Loading...
CC Minutes 1998 12 14CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Engel, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Sharmin A1-Jaff, Cynthia Kirchoff, Anita Benson, Charles Folch, Don Ashworth, and Pam Snell APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda amended to move item 4 to the end of the agenda as item 10. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARDS TO COUNCILMAN MASON AND COUNCILMAN BERQUIST. Mayor Mancino: Well it is with great pleasure that I get to present the Maple Leaf Award for community service to Councilman Mason and Councilman Berquist for Councilman Berquist's 4 years on the City Council and Councilman Mason's 8 years. I think he started as a councilman back in the horse and buggy days and I'd like to thank you both very much on behalf of the community for your service. And if you'd like to give a few words, that would be wonderful. Councilman Berquist: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. This is my Michael's. Councilman Mason: Thank you. Councilman Berquist: Four years ago when I decided to run for City Council it was with the intention of trying to give back to the community and I hope I've done quite a bit of that. I've been very proud to serve the community of Chanhassen. I've always acted in what I consider to be best interest of all the citizens of Chanhassen and that has been my fundamental premise for being a councilperson and it has never changed. I appreciate the faith that the people put in me 4 years ago and I appreciate the faith that people still have in me. Thank you very much. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Mason: Well, I'd like to thank all of you for coming here tonight to see me get this award. I think this is pretty cool. In fact if I'm not mistaken this beats Chmiel's count from a few years ago. Maybe I will run for state office. Just kidding Nancy. My wife's out there somewhere, as are Emily and Scott. It was 8 years ago that I decided to take a shot at this. I was fortunate enough to get elected to a second term. Either I fooled a whole lot of people or a number of people took interest in what was going on and decided to vote for me again. Fortunately I got involved at a very dynamic and changing time. Just out of curiosity, how many people that are in this room right now lived in Chanhassen 8 years ago? How many aren't? Weren't, excuse me. Oh, okay. Interesting. That isn't what I would have thought. At any rate, when I took office I believe there were about 8,000 residents. Eight years later I believe we have City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 something like 16,000. So times are changing. I would definitely be remiss ifI didn't say thanks to a whole lot of people. It's been said before and I think it needs to be said again, I'll put this city staff up against any other staff involved in this kind of business. Quite honestly I can't thank staff enough for the help and the direction and the guidance that they've given to me over the years. To each and every citizen that has served or is serving on a commission, thank you as well. Your time and input cannot be valued enough. Also my thanks goes to any and every member of this community that has chosen to get involved regardless of what side of the issue you happen to be on at the time. It is involvement that keeps us all honest. A time like this is I think supposed to be bitter sweet. Anytime one invests as much time and effort to help lead a city as vibrant as this, there has to be mixed emotions when you move on. The last months of office unfortunately have placed more emphasis on the bitter than the sweet. As was said at Saturday's special council meeting, I have not and will not be supportive of decisions and how they were made that concern the leadership and subsequently all of City Hall. Things are not always what they seem. This is a difficult time for anyone connected with the workings and functions of this city. Regardless, as the dust of this turmoil is settling, it is time to get Chanhassen back on it's feet and moving forward again. So when all is said and done, it is time to move on. Thank you all. And, no. That's it. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much Mike. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Mancino: I would just like to say l(m). I would like to add these words to l(m) please and that is, approval of a city code amendment concerning the Bluff Creek Overlay District, 2nd and Final Reading, and approval of publication of summary of the ordinance. So those words should also be added to l(m). Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution #98-107: Accept Utility Improvements in Olivewood-Project No. 94-11. Resolution #98-108: Accept Street and Drainage Improvements in The Woods at Longacres 4th Addition, Project No. 97-3. Resolution #98-109: Accept Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in Springfield 1st Addition, Project No. 97-14. Resolution #98-110: Accept Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in Highover - Project No. 97-15. Resolution #98-111: Accept Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in Woodridge Heights 1 st & 2nd Additions, Project No. 97-5. Resolution #98-112: Accept Utility Improvements in The Meadows at Longacres 4th Addition - Project No. 97-2. Resolution #98-113: Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Study for Lake Drive West Street and Utility Improvements (Powers Boulevard to Audubon Road) - Project No. 98-16. City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 h. Resolution #98-114: Accept Utility Improvements in Villages on the Ponds Phase II - Project No. 97-8. i. Resolution #98-115; Approve Sanitary Sewer and Water Supply Comprehensive Plans. k. Approval of Bills. 1. City Council Minutes dated November 23, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes dated November 18, 1998 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 24, 1998 m. Approval of a City Code Amendment Concerning the Bluff Creek Overlay District, Second and Final Reading, and approval of the Publication of Summary Ordinance. p. Approval of 1998 Bike Trail Project Easements. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Items l(j), (n) and (o) were pulled from the consent agenda by Councilman Senn and will be discussed during item 10, Adoption of the 1999 Budget. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: CITIZEN COMMENTS REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT. Public Present: Name Address B.C. Mike Maley Dennis Hansen Janet Carlson Bob Benson Lee Kerber Rick & Roxann Corwine Darrell & June R. Mark Undestad Charley Webber Charlie Littfin Craig Edwards Bill & Lucy Green LeRoy Biteler Ben Miller Littfin Vicki Wiborg Carol Dunsmore Steve Labatt Bill & Patsy Bernhjelm 3981 Stratford Ridge Byerly's, 800 West 78th Street 6450 Pleasant View Circle 4141 Kings Road 1620 Arboretum Blvd. 7600 Erie Avenue 8800 Sunset Trail 1560 Bluff Creek Drive 7609 Laredo Drive 18625 Jacques Court, Eden Prairie 16502 Ellerdale Lane 910 Penamint Court Kerber Blvd. 8052 Erie Spur 7131 Derby Drive 730 West 96th Street 7457 Bent Bow Trail 9380 Kiowa Trail City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Greg & Betty Eidam Stephanie & Denny Unze Mona J. Kerber Cori Wallis Brian Semke Robert Spielman David Gestach Leah Hawke Lydia Porter John Esch Craig & Patty Blechta Jim McMahon Peter & LuAnn Sidney Reed Harr Steve Gawon Scott & Diane Harr Sue Stanek Elizabeth Burgett Leslie & Justin Michel Mike Sitter Darlene Loving Betsy & Herb LaPlatt Tom MacFarlane T.J. Gilha Michael O'Kelly Patrick Lynch Cathy Armayuis John Kilpatrick Sharyl R. Jeff B. George & Ann Lillie Jim Sabinske W.J. Bing Dave Lindau Lloyd E. Westlund Laura Orcutt Janet Lash John Wolff Mark Littfin C.F. Anding Michael Lee Kerber Joseph G. Scott Mike Gorra Country Clean, E. Wiley Nathan Kirt Dave Dummer L.M. Campbell Sherri Walsh 1119 Ridge Bluff Drive 1080 Lyman Court 500 Chan View 951 Redwing Court 331 Hidden Lane 753 Canterbury Court 7510 Dogwood 7444 Moccasin 7217 Pontiac Circle 7444 Moccasin 31 Sandy Hook Road 860 West 86th Street, Chaska 2431 Bridle Creek Trail 8549 Irwin Road 2850 Metro Drive, Bloomington 55425 6405 Glacier Place, Edina 8117 West 96th Street, Bloomington 1193 Harrison Street, Shakopee 2840 Washta Bay Road, Excelsior 6526 Aster Trail, Victoria 7112 Pontiac Circle 7012 Cheyenne Trail 201 Chanview 7116 Pontiac Circle 685 Carver Beach Road 910 Saddlebrook Pass 531 Mission Hills Way West 7021 Pima Lane 410 West 78th Street 402 Maple Haven, Montgomery 9355 Kiowa Trail 775 Creekwood, Chaska 5705 1st Avenue South, Mpls. 449 Camp Lincoln Road 1014 Pontiac Court 210 Piedmont Court 7001 Tecumseh Lane 31 Basswood Circle 8052 Erie Spur 6601 Minnewashta Pkwy 500 Chanview 7091 Pimlico Lane 1680 Highway 5 7720 Chan View 50 Hill Street 8523 Drake Court 415 Lakota Lane 6601 Minnewashta Pkwy City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Greg H. Shelley Mehl Joe Eifield Peter Ivy Kerri Nolden Debbie Scott Becki & Bruce Johnson Jeff Barber Wes Dunsmore Jeff Swedlund G.F. Jim Sloss Bill Wyffels Colleen Dockendorf Jim Tresh Penny & Robert Hayes Randy Waite David Carlson Steven & Monica Posnick Scott Anding Ken Aus Joe Brenn John Murphy Titus Castens M. Aus Jack Atkins Barb Klick Keith Walgrave Beth Hoiseth Bob Zydowsky 6870 Redwing Lane 490 Bighorn Drive 18924 Maple Leaf Drive, Eden Prairie Box 170, Carver 8137 14th Avenue So., Bloomington 7673 Nicholas Way 7000 Derby Drive 6920 Redwing Lane 730 West 96th Street 9520 Lake... Road, Chaska 2185 Van Slow Road, Chaska 6017 Ridgewood Road, Mound 9360 Kiowa Trail 2263 Stone Creek Lane 991 Saddle... Trail 2061 Oakwood Ridge 6400 Chanhassen Road 6881 Redwing Lane 6891 Redwing Lane 6199 Cascade Pass 7010 Dakota 951 Redwing Court 7050 Pimlico Lane 7605 Laredo Drive 611 Santa Vera Drive 7605 Erie Avenue 110701 Keys Lane 220 West 78th Street 7116 Utica Lane 1436 Crest Drive, Chaska 16409 Hilltop Terrace 2185 B... Mayor Mancino: We are going to take comments, citizen comments tonight regarding Public Safety Department. Before we go into that, there is a couple of things that I would like to read. First of all to let everyone know here tonight that the City Council held a special meeting on Saturday, September (December) 12th at 10:30 a.m. in City Hall council chambers. We took action on two agenda items. We approved the separation agreement with Scott Harr and we appointed Todd Gerhardt, our Assistant City Manager as Acting City Manager. Both motions were passed unanimously by Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason and Mayor Mancino. Upon convening our special meeting on Saturday I read a statement that I'm also going to be reading tonight. On November 30th, a City Council work session was unexpectedly attended by several members of the Public Safety community. Don Ashworth and the City Council acknowledged that public comment could be made at the next City Council meeting scheduled for December 14th regarding the City Manager's proposed reorganization and the elimination of the position of the Public Safety Director. Based upon the information available to us at that time, it was in good faith that we said we would accept comment from the public during the December 14th meeting. We would have followed through with our actions if the situation had remained stable. However the situation was escalated to a public fervor seeking actions and answers from a council that had not had an opportunity to discuss the City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 proposal nor the subsequent effects. In an effort to relieve the undue pressure, stress and confusion at City Hall and in the community resulting from the City Manager's actions, the Council saw the necessity to take more timely action than to leave staff and the community in turmoil any longer than had already been allowed. The public was demanding answers and actions. The requested delay was only aggravating the situation. Threats and allegations have been made against this Council to control our taking action and to bias the decision making process. Though we acknowledge and appreciate loyalty being shown, we must act upon facts and in the best interest of the entire community. No disrespect is intended with the timing of our action. Timing demanded by the circumstances. Having heard more than two weeks of input, the facts remain the same and we maintain that the timing of our actions are consistent with doing what is best for our community. Today's approval of the separation agreement is a legal formality finalizing an employer/employee agreement. We remain committed to hearing whatever criticism of the process that the public would like to share on Monday night, as well as comments on the reorganization and the Public Safety Commission. However our actions just be made in the best interest of the community. We have encouraged our staff to put this behind them and not judge the situation based on rumors or innuendoes. The history of this council has been to act fairly and openly. Terms not easily applied to such an emotional situation. The community and staff must get back to daily activities and business. As a council we are committed to doing whatever we need to do to make this a successful transition. Again before we open this, Roger I would like you to speak to the legality of commenting, etc. Roger Knutson: Mayor, just a couple of points to make before we begin. First under visitor presentation, just so everyone understands the format. Visitor presentation is the time for members of the community or any citizen to come forward and state what they want to state to the council about issues of concern that they have or the community has. It is not however a debate or an opportunity for a question and answer session. It's strictly a time to make your comments known and the council will respectfully listen to those comments. But you shouldn't respect, just based on the numbers of you, that there can be responses to questions. All the Council normally does at this time is listen and then you'll have that time to comment. Second, under the Government Data Practices Act, the city is not at liberty to get into information about personnel and personnel evaluation. And so the City, under no circumstances councilmembers can't comment on those kind of issues. Mayor. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Todd. You had a couple things to say about public safety and the safety of our community at this time. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, councilmembers. As the Acting City Manager for the City of Chanhassen this is what I've done to keep our public safety department levels consistent with the needs of our community. I have designated Bob Zydowsky as our Chief Law Enforcement Officer. This designation ensures that both our police officers, Bob Zydowsky, Carrie Nolden will be able to continue to carry out their day to day law enforcement functions. Mr. Zydowsky will also be responsible for administering the Carver County Police contract. The City of Chanhassen currently receives, and will continue to receive, 36 hours of police protection per day from the Carver County Sheriff's Department under our contract. I have also been in contact with Scott Gerber, the Carver County Emergency Management Director, asking him to assist Chanhassen in an event that an emergency management plan needs to be activated. A meeting will be scheduled before the end of the week to review our emergency management plan and it's implementation under this new organization. We have reviewed this transition with Bud Olson, our Carver County Sheriff elect and A1 Wallin, our current Carver County Sheriff, and they have given their total support through this transition. Thank you. City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Okay, now I would like to open this to citizen comment but before I do, please remember to keep comments to 5 minutes or less. If you could refrain from loud remarks, booing or inappropriate laughing or applause. We will take all comments, but in the spirit of common courtesy, verbal personal attacks will not be allowed. If that does happen, I will close visitor presentation so we'd like to open up visitor presentation for an hour period and those wishing to address the council may come forward. We're going to limit it to an hour unless there are just those who haven't had a chance. But we have, as you know, a very full agenda tonight so please go ahead. Colleen Dockendorf: I do see that. Colleen Dockendorf, 2061 Oakwood Ridge. Before I get started, my understanding was that the City Council adopted some procedures back in January of '98 allowing for 10 minutes of visitor presentations per person. Do you recall that? Mayor Mancino: No I don't Colleen but if you want to go on a little longer, that's fine. As long as we just keep the whole to one hour so we can go ahead and do the rest of the agenda. I don't think we're really too concerned. I was just seeing all the people, I didn't want somebody not to get a word in if they wanted to. Colleen Dockendorf: Alright. Well again before I start yet again I'd like to say congratulations to Councilman Mason and Councilman Berquist. I can sincerely say I enjoyed working with you both. I do offer however that I think Mr. Mason deserves a Purple Heart in addition to his Maple Leaf tonight. And I thank you for the update on what has gone on, but it certainly does beg the question, how did we get here? And what is going on appears to be the question of the hour, if not the last several weeks and perhaps the last several months. Lacking any prior direct communication from the council, I would like to share what I know about the situation. Three weeks ago tonight the former City Manager presented a page and a half memo to this council and to Scott Harr. The memo outlined a reorganizational plan of three parts. Number one, creating a community services department to incorporate public safety, information systems and economic development. A curious mix. Dissolving the Public Safety Commission and firing Scott Harr, and dissolving the position of Public Safety Director. Mr. Ashworth's memo is titled "Reorganizational Update" and it clearly references, and let me quote, the reorganizational assignment given to me by the City Council. I find it surprising that this council continues to pretend that these ideas were complete surprises, and I simply don't believe you. That same night I politely asked that the council allow for public input on this monumental decision. And the following day the Public Safety Commission met and formally asked the City Council to rescind the decision of the City Manager and also allow for public input on this matter. Again, a week later at a City Council work session a commitment was made to over 20 residents, including fire fighters, that all reorganizational changes would be held off until at least tonight, December 14th. I am deeply, deeply disappointed that this council chose not to honor that commitment that was made. Instead, last Monday this Council forced Don Ashworth to fire Scott Harr. And I choose my words very carefully. You forced him to fire Harr. Last Monday the Mayor called an emergency meeting to discuss preliminary allegations of gross misconduct by the City Manager. Gross misconduct is the only thing that would nullify the employment contract between the City Manager, Don Ashworth, and this city. Not so coincidentally, Ashworth's next move was to sign one half of a separation agreement for Scott Harr. A separation agreement that Mr. Ashworth admits he didn't even read, much less ask to draft. The separation agreement was then presented by a member of this council, Mark Senn, to Harr last Tuesday and Scott Harr was given less than a day to either sign it or be fired. Let me point out that under State Statute the Council does not have the legal authority to fire any city staff member except the City Manager, and yet under the threat of the council nullifying his own employment contract, Ashworth fires Harr. To me ladies and gentlemen, this is coercion and if it's not outright illegal, it's downright unethical. And what of this reorganization plan? Why would you pull apart a public safety department that is renown metro wide for being extremely cost effective, exceedingly well run. We City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 contract as you pointed out with Carver County Sheriff for 36 hours of service a day. The national average is 2 policemen per 1,000 residents. By those standards we could have a police force of 35 to 40 sworn officers. Instead we have 2. It makes sense. That is because Scott Harr has built this model and refined it. The weakening of this department through this ill conceived plan tells me that this council doesn't think the most important function of city government is the safety of our community. The second point, dismantling the public safety commission. This council, and excuse me, it's arrogance has decided that the city does not need a forum for public input on issues of public safety. A commission of volunteer, unpaid citizens. In an era of open, participatory government, I'm baffled and one must ask what is the motivation. Finally, eliminating the position of Scott Harr. You'll hear tonight of what a pivotal role the Public Safety Director plays in the safety of our community. I strongly believe that it's a critical position that must be a sworn officer who is strong enough to advocate on behalf of our citizens, yet compassionate enough to comfort citizens who are at their most vulnerable. Smart, strong and compassionate. You've just fired a man who has all of those qualities in spades. Again I ask why. In the dirth of information that is coming out of City Hall, at least up until this point, I can only assume that you intend to carry out this reorganizational plan. Tonight's agenda doesn't even allow for council discussion of it. It appears that you're just plowing ahead and your first move was set in motion last week when you fired Scott. Your silence speaks volumes and what it says to me is that you're going to charge ahead regardless of what you hear tonight. You know city staff has been asking the question why for the last week, and when you're not hiding behind Data Privacies Act, you're volunteer that it's the turmoil. Well guess what? You caused the turmoil, and don't you blame citizens and don't blame me for reacting to it. I've also heard that you're concerned that City Hall has been paralyzed. I've got news for you. City Hall has been paralyzed for a couple of years now. And I say this with no disrespect to any city employee. I've always admired them for the professionals that they are and I think we're lucky to have them. But they're paralyzed. I've spoken with almost every department head and over the last two years and the turmoil as far as they're concerned is not new. There has been an atmosphere of intimidation that for several years and it's only gotten worse. When I hear of city council members swearing at staff. When the Mayor is running the weekly city staff meetings for the last couple of years. When city council members are not only failing to remove themselves from votes in which they have a personal or financial interest, but are actually influencing those votes, I'm stunned. The atmosphere upstairs is, the less you do, the less you can get in trouble for, and this has a direct impact on services to the public. And then the cru-de-gras last week, firing Scott Harr. A department head who had the gall to advance a position that you didn't agree with. What message does this reinforce to our staff members? If you don't keep your head low, we're going to find a way to chop it off. And city staff is rightly asking, who's next? They think there's a hit list. Don Ashworth has prided himself, and rightly so on keeping unions out of this town and I'm sorry to say but this council has swung the door wide open. You know a lot of people have said, alright. It's said and done. Let's get on with it and I, myself have questioned how do we recover because you know when the dust settles, we do need to carry on. How do we go forward? And if you as a city council are truly interested in doing what's right for our city, I would ask you to look inward and do some soul searching. Ask yourself what is your motivation for these reorganizational changes. Ask yourself if your behaviors are stymieing city staff and ask yourself if you're truly representing the citizens of Chanhassen. How do we recover? Quite honestly I'm not sure that we can with this council. We have been lied to. You have abused the authority that we granted you and we can no longer trust you anymore. I would sincerely encourage you to look inward and in the best interest of the citizens of Chanhassen, resign your positions. Mayor Mancino: No clapping please. Patty Blechta: My name is Patty Blechta. I live at 31 Sandy Hook Road and I would like these letters that I have to be submitted to the public record in support of Scott Harr and the position of Public Safety City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Director. Members from these agencies have sent these letters to our Mayor, Nancy Mancino and City Manager, Don Ashworth. Let me highlight on a few of these. I have a letter here from Rosemount. One of the largest businesses in Chanhassen. It's from Bill Green. Permit to cite a brief example of the service level that typifies our experience with Scott Harr and the Chanhassen Department of Public Safety. Earlier this year former Prime Minister of Great Britain and John Mager visited our facilities in Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. It was my responsibility to respond to the requirements of Mr. Mager's security team. Scott and his organization diligently supported my efforts working in conjunction with the Sheriff's office and the Eden Prairie police, Special Branch of the new Scotland Yard and the Diplomatic Security Services of the U.S. State Department. Scott and his people provided support that was second to none. Both Special Branch and State Department personnel commented to me that they rarely witness this sort of cooperation and experience during the Minnesota visit. Hosting this activity was extremely important to Rosemount. Scott and the personnel of Chanhassen Public Safety Department helped to ensure that it was a success. Some might say this just means that they're just doing their job. However, in my dealings with law enforcement and public safety organizations across the country, I've had both good and bad experiences with public and private sectors working together to solve problems. Asking for help does not automatically mean it's forthcoming. I also have a letter from Steven Graham. Southwest Metro Task Force. As coordinator of the program I would also ask, I would also like to show my appreciation for Public Safety Director Scott Harr. He has been a member of the Task Force Executive Committee since it's beginning and always bring his law enforcement expertise to the table when decisions need to be made. I have a letter here from Michael Tammer. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Scott has enhanced public safety within the community. He has always supported the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, DNR Division of Enforcement Officers and our education and safety programs within our community. On many occasions Scott has solicited the advice and the local DNR officer on natural resource and recreational safety related issues. Most recently Scott has been instrumental in providing Youth Snowmobile Safety Training classes in the city of Chanhassen and has set the groundwork for providing the additional youth firearms safety training. A letter from K. Harvey, Assistant Carver County Attorney. I have known Mr. Harr throughout my service in Carver County. In particularly I worked closely with regards to the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. Mr. Harr's savy and forthright advice was greatly beneficial to the task force on many occasions. I know that the Chief of Police and Sheriff's involvement with the task force greatly appreciated and assisted from Mr. Harr. I have a letter from Lt. L.L. Hodleft, prior Carver County State Patrol Lieutenant. As prior Carver County Area State Patrol Lieutenant and Supervisor, there has been numerous occasions for Director Harr and I to work together. We have targeted driving behavior within your city limits, which has had direct impact on the safety of your citizens and conducted multi-agency saturation's to address these safety concerns. We work together with the County Sheriff and other agencies. The FBI and special response teams in arresting an individual for a bank robbery, kidnapping and attempted murder of a police officer, all of which also occurred within your city limits. We have worked together utilizing our flight division, specifically the helicopter and FLIR device for searches and rescues. Scott Harr has been of great help to us when dealing with public safety issues directly affecting your community. These are but a few examples I can give you. To lose this contact and years of experience will be a loss to us and I believe almost a greater loss to your community. I have a letter from Lt. Steven Megalkow. Over the years Minnesota State Patrol has had opportunity to partner with the Chanhassen Department of Public Safety and Carver County Sheriff's Department in providing quality law enforcement services in your area. Director Scott Harr has developed a relationship among the law enforcement agencies and that has proven to be both a unique and effective method of serving the citizens of Chanhassen. I have a letter here from Mr. Wallin, Alan Wallin, the Sheriff. He says that last Friday, December 4th, Sheriff Elect Bud Olson and I met with Don Ashworth. I explained to Don some of the ramifications of eliminating a public safety director and the impact it could have, not only on the Carver County Sheriff's office but certainly on the Sheriff Elect Bud Olson come January, 1999. Without a Public City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Safety Director, the state would no longer recognize Chanhassen Public Safety. Several of the current duties being performed by the office would now have to fall to the Carver County Sheriffs office. I also have a letter here from Michael Maley, Manager of Byerly's. The public service department contributes greatly to the quality of life in this city and the confidence of perspective homeowners or businesses have in our city. My business depends on that confidence for future growth. I am disappointed in the procedure you chose to make this decision. When making a decision that could potentially impact the security and quality of life for this city, you should have asked for input from the community. I do not understand why you chose to proceed in such a fashion as to provide an environment that questions the true intent of your actions. I also have a letter here from Jeannie Cox. If you all remember two years ago she was a teller at the Chanhassen Bank. When it was robbed I was taken hostage. As a teller I've been taught about safety during a robbery but I was not prepared for the aftermath. Scott helped me deal with my fears and gave me the strength to try and continue to lead a normal life. Scott took time out of his busy work and personal schedule to help me through this extremely rough time in my life. He made it clear that he was available any time should I have any questions or concerns. Tell me, how many people would do that? To comfort someone after a traumatic event like that takes a very special person. It is a horrible decision and will do nothing but hurt Chanhassen. Please let the community have a say in this matter. After all, it is our safety and our community that's in jeopardy. And at last I have a letter to Scott from Beth Hoiseth. I have known all along but have failed to acknowledge to you what an overwhelming positive impact you have made on our community, other departments, our department and me, especially me. You have been my mentor and you have been for so many others. I can only hope that some day I will have 1/100th as much courage and integrity as you do. I've always appreciated your leadership style and have bragged about it to many others. It's not over yet but I want to let you know that I am forever grateful for everything you have done for me. And I think a lot of people in this room feel the same way. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Craig Blechta: My name is Craig Blechta. My address is 31 Sandy Hook Road in Chanhassen. Scott and I met 11 years ago at Emergency Medical Technician school when he had just been hired by Chanhassen and I was on the Chanhassen Fire Department. While my full time employment is as an airline pilot, I do have an informed perspective of emergency services because of my experience on the Eden Prairie Fire Department at the current time and training other emergency medical technicians from throughout the state at Hennepin County Medical Center. I am also proud to have served for 6 years on the Public Safety Commission serving 2 years as Chair. What I'm trying to figure out here is just exactly what reason this council had for abruptly terminating an obviously successful eleven plus year career with our city. I have confirmed with former City Manager Don Ashworth, for whom Scott worked all this time, that there was never a disciplinary issue and Scott's performance reviews were exemplary. We have asked repeatedly, and the only reason given why this is good for the city is the turmoil. But what is the turmoil? We know his personnel file is squeaky clean, so that's not it. We have unsolicited letters of support from members of every emergency response agency that Chanhassen depends on supporting Scott. This includes, as Patty mentioned, the Carver County Sheriff's department, the County Attorney's office, the Minnesota State Patrol, the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Ridgeview Paramedic Services. So that's not it. And while any chief law enforcement officer can't be expected to please everyone, how many of us could garner this community support. So that's not it either. So what is this turmoil? After analyzing it from absolutely every direction, meeting with staff, fire fighters, business people and residents of the community I think I finally determined what it is. It's the open public debate that has occurred over the last half year. That's all it can be. Indeed the sirens became political. Cities run on politics. Citizens spoke, the commission listened and the council responded. So what if there was public debate and media attention. Council feathers got ruffled, and when a councilmen makes an 10 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 admitted poor decision that results in his arrest, that's a legitimate news story in any community. So what it was to be expected that it would produce some media attention and letters to the editors. And let's be realistic. Both of these issues provide legitimate fodder for public debate during the fall's election. More media attention and letters to the editor. But was Scott responsible for these issues? Absolutely not. The record shows that he accepted in a professional manner the council's elimination of sirens from, for several years from the budget. He didn't make a scene but when residents asked his opinion, he responded. He was passionate about the need for outdoor warning sirens in Chanhassen, and it's been proven beyond any doubt that Mr. Harr only did one thing regarding the councilman's arrest. And that was to warn him a week before to do exactly what he chose to do. To not do exactly what he chose to do. Every trooper, deputy and officer involved felt compelled to explain to Mr. Ashworth the facts supporting these facts. But why would our chief law enforcement officer even be questioned about why the police did their job? That's it. Some free flowing public debate and media attention about what government was doing. No behind the scene stuff here, and this seems to be what the turmoil is all about. Think about it. There is no explanation for Scott's abrupt firing. He's being blamed for ruffling feathers through public attention to these issues. There is no personnel problem. There is no performance issues. There is no disciplinary issue. There is incredible community and professional support. And last, but by no means, there is a staff that is absolutely dedicated to him. I wonder how many council people have taken the time to really check this out. Councilman Mason makes it a point of interacting with staff and truly understanding what's being done and by whom. And for this Councilman Berquist publicly chastised him. Councilmembers Elect Steve Labatt and Linda Jensen have made an effort to get to know. Mayor Mancino: Craig, Craig. Craig. No personal attacks please. Craig Blechta: Okay. Councilman Elect Steve Labatt and Linda Jensen have made an effort to get to know Scott and his department. Good for them. Good for them. You were invited to actively get to know the public safety department Mr. Engel. Have you ridden along with the inspectors or the police or the community officers? Have you sat with the support staff as they field some 250 calls and walk-ups a day? No. Nor has anyone else. The turmoil is simple. The turmoil is what people think and in a couple cases this council, for the most part didn't like hearing what people think. Well tonight it's clear what people think and virtual nonstop support of Scott and his department for the last two weeks shows what people think. What do we think? We think that things have been just fine and Scott Harr should be immediately reinstated and the department returned to it's highly effective organizational structure. That is what we think. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you and again if there is one more, that's it. Any person or personal attack and we will close the visitor presentation. Thank you. And I've said that upfront. Robert Spielman: Good evening. My name is Robert Spielman, 753 Canterbury Circle. I've only lived in Chanhassen a little over a year so I don't know Mr. Harr but by looking around here I can see that our community is losing a very valuable resource and a very valuable position. I've worked for over 10 years in the Chicagoland area as a paramedic. I survived through the Plainfield tornado and other disasters. I can tell you the need for a public safety director is pivotal for the safety and community that came from those disasters. Without that, in the Plainfield incident for example, even more lives would have been lost than the ones that were. The coordination afterwards was not something that took place at that moment. It took place beforehand and it was the coordination that made the safety possible. The decision to destroy this position seems more of a systemic problem financially and operationally with the direction of the board. Think about why people would live in this community. Our taxes are some of the highest in the area. So that's not the draw. We pay more for cable TV than anybody else in the metro area, so something 11 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 that is recreational is not the draw. One of the biggest reasons we live here is for the safety so that I can go to work every day and know my children and my family is safe. I personally survived through a tornado because of sirens, and if I had checked out before I moved to this community that there were no sirens, I would have not moved here. My family in 1967 were saved, we lived on the south side of Chicago. A tornado came through. The sirens went off 2 ½ minutes beforehand. The roof to our house was totally removed. And to think that that level of safety is not being extended to my children is a crime. Before we look at this problem, it would be easy to just listen to us speak. End the meeting and go home at the end of the night. It would take a brave effort to say maybe the people of Chanhassen would like this position reinstated. This is not a power struggle. This is a voice of the people saying to those that we elected, we would like to see change and we hope that you are strong enough to make those changes. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Jim McMahon: My name is Jim McMahon. I am the former Fire Chief. Retired from the fire department and while there's been a lot of discussion about public safety's position and so on, I think after seeing the show of hands that there are a lot of people that do not understand the process and the importance of that position in this community. So I'd like to address that. 13-14 years ago the city established an advisory committee, chaired by a later and then councilman Richard Wing, to decide if the city needed a police department. After completing their study, it was their recommendation that the city hire a public safety director to deal with outside agencies until the city reached a population of 10,000. Public Safety Director's duties are to contract and to coordinate services with, and it's very important that everybody listens to this list of agencies. The Sheriff's department, the State Patrol, the Southwest Drug Task Force, the Chanhassen Fire Department, two paramedic agencies, the State Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the FBI, the Postal Inspections Officer, the Immigration Department, Crime Prevention Officers. He also is over CSO officers, which is animal control. The City Inspections Department, the Fire Marshal's office and Code Enforcement Officer, and the DNR. Folks, that's a big plate for anybody to handle. Out of this came then the Public Safety Commission which was formed as an outgrowth of the Public Safety Department. This commission serves as a resource and advisory board along with being a sounding commission for the citizens of Chanhassen. This commission is made up of professional law enforcement officers from other cities, not Chanhassen, as well as concerned citizens. All members to this commission volunteer their time and are citizens of Chanhassen. We now are at a population of 16,000. I've heard 19,000. We'll call it 16,000. Again it was stated earlier if we were to follow the national averages for police officers per population, we'd have 32 if it was 16. If we were to follow the Midwest average, we would have 16. We had three licensed officers and now have two. When you talk about creativity, the main portion of the salary for one of our officers is paid for by a federal grant. The remainder of our police protection comes from a contract for patrol needs with the Sheriff's department. What has all this done for the citizens of Chanhassen. Chanhassen's public safety department is rated in the top five of the state for operating efficiency or cost for service per citizen. That's a heck of an accomplishment. Roger you stated we can't ask questions. Mayor Mancino: We are taking comments only. Thank you Jim. Jim McMahon: Comments only. I guess in closing what I'd like to say since I was around really from the inception of this and have worked with the start up of the public safety commission and the public safety directors, that it's really been an honor to work with these people. They are definitely dedicated professionals and it's been a real asset to the city because the main job when I listed out all of these agencies is to coordinate these agencies to work together in times of need. It's not an easy accomplishment to do this. Fire has it's policies, procedures and so on. The sheriff's department has theirs. The state 12 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 patrol has theirs. To bring all of these together is no easy task to operate because procedures change by circumstance. There's a lot of coordination involved in this and this is something that Scott shined at. Was bringing together and getting departments to change their policies. Change their procedures to work together as a unit for the best possible outcome for the citizens of this community. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Patsy Bernhjelm: Good evening Mayor and Council. My name is Patsy Bernhjelm and I live at 9380 Kiowa Trail here in Chanhassen. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I come before you as a very, very concerned resident of the city of Chanhassen. I also am sadden by the recent events that have occurred and that have been outlined tonight and have many questions for you regarding the last, the events of the last few weeks. My first and foremost question is why is the council so involved in these personnel issues at city hall? It would appear that by taking a look at the Minnesota State Statutes that apply to the council manager plan of government, that the council only has the city manager to report directly to them and everyone else reports to the city manager. Specifically I would like to refer to Minnesota State Statute 412.661 which, and I will paraphrase. Neither the council nor any of it's members shall dictate the appointment of any person to office or employment by the manager. And then I drop down to, the council and it's member shall deal with and control the administrative service solely through the manager and neither the council or any of it's members shall give orders to any subordinate of the manager, either publicly or privately. With this information in mind I would like to know who it was that gave the order to have the resignation offer made to Scott Harr. We do know that there was a council member present as one of the individuals who proposed this to Mr. Harr. It certainly appears to me that the council member should have had nothing to do with this. According to Minnesota State Statute. So what was their involvement in the situation at all? Why is it necessary for any council member to be present at city hall for administrative reasons recently? Doesn't it seem to you to be going against what the statute says? It does to me. I'm not an attorney but I am a citizen of this city and I did work for a city for 10 years and am somewhat familiar with statutes and that's my interpretation. I do feel that I want, and I also am entitled to an explanation as to why it was handled this way. Is this the legal way to handle this? I don't know. You tell me. I found it very interesting what Councilmember Senn stated in a letter to the Chanhassen Villager that said, and I quote, trust them. The Council. To assemble the information, evaluate it and continue to make responsible decisions. They will function within the legal parameters they need to and above all they will act in the best interest of the city. End quote. Well Councilmember Senn, why should we trust the council and mayor when it appears that any time or for any reason you could come into city hall and continue this. All legal issues aside, what possible reason is there for getting rid of someone that is running an efficient, cost effective department and is held in high esteem, not only by co-workers and by peers, as we've also already heard. I know of no reason for this to occur, yet it did. I find this whole predicament embarrassing to me personally as a resident of the city of Chanhassen. This is a time when we should be putting our best foot forward to find a qualified new city manager. Showing the world that we are a progressive city that is looking forward to embracing the 21st century with vision and foresight. Instead we are showing any candidate that may be interested in our city that it appears our council will be breathing down his or her neck at any every cross road. State statutes notwithstanding. In closing my last question to you is simple. When will I and other citizens of this city get the answers to our questions? I understand it's not tonight but do we have reason to expect that there will be answers forthcoming? Will you continue to come into city hall and attend to personnel issues such as these which are rocking as a community to the core, or will you take a look at what is happening and what affect you're having on the city and fall back. I would be happy to supply you with a copy of the questions that I personally have tonight, if that would expedite matters. I thank you for your time. 13 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Bill Bernhjelm: Mayor Mancino, members of the Council. My name is Bill Bernhjelm. I live at 9380 Kiowa Trail. I've lived in Chanhassen for 21 years and I have served on the Public Safety Commission for over 10 years. The recent actions of the City Council relating to the employment status of the city manager and the public safety director have raised many questions that I hope the council can answer in the near future. Has the council considered the impact of their decisions on the remaining city employees? What will be the long and short term effects on moral, performance, retention and recruitment? How will the volunteer fire department be affected? Can employees be assured that they will be treated fairly if performance issues need to be addressed? What message is the council sending to employees who have enforcement responsibilities? Is there a group of untouchables in this town that are not subject to the same laws as the rest of the community? Is this the kind of thing that inspires trust, high performance and loyalty among your department heads and staff? Have you proven to your staff that it is better to do nothing rather than risk an adverse reaction? Will employees seek the protection of unions? What disruption will this cause? I recognize the authority of the council to set policy for the city. I also believe that the clear intent of the state statutes that deal with this form of municipal government is to ensure that the day to day operations of the city are not to be influenced by the political or ideological whims of elected officials. Policy should be made in the public's interest after full discussion and debate in the public view and with the opportunity for public input. It has been inconceivable to me that the events of the last several weeks could be thought to measure up to that standard. If the council is not satisfied with the mission, direction and organization of the public safety department, why has this discussion not been brought to the Public Safety Commission? Is the nature of the disagreement more personal than professional? There are a lot of questions. I hope some of the answers are forth coming. I would also like to ask the council to consider deviating from their normal practice of not acting on comments that they hear tonight and I would like them to immediately reinstate Scott Harr as the public safety director. It would appear to me that there's vast public support for this and I think that that would be the right thing to do. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Bill. Leah Hawke: Leah Hawke, 7444 Moccasin Trail. I've been torn as to whether or not to speak here tonight but I've decided I just have to. I can't let the opinions of certain council members impact my right to be here. I spent a great deal of time this weekend looking at my motivations for involvement in this issue. Was I involved because of personal differences with specific members of this council? Was it because of some secret agenda I might have? Was it because I like to take time away from my family and friends at this special time to insure that a place that I have chosen to live gets some bad publicity? The answers to those questions have got to be no. After much soul searching I determined I am involved because I truly believe that certain members of this city council may have abused the powers vested in them by the residents of Chanhassen and may have punished a city employee for simply doing his job well. I am involved because I deserve answers to the questions I have regarding the decisions you are making and others in this community need to be aware that this city council has failed to provide those answers and worse than that, are arrogant enough to believe that neither I nor others that share my concern deserve answers. I am truly embarrassed by how this community and it's leaders are currently being perceived by others. I'm embarrassed that some of the things my two young sons have heard about this issue and I am embarrassed at how involvement in this issue has been portrayed to others in this community by members of this council. And yes I have heard. All I have wanted since I was made aware of Don Ashworth's grand plan to reorganize the public safety department was the opportunity to be heard and the courtesy of answers to questions regarding the impact of this plan on my family, but in terms of our personal safety and the taxes we pay, before you chose to take action. You, the City Council have failed me on both 14 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 counts. A member of this council indicated that Scott Harr was terminated because of all the turmoil. I agree with Colleen. This is unjust when you appear to be the group that's creating the turmoil. You chose to not honor a commitment to residents. You chose to ignore public input. You chose to ignore the input of your own public safety community and you chose not to communicate but rather hide behind privacy, rules and process. It's unacceptable to me that you could be punishing Mr. Harr and this community for your own failing. It's frightening to me that you believe you can make key decisions for this city independent of city staff, commissions and residents. You are short term elected officials. This is not your personal fiefdom to do with what you please until you lose your seat. One councilmember wrote that employees, employers do not allow employees to make the decision. Having worked in the private sector for 11 years and having supervised as well as having been supervised, I don't necessarily agree with that comment to start with. If the business is well run and knows how to motivate and develop loyal employees. But that issue aside, I actually find his analogy quite ridiculous. I'm not an employer/employee relationship with this council. This council chose to represent my interests. They should be open to my input when they are making decisions that I believe hold no merit. My question still remains, and I want answers. Why force Mr. Harr to resign? Why do I have to go to Mr. Harr's attorney to get a full copy of the separation agreement, which for the record I understand to be seven pages, not six. What are the tangible and intangible costs of your actions? Will my taxes be impacted? Why are we paying out so much in employee settlement costs? How does this council compare on this issue with other councils? How has this impact city moral and how has this and could this impact the services I receive? It's my opinion that over the past several months certain members of this council have failed in their role as community leaders. Their actions have shown how out of touch they are with employees at city hall and with residents. I can't believe the recent elections didn't make it clear to those members that residents expect unbiased, honest and open government. They don't want officials with personal agendas or officials that believe residents aren't entitled to answers. I agree with another councilman's observation that many residents just don't have an opinion on this issue. But you know what, they probably would if they saw that this...judge how this could impact residents if they knew that the impact on city employees does not appear to have been planned for or considered to any great extent and if they knew that involved residents are being ignored and to a certain extent being indirectly berated for even being here. If services are impacted, you'll have tough questions to answer and you know what? The record will show how poorly some of you have handled this. Hopefully no one in this room will question the impact your recent decisions have had on city staff. It's my understanding that many within city staff does not trust this council and probably won't for some time to come and you know what, why should they. After Don Ashworth's termination this council went on record in the newspaper as saying no further changes were anticipated. That such decisions would be left to the new city manager. Then suddenly Mr. Harr, who in my opinion is one of our most dedicated, honorable and well liked staff members, a department head with a fiercely loyal staff who has run an extremely cost effective department that has received many accolades, is forced to resign. And no one will answer why. All we have to go on are comments that controversies involving sirens and a councilman's arrest and his inspection files have had a part in the decision made. City staff saw Mr. Harr cooperate with residents, do his job and then get forced to resign. What motivation do any of our remaining city staff have to show any courage or initiative? God forbid that they would ever work with a special interest group like the one I co-led to put a city wide tornado warning siren system in place for all residents. The atmosphere among city employees is one this council has created and it will not go away because Mr. Harr is being forced to resign. In forcing Mr. Harr to resign you've made matters even worst. It's my understanding employees are openly tape recording conversations with council members, refusing to meet with them individually. In my 11 years in the private sector I have never, ever seen an employee situation deteriorate to this level. If any council member believes I'm exaggerating, I challenge them to allow employees to speak anonymously to the Villager. I think my synopsis of the situation will stand. Bottom line, I don't understand Mr. Ashworth's plan to reorganize or a council 15 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 person's comment that the plan was compelling. I remain extremely concerned at this council's decision to force Mr. Harr to resign and their apparent involvement in that decision. A decision that has led to far more turmoil than had to left Mr. Harr to do the great job he was doing. All I want are answers and you owe me that. I would ask you explain your recent actions honestly and fully. Right now based on what I know, I think it's fair to say I've lost faith in this city council. I've lost faith in it's ability to professionally and without bias do what is in the best interest of city staff and the community in general. I've lost faith in it's willingness to listen to the experts that could give them the information they need to make sound decisions for the city and I've lost faith in it's ability to interact and motivate city staff. I am sure this council believes I'm alone in my feelings. To the extent you truly believe that, I challenge you to call a special election. Let residents show how they feel on this issue. Take your chances at the polls. If you are so sure that people in this room are a splinter group, or a small special interest group, then you have nothing to lose. Alternatively, you could actually show some courage, humanity and responsiveness. Allow Mr. Harr to come back to his job that he still amazingly enough wants. Work with him, his staff, other public safety officials and residents to determine whether or not reorganizing our public safety function is in fact in the best interest of Chanhassen. Follow the process that you have openly criticized residents for not following in the past. Make a decision that has the backing of appropriate research and due diligence. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Barb Klick: Mayor and City Council. My name is Barb Klick. I reside at 7116 Utica Lane. I've been a resident of Chanhassen for 12 years and all these recent changes and decisions affect all of us and I'm concerned especially about the financial aspect. I know the City, as of 12/7/98 was operating with a $637,000.00 deficit. I am concerned with some of the separation agreements. I understand that Mr. Scott Harr will be paid $67,000.00 for 12 months of no service here. I understand that Mr. Ashworth and his new assignments would pay $79,500 through the year 2000 and subsequently $62,000.00 for two years. We've encountered some type of a contractual arrangement with a search firm at the fee of $26,000.00. We'll also be recruiting for a city manager so that will be another fee on top of that. Mr. Knutson, I'm sure you're worth every penny but I would love to know what the legal fees have been for the city for the last couple months for legal counsel. I'm interested also in productivity. When I go to a public forum and see public employees crying outright in front of strangers, I'm wondering what's been happening around for two months and what kind of work has been gotten done. I'm concerned for future lawsuits. I'm concerned for hostile work environments. I've heard that word thrown around and we all know how dangerous those terms can be. I'm concerned for terminations under duress. Mr. Harr can still appeal for unemployment. He can still sue the city. Mr. Ashworth got front page above the fold coverage for alleged misconduct. I wonder what his concerns are about that. I do not feel that the leadership above, and four of you with the exception of Mr. Mason, is showing fiscal responsibility. This is on the backs of all the citizens in this room and I think that's one thing we need to factor in, outside of all the emotional support we're showing for Mr. Scott Harr. I'd also like to acknowledge that every one in this community is busy. Every one has children, jobs, aging parents, children's soccer games, and yet a few people squeeze out time, don't they? To support their schools through P TO. They support their church through religious education. Or they support through city government. Those are important people who think they can make a difference and that's what we're all about. Making a difference. The six people here I'd like to call forward, please come up when I call your name. Mr. James Sloss, Mr. Bill Bernhjelm, Mr. Steve Labatt, Mr. Greg Weber, Ms. Colleen Dockendorf, and Mr. Bill Wuffel. Are these people here? Why don't you come forward please. These people you see walking before you are just as busy as everyone else in this council chambers tonight. These six people thought they could make a difference. As of last month, these were your public safety commissioners. I'd like to publicly apologize to you folks for the lack of respect 16 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 we've shown you by not communicating to you with these changes. My understanding is there's been no memos. No direct communication. I also wish to personally acknowledge you for your time and perhaps later on people could, because we can't applaud here in public, we'd like to maybe support you for your time. Thank you. And again Mr. Mason, please disregard my closing comments. I believe our elected officials have forgotten who the customer is. We're the customer, okay? And when customers are dissatisfied, you have a history of talking to 11 people and I think we brought all 11 people for each one of us here tonight. And I'm hoping all these people with their 11 friends will tell 11 more people. Things are not right in city hall and we all know it. I'd hope you could find the courage and leadership to get back to the basics. The customer is really who we are. This is why you were elected and you need to put the deeds of the city before your own. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Darrell Kirt: Darrell Kirt, I live at 50 Hill Street and I might just take the opposite stand. Recently I've lost faith in the public safety of this city. I was given a citation for a dog at large and I don't even own a dog and I called Mr. Harr. Asked him what's the deal. Why would you give me a ticket for that and he said well I'll have to stand behind my officer. I said Scott, I don't even own a dog so I've done some investigating and looking and I'm not too sure that maybe Mr. Harr isn't working more than one job. I don't know what the law is. What he can do as far as if he works for the city, what he only can take wages from us or not. But I would suggest the city council checks into his tax returns. I think he's doing more than one job. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Excuse me. No talking please. Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra. I live at 1680 Arboretum Boulevard in Chanhassen and I hope the City Council has the courage too, like the other lady talked about. Courage not to bend to public pressure and threats that I've heard tonight. From what I've heard the sky is falling. Scott's gone. Everything's going to fall apart. I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think the city would let that happen. Why don't we just wait and see what happens. 2 months. 6 months. A year from now. If things don't work out, hire another director. You think Scott Harr is the only person that can handle this job? I bet there's a lot of other people that can do just as good, if not better than Mr. Harr. I've lived in Chanhassen for 21 years and have had a lot of experience with the city councils. I don't always agree with them but I do in this case. We also have a contract with Carver County Sheriff's Department, which do a terrific job out here. I've had to call them a couple of times. They're Johnny on the spot. 2-3 minutes, they're right there at your door. We also have the highway patrol. Years ago when the city decided to hire a public safety officer and department I was against it because I didn't think we need it, and I'm not convinced we need it today. I've lived here for a long time. I don't see an abundance of crime and I've never heard of an unsolved crime out here that really should be worked on. I think that the city is doing the right thing. Any time the city, and the city doesn't do this very often. Can cut excess layers, cut taxes, streamline any department, they're doing good and they should continue and I hope the city continues to do that. Thank you. John Esch: John Esch, 7444 Moccasin Trail. Three weeks ago I stood here and asked a couple questions. After that meeting I began thinking about how I would address this city council and the issues concerning the reorganization of city government. A lot has changed in those three weeks. I thought government was supposed to carefully evaluate major changes and plan for the potential fallout. It doesn't look like this city council did either. You have failed to live up to your promises and you haven't even apologized. It's a disgrace. It's also a disgrace that a member of this council would write a letter to the Villager that appears 17 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 to be full of inaccuracies and half truths. Do you just not believe you are being watched by concerned citizens? Do you think you can get away with it because people are too busy to hold you accountable? A few months ago that may have been true for me. Not anymore. For the record, from the letter, a husband and wife and one other person accused the council of seeking no public comments. I am that husband. My wife is Leah Hawke. This statement appears to be a lie. We did not accuse the council and the public record shows that absolutely no accusations were made. We were simply requesting that the city council take the time to review the recommendations. Perhaps prior to making slanderous statements about concerned tax paying residents, you may want to read the Minutes of your own meeting. We also hear that the council will accept all opinions, evaluate all the information, step back, sort out the facts, and then decide on an action. Again, when did this happen? When were we able to publicly debate the elimination of the public safety director's position? After he was terminated. Another statement. These leaders will not forward half truths to better advance the simple view point. This letter appears to do what you promised the leaders will not do, since it appears to be filled with half truths to show that we should trust you. Additionally, one member of this council has informed a member of the public that my wife's actions have led directly to the termination of Mr. Harr. Part of my rationale for speaking this evening is the manner in which the council has chosen to treat tax paying residents. I'm disgusted that this council can intimidate city staff, but I'm absolutely outraged that you can intimidate tax paying residents of this city to the point that they rethink their ability to freely speak their mind for fear of retribution. I demand an apology for the intimidation you have caused. Democracy in the city of Chanhassen or should I say Chanhassle, has taken a major step backwards in time. I would like to put this in more specific terms. On two occasions my wife, Leah Hawke, held an opinion different from the city council. Once on sirens and once recently with the reorganization. On both occasions she decided to rally other individuals in this city who share her concerns to try to persuade this city council to consider their point of view. On the first occasion she succeeded and we now have five more tornado warning sirens for the better protection of all residents. We should be thanking her and the director of public safety instead of terminating the Director of Public Safety and blaming her for it. All residents of Chanhassen ought to be on guard against this city council. The message is loud and clear. Do not disagree with this council or someone might get hurt. Perhaps they will not approve your business dealings. Perhaps they will fire some other city staff. Instead disagree quietly so no one will hear you and the council then can run over your opinion. My message to the city council is that you also need to be on guard since you are no longer trustworthy, we will be watching you more closely. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. We have a few more moments, if anyone else would like to speak. Randy Wahl: Madam Mayor, council members. My name is Randy Wahl. I reside at 6891 Redwing Lane. I come tonight before you folks probably wearing several faces. Concerned citizen, taxpayer. National Guard member, and fire fighter. The importance of a public safety director is something that I don't think any one of you individuals can measure. It's a position that has commanded the respect of numerous agencies throughout this state. Not city and not local but state. Scott is not just a public safety director. He is a mentor amongst individuals within the fire department. He has commanded so much more respect with his subordinates than any department head this city has. And I think by virtue of the attendance of the personnel here tonight, you can see that. More importantly, I'm concerned with the fact that we don't have a public safety director any more. There are numerous regulations coming down from OSHA, NFPA, that make it very hard for the fire department to even manage. And so what we've got is a fire marshal and a fire inspector that take a lot of that administrative function away from us so that we can concentrate and when the time comes and the pager goes off, we can do our job. To say that they won't lose their positions. I can't say that that's an honest statement based on history. If we did not have Scott Harr, I don't think that this department, the public safety department, the fire department, would be 18 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 recognized as heavily as it is today. We've got 45 plus members in this department. We are not full time staff, and that's the other thing that I think you folks have to look at. The perception out there is we've got a full time police department. Full time fire department. That we don't. We've got citizen fire fighters. And when the pager goes off, we go out there and do our job. There is no, well I'm not going to go tonight or I'm not going to go because I've got a meeting to attend. I'm not going to go because my daughter's got softball or soccer or whatever. The pager goes off, we go because we love our job. And we've got requirements there in the department that if we don't meet them requirements, we're out of there. And we certainly didn't join the department for the pay, but rather for the excitement and the fact that we love doing the job. And there are times when, just as you guys are going through now, that there's total chaos. Scott Harr for me personally has been a counselor. Now there are actions that take you away from your family. Take you away from your kids. And I wish I could sit, or stand up here tonight and say to you that when we take that hat off and we go home, all is well. Well, I'm here to say tonight, all is not well all the time. There is, and always probably will be turmoil within families. And Scott isn't just a public safety director. To me he's a counselor. I don't think any one of you folks want to hear the pains, the emotions, that Scott gets put on him. He intercepts a lot of things that we fire fighters, citizen fire fighters and as history will reflect, even citizens from the bank robbery. He takes time out of his schedule, and even after that to go out and check on the concerns that we have. He's there by our sides. He's offering comfort but without a public safety director, I don't think this city is going to be perceived as one that's top notch. There are so many other agencies that the public safety director also coordinates efforts with. One of them that was missed was the military. I don't think again any one of you council members realize the impact that without a public safety director, we could be lost. Incidences like what happened in St. Cloud can clearly happen here. Chaska. It can happen now. It can happen tonight. It can happen tomorrow. It can happen next week. And the efforts that go into combining so many agencies, I know I wouldn't want the job but it's something that Scott Harr has taken and done really well with, as you can probably see from the letters that were presented earlier for his accomplishments. But we need a public safety department. We need to have the staff back the way it was so that fire marshals can get out there and do the job. That they can take over. Again, they consume about 90% of our administrative work. Greg and Mark do, but we've seen Don Ashworth's position change. We've seen Scott Harr go out the door and I am concerned about the public safety department. Who's next? The Fire Marshal? Fire Inspector? I mean without these individuals, it makes our job easier going into these residences in the time of need, whether it be for fire, medical, because we can perceive that the safety for our safety. We citizen fire fighters. Our safety, is there. But I don't know what to expect anymore but I only hope that you can rethink your actions. I hope that the new council elect would seriously take a look at this. If this doesn't get rescinded and Scott reinstated, that possibly the next thing that we could do is talk about these civil service commissions or these unionships. If that doesn't work, talked with Mr. Workman and see if we can't get impeachment instated in the state of Minnesota. Or go to Carver County and see if we can't get a recall because this is very, very detrimental to the community. Perception is everything and I think for the citizens that come up and say that Scott's not out there patrolling the streets. We've got the Carver County Sheriff. We've got the state patrol. This isn't about law enforcement people. This is about every building. This is about every day walking in the streets. This is about being able to go out at 1:00 in the morning safely. The efforts didn't come that way from Carver County, State Patrol, Fire Department. Those efforts came to us because we had an individual in a position to make it safe for us. I only hope that I can continue to stay a resident of this city because I am concerned. There's other fire departments. But I only hope and wish that you seriously look at this and take a different approach for my safety. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. We're going over the allotted hour. Let's take two more people coming up and addressing the council. Then we will close the visitor presentations. 19 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Bob Aus: Don't use the gavel Mayor. I just want to go over just a couple of points. I want to first thank the other people from the community that showed up tonight. I'm also a member of the community. My name is Bob Ayot and I wasn't sure if I was going to give my name or where I lived because quite frankly there is a lot of turmoil but I'm going to go back to the fellow who said he was a National Guardsman. I spent a few days in the military myself. Viet Nam was very unpopular. Desert Storm was not so I hope the Chanhassen residents have staying power. So if you're upset about this issue, don't walk out tonight and say I did my thing. Make sure you stay with it. Who's your state auditor who can make something happen? Do you know who that is? That's Coach Dutcher's daughter. Ms. Dutcher is the one who is the state auditor, okay. Do you know what kind of government we're under? We're under what's called a minor government. That means the Mayor and her council people have equal votes. Did you know that? Okay. Do you recognize that the only thing that can be illegal with respect to our council is whether or not there's a disclosure or non-disclosure issue or fiscal irresponsibility associated with what they do or do not do. So keep those things in mind. I think I missed a point on that. Fiscal responsibility. Oh, and conflict of interest. So Mr. Knutson could have a much busier day at the office if you keep some of those issues in mind. And petitions are also very, very handy. So keep those things in mind and keep this alive. I don't really care personally, just on the public safety director issue. I'm looking, I want you to think about the whole thing. If you take a look at the budget. The budget for the public safety's about $2.1 million. Parks and Rec are about $1.5 mil. Is a path along a park as important as a policeman? You answer the question. The community development has a budget of about $300,000.00. About a third of that goes to a salary. Alright. So don't feel good about coming here and talking tonight then walking out. Councilman Mason mentioned something to me the other day. He says Bob, you know I feel like I'm in a vacuum. At first he said took me two years to learn the job. Then he said no really, it only took me a year but the point is, the man served what, 8 years? 8 years. So the Mayor went uncontested in the last election. Viet Nam, 10 years. Desert Storm, 4 weeks. Make sure you have the staying power. And I'll stick around. My wife was standing out at Byerly's today giving out fliers on questions to ask. Okay. During her lunch period. So stay involved, because I get lonely from week to week when I come to these meetings. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Bob. One more please. Don Chmiel: Madam Mayor, members of Council. I'm Don Chmiel. Former Mayor of Chanhassen. From 1989 through 1996. Eight years of serving this city. I truly enjoyed the years that I represented Chan. I worked for the residents of this community and the taxpayers. What they wanted or needed for them and the growth of Chan. I am no longer a resident. I live in Cleveland, Minnesota. And for the last year and a half, although I've kept in touch with many people within the community because I really do have a strong, loving desire of this community. A lot of friends and neighbors that I've talked to as well. The past months they've indicated some real concerns to me. I think the Villager, which I have always respected and felt that they always reported the way it really is and I commend them again today for their sincere interest in our city and it's people's concerns. I'm here to say loudly, why are there two, or possibly three people, taking not only the public safety director to task, but as well as the city manager. Why is this being pursued in a vindictive manner? I've sat many a night with the members of council, but I never felt that an individual could take upon themselves to run and override city hall. We often come to ardent discussions about who had the power to run the city. And in the many months of meetings twice a month, besides regular council meetings, we found out that council made it very clear that they wanted the final decision and the making process. The staff at city hall, all departments are the professionals within this community. They operate and make the city run. The Mayor does have the right and power to mandate and the council to make the discussions, go onto the decisions. Why I ask in a two year period of time, have they dismissed our city manager and public safety director? I'm here to state this is not for the betterment of the city or the people of Chanhassen. Getting rid of these professionals that have done 20 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 outstanding work for at least my eight years, and I think they've probably done the same for the past two. They've worked hard and long to get a project running efficiently and I really feel I'm a good judge of character and I stand by the concept if you're good at what you do, you don't have to brag. Actions speak louder than words. The city manager and the public safety director are like that. I've sat with them year after year until 11:00, 12:00 and sometimes 1:00 a.m.. We weren't always right but we certainly worked to make the city a better place to live and it was the staff at city hall, the public safety, the fire department, maintenance, whatever we had. They were part of the city and they were proud of our city. They worked side by side. My pledge when running and operating as the mayor was communications. And no power struggles. We operated as a team. I'm proud to say that what we have was a great team and why destroy their hard work that made a beautiful city to be proud of. I ask again, a little louder and why. The discussions to dismiss, again I ask you, what does this accomplish and for whom? And does the decision help or hinder Chanhassen? Who benefits from these dismissals? I know as Mayor I never would have allowed this to happen and I'm asking that reconsideration be given by one at least of the city council who was in the positive to go through this motion. And I ask for that one individual to call a reconsideration to review this, to look at this and then to take action and proper action. And to maintain and bring back the people who we have within this city who makes it look what it is and many other cities copying what's being done in this city. I thank you for your time. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Don very much. That will be the end of visitor presentation. We will now take a five minute break and go ahead with the agenda. We appreciate your all being here and coming tonight and thank you for your comments. So we'll take a five minute break. Thank you. (There was a short break in the meeting.) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER PETITION FROM THOMAS CHRISTENSEN TO RE-NAME THE SEGMENT OF "COULTER BOULEVARD" WEST OF CENTURY BOULEVARD TO "WATER TOWER PLACE". Anita Benson: Mayor Mancino, members of the Council. Staff has received a request from Tom Christensen of All About Lights to rename the segment of Coulter Boulevard between Century Boulevard and Trunk Highway 41, which was constructed this summer, to Water Tower Place. Staff has reviewed the street configuration in the area and it appears to be a reasonable request. Notices were sent out to property owners within 500 feet and staff has received no comments to date. Therefore staff recommends approval of the street name change from Coulter Boulevard to Water Tower Place. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions for staff at this point? Councilman Berquist: A short one. At some point it's going to be a right-in/right-out. Anita Benson: Correct. It would remain Water Tower Place. Councilman Berquist: ... Anita Benson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: So even though it's right-in/right-out, why would that make a difference? 21 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Berquist: It's going to be extended to TH 41... or it's going to Coulter to Century only to be Water Tower Place and then it hits TH 41. Anita Benson: Coulter Boulevard, since there isn't a full access at TH 41, the signalized intersection, to be signalized intersection is 82nd Street and Trunk Highway 41 will function more as the thoroughfare. Mayor Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. I'm opening this for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the council on this, please come forward. State your name and address. If you have any comments to make on the request to rename a portion of Coulter Boulevard between Trunk Highway 41 and Century Boulevard. Bob Ayot: Can I ask a question? Mayor Mancino: You have to come up to the podium. State your name and address. Bob Ayot: Is there any cost impact associated with the change? Any map changes? Any street sign changes? Anything along that line? Anita Benson: The property owner has escrowed $200.00 to cover the costs of this change. The street signage has not been installed yet out there for that segment so any costs that would be incurred are covered by the petitioning property owner. Bob Ayot: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Council on this? Okay. The public hearing is closed. Bring this back to Council. Any comments from councilmembers? Any discussion? Then may I please have a motion and a second. Councilman Mason: Move approval. Councilman Berquist: Second. Resolution #98-116: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the request to rename the segment of Coulter Boulevard between Century Boulevard and Trunk Highway 41 to Water Tower Place. All voted in favor and the motion carried. US BANK FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE AREA REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL SIGN LOCATED AT 800 WEST 78TM STREET. Cynthia Kirchoff: The applicant would like to install an 8 square foot wall sign on Byerly's building along West 78th Street. The applicant does not have street frontage and is located in the interior of the building. The zoning ordinance requires that wall signage be placed on tenants that have the street frontage. The only signage that the ordinance would permit in this case is window signage on the doors that face West 78th Street. A US Bank representative indicated at the Planning Commission meeting that that wasn't an option for US Bank to install signage on the glass windows. This item was reviewed in front of the Planning Commission on November 18th. They did unanimously recommend denial of the variance citing that it may set a precedent for other tenants inside this building and other buildings throughout the city. 22 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Staff does recommend denial of both the request, the variance and the amendment to the variance 94-1. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much Cindy. Now, reading the Planning Commission Minutes, the Planning Commission denied this because they were concerned that other businesses inside Byerly's would also want signage too so that was their concern. Whether it be the Caribou Coffee, the US Postal Service, LeeAnn Chins, etc. So that was their concern? Cynthia Kirchoff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And, well I'll wait and ask if the applicant's here. Thank you very much. I just wanted to understand what the Planning Commission had done in their recommendation to the City Council. Is the applicant here? Is anyone from US Bank here tonight and would like to address the Council? Okay. Seeing none, we will go ahead. Any comments from council members? Councilman Berquist: Is there anyone.., need to ask the Planning Commission? Cynthia Kirchoff: A representative from US Bank was at the Planning Commission. Councilman Berquist: ... regarding the other potential applicant? Cynthia Kirchoff: No, they could not. Mayor Mancino: Any other comments or questions? Cindy, I have one. The Byerly's sign on the, is it West 78th side, on the building itself is a variance. It's bigger than what we would normally allow in our sign ordinance. Cynthia Kirchoff: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Could they, they do have the opportunity at this point to do a couple things. Three things that I can think of. Options. Number one, to reduce their sign, the Byerly's sign and they would still be able to put other companies that are inside, Byerly's up there also? Or not? Cynthia Kirchoff: Well the zoning ordinance, they'd have to get a variance for that since the applicant does not have street frontage. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Okay. So that would need a variance. But they could put up a window sign. Cynthia Kirchoff: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: And number three, they could put it on their monument sign out on West 78th Street. Cynthia Kirchoff: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: They are able to do that. Cynthia Kirchoff: Yes. 23 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you. So there are some other options. Councilman Engel: You just answered my question. Mike and I were saying, can we put a little monument sign out by the main entrance that would allow them to say residents of Byerly's, Caribou, US Post office, you know, take your pick. Bank. Councilman Berquist: A monument sign by the main entrance? Mayor Mancino: No, a monument sign out on West 78th. Councilman Engel: Right, right. Yeah, that's what I mean. When I say main entrance, I mean off of 78th into the main parking lot. Just a shorter one denoting what businesses are in there so they have some method of complying with the ordinance yet still let people know they're in business. Mayor Mancino: Well it has to fit, Councilman Engel, into the package that was already okayed by City Council. Councilman Engel: Okay. I'm asking as much out of ignorance as to promote discussion. Mayor Mancino: Okay Councilman Mason, do you understand that? Councilman Mason: Oh yeah. Yeah. I'm just wondering what the future brings then particularly now as when the rest of that comer of Chan develops, when we get situations like this, what opportunity do tenants have. What sort of chance do they have to advertise their goods? I mean that's a concern you know and I don't, I'm not, yeah. Mayor Mancino: Well they certainly do have the monument sign out in front. Again, as you're passing by you can see it. I mean isn't that? Councilman Mason: No, I mean you're right but I'm just trying to think of that monument sign and I typically look, that's interesting because I look at the walls of buildings for signs as opposed to monument signs and I don't know if that's something that future councils will be dealing with. I don't know. I guess I see that as a potential issue. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Well and it certainly becomes more, a bigger potential issue because now retail establishments will have many mini ones inside of the main which is just a new marketing. Councilman Senn. Any questions, comments? Councilman Senn: Just a question. On the monument sign you're talking about, are you talking about an existing one or a future one? Mayor Mancino: Well there is an existing one. Am I not correct? Cynthia Kirchoff: That's correct. I just wanted to make a comment that the signage that US Bank could have would be more of a directional sign and that would be limited to 4 square feet. Since they don't have street frontage, that's what they would have to do on the monument sign. Would be directional type sign. 24 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Which would be their logo. Their new logo which I've seen. Okay. Councilman Senn, did you get your answer? Councilman Senn: Yes I think so. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Did I see someone who wanted to come up and speak to the issue? Vemelle Clayton: I'm Vemelle Clayton. Resident of Chanhassen. I'm here on the next agenda item. The two are somewhat connected. We are here to present to you an overall sign plan for another building for, because of somewhat similar situation. A situation where there are tenants inside a building that might need signage in the future and so we have enough faith to, on the exterior of this building, to accommodate the overall use, that possibly could occur in the future. But I would just like to add, because I think there's some confusion. There certainly is on my part. I sat, as did several other people with planning and planning commission members when we created the sign plan. The sign plan does not say that individual tenants, dimensions are governed by their front footage. It simply says the whole building is what determines what signage there will be. It was our assumption as volunteer members that we were talking about the whole building. It was my assumption, because at the time, and historically every building I've worked with has had a sign plan and we create the plan and that sign area has to meet the criteria. As I explained to staff, although there have been many different staff members following sign plans here in the city. For example at Market Square I've always tried to have the understanding that they would not issue a permit until they checked with me. I may not always be here and I didn't realize that at Market Square, even though we have a sign, a plan and a sign area, if I weren't interfacing, that same rule would apply. We don't want that there and we wouldn't want it at Colonial Square. We don't want a little sign for somebody that has a little bit of space just because they only have a little frontage. We don't want a little sign for somebody who might have a little frontage and a whole big L and we, on the other side of the coin, we don't want a great big sign right next to a little sign just because he has more frontage. I don't think that was the intent when the ordinance was written and so I know it's been the interpretation but I just discovered it. Mayor Mancino: Good. Appreciate it. Vernelle Clayton: So see it as I am, I will now raise a fuss and see if we can't get that changed so, but I just think that, I don't know what the overall capacity is of that building, and since I'm here, so what if all the other tenants want a sign? That's what we want. Mayor Mancino: ...that's what we want but we've also tried to ask for upfront as we're planning these, to get a sign plan so that we can understand what will come up and that's why you're here tonight. Vernelle Clayton: ... sign plan but for right now I don't know what the total building capacity is but if it's large enough I would suggest your answer might lie there. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilman Berquist: You alluded to this having happened before. Is this the first example that has been articulated that you've been aware of or have we had this problem? Vernelle Clayton: This is the first example that I've been aware of. I have no idea if there have been other situations. Thank you. 25 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Well that's a, I think that that's a good comment, meaning that I would vote for denying this but having Byerly's come back or that whole area come back if they want to do a different sign package and present it to us and look and see what it, how it would fit in with our ordinance, etc. Councilman Berquist: ... I think you're right...they have a need to display the fact that they're there... Mayor Mancino: And maybe it'd be a wall sign. Maybe it'd be on the pylon sign out front, but that they come back with a plan if it is something that they would like us to look at. So can I hear other council's thoughts on that? Councilman Engel: I'd like to see some options brought back. I think I'm in the same position here. I don't want to give this, I don't want to just flat deny it. I want to see some other options. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: ... in reading the ordinance, as simple as an interpretative issue? Cynthia Kirchoff: The wall signage? For an interior tenant? Councilman Berquist: I mean could it be interpretative.., that would not require revising the ordinance? Sharmin A1-Jaff: I don't believe so. It's specifically states that you have to have that frontage in order to get signage. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason, your thoughts? Councilman Mason: As it stands I would agree with denial, yeah. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Yeah, as it sits I would also agree with denial. And as far as a sign plan coming in, it's a little hard to deal with it after the fact. I mean the only way economically you could probably deal with that is come in and ask for an increase in the overall signage. Square footage allowed. Whereas the way the ordinance, as it deals with it, is you have an allowable amount of signage for a building.., reasonable variances then to existing levels but I don't know how you'd deal with that at this point. Mayor Mancino: I'm not sure either but. Councilman Senn: Because the existing building's already over ordinance requirements in relationship to square footage of signage. Mayor Mancino: No, I agree with you. I think that if someone came back with something creative, we could look at it. Go from there. I would be open to that. May I have a motion please? Councilman Berquist: I move to deny the request. Councilman Mason: Second. 26 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Roger Knutson: Mayor, do I interpret that as including the basis for denial being the Findings of Fact as set forth in the planners report? And you're adopting that as yours. Is that part of the motion? Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. So we're accepting and going with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to deny the request for an 8.25 sq. ft. variance from the sign ordinance and amendment to Variance #94-1 for the construction of an 8.25 sq. ft. non-illuminated wall sign based upon the findings presented in the staff report and the following: The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to installing signage on the glass doors along West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Berquist: I would like it to be communicated that we would like to find a method by which it can be accomplished. REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN APPROVAL FOR COLONIAL SQUARE CENTER, LOCATED ON WEST 78TM STREET AT GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, LOTUS REALTY. Cynthia Kirchoff: Thank you. The applicant wishes to establish the signage criteria for an existing Colonial Square. The sign plan requests certain deviations from the sign ordinance. These deviations including permitting panel signs, external illumination of signs and projecting signs. All these signs are prohibited by our sign ordinance. Overall staff is comfortable with the sign plan that Lotus Realty has submitted with the revisions. The Planning Commission did review this item on December 2nd and they did have some revisions to add on past revisions and those are located in the packet. Staff does support the sign plan for Colonial Square with the revisions located in conditions 1 through 6. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: And those revisions are the ones that you received from the Planning Commission? Cynthia Kirchoff: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the city council? And Vernelle, would you like to state about the conditions of the Planning Commission and if you agree with those, and etc. Vernelle Clayton: I'll try to keep the etc to a minimum. I know that you've had other things on your mind since you got this packet but I will assume that you read it and you know the reasons why we're doing it. I already talked about some of them. We have no problems with any of the conditions that were added by the Planning Commission but, and in the interest of your time, I will be happy to answer questions and I won't take any more time right now. Mayor Mancino: No, I just figure that somebody really looked at this with a fine tooth comb when I see that condition 2 was changed to appropriate to the scale of the lettering. That was. 27 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Vernelle Clayton: We did. We spent a lot of time on this. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anybody else have questions for Vemelle? Councilman Mason: Oh, not for Vernelle, no. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: This comes up from time to time and it's something that everyone struggles with. The only thing that I, I'm not even going to say I'm concerned about it but number 1 for recommendations says panel signs are permitted provided they are architecturally interesting and compatible with the building. Who decides what's architecturally interesting? I mean that's kind of the bugaboo. I mean you know we're always asking that one. I'm just. Cynthia Kirchoff: Well that would be kind of a collaboration between staff and Lotus and Vernelle. Mayor Mancino: It usually works out wouldn't you say Councilman Mason? Councilman Mason: I'm sorry. Mayor Mancino: Wouldn't you say that that usually works out? Councilman Mason: Well it does, and you know as long as it's under recommendations I think it's fine. You know we do have this discussion and it's a discussion I won't be having in the future but, well maybe I will be but it won't be up here. Anyway, you know that whole thing about when we start talking about what's architecturally interesting and what isn't. Knowing the people involved, I have absolutely no qualms at all about approving that. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other comments from council? Then may I have a motion please. Councilman Mason: Move approval. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the request for a sign plan review for Colonial Square Shopping Center with the following conditions: 1. Panel signs are permitted provided they are architecturally interesting and compatible with the building. 2. Panel signs shall have individual dimensional letters and logos with a projection or indentation appropriate to the scale of the lettering. 3. External illumination of any signage is prohibited. 4. All hanging signs shall be stationary. 28 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Barber shop poles shall be limited to 4 feet in height and a 12 inch projection from the building. The number of barber shop poles shall not exceed 2 for the entire building. 6. All signage must comply with all other criteria in the he sign ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AMENDMENT TO VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE CHANHASSEN CINEMA SIGN. Sharmin A1-Jaff: The applicant is proposing to purchase the entire entertainment complex building and add additional 8 movie screens and retail. The design is in the very preliminary stages at this point. Assuming that the proposal is approved, the main entrance into the theaters will be facing south and moved into the center of that building. The existing entrance would then be abandoned. Based upon this scenario the applicant is requesting temporary signage and basically what you see here, it's individual backlit letters. Staff is reluctant to recommend approval of the revised sign simply because it does not contribute to the design of the building and has no architectural significance. If the additional 8 theaters were not approved, the city will be in a position where the vision and standards for the area have been compromised. City Council has approved two signs already for this building. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and they agreed that the cinema building does need signage to identify it. However, they wanted to make sure that the EDA approves the funding for this project and if it was approved, then they wish to look at a revised sign for this sign. They wish to review the revised plan and then bring it back to the City Council with a recommendation. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. And this is what we're looking at? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: This is the, you know there are a lot of attachments so this is the one that they have proposed. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council? Bob Copeland: Hello. My name is Bob Copeland and I'll try to be as brief as I can because I know it's been a long evening. We are seeking approval of a temporary sign and I want to stress that point because I think it's significant. We don't feel that the sign that we are requesting approval for is a sign that is worthy of being on a cinema long range. But we feel we need a sign and what we would like to do is get your approval on this sign, on a temporary basis. By temporary I mean 1 to 2 years, and if we are successful in getting approval for the addition, that's about how long it will take to get that in place. And at that time you've already seen the drawings of the new marquee and the sign that would be there on the south elevation and that's the sign that would be in place. Now if we are not successful and the addition is not approved, then we'll agree to take down the sign that we are requesting approval for this evening and will put up a sign that meets your approval. And we'll put up one of the signs that you say that you've already approved. So I think that's very reasonable. I think that's a good compromise. I think that this process through the EDA and the Planning Commission and the Council takes some time. We got tabled last time before the EDA. The meeting that was to take place this week got delayed. We don't know when it's 29 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 going to come up again so we think it's reasonable that we get a temporary sign there. And in response to the, the Planning Commission thought the sign was rather bland and small and we tried to make it that way purposely so that it would be approved at a staff level. But that didn't happen. I don't know whether, can the overhead projector? We are, we would be glad to make this sign larger, similar to what you see there and to have a little more interesting style of lettering than what was submitted. And so if you like this sign better, that's fine. We'd be pleased to do that on a temporary basis again. You may be wondering why not install the bigger, grander sign now. Well it's simply a matter of money. The bigger sign would cost about $40,000.00. A sign similar to this would be about $3,000.00 so we can't afford to spend $40,000.00 for a sign that's only going to be up there for we hope a short period of time. One other thing I'd like to do is clear up what I have heard mentioned before as a possible objection to what we're proposing this evening and that is that I've heard that some people mentioned that the TIF money that was approved by the EDA, part of that money was earmarked for a sign. And that's a, that's just not correct and I'd like to try and clear that up this evening ifI may. I'd like to hand you copies of three estimates that I did related to the TIF money. Now you'll see that, you have three estimates in front of you there. The first one is dated in 1994 and you'll see that the item that I've highlighted is a projecting lobby for the cinema. Now what that is, that's the structure that now houses the vestibule where you wait for tickets, to purchase your tickets. And that projects out from the original footprint of the warehouse building. There's nothing there about signs. But that $30,000.00 figure is a number that people have misunderstood as being a number that was earmarked for marquee signage. The second sheet has an estimate that I did in 1995 and again you'll see the last item there that's been highlighted. Cinema lobby, again $30,000.00. The third and final estimate that you see was prepared in 1996. You'll notice in the right hand column, those figures pertain to the cinema exterior and you'll see a line item down there on the left hand side that's been highlighted called exterior signs and you'll notice that the number related to exterior signs is zero. So I hope that this answers that question, that none of the TIF money was earmarked for exterior signage related to the cinema. So we're not obligated to spend some TIF money on an exterior sign. One last point and that is that we believe that this sign that we are requesting approval of does meet the sign ordinance. So with that I will answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Copeland at this time? These numbers are from 9-15-94 Bob. When was this, when did the...project? Bob Copeland: '96. Mayor Mancino: '96. So this is from '94, okay. So I'm sure. Bob Copeland: That's the very first estimate that was prepared. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I'm sure between '94 and '96 when it came back to council, that there were probably some others but thank you for this. Yes, Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I've got a question for Todd. I mean estimates are estimates and that's all good and fine. We have an approval that was done on this project relating to TIF money and where the TIF money is to go. Todd Gerhardt: I think we're both correct in this scenario. The projecting lobby, as Mr. Copeland has defined it, was the sign. It was supposed to be the old theater type design of a sign and as your lobby projects out, you had basically an overhang which was your flashing light sign. And that's what we had earmarked for $30,000.00 in that plan. And you know in that process it got converted to a lobby or what, 30 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 but you know the original notes that I have call it a sign which show it as the old theme type design that you would see on a small town type sign. With the running lights and that sort of thing. If we had the plan, I could show you what that really meant. Mayor Mancino: Well thank you, but let's go on to what we're looking at tonight and that is asking for a temporary sign to be put up to have the word cinema on it. When, Todd can you tell us, Mr. Copeland said he didn't know that our EDA meeting had been rescheduled. Cancelled for December 17th and it has been rescheduled and when is it rescheduled for? Todd Gerhardt: Well I haven't heard back from all the EDA members but tentatively it's been rescheduled for January 7th. Mayor Mancino: So at that time on January 7th we will be talking about the TIF funding, etc. for the additional eight movie cinema. And retail space. Okay, which will make a huge difference to the cinema that's already there. May I have comments from council on this? Oh I'm sorry, Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: Quick question. Bob, if this meeting takes place on January 7th and you get the approvals that you're looking for to go ahead with your project, how does that change your sign needs? Or doesn't it? Bob Copeland: It doesn't change what we're requesting. We're hoping for approval on the 7th for the EDA but then there are the other steps. There's the Planning Commission of course and the ultimate Council approval. And those steps will take place in the coming months after that. But regardless, even if we are successful and do gain your approval for those things, we still feel we need a sign in the meantime. Councilman Mason: Right. But hypothetically and I know this certainly won't happen this quickly but if you get, how does your request for signage change if by March 1 you get everything you need? I mean is this sign, is the sign you're looking for now then a moot point? Bob Copeland: No. Councilman Mason: How come? I'm just trying to... Bob Copeland: Our alternatives are a temporary sign such as this or no sign. And we would rather do this in the meantime because even if we gain approval let's say in March or sometime like that, it's going to take 7 months, 8 months or something like that to construct the addition and get open for business so in that period of time, you know between now and March and March and November or December or whenever that ultimately happens, we feel that we'd like to have a sign. Councilman Mason: Okay. I'm done for now. Thanks. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for Mr. Copeland? Councilman Engel: Yeah, are these the attachments that the Planning Commission is referring to as the temporary ones or are these, I thought we had a. Bob Copeland: Those were rejected some time ago. Back in March. 31 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: And that was before you had announced that you were going to be putting in the 8 new cinemas. Bob Copeland: We had not decided to do that at that time. Councilman Engel: And seeing that big marquee and that's the one I think was the ultimate sign and I'm wondering if there's a level you can go above that Planning's willing to accept and you're willing to accept. No one's talked about that. From a design perspective and cost perspective. Mayor Mancino: Planning is waiting for us to make that decision... Bob Copeland: We did attempt to respond to that by proposing this sign. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So comments. Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: I agree it's time to put a sign up. If you're willing to go along with the 2 year limitation on it. If the EDA chooses not to participate in the additional theaters, take it down and put up one of those previous approved ones. I see no reason not to. It needs a sign. It looks unfinished. You need a sign. We need a sign. Mayor Mancino: Everyone needs a sign. Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: Yeah, I feel the same way. It's substandard compared to what we want but what we've got there is nothing. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: If there's some sort of agreement on time period as to how long the temporary sign will remain up, I think it's yeah, we need a sign and I. Mayor Mancino: Do you feel comfortable with 1 year and then if the construction isn't done, give it more time after a year? Two years for a temporary. Councilman Mason: Well I would certainly think that after a year if there are problems, it could be renewed but I won't be making that decision. Councilman Berquist: I just want to add one thing. In the event that we, the 16 theater concept is approved, the sign that you're proposing will remain on that end of the building, is that correct? Bob Copeland: No it would not. Councilman Berquist: It would not? Bob Copeland: No. If you recall, I have the elevation of the new sign. Would you like to see that? Councilman Berquist: Sure. I was under the impression that that southwest end was going to remain an egress. 32 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Bob Copeland: No, it would not be. It would be a new cinema and this would, this sign would be removed to avoid any confusion. Do you have it handy? Mayor Mancino: Regardless, this is a temporary sign. Not a permanent sign. No matter what happens at the EDA. If we do approve another 8 cinema, something will be done differently at this entrance, no matter what it is. If we do not approve it and we just have this cinema, Mr. Copeland will be putting up another sign that we have approved before and that is one that's the old, kind of in the same vein of, yep. Councilman Berquist: ... so your proposal is to take the cinema letters down and put exit only on it? Bob Copeland: Well, we want people to focus on the new entrance... Councilman Berquist: So it truly is temporary. Mayor Mancino: It truly is temporary. Councilman Berquist: Alright. Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I've heard two different things referenced as it relates to the temporary. One is related to the one near temporary. I heard another one saying, what if the additional concept doesn't get approved January 7th? Does that mean the temporary sign goes away immediately and a permanent one goes up or what? That we've already approved. I just want to be clear on that. Mayor Mancino: Say that one more time. Councilman Senn: If the new project is not approved and the existing cinema stays as it is. It has an approved sign so the temporary sign will have to go away if that project is denied and the permanent sign will have to go up. Immediately basically. Councilman Mason: Well, what's immediately? Councilman Senn: Well I don't know. I mean I'm not talking a year or two down the road. If it gets decided next month. Councilman Berquist: That is a commitment that I heard you make. Bob Copeland: Yes. If the addition is not approved, let's say within a year, we will put up one of the signs that you have previously looked at. If it's been approved and it's under construction, I guess we would ask that you just allow us to finish the new construction and leave up this sign should you approve it this evening. Leave up the temporary sign until the new one is finished, which may take a little bit longer than a year. I can't say exactly. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Then may I have a motion and I think very much so that you need a sign and to get it up there and I do like the bigger lettering. I know that Planning Commissioner Conrad asked for something a little more interesting. I think that the type style helps. I 33 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 don't know if he was looking for stars and a few other things but I think it definitely needs to have a sign up there. Councilman Mason: Is this going to be one of those architecturally interesting discussions? Mayor Mancino: Well you get to call it. You have the responsibility. Councilman Mason: Signs are us. Mayor Mancino: So with that, may I have a motion and let's go through this, kind of take our time as we do this motion. Again, it's a temporary sign. And base it on, on two things. Number one, ifa new addition is approved and number two, if the new addition is not. And when I say new addition, I mean the additional 8 screen theater and retail. So who would like to make that motion? Complex on signs. Councilman Berquist: I would recommend approval for a temporary sign on the southwest entrance of the cinema. Not to exceed two years pending approval of participation by the EDA... temporary sign shall be substantially in keeping with the entrance for a. Mayor Mancino: What about the new one? Bob Copeland: If this is in fact the one that. Councilman Berquist: Isn't that four? Bob Copeland: That isn't. Mayor Mancino: That isn't on here. We don't have it correct, Mr. Copeland? Bob Copeland: Correct. Councilman Senn: We don't even know where it is? Mayor Mancino: No. Could you put it up in front of us again? Move it around a little bit. Oh, I'm sorry. We have it. Bob Copeland: It would be similar construction to the sign that you have in your packet. Councilman Berquist: Is there dimensions on there Bob? The dimensions in the packet say 12'6 x 24. Bob Copeland: These would be, these letters are 3 feet high. I don't really know what the width. Councilman Berquist: A temporary sign, does anybody have a problem with that sign? Bob Copeland: The one that you see is 2 feet. Councilman Berquist: The temporary sign shall have a font, or a total size not to exceed 3 feet in height and a total length of. 34 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Bob Copeland: I don't have a scale with me. I don't know what that is but approximately 30 feet. Councilman Berquist: And approximately 30 feet in length... Mayor Mancino: I think we could ask staff to approve it. I think it's per staff's approval. Councilman Mason: Per staff approval. Are you okay with that? Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I'm okay with that. The sign shall be okayed per staff and that's the part of the sign pending approval of participation by the EDA. Do you want to vote separately on that one? And then... Mayor Mancino: Well let's do one motion. Councilman Berquist: Then I'll also recommend approval for a temporary sign not to exceed 60 days after the date of. Approval of a temporary sign for the southwest end of the cinema for a period not to exceed 120 days and that approval is predicated on denial of participation in the project by the EDA. Bob Copeland: Well if I may suggest, we would like to have a year to get through the process. Councilman Berquist: A year to get through the process. Councilman Engel: It will take us a year to make this motion. Councilman Berquist: I mean it's not going to take the EDA a year to make a decision as to whether or not. Bob Copeland: Well we might come back another format or you know, things change. Councilman Berquist: Alright. The motion I will make a motion for approval of the temporary sign for a year, after which time if progress has not been made to...the theater with participation by the EDA, that the temporary sign be removed and a sign that has previously been approved by the Council... be erected forthwith. Councilman Senn: Now was that a whole new motion or what? Councilman Mason: Oddly enough I followed it. I was with him there. Mayor Mancino: You can second that motion. Will you state that motion? Councilman Mason: Well before I second it, let me see what I heard the motion to be was, move approval of temporary sign regardless of EDA participation or not. If EDA chooses to participate, the temporary sign will come down during construction and the new sign will come up. Mayor Mancino: Within what period of time? 35 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Mason: Within two years. If EDA does not approve, the temporary sign must be removed within one year and the previously, one of two previously approved signs must go up. Well you started it out. You got me there. You got me there. That's as I understand the motion. Am I assuming correctly? Councilman Berquist: Is there clarity there? Councilman Senn: I think we've got to start off with a new motion. I heard two totally different motions. Councilman Mason: Well I just stated a motion and Councilman Berquist said he agreed with it. Mayor Mancino: So is there a second? Councilman Mason: His motion, I restated it. Can I second it then or not? Okay, then you second it Councilman Engel. Roger Knutson: If I understand the motion is as stated by Councilman Mason, the maker of the motion agree with that characterization of the motion? Councilman Berquist: Yes I did. Roger Knutson: That's the motion and that's what you vote on then. Mayor Mancino: And can Councilman Mason second it? Roger Knutson: He has seconded it. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a temporary sign for the Cinema regardless of EDA participation. If EDA chooses to participate, the temporary sign will come down during construction and a new sign will go up within two years. If EDA does not approve, the temporary sign must be removed within one year and one of two previously approved signs must go up. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn and Mayor Mancino who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Mancino: I only say no on the grounds that I thought we were going to also include per staffs approval as far as size. Councilman Engel: That was part of it. Mayor Mancino: I didn't hear that. Okay, but anyway the motion carries 3 to 2. Bob Copeland: Regardless, we agree to work with the staff on the final design. Mayor Mancino: Appreciate it. Thank you very much. AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN AGREEMENT FOR LOT 2~ BLOCK 1 CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 4TM ADDITION~ EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. 36 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you. On April 13th, 1998 the City Council approved a site plan for Eden Trace reflecting two buildings attached through a wall. This is outdoor storage area. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the site plan by eliminating the outdoor storage area. None of the architectural features on this building have changed. The only changes you will notice are increased green space and increased number of trees and elimination of the outdoor storage. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions that outdoor storage area is prohibited and the applicant enter into an addendum to the site plan agreement reflecting the revised plans. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Sharmin, one quick question. With the elimination of the outdoor storage area, could in the future another building be built there? Sharmin A1-Jaff: They could put on an expansion which has always been their intent but if it's more than 10% of the overall area, it would have to come through Planning Commission and City Council. Anything less than that we would approve it administratively. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And it also still has to, it would have to meet, if there is an addition, the impervious surface percentages, etc. And that could happen. Just so Council is aware of that. That there would be the expansion which is just fine. I just wanted to make sure that that was, that everyone understood that. Any other questions for staff at this point? Is the applicant here and would you like to say anything to council? Okay. Any comments from Council? May I have a motion? Councilman Berquist: Move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve an amendment to the Site Plan for Matthews Building (SPR 98-3) for Eden Trace Corp. as shown on the plans dated received December 9, 1998 with the following additional conditions: The applicant enter into an addendum to the Site Plan Agreement reflecting the revised landscaping, elevations and site plans. 2. Outdoor storage is prohibited. All voted in favor and the motion carried. LAKE LUCY ESTATES~ CONTRACTOR PROPERTY DEVELOPERS COMPANY~ PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAKE LUCY ROAD JUST NORTH OF LAKE LUCY: A.~. REZONING OF 16.4 ACRES FROM RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY; PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF 16.4 ACRES INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR LAKE LUCY ESTATES, PROJECT NO. 95-11. 37 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: We can certainly do this, Roger do we need to do this in two motions or can we do it in one? Roger Knutson: You can do it in one. But since you have, just so we're clear. Since you have issues that require a 4/5 vote and issues that require a simple majority, when you combine those two it requires a simple majority to pass the motion. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Roger Knutson: What you're doing, and I know nothing, it's not necessarily in reference to this. Part of what you are requesting tonight requires a simple majority of the council. Part requires a 4/5. If you combine the two and since one part requires 4/5, the motion requires 4/5 so you don't end up with a situation for example where you would have approved the preliminary plat but rejected the rezoning and the preliminary plat will not work under the old zoning. Mayor Mancino: Well let's just go ahead and do it very quickly in two motions. Staff report please. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 16.4 acres into 17 single family lots. The property is zoned rural residential. The proposal calls for rezoning to residential single family. The average lot size is 31,986 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.04 units per acre. All the lots meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance as it relates to area, width and depth. Due to the topography and tree coverage on the site, staff recommended the applicant utilize private driveway. Increase the number of homes to be served via private driveways. Reduced yard setbacks. Narrower right-of-way and steeper grades on the streets to minimize impact on the site. The 20 foot front yard setback variance on six of the lots is promoting the preservation of trees and wetlands. Staff has one concern that future parking problems might arise for Lots 8, 9 and 10 of Block 2. Those lots are served via private driveway. The ordinance prohibits parking on private driveways. When you have a reduced setback on a private driveway, this will only allow for two cars to park outside the garage. Mayor Mancino: Then it becomes a public safety issue with fire. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Sharmin A1-Jaff: All the other variances basically will promote preservation of vegetation and minimizing grading on the site. Staff believes that this is a well conceived subdivision and we are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Because of the variance and the narrow width of the street, and allowing 5 homes versus 4, correct? That's the variance. When we have before allowed, it's not a variance. We have 4 homes and what do we do, and again it's a narrower street. What have we done public safety wise before in other areas? Do we make there be a turn around? Do we make, you know each lot have more driveway, parking in the driveway? What have we done and has it been a problem is my question? 38 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Sharmin A1-Jaff: We haven't encountered this before. With private driveways, including this case, there will be adequate mm around. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So there is adequate mm around. Sharmin A1-Jaff: They do have a Y where, here is the Y. That will allow for mm around for vehicles. Mayor Mancino: Good, thank you. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: So does that alleviate your concern in the area? Sharmin A1-Jaff: As long as the homeowners of Lots 8, 9 and 10 understand that there is no parking on this private driveway. Mayor Mancino: And will there be no parking signs posted? Sharmin A1-Jaff: There will be no parking signs posted. We just want to raise this as a concern. We do have that concern. Mayor Mancino: And when people go to buy the property, these lots in that area, how will they be told about this? Because you know they may have some concerns. They may say, what if we have a family reunion and we have more cars there, then what happens? How are they communicated that this exists? Or do we just get the no parking signs up right away so they can see that? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Get the no parking signs up immediately. It would be part of accepting the project. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So before somebody goes out to buy the lot, etc, they'll be aware? Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here? And would you like to address Council please. Applicant: I think we'll be available for any questions. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And you're comfortable with Planning Commission recommendation? Applicant: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Madam Mayor? There is one change to the conditions of approval. If you would kindly turn to Page 22. Condition number 25. There is a sentence here that says the water quality fee will be waived upon the applicant's meeting NURP design. They do meet the NURP design. Therefore, the sentence will read, the proposed single family residential development of 11.48 net developable acres is responsible for a water quantity. Mayor Mancino: Quantity not quality. 39 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Sharmin A1-Jaff: We are taking out a water quality connection charge of $8,936.00. That language is taken out. They're only paying for the water quantity. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So it reads, let me make sure I have this right. The proposed single family residential development of 11.48 net developable acres is responsible for a water quantity fee of $22,730.00. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: The water quality fee is waived or has been waived or do you want to take that sentence out? Sharmin A1-Jaff: That sentence can be taken out. Mayor Mancino: So the next sentence will be taken out and it will say, this fee is payable. Sharmin A1-Jaff: To the city. Mayor Mancino: This fee is payable to the city prior to the city filing the final plat. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: you owe the city? question? Okay. And does the applicant feel comfortable having $8,936.00 deducted from what Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, would you like to come forward and ask a Bob Ayot: I apologize if the question I've asked is something you might have mentioned because I didn't hear everything you said. Has there been any assessment or evaluation on the amount of monies enterprise fund will be generated by changing from a rural to a 17 single family lot residential? How much money is going to be coming from the developer, (a). (b), are there any investment requirements for lift station as an example as a result of having a 17 family dwelling going into place? Do we have to put in another lift station as an example or has there been any assessment associated with the capacity of the existing lift stations or any other infrastructure issue with introduction of a 17 family rezoning? Do you understand the question? Mayor Mancino: Anita, as far as the. Anita Benson: As far as lift stations, no. There are no additional lift stations. Bob Ayot: Anita I can't hear you. Could you talk just a little louder. Anita Benson: There are no additional lift stations associated with this development. When staff reviews any development we work with the developer and the engineer to eliminate the need for any lift stations. Bob Ayot: Is there any effect on existing lift stations for capacity? Mayor Mancino: Will there be, and those are directed to me Bob please. 40 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Bob Ayot: I'm sorry. Mayor Mancino: Will there be any, I mean obviously you're going to have 17 new homes in there so there will be additional, I mean that's why they're paying this money to get water and to pay for it. Anita Benson: The function of the existing system is not affected with our trunk system. Bob Ayot: Has there been any assessment with respect to the tax base that will be generated as a result of a change? When you shake your head no, that means there's been no study or? Mayor Mancino: Yes, we will be increasing our residential tax base. Bob Ayot: And will the capital investment requirement compared to the tax revenue generated be a wash, a surplus or a negative? And the reason why I ask these questions is because we've had the issue come up before and that's. Has there been any assessment against the master plan, the city plan for the introduction of this rezoning? And if it had not been, it should be before you vote on it. Mayor Mancino: And according to our comprehensive plan, when we do this rezoning and we've looked at our comprehensive sewer and water plan, has that been taken into account? I'm assuming that it has. Todd Gerhardt: Are they meeting all the zoning requirements for the area? Sharmin A1-Jaff: And they meet all the comprehensive plan requirements as approved by the City Council. Bob Ayot: My question Mayor was not whether or not they meet code or zoning constraints. My question was, was there an impact assessment for the introduction of this rezoning to the master plan? Two different issues. And I would submit that if there was not an assessment done, then I don't think you ought to vote on it until it's done. Sharmin A1-Jaff: So are you asking if they're paying their fair share in that assessment on what it will do the cost of the infrastructure that is made available? Bob Ayot: Close. There is an infrastructure impact and Anita started addressing some of that stuff. There's a capital investment versus an enterprise fund generation and that has to be assessed before they present it to you. And if it has not been assessed and someone actually signs off on that impact, I don't think you ought to vote on it. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, the cost of the public improvements are being beared by the developer and he is putting up a letter of credit for those improvements. The City is also taking administrative fees. The property was assessed for trunk, sewer and water assessments and the applicant has been paying those over the years and has now taken it upon himself to develop the property in compliance with our zoning regulations. He is going to pay all of the cost for the public improvements and we will monitor those public improvements to meet city standards. He must build the road to city standards. He must put in a proper storm sewer system and to meet all city codes. Right now there are no city costs with the exception of us doing the inspections on the development and that's why we take the administrative fees. Mayor Mancino: And so as those improvements are made, we are kind of a pay as you go. The developer is paying for the improvements as they're made. We are not paying debt service for the developer. 41 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Todd Gerhardt: The only cost that we upfront were those trunk, lateral sewer and water costs and assess that cost back against the property owner and he's made assessment payments back to the city. Bob Ayot: I'm sorry Mayor. I still don't understand but keep in mind that I only went to school for a very short time. I heard again that this guy has met the zoning requirements. No one from the city staff has told me that there has been an impact assessment on introduction of a 17 family dwelling over a life cycle. They've just told me that they've met code. Is there going to be any expense or impact on the rest of us with respect to taxation when you realize that taxation does not occur for a two year span. So we carry for a two year period, okay? So my tax dollars are not going to underwrite any aspect of this rezoning activity, is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: We will be plowing the street at that time. Bob Ayot: Maybe not this year. Todd Gerhardt: Once the improvements are in. Mayor Mancino: Hopefully not this year. Councilman Mason: Excuse me. Mayor Mancino: We're still hoping. Some of us are. Bob Ayot: We want money back for that... Mayor Mancino: So you understand the point that Mr. Ayot is making? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, and he made that point at our Truth and Taxation meeting and I don't know if you had the opportunity to sit down with Don Ashworth. Bob Ayot: Gave it a try. He wouldn't talk to me. Todd Gerhardt: Okay. Well. Mayor Mancino: Todd, do you want to set up a meeting with Mr. Ayot. Okay. So when you two, what's your number so that Todd can call you and set up a meeting Bob. Bob Ayot: 7133812. Mayor Mancino: And you can go over line item per line item as we take in new developments. Is the new development paying it's fair share at the time as they are developing it? Bob Ayot: And I would ask, I just make the request. If you can consider postponement until we have a chance to really evaluate that because I'm still not convinced as a taxpayer that there has been an impact assessment made with respect to your master plan or reviewing these rezoning activities. Thank you. 42 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Thank you. We have so many days to approve this legally, Roger correct? So we are at our legal limit. If we don't approve it, it will be approved regardless. Because we have so many days to do that as a city council. Bob Ayot: I accept that response Mayor but understand that with respect to fiscal responsibility, the city does have to recognize that if that has not happened, then we have a problem and that will have to be addressed again from a legal standpoint down the road. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, any other questions? Any comments? Councilman Engel: I think I'd just like to state for the record that as a person who moved into this community as a new homeowner and got the dodge or the gift or whatever you want to call it, I never really felt like I had much of a privilege when I started getting gouged for the taxes. I'm just like everybody else in this room. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other comments on this particular? May I have a motion then please? Can I have two motions, and the first motion being to the rezoning of 16.4 acres from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, Preliminary and Final Plat of 16.4 acres into 17 single family lots with variances. Councilman Mason: Did you just style through those in there? Mayor Mancino: I just asked for a motion. Councilman Mason: For which one? Mayor Mancino: For 9(a). Councilman Mason: For 9(a), okay. Mayor Mancino: Because we're going to split it up because (a) needs a 4/5. Councilman Senn: So move approval of rezoning of 16.4 acres from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary and final plat of 16.4 acres into 17 single family lots with variances. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council approve First Reading for rezoning 16.40 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family (95-1 REZ); Preliminary and Final plat (95-3 SUB) to subdivide 16.40 acres into 17 single family lots, with variances (a 20 foot front yard setback for Lots 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 3, a 10 percent street grade and a 50 foot wide right-of-way, and five homes accessing via a private street), Lake Lucy Estates, as shown on plans dated October 16, 1998, with the following conditions: Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands and Type I erosion control fence shall be used adjacent the grading limits. 43 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the city's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the city's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The developer shall install wetland buffer edge signs before the city accepts the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat over the following lots: Outlots A & B, the northerly 20 feet of Lots 8 & 9, Block 2, and the southwesterly comer of Lot 3, Block 1, lying southwesterly of a line drawn diagonally from 45 feet northerly and easterly of the southwest comer of Lot 3, Block 1. 8. No berming, retaining walls or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands or storm water ponds shall be a minimum of two feet above the 100-year high water level. 10. A stormwater quality pond is being provided on site to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. The stormwater pond will have side slopes of 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The stormwater pond design is being reviewed by staff to determine the phosphorus removal efficiency. 11. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance with and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. The existing home (Tichy) on Lot 4, Block 3 shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system within 30 days after the system becomes operational. Connection to water is not required unless the well on Lot 4, Block 3 fails. 12. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 13. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road. Lot 4, Block 3 may relocate their driveway from Lake Lucy Road to Lakeway Drive. If the driveway is relocated to Lakeway Drive, the street address for this lot shall be changed accordingly. 44 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 14. Lots 1 through 3, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, and Lots 1 through 3, Block 3 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed grading (with two-foot contours), drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the lot. 15. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being extended to the plat from the Coey property (Pointe Lake Lucy) to this site and the applicant obtaining a drainage and utility easement from the Morins. 16. All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance No. 209 and a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal. A private maintenance agreement and access easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private street(s) (including the Morin's parcel) 17. The developer shall extend utilities to the parcel to the west through a location determined by the. The developer shall be reimbursed by the city for the costs to extend sanitary sewer along Lake Lucy Lane. Temporary barricades shall be placed at the end of Lakeway Lane. A sign shall be placed on the barricades indicating "this street shall be extended in the future". A condition will also be placed in the development contract to inform all property owners in Lake Lucy Estates of this street extension. 18. A variance to the city's private street ordinance to allow up to 5 homes to access Lakeway Court, 10% street grade on Lakeway Drive and 5 O-foot right-of-way throughout except for the cul-de-sac is recommended. 19. The applicant or their assignee shall submit a haul route and traffic control plan to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to site grading commencing. 20. Individual sewer and water services to the lots shall be field verified to determine the path of least impact to the trees. 21. The applicant shall be entitled to a refund (up to 90% depending on construction costs) of a portion of future sewer connection charges collected from Morin's parcel when building permits are issued. 22 The proposed single family residential development of 11.48 net developable acres is responsible for a water quantity fee of $22,730.00. This fee is payable to the city prior to the city filing the final plat. 23. The applicant shall plant 162 trees as replacement/reforestation plantings. The number of replacement trees could increase based upon the level of grading on the site. Trees shall be selected from the city's Approved Tree List as shown on the landscape plan dated November 6, 1998. 24. Tree removal limits shall be established 20 feet from the building pad for all custom graded lots, once the type of home is designated. Tree protection fencing must be installed at the limits and maintained throughout construction. 25. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. The applicant shall work with the city in developing a landscaping replacement plan on the site and along Lake Lucy Road right- of-way. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a 45 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit removal of dead or diseased vegetation. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. 26. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to grading. 27. Building Department conditions: a. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. b. Obtain building permits from the Inspections Division for retaining walls over 48" high. 28. Fire Marshal conditions: a. With reference to block 2, lot 6, if structure is not visible from the street, additional address numbers will be required at driveway entrance. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Permit Policy Premise Identification No. 29-1992. 29. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 30. The buffer on Lot 5, Block 2, shall be adjusted so that there is a smoother transition along the Lot 5 property line. 31. Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 are encouraged to share a dock to minimize impact on the wetlands. 32. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will need to be prepared for use of the private driveway including the Morin's parcel. 33. A cross access easement agreement prepared for the use of the private driveway including the Randall parcel. 34. The final plat shall be revised to incorporate the realignment of Lakeway Lane per attachment #3." All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: Secondly, may I please have a motion about, to approve the development contract and construction plans. Councilman Senn: I move to approve the development contract and construction plans and specifications for Lake Lucy Estates Project 95-11. Mayor Mancino: Second please. Councilman Engel: Second. Mayor Mancino: Oh, I'm sorry. Sharmin. 46 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Sharmin A1-Jaff: Madam Mayor. On item (a), 9(a) we need to waive the second reading if you may on the rezoning. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then may I have a motion to waive the second reading on the rezoning please. Councilman Mason: So moved. Mayor Mancino: All those in favor please. Second please. Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to waive the second reading of the Rezoning. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the construction plans and specifications for Lake Lucy Estates dated October 23, 1998, revised December 14, 1998, prepared by Westwood Professional Services, lnc. and the Development Contract dated December 14, 1998 be approved conditioned upon the following: The applicant shall enter into the Development Contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $521,000.00 and pay an administration fee of $45,888.93. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Betsy Randall: Can I ask a question? Mayor Mancino: Pardon, this is not a public hearing. I'm sorry, did you have something that you'd like to say? Betsy Randall: I have no say? We had gone through this one other time and some of the stuff is not in the Minutes. Mayor Mancino: Okay, would you please come forward. Betsy Randall: Sorry. Mayor Mancino: No, that's fine. This is under new business. It is not a public hearing and I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were here. Betsy Randall: My name's Betsy Randall. I'm on the west side of the property at 1571. Some of the stuff that we had gone over previously, Lot 4, Block 2, side setbacks. We had gone through, it was currently set at a 10 foot side setback. Mayor Mancino: And we went to 20. Betsy Randall: We went to 20. Okay, I did not see that in this latest report and that's why I'm asking that question. 47 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Okay. I do remember that. Betsy Randall: Yeah, I went through it today and I don't see anything in here about that and I just want to make sure that that's still a very valid... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. The quality of the taping of the following discussion was very poor and hard to hear.) After some discussion between Betsy Randall and Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn made the following amendment. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to amend the preliminary and final plat for Lake Lucy Estates for a 20 foot side yard setback on the west side of Lot 4, Block 2. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONTINUATION OF TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING; ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED 1999 BUDGET. Public Present: Name Address Mary & Paul Martin Bill & Linda Jansen Leah Hawke Bob Ayot Mayor Mancino: Discussion of the budget. Councilman Senn: Mayor? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Councilman Senn: ... 9610 Foxford Road 240 Eastwood Court Of the Truth in Taxation hearing. Mayor Mancino: So we'll open the Truth in Taxation Hearing for public comments. If anyone would like to come up and just comment on the 1999 budget. Bob Ayot: Surprise. Mayor Mancino: Are you still here? Bob Ayot: Has there been any impact statement in comparison to... Has there been a comparison in that light? Mayor Mancino: Not that I have seen. Has there been comparisons Mr. Ashworth? 48 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Don Ashworth: Again, what I tried to explain last week was the State of Minnesota does that. They force each, not force. They request.., submit to them the cost for operating our city... This realizes a lot of different things that different cities do... or whatever else. But that report.., this gentleman. Bob Ayot: Ayot. Don Ashworth: Ayot... Mayor Mancino: ... Did you get the report? Bob Ayot: ... I've not seen any life cycle assessment or life cycle analysis done.., per mile or whatever to demonstrate that the cost... Mayor Mancino: So there is no report for the... Bob Ayot: I have not found one that you could make... Now it may exist but I haven't found it... So that's point one. Do you want to. Anita Benson: ... specifically an example of sealcoating projects be competitive and bid that as do other cities in the metro area and there are very few sealcoat contractors so typically from one season to the next...the rates are very similar for a sealcoat project and I can give you numbers.., on a cost per mile for a sealcoating for the city... Bob Ayot: Well there are only two sealcoat... Anita Benson: Well when you're dealing with a contract, it's different than... When you're dealing with private contracts.., for sealcoat maintenance program, we typically consider Chanhassen, there was a pavement management study back in I believe 1991 that established the recommendations that all the streets within the city be sealcoated on a 5 to 6 year basis. This year.., an increase in the amount of sealcoat projects and that is due to the fact that there is increased mileage being.., sealcoated before and also the addition of miles of new development. Mayor Mancino: Depending on the city.., sealcoating was based on some life cycle analysis that was done? Anita Benson: The recommendation to do on a 5 to 6 year basis, yes. And also included in the budget submitted this year is the funding for updating that pavement management study so that we can manage our infrastructure, assets, our streets on the most cost effective basis we can and we need to complete an update to our pavement management study to do that. Mayor Mancino: Maybe Mr. Ayot would be a good consultant to help us with that management plan. Bob Ayot: Well I think...that sounds like an exceptionally good idea... Mayor Mancino: ... and actually it's a good idea to maybe have some resident participation like yourself to come in and help with that, to get that up and running. Bob Ayot: And I... 49 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Will you do it free? Bob Ayot: No. The master plan, you have a master planner... Councilman Engel's comments earlier about everybody has to take a gouge. We have more lift stations than the Twin Cities combined. 29 for a 60,000 acre area. That's a whole hell of a lot...build on a bog. Nonetheless...that kind of capital investment. That's why we had the third... All I'm asking is that you consider that sort of effort... Mayor Mancino: Makes good sense, thank you... Anyone else wishing to address the Council on the budget? Leah Hawke: ... I've been pretty busy the last couple of weeks. I've got to apologize. I have not looked at the budget but I do have to request... Mayor Mancino: No, not the budget that we've seen. So we're bringing that up tonight. Leah Hawke: And the second thing is... for a public safety director? Mayor Mancino: I think that has been, was presented to us in the 1999 budget. Leah Hawke: So we're budgeting for a Public Safety Director. Mayor Mancino: It is in the budget that we've been given. Don Ashworth: The sirens are in there as well. Mayor Mancino: Oh are they? Okay... sirens in the revised one that we got, we brought that up during work session, etc. Anyone else? Anyone else, any questions on the Truth in Taxation hearing? On the budget. Okay. We'll close that and let's bring it back to Council with discussions on the 1999 budget. I hope everyone has, I'm just going to talk generally, kind of setting the tone here. That everyone who is in the audience has this which is for the Mayor and City Council adopts the 1999 property tax levy and budget. And it is what you got also at the Truth in Taxation hearing that we had a couple, on December 7th. A couple key points that I would like to make on this budget. First of all, what you received at home a couple weeks ago, we all got our notices on property taxes and the levels and you got it from your, the city tax, the county tax and your school tax. A portion of it that shows city tax and the amount that you would be paying this year was at the maximum levy limit set for our city. So at the time that we had to pass something, which is in August-September, had not approved our '99 budget. What you have received is the very max that you could be assessed. Since we started the budget hearings, etc, we have found as a city that through our finance director that we have right now from last year's budget a million dollar surplus in our general fund. And I can just tell you very generally some of the ways that we have that million dollar surplus is that some of our revenues were a little higher than we had anticipated and that would be some of our permit revenue was $616,000.00 higher than we anticipated. Other revenue was $22,000.00 higher than anticipated.., current service fee was higher than anticipated so we have a million dollar surplus in our general fund... 1999 budget revenue summary of our general fund, you will be seeing that we have under current property tax, which is Account #3010 that it has been requested that we increase the current property tax 16% from 3.2 million last year to 3.7 million this year which would be $438,000.00 increase or a 16% increase. And I would like to suggest to the City Council that we go about looking at this budget.., so that there will be no increase there. That will bring our revenue for 1999, instead of $2.6 million to $5.7 million and that will certainly decrease the city tax rate for our city taxpayers. Now I'd like 50 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 to go ahead, saying that, I would like to go forward and talk a little bit about spending and the different spending levels that we should be at. And I'd like to hear from other council members on spending amounts and what they have gone through and seen through the budget... Any other council members would like to talk about spending cuts. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Let's see here. With the different points in time we did... Mayor Mancino: That was the original budget that we were figuring. Okay. It had spending of... Councilman Senn: As we went through the hearing and stuff, we had a lot of... and a lot of questions, you know we really didn't have answers to... I asked Councilman Engel to help... Mayor Mancino: Can you walk us through some of that? Councilman Senn: Basically... kind of a big picture of the things, the 1998 spending or expenditures out of the general fund as budgeted were $5 million and... That is the number you were referring to earlier when we were talking about the million dollar excess getting into the revenue picture. Mayor Mancino: That was generated in '98. Councilman Senn: Right. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: In terms of 1999, the next number down, the original budget requests submitted by the departments which was $6 million.., which is a 25% increase in spending out of the general fund. Mayor Mancino: Over last year. Councilman Senn: Over last year, correct. Okay? If you take the 1999 staff revised request.., which is a 16% increase in the general fund expenditures. Mayor Mancino: Again from last year. The benchmark is last year. Councilman Senn: Last year. Okay? The next line is, what I'd like to, Mark and I would like to try and get the Council to consider as it relates to where we should end up... general fund level of expenditure of $5,571,892.00 or a 4% increase. Mayor Mancino: Over last year's expenditures. Councilman Senn: Over last year, correct. Now in terms of the revenue.., general fund as it relates to actual tax dollars. The next line down is the 1998 actual budget in terms of revenue and tax dollars and that's $4,178,362. Mayor Mancino: Now, how come that doesn't relate to what's in front of me? Councilman Senn: If you take the...find the right thing here and go to the, let's see. It's front and back so if you go to 1, 2, 3. Page 4. Okay. It's basically a summary including Chanhassen... 51 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: So you're saying.., if you go to 1998 budget.., current property tax. Councilman Senn: Right, go to current property tax and take the general fund as well as the other property tax dollars going across the line. Mayor Mancino: Which is Internal Service Fund. Special Revenue Funds and G.O. Debt Service Funds for a total of $4.178, correct? Councilman Senn: Which is the number that relates back here to the 1998 actual budgeted revenue from tax dollars. Mayor Mancino: Got it. So that's all what we're paying in. Councilman Senn: Now I should point out that it's a number before adjustment on tax dollars... Okay, the second number, which is the 1999 original request was the $4,685,157, which is a 12% increase in the requested revenue from the property tax. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so that's on the other side of the sheet. That's on the 1999 budget. Councilman Senn: Yeah, you go basically back, what is it? If you go back, I'm sorry, the other way. Mayor Mancino: Mine is... Councilman Senn: Well let's see here. If you go back, I'm sorry the other way. To the fifth page. The next page back, okay. That is, and I'll come to that but that is not what we're talking about here. The number of $4,685,157 is the original budget request we got and that's not in front of you tonight. Okay? That's what we got from... 12% increase in overall property tax revenue or dollars coming in. Okay. The revised request now, after revisions have been made going back.., referred to as the 1999, is $4,683,157. Okay? That is still a 12% increase in revenue or property tax dollars. So even though there has been cuts in spending under the proposal that has come back tonight, there has been no reduction or savings.., of the property tax revenue line item. Mayor Mancino: ...what we pay. Councilman Senn: Right... Now, if we would tax, the next line is basically that if we would tax on a level.., property tax level of $3,566, 811 which would be a reduction of $611,551 or a 15 % decrease in the property tax portion, okay. Now you have to keep in mind there that you still have a million dollar excess coming forward from this year. Okay. If you wanted to allocate that difference per se... that $611,000.00 to those reserves because we've had some discussions with the auditors and the auditors... If you put that 611 into reserves.., you could still basically end up with a net.., increase in property taxes.., which would be down at the bottom there between 1998 and 1999. Okay? Are you following me? Mayor Mancino: Yep, I'm following you. Councilman Senn: That's kind of big picture so to speak. And now from there. Mayor Mancino: And how do you get the revenue down to 3,566,8117 52 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Senn: The revenue going down to $3,566,811 is based on the detail that we'll now mm back and go to. I wanted to kind of give you the overall picture first so you knew kind of where the numbers ended up. So I mean the numbers can end up anywhere between any of these levels that are here. I just tried to define benchmark levels. Okay? Now if you take the detail that's attached, what I tried to do was, from the notes in all our budget work sessions, the issues that were raised or items that were raised I basically had outlined and took individual or separate notes of. Okay. So the first one here, which relates to, mine are loose here so bear with me if mine are in a different order than yours. Planning Department, is that the first one? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Planning Department. Councilman Senn: Okay, Planning Department is the first one. The adjustment or the issue that was raised during the budget hearing was, there were basically five issues that were raised. Of those five issues the first one was three salary adjustments in 1999 for the senior planner and it was uncertain as to whether those three adjustments were all included within the 6.5% increase allocated in that particular person's situation. So what I assumed there is it was included in the 6.5% there so there's no net adjustment basically. In the second item there was a request for an increase in grade for a Planner II to Senior Planner and stuff and actually an adjustment in grade related to the position itself, yet in the specific budget presentation or the information we were given, there wasn't really a justification for increasing the grade of the job. More or less increase duties and responsibilities, but more based on just good performance and longevity and stuff so essentially what was suggested there was to do effectively a $500.00 merit adjustment and leave the grade the same which net effected the same as what was asked for but it was just a different way of accomplishing it without raising the pay grade. The next item was a library location study of $20,000.00 which we questioned because we've had some discussion on that and we were looking very specifically from our context of doing that inhouse and so given that discussion then, the desire or the discussion and desire to do it inhouse deleted that item so it's basically a net savings of $20,000.00 out of that proposed budget. We'd still settle on a location for the library but it basically would be done inhouse. Contract Services. There was a question raised over the contract services and there wasn't a detail attached so we asked that we get the detail broken down there so effectively I didn't do an adjustment there at this point because we still didn't have the detail breakdown. So just left it basically at par but noted the issue so we follow through with the breakdown. Also in the planning budget there was a request for increased hours and stuff for the dining coordinator and we talked about that in the budget discussions and wasn't hearing anybody with any problems with that so I just listed that as an OK. Okay? So the net adjustment out of the planning department is basically $20,000.00. Mayor Mancino: Wasn't there also an arborist as part of the planning department request? Councilman Senn: Well if you'll turn to the next page, okay. I separated the environmental portion of the planning department because it was kind of submitted separately so I treated them kind of as two separate issues. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and these were all general funds? Councilman Senn: These are all general funds. Okay. I'll come to, I'll explain when they aren't general funds okay. If I take the planning department, the environmental division part, there was a request for a $50% Forestry Tech that would be shared with Parks and Recreation and that was discussion at the budget hearings, the suggestion here was to delete that new position. There was another item of aerial color photos 53 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 requested as it related to updating or getting, well I guess updating and getting colored aerial photos versus the ones we have now which I think are, well I mean they're not brand new by any means. Mayor Mancino: Blue and white. Councilman Senn: Yeah, and they're blue and white but suggested deleting that item. And again, these are just suggestions. Deleting that item of $7,250.00. Okay the next item which was proposed in the budget was a lake atlas which is a document we did around here at one time and I guess we're now out of, and there was a lot of discussion about that in the budget hearings and some concern over that amount and that expenditure and possibly just you know running copies and segments off of what we have .... rather not go into a full printing of the whole new atlas and so that there assumed a deletion of $60,000.00. But now here's where the asterisk comes in and the asterisk comes in because that $60,000.00 savings is not a savings that occurs out of general funds. Okay. So it's not included in the general fund numbers that I went over with you in the big picture. In terms of the sump pump modifications, there's a request there for $125,000.00 and I think there was kind of general discussion or agreement that that needed more discussion but the issue wasn't really closed and it's not really a general fund issue. Again that's what the asterisk is there for. Not a general fund issue so I didn't do anything with it at the time being because it hadn't really reached any closure on it. The next item was a discussion on the milfoil, environmental project fund which request was $18,200.00. We got into some discussion of that but again.., the information to know what we really can do or can't do under milfoil control so I just basically left it again at par but again that's not a general fund issue so... what impact what I gave you before in terms of the big picture. Mayor Mancino: ... come under other funds we can talk about at a later date. Tonight we're doing the tax... Councilman Senn: Well right. Yeah, the reason I'm trying to concentrate on the general fund is that's what we need to approve tonight and as far as special funds go, we asked at the last budget hearing for a summary and a synopsis of all the special funds and the reserves and all that and we haven't got that yet so it's a little hard to turn around and react to it. Mayor Mancino: How much is cash. How much is assets, etc and we haven't received that yet. Councilman Senn: Right. Next item, 6 was City Forester, request to increase the grade on the City Forester from 2 to 3. There justification was presented as far as increased duties and responsibilities so I just had an OK over there. Next one was request for brochures, $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 for additional or new brochures and the, in the budget discussion that was basically to replenish to the stock of some existing brochures that were out that we thought were necessary and so I left OK on that. The Bluff Creek gully project was in there for $75,000.00. The request was in for $75,000.00. We talked about that and our commitment to Bluff Creek and the Bluff Creek corridor and everything so left that in. But again, any of those asterisk items 3 through 8 don't impact the general fund. Those were just specific discussion or decision points given changes wherever in the budget, okay. Mayor Mancino: So the net reduction to. Councilman Senn: Net reduction to the environmental area was $16,750.00. Mayor Mancino: $16,750.00, okay. 54 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Senn: Towards the general fund, okay. Then the next one is the Public Safety Department. We had a, the first item I had was there wasn't in the original budget that we got again which was the base document I was working off of, there was not an item for sirens so I stuck an item in for sirens of $54,000.00 and put OK by that so that's an increase. Not decrease but an increase of $54,000.00. Mayor Mancino: Excuse me Pam, where is the sirens in our new budget? Pam Snell: It's in the public safety administration department. Capital outlay. Mayor Mancino: In the public. Pam Snell: Public safety administration capital outlay. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: And then the second item in public safety was a request for new ½ time support staff person, which was I think a $30,000.00 price tag for what was in there and we had, we discussed that in relationship again in the budget sessions and the recommendation there, or at least here is to delete that item. The next item was a move of the one person's salary 100% to the administrative fund, which was now funded partially out of the animal control fund and stuff and we talked about that so I just put no big issues there so I put okay there. There was a request for an added inspection intern in the inspections department and we talked about that. And it was more or less just to kind of foster some relationships and that sort of thing and given where we're at budget wise, I had taken it out at least for the time being. The inspection uniforms, there was an item that was raised for $3,250.00 on uniforms and we were supposed to get more information on that so I just put down OK. You know hold to evaluate because we hadn't got the information on that. There was a request for a new $12,000.00 copy machine to replace an existing one and I had that as a delete item. Mayor Mancino: We didn't get too much information on that copy machine... Councilman Senn: The next item was the Public Safety Director's position which given where we were at and in all the actions or whatever that were being taken, I just made an assumption for this and deleted it to show the impact because a lot of people were asking what's the impact so. So the net reduction of all that essentially in the public safety budget overall was $83,000.00. Okay. Now to put it a little bit in perspective, the public safety budget had come in initially with an increase of 10% overall so I mean if you look at overall numbers as far as reduction, the reductions are going to be greater there than say in the planning department where they came in with an initial request that was about half that. Okay? The next page or next items were the, was the fire department adjustment. Adjustment, it was the current operating budget of the fire department is $276,171.00. And what I stuck in here was an increase of 5% to $290,000.00, not including the capital outlay portion. Which is kind of in tune with where we're at you know growth wise and everything else. Not including the capital outlay then, drop down to the next item which is capital outlay and there was a request there for capital outlay of 70, I think it was 70, I guess I don't have the exact number here. I think it was like $75,000.00 or something like that and went through the different capital outlay items and again back to the discussion and at the work sessions basically and left in $35,000.00 for floor repair, $15,000.00 for new radio reserve and the remaining balance of $35,000.00 to be spent at the discretion of the department because they had a number of other items that they had listed that determined the priority from there. So the next reduction out of the fire department would be $67,000.00. 55 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Now a couple questions on this that relate to the retirement fund at all? Councilman Senn: No. This does not relate to the retirement fund, okay. That will come back to as a separate issue. The overall increase out of, or decrease I'm sorry, coming out of fire with these changes would be $67,000.00. The initial request as received out of the fire department was a 70% increase in budget over the previous year. Mayor Mancino: So the request was for a 70% increase in budget? Councilman Senn: Right, correct. Mayor Mancino: From 1998. Councilman Senn: Right. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Now one other line item that I remember and that is a new or used car for the Fire Chief. You do not have that included in this budget. Councilman Senn: Let's see here. I thought I had that. Mayor Mancino: Or is that somewhere else? Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's what I'm just checking if I'm throwing that. I didn't put the new vehicle in. Let's see, there were two separate items. One was the radios which was $100,000.00 item between now and what 2007 1 think and that' s with the $15,000.00 in new radio reserve goes towards and the other one that was for the car, but my assumption there was again that we had an excess vehicle at this point and just figured that excess vehicle being used by the, being transferred and used by the Chief. So there's no net change, I mean there's no net change one way or the other but I thought I stuck it in here as a reduction somewhere. I'm not sure. Maybe it got lost in here or maybe it's back. Mayor Mancino: We'll have to wait and see when we get to... Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think it's here somewhere but we'll come back to it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: The next one was the public works department. And there were really only two issues related as it related to the main public works department budget in the hearings. An increase in street sealcoating of $65,000.00 over the current level of $150 and so the request was to increase the $150 to $205 given the additional miles of street and the additional sealcoating in the program so there was some discussion again on that and everybody, at least in the budget hearings thought it was important to maintain that program so that $65,000.00 was just left intact. The only other place there was really a change in the budget and public works was two six month temporary positions were put in to augment some additional staffing needs and stuff at this point so those were left in as an OK there. Now, part of the reason or part of what you have to understand there is the public works department in the first place came in with a budget request that was only about a 3 point some percent increase. I just didn't remember the exact but I remember it was 3 point something. The next issue was the new vehicle equipment fund which I'm sure 56 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Charles would love to get rid of but it was part of his budget thing. The new vehicle and equipment request that as submitted was $440,200.00 and basically the, let's see here. I got that list but it's in your regular budget stuff. I probably made a bad assumption there and figured that everybody would have that list but. Mayor Mancino: Well, I mean there are 14 items in it. I have it in front of me. Councilman Senn: Okay, if you have it there handy then I can quit searching for mine but, because there was $440,000.00 and 14 items and the suggestion here was to allocate $250,000.00 in new vehicle and equipment request, thus reducing or savings there of $190,200.00. Then the $250,000.00 would allow basically the purchase of you know over half the list basically or half the items. Okay. The next item, or the next department was parks and recreation. The issues here that were raised as we went through the budget and the work sessions was a new secretary's position at $37,000.00 which was pretty well justified before when a lot of questions were asked on that and it seems like everybody's okay with that so I left OK there. Next one was second printing of the park maps, which is the map or the colored map that's produced showing all the parks and trails and stuff in the city that we were out of and discussion on that again was pretty positive so we left okay on that. Next item was Bandimere soccer goals, $4,500.00. If you remember correctly, when we started to go through the parks and rec budget there was, we also went through 410 budget which was the capital projects budget essentially and in the capital projects budget there was an additional or new amount of $200,000.00 being allocated to reserve in that fund. Okay. And essentially most of these items here that I've said basically fund from 410 which is the capital reserve fund, are really kind of a further commitment on or finishing out of the referendum items. Okay so rather than going to the general fund for that stuff, we should go into the existing reserve fund, the 410 to fund those. So Bandimere soccer goals, $4,500.00. One of those, Lake Ann access road of $150,000.00 is another one. So I mean those items would stay in the budget. They'd just be funded through 410 rather than funded through the general fund. Mayor Mancino: And 410 is the capital projects funds. Councilman Senn: Right. Capital project funds, which we'll come back to as we get back a little further. Tennis court repairs at the Rec Center were $20,000.00. That was kind of justified because it was a necessity in terms of the problems we've been having so I left OK there. Hockey boards at City Center, $30,000.00. Again kind of a continuation of the referendum money so I stuck that into 410 fund. Mayor Mancino: Capital project fund, okay. Councilman Senn: And the skate park equipment of $30,000.00 at City Center Park had stuck it again in continuation of referendum.., fund 410 also. There was some discussion, at least in the work session of decreasing that amount from $30,000.00 to $15,000.00 but there was no closure on that but again since it was moving at the 410, I didn't worry about that at this particular point in time. Mayor Mancino: Understand. Councilman Senn: The next item was light equipment operator. There was a request for an additional light equipment operator of $41,000.00. We discussed that in the work session. There didn't seem to be any overwhelming support for that so I put delete there. 50% of the forestry technician. This is that other one that we covered earlier as half in planning environmental and half in parks. This is the other part of it here, which is a delete here also. Then there was a $5,000.00 item for increased personnel costs at the Rec Center which we talked about in the session and I had a delete on that. There was an intern for additional 57 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 programming of $5,600.00 that we talked about. I had a delete on that. Increased personnel for rec programs. There was $5,000.00 there. We talked about that also and we had a delete on that. Next page is a continuation of parks and rec. There was an irrigation controller request for $35,000.00 that was spoken pretty strongly to as it related to just overall savings in the long term over a period of time and that sort of thing would pay for itself. And that's also kind of a continuation of the referendum issue so I stuck that in Fund 410 also. There was a request of $9,500.00 for a new John Deere tractor. We talked about that in work session. I just had delete by that. Mayor Mancino: You didn't think that there was a rationale for the John Deere tractor? Councilman Senn: No, there wasn't a real specific justification at least in my notes from the hearing so. And there was an existing tractor I believe that it was just looking to replace or something. The increase personnel cost for maintenance. There was an item of $4,000.00 for that, which we talked about and I had a delete there. Then there was another $4,000.00 item for maintenance materials for Bandimere Park that we talked about there and also related to referendum and stuff but I remember the discussion or at least from my notes I thought we could kind of do without it so I had a delete there. Mayor Mancino: That could also come from Fund 410. Councilman Senn: Could come from 410, right. But I mean there wasn't, at least from the notes I had there wasn't. The self supporting programs approved to, let's see. There's self supporting programs approved to self supporting level only was a discussion we had in the budget hearing. A question was raised because the new self supporting program budget basically showed that there would be more expense than revenue coming in to self supporting programs. So this was just more of a policy statement in terms of the council that they would remain self funded basically if it was to be a self supporting program. Mayor Mancino: So again there's no money attached to this or out of taxpayer. No savings. Councilman Senn: No savings one way or the other. Two full time people on irrigation was a question that was raised in the project and also with the advent of the new irrigation computer, controller and stuff, and again didn't really have the information so didn't get, you know there's not an evaluation of that but there was a question raised that once we go to that, I mean it's something we should look at public versus private or look at the staffing level without getting into any closure on it so I just didn't do anything as far as the action on that. Kind of an open issue. Neighborhood park maintenance. There's discussion about initiating a program for neighborhood maintenance in the neighborhood parks versus city maintenance crews doing it and so again it was just an item that was discussed so it was on the list I threw in so. Mayor Mancino: That's what we talked about in the context of doing it 2 or 3 times a year. I don't think we talked about it as ongoing neighborhood. Councilman Senn: Well no again now there's no adjustment here so I mean there's no change being caused a result of it. I just, again all I was doing was going through each one of the issues that was raised during the hearings and listed them out. That's all. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: Let's see, there was a new parks and rec coordinator position requested that I had delete by here. And then there was a breakdown of the. 58 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Excuse me Councilman Senn. That is not, excuse me, for a new park and rec supervisor at the Rec Center. That's different than the person who's going to take over an existing position which is Patty's position. Councilman Senn: Right, there were two positions. One was to take over the existing position. The other one was a request for a new position. Mayor Mancino: So that was kept keeping over the existing? Councilman Senn: Yes. The existing position was assumed to still remain and the new position is this one. Mayor Mancino: So going through all this, it's not cutting any existing staff that we have in the city? Councilman Senn: No, it's not. And then the capital project fund under the submission we had had a number of things listed and we kind of went through that and we discussed, you know tried to kind of bring that in line with our strategic plan and where we are on that so there was an arts facility request for $100,000.00 and we talked about that and that was in keeping with the strategic plan so I just had OK by that. City Center play equipment of $12,000.00 wasn't in delete but again now there was an issue there potentially of a 410 issue for the City Center Park but no closure on that. Lake Ann Park expansion of $100,000.00. That wasn't in, keeping basically with the strategic plan. The Bluff Creek corridor expenditures of $100,000.00 which were in keeping with the strategic plan so I left OK there. And then a fund reserve was also in there like I say for $200,000.00 so whatever balance would remain of that $200,000.00 after you take those items up above out of 410 which there would still be, they'll remain. You know they'll still remain a fund balance. Councilman Engel: I have a question. Do you recall what the Lake Ann Park expansion was comprised of? That $100,000.00. Mayor Mancino: Pardon Councilman Engel? Councilman Engel: I'm curious what that Lake Ann Park expansion of $100,000.00 was comprised of. Mayor Mancino: I'm wondering if that's buying additional land. Councilman Senn: I think it was acquisition of additional property if I remember right but I don't, I didn't bring my notes. Mayor Mancino: Or especially a trail segment around Lake Ann. Councilman Senn: Was that in with the trail thing? Councilman Engel: Well we had $150,000.00 in there for a road, parking lot and trail but I don't remember this $100,000.00. Councilman Senn: I thought the trail was in the $150 too. 59 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: I'm not sure but I think it's for the $100,000.00 is for land to acquire a trail easement around the rest of Lake Ann. Councilman Senn: In addition to the actual construction dollars which were in the 150. Mayor Mancino: Actually by an easement on private property around Lake Ann. Councilman Engel: We're still preserving the $150,000.00 in the budget for the parking lot? Councilman Senn: Yeah, for the access road to redo and all that. Councilman Engel: Okay. Mayor Mancino: I'm not sure that I would be in favor of deleting the Lake Ann Park expansion of $100,000.00. Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean again these are just suggestions. Mayor Mancino: Again, this has nothing to do with the general fund. Councilman Senn: Right. The decrease is basically out of parks and recreation general fund portion given all this would be $382,900.00. Mayor Mancino: And what was the original percentage increase of park and rec? Councilman Senn: The original, yeah. As the night goes on my memory's even worst. Mayor Mancino: I have expenditures is, the original request for total parks and rec expenditure for 1998 is a re-estimate for the new budget is 52%. Councilman Senn: Correct. Mayor Mancino: So their request for approximately a $550,000.00 increase in park and rec. 50% increase, okay. Councilman Senn: Correct. Mayor Mancino: And this. Councilman Senn: This would trim that back basically by $382,900. Okay? But again no existing staff or anything like that would be impacted. And a lot of this stuff would still be done but it'd be done through 410 as far as the capital expenditures go. Next one back is the administration department. There was an increase in the budget from the initial submission from $217 to $273 that we'd asked for as it related to, it was a 26% increase and we asked for some detail and explanation on that and I just had a note over here, an assumption I made was hold to 3.5%. We didn't have the details so, but then I turned around and stuck some additional money into it. I didn't know one way or another if we were going to need it for the new city manager's position or not. So but then the net savings there would be $34,521.00 assuming we hold to 3.5% but leave some contingency or extra money in there for the new city manager's position. Then in 60 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 terms of the next item there was an increase from $128,300 to $157,400 in the finance department, which was an increase of 23%. And there again just made an assumption if we hold it to 3.5%, there would be an increase of, or there'd be a savings of $24,609. Property assessment, there's $67,000.00 in the budget. No net change there but in the work session there was a discussion or an issue of looking at bidding for a private contract on that. To see what they would be in comparison so. Mayor Mancino: In comparison to using Carver County. Councilman Senn: Correct. The next item was voting booths. This was raised during the work sessions. Given it's in an off election year and there's really not a whole lot of money budgeted for election or whatever, but we did have a problem as far as not enough voting booths and so it wasn't part of the submission but then we had asked what it would cost to get a couple of new ones and that was what the $10,000.00 was so I left, I put that new item in and an increase of $10,000.00. Because they said there were a fair number of problems at the last election. Let's see here, the next one with Southwest Coalition dues we talked about and we said, we talked about in that hearing, or in the work sessions and thought that was okay but we wanted more of a role in the city naming their reps to that. The MIS/GIS budget. There, let's see here. Mayor Mancino: Our original budget was $505,000.00. Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's what I was just looking for was 500 and something and I was searching for it there but.., okay, so it's $505,000.00 as far as the request goes and talking about decreasing that by $309,366.00, which I believe by the way pretty much ties to what was recommended on the revised thing from the staff and the revision that's again not part of my base document here. And there also had talked a little bit just as far as overwhelming as that whole MIS thing now looking at some sort of a study group or getting some people who have more expertise than us into it to get a citizens study group or something going to work with Rick Rice and stuff on that. Bob Ayot: Point of clarification...there's a number that was missed on this. Can I ask a question? Mayor Mancino: Yeah, can you wait until we go through the whole thing please. Councilman Senn: In terms of the CATV budget, there was a 15% increase in there, but that's basically self funding out of the franchise fees or whatever that come back from the cable company and most of the 15% increase was upgrading equipment for broadcasting community cable and stuff so I left OK there. There was a request for a finance intern to augment needed work there and instead of additional staff position at this point, so I left OK there. And then there was, then there was basically under this part of the budget where the mid year increases were in relationship to the salary portion or I mean the specific salary breakdowns and stuff and I just had the note that'd be at the discretion of the new city manager and left that in there. But basically if you take the above it adds up to a reduction of $358,496.00 based on those items or actions if they'd be taken. The next page is the. Mayor Mancino: Talk to your consistency on this administration department. The adjustments... 3.5 increases. We're just holding the increases in administration or finance to 3.5 whereas in planning you were okay with.., the difference and those are ones that department heads have asked for for their different staff people. 61 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Senn: The average on the other departments on the salary increases, which is basically where you know these numbers were coming from effectively, are predominantly coming from, it'd averaged about 3.5 so that's why I stuck it in at 3.5 I think. Okay. You know again, nothing sacred in that but it was just picking a level. The next page is historic preservation trust fund. There was a request for a new arch at the cemetery. Again, if you see the asterisks here, this isn't general fund so again this was just a listing of the issues as we went through the work sessions, but these don't bring any net effect one way or another to the general fund. There was a request for a cemetery arch of $19,000.00 and there was some discussion of needing to see a design first and maybe downgrading the design a little bit. Looking at an expenditure maybe of about $7,500.00 rather than the $19,000.00 which would be a net savings of $11,500. The old bank building we talked briefly about in terms of the demolition next summer which is informing the tenants of such so we did it out front instead of at the last minute and again that was kind of relating back to the strategic planning discussion. Mayor Mancino: Oh, the city center commons area? Councilman Senn: Right, and then going ahead with something on that in 1999 as we talked about in the strategic plan. Old St. Huberts. Well again old bank building doesn't have any real effect from a budgetary standpoint because it has incoming revenue and offsetting expenses so whenever you cut it or change it, it goes away. The old St. Hubert's, or I should say old, old St. Hubert's. Call it the old, old I guess at this point, St. Hubert's church. That came up in the work session just to look at studying community uses and completing the cash transfer on that. Just look at it as an issue and then there was also a request for a new Bobcat at $6,000.00 in that fund which there was some discussion on but no real final action there and I just had delete there. Mayor Mancino: What was your... Todd Gerhardt: The Bobcat was to be used to plow... Mayor Mancino: ... and again that isn't general fund anyway. Okay. Councilman Senn: If you take the, let me see here. So that's basically the details for the front. So if you go back to the front then essentially, if all of those decisions would be made, and that's just the assumption, that if all those decisions would be made, again where it comes out is it puts you down at that line at the 3566811. Okay. Mayor Mancino: And our spending for 1999 would be 4% higher than '98. Councilman Senn: Our general fund spending, yes. Mayor Mancino: General fund spending. We're not talking about reserve funds whatsoever. Our growth rate is approximately 4.7% and we have a million dollar surplus in our general fund. Councilman Senn: From '98. Mayor Mancino: From '98. And continuing forward, this revenue will put us at a 3.566811 just for general fund revenue. And we will have the reserve added to the million dollars, or approximately million dollars of $611,0007 62 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Senn: No. If you left the tax revenue rate at it's current rate which is the $4,178,362. That would give you an additional reserve of $611,551. Mayor Mancino: So if you take it back to the $3,566,811, you do not create any reserve. More reserve. You just keep your one million. Councilman Senn: No additional reserve out of the general fund would be generated. You know again that just only speaks to the general fund. If that's the way you took that. But again if you just assumed or passed the exact same level as last year, you'd create, you'd be able to create a reserve or you know effectively again these were just all items and listings from what we had. I mean you know, there might be some decisions to fund some of those where I had written down to delete and then that's you have that $611,000 balance basically to deduct out of in relationship to doing that. Mayor Mancino: Well a couple questions. We still haven't funded, I'm thinking of our strategic plan. The common center, common area. $75,000.00 we wanted to and we haven't started looking at library. Councilman Senn: Right, and again those, both of those issues were, at least from my notes, discussion items under other funds other than general funds which we're still waiting for, you know the information on the reserves and the cash balances and all of that. So that's why I didn't, you know they weren't anything that I could tie in here one way or another. Councilman Engel: What fund is that library coming out of? Do you know? The fund the library was coming out of. You don't know? Councilman Senn: Well I mean there is no... library fund at least that I know of. I mean but I mean there are some general. Councilman Engel: Where was it discussed as coming out of? Here? Councilman Senn: Well there's a general special fund, there's some dollars in for the public works expansion project and you know there's stuff like that and then there's also a number of funds that there are additional reserves and stuff in. Again, that gets, I mean it's real difficult to deal with that because the, you know until you get into the true analysis or the real analysis of the reserves and the cash and all that... Councilman Engel: I'm just trying to keep some of the details straight here. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist, did you have some questions? Councilman Berquist: I think he said that the 1998 budget of $4.1 minus the $1.1 out of the general fund... Councilman Senn: No. The 3.566 is the number you end up as you would accept every change or you know proposed change or deletion in the attached sheets. That's where you'd end up. Mayor Mancino: Any comments from, please come up. 63 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Bob Ayot: I think it's ledger 116 under MIS...budget you reference the 351K shift in monies and I didn't quite understand that shift, one. Number two. This week under MIS you've referenced a $309,000.00 amount and then there was an adjustment down to $200,000.00. So how do we get from 351 down to 309? Councilman Senn: There was an original request of over $500,000.00 for MIS/GIS. Okay, this in here cuts it by $309,000.00 leaving a balance basically going to it of, in the request of about $200,000.00 just using round numbers. Bob Ayot: What was the start point of $3517 Let me show you the paper. Councilman Senn: The start point in the original budget request was 500 and some odd thousand dollars. You probably don't have that Bob. I'm sorry, I can't see that far. Sorry. Councilman Engel: Pam? Of that original budget request, how much was dedicated to year 2000 repairs? Councilman Senn: ... we have budget sheets that go back older than this and that's what I was working from. Pam Snell: About $75,000.00. Councilman Engel: 75? Okay. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions or comments? Leah Hawke: ... I may have dreamt it but I thought I got up here a few minutes ago and asked if there was a position for a public safety director in the budget and I guess my only request would be that there are a number of people here that don't know that there's a proposal to delete that from the budget and I would respectfully request that this council at least put this on a pending evaluation so that we can work through this process over the next year and not delete it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Leah, why don't you stay up for a second. First of all, the reason that we answered you to say that the public safety director's salary was in the budget was because the budget that we received from Pam, it was in it. The cut was made from Councilman Senn's request. Now it also means, before you give that look. Leah Hawke: Hey, I like this format... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Now wait. Councilman Senn: ...the original budget okay had it in from the department request and the action's been taken since so I mean again, I just dropped it out because of the action taken and that's what's there so I mean you know, it's just a reflection of what's happened. Mayor Mancino: Please also realize that we do have a surplus that we talked about in general fund and that surplus. Leah Hawke: The $611,5517 64 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: No. We have approximately, and I'm talking in general terms. It's probably not quite this high at this point but around a million dollar surplus in our general fund. I mean that is at the discretion of the City Council. Leah Hawke: Right. I just know that going through. Mayor Mancino: But I understand what you're asking. Leah Hawke: Right, and when we go through budget incorporation, it's always tougher to go back and reallocate funds back into a position than had you left it pending. I'm just here to ask that you respect the opinion of all these people that were here earlier and at least put it pending, whatever discussion. Mayor Mancino: Understand, thank you for the request. Councilman Senn: Just to point out Mayor. The note I made under the 1999 council line item there, the asterisk there was allocated to the contingency fund, you know the $611,000.00 so that leaves leeway to go back as it relates to a number of these different items or whatever. I mean I just was trying to show you again a benchmarks again of the 3566811. You know if you want to choose that benchmark and go for it, the 15% reduction in taxes but if you take and hold the line approach of taxes, you still have that additional money. Mayor Mancino: Got it. Councilman Engel: Nancy? Mayor? I just want to have clarification. Under that $611,551 that Mark's just walked us through is projected contingency fund reserve for 1999. Mayor Mancino: That is if we do not. Councilman Engel: If we adhere to what's on this paper. Councilman Senn: If you fund at the same level as last year. Mayor Mancino: If you fund at the same level. And that means that would be a 15% reduction. Councilman Senn: No. No, no. You're getting confused here okay. If you keep property tax revenues the same, identical as last year. Mayor Mancino: That is what I was talking about. Councilman Senn: Right. What you mentioned before, okay. And on that basis, if you take that and translate it all through that, if you adopted all of the reductions here, would leave you with a $611,000.00 reserve. Adopting last year's level. Mayor Mancino: I like that. Councilman Senn: Okay? If you would choose to simply take last year's level and then take out all of these changes effectively from last year's level on a pure take out basis, then you end up with a lower number than last year. But that's working not from last year's level but from the initial budgets request 65 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 and backing out the numbers here that we've deleted. Again, that's starting from a higher number and deleting down. So and again, a lot of this was just forming benchmarks, forming lines because I mean you know, at least from my perspective when I was going through and seeing the initial request of the 25% increase in spending and even the revised request of 16%, I thought those were too high and a 12% increase in tax rate I also thought was too high so this was an exercise... Mayor Mancino: I appreciate that. Councilman Engel: Mayor, I have a second part of a two part assertion and clarification and that was, this is mythical at this point. The million dollars you are talking about is real money in a real bank account and happened this year and I just wanted that to be clear. We've got a lot of numbers on the table. Mayor Mancino: Correct Pam? That's what we were told at our work session. Pam Snell: The amount is not quite one million dollars. It's more like $700,000.00 but that's money in the bank as of the end of the year. Mayor Mancino: ... 300 in two weeks. I calculated about 715,288 or something close to that. Councilman Senn: Pam told us in a work session that was a moving number not yet defined so. Councilman Engel: When will we have final? Pam Snell: End of the year. Councilman Engel: December 31 we're going to have a final. We're projecting. Councilman Senn: So I mean all I tried to do was put it in a format so the issues could be looked at and effectively the issues that were providing increases to the budget and you could say yeah, nay, you know whatever to each one or deal with them but they were all issues that were raised one way or another going through the work session. Mayor Mancino: Todd? Todd Gerhardt: I'd like to make a recommendation to the mayor and council. I think Mark's done a great job of putting together the history here. He's also asked quite a few questions and I think that staff needs to answer as a part of this. I would ask the City Council to continue this public hearing to next Monday so that staff can answer some of the questions raised in this document and the department heads would also have an opportunity to look at the suggestions and move ahead from there. Don Ashworth: Mayor if I could. Mayor Mancino: Yes, Don. Don Ashworth: Pam should, Pam and I will additionally look at some of the suggestions and try to verify the numbers because there's some conflicts in here. For example like under the finance area, we note in there a... dollar portion and that seems extremely high and so therefore suggested deletion. But then we come down to the bottom and it's noted that an intern is planned for $15,000.00 but that's okay. So I mean 66 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 it's got to go one spot or the other. I mean it's either cut or it's kept in. So we'll go through and try to identify those types of things and verify that the number, the 356 number is truly correct. Councilman Senn: And I think that would be good. I mean again this is, you know staff has a lot more information than we do. I mean we put days and days into it just trying to identify the issues and outline it and do it so I mean you know essentially. Mayor Mancino: Well a lot of work went into it. Thank you very, very much and I'd also like to say, are there any big concerns or statements that councilmembers would like to make? Councilman Engel: I just want to see, I want to see staff department head input on these proposed changes. Not only from the perspective as listed here but to what they would consider a priority cut if one takes precedent over one of these. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: I'm fine with it... greatly for the work that you've put into it. Councilman Engel: He did more of the work. I was a philosophical discolor. He put the numbers together. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: I don't know if it's a concern or not. I guess it is. And there's a phenomenal amount of work here. My concern is that this, and please I hope nobody takes this the wrong way. But this, this is coming from one source and that's great. Again, I look at the work put behind this and I quite honestly, I couldn't do it. But I have a little, for lack of a better word, I have a little problem with these deletions, and Mark made it very clear. It's just, you know he just threw it out there. But I have a concern that now staff and everybody. I mean this has been framed now in one particular way and I have a concern as I go through some of these things that you know, these are deletions that one person wants. And they may be very legitimate. I'm not, again I'm not.., anything or anybody here but I am concerned that now this is being looked at essentially what I'm perceiving, and if I'm perceiving incorrectly help me out but what I'm perceiving to be essentially one set of eyes. Councilman Senn: Well I mean, Mike to help you out in your perception, not because I'm trying to be contrary but to tell you what... I mean essentially Mark and I, Mark tells me put it together. Mark's seen it. Mark's reviewed it so I think it's fair to say it's also out of Mark. Then in addition to that, we took it to Linda Jansen who is one of the new council people. I asked her to go through it all and review it and see what she thought of it as an incoming council person elect and all that so she's seen it and also reviewed it and came back with some additional comments and stuff on it too. So I mean it's a few sets of eyes at this point but again that's all it was meant to be was a few sets of eyes to try to identify some of the issues and put something on the table and stuff, so it's not purely my eyes but it's. Councilman Engel: Further clarification here though Mike and that is, you know since I've come here I've always talked about restraining the growth of government and therefore spending, therefore taxes on every one of us who live in this town. But when it comes to detail, Mark faxed to me at 4:15. I got here and had my interviews with Sathe at 5:30 or, 4:30 to 5:30. This is the first time I've gotten a chance to pour over it in detail. These are all philosophical discussions for me and things you throw out and I throw out and that sounds good. It all sounds until you net it out. 67 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Well I think that's a good reason for us to table it and have it on Monday night. Councilman Engel: Well and that's why I want to hear staff comments on it. Mayor Mancino: And not only staff but the rest of us can look at it because these suggestions are adjustments that were talked about in general for all of us. I went through, not to this degree. I went through some of these adjustments on my own but I think it's a good reason to come back next Monday night at a work session and get input from the rest of the council members. Councilman Senn: ... so it'd have to be kind of a continuation of this hearing. Mayor Mancino: Okay, continuation of the hearing. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Formally what you would do is recess tonight's council meeting to Monday at say what time to complete the items on tonight's agenda. That you haven't dealt with. Mayor Mancino: We could also recess and do the rest of the agenda that night too. It's getting fairly late. Councilman Senn: Well I mean as far as the remaining, you know as far as the items that are left, which are ones that I pulled off of consent, two of them directly tie to what you've seen here which is the contract with the county on the assessment issue which we talked about and the other one was relating to the, let's see where was it? There was three of them. One was, oh the preparation of plans and specifications for the public works facility... Mayor Mancino: The fire fighters retirement fund. Councilman Senn: And the fire fighters retirement fund but to be honest with you, I want to plead total ignorance to this. I went through it. I tried to figure it out. I tried to trace numbers. I tried to figure out where it was coming from and we need to get a lot of... Mayor Mancino: Some information before we look at it. John, are you able to come next Monday night at 5:30? Okay, good. I hate to keep you all here but why don't we get the questions on the table for the fire fighters relief fund that we'll need to help make a decision for our next Monday night meeting. Don Ashworth: And then would it be alright if I contacted Councilman Senn directly to try to find out the additional information? And I'll make sure all five receive that information. Mayor Mancino: Leah, you had a question. Leah Hawke: ...I've been up to City Hall quite a lot recently and I think it's fair to say that our public safety department personnel are pretty upset with the changes.., and I think it's something that should be addressed first thing in the morning with them before rumor hits the street that this was cut from the budget. Or is under proposal to be cut out. And the second, I guess the second is a question. All the people that were here tonight, do they have to come again next week to debate this issue of public safety director in out? I mean I'm just trying to get a handle on, I thought part of your discussion was, should we have one? Should we not have one? Are we going to put it under one person? 68 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Mayor Mancino: We haven't finalized any of that yet. Again we do have a surplus we can always use to fund that and as far as public safety department, they will get these numbers with our new city manager, Todd Gerhardt and he will go over this with each department. So you don't have to be concerned that our public safety department, the people that are in it, will not have this to look at and review with our city manager because every single department will. Will offer suggestions. Leah Hawke: Okay. I'm also trying to get a perspective on citizen and resident input on this and is this going to be decided next Monday night? The decision as to whether or not to have the position, regardless of who's going to fill it but whether or not... Mayor Mancino: No. We are not deciding next Monday night whether we are going to have a public safety director position or not. That will not be decided next Monday night. Did everyone hear me? Councilman Engel: I want to be clear about what that means. Does that mean whether or not we put it in the budget, the decision's not made? Mayor Mancino: No, I'm saying we are not deciding whether we are going to be eliminating or keeping a public safety director next Monday night. Councilman Engel: Regardless of budget discussion. Councilman Senn: I think what the Mayor is saying is I mean effectively you could still adopt what's here. You have a 600, if you go with last year's level, you've got a... Mayor Mancino: $611,000 surplus. Mayor Mancino: It's much like how we funded the sirens. I mean the money is there. How we decide to fund it at the time when we make a decision. Leah Hawke: I just want to say, with all due respect, that wasn't oh we have the money. We're going to do it. It was a little more work than that and I just want to be sure that if there's the opportunity and resident input will help you make your decision as to put this as a pending further discussion versus a removal, I just want to understand... Mayor Mancino: I think I have answered you very clearly. Okay? We will not be deciding whether we are going to have a public safety director position next Monday night. Okay? Leah Hawke: Okay, thank you. Mayor Mancino: And yes, we do have the money in case we want to fund it. That is there and it's sitting there and when that surplus gets down to zero or close to $85,000.00, we will call you. Now, again we're sorry to keep people here that wanted to find out a little bit more about the fire department. Come back again next Monday night. This is what we do. May I have a motion? Councilman Senn: I move to adjourn. Mayor Mancino: To recess. 69 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1998 Councilman Senn: OH, I'm sorry. Motion to recess until next Monday night at. Mayor Mancino: At 6:30 p.m. See you then. The City Council meeting was recessed until Monday, December 21, 1998 at 6:30 p.m. to finish the items on the agenda that were not completed. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt Acting City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 70