8. Zoning Ordinance to Clarify Water Surface Usage Ordinance I
CITYOF
1 8_______
01:1° CHA.NHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
Actin � ;, E_�..
I MEMORANDUM ii-:
Rey°� �
cE: _.-Site. 1.-
' TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Pat Si:!;-.- ; t. ;;._, ,issint
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director gj c6'�- r -----
IDATE: May 2, 1991 _9.1
SUBJ: Surface Water Utility - Proposed Revisions to
IISection 19-142 of the City Code
IPROPOSAL/SUMMARY
At the last City Council meeting, staff discussed concerns that
were being raised by several property owners, primarily located in
II the agricultural area, regarding Surface Water Utility billing.
The primary question being asked was why an individual who owned
several agricultural tax parcels were receiving several utility
1 statements. Staff responded that the utility billings were being
done on a tax parcel basis, with each tax parcel being charged the
equivalent of the single family rate. This was somewhat different
I then the procedure outlined in the ordinance, since the ordinance
itself would indicate that ag land should be billed at one
residential unit for every 40 acres owned by an individual.
Similar problems resulted with the rural residential category which
I was also being billed one unit per tax parcel but which the
ordinance technically required to be billed at one unit for every
2; acres owned. This could present significant problems for an
Iindividual such as Jerome Carlson, who owns over 80 acres of land.
We gave you an overview of this problem and suggested our preferred
method of responding to it was to clarify the ordinance so that the
I Surface Water Utility Assessments were handled on a tax parcel
basis in the agricultural land/rural residential land and
undeveloped land categories. We believe that this will simplify
I administration of the program and represents an equitable solution
to most of the questions raised. Individuals who own multiple tax
parcels will continue to receive several statements. We point out
I though that these parcels are often 40 or 50 acres in size and that
they are being assessed a unit equivalent to what a homeowner on a
15, 000 square foot lot is paying. We further note that there is
ample evidence that water quality problems are not solely caused by
Iurbanized development but significant erosion and chemical
I
11 Surface Water Utility
May 2 , 1991
Page 2
pollution problems have been traced to agricultural use. Thus, we
believe this methodology is reasonable. Lastly, handling the
program in this manner would allow a property owner to combine two
or more contiguous parcels currently owned into a single tax
parcel, in which case they would only receive one unit of
' assessment. The Degler household has already taken this action by
combining several lots into one tax parcel.
The City Attorney has drafted new ordinance language that will
' bring the ordinance into compliance with the policies outlined
above. Staff is recommending that this be approved. Since this
policy is consistent with the way the billing has been handled to
' date, few if any, changes will be required in our administration of
the program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve first reading of an
ordinance amending Section 19-142 of the City Code concerning Storm
' Water Utility as attached. .
ATTACHMENTS
' 1. Ordinance amendment.
2 . Staff report and minutes of April 22, 1991.
11
LHMF'UELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A May 2 ,91 11 :09 No .001 P .02
I
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF
THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING THE
CITY'S STORM WATER UTILITY 1
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 19-142 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended to read:
Sec. 19-142. Surface Water Management Fees.
A. The utility factors for various land uses are as
follows:
Classification Land Use _Utility Factor
1 Single Family and
Rural Residential 1.00
2 Agricultural 1.00
3 Undeveloped 1.00 '
4 Medium Density Residential 2.24
5 High Density Residential, ,
Industrial, Office, Institutions,
•
(Churches, Schools, Government
Buildings, Hospitals) 3.34 ,
6 Business/Commercial 4.28
7 Parks, Cemeteries, Golf '
Courses, Arboretum • 0.45
8 Parking Lots as a Principal Use 6. 14 1
B. The Surface Water Management Fee for Single Family
Residential property shall be calculated as follows:
Percentage of runoff in the City attributable to Single
Family Residential property
multiplied by an amount equal to 25% of the Surface Water
Management Budget '
I
11 divided by the estimated total acreage of Single Family
Residential property in the City
Idivided by three (3).
C. The Surface Water Management Fee for each tax parcel
classified 1, 2, and 3 is the Single Family Residential fee. The
fee for classifications 4 through 8 shall be calculated as
I follows: Fee for a Single Family Residential tax parcel
multiplied by the utility factor multiplied by the acreage of the
parcel.
11 section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of 1991.
