1980 11 24
I
I
I
SPECIAL CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1980
Mayor Hobbs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present:
Councilmen Pearson, Geving, Swenson and Neveaux.
PUBLIC HEARING
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, PROPOSED PITßLIC IMPROVEMENTS
CONTRACTUAL REDEVELOPMENT AGREEl1ENTS - KRAUS-ANDERSON/BLOOMBERG COMPANIES
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Mayor Hobbs called the hearing to order with the
Herb Bloomberg, 7008 Dakota
Bill McRostie, 7015 Dakota
Robert Davis, 4212 Alden Drive
Robert and Marge Anderson, 7090 Tecumseh
Carol Watson, 7131 Utica Lane
Marcy Kurimchak, 7130 Utica Lane
Dan and Linda Zaborsky, 413 Del Rio Drive
Pat Baker, 500 Del Rio Drive
Larry Buchheit, 535 West 78th Street
Tim and Jerri Martin, 8043 Cheyenne
Curt and Bobbie Huovie, 7381 Longview Circle
Jerry and B.J. Hendrickson, 7727 Frontier Trail
Jeff and Roxanne Swedlund, 225 West 77th Street
Joe Betz, 8107 Dakota
Richard Hassel, 744 E. Lake St., Wayzata
John Havlik, 513 Chan View
Dean and LueAnn Wallentine, 507 Chan View
Darlene Kerber, 511 Chan View
Gail Pelcl, 505 Chan View
Michael Verga
John Ericson, Apple Valley Red-E-Mix
Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Kerber, 600 Saratoga Drive
David McCollum, 440 West 79th Street
Charles Robbins, 7340 Longview Circle
Richard Konerza, 7461 Longview Circle
Joel and Faye Hedtke, 7611 Laredo Drive
Mona Kerber, 7605 Laredo Drive
Leander and Patricia Kerber, 1620 Arboretum Blvd.
Mr. and Mrs. Kubitz
Gary Meister, 7493 Saratoga Drive
Judy Leatham, 506 West 76th Street
Michael and Joyce Walsh, 512 West 76th Street
Wilbur and Mildred Aydt, 515 Del Rio Drive
Frances Jacques, 308 Chan View
Angeline Rettler, 484 West 78th Street
Betty Schmieg, 7610 Kiowa
Earl Cravens, 7811 Great Plains Blvd.
Bernard Schneider, State Bank of Chanhassen
Al Klingelhutz
Tim and Clarence Peshek, 7605 Kiowa
W. H. Dixon, 1950 Crestview Drive
Mr. and Mrs. Charles Schneider, 5340 Zenith So., Mpls.
Ole Iverson
Arnold Hed, 3860 Lone Cedar
Carroll Hanna, 400 Santa Fe Trail
Jim VonLorenz, 6371 Yosemite
Frank Beddor, Jr., 910 Pleasant View Road
Julius Smith, 7101 York Ave. So., Mpls.
Tom Hamilton, 224 Chan View
following interested persons present:
Clark Horn, 7608 Erie
Bill McNamara, 402 Del Rio Drive
Jack Klouda, 510 West 78th St.
Dr. Don Kristenson, 421 West 78th St.
Leo Gestach, Chaska
Conrad Fiskness, 8033 Cheyenne
Franklin Kurvers, 7220 Chanhassen Rd.
Raymond Peitz, 7607 Kiowa
Michael Sorenson, 7606 Erie
John Przymus, 406 West 79th St.
Charles Schluman, 406 West 79th St.
Harry Pauly, 7561 Great Plains Blvd.
Russell Pauly, 401 West 78th St.
Hubert Swanson, 401 Del Rio Dr.
Donald Kallestad, 431 West 78th St.
Annette deLancey, 7505 Frontier Tr.
B. C. and Brigette Burdick
Art Kerber, 511 Chan View
Jerome Carlson, 170 Smith Ave. Wayz.
