5. Utility rates for surface water mgmt utility 1 5"
I
CITY OF
--�
,,.,_ , '
$ CHANHASSEN
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
-14
1 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
I FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer
Paul Krauss, Planning Director
1 DATE: November 14 , 1990
SUBJ: Establish Utility Rates for Surface Water Management
Utility
1 File No. PW207
1 On October 8 , 1990 , the City Council tabled action on the
adoption of the Surface Water Utility District rate structure
since no consensus could be achieved on the funding level. At
I issue was 60% versus 100% funding. Staff has reviewed its
position on this matter since the October 8 meeting and we find
ourselves once again between a rock and a hard spot. In one
respect, it would be easy to fold and concede to a 60% funding
1 scenario for the district; however, on the other hand, we feel
obligated to provide the Council with the best advice possible
concerning the funding of this program. In this regard we find
1 ourselves obligated to once again recommend the adoption of the
100% funding level for this utility.
Three elements form the basis for our continued presistence in
Ithis matter:
1 . Without the Water Quality Plan, Wetland Mapping and Local
I Surface Water Management 'Plan, the utility district is
"flying blind" in that implementation of the necessary
remedial actions and corrective measures cannot commence
I until said plans are completed. These plan elements chart
the way and total to approximately $300 ,000 of the 5-Year
CIP. This means basically that the district will zero out
after its first year of implementation if funded at any level
Iother than the 100% rate.
As the City Council is aware, the only other alternative for
1 funding this work effort would be the General Fund.
Preliminary budgets for the Engineering and Planning
departments have been submitted at currently inflated rates
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
Don Ashworth
November 14 , 1990
Page 2
' to provide funding. However, this is a one-time commitment
which would need to be re-established each year which is a
painful and uncertain way to go.
2 . Related to this, the fund needs to start accumulating a
capital expenditure reserve through the first year or two of
the program in order to be able to fund what we have
estimated to be a million dollar capital improvement program
in subsequent years. As is typical with most programs, we
' expect that the Water Quality Plan and the Surface Water
Management Plan will generate specific projects for
construction/implementation which will place a stronger
revenue demand on the utility district in the subsequent
1 "implementation" years of the program. If reserve revenues
have not been accumulated in the early years of the program,
then quite possibly the capital improvement program
' implementation could be delayed. We obviously would like to
avoid the popular criticism that we have spent all of our
money on planning and did not save any for
I construction/implementation.
. Lastly, the proposal that the rate structure could be
significantly increased in future years in response to the
program needs, while attractive in theory, becomes somewhat
impractical in application in that memories are convenient
and increases are "increases" in the minds of the public.
11 For a difference of 72 per month between the 60% funding and
the 100% funding, we believe that it makes prudent sense to
deal with the matter at this time in a proper fashion with
the intent that the rates would not need further adjustment
for the next several years. We can only guess as to what the
future holds for continued development in Chanhassen. In one
regard a stagnant growth period also will limit the City' s
revenue potential from this district if underfunded initially
and, conversely, a rapid development scenario can also lead
to underfunding in that each new subdivision which comes in
' will bring in that much less funds from each additional units
if funded with the 60% funding rate. We hold to the belief
that the fund will never "catch up" with inflationary
pressures if underfunded initially.
' We have attached a copy of the October 8 , 1990 City Council
meeting minutes for this item for information and also a copy of
the October 3 , 1990 staff report which summarizes the funding
scenarios for the partial and full-funded programs.
It is with these thoughts in mind that we continue to recommend
that the City Council adopt the 100% rate structure as shown in
the October 3 , 1990 staff report attachment #1.
I
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
November 14, 1990
Page 3
Attachments: 1. October 3, 1990 staff report with attachments.
2. October 8, 1990 City Council minutes.
Manager's Comments: I agree with our planner and engineer.
Additional points include: 1
Other Agencies: The work program does not duplicate work
of other agencies. In fact, by statute, the work has
been "pushed down" to the lowest level of government (us)
with the agencies (Watershed District, Metropolitan
Council, etc. ) being responsible to incorporate our work
efforts in their plans; and 1
Information Does not Currently Exist: We continue to
receive citizen complaints as to why we did not tell them
that their land was a protected wetland, could not be
filled, was needed for a pond, etc. We agree with their
points. The reason we did not tell them is that we' do
not have the information (resource documents) and,
accordingly, we are always reacting after the problem has
occurred. The Surface Water Utility Plan, if funded,
places the city and our citizens in a positive position
rather than a negative/re-active position.
Approval is recommended. �, �A' k•
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1 .- 0,....
4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
I .
°, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I ,1111 (612)937-1900 • FAX (612)937-5739
IIMEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager .
1 FROM: Gary Warren, City Enginee
DATE: October 3, 1990
1 SUBJ: Adopt Rate Structure for Surface Water Management Utility
File No. PW207
IIThe Surface Water Utility District Ordinance was adopted at the
September 24, 1990 City Council meeting. Staff was directed to
1 review the rate structure and revenue picture for the program to
see if a reduced rate schedule could be considered and yet still
accomplish the goals of the program.
IIAttached are four spreadsheets showing 100%, 85%, 75% and 60% of
the original program. On the right-hand side of each spreadsheet
a summary is provided of the per acre and per lot quarterly cost
1 for the various land uses. The revenue picture for the district
can be summarized as follows: .
