CC Minutes 1996 10 14CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 1996
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Mason, and Councilman
Senn
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Dockendorf
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Tom Scott, Kate Aanenson, John Rask, Charles Folch, Todd Hoffman, Pam
Snell, and Todd Gerhardt
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda as
amended by Councilman Berquist to add an item under Council Presentations regarding a conversation with Dan
Dahlin. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 14 AS
MINNESOTA AND CHANHASSEN MANUFACTURERS WEEK.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone wishing to make a public announcement at this time? If not, I do have one and that is, a
resolution proclaiming the week of October 14, 1996 as Minnesota and Chanhassen Manufacturer Week. Whereas
manufacturing has the largest total payroll of any business sector in Minnesota, providing $14.3 billion in 1994
wages, and whereas, manufacturing produces $22.9 billion for the state economy and is the largest single share
(21%) of our gross product; and whereas, manufacturing provides high skill, high wage jobs which significantly
contribute to Minnesota's high standard of living and economic vitality; and whereas manufacturing contributed
nearly $145 million in corporate income taxes in Minnesota, more than any other business sector and almost 30
percent of total corporate income taxes. Now therefore, I, Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor of the city of Chanhassen, do
hereby proclaim the week of October 14-18, 1996 to be Minnesota and Chanhassen Manufacturer's Week in
Minnesota. Is there a motion to approve the proposed resolution?
Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a resolution proclaiming the week of
October 14-18, 1996 as Minnesota and Chanhassen Manufacturer's Week. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
Resolution #96-87: Acceptance of Street and Utility Improvements in Chanhassen Business Center 2nd &
3rd Additions, Project Numbers 95-6 and 95-17.
Resolution #96-88: Acceptance of Street and Storm Sewer Improvements in Highlands on Lake St. Joe,
Project No. 93-31.
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
e. The Frontier Addition, Ted deLancey:
1) Final Plat Approval.
2) Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans & Specifications for The Frontier, Project No.
96-16.
f. Consider Extension of Work Hours, North Bay 2nd Addition, Project No. 95-20.
h. Resolution #96-89: Resolution Reaffirming the Livable Communities Act.
City Council Minutes dated September 23, 1996
Planning Commission Minutes dated September 18, 1996
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated September 12, 1996
1. Approve Contract with Decision Resources, Park Task Force.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to move those particular items after review of the auditors and we'll call that item number
5.
Councilman Mason: Do we have anyone here that's for those items?
Mayor Chmiel: That was my next question. Is there anyone here on each of those respective items that have been
moved? Approve cooperative construction agreement with Hennepin County for improvements to CSAH 62 at
Trunk Highway 101. PW197B. Okay, the next one was extension of final plat approval for Shamrock Addition, Ed
Ryan. And the approval of bills. That's something that's all for the city. Anyone with any concerns? Okay, we'll
move those items, as I mentioned, to item number 5.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: We did have District 112, Youth Commission update, Rachel Berg, who was to have made a
presentation this evening but for one reason or another she was unable to make this meeting. So I'll move right
along.
AWARD OF BIDS: FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL EXPANSION PROJECT.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Council. Staff received bids on October 9th for the purchase of general office furniture
for Chanhassen City Hall. However, due to the significant non-conformities by the two low bidders, staff is
requesting that the City Council reject all bids. Additionally staffwould be directed to re-advertise for bids on
October 28th with consideration of award of those bids at the Council meeting that evening.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any concerns by Council?
Councilman Berquist: What was the, what type of discrepancies did we have and was it time constraints on the
bidders part?
Todd Gerhardt: No. It was more or less not following the specifications in the bid package.
Councilman Berquist: HGA put the specs together?
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Todd Gerhardt: Yes. We are making some modification to those specifications to make it a little clearer. Some
line item totals for them that were called out in the specifications. And there was also some discrepancies in a
letter that didn't make it a clear bid so staff felt the best way to handle this was to readvertise.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are you looking at, that you'll be able to pull everything together for the October 28th
meeting?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes. We talked to the newspaper today. We can get the ad in to come out this Thursday and that
would allow us the 10 days of pre-advertisement.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion upon Todd's recommendation regarding those bidders?
Councilman Senn: I move to reject all bids.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Resolution #96-90: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to reject all bids for the furniture
for the City Hall expansion project. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason: Do you need a motion to readvertise or not?
Mayor Chmiel: It'd probably be a good idea.
Councilman Mason: I move to readvertise bids for the October 28th meeting for this project.
Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to readvertise for bids for the furniture for City Hall
Expansion Project. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REQUESTING
INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF TH 212 AND
EAST OF TH 169 ON FORMER SITE OF SUPERAMERICA, LARRY HOPFENSPIRGER.
John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This is kind of a unique item in that I don't believe
we've ever had this come up in the past. What it involves is an interpretation of the zoning map. In the ordinance
it's spelled out that whenever there's a discrepancy in the boundaries of a particular zoning district, the Board of
Adjustment and Appeal shall make the necessary interpretation. The Board met back in June of this year to
consider an appeal regarding this request. The Board found the property in question to be zoned A2. The
applicant did not appeal the Board's decision in the necessary time frame. Therefore he reappealed to the Board
of Adjustment. The Board met earlier this evening to consider this item. By a 2 to 1 vote the Board found the
property to be zoned A2. Knowing the history behind this particular application I had scheduled it for tonight's
meeting so that we could process it in a timely manner. Just to give you a brief rundown here of some of the events
that have taken place. To kind of just give you a history of the zoning for the parcel. In February of 1972 the
property in question was clearly outside of any commercial district. This was zoned agricultural. As you can see at
that time the properties to the north of 212 was zoned what was then C-3 Commercial. In 1986 the zoning map,
and it's a little hard to see. But the zoning map...but again it clearly shows the property was zoned A2,
agricultural and that the BF District was everything to the north side of 212. In 1989 the zoning map was revised.
It was at this time that the property now pops into the BF District. And this is pure speculation on my part but
sometime in '86... '87. Sometime in that time frame, the property to the west of this site was rezoned where the Y,
the Tri-Y drive thru restaurant is located. That is zoned A2, up to one point. The applicant came in and rezoned
his property and it was about this same time that the SuperAmerica site was also popped into the BF District.
However it was not a part of the rezoning application. Which brings us up to our current zoning map, which was
redone in 1994. This property doesn't even show up on this map because it's under this line. So that kind of
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
brought us to where we're at today as far as what is the property zoned. Is it in or out of the district? Based on the
information staff has provided in the report, we believe it's clearly within, or the intent was to always have it in the
A2 District. We provided some history as far as how this property's been treated in the past. Also I'd like to note,
and this wasn't included in the report, was what our comprehensive plan says about this area. In our comp plan
for non sewered commercial, we specifically talk about this area of the city and those commercial uses south of
212. We state the uses in this area generally have a highway orientation such as gas stations, motels, etc. Existing
businesses are considered grandfathered uses under the present zoning ordinance. Therefore obviously referring
back to the SuperAmerica site, if we're calling it grandfathered, we must have assumed at this point it was A2. It
goes on to say expansion of commercial businesses in this area presents two major issues. Environmental concerns
and highway access. Because of the lack of available sanitary sewer and major circulation problems in the area,
this comprehensive plan acknowledges the existence of these uses. However, adopted policies should discourage
their expansion and encourage their eventual removal. It is staff's opinion that the property should be zoned A2
and that the original intent was that it be A2. And with that I would be happy to answer any questions that you
may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you John. Steve, do you have any questions regarding this?