D. E. Ekblad, 5100 Woodlawn Blvd.
Tom Klingelhutz, 8551 Tigua
Doug and Bev Hansen, 17001 Stodola Rc
Paul Rojina, 220 West 77th St.
Daniel Herbst, 3890 Lone Cedar
Ed Dunn
Stanley Pelcl, 505 Chan View
Don Schmieg, 200 West 77th St.
Jerry Schlenk, 225 West 78th St.
Barbara ·Gullickson, 830 Pleasant Vie~
Rose Peitz, 7607 Kiowa
Shirley Kreger, 7606 Kiowa
James Meyer, 6225 Ridge Road
Linda Kramer, 531 Indian Hill Rd.
Peter Jarvis
Arjis Pakalns
Don Ringrose
Dennis Spalla
Council Meeting November 24, 1980
-2-
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider public comments in regard to
proposed public improvements associated with the downtown redevelopment project.
Arjis Pakalns, BRW, reviewed the proposed project and design of public improvements I
and costs. Don Ringrose, BRW, explained the overall cost estimates for each one
of the public improvements. Peter Jarvis, BRW, reviewed the tax increment
feasibility for the total project including the public improvements. Dennis Spalla,
Kraus-Anderson, and Bill McRostie, Bloomberg Companies, each explained their portion
of the proposed project.
The meeting was opened for questions and comments from the floor.
Jim Burdick - You are showing a lot of trees around the western edge. Why not
eliminate some of those because they are between commercial and
commercial and move those to the north edge, even though there is
a very good buffer, there could always be a better one between the
commercial and residential.
Arjis Pakalns - The purpose of the trees on the western edge is the same as on the
other part of the ring road to give it a real definition to the
ring road and the core area.
Bill Dixon - What assurance do we taxpayers have that we will not be sometime taxed
for this?
Don Ashworth
The very basic guarantee is that the City has come to agreement with
each of the developers in terms of phasing for the project which
will insure that the City will have actual cash in advance for both
the resale of the properties as well as letters of credit and other
very secure forms of cash which will guarantee the full cost of
that first phase. The City will not be proceeding to that second
phase until the developers have installed their first phase of I
their development. Specifically, we are looking at about $14 million
in new construction value associated with that first phase. The
cost to the city could be about $4~ million. That $4~ million has
been fully guaranteed in terms of cash that would be put up front
before we go into the second phase of the project.
John Ericson - On the public improvements, which run a little over $2 million,
would part of that money be paid out of the general sector?
Mayor Hobbs - It would not.
Tim Martin - What choice do we have for Chanhassen? I am concerned about what's in
the future for Chanhassen if we don't look at a program like this. For
example, except for the dinner theatre on the west I think the entire
downtown is really poor looking. If we say no to this, would Chanhassen
stay stagnate again until someone comes along ten years from now and
says, hay, let's do something. I just don't ~vant us to go back to
ground zero again.
Mayor Hobbs - If the project did not go forward, depending upon the reasons, I am
sure we would have to lift the moratorium at some point in time.
I suppose then you would get piecemeal development. I don't think
anyone can tell you exactly what would come in. We need some type of
a downtown. If it's going to go ahead it has got to be a community
enterprise, not only encompassing the citizens of our community and
the support therein but the City Council, the developers, those people I
who are in business downtown now that we truly want to stay there.
It has got to be looked at as a partnership.
Jerri Martin - How much money have we already spent?
Don Ashworth - Roughly $150,000 for all appraisals, outside consulting work.
I
I
I
Council Meeting November 24, 1980
-3-
Jim VonLorenz - As we bring these people in and we talk about new industrial parks,
new people, new businesses, we continually seem to be facing requests
for money from school districts, requests for money for police departments,
and we don't have or we are going to have to try and generate or stay
with some other unit of government, these things seem to affect all
of us that have been here for years, not that they will cease, does the
Council address itself to these facts that as these people come in
there are going to be expenses that continue to increase?
