2n Minutes ''
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 10, 1990
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilman Wing,
' Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Todd Gerhardt, Paul Krauss, Roger
Knutson, Scott Harr, Todd Hoffman, Jean Meuwissen, and Tom Chaffee
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the agenda amended to include the following under Council Presentations:
' Mayor Chmiel added an item and Councilman Workman wanted to discuss the dead
pine trees along Kerber Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE 1991 BUDGET.
Public Present:
Name Address
Pat Driscoll 691 Bighorn Drive
Earl Bergstrom 7493 Saratoga Circle
George P. Shorba 306 Chan View
Peter B. Kurth 1040 Lake Susan Hilis Drive
Jim Pehringer 1010 Lake Susan Hilis Drive
Marilyn Larson 7380 Minnewashta Parkway
Dave Demmer 417 Santa Fe Trail
Gene Gagner 8025 Dakota Avenue
' Mike Mason 833 Woodhill
James Bixler 7038 Red Cedar Cove
Warren Rietz 7058 Red Cedar Cove
Hal & Kathy Dahl 6631 Horseshoe Curve
Richard Herrboldt 6464 Murray Hill Road
Dick Mingo 7601 Great Plains Blvd.
Richard Larson 8141 Pinewood Circle
James R. Roehl 1735 Medina Road, Long Lake
Mel Kurvers 7240 Kurvers Point Road
Scott R. 661 Sierra Trail
John Spiess 6610 Arlington Court
Bob MacFarlane 201 ChanView
Jim Jason 7301 Minnewashta Parkway
' Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Don Ashworth: City Council has had a number of work sessions to look at the
' proposed 1991 budget. At the current point in time we are looking to an
approximate 13% increase in general property taxes as a part of that budget. As
Council may recall, we started the process with approximately $550,000.00 short
of what would be needed to fund all programs. Through a combination of
1 1
1
, City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
•
reduction in expenditures and, primarily a reduction in expenditures, we've been
able to reduce that to a level of approximately $52,000.00. I would anticipate
that most of the discussion this evening center on how we can solve that
' $52,000.00 problem. I have made various attempts to look at how we might do
that. Some of those I am not too happy with in terms of potentially delaying
the start of a street maintenance man. That would save approximately
$13,000.00.
' Councilman Johnson: 16.
' Don Ashworth: $16,000.00. The biggest work load in the street area hits into
the spring timeframe and really the latest that I would recommend that we start
that individual would be spring so the savings there could be $8,000.00. I've
outlined various potential areas within the Fire Department. Again I feel that
making those cuts could be devastating in terms of that, we've done the budget
down to such a lean area that if there is any type of errors or problems this
next year, we don't really have a place to go back to to try to correct any
' other type of deficiencies that may come up this next year. Accordingly, I
would hope that the Council would look to leaving the 13% property tax in place.
It should be stated that the community is looking to an overall tax base
' increase of approximately 15% so when we're looking or when we're stating 13%
increase in expenses, that should still relate to an approximately 2% reduction
in property taxes for our taxpayers. If we're able to find the $52,000.00
problem in some other area, we could look to a potential decrease of
' approximately 4 %. For people who are interested in the overall numbers
associated with the budget there is a handout. I should have started that out.
Started out stating that, on the podium in the rear. This is a public hearing.
It's opportunity for citizens to give their comments regarding the 1991 budget.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? May I suggest that Don mentions the truth in
taxation statements that were sent out and as I called it in other meetings, the
II untruth in taxation statements that were sent out and why it said 19% and now
we're actually looking at decreasing of 2% to 4% tonight.
Don Ashworth: Sure. That is correct. The State did mandate that all cities
send to each of the homeowners a truth in taxation notice. That does show 19%
increase. That 19% is a number that was created by the State. It represents
' the overall levy limits of our city. This city has never levied to the maximum
allowed under our levy limits. We're not considering that currently. Part of
what we were required top publish that amount, if we published anything other
than that amount, we would be subject to that lower level in all future years.
In addition the City could not put into the notice any estimates as to the
overall growth that we have looked to in the community. I think any of us
driving around the community have seen the number of new homes that we have,
businesses, etc.. We are literally virtually assured that there is a 15%
increase in the overall value within the community. In other words, our tax
base has risen by that amount. We were not allowed under State law to disclose
that fact to you. I think that it's really a shame because in fact we are
talking about a tax decrease, not a tax increase.
Mayor Chmiel: Now if that is perfectly clear to everyone.
Councilman Johnson: Except for the State legislature.
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990 •
Mayor Chmiel: We'll open this up and is there anyone that would like to address 11
this at this particular time, please come forward. State your name and your
address. 1
Jim Bixler: Jim Bixler, Red Cedar Cove. I don't know. This is the third
meeting I've.attended. County, School Board and you're the last on the.list.
It seems like every time we attend these meetings, or I've attended these
meetings, some one jumps up and drapes a cape over the tax situation. Pulls it
off and it's somebody elses problem. It still boils down to it's our problem.
I'm happy to hear that this Council and you as manager, City Manager, have at
least taken into consideration the plight of the homeowners in this area and
have looked at a decrease. I don't believe you though. And until we start
seeing at least the easing of our property taxes, our school taxes and our
county taxes, I think if you took a vote or at least a show of hands of the
people that are here. Not only the 19.1 that showed here as far as the
Excelsior people, or I'm sorry the Chanhassen percentage. Tack that onto the
16.1 the school district level and we are in the Minnetonka School District.
Plus the 16% or whatever it is that the County is putting on and then going over
there and finding out well, it's not really 16, it's on 10.8. Well that's
really a 7.4 and all this hocus pocus that goes on. At some point all this
growth that you're achieving here in the fine city of Chanhassen is going to be,
gee I wonder where they went because there is a gentleman here that isn't here
this evening who is going to be here in a short time and I hope this public
hearing is still open, who's going to have to move after one year of being in
his home. Now at some point, and I think it's at this level, I still don't
know. I'm frustrated to the point where I'm looking at my Council members, my
school board members, the County board, the State legislature and I would like
to see any representative at the State level stand up and show his face or her
face here this evening which is the third meeting I've attended that nobody from
the State has been at. Representatives or so forth. Senators or whatever. And
then finally the federal level. In 1990, late '90 and '91 I hope a grass roots
organization starts in this country where all of a sudden the politicians
regardless of the level that they're at, realize that they are employees of
everyone of us in this room whether we happen to be working for the
establishment or living in it or under it. Our three tier taxing system is,
it's a joke because everytime you tell us that nothings going up, our homes are
re- evaluated or they change the taxing from market value to appraised value or
whatever the heck that little hocus pocus was. We go from a 1% to a 2% to a 3%.
Nobody says a thing do they? Well it's going to happen and as elected officials
yet employees of us, the people in this community, I think you have a moral
obligation to number one, stay within the guidelines of the taxing geared to the
growth of the entire economy and I don't think there's anyone in this room that
would stand up. I'd like to ask for, a show of hands of people who are satisfied
and have come here tonight regarding taxes and just say hey, that's really
great. You guys are doing a great job. I think you are kind of doing a great
job for the most part. After talking to some other people in other communities,
I have found out what some of the other tax increases in some of the other
surrounding areas. They are certainly within the guidelines of what we're
looking for but I was kind of appalled last, what was it Tuesday night? We went
to the County meeting and the commissioners over there asked for a certain pet
project. Whether it's a new pothole manager or whatever it is, I don't know
what he is. But they thought that was very important for the County to fund,
and I agree. It is an important consideration for the County but not at a 17%
3
1
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
or 18% increase as they projected. People in this room are not asking to give
up a lot. All we're asking is that you do not, or that you do take into
consideration what we have to live with. Now I run my own business. I'm in the
retail food business. I manufacture a product. If I raise the price of that
product for whatever reason, being it salaries, materials, I justify that on the
end user site. It costs me more to transport that product, everyone of you and
everyone in this room are paying for that product. For that increase in some
way. I would like you to tell us how do you justify an increase at this level?
How do you get more production out of the people that are working? How do you
' hold back from that other position? How was it done before? Can we get by with
doing it before? I'm sure all those were considerations when you were looking
at this budget. But you have an opportunity, each and every one of you have an
opportunity to say Chanhassen is going to lead the way in terms of staying
within a growth that our citizens can put up with. Because I'll tell you right
now, if I pay more taxes, I'm going to give less to my church. I'm going to
give less to the other things that you want supported in this community and it's
' going to trickle right on down. Thank you for listening.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Jim.
' Councilman Johnson: Jim, did you ever figure out what the County was finally
going to be at?
Jim Bixler: 10.8 and I think by the time they got done sticking it with a fork,
they were hoping to get it down to about 9. 10.8 is what they say they can levy
at and what they budgeted at.
Resident: It was 16.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, that was their max budget.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's their maximum.
' Councilman Johnson: Was that with or without growth? It doesn't matter.
Jim Bixler: I could care less.
' Mayor Chmiel: It's inmaterial, yeah.
Jim Bixler: My income's not growing that much.
' Mayor Chmiel: I might say Jim, I buy your product.
Jim Bixler: Thank you, but you've got very smart children.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I just wanted to just to assure you that at least from this
Council's standpoint, in the last two years we have lowered taxes unless the
County as you said, came out and re- evaluated the property. In most instances 2
years past we have lowered taxes.
Don Ashworth: The City portion.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. On the City portion only. The County, as you're just
4
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
saying, is right in what you said is that they have increased them with ,
re- evaluations. I can tell you that right now my taxes went up $700.00 and
I know exactly what you're saying because I can feel that as well as you do.
But as I see what we're doing right now from the City aspect again, we are
looking at lowering a certain percentage again this year. We have no control
over what the School district does nor do we have any control over what the
County does except express our opinion, and we do. But I just thought I'd like
to just put that in.
Jim Bixler: Our particular house has been re- evaluated 3 times in the last 4
years. And at some point all the quality of life, it's going to be worthless '
and I'm not going to move further west than New Germany because they're in the
same district.
•
Councilman Johnson: Mine's been re- evaluated 4 out of the last 4 years because 1
I have a building permit. If you've got a building permit, he automatically
comes out and I've got one of those never ending building projects going on in
my basement that I never have time to get to so once a year he comes out and
says are you through yet?
Councilwoman Dimler: Have started. 1
Councilman Johnson: Oh no. It's real close.
Jim Bixler: Well it's awfully frustrating from our standpoint to go to the r
County meeting and watch the buck being passed up to the State level and I'm
sure if we were sitting over in St. Paul it would be passed right onto
Washington. Now I know there's impact from both the Federal and the State and
the County as far as what has to be done or things that have to be done. The
funds that you're going to qualify. I may be all wrong but what I'm hearing is
that a of the impact, the tax increase over in Carver County is based on the
State requirements to do certain things. I guess at this point I have to think
that if that's the case, and I don't start at the top. I mean you'd like to
think you could go to the CEO of the company and...product or service or
whatever. I don't think that's believeable for any of us here. If we have a
problem with city services, we know we can call you Don or we can get a hold of
one of the Councilmembers and that problem will be addressed. The problem here
is not necessarily that we're dissatisfied with services or certainly the
village. The quality of life or whatever but at some point in time we have to,
from our personal standpoint say that's it. I'm not going to buy that up model
car. I'm not going to buy from this particular store that I'm used to shopping
at. I'm going down a level if you will in terms of quality or something like
that. It's very tough to give up quality but it's awfully easy to give up some
of the things that you do when you're not really budgeting for them. And
certainly I think all of us can take a leave from the budget that you put
together and say hey, let's tighten our belts by 4% this year, if that's the
real number Don.
Don Ashworth: It is.
Jim Bixler: Okay. That may be the real number and as you said Mayor, you know
that our taxes are going down. Well, mine didn't. My city taxes went'up last
year. They may have gone down as a percentage but I'm paying more money. You're
5 1
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
going to have a tough time selling that to me when the County's out there
re- evaluating my property next year. You know they're going to be there.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. And if we didn't have that certain amount of reduction,
it'd still be a little higher than what they are presently too. I know that in
11 looking over our entire budget for 1991, there's been a lot of cutting and I
thikn we've gotten to the point where we're sort of lean and mean and we have
been watching those dollars and I think everyone sitting here feels the same way
as I do but it's just a way of doing business, unfortunately. We have to
operate within a certain amount of dollars to make the city function properly
and still provide the services here for the residents.
' Councilman Johnson: If you also look at your 1989 tax bill compared to your
1988 tax bill, there was a little hocus pocus done in that year by the State
again. They took aid that was going to the City and transferred that exact same
' aid to the school district trying to make the school districts look a little
better. So they took, I don't know, what was it? 3% or 4% of what we were
getting. Gave it directly and made absolutely no difference on your tax bill
but it made your school district bill look a little less even though in some
school districts it went up because of other things but it gave them a little
aid but at the same time they took the exact same aid away from_us so it was
neutral to everybody but it made us look like we actually increased that year
when we actually decreased that year. So it was kind of confusing in 1989
because of gymnastics.
Jim Bixler: You go to the school board meeting and, I'm glad you explained it
the way you did because over there it was well, we saved you money last year.
In looking around here, I know one person was at that school board meeting last
Thursday night. That's basically what they told us. Well, we had a 10%
1 reduction in the school taxes for 1989. They did.
Councilman Johnson: They didn't tell you where though.
1 Jim Bixler: They didn't tell us where because they were trying to jam down our
throats a pretty good percentage this year to make up.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Jim. Is there anyone else wishing? Yes sir. Please
state your name and your address.
' Dick Herrboldt: fly name is Dick Herrboldt and I live at 6464 Murray Hill Road
and I, like this gentleman, have gone to most of the meetings and I've been in
front of this group before talking about my property taxes. What I would like
to know is what, you know we're talking about 1991 and I've listened to the
County and I've listened to you review your budget. I'd like to know what is in
the long range planning over the next 5 years? What are we going to be looking
at as far as a property tax levy in this area? Can anybody address that?
There's got to be some plans and I know we're building a new County jail.
What's the City going to be doing?
Don Ashworth: If I may?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
1
6 •
11
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
Don Ashworth: Part of the question again gets back to what happens from State
•
and the Federal but valuations, and getting back to your question, is the 15%
number an accurate number and will that reduce property tax decrease. Values
that are established for actually 1991 were set on January 1st of 1990 so
literally 1 year ago we knew what the values would be this next January.
Similarly we know what the value will be the following year just by knowing what
permits have been issued this past year. Residential will go on in 6 to 9
months after the initial permit was taken out. Commercial /industrial will take
a longer period of time. So for the period of '91 -'92, we're looking at
continued growth in that overall tax base and what I have stated to the Council
is I know of no projections for increased expenditures that would rise above the
level of our base increases. In 1993 one of the tax increment districts will be
literally coming off and that value will be going onto the tax base. Our debt II position is fixed and I now of no additional debt that's being considered. I
think with two community center votes being voted down, I don't see where that
issue is likely to take and come back for quite a period of time. So I feel
very good in terms of saying that I feel that within, for the next 2 -5 year
period of time, the City of Chanhassen should not be faced with any type of a
tax problem and in fact if anything, by the 1993 timeframe, we should be able to
look at more major tax reductions. One thing that concerns me very deeply, and
that is I feel comfortable with this year's projection in saying that that
increase in the base is there and that the projection for the 4% reduction in
taxes is a correct number. What concerns me is the fact that the State
legislature for many years provided homestead credit to me, to you, to each of '
us. That showed up on our tax bill as a $750.00 credit so you had the City and
the County and the School and then minus the $750.00. You no longer see that.
That has been reclassified as homestead credit back to cities so they've taken
you out of the picture and that is an amount now that is being paid from the
State back over to cities and counties. I am confident in my own mind that the
State legislature made the moves during the last 2 years to switch over to this
1% to change things so you didn't know what's going on regarding valuations to
take away that $750.00 so that you and I didn't see it so then it became an
amount simply due to the various cities around the State and if they do have the
budgetary problem that they're talking about for 1991, I personally think that '
they will simply reduce that amount as it would go back to cities. I am not
fearful that we can live within our means for this year but for next year that
homestead credit represents 25% of the revenues of this city. So when we talk
about property tax and if you look at the listing there, you'll see the
$1,848,000.00 for 1990 or $1,972,000.00 for 1991. Right below that you'll see
the homestead credit amount of $510,000.00. That amount again is the
accumulation of all of the previous $750.00 that used to be on your property tax
statement and used to be on mine. No longer there. And by simply a wave of the
hand, that $510,000.00 could disappear. That could set up a meeting far worse
than this year's next year. '
Dick Herrboldt: So our recourse is to talk to the people at the State?
Don Ashworth: We're trying to get the message out and we would hope that as I
many people here as possible would have one statement to your State legislator.
Do not remove homestead credit from property taxes.
Councilman Johnson: Don't balance your budget by raising my city taxes.
1
7
i
.
• City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
II Dick Herrboldt: Right. I understand that system. Basically what you're saying
. Y 9
is we in the City are pretty stable for the next 3 to 4 years barring any major
situations that occur on the State level. Okay? Well that's, these things are
important to all of us because I would like to say once again that property
taxes are killing us all'out here and you're taxpayers yourself. It's getting
I to be very severe. Very severe and a lot of people are feeling the crunch and
I'd just like to stand up in front of this body and make that statement.
Anything that you can do, anything that any of us can do to help cut taxes on
our property would be sincerely appreciated. Believe me. Thank you.
II
Councilman Workman: Don maybe, Don Ashworth, maybe you can explain what on a
smaller scale the State did to us mid - budget with the LGA this year.
Don Ashworth: Well that again is part of the problems we are faced with with
1990 and we work within our own means but we were hit in two areas. One, we've
had good growth and coming into 1990 we had anticipated a similar level. We did
see a reduction in our overall building activity and that caused about
$250,000.00 deficit for us for 1990 or at least over what we originally
projected. In addition, Councilman Workman is absolutely correct. The State
I came in and again to balance their budget removed approximately $50,000.00 in
aid to us. Now that $50,000.00 in comparison to the total amount of dollars
that the City is operating with was something that we could again reduce
I expenditures and look to other ways to insure that we stayed with a balanced
budget. But everytime that that occurs, it just places a different additional
strain on that overall budgetary process. In fact even for this next year in
II terms of the homestead credit, the State has already said that there would not
be an increase in terms of any local government aid or any homestead credit and
I think the more and more that cities are dependent upon the State, I think the -
worse it is. The only one good thing about the State continuing to remove their
II involvement with our city is we have that much less to deal with them. I mean
it's, they have zeroed us in terms of local government aid which is really kind
of ironic because if.you look at any of the iron range communities that are our
I same size or smaller, or any of the outstate cities, you'll see that the local
government aid in those areas is still at a million dollars. A million five and
they've reduced ours from $300,000.00 down to zero. That's kind of crying and I
II don't mean for this hearing to come out in that direction but I think everyone
should be aware that there has been major shifts in what it is the State is
funding in the past years. There's been more and more of a burden placed on the
surburban homeowner. He is paying a larger and larger share of not only local
II property taxes but also the overall State funding.
Jim Bixler: Can I ask one question? What is the projected growth of, real
II growth as far as building permits? New home building permits in Chanhassen for
1991?
Don Ashworth: We actually decreased that from, you're talking about permit as
II far as permit revenue?
Jim Bixler: Yeah. How many people are moving in here? How many homes are
II going to be built in Chanhassen in 1991 projected?
•
Don Ashworth: We had looked to approximately, well we had approximately 350 in
II 1989. We had anticipated that same level coming into 1990. We're probably more
8
II
II
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
into a 250 -275 for 1990 and we use that same estimate then for 1991. In other ,
words, reduced level over 1989.
Jim Bixler: Wouldn't those increase tax dollars that could be available for you
from taxes on those new properties to fund this $55,000.00?
Don Ashworth: Well it's, those new properties that are representing that 15%
growth in the tax base. The 15% does not include properties such as your own
where they have simply increased that value over the previous year. The 15% is
a new value percent and we're looking to that being pretty much the same for
1992, meaning into about 13% to 14 %. As your overall level gets higher and
value stays the same, the percent will drop a little bit.
Jim Bixler: I think I just went south on your answer. I'm not sure I
understood that.
Councilman Johnson: I think I understood your question and his answer, you're
right. They kind of missed each other. The increase in value that we will
realize in 1991 we won't feel in taxes until 1993. We don't collect. When
somebody comes next year and builds a house in Chanhassen, his increased
property value does not hit the tax rolls until 1993. What was built in 1988 '
comes on, or what was built in 1989, was on the ground as of January 1, 1990 is
taxed next year. So that 15% growth happened a year ago. We now know what our
growth is during this year, or we have a very good projection of what our growth
is during this year and can project that for the 1992 budget because that's when
that will come along. Anything in next year comes on in 1993. That's another
whole problem with the tax system is that when somebody builds a new house, we
provide all the services to them but they don't pay the taxes for another 2 '
years. That's the way of life.
Jim Bixler: But 15% came back in 1989? '
Councilman Johnson: Yes. 15% came on in 1989. That's already included that.
Jim Bixler: We're looking at a 15% growth? '
Councilman Johnson: Right.
Jim Bixler: Close?
Councilman Johnson: No. Not in the next 2 years. 15% was kind of our max. It
was down this year from the 15%. We're closer to like about 10 %, if I have my,
we did what 350 and then we did 250 this year so we're looking at about that
same level of growth next year. So we're not looking at a 15% growth for our 11 1992 budget. It'd be less. Depending on what Saddam Hussein does, who knows.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there anyone else that would like to address the issue?
If seeing none, I'll have a motion to close the public hearing. '
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
9 1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
II
. Councilman Johnson: Yeah Don, I'll start this off. I think you probably know
I where I am. I have enough jitters about 1991 and what's going to happen in oil
prices and everything else. We use a lot of gasoline in this town, and what
might happen recessional wise and everything else that might happen in the year
1991 that I think I'd like to stay with a 2% decrease and bank that $52,000.00
I right now instead of looking for any more ways to cut our budget and cut that
$52,000.00 out. Instead of going with the 4% decrease in our taxes year, stay
with 2% because I just have such bad feelings about next year. I'd hate to get
I at the end of the year next year and be out of balance. I mean we really had to
fight, we had some lucky things to stay in balance this year with two positions
leaving town and leaving that we didn't replace. That's where I sit on this. I
II think we've done a good job of making it lean and almost too lean if we take any
more out.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Jay.
11 Councilman Johnson: Of course that's you all's problem next year me being the
lame duck.
II Councilwoman Dimler: That's why you're proposing that.
Councilman Johnson: Just trying to make it easier on you.
II Mayor Chmiel: Tom?
II Councilman Workman: I don't know Jay, I think there's always ways to cut.
I guess I would like to make the comment however nasally as I can. I think this
is a pretty conservative Council fiscally anyway. There's several unhappy times
of the year to be on the Council. One is when assessed value cards go up and we
have the public hearing at the Board of Equalization and everybody, 140 or so
came in this year and also this is getting to be a worse time because there's no
doubt there's growing hostility out there. It's affecting whether or not I want
II to move into a bigger house and which side of the school district boundary do I
want to live on. That has everything to do with a lot of things and I'd just as
soon take into account quality of education maybe in which school district I
II choose rather than which one's going to keep my kids out of the latest styles of
demin. I don't know. You know it's a very complicated thing. I know we've
whittled it down. We've worked with it. With Don Ashworth working the numbers.