Councilman Berquist: Yes I do. I'm curious about a couple of things. Now the Carver County border is roughly
3/8 of a mile east of there. That little western motel that's, we're not even arguing about what that is. That's in
A2.
John Rask: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: I don't remember is that...Is that in Carver County?
Kate Aanenson: It's in Chanhassen.
Councilman Berquist: That's in Chanhassen. Okay, that's this little block here and that's in A2. That's all the
questions I've got right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike.
Councilman Mason: Not at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: None at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Nor do I have any. Let me ask you just a quick though. The thickness of that line represents what
basic distance?
John Rask: I believe the lot is approximately 100 feet deep. Maybe the applicant could provide.
Mayor Chmiel: And adjacent to the highway so what you're saying is it stays where it should be basically in the
center of 1697
John Rask: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't have any other questions. Would you like to make your presentation at this
time? Please state your name and your address.
Bruce: Thank you your Honor. My name is Bruce... on behalf of Mr. Hopfenspirger. Of course the reason we're
here is to ask the Council for an interpretation that this parcel is zoned BF, Business Fringe. And the reason we're
here before the Council, and we're asking these things for the following reasons. When Mr. Hopfenspirger
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
approached the City back in 1995 he asked the planning committee and the members of the city, what the zoning
was... He was told on approximately three or four different occasions in three or four conversations, that this was
zoned business fringe. Now my client's business is commercial real estate. He would not have purchased this
property if it was zoned A2. He had no use for A2. The only reason he purchased this is because he's in the
business of commercial real estate. Now in September of 1995 he purchased this property. Again primarily based
upon conversations with members of the City of Chanhassen. Those individuals that my client had conversations
with, Kate Aanenson, who's here tonight. And Bob Generous. Now not only did Mr. Hopfenspirger have these
conversations but his perspective clients and tenants had conversations as well with these individuals who
represented to them that this was zoned BF. Now in addition to representations that were made in this case. The
representations that this was Business Fringe zoned, we have to look at the history of this property. John, can you
put up that 1986-89...a map that states in the bottom right hand corner February, 1986, Revised August 24, 1989.
It clearly shows the subject property is within the BF district lines. Now the subsequent map which is I believe
would be in 1994, is ambiguous. The line goes through it and as the Mayor questioned Mr. Rask, the line goes
through it, he wanted to know what the distance of that line was so it's certainly ambiguous and in no way shows
that it's presently two. If we look at the history of this property, obviously there was a SA gas station in there.
That's been there since 1972. Prior to an SA gas station, there was a North Star gas station. Prior to the SA
station being there, there was a conditional use permit for a pylon sign. West of the property there's a drive-in
which is zoned BF. North of the property, across 212 there's a used car lot that's zoned BF and east of the
property there is the motel which although zoned A2, it's still a commercial property. So members of the Council,
this entire parcel, except for the south boundary, is surrounded by business fringe and commercial uses. It's been a
commercial use for in excess of 25 years and the maps that we've seen with both Council members today, don't
clearly state that it's... The map that I'm looking at right now, which is '86, revised '89, clearly shows it to be
within the BF District. So the reason that Mr. Hopfenspirger wants to have a classification of BF. Obviously he
wants to put that parcel to use. He wants to open up a coffee shop in that area. Right now as you're probably all
well aware, that particular piece of property has likely been abandoned for approximately 3to 4 years. Weeds
growing up. Dilapidated buildings... We'd like to go in, clean it up. Offer a good service. Offer something the
citizens would like. Offer something that will be consistent with the character of Chanhassen and improve that
piece of property down there. Maybe create a couple of jobs in the meantime. But it's certainly his interpretation
that if this indeed is BF, then that would be a reasonable and fair interpretation of the existing zoning maps that we
have before us. It would certainly be a reasonable and fair interpretation of the historical use of that property. And
it'd certainly be fair and reasonable, given the representations that not only he was given but his perspective clients
and tenants were given also. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Does anyone have any questions?
Councilman Berquist: I'm looking at the map for the applicant but I'm looking at the zoning map from 1986, and
it indicates that the property directly west of this site was zoned IOP or am I not reading that right? Is there
something there that indicates we're on a different site?
John Rask: Yeah, I think...the intersection. There is another BF District further to the west near the Chaska
border. The IOP is...
Councilman Berquist: So that little lOP is indicative of that other, that little narrow peninsula like strip? All
right.
Mayor Chmiel: Any others?
Councilman Berquist: No. No others.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Councilman Senn: I guess John, I'm going to ask you the same question I did before for the benefit of the
Council. If in fact this property has been A2, why is there not any documentation in place, especially given the
intensifications or use on the site and everything else showing that it's a non-conforming use.
John Rask: Yeah, and we have a large number of non-conforming uses throughout the city and unfortunately
haven't had the time to go and document the level of use on all of them, and that's something that should be done.
We have identified it as a non-conforming use in the comp plan for one. And it's clear that it's been vacant for at
least the last two years. I'm not sure when SuperAmerica, of the exact date that they vacated it but they basically
at that point lost their non-conforming rights to continue the use.
Councilman Senn: So in the 80's when we were pretty much giving, let's say in the bid, in the 80's when we were
pretty much doing things as we are doing them now, why wasn't there a non-conforming label put on the property?
And why wasn't that ever raised as an issue as it related to... intensification?
John Rask: Well I think it was identified as a non-conforming use. I don't know if we actually went out and
measured the physical dimension of the buildings or signs on the site or some of those things. But it was known
that it was a non-conforming use. I don't think from review of our records and building permits and rezoning
requests and site plan requests, I don't think they, with the exception of the pylon sign in '88, I don't believe they
had any improvements to the site that would require city approval. Just to go back, in 1988 when they did request
that pylon sign, we clearly at that point indicated that the property was zoned A2 and that was provided in the staff
report. So it was some time after that they requested as far as what the zoning was.
Councilman Berquist: So when SA abandoned the property and pulled the tanks, prior to that when they made
application for the sign, it was clearly denoted within the documentation that it was in A2 and a non-conforming
use within that particular area.
John Rask: Correct. In 1988.
Councilman Senn: Okay before, but where is that documentation?
John Rask: I don't think that was provided to you but it was in the form of a conditional use permit request for the
pylon sign.
Councilman Senn: Well what I'm saying is, I've got a map that clearly shows in my mind that it's in the BF
District. This dated '86, revised in '89. Okay, can you show me some documentation during that same period that
shows it as a non-conforming use?
John Rask: Yeah, I can't speak to exactly when the map was changed. This goes back, again it was in the, when
we referred to it as being zoned A2 at that time so I don't know when the actual change...
Councilman Senn: Do we have any other parcels in the city which are used different than they are zoned? That
are not labeled as non-conforming uses.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
John Rask: Sure.
Kate Aanenson: Halla Nursery.