1 Percent of RSF
Original Projected Annual Projected 5-Year Quarterly_
Schedule Revenue Revenue Cost
1 100% $ 346,800 $ 1 ,734,"000 $ 5.37
85% $ 294,780 ._ $ 1,473,900 $ 4.56
1 758 260,100 $ 1 ,300,500 -- -'$ 4.03
1 60% $ 208,080 $ _1,:040,400 $ 3.22
Staff has mixed emotions concerning this issue. We are sensitive
the concerns expressed as to the overall magnitude of the.
Ito
program. However, we also do not want to mislead the Council or
the public as to the needs which exist in the community. We have
reviewed the proposed expenditures in the 5-year schedule which
1 is attached to this memo and continue to believe that our cost
estimates and scope of needs are reasonable and appropriate.
From a credibility standpoint, we believe it is important that
1
11
•
I
Don Ashworth
October 3 , 1990 1
Page 2
the initial rate structure be established such that this program 1
does not lead the City into any further deficit position. We are .
comfortable that the original rate structure as proposed is
compatible with the scope and needs of water quality and related
issues. In fact, this fund will have the added benefit of
transferring approximately $30 ,000 per year of staff burden from
the General Fund by covering existing and proposed staff labor '
that is involved in dealing with surface water management issues.
As adopted by ordinance, the revenue program is an annual
program. We believe it is important to start off on the right
foot with this rate structure and our promise remains the same
that annually these rates and program scope will be adjusted by
the City Council to coincide with the needs of the City. As
mentioned in previous staff reports, in order to fund the Water
Quality Plan, the 509 Plan and the wetland mapping and ordinance
revision elements plus absorb the $30 ,000 of staff time from the
General Fund, this relates to a first-year program of over
$300 ,000 . We believe that for the cost of 72 per month
(difference between 60% and 100% program for a single-family
home) that the 100% rate schedule ($346 ,800 per year program)
should be adopted.
In order to generate the necessary cash flow to fund the 1991
activities, staff will be working in earnest over the next 2}
months to evaluate the parcels and work with Finance to compile
and implement the billing and collection system for Janaury 1 ,
1991. By necessity, the projected revenues are based on current
land use zoning and the detailed, actual revenue receipts will
not be known until this analysis and billing system is in place.
It is therefore recommended that the City Council adopt the 100%
rate structure as shown in Attachment #1 to this report.
ktm 1
Attachments: 1. .100% Program.
2 . 85% Program:
3 . 75% Program.
4 . 60% Program.
5 . 5-Year Expenditures.
6 . September 24, 1990 City Council minutes (see
Consent Item 1K) .
1
. 1
1
1 .
October 3, 1990
Page 3
Manager's Comments:
1 The City Council is aware that I am concerned over the $300,000
shortfall this year. Although this is a hurdle we need to cross,
a far greater concern is the fact that that $300,000 deficit will
exist in 1991, 1992, and each year thereafter. We have already
1 identified two staff changes which will help reduce the long term
burden. A simple solution would be to increase property taxes.
The Council has already stated that that is not an acceptable
' solution. In addition to looking at more cuts, we should also be
looking at whether we are properly using current property tax
dollars. Specifically, Jo Ann, Sharmin and Dave spend a
considerable amount of their time reacting to illegal wetland
filling activities, attempting to defend the wetland ordinance, and
in other ways attempting to respond to citizen/developer
inquiries/requests. Their time could be better spent by panaging
and administering an overall, storm water management plan/wetland
protection map versus our current reactionary type of response.
The storm water management utility provides them the tool by which
they can advocate wetland protection, monitor water quality
'. programs, and advise property owners as to the existence of
wetlands on their property prior to illegal activities occurring.
However, the storm water management fund also provides a secondary
benefit in that the time they spend in carrying out these
- activities can be paid for via the storm water management utility -
not general property taxes. As Gary noted, staff has analyzed
existing work efforts and currently estimates that approximately
' $30, 000 per year in salaries is attributable to storm water
management/wetland protection. Each $30,000 helps us get one step
closer to balancing the 1991 budget without looking to property tax
increases. The 18C per month cost factor between the 100% funding
level versus 60% level appears minor when related to such making
the difference between establishing a good plan versus a mediocre
1 one. Approval of the storm water management plan as originally
presented is recommended.
1 lwilL
I . ..
1
1
1
1
•
**** SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY SPREADSHEET ****
CITY: CHANHASSEN
JOB NO. : 90284
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1990
RAINFALL: 2 IN.