II I don't know. He's got some details that in his mind about how things could be
further whittled and I don't know if we should maybe have him discuss what some
of those are and what our options are to get it down to either 2% or 4% and
maybe make a decision based on that.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll finish with Council and then come back. Dick?
I Councilman Wing: I think I'll pass on this Don primarily just because of my
newness on the Council. I share some of your frustrations. I'm certainly not
here as a liberal. I'm very conservative in expenditures and things we talked
about during the campaign just because that's the most recent period of my life
I with the city. You can't have increased service levels and decrease in taxes
and it was the city, it's true we turned down the city center for whatever
reason but the people coming into Chanhassen I see are requesting additional
services and city services and strong services. The fire department referendum,
II 10
11
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
$1.5 million for fire truck and building was passed easily. People wanted that
•
service. That was a big expenditure so what's frustrating me right now is that
we're looking at an increase in the City budget. The City budget from 1990 to
1991 is going up but we're talking about a decrease in our taxes so I'm sort of
new enough that that',s still spinning my mind a little bit. I just share your
thoughts and appreciate your coming in tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Dick. Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I've got the answer. I want to tell Dick that his
newness on the Council has nothing to do with being confused or not being
confused. I'm still as confused as I was 2 years ago. I agree with Jim out
there that there's a lot of shuffling, gymnastics and as people say different
things in different ways and it just adds to the confusion. I was told that
this budget proposal reflects no property tax increase and I believe that that
is true but I'd like to see us go a step further and that is to actually see us
reduce some things. I have a few ideas on where those reductions might be. I
think that on page 6 of Statement 2, on the report that Don passed us, it states
that most of the functional area expendages reflect only minor increases from
1990 and therefore they are not highlighted. I guess I'd like to know for what
other reason other than inflation these minor increases are.. I'm always
frustrated when I hear that things are naturally going to go up and I really
would like to see that explained better and justify those increases. Don?
Mayor Chmiel: He just left.
Councilman Johnson: He just went to get his copy of the report.
Mayor Chmiel: He will be back. Why don't you continue.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. That's one of those you know maybe we can reduce 1
some functions rather than always increasing. Also I'm concerned about our
animal contract. The budget requests this year is $70,750.00. I just want to
make sure, it's not that I don't like the animal contract but I want to make
sure that the Chanhassen citizens are not subsidizing animal control for the
other cities and I didn't see the other side of the equation there.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I can address that one. With what we've been doing with '
the other cities in providing the services as we have, not only for ourselves
but our neighboring communities, that is one area and I've discussed this with
some of the other mayors, making sure that they realize they're paying exactly
what they have to pay to us. We're not losing anything from it. Plus the fact
that we're able to have that one individual on full time and it's more to our
benefit than anyone elses. '
Councilwoman Dimler: And were the other cities willing to pay the increase?
Mayor Chmiel: I'm sure that if there are increases that are going to be '
occurring within, I'm sure they would pick up their additional cost.
Councilman Johnson: Every city wrote us a fine letter a few months back saying 1
how good they thought the service was.
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, I understand that, yes. Y What was your question?
Councilman Wing: I didn't see it in the budget. That $70,000.00, how much is
that reduced by the other cities? Their payments to the city?
Councilwoman Dimler: Well that's wfiat I wasn't clear. That's what wasn't there
so I couldn't make any comparisons but I just want to make sure that we're not
subsidizing. The citizens of Chanhassen should not be subsidizing that program
in any way, shape or form. Also, I saw under community development $137,500.00
for contract services to implement the Chapter 509 plan. I still think that
that's too high and I'm wondering if that number has been revised downward.
Since we funded it at 60% I think we should take that into consideration.
' Don Ashworth: That is out of there.
11 Don Dimler: Was that the 60%?
Don Ashworth: It was placed into the other fund. That's in the first stage
implementation so yes it is. It was taken out of the planning department and
engineering in the total amount of $135,000.00. In separate action the Council
did establish the water surface fund and that particular expenditure was a part
of the requirements under the State and is included as a part of that fund. It
is not part of the general property taxes.
Councilman Johnson: No longer has any affect on this budget.
11 Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Okay. Also I'm wondering whether at this time, as
was mentioned earlier since it looks like we're in a recession or certainly
heading towards one, whether we shouldn't be looking at perhaps a hiring freeze.
' No new personnel. That's all I have for now.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, I think Ursula had a question on the first part.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: Oh yeah. On page 6 of Statement 2. It says that most
functional area expenditures reflect only minor increases from 1990 and
therefore are highlighted. I get frustrated when I hear that things are
naturally going to go up. Why are these increases other than inflation? And is
there a possibility that we could reduce some of the functions?
Don Ashworth: The statement in there, what we tried to do was highlight those
areas where there had been an increase over, from 1990 into 1991. Even those
where there's an inflationary type of an increase, we tried to know, especially
where we have new subdivisions, etc. such as the street lighting section is one
' that we saw was more than just an inflationary type of an increase. We will pay
a higher cost associated with NSP bills but we're also going to be paying a
higher increase because of the additional miles of streets and street lights,
etc. so I don't know if I've answered your question.
Councilwoman Dimler: So that's where the increase is?
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. There's nothing we can cut there then? !
12
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
Don Ashworth: No. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: And then other than that, I'd like to know where Don
proposes that we cut. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I made my statement before is that we have worked
several budget sessions. Many late evenings that we had done. In sitting down
and reviewing how we can trim it to the best we possibly can and I think we
really have worked at it really hard to come down to the taxes that are going to
be levied. I feel that Don has really worked this in the best interest of
everyone here, including my own with my increase in my taxes. I think that
there are some areas that could be shaved to a certain point. I'm afraid that
if we do shave in those kinds of areas that it probably would not be to the
benefit of the citizenry of the City of Chanhassen. So with that I think I'd II
just like to turn that back over to Don to see if there is anything in addition
because he is our great wizard with the pen. Hopefully with his crystal ball we
can work this budget accordingly. Don?
Don Ashworth: Since many of the people present were not through some of the
budget sessions that the Council did go through, we're looking at about 40 full
time employees for the city. As a part of the balancing process we have
eliminated three full time positions that existed in 1990 that will not be in
1991. Did you have a question?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead. '
Jim Bixler: Are we allowed to ask questions since you're making statements?
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to keep this open. I don't see any real objection to
it. If I feel it's.
Jim Bixler: As I see it Mr. Ashworth is you're cutting 3 positions. What '
percent increase are the other 37 getting over 1990 wages, salaries or whatever
and is some of that under contractual agreement with a union or a group or is it
biding arbitration or whatever? I'd like to know what that percentage increase
is for the paid employees is for 1991 projected.
Don Ashworth: The City has no organized unions. One of the reasons that I feel
that we, most of the cities, in most of the cities in the Twin City area, there
are unions that exist for both public works, police, clerical, technical. I
feel that our city has been competitive and our people have not had to look to a
union to protect them. The percent increase overall is approximately 6% but
that figure represents both those people who are low in their range. So in
other words.
Jim Bixler: By who's standards?
Don Ashworth: By who's standards? ,
Jim Bixler: Who's saying they're low in their range?
Don Ashworth: The City conducts or is a part of a multi -city survey process in ,
which we look at each one of our positions in comparison to other cities within
13 r
i
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
the Twin City area. Under the State comparable worth requirements, we're
required to look at each of those positions. They're looking primarily for
female dominated but it gives you an overall look at all of your employees. And
as a part of that, the salary scale for our city then is broken into what your
salary is in comparison to the average salary for that same position in another
city. I would say that overall.
Jim Bixler: It sounds like a great way to run a communist country. What
they're doing in Plymouth has nothing other than to do job description.
Don Ashworth: I disagree.
Jim Bixler: You say the marketing manager for Colgate Palmolive Company should
' be, or that I should pay somebody at the same rate, my little dinky company
should pay a marketing manager the same rate I pay a Colgate Palmolive guy gets
paid simply because it's the same job classification? Can you Mr. Ashworth sit
there and say that a 6'c increase in wages is justified in the economy that we're
' going through right now?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Jim Bixler: You can?
Don Ashworth: The reason for that again is. .
Jim Bixler: Are you getting a 6% increase?
Don Ashworth: No I'm not.
Jim Bixler: I commend the Council on that. Not that you're not doing a good•
job but somebody has to start somewhere and when it says City Manager, maybe
that's where it has to start. But if the economy is growing by 1% -2X, I think
somebody should sit down and say that's what our employees, that's the way it
is. That's what the dock workers, that's what the guys in the grocery stores
are getting and that's what you're going to get and if somebody doesn't like it,
let them go over to Plymouth.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we'll just let Don go a little.
Jim Bixler: Sorry. It's frustration.
' Don Ashworth: We are in a competitive market in terms of the building
inspector. We try to look at what it is that somebody else pays a building
inspector in a similar size community to our own. That does represent our
competition you might say. We start those people, 75% to 80% of the mid -point
for that position. We would hope that they grow in their position each year and
as a part of that we'll get closer to the average salary for that position. A
part of the 6% is their growth in their range. We look at your performance and
if you have performed for us, we will attempt to get you closer to the average
salary for that position. So that 6% figure that I gave represents both a
' natural growth within the economy as well as each of those individual people who
we are anticipating will be growing within their range. They will not get that 1
salary increase unless in fact they have gone through a performance review and i
1 14
1
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
they in fact have grown over, well at least in their own position. I have to
believe that you do something similar in your business.
Jim Bixler: You're right in that we're talking about a dollar paid for a M
dollars work, okay? I mean if you're talking about compensating people simply
because they happen to fall into whatever category it is, I totally disagree
with that and I'm sorry that I misconstrued what you said. But I don't believe
there is such a thing as a 6% natural growth as you just said 5 minutes ago in
the economy.
Don Ashworth: I didn't say there was a 6 %.
Jim Bixler: ...run for Congress. 1
Don Ashworth: I didn't say there was a 6% natural growth. I said that the
overall increase is 6% that represents a combination of salary increases for
those people who are low in their position right now. ,
Jim Bixler: I understood that. There's also an indication that somewhat
according to the way the economy is growing. 1
Don Ashworth: I apologize if that was the case. But anyway there are three
positions that have not been included for this next year. We are looking, and
again this reflects again just the miles of streets. We would like to be able
to add a street maintenance employee. The existing budget does have that
position in there. I would recommend that we look to a spring start potentially
on that position. That's one of our biggest work times is to move from spring
into summer. That's potholes. That's when everything that has accumulated
during the course of the year basically shows up and if that were looked at,
over the budget you are, you could cut approximately $8,000.00. Fire department
we could look to reducing training there by about $4,000.00. It simply
recognizes that I think we would still be able to meet our overall training
standards for EMT, Emergency Medical responders but I don't think that we're
going to be able to have each of the people that we currently have lined up able
to attend each of those schools. And I would look to that potentially saving
approximately $4,000.00. I think that the equipment the Fire Department has
looked to insures that we can continue to provide service to our community but I 1
think that that could be even further cut by $5,000.00 which would significantly
hamper again our ability to carry out those functions. We've already looked to
a reduction in street maintenance area from 110 down to 75. I find difficulty ,
in recommending further reductions there. Almost each of the operational areas
are looking to basically costs similar to last year unless it things beyond
their control such as additional lighting to the building, insurance. I hadn't
shown the deletion of a fire pole for our west fire station. One of my
difficulties in, that's $1,500.00. One of the difficulties I have in continuing
that recommendation is we have not put any dollars into that west station. It's
not in as good a shape as we'd like to have it in and I think most people even
going by the building don't even now what it is. We have difficulty in trying
to man that station. That is one of our real difficult areas to get volunteer
firemen is in that west station. Anything that we could do to improve that
station. Make it more attractive to potential volunteers, I think that we
should consider. I'm not saying that that $1,500.00 will make the difference
one way or the other but it's on the table.
15
11
•
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
II Councilman Johnson: I didn't know we had a second floor on it.
Councilman Wing: It's a flagpole.
II Councilman Johnson: Oh flagpole.
Councilman American flagpole.
I Councilman Johnson: Not a firemen pole but a flagpole. I was wondering how we
had in a one story building we had a fire pole.
1 Mayor Chmiel: I also look at some of these things that we've gone through and I
agree with what Don's saying. I look at, even though,we're talking recession
II and watching what we've done in the past 20 years, more specifically as I've
watched Eden Prairie, I'm a little more optimistic in seeing that possibly we're
going to grow a little more so than what we have been. I think I associated
with the company that I work with at Northern States Power. I think I probably
l said this before but if some of you have heard it, just have a little patience
with me. Our total electrical load growth back in a time when we had a
recession and we also had the energy crunch then come through, Eden Prairie was
II growing. Growing just by leaps and bounds only because they were the next
suburb to the other suburbs that had built up. Well we're almost in that same
position now. Eden Prairie filling up and with us being here. The electrical
II load gross that we had, we were growing company wide only at 2%. The city of
Eden Prairie never noticed any difference in time when they had the recession.
They mere growing at roughly anywhere from 21% and their lowest point was 17%.
Electrically load growth which meant because of where they were, their growth
II just automatically came and that's going to happen I feel the same way here.
Sort of see that same kind of movement coming out here to Chanhassen just the
way we've grown within the last few years. We've got the land and people are 1
looking at this area. They think it's a fine area and so do I. I think that is
going to just continue with a growth and hopefully by doing that we may even
have the tendencies to having our budget. Where we have it presently I think it
II might be a little low. Optimistically I'm looking to see if maybe we can't pull
in some more dollars as far as the buildings are concerned so I do see this sort
of falling in line with what's happened in the past. You can see the same thing
has happened to the city of Eagan. The city of Maple Grove. Because of where
II they're at in relationship to the other cities, that growth just automatically
came. So with that, any other discussion?
II Councilman Johnson: Well I tend to agree with you to a point in that we've seen
that peak last year and this year we ran into a budget crunch...and the loss of
those 3 positions bailed us out of that quite well. In looking at just a stable
economy next year and stable growth as to equal to what we did in 1990, I'm
II still a little pessimistic and that's why what I would like to do is, I would
like to keep that street maintenance person put in the budget as it is. When I
came on the Council 4 years ago we had 60 miles of streets. We now have 90
II miles of streets. We had the exact same number of street maintenance people
that day as we do today with 50% more streets. That position's very important
but I'd like to keep it in the budget at it's full thing because the $8,000.00's
II not that much of a savings. I'd like the engineering department to really
consider and look very closely as to whether they actually, if they don't
actually need that until spring, that's when they hire them and not hire them
II 16
II
II
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
in January. I don't see the need for a street maintenance person in January but
I'm not an expert. I've talked to Gary on this a little bit and to delay it to
spring, that gives us a little bit of *8,000.00 cushion for my pessimism but
what I'd like to see us do tonight is approve the budget at the level of current
forecast requirements and increase our revenue side of it by the *52,000.00 that
we need to in order to make it balanced and that would result in approximately a
2% decrease in what we levy against our individual homeowners.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that a motion Jay?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, I'll make that as a motion. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Would you restate it please?
Councilman Johnson: I move that we establish our budget at the current
anticipated expenditures of, it would be this *1,307,000.00 Don?
Don Ashworth: No. Expenditures.
Councilman Johnson: Oh, of $5,880,145.00.
Don Ashworth: Really the general fund portion... 1
Councilman Johnson: Okay, general fund. Anyway, to make up the *52,000.00
shortfall between projected revenues and projected expenditures by increasing
your revenue by $52,445.00 which results in a net 2% decrease in taxes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Decreasing revenue by 52?
Councilman Johnson: *52,445.00. ,
Don Ashworth: So in that case both revenue and expense would be *3,004,095.00.
Councilman Johnson: So we have a balance budget and not try to chop anything ,
more out of expenses. So what we would do is increase the general property line
up there which is $1,538,000.00 to *1,090,445.00.
Councilman Workman: How do you propose to do that?
Councilman Johnson: Just by doing that. That ends up, instead of having a 4%
reduction in property taxes, it ends up with a 2% reduction in property taxes.
I think that gives us very little fat in the budget to play with if something in
the economy really goes whacky next year. I think we'll be, I'm just being an
Army Reservists, I'm real concerned about what Saddam does over there.
Mayor Chmiel: There's a lot of people in the same thought too Jay. I agree.
Is there a second on that motion? If not, I will second that motion. Any
further discussion?
1
17
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
Jim Jason: Is there discussion from the floor at this time?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, go ahead. Normally it's not.
II Jim Jason: I did't know when to speak up.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We had the public hearing meeting already. We closed the
public hearing meeting. I will give you the opportunity to come forward and
state your opinion at this time. Would you come up to the microphone and state
your name and your address please?
Jim Jason: Sure. I'm Jim Jason, 7301 Minnewashta Parkway and I guess, you know
I hear you talking about the little stuff. The $10,000.00 here and $15,000.00
there or $8,000.00. The questions that I have are like sewer and water charges
are going from a million to a million nine. Maybe this was covered in another
meeting and I missed it. Professional services went from $600,000.00 to
' $900,000.00. Big numbers. Am I at the wrong meeting for this? Was this
covered at another meeting because those are the things that.
Mayor Chmiel: Those specifics as you're discussing. Don?
Don Ashworth: You were talking about under the enterprise fund_that the overall
revenue is going from the, I'm sorry. I missed your number.
Jim Jason: Yeah, the sewer and water charges went from a million to a million
nine.
1 Councilman Johnson: We established that a couple weeks ago. We've been running
our sewer and water at a deficit rate and I think it was just our last meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: 2 weeks ago.
Councilman Johnson: 2 weeks ago we did and that's your sewer and water charges.
It doesn't have anything to do with this meeting because we're now talking about
the general property tax funds and what we did 2 weeks ago was bring us back to
a balanced budget so we have enough cash left in our sewer and water fund to
continue to repair the sewers and the waterlines.
Don Ashworth: A majority of that comes about through new customers but
Councilman Johnson is correct in that additional charges that we're looking at
as a city back from MWCC, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, represents
about approximately $300,000.00 of that overall increase from 1990 to 1991. The
other portion of it recognizes again that the City has continued to literally
I deficit finance that particular operation for the past 3 years. Our auditors
have continued to state that we cannot run that utility into the fall and there
was a rate increase that was approved by the City Council. Tom, can you recall
the overall percent on the utility rate increase?
1 Tom Chaffee: ...conglomerate between the water and sewer, we're looking at
roughly at 14% increase overall. That's not to say that one person's bill won't
go up 16% and another one will only go up 12%. Another thing I want to point
out, while he's talking about, I see the figures that he's comparing to. The
$1,090,000.00 versus the $1,914,000.00. We have to consider the fact that
• 18
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
additionally the Council established in October surface water management utility
which the projected revenues from that are included in here for the first time
so it's kind of an addition but in comparison...$3,000.00 and $4,000.00 revenue
there.
Councilman Johnson: So that's where it was.
Councilwoman Oimler: So that's where it was.
Tom Chaffee: Along with the projected increase in customer count. '
Don Ashworth: Tom, I'd like to make a clarification. He said 14%. That may be
an overall increase in revenues but the actual rate increase, we were talking 3%
to 5'c.
Tom Chaffee: Yeah. Yeah. I was talking in terms of overall dollars.
Don Ashworth: Because the rate increase is into that 3% to 5% level and I
should note that we have not increased sewer or water rates for what, 4 years?
Tom Chaffee: Since 1986.
Councilman Johnson: 5 years. 1
Don Ashworth: The second question you had sir?
Jim Jason: Professional services went from $623,000.00 to $904,000.00. ,
Councilman Johnson: That will also include the surface water which isn't coming
out of this fund. '
Tom Chaffee: Over $200,000.00 of that is included in the enterprise category
because of the surface water management utility and the professional services
required just having to adopt the 509 plan.
Don Ashworth: So that's 200 of the 300 increase. Do you recall the other 100
Tom? I guess to really make that comparison, we need to see which of those. '
Councilman Johnson: I think we're down to about $80,000.00. While he's looking
for that, if you're not aware of what the surface water utility is? Are you
familiar with that?
Jim Jason: No I'm not.
Councilman Johnson: This.last year we're one of the leading cities in the state
to pass a surface water utility in that there's a lot of expenses coming up to
where cities in managing surface waters. Water quality in the future. Lake
Riley's has some problems and several of our other lakes. Storm water
apparatus'. We have no fund for repairing storm water. We have funds for
repairing your sewer but we had no system for repairing a storm sewer other than
taking it out of general revenue. We felt that the best way to fund these
things was to form a utility that charged it, rather than based on your property
value, based on what kind of property you had so a homeowner who will generate
19
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
I so much storm water off his, the average home, just because your home is worth
$300,000.00 and mine's worth $90,000.00 doesn't mean you have to pay that much
more to manage storm water than I should so it turns out that, because my yard
still puts out as much storm water as yours does. We pass the storm water
II utility that does the storm water work at a fixed rate basically so everybody
will be paying that and that will be going on, that you'll be seeing on your
sewer bill next year also in addition to that. That the Council voted to fund
II that at 60% of the level that staff wanted to run that utility at So while
he's looking that up I figured I'd fill some time and inform you of that. That
was a couple months ago. What do you they call that, an awkward pause or
II something? Pregnant pause or something. I don't know.
Tom Chaffee: . Over $300,000.00 of the increase in professional services,
actually some areas, professional services did go down 'from 1991 as opposed to
11 1990 and that's just the $300,O00.O0...increasing professional dollars and the
increase in professional services were solely within the enterprise fund which
has no impact whatsoever on the property tax levy. The enterprise fund is by
I law run as an enterprise and it has to derive it's revenues...so it's not really
an impact on property taxes per se.
Jim Jason: I guess that was my question is how was this.
r Tom Chaffee: Notice another increase, while you're looking at those specific
lines then is the line that says, MWCC reimbursement. That represents a 40%
1 increase from 1990 to 1991 yet our sewer rates are not going up 40%.
Councilman Workman: Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Right. Those were all charges that come back to us. Basically
we have to pay the MWCC, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
II Jim Jason: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay, we have a motion on the floor with a second and
II discussion.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have something else. I'm really frustrated here. I
II hear the citizens saying they want us to cut spending. I'm not sure that Jay's
motion does that. Jay, do you feel your motion cuts spending?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. Don says it cuts spending by around 2%. It's
II basically a 13%.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you cutting 2% of the increase or actually cutting 2%?
Councilman Johnson: .Okay, basically this budget as it is is 13% increase in
expenditures from last year. Okay, I'm going to spend 13. What I'm proposing
II is to spend 13% more money than last year.
Councilwoman Dimler. Right.
I Councilman Johnson: Because the property values, new properties coming on line
had increased by 15%, I will be receiving 15% more money from these new
II 20
11
I
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
properties into for which I can pay that 13% off. That's how I come up with 2%
decrease.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I understand what you're saying.
