CC Minutes 1999 03 22CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 22, 1999
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6~35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the
Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Engel,
Councilman Senn and Councilwoman Jansen
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Anita Benson, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson and
Harold Brose
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the
agenda as amended to add item g, Review New City Manager Contract under New Business. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations~
a. Approve Plans & Specifications and Authorize Advertising for Bids, 1999 Sealcoat Project 99-2.
b. Springfield 6th Addition, Lundgren Brothers:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Addendum B to the Development Contract
e. Authorize Preparation of Specifications and Advertising for bids for a 250 KW Mobile Generator.
g. Approval of Bills.
h. City Council Minutes dated March 8, 1999
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 23, 1999
i. Approval of 1999/00 Liquor Licenses.
j. Resolution #99-21: Approve Resolution Authorizing Participation in MnDNR Metro Greenways
Planning and Land Acquisition Grant.
k. Approval of Release of Site Plan Permit No. 97-7, State Bank of Chanhassen.
1. Approval of One Day Beer & Wine License Request, Chaska Arts Council.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
D. APPROVE BIDS FOR ACQUISITION OF REMAINING 1999 VEHICLES AND
EQUIPMENT~ PW016GGG.
Councilman Senn: As far as that goes, I really don't feel comfortable going ahead and approving any more
vehicle acquisition until we complete the discussion that we had at budget time in terms of follow up on
vehicles and a vehicle policy so at this time I'm not going to be voting for it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then may I have a motion please?
Councilman Labatt: I'll make a motion we approve item number l(d).
Mayor Mancino: And a second please?
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Resolution #99-22: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve Bids for
Acquisition of Remaining 1999 Vehicles and Equipment, PW016GGG. All voted in favor except
Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR LAKE DRIVE WEST (POWER
BOULEVARD TO AUDUBON ROAD)~ PROJECT NO. 98-16.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mike Forkins
Don Patton 7600 Parklawn #200, Edina
Charles Riggle 8461 Bittern Court
Patsy Bernhjelm 9380 Kiowa Trail
Bob & Sherry Ayotte 6213 Cascade Pass
John Hull 1421 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Greg Doeden 8480 Swan Court
Roger Benson 8461 Swan Court
Don Kilian 8471 Swan Court
Phil Gravel 2335 West Hwy 36, St. Paul
Anita Benson: This is a public hearing on the feasibility report for Lake Drive West street and utility
improvement, Project 98-16. The proposed project was petitioned by Eden Trace Corporation and
Redmond Products Inc to construct Lake Drive West from Powers Boulevard to Audubon Road. The
project consultant engineer is here this evening, Mr. Phil Gravel, and he will give a brief project summary
and address any questions you have on the feasibility report.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Phil Gravel: Thanks Anita. Good evening Mayor and Council members. Tonight we're having a public
hearing for the Lake Drive West project. I'll give a brief presentation of the elements of the project,
discuss some of the costs and assessments. Then we can open it up for public questions and at that time
you could close the public hearing for council discussion and we can proceed from there. There will be
another, this issue will come back at the next council meeting with more financial information and
authorization to proceed to the next step if you so choose to do so.
Mayor Mancino: And just so everyone knows, the next council meeting is Monday, April 12th. The second
Monday of the month. So this will come back in front of us again.
Phil Gravel: Okay. As far as the elements of the project, the sanitary sewer for the project was installed in
1992 under a previous trunk project. This project will have some minor sanitary sewer elements, including
relaying some of that pipe that was installed in '92 because of some grade changes, and also providing
some stubs for the adjacent properties that were not installed in '92. The watermain for the site was not
installed previously and that's included with this project and is shown on the screen. The watermain will
consist of a 12 inch trunk facility extending from Powers Boulevard on the east to Audubon Road on the
west. And along that alignment there will be fire hydrants and stubs for the adjacent property... Other
elements that are included in the project include trail, street, lighting, landscaping and some specific things
to discuss. The alignment of the road was determined during a previous platting process. I'm Irish and I'm
from St. Paul but I'm not responsible for this curvy nature of the road. The plan as presented tonight
includes a trail on the north side of the roadway, which is on the left side of the picture on your screen.
That will connect existing trails on Audubon Road and Powers and also provide an access to the Sunset
Ridge Park. The road section will be similar, or is identical to Coulter Boulevard and a number of other
roads in town. It's a 36 foot face to face street with lighting and landscaping proposed to be mostly
completed by the developers. There's some city owned property at each end of the alignment that would
include landscaping under this project. Two real unique elements to this project include a retaining wall
that's necessary at the west end on the south side of the road due to grades. There's an existing drainage
pond there and we don't want to have any impact on that pond so the thought is that right at the right-of-
way line at the property line there'd be a retaining wall to avoid any filling on that site. There's also a
couple of trees that exist there and we haven't done any detailed design yet but we'd like to try and save
those trees or else we'd have to relocate them or something.
Mayor Mancino: And the retaining wall and the landscaping won't encroach on the neighboring back yards
at all, correct?
Phil Gravel: Correct. It would be on the city side of the right-of-way line. Another element, Todd has had,
the parks department has had a master plan prepared for Sunset Ridge Park. I think that was done a
number of years ago and one thing that's shown on that plan is a parking area so we were asked to try and
incorporate that into the plan and prepare a cost estimate for that. That's shown here on the screen in
green. It would be a parking area for approximately 18 stalls and the cost of that would be a city cost.
Other than that, the developer will complete the grading and then the city will just do the project as normal,
which leads us to the assessments for the project. The project is proposed to be 100% assessed to the
benefiting properties. The area has been previously partially assessed for trunk sewer and water. With this
project we'd make up any shortfalls we have for trunk sewer and water assessments and the street
assessment would be shared equally on a per foot basis and the other assessment that would be involved
would be a lateral benefit watermain assessment to adjacent properties for lateral benefit they receive from
the trunk watermain. The total project cost is approximately $1,456,100.00. The total assessments are
approximately $1,691,467.00. That produces a net positive revenue in this case of around $235,000.00.
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Again the positive revenue comes from the trunk area assessments which is a fixed policy that the city has
to generate revenue for trunk facilities such as wells and towers and larger mains and pipes. With that I
think we could open up to any questions that people might have.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you Phillip. Any questions from council members at this point? Okay, this
is a.
Councilman Senn: I have a real quick one.
Mayor Mancino: Go ahead.
Councilman Senn: Phil, you said that the overall project is what again now? One million.
Phil Gravel: $456,000.00.
Councilman Senn: 100, right?
Phil Gravel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: And what were the assessments?
Phil Gravel: $1.691 million. In the report there's a Table IV.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And of that $1,691,000.00 in assessments though, about $325,000.00 is city
money, correct?
Phil Gravel: Yes sir.
Mayor Mancino: 324.
Councilman Senn: Sorry for the round number. Next time I'll be more exact...
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And 20 cents.
Councilman Senn: 27 actually. Okay. Alright, thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, we'll open this to a public hearing. Anyone wishing to come and address the
council, please come forward and state your name and address. Up to the podium please. Love to hear
from you.
Roger Benson: Hi. Roger Benson. I live at 8461 Swan Court. My property is to the south of the
retaining wall. Just a question concerning I guess the proposed parking lot at the park. How did it come
up? Why did it come up? Some of the neighbors have some concerns about weekend activities, etc.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anita, can you answer that please.
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Anita Benson: To some degree. That was as Phil said, taken from the park master plan for Sunset Ridge
Park that was developed through the parks department. We can research that further as to why that was
included in the master plan but we're just taking something that was already in the park plan.
Mayor Mancino: Park master plan. So you can come back on hopefully, yeah I can. I think we can hear
you. Anita, when we get this back again, when we see this again on April 12th, can we see a little bit more
about the parking lot? Where it's going to be approximately and how many stalls it will have.
Phil Gravel: ... appropriate to include that in the discussion with the development itself as well.
Mayor Mancino: With what development? I'm sorry.
Phil Gravel: When the preliminary plat is approved and the site grading plan and things like that. You'll
be seeing this at the same meeting.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So at the same meeting on April 12th, two things are going to happen. Number
one, this will come back before us again. We're just okaying the feasibility study. Number two, there will
be a plat to review that went through Planning Commission last Wednesday night from the Eden Trace
Corporation on this roadway. So you'll be able to see the buildings that are going to be going in on the
north side and also at that time we will show the parking lot in the neighborhood park. And I'm not sure of
this but, how many parking spaces do we usually have in neighborhood parks? I mean isn't it like 6
parking spaces or something like that. 6 to 10 maybe. It's pretty small.
Phil Gravel: I think it might be appropriate if at that meeting we get, have Todd bring a picture of it's
concept plan because I think they've got some amenities shown and I think the number of stalls was
determined on that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. There is a new park, a new little neighborhood park on, north on Galpin
Boulevard just north of Highway 5 and it's on the west side of the road and it's about a quarter mile west
of TH 5 and you might look at that park and see how that's done. And I think, I would think it's going to
be somewhat the same. Without my not being the Park and Rec Director but, anyone else wishing to
address the council on this?
Chuck Riggle: Chuck Riggle, 8461 Bittern Court. I recognize that this will be coming back around again.
I'm hoping that by my words that we can get a little bit more detail regarding some of the details on the
wall that's proposed. My residence is to the west side of the road, on the other side of the existing pond
and my specific question is in regard to the methods or details in the proposal for insuring the integrity of
the existing water way there and that there is no additional water coming into that area.
Mayor Mancino: Good. Good question.
Phil Gravel: We could probably answer some of that this evening. The drainage to that particular pond by
the site grading.
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me, can you hear? Okay.
Phil Gravel: The grading to that particular pond by the site grading as is proposed now by the developer
will actually decrease the runoff into that pond because a lot of the stuff that presently drains from the
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
north is going to be redirected northward towards the railroad tracks so I think we're going to be less. As
far as more details on the wall, it's kind of hard to have more detail at this point because a design process
hasn't been through or...
Mayor Mancino: And when will we have more details on the retaining wall?
Phil Gravel: At the time you get approved plans and specifications.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Phil Gravel: You know we can say that it's going to be off the private property and be on the city property
and that we don't intend to fill the pond. The pond area so other than that I don't know what more we can
say at this time to help. We'd certainly meet, as a normal project, meet with the people involved and
discuss some of the aesthetic designs and some of the landscaping and the wall at that time. It will be a
modular block wall...
Mayor Mancino: And I'm sorry, when can you meet with those interested neighbors that would like to and
find out a little bit more about the wall?
Phil Gravel: From a timing standpoint it will be more appropriate to do it once we are into a design
process and had more information.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So once the design, they get into the design process and how will they know?
Anita Benson: We will be looking for authorization for preparation of plans and specs at the April 12th
meeting. After that we will, once we've started the design, communicate with the property owners.
Mayor Mancino: So Chuck, after the April 12th meeting when we authorize for, to go ahead with the
design, please you can either come or you can certainly call City Hall or leave your name and address and
say please give me a call. Leave numbers so we can call you. Anita can call you and have you come up to
meet at City Hall with you and any of your neighbors that would like to also know a little bit more about it
and have some input. Okay? So again, that will be after April 12th and the person to call would be Anita
Benson. 937-1900 extension 156. Anyone else?
Don Patton: My name is Don Patton. I'm representing the Lake Susan Hills Partnership. 25014022. One
question that I had asked Phil that I didn't quite understand on the trunk assessments on Appendix C. It
only shows one for the park although the exhibit says there's going to be two for public spaces. Is that just
to give the city a bargain?
Mayor Mancino: Trying to keep us honest.
Phil Gravel: You could certainly assess yourselves two units for that if you wanted. As I mentioned to Mr.
Patton, that won't affect anyone else.
Don Patton: I was just, if it gets spread around more, you know we just feel better since we always have to
pay our part. The other question that I had on Exhibit C on the trunk. The $161,568.00 trunk cost. We
recognize that there's going to be considerable units on that. The property is in green acres. Is that
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
something Phil that can be not assessed at this time and be done when the property comes in for
development?