Mayor Hobbs - We have. I don't know that anyone can give you a definitive cost. I
know that aß area like an industrial park you are probably going to generate
less of a need for city services than you are in a residential area.
I think that the taxes generated by those businesses probably more than
offset the cost of the city services to those businesses.
Don Schmieg - Once phase I starts, the ring road will be the first acquisition. What
happens after phase I is completed. We have already bought all the
property within the ring road and say something happens to the project
after phase I and we don't continue, where is the money going to come from?
Don Ashworth - One of your statements is not correct and that is from the standpoint
that the city will go out and acquire all of the properties or completely
build the ring road. The first phase portion has been identified would
be construction of the ring road which would include the south loop
up through the Huber property adjacent to the post office back through
the Havlik and Riviera properties. There would be a potential temporary
connection back down to West 78th Street. How far this went to the east
is really dependent on negotiations with those owners. Right now we are
looking at terminating that acquisition process at the end of the Riviera
property. What that would do was provide the entire land holding which
can go back to Kraus-Anderson and allow them to carry out their
construction. That would encompass about 200,000 square feet in new
construction. That would represent a city cost for the right-of-way
acquisition for purchase of the properties which would involve agreement
with Instant Web for their new acquisition, Huber, Mobile, and Riviera.
Those costs are estimated at approximately $4~ million. Again, through
that first phase we have come to agreement with the developers, with
existing cash, to assure that those costs can be fully paid before we
start in with acquisitions, property purchases, etc. for the second
phase.
Don Schmieg - Where does that leave the people that are to the east of that, after phase I?
How does that give them any kind of indication what's going to happen?
Don Ashworth - We are looking at by September 1981 being ready to move into acquisition
for that second phase properties. That means negotiations with those
owners must and should occur literally today because each of those are
going to have lead time in carrying out new construction associated with
their business. Some of those can actually be moved ahead of schedule.
Mayor Hobbs - How many areas does Kraus-Anderson operate now?
Dennis Spalla - We have built about 42 shopping centers for ourselves and a number of
shopping centers for others.
Jim Meyer - Will the final decision be made by the current Council members or by the
new Council members?
Mayor Hobbs - As it stands now the final decision will be made by the current Council
members. .
Council Meeting November 24, 1980
-4-
LueAnn Wallentine - On that northern buffer between us and the northern loop,
we have gone over that before about a wooden fence. Now I
see we are back to a wooden fence.. Now we are at a six foot I
fence. What are you going to do?
Arjis Pakalns - The initial drawings we had always showed a six foot fence. The
discussion was whether to-go to a cyclone fence or a wooden fence.
At one point there was considerable discussion and the issue was
raised it should be a cyclone fence for security protection from
intrusion from people walking up from the road. I don't think at
that time we came to a clear decision. We thought that a wooden
fence, appearance wise, served the residents much, much better than
a cyclone fence that you can see through and which noise penetrates
through and the issue was also raised that you could have both a
wooden fence and a cyclone fence. That issue is still open in
terms of the final detail design. The greenway buffer is consistently
26 feet the whole length. The intention of the design has been
for the protection of all the residents. We did what we felt best
in screening and beautifying the area. What we are showing now is
a retaining wall, a very slight berm, a six foot wood fence which
would be screened by bushes on both sides. The option is always
open for the cyclone fence, however, we feel it does not serve
the purpose.
LueAnn Wallen tine - How much did you drop that road behind us?
Arjis Pakalns - The drop varies. At it's most severe condition it's three feet.