5 YR REVENUE: $1,734,000
% OF INITIAL ESTIMATE: 100.00%
REVISED 10/2/90 MLL
*******************************************************************************************************
* RUNOFF TOTAL UTILITY QUARTERLY COSTS *
* PROPERTY LOT RUNOFF AREA VOLUME % FACTOR TOTAL PER PER *
* ZONING SIZE CN (INCHES) (ACRES) (AC.in) RUNOFF (1) (2) ACRE LOT *
* (ACRE) (4) (3) *
*
*
* RSF,PUD-R 0.33 72 0.29 2065 603.54 39.2% 1 $33,594 $16.27 $5.37 *
* RR 2.5 60 0.06 1297 78.61 5.1% 0.21 $4,375 $3.37 $8.43 *
* R-4,R-8 82 0.65 0 0.00 0.0% 2.22 $0 $36.11 NA *
* R-12 88 0.97 45 43.44 2.8% 3.30 $2,418 $53.73 NA *
* BN,BH,CBD,BG,BF 92 1.24 226 279.57 18.2% 4.23 $15,561 $68.85 NA *
* OI,IOP 88 0.97 394 380.30 24.7% 3.30 $21,168 $53.73 NA *
* INST. * (1) *
* DEVELOPED 88 0.97 90 86.87 5.6% 3.30 $4,835 ' $53.73 NA *
* UNDEVELOPED **
1630 $219 *
* PARKS * 65 0.14 486 65.65 4.3% 0.46 $3,654 $7.52 $5.37 *
* A2 40 ** 0.00 3814 *
* U * 40 ** 0.00 2708 $512 NA $5._.,I
* $363 NA $5.37 *
*
* TOTAL 12755 1537.98
* (1) UTILITY FACTOR IS RUNOFF (INCHES) DIVIDED BY RUNOFF (INCHES) FOR SINGL $86,700 86700 *
* (2) TOTAL QUARTERLY COST FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL QUARTERLY *
* REVENUE EQUAL TO THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL RUNOFF *
* (3) COST PER ACRE IS PER ACRE COST OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLIED BY UTILITY FACTOR *
* (4) TOTAL QUARTERLY COSTS FOR PROPERTIES OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EQUAL *
* COST PER ACRE TIMES TOTAL ACRES. FOR AG AND UNDEVELOPED,THE FIXED FEE FOR THE AVERAGE *
* AVERAGE PARCEL SIZE IS EQUAL TO THE RSF RATE. *
*******************************************************************************************************
OM NM MO IIIIIIII EMI OM MI I= NMI all MI MI• 4111.1TNIIVIEBT.P1
MI I OM MI = - O ' = M MI M M r NM MI M • all ■r .
**** SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY SPREADSHEET ****
CITY: CHANHASSEN
JOB NO. : 90284
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1990
RAINFALL: 2 IN.
5 YR REVENUE: $1,473,900
% OF INITIAL ESTIMATE: 85.00%
/SED 10290 ML
*****************************************************************************R**************************
* RUNOFF TOTAL UTILITY QUARTERLY COSTS *
* PROPERTY LOT RUNOFF AREA VOLUME % FACTOR TOTAL PER PER *
* ZONING SIZE CN (INCHES) (ACRES) (AC.in) RUNOFF (1) (2) ACRE LOT *
*
* (ACRE) (4) (3) *
*
* RSF,PUD-R 0.33 72 0.29 2065 603.54 39.2% 1 $28,555 $13.83 $4.56 *
* RR 2.5 60 0.06 1297 78.61 5.1% 0.21 $3,719 $2.87 $7.17 *
* R-4,R-8 82 0.65 0 0.00 0.0%. 2.22 $0 $30.69 NA *
* R-12 88 0.97 45 43.44 2.8% 3.30 $2,055 $45.67 NA *
* BN,BH,CBD,BG,BF 92 1.24 226 279.57 18.2% 4.23 $13,227 $58.53 NA *
* OI,IOP 88 0.97 394 380.30 24.7% 3.30 $17,993 $45.67 NA *
* INST. * (2) *
* DEVELOPED 88 0.97 90 86.87 5.6% 3.30 $4,110' ,$45.67 NA *
* UNDEVELOPED ** 0.00 1630 $186 NA* PARKS * 65 0.14 486 65.65 4.3% 0.46 $3,106 $6.39 $N.'56 **
* A2 40 ** 0.00 3814 $435 NA $4.-16 *
U * 4.0 ** 0.00 2708 $309 NA $4.56 *
*
*
* TOTAL 12755 1537.98
* (1) UTILITY FACTOR IS RUNOFF (INCHES) DIVIDED BY RUNOFF (INCHES) FOR SINGL $73,695 73695 *
* (2) TOTAL QUARTERLY COST FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL QUARTERLY *
REVENUE EQUAL TO THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL RUNOFF *
* (3) COST PER ACRE IS PER ACRE COST OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLIED BY UTILITY ?ACTOR *
* (4) TOTAL QUARTERLY COSTS FOR PROPERTIES OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EQUAL *
* COST PER ACRE TIMES TOTAL ACRES. FOR AG AND UNDEVELOPED,THE FIXED FEE FOR THE AVERAGE *
* AVERAGE PARCEL SIZE IS EQUAL TO THE RSF RATE. *
*******************************************************************************************************
• ATTACHMENT #2
•
•
**** SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY SPREADSHEET ****
CITY: CHANHASSEN
JOB NO. : 90284
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1990
RAINFALL: 2 IN.
