CC 2004 12 13
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 13, 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,
Councilman Lundquist and Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Bruce DeJong, Roger Knutson, Kate
Aanenson, Jill Sinclair, Paul Oehme, Kelley Janes and Matt Saam
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Melissa Gilman Chanhassen Villager
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening and welcome to those that are here this evening
and those watching us at home as well. Appreciate you joining us. We have a fairly full agenda
this evening. There will be opportunities. I know we have copies at the table back there so I
encourage if people are interested in speaking on any of the topics, to grab and agenda. The
public hearings will be an opportunity for residents and interested parties to speak at that point
on the agenda. If there’s another item on the agenda you wish to discuss, we can do that at
visitor presentations. With this I’d like to ask council if there’s any modifications to the agenda
as published. If not we’ll proceed with the published agenda.
PRESENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS.
Mayor Furlong: First item this evening we have some award presentations to make so we’ll start
with the Environmental Excellence Awards and Ms. Sinclair, if you can join me up there. We
also have members of our environmental commission here with us tonight. With us tonight is
the Chair of our Environmental Commission, Marcus Zbinden and Dottie Shay who’s on the
Environmental Commission as well. We’ve got a number of Environmental Excellence Awards
that we’re going to be passing out this evening. The first is to Pastor Jim Bledsaw and Dave
Boorsma. Are they here? Would you like to come up gentlemen? Good evening. Come on up.
Good to see you. Dave. Both of these gentlemen were involved in working with our
Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce. Linda Walton and staff to institute a farmers market in
Chanhassen this year. The right people got invited and thanks to the hard work and dedication of
Dave and Pastor Bledsaw the farmers market began a reality in Chanhassen this past summer.
th
The market was opened on May 15 with 3 vendors. Grew over the summer and had a very
successful run so on behalf of the City of Chanhassen Environmental Commission we’d like to
thank you for your efforts and congratulate you and wish you best of luck in your second year
next year. Thank you. Then we have representatives from the Chaska High School
Environmental Club. Logan Jensen and Carly Jaden. Are they here this evening? Why don’t
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
you come on forward. Heidi Berbee, I don’t think she was here tonight but I know she was
instrumental here as well. Good evening. The Environmental Club is a student led
environmental club and is in partnership with the Art Club hosted a community wide art fair
called Art for the Earth. In addition to allowing students to sell their artwork, of which a portion
of the proceeds were donated to an organization called Project Alice, the fair also was designed
to raise awareness for the benefit of organic farming, harmful effects of pesticides and chemical
use and ways in which community members can participate in developing sustainable farming
and living. So to Logan and Carly, thank you for your efforts. We’re pleased to present you
with this plaque. Thank you. I’d also like to invite up the Project H2O Neighborhood
Coordinators, Kathy Dahl, Sue Morgan and Shelley Strohmaier. Are they here? Project H2O is
an ongoing city sponsored education program that employs citizen volunteers called
neighborhood coordinators to educate their neighbors about storm water. In addition to speaking
at the neighborhoods about lake quality, these 3 women have endorsed simple household
practices that help keep our city’s water clean. They’ve also helped their neighbors to apply
these practices in their own homes and yards and demonstrations for others. So on behalf of the
City of Chanhassen, thank you. General Mills Corporation, Brent Kreofsky. Kreofsky?
Kreofsky, thank you. Chanhassen General Mills plant has been dedicated to reforesting the Bluff
Creek corridor for a number of years. Volunteers from Chanhassen’s, and sometimes Eden
Prairie plants have gathered each spring in the past 5 years to plant native trees along Bluff
Creek. This year they coordinated the event with our City’s Arbor Day activities and planted 80
oak trees along the creek. In time the canopy of native trees will shade the creek, prevent
erosion, reduce storm water runoff and provide scenic beauty for decades to come, so on behalf
of the City of Chanhassen, General Mills thank you. And Tim Erhart, Chanhassen Rotary. Good
evening. As part of our Arbor Day festival this year the Chanhassen Rotary partnered with the
city to organize a tree planting project. Two planting locations were selected, Bandimere Park
and future site of the trailhead parking lot near Chanhassen Nature Preserve on Coulter
Boulevard. The Rotary members were joined by Cub Scout Pack 295 and together they planted
80 native trees that will enhance and beautify the park sites for generations to come. On behalf
of the City for the Rotary, thank you. And Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. Monique LaCroix
and Peter Moe. Good evening. Minnesota Landscape Arboretum is being recognized for their
Tea Room composting program. As a seasonal manager of the Tea Room Monique saw that
there was a large amount of food waste generated that could be diverted from garbage into
composted material. Monique pursued and was granted the funding from Carver County and
approval from the Arboretum administration to conduct a composting system for the Tea Room.
She shared with a simple system of composting bins outside the Tea Room, a bucket for carrying
food waste to bins. She then educated the Tea Room staff in the proper procedures for
separating food waste from garbage. Finally managed turning and inspecting the compost site.
Much to the pride of the Arboretum the composting system has been very successful. In light of
this success plans have been made to continue the program when the Tea Room re-opens in the
new visitor center. So on behalf of the City of Chanhassen, Monique, Peter, thank you very
much. And representatives from the Carver-Scott Master Gardeners were unable to be with us
here tonight. Just wanted to read a little bit about the work that they did. The gardener, ask any
gardener at the city’s community garden who has the best plots and all the fingers point to the
master gardener demonstration plot. They succeeded where others failed and while they may
have failed from time to time, it gives them ideas for new projects and ultimately they still
succeed. Luckily for the rest of us they show their love and knowledge and expertise of
2
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
gardening for our residents. They provide the resources and inspiration for all gardeners to
create beauty and abundance in their gardens. Not only have a presence of community gardens
each summer but they also annually volunteer at the Arbor Day celebration providing informal
and invaluable questions and answers. So on behalf of the City we would like to recognize the
Carver-Scott Master Gardeners and we will give them their plaque as well.
PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARD, BOB AYOTTE.
Mayor Furlong: On this the occasion of Bob Ayotte’s last meeting with the City Council, it’s my
pleasure to recognize his efforts tonight. Bob has worked persistently throughout his term to
make Chanhassen an outstanding community. He did this not for recognition but to serve the
city in which he lives to the best of his ability. Using his professional experience as a facilities
manager for the federal government, Bob supported the expansion of the city’s pavement
management system, the development of the city’s first water treatment plant, spearheaded an
initiative to review how public safety services are provided, and ensured that the city receive
feedback from the public on our current and proposed services. So Bob, on behalf of the City
Council, the city staff, I’d like to thank you for your leadership, creativity and dedication to
making Chanhassen an even better place to live and work. Thank you. Present you with this
award, presented to Bob Ayotte in recognition of his outstanding service, dedication in the
community for the past 4 years by the Chanhassen City Council. Myself, Steve, Brian and Craig.
Councilman Ayotte: Thanks Tom.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Ayotte: Do I get a word?
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Ayotte, would you like the floor?
Councilman Ayotte: I just want to shake Steve’s hand and acknowledge you.
Councilman Labatt: Thank you. Thank you Robert.
Councilman Ayotte: And I’ve got to shake the lawyer’s hand.
Councilman Peterson: That just cost you 30 bucks.
Councilman Ayotte: I just want to say just a couple of things because I know we’re going to be
busy tonight. For one term it’s been an awful full term. Awfully full term I should say for the
past 4 years. Just a couple of vignette’s. One public hearing I got a call on the cell phone from
my son who was on the tarmac to fly off to Afghanistan. A resident chastised me for that until I
told that resident what the call was for. And I was filling in, taking care of a meeting for Brian,
he was out of town. He asked me to fill in for him and I got the call that Sergeant Mike Ayotte
was jumping into Northern Iraq to open up the northern front. And at another meeting my
daughter, the night before reported out to Fort Jackson, and so the only one that we didn’t know
where he was, was Rob because he’s in college and you never know where your college students
3
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
are so, we had the fourth son was off going to school, but I just wanted to say that it’s been a full
4 years. The last 2 years have been really something because the focus and support of these
other 4 guys up here with me right now and the response we got from the city staff, the city
manager and all of his support staff. I wanted to publicly make that point. More than that,
during these 4 years my best friend and my lovely bride, Sherry has kept me standing the whole
time, despite all the things that have happened during these 4 years so thank you honey. Thank
you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the city manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 22, 2004
-City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated November 22, 2004
-City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes of Truth-in-Taxation Hearing dated
December 6, 2004
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated November 16, 2004
-Park and Recreation Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated November 23,
2004
b. Approval of Subdivision of 2.83 acres into Two Single Family Lots with Variances;
Lotus View Addition; 745 Pleasant View Road, Beverly Thomas.
c. Accept Donation for an Automatic External Defibrillator, CenterPoint Energy.
d. Approval of 2005 Police Contract with the Carver County Sheriff’s Department.
Resolution #2004-81:
e. Approve Resolution Authorizing Deficits in Gateway and
Presbyterian Homes Tax Increment Districts.
Resolution #2004-82:
f. Approval of Fund Transfers.
Resolution #2004-83:
g. Approve Resolution Receiving Feasibility Study and Calling for
Public Hearing; 2005 Street Improvement Project 05-01.
Resolution #2004-84:
i. Approval of Scheduled Utility Rate Increase.
j. Approval of Parade Route for American Legion District Convention, May, 2005.
Resolution #2004-85:
l. Approval of Resolution and Letter of Support for Improvements
to Trunk Highway 5.
4
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
m. Accept $1,200 Donation to the Fire Department from Target to Purchase an Automatic
External Defibrillator.
n. Approve Purchase of Fire Department Pagers Using Charitable Gambling Proceeds.
nd
Resolution #2004-86:
o. Accept Utility Improvements in Rice Lake Manor 2 Addition,
Project 03-05.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION OF AWARD FOR AN AUTOMATIC
EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR, CONNIE HARGEST, CENTERPOINT ENERGY.
Connie Hargest: Good evening Mayor Furlong, City Council members. My name is Connie
Hargest. I represent CenterPoint Energy/Minnegasco and we’re here, you’ve been giving out
awards this evening so I’m here to give you one. We have a program called the Community
Partnership Grant Program and such we try to give back to the communities, particularly in the
arena of public safety. Justin Miller, where? There he is. He gave us an application for AED
equipment, the defibrillator equipment that the city is putting in various, I think public buildings
and with your first responders. And we’re very pleased tonight to be able to give you a check for
$2,500 for the purchase of some of that AED equipment. Thank you Mayor. Thank you to the
council.
Mayor Furlong: I know that this is, at least that I’m aware of the second grant that CenterPoint
has provided to the city and we certainly appreciate that program. I think the other grant was for,
if I’m not mistaken, trees in the City Center Park.
Connie Hargest: Right, for beautification.
Mayor Furlong: Beautification for our new park so.
Connie Hargest: This is what we’re hoping to do now because public safety happens to be an
area that we’re very concerned with, being a gas distribution company you can see that public
safety could…so thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And I know, or I understand anyway that the defibrillators, one is
going to be located in the fire chief’s command vehicle for mobile and then there will be another
one that will be located in our new senior center as well so both good locations for that type of
equipment that we hope we never need to use. Thank you. I would like to open up the podium
now and invite any residents or guests to come forward to comment on any issues that they’d
like. As I said earlier, we do have 3 items under our public hearing so if somebody’s interested
in talking on one of those items, they’re free to do it at that time. They don’t need to come
forward now. If there’s an issue later in our agenda that someone would like to comment on,
they can do that at this time. And if there’s any issue that is of interest to a resident or interested
party that they wish the council to be aware of, this would also be a time to do that. So at this
5
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
point visitor presentations is open and I would invite people to come to the podium. State their
name and address and address the council.
th
Judy Schmieg: My name is Judy Schmieg. I live at 200 West 77 Street and I know you’re busy
tonight so I would like the City Council just to consider in the future that the EDA be separated
from the City Council. I think that they have a conflict of interest and I understand that the EDA
is like open to the public, but I haven’t seen anything as to when they have their meetings and
stuff, and when was the last EDA meeting?
Mayor Furlong: If I’m not mistaken I think you were here at that one. The EDA does not meet
regularly. It meets as needed but I’ll defer to Mr. Gerhardt in terms of meeting schedule.
Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct. I believe the last meeting was September-October.
Judy Schmieg: Okay, but I would just in the future would like you to consider separating those
from the council. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address the council during
visitor presentations? Seeing none then I’ll close visitor presentation and we’ll move on with our
agenda.
CONSIDER CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE MAYOR’S TERM OF
OFFICE FROM 2 YEARS TO 4 YEARS.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. We have a power point presentation we’d like
to give at this time to talk about procedures and some discussion points in changing the term of
mayor. After the power point we’d ask that the City Council open up the public hearing for
citizen comments. At this time, Justin if you could go through the power point.