Richard Hassel - I am the attorney representing Mr. Havlik. It was indicated earlier
tonight by the people from Kraus-Anderson that it is to be made
clear that the proposed project is one where there is no intention I
of displacing any people that are presently there and that any
business people who are there are certainly welcome to come on and
stay as tenants. It was also indicated by the gentleman from BRW
that on relocation, and it was brushed over rather lightly, there
was a relocation program and in his judgment it was a very fair
shake. I speak from the standpoint of Mr. Havlik and I understand
that his situation is common with others, in that somehow through
advice from the various people that advise the City, the City has
been told that a fair relocation program is to have somebody
come out and made an appraisal of property on the basis of
depreciated values and then to tell that person, I am sorry if you
don't like that we will condemn your property. If you want to go
somewhere else, that's fine. In the case of my client, we are not
talking about trying to do anything but come out whole in the situation
and I think you can find the numbers from your own people in order
to move into a new building and have the same size Mobil Station
as Mr. Havlik has now would cost him an additional $200,000. My
question is, if there is $1.6 million of administrative costs and
through this type of financing that has been suggested there is
a $6 million contingency fund, isn't it fair that the City at least
make Mr. Havlik and other people whose property are being taken
whole and put them with no profit but into the same situation
that they were.
Mayor Hobbs - The purpose of the public hearing tonight is not to discuss specific I
relocation. We are looking at a total improvement project. I don't
think Mr.Jarvis said that we would not be displacing anyone. I think
we are all aware that we will be displacing quite a few people. I
think he further stated that we were going to do everything in our
power to try to bring these people back into this area. Certainly, we
all realize that we are not going to put a gas station in the middle
of the downtown redevelopment. I think that where the gas station
I
I
I
Council Meeting November 24, 1980
-5-
could potentially go is the subject of negotiation either between you
and Mr. Havlik and our attorneys, our city staff on a one on one basis.
In terms of cost, you have got costs, we may choose to disagree with you.
In terms of the overall assessments or appraisals, I am sure that we have
done the best job we could. I know there are some people that are quite
happy. There are some people that say, let's sit down and talk about it
a little more and there are some people that are not happy at all and I
think that would be expected in any large type of a project like this
where you were going to acquire lands. I think we are going to have to
sit down and go through negotiations. The fact that Mr. Jarvis showed on
a financial model a potential $6 million excess, there are two things there
because you might have it doesn't mean that you are going to pass it
around helter skelter. You have to remember you have a county board
and you have a school district that are watching this whole developmental
process very closely. I think in most cases they are very,very supportive
of it because the local level of government or the city is the one that
can carry out the development. After the tax increment is done and those
bonds are retired then they again come back and participate in their share
of the property tax. I am sure they are as interested as anyone else
in how this bonding goes year by year and if we do in fact start to
develop that $6 million surplus I am sure they are going to be back at
us asking us to retire those 15 year bonds in 10 years, 11 years.
Richard Hassel - Our concern was merely that somehow the City Council and the people
who are making a decision and the people who are at this public hearing
understood that to be an important aspect of the overall program and
I am assuming that none of the developers or the city would want to
have this project as pretty and attractive as it may be, if to have it
would put somebody who had been working here hard all his life out of
business.
Mayor Hobbs - I don't think that is our intent at all.
Councilman Geving - Has the city treated you fairly in responding to your questions as
we have gone through this process?
John Havlik - I think they have answered the questions but as far as the answers of the
questions that I have asked, the answers that I have as of right now
if this project was to go through I would be out of business. Financially
I cannot afford to go back in the business and I think that's what we are
driving at here. The questions have been answered but I personally would
be forced out of business.
Councilman Geving - We have existing businesses who are going to be displaced as a part
of this project if it is approved. One of the concerns that I have
and I will assure everybody that is sitting out there that are
business people that we will not proceed with this project unless
we can get those people to relocate back in our city. It is a very
important part of our city to make sure that those people who have
invested their lifetime and their life's fortune in Chanhassen
to be displaced at this time. I don't know what financial guarantees
or financial incentives we can provide but I know that those things
are available and we will make every attempt to keep you in our
community.
Tom Hamilton - As much as I would like to see development in downtown Chanhassen, I am
a little concerned that we are building a hotel on one end and putting in
some retail and I am just concerned that perhaps we are building a
downtown area that's not going to be for the residents of the community.