•
5 YR REVENUE: $1,300,500
% OF INITIAL ESTIMATE: 75.00%
REVISED 10/2/90 MLL
****************************************************************************************************4**
* RUNOFF TOTAL UTILITY QUARTERLY COSTS *
* PROPERTY LOT RUNOFF AREA VOLUME % FACTOR TOTAL PER PER *
* ZONING SIZE CN (INCHES) (ACRES) (AC.in) RUNOFF (1) (2) ACRE LOT *
* (ACRE) (4) (3) *
*
*
* RSF,PUD-R 0.33 72 0.29 2065 603.54 39.2% 1 $25,195 $12.20 $4.03 *
* RR 2.5 60 0.06 1297 78.61 5.1% 0.21 $3,281 $2.53 $6.33 *
* R-4,R-8 82 0.65 0 0.00 0.0% 2.22 $0 $27.08 NA *
* R-12 88 0.97 45 43.44 2.8% 3.30 $1,813 $40.29 NA *
* BN,BH,CBD,BG,BF 92 1.24 226 279.57 18.2% , 4.23 $11,671 $51.64 NA *
* OI,IOP 88 0.97 394 380.30 24.7% 3.30 $15,876 $40.29 NA *
* INST. * (1) *
* DEVELOPED 88 0.97 90 86.87 5.6% 3.30 $3,627' $40.29 NA *
* UNDEVELOPED ** 0.00 1630 $164 NA $4.03 *
* PARKS * 65 0.14 486 65.65 4.3% 0.46' $2,741 $5.64 N' *
* A2 40 ** 0.00 3814 $384 NA $4.'03 *
* U * 40 ** 0.00 2708
* . $273 NA $4.03
*
* TOTAL 12755 1537.98
* (1) UTILITY FACTOR IS RUNOFF (INCHES) DIVIDED BY RUNOFF (INCHES) FOR SINGL $665025 *
(2) TOTAL QUARTERLY COST FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL QUARTERLY *
* REVENUE EQUAL TO THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL RUNOFF *
* (3) COST PER ACRE IS PER ACRE COST OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLIED BY UTILITY FACTOR *
* (4) TOTAL QUARTERLY COSTS FOR PROPERTIES OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EQUAL *
* COST PER ACRE TIMES TOTAL ACRES. FOR AG AND UNDEVELOPED,THE FIXED FEE FOR THE AVERAGE *
* AVERAGE PARCEL SIZE IS EQUAL TO THE RSF RATE. *
*******************************************************************************************************
I S MN N • M MN • IIIIIII SIN 1A' QV Isalta
MMO M OMM 01111 M MB UN OM 111111 UM MOS M NM OM M - ' M all
**** SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY SPREADSHEET ****
CITY: CHANHASSEN
JOB NO. : 90284
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1990
RAINFALL: 2 IN.
5 YR REVENUE: $1,040,400
% OF INITIAL ESTIMATE: 60.00%
REVISED 10/2/90 MLL
*******************************************************************************************************
* RUNOFF TOTAL UTILITY QUARTERLY COSTS *
* PROPERTY LOT RUNOFF AREA VOLUME % FACTOR TOTAL PER PER *
* ZONING SIZE CN (INCHES) (ACRES) (AC.in) RUNOFF (1) (2) ACRE LOT *
* (ACRE) (4) (3) *
*
* RSF,PUD-R 0.33 72 0.29 2065 603.54 39.2% 1 $20,156 $9.76 $3.22 *
* RR 2.5 60 0.06 1297 78.61 5.1% 0.21 $2,625 $2.02 $5.06 *
* R-4,R-8 82 0.65 0 0.00 0.0% 2.22 $0 $21.67 NA *
* R-12 88 0.97 45 43.44 2.8% 3.30 $1,451 $32.24 NA *
* BN,BH,CBD,BG,BF 92 1.24 226 279.57 18.2% 4.23 $9,337 $41.31 NA *
* OI,IOP 88 0.97 394 380.30 24.7% 3.30 $12,701 $32.24 NA *
* INST. * (1) *
* DEVELOPED 88 0.97 90 86.87 5.6% 3.30 $2,901' $32.24 NA *
* UNDEVELOPED ** 0.00 1630 $131 NA $3.22 *
* PARKS * 65 0.14 486 65.65 4.3% 0.46 $2,193 $4.51 NA *
* A2 40 ** 0.00 3814 $307 NA $3.22 *
* U * 40 ** 0.00 2708 $218 NA $3.22 *
*
* TOTAL 12755 1537.98
$52,020 *
* (1) UTILITY FACTOR IS RUNOFF (INCHES) DIVIDED BY RUNOFF (INCHES) FOR SINGL 52020 *
* (2) TOTAL QUARTERLY COST FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL QUARTERLY *
* REVENUE EQUAL TO THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL RUNOFF *
* (3) COST PER ACRE IS PER ACRE COST OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLIED BY UTILITY FACTOR *
* (4) TOTAL QUARTERLY COSTS FOR PROPERTIES OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EQUAL *
* COST PER ACRE TIMES TOTAL ACRES. FOR AG AND UNDEVELOPED,THE FIXED FEE FOR THE AVERAGE *
* AVERAGE PARCEL SIZE IS EQUAL TO THE RSF RATE. *
*******************************************************************************************************
ATTACHMENT *4
I1 ..
•
1 • -
1
I ESTIMATED 5-YEAR EXPENDITURES ,
I
1
Item Annual Total Cost I
(5 Year)
Planning and Inventories I
i1. Identify wetlands,prepare City wetland
map and review wetland ordinance. $--- ,$55,000 I
I2. Storm Sewer Mapping
• Initial Mapping --- 8,000
Updates
1,000 5,000
3. Local Surface Water Management Plan
(509 Plan) --- 1.35,000
4. Local Surface Water Management Plan I
I Amendments 5,000 25,000
5. Water Quality Plan --- 000 1
I6. Water Quality Monitoring and Improvements
(Chemical Application,Weed Harvest,Etc.) 10,000 san 111
Subtotal
$350,000 Z D70
1
II
Surface Water Management Utility I
1. Utility Implementation
- - --- 6,000
1
2. Billing and Collection System Modification f
- Subtotal I
12,000 ,77.
I
1
- Financing Storm Water Projects-Final Re
I
� PagetO
:_____
ATTACHMENT #5 1
.. w.a rsr.:..