Phil Gravel: Well that's certainly a city call and actually I think a more appropriate time to discuss that
would be at the time of assessment hearing.
Don Patton: Fine. We just wanted to register our concerns and reserve rights as it goes forward.
Mayor Mancino: So it's in green acres right now. It's being farmed?
Don Patton: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Please come forward.
Bill Webber: Bill Webber, 1290 Lake Susan Hills Drive. Just a couple of questions regarding the Lake
Susan partnership. There's a fairly large wetland that is behind our property that I believe is bordering the
Sunset Ridge Park and the Lake Susan Partnership. I'm wondering how much of that is going to be
retained, if any of it, and what the plans are with the Lake Susan for just the development of that wetland
area. Also the second question would be with regards to the industrial area beyond our property. Are you
planning berms similar to those that are adjoining.., road or what might be the plans in that regard?
Mayor Mancino: Okay, let me try and answer both of those for you ifI can. Number one, is the wetland
that's behind your property, is that on your property?
Bill Webber: No.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. What will happen to that, I'm not sure Lake Susan Partnership has not come in
for a plat approval or to develop it at this time. So we have no way of knowing what will be developed and
whether the wetland, what kind of wetland it is or if it's been delineated. So you won't know that until they
do come in for development, if it is on that property. The property on the north side of the road which you
asked I think about berming correct? That will come in on again on Monday, April 12th and you'll be able
to see and respond to all the landscaping and the site plan at that time. And we have not seen it as a city
council. The Planning Commission did see it last Wednesday night and I don't know if you were able to go
to that meeting and attend that meeting. There was a public hearing so again what you could do is between
tonight and when it comes in front of us on Monday, April 12th, you may certainly call the Planning
Director here at City Hall and ask to review the plans because they do have them. And the person you
should contact is Kate Aanenson at 937-1900 118. And then she will get you in contact with the planner
you need to see and all those plans are here at City Hall for your review. Aanenson. Thank you Bill.
Anyone else wishing to address the City Council on this? Good questions. Okay, I will close the public
hearing and comments, any discussion from council members. Anyone have any comments or discussion?
Can we have a motion please?
Councilman Engel: Move approval.
Mayor Mancino: Second please.
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Resolution #99-23: Councilman Engel moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the
feasibility report dated February, 1999 (revised March, 1999) for Lake Drive West Street and Utility
Improvements, Project No. 98-16. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR STONE CREEK DRIVE
(NORTH OF COULTER BOULEVARD)~ PROJECT 98-15.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jim Sulerud
Liv Homeland
Patsy Bernhjelm
Bob & Sherry Ayotte
Phil Gravel
730 Vogelsberg Trail
8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie
9380 Kiowa Trail
6213 Cascade Pass
2335 West Hwy 36, St. Paul
Anita Benson: This is a public hearing on a feasibility report for Stone Creek Drive improvements, Project
No. 98-15. This proposed improvement project was petitioned for by the Bluff Creek Partners and Family
of Christ Lutheran Church. The primary project element consists of a similar project as Lake Drive. 36
foot wide street. The project cost is estimated to be $312,000.00. If at the close of the public hearing there
are no relevant questions or concerns which require further investigation, it's recommended council
formally approve the feasibility report. It is staff's intent to request authorization for plans and
specifications at the April 12th meeting. And at this point I'd like to turn it over to Phil Gravel once again
to give a presentation on the project.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Phil Gravel: Thank you Anita. As Anita mentioned, this project is similar to the Lake Drive West project.
This project is a lot smaller in scope however. It's only around 600 feet long. The stubs for this project
were put in place when Coulter Boulevard was constructed a couple years ago. The city's project will
consist of extending sanitary sewer from along Bluff Creek on the west, eastward to Stone Creek Drive and
then in Stone Creek Drive a portion of the way to serve the adjacent properties. Watermain would be
installed from Coulter Boulevard northward to the north end of the road, which is planned to be extended in
the future. Storm sewer would be constructed from Stone Creek Drive and will discharge to the west into a
pond to be graded by the developer and the street, as Anita mentioned, will be a 36 foot wide street with
street lighting. The landscaping and sidewalk on this contract would be completed as part of the adjacent
developments. 100% of the cost are proposed to be assessed to the adjacent properties. These properties
were assessed for their trunk area charges under previous projects so the only assessments involved at this
time are the project. As Anita mentioned the cost is around $312,000.00. It's proposed assessed half of
that to each property on either side of the road. With that can I answer questions?
Mayor Mancino: Is there going to be a cul-de-sac, a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of the road?
Phil Gravel: That's not planned at this time. It's at the north end where the road ends there will be
driveways going east and west but it certainly could be, a temporary one could be incorporated in.
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Okay. This is open for a public hearing. Or I'm sorry, any questions from council
members? This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the council on Stone Creek Drive
improvements. Seeing none, let me bring this back to council. Or hearing none, bring it back to council.
Any comments? Any questions? May I have a motion please.
Councilman Labatt: I make a motion to approve.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, a second please.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Mayor Mancino: A motion on the floor is to approve the feasibility report for Stone Creek Drive
improvements, Project 98-15.
Resolution #99-24: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the feasibility
report dated February, 1999 (revised March 8, 1999) for the Stone Creek Drive Improvements,
Project 98-15. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING~ PW290E.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Chuck Dennis
Patsy Bernhjelm
Sherry & Bob Ayotte
Bob Smithburg
Marcia E.
John Hull
Roger Gustafson
John Siegfried
Michael Ladd
A1 Klingelhutz
Brad Johnson
Fred Corrigan
Richard Chadwick
8556 Chanhassen Hills Drive
9380 Kiowa Trail
6213 Cascade Pass
8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North
8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North
1421 Lake Susan Hills Drive
600 East 4th Street, Chaska 55318
600 East 4th Street, Chaska 55318
1070 Hesse Farm Road
8600 Great Plains Boulevard
7425 Frontier Trail
672 Transfer Road, St. Paul, MN 55114
Chamber of Commerce
Anita Benson: I just want to note that in addition to the packet that went out on Friday to council members,
I received additional letters from residents in the area. One from Mr. Raymond Ortman, 8698 Chanhassen
Hills Drive North. One from Debbie Kelly, 8790 North Bay Drive. One from Earl Milrick, 7662 Prairie
Flower Boulevard. And one from Richard Chadwick, Chair of the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce and
those were handed out to council members this evening. We're here tonight to consider approval of the
Trunk Highway 212 Memorandum of Understanding prepared by the Southwest Corridor Coalition.
Originally a draft memorandum was prepared advocating acquisition of all remaining right-of-way for new
Highway 212 from Interstate 494 to Norwood-Young America. It was presented to the City Council in
June of 1998. The City Council outlined issues of concern with regards to the construction of new
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Highway 212 through the city in September. In response to the concerns expressed by the City Council,
two work sessions have been held along with a presentation at a regular City Council meeting.
Additionally a public open house was held on March 17, 1999. The draft MOU submitted in June was
revised in response to comments received by MnDot, Carver County, Hennepin County, and the City of
Chanhassen. It is important to note that the objective of the MOU is to achieve a general consensus from
all communities which can be presented to the Minnesota legislature in April of '99. In attempting to
incorporate all the concerns submitted by the various agencies, it is also important to note that some
concerns conflicted with those of other agencies. The constraints under which each agency has to work,
especially as it affects MnDot in committing funding for projects not within the current transportation
system plan, affect how concerns are addressed in the MOU. MnDOT's transportation system plan...
Highway 212 to the new Highway 101 interchange is programmed for post 2010. Transportation system
plan will be reviewed and updated by MnDot in 2000. Prior to MnDot updating their plan, the Met
Council must update their transportation policy plan which will be occurring over the next year as
communities submit their comprehensive plan updates. The City of Chanhassen has submitted it's updated
comprehensive plan to the Met Council for review and approval. The transportation section of the city's
comprehensive plan includes new Highway 212 as a principal arterial. Both the Chanhassen and Carver
County Transportation plans indicate that without the construction of new Highway 212, a considerable
amount of expansion of existing roadway facilities within Chanhassen will be required as traffic levels
increase. The updating of MnDOT's TSP in 2000 has a potential to provide for construction of new
Highway 212 through Chanhassen prior to 2010. However, since the transportation plan has not been
updated at this point MnDot cannot legally commit to funding of construction of the entire 212 corridor
through the city of Chanhassen as desired by Chanhassen Council. Southwest Corridor Transportation
Coalition MOU however does include a recital indicating the city's desire. MnDot and city staff are aware
there still exists many concerns regarding design details which the city will be involved with MnDot in
addressing as the design for the various segments occur. It is anticipated that the further open houses
similar to the one held on March 17th will occur as the project moves forward to solicit resident input and
encourage participation by those affected. In an effort to assist council members, I have included in the
packet a comparison of the Chanhassen MOU concerns and the revised memorandum. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions for staff at this point? Then let me open this to
comments on the 212 memorandum from people in the audience. How many of you, just a show of hands,
how many of you were able to make it to the open house on March 17th? Okay. Well please come forward.
State your name and address and please give us your comments tonight.
Bob Smithburg: Madam Mayor, council members. My name is Bob Smithburg, 8657 Chanhassen Hills
Drive North. I'm here tonight to share my concerns about Highway 212's construction and it's impact on
Chanhassen. Road congestion and subsequent road congestion relief are problems that need to be
addressed in our greater metro area, our state and our nation. It is universal. One way we attempt to
relieve congestion is by building more roads which in turn accelerates sprawl which increases congestion.
How we deal with this issue will change the face of the communities all across America. At the March 17th
MnDot open house, MnDot pointed out we will never build our way out of congestion. What I am asking
you to do is not accept a 40 year old plan which does not serve it's original purpose. We need to take a
new approach and explore all of our options. There are still many unanswered questions and concerns
about the construction of new Highway 212. By not signing the Memorandum of Understanding you will
not be stopping the construction of Highway 212. You will be taking control and deciding what is best for
Chanhassen. I have given.., information on this dilemma and if you'd follow through with me, I'll do this
as quickly as possible. It opens up with the January 25, 1999 article. It's a national publication from
Nations Cities Weekly. Do widen roads create their own gridlock? Build it and they will come. New
10
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
roads just trigger more congestion. There's no way to build your way out of highway gridlock. And as an
example Interstate 270, a 12 mile stretch outside of Washington D.C. suggests so. They had incredible
gridlock. They added 12 lanes. Now less than, 12 lanes. It's like a 12 mile road like we're dealing with
now. Now less than 8 years after the expansion was completed, the highway's again reduced to what one
official described to the Washington Post as a rolling parking lot. Experts now are calling this induced
traffic. The theory, widened roadways create excess capacity. Drivers anxious to cut their driving time
switch from other roads. Where roads like 1-270 lead to less developed outer suburbs, home builders see
opportunity. There's a rush of residents out of the city and older suburbs and congestion mounts. For
every 10% increase in new lane miles generates a 9% increase in traffic. The availability of transportation
acts as a catalyst for more movement so that more roads, the more roads we build, the more places we can
drive, the more we drive. Longer commutes and trips end up generating more congestion, more energy
consumption, more pollution. But highway departments anxious to justify road expansions are rarely
willing to feed induced travel into their calculations. Engineering driven, developer and road builder
backed, these agencies use an elaborate set of outdated models and design standards to deliver pre-ordained
answers. And evidence is just not generated in the United States. A British team found based on analysis
of 60 cases worldwide, that where roads have actually been closed or their capacity severely reduced an
average 20% and as much as 60% of the former traffic disappears entirely isn't even siphoned off onto
other roads. Closures in Manhattan, San Francisco freeway due to the earthquake and a Portland closure
concur these facts. But at least we need to ask much more critically about each piece of highway
construction or expansion. What will it really achieve? Could we use the money better for transit for
example or for subsidizing housing so that moderate income folks don't feel forced to move to a less
expensive, far out suburbs. Next I included a map. You might have to go back out. This says destination.