Councilman Senn: Is not labeled?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. How do you label... ?
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Councilman Senn: Well every time Halla came in for some type of an improvement or change or whatever, you
labeled it a non-conforming use.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. I think that's what we're saying here. When those reports...always identified as non-
conforming...
Councilman Senn: So I'm just saying, since 1986, I mean where are those? I mean again Kate, all we have is a
map in front of us...
Kate Aanenson: We don't respond if someone came in and asked for a permit to do something. That would be
your time to respond.
Councilman Senn: Well SA remodeled and changed that station several times.
Kate Aanenson: You can do ongoing maintenance to a non-conforming use. You just can't expand or enlarge.
You can do your own maintenance to a non-conforming use. As long as it changes from a different type of a gas
station to another gas station, that's still consistent with non-conforming. You just can't enlarge.
Councilman Berquist: This little jog that shows up on the maps. Why was this ever created? For what purpose?
John Rask: Okay again, that goes back to the drive-thru restaurant which was.
Councilman Berquist: The Tri-Y Restaurant.
John Rask: Yeah. That's why it appeared in the first place. In my opinion, that's probably where the mistake
occurred is when we went to change the zoning map for that zone change, that other parcel appeared along with it
with the request of the zoning change.
Councilman Berquist: I went down there today and I don't remember seeing any structure on what would have
been the Tri-Y site.
John Rask: It's been demo'd.
Audience: There is no structure on that site.
CouncilmanBerquist: There' s no structure. So...that little thing was created solely for the purpose ofincluding
the Tri-Y within the Business Fringe?
John Rask: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: I have a difficult time understanding why that would be included exclusive to the SA site.
What types of commercial enterprises are allowed within the BF?
John Rask: They're fairly limited due to the constraint of a lack of sewer and water. They're typically uses,
actually an intent of that district, we spell out that the uses included in the BF District should be temporary in
nature without urban services while maintaining the integrity, minimizing the impact and protecting the natural
environment. Again, the uses included in there are wholesale nursery, private park, public park, single family
dwelling, agricultural. Those are permitted uses. Under conditional uses we identified motor fuel stations,
truck/trailer sales. We have some of that on the north side of 212 as you saw. Retail services, cold storage and
warehousing. That' s also found on the north side. Miniature golf courses and those are again conditional uses
within the BF District.
Bruce: I could expand on that some of interim uses. Section 20-775, outdoor churches, outdoor storage and...
apparently room for expansion where uses can be... on an interim basis. Perhaps this gives the City Council a little
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
bit of flavor for what we're trying to do. My client would like to see a coffee shop. There's the...traffic in front.
There is all of the facilities there. And would be consistent with what I think the city would like to see in that.
Clean up the property .... make it look good and put it back on the tax rolls. The way it's now zoned A2, it makes
no sense if you look at that map, it's surrounded by commercial uses. It's surrounded on the west side and the
north side by BF. On the east side by commercial use although it is zoned A2. And of course on the south side you
have Rice Lake. But again, my client, his business is commercial real estate. He wouldn't have purchased that
unless he was told that was BF...was given some pretty reasonable assurances that it was BF. And the character
and nature of that property should allow it to be something else and for you to have a reasonable and better use of
that property.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anything else? Okay, thanks.
Councilman Berquist: I want to verify the accuracy of the statements regarding the question of zoning that came
up prior to the purchase.
Kate Aanenson: I believe that there was some ambiguity what the zoning was. When he was sent a copy, the
applicant was sent a copy. He also was sent a copy of what uses were permitted in the district and I explained to
him there was limited commercial use. It was not our intent to increase the commercial there. Every use that was
brought forward we said was in conflict. Even this use that's being proposed now we still have to rezone to
provide a mechanism. Again the intent, because there isn't sewer down there, so that was sent to him but there
was some ambiguity...we kept digging back and finding reports that, and trying to research the old maps so I
agree, there is some ambiguity what the zoning map and what he was told as far as interpretation and that's why
we took it back to the Board to get their interpretation. We can't go back and try to understand way back when it
was originally built. All we can go by is what the comprehensive plan said and that was to try to eliminate these,
and there are other commercials there but it clearly states in the comprehensive plan, that's the intent to eliminate
them.
Councilman Berquist: But it sounds like the ambiguity was really only brought to the fore after the purchase had
taken place.
Kate Aanenson: Well, there may be some question on that.
Councilman Senn: Let me pass this down. Take a look at that. This was handed out at the Board. You don't
have it in your packet. This was handed out tonight at the Board, and it wasn't even part of what the Board had in
it's previous consideration but it's a letter from the third party on that same issue.
Bruce made a comment that was not picked up on the tape.
Mayor Chmiel: No, as he mentioned it was only at the previous meeting that was held. We do not have that in our
packet.
Bruce: Would you like...
Mayor Chmiel: Do you have additional ones?
Bruce: Yes.
Tom Scott: Kate, do you have the letter?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Tom Scott: I have it Don from the previous meeting.
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. All right. One of the discussions, is there any other discussion that you'd like to have on
this?
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I want to know the best way to resolve it and make everybody happy.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's going to take a little bit of time I think.
Councilman Berquist: I'm not quite certain how to go about what the logistics are of bringing that site within the
BF District but that's definitely the way that I would like to see it pursued.
Councilman Mason: Following that I guess, what was the rationale of Board of Adjustment and Appeals for
saying no. It's A2, not BF.
John Rask: Just based on the review of the past maps. How the information contained in the report and testimony
received at the meeting. Basically it was presented to them at the time...what do you think the intent was here and
what do you believe is the correct zoning. Not from the standpoint of what makes the most sense in terms of use of
the property but based on you know, what the property was mapped at before and how it was referred to in the past.
Mayor Chmiel: Willard, is there anything in addition that you could provide the Council, other than what John
has basically just said?
Willard Johnson: No. I think Carol felt that we had made our decision the other time. I asked Mr. Knutson...if I
felt that yes, you should have a filling station. That wasn't the proper way to interpret it...interpret it the way the
map had and that's the way I felt they interpreted it. But I'd like to see the gentleman say yes, you can have a
filling station but I don't feel that was the proper interpretation of the law. I felt that the map indicated that it was
in the agricultural environment and I still feel that...interpret the map... I feel that yes, I would like to have a
filling station but,...that I felt he should have but I can't interpret it that way. The way I interpret the map it was
agricultural. If they want to do anything different, they're going to have to go through a procedure to rezone it to
whatever the Council feels is fair...
Mayor Chmiel: Right, thanks. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: A question I guess for anybody. What is...the Board of Adjustment and Appeals voted 2 to 1
that it is A2. What is to prevent the applicant from requesting a zoning change from A2 to BF in that spot?
John Rask: That certainly would be an option. That would be an option to them. We have some concerns about
obviously in relation to what the comp plan says for the parcels. We had some concerns about the expansion of
commercial uses on that site.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it was included in that comp plan and I think I would have tendencies to move towards that
particular location but being that it was included in the comp plan, that gives me a little more undecidedness as far
as going through that process and approving it.
