, it is apparent that timing of the special assessment obligation is a very important factor. The proposed 1995 first collection of levied special assessments would afford Mr. Carlson two or three years to make development plans if he so chooses. Support from I Lundgren Bros. and Mr. Song/Mr. Carlson would yield scenario #1 as the logical project scope. If further support is received by Mr. Klingelhutz and Mr. Davidson, then scenario #3 could be achieved. With the support of scenario #1 or #3 as stated, it is recommended that the City I Council approve the feasibility study and authorize preparation of the project plans and specifications by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates for trunk utility improvements in Sections 9 and 10, Project No. 92 -5. 1 ktm I Attachments: 1. Staff report dated October 21, 1992 2. Revised Preliminary Assessment Rolls I c: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician Phil Gravel, BRA Bob Schunicht, BRA I Terry Forbord, Lundgren Bros. Don Jensen, Rottlund Homes Charles Song 1 Jerome Carlson Manager's Comments (11- 19 -92): I Several uestions were posed at our last meeting which should be responded to: q P g sP 1 - Is This a Leap Frog Development Proposal? No. Public sewer and water extension projects have typically encompassed a number of parcels to allow for multiple I development projects prior to another area being identified and served. In fact, if the project were solely a singular developer, there would be no necessity for public participation. Previous larger public sewer and water extension projects were as follows: 1 1 1 1 Don Ashworth 1 November 17, 1992 Page 4 1 General Primary Approximate Description From/To Benefactor Cost I North Lake From Highway 41 Failing septic $4M - $5M Minnewashta & 7 to Mwsta. systems /various III Parkway hence new developments southerly to Highway 5 I Carver Beach/ From Sunrise Hills Failing septic $4M - $5M Greenwood Shores Beachlot to Carver systems /various Beach, to new developments I Greenwood Shores, to Lake Lucy Road East Lotus Lake From Chanhassen Failing septic $5 M 1 Estates Lift Station systems /various to Pleasant View new developments Road hence westerly to Christmas Lake Chanhassen Lakes I Business Park From Chanhassen Chanhassen Lakes $3M - $4M Estates Lift Station Business Park to Lake Susan to I Prince's Studio Escalation in costs over the past twenty years makes the current project appear to be I similar to the above listed projects. However, the proposed project is less than one -half the distance of any of the projects listed above. - Deferments: The city's auditors and myself are highly critical of offering deferments. I We have never done it in the past twenty years and I would strongly recommend that the City Council not consider deferring special assessments for properties such as the Songs. 1 Every one of the projects listed above included parcels which were not quite ready to develop. I recall that the Schmiegs (property purchased by Beddor /Carlson to become Instant Web/United Mailing) as well as the Wards asked to have their assessments I deferred. Those property owners (Ward/Burdick) who could afford to speculate on the land will/have done very well by holding their properties for 10, 15, or 20 years after the I original project, i.e. initial assessments were approximately 25¢ to 50¢ per square foot with the land typically selling for a similar 25¢ to 50¢ per square foot. As the Council is aware, Mr. Burdick recently sold for $4.00 per square foot and the Wards are asking I a similar price. 1 1 1. I Don Ashworth November 17, 1992 Page 5 1 - Special Deferment: A "special deferment" is a type of deferment recognized by state 1 statute and previously offered by the city. This type of deferment is offered to a specific parcel where the property owner can demonstrate that they are a senior citizen and have I limited financial resources. This type of deferment was offered in the Carver Beach, Greenwood Shores, and East Lotus Lake projects. This type of deferment was given for a specific time frame with the deferment disappearing upon the death of the senior citizen, I sale of the property, or subdivision of the property. I am sure that the assessments against many of Mayor Chmiel's and Councilman Mason's neighbors created fmancial difficulty, however, all property owners shared equally in those costs. Again, except for I special deferments given for parcels such as the Kurvers in the East Lotus Lake Project, generalized deferments have never been considered by our city and should not be as we are not the benefactors for those property owners who do wish to speculate on future I increases in values. Again, Mr. Burdick, and probably Mr. Ward, did very well by speculating, but they are /were the ones bearing the holding costs - -not the city. The city should not and cannot be put in the position of being asked to carry the costs associated I with the Song property or any of the other parcels which are currently considering developing or not developing. III Recommendation The engineer has outlined various scenarios for routing lateral sewer to various parcels between 1 Galpin and Highway 41. Although Scenario #2 appears to have higher public costs, additional developments likely to benefit from this extension will be paying additional trunk charges which should balance this alternative. Accordingly, depending upon the wishes of the property 1 owners /City Council, this office fords any of the scenarios to be reasonable. As stated earlier, should the Council act to approve one of the scenarios, it should be under our standard assessment policy to assess the full costs of lateral benefits to abutting properties with the trunk 1 costs being in accordance with our previous policy of one unit per ten acres where there is an existing structure and not currently being developed. 1 A /4.. 1 1 1 1 1 11 -19 -1992 09:27 612 P76 1311 BONESTROO & ASr:. P.01 • FAX TRANSMISSION 1 - Engineers id Architects D Bones t roo /i 1 )%1, i Rosene 2335 West Highway 36 Our File No. 3V3Og' ICE lui Ancler!!k & S t . P aul, MN 55113 Associates Bus. 812-636-4600 From: Toll Free 1- 800-666 -8573 Fax 612 -838 -1311 Pages To Follow: 15 To: CI` r,( Gh2J>n .PE14 Fax Number: / — . 5 737 . _ A Company: 01,....3 .0 ' ri iir ,r► 11 ran 1 Remarks: 1 A ` ' . 'al 1 Copy To: _ Signed: I Note To Addressee: If you did not receive all of the pages in good condition, please advise sender at your earliest convenience Thank You 1 Cue G, igpnestroo, PE, Howard A, Sanford, P.E. Michael P Rau, PE, Mlles P. Jensen, PE. 1 fil RooeR W. Rosene, PE.` Keith A, Gordon, P.E. Ares M. Ring, MCA L. PhIlltp Grave N. PI. BonestroQ Joseph C, AndeMlk, P. Robot R. Pkrferle, PE. Thomas W. Peterson, PE, Karen L. WJemen, P.E. Marvin 4. SbNala, RE. Richard W. oster, PE. Michael C. Lynch, PE. Gary R. Krleofiti, PE. Rosene Richard E. Turner, P.E. David 0, Lesion, PE James R. Maland, PE, F, TOO Foster, P.E. M al Glenn R. Cook, PE. Robert C. Russek, A.I.A. Jerry a Pertauh, P1. Keith R Yapp, PE. A nderllk & Thomas E. Noyes, P.C. PE. Jerry A Bourdon, P.E. Kenneth P, AnderiOn, 11. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. VI RObM G. Schunicht, P.C. Mark A. Hansen, PE. Mark R, Rath. PE, Cecaio Oimeer, P.E. 1 Associates Susan M. berth. CPA Mlchaei T. Rautmann, P.E. Mark A. Selo, PE. Chivies A Erickson *Senior Consultant Ted K. Feld, PE. Gary W. Morten, P.E. Leo M. Pawelsky Thomas R Anderson, A,I,A, Daniel J, Edgerton, PE Harlan M Olson Engineers & Architects Dena10 C. Yunpardt. P.C. Daryl K. Kirschenman, PE. James P Engelhardt Thomas E. Anpus, PE. Philip J. Casweo, P.C. Ismael Martinez, P.C. Marty 0 tksutd, PE. 1 November 19, 1992 1 Mr. Charles Folch City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Re: Revised Preliminary Assessment Rolls Project No. 92.5 1 Our File No. 39308 Dear Charlie: 1 • _ . • - . _ - - - -- _ -'_ -, _i.: • e..b r..B. *. Ai fleir_4141.ft nl+i n gist n[Bttr s n the 1 Attached are revised p 'urinary assessment rolls reflecting imate conditions and the three development scenarios that we discussed. 1 The revised document is organized as follows: 1 Pages B1 - B3 Ultimate Conditions Pages B4 - B6 Scenario # 1 1 Pages B7 - B9 Scenario #2 Pages B10 - B12. Scenario #3 1 I've also attached copies of the assessment area maps for your use. Bob Schunicht and I will be at the Council Meeting Monday night to present the revised information. 1 Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information. 1 Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. I pw7lieteada I Phil Gravel PG:dh 1 Enclosure 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 •612 -636 600 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 -19 -1992 09:28 612 ` 1311 BONESTR00 & AS'n. P.02 la ' GO f^, t e .1 a � 1 il 4 e4 r ! 1 H 44 N 'eh M " Fi r+ M 401. 1 1 1 1 1r 51 o 1 1 1 F w 4. ,..t 1 ' F tw A cIN IN aN C eS er V0 8 0 1 1 ...-, $ g,, w In 10, ..1 1 igi o x 4 woo v, 1 pelmg AglOg N DI !V In u� Ag c3 od a; a •t 1 Plqa c i In Q; a 0 Li 1 O 1 0. Hot: bil 1 i g 01 A I . I.1:1 3 ..1 . ,t g ii 0 A M IM a o0 0 a g aR g0 p 1 k g 1 1 1 1 § a §4: 4 & kci ON,,,, '1' i r rtml, n A A n 4 n !!. i mg N N M d' vy w $ I U U U U U 1 a u Kt .01 .or 11 -19 -1992 09:29 612 P76 1311 BONESTROO & ASC. P.03 II II 0 ! PMFDA g. E. q nt. Cis ipe 1 4 4 X19 1 �� § E 4 g. , go; ga, N 11 1 i t E " i § 1 r- ' 00 P . 3 1 'en I ‘,4-1: 11 tom" tiri to) 1 1 2 eil 0 ce z 1 cb c 1 4 r-- v a 0 o 0 0 col 1 g N 0 , o Obi `p e! 44:3 cis E. 1 0; 1 1 1 a al 1 zs , x g co a tul 11 g 4 PI PP 45 111. 1 1 i .., . m 0) 11 Al! 45 Z' 1 ir 1 la Xi 4 3 P P 3 H 1 11 4 Ii .6, g ,E.: 8 n 4 3 1 l'S N ON 1 r) . U td S 1 :r ... r 1 .0, .f4' N.: N N APPENDIX B - ULTIMATE CONDEMNS (COMM) 1 Net co Map Property Total Assess. No. of Sanitary Water Total Jote Ref. Ident. No. Owner Acres Acres REUs Sewer Main Assess. N W kg 13 25- 0101510 Douglas Bentz 5.2 4.6 9 5,931 ----- $5,931 CD 14 25-6900010 Prince R. Nelson 19.7 15.7 18 (san.) 11,862 $11,862 N RLS No. 89 31 (wat) - -- 39,525 39.525 Tract A $51,387 rn w 1 15 RLS No. 89 Prince R. Nelson 156.1 104 26 (san.) 17,134 ---- $17,134 1- Tract B 208 (wat) - -- 265,200 265.200 $282,334 3,C 16 25- 0101220 Brett Davidson 13.0 12.0 24 15,816 30,600 $46,416 7291 Galpin Blvd. o z 17 25 -0101200 Michael Klingelhutz 17.4 15.7 32 21,088 40,800 $61,888 8601 Great Plains Blvd. 2,500' lateral sewer = $42,500 42,500 0 2,500' lateral water = $37,500 37.500 $141,888 D n B,C 18 25-0100500 Richard B. Lyman 49.9 47.8 94 - -- 0. (Contract) Michael Gorra (Pri.) $119,850 $119,850 '' = Bluff Creek District Trunk Area Charges of $970 per unit A. = Single Fancily Residences on Parcels less than 10 acres in size B = Green Acres Properties C = These properties will also be responsible, at the time of development or building permits, for previously established Lake Ann Interceptor charges of $850 per unit. 0 0 as 3938 i or —= um Ns -3 r M MS N — NS MN — — IMO — MI — MN MI NS NM — r NS all MI MI NS MN r Mr NS — (Revised 11/18/92) APPENDIX B ,� PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL (INITIAL CONDITIONS) N JOHNSON- DOIESII PROPERTY m SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS `•°- PR.OJECT NO. 92-5 0 )PITON 1 - Assume d development: Iuadre Part of So rn Net N Map Property Total Assess. No. of Sanitary Water Total dote Ref. Ident No. Owner Acres Acres REUs Sewer Main Assess. rn GI i,C 1 25-0090700 D.A. Simpson 2.99 2.2 1 659 — $ 659 7175 Hzlt. Blvd. 2 25- 0091500 P. Yongquist 25.0 20.5 2 1,318 2,550 3,868 7105 Hzlt. Blvd co 1,C 3 25- 6910010 Charles & Irene Song 102.0 78.9 84 (total) - ---- 107,100 107,100 0 7200 Galpin Blvd. 72 (san.) 47,448 -- 47,448 rn 2180'lateral water = $32,700 32,700 o $187,248 ea D 1,C 4 25- 6910020 Charles & Irene Song 10.0 9.2 18 (total) --- 22,950 22,950 n 7200 Galpin Blvd. 18 (san.) 11,862 -- 11,862 • $34,812 %.,C 5 25- 0091800 D.O. Roy 0.75 0.5 1 659 -- $659 7205 Hzlt. Blvd. 1/2.,C 6 25- 0092100 David Weathers 4.9 4.5 1 659 1,275 $ 1,934 7235 Hzlt. Blvd. - 0 En 39308A -B 13-4 11 -19 -1992 09:30 612 ' 1311 BONESTROO & ASr'. P.06 I j M o . 1 Ch E 1E i p E 11 1 1 Fli L i 1 1 2 gl 8 gl 1 it II Ci Rig §e Fa E E 1 ii 1 1 k g.., 1 0 oCA 0 2 i Z ri i 2 v 1 1 `'; ; q yn cp. et 1 U 4 i 3 ,,,,,,g El il , .... c, ...t 4 mt. vs 1 1 : a 3 uy 1 I 1 X 1 oa a 411 .E E a� .S 1 .t § g e o rvo Q � Q a te+ 1,-1 e�i� 1 H a 12 g ag 063 *0 Pr~ a 1 ICI �� o 4 1 0& $g 9 4 9 ii n At A Bas n o n a v 1 JI U U U 0 1 t .e� 414' ed MN 1111111 an NS MI MI MI M NM MI 11111 NB MS MB I Mt 11115 IN N w APPENDIX B - INiI1AL CONDITIONS (CONL'D) N Net N Map Property Total Assess. No. of Sanitary Water Total 0 tote Ref. Ident. No. Owner Acres Acres REUs Sewer Main Assess. w N kg 13 25 -0101510 Douglas Bentz 52 4.6 1 659 $ 659 co 14 25- 6900010 Prince R. Nelson 19.7 15.7 2 (san.) 1,318 $1,318 u RLS No. 89 0 (wat.) -- 0,000 0.000 Tract A $ 1,318 rn 1 IA 15 RLS No. 89 Prince R. Nelson 156.1 104 2 (san.) 1,318 --- $1,318 Tract B 10 (wat_) — 12,750 0000 $ 1,318 3,C 16 25 -0101220 Brett Davidson 13.0 12.0 2 1,318 --- $1,318 7291 Galpin Blvd. m 0 Z 17 25-0101200 Michael Klingelhutz 17.4 15.7 2 1,318 -- $1,318 m 8601 Great Plains Blvd. 2,500' lateral sewer = $0,000 0,000 0 2,500' lateral water = $0,000 0.000 $1,318 n n 3,C 18 25- 0100500 Richard B. Lyman 49.9 X.X NA -- — $000 ;� (Contract) Michael Gorra (Pri.) ' = Bluff Creek District Trunk Area Charges of $970 per unit ek = Single Family Residences on Parcels less than 10 acres in size B = Green Acres Properties = These properties will also be responsible, at the time of development or building permits, for previously established Lake Ann Interceptor charges of $850 per unit. 0 0 3930&A -B B-6 N (Revised 11118/92) 1 APPENDIX B 1 N PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL (l NPTIAL CONDITIONS) a) 0) N JOHNSON -DOLESJi PROPERTY 0 SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN HAPROVEMIRITS c:, PROJECT NO. 92-5 1PTION 2 - Assumed development Lundren. Part of Song, Klingelhutz m Net N luiap Property Total Assess. Na. of Sanitary Water Total 4 it Ref. Ident No. Owner Acres Acres REUs Sewer Main Assess. 