The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Minutes 1999 12 13CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 13, 1999 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6~30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, Councilman Labatt, Councilwoman Jansen, and Councilman Engel STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Anita Benson, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Todd Gerhardt and Bruce DeJong APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the agenda as presented. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve Release of'Feasibility Study Agreement, Project 92-5. b. Resolution #99-100: Approve Change Order No. 1 to Lake Drive West, Project 98-16. c. Resolution #99-101: Approve Change Order No. 1 to Infiltration/Inflow Drainage Improvement g. h. i. Project 98-2. Resolution #99-102: Accept Utility Improvements in Whitetail Cove, Project 99-6. Approve Release of Temporary Driveway Easement Agreement, Chaska Gateway Partnership. Resolution #99-103: Approve Resolution Establishing Park & Trail Dedication Fees for 2000. Approval of Bills. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 15, 1999 - City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 22, 1999 - City Council Minutes dated November 22, 1999 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Minutes dated November 17, 1999 - Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 23, 1999 Resolution #99-104: Approve plans and Specifications for TH 5/West 78th Street Improvement Project 97-6. Resolution #99-105: Approve Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Sign the Library Accessibility Capital Improvement Grant Contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 Approve Resolution for Continued Participation in the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act for 2000. Councilwoman Jansen: I certainly appreciated all the information that staff provided us at the, within our packets to really review exactly what the Livable Communities Act is all about. Having gone through that information, I guess in theory I would say that I can certainly appreciate what the Met Council's intentions are and what we're trying to accomplish through the Livable Communities Act. But due to maybe some of the recent development proposals and reviews where we have had an opportunity to really take a look at some of those goals and the public has had an opportunity to interact with them, I'm for one not feeling comfortable with whether it's our process that seems to be in conflict with the community. I'm not sure that it's the goals. I realize that within our current resolution that we're approving the second year of a two year goal cycle. It would have been helpful if as a council maybe we could have reviewed this previously. And time as it was we haven't had a chance. And at this point I'm not feeling comfortable voting for the resolution without there being more extensive council review as this council. As we discussed in our work session that that will have to come and that there are details that we certainly can review. And also then suggesting that we hold a public hearing and realizing that through the comp plan review that there was opportunity for the public to make comment, I don't know that they specifically realized that this was a part of it or the significance to the community and at this point I would just like to be able to provide that opportunity. Maybe there won't be a lot of input. Maybe there will be. I don't feel as if I've had the opportunity to really review everything that's within this resolution. How it impacts us. How our processes are in place. And so at this point I would be more comfortable if we could if we could table this for that review. I don't know what our time schedule is through January. The Met Council memo basically says that if we are reviewing the program and we let them know when we'll be voting on it, it sounds as if we could communicate that to them. I don't know what those guidelines are and how strict they are. But I guess that's tonight what I would like to propose. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any discussion on that? Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: Kate, what's our time line? Kate Aanenson: This should be in by this year. I can ask if we're, can be given an extension but they're supposed to be in by November. Technically they're supposed to sign on for next year by the end of this year. Councilman Senn: And this is an extension of. Mayor Mancino: It was supposed to be in by November 15th from the letter that we got in the correspondence packet. Councilman Senn: And then this is an extension.., an extension of what last year's was. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Senn: And this is nothing more than a reiteration of what's already approved in the comp plan. Kate Aanenson: Correct. You have to agree to participate every year, or elect to not participate. There are a few communities that have elected not to participate and some have recently agreed to participate so we have to agree to participate every year. Mayor Mancino: So this has gone through public hearing every year? This process. City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 Kate Aanenson: Well the goals we talk about as part of a public hearing. And that we did, not everybody does their goals every two years like we do. This is a little bit different. Mayor Mancino: Yeah I know but what I'm saying is, Linda was concerned about public input and I'm saying every year that we elect to go through this we have to have a public hearing to elect to go through it. It's on the agenda. It's published. And I mean I remember in 1995 and 1996 when we were considering Livable Communities Act, that we had several public hearings on it. Many times. Kate Aanenson: Correct. I felt like that yes, we just adopted the comp plan as a part of this process and those are the goals we bought into and those goals haven't changed. Councilwoman Jansen: If I can clarify. I'm not taking issue with the goals. It's that we are approving going forward with the Livable Communities Act as every community votes for every year is to go forward with the program. And as a council we have not sat down and gone through what procedurally or processed or yeah, basically how are we addressing meeting those goals? At this point I'm very uncomfortable with how we are proceeding to address the Livable Communities Act. Mayor Mancino: And in what way? Because the action plan is in the comprehensive plan. In what way are you feeling uncomfortable? Councilwoman Jansen: I have read that and as I said, I'm not taking issue with what their goals are or what their trying to accomplish. Mayor Mancino: Are you having a concern about what our goals are as city? Councilwoman Jansen: Well I'm concerned for one that within the act it does say things that local government units can do in order to achieve the different affordable housing or life cycle housing and we haven't really addressed those. One very quickly that comes to mind is on the Lake Susan Hills Apartments and one of the suggestions is is that we have a process in place that helps expedite these projects so that we're not costing the developer's more money and we don't have a process like that. So I'm not comfortable that we as a council has evaluated all of the opportunities that we would have to address this act. Or have we, before we approve this resolution, had any public comment to it? And I have gotten phone calls having seen this on the consent agenda, wondering why it was on the consent agenda versus their being aware of it for public comment. So there is an awareness in the community, and I'm not saying that it's community wide but there is some concern as to how we are executing our Livable Communities goals and how we're going to go about that neighborhood by neighborhood. And I think that for myself to do my diligence, I would certainly appreciate being able to, as a council and as a policy making body, sit down and see what steps we either could implement or should be implementing. Could be doing better. And we may even have less conflict with the community once they've seen and they can grasp exactly how this is impacting the community. Scott Botcher: I would simply argue that all those things are laudable and you can do those but none of them indicate that there won't be continued participation over the next year. I mean you still have the opportunity to... Mayor Mancino: To go in and do the process. Scott Botcher: ... continued participation. If you as an independent governing body, just like anybody else on that list of communities that Kate provided, wants to sit down and brainstorm as to better ways to develop their own internal process, you always have the opportunity to do that. The execution of the City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 goals discussion is something that's going to be, you know is going to, Kate is going to get in the way of doing budget next year. But that's when it's going to be but although, I don't disagree with you. What I'm saying is that I think the council and a community has to be able to at least give a two year commitment and be able to stand by it but second, you can do anyway but you're still participating. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I agree with that. I mean I think we can sit and really talk about process and some things that we may want to change as we look at these goals and what we want to do internally or as we look at projects and take the comprehensive plan and the action plan and look at them and really massage them and talk about them. But it still doesn't mean for me that there would be anything that I would change as far as our goals. They feel still very comfortable to me and where we're going. Mark. Councilman Senn: Well, I can appreciate Councilperson Jansen's you know feelings on that. I just think that from, you know from a process standpoint, you know that's something we're going to go through constantly as new people come on the council or whatever. And I mean I think that should be an ongoing dialogue that occurs you know during the year regardless, and I can't see any reason why that dialogue wouldn't continue but I would be really hard pressed to want to send any sign or signals at this point that we were backing off on our commitments, earlier commitments which we studied at length and spent a great deal of time formulating you know from a policy perspective previously and also I would not want this in any way, shape or form to impact a number of critical issues which I'm going to say are on the fringes of what we're doing right now in relationship to funding for metropolitan and state agencies because not adopting this at this point in the time line could in effect, or could affect the way that those particular issues are being evaluated and our potential funding on them so, again, I think we should continue that dialogue and get everybody up to speed and have ample time to do that but I think we should do that during the year and go forward. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel, any? Councilman Engel: Yeah, my only concern is that we're not locked into specific hard coated numbers on any particular development because of agreements to these resolutions. To these types of, I mean we're not on contract saying we're down for X number of units in whatever development we do as I recall, whether we use our PUD or other design standards. We're able to mix this and make it fit or either comply completely or selectively not comply. Kate Aanenson: Right, they're 15 year goals. We're being measured from 1999. 1995 forward. We have 15 years to accomplish those. To move towards those goals and in good faith we're looking at each project and saying what are the opportunities on those projects. And through the plan that we put in place, there's other resources that we always try to bring together to make that happen. There's a lot of things that we can do that have nothing to do with, have to do with the ordinance requirement. Density bonuses. There's a lot of different things. It's not always financial resources. Tax incrementing or anything like that. Councilman Senn: One of the very specific reasons we did not set up a process to expedite was we wanted to do it on a project by project basis. Because I mean our whole discussion was that hey, we're just, we're in a. Mayor Mancino: We're just starting. Councilman Senn: We're just starting and we didn't want to approach it any other way than to really evaluate each one very individually. City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 Councilman Engel: Right. As long as I've got that individual project by project tally, then I can pick and choose where I want to comply or what I think is best for Chanhassen. I'm okay with it. Kate Aanenson: ... few goals that we made clear as a staff. One is we don't want to put it all in one area. We could have accomplished our goals a long time ago and put all units in one area and we kind of decided that we didn't want to do as far as some of the projects where they're affordability of rental on one project. We wanted to disperse that price point so some of those sort of things we talked about. So there's some, there has been direction from the council and those again are put into our housing goals which we've had. And into the strategy of implementation. Councilman Engel: Who are some of the communities that have opted out recently? Kate Aanenson: Well Eagan's out. Shorewood is in. Victoria wasn't in originally and now they're in. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, there's quite a few. Kate Aanenson: Roger do you know off the top of your head some other ones? Roger Knutson: Eagan's the one I know about. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilman Labatt: Why did they opt out? Roger Knutson: My knowledge is just from reading a newspaper article. I have no personal insight. Mayor Mancino: But the ones that are in, well Steve. Do you want to, because then I think I'll go ahead for a motion. Councilman Labatt: IfI heard Linda correctly, she's saying that she didn't want to... she just wanted more public input. And frankly I got a couple calls too from people and I'd support Linda and ask that this be tabled. We're not looking for it to be stopped really. We just want public input. Councilman Engel: I wouldn't have a problem you know listening to or talking about it but I don't think we have the time from what you're telling me is what I'm getting at. We were supposed to be in by November 15th. HOW long can. Scott Botcher: I guess my question what tabling gets you. Councilman Engel: Yeah, how long can we push this off? Scott Botcher: What does tabling get you? It gets you nothing. All it does is, let's be honest. It hacks off Met Council and endangers other revenue sources having nothing to do with housing. You still have the same opportunity to have all the public input you want even if you do approve this. You don't give up anything by approving it. And I guess if you get down to it, if you wanted to rescind it sometime in the middle, if you just had a wild hair come June 1st, we're out of here... I don't know what you get by tabling it. Mayor Mancino: And we're also looking at our goals really next year for 2001. So that's the other thing that we can be doing. City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 Scott Botcher: You don't get anything by tabling it. Councilman Engel: Well I think as long as we stop the project capabilities to do what we've done in the past, I am fine with approving it because it's never locked us in to force us to do anything. Scott Botcher: Absolutely not. Councilman Engel: And we always get a public hearing. Councilwoman Jansen: And just so we're clear, and everyone's focused on my potentially suggesting that we need to change the goals and that's not what I'm suggesting. If by approving this resolution it's approving the way we're going about implementing them, I am not in agreement and until we have that conversation and we have really addressed how we are tailoring our processes and procedures and what we're doing with the Livable Communities Act, I cannot be in agreement with approving the resolution. So if we move forward with that, that's great. Mayor Mancino: Okay, may I have a motion please? Councilman Senn: I will move approval. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? I'm sorry, did you want to say something? Councilman Labatt: No, yeah. I mean I just wanted to add, I mean if we're going to move ahead like this and this was due on the 15th, then we should have been discussing this earlier. We wouldn't be put in this position. I'll just say that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Engel: Yep, I'll second it and I'd also like to say we should have this on the discussion agenda for January or February which would come up. Mayor Mancino: I think we kind of talked about it in the work session. It's been moved and seconded. Resolution/t99-106: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to Approve the Resolution for Continued Participation in the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act for 2000. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Jansen and Councilman Labatt who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE TWO LOTS ON A 1.47 ACRE LAKESHORE PARCEL ZONED RSF; 6665 HORSESHOE CURVE, SANDY POINT, JOHN AND SANDRA CUNNINGHAM. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, City Council members. As you stated, this is a preliminary and final plat request. We're creating two lots out of one larger parcel. The two lots will be 42,320 square feet and 21,850 square feet. Minimum lot size on lake front property is 20,000 square feet in this zoning. The only difference between this and any other subdivision is their accessing via a private street. Our city ordinance does permit that provided they can meet the standards which we believe they've done so there will be one access point for the two homes on Horseshoe Curve. The site, development of the site will require minimum grading. It's only around the driveway to the new home and the new house City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 site. Utilities are available to the site. The sewer is adjacent to Lotus Lake and the water's on the other side of Horseshoe Curve. As part of the development proposal they'd have to escrow that and the City extend it to their property line. The one issue in this is we're recommending dedication of an additional 10 feet of Horseshoe Curve. We recommended this in the past with other subdivisions in the area. Add a 20 foot drainage and utility easement over the existing sanitary sewer line. Currently there is only a 15 foot easement and our standard is 20 feet. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision subject to the conditions in our staff report. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff from council members? Okay, thank you. John or Sandra, would you like to come up and address the council? John Cunningham: Okay, I'm John Cunningham, 6665 Horseshoe Curve. We were very pleased that the Planning Commission and the staff seemed happy with the way we split this lot. We tried very hard to minimize treed changes and to minimize views. And there were just two things that I wanted to comment on very briefly. Number 12, which is that street right-of-way situation. It just seems to me if you look at page 4, there were two other subdivisions that came up on this same road and in both cases the council deleted that particular portion. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me then to do it on this piece of property. I can understand why it was deleted. This is a rather odd street. There are garages in the right- of-way. It's a very narrow street and it serves a very limited area. And I would imagine, I don't know but I would imagine perhaps that's why it was deleted on the other parcels. At any rate I guess I would just ask you to be consistent and act the same way in terms of this lot. The other thing was number 14, which is the driveway. Now if you go along with the staff idea on page 8 in which they indicate that it would perhaps be alright to just pave or cement the common portion of the driveway, then I have absolutely no quarrel with it at all. In fact that's just great. I do worry about a 34 inch burl oak. A 48 inch red oak and a 28 inch red oak, all which will fall within the perimeters of paved driveways. The 34 inch and the 48 inch are in our present, or at the perimeter of our present driveway right in here and right here. That driveway's been in position for about 15 years so I'm fairly sure that those oaks are surviving in that situation. I just get a little bit nervous about paving about ~ of the road area of that oak that's in the center. It just scares me. I know forest people and so on will say that there's no difference between pavement and crushed rock but I just would feel more comfortable not changing that existing situation. Those are beautiful trees. They're I'm sure 100 years old and I just would hate to lose them. But other than that we were pleased with the way the process has gone and I can answer any questions that I could answer, that you'd care to ask. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any questions for Mr. Cunningham? Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Is anyone else here that would like to comment on this? On the lot split. Okay. Back to council. Any questions? I think this is fairly easy. Councilman Senn: No. I'd move approval of deleting item 12 and making him come and a portion only of bituminous or concrete. Mayor Mancino: So on number 12 do you mean delete the whole thing? Councilman Senn: Well delete the additional 10 feet. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so on 12. Councilman Senn: Which is really what 12's dealing with right? Bob Generous: Drainage and utility. City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 Councilman Senn: Well but I mean these go in sync correct? Or are they different? Bob Generous: They're different. Councilman Senn: So the drainage and utility easement doesn't exceed the, does that go into the 10 foot area too? Bob Generous: No. That would be the front drainage and utility easement is 10 feet and that would be covered. Councilman Senn: Okay, so that's already consistent. Bob Generous: Right. Anita Benson: What we're talking about is over the sanitary sewer line which runs down near Lotus Lake. We currently have a 15 foot drainage and utility easement. Our standard is 20 so we're asking that that be increased. Mayor Mancino: And John is that a problem? John Cunningham: No, because that's just for access for the utilities. Mayor Mancino: Yep. Councilman Senn: So we delete just the first portion of 12 then. Okay. Delete the first sentence of 12 and leave the second. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and on 14 you want to keep that last sentence that says the common portion of the driveway must be. Councilman Senn: Yeah, again delete the first two sentences and leave the last. At a minimum the common portion of the driveways shall be paved with. Mayor Mancino: Okay, got it. Is there a second to that? Councilman Engel: I'll second. Resolution #99-107: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision #97-11 creating two lots for Sandy Point Addition as shown on the plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc. dated October 15, 1999, subject to the following conditions: 1. The principle structure on Lot 1, Block 1 must maintain a 76 foot setback from the normal water elevation (896.3). 2. In lieu of park land dedication, the developer shall pay full park and trail fees for Lot 1, Block 1, to the city pursuant to city ordinance (park fees of $1,200 total with 1/3 or $400.00 due at time of plat recording and trail fees of $400.00 with 1/3 or $133.33 due at the time of plat recording). 3. The access easement width must be 30 feet. A driveway easement and maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the final plat. City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 10. 11 12. 13. 14. Because of the distance and the setbacks for the proposed building, additional address signs will be required at the driveway entrance in compliance with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #29- 1992 regarding premise identification. (Copy enclosed). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for proposed address identification at the driveway entrance. A demolition permit must be obtained to demolish the existing detached garage and gazebo. Both of these structures must be removed. The water service serving the new home on Lot 1 cannot pass through the garage. The water service line must be sized based on the available water pressure and the amount of plumbing fixtures in the building. The address for the existing home on Lot 2 will have to be changed to 6669 Horseshoe Curve and the new home on Lot 1 will be addressed 6665 Horseshoe Curve. The applicant must contact the appropriate agencies to coordinate this change. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required at time of building permit application for city staff to review and approve. Drainage swales must be installed and maintained along both sides of any house proposed on Lot 1 to manage runoff from the front yard to the back yard and maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern. Erosion control measures will be required on the building permit certificate of survey. Erosion control fencing shall be installed on the downstream side of the grading limits. A rock construction entrance shall also be required at Horseshoe Curve. The developer and staff shall work together in determining a path for the sanitary sewer service which creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. The water service shall be extended by the City at the developer's cost from Horseshoe Curve to the easterly property line of Lot 2. The developer will be responsible for extending the water service through Lot 1 to Lot 2. The developer shall escrow with the City $2,500 to guarantee the cost of water service extension across Horseshoe Curve. Lot 1, Block 1 will be responsible for a sanitary sewer and water hookup fee and connection charges at time of building permit application. The cost of extending the water service across Horseshoe Curve shall be deducted from the watermain connection charge. The final plat shall dedicate the standard 10 foot front and rear yard and 5 foot side yard drainage and utility easements. In addition, a 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement shall be dedicated over the existing sanitary sewer line that runs through the westerly portion of Lots 1 and 2. The developer shall be responsible for all City Attorney fees ($350.00) associated with the review and recording ($60.00) of the final plat documents, Surface Water Management Fees ($1,390.00) and GIS fees (45.00) pursuant to City ordinances. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. The common portion of the driveways for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 shall be paved with either bituminous or concrete. The common portion of the driveway must be twenty feet wide pavement width with a seven ton design. City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 15. Shoreline vegetation removal shall comply with the requirements of the shoreland management district regulations. 16. Tree preservation fence will be required to be installed at the edge of proposed grading limits. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 20,134 SQ. FT. AND 19,591 SQ. FT.; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND HOLLY LANE, ARROWHEAD ADDITION, ARROWHEAD DEVELOPMENT. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. Again this is an infill development. This is an existing parcel within developed portions of the city. Like the previous one, access to this property will be via a private street. In evaluating the subdivision, we actually looked at how this property could be accessed by other areas. The closest public streets are Teton Lane and Bretton Way. However there are other developments, other properties in that area that would have to be crossed and unfortunately they're not in for development approval at this time so we had to address this site. In their initial submittal to the City they had their driveway going farther to the north. We worked with the applicant on trying to relocate that and redesign the parcels so they complied with city ordinance and yet provided a more safer access onto the county road. We have had discussions with Carver County... but they have to provide something for this parcel. This development will, the actual development of this site will change the drainage patterns in the area very little. However, as part of this development we're requiring dedication of a drainage and utility easement over Outlot A which is on the east side of Powers Boulevard. Within this area the City will be proposing in the future the creation of a storm water pond and this should help the drainage problems on Holly Lane. While it won't eliminate all of it, it may do some storm water protection for the area. Utilities are available to this site. As part of this development they do have to provide some public utility extensions. They're bringing them down from the north to the common driveway area so when they come in for final plat they will have construction plans in the development contract. With that staff is recommending approval of the two lot subdivision. Preliminary plat approval of this subdivision subject to the conditions in the staff report. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much Bob. Any questions for staff'? Is anyone here from the Arrowhead Development Corporation? Would you state your name and address please? Mike Abbott: Yeah, my name is Mike Abbott. I live at 1282 Medina Road in Medina. I don't really have much more to say other than what's been said so far but I'm here if you have any questions. Mayor Mancino: Mike, do you have any concerns with the conditions of approval? Mike Abbott: No. None at all. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions from council members for Mike? Okay, thank you Mike. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come up and address council on this? Okay, bringing it back to Council. Any questions? Discussion? Councilwoman Jansen: I missed on one question actually for staff if I could. Mayor Mancino: Sure, please. 10 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: The Planning Commission had had that conversation about the tree conservation easement to the north side of this property and of course you had noted that, in that it is a limited buildable area. That that might not be a necessity. What would constrain the property owners from clear cutting that without an easement? Without a conservation easement. Bob Generous: You can't clear cut without either site plan or subdivision approval. As part of this they'd need to bring in the individual grading plan. Kate Aanenson: As part of our custom grading plan identified trees to be removed and those are the only ones they can remove. Councilwoman Jansen: And actually thinking more where one year into their living in their homes and they decide they want larger play areas. So larger cleared field area as far as a yard. Just a flat yard. What restrains them from doing that without a conservation easement? Kate Aanenson: You can't clear cut. That's in the ordinance. Mayor Mancino: It's under our tree preservation ordinance. 