The URL can be used to link to this page

2f Approval of MinutesCITY OF CHANHASSEN COUNCIL MF~ETING DECEMBER 7, 1998 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Mancino at 11:00 a.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Individuals in attendance were Mayor Mancino, Council Members Berquist, Engel, Mason, and Senn; City Attorney Knutson; and City Manager Ashworth. The Mayor explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the rumors and allegations being made concerning the Manager's mishandling of the Public Safety Department issues. Mr. Ashworth explained what had taken place and that he had decided to terminate the Public Safety Director. Several Council Members indicated their support for What he intended to do. Council Member Senn stated that he believed a separation agreement was appropriate. Other Council Members concurred. Based upon the circumstances the Manager and Council agreed that Mr. Ashworth would step down as City Manager effective December 11, 1998. The meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING; DECEMBER 12, 1998, 10:45 A.M. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS A special meeting of the Chanhassen City Council was called to order at 10:45 a.m. on December 12, 1998 by Mayor Mancino. The following members were present: Mayor Mancino, Councilmen Senn and Mason. Councilmen Berquist and Engel were absent. Mayor Mancino read an opening statement outlining the events that have occurred over the past month. APPROVE SEPARATION AGREEMENT WITH SCOTT HARR, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR: Mayor Mancino asked council members if they had any comments or questions regarding the Separation Agreement with Scott Ham Being none, a motion was made by Councilman Senn and seconded by Mayor Mancino to approve the Separation Agreement with Scott Ham All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPOINTMENT OF TODD GERHARDT, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. AS ACTING CITY MANAGER: Mayor Mancino asked the council if they had questions regarding the appointment of Todd Gerhardt as Acting City Manager. Being none, a motion was made by Councilman Senn and seconded by Mayor Mancino to appoint Todd Gerhardt as the Acting City Manager. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Mason stated that he was not in favor of the previous items, but his affirmative vote only indicated that closure is in the best interests of the city. A motion was made by Councilman Senn and seconded by Mayor Mancino to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 a.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Prepared by Todd Gerhardt, Acting City Manager CHANHASSEN CITY COLrNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Engel, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Sharmin Al-Jarl, Cynthia Kirchoff, Anita Benson, Charles Folch, Don Ashworth, and Pam Snell APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda amended to move item 4 to the end of the agenda as item 10. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARDS TO COUNCILMAN MASON AND COUNCILMAN BERQUIST. Mayor Mancino: Well it is with great pleasure that I get to present the Maple Leaf Award for community service to Councilman Mason and Councilman Berquist for Councilman Berquist's 4 years on the City Council and Councilman Mason's 8 years. I think he started as a councilman back in the horse and buggy days and I'd like to thank you both very much on behalf of the community for your service. And if you'd like' to give a few words, that would be wonderful. Councilman Berquist: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. This is my Michael's. Councilman Mason: Thank you. Councilman Berquist: Four years ago when I decided to run for City Council it was with the intention of trying to give back to the community and I hope I've done quite a bit of that. I've been very proud to serve the community of Chanhassen. I've always acted in what I consider to be best interest of all the citizens of Chanhassen and that has been my fundamental premise for being a councilperson and it has never changed. I appreciate the faith that the people put in me 4 years ago and I appreciate the faith that people still have in me. Thank you very much. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Mason: Well, I'd like to thank all of you for coming here tonight to see me get this award. I think this is pretty cool. In fact if I'm not mistaken this beats Chmiel's count from a few years ago. Maybe I will run for state office. Just kidding Nancy. My wife's out there somewhere, as are Emily and Scott. It was 8 years ago that I decided to take a shot at this. I was fortunate enough to get elected to a second term. Either I fooled a whole lot of people or a number of people took interest in what was going on and decided to vote for me again. Fortunately I got involved at a very dynamic and changing time. Just out of curiosity, how many people that are in this room right now lived in Chanhassen 8 years ago? How many aren't? Weren't, excuse me. Oh, okay. Interesting. That isn't what I would have thought. At any rate, when I took office I believe there were about 8,000 residents. Eight years later I believe we City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 have something like 16,000. SO times are changing. I woulddefinitety be remiss ifI~idn't Say thankst~_ ~f. a whole lot of people. It's been saidbefore and Ithink it needs tobe said again, i'llpurthLs city against any other staff involved in this kind of business. Quite honestly I can't thank staff e~nough forthS-: - ~ help and the dlrectmn andthe gmdance that they ye given to me over the years. To each and every. citizen that has served or is serving on a commission, thankyouas well· Your time and input car, not valued enough. Also my thanks goes to any and every member of this commum~ty that~has chosen taget involved regardless of what side of the issue you happen to be on at the time: Iris involvement,that_ keeps us all honest. A time like this is I thinksuppos~dto be bitter sweet. .. Anytime~ one_ invests timeand effort to help lead a eityasvibrantas this, .there has robe mixed emo1~onswhenyou move on. The last months,of office unfortunately have placed more emphasis on-the bitter than the sweet. As Was said at Saturday s special council meeting, I ~avenotandwiltnot be supportiveof decisions and how they were made that concern the leadership andsubsequently allofCity Hall. Thingsarenotalways _ what they seem. This is adifficult time for-anyone co~ect~d with the workings an~ funeti°ns m Re ardless, as the dust of this turmoil issettling, it;is timeto get Chanhassenbackon it's-feet a~d m~ving ~ogrward again. So whenalHs said anddone, it is time to move on. Thank y0ualL And, no, That s lt. Mayor Mancmo. Thank you very much M~k. ~ ~ CONSENT AGENDA: ' ' Mya or Man¢ino'. I would j'ust like to say(~l m ......... Iwould like-to add these~ordsto is, approv/fl ora c~ty code amendment concerning t!ae BluffCreekOverlay D~stnct, 2-anti Final Reading, and approval of publication of summa~yofthe ordinance, Sothosewords shouldalsobe ad/~e~ ftems pursuant te the Ci~ Manager s reeemmenda~ens: .... a. Resolutlea #9~?: Accept Utility Improvements in, ectNo. 94-tt.. b. Resolu~en Addition, Project No. 97-3. c.Resolution#98-109: Project No. d.Resol#tion #98-110~ 97-15. e~ ResOlution #98-1H: ' & 2~a Additions,Project No. 97-5. f. ResolUtion #98-112: ProjectNo. 97-2. Resolution #98-113: Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Study for Lake Utility Improvements (Powers Boulevard toAudubonRo~d)- lgrojeetNo. 98-~6. City Council Meeting- December 14, 1998 h. Resolution #98-114: Accept Utility Improvements in Villages on the Ponds Phase II - Project No. 97-8. i. Resolution #98-115; Approve Sanitary Sewer and Water Supply Comprehensive Plans. k. Approval of Bills. 1. City Council Minutes dated November 23, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes dated November 18, 1998 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 24, 1998 m. Approval of a City Code Amendment Concerning the Bluff Creek Overlay District, Second and Final Reading, and approval of the Publication of Summary Ordinance. p. Approval of 1998 Bike Trail Project Easements. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Items l(j), (n) and (o) were pulled from the consent agenda by Councilman Senn and will be discussed during item 10, Adoption of the 1999 Budget. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: CITIZEN COMMENTS REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT. Public Present: Name Address B.C. Mike Maley Dennis Hansen Janet Carlson Bob Benson Lee Kerber Rick & Roxann Corwine Darrell & June R. Mark Undestad Charley Webber Charlie Littfin Craig Edwards Bill & Lucy Green LeRoy Biteler Ben Miller Littfin Vicki Wiborg Carol Dunsmore Steve Labatt Bill & Patsy Bernhjelm Greg & Betty Eidam 3981 Stratford Ridge Byerly's, 800 West 78th Street 6450 Pleasant View Circle 4141 Kings Road 1620 Arboretum Blvd. 7600 Erie Avenue 8800 Sunset Trail 1560 Bluff Creek Drive 7609 Laredo Drive 18625 Jacques Court, Eden Prairie 16502 Ellerdale Lane 910 Penamint Court Kerber Blvd. 8052 Erie Spur 7131 Derby Drive 730 West 96th Street 7457 Bent Bow Trail 9380 Kiowa Trail 1119 Ridge Bluff Drive City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Stephanie & Denny Unze Mona J. Kerber Cori Wallis Brian Semke Robert Spielman David Gestach Leah Hawke Lydia Porter John Esch Craig & Patty Blechta Jim McMahon Peter & LuAnn Sidney Reed Harr Steve Gawon Scott & Diane Harr Sue Stanek Elizabeth Burgett Leslie & Justin Michel Mike Sitter Darlene Loving Betsy & Herb LaPlatt Tom MacFarlane T.J. Gilha Michael O'Kelly Patrick Lynch Cathy Armayuis John Kilpatrick Sharyl R. JeffB. George & Ann Lillie Jim Sabinske W.J. Bing Dave Lindau Lloyd E. Westlund Laura Orcutt Janet Lash John Wolff Mark Littfin C.F. Anding Michael Lee Kerber Joseph G. Scott Mike Gorra Country Clean, E. Wiley Nathan Kirt Dave Dummer L.M. Campbell Sherri Walsh Greg H. Shelley Mehl 1080 Lyman Court 500 Chan View 951 Redwing Court 331 Hidden Lane 753 Canterbury Court 75 i0 Dogwood 7444 Moccasin 7217 Pontiac Circle 7444 Moccasin 31 Sandy Hook Road 860 West 86th Street, Chaska 2431 Bridle Creek Trail 8549 Irwin Road 2850 Metro Drive, Bloomington 55425 6405 Glacier Place, Edina 8117 West 96a~ Street, Bloomington 1193 Harrison Street, Shakopee 2840 Washta Bay Road, Excelsior 6526 Aster Trail, Victoria 7112 Pontiac Circle 7012 Cheyenne Trail 201 Chanview 7116 Pontiac Circle 685 Carver Beach Road 910 Saddlebrook Pass 531 Mission Hills Way West 7021 Pima Lane 410 West 78th Street 402 Maple Haven, Montgomery 9355 Kiowa Trail 775 Creekwood, Chaska 5705 1st Avenue South, Mpls. 449 Camp Lincoln Road 1014 Pontiac Court 210 Piedmont Court 7001 Tecumseh Lane 31 Basswood Circle 8052 Erie Spur 6601 Minnewashta Pkwy 500 Chanview 7091 Pimlico Lane 1680 Highway 5 7720 Chan View 50 Hill Street 8523 Drake Court 415 Lakota Lane 6601 Minnewashta Pkwy 6870 Redwing Lane 490 Bighorn Drive City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Joe Eifield Peter Ivy Kerri Nolden Debbie Scott Becki & Bruce Johnson Jeff Barber Wes Dunsmore Jeff Swedlund G.F. ? Jim Sloss Bill Wyffels ? Colleen Dockendorf Jim Tresh Penny & Robert Hayes Randy Waite David Carlson Steven & Monica Posnick Scott Anding Ken Aus Joe Brenn John Murphy Titus Castens M. Aus Jack Atkins Barb Klick Keith Walgrave Beth Hoiseth Bob Zydowsky 18924 Maple Leaf Drive, Eden Prairie Box 170, Carver 8137 14th Avenue So., Bloomington 7673 Nicholas Way 7000 Derby Drive 6920 Redwing Lane 730 West 96th Street 9520 Lake...Road, Chaska 2185 Van Slow Road, Chaska 6017 Ridgewood Road, Mound 9360 Kiowa Trail 2263 Stone Creek Lane 991 Saddle... Trail 2061 Oakwood Ridge 6400 Chanhassen Road 6881 Redwing Lane 6891 Redwing Lane 6199 Cascade Pass 7010 Dakota 951 Redwing Court 7050 Pimlico Lane 7605 Laredo Drive 611 Santa Vera Drive 7605 Erie Avenue 110701 Keys Lane 220 West 78a~ Street 7116 Utica Lane 1436 Crest Drive, Chaska 16409 Hilltop Terrace 2185 B... Mayor Mancino: We are going to take comments, citizen comments tonight regarding Public Safety Department. Before we go into that, there is a couple of things that I would like to read. First of all to let everyone know here tonight that the City Council held a special meeting on Saturday, September (December) 12th at 10:30 a.m. in City Hall council chambers. We took action on two agenda items. We approved the separation agreement with Scott Harr and we appointed Todd Gerhardt, our Assistant City Manager as Acting City Manager. Both motions were passed unanimously by Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason and Mayor Mancino. Upon convening our special meeting on Saturday I read a statement that I'm also going to be reading tonight. On November 30th, a City Council work session was unexpectedly attended by several members of the Public Safety community. Don Ashworth and the City Council acknowledged that public comment could be made at the next City Council meeting scheduled for December 14th regarding the City Manager's proposed reorganization and the elimination of the position of the Public Safety Director. Based upon the information available to us at that time, it was in good faith that we said we would accept comment from the public during the December 14th meeting. We would have followed through with our actions if the situation had remained stable. However the situation was escalated to a public fervor seeking actions and answers from a council that had not had an opportunity to discuss the proposal nor the subsequent effects. In an effort to relieve the undue pressure, stress and confusion at City Hall and in the community resulting from the City Manager's actions, the Council saw the necessity to take more timely action than to leave staff and the community in turmoil any City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 longer than had already been allowed. The public was demanding answers and actions. The requested delay was only aggravating the situation. Threats and allegations have been made against this Council to control our taking action and to bias the decision making process. Though we acknowledge and appreciate loyalty being shown, we must act upon facts and in the best interest of the entire community. No disrespect is intended with the timing of our action. Timing demanded by the circumstances. Having heard more than two weeks of input, the facts remain the same and we maintain that the timing of our actions are consistent with doing what is best for our community. Today's approval of the separation agreement is a legal formality finalizing an employer/employee agreement. We remain committed to hearing whatever criticism of the process that the public would like to share on Monday night, as well as comments on the reorganization and the Public Safety Commission. However our actions just be made in the best interest of the community. We have encouraged our staff to put this behind them and not judge the situation based on rumors or innuendoes. The history of this council has been to act fairly and openly. Terms not easily applied to such an emotional situation. The community and staff must get back to daily activities and business. As a council we are committed to doing whatever we need to do to make this a successful transition. Again before we open this, Roger I would like you to speak to the legality of commenting, etc. Roger Knutson: Mayor, just a couple of points to make before we begin. First under visitor presentation, just so everyone understands the format. Visitor presentation is the time for members of the community or any citizen to come forward and state what they want to state to the council about issues of concern that they have or the community has. It is not however a debate or an opportunity for a question and answer session. It's strictly a time to make your comments known and the council will respectfully listen to those comments. But you shouldn't respect, just based on the numbers of you, that there can be responses to questions. All the Council normally does at this time is listen and then you'll have that time to comment. Second, under the Government Data Practices Act, the city is not at liberty to get into information about personnel and personnel evaluation. And so the City, under no circumstances councilmembers can't comment on those kind of issues. Mayor. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Todd. our community at this time. You had a couple things to say about public safety and the safety of Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, councilmembers. As the Acting City Manager for the City of Chanhassen this is what I've done to keep our public safety department levels consistent with the needs of our community. I have designated Bob Zydowsky as our Chief Law Enforcement Officer. This designation ensures that both our police officers, Bob Zydowsky, Carrie Nolden will be able to continue to carry out their day to day law enforcement functions. Mr. Zydowsky will also be responsible for administering the Carver County Police contract. The City of Chanhassen currently receives, and will continue to receive, 36 hours of police protection per day from the Carver County Sheriff's Department under our contract. I have also been in contact with Scott Gerber, the Carver County Emergency Management Director, asking him to assist Chanhassen in an event that an emergency management plan needs to be activated. A meeting will be scheduled before the end of the week to review our emergency management plan and it' s implementation under this new organization. We have reviewed this transition with Bud Olson, our Carver County Sheriff elecf and A1 Wallin, our current Carver County Sheriff, and they have given their total support through this transition. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay, now I would like to open this to citizen comment but before I do, please remember to keep comments to 5 minutes or less. If you could refrain from loud remarks, booing or inappropriate laughing or applause. We will take all comments, but in the spirit of common courtesy, verbal personal attacks will not be allowed. If that does happen, I will close visitor presentation so we'd City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 like to open up visitor presentation for an hour period and those wishing to address the council may come forward. We're going to limit it to an hour unless there are just those who haven't had a chance. But we have, as you know, a very full agenda tonight so please go ahead. Colleen Dockendorf: I do see that. Colleen Dockendorf, 2061 Oakwood Ridge. Before I get started, my understanding was that the City Council adopted some procedures back in January of '98 allowing for 10 minutes of visitor presentations per person. Do you recall that? Mayor Mancino: No I don't Colleen but if you want to go on a little longer, that's fine. As long as we just keep the whole to one hour so we can go ahead and do the rest of the agenda. I don't think we're really too concerned. I was just seeing all the people, I didn't want somebody not to get a word in if they wanted to. Colleen Dockendorfi Alright. Well again before I start yet again I'd like to say congratulations to Councilman Mason and Councilman Berquist. I can sincerely say I enjoyed working with you both. I do offer however that I think Mr. Mason deserves a Purple Heart in addition to his Maple Leaf tonight. And I thank you for the update on what has gone on, but it certainly does beg the question, how did we get here? And what is going on appears to be the question of the hour, if not the last several weeks and perhaps the last several months. Lacking any prior direct communication from the council, I would like to share what I know about the situation. Three weeks ago tonight the former City Manager presented a page and a half memo to this council and to Scott Harr. The memo outlined a reorganizational plan of three parts. Number one, creating a community services department to incorporate public safety, information systems and economic development. A curious mix. Dissolving the Public Safety Commission and firing Scott Harr, and dissolving the position of Public Safety Director. Mr. Ashworth's memo is titled "Reorganizational Update" and it clearly references, and let me quote, the reorganizational assignment given to me by the City Council. I find it surprising that this council continues to pretend that these ideas were complete surprises, and I simply don't believe you. That same night I politely asked that the council allow for public input on this monumental decision. And the following day the Public Safety Commission met and formally asked the City Council to rescind the decision of the City Manager and also allow for public input on this matter. Again, a week later at a City Council work session a commitment was made to over 20 residents, including fire fighters, that all reorganizational changes would be held off until at least tonight, December 14th. I am deeply, deeply disappointed that this council chose not to honor that commitment that was made. Instead, last Monday this Council forced Don Ashworth to fire Scott Harr. And I choose my words very carefully. You forced him to fire Harr. Last Monday the Mayor called an emergency meeting to discuss preliminary allegations of gross misconduct by the City Manager. Gross misconduct is the only thing that would nullify the employment contract between the City Manager, Don Ashworth, and this city. Not so coincidentally, Ashworth's next move was to sign one half of a separation agreement for Scott Harr. A separation agreement that Mr. Ashworth admits he didn't even read, much less ask to draft. The separation agreement was then presented by a member of this council, Mark Senn, to Harr last Tuesday and Scott Harr was given less than a day to either sign it or be fired. Let me point out that under State Statute the Council does not have the legal authority to fire any city staff member except the City Manager, and yet under the threat of the council nullifying his own employment contract, Ashworth fires Harr. To me ladies and gentlemen, this is coercion and if it's not outright illegal, it's downright unethical. And what of this reorganization plan? Why would you pull apart a public safety department that is renown metro wide for being extremely cost effective, exceedingly well run. We contract as you pointed out with Carver County Sheriff for 36 hours of service a day. The national average is 2 policemen per 1,000 residents. By those standards we could have a police force of 35 to 40 sworn officers. Instead we have 2. It makes sense. That is because Scott Harr has built this model and refined it. The weakening of this department through this ill conceived City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 plan tells me that this council doesn't think the most important function of city government is the safety of our community. The second point, dismantling the public safety commission. This council, and excuse me, it's arrogance has decided that the city does not need a forum for public input on issues of public safety. A commission of volunteer, unpaid citizens. In an era of open, participatory government, I'm baffled and one must ask what is the motivation. Finally, eliminating the position of Scott Harr. You'll hear tonight of what a pivotal role the Public Safety Director plays in the safety of our community. I strongly believe that it's a critical position that must be a sworn officer who is strong enough to advocate on behalf of our citizens, yet compassionate enough to comfort citizens who are at their most vulnerable. Smart, strong and compassionate. You've just fired a man who has all of those qualities in spades. Again I ask why. In the dirth of information that is coming out of City Hall, at least up until this point, I can only assume that you intend to carry out this reorganizational plan. Tonight's agenda doesn't even allow for council discussion of it. It appears that you're just plowing ahead and your first move was set in motion last week when you fired Scott. YoUr silence speaks volumes and what it says to me is that you're going to charge ahead regardless of what you hear tonight. You know city staff has been asking the question why for the last week, and when you're not hiding behind Data Privacies Act, you're volunteer that it's the turmoil. Well guess what? You caused the turmoil, and don't you blame citizens and don't blame me for reacting to it. I've also heard that you're concerned that City Hall has been paralyzed. I've got news for you. City Hall has been paralyzed for a couple of years now. And I say this with no disrespect to any city employee. I've always admired them for the professionals that they are and I think we're lucky to have them. But they're paralyzed. I've spoken with almost every department head and over the last two years and the turmoil as far as they're concerned is not new. There has been an atmosphere of intimidation that for several years and it's only gotten worse. When I hear of city council members swearing at staff. When the Mayor is running the weekly city staff meetings for the last couple of years. When city council members are not only failing to remove themselves from votes in which they have a personal or financial interest, but are actually influencing those votes, I'm stunned. The atmosphere upstairs is, the less you do, the less you can get in trouble for, and this has a direct impact on services to the public. And then the cru-de-gras last week, firing Scott Harr. A department head who had the gall to advance a position that you didn't agree with. What message does this reinforce to our staff members? If You don't keep your head low, we're going to find a way to chop it off. And city staff is rightly asking, who's next? They think there's a hit list. Don Ashworth has prided himself, and rightly so on keeping unions out of this town and I'm sorry to say but this council has swung the door wide open. You know a lot of people have said, alright. It's said and done. Let's get on with it and I, myself have questioned how do we recover because you know when the dust settles, we do need to carry on. How do we go forward? And if you as a city council are truly interested in doing what's right for our city, I would ask you to look inward and do some soul searching. Ask yourself what is your motivation for these reorganizational changes. Ask yourself if your behaviors are stymieing city staff and ask yourself if you're truly representing the citizens of Chanhassen. How do we recover? Quite honestly I'm not sure that we can with this council. We have been lied to. You have abused the authority that we granted you and we can no longer trust you anymore. I would sincerely encourage you to look inward and in the best interest of the citizens of Chanhassen, resign your positions. Mayor Mancino: No clapping please. Patty Blechta: My name is Patty Blechta. I live at 31 Sandy Hook Road and I would like these letters that I have to be submitted to the public record in support of Scott Harr and the position of Public Safety Director. Members from these agencies have sent these letters to our Mayor, Nancy Mancino and City Manager, Don Ashworth. Let me highlight on a few of these. I have a letter here from Rosemount. One of the largest businesses in Chanhassen. It's from Bill Green. Permit to cite a brief example of the service level that typifies our experience with Scott Harr and the Chanhassen Department of Public City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Safety. Earlier this year former Prime Minister of Great Britain and John Mager visited our facilities in Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. It was my responsibility to respond to the requirements of Mr. Mager's security team. Scott and his organization diligently supported my efforts working in conjunction with the Sheriff's office and the Eden Prairie police, Special Branch of the new Scotland Yard and the Diplomatic Security Services of the U.S. State Department. Scott and his people provided support that was second to none. Both Special Branch and State Department personnel commented to me that they rarely witness this sort of cooperation and experience during the Minnesota visit. Hosting this activity was extremely important to Rosemount. Scott and the personnel of Chanhassen Public Safety Department helped to ensure that it was a success. Some might say this just means that they're just doing their job. However, in my dealings with law enforcement and public safety organizations across the country, I've had both good and bad experiences with public and private sectors working together to solve problems. Asking for help does not automatically mean it's forthcoming. I also have a letter from Steven Graham. Southwest Metro Task Force. As coordinator of the program I would also ask, I would also like to show my appreciation for Public Safety Director Scott Harr. He has been a member of the Task Force Executive Committee since it's beginning and always bring his law enforcement expertise to the table when decisions need to be made. I have a letter here from Michael Tammer. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Scott has enhanced public safety within the community. He has always supported the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, DNR Division of Enforcement Officers and our education and safety programs within our community. On many occasions Scott has solicited the advice and the local DNR officer on natural resource and recreational safety related issues. Most recently Scott has been instrumental in providing Youth Snowmobile Safety Training classes in the city of Chanhassen and has set the groundwork for providing the additional youth firearms safety training. A letter from K. Harvey, Assistant Carver County Attorney. I have known Mr. Harr throughout my service in Carver County. In particularly I worked closely with regards to the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. Mr. Harr's savy and forthright advice was greatly beneficial to the task force on many occasions. I know that the Chief of Police and Sheriff's involvement with the task force greatly appreciated and assisted from Mr. Harr. I have a letter from Lt. L.L. Hodleft, prior Carver County State Patrol Lieutenant. As prior Carver County Area State Patrol Lieutenant and Supervisor, there has been numerous occasions for Director Harr and I to work together. We have targeted driving behavior within your city limits, which has had direct impact on the safety of your citizens and conducted multi-agency saturation's to address these safety concerns. We work together with the County Sheriff and other agencies. The FBI and special response teams in arresting an individual for a bank robbery, kidnapping and attempted murder of a police officer, all of which also occurred within your city limits. We have worked together utilizing our flight division, specifically the helicopter and FLIR device for searches and rescues. Scott Harr has been of great help to us when dealing with public safety issues directly affecting your community. These are but a few examples I can give you. To lose this contact and years of experience will be a loss to us and I believe almost a greater loss to your community. I have a letter from Lt. Steven Megalkow. Over the years Minnesota State Patrol has had opportunity to partner with the Chanhassen Department of Public Safety and Carver County Sheriff's Department in providing quality law enforcement services in your area. Director Scott Hart has developed a relationship among the law enforcement agencies and that has proven to be both a unique and effective method of serving the citizens of Chanhassen. I have a letter here from Mr. Wallin, Alan Wallin, the Sheriff. He says that last Friday, December 4th, Sheriff Elect Bud Olson and I met with Don Ashworth. I explained to Don some of the ramifications of eliminating a public safety director and the impact it could have, not only on the Carver County Sheriff's office but certainly on the Sheriff Elect Bud Olson come January, 1999. Without a Public Safety Director, the state would no longer recognize Chanhassen Public Safety. Several of the current duties being performed by the office would now have to fall to the Carver County Sheriff's office. I also have a letter here from Michael Maley, Manager of Byerly's. The public service department contributes greatly to the quality of life in this city and the confidence of perspective homeowners or businesses have in our 9 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 city. My business depends on that confidence for future growth. I am disappointed in the procedure you chose to make this decision. When making a decision that could potentially impact the security and quality of life for this city, you should have asked for input from the community. I do not understand why you chose to proceed in such a fashion as to provide an environment that questions the true intent of your actions. I also have a letter here from Jeannie Cox. If you all remember two years ago she was a teller at the Chanhassen Bank. When it was robbed I was taken hostage. As a teller I've been taught about safety during a robbery but I was not prepared for the aftermath. Scott helped me deal with my fears and gave me the strength to try and continue to lead a normal life. Scott took time out of his busy work and personal schedule to help me through this extremely rough time in my life. He made it clear that he was available any time should I have any questions or concerns. Tell me, how many people would do that? To comfort someone after a traumatic event like that takes a very special person. It is a horrible decision and will do nothing but hurt Chanhassen. Please let the community have a say in this matter. After all, it is our safety and our community that's in jeopardy. And at last I have a letter to Scott from Beth Hoiseth. I have known all along but have failed to acknowledge to you what an overwhelming positive impact you have made on our community, other departments, our department and me, especially me. You have been my mentor and you have been for so many others. I can only hope that some day I will have 1/100t~ as much courage and integrity as you do. I've always appreciated your leadership style and have bragged about it to many others. It's not over yet but I want to let you know that I am forever grateful for everything you have done for me. And I think a lot of people in this room feel the same way. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Craig Blechta: My name is Craig Blechta. My address is 31 Sandy Hook Road in Chanhassen. Scott and I met 11 years ago at Emergency Medical Technician school when he had just been hired by Chanhassen and I was on the Chanhassen Fire Department. While my full time employment is as an airline pilot, I do have an informed perspective of emergency services because of my experience on the Eden Prairie Fire Department at the current time and training other emergency medical technicians from throughout the state at Hennepin County Medical Center. I am also proud to have served for 6 years on the Public Safety Commission serving 2 years as Chair. What I'm trying to figure out here is just exactly what reason this council had for abruptly terminating an obviously successful eleven plus year career with our city. I have confirmed with former City Manager Don Ashworth, for whom Scott worked all this time, that there was never a disciplinary issue and Scott's performance reviews were exemplary. We have asked repeatedly, and the only reason given why this is good for the city is the turmoil. But what is the turmoil? We know his personnel file is squeaky clean, so that's not it. We have unsolicited letters of support from members of every emergency response agency that Chanhassen depends on supporting Scott. This includes, as Patty mentioned, the Carver County Sheriff's department, the County Attorney's office, the Minnesota State Patrol, the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Ridgeview Paramedic Services. So that's not it. And while any chief law enforcement officer can't be expected to please everyone, how many of us could garner this community support. So that's not it either. So what is this turmoil? After analyzing it from absolutely every direction, meeting with staff, fire fighters, business people and residents of the community I think I finally determined what it is. It's the open public debate that has occurred over the last half year. That's all it can be. Indeed the sirens became political. Cities run on politics. Citizens spoke, the commission listened and the council responded. So what if there was public debate and media attention. Council feathers got ruffled, and when a councilmen makes an admitted poor decision that results in his arrest, that's a legitimate news story in any community. So what it was to be expected that it would produce some media attention and letters to the editors. And let's be realistic. Both of these issues provide legitimate fodder for public debate during the fall's election. More media attention and letters to the 10 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 editor. But was Scott responsible for these issues? Absolutely not. The record shows that he accepted in a professional manner the council's elimination of sirens from, for several years from the budget. He didn't make a scene but when residents asked his opinion, he responded. He was passionate about the need for outdoor warning sirens in Chanhassen, and it's been proven beyond any doubt that Mr. Harr only did one thing regarding the councilman's arrest. And that was to warn him a week before to do exactly what he chose to do. To not do exactly what he chose to do. Every trooper, deputy and officer involved felt compelled to explain to Mr. Ashworth the facts supporting these facts. But why would our chief law enforcement officer even be questioned about why the police did their job? That's it. Some free flowing public debate and media attention about what government was doing. No behind the scene stuff here, and this seems to be what the turmoil is all about. Think about it. There is no explanation for Scott's abrupt firing. He's being blamed for ruffling feathers through public attention to these issues. There is no personnel problem. There is no performance issues. There is no disciplinary issue. There is incredible community and professional support. And last, but by no means, there is a staff that is absolutely dedicated to him. I wonder how many council people have taken the time to really check this out. Councilman Mason makes it a point of interacting with staff and truly understanding what's being done and by whom. And for this Councilman Berquist publicly chastised him. Councilmembers Elect Steve Labatt and Linda Jensen have made an effort to get to know. Mayor Mancino: Craig, Craig. Craig. No personal attacks please. Craig Blechta: Okay. Councilman Elect Steve Labatt and Linda Jensen have made an effort to get to know Scott and his department. Good for them. Good for them. You were invited to actively get to know the public safety department Mr. Engel. Have you ridden along with the inspectors or the police or the community officers? Have you sat with the support staff as they field some 250 calls and walk-ups a day? No. Nor has anyone else. The turmoil is simple. The turmoil is what people think and in a couple cases this council, for the most part didn't like hearing what people think. Well tonight it's clear what people think and virtual nonstop support of Scott and his department for the last two weeks shows what people think. What do we think? We think that things have been just fine and Scott Harr should be immediately reinstated and the department returned to it's highly effective organizational structure. That is what we think. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you and again if there is one more, that's it. Any person or personal attack and we will close the visitor presentation. Thank you. And I've said that upfront. Robert Spielman: Good evening. My name is Robert Spielman, 753 Canterbury Circle. I've only lived in Chanhassen a little over a year so I don't know Mr. Harr but by looking around here I can see that our community is losing a very valuable resource and a very valuable position. I've worked for over 10 years in the Chicagoland area as a paramedic. I survived through the Plainfield tornado and other disasters. I can tell you the need for a public safety director is pivotal for the safety and community that came from those disasters. Without that, in the Plainfield incident for example, even more lives would have been lost than the ones that were. The coordination afterwards was not something that took place at that moment. It took place beforehand and it was the coordination that made the safety possible. The decision to destroy this position seems more of a systemic problem financially and operationally with the direction of the board. Think about why people would live in this community. Our taxes are some of the highest in the area. So that's not the draw. We pay more for cable TV than anybody else in the metro area, so something that is recreational is not the draw. One of the biggest reasons we live here is for the safety so that I can go to work every day and know my children and my family is safe. I personally survived through a tornado because of sirens, and if I had checked out before I moved to this community that there were no sirens, I would have not moved here. My family in 1967 were saved, we lived on the 11 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 south side of Chicago. A tornado came through. The sirens went off2 ½ minutes beforehand. The roof to our house was totally removed. And to think that that level of safety is not being extended to my children is a crime. Before we look at this problem, it would be easy to just listen to us speak. End the meeting and go home at the end of the night. It would take a brave effort to say maybe the people of Chanhassen would like this position reinstated. This is not a power struggle. This is a voice of the people saying to those that we elected, we would like to see change and we hope that you are strong enough to make those changes. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Jim McMahon: My name is Jim McMahon. I am the former Fire Chief. Retired from the fire department and while there's been a lot of discussion about public safety's position and so on, I think after seeing the show of hands that there are a lot of people that do not understand the process and the importance of that position in this community. So I'd like to address that. 13-14 years ago the city established an advisory committee, chaired by a later and then councilman Richard Wing, to decide if the city needed a police department. After completing their study, it was their recommendation that the city hire a public safety director to deal with outside agencies until the city reached a population of 10,000. Public Safety Director's duties are to contract and to coordinate services with, and it's very important that everybody listens to this list of agencies. The Sheriff's department, the State Patrol, the Southwest Drug Task Force, the Chanhassen Fire Department, two paramedic agencies, the State Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the FBI, the Postal Inspections Officer, the Immigration Department, Crime Prevention Officers. He also is over CSO officers, which is animal control. The City Inspections Department, the Fire Marshal's office and Code Enforcement Officer, and the DNR. Folks, that's a big plate for anybody to handle. Out of this came then the Public Safety Commission which was formed as an outgrowth of the Public Safety Department. This commission serves as a resource and advisory board along with being a sounding commission for the citizens of Chanhassen. This commission is made up of professional law enforcement officers from other cities, not Chanhassen, as well as concerned citizens. All members to this commission volunteer their time and are citizens of Chanhassen. We now are at a population of 16,000. I've heard 19,000. We'll call it 16,000. Again it was stated earlier if we were to follow the national averages for police officers per population, we'd have 32 if it was 16. If we were to follow the Midwest average, we would have 16. We had three licensed officers and now have two. When you talk about creativity, the main portion of the salary for one of our officers is paid for by a federal grant. The remainder of our police protection comes from a contract for patrol needs with the Sheriff's department. What has all this done for the citizens of Chanhassen. Chanhassen's public safety department is rated in the top five of the state for operating efficiency or cost for service per citizen. That's a heck of an accomplishment. Roger you stated we can't ask questions. Mayor Mancino: We are taking comments only. Thank you Jim. Jim McMahon: Comments only. I guess in closing what I'd like to say since I was around really from the inception of this and have worked with the start up of the public safety commission and the public safety directors, that it's really been an honor to work with these people. They are definitely dedicated professionals and it's been a real asset to the city because the main job when I listed out all of these agencies is to coordinate these agencies to work together in times of need. It's not an easy accomplishment to do this. Fire has it's policies, procedures and so on. The sheriff's department has theirs. The state patrol has theirs. To bring all of these together is~no easy task to operate because procedures change by circumstance. There's a lot of coordination involved in this and this is something that Scott shined at. Was bringing together and getting departments to change their policies. Change 12 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 their procedures to work together as a unit for the best possible outcome for the citizens of this community. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Patsy Bemhjelm: Good evening Mayor and Council. My name is Patsy Bemhjelm and I live at 9380 Kiowa Trail here in Chanhassen. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I come before you as a very, very concerned resident of the city ofChanhassen. I also am sadden by the recent events that have occurred and that have been outlined tonight and have many questions for you regarding the last, the events of the last few weeks. My first and foremost question is why is the council so involved in these personnel issues at city hall? It would appear that by taking a look at the Minnesota State Statutes that apply to the council manager plan of government, that the council only has the city manager to report directly to them and everyone else reports to the city manager. Specifically I would like to refer to Minnesota State Statute 412.661 which, and I will paraphrase. Neither the council nor any of it's members shall dictate the appointment of any person to office or employment by the manager. And then I drop down to, the council and it's member shall deal with and control the administrative service solely through the manager and neither the council or any of it's members shall give orders to any subordinate of the manager, either publicly or privately. With this information in mind I would like to know who it was that gave the order to have the resignation offer made to Scott Harr. We do know that there was a council member present as one of the individuals who proposed this to Mr. Harr. It certainly appears to me that the council member should have had nothing to do with this. According to Minnesota State Statute. So what was their involvement in the situation at all? Why is it necessary for any council member to be present at city hall for administrative reasons recently? Doesn't it seem to you to be going against what the statute says? It does to me. I'm not an attorney but I am a citizen of this city and I did work for a city for 10 years and am somewhat familiar with statutes and that's my interpretation. I do feel that I want, and I also am entitled to an explanation as to why it was handled this way. Is this the legal way to handle this? I don't know. You tell me. I found it very interesting what Councilmember Senn stated in a letter to the Chanhassen Villager that said, and I quote, trust them. The Council. To assemble the information, evaluate it and continue to make responsible decisions. They will function within the legal parameters they need to and above all they will act in the best interest of the city. End quote. Well Councilmember Senn, why should we trust the council and mayor when it appears that any time or for any reason you could come into city hall and continue this. All legal issues aside, what possible reason is there for getting rid of someone that is running an efficient, cost effective department and is held in high esteem, not only by co-workers and by peers, as we've also already heard. I know of no reason for this to occur, yet it did. I find this whole predicament embarrassing to me personally as a resident of the city of Chanhassen. This is a time when we should be putting our best foot forward to find a qualified new city manager. Showing the world that we are a progressive city that is looking forward to embracing the 21st century with vision and foresight. Instead we are showing any candidate that may be interested in our city that it appears our council will be breathing down his or her neck at any every cross road. State statutes notwithstanding. In closing my last question to you is simple. When will I and other citizens of this city get the answers to our questions? I understand it's not tonight but do we have reason to expect that there will be answers forthcoming? Will you continue to come into city hall and attend to personnel issues such as these which are rocking as a community to the core, or will you take a look at what is happening and what affect you're having on the city and fall back. I would be happy to supply you with a copy of the questions that I personally have tonight, if that would expedite matters. I thank you for your time. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. 13 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Bill Bernhjelm: Mayor Mancino, members of the Council. My name is Bill Bernhjelm. I live at 9380 Kiowa Trail. I've lived in Chanhassen for 21 years and I have served on the Public Safety Commission for over 10 years. The recent actions of the City Council relating to the employment status of the city manager and the public safety director have raised many questions that I hope the council can answer in the near future. Has the council considered the impact of their decisions on the remaining city employees? What will be the long and short term effects on moral, performance, retention and recruitment? How will the volunteer fire department be affected? Can employees be assured that they will be treated fairly if performance issues need to be addressed? What message is the council sending to employees who have enforcement responsibilities? Is there a group of untouchables in this town that are not subject to the same laws as the rest of the community? Is this the kind of thing that inspires trust, high performance and loyalty among your department heads and staff7. Have you proven to your staff that it is better to do nothing rather than risk an adverse reaction? Will employees seek the protection of unions? What disruption will this cause? I recognize the authority of the council to set policy for the city. I also believe that the clear intent of the state statutes that deal with this form of municipal government is to ensure that the day to day operations of the city are not to be influenced by the political or ideological whims of elected officials. Policy should be made in the public's interest after full discussion and debate in the public view and with the opportunity for public input. It has been inconceivable to me that the events of the last several weeks could be thought to measure up to that standard. If the council is not satisfied with the mission, direction and organization of the public safety department, why has this discussion not been brought to the Public Safety Commission? Is the nature of the disagreement more personal than professional? There are a lot of questions. I hope some of the answers are forth coming. I would also like to ask the council to consider deviating from their normal practice of not acting on comments that they hear tonight and I would like them to immediately reinstate Scott Harr as the public safety director. It would appear to me that there's vast public support for this and I think that that would be the right thing to do. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Bill. Leah Hawke: Leah Hawke, 7444 Moccasin Trail. I've been torn as to whether or not to speak here tonight but I've decided I just have to. I Can't let the opinions of certain council members impact my right to be here. I spent a great deal of time this weekend looking at my motivations for involvement in this issue. Was I involved because of personal differences with specific members of this council? Was it because of some secret agenda I might have? Was it because I like to take time away from my family and friends at this special time to insure that a place that I have chosen to live gets some bad publicity? The answers to those questions have got to be no. After much soul searching I determined I am involved because I truly believe that certain members of this city council may have abused the powers vested in them by the residents of Chanhassen and may have punished a city employee for simply doing his job well. I am involved because I deserve answers to the questions I have regarding the decisions you are making and others in this community need to be aware that this city council has failed to provide those answers and worse than that, are arrogant enough to believe that neither I nor others that share my concern deserve answers. I am truly embarrassed by how this community and it's leaders are currently being perceived by others. I'm embarrassed that some of the things my two young sons have heard about this issue and I am embarrassed at how involvement in this issue has been portrayed to others in this community by members of this council. And yes I have heard. All I have wanted since I was made aware of Don Ashworth's grand plan to reorganize the public safety department was the opportunity to be heard and the courtesy of answers to questions regarding the impact of this plan on my family, but in terms of our personal safety and the taxes we pay, before you chose to take action. You, the City Council have failed me on both counts. A member of this council indicated that Scott Harr was terminated because of all the turmoil. I agree with Colleen. This is unjust when you appear to be the group that's 14 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 creating the turmoil. You chose to not honor a commitment to residents. You chose to ignore public input. You chose to ignore the input of your own public safety community and you chose not to communicate but rather hide behind privacy, rules and process. It's unacceptable to me that you could be punishing Mr. Harr and this community for your own failing. It's frightening to me that you believe you can make key decisions for this city independent of city staff, commissions and residents. You are short term elected officials. This is not your personal fiefdom to do with what you please until you lose your seat. One councilmember wrote that employees, employers do not allow employees to make the decision. Having worked in the private sector for 11 years and having supervised as well as having been supervised, I don't necessarily agree with that comment to start with. If the business is well run and knows how to motivate and develop loyal employees. But that issue aside, I actually find his analogy quite ridiculous. I'm not an employer/employee relationship with this council. This council chose to represent my interests. They should be open to my input when they are making decisions that I believe hold no merit. My question still remains, and I want answers. Why force Mr. Harr to resign? Why do I have to go to Mr. Harr's attorney to get a full copy of the separation agreement, which for the record I understand to be seven pages, not six. What are the tangible and intangible costs of your actions? Will my taxes be impacted? Why are we paying out so much in employee settlement costs? How does this council compare on this issue with other councils? How has this impact city moral and how has this and could this impact the services I receive? It's my opinion that over the past several months certain members of this council have failed in their role as community leaders. Their actions have shown how out of touch they are with employees at city hall and with residents. I can't believe the recent elections didn't make it clear to those members that residents expect unbiased, honest and open government. They don't want officials with personal agendas or officials that believe residents aren't entitled to answers. I agree with another councilman's observation that many residents just don't have an opinion on this issue. But you know what, they probably would if they saw that this...judge how this could impact residents if they knew that the impact on city employees does not appear to have been planned for or considered to any great extent and if they knew that involved residents are being ignored and to a certain extent being indirectly berated for even being here. If services are impacted, you'll have tough questions to answer and you know what? The record will show how poorly some of you have handled this. Hopefully no one in this room will question the impact your recent decisions have had on city staff. It's my understanding that many within city staff does not trust this council and probably won't for some time to come and you know what, why should they. After Don Ashworth's termination this council went on record in the newspaper as saying no further changes were anticipated. That such decisions would be left to the new city manager. Then suddenly Mr. Harr, who in my opinion is one of our most dedicated, honorable and well liked staff members, a department head with a fiercely loyal staff who has run an extremely cost effective department that has received many accolades, is forced to resign. And no one will answer why. All we have to go on are comments that controversies involving sirens and a councilman's arrest and his inspection files have had a part in the decision made. City staff saw Mr. Harr cooperate with residents, do his job and then get forced to resign. What motivation do any of our remaining city staff have to show any courage or initiative? God forbid that they would ever work with a special interest group like the one I co-led to put a city wide tornado warning siren system in place for all residents. The atmosphere among city employees is one this council has created and it will not go away because Mr. Harr is being forced to resign. In forcing Mr. Harr to resign you've made matters even worst. It's my understanding employees are openly tape recording conversations with council members, refusing to meet with them individually. In my 11 years in the private sector I have never, ever seen an employee situation deteriorate to this level. If any council member believes I'm exaggerating, I challenge them to allow employees to speak anonymously to the Villager. I think my synopsis of the situation will stand. Bottom line, I don't understand Mr. Ashworth's plan to reorganize or a council person's comment that the plan was compelling. I remain extremely concerned at this council's decision to force Mr. Harr to resign and their apparent involvement in that decision. A decision that has led to far more turmoil than had to left Mr. 15 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Harr to do the great job he was doing. All I want are answers and you owe me that. I would ask you explain your recent actions honestly and fully. Right now based on what I know, I think it's fair to say I've lost faith in this city council. I've lost faith in it's ability to professionally and without bias do what is in the best interest of city staff and the community in general. I've lost faith in it's willingness to listen to the experts that could give them the information they need to make sound decisions for the city and I've lost faith in it's ability to interact and motivate city staff. I am sure this council believes I'm alone in my feelings. To the extent you truly believe that, I challenge you to call a special election. Let residents show how they feel on this issue. Take your chances at the polls. If you are so sure that people in this room are a splinter group, or a small special interest group, then you have nothing to lose. Alternatively, you could actually show some courage, humanity and responsiveness. Allow Mr. Harr to come back to his job that he still amazingly enough wants. Work with him, his staff, other public safety officials and residents to determine whether or not reorganizing our public safety function is in fact in the best interest of Chanhassen. Follow the process that you have openly criticized residents for not following in the past. Make a decision that has the backing of appropriate research and due diligence. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Barb Klick: Mayor and City Council. My name is Barb Klick. I reside at 7116 Utica Lane. I've been a resident of Chanhassen for 12 years and all these recent changes and decisions affect all of us and I'm concerned especially about the financial aspect. I know the City, as of 12/7/98 was operating with a $637,000.00 deficit. I am concerned with some of the separation agreements. I understand that Mr. Scott Harr will be paid $67,000.00 for 12 months of no service here. I understand that Mr. Ashworth and his new assignments would pay $79,500 through the year 2000 and subsequently $62,000.00 for two years. We've encountered some type of a contractual arrangement with a search firm at the fee of $26,000.00. We'll also be recruiting for a city manager so that will be another fee on top of that. Mr. Knutson, I'm sure you're worth every penny but I would love to know what the legal fees have been for the city for the last couple months for legal counsel. I'm interested also in productivity. When I go to a public forum and see public employees crying outright in front of strangers, I'm wondering what's been happening around for two months and what kind of work has been gotten done. I'm concerned for future lawsuits. I'm concerned for hostile work environments. I've heard that word thrown around and we all know how dangerous those terms can be. I'm concerned for terminations under duress. Mr. Harr can still appeal for unemployment. He can still sue the city. Mr. Ashworth got front page above the fold coverage for alleged misconduct. I wonder what his concerns are about that. I do not feel that the leadership above, and four of you with the exception of Mr. Mason, is showing fiscal responsibility. This is on the backs of all the citizens in this room and I think that's one thing we need to factor in, outside of all the emotional support we're showing for Mr. Scott Harr. I'd also like to acknowledge that every one in this community is busy. Every one has children, jobs, aging parents, children's soccer games, and yet a few people squeeze out time, don't they? To support their schools through P TO. They support their church through religious education. Or they support through city government. Those are important people who think they can make a difference and that's what we're all about. Making a difference. The six people here I'd like to call forward, please come up when I call your name. Mr. James Sloss, Mr. Bill Bernhjelm, Mr. Steve Labatt, Mr. Greg Weber, Ms. Colleen Dockendorf, and Mr. Bill Wuffel. Are these people here? Why don't you come forward please. These people you see walking before you are just as busy as everyone else in this council chambers tonight. These six people thought they could make a difference. As of last month, these were your public safety commissioners. I'd like to publicly apologize to you folks for the lack of respect we've shown you by not communicating to you with these changes. My understanding is there's been no memos. No direct communication. I also wish to personally acknowledge you for your time and perhaps later on people could, because we can't applaud here in public, we'd like to maybe support you for your time. Thank you. And again Mr. Mason, please 16 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 disregard my closing comments. I believe our elected officials have forgotten who the customer is. We're the customer, okay? And when customers are dissatisfied, you have a history of talking to 11 people and I think we brought all 11 people for each one of us here tonight. And I'm hoping all these people with their 11 friends will tell 11 more people. Things are not right in city hall and we all know it. I'd hope you could find the courage and leadership to get back to the basics. The customer is really who we are. This is why you were elected and you need to put the deeds of the city before your own. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Darrell Kirt: Darrell Kirt, I live at 50 Hill Street and I might just take the opposite stand. Recently I've lost faith in the public safety of this city. I was given a citation for a dog at large and I don't even own a dog and I called Mr. Harr. Asked him what's the deal. Why would you give me a ticket for that and he said well I'I1 have to stand behind my officer. I said Scott, I don't even own a dog so I've done some investigating and looking and I'm not too sure that maybe Mr. Harr isn't working more than one job. I don't know what the law is. What he can do as far as if he works for the city, what he only can take wages from us or not. But I would suggest the city council checks into his tax returns. I think he's doing more than one job. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Excuse me. No talking please. Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra. I live at 1680 Arboretum Boulevard in Chanhassen and I hope the City Council has the courage too, like the other lady talked about. Courage not to bend to public pressure and threats that I've heard tonight. From what I've heard the sky is falling. Scott's gone. Everything's going to fall apart. I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think the city would let that happen. Why don't we just wait and see what happens. 2 months. 6 months. A year from now. If things don't work out, hire another director. You think Scott Harr is the only person that can handle this job? I bet there's a lot of other people that can do just as good, if not better than Mr. Harr. I've lived in Chanhassen for 21 years and have had a lot of experience with the city councils. I don't always agree with them but I do in this case. We also have a contract with Carver County Sheriff's Department, which do a terrific job out here. I've had to call them a couple of times. They're Johnny on the spot. 2~3 minutes, they're right there at your door. We also have the highway patrol. Years ago when the city decided to hire a public safety officer and department I was against it because I didn't think we need it, and I'm not convinced we need it today. I've lived here for a long time. I don't see an abundance of crime and I've never heard of an unsolved crime out here that really should be worked on. I think that the city is doing the right thing. Any time the city, and the city doesn't do this very often. Can cut excess layers, cut taxes, streamline any department, they're doing good and they should continue and I hope the city continues to do that. Thank you. John Esch: John Esch, 7444 Moccasin Trail. Three weeks ago I stood here and asked a couple questions. After that meeting I began thinking about how I would address this city council and the issues concerning the reorganization of city government. A lot has changed in those three weeks. I thought government was supposed to carefully evaluate major changes and plan for the potential fallout. It doesn't look like this city council did either. You have failed to live up to your promises and you haven't even apologized. It's a disgrace. It's also a disgrace that a member of this council would write a letter to the Villager that appears to be full of inaccuracies and half truths. Do you just not believe you are being watched by concerned citizens? Do you think you can get away with it because people are too busy to hold you accountable? A few months ago that may have been true for me. Not anymore. For the record, from the letter, a husband and wife and one other person accused the council of seeking no public 17 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 comments. I am that husband. My wife is Leah Hawke. This statement appears to be a tie. We did not accuse the council and the public record shows that absolutely no accusations were made. We were simply requesting that the city council take the time to review the recommendations. Perhaps prior to making slanderous statements about concerned tax paying residents, you may want to read the Minutes of your own meeting. We also hear that the council will accept all opinions, evaluate all the information, step back, sort out the facts, and then decide on an action. Again, when did this happen? When were we able to publicly debate the elimination of the public safety director's position? After he was terminated. Another statement. These leaders will not forward half truths to better advance the simple view point. This letter appears to do what you promised the leaders will not do, since it appears to be filled with half truths to show that we should trust you. Additionally, one member of this council has informed a member of the public that my wife's actions have led directly to the termination of Mr. Harr. Part of my rationale for speaking this evening is the manner in which the council has chosen to treat tax paying residents. I'm disgusted that this council can intimidate city staff, but I'm absolutely outraged that you can intimidate tax paying residents of this city to the point that~ they rethink their ability to freely speak their mind for fear of retribution. I demand an apology for the intimidation you have caused. Democracy in the city of Chanhassen or should I say Chanhassle, has taken a major step backwards in time. I would like to put this in more specific terms. On two occasions my wife, Leah Hawke, held an opinion different from the city council. Once on sirens and once recently with the reorganization. On both occasions she decided to rally other individuals in this city who share her concerns to try to persuade this city council to consider their point of view. On the first occasion she succeeded and we now have five more tornado warning sirens for the better protection of all residents. We should be thanking her and the director of public safety instead of terminating the Director of Public Safety and blaming her for it. All residents of Chanhassen ought to be on guard against this city council. The message is loud and clear. Do not disagree with this council or someone might get hurt. Perhaps they will not approve your business dealings. Perhaps they will fire some other city staff. Instead disagree quietly so no one will hear you and the council then can run over your opinion. My message to the city council is that you also need to be on guard since you are no longer trustworthy, we will be watching you more closely. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. We have a few more moments, if anyone else would like to speak. Randy Wahl: Madam Mayor, council members. My name is Randy Wahl. I reside at 6891 Redwing Lane. I come tonight before you folks probably wearing several faces. Concerned citizen, taxpayer. National Guard member, and fire fighter. The importance of a public safety director is something that I don't think any one of you individuals can measure. It's a position that has commanded the respect of numerous agencies throughout this state. Not city and not local but state. Scott is not just a public safety director. He is a mentor amongst individuals within the fire department. He has commanded so much more respect with his subordinates than any department head this city has. And I think by virtue of the attendance of the personnel here tonight, you can see that. More importantly, I'm concerned with the fact that we don't have a public safety director any more. There are numerous regulations coming down from OSHA, NFPA, that make it very hard for the fire department to even manage. And so what we've got is a fire marshal and a fire inspector that take a lot of that administrative function away from us so that we can concentrate and when the time comes and the pager goes off, we can do our job. To say that they won't lose their positions. I can't say that that's an honest statement based on history. If we did not have Scott Harr, I don't think that this department, the public safety department, the fire department, would be recognized as heavily as it is today. We've got 45 plus members in this department. We are not full time staff, and that's the other thing that I think you folks have to look at. The perception out there is we've got a full time police department. Full time fire department. That we don't. We've got citizen fire fighters. And when the pager goes off, we go out there and do our job. There is no, well I'm not going to go tonight or I'm not going to go because I've got a meeting to attend. I'm not going to go because my 18 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 daughter's got softball or soccer or whatever. The pager goes off, we go because we love our job. And we've got requirements there in the department that if we don't meet them requirements, we're out of there. And we certainly didn't join the department for the pay, but rather for the excitement and the fact that we love doing the job. And there are times when, just as you guys are going through now, that there's total chaos. Scott Harr for me personally has been a counselor. Now there are actions that take you away from your family. Take you away from your kids. And I wish I could sit, or stand up here tonight and say to you that when we take that hat off and we go home, all is well. Well, I'm here to say tonight, all is not well all the time. There is, and always probably will be turmoil within families. And Scott isn't just a public safety director. To me he's a counselor. I don't think any one of you folks want to hear the pains, the emotions, that Scott gets put on him. He intercepts a lot of things that we fire fighters, citizen fire fighters and as history will reflect, even citizens from the bank robbery. He takes time out of his schedule, and even after that to go out and check on the concerns that we have. He's there by our sides. He's offering comfort but without a public safety director, I don't think this city is going to be perceived as one that's top notch. There are so many other agencies that the public safety director also coordinates efforts with. One of them that was missed was the military. I don't think again any one of you council members realize the impact that without a public safety director, we could be lost. Incidences like what happened in St. Cloud can clearly happen here. Chaska. It can happen now. It can happen tonight. It can happen tomorrow. It can happen next week. And the efforts that go into combining so many agencies, I know I wouldn't want the job but it's something that Scott Harr has taken and done really well with, as you can probably see from the letters that were presented earlier for his accomplishments. But we need a public safety department. We need to have the staff back the way it was so that fire marshals can get out there and do the job. That they can take over. Again, they consume about 90% of our administrative work. Greg and Mark do, but we've seen Don Ashworth's position change. We've seen Scott Harr go out the door and I am concerned about the public safety department. Who's next? The Fire Marshal? Fire Inspector? I mean without these individuals, it makes our job easier going into these residences in the time of need, whether it be for fire, medical, because we can perceive that the safety for our safety. We citizen fire fighters. Our safety, is there. But I don't know what to expect anymore but I only hope that you can rethink your actions. I hope that the new council elect would seriously take a look at this. If this doesn't get rescinded and Scott reinstated, that possibly the next thing that we could do is talk about these civil service commissions or these unionships. If that doesn't work, talked with Mr. Workman and see if we can't get impeachment instated in the state of Minnesota. Or go to Carver County and see if we can't get a recall because this is very, very detrimental to the community. Perception is everything and I think for the citizens that come up and say that Scott's not out there patrolling the streets. We've got the Carver County Sheriff. We've got the state patrol. This isn't about law enforcement people. This is about every building. This is about every day walking in the streets. This is about being able to go out at 1:00 in the morning safely. The efforts didn't come that way from Carver County, State Patrol, Fire Department. Those efforts came to us because we had an individual in a position to make it safe for us. I only hope that I can continue to stay a resident of this city because I am concerned. There's other fire departments. But I only hope and wish that you seriously look at this and take a different approach for my safety. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. We're going over the allotted hour. Let's take two more people coming up and addressing the council. Then we will close the visitor presentations. Bob Aus: Don't use the gavel Mayor. I just want to go over just a couple of points. I want to first thank the other people from the community that showed up tonight. I'm also a member of the community. My name is Bob Ayot and I wasn't sure ifI was going to give my name or where I lived because quite frankly there is a lot of turmoil but I'm going to go back to the fellow who said he was a National Guardsman. I spent a few days in the military myself. Viet Nam was very unpopular. Desert Storm was 19 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 not so I hope the Chanhassen residents have staying power. So if you're upset about this issue, don't walk out tonight and say I did my thing. Make sure you stay with it. Who's your state auditor who can make something happen? Do you know who that is? That's Coach Dutcher's daughter. Ms. Dutcher is the one who is the state auditor, okay. Do you know what kind of government we're under? We're under what's called a minor government. That means the Mayor and her council people have equal votes. Did you know that? Okay. Do you recognize that the only thing that can be illegal with respect to our council is whether or not there's a disclosure or non-disclosure issue or fiscal irresponsibility associated with what they do or do not do. So keep those things in mind. I think I missed a point on that. Fiscal responsibility. Oh, and conflict of interest. So Mr. Knutson could have a much busier day at the office if you keep some of those issues in mind. And petitions are also very, very handy. So keep those things in mind and keep this alive. I don't really care personally, just on the public safety director issue. I'm looking, I want you to think about the whole thing. If you take a look at the budget. The budget for the public safety's about $2.1 million. Parks and Rec are about $1.5 mil. Is a path along a park as important as a policeman? You answer the question. The community development has a budget of about $300,000.00. About a third of that goes to a salary. Alright. So don't feel good about coming here and talking tonight then walking out. Councilman Mason mentioned something to me the other day. He says Bob, you know I feel like I'm in a vacuum. At first he said took me two years to learn the job. Then he said no really, it only took me a year but the point is, the man served what, 8 years? 8 years. So the Mayor went uncontested in the last election. Vier Nam, 10 years. Desert Storm, 4 weeks. Make sure you have the staying power. And I'll stick around. My wife was standing out at Byerly's today giving out fliers on questions to ask. Okay. During her lunch period. So stay involved, because I get lonely from week to week when I come to these meetings. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Bob. One more please. Don Chmiel: Madam Mayor, members of Council. I'm Don Chmiel. Former Mayor of Chanhassen. From 1989 through 1996. Eight years of serving this city. I truly enjoyed the years that I represented Chan. I worked for the residents of this community and the taxpayers. What they wanted or needed for them and the growth of Chan. I am no longer a resident. I live in Cleveland, Minnesota. And for the last year and a half, although I've kept in touch with many people within the community because I really do have a strong, loving desire of this community. A lot of friends and neighbors that I've talked to as well. The past months they've indicated some real concerns to me. I think the Villager, which I have always respected and felt that they always reported the way it really is and I commend them again today for their sincere interest in our city and it's people's concerns. I'm here to say loudly, why are there two, or possibly three people, taking not only the public safety director to task, but as well as the city manager. Why is this being pursued in a vindictive manner? I've sat many a night with the members of council, but I never felt that an individual could take upon themselves to run and override city hall. We often come to ardent discussions about who had the power to run the city. And in the many months of meetings twice a month, besides regular council meetings, we found out that council made it very clear that they wanted the final decision and the making process. The staff at city hall, all departments are the professionals within this community. They operate and make the city run. The Mayor does have the right and power to mandate and the council to make the discussions, go onto the decisions. Why I ask in a two year period of time, have they dismissed our city manager and public safety director? I'm here to state this is not for the betterment of the city or the people of Chanhassen. Getting rid of these professionals that have done outstanding work for at least my eight years, and I think they've probably done the same for the past two. They've worked hard and long to get a project running efficiently and I really feel I'm a good judge of character and I stand by the concept if you're good at what you do, you don't have to brag. Actions speak louder than words. The city manager and the public safety director are like that. I've sat with them year after year until 11:00, 12:00 and sometimes 1:00 a.m.. We weren't 20 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 always right but we certainly worked to make the city a better place to live and it was the staff at city hall, the public safety, the fire department, maintenance, whatever we had. They were part of the city and they were proud of our city. They worked side by side. My pledge when running and operating as the mayor was communications. And no power struggles. We operated as a team. I'm proud to say that what we have was a great team and why destroy their hard work that made a beautiful city to be proud of. I ask again, a little louder and why. The discussions to dismiss, again I ask you, what does this accomplish and for whom? And does the decision help or hinder Chanhassen? Who benefits from these dismissals? I know as Mayor I never would have allowed this to happen and I'm asking that reconsideration be given by one at least of the city council who was in the positive to go through this motion. And I ask for that one individual to call a reconsideration to review this, to look at this and then to take action and proper action. And to maintain and bring back the people who we have within this city who makes it look what it is and many other cities copying what's being done in this city. I thank you for your time. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Don very much. That will be the end of visitor presentation. We wilt now take a five minute break and go ahead with the agenda. We appreciate your all being here and coming tonight and thank you for your comments. So we'll take a five minute break. Thank you. (There was a short break in the meeting.) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER PETITION FROM THOMAS CHRISTENSEN TO RE-NAME THE SEGMENT OF "COULTER BOULEVARD" WEST OF CENTURY BOULEVARD TO "WATER TOWER PLACE". Anita Benson: Mayor Mancino, members of the Council. Staff has received a request from Tom Christensen of All About Lights to rename the segment of Coulter Boulevard between Century Boulevard and Trunk Highway 41, which was constructed this summer, to Water Tower Place. Staff has reviewed the street configuration in the area and it appears to be a reasonable request. Notices were sent out to property owners within 500 feet and staff has received no comments to date. Therefore staff recommends approval of the street name change from Coulter Boulevard to Water Tower Place. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions for staff at this point? Councilman Berquist: A short one. At some point it's going to be a right-in/right-out. Anita Benson: Correct. It would remain Water Tower Place. Councilman Berquist: ... Anita Benson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: So even though it's right-in/right-out, why would that make a difference? Councilman Berquist: It's going to be extended to TH 41...or it's going to Coulter to Century only to be Water Tower Place and then it hits TH 41. Anita Benson: Coulter Boulevard, since there isn't a full access at TH 41, the signalized intersection, to be signalized intersection is 82nd Street and Trunk Highway 41 will function more as the thoroughfare. Mayor 21 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. I'm opening this for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the council on this, please come forward. State your name and address. If you have any comments to make on the request to rename a portion of Coulter Boulevard between Trunk Highway 41 and Century Boulevard. Bob Ayot: Can I ask a question? Mayor Mancino: You have to come up to the podium. State your name and address. Bob Ayot: Is there any cost impact associated with the change? Any map changes? Any street sign changes? Anything along that line? Anita Benson: The property owner has escrowed $200.00 to cover the costs of this change. The street signage has not been installed yet out there for that segment so any costs that would be incurred are covered by the petitioning property owner. Bob Ayot: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Council on this? Okay. The public hearing is closed. Bring this back to Council. Any comments from councilmembers? Any discussion? Then may I please have a motion and a second. Councilman Mason: Move approval. Councilman Berquist: Second. Resolution #98-116: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the request to rename the segment of Coulter Boulevard between Century Boulevard and Trunk Highway 41 to Water Tower Place. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. US BANK FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE AREA REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE FOR TI-W~ CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL SIGN LOCATED AT 800 WEST 78TM STREET. Cynthia Kirchoff: The applicant would like to install an 8 square foot wall sign on Byerly's building along West 78th Street. The applicant does not have street frontage and is located in the interior of the building. The zoning ordinance requires that wall signage be placed on tenants that have the street frontage. The only signage that the ordinance would permit in this case is window signage on the doors that face West 78a~ Street. A US Bank representative indicated at the Planning Commission meeting that that wasn't an option for US Bank to install signage on the glass windows. This item was reviewed in front of the Planning Commission on November 18a~. They did unanimously recommend denial of the variance citing that it may set a precedent for other tenants inside this building and other buildings throughout the city. Staff does recommend denial of both the request, the variance and the amendment to the variance 94-1. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much Cindy. Now, reading the Planning Commission Minutes, the Planning Commission denied this because they were concerned that other businesses inside Byerly's 22 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 would also want signage too so that was their concern. Whether it be the Caribou Coffee, the US Postal Service, LeeAnn Chins, etc. So that was their concern? Cynthia Kirchoff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And, well I'I1 wait and ask if the applicant's here. Thank you very much. I just wanted to understand what the Planning Commission had done in their recommendation to the City Council. Is the applicant here? Is anyone from US Bank here tonight and would like to address the Council? Okay. Seeing none, we will go ahead. Any comments from council members? Councilman Berquist: Is there anyone...need to ask the Planning Commission? Cynthia Kirchoff: A representative from US Bank was at the Planning Commission. Councilman Berquist: ...regarding the other potential applicant? Cynthia Kirchoff: No, they could not. Mayor Mancino: Any other comments or questions? Cindy, I have one. The Byerly's sign on the, is it West 78~ side, on the building itself is a variance. It's bigger than what we would normally allow in our sign ordinance. Cynthia Kirchoff: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Could they, they do have the opportunity at this point to do a couple things. Three things that I can think of. Options. Number one, to reduce their sign, the Byerly's sign and they would still be able to put other companies that are inside, Byerly's up there also? Or not? Cynthia Kirchoff: Well the zoning ordinance, they'd have to get a variance for that since the applicant does not have street frontage. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Okay. So that would need a variance. But they could put up a window sign. Cynthia Kirchoff: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: And number three, they could put it on their monument sign out on West 78th Street. Cynthia Kirchoff: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: They are able to do that. Cynthia Kirchoff: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you. So there are some other options. Councilman Engel: You just answered my question. Mike and I were saying, can we put a little monument sign out by the main entrance that would allow them to say residents of Byerly's, Caribou, US Post office, you know, take your pick. Bank. 23 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Berquist: A monument sign by the main entrance? Mayor Mancino: No, a monument sign out on West 78th. Councilman Engel: Right, right. Yeah, that's what I mean. When I say main entrance, I mean off of 78th into the main parking lot. Just a shorter one denoting what businesses are in there so they have some method of complying with the ordinance yet still let people know they're in business. Mayor Mancino: Well it has to fit, Councilman Engel, into the package that was already okayed by City Council. Councilman Engel: Okay. I'm asking as much out of ignorance as to promote discussion. Mayor Mancino: Okay Councilman Mason, do you understand that? Councilman Mason: Oh yeah. Yeah. I'm just wondering what the future brings then particularly now as when the rest of that comer of Chan develops, when we get situations like this, what opportunity do tenants have. What sort of chance do they have to advertise their goods? I mean that's a concern you know and I don't, I'm not, yeah. Mayor Mancino: Well they certainly do have the monument sign out in front. Again, as you're passing by you can see it. I mean isn't that? Councilman Mason: No, I mean you're right but I'm just trying to think of that monument sign and I typically look, that's interesting because I look at the walls of buildings for signs as opposed to monument signs and I don't know if that's something that future councils will be dealing with. I don't know. I guess I see that as a potential issue. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Well and it certainly becomes more, a bigger potential issue because now retail establishments will have many mini ones inside of the main which is just a new marketing. Councilman Senn. Any questions, comments? Councilman Senn: Just a question. On the monument sign you're talking about, are you talking about an existing one or a future one? Mayor Mancino: Well there is an existing one. Am I not correct? Cynthia Kirchoff: That's correct. I just wanted to make a comment that the signage that US Bank could have would be more ora directional sign and that would be limited to 4 square feet. Since they don't have street frontage, that's what they would have to do on the monument sign. Would be directional type sign. Mayor Mancino: Which would be their logo. Their new logo which I've seen. Okay. Councilman Senn, did you get your answer? Councilman Senn: Yes I think so. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Did I see someone who wanted to come up and speak to the issue? 24 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Vernelle Clayton: I'm Vemelle Clayton. Resident of Chanhassen. I'm here on the next agenda item. The two are somewhat connected. We are here to present to you an overall sign plan for another building for, because of somewhat similar situation. A situation where there are tenants inside a building that might need signage in the future and so we have enough faith to, on the exterior of this building, to accommodate the overall use, that possibly could occur in the future. But I would just like to add, because I think there's some confusion. There certainly is on my part. I sat, as did several other people with planning and planning commission members when we created the sign plan. The sign plan does not say that individual tenants, dimensions are governed by their front footage. It simply says the whole building is what determines what signage there will be. It was our assumption as volunteer members that we were talking about the whole building. It was my assumption, because at the time, and historically every building I've worked with has had a sign plan and we create the plan and that sign area has to meet the criteria. As I explained to staff, although there have been many different staff members following sign plans here in the city. For example at Market Square I've always tried to have the understanding that they would not issue a permit until they checked with me. I may not always be here and I didn't realize that at Market Square, even though we have a sign, a plan and a sign area, ifI weren't interfacing, that same rule would apply. We don't want that there and we wouldn't want it at Colonial Square. We don't want a little sign for somebody that has a little bit of space just because they only have a little frontage. We don't want a little sign for somebody who might have a little frontage and a whole big L and we, on the other side of the coin, we don't want a great big sign right next to a little sign just because he has more frontage. I don't think that was the intent when the ordinance was written and so I know it's been the interpretation but I just discovered it. Mayor Mancino: Good. Appreciate it. Vernelle Clayton: So see it as I am, I will now raise a fuss and see if we can't get that changed so, but I just think that, I don't know what the overall capacity is of that building, and since I'm here, so what if all the other tenants want a sign? That's what we want. Mayor Mancino: ...that's what we want but we've also tried to ask for upfront as we're planning these, to get a sign plan so that we can understand what will come up and that's why you're here tonight. Vernelle Clayton: ...sign plan but for right now I don't know what the total building capacity is but if it's large enough I would suggest your answer might lie there. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilman Berquist: You alluded to this having happened before. Is this the first example that has been articulated that you've been aware of or have we had this problem? Vernelle Clayton: This is the first example that I've been aware of. I have no idea if there have been other situations. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Well that's a, I think that that's a good comment, meaning that I would vote for denying this but having Byerly's come back or that whole area come back if they want to do a different sign package and present it to us and look and see what it, how it would fit in with our ordinance, etc. Councilman Berquist: ...I think you're right...they have a need to display the fact that they're there... 25 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: And maybe it'd be a wall sign. Maybe it'd be on the pylon sign out front, but that they come back with a plan if it is something that they would like us to look at. So can I hear other council's thoughts on that? Councilman Engel: I'd like to see some options brought back. I think I'm in the same position here. I don't want to give this, I don't want to just flat deny it. I want to see some other options. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: ...in reading the ordinance, as simple as an interpretative issue? Cynthia Kirchoff: The wall signage? For an interior tenant? Councilman Berquist: I mean could it be interpretative...that would not require revising the ordinance? Sharmin A1-Jaff: I don't believe so. It's specifically states that you have to have that frontage in order to get signage. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason, your thoughts? Councilman Mason: As it stands I would agree with denial, yeah. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Yeah, as it sits I would also agree with denial. And as far as a sign plan coming in, it's a little hard to deal with it after the fact. I mean the only way economically you could probably deal with that is come in and ask for an increase in the overall signage. Square footage allowed. Whereas the way the ordinance, as it deals with it, is you have an allowable amount of signage for a building...reasonable variances then to existing levels but I don't know how you'd deal with that at this point. Mayor Mancino: I'm not sure either but. Councilman Senn: Because the existing building's already over ordinance requirements in relationship to square footage of signage. Mayor Mancino: No, I agree with you. I think that if someone came back with something creative, we could look at it. Go from there. I would be open to that. May I have a motion please? Councilman Berquist: I move to deny the request. Councilman Mason: Second. Roger Knutson: Mayor, do I interpret that as including the basis for denial being the Findings of Fact as set forth in the planners report? And you're adopting that as yours. Is that part of the motion? Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. So we're accepting and going with the Planning Commission's recommendation. 26 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to deny the request for an 8.25 sq. ft. variance from the sign ordinance and amendment to Variance #94-1 for the construction of an 8.25 sq. ft. non-illuminated wall sign based upon the findings presented in the staff report and the following: The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to installing signage on the glass doors along West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Berquist: I would like it to be communicated that we would like to find a method by which it can be accomplished. REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN APPROVAL FOR COLONIAL SQUARE CENTER, LOCATED ON WEST 78TM STREET AT GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, LOTUS REALTY. Cynthia Kirchoff: Thank you. The applicant wishes to establish the signage criteria for an existing Colonial Square. The sign plan requests certain deviations from the sign ordinance. These deviations including permitting panel signs, external illumination of signs and projecting signs. All these signs are prohibited by our sign ordinance. Overall staff is comfortable with the sign plan that Lotus Realty has submitted with the revisions. The Planning Commission did review this item on December 2nd and they did have some revisions to add on past revisions and those are located in the packet. Staff does support the sign plan for Colonial Square with the revisions located in conditions 1 through 6. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: And those revisions are the ones that you received from the Planning Commission? Cynthia Kirchoff: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. IS the applicant here and would you like to address the city council? And Vernelle, would you like to state about the conditions of the Planning Commission and if you agree with those, and etc. Vernelle Clayton: I'll try to keep the etc to a minimum. I know that you've had other things on your mind since you got this packet but I will assume that you read it and you know the reasons why we're doing it. I already talked about some of them. We have no problems with any of the conditions that were added by the Planning Commission but, and in the interest of your time, I will be happy to answer questions and I won't take any more time right now. Mayor Mancino: No, I just figure that somebody really looked at this with a fine tooth comb when I see that condition 2 was changed to appropriate to the scale of the lettering. That was. Vernelle Clayton: We did. We spent a lot of time on this. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anybody else have questions for Vernelle? Councilman Mason: Oh, not for Vemelle, no. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, Councilman Mason. 27 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Mason: This comes up from time to time and it's something that everyone struggles with. The only thing that I, I'm not even going to say I'm concerned about it but number 1 for recommendations says panel signs are permitted provided they are architecturally interesting and compatible with the building. Who decides what's architecturally interesting? I mean that's kind of the bugaboo. I mean you know we're always asking that one. I'm just. Cynthia Kirchoff.' Well that would be kind of a collaboration between staff and Lotus and Vemelle. Mayor Mancino: It usually works out wouldn't you say Councilman Mason? Councilman Mason: I'm sorry. Mayor Mancino: Wouldn't you say that that usually works out? Councilman Mason: Well it does, and you know as long as it's under recommendations I think it's fine. You know we do have this discussion and it's a discussion I won't be having in the future but, well maybe I will be but it won't be up here. Anyway, you know that whole thing about when we start talking about what's architecturally interesting and what isn't. Knowing the people involved, I have absolutely no qualms at all about approving that. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other comments from council? Then may I have a motion please. Councilman Mason: Move approval. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the request for a sign plan review for Colonial Square Shopping Center with the following conditions: Panel signs are permitted provided they are architecturally interesting and compatible with the building. Panel signs shall have individual dimensional letters and logos with a projection or indentation appropriate to the scale of the lettering. 3. External illumination of any signage is prohibited. 4. All hanging signs shall be stationary. Barber shop poles shall be limited to 4 feet in height and a 12 inch projection from the building. The number of barber shop poles shall not exceed 2 for the entire building. 6. All signage must comply with all other criteria in the he sign ordinance, All voted in favor and the motion carried. AMENDMENT TO VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE CHANHASSEN CINEMA SIGN. 28 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Sharmin A1-Jaff: The applicant is proposing to purchase the entire entertainment complex building and add additional 8 movie screens and retail. The design is in the very preliminary stages at this point. Assuming that the proposal is approved, the main entrance into the theaters will be facing south and moved into the center of that building. The existing entrance would then be abandoned. Based upon this scenario the applicant is requesting temporary signage and basically what you see here, it's individual backlit letters. Staff is reluctant to recommend approval of the revised sign simply because it does not contribute to the design of the building and has no architectural significance. If the additional 8 theaters were not approved, the city will be in a position where the vision and standards for the area have been compromised. City Council has approved two signs already for this building. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and they agreed that the cinema building does need signage to identify it. However, they wanted to make sure that the EDA approves the funding for this project and if it was approved, then they wish to look at a revised sign for this sign. They wish to review the revised plan and then bring it back to the City Council with a recommendation. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. And this is what we're looking at? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: This is the, you know there are a lot of attachments so this is the one that they have proposed. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council? Bob Copeland: Hello. My name is Bob Copeland and I'll try to be as brief as I can because I know it's been a long evening. We are seeking approval of a temporary sign and I want to stress that point because I think it's significant. We don't feel that the sign that we are requesting approval for is a sign that is worthy of being on a cinema long range. But we feel we need a sign and what we would like to do is get your approval on this sign, on a temporary basis. By temporary I mean 1 to 2 years, and if we are successful in getting approval for the addition, that's about how long it will take to get that in place. And at that time you've already seen the drawings of the new marquee and the sign that would be there on the south elevation and that's the sign that would be in place. Now if we are not successful and the addition is not approved, then we'll agree to take down the sign that we are requesting approval for this evening and will put up a sign that meets your approval. And we'll put up one of the signs that you say that you've already approved. So I think that's very reasonable. I think that's a good compromise. I think that this process through the EDA and the Planning Commission and the Council takes some time. We got tabled last time before the EDA. The meeting that was to take place this week got delayed. We don't know when it's going to come up again so we think it's reasonable that we get a temporary sign there. And in response to the, the Planning Commission thought the sign was rather bland and small and we tried to make it that way purposely so that it would be approved at a staff level. But that didn't happen. I don't know whether, can the overhead projector? We are, we would be glad to make this sign larger, similar to what you see there and to have a little more interesting style of lettering than what was submitted. And so if you like this sign better, that's fine. We'd be pleased to do that on a temporary basis again. You may be wondering why not install the bigger, grander sign now. Well it's simply a matter of money. The bigger sign would cost about $40,000.00. A sign similar to this would be about $3,000.00 so we can't afford to spend $40,000.00 for a sign that's only going to be up there for we hope a short period of time. One other thing I'd like to do is clear up what I have heard mentioned before as a 29 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 possible objection to what we're proposing this evening and that is that I've heard that some people mentioned that the TIF money that was approved by the EDA, part of that money was earmarked for a sign. And that's a, that's just not correct and I'd like to try and clear that up this evening if I may. I'd like to hand you copies of three estimates that I did related to the TIF money. Now you'll see that, you have three estimates in front of you there. The first one is dated in 1994 and you'll see that the item that I've highlighted is a projecting lobby for the cinema. Now what that is, that's the structure that now houses the vestibule where you wait for tickets, to purchase your tickets. And that projects out from the original footprint of the warehouse building. There's nothing there about signs. But that $30,000.00 figure is a number that people have misunderstood as being a number that was earmarked for marquee signage. The second sheet has an estimate that I did in 1995 and again you'll see the last item there that's been highlighted. Cinema lobby, again $30,000.00. The third and final estimate that you see was prepared in 1996. You'll notice in the right hand column, those figures pertain to the cinema exterior and you'll see a line item down there on the left hand side that's been highlighted called exterior signs and you'll notice that the number related to exterior signs is zero. So I hope that this answers that question, that none of the TIF money was earmarked for exterior signage related to the cinema. So we're not obligated to spend some TIF money on an exterior sign. One last point and that is that we believe that this sign that we are requesting approval of does meet the sign ordinance. So with that I will answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Copeland at this time? These numbers are from 9-15-94 Bob. When was this, when did the...project? Bob Copeland: '96. Mayor Mancino: '96. So this is from '94, okay. So I'm sure. Bob Copeland: That's the very first estimate that was prepared. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I'm sure between '94 and '96 when it came back to council, that there were probably some others but thank you for this. Yes, Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I've got a question for Todd. I mean estimates are estimates and that's all good and fine. We have an approval that was done on this project relating to TIF money and where the TIF money is to go. Todd Gerhardt: I think we're both correct in this scenario. The projecting lobby, as Mr. Copeland has defined it, was the sign. It was supposed to be the old theater type design of a sign and as your lobby projects out, you had basically an overhang which was your flashing light sign. And that's what we had earmarked for $30,000.00 in that plan. And you know in that process it got converted to a lobby or what, but you know the original notes that I have call it a sign which show it as the old theme type design that you would see on a small town type sign. With the running lights and that sort of thing. If we had the plan, I could show you what that really meant. Mayor Mancino: Well thank you, but let's go on to what we're looking at tonight and that is asking for a temporary sign to be put up to have the word cinema on it. When, Todd can you tell us, Mr. Copeland said he didn't know that our EDA meeting had been rescheduled. Cancelled for December 17th and it has been rescheduled and when is it rescheduled for? 30 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Todd Gerhardt: Well I haven't heard back from all the EDA members but tentatively it's been rescheduled for January 7th. Mayor Mancino: So at that time on January 7th we will be talking about the TIF funding, etc. for the additional eight movie cinema. And retail space. Okay, which will make a huge difference to the cinema that's already there. May I have comments from council on this? Oh I'm sorry, Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: Quick question. Bob, if this meeting takes place on January 7th and you get the approvals that you're looking for to go ahead with your project, how does that change your sign needs? Or doesn't it? Bob Copeland: It doesn't change what we're requesting. We're hoping for approval on the 7t~ for the EDA but then there are the other steps. There's the Planning Commission of course and the ultimate Council approval. And those steps will take place in the coming months after that. But regardless, even if we are successful and do gain your approval for those things, we still feel we need a sign in the meantime. Councilman Mason: Right. But hypothetically and I know this certainly won't happen this quickly but if you get, how does your request for signage change if by March 1 you get everything you need? I mean is this sign, is the sign you're looking for now then a moot point? Bob Copeland: No. Councilman Mason: How come? I'm just trying to... Bob Copeland: Our alternatives are a temporary sign such as this or no sign. And we would rather do this in the meantime because even if we gain approval let's say in March or sometime like that, it's going to take 7 months, 8 months or something like that to construct the addition and get open for business so in that period of time, you know between now and March and March and November or December or whenever that ultimately happens, we feel that we'd like to have a sign. Councilman Mason: Okay. I'm done for now. Thanks. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for Mr. Copeland? Councilman Engel: Yeah, are these the attachments that the Planning Commission is referring to as the temporary ones or are these, I thought we had a. Bob Copeland: Those were rejected some time ago. Back in March. Mayor Mancino: And that was before you had announced that you were going to be putting in the 8 new cinemas. Bob Copeland: We had not decided to do that at that time. Councilman Engel: And seeing that big marquee and that's the one I think was the ultimate sign and I'm wondering if there's a level you can go above that Planning's willing to accept and you're willing to accept. No one's talked about that. From a design perspective and cost perspective. 31 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Planning is waiting for us to make that decision... Bob Copeland: We did attempt to respond to that by proposing this sign. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So comments. Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: I agree it's time to put a sign up. If you're willing to go along with the 2 year limitation on it. If the EDA chooses not to participate in the additional theaters, take it down and put up one of those previous approved ones. I see no reason not to. It needs a sign. It looks unfinished. You need a sign. We need a sign. Mayor Mancino: Everyone needs a sign. Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: Yeah, I feel the same way. It's substandard compared to what we want but what we've got there is nothing. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: If there's some sort of agreement on time period as to how long the temporary sign will remain up, I think it's yeah, we need a sign and I. Mayor Mancino: Do you feel comfortable with 1 year and then if the construction isn't done, give it more time after a year? Two years for a temporary. Councilman Mason: Well I would certainly think that after a year if there are problems, it could be renewed but I won't be making that decision. Councilman Berquist: I just want to add one thing. In the event that we, the 16 theater concept is approved, the sign that you're proposing will remain on that end of the building, is that correct? Bob Copeland: No it would not. Councilman Berquist: It would not? Bob Copeland: No. If you recall, I have the elevation of the new sign. Would you like to see that? Councilman Berquist: Sure. I was under the impression that that southwest end was going to remain an egress. Bob Copeland: No, it would not be. It would be a new cinema and this would, this sign would be removed to avoid any confusion. Do you have it handy? Mayor Mancino: Regardless, this is a temporary sign. Not a permanent sign. No matter what happens at the EDA. If we do approve another 8 cinema, something will be done differently at this entrance, no matter what it is. If we do not approve it and we just have this cinema, Mr. Copeland will be putting up another sign that we have approved before and that is one that's the old, kind of in the same vein of, yep. Councilman Berquist: ...so your proposal is to take the cinema letters down and put exit only on it? 32 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Bob Copeland: Well, we want people to focus on the new entrance... Councilman Berquist: So it truly is temporary. Mayor Mancino: It truly is temporary. Councilman Berquist: Alright. Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I've heard two different things referenced as it relates to the temporary. One is related to the one near temporary. I heard another one saying, what if the additional concept doesn't get approved January 7a~? Does that mean the temporary sign goes away immediately and a permanent one goes up or what? That we've already approved. I just want to be clear on that. Mayor Mancino: Say that one more time. Councilman Senn: If the new project is not approved and the existing cinema stays as it is. It has an approved sign so the temporary sign will have to go away if that project is denied and the permanent sign will have to go up. Immediately basically. Councilman Mason: Well, what's immediately? Councilman Senn: Well I don't know. I mean I'm not talking a year or two down the road. If it gets decided next month. Councilman Berquist: That is a commitment that I heard you make. Bob Copeland: Yes. If the addition is not approved, let's say within a year, we will put up one of the signs that you have previously looked at. If it's been approved and it's under construction, I guess we would ask that you just allow us to finish the new construction and leave up this sign should you approve it this evening. Leave up the temporary sign until the new one is finished, which may take a little bit longer than a year. I can't say exactly. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Then may I have a motion and I think very much so that you need a sign and to get it up there and I do like the bigger lettering. I know that Planning Commissioner Conrad asked for something a little more interesting. I think that the type style helps. I don't know if he was looking for stars and a few other things but I think it definitely needs to have a sign up there. Councilman Mason: Is this going to be one of those architecturally interesting discussions? Mayor Mancino: Well you get to call it. You have the responsibility. Councilman Mason: Signs are us. Mayor Mancino: So with that, may I have a motion and let's go through this, kind of take our time as we do this motion. Again, it's a temporary sign. And base it on, on two things. Number one, ifa new 33 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 addition is approved and number two, if the new addition is not. And when I say new addition, I mean the additional 8 screen theater and retail. So who would like to make that motion? Complex on signs. Councilman Berquist: I would recommend approval for a temporary sign on the southwest entrance of the cinema. Not to exceed two years pending approval of participation by the EDA...temporary sign shall be substantially in keeping with the entrance for a. Mayor Mancino: What about the new one? Bob Copeland: If this is in fact the one that. Councilman Berquist: Isn't that four? Bob Copeland: That isn't. Mayor Mancino: That isn't on here. We don't have it correct, Mr. Copeland? Bob Copeland: Correct. Councilman Senn: We don't even know where it is? Mayor Mancino: No. Could you put it up in front of us again? Move it around a little bit. Oh, I'm sorry. We have it. Bob Copeland: It would be similar construction to the sign that you have in your packet. Councilman Berquist: Is there dimensions on there Bob? The dimensions in the packet say 12'6 x 24. Bob Copeland: These would be, these letters are 3 feet high. I don't really know what the width. Councilman Berquist: A temporary sign, does anybody have a problem with that sign? Bob Copeland: The one that you see is 2 feet. Councilman Berquist: The temporary sign shall have a font, or a total size not to exceed 3 feet in height and a total length of. Bob Copeland: I don't have a scale with me. I don't know what that is but approximately 30 feet. Councilman Berquist: And approximately 30 feet in length... Mayor Mancino: I think we could ask staff to approve it. I think it's per staff's approval. Councilman Mason: Per staff approval. Are you okay with that? Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I'm okay with that. The sign shall be okayed per staff and that's the part of the sign pending approval of participation by the EDA. Do you want to vote separately on that one? And then... 34 City Council Meeting- December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Well let's do one motion. Councilman Berquist: Then I'll also recommend approval for a temporary sign not to exceed 60 days after the date of. Approval of a temporary sign for the southwest end of the cinema for a period not to exceed 120 days and that approval is predicated on denial of participation in the project by the EDA. Bob Copeland: Well if I may suggest, we would like to have a year to get through the process. Councilman Berquist: A year to get through the process. Councilman Engel: It will take us a year to make this motion. Councilman Berquist: I mean it's not going to take the EDA a year to make a decision as to whether or not. Bob Copeland: Well we might come back another format or you know, things change. Councilman Berquist: Alright. The motion I will make a motion for approval of the temporary sign for a year, after which time if progress has not been made to...the theater with participation by the EDA, that the temporary sign be removed and a sign that has previously been approved by the Council...be erected forthwith. Councilman Senn: Now was that a whole new motion or what? Councilman Mason: Oddly enough I followed it. I was with him there. Mayor Mancino: You can second that motion. Will you state that motion? Councilman Mason: Well before I second it, let me see what I heard the motion to be was, move approval of temporary sign regardless of EDA participation or not. If EDA chooses to participate, the temporary sign will come down during construction and the new sign will come up. Mayor Mancino: Within what period of time? Councilman Mason: Within two years. If EDA does not approve, the temporary sign must be removed within one year and the previously, one of two previously approved signs must go up. Well you started it out. You got me there. You got me there. That's as I understand the motion. Am I assuming correctly? Councilman Berquist: Is there clarity there? Councilman Senn: I think we've got to start off with a new motion. ! heard two totally different motions. Councilman Mason: Well I just stated a motion and Councilman Berquist said he agreed with it. Mayor Mancino: So is there a second? Councilman Mason: His motion, I restated it. Can I second it then or not? Okay, then you second it Councilman Engel. 