01 w N k,C 1 25-0090700 D.A. Simpson 2.99 2.2 1 659 ---- $ 659 µ 7175 Hzlt. Blvd. 2 25- 0091500 P. Yongquist 25.0 20.5 2 1,318 2,550 3,868 7105 Hzlt. Blvd. a) 3,C 3 25- 6910010 Charles & Irene Song 102.0 78.9 84 (total) - -- 107,100 107,100 ° z 7200 Galpin Blvd. 72 (san.) 47,448 - -- 47,448 rn 2180'lateral water = $32,700 32300 xi 0 $187,248 D 3,C 4 25- 6910020 Charles & Irene Song 10.0 9.2 18 (total) --- 22,950 22,950 7200 Galpin Blvd. 18 (san.) 11,862 - -- 11.862 $34,812 A►,C 5 25- 0091800 D.O. Roy 0.75 0.5 1 659 ---- $659 7205 Hzit. Blvd. a,C 6 25- 0092100 David Weathers 4.9 4.5 1 659 1,275 $ 1,934 7235 Hzlt. Blvd 0 0 03 39308 A B B-7 MI UM I 111111 ME 111111 MI IIIIII M I 1111111 M 1111111 MI MI UM IMP , ,,,s ...... ............ �.� _ _._.. _ _ _ _ N APPENDIX B - INITIAL. CONDITIONS (CONT D) ° CO N Net m Map Property Total Assess. No. of Sanitary Water Total w late Ref. Ident_ No. Owner Acres Acres REUs Sewer Main Assess. N k,C 7 25- 0091900 T. Oas 0.95 0.7 1 659 1,275 $1,934 a , 7305 HzIt. Blvd. ro 1) 8 Proposed Lundgren Bros. 95.2 74.4 148 *143,560 188,700 $332,260 rn Development 97,532 97,532 Col 5,3003ateral water = $90,100 90.100 $519,892 Outlot G Lundgren Bros. 66.0 40.0 80 *77,600 102,000 $0.00 & Oudot H (Future Assessment when Developed) co 9 25- 0101500 David Stockdale 12.4 11.6 1 659 1,275 $1,934 z RI 7210 Galpin Blvd. RI ° k,C 10 25 -0101540 David Stockdale 6.46 6.0 1 659 1,275 $1,934 ° 90 7210 Galpin Blvd. I> A '� ii,C 11 25 -0101520 Darleen Tur+cotte 4.4 4.0 1 659 1,275 $1,934 6430 City West Parkway #5314 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 3,C 12 25- 0101530 Theodore Bentz 6.0 3.0 1 659 ----- $ 659 7300 Galpin Blvd 0 e (0 39308A-13 APPENDIX B - INITIAL XUNDmONS (COMM) 1 w N Net 0 Map Property Total Assess. No. of Sanitary Water Total w Vote Ref. Ident. No. Owner Acres Acres REUs Sewer Main Assess. W ,.,C 7 25- 0091900 T. Oas 0.95 0.7 1 659 - 1,275 $1,934 CD 7305 Hzlt. Blvd. N 8 Proposed Lundgren Bros. 95.2 74.4 148 *143,560 188,700 $332,260 0) Development 97,532 97,532 w 5,300'lateral water = $90,100 90.100 $519,892 Outlot G Lundgren Bros. 66.0 40.0 80 *77,600 102,000 $0.00 & Outlot H (Future Assessment when Developed) 9 25 -0101500 David Stockdale 1 .4 11.6 1 659 1,275 $1,934 0 7210 Garlpin Blvd. rn xi 0 e1,C 10 25- 0101540 David Stockdale 6.46 6.0 1 659 1,275 $1,934 0 0 7210 Galpin Blvd. 3> n ei,C 11 25- 0101520 Darken Turcotte 4.4 4.0 1 659 1,275 $1,934 .-) 6430 City West Parkway #5314 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 3,C 12 25-0101530 Theodore Bentz 6.0 3.0 1 659 --- $ 659 7300 Gaipin Blvd. u N 39308A-B B-11 — MEI MN E MI MN M M MR MB MO 111111 MB I M O. M N APPENDIX B - INITIAL CONDITIONS (CUNT') 1 1 N Net N Map Property Total Assess. No. of Sanitary Water Total 0 ■Tote Ref Ident. No. Owner Acres Acres REUs Sewer Main Assess. w w ,C 13 25 -0101510 Douglas Bentz 52 4.6 1 659 ---- $ 659 m 14 25- 6900010 Prince R. Nelson 19.7 15.7 2 (san.) 1,318 *1,318 u RLS No. 89 0 (wat) -- 2,550 7 550 Tract A $ 3,868 in w 15 RLS No. 89 Prince R. Nelson 156.1 104 2 (san.) 1,318 ---- $1,318 N Tract B 10 (wat.) ---- 12,750 12.750 $14,068 3,C 16 25 -0101220 Brett Davidson 13.0 12.0 24 15,916 30,600 $46,416 7291 Galpin Blvd. o Z 17 25-0101200 Michael Klingelhutz 17.4 15.7 2 1,318 40,800 $61,888 rn 8601 Great Plains Blvd. 2,500' lateral sewer = $42,500 42,500 0 2,500' lateral water = $37,500 37,500 SP $141,888 tn n �' [3,C 5 0 ,C 18 2100500 Richard B. Lyman 49.9 47.8 5 ---- 6,375 $6,375 (Contract) Michael Gorra (Pri.) R = Bluff Creek District Trunk Area Charges of $970 per unit A. = Single Family Residences on Parcels less than 10 acres in size B = Green Acres Properties C = These properties will also be responsible, at the time of development or building permits, for previously established Lake Ann Interceptor charges of $850 per unit. N w 39308A -B B -12 11 -19 -1992 09:34 612 °Z6 1311 BONESTROO & ASsr.. P.14 -------TI! i ' Sub —Trunk . ewer �, _ M Assessment ,.,. .w, ,,,.....,. .,� H w . • Boundary, 4 � ,.....,.� ., •, um ,.., r'^ �'' Sub Truk .-, -. Service rea r gri f , , LAKE (.1:, C irp i/ As fAip e W LL. N , , a . �. 1 1 1 .40 413' , A 4• 11111 4. > , .\... \ , • IVeil .*: „,,,,,,,. li 10 r, w Q1 /f .. I8 1 ., CD - W�,.......... (.{ y., I V r r'1['+YWL�IwY� „..rurw.. 13 CD �►.�... I Lateral gattr mi. i # Benefit Asses ment -, a w • 1 E k lift ,� ' . Nwr. .. , , .,, III" i ,......____ II .w.. y .r Q eoo _ _400 pm.. - kt fait r' illt 9 miessma Proposed Trunk Assessment Area -- Lift Station Service Area % i 1r .µ•• "' CD Property Reference Number i j f Sanitary Sewer Assessment Area Bonestroo • Rsene ilm, 4.' .. AnderIJk & Johnson—Doles.); Property Project FIGURE 4 Associates Trunk Sanitary Sewer lc Trunk Watermain Improvements P_hnnh,,oc.n 1A3nnaanfn 11 -19 -1992 09: 612 '"6 1311 BONESTROO & A,9" P.15 1 Trunk Water Main ` mo w „ w s L , (5 Boundary _� ..., .. a, 1 I .. L , AMI r LAKE CD i ,k.... .,, Lateral .� .w r 4E.• Benefit x 1 L, ,,, 4 4 Assess ent a .� „ . ........w...:,. . Am /, WELL N ',, ,,, a ,.. .. .4 "=1,0-....;.:77.7..,........ / J //.. Il/ II +�Nlnw� � T�^ �' 14 - .r.... 4 : : . ..1 . Q , r/ / iii ai. f 15 • ,�. sss r///_ WiCipr - ...in.. _ — i M. 8 , 1 „ 7 . ... • C:-.) 1 t - 11 if .......��.. : ' ..,...,.. * ..... .,. .......... ........�.wuw �.. .,.,,w..Mrr... ........,, u,.........am ...........wvx �.,.. ww.w.w....iw..... M..wvnr„rm......,rw......w.. w..,A, I.V..,. s1/4— _ L.........y . k . . ci — d 5 I N it IF . lim, iir C o mitimidilma ce 1 am. in tvet tae 1 r moo* Proposed Trunk Assessment Area �_ • Q Property Reference Number 9P / ' Water Main Assessment Area 9oneetroo __ Rosene Anderiik & Johnson— DolesJ Property Project FIGURE 58 Associates I Trunk Sanitary Sewer & Trunk Watermain Improvements Chanhassen. Minnesota City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 for 5 Care Program, and this came to $1,668,000.00. This also included our non - reimbursement services that we have to provide for Medicare patients. How il that particular piece broke down, things like education and research, $40,000.00. We provide an education and research. This is, we have a research base for a medical program through the Medical Association. We also provide a II learning lab for student nurses from Normandale. We have an LPN program out of Hennepin Tech. We do a Paramedic program out of the Vo -tech 916. And this is, as I said, also includes the ambulance service that we provide. Only part of II Chanhassen is included in that ambulance service. The unpaid cost of Medicare is $459,000.00. Various other things fall into that category. Medicare, as I pointed out before is a big share of what we feel certainly qualifies for services to the broader community. "These are, as you can see, the straight line I is the actual cost of the health care and we started that back in 1985 and you can see what it looked like in 1991. The dotted line is the amount that we are, as a hospital getting reimbursed. And that gap continues to get wider. This, at this point, is 14.9% difference between what it costs to provide the care and II what we get reimbursed. But as all hospitals_in the State of Minnesota we cannot pick and choose our customers. They all are given care, whether they can pay for it or not. And one of the reasons that we wanted to start doing some of the promotion for the social accountability program out of St. Francis is that we do want the community to know that we have funds that are available for people who cannot get the service. And as you can see, we budgeted last year to II give away about $134,000.00 and of that we gave away $56,000.00. In the next fiscal year, which ends in June, we budgeted to give away $161,000.00 and we hope that people here in attendance, as as you as organizational members in II the community, will let people know that these funds are available. They're there. We want people to know about them._ Again I'd like to say, the hospital does not turn away anyone for any the_care that they need. At all. So I think as a hospital we are very proud of what we have been able to give back to II the community and I'm glad thatyouu asked us to come here and share that information. - " _ _ _ " _ Mayor Chmiel: We appreciate you taking time out to do that Barb. II Barbara Hamilton: Oh I'm glad to be here. Mayor Chmiel: And that was one of the reasons why I thought it should be noted 1 that there is that kind of availability at the hospital and thank you. II Barbara Hamilton: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN SECTION 1ONW AND 9NE: AUTHORIZE II PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. PROJECT NO. 92 -5. Public Present: N II ame Address Bret Davidson 7291 Galpin Blvd. 1 Charles & Irene Song 7200 Galpin Blvd. Paul Youngquist 7105 Hazeltine Blvd. David Stockdale 7210 Galpin"Blvd. II Donald Jensen 5201 E. River Road $301, Fridley 55421 3 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 1 Name Address Thomas Turcotte 7240 Galpin Blvd. Don Patton 7600 Parklawn, Edina Mike Klingelhutz 8601 Great Plains Blvd. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This is the continuation of the public hearing for Project 92 -5 for trunk utility improvements in Section 10 and 9. Staff has had the opportunity to meet with two of the large acreage property owners to get a better understanding of their future intentions with ' their properties and this information has been summarized in your staff report. Staff has also outlined three likely scenarios for the project scope and corresponding assessments levied. Basically, Scenario 1 is the original scope of the project. Maybe Phil, do you have a diagram we could put up just basically to show the alignments. Basically a sanitary sewer alignment has remainted intact, as originally proposed, and the water would be extended, proposed to be extended south from the Well No. 3. Extended west through the ' Song and Lundgren properties. Scenarios 2 and 3 involve, would depend on development demand. Basically from other properties to the south such as Rottlund's intentions to develop the Klingelhutz' property and /or any potential development on the Davidson property which would require extension of trunk watermain south along Galpin Boulevard. In all three scenarios, a full lateral benefit assessment is proposed and a one trunk unit assessment per 10 acre increment for the small acreage or hobby farm non - developing type properties is also proposed. Corresponding initial assessment revenue schedule for each scenario is also provided in your packets. The trunk assessments are estimated to be $659.00 for sanitary sewer and $1,275.00 for trunk water. Lateral benefit ' is based on the cost for an 8 inch pipe. In all three scenarios, the predicted initial assessment revenue, less the green acre properties, either balances or is within 10% of balancing. The City Manager has also provided a history of similar projects where these same difficult issues and difficult decisions had to be made. In all cases the extension of sewer and water has involved a number of parcels to allow for multiple development projects in the service area and full lateral benefit was assessed. With the exception of the property owners who are senior citizens and demonstrate limited financial resources, as recognized by State Statute, staff is opposed to offering any type of assessment deferral associated with this project. Depending on the wishes of the Council ' and property owners, any of the three scenarios as outlined are feasible. If an approval is to be made on any one of the scenarios, it is staff's recommendation that full lateral benefit be assessed and that the previously established policy of assessing one unit per 10 acre increment trunk assessment to a small acreage or hobby farm type developing property with an existing dwelling, be maintained. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you Charles. This, as I mentioned, is a public ' hearing. At this time anyone wishing to address this proposal, at this time has the opportunity to do so. If there's anyone who would like to come forward to indicate your concerns, this is the time. If you would, please state your name and your address for the record. Jerome Carlson: Jerome Carlson, 6950 Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen. Still with an Excelsior mailing address. In your notes, which Charles and perhaps someone else very accurately recapped in terms of a meeting we had. It indicates that the Song's and ourselves, Linda and myself, have come to an arrangement or an 4 1 City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 1 agreement if you will, which will be exercised in early 1993. They are going to be departing very shortly for a little time and when they return we will resume our activities. In any event, the staff's recommendation that assessments be made is obviously contrary to what our feeling is, although the timing may in fact turn out to be no problem. As we look at and review the use of the property, and may I start by saying our motivation for getting involved was really the location of our particular home and the views from that particular place. A desire to protect the wetlands but also to protect the area surrounding those wetlands in terms of a number of potential homesites and roads. That was our motivation from the very beginning for wanting to work with the Song's relative to this potential project. And so relative to at what point the southern part of the property would actually be developed, this is really a question that is premature for Linda and I to answer. We do need more time, quite frankly. As far as the granting of an easement necessary for the watermain, until we have some other more definitive plans, if you will, it is impossible for us to simply say sure. That's okay because that's not okay. It may be just fine but this is premature and I expect that shortly after the first of the year, before the end of the first quarter, we will be in a position to have made some definite plans. Some specific plans relative to the property. So as far as our position, I believe this is very much in concert with what the Song's have consistently said from their point of view prior to our • involvement. The land should be viewed at this date as not being available for development. Having said that, we are, as the report says, not necessarily opposed to development in the_southern part _ of the property but that has not been worked out. .And to presume and to assume that going forward, the easement would be forthcoming and the assessment could be made, maybe an assumption that you're not prepared to make at this:time based upon the situation as it has changed. And if you have any questions forme, I'd be happy to try to answer them but that's basically where we are at. We just need some more time. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions from the Council at this time? When you're speaking of time, 5 minutes. 6 months. A year. What is the timeframe that you're looking at? Jerome Carlson: I would say that.we are interested in continuing some discussions which have already begun the Lundgren Bros. With the Songs' endorsement of those discussions. And should they lead us somewhere or some other discussions with some other opportunity,_which at this point has not been looked at, hasn't been even considered. I.would hope that we would have this whole matter pretty well settled by end of March, to give you sort of an outside time table. It could be settled even sooner. Perhaps much sooner but to give the Council some sort of a time frame. That would be,-based upon what we know today and what we expect will happen, that's the time frame that I think is appropriate at this particular date. If it changes, we'll be happy to share it with you. Thank you; _ - : Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Paul Youngquist. My name is Paul Youngquist. I'm at 7105 Hazeltine Boulevard 1 which is the property on the north boundary of the Lundgren project. I'm a much smaller player than the Song's or the Carlson's and my request is simple. We're scheduled for 2 units. I was just here to request that we be considered 1 unit. We've paid 1 unit on the Lake Ann Interceptor. We've paid our park dedication 5 . • 1 1 II City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 II fee. We've paid the trail dedication fee. We've upgraded our sewer for $4,300.00 and I know that it's tradition and precedence and all these kinds of things but I'm just here to request that our property be considered 1 unit. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul. Charles Song: My name is Charles Song. I just want to be here to say that we totally agree with what Jerome has told you and so that's, and we have been talking for quite a while and just as he say, our agreement is eminent and it's II going to be probably...very quickly. So I just wanted to reiterate what Jerome has said. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? 1 Don Jensen: Don Jensen with the Rottlund Company, 5201 East River Road, Suite 301 in Fridley. We would just like to encourage the Council to look at the ' various alternatives that have been proposed tonight by staff. As we understand it, to begin the design process which would still allow an opportunity for further refinement of dollars and budgets and an opportunity to look at still putting the project on hold or forward as various parcels come on line, or don't I come on line. The process that we are at in having the Klingelhutz property under an option agreement and having some discussions with the Davidson family to the north of the Klingelhutz parcel, leads us to believe that to stop at this 1 point in time might be premature. We would just encourage the Council to move forward at least into the planning of specific plans and specifications. Perhaps even going into the bidding this next year to find out whether or not contracts I and contractors can bring projects perhaps into a more cost effective mode than the initial estimates would reveal at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to make a II statement? Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. My name is Terry II Forbord with Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata, Minnesota. I'm in kind of a difficult position because I'm enjoying and having constructive discussions with Mr. Carlson and Mr. and Mrs. Song. It's been a pleasure to work with them or talk to them over the last couple years and I hope that we can continue in those discussions. I think that, if I'm correct, the issue before us tonight is not ordering the project. Is that correct? I Charles Folch: Basically it is. Excuse me Mr. Mayor, it is ordering the project. I Terry Forbord: Aren't we ordering the plans and specifications? We're going into the design phase. Is that not correct? Okay, but that does not wean that the project is being ordered because that doesn't occur until you go to a bid ' letting and you accept the bids and then you order the project, correct? Don Ashworth: You're ordering the project tonight. If they would. II Terry Forbord: It seems to me at the last meeting there was some discussion that ensued about entering into the design phase. Obviously Lundgren Bros has 6 1 City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 1 got a significant stake in this and has for some time and we're kind of between 1 a rock and a hard place because time starts to become my enemy, or it already has. Time's either my enemy or my friend. I either have too much of it or not enough of it. Right now I'm running out of time. Purely from an economic standpoint and from agreements that I have with people who we've purchased the land and as you know we already have a preliminary plat approved on the property and the more time that goes by, because of the construction seasons that we have in Minnesota, if you don't capture the window of opportunity, then all of a sudden you lose another year. So if we can't get into the ground and get prepared for 1993, then all of a sudden we're looking at '94. Unfortunately it's a weather issue I see before us tonight. If we don't proceed now, we probably won't be happening in '93 and then it's a delay. I was hoping that at some way, shape or form maybe we could at least start the design process and get underway with that but if what I'm hearing you say that we're ordering the project now, because I do not want to put the Song's or Mr. Carlson certainly in an uncomfortable position. While at the same time I'm trying to continue with sound business decisions on behalf of Lundgren Bros. So I don't know if there's a way to have both. I don't know if we can start that process and get underway with the design and then go out to bid and see how things happen. Then the Council can make another decision at that time if they want to proceed. If there is a way, maybe there's a way to explore that because I sure would like to accommodate the Song's and the Carlson's if we could. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Roger. 1 Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor. There is one potential. If Lundgren Bros. wanted to pay for the plans and specifications if the project does not go ahead and pre - fund that, then the City would not be at risk. If they're willing to do that. Then you could have the plans and specs... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Mayor Chmiel: ...onto the other people because of a development wanting to proceed. If this is to happen, can the developer pick up the total costs on this and then as people connect to it, can the City, maybe I should ask that of Don, can the City administer that kind of a situation? Don Ashworth: Yes. Yes. I don't know of a bank that would be willing to fund a development though. In the case of Near Mountain, that's not something that they would. I don't know of any developer that has ever done that type of thing. At least maybe to a small scale. I've seen it to the extent of 1, 2 or 3 lot type of thing. I've never seen it to this type of scale. Mayor Chmiel: This as we're looking at was $800,000.00 some dollars? Don Ashworth: Correct. Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor, maybe we could find out what the commitment would be for plans and specifications and whether Lundgren Bros could sake a decision whether that's feasible for them. • Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That might be an idea to just toss around and discuss. 1 Charles, would you have any idea or inkle as to what that might be? 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 _ Charles Folch: Maybe I can request Bob -or Phil to respond to that based on the estimated project cost. Phil Gravel: Based on the estimated cost, in the latest revision of the report, for the full project or? The ,full project, which would include the watermain on Galpin, the plans and specifications would be $40,000.00 to $45,000.00. It might be obviously less than that if we didn't decide on the watermain...as an option. Mayor Chmiel: The question would be posed back then to Lundgren Bros. Would ' they be willing to pick up that cost of whatever it might come to with the cost factors? Say anywhere between $40,000.00 to $50,000.00. Terry Forbord: Your honor, Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros. I'm not sure if I can answer that question here tonight but I can say the following. Whether Lundgren Bros drops their option and walks away or whether Lundgren Bros exercises the option and buys the property and develops it, the City of ' Chanhassen sooner or later needs to make a commitment to it's future if they decide they want a future. The City at this present time has no developable land in the commercial or residential sector to speak of, other than maybe some ' very, very small parcels. I think it's more of an issue of versus should the private sector be doing that for the benefit of the City for their future. Now maybe there's something to be said. Maybe they should. I don't know but it's kind of a philosophical situation. I think all cities need to make a commitment for an investment in their future. For their own residents. For both commercial and industrial growth. But I can't answer that question tonight. There's a lot of other property owners that would be benefitting from this ' project as far as what they could or could not do with their land. And maybe somebody else would be willing to contribute as well. Some of the other property owners. Now if it was just for our, you know there's three scenarios before you and each one involves I think different projects. Whether the watermain's included or whether it's not included. I guess, because I'm not an owner of Lundgren Bros I can't answer that question. It's never been done in 23 years that we've done business before so it would seem somewhat unusual I think 11 but it's something I'd have to talk to the owners of the company about. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What you're saying then basically, would you be requesting ' us to table this again until you can come back with those kinds of? Terry Forbord: Well actually I think, you know I'm not sure if that's what I am saying. Sooner or later the City's probably going to put this pipe in and the City should want to know what the design of that pipe would be, because they'd be ordering it and building it as part of a public improvement project. So whether it would be Lundgren Bros here or Rottlund or Mr. and Mrs. Song choosing to develop it or Mr. Carlson, the City would want to have that study done sooner or later anyway. Mayor Chmiel: True, to a point and where do you put the dollars and where do the dollars most fit within the city, and this may not be the place that we chose to do it at this particular time as well. So I guess that's why I pose the question. Times are changing. Operational factors are changing. Businesses are changing. The dollar becomes a more important issue in all these cases, as you well know. Because cities are getting cutback every time we turn 8 1 City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 1 around from the State. Consequently we're going to have to start changing possibly some of the way we do business as well. I guess that's why I'm saying this. Does Council have? Councilman Workman: Well you know there's a lot of merit in what everybody says 1 and it sounds to me like we just need to sit down and in a little bit more detail figure out what we want to do. If the City ran that pipe out there, it'd develop out there. Whether we have a major risk in paying for a study, for that study I think it would probably be assessed as soon as we could get it assessed. That property's going to develop out there. The only thing I hear is time lines. I hear that from Jerome and then the Song's and I hear it from Terry too ' so it sounds like we need to work just on the time line. It doesn't sound like anybody wants to stick their neck out too far because there's a lot of variables inbetween. All of them sound reasonable. What are we talking about for the cost of this study? Charles Folch: I think Phil mentioned $40,000.00 to $45,000.00 estimated. Councilman Workman: I know Jerome said end of the