P , - • r. 'lion 3...Fee B5
iii -
Capital Expenditures
Item Annual Total Cost
F (5 Year)
1. Backlog of Construction Projects $30,000 $150,000
FFuture Construction Projects 180,000 ,100,000
2. Engineering Discretionary Fund 10,000 50,000
111 (Small Projects)
3. Property Acquisition 35,000 175,000
IF 4. Automation
• Software (GIS,Hydrology,etc.) --- 5,000
• Hardware --- 20.000
Subtotal 800,000
1096 80A00
IF
$880,000
15%Engineering and Admin. 132,000
liSubtotal $1,012,000 v?
ili Personnel and Equipment
1. City Administration,Development Reviews 6,000 30,000
2. Maintenance i.e.,Street Sweeping,Catch Basin
Cleaning,Ditch and Pond Maintenance,Labor
f (Street and Utility Superintendents) 30,000 150,000
3. Semiannual Lake,Pond,and Wetland 4,000 20,000
Inspections
1 4. Drainage/Utility Engineer 20,000 100,000
I 5. Ordinance Review 2,000 10,000
6. Utility-Customer Service and General 5,000 25,000
I 7. Automation Personnel 5,000 25,000
Subtotal 360,000 Zoo
Total $1,734,000
Financing Storm Water Projects•Final Report Page 11
City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990
Paul Krauss: What you would be making a motion on is approval of the Redmond
site plan as drafted with a variance for front yard setback down to 10 feet
conditioned on acquisition of the land and merger of it with the Redmond site,
completion of landscaping, posting of the landscaping bond and resolving a
location of the eastern driveway cut relative to traffic safety concerns.
i
Mayor Chmiel: Very well put.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so we need both of them.
Larry Perkins: ..by the 3 appraisals? '
Paul Krauss: Yeah:
Mayor Chmiel: That was in there. 1
Councilman Johnson: Acquisition of the pond by method of 3 appraisers.
Councilman Workman: In my mind I was thinking the setback and then the
impervious but so, yeah. That's my motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that motion. '
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion and a second on the floor. Any further
discussion? '
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want to talk about what we're going to do with the
money? Or determine that later.
' j
Mayor Chmiel: I think that can be determined at a later time.
Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. I
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think that's appropriate at this time to include that in
there. Motion on the floor with a second. '
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Redmond
site plan as drafted with a variance for front yard setback down to 10 feet
conditioned on acquisition of the land and merger of it with the Redmond site,
completion of landscaping, posting of the landscaping bond and resolving a
location of the eastern driveway cut relative to traffic safety concerns. All
voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with
a vote of 3to1.
Councilman Johnson: I think it's a good deal but I don't like the variance part
of it.
A. APPROVE RATE STRUCTURE FOR SURFACE WATER UTILITY DISTRICT,
B. APPROVE SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION.
Councilman Johnson: I move the staff recommendation.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but which one? II
32
1
11 City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990
I . Councilwoman Dialler: I want to discuss it.
Councilman Johnson: There's two staff recommendations but they're both the
Ii same.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's just hold this one and then can we just move on to the next
' item and bring this one up towards the last in case there's anyone else here for
some of the other things? Well, we'll keep it right where it's at. Let's go
with this one right now.
' Gary Warren: Briefly Mr. Mayor, I thought I could make it through without
making a mistake this year but I have to admit that I did make one mistake and
it happens to be in this report. On the 18 cents per month. That was a
' quarterly rate divided by 12 months. -Actually the difference in -the rates would
be 72 cents per month between the 100% funding and 60% funding. Just start with
that so you know I wasn't trying to slip one by you here. At your discretion
II
staff did proceed forward after adoption of the ordinance to run various
scenarios for the program and to relook at the CIP as it was presented to see if
it was appropriate. Basically our position has been and it continues to be that
the program, the estimates that we've done, we've put together with our best -
I • thoughts in mind and we think that they are reasonable for the water quality
plan, the 509 plan and the wetland mapping elements which are the key elements -
that we are saying that start the program. We have looked at the scenarios
' which are summarized in the report for the financial impact of going from the -. --
100% program which would be $5.37 per quarter down to the 60% funding level of
- $3.22 per quarter. And the annual revenue projections which you see ranging
from $346,800.00 down to $208,080.00. As you can see from the program, this 5
year CIP is, the studies which need to be initiated which sort of kick off the
program are totaling 300 some thousand dollars so we have basically continued to
support the fact that without being arbitrary, which from our discretion I guess
' we can say that we believe that the 100% program is the fiscally responsible
level to fund the program at. Also we acknowledge that there's about $30,000.00
worth of staff level which because of the participation that people such as
' Paul, myself, Jo Ann, Cave, Sharmin, etc. do spend in dealing with the wetland
issue and with the storm water issue in the city, and water quality issue, that
there is approximately about $30,000.00 of staff labor and overhead which by
rights should be allocated to this fund. That presently is effort which is
' being funded out of the general fund. So while it is only $30,000.00 out of the
$300,000.00 shortfall per se, it is a step in that direction and we think that
it is appropriate for this fund similar to the sewer and water utility funds to
'
carry that burden. The program, each element of the program, water quality
plan, storm water management 509 plan, etc. are elements that if we proceed on
them would be elements that would be specifically brought back after proposals
' are solicited and the cost would then be refined so the funding would be,
there'd be another opportunity for the Council to also adjust and say yes or no
as to each of those elements. So there is no commitment here to any of those
elements. They are only as concepts with our best estimate. So staff has
' recommended and i apologize for the mathematical error but we continue I guess,
or I do to support the 100% funding of the program which would be the $5.37 rate
1111 for the residential single family and which totally is broken down in the
Attachment 1 in the handouts.