ATTEST:
I
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1991. )
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
/. . I
,. CITY O F .............,_.
lior'4
0 CHANHASSEN
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 - 1
MEMORANDUM F
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager 1,,: , ,
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director ------- - - II
pc-
DATE: April 9, 1991 'Z "
SUBJ: Surface Water Utility - Questions Regarding Program
BACKGROUND 1
During discussions pertaining the the establishment of the. Surface 1
Water Utility Program, it was originally proposed that agricultural
land be assessed fees on a per acre basis. A credit would have
been built into the program for those farmers who operated under 1
soil and water conservation guidelines to reduce soil erosion.
Information was provided that indicated that agricultural runoff is
a significant pollutant affecting Chanhassen waters and most 1
notably the Lower Minnesota River. This was not to infer that
agricultural use was bad or compare it to single family
development, it merely pointed out facts that are commonly
accepted. The City Council ultimately determined that ag lands 1
should be assessed one unit per parcel to avoid significant
financial impacts on the many farmers in our community.
The Surface Water Utility fee schedule that was adopted on November 1
19, 1990, establishes a lot size for ag land of 40 acres and a
$3.22 charge per quarter for the utility district. The $3 .22 11 charge is equal to the charge that is placed upon a single family
residential lot. Staff has had calls from several agricultural
property owners indicating a belief that they should be billed for
only one unit, although their land holdings may be divided into
several tax parcels. A list of those property owners raising this
question is attached to this memo. These property owners are
requesting that the Council consider assessing them only one unit, II
regardless of how many 40 acre parcels they own. They point out
that often times these parcels were pre-existing or were created
for tax or mortgage purposes. We should also point out that staff
II
has not attempted to handle the billing on the 40 acre basis as it
could be strictly interpreted. For example, if someone has an 80
acre agricultural lot, they should technically be billed 2 units.
We have only been applying one. 1
1
I
Surface Water Utility Program
April 9, 1991
Page 2
We believe that there are two alternatives on the agricultural
billing that should be considered by the City Council. The first
is the method that we have been using to apply the charges
currently. Essentially, we use the Carver County Tax Records so
that each identified tax parcel is assessed one unit. One of the
' problems that has arisen with this is when an individual property
owner owns several parcels that may or may not be contiguous and
uses them for ag purposes. We really have no way of knowing if
this is the case and I am not sure that it matters anyway since
1 each parcel is able to be sold and developed independently. The
Deglers had two parcels as their farm. After raising concerns with
staff regarding being billed for two units under the Surface Water
' Utility, they went to Carver County Courthouse and combined their
parcels into a single lot which then eliminated one unit under
staff' s current guideline.
The second alternative is to take the time to compute the size of
each ag zoned lot and bill the owner one unit per every 40 acres
and one unit for each fraction of 40 acres above the first 40
' acres. Thus, an 80 acre parcel would be billed two units, while
and 81 acre parcel would be billed three units.
' Staff is willing to undertake either option but has several
concerns with the second approach. The first is an administrative
issue wherein it will take some time to compute the acreage of each
parcel to complete the billing process. This is a relatively minor
' matter but does involve a fair amount of staff time. The second
issue concerns equity. If we are truly to focus in on the 40 acre
standard in the ag district, then we must raise a comparable
question with the 21 acre lot size applied in the Rural Residential
District. A parallel can be drawn to the fact that a 22 acre lot
in Timberwood is being assessed one unit, while Jerome Carlson or
' Prince, with their large land holdings, are also only being
assessed one unit. If the interpretation using a lot area standard
is applied in the ag district, it should probably also be applied
in the Rural Residential District which will result in sizable
increases in some bills.
Before closing, I wish to make two points. The amount of money
involved is relatively modest. The Surface Water Utility Program
was established under the assumption that approximately $307 per
quarter would be generated by ag zoned land. We do not believe
that this will change substantially regardless of what billing
' alternative is used. We further note, however, that the City
Council has already been very responsive to issues raised by ag
land owners as evidenced by changes made in the program prior to
1 its adoption. In our opinion, it does not seem unreasonable that
for someone that owns 80 acres is being billed $6.44 every 3
months, particularly when we acknowledge that someone who owns a 'h
acre lot is being $3.22 over the same period.
I
Surface Water Utility Program I
April 9, 1991
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council confirm that billing for
agricultural zoned parcels continue to be based on one unit for
each recorded tax parcel. The City Attorney should review the
ordinance, if necessary, and propose language changes needed to
clarify this point.
ATTACHMENTS
1. List of agricultural property owners.
2 . Resolution #90-149.