first quarter, first of March, and I don't know if that can be moved up and I don't know enough about Terry's business to know whether that ruins it for '93 for him. ' Mayor Chmiel: I think the point Terry is making is he has options on those particular properties and options can be renewable as well. So you can have extensions on those options. Councilman Workman: No, I understand that. It's a matter of, what I'm reading from him is it's a matter of having work in '93 or not having work to do in '93 ' which makes a difference to a business I would suspect. Terry Forbord: Your Honor, without disclosing proprietary information, our options have been extended to the point where they longer can be extended. We either have to buy the land or we have to go away. And we're getting to that point in time where we're face with the inevitable. And it's not because anybody has intentionally dragged their feet or anything like that but as you know, this has been a very lengthy process going all the way back to when the comprehensive plan was being adopted. But I know it sounds like a lot of money, $40,000.00 to $45,000.00 but I know each one of you have been on the Council long enough to know that you deal with things with land development in the commercial sector that have cost the city a tremendously greater amount of money than what this, ordering of plans and specs for this project is. As a ' residential developer we've never come before you and asked for any subsidies of any kind. We've never asked the City to participate in our development. This is a normal public improvement project and the City, I don't think it's out of line certainly in light of some of the other city expenditures that you've made, to proceed with this. Mayor Chmiel: Richard. , Councilman Wing: Don, I've sat here and it's sort of gotten to be the owners versus the developers and we have some real major issues here that impact a lot of people along the way. I guess I've never felt a real emergency to develop this far west away from the sewer and water and it seems that what we're being 9 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 asked to do here has some severe impacts on a lot of land owners. Just the issue of septic and wells that are being put in for $10,000.00 on some of the newer homes along the way and the assessment that's going to impact them. I ' kind of hate to get into an argument where we're deciding major issues versed on a developer's weather or season or economic conditions or options. If it's a good buy, buy it. If it looks like it's got some potential, pick up your options and buy it. I don't think that's our decision to have to make or worry about. I think when we impact so many others along the way that we are kind of leap frogging and then we have to slow down and both owners that own the access to this piece and the easements and so on have both addressed us tonight and 1 suggested we slow down for 2 or 3 months and I think it's a pretty small request for such a major impact on the future of the City and with all due respect to the developers, I think we owe it to the community to go slow on these issues in ' this case. Plans and specs, they could maybe change if the Carlson /Song situation changes so I'm a little nervous about not tabling this tonight and I've got a lot more questions even on the septic and the water systems for these new homes. I'd like to know what we're going to do with them and will this ' stand on it's own 2 feet or are we going to have to hit all these homeowners along the way and I think if we start doing that, we're going to have a lot more people here with a lot more opinions. Don Jensen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Don Jensen with the Rottlund Company. One thing that hasn't been mentioned, at least in the last few minutes of discussion, in looking at the overhead it appears that a lot of the project going into the Lundgren development is specific to their particular design and there's a portion of the water along Galpin which would clearly run in public right -of -way and is not dependent on any particular design. And there's portions through the properties that are, or could be construed to benefit the Rottlund Companies should we be able to make those business decisions and move forward.. When you're talking about $45,000.00 in planning fees, that seems a ' lot for any one particular person to swallow, if in fact you're throwing it away because the plans are meaningless after the work is done. It would appear that some type of a partnership and discussion as to how to facilitate those planning studies may in fact be able to occur as some of those designs on the alignment in the graphic up on the screen would not change regardless of the personalities or the companies involved. I think the Rottlund Company would be open to at least entertaining some type of a partnership in how those fees might be paid in ' order to at least get a better look at what the immediate future, speaking of a window between now and February is concerned. That doesn't mean a decision today but it certainly means in our perspective, a decision to continue moving forward at least to not stop the process completely. And I think we'd certainly be open to paying our fair share to get a study looking forward with an understanding that if the project does move ahead, the City continues to do as they've done in the past and those planning fees are part of the overall project cost and it's assessed as it's been proposed regardless. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Terry Forbord: Your Honor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. i 10 1 City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 1 Terry Forbord: Since it appears that the discussion in the Council is that 1 that's what they think is fair, is that the private sector should bear these costs, then maybe what you could do tonight is pass a motion contingent upon that occurring. Then if it doesn't occur, the motion dies or the resolution would die and if it does occur, then we move forward. That way we wouldn't be wasting any time and you'd put the burden of proof on the private sector to pony up and if we can, then we move forward. If we can't, then nothing's lost. Councilman Mason: That addresses one concern. I don't think that addresses Councilman Wing's concern about property owners along the way and I think, this is I guess a gut reaction or a gut feeling. I suspect at some point this , project will go through. It's inevitable. But in terms of the life of this city and the length of stay of some of the residents, I guess I don't think slowing things down perhaps as much as a quarter of a year is going to be damaging that area that much. I don't dispute Lundgren Bros' concerns on that at all. They're very real to them. We need, I guess I concur with what Dick said. I think our first response needs to be, in a situation as large as this, the concern of the people who most directly would be affected by it. I think it's good to hear Rottlund and Lundgren Bros talking about that kind of thing because I think clearly that's the way it's going with finances becoming what they are. We have to look at more creative ways of doing things and maybe something good is coming out of this but I'm not sure I'm prepared to move on this tonight either because of these concerns mentioned by the Carlsons and the Songs and there are other people I think that also have those concerns. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thomas, did you want to say something? Councilman Workman: Yeah. As my fellow mates up here would try to characterize ' me as pro- developer and development. We went through the Comprehensive Plan. Councilman Mason: I think lame duck...more appropriate. 1 Councilman Workman: ...but we went through the Comprehensive Plan and we made some various decisions back then about what's going to happen. And the Song property and the Jerome property and this piece and all these pieces are going to be developed and they just don't, they're just not all maybe in the same month in the same year. If any city in Minnesota had one parcel like Prince Roger Nelson or Jerome and Linda Carlson or the Song's, in the way of another development that'd be one thing. There's 3 of them out there. So the word leap frog is used maybe a little incorrectly in that these are all young people. The Carlson's, the Song's and the Prince are all very young people. They could have this property for 20 more years. So the Johnson /Dolejsi property, and that's maybe a little bit about what Terry's getting at is that then, those properties that are now within the MUSA line are not going to develop. Of course I 11 understand the plight of all the people inbetween. It's going to happen now or it's going to happen later. It's never going to be good time if I've got a septic system, to pay an assessment. So it is a unique situation that we have out here with those big parcels of land and three individual owners, or at least two of them that are here tonight that are unique to any city in that they can afford to develop or not develop. And so that's where I, with Rottlund and Lundgren I, sympathy is a tough word to use but that somehow we figure a way that this is all going to happen. I suspect we're going to table this tonight. How that affects people's time lines I don't know but to continue the dialogue 11 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 1 and try and figure out how this is going to be accomplished. Because it's unique and I think we should assist those in the situation who want to move ahead like our Comp Plan said. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't disagree with what you're saying Tom either but I don't think the comfortable feeling, at least with myself, is there yet. I still have some real concerns. I'll defer saying anything more. Councilman Wing: That was good though because I really agreed with my friend on the right and I'm really feeling with you. I paean it is going to develop and it is going to happen soon, and I'm all for it. And Lundgren's got an excellent proposal. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah and I don't think that you're going to find that this Council has ever been against development within the city. It's just more or ' less the timing of it right now is really what we're looking at. Don Patton: Mayor, Council. Just to give you data. You realize I've been • ' appearing before you since I think '86 with the Lake Susan development and as you know, we worked with you in donating land for the County Road 17 and worked on getting the watermain extended down through our project to serve the Chan ' Lakes project. So it is not a precedent to do that and I give you that just as a data to encourage development because again, it is going to develop. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else at this time? Terry Forbord: You know I think I need to talk speak specifically about delays. I know that most of you probably won't want to hear this but the fact is, I know each one of you well enough, either you're businessmen or you work for youself, you certainly understand the cost of time and the cost of money. But when you're talking about $1 million. I'm talking about just *1 million at today's ' rates, you're talking somewhere between $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 a month just in interest. And when you start looking at projects that are $2 million or $3 million, simple math, it's really clear to see what the cost of indecision is. Now it's not just, to me I start looking at weather. I mean I know you don't I want to think about weather but weather, when you lose a season, you lose 6 months. You start totaling up the cost of that, that cost gets passed onto the buyers or the future citizens of this community and inflated home prices that ' needn't be. And that's the reality of it. The bottom line is, it gets added cost into the project. I know you probably don't want to hear that and you don't want that to be a factor in your decision but oftentimes I hear that it's not going to have any effect whatsoever by having a delay. But it does. It ' effects the community. It doesn't just effect Lundgren Bros. It effects the people who live here. The vast majority of the people who buy our homes who live in the area, and they're going to have a price to pay for it. So the cost of time and money and delays is phenomenal in our society. It's just phenomenal. And so there were a couple comments made that time isn't that big of a deal. It's a huge deal. Not as far as profits but in what it does to the ' cost of housing. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I'll get back to my present position that I stated before. Was that if you feel quite as strong as you do with what those needs are, maybe ' your company may be willing to even pick up that total assessment cost with that 1 12 1 • City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 reimbursement coming back if this is really going to be a problem. And use the 11 city as the catalyst to provide back the dollars back to Lundgren Bros as the growth progresses. Maybe that's where the crux of this really still lies and I 11 am trying to meet a happy median with the position that you're taking of saying the cost factors are there. And there's cost factors there for everyone else, not just Lundgren Bros. It's involvements of other people in and adjacent to that route who are on their own septic systems which they will be required to connect to city sewer. They can keep their own water system. There's additional costs that are incurred by them as well and depending upon the amount of feet that it runs in. So there are a lot more things that we have to look into. And that may be an eventual situation that will occur, as you said. Hopefully it will but I'm still uncomfortable with the way we're proceeding with this. To me I still think there's a certain amount of, there's been some pros and cons to the issue of leap frogging. Even though there are those large parcels. There are still other people concerned within that complete line as to where we'd locate it. So I don't know whether you can come up with an answer this evening in regards to some of these questions that have been asked. Or ' where you can really come from. Terry Forbord: I can answer some of those questions. First of all, from a 11 planning perspective and from an engineering perspective, both from a consultant standpoint and from a Met Council standpoint, this is not leapfrogging and I can attest to that because I was at the Met Council this week and I was talking about this very project in relation to the MDIF and it was not considered 1 leapfrogging from a Met Council perspective. I know staff doesn't believe it's leapfrogging and I know the consultant for the City doesn't believe it's leap- frogging. As far as, I'm not sure if I understood the question correctly about, I wasn't sure if you meant would Lundgren fund the project and be reimbursed or would the private sector pay for the plans and specs? I wasn't sure. Mayor Chmiel: I think there's two items there. Both of those. Terry Forbord: I don't know a development company anywhere in the Twin Cities ' that could do that. I'm just not aware of one. We financially are not strong enough where we could do that. We may be able to contribute to the cost of the plans and specs if we can get some participation from some of the other people but I personally do not know of any development company in the Twin Cities, from Carlson Real Estate to Opus that could afford to fund projects and work on some reimbursement factor. Maybe Oon is aware of one but I don't know of one. But as far as contributing to the plans and specs, I'm sure we'd be willing to contribute some portion of. I'm not sure how much we could afford to but Rottlund said they'd be willing to and so maybe we could work something out with the city. It's my understanding we get reimbursed on that anyway at some point in time. But we are not financially strong enough to pay for the entire project. Don Ashworth: Mr Mayor? Listening to a number of the comments made, and I 1 guess I've had various thoughts but Councilman Workman had said that this is a unique project. In a lot of ways I think that it is but I think in the past you've had some unique projects as well. Sewer and water as it went up into the business park involved going across the entire lake frontage of the Martin Ward property and through property then purchased by Jim Curry who favored the 1 13 , City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 project. Martin Ward did not. Through the Victor Schmieg farm and then 11 finally to serve the business park which was Ed Ounn and Bob Schoenecker with Animal Fair that was proposed to go in on Prince's property out there. And I think we took some time to try and look at some options that would try to deal with all of those owners but it really came down to, Ward not really wanting to do the project and I don't know how much time you could have given it, it just wouldn't have changed the fact that they couldn't decide where that really ' should be. Schmieg, which ends up as a parcel that Jerry ended up buying. That Instant Web eventually went on. And it came down to the Council having to make a decision, should this project go in or shouldn't it? I don't think that there's a way a developer could hold that cost because again, the Ward family has decided to hold that cost. They bore that cost and have paid those costs since it was put in in 1978. And it's still not developed today. Whereas Victor Schmieg, I'm sure he came off very, very well in selling the farm site ' and again the eventual construction of Instant Web, United Mailing and Victory Envelope. And I know there is a cost of holding land. Ed Ounn saw that as it involved the Eckankar property which he just hit a bad time for him. Otherwise ' you'd see single family houses out there today. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, to move this along. I think I've heard the Council make a statement tonight that several of us aren't comfortable. Not denying the ' project, nor do we even suggest it shouldn't go through. There's enough loose ends that I want to ask questions about that for me there's two options. Either to deny this or simply to table it and I'll leave that to the other Council. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I guess we've had some discussion. Councilman Mason: I just want to make a couple quick comments. I don't view tabling this as indecision tonight. Mayor Chmiel: No, I think some answers have to come back anyway. Councilman Mason: I agree with that and whereas I appreciate the money angle from all of this, we're in a position to not be considering just the money angle here. And maybe that's good. Maybe that's bad. But our charge is not just looking at total dollars and cents here. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, I would like to just make one clarification for any property owners here tonight that have the 5 or 10 acre parcels with either new or currently satisfactorily functioning septic and well systems. If and when these improvements are put in, they will not be required to immediately hook up to the system. If their septic or well system should fail, then basically the City Ordinance would kick in requiring that they do make hook up. But initially they will not be required to make hook up to the system if their septic and well are functioning properly. Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if that's a true statement Charles. And I'm not going to challenge it but on my understanding is, by the Metropolitan Waste ' Control Commission. Anytime you put sewers within a given area, they have a limited time to make connection. And I know I was told that when I had my own septic system that was working and I was required to make that connection with the sewer and I think that is a regulation of the MWCC. 14 1 City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 Don Ashworth: I see where Bob has his hand up in the air and I'm hoping he can respond. Bob Schunicht: I've got a comment to make... What we're talking about in the improvements here are really the trunk sanitary sewer system. Not the lateral 11 sanitary sewer system and when you put laterals in, then you have to hook up but the trunk system does not require you to hook up. You still have another step to get to the homes with the lateral systems so I think with trunk system it's just, you pay your area charges and they'll hook up until you put the laterals in. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Okay. I think we've probably, we're discussing this to death. I would like to have a motion one way or the other. To either table these plans and I don't, I'm not looking for to denying it at this particular time but I think some answers have to come back so we can feel comfortable. Councilwoman Dimler: Well, I haven't said much about this. I've listened to all the discussion and I think everyone has made excellent points on both sides of the issue really but I really see that the City isn't pushing. Is not the entity that is pushing this project at this particular time. I see that to be Lundgren Bros and therefore if they can't carry the cost, you know I'm not ready to put a burden on our property owners or on the city taxpayers so I would move at this time that we table this issue until either Lundgren Bros feels that they want to move ahead and come up with another proposal to pay for the project or something else happens then. Other developers want to get involved. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? 1 Councilman Wing: I'll second that Don but I would like to just discuss with you the timeframe. What are we after here? Do we want to wait for Mr. Carlson and Mr. Song's proposed quarterly report or do we want to move in January on this one? What's our timeframe on this? Mayor Chmiel: Well, I think as we're looking at this and respecting some of the ' things that Lundgren wants to get through, I would suggest that we have this on our next Council agenda which would be December 12th? Don Ashworth: 14th. Mayor Chmiel: 14th. 1 Councilman Mason: Will we just be hashing all this stuff over again if the Carlson's and Song's are still discussing? , Mayor Chmiel: We could. We could. Councilwoman Dimler: What answers are we looking for that would give us a ' better comfort level than, I'm sensing some of us are not comfortable. I mean my end, is Lundgren Bros going to pay for the project as plans and specs? That still doesn't address the future of the assessments there. 1 15 1 City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Well the assessments don't really take hold until the following year after that once it's put in. And by that time, whatever they're doing can be consummated but I don't think that's the discussion that Council should take for the consideration. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So are we just waiting for the answer to see if Lundgren Bros wants to go ahead with the $45,000.00 expenditure? Councilman Mason: Well it wouldn't just be Lundgren Bros though necessarily. ' Mayor Chmiel: No. There may be the other factors that are involved as well. Councilwoman Dimler. . Okay, to work that whole thing out. Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Jerome Carlson: Jerome Carlson, 6950 Galpin Blvd. For your December 14th meeting, relative to any potential change, relative to the Song - Carlson property, the Song's have granted me the ability to continue negotiations and talks with the Lundgren Bros. I think I indicated that that was the case earlier so it is not out of the question that something could occur by that time. We do not want to be viewed as anti this particular development. But rather the concern again goes back, and went back originally to the specific property which the Song's presently own and our desire mutually to protect the northern part of that in particular. So should this be put on the 14th agenda, it may or may not, specifically from any new developments relative to the Song property, be a waste of time. It's difficult for me to predict that outcome. ' Mayor Chmiel: Sure. We realize that. Jerome Carlson: Okay. ' Mayor Chmiel: And with that I'll call a question. Councilman Workman: Could you repeat that motion? Mayor Chmiel: The motion basically is to table this until December 14th. ' Determinations is finding whether or not the cost for picking up the plans and specs would be done by Lundgren Bros or any of the others that may be associated with this project. Councilman Workman: I'd like to make one comment maybe before we vote. Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. Councilman Workman: We aren't making a decision to develop or not develop. Either tonight or even at the next Council meeting. We made those decisions ' about 2 years ago so I'm not going to, I tried to play a little bit of the devil's advocate tonight and maybe I sound pro development but that decision and those heart aches we went through a long time ago. I was trying to highlight the differences and some problems with large blocks of land in the way of people who do want to develop. So now that I've made that point, I feel better. 16 11 1 City Council Meeting - November 23, 1992 Don Ashworth: Clarification point. This is primarily for Terry's benefit. What 11 I hear the Council saying is, is if this project does not go ahead as a public improvement project, that they will have to put up some form of guarantee to 1 insure that the City is reimbursed those costs. If in fact it does go ahead as a project, those costs are folded into the project so you don't come up with those dollars. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Question is being called. Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table authorizing the , preparation of plans and specifications for trunk utility improvements in Section 10NW and 9NE, Project 92 -5 until the next City Council meeting December 14, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 Terry Forbord: May I say one more thing? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. ' Terry Forbord: I think what...prepare for the City Council for the next meeting. Just so you know. The preliminary analysis of this, just on the development of the Lundgren portion of this project alone will service the debt on the bonds for the sale of the project. So I mean just with a minimal absorption rate will be servicing the debt just from our project. And that's from the preliminary analysis that we've done and I know the City's Springsted can easily prepare a performa for you. A spread sheet showing how all of that would work, if that's what the Council would like to see. Because they've already told me they could do that. In case that was a question. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll let you know back on it. Thank you. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR EXTENSION OF UTILITIES TO GATEWAY WEST BUSINESS PARK. PROJECT 92 -17. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Gateway Partnership, in kind ' of a joint venture with Opus Corporation, have prepared some preliminary concept plans and are interested in developing the 160 acre parcel of land located in the southeast quadrant of Trunk Highway 5 and Trunk Highway 41. The southwest portion of this property was one of the four areas in Chanhassen identified as potentially being served by gravity sewer flow to Chaska. In fact a Joint Powers Agreement for this flow was drafted as an addendum to the Interim Chaska Flow Diversion through Chanhassen. The Agreement which was approved in cooperation with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission earlier this summer. Phase 2 of the Upper Bluff Creek project is intended to serve the entire property for development by Opus and Gateway, but these improvements are likely to be a number of years down the road. Therefore it may be more feasible to serve, at least this first initial phase of the Opus development from Chaska. 11 I've contacted our consultant and received an estimate.to prepare this feasibility study which is estimated to cost $2,100.00 and it is therefore recommended that authorization be given to prepare the feasibility report for this extension of utilities to the Gateway Business Park Addition, Project No. 92 -17 conditioned upon the City receiving and the City of Chaska executing the Joint Utility Service Agreement and that the developer, Gateway Partnership and 1 17 1 City Council Meeting - P ob'er 26, 1992 ...... • II � h T PUBLIC HEARING: TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN SECTION 1ONW AND 9NE, AUTHORIZE ?' ,�\ PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT 92 -5. j Public Present: II Name Address Charles & Irene Song 7200 Gaipin Blvd. I Karen Weathers Tom Turcotte 7235 Hazeltine Blvd. 6430 City West Parkway $5314, Eden Prairie Don Patton Rottlund Homes II Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros. Michael Klingelhutz 8601 Great Plains Blvd. David Stockdale 7210 Gaipin Blvd. 1 Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. At your regular meeting on Monday, September 28th you received the feasibility study for the trunk sanitary II sewer and watermain improvements in Section 10 and Section 9 which was initiated by the Lundgren Bros. Development of a proposed Oolejsi/Johnson property. During this interim before the public hearing, staff and the project engineer held a neighborhood meeting for all the properties in the defined service area 1 and adjacent to the project to discuss associated project elements with effected property owners. The neighborhood meeting was well attended and a good deal of discussion. As are typical to projects of this type, some of the main concerns raised by property owners involved, the initial assessment to large lot, hobby acre type farmsteads and properties that do not intend to develop at this time. The rationale used for determining the assessment methodology and factors 1 involved in determining the alignment and any necessary easements involved in the project. During this interim period staff has also been notified by Rottlund Homes that they have secured a purchase option for the 17 acre parcel east of Gaipin Blvd currently owned by Mr. Michael Klingelhutz. Therefore an I addendum has been prepared to this feasibility study which outlines the additional work and scope of project which would need to be undertaken to provide utilities to this property. As well as incorporating relevant 1 discussions from the neighborhood meeting. This addendum also addresses revised cost estimates and provides revised preliminary initial and ultimate assessment roles for the project. At this time I'd like to introduce the project engineer, II Phil Gravel from Bonestroo who is here to give a presentation on the feasibility study tonight. Phil Gravel: As Charles mentioned, this is a public hearing intended to discuss II the merits of this project and the feasibility and how it relates to the city's future planning. What I'd like to do first is go over a bit on the preliminary layout...sewer and water utility and then discuss the assessments. I've brought 1 along some handouts that effected people might be interested in. I think I've given them out to as any of you as I recognize. But if you haven't, there's some here in the corner that you might want to. Briefly, the project consists of water and storm sewer improvements. First of all the sanitary sewer 1 improvements proposed consist of the construction of a lift station, a forcemain to force the effulent from the lift station to the gravity sanitary sewer whit will follow an alignment similar to this and connect onto the existing Lake Ann II Interceptor. This entire system will service this area bounded by this green 9 Ir 1 . City'Council Meeting - Octc • 26, 1992 .•� line and that is the area that is proposed to be assessed. The alignment for , this is preliminary in nature at this time and based on the topography and sharing lot lines where we could and also in this area here based on potential street alignments for that property. The internal piping for the Lundgren development will bring the sewer from this development into the lift station. In addition, some of this other property on the west side of Gaipin would also go to the lift station. The property on the east side of Gaipin and some of this property here would come down into this gravity sewer directly and not to the lift station. The watermain improvements, this particular drawing includes the improvements that we added as a part of your addendum. So if you're looking at your drawings and figures, it's labeled Figure 3 -A, not 3. The watermain improvements include extending the larger trunk watermain through the proposed development east /west near to Gaipin Blvd and connected onto the existing watermain...and also we're proposing to extend a 24 inch diameter watermain down Gaipin and in addition a 12 inch trunk watermain through the Michael Klingelhutz property that's proposed to be developed by Rottlund. This 24 inch is part of a major and 16 inch also part of the overall trunk system... Assessment wise, there are 4 major areas of assessment proposed. There's a subtrunk sanitary 1 sewer charge. There's a trunk area water charge...and then there's an additional lateral benefit for sewer and water charges. The figure up here indicates the charge for the proposed assessments associated with the sanitary sewer. The area in orange is the area like I mentioned previously that is served by the subtrunk sewer that would be proposed to be assessed a subtrunk area charge of approximately 5659.00 per unit. In addition, where we have • lateral benefits from gravity sewer, we propose a lateral benefit assessment. That's an assessment equivalent to the 8 inch later sewer through this property. ...watermain there's trunk area assessments and lateral benefit assessments. Now here the area bounded by this orange line is the area that's proposed to ' receive trunk area assessment charges. Not all areas have watermains directly adjacent to their property but this is the extent of the City's trunk water system that is to be constructed in this area ever so at this time is proposed to assess these areas the trunk watermain assessment. In addition there's the lateral benefit assessment for these two areas. The areas adjacent to either side of the trunk watermain. Again this assessment would be the equivalent 8 inch diameter watermain... There were a couple other things that came up at our neighborhood meeting that I'd like to address. One is with the sanitary sewer area assessment charge. One of the residents was concerned that people on the east side of Gaipin and some of this area that wouldn't directly flow into the lift station but was included in the area assessment charge. The questions came up whether or not they were being charged more to compensate for the cost of this lift station. What we did was make a rough calculation of what the cost would be for these people if the lift station wasn't involved and in fact the area assessments would be slightly higher if that were the case... I think Charles has a few other comments on some of the proposed assessment... Charles Folch: Thank you Phil.' As it relates to assessments, it's been the city's position in the past on similar projects not to unduly burden large lot hobby farm type property owners, size 10 acres or less with a significant financial assessment when these properties, at least at this point in time have no intention of developing. So consistent with this policy, the assessment role, the preliminary assessment role that's presented before you with this report incorporates that methodology whereby properties, large lot hobby farm type of 10 acres or less would be proposed for one unit of trunk assessment at 10 1 City Council Meeting - 'lct 26, 1992 °~ this point in time. Other larger type properties which are currently have no intention of developing, would be proposed to be assessed one unit of trunk III assessment for every 10 acre increment of land area. In the future, any of these properties should develop, the further assessments or further trunk charges would be collected at the time that the building permits are applied for. The revised ultimate'and initial assessment schedules incorporate this. In comparing the estimated project cost to the initial assessment revenue 11 schedule, it's apparent that there's an initial shortfall. This is due in part to the assessment methodology incorporating the one unit per 10 acre. And also due to in large part to properties that are currently under green acre status I whereby the assessments, any assessment levied would be deferred until the use changed. There are some properties in the service area that if development were to occur on those properties, they're large enough that they certainly would have an impact on this assessment revenue and potentially make the initial II assessment revenue balance a little bit better. From our discussions with property owners and private developers that we've been contacted, it appears that there is quite a bit of interest in this area to develop property. It kind II of becomes a chicken and the egg situation here with a project such as this. If you build it, a lot of times they will come. Properties that are maybe sitting on the fence. Deciding whether they should develop or not develop at this point II in time. If a project such as this is on the table, on the schedule, oftentimes development will occur. At this time as I mentioned, the initial assessment schedule would produce a shortfall. It would be staff's recommendation at this time that pending a successful completion of this public hearing, that I authorization be given to prepare the plans and specifications for this project over the wintertime. What that would do is allow any other potential development that's sitting on the fence to maybe come forward if they know a II project is eminent and we can make a re- evaluation next spring as to what properties are really on the go. At that point in time we can make, the Council would have the opportunity to make a decision whether to proceed with the project or not. I don't think going ahead with plans hurts us in any way 1 because I believe the system that's being laid out here would be the ultimate for the area and doing the plans now or doing them a few years down the road I don't think makes too much of a difference. So we wouldn't be putting ourselves II in a bad position by doing so. But that's at the discretion of Council. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Charles. Are the developers here wishing to II address this at this particular time? Terry Forbord: Not at this time. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to address this? Yes sir. Please come forward and please state your name and your address. II Charles Song: My name is Charles Song. My wife and myself own a very large piece of land over there and this is the first time I was given this...and it looks to me that we have probably one of the largest, being assessed the largest II amounts. At this point in time we are not ready to develop our land yet and probably a large chunk of land will never be developed. We have a discussion going with Mr. .Jerome Carlson that we are probably going to save a large portion of this land so that, especially the northern part of the land will not be II developed at all. So I would want to...because when this was discussed, we were II 11 II City Council Meeting - Oc" er 26, 1992 �' 1 probably out of the country and we didn't get a chance to attend any of the town's meetings. So that's what I just wanted to say. Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. 11! Councilman Wing: Can I just clarify that number? Even though these are showing the high numbers, if the Council followed it's normal routine, he'd only be assessed one. Is that correct Charles? Where did this big number come from? 1 Charles Folch: Well actually the Song property is actually one of the critical properties to moving forward with this project. Really the 3 properties are the Lundgren, the Klingelhutz and the Song property. Those are the critical properties in getting this project to move forward. The assessment schedule that's shown actually shows the need to have that property be on the development mode. Councilman Wing: Even though he doesn't want to develop. Doesn't want to sell it. He'd be charged for the Lundgren? 1 Charles Folch: Well that testimony that's given tonight I guess is the first time I've heard information on it. We have, staff has been notified by one or more developers that they have been talking to the Song's about potentially developing. Staff had no indication at this point, until tonight as to whether there was any decision made as to whether to move forward or not move forward with developing of the properties. So this is new information received by us tonight. Mayor Chmiel: They basically are in opposition to it, as indicated. 