This is basically the highway grids in the Twin Cities metro area. And I guess I want to start off with on
this map, to follow 494 and I want to say Highway 494 is not a destination. We need to concentrate on
moving vehicles and products to their destination points. MnDot has said that commuters are now
traveling from point to point rather than just going to a downtown or central location. As I stated last
Wednesday night at the MnDot open house, our farm products need access to the market which has moved
south of the Twin Cities to Savage. We need to address bridging this route from existing Highway 212 to
the new Highway 169 bypass south of Shakopee. I know Roger talked of this. We talked to this, the 41,
extension of 41 and/or 17 road. I feel that we should bridge 212, if we could look into this, I think it would
make much more sense a feasible 212, existing 212 to the new 169 bypass. This would reduce the amount
of truck traffic moving through all of the southwestern communities. This route would also move vehicle
traffic to multiple north/south roadways to better spread out the congestion and accommodate more direct
point to point movement. Including access to north or south Highway 169, 35W, Cedar Avenue and 35E.
Several metro attractions have also been built south of the metro area since the project was first planned,
including Mall of America, the Minnesota Zoo, Valley Fair and Mystic Lake Casino. And how many
commuters could use a less congested route to the airport via existing Highway 212 to Highway 169
bypass, 35W or Cedar Avenue North. So the dilemma is 494. You will find included are the figures, time
tables, statistics for 1-94 reconstruction project, 1-394 Minnesota River MnDot figures. Chanhassen
residents need to understand that Highway 212 will not resolve the congestion that we already, that we are
already experiencing on our existing metro roadways. Current plans to add the third lane, resurfacing
existing lanes and bridge reconstruction is just a temporary bandaid. Costing taxpayers $198 million, and
this is already up from the figure of $121 million. Congestion will not be eliminated by this interim build.
It will take the ultimate build, and funding is not in sight for what is referred to as the ultimate build. This
$1 billion project would add elaborate bridge configurations, causing the relocation of 70 businesses and 29
residential buildings along the corridor. Funding is not in MnDOT's budget out to 2020. Although I do
believe MnDot is working on an alternate plan to reduce the projected cost to improve the level of service
on 494. And speaking of 494. There's an article included dated March 18th. It was an insert in the Eden
11
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Prairie News... This is called, ;;Transportation, is there hope for 494?" Yes, but there's no one solution.
And Ross states, actually the original capacity standards to which 1-494 was built were exceeded by 1988
and the 1-494 corridor is carrying about 25% to 30% more traffic than what it was originally designed to
accommodate. Also the 1-494 Corridor Commission, which he is a part of and chairs, faced a bitter
disappointment in 1995 when the Minnesota Department of Transportation removed 1-494 from it's 20
year plan due to a lack of transportation funding. MnDot estimated the cost to add a third lane to 1-494
between Highway 77 and 1-394 at approximately one billion dollars in 1995 figures. The annual MnDot
construction budget of approximately $500 million could not support the reconstruction of either 1-494 or
1-35W. And both projects were permanently removed from MnDOT's priority list. As Eden Prairie's final
stage of development takes place and as additional development occurs in the region, congestion will
increase. Eden Prairie's final development south of Pioneer Trail has traffic patterns feeding onto County
Road 4, then onto new 212, then Highway 5 which is already congested. Because of this Highway 212
could reach maximum capacity sooner than expected. Even the current designs for reconstruction, if built,
would leave 1-494 well below the capacity that will be needed to handle predicted vehicle trips in the not
too distant future. It will take a multi-modal approach, including such things as van pooling, transit,
telecommuting, and more. Ross also states in Eden Prairie News, Thursday, September l0th. This is 1998.
An article entitled ;;Bus Tour Serves to Dramatize 1-494's Needs" by Mark Webber. Development and
redevelopment is continuing along the stretch of 1-494 that commission members are seeking to improve
from the International Airport west and north to Maple Grove and so local residents can count on more
traffic, more congestion and slow travel ahead unless changes are made. Although piecemeal
improvements to the southern and southwestern 1-494 corridor are planned or underway, the ultimate plan
with a price tag approaching again one billion dollars isn't foreseen until at least the year 2020.
Development and redevelopment along the route means attention to 1-494 is paramount. It's important for
leaders to know that there's a cost associated with ignoring 1-494 according to Thuriston. Increasing
congestion means mounting costs to businesses and the public. The commission chairman warned recently
as a region we are paying the price of congestion on 1-494. This is where our efforts should be focused.
Why aren't we signing a Memorandum of Understanding in support of funding of 1-4947 And on a
regional issue, congestion on 494 far outweighs the 212 issue. So to conclude, from the 1997 Carver
County survey of 1,700 randomly selected residents, this is what was stated in terms of growth and this is
something to think about. While the majority of residents believe the projected growth would affect them
positively, 69%, most agreed with policies which managed this growth such as directing growth to cities
and away from the rural area. 57%. Preserving agricultural land, 87%. Preserving open space between
communities 89%. And preserving the value of wooded or natural areas, 96%. And in transportation,
congestion on roads in the county was rated as highly severe by a third, 35% of residents. Perhaps
prompting a majority, 53% to indicate they would use alternate modes of transportation, buses, car pooling,
if they were available. And 60% were unwilling to pay additional taxes to improve transportation. And
they felt public money should be used to protect natural habitat areas. That would be 80% of the
respondents. There is, and I also have included, it is a perspective on the Met Council. There is a new
wave of interest nationwide.., metropolitan areas to grow and prosper. Conserving open land and clustering
development at the fringes, for example while rebuilding older cities and suburbs. Public money that
might have gone for new sewers and roads onto the metro fringe for example might be used for land
assembly in cities and inner suburbs where infrastructure already exists. So according to Mayor Jean
Harris of Eden Prairie, we need to be more efficient in our land use, water and air. She said, we need to
rethink our using the automobile all the time. We're entering an era when we're going to want to think
smaller, more compact in urban areas. So I feel if you need to sign onto something, sign the Chanhassen
September 30th Memorandum of Understanding. Don't rush Highway 212 when the infrastructure isn't in
place in the metro area to handle the additional congestion. Thank you.
12
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to address the council please.
Richard Chadwick: Good evening. My name is Richard Chadwick. I'm a resident of the City of
Chanhassen for some, almost 30 years. I'm a land owner. I have about one acre that may be included in
the proposed 212 new highway matter. I'm a businessman in Chanhassen. I'm presently the Chair of the
Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce. We come to this juncture after many, many studies and many
committees have long recognized the need for the new Highway 212 limited access road through
Chanhassen. There has already been approval of this route by the State Highway Department, the Federal
Government, as to it's design and it's location. It is supported by the County Highway Department, the
City of Chaska, the City of Eden Prairie and I believe generally by the city administration in Chanhassen
and overall by the residents of Chanhassen. There's little doubt that Highway 212 will eventually be built
in the corridor presently set aside through Chanhassen. Over $55 million have already been committed to
the project. It's already at our door step. We need it and it will be a waste of time and money to further
delay this. I personally, and the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce strongly support this project and
emphatically request the City of Chanhassen City Council to endorse the Memorandum of Understanding
proposed by the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition. We ask that this council do whatever it can
to expedite this road system through the city of Chanhassen. We need to show solidarity with our
neighbors in this regard so that we don't miss this opportunity to obtain state and federal funding for this
road at the earliest possible date. I'd like to give you some of the ideas why the Chanhassen Chamber of
Commerce, myself and others support this program. We believe that the early completion of the 212
system through Chanhassen is important to Chanhassen itself. It is critical to the safety of citizens. It is
critical to the preserving of our way of life and promoting the economic development of our community.
Our Chamber of Commerce surveys tell us that transportation is the number one concern of businesses and
residents alike. They want safe and rapid transportation and is one of our highest priorities. They support
all modes of this transportation. Light rail, bus and Highway 212. This is the last link in an important
corridor that connects us with our neighbors to the east and west. All the way to Glencoe, Minnesota. As
you may already know we have traffic dumping into us from Eden Prairie on the east and also from the
communities to our west. The program on the east of our Chanhassen is already a done deal .... on our
door step and into our ill prepared east/west road system within a couple of years. Chaska's ready to move
with 80% to 90% of it's right-of-way already purchased. As some of our people may know, and some may
not, there's already a divided four lane portion of Highway 212 about 5 miles around Cologne, Minnesota.
And another divided four lane portion of 212 about 15 miles long between Young America and Glencoe.
Now is the time to protect Chanhassen. We need the new roadway to eliminate or at least reduce the
substantial congestion that is coming. We need this limited access route to allow the rapid building traffic
to come to and pass through our city safely and in a manner that is the least disturbing to our way of life
and to reduce the noise, the congestion, the pollution that stop and go traffic will produce. We need it for
our businesses to provide for the reverse commute to our industries. We need it to prevent paralyzing
congestion on the county and city road system. This is already a problem and will continue to get worst.
Studies by the county indicate that without the new Highway 212 project, another 20 to 30 miles of
roadway in our eastern Carver County, which is Chanhassen, will be badly congested. We need this route
for our residents to bring business to the city and to bring business to the city of Chanhassen as a
destination point. Visitors from the west will be able to easily slip off the new 212 at Highway 101 or
other exits and go to our Dinner Theater, stay at our hotels, to visit our shops, to take side trips to Mystic
Lake, Canterbury Downs, the Mall of America, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Excelsior, Wayzata. This is no
longer a farm to market problem. This is a local metro problem which Chanhassen finds itself. However
as... this is a regional transportation corridor and it services a large pie shaped area to the west, south
central Minnesota not served by other routes. As you may know Highway 169 and 60 go mostly southwest
on the south side of the Minnesota River to Mankato. Not out west. It goes on down to Blue Earth and to
13
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
the Iowa border. When we follow Highway 60 from Mankato at it's junction with 169, it goes southwest
to Highway 90 and Worthington. Highways 7 and 12 extending west go out through Hutchinson,
Litchfield and join together near the South Dakota border at Ortonville. This leaves a wide pie shaped area
of over 115 miles apart at it's western end. There is no other good east/west route from Minneapolis/St.
Paul through this southwest area. It's going to come through Chanhassen or through this area in any event
we have to be prepared for it. Minnesota Highway Department describes this as a vital link necessary
because the present 212 is economically not practical and environmentally unsound to upgrade to meet the
growing needs of our southwest metro area. The Chamber of Commerce supports this metro regional
highway for Chanhassen. Not for any other area. We believe it is needed as early as possible to enhance
our tax base. To take advantage of what has been set aside for many years. We need it to allow our
citizens and business people to move reasonably within our community and to destinations without horrific
traffic delays. These are all time consuming, energy consuming and pollution producing. We support
Highway 212 project for the long term property owners who have had their land tied up since the early
surveys that were done probably over 30 years ago. These landowners continue to pay taxes on their land
that they cannot make good use of. In many cases their land has been divided and what is left will
ultimately be in or near freeway, which greatly diminishes their value. Let this project move forward so
that these good people, such as our former Mayor A1 Klingelhutz, can get on with their lives. We support
Highway 212 project for Chanhassen to help with the orderly growth and prevent urban sprawl off of our
county roads here and to the west. Instead we want to move people at reasonable speed to plan to growth
centers. We are not going to stop development. Eden Prairie is almost full. Chanhassen will be fully
developed by the time this road is completed, even if it is approved and funded by all of the government
units immediately. Development is going to continue into the western cities. And these cities have already
been approved as centers of population such as Victoria, Waconia, Chaska, Cologne, Young America, and
even Glencoe. We're not preventing the sprawl by the use of MUSA line and it's gradual movement out.