3 . Ordinance #132 - Surface Water Utility Management Program.
4 . Letter/notice sent to property owners who raised concerns
regarding the program.
5. List of property owners. ,
I
1
I
I
I
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
11 ORDINANCE NO. 132
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE BY ADDING AN ARTICLE
ESTABLISHING A SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY
' The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Chapter 19 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended by adding Article VII to read as follows:
ARTICLE VII.
1 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
Sec. 19-140. Surface Water Management Utility Established.
' Surface water management shall be operated as a public
utility pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 444.075.
Sec. 19-141. Definitions.
- The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this
' Chapter, shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this section,
except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning.
Surface Water Management Budget is the annual budget
' approved by the City Council for surface water management
including planning, monitoring, capital expenditures,
personnel, and equipment.
Surface Water Management Fee means the quarterly charge for
each parcel of non-exempt property in the City for the
management of surface water.
Utility Factor means the ratio of runoff volume, in inches,
for a particular land use, to the runoff volume, in inches
for a 1/3 acre residential lot, assuming a 2" rainfall and
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) "Type B" soil conditions.
' Sec. 19-142. Surface Water Management Fees.
A. The utility factors for various land uses are as
follows:
Classification Land Use Utility Factor
or
Ii Rural Residential
(2-1/2 acre lots) 0.21 .
1
r09/25/90
1
Classification Land Use Utility Factor
2 Single Family Residential
(1/3 acre lots) 1.00
3 Low and Medium Density
Residential 2.24 '
4 High Density Residential,
Industrial, Office, Institutions
(Churches, Schools, Government
Buildings, Hospitals) 3.34
5 Business/Commercial 4.28 ,
6 Agricultural N/A
7 Undeveloped N/A '
8 Parks, Cemeteries, Golf
Courses, Arboretum 0.45
9 Parking Lots as a Principal Use 6.14
The Surface Water Management Fee shall be calculated by first 11
determining the percentage of total runoff in the City which is
attributed to Single Family Residential property. The Fee per
acre for Single Family Residential is computed by equating the
runoff percentage to an equal percentage of one-quarter (1/4) of
the annual Surface Water Management Budget, divided by the
estimated total acres of Single Family Residential land use in
the City.
• B. The per acre Fee for all individual parcels shall be
defined as the product of the Single Family Residential Fee, the
appropriate utility factor based on land use, and the total
acreage of the parcel with the exception that 1/3 acre shall be
used for each Single Family Residential lot, agricultural and
undeveloped parcels and 2-1/2 acres shall be used for each Rural
Residential lot when calculating the fee for their land uses.
Sec. 19-143. Credits. ,
The City Council may adopt policies for adjustment of the
surface water management fees. Information to justify a fee
adjustment must be supplied by the property owner. Adjustment of
fees shall not be retroactive.
Sec. 19-144. Exemptions.
The following land uses are exempt from the surface water
management fee:
-2-
a) Public Right-of-Way
b) Lakes
Sec. 19-145. Payment of lee.
Surface water management fees shall be invoiced quarterly.
The amount due as shown on the invoice shall be payable on or
before the 20th day of the month in which the invoice is issued.
A penalty of ten percent- (10%) per quarter shall be added to all
accounts that are not paid in full by the due date. The penalty
shall be computed on the unpaid balance not paid by the due date
at the time each quarterly statement is prepared. Any prepayment
or overpayment of charges shall be retained by the City and
applied against subsequent fees.
Sec. 19-146. Appeal of lee.
If a property owner or person responsible for paying the
surface water management fee believes that a particular fee is
incorrect, such person may file a written appeal with the City
Clerk. Appeals will be heard by the City Council. No adjustment
will be made to the utility factor for property classifications
1, 2, and 3.
Sec. 19-147. Certification of Delinquent Pees.
If a surface water management fee is not paid within three
(3) months after a billing is issued, the City Council may
certify the amount due, together with penalties, to the County
Auditor to be collected with other real estate taxes on the
parcel.
Sec. 19-148. Surface Water Management Pund.
A separate fund shall be maintained for surface water
management fees and expenditures.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 24th
day of September, 1990.