Councilman Wing: Okay, I guess I would ask that if I was sitting in the
audience. If we're considering recessionary period and you're worried about the
Mideast situation, should this city be addressing a 13% increase in it's budget?
I don't care where the dollars come from. I understand that the.
Councilman Johnson: With 15% growth? We had 15% real growth in town and we're
considering a 13% increase in our budget.
Councilman Wing: I understand but from 1990 to 1991 we're going to spend an
additional 13% over 1990 to 1991. I understand there's more growth but 13%
compounded out over the next 10 years is, you know where does it stop? I guess
what if I threw in the word freeze? What if we just froze the 1991 budget at
the 1990 levels?
Councilman Johnson: We'd be in deep trouble. '
Jim Bixler: Here, here.
Councilman Wing: No, no. Now wait. That's not reasonable because I don't 1
think in all honesty you represent the majority of this community because I've
been out door to door these last few months. The majority of this community
want services and they're not about to tolerate a freeze so that's not
necessarily reasonable thinking. I just threw that out for discussion.
Councilman Johnson: Well let's put this into the business world. I have 15%
increase in customers but my boss will only let me spend what I had last year.
Can I provide those customers, that 15% increase in customers, can I provide
them services? What we are doing is we have a 15% increase in our customer base
and we're providing them with the same services with 13%.
Councilwoman Dimler: And then another question I had was, I saw this letter
from a Wayne Miller living in Chaska. Don, did you see this? Are his numbers
correct here that Chaska's proposed budget compared to Chanhassen's?
Mayor Chmiel: No. '
Councilman Johnson: Did you see Don's response to that?
Councilwoman Dimler: No, I didn't. '
Councilman Johnson: He had a very good response to that.
Don Ashworth: It follows that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so that's not? ,
Don Ashworth: Right. The two points that I tried to make in response to that.
Chaska is in a very enviable position in that they operate their own electric
21 1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
1 utility and for 1991 are transferring from their electric utility to the general
fund $720,000.00, if my recollection. Second enviable position that Chaska has
is that most of the Jonathan area was actually, the improvements in that area
including the parklands, etc. were paid for by the Federal government. Now they
went through many lean years in terms of when that went through bankruptcy, etc.
but the bottom line out of that was that in that community they have very little
debt as a result of either the federal government paying for those improvements
in that area or through how well their electric utility...
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so he was comparing apples to oranges and not really
a fair comparison?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I agree.
Councilman Johnson:. How does our electric bill with NSP compare with Chaska's?
If that's a fair question.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Lower.
Jim Bixler: Mayor, Councilman Wing threw out a word. I don't know that you did
that for the benefit of the television audience, if there is any.
Councilman Johnson: Oh there is. It's amazing how many people watch this.
II Jim Bixler: Why did you bring up the word freeze if in fact you just wanted to,
oh but I don't mean it? What did you mean? Were you talking about the 2'c
' increase over 1990?
Councilman Wing: We have a 15% increase in growth. That doesn't mean a lot to
II me in terms of services. I mean I can't relate that back to service levels.
I mean are our service levels at the normal levels, excessive levels or are they
below what people would like? I mean I can't right now define what service
levels are or should be. A 13%c increase seems like a big increase to me. I
' understand we have a lot of growth but still, with a 13% increase so I just
threw out the word freeze because I guess I don't fully understand what that
might mean to this city. If we froze the levels, what would that do? I mean
' Jay said we'd be in a world of trouble. I don't know that for myself and
I guess I would ask Don, if we did freeze from 1990 to 1991, no increases in any
departments with one exception. I disagree with you on taking care of our
employees. If I was to freeze, the City Manager, '90 to '91, I would still want
to take care of my employees so we'd actually even beyond that point so that
I don't agree with you. The 6% increase that Don talks about, I wouldn't get
into but the employees I'm really touchy about because I feel they do such a
good job for us but that's off the point. If we froze the budget, would we be
in a world of trouble? Obviously things are going to get cut back. Service
levels get cut back. Is that an inappropriate comment at this time?
Don Ashworth: Just for the benefit of, well yourself because you really had
joined this Council after many of the work sessions and we didn't take an
approach that we simply took last year's budget and started adding to that. I
mean we went back and started to look at each and every function. The
legislative branch. Can we get by with a lesser level of Minutes? Can we
reduce travel? Can we reduce right on down the line? As we went through each
1
22
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
of the departments, we didn't just start at what it was in 1990 and say okay
we're going to build on that for 1991. We went back to literally the point of
the beginning. In the area of streets, Jay's correct in terms of the overall
miles of streets that we plow, etc.. There is a certain percentage of those
streets where we have been plowing the street and now to have an infill or let's
say there hasn't been a home on part of the street. As that home is put in, you
know there's really no additional cost to the city to clean the streets or clean
the sewer or to flush the watermains. So hopefully each year we can be more
efficient in what it is we do. I mean if we put in x miles of new streets, I do
not agree that we have to simply increase our budget by that same amount. I
think that we can continue to look at, since we have men in that area and they
are currently plowing, the additional time to have them plow that additional
street should produce cost savings for all of us. I'm a taxpayer here too
right? Whether it can be cut more and you can go down to 4% reduction or not, I
don't know.
Councilman Wing: I want to say in Don's defense that I think that our City 1
Manager has a real fine pencil and I think he's done a really good job along
with the Mayor in holding these things down. Now I wasn't at the early meetings
so I have to be really cautious here but I think your frustration and mine
doesn't rest with the city as much as it rests with the State and the property
taxes because this bite here is so small and I think so conservative and so well
managed that I didn't mean to bring up the freeze to be critical. Only as a
discussion point to ask why because I wasn't privy to the earlier meetings so
I had the same questions that you did. Thank you Don.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. No other further discussions, I'll call a question. 1 ,
Councilman Workman: Well, I guess I'll just for open discussion also I'd like
to discuss, you know we talked about the animal control contract, etc. which
I've been fundamentally against doing animal control for our neighbors. You
know we say that so we are doing animal control for our neighbors so that we can
have a CSO on full time. We weren't doing it for, with that CSO officer doing
it for our neighbors. We don't have them full time anyway. And I don't know
where the numbers fit in. That's another small part. We've discussed and I
don't know how finely tuned we have this but we've discussed over and over that
our building permits are down, down, down. When we brought on new building
inspectors we talked about the fact that they, if we had a building problem and
we talked about it all of them, right before we hired them, that be sure that we
have the ability to remove them if we have a downturn. We're now in that
downturn but we haven't removed building inspectors and I guess Don, maybe you
can expound on that. The permit, the building permit fees are way down and it's
been one of the sole sources of why we had the problem. The $500,000.00 to
$600,000.00 problem but yet we still have the employees there. '
Don Ashworth: In 1991 we were looking at an overall expenditure of $550,000.00
so that number is correct but of that the revenue problem was a downturn of
approximately $250,000.00 in the permit revenue and $50,000.00 was in terms of
the State Aids. So the total permit revenue drop was from projected 1990 of
slightly over $700,000.00 to about $460,000.00. We're looking to that same
*460,000.00 in 1991. In other words, that reduced level. One of the problems
that we are faced with as a community, well for many years we actually made
money off of our permits. The City should not make money off of the permit
23
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
revenue. We're collecting a fee to provide a service. The service is the
inspection of the property that we're collecting the fee from for that
inspection and for 1990 total inspection costs are approximately $325,000.00.
The City is still netting, even at the reduced level, approximately $140,000.00
more in revenue for both 1990 and 1991 than we're spending. Now that figure
does not include vehicles which on an amortized basis would be about $50,000.00
to $60,000.00 and assuming that you charge back a very healthy administrative
type of fee, 25% -30X, you would still not really reach that 450 level. At that
point it would break even. If we move into 1991 and if the permit revenue does
' not meet even these lower projections, then there's no question that we will
have to eliminate inspectors in 1991. But at least this budget reserves the
option for you that if you do have a downturn in those revenues this next year,
that you've got someplace to make it up in. You should also note that even
though the overall permit revenue is down, that the level of inspections is
still up from the 1989 level. What that says is that you've got more fences.
You've got more smaller type of permits that have come in in comparison to the
McGlynn's, the Rosemount's, etc. that may produce $50,000.00 - $60,000.00 with one
permit.
Councilman Johnson: And even with the downturn in the economy that might stop
new homes, a lot of people do remodeling then. Those that bother to get the
permit, and those permits generally don't go for nearly as high of a cost but
' the inspection takes almost as much time in a lot of cases. I think we're not
doing an adequate job of inspecting where I firmly believe that 4 years ago
when I came to this Council that we weren't doing an adequate building
inspection job. We didn't even have a heating inspection. The furnace in your
' house was not inspected by a heating inspector because it was built before we
had a heating inspector on staff. Now we're doing heating inspections.
' Mayor Chmiel: We're providing those kinds of services and it also eliminates
liabilities against the city as well by providing those services. So yes,
I feel too that if the growth isn't there and building isn't done, then we have
to cut on those.
Councilman Workman: But that's where I thought we were. When we added those
inspectors it wasn't my assumption that if we had a downturn and we recoginized
it that it would occur in the next year following the downturn. We're in that
downturn. The Councilmember that used to sit in this spot and has left town
said very few things that I always liked to agree with him on, as everybody
' knows but one of the things he did say was that he was waving a flag saying, we
have not, we've got to not have, am I saying that right? We should not have a
reliance on our permit fees to balance the budget. So we have $140,000.00 more
and we're kind of balancing the budget with that but we still are relying on
t that because once that rug gets pulled out then we're really, with that plus
MWCC plus legislature playing hocus pocus and everything else, then we're going
to be a real bad time and then we're not going to have 8 people running for the
' City Council. We're going to have none. In regards to the animal control
contract, I agree. We shouldn't make money off of services we provide to our
citizens. We should not be a money making operation. However, one maybe
' amendment I'd like to make, if we're going to continue an animal control
contract, I think it's only fair that since the city has taken on a job and
providing it to 5 of our neighbors in place of private free market operators,
then we should also make a profit off of it. I still don't know where we stand
24
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
with that. We're expending $75,000.00. I don't know if we're getting 75 back
but I don't have a problem getting $100 ;000.00 back if we're doing a job that
the private sector doesn't want to do and was doing and now we can do it. That
will number one give them an incentive to take care of it themselves or not
provide it. I don't know. I mean it's just one more thing so in that situation
maybe we should be making some money because there are costs there that I think
they are not picking up. But that again is a small thing and maybe a
philosophical point as much as anything.
Councilman Johnson: And that's something in just the operation of the city next
year that next year's Council can insure that that is happening.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we're already there. We are making money with that II
contract.
Councilman Workman: With the 2%c or the 4%, I want to be proud of that and I can
be proud of it because I know that it is a reduction, certainly in comparison to
the school district and the county. And I've said this before that the school
district get to do everything with our citizen's money and the city unit doesn't
get to do a whole lot and that's why people complain, where's the services?
Where's the fund? Where's the police department and the community center and
everything else? Where's my sidewalks for God's sake? Where's everything that
we want and we're putting it rightly as a priority I think to keep the taxes
down but yet the County and the State, School districts are doing that and so
we're not able to keep it right here where we can spend it best I think for our
citizens which is a real downer for the city. However, 4'c, 2% isn't anything
for me to get real excited about. I guess I had higher expectations. Not so
much as a freeze because I guess the cost of oil and asphalt and insurance and
everything else goes up just like anything else. Freeze would be tough unless
they're obviously bloated over the previous year. So I don't know, I guess I'm
ready to vote and I'll live with it and I'll be looking at it next year again.
Resolution $90 -150A: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve
the 1991 budget for the City of Chanhassen as proposed by the City Manager to
levy a net 2% decrease in taxes to make up for the $52,445.00 shortfall between
projected revenues and projected expenditures. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you for coming to the meeting. I think we've done the best
job we know how. '
Jim Bixier: What passed? The 2%?
Councilman Johnson: The 2%. '
Mayor Chmiel: We passed 2'c is what we voted on, right. Thank you.
25 1
11
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
' RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR A SUCCESSFUL 1990 FIRE
PREVENTION PROGRAM.
' Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to just read a Resolution commending the Chanhassen Fire
Department for successful 1990 fire prevention program. And it reads, a
Resolution commending Chanhassen Fire Department for successful 1990 fire
prevention program. Whereas, thelChanhassen Fire Department is charged with
providing both fire fighting and fire prevention services to the City of
Chanhassen, and Whereas the Chanhassen Fire Department has continued to develop
fire prevention education programs for the City, Now Therefore Be It Resolved by
the City Council of the City of Chanhassen as follows: That the Chanhassen Fire
Department be commended for t?ie efforts of all members for that for the
spectacular job of providing fire prevention education to our community at their
Open House and throughout the Fire Prevention Week 1990. Thank you. Passed and
adopted by the Chanhassen City Council. Thanks Dale. You bet. To the rest of
the firemen too.
' Dale Gregory: Thank you very much.
Councilman Johnson: Do we have to vote on that Resolution?
i Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: I move the resolution.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yes, thank you.
Resolution #90 -151: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the Resolution commending the Chanhassen Fire Department for a
successful 1990 Fire Prevention Program. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
' Councilman Johnson: You can't read it and not vote on it.
Mayor Chmiel: You're right. I'm just looking at all these other things we've
' got to go.
Councilman Workman: Can I say something in the public announcements? Quickly?
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe. Okay.
Councilman Workman: This is it. This is the last meeting of the year and it's
been a fun year. The end of the year always stinks and so I don't let that
weigh on all the fun that I've had in the past year. I guess I just wanted to
use the opportunity. This is Jay's last meeting and it's also Gary Warren's
' last meeting, our City Engineer and it's also one of new newspaper people's
getting laid off or something, Anne Hanson.
Councilman Johnson: Really?
11
26
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
Councilman Workman: Yes. The economy's in a contraction. But anyway, thanks
Jay for 2 years of just a lot of fun and Gary Warren who's upstairs crying with
tears on this. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Here he comes.
Councilman Workman: But anyway you know, it's nice to get to know all these 1
people and another nice year of working with.
Councilwoman Dimler: We're talking about you. 1
Councilman Workman: I told Gary earlier, it's fun to watch the contortions on
his face as we disapprove of whatever it is he's up to. But anyway, I thought
it appropriate to.
Councilwoman Dimler: I agree with you and I think we should give them a hand.
Mayor Chmiel: One other public announcement. We're also going to have on the
18th I believe, we're going to interview the commission members on that
particular date. What was our time? Was it 7:00 or 7:30? 1
Councilwoman Dimler: What commission members?
Don Ashworth: This is for each of the different commissions. Planning 1
Commission, Park and who was our third?
Mayor Chmiel: What time are we starting?
Councilman Workman: Board of Adjustment.
Councilwoman Dimler: Board of Adjustments? 1
Mayor Chmiel: I didn't have a time.
Don Ashworth: It's open. You could do something early.
Councilman Workman: I can't do it early. 1
Don Ashworth: That's the only item we'd be doing.
Mayor Chmiel: 7:00? Let's do it at 7:00 and see how far we can go. 7:00 p.m.. 1
Councilman Workman: That's for all the commissions?
Don Ashworth: Yeah. There's 3 commissions you'd be looking to.
Councilman Workman: That's Tuesday right? 1
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Tuesday the 18th. 1
27 1
1
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
Don Ashworth: In that same regard, we will send out a list. The resolution
that you passed a year ago states that you're going to interview commission
11 members and then the Council has the right to add to that list if you wanted to
add additional with a reminder that if you don't find the name in there that you
like, make sure you give me a call so we slot that person.
•
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
' approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
c. City Code Amendment to Chapter 18 - Subdivision, Article III - Design
Standards Regarding Updating the Code to reflect current City Standards for •
Right -of -way widths, driveways, etc. and the Urban Service Area, First and
Second Reading.
e. Resolution 1190 - 152: Accept Street and Utility Improvements in Chanhassen
Hills 2nd Addition Project 87 -25.
f. Resolution #90 - 153: Accept Street and Utility Improvements in Lake Susan
Hills West 3rd Addition, Project 89 -12.
h. Accept Donation from Chanhassen APT toward purchase of Handicapped
Accessible Play Equipment for City Center Park.
i. Approval of Accounts.
j. City Council Minutes dated November 19, 1990
Planning Commission Minutes dated November 28, 1990
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 27, 1990
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
A. APPROVE RESOLUTION AMENDING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHWEST
METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION REGARDING LAND PURCHASES.
Mayor Chmiel: On item 3(a) that I had, on the Joint Powers Agreement. I did
have some discussions with Paul on this and the only concern I had at the time
was whether or not the Board for the Southwest Metro Transit Commission has the
authority to review the total dollar cost for those ride lots. They did and so
I would make that recommendation that we approve Consent Agenda item 3(a).
' Councilman Workman: Don, what was your specific point?
Mayor Chmiel: My concern was with $5,000.00. Not just have a staff person run
off and purchase all they want.
Councilman Johnson: No, the Board has to vote on it.
Mayor Chmiel: The Board has to approve on it. There is a condition contained
within so I would move.
t 28
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
Councilman Workman: I have another point on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, go ahead.
Councilman Workman: On.the resolution part here, 6(m). First line is kind of
confused with the second line. The Commission may purchase passenger shelters
without prior approval of any of the Councils of the parties to this agreement
period. Now that sort of intent to flow in with the next sentence. The
commission may, without prior approval of any of the Councils of the parties to
this agreement, execute an agreement to purchase blah, blah, blab. The problem
I have with the first sentence is maybe the architectural review side of things,
could they buy, if it's not connected to the second sentence, the way I'm
reading it is they can buy shelter without our prior approval and it can be just
about anything they want. That's the way I'm reading it. Is that the way it's
stated?
Councilman Johnson: As one of the commission members, we went into this, we've
been discussing this thing since August.
Councilman Workman: Then you can clarify that for me. '
Councilman Johnson: The city that the shelter goes into, this is, we're just
like any other company working within the city. We have to go through the same
site plan review and get the same approvals that anybody else. We cannot just
come in and put up a tin shed and call it a bus shelter. We'll go through, if
we have to do subdivisions or whatever, we have to go through everything.
Councilman Workman: That's not the way that I read it. _ 1
Councilwoman Oimler: See I agree with what you're saying Jay. That is the
intent but I'm not sure the way it's stated here. Maybe we just need to reword
it to clarify that point.
Councilman Workman: It says they may purchase passenger shelters without prior
approval of any of the Councils of the parties to this agreement period.
Councilman Johnson: But they can't install them. You see previously. ,
Mayor Chmiel: You still have the ability to review it once it comes back to
you. I had the other concern, the same thing you had Tom. In the event they
don't come back to the city and ask us, we have properties somewhere that we
feel might be just adjacent to it that they haven't even looked at.
Councilman Workman: Well what if it's already there? 1
Mayor Chmiel: If the shelter's already there?
Councilman Workman: Yeah. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Well then it's already been pre - approved right?
Councilman Johnson: Then we're not purchasing anything.
29 1
i
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
Councilman Workman: They could purchase a shelter that's already there. It
doesn't need to be put in.
Councilman Johnson: Oh, you mean purchase a house or a building or something?
Councilman Workman: Yeah. We could have a bus pulling up to.
Councilman Johnson: But in order to convert that use you're still going to have
to ask for a variance or something.
Roger Knutson: Not following our Zoning Ordinance, I don't believe using a
single family home for a bus shelter.
1 Councilman Workman: But hey,' I'm just being.
' Councilman Johnson: You have to go back to where this originated.
Councilman Workman: I just think if we moved a period or something it'd fix
everything.
Councilwoman Dimler: How about a comma?
1 Councilman Workman: A semi - colon. I don't know. Just make it part of the rest
of it and that says.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think just to clarify.
' Councilman Workman: So that it goes with the bottom of to the approval of the
Council of the city in which that real estate is located or purchased. There.-
1 I don't know.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger?
' Roger Knutson: I really think that when you look at, this says they can
purchase something. That doesn't give them the right to put it anywhere as Jay
said. They can purchase it and put it in Duluth but they can't put it in the
city of Chanhassen unless they comply with your Codes. They have to comply with
your Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, what have you. I don't think this
gives them a blank check to do anything in this community. It gives them a
check to buy the- thing but not to do anything with it.
Councilman Johnson: In the previous writing of this, the city of Chaska could
say you can't put a bus shelter in Chanhassen and blackball our bus shelter
purchase and if we were mad at Chaska we could blackball Chaska.
Councilman Workman: We get along with those communities.
1 Councilman Johnson: I know but then there's Eden Prairie over in Hennepin
County.
1 Councilman Workman: No, but it's just a little technicality and you know,
I just wanted to prove that I read all the way through these packets and waste
these valuable minutes of Council meetings. No, just a technical thing.
1
30
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
Councilman Johnson: Have the other two cities approved.this yet? We're the ,
third to approve this?
Diane Harberts: No. Jay, they haven't approved it per Council but we sat down
with our attorney and representatives from each of the cities to come up with
this language. One of the things I just wanted to remind the commission, or
excuse me, - the Council is that you do have representatives on the commission
that has the ultimate approval of purchasing a passenger shelter. And with
regards to the word of passenger shelters, our attorneys did the review of
language because they had originally had said buildings but they needed to be
more specific because it's just the purchase of passenger shelters which in
transit terminology is bus shelters as other people may refer to them.
Councilman Workman: But so then really it doesn't make any sense for you to II
purchase anything or have that line in here because we're going to want to
approve it before you do anyway and that's going to dictate the price.
Diane Harberts: The Commission will have to first approve it which includes
representation input from each of the cities and you're right. We're not
ultimately going to go out and purchase a bus shelter if we're not going to have
a permit to put it someplace. What the intent of the joint powers agreement was
was for Southwest Commission to be able to purchase the bus shelters without
having to come to each Council and say can we buy a bus shelter and then turn
around and come to you again and say, now can we put it someplace. So what
we're doing is just receiving the authority to go ahead and purchase a bus
shelter after it's been through the Council and I'm sure the input from the city
staff without having come to the council for an item of this nature. '
Mayor Chmiel: Rather than an automatic purchase, I'm sure you'd take an option
in the first place on that piece of property. With Council approval.
Diane Harberts: With the regard to the, right. What we're looking t is '
9 is two
separate issues. One is the first sentence to address buying a bus shelter
without coming to you folks, to any city council. And the second issue is to
have the authorization to enter into a purchase agreement to purchase a piece of
land but within that purchase agreement is going to be subject to the approval
by the city in which it's located to even develop it according to what we want
to do with it. So basically the city in which it's located has that final
approval.
Councilman Johnson: We're not going to purchase something until the City's '
already made the approval that we can do something with it. We don't have a lot
of excess funds.
Diane Harberts: The purchase agreement will in a sense tie up the land so we
can move forward with it in a timely manner and at the same time once that
information hits the general public, if we didn't have it tied up into a
purchase agreement, it may inflate the price as a result of that. So there's
cost things to think about as well as the timeliness.
