The URL can be used to link to this page

1m. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 4, 1989 iMayor Chniel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor_ C-oriel, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman , Dzmler and Councilman Johnson COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Boyt ' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Elliott Knetsch, Gary Warren, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhardt and Jim Chaffee ' RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Chmiel drew a name for the recycling prize. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: CouncilwcvLan Dirtier moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions: Councilman Johnson wanted to propose an ordinance amendment that tobacco products be sold fran behind the counter only and Don Ashworth wanted the Council to reconsider a public hearing date for the 1990 budget. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Cimiel: It's been called to the City's attention that we are proclaiming this particular week as Fight Back Against Drugs and it's an effort that we're trying to do within the City to prevent the use or to assist and help in whatever way we can. I don't think I'll have to talk about it later because that's exactly what I really wanted to say and it's the 3rd thru the 9th of this week. That's part of the reason why all of us are wearing our little pins with our little red ribbons which is a significance of that. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recort endations: a. Approve Development Contract for Country Hospitality Suites, Bloomberg Companies. e. Extend Letter of Credit and Expiration Date for Installation of Improvements for Seven Forty-One Crossing (HSZ Site) . f. Approval of Accounts. g. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 15, 1989 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 14, 1989 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated November 9, 1989 h. Ordinance Adopting the Official Map for TH 212, Final Reading. i. Resolution #89-132: Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications for North Leg Improvements of TH 101 Realignment Project 88-22B. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 IICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 IIB. APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO MINNEWASHTA MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, GARY CARLSON. - ' Mayor Chmiei: Gary, maybe you'd just like to indicate your concerns on that and that's the reason why I pulled it. IGary Carison: Good evening. My name is Gary Carlson. I'm the developer of Minnewashta Meadows. I wish to wish the entire Council a very happy and merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. I also wish to point out that again the city ' staff has done a great job in requiring a lot of work, a lot of time, especially on the engineer's part on drawing up this amendment. I passed out, I think everyone should have a copy of the proposed contract for deed which we're closing on tomorrow on Lot 15 of my development and that lot already had a home on it. That specifically calls for on the back of that contract for deed, it specifically calls for the owners or the proposed buyers to assume one of the II current assessments of $11,497.00. That couple has lived there for 11 years and I've always told therm that they could buy it once I got it divided. They're both retired and they would like to assume that assessment. If you look on my amendment on item 3 of the amendment. Well we can start with item 2. Item 2 calls for levying the assessments on 13, 15 and 16. Then down on the next item, item 3, of course those will be paid for. I will pay for than either when I draw a certificate of occupancy or I sell than which is what it calls for in Iitem 3. I would like to have Lot 15 pulled from item 3. It doesn't mean that you're giving up the receiving of that. It just means that I won't be obligated to pay it and in fact these people who are buying Lot 15 will assume that. I think that's the easiest is just to pull that number 15 out of item 3 of the Iamendment. Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone see any problem with that? Jay? Councilman Johnson: To cover all bases, we could modify item 3 that the developer agrees prior to issuance of certificate and all that good stuff and ' pull Lot 15 from there but add in that Lot 15, Block 1, Minnewashta Meadows upon the sale of Lot 15, Block 1 Minnewashta Meadows, that the outstanding assessment mentioned above shall be paid in full by the new owners or whatever since that's what in your purchase agreement that they're going to be paying that assessment. IIGary Carison: They're going to be assmrming it. I don't think they'll be paying it. They want to pay it over time in other words. IMayor Chmiel: What would be the proper terminology to have contained in there. IElliott Knetsch: I think if that was closed, just put when the Lot is sold, buyers assume the assessment. Councilman Johnson: But do we want to put that as a new number in the contract ' or rewrite it? Elliott Knetsch: I think we would rewrite 3 and add that language. ICouncilman Johnson: I think that's simple. That the buyer will assume the assessment. ' 2 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 I Gary Carison: I think that will take care of it. Otherwise, it's been a good development and it's all paid for except for those 3 lots and they will be paid for shortly. Mayor Chmiel: The assessment on Lot 15 will be taken care of by Clinton and Carol Wagner right? ' Gary Carlson: Yeah. Resolution #89-133: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Circler seconded to approve the Contract Amendment to Minnewashta Meadows Development Contract with a modification to it number 3 stating that Lot 15, Block 1, the assessment will be assumed by Clinton and Carol Wagner. All voted in favor and the motion carried. C. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF CITY CODE REGARDING COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES, FINAL READING. Councilman Workman: Jo Ann, I had a problem with item 4 on the front page. Section 3(f) , this states that licensed municipal solid waste haulers may not charge the customers the flat fee rate and that it must be based upon the volume or weight of the mixed municipal solid waste that is collected. Councilman Johnson: State law. ' Councilman Workman: Does that mean that each individual residence would be weighed? Jo Ann Olsen: What they'll do is you'll have like certain cans. Between you and your hauler will figure out exactly how you're going to do it but instead of being able to put out as many cans as you want, you can charge by the can. , Councilman Workman: So by volume, not really weight then? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. Volume or weight. If they did it by weight, they would , have to have devices on the truck to weigh it. It's going to be by volume most likely. Councilman Workman: So if I have a trash compactor, I can g et away with more? Councilman Johnson: Eventually you're going to see trucks with the scales right on the trucks. When they lift your can in there, it will get weighed and they'll have a little computer there and you'll pay for exactly what weight you did. That's the long term future of solid waste and they're already designing that stuff. The trash cans will be bar coded and all kinds of good stuff. Councilman Workman: Well I'm just wondering then, you have a homeowners association for example we had basically a pick up by the neighborhood contract. How would that work? How would they do that? I mean the individual would, it would be a neighborhood contract. Does that mean that that's going to spell the end of homeowners association trash hauling contracts? 3 11 City Council Meeting - December_ 4, 1989 Councilman Johnson: They have to do it by volume. I know commercially you do it by how many cans you pick up. If everybody puts out 2 cans, they write the ' contract with the neighborhood that if you put out 2 cans, that's the most you can put out. You can't put out 3 or something. ' Mayor Chmiel: Wouldn't that be done strictly by volume anyway? Councilman Workman: Well but if I put out or my neighbor who's a single older woman, puts out half a can and the people across the street have 5 kids and they II put out 5 cans and it's a group contract. What I'm getting at is, we're then going to have to probably dissolve the contract and we're asking numerous haulers to cane into the neighborhood where that isn't... ICouncilman Johnson: We can renegotiate the contract but it has to be on a volume basis. I Councilman Workman: It would then spell the end of it, of the contract as it would be. I Councilman Johnson: Unless you could come up with same creative ways to do it. The State legislature has said it has to be by volume or weight. I Councilman Workman: No, I can't get creative. It's just something I wanted clear because if that's the case, then that spells, we've always discussed in our discussions of our trash hauling that we've got a problem with a lot of trash haulers caning into town and running all over every day of the week and II that's kind of what the State maybe is telling cities that that might have to happen in certain neighborhoods. I'd move approval. El] Councilman Johnson: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Ordinance II Amending Chapter 16 of the City Code regarding Collection of Recycleables, Final Reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried. IIAPPOINTMENT OF A POLICE STUDY COMMITTEE. I Councilman Workman: Establishing a police study committee. Number one, I guess there's sane confusion as to whether or not 2 citizens from the community at large should be appointed to this or whether they should be from the public safety commission. Should we have 6 members or 7 members? My fundamental II concern about this committee is I'm wondering if in fact we're again not establishing a police study committee too soon. My question being to the Council, if in fact the police study finds out that we need in fact a police department of our own with our own City of Chanhassen police personnel, if in fact that's found out, would we go ahead and do that? Could we afford to go ahead and do that? I think probably not and if in that case, or if we're I looking to do a study for long range, say 5 years or out, won't in fact we be doing exactly what's been done with the last police committee study in that it t really is worthless to us today. Or is it? And so, maybe I'm not so clear about what the final product of the police committee is going to be because if Iit's going to be a long range forecaster, or are we going to pick a date or a ' 4 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 I year when potentially we could be doing this and if in fact it is in 5-6-7 years, wouldn't it be more appropriate if we think that even in a rough sense? Wouldn't it make more sense to do this study 2 to 3 years prior to? _ Councilman Johnson: Since I started this last year and continued it this year, what we asked for last year is for the Sheriff and our Public Safety Department to get together and form a committee and I like it being expanded to include the public. To determine when is that time going to be? The studies I've seen so far have been very inconclusive and are quite old. How can we do it to where we have minimum impact on the sheriff and minimum impact on the City. To my way of thinking, it's a gradual growth. If on Decanber 31st of 1990 they said that's the end of the Sheriff's contract, we're going to have a police department January 1st. That'd be terrible for the Sheriff's Department. There would 'be a lot of people unemployed all of a sudden because they couldn't support those employees that work the city and it'd be very rough on the city. There has toe be some way for us to make this transition at the proper time. In starting to_ make that transition, we've already actually started by having Jim Chaffee-and Scott Harr and our CSO program. I'd like to see an orderly migration from the contract to our own police department if that's what the study commission finds needs to be done and they need to determine when that needs to be started. If we wait 2 years and they say well it should have been started 2 years ago, then we have a problem. I think it's a good time to start looking at it. If they say we need to do it and start the transition in 5 years, then I agree with you. That it would need to be, a group to look at it just prior to starting that transition because we have to collect that information. 1 Mayor Chniel: I guess what Tom is saying, are we spinning our wheels now before it's really needed to start looking at it this much in advance. Councilman Johnson: I don't think we have a 5 year plan for public safety. We have a 5 year plan for a lot of other things. We need a 5 year plan and a 10 year plan for public safety and it may not be a very exact plan like none of our plans are very exact. Most businesses change their 5 year plan yearly. That's probably what this will be too. The growth, we might predict such and such a growth within the next 5 years and interest rates go back up to 16% and we won't see that growth. Then that delays the plan and everything else. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I do have a question. Isn't that why we started the Public Safety Commission originally? And now we're adding another committee. I think that was the original purpose of the Public Safety Commission wasn't it Jim? Jim Chaffee: It was to advise the Public Safety Department in various areas. I 1 don't think they were specifically charged with coming up with a 5 year plan... Councilwoman Dimler: So in my estimation, are we just creating another 1 committee or was this the original purpose of the Public Safety Commission and has it developed and taken on other responsibilities? Do you remardoer Don? Don Ashworth: My recollection is that they were to prepare an annual report and that report was to, that was originally started by Dick Wing and it was a study of own police force versus continuing with the contract. Councilwoman Dimler: That's what I thought. 5 1 IICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 I Don Ashworth: I don't think that it really looked at a 5 year scale though but ' yes, my recollection is that the committee, one of the reasons the committee was put into being was to continue to study the police issue. [-I Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so do we really need another committee or can we just...them to do what we originally commissioned them to do? Councilman Johnson: No, I think we need one where we have the Sheriff's ' Department involved because this impacts the Sheriff's Department worse actually than it does the City. ICouncilwoman Dimler: Okay. That's fine. Yeah, I agree with that. Councilman Johnson: So a subcommittee of the public safety, which is what this is turning into is to being really a subcommittee of the public safety committee I with 2 members of public safety committee, the public safety department, the sheriff's department and then one at large and then one member of the Council so we've got 2 public safety, 2 sheriff, 2 public safety commission and then 1 ' member of the Council is what's being proposed. That's 7 members. I think 7 is always a good number versus 6. Councilwoman Dimler: I also had a concern about, it says here that we should II present something to the City Council by early summer of 1990. I'm wondering if that isn't a little bit ambitious but anyway, I guess my feeling is if we go ahead and establish this committee, that we should have 9 members and that we II should add 2 members at large that have no leaning one way or the other but are totally objective. r Councilman Johnson: I don't think you'll find such a person. ' Councilman Workman: And if we expand it to 9, I'd certainly like to be a member of the commission. ICouncilman Johnson: You're not at large. I Councilman Workman: I'm getting larger. The word that you used Jay was transition. This is the word that this Council has been fighting with since January. The transition of when and how and what we're going to do with our own force. I think what Council has seen is there's been a transition going on that ' maybe Council doesn't think is appropriate at this stage and so I guess what maybe you're saying by establishing this committee, you think we're so many years away from doing this and that we need to start making a transition now. ICouncilman Johnson: We need to do something orderly. Not necessarily, I'm saying if we're going to make the transition, we need to have it orderly and planned. Right now we seem to be making a transition without a plan to follow. Councilman Workman: I'd agree with that. Councilman Johnson: So let's make a plan and see if the transition is necessary t would be the first step of this committee. 1 6 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: I think I was sort of one too that brought this up because of my concerns as to one of the things you mentioned Jay was that the Sheriff's Department that would be the one that would really be hurting more than anybody else. I had discussion with that and I also discussed this with Commissioner Klingelhutz and also with Al Wallin and they thought that that probably would be a good idea to come up with some conclusions. Whether it be 5 years down the road or 10 and it won't become really effective, as far as I'm concerned, until and if I'm still around here sitting out in the audience, it won't become effective until it really is cost effective as far as I'm concerned. As long as the sheriff's department is doing a good enough job for us and we feel it's satisfactory, then I don't see the need for us to pursue our own police department. But once it gets to that point, that's something that we have to weigh back and forth and take everything into consideration. ' Councilman Workman: But that's what I'm saying. I don't think, we're talking about a transition from the sheriff's department. I mean I'm worried about our city just as much and I don't think we're anywhere near making that transition. We're all sitting in on the budget together for crying out loud. Unless we have a windfall caging from somewhere and we've talked about the transition of picking up an automobile here, adding an employee here, adding a copy, doing this stuff. We're adding, adding, adding and we're not so sure that that's maybe the way we ought to do it. Councilman Johnson: Let's do the study and find out. ' Councilman Workman: I'm just saying Jay, are we too early on this? And if we are, that's a pretty big waste of time. I think with the public safety direction, assistant, 2 mnbers of the public safety commission, I'd say it's leaning one way right now anyway and I just have some reservations and I wanted to make sure everybody understood. Councilwoman Dimler: Is this study going to cost us anything? Mayor Chmiel: Time. ' Councilman Johnson: There will be some cost in time. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, but I mean money wise? Mayor Chmiel: I don't know dollarwise. Don Ashworth: I don't anticipate any. Mayor Chmiel: I wouldn't see any. ' Councilman Johnson: Unless they hire some kind of survey or some kind of an outside expert to do same kind of analysis of police needs but I don't see that. In my discussions with Al on this last year was that he thought this was a good idea and he wanted to, you know it comes up every year at police contract time. Councilman Workman: I just don't think, every police contract time, I don't ' think we have any other options. 1 11 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 Councilman Johnson: I think one time they had a recommendation that at 12,000 people I think it was, that we go to a police department. 12,000's not that far II off. Mayor Chmiel: No. IICouncilman Workman: That tells you the effectiveness of the committee sometimes maybe. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, but that was in like 1981 and this is 1989. The world has changed. I think it's time to update sane of these things. I'd like to see the Public Safety Commission have a 5 year plan just like anybody else. ' I think this would be an essential part of it but there's other things. What's a CSO program going to do over the next 5 years? The crime prevention program. What's the Fire Department's 5 year plan? I think all these things. We have to be looking more into the future. Cbuncilwom►an Dimler: Shouldn't they be drawing up their own 5 year plan though rather than having a study commission? II Councilman Johnson: This committee will help them in one of the most complex parts of that 5 year plan. They have a lot more than just police to worry about II and I think it's important to have the sheriff's involvement. I agree with you, I think 2 members from the public would be good on this too. I'm backing your 9 people. It's getting a bit large but what the heck. What have they got in Congress? 360 score. I never can remember that number. Mayor C oriel: Okay, any other further discussion? If hearing none. 1_1 I Councilman Johnson: I move that we approve item 1(d) , formation of the ccmmittee. Make the committee a 9 member committee with the assignments of Sheriff Al Wallin, Chief Deputy Jim Castleberry, Asst. Public Safety Director, Scott Harr, Public Safety Director, Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Commissioners members Barb Klick and Bill Bernhjelm, Councilmember Ursula Dimler and 2 members of the public at large to be advertised for and selected by the Council. Do we want selected by the Council or the Public Safety Commission select them? Mayor C oriel: The Council has done it in the past. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? It appears as though it's going to die for a second I Jay. Councilman Johnson: Okay. Is it the 9 members or is it just the whole committee altogether? Ursula, you want the Public Safety Commission to do it. Councilwoman Dimler: My personal feeling is it's too early. Councilman Johnson: I think we've got to collect the data. We shouldn't go from gut feelings. We're assigning somebody to get us the numbers, the figures, to collect the data and make an informed decision, not a gut feeling. My gut 1 feeling is we're a little early too but maybe it's my engineer training. I'd rather see the facts and figures before I make the final decision. Councilwoman Dimler: But like I stated earlier, we have the Public Safety Commission in place and that was the original intent of it. Right now I think i8 _ _ City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 I it's up to them to give us a yearly report. I just see a lot of conflict with it. Councilman Johnson: They're in support of this. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, they basically do support this portion of it. Councilwoman Dimler: I see Dick Wing was not. Mayor Chmiel: Well that was a discussion at that particular meeting and I sat 1 in on it. The entirety, as I recall, were basically for it. This kind of arrangement because it's involving two different segments of it. The City as well as the County. 1 Councilman Johnson: If we didn't want the Public Safety Commission to do anything else, they could actually just sit there and work on this one issue the rest of the year. But we definitely want some other input too. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm just afraid that it's going to set a precedence for moving into the transition too early. Especially it scares me that we're supposed to have a report by summer of 1990 which is what, 6-7 months away. It kind of sounds to me like we're rushing it. Mayor Chmiel: Would you rather have it be 1991? Councilwoman Dimler: It's a 5 year study. 1 Councilman Johnson: How about 6 month update reports as to what progress they're making? I don't like to give somebody a year and a half to do something...preliminary report every 6 months as to what progress they're making and which way they're leaning so we have a feel instead of letting, here for the next year and a half you guys go study this issue and come back to us with a presentation. That scares me too. I was kind of reading in this 1990 report as kind of, hopefully present. It wasn't something cast in concrete. Chisseled in chalk maybe but not cast in concrete. Councilwoman Dimler: But isn't this something that the Commission can already ' do? Mayor Chmiel: The Commission has already gone through that process of looking i at those aspects. What it boils down to having another set, another group to come in such as a sheriff's department. Councilwoman Dimler: That's the only thing that I can see that there's no representation on the Public Safety Commission right now from the Sheriff's Department. Perhaps that's all we need to do is add a Tiber there. Councilman Johnson: I think the other thing is, this group will be , g . q uP focused. They will be singular in purpose. Some members of the Public Safety Commission are there because they're concerned with the fire department and other. things. The Public Safety Commission has to worry about dog catching, code enforcement, building inspectors. They've got a huge agenda. This group will be focused to look at one issue. Became fully educated on that one issue and came and provide us guidance on that one issue. 9 11 IICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 11 Mayor Chmiel: Maybe you'd feel more comfortable with this. Saying that I hopefully presenting to the City Council in the early summer of 1991 and then [- I having, as Jay mentioned, preliminary reports every 6 months from that group. Councilman Johnson: Progress reports. Mayor Chmiel: I guess on something like that, that would be something that ' would be ongoing. They could look at it every 6 months to see if it's going to be cost effective or not. By getting that and including everything into that, of course you have to have hospitalization and all those other things combined. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: So you're saying we could start the study of how much it's going to cost us? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: And then come up with a report by 1991? Sumer of 1991? IIMayor Chmiel: Right. Councilwoman Dimler: That would be more pleasing to me, yes. IICouncilman Johnson: Because one of the criteria the last Council put on this is when is the time going to be when the Sheriff's cost is going to be more than the cost for the City of Chanhassen to do it themselves. That's what we want to do is maintain the cost to the citizens, the quality of public safety at the minimum. IMayor Chmiel: Tom? Councilman Workman: No comments. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Councilman Johnson: We're doing a new motion here. Basically the same motion but modified with hopefully present a report to the City Council by the summer of 1991 with 6 month progress reports to the Council. IIMayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Okay, I'm going to move it to second it. II Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to appoint a police study 9 member committee with the assignments of Sheriff Al Wallin, Chief Deputy Jim Castleberry, Asst. Public Safety Director, Scott Harr, Public Safety Director, Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Commissioners members Barb Rlick and Bill Bernhje]m, ' Councilmember Ursula Dimler and 2 members of the public at large to be advertised for and selected by the Council. This committee will present a report to the City Council by the suucm►er of 1991 with 6 month progress reports. II All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. 1 1 10 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 11 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, 3 to 1. Proceed with it with those changes in ng the early summer of 1991 would be 6 month progress reports. Councilwoman Dimler: And advertising for 2 members at large. Mayor Chmiel: And 2 members at large. ' G(1) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 20, 1989 Councilwoman Dinmler: All I had there was ust the changing j hanging of a word. On page 12, at the bottom of the page. Under my quote it says it's not a gross misdemeanor punishable by jail... and the word was it's now a gross misdemeanor. It is a gross misdemeanor. So change not to now. It's minor but it has a lot of meaning. Councilwomman Diammler moved, Councilman Workman moved to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting dated November 20, 1989 as amended. All voted in-favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: EASTERN CARVER COUNTY YOUTH COMMISSION, STEPHANIE YOUNG. Stephanie Young: I'm the current chair of the committee on the Youth Commission and tonight with me is Laurel Swanson who is a committee member. She's also with the University of Minnesota Extension Service and she works primarily in the area of 4H and youth development. I'm glad we were able to give you same materials in your packet talking about the background of the youth commission and how it relates to the four aspects of the youth development plan as well as giving you a look at our proposed By-laws. I've got a lot to say in a short amount of time here so I'm going to try to give you the key points on the purpose and reasoning behind the youth commission and then ask for your questions. The youth commission is that aspect of the youth development plan which was designed to be the ongoing vehicle. The insurance as it were that all the great ideas which had been generated in the past year or so don't fall by the wayside. It will also keep the other 3 parts of the plan moving forward. The youth commission is number one, to provide advice and make recommendations on broad planning goals and policies for children and youth. Number two, it will improve coordination, communication and cooperation among the youth serving agencies. So it would have this advisory function and it would have a coordinating function. The commission would also provide an opportunity for youth to have a voice in their community. A youth board would be set up and 2 representatives from this board would be on the commission. The commission in it's advisory and coordinating roles will ascertain areas where needs are not currently being met. Help generate program ideas and possible funding grants. The overall idea is to foster an environment in our communities where youth can internalize and apply community values in their own personal decision making and become healthy productive members of society, and I'm quoting now from the By-laws. Now this is a wonderful goal but what makes us think that this sort of environment will achieve these sorts of ends? On the last page of your packet, I reproduced a national study on teenagers. I found out that contrary to the popular myth that adolescents travel in rebellious packs of peers with their minds tuned only to Def Lepper and each other, teen values and social roles are predominantly shaped by the communities in which they live and by the adults in 11 1 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 their lives. This is born out in a lot of studies that we've seen. y Kids really want a solid footing. Rules, perameters. They thrive on this and we who are parents already know this. Life in the 50's was amazaingly simple in comparison with today. We knew what was expected of us and we also knew the path to the American Dream but today's kids have so many choices, so many decisions to make ' and I'm not really saying that this is bad but it can be very bewildering to them. TV's there creating new appetites. Making kids old before their time really. Then too, parents can't always be there for their kids. The rise in ' single parent households and the majority of the rest with double bread winners in the family. What will give kids a strong footing in today's society? Well we think that it's a strong, clear, consistent message from all adults impacting youth all the way through their development. The successful early childhood ' programs in our County show us that cooperation and cohesiveness works. The success of the interdisciplinaru team in the area of child abuse also tells us this. Today's youth issues are having a definite impact on cities. This latest business with kids buying cigarettes is a case in point. First they were buying cigarettes in Chaska and it got tougher to buy them in Chaska so they'd came up to Filly's and buy them here and now because you've taken same action, they can't do that anymore. I don't know if they'll go to Victoria next or where they're going to go but this is an example of a problem reaching all the cities in our area with sort of a ripple effect. It's really hard to be effective without coordination and Laurel will give you same insight on this part of it. ' Laurel Swanson: My role with the University of Minnesota, I work with the County Extension Service. Minnesota Extension Service here in Carver County so I I have a broad based approach in terms of youth development. Not only in this particular area but also in other parts of the County. As a part of my role, I serve to coordinate professionals and working on an issue on teen suicide. When it was getting a lot of attention in the media and there was a real concern ' about that with suicide attempts in a number of the metropolitan area schools as well as concerns here, and we coordinated a group of professional people around that particular issue and what happened was that there was tremendous response and a real desire for people to work together and to cooperate. It seems though that when that group of people are brought together around a specific issue and the multi-disciplinary team on child abuse, prevention is another example. Those people rally around that. As soon as that issue becomes less of a public issue, then that group tends to die out and became less committed and so what we feel by having a youth commission, is that that will continually bring up the youth issues and it will be a structured organization for people to be encouraged to work together and to cooperate. Stephanie Young: Right now there's more of a scattergun approach as you're ' talking about. Each agency program with it's own person, power and financial backing and this is wasteful, competitive and frankly confusing to the kid with needs. Children with problems often end up falling through the cracks after ' being referred to one program after another each with a new approach. I think you all know at least one of these kids and really there are so many. Kids without readily detectable problems are left to their own devices and to peer pressures and there are a lot of peer pressures these days. They need a strong support network. Each component, the churhces, the parents, the schools, 4H, coaches, etc. working in a unified way towards common goals. So the obvious first job of the youth commission would be to determine what programs are out there. What's available. How many kids are served in which types of programs. Finding out a sort of a state of the child in eastern Carver County. The 1 12 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 I emission coordinator, in their first year, would also establish the youth board that I talked about which would send representatives to the emission, generate ideas for programs and give input on the youth experience in eastern Carver County. A profile of program duplications and holes existing would be determined. We know that in same areas such as substance abuse, there are a myriad of programs designed to do the same thing, basically. It only makes sense from a taxpayer's viewpoint to cut down on this duplication. Also, in it's first year, the Commission would begin to establish a repoire between the youth serving agencies. Right now these agencies may have the desire to cooperate with one another but have little time or resources to seek better ways to handle things. And of course, each one thinks it has the best program. There's a lot of turf protecting going on out there and we need to get around it. The emission would be flexible enough to respond to the changing needs of youth. It wouldn't be tied down to any specific program and it's important to note that the commission would not be in the business of implementing new programs. The last thing we felt we needed was a competing bureacracy. That sort of competition would really squelch any kind of coordinating effort. This coordination will be an emphasize of the emission during the second year and as to the new program needs, the commission will be able to go to the most appropriate agency to design it, making sure that the offering would support the positive values of the community and it would be able to offer much needed assistance to the existing agencies in the area of grant writing proposals. Most of the agencies don't have a lot of time to do this and they lack the expertise. There's a whole lot of money out there that currently is not being used and this we feel could be funneled into our own communities with most of the grant proposal awards having a broad based, a very broad based in community a necessity to the award of the grant. We took a look at the highly successful Minneapolis Youth Coordinating Board as well as many others around the country when we devised our model and Laurel, would you talk a little bit about that? Laurel Swanson: Sure. What we have found out is that in the Minneapolis area there are four different groups joining efforts to provide a youth coordinating board. They involve a park board, library, the City and then Hennepin County and I guess another one was the school district and they had worked together for a period of 5 years and found such great results with that coordinating effort in the Minneapolis area, that they have upped their donation from those groups for another 5 years to continue that coordinating effort in the City of Minneapolis. We also did in researching what was available in other parts of the United States, we took a look at some documents that were put together in Seattle and Sehomesch County, Washington and also a County in Florida so there are groups that are working, that have developed By-laws to put together youth commissions in their states and counties. Stephanie Young: You may feel sometimes as if we don't have big city problems ' out here and why look to a city like Minneapolis to be a model for us but really with all the growth and development out in this area, we also have all the accompanying problems coming to this area as well, and your Public Safety Director could probably espound on that. There are certain reasons why the youth commission would be looked to for advice and it's coordinating efforts needed. The coordinator hired and the multi-disciplinary commission membership would have that needed experience and expertise in the youth area and it would have gathered necessary data and have done it's homework. This will carry with it the respect and the trust needed to be listened to as an advisory and coordinating group. The most important factor in the emission being able to 13 , IICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 IIcarry out it's function is the partnership of the cities, school and county all behind the effort. Your committment to the idea as a partner in the Joint I Powers Agreement sets a model and implies a spirit of cooperation. The welfare of a city's youth should have it's high priority. What we are attempting here is to help internalize the values of their community and then go on to make their good decisions. A proactive approach to kids is clearly better than I reacting to their bad decisions. Vandalizing, shoplifting, chemical use and a whole lot less expensive to the city coffers. A commitment by each of the parties to the Joint Powers Agreement, Chanhassen, Chaska, Victoria, Carver, the ' school district and the County is necessary to the significance of the effort and integration. The commission would be accountable to the parties to the joint powers agreement through the representatives of the various parties which would come back and report to, your representative would come back and report to II the City and through an annual report which would be made by the coordinator. The budget essentially is, it's mostly salary for the coordinator. We picked a figure of $20,000.00 for three-quarters time person. We'd like to have more but I we're trying to be realistic here. Also there needs and space area for officing and for having the commission meet from time to time on a monthly basis. Computer time, phone answering service, supplies and secretarial. But ' predominantly the salary that we're looking for. What we're asking for from each of the cities is $1.00 per capita. The population living in District #112 so for Chanhassen that would mean that it's only the people living within the School District in Eastern Carver County. $1.00 per capita would mean for I Chanhassen approximately $4,700.00. Currently Victoria has this in it's budget and it survived the first budget hearing and it's expected that it will go all the way through. Carver's a different matter. Carver's decided on it's budget a long time ago. They were cut to the bone and they had a large increase in their levy. Chaska, there's a hearing tonight in Chaska on the same issue and we fully expect Chaska to be in favor of this although the amount that they I would have to budget would be greater than $11,000.00. The Mayor is fully behind it and we anticipate success in Chaska. What we'd like is your agreement in principle with the concept of the youth commission and we'd ask that you consider an inclusion of this item within your budget for 1990. IIMayor Ctmiel: Thank you. Is there any specific questions? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I guess as I was reading this, I think it's a great idea but I had some questions and I know Stephanie when you were talking you said that the City, the County, the school and the commission were behind this ' and I was just wondering, what about the parents? We left out the parents? Stephanie Young: The parents would be represented on the commission by it's at large type numbers. There are 11 members bers on the commission and the II representatives of the various parties to the joint powers agreement would take up 5. 2 from the youth coordinating board and then the remainder from at large. Councilman Johnson: By the County and School district? Stephanie Young: By the County and School district, right. ' Councilman Johnson: 2 at large then. Or 3 at large. Stephanie Young: Yes, that's right and it would include representation from the IIareas listed. 1 thru 8. One of those is citizen represent. One of those is 14 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 I from the religious c viunity so when establishing the membership, these areas would be kept in mind. I mean not all of than can be covered by it is also hoped that the representatives from the various parties to the joint powers agreement would also take this list into consideration so your representative would perhaps fall in one of those categories. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and the only one that is paid is the coordinator? Stephanie Young: The coordinator would be doing the bulk of the data work. Councilwoman Dimmler: The commissioners would not be paid. And this $4,700.00 is a yearly commitment? Stephanie Young: Right. We're not asking for a 5 year commitment because I think that would squelch the whole deal but we'd like to have a 5 year commitment. ' Councilwoman Dirtier: No, but what I'm saying is that's not just a one time shot? That's going to be a yearly thing? Stephanie Young: Right. Councilwoman Dimler: When you say that you are going to work, coordinate among ' communiites and agencies in the areas of youth development, can you give me something specific that you mean by youth development? Stephanie Young: Tell me again what you mean? Councilwoman Dimler: Well under, on the first page under..., the establishment of the youth commission. It says in there that I assume the purpose is to coordinate among communities and agencies in the areas of youth development and youth activities. I was just wondering if you could give me some examples of what the youth development entails and what the youth activities would entail. ' Stephanie Young: Well this would involve both the areas, the agencies dealing with troubled youth and it would also involve the agencies that deal with the more positive sides such as Park and Rec and would also involve churches, Boy Scouts, that sort of thing. Any agency or service group that deals with youth. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, whether they're troubled or not? ' Stephanie Young: Right. Councilwoman Dimler: Then I did have another question here about, you said something about the other, are these other agencies you're talking about funded with public money as well? Some of them are? ' Stephanie Young: Some of them are, yes. I have a lot of county agencies. You've got the police agencies. The sheriff. All those sorts of programs. The City programs. You've got your church programs. Things like the Girl Scouts. Councilwoman Dimler: Now is there going to be a willingness to cooperate or do you foresee some problems there? Like you said, you talked about protecting, ' each agency protecting it's turf. 15 IICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 r Stephanie Young: Right and I think that a way that, what will give the II comn►i.ssion clout is first of all an acknowledgement of the fact that it's done it's homewnxk and is an expert in the area. Acknowledgement that it knows the state of what exists already in eastern Carver County and also the fact that the joint powers members are all behind him. If we lack that cohesiveness, then we Imight have a problem but if you've got all these various groups behind one goal, I think that the clout is there. I Councilwoman Dirtier: So basically you're asking us to give this commission the clout so you can go to the other agencies and say we're going to coordinate it all and hopefully they won't resist? IIStephanie Young: Right now there isn't any coordination so this would be the device. I Councilwoman Dimler: I understand. I mean just because you've got the clout does not mean they're not going to resist is what I'm saying. IIStephanie Young: Right but they're funded publically a lot of times and that might be an extra pull but for the ones who aren't funded, I think that they'll want to work because they'll want to work cooperatively because they'll understand the benefits from something like that. ' Laurel Swanson: And they need to work cooperatively. From my perspective they Pe _ -y Pe spec II need to in terms of the resources that are available and in order to, the way funding works now through grant dollars is you need to have a cooperative effort in order to apply for those grant dollars so what's existing right now, what's happening is people are drawing together advisory groups or task forces for _� I short periods of time in order to write the grant to get the dollars. To carry out the program so there's a number of those and that extends people because they're on a number of those different task forces. If there's a vehicle in II place, then the people can go to that vehicle. One place to have that happen. It seems to be more efficient and I think there's a willingness for people to cooperate. The vehicle isn't necessarily there to do it. We've tried a lot of different ways to make that happen. IICouncilman Johnson: In youth sports is a good example of this being needed. We've discussed this on the CAA board for probably the last year or two is how I do we coordinate. We run youth sports in this city up to about the 6th grade and 5th grade, depending on what sport it's in and then the kids are off to junior high and kind of, there's some sports there's even a gap where there's IIone year they don't play basketball. We play up to 5th grade and then they start again in the 7th. There's no youth basketball for 6th graders in this community. It's a coordination effort. Councilwoman Dimler: And you see this commission as being the coordinator to do that? ' Councilman Johnson: They would have a subcommittee on sports. This is something that both the soccer group and the CAA and now the Babe Ruth group is looking for some way to coordinate throughout. Exactly what she was saying here on getting grant money and stuff is something that was brought out in several of Ithe classes I went to on getting federal funds. That a joint group of multiple ' 16 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 1 cities and districts have a far more likely ability to get federal funds than a single entity going their own way. Like the Southwest Metro Transit Commission, they have a better ability to get federal funds than the Chanhassen Public Safety Department and this would be the type of organization to get those. An organization like this in support of our LAWCON grants within our cities would give a very large boost to those federal funds that our city could get if we had a group like this supporting that application. There's other things. If we're going to add youth athletic fields with LAWCON grants and I'm sure you would support that. Councilwoman Dirtier: I don't have any further questions. Councilman Workman: Do we know how much or when will we discuss how much we're planning on giving if any? Mayor Chmiel: Basically this is just, we'd have to discuss this at a later II time. We'd have to put it back on the agenda. This is purely just presentation at this particular time. Councilman Johnson: What is your timeframe? Stephanie Young: We're at your disposal. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see this on our next agenda. I know that the Athletic Association may think that this is a big enough item to where we may • - want to donate some of our funds to it. I'll push for that at the next Board meeting also because we can quite easily, we've got a $10.00 per year family membership. We could designate $1.00 per year of the family membership to go into this organizing caYmittee. Something...proposing to them which isn't a whole lot. We've got 350 families. Stephanie Young: It all helps. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, it's dollars. I think it's a very worthwhile thing ' and I'd like to serve on it personally. I'm cocm►itted to the youth of this town. My multiple years on the Athletic Association. I'm on two different athletic associations in this town. Stephanie Young: Thank you very much. Mayor C hmiel: Is there anyone else who would like to address anything? ' John Doric: I'm John Doric. I'm owner of what was just called Filly's. I wasn't here for this purpose but the ladies that made the presentation, I'd like them to hear this. I'm here for a different purpose and I personally and we are all for the youth and I think it's a wonderful thing but I think it was a little unfair and very untrue to say Filly's is a place where people are getting, children are getting cigarettes. I'd like to meet with you and correct you on that if I could. Councilman Johnson: John, I'm aware of many things John has done for the youth. He has the grade schoolers come over and bowl at his bowling alley and provides rooms for the Cub Scouts. Does a lot for the youth in this town. 17 ' City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 John Doric: For instance, it's impossible for a 16 year old to Filly's year get into F�.11_ s to have cigarettes. We have people at the door and you have to be 21 to get in the door so I think it's just misinformation but I'd like to correct it. Councilman Johnson: I'd agree with you there. IICouncilman Workman: Doesn't he have teen night there? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Workman: How do they get in the door then? II Councilman Johnson: They can't get cigarettes on teen night. There's no vending machine anymore come January. IIPUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO LIQUOR ORDINANCE TO EXPAND HOURS OF OPERATION FOR SUNDAY SALES. II Public Present: Name Address ' Jim Jude General Manager, Chanhassen Dinner Theatre John Doric Filly's Nightclub Mayor Chmiel: I don't see anyone here. I did ke ma several calls to each of the r owners. John was the only one I hadn't been able to get a hold of. I talked to 1 the Legion, Riviera, Pauly's, Dinner Theatre. Jim Jude is here. Would you like to come forward. I Jim Jude: Good evening everyone. My name is Jim Jude. I'm the new general manager of the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre and I would like to say at least for the Dinner Theatre on this issue, obviously the New Year's Eve this year falls on a Sunday. It's our intention to as promoting a new life, a new growth to the II Dinner Theatre that we want to do a lot of things to increase the visibility and the entertainment factor on New Year's Eve including the Dinner Theatres and what we're doing in our presentation and we would appreciate if we could do that 1 until 1:00 a.m. in the morning. We are very conscience of that hour. We would like to set up coffee and donuts, a station for that. We are going to be offering a limosine service for our patrons so we would like you to know that we are very conscience of that hour and we ask that you extend that priviledge to the City of Chanhassen. Thank you. II Councilman Johnson: Jim, as long as you're here, I'd like to publically thank you for hosting Amazing Grace. Was it 2 weeks ago? I think that was a very good public service to provide. I was out of town at the time but I went to Norwood and saw it last night. IIJim Jude: Yeah, it was a very good presentation. It was very well attended as well and it was a great presentation. Very informative. So you're welcome. 1 Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I would approval. 11 18 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 1 Councilwoman Dialer: Could I just ask one question? 1 Mayor Chmiel: John, did you have anything to say about that? John Doric: I think I speak for everyone that isn't here that we would find it 1 difficult to have people to celebrate New Year's that at a quarter to 12:00 go home. Councilwoman Dimler: I just have one quick question to our attorney about our liability. Does it increase it in any way? Elliott Knetsch: No. On City liability? 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Elliott Knetsch: No. Councilman Workman: City liability can't get any higher. Say John, don't you have teen night on Sundays also? John Doric: Yes. 1 Councilman Workman: So there are children under 21 in the bar on Sunday night? John Doric: Well not the Sunday that we're talking about. , Councilman Workman: I know. Councilman Johnson: He's backing up. 1 Councilman Workman: I'm backing up to the cigarette issue. John Doric: We have teen night every Sunday night from 6:00 until 10:00 and we allow everyone up to 20 years of age and none of them can smoke. If they're 20, 19 or 18, they cannot stroke. It's a no smoking roam. I Mayor Chmriel: Okay, thank's John. I have a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? 1 Councilwoman Dirtier: Second. Councilman Johnson: I just want to state my general principle of not wanting to increase the availability of liquor. I'm somewhat anti-drugs but in this case we're just meeting State law and I'm going to vote for it just because all we're doing is moving this to make our laws in conformance with the state laws but otherwise I would not want to in general increase our hours of alcohol consumption. It just makes for more drunk. Councilwoman Dirtier: This is only for that night isn't it? 1 Councilman Johnson: No. This is forever. Every Sunday night. Councilwoman Dimler: Oh it is? 19 1 IICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 IICounnci]man Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. all voted in favot and the motion carried. The public hearing was I closed. [ I Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the amendment to the Liquor Ordinance to expand the hours of operation for Sunday Sales. All Ivoted in favor and the motion carried. IPUBLIC HEARING: REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN, MODIFICATION NO. 9. I Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers. Your November 19, 1989 work session, staff had handed out Modification No. 9. The redevelopment plan was handed out that evening. It wasn't a lengthy discussion regarding that plan. Staff just asked Councilmembers if they had any questions or concerns that we may address I those prior to tonight's meeting. Under State law you have to approve the plan and Modification No. 9 consists of several public improvements such as the north side parking lot, the south side parking lot and the redesign of both parking I lots at City Hall as to the public improvements. Additional public improvements would consist of Market Blvd. as it would go south of TH 5, Lake Drive East as in front of Ehipak and the Rosemount facility and again the north side parking lot and the lighting along Lake Drive East. One other item included in the plan for modification would be land acquisition. The Empak site. Also the grocery store site. The parking lot areas and also the extension of Market Blvd. between West 78th Street and Coulter. Staff is ready for any questions I regarding the plan and any modifications to those. We do recommend that the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the redevelopment tax increment financing plan No. 9. ,..� Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone from the audience wishing to address this issue? This is a public hearing. IICouncilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was II closed. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, just one quick point. Not too many people have I maybe access to the report. Maybe a lot of people don't want to have access. One thing that's strikingly apparent in there is basically the City of Chanhassen owns and basically operates every parking lot in town. I guess I kind of wanted to, and I got an answer from Don Ashworth basically why do we own II all the parking lots in town? Why are we making improvements to the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre parking lots, etc and I was I guess given a fair enough answer in that that's the way we get the improvements in by owning the parking lots. At I any given time the City can give back those parking lots for maintenance, etc.. I have a problem, as also an HRA member with continuing down the road owning all these parking lots and maintaining them and I guess I wanted to get that point into the record as far as why that is. Todd Gerhardt: If I could add a point to that. It's true the City does maintain the parking lots but those costs are then assessed back to those Ibenefitting property owners from there so the City's tax dollars are not spent. 11 20 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 I It is back to the benefitting properties of those parking lots. That'd be it. Lights, snowplowing, patching, paving, sealcoating. Councilman Johnson: So we're working as a subcontractor basically. They have no choice but to accept us as their contractor. Todd Gerhardt: They have the opportunity of jointly going together and hiring their own plowing services and maintaining the lots of their own if they wish. Such in front of Kenny's, if they want to go out and hire their own plower, they have that opportunity to do so. Such as Pauly's/Pony/Pryz'ws area, they did that last year. Councilman Workman: In following that up. Are, the City then has control over 1 enforcing the maintenance and keeping those clean. My basic principle is I don't want to be in the parking lot business whether we get the money back or what so weighing that out, is it better for us to have control versus owning them and operating them and that's the point I wanted to make. Todd Gerhardt: I would say in the beginning but overall, probably not. A nuisance. Councilman Johnson: Well, I'll move approval. Councilman Workman: I'll second it. Any discussion? Resolution *89-134: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan, Modification No. 9. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: BONDS FOR 1989: 1 A. $6,650,000.00 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS. B. $725,000.00 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT BONDS. C. $835,000.00 GENERAL OBLIGATION CORPORATE PURPOSE BONDS. Dave MacGillivrary: Good Evening. I'd like to pass out the results of this bond sale. Don Ashworth: Just for the record. This is Dave MacGillivrary of Springsted. I think everyone here knows Dave. ' Dave MacGillivrary: I'd like to introduce the results of the bond sales and have your consideration of the three resolutions listed on the agenda. At 2:00 this afternoon the City took bids in our office on these three bond issues. What I passed out is what I call our bid tabulation sheets which are the results of that sale. I'd like to take these in order. First the Series A bond which is the larger dollar amount. $6,650,000.00 General Obligation Improvement Bond. How this sheet is set up is basically the title, award is the consideration to the lowest net interest rate bidder, some information on sale. You notice the credit rating information is over here on the right hand side. These were insured. I'll get into the insurance later by what's called FGIC and they have 21 1 IICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 IIa AAA rating by both Moody's and Standard & Poor's Credit Rating Agencies. Then the bids follow that. These are ranked best bidder first and they go in II descending order. The best bidder here would be a First Bank National Association with the following Account members. They have a price and then on the far right hand side you have the total net interest cost in dollars and then ' the rate. $3,513,291.67 with a rate of 6.3868%. The following two bids were Griffin, Kubik. That's a Chicago syndicate, 6.46% and Prudential-Bache, 6.4628%. These rates we believe are very competitive. When we did our estimate about a month ago we were estimating 6.68% so this is about .3 of 1% under that. I The market has moved down somewhat but not nearly as much as this movement down in this rate under the estimate. The result of this bid is such that the City will be required to put less money in fram it's tax increment financing district to fund the debt service of this so it will be a reduction in the amount of increment income required for debt service. I think I'll just move through each issue if I could and then maybe have same comments. The second issue is the taxable issue and $725,000.00. It's a taxable general obligation tax increment issue. As you can see, there is quite a bit of interest on this one. A lot of bidders. Taxable bonds are basically an entirely different market in terms of they're selling these to different types of investors. In this case the City II received 8 different bids. This issue was insured. The lowest bidder was Miller Johnson. 8.3175%. Okay, and then they start going up from there. Allison-Williams, etc. and the high bidder at the bottom, Griffin, Kubik, Stephens at 8.502265%. 