ATTEST:
401)7_
Don Ashworth, Qoaz
k/Manager Donald J. - ,. Mayo
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 11 , 1990. )
Summary Ordinance
-3-
}��_�•;.`.;,fir._•_.
dr
•
City of Chanhassen
Carver and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota
DATE: November 19 . 1990 RESOLUTION NO: 90-149
MOTION BY: Dimler SECONDED BY: Chmiel
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING UTILITY RATES FOR TEE
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY
WHEREAS, on September 24, 1990, the Chanhassen City Council
adopted a Surface Water Management Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the
fee structure for the Surface Water Management Utility shall be
established as shown on Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the funds received from the sale
of the land described in Exhibit B to Redmond Product's shall also
%iga be dedicated to the Surface Water Management Utility Account.
.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 19th
day of November, 1990.
ATTEST:
/62, at_502,
Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. C�-=; , Mayor
Xida LQ ABSENT
•
Chmiel Johnson None
Dimler
Wing
Workman
•
•
et •••* SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY SPREADSHEET **** '•b,,�; ,,
• Exhibit A ''.
• CITY: CHANHASSEN • '
JOB NO. : 90284 . . •
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1990' • ..
RAINFALL: 2 IN. . .
•
5 YR REVENUE: $1,040,400 . .
•
•
% OF INITIAL ESTIMATE: 60.00%
• "REVISED 10/2/90 MLL ',
*A*•*••••***A•A•AA Aft•••••••*••••••••*••••••••••••****••*••••••*••***•A••A••••**•••••••••••••••*•A•A•A•
. * RUNOFF TOTAL UTILITY QUARTERLY COSTS e
* PROPERTY ' LOT RUNOFF • AREA VOLUME % FACTOR TOTAL PER PER ' •
* ZONING SIZE CM . . (INCHES) (ACRES) . (AC.in) RUNOFF (1) (2) ACRE • .. LOT •
C * (ACRE). ' (4) '(3) • •
* RSF,PUD-R 0.33 72 , 0.29 ' 2065 603.54 39.2% • 1 $20,156 $9.76 $3.22 *
• RR 2.5 • 60 .. 0.06 ' 1297 78.61 . 5.14 . 0.21 $2,625 . $2.02 $5.06. *
* R-4,R-8 • . 82 0.65 0 0.00 0.04 2.22 SO $21.67 • NA *
* R-12 88 0.97 45 43.44 2.8% 3.30 $1,451 $32.24 NA • *
• BN,BH,CBD,BG,BF 92 1.24 226 279.57 18.2% 4.23 ' $9,337 $41.3141-' NA
• OI,IOP 88 . 0.97 394 ' 380.30 • 24.7% 3.30 $12,701 $32.24 ` NA •
* INST. * (1) •
'* DEVELOPED 88 0.97 90 86.87 5.6% 3.30 $2,901' $32.24 NA *
* UNDEVELOPED ** • 0.00 1630 $131 NA $3.22 *
* PARKS * 65 0.14 486 65.65 4.3% 0.46 .' .$2,193 $4.51 NI► *
• A2 • 40 . ** 0.00 3814 , $307 NA $3:112 •
. ' • U • 40 ** 0.00 . 2708 '$218 . NA $3.22 •
• *
* TOTAL
• 12755 1537.98 •
* (1) UTILITY FACTOR IS RUNOFF (INCHES) DIVIDED BY RUNOFF '(INCHES) FOR SINCE: $552020 *
•
* (2) TOTAL QUARTERLY COST FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL QUARTERLY *
'* REVENUE EQUAL TO THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL RUNOFF •
* (3) COST PER ACRE IS PER ACRE COST OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLIED BY UTILITY FACTOR *
* (4) TOTAL QUARTERLY COSTS FOR PROPERTIES OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EQUAL • • *
* COST PER ACRE TIMES TOTAL ACRES. FOR AG AND UNDEVELOPED,THE FIXED FEE FOR THE AVERAGE *
* • AVERAGE PARCEL SIZE IS EQUAL TO THE RSF RATE. •
•••••••*******•••••*•••*•••**•********•*•**•********••••••*•••••••***••••*•••••••••••*••*R••••*••••*•••
CITY OF
t
likt
.41k1 �_` 690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1111:;" (612) 987-1900* FAX (612) 937-5739
April 16, 1991
Dear Property Owner:
On Monday, April 22, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. , the City Council will
review proposed amendments to the Surface Water Utility Program.