Justin Miller: Sure. Mayor, City Council. I believe it was in November that the council asked
staff to look into the possibility and procedures of what it would take to change the mayor’s term
from 2 years to 4 years. As you’re aware currently the mayor’s term is a 2 year term and
elections occur every November, in even number years such as this year, 2004. The next mayor
election would be in 2006. And those terms begin the following January so the mayor’s term,
this upcoming term will begin in January of 2005. In order to change the length of term for the
mayor it is simply a change to the City Council ordinance. Any ordinance change, if you were to
do this, must be adopted at least 4 weeks prior to when the closing period begins for the next
filing of office and that would be in August of 2006. So if you were to make a change, it would
need to be done before then. If a change is adopted any time between now and August of 2006,
this change would not impact the current term of the mayor which was just elected in 2004. That
election was for a 2 year term and that will continue to be no matter what happens with this
change, if any change. So any new change that would occur would take place in January of
2007. As we started looking at this, we kind of made a list of some discussion points which we
think are appropriate to the situation. One of which is should the mayor’s term coincide with the
terms of the other council members. As it stands now the mayor and 2 council members are up
for election every 2 years so theoretically a majority of the council could be new every 2 years.
6
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Another issue that does come up is that a 2 year term does allow for more frequent citizen input
on issues. It allows those that do favor the 2 year term would say that this holds the mayor more
accountable to the issues that are at hand at the time. However those that are for a 4 year term
argue that 4 year term would lead to more stability on the council and that a majority of the
council would only be up for election every 4 years as opposed to every 2 years. And they also
say that a 4 year term allows the mayor, the mayor’s office to be a little bit less political and not
have to deal with elections quite as often. However those on a 2 year, proponents of a 4 year
term would also say that issues are more subject to being politicized out of proportion and that a
single issue might dominate the mayor’s term and election. Another person that might be for a 4
year term could say that the mayor’s campaigning schedule would be too frequent. Right now it
can be said that the mayor’s, as soon as he gets elected almost has to start thinking about the next
term, and that this could discourage some candidates from having to run for office, or one
interim for office if they think that in 2 years they just have to go through the same thing again.
And also a 2 year term would, or could I should say, hamper the learning curve and the
relationships that the mayor forms. There is a pretty steep learning curve with some of the issues
of running a city. And also part, big part of being mayor is establishing those key relationships
with other people. Not only other legislators but city council members and mayors around the
city. Superintendents. And it’s not just the fact that the mayor needs to get to know those
people. Those people need to get to know the mayor as well and so that mayor is changing over
rapidly, that can be seen as a detriment. So, if the action tonight was to change the mayor’s term,
it’s simply an amendment to the city code which would take a motion and a motion would
simply say that you wish to amend the city code to change the mayor’s length to the desired
length of time. A simple majority of the council is needed for this to take place, and if you don’t
want to do anything. If you want to keep the mayor’s term at 2 years, just simply no action is
needed at this time. As the city manager said, this is a public hearing so we would recommend
that you open the public hearing and receive public comment and then if you wish to take any
action, you can respond to that. I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, we will open the public
hearing then. This is an opportunity for interested parties to come forward and make their
comments known to the council on this matter, so I would invite you to come forward to the
podium. Please state your name and address for the record.
Fred Prinz: Good evening. My name is Fred Prinz. I live at 408 Santa Fe Circle. I had sent an
earlier e-mail to all of the members here and my position is that in order to be responsive to the
population as a whole, it would be beneficial that the mayor’s office remain as a 2 year cycle for
a couple reasons. One is the importance of the people being able to provide their input by their
voting. And secondly, we can always have an election every 2 years like the U.S. House of
Representatives. They’re a 2 year term, and I see no reason why the mayor’s office should be
any longer, and so I’m just reiterating my earlier position. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
th
Judy Schmieg: My name is Judy Schmieg, 200 West 77. I also, from people I’ve talked to in
the community, like the 2 year term for the mayor and if it’s a bad mayor, 2 years is a long time.
When we have a good mayor like we’ve had, the election is not a big process, and it also would
7
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
hopefully encourage council members to run for mayor who do have the experience with the city
and the staff people. And I would like it to stay at the 2 years. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this matter?
Al Klingelhutz: Mayor, councilmen. I haven’t spoken to you for quite a long time and I see a
couple of my friends are not too much in favor of a 4 years term for mayor. I served as Mayor of
Chanhassen myself quite a long time ago, but to me a mayor that could be elected for 4 years
could really establish himself and get some of the projects that he has in mind to get done, to get
them completed before he has to run for re-election. Two years isn’t a very long time. I hear
some of the comments, the thing that bothered me about a 2 year term is you barely get your feet
wet and then you have to start running for mayor for the next term. You just don’t establish a
good continuity of your office to have to, and as far as giving the public the opportunity to bring
up problems, I think Chanhassen is open enough and has continued to be that way for many
years, that most of the public, especially with TV, the news 2 or 3 times a week, should be able
to follow what the council and the mayor are doing and I don’t think that should be a cause for
having to run every 2 years. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Richard Mingo: Good evening. My name is Richard Mingo, 7601 Great Plains Boulevard. I
have coffee with a bunch of our…about 4 out of 5 mornings a week and gets together, the vast
majority feel that we are against a 4 year term. One of the things that we’re concerned with, and
I know I am, Chanhassen’s a very rapidly growing community and I’m just afraid that it would
be possible for a very, very newcomer and we’ve seen this happen in the City Council in some
other cases, where a newcomer comes to town, been here about 2 or 3 years. Single issue
candidate. Has a small neighborhood that gets together and gathers friends and they’re able to
get themselves into an office position. I would be very leery of this as far as getting a mayor in
under that same condition. Now the problem with that type of vote is, the fact that so many
people just don’t vote, as you know from the preliminary election this year. My gosh, what did
we have in the vote totals? It was ridiculous and then of course when we got to the main election
it was much, much better. But I think we’re a little bit leery of that. One of the items that was
brought up was that the 2 year term might discourage someone, or pardon me, a 4 year term
would make it available. I think that a 4 year term might discourage some people due to the fact
that it’s just quite long. That’s a long period of time. I know you people put in a hell of a lot of
time. You work hard at what you’re doing, but I just think for some people 4 years would drive
them out of possibly running for that position and to me, if you’re a very good candidate and
you’ve done a very good job as a mayor, you’ll get re-elected. So again, I feel that a 2 year term
is fine. And if we do go to anything like this, if you’re going to, I just feel that that should be put
up to a public vote. That a simple majority of the City Council shouldn’t decide whether it’s a 2
or 4 year term. Is that the way it actually is today? I mean just a simple majority of this group
that they can make that decision. I am deathly against that. I just feel that the public should have
a voice in that and actually vote on it. Thank you.
8
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address the council on this
matter? If not I’d like to thank everybody for their input. We’ll close the public hearing and
bring it back to the council for discussion. Discussion gentlemen.
Councilman Ayotte: I don’t have an opinion.
Councilman Lundquist: You said that too quiet.
Councilman Ayotte: Just to respond to some of the points. I was the one that brought this up
about running, bringing it to a 4 year term so obviously I favor it. And participating in an
election, I understand the points that were brought up. The mayor is a fifth of the council so the
mayor in terms of voting power does not have any more or less impact on what’s being passed or
not passed. But to Mr. Klingelhutz’s point which I think is an excellent one, when an individual
runs for an office, in my case when I started running I was interested in public safety and water
treatment and I worked towards that and by establishing a rapport with the other council
members, and by having what I thought was a viable vision and by stating on behalf of the
people that voted me in, that’s what they wanted, we were able to collectively move in that
direction. Tom Furlong is a very good mayor. And irrespective of that point and irrespective of
that decision, you could have a good mayor or a bad mayor and you could have a good
councilman or a bad councilman in terms of performance. So the fact that a councilman is a 4
year term, the same argument holds that once you buy a councilman, you buy a councilman for a
4 year term. So I don’t see that as a disclaimer to having the mayor’s position as a 2 year
position. We did receive an e-mail from a former mayor, Mayor Mancino who brought up many
of the points that you brought up sir and a few others but for the good of the community the
learning curve issue is key to the mayor’s agenda and to a councilman’s agenda. You have to
have, but with the mayor there’s a little bit more importance because this guy has to be meeting
with commissioners, other agents, other mayors, the city staff on a more frequent basis, so once
all that rapport is established, to establish that rapport in a 2 year period and pull it out, you start
all over again. And that’s what’s so integral and important about a mayor having the ability to
(a), establish that rapport and (b), make that rapport work for the city. So if you turn the mayor
away after 2 years, that cycle starts all over again and I really think that’s a mistake. In addition
to the learning curve issue, in addition to the establishment of agenda for the good of the
community, you also have the other aspects of interrupting things. The interruption is, stopping
your activity because you only have so much time to gear up for an election activity. To raise
funds, your campaign funds. To begin to go down the road once again. So it’s a detriment to the
city’s goal that has been collectively established for the council to defer that energy away from
what the mayor needs to do. And the mayor needs to focus for as long as possible to getting
those tasks completed. And to stop to raise funds and develop a campaign and recruit folks to
help him out and so forth, that’s going to slow things down so those are the main points that I
want to bring up and why I favor the idea of having it as a 4 year term. Thank you Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments. Discussion. Councilman Labatt? Anybody?
Councilman Labatt: This is a topic that is a tough one Tom because you’re an excellent mayor.
You’ve done a great job in 2 years. And I think that was evident in the fact that out of the 12,000
voters that were eligible to take you on, nobody wanted to challenge you because you’ve done a
9
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
great job and that’s a vote of confidence for you. On the flip side is for sitting up here for the
last 6 years, we had one term mayors. In the past. And the people have exercised their vote
every 2 years to either challenge the mayor in seat at the time, and ousting that mayor, it’s
happened. So Bob, I don’t disagree with some of your points, I just think that this is an integral
position here the mayor because while we all have one vote up here, the mayor, the position of
mayor does have a little more authority than the other 4 of us. While that authority has never
been used or abused by this gentleman here, it has been in the past and when stuff comes up and
it’s publicized and people on the second Tuesday of the month, or first Tuesday, vote that person
out. So I just, this is, and Mr. Mingo I think said a great, this is a topic here that may be broader
than the 5 of us making the decision on. He brought up the fact that do we have this to be a vote
to all the residents in the next election, in 2 years to say you know, should we change it. It’s an
excellent point and I don’t think that we need to make a rush decision here. If we really don’t
have to decide for 4 weeks prior to the next election, that gives us a heck of a lot of time to really
take some comment on this. The emails I got, and I didn’t get any today. I was away from the
computer all day so I didn’t get Mancino’s e-mail, but all the ones I got, the comments I heard is
everybody said no, no, no, no. Don’t do it. Keep it 2 years. From other mayors that the mayor,
old mayor of Minnetonka sent an e-mail. But I did not get Ms. Mancino’s e-mail but I guess I
would either say, let’s keep it as it is. If the mayor’s doing an excellent job, like Mr. Furlong has
in his first term, the residents will speak of that and not challenge him. Or challenge the person
as mayor. If we want to look at it further, let’s do more study on it. We don’t need to make a
rush decision tonight when we have time on our hands on this one and I’ll leave it at that. I’m
not supportive of it right now.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think that first of all it’s my understanding Todd that we
can’t bring it up to a vote or referendum, is that correct Roger?
Roger Knutson: That’s correct.
Councilman Peterson: It would be us deciding is the only way to change it. Okay. In me
looking at it, I look at two different things. I look at, first and most important what I feel is in the
best long term interest of the community, and that’s probably the one item that rings loudest in
my ears is, is it in the best long term interest of Chanhassen that the mayoral term be 4 years.
And every time I ask that, my answer comes back, yes. It’s more appropriate because of many
of the things that were talked about, both by Justin and by Councilman Ayotte. You know the
learning curve is significant. It’s, a mayor is, if you turn over every 2 years, they’re in a
basically campaign or learning period throughout their whole term. It takes a minimum, I would
offer, of a year. The people that I’ve talked to, the past mayors, before they really get the
acronyms down. And before they really understand what the issues are and they haven’t even
begun to develop the relationships with the people you need to develop relationships with, as
we’ve offered before. Whether it’s the legislatures or the school districts or the commissions.
There’s a myriad of relationships that we as council people depend upon whomever the mayor is
to develop those relationships. Which I think is important where our city is today. We aren’t at
a stage where we are growing like we were growing in the past. We’re coming to a mature life
cycle because our city is guided. Our comprehensive plan has been done and revised and the
10
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
growth that we have seen in the past has now, as well into the future is already planned out. To a
great degree, so I think it’s more important now that we have a mayor that can develop a
relationships and build rapport, just as we as council people that have a 4 year term are afforded
that same responsibility and ability, which I think is very important. You know as Councilman
Ayotte said, the impact of the mayor isn’t any more than us. Other than getting an agenda item
on without getting another council member involved. They can do that. From sitting up here,
the impact is the same. But going out in the community, the impact is 10 fold more. You know
people don’t ask for a meeting with a councilman as often as they do with the mayor because the
mayor has, like it or not, a higher connotation of impact, and that’s respected amongst all the
communities around. We look at Minnetonka who has now went to a 4 year term. Eden Prairie
has now went to a 4 year term and it goes on and on. And the majority of our cities around us
are 4 year terms. They’ve done that for all the right reasons that we’ve talked about tonight.