Councilman Berquist: Let me play devil's advocate. Are you done? Let me play devil's advocate for just a
moment. If in fact we encourage the owner to go through and attempt to implement a zoning change, do we then
open the additional properties adjacent to it to that same sort of argument? Wouldn't it be cleaner to simply look at
this site, given the ambiguities of the map, and include that this site was in the BF?
Councilman Senn: Again, we've been asked to make an interpretation. I mean how can you...put the applicant
kind of tenuous ground by saying you're not willing to make the interpretation that it's BF. If you want to ask, go
spend the time and money to try to make it BF, go ahead. It seems to me that's kind of two different answers to the
same question. Boy, I think you look at the '86 map. You know again, I mean you have to look I think a little bit
in relationship to the ambiguity. I mean I don't think anybody argues there is an ambiguity. But if you look at the
old maps, the older maps draws that line down to the right-of-way. If you look at the more recent maps, the '86
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
and revised '89, it's clearly within the boundary regardless of how you look at the line. And in the '94 one, you
know why was the line moved over to take in that 100 feet when all previous maps had it drawn down the center of
the right-of-way. I mean again, ambiguity, ambiguity again but you know Steve, I agree with you. I mean in
looking at it and looking at the site, I mean by looking at it over the last 25 years, which... I just don't see that
there's any other use other than BF...
Mayor Chmiel: It's within the mind that actually what's on some of these things here. It's two different things.
Councilman Senn: For all the reasons it shows it being BF.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Berquist: Especially when you get close to the purchase date and time.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I'm not objecting to get it back on the tax rolls.
Councilman Berquist: Well I know if I went out and bought a piece of property, and did what I thought was due
diligence in finding out the zoning only to find out that I was being held hostage because of a misinterpretation, I'd
be dang irate, and if I didn't do due diligence before I purchased the property, then it's my problem. That does not
seem to be what occurred in this situation. There is an ambiguity and I think we can solve it by including it within
the BF. And that's the motion that I would make.
Mayor Chmiel: I didn't call for a motion as of yet.
Councilman Berquist: I'm sorry. I thought we could make one at any time. We can't?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: I get a little concerned from a traffic aspect. Some of the problems that exist with accidents
within that particular corridor. And by putting an additional tie in to the business within that location, does give
me some of those concerns as well. And as you said, if that then is included in BF, and the balance of that be
extended into the BF as well. And by having additional terms within that specific area would enhance additional
problems over and above what we have in that particular proposal going in. If you had four or three within that
area, you're going to be creating some given problems. Charles, do you see anything within here, especially on
Flying Cloud Drive, that could create those additional problems?
Charles Folch: Well, in general anytime you introduce another access point on the road, be it a driveway or
anything, you're creating a point of conflict that potentially result in an accident. I do know that MnDOT will be
down there this fall installing additional turn lanes at those two intersections, the east and west junctions of TH
101. They're also going to add two more signals down there which when the system is integrated with the other
signal should allow more spacing in-between if you will, of traffic. Which anything should help the situation down
there. In general, will this type of business create any adverse affects? Probably not any more than what's there
now. General amount of traffic.
Mayor Chmiel: All right.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just make a point of clarification?
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly.
Kate Aanenson: There was ambiguity on the zoning but you have to understand that even under the zoning that he
was led to believe that it was, it was always told to him that it was guided open space. It was a non-conforming use
10
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
and it had limited use on the property. To date, a use has not been.., even in the BF, that could go in there. So the
letter here... I strongly discourage it happening. Even a coffee shop is still not a permitted conditional or interim
use. So even if tonight your interpretation is a BF, there still needs to be a mechanism in place to allow that type of
use. You'd still have to amend the district. I just want to make sure everybody's clear on what the applicant...
Tom Scott: Mr. Mayor, if I could comment. Really the only issue before the Council tonight is basically an
administrative interpretation of what the zoning map says. Whether it's BF or A2.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Mason: And I guess because of that I feel that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and the city staff
is far more versed in interpreting those maps than I am.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I agree with that. If you'd wait just a moment while... Yeah, and I sort of agree with that
position as well Mike. That's why I'm having a little bit of time with this. If it was not in the comp plan and that
can have problems. But it really so indicates that within that comp plan. Yes.
Larry Hopfenspirger: I agree with Mr. Mason that to rely on...what the zoning is. And I started talking to Super
America back in 19, I also agree with Mr. Berquist. It was totally incredulous that this was not... I can't believe
it... I started talking with the city in March of '95. They told me it's BF. They told me the uses for conditional
uses if it was BF. I relied on the staff. Who knows better than staff. I talked to them on 6/16/95. That was Bob
Generous. 8/1/95 I talked with Kate Aanenson. With Greg Swenson about the.., said it was BF... It's tough to get
a use in there but you do have conditional uses for sporting goods, used cars, rental trailer. We wouldn't have
purchased it without the representations made from the city staff. On 9/6/95 I spoke with Kate Aanenson. We
came in on 9/15/95 to speak with Kate Aanenson about it. On 2/20/96 Don Culver wanted to put in a satellite dish
business for rental. He was told BF, conditional uses were for sporting goods, trailers, and boats. In fact I asked
Kate if satellite dishes would fit under sporting goods. So I relied on city staff and on the 13th of March of this year
I wanted to come in and talk with Don Culvert with Kate Aanenson. But when I got there I was met by Sharmin
and Sharmin says well there is some confusion and I suggest you talk with Knutson but we're going to research
this. I'm sure we can work everything out was her words and what happened was, nothing was worked out. I just
kept going deeper into this hole. The first Board of Appeal, at the first Board of Appeal I talked to Roger Knutson
and he said I should appeal it. I represented myself. I'm not too good at representing myself. I wasn't clear,
concise in stating, say things that should have been said and we talked a long time and all of a sudden it seemed
that well...Willard Johnson said I recommend that it goes A2 based on the conditional use permit from 1988 for
the pylon sign... I just don't believe it. I just, that I would purchase a property relying on city staff and I realize
now I should have had zoning...but I purchased the property relying on city staff and then was told after one year
that it's zoned A2. It's just not fair. It's just not right. That's all I have to say and...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Tom if Council accepts this, would it be in the proper to, well I guess probably you want
Findings of Facts on this in determining the property zoned as A27
Tom Scott: Mr. Mayor, yes. I would suggest that any form of a motion, whether it's, whatever you determine it to
be, and it's within your discretion it to be but that it would be a motion directing staff to prepare Findings
determining that the property is zoned whatever the Council decides. That would be the form of the motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess we can't prolong this anymore with any more additional discussion. I would ask
for a motion.
Councilman Berquist: I would move that the property located at 615 Flying Cloud Drive be included within the
Business Fringe District as detailed on the February, 1986, Revised August 24, 1989 zoning map.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor with a second.
11
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Tom Scott: Mr. Mayor if we could just amend the format of that motion. That staffwould be directed to prepared
Findings consistent with the determination that it would be Business Fringe. If Council member Berquist would
accept that.
Councilman Berquist: Thank you, I do.
Mayor Chmiel: And does the second accept it?
Councilman Senn: Yep.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact
consistent with the determination that the property at 615 Flying Cloud Drive is located within the BF,
Business Fringe District. Councilman Berquist and Councilman Senn voted in favor. Councilman Mason
and Mayor Chmiel voted in opposition. The motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2.