8 number of bids is quite a number of bids. The proceeds of these issues are used for the incentive programs associated with the development of the downtown. Our estimate a month ago was significantly higher. This is very agressive bidding. It was 9.26%. This is almost a full percentage point under that. Lousy estimating I think is the answer to that. Basically here again, because the debt service fram these is the tax increment income of the redevelopment district, this will require a significantly less tax increment �... II income to service the debt of this issue which will therefore freeze up more as potential surplus. So that's the story on the taxable. Now we come to the $835,000.00 General Obligation Corporatio Purpose Bonds. Similarly insured, I etc.. The City got one bid on this and anytime we get one bid, we stop and question severely whether or not we should go ahead and award. The same syndicate that bid the larger issue bid this issue. First Bank. They bid identically the same interest rate that they bid on the larger issue so because II of the size of this, the other two bidders on the larger issue were Chicago syndicates and they do not have much interest in buying issues of this size so they did not bid on this smaller issue. But because the interest rate bid here II is the same as the larger issue, is identical, we feel that this is a market rate bid. Also, earlier in the day at 11:00 we had a sale for Burnsville which is a Al rated community and essentially this bid is the same as Burnsville got that is Al so the fact that this was insured. The insurance did the job on this ' and gave you a competitive bid comparable with a Al rated City of Burnsville security. For that reason, even though there's one bid, we feel both the market conditions that percipitated getting one bid plus the results of that bid are II competitive and reflect the other issue where you've got by basically a national bid. So we feel on this one that it is a very acceptable bid. This bid is approximately 1/4 of 1% under our estimate as well which exceeds the market I movement so we figure it's a good bid as well. This would result, because it's a lower bid than the estimate, approximately a 4% reduction in the interest costs which will lead to lower tax levies for the debt service. That is my I synopsis of the bid results. I have same general comments on credit rating. One thing you'll have to do is, let's get into the credit rating specifically. 22 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 1 We did have a teleconference presentation with Moody's. The Mayor participated. Mr. Ashworth participated. Most of the major department heads. It was successful. Moody's comments afterwards as they were conveyed to us were basically as we anticipated and as we told you at the previous workshop. Those being they did recognize there is a relatively high debt burden but that was offset by the City's internal financial condition and the growth that's occurred in the tax base, both in the commercial area and in the residential area so that coupled with the comments we got from the insurers because they do a separate risk analysis or credit rating. The insurers we got an extremely competitive bid from the insurance people and their comments were that perhaps Moody's was off base a little bit in being too conservative with your credit rating and this was FGIC, the low bidder on all of the, for the insurance on all three so that was fairly telling so we think the credit rating situation is perhaps stabilized and we didn't get, other than those general comments, other than a lot of running around at the last minute, much more negative from the credit rating • agencies so we think we're in fairly good shape there. I think the staff did a very good job in terms of the presentation and the myriad of questions we had 4 II follow-up after that so I think that should be mentioned as well. The last. thing I have is the City has a policy of pre-paying all it's registration fees. Those are the annual fees of maintaining the bond issues. Those are done by trust agents. We went through a competitive bidding process and got the 4 major firms in the Twin Cities. The low bidder there was Norwest by a considerable margin. They bid an amount of $10,200.00 for all three issues total for the entire term of that. That is approximately 30% less than the next lowest bidder so we've had sane conversations with Norwest. They've been anxious to get back into the registration business and we've told them their pricing is too high and they seemed to have listened and they have given you a very good big so we would recommend as part of the resolution, awarding the sales that also that Norwest be named as the paying agent for all three issues. So I'd be glad to receive any questions that you have. Mayor C hmiel: Any questions? Councilman Johnson: Once again same favorable bids. ' Mayor Q tiel: Any discussion? Councilwoman Dimler: Good job. Mayor Chmiel: You bet. Nice job. ' Councilman Workman: Which one of these bond issues covers our salary? Dave MacGillivrary: The little one. , Councilman Johnson: There isn't one small enough for that. It's kind of interesting that the middle of the $725,000.00 one, if you look, a lot of the people that bid are breaking up of the big conglomerate that bought the big issue and the two bigger issues. But there's still sane competition. Dave MacGillivrary: There's a different market for taxable bonds and they have ' different customers that they sell those to. Taxable bonds are still an evolving market and this is a very agressive bid. 23 ' City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 Councilman Johnson: But only 2 of the people that bid on this one, weren't Pa rt of the winners on the other 2. It's just kind of interesting. IDon Ashworth: If I may Mayor, I'd like to congratulate Dave, the work of Springsted in terms of, the whole selection process took much longer. than I I think any of us had anticipated and of course we knew that we had to sell bonds this year and bringing this issue, or these issues into market this late in the year and as quickly as we did and as professionally and to receive then the same bids as an A rated community. I mean that's at least a quarter of a percent II that could have been different from these so I think Dave did an excellent job in all areas. Mayor Chniel: Yes. Thank you. Do I have a motion? Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. IICouncilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Johnson: And Norwest Bank as the paying agent. Resolution #89-135(a) : Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded I to award the General Obligation Improvement Bond, Series 1989A to First Bank National Association for a price of $6,583,500.00 with a net interest cost of $3,513,291.67 at a rate of 6.3868% with Norwest Bank as the paying agent. All ' voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution #89-135(b) : Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to award the Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Bond, Series 1989E to Miller, Johnson & Kuehn, Inc. for a price of $720,650.00 with a net interest cost of $251,258.33 at a rate of 8.3175% with Norwest Bank as the paying agent. All voted in favor and the motion carried. IResolution #89-135(c) : Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to award the General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bond, Series 1989C to First Bank National Association for a price of $824,145.00 with a net interest cost of II $488,271.67 at a rate of 6.5284% with Norwest Bank as the paying agent. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS TO INSTALL A DOCK ON A BEACHLOT, ROBERT PIERCE. IIJo Ann Olsen: At the last meeting Councilmembers Johnson and Boyt requested an appeal to the Board of Adjustments' decision so that's the reason it's brought back tonight for discussion. Again, just in review, the Board did approve the II appeal. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? ICouncilwoman Dimler: Yes. It's real confusing. ' Mayor Chmiel: Well, it really is but. 24 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 11 Councilwoman Dimler: I thought the Board approved the interpretation of. We went through this. Mayor Chmiel: If the Board approved that unanimously. Councilwoman Dimler: The interpretation. And that it was up to Council to ' change the wording if they so desired. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Change within the ordinance in itself. Clarification as I have here. Councilwoman Dimler: I think that's what's confusing here. Councilman Johnson: We've got to get sane kind of action on changing. Major Chmiel: As I reviewed sane of the staff notes. It says here, the Board 1 of Adjustments and City Council feel the intent of the ordinance was to require a recreational beachlot to have at least 100 feet of depth from some area of the beachlot, specifically where the dock is proposed, then the zoning ordinance should be amended to clarify that intent and that the appeal should be approved. If that's the feeling of Council. Councilman Johnson: Did we get any input from any of the lake homeowners 1 associations? Councilwoman Dimler: Well, you did get this letter and I just passed it out. I just got it when I got back so and I guess she's the only one that I heard from that was also confused as to what was going on and what the dates and everything. Was that because we switched from the first and third and you thought we were still on the second and fourth? Jo Ann Olsen: That's correct. Councilwoman Dimler: So she was a little put out about the dates. Jo Ann Olsen: She was yes, and we did send another notice out to everyone though with the correct dates. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And the other thing is, I guess I'm confused as to why the Planning Commission is going to look at this on the 6th. Jo Ann Olsen: We were directed to process a zoning ordinance amendment and that's what we were doing. ' Councilwoman Dimler: So that's what they're going to be doing? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. 1 Councilwoman Dingier: So what are we going to be doing tonight? Jo Ann Olsen: There was an appeal to the Board of Adjustments' decision where you reviewed it and said that the interpretation was incorrect. That the way the ordinance is written today, the applicant meets what the ordinance states ' right now. 25 , City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 I ' Councilwoman Dimler: That's what the Board of Adjustment and Appeals? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. II Councilwoman Dinder: Okay, and then Councilman Boyt and Johnson appealled that and so we're supposed to do what? IJo Ann Olsen: You're supposed to review the appeal to that decision. Councilwoman Dimler: No wonder I'm so confused. IICouncilman Workman: I thought the happy compromise was that we're going to look to change it and nothing was going to happen this winter anyway. Is the applicant anxious or impatient or both or why can't we wait as long as we're ' going to make the change? Why can't it wait? That was my biggest question when I read it. Why is this back? I thought we had kind of had a happy compromise. I know you're going through the process and it's your right to do Ithat but I thought we were heading in that direction anyway. Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Workman, it's fine to change the ordinance. That should be done but in the meantime, if Bob could save a couple months. I We've already applied for the conditional use permit and if you find in our favor on this appeal, that will just, it's consistent with the ordinance anyhow. It wouldn't affect anybody except Bob and it would give him a couple extra months to market and sell some homes on those 3 lots. The conditional use ' permit is already in the process. It could go ahead at the next Planning r-1 Commission meeting if the appeal is upheld. Really they're not, as I understand i_ 3 I it, I haven't seen the zoning ordinance amendment but it wouldn't say anything different than the appeal does. It would just clear up the ordinance. In other words, you'd be saying tonight this is what the ordinance says and then when you adopt the ordinance you'd say we're going to make it clear as to what it says in the text. Mayor Chmiel: I think I would just my own opinion. I would just as soon give I it back to the Planning Commission. Cage up with a verbage before we even pass on that. Peter Beck: On the appeal? Mayor Chmiel: Right. ' Peter Beck: Well, Mr. Mayor, there's also kind of a history here. We're kind of going through exactly what happened before to Bob. In other words, he went through the Planning Commission and the Council on his plat and everybody agreed I that the dock made sense but the didn't think the ordinance allowed it so they said you should wait until we amend the ordinance. Then the ordinance ardent process started and it went all the way through and it got to the Council and I they came up with two different options and the Council didn't agree on which one and never passed an ordinance. So in addition to wanting to save a couple months right away, we're also a little bit afraid that the ordinance amendment procedure might follow the same track that it did and we end up another 4 or 5 II or more months down the road without a resolution. So again, it seems to be the sense of the Council that. the proposal makes sense. That's what the ordinance 26 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 ' meant and all we're asking is that you go ahead and say that like the Board of Adjustments did. Like the staff did. Then attend to the ordinance in due time. The ordinance amendment. It's the two reasons. The timing plus the fear that there won't be an agreement from 4 council embers on the ordinance amendment. Mayor Qv iel: Yeah, it takes four-fifths. Councilman Johnson: We agreed to hear this appeal at the next Council meeting. Councilwoman Dimler: That's this one. ' Councilman Johnson: No. The next one after this one. We had set it this one and Bill said he's going to be out of town so we changed it and said the following Council meeting if I remember correctly. Jo Ann Olsen: No. The Minutes show the first meeting in December. Peter Beck: It was 2 meetings ago that we were here and it would normally come up in the next one when Bill said he was going to be gone. Mayor Chmiel: Bill was not going to be out of town. He went out of town ' unexpectedly. Peter Beck: So in the meantime we filed our application for a conditional use permit assuming we would be able to stay on schedule here. Jo Ann Olsen: Again, the appeal is to how the ordinance is written today. Not necessarily what you think it should say or what it will say in a few months. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, that's what the Board ruled on. I Jo Ann Olsen: It's what it says today. Peter Beck: We don't mean to be prejudging what you have to do on the amendment at all. We're just looking at what it says today in light of all the discussions over the last almost 3 years with Bob's deal. Councilman Johnson: Okay, technicality of lot depth of depth of lot basically. Peter Beck: That's exactly right. ' Councilman Johnson: Is lot depth the same as saying a lot with a 100 foot depth. Is that the same as saying a lot depth of 100 feet? What the Board of Appeal has said, which is different than what we've been going under for the last 3 years, was that it is different to say that the lot shall have a depth of 100 feet versus saying a lot depth of 100 feet. Councilwoman Dimler: What does it say? , Mayor Qmiel: The way the ordinance is written, it's not really clear that the definition of lot depth applies. It's just a requirement of the 100 feet. Councilman Johnson: Right. The lot shall have a depth of 100 feet or a 100 foot depth I think. ' 27 1 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 1 Peter Beck: A little bit more background. It only requires the 100 feet for a Idock. In other words, a beachlot without a dock doesn't require the 100 feet. [-1 If you want a dock, you need the 100 feet. That's why the interpretation of staff and the Board that it would only make sense then that they're talking IIabout 100 feet where the dock is. Councilman Johnson: This is kind of a reversal of staff with the new City IPlanner. Mayor Chmiel: What they talked previously was the location where the dock is proposed has approximately 95 feet of depth. This is to the ordinary high water I mark. If measured to where the existing water line is today, the area where the dock is proposed has at least 100 feet of depth. In the area to the north of the dock meets and exceeds the 100 foot depth. 1 Peter Beck: And we'll move it in the conditional use permit to the 100 foot. ' Councilman Johnson: You have? Peter Beck: We have or we will. IIJo Ann Olsen: You have 100 feet. Councilman Johnson: At the point the dock's at measured perpendicular to the II lake? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. In the new zoning, we're getting off track again but the Ell ' proposed zoning ordinance amendment with your example again, that's where the DNR preferred to have the sand beach and the dock so they might not necessarily have the 100 feet there. If there's environmental factors where there's a 100 foot depth might not be the best place to have the dock. If there's trees or if II there's slope. Councilman Johnson: But if there's only 20 foot depth, that's not a good place ' for a dock? Jo Ann Olsen: When you go through the conditional use permit, that's when you ' have that opportunity to say where the dock goes. Peter Beck: See in this instance we can put the dock where there's a 100 foot of depth. It doesn't make the most sense to put it there because that's where I the DNR insisted the beach be but that's an issue we can deal with in the conditional use permit. For purposes of the interpretation, all we want to know is if it goes where it's 100 feet is that okay. IICouncilman Johnson: 1 think we need to clear up the ordinance. It's essential. Councilwoman Dimler: But what we're doing here tonight is either upholding or not upholding the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. What the ordinance says will be done in the Planning Commission on Wednesday and then they'll bring that back to us so all we need to deal with now is are we saying II that the depth has to be uniform throughout 100 feet or does just one place. If it's just one place of the lot, does it meet the ordinance? 28 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 Councilman Johnson: What we're doing tonight is really guiding the Planning Commission because when we make this decision tonight, we are telling the Planning Commission what our opinion is. Peter Beck: Of the existing ordinance. "< 1 Councilman Johnson: Of the existing ordinance and then we're saying, now Planning Commission now make the existing ordinance read unequivically the way that we... Councilwoman Dimler: No. We're not giving them guidance as to how to amend the ordinance. We're just saying this is how we interpret the present ordinance to read. Councilman Johnson: Okay. But, I mean you can interpret this anyway you want. II It is vague enough to where it can be interpretted either way very easily. If we make an interpretation one way or the other, we are saying that is our preference of the way we want it. Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, Councilmetdber Johnson. There is also, I don't like to bring up legal issues but you can consult your City Attorney, there is a legal issue in terms of when it can be interpretted either way. The court say the property owner gets the benefit of the doubt which is why we even bother to bring the whole thing up at all. Councilman Johnson: Just because if you want to go to court? ' Peter Beck: Well, hopefully the Council would do the right thing irregardless. Councilwoman Dimler: At this point I would move that we uphold the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. That the interpretation of the present ordinance is that as long as it meets the requirement of 100 feet depth anywhere on the lot, it doesn't have to be uniform throughout. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? , Councilman Workman: Are you saying approve the dock Ursula? Councilwatian Dimler: No. I'm saying approve the interpretation of the t ordinance as it is written today. What the Board of Adjustment and Appeals interpretted it. Councilman Workman: Which is to not allow the dock at this point? t Councilwoman Dimler: No. Which is to say that it does meet the requirement of 100 foot depth at one point in the lot. Therefore, it meets the requirements of the ordinance. Peter Beck: But the dock has to go through a conditional use permit. , Councilman Workman: And you want to uphold that approval of a dock? 29 I IICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 IICouncilwoman Dimler: I want to uphold the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to the interpretation of the present ordinance. IICouncilman Johnson: They haven't applied for the dock. II Mayor Cimiel: They have. They have to go through the process on the conditional use. Councilwoman Dimler: They still have to go through the process of the IIconditional use permit and if they may need a variance or not. Peter Beck: We're not going to ask for one. No. We got that message. Councilman Workman: I would second it. I Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to uphold_ the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals that the interpretation of the present ordinance for a dock on a beachlot is that as long as it meets the requirement I of the 100 feet depth anywhere on the lot, it doesn't have to be uniform throughout. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ICouncilman Johnson: A comment, which Wednesday night I'm not going to be able to talk to the Planning Commission. I'll probably call a few of them. What I'd like to see is that the dock should go at the point of 100 or greater feet I depth. If that's not possible for same reason, that there should be a minimum► of 75 feet which doesn't hurt you guys at all. Peter Beck: That's very doable for us. Councilman Johnson: That's very doable for you and I wouldn't want to see a 11 I dock get any closer than 75 feet to the end of the property. Councilwoman Dimler: I would also like to direct staff to write a letter to Mary Moore to explain this confusion because we didn't understand it and I don't ' think she has less of a chance of understanding exactly what the Board did and what the Council did and what the Planning Commission is going to do. And that she can still come to the Planning Commission meeting and have all the input 11 I there at that point. Councilman Johnson: As vocal as the Lake Minnewashta homeowners have been in the past, it's surprising they haven't been here. REQUEST TO DELETE INTEREST CHARGES ON A DEFERRED ASSESSMENT, 4001 ASTER TRAIL, HENRY GESS/OPAL SCHRAM. Gary Warren: I was asked to review the request from the Gess' concerning the Ideferred assessment for Project No. 73-1. The staff report was based around the documents that were submitted by the Gess' and the Schram's here. Basically we've reviewed the project and the basis for the assessment and found that it was reasonable in that sanitary sewer and watermain are along the southerly part IIof the property accessible to the property and that in my opinion the benefit is 11 30 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 j there to justify the original assessment that was placed on it. A deferment was made by the Council at the assessment hearing, which the materials are contained in the report, which recognize the fact that the actual building itself was somewhat removed from the project area and as is consistent with our current ordinance, would not be required to connect at this time so a deferment was placed on that original assessment and the property has that stated on the record as a deferred status since that time. I'm unclear I guess on all the specifics as far as the applicant's concerns on this but I believe the interest that has accrued on the assessment is one point of concern and it was unclear in the record as to the interest rate would be applied although an interest is applied consistent with the typical city policies so it would not be I guess in my opinion an exception. The fact that that interest rate was not called out at the time of the deferment. That is established policy of the City when you defer the assessments and a 7% rate was applied to upgrade the assessment from the point of adoption. It currently stands in a deferred status. The value, we did do some counts to evaluate whether the value of that assessment at today's rate is reasonable as it relates to the upgrading of that assessment with the interest rate and Dave Hempel's memo is attached but basically, assessments are difficult things to compare but in general, I'm trying to be fair. It does appear that the Gess assessment, which at this point is $7,591.00 in round numbers, is comparable to some similar projects that we could pull from our files as fax as assessment rates such as North Lotus Lake, South Lotus Lake projects. So it was the opinion, my opinion that the assessment was reasonable and the policy has been applied consistent with, the interest policy has been applied consistent with our standards in that no adjustment is warranted. Mayor Chmiel: Is Mr. Gess here? ' Cindy Gess: He isn't. I'm Cindy Gess, his daughter. What we had been concerned about... I Mayor Chmiel: Could you please state your name. Cindy Gess: I'm Cindy Gess. I'm Henry Gess' daughter. I also live at 4001 ' Aster Trail and we're concerned with the interest accruing when we were never notified of it. Opal Schram is also here. She is the person we had bought the property from. On that October 1, 1973 meeting it doesn't mention the interest on there when the motion was carried. You did make the comparison with the current assessments and I guess it isn't a current assessment and that's what is also concerning us. The interest is accuring but we were never notified of that. Mrs. Henry Gess: I lived there all of that time and it never appeared on a tax bill and the interest or the assessment was deferred until there was 1 development. No one ever told us that there would be interest accruing during the time that it was deferred and there never has been development. Also, the Abstract company in Chaska looked this up when I sold the property in 1984 and they said there was nothing against it. I would never have allowed this interest to accrue if I had known that that was happening. I was never informed and it was never appeared on a tax bill. ' Councilman Johnson: It wouldn't because it was deferred. 1 31 1 ICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 1 Mrs. Henry Gess: How do you let somebody know that there's an assessment to be paid? 1 -1 ICouncilman Johnson: Well you knew when you applied to defer the assessment. You made the application so you knew of the assessment. IIMrs. Henry Gess: I guess I did but that I don't remember. Cindy Gess: I think the question though is with the interest accruing. IICouncilman Johnson: Right. That has been the general policy. It is within the ordinance that it will be charged as such, if I remember correctly, and this is II not the first case where this came up and said, hey, we didn't know about the interest. Since I've been on here, before somebody talks about deferrals, I says you realize you will be charged interest on your deferrals so all I can say is the couple people who have talked about deferrals since I've been up here for II the last few years, I've informed them of it so that they are aware of it. There are some people with extremely, I mean we're talking big assessments. I mean hundred thousand dollar type assessments that had interest going and it got I to the point on their deferrals that the assessment was so huge, they had to basically sell their property. I don't want to see that ever to happen to anybody and that has happened in the past. I mean much worse cases then this. I do see an ability to compromise a little here in the 4% hook-up rate that we I charge a 4% inflation every year on our hook-up rate so, I think that could go. What we want to do is remain as consistent as possible to where everybody is treated equally. The 7% would be the equal treatment as far as I see but I think in these circumstances where the bonds are totally paid off, there's no developnnent occurring. You don't seem to be in a hurry to develop your property. IICindy Gess: We have no intention of ever developing it. Councilman Johnson: Right. It's the type of property where you probably won't. IICindy Gess: That's right. ICouncilman Johnson: I would like to see us compromise and use that 4% which would drastically reduce this interest. Cut the interest in half almost. It'd be still somewhat equal. A little favorable treatment here versus other people who are getting deferrals and they pay at the same bond interest rates that the bonds will go for. We just did sage bonds at 6%. I remember a few years back when we were doing bonds at 9% before the interest started getting favorable to us. In this case we've already paid off the assessments so we're basically on a Ihook-up charge type arrangement at this point because the bonds that paid these assessments are paid off so I think we could back track and place the interest at a 4% rate versus a 7% rate. Consider this just as a hook-up charge versus an assessment. Cindy Gess: And so then the assessment could be paid at this point so the interest wouldn't continue at a 4% rate? IICouncilman Johnson: Right. 1 32 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 1 • Councilman Workman: Does it matter though that the bond is paid off? Is that fair to those who may have paid in a timely fashion? Would that be encouragement, you know if you just hold out you'll get 4% down the road. 1 Councilman Johnson: Setting a precedence is what you're saying. Don Ashworth: The connection charge is established. First of all you assess everyone within a neighborhood. Greenwood Shores sewer and water assessments. If for some reason an additional lot were able to be created in Greenwood Shores area, that's where your connection charge would come in and that individual, even though he would be paying a lesser interest rate, the formula recognizes that he really did not get to use that sewer for those first 8-10 years so in fact there's a depreciation that's built into that assessment. So we felt that the connection charge truly is equal to an assessment. Ursula and I had talked about this issue earlier today. In a lot of ways I would prefer looking at this as a connection charge. I'm very fearful of the precedence situation that may develop and I would go just the opposite direction and that is, that we could really only consider this type of a request if the bonds have been fully paid because if they have not, then you or I must be, we'll have to be paying off that differential. I mean the bond holders still have to be paid and if you had a similar request for some other property, and again those bonds were still being paid off, then somebody would have to step in and pick up that differential. Councilman Johnson: This would be like the Kerber's property which is the one I was talking about. i Don Ashworth: Kerber's is still going though. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, the bonds are still going and they asked for the 1 deferral and so we couldn't drop them down to 4% because we were paying 8% or 9% on the bonds and so we would have to continue at the bond rate. Mayor Chmiel: Because the bonds had been paid off is what you said at 4%? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, and basically how many deferrals do you think we have out there that this might be considered as a precedence for? What kind of monies are we talking about? Gary Warren: 15 to 20 maybe according to the City Treasurer. 1 Councilman Johnson: How many thousand of dollars? Gary Warren: I don't know the dollar amount. Point of clarification also. The 1 4% rate is actually arrived at by an equivalency rate by deducting 3% off of the bond issue so it's not always 4% but the 3% is the discount rate that we apply to arrive at an equivalency rate on a connection charge. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, our deferrals are only eligible for elderly as I remember too. Not anybody can get a deferral? 1 Gary Warren: If the Council chooses. Councilman Johnson: I think the policy in the past has been a fixed income. 1 33 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 I [ -I Don Ashworth: I think the only one allowed is just a senior citizen but in previous years they did allow deferments that were just simply development. Elliott Knetsch: That's right. The State law lays out what the deferrals and ' it's been heightened up I guess since '73. I can't say exactly what it was in '73 but now it is only for seniors. IICouncilman Johnson: Opal, were you a senior citizen in 1973? Opal Schram: What I'm wondering is in a real estate deal you make searches for ' outstanding monies due on a property. If you're hiding this underneath same deferral something or other, how are you going to find out that you owe this? Councilman Johnson: The County, the Abstract Company should have found it. IIOpal Schram: Well that's what I'm wondering because there's no search...at all on the Abstract. And also she had an attorney and I don't know whether that ' attorney even did anything. Councilman Johnson: Well you know if you've got title insurance on this, shouldn't the title insurance pay it because they messed up. ' Opal Schram: No, there was no title insurance, no. Cindy Gess: ...Abstract updated and there was nothing on there. Gary Warren: It points out part of the problem of trying to track deferred ' assessments among other things but also I guess depending on the caliber of the Abstract company or the person doing the title search, sometimes things are missed I guess. I don't know if it was in this case. IIOpal Schram: Well, are they on the record so... Don Ashworth: Gary is right. We have to maintain two separate files. One for ' all current assessments and then all specially deferred but even with the specially deferred, Jean goes back through that. Any assessment search she pulls those out and fills them in so I don't know how that potentially was missed in 1984. I don't know that it was or it wasn't, let's put it that way. ' Councilman Johnson: If they didn't check with the City. If they only checked with the County then it would have been missed. If the Abstract service only I checked with the County and did not check with the other jurisdiction, then the County has no way of knowing of this until we actually assess it against the property. But if they check with the City, they would have found it. I don't I know what their, talk to your lawyer on the liability of the Abstract service is for telling you, yeah, for doing a bad job. Don Ashworth: We don't know that to be the case. Councilman Johnson: Well they've got the documentation that in 1984 the Abstract service says that there is no assessment against this property and II that's not true. I don't know, maybe there's a Statute of Limitations or something. I don't know. Of course it was just discovered so. 34 City Council Meeting- - December 4, 1989 I Gary Warren: You don't know if they called the City and there's some chance the City missed it either. ' Mayor Crimiel: We can't solve their problems but let's try to solve our own. Is there a motion as to the request or additional discussion? ' Councilman Workman: I still don't understand what the detriment could be if you went down to 4%. That seems to be maybe where we're heading. ' Mayor C oriel: I think we're able to do that because of the fact that bonds are paid and it's not establishing a precedent. Councilman Johnson: If somebody else comes in with paid up bonds and goes for the same thing, it again makes same sense. But if somebody canes in and we're , still paying on those bonds and we drop their interest rate to 4%, I mean that's , II bad. Mayor C oriel: I've been paying mind for the past 10 years at 7%. , Councilman Workman: Well I would move approval. Councilman Johnson: I'll second. That's move approval of changing it to 4%? ' Gary Warren: Point of clarification? Is that from then the deferment date? Is that what you're saying is bring it forward using 4% instead of 7%? , Councilman Johnson: Yes. Councilwoman Dialer: And they intend to pay it off so it won't accrue? ' Cindy Gess: Yes. We wouldn't let it keep adding up. Don Ashworth: Council has done on some issues, we have the Attorney kind of do up a Findings of Fact. I don't think that's necessary but for the Minutes on this, I'll go through those and list the items that the Council had considered so it's clear that we have kind of check list of why it is that this item was treated different. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Four Percent (4%) interest charges on the deferred assessment at 4001 Aster Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' CONSIDER EXTENDED CONTRACT TO PROVIDE ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES TO THE CITIES OF SHOREWOOD, GREENWOOD, TON BAY, EXCELSIOR AND VICTORIA. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. You may remember that several months ago the cities of Tonka Bay, Greenwood, Shorewood, Excelsior, Victoria approached us asking that we provide on an interim basis animal control to their cities. We looked into it. We decided at a cost of $17.00 an hour we could provide animal control for those cities and still cane out approximately $800.00 ahead. You may also remember that it was an interim basis that we did this and 35 IICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 IIthat we would look at a more permanent arrangement at the end of this year. We are now looking at that more permanent arrangement. We initially went into II negotiations with these 5 cities with a hourly cost of approximately $19.00 an hour. That was $2.00 an hour more than what our interim arrangement was principally to cover the increased salaries that would be anticipated by our CSO's in 1990. We went into negotiations on several occasions with this $19.00 an hour figure which would still maintain our approximately $800.00 profit, if you will, on this contract. One of the stumbling blocks that we ran into was the purchase of a support vehicle which I think by all accounts everyone agreed I we needed. Couldn't come to an agreement where the 5 contracting cities would purchase this vehicle. We did however came up with a compromise agreement where we would increase our hourly cost from $19.00 an hour to $22.00 an hour and I thereby have them in effect purchase half of a $10,000.00 CSO support vehicle. So half would be approximately $5,000.00. The intent then was that they could go back to their City Councils with a firm hourly contract submitted to them with the intention of purchasing one-half of a vehicle. To do that though they Ifelt more comfortable if we entered into a 3 year agreement if they were in fact going to contribute half of the cost of this vehicle. I have figured out the cost and revenue on the second page of your packet and the long and the short of I it is, is that if we agree to a 3 year contract, we will be making approximately $3,900.00 a year based on the $22.00 an hour rate. Over a 3 year period of time, this would generate profits of approximately $11,700.00. In effect they I would be purchasing the full price of a support vehicle. We are recommending approval of this 3 year agreement. Councilman Johnson: Are salaries going to stay the same for 3 years? ' Jim Chaffee: No. ICouncilman Johnson: Is that figured in? Jim Chaffee: In the contract that's figured in. That the hourly rate will be ' looked at each and every year of the contract. Councilman Johnson: Using $22.00 as a base? IIJim Chaffee: Using $22.00 as a base right now, right. Mayor Crmiel: And that's where you said you increase it from $19.00 to $22.00? IIJim Chaffee: Right. I Mayor Chtmiel: One of the things and if we're going to look at it on a yearly basis at the rates, as I looked at the contract, is there a clause contained in there Jim if we decided to walk away from this we could? I Jim Chaffee: Yes. On the last page of the contract, item 15. It says if all parties are unable to agree to a fee schedule for that particular year, it is agreed that the contract will then end at the conclusion of that year that is currently in effect. Councilman Johnson: There's also a walking agreement within item 14 where the I individual cities, Shorewood, Victoria, etc. can walk out but they have to pay the remainder of the year basically to leave. It's kind of like our old tri- ll36 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 1 S city contract we used to have. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? 1 Councilman Johnson: I guess the only thing that's not really included in here is the fact that if we buy a vehicle this year and we get the monies for it over a 3 year period, that... It seems like a good idea. I'd like to keep Bob. Of course as Bob progresses out of this job. As he continues his schooling. I think he's going to become a licensed officer at one time. We've got a real good man there. I'd like to keep hire as busy as possible. Mayor Chmiel: It does give us some additional exposure to it. ' Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I've had some real good feedback on Bob from citizens. Mayor Chmiel: In fact I just had a letter of acco mmodation to him from some people that's in the packet. In the staff packet that we have. If you have an opportunity to look at it, there's one in there. , Councilman Johnson: Somebody I ran into from another town had a problem in St. Paul, an emergency in St. Paul and they called the sheriff to get a hold of him and everything else and Bob happened to be there and went through and followed up and everything. That's kind of beyond the point but I'd like to move approval. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I have some discussion before we do that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to say that I'm really glad that we were able to help our surrounding communities out for the past 3 months and very, very happy that they were satisfied with our services and I think that our Public Safety Department, especially Bob Zydowsky and Deb Rand need to be congratulated for their great work. I am somewhat relunctant to extend this services for 3 years for the following reasons and that is that I'm relunctant to put the City of Chanhassen into a business that I feel is not lucrative. Apparently Midwest Animal Control discontinued it's services for a reason and I figure it's because it wasn't lucrative or they'd still be doing it. I think helping our neighbors out is fine on a temporary basis but I think if we're going to operate a business, that it has to be profitable and as I look at these expenses, it doesn't look like they're profitable to me. Looking at the expected expenses and expected revenues as they were present to us, only shows a profit of $3,900.00 a year and that the City of Chanhassen is assuming liability for damages resulting from negligence. Our entire profit plus more could be wiped out with just one mishap and to me that's not worth taking the chance. Also, the expenses as they are presented do not show overhead and supportive expenses. I think in reality the expenses are much more than shown. An example would be the office overhead and supportive expenses include operating and maintenance of the vehicle. Also someone has to type and produce the reports. That's not shown and we know that that can be very costly. I'm not sure if our insurance, general coverage includes these animal mishaps. How about training costs to Bob Zydowsky? And so forth. Also, it's shown the benefits of the salary at 20%, which I believe is a low figure. 