And in addition I think stability of this council, we saw what stability can do over the past 2
years and what this council has been able to do because we had a mayor that happened to
dedicate a majority of his life the first year in trying to figure out what to do. And I commend
that but we’re lucky to have that. If we get the next mayor in 2 years from now that’s not willing
to do that, it may take a year and a half for them to do that. So then our stability in the council is
gone. Our effectiveness as a city council is lessen to a great degree. And the other thing which I
hate to mention it but it’s also a factor is, campaigns are expensive. I went back and looked
today at what some of the campaigns in the past have cost. In 2000 the mayoral campaign with
two people running, the two candidates spent $22,000 for a 2 year term. In 2002 the average,
there was $11,000 spent for an average of $4,000 per person. Campaigns have gotten out of
hand and now, in many ways the only people that can afford to run are rich. They have to be
rich to be able to afford to run because campaigns are about money. And I don’t want that. I
truly do not want that. I want anybody that wants to run a campaign, wants to run for mayor to
be able to do that without a high checking account balance. And at least be able to not run every
2 years. To run for 4 and pay for part of it. You know, and is that a predominant factor in me
thinking that the 4 year term is what’s needed? No. Is it a factor? I think it should be for
anybody considering it so I go back to what I started with. In the long term interest of our
community, where we’re at today, I truly believe that a 4 year term is best for staff. It’s best for
this council and at the end of the day, which most important is, it’s best for this community. And
I’ve gotten emails too and I’ve gotten a few more emails that told me that I thought it was a 4
year term. So I don’t, I haven’t got a ground swell of people saying that no, I want 2 years, and I
understand their position. I just, I happen to think that in the rest of the community’s best
interest, a 4 year term is better. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I think the, this is an issue that I’ve struggled with for the
last few weeks, as it’s been talked about and come up in work sessions. Interesting thing is, 2
years ago after my campaign and election, was one of the things that I kind of put on the list to
push as well, as Councilman Ayotte here. To move that mayoral term to 4 years for a lot of the
reasons. One being what Councilman Peterson just described as the expense of it. But the thing,
after 2 years now I think that I’ve changed my mind. It’s very important that we allow our
residents, our citizens to be able to voice their opinions in the way, generally speaking, the way
they can do that is by casting their vote. We’re representatives but we don’t always agree with
11
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
everything that the residents are telling us, and they don’t always agree with the way we vote
either, so that’s their, every 2 years they get a chance to do that. And the only way that they can
truly exercise their right to shift what happens on the council is to elect a majority or change the
majority of members on that. And similar to the way our federal government and our state
government are put together with differing terms. One thing that we also found out is that the
only term, the only position that we have the ability to change the terms on is the mayor. That
the council members are locked into 4, so we don’t have an option to do a 2 year council term
and a 4 year mayoral term. I would again agree that the stability and the learning curve for the
mayor is important. It’s key but I also would argue that things have gone well the last 2 years
and I think the voters recognize that and people, you know for the most part think that things are
going pretty good and therefore the mayor ran unopposed and so when people feel like they need
a change, they need to be able to exercise that change and when they don’t, they won’t. So I’ve
been kind of back and forth, riding the fence both ways on this but at the end of the day for me
it’s, I look back and think is the system that we have broken? It seems to be working out okay.
When we’ve had a couple of rough years in the past, the voters have exercised their desire to
change the course of the council and change the leadership at the mayor’s position and so I don’t
think necessarily that that’s broken and if the system that we have now doesn’t seem to be
broken, I don’t see a reason why we should change it and fix it. And eventually we’re going to
have to get to a 4 year term, I would agree. For that stability. And for some other things but
right now we’ve still got quite a few things going on. We’ve got some big infrastructure changes
going on. We’ve got some big development coming on line. Yes, it’s guided and it’s planned
but there’s still quite a few things that are going to change in the city of Chanhassen in the next
4, 6, 8 years so, arguments on both sides but I’m of the position, my position is that I don’t think
what we have now is broken and I’d prefer to stay at that 2 year term.
Councilman Ayotte: So what say you Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Well, I’ll start by thanking Councilman Ayotte for bringing this up now.
Personally, it’s poor timing. I’d rather consider this issue when I knew I wasn’t going to run for
re-election at some point. Obviously having just had the honor of being re-elected for the first
time, I don’t know what my position will be in 2 years in terms of running for re-election. I can
tell you that I’m very excited about the next 2 years, and that excitement continues to grow. I do
appreciate the residents thoughts that were here and those that sent e-mails and talked to us. And
while I tongue in cheek thank Councilman Ayotte for bringing this up now when I’d rather not, I
do appreciate as well that this was an issue initiated by our council members. I had been on the
fence on this issue for a variety of reasons, and I’ve tried to divorce myself from the fact that I
currently sit in this seat. I’m honored to do that. The question really is a balance between the
frequency with which the voters can change their elected officials, and the amount of time that
their elected officials have to serve the citizens without re-applying for their jobs. Our system of
government, which I have become much more of a fan of these last 2 years, having been a part of
it, is, has a number of checks and balances throughout. Whether that’s at the federal level, state
or even at our city level. Federal level obviously there’s 3 different branches of government with
separate checks and balances. The voters are the final check and balance throughout our
representative democracy which is the correct way for it to occur. The question is just what is
the frequency? Day to day checks and balances also exist. Here at the City Council as it was
mentioned, Councilman Ayotte I think brought it up, whoever sits in this chair, their vote is
12
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
worth one-fifth of the total vote. All of us that have participated in candidate forums, running for
election, the question comes up religiously. You’re going to be 1 in 5, how are you going to get
anything done? And the answer was heard tonight a few times and that’s relationships.
Relationships are important, there’s no question about that. Being able to establish them and
being able to work with other people, both within the city and outside the city is important. Will
the City Council and staff, as I’ve thought about this, is what are we trying to accomplish here? I
think it’s best said, as the staff put together parts of their vision. We have to provide for today’s
needs while planning for tomorrow’s. The majority of our time is spent reacting to and dealing
with today’s needs. What are the street projects for next year? What are the, what are we going
to do for public safety next year? It’s a lot of immediate term issues. This council needs to be
looking longer term. Any council does. This is the policy making board. It’s up to us to depend
on our city manager and staff to deal with the day to day needs. That doesn’t relieve us from
that, from the policies there. Planning for tomorrow needs can have at times more long term
benefit to our city and our citizens than dealing with the immediate matters of concern. I
struggle with the benefits of a 2 year mayor term. We heard them tonight. More frequent
elections. Voters that either disagree with the mayor individually or with the council direction in
general have an opportunity to change. It’s going to create increased volatility, there’s not
question about that. So then when I hear Councilman Peterson talk about looking longer term
and as we mature as a city, do we want that? I believe a 2 year mayor term is beneficial when
you have a city that’s going through rapid growth and change. We’ve done that. The majority of
that. Will there be change and new development occurring going forward? Absolutely. But
we’re not going to be growing at the same rate and, but those are valid issues. Four year mayor
term, consistent with the rest of the council. There’s again one vote. One term. Longer terms
will have the benefit of allowing people to view matters on the longer term basis. The process
for with our government moves more slowly, and I’ve found that out these last 2 years. That the
process, while results matter, we’ve tried to deliver results, the process by how you get there
matters a lot too. We’ve had a couple times where the process wasn’t as publicized as some
people would have hoped, and it caused some problems and we’re aware of that. You try to fix
that. Having time to fix those things and having time to complete a process, and then see the
fruits of that process is something that’s important as well. Where we are, we need to look
ahead. This council, I have tried to mention time and again that I think it’s important that we
don’t look back. That we deal with the situation that we have and we look ahead and try to make
decisions that will not put future councils into difficulty or jeopardize options that a future
council might have. Not do something today that’s going to put somebody else, that when 5
other people are sitting in these seats, which they will, in a difficult situation. I’ve had the
privilege, as I said, to currently hold this and I’m honored to serve but this decision, and I
sincerely appreciate the comments made by Councilman Labatt and others about how I’ve been
able to serve. It has been my honor and privilege to serve. I think as much as I’ve been able to
accomplish some things, it’s not me that’s accomplished it as much as everybody else that
works, and has worked with me. But it’s not about who sits in this chair now or who has sat in it
before and whether they did a good job or didn’t do a good job. Our decision as a council
gentlemen really needs to be about who may serve as mayor. What is the best form of
government that we can leave for future councils so that the best candidates for office will be
offered the best opportunity to serve all the citizens of Chanhassen? I have confidence and faith
in the voters. They have shown time and time again that they will elect the best candidates given
a choice. I firmly believe that a 4 year mayor term will allow the best candidates to best serve
13
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
the citizens of Chanhassen. Is the timing perfect? No. Personally, but this isn’t about me. I
think, and one of the things that I’ve tried to do is separate the politics from public policy, and
from my experience over the last 2 years, and being a student and observing others, I think that
those that serve an elected official that think what’s good public policy first, and what’s the
political ramifications of that policy second tend to serve better and serve well. I have faith in
the voters. I believe the 4 year term, while arguments for keeping it a 2 year term are very valid,
I believe those for where we are now as a city, where we’re going to be and how we can best
leave for future candidates the greatest ability to get things done for the benefit of all residents, I
think we should go to a 4 year term. And I would encourage my fellow councilors as well to
reconsider their position and support a 4 year term. Any other comments? Discussion? Is there
a motion?
Councilman Ayotte: I so move to change the city code and amend it to extend the mayor’s term
from 4 years, correction. From 2 years to 4 years. With an effectivity date for the next election.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any further discussion on the motion?
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve a
city code amendment to change the term of mayor from 2 years to 4 years beginning with
the next election in 2006. All voted in favor, except Councilman Lundquist and
Councilman Labatt who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone and again thank you for the people that provided
comments.
CONSIDER AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, FEES.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, thank you Mayor, members of the council. At the end of the fiscal year as
we look forward we, there’s several fees that we look at adjusting based on inflation. Those 3
fees include the surface water, park fees and sewer and water fees. The surface water fees were
constructed as we adopted the surface water management plan in 1994 to complete the entire
surface water system. Again it’s based on numbers of acres developed. At the time that the rates
were calculated using market values of land and the city construction cost index. The city is
recommending updating these based on the fact that construction price index has increased from
the year 2003 to 2004 6.3 percent. The fees are adjusted in two ways. There’s water quantity
and water quality fees, and they’re again based on lag use, so that would be one fee that we’d be
looking at. The second fee is park fees. Again this is based on land value. As you’re aware land
value is increasing in Chanhassen significantly from anywhere from again this is raw land,
$100,000 to $200,000 and I would suggest that that would be low. Having looked at that, the
Park and Rec Director used the lower number, the $100,000 and made adjustments for the 3
different types of categories of land uses that the fees apply to, so for residential single family
and duplexes, there was an increase of $1,200. For multi-family or apartments there was an
14
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
increase of $900. Again this was the fee from last year to this year. And then the commercial
was adjusted to $3,000 per acre. Then the final fee that we’re recommending adjustment would
be the sewer and water fees. Again the rate study completed by Ehlers and Associates looked at
the hook-up fee. A 5 percent increase for water and then the other fees would be lateral and
trunk hook-up’s. That would be for sewer and for water, so again those are based on the
construction cost index so those are also recommended for an increase. The city does
recommend adopting those by ordinance. There is an attached ordinance for your approval in the
staff report and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. If there are none at this time, this is a public
hearing. And so I would open up the floor and invite interested parties to come forward and
address the council on this matter. If you’d like to come forward, please state your name and
address. For the record.
Al Klingelhutz: Councilmen, I’m Al Klingelhutz, 8600 Great Plains Boulevard. My thoughts
are, we’re always talking about affordable housing, and every time you raise the fees by 5-10
percent, you raise the cost of that house by 5-10 percent. You look at affordable housing and not
only at the state level for affordable housing I think is like something, $186,000. My children
are all past that age. They all have their own homes and things, but I’m thinking about my
grandchildren now and I hope some of them want to live in Chanhassen sometime. And without
a lot of help from somebody else with a first time job, which is usually quite a little lower than a
long time, people that have held major positions before can get, or they look for a new job. It’s
really hard for me to say this and I’m probably going against the wishes of the City Council, but
every time you raise these fees the taxes on your property don’t probably go up but to me it’s just
the same as a tax because someone is paying for that. And if a contractor builds a new house and
he has to pay 5-10 percent more for all of these different fees, he’s going to have to add it onto
the price in order to break even, or make a little money on it. But who’s paying for that? The
individual is buying the house is paying for all these additional fees, so I want to advise you to be
very careful about how much you raise these fees. And I definitely don’t feel that the fees should
generate extra money to pay other city projects. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Please come forward. It is a public hearing. I was just going to, we’ll make
notes and follow up on the issues than individuals. That’s fine. Vernelle, please come forward.
Vernelle Clayton: Am I doing something wrong?
Mayor Furlong: No.
Vernelle Clayton: Wouldn’t be the first time.
Mayor Furlong: Welcome.
Vernelle Clayton: I can’t let Al be the only person…represent the voice of the developers in the
community. I didn’t intend to speak on this subject but what he said is absolutely true. Every
time their rates increase for, whether it’s SWMP fees, park and trail fees, wherever it is, it isn’t
the developer that pays for it. It isn’t the landowner that pays for it. It’s the buyer of the house.
15
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
It’s the people that come to shop in the retail stores. It’s the people, and because this is all
passed on. There’s a certain level of investment that you have to achieve a certain return on
investments and nobody’s going to reduce their investment return because the fees are higher. It
all has to be put in one whole package and if we can only afford to build houses, build retail now.