1 Councilman Wing: Okay, I guess I'm missing this. The non - developing, where did this 10 acre thing come from? One unit, one assessment per 10 acres so regardless of how big a property Mr. Song had. 1 Charles Folch: For properties that were not intending to develop, okay. It's well know, staff had made was well known that Lundgren Bros. not only was developing the Dolejsi property but was in contact with the Song's to potentially try to work out some development situation with the Song's but we, again had no further information as to whether the progress was moving along or not. Phil Gravel: That second scenario that you see there, the Song property and the 11 Lundgren property and the Klingelhutz property were excluded from that 10 acre. So those three parcels are properties... Councilman Wing: I bet those folks have something to say tonight. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there anyone else? Karen Weathers: My name is Karen Weathers and I'll speak to some of the small property owners. We only have 5 acres so we sit under this new assessment which is very positive on our part and hopefully lines up with our expectation based on what you've done in the past. Some of our neighbors though do have 20 acres and are in a similar situation though to us where it's only one dwelling and no 12 1 II City Council Meeting - '-tober 26, 1992 � - intention to develop so I still don't know if that's still quite right. The only other comment is, I think that the neighborhood meeting was well attended but I know we didn't receive notice until the day of the meeting so that's another problem. But anyway, at least from our point of view, it's going the right direction and we appreciate that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else? Tom Turcotte: Hi. I'm Tom Turcotte. 7240 Galpin Blvd.. We've got the new house going up out there. It's this brown kind of shack on the left side. We have some difficulties with I guess the assessments that are going on. We got ' our building permit September 1st. We were assessed the $850.00 for the Lake Ann Interceptor. On Appendix 8, we're going to be assessed $659.00 for the sewer, $1,275.00 for the watermain. We just spent $4,000.00 for a well 2 weeks 1 ago and within the next couple weeks we'll spend $6,000.00 to $8,000.00 for a mound system. It's getting real difficult to swallow constant assessments when we're told we'll never have to hook up to city water or city sewer. But the sewer forcemain is going right next to our property. It's within 10 feet of our well as planned. So my concern is, when will the assessments quit? It's making it real difficult to continue the construction out there. That's almost *3,000.00 and we can use nothing. So if you happen to drive by, take a look and give consideration for those trying to start a residence out here. Mayor Chmiel: What was your address again? Tom Turcotte: 7240. Number 11 on your figures. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Thank you. In other words you're saying you're in opposition to what's being proposed? Tom Turcotte: Politely. Mayor Chmiel: I'm just trying to keep count here. Is there anyone else? Don Patton: Mr. Mayor and Council. My name is Don Patton. I was asked to represent Rottlund tonight. We're requesting that the sewer and water be used to service the Klingelhutz property which they do have an agreement to purchase. Mayor Chmiel: Is that a purchase agreement or is an option? It means two different things to me. Don Patton: It is an option subject to the sewer and water, right. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? If seeing none, did you wish to say something at this time? Terry. ' Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, my name is Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros. As o yu all know I've been before you for a couple years. 2 to 3 years possibly on this proposed development that we'll be discussing later on this evening. These issues are a difficult choice to any City Council. In any city, anywhere in the United States. There is no simple way that one can deal with growth in a community like Chanhassen and I know each one of you already know that because every week you're here dealing with something, one way or the other. And 11 13 1 City Council Meeting - Oct er 1992 1 there's no perfect formula for how do you spread the cost to everybody that may benefit. If I knew that answer I would certainly bring it forth to you this evening and to any other City Council that I appear before. It's a constant dilemma on how do you solve a problem. How do you provide growth opportunities within a community. You've taken the initial steps and approved your comprehensive plan within the last 18 to 24 months. The next step that one needs to do is to put some pipe in the ground so development can occur. Unfortunately, because it's' an imperfect world, development never, ever continues contiguous to one another. It just doesn't happen because there are always, inevitably will be somebody who's not prepared at that particular time to sell. Or they may choose to sell at a later time and so typically what you classically see, and it's not just exclusive to Chanhassen. It happens everywhere. Is you'll see some development occur here and you'll see some occur here. But it's always after that the pipe is put into the ground. We support the project as it is proposed and we ask for your decisions to go ahead and order the plans and specs. Obviously there's some things that may need to be discussed further between staff and some of the people who are effected by these assessments. But by ordering the plans and specs, at least the work is underway. And ordering the project later on after the plans and specs have been completed. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? If not I'd like to bring it back to r Council. Or Mr. Song, did you wish to say something. Charles Song: I don't know what Lundgren Bros. means by order the project to go ahead. Obviously as I say before, that we are not ready to develop our land and we have never agreed to selling our land to anybody. And so that at least our part, if they want to develop, has to be excluded. 1a` Councilman Mason: Would it be appropriate to ask Mr. Song a question at this point? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Mason: You talked about setting something up with Jerome Carlson. Are you at liberty to talk about that at all right now? I mean setting land aside for a nature conservancy or something like that. Charles Song: The idea about what we are talking about? 1 Councilman Mason: Right. Charles Song: Yeah. Mainly because Jerome want to have that area left as a very nice natural area and good scenery and he has been discussing with us for incorporating our land and to make around an undeveloped area. I guess maybe sometime in the future part of'that, our house might be developed but a large part of the area probably will be left that way. But that of course has not been decided yet but it's an ongoing discussions. Councilman Mason: Okay, good. Thank you. Terry Forbord: Can I just clarify something? 1 14 City Council Meeting - _October 26, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead. Terry Forbord: I have not had the opportunity to see either Mr. or Mrs. Song for quite some time and for the record I want to make sure it's clear to the City Council but more importantly clear to Mr. and Mrs. Song. I have not represented to the City, to the Planning Commission or to the Council or anyone that we have acquired the Song property. We have talked to them about that occasionally over the last couple years. But if for any reason anybody has gotten the wind or the drift that we have acquired their property, they did not hear that from me and they did not hear it from anybody else at Lundgren Bros. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this at this time? As I said, this is a public hearing. If not, I would request that we close the public hearing. Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Ursula, why don't I start with you. Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. I guess I want to ask first of all, who pays for the plans and specifications? Charles. And how much do you think that will run for the normal? ' Charles Folch: Basically that's a project cost that eventually will be recouped if a project is ordered. It's recouped through the assessments. At this point in time, from the feasibility study, do you have an approximately ballpark 1 1 number as to what the costs would be to prepare the plans and specs Phil? Phil Gravel: Based on the feasibility report, it would be in the $6,000.00 to $7,000.00 range... Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and who's paying for this up front? Is it the City? Charles Folch: Typically the City, right. Upfronts the cost and is recovered through the assessments. Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. And then also, do you have an estimate on the, what does it cost the City or who pays the assessment during the time that some of these are deferred? Is that a cost to the City as well? Do we have to bond for that? Charles Folch: We do intend to bond for the project and basically what we would hope to do with the project such as this is be able to levy enough of an assessments to be able to,pay, make the bond payment and the interest on an annual basis so that there's no initial deficit if you will on the city's part. As I mentioned from my report, initial indications are that we would run into a deficit. Initial deficit. • Councilwoman Dimler: And could you explain to me the difference, you had some I! initial and then the ultimate. I mean why do we come up with this? 1 15 1 City Council Meeting - Octr'er 26, 1992 11 Charles Folch: The initial's to show at the start of the project with the properties, property or potential properties that might be ready to develop. What we could expect to see from an assessment. Initial assessment revenue. Ultimate condition basically assumes that when properties are fully developed in the defined service area, how many units, how much assessment basically revenue can we expect to generate from the project. That's why we show the initial and the ultimate type conditions. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but you're not giving a span of years there? 1 Charles Folch: No. Basically it could occur over 5, 10, 15, 20 years. Councilwoman Dimler: And then I just have one more question and that is that I 11 would like their opinion and your estimation if this is the best physical proposal that We can come up with. Could it be done cheaper? Could it be done more ecologically sound or is this the best package that we could hope to have? Charles Folch: Based on the information we've been working with to date, this is our best alignment. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And is it a leap -frog development? Are we skipping some areas to get to this one? 1 Charles Folch: Leap- frogging, dead - heading. We are going by properties to get to this potential development. That's not uncommon but it is the case. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Do you want me to comment later or? Mayor Chmiel: Well, why don't we just ask the questions now and then we'll ask IF for your comments. Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Richard, do you have any questions? Councilman Wing: No. Ursula I think hit the numbers that I was interested in. ' I just have a couple comments. Mayor Chmiel: Thomas. 1 Councilman Workman: Charles, how does the Song property ultimately effect Lundgren Bros' property then depending on the decision they make? 1 Charles Folch: Actually two fold. From an assessment standpoint, it's a very key and important role. Also from a utility standpoint, the proposed alignment for the sewer would go through -a portion of the Song's property as would a potential, well as would a potential future road extension from the Lundgren property back towards the east. Towards Galpin Boulevard. So easements would need to be acquired from the Song's in order to put that utility line to get it to the Lundgren development. Councilman Workman: Okay, so are the Song's going to say no. We're not going to let you on. Then maybe we need to look at Roger and say then what do we have? 16 1 1 City Council Meeting - �ctiiber 26, 1992 II i Roger Knutson: You've got an...case. Councilman Workman: Okay, increased cost. II i t Mayor Chmiel: If we so choose. Councilman Workman: Is this a deal buster? - II Don Ashworth: First of all, I don't think that you should take any final action this evening. We should have an opportunity to review what options are available to you. A lot of the discussion is concentrated in the area of, has II there been an ownership agreement reached or not. Or purchase agreement. In my mind that's not the critical issue. The critical issue is, are we ready to move ahead with placing lateral assessments against the benefitting properties. 