35% would be more accurate. 37 I City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 This includes unemployment insurance, hospitalization, medical insurance, vacation, sick leave, PERA, etc. so I think if we calculated the actual expenses [-I of everything that was mentioned and probably same things that I didn't mention, that there would in fact be no profit but maybe a cost to the City. I also doubt that a 4 wheel drive vehicle could be purchased for $10,000.00 and I know I that you did say used but if it is used, how many miles does it have on it and how many years can we use it? I'm mean this vehicle puts a lot of miles on per year so I could just see that we'd be looking at another vehicle before the 3 year term is up. Also, I don't see any costs listed for radios and other gear I that would be used in the vehicle which could add up to be another $4,000.00. I just don't believe it would be a cost effective operation for Chanhassen. Then again, if we provide this service, which you know like I said, I'm glad to help our neighbors out but I don't want to do it at a cost to the citizens of Chanhassen. If we provide it at a cost to the City that gives the other cities no incentive to be looking for other services and then what do we do at the end of 3 years? We will be right back here where we are right now looking at doing ' it again. So before I would approve this, I would certainly want to see all the direct and indirect costs updated and get a more accurate picture if this is indeed a profit business or something that would cost us money. ICouncilman Johnson: Is Bob a full-time employee? ' Jim Chaffee: Yes he is. If I could just add, we are covered by insurance for the liability issue. The radios would be coming out of the present CSO truck and be put into the newer one so it wouldn't be a cost there. ' Councilwoman Dimler: But you'd want radios in your other one too? Jim Chaffee: No we wouldn't. That would be a spare vehicle for Deb's use for Icrime prevention. That cost was not figured in there. Councilman Workman: I think Ursula had some good points. I think again this I gets into our discussion earlier of transition and where and what we're trying to go. Maybe this issue can become a part of the Public Safety Committee or Police Study Committee. I don't see this as a lucrative business. I can't imagine us intending to want to be a real lucrative business or us to make money ' at it. I also don't see why or how the City should be extending itself basically into failed private businesses. I spoke to one of the mayors in one of the cities with wham we would be contracting with and he kind of elbowed me in the ribs, or that person elbowed me in the ribs and said, you got our dogs now. It's a dirty part of the business, the Public Safety business, and ultimately I do not see the ultimate advantage that we would be gaining by II spreading ourselves outside of our own borders to do this. I understand again the concept of being neighborly wherever perhaps necessity draws us into that but I think even at this rate, those cities are getting a bargain and I just don't see why and how we're so excited to extend ourselves into this business. II It's a business. I just don't feel comfortable with the City of Chanhassen being involved with it. Nothing to say of the 3 year contract which to me is a very, very long time all for the purpose of basically paying for a 4 wheel drive I vehicle. I think. We're talking about picking up extra hours in the community and everything else. Well, that vehicle is supposed to be out of the community. It's not supposed to be here. It's supposed to be basically taking care of coverage in other cities and I just don't see, I see a lot of arguments and a lot of them are pretty good. I just don't see why we should be getting in such 11 38 F City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 11 a sticky business. I just don't see it. We're not making a whole lot money just g of more_ which I don't think our City should be in the business to make money. You know, let's reduce taxes but I don't see where we should be getting into a business. ' We're already getting into the grocery store business. We're crossing lines all the time. We own parking lots. I don't think we should be in the parking lot business. I understand why we are but this is not pleasant business and I don't think it should be our business to have to feel guilty if we don't do it. I can appreciate, I think these cities, it is a bad, bad deal and it's an ugly business. I just don't feel comfortable approving getting into that business for 5 other municipalities. Councilman Johnson: The only real advantage I see on this is that where Bob won't be in our community 40 hours a week, he will be able to be called. If he's over in Victoria doing his routine patrol through Victoria and we have a dog incident or like last week a red winged hawk runs into a guy's window and ends up injured and they had to go out and pick up the hawk here in town. He's here for another 20 hours a week. He's available to then drive in from Victoria and provide that service versus having to be called out on overtime from home to provide that service or the deputies providing it. It provides us with, while it's true he's not actually in our town, he's still available for our services without overtime involved. I don't think we should be in the business of making money. I think a service like this should be budgeted at pretty close to break even which this appears to be. Very close to break even. Councilwoman Dimler: It shouldn't cost our citizens money though. Councilman Johnson: But it should not cost the citizens of Chanhassen. Councilwoman Dimler: And that's what I'm afraid it's going to do. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I think we really have to look closely. Like I said, this does not appear to be done by quite what I consider a bean counter. Not enough rows and columns and stuff here. They always make it a lot more confusing. This seems too simple. Mayor Chmiel: It seems to me that you're sort of eluding to the fact that maybe we should table this. Have him relook at it and cane back with other figures? Councilwoman Dimler: Well there's a lot of overhead costs. Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure how much overhead is involved beyond what we already provide Bob as far as the office space is already going to be provided anyway. I'm not sure how many reports have to be typed up for these other cities but that should be in here too. Councilwoman Dimler: Quite a few reports. Councilman Johnson: If one of our secretaries types up a report for the City of Shorewood, that should be at a charge rate. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, that would be a supportive service that we'd be picking up. 39 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 I Councilman Johnson: Whether that's included in the $19.00 or $22.00 an hour now Ias part of the hourly rate, I don't know. Councilwoman Dimler: No. It's only for the vehicle and the extra hours right? IJim Chaffee: I'm sorry Ursula, what? Councilwoman Dimler: Is the $22.00 not only reflecting the cost of the vehicle Iand the extra hours. It has nothing to do with the supportive services. Jim Chaffee: That was supposed to be all inclusive. ' Councilman Johnson: But you didn't include that in your cost. If it's all inclusive, then you have to throw something in your costs there. I Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, if I may. We went into this really not knowing what kind of reaction we would get from the City Council and quite frankly I'm not real wild about it myself, especially if we don't have 100% support from the 1 City Council so I'd just as soon withdraw the entire proposal at this point in time. I Councilman Johnson: If that provides us with less CSO coverage. If there's someway we could maintain our CSO coverage at it's present level. If it's a matter of going up to $25.00 an hour. The cities may not want to do it at $25.00 but, I'm not against the program. I just want to make sure that there's I not a penny of our tax money spent to support a Shorewood, Victoria and I don't ;r quite have that evidence here. ICouncilwoman Dingle:: And that's what I was trying to point out. Councilman Johnson: That's exactly what you were saying. But I support the II general concept of it if that provides our citizens with, I'd rather see that supporting us a little bit by having our CSO on duty and able to respond for a larger portion of the day. I'd like to see earlier morning response capability and a later evening response capability from our CSO's. Our problems of dogs I being taken to our playground for their morning exercise. We have a group of citizens that like to bring their dogs out to the grade school playground every morning before our CSO's are on duty. I haven't seen it as much lately. I think there's been some enforcement going on. The playground coordinators don't like that at all. Mayor Chmiel: What's the decision of the Council? IICouncilman Johnson: I think we should table. ICouncilwoman Dimler: If Jay wants to withdraw, I guess I would favor that. Don Ashworth: Councilwoman Dimler and I did have a chance to talk a little bit I today on this. She had asked various questions. I had to be honest in that I had, with ourselves being gone this past week, I had not been able to go through this report. Listening to the concerns as they're being raised, maybe it should be tabled so that we're in a better position to respond to the questions as to ' whether or not we're making money, losing money. I did make a comment that some of the areas where we're really, really tight. For example the 20% and as far 40 City council Meeting - December 4, 1989 as overhead, etc. and I don't know if the other cities would be willing to move off of that $22.00 figure or not. Councilman Johnson: Why don't we do this Mr. Mayor. Because this contract runs out in less than 30 days and we'll be putting our neighbor cities in a bit of a crunch if we end it. If we table it now for 2 weeks, it's going to be basically Christmas and they're going to have to be finding alternate service. Why don't we extend it one month to the end of January and table it and say, okay we'll give you one more month of service as is so we'll have enough time to fully consider this. That helps our neighbors out and gives us enough time. Mayor Chmiel: That's a good idea. Don Ashworth: It should almost be for upwards of even a 3 month period. I ' don't know what we may have told the communities. If they have a feeling that the 3 year contract is likely to go through but I know myself that if you had to II run out and find same other way to provide that service and to do it within literally a 30 day period of time, you'd never get it done. Councilman Workman: Is there a State law on that? ' Councilman Johnson: That they have to have that service? Don Ashworth: You mean as far as the bidding for it? Councilman Workman: No, I mean as far as community of a certain size having to have some sort of animal control. Don Ashworth: No. You would not be required to but again, in just watching our own calls, it's not really the dogs that are at issue. It's the lady that's 80-90 years old and hears noises upstairs or sees the animal. It's the raccoons, the snakes, all of the other kinds of animals that get into your home and destroy your property and that's where you become very concerned not to count the wolves and things like that. Councilman Workman: Again, my concern...the money because somehow we're going to figure out a way to get these other communities to subsidize us and Bob and our truck and everything else. I think this contract is, I'll tell you what, if Bob Boyt was a city council member in Victoria, he'd be having a heart attack right now. ' Councilman Johnson: I would. Councilman Workman: That's right. It leans our way so heavily, it's ' unbelieveable. I've never seen such a good contract for us. I'm just saying, we're getting into a business here. We're going into the business of animal control and maybe we'll offer it to Chaska and we'll get bigger and bigger and bigger. I don't think that's the direction I want to head. If we could take care of our own animal control situation plus other things, I don't see why. It's like the noise ordinance. You can't stop all noises. Even if you have the ordinance and so you're not going to be able to stop all animal control problems no matter what kind of coverage we have. I just can't see us trying to bout' up a position just to cover that base. , 41 1 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Right now we have minimal animal control. There's one ' thing I've gotten quite a few complaints from citizens on is that we don't respond fast enough. We're not able to respond at all hours on barking dog complaints and most dog complaints. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Although we most have been right now because everybody else is satisfied. ' Councilman Johnson: Well something over nothing is... Mayor Chmiel: I think we're going to just keep throwing this back and forth and I think we need to came up with a conclusion on this. I would like to take II Jay's suggestion to extend this for another money or even 2 until we know exactly where we're coming from with total costs. I too don't want to see additional dollars came into this where it's going to come out of the City's Icoffers here. Out of Chanhassen's pocket. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, what I'll do is I'll have the finance department work ' up the true and correct figures on this then. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and then what I'd like to see is this brought back to us at the next Council meeting and see if we can cane up with same sort of 1 conclusions. Councilwoman Dimler: But you want to extend it for a month or two? As is. Mayor Chmiel: A maximin of 2 months. p I Councilman Johnson: Because if we decide to go into... Mayor Chmiel: I keep looking back at some of these letters that we received from each of the cities and of course they're benefitting from this but I know 1 they're saying this from the heart and it's basically, it says here it's encouraging to have neighboring cities working together to solve common problems and share in the cost of providing this serious services to the public. And I I agree, to have a cooperative kind of effect here to with all these adjacent neighboring communities that are here by us. Those dogs from their communities come into our community as well. So there is some cooperativeness there I think that should be done. So I'd like to take that motion to table to extend the II contract period for 2 more months and come up with some real solid dollar figures so we know where we're coming from. Is there a second? IICouncilman Johnson: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table to extend the contract to provide animal control to the cities of Shorewood, Excelsior, Greenwood, Tonka Bay and Victoria for a period of 2 months until some more exact dollar figures can be worked out. All voted in favor except Councilman W3rkaman who 11 opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Councilman Johnson: It's like the Youth Council, Southwest Metro Drug Task IIForce. The cooperation between cities is becoming a bigger and bigger issue on 42 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 all fronts and in all aspects of city life. You can become more efficient and more cost effective if you're slightly bigger. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING TO PROVIDE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, INCREASED PARKING REQUIREMENTS IF WARRANTED BY SITE PLAN REVIEW, AND TO REQUIRE ENCLOSED PARKING FOR TWO VEHICLES FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, FIRST READING. Jo Ann Olsen: Paul's out sick so I'm going to try to take his place on this. ' They originally were proposing the enclosed 2 parking spaces and after that went through review by the Planning Camtission, they reduced that to 1.5 parking stalls that would have to be provided enclosed for the multiple family. We also went through different areas in the zoning ordinance that needed to be improved upon such as parking standards, visitors parking, and I guess I'll just leave it at that and if you have any questions, I'll answer them. ' Mayor C hmiel: Okay. Is there any discussion? Is there anyone wishing to address this? Councilman Johnson: I was kind of wondering what the ng group up was here for. I do have same discussion but let's hear from the public first here. Dean Johnson: As you know, my name is Dean Johnson and I'm in front of you to talk about the parking issue. I have talked about this issue with the Planning Commission when it was in front of them. Maybe, I have the version or I have the full presentation that I gave the Planning Commission back 2 weeks ago. I guess the question that comes into my mind is, do we need to go through the whole report and all the stuff that I have put in front of the Planning Commission? I guess I'm looking for a little guidance. One and a half units on the townhouse project, although we feel is a little severe, is a workable situation. We feel that the apartment building part is where it is still an unworkable situation. , Mayor Ctmiel: Dean, maybe I can just answer that. We do have the Minutes of the Planning Commission and all discussions of what you have here and I believe it goes on for 3 pages. Dean Johnson: That's why I bring it p. No, it goes on for 7 actually. Mayor Chmiel: In several different locations but in one spot here it's 3 pages. If you could just give us a broad overview. Dean Johnson: Just to get some things out of the way here because...a lot of I what I'm going to show you came from different things and I guess I'd just like to show some of the documents that we went through first. Some of it came from the community profile. The types of wages paid out to the employees and that came from something put out by the Department and Trade and Economic Development. I'm sure you Planning Commission has it. The Met Council report which I'll be reading from. The Housing Development Guide was something that we used. Also the Minnesota Salary Survey was a booklet in which we took a lot of this data from so a lot of what I'm talking about is with those and some of the stuff, I'm going to have some things for the projecter. I guess what I want to do is recap the Planning Commission. I guess the types of things that we talked 43 IICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 IIabout that I presented them with is first establishing a need for affordable housing in Chanhassen. We talked to some extent about the types of people per II the incomes and it showed that a lot of the people that were coming in new to the City, a lot of the people that were already working here needed this type of housing because of their wage structure that they have. We established at that ' thing through some different forms and in this case it was a MLS listing sheets for single family houses and townhouses in Chanhassen. That there is very little in this market in Chanhassen. In fact, if I remember right. In houses there was one and in townhouses there were 6 that would fit into this category ' in all of Chanhassen for the year 1989. We talked a lot and Paul was real helpful in this, in talking about the garage ordinance in relation to the impervious surface ordinance. In other words, that the garages had to be almost tuck under style units in order that with the 35% impervious surface ordinance, that was the only way in which to do this project unless you reduce density which again would raise housing costs so for the affordable housing thing, with those two ordinances combined, would be real restrictive. I guess the other I thing we talked quite a bit about again was the fact that in the make-up of 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units and in the make-up of the people that would be renting them which meant divorced, retired, singles, all of those types of I groups of people, we showed percentages of those types of people. Types of wages that these people would have to have in order to qualify even for the minimum that I was proposing say in my project. We showed an awful lot of that I staff and came to the conclusion that there is a need for 2 bedroom units with only 1 car garage because of the fact that there are a lot of singles out there or there are retired people where they have only the one car. They don't have children anymore. The other thing that we talked about is we talked about the ' fact that there is legislation, 1986 legislation through the State you know that said that cities should do things to accept a portion of the affordable housing people or housing that is necessary out there. We read some passages out of the I Met Council about the fact, maybe I should read those. In the housing guide here in one spot, several policies deal with local governments and developers can facilitate production of affordable housing. They recommend modifying I zoning ordinance or housing sizes, lot sizes and garages. It goes on to talk about examining public service costs for streets and streamlining procedures for approving housing developments. Encouraging cooperation between communities and private housing, developers and producing affordable housing. There's also a I statement when it gets back into the actual technicalities or the physical parts of