Councilman Workman: Right and I see clearly that it's two separate things. 1
Purchasing of land and purchasing of bus shelters but that last sentence has it
connected to the part with the bus shelters although it's implied that we have
31
•
i
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
to do that and that's what I'm wondering why and so that isn't with that. It's
two separate things, you're right and you're implying that because we have
bought this piece of land therefore we are going to buy a shelter. You're
saying okay, you have to approve this purchase of land but the way I read this,
it didn't say we had to' approve the shelter. So once we've approved the land
that the shelter will go on, and now you're going to approve a shelter that in
this, it doesn't say we have to approve the shelter. Because now that it's been
zoned a bus you know.
Diane Harberts: Well yes, and our understanding is in the approval of
developing that piece into a park and ride lot, that would include the site
plans which includes what type of passenger shelter we're going to install. So
before it would come to you, the Council, the staff would be looking at our site
plan which would include what design we have for a passenger shelter and that
whole package would come to you for your recommendation or approval or not.
' Councilman Johnson: But under current, not only does the site plan have to come
to you, but after the site plan is approved and everything, then we have to come
back to each City Council and have them specifically approve the purchase of
that shelter. What we're trying to do is get that second step. There's no use
in coming back.
Councilman Workman: Jay, it says the commission may purchase passenger shelters
' without prior approval any of the councils of the parties to this agreement.
Councilman Johnson: Right.
' Councilman Workman: So that's a lie. That's not true then.
II Councilman Johnson: No.
Councilman Workman:
The Commission may purchase passenger shelters without
prior approval of any of the councils of the parties to this agreement period.
' Councilman Johnson: Approval of the purchase
right. That's correct.
Councilman Workman: Okay. That just doesn't make sense in there then as you
were explaining it.
' Diane Harberts: I think what it's.
Councilman Workman: Are you going to buy our bus depot or aren't you? Or are
you going to buy our train depot and put it there or not? Okay.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? Is not hearing approve item 3(a). Is there a second? ln9 any I make a motion
' Councilman Johnson: Second.
Resolution *90 -154: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve
the Resolution amending the Joint Powers Agreement for the Southwest Metro
Transit Commission regarding land purchases. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
1 '
32
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
B. APPROVE EXTENSION OF MINING /GRADING PERMIT FOR MCGLYNN BAKERIES UNTIL
NOVEMBER, 1991.
Mayor Chmiel: The next item I have is just item 3(b) and it's a real quick one.
I agree with the proposal that's being done. I would like to have one more
condition applied to that and that being condition number 5. Keeping the
sidewalks clean of dirt and mud. Can we add to that Paul?
Paul Krauss: Yes Mr. Mayor.
Councilman Johnson: I second that.
Paul Krauss: Possibly the language, the applicant shall also be required to
keep the area streets and sidewalks clear and passable, in clear and passable
condition free of mud and debris.
Mayor Chmiel: Because I've had several complaints of people walking there so
I just want to make sure that during construction that it is.
Councilman Workman: I've got a point on this one too. First of all, I was kind
of shocked at why they, I wasn't shocked that they didn't make it November 15,
1990 but when I saw it November 15, 1991 I was shocked. As to why so long and
then in number 3, we've been talking about keeping things clean for the U.S.
Open. I think the dates June 8th thru June 17th ought to encompass at least a
week prior to the U.S. Open for cleaning up. June 1st at least to June 17th.
We've talked about sweeping off medians or trimming and doing all sorts of
things. I don't think that gives us adequate time to. ,
Councilman Johnson: Because there's a lot of activities the week before.
People coming in. • '
Councilman Workman: Maybe we need the last week in May but I don't, you know,
that covers the period right 2 days before it starts. I don't think that. '
Gary Warren: I was just going to say, from a maintenance standpoint it
shouldn't take that long to clean up whatever would be there. I guess I don't
think you need to require 2 weeks advance notice for that type of action to be
taken.
Councilman Workman: What should we be requiring any major excavation projects
to do this? It's pretty much built into the contract I think but are we going
to have compressed clumps of clay on the highway?
Gary Warren: I think the State, I know the State is as concerned as we are that '
I the proper image be there for the U.S. Open. Shafer's contract, I haven't seen
it specifically but I would imagine the concerns that the State has built into
your contract as far as the road itself and seeing that that is free and clear '
and any construction activity.
Scott Spisak: That's just normal, a standard specification.
? II
Councilman Workman: It's normal you said.
33 '
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
II Scott Spisak: The standard specification allows them to have control over our
operations at any point during the duration of the contract.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
1 Councilman Workman: June 1st?
'1 Councilwoman Dimler: Are
f you amending it to June 1st.
Mayor Chmiel: June 1st.
Councilman Workman: And why did it go another year? Why did they need another
complete year?
'1 Gary Warren: When ou're
y saying, which schedule time are you looking at?
1 Councilman Workman: They're going until November 15th, 1991.
Scott Spisak: Just to conincide with the completion date of the contract...
;1 Gary Warren: Substantial completion date is well before that.
II Scott Spisak: I believe it is. That would allow for restoration.
Gary Warren: Some of those things but the actual roadway construction, in fact
Scott and I were talking before and we can see 1 think from the evidence of
II what's going on that things are moving ahead of schedule in that regard.
Mayor Chmiel: That's good. I would make a motion that we approve item 3(b) j
1 with the two revisions.
Councilman Johnson: Second.
II Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the extension of the
Mining /Grading Permit $90 -11 for Shafer Contracting Company through November 15,
1991 with the following conditions:
II 1. The applicant shall provide the City with an extended letter of credit to
December 31, 1991 in the amount of $38,150.00 to cover any road damage,
maintenance, erosion control measures and site restoration.
II 2. The applicant shall notify and obtain an
extension to the Riley Watershed
permit from the Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District.
1 3. The applicant shall not perform any hauling operations during the period of
. June 1 thru June 17, 1991 during which time the United States Open Golf
1 Tournament and related activities will be held at Hazeltine National Golf
Course.
4. The applicant shall abide by the 11 conditions of approval from the previous
1 Grading Permit #90 -11 and shall complete all work by November 15, 1991.
1 34
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
5. The applicant shall keep all area sidewalks and streets assable and clear
P ar
of all mud and debris.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
D. ACCEPT WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS STUDY; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND 1
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WELL N0. 6 AND RELATED WATERMAINS AND
APPURTENANCES. PROJECT 91 -1.
There was a tape change during Councilwoman Dimler's comments on this item.
Gary Warren: ...Twin Cities Testing in Hopkins where'they run the analysis and
we get the results. That test is basically for chlorine content and bacteria
and is not a full spectrum test but it is the basic test that are required for
the water system. We do ourselves run an annual test or we have the last couple
of years on the full spectrum of ingredients in the water, in the wells and
those tests include test for radiation, radon, basically the whole background.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so the City does it yearly? 1
Gary Warren: That's correct. Those tests are very expensive but we have been
doing that annually and I do have the results in my office if anybody from the
public cares to take a look at them.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I will send them to you. Thank you. With that I
will approve item 3(d).
Councilman Workman: Second.
Resolution $90 -155: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
accept Water System Analysis Study; authorize preparation of plans and
specifications for construction of Well No. 6 and related watermains and
appurtenances, Project 91 -1. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. 1
PUBLIC HEARING: SALE OF APPROXIMATELY 3.2 ACRES OF LAND NORTH OF LOTUS LAWN AND
GARDEN TO REDMOND PRODUCTS. 1
Mayor Chmiel: This is a public hearing. I'll open the public hearing for the
sale of approximately 3.2 acres of land north of Lotus Lawn and Garden to
Redmond Products. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this particular
time?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public 1
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval of item 4. 1
Councilman Johnson: Second.
35
1
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
11 Councilman Workman: This money is then designated to storm water utility?
Mayor Chmiel: _Right.
Resolution I90 -155A: Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the resolution authorizing the sale of land to Redmond Products, Inc. in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Real Estate Transfer Agreement.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
5. REJECT BIDS FOR MARKET SQUARE 72" STORM SEWER EXTENSION, PROJECT 90 -13.
Councilman Workman: I would move approval or denial.
Councilman Johnson: Second. Rejection.
Councilwoman Rimier: Move approval of the rejection.
Resolution *90 -156: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
reject all bids for the Market Square 72" storm sewer extension and authorize
re- advertising for bids for this project in the spring of 1991consistent with
the developer's time schedule for Market Square. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
1991 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE. I
Mayor Chmiel: I think we've had some concerns about possibly changing some of
the, or some discussion I should say. It appears to me that if we were to go
through the process of changing our calendar, unfortunately we'd have to change
around our commissions and do a lot of other shuffling which would cause some
additional inconveniences.
Councilman Johnson: We used to be first and third.
' Mayor Chmiel: I know.
Councilman Johnson: We changed a few years ago.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Yep, to second and fourth.
Councilwoman Dimler: Unfortunately we've moved other things into those dates
and it'd be hard to change those now.
Councilman Johnson: Actually when I looked at it, first and third had as many
interferences as second and fourth so it really didn't matter next year. But
what you do in November still has to be decided and I agree with May.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The 13th and 28th. Also in November, Veteran's Day.
Councilman Johnson: Well I agree with the 6th and 20th of May and moving to the
first and third that month.
' 36
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's what it is intended for the 6th and 20th rather
than the 13th and the 28th. And November is Veteran's Day which is the llth
which is the second Monday of the month and the Council should change the
meeting dates to the first and third Monday which will result in Council
meetings two weeks in a row. I guess I don't, I think that would probably be
the best time frame for us to go through that. The 12th and the 25th. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: When is Thanksgiving?
Mayor Chmiel: Thanksgiving is, I don't know. I don't have a 1991 calendar. 1
Councilman Johnson: The 21st. Isn't it the third Thursday of every November?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. II
Councilman Workman: So it'd be the 4th and the 18th? First and third in
November?
Mayor Chmiel: No. What we're looking at, we're looking at the 12th.
Councilwoman Dimler: The other thing is Don Ashworth, do you know yet when the
League of Cities dates are next year because usually it's right after
Thanksgiving?
Councilman Workman: It's the first week.
Don Ashworth: Yeah, it's like the first week in December or the last week in 1
November.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, so if we go to the 25th, that might be a problem. 1
Don Ashworth: Potentially.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we could sort of shift that. Leave it where it is now and 1
then maybe move that at that particular time if we have to.
Don Ashworth: So go with the llth and the, well wait a minute. 1
Councilman Johnson: The 11th is Veteran's Day.
Mayor Chmiel: The 12th and the 25th. 1
Councilman Johnson: Have a Tuesday meeting? 1
Mayor Chmiel: That would be a Tuesday, the day following.
Councilman Workman: I'd rather go first and third and keep it on Monday. 1
Councilman Johnson: Go with the 4th and the 18th and then you avoid both of
those but you have a meeting then two Mondays in a row. The 28th of October and
the 4th.
37
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
Councilman Workman: Nothing wrong with a short meeting. We won't even tell the
attorney to show up.
Mayor Chmiel: Will we run into any conflict with anyone else on those dates?
j Councilwoman Dimler: Not on Monday. Not if you stick with Monday.
' Councilman Johnson: Plus they can reschedule. Once they know our schedule they
can unconflict them.
Don Ashworth: That's your budget timeframe as well so you're probably going to
be meeting all of those Mondays.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, 4th, ilt•h, 18th and 25th. No, the llth you wouldn't. It'd
have to be the 12th because that's Veteran's Day.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: November, leave it on the 4th and 18th.
Mayor Chmiel: 4th and 18th?
1 Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah.
Councilman Workman: I would move it.
Councilman Johnson: What do you think Mike? I don't care.
Councilwoman Dimler: You don't care huh?
Councilman Johnson: I'll give you a Mike's second.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom has moved it. Who is seconding it?
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the 1991 City
Council Meeting Schedule for the second and fourth Monday of each month with the
exception of May and November being the first and third Monday and December
having just one meeting on December 9, 1991. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY COMPENSATION PLAN.
on Ashworth: We've gone through an update of the classification plan. There
are no material changes over this past year. Each employee has had an
opportunity to look at those. The next step in the process is, assuming Council
acts to approve it, would be they can go back with each of the employees.
Review their, carry out their reviews for this past year. Move into a goal
process. I'm hoping that departmental goals can be submitted to the City
Council as a part of your first Council meeting in January and hopefully that
will lead to a work session where we can talk about goals the Council would like
to achieve.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Any discussion?
1 38
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
1
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve the Position
Classification and Pay Compensation Plan. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, one of the things that I wanted to discuss a little bit is
having possibly a smoke free environment within the City. I had some
discussions. i
Councilwoman Dimier: The entire city?
Mayor Chmiel: Within the City Hall. 1
Councilwoman Oimler: Oh good.
Mayor Chmiel: There's been some additional concerns coming'out through the '
systems in relationship to the second hand smoke of cigarettes which is really
causing a lot more discussion. A lot more concern and a lot more legality
aspects and I did just bring this up and talk briefly with Don about it here
last week. I think that we should consider the possibility, and I know your
wife's going to love me of eliminating this. Tom, do you want to chime in?
Councilman Workman: No, I think this is great. You know a year ago when we
talked about this and vending and everything else and Don, you approached me on
this. Not I, you. -
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Workman: Let it be known because it can cause some discord and if it
does I'd like you to handle it. I think it is appropriate. I saw in the paper
there's an honor roll of smoke free whatevers and the City of Chanhassen was on
there. I immediately had no credibility of the list because the City of
Chanhassen is in fact not deserving of being on a smoke free honor roll because
they are not smoke free. There are cubicles of smoke in City Hall where they
shouldn't be but I think it's a good move. Hopefully we can accommodate those
who still maintain the habit.
Councilwoman Dimier: And I will third that motion. It's not a motion I 11 understand.
Mayor Chmiel: No, it's just discussion.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think we...setting the example for our youth and also I 1
belong to the smoke free coalition 2000 so that's one of their goals and I can
go back and report to them that Chanhassen is now smoke free. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I think one of the things you know that, and I'm just going to
throw this out for discussion. I know that, I don't know whether they want to
quit smoking, that's strictly up to them. I'm not going to say one way or the
I/
other but being a former smoker myself, you know it takes sometimes more of an
incentive. I don't mean incentive pay but maybe at a point of providing an
additional service to those people if they choose to maybe get some therapy on 1
39
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
it or another way of assisting them if they want to. Only if they want to. I'm
not giving any direction to say you quit smoking. That's your perogative to
smoke all you'd like. But I'm saying that maybe the City should offer some way
to assist those people in quitting if they'd like to.
Councilman Johnson: PHP does.
Councilwoman Dimler: We have PHP.
Councilman Johnson: We have PHP. I know that when my office in Wayzata went
smoke free, one of the things that some of the people did do was go through
their health insurance of PHP in some of the smoking courses and stuff like
that. Of course none of those smokers quit but, they just went out back which
meant if I wanted to find some of my employees, I went outside where they were
standing having a cigarette. I'm in favor of smoke free environments but I also
realize how difficult of a monkey it is to get off of someone's back and I
believe the studies show that it's harder for women than it is on men. I'm not
sure how many we still have smoking. It is a minority. Some second hand smoke
problems may be able to be handled with some ventilation if you have smoking and
non- smoking areas and stuff.
Mayor Chmiel: We're still saying smoke free.
Councilwoman Dimler: Smoke free in the entire city. Well not just City Hall
but the Firehall as well. Is that what you're saying?
Councilman Wing: The firehall is smoke free now.
Councilwoman Dimler: How about the Public Works Building?
Don Ashworth: I believe they are by choice. Jerry Schlenk still smokes but I
don't think that he smokes out at Public Works does he?
' Councilwoman Dimler: Does he?
Councilman Workman: How about in vehicles?
Councilwoman Dimler: In vehicles, yeah. You know I mean how far do you want to
extend this?
11 Mayor Chmiel: I'm not thinking about vehicles themselves.
Don Ashworth: It would appear as though the writing is kind of on the wall.
There's no use making it. What about since this item was not on the agenda,
I'll place it and formalize it and basically what that allows me to do is to
bring it to the 5 people who do smoke at City Hall the good news that after the
first of the year, yeah. Jo Ann, Jean, myself, Sharmin and Vicky.
Councilman Workman: Jo Ann? Jo Ann Olsen right? Somebody told me Jo Ann
smoke?
' Paul Krauss: No.
40
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
Gary Warren: Jean and Tom.
Councilman Johnson: After the Council meetings she's smoking but not I mean. 1
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, this is new to me but I can't think of a company,
with one exception. The County Board Room but beyond that I'm not aware of
anyplace that isn't smoke free at this time and I think.
Councilman Johnson: Honeywell. Honeywell is not smoke free. It went smoke
free and then it just almost had a real problem. And then they provided smoking
facilities within each building where you could go and smoke.
Councilman Wing: Well that may be the case but highly isolated and there's no
intermixing.
Councilman Johnson: Right. You walk in there and you cut it. Say, is anybody
in here?
Councilman Wing: I'll certainly go along with Mr. Ashworth's request to table
this until the first of the year assuming that there will be a unanimous 1
decision to do that.
Councilman Johnson: To get input from the city employees. 1
Don Ashworth: I'm hearing the Council say that that's the policy you're going
to implement and take effect basically the first of the year. That will be the
policy.
Councilman Wing: Could we amend that office hours not to include the City
Manager? Would that help? '
Mayor Chmiel: No, that wouldn't work too well. Okay, Tom? Pine trees. Cut
them down. ,
Councilman Workman: That and I did forget one little thing I wanted to mention.
I believe it's Section 8 in the City Council rules, Voting. Both papers blew
it. They blamed Paul Krauss. What happened when we voted on that storm water
utility funding was, and I'll get the rule out. I'm sitting on this book
because the chair's so short. Here's the Rule. Section 8, Voting. Unless a
member of the Council states that he is not voting, his silence shall be
recorded as an affirmative vote. That means yes. What happened was that I
didn't say anything meaning it to be an affirmative vote. I didn't agree with
the 60 %. I didn't want to be on the affirmative side so that later on I could
be a part of the affirmative side so that if I wanted to bring it up I could.
Okay? So there's some strategy in that kind of a vote and that's why the rule
provides that. I didn't want to say yes but I did. You understand? What I did
was apparently after the vote was over I kind of mumbled you know I didn't vote. '
I didn't say anything. I think that was construed by staff or the newspapers
that I did vote. It was reported in the paper that it was a 3 to 1 vote with
Workman abstaining. When people see that they go, well what are you doing? How
come you're not voting you know? You're on the City Council. Don't you have
any guts? And so anyway, it wasn't an abstention. So it was 4 to 1. Our
Minute's printer over there got it absolutely correct. The newspapers didn't.
41
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
But I wanted to make sure that that was clear both to the Council and to the
people out there so that they know there is a reason to vote like that. Okay.
Second of all, the trees along Kerber and Jay you brought this up. I have a new
chainsaw and I'll go out.
Councilman Johnson: Don has 4.
Don Ashworth: 3.
Councilman Workman: Don has 4 so he's 3 times the man that I am. We need to
find out from the neighbors, I believe that bluff, is that berm ours and are
those trees ours and we need to re- establish that? We need to tell somebody...
Gary Warren: They're Rick Murray's.
Councilwoman Dimler: Those belong to Rick Murray.
Gary Warren: He has cut down some. I mean there are some voids there.
Councilman Workman: Rick Murray has?
Gary Warren: I don't know when that was done. I was just noticing today when I
drove by that here and there you'll see a stump where you didn't. The rest of
them he was trying to let.
Mayor Chmiel: They're not coming back.
Gary Warren: Plenty of time has lapsed huh?
Councilman Johnson: Those are called evergreens. Not come back from browns..
Councilman Workman: Can't we do something there?
Councilman Johnson: Is there actually a pine bark beetle infestation in those
trees? ..forestry guy, there is. In those dead trees. As such, can we do the
forester or somebody else.
Gary Warren: The weed inspector.
Don Ashworth: 'My recollection is that he installed those trees beyond what was
required on the platting development contract.
Councilman Workman: So you're saying we have no recourse, talk to Rick?
' Councilwoman Dimler: They are his trees.
Don Ashworth: Well he put them in for the subdivision. Now the subdivision
owns them, or the owners in the area. That's another possibility is to go back
to the homeowners association and see if they would. You know we could help
them out in terms of either purchasing or somehow.
' Councilman Workman: I would they'd want to dress that berm up. It sits up high
with some bush and it would be nice but it's...
' 42
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
•
Councilman Johnson: I think they're in private yards.
Mayor Chmiel: Property owners, I think it's their own area if I'm not mistaken. 1
I think it's out of our right -of -way.
Gary Warren: It's in the back yards I would think of each of the individual
lots there and Don is correct, Rick planted those beyond what was required. The
City was negotiating with Mr. Murray for some additional property as a part of
the storm water, or the TH 101 north leg project. Maybe there's some
opportunity there.
Councilman Workman: Well we don't want the berm. We just want the trees down.
I'll talk to Rick. 1
Councilman Johnson: But if those are infested, there's got to be some state law
requiring you to remove an infested tree. ,
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if there is.
Councilman Johnson: I don't know if there is but there should be. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Well there should be but there isn't.
Councilman Johnson: If it was Dutch Elm there is.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Tom you'll approach Rick? Okay.
•
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
APPROVE CITY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. 1
Todd Gerhardt: Included in your packet, this past summer worked closely with
Deloitte and Touche in putting together a request and proposal. In doing that
we reviewed all the existing employee benefit plans and the results of that were
kind of amazing that our long term disability plan was one that didn't provide
the percentages of what a lot of comparable cities were getting and we felt the
need to go out and ask for or request for proposals in these areas. We haven't
done this in the past 5 years. The auditors had written this up in last year's
audit asking that we should review those every 3 years so in that, this past
October we sent out...and asking for requests for proposals in both our health
insurance, long term disability and life. We also looked at the adding of
another benefit of flexible spending account. In that what the employees would
have is an option to use pre -tax dollars in funding certain parts of medical
expenses, the co- payments, daycare, things like that. What I'd like to do right
now is introduce Joe Hartens from Deloitte and Touche. Joe has worked closely
with myself in doing this and reviewing those quotes and I'd just like to have
Joe go through his analysis that was included in the packet and Joe and I will
be ready to answer any questions that you may have.
Joe Harten: Thanks Todd. My name is Joe Harten and I work for Deloitte and
I/
Touche in Minneapolis. You have the recommendations in front of you that we
prepared. We requested proposals through direct solicitation of various
insurance carriers. We also through city staff placed notice in the city's
43
1
' City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
publication of record allowing any carriers who wished to get a copy of the
request for proposal, to do so and some did. The results that we came up with,
first of all on the health package. We are recommending that the city remain
with Physician's Health Plan, PHP for the 1991 plan year at a 10.5% increase in
premium.
Councilman Workman: It states that we determined that it would not be necessary
to request proposals on the medical program at this time. When was the last
time we did get them?
Todd Gerhardt: I can clarify that. There's two different processes. You can
go out to a formal bid process and through that formal bid process you had to
accept those bids. When you go out for a request for•proposal, you do not have
to accept the bids. You can just take it and review the information and not
make any changes at all. State law says that if you see an increase of 20% or
more, you do have to go out for the formal bid process. We took the later of
the two processes and went out with the request for proposal.