Mayor Chmiel: I still have a lot of questions in regard to it. They're still not answered. As it appears it's a tie.
What will happen with this, our one Council person is not here this evening. That would do the break, either for
or against so I would suggest that we see this back again at Council on the 28th and just make sure we check that
there's going to be a full Council. I know I'll be here. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Definitely.
Mayor Chmiel: You're not going out of town? Mike?
Councilman Mason: As far as I know.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: ...know for sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll put it the 28th.
Tom Scott: Mr. Mayor, you may want a motion to that effect. If you want to move it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Councilman Mason: What is this motion now?
Mayor Chmiel: This motion is to bring it back on the 28th while a fifth council member is here.
Tom Scott: No, you're going to need a second.
Councilman Senn: Well I'm just curious. Isn't that automatic?
Tom Scott: No. You need to take some action tonight if you're going to table it to a date certain, which would be
the next meeting. There should be a motion to that effect.
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to table the zoning classification for 615 Flying Cloud
Drive designation until the October 28, 1996 meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
12
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Chuck Wagner: I just wish to, my name is Chuck Wagner. I'm not sure, this is probably not the right spot but
since it's under New Business. There are a few of us here about the County State Aid Highway 17. We had been
promised a meeting on the snowmobiling issues which offend us greatly. I have a letter from Scott Harr dated
January, the 16th of this year promising a meeting of this Council on snowmobiling issues. We're getting
dangerously close to the season. I would ask that maybe the City Council staff needs to address this issue publicly
at an upcoming meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: I believe it's going to be coming up either this next meeting or the one following it so.
Chuck Wagner: I hadn't heard anything. I know we're very concerned about this. Thank you. Sorry for the
interruption.
Mayor Chmiel: You bet.
INTERVIEW AUDITORS AND SELECTION OF 1996-98 AUDITING SERVICES CONTRACT.
Mayor Chmiel: We're going to do an interview of auditors and what I'd like to do is, whoever's going to be first.
To have the other auditor outside of the Council chamber.
Don Ashworth: They have agreed to that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good.
Don Ashworth: The City Council directed staffto do RFP's of five different firms. Four did attend a briefing type
of meeting. Four also submitted RFP's. The primary criteria was that the staffwould be assigned to Chanhassen
and years of service as far as with governmental agencies. From that, two firms. We brought it down to two firms.
It was Roger Knutson, our city's financial advisor and Pam and myself. We made a copy of all four of the cost
sheets from all four firms. Surprisingly all four were surprisingly close. From that it we narrowed it to two. One,
yes Dave MacGillivrary. Thank you. To two firms, Deloitte and Touche and Tautges Redpath. Both firms are
presented here this evening. I see that there must have been a flip of the coin and Cliff ended up.
Councilman Mason: Did you win or did you lose?
Cliff Hoffman: I think it was alphabetical.
Don Ashworth: So with that I would like to introduce Cliff Hoffman of Deloitte and Touche.
Cliff Hoffman: The summary from our proposals, rather than try to hold up slides. And first of all to give you a
little bit of an overview of our firm. We're a firm of about 406 people, on page 1. Auditing still is an important
part of our business. You read a lot about CPA firms, all they do is consulting now days. The audit still is a big
part of our business, that you'll see on page 1. With 166 professionals. Page 2. Our governmental practice. We
have 60 people in our office to service public sector clients, 6 partners, 12 managers and 20 senior accountants.
The good news and the bad news, we do see on page 3 that you're going to have certain business challenges as we
go forward. First of all starting off with health insurance costs. I know we've been involved with helping you
negotiate that with some outside carriers. There's a prediction that family coverage, somewhere between the year
2000 and 2005, it will run an employer about $20,000.00 a year so there's been somewhat of a damping of what's
happened to health insurance costs and a lot of people feel we're in the eye of the hurricane on that. As you know
there is a lot of media focus on public sector. A lot of focus on improving your bond ratings. The good news is I
think, as I've said before, your bond rating is the same as Bloomington's was 20 years ago. If you think of yourself
as a growth city, and where you might be going. Right now yours is a notch below a AAA. So a big challenge to
you is going to be how you spend money for the next 10 years. Do you spend it on the right infrastructure
attracting the right development and it creates the right tax base. That will make the right long term thing. You
really can't focus in on where you are right now from a bond rating standpoint. GFOA Certificate. When we
started with the city you did not have a GFOA Certificate. About 2% of the cities in the country have it. And you
13
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
also have a qualified opinion regarding your fixed assets and so you're not getting.., opinions on your enterprise
funds, so we feel good about moving you along and getting that certificate. The maintained add to fund balances.
One of the things that we were.., and we are still very concerned about is the expected loss of state aid. I think
during our tenure here you've had pretty much all local government aid disappear and the thing that we've
encouraged you to do is to book all possible liabilities. For instance you've recorded your liability for vacation pay
and many governmental units have not. So all the liabilities that should be reported are reported in your financial
statements. The other thing we've had quite a bit of focus on and Natasha's going to touch on just a little bit is the
maintaining your fees and your infrastructure. There is a suburban city that is applying for bars that has been
around, that has been an established city for about 30 years or some size. Their debt per capita now is close to
$900.00 per capita and yet they're looking at about a $500 million price tag for infrastructure replacement and
they've got maybe $300,000.00 or $400,000.00 as a down payment. So one of the things is to keep on and we'd
encourage you to keep your fees so at least you have a reasonable down payment for the next round of
infrastructure replacement. That you don't have a situation where everybody uses the city.., and then leaves it for
the next generation to pay for it. Page 4, real quickly. Is a list of our GFOA Certificate clients. On the last page,
and we hope it's clear from our proposal that we're qualified. That it is a good value. Roughly our hours we will
be here...the audit itself has been about 600-650 hours... Our average hourly rate.., and it's about $52.00 an hour.
And we have tried to assign our best people this engagement. We just didn't grab a couple of people that were
unassigned and send them out to the City of Chanhassen to do an audit. Sometimes what you'll hear about public
sector work is that people do that. The other firm that's going to follow us is a very honorable firm. They also do
very good work so with that, Natasha.