building. It says eliminating garages. A garage can add several thousand dollars to the cost of a house. Many people consider one a necessity but ' garages are not essential for basic living needs. Eliminating a garage can substantially reduce the price of a house. Market demands should dictate whether garages are constructed. So in this type of stuff we went with them. II I guess at this point I'd like to introduce the architect that they heard and I'd like to have him talk about more the apartment side then since you have read the Minutes and stuff so I'd like to introduce Hal Pierce which, he's an architect with a group called Design Resource Group. IHal Pierce: Good evening. I'm Hal Pierce. I'm an architect with Design Resource Group. I've got over 15 years of design experience in multiple family I housing and I'm also currently a member of the Planning Commission on a neighboring community so I'm familiar with parking requirements. What I'd like to readdress is some of the physical constraints of designing maybe a typical 3 story apartment building. I've prepared a couple overheads. This is a typical 1 3 story condominium building with an underground garage. This basically shows ' 44 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 ' that the garage is in the basement and there are 3 units stacked above the garage. The plan would show how a typical 1 and 2 bedroom unit would stack above these garage spaces. Based on this example, I have a 50% 1 and 2 bedroom. The 1 bedrooms are approximately 750 square feet. The 2 bedrooms are 1,000 square feet. These would cover, 1 of the 2 bedroom would cover 6 garage spaces in the basement. Using 3 floors, that would be 6 units so it'd come out to 1 space per unit. Now we have elevators and stairs and common areas which would increase some of the garages but we also have compactor, waste storage dumpsters, mechanical rooms and other types of things like this in the basement so it usually works out just to be a little bit more than 1 space per unit. To increase this parking we could increase the 2 bedroom units count to more than 50% but with the ordinance, that would also require to increase the parking so it really doesn't give us much relief. We could attach parking as it's stated in the ordinance, suggested ordinance, on page 6 to the exterior but this doesn't make for a very attractive building usually. We could restrict to only building 2 stories which would of course only give us 4 units for the 6 spaces but this would again cover, add a lot to the coverage of the building to give the same density. A lot more coverage and of course increase the cost. We could of course enlarge the sizes of the units but to do this we'd probably be limited to only luxury units and those types of units go on where we have amenities like lakeshore. Another solution would be to maybe go to 2 level parking garage but again, this is usually limited to a highrise type construction. The cost of a parking space typically is about $5,000.00 a space. This is about 11% to 14% of the cost of a typical unit which would probably add to construction cost between $35,000.00 and $45,000.00. The typical 2 bedroom unit in Chanhassen right now with 1 garage rents for about $575.00 so if we added 1 more stall, we'd probably have to raise that say 11% to 18% which would be $60.00 to 80.00 a month. Mayor Chmiel: Would you repeat those 2 figures. ' Hal Pierce: The hard construction costs? Between $35,000.00 and $45,000.00. That's usually without the land and the cost is $5,000.00 per space with a parking stall for underground. If there's any questions. Mayor Chmiel: You had a cost per month there too. Hal Pierce: That would run $60.00 to $80.00 a month. Councilman Johnson: Start at $575.00 for a? ' Hal Pierce: 2 bedroom with 1 garage. That's an average we got from the apartment guide. Mayor Chmiel: Now is that over a 30 year period you're talking or how long a period of time? Hal Pierce: Usually your debt retirement is over 30 years so that's usually how you figure your cost. Councilman Johnson: That's your rental cost. ' Hal Pierce: Your rental cost, right. Less all operating expenses. 45 IICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 IICouncilman Johnson: Less the operating expenses? II Hal Pierce: You take your total rental and deduct the operating expenses and that usually is what your debt retirement is based on. Councilman Johnson: Okay, now you said if you had to add the extra stall it'd II be $60.00 to $80.00? Hal Pierce: About $60.00 to $80.00 a month based on that percentage of the II construction cost. Now this could maybe vary slightly depending on how we'd configure those and how it would add to the actual cost of the building. What I'm showing here basically is that it's fairly typical to build them with one stall per because of the way it stacks. To go to 2, we'd have to come up with 1 some other arrangements. Probably increase that basement area somehow or add some attached to the building. ' Dean Johnson: I guess what I'd like to do then is talk about some of the demographics of the rental. For that I have some transparencies here also. This survey or where these numbers are coming from is the U.S. Census Bureau. II In their statistics, 35% of the renters are single renters. 28% have 2 people. 16% have 3 people and 21% have 4 or more. Of the make-up here, 37% of the ones that are 2 and more have children where 63% of them do not have children. In other words, the elderly or just newly married. I have another transparency 1 here. This one is of an... This one is of an apartment building in Crystal. In this one, 52% of this one in Crystal has single renters and 48% have 2 person in them. Of them, only 4% have children in it. This does vary away from the U.S. statistics but is actually what happened from one, an equal opportunity renter in Crystal. I guess what I'd like to get to is that the apartment dweller are [-] generally (a) single people who are starting out. Can't afford to buy a house. Don't want to buy a house. Or don't have, they're busy building on you know IIwhat it takes just to set up a domicile away from home. Going to school. Those types of things. (b) , married people starting out. Haven't establish yet. Again, are maybe setting up domicile again. Can't afford to buy. Three, I divorce people. Single car. Can't afford to buy because of the transition. Have more stuff so they need the second bedroom. Four or (d) , are retired couples. Have a single car. Don't want to or can't afford a home at that time ' in life. Again, have lived their life span so they have an accumulation of stuff. Need the second bedroom but again don't need that space down below. No need for that car. I'd like to then get to the availability of rental in II Chanhassen. This is a rent analysis for Chanhassen. It's a little too small to see. This is studio apartments in Chanhassen. There are none available. Excuse me, studio tenant available. Number of vacancies are 0. There are none available. 1 bedroom, there are 224 units available. 15 are vacant. That II gives you a percentage of about 6.7%. 2 bedroom units, there are 118 2 bedroom units. Only 7 are available as of August 15th which is 5.9% vacancy rate and there are none in the 3 and 4 bedroom. There are none in Chanhassen in 3 and 4. So you definitely have needs. 6% vacancy rate is a very low vacancy rate for this and there is a need for these types of units. Councilman Johnson: No 3 and 4 bedroom. That says something too. IIDean Johnson: It does say something but maybe not quite what you're thinking and the reason is, when you go further in the apartment guide report, you find 11 that the 3 and 4 bedrooms are the worse for vacancy rates. In other words, by i46 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 • the time the rents get up there for that type of thing, they're more into n9. the houses or townhouses because of their station and family so you'll find that if you go through other communities that do have some, they don't fair very well. In fact vacancy rates can be up in the 20% and 25% range real easily in those _ types of units. There are low numbers of them and they don't rent very well. Councilman Johnson: Yb sure had a hard time trying to find one when we were trying to get a family of 8 into affordable housing. Dean Johnson: Which I believe is that Ethiopian family that you talked about that one time. Councilman Johnson: Right. ' Dean Johnson: Yeah. There are those cases and well, there's nothing in Chanhassen. Nothing at all. Something should be done. Just to back up sane of this, total vacancy rate is 6.2%. 22 of 354 units in Chanhassen were available.- That's a low percentage. I believe that the rentals in Chanhassen, rental - available does not have attached garages. In fact, I believe the only rental in Chanhassen that has garages are the townhanes that are adjacent to the site that I'm looking at. I'm not sure of that but I don't believe any of the older existing has any type of garages at all that we were able to see. Mayor Chmiel: Same do. Dean Johnson: Sane do? I Councilman Johnson: Apartments. I don't think we have any other townhumes do we? Mayor Ctmiel: No. Dean Johnson: No, there is no other townhanes but the apartments, okay. But none have double attached. I think they have garages but they don't have attached garages. I think they're all out garages, if I'm not mistaken. But none according to the rental information have double garages. They're all singles at the most. Okay? As Hal's pointed out, to build that stall adds 14% or 11% to 14%. $60.00 to $80.00 so you're increasing the rental. You're going to put more of a burden by adding this stall. You're going' to cut out the affordability by doing this. The other thing that cakes in is that you have to look at in renters is the fact that these rents pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. These renters don't get homestead credit so you're going to end up with not only are you taxing them harder just by the way the tax rolls are, and I realize that's not something that the City or City Council does but it's another burden that are on these people and now to put this on is going to make it harder for affordable housing for them. After the Planning Commission meeting I realized that, we too saw a need for the looking at parking ordinances in other communities so Hal Pierce, with the aid of a fellow named Frank Larson, went around and gathered what the other communities. I do know that in your packet that's sent out, because I do have a copy of the staff report, that they did canvas some communities themseif. We canvas same also and we got a little bit of duplication but not too much. I believe you people canvased Eden Prairie in yours. You're looking at yours. This is what we found and we have the ordinances here. Copies of them so if you want to look at them. But we found 47 IICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 that as much as in your re po rt, everybody re qu ired some covered pa rki ng. In fact same of them didn't. Chaska required 2 stalls for the multi family. One 1 other point I should bring up. In some communities, multi-family and townhouses were not separated. Their ordinance covered both so when you see things like the dashed lines, it means that the townhouses and the multi-family and the II elderly were grouped in one section. In Chaska they require no covered parking. They require 2 stalls for parking but they require none of them to be covered. Victoria requires 1 1/2 stalls and 1 stall covered. Minnetonka who had a lot of ' experience with this, requires 2 stalls again so there's adequate parking but only 1 of them be required. Eden Prairie, there seems to be a little bit of a discrepancy. We have in our ordinances and we've looked at what they've sent us. They have 2 for townhouses and 2 for multi-family. They don't address 1 elderly. They only require 1. I believe your staff report says something a little bit differently but I do have that stuff with me if you want to look at it. It's according to what they sent us currently in the ordinance. It's only 1 2. Councilman Johnson: Do they require a visitor's stall? IIDean Johnson: They require visitors. Councilman Johnson: Ours says 2 1/4. I think the quarter is from the visitors. I 1 out of 4 is to be a visitors so that would be 2 for the resident and a 1/4 for a visitor. ' Dean Johnson: Okay. Again, we get into Hopkins doesn't. St. Louis Park doesn't but Plymouth and Wayzata do. Nobody that we canvased saw, and a lot of Ell these people have experience with them. A lot of people are experience them now or a lot of communities experience them now. Nobody after looking at it in II their ordinances require more than 1 covering but most of them, the majority of them required 2 spaces so there was adequate parking. I believe the only one that was different in your staff report was Edina. Edina covered 1 1/4 if I'm II not mistaken what the staff report said. I guess the point I wanted to make was that there are communities that don't require any to be covered. Edina seems to be the very high end and then a lot of them were at 1. From the comments that I were made at the Planning Commission meeting, we saw storage as an issue. We felt that maybe some of what was being discussed here was not so much the need for parking or only parking but a lot of what prompted changes was in the storage. We started to think about the types of things that you know people would be putting in their garage or you know that type of stuff. We got into the bikes and the toys and the lawnmowers and garden tools, workbenches, motorcycles, snowmobiles and boats. Single family, all of these people have 1 that. When you get into townhouses, the list seems to dwindle. You have bikes. Some people have children so there are some that need it for the children but lawn equiment, that's all done by the association so the lawn equipment's no ' longer around. You don't have gardening tools. Work bench, maybe but again you know, depending on their station in life, probably not very much of that. Boats, usually are required to be stored other ways. I know in the townhouse project that we did in Plymouth, that we required boats to be stored off site. I That they could not store snowmobiles, trailers or boats on site so there was the place for the garage so it couldn't be taken up by that which is something that we would again work into an ordinance here. Apartments, then you lose a lot more. You're not going to have work benches in apartments. You may have a motorcycle and you may have some bikes but that's where storage areas work out. 1 48 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 1 Instead of having extra spaces, nobody's going to put their extra belongings in a parking space. It's going to need to be a storage locker obviously so maybe the thrust of this maybe should be that, maybe that there shouldn't be 2 stalls required for the thing but instead of having 1 1/2 required covered, that maybe some storage requirements or things should be looked at. The other thing too is a lot of what came out of the Planning Commission meeting were things that we felt might be covered by nuisances. In other words, one of the commission members came to the point where he said well I just got married and me and my wife moved into a townhouse, or excuse me an apartment building. The 3 story variety he said, and I had 3 cars when I moved into it and everybody kind of laughed about it because of the fact that well, what do 2 people need 3 cars for and we laughed about 1 probably wasn't licensed and those types of things and I guess what we're getting to, you do have nuisance ordinances for unlicensed cars and junkers and those types of things and so they can control same of what goes into this. So I guess in conclusion I'd like to list off some things here. I think through what was said through the Planning Commission and same here, we've shown that Chanhassen does need same affordable housing. It needs affordable apartments. I guess I do have one other transparency which shows the amount of an alternate housing in Chanhassen. This is a transparency made off of the Met Council. Met Council has deemed that 41% is their goal for alternative housing types. In Chanhassen, if I'm reading this properly, you have 23.8%. You have 23.8% alternative housing types. Chanhassen is somewhat deficient in affordable housing. It could use a project that has affordable housing and these garages would make that hard to do. A strict garage ordinance along with an impervious surface ordinance pretty much eliminates a lot of the affordable housing. This cuts out a large group of people who need and have the right for affordable housing. It kind of you know maybe the thing to be looked at or to be thought of is that by the wages in Chanhassen, by the wages of people starting out in life in Chanhassen and also the elderly, you might came to the conclusion or it might be drawn that your children wouldn't have a place to live because the wages that your children would make wouldn't suffice to pay the rents and stuff that would go along in Chanhassen with these types of things added in. There doesn't seem to be a need for 1 1/2 cars in apartment buildings. The storage locker would probably be more of the answer for that. The cost to increase the parking requirements from 1 to 1 1/2 raises the rent to an unaffordable level and makes building an apartment building an unfeasible thing in the present. It's not cost effective in this market so I guess then for recommendations that I would have is, leaving the apartment garages at 1 covered stall and address the storage need, the 1 1/2 covered stalls for the townhouses is restrictive if you want to go to even more affordable ranges than the townhouses but it is a doable thing but what might help that situation is something that was talked about by Paul Krauss' change in the impervious surface from the 35% to possibly a 40% or 45% to give you same design flexibility and being able to work with the 1 1/2 car rule on the townhouse. And that's all I have. Any questions? , Mayor Chmiel: Any questions? Any discussion? Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson. Mr. Mayor. Councilmen. One of my other lives ' I used to develop apartment buildings and I happened to read this ordinance this afternoon. I was quite surprised by it because of it's restrictions. I developed about 400 apartment buildings in New Brighton, Roseville, Minneapolis, South St. Paul, places like that. Not 400 apartment buildings, 400 units. Generally speaking, the concept currently that we are using for apartments, not so much townhouses because that's what I was looking at, is a 1 to 1 ratio and 1 49 IICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 - IIthat seems to be what the market's looking for. Then they have about 2 parking spots per building so you have 1 underground and 1 above and that seems to be the market today. If you drive around Eden Prairie. Not so much in Chaska but around Eden Prairie and places like that, you'll see kind of a 1 covered either underground or detached or attached and 1 above. As they explained today, it just works out that's how the buildings work. You can put 1, you can take the footings of an apartment building and put 1 car per unit. It's just the numbers work out that way, underneath very efficiently. It costs about $3,900.00 to $5,000.00 a unit to do that. If you were to put 1, you'd have to go double layer down and it gets very costly. You'd probably his $10,000.00 or $15,000.00. If you had to have detached housing, you can imagine an apartment building with parking underneath and then parking outside like you have over here at the townhouses. They have 1:1 ratio I believe at that particular thing. You'd just have kind of a crazy looking building and if you drive through most of your raomplexes, -you'd see 1:1 ratio. That's what we ran into in most communities. But fiy major concern is, I don't know if Don Patton, he's got 500 units to develop and I don't know if he even knows. I just found out about it this afternoon because I happened to ask for the agenda for this evening and then I went over and picked up this thing. There's a bunch of people that may own property in this conr«unity are not aware of what this could potentially do to them financially because the way I look at it, as the ordinance, it really makes a lot of units undevelopable in this community because you're not competitive. I noticed that somebody did a study and the study says enclosed II stalls 1, 1, 1, 1 per unit and then we recommend 1.5. That doesn't make a lot of sense. That makes us non-competitive in the marketplace. Secondly, St. Hubert's is planning on building a senior facility with 20 to 30 units. isb know ' for a fact that seniors don't have cars so many communities. No, I'm talking about seniors, assistant living like they're talking about over there. Normally I built a lot of the units. You've got all kinds of divisions of types of housing so normally it's like .2 to .3 parking spaces for a senior facility. They all vary and I think the ordinance doesn't address any of those types of things and you're going to be back trying to change that and I notice that when you brought that up somplace, you brought out the senior stuff, that you have to II have that in as part of it. I think we've got same land that's zoned for 12 units per acre. To me that us multi-story apartment land. That's one type of a building. Then you've got townhouses and different types of areas that you should deal with. Edina talked about affordable housing. Edina's actually subsidizing the developers now to build affordable housing in Edina in the $60,000.00 to $75,000.00 category, all of which have 1:1 coverage and they're selling like hotcakes and they look fine. That's all that stuff that's going in over by Southdale so I think you should just generally look at that whole issue. My question is why are we doing it so restrictive and look at the market place because I think this is overly restrictive given what the marketplace is actually doing. I think you should consult with sane of the developments. Our II architect that we have here, Arvid Ellness probably only does probably 5,000 units of housing per year. There are a lot of people who can show you different types of projects that are very attractive. Make sense and are not as restrictive on coverage because coverage really, I figured out, if you had to build a $10,000.00 garage, which is the second level down, just the taxes on that that you have to pay the government is 5% of value so that's $500.00 per II year. So another $40.00 just in taxes that every apartment would have to do. It's a real restrictive ordinance that you're suggesting and not competitive with what other co mmunities are doing and given the average wage in Chanhassen is probably what, $22,000.00 to $23,000.00? 