Councilman Workman: But my question is, when's the last time. In the health
insurance, when is the last time that we, when is the last time that we took a
' look at proposals?
Todd Gerhardt: I would direct that over to Joe. Joe recommended to us that we
11 did not have to go to a request for proposals in that employees were happy with
the PHP provider than going to another provider that everybody would have to
switch doctors if they didn't have that provider. Joe looked at the comparison
of what our premiums were from PHP and what Aware Gold or some of the other
providers have given to other cities and he felt that they were comparable and -
that if we could go in and change some of those conditions within the PHP plan,
that we could get a better bid just from PHP.
Joe Harten: To answer your question, to get back at my rationale in making this
recommendation, there's been a State law change over the past couple of years.
It used to be that the State law was that you had to go out and seek bids. Bids
meaning bids would come back. You would open them. The lowest bidder would get
the business. Over the last couple of years, the state has changed that law
recognizing that sometimes the lowest bidder does not have the best program and
change that to a request for proposal process. The law now reads that you must
seek proposals every 3 to 4 years rather than seeking bids and the effective
date of that law I believe was 1989 was when that change came about. So it may
11 well be that down the road it will be a good idea to go out and seek proposals.
At this time based on our knowledge of the marketplace in the public sector, we
felt that there was no carrier that could come close to the two criteria, both
satisfaction from the employees and cost effectiveness on the health side.
Councilman Workman: Let me tell you why I bring this up. Because health
insurance costs have gone up 25 % -40% and 50% over the past year. For
' consecutive years. Every year they're going up 40 %. Two years ago my wife
who's a school teacher, we had PHP. She had a choice between PHP and Med
Center. She also enjoyed her doctor. I don't ever go. That's why I'm always
11 sick. So she none the less, when last year came around, that would be 1989 in
October, whenever they had to make the choice, Med Center was almost half. For
that we switched. Okay, we did. She still would rather have that doctor. I
r 44
1
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
guess I don't understand how we came up with and really got a good idea on this
because it has been different. I mean maybe Med Center's have come up now and
maybe they haven't but I don't know, without really going through and looking at
an awful lot of proposals, how we can really judge that comparing apples to
apples because it is so volatile.
Councilman Johnson: To add on to what Tom is saying here, I have PHP. I pay
for it myself. Okay? The price quoted here for the family is the same price
they quoted me as an individual almost. I mean it's within a few dollars. Not
a group of 40. The group that I'm in is from my former employee. I pay $284.00
a month for my PHP and it's a full ride PHP.
Todd Gerhardt: As an individual? 1
Councilman Johnson: No. It's a group.
Todd Gerhardt: For an individual or a family? 1
Councilman Johnson: It's family. That's my family. I wrote the check the day
before yesterday. No, I wrote the letter. It's not due for another 2 weeks so
I haven't written the check but it's $284.00 which is over a $100.00 less for a
family and this is for an office of 30 people versus a city of over 40. Why is
the city having to pay over $100.00 more than an engineering office? 1
Joe Harten: I can answer that in two ways. First of all the demographics of
your particular office may be different than the city as a whole. I mean you
might have a younger work force. You might have more males in your work force.
Those would be two categories that would change your premium a great deal. The
other piece is, as a risk, cities are generally higher risk than private sector
firms. Counties, states, cities, school districts are all as public sector
entities, are generally higher risks and are rated appropriately. So that would
be my comment to that.
Councilman Workman: And that's very evident in the disability side of things. '
They have a very difficult time getting any kind of maybe maximum 30%
disability. Any kind of a disability even if they want to go out and buy it
themselves. If they're an employee of the city, they can only get 30% max of
their monthly income whereas you could maybe get 75% because they're a city
employee. But that's all something a little different. Because of the
volatility of it and I'm sensitive to the happiness part of it but I'm in the 1
insurance industry and that is one area that is going wild and out of control
and I don't see it as being so compacted that we shouldn't take a peek.
Joe Harten: No, I agree with your statement and the reason we decided not to 11
seek proposals was we do this an awful lot for cities, counties and public
sector groups of various sizes and based on the rates that we saw here from PHP
and the relative lack of interest among the other traditional insurers of groups
of this size and I would say Blue Cross perhaps, Med Centers perhaps, those
types of organizations are less interested in municipalities, especially smaller
municipalities as you are. Based on that, we felt that there would be no
financial advantages, as a matter of fact going out for a proposal, we would not
get anything better and would probably get quite a bit worse in other proposals.
45
1
1
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
1 Don Ashworth: Joe, would it be possible for you to submit to the Council some
of those comparisons?
Joe Marten: Certainly. j
1
Don Ashworth: I mean you've gotten Champlin and whatever other number of cities 1
and the specific proposals that came in, potentially even into January if the
1 Council feels that there are not enough statistics to support the position or a
feeling that you'd like to take the proposals. There's nothing wrong with going
back and taking proposals if that is the Council's decision.
II Joe Harten: Right. If the Council wishes to do that, that's certainly.
II Councilman Johnson: Are these yearly contracts and is there a date that the
contract has to be renewed?
Councilman Workman: Yeah, they're renewed every year.
1 Joe Harten: Yes. January 1st is the renewal date of the contract.
II Councilman Johnson: But I mean there's not hardly enough time to go out for
proposals between now and January 1st.
Mayor Chmiel: There doesn't appear to be so.
1 Councilman Workman: In insurance, December's a down month.
1 Councilman Johnson: In everything.
Councilman Workman: I mean you're right. It's not quick. 4
1 Todd Gerhardt: To meet the guidelines as Joe had mentioned that we're going to
have to go out to bid every 3 to 4 years was it Joe that the State?
II Joe Hartens: Right.
Councilman Workman: But in the health insurance industry, I don't think 3 to 4
1 years is doing.
Joe Hartens: I.would generally agree with that. Unfortunately the tendency of
the way the insurance industry looks at municipalities such as yours is that
1 groups such as yours are low rate shoppers. Okay, you know every year you go out
and look for the lowest possible rate and that doesn't engender a great deal of
confidence in the marketplace and that reduces the number of carriers that would
II be interested in any particular group. I agree that certainly every 4 years is
probably not fiscally the way you'd want to go but every year, putting this
package out for proposal will only serve to limit the number of potential
1 carriers each year. It will continue to decline.
Councilman Workman: Except that, and you're talking about marketing. I'm
talking about an industry that in 4 years could not look anything like it does
II today.
1
1
46 I
11
II
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
Councilman Johnson: Of course we could have these guys take this same look at 1
the industry. Basically he's looked at the industry and said PHP's as good as
anybody else at this present time. If he does this again for you next year
and Med Center is the best thing for you. ,
Councilman Workman: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think so. Okay. 11
Joe Harten: With the health package, with the 10.5% increase in city premiums,
we would recommend a slight reduction in benefits and adding a $10.00 copayment
for every office visit of a non - wellness nature and that's how we got to a 10.5%
increase in benefits. Changing that PHP policy a little bit. That would
increase the city's cost by $12,000.00 next year. The employees pay a portion
of that as well. Under the life insurance package, we recommend that you
contract with Minnesota Mutual. Minnesota Mutual provides lower rates than your
current Minnesota Mutual policy. They're rated through two separate pools.
Currently you're insured through a League of Cities program in association with
many other smaller cities. Minnesota Mutual would proposal to rate you on your
own. Now you're big enough to do that and therefore you're getting a lower
rate. In conjunction with that, we are recommending an increase in the life
insurance benefits from a flat $10,000.00 per employee to a one time salary life
insurance benefit which is much more common among public sector groups and is
much more realistic as an employee benefit. That change, the lowering of the
rates but the slight increase in the benefits would increase your costs
approximately $1,500.00 next year.
Don Ashworth: Joe, if I could stop you and go back one point. Employees were ,
really not that interested in this copay. That is increasing their costs but we
were in the middle of that budget crisis and I guess one of the things that we
had to do was say this is a major cost factor to the city as well and that's ,
where the decision came in that rather than looking to a potential, what was it
1.5%?
Joe Harten: 15% increase without any changes. 1
Don Ashworth: Without the copay, that even though the employee would be picking
up 1/3 of that, 2/3 of that is ours and so again we said we have to look to the
employees picking up that.
Todd Gerhardt: That in dollar amounts roughly is savings of $7,500.00 over the ,
year from going with that $10.00 copayment than going with what our existing
policy is right now.
Don Ashworth: I wanted to make sure that the Council did realize that there has
been some reductions in here as well as some points up.
Councilman Johnson: Did you look at PHC? ,
Joe Harten: Excuse me?
Councilman Johnson: Physician's Health Choice which is a part of PHP.
47
11
1.
' City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
II Joe Harten: Right. You have what's called the combo plan right now which
offers people the choice to go to the PHP providers or the rest of the world and
PHC is basically Physician's Health Plan's self insured entity and as a city we
I would not, we don't think that you should be in a position of moving toward a
self insured program for very definite budget reasons. You're too small and the
risk is high and who pays the bill if you're over what you shoot at. That's the i
II problem with the program there. On the long term disability package, we are
recommending that you contract with UNUM. They formerly were Union Mutual Life.
Now they've demutualized and become a stock company. That would lower your
rates significantly from your current program. Also would increase your
I benefits from a 50% reimbursement plan if you're disabled to a 66 2/3% plan.
The overall impact of both increasing the benefits and lowering the rates is a
savings of $4,200.00 to the City and that's on a 2 year rate guarantee so we
1 will not need to change that in the next 2 years.
Councilman Workman: What your definition of long term? 6 months?
11 Joe Harten: 90 days.
Councilman Workman: 90 days is long term?
II Joe Harten: Right. 90 days is, anything 90 days or over.
II Todd Gerhardt: 65%. It's 65% of the salary. Previously it was 50%...
Joe Harten: And the final recommendation we're making, as Todd mentioned, was
to implement flexible spending accounts which allow employees to pay for health
II care, dental care and dependent care expenses on a pre -tax basis. We are
recommending that you do that in house and take care of those claims or those
reimbursement checks in house. With the payroll tax savings that the City would
II receive from FICA savings on a reduced payroll, we anticipate you'll save in
excess of $2,500.00 per year. That is subject to a little bit of change
depending on how much money people decide to put aside but that's the sum total
II of our recommendations.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Joe. Does anyone have any questions?
II Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I do under the life insurance. Is there any reason
why the Council members cannot be included in that while they are serving?
II Joe Harten: Generally the problem becomes, from the insurance carrier's point
of view, full time employee status and under larger public sector clients, that
is done. Smaller public sector clients it's a little tougher to do but
II certainly we could negotiate with the insurance carrier to try to arrange that
if that was a desire.
Councilwoman Dimler: For us it should be the $10,000.00.
II Councilman Workman: I know where you can get some. Get the checks printed,
I'll have a million dollars on each of you.
II Don Ashworth: If you would like us to check into that, we could.
II 48
II
II
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, if it doesn't increase the cost too much. ,
Mayor Chmiel: It might take a lot of time and be costly.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, I just wanted to know if there was, if it were a
simple procedure fine. If not. If it's going to be complicated, forget it.
Don Ashworth: The Council should also be aware that we had two meetings, or 11
three with the employees. You know we did look at some other type of things
such as dental and just felt that the cost of that just would be too excessive.
That's something we should not be looking at. I can't remember the other
options but this program has not been brought in just saying, kind of keep
things the same. We relooked at basically everything we're doing.
Councilman Johnson: Do you have vision under PHP? Is that on your PHP plan?
Joe Harten: Yes it does. An exam benefit without a real significant lens
benefit.
Councilman Wing: Just real quick for my own benefit, the city is providing
medical and dental insurance?
Don Ashworth: No dental.
Councilman Wing: Just medical?
- Don Ashworth: That's 1
Councilman Wing: Alright and that's, for a family that's a $404.00 that we're
paying?
Todd Gerhardt: No.
Don Ashworth: The employee, we pay the employee portion and the employee pays
50% of the family coverage. So they pay the $202.00, that amount.
Councilman Wing: Okay, I understand. On life insurance, that's an option then
for the employee or do we provide a certain amount?
Don Ashworth: We would provide the base coverage and the employee then would
have the right to purchase the additional insurance. ,
Mayor Chmiel: What is base coverage?
Don Ashworth: Well it was $10,000.00. We're recommending the one time salary
so and then they would be allowed to take and purchase then an additional one
time salary but they would pay the full cost of that.
Councilman Wing: Okay. And the disability plan, that's provided? Disable, we
provide that?
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
49 1
11
11
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
II Mayor Chmiel: At what percentage?
Don Ashworth: That's 100% city cost.
II Mike Mason: Can I ask a question about the copay?
II Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Mike Mason: Is that per illness or per visit?
11 Joe Harten: It's per visit.
Mike Mason: So if someone has bronchitis and I have to go to the doctor 5 times
II for that one illness, they have to pay 10 bucks.
Councilwoman Dimler: Each time.
II Joe Harten: Correct. Each time.
Mike Mason: My personal opinion of that, I'm really opposed'to that...and just
II to give you some of my background, I do negotiate contracts for the teachers
in Eden Prairie and that was a really contentious issue. We-had one option of a
copayment per illness. We didn't want to have anything to do with that but I
I think to tell someone with a family with 3 kids and 3 kids get pnemonia and have
to go to the doctor 6 times in one week and they have to pay 60 bucks just for
that is really wrong. I mean I'm sorry. I feel, obviously I feel pretty
II
strongly about that.
I
Councilman Workman: But and with that, you know there's nothing for free and so
it's got to be paid for somewhere.
Mike Mason: That's true Tom. I agree with that but you know this whole group
health, PHP, HMO thing, you know for whatever reason, you know my insurance
I rates in Eden Prairie have gone up 40% and we could go a thing about it so we're
feeling it too. Don't get me wrong but I think all of a sudden to turn around
and tell a group, hey tough. You've got a family worth of chicken pox, start
II writing out the checks. I think that's something that needs to be considered
for the people.
Councilman Johnson: But to add on, when I was with Honeywell we had PHP and
II then cost cutting they went exactly to this. This $10.00 and all of a sudden,
when you start to go, you know with PHP you tend to go into the doctor and you
prevent getting sicker. If you go in, unlike Tom who says he doesn't go in. I
II waited until Thursday last week before I went in where I sfiould have gone in on
Monday but when that $10.00 was there, you know $10.00 was not much to me at my
salary I was making with Honeywell but we did think twice about going in when
the kids had the little cough or something where it may have prevented them from
II getting sicker. I've got 3 kids and that can really build up. Now they don't
charge on everything. when I went in for allergy shots, they didn't charge the
$10.00 copay on that. And wellness visit, the physical exam or some preventive
thing they don't charge on that but an illness you're saying they do charge it.
An ear infection, you're going to go in and that's two visits automatically.
II 50
II
II
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
Mike Mason: I get a little worried when we start dealing with things like that. 11
When you start, the kid is sick. Well you're not that sick. You can wait
another day. Well you're not that sick, you can wait another day. Maybe some
times you can, maybe some times you can't and all of a sudden the parents are
put in the position that they're not used to be put into when you throw it at
them everytime like that.
Todd Gerhardt: Joe, how many trips to the hospital did we calculate by savings
that 4.5% by going with the copayment?
Joe Harten: Right. It turned out to be 6 trips to the doctor was the break
even point between the premium and the copay. Between the increases.
Don Ashworth: Wasn't that monthly? II
Joe Harten: Annually.
Don Ashworth: Oh, on an annual basis? I was thinking that it was 3 times per
month. That if an employee paid 1, we paid 2 so it was like $30.00.
Councilman Johnson: Is this for the employee? Their break even point? '
Todd Gerhardt: The family coverage that the employee pays towards the 50% .
family coverage, if you go with the non - copayment, you're going to see a 4.5%
increase in that. So if you go with the copayment...
Councilman Johnson: And that's equal to about $60.00 a year you're saying? 1
Joe Harten: Correct. Right.
Councilman Johnson: Which my family, I'm sure I'd go far over that $60.00 a 1
year with the number of ear infections we have.
Todd Gerhardt: But after you count in the flexible spending account, we use '
pre -tax dollar, I think that gets it back up towards the 10 visits because
you're saving 30% on using pre -tax dollars than out of pocket. You've got about
10 I think is what we calculated. • II
Councilman Workman: Nobody at City Hall has any dental plan? See to me that's
outrageous. i
Todd Gerhardt: But the flexible spending account allows you to use pre -tax
dollars again where you're getting a 30% reduction in doing that where a dental
plan right now doesn't cover your major dental problems. You know it gets you
the preventive.
Don Ashworth: If I hear the Council correct, I guess it's too late basically to
do anything for January 1. This is an area that you have interest in. I would
suggest that we set it as a goal to try to bid out in this next year. That we
start the process early in terms of bringing back some comparabies so the City
Council knows what it is that we might be looking at and also some options. 11
Start talking about how much would it cost for dental and moving the office
visit back to full pay versus the copay with the idea then that we would
51
11
City Council Meeting - December 10, 1990
actually take the proposals and be in a position so a year from today we can say
here's what we're wording and everyone is happy with not only the coverage but
11 the process.
Councilman Johnson: Have the city employees been...S10.00 copay?
Don Ashworth Yes. And I can tell you that they're overly happy with 'it.
Councilman Johnson: Is that what you call an understatement Don?
' Mayor Chmiel: Can we get an approval for the city employee benefits?
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Are we supposed to vote on that today?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
i Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second it.
1 Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the City
Employee Benefits for 1991 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:23
p.m..
' Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1 �2
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 12, 1990
The Planning Commission held interviews for Planning Commission candidates
prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting.
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 8:45 p.m..
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings,
Annette Ellson, Brian Batzli and .loan Ahrens
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner
' PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20- 29(d), CONCERNING APPEALS
FROM DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ON VARIANCES.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad: Tell us about the down side of the 10 down to 4? What's the
negative for somebody who would want to make?
Ellson: For the applicant probably?
Conrad: Yeah, for the applicant. In 10 days what could they do that they
can't do in 4 days?
1 Krauss: There is no down side for the applicant. It's an upside for the
applicant. The applicant does not, currently when we have a variance, it's
I approved by the Board of Adjustment. We write them a letter saying that
your variance was approved on Monday night, it's not good until 2 weeks
have passed and if anybody at any time gives us a letter of concern
requesting that it be heard, then we have to schedule it for the next
II Council meeting.
Conrad: That anybody would be, people that disagreed so we're going to
' give them 4 days to make an appeal?
Krauss: Right. And most of the time you get it the next morning because
they were there the evening the variance was approved.
I
Batzli: Is it published or something within the 10 day period?
I Krauss: No. No, no. But variances are published before they're heard by
the Board and we do send out mail notice.
' Batzli: Okay, but after the Board of Adjustments and Appeals makes their
decision, nothing happens like publication or something to give people an
additional time period to see that and come in and be able.
II Ellson: What percent do get appealed?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 2
Krauss: Not very many actually. There was a problem where Councilman Boy"'
appealed virtually every one of them to the City Council so it got very
clunky. I mean it sort of circumvented frankly the Board of Adjustment.
The Board of Adjustments is the final court if you will on these things. If
they approve it or deny it and the only way it goes to the City Council is
if there's an appeal.
Ellson: Doesn't that have to be done by the applicant?
Krauss: No. It's anybody aggrieved by the decision. 1
Ahrens: Why did he do that?
Elison: He didn't agree with it. 1
Krauss: He often disagreed.
Olsen: When they approved he would disagree. 1
Krauss: Now keep in mind that the Board of Adjustments can only approve II things unanimously so it made it tough. We had people who had to sit in
the audience from 6 :00 p.m. to 11 :30 just to hear Bill's issue and usually
there was nobody aggrieved by the decision. Now if there are people that
are legitimately concerned and sure, Bill was legitimately concerned it
just circumvented the procedure.
Conrad: What does it take to register an appeal? '
Krauss: All you have to do is tell us. We prefer to get a note in writing
saying I wish to appeal a decision.
Conrad: So the process is relatively simple? So we're going from 10 days
down to 4. The person still has a simple process to go by?
Krauss: Yes. '
Conrad: Okay. 1
Emmings: Can I ask, number one. If I'm the applicant and I'm turned down
by the Board of Adjustments and I want to appeal to the City Council.
Krauss: Right. In that case the applicant states I wish to appeal the
decision.
Emmings: Alright. Now if I don't appeal. If I'm turned down and I don't II
appeal, I could always come back and ask for it again. Alright, whatever
but I get another shot. Now if I'm a neighbor and I don't like the II granting of a variance and I want to appeal that to the City Council and
I blow the 4 day time limit, that's it forever. I can never come back
right?
' Krauss: That's true.
Emmings: 4 days is real fast. If I'm a neighbor and I wonder what my
rights are, I might want to go talk to my attorney. Maybe I'm not around. II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 3
Four days is real fast to lose what could be a very, something, a very
valuable right. I guess my thought when I read this, and maybe this is
just too cumbersome, would be to have, well it probably wouldn't work
because you've got 2 classes of people. I was wondering if there could be
an expedited procedure where if you get your appeal in within 4 days, you
get rewarded by getting heard early by the City Council and if you don't,
then it just takes longer because 4 days scared me. It sounds real fast.
Maybe that's, I don't know. The other thing I wanted to ask about the
ordinance as I read it is, it says appeals to the board and I didn't
' understand what gets appealed to the board.
Krauss: It all gets appealed to the City Council.
Emmings: Yeah. So if you look at (d), the last sentence in (d). It says
the procedure governing appeals to the board shall also govern appeals to
the City Council. What the hell does that mean?
Batzli: It's not in the new one is it?
' Emmings: Oh, am I reading the old one?
Batzli: Yeah.
Emmings: Oh, I'm sorry. Where is the new one? I missed it then.
Batzli: Last page.
Emmings: Oh, okay. Well that takes care of that concern but the same
problem.
i Batzli: They have changed it to go from any person who is aggrieved by the
decision of the Board and they eliminated that. They've limited it now to
you have to be a City Council member, the applicant, or own property within
500 feet. So they've limited who can appeal.
Emmings: I don't have any problem with the 4 days for the applicant, or
' even for the City Council member. I guess I worry a little about the 4
days for the people who are neighbors and I guess I'd also, there's more
language in here talking about appeals to the Board. Let's see. It says
' upon the filing of an appeal or an application for the variance. This is
in (b). The zoning administrator sets a time and place for a hearing
before the Board of Adjustments on the appeal. It just should be on the
application. That idea kind of runs through here. I saw it a few places
and that probably ought to be cleaned up.
Olsen: ...I think what was done with that is that there's an application
for a variance to the zoning ordinance and an appeal to the interpretation
of the ordinance.
Emmings: To the City Council?
Olsen: No. An appeal to the interpretation of the ordinance.
Batzli: To the Board of...
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 4
Olsen: Yeah, they're appealing staff's interpretation of the ordinance.
Emmings: Oh, so there are things then that are appealed to the Board?
Alright, that's what I was asking. I didn't know what it would be.
Batzli: Are we losing anything by eliminating that sentence Paul? The
procedure governing appeals to the Board shall also govern appeals to the
City Council?