20-1178. Councilwoman Jansen: And how do we make them aware of that after they're homeowners? Kate Aanenson: Well it's the same issue we have throughout the city. We have that situation where, generally it's policed by the neighbors. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, somebody calls and says guess what. Councilwoman Jansen: So they hear the chainsaws going and we're out there? Kate Aanenson: It's pretty well policed by the neighbors. Actually we have pretty good, we get a lot of phone calls on what I can do before people start. People are pretty good about that. Most people that buy wooded lots buy it for that reason. Bob Generous: They pay a premium for those woods. Plus that provides the buffer for these properties from Powers which everybody knows is a busy road. Mayor Mancino: But Linda there's no question too. I mean somebody may go in and take down 2 or 3 trees because they want a little more green area. I mean that does happen. I mean that's not really clear cutting. You know so there's that kind of fine line. Councilwoman Jansen: So they could expand. Mayor Mancino: But you know I mean any homeowner can. I mean I can't, wouldn't tell Steve on his home what he couldn't take down. Councilman Labatt: ... so I can't cut any trees down. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And you don't go in there and do that do you? Councilman Labatt: Oh no. Mayor Mancino: Okay. There you go. 11 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 Councilman Labatt: Because they told me when I bought my house you couldn't. So I know.., by putting an easement on there. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, that's the question Kate. I mean would it be more up from if we put one on? Kate Aanenson: Well we went over it with Jill. I guess the reason we didn't at that time, we thought it was self defeating because that is acting as a buffer and if you were to clear cut that down, you'd really... Councilman Labatt: ... I couldn't cut down a tree over 3 inches in diameter. Councilman Senn: Well that's a simple lot split. If we start getting into that kind of an easement, there's other ramifications. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I guess let's go back to, if we want to start comparing things. You know when we do a PUD, there's reasons for doing the PUD. You're getting conservation easements. You're saving natural features to assure we're accomplishing that when we're giving something, we make sure the carrot stick. That we've accomplished that by putting a conservation easement. Because this is a straight subdivision and we felt like we didn't need that same.., so we're comparing two different things here. As Mark said, it's a simple subdivision. It's a good question and you know again we hope... Mayor Mancino: Again, Steve lives in a PUD and there was that. Kate Aanenson: Right, but it is a good question. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay move for approval. Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Mayor Mancino: Yes? Sure. You're certainly welcome to. Please state your name and address. Robert Rabe: My name's Robert Rabe and I live on Teton Lane, just due west of the property in question. And at the planning meeting I expressed a concern about these very issues. The trees in particular. Because they do provide a buffer from the houses to the west and Powers Boulevard. I was in looking at the property and it appears there are a fair number of trees that are a greater than a foot in diameter, especially to the north and then there are the larger evergreens down to the south. So just in general I think we'd all be happier if we could protect them somehow. Explicitly if possible but. And I do have some photos. I don't know if you can zoom in but it's not a. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Those are good sized. Robert Rabe: Pretty big. There's my hand. But I do appreciate you're asking... And these are all maples here so I think there was merit in maintaining... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. Mike, we're assuming that you're going to be working with staff as you look at where the buildings are going to go and that you're going to want to save the trees for the value of the property and what you're trying to sell. I mean if you don't mind addressing that just conceptually for us. We'd appreciate it. 12 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 Mike Abbott: Right. I don't mind preserving what trees that I can and being able to build two homes on the lot. That's the only restriction that you know that I'd really want. I wouldn't even mind giving a tree easement. I think it's extraordinary to ask for it but I wouldn't mind giving it. I think you may have to address it at some point in the future. Somebody lives there for 20 years and you know, if something comes in, Dutch Elm disease or something, I mean I think you're putting restrictions on that property that at some point you're going to have two residents that probably aren't going to be happy with it. I don't mind doing it. I'm going to plant more trees between the homes that we build and Powers Boulevard anyway so I don't know. I don't know. I think, I don't know where those photos were taken. A lot of the trees, 90% of them I would say are probably less than 6 inches in diameter. Mayor Mancino: So if we put something as a condition for you and staff to work on a conservation easement, if you felt comfortable with that. Mike Abbott: Yeah, I mean here it says to explore the possibility of a tree, and that I will agree to. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Mike Abbott: And I've already talked to Bob extensively. What we want to do is probably put all pine trees anyway in there so I mean I want the buffer, but I want the ability to put a driveway and house in there. Kate Aanenson: I guess if there were significant trees, that's one of the conditions that we had Jill look at. If there's something significant that needs to be preserved, that that would be an opportunity and certainly we look at that in the home placement. Councilman Senn: Well that had to have been in your recorded tree plan. Kate Aanenson: Right. It is a condition. Mayor Mancino: And it is a condition on here already. Bob Generous: Number 16. Mayor Mancino: Number 16, to explore the possibility, great. Thank you. Kate Aanenson: That was moved forward from the Planning Commission. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen: Yep, great. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. So we have a motion and we have a second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Arrowhead Addition, Subdivision #99-10, creating two lots as shown on plans prepared by Advanced Surveying and Engineering Company, dated June 24, 1999, revised October 26, 1999, subject to the following conditions: The development shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to city ordinance in lieu of park land dedication. 13 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 10. 11 12. 13. 14. If any soil corrections are done on the property a final grading and soil report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits will be issued. Address numbers must be posted at the driveway entrance on Powers Boulevard and on each dwelling. Each property must be served by independent sewer and water services. It may be possible to provide an easement for a joint service, however a manhole structure would be required at the service split. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan as part of the final plat approval showing a total of 17 trees to be planted as part of this development. A minimum of four of the trees must be conifers that shall be located along Powers Boulevard. Conifers shall average seven feet in height at planting. The balance of the trees may be from the city's approved tree list. Trees shall meet minimum size requirements. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required for each lot at time of building permit application for city staff to review. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The applicant shall dedicate the southeasterly 50 feet of Outlot A for public street purposes for Holly Lane. The applicant shall prepare and have recorded a 20 foot wide private drainage and utility easement in favor of Lot 1 over Lot 2 to extend sewer and water service to Lot 1. In addition, the developer shall prepare and have recorded a 30 foot wide private driveway easement agreement across Lot 2 to provide access to Lot 1 from Powers Boulevard. The driveway width shall be a minimum of 18 feet wide and a maximum of 24 feet wide in the common portion of the driveway area. Individual driveways may be a minimum of 12 feet wide and a maximum of 24 feet wide. All driveway areas shall be paved with an all weather surface such as bituminous or concrete. The applicant shall prepare detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for the extension of sewer and water service to service Lots 1 and 2. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to city staff for review and approval three weeks prior to final plat consideration. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with the necessary permits such as Carver County Highway Department, MPCA, Watershed District and Minnesota Department of Health. Lots 1 and 2 shall be responsible for a sanitary sewer and water hookup charge at time of building permit application at the rate in effect at the time. SWMP fees shall be paid to the city in the amount of $2,530.00 ($782.00 quality and $1,802.00 quantity) prior to the recording of the final plat. The applicant shall dedicate to the city a drainage and utility easement over Outlot A. 14 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 15. Since Lot 1 does not front on a public street, the front yard shall be considered the lot line closest to Powers Boulevard. The required 30 foot front yard setback shall be maintained from this lot line. 16. Explore the possibility of a tree conservation easement over the northern triangle of the site and provide the city with a detailed tree inventory. 