Loading...
CC 2004 06 14CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 14, 2004 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Labatt and Councilman Peterson COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Lundquist STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, Paul Oehme, and Matt Saam PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet D. Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated May 24, 2004 -City Council Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated May 24, 2004 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated June 1, 2004 -Park and Recreation Commission Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated May 25, 2004 b. Resolution #2004-36: Award of Bids, Lake Ann Park Playground Equipment. Approve Concrete and Poured-In Place Resilient Rubber Surfacing Quotes; 2004 Playground Projects. Approval of Temporary On-Sale License, Chanhassen Lions Club, Regional Softball Tournament at Lake Ann Park, July 30-August 1, 2004 Resolution #2004-37: Approval of Temporary Gambling Permit and On-Sale Liquor License, St. Hubert Catholic Community, August 14 and 15. City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 Walnut Grove 2nd Addition, Klingelhutz Development: 1) Final Plan Approval 2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract Highlands of Bluff Creek, Plowshares Development: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract Stone Creek Town Offices, Eden Trace Corp/Stone Creek Office Group LLC: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract Countryside, 1) Final Plat 2) Approval Lundgren Bros. Construction: Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract k. Burlwood 2nd Addition Final Plat Approval, McDonald Construction, Inc. Resolution #2004-38: Consider Modification of 2004 CIP for Stormwater Quality Improvements for the 2004 Residential Street Improvement Project 04-01 Resolution #2004-39: Approve Transfers to Close Capital Project Funds and Debt Service Funds. Resolution #2004-40: Approve Change Order No. 4 for City Hall Lower Level Remodel, Gen-Con Construction. *All voted in favor, except Mayor Furlong abstained on item g, and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Tom Devine: Tom Devine, 7640 South Shore Drive. I came here tonight somewhat unexpectedly. I was not aware of the water treatment program unfolding over in our neighborhood until Friday night, but we had prepared to do a brief overview of the South Lotus Lake Association's concerns relative to the park and the boat landing areas, for which I brought a handout that I'd like to give you. Over about the last 18 months or so there's been a number of issues in and around the park area and the boat landing which kind of together have been unresolved that have been kind of coming to a focal point. And we did just a very quickly, almost 2 years ago now we started tracking what the total numbers of complaints were that were occurring in the park area, the South Lotus Lake Park and the boat landing area. Those incidences that were reported to the sheriff' s office and tracked those and we were able to get some reports from them that outlined the detail of what has been going on. At the point that I got those reports, there was about 56 of them that had occurred in the one summery from say April to September-October. At that time we were told that there really wasn't enough activity that was negative activity 2 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 that was occurring to really have any formal addressing of the process or the problems or the issues per se, and what we did last summer is we stepped up. in the neighborhood we worked together to report the situations as we saw them unfolding more faithfully and more frequently so that there was a better record of really what was going on down in the neighborhood association there and how it was impacting us as an association down there. And what we did is we outlined those issues, the boat landing issues and then the park and the tennis court areas relative to what was going on. The issue was to get our hands on some concrete information relative to what's going on there. That park serves not only Carver County. There's people from Hennepin County, City of Chanhassen. It's a regional resource in terms of the traffic in and out of that particular neighborhood right now, so many of us were involved as you know on the trail project building the 101 trail. A lot of us spent almost 8 years on that project, from the start date to the finish date on that, and so this project of dealing with the Lotus Lake and the association issues and what not in terms of the impact kind of was not a priority issue. About 60 days ago ! initiated some conversations with Jim Olson, Sheriff Jim Olson to try to get our hands around what we could do. The first few warm days that we had down there were significant boaters. There's 10 stalls there. There was about 18 cars that were parked there with trailers up in the grass and what not. It's an issue of enforcement in terms of what's going to happen there between the County and what we're going to do relative to the park areas within the city. It's complex because it's a DNR access point and it's also a city park with set protocols within the City of Chanhassen and so within that there's a number of units that have got to be coordinated, both with the City of Chanhassen, with the DNR and all the various other people. The Lotus Lake Association, and then the South Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. In looking at this, what we tried to do, Jim had asked me, what were some of the issues or what was the issues. As you look down the sheet, pretty much what we're dealing with there are the issues that have been taken away over a period of time, and ! don't think that they've been taken away maliciously or whatever but they just kind of disappeared. ! was present at almost all of the original meetings when the neighborhood was platted. What the amenities of the neighborhood were going to be, and when the developer was then approached relative to the land usage for the boat access that was formally down at the other end of the lake that was then moved down to this end of the lake, and the trades of land that took place with the developer and those issues. ! brought with me my file of those original discussions in terms of what the promises were and what the discussion was. One of the things that ! did learn is we were probably nalve or maybe negligent in that we did not do more recording of what happened. All of the issues that I've got here that I've outlined here are things that were negotiated that were put in, and then removed from the park or from the South Lotus Lake Association's use or from the patrol issues that we had there. And what was one of the things that struck me when ! talked to Sheriff Olson a couple of weeks ago, is the fact that he was questioning whether some of these things were even there, which tells me this issue of recording and the history of what's been there, because everything that's on the sheet of paper was in fact indeed there or was a protocol that we had agreed to, both the city, the developer and the neighborhood association per se, and so these issues as it was outlined is there. And so what we want to do is work forth and figure out what we need to do and figure out a procedure, how we as a community are going to coexist with the issues and try to get these issues resolved more formally than City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 what we have before. It's pretty much been an effort of a few people coming over here, speaking, many of you have heard me speak before on some of these issues here relative to the South Lotus Lake Association, but now there's a broader reach in terms of the people that are impacted, particularly with the increase of the boats because it's not unusual to say that there is 50 or 60 maybe launches on a nice day, and then those launches that are provided within the 10 stalls, many times there's many more than 10 that are parked off site over in Eden Prairie or elsewhere and when you start adding an additional say you've got 10 extra boats on the lake and then you add another 10 or 15, you have a total of 25 extra boats, speed boats, water ski boats, etc on that lake. It becomes a fairly significant issue for the rest of the population on the lake. So what we were looking for tonight was to look and try to understand how do we want to work forward. ! know in talking with the sheriff's office, they're overwhelmed. One of the suggestions that was made was that we set up a call tree this year and that we call and have everybody call to report the incidences so that if there's situations unfolding the sheriff gets 30 calls. Well that's obviously not to anybody's benefit to have this kind of a call tree approach, but at least it would highlight the significance of the amount of issues that we're dealing with down there. What we're looking at tonight is we should come forth with some kind of a plan, and I'm not suggesting that we have a plan but clearly we as an association. The neighborhood association down there needs to understand a