11 There are properties in the overall service area that may not receive lateral service for the next 2, 5, 10 years and some of the policies as they may deal with a 1 in 10 acre type of thing is not really critical to this project. What I is critical is whether or not the lateral assessments will go on each of the benefitting properties. And when we did the, let's say the East Lotus Lake sewer and water project. We ran sewer and water all the way around Lotus Lake. It was primarily to pick up failing septic systems but also to allow development . I but in that process we did not say to Mel and Frank Kurver, you have to sell to somebody. They kept the property. It was a large assessment that went against that property and it was their decision that they wanted to hold it or speculate I for a period of time. There were a lot of those, including the Near Mountain property which was vacant at that point in time. A large assessment. I don't know that the issue is really one that we should play a role in terms of saying, It Song's should or shouldn't sell. I don't think that that's our position. At ' issue is, are we ready to move ahead with the lateral assessments to all the property owners who are going to benefit from that lateral assessment. And I don't think we're going to be in a position this evening to answer that question II or to give you a choice. Yes, the Song's recognize that by having the sewer there they could develop at a future point in time and therefore they're willing to see it go forward. Or no, they don't want to and they'll fight it and II potentially that means, well that would put you then into a position of saying yes, we're going to go ahead and do the project anyway. Put the assessments on. Or no, we're not going to consider any further the Near Mountain development. I II mean this project will just have to wait it's time. Those are some of the potential choices you might face in 2 weeks. Councilman Workman: And that puts a project that may be to the west of another II large parcel like in this situation where that property owner would be forced to wait longer than somebody else simply because they had somebody between them. A large property owner inbetween them who's not interested in developing, right. 5o I mean there's two sides to this thing. Don Ashworth: And again, going back 20 years. These have always been tough issues. Martin Ward did not want to see sewer and water going through his II property. Yet unless the Council made a decision, yes. We're going to put it in and yes, we're going to assess it, the business park never would have happened because the sewer had to go through Martin Ward's property to gain II access. The same way with, I don't know of any project that's gone forward. I agree with Terry's position. You're not going to get 10 owners all coming in at II 17 1 City Council Meeting - Oct�'"'r 26 1992 1 exactly the same time saying yes, do my project. One of them I feel sorry for, 1 the young couple here that have gone ahead with their home. Mound system and what not and if for whatever reason it would have occurred 6 or 12 months later, they never would have had to put in the mound. They never would have had to put in their own well. We deny this project at this point in time and there will be 5 more younger couples sitting out there doing the same type of thing. Councilman Workman: I'm I guess, we may as well not be talking a whole lot more 1 about it if we're going to go into further discussions and just proceed to hold over the public hearing and invite all these good folks back. Mayor Chmiel: Find out where you're really at. Michael. Councilman Mason: Just a couple of quick comments because it looks like it will be held over. I think yeah, some really major issues are being raised here and well, I had a bunch of stuff to say but it sounds like I might, I too am concerned. If somebody doesn't want to develop, are we in a position of pushing development further out? I don't know. I'm not personally prepared for the city to spend $70,000.00 on a feasibility study knowing that we might have to take the bite out. I couldn't do it. But that may not even be the case so I do think there are some questions. I've had 2 or 3 people from the area contact me 1 and questioning whether, who should be paying for the lift station and whether it should be a gravity forcemain or not and I don't know the answers to that and I'm concerned that there's still those concerns out there. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Those concerns too within the next 2 weeks could be addressed by having discussions with the engineering department and having some conclusions come up with this as well. As we all know, assessments are probably the hardest thing for us to do and judge but I too have some questions that I I! have to have answered as well and I just want to make sure that the decision that we're going to do is going to be the best for everyone involved. Ursula. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I just have one comment. I don't want to leave anyone with the impression here that it's the City that's forcing this. You know we're not asking for this. It's Lundgren Bros. Development that's asking for this. And so as far as I'm concerned, I'm not in any rush from a city standpoint to leapfrog development and do, but anyway we'll have those questions answered and make our decision from those. 1 Councilman Wing: Don, one thing I'd like to have clear when this comes back and that's the issue of the assessing. The previous ones, we've all agreed unanimously to assess one unit per owner until such time as it's developed. If that's the case, it appears to me we're going to have a considerable shortfall and that's the only thing I would support. I don't want to encourage a loss of green acres and I don't want to encourage development regardless of where it's going. I don't want to go charging cross country with sewer and water lines to feed a project, which I think is a good project. And I think Terry's right. Things just don't develop block by block necessarily but in the process I don't want to have to pay for it. I guess my question is, if we're going to go one per unit or one per 10 acres, whatever the case was, how will that then affect this process and will I in fact have to pay as in general revenues for this bonding to go cross country with sewer and water? That's going to get difficult. 18 1 1 il . City Council Meeting 'ctober 26, 1992 i Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Bonding is the thing that I get a little concerned with as II well. Because of our bonding liabilities that we have with the city presently, I'd like us to look at some of those things too. So it doesn't effect our overall bond ratings as we have been so aware of. Trying to get better rates on our money when we go out to get dollars. That's one of the things that have been brought up that we should watch closely. So with that, no other discussion is going to be done, or motion's going to be made and we'd like to table this to 1 the next Council meeting. Within a 2 week period. Can I have a motion to table this public hearing until our next Council meeting? Councilwoman Disler: So moved. ; Councilman Wing: Second. 1 Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the public hearing on the Trunk Utility Improvements in Section 10NW and 9NE. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. II Don Ashworth: Do you anticipate a problem in being able to meet with the owners and potentially get back in two weeks or are we being overly ambitious? I mean III the reports would have to be written within one week. Charles Folch: I guess is the intent of the delay to offer staff another opportunity to meet with neighbors or is it to allow an opportunity and /or to meet with Council? Mayor Chmiel: I guess both. 1 Charles Folch: I guess I'm not real clear. What answers are we looking for here? II Don Ashworth: I think probably one of the key players would be the Song's. So that they understood which of the choices we would be coming back to City II Council and I think also with Terry so that he was aware of the importance of that decision as well. Charles Folch: Probably 2 weeks would be pushing it, I'm guessing. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So you're saying within a month would give you a little more time? 1 Charles Folch: Certainly.' I think to allow us the opportunity to meet with people again and with yourselves. It probably is, really if it's put on the II next Council agenda, we really have one week because the next week, the reports have to be prepared so really it's. Mayor Chmiel: Then maybe what we could do is just rescind that motion. If the II motionee and the second agreed. To rather include it within the two week period to have it extended for a month. 19 1 • City Council Meeting - Oc er 26, 1992 Councilwoman Dimler: That's fine. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Does the second also agree? jii Councilman Wing: Yes. Don Ashworth: So that would be the second meeting in November? Charles Folch: 23rd. Don Ashworth: November 23rd. Are you sure we stayed on that schedule? That is correct? Jo Ann Olsen: It's the week of Thanksgiving. Don Ashworth: See I think we moved, in November we moved up to the first Monday. First and third Mondays. Mayor Chmiel: Yes we did. That's correct. 1 Councilman Mason: No. November 2nd's a budget session hearing though. Mayor Chmiel: No, but the first and third I think is what November is scheduled at. Don Ashworth: Todd Gerhardt is running upstairs. If the folks would wait just one moment, we'll figure out when our meetings in November are. Mayor Chmiel: In the meantime, does anyone have a good joke? Yeah Terry. Terry Forbord: I don't have any good jokes but I would just like to make sure that and clarify a couple things. First of all, Lundgren Bros was the initiater of this, as you all know and the reason we were the initiater because oftentimes, not just in Chanhassen but we're out 2 -3 years ahead trying to plan because as you know, it takes that long to get approvals nowadays. If we could do it and wait until the last minute, we certainly would. If we wouldn't have been in here, Rottlund would have been in here. We just happened to be the first one in the door and if Rottlund wasn't here, in a very short period of time, somebody else will be before you. So I ask you, please don't shoot the • messenger. Councilman Mason: Just a couple of pot shots. 1 Terry Forbord: And we'd be happy to meet with the Council or the staff or any of the landowners for that matter, as we always do, to try to figure out a way because we don't want the City'to be in a situation where their bonding is being jeopardized either. We have had some preliminary meetings with staff to address those issues and the plan is hopefully that the payments that are coming in generated by the development will make those payments on the bonds. Mayor Chmiel: My concern for the bonding, as we had gone out just this past year. We got a better bond rating but they're telling us to be very careful with what we're doing. When we go out for a bonding of $5 million, the city 20 I City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 saves $50,000.00 and to me that's a lot of savings for the city. And I don't want to jeopardize that portion of it. If I can improve our bond rating, I'm also going to try that too. Terry Forbord: Sure. We concur with that philosophy. Thank you. II Mayor Chmiel: That meeting will be November 23rd. Just prior to Thanksgiving. II AWARD OF BIDS -1992 BOND SALE: (A) *3,630,000. G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS. SERIES 1992A. (B) $1.350.000. G.O. TAX INCREMENT BONDS. SERIES 19928. II Don Ashworth: Dave MacGiliivray from Springsted had anticipated to be p resent this evening. Dave was called out of town and will not be here. Rusty Fifield ,1 is here from Springsted to present the results of the bids. (The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) II Rusty Fifield: To refresh your memory, you're here to consider the sale of two bond issues. $3,630,000.00 general obligation improvement bonds, Series 1992A and the $1,350,000.00 general obligation tax increment bond, Series 1992B. This II afternoon at 1:00 we received bids for both issues on your behalf. You have bid tabulations in front of you. We received only one bid per issue on this bond sale. And I could explain some of the circumstances that surround it in a moment. The low bid in both cases was submitted by a bidding group headed by `. First Bank Investment Services, Norwest Investment Services, Merrill Lynch and I Company, and Piper Jaffray. The bidding syndicates also include Cronin and Company, American National Bank of St. Paul, Doherty - Dockens, Morjahran, Ili Peterson Financial, and Park Investment. Those represent the better part of the investment banking community in the Minneapolis -St. Paul area. So to say - that there was as single bid is a little misleading. There was a lot of I/ representation in the investment banking community in this particular bidding syndicate. Bond market has been very volatile over the last several weeks. The bond buyers index has risen..significantly the month of October. There's II been a tremendous amount-of bond volume_whicb:has.caused part of the problem that you're seeing in front of you :_ :The other part- .of :jt by some cold feet going into the election and some =uncertainty - just exactly :where market II conditions are going to be after the election so being just one week away from the election, we're finding that institutions :Ali of these bonds to the best of-our knowledge are _ being -of-fered_at.r-etail and there :was absolutely no Chicago bidder interest in the marketplace today.. We a -bid II lined up from Kemper and they justrprior to.the The low bid for the improvement bonds was at 6.096% which compares to 5.4% when we had the recommendations. For the tax increment.bonds, - was 5.71 % to 4.95%. 11 Just as a benchmark, these are very similar rates to what you saw last year. Last October when you sold 'bonds. I:included.with the bid tabulations a graph that shows trends in the bond buyers 20 since 1985 and if draw a line across from where the bond buyers peaked in 1992,.you will still II find that the bond buyers comparable -since 1985. So these are, while rates beyond where we -the market was when you set the sale, these are still very interest rates. 'I'd be -happy to answer II any questions that you might have. The appropriate action to accept the low bid II 21 -