17. Investigate erosion and drainage issues for the area. 18. Concurrence with Carver County on the driveway access to Powers Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF THE 2000 BUDGET AND APPROVAL OF THE FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PLAN. Scott Botcher: We have actually two items tonight that you'll be considering. One is the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2000 budget. The second is the approval of the five year capital plan. Bruce will start with a presentation on the Fiscal Year 2000 budget. We've been working on this probably since, I don't know, June. And we've all put in a lot of time on it. Following that presentation, I don't know how you guys want to deal with it. You know you can take a vote on the budget and then take up the capital plan or ask Bruce to sit down and take up the capital plan and vote on them both, one after the other so whatever floats your boat. Mayor Mancino: How would council like to do that? Do you want to do the budget first and then do the capital plan? Everybody comfortable with that? Councilwoman Jansen: Sure. Councilman Senn: Sure. Scott Botcher: Bruce, go for it. Bruce DeJong: Good evening Mayor, City Council members. Tonight I want to just run through a little bit of how we got to where we are in the budget process and then I'll stand and answer some questions. First off, the budget process is a fairly lengthy process. We started out this summer when the department directors put together their preliminary budget requests to present to the City Manager and I so back in the June and July time frame was when they were putting together their initial requests. Then we put our heads together as Finance Director and City Manager in August. Put this so that it makes some sense on paper. Put it together and bring in a preliminary Truth in Taxation tax levy for your approval. At that point in September 13th you did approve that preliminary Truth in Taxation tax levy with an increase of 5.78%. Then we can raise our budget or lower our budget amount but we cannot raise the tax dollars that we have put in that Truth in Taxation notice. Now we went through in October and November and examined those numbers very closely. Came back to you and had the Department Directors talk to you individually about their budgets and made some judgments about where they should be. And we also had some time then to examine some of the other areas of concern, one of which was the debt service levies and the other was the Southwest Metro Transit levy. Those were both reduced during the detailed meetings that we had and then last week you held a Truth in Taxation hearing at which point citizens could come in and register their comments regarding the budget, the tax levy and any other concerns that they had regarding our city financial operations. Tonight I'm asking you to go ahead and adopt the budget based on the resolution that was presented in your packet. The budget that is in front of you is probably significantly different from other budgets that you've seen in the past in that we have consolidated a 15 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 couple funds. There were administrative expenses that were put out in both the capital projects administration fund and in the historic preservation trust fund. Those have been consolidated into the general fund for the 2000 budget because it seems to make more sense and because it eliminates some things that were called attributable to in the previous budgets which really didn't make much sense. It was revenues that were being counted as negatives expenditures, so in eliminating those it looks like our general fund budget has gone up significantly from a little over $6,000 in 1999 to a little over $7 million in 2000. Mayor Mancino: Looks like a huge increase. Bruce DeJong: Yes, it does look like a huge increase and that's why the next slide in your presentation is why the big jump in 2000? It shows that those previous budget allocations were in other funds. When we incorporate those back in, then you can see that, if we had been accounting for them in the same method, we've actually reduced expenditures for the year 2000 by something on the order of $80,000. Mayor Mancino: So the last line on page 4 is that we're reducing our expenditures in 2000. Oh I see, okay. So 1999 is the $7,094,000 and 2000 it's $7,017,000. Bruce DeJong: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Bruce DeJong: The next slide shows that our fund balance had jumped dramatically in 1998. We had a surplus of over $800,000 in 1998 and with the budget that we're adopting tonight, we anticipate keeping that surplus approximately where it is. We will be using about $367,000 of that surplus to balance our budget for the year 2000. Mayor Mancino: So this is a history of the general fund balance? I'm sorry. Bruce DeJong: That is the history as adopted in previous budgets. Those were from the actual budget books from 1996 through the year 2000. Councilman Senn: But you're actually showing us two things. You're showing the history of the fund and then you're showing the history of the fund balance. Bruce DeJong: I'm showing the history of the fund balance and showing where that sits in relationship to your adopted policy. Your policy on fund balance says that you will consider anything in excess of one half of the amount of the next year's taxes and one half of the amount of the next year's homestead and agricultural credit aid to be above your policy. So your policy really sets a minimum amount based on cashflow needs. We don't get those revenues in as a city until people pay their first half taxes for the year, which is May 15th and then it takes a while for the county to actually distribute those. We don't receive any money until the end of June. So that helps that fund balance helps to cashflow our operations through the first half of the year. Now the net affect of this budget on the tax levy is that our tax levy is up $183,000 from 1999 to the year 2000. The budget is being balanced by using $367,000 of that surplus, which in effect is the same policy that you had before. You were using money in the historic preservation trust to balance expenditures with the idea that that was going to be spent down through the year 2004. Now what happens on an individual property basis is that the growth in our tax capacity which was 6.1% is in excess of the amount that you increased the levy. What that means for an individual homeowner is that in most instances they see no increase or even a slight decrease in the actual amount of property tax that's paid to the City of Chanhassen. Based on this information my recommendation is that you adopt the tax levy and the budget as presented tonight and that we continue to update our fiscal policies having 16 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 Ehlers and Associates look at what we actually have as far as our debt study. What kind of possibilities there are for paying off all of our debt including our TIF debt on a timely or even more rapid basis. And we need to determine how the debt study and the CIP adoption affect our future tax rate, but I move that, or I recommend that you adopt the tax levy and the budget as presented. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Bruce. Any questions for Bruce? Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: Bruce, just to understand now. As far as the surplus that's there now, okay. Now that surplus did not come from the general fund in the first place, correct? It came from all the other funds basically. Bruce DeJong: No. It did come from the general fund. Basically from much higher than anticipated building permit revenues. Councilman Senn: Okay, so that's where it all came from? Bruce DeJong: Yes. Scott Botcher: Yeah. The surplus that is in excess of the fiscal policy floor was not at the lowering tax revenues. It was other fee income generated by building permits or anything else that we did that was an alternative revenue source, but it wasn't taxpayers money that was just banked. Councilman Senn: It wasn't rated through the tax.., raised through fees basically? Scott Botcher: Correct. Bruce DeJong: That's correct. Councilman Senn: But essentially if we proceed with this approach on use of that surplus essentially over about the next four years, that surplus kind of equally over four years would be returned to the taxpayers even though that's not where it came from basically? Bruce DeJong: That's correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. Scott Botcher: And that number will be adjusted as we react to our revenue streams over the 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 revenue streams. Depending on how our operational budget goes. If we have again in 2000, another couple hundred thousand dollars in excess of what was budgeted in the revenue side, then obviously that will impact the general fund budget. We also have some other funds that we still need to tie back into the general fund, fund balance that was talked about. But we've got some, quite honestly internally we've got some discussions on what kind of recommendations to make to you on that so what you see here, as Bruce has indicated on his slides, is general fund stuff. Councilman Senn: But essentially as we discussed in work sessions, just to make sure there's clear understanding is that our purpose here and our intent here is to eliminate peaks and valleys as it relates to the tax levy and so the even distribution of the surplus funds, even though granted none of us have a good crystal ball to see exactly what the future is. But could plan on the basis of what we know to equally spread that so we avoid those peaks and valleys. 