35 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Roger Knutson: If I understand the motion is as stated by Councilman Mason, the maker of the motion agree with that characterization of the motion? Councilman Berquist: Yes I did. Roger Knutson: That's the motion and that's what you vote on then. Mayor Mancino: And can Councilman Mason second it? Roger Knutson: He has seconded it. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a temporary sign for the Cinema regardless of EDA participation. If EDA chooses to participate, the temporary sign will come down during construction and a new sign will go up within two years. If EDA does not approve, the temporary sign must be removed within one year and one of two previously approved signs must go up. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn and Mayor Mancino who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Mancino: I only say no on the grounds that I thought we were going to also include per staff's approval as far as size. Councilman Engel: That was part of it. Mayor Mancino: I didn't hear that. Okay, but anyway the motion carries 3 to 2. Bob Copeland: Regardless, we agree to work with the staff on the final design. Mayor Mancino: Appreciate it. Thank you very much. AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN AGREEMENT FOR LOT 2~ BLOCK 1 CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 4TM ADDITION~ EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. Sharmin Al-Jarl: Thank you. On April 13% 1998 the City Council approved a site plan for Eden Trace reflecting two buildings attached through a wall. This is outdoor storage area. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the site plan by eliminating the outdoor storage area. None of the architectural features on this building have changed. The only changes you will notice are increased green space and increased number of trees and elimination of the outdoor storage. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions that outdoor storage area is prohibited and the applicant enter into an addendum to the site plan agreement reflecting the revised plans. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Sharmin, one quick question. With the elimination of the outdoor storage area, could in the future another building be built there? Sharmin A1-Jaff: They could put on an expansion which has always been their intent but if it's more than 10% of the overall area, it would have to come through Planning Commission and City Council. Anything less than that we would approve it administratively. 36 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Okay. And it also still has to, it would have to meet, if there is an addition, the impervious surface percentages, etc. And that could happen. Just so Council is aware of that. That there would be the expansion which is just fine. I just wanted to make sure that that was, that everyone understood that. Any other questions for staff at this point? Is the applicant here and would you like to say anything to council? Okay. Any comments from Council? May I have a motion? Councilman Berquist: Move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve an amendment to the Site Plan for Matthews Building (SPR 98-3) for Eden Trace Corp. as shown on the plans dated received December 9, 1998 with the following additional conditions: The applicant enter into an addendum to the Site Plan Agreement reflecting the revised landscaping, elevations and site plans. 2. Outdoor storage is prohibited. All voted in favor and the motion carried. LAKE LUCY ESTATES, CONTRACTOR PROPERTY DEVELOPERS COMPANY, PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAKE LUCY ROAD JUST NORTH OF LAKE LUCY: A__ REZONING OF 16.4 ACRES FROM RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAl, SINGLE FAMILY; PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF 16.4 ACRES INTO 17 SINGLE Bo FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR LAKE LUCY ESTATES, PROJECT NO. 95-11. Mayor Mancino: We can certainly do this, Roger do we need to do this in two motions or can we do it in one? Roger Knutson: You can do it in one. But since you have, just so we're clear. Since you have issues that require a 4/5 vote and issues that require a simple majority, when you combine those two it requires a simple majority to pass the motion. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Roger Knutson: What you're doing, and I know nothing, it's not necessarily in reference to this. Part of what you are requesting tonight requires a simple majority of the council. Part requires a 4/5. If you combine the two and since one part requires 4/5, the motion requires 4/5 so you don't end up with a situation for example where you would have approved the preliminary plat but rejected the rezoning and the preliminary plat will not work under the old zoning. 37 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Well let's just go ahead and do it very quickly in two motions. Staff report please. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 16.4 acres into 17 single family lots. The property is zoned rural residential. The proposal calls for rezoning to residential single ~hmily. The average lot size is 31,986 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.04 units per acre. All the lots meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance as it relates to area, width and depth. Due to the topography and tree coverage on the site, staff recommended the applicant utilize private driveway. Increase the number of homes to be served via private driveways. Reduced yard setbacks. Narrower right-of-way and steeper grades on the streets to minimize impact on the site. The 20 foot front yard setback variance on six of the lots is promoting the preservation of trees and wetlands. Staff has one concern that future parking problems might arise for Lots 8, 9 and 10 of Block 2. Those lots are served via private driveway. The ordinance prohibits parking on private driveways. When you have a reduced setback on a private driveway, this will only allow for two cars to park outside the garage. Mayor Mancino: Then it becomes a public safety issue with fire. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Sharmin AI-Jaff: All the other variances basically will promote preservation of vegetation and minimizing grading on the site. Staff believes that this is a well conceived subdivision and we are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Because of the variance and the narrow width of the street, and allowing 5 homes versus 4, correct? That's the variance. When we have before allowed, it's not a variance. We have 4 homes and what do we do, and again it's a narrower street. What have we done public safety wise before in other areas? Do we make there be a turn around? Do we make, you know each lot have more driveway, parking in the driveway? What have we done and has it been a problem is my question? Sharmin A1-Jaff: We haven't encountered this before. With private driveways, including this case, there will be adequate turn around. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So there is adequate turn around. Sharmin A1-Jaff: They do have a Y where, here is the Y. That will allow for turn around for vehicles. Mayor Mancino: Good, thank you. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: So does that alleviate your concern in the area? Sharmin A1-Jaff: As long as the homeowners of Lots 8, 9 and 10 understand that there is no parking on this private driveway. Mayor Mancino: And will there be no parking signs posted? 38 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Sharmin A1-Jaff: There will be no parking signs posted. We just want to raise this as a concern. We do have that concern. Mayor Mancino: And when people go to buy the property, these lots in that area, how will they be told about this? Because you know they may have some concerns. They may say, what if we have a family reunion and we have more cars there, then what happens? How are they communicated that this exists? Or do we just get the no parking signs up right away so they can see that? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Get the no parking signs up immediately. It would be part of accepting the project. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So before somebody goes out to buy the lot, etc, they'll be aware? Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here? And would you like to address Council please. Applicant: I think we'll be available for any questions. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And you're comfortable with Planning Commission recommendation? Applicant: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Madam Mayor? There is one change to the conditions of approval. If you would kindly turn to Page 22. Condition number 25. There is a sentence here that says the water quality fee will be waived upon the applicant's meeting NURP design. They do meet the NURP design. Therefore, the sentence will read, the proposed single family residential development of 11.48 net developable acres is responsible for a water quantity. Mayor Mancino: Quantity not quality. Sharmin A1-Jaff: We are taking out a water quality connection charge of $8,936.00. That language is taken out. They're only paying for the water quantity. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So it reads, let me make sure I have this right. The proposed single family residential development of 11.48 net developable acres is responsible for a water quantity fee of $22,730.00. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: The water quality fee is waived or has been waived or do you want to take that sentence out? Sharmin A1-Jaff.' That sentence can be taken out. Mayor Mancino: So the next sentence will be taken out and it will say, this fee is payable. Sharmin Al-Jarl: To the city. Mayor Mancino: This fee is payable to the city prior to the city filing the final plat. 39 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: you owe the city? question? Okay. And does the applicant feel comfortable having $8,936.00 deducted from what Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, would you like to come forward and ask a Bob Ayot: I apologize if the question I've asked is something you might have mentioned because I didn't hear everything you said. Has there been any assessment or evaluation on the amount of monies enterprise fund will be generated by changing from a rural to a 17 single family lot residential? How much money is going to be coming from the developer, (a). (b), are there any investment requirements for lift station as an example as a result of having a 17 family dwelling going into place? Do we have to put in another lift station as an example or has there been any assessment associated with the capacity of the existing lift stations or any other infrastructure issue with introduction of a 17 family rezoning? Do you understand the question? Mayor Mancino: Anita, as far as the. Anita Benson: As far as lift stations, no. There are no additional lift stations. Bob Ayot: Anita I can't hear you. Could you talk just a little louder. Anita Benson: There are no additional lift stations associated with this development. When staff reviews any development we work with the developer and the engineer to eliminate the need for any lift stations. Bob Ayot: ls there any effect on existing lift stations for capacity? Mayor Mancino: Will there be, and those are directed to me Bob please. Bob Ayot: I'm sorry. Mayor Mancino: Will there be any, I mean obviously you're going to have 17 new homes in there so there will be additional, I mean that's why they're paying this money to get water and to pay for it. Anita Benson: The function of the existing system is not affected with our trunk system. Bob Ayot: Has there been any assessment with respect to the tax base that will be generated as a result ora change? When you shake your head no, that means there's been no study or? Mayor Mancino: Yes, we will be increasing our residential tax base. Bob Ayot: And will the capital investment requirement compared to the tax revenue generated be a wash, a surplus or a negative? And the reason why I ask these questions is because we've had the issue come up before and that's. Has there been any assessment against the master plan, the city plan for the introduction of this rezoning? And if it had not been, it should be before you vote on it. Mayor Mancino: And according to our comprehensive plan, when we do this rezoning and we've looked at our comprehensive sewer and water plan, has that been taken into account? I'm assuming that it has. 40 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Todd Gerhardt: Are they meeting all the zoning requirements for the area? Sharmin A1-Jaff: And they meet all the comprehensive plan requirements as approved by the City Council. Bob Ayot: My question Mayor was not whether or not they meet code or zoning constraints. My question was, was there an impact assessment for the introduction of this rezoning to the master plan? Two different issues. And I would submit that if there was not an assessment done, then I don't think you ought to vote on it until it's done. Sharmin A1-Jaff: So are you asking if they're paying their fair share in that assessment on what it will do the cost of the infrastructure that is made available? Bob Ayot: Close. There is an infrastructure impact and Anita started addressing some of that stuff. There's a capital investment versus an enterprise fund generation and that has to be assessed before they present it to you. And if it has not been assessed and someone actually signs off on that impact, I don't think you ought to vote on it. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, the cost of the public improvements are being beared by the developer and he is putting up a letter of credit for those improvements. The City is also taking administrative fees. The property was assessed for trunk, sewer and water assessments and the applicant has been paying those over the years and has now taken it upon himself to develop the property in compliance with our zoning regulations. He is going to pay all of the cost for the public improvements and we will monitor those public improvements to meet city standards. He must build the road to city standards. He must put in a proper storm sewer system and to meet all city codes. Right now there are no city costs with the exception of us doing the inspections on the development and that's why we take the administrative fees. Mayor Mancino: And so as those improvements are made, we are kind of a pay as you go. The developer is paying for the improvements as they're made. We are not paying debt service for the developer. Todd Gerhardt: The only cost that we upfront were those trunk, lateral sewer and water costs and assess that cost back against the property owner and he's made assessment payments back to the city. Bob Ayot: I'm sorry Mayor. I still don't understand but keep in mind that I only went to school for a very short time. I heard again that this guy has met the zoning requirements. No one from the city staff has told me that there has been an impact assessment on introduction of a 17 family dwelling over a life cycle. They've just told me that they've met code. Is there going to be any expense or impact on the rest of us with respect to taxation when you realize that taxation does not occur for a two year span. So we carry for a two year period, okay? So my tax dollars are not going to underwrite any aspect of this rezoning activity, is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: We will be plowing the street at that time. Bob Ayot: Maybe not this year. Todd Gerhardt: Once the improvements are in. Mayor Mancino: Hopefully not this year. 41 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Mason: Excuse me. Mayor Mancino: We're still hoping. Some of us are. Bob Ayot: We want money back for that... Mayor Mancino: So you understand the point that Mr. Ayot is making? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, and he made that point at our Truth and Taxation meeting and I don't know if you had the opportunity to sit down with Don Ashworth. Bob Ayot: Gave it a try. He wouldn't talk to me. Todd Gerhardt: Okay. Well. Mayor Mancino: Todd, do you want to set up a meeting with Mr. Ayot. Okay. So when you two, what's your number so that Todd can call you and set up a meeting Bob. Bob Ayot: 7133812. Mayor Mancino: And you can go over line item per line item as we take in new developments. Is the new development paying it's fair share at the time as they are developing it? Bob Ayot: And I would ask, I just make the request. If you can Consider postponement until we have a chance to really evaluate that because I'm still not convinced as a taxpayer that there has been an impact assessment made with respect to your master plan or reviewing these rezoning activities. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. We have so many days to approve this legally, Roger correct? So we are at our legal limit. If we don't approve it, it will be approved regardless. Because we have So many days to do that as a city council. Bob Ayot: I accept that response Mayor but understand that with respect to fiscal responsibility, the city does have to recognize that if that has not happened, then we have a problem and that will have to be addressed again from a legal standpoint down the road. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, any other questions? Any comments? Councilman Engel: I think I'd just like to state for the record that as a person who moved into this community as a new homeowner and got the dodge or the gift or whatever you want to call it, I never really felt like I had much of a privilege when I started getting gouged for the taxes. I'm just like everybody else in this room. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other comments on this particular? May I have a motion then please? Can I have two motions, and the first motion being to the rezoning of 16.4 acres from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, Preliminary and Final Plat of 16.4 acres into 17 single family lots with variances. Councilman Mason: Did you just style through those in there? 42 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: I just asked for a motion. Councilman Mason: For which one? Mayor Mancino: For 9(a). Councilman Mason: For 9(a), okay. Mayor Mancino: Because we're going to split it up because (a) needs a 4/5. Councilman Senn: So move approval ofrezoning of 16.4 acres from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary and final plat of 16.4 acres into 17 single family lots with variances. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council approve First Reading for rezoning 16.40 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family (95-1 REZ); Preliminary and Final plat (95-3 SUB) to subdivide 16.40 acres into 17 single family lots, with variances (a 20 foot front yard setback for Lots 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 3, a 10 percent street grade and a 50 foot wide right-of-way, and five homes accessing via a private street), Lake Lucy Estates, as shown on plans dated October 16, 1998, with the following conditions: Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands and Type I erosion control fence shall be used adjacent the grading limits. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the city's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the city's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The developer shall install wetland buffer edge signs before the city accepts the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. o The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 43 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat over the following lots: Outlots A & B, the northerly 20 feet of Lots 8 & 9, Block 2, and the southwesterly comer of Lot 3, Block 1, lying southwesterly ora line drawn diagonally from 45 feet northerly and easterly of the southwest comer of Lot 3, Block 1. No berming, retaining walls or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands or storm water ponds shall be a minimum of two feet above the 100-year high water level. A stormwater quality pond is being provided on site to pretreat runoffprior to discharging into the wetlands. The stormwater pond will have side slopes of4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The stormwater pond design is being reviewed by staffto determine the phosphorus removal efficiency. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance with and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. The existing home (Tichy) on Lot 4, Block 3 shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system within 30 days after the system becomes operational. Connection to water is not required unless the well on Lot 4, Block 3 fails. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road. Lot 4, Block 3 may relocate their driveway from Lake Lucy Road to Lakeway Drive. If the driveway is relocated to Lakeway Drive, the street address for this lot shall be changed accordingly. Lots 1 through 3, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, and Lots 1 through 3, Block 3 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed grading (with two-foot contours), drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted .with the building permit application for review and approval by the engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the lot. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being extended to the plat from the Coey property (Pointe Lake Lucy) to this site and the applicant obtaining a drainage and utility easement from the Morins. All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance No. 209 and a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal. A private maintenance agreement and access easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private street(s) (including the Morin's parcel) The developer shall extend utilities to the parcel to the west through a location determined by the The developer shall be reimbursed by the city for the costs to extend sanitary sewer along Lake Lucy Lane. Temporary barricades shall be placed at the end of Lakeway Lane. A sign shall be placed on the barricades indicating "this street shall be extended in the future". A condition will also be placed in the development contract to inform all property owners in Lake Lucy Estates of this street extension. 44 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 18. 19. 20. 21. 22 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. A variance to the city's private street ordinance to allow up to 5 homes to access Lakeway Court, 10% street grade on Lakeway Drive and 50-foot right-of-way throughout except for the cul-de- sac is recommended. The applicant or their assignee shall submit a haul route and traffic control plan to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to site grading commencing. Individual sewer and water services to the lots shall be field verified to determine the path of least impact to the trees. The applicant shall be entitled to a refund (up to 90% depending on construction costs) of a portion of future sewer connection charges collected from Morin's parcel when building permits are issued. The proposed single family residential development of 11.48 net developable acres is responsible for a water quantity fee of $22,730.00. This fee is payable to the city prior to the city filing the final plat. The applicant shall plant 162 trees as replacement/reforestation plantings. The number of replacement trees could increase based upon the level of grading on the site. Trees shall be selected from the city's Approved Tree List as shown on the landscape plan dated November 6, 1998. Tree removal limits shall be established 20 feet from the building pad for all custom graded lots, once the type of home is designated. Tree protection fencing must be installed at the limits and maintained throughout construction. No berming or landscaping will be allow~ed within the right-of-way. The applicant shall work with the city in developing a landscaping replacement plan on the site and along Lake Lucy Road right-of-way. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit removal of dead or diseased vegetation. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to grading. Building Department conditions: a. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. b. Obtain building permits from the Inspections Division for retaining walls over 48" high. Fire Marshal conditions: ao With reference to block 2, lot 6, if structure is not visible from the street, additional address numbers will be required at driveway entrance. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Permit Policy Premise Identification No. 29-1992. 45 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 29. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 30. The buffer on Lot 5, Block 2, shall be adjusted so that there is a smoother transition along the Lot 5 property line. 31. Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 are encouraged to share a dock to minimize impact on the wetlands. 32. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will need to be prepared for use of the private driveway including the Morin's parcel. 33. A cross access easement agreement prepared for the use of the private driveway including the Randall parcel. 34. The final plat shall be revised to incorporate the realignment of Lakeway Lane per attachment #3." All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: Secondly, may I please have a motion about, to approve the development contract and construction plans. Councilman Senn: I move to approve the development contract and construction plans and specifications for Lake Lucy Estates Project 95-11. Mayor Mancino: Second please. Councilman Engel: Second. Mayor Mancino: Oh, I'm sorry. Sharmin. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Madam Mayor. On item (a), 9(a) we need to waive the second reading if you may on the rezoning. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then may I have a motion to waive the second reading on the rezoning please. Councilman Mason: So moved. Mayor Mancino: All those in favor please. Second please. Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to waive the second reading of the Rezoning. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the construction plans and specifications for Lake Lucy Estates dated October 23, 1998, revised December 14, 1998, prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. and the Development Contract dated December 14, 1998 be approved conditioned upon the following: 46 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 The applicant shall enter into the Development Contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $521,000.00 and pay an administration fee of $45,888.93. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Betsy Randall: Can I ask a question? Mayor Mancino: Pardon, this is not a public hearing. I'm sorry, did you have something that you'd like to say? Betsy Randall: I have no say? We had gone through this one other time and some of the stuff is not in the Minutes. Mayor Mancino: Okay, would you please come forward. Betsy Randall: Sorry. Mayor Mancino: No, that's fine. This is under new business. It is not a public hearing and I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were here. Betsy Randall: My name's Betsy Randall. I'm on the west side of the property at 1571. Some of the stuff that we had gone over previously, Lot 4, Block 2, side setbacks. We had gone through, it was currently set at a 10 foot side setback. Mayor Mancino: And we went to 20. Betsy Randall: We went to 20. Okay, I did not see that in this latest report and that's why I'm asking that question. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I do remember that. Betsy Randall: Yeah, I went through it today and I don't see anything in here about that and I just want to make sure that that's still a very valid... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. The quality of the taping of the following discussion was very poor and hard to hear.) After some discussion between Betsy Randall and Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn made the following amendment. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to amend the preliminary and final plat for Lake Lucy Estates for a 20 foot side yard setback on the west side of Lot 4, Block 2. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONTINUATION OF TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING~ ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED 1999 BUDGET. Public Present: 47 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Name Address Mary & Paul Martin 9610 Foxford Road Bill & Linda Jansen 240 Eastwood Court Leah Hawke Bob Ayot Mayor Mancino: Discussion of the budget. Councilman Senn: Mayor? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Of the Truth in Taxation hearing. Councilman Senn: ... Mayor Mancino: So we'll open the Truth in Taxation Hearing for public comments. If anyone would like to come up and just comment on the 1999 budget. Bob Ayot: Surprise. Mayor Mancino: Are you still here? Bob Ayot: Has there been any impact statement in comparison to... Has there been a comparison in that light? Mayor Mancino: Not that I have seen. Has there been comparisons Mr. Ashworth? Don Ashworth: Again, what I tried to explain last week was the State of Minnesota does that. They force each, not force. They request...submit to them the cost for operating our city... This realizes a lot of different things that different cities do...or whatever else. But that report...this gentleman. Bob Ayot: Ayot. Don Ashworth: Ayot... Mayor Mancino: ...Did you get the report? Bob Ayot: ...I've not seen any life cycle assessment or life cycle analysis done...per mile or whatever to demonstrate that the cost... Mayor Mancino: So there is no report for the... Bob Ayot: I have not found one that you could make... Now it may exist but I haven't found it... So that's point one. Do you want to. Anita Benson: ...specifically an example of sealcoating projects b'e competitive and bid that as do other cities in the metro area and there are very few sealcoat contractors so typically from one season to the next...the rates are very similar for a sealcoat project and I can give you numbers...on a cost per mile for a sealcoating for the city... 48 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Bob Ayot: Well there are only two sealcoat... Anita Benson: Well when you're dealing with a contract, it's different than... When you're dealing with private contracts.., for sealcoat maintenance program, we typically consider Chanhassen, there was a pavement management study back in I believe 1991 that established the recommendations that all the streets within the city be sealcoated on a 5 to 6 year basis. This year...an increase in the amount of sealcoat projects and that is due to the fact that there is increased mileage being...sealcoated before and also the addition of miles of new development. Mayor Mancino: Depending on the city...sealcoating was based on some life cycle analysis that was done? Anita Benson: The recommendation to do on a 5 to 6 year basis, yes. And also included in the budget submitted this year is the funding for updating that pavement management study so that we can manage our infrastructure, assets, our streets on the most cost effective basis we can and we need to complete an update to our pavement management study to do that. Mayor Mancino: Maybe Mr. Ayot would be a good consultant to help us with that management plan. Bob Ayot: Well I think...that sounds like an exceptionally good idea... Mayor Mancino: ...and actually it's a good idea to maybe have some resident participation like yourself to come in and help with that, to get that up and running. Bob Ayot: And I... Mayor Mancino: Will you do it free? Bob Ayot: No. The master plan, you have a master planner... Councilman Engel's comments earlier about everybody has to take a gouge. We have more lift stations than the Twin Cities combined. 29 for a 60,000 acre area. That's a whole hell ofa Iot...build on a bog. Nonetheless...that kind of capital investment. That's why we had the third... All I'm asking is that you consider that sort of effort... Mayor Mancino: Makes good sense, thank you... Anyone else wishing to address the Council on the budget? Leah Hawke: ...I've been pretty busy the last couple of weeks. I've got to apologize. I have not looked at the budget but I do have to request... Mayor Mancino: No, not the budget that we've seen. So we're bringing that up tonight. Leah Hawke: And the second thing is...for a public safety director? Mayor Mancino: I think that has been, was presented to us in the 1999 budget. Leah Hawke: So we're budgeting for a Public Safety Director. Mayor Mancino: It is in the budget that we've been given. 49 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Don Ashworth: The sirens are in there as well. Mayor Mancino: Oh are they? Okay...sirens in the revised one that we got, we brought that up during work session, etc. Anyone else? Anyone else, any questions on the Truth in Taxation hearing? On the budget. Okay. We'll close that and let's bring it back to Council with discussions on the 1999 budget. I hope everyone has, I'm just going to talk generally, kind of setting the tone here. That everyone who is in the audience has this which is for the Mayor and City Council adopts the 1999 property tax levy and budget. And it is what you got also at the Truth in Taxation hearing that we had a couple, on December 7a~. A couple key points that I would like to make on this budget. First of all, what you received at home a couple weeks ago, we all got our notices on property taxes and the levels and you got it from your, the city tax, the county tax and your school tax. A portion of it that shows city tax and the amount that you would be paying this year was at the maximum levy limit set for our city. So at the time that we had to pass something, which is in August-September, had not approved our '99 budget. What you have received is the very max that you could be assessed. Since we started the budget hearings, etc, we have found as a city that through our finance director that we have right now from last year's budget a million dollar surplus in our general fund. And I can just tell you very generally some of the ways that we have that million dollar surplus is that some of our revenues were a little higher than we had anticipated and that would be some of our permit revenue was $616,000.00 higher than we anticipated. Other revenue was $22,000.00 higher than anticipated...current service fee was higher than anticipated so we have a million dollar surplus in our general fund... 1999 budget revenue summary of our general fund, you will be seeing that we have under current property tax, which is Account #3010 that it has been requested that we increase the current property tax 16% from 3.2 million last year to 3.7 million this year which would be $438,000.00 increase or a 16% increase. And I would like to suggest to the City Council that we go about looking at this budget...so that there will be no increase there. That will bring our revenue for 1999, instead of $2.6 million to $5.7 million and that will certainly decrease the city tax rate for our city taxpayers. Now I'd like to go ahead, saying that, I would like to go forward and talk a little bit about spending and the different spending levels that we should be at. And I'd like to hear from other council members on spending amounts and what they have gone through and seen through the budget... Any other council members would like to talk about spending cuts. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Let's see here. With the different points in time we did... Mayor Mancino: That was the original budget that we were figuring. Okay. It had spending of... Councilman Senn: As we went through the hearing and stuff, we had a lot of...and a lot of questions, you know we really didn't have answers to...I asked Councilman Engel to help... Mayor Mancino: Can you walk us through some of that? Councilman Senn: Basically...kind of a big picture of the things, the 1998 spending or expenditures out of the general fund as budgeted were $5 million and... That is the number you were referring to earlier when we were talking about the million dollar excess getting into the revenue picture. Mayor Mancino: That was generated in '98. Councilman Senn: Right. Mayor Mancino: Okay. 50 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Senn: In terms of 1999, the next number down, the original budget requests submitted by the departments which was $6 million...which is a 25% increase in spending out of the general fund. Mayor Mancino: Over last year. Councilman Senn: Over last year, correct. Okay? If you take the 1999 staff revised request...which is a 16% increase in the general fund expenditures. Mayor Mancino: Again from last year. The benchmark is last year. Councilman Senn: Last year. Okay? The next line is, what I'd like to, Mark and I would like to try and get the Council to consider as it relates to where we should end up...general fund level of expenditure of $5,571,892.00 or a 4% increase. Mayor Mancino: Over last year's expenditures. Councilman Senn: Over last year, correct. Now in terms of the revenue...general fund as it relates to actual tax dollars. The next line down is the 1998 actual budget in terms of revenue and tax dollars and that's $4,178,362. Mayor Mancino: Now, how come that doesn't relate to what's in front of me? Councilman Senn: If you take the...find the right thing here and go to the, let's see. It's front and back so if you go to 1, 2, 3. Page 4. Okay. It's basically a summary including Chanhassen... Mayor Mancino: So you're saying...if you go to 1998 budget...current property tax. Councilman Senn: Right, go to current property tax and take the general fund as well as the other property tax dollars going across the line. Mayor Mancino: Which is Internal Service Fund. Special Revenue Funds and G.O. Debt Service Funds for a total of $4.178, correct? Councilman Senn: Which is the number that relates back here to the 1998 actual budgeted revenue from tax dollars. Mayor Mancino: Got it. So that's all what we're paying in. Councilman Senn: Now I should point out that it's a number before adjustment on tax dollars... Okay, the second number, which is the 1999 original request was the $4,685,157, which is a 12% increase in the requested revenue from the property tax. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so that's on the other side of the sheet. That's on the 1999 budget. Councilman Senn: Yeah, you go basically back, what is it? If you go back, I'm sorry, the other way. Mayor Mancino: Mine is... 51 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councihnan Senn: Well let's see here. If you go back, I'm sorry the other way. To the fifth page. The next page back, okay. That is, and I'll come to that but that is not what we're talking about here. The number of $4,685,157 is the original budget request we got and that's not in front of you tonight. Okay? That's what we got from... 12% increase in overall property tax revenue or dollars coming in. Okay. The revised request now, after revisions have been made going back...referred to as the 1999, is $4,683,157. Okay? That is still a 12% increase in revenue or property tax dollars. So even though there has been cuts in spending under the proposal that has come back tonight, there has been no reduction or savings.., of the property tax revenue line item. Mayor Mancino: ...what we pay. Councilman Senn: Right... Now, if we would tax, the next line is basically that if we would tax on a level...property tax level of $3,566,811 which would be a reduction of $611,551 or a 15% decrease in the property tax portion, okay. Now you have to keep in mind there that you still have a million dollar excess coming forward from this year. Okay. If you wanted to allocate that difference per se...that $611,000.00 to those reserves because we've had some discussions with the auditors and the auditors...If you put that 611 into reserves...you could still basically end up with a net...increase in property taxes...which would be down at the bottom there between 1998 and 1999. Okay? Are you following me? Mayor Mancino: Yep, I'm following you. Councilman Senn: That's kind of big picture so to speak. And now from there. Mayor Mancino: And how do you get the revenue down to 3,566,811 ? Councilman Senn: The revenue going down to $3,566,811 is based on the detail that we'll now mm back and go to. I wanted to kind of give you the overall picture first so you knew kind of where the numbers ended up. So I mean the numbers can end up anywhere between any of these levels that are here. I just tried to define benchmark levels. Okay? Now if you take the detail that's attached, what I tried to do was, from the notes in all our budget work sessions, the issues that were raised or items that were raised I basically had outlined and took individual or separate notes of. Okay. So the first one here, which relates to, mine are loose here so bear with me if mine are in a different order than yours. Planning Department, is that the first one? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Planning Department. Councilman Senn: Okay, Planning Department is the first one. The adjustment or the issue that was raised during the budget hearing was, there were basically five issues that were raised. Of those five issues the first one was three salary adjustments in 1999 for the senior planner and it was uncertain as to whether those three adjustments were all included within the 6.5% increase allocated in that particular person's situation. So what I assumed there is it was included in the 6.5% there so there's no net adjustment basically. In the second item there was a request for an increase in grade for a Planner II to Senior Planner and stuff and actually an adjustment in grade related to the position itself, yet in the specific budget presentation or the information we were given, there wasn't really a justification for increasing the grade of the job. More or less increase duties and responsibilities, but more based on just good performance and longevity and stuff so essentially what was suggested there was to do effectively a $500.00 merit adjustment and leave the grade the same which net effected the same as what was asked for but it was just a different way of accomplishing it without raising the pay grade. The next item was a 52 City Council Meeting- December 14, 1998 library location study of $20,000.00 which we questioned because we've had some discussion on that and we were looking very specifically from our context of doing that inhouse and so given that discussion then, the desire or the discussion and desire to do it inhouse deleted that item so it's basically a net savings of $20,000.00 out of that proposed budget. We'd still settle on a location for the library but it basically would be done inhouse. Contract Services. There was a question raised over the contract services and there wasn't a detail attached so we asked that we get the detail broken down there so effectively I didn't do an adjustment there at this point because we still didn't have the detail breakdown. So just left it basically at par but noted the issue so we follow through with the breakdown. Also in the planning budget there was a request for increased hours and stuff for the dining coordinator and we talked about that in the budget discussions and wasn't hearing anybody with any problems with that so I just listed that as an OK. Okay? So the net adjustment out of the planning department is basically $20,000.00. Mayor Mancino: Wasn't there also an arborist as part of the planning department request? Councilman Senn: Well if you'll turn to the next page, okay. I separated the environmental portion of the planning department because it was kind of submitted separately so I treated them kind of as two separate issues. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and these were all general funds? Councilman Senn: These are all general funds. Okay. I'I1 come to, I'll explain when they aren't general funds okay. If I take the planning department, the environmental division part, there was a request for a $50% Forestry Tech that would be shared with Parks and Recreation and that was discussion at the budget hearings, the suggestion here was to delete that new position. There was another item of aerial color photos requested as it related to updating or getting, well I guess updating and getting colored aerial photos versus the ones we have now which I think are, well I mean they're not brand new by any means. Mayor Mancino: Blue and white. Councilman Senn: Yeah, and they're blue and white but suggested deleting that item. And again, these are just suggestions. Deleting that item of $7,250.00. Okay the next item which was proposed in the budget was a lake atlas which is a document we did around here at one time and I guess we're now out of, and there was a lot of discussion about that in the budget hearings and some concern over that amount and that expenditure and possibly just you know running copies and segments off of what we have. ...rather not go into a full printing of the whole new atlas and so that there assumed a deletion of $60,000.00. But now here's where the asterisk comes in and the asterisk comes in because that $60,000.00 savings is not a savings that occurs out of general funds. Okay. So it's not included in the general fund numbers that I went over with you in the big picture. In terms of the sump pump modifications, there's a request there for $125,000.00 and I think there was kind of general discussion or agreement that that needed more discussion but the issue wasn't really closed and it's not really a general fund issue. Again that's what the asterisk is there for. Not a general fund issue so I didn't do anything with it at the time being because it hadn't really reached any closure on it. The next item was a discussion on the milfoil, environmental project fund which request was $18,200.00. We got into some discussion of that but again...the information to know what we really can do or can't do under milfoil control so I just basically left it again at par but again that's not a general fund issue so...what impact what I gave you before in terms of the big picture. 53 City Council Meeting ~ December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: ...come under other funds we can talk about at a later date. Tonight we're doing the tax... Councilman Senn: Well right. Yeah, the reason I'm trying to concentrate on the general fund is that's what we need to approve tonight and as far as special funds go, we asked at the last budget hearing for a summary and a synopsis of all the special funds and the reserves and all that and we haven't got that yet so it's a little hard to turn around and react to it. Mayor Mancino: How much is cash. How much is assets, etc and we haven't received that yet. Councilman Senn: Right. Next item, 6 was City Forester, request to increase the grade on the City Forester from 2 to 3. There justification was presented as far as increased duties and responsibilities so I just had an OK over there. Next one was request for brochures, $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 for additional or new brochures and the, in the budget discussion that was basically to replenish to the stock of some existing brochures that were out that we thought were necessary and so I left OK on that. The Bluff Creek gully project was in there for $75,000.00. The request was in for $75,000.00. We talked about that and our commitment to Bluff Creek and the Bluff Creek corridor and everything so left that in. But again, any of those asterisk items 3 through 8 don't impact the general fund. Those were just specific discussion or decision points given changes wherever in the budget, okay. Mayor Mancino: So the net reduction to. Councilman Senn: Net reduction to the environmental area was $16,750.00. Mayor Mancino: $16,750.00, okay. Councilman Senn: Towards the general fund, okay. Then the next one is the Public Safety Department. We had a, the first item I had was there wasn't in the original budget that we got again which was the base document I was working off of, there was not an item for sirens so I stuck an item in for sirens of $54,000.00 and put OK by that so that's an increase. Not decrease but an increase of $54,000.00. Mayor Mancino: Excuse me Pam, where is the sirens in our new budget? Pam Snell: It's in the public safety administration department. Capital outlay. Mayor Mancino: In the public. Pam Snell: Public safety administration capital outlay. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: And then the second item in public safety was a request for new IA time support staff person, which was I think a $30,000.00 price tag for what was in there and we had, we discussed that in relationship again in the budget sessions and the recommendation there, or at least here is to delete that item. The next item was a move of the one person's salary 100% to the administrative fund, which was now funded partially out of the animal control fund and stuff and we talked about that so I just put no big issues there so I put okay there. There was a request for an added inspection intern in the inspections department and we talked about that. And it was more or less just to kind of foster some relationships and that sort of thing and given where we're at budget wise, I had taken it out at least for the time being. 54 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 The inspection uniforms, there was an item that was raised for $3,250.00 on uniforms and we were supposed to get more information on that so I just put down OK. You know hold to evaluate because we hadn't got the information on that. There was a request for a new $12,000.00 copy machine to replace an existing one and I had that as a delete item. Mayor Mancino: We didn't get too much information on that copy machine... Councihnan Senn: The next item was the Public Safety Director's position which given where we were at and in all the actions or whatever that were being taken, I just made an assumption for this and deleted it to show the impact because a lot of people were asking what's the impact so. So the net reduction of all that essentially in the public safety budget overall was $83,000.00. Okay. Now to put it a little bit in perspective, the public safety budget had come in initially with an increase of 10% overall so I mean if you look at overall numbers as far as reduction, the reductions are going to be greater there than say in the planning department where they came in with an initial request that was about half that. Okay? The next page or next items were the, was the fire department adjustment. Adjustment, it was the current operating budget of the fire department is $276,171.00. And what I stuck in here was an increase of 5% to $290,000.00, not including the capital outlay portion. Which is kind of in tune with where we're at you know growth wise and everything else. Not including the capital outlay then, drop down to the next item which is capital outlay and there was a request there for capital outlay of 70, I think it was 70, I guess I don't have the exact number here. I think it was like $75,000.00 or something like that and went through the different capital outlay items and again back to the discussion and at the work sessions basically and left in $35,000.00 for floor repair, $15,000.00 for new radio reserve and the remaining balance of $35,000.00 to be spent at the discretion of the department because they had a number of other items that they had listed that determined the priority from there. So the next reduction out of the fire department would be $67,000.00. Mayor Mancino: Now a couple questions on this that relate to the retirement fund at all? Councilman Senn: No. This does not relate to the retirement fund, okay. That will come back to as a separate issue. The overall increase out of, or decrease I'm sorry, coming out of fire with these changes would be $67,000.00. The initial request as received out of the ftre department was a 70% increase in budget over the previous year. Mayor Mancino: So the request was for a 70% increase in budget? Councilman Senn: Right, correct. Mayor Mancino: From 1998. Councilman Senn: Right. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Now one other line item that I remember and that is a new or used car for the Fire Chief. You do not have that included in this budget. Councilman Senn: Let's see here. I thought I had that. Mayor Mancino: Or is that somewhere else? 55 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's what I'm just checking if I'm throwing that. I didn't put the new vehicle in. Let's see, there were two separate items. One was the radios which was $100,000.00 item between now and what 2007 1 think and that's with the $15,000.00 in new radio reserve goes towards and the other one that was for the car, but my assumption there was again that we had an excess vehicle at this point and just figured that excess vehicle being used by the, being transferred and used by the Chief. So there's no net change, I mean there's no net change one way or the other but I thought I stuck it in here as a reduction somewhere. I'm not sure. Maybe it got lost in here or maybe it's back. Mayor Mancino: We'll have to wait and see when we get to... Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think it's here somewhere but we'll come back to it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: The next one was the public works department. And there were really only two issues related as it related to the main public works department budget in the hearings. An increase in street sealcoating of $65,000.00 over the current level of $150 and so the request was to increase the $150 to $205 given the additional miles of street and the additional sealcoating in the program so there was some discussion again on that and everybody, at least in the budget hearings thought it was important to maintain that program so that $65,000.00 was just left intact. The only other place there was really a change in the budget and public works was two six month temporary positions were put in to augment some additional staffing needs and stuff at this point so those were left in as an OK there. Now, part of the reason or part of what you have to understand there is the public works department in the first place came in with a budget request that was only about a 3 point some percent increase. I just didn't remember the exact but I remember it was 3 point something. The next issue was the new vehicle equipment fund which I'm sure Charles would love to get rid of but it was part of his budget thing. The new vehicle and equipment request that as submitted was $440,200.00 and basically the, let's see here. I got that list but it's in your regular budget stuff. ! probably made a bad assumption there and figured that everybody would have that list but. Mayor Mancino: Well, I mean there are 14 items in it. I have it in front of me. Councilman Senn: Okay, if you have it there handy then I can quit searching for mine but, because there was $440,000.00 and 14 items and the suggestion here was to allocate $250,000.00 in new vehicle and equipment request, thus reducing or savings there of $190,200.00. Then the $250,000.00 would allow basically the purchase of you know over half the list basically or half the items. Okay. The next item, or the next department was parks and recreation. The issues here that were raised as we went through the budget and the work sessions was a new secretary's position at $37,000.00 which was pretty well justified before when a lot of questions were asked on that and it seems tike everybody's okay with that so I left OK there. Next one was second printing of the park maps, which is the map or the colored map that's produced showing all the parks and trails and stuff in the city that we were out of and discussion on that again was pretty positive so we left okay on that. Next item was Bandimere soccer goals, $4,500.00. If you remember correctly, when we started to go through the parks and rec budget there was, we also went through 410 budget which was the capital projects budget essentially and in the capital projects budget there was an additional or new amount of $200,000.00 being allocated to reserve in that fund. Okay. And essentially most of these items here that I've said basically fund from 410 which is the capital reserve fund, are really kind of a further commitment on or finishing out of the referendum items. Okay so rather than going to the general fund for that stuff, we should go into the existing reserve fund, the 410 to fund those. So Bandimere soccer goals, $4,500.00. One of those, Lake Ann access road of 56 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 $150,000.00 is another one. So I mean those items would stay in the budget. They'd just be funded through 410 rather than funded through the general fund. Mayor Mancino: And 410 is the capital projects funds. Councilman Senn: Right. Capital project funds, which we'll come back to as we get back a little further. Tennis court repairs at the Rec Center were $20,000.00. That was kind of justified because it was a necessity in terms of the problems we've been having so I left OK there. Hockey boards at City Center, $30,000.00. Again kind of a continuation of the referendum money so I stuck that into 410 fund. Mayor Mancino: Capital project fund, okay. Councilman Senn: And the skate park equipment of $30,000.00 at City Center Park had stuck it again in continuation of referendum.., fund 410 also. There was some discussion, at least in the work session of decreasing that amount from $30,000.00 to $15,000.00 but there was no closure on that but again since it was moving at the 410, I didn't worry about that at this particular point in time. Mayor Mancino: Understand. Councilman Senn: The next item was light equipment operator. There was a request for an additional light equipment operator of $41,000.00. We discussed that in the work session. There didn't seem to be any overwhelming support for that so I put delete them. 50% of the forestry technician. This is that other one that we covered earlier as half in planning environmental and half in parks. This is the other part of it here, which is a delete here also. Then there was a $5,000.00 item for increased personnel costs at the Rec Center which we talked about in the session and I had a delete on that. There was an intern for additional programming of $5,600.00 that we talked about. I had a delete on that. Increased personnel for rec programs. There was $5,000.00 there. We talked about that also and we had a delete on that. Next page is a continuation of parks and rec. There was an irrigation controller request for $35,000.00 that was spoken pretty strongly to as it related to just overall savings in the long term over a period of time and that sort of thing would pay for itself. And that's also kind of a continuation of the referendum issue so I stuck that in Fund 410 also. There was a request of $9,500.00 for a new John Deere tractor. We talked about that in work session. I just had delete by that. Mayor Mancino: You didn't think that there was a rationale for the John Deere tractor? Councilman Senn: No, there wasn't a real specific justification at least in my notes from the hearing so. And there was an existing tractor I believe that it was just looking to replace or something. The increase personnel cost for maintenance. There was an item of $4,000.00 for that, which we talked about and I had a delete there. Then there was another $4,000.00 item for maintenance materials for Bandimere Park that we talked about there and also related to referendum and stuff but I remember the discussion or at least from my notes I thought we could kind of do without it so I had a delete there. Mayor Mancino: That could also come from Fund 410. Councilman Senn: Could come from 410, right. But I mean there wasn't, at least from the notes I had there wasn't. The self supporting programs approved to, let's see. There's self supporting programs approved to self supporting level only was a discussion we had in the budget hearing. A question was raised because the new self supporting program budget basically showed that there would be more expense than revenue coming in to self supporting programs. So this was just more of a policy statement 57 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 in terms of the council that they would remain self funded basically if it was to be a self supporting program. Mayor Mancino: So again there's no money attached to this or out of taxpayer. No savings. Councilman Senn: No savings one way or the other. Two full time people on irrigation was a question that was raised in the project and also with the advent of the new irrigation computer, controller and stuff, and again didn't really have the information so didn't get, you know there's not an evaluation of that but there was a question raised that once we go to that, I mean it's something we should look at public versus private or look at the staffing level without getting into any closure on it so I just didn't do anything as far as the action on that. Kind of an open issue. Neighborhood park maintenance. There's discussion about initiating a program for neighborhood maintenance in the neighborhood parks versus city maintenance crews doing it and so again it was just an item that was discussed so it was on the list I threw in so. Mayor Mancino: That's what we talked about in the context of doing it 2 or 3 times a year. I don't think we talked about it as ongoing neighborhood. Councilman Senn: Well no again now there's no adjustment here so I mean there's no change being caused a result of it. I just, again all I was doing was going through each one of the issues that was raised during the hearings and listed them out. That's ail. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: Let's see, there was a new parks and rec coordinator position requested that I had delete by here. And then there was a breakdown of the. Mayor Mancino: Excuse me Councilman Senn. That is not, excuse me, for a new park and rec supervisor at the Rec Center. That's different than the person who's going to take over an existing position which is Party's position. Councilman Senn: Right, there were two positions. One was to take over the existing position. The other one was a request for a new position. Mayor Mancino: So that was kept keeping over the existing? Councilman Senn: Yes. The existing position was assumed to still remain and the new position is this one. Mayor Mancino: So going through all this, it's not cutting any existing staff that we have in the city? Councilman Senn: No, it's not. And then the capital project fund under the submission we had had a number of things listed and we kind of went through that and we discussed, you know tried to kind of bring that in line with our strategic plan and where we are on that so there was an arts facility request for $100,000.00 and we talked about that and that was in keeping with the strategic plan so I just had OK by that. City Center play equipment of $12,000.00 wasn't in delete but again now there was an issue there potentially of a 410 issue for the City Center Park but no closure on that. Lake Ann Park expansion of $100,000.00. That wasn't in, keeping basically with the strategic plan. The Bluff Creek corridor expenditures of $100,000.00 which were in keeping with the strategic plan so I left OK there. And then a 58 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 fund reserve was also in there like I say for $200,000.00 so whatever balance would remain of that $200,000.00 after you take those items up above out of 410 which there would still be, they'll remain. You know they'll still remain a fund balance. Councilman Engel: I have a question. Do you recall what the Lake Ann Park expansion was comprised of?. That $100,000.00. Mayor Mancino: Pardon Councilman Engel? Councilman Engel: I'm curious what that Lake Ann Park expansion orS 100,000.00 was comprised of. Mayor Mancino: I'm wondering if that's buying additional land. Councilman Senn: I think it was acquisition of additional property ifI remember right but I don't, I didn't bring my notes. Mayor Mancino: Or especially a trail segment around Lake Ann. Councilman Senn: Was that in with the trail thing? Councilman Engel: Well we had $150,000.00 in there for a road, parking lot and trail but I don't remember this $100,000.00. Councilman Senn: I thought the trail was in the $150 too. Mayor Mancino: I'm not sure but I think it's for the $100,000.00 is for land to acquire a trail easement around the rest of Lake Ann. Councilman Senn: In addition to the actual construction dollars which were in the 150. Mayor Mancino: Actually by an easement on private property around Lake Ann. Councilman Engel: We're still preserving the $150,000.00 in the budget for the parking lot? Councilman Senn: Yeah, for the access road to redo and all that. Councilman Engel: Okay. Mayor Mancino: I'm not sure that I would be in favor of deleting the Lake Ann Park expansion of $100,000.00. Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean again these are just suggestions. Mayor Mancino: Again, this has nothing to do with the general fund. Councilman Senn: Right. The decrease is basically out of parks and recreation general fund portion given all this would be $382,900.00. Mayor Mancino: And what was the original percentage increase of park and rec? 59 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Senn: The original, yeah. As the night goes on my memory's even worst. Mayor Mancino: I have expenditures is, the original request for total parks and rec expenditure for 1998 is a re-estimate for the new budget is 52%. Councilman Senn: Correct. Mayor Mancino: So their request for approximately a $550,000.00 increase in park and rec. 50% increase, okay. Councilman Senn: Correct. Mayor Mancino: And this. Councilman Senn: This would trim that back basically by $382,900. Okay? But again no existing staff or anything like that would be impacted. And a lot of this stuff would still be done but it'd be done through 410 as far as the capital expenditures go. Next one back is the administration department. There was an increase in the budget from the initial submission from $217 to $273 that we'd asked for as it related to, it was a 26% increase and we asked for some detail and explanation on that and I just had a note over here, an assumption I made was hold to 3.5%. We didn't have the details so, but then I turned around and stuck some additional money into it. I didn't know one way or another if we were going to need it for the new city manager's position or not. So but then the net savings there would be $34,521.00 assuming we hold to 3.5% but leave some contingency or extra money in there for the new city manager's position. Then in terms of the next item there was an increase from $128,300 to $157,400 in the finance department, which was an increase of 23%. And there again just' made an assumption if we hold it to 3.5%, there would be an increase of, or there'd be a savings of $24,609. Property assessment, there's $67,000.00 in the budget. No net change there but in the work session there was a discussion or an issue of looking at bidding for a private contract on that. To see what they would be in comparison so. Mayor Mancino: In comparison to using Carver County. Councilman Senn: Correct. The next item was voting booths. This was raised during the work sessions. Given it's in an off election year and there's really not a whole lot of money budgeted for election or whatever, but we did have a problem as far as not enough voting booths and so it wasn't part of the submission but then we had asked what it would cost to get a couple of new ones and that was what the $10,000.00 was so I left, I put that new item in and an increase of $10,000.00. Because they said there were a fair number of problems at the last election. Let's see here, the next one with Southwest Coalition dues we talked about and we said, we talked about in that hearing, or in the work sessions and thought that was okay but we wanted more of a role in the city naming their reps to that. The MIS/GIS budget. There, let's see here. Mayor Mancino: Our original budget was $505,000.00. Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's what I was just looking for was 500 and something and I was searching for it there but...okay, so it's $505,000.00 as far as the request goes and talking about decreasing that by $309,366.00, which I believe by the way pretty much ties to what was recommended on the revised thing from the staff and the revision that's again not part of my base document here. And there also had talked a little bit just as far as overwhelming as that whole MIS thing now looking at some sort of a study group 60 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 or getting some people who have more expertise than us into it to get a citizens study group or something going to work with Rick Rice and stuffon that. Bob Ayot: Point of clarification...there's a number that was missed on this. Can I ask a question? Mayor Mancino: Yeah, can you wait until we go through the whole thing please. Councilman Senn: In terms of the CATV budget, there was a 15% increase in there, but that's basically self funding out of the franchise fees or whatever that come back from the cable company and most of the 15% increase was upgrading equipment for broadcasting community cable and stuff so I left OK there. There was a request for a finance intern to augment needed work there and instead of additional staff position at this point, so I left OK there. And then there was, then there was basically under this part of the budget where the mid year increases were in relationship to the salary portion or I mean the specific salary breakdowns and stuff and I just had the note that'd be at the discretion of the new city manager and left that in there. But basically if you take the above it adds up to a reduction of $358,496.00 based on those items or actions if they'd be taken. The next page is the. Mayor Mancino: Talk to your consistency on this administration department. The adjustments...3.5 increases. We're just holding the increases in administration or finance to 3.5 whereas in planning you were okay with...the difference and those are ones that department heads have asked for for their different staff people. Councilman Senn: The average on the other departments on the salary increases, which is basically where you know these numbers were coming from effectively, are predominantly coming from, it'd averaged about 3.5 so that's why I stuck it in at 3.5 I think. Okay. You know again, nothing sacred in that but it was just picking a level. The next page is historic preservation trust .fund. There was a request for a new arch at the cemetery. Again, if you see the asterisks here, this isn't general fund so again this was just a listing of the issues as we went through the work sessions, but these don't bring any net effect one way or another to the general fund. There was a request for a cemetery arch of $19,000.00 and there was some discussion of needing to see a design first and maybe downgrading the design a little bit. Looking at an expenditure maybe of about $7,500.00 rather than the $19,000.00 which would be a net savings of $11,500. The old bank building we talked briefly about in terms of the demolition next summer which is informing the tenants of such so we did it out front instead of at the last minute and again that was kind of relating back to the strategic planning discussion. Mayor Mancino: Oh, the city center commons area? Councilman Senn: Right, and then going ahead with something on that in 1999 as we talked about in the strategic plan. Old St. Huberts. Well again old bank building doesn't have any real effect from a budgetary standpoint because it has incoming revenue and offsetting expenses so whenever you cut it or change it, it goes away. The old St. Hubert's, or I should say old, old St. Hubert's. Call it the old, old I guess at this point, St. Hubert's church. That came up in the work session just to look at studying community uses and completing the cash transfer on that. Just look at it as an issue and then there was also a request for a new Bobcat at $6,000.00 in that fund which there was some discussion on but no real final action there and I just had delete there. Mayor Mancino: What was your... Todd Gerhardt: The Bobcat was to be used to plow... 61 City Council Meeting- December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: ...and again that isn't general fund anyway. Okay. Councilman Senn: If you take the, let me see here. So that's basically the details for the front. So if you go back to the front then essentially, if all of those decisions would be made, and that's just the assumption, that if all those decisions would be made, again where it comes out is it puts you down at that line at the 3566811. Okay. Mayor Mancino: And our spending for 1999 would be 4% higher than '98. Councihnan Senn: Our general fund spending, yes. Mayor Mancino: General fund spending. We're not talking about reserve funds whatsoever. Our growth rate is approximately 4.7% and we have a million dollar surplus in our general fund. Councihnan Senn: From '98. Mayor Mancino: From '98. And continuing forward, this revenue will put us at a 3.566811 just for general fund revenue. And we will have the reserve added to the million dollars, or approximately million dollars of $611,0007 Councilman Senn: No. If you left the tax revenue rate at it's current rate which is the $4,178,362. That would give you an additional reserve of $611,551. Mayor Mancino: So if you take it back to the $3,566,811, you do not create any reserve. More reserve. You just keep your one million. Councilman Senn: No additional reserve out of the general fund would be generated. You know again that just only speaks to the general fund. If that's the way you took that. But again if you just assumed or passed the exact same level as last year, you'd create, you'd be able to create a reserve or you know effectively again these were just all items and listings from what we had. I mean you know, there might be some decisions to fund some of those where I had written down to delete and then that's you have that $611,000 balance basically to deduct out of in relationship to doing that. Mayor Mancino: Well a couple questions. We still haven't funded, I'm thinking of our strategic plan. The common center, common area. $75,000.00 we wanted to and we haven't started looking at library. Councilman Senn: Right, and again those, both of those issues were, at least from my notes, discussion items under other funds other than general funds which we're still waiting for, you know the information on the reserves and the cash balances and all of that. So that's why I didn't, you know they weren't anything that I could tie in here one way or another. Councilman Engel: What fund is that library coming out oP. Do you know? The fund the library was coming out of. You don't know? Councilman Senn: Well I mean there is no...library fund at least that I know of. I mean but I mean there are some general. Councilman Engel: Where was it discussed as coming out of 2. Here? 62 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Senn: Well there's a general special fund, there's some dollars in for the public works expansion project and you know there's stuff like that and then there's also a number of funds that there are additional reserves and stuff in. Again, that gets, I mean it's real difficult to deal with that because the, you know until you get into the true analysis or the real analysis of the reserves and the cash and all that... Councilman Engel: I'm just trying to keep some of the details straight here. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist, did you have some questions? Councilman Berquist: I think he said that the 1998 budget of $4.1 minus the $1.1 out of the general fund... Councilman Senn: No. The 3.566 is the number you end up as you would accept every change or you know proposed change or deletion in the attached sheets. That's where you'd end up. Mayor Mancino: Any comments from, please come up. Bob Ayot: I think it's ledger 116 under MIS...budget you reference the 351K shift in monies and I didn't quite understand that shift, one. Number two. This week under MIS you've referenced a $309,000.00 amount and then there was an adjustment down to $200,000.00. So how do we get from 351 down to 309? Councilman Senn: There was an original request of over $500,000.00 for MIS/GIS. Okay, this in here cuts it by $309,000.00 leaving a balance basically going to it of, in the request of about $200,000.00 just using round numbers. Bob Ayot: What was the start point of $3517 Let me show you the paper. Councilman Senn: The start point in the original budget request was 500 and some odd thousand dollars. You probably don't have that Bob. I'm sorry, I can't see that far. Sorry. Councilman Engel: Pam? Of that original budget request, how much was dedicated to year 2000 repairs? Councilman Senn: ...we have budget sheets that go back older than this and that's what I was working from. Pam Snell: About $75,000.00. Councilman Engel: 75? Okay. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions or comments? Leah Hawke: ...I may have dreamt it but I thought I got up here a few minutes ago and asked if there was a position for a public safety director in the budget and I guess my only request would be that there are a number of people here that don't know that there's a proposal to delete that from the budget and I 63 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 would respectfully request that this council at least put this on a pending evaluation so that we can work through this process over the next year and not delete it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Leah, why don't you stay up for a second. First of all, the reason that we answered you to say that the public safety director's salary was in the budget was because the budget that we received from Pam, it was in it. The cut was made from Councilman Senn's request. Now it also means, before you give that look. Leah Hawke: Hey, I like this format... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Now wait. Councilman Senn: ...the original budget okay had it in from the department request and the action's been taken since so I mean again, I just dropped it out because of the action taken and that's what's there so I mean you know, it's just a reflection of what's happened. Mayor Mancino: Please also realize that we do have a surplus that we talked about in general fund and that surplus. Leah Hawke: The $611,5517 Mayor Mancino: No. We have approximately, and I'm talking in general terms. It's probably not quite this high at this point but around a million dollar surplus in our general fund. I mean that is at the discretion of the City Council. Leah Hawke: Right. I just know that going through. Mayor Mancino: But I understand what you're asking. Leah Hawke: Right, and when we go through budget incorporation, it's always tougher to go back and reallocate funds back into a position than had you left it pending. I'm just here to ask that you respect the opinion of all these people that were here earlier and at least put it pending, whatever discussion. Mayor Mancino: Understand, thank you for the request. Councilman Senn: Just to point out Mayor. The note I made under the 1999 council line item there, the asterisk there was allocated to the contingency fund, you know the $611,000.00 so that leaves leeway to go back as it relates to a number of these different items or whatever. I mean I just was trying to show you again a benchmarks again of the 3566811. You know if you want to choose that benchmark and go for it, the 15% reduction in taxes but if you take and hold the line approach of taxes, you still have that additional money. Mayor Mancino: Got it. Councilman Engel: Nancy? Mayor? I just want to have clarification. Under that $611,551 that Mark's just walked us through is projected contingency fund reserve for 1999. Mayor Mancino: That is if we do not. 64 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Engel: If we adhere to what's on this paper. Councilman Senn: If you fund at the same level as last year. Mayor Mancino: If you fund at the same level. And that means that would be a 15% reduction. Councilman Senn: No. No, no. You're getting confused here okay. If you keep property tax revenues the same, identical as last year. Mayor Mancino: That is what I was talking about. Councilman Senn: Right. What you mentioned before, okay. And on that basis, if you take that and translate it all through that, if you adopted all of the reductions here, would leave you with a $611,000.00 reserve. Adopting last year's level. Mayor Mancino: I like that. Councilman Senn: Okay? If you would choose to simply take last year's level and then take out all of these changes effectively from last year's level on a pure take out basis, then you end up with a lower number than last year. But that's working not from last year's level but from the initial budgets request and backing out the numbers here that we've deleted. Again, that's starting from a higher number and deleting down. So and again, a lot of this was just forming benchmarks, forming lines because I mean you know, at least from my perspective when I was going through and seeing the initial request of the 25% increase in spending and even the revised request of 16%, I thought those were too high and a 12% increase in tax rate I also thought was too high so this was an exercise... Mayor Mancino: I appreciate that. Councilman Engel: Mayor, I have a second part of a two part assertion and clarification and that was, this is mythical at this point. The million dollars you are talking about is real money in a real bank account and happened this year and I just wanted that to be clear. We've got a lot of numbers on the table. Mayor Mancino: Correct Pam? That's what we were told at our work session. Pam Snell: The amount is not quite one million dollars. It's more like $700,000.00 but that's money in the bank as of the end of the year. Mayor Manc ino: ...300 in two weeks. I calculated about 715,288 or something close to that. Councilman Senn: Pam told us in a work session that was a moving number not yet defined so. Councilman Engel: When will we have final? Pam Snell: End of the year. Councilman Engel: December 31 we're going to have a final. We're projecting. 