The amendments concern issues raised about rural area billing
policies. You are being notified of this action since you raised
concerns regarding this matter with City Staff.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
.€11,41(e."-.. 5 *-
Paul Krauss, AICP
Director of Planning
PK:v
=,--; AND MRS GAYLE DEGLER RUSSELL BARTO MARLENE BENTZ
530 LYMAN BOULEVARD 400 LAKOTA LANE 7300 GALPIN BOULEVARD
IANHASSEN MN 55317 CHASKA MN 55318 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
AND MRS TIM ERHART MR DON HALLA MARK AND KATHRYN SANDA
/5 WEST 96TH STREET HALLA NURSERY 1685 STELLER COURT
IANHASSEN MN 55317 10000 GREAT PLAINS BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331
CHASKA MN 55318
•
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
ADMINISTRATION PRESENTATIONS:
A. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION REGARDING ISSUE SURROUNDING SURFACE
WATER UTILITY BILLING, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Paul Krauss: First I should say that the billing program and the program
itself, the surface water utility program is going quite well to date. We've
gone through a full billing cycle and I should point out that out of over 5,000
bills, we got approximately 30 that had complaints attached to them or issues
being raised. We've tried to keep you abreast of those and I think in about
every administration packet over the last month you've seen responses that we've
gotten out to people on some. Some of them quite frankly are kind of tough to
respond to but we try. Also we're to the point right now where we have sent out
requests for qualifications. We've got them back from 16 firms interested in
working with us. Charles and I have not had a chance yet to go through those
but we really need to do that in the next week or so. What we'd like to do then
is then pare it down to 5 firms to be finalists and prepare RFP's which we'll
have the task force comprised of City Council and Planning Commissioners to work
with staff in doing the interviews. So we're moving forward on that. Now this
is a question that I'm bringing to you tonight that's been raised with the last
billing we did. The last quarterly billing which involved the rural area. As
you can recall, the earlier proposals for the assessment, or storm water
assessment in the agricultural area was originally proposed to be a per acre
basis and I think there was going to be a charge or a credit given for those who •
had soil conservation service policies or something along those lines. There
were concerns raised regarding the inequity that this might cause in terms of
cost of production as I recall relative to farmland in Chanhassen and farmland
elsewhere. So the Council came up with a compromise proposal that said that
farmland would be assessed the same, one unit charge per parcel that we're doing
for basically a single family home. So if you have a single family home on a
15,000 square foot lot, you're paying $3.22 every 3 months. And if you have a
farm with 40 acres, you're paying the same $3.22. The problem that's come about
is the ordinance, as it's set up right now, talks about an agricultural lot as
being 40 acres. Now we have not really been doing exactly what it says we
should be doing on this. Unlike commercial/industrial property where we •
actually. . .and found out the exact acreage and did the billing on the exact
acreage, with the farm property, instead of figuring out how many 40 acre
parcels they had, we have just been using the tax identification numbers. And
what's happened in a couple of instances where, for example the Degler farm has
two, had two tax parcels. Each was I believe 40 acre or larger. Now since they
had two tax parcels, they were given two statements. They've since gone down to
the county to combine them into one parcel to avoid that so now they're only
going to get one statement. However, if you read the ordinance the way it's
supposed to be applied, they should still get two statements in 'effect because
it's on a 40 acre basis and there's been several instances like that. The
Erhart's have 3 statements I believe. Sometimes we find little remnant pieces
that have no clear purpose that are stranded on the wrong side of the street and
we find this in ag districts, residential districts and everything else and
we've always tried to use a little common sense and say those are not useable
lots so we're not going to charge anybody for that. But this question was
raised by enough individuals that we wanted to bring it to you tonight to give
us some guidance as to how you wanted us to proceed and think possibly we could
clear up what is a question in the ordinance. I think there's basically two
39
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
alternatives for the agricultural area billing that should be considered. The
first is a method that we've been using which is to apply the charges on a tax
parcel basis. For each tax parcel, legitimate parcel or developable tax parcel
in that area, you would be assessed one unit . I've gone into what the few
problems that we've had with that but the second alternative is to take the time
to actually compute the area of every agricultural lot and then for every 40
acres that you have or percentage of that above 40 acres, you would get one
unit. Now I don't think the amount of money we're talking about here is a whole
heck of a lot . When the problem was established we were looking at $300.00 a
quarter from all the ag land in the City and I haven't been able to figure out
if there's a significant difference if we figure it one way or the other. My
guess is it 's probably going to balance out. We'll go whichever way you'd like
us to go on this but we should point out though that that second alternative
where we have to preliminer the lots raises an equity question in the rural
residential area which is often an agricultural use as well as having a house on
it. A case in point is you might have a lot in Lake Luch Highlands or Sunridge
Court that's 2 1/2 or 3 acres. You're getting one unit of assessment on that or
one unit of storm water assessment. On the other hand, if you're Prince or
Jerome Carlson, you're also getting one unit because that's basically your
homestead. If we were to do exactly what the ordinance says right now, we
should be telling Jerome Carlson he should be getting 33 units or whatever it
is, which seems excessive. So I guess in the interest of equity. we'd like to
go back to the way we've already set this up which is in those districts we're
going to do it on a one tax parcel, one fee basis. We realize that for some
•
owners that causes a little bit of complexity and difficulty but I think it's
probably the most fair way we can think of doing it. And if you agree with
that , or whichever one you agree to, we think the ordinance should be fixed so
that it's clear on that point.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Appreciate that Paul. I see where if we confirm that
billing for that agricultural zoned parcel fee be based on that one unit for
each according tax parcel, maybe the City Attorney should review the ordinance
and if necessary, propose language changes needed to really clarify this point.