We can use a hotel and we can use some new retail space for people to put
their shops in but I think I would like to see the kind of development
that the people that live in the town currently can use rather than making
it a downtown area just for people outside the town. I would also like
to request officially t<h¿ City Council that the decision on the
Council Meeting November 24, 1980
Dennis Spalla
John Przymus -
-6-
downtown area be left up to the incoming Councilor at least that
you give some consideration to them.
The kind of centers that we typically build is 100,000 square foot I
convenience kind of a center with 20 to 30 to 40 to 50,000 square
foot food operation with possibly a department store, hardware store,
drug store, shoe store, service shops, finance company, etc. We
build typical midwest shopping centers. We don't mean to displace
anybody. We don't mean to put anybody out of business. That's never
a goal and never, we hope, a result of redevelopment. We would like
a mixture of both medium and good quality shops. You won't see a great
deal of low end discount, low price or margin type stores. That is
exactly what we would like to not have.
My biggest concern when I was on the HRA was relocation of the existing
businesses. I couldn't understand how they could ever do that, take an
old building and build a new building and be able to afford to do that.
I think the HRA and the city have done that for most people. I think
we can take the price of our old buildings, with the incentive to
stay in the community, we can build a new building and we can all
relocate our businesses, our buildings and not leave Chanhassen and
that will leave room for Bloomberg and Kraus-Anderson to make this
town the most unique town in the world.
Frank Kurvers - Who makes the decision to go back into this district? Some of these
businesses are out on a wire. They have got to go out and buy land
some other place. Who is going to make the decision whether they
can be in or out? It seems to me that anyone that's in there right
now should have a chance to stay there.
Mayor Hobbs - That depends exactly on what type of business may be displaced. I
think the HRA is going to attempt to relocate as many businesses as
possible within the existing downtown area. What they can do with a
particular business is layout alternatives within the district
depending on what type of business it is then it's up to that owner
to decide whether or not he or she chooses to move in to any of those
parcels that might fit. If they don't then I think as a team we could
look elsewhere within the city and see if we can put something together.
It has to be a real partnership.
Frank Kurvers - Just looking at that plan I can see a lot of people out. More out
than in. You still have got a"Berlin Wall" in the district itself
with all your trees and identification of that particular district.
Councilman Pearson - We are not necessarily talking about locating everybody within
the ring road. That wouldn't be realistic. For instance
carpenter shops and things like that. We wouldn't expect to
locate those but within a few miles, certainly within our
industrial park and very possibly in the commercial section
just west they could locate in that area.
Mayor Hobbs - Which is still a part of the tax increment district.
I
Mona Kerber - Why is something this huge being taken place without given a public
vote?
John Przymus -
Looking at this town from a businessman's point of view and as a
resident, if this proposal doesn't go through there is at least ten I
parcels that will be developed within the next year so all the
people that think that this town is going to stay this town are
complete wrong. You have to look at, we the community do we want
it hodge podge or do we want it to grow as a community. Everything
is going to get busier. It just depends on how you want it to get
busy. If you want it to get busy hodge podge, fine. I think it would
I
I
I
Council Meeting November 24, 1980
-7-
be better to do it systematically.
Mayor Hobbs - I do feel that the City has done everything it can to make people aware.
Barbara Gullickson - I think it is a very exciting plan. I think a lot of people have
put in a lot of hours over many years time. This is an opportunity
for us to take. I would like to thank everybody that's worked so
hard on it for many, many hours.
Carol Watson - I am concerned about what goes in this project. I would like to see this
a place where medium income people can shop and don't have to drive away
because we have priced them out.