Why am I so nervous? And get $18.00 a square foot, if the fees go up and we have to get $19.00
a square foot, then the people that rent those retail spaces, instead of charging $5.00 for whatever
they’re selling, they have to sell $5.10 to make up, to pay the rent. So it’s all passed on and I’d
like to piggy back on the apartment comments that Al made. We’ve talked many times about
how to do affordable housing here in Chanhassen. Currently you absolutely cannot do
affordable apartments. Period. Anything that the city can do to fill the gap between what you
can pay for rent and what the building cost just doesn’t do it. There’s just not enough tax
capacity for TIF to fill the gap anymore. And so there are other ways that the city can look, other
things that the city can look to. One is fees. You get so much more, so many more dollars per
acre for apartments in fees, even at much less than $900 per unit, that that’s something that you
could look at. I don’t think, I’m not suggesting you look at it tonight in passing it or not passing
it. What I am suggesting might put it on your agenda to think about. In today’s market you’re
not going to be seeing anybody looking to do apartments here in Chanhassen because they’re not
doing them anywhere, but the time will come when they might. So I just think you might want
to have that on a back of your mind. And you know, I’m not naïve enough to think you’re going
to turn around tonight and change the fee structure, but I am saying, we’re in the middle of
planning a couple projects and one of our tenants is sitting with me this evening and this is,
we’re already really tight on the cost on her building and this is just going to add a little bit more
so it makes it a little tough for us. Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Vernelle Clayton: …while I have your attention, what are you doing with the items on the
consent agenda that you pulled? Now I am out of order.
Mayor Furlong: That’s just a point of information so you’re fine. We’re picking those up after
our last item of new business, so whatever number that is, thank you. After 8 we’ll pick up 1(h)
and 1(k).
Vernelle Clayton: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Is there anybody else that would like to speak, or address the council on this
matter? If not, if you indulge me Ms. Aanenson, a couple of the issues that came up here. One
is, is whether the fees charged pay for other city services. Is that something that you could
address?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. We can’t do that. There’s just a nexus between the providing the fees,
that service for park stays in parks. Storm water, storm water. Utilities and utilities so providing
that cost for services.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So in establishing the fees, we also look at the cost related to them being
provided for those fees?
16
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Kate Aanenson: Correct. To run that system. Construct that system and it goes back to even
looking at what the park director recommended for park fees. We took the very low end of what
we know recent land purchases are outside. You know when we know stuff is going…we did
the use the $100,000. Again recognizing you can’t go to that full, what would be the
proportionality, but that’s also our cost when we’re out there competing trying to get a park site
at that same, you know we’re out there trying to acquire a park.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. If I can just add a couple of things to what Kate
has said. She’s absolutely right. Two of the things that we’re up against constantly is when
we’re looking to put in a storm water pond or put in a park, we have to acquire that land and we
have to pay fair market value for that land and if we don’t keep our fees up, there’s no way we’re
going to be able to buy that land. We’re going to have to go back and look at other means of
finding other revenue sources. And you know we’re really limited from a city level to do that
other than potentially raising taxes. It’s been a directive of my office to look at not taxing our
current residents for new development, and that’s what we’re basically talking about here is, is
new development that comes down the line. Sewer and water hook-up fees. As a resident here,
they paid for their’s, and the reason they pay a lower amount is that you know, it was the cost of
doing that construction at that time. Kate referenced the construction index that we used in
justifying our rate increase, because we’re going to have to build that park after we buy the land
and we have to keep up with what inflation is doing as a part of that. We don’t get any special
deals as being a government. We’re out in the market just like any private developer when it
comes to constructing ponds, parks, water treatment facilities, and we pay sales tax just like
anybody else on property. The State’s looking for revenue every day and they put that burden
onto cities to pay sales tax also. So there’s very few benefits back from a city level when it
comes to determining price of the products that we try to provide new developments. So the key
thing again is land prices continue to soar and we have to increase our price for that, and the
construction industry. Sheet rock. Plywood. All that building materials, as that goes up, we
have to bear that burden also so we have to stay current with these fees so we can not tax our
residents that have already paid their fair share, and get those fees out of new developments so
we can provide them with parks and ponds. That’s it.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. The other issue that was raised was affordable housing and that’s
an issue that I know that council’s looked at and we will look at going forward.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and I think there’s concurrence, as Vernelle stated. We’re doing fine on
owner occupied and that we’ve done without any assistance. It’s tougher for anybody in the
marketplace right now for the rentals. We recently did rent some on Presbyterian Homes but it’s
a huge cost for the city, so again we don’t believe that that burden’s all strictly on the City of
Chanhassen. Kind of looking at a little bit regional, and we are working with the Met Council on
that issue but I’m not sure that this fee is going to adjust that we have to look at everything in a
broader sense.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other follow-up questions for staff based on the public
comments? If I didn’t specifically say it, is there anybody else that wants to come forward for
17
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
the public hearing? If not I’ll close it. I can’t recall if I officially, affirmatively closed it so I will
close the public hearing at this time. Bring it to council for comments. Discussion.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I agree with both Vernelle and Al in their positions and it’s,
we as a council have talked about those same issues and unfortunately the alternatives are
minimal. We either have to raise taxes or you raise the fees in order for us to get the, maintain
what we have so unfortunately I think these are appropriate increases.
Mayor Furlong: Other comments. Sure, Councilman Ayotte please.
Councilman Labatt: Go ahead Bob. You’re short for time.
Mayor Furlong: Time. He said time.
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, I got it. We haven’t talked around the administrative fees for a
while so if we continue to ignore the spike will be a problem, one. Two, we have to address
affordable housing, and not in this context and not within this constraint. That’s got to be a
separate, aggressive target that the next council will have to address.
Good luck on that but I think I have a personal interest, big interest in that and I really do think it
has to take a special, focus view to deal with that issue, but not associated with this action, so I
agree with Councilman Peterson.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments?
Councilman Lundquist: I would concur.
Councilman Labatt: That was short Brian. Like Bob, short. I guess just to piggy back
everybody else, I think the position of the office of the City Manager here and the fact that his
directive is not to put the burden on the current residents for the future development is an
appropriate position, and you know, the fees have to be increased in order to meet that demand
level, a year from now, 5 years now, then that’s what we have to do. So I would concur with
staff and my four compadres.
Mayor Furlong: Good. Thank you. Yeah, it’s always difficult to vote to increase fees but when
the costs are going up, the alternative is to impose a hidden fee on all the other residents because
ultimately it’s going to, the costs have to be incurred so it will be taken either through property
taxes. If we run out of money, future referendums to pay for parks and trails that we could have
paid for with fees. The park fees in particular are going up significantly but they’re still I think
at the low end on a per acre basis of what we’re seeing properties sell for, and as the City
Manager said, we’re going to have to pay fair market value for the property when we buy it and
so I think it’s, while it’s difficult to raise fees, I think it’s better, Councilman Ayotte was
referring to raise them a little bit incrementally each year as opposed to trying to hold them down
and pretend that prices aren’t really rising when our fees are steady and you have to make it up
significantly at another time or use other means. This is something that we have to, as a council
I know is diligent and will be, continue to be diligent on not raising fees beyond what we need
and that that money will be used for the purposes for which it is intended and is collected. So I
18
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
would concur with my fellow council members. To Mr. Klingelhutz and Ms. Clayton’s point,
affordable housing is an issue. It’s something that we’re working on and we will continue to
work on and whatever tools we have at our control, we will consider and look at. My
observation of affordable housing is there is no silver bullet. There is no program, no option, no
solution that works perfectly 100 percent of the time. You have to take the options that you have
and the tools you have and apply them where you can to get it done and it’s an opportunity in a
case by case basis so we’ll continue to look for those. Any other comments? Discussion points?
If not, is there a motion?
Councilman Labatt: I move that we adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the
Chanhassen City Code.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the
vote.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council adopt the
ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE TERMINATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A 190 FOOT COMMERCIAL RADIO TOWER, 100 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE,
BEATRICE ZWIERS ( MOON VALLEY).
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The site located just north on Flying Cloud Drive, recently you’ve
seen that. The Moon Valley site which you recently approved a subdivision. The property has
requested a termination of a tower, 190 foot tower. The public hearing is to address the fact that
the City may revoke the permit for any of the following circumstances. Material changes or
th
condition of a neighborhood where the use is, and certainly that has changed. On May 10 the
City Council approved a comprehensive plan amendment and you also rezoned the property
from A2 and actually the subdivision streets are in. They’ll be pulling permits on that shortly so
really this is to clean up the title. The tower is down and this is to clean up the title on the
property that the cell tower has been removed. So the staff is recommending approval of the
termination of the conditional use permit and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you
have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. This was actually initiated by the property
owner, is that correct? I’m sorry.
Kate Aanenson: There is a representative here too.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any issues you’d like to direct to the council then as representative?
Yep, okay. This is a public hearing.
19
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: So we will open up the podium and invite interested parties to come forward
and address the council on this matter. Please state your name and address. Seeing no one, we
will close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. Is there any discussion?
If there’s no discussion, is there a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Now they’re jumping in. All those in favor, any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Labatt: Give that second to Ayotte since this is his last meeting.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay, he’s got it.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council terminate
Conditional Use Permit #87-14 for a 199 foot commercial radio tower and antenna and an
8 foot by 16 foot building on the property described in the attached Termination of
Conditional Use Permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote
of 5 to 0.
REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CENTURY PLAZA RETAIL CENTER
PUD TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE USES,
TH
NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF CENTURY BOULEVARD AND WEST 78
STREET, ARBORETUM EXCHANGE, LLC.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is located on Century Boulevard, a commercial
center. This is zoned PUD. It is a neighborhood business district. The applicant is requesting to
amend that PUD to allow a broader range of uses. This item did appear before the Planning
th
Commission on October 19. There was some ambiguity in the motion as they presented it.
They recommended denial but for, but once you recommend denial then it’s a denial so we kind
of rephrased the, refrained the motion to support when it appears before you to support what
really what the Planning Commission wanted, and that was that they did approve a health club
use that met the criteria of 5,000 square feet. And that’s really what kind of drive that
neighborhood business so you don’t have one single user. That they be limited in 5,000 square
feet and they’d really be those types of uses that meet the daily needs of the resident. So with
that the Planning Commission ultimately did support that but their motion did say denial. So the
City Council motion as we framed for the City Council that they approve the PUD amendment
only to include physical exercise clubs up to 5,000 square feet. Again the applicant wanted a
much broader use of the district, so with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you’d
have.
20
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Craig.
Councilman Peterson: Kate I guess I’d like staff’s perspective. I can reasonably understand why
we wouldn’t want a lawn and garden center, with or without outdoor storage. Off sale liquor
would seem like a logical place to put that, so.
Kate Aanenson: sure. The City does, the current city ordinance right now allows for four off
sale liquors. We have some other pending developments in the core of downtown which we
believe will also have some. Again trying to generate that synergy in the downtown area. We
believe that kind of keeping that in the core at this point. And that may be something that the
council may want to discuss in the future, is broadening that from, to allowing 4 to, which you
have the discretion. That’s just a number you put in place. There’s no legal limits on that but
looking at maybe adjusting that, but that was one of the reasons. And also, kind of what’s a
neighborhood standard. Kind of a quiet time. Fitting in with a neighborhood when you’re up
against residential. Some of those sort of things. Just so the rationale, and for some of the other
uses as you indicated, when you have outdoor storage, sometimes there’s display outside that
kind of tends to spread and keeping those uses more aesthetically to that neighborhood, so that
was some of their rationale. And again I think as stated in the summaries that the district had
reasonable uses. That district, that neighborhood district. We have that in several other areas of
the community. Neighborhood business. And they seem well leased so.
Councilman Peterson: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff?
Councilman Labatt: Just to piggy back on Craig’s a little bit. So this is zoned or guided business
neighborhood, right?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Labatt: And not business highway.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Labatt: Business highway ends at Powers.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. It’s kind of the core of the downtown, yes.
Councilman Labatt: Right. But as I look at how our development along Highway 5 is expanded
and at 5 and Galpin, 5 and Century, I think that, as our residents are living out there now to the
west and now we’re going to be expanding down in the 2005 MUSA, do we need to look at
having these, call them satellite corner convenience areas? Gas station. Small strip mall. A
liquor store, off sale. And I just, I think we’re missing a boat here. Ship, Bob.
Councilman Ayotte: Both will work in that part of the community.
21
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Councilman Labatt: They will? I think that, while Kate you said that you know, it’s maybe
something we need to look at in the future. Well here we have an applicant here who is going to
bring a business into the city and is asking for uses. While they may not work with our current
zoning, with the business neighborhood because business highway ends at Powers and we want
everything condensed downtown, but yet everybody lives out in the outskirts.
Kate Aanenson: That’s not what I’m saying. Let me just reframe that real quick.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: You know what we decided when we did the Highway 5 corridor study is that
we want those larger uses, kind of that gathering place to be in the core of downtown. We
certainly recognize there needs to be daily service needs, gas station and the like. Some small
convenience. Hair cut. Some small scale restaurants in neighborhoods. Because as you said
that’s where the population, kind of to get those daily needs met. Convenience. Running for
bread and milk at the gas station. That’s certainly appropriate. What we don’t want to have is
strip commercial up and down Highway 5 which dilutes what we’re trying to create that synergy
in the downtown area, and I think that’s a value that Chanhassen’s held pretty strongly and has
added to the charm that’s downtown. And what the staff’s concern was that, you know while
we’re doing it here, for the neighborhood businesses, we need to be really careful because we are
going to have other areas as we grow and as you indicated in that 2005, some of the areas on
Lyman and 101 had also had similar neighborhood business district if we opened it up. You
know are we going to, how does that impact what we’ve created in the downtown area? Because
we want that to be our major gathering place, and yes. There will be some other commercial in
other parts of the community, but in a different scale and intensity. So if you look through the
uses that are permitted on page 2, again we believe, the staff report the permitted uses that’s in
the current business, neighborhood business, is pretty broad.