1 33
City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Gary. I
Councilman Workman: The 18 cents gives a difference, it's not 18 cents? It's
18 cents per quarter? ,
Gary Warren: What I did is I took the quarterly rate. The difference in the
quarterly rate divided by 12 months instead of 3.
Councilman Johnson: It's a very long quarter.
Gary Warren: Watershed burnout. It's 72 cents a month is the difference
between 60% funding and 100% funding. 27 cents per month is the difference
between 85% and 100% and 45 cents per month is the difference between 75% and
100% funding. ,
Councilman Johnson: I also did it on an annual basis. At $8.60 a year at 60%.
$5.36 a year at 75% and a whole $3.24 less per year at the 85% level.
Gary Warren: Utility mailing would be a buck.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone wanting to talk about this one? If
not, we'll bring it back here to Council. Tom?
Councilman Workman: How's the ag property classified done?
Gary Warren: Ag property, based on the modified ordinance is placed in there
' strictly as a residential single family parcel.
Mayor Chmiel: One unit. 11
Councilwoman Dimler: Sig break. ,
Councilman Workman: That's a big break I'd say because I think there's an awful
lot going on on that big parcel versus.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, it's soaking in.
Councilman Workman: Breaking it up and plowing it up. I don't know. That's
getting by pretty easy I think. I have a feeling for land that is just sitting
you know. That I think in more ways than one, idle land just sitting is doing
nothing to deserve a whole lot in regards to all this but farmers are doing an
awful lot on their property. There's no doubt about it. And so I've got a
little problem with that. I think it should be a little more fair in that
regard. Then my only other comment is I'm willing to go with the 100% at this
point. '
Councilwoman Dimler: I have some comments too. I guess what we've established
is that I need a car and now I'm going to ask you to make it a Cadillac. That's
kind of the way I see this. We've established that we need this utility. It is
my experience that everything keeps going up instead- of ever coming down. I
would recommend that we start at the lower level and as the years go by I'm sure
that it will be going up as we see and assess the needs so I would start with
the 60%.
34
1
City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990
11 •
Mayor Chmiel: That's a ditto. I think I mentioned that last time at the
meeting where I felt we should come from and that was to start at 60% and if the
t costs are such that we have to increase it, then increase it accordingly as we
go. And I'll just drop it there because I think we had enough discussion on it
I before. But I did talk to a lot of residents in the community and they
concurred with that particular position.
Councilman Johnson: I think an amazing amount of recycling that our citizens
' are doing show how environmentally sensitive our citizens are in this town. I
believe that there'd be a lot of people backing this and aren't going to sqwack
a lot about the proposal here. I do not think we should start by underfunding
' and then have to increase it in the future and make up for the loss of funds
that we don't pay now. This is pay se now or pay me later and pay me later a
little more. Here I'd like to establish and get the funds going. When you look
at what they're looking at, $300,000.00 worth of work next year on the fund in
the first year and we're talking about funding it at $200,000.00 per year? And
we're going to be $100,000.00 behind in the first year if we funded it at the
60% level. We won't be able to achieve the first year's goals as I was reading
' this. So I would want to go at least the 85% which gets $294,000.00 in the
first year's revenue if we're predicting to spend $300,000.00 in the first year.
I just can't see that we should fund it at $100,000.00 under what we're going to
' spend. We can't do deficit financing.
Councilwoman Oimler: Well we could cut the project scope for the first year
which is what I would recommend.
Councilman Johnson: That's taking the project out at the knees. This is the
planning stage. This is one of the most important stages of the project. If we
really want to do something about water quality and protection of the
environment here, this is our opportunity. I would go with Tom on 100% but I
would be willing to compromise and go down to 85% if we have to but I'd like to
' get as much of the work done so we can. You know we're not getting the work
done because we don't have the money and if we don't give ourselves the money,
we're not going to ever have it and we're not going to get, we're not going to
find out what it's really going to cost us so I will argue for 100% but looking
at we've got 2 to 2 deadlock, I'll compromise.
Councilwoman Disler: Jay, I'm uncomfortable with collecting a utility and then
' talking about using that money to reduce a deficit in some other part of the
budget. That is my concern of what will happen and that's why I want to start
at 60%. Use it only for water quality and wetland maintenance and street
sweeping and whatever we've decided we need it for and then move from there. It
says in here that are deficit, we could use the money to cut our deficit by
getting salaries out of it and so on and so forth.
1 Councilman Johnson: That's correct.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah. I'm not real sure that I agree with that. That's
why I'd like to see us start low and I can guarantee you that in years to come
it will go up.
Mayor Chmiel: It's the old pay me now or pay me later or pay me more now and
pay me more later.
35
I
City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990
Councilman Johnson: The argument that we're going to, we are taking money right 11
now and. spending it on water issues and not billing it against water issues and
it is going against the general deficit or the general funds and is part of the
deficit problem that we have right now. We're spending money this year on water
projects. Next year that same money will be spent, Jo Ann and Paul and Gary,
their time working on water quality projects would be billed against this money,
not against the general fund. That is not abuse. That is exactly what the
utility is for.