Even our inner cities are continuing to grow in population and the inner city property values continue to
increase. We are not faced with an uncontrollable exodus from the inner cities.., our inner cities. As you
know, because of our lakes we have no throughway east/west roads in the northern part of our city between
Highways 7 and 5. Traffic on Highway 5 is already quite congested. It is too fast. It is unsafe. And with
more traffic and traffic lights contemplated, there will be more traffic coming from Eden Prairie on the east
dumping into our limited east/west roads. There will also be more traffic coming from the west, Victoria,
Waconia, Chaska, Cologne, Young America. In addition there is the rapid population growth in
Chanhassen itself. We need this new roadway. In the south half of our city we have Pioneer Trail as the
only through road between Highway 5 and the old Highway 212. Pioneer Trail at it's intersection east of
41 is already congested during rush hour, as is Lyman Boulevard between 41 and 101. In 7 to 10 years our
county east/west arteries as well as our north/south arteries will be thoroughly clogged and dangerous with
stop signs and semaphore lights every few blocks unless we build 212. The cost of trying to maintain and
upgrade the present system will be extremely costly and a great burden to our citizens. In the beginning,
some 30 years ago, former Mayor Klingelhutz and many others including myself were against this route
and it's intrusion into Chanhassen's rural way of life. However, we are in a new era. We have seen the
studies and the relentless development ever accelerating. As we move into this new millenium we now
agree that for Chanhassen's sake we must get on with this part of our transportation system. This does not
mean that we are against the light rail system to Young America, Glencoe, etc. And we are certainly not
against the Southwest Metro bus system. The relentless growth in our metropolitan area, which is the
result of our high standard of living in Minnesota and our unemployment, means that we need all of these
systems working together. The people moving both into the metro area and in surrounding communities are
entitled to rapid transportation in and through our area as much as those of us who have ours now. They
need there's too. Cost of the delay. Early purchase of the right-of-way is needed because of the rapidly
raising cost of land. Each day of delay will cost our citizens more in tax money for the ultimate purchase
14
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
of the right-of-way. If we do not move forward our citizens will also be heavily taxed for the county and
city in it's significant improvements in the existing roadways and the makings of those existing roadways
which can only be relieved by this new system. I do believe that the council was acting properly last fall
when they stepped back and expressed their concerns about this proposed development. However we have
a unique opportunity at this point to work with our neighbors to move forward and hopefully get some
funding from the state and federal government to acquire the land that is necessary for this corridor. We
want this construction moved through rapidly and the city council expressed that. We want it through from
Dell Road to Highway 41 and that has been recognized. I'm sure we will do all that we can and the
Highway Department will too, although it's not something that's guaranteed but at least the council's
position has been recognized. We do need a comprehensive regional plan including the rapid transit bus
and light rail system. This comprehensive plan is being considered on all levels of government. The city
council's concern is being addressed. We do need an upgrade in the traffic flow from Highway 212 and 5
as it moves into Highway 494. These upgrades are in the works. The council's concern has been
addressed. Being addressed by the Highway Department, Hennepin County, Carver County, Chanhassen
and Eden Prairie. However now is the time to seize this window of opportunity to join our neighbors and
neighbor cities and county to obtain state and federal funding. This is not a time to put this southwest
corridor on hold by yet another referral to a citizens committee. Even though you may not have unanimous
consent on the council, I ask that you step forward and do what is right and necessary for our safety, our
way of life and our economic development. Please sign the Memorandum of Understanding.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council? Two hard acts to follow.
Please come forward and please give us your comments tonight.
Chuck Dennis: Mayor, council. My name is Chuck Dennis. I live at 8556 Chanhassen Hills Drive South.
I'm fairly new in the community. I've been here about 10 months. The first I heard of it was when I read
it in the paper a couple of weeks ago. It's rather overwhelming to somebody that's new, not familiar with
what's going on. But I do want to, I wrote each of you a letter and the point I tried to make in my letter
was, I picked Chanhassen as a place to raise my family because I really admire the way Chanhassen takes
care of the community. If this highway is going to happen, and I can literally stand in my front yard and
throw a rock and hit the cars going by I'm sure when it's done, I hope that Chanhassen continues to exert
it's authority to uphold the standards that have already been set. I don't think that the federal government
and the state and the county plowing through here is an excuse to do anything. It's the responsibility of the
city and the councilmen to make sure that our rights are protected. And so I hope whatever you do that it's
done with that thought in mind. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Appreciate it. Thank you.
Earl Milbrandt: Madam Mayor, Councilmembers, Earl Milbrandt, 7662 Prairie Flower Boulevard. I first
began involved with this issue through the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce, but tonight I want to speak
to you as an individual. As a new resident of Chanhassen since last August. As a business owner here
since 1995. And as a person who's experienced the multimodal transportation within a city in which it is
inadequate, even though it's multimodal. We lived in London at the beginning of this decade for three
years. Today the time it takes to travel across central London is the same as it was 100 years ago before
cars because of the congestion that exists. Because of the lack of adequate roads. In spite of the subways.
In spite of the dramatic bus systems. The congestion is still there. I commuted 25 miles. I could do it on
three trains in about 2 ½ hours. I could do it by car and after that I left at 6:00 p.m. I could be home at
8:20 or 8:30. IfI waited until 7:00, then I could also be home at 8:20 or 8:30. Today we have a business
across town as well in Roseville. The greatest congestion that we face today when we're coming home
15
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
from there is when we leave 494 and come onto Highway 5 and travel to the western side. And we're not
talking about 212 to be completed in the 5 years or 10. Unfortunately, it's probably going to be 10, 15 or
20. Even with the action that you can take tonight. And I also, in listening to the members of the
Southwest Transit Coalition, it's never been to the exclusion of completing the additional lanes at 494.
There's a recognition that that is absolutely critical. The quality of life in this city will deteriorate
dramatically over the next 5, 10, 20 years if we do not have adequate transportation systems. And that
includes cars, it includes buses. It may include rail but the only real viable alternative today to meet the
people's needs are cars for the most part. Buses will serve many needs but we are still a society that
depends greatly on our automobiles to reach our work, our play, our schools. To reach market. Whether
you are carrying farm goods or commuting to Mall of America from southwest Minnesota. The traffic is
still there. The congestion occurs because of the growth of population and without adequate infrastructure.
And so we encourage you very strongly to work in concert and cooperation with the other communities
because only by working together will we be able to get the resources, the very limited resources that are
available to meet the needs of this area. Thank you.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Michael Ladd: Mayor and council, my name is Michael Ladd. I live at 1070 Hesse Farm Road and I want
to thank you for the open house the other night and I want to encourage each of you to support this freeway
coming through the city and relieve some of the traffic in it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Thank you Michael.
Brad Johnson: My name is Brad Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. I'm sort of here as three different
individuals this evening. In one role I've been a member of the Southwest Corridor Transportation
Coalition for about 15 years. At that time my interest was enticed when the lady who was a teller over here
at the Chanhassen Bank was killed on the highway while she went to get a pizza to bring home to her kids.
I've personally seen four other, mostly women in a hurry to get home to see their kids, killed on Highway 5.
We have a rule in our particular house that the kids be very careful on Highway 5 and if possible never
take it. That's the personal side of it. I'm also a member of the school board and we were talking about
this the other night and I never had thought about it the same way. We have not come to you with a
proclamation. We may. If in fact there is no 212, removing some of the traffic on roads like Pioneer Trail,
Lyman, Engler roads that we're all familiar with. Lake Susan, where our kids. I don't think too many of
our kids. One of the reasons we moved here was we could walk, our kids could walk to school but, and
they did until they had to go to middle school but it's a fact that all of our children, most of them take
buses. I think we've written you letters, it's a fact that even things like cul-de-sacs kind of foul that all up
because the kids have to walk to the end of the cul-de-sac in many cases or we get cramped or the kids, you
know we have a problem just getting kids to school quickly. We have a very large district. If in fact
anywhere near the numbers of cars end up on Pioneer, Lyman, 101, you know all the roads that are going
east/west, north/south. We have a real problem with safety. Most of our pick-ups are on the more active
streets like that or at the end of that so I think that's an issue I never thought about until they were talking
about the traffic issue. Those are two things. I think the previous speaker to me said it all, and I
appreciate what he had to say. We do have a response from the Southwest Coalition. Fred Corrigan who is
our, one of our representatives would like to address you at this time. Fred.
16
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Fred Corrigan: Thank you Brad. I'm Fred Corrigan and I'm representing the Southwest Corridor
Transportation Coalition and actually I'm representing Bob Lindall who's sitting on a beach in Florida
right now.
Mayor Mancino: I wonder what the traffic's like there.
Fred Corrigan: And I guess I would just like to wrap up what you've heard tonight with kind of while
we've heard a lot about sprawl and all of the kinds of things that this region, this city is going to deal with
in the coming years but really what this Memorandum of Understanding is about tonight is to secure the
land for a transportation corridor through this city. Whatever that corridor may look like when it's finally
completed in 5 years or 10 years or maybe even 20 years, will probably be dramatically different than what
your predecessors thought it might look like 30 years ago when this project started. My role for the
coalition is to identify ways to purchase this property and with the rapid inflation of property along this
corridor to do that sooner than later because the cost is adding up by the millions of dollars every year as
this property inflates. There have been at both the federal level and state level new tools made available to
cities like yours, to counties like yours and to departments of transportation like the Minnesota Department
of Transportation which will allow for accelerated purchase of this property. They include new revolving
loan funds that the legislature has an opportunity to fund this year for the first time. That would allow the
purchase of the remainder of the property probably within the next 18 to 24 months through bonding
essentially. There is also bonding bills that, or new bonding authorities that will allow for purchase in
addition to these kinds of things. It will allow the residents who have been mentioned tonight waiting for a
number of years to sell their properties and get on with their lives, the opportunity to do that. And I think
that's what the memorandum was all about. We certainly all of the communities did and in the recitals, in
the memorandum that you've looked through, there are lots of ideas and plans and concerns that are cited in
the memorandum, but the agreement part really deals with the Memorandum of Understanding and dealing
with the increasing costs and to achieve that. What this corridor looks like eventually, I know from the
discussions that have occurred at this council and in the city over the last few months, will be exciting but I
think you need to understand that this corridor will be with you for probably centuries. What it will look
like the first time it's built may not be what it looks like the second and third time it's built. And what you
are doing as you've done with your parks is preserving a transportation corridor through the community.
The discussion of what it will look like the first time it's built will continue and the discussion of what it
might look like for future generations will probably continue as well so we hope that with your input this
document represents the kind of future that you would like to see. Thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Fred, you're going to stay around as we have our discussion right, because I
will have some questions a little later, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council? On 212.
Okay. Anyone have any new thoughts on 2127 Could be an underground tunnel. Okay, thank you.
Seeing no one else that would like to give us any comments, we'll bring this back to council. Couple
questions before we do. I just want to make sure Anita that what we have, the Memorandum of
Understanding is this page 2, 3, 4 and 5 and page 2 starts with 1.10. The recitals at the top. I just want to
make sure we're all on the same page.
Anita Benson: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: It says received January 28, 1999 at the cover letter. And it has 1.10 through 1.23 and
then it has the Part II is an agreement but there really isn't a Part I. And then the last of it is just signatures
so I'm wondering if we're missing something. We're not?
17
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Anita Benson: Part I is the recitals and from your question that was earlier today, you had asked about an
Exhibit A. That is the second page in, the second or third page in the handout I handed out tonight with the
letters.
Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, say that, what is Exhibit A?
Anita Benson: I gave you a handout tonight that had letters I had received up through 4:00 today.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Anita Benson: MnDOT's layout of Highway 212 and a status sheet included in that. I believe it's a third
page.
Councilman Senn: At least in the copy we have your recitals start at 1. la rather than 1.al. That may be
the issue in terms of are we missing something. Whereas all your other sections started at 2.01, 3.a 1, or
whatever, etc.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah I think we are. We start on page 2.