Mayor Furlong: Is that this Exhibit A?
Kate Aanenson: No. It’s right on the page 2 of the…
Mayor Furlong: Page 2 of the staff report?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: So I mentioned Exhibit A, that was presented by the applicant? The two sided,
single space.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, that was it. That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: And your list which includes what, 14 items.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
22
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Mayor Furlong: For clarification, the list that the applicant provided, all those but the 5 that
they’re requesting would fit?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any more thoughts or do you want to continue your thoughts?
Councilman Labatt: Let me write a couple things down and.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Brian.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, is the staff concern the size of that being 5,000, larger than 5,000
square feet or the uses themselves?
Kate Aanenson: I think it’s a combination of two, and that’s a good question. And right now
the neighborhood business does cap some of these at 5,000 square feet. Any single one use. But
if you go to, like for radio television studio, that’s I mean you think of something like that, that’s
what Prince has so that’s a pretty large use. A single use. And exercise club, they felt it was
something like Curves or something, that would probably fit as probably a nice neighborhood
type use, so that’s why the Planning Commission did support that one. Again, inherent in lawn
and gardens is outdoor display and that tends to take up parking and some of those sort of things.
Again the liquor store does allow for some, if someone was to have a small restaurant with some
alcohol with it does work for that but just on a liquor store. That was one that we hadn’t
contemplated so that’s kind of I guess the list that’s in question. So some of it’s scale. Some of
it’s frequency of use and trips and you know, the definition is…not compete with the downtown
and that it’s kind of specific to that neighborhood. Used frequently. Your neighborhood gas
station. That sort of thing.
Mayor Furlong: We’re in questions aren’t we? This is a PUD, so the change would be for this
particular PUD only?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: But we have other areas that are zoned and PUD’s that are.
Kate Aanenson: Are coming before you shortly, within the next year, yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. So the issues, as I see it here are what fits in the down, what fits
in a neighborhood business for convenience for our residents, but that doesn’t jeopardize the
viability of the downtown. Is where we are. Planning Commission came back with this
recommendation for this particular one seemed okay. Staff concur with that?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. That’s correct, yep.
23
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other questions for staff? We haven’t heard from the
applicant. Is the applicant here tonight? If you’d like to address the council. We do have copies
of the minutes from the Planning Commission so.
Paul Andrescik: Right. I have a handout here to brief you mayor. Honorable Mayor and
Council. I thank you for this opportunity to speak in front of you tonight. My name is Paul
Andrescik and I represent Minstar Construction. We are the ones that built the Century Plaza
Center located at Highway 5 and Century Avenue. I gave you a handout briefly for the public at
home and also the public in the audience. If you want to give that… Century Plaza is located,
the subject site is Highway 5 and Century Avenue. It’s a brand new plaza. Brand new
neighborhood. I believe the homes along here are already existing in the medium to high density
townhomes to single family homes going in in the northeast corner of that intersection, and also
a Lifetime Fitness is going in I believe in this corner here. Your second page in your handout
map is kind of the footprint of Century Plaza. Right now we have the Pamedco gas station open.
Shell derivative. Here’s Century Plaza here. We have a hair studio. Hair cut studio right here.
Also the rest is open for leasing. What I put together for your third map is a point of interest
reads, we talk about the downtown not competing. If you look at the, where Century Plaza is in
the center, the competition for all those other liquor stores in the area, starting from Liquor Store
1 in Shorewood being the closest to that area and the residents in convenience. All the way from
2 that’s in Chaska. 3 in Chaska called the Aurora Liquor Store. 4, 5 and 6 are in downtown
Chanhassen, and liquor store 7, Tonka Bay Liquors in Tonka Bay. Those are within a 3 mile
radius. If you live within a mile and a half of that liquor store, you know looking at convenience
and being the traverse to the nearest liquor store is for your convenience, you’d probably go
outside of Chanhassen to Chaska and to the Shorewood and Tonka Bay areas as opposed to
traveling downtown. I love downtown Chanhassen. I think it’s a beautiful center. A beautiful
downtown. For convenience standpoint, if I had to choose to drive downtown or some place
closer, I’d probably go outside Chanhassen if I lived in that area. The benefits to the
Chanhassen, to the city. Of course the tax base for the currently un-used fourth liquor license.
Bringing in tax revenue. I believe that was a discussion earlier. Also, as I mentioned before, the
convenience for the residents living in a mile and a half radius of Century Plaza. Also it
guarantees the viability of success of Century Plaza. I believe the gas station, Pamedco would
benefit from the traffic going in and out, and also for future businesses such as meat markets,
convenience food stops, coffee shops and restaurants in the area. And also those Chanhassen
residents that are loyal to Chanhassen and who desire the convenience and convenience over tops
that where they would drive outside that mile and a half radius. I’ll put up the center for the
residents at home. That’s the picture there. It’s a very beautiful center, and I think it would add,
it’s also on the, just off of Highway 5 so it’s as Chanhassen grows in population, you’re going to
see more growth westward. For competition downtown, I guess if I was going to open up a
liquor store I would not probably choose to open up a liquor store within a block radius of 3
others, so the viability and success of a new liquor store in your fourth license is also paramount
to this project. So any questions at all?
Mayor Furlong: Any questions?
24
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Councilman Peterson: As part of your request you were asking for a lawn and garden center. Is
that, I mean I look at that and that doesn’t seem to fit with what you just offered either, but is that
a significant issue in your presentation or not?
Paul Andrescik: Ah no it’s not. Lawn and garden is not significant. Also the fitness club,
probably at this point we do not have anybody on board for a potential fitness center because of
Lifetime that’s going in across the street. It wouldn’t be very successful because of that.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Of the applicant. Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: Not of Mr. Andrescik but is there a planning commissioner here?
Mayor Furlong: I don’t think so.
Councilman Peterson: We have an opening.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Andrescik?
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Andrescik, of the uses that you’re talking about, any of those issues
with the 5,000 square foot piece that the limitation’s put on or?
Paul Andrescik: Not at all. We don’t plan on having any plans of opening up any type of store
that would exceed that. That limitation. So currently we have 3 liquor stores on docket waiting
to lease the space. Pending approval tonight. One of 3 is going to get that approval. Not
opening up 3 so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you.
Paul Andrescik: Thank you Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, to follow up question. It was mentioned the, and whether you know this
or Todd, the tax generated from a liquor store. That’s no more than any other commercial dollar
in terms of property taxes. There’d be a fee for the liquor license, is that correct?
Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct.
Kate Aanenson: I just wanted to reiterate. The liquor store that’s looking is south of Highway 5
which we also voided out so there’s an application pending on that.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry.
Kate Aanenson: Way south of 5. In the downtown. Within. I think everything else we have
right now is currently north of Highway 5. So if there’s someone that’s looking, they’d be
looking on the south side.
25
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Mayor Furlong: As we consider the map and using Mr. Andrescik’s map here, where are the
other business neighborhood districts? Are there some others along Highway 5?
Kate Aanenson: 7 and 41.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, which is just to the west of this particular property.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: And north.
Kate Aanenson: And north. 7 and 41.
Mayor Furlong: 7 and 41, excuse me. Okay, thank you.
Kate Aanenson: So it’d be up by Shorewood. The next intersection over, you’ll have one at
101. There’s one at, on Al’s property right adjacent to Mission Hills on 101. And then also
you’ll be seeing the Sands Company that will be coming in for that interchange at 101 and
Lyman. They’re coming in for concept review. That is a mixed use, neighborhood business in
addition to high density residential. That’d be across from the recently reviewed Southwest
Metro Transit, that intersection. I know I’m missing a few.
Todd Gerhardt: Kwik Trip.
Kate Aanenson: Pardon me?
Todd Gerhardt: Kwik Trip? Galpin.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that’s the other one on 5, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. Good, thank you. I bounced around a little bit. I apologize for
any confusion on the order here but if there are any other questions we can continue with
comments. On this matter. So let’s move to comments by the council at this point. Thoughts,
Steve you want to continue or.
Councilman Labatt: Well, as I looked at the list on page 2, the 14, it’s still very limiting. On
what really could go in there. What’s feasible for the developer. I guess to make my point short,
I’d like to find a way we could put the off sale liquor in place there. I can think about you know,
you pull in to get your gas. You can quick walk across, or somebody else can to get, if you put
in a meat market or liquor store there. I just look at, you know number 3 here, convenience
stores without gas pumps. Well you know, sometimes liquor stores are convenient but, I don’t
know. Somehow we need to know, collectively we should maybe come up with a way we can
look at that and how we can allow an off sale liquor store there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Question of clarification. Are we under a clock for this
application?
26
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Kate Aanenson: He granted an extension.
Councilman Ayotte: Talk a little bit louder Kate.
Kate Aanenson: For the request. To this date it went to the Planning Commission in October.
th
Application was received September 17. So we’re probably pretty close to the 3 months. He
did give an extension to this day for additional time so.
Todd Gerhardt: So we’d need an additional extension.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Was there a public hearing at the Planning Commission?
Kate Aanenson: That was the one in October. It was submitted in September so it was within
that first 30 days. And then November would have been 60 days. He asked to be on this
meeting.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I know I looked at those minutes, this was on our agenda I think
last meeting or the meeting before and he got pulled off and delayed.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we forgot his letter requested this meeting.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Refresh my memory. Who came to the public hearing at the Planning
Commission? Do you recall? To speak on this.
Todd Gerhardt: Was there any public input on this?
Mayor Furlong: Was there any specific input? And specifically from downtown businesses.
Kate Aanenson: Don’t believe so.
Councilman Labatt: It’s right here. Oh, here’s your minutes.
Mayor Furlong: Is that the revised ones?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, but I did attach them again because…
Councilman Labatt: Paul and Timothy.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. Okay, sorry for the interruption. Other comments? Discussion
on this request.
Councilman Ayotte: I think it’s feasible. I think it needs a little bit more study, and it’s a little
bit of a disconnect because you’re going to have a new council member coming on, but I think
27
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
we should defer. I think we should push it out one more time. And with Steve’s comments to
take a bit harder look at it. I don’t have a comfort level with it and understanding all the aspects
of it, and I know that’s a little bit unfair that this is my last meeting, but for a new council
member to come up to speed, it may be for the rest of the council to study it a little bit more
closely to see what the options are might not be a bad idea.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I think that, the thing that really brought it together for me
was when I look at the map and saw where the people in that, living in that area would go.
They’re not going to go downtown by all, unless they have another reason to go downtown
which that could very well be the case, but there’s also as Aurora’s got Rainbow and Shorewood
has got Cub, it’s a fight. And fortunately or unfortunately, I looked at buying a liquor store a few
years ago, and one of the significant factors of why I didn’t do it was because the spot that I
wanted was too close to another one. That made my decision for me. I hear Kate’s perspective
on we only have one liquor store license left. I for one am not adverse to appropriately
expanding that if geographically it’s appropriate, so I’m certainly not adverse to it. I think it’s an
easy decision, with all due respect to Councilman Ayotte. I think it’d be a good spot for it. And
it’d be a nice asset to that neighborhood, and if they’re not asking for a garden center or a
television studio, it makes it easier for me to say, I’m very comfortable going ahead with off sale
liquor in that spot.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist, comments.
Councilman Lundquist: I would agree with Councilman Peterson. I think the off sale liquor fits
in well, especially with some of the other uses that could go in there with the gas station and
other convenience type things. Make it kind of a multi-stop center. I think that the appliance
thing is already permitted as staff said in their report. Less than 5,000 square feet. Not a big fan
of radio and television studio, but a lawn and garden center with no exterior storage and display,
you know, isn’t a deal breaker either way for me so, but I think it’s a good spot, especially for
that off sale liquor store to go in that spot and it’s convenient for that area. Not that intrusive and
fits well into the concept that they’ve put together. That would be it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. I guess question for you Councilman Lundquist. Health and
physical exercise. 5,000.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, not a problem either. With that one.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Alright. On the surface these requests seem straight forward and
my concern is one of protecting the downtown retail, and that’s something that I know this
council has tried to do. It was an issue that came up a few times during the campaign, during the
election cycle this last whenever it was, protecting the downtown and that’s why I asked the
questions about who came to the public hearing. Because the challenges of their, you know
someone from the Chamber or someone else, looking at the map and a picture’s worth a
thousand words. That seems to be a pretty good place for an off sale liquor store, and limited to
5,000 square feet. Is that going to significantly create competition for our downtown business or
28
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
is it going to pull from Shorewood or Chaska? I don’t know where people are going to come to
buy but it seems to make some sense there. I just get really hesitant doing that because any
change we make here, I can just see someone coming back where it’s currently zoned
neighborhood business. Whether or not they go through a PUD is going to be looking for
fairness here and I guess you know, it’s, not that I don’t necessarily support these. I’m just
trying to look a little longer term. Are we opening a door here and are we going to allow these
other at any neighborhood business up and down and at what point do we start peeling away
from the retail center that we have in our downtown area. Balancing that against we’re growing
and the downtown is a limited area as well so, that’s what I’m struggling with. I don’t
necessarily for this particular issue, maybe it’s the first one to the courthouse benefit. I don’t
necessarily have a problem with it but we’re going to have other property owners that are going
to be interested in increasing their use, allowed uses as well and that’s where I think we should
walk and not run to expand these uses. Especially when it was known at the time the property
was acquired and built, what the allowable uses were so, you know I can support this but I’m
really adding a word of caution with it. Simply because I’m fearful that we might, you know
with each individual request that comes in, you can run into problems associated with it and so I
guess I’d be interested in some thoughts or comments.