65 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Senn: So I mean all I tried to do was put it in a format so the issues could be looked at and effectively the issues that were providing increases to the budget and you could say yeah, nay, you know whatever to each one or deal with them but they were all issues that were raised one way or another going through the work session. Mayor Mancino: Todd? Todd Gerhardt: I'd like to make a recommendation to the mayor and council. I think Mark's done a great job of putting together the history here. He's also asked quite a few questions and I think that staff needs to answer as a part of this. I would ask the City Council to continue this public hearing to next Monday so that staff can answer some of the questions raised in this document and the department heads would also have an opportunity to look at the suggestions and move ahead from there. Don Ashworth: Mayor ifI could. Mayor Mancino: Yes, Don. Don Ashworth: Pam should, Pam and I will additionally look at some of the suggestions and try to verify the numbers because there's some conflicts in here. For example like under the finance area, we note in there a...dollar portion and that seems extremely high and so therefore suggested deletion. But then we come down to the bottom and it's noted that an intern is planned for $15,000.00 but that's okay. So I mean it's got to go one spot or the other. I mean it's either cut or it's kept in. So we'll go through and try to identify those types of things and verify that the number, the 356 number is truly correct. Councilman Senn: And I think that would be good. I mean again this is, you know staff has a lot more information than we do. I mean we put days and days into it just trying to identify the issues and outline it and do it so I mean you know essentially. Mayor Mancino: Well a lot of work went into it. Thank you very, very much and I'd also like to say, are there any big concerns or statements that councilmembers would like to make? Councilman Engel: I just want to see, I want to see staff department head input on these proposed changes. Not only from the perspective as listed here but to what they would consider a priority cut if one takes precedent over one of these. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: I'm fine with it...greatly for the work that you've put into it. Councilman Engel: He did more of the work. I was a philosophical discolor. He put the numbers together. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: I don't know if it's a concern or not. I guess it is. And there's a phenomenal amount of work here. My concern is that this, and please I hope nobody takes this the wrong way. But this, this is coming from one source and that's great. Again, I look at the work put behind this and I quite honestly, I couldn't do it. But I have a little, for lack ora better word, I have a little problem with these deletions, and Mark made it very clear. It's just, you know he just threw it out there. But I have a 66 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 concern that now staff and everybody. I mean this has been framed now in one particular way and I have a concern as I go through some of these things that you know, these are deletions that one person wants. And they may be very legitimate. I'm not, again I'm not...anything or anybody here but I am concerned that now this is being looked at essentially what I'm perceiving, and if I'm perceiving incorrectly help me out but what I'm perceiving to be essentially one set of eyes. Councilman Senn: Well I mean, Mike to help you out in your perception, not because I'm trying to be contrary but to tell you what... I mean essentially Mark and I, Mark tells me put it together. Mark's seen it. Mark's reviewed it so I think it's fair to say it's also out of Mark. Then in addition to that, we took it to Linda Jansen who is one of the new council people. I asked her to go through it all and review it and see what she thought of it as an incoming council person elect and all that so she's seen it and also reviewed it and came back with some additional comments and stuffon it too. So I mean it's a few sets of eyes at this point but again that's all it was meant to be was a few sets of eyes to try to identify some of the issues and put something on the table and stuff, so it's not purely my eyes but it's. Councilman Engel: Further clarification here though Mike and that is, you know since I've come here I've always talked about restraining the growth of government and therefore spending, therefore taxes on every one of us who live in this town. But when it comes to detail, Mark faxed to me at 4:15. I got here and had my interviews with Sathe at 5:30 or, 4:30 to 5:30. This is the first time I've gotten a chance to pour over it in detail. These are all philosophical discussions for me and things you throw out and I throw out and that sounds good. It all sounds until you net it out. Mayor Mancino: Well I think that's a good reason for us to table it and have it on Monday night. Councilman Engel: Well and that's why I want to hear staff comments on it. Mayor Mancino: And not only staff but the rest of us can look at it because these suggestions are adjustments that were talked about in general for all of us. I went through, not to this degree. I went through some of these adjustments on my own but I think it's a good reason to come back next Monday night at a work session and get input from the rest of the council members. Councilman Senn: ...so it'd have to be kind of a continuation of this hearing. Mayor Mancino: Okay, continuation of the hearing. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Formally what you would do is recess tonight's council meeting to Monday at say what time to complete the items on tonight's agenda. That you haven't dealt with. Mayor Mancino: We could also recess and do the rest of the agenda that night too. It's getting fairly late. Councilman Senn: Well I mean as far as the remaining, you know as far as the items that are left, which are ones that I pulled off of consent, two of them directly tie to what you've seen here which is the contract with the county on the assessment issue which we talked about and the other one was relating to the, let's see where was it? There was three of them. One was, oh the preparation of plans and specifications for the public works facility... Mayor Mancino: The fire fighters retirement fund. 67 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Senn: And the fire fighters retirement fund but to be honest with you, I want to plead total ignorance to this. I went through it. I tried to figure it out. I tried to trace numbers. I tried to figure out where it was coming from and we need to get a lot of... Mayor Mancino: Some information before we look at it. John, are you able to come next Monday night at 5:30? Okay, good. I hate to keep you all here but why don't we get the questions on the table for the fire fighters relief fund that we'll need to help make a decision for our next Monday night meeting. Don Ashworth: And then would it be alright if I contacted Councilman Senn directly to try to find out the additional information? And I'll make sure all five receive that information. Mayor Mancino: Leah, you had a question. Leah Hawke: ...I've been up to City Hall quite a lot recently and I think it's fair to say that our public safety department personnel are pretty upset with the changes...and I think it's something that should be addressed first thing in the morning with them before rumor hits the street that this was cut from the budget. Or is under proposal to be cut out. And the second, I guess the second is a question. All the people that were here tonight, do they have to come again next week to debate this issue of public safety director in out? I mean I'm just trying to get a handle on, I thought part of your discussion was, should we have one? Should we not have one? Are we going to put it under one person? Mayor Mancino: We haven't finalized any of that yet. Again we do have a surplus we can always use to fund that and as far as public safety department, they will get these numbers with our new city manager, Todd Gerhardt and he will go over this with each department. So you don't have to be concerned that our public safety department, the people that are in it, will not have this to look at and review with our city manager because every single department will. Will offer suggestions. Leah Hawke: Okay. I'm also trying to get a perspective on citizen and resident input on this and is this going to be decided next Monday night? The decision as to whether or not to have the position, regardless of who's going to fill it but whether or not... Mayor Mancino: No. We are not deciding next Monday night whether we are going to have a public safety director position or not. That will not be decided next Monday night. Did everyone hear me? Councilman Engel: I want to be clear about what that means. Does that mean whether or not we put it in the budget, the decision's not made? Mayor Mancino: No, I'm saying we are not deciding whether we are going to be eliminating or keeping a public safety director next Monday night. Councilman Engel: Regardless of budget discussion. Councilman Senn: I think what the Mayor is saying is I mean effectively you could still adopt what's here. You have a 600, if you go with last year's level, you've got a... Mayor Mancino: $611,000 surplus. Mayor Mancino: It's much like how we funded the sirens. I mean the money is there. How we decide to fund it at the time when we make a decision. 68 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Leah Hawke: I just want to say, with all due respect, that wasn't oh we have the money. We're going to do it. It was a little more work than that and I just want to be sure that if there's the opportunity and resident input will help you make your decision as to put this as a pending further discussion versus a removal, I just want to understand... Mayor Mancino: I think I have answered you very clearly. Okay? We will not be deciding whether we are going to have a public safety director position next Monday night. Okay? Leah Hawke: Okay, thank you. Mayor Mancino: And yes, we do have the money in case we want to fund it. That is there and it's sitting there and when that surplus gets down to zero or close to $85,000.00, we will call you. Now, again we're sorry to keep people here that wanted to find out a little bit more about the fire department. Come back again next Monday night. This is what we do. May I have a motion? Councihnan Senn: I move to adjourn. Mayor Mancino: To recess. Councilman Senn: OH, I'm sorry. Motion to recess until next Monday night at. Mayor Mancino: At 6:30 p.m. See you then. The City Council meeting was recessed until Monday, December 21, 1998 at 6:30 p.m. to finish the items on the agenda that were not completed. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt Acting City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 69 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 2, 1998 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Allyson Brooks, Alison Blackowiak, Matt Burton and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce and LuAnn Sidney STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer (The recording quality was very poor of this meeting.) PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN APPROVAL FOR COLONIAL SQUARE CENTER LOCATED ON WEST 78~m STREET AT GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD~ LOTUS REALTY. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item and the commissioners asked some questions for clarification. Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. There were no comments from the public. Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded to clOse the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Peterson asked for commissioner comments. Conrad: ...architecturally interesting and compatible with the, that's arbitrary but I think that's okay. It's real arbitrary. The intent is real valid. No doubt about that... Mr. Chairman, I kind of agree with you on...ifthat was one inch deep, I don't think you'd... Brooks: I'm not sure. Can I have a couple more minutes to gather my thoughts? Peterson... Blackowiak: ...In terms of city wide..., let's start with that. You know we start with...so I think to require...would be difficult if not onerous on the owner &the property so I wouldn't want to see that. Secondly, the building has an uncertain future... I submit that the PUD at the Villages has slightly different standards. A PUD in and of itself has different things happening from the beginning...so I think that we should look at...so to say that we've got lighting at the Villages Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 1998 doesn't necessarily apply to Colonial Square. So I would hope that we could work with Colonial-' Square. Work with the tenant there but let's not worry about lighting and let's realize that Villages and Colonial Square are two very different properties... That's it. Peterson: Matt. Burton: I pretty much agree with what Alison just said. I had written down a couple of notes also on the staffs recommendation too as it deals with the panel signs. I agreed with Alison to strike the word minimum and I had written down, and strike the one inch but I added, a _ projection or indentation of a scale appropriate to the size of the lettering. I don't know if that helps or it doesn't help or if it just makes it more vague but it may avoid a real shallow indentation or a real small projection. I also thought that the recommendation of the staff should? be part of the introductory sentence revised to add that the sign ordinance applies to the whole, the sign at this mall, or this center also... As per the other items I think that there could be a glare issue with the location of the Colonial Square shopping center so I do understand the staffs recommendations there. The applicant made a good point also...so I guess I'm inclined to follo~ the staffs recommendation on those items. However the hanging sign, I could go either way I guess on whether it has to be internally illuminated or not. I guess that's it. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: Well I've been wrestling with the concept that we wanted, that Vemelle wants to do something with old town and I guess what I was trying to...was why we're worried about putting signs that maybe are historical or old on a building that's not even close to being historical or old~- And I'm also, I just kind of wonder where we were at with old town. I don't thi~ik there's been any conclusions on what we wanted to do there anyway. I mean did we resolve ever, I don't believe we ever actually finally resolved that ....They did, okay ....so that solves that problem. _ We have no old town. Aanenson: Well I think it goes back to what Alison... Brooks: Right, so we're worrying about putting in a sign that will. } Aanenson: Well I think what we're saying is that we're willing to look at something different... Brooks: Well that's fine. Other than that, I guess that was my only sort ofpointthat I was kind of curious about... Other than that I have no trouble with panel signs as long as they're interesting and I agree with the other commissioners. I'm not sure about the 1 inch. If that's absolutely necessary...what difference that makes. And I can understand why somebody might want it...but I agree with Matt that it probably.,.those are my comments and thanks for explaining the old town... Peterson: My comments are not dissimilar. I think it's... I'm not as concemedabout external...: Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 1998 Aanenson: I think part of the issue here is if you look at the, if we were to look at this as an after the fact but if this was to come in and either approve the lighting plan, the street lighting...and then it's hard for us to estimate how many signs are going to come in, the external illumination adding to that. That just complicates it. But in this scenario it may be moot because the lighting is all in place. But just keep it in the back of your mind that this would be adding to that. Peterson: Right...With that, may I have a motion? Conrad: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? As I look at the staff recommendation, it does say external illumination...so based on what we just said, what does that mean? Aanenson: As part of that variance you may ask them to...with the wattage. You might want to look at that. Conrad: Kate, do you know how good signage is...? Aanenson: It will be... Conrad: And why wouldn't you want that...why wouldn't you want this illuminated? .... to match this with what do you have, Powell Communications. Who's on the? Vemelle Clayton made a comment from the audience. Conrad: So how do you mesh this type of signage with that kind of signage? That doesn't make sense Vemelle. Vernelle Clayton: I agree with you but... Aanenson: That was part of our concern. We couldn't see how that worked on this type ora sign because the Timber Lounge does have, well it does have the Lounge. It has individual letters so it's a little bit different. Conrad: Feels okay, yeah. It's okay. Not having lit signage, if you're in business. I don't know. Vernelle Clayton: I don't think we have enough information on how that... They need to get a sign up and then perhaps deal with the lighting issue later. Not have it lit... Aanenson: That would be our position too. To work it through a variance that someone up there suggested, so we can see how that works and what makes sense and what it does for the rest of the building. Conrad: So I'm handling this real casually Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry about that. But so if our approval of the sign plan tonight will in no means indicate we are going to permit that to be illuminated in the future. It may or may not be. Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 1998 Aanenson: What we're saying is it's prohibited. You always have a right to come back for the variance. Conrad: That's right. Just so you know that. I think it's, well just so you know that. Aanenson: Or amend this condition. Bob is right, you could come back and amend this condition. Either way. Conrad: Yeah. Peterson: So with that, is there a motion? Blackowiak: I'll move the Planning Commission approves request for sign plan review for Colonial Square shopping center with the following conditions. Conditions 1, 3, 4 and 5 with condition 2 amended to read, panel signs shall have individual dimensional letters and logos with a projection or indentation, and I'm going to borrow from what Matt said. Compatible to the scale of the building. I don't know exactly what he said but... Burton: Appropriate for the size of the lettering. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Whatever he said. Okay. Peterson: Is there a second? Brooks: Second. Peterson: Any discussion on that? Conrad: Did we not say that under the recommendations, number 4, that we didn't want hanging signs to be internally self illuminated? Peterson: Yes. Aanenson: They said that they wouldn't allow it so we'd recommend that you eliminate that as a condition. And I think you wanted to add something about that it be consistent with the sign ordinance, just to make sure that's in there too. If you wanted to make that number 4. The rest of it, that they get a permit... Burton: Well I guess I'd make a friendly amendment to make that, the item number 4, that all signs shall comply with the Chanhassen sign ordinances...these others or not. Peterson: Discussion points. Do we all know what we're doing then? With that may I have a vote. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 1998 Blackowiak moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the request for a sign plan review for Colonial Square Shopping Center with the following conditions: Panel signs are permitted provided they are architecturally interesting and compatible with the building. Panel signs shall have individual dimensional letters and logos with a projection and identification compatible with the scale of the lettering on the sign. 3. Extemal illumination of any signage is prohibited. 4. All signage shall comply with the Chanhassen sign ordinances. Barber shop poles shall be limited to 4 feet in height and a 12 inch projection from the building. The number of barber shop poles shall not exceed 2 for the entire building. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commission Burton noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 18, 1998 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: Your next meeting will be January 6th. Right now we have the lighting ordinance on. Back, and then we'll also possibly look at some of the rezonings. We do have some items that will be on in the January, some site plans and for the second meeting in January. But I also wanted to let you know that the comp plan did receive comments from the Met Council. About eight pages of comments so they did review the first draft, which we'll be responding to. Some of them are pretty minor. Some of them just clarification. So we were pretty pleased. So we'll get those back up and hopefully, you know until they actually approve it, then we go back to Council for final adoption and we'll get those copies back to you but we were pretty pleased with the comments that we got back so work for the year. Also on Monday night work session, went through the, we're still trying to get a draft of the Bluff Creek overlay zone so we had a good meeting with Council on Monday night. Spent about 45 minutes going back through, reiterating the reason for that again. Looking at sustainable development and why we want to do. I think there was a big fear that we're compressing so much zoning...really that what we're trying to do is take some of that fragile area, development out of that so they will be putting that on for their meeting on December 14th and hopefully that will be approved. Blackowiak: Kate I have a quick question. Based on the council's decision, yea or nay on Bluff Creek, does that affect the comp plan submitted to Met Council? Aanenson: No. Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 1998 Blackowiak: Because we did reference that in many instances. Aanenson: Right. Yes. Yes. I believe that they're pretty close to adopting it. There's just some clarification issues that they wanted to go through and I have confidence that it will probably be adopted. They did approve the first reading so it's just a matter of just the comfort level and the clarification of some issues. Good questions and good discussion. With that, I think that's all I had for ongoing items. Peterson: Then we go to the comp plan rezoning process. Aanenson: Sure. If you want to do approval of Minutes we can close this part of the meeting out and just make that the informal part of the meeting if you so chose. Peterson: We already noted the minutes so we can adjourn. Chairman Peterson adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 6 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1998 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. This special meeting is a continuation of the City Council meeting held on December 14, 1998. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Berquist and Councilman Senn. Councilman Mason prior to item 4 on the agenda. MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Engel STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Todd Hoffman, Charles Folch, Pam Snell, and Steve Kirchman FIRE DEPARTMENT PENSION~ APPROVAL OF NEW RETIREMENT BENEFITS. Public Present: Name Address Mona J. Kerber Stephanie Unze Leah Hawke Jack Atkins John Wolff Mark Littfin Bob Halverson Dave Carlson Cori Wallis Patsy Bemhjelm Michael Lee Kerber 500 Chanview 1080 Lyman Court 7444 Moccasin 220 West 78th Street 31 Basswood Circle 8052 Erie Spur 7469 Saratoga Drive 6199 Cascade Pass 951 Redwing 9380 Kiowa Trail 500 Chanview Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, Council members. This item was on your last. agenda, however it was tabled to get additional information to Council. Included in your packet is the additional information from the actuarial company. With that I think there were some questions regarding how this, the total dollar amount, which will cost the City of Chanhassen this year and in the budget we have reserved $42,000.00 for the 1999 budget. For '98 we are looking at $40,000.00. With that I would open any questions that the Council or the Mayor may have. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. Questions from council members. Councilman Berquist: I think in looking at this material Todd, I mean it's a tremendous amount of information. It's fair to say I think that the fire fighters, I mean you become a fire fighter not necessarily for the pay. You do it because of love of service 'and love of community and the desire to get involved. From what I understand of the fire, the volunteer fire departments, the pension is the really the primary reason for, a big reason for folks continuing to be involved from year to year. So offering a package that's commensurate with other areas in the immediate vicinity is important. Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Todd Gerhardt: I would agree. It's one of the tools that attract the volunteer firemen to be volunteers. You know camaraderie is another. Wanting to learn how to fight fires and also just to give baekto the community is another big part of it. There's some excitement that goes along with it andright now the proposal in front of you, we're not on the bottom of any comparable cities and we're not at tho top. There's some communities that have gone back and received special legislation to try to go up and above- the state mandate for lump sum payments and right now Chanhassen is I would say right in the middle o~ meeting those needs. Councilman Berquist: Currently or with this new proposal? Todd Gerhardt: Both. Councilman Berquist: And does the new proposal put us on the upper echelon? The upper tier? Todd Gerhardt: No. We would be, if you looked at Mr. Halverson put together some comparable lump sum payments. If you look at Minnetonka, in 1999 they're at 108 where 1999 we are proposing. Mayor Mancino: $16,400.00 for a lump sum. Todd Gerhardt: Right. Councilman Senn: Are you talking about the '98 increase now or the '997 Todd Gerhardt: '99. Councilman Senn: Because the first part of the request here is 1998. Todd Gerhardt: Right. What we're proposing in this report is to deal with '98 and if the council wishes we can take it all the way out to 2002. Most cities will do annual budgets. Tonight where the last two I think that we've negotiated...Bob come in. The last two, haven't they been four year contracts? Bob Halverson: Yes. Todd Gerhardt: And so what we're proposing is a four year contract with lump sums in '98 of $54,000.00. '99 of $60,500.00. 2000 of $67,000.00. 2001 of $73,500.00 and then 2002 of $80,000.00. So the four years would be '99, 2000, 2001, and 2002. Councilman Berquist: Okay, and the second memo says that in 1999 we'd be in a position to examine and approve then the fifth year increase scheduled for 2002. So you're asking us t~ go '98 through 2001 at this time? I have a couple. On the $54,000.00 for this year, for 1998. That assumes 20 Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. years of service, correct? Todd Gerhardt: I believe that is the proposal. Mayor Mancino: And I'm sorry, who am I speaking to? 2 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Bob Halverson: Bob Halverson. Mayor Mancino: Oh. Bob, could you come forward. Would you mind just sitting next to Charles if we have some questions. Thank you very much. For 1998, just so I understand this. The lump sum distribution for those 20 years of service would be $54,000.00? Bob Halverson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: For those who have 30 years of experience it would be $81,000.00, correct? Bob Halverson: Yeah, it goes up whatever $54,000.00 divided by 20 is. That's the per year of service. You just add them up to 30 years. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So that top cap is not 54 but actually 81,000 and we have quite a few that will be getting that at some point. Bob Halverson: We have about three people in the department right now. Mayor Mancino: Right now, okay. Good. The other thing that's contained in here is not only for retirement benefit but is there not also a request for an active death benefit increase, for a long term disability benefit increase for current retiree monthly benefit increase, etc? Bob Halverson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And tell me, in 1998 according to your numbers that I have Bob that... Bob Halverson: Oh yes, I remember that. Mayor Mancino: You would show the 1998 increase of approximately, or the contribution from state aid and from the city would be a total of $74,300.00. And that would be 61426 from the state aid and $12,874.00 from the city. Is that $12,874.00 also covered from those ancillary benefits? Bob Halverson: No. These benefits on this sheet are for '99 and beyond. 1998 is the last year of our current benefits. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So you're saying if we were to go ahead for 1999 and on, there would be increased cost because of increased ancillary benefits? Bob Halverson: No. If you add up all the numbers in this column, that's $21,100.00. That's the proposed increase for next year. Basically the required contribution right now is $74,300.00 to keep it at the $54,000.00 level of lump sum benefit. And our proposal is to go up to the $80,000.00 in four year. The jumps if you will are caused by these numbers here..Like I say, if you add them all up it's $21,100.00. The items 3 and 4 are one time charge basically. To get those up there so if you subtract the numbers 3 and 4, which is $1,500.00 from the $21,100.00 increase in 1999, that would give you the additional increases for the next three years. Or as the required contribution goes. Now the required contribution is a function of our investments. 2% state aid and city contribution. Those three items. And these numbers are based on a 5% return on investment. 3 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Okay. So you took the conservative approach. Bob Halverson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And we just have two sets of numbers in front of us because we see the city contribution in 1999 as being $30,289.00. So they don't quite correlate with the numbers that you have here. So that's why I'm asking some of these questions. There's not the correlation between the two sets of numbers that we've got. Any other questions for council members? Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: Let's see here. I think you hit most of them here. Am I understanding this correctly that you're proposing to go back and increase the benefits of the already existing retirees? Bob Halverson: The retirees have taken the lump sum, or not the lump sum but. Councilman Senn: The annuity. Bob Halverson: The annuity benefit, yes. Councilman Senn: So you're going to increase, you're going to go back and increase the annuity of the pension plan even though they retired under a different pay system? Is that normal? Bob Halverson: Some departments go that way. Some departments will freeze the retirees. Councilman Senn: Is that normal in pension plans? Bob Halverson: Yes. Like I said it can go either way as far as the fire relief pensions are concerned. One thing we have done is, in our new by-laws is gone strictly lump sum. There is no more annuity available so everybody who retired from 1998 on will be taking a lump sum. Mayor Mancino: And why is that? Bob Halverson: It's more cost effective. We can get, for the same dollar we can get a bigger increase if we go strictly lump sum versus lump sum annuity. A combination plan like that. Because it takes a lot of money to fund annuities and it's, you know looking down the road it's better for the fire fighters that are on now and the fire fighters that will be joining in the future, strictly lump sum because our benefit levels can increase you know even just with our investments would cover increases where they wouldn't if we were going lump sum and annuity. So the annuities tie up a lot of capital. We have approximately 1.1 or 1.2 million dollars in a special fund and about $450,000.00 of that is tied up just to cover the annuities that are out there right now. Mayor Mancino: And how much do we spend for management of the fund? Bob Halverson: Management of the fund? It's. Mayor Mancino: Percentage of the total value. Bob Halverson: We're with Prudential and it varies depending on the year but it's been running in the 6 to 7, $8,000.00 a year range for management. And we're required by the state to do actuarial every two 4 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 years so that's an additional charge above and beyond the operation of the fund so. Actuarial run about $2,000.00... Mayor Mancino: What I would like to suggest to Council that we go ahead and fund 1998 for certain and I'd like to spend. Bob Halverson: Question? 1998's already funded. We're talking '99 through 2002. Mayor Mancino: On here we're being asked to fund 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001. Bob Halverson: 1998 is in there just as a base line basically because we've already received the city contribution and the state aid for 1998. Mayor Mancino: Is that correct? Because we haven't voted on that as a council. We have not had this in front of us before .... We just received this two weeks ago for the first time to look at '98 and to look at '99 and to look at 2000. This is the first time we've seen it. Bob Halverson: Well I can go back to my previous statement that 1998 is the last year of the agreed upon benefit increase so that's, 1998's already been taken into account as far as that goes. Mayor Mancino: So we're already at $54,000.00. We're not at $51,000.00. That's rather new news to us. Todd, can you give us any light on that? Todd Gerhardt: Well, just the conversations I've had with Don is that 1998 needed to be approved and his memo states that, and then wanted to take it out to 2001 with the final fifth year scheduled for 2002. That's all I know. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Excuse me, John. John Wolff: Can I comment? Mayor Mancino: Yes. John Wolff: I was evaluating the salary and wage, line item 4020. I noticed that the city does allocate approximately $40,000.00 a year towards this special fund which is slightly less, well it's significantly less than what is actually required between, for the actuarial funding and there's an approximate reserve. I couldn't locate the memo of around $160 to $170,000.00 that have built up within this city held fund. Mayor Mancino: It's the Internal Revenue Fund, yeah. Service fund, thank you. And John that is right. We have been putting in $40,000.00 a year but as you will see according to Bob, if we take a conservative 5% ROI, when we get up to the year 2000, then we would need to increase the levy from $40,000.00 to $47,000.00 and I don't know, and I'm sorry I don't know what's sitting in that fund and how much has accrued interest. Bob, what I'd like to do is this and to councilmembers, and that is, we do need to make a formal motion to okay 1998 because we have not. And then I wondered if Bob, you and John could come back on January 18th at a work session and we could go through the 1999 through 2002 because our, some of the numbers we have are different than what you've supplied us and we just want to make sure that they're in sync. We want to make sure that the 1998 is funded. We will do that tonight and go forward. If you don't mind spending some time and maybe even is it Duane Hanf? Special City Council Meeting ~ December 21, 1998 Bob Halverson: Hanf, our actuarial? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Is he from Wyatt or is he on his own? Bob Halverson: He's on his own. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Because also the memo showed the Wyatt Companies had helped in the calculations and I'm not sure who that was. We didn't get any back-up but the memo said that the Wyatt Companies were involved. Bob Halverson: Yeah, the Wyatt Companies did our actuarial I think before but Duane's a lot more economical. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Well it would certainly help us get in sync with the numbers if you don't mind. Bob Halverson: Sure. And I'll see ifDuane might be able to attend the meeting too. Mayor Mancino: Great. And that would be our first work session in January, which is January 18~. Okay? And we can sit down, roll up our sleeves and appreciate that. So with that, may I have a motion? Councilman Senn: I'll move that we approve the fire relief benefit to increase for the year 1998 and that the remaining years and issues be placed on a City Council work session on January, what was it? Mayor Mancino: January 18th. Councilman Senn: January 18th. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. One of the other topics if we could cover that I think that would be helpful is looking at again whether we stay with a defined benefit or define contribution and how some of those are starting to change. Just talk about it in general to give us a little bit of background. Bob Halverson: Right. See I'm not familiar with that familiar with define contribution but I will call' some people in the organization...talk about it then. Mayor Mancino: Thank you and thank you for all your work. Appreciate it. Councilman Senn: No, we haven't seconded or voted on the motion. Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, can we have a second? Councilman Berquist: I'll second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the increase for the Fire Relief Benefit for 1998 and to table discussion for the remaining years until the January 18, 1999 work session. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PRELIMINARy PLANS FOR PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY EXPANSION~ PROJECT 99-1. 6 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Charles Folch: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the Council. If you remember back from November I presented the Council with a preliminary needs study for the public works facility into the near and long term future and if you recall back then, one of the items I prepared was information on the relative planning cost numbers for making comparisons to the existing site versus new sites, etc. While these numbers are good for comparison, I don't believe they're tight enough or refined enough numbers to really nail down a cost in order to be able to program a funding proposal for the council's consideration. So what I'm proposing we do is that we make use of the construction manager to prepare preliminary design drawings and an analysis of the existing facility in terms of letting out the proposed expansion. Reviewing code issues. Reviewing zoning issues. Existing HVAC changes. Things like that that may need to be done in order to present you with a better layout for consideration and also allow staff to be able to define the number, the cost number and prepare an according cost proposal to present to the Council. At this point in time we believe that Amcon Construction, Amcon Corporation who was the construction manager for the City Hall expansion has the expertise to provide this type of service. They're very experienced in the construction aspects of buildings. The drawings that they would be preparing would be the basis, should the council elect in the future to do an expansion project, would be the basis for an architectural firm to be able to pick up and run with and preparing a formal construction document so. Amcon has submitted a proposal, a scope of services for this phase of the work and an associated cost for that proposal and staff would recommend that we move ahead at least with the preliminary design. And as I stated in the staff report, this is in no way interpreted by staff as an authorization to proceed with the project. We're just trying again to take another step to better define numbers in order to prepare a funding proposal for the council's future consideration. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Questions from council. Councilman Berquist: The schematics, the schematic floor plans, the schematic site plans. The elevations. Assuming that they're adoptable, how close to being able to take those out for bids would the schematics...? Are we going to save any additional, any money on architectural fees I guess is the question. Charles Folch: We probably will save some time on the architectural in terms of the layout will be readily defined. I think if, with these documents it will probably save one or two revieW steps in refining architectural drawings. I think also in terms of an architectural firm submitting a proposal to us, I think we give them a much better information up front as to what they are, what's going to be involved in the design that they're going to prepare for the project. So I think it better defines to the architectural firm what they're going to need, what basically the expansion is going to entail if you will. Councilman Berquist: Does the architectural firm use a computer aid assisted drawing? Charles Folch: Most of them nowadays yes they do. Amcon will be using this, this will be set up on a CAD format. Councilman Berquist: I don't have any other questions. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: Charles, the $7,500.00 not to exceed is a little bit of a misnomer. It's not $7,500.00 not to exceed. It's $7,500.00 plus cost, right? Special City Council Meeting- December 21, 1998 Charles Folch: Yeah. It's a fixed fee plus reimbursables, you're right. The mileage and duplicating that sort of thing are above that but the actual labor time involved is a fixed fee. Councilman Senn: Okay. Did you get any more than one of these or just offAmcon? Charles Folch: Just Amcon. Being that we've got a working relationship with them. We know the type of work they can perform and the services and we've got a good relationship established with them and it's likely that the council may want to consider making use ora firm such as Amcon when we actually do the improvement project to function as that project, construction manager again. I think that worked real well for the city hall expansion project. Councilman Senn: That's it for questions. I assume we'll come back on comments. Councilman Berquist: I have one other question. This doesn't include anything with the other site? Charles Folch: Basically a site at this time is, we aren't proposing to locate any physical structures out there. We would basically plan on doing our own layout of the bone yard in terms of where we would keep materials and things like that but really we don't need any outside expertise to lay out the other bone yard site. We'll do that in-house. Mayor Mancino: Do you know what a bone yard site is? Councilman Berquist: I do. Mayor Mancino: Oh okay. I think someone who had asked on that one. So the predesign schematic will be on the existing building. What you were there at, you would do at that existing site. The night when you introduced this and talked to us about it, along with the rest of your budget, Council gave the cormnent that of all the options you gave us, we would like it to stay at the existing site. We really didn't talk about square footage and how big the site would be or how big the building would be and all that. We didn't give too many comments on that. I've seen from your numbers that we have increased the facility from 1980 to 1998 about 138% in square footage. That's gotten bigger. Charles Folch: I'm sorry, run that by me again. Mayor Mancino: Well, on pages 3 and 4 your building area. It started out at 10,300. It went to 19,700 and now it's 24,500. Charles Folch: Right, and the original size was built back in 1980. Then they did the second expansion in '87. That went to 19,000. Then we built 4, about 4 ~A, 4,500 square foot of cold storage in 1990 which we then heated in, oh I think it was about three years ago we actually added heat to that. Although you're correct. We haven't actually done any facility expansion since 1990 and again, we're at 24,000 square foot we're about, slightly less than half of what we expect to be our ultimate size as we develop from the needs study, we estimate it's going to be somewhere between 50 and 60,000 square feet ultimately of building space that we will need. So we're less than half of where we need to be right now. Todd Gerhardt: And the cold storage facility that was built in 1990 replaced another facility that was bought by the City of Chaska as a part of the Mammoth construction. So that was replacing an existing facility. Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Yes, Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: In the hopes that we were coming back around on comments. I have a number of them but also as many questions as I do comments because your reflection was accurate I believe of our last meeting on this issue which was just kind of to can it and to kind of say that what we want to deal with the site and stuff. From there I'd like to really see us spend some time talking about how we do see the project going forward in terms of size and cost and everything else, especially given where we're at on the plan and other facilities that we already made a priority in relationship to the strategic plan. So I think it'd be helpful if we took this back to work session basically and really talked through...before we would simply run out and get a... because I think it'd be premature at this point. Charles Folch: Actually the schematic would help you determine costs. And in terms of a, when you're looking at like garage space. Okay, I mean one of the major improvements is you're building more indoor or more enclosed garage space. So let's say we're $150,000.00 short of budget, or let's say we're $200,000.00 short of budget. I mean it's not that big a deal to take a drawing and say okay, we move that outside wall on the end of the garage in 20 feet. Knock offthat cost if we need to. But again, we can't give you very, I can't give you confident numbers on where we're at until we really look at what's involved. We can, we'll probably start offwith some relative size. I think we're looking at probably maybe in the range of 12 to 15,000 square feet but again, if there's a budgetary problem and we can't deal with that. Mayor Mancino: Build it modular? Charles Folch: Exactly. We can adjust that as need fits. But again, it's hard to debate sitting around the table at this point in time how much we have to work with in terms of funding and how much that's going to buy us until we really have an outfit like Amcon set this up for us and really evaluate the costs that are going to be involved with the materials that will be used. And then we can evaluate where we need to maybe cut back or add or whatever the case may be. Or change potential materials. They may have some recommendations on changing some alternative type materials to save cost. Things like that. I think during this process too I'm going to try to work with NSP because they have some energy savings loan, rebate type programs to help change over some energy to more efficient type, energy efficient fixtures, windows, things like that that they basically will cover the cost on a loan and a payback period over a certain number of years which is based on your cost savings or energy savings. There's a lot of things out there I've got in mind here to try and put this piece together but again, I'm just throwing darts right now until we can really take a look at it you know. Mayor Mancino: And we can work with that and do it very modularly as we... You know we have other costs that we're going to be spending, bringing to our planning, etc. So if we took some away from public works expansion and maybe said we only needed to build 10,000 square feet instead of 15, we can kind of see how to do that. Charles Folch: And the intent here too is to show how this, how these phases will all integrate. We want to lay out a master layout and then show okay, step by step each addition is going to fit together like a puzzle here. Mayor Mancino: And how long will it take to do the schematic? Six week turnaround or. Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Charles Folch: We'd like to bring it back I think in two months. We were trying to shoot for maybe the second meeting in February for the Council meeting. We may have to push it back to the first meeting in March but basically about a two month process. Mayor Mancino: So let me bring that back to Councilman Senn. This is, you know I don't think what we want to do is spend a lot ofupfront money and then say we can't do it. Or etc, so if we can be, as far as I'm concerned, very modular and... Councilman Senn: Well yeah, I'd like to clarify that because I mean when I read the goals and objectives and the scope of services, that's not in there at all. I mean you're talking about basically an expansion project all encompassing. Okay I mean so I mean are we now talking about something that they're going to look at just different possible phasings? Different possible incremental approaches. That sort of thing because that's not what I'm reading in here. Charles Folch: That will, we will show an overall layout and then we will show some suggested phasing and the cost associated and then if we have to refine that based on council input, I don't see it as being a problem because again, especially when it's different when you're expanding a finished building like this versus putting up basically a big garage with cinder block walls and... Things can be adjusted a little more readily than they can when you've got an inside finished building like here. Mayor Mancino: I would just want you to be upfront with them about that. That we want to see the options and we may be going back and forth so that Amcon understands the gist of the project. Charles Folch: Sure. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions or comments? Councilman Senn, do you feel comfortable with that? Councilman Senn: Well, I'm not sure I do or don't. I don't know. I look at a lot of the data and there's been a lot of growth and when I compare it back to measurements like increases in street mileage and stuff like that, you know the increase in building size has already increased quite a bit more than the increase in mileage and population, etc so I guess I have some questions as to need for this project at this time. Now... define it now and that's useful any time when everybody wants to go with that, that's fine but I just see much, much higher priority right now in relationship to other things we've discussed like the library and things like that. That we've called out in the strategic plan as higher priorities and I see those...that we really need to proceed more deliberately towards those things and things that may be on the after burner so to speak. Mayor Mancino: So do you feel comfortable saying that we can keep the predesign schematics for use 5 years down the road if we decide? Charles Folch: Sure. I mean it's, it's going to be used. Whether it's used this year or next year or the year after, it's information that will be used, you bet. Mayor Mancino: Well after looking at highway designs and knowing that we can only keep them for two years and then we have to redo the design, it makes us a little wary of spending money as you know. Charles Folch: Unfortunately yeah, you're dealing with outside agencies and their rules and regulations. Here I think we pretty well control our cards as to what we want to do. 10 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. And maybe you can talk with Councilman Senn about some of those expansion and your numbers, etc. May I have a motion please? Councilman Berquist: I move that we authorize Amcon to conduct the pre-construction services as per this proposal dated December 4, 1998, Project 99-1. Mayor Mancino: I'll second that. Councilman Berquist moved, Mayor Mancino seconded that Amcon Corporation be authorized to conduct the pre-construction services in accordance with the proposal dated December 4, 1998, Project 99-1. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF JOINT ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT WITH CARVER COUNTY FOR YEARS 1999-2000. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. A joint assessment agreement was tabled at our last meeting. Or not tabled but continued to this meeting and discussions were to look at soliciting quotes from maybe an outside vendor to do a comparison. Staff, to do that it's time consuming to put an RFP together. To go out and solicit that. Staff would recommend that you direct us to prepare a request for proposal for 1999 to do a true comparison of fees, or services that Carver County provides versus a private sector firm and make that a goal and work session item for staff for 1999. Based on that staff would recommend approval of the 1999-2000 joint assessment agreement with Carver County based on a $7.50 per valuation for 1999. A rate of $7.50 per parcel. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Now you just said that you would, we could prepare an RFP for 1999 to go out and get...and at the same time go ahead and sign Carver County assessment. Todd Gerhardt: With modifications that this be for the 1999 year. Mayor Mancino: How long would it take us to get competitive bids for 19997 A month? Todd Gerhardt: I'd say probably a month to prepare and another month to get them back. I don't now how much research the private companies are going to have to do to go down and... Mayor Mancino: Well aren't they just going to base it on how many households? How many dwelling units we have to assess? Todd Gerhardt: Well I think they're going to want to sit down and take a look at you know what Odin's files are. They'll have to do some sharing of information to create a database. Mayor Mancino: But I mean just to give us a bid... Todd Gerhardt: Well, there may be some specifics that we want to... What areas? How many of the new homes and how many staff people do you want assigned to this? Time schedules. Mayor Mancino: Do we do that right now with Carver County? Todd Gerhardt: No. 11 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Okay. We don't do it right now with Carver County. We don't tell them how many people we want doing it nor do we give them times, etc. Todd Gerhardt: Right. I mean they've allocated at least one full time person to Chanhassen with another individual responsible for commercial property so, and then you'll get the occasional overlap with another staff member to help out. Mayor Mancino: Well we need to sign their agreement by the end of January, correct? For Carver County. ! think that that's what I read as far as what they would like to see. I would like to see us within that period of time just get some competitive bids. See if we can draw up an RFP. I don't know about other council members but. Councilman Berquist: I've got two questions. First question is, are there any other opt outs, are there any opt outs... And the second question, in Orlin's memo refers to the $7.50 is, whatever the new cost is, $7.65 is roughly 45% of the total cost to the county. Mayor Mancino: The average cost per parcel... Todd Gerhardt: Approximately 45% of the actual. Councilman Berquist: So $7.50 is roughly 45% of the average, the actual average cost per parcel so the question then becomes, it would be a fairly safe assumption that any other form of...as an average. Is the county then going to participate in this as they do current...really considering a proposal. Councilman Senn: I'm not understanding the last part. You mean will they still review it? Councilman Berquist: If Carver County, look. Currently we're paying roughly 45% of the actual average cost per parcel. I mean assuming that that number is accurate. Mayor Mancino: I don't know because. Councilman Senn: ! mean the county has their functions in relationship to that. They have to continue one way or the other without charge. I mean that's covered in your taxes you pay the county. We hire them for an additional service over and above that which is where the added charge comes from. Councilman Berquist: How so? Valuation on the parcel is needed by the county as much as it's needed by us. Councilman Senn: I understand that. We pay for that service to come in and do our city. Councilman Berquist: Right. So... Councilman Senn: No. He's saying the $7.50 is 45% of the average cost per parcel. Some parcels cost a lot more. Some parcels cost a lot less. So all he's doing is benchmarking it at 45%. Councilman Berquist: I think what he said is that an average. Every parcel, for sake of round numbers costs $15.00. 12 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Todd Gerhardt: Yeah I would agree with Mr. Berquist. Councilman B erquist: The County is paying half of that and we're on the hook for half of it. That's what I infer by the memo. Councilman Senn: I don't know. The quickest way to find out is to do a quick RFP and get some bids. There's plenty of cities that privately contract to do this so. Councilman Berquist: Well that's the first question. Are there any in Carver County that opt out? out a program. And the second question then is still, if in fact my assumption is accurate, is Carver County willing to participate? Insofar as they won't have the work involved. Opt Councilman Senn: I mean I can't answer you on Carver County. I can answer you that there's a number of, quite a number of cities in Hennepin County that do their own. In fact most all of them do. The Hennepin County assessor does very few of them. So I mean it shouldn't be hard to throw together, get an RFP from one of the cities that does contract with it and just get some quick feedback from private firms in terms of what we might be able to accomplish. Councilman Berquist: The questions that I have don't preclude us from going out and getting a proposal... The questions that I have also should be included in... Mayor Mancino: I agree...what it was because we've never competitively bid this. Todd Gerhardt: Well I think the difficulty that we're going to be up against on this is that there aren't a lot of communities our size that contract for this type of, that I'm aware of. It' s, they're either in-house or they contract with the county. There are a lot of contracts out there with smaller towns and you see the occasional construction in the community that it is fairly easy to maintain. You know a firm to come in and deal with 300 single family building permits and roughly 20 commercial or industrial buildings each year, that's a task. So anybody bidding on this, we wanted to give them clear definition of what they're up against. Mayor Mancino: One of the questions that Councilman Berquist asked was were there any other opt out in Carver County. Are there any other cities that...right around $70,000.00 a year. And would it be worth our while to... Todd Gerhardt: Well we've talked about that in the past and we definitely couldn't do it for the $7.50 per parcel. And just gear up and to have staff on and support staff. The computer system... Mayor Mancino: I would like to see you make a...on January 11th and we still have...I don't know if other council members feel comfortable with that. Have Todd make some preliminary investigations by calling independents and just come back and say what kind of lead time they would need to answer an RFP etc and come back to us on the 11~. Again we have until January 30~ and we can get at least a look preliminary numbers. So may I have a motion please. Councilman Berquist: Move to table. Councilman Senn: Second. 13 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table approval of the joint assessment agreement with Carver County for the years 1999-2000 until the January 11, 1999 meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (Councilman Mason arrived to the meeting during this next item.) ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED 1999 BUDGET. Public Present: Name Address Dennis Unze Patsy Bernhjelm Michael Lee Kerber Leah Hawke Mark Littfin John Wolff Deb Kind Kenneth A. Block 1080 Lyman Court 9380 Kiowa Trail 500 Chanview 7444 Moccasin Trail 8052 Erie Spur 31 Basswood Circle 2351 Lukewood 7015 Dakota Avenue Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. Included in your packet is review of staff's recommended cuts as of 12/07 and the comparison of those with Councilmember Senn's 1207 recommended cuts. And then staff meeting with department heads here this last week and providing you with another list of proposed cuts and shifting of funding sources to other than general fund. Right now staff would open it to any questions that the council has on our proposed 1999 budget. Mayor Mancino: With all these sheets of paper and looking through all the work that has been done. Todd Gerhardt: Everybody has put a lot of time and effort into this and when Mark put his numbers together, he wasn't privy to what our 1207 cuts were and so we tried to doa comparison of those. Showing that we have recommended a $6.2 million. Mark showed $5,900,000.00 and then staff coming in right now with $6,054,000.00. Do you want to go through line item by line item? I do have some staff members here that could update you on what, why we...some of the cuts. Or do you want to just. Mayor Mancino: Why don't we take comments from people who are here first and then. Oh okay. We'll take comments from people that are here from the audience but we'll get you copies in just a moment. So we'll stop for just a second and get copies and get you copies. And we'll take comments. Deb Kind: I have a copy. Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. Deb Kind: So are you ready for me? Mayor Mancino: Do you mind waiting for just a minute so that, if you have a copy and if what you're going to say has to do with a copy and nobody else can follow along with you, would you mind waiting? Deb Kind: I'm not going to refer to the copy really very much but sure. I could wait. 14 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay at this time I'd like to open it up. The budget, the 1999 budget to audience input. If you'd like to come up. State your name and address and please give your input on the 1999 budget and some of the cuts proposed, etc. And increases. You may certainly come up and give input now. Anyone who's here. Deb Kind: My name is Deb Kind. I live on Lukewood Drive in Chanhassen. I'm here because I'm bothered by the conflicting budget numbers coming from City Hall and also to encourage the Council to hold the line on property taxes. I would like the council to either freeze taxes at the '98 level or better yet reduce them. I woUld also like to see general fund spending kept to a 5% increase or less. You may wonder why I did not come to the first Truth in Taxation meeting. It's because our official notice of proposed 1999 taxes showed a city tax increase of only .75%. Our house valuation did not change so the .75% amount should be an accurate reflection of the city's proposed increase. All other areas on the 1999 statement were reduced, including school, county and metro taxes. The .75% amounts to an increase of only $8.55 and I was not too motivated to come to City Hall to dispute such a small increase. So I didn't come...Truth in Taxation meetings. But the city tax increase bothered me in principal. My husband and I already pay over $5,000.00 in total taxes, $1,000.00 of which goes to the city. And we're not interested in paying a penny more. Then I read in the Villager that the city staff wants to increase property tax revenue by 12.8% and increase spending by 1.8%. Where do these numbers come from? Even though with the expected 5% growth of Chanhassen, that leaves 7.8% for current taxpayers. This is not even close to the .75% that I was notified about. It bothers me that this new amount is so different than the official notification. It appears that residents were given an artificially low number to keep us away from the Truth in Taxation meetings. Then I got a copy of the budget packet and it has another totally different set of numbers. A 12% property tax increase and 13% general fund increase. Also I noticed the total funds balance at the end of 1998 was $9.3 million. And then the balance forward number in 1999 is roughly $4.6 million. That's a 56% increase. How did that happen? 56%. That's a pretty big return on investment. I'd like to invest in that. And if we have 14.6 million balance, shouldn't we be looking at reducing property tax revenue? I notice that a large percent of the balance is set aside for required reserve. The required reserve also increased by over 52% since 1998. That also seems like a big increase. What's the required reserve for? Do we really need a contingency fund in addition to the reserve? Some may think that this council's micro managing. I think that over seeing the budget is your job and I support the council's efforts to make sense of the city budget. I encourage the council to find the answers to my questions and to other questions that I'm sure you have. Please freeze property taxes at 1998 levels or consider reducing taxes and hold general fund spending to a 5% increase. And in my attempt to understand the budget I created some excel documents. Using the most recent numbers that you all have. The 12/18 numbers and I'm wondering ifI can give them to the council at this time. Mayor Mancino: Please do. And then I want to get a copy of your questions. Deb Kind: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to address the council? Leah Hawke: 7444 Moccasin Trail. I guess I just had a question. At the last council meeting, Mayor you said there would not be a discussion as to whether or not there would be a public safety director spot. I'm a little confused coming away from that because either it's in or it's out. So I'm here to ask, the budget that we have in front of us. It looks like Councilman Senn recommended that the public safety director position be removed. Is the final column telling me that the staff recommended it be back in? 15 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Mayor Mancino: First of all the staff is not recommending or I don't think Councilman Senn was recommending whether we cut or do or not have the public safety director in or out at city hall. Just one second. But the money that is associated with that gross salary is out. But it is also covered by, and we will continue to make sure that it is covered by the surplus that we have. Leah Hawke: Okay. Because my question is, the city ordinances provide for a public safety department and a public safety director and my question is, can you in adopting the budget in effect change city ordinances because we do have a city procedure for changing ordinances that you adopted in January of '98. My question is if you take it out of the budget, those dollars, I understand there's a surplus that can cover it but my question is, if you take it out of the budget dollars are you in effect changing a city ordinance without following the appropriate process. Mayor Mancino: We'd have to refer to our in-house counsel for that. Leah Hawke: And are you going to do that before or after you make your decision? Mayor Mancino: Well either way you call it, we will still have the money to cover the public safety director's position so Leah regardless, excuse you. Regardless, that money will be there whether we call it public safety director or surplus. Now staff has given us some suggestions of what to do with the surplus. We have not adopted that yet. Leah Hawke: With all due respect, I would like to go on record as having my question answered by Roger Knutson. Mayor Mancino: That's fine. Leah Hawke: And I will just say that I would hope the City Council would find out whether it's actions are appropriate or not appropriate before they take the action here tonight to the extent that you are... Patsy Bernhjelm: My name is Patsy Bernhjelm. ! live at 9380 Kiowa Trail and I guess I just have to say that I am not happy with the answer that you gave Ms. Hawke. I think that the question still remains. It's a violation of a city ordinance. Mayor Mancino: And I said I could not answer that. I don't know the answer to that. Patsy Bernhjelm: So wouldn't it be prudent then to not adopt the budget pending further investigation? Mayor Mancino: I'm not even sure we are going to adopt the budget tonight. Whether we will get through it all. Patsy Bernhjelm: Okay, then that's fair. Mayor Mancino: Okay. In fact why isn't Roger here tonight with us? Todd Gerhardt: I tried calling him and we didn't connect. Mayor Mancino: Anyone else? Wishing to address the council. Anyone else wishing to address the council on budget items? Okay, then we will go forward and, Todd what would you like us to do next? As we look at this budget. 16 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Councilman Senn: First of all better move we close the Truth in Taxation hearing. Mayor Mancino: ...close the public part of the Truth in Taxation hearing. Todd Gerhardt: I haven't had a chance to go through Council's...recent proposed cuts. Mayor Mancino: ...tonight and then take all those comments together and have in a work session...can't keep going back and forth... Todd Gerhardt: Well right and you know I don't know if a regular council meeting procedure like this is the appropriate way to sit down and roll up your sleeves and come to a resolution on some of these items. I think it needs quite a bit of discussion from staff standpoint of why they feel some of these items are still needed and. Mayor Mancino: Would you like to...would that work? Todd Gerhardt: Sure. Sure, we can do that. Mayor Mancino: ... Todd Gerhardt: Well let's start with the public safety department portion. Mayor Mancino: Did everyone understand what we were saying? Okay, two things. Number one. I asked our city manager which way he would like to go now and right now we have before us again, we're kind of going back and forth on the numbers. We have been presented numbers from staff and we went through the numbers and did kind of a line item, yes or no. They would like to be able to respond to us and then we're going to have probably one more work session with them. Kind of roll up our sleeves. Before we do, so that would give time to have our attorney, Roger Knutson, find out the answer to your question and it would give us some time between now and then to listen to staff tonight and some of your concerns as what you see cut and we can kind of take our notes and then come back together and finish it up next Monday. So with that, Todd if you would like to go ahead. Todd Gerhardt: Sure. Let's kind of start with the public safety department portion of it. Under the discussion regarding the sirens. Right now we've allocated $25,000.00. Mayor Mancino: Would you show me where we are so everybody can kind of follow along? Okay, so where we're going to is, tonight what you received, the December 18, 1999 budget memorandum. And we're on what page? Todd Gerhardt: Page 3. Under uses of the 1998 reserves. Staff is recommending that tornado warning sirens, that $25,000.00 of the reserves, which are approximately $700,000.00. I chose $850,000.00 but we believe that number to be closer to the $700,000.00 amount. And that we would use $25,000.00 out of the reserves and then the remaining $50,000.00 be allocated out of those sirens in tax increment districts. Is staff's recommendation on funding the remaining $75,000.00 for sirens. As to. Mayor Mancino: Todd, may I ask you a question on that. At our last meeting you said that sirens were already included in the t 999 budget at our last meeting under, was it under public safety? You said it 17 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 was, the entire amount was already included. We've asked that at two work sessions. The first one it was not included and the second one it was not included. But this last one it was. Pam Snell: It was included at the last public hearing. Mayor Mancino: Okay, at the last public hearing. Pam, where is it? Pam Snell: It was under public safety administration capital outlay. Mayor Mancino: Public safety administration capital outlay. Pam Snell: Yep. Mayor Mancino: And I'm sorry. Why would it be moved? Pam Snell: We proposed that it be paid out of 1998 reserves. Mayor Mancino: And why not out of capital outlay under public safety? I mean is there. Pam Snell: To lower the property tax levy. Mayor Mancino: But is that general fund? Pam Snell: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Then you're saying it's a general fund expense. Okay. And is the reason that, well it would still be under general fund if it were a 1998 surplus. Pam Snell: Right. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So either place it would be under general fund. Okay. So under public safety administration we should see a $75,000.00 decrease. Pam Snell: It's already been removed. The budget that we presented already reflects the reduction from public safety to be funded out of 1998 reserves. Mayor Mancino: Well you know it's funded out of, $25,000.00 is funded out of reserves. $50,000.00 is from. Pam Snell: And then $15,000.00 out of Gateway tax increment district and $15,000.00 out of your downtown tax increment district. Mayor Mancino: No. 17 Pam Snell: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. $15,000.00 out of the Gateway TIF district. $15,000.00 out of, is that District So we've got $30,000.00. And then there's an additional $25,000.00. 18 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Pam Snell: No. It's 55 total for 1999. Mayor Mancino: But the other 25 then is from the. Todd Gerhardt: How much have we spent already this year? Pam Snell: Approximately $50,000.00. Approximately $50,000.00. We haven't paid the invoices yet. Todd Gerhardt: I thought the total was 124. Pam Snell: I would have to go back and look. This is what we had discussed back several weeks ago of what still needed to be funded. Mayor Mancino: ... sirens covered. $15,000.00 from Gateway TIF. $15,000.00 from District No. 1 TIF, or HRA. $25,000.00 from the 1998 surplus. That gives us a total funding. Pam Snell: For 1999 of $55,000.00. Mayor Mancino: Of $55,000.00. So I'm assuming then. Pam Snell: That the rest will be paid in 1998. Mayor Mancino: Which is approximately $100,000.00. I think the estimate was 150 and we probably came down. And is that, the other $100,000.00 coming out of the surplus for 1998 also? The contingency fund? Pam Snell: We did a re-estimate for 1998 and that's included in our re-estimate in the 1998 budget. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thanks for making that clear... Todd Gerhardt: New half time support staff. Mark had recommended a $6,000.00...tO that. Staff is still recommending that the position stay in place. Steve Kirchman had provided me with some information on the average number of calls. The highest number of calls per day that we receive through public safety is 254. The average call per day is about 162. Usually I have about two people, occasionally one person receiving building permits and walk-in. Walk-ins are the average of 47 per day and we've had a high as 96. So based on those numbers, we would ask that the increase in the part time secretarial position stay. Mayor Mancino: So excuse me. Right now under public safety, I just want to make sure I've got this right. Under inspection, enforcement plan review and general inspection we have full time salary... Todd Gerhardt: Correct. And Betty's time is also full time that is split between fire administration and back-up. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: As to adding an inspection intern. Mark's proposal was to cut that position. Staff has agreed to not include that as a part of the '99 budget. Inspectors uniforms. No change there. Copying machine, $12,000.00. Staff is still recommending that the copying machine be included as a part of the 19 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 '99 budget. Right now, what wc are doing is we have a maintenance agreement with a copier and that's running on an average of about, was it about $2,500.00 a year? Steve Kirchman: $2,200.00. Todd Gerhardt: $2,200.00 a year. With any proposed increase for 19997 Steve Kirchman: It will increase to $2,500.00. Todd Gerhardt: 25. We expect that again to go up after reviewing some of the costs here in the last few years, it's been running.., approximately that amount of money to continue to repair the machine so staff is still recommending the replacement of that copier. Mayor Mancino: So again, the $2,500.00 maintenance, do you have a maintenance agreement with, and includes administration and fire department administration, you have a $285.00 a month maintenance agreement with the fire department also. Those are two copiers. Question on the memo that talked about a $6,000.00 repair. How come that $6,000.00 repair at the beginning of this memo about copying machines and we have a maintenance agreement with Ikon. I mean I know they don't cover drums but they do cover, at least every one that I've had, cover parts except for the drums. Do you have any idea Steve on that? Steve Kirchman: You're referencing the cover memo here? Mayor Mancino: Yeah, that says this is a very small copier having an original cost of $8,000.00. The question was in the $6,000.00 repair cost. Steve Kirchman: The $6,000.00 repair cost is a cost that Don pulled off of what the repairs would have cost if we didn't have a maintenance agreement. We've got a list saying we spent $6,000.00 in repairs but we didn't really spend that. We spent the $2,200.00. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. How old of a copier is it? Steve Kirchman: It was purchased in January of '95. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thanks. Just trying to put the two together. Seeing the maintenance agreement that we're paying for every month and seeing a $6,000.00 repair cost so thank you. Steve Kirchman: Can I add something else? Mayor Mancino: Sure. Steve Kirchman: It's true, we've got a maintenance agreement and it's going to cost us $2,500.00 next year and maybe 28, you know I don't know what the year after that. And they'll keep, they'll have to maintain it for that as long as they keep giving us an agreement. But the problem with the machine is more, not that it breaks down but that we're using it too much. We're, it's not a big enough machine. When we purchased it, it was but it's, you know we're making more copies now. Mayor Mancino: They always make. 20 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Steve Kirchman: There's more people using it and more requirements so the problem really is, it's not designed for the use that we're putting it to now. Mayor Mancino: And that they gauge by how many copies a year that you make, etc. Steve Kirchman: Yes. Based on the number of copies we make, exactly. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you Steve. Steve Kirchman: Okay. I'll stay up here until he's finished with me, or are you finished with me? Todd Gerhardt: That's all I had for the public safety. There was the moving of the public safety director's salary from the general fund and moving that to the reserve account. Other than that, that's all you have for the public safety. Right now let's move to the fire department. Mayor Mancino: Before you go on. I mean it shows in here, it's kind of a move but your suggestion here doesn't particularly point out clearly that it would be the public safety director's salary. Is that what? Todd Gerhardt: Well the council would have a contingency fund of a dollar amount that would be agreed upon at the time of budget approval and as the city council meets in January, February to discuss the long term organization of the public safety department, at that time you would make a budget reallocation for that position if council wants to see that. Mayor Mancino: But again you did not put that in as a line item specifically for public safety director salary. Todd Gerhardt: No I did not. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Okay. Todd Gerhardt: At this time let's move to the fire department's proposals here .... is to stay in line with other cities on increase fire call per call and officer pay. We are proposing to increase approximately $31,000.00 for that included in the 1999 budget and. Pardon me? 167 Do you know why we showed 31 on that one Pam? I'm looking at page 1 for the audience. Mayor Mancino: And how far down are you? You're at. Todd Gerhardt: Under 122, fire prevention administration. Mayor Mancino: Oh you're under, okay. John, would you like to come forward so you can answer and be ready. Thank you. So again John you're saying that the increase in fire fighter per call and officer pay is not a grand total of 31 but a total of 167 John Wolff: Yeah, the '99 budget request is $180,000.00. The '98 budget, according to my figures, was $163,000.00. And there was a reduction in what was anticipated workers compensation costs. There's a $20,000.00 expected increase to change the call pay and the salaries and there's approximately a $5,600.00 reduction in anticipated workers comp cost and it nets out at $180,000.00. 