Brad Johnson: Yeah, there's a page 1.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Well we don't have it.
Mayor Mancino: Oh yeah, we don't have that. Can you make copies and bring them down to us, if you
don't mind, as we look at it for a second. Does anyone else have that page 1 ?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Mancino: We'll be on hold here for a minute until we see page 1 of the memorandum. Patsy?
She's going to go make some copies.
(The council took a short break at this point in the meeting.)
Mayor Mancino: Let's reconvene please. Thank you for getting page 1 of the recitals for us. Bringing this
back to council. Councilmember Jansen, comments?
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess as I went through all of the different issues involved in this monumental
project, I really broke it up into three different parts as I was trying to consider what it is we're trying to
accomplish. And the first one that I really looked at was the whole right-of-way acquisition since that is
such a significant immediate issue as far as taking that burden and uncertainty off of the property owners in
Chanhassen and I guess as far as the next step in this process, I'm looking at the Memorandum of
Understanding which covers a lot more points than just the right-of-way issue. If we're wanting to make
that the significant.., different segments as to the priority issues. A significant amount of the purchase falls
under priority three. Priority one being purchase of right-of-way for segment 2, which is Lyman to County
Road 4 in Eden Prairie. We then shift to priority 2 being the design of segment 2, stage 4. We don't get to
the remainder of the right-of-way until priority 3 for segment 2, stage 5, which is Highway 41 back to
Lyman. So just in looking at that as an issue, again if we're trying to prioritize getting the right-of-way
purchased as soon as possible as inexpensively as possible and getting the burden off of our landowners,
18
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
are we accomplishing that with this list of priorities. That was one of the issues that stuck out in my mind
as I went through the memorandum. And then as we were addressing our questions to MnDot there were a
couple instances that if we address those design issues and for one meaning we would be moving,
hopefully, if possible, 212 out of the gorge area. Shifting it, if possible, to the north. If we start
purchasing land before we're able to sit down with MnDot and walk through some of these issues, are we
able to purchase the right-of-way property properly if there are things that we might be moving to reduce
impacts? I don't know that we've got our whole answer on how we're impacted by a potential Highway
41. I know that was one of the questions that I sent back to Anita saying can we see that mapping. Is it
something we can discuss, and I know Roger's hiding in the back over there. I don't know if it's an issue
that he'd want to address as to whether or not there is a mapping for this potential future Highway 41. But
again I think that affects the right-of-way purchase. So that being the number one part of the equation, I
moved on to the number two being the whole design and the impacts of the current construction plans. The
right-of-way we need to do. I fully back getting that done as expeditiously as possible. I don't know if we
get that done losing that in the rest of the memorandum verbiage. Is there a way for us to really emphasize
that that's what we're trying to accomplish. Then moving down to getting all of our questions we've asked
them, we don't have the answers to the numerous of the questions that were posed. The public brought
numerous questions to us. We haven't answered those yet. So timing wise I'm feeling like maybe tonight
is coming earlier. It's following up the public input a little too quickly. If we sign this memorandum, and
as we all know how things work, once you sign something you've given up that urgency to get something
done. Are we giving up the opportunity to really have the focus put on this plan under the known
information that we have now and I'm referring to the '96 Bluff Creek Watershed plan that designated the
sensitive areas that this is going through so it's new since the original mapping of the 212. Significant
enough that it seems like we should be addressing it. And it seems like it should be now before we do the
right-of-way purchase or are we purchasing the wrong properties? Are we locking ourselves in? And then
really being able to address big picture. Once we've done all of this, let's then sit down, big picture as a
community with the rest of the county, the rest of the community's that are being impacted and really look
at the transportation plan. Again, there's been so much change within how transportation is going to be
handled going forward with the new administration. Going through the whole commuter rail feasibility
study, and I realize that everything is saying that it needs to be a total transportation package. Knowing
how priorities get placed on the current administration's focus or pet project, however you would want to
word it, are we at the tail end of what was highway construction and at the beginning of the new era for this
metropolitan area of transit of commuter rail. We have Tom Workman to thank for the fact that he did get
our rail line put into the stage 2 scoping of whether or not it was feasible. We don't fall in stage 1 or 2 as
far as the funding but the timing of those rail lines is that they're looking at having stage 1 and 2 1 think
done within the next 5 years. Moving on to stage 3 within 10 years and then our line. So if we're talking
that 212 is out to 2010, that's when commuter rail is going to be moving then into stage 4. So wouldn't it
behoove us to try to jump on that focus and the impacts on this community could be significant. As far as
making sure that we have ourselves positioned to get into one of those lines because what if they shift away
from funding highways? Then we've lost 212 and we haven't gotten on the rail movement as far as making
sure that we're positioned for that.
Mayor Mancino: Can I ask you a few questions about what you said or just discussion? You know
certainly I'm a real proponent of multimodal too and I think of multimodal though as base multimodal as
having roadways. And then adding the light rail, the commuter rail, the buses, etc. Are you feeling that we
can't be parallel tracking that and then just getting 212 going and at the same time as a city, as a council,
getting in gear and looking into commuter rail and making sure that we stay on top of that and again that
we have focus on the commuter rail aspect of this corridor?
19
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Councilwoman Jansen: I think whatever we end up doing with Highway 212, we will at the same time be
gearing up for the other. And maybe in the course of that transportation task force, as we've talked about
it, as they're looking at all of the current information that's out there, and there's so much that's pointing
and I know a lot of people don't like to talk about urban sprawl. They're talking about the, oh what's the
term they're using? Induced traffic. Build it, they will come. All of the studies that are coming out right
now, and these things didn't exist back when we were planning Highway 212. Now as soon as we put that
in, there's nothing to say it won't follow the same pattern that all of the other highway systems have and
that's that it will very quickly be over congested. And shouldn't we be going to MnDot from what Mr.
Smithburg was showing us on the map, if instead of trying to focus all of our traffic that's coming in from
the west onto on ramps that we all sit on now, waiting to get into the parking lot on 494. Instead of shifting
all of that traffic to those same on ramps on 5, because it does merge onto 5, what if we're bridging them
over to 169 and then they can pick from multiple avenues or highways to be able to head north/south.
Closer to their points of destination which is what MnDot is emphasizing is that the way we travel has
changed. And the southern location, it just seems like we need to take those things into account because the
494 ultimate build isn't going to happen and I did call Scott Sanus. I don't know if I'm pronouncing his
last name correctly. On Friday, just again to clarify that 494 number because even though we are adding
that third lane and doing the bridge work and doing the pavement upgrades, that doesn't answer the
congestion piece of what they're trying to solve. That is, as it was referred to by his predecessor to me last
year, it's a bandaid fix and it was at that point $121 million was the projection. They've now moved it to
the $198 million and they can't obtain the billion dollar fix that would be required. He liken it to just
massive bridges at the 35W and the 494 interchange and that's the only way that they can fix that. And the
only thing visually that I can use to try to imagine what they're trying to accomplish is over by the Mall of
America where you've got all those huge looping bridges. Well they can't do it without taking out, it's like
70 businesses and 30 homes and that's where it ends up in that billion dollar figure. So though we've got
this carrot hanging out in front of us, it's still only a bandaid fix. It's not correcting the congestion and
MnDot is still trying to figure out, they're going back to the drawing board. They're trying to come up
with a lesser expensive. They don't like to use that term ultimate anymore because they know they can't
achieve that billion dollar number but they're still trying to come up with what the reconstruction cost
would be to make it so traffic can flow on 494. So we're adding to it. We're making that our destination
point with 212. Instead of bridging over to where, and I think no matter what we do, we do need to be true
to the original goal and I can appreciate the fact that this farm area in the west of the state is significant. I
went so far as to pull up the ag web site just to see what it was we were talking about, and that's when I
started looking for the grain elevators to see where they were actually going. But it's a significant business
and we're not getting them the most efficiently possible to where they're going, which would be the same
for the rest of the traffic. When you look at the maps it gives them multiple north/south options instead of
just going to 494 or through Crosstown. Because those fixes just, they're not planned yet and that's the
concern. If we're just building one more route of congestion, we're not doing what we're trying to
accomplish for the county or for Chanhassen because the vehicles are going to come right up to 5 and as
they're trying to merge onto 5, it's going to turn into a parking lot again. So I guess those are my concerns.
But that's the big picture step. That's let's get the right-of-way done. Let's get the answers to our
immediate design concerns and then let's take that leading step. Let's maybe be the community that takes
that step to look at the big picture transportation and get everyone around us to participate so that we can
all make sure that we're in line to be, you know we don't want to fall from number 4 in the commuter rail
funding. You know right now we're in that fourth stage but if we're not clamoring for it, we could even
fall from there.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Senn.
2O
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Councilman Senn: I can think of few issues in Chanhassen over the last 6 years that how would I say, been
as ongoing as this issue is and one which has been so free to solicit comment from so many people. You
know this issue's been ongoing for at least as many years as I've been on the council, over 6. It took an
interesting right hand turn when a toll road proposal came on line. But the interesting part in that 6 years is
I've never once seen anybody really come to the City of Chanhassen and say, you know how can we design
or what can we do with this roadway to make it more acceptable to your community. The current
memorandum as is before us is really not any different than the previous memorandum before it. I have a
really hard time, or...there's no way, at least in my mind that I can support that memorandum. Could I
support the memorandum that we put together from the city? Yes, I could. But there's some real
fundamental differences between them. You know effectively our position, or our memorandum that we
put together said yes, let's proceed with the right-of-way purchases and that's where the money should go.
But at the same time let's get the design issues resolved up front so as we pursue that right-of-way
acquisition, we are acquiring what we need and where we need it. The memorandum that's before us now
has the different, but same at least in this content, the priority that it's always had. I don't really see that
answering the, again the community. You know in over 6 years it's been real interesting. I mean there's
always the side that says yes, let's just get going with the freeway full speed ahead. I don't think that's
realistic anymore these days. There's also the side that says, let's stop 212 and have no roadway and I
don't think that position's realistic anymore these days. But I think there is very definitely a middle ground
in relationship to a roadway in what's now referred to as the 212 corridor. Does that roadway need to be a
freeway? No. I don't think so. Does that roadway need to be there? Yes. I mean we're ultimately going
to need that roadway. Does that roadway you know need to be, I guess what I call a kind of unrestricted
freeway? No, I don't think so. Does that roadway need to be more of a restricted roadway? Yes. One
thing that I've never been able to figure out and fathom on the whole thing is why you would create
effectively at least what I call an unrestricted freeway to dump into and merge with Highway 5, which is
what I call a restricted highway more or less. It's got intersections at grade and light and all that sort of
thing. More or less providing some slow down or control or delay or control traffic. Merging those two
together and then effectively dumping them to 494, which can't handle the traffic it's got now or later, at
least with any fixes that has been even remotely proposed on it. You know it seems to make a lot more
sense to me to have two, what I'm going to say, restricted traffic types of roadways that are less intense
than what they push that way merging and dumping into a freeway system that can't handle it. I think a lot
of the objections from one group in the community which is let's not cut the community in half with a
major freeway go away when you start talking about you know a roadway more akin to a little lower, at
least for the Chanhassen portion, a lower speed you know parkway type of design or at grade design like,
you know like we've seen at 62 and other places. At the same time, you know how would I say this? I have
a real hard time with hundreds of acres being tied up for major, major intersections you know effectively
eating that up, taking it out of the city to again create this you know free dump or I don't know what you'd
call it but I mean this unrestricted access you know effectively a freeway, you know again dumping nothing
into more than a bottleneck. Especially when those hundreds and hundreds of acres are coming out of our
community or out of our city. You hear a lot of discussion about well let's just kind of go ahead with this
because it's what we've got and so be it, it's a 20 year old concept or whatever. And I hear a lot of
discussion about how even if we do proceed, it's going to be many years before this roadway is done. I
think that the wave of the future are coming that way. I think more mass transit, more multimodal forms of
transportation are going to be necessary. And I think that's a key because I know of few situations in the
country where they've ever been thrust upon anybody. Mass transit or multimode of transportation
generally has been the response to a problem that's gotten so bad that it needed something else to help fix
it. Now I know there's a lot of debate over how much it helps fix it. But most of the development of those
types of systems never occurred because everybody was having an easy time of it. It's a substantial public
21
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
investment for people to go along with that kind of substantial public investment they need to perceive the
problem.