Councilman Peterson: That’s part of the reason why I am leaning towards liquor store only
because we have an extra tool there with the number of licenses that we approve. So that’s how
I’ve addressed your issue as noted.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, yeah and that was one of the concerns with the health club. Now they
said tonight they’re not interested but it’s anytime we approve something it goes with the
property forever. We do have, besides Lifetime going across the street so maybe that particular
place is not desirable for a neighborhood business. We have other health clubs in our downtown
area right now where they are allowed and so even expanding to that, we end up, we don’t have
the issue of a liquor license then. From a limitation or an additional control.
Councilman Peterson: I think if you asked the 3 other liquor stores that are downtown would
they rather have a liquor store downtown or 2-3 miles away, common sense would tell you the
answer.
Mayor Furlong: They would say, can we get an option without a new liquor store.
Councilman Ayotte: If I could give some additional comments if I may.
Mayor Furlong: Please.
Councilman Ayotte: And that’s why I think it ought to be looked at a little bit more because of
the argument that Craig brings up. It makes sense, I mean if you look at the spatial relationships
for the liquor store, and maybe not for some other applications but that’s why I think it makes,
you need to look at it a little bit more than, and hone it just a bit more or you could cause a
problem. And if it doesn’t hurt to wait another couple of weeks to go through it one more time
to refine it, to give staff some guidance to go back and consider some of these other options, to
clean it up a little bit, I think we’d be further ahead.
29
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts? Somebody like to make a motion?
Councilman Lundquist: I would move that the City Council approve PUD amendment 04-35 to
include health and physical exercise clubs up to 5,000 feet and off sale liquor stores.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there?
Councilman Ayotte: Friendly amendment. Can we drop the, is there a way to deal with the
health club issue? If that’s not going to be a point, a target, correct Mr. Andrescik?
Paul Andrescik: That’s correct.
Councilman Ayotte: And it’s not going to be a target, why roll that in, in order to create some
focus with Lifetime Fitness and so on? Why bring that up? That’s what I’m talking about. I
don’t understand why we have to do that.
Councilman Lundquist: Only reason my thoughts would be, again another use of convenience
out in that area and I think the market’s going to drive you know, as Councilman Peterson said
before, you know I think you’d have to be a little bit goofy to put a 4,000 square foot exercise
club next to Lifetime Fitness.
Councilman Peterson: Unless it’s Curves, you know.
Councilman Lundquist: Well we have a Curves already so.
Councilman Peterson: They’re going up every mile and a half I think in most communities.
Councilman Lundquist: But again, it’s another possibility of use of convenience in that area.
You know, stop by and get your gas, go work out so when you go buy all that beer.
Councilman Ayotte: Beer, you can go work out, yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: Justify it.
Todd Gerhardt: That’s convenience.
Mayor Furlong: I guess a question. We put a square foot limitation on the health club, as
Councilman Lundquist made the motion that was applied to the health club but there was no
limitation on the off sale liquor. Do we need to apply that to both Kate or is there, I mean so, is
there other, this is a PUD so if it doesn’t say someplace else within the PUD it could be a 20,000
square foot liquor store?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it doesn’t say.
30
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Mayor Furlong: With this change.
Kate Aanenson: I don’t believe it’s, no it does say in the PUD no single use can exceed 5,000
square feet.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so.
Councilman Lundquist: Is that redundant to have it…
Mayor Furlong: Do we need to strike this on the health club?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. It would be redundant.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I’d make a motion to strike the words, up to 5,000 square feet. To
amend your motion to strike the words up to 5,000 square feet. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that motion?
Councilman Lundquist: On the amendment?
Mayor Furlong: On the amendment, thank you. If not, we’ll vote on the amendment to strike
the words, up to 5,000 square feet in the motion.
Mayor Furlong moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to amend the motion to strike the
phrase, “up to 5,000 square feet” in the motion. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: That prevails so now we’re dealing with the amended motion. Which reads,
health club, health and physical exercise clubs and off sale liquor store. Any other discussion?
On this. If not we’ll proceed to the vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve Planned Unit
Development Amendment #04-35 to include health and physical exercise clubs and off sale
liquor stores. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Next item on our agenda. How we doing for time? Take a 5 minute recess?
Well, let’s just take a 5 minute recess. Okay, we’re moving up to 9:00. We’ve been here for a
couple hours. Let’s come back quickly.
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
REQUEST FOR AN AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE FOR THE INTENSIFICATION
OF A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE BY BUILDING A CANOPY WITH
31
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
TH
FOOTINGS WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, 222 WEST 78 STREET,
THOMAS WILDER.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This is an after the fact variance request. This development did go
to the Planning Commission. It did not receive a super majority or 75 percent approval so it was
th
forwarded to the City Council. The subject site is located on West 78. It’s an existing home.
When the permit came in it was for siding and internal remodel, so those are ones that we try to
expedite through. Get them in and out and at the time that the staff, the planning staff looked at
it, there was an over sight missed that was later caught on inspection and that was the canopy on
the house. Because the permit as it came through, as the permit came through it was for siding
and remodeling. The canopy wasn’t caught on the site plan itself. As the inspector noted, there
was a stop work order or noticed to get the variance, which the applicant did. Very pleased with
the remodel job. It looks very nice. An enhancement to the downtown. This was a case where
again we make decisions, discretionary decisions every day when a survey is required or not. In
this circumstance the survey wasn’t required again because it came in as a remodel. In hind sight
we would have done that. At the time of the Planning Commission the two no votes were
specifically because they felt the encroachment was into the right-of-way which the Planning
Commission, two of the Planning Commissioners felt that they couldn’t compromise on that so
Mr. Wilder did pursue a survey of the subject site. So as the original survey, the property line is
behind the sidewalk so actually it’s 3 feet away so with that knowledge we believe that we
probably would have had the one more vote or the super majority and it wouldn’t be before you
now but unfortunately didn’t have the survey, and to expedite things at this point, he did invest in
that. So with that we are recommending approval of the adoption based on the fact that the
encroachment isn’t into the right-of-way. Really the only problem was the steps were existing.
It’s these additional, it’s pretty minor. Again we felt it appropriate to ask some sort of coverage
there on the front street. Unfortunately there could have been other things but in the scheme of
things we are recommending approval of the variance again because it doesn’t encroach into the
right-of-way. It’s 3 feet behind. So with that we are recommending approval and I’d be happy
to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate. Just to clarify. When Mr. Wilder came in he showed a plan that
showed the footings and the canopy on it, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: Very difficult to discern the porch and the canopy footings, and that was an
oversight so until you saw it physically then you understood the implication. The markings on
the footing site plan were misread. Difficult to see. So some fault on both sides. Take some
responsibility. The plans could have been clearer. I don’t think anybody, and because there was
discretion on whether or not it was in the right-of-way, we felt we couldn’t let it proceed.
Without the, with a negative recommendation.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
32
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Councilman Labatt: Kate, just to clarify. We’re really only dealing with those 6 by 6 beams.
We’re not dealing with the whole canopy. We’re just dealing with a porch, a small little porch.
Correct?
Kate Aanenson: Well technically, you’re dealing with this part. Anything that’s new here so
this part of the roof and the canopy. Anything that’s new beyond this.
Councilman Labatt: Anything that’s beyond that front first step?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, which is about 6 to 8 inches.
Councilman Labatt: A 6 by 6 beam.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: It’s a no brainer guys. Let’s move on.
Mayor Furlong: I see the applicant’s here. Would you like to address the council on any matter?
Kate Aanenson: He just drove a long ways to be here.
Thomas Wilder: Yeah, I drove 500 miles so I might as well…but I know when to shut up so I
think.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you for coming.
Thomas Wilder: No, I think you know I think I’ve worked really hard on that site and the
neighborhood is really happy with what I’ve done thus far. I wasn’t trying to pull a fast one. I
did…original plan. I did invest $1,000 bucks 2 weeks ago for a survey for the city file. It’s
done. Paid. I noted in the, one question I do have is, they want me to, it sounded like they
wanted me to get another survey and note the sidewalk, which I’m not willing to do.
Kate Aanenson: No, I think, yeah we’re willing to…
Thomas Wilder; Just draw it on there? Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we went out and verified that today and where it is. The stakes are still
there so we’re okay with leaving that.
Thomas Wilder: Okay, great. So I kind of want that part scratched from the motion. Otherwise
if you guys have any questions for me.
Councilman Labatt: It’s a nice, clean looking building. I drive by it almost every day and I
move that we approve it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
33
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: That would be striking on page 6, number 1. Add the sidewalk.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. It’s clearly behind the sidewalk. We did verify that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. So striking number 1. The motion has been as in our packet
to approve and seconded.
Councilman Lundquist: I’d like to make an amendment.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I would like to add, amend that motion that we also, because of an
oversight on the planning, on the city, for whatever reason, that we refund Mr. Wilder’s variance
fee of $250 and the survey fee as well as that may have impacted him, or his decision to go
forward with that remodel or not, and when the city makes a mistake we should own up to that
and not hold that applicant for after the fact fees. And the permit was issued with that drawing.
Mayor Furlong: So your motion to simplify.
Councilman Lundquist: Motion would be to refund Mr. Wilder’s $250 plus the cost of the
survey.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Point of, go ahead.
Mayor Furlong: I’m waiting for your second?
Councilman Peterson: No.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Hearing none, the amendment will die for lack of a second. Other
comments or discussion?
Councilman Peterson: I’ve got a question for Kate.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, that’s fine.
Councilman Peterson: Is there benefit for the city having that survey?
34
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Kate Aanenson: Yes there is.
Councilman Peterson: Can you describe that, just to give us some sense.
Kate Aanenson: We had no records. Again when someone comes in where there’s a discretion,
we ask. He didn’t want to pay. You know I think there’s fault on both sides. He admitted it. It
could have been clearly on there. Agreed. Again it was a decision to not burden him and require
the survey. When it went to Planning Commission we asked for the survey again to help
expedite it. To clarify that gray area, we used the best information we had which was road
th
construction plans for West 78. Again it appeared it was in the right-of-way. We could have
solved it then. Probably would have the majority vote and we wouldn’t be here today. Nobody
wants to force somebody to do a survey we didn’t have to, but if we would have done it the first
time, when he first came in, because it was so close, which we had the right to do, you know.
And we did stop it when we noted it. He wanted to continue. Rightly so. It looks nice, so.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, with that being said I have a motion.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: I’d move that we would pay equal parts of both the survey and the
variance fee at 50 percent.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that motion? My concern is, in terms of refunding fees, I
don’t know that had the, if the plan was clear and both parties recognized that at the beginning
when they came in for their building permit, would the fee for the variance have been paid at that
point in time?
Kate Aanenson: We would have never issued the permit. He would have had to get a variance
to proceed.
Mayor Furlong: So he would have paid for a variance before the fact.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Before the building permit was issued.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: The issue with the survey is one where the question that needed to answered is
was this being built in the right-of-way.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
35
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Mayor Furlong: See to me, and I’ll comment. Now to me that’s an issue. If this, you know this
to me in terms of approving this variance makes a whole lot of sense and I’m ready to support it
100 percent. Had that been in the right-of-way I couldn’t make that statement and so since the
purpose here was to verify that it was out of the right-of-way, I think those are fair costs so.
Councilman Peterson: It’s interesting though, but it just seems so logical that if you walk out
there and it’s 3 feet behind the sidewalk that it’d be reasonable to put it there. It wouldn’t be in
the right-of-way. You know it’s, I haven’t got the picture in front of me now but it’s what, 3 feet
out of the house? Or 4 feet. You’re maybe a foot past the original steps.
Mayor Furlong: Well I guess, you’re asking why they thought it wasn’t in the right-of-way or?
Councilman Peterson: Well I mean it just seems, I don’t like asking residents to spend $1,000
when it’s, even if it was in, it doesn’t seem logical to be in the right-of-way with the distance it
was from the house. If you go out there and look at it, it doesn’t look like it’s in the right-of-way
but yet we’re asking him to spend $1,000 to make sure that it isn’t. You know, it’s one of those
things where it just didn’t pass the test of reasonableness to me. For that expensive of a
undertaking.
Kate Aanenson: So the question then is, if he didn’t have that information tonight, where would
we be sitting because the best information we have is that it’s in the right-of-way based on the
plans so.
Councilman Lundquist: Well and my issue with it was that we should have done that in the
beginning when the thing came through. Yeah, we, he, Mr. Wilder may have had to go through
the variance process and the survey and all of that stuff, but he would have been able to make a
choice at that time. Once he’s got the footings there and the work started and we say whoa, stop.
Hold on. Something’s wrong here. He’s committed. He’s there. He’s in. There’s nothing, he
can’t turn back now. He’s got the place, so I think that as a show of good faith that’s why you
know we need to be a party to that and look at that before hand. Allow the applicant to make a
financial decision before he’s already committed and we’ve done that, so you know, people
make mistakes. You know the staff made a mistake. It’s going to happen and it’s an over sight
and.
Kate Aanenson: Well I think he also admitted that he didn’t clarify…
Thomas Wilder: Well can I, am I done? Can I point something out on the permit?
Mayor Furlong: Just a second. Why don’t you finish your thought.
Kate Aanenson: Well I’m not going to do a he said, he said. There’s definitely blame on both
sides. Again, the mistake we could have made is a up front requirement to spend the $1,000 and
do the survey up front.
36
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Mayor Furlong: And the difference is not that he could have decide, but Councilman Lundquist
you’re saying he would have had an option to decide if that cost made the difference between
going forward with the project or designing something different to avoid the survey, he could
have made that decision at that time.
Councilman Lundquist: Yep.
Kate Aanenson: So the message is, probably we should require anything close to require a
survey?
Councilman Lundquist: There’s a lot of things that could be done differently. Could have, you
know required the survey. You know we could have, it’s easy to look back now and say, and I
don’t want to get into the blame staff. I’m not putting the staff on trial because you know
everybody makes mistakes. It’s not that big of a deal. I just think that as representatives of the
city we need to say you know, when we make mistakes, we should be accountable for them and
not put the burden on that applicant because we made an oversight, and you know mistakes are
going to happen so, you know it happened. Oh well. Big deal. We’ll learn our lesson and not
do that maybe the next time, or do it differently so that’s okay. Not that big of a deal.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other discussion on this?
Councilman Labatt: So Craig, if I understand you wanted to refund half the variance fee and half
of the $1,000 survey but you would have needed the variance no matter what. Right? So you
would have had to pay for that whether the survey was there or not. Why don’t you just refund
half of the cost for our mistake which would be the survey.
Councilman Peterson: Well and I’m comfortable with that. I’m with Brian that I think it’s, as
representative of how we as a city are just handling a situation.
Councilman Labatt: I’m not disagreeing at all.
Councilman Peterson: …with anybody. I just want to do something. Didn’t want to do
everything. If somebody wants to do.
Councilman Labatt: Let’s hear from Mr. Wilder because he wanted to say something.
Thomas Wilder; Is that okay?
Mayor Furlong: If Councilman Labatt said so, yes.
Councilman Labatt: Well I was just, because Bob was thinking it.
Thomas Wilder: No, I’m not trying to blame staff either. I just didn’t want to, is that print
where.
Kate Aanenson: Which one?
37
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Thomas Wilder: From the building permit available. I’d know it if I saw it. The thing I wanted
nd
to point out is the little foot, we did have on the June 22 building permit. It says install 6 by 6
poles. Check foundation. Add footings if necessary and you know.
Kate Aanenson: To me those are shown, it looks like they’re on the top of that last stoop. See
that’s.
Thomas Wilder: Yeah, no I see that.
Kate Aanenson: The decision that was made is that they’re on the stoop. They got moved off
the stop and that’s.
Thomas Wilder: Well, but that’s true. The conversation with Doug was a little different but.
Kate Aanenson: So that’s how we read it.
Thomas Wilder: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: And the reason you probably moved them off this.
Thomas Wilder: They checked the stoop for footings and they don’t have them put into footings.
Todd Gerhardt: Right, because you got to carry the weight of the porch.
Kate Aanenson: So he made a decision in the field that was different than the survey.
Councilman Peterson: So Kate in this situation, if it was 2 inches, if they were 2 inches into the
right-of-way, what would have been the process? How would the process revolved? I’m just
curious. I’m somewhat confused.
Kate Aanenson: When we looked at the survey they were in the exact spot of the existing stoop.
Someone made a field decision, the inspector told us they made a decision in the field. Then we
did the stop work order. We said oh, we’ve got a problem because we think it’s already close.
We don’t want to go further. Are there things that are off a freckle? Yeah. We make that
decision every day whether or not we’re going to decide you know, is it that big a deal? That’s a
discretionary decision. My staff asked me, is this something I need to worry about? How close
are we? You know we get that, we had one in today. A house that’s at impervious surface at 30
percent. Came in at 29.9. I felt an obligation to tell the homeowner you know what, you cannot
add a deck. You cannot do anything and I want a disclosure statement on it so it comes back to
the City Council. I want the homeowner to know you’re at the max. Because I think that’s, it’s
an obligation and we made a decision based on representation here. Somebody made a field
decision. I understand but then it’s our obligation. Is it that big a deal? I don’t know. At that
point we were concerned it was in the right-of-way and that’s, if it wasn’t in the right-of-way,
could we have maybe looked the other way? You know I don’t want people thinking we just
38
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
ignore it but you know we have to make those decisions every day. What’s critical? What’s not
critical? Would have been in the back yard, you know.
Councilman Labatt: Then it wouldn’t be a big deal.
Kate Aanenson: Probably not.
th
Councilman Labatt: But this is right on West 78. I think we’re trying to split a hair here over
$125 bucks. I think we all agree let’s give him half the survey fee, $500 bucks but the variance
would have been needed anyways so.
Thomas Wilder: Actually only $450 by the way.
Councilman Labatt: Huh?
Thomas Wilder: $450. It was $900 exactly…
Councilman Labatt: Okay. Thanks Mr. Wilder.
Councilman Peterson: I want to clarify my previous motion and that was to reimburse half of the
survey fee. That’s what I meant to say.
Mayor Furlong: As I understand it was half the survey and half the variance fees.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, that’s not what I really meant to say though.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Your motion was to refund half the survey fee?
Councilman Peterson: That’s correct.
Councilman Lundquist: I will second that.
Mayor Furlong: And that was seconded by councilman, and the minutes will signal that. Is
there any additional?
Todd Gerhardt: Roger endorsed that.
Mayor Furlong: Roger endorsed that. Is there any additional discussion on the amendment?
Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote. The amendment is to add the language to the original
motion to reimburse half the survey fee of $450, would be the reimbursement amount.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve an amendment
to the motion to approve reimbursement of half the survey fee in the amount of $450.00 to
the applicant. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
39
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Mayor Furlong: So that amendment prevails and the motion is amended. Is there any further
discussion on the motion to approve the variance as amended? Hearing none we’ll proceed with
that vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve Variance #04-39
for the intensification of a legal non-conforming structure by building a canopy with
footings within the front yard setback located 3.8 feet from the front property line, and to
reimburse the applicant half the survey fee in the amount of $450.00. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED 2005 BUDGET AND CIP.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. I just handed out to you a resolution
recommending adoption of the 2005 budget and establishing tax levies for collection in 2005.
And those amounts Bruce exactly that we would be establishing.
Bruce DeJong: Establishing a total tax levy as shown, when you open up those sheets, the final
levy certification, total tax levy of $9,439,754.00. Which is $22,912 lower than our published,
proposed tax levy certification that the Truth in Taxation notices were based on.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s the second sheet here Bruce?
Bruce DeJong: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. There are two motions here. One for the budget. One for
the CIP. Are there any questions for staff? If there are not, comments, discussion by council.
Councilman Labatt: Let’s let Bob go first.
Councilman Ayotte: Well what we’ve done here, we’ve been able to secure a cost avoidance
dealing with the paying cash for the equipment. We’ve gone ahead and we’ve ensured that we
don’t have to spend the additional money from year to year. We’ve addressed the infrastructure
issue with this, with the approach that we’re taking. We’ve got $4 million bucks in the bank.
Does that pretty much surmise it?
Bruce DeJong: That’s a very nice, concise summary. Yes.
Councilman Ayotte: Anybody else want to add anything?
Mayor Furlong: I’m sure somebody will.
Councilman Lundquist: Is that a challenge?
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other comments? Discussion.
Councilman Labatt: I would agree with Bob.
40
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Councilman Ayotte: Well that’s a first for tonight. Did you get that guys?
Mayor Furlong: Yes we did.
Councilman Labatt: I think you found the pony in the pile there.
Councilman Lundquist: It took 4 years but you finally understand the numbers.
Councilman Peterson: That is kind of amazing…
Councilman Ayotte: That’s why we got 4 years for mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Different for different people.
Councilman Peterson: I don’t know how I can follow those sage and deep thoughts that Bob just
shared but, you know I think it’s really important to note that if, when we pass this tonight, as I
assume that we will, we’ll probably be one of the 2 or 3 cities within the whole 7 county metro
area that are going to lower their taxes this year. And I for one am damn proud of what this
council and this staff did to get here. It’s a phenomenal objective that was met and surpassed
and I’m proud to have accomplished that and I think we all should be, and our citizens hopefully
should be proud of the job that we’ve done and endeavor to do those, that same challenge.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist, anything?
Councilman Lundquist: The only thing I would add to Councilman Peterson’s eloquence is that
we, a lot of this, not only are we going to lower those taxes but we have set ourselves up very,
very well for the future as well by some of the decisions that we’ve laid out not to bond for
certain things that we have in the past. Also sets us up well in the future and not have to carry a
heavy burden. We’ve seen examples of a lot of other municipalities and other entities that push
everything off into bonding as well to kind of defer those costs future and not only have we, the
staff and council together lowered the taxes, but also set ourselves up well so we haven’t just you
know made ourselves look good today and killed ourselves going forward, which is also a pretty
remarkable feat. So we’ve got cities all around us that are cranking them up. We have our own
county that’s going to take more of our money this year as well too and not be set up very well
for the future, so great things going on and it’s fun to be part of it and it’s just something that
isn’t happening a lot so it’s a testament to what can happen when a staff and a council work
together and get on the same page. So to my fellow council members, Mr. Mayor and Todd and
your staff, I think great work and we’re going to enjoy the benefits of this going forward for
many years.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I think to expand a little bit. Well said Councilman Lundquist and
the others. There’s a lot of eloquence going on up here tonight but this is, just looking back a
couple years, this is a continuation. This budget here that’s being proposed by staff that we
worked with them to put together, is really a continuation of the steps that this council took back
in first quarter of 2003 when the 5 of us first got together in terms of reducing spending growth
41
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
and cutting back expenses. Last year we held spending flat. We held the tax levy flat. Zero
increase. Recognizing that the real growth in our tax base would reduce taxes, which it did.
Property taxes went down last year. Now again property taxes are going down because we’re
taking advantage of opportunities and because of the work that we did the first 2 years gave us
the chance to take advantage of those opportunities today, as Councilman Lundquist said. We
kind of set ourselves up here and it’s nice when it falls into place. The 5 year budget, debt and
property tax schedules that were put in place this year, and Mr. DeJong thank you for following
up on that request because it really allowed us and gave us comfort as Councilman Lundquist
said to not only know that we were being good stewards of today’s citizens, tax dollars, but also
knowing that we weren’t deferring problems into the future. Are there further decisions to be
made going forward? Absolutely. Events will not take place as we envision them now, but we
set ourselves up on a path to continue to fully fund the necessary services of the city without
having undue impact on the city’s taxpayers. In addition to the items that Councilman Ayotte
mentioned, which is some of the opportunities for capital funding out of cash and others, the
other items that we’re putting in place are going to save money going forward and to Mr.
DeJong, Mr. Gerhardt, the amount of time and effort and to all the staff. The amount of time and
effort that goes into putting together a budget like this, especially in this year when there were so
many moving parts, both on the tax base side as well as on the city side, a job well done so thank
you to all of you and to the council for working so well together. Not just on this budget year but
for the last 2 years, to really put us in the position of where we are tonight to be able to approve
this. It’s fun to be a part of this, so. Are there any other comments or discussion points?
Councilman Labatt: Can I just make my initial one?
Mayor Furlong: Certainly. I thought you did already when you concurred with Councilman
Ayotte.
Councilman Labatt: I yielded my moment to Bob. I would concur with my four compadres. I
think the direction that we’ve set here when working with staff, next budget year is exciting
because I think we’re going to see a very similar increase or decrease in this. And with Bruce, I
think this is Bruce is looking at his last meeting.
Mayor Furlong: Yes it is.
Councilman Labatt: With us as a city. I can’t think actually of a better way to go out than what
this budget year has done for us as a city and I’d like to just thank Bruce for his years of service
with us and what he’s done for our tax and TIF. And it’s just a good year. I can remember some
years sitting on here my first couple years and we were looking at double digit increases and
those were bad times but it’s exciting working with you 3 guys here coming up into the next year
on what the next budget’s going to do and I’m sure Bethany coming on board is going to have
similar thoughts. So I’ll leave it at that.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any other discussion on this matter? Is there a motion to approve?
We have two motions in front of us.
Councilman Ayotte: So moved on both motions.
42
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Councilman Lundquist: That’s all you’re going to say?
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Discussion on the motion. Hearing none, we’ll proceed with the vote.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve Resolution #2004-87
to adopt the 2005 budget and Resolution #2004-88 to adopt the Capital Improvement plans
for 2005 through 2009 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Let’s pick up the couple items off our consent agenda. First going with item
1(h).
H. APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND
AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS, SCADA IMPROVEMENTS, PW307D.