17 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 Mayor Mancino: But again we can look at that year by year. We can say upfront or we talked about looking, doing a multi-year projections. Looking out five years again as part of the next step in 2000. Because we really haven't done that yet. Councilman Senn: Right, that's step two of the recommendations. Scott Botcher: And then finally again, and we've calendared it already. I believe it was late February but I could look. We have already scheduled for work sessions beginning review of the financial policies. So that's going to be on your February work, I think it's February. Work session agendas for us to begin to review that because I believe it's nye upon 4 ½ - 5 years old. And there are some issues in there that we need to quite honestly I know that there's a couple in there we're going to recommend eliminating. A couple we're going to recommend adding and some changing. But we have recommended a fairly conservative budget. We've been able to do some things because of our fund consolidation. Been able to do some things because of our alternative fee revenue, and the growth in the community. Bruce DeJong: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any other questions for Bruce? Councilwoman Jansen? Councilwoman Jansen: Not a question so much as maybe a clarification from what Councilman Senn is saying because even though we have these surpluses, it's my understanding that as a growing community we also have needs for those surpluses. It's not as if we're all of a sudden not going to need that cash or be it the CIP expenditures or your, as you said in your presentation, you'll be examining where our debt numbers are actually going to be coming in. Because as I know I stated in the work session, and I get a little nervous if we're starting to now speak to and project that we're going to be continue to run deficit budgets. Because though I understand and I can appreciate what Mr. Botcher and Mr. DeJong have done in a very short period of time, is sifting through all of our numbers and really trying to get us down to the nuts and bolts of where are we and I commend you for the information that you've given to us and you've certainly simplified it for all of us to try to get a better feel for where we are. And I acknowledge that you've said that you need more time to really go through this and of course figure out where our debt is and our CIP and all those other monumental tasks. But I would not be one to say here tonight that a policy of running a deficit budget is okay as long as we have those surpluses. It certainly isn't a prudent budgeting philosophy that I've ever read about. In fact I was intrigued, I don't know if the article came from Mr. DeJong or Mr. Botcher but it was quoting one of the states of either South Caroline or North Carolina that if a municipality runs a deficit budget for one year, they have to commit to a plan to get that back to a balanced budget by the following year. So I mean there was a state that's actually policing that sort of a policy issue. But there would come a time, at some point in this continuum that some council is going to be faced with having to balance the budget. We certainly are going to have needs as a community and you can't continue to run expenses beyond revenues. And I guess when I say I'm fiscally conservative, that's one of those things that makes my blood go cold is to think that we wouldn't be living within our means. And acknowledging that our permit revenues could continue to escalate and could continue to take care of that deficit. I'm comfortable with that, but we're not so comfortable with it as we're projecting it into our budget. We're being very conservative here and betting on the fact that we're going to have those additional revenues. That's a long shot. And of course you can gauge your odds in how well you like to place bets, but we... Mayor Mancino: Well in the last two years we've had quite a surplus in that area and we've just approved 800,000 square feet of commercial, industrial development. Councilwoman Jansen: Then do we go back and are we then comfortable re-projecting this because we just went from a $300,000 deficit to a $367,000 within the budget between the last tax hearing and 18 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 tonight, that deficit number has increased as the numbers were worked per the cover sheet that's on our budget information. So it's crept up and again I'm anticipating that we're going to continue to have these issues as we continue through the year that are going to maybe pop up. And we're going to need to address them. Scott Botcher: I guess a couple things. The budget projections you have do not at all, are not at all based upon any increase in fee revenue in 2000 or beyond. We could hit the targets that are in here, which are substantially less than this year or even what some people are, have offered as conjectures of what may happen next year, and that's not part of this deal at all. Secondly, given the way that the county assesses property, if you continue and there's a strong possibility we may do it again for at least one more tax year. Again, given the way the calendar falls, have growth growing at twice the rate of a tax levy increase, that gap of providing, of applying those alternative revenue sources to the revenue stream will go like this. It will begin to close. So long as you keep that expenditure line under control, those lines will cross. And we've all talked about when that downtown TIF is going to come off and basically what we're doing is we're moderating those trend lines. And you can see the expense numbers. We're compressing those expense numbers, trying to keep them under control. Realizing where growth is. Not counting that additional revenue. It's sort of in the back of our head but it's not there. And trying to time those trend lines to cross about the time that downtown TIF comes out. So I guess that's the first thing. Second thing is, we do have that money that's in the bank. I mean those fund balances don't, whatever year you pick, there's money there. I don't know outside of creating additional programs, and there are no additional programs created in this budget, how you "give that money back" to the taxpayers except for the application of fund balances as a revenue stream to suppress the levy... Jesse thanks you. Here's Arnie's money back. We can't do that so. Councilwoman Jansen: But to that comment in essence, we are providing additional needs of the community by addressing the capital improvement plan. So again our current policy is saying that those things will be paid for through cash, which I'm not supporting that policy. I'm not saying that's what we should do. But I do think that that points to where those surpluses end up addressing the needs of the community and granted as we went through the budget and again I commend you. You held things tight. You kept the expenditure line under control. But we all heard additional needs. We are running an extremely, extremely tight ship and staff should be commended. They're doing what they can with the limited resources to provide the services. We're forcing that issue and I'm not saying we should be increasing the expenditures. All I'm saying is if philosophically I'm hearing that this council is going to be comfortable running deficit budgets, I'm not going to be, I'm not going to say that. Mayor Mancino: Linda, no one said that. I mean we said we're going to be setting some policy in February. Scott Botcher: And I'm not sure, I guess I go back to a couple things. First of all what policy what may have said in anything in the past and what actually may have happened might be two different things. I mean secondly, you will always have individuals requesting more than you probably want to grant. I mean if you guys all sat up here and said whatever you like, shoot we'd be out for bond issues that are tremendously huge. For a city the size of Chanhassen to go to market, even if we go to market with everything in the capital plan for 2000 and $1.4 million, that's peanuts. I mean you're right. It's a pretty lean operation, and that's okay. Finally, if you remember the S & P report, when we get that TIF debt retired, I mean that's a humongous chunk of it. 50 of $56 million of our debt is TIF debt. And you know we have worked now to compress the time frames of our tax increment district. Eden Trace is a classic example. If Eden Trace builds as they appear to be building now, what has been approved and what's in the pipeline, they could be in and out of there in half the time we projected and our projections were what, four years? I think Mark made the motion. That's going to help us out. That's going to really help us out so you know I guess I just, you've got to consider when you're in a position, you know we're in a cash 19 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 management position and I've been bugging the heck out of Bruce quite honestly, where are we cash wise? Where's the cash flowing? Where is it? Where is it? Where is it? It's a resource. I mean I would hesitate to call application of alternative revenue sources beyond an... tax levy, a deficit budget. I don't think that's a fair connotation of what we have. You generated this fee income. If you're in the private sector for example and you usually sell widgets, but all of a sudden you get this alternative revenue source and you're going to plan your expenditure based upon this other revenue source, you wouldn't call it a deficit budget. You wouldn't do that. We have the ability. Nobody's talking about adjusting the fiscal policy as to how much we should have there. Where we're talking about prudent cash management. And it's conservative, no question. We could easily take that whole pot of money, throw it at it and the tax levy would, but then you're going to be left in a position like we talked about before where every little bump in the road, the homeowners are going to feel and that's not prudent cash management. So I guess that's sort of what everyone needs to think about because it is, it is an asset. We need to manage it. Is that right? Councilwoman Jansen: I definitely realize that there is a, there are a great deal of issues that we're still all going to be getting our arms around. And I am confident that the two of you will do that for us. But in a growing community, I just would not make a blanket statement that this is the way that I would approve doing this going forward, but that's just my own comfort zone when it comes to running financials. Scott Botcher: And generally I would agree, but the more money, I mean honest to god. If I could generate all of our needed revenues from everywhere but taxes, that would be great. Councilwoman Jansen: Sure. Scott Botcher: Period. Councilwoman Jansen: Sure it would. Scott Botcher: And if fund balances were just so humongous that we'd apply a whole bunch of fund balance toward it, you may still consider that a deficit budget but you'd also love doing that, and that's just another resource. It's another part of the pie. Councilwoman Jansen: I wouldn't consider it a deficit budget if we didn't have needs that could be met with those cash reserves. I mean I'm not hearing that we are so rich that we can just keep throwing money at our problems. My philosophy and what I'm anticipating is that there is going to come a day when someone's going to have to make the tough decision on whether you raise the taxes or you cut the expenses because they're going to have to come into line at some point. So I mean that's where I'm reacting from. It would be nice if we could just continue on this economic high that we're on. It's going to be when you hit that tough year that somebody's going to have some major, big time decisions to make because they're not going to have excess building permits to fall back on and so forth. Scott Botcher: And that's why the trend line is important. Again, as our growth, if we can keep this, if we had expenditures a lot more than they are now and it was closer to the 6.1% increase in the levy, we wouldn't have gained anything. But again we're, and I'm just going to guess, we probably a year and a half, to two and a half years away from those trend lines touching, assuming certain growth factors in the economy. Mayor Mancino: And isn't that why we're doing, looking ahead multi year? I mean that's one of the things that we want to start doing the first quarter of next year is to look out five years and to start doing some projecting... 