Mayor Mancino: They have to feel pain.
Councilman Senn: No pain, no gain or whatever. And I think it's kind of foolish to keep trying to design a
system, at least on the fringes that simply provides an easy going, free flowing type of access only to end
up right back in the middle of the same thing when it seems to me a more responsible approach could be
taken up front. I think the time to rethink and to relook at and to redesign this roadway is now. I think then
yes, we need to all get behind proceeding with acquisition as quickly as possible. It is definitely the next
step. Then as funding can be made available to construct it, go from there. Again, that's very different in
relationship to what's before us now and I would much rather see us proceed with again our endorsement
of effectively our initial response to our existing memorandum that as a city put together back some months
ago.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I've got a lot of rambling thoughts right now and I tried to condense them into six
points I've tried to note here. And I may wander a bit on this but it's like Mark said, I've only been on this
council for a couple years now. This issue's never left. It was here when I came. I'm sure it's going to be
here when I leave. And same is true for probably everybody up here. Before the first car ever drives on a
212, and I think there will be a 212 regardless of what we do here. There's a reference to Washington D.C.
and the subways. I used to live in Washington D.C. I used to take the subways. I didn't have a car for the
few years I lived there. And it was very interesting the guys who would drive in, I was an infantry soldier.
And the guys would drive in to the post would have to leave at various time depending on where they lived.
And I always asked them how come they just didn't take the subway. I didn't have a car and thought it
was a great tool. But I never really used it in the city. It was great to get to Georgetown. Great to get
anywhere you wanted in the city when you were there. It was a little bit different when you were out and
you were trying to get in. And that was a beautiful subway system. You've never been on, it's clean, it's
big. It's wonderfully designed. It's a great system. It really is. But I remember reading the articles at the
time when I lived there. The impact on existing highway connections was so slight as to be zero. I
remember 1 to 2, maybe 3% impact on a reduction in traffic. And I remember Mayor Mancino, you
passing out some information on studies like that from other subway systems just a little while ago. Maybe
a year ago now. And they found some of the same things. Whenever they built them, when you studied the
traffic flow, there's very little impact on the actual reduction in cars on those roads and I always wondered
why that was and I think, I've come to the conclusion that's somebody's coached me on it that everybody
wants those things built so that everybody else can get the heck out of their way and they can drive their
Suburban right down that road full speed. And I think that's true of Americans just in general. We want
other people to get the heck out of our way and so they'll use those public systems while we get free access
everywhere we want out of the way. That's my experience with the subways, and I love them. I mean I
used that thing all the time. So I'm not opposed to them but I just don't know if this is, it's not the panacea
that some people may think it is. And then the toll road issue. This came up last year and when I ran that
was the hot issue. And I resisted that toll road because to me it was the state ducking their responsibility to
fund back to an area which has provided an enormous amount of tax input to this area of the city and state
in general, and it was due it's share back in infrastructure and I felt a toll road was just an easy way out for
the people controlling the legislature to duck that responsibility and I disagreed with that. So that's why I
opposed the toll road. I have always thought 212 was going to be built. I think it is inevitable. There will
be a road. Whether we have light rail or not. If we have light rail and if we have a great bus system, we
22
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
will still need some road down there in 212. I don't think these designs are final by any stretch of the
imagination. I think the environmental impacts as are discussed in this recital from staff will be addressed
so I don't think we're not sinking a stake in the sand so deep here that we can never mm back from. And
that would be a very large concern for me if we were. I don't think we're anywhere near that. I don't think
the first car's going to drive down that road and all of us are going to be off this council. Even if we move
this thing up by 2-3 years from the proposed 2010 completion date. The down side on this is, as one of our
residents stated, absolute gridlock. I mean it is bad now from a lot of people who I hear driving the road.
And I usually drive in pretty early in the morning to get around it so I don't see it as bad as I used to. And
I tend to come home a little after it's done. But I hear the horror studies and I participate in them on some
days, so the down side is real. I don't know how good the up side is. I really don't. I don't know if
anybody really does but I know the down side's really, really bad. And if you think it's going to be bad for
these houses, I know if you're near it I think it's going to be especially bad. But for those in every other
home in this community, it's going to be very bad if we don't have access in and out of here better than the
current Highway 5. As we grow, and that's to say nothing of what happens to Chaska, Victoria, and
Waconia. They're going to put that pressure on it whether we do it or not. Whether we quite developing or
not. That pressure's coming. There's not much we can do to stop these other communities from putting it
on us. So I defer to prudence at this point. They're going to build this road. I don't know when they're
going to start it and I don't know when they're going to finish it but that land is getting more expensive
every day and everybody in here's a taxpayer as is everybody in this council and I think you buy the land
now and you work out the details later. And I think that land's got to be bought because it's getting
ridiculously expensive. I'm sitting here wondering how to buy parkland and I'm looking at our options and
I'm disgusted with our lack of options. That disposing of 1.3 or so million dollars in park money. You
can't feel any better trying to buy land for right-of-way so I say you buy the land now and work out these
details as we get our chances. And I don't think this is your last chance to work out those details.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: I can actually concur with parts of Linda's and Mark Senn's and Mark Engel's. I've
never been opposed to the road, Highway 212. During the campaign, I'm not here to stop the road. I have
portions of the roadway that I'm concerned about and more concerns were brought up in the March 17th
open house that...think need to get discussed with MnDot this week. I never heard definite answers from
them. Some of those concerns I understand were the 5 homes... Chanhassen Hills and Lake Susan Drive
that are built in right-of-way of Lyman Boulevard. What's the plan for those residents? And I'd like to see
a map from either Carver County or MnDot showing the overlay of the right-of-way as it... property lines
and their houses. They brought up the 41 alignment. Realign 41. Pushing it to the east. In essence bring
it up to what appears to be Carver 17. Councilwoman Jansen asked for... I think what I can understand is
they're building of Pioneer and 212 interchange, according to what 41 is going, how it's going to impact
that corridor. So I think we're not seeing, we're not getting all the pieces of the puzzle there. We need to
see what 41 's going to do. How it impacts that area and how it impacts Chanhassen. And with the North
Bay development, I can't recall the lady's name. Noise mitigation for their, according to MnDot there's
really no plan. They do have a berm. The lady who spoke, it was supposed to be a 8 foot berm but she
spoke and she's 5 feet 4 inches and it wasn't over her head. And Evan Green from MnDot said in the
Minutes here, on page 33, that they had looked at putting up walls or berms to mitigate the noise for
existing or approved or zoned developments in the area. Chanhassen Hills was there. That's why they
were going to be getting a berm. In the 1988 Environmental Impact Study, Figure 7, Mission Hills, or
North Bay is zoned on this Environmental Impact Study. So they it was going to exist down there
according to this study. Now it appears as though that MnDot is trying to back out of it. Of helping out
those residents down there. And a big part is with the gorge. I have a problem down there. The design of
23
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
the roadway right now somehow passes right over the gorge with no plan for a bridge. I'd hate to, are we
locking ourselves into not having any control over how it impacts the gorge area by signing this agreement
tonight. I am not against, I'm in favor of buying the land up before it costs us any more money. I agree
with Mr. Engel on that one. That we do our due diligence here as a city by working with the state and
public corridor to get the land... So those are just some of my brief comments for now.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. My comments are two. Number one, keep 212 going. I mean I think that
we need to get in here. I think we need to, Fred actually if you could come to the podium and I could ask
you some questions about the Memorandum of Understanding. And councilmembers please react to what I
say. I think that you hear a consensus in and what we wrote in our memorandum in September was that it
is important to note that Chanhassen does support the future building of Highway 212 transportation
corridor. That we made that statement in our September 30, 1998 letter to Bob Lindall. With that, and
I'm just going to be real practical here and go directly to the Memorandum of Understanding. On page 3,
under number 2, Agreement. What I'm hearing councilmembers say is that we have priority one, purchase
of right-of-way for Segment 2, Stage 4. Priority 2, design of Segment 2, Stage 4. I think it would be a
priority of Chanhassen to have Priority 1 be design of Segment 2, Stage 4 and 5. Because that is the area
that goes through our city. Linda?
Councilwoman Jansen: On the priority 1. Stage, would there also be Stage 4 and 5 as far as making the
right-of-way.
Mayor Mancino: Well that's why I was going to say priority 1 would be design of Segment 2, Stage 4 and
5. Priority 2 would be purchase of right-of-way Segment 2, Stage 4 and 5. So that again we take the
whole area that goes through Chanhassen and number one, we look at some of those design concerns that
we have as a council, and those design concerns are ones that we put in our Memorandum of
Understanding for September 30th. And they really have to do with the appropriateness and design of the
current proposed interchanges, environmental issues involved in the area of the Bluff Creek corridor,
especially the gorge. The location, number, design and functionality of noise walls proposed along the
corridor. The overall use of landscaping within the corridor and implementing multi-modal concepts is
appropriate and I have that kind of written out for you. So I'm wondering if we can take this Memorandum
of Understanding that you have given us and do some changes and work with you in the next week and
come back to the council on next Monday and go forward with it.
Fred Corrigan: Madam Mayor, this document was intended to reflect the community's desires. If it is, this
document is not your desire and you vote it down, we have nothing to work with so if you are proposing to
change the language, while we hoped we had it right, we'd certainly consider those changes. Let me see if I
understand what you're saying. Priority 1, you would change, and what I don't, I haven't got clear in my
mind is it purchase of Segment 2, Stage 4 and 5 or design of?
Mayor Mancino: Design.
Fred Corrigan: I believe the concern, and Roger maybe you could help me. But the concern at this point is
it's tough for MnDot to go ahead with design for property they don't own.
Mayor Mancino: So first they have to purchase the right-of-way and then do the design?
Roger Gustafson: That's my understanding as far as the procedure...
24
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Fred, what if there's some changes in the interchanges and we change those locations, is
that a problem once the right-of-way is purchased?
Fred Corrigan: Oh I think you find as these projects are built the right-of-way at the end of a typical
project is sold off as the project is actually developed and was completed and changes were made as they
got into soil testing and doing some of the things they needed to do in final design. So clearly, I mean you
could run into just problems building this highway the way you have shown it to you today but certainly,
and they would have to make those changes. And the same would occur if in the discussions with the
community that the community expressed a different design that might be more appropriate and could be
less expensive. Who knows. I mean I think they're open to doing that. What they've shown you today is a
pretty typical freeway design. And with some recognition of some of the multi-modal aspects that they're
trying to incorporate in the designs now. I think it's important and I know Councilwoman Jansen
understands it but the Ventura Administration has signed this Memorandum of Understanding and given
that, I know that Mr. Tinklinberg who I used to work for and Mr. Mondale are committed to continuing to
improve these designs as they go. How quickly they can get that done, they've certainly made that
commitment but at the same time they recognize they need to set aside these corridors at the best
appropriate time.
Councilman Engel: How much addition would it to be to buy the right-of-way for TH 5 in Priority 17
Mayor Mancino: Well there are six parcels left to be acquired in Chanhassen. So where I was trying to get
to Fred was that Priority 1 would be to purchase all of the right-of-way in Chanhassen at one time. And
using the transportation revolving loan funds for that purpose.