Natasha: As Cliff eluded I'm going to be expanding on some of the areas he's already touched upon. Fortunately
when I started with you here at the City of Chanhassen, I started with the audit of fiscal 1992. That was the first
year you received your GFOA Certificate and the way that that transpired is the manager walked in and said to the
senior, does this city have a GFOA Certificate and the senior said no. And the manager said well this year we're
going to...in getting your GFOA Certificate. And your major deterrent for not getting your GFOA Certificate was
fixed assets. That was the biggest area. You just didn't have a handle on what your fixed assets were and some of
the recommendations that we made was that you get a consulting firm in here and you actually did. You got
Marshall & Stevens to come in and they detailed out a listing of your fixed assets and so for the first time in 1992
you were able to get a handle on what you actually held in the City of Chanhassen. What was yours and what you
had as your fixed assets. The other area that we worked on was realigning your funds. You had in your general
fund you had activity related to your enterprise funds and internal service funds so we went in and we realigned
your funds so what's in the proprietary fund really belong in your proprietary fund. What's in your capital budget
fund is really a capital project and belongs in capital projects. So those are the two things that we did to assist you
in getting your GFOA Certificate. Some of the more recent services that we provided for you is that last year in
our management letter of comment we issued a comment regarding sewer and water. Based on our audit we
noticed that you had not increased your rates for sewer and water over the past three years. However, you were
being charged at a higher rate from the Met Council for your sewer and water and what we did was we compared
you to other cities. Showed you where you fell with other cities because we do a lot of other cities. We audit a lot
of other cities. And so you were able to see how you fell and you were on the higher end but you provided other
services to your customers, to your residents, that other cities do not provide. For example, I believe in some of
your areas you have higher clay content in your water than cities like Bloomington or some of the other cities we
compared you to. And therefore you charge a higher service charge and so it was okay for you to be on the higher
end, and we showed you that you do have some flexibility to go up. The other area that we touched upon in our
management letter comment last year was the fact that Cliff already mentioned, that the federal government in an
effort to balance the budget, they're looking at cutting funding at the state and local government. One of areas
they're looking at cutting funding is in the city general fund. So we gave you some business advice on how to
strategically position yourself so that you can avoid those tax cuts. And I feel that that helps us, that puts us aside
from other firms and.., thank you.
Cliff Hoffman: Any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone, questions?
14
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Councilman Berquist: Yeah I've got a question. There's a sentence within some of the documentation regarding
the sort of revolving door issue of employees. Deloitte has had a very poor track record of keeping key staff
members servicing our account. Would you agree or disagree with that?
CliffHoffman: Yes, I would say that Natasha and I have been here a long time. What we don't have is, what we
have is a situation that all public accounting firms is that it's not uncommon for our clients to try to hire people
away and we have not taken somebody off of this job and put them on another job who's still been with the firm.
But we, like all firms, have had turnover. This is probably the finest job market that I've seen in 20 years the last
couple years. It is a difficult thing to retain staff so I wouldn't deny that we've had a change in people.
Councilman Berquist: But everyone, every good person has opportunities in this market.
Cliff Hoffman: ... Wayzata Schools and a mason walked off a job this week. Told his foreman to go to hell and he
walked down to another job site and that site is behind, so full employment has done some interesting things.
Councilman Berquist: So if you were in the City of Chanhassen's position looking back over the course of the last
couple of years you would be satisfied with the staffing consistency that your firm has provided us?
CliffHoffman: From my perspective we've done the best that we can. We have not changed people, but you're the
clients so if you're not happy, I don't have the right to tell you how you feel. So it's the question is, do you feel
that you're getting served and that you're treated like you're important. So it really isn't fair for me to say how you
should feel.
Councilman Berquist: Well it is from the sense that you're satisfied with the consistency of the people that you've
put out here.
Cliff Hoffman: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: And that's important.
CliffHoffman: Yes sir. I'm satisfied that we've put quality people out here.
Councilman Berquist: All right, thank you.
Don Ashworth: It shouldn't be interpreted as quality people or, and I will agree. Natasha and Cliff have been
here but where it is a team and there are 4 to 5 members and so where there is a change in 2 or 3, then that means
that those new people need to be, I'll call it retrained in how we do things. Where we keep things, etc. That was
the only basis for my comment. It was not meant as a negative against the company.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was one of the questions as well. Is there any guarantee of having the same monitors
for at least a number of years and I think you answered my question. The market is wide open and where the
additional dollars come from is where they go. So I can understand parts of that but I think you also understand
parts and our concern as well.
CliffHoffman: It's a major issue with every CPA firm in town. It's very common. When we go in proposal
situations and we're not the incumbent, it's something that you always hear.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I can say that I have liked what Deloitte has done for us, and put us on the proper road to
maintain the given problems that were there before. And a lot of those were implemented from suggestions that
you had. So I guess other than that, does anyone have any additional questions? Okay.
Cliff Hoffman: Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks Cliff.
15
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Don Ashworth: Well the next firm that will be coming in will be Tautges Redpath. Rob Tautges is the senior
partner with the firm and he has brought with him Dave Moll. Again, this is Rob Tautges of Tautges Redpath.
Rob Tautges: So this is the inquisition?
Mayor Chmiel: This is it.
Rob Tautges: Good evening. I'm Rob Tautges and this is Dave Moll. We're going to take you tonight and go
through a little presentation about our firm. If you have questions during the presentation, please don't hesitate to
interrupt. I'll just be walking you through this. First of all, the size of our company. Firm size and experience.
We have 47 professional support staff. We rank in the top 20 in the Twin Cities area. We've been as high as 12th.
Recently I believe we were around 15. An important side point to that is our governmental auditing staff. We
have 13 people devoted to that area that spend a significant amount of time delivering services to local
government. Our average staff experience on the partner level is 15 years. At manager's 10 years. Senior 6 and
other support staff 3. We feature local government services very strongly and I feel it's a major part of the services
that we deliver. We also do other traditional CPA work such as tax, commercial and private enterprises. Local
government however is the most extensive of service that we provide to cities and townships and other local
governments. We're available throughout the year to answer your staff questions. With this volume of people in
this area dedicated to local government services, you'll always be able to get through to one of us to answer any of
the questions you may have. We also sponsor specialized training programs for our clients. For instance we have
new legislation for local performance aid. We sponsored a seminar for our clients to discuss the dynamics and
requirements of earning that aid. It's a new aid that adds another layer of the work for city staff. We try to make
that burden a little easier by being well prepared to... We're members of the AICPA quality review section which
means we're audited every 3 years by an independent CPA firm to make sure that our quality standards are
meeting every day professional standards. Grading agencies are familiar with our work. We have a...presentation.
One of our cities did a check on one of our financials and contacted Moody's in New York. The quote that came
back was that they're very familiar with our work. It's very thorough and qualified. We have professional staff
that are national reviewers for the Certificate of Achievement and Excellence in Financial Reporting. The City of
Chanhassen does hold that distinct honor and we are available to assist them in retaining that. We have extensive
training in government audit and other city services. We have minimum requirements for continuing professional
education to keep our staff up to date on standards. Dave, could you put up the chart on staffing? Just to
emphasize staffing once again. This is a bar graph representation of our staff and you can see we're very high end
experienced staff. That means that we can put qualified and well experienced staff in the field to have them
empowered to make decisions as issues arise during the audit process. We have a rather extensive list of local
government clients. You'll see our listing of cities there. We also do special districts, some towns, joint ventures,
... relief associations. At this point I'd like to have Dave talk to you a little bit about our audit approach.
Dave Moll: On the slide there we've identified what we feel are some key features or key items to look at as far as
audit approach and I'd rather mention the first item we have listed there is, how do we staff our audits. We staff
our audits with experienced people. The personnel in charge have a minimum experience of 6 years in the
governmental area. That's a benefit to our local government clients in as issues arise out in the field, these people
are able to deal with questions and can answer that. The second area is we emphasize planning and coordination
with city staff. The key to an efficient and timely audit process is good planning and coordination with city staff.