20 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: I realize we have a long way to go. Mayor Mancino: I mean we can only act on one year at a time and we're only consolidating, getting our hands around it this year so I don't. Scott Botcher: And so I guess I don't disagree with you. I just wanted to explain I guess for God and Country and the Queen, you know what we're, what the game plan is. Councilwoman Jansen: I absolutely understand. Mayor Mancino: And it will change. No question about it. Scott Botcher: Yes it will, unless you're Denny Green. Bruce DeJong: We're just asking for some time to bring some of those analysis back to you. The Council still retains the ability to transfer any and all of that general fund balance to any other fund or to allocate it for any other expenditure that's lawful so we're not attempting to take away any authority or decision of the council. We're just trying to present this as a prudent one year budget and looking at those longer range trends to let you know what will be a prudent way to manage your tax rate and your debt level. Scott Botcher: And we have, you know and I know Linda said it. One of our goals this year was simply identifying what was and wasn't. I mean I think that we heard from you guys so many times as to what you did know and what you didn't know. And we tried our best so you guys at least know where you are. Now over the next you know 3, 4, 5 years you can make those decisions and you can take Bruce's and my recommendation and just flush them if you want. I mean you guys have that authority. But we feel obligated to make a recommendation that we feel is in the best long term interest of the city and there you go. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilwoman Jansen: Don't get me wrong. Like I said and where I started was I'm in full support of the two of you and what you've done. Scott Botcher: Let me show Melissa to see my trend lines. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel, any questions? Councilman Engel: Nope. I know exactly what they've got planned. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Labatt? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Can I have a, on the budget, may I please have a motion? Councilman Senn: Move approval. Councilman Engel: Second. Mayor Mancino: You're moving approval of what? What's the recommendation? 21 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 Scott Botcher: The resolution? Mayor Mancino: The resolution? Councilman Senn: Approve the budget resolution. Mayor Mancino: Okay. There has been a motion and a second. Resolution #99-108: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the resolution adopting the 2000 budget as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mancino: CIP. Scott Botcher: This is where we've had multiple discussions on this. I know there's a couple issues outstanding in this packet. Again we'd like some direction from the council on what those are and once you reach some sort of consensus on these specific issues in here, we'd like it to be adopted as well. Mayor Mancino: Okay, CIP. Looking at that. I know that one of the things that we talked about at our last work session was on page 4-13 which had to do with the Highway 101 trail development. And I know that at the last work session we had lots of questions. We wanted questions answered as far as right-of-way jurisdiction. All sorts of things that we're working on. And when we get those questions answered and we'll review them as a council and we also talked about upping, depending on what those answers are, upping the date of the trail construction to 2000-2001. If that's a possibility if we were to go forward with that. So I would just like to talk about that now as a council and say, in the CIP where do we want that trail to be? And obviously a lot of it will depend on what we hear back from our engineering department. Councilman Engel. Right now it's for 2002. Do you feel comfortable leaving it there or putting it in possibly 2000 or 2001 or just as part of the public hearing, saying that that may be changed next year? Councilman Engel: I'd like to see it in 2000 personally. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess one of the things that we're consistently hearing from out of this neighborhood is that they're told one thing and we end up not being able to deliver. So my reaction would be, having noted with Mr. Botcher that we can always amend the CIP, we don't have the answers yet to our legal questions, which aren't small obstacles for us to get over. Until we really hash through the legalities of what we're doing. What if we find out we legally can't do this? I would feel better in not misleading the neighborhood to not be too premature in moving a number in our capital plan but to communicate as we had said we would, that we are looking at the trail separately from the roadway and maybe investigating those options and moving forward with it as we can. I mean yes it would sound wonderful to them if we could say 2000 but we can't guarantee that, would be my hesitation. They've had such disappointments now and the neighbors have noted how emotional this issue is. That would really just add to the rollercoaster if we couldn't deliver. Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I would like to see our goals be starting in 2000, which is a goal. I know we have questions yet to answer and deal with, but I would also like the mechanisms in place should we be able to answer those questions positively to proceed without a lot of additional considerations since we've 22 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 already gone through a great deal of that discussion and consideration so I would like to see it as Councilman Engel would move to 2000. And 2000-2001 is probably realistic because it's not all going to be paid for in one year anyway. Mayor Mancino: I don't think any of us are saying anything different to tell you the truth on this but go ahead. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I'm okay with 2001. Not with 2000. I mean I don't want to mislead the neighborhood either if we can. So I've got mine circled here for 2001 but nothing sooner than that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then let's not get, let's just say our goal is to get it done, I mean how can we put this in our CIP? The goal is once questions are answered, we want to get it, the goal is to get it done as quickly as possible. Councilman Labatt: We can always amend it. Mayor Mancino: And we can always amend it, but our goal is to start it in 2000 if we possibly can. If all the questions come up positively. Councilman Engel: I'm fine with that. Mayor Mancino: I mean how does that, I mean obviously if we get answers and we can't start it in 2000, we won't. But if the answers are positive and we can get it started in 2000 we will. We're committed to it as a council. If the answers fall in line, does that make sense? Scott Botcher: I'd recommend that you'd just footnote the item, 4-13 stating that. If that's what you're comfortable with. I'd footnote it and then you communicate it as clearly as possible to everyone that cares what you're trying to do because it's a tough issue. I mean I actually surveyed the street, or surveyed the highway this weekend. It's going to be a tough project. I mean this baby, this is not like running up and down Powers. This is a tough one. Mayor Mancino: I know. There's a lot to answer. Scott Botcher: I mean we're assuming that, and Mark probably knows the neighbors better certainly than I do. We're assuming that the neighbors who have frontage right along 101 are going to be cooperative and I just, I see mailboxes, I see trees potentially coming out. Big retaining walls. I just think footnoting it and leaving it at 2002 might be in everyone's best interest because it's going to be an interesting trail to put in. Mayor Mancino: I agree. Scott Botcher: So Todd, can you come up with a... Mayor Mancino: But see I wouldn't even footnote it at a year. I would just. Councilwoman Jansen: That we're working on it? Mayor Mancino: That we're going to do it as soon as we can. We'd like to do it in 2000 but we have questions that need to be answered, instead of putting it in a year. Councilman Engel: You mean noting it, putting it in 2002 or 2001... at all? 23 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Yeah, kind of leave it blank and say we want to start it in 2000 but you know we've got to have some questions answered so we're going to start it as soon as we possibly can. Is that too? Councilwoman Jansen: Can we say we've started the planning and review process in 2000? I mean state what we're doing. State what we're doing and if the pieces fall into place, and it happens sooner. But right now we're planning and reviewing. Mayor Mancino: Okay, we all feel comfortable with that. Okay. The other one that I saw that we had discussion around, we didn't come to agreement on is 5-14 and that had to do with replace PBX, City Hall $100,000. I think that we wanted more information on that. So on that one, a footnote that we need more information before we work, we would go ahead and authorize the $100,000 for PBX. A footnote there. Scott Botcher: Todd, can you footnote that? 5-14. Councilwoman Jansen: On all of these, and maybe clarify for me, I'm assuming that the process is before we move forward with any of the capital projects that we are