Fred Corrigan: I think, let me just explain the reason for purchasing the right-of-way outside of the MUSA
line was to deal with that, those prices outside of the MUSA line as quickly as possible. And you probably
have a better feeling for it than me on how quickly that MUSA line may change. Maybe that's not as
urgent as we thought it was but certainly every time that MUSA line changes, as it affects this corridor, the
land dramatically increases in price. That was the reason for putting that area outside the MUSA line has a
higher priority than the remainder of the property within the MUSA line.
Mayor Mancino: Absolutely and that's why I've got Stage 5 because in Stage 5 from Lyman Boulevard to
our west is outside of our MUSA line. So the reason why I included Segment 2, Stage 4 and 5 is that in
both of those stages there is land outside of the MUSA line in Chanhassen. Because Stage 4 according to
the map I have here is Lyman Boulevard in Chanhassen, which is 101 east to County Road 4 in Eden
Prairie and then from 41 in Chaska to 101 in Chanhassen. I cannot tell you Fred whether in Stage 5 that
land from TH 41 in Chaska to our city line is in or out of the MUSA line in Chaska. But I can tell you that
the land in Chanhassen from CR 17 east is outside of our MUSA line so now would be the time to acquire
it.
Fred Corrigan: Roger Gustafson seems to be indicating the land in Chaska is inside the MUSA line.
Roger Gustafson: I think most of that portion of the corridor has already been acquired.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. But again, just making sure that the land in Chanhassen that's in Segment, which
is Stage 5 is acquired at the same time as the land in Chanhassen which is in Stage 4 and that's all outside
the MUSA line. I'm just trying to group it together.
25
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Fred Corrigan: So Priority 1 with a purchase of Segment 2, Stage 4 and 5?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Fred Corrigan: And then Priority 2 would be design of Segment 2, Stage 4 and 5?
Councilman Engel: Yes. Just eliminate number 3. Put it under 1.
Fred Corrigan: Okay, and 4 is also up in 1, is that correct?
Councilman Engel: Correct.
Fred Corrigan: And then 5 would become a new number 3.
Councilman Engel: Yeah, it just got simple.
Fred Corrigan: Makes it easier. I don't see why that would be a problem.
Mayor Mancino: There are for me in some of the different recitals again a few little tweaks that I think
could be made. Do you want to go through those?
Fred Corrigan: We could do that or you could submit those. The recitals were intended to gather all of the
comments we had heard from all of the communities to just reflect what we had heard in this discussion.
And that's why the recitals in the agreement is much shorter. I should also mention, I think you're also
aware of this but that the agreement part of it before MnDot or the Metropolitan Council to be able to sign
this, it has to fit within their current plans and this is all that does fit within their current plans. If we were
to extend the construction or even the preservation of the remaining right-of-way or construction of number
2, Stage 4, is outside of their current plans so we're putting MnDot and the council, they have a very
limited amount of time or space that they can move in this discussion and this document reflects what the
current plans call for. Now that may change in the 2000 but we were trying to write a document for today.
Mayor Mancino: Let me ask council members at this time. I would certainly be willing this week to sit
down with Fred and another council member and go through the recitals with him and to pull out from our
original Memorandum of Understanding that the city wrote on September 30th and pull out those things
that are important to us and put in these recitals also and next Monday bring it back to the council for a
vote.
Councilman Senn: You know our recitals in ours were pretty much what we kind of wholeheartedly agreed
with and we pulled out the other recitals.
Mayor Mancino: And I'm saying let's integrate ours in with these that we agree with, because I have no
problem with a lot of the recitals that are in here. And bring it back to the council with kind of an
integration of what we felt were the key points in our recitals and put it into this Memorandum of
Understanding. And also some of the questions and some of the concerns that we heard at our public
hearing on Wednesday.
Councilwoman Jansen: I'd be willing to work with you on that. You know I don't know if anyone else
wants to volunteer but.
26
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Mayor Mancino: The two of us.
Councilwoman Jansen: As far as having discussion as to who the other party is but then also when you
started to speak to the questions that had been asked. If we can address those before next Monday as well
and primarily the ones that were voiced by the residents especially. If we can get back to them on those
issues as far as the sound barriers and such that Councilman Labatt mentioned and the possibility of getting
the design configurations on Highway 41. And I know I had faxed, or e-mailed everyone my list of
questions and requests that I had sent into Anita. If we have those things I would feel more like we were
addressing the issues prior to taking the next step. And if we're reworking the memorandum at the same
time it certainly seems to fit in timing wise.
Mayor Mancino: That's fine. I don't think we'll have every single thing answered and I want to stay still
pretty big picture so we can move forward with this so I would certainly like to work with you. I don't
know other council members, Councilman Labatt. Do you feel comfortable with that and coming back on
next Monday night's work session? We'll just table it and continue the meeting.
Councilman Labatt: Oh yeah. I'd support Linda working with you.
Councilman Engel: I'm okay with that too. I just want to know is there an understanding that we're
moving forward.
Mayor Mancino: Forward.
Councilman Engel: With the purchase of right-of-way. With some enhanced language. I'd like there to
be a consensus about that.
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilman Engel: We want to move forward with it and we want to work out the details with the
language and get that taken care of next Monday night.
Councilman Labatt: Can we have MnDot here? If we have questions that we need addressed.
Mayor Mancino: Would it be possible? We'll just have to check with Evan and see if he can be here and
Roger next Monday night.
Anita Benson: I can check on the schedules if you give me the names of the people that you would like to
have there.
Mayor Mancino: So again the end product is that we have a Memorandum of Understanding. We want to
move forward with the right-of-way acquisition and have the priority which we just talked about.
Fred Corrigan: If I understand what you're discussing, I think that would work as long as we don't
broaden this agreement too much. I think I'm hearing you say that you want to include more things in the
recitals. It would be difficult. The Highway 41 is not even going to be looked at.
Councilwoman Jansen: That's just a question to have answered, sure. No, I understand.
27
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Fred Corrigan: Because that design won't even be looked at for 20 or 30 years probably.
Councilwoman Jansen: Sure, yep. Understood.
Fred Corrigan: But certainly the noise mitigation and those kinds of issues in the recitals should properly
be reflected in those recitals. But it would be difficult for again the Department of Transportation to make
any commitments in the agreement itself in Part II.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, understood.
Councilman Senn: Do you want to go over your priorities again?
Councilman Engel: 1, 2 and 3. As condensed.
Fred Corrigan: As I understand them?
Councilman Engel: That probably would be best for him to reiterate what he thinks he heard.
Fred Corrigan: As I understand them, priority 1 would be the purchase of Segment 2, Stages 4 and 5.
Priority 2 would be the design of Segment 2, Stages 4 and 5. And priority 3 would be the old priority 5 or
purchase of right-of-way in phases of the new Highway 212 within Chaska and Chaska township.
Councilman Engel: And that's as I understand it.
Mayor Mancino: Exactly.
Councilman Senn: Okay but in that then there is absolutely no, okay there's no mention of or whatever any
local control or approval of design issues. And until that's there I don't. Well then let's put it in the
memorandum if it's...
Mayor Mancino: That's what we can go over when we meet this week.
Anita Benson: MnDot is required to attempt to gain approval from the local jurisdictional authority.
However, if they had one local community saying no we flat out do not want the road. They could take it
to arbitration.
Councilman Labatt: What they do first is make an attempt to come to us with a design.
Councilman Senn: That's the word attempt.
Mayor Mancino: Fred, if you could write down some possible times that you would have this week to
meet, that would be great. Thank you.
Fred Corrigan: Thank you.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thanks.
28
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Any other comments from other council members before we kind of go into,
Councilmember Jansen and I meet with Mr. Corrigan this week and go over. Any other comments that
you'd like to make?
Councilman Engel: I made mine.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then may I have a motion please?
Councilman Labatt: I make a motion that we table this item number, what? 4 to next Monday night's
meeting.
Roger Knutson: Mayor. What you're doing is.
Mayor Mancino: You're continuing it?
Roger Knutson: Continue this matter and at the end of this meeting you will continue this meeting, will
adjourn this meeting to Monday night.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, there is no tabling.
Councilman Engel: It's no table.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much Roger. Appreciate everyone coming tonight.
APPOINTMENT OF CITIZEN AT LARGE AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEMBERS
TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE.
Mayor Mancino: We had wonderful applicants for the citizens at large task force. Five people that we
interviewed and I think that was at our, was that at our last Monday meeting? Our work session that we
interviewed the five citizens at large for that law enforcement task force. And I think all of us, it was hard
to choose. Is there a nomination for one of those applicants that we interviewed for citizen at large?
Councilman Senn: I'll nominate that we appoint John Hull.
Councilman Engel: I'll second that.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to appoint John Hull as the citizen at large
member for the Law Enforcement Task Force. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Mr. Hull is the new Law Enforcement Task Force person. And you're going to
have to work very, very hard. Okay. Now as far as public safety commissioners. Now we have two of
them to pick for this law enforcement task force. What does maybe by Jim Sloss mean?
Councilman Engel: We were just talking about that.
Mayor Mancino: Do you know who called or who said, why he said maybe? I did try and call him and ask
him what that meant.
29
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Todd Gerhardt: Well I talked to him. He has some additional commitments in Richfield through his work
and so he was leaning more towards no than even maybe. And I had not heard back from him. He was
going to contact a few other members to see what their interests were. So I left it with my last conversation
with him so it was a yes/no so I made it into a maybe.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. And does this have to do with, because he works during the day at
Richfield.
Todd Gerhardt: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: And he's taken on some additional commitments there and had mentioned that his
Chairmanship would have been up in January so.
Mayor Mancino: Well we're not trying to force him. He was just so nice at the meetings that he did attend
to and said that he would love to be part of whatever so that's why I wanted to make sure. He just said
whatever I can do and any way I can help out so that's a question. Not so much that we're going to make
him be on it if he doesn't want to. Any nominations for the public safety commissioners? It seems like
most of them would like to be on it so it's kind of an open ticket here. I know that both.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to nominate Jim Sloss and Colleen Dockendorf.
Councilman Labatt: Jim's saying no though.
Mayor Mancino: Jim's saying no though.
Councilman Senn: I thought he said maybe.
Councilman Labatt: He said no but he's leaning more towards no than maybe.
Councilman Senn: Well, he's the Chairman. I think we should encourage him to do it.
Councilman Labatt: He doesn't want to do it Mark. He doesn't want to do it.
Councilman Senn: Well, I think it's important that if he's chairing it, that he should be.
Councilwoman Jansen: But they just said that his chairmanship would have been up in January. And then
he made these additional.
Councilman Labatt: His chairmanship was up this past January.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, we understand. You know I kind of think since he's not really sure he wants to I
feel a little, if we want to or if somebody wants to make a call. I actually tried to get a hold of him on
Sunday just because again I wasn't sure what maybe meant and he had offered prior to this in January and
February to help out in any way possible. But I feel uncomfortable if he wasn't sure he really wanted to do
it so.
3O
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Councilman Labatt: I'd be comfortable with Colleen and Greg Webber.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other discussions?
Councilman Engel: I'd like to see Colleen on there if for no other reason than distinguishing qualifications,
she's not a police officer. I know that may sound a little oxymoranic but Steve is and Greg is. I think we'd
have a couple. I don't want all, I don't want us all to have law enforcement on there so I'd like to see two
law enforcement professionals on there, citizen at large and then a couple of appointees, although they are
coming out of this group. I know they've still got a lot of public safety background there.
Mayor Mancino: Well we have Steve too from Council.
Councilman Engel: Steve brings a lot of background in criminal justice.
Councilman Senn: You're not on that, aren't you on that?
Mayor Mancino: No, I'm a member.
Councilman Engel: Are you a member? I didn't know that.
Councilwoman Jansen: We already have our two council members.