Councilwoman Dialer: But we haven't worked on the budget yet though. Are we
going to reduce the general fund then by that salary? I mean we haven't talked
about that. That's coming up in our upcoming budget sessions. That has not
been established.
Councilman Johnson: Exactly but to say that we're already.
Councilwoman Dialer: But so why are you saying it's a fact already? It's
isn't. I mean we can continue to keep some of their funds coming out of there
as well. We don't have to shift it all in one year.
Councilman Johnson: Well we're not shifting it all. They're only predicting '
$30,000.00. That is not the full salary of Jo Ann and Paul and Gary, as much as
we'd like that to be their full salary. $30,000.00 between the three of them.
But I think they're worth more than that. 1
Councilwoman Dialer: I'm not arguing that. That's not the point here. I'm
saying that make this change slowly. Seeing what the actual is instead of
projections.
Councilman Johnson: I think they've got some good estimates. They've been
coming, these people have been very good at estimating some costs. They're
generally a little high, yes but not 60%. They are not 40% above. That's
why I'm thinking that we may be able to compromise at the 85 but I think their
first year work plan, they're planning to, the plans here for the first year of
over $300,000.00 is appropriate for the work that has to be done.
Mayor Chmiel: She's saying the scope of that project doesn't necessarily, it
could be that total amount for that first year. That's the point she's trying
to make. I really basically agree with Ursula and I feel strongly that 60%
should be there and as you were saying, either pay me now or pay me later. Let
us see where it goes and if that's necessitated that we do have to have that
increase, fine. We'll make that increase. But let's not over go the total
amount of dollars. The 85% or 100%. I'm saying let's move from a low medium to
moving up accordingly. This is something we're starting. This is something
that we have to have. We all know that but let's start at that particular point
and that's where I'm coming from.
Councilwoman Disler: Plus it's up for Council review at any time we feel we
need an increase.
Councilman Johnson: Well the way I see it is we're building a house here and
the builder's told us it's going to cost us so many dollars and we're saying
well, I'll give you 60% of that. You give me what I'm going to get so that's
36 1
- City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990
what the Council's saying here is we want 60% of the product. Let's give the
citizens of Chanhassen 60% of it.
Councilwoman Dimler: We're saying the cost of the house is too expensive to
begin with is what I'm saying. I do that all the time. I don't pay...do you?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? Tom?
' Councilman Workman: Well you guys all have very good comments. I don't think
Don and Ursula are trying to be detrimental to the environment. My ears go up
when somebody says you must not be very environmental if you're not going to do
' this. I have fears about raising that kind of money and as I discussed with
Ursula earlier Today, hey we can take a real hard look at Gary's engineering
budget here in the next month and we can decide whether or not that's a
I duplicate of charges and other things. I guess I arrived at the 100% and big
ear because the staff has said that's what they need. I'd prefer to shoot high
in the first year than to shoot low for many of the reasons that Jay had. I
think we can get a real good idea about what we're going to need and what we're
not going to need. Don and Ursula as well as myself and maybe Jay have the
strong concern that city government or any government spends exactly as much as
they have and so that's a big concern. I think we can look at, we are unable to
' at this point look at all the specific costs and all the detail that Gary's
going to spend this money on this year but we'll be able to next year because I
will be here and Ursula, you will be here and it's at that point that this thing
is going to get our best and most educated look at this thing. And so Gary
knows that he's going to have to make this thing perform and produce and I think
he's ready to give the money back if.
IfCouncilwoman Dimler: Oh sure. That's my point. It never goes down.
Councilman Workman: But I'm convinced that Gary's not trying to create an
' enormous slush funds for raises and all sorts of other bells and whistles. You
know, what are we going to have, 25 segidisks? A new bass finder boat? So I'm
convinced that Gary's going to be frugal with our dollars and I'm anxious to see
how this thing pans out. I know that we've all got the lakes and the quality of
water in mind. We've all been through the Lake Lucy scenario and whatever we
can do. I think we've been leaders in recycling. We're going to be leaders in
the plastic recycling. We're leaders on this in the County and I'd like to do
' it well if we're going to do it and not kind of wait and see and then underfund
it as Jay would say and then try to figure out how, it just delays the process
out a little bit. But I am concerned about the size of the money and it is a
tax and it is raising money, more money from people who don't want to give any
more money. But as Jay says, yes. I think the residents are above average in
their concern for this area and I'd like to see us get it done. Get what we
need done in the first year and then we can make the best decision next year.
So that's why I was willing, because I don't have a lot of the details on how
60% is going to work, I've had to put my faith in staff to say I'm from
Missouri, show me.
' Councilman Johnson: Like you said, you two will be here next year if there's a
big slush fund and the predictions are there, it's up to you.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's hard to take money away though I'll tell you that.
t .
37
1
City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990 1
•
Councilman Johnson: We're already doing it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know we have but it's hard to do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, did you have something? I
Don Ashworth: Yes, one quick comment and that is. There's a danger in funding
a program at too low of a level. Sometimes you can never get out of there. A
year from today you find that the figures were right and potentially there's
whatever additional cost of living and you come back and say well, we'll look to
a 20% increase. It really becomes difficult to go back to citizens and say, pay
that 20% more. And now you're still 20% behind the total program and in fact
with the cost of living has gone up, you're potentially at that point in time
25% so then the following year you do another 20%. You never really catch up.
Do you follow what I'm saying? You finally agree, well let's just do it at 10%.
II
You have 10% over 4 years but you've had 6% cost of living. You never get up to
the 100% level.
Mayor Chmiel: But the residents are at the same point of having it at a lower I
figure. They know it's there. They don't mind putting that additional increase
and eventually you will get there I feel.
Don Ashworth: Sometimes you just end up with less grief doing it once. Getting
it over with rather than having to look at it every year.
Councilwoman Oimler: Are you saying there will never be any increases in the
future?
Don Ashworth: No.
Councilwoman Dimler: So our 100% level moves.
Oon Ashworth: From the standpoint of the City budget in terms of the amount of
money that we extract from each individual parcel, we've not increased in the
last 6 years. I mean we've had that many additional homes that has created that
many additional dollars that we have not had to go back and look to a mil rate
increase. Our overall dollars, yes have increased. There's no question about
that. We have not asked for additional money in terms of a mil rate increase.
I won't tell you that that won't happen with, or I mean that we will not have to
have an increase but it may not be required. I mean if we bring in 300 more
parcels and it brings in $20,000.00 more, that may be sufficient.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If not, I'd ask for a motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval of the 60% rate. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I would second that. Any other discussion?
Councilman Johnson: I think there's a lot of room to compromise. Let's go for
a vote.
Councilwoman Dicier moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the rate structure
for the Surface Water Utility District at 60%. Councilwoman Dimler and Mayor
38
1
City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990
11
Chmiel voted in favor. Councilman Workman and Councilman Johnson voted in
opposition and the motion was tied at 2 to 2.
111
Councilman Johnson: Exactly between 60 and 100 is 80. You know it's not on our
list but 80* is exactly between where Tom and I want to be and you all want to
be so we can sit here and argue all night. I move 80%.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the rate
structure for the Surface Water Utility District at 84x. Councilmans Johnson
and Workman voted in favor. Councilwoman Dialer and Mayor Chaiel voted in
opposition and the motion was tied at 2 to 2.
Councilman Johnson: Well, the Council in January could decide it too or we
could wait until after November when we have a fifth Council member.
Mayor Chmiel: My suggestion is that we table this and get further discussions
going and reconsider and bring it up at the next meeting.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Workman: But what can we discuss? It's only quarter to 10:00.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to table action on the rate
' structure for the Surface Water Utility District until the next Council meeting.
All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 1.
't Councilman Johnson: There's no huge hurry.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Johnson: Staff can still go about creating this system for financing
and whatever.
' Councilwoman Dimler: We're not going to start the utility until January anyway
right?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Gary Warren: We need to know the rates in order to get the billing.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. We still have time though.
Gary Warren: Any direction you'd care to give staff for the next go around?
Mayor Chmiel: No, but we're sure going to talk.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can you cut the project scope somehow in the first year?
Councilman Workman: See Gary you should have really played it up.
39
i
City Council Meeting - October 8, 1990
It
Councilwoman Disler: He did. 1
Gary Warren: There's something to be learned from that.
Don Ashworth: Take out the bass boat. 1
Councilman Johnson': Yeah, take out the bass boat. That will do it.
Gary Warren: Hempel would resign. I can't do that. 11
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Summary
Ordinance for publication for the Surface Water Utility District. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER REVISIONS TO THE MARKET SQUARE SITE PLAN. ,
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, last October, as you're aware, the City Council
approved the development stage plans for the PUD for Market Square. Since that
time the development hasn't occurred. There's been a lot of restructing and the
Target issue came up in the meantime. As you've also heard, the project is now
on the front burner again. There's an HRA or a City Council deadline to come in
and get the project going. There's been a transfer in or a change in who is
going to build the supermarket and at this time they're asking for a revised
site plan approval. Basically the original Super Value store which was a 20,000
square foot store with 8,000 square foot expansion is being replaced by a
Festival Foods Market which is quite a bit larger. It's 35,000 square feet with
initial construction with an additional 10,000 square foot building addition.
In the process some of that addition's been happened by replacing some of the
retail tenants in the shopping center but the balance of that's been done by
expanding the size of the square footage in the shopping center itself. The
proposal basically went from 91,000 square feet to 97,900 so there was a need to
expand the parking on site accordingly to provide sufficient parking for the
expanded square footage. That's been accomplished largely without changing the
site plan in any significant way. In fact the site plan is only different in
terms of the building footprint. Drainage utilities, parking, everything else
is virtually identical. More parking stalls were put into the site basically by
using a parking stall that was I believe 9 feet versus the 10 feet that was
originally proposed. City ordinances only require 8 1/2 so there's plenty of
parking. Staff is recommending approval of the amended site plan subject to a
few conditions. One is that a revised landscaping plan be prepared to
accommodate the new building footprint. Second is that there's a raised
concrete platform, a display platform being proposed out in front of what will
become the Lawn and Sports Center. This is a new addition and staff has some
concern with this and city ordinances prohibit the outdoor display of
merchandise. We have two retail tenants in town who currently display
merchandise outdoors. There has not been an attempt to bring this into
compliance however both those individuals are looking to moving into the
shopping center and we'd rather not see the problem perpetuated so we're .
recommending that the exterior display platform be removed. The third condition
is that the replacement of the Super Value with the Festival is going to alter
the building elevations somewhat and they do not have a final plan in yet for
the building elevations. That's got to be approved by the Festival Market plus
by the developer and then by the City. We think that we can keep the
40 '
1