So the first two, combine the first two with good planning, coordination along with experienced staff auditors,
combined with a very efficient and timely audit process. We also employ specialized audit programs in the
governmental field which is very different than traditional commercial accounting and we are continually re-
engineering our audit process to improve in efficiencies. We monitor and discuss progress of the field work with
the city and as field work progresses, identifying issues. Keep city staff informed. We use lap top computers for
increased efficiency and service quality. And then finally another key area is extensive review of reports prior to
the issuance of the reports. Commonly what we do is get together with key city staff, finance, city administrator,
and review the reports to make sure everybody has a clear understanding of the issues that are involved in the
contents of the report. I might just add that we do a rather extensive management report. Our management report
goes through trend analysis and other changes that affect cities. You'll see that we do comparisons for historical
16
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
trends and for instance this is a graph of sewer.., charges which tend to be the largest.., of your sewer operations.
We'll keep tabs on that and do comparative analysis to assist you in seeing the direction of various funds. We also
prompt you to consider policy decisions such as reserve balances for your general fund. Utility rate approaches.
The report also includes two appendixes. One, any late breaking financial accounting and reporting issues that
your finance department needs to be on top of to respond to a changing environment. The second one is we closely
track state legislation. When there is legislation affecting levy limits, state aid to cities as well as government aid,
PACA, LPA, we want to know about it so our field auditors are well prepared to analyze those aids through the
audit process and to provide our city clients with an early warning system on issues that will affect their finances.
And then finally we have, we offer a rather extensive list of other services that cities may be interested in. We
don't necessarily expect to perform all of these services for any one city but the point is, the service level is
available for you and also we think that providing other services, special studies to the cities, makes our audit staff
better prepared to deal with issues throughout the audit process. With that, I'll throw it back to you for any
questions or comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. Do you have any questions you may have some concerns on, Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Yeah I do. I've got one question concerning, in looking at the total number of hours that is
within the estimate. There seems to be a, there's a difference of 214 hours. Now I fully expect there to be a
difference in hours but we're, it's about 35% difference in estimated hours to do the audit.
Don Ashworth: All the firms were provided the listing of hours that Deloitte had taken in each and different
categories over the past two years. Accordingly the question then should be responded to by Mr. Tautges as to why
they felt that they could do something different.
Rob Tautges: We looked at the level of work that the city staff is anticipating to perform this year. As you may
know you've had some turnover. You have a finance director I believe that's been in the position for
approximately two years, and I believe the process has been improving. We look to have a greater portion of
preparation and comprehensive annual financial report, which is quite a significant document, coming back to city
staff. We estimated our hours based on representations of the work that would be completed, including a listing of
client prepared schedules that's included in the Appendix C to the proposal. Now if city staff have issues that
would keep them from performing each of these requested schedules and this work, then we would be available to
provide accounting services to assist them in completing the work. In which case our total hours, not necessarily
audit hours, but our total hours would go up. We are known, I think you'll find, not being a discount audit firm.
We are trying to do a very fair representation of the hours that we believe we're going to need to complete the
audit. I'm not sure of the mix of staff that you're accustomed to but we are going to have experienced staff in the
field. We tend to believe that they can perform procedures more efficiently than less experienced staff.
Councilman Berquist: Are we looking at, are we in essence looking at fixed numbers here?
Don Ashworth: Yes, we are. We've asked for a fixed schedule for at least the first year. If the firm does not feel
that we have provided adequate representation, they could come back at the end of the first year and say, we simply
cannot complete this work with this schedule. And accordingly we would like an adjustment for the second and
third year. The city would have the right then to take and literally open it up to all, to listen to their suggested
changes. To approve or not approve them. Rob's comments as it dealt with not completing the schedules, I guess
I'd maybe ask Pam. Each of the schedules that we have identified in there that Rob feels that we, is relying on that
we will have completed those, do you feel that we will in fact have those completed and that there will not be a
necessity for an additional charge? I mean if I'm hearing Rob correctly, we have stated that we are going to have
Report X or Schedule Y complete. The only way that he would charge us additional money would be if we did not
have that particular schedule complete. Do you think that there's any possibility that that would happen?
Pam Snell: No I don't. I think that we'll have everything ready to go when they come in here for audit work in
the spring of next year.
17
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Don Ashworth: So if we have completed that schedule work, you will...and charge us the bottom line figure that
you have shown?
Rob Tautges: That's correct.
Councilman Berquist: I don't have anything additional right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No. Steve already asked it.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. I guess I don't either. It appears as though it's been put together...and in looking at the
other firm, total number of total employees that you have is 456? No, I'm sorry. That's the hours. How many
total people you indicated.
Rob Tautges: Our company, we have 47 including professional staff and support staff. And of the professional
staff, 13 are devoted to that local government service area.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The numbers of cities and.., experiences that you've had and other municipal clients,
indicated in order from Bayport to Woodbury. Does that put you in any kind of a bind as far as being able to
provide us with a service that we would be looking for?
Rob Tautges: No Mr. Mayor it doesn't. We have, because we have such a large staff, we truly have flexibility in
our schedule. You'll find some CPA firms, and I'm not speaking to our competition this evening because I don't
know about them .... however, most CPA firms use local government work as a filler type work so their staff may
work on commercial type audits that have a tax deadline and then switch that over after April 15th to work on local
government. Our situation isn't there. These people, this staff that work for local government are devoted to that
area entirely and so there are no other pressures from commercial type enterprises for tax work that they need to
deal with.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. I guess that's about the only thing I have. I guess that answers it. Okay. Appreciate.
Councilman Berquist: Yeah one. Dave, you audited, you worked on some City of Chanhassen how many years
ago and for who?
Dave Moll: With the same firm. It wasn't called Tautges Redpath back then but that was just prior to Deloitte
being appointed as auditor. Six years ago now.
Don Ashworth: I believe 8.
Dave Moll: 8 years ago. I was a staff auditor out here doing field work.
Councilman Berquist: Eight years ago. You don't remember the number of hours you put in then do you? Just
out of curiosity.
Dave Moll: No I don't. I'm sorry, I don't.
Councilman Berquist: It seems like forever. It probably seemed like forever.
18
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Dave Moll: Just to clarify though, I think the staff is a little bit different now than it was back then. As I recall it
was Jean Meuwissen and Kay Klingelhutz, is that right?
Councilman Mason: Boy, you looked at your notes.
Dave Moll: No, the point I'm trying to make is, different staffing situations in the finance department. Jean and
Kay were very good people but again, they didn't necessarily have the professional background in finance that Pam
has.
Councilman Mason: Eight years ago is a long time.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes it is. Okay, well thank you for coming in. We appreciate it. And someone will get back to
you, either or. Thank you.
Don Ashworth: Both of the firms are excellent and they would both provide a quality service for the city. I think
it's important that the City Council feel that the auditors that you select are people who are reporting to you.
They're advising to you as to the operations of the city. And both of these firms by the way do provide excellent
management reports to disclose any operational defect of the city. The staff's nod over to Tautges, or
recommendation, is solely did recognize that Deloitte has continuously lost 2 to 3 members of their 4 to 5 member
staff and those are positions that are primarily field positions. They are the ones responsible for really looking at
the fixed assets. Ensuring that new items have been put in, and if they've never worked on the old list and some of
the problems that we dealt with last year and how we resolved those, you're kind of doing a re-training to kind of
bring them back up to where you were. And so that was the basis for staff's recommendation for Tautges. But
again, either are excellent and the Council should feel comfortable with who you choose.