I thought some of the intent is what we had said before.
Councilwoman Dimler: I remember that.
Mayor Chmiel: It was, go ahead.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess you know being that I think I represent the only
agricultural business here.
Mayor Chmiel: That's why I thought I'd let you talk. Even though it's not in
town, but the corn is.
Councilwoman Dimler: We do know about agriculture and you know, it is still my
feeling and I'd like us to consider. Go back to the years when Chanhassen was
mostly farmland. Our lakes were clean. And that makes me think that it's not
farming that's the problem. It's development. It's impervious surface that
causes the runoff. Now unfortunately farmers have to have a lot of land in
order to run their business and they should not be penalized for having to have -
a lot of land to make their living. We can't survive on 40 acres you know. The
average farm nowadays is, I would say 300 to 400 acres so I don't think it's
40 1
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
fair to keep penalizing the farmer because he has the most land, which he needs
for his business in order to pay for all these things. And this isn't the only
utility that they get hit up for. They get hit up for acres for a lot of things
and they pay a large share because they have so many acres on a lot of things.
So it isn't necessarily the amount here that the farmers are upset about either.
It's the principle of the thing. That the next thing that comes along, they
again will, they'll use this as a model and say okay, we're going to hit the
farmers. And unfortunately they get hit hard every time because they have the
land. And again, I don't think it's the ground that soaks it up that's causing
the problem. I think it's the ground that has a lot of impervious surface so I
think it's development that 's causing a majority of the problem. I think that
that's why we treat them equally as one parcel no matter how much land they
have.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I agree to a certain point , although I can pick one out
specifically on Lake Riley. Lake Riley Addition. Particular area that has a
lot of storm parcel runoff that comes directly off onto that lands and has
caused problems.
Councilwoman Dimler: They're right on the lake.
Mayor Chmiel: For the residences in and adjacent to the lake and adjacent to
that open farmland too. And it has caused a lot of given problems for some of
those residential people. I'm not disputing the fact that agriculture is not
doing it's job properly and the absorption is going and percolation is good but
once the percolation gets to that point where saturation is there, it's got to
go somewhere.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, no doubt there is some runoff but again, why charge
them triple what we're charging other people because they're not contributing
triple, in my estimation, they're not contributing triple what the other
development is contributing. So that was the original purpose why we wanted to
treat them as the single family lot, or just like we do the single family.
Paul Krauss: A couple things. That we've tried to do and that's why we applied
it on a tax parcel basis but then you do have instances where you have the
Deglers or the Erharts who own multiple parcels. Then we have to say, are those
parcels contiguous to one another or are they all over town? It really, you
start making a lot of subjective judgments so I think we can administer it
either way but it 's really, either it's tax parcels or it's per 40 acres.
Councilwoman Dimler: In the Erhart's case I think they came out the same either
way.
Paul Krauss: I think they do.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. If they have a section line with the center line as such
that divides it off, those are put into separate parcels and that's what
happened. That's what happens I think in Tim's case.
Paul Krauss: I think you can combine parcels across section lines but then
• you've got to get into, are they financed differently and all that. In terms of
•
the agricultural contribution to the problem too, there's been a lot of research
41
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
on that recently which sort of disputes what seems like common sense. Actually,
oddly enough the Metro Council has been putting out data that would indicate
that single family development , the densities that we develop here which are
very low, actually produce a lot less runoff than the ag land does. I think
you're right . Historically when this was all farmed it didn't used to.
Councilwoman Dimler: Lakes were clean then so I ask myself why.
Paul Krauss: And I think it has to do with the last 30 years, the use of
chemical fertilizer which is a relatively new phenomenon. That stuff just winds
up down in our lakes and down in our rivers and nobody wants to apply too much
of it because it 's a waste of money. But the worst, I serve on the Minnesota
River Task Force for water quality and the worst problems they're finding are
like Bevins Creek and the creeks upstream that service or flow through only the
agricultural areas. So I think it 's a problem we all share and we all have to
recognize that and I thought the approach that you originally adopted pretty
much did that .
Councilwoman Dimler: And again, speaking for the Erhart's here, in their case
they're paying triple what most of us are paying.
Mayor Chmiel: I think they have four parcels.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, plus they have, actually they help the city in it's
management because they have retention poinds that they maintain on their
property. So they're doing that at their own expense plus we're billing them
three times what the other people get billed. So are we making adjustments for
people that actually help us?
Paul Krauss: Well when you think though that they have 100 acres, they have 300
times the amount of land that a single family homeowner has and is paying the
exact same amount . There is some balance there.
Councilwoman Dimler: But it's not developed land. You know it's the same.
Paul Krauss: But in terms of the, well it goes back to the runoff that's
generated by it and all. I don't know. I don't know what the ideal answer is.
Clearly somebody's going to fall into the cracks. If we do it by tax parcel,
the Erhart 's are getting at least 3 statements. If we do it by 40 acres, which
we haven't done to this date, I think they get the same if not more.
Councilman Wing: When you say triple, am I misreading this? Triple would be
$9.66? I'm paying $3.22.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, per quarter.
Councilman Wing: Would you guys like to chip in and just?
Councilwoman Dimler: It's not the amount. It's not the amount. It's the
principle.
Councilman Wing: I thought you were trying to fill Al Klingelhutz' shoes.
42
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
Councilman Mason: I'm taking into consideration, I mean clearly Ursual does
represent the agricultural sector of the city. However, I think the point
that 's being made here is you've got a lot of 15,000 square feet as opposed to
somebody who owns 120 acres. Now whether you're putting chemicals in the soil
or not , my understanding of this program is, it's based on the amount of land
the water is running off of. Some people own 1 acre, some people own 120 acres.
Some people own a third of an acre. I'm not, if we're talking in terms of
fairness here, is it fair that someone that has 15,000 square feet is paying
$3.22 where someone with 120 acres is paying $3.22? You know, what you're
saying is true too you know.
Councilwoman Dimler: It 's that development. In my feeling, development
contributes the majority.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Are we doing every single family according to the
amount of land they have? In other words, we're charging them, if they have 3/4
of an acre, you're charging them more than half.
Paul Krauss: No. No, we're not. That's what we're doing on multi-family and
on commercial and on industrial. That's a per acre charge and that's where the
significant difference in dollars comes in. Where you have, you know Rosemount
has a very large amount of hard surface and that's directly taken into a
formula.. The formula got twisted a little bit to recognize the sensitivity that
you have to agriculture to kind of come up with a different standard there and
for the rural residential because again, if we applied it strictly. If we
strictly interpretted the ordinance, Jerome Carlson would be getting $99.00
every three months and that didn't seem equitable either.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What you're looking for, that specific direction? Would
someone like to make a recommendation?
Councilman Workman: I think it's gotten a little ridiculous. I don't know what
the easiest thing to do is. When somebody splits their acreage for mortgage
purposes, etc. and it's simply a technicality, I don't know why they're getting
a bill. It doesn't seem to quite make sense. You can go both ways. The $9.00
for the 120 acres or $3.00 and whatever I'm paying for whatever I've got. It's
getting almost laughable. I thought it was laughable in the beginning in that,
and there's converging philosophies here. Again, Good God, the rain falls and I
have to pay for it. That theory and then there's the development and
ex-councilmembers talking about cows in diapers and everything else.
•
Councilman Mason: You said ex-councilmembers didn't you?
Councilman Workman: Soon to be ex, former Council. I don't know. I guess I
would lean more towards if you had 40 over here and 40 over across town, two
statements. If you've 81 acres all in one and you had to split it off and do
something, I don't know. I think that's stretching it a little bit to give them
3 statements. But I don't quite agree with you Ursula, as I stated before that
the farmers.
43
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that but when you go farming you'll
understand.