having more in depth discussion and review, and nothing would go out for a feasibility report or. Scott Botcher: For the ones that you've identified that's true. You remember in the summer we had this discussion. I'm not going to come back, I mean if it's in the capital plan, I don't plan on coming back and seeking approval to go for specs and plans on radios for example or the air packs. Councilwoman Jansen: So it would be more these types of projects where we don't have something specific? Scott Botcher: Right. I mean I think that for some things you've communicated pretty clearly what you have in mind that requires additional discussion. The trails. The phone system. Certainly the Lake Ann Park building comes to mind. Beyond that you're talking houses. You're talking...talking radio. I'm candidly not planning to bring that back to you guys. We're going to bid it out. If there's a problem with that we'll bring it back but, and that's sort of, to me that would be sort of micro managing and nickel and diming and we're not doing that. Councilwoman Jansen: Agreed. So if the items are specific, what you're saying, if they're very specific, they just go. But on these things for instance, the building would have been of mine. Scott Botcher: Every year's capital plan is going to have those little hang nail projects that we need to talk about before we do anything and that's understood. I mean that's pretty common. Mayor Mancino: And the other hang nail one that, just because you pulled the number out of your hat is the Lake Ann Park cold storage shop and again that'd be something that would come back in front of us before we spend $600,000 in 2000. Scott Botcher: Oh yeah. Mayor Mancino: Are there any other projects like this that we need to communicate? Councilman Labatt: I had on 4-3. Mayor Mancino: Weren't we going to take out all the fire stuff, you know? 24 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 Scott Botcher: Just the fire chief stuff. Mayor Mancino: That fire department, we just take out that whole section John .... Excuse me, go ahead., Councilman Labatt: We had talked during one of our workshops about the seconds of the hockey boards, about the necessity for them and if there's demand for them we were going to put them in. Mayor Mancino: Well, we were going to look at it this year and then decide. Councilman Labatt: Right, but they should be in the capital plan for 2000. They're not. So if we're going to put them in in the fall of 2000, if the demand is there for this season right now, and come spring we need a second set of boards for next season, we need to have them in the 2000 capital plan. Mayor Mancino: So we're going to make that decision in the fall. Councilman Labatt: In the fall but by putting them in the plan here, they're in here. Mayor Mancino: And footnote it and say we're going to make that. Councilman Labatt: If the need and demand is there we'll buy them. If not. Councilman Senn: Do we have all the cost information on that and numbers even to stick in at this point? Mayor Mancino: I know that Todd does. Yeah he does. He's got that. So just footnote it that we'll check it in the fall and see if we still want to do it in 2000. If there's the need and demand, right? Councilman Labatt: Right, but do we need to note it in here? Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Scott Botcher: As a footnote though. Councilman Labatt: As an amount. Mayor Mancino: As an amount and a footnote. Councilman Labatt: For 2000. Mayor Mancino: Wouldn't we buy it in 2000 for the winter of 2001 kind of? Scott Botcher: You could do it in the fall like this year. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Did you say there's another one? Councilman Senn: Well no. Just in keeping with if that's the philosophy we're going to take then, I think as it relates to a number of the future year funding projects, then you should probably add those footnotes. Because I mean with the library we've got you know 2001, 2002, million, half million and we haven't even finished a needs analysis yet. So we haven't the foggiest idea what we're doing there yet and if you're worried about creating an impression that it's going to start in 2001, you'd better footnote that it's 25 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 kind of, the same with the public works expansion. We programmed that at 2001, 2002 yet there's a lot of issues to be resolved on that yet as well as information to be resolved, etc before we proceed ahead. But there is a number of projects like that that you can do so if that's going to be our philosophy, then we should probably go through and be consistent. Scott Botcher: I guess I would use the amount, I would use footnotes judiciously to communicate with those issues that are specific and you've identified as sort of airy. Personally I can see just a siding on the boards if you want to do them or not. And maybe not footnoting them. To me that's not in the same ballpark as that trail. That trail's just an animal onto itself so footnoting it makes sense doing that. I wouldn't go footnoting every single thing in there that you think hasn't been permanently decided, because that's what this plan is. Is simply a plan. Mayor Mancino: Wait. Well in the way that I was looking at it Councilman Senn was I was just looking for the year 2000. You know the PBX. The $100,000 is money to be spent in 2000 so I wanted to footnote that. That we weren't sure about 2000. The trail, the 101 trail again is 2000 because we might go ahead and start on that if the answers that we get persuade us to do that. The cold storage, 600,000 is again the year 2000. I was thinking anything past 2000, again we have some room when we look at the CIP next year to make those adjustments. Whether it's library. Whether it's whatever else it is. I was just looking at the things that were designated to be paid as part of our CIP in the year 2000. Scott Botcher: Probably a good way to do it. Mayor Mancino: Yeah. I still realize that 2001 through 2004, as we look at this every year we can go over and take a good look at it at that time. Councilwoman Jansen: It's more identifying for Scott what comes to us before it goes out, yeah. Okay. Mayor Mancino: And so that's why Steve is bringing up the hockey boards. So just those three things. Those three issues. Any other? Scott Botcher: We should make McShane give us his cross parking easement out here before we do the boards. Mayor Mancino: Okay, then may I have a motion and again you know we're particularly paying attention to the year 2000 and we will be looking at other years that, our City Manager isn't just going to bring those things every year and say you guys said yes in the year 1999. And thank you very much for a wonderful CIP and being so detailed in putting it together for us and going over it so many times and changing it and appreciate it. Is there a motion? Councilwoman Jansen: Move approval. Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the year 2000 Capital Improvement Program with the footnotes noted by City Council. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. Mayor Mancino: Any other discussion on correspondence? 26 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 Scott Botcher: I've got, well I'll do it later. Never mind. Mayor Mancino: Nothing? Scott Botcher: No, just remember we have a, we do have a work session that the council's forcing me to schedule for next Monday. Mayor Mancino: At 5:00. Scott Botcher: Viking-Packer Monday Night Football Game. Mayor Mancino: 5:00 to 7:00. Didn't we all agree, 5:00 to 7:00. Councilwoman Jansen: Did we say 7:00? Councilman Engel: I thought we said 4:30. Councilman Labatt: 4:30-6:30. Mayor Mancino: Okay, 4:30 to 6:30. Councilman Labatt: Somebody has to get downtown. Scott Botcher: We are, just for what it's worth, we are considering, that's right you have tickets. We are considering, as you read in the packet we did receive $1.147 million dollars from the State in the TIF grant fund, which is cool. As I've mentioned to you a couple times in the past, I've asked Bruce and Todd and we've all sort of brainstormed about how best to leverage that money. Should we call some debt? Should we defease some debt? What should we do with it? There's a strong possibility that next week, maybe I'll sneak it in at 4:30. 4:30 to 4:40 or something. It shouldn't take too long. We may ask Council to consider a resolution defeasing some of the TIF debt that's sitting out there around 2002-2003 and we're in the process of identifying it now. I think it's a '95 C issue. '93 C issue. We've got some money out there that it would be in our financial best interest, for all sorts of reasons that I can get into next week, to advance refund or defease that debt. Based on what we do, and I don't know if you guys have done defeasances before or not but the down and dirty of it is, you guys pass a resolution. In that resolution you execute an agreement with generally a bank to have an agency or trust relationship with them whereby you deposit with them a certain amount of money. They then have the obligation and the responsibility for paying the debt, paying the bond holders when the paper they hold matures. And comes due. What that does for us allows us to gain interest earnings for a specified accounts. So say we have $2 million worth of debt to pay, we won't have to defease $2 million. We'll defease something less than that. So that's an economic advantage to the City. You know there were some issues in our Standard and Poors evaluation about our debt ratios, and given the fact that TIF debt is such a vast majority of our debt, it may be in our best interest to get that stuff sort of off the books. Sort of taken care of before we cross over into 2000. So and there's some other issues that we need to talk about but you know if you have any questions a defeasance, you want to talk about that, give me a call. Bruce, I and Todd and our auditors and financial advisors have had conference calls. We'll have some more this week trying to identify what's in our best interest as we move into 2000 so if you see that on the agenda, I've warned you. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Thank you, any other questions? Because we also will be the next Monday also having part of it be closed for a performance, continuation of performance review. Okay, thanks. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. 27 City Council Meeting - December 13, 1999 Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 28