Councilman Lundquist: Questions that I had on this item, some of them have gotten on some of
the benefits on some of these costs. Paul I know we talked when we got together with Sheldon
and with Councilman Ayotte. One of the things I still want to make sure that we talk about is,
one of the things that has happened in the past is we haven’t done a very good job of keeping our
records up to date on some of the new additions, repairs. Things that have gone on. We don’t
have as-built drawings. We don’t have those kinds of things. One thing I want to, that I didn’t
see in the details and I want to make sure we get out is that we get a, how do you say it, QA
process going forward so that we get those, we make sure we get those as-builts because that’s
really on us to make sure that that happens. And not to rely on every contractor that’s going to
come in, that they’re just going to give us those things because we know how the municipal
things work. If we don’t ask for it, they’re not going to give it to us so. So let’s make sure we
get that built in somewhere. These, the cost reductions that are in that memo that we talked
about, my expectations going forward on some of these things then is that when we get into the
budget season next year you’ll be able to line item those out and show us where we’ve reduced
that maintenance cost of that and maybe offset by some other things in other areas, but rest
assured that I’ll tuck this memo in my special file and next year in October when we’re talking
about these, that will come out. So those I think have been taken care of. The one issue that I
still have is the issue of making sure that the recommended, staff’s recommended vendor,
Quality Flow Systems if we’re doing an integration, that one, we’re getting a fair price on that.
And two, that we’re not putting ourselves in the same proprietary boat that we’re in now. The
problem that we have now, for a variety of reasons. You know one is, we don’t have the source
code. Quality Flow has said they’re going to give us the source code but from discussions that
we’ve had with staff, there’s not a whole lot of, because of the way that you U.S. Filter
traditionally does these things, there’s not a lot of integrators out there that want to take these
things on and that even know how to do the software on these things so although they’re going to
give us the source code and all of those things anyway, if nobody else is willing to work on it,
43
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
that’s essentially a proprietary system. Now we can say we can train our people to go out and do
these things but you know what’s the reality that we’re actually going to be doing that and not
farming it out to somebody else. And the second thing is, I still haven’t seen anything that says
that we’ve had an apples to apples comparison on the recommended vendor, Quality Flow
Systems and some other integrator. We’ve looked at Allen Bradley. We’ve looked at other
types of systems besides U.S. Filter, but we’ve never, I’ve never seen anything that says this is
what Quality Flow is. This is what somebody else is for the U.S. Filter. I like the approach that
the staff has recommended for the U.S. Filter system. I like, I think there’s definitely benefits of
using a contractually obligated integrator for that. All I want to do is make sure that they’re
giving us a decent value for this. We’re talking about spending an awful lot of money on this
thing. I agree that something needs to be done and it’s going to give us a lot of benefit going
forward. I just want to make sure that if 350, I can’t, whatever the software amount of this
several hundred thousand dollars, if that number is reasonable because it’s hard to just say is it or
not, you know. So I know that’s not as easy as it sounds to go out and find another integrator but
I think we owe it, as the stewards of the taxpayer’s money, if we’re going to spend a couple
hundred thousand or more of their money, I need to make sure that we’re doing it wisely and that
we’re not over paying for those services.
Mayor Furlong: Comments?
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, Councilman Lundquist. The fees that are proposed by Quality
Flows, we researched those costs and I can have Sheldon Sorenson talk to you council about the,
you know what he’s seen in the industry. I don’t have any numbers to show you tonight but in
terms of where Quality Flow or U.S. Filter really is at, I think we are cost competitive with what
life cycle costs of other integrators and other systems that we see here in the metro area would be
so. We can address that issue tonight but unfortunately like I said, if we want hard numbers from
other integrators we’re going to have to table that discussion and get that information for you
some other time.
Councilman Lundquist: I’d settle for Sheldon’s got enough background in this stuff, he’s done
enough of these systems in other areas. If he wants to stand up to the podium and say that
Quality Flow installs the U.S. Filter as competitive and cheaper than all the other integrators
around, I’d be satisfied with that. I’d just like to hear him say that.
Sheldon Sorenson: Thank you. I’m Sheldon Sorenson with Kaeding and Associates, electrical
engineers for the city and yeah the pricing for this project, we’ve done just a back of the
envelope comparison to about 6 similar projects where we’ve hired systems integrators on a
professional services basis. Most recently Minnetonka, we’re doing a large upgrade. They’re
taking several years to do it. This pricing is a little bit less than what we’re seeing in
Minnetonka. Quality Flow and U.S. Filter did a project recently for our company in Rosemount,
Minnesota and the price, unit price is right on and that was competitively bid. The advantage
here is that by hiring them on a professional services basis, we’re able to award the work to them
based on qualifications and it puts them on our side of the table as they work more on a
professional services approach for the city. Edina, Minnesota, they’re building a very large
system and their unit price is nearly twice what we’re paying here. And then there’s some
similar projects, one in Bloomington that U.S. Filter’s doing and we’ve had some ongoing work
44
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
in Buffalo, Minnesota where the pricing has been right in the same ballpark. So I would say that
this is good pricing.
Councilman Lundquist: Is there anybody else other than Quality Flow who does software
integration on U.S. Filter systems?
Sheldon Sorenson: I would say there’s nobody who’s really big time into it right now. It’s a
very new product. It’s that LC3000 controller that’s about a year out. Or it’s been out on the
market for about a year. I think what you’ll see as it gets greater acceptance in the marketplace
that there will be other integrators that will want to come up to speed on it. But we’re somewhat
early in the product development now and we just don’t have a lot of integrators that have picked
it up.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? A quick one if I could. You said that this is a new
product. What about issues of liability? Is it proven in the marketplace just being out a year?
The company probably has been around for a while but little concerned when we’re putting this
kind of money into a new product.
Sheldon Sorenson: Yep, that’s always a concern and we have the same concern. In the SCADA
market, products come quickly. They’re always coming out there so new is somewhat relative.
What we do have going for us here is that the manufacturer is providing 10 years of support at no
cost to the city. So if they have a bad run on the product or it needs to be upgraded next year,
that occurs at no cost to the city so they’re really standing behind it.
Mayor Furlong: And what’s their history as a company?
Sheldon Sorenson: Very good. U.S. Filter actually is the U.S. Filter control systems purchased
3 large companies that have been in the market for a long time. Dynamic Systems who had done
some work for your Autocom which is a large manufacturer of process controls. Consolidated
Electric was around for a long, long time. So we’re confident.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Comments. If not are there any
discussion items by the council on this matter? Hearing none is there a motion?
Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we award contract for professional services approve
plans and specs and authorize advertisement for bids for hardware and electrical services for
SCADA improvement PW307D as published in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
45
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council
award the contract for professional services, approve plans and specifications and
authorize advertisement for bids for hardware and electrical services for SCADA
improvements, Project PW307D. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 5 to 0.
VILLAGE ON THE PONDS BUILDING C-1; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
K.
CORNER OF LAKE DRIVE AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD; VOP I, LLC;
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 18,000 SQ. FT.
COMMERCIAL BUILDING, (COOP GROCERY) WITH VARIANCES.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor the only thing, the only reason why I’m bringing this up, I’d
like council to consider one of the conditions that was added by the Planning Commission
outside of a recommendation by staff, which is item number, condition number 30 which is
requesting a 4 way stop at Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive.
Councilman Labatt: Craig, are you on 1(k)(1) or 1(k)(2)?
Councilman Peterson: 1(k)(2).
Councilman Labatt: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Peterson: I’ll pause for a moment as you look for item number, condition number
30. It’s on page 12. To that end, the reason I’m questioning it is, the traffic studies that are
attached don’t call for a need for any kind of stop sign or traffic light system until 2010 and I’m
just not a proponent of putting stop signs or any kind of lights prior to their need. And I
understand the early rationale which is always about safety but there’s also, you can’t put a stop
sign everywhere. You can’t put legislate against stupidity of sorts and I think this is a case
where we’re too early. I don’t think it’s necessary so I would recommend that we delete item 30
and approve everything else.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other comments? Discussion. I would concur on this item
that Councilman Peterson raises. I think, especially given the risk here of not going forward with
this requirement at this time is minimal and of no cost to put up a couple stop signs in 5-10 years
whenever the conditions warrant is of minimum cost. And so there’s, I don’t see that there’s
any need at this point to include that condition in this approval. And I think, you know let’s
control traffic when we grow to that point, especially when there is no cost to waiting. Any other
thoughts or discussions? If not, is there a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve with condition 30 deleted.
Mayor Furlong: Of both items 1 and 2?
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
46
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approve Village on the Ponds Building C-1 located at the southeast corner of Lake Drive
and Great Plains Boulevard, VOP I, LLC:
1. Resolution #2004-89: Final Plat Approval.
2. Site Plan Approval for a 18,000 square foot commercial building (coop grocery)
with variances, deleting condition number 30.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Furlong: I’d like to begin by reading a statement regarding the City Manager’s
performance review for 2004. The City Council met in executive session on Monday, December
th
6 and again this evening discussing Mr. Gerhardt’s performance and compensation as our city
manager. The following is a summary of those discussions. Mr. Gerhardt has completed another
year of excellent work for our city. He accomplished his personal goals and together with the
City Council and his staff coordinated and executed on a number of key goals for our city. Some
of the major accomplishments this year included improving our city’s financial position and
outlook as exemplified by Standard and Poors two step rating increase from A to A-. AA-. By
maximizing the financial benefit to the city of our TIF districts and establishing a comprehensive
5 year financial budget, debt service and property tax plan. By implementing a review of the
city’s public safety needs and police contracting services that we obtain through Carver County
Sheriff’s department. Completing long range comprehensive water and sewer utility rate study
and implementing engineering and design work for the city’s first fresh water treatment plant.
And managing the logistical support for the visit by the President of the United State to our city
this last October. In consideration of his performance the City Council discussed increasing Mr.
Gerhardt’s total compensation in 2005 by 5.2 percent above that which he received in 2004. At
this time I’d like to ask a motion be made so indicating the council’s intent to increase Mr.
Gerhardt’s compensation as we have discussed.
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Councilman Lundquist: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on that motion?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the City
Manager’s compensation for 2005 with a 5.2 percent increase from 2004. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
47
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Mayor Furlong: The City Council is proud to have Mr. Gerhardt as our city manager and we
thank him for his continued service and his commitment to making the City of Chanhassen a
great place to live. Thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: Thank you. Just a quick comment. I think you kind of hit it on the head earlier
when you said how well everybody works together. My success is based on my staff and this
council working together and that’s how we achieve all this. So thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Council presentations. Any others?
Councilman Labatt: No, I just want to take a moment to thank Bob. It’s been a fun 4 years for
me. 2 for some of you guys. I think we’ve all learned some new Ayotteisms and acronyms and
other things and it’s been 4 years that I think we’ve accomplished a lot as a city Bob and a lot of
things were things that we spearheaded and pushed and I thank you as a resident and fellow
councilman.
Councilman Ayotte: Appreciate that Steve.
Mayor Furlong: Well said. As I just was reading through the list of some of the
accomplishments this year and reviewing accomplishments that we read last year during Mr.
Gerhardt’s review, I can’t help but seeing names of people that were instrumental and Bob you
were in part in a lot of these and I’ve enjoyed serving with you the last 2 years. Never know
quite what to expect when that phone rings or what the topic might be but it’s always interesting
and gives me cause to think and so I appreciate you challenging me like that so thank you for
your service.
Councilman Lundquist: Bob, I’m going to be a little bit more less eloquent than the mayor. It’s
been a lot of fun and when I sat through the campaign a couple years ago and watched, you know
I would look up and say, you know what, after you went on for 15 minutes, what did that guy
just say. And but as I’ve gotten to know you, I’ve really enjoyed working with you. You know
we have similar viewpoints on a lot of things and so that’s always nice to have a sounding board
there. And you’re, I like your sense of humor. You’re fun. Sometimes you’re a belligerent and
pain in the butt, but I’ve got to give you credit for sticking to your guns and staying with what
you believe regardless of what anybody else thinks about it. That’s a quality not always found,
especially in a politician so again, it’s been a lot of fun Bob and something tells me that we’ll see
you again sometime. Probably standing at that podium over there and that you probably won’t
stop those phone calls or e-mails but that’s okay. So good luck and it’s been fun.
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you Brian.
Councilman Peterson: Well done.
Councilman Ayotte: Craig appreciate it. I’ll miss you. Thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: I’ve got to tell one story. I received a phone call probably 5 years ago, do you
remember that? Drainage swale in your back yard. Talking to me and he’s going on and on in
48
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
these engineering terms and I go, this guy is going to run for City Council someday, I just know
it. And a year later Bob put his hat in the ring to run for City Council so, and we were lucky you
did. You’ve shown such great leadership over these past 4 years and thank you.
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you.
Councilman Peterson: Is your swale fixed? Did you get your swale fixed?
Councilman Ayotte: The swale’s taken care of. In a way.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. We’re still in council presentations. I would like to piggy back real
quickly on comments that Councilman Labatt said before about Mr. DeJong who this is his last
night. We’re going to miss you. We appreciated your creativity and innovation and with
finances those words aren’t often used. In a good sense. Some regulators coming back and
looking at you so. In this particular case your contributions will, have benefited the city and will
benefit for a long time so we thank you for your service and wish you the best luck in your new
endeavors.
Bruce DeJong: Thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: Something tells me you’ll probably be standing at the podium some day
too. Good luck Bruce.
Todd Gerhardt: You know when I told you not to bond for things, I was lying.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any other council presentations? This is our last meeting for the
th
year. New council will be sworn in on January 10 is our next meeting so.
Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Everybody should have happy holiday season.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: Nothing to add. Let’s play Bobeopardy and eat some cake.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. If there’s nothing else to come before the council this evening, is
there a motion to adjourn?
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50
p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
49
City Council Meeting – December 13, 2004
Prepared by Nann Opheim
50