Councilman Workman: We need chemical toilets on these farms. . .but really I
think we're talking about peanuts here. I don't know. The farmer's is a lost
bre.ed in this town and we're not the only pressure they're getting. There's no
doubt about that .
Councilwoman Dimler: You would like to continue to eat wouldn't you?
Councilman Workman: Well this isn't McLeod County. This is Carver County and
so you know.
Councilwoman Dimler: I was just saying, we should take care of our farmers.
Councilman Workman: Well, the farmers will take care of themselves. I think
we're managing waters in development areas pretty well. There's something,
again this is one of those issues where there's so much kind of wrong with I
think the whole situation that I don't have any idea what to do.
Councilwoman Dimler: But again, we've already, I think there was 100 or so
complaints in the first three months because I was checking with it so it's not
sitting well with a lot of residents apparently. Not just the farmers.
Paul Krauss: I've got to get an exact count Ursula but we're thinking it 's in
the realm of 30-40 complaints tops.
Councilman Mason: Out of how many?
Paul Krauss: Out of about 5,000. And of those, I'd say most of them came in
the last round where for the first time ever folks who are not on city water and
sewer got a bill from the city and really kind of reacted to that.
Councilman Workman: And Tim Erhart is not against this program.
Mayor Chmiel: He's just looking at trying to understand how we come up with our
figures.
Councilman Workman: He's not against the storm water utility.
Mayor Chmiel: No. He's in favor of that. There's no question. As many people
are because environmentally we're taking the right position on it. We're going
to cause a lot less problems as time exists and we're starting early so
therefore we're getting a better jump on it, as most other cities haven't even
touched this.
Councilman Workman: Can we move to table this until May 6th?
Councilwoman Oimler: We can't act on it anyway can we?
Paul Krauss: I guess what we would like to do is get your direction on which '
way you're leaning and we could bring back an ordinance change.
44
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we have the City Attorney review that and come up with
some kind of conclusion. Then we can look at it at that particular time. Okay?
I don't want to give him too much work but please finish it in 10 minutes.
Roger Knutson: It's already done.
Mayor Chmiel: He's got it done. . .That's good. So maybe what we should do is
just table this until we get that information back and move from there.
Councilwoman Dimler: Great. Thank you.
B. FEASIBILITY STUDY TO PREPARE SEWER AND WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR NEW MUSA
AREA, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, call this optimism on our part but .
Mayor Chmiel: You have to be optimistic.
Paul Krauss: We've already gotten some very serious inquiries by large
developers who want to be putting together projects in the new MUSA area. One
of those individuals is here tonight, Terry Forbord from Lundgren Construction.
I think you've met Terry before at other meetings on the Comprehensive Plan and
his letter that was handed out to you tonight. Some of you were also aware too
that we have been talking, at a preliminary level with a large, verl well known
industrial office developer who's looking seriously at two or three major
projects. I have at least two of those within the new MUSA area. One of the
things we're confronted with in working this area out there is we know where the
Metro Interceptor is but we don't know much else on how to serve it. The
Comprehensive Plan has some real sketchy ideas about putting a major lift
station down in Bluff Creek and Lyman Blvd. and then lifting this sewage up
through Audubon and down new Lake Drive into the Metro Interceptor and that's
fine and good as well as it goes. We haven't had an opportunity to take it
beyond that. People are coming to us now with serious questions. Well, where
do you want us to hook into water?. What improvements are going to be made or
need to be made to service this development? And this is a question that we
need to get out in front of. We really need to determine where these
improvements are going to go and not be reactive where we may look at 100 acre
development and based upon what the developer is telling us, it may work very
well for them to serve this project but we may not have the ability to serve a
property down the street which doesn't do us any good in the long term. Don and
I and Charles have had several conversations about this and we felt the best way
to address it was for us to undertake a comprehensive sewer and water plan which
will lay out the locations of city sewer and watermain and other. facilities.
Lift stations. Do we need anymore wells? Do we need a reservoir? Whatever we
need. So that we have a framework to build upon and then we can use that
information to feed into stuff that Terry might be doing and he can work off of
that. We took the liberty of going out and calling up 6 consultants to give us
proposals on doing the work. We wanted to come to you with, time is something
of the essence. I won't tell you that it's imperative that this be done right
away but it really is important that we do this fairly soon. As soon as, we -
have people who are serious enough that they would actually want to start,
they've actually started to work with us before the MUSA line's officially
moved. So we'd like to be in a position to give them as much direction as
45