21 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Mayor Mancino: How do you get the decrease in workers comp? John Wolff.' That's something that staff, city hall staff provided us. I'm not sure exactly where that number came from. Pam Snell: That's based on activity that we get from Dolliff Insurance. And I believe, where I came up with the $31,000.00 increase in fire fighter pay was a comparison of the 1998 re-estimate to 1999 budget which is, the '98 re-estimate is $157,000.00 with a reduction in workers comp and the 1999 budget, proposed budget was $185,000.00. Mayor Mancino: So your request, I mean you know...passing this but I would just like to say that your request for a call pay from $7.00 to $8.00 seems very much in line with, as I look through the DCA compilation of other cities...that it's just right in there. It's not top. It's not bottom. Chaska's like still at $2.58 a call. John Wolff: Actually we just got a study from Anoka/Champlin we'll share with you. It's specific to just call pay. I think Chaska was in the $8.00, actually $8.78. Shakopee's $8.00 even. Anoka/Champlin is $9.80. The area average, there were about 20 departments there, was $8.67 and that was performed in the spring of '98. Mayor Mancino: Well I also got the impression, I mean I obviously...but a lot of them just tie it to CPI so that there isn't 10 years of no increase and then all ora sudden this big, huge one...like it might be a good policy. John Wolff: I think it would be. I think it would make sense for future planning. Mayor Mancino: ...helpful for us to have is maybe the difference between officers pay from. I know it's a 24% increase or something like that so again that might be worth it to see what it was originally. What it is now and again some sort of policy so that there is not the peaks and valleys that we're doing it consistently. I think would be helpful. John Wolff: Sure. We can certainly provide that. I have that in my file. Todd Gerhardt: At this point if John could go through sort of their proposed operating and capital, equipment proposed to be purchased this year. Staff has come up with approximately $20,000.00 in additional cuts that they can hold off. At this time I'd ask John to go through what he is proposing now to purchase for the '99 budget. Mayor Mancino: John, at the end of it could you also compare it with Councilman Senn's suggestions? Or his recommendations so it'd be helpful to us. John Wolff: Sure. Just so I don't forget that point maybe I'll just start with that. Councilman Senn suggested a 5% increase to our operational budget. Which is about $14,000.00 and a $35,000.00 capital outlay budget which is about a $30,000.00 increase to the capital budget. Our capital budget last year was approximately $5,000.00. What our proposal, which is inclusive within your package, there's a couple ways to look at it. But just kind of putting the numbers down and sort of just talking about it on an overview basis. What we're looking at, if we pull out the capital and the one large non-recurring expense within the contractual and services budget of $14,000.00 for the floor refurishment. And the capital piece is approximately $44-$45,000.00. If we pull that away, what we're asking for is an 11% 22 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 increase to our operating budget. Now we recognize that this is higher than other, well then just the overall growth within the city. It's higher than what other departments are asking for, but if we kind of take a couple steps back and find out why we're here, maybe that will help us understand our situation. And I'd like to just take a moment to do that. Our city population has grown 50% approximately since 1991. Our calls have gone up 90%. From about 400 to 750. Our overall city budget's increased by 85% for that same period whereas the fire department budget has increased 36%. If we look at just the fixed costs portion which is not the salary because the salaries and the call pay portion has gone up because we have taken on more services there or we perform more service there. The fixed cost portion has grown approximately 19% over that 8 year period. Our cost per citizen is $15.23 which is about 30% below the metro area average for volunteer fire departments. A couple of other interesting points. Our call pay, as you just mentioned, what we just spoke about, is 23% below the area average. Our pension benefits are between 30% and 50% below other area fire departments if you look at the defined benefit plans. We are starting a study on the defined contribution option and there are a number of fire departments in the northern metro area that have embraced that and we will hopefully have that information for you for our meeting...and just to the way we find or look at handling our growing plant and equipment structure over there. I went back in the records and I couldn't find anything that showed any real significant increase to our repair or our maintenance budget over this period and our plant and equipment is growing significantly with the new equipment that we have and the new facilities we have added over the last 10 years. Some of our major concerns are that we need to maintain a cost effective and viable organization. If you look at the cost of a volunteer fire department versus a full time fire department, we're about a quarter to a third of those costs so the value that we add for our citizens is significant. But to do that we need to maintain adequate and capable members and one of our greatest challenges is the issue of maintaining membership. Our calls have doubled in the last 10 years approximately. The demands from family and job outside of the volunteer fire department has really challenged our members and turnover has been significant in the last couple of years. In '98 alone we lost 6 members. Actually 8. 2 came back and quite frankly we think we might lose one of the folks that came back for the same reasons that the individual left originally. Our budget's not growing with the increase service demands. Our pay and benefits aren't competitive. Not that fire fighters actually shop from Eden Prairie to Minnetonka, but if you look at where our members live, there are significant number of our members that could respond to either Chaska, Eden Prairie, Excelsior or Minnetonka and they would live in the area. So that may be a challenge down the road and it is a concern for us as leaders of the fire department. The investment that we've made in maintaining and repairing and replacing our plant and equipment needs to be increased. And we need new, we need to take advantage of the new equipment available so that we can provide our services in the safest possible way and taking full advantage of technology to make us as efficient as possible. And so these are some of the issues that we have talked to you about in our work sessions and that we've addressed in our proposal. So in summary, what we're looking at for this year is really a catch up. We're hoping that if we can get our operating budget up to the 11% range this year and we may need a slightly higher increase next year, we feel that by the year 2000, that we will be in line with other area fire departments and that we will be looking at more typical growth related based on the services that we perform, versus a catch up type of situation that I find us in this year. The net dollar increase to our operating budget is approximately $32,000.00 if you look at pulling away the non-recurring costs. One of the things that we would like to be able to do is, with your permission of course, is based on what you do come back from a financial perspective, that you allow us to prioritize the equipment or the technology or recruiting or benefit issues that we've requested. And so depending on what does come back from the council relative to actual dollar amounts. Mayor Mancino: I think that would be very helpful to have you prioritize what's the most important for you. 23 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 John Wolff: And we have some of that documentation right here. In fact we can share that with you right now if you'd like. Mayor Mancino: Okay. John Wolff: What you'll be getting here is, it's basically a line item of all the cost increases that we've requested in our budget and it's in priority order. The first three items are either a cost reduction or a no cost change, and they were just put at the top just so we could start with the neutral or reductions. They're not necessarily the most important issues but starting with number 4 on that list, we begin to show you where the priorities are. And the comments sort of address the areas that we've talked in the past. Attracting and retaining members. Increasing capability, safety or effectiveness so it sort of catalogs it for you also. Or a repair and maintenance of plant and equipment issue. Those are the three major areas that we identify. And I would be happy to take questions that anyone may have regarding these priorities or these specific issues. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. This is, you know it's very helpful to find out what's the most important to you. Give us just a second to look at the list. I'll ask a question. Infrared rescue device. So many of your calls are not you know fire in the house, fire in the commercial building. So many of them, 70% are around medical and around accidents, etc. Why the infrared rescue device? John Wolff: Well it's a significant safety and effectiveness improvement that the fire service has now has, it's now available to the fire service. And it's, while the frequency of house fires are low relative to other calls. Less than 1% of working house fires where we have to do a search and rescue situation, the amount of danger involved to not only the occupants of the home but also the fire fighters going in, it is the probably the most high risk activity that we perform and with the technology of the infrared cameras or viewing devices, our fire fighters basically have eyes where they didn't before and it's literally, if everybody had to go to the council meeting with a blindfold on versus being able to see what you're doing, it's night and day. And so it's not like TV where you can see inside a fire, you know where the made for TV movies, Backdraft or TV shows. When there's a fire, the smoke banks down within a couple of minutes and our fire fighters and victims are unable to see so it would allow our fire fighters to get to victims quicker because they would see them faster. They also would avoid dangerous parts of the structure. Whether there's a hole in the floor or there's a significant flame activity above the smoke area. The second value that the infrared device adds, and it does come into play with more of the situations we run into, is that it would allow us to locate hidden fire which is a significant part of fire fighting operations. And a number of the departments we've talked to that use these devices that they get a lot of use in that area and it adds a lot of value in terms of property conservation and so forth. Being able to quickly find the hidden fire behind the wall and so forth. Councilman Senn: John, in terms of, in personnel services you're showing an increase of $28,150.00 is an 18% increase. Now on your priority list that you just handed us, can you show me where that $28,000.00 is? John Wolff: Yeah, quite frankly I come up with a total of $20,000.00 and change for salary increases and I think what we have here, there's been a number of iterations of the budget and the budget process is, I have to keep throwing away the ones that aren't date the most current you know for myself personally and we've been able to rerun the numbers off of, because as we get closer to the end of the year, there are less assumptions in the data and I'll say that some of the earlier iterations had significant assumptions and some of those assumptions were wrong. So what we come up with, if just changing call pay from $7.00 to $8.00 is approximately an $11,000.00 change to the salary budget. To the 4020 line. And then 24 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 there is a change for salaries themselves from $19,200.00 to $23,000.00 and change, which are the officers salaries and I'm trying to. Councilman Senn: The $3,100.007 John Wolff: There you go. Councilman Senn: Is that the $11,250 above. You've got $3, i00.00 there and then you've got. John Wolff: And then there's a small change to the general fund which is, that's a part of the pension program. It's a dollar per call per man hour. Personnel hour and that would go to a dollar and a quarter. And I believe that gets us to the number. Councilman Senn: Well if you're talking the $20,000.00, I think I see the $20,000.00. You've got $11,250.00 on the... You've got $3,100.00 in salary increase and you have $6,048.00 i,n training pay increase. John Wolff: That's right. The training pay is the other one. Councilman Senn: So Pam, the 185 number is not the correct number any longer? Pam Snell: We've got personnel costs of $180,000.00 in there. If you look at your 1999 budget under public safety/fire administration personnel services. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions? John Wolff: Just a final comment. There were some items that typically have come out of, at least formally came out of reserve funds, like vehicle purchase. The radios are new and this is, I don't know how much background the council has relative to the radio change that's going to occur in Carver County, but we would be happy to actually sit down and spend some time maybe at a future work session but we're looking at approximately $100,000.00 cost that I keep, I'm not the expert. The financial expert. To me that would be like a 15 year amortization and if you started that today you could maybe present value that so in terms of how that would come out of the budget, I guess I would leave that to the experts but. Mayor Mancino: But the change over is for, to have it done by 2007. John Wolff: That would be the tail end of the changeover. We would be one of the last departments and our hope is that we could be in fact one of the first departments to change over because it does increase capabilities also. The 800 megahertz has a much stronger capability in terms of you know working in and outside of large buildings and going through concrete and so forth. And just carrying from one part of town to the next. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Thank you. Mark, do you have anything to add? Mark Littfin: No, he did a fine job. Mayor Mancino: Now it's interesting that we never...internal revenue fund as a part of it. 25 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Pam Snell: All vehicles are budgeted in the internal service fund. Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, internal service fund. But that has never included the fire chief. Todd Gerhardt: No, it's in there. Mayor Mancino: Is it? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. It's a Blazer... Mayor Mancino: Alright, thank you. We're taking notes fast and furiously. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, we're going to skip through public works department because of no change on either side. Vehicle equipment fund. We continue to recommend that we fund that project at the recommended amount of $430,000.00 and just to stay up with our equipment purchases, it's essential that, we talked about with increase in firemens per call pay, that you tie it to some type of CPI but you don't want to get peaks and valleys. You don't want to see a $600,000.00 bill one year and then a $200,000.00 in another so staff is recommending that that remain at the $440,000.00 rate. Mayor Mancino: And I would just like to speak to that philosophically and that is, I think for the last three years we have used that fund up completely every year and so that we don't have peaks and valleys, I mean I would like to see that funding stay the same but also looking at the vehicles and making sure that we're not using that full funding every single year. So that when we do have to buy a new fire truck or a new expensive vehicle, that we have those reserves on hand. So again it doesn't mean just because it's funded $430,000.00 a year that you use it all up. Excuse me, can we close the door? Thank you. Todd Gerhardt: I would agree with that philosophy and would leave it up to public works director and our maintenance superintendent to review those equipment and give council a report at the time of awarding bid on those. Or soliciting bids. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Yes, do you have a question? Oh okay. Todd Gerhardt: Okay, that moves us into the park and recreation department that Todd Hoffman, our ark and Rec Director did to go through some of his proposed '99 expenditures. Todd H0ffman: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. I'll continue to go offofpage 1 and make comments in response to Councilman Senn's recommendations of 12/7. I'll be addressing five separate funds that have to do with parks and recreation. We'll start with the park and recreation administration. Both Councilman Senn and staff support the addition of a park department secretary. That is one vacancy or hole in our department which is long overdue and we believe it will increase the efficiency of our staff members that we currently have a great deal. Mayor Mancino: How long have you wanted one? Todd Hoffman: Secretary? Many years. Mayor Mancino: Pardon? Todd Hoffman: Many years. 26 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Many years, okay. Todd Hoffman: Approximately, we estimate approximately a third of the work we do on a daily basis could be accomplished by a department secretary and so those dollars that are currently expended from my salary, Jerry's salary, Patty's salary are really not, should not be taken out of that area. The second item in administration is the Chaska Community Hockey Association contribution of $6,000.00, and that was approved by the City Council this past winter. Park and recreation administration, second printing ora park map. Three years ago the city printed a park and trail map. It's the full color brochure that you'll I believe all would recognize and I have the remaining half a dozen in my bottom drawer. Mayor Mancino: We can't cut that. I mean you know the citizens use that constantly Todd. That's just my little you know. Now was that suggested to cut? Todd Hoffman: Yes. Councilman Senn: Not by me. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn you suggested to cut printing our map? Councilman Senn: No. No. I did not. Todd Hoffman: No. Mayor Mancino: And I'm sorry, why would you be recommending printing. Todd Hoffman: To make it through a year and then bring it back next year. Mayor Mancino: But we certainly passed it out. People have used it... Todd Hoffman: Absolutely. Absolutely. Mayor Mancino: And what would be the quantity of printing? Todd Hoffman: About 10,000. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Todd Hoffman: Jumping to 145, recreation programs. There's a variety of items. Special recreation services. We talked about this at a past meeting. $2,500.00 to co-op with West Hennepin Community Services and their adaptive recreation section. It provides just in co-oping with them and better access to their service for our residents. Soccer goals for Bandimere Park, $4,500.00. And Councilman Senn asked that that be moved to Fund 410, park acquisition. Park and trail acquisition development. Then we also talked about having the associations purchase those soccer goals and that would be our first move is to ask the association if they could purchase them. If not, we certainly agree that that could be funded out of 410 at that amount. Utilities for Bandimere and City Center Park. We're building new parks. With $6 million of additional improvements in 1998 alone, we incur additional costs to maintain and to provide services at those locations. This essentially pays for the lighting of the ballfields. Recreation programs. Additional portable wanning houses and staff and utilities, $3,500.00. Over the 27 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 past 10 years we have added a park, a neighborhood park, an average of one park per year and about 50% of those receive neighborhood rinks and as such we incur additional costs on an annual basis. And yes we did start flooding around the clock this morning at 6:30 a.m. and we will flood continuously until Christmas morning and all 14 of our rinks should have ice on them by Christmas vacation. Councilman Berquist: I was hoping we'd get by without an ice this year. Todd Hoffman: Some communities, by January 10th if they have not maintained rinks, they'll just completely...the program for the entire year. Christmas vacation is a real important part in that program. We switch then to the Lake Ann Park operations and the lifeguards at $23,000.00 are included in the 1999 budget. Moving to park maintenance. Lake Ann access. Councilman Senn: Just to make one thing clear. Nothing that Todd has covered so far is anything that I suggested cuts to. He's simply going through his laundry list of increases that he asked for. Todd Hoffman: Correct. And I'll make that clear as I go through. Lake Ann access road and parking lot and trail. We need about $150,000.00 in addition allocations from water resources to address the drainage and the runoff problems that we have at Lake Ann Park. If you look at the road, we have two issues. Over 50% of the entire old road and parking lot is severely alligatored. On an annual basis that fails and we replace it and patch it. And then the second issue, which we're not very proud of as a conununity is that we do not have surface water management in Lake Ann Park. So we're taking the oils and the residues off of those parking lots and draining them directly into Lake Ann...I believe is good stewardship so we would like to see that changed. Mayor Mancino: And can we do some of that in-house again? Much of the work that we've done in the, in Michael's neighborhood where we've gone in and done some creek work and etc with our own staff. As far as building retention ponds, etc in the area and pre-treat it before it gets to Lake Ann. Todd Hoffman: We may be able to do that. This is a larger, where we're doing some of the in-house work, they tend to be a small, single focused project whereas this we would be. Mayor Mancino:... Todd Hoffman: Or we would be bidding the entire reconstruction of the parking lot and what you're going to see happen, if it's approved, is that everything's going to come out. It's going to start from new and to try to integrate city forces into a project like that becomes somewhat inefficient but we could certainly address it as we take a feasibility study. And again, Councilman Senn asked that, or recommended that that be moved, I believe that was to Fund 410. Under the park acquisition and development. Staff does not believe that that fund can absorb those costs and we would recommend that that be paid up in 1998 excess revenue. Meadowgreen Park. Todd Gerhardt: Before you go on, could you just, or Pam, update the council on the resources in 410. I think there's a difference of opinion regarding the balance in that account. Can you update them on 4107 Todd Hoffman: Sure. The referendum approved $4.gmillion for expenditures for park improvements. As the feasibility studies were prepared for both the trails and the park projects, it became evident that in order to meet our goals as a community, the dollars allocated to those projects would not be sufficient. Those issues were addressed in length with the council at that time. Response to that included, or was two fold. For community parks, really 2/3 of the complete 1998 budget allocation for Fund 410, park 28 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 acquisition, park and trail acquisition and development was $100,000.00 each for Bandimere and City Center and so that takes the fund down $200,000.00. And then the trails was even a bigger impact upon the fund. That was up to $300,000.00 to fund the complete construction of all seven trail segments which were included in the referendum, and so those, this fund has taken a halfa million dollar hit in 1998 to finance those projects to ensure that they were successful and met our full intent. So what the commission has recommended the City Council do is take a conservative approach to Fund 410. Take at least 2 years, if not 3 to rebuild it and make, that it has the strength to carry us into the future. One thing we want to be careful as a conununity, to hesitate to think about. Fund 410 right now is getting some front end money. It has to carry us to our full maturity as a community and fulfill what we have specified under our comprehensive plan for park and trail development. It has to do it all when we're all said and done. We are currently upfronting or building some money in up front by collecting 1/3 of all park development right at the time of development, at the time that the plat is approved. So you see that money coming in and the money, as the fund goes up, the tendency is to use it for everything that needs to happen in the community and what that fund has really been established for is to develop new parks in our growing areas of our community and new trails. And over the years we have abused that fund by spending those dollars for redevelopment of existing parks and reconstruction in existing parks. And the commission did not feel that that was a proper use of those dollars. Mayor Mancino: But we've also been able to supplement that fund by using TIF dollars in TIF districts. We just, as a commission and council put in $200,000.00 for additional land in the Gateway TIF district. In that area we also fund through that TIF district, that increment. We also funded to the roadway and the landscaping in the wetland area so we have also been able to add, in creating more parks and more trails, TIF districts too so that is another source that we have used quite well in Chanhassen. Not just this particular fund. I do have a question about this fund so maybe at another time this week you and I can look over it because the numbers that I'm getting from you and Pam don't seem to be what I've got from our 1998 budget. I have an itemized list so just to go over it with you so that I understand it better would be helpful. Thank you. Todd Hoffman: We'll move on then to the Meadow Green parking lot overlay and that's an item which we feel can be pushed off for a year. Currently it's oxidizing to a great extent and we do not want to risk the break-up of that piece of pavement...so we need to get to it in the next year or two. Tennis court repair at the recreation center. We funded it $20,000.00 or requested $20,000.00. What we're recommending we do is again, in talking with the school district, request that they fund 50% of that repair which would be approximately $10,000.00 and so we'd reduce that by $10,000.00. Councilman Berquist: Have they agreed to that? Todd Hoffman: No .... the new superintendent as of yet. The hockey boards for City Center Park, $30,000.00. We have ice back here. What we'll do this year is build up snow banks. We do not have hockey boards built into any budgets as of yet. We are estimating that we can reduce that by $10,000.00 and build one of those rinks and then do a second one in the following year. Councilman Senn: What happened to the boards that were there before? Todd Hoffman: They were removed and demolished as a part of the project. 22 years old. They were repaired annually by a sentence of service workers at no cost to the city. For the last dozen years or so. Skate park for City Center Park. We feel that this component of the park system is going to be a, just will represent something that is missing. The value of this investment will be tremendous. The response that we will receive from the youth. The skateboards and inline skating and aggressive skating. 29 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Councilman Berquist: ... Todd Hoffman: I haven't heard. But stories of success out of each one of these is what you hear. Just to bring the council up to date on the current concept. This piece of pavement is so close to City Hall that we do not believe chainlink fencing it with an 8 foot chainlink fence and then putting a padlock and a gate on it and establishing hours and guards is the way to go. We think this facility can work 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. like any other park facility in our commUnity and then if we need to get more proactive, go from there. But right now we'd like to put the jumps and the ramps up there and let the youth of our community use it. Mayor Mancino: Do we have a sign about liability, etc in those areas? Todd Hoffman: Do we have a sign? Mayor Mancino: A sign. Something about stated liability and who should be skating. Todd Hoffman: We'll certainly provide some signage at the park. Liability, these facilities nationwide has not been a big problem. It's an obvious concern which comes up but again it's proven to be, in all recreation the parents, participants recognize a certain level of risk and assume liability for that but we will sign it...for those risks. We already have them on our front steps on a nightly basis. I talk to them there so they can skateboard on our front steps or on a facility designed for them. Light equipment operator under park maintenance. Again going back to the...a year for our park department. We have five full time people that maintain our parks on a current basis. And I'm as much to blame as anyone for falling behind in our park maintenance, in our area of park maintenance. We have always prided ourselves on the maintenance and upkeep of our parks and it took a few outsiders who work in my industry to point out that, who happen to live or work in the area, to point out that we've been fhlling behind. We have a park superintendent who manages our office. A park foreman who manages our crew and we have three left to manage and we have 27 park sites. Over 500 acres. 21 miles of parks and we are falling behind on maintaining these on an annual basis. Councilman Berquist: It's nice that they're noticing a change. Todd Hoffman: For the worst. Quickly moving through the rest. 50% forestry technician. $19,000.00. Everybody's recommending that that be cut. I would like to put a plug in for the trees however. Just a quick inventory shows that we have invested well over a million dollars in public trees in our community in the past oh, dozen years or so. And those trees are often ignored. They're at the bottom of the heap for our department and I think the value of having somebody keeping track of them and keeping watch over them and maintaining them would be well invested. Money well invested and would have returns much higher than the investment that would be required. Recreation center coordinator. This is not new money. The $40,000.00 in a salary. That person is currently working there as a recreation center greeter at the center and what we are doing is aligning the responsibilities in a different fashion. I feel the benefit which we're going to receive for, this is a shift in personnel. A shift in how we're operating, managing the facility and the benefits we're going to receive will far outstrip the cost. The additional costs in there are really rolled over in the $5,000.00 which you have just on the next item. Mayor Mancino: Todd, isn't the recreation center coordinator, isn't that Patty's position and it's part of our 1999 budget? 30 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Todd Hoffman: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Where, Patty's position is not on here. Todd Hoffman: No. Patty's position. Mayor Mancino: Okay, which has not been filled at this time. Todd Hoffman: No. No. I chose not to fill it to allow for 6 months absence in the department and to move forward with staffing changes. We have significant staffing changes that we're asking you for in 1999. Mayor Mancino: So you are not going to fill it? Todd Hoffman: Yes we are. I chose to wait until we had the entire reorganization designed. The recreation center really hit a low point in staffing. We're short on staffing. We're in a more or less just a basic operation mode and need to move forward with these positions to get our department back up to a level which we can provide the service that we feel is necessary to the community. The $5,000.00 in recreation center staffing. Again, a portion of that is to allow that coordinator position to come on full time. There will be somebody there at the center Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. to manage those employees. Self supporting programs. $15,000.00 increase or decrease in self-supporting program has to have an accompanying increase or decrease in revenues and so those balance annually. An intern. We have lowered that cost or that is an investment from $5,600.00 down to $4,000.00 by cutting the time that that intern would be in our office. These interns come in seasonally during the summer when we're at our busiest point in the year. In recreation programs, 145 which is non self- supporting. This is what the community feels is a base level of services to provide in recreation. We ask or requested $5,000.00 in increased salaries. Generally in the area of playground leaders and supervision, which we are recommending be cut. Again the park maintenance and irrigation systems controller. We have 7 irrigation systems now throughout the city in our park system. This controller would allow an operator to operate the systems from one locale instead of all 7, but again we feel we can get, it just takes more time and effort but we can certainly do without that at this time. Maintenance materials for Bandimere. The $4,000.00 and that's $4,000.00 worth of fertilizer to put on the new park next year to make the grass grow. I certainly wouldn't want to do without that. Park maintenance. A John Deere tractor at $9,500.00. We've added the new ballparks at Bandimere and we have ballfields at the recreation center. City Center Park. Lake Ann Park and all of our outlying parks which we've currently maintained with two 1972 Allis-Chamler tractors and we would like to replace one of those just so we don't have all of our eggs in one basket, which happens to be over 20 some years. And then increase in seasonal labor-park maintenance. Where we do the bulk of our work, in those 9 to 10 seasonal labors who come in and mow and maintain our parks on an annual basis. What we saw occurring over the years is as we did not increase our hourly rates, our employees came from farther and farther from the west where we finally started...our employees from out of the Cologne area and beyond because we are not competitive in the local market in hourly salary so we found it necessary to ensure that we have quality employees in that area. That concludes my remarks and I'll be more than happy to answer any questions of the council. Mayor Mancino: Any questions at this point? ....just one minute. I think my main one will revolve around 410...on that, the numbers that I have. Do any councilmembers have any questions? Councilman Senn: The big one is mainly on 410 at this point. Same thing. Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and council members. At this time I'd briefly like to go through the administrative department increases regarding administrative salaries. As a part of the '99 budget we have reallocated a portion of my salary to the administrative portion of the budget. This is money that was in the McGlynn Tax Increment District. With that district coming back on line for 1999, staff recommended allocating my portion of that salary to administration based on the revenues coming back on line from that district. Mayor Mancino:... Todd Gerhardt: Well, a portion of it probably could but with the activity budgeting portion, I do some administrative roles that I will need to allocate some of my time to and right now there's not any of my salary in the administrative portion of the budget...activity budgeting portion, there will be some time allocated there so we need to put some. Mayor Mancino: ...back. Todd Gerhardt: In the finance area, the increase in that department was for the interns position and so the $29,000.00 increase, that included the intern position in that which was recommended by Councilman Senn to stay in the budget. MIS/GIS portion of the budget. We have asked that $125,000.00 of that be allocated to reserves and that the budget remain as proposed for.., out of general fund. Mayor Mancino: So you are still recommending $509,000.00, the total amount. Todd Gerhardt: I'd like to talk a little bit. We have agreed to the cuts on historic preservation and the new Bobcat. As to the old bank building, that will play a factor. That building does net $32i000.00 a year in income to the city...and also, it also provides approximately $15,000.00 in taxes a year to that so that's a net of $47,000.00 back to the city...project, you know that will have an impact on revenues. Mayor Mancino: ...I don't know Councilman Senn, was your suggestion weighing demoing the project? Todd Gerhardt: Tearing the building down. Mayor Mancino: The old bank building? Councilman Senn: Yeah, that was in keeping with basically what we said in the strategic plan and beginning with the...set-up of the park or the gathering area up there. Mayor Mancino: Well, City Center Commons, okay. Councilman Senn: And that's basically the offset, what it was was pretty much that facility at least on the information we had was offsetting revenue expense so whenever you cut off the revenue, of course the expense cut off and it's a neutral so. Todd Gerhardt: It nets $32,000.00. 32 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Mayor Mancino: But I would think we'd have to pay that in contracts for the City Center Commons and... Todd Gerhardt: Right. I mean it's inevitable someday that it's going to have to happen but... Councilman Senn: ...because the numbers I have had offsetting. Todd Gerhardt: Pardon me, I didn't hear that. Mayor Mancino: I want to say that I...revenue on that particular building. Todd Gerhardt: I can give you the 1998 revenue/expenditure sheet on the building. That concludes, what I would like to do is continue this meeting to, is it next Monday? Pam Snell: Will it be during the day or? ...adopt by. Mayor Mancino: By noon or by 4:00 or something like that. Todd Gerhardt: Do you want to pick a time? What works for council for that. In the interim I would also ask that staff meet with yourself Mayor and Councilman Senn to go through this in a work session if that's agreeable to the rest of the council. Mayor Mancino: I would just like to first say thank you very, very much for looking at projected cuts. Reviewing it as you have in such a articulate, itemized way. It's really, really appreciated and hopefully in 1999 we'll start out the year looking at the strategic plan and doing our budget from that. Having our strategic plan and our comprehensive plan be the tools that guide us in budgeting and looking to help forward so very, very appreciated for all the time that everyone has .spent reviewing the budget and looking at it. I'm very honored that you've done that. I would be certainly fine meeting, Councilman Mason are you going to be here on the 28th or are you out of town? Councilman Mason: I will be out of town. Mayor Mancino: Okay, you may if you'd like to give me comments, etc on any of the proposed things that are staying and being cut, just on the overall budget. I could certainly meet on the 28th at 9:00 in the morning. Anytime is fine. Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: Fine. Todd Gerhardt: I would like to meet yet this week prior to the meeting. Councilman Senn: ...when do you want to do that? Todd Gerhardt: Whatever would fit in. Councilman Senn: This week? Pam Snell: Christmas Eve I will be out part of the day. Mayor Mancino: Good. What about on the 23ra? 33 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Councilman Senn: I'd have to check in the morning but I think I can move someone and we could do it that morning if that works. Mayor Mancino: Okay in the a.m. Councilman Senn: Can I let you know in the morning and we'll get a time set? Todd Gerhardt: Sometime in the morning of the 23rd? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Mayor Mancino: Pardon me? Sure. Come forward please and state your name and address. Patsy Bernhjelm: Patsy Bernhjelm, 9380 Kiowa Trail. Is that a public meeting then that anyone can attend or is that? Mayor Mancino: The work session is, sure. On Monday the 28th and we'll let you know time. Patsy Bemhjelm: Okay, will that be in the Villager then or should we call you or what would be? Councilman Senn: Let's set a time now for the 28th. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, We might as well do that. I'm again, 9:00 in the morning. Whatever works. Councilman Senn: Fine by me. Mayor Mancino: 9:00 December 28th. Here in City Hall. Patsy Bernhjelm: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Great. Two things. Councilman Senn: Do we have to formalize that as a continuance or whatever then? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. What did we do last time? I don't think we. Councilman Senn: We just continued it until today. Do we need to do that again? Mayor Mancino: Okay. Before we do, Pam...two couple things that would be helpful to have at the meeting on the 28th. One would be the fund balances as they go from 1998 to 1999 and what they are. You know, the internal, whether they're cash or assets. That would be helpful. The other thing that would be helpful is that looking at our sheet for 1999 consolidated budget sheet and we have the first line item is current property tax, which shows a general fund property tax, internal service fund property tax, special revenue fund and GO Debt Service. We have a couple items missing from that list. Councilman Senn: The easiest way just say include all the debt service. 34 Special City Council Meeting - December 21, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Well, which is a special assessment debt service and the park revenue debt service that we have. So if we could also include that so that we have all the numbers for the levy from the city. Pam Snell: Those are not operating budgets so will not show expenditures for those because your revenues, property tax revenues would be less than your expenditures. We do not levy the full amount for special assessment debt. It's just a small portion of our special assessment debt. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, but we do have five bonds that we're still levying for special assessment debt. Pam Snell: But that is not our total special assessment debt. Mayor Mancino: No. But it is the part that we've levying taxpayers for so that part on the special assessment debt, if we could include that. Pam Snell: Okay. Mayor Mancino: And we are levying again taxpayers for the park referendum money. So if we could see those two numbers to be included, I think it would show us the whole snapshot that is city levy. Okay, thank you. May I have a motion please? Councilman Senn: I move to continue to the 28th at 9:00 a.m. Mayor Mancino: I'll second that. Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to continue the adoption of the proposed 1999 budget to December 28, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt Acting City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 35