Krauss: I honestly don't know. 1
Batzli: And why did we change it from any person aggrieved by the decision
of the Board to limit it to only those people owning property within 500
feet?
Olsen: Was that changed? It still says any person aggrieved including.
Krauss: No, the new one doesn't.
Erhart: That changes it substantially. '
Conrad: Yeah, substantially. Unless there's a reason to do that.
Erhart: The original writing was very confusing because it made you 1
believe that the...as you have it now certainly would not be...
Krauss: Yah, I guess you know frankly I don't know why Roger deleted the II
person aggrieved by the decision. I don't see any reason why we should
preclude anybody who's got an interest in an action from mentioning that
and appealing it regardless of whether they're living within 500 feet or II not. You might want to consider putting back in that aggrieved language.
Erhart: If you're going to do that, then you might as well eliminate the
City Council or anybody within 500 feet to say any aggrieved person period."
Batzli: Well I think you wanted to clarify that a City Council member can
do it. I don't that part in there. I liked the old language better II
then I liked the new.
Krauss: You know I think too you need something to clarify. I mean I
don't know how this would happen but it's not inconceiveable that if we
just say anybody could do it at any time, then we'll just have somebody
who's trying to be disruptive or delay a decision. There should be some
kind of a standard. I mean I like the aggrieved language because it says II
that you have to have some credibility. You have to have an issue.
Emmings: Some kind of interest that's being stepped on. 1
Erhart: Yeah, but I don't see how 500 feet has to do with anything.
Emmings: Is that who you give notice to on a variance? 1
Krauss: That's who gets the notices, yes.
Emmings: So it kind of makes sense in that regard I guess. ,
.
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 5 i
II Ellson: Yeah, but maybe if you guys denied and now you're seeing someone
with a similar situation...
1 Batzli: So somebody within 502 feet can't do it then.
Conrad: I'm not comfortable with the 500 feet.
II Ellson: Me either. It could be someone who has a similar situation who
wants to go through this exact same thing after this person so they want to
II make sure.
Erhart: A typical case would be we give a variance to something downtown
I on a sign or something like that...as a Planning Commission member we
developed the sign ordinance and I'd be real upset about it and I live 5
miles away.
I Emmings: We talked about posting property. Do we post property? We
talked about doing it and I can't remember.
II Krauss: We approved it and I'm just on the verge of ordering the signs.
I've got an order...now.
Conrad: Okay, what are we going to do? Do we know the words we want or do
II we want to send it back to Roger for better wording?
Batzli: I'd like to table it so that staff can look at why the language
I was changed and to come back with a recommendation.. I think so far the
consensus has been that we need broader language in there on the aggrieved
persons and I guess we don't know why the last sentence was or wasn't taken
I out.
Conrad: Makes sense to me.
1 Erhart: I'll move we table.
Ellson: I'll second.
1 Erhart moved, Ellson seconded to table on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
amend Section 20 -29(d) for further staff clarification. All voted in favor
I and the motion carried unanimously.
Emmings: I think 4 days is too fast. I'm probably going to vote against
it.
II Ahrens: I would think that if somebody was that concerned about a
particular issue, since the result of the decision isn't going to be
II published anyway, that they would be right on top of it and ready to appeal
if the decision didn't go their way.
Emmings: Unless they went skiing. That's real fast.
II Ahrens: Yeah, but they'd realize that if that issue was of such a concern
to them they would find out what the decision was.
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 6 I!
Krauss: People have about a week and a half's notice before it's ever
heard by the board.
Batzli: That assumes they get notice. Sometimes you hear about things '
after the fact. If you're not within 500 feet, you may not know about it
in advance.
Ahrens: There wouldn't be a natural inquiry anyway.
Krauss: But a lot of times you're asked to act on things where somebody II said I live 3/4 a mile away and nobody ever told me and does that say you
can't act?
Emmings: No. '
Olsen: It's never happened. I guess that's why we went with the 4 days.
It's never happened. I mean anyone who is aggrieved or whatever, is always'.
at the meeting.
Emmings: I think posting the property will help assure that that doesn't
happen. I think that's a better way of getting the people then anything
else.
Krauss: Well I think the ordinance that was approved though didn't require'
posting for variances. It was for site plans, subdivisions, rezonings,
CUP's.
Olsen: We could... '
Krauss: We could but it adds to the, you know variances are kind of a mom
and pop thing. I mean we're talking about residents that ask for these
things that go before the Board. You deal with much more involved
variances than the Board of Adjustments. There's going to be a fee for use
of our signs and a damage deposit and they're going to have to install them'
themselves. Developers are quick to do that. I'm not so certain that an
individual homeowner necessarily is.
Emmings: I had to do that on my lot when I lived in Minneapolis. I had to
apply for a variance and had to post my lot and they had all kinds of fussy
requirements and stuff and the signs blew down on a couple of days, and I
don't know. It doesn't always work real well I don't think.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1
Krauss: Do we have to do this anymore?
Emmings: No. '
Krauss: Should I delete this from the agenda?
Batzli: 1 think it should be raised in case somebody wants to make
changes. We just don't have to vote on it.
Conrad: Any changes? I forgot to see when the meeting closed. 8:55? 11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 7
Batzli: Well, we interviewed people after.
Conrad: Oh, okay.
Emmings: Talk about feeling threatened.
Conrad: Protective? Anything? Okay, Minutes (November 28, 1990 Minutes
of the Planning Commission) stand as accepted.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Krauss: We have a budget for next year. You'll have a tax cut. Really we
' did not have a lot on that last agenda and it was Monday night. In
fact, did we have any planning?
Olsen: Well McGlynn got expansion.
Krauss: The extension for their grading permit.
' Emmings: We'll have a tax cut?
Krauss: Well no. The City is cutting taxes for the City. Whether or not
your taxes go up is a completely other matter.
Erhart: This is spending per individuals...
Krauss: Well what happened is the rate of growth exceeded the rate of
inflation in the City budget but a significant margin.
' Erhart: What things...
Krauss: Well, I had put together a budget memo. Originally all the
departments heads did and asked for some kind of projects that had been
brewing in the background. One was to retain some expertise to work with
us on a sign ordinance. Another was forestry intern to finish up.
Emmings: Mapping?
Krauss: Yeah. I forget what the other one was but the budget was a very
' lean budget and like a lot of optional things, those fell by the board.
Now one of the things that's not strictly speaking a budget item but is
really going to be kicking into high gear this coming year is the surface
water utility. The water bills going out in January hopefully should have
that fee on there. I think that amounts to $3.00 and 20 some odd cents per
house for 3 months. And with the revenues that's generating, I'm in the
process of putting together a request for proposals for consultants to work
' with us on a combined proposal probably but a wetlands ordinance and
mapping update program. Water quality plan and a surface storm water
management plan. I think certainly there's going to be a very high level
of interest and we're going to set up a process where you'll be involved in
that in the wetland aspects. The rest of it relates to it so you'll be
filled in on all that.
Conrad: That triggers a thought that we should be doing in January Paul is
just sort of, one of our meetings early in the year.
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 8
Krauss: Goal seting?
Conrad: Yeah. And the process should be, I guess I'd like to set them, 11 submit them to City Council. Get their feedback on what gets added to or
deleted from and their priorities so we 'give them something to react to.
Last year, well I'm not sure how we did it last year.
Krauss: I guess fortunately we have the list of ongoing priorities here
and that gives me some guidance because I have to do my goals to the
Council now, before I get a raise I think. '
Emmings: Like a lot of optional things.
Conrad: Okay. Ongoing items. What does that mean? Is that our status
report?
Krauss: Oh yeah there was something I wanted to mention on there. I mean II
you asked us to get working on some of those items and I think clearly
we've given a shot at it. You know we didn't have too much time since the
Comp Plan to really get into it. Do you have it in your packet?
Emmings: Yeah, it's the last item.
Krauss: The last one? There was an item and I don't know if you want to 1
add it to your list or not. I really don't. I got a call from Dave
Peterson over in the newspaper and he was reading about in Ramsey and a
couple of the cities up to the north where there was an adult material shop '
that opened up next to a daycare center and everybody was picketing and
there's attempts to model ordinances that will regulate that and Dave's
question to me was does Chanhassen regulate this sort of thing? And my
answer was, no we don't and I called Roger to find out if you know, this
all goes back to the First Amendment issues. Has there been any change or
substantial change in Supreme Court rulings that basically say this is '
something that you might not like but you can't do very much about. He
told me that there really isn't. However, a lot of communities are passing
ordinances that you can't ban these things. What you can do is focus them
and you can prohibit them from locating within 500 feet of a school or from'
a daycare center or whatever else but there has to be a place that they are
allowed in the city. So it raises the question, do you want to get
involved with this at all or do you want, if we're going to deal with it,
you're going to have to basically say it is allowed someplace else and not
just it's not allowed here.
Emmings: Where would it be allowed now? K '
Krauss: In any commercial district.
Conrad: Do we want to be involved? '
Emmings: My opinion is no.
Elison: I don't think it's worth it either.
Emmings: I'm fundamentally opposed to that kind of regulation. People
going to shop there or those shops wouldn't be open and you know, that's II
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 9
the way you exercise your vote on this kind of a thing, as far as I'm
concerned.
Conrad: I don't think we're a prime community for that so I'm not too
nervous.
Elison: We've got a lot of bigger issues that we should be working on.
Krauss: I just thought I'd bring it up.
Conrad: You should. That's valid. Obviously somebody could critique and
say hey, if somebody comes in and we haven't reviewed it.
Erhart: If somebody does come in with an application would we still have
time to react at that time?
' Krauss: Well no you don't and that's what they're doing up there or trying
to do. They're trying to do an after the fact ordinance that prohibits
them in that specific spot. These things are difficult. I mean if you
' develop an ordinance I can guarantee you, you can't close all the
loopholes. You're going to have to have a place where these things are
going to locate. Then if you develop an ordinance and this thing locates
in a permitted spot, then you have egg on your face for having looked at it
or you weren't able to prevent it. I think its kind of a no win situation
but unless there are some fundamental changes in law where you have an
ability to define these things and define the situations they can locate in
a little better, it doesn't appear and Roger confirmed that there's a whole
lot that you can do.
' Conrad: I can't imagine us coming up with a location for.
Krauss: Well you sort of come up with a location the back way. You say it
can't be here, it can't be there and it can't be here so it can be every
place else.
Batzli: So basically you could limit it to your central business district
' or something?
Krauss: Well you can, you know Minneapolis has a 500 foot I think it is
restriction from residential. You can prohibit, you know set a distance
from a church. You do that on your liquor licenses. You can do that with
this. But what happens if you do that and say somebody locates an adult
' material shop in the Frontier Center. You've got a church upstairs there.
I don't know. It's not something that I relish having to work with.
Emmings: They should be allowed anywhere underground and not be given a
sign. Then I'm comfortable.
Krauss: There was also a question, when the video shop moved in down the
street here. They contacted me and I believe Jim Chaffee at the time to
ask what the City, does the City regulate adult videos and what is the
regulations for that?
Emmings: They've got it out on TH 7 and TH 41 at Video Update.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 10
Krauss: Do they? Well, what we had told this fellow. '
Emmings: Now, how do I know that? I heard a rumor. '
Krauss: Well this guy called. This guy contacted us and what I told him
and what Jim told him is no we don't have regulations to do it but I would,
counsel strongly against you doing it. That this is not the kind of
community that takes kindly to it and will probably have repercussions and II
I think he took it to heart. I don't know if that persuaded him but I
don't believe this one has adult video.
Batzli: This is the one by MGM?
Krauss: No, this one right over here by... ,
Conrad: Any interest in persuing this? Is there any interest? Okay,
we're not going to persue it. Anything else you want to talk about in the II
ongoing issue?
Krauss: You can put this in ongoing possibly. I handed out tonight a
calendar for next year. There was a couple of issues that you needed to
decide. I think Vicky wrote notes on here. There's only one meeting
scheduled in July and one in November because of how the holidays fall out..
Now last year we skipped a July meeting. Of course we had a number of
other special meetings for the Comp Plan that kind of bracketed that but well
skipped the July 4th meeting. We also skipped the Thanksgiving meeting but
Vicky points out that the Council only meets once in December on the 9th II
and if you have your regular meeting on December 4th, whatever's heard then
doesn't get heard until the following year. Is that a big deal? If it is,
what you can do is you can move up your meeting time to November 27th.
Emmings: That gives us 3 meetings in November?
Krauss: Yeah. It's very hard to know what kind of a work load we're going
to face this coming year. Maybe you want to play it by ear.
Conrad: That's-also not necessarily fair to staff either in putting 3
meetings in November. I guess I'm not too concerned about the out of sync.'
To tell you the truth I'd prefer, if we have issues, I'd prefer to have
staff have enough time to deal with them versus our ability to process them.
to City Council.
•
Ahrens: There'd be 2 November meetings wouldn't there?
Krauss: Well that's the thing. We skipped the first. 1
Ahrens: November 6th.
Emmings: Oh no, you're right.
Krauss: We skipped the Thanksgiving meeting. '
Emmings: I was looking at City Council. You're right. That's my first
mistake this year.
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 11
Batzli: We haven't started 1991 yet.
' Emmings: How'd you know?
Conrad: I'm still not too concerned.
Krauss: If we leave it with December 4th, if we've really got a slug of
work to do, we can move it.
Ellson: Right. We can discuss it in October.
Batzli: I don't think we're going to have a slug of work next year, at
least as far as applications. We'll get a lot of stuff done though. I say
we royally kind of. Assuming I'm here.
' Conrad: It's a real humbling experience.
UPDATE ON FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE.
Jo Ann Olsen gave the staff presentation on this item.
Krauss: It's one of those curious anomalies where we need to adopt the
Federal regs for those people who need it so they can get flood insurance.
We have very little in the way of a flood problem in Chanhassen and we
don't allow people to build in flood plains anyway so a lot of these regs
are kind of moot really. We've never used them but we're still obligated
11 to do it nonetheless.
Emmings: Have we mapped our flood plain?
' Krauss: The Feds have. In fact we'd like to see if there's a way we can
get them to update it but Jo Ann's looked into it.
Olsen: We have to do the work. We're given a list, a long list of the
people...
Emmings: Where is it other than the river valley?
Olsen: It's around the lakes.
Krauss: All the creeks. Bluff Creek has a flood plain. It goes through
the industrial park.
Emmings: And how, I didn't read this. There was too much detail for when
I got to this part of the packet.. When you're talking about a lake or a
creek, how do you define the flood plain then?
' Olsen: There's a map and I should have brought one down but there's a ring
all the way around it.
Emmings: And does it go to a certain elevation?
Krauss: Yeah. In a 100 year event how high is it going to bounce off and
where does it go?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 12
Olsen: So like your shoreline would be...and if you were going to be
building a house...you'd probably call City Hall and say is this in the
flood plain? And we would have said well a portion of it is but we have a
75 foot setback...That's as much as we enforce it.
Batzli: .7o Ann, are all these changes then required? These are required
under the Fedearl regulations or what have you? Did you just go through II
and do it then?
Olsen: The whole ordinance, we regulate a lot more than is here. What I
did was I went through what our ordinance says now and tried to add what we
didn't have that they now require you to have. Also the DNR has one of
their staff persons to go through our ordinance and list what is needed for
us to add to our ordinance so that's a combination of those two is where we,
came up with what we have.
Batzli: But the federal people won't review it until after you've made the
changes? Is this something that Roger should look at?
Krauss: It might not hurt before we bring it back to you and we publish
the ordinance. We can certainly do that.
Batzli: I mean I don't know if that would add anything or not. It sounds is
like you've looked at it pretty thoroughly but.
Olsen: Yeah, I've discussed it with him before. Again we've gone as bare
bones as we can. I don't think we can cut anything else out. I don't know
that we want to add anything.
Conrad: So you're just bringing this to us for our input and there will be,
a public hearing.
Olsen: Just to let you know. It looked kind of big but really...
Conrad: It gets real tough to read. Any other comments on that?
Ellson: I thought it was interesting. i
Krauss: We'll try to have somebody from the DNR here when this comes up
too so they can answer specific questions.
Conrad: Okay.
EDEN PRAIRIE PLAN AMENDMENT_ 1
Conrad: Paul, if you could highlight your key concerns. Again I think
you're just bringing it to us for information. '
Krauss: Well if you have anything specifically that you'd like to raise or
if you have a question with the tenor or the content of what's in there. I
did send it but I told them that I was acting kind of unilaterally in this II
and I was going to bring it before you and the City Council if there were
further comments or changes, I would tell them about it. This is the third
Comp Plan or guide plan amendment that Eden Prairie has gone through 11 since I've been with the city in the last year and a half. There's a
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 13
number of concerns I have and I'll be honest with you and say that this
is the third draft of this letter and was the one that went out. There was
a lot that I had to cut because I was really somewhat upset with the way in
which that request came across my desk. Eden Prairie, I'll be diplomatic
about this but has a somewhat pre - emptive maternalistic attitude towards
Chanhassen and Chaska and I think it's reflected in their comp plan. They
basically, and this has been related to me by their Planning Director,
believe that we would never.have occurred but by the grace of God and Eden
Prairie. That if Eden Prairie had constrained themselves with the MUSA
line, that we would not have sufficient development that wanted to be out
this far. I've always disputed that point of view and we've tried to deal
with Eden Prairie in a fair manner. We've always said we don't oppose your
MUSA line amendment but we want a level playing field and we want you to
know that we have some concerns. In this case our concerns focus on some
of the rationale that Eden Prairie's using to justify this Comp Plan
amendment. Eden Prairie's basically saying that the Metro Council regional
model has allocated them a number of units and jobs that they're
comfortable with, unlike us and to accommodate that they need 370 acres.
Well, this letter is in part addressed to the Metro Council which now says
wait a second. This regional model is so far off that you're telling us
- and we're across the street from Eden Prairie that we're supposed to
decrease in size over the next 10 years. Some of the rationale. The
amount of work that we've done to justify the Comprehensive Plan amendments
we're proposing and the amount of work that Eden Prairie's doing, it's just
not a fair comparison. Also, Eden Prairie appears to have gone through a
comprehensive planning process without publicizing it. Eden Prairie has
one comprehensive plan that the Metro Council uses and then they have
another one that they apparently use and we've never been given an
opportunity to review it. That was what I was raising some issues with.
I There were some very large storm drainage outflows going directly into Lake
Riley. Well we're coming up with a multimillion dollar plan to clean up
our water. We don't need Eden Prairie's water sloshing down in there
unless it's of the same quality. I think those are things that can be
worked out you know if it's done in an above board manner and I'm asking
the Metro Council and Eden Prairie to do that. We have what we believe to
be better traffic information than Eden Prairie has and we're asking that
' that be considered. As in the past I continue to make sure that the Metro
Council knows that we are coming in with a guide plan amendment. That
Chanhassen is not more... That we are growing and that we have grown and
that we need access to the sanitary sewer. That Eden Prairie should not be
allowed to pre -empt us. They should be allowed to have their fair share
but they should not be allowed to take ours. So basically there's an
amalgam of issues that I wanted to articulate. Give to Eden Prairie. Give
to the Metro Council and say let's talk about it.
Conrad: In the memo, I think it makes some points. Well you're obviously
trying to contrast Chanhassen's degree of involvement in planning with
theirs and that fact clear. In terms of your first point. Southwestern
Eden Prairie development phasing study. What is your, other than them not
' going through the right process, do you have a problem? What is the
problem you're expressing other than the process? Is that it?
Krauss: With the study?
Conrad: Yeah.
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 14
Krauss: There are elements of the study that I don't think gave.
Elison: Like the traffic part.
Krauss: Like the traffic. Like the storm sewer. Like the sanitary sewer
that give Chanhassen possibly short shrift and possibly not the
consideration we deserve.
Conrad: But you don't have a, okay so what's your bottom line concern on
that study? What is it letting them do? '
Krauss: We operate under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. All of us
do. Everyone in the 7 county area. The 7 county area requires that you II have a comprehensive plan. It requires that you keep it up to date. It
requires that you give neighboring communities and other agencies an
opportunity to review and comment. Eden Prairie did that in 1980 as did we
�
when we exchanged plans. In 1988 Eden Prairie apparently went through a
process that they believed they needed to go through which is fine but they
kept it close to the vest and then they started regulating the city based
on this document. I'm not necessarily opposed to this document. I'm a
little uncomfortable with the way in which it was handled and there are
issued that it raises that had we been given a chance to comment in 1988,
we would have raised then but we're raising now because this is the first
shot we've had.
Conrad: And those issues deal with sewer, water and traffic?
Krauss: Yes. 11
Conrad: So it's a process? There's nothing below the surface? You know I'
kept trying to figure out what you were getting at and in this addition to
this MUSA line, if they can resolve some sewer issues, some drainage issues
and traffic, you don't have a problem with what they're proposing?
Krauss: No. And part of this goes to the Metro Council. If there is a
level playing field, if the same consideration the Metro Council gives Eden
Prairie is given us, I'm comfortable. '
Conrad: Okay, then I understand what you're trying to do.
Batzli: But part of your letter talks about the Red Rock Interceptor no II
longer being a possibility.
Krauss: Bluff Creek, yes. ,
Batzli: Oh, Bluff Creek, yeah. Now if that's no longer a possibility, has
the sanitary sewer system that they're proposing here just end at south of
Chanhassen?
Krauss: That's correct. As does the Chaska system on the other side which
has been my concern all along through this is that everybody's taking care '
of their own and they're doing a good job of it and southern Chanhassen is
left with no answer and any answer that does come at that time would be
extraordinarily expensive. Because basically the line is the deadhead from
wherever it starts to here.
i
1 Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 15
Batzli: If they had had to go through the process, you know the formal
review process, would we have had an opportunity to comment on that?
Krauss: Yes.
Batzli: Is it clear that that interceptor is not going to occur?
Krauss: It's still I think on the Metro Waste books but everybody tells
you that it's dead. Metro Waste is going through a study or wants to
initiate a study as to what to do with the Chaska sewage treatment plant.
The alternatives include enlarging it, which is a problem since it's in the
flood plain. It gets innundated. Or eliminate it and if they eliminate it
' they need to have a Metro Interceptor, taking this stuff, the sewage to Blue
Lake. We've been telling that if you do, whichever alternative you choose,
we need to be considered. Our future needs to be taken into account. The
Chaska plant is kind of unique. The Chaska plant is an old municipal plant
and it was designed to serve Chaska and Metro Waste bought it with regional
dollars, our dollars. They've improved it with our dollars. The regional
dollars and we'have no access to it because all the lines leading to the
11 Chaska plant are municipal Chaska lines. Now on the other side of town,
Eden Prairie's proposing to do the same situation. To do the same thing.
' Conrad: Anything else on that?
Krauss: No. I'll keep you posted. I expect that this is not the end of
it.
Conrad: I agree with what you ' re saying.
RURAL AREA DEVELOPMENT, 2 1/2 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
Krauss: In some of the meetings I've been at in the last few months, in
talking to Metro Council staff, it became clear that the 2 1/2 acre rural
lot size that we adhere to is no longer required by the Metro Council.