Clark Horn - One of the big concerns that I hear from the people is, is this going to
cost us money and I think one of the things I would like to see done is a
comparison financial analysis run on what would our financial base be
is we didn't include the downtown area in this project. Secondly, I
would like to see on a project of this magnitude an independent feasibility
study by another firm. In other words, what are our tax revenues today
on our current downtown area and also, including the industrial park as a
tax increment district, what does that look like on a 15 year pay back?
Mayor Hobbs - How can you tell? What he has done here, he has taken actual buildings
or building permits where he can put real figures on it. If you took the
industrial park alone, you have got a lot of raw land down there, and
I don't think any can try to second guess whether you were going to put
a $2 million building on a lot or $500, how would you try to develop the
value of your industrial park?
Clark Horn - With the same assumptions that you have done now, only those that you
currently know.
Mayor Hobbs - I don't see where that would give you anything.
Clark Horn - I think that would give you a comparison. Right now the decision is, do we
go ahead with the downtown project. If the decision is yes, then the
financial model that we have is valid. If the decision is no, then you
compare that with if you decrease the tax increment district just to include
the industrial park and we have kept the current downtown base intact.
What would that come out to on a 15 year basis?
Mayor Hobbs - I think with regard to Clark's second question to get a second financial
analysis and I would assume that if you take the 11 assumptions which BRW
has given the Council on how they developed a model and you gave those
same assumptions to someone like Long Froehling and they ran it on a
computer, I think you would get the same results.
Peter Jarvis - The original tax increment project that was created by the Council and the
HRA in Chanhassen was the core area of the downtown. That was the first
priority in terms of redeveloping and putting together a truly comprehensive
bag of convenience goods services and to hopefully provide a little bit
more contemporary neighborhood Chanhassen center. It was subsequent to
that and that was on the order of 4~ years ago now when that first
feasibility study was initiated and ultimately concluded, that in
conjunction with the industrial park that the HRA and the Council
concluded that a logical extension to that and in fact some undermining
leverage if the downtown project area all by itself ever needed it, would
be to incorporate as an amendment to that downtown tax increment project,
the area contained within the industrial park. As an outsider I would
observe that, and that policy decision was made not on the basis of
my company coming in and saying this is what you ought to do, I wish I
had recommended that. It was a brilliant stroke if the City ever wants
to do anything is the downtown area for the obvious reason that the
leverage capacity that the city has is enormous. To clarify a couple of
things and I will come back to dropping the downtown. Even though
there was first a downtown tax increment district and secondly an
Council Meeting November 24, 1980
-8-
amendment to that plan in the form of the industrial park being
added as a contiguous area and now forming one district. There
aren't two districts. There aren't two pots. Legally there is one
tax increment district. Legally there is one underlying security I
in terms of any bonds that are sold via the tax increment process.
If there are $100 of public monies through a bond issue spent in
the downtown or $100 spent in the industrial park area, the entire
district must be used in terms of tax revenues from the entire
district, they must be used to pay those bonds off before they
go to the original taxing authority. It is not a matter of saying
well, if I spend money in the downtown I won't touch the monies
that are generated by all this new development in the industrial
park. It's not a matter of saying if I forgive assessments that
have now been levied in the industrial park as an incentive to get
new private development to take place in that area I'll not burden
the downtown with that. You can't do that. It is one project area.
To the city's benefit from a financial feasibility standpoint, probably
less than 2 or 3% of the ultimate value of the industrial park is
built into these numbers. I did not say there ~vas no development
in the industrial park included in the feasibility analysis. What
I said was only those buildings that happen to be located within the
industrial park that are already up and open or where building permits
were literally being processed. It probably represents conservatively,
in terms of the total land acreage within that industrial park if
project out over the next 20, 25 years less than 4% of the value
that the private sector will put in place in that industrial park.
That's why I said earlier from a financial analysis standpoint we
think we have been extraordinarily conservative. Now to say, why don'tl
we eliminate the downtown and see what we can do in the industrial
park is, at least in my judgment, raises a totally different set of
policy questions in terms of what Chanhassen public policy with
respect to development is all about. It would be 1800 from where the
HRA and the Council has been. That's not saying it's right or wrong.