little more fully about what is going to happen here to try to resolve the issues that have been ongoing and now have been documented the last couple of summers. Final thing ! just you know want to make a couple points. The way the city operated in the middle 80's in terms of doing this design work and the recording of it and having videotaping and all this sort of thing, the sophistication of the city was a lot different 20 years ago than it is today when there was, you know there's maybe 6,000 people. A lot of people did a lot of things in good faith in terms of what happened down it that neighborhood and the developer certainly was very, very conscience. Gave up many concessions for the city, and ! guess you'd say the County and the larger regional area to have that boat landing there, and with that the neighborhood association gave up certain things and people bought lots and built homes in that area under that and there was a wonderful plan in terms of the amenities, the tennis courts, all of those issues that were brought forth originally. Now, Friday night obviously we learned of the water treatment program. ! guess I'm a little disappointed to say that there wasn't notice of this much further up, you know further back in terms of what was unfolding because ! guess essentially what I've learned is there' s a decision to build or to do something there and the mechanics of how we're going to do it is really what's on the table right now, and ! guess bothered by that because there are enough people in that neighborhood that have been very involved in Chanhassen politics and ! want to go on the record publicly and thank Tom for calling 3 of us last week and explain to us what was unfolding here because ! felt that was a very thoughtful, kind gesture to do, to give us a head's up on what was happening down there. When ! look at the project and the scope, I'm open. ! said to Tom I'd be very open to listening to what the issues are. Understanding what it is. ! said ! would volunteer to be on a committee, site selection committee that's with the direction, and obviously that isn't the direction now but to be involved in a process to help very thoughtfully understand. You don't have to sell anybody in our neighborhood on clean water. We've got it in front of us on the lake, which is a significant issue right now, and we also, as you 4 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 can see in the sheet that I've provided tonight, and we also are very concerned about the drinking water issues. ! don't think anybody has to be sold in this town that we need clean water, or the education of clean water. That issue's a non-issue for ! think all the people that are here. ! think the issue is, can we put a quart of milk in a pint bag down there at South Lotus Lake. And are we really doing what we need to be doing for 15 or 20 years out from now when we have another 15 or 18,000 people living in this community and we need more wells, we need more resource or whatever. This is not a 7 acre site, which is a minimum site specification as I've understood. It's maybe a 2 acre site you know at best, and with that is the park amenity that was part of the negotiation that the developer had in order to provide the boat landing, and ! don't hear anything about taking away the boat landing and that stuff to provide for this new facility. So we as a neighborhood now are really getting dropped into, and I'm open to listening to what the discussion is. ! understand the need. ! don't think we have to work on the need but what are the other options that we have as a community and that's probably what we should be looking at. And obviously the last point I'll make, there are people that are sitting here that have been involved in the 8 year build out of that trail. The project to build that trail which we were told could never be built, and it's obviously there. Any one of you can look at that trail. There's people on it at 5:30 in the morning jogging to 10:30-11:00 at night. It's a wonderful public amenity. We thank many of you that were sitting here that had the political courage at the point that it took to do that. The tie in between now this project that we've got in front of us and what happened formerly, it was pointed out to me yesterday afternoon that there's maybe some tie in's politically and I'd like to think that our Chanhassen politics now are above all of that. Clearly we got involved politically to get our trail built and we had, it took a formidable effort to get that trail built. It took an act of the legislature to get it built. The cost figures that we sat here and we questioned at a million 2 to find out it was built for something in the high 7's. Significantly less than what the barriers were that were put up financially. We didn't have to go to the legislature. There was probably enough money to do it on our own here as a city. Those kinds of things we've got to look at in the context of what we're going forth with, and ! think you've got to look at that. Obviously we feel our input as taxpayers, as the citizens, as the people that are living there. It was a well designed community. A lot of thought went into it. A lot of concessions went into it for the City of Chanhassen and for Carver County and the larger regional area and so as this unfolds ! think you can probably look forward to a lot of participation of the people here so thank you very much. Any questions? Mayor Furlong: Questions at this point. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah Tom, on the 56 incidents over the 18 month period, has anyone from the city or does anyone from the association know the results of those 56 incidents? Where they've ended up. Has anyone, have citations been written? Tom Devine: Those are the citations or the incidents, the call incident reports that were generated in the Carver County sheriff' s office. And it took a lot of work to get that first a number, because they weren't compiling you know incident reports or whatever at the point that they got it. In fact when I got the original set of that data, it was off3 different City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 systems or 3 different protocols of data collection, so I can't speak to what each of those situations, you know was specifically. But a lot of it, you know there's, you've got a wrinkle is that you've got the Lotus Lake Association. This is, I'm talking about the South Lotus Lake. The Lotus Lake Association is also now got a number of things that have been ongoing there also. Councilman Ayotte: Is Jim Olson privy to those 56 incidents? Have you guys been talking specifically about those? Tom Devine: That was the starting point 2 years ago that we captured then. I've not kept track, or not seen a reports here of what came up last summer or whatever but ! know that there's been much more frequent calling, and of course their concern is it's a low priority based on the way the police services are provided in the city of Chanhassen. They get that so they've been, you know we're the lowest priority of call responses, so sometimes they get out there. They don't ticket because it's already gone. They get out there a couple hours later, that situation. Councilman Ayotte: It's hard to enforce, yeah. Tom Devine: Yeah. Councilman Ayotte: Besides these points, did the Association or has Jim Olson talked about other constraints or activities that could take hold? This is an historical reference and you mentioned that point that a lot of stuff was in place before. Has there been any chat about other constraints that could be imposed or other things that can be done? Is there a listing of something in that. Tom Devine: Well in fairness to Jim, we went through, I went through a partial list. This is before this was fully developed by the neighborhood, and he went through and he was going to do some research. He was going to talk to some of the people here. He was going to talk to Todd and talk with some of the others that are directly involved in terms of what goes on here within the city, but we've not had resolution or there isn't a report or there hasn't been a meeting or whatever that's been formally called to try to bring all this together and say, here's the game plan. I think there's a better plan than just having a neighborhood get together and initiate action to call the sheriff continually and get involved in this monitoring. I think we should be looking at this in a much more proactive way because it was negotiated when the development got put together on how the protocols were going to work down there, and those for a variety of historical reasons were eliminated or financial reasons or when the DNR's involvement became more center place in terms of protocols that they felt that they should operate under but they came in I think after the fact and they came in because people wanted money from the DNR to help pay for it after the fact, as I understand and some of those issues. And then they gave up things. The city gave up certain things to meet those protocols that they have. Councilman Ayotte: Thanks Tom. City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt, any comments? Todd Gerhardt: Appreciate Tom coming in. We'll look through these issues. Prepare a report that would come back to our next council meeting on the issues that Tom has brought up. We may be in contact with you to go through some of these. ! have every department that was involved in the... Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you Tom. We're still within visitor presentations if others would like to come forward and address issues to the council, this would be the opportunity. We did invite Senator Julianne Ortman and Representative Joe Hoppe to be here with us this evening so at this point I'd certainly invite you to come up and give the council and the city an update. Senator Julianne Ortman: Well good evening Mr. Mayor, members of City Council. It's good to be here, especially on a night like Monday night after a great weekend in the city of Chanhassen. All the city council members have tans and little bit sun burn. Everybody's happy and a little lighter evening tonight. ! came to answer any questions that you may have about the legislative session this year. What's coming up for next year. Questions about special session. ! think everybody's got them, including me. And tell you just a little bit about some of the legislation that we did pass this year and some of the impacts on our local residents. First and foremost, ! think everyone's very interested in the progress of 312 and just a little bit of update on 312. Most often ! get, I've gotten questions at the capitol about when we didn't pass the bond, does that mean we're not going to have funding for 312, and the answer is we have funding for 312 and it's not related in any way to the bonding bill that was before the legislative session this year. In 2003 we passed a special bonding bill that related only to road projects and that special bill in 2003 set aside money for Highway 312, the $268 million dollars. It was not related to capital bonding for buildings. It was just a separate road project and so the federal dollars are still there as a match. The state dollars are still there to pair with those match dollars and so everything's going full speed ahead on 312. In fact full speed ahead really is the word here because apparently when MnDot did some of it's estimating in terms of completion times and planning times for the needed dollars for progress at different stages, they didn't really recognize the fact that we will not have to shut down roads between Chanhassen and Chaska. You aren't going to have shut down traffic and make detours and make plans to construct only in non high traffic times, so there actually will be some cost savings but there will also be a quicker need for immediate dollars so the dollars will have to be spent further in advance than they expected. They also are looking at a earlier completion date so they're trying to adjust their plans and their financial needs, but 312 is going forward and now in the new Ortman homestead, we moved over to Mission Hills. ! think we're going to be able to see just a little clip of Highway 312 when it gets constructed so that will be kind of fun. Other things at the capitol this year. ! would tell you that we did actually pass significant legislation. know that the common perception is that we did not, but we actually did quite a bit of work. We did pass the .08, which everyone is aware of. The new social studies and science standards. We passed tort reform, including a choice of law provision so what City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 happens when out of state residents want to bring lawsuits in Minnesota. We changed the ATV use regulations. We passed veterans benefits packages and of interest to residents of city of Chanhassen, we passed campaign finance reform legislation that actually will change the way that complaints get filed in campaigns and so instead of a complaint going to a county attorney, a complaint would go to the campaign finance board and there would be an immediate review by an administrative organization to determine whether there was merit or not so that instead of a campaign complaint sitting out there for a very long time with no response, it would get an immediate up or down from the campaign finance board as to whether or not there's some legitimacy to it. Our county attorneys would still have the jurisdiction if they thought that there was something really out of the ordinary. They could still bring an action and go forward with their executive branch authority but this would get immediate review of some of these complaints so that we would get an immediate response. ! think responding to a complaint is a very difficult thing to do and so to get that earlier review is a good thing. The legislation was supported by the County Attorneys Association because having those complaints made their offices a lot more political than they were really comfortable with and so ! think there was a ground swell of support for this legislation at the capitol. In addition, as you know, the tax bill and the budget bill were the, or excuse me, the tax and budget and then the bonding bills were very high profile bills at the state legislature this year. $160 million budget bill, as you know, did not pass because we couldn't reach an agreement as to how many conference committees there would be. The Governor has taken that up in his own authority. I'm sure you've read the press, just like ! have. He has taken all measures necessary to balance the budget so we don't have a financial crisis looming. Although ! will say, I'm sure you probably are all aware of the LGA situation. Just in the last couple of weeks it's been clear that there was a needed technical fix in that $160 million dollar, billion dollar budget bill that would have made some, would have stabilized LGA payments and without that technical fix, there's going to be some up's and down's for especially the big cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul and Duluth. Because Chanhassen is not really a receiver of LGA, this should not affect the City of Chanhassen but if you have any questions about that Todd or Mayor, council members, I'll do my best to address that but it was a technical error in the bill and the governor's office is looking to determine whether or not they'll follow the actual language in the 2003 bill or whether they'll try and follow legislative intent and there are a bunch of legal issues that will be involved in that, and I'm sure there'll be more about that in the press as the impact tends to get closer. ! know that the League of Minnesota Cities is looking on your behalf at this issue and is lobbying at the capitol on that issue. And then ! would just refer to the bonding bill. There was so much that was discussed about bonding at the capitol this year. The House Republicans had a 600 billion dollar bill. The Governor had a 960 billion, or the Democrats had 960 billion bill. The Governor was kind in the middle there. We never reached an agreement because the Governor said he wanted to see the budget bill first. ! agreed with that. We have to solve our budget first, and ! would just remind residents and the council members here that last year we had a budget bill. A budget year, the $4.5 billion budget, but we also passed $350 million dollars in projects that were in an out year, so we're kind of ahead. In fact we actually included the Chanhassen project for, you've got me right there. Seminary Fen. Thank you. So actually we got more work done in the '03 session than we really needed to. It was a City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 good thing that we passed that but they kind of go together. You pass the budget and then you pass the bonding because once you've passed that budget, you know how much money you have available to pay for debt service and so they really have to relate, and so ! supported the Governor and his position. ! supported our caucus when we said we weren't going to pass the bonding bill that we didn't know we could afford. So ! think it was a good year all and all. ! know that there are many residents that wanted to see a tax bill and a bonding bill but ! don't think that the residents of Carver County and Scott County are any worst for the wear. We would like to see needed improvements in some of the infrastructure of the U of M and in some of our cities. We really, we desperately are going to need that jail in Faribault so ! think we will be getting back to those issues. ! have no doubt that everyone is convinced we're going to have a bonding bill. When it comes to the special session, my crystal ball says no. And the crystal ball doesn't have a lot more information than that. It's kind of like one of those magic 8 balls. Not now. Don't ask now, but I'm here to answer any questions you have and I'll also defer to my House colleague Joe Hoppe who's been an incredible partner and colleague at the capitol. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Questions for the Senator. Councilman Ayotte: Senator, yeah. ! do appreciate you coming out and stopping by and there's a couple of thoughts ! had and ! know ! can't get a response tonight but maybe just to put out their Homeland Defense. We're a border state. Today you may or may not know that the State of Ohio, a mall was saved. There was a plan by a Somalia terrorist to attack it. Moussaui came through this state and resided in Eden Prairie for a while. We've had a change with the Public Safety Commissioner. The State, Minnesota State National Guard leadership has changed and I'm just wondering with all that activity, ! know that there has been discussions about a new homeland defense plan for the State of Minnesota and ! was wondering if we could, and I'd be happy to contact you to see if we get some information for the public because ! for one have always brought that to the surface while I've been a member of this council and ! have a big interest in it so if there's anything you could share now or in the near term, I'd appreciate it. Senator Julianne Ortman: Well ! would not have the plan but ! could tell you that work, an extraordinary amount of work really has been done by the Department of Homeland Security which is a new department in our state government. It wasn't started until 2001 with the advent of September 11th. They've done incredible work working with schools for evacuation plans. With the cities and with the counties. In fact there is a liaison who formerly was with my office, Ben Cosell. He moved over to the Department of Homeland Security a year ago and he's been making the rounds to cities and to counties to talk about that plan and I'd be happy to invite him to come and tell you about all that's been accomplished in the last couple of years. Really quite remarkable how much they've accomplished. Councilman Ayotte: ! think that'd be a good idea. Thank you. Senator Julianne Ortman: Thank you. City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Senator Ortman, real quick. I just wanted to recognize and thank you, as we were working through the Highway 212 municipal consent process, one of the big issues that this council is working with as a city was the 101 gap project and Senator Ortman was instrumental in helping coordinate with MnDot, the County and the City to pull together the funding plan that we had and get people together so on that ! wanted to recognize you and thank you for your efforts there. Senator Julianne Ortman: Pleasure to work with the City, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thanks. Representative Hoppe. Good evening. Representative Joe Hoppe: Good evening. Thank you Mr. Mayor. ! too am here to answer any questions you have about the, this year's legislative process, or last year for that matter. I've got some brief comments and be happy, feel free to interrupt me whenever you want with any questions. And I'll skip some of the things ! had because the Senator touched on those. One of the popular perceptions about this year is that we didn't get anything done and we actually passed more bills this year than we did last year. The problem is we didn't get the big things done. We didn't get the bonding bill done. The House passed it. The Senator did not and then we couldn't get together and agree on the bonding, or excuse me, the budget. And one of the perceptions out there is that politics are so divisive and we just don't get along and people aren't friends and don't work well together. Well, probably 80 percent or 85 percent of what we do is very bipartisan and it's true that Dean Johnson, the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker, Steve Swiggum didn't get along so well this year. But on the whole in the House, working with other Democrats and ! was fortunate to be on a conference committee this year dealing with telecom issues and the Friday night, the last Friday night of the session we were there until about 3:30 in the morning, Democrats and Republicans, Senators and Representatives and we didn't agree on everything but it was, we worked well together and got all the issues settled. You know it is nicer when it's telecom, when it's a little bit of a more technical issues instead of something that's more partisan but there is a lot of work that does get done. Things that are better for the benefit of the State and we'll see that next year. The legislature, the Senate and the House are both going to work on some fairly major telecom reforms as technology changes and the times change. We need to change with it and make it easier for phone companies to do business and kind of level the playing field between the wireless companies and the hard line companies, and now we have voice over IP and other technologies that are coming. They're going to force us to change so there is a lot of bipartisan work that gets done at the capitol, in spite of what you see on TV and read in the newspapers. We didn't pass the bonding bill. We didn't get together on that, and it's possible, and ! guess ! would agree with the Senator at this point. It doesn't look like we are going to get together for a special session. If we do, one of the latest things I've heard is it would be a short one day special session to take care of the sexual predator bill and maybe something for one or two small specific items. Not necessarily the whole bonding bill, and there are some important things in there that need to be done. U of M buildings and maintenance. Some capital projects and now's a good time to do it for the State. Money is relatively cheap right now historically speaking, and ! hope we can get together and get those things worked out. If we don't, it 10 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 will be something that gets worked on in January, but it would be nice to get that extra 6 months lead time on it and get things going now. I think that's it. Everything else I had the Senator already covered. If you have any questions about anything, I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Furlong: No, I don't think so but thank you for coming and again, thank you. There have been a number of times when either myself or Mr. Gerhardt have contacted Representative Hoppe and we appreciate you being responsive to our requests. Representative Joe Hoppe: Well thank you very much. It's a pleasure working with all of you. Thank you and have a good night. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. We're still within visitor presentations, if anyone else would like to come forward at this time. If not we'll close visitor presentations for this evening and move on to the next items on our agenda. 2004 RESIDENTIAL STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 04-01: Ao SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PUBLIC HEARING. AWARD OF BIDS. Public Present: N~me Address Nicole & Chris Rennie Thomas Lentz Betty Rasmussen Rick Engelhardt Fred Prinz 412 Santa Fe Trail 404 Santa Fe Circle 415 Santa Fe Trail 403 Santa Fe Trail 408 Santa Fe Circle Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. This item for your consideration tonight is to consider the adoption of assessment roll for the 2004 street improvement project. The project is shown in this drawing here. It includes the reconstruction of Dell Road. Portion of Dell Road from Laredo Drive to Santa Fe Trail. Santa Fe Trail from Del Rio Drive to Great Plains and Santa Fe Circle east and west. That's a total reconstruction. We would be looking at the replacement of the bituminous curb and gutter with concrete curb and gutter. Included in the project again is the replacement of the existing water main. Improvements to the sanitary sewer system and the storm sewer improvements as well. In conjunction with the project as well we are also looking at spot repairs to the sanitary sewer system north of Chan View Road as well too. So just a little historical background. On September 22nd the City Council adopted a resolution approving a feasibility study and authorizing plans and specs for this project. In February of this year, and in May, the City Council had discussions with staff in terms of the funding component to this project and it was determined at that time, directed by council to only look at assessing a portion of the street improvement project. 40 percent 11 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 of the street improvement projects. Funding for 100 percent of the utility projects will be now paid through the utility funds. The funding change was made in January 12th of this year when the council adopted a new utility rate for sewer and water. This allowed the assessments in this particular project to be lowered significantly from what was first proposed on a feasibility study of $15,492 down to $6,874.05, today's current proposed assessment amount. Two neighborhood meetings were also held this year. One on February 12th and another one just recently on June 8th to discuss with the property owners the project in general and their issues. Addressing their issues. Trying to address their issues and the assessment amounts as well. Notices for this assessment hearing have been mailed to each of the property owners and the notice declares the exact amount the assessment is to date and also details the property owners right to object to this assessment amount. The completion date for the assessment process is proposed to be July 14th. Property owners may choose to pay off the assessment amount in full prior to that date. July 14th again is without interest. The County auditors will certify the assessment roll in November of 2004 of this year and the assessments will be payable in 2005 under property taxes. So the proposed assessment total is $219,969.59. The proposed assessment amount is again $6,874 as shown in this sheet here. The total project cost is $938,297. The length of the assessment is right now at 10 years and at a 6 percent interest rate. The project funding again is shown on this sheet as a portion coming from the assessment components on the sewer and water funds. Storm sewer utilities and also add more in tax that at this time ! stand for questions by council and request that a public hearing be opened for the 2004 streets improvement project. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Ayotte: Just for the sake of everyone putting perspective on it. The cost per annum for a resident over a 10 year period, it seems to me previous assessments, did we have a different period of performance for the, it was 8 years? Paul Oehme: That's correct. Down to other projects that we're working on this year, it is 8 years and we extended the assessment length out another 2 years based upon some... Councilman Ayotte: Okay, collective gain for the resident, what do you sense is the reduction per annum for these folks? They're going to be paying about. Paul Oehme: $78.00 per month. So, and over a 2 year period, ! don't have that at the top of my head right now. Councilman Ayotte: Alright. And predictably the life extension will be? Paul Oehme: The life extension of the street? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, as a result of doing this project, the anticipated life. Paul Oehme: With proper maintenance we'll be looking at 40-45 years from, until we would have to come and do a major improvement project. Typically we'll be in there 12 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 every 5 years and do a sealcoat or regular maintenance too so, so definitely this would be, the street that we're proposing would definitely be a long term investment for the city and for the residents. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Steve, anything. Excuse me, Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Furlong: One question I have that was new in our information that the council received this time was the summary letter from the appraisal done by Patchin Messner & Dodd and I guess I would ask maybe Mr. Knutson just you know, your sense, and maybe some background as to how this was requested. Why this was requested from an informational standpoint to us in this decision process. Roger Knutson: Mayor, we were looking for a check to make sure that the benefit to the project was there. As you know, in the assessed property the market value of the property has to increase by the amount of the assessment and we just wanted to check from a review by a professional. In summary fashion. It didn't look at each parcel. If we were to do that, it would be quite expensive and that cost would be added onto the project cost and I don't think anyone wanted that, so we had a quick overview by a recognized expert in the area. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point? If not, then I will go ahead and open up the public hearing. Invite residents to come forward or other interested parties to come forward. Again just to clarify, if I recall correctly in the report, if anybody is wishing to object, speaking at the podium tonight does not preserve your rights. You need to file a written objection, is that correct? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: And it needs to be done before we close the public hearing. So if you haven't done that yet, name, address, quick you know, some basic information with a phone number and make sure that comes to either the city engineer or someone so that we get that in place. So with that I will open up the public hearing at this point and ask people to come forward and speak on the merits of the assessment for this street project. What a difference a few weeks makes. If there is nobody wishing to come forward, then at this time, if not then I will go ahead and close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to council for discussion. Gentlemen. Councilman Peterson: Mayor, I'd recommend we move ahead. I think we've come a long ways from the beginning of this discussion. I think we've made some good decisions and obviously good progress as it relates to the road itself and some creative solutions so I don't see any reason why we shouldn't go ahead and approve it tonight. 13 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt? Councilman Labatt: Echo Mr. Peterson's comments. It's considerably cheaper than where we originally started from. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Ayotte, anything? Councilman Ayotte: Please watch Councilman Peterson okay? ! have nothing to add. Is he okay? Mayor Furlong: He was drinking at the time. That was pretty risky. Councilman Peterson: I didn't spit it out. Mayor Furlong: That was pretty good. No, ! concur. ! think credit where it's due too to our city staff. And ! think too, while we didn't have any residents come forward this evening, we did have a number of them come forward last fall when we were first considering this project and a number of the issues that they raised the staff appropriately listened to. Considered and is one reason why we've seen a significant change in the assessment dollar in terms of making that policy change with regard to how we will fund utility replacements. Also credit where it's due to Mr. Oehme and his staff to identify ways that we could reduce the cost of construction of the road given the specifics of this neighborhood to save costs. Not only for the city but to the residents that are being assessed. And also to identify ways that with regard to repairing, or rather repairing and improving the utilities without actually doing full replacements also significantly reduces the cost so Mr. Gerhardt, Mr. Oehme, thank you for that. With that ! will ask if, unless there are other comments or discussion, I'll ask if there's a motion to approve the resolution that was distributed in our packet adopting the assessment roll for the 2004 residential street improvement project 04-01. Councilman Peterson: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that motion? Resolution #2004-41: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the resolution adopting the 2004 Residential Street Improvement Assessment Roll, Project No. 04-01 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: At this point we'd like to consider the staff's recommendation to approve a construction contract for this same project, 2004 residential street improvement projects. We'll move to staff report at this time, if there is one. 14 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 Paul Oehme: Sure. Just want to make you aware the background again for, and for the people that are listening and for the people in the audience. We did receive bids on this project on May 13, 2004 at 10:00. We did receive 5 bids for the project. They did come in under budget. Under the engineer's budget. And the low bidder was Northdale Construction. They have worked in the city here before and their scheduling and their work has been acceptable in the past. So we recommend that the contract be awarded for the 2004 street reconstruction project to Northdale Construction in the amount of $738,438.74. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any questions for staff?. I have a quick one, it's general so I'll ask it here because it's a general item, not specifically relating to this company. From a protection standpoint of the city, to make sure that these contractors perform or have the financial wherewithal to perform. What is the security or interest that we receive either through the bonding or letter of credit and maybe I'm answering my own question but can you explain because how is the city protected that once we award a contract, especially this size, that we have some assurances that they'll be completed? Roger Knutson: By state law on a project like this we are required to receive from the contractor, and it's in the bid specs that they have to give it to us, a performance bond that basically says they will do the project for the price of the contract amount. If for some reason they fail to do that, the bonding company has to step in and complete it. We also get a, it's called a labor and material payment bond which means if they don't pay their subcontractors, and a claim can be filed under the bond, and the bonding company will pay if the contractor fails to do so. So we're well protected. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Very good. Is there any other questions or discussion on this? If not, is there a motion to approve staff' s recommendations included in the packet? Councilman Peterson: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Resolution #2004-41: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the resolution to award the bid for the 2004 Residential Street Improvement Project No. 04-01 to Northdale Construction Company in the amount of $738,438.73. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. 15 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 2004 MSA STREET IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 04-02: Ao CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL. AWARD OF BIDS. Public Present: Name Address Fr. Larry Blake 8201 Main Street Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor. On May 24th a public hearing was held considering assessments for this project. Staff presented assessment roll that was consistent with the feasibility study that was adopted last year at the assessment hearing. Staff did receive, and the city did receive 6 property owners that contested their assessments. Objections to the assessments and the project were concerning them being assessed for benefit to their collector street and since they abut a collector street or access off onto 78th Street. Additionally property owners were concerned about being assessed for a street segment that in their estimation was better, other segments in the proposed project area. The assessments also, two property owners were also concerned about their assessment because they do not access off of 78th Street, but they do access off of Erie Street, or Lake Erie. I'm sorry. So, again the project area is shown on this sheet here. It's a mill and overlay project and the project again is on 78th Street from Market Boulevard out to 101. Great Plains Boulevard from 78th Street to Trunk Highway 5. Market Boulevard from 78th Street to Trunk Highway 5 and West 78th Street from Market Boulevard to Great Plains Boulevard. The background that you have, staff feels that we've addressed most of the items that council had concerns with, in particular one of the access points from Chapel Hill Academy. We addressed that item in terms of any, if you look in your assessment roll, Chapel Hill Academy accesses off of Great Plains Boulevard currently. They are looking at a future access off of 78th Street and to accommodate their concerns we did look at decreasing their assessments by half and giving them benefit for their access that is off of Great Plains. In terms of the street pavement condition issue that was raised, we did look back at our pavement management program and the current conditions indicate that it is right on the border line between let's say a sealcoat and a mill and overlay, but in terms of the life expectancy of the street and the future maintenance and the cost component, if we would leave out the portion from Great Plains Boulevard out to Trunk Highway 101 out of the project, staff feels that the cost definitely outweighed the, or the benefits definitely outweighed the issues of not doing the project in that segment of the project at this time. The property owners on West 78th Street that are proposed to be, the residential property owners on West 78th Street, the same segment that we had issues with in terms of the pavement condition, we did address their concerns in terms of looking at a per unit assessment rate for each of the property owners that access off of 78th Street. We looked at assessing them, instead of for the wider 78th Street street width, we looked at a residential assessment for a typical Chanhassen street width that's 31 feet and a lump sum basis for their proposed assessments. The property owners that access off of the side street, we are not proposing to assess them at this time as well 16 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 addressing their concerns. We will be, and when the side streets are reconstructed, those property owners will be assessed for that improvement at that time. Again the, in your package we did put together the proposed assessment amounts and they are adjusted accordingly. At this time if council has any further questions regarding the background, the assessment amounts, ! stand for questions. Councilman Ayotte: I lost your, I got lost in the presentation. Matt. Where were we before with regard to the residential rate and where, ! see the question of the 8. Where were we before? Paul Oehme: We were, the residential rate again was, before we were looking at an area charge consistent with commercial rates. Councilman Peterson: What was the per lot? Paul Oehme: It wasn't per lot. It was based upon their square area of the property and it ranged between say $700 and $1,400 based upon the size of the actual property. Now as we're going through a, we looked at a per lineal front footage assessment amount but we also, to be consistent with other projects that we are looking at, included the reconstruction project. Councilman Ayotte: 700 and 458. Paul Oehme: Yeah, 700 to 1,400. $700 up to $1,400. Councilman Ayotte: And now we're at 458. Paul Oehme: And now we're at 458, that is correct. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions. Councilman Labatt: I'm trying to figure out how we've leveled the playing field to a certain parcels here and I'm going to use 3 as an example here. You mentioned one, number 18, Chapel Hill Academy. So their original assessment was for $18,970 and some pennies. And they're at 4.84 acres and now our new assessment is $7,588.28. So you take a, and ! understand they're accessing off of Great Plains Boulevard but everybody is coming to that Great Plains on West 78th or a vast majority and then cutting through Chan View. So we take a heavy user of the roads every weekday and now how do we apply those same standards to a business like number 64, the Ramsey building which is only 1 acre but yet their being assessed almost equal to what Chapel Hill is, and we're going to say the gas station, which is 3¼ of an acre but a very busy business. It has one access point off one of the roads and it's 5229 and some change. I'm not, ! don't agree with how we've handled Chapel Hill and how we can look at like Ramsey's building and say, you know you're going to pay the same amount of money for a small 17 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 business building that contains 3 businesses, and you take the Chanhassen Inn hotel, which was assessed $10,000 if I remember right. I can't find it here, it's off the top of my head. Yeah, 66. Just over 10 grand. I don't agree with how Chapel Hill's been handled here considering the amount of vehicle usage to that and bus traffic. Paul Oehme: Okay, that's fine. Again, this is the comments that we received from the last meeting, and we just took into those. We took those comments into consideration and came up with a methodology that we thought would be acceptable to the council. Obviously it's nothing that's set in stone. The council can go back to the original assessment amount for Chapel Hill if they so choose so. We are just you know trying to be consistent with what we had anticipated the, or what the assessment practice has been in the past of looking at where the access points are from each of these properties and giving the benefit to Chapel Hill in terms of their access point right now off of Great Plains. When Great Plains is reconstructed they will be assessed accordingly for those benefits so. Councilman Labatt: They should be. They should be assessed properly right now for the project, and ! don't think that they are right now. If you look at what I'm comparing Chapel Hill to the other noted small businesses...that are being assessed. Paul Oehme: And I should make clear too that we are giving Chapel Hill a credit for that segment of roadway on 78th Street in terms of the pavement condition out there, that ! alluded to before. We gave them credit for a 12 year life expectancy, or 15 year life expectancy of that roadway when in actuality it's only 12 years old at this time. So we took, for example for Chapel Hill, basically we took the assessments. We cut them in half then we gave them the benefit for 80 percent of the pavement life credit that we are giving consistently to all the property owners on 78th Street from Great Plains out to Trunk Highway 101. Councilman Peterson: So just for my own edification, whether, I'm not sure I'm on the same page. I'm on the same page but ! may not agree with the 80 percent factor but walk me through again, you said you cut using Chapel Hill as a good example. You cut it in half. What was the rationale for cutting it in half as far as using 50 percent versus any other percentage? Paul Oehme: Well given benefit for the access points off of 78th Street that they have, they'll have 2 access points so basically give them the credit for their access off of Great Plains. A credit for that so that's the rationale. Two access points. Councilman Peterson: Okay, but it was just a gut feeling when you pulled 50 percent. Paul Oehme: Exactly. There was, that was all the methodology that we used coming up with that assessment. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Ayotte. 18 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 Councilman Ayotte: So you did a sanity check on each one based on the delta of the life cycle of the road? Did you go to each one and say okay, ! think there's going to be 50 percent. ! think this is going to be, based on... Councilman Peterson: No, they didn't use the 50 percent on, they used the 80 percent on the life of the road. This was access points where they cut it by 50 percent. They weren't accessing on West 78th. Then they were giving them a 30 percent reduction. Councilman Ayotte: So to that points all the way down? Paul Oehme: That's correct. Well not, just for again the properties on 78th Street from Great Plains east. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Mayor Furlong: And some of the residential properties that were originally a part of the potential assessment roll that were on corner lots, that had driveway access on the side streets but not to West 78th, those have been removed at this point... Paul Oehme: That's correct. There's two properties that have been removed from the assessment roll. Mayor Furlong: So what I'm hearing is that because it's a corner lot with driveway access on a side road, the adjustment. ! guess the question ! have, and this may have been in place last fall before you were here, and this may address some of the difference in terms of the acreage versus the proposed assessment. There's a difference here between the exempt assessment rate and commercial rate, and ! guess the question there is, because ! think as I'm looking at some of the other properties of non-profit, St. Hubert's for example and others, that there's a different per acreage rate and maybe that's something, you know the rationale behind that. Is that consistent with past city practices Mr. Gerhardt or somebody? Councilman Labatt, that addresses some of the difference. Todd Gerhardt: We've done so many things. ! think what Paul's done here is to try to bring it back into what we've done for the street reconstruction here with the corner lots. With Chapel Hill potentially having access onto West 78th Street. Laying the ground work so when you do come in and do an overlay or a complete reconstruction on Great Plains, you have a justification to go in and assess for that also. ! think that's the key on the Chapel Hill one is that you're looking at half of the cost right now. The other half is going to come when... Mayor Furlong: When what? Todd Gerhardt: When Great Plains is completed. You just do an overlay or a reconstruction. And those corner lots, we're following the practice with Santa Fe. If you remember there was one corner lot that didn't access on and we deleted that from the project. Going with the front footage versus the per acre basis, is what we did with Santa 19 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 Fe. I support Paul's recommendations on these and being consistent and having a practice now instead of going back and forth on this. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff. One question in terms of property inclusion, and this was a question that was brought up last public hearing. As you look at the picture there's that triangle lot at the far east end of West 78th as it angles up. Is that going to be part of, one, is that part of the assessment roll because ! think the driveway. And two, is this improvement, the overlay going all the way to 101 or is it stopping short? Paul Oehme: The improvement project will go all the way out to 101 and unfortunately the property that you're referring to was not originally in the assessment roll back in September and thus we just can't stick new property owners into the assessment roll at this stage of the game. We basically would have to start over with a new assessment process just for that one particular property so. Mayor Furlong: There's a not way because of, some sort of error or omission on our part? Roger Knutson: No. Mayor Furlong: Not that I'm trying to assess people by any means but. Roger Knutson: You would actually have to back up to the beginning and go with new hearing for the public improvement project itself. You basically have to start the process over again. Mayor Furlong: The process that we began last fall. Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilman Ayotte: I dare you. Mayor Furlong: I'll wait and see what our council members make for a motion, how's that. For $400 bucks. Okay, are there any other questions for staff?. If not, I'll thank staff and I'll bring it back to council for comment. Discussion. Councilman Peterson: Is there a public hearing in this? Mayor Furlong: We had a public hearing last week and we closed it at that time so there is no public hearing. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I'll offer to start. I think that staff did a good job of listening to the comments we made at the last meeting and having some solutions. Couple of feedback items. ! guess when we give, this is my preference at least. When we give kind of general comments of looking for different options, ! would prefer that 20 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 they be presented as options versus necessarily as a recommendation. It could have been, here's one alternative. Here's another alternative. Which one do you think are appropriate versus saying this is what you're recommending. It makes it more difficult for us to say, well ! agree with this one and not with this one, which I'm going to kind of end up doing. ! understand in using Steve's example with Chapel Hill, ! understand the merits of that. ! like the idea overall of not assessing people that aren't having direct access to West 78th. I think we should just make that a practice. The idea of the corner lots. I've never liked that. ! think we should just make it a practice as we go forward. We don't double assess people and have one access point that we assess. As far as the pavement life credit, you know I'm not there because as ! look at that ! go boy, when do you stop? Because every road reconstruction you're going to come to us and say, it's got 3 years. It's got a year. It's got 6 months so you know ! have a hard time saying well where's that line. Is it 3 years or is it 2 years or is it a year, or is it a month? Do we give credit for that so I'm thinking on this situation, ! would be hard pressed to approve it just because ! don't think it's a good practice for us. Because it's going to create more work for you and for us as to how we rationalize it. So other than that ! think we've come a long way. I've got more information now and I'm comfortable making a decision and ! guess the 80 percent would be the only one that ! would not support. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Councilman Ayotte: Big improvement, one. Two, with regards to the large difference that we had in the life cycle, ! think the idea of having a pavement life credit is okay but ! think we have to think through a little bit more down the road based on that life cycle difference. So and because of the timing of the project we need to move out, although I'm not completely smiling, I'm much happier than ! was last time so ! would just, ! just give that one criticism because ! know this is moving along. Moving down the road. But so ! feel more comfortable with, but ! think we've got to have a threshold level based on that difference, and we can talk about that later but ! feel better with this one. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Yeah, ! stated my comments earlier. I'm still, ! don't. Somehow we have to, for me at least, I'd like to tie in the use. The volume of traffics amount compared to a large business, school, whatever it might be. Especially when you're dealing here with a bunch of mixed uses. You've got the residential people. ! think those have been handled properly. But when you have a large business or school, so you the Dinner Theater in there versus a small business. ! think you've got to look at the amount of traffic these places are creating with the amount of use. So anyhow, this 100-80 percent thing, get rid of that. I, yeah. You know, ! agree with Mr. Peterson's comments on that. But ! still think somehow we need to do a better job with commercial and office industrial and... Councilman Peterson: ! agree with you. ! think we need to maybe put that in a work session at some point in time. ! feel like I'm doing this every year. 21 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 Mayor Furlong: You're looking at the whole assessment practice and what we're dealing with, I mean we're dealing with a few issues here. We've got collector roads. We've got mixed use. I mean this is our downtown area so it' s probably the biggest area of mixed use that we have. Councilman Labatt: But we've got to assess it properly now. I mean now's not the time to let it pass but... I don't want to do that. Councilman Peterson: I don't see Chapel Hill as necessarily being the big issue tonight because I think they are going to be assessed double when, what's the road going north? Great Plains. So they'll be assessed proportionately to your point Steve but I'm not prepared not to move it ahead because of that situation tonight but I think it's a legitimate issue. I just don't think we're going to get it resolved tonight. Councilman Labatt: No, and that's fine. I don't want to delay it. I bring up the issue and I think your idea Craig of a work session topic at a future meeting here is how we do this properly... But do we tell Paul to...those 80 percenters. Councilman Peterson: Well that's about 20 percent. Councilman Labatt: Well I know but, so my motion would be to approve this conditioned upon getting rid of the 80 percenter. Upping 20 percent. Is that what you're. Councilman Peterson: That would be my recommendation. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Furlong: And we could certainly do that this evening. Again, I mean that's, if we wanted to. Staff is recommending an assessment roll. Those could be modified. Roger Knutson: You can modify them and that's why we're having the action tonight. The citizens will have to be notified of your decision of course. Mayor Furlong: But to the extent in this particular potential change of eliminating the 80 percent we still would not get up to the point of the preliminary assessment notification that was issued last fall and again with public hearing, prior to public hearing last week, so we're still within that range. I guess my comments, with regard to the corner lot issue that Councilman Peterson raised. I think that is an issue. I think the fact that somebody's on a corner, do you actually use, I guess getting back to your issue of volume do they, twice as many streets. I think the answer is no. I think the access points is a good way to do that and avoid the double assessment. The, I don't want to beat on it. The pavement life credit. The 80 percent. I understand what you're trying to do. I think it's a good attempt. My concern is that we're trying to be precise and the best we can be accurate in terms of road improvements. As a government unit, as an organization we work in you know a span of years. In other words we look at how long it takes for a project to get to a point. We started working on this last fall. Now the work's going to be done this 22 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 summer. I think we're trying to apply a little more precision, especially when you're dealing with ranges anyway when you talk about expected life spans, road improvements. Within a 10 to 15 year period, we're within that. You know sometimes some projects might extend further than that. Are we going to charge them more because it goes beyond the 15 year. That would be the opposite to the credit and ! don't think that makes sense. ! don't think anybody is proposing that so ! think from a practice standpoint, ! would certainly support eliminating that 80 percent pavement credit. We're still, for the residential properties, one of the things I'm looking at is to make sure it's fair. When you have residents that are on collector roads, that's the biggest issue to making sure we're fair with the assessment. The businesses, the commercial properties, the non-profit's that are big users of those roads are paying more on a relative basis, not only a per lot but on a per acre and ! think that from a fairness standpoint makes sense to me. So my final comment is again I'll appreciate staff's efforts over the last 3 weeks. After our last meeting when some of these issues came up, to try to get it right and ! think tonight we're getting it right so. Any other comments? If not, is there a motion to adopt the resolution which I'm guessing may include some adjustment to the recommendation. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. With that motion could you close the public hearing also. The minutes reflect that we continued this public hearing from our last council meeting. Mayor Furlong: ! thought ! closed it. Todd Gerhardt: ! think you may have but the minutes reflect that it was continued. Roger Knutson: Mayor, we'll double check the tape. ! was just noticing the minutes you've adopted say table the special assessment hearing is what it says in your minutes. Recorded minutes. Mayor Furlong: That was the item but it was, okay. Can ! just make that statement without objection? Todd Gerhardt: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Okay, without objection we'll close the public hearing. Roger Knutson: If it already hasn't been closed. Mayor Furlong: If it already hasn't been closed. Anything else ! should say? Todd Gerhardt: We're doubly covered. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Check the tape. ! think we were clear on that. With that is there a motion? 23 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I would make a motion that we approve the 2004 MSA Street Improvement Project 04-02 as presented by staff this evening with the one change of eliminating the 80 percent pavement life credit that was presented, and revert back to 100 percent. Mayor Furlong: For those properties. Councilman Peterson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is that clear enough Mr. Knutson? Okay, is there a second to that motion? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Resolution #2004-43: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adopt the assessment roll for the 2004 MSA Street Improvement Project 04-02 as presented by staff with the one change of eliminating the 80 percent pavement life credit that was presented, and revert back to 100 percent. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: We'll move now to the next item which is the consideration of the awarding bids for that same project, the 2004 MSA street improvements. We'll move to a staff report. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor. On February 23, 2004 at 10:00 six bids were opened for the 2004 MSA street improvement project. Six bids were received. The bids were tabulated and checked for errors. The low bidder for this project Northwest Asphalt in the amount of $511,920.18. Northwest Asphalt has worked in the City of Chanhassen before and their past work and scheduling has been acceptable. Staff recommends that the project be awarded to Northwest Asphalt for the 2004 MSA street improvement projects in the amount of $511,920.18. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any questions for staff?. Councilman Labatt: Paul, where has Northwest worked at on projects in the City of Chanhassen before? Matt Saam: Councilman Labatt, they've done extensive private development. Currently they just did the Century Plaza at the southeast corner of Century Boulevard and West 78th Street, just north of Highway 5. Big Woods development the past couple years. Councilman Labatt: But they haven't done any large commercial? 24 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 Matt Saam: Well that Century Plaza but that isn't, I guess I'm not sure what size you're getting at by large but they've done a lot of work with us. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? For staff. If not we'll bring it back to council for discussion. If there's any. Seems to make sense. Very good, is there a motion to adopt the resolution included in our packet. Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as submitted by staff. Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Resolution #2004-44: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the resolution awarding the bid for the 2004 MSA Street Improvement Project No. 04-02 to Northwest Asphalt in the amount of $511,920.18. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Peterson: The only thing from a Southwest Metro standpoint, ! don't know some of you may have been copied on it but we are, the activity level in Chan, whether it's because of gas prices. Whether it's because of just trends, but our activity is substantially up and we have some parking issues. We're considering trying to move some, make some progress on getting the parking ramp over on Market Square built sooner. ! think you'll see that hopefully to start to get some activity in the coming weeks, but it's interesting from a Southwest Metro standpoint. We don't know, we can only assume it's because of gas prices but we're up by 20 percent which is significant and what's even more interesting is that we are, all the other regional's are not up anywhere near that level. Some of them are actually down in the last 6 months so we're still trying to figure that out, so you'll see that. Mayor Furlong: Good problem. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, it's a good problem. It gets cars off the road. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions of Mr. Peterson? Any other council presentations? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, very, very quickly Mayor. Just to respond to some of Mr. Tom Devine's comments with regard to water treatment. We do have a lot of options. We did study a lot of options. With regard to how we should treat our water. We've come up with a hybrid approach. It's a phased approach. It's an economically sound approach. We have gone out to the community. We have used a very strong group of 25 City Council Meeting - June 14, 2004 volunteers. The last point, we may need to accelerate and intensify some of the education with the Lotus Lake Associations in light of the comments that were made tonight to make sure that people have the correct information associated with what is going on and what we plan to do. ! just reiterate those points. Thank you Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anything else? Okay, very good. Nothing for me to present either. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 26