They do require that we maintain the 1 per 10 acre density zoning that
we've been enforcing since 1986 and I don't have a problem with that
' frankly. I mean we discussed rural area development long enough that that
1 per 10 zoning seems to make sense for future development for less impact
on agricultural areas and everything else. I was a little bit taken back
' to find out that the Metro Council apparently changed their policy on this
2 1/2 acre zoning at the same time they were requiring us to adhere to it
in the Lake Ann agreement. Be that as it may, it's kind of water over the
' dam and if in fact their policy is different today, I believe that we have
the option of going with 1 acre lots in the rural area. I asked our city
attorney about that. It's a little bit unusual because not only do you
have to consider an amendment to zoning ordinance but we actually have to
have a contract amended between the City and the Metro Council, which is
the Lake Ann agreement. I asked Roger to prepare a contract amendment that
would take care of that and he's done that. I think this is kind of a two
11 step process. I think we have to first know that we have the ability or
the flexibility to change the contract and either concurrently or after
that you have to consider whether or not you want to and what kind of
standards you might apply. I've discussed this with Commissioner Erhart
and he rightfully points out that when you consider 1 acre lots relatively
to 2 1/2 acre lots, that other standards may be different as well. You may
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 16
want to look at different front yard setbacks, different sideyard, you know,
those sorts of standards should be looked at comprehensively. If you'd
like us to follow up on this, 1 think the way in which to do it is to
direct us to ask the City Council to direct me to submit this contract
amendment to the Metro Council and first see if we can get the flexibility
to take action. If you feel strongly enough about it. I guess we talked
about the 1 acre lots for a moment. I think you know, we've all been
through the process where we've seen first hand the difficulties we have
with situations such as Timberwood and Sunridge Court and Lake Lucy
Highlands. That's not necessarily to mean that these are bad places to
live. I mean anything but. They're highly attractive environments but
what happens when you mandate a 2 1/2 acre standard, you chew up inordinate
amounts of ground for very small gain. I mean 1 household on 2 1/2 acres.
Now if somebody truly wants a 2 1/2 acre lot, that's their right but we're
mandating that that's the minimum lot size right now and once we
institutionalize that, you've seen the problems that we have when we need
to bring services around and through these areas because these people have II
their own roads, their own on -site sewer and water and basically you're
faced with dead heading everything past them or assessing them for future
benefit. It makes it difficult to develop comprehensive road systems. One
of the things that we'd like to look into, and I know Commissioner Erhart
raised this at a meeting, regional meeting with the Metro Council, is that
when you come down to smaller lot sizes, the 1 acre lot sizes, you have the
potential to develop a community based on site sewage system. We have one
of those right now over by Minnewashta. Now I'm not aware if that one was
built correctly or not or functions properly or not but if we designed this
to a high standard, what you basically have is you have the system
terminating in a drainfield and if one day we need to provide services, you
just cut out the drainfield and tap it into the sewer main that's the
City's so I think it gives you a lot of flexibility to bring utilities in '
in the future that we don't have in developments such as Timberwood. So I
guess from my point of view I would advocate that we do follow up and look
further at these one acre lots and if you wish, we'll submit that contract
amendment to the Metro Council and see what they say. I have no idea how II
they're going to receive this. I'm not even sure of the administrative
procedure to go through at this point because Chanhassen was singled out
for some very unusual treatment with that agreement. But it's a contract II
and like any other contract it can be changed.
Conrad: Tim is the official rural expert. Do you feel comfortable looking'
at the 1 acre lots?
Erhart: Oh yeah. I think this is a real important thing given the
experience we've had here in the last year with the Comp Plan... I did II bring a copy of the...Met Council. I've been following this a little bit
and attended one of their meetings. The turn about is unbelieveable
compared to what we were faced with back in 1985 or 1986 when we got first
involved with that. You know statements like...agriculture preservation...'
I think Paul's correct. The first step is to...long term goal, first step
is to see if we can get the contract changed and then proceed to get as II much flexibility as we can and then go back and tailor this thing to what
our needs and desires are here.
Conrad: Anybody with a different opinion?
1
$ Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 17
II Emmings: I agree completely.
II Ellson: I do too and I like the idea of the community sewer thing too.
Emmings: This could be one of the most significant things we do for how
I the southern part of the city develops and give us an opportunity to look
at whether or not we're interested in agricultural preservation...and also
the idea of clustering in this. I don't know to what extent we can use any
kind of cluster development. Maybe you can't.
II Krauss: They do encourage cluster development but the context that's
referred to in that report that Tim's got, if you're out by a cornfield
II in Young America someplace and they talk about clustering, if you've got
360 acres or old section or whatever it is. We can explore that further. I
can ask them. I think, you know 1 acre relative to 2/1 2 acres, I mean
that's clustering in itself in that context. It may be preferable to do
them even tighter than that but you can't do them tighter than that 9 times
out of 10 if you go with individual...
I Erhart: I think it's important to understand that their policy on that is
a zoning policy. Other than that one contract, it doesn't really state how
we have to execute that policy. We really aren't required to follow their
1 approach and the fact that our approach is more tailored to our situation
with smaller parcels, I don't think anybody at Met Council objected to
that. To our approach.
II Krauss: In terms of clustering? The 1 per 10? No, they don't.
Erhart: Their approach is more tailored to out in western Carver County...
1 Krauss: Well one of the most significant things in that policy statement
though is they finally, for the first time, recognized situations that we
II have really typlified in Chanhassen in that for the first time they came up
with this transition area designation which we clearly are. I mean we're
surrounded on 4 sides by urban development. They recognize now that
there's some difference in the way you manage land that you expect at some
I point to either go urban or be pressured to go urban than you do with prime
farmland if your primary motivation is long term preservation. You may
want to allow some residential development but that's the accessory use,
I and it's a real major change for them. It's a very major departure.
Unfortunately they don't tell you very much about the transition area.
What the standards are going to be or anything else but at least they came
up with the idea. I did prepare written comments to the Metro Council on
II that and basically gave them a pat on the back. for doing that and I asked
them to try to develop some more definition for that area because we've had
problems with Metro Council on construction of TH 212 and TH 5 simply
II because they went outside the MUSA line. They didn't recognize the fact
that there was traffic on the roads anyway or the fact that Chanhassen was
likely to bring these areas into the MUSA line. That's the reason why TH 5
I is ending at CR 17 in the improvements. That's the reason why Metro
Council staff was opposing the construction of 4 lane, 212 through
Chanhassen. They actually at one point advocated that it go from 4 lanes i
Eden Prairie to 2 lanes in Chanhassen at TH 101 and go back to 4 lanes
again in Chaska. Now presumably with the transition area recognition we'll
have a lot better time of it.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 Page 18
Batzli: Why does the proposed amendment that Roger's drafted not include all
1 acre minimum? It just includes the 1 per 10 density.
Krauss: Well I think maybe we can define that further. Maybe we should. II
You point out a good point. I think Roger just rewrote that paragraph
deleting the offending sentence.
Batzli: Would they accept it without any minimum lot size in there?
Krauss: Probably not. 1
Erhart: If you read this, they're advocating no restrictions on minimum
lot size whatsoever and suggesting performance standard. If they do, it
its referenced however that in good soils, and independent septic systems,
that 1 acre is probably the sensitive minimum site.
Emmings: To get two septic sites. '
Batzli: So really on one acre they say you can get 2 sites.
Krauss: Well it depends on the soil. It really depends on the individual II
situations. They've also asked communities to develop and adopt high
standards of design and inspection for on site sewers. Fortunately we did 11
that several years ago so we can go to them and say look, we've performed
and we'd like you to recognize that.
Erhart: They say in this...minimum lot size should be determined by
performance standards. Current Council indicate that the minimum should bell
determined by the standard...
Conrad: Okay. How much time do you have to put, how much energy do you 1
need to put into something like this Paul?
Krauss: Beats me. I've never done it before. I don't know how they're
going to deal with it.
Conrad: We tell you to do stuff and then yet we never know how it affects
other things you do. I think it's, I heard Steve say it was important to
him and Tim says it's important but I never know. Are we saying spend a
month of your life. '
Krauss: Well clearly if it became a major problem. I'm going to work with
you on this anyway. What I need to do is get this on the City Council '
agenda because they're the ones that entered into the contract and get
their authorization to proceed. I'll shift it over to Carl Loren I believe
at the Metro Council and he and I can meet and discuss how we need to
proceed on this. If it's simply a matter of their attorney changing the
contract for them and changing it for the Council, that's great but I've
found that nothing's ever that simple at the Metro Council.
Emmings: A question. Let's say Timberwood, I'll use Timberwood as an '
example where you've got a rural subdivision with 2 1/2 acres. If we
change the ordinance can those people come back in and subdivide?
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 19
Krauss: They probably could. As a matter of fact Timberwood, Al
Klingelhutz has told me several times that Timberwood was designed to do
' that.
Emmings: Yeah, and there's a lot of empty lots over there still so it'd be
very easy to do because nothing's built. That's something else we'll have
to take into consideration.
Krauss: But that is an implication. If you moved into a 2 1/2 acre lot
' neighborhood, would you be upset to find 1 acre lots next door?
Emmings: So there are covenants for the preservation as a whole that will
prevent further subdivision?
Krauss: I doubt it.
Emmings: Is there anything like that?
Erhart: Timberwood has...
11 Olsen: I know when we were working with a couple of people who
specifically located their homes so it could be subdivided.
Batzli: We probably need a blending ordinance.
Conrad: Let's go, if we're all done on that issue, let's go back to the
one we started with earlier tonight. Tim, before you came in we had a land
owner present a map to shift our MUSA line. No, not necessarily our
MUSA line but a boundary for a potential one of our zones a little bit
south. I guess we should send some kind of signal. Paul, you weren't
comfortable with moving it? I guess I, well I'll open it up. What's the
commission's pleasure on this one?
Ellson: I think if we had known this in the beginning. I think we
arbitrarily have a line there and if we had known this in the beginning,
that could have just as easily have been the line as this one and I think
' it sort of makes sense because I don't think people want to build right on
top of a pipeline. It just seems funny that we're going to take, well this
arbitrary one holds more weight than this one. I don't have a problem
necessarily moving it. I can understand the fact that we've already
presented it and that may be Steve's idea that if the proper thing comes in
or whatever but I have a hard time saying absolutely no because we didn't
have a real good reason for where it is.
Emmings: Well there was a little bit of a reason. It wasn't completely
arbitrary.
Ellson: No, but I'm saying if we knew this plus the fact that we thought
there was a couple little elms there would we have made the decision
different probably? That's my opinion.
Batzli: I guess I would feel more comfortable recommending that it be
moved south if our city people spoke with the William's Pipeline people
directly and knew that they would allow berming and plantings and things
like that. Because if in fact they don't and this is just going to be an
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
December 12, 1990 -- Page 20
open space, then it doesn't serve the purpose of our buffer which we
originally intended. So I guess I would like to recommend it in a
qualified way if I had, my druthers after staff has had a chance to talk to II
them to see what would be allowed.
Emmings: Do you think it ought to be presented? I mean the people that 11
live there in the blue were very involved in the comprehensive plan. We
took their concerns into consideration when we moved it to the north in the
first place. Doing this without telling them, they would be outraged I'm
sure and rightfully so so I think that's the other. I agree with what you 11
said and I think the other thing is it has to be presented to those folks
and get their input.
Conrad: Before we moved the line to the north, where was it? ,
Krauss: It was on the property line.
Conrad: Okay. So we had commercial abutting them? So moving it to the
tree line.
Ellson: Was arbitrary.
Conrad: Was arbitrary but it was a distance away.
Krauss: It was arbitrary but it also wasn't. Yes, we did not know that
the Pipeline was there. We did know that it was a property line. We did
know that it had some vegetative cover on it that in the summertime anyway II
looks better than having nothing there. We also knew that the land mass
was such that the top of the hill is fairly close to Sunridge but it
doesn't fall of a whole heck of a lot until you're past Rod's property line'
and then it dips down substantially. When you're talking about 20 to 45
high tip up panel buildings, they're going to be pretty visible across the
top of that plateau no matter where it is. Just below the hillcrest or
wherever. There was also a concern as I recall that was voiced by Mrs.
Barinsky I believe who lives in a Chaska brick home and wanted to preserve
Chaska brick homes and Rod house is a Chaska brick house. And there was a
desire to maintain a residential feel for at least a significant amount
portion of Audubon Road that we're not just creating an island. In
previous meetings with Rod Grams I've told him that I'd be pretty
relunctant to change this at this point but that if he came into me at some
point in the future and had, was able to present a done deal you know.
Here's our development package. We're going to develop 30 homes on this
property here. Here's the buffer we're going to build and then we've got
these industrial sites down there and packaged it up so basically it was II
served on a platter and meet with the neighborhood and give them firm facts
because we could do this as a PUD and it will be a firm commital. I can't
go before a neighborhood, if we put that line on the pipeline now, I can't 11
guarantee them that they're going to have the level of separation or
buffering that they would if everything were pushed beyond the hill because
then I know it's going to work. Even if William's Pipeline is cooperative,"
which in our experience they're not, you just can't guarantee them.
Conrad: You know sometimes you look at the Chaska brick houses and say,
there's not much value left in them. You can look at it two ways. I don'tj
know if they're historic or not. I know the one across the street from
r
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 21
this property is quite nice and I feel that there's a reason to, I think
your comment Paul was that if you zone it commercial, the house's going to
be torn down. Got to be. So I guess I have a problem with forcing it or
encouraging it to be torn down at this point in time. I also have a
problem with going back to the neighbors right now and telling them we've
got a different line and I haven't been persuaded on this point and Rod
hasn't really, you know he's come in at the tail end. I go back to the
buffer. I'm not sure the buffer is there where the pipeline is where we've
got it so I would have a hard time revisiting the issue right now. After
looking at all those things and after working with the neighborhood, I
guess I don't feel that there's any value to resurfacing it right now.
Ahrens: Well I thought the comprehensive plan was kind of a done deal for
us at our level and I think that for us to entertain new proposals from
people in the community is a little unfair to everybody else in the
community who would think that maybe they have a chance to come in with a
new great proposal that they've just come up with in the last week and
since it hasn't been approved yet by the City Council,—they still have a
chance. I mean this process makes me real uncomfortable.
Conrad: Well I talked to, Rod called me and I said well bring it in. If
it makes sense we can do it before the process. If I thought it was an
' easy deal and it just made all the sense in the world and the neighbors
were going to agree, hey I think we'd make that recommendation so the City
Council could see what it was. If we had that feeling but I don't have
that feeling. Now that I see what he's talking about and where he's moving
it, I don't have a feeling at all that this is the right move and I
wouldn't entertain it. Well that's my perspective but I asked, he was
trying to figure out how to look, get this in and we said we'll take a look
' at it so I brought them back or I brought them in. But I have no sense
that this is a better move for anybody at this time.
Krauss: Commissioner Ahrens, I think your point's well taken. You have
acted to send them the plan to the City Council. This does not seem to be
a change. Well it's unlike the Lundgren proposal which when that one was
presented from an environmental standpoint and from the standpoint that it
was high quality residential, kind of light went on and we were able to do
that prior to the public hearing or during the public hearing and it made
some sense. On the other hand, I think that there are going to be a number
of people probably at that January 7th meeting where you're going to be
presenting the plan to City Council and I like to think that we spend a lot
of time in analyzing these issues and they're put to bed but you know, you
' will have people who, and I haven't really heard from anybody for a long
time honestly but I expect there to be people who basically say to
themselves I took my shot with the Planning Commission. I've still got one
more shot with the City Council and try to have issues re- opened or
' re- visited. Whether or not the Council does that is going to be up to them
but you're going to be at that meeting hopefully on the 7th and if somebody
does come up with an issue, I can see all the heads on the City Council
turning over to you and saying well what do you guys think about that. So
to the extent that you've been able to think it through a little bit, I
don't think it would hurt.
Conrad: Okay, should we close it?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 22
Erhart: I think it's the wrong time to...it's actually more in line where II
I would prefer to have it but I think it's the wrong time...
Conrad: Okay, last item. I asked Mike here to give a 5 minute speech to II
close out. No, we're happy you're here Mike just to listen to how some of
the process works or doesn't work. We really do enjoy it. It's a far
better form of communication when City Council members are here and hear
what we're talking about. It loses a whole lot in Minutes.
Mike Mason: It's good to have but this is a far better thing. '
Conrad: Anything else?
Olsen: The next meeting we're going to be bringing a public hearing for
the, we talked about rezoning A-2, the Timberwood...
Krauss: Well you may want to hold off on that in light of our discussion all
few minutes ago now that I think about it. I mean that may be the way to
protect Timberwood is to leave it agricultural.
Erhart: You still have the requirement of the 1 in 10 density and that
would preclude Timberwood from doing any subdividing...
Krauss: That's right. Should we bring it together with this 1 acre stuff ?'
Elison: Yeah. -
Erhart: Yeah. I think it is...
Conrad: Well this is our last meeting this year. Seriously though, as the
last meeting, I think it's fun to sort of look back and we'll do that
in January and look back and see what we got done and what we didn't and
where we want to go but I'm really rather impressed with what we got done
this year. The reaction of the community to the comprehensive plan. I
think that was really quite nice. I'm impressed with what everybody has
done and added and the energy that you've put in this year so I thank you
and I think it's really fun to be on the Commission with all you folks. I II
think that gets reflected. I talk to Don occasionally too to find out what'
he's thinking about what we're doing and obviously he's gotten some very
nice feedback on how we've operated so again, I think it was a nice year
and we did some good things and I want to compliment you all on that.
Erhart: Has anybody concluded what it means...Planning Commission? Were
they positive or negative? '
Conrad: I think that's positive.
Emmings: We've had none and we've had almost 20. One time we had none. '
Mike Mason: That isn't the same reason 8 people ran for City Council. A
lot of people...
Emmings: Out of jobs.
Ahrens: More people out here. '1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 12, 1990 - Page 23
Ellson: I think it's good planning for the community. People are getting
involved more and I like that. Whatever happened when we used to have the
newspaper here? I remember when I started they were going to be here with
us every week.
Conrad: They got bored with us.
Krauss: They're at every council meeting but I thought they were here. I
mean they were at every comprehensive plan meeting. By the way, I had
heard at the Council meeting that we're losing Ann Hanson who was our
relatively new reporter for the Sailor. I heard she was laid off. We're
not sure if we're going to get coverage frankly so I've got to find out.
I mean we always have Dave and Dave's been excellent.
Conrad: When I was handing out the job well done, I think again to the
Planning staff. I think your help this year has been, you've really
' improved a lot of things. I could go down the list of some of the staff
reports and the updates and I think in general we've made great strides so
I thank the planning department for your help too. Is there a motion to
1 adjourn?
Batzli: Well we have to give credence to our grand poobah as well.
Batzli moved, Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10 :00 p.m..
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Mann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
II
1
•
7..
11 U‘� ,. q4` ` 4 t, � a y
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION k
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 1990
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Jim Mady, Wendy Pemrick, Jim Andrews, Dawne
Erhart
1 MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Schroers and Curt Robinson
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator and Jerry
Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor
' APPROVAL OF- MINUTES: Andrews moved, Mady seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated November 27, 1990
amended as follows: Jan made a correction on page 1, second sentence
' of Mike Mason's comment changing the word "motions" to "emotions" and Jim
Mady on page 44, changing the word "seeding" to "seating" in the last
paragraph. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' VISITOR PRESENTATION:
Jay Johnson: Hi. I'm Jay Johnson. I'm the soccer coordinator for the
Athletic Association. Chanhassen Athletic Association. The Treasurer of
the Chan - Chaska Soccer Club and the Registrar of the Soccer Club and what
I've done is written a little letter here. I actually drafted it last July
' and then rewrote it today. It's on our soccer field needs over the next 5
years I figure it would be a good time to tell you about them. Soccer's
really growing in this town. In the fall program we're adding teams every
year. This time we had almost 200 kids in it this fall. The soccer club
1 which runs the summer soccer runs from April into August and sometimes in
September and October. We even have some teams playing this winter. That,
we added 2 more teams this last year. Basically what I want to do is real
quickly tell you that with the Lake Ann field coming on line this year,
that we're going to be in pretty good shape thru '92. Or '91, probably
'92. By '93 it's going to be real tough. A couple of the fields have to
11 be taken out of use. The field donated by Minnetonka School District had
some extreme problems to it. They're going to have to recrown it and
reseed it and the field provided by the Chaska School District has the same
problems plus it's too narrow. They're looking to rewidening it so we're
11 going to lose both of those fields for one summer sometime. Hopefully not
the same time. If we lose them both at the same time, then we're really
scrambling but we really do appreciate the fields that Chanhassen provides.
We'd like Chaska to provide one but they haven't yet, in the summer. This
last year Park and Rec guys did a fantastic job in keeping North Lotus Lake
field in good shape for us. That was the first year we've used it. Our
under 12 boys and girls used it. Then this fall they did an excellent job.
We had 5 fields for them to keep lined and they did an excellent job of
keeping those fields lined for us all fall. But basically when we get out
here on the third page there, start talking about future needs, I'm
expecting next year that we're going to add at least 2 if not 3 more teams
to our summer soccer leagues which then will start stressing our field
capacity if any fields are taken off for maintenance. And by 1995 I'm
I predicting that we should have 8 to 9 fields for just the summer soccer
players to play on and one thing I've shown down there is 2 fields as 1 to
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
December 11, 1990 - Page 2
2 fields on the bottom is back -up fields. Most of the soccer clubs have
fields that they rest every year. The Wayzata has like 15 fields for their
soccer club. Two of them are not used in any given year and they are just
rested. Nobody's allowed to play on them. You're not allowed to play
baseball. You're not allowed to practice or anything on those fields and
they're taken. They're allowed to just grow. They're never marked and
' this way they constantly replenish their fields instead of just beating on
them. So that's something we'd like to look for in the next 5 years is to
increase the number of fields. Bandimere Park is going to increase 2 full
sized fields but the design I was shown for Bandimere Park that was the
preferred design, I was told, eliminates our under 10 field so we would
gain 2 fields for the older kids but the younger kids would lose their
field. So we gain 2 and lose 1 and the 1 we'd be losing is the one that's
getting in more and more demand because I predict next year we're going to
add at least one more under 10 team taking it up to 3. We'll have an all
girls under 10 team for the first time. This year we had the first time
all girls under 12 so we're somewhat against what I was told was the chosen
design for Bandimere Park, if it ends up eliminating the under 10 field.
What we need is another under 10 field rather than eliminating one. So
basically I put it all here for your future consideration. Oh, the one
thing. The last paragraph. Last 2 I guess I should say is a soccer wall.
Basically this is a great big wall that the kids can go up and kick the
ball against and do, oh there's a lot of different drills and practices you
' can do against a soccer wall without having a whole field. I think it'd be
great to have one of those probably at Bandimere Park if that turns out to
be the place where most the soccer fields are. If you want to see one,
1 they have one up at Eden Prairie High School along TH 4 where their soccer
fields are there. So that's something that we'd like to see happen in the
next few years is get a soccer wall that they can practice hitting and
whatever off of. That thing actually can also function as an outdoor, one
' wall racquetball. A lot of the parts of the country they have that where
you just put one racquetball wall up and play racquetball outdoors. You
• put asphalt on one side for the racquetballers and grass on the other side
for the soccer players. It can function both ways.