That ~vould be 1800 from the policy that has been in line from Planning
Commission, HRA, and Council for the last five if not ten years.
The whole direction has been to take a hard look at the downtown
and try and really rejuvinate, renovate, encourage new development
in that area to make a total center while at the same time in the
periphery lands either to the west of the core area or down into
the industrial park provide for the relocating businesses. I submit
that that plan is perfectly consistent with that policy and represents
that policy that's evolved over the last five, six, ten years.
Clark Horn - I wasn't suggesting changing policy. All I was saying is I think we
can get a better view, strictly from a financial aspect.
Mayor Hobbs - I don't think you can do that. It would be pure speculation. You have
got four buildings down there.
Councilman Swenson - Is there a legal limit aside from the development contract, placed
on the incentives that are available for the developers in the
tax increment district.
Russell Larson - I know of no dollar limit.
Councilman Swenson - Of the $22 million that you have listed here in total new I
development value, almost 1/3 of that is for the Instant Web
settlement in the industrial park area. What assurances we
have that in fact Instant Web intends to build that facility
in the industrial park area?
Don Ashworth - Instant Web will have to be a reality before we move into this project.
They are such a major force in this overall analysis that in making
I
I
I
Council Meeting November 24, 1980
-9-
this run, as well as the Kraus-Anderson the $8 million shown in their
new construction, that also is a major force in this overall outlay.
Councilman Swenson - Will there be development contracts to cover the second phase
with guarantees similar to the first phase?
Don Ashworth - I can't second guess what type of development contract the Council may
or may not require from Bloomberg Companies or Kraus-Anderson for that
second phase. I can state that if the 200,000 square foot of new
development proposed by Kraus-Anderson and the new development of Instant
Web occurs, which is going to be a trigger to start the second phase,
you don't even need the guarantee. The new taxes generated out of that
new development which you will have seen literally in the ground, will
assure you of the monies necessary to carry out the second phase without
looking at that financial guarantee. I am not saying that you probably
would not simply from a consistency standpoint.
Councilman Swenson - Assume that if the Council should approve this project, the public
improvements, ring road, and the acquisition of property next week
what role does the Council continue to play in regard to the function
of the HRA?
Russell Larson - Your function, since this is a Chapter 429 public improvement project,
will to be to make the decision as to whether or not the project should
be constructed as setforth in the prospectus. You would further
direct that plans and specifications be prepared and that we set about
to acquire the necessary right-of-way for the ring road. Your function
would also be to authorize the sale of the bonds for this construction
and for the balance of the land acquisitions which compliment the
downtown plan or are necessary for the downtown plan and your function
would involve undertaking the necessary rezoning within the ring road
area. The function of the HRA would be then to take those funds raised
by you through your bond sale and utilize them for payment of the
costs of the ring road and for payment of the costs of the acquisition
and the relocation.
Councilman Swenson - Are we permitted reviewal of their actions?
Russell Larson - Not necessarily. Once you turn the money over to the HRA you effectively
lose control except through your powers to rezone, your powers to sell
more bonds and your powers of appointment upon expirations of the term
of an HRA Commissioner. The HRA has to spend those funds for
implementation of the project as you have approved it. The BRA is
vested with the authority of deciding what is to be paid for the
acquisition of land, what relocation benefits are to be paid. You
would have no voice in that.
Mayor Hobbs - Is there something in the Statute that holds an HRA fiscally responsible
for the actions that they undertake on behalf of the City?
Craig Mertz - They have to spend the money for a public purpose and they have to spend
the money for only such things as are authorized by the Statute. That's
the accountability.
Written comments will be received to December 1, 1980.
Councilman Pearson moved to continue the hearing to December 8, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. in
the Chanhassen Elementary School. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following
voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No
negative votes.
Don Ashworth
City Manager