50 City Council ecember g - 4, 1989 1 Dean Johnson: $21,000.00. Brad Johnson: Yeah, we all look around. The people that work here are earning $20,000.00 to $30,000.00 a year. Rosemount will change that. The people that live here on the average are marking $50,000.00 to $60,000.00. Eiden Prairie next to us has housing right now for sale for $56,000.00. Single family. Average income in that community is in the $50,000.00 to $60,000.00 also but they have got a place for it. It all has 1:1 parking so I think this, I realize this is the first reading and I missed it but I think you should really look into the whole concept that you're working under and why you're doing it. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I need discussion. I would almost suggest that possibly we table this particular item and get same input from some of the other people as well like Don Patton to see what basically his concerns are regarding this. ' Councilman Workman: What does Don Patton have to do with it? Councilman Johnson: He owns a whole bunch of R-12 and R-8. Jo Ann Olsen: Lake Susan Hills, the POD. He doesn't own it. He's the realtor. The developer. , Mayor Chmiel: And too maybe Rick Murray. Doesn't he? That would be my suggestion at this particular time. We're getting close to 11:00. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Why isn't Paul here tonight? I'd like to hear him. Councilman Johnson: He's sick. , Mayor Chmiel: I realize Jo Ann's trying to fill in. Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want to address it? ' Jo Ann Olsen: I can. If you feel more comfortable notifying everybody to have them here...the final thing's going to be, you might as well table that now and we'll do that. That's no problem. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's what I'd like to do. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see if it's got any chance of passing anyway. Whether there's, this takes a four-fifths vote to amend the zoning ordinance. I'd like to see if 1 or 2 of us are against this. There's no use wasting a whole lot of time if there's already going to be 2 votes saying heck no, we don't want this. I'm not sure where Bill sits on this one. ' Councilman Workman: Out of town. Councilman Johnson: Yeah...I think he wants 2 enclosed. ' Mayor Chmiel: So at least thats my suggestion. I would make that as a motion to table to get the additional information from the other people. Is there a second? 51 1 IICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 I Councilman Workman: I'll second it to discuss it a little. Councilman Johnson: You can't discuss a motion to table. Mayor Chmiel: Oh, that's right. It's a tabling motion. Don't second it. IILet's have a discussion. Councilman Workman: Dean, are you familiar with what Met Council's projections IIwere for population for Chanhassen in the year 2000? Dean Johnson: I think I have it. IICouncilman Workman: I know shat it is. Maybe you can take a stab. Well, to -save us all -tinse, ±t's 34, 0 b r ± e year 2000 and we're well, well, well past that and people are lining up to get into this community. I think a lot of your comments kind of missed the mark in telling us how much Met Council and other stastistical agencies tell us how much of a certain kind of housing we should have or we're supposed to maybe feel guilty on how much we have of that or not. I We don't have trailer homes in town either and I suppose a trailer home group could come in and say well you should have them. The issue Brad with the apartment buildings I think I would agree with more on that side. I'm looking more at the single garage, more townhome type things. I live in a townha1►e, as I've indicated before. Two stalls in my townhcx e, 2 bedrooms, is not very much room. As I've mentioned to people before, if you drive down Pontiac Lane where the twin homes are and they have 2 car stalls, there's trucks and cars and garbage and you can't hardly get down the street. It looks terrible. I drive F-1, through it every day. Those people aren't the reason for this ordinance but again you're bring up a group of people or a very large group of people that ' maybe we're supposed to feel sorry for. Maybe we're not supposed to. Divorced people, single people. I understand there's an awful lot of need out there. We could all be divorced and single someday but parking is the issue and storage is not the issue I would say. You can always find roam for storage or you throw it II out. The parking issue, you know I used to live down where Peter used to live down, or you live somewhere down in Minneapolis down in Lake Harriet. I used to live down by Lake Harriet and there's 5 of us in this big house. We were the I problem in the neighborhood. I'll admit it. We were the problem. We're the renters because renters are a little more transient and move around and do a little more things. They party a little more and they've got a little more oats I to sow and so I don't feel as though we owe anybody an ability to rent in the city. I do have some concerns about large employers in this city and a lot of those employees being able to get same housing but I think those are a couple of different issues. I still think that the City has a right and can have the I right to what the aesthetics are of these complexes and for me that's the issue. My townhome association has a very sound rule of everybody has a 2 car garage. Garage door shut and both cars in the garage. No parking outside for any I distance. It's in our By-laws. I think it's a good idea. It keeps things nice and tidy and clean and it doesn't look like a big parking lot. I think that's where we're heading. I don't mean to shut people out. I just think where this ' city is heading, you and I maybe have a different idea about where we're heading or where we're able to and where we should be heading. But Met Council has gotten our population way wrong, let alone highway funding. Let alone whatever. I 52 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 Councilman Johnson: I definitely agree with Tom on Met Council. Using then as II an authority does not carry a heck of a lot of weight but I do believe in life cycle housing. I believe that when my kid goes to work, whether he chooses to go to college or if he goes to tech school or whatever when he first gets out of II whatever schooling and decides to live someplace, I'd like him to have the opportunity to live in Chanhassen. I'd like to have him have the opportunity for affordable housing in Chanhassen. I do not think that we should endeavor or should become an exclusive community where we say you've got to be making $30,000.00 or $40,000.00 before you can move into the community because the price of our housing is too high. I think we need a complete span. I do think that some of these places do get rather unorderly with too many cars parked all over the place. Shoot, I have a neighbor who's got 4 kids but none of than are, the oldest one's only 12 but he's got 4 cars too. I don't think he's ever sold a car that he's bought. He's the exception. I have another elderly retired couple and they have 2 cars. She likes big cars, he likes little cars. , They can't agree on what kind to buy so they each have their own. So you know not all seniors, you can't clump anybody into a group. I don't like what this would . do to affordable housing in town. I think there is roan for affordable housing. I think it's up to the developer to decide. I think that I can see the Don- Patton area, some of his areas would be very convenient to, in fact across the street from the industrial perk where his R-12 is, once the Lake Drive West II continues on west. One side of the street is R-12, the other side of the street is industrial, if I remember right. That's where you'd be looking for another area of affordable housing. If we told them we had to have 2 stalls enclosed in I/there, that would drastically hurt the affordable housing and hurt our businessmen plus just one more step towards making this an exclusive city, which I think we need everything so I'm against 2 stalls enclosed. I do believe we need room for 2 cars. 1 in, 1 out. I'd encourage people, if anybody wants to II do a PUD, we may be able to do same negotiating there too. We add some rime. I think we need the visitor's parking is very important so 1 in, 1 out and a quarter for visitors maybe. That's my comments Don. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I agree with what both of you said and I'd like to add that on page 5, section 20-1123, with the lighting. I did have a letter from a Janet Arnold that lives at than View Apartments #102 and her concern was that in II the present situation and all the places that you've been in multiple family parking lots, that the lighting is not adequate. It's okay in the wintertime when the snow reflects the light but in the summertime it's very dangerous in that the light gets absorbed and they cannot see and she feels that they are unsafe and I guess I'd have to agree with her. So I would like to see under lighting, that that would be extended or that we look at maybe having some specific requirements as to how much lighting. Not just that it be lit. Does that mean that we just have 1 light? You know, we ought to look more extensively into that Jo Ann, as to having some requirements as to... Councilman Johnson: How many foot candles. Councilwoman Dimler: How many foot candles there are, that's right. Because it II is not adequate. Mayor Chmmiel: Just so I don't have to reiterate, I guess I agree with what's being said here. I really do because I've driven around and I've looked at Brooklyn Park, Plymouth, areas that the parking is as such and I'm sure you're bringing up with single individuals or single car stalls. There to I find that 53 City Council Meeting - December_ 4, 1989 I the impact to that neighborhood is just absolutely chaotic because there are boats, cars, vans, all over. It just, in my opinion, is just not as neat as it should be. Aesthetically I think it's just not there. I really agree with same I of the concerns that have been discussed so with that I feel with what we have brought forth to what's being proposed, my suggestion is still that we table this to get some input from some of the other people and move on with that. II Councilman Johnson: How can we handle the unsightliness that you're talking about? I Brad Johnson: I was just going to address the unsightliness. You've raised the question about possibly doing...All around Edenvale they're all 1 car garages. They have figured out some way in the design of the system... IICouncilman Workman: Well we don't have control over that. Councilwoman Dialer: There's parking all over the streets there. IBrad Johnson: No. They don't allow parking in the street. II Councilwoman Dialer: My daughter has a friend that lives behind there and I could barely get into the neighborhood. IBrad Johnson: I just visited them and... Mayor Chmiel: The best time to visit them is after 6:00 in the evening. Try it on Saturdays. That's what I did. IBrad Johnson: And I'm not sure you can control those types of things somehow. ICouncilman Workman: They're 2 car garages also. Brad Johnson: Some had just 1. ICouncilman Workman: Not the twins though. The townhomes are all 2 car garages. Brad Johnson: I'm not talking about the twins. 1 Councilman Workman: I know but they're 2 car garages and there's still stuff hanging out of them. ICouncilman Johnson: You give a person the opportunity, they'll fill their garage. They'll buy a boat. IDean Johnson: ...an observation for me but what it seems is happening here is you're requiring everything to be inside so it's aesthetically pretty. IMayor C rtiel: That was only my view. Dean Johnson: WW1, a couple mentioned things hanging out of garages, those Itypes of things. What you're going to do is put the burden on them and you're going to get rid of affordable housing. If everything has to look perfect... 54 i City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: We want affordable housing in the community, there's no question but I think some consideration should be given too as to what we're directing and what we're saying. ' Dean Johnson: Well we agree. We're not against 2 spaces. We're not even against... What we're saying is trying to impose that on an apartment building or any...so you can get that market also, you're going to find that 2 car garages is going to blow you out of that market. You're not going to be able to have that in Chanhassen. If you want to be an exclusive community, those are the types of things that you do need. If you want to not be an exclusive community. Councilwoman Dimler: Dean, would you address the difference in price between 1 car and 2 car? Dean Johnson: In the townhomes? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Is $10,000.00 difference? Dean Johnson: $10,000.00 to $15,000.00. , Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you're looking at between $55,000.00 and $65,000.00? Well, I think $65,000.00 is considered affordable housing. Dean Johnson: It may be. If you look at wages, it's not. I mean if you look at what a person's wages, if you look at the economic report that was put out by the Trade, Minnesota Trade and Econammic Development, they gave wages. If you take those wages and you qualify those people at 10% and give them some long term debt, in other words a car payment. Even if you only get half of it, you only get say $100.00 to $150.00 a month in long term debt, they don't qualify for $65,000.00. That was brought out again to the Planning Commission. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I made my motion previously to table. Councilwoman Dimler: I second that. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dirtier seconded to table action on the zoning ordinance amendment regarding off-street parking and loading to provide dimensional standards, increase parking requirements if warranted by site plan review and to require enclosed parking for 2 vehicles for multiple family dwellings for more input. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS, FIRST READING. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the zoning ' ordinance amendment modifying zoning restrictions and locations for convenience stores, gas stations and automotive service stations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 55 IICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 1 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE REVIEW AND GRANTING OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR USES THAT ARE TEMPORARY IN NATURE IN ALL DISTRICTS, FIRST READING. IIMayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the zoning ordinance amendment regarding revisions to the zoning ordinance to allow for the ' review and granting of conditional use permits for uses that are temporary in nature in all districts. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 REVIEW PROPOSALS AND AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT TO CONDUCT A SENIOR NEEDS STUDY UTILIZING COPlMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS. 1 Resolution #89-136: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to authorize staff to enter into a contract with J. M. Research Associates for $7,500.00 of Community Development Block Grant funds to conduct a senior needs study. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: 1 Councilman Johnson: I'd like the City Attorney to look into drafting an ordinance to require, as I said in the previous council meeting, I don't think I vending machines was going quite far enough. Once the vending machines aren't there, it's going to be shoplifting. In fact I plan on asking Brooke's on what is their losses over their tobacco products. They do a weekly inventory. Once a week they came in and inventory the entire store. I thought it was rather ' excessive too but nobody's walking, they know exactly what walks out of there quite a bit so I'm going to find out. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: They don't have their tobacco products behind the counter at present? 1 Councilman Johnson: No. If you go into Brooke's and you're at the counter, to your left is a display of Salem. Below you is the cigars, pipe tobacco, snuff, etc. and to your right. ' Mayor Chmiel: Zig Zag papers. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, Zig Zag papers and to the right are your cartons. So when a child goes up there to buy candy, he's surrounded on 3 sides by tobacco products. ' Councilman Workman: They've got a rack don't they? Councilman Johnson: And they've got racks all across the top and they have more cartons on the bottom. It would be no inconvenience to them whatsoever to put 11 it all behind the counter. So that's what I'd like to do. Councilwoman Dimler: Would you go along with having them, require than to wear 1 this button? Councilman Johnson: I think that's going a little far. I think that's stomping 1 on their rights. I don't know, what does your button say? 56 City Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 , Councilwoman Dimler: The button says, it says you've 9 of the cutest baby face, may I please see your ID. That when they sell that cigarettes, the child knows that they're going to be... Councilman Johnson: My poor brother was carded until he was over 30. He got carded in an 18 state when he was 32. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, and they don't mind being carded. Councilman Johnson: Oh, he did. ' Councilman Workman: Jay, are you suggesting that staff would do a proposal? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Put together a proposed ordinance for that. Mayor Qr►iel: Do we need a motion for that? , Don Ashworth: I really think that you should. The appointment to Southwest Metro, I think you'd agree as to who the member should be earlier in the agenda. Jo Ann sent me a note saying we should vote on that. ' Councilman Workman: I would move approval of Debra Kind. Councilwoman Dimler: I would second that. ' Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dirtier seconded to appoint Debra Kind to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Don Ashworth: The State really continues to do it to us. We set a special , meeting date for consideration of the Budget for December 11th. We had a back-up date for the 18th. State law states, or now I find out, we cannot set our date on the same date that was set by Hennepin County, Eden Prairie School Districts, Carver County, Chaska School District, Minnetonka School District or Shakopee School District. Have I missed anybody? Councilman Johnson: Shakopee? Don Ashworth: Yep. The very lower Y. Even Eden Prairie School District because commercial, you have no children going to Eden Prairie School District yet a commercial property tax payer may want to attend an Eden Prairie School District meeting to protest and therefore he can't cafe here. So that basically what we need to do is, and I've got from the State, we don't have to do the $350.00 one but Dave has agreed he will try to get it in this week's edition which would cancel the special meeting for the 11th. Now we need to have a secondary date and the earliest we could look to would be Thursday the 21st, Saturday morning the 23rd. I'm assuming we'd just as soon skip... Mayor Qr►iel: How about Thursday the 21st? 57 IICity Council Meeting - December 4, 1989 Councilman Workman: We have HRA that night. I ] IIMayor Chmiel: That's right. You're on HRA. Councilman Workman: So's Don. ' Councilman Johnson: How about at 5:00 on the 21st? I've got a 7:30 meeting. Southwest Advisory Committee and he's got HRA. 1 The Council set Tuesday, December 19, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. for the public hearing ' for the 1990 budget. Don Ashworth: The proposed budget we do have at this point in time balanced and we will be getting that out to the City Council hopefully Wednesday so you 1 should have it. I Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. A11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.. IISubmitted by Don Ashworth II City Manager Ie 's Prepared by Nann Opheim a t3 1 58