Mayor Mancino: Whoa, she got rid of me quickly. I understand that both Jim and Colleen are not police
officers so I understand the thing there. Why don't we do this. Is there, listen to this consensus. Why
don't we go with Colleen and Jim. Todd, you make the call one more time to Jim. If he doesn't want to do
it, he can say no and then go with Greg. So that then we do have a combination of you know, lay people
and police officers on it.
Councilman Senn: I'll amend my motion to make Greg an alternate.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah. So say the motion one more time.
Councilman Senn: Motion was to appoint Jim Sloss and Colleen Dockendorf and amended to make Greg
Webber the alternate.
Councilman Engel: I'll second that.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to appoint Jim Sloss and Colleen Dockendorf
and Greg Webber as the Public Safety Commission members to the Law Enforcement Task Force.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, I want to go back to our citizen on the task force. I would also, you know I make the
recommendation that we do use Miles Lord as a consultant or kind of an honorary member when he wants
to come because I thought it was great that he applied for it. I think he's going to be real busy too.
Councilman Engel: Well it does bring a little qualification, I will say that.
31
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Mayor Mancino: So and again, the task force whoever you want to bring in to interview and to do work
with, that's at your discretion.
REVIEW CITY MANAGER CONTRACT.
Mayor Mancino: We have a contract here for our new City Manager that we need to okay and feel
comfortable with and that new City Manager is Scott Botcher. And Roger, do you have anything that
you'd like to go over with us in this agreement?
Roger Knutson: Nothing in particular Mayor. I would just point out that the form of this agreement is
fairly typical, although the numbers obviously are different. That it's common for city managers in the
Twin Cities area. Throughout the State of Minnesota. In reviewing this contract, where he is now, many
of the provisions are also similar. What really struck me as strange is the language is similar from
Wisconsin and I thought I wrote this.
Councilman Senn: You both borrowed it from the same place, right.
Roger Knutson: It basically goes down through, what his responsibilities are and what his compensation is.
Mayor Mancino: Sure, question.
Councilman Senn: Roger, this is for you since it's your form. Typically in terms of employment
agreements, I'm not used to seeing language like in 10, 11 and 12 that's totally open ended and broad and
basically leaves all the decision on the part of the who, you know on the part of the person you're hiring. I
guess I have a problem with that especially in relationship to the public sector and you know the reviews
that that gets. I don't think that we should be putting ourselves in a position where that's just simply an
absolute. Whatever they say is necessary to get.
Roger Knutson: You certainly could put caps on it. Whether in terms of prior approvals or in terms of
dollars. But I'd point out maybe three items. First, he's working for you and he'll be under your
supervision and I would doubt he wants to do anything stupid to jeopardize his employment with the city.
Second, you approve the budgets and it's unlawful to spend unbudgeted money. And third, you review all
claims for payment so I'm sure if you see anything you think is inappropriate, or an abuse, you can point
that out to him and based on past experience you've never been none too shy about doing that. But having
said all that, if you want to put caps in there or some other limitations, that's certainly appropriate but I
have seen this in many other contracts and I've never heard of anyone on either side having an issue with it.
It's probably self policing in a sense that.
Councilman Senn: Well if I'm hearing your reason right, you're telling me ultimately the decision lies with
the council anyway. That supercedes the contract to pay them whatever budget decisions we make or
whatever.
Roger Knutson: You have to budget the money for these things and if it's not in the budget, he can't spend
it.
Councilman Senn: Okay, because I mean the way the contract implies we don't have that choice and that's
why I'm asking the question.
32
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Roger Knutson: State law prohibits you, anyone from spending unbudgeted money.
Mayor Mancino: We always have that choice. And you know, but that's good because at the beginning of
the budget for 1999, at the end of 1999 we can ask for these. We can ask for line items if you like.
Roger Knutson: I know my experience in most communities where we work is, I know for example if a
manager wants to go to an out of state conference, they usually check in with the council and find out if the
council's.., and whether that's appropriate or not. And if you want to go to one, you know it may be okay.
If you want to go to five, it probably isn't. It's your call but they will, anyone who's going to be in this
position I'm sure would want to check with you. But if you want to formally put that in here, then that's
fine as well.
Councilman Senn: No. If we're covered and that's really what my question was is what supercedes what.
So if that ultimately rules. The other question I had was in relationship to the automobile allowance.
Where that's something we had never discussed before and I just wondered where that was coming from or
how that related. That seems like a pretty substantial allowance for a job that's primarily you know.
Mayor Mancino: That's what we do right now. That's what the automobile allowance is right now. For
our city manager.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, but there's some history as to how, why that was the way it was relating to some
policing and automobiles and then purchase out of a lease and there were a bunch of things that went into
that.
Mayor Mancino: I don't have my metropolitan guide but I know that I did give it to Mr. Benson to look at
the car allowances within our class of cities in that whole data source. I think it went all the way from
$400.00 to $600.00 a month ifI can remember, but I don't have it in front of me.
Councilman Senn: I asked Bob that question this afternoon. He said it went from $150.00 to $500.00.
Mayor Mancino: Not in our class that I know of.
Councilman Senn: Well I just asked him for city managers. I did not ask for our class.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And they have it pretty well divided in different classes of cities so we can look at
cities that are around our same size.
Roger Knutson: Yeah, just so you understand. Councilmembers. I took the, I didn't have any input on the
numbers in this contract. I just wrote them down. It is my form but I just wrote down the numbers. And I
don't know what typical car allowances other than the last time I did a contract for someone it was
$500.00.
Mayor Mancino: Does anyone else have any concerns with that?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, any others?
33
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Councilman Senn: No other questions, no.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there anyone here tonight that would like to address the council on this
employment agreement?
Bob Ayotte made a comment from the audience that was not picked up on tape.
Mayor Mancino: Alright, well let's go ahead and pass this. Sure. Absolutely. State your name and
address please.
John Hull: John Hull, 1421 Lake Susan Hills Drive. Has Mr. Botcher accepted this job?
Mayor Mancino: Well he will once we formally accept this.
John Hull: Is he basically in, in other words I want to know can I tomorrow morning put this on the news
and say Scott Botcher has accepted the job? Or he's been offered the job or how should that be addressed?
Mayor Mancino: He's been offered.
John Hull: He's been offered. Then it will, in other words, see I don't want to get into the same.
Mayor Mancino: It's one of those people until they sign you know, sign the paper.
John Hull: I don't want to do the same thing that the newspaper tried to put you guys through last time so.
Is this reportable? ...
Mayor Mancino: Yes. Yes. He's offered it. He knows the agreement and feels very fine, very
comfortable with it.
John Hull: Okay. And he's the guy from Wisconsin, right?
Mayor Mancino: He's the guy from Wisconsin. We had to wait until we formally adopted it. To offer it
formally.
John Hull: Okay. So I have a scoop on the newspaper, thank you...
Mayor Mancino: Call me at 7:20 in the morning and we'll talk. Thank you John. Can I have a motion
please?
Councilman Labatt: I'll make a motion that we accept the employment agreement for Scott A. Botcher for
our new city manager.
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to accept the employment agreement for
Scott A. Botcher for the new city manager. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Mr. Ayotte please.
34
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Bob Ayotte: Bob Ayotte, Cascade Pass. I know you're all tired and thank you for indulging me just for a
moment. A couple weeks ago... I asked if there was any potential for an ethics subcommittee...
Councilman Engel, O Guard?
Councilman Engel: Yep, Honor Guard.
Bob Ayotte: ...guard.
Councilman Engel: That was it. 8th and 9 Marines on the other side.
Bob Ayotte: The thing that I asked...
Mayor Mancino: All decisions are made by a majority of council.
Bob Ayotte: I understand. I'm sure you all noticed that in looking at the numbers, we have 161K
for.., amortized with Mr. Folch's cost of 75K... Colonel Patton, almost General Patton, the gentleman you
met earlier... Maury Smith who died of Agent Orange not too many years ago. One of the things that
impressed me about Maury was his quiet professionalism. Young Todd Gerhardt has demonstrated quiet
professionalism... Ms. Benson's gone through hell. Charles Folch has...the council has but you folks
volunteered for it and they have, they put a cap on and worked hard. I'm requesting that the council this
time get back to me about whether or not.., some sort of incentive for people who have survived.., but when
I take a look at the skew of the salary, I think it would be more than appropriate that select.., monetary or
otherwise. I would ask that you talk with your new city manager when he starts in May I believe, correct?
As to whether or not something can be done to... see whether or not something could be done for those
people. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Todd, you have gotten together, I know that Mr. Ayotte has said two or
three times tonight on the not getting back to him. But you have started to put together some information
on the ethics committee, correct?
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct and I think we do have a program that just keeps, it falls into our work
session items which I think is coming up either towards the end of April or May is when it's programmed
for.
Mayor Mancino: So that will be on the agenda and Mr. Gerhardt has been gathering that information from
other cities, etc and it will be on in April or May.
Bob Ayotte: Preferably April. May's the opener.
Mayor Mancino: And as you know our work sessions have been so full as of late. Thank you.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Mancino: Council Presentations. There is nothing. I can tell you, and I will probably have to write
it now because I have really forgotten. I go to a Southwest Metro Transit meeting on Thursday so I think
next Monday I'll give you a little bit of a background on the two meetings that I've been to now and it
35
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
mostly has to do with they're starting the development of that transit hub site and what they're going to do
there. So that's basically, and I will try and put something together on Monday night for you.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION:
Mayor Mancino: What do we have in Admin Section?
Councilman Senn: ...budget.
Todd Gerhardt: I believe it is.
Mayor Mancino: Yep. In fact we, I think it was last, at our last city council meeting we approved the
bleacher budget. And this was at our last city council meeting.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, it was approximately $12,500.00, if you look at Todd's recommendation.
$4,000.00 to the year 2000.
Councilman Senn: The numbers weren't ringing a bell. That's why I was asking.
Mayor Mancino: You know I think it was, remember when Todd came back and asked us for, he had the
overage and I think he had allocated $15,000.00 for bleachers Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I don't recall seeing that in the Minutes.
Mayor Mancino: I know we've had it in the last, either in the last meeting or the meeting before last.
Councilwoman Jansen: I think I was here for that so it had to have been a meeting ago.
Mayor Mancino: Two meetings ago. Okay. And you remember that?
Councilwoman Jansen: I do.
Councilman Labatt: The only comment I want to make is the two letters from Mark Littfin about the city
employees who are fire fighters and the relationship with the job sharing that their supervisor allows them
to be on fire calls. How they're...house fire down on TH 5. And just pass along my thanks to those
people.
Mayor Mancino: Also an update, Todd you want to give us on sirens and siren installation, just so
everyone knows.
Todd Gerhardt: Well if you noticed the yellow one at the main fire station is now gone and they've
replaced it with a new silver one. I met with the siren installer today to relocate the one down at
Bandimere. The one which will be located out at the public works will start either tomorrow or the next
day. And the one out at the Arboretum Business Park will also go in this week. The only one that we have
left after those two is the one at Minnewashta Regional Park. Those lands were bought with money from
36
City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999
Met Council so we need Met Council's approval before we can install one on that property so we're still
waiting their approval.
Mayor Mancino: How long do we think that will be?
Todd Gerhardt: I would hope that we could have that.
Councilman Senn: Probably the same time line as our comp plan approval, right?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. It's probably 2 to 4 weeks out.
Councilman Labatt: ... working on this since fall then.., getting approval?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah.
Councilman Labatt: Alternative site in case...
Todd Gerhardt: Well I tried to pick an alternative site. We looked at where we're installing Well No. 8 but
you've got at least three or four $400,000.00 homes probably less than 200 feet away.
Mayor Mancino: Well the park is such a perfect site. Yeah, so I mean if we have to wait 2 to 4 weeks, as
long as we can just put some pressure on them to decide.
Todd Gerhardt: We'll do that. I'll call Terry Kaiser over there or Tom and see what I can do.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thanks.
Mayor Mancino adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
Acting City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
37