Mady: How much room do you need on the open side of it Jay? The shooting
i side.
Jay Johnson: How far back?
Mady: Yeah.
Jay Johnson: Oh geez. We're not trying, what it's used for, yeah 30 feet.
20 feet. It's not used for trying to hit a target from 80 yards away or
anything. It's used more to just practice your form of kicking without
having to chase the ball again or to hit the ball against the wall and have
it as your partner. Pepper drills where the wall's your partner. You kick
it and then you have to control it and kick it again. So it's a lot of
close things. I've never seen anybody more than 20 foot away probably.
II Mady: One of the thoughts I had on this is, up here at City Center Park
we're constantly fighting the battle with the wind screens trying to keep
those on the court. On the north side of that court we have about 100 feet
before we get to the property line that's not used. It's just open space.
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
December 11, 1990 - Page 3 -
II It's never utilized outside of Mike Leymeyer uses it for his secret soccer
drills he tells us.
Jay Johnson: Yeah. We've used it for soccer practice in the fall league. II
Sent the team over there. -
Mady: You already have, the posts are already in place with the posts for I
the screen. I would think staff would be able to come up with something
that could effectively make it a rigid wall and allow you both.
Jay Johnson: Yeah. Well the prevailing winds in this part of the country II
are to the north and to the northwest and to the west. Do you rarely get
anything out of the south and east to worry about. So if you can cover
those two sides, that'd be a decent spot also.
II
Mady: It's an idea anyway. It's a thought.
Jay Johnson: Anyway, thanks a lot. I have to get to Edina. II
Lash: Could I ask you a question first?
I
Jay Johnson: Sure.
Lash: When you're talking about, and this would probably apply to other
II
youth activities as well and Todd could maybe address this after, but when
you're talking about projected figures of players, what do you think the
percentage of kids that go to Chan Elementary, that's basically the
II
majority of the kids who sign up for the sports activities isn't it?
Jay Johnson: In the fall. For fall soccer.
II
Lash: Or for team ball, rag ball. Most of them, there are a few from St.
Hubert's but most of them go to school here right?
Jay Johnson: I would say 90% are from Chan Elementary in the CAA because II
I'm the Treasurer of that organization so I see all the checks. We have
quite a few from St. Hubert's would be second and then we pick up Mound's
and Excelsior's. We offer a few things that other towns don't so we get a '
lot of people coming in for our programs from out of town. We start soccer
earlier. Basketball earlier. A lot of sports we start earlier so we get il
their kids.
Lash: Well in the next year with the new school in Jonathan is going to be
opening and I'm working on the task force for the boundaries for that and II
the projections of how they want to split up the enrollment. They want to
try and do that based on future growth patterns and there's lots of
different criteria but one of the things that I'd like to keep in mind or 11
get figures on actually for some of the things are the number of kids who
live say in Grandale, Victoria, some of those areas that presently come to
Chanhassen but next year will be going to the new school in Jonathan. Then
will they still be interested in being in the Chan activities or maybe will
they be starting their own or will they want to be with Chaska?
Jay Johnson: Historically Chaska runs all the sports programs down there. II
They don't have a group like the Chan Athletic Association. We have a lot
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
December 11, 1990 - Page 4
of people from Chaska who come up here to play with us because they prefer
our sports.
' Lash: But we may end up with a little bit of a grace period.
Jay Johnson: Oh, Victoria. A lot of people. Talk with our registrations
and she can pull out by zip code the people and so that will give us
Victoria, Chan, Excelsior and Chaska's zip code.
Lash: That may just give us a little bit of cushion.
Hoffman: Do you have any idea how far east that's going to come?
Lash:" The boundary?
Hoffman: Yeah.
1 Jay Johnson: Will Victoria start going down there?
Lash: Victoria will probably be. We've only had one meeting and there's
going to be a public forum next Tuesday so.
Jay Johnson: Of course, will they have any facilities, atheltica
' facilities the first couple years?
Lash: At the school site itself I really don't know but what I'm thinking
' more is that people tend to have their kids sign up and play with other
kids that they go to school with and I don't know where those kids are
going to go. If they're going to choose to continue to come to Chan or
' would it probably be closer to go to Chaska if Chaska has the facilities?
I don't know.
Hoffman: The percentage, as we spoke earlier, the bulk is still going to
' be here for us. Right now a variety of the Victoria and the families out
in that area...to Chaska. They come into our programs and some of them
even go to Waconia.
' Andrews: I want to make a comment too about the talk of the United League
which I'm active in, there's an overflow from that league coming into the
north part of Chanhassen because the Tonka fields are just totally
' overwhelmed with soccer programs.
Jay Johnson: We share fields with Tonka United.
Andrews: I know you did. I talked to you about it. We did share fields
but there's a real shortage of larger full sized fields for the Tonka
league too so you're going to get pressure from that side too.
Jay Johnson: Oh yeah. Tonka United wants us off of the third field up
there to the Intermediate School so they can have it. In fact I've come in
and kicked their teams off of our fields. It's the worse field. It's
being beaten up and what's happening is Tonka United Soccer Club is doing
their practices on our fields and leaving their's alone so that their's
grows a little bit at times. Not all of them are always doing this but I
caught them a couple times last year and showed them the piece of paper
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
December 11, 1990 - Page 5
saying we had exclusive use. But the soccer club is both Chanhassen and II
Chaska so the new grade school makes no difference at all because we have
kids from all over the place actually playing. Eden Prairie and whatever
but we would still service that school. Hopefully they will be as nice to I
us as Chan Elementary is. The Chaska Schools we can't get our information
out as easy to the kids but Chan Elementary's real good about getting.
I
Hopefully the new school will be better than Chaska. Right now Chaska's
not real hot on soccer. Their Park and Rec Director's not a soccer. He
believes soccer is a fall sport and we believe it's a summer sport and that
in the fall you have your recreational, non - serious soccer. Anyway,
thanks.
HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE PLAYGROUND, CITY CENTER PARK, APPROVAL OF BIDS FOR II
PHASE I.
Hoffman: Item number 2, the initial portion of the report just showed you
what was distributed to the various bidders. The three companies which we I
contacted to bid on the equipment itself. The equipment and material and
then the two companies which were contacted concerning the purchase of
buckshot or the gravel surfacing material. What I've left with you tonight
is the cover letter explaining the bid process or the quote process and the '
copies of the separate quotes that you received. As you noticed, W.M.
Mueller and Sons was the only gravel company that was interested in II bidding. The price of $4.25 per ton. In talking with Dale Gregory and
what we've purchased it for in the past, it's very favorable. We also
contacted Mapco Sand and Gravel out of Shakopee and they chose not to bid.
The equipment per the specifications, Earl F. Anderson and Associations was
the only company that chose to bid the entire package. Value Recreation
initially turned in a bid which appeared complete but then upon
investigation and a couple of phone calls, he began to back down on certain
items expressing that these would not be exactly what's in the
specification but we would gerrymander or rig something up. Hacksaw some
things up and weld some things on and make these things work. I explained
to them that we did not want any modifications of that type and we were '
looking exactly for what was specified in the specifications. He withdrew
the exerglide swing and backhoe digger ride and then upon further
investigation, he had misquoted the timber border, the 320 lineal feet. He '
estimated that at 160 feet of 6 x 6 and 160 feet of 4 x 6 when it said
total 320 feet of total timber border and the finish size of 6 x 10. So he
misquoted that so he just elected to drop out of the bidding and the quote I
process. Flanagan Sales Inc., as you can see, turned in a partial bid so
typically you really want to look for the complete package. The company .
that can provide the entire equipment which you're looking for and it is my
recommendation that we accept the quote from Earl F. Anderson Inc. in the II
amount of $6,095.00 for the equipment and materials and that we accept the
bid from W.M. Mueller and Sons in the amount of $4.25 per ton per the
provisions of the modified buckshot.
II
Mady: So moved.
Andrews: Second.
II
•
Mady: Any further discussion?
II
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
December 11, 1990 - Page 6
Mady moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept the quote from Earl F. Anderson Inc. in the amount of
' $6,095.00 per the equipment and materials specifications and to accept the
bid from W.M. Mueller and Sons in the amount of $4.25 per ton per the
provisions of the modified buckshot. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF 1991 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET_
' Hoffman: As you can see by the summaries, I believe Jim if I've followed
you correctly, we asked for last time. That should tell you what has been
going on in the past year and what is coming up in the following year prior
to going through some of the specifics. If we could just take a look at
the summary. Our fund balance forward is fairly healthy at the current
time. Somewhere over $600,000.00. The 1990 Capital Improvement projects
' which will be established, we have our general development fund but then we
established separate funds for each project in order to keep the accounting
system verifiable and accurate. Lake Ann expansion, the last $20,000.00
will be put in there to pay for the final completion work which has been
carried out in Lake Ann Park this past summer. The Lake Susan Park
expansion, the $120,000.00 which was our portion of the matching grant has
been transferred into a fund and is paying for expenses which are being
' incurred up there with the development at Lake Susan Park. Herman Field
Park access road and initial development, we elected to establish that at
$50,000.00. The initial donation some 8 -10 years ago was the $30,000.00.
We looked to developing that road and trying to get some initial
development. That $30,000.00 would possibly get us the road in there but
after that it's not going to get us any farther. In light of the
conversations which we've had with the residents, their consistently saying
that if that $30,000.00 would have been collecting interest all this time,
it would be even somewhat higher than $50,000.00 so we feel the $50,000.00
is a fair figure to establish in that fund for this first year for initial
development in 1991. Pheasant Hills parkland, that is the land acquisition
amount so that totals your figure there. Revenue over expenditures for
1990 was $176,000.00 which we've collected over expenditures and then the
general development reserve which was established a few years back is
always $100,000.00. That pushes forward our $430,000.00 plus our
$100,000.00 into the fund balance forward proposed for 1991 of
' $530,000.00. Then what is laid out in that proposal is basically what is
included in the detailed packet. Proposed 1991 capital improvement
projects would be to continue the research and finally the construction of
the Lake Ann Park community shelter at $110,000.00. Anticipated 1991
revenue is $228,000.00 and then the capital improvement program,
subtracting that $175,000.00 which we proposed for the capital improvement
program in 1990. Consulting fees. Administrative fees is one of the hits
' that our budget is taking in the balancing of the general budget for the
city. What this says is that my time is 20% or approximately there of my
time is put into park acquisition and development and thus that amount of
my salary should come out of the park development fund. It's been
initiated in all the departments and you'll see that expense in all their
budgets as well. Establishing the general development reserve. Revenue
reserve in the land west of Lake Minnewashta which was in the previous
reserve puts us to a 1991 capital total resources over expenditures of
$248,000.00 so if we keep our reserves and then we would transfer forward
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
December 11, 1990 - Page 7
basically $450,000.00 in 1992 in our general fund. So again our general II
fund, park development fund remains to be very viable and in good
condition. We want that to continue because we are looking to quite a bit
of park development in future years and we can't spend it all in one year.
We need to bank some of that so as building permits begin to dry out, that
we can finish up and clean up where we're at in our goals for park
development in the city so you want to keep that bank account.
II
Andrews: Last time we met, what were the revenues that came in 1990?
Hoffman: Revenues established in 1990. Expenditures are $176,000.00. We I
expended approximately $50,000.00 in 1990 so we were upwards of $230,000.00
in revenue.
I Andrews: Okay, didn't we project or talk about a drop due to slow down in
permits of 30% or so? Wasn't that a number that we?
Hoffman: Then coming up. I
Andrews: Projected '91 based on current pace of development over the last
3 to 6 months.
Hoffman: Basically there will be some sort of drop. What is shown in
1991, revenues $228,000.00. That's the City Manager's estimate along with
consultation with the building department.
•
Andrews: And it anticipates that drop already then?
II
Hoffman: Correct.
Mady: You'll find Don Ashworth will be more conservative than almost
1
anybody else in town when it comes to forecasting revenues for the coming
year.
Hoffman: Other questions either on the overviews, the proposals or I hope
you all had a chance. We won't go through the detailed budget again
tonight. In the report on the front page it does show what was deleted
from what we initially talked about and those items are deletions which are'
somewhat painful although they are some of the best that I found throughout
the specific budget. I did try to spread things around in our park II development and purchase of equipment, that type of thing so we can
basically keep some minimal improvements going in all our city parks so the
residents do see some activity taking place there. We also have some
larger projects which we'll be undertaking and we get underway with the
Lake Ann community building sometime with finishing up design work and thatll
type of thing. That would be a large project which would continue in 1991.
Mady: Todd I have one question. On the Pond park erosion control? You II
left $3,000.00 in there for that. Does the engineering department feel
that will take care of it?
Hoffman: In consultation with Dave Hempel, I've talked to them and he did 1
have a chance to go out on the site and he feels that that's something
which our public works can carry on their own and thus the $3,000.00 is
II
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
December 11, 1990 - Page 8
still a good figure to keep in there. We are safe dropping that down a few
thousand dollars.
Mady: Okay, that was the only one. Although I don't like see a number of
this stuff not being done, erosion control, it's just something we need to
fix. Make sure that gets done. Any other comments?
Andrews: I have one. Somehow the cut on the North Lotus Lake Park got
around in our neighborhood relatively quickly. The request that was made
' was not so much for the totlot type of equipment that's been proposed or
talked about but just for the general swing. You know chains and a seat to
swing on. Do you have any idea what sort of costs that kind of equipment
we'd be looking at?
Hoffman: A double, two swings?
' Andrews: Yeah.
Hoffman: $800.00.
Mady: I remember the $1,000.00. The...I had from about 2 years ago was
$800.00. It's probably around $1,000.00 now.
Andrews: What do you think?
Mady: I'm sure there's room to squeeze it in someplace.
' Andrews: Squeeze it someplace, okay. Now I can go back to my neighborhood
Ind look them in the eye.
Lash: These things that you deleted Todd, did you then bump them over into
the 1992 plus column?
' Hoffman: Figures?
Lash: Yeah. Or what did you do?
1 Hoffman: Basically if you take a look, let's just take Lake Ann for
example. Street curbing does not show up in 1992+ so those things will be
added in there so at least we don't forget about them.
Lash: I notice in Lotus Lake it wasn't so I just wanted to make sure it's
not forgotten just because it's deleted.
1 Mady: One thing you might keep in mind with that street curbing. Instead
of just putting curb in, which is going to require some other things, you
' might want to consider doing something like bollards like Eden Prairie's
done with their big parks.
Hoffman: Bollards or else you can bring in just the pull up curb stops.
Mady: Even that's even cheaper but just if you want to do something that
doesn't require a lot of digging. With bollards you just dig a hole and
drop them in so there's a number of things that can be done just to keep
the cars off the grass. A motion to approve to push forward to the Council.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
December 11, 1990 - Page 9
Lash: Okay, you said you didn't want to go through this page by page. You
wanted to do it at a later date?
Mady: We've already done it last. week. '
Lash: Okay.
Hoffman: I went through and amended everything which we talked about, '
which we added. We weren't as far off this year as we have been in the
past years so the total amount which I came up with with all the ideas of 11
the commission is $211,000.00. We had to reduce that by 36 to get to the
targeted figure of $175,000.00 which we thought was a safe figure to go
ahead and expend in 1991. So those deletions seemed to be the natural
ones.
Andrews: I need to ask a couple questions just to make sure I understand
this, being this is my first time through this. On the first page,
illustrated the 1990 status, it shows total resources over expenditures of II
$430,000.00 ,at the bottom of the page. On the back page, the projected
1991 total resources over expenditures is $248,000.00. I mean that's a
substantial decline. Does that represent an erosion of our position or
simply that we've allocated dollars to projects that have a long term
status?
Mady: We've got 3 projects in there in reserve that total $310,000.00.
Hoffman: If you take a look at the bottom, the $248,000.00 and then II $100,000.00 was just bumped up into land just west of Lake Minnewashta and
that can very well, you know that's part of our total resources because
we'll save it until something happens there where we're looking to land.
The general development fund, although that's included in the following
page so that doesn't reflect it correctly. The other big project then
would be the $110,000.00 project which would be a capital transfer out of '
the dedication.
Andrews: Okay. Those are both long term projects we had intended to do
anyway so we're just really labeling the money instead of just calling it II
an open reserve at the bottom.
Hoffman: So what our, if we went ahead and did not cut into our general
development revenue fund balance forward and then we...1992 would be
proposed at approximately $450,000.00.
Andrews: Okay. '
Lash: Okay and then you were planning on coming up with a system that
would show which items actually did? '
Hoffman: Yes. Which items did actually occur so we'll go through this.
When we make this up again we'll cut out probably 1988 and possibly even
1989 and show 1990 and 1991, 1992, 1993 and then we'll update the whole
list so we can be more accurate in showing what has been completed.
Lash: What if there are things on there in 1988 and 1989 that were never II
completed? There isn't any?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
December 11, 1990 - Page 10
Mady: Bring them forward.
Hoffman: We can talk about that sometime in the future at a 5 year capital
improvement program budget discussion and at that time we can review this.
Clean it up a little bit. See if we want to push those forward or if it
was something that was talked about and decided it's not going to go.
Lash: I just don't want anything to just disappear just because we're
going to wipe out 1988 and 1989. Just because it got put on the back
burner for 2 or 3 years doesn't mean it should be forgotten.
Andrews: Last question. Do we get like a mid -year update on revenues?
Hoffman: You certainly can. Finalized copies will go to the Council for
approval and that may occur on the 18th although the meeting that evening
is tied up with interviews so then it would fall...
Mady: You might find Todd that one of the reasons was you didn't have to
drop this so much from prior years is earlier years we were only able to
spend usually $50,000.00 to $80,000.00 and we'd always come up with
$250,000.00 of things we'd want to buy so it was easier this year when you
can spend $175,000.00. Not so much to cut. Motion to approve.
Lash: So moved.
Andrews: Second.
Lash moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to approve the 1991 Capital Improvement Budget as presented by
staff_ All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
Mady: Any Administration items?
Hoffman: Presentations? Other than the Breakfast with Santa flyer. It
was well over double last year's number. The breakfast was put on by a
cooperative effort between the Rotary, the Firemen, the Commerce and our
department served 605 people on Sunday morning. Last year we served 275 so
a big improvement. And as well the Christmas tree lighting was well
attended. Well over 100 people were down there. We had Santa Claus
handing out candy canes, hot cider, cookies. The Mayor hit the switch and
we sang, 50 carolers from the High School came up and sang some Christmas
carols so I think that's a tradition which you'll see grow in the future.
And as part of that, at some point we should have some discussion in the -
Park Plaza tower. The clock tower plaza which is the square of land there
right behind the clock tower next to the Medical Arts building will be
developed somewhat like a city center park or.
Mady: A mini park?
Hoffman: A mini park. A decorative area. Something like the Town Square
in Chaska. It's somewhat smaller but the commission would like to have
some input on that. There's some design work going on right now and since
the tree lighting ceremony is now kind of established in that area, they're
j
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 13, 1990
' COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bill Bernhjelm, Dave Dummer, Barb Klick,
Craig Blechta, Wayne Wenzlaff, Brian Beniek,
COUNCILMEMBER -ELECT PRESENT: Mike Mason
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director
Steve Kirchman, Building Official
Steve Nelson, Building Inspector
Dale Gregory, Fire Chief
LAW ENFORCEMENT PRESENT: Chief Deputy Jim Castleberry
Sgt. Bob VanDenBroeke
1 Chairperson Bill Bernhjelm opened the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Brian Beniek motioned, Dave Dummer seconded, to approve the
1 11/8/90 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion
passed.
1 FIRE DEPARTMENT: Chief Gregory reported 29 calls for the month
of November, 109 higher than this time last year. 2 firefighters
are retiring - Joel Hedtke & Don Stafford. Results of elections
are: 1st Assistant, Jim McMahoia; Secretary, Ron Payne. Chief
' Gregory asked Chief Deputy Castleberry of the possibility of
having the dispatcher relay to the Fire Department the name of
the homeowner /resident from the origin of the call. Many fire-
fighters recognize names faster than addresses for quicker
response time. Sgt. VanDenBroeke. Captain of Communications. will
check into.
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: The Sheriff's Department will be selecting
a sergeant for Chanhassen after the 1st of the year. Chief
Deputy Castleberry will have the monthly activity report for next
' packet. Jim mentioned the negative affect of the Fairview Detox
Center closing. The deputies will be bidding positions in
January.
BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT: Building Official Steve Kirchman
introduced Building Inspector Steve Nelson. Steve Kirchman
discussed inspections, revenue, permit reports and graphs.
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT: Community Service Officer Zydowsky
discussed the code enforcement information in the packet. Direc-
tor Harr mentioned the 1991 Budget and Pay Comp Plan passed unan-
imously at Monday night's Council meeting. The revised job
descriptions of Public Safety Director, Building Official and
' Community Service Officers were given to the City Manager. The
applicants for the Public Safety Commission will be interviewed
by the Council on 12/18.
1
1
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
DECEMBER 13, 1990
PAGE 2
Mayor Chmiel attended the Fire Department meeting on 12/10/90 and
commended the fireman for their fire prevention education to the
community.
Discussion followed on the traffic concerns in Chanhassen
Estates. The Commission agreed with the engineering study and
endorses their decision for that area. Scott will send the 1
Chanhassen Estates representatives a copy of the engineering
study. Craig Blechta motioned, Barb Klick seconded, that the
Public Safety Commission accept Gary Warren's report and direct
Scott Harr to send a letter to the representatives to suggest a
neighborhood sign, paid for by the neighborhood, and erected in
the area. All voted in favor and the motion passed.
The DNR representative for the jet ski issue cancelled her
appointment to address the Commission this evening. She will be
rescheduled for a future meeting. 1
The traffic safety petition regarding Hwy 101 & Cheyenne Trail,
Kurvers Point /Valley View Road will be tabled until January.
Director Harr discussed the possibility of having a joint Public
Safety Commission /Park and Recreation Commission meeting in the
near future.
Scott mentioned the hi -lite of the week with the arrival of Santa
Claus in the Life Link helicopter. An excellent article and
pictures were featured in "The Villager ".
Volunteers Brian Beniek, Bill Bernhjelm and Craig Blechta will be
working on the Public Safety Commission's annual report to the
City Council. Contents will include an overview of 1990 and a
goal statement for 1991.
Barb Klick discussed the summer youth camp put on by the Eden
Prairie Police Department. The first planning meeting will be
January 15, 1991, at the Senior Outdoor Recreation Center in Eden
Prairie. The possibility of Chanhassen Public Safety and Fire
Department involvement was discussed.
A 'thank you' cake was presented to outgoing Commissioner Barb
Klick for her contributions to the_Public Safety Commission.
We'll miss you, Barb!
Brian Beniek motioned, Craig Blechta seconded, to adjourn the
meeting.
The next meeting will be Thursday, January 10, 1990, at 7 P.M., 1
in the Atrium Conference Room.
1
1
1