Councilman Senn: Don, isn't that what you'd expect though? I mean that's what I'd expect if I had somebody on
a fixed price contract. I mean you know, as those people are improving and getting better, their wages are going
up. They can't afford to keep the same people on the same contract because our contract is a fixed contract. We're
not saying we'll pay you know whatever that person's wages are to keep them and your field people are in fact the
lower level of the totem pole. I mean the consistency has been there on the couple of top people, at least the four
years I've been here. I'm just curious, I mean I don't see the other people you're talking about and maybe that's
part of the problem but I mean the people I see have been the same four, or the same two people for the last four
years. So I guess my question back to you is, on the lower level, isn't that what you expect?
Don Ashworth: Well let's put it this way as it deals with Tautges. I met Dave Moll when he was the juniorest of
juniors. And he has been given the opportunity to grow with that firm to the point where he is currently a partner.
Same with Rob. They have seemed to be able to provide a better opportunity for people within the firm to move up
to the next level within the same firm. So they can stay with an account versus Deloitte's people have had a
tendency to move off to totally different firms.
Councilman Senn: I understand that but they wouldn't be on our account anyway. I mean that's what I'm trying
to come back to. If we have a fixed price contract, X audit for X price, and they can't change the price, and if that
person's promoted, whether it's internally or externally, they're not going to stay on our account because you can't
afford to sit there and have four partners working on our account. Correct?
Don Ashworth: Well once you get up to a partner level, yes.
Councilman Senn: Well I don't, junior or senior or whatever. I mean every level of advancement carries
additional pay and additional costs and additional fringes and everything else so.
Don Ashworth: I'm just saying that the junior with Tautges may move to the Accountant I position. Then move
the following year to Accountant II and Accountant III. Whatever the hours are associated with Accountant I, II
and III, stayed the same. It's just a matter, that person now instead of being a I and now is a II and is a II and is
19
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
now a III. But who knows, Tautges may run into the same problem that Deloitte's had. It's just to date it really
hasn't happened.
Mayor Chmiel: They would be starting from scratch as well in trying to gather the added information and also
takes more of our staff time... If Tautges were to come on board.
Don Ashworth: You'd have the same type of a situation. The Accountant I, II and III would not have been
experienced with some of the problems we had with last year's fixed assets. How we resolved those issues and you
know kind of, but then hopefully the year after that they wouldn't have those same type of problems.
Councilman Berquist: Isn't it the report said that Tautges is requesting similar, if not identical, to the information
that you would provide to Deloitte?
Pam Snell: For the schedules to be prepared, yes. We would prepare the same schedules no matter who is the
CPA firm.
Councilman Berquist: So essentially because Tautges submitted them under an Appendix does not mean that you
wouldn't prepare them for Deloitte? I'm still, I don't like change necessarily. On the other hand, sometimes
change is good. But if the same schedules are going to be submitted. We still have a 200 and some odd hour
difference in our estimate which means it shouldn't make any difference to me, although it is a few thousand
dollars. If I look at, I could make the argument both ways. If you look at all the cities that Tautges does, they do a
lot of towns that are smaller than Chanhassen. They do a few that are larger. If you look at the ones that Deloitte
does, primarily Chanhassen would be a rather small fish in their bucket. So perhaps from a customer service point
of view, the Tautges would give us a little bit better service. I like Natasha. I remember when she did the
presentation on the audit back in April or March. I think she did a very nice job. Cliff brought up some very good
points. They have done a lot of good things for the City of Chanhassen. And insofar as they're national, they're in
tuned to a lot of the things that are happening. They can garner information from their other branches throughout
the country and pass it on to us if it's helpful. I can certainly make arguments both ways.
Councilman Mason: Well I liked how proactive Tautges was talking about seminars for city staff for upcoming
issues. I see that kind of too as a plus. This group of people, I mean there's a difference of $8,000.00 here. I
believe, by my accounting. 8,000 bucks is 8,000 bucks.
Councilman Berquist: Well that's the thing that gets me is that when you look at, Pam's going to supply the exact
same reports and yet there's a good 200 hours difference. Something's wrong. I mean something fundamentally is
flawed in the estimate process.
Councilman Mason: Well, it seems to me that Deloitte and Touche ought to know their business and obviously
Tautges knows their business, and if one thinks they can do a job in X number of hours, and another one thinks
they can do it in X number of hours, I guess that's their business. I see an issue here. You know some people on
this Council are talking about all the money that we're trying to save and that has been saved by various and
sundry people, and I basically have no complaints with Deloitte and Touche but I'm hearing our city staff, who has
to work closely with these people, that has some reservations with what's going on with them. Throw that into the
fact that Tautges is $8,000.00 cheaper, I guess I don't know.
Councilman Berquist: Well $8,000.00 cheaper up front but there's a stipulation within the document here that
allows them to recover or to petition for additional fees.
Councilman Mason: Well they can petition but we can say no. They can petition all they want to but if we
disagree.
Councilman Berquist: I mean I understand it's a big difference in numbers and that's how I ended up figuring out
the 214 hours. I mean that wasn't lost on my, believe me.
20
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
Don Ashworth: Maybe if I could ask Pam a question, that I've not asked her. Do you think that there is an
advantage to Tautges in their ability to, I mean they literally could do our books from their office. I mean they're
currently on line with us in terms of utility, accounting. They can bring up our general ledger as of tonight.
Pam Snell: Right, there are some efficiencies. They know how to run our accounting software. They can pull the
reports themselves. They do know the system.
Councilman Berquist: Tautges?
Pam Snell: Yes.
Councilman Senn: So that's something they're on that Deloitte isn't on? Maybe now we're starting to get into
why the difference. I mean they're on our system, Deloitte isn't?
Mayor Chmiel: Could Deloitte plug into our system?
Councilman Senn: I guess I'd like to get the answer to the question first.
Don Ashworth: First of all I think you have to understand there are two arms to the firm. One side provides data
processing services over to cities and sells them the software for accounting utility payroll, which we purchased.
The other side is the auditing side, but that side can just as easily pull in the same reports that were created by the
other side of the firm.
Councilman Senn: I understand that but the answer I asked, or I mean the question I asked, the answer is Deloitte
is not on our system.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Senn: And the new firm is.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Correct? Okay. So there's part of the reason for probably our discrepancy in hours.
Pam Snell: I think that's part of it. They do have efficiencies in areas. Their key people, they only do
governmental accounting. That would be assigned to this audit.
Councilman Senn: Okay now, have they been involved in the creation of our management information systems
through Hartley and stuff then or what?
Pam Snell: No, but they have been in our accounting software.
Councilman Senn: I thought that was all through Hartley.
Don Ashworth: Well Hartley does an integration of that back over into the whole GIS but the geo based side of it
that encompasses just the pure accounting, utility, payroll, permitting, is through Tautges and then there's an
integration of that information through Hartley to provide a GIS. So a GIS represents contours, parcels and then
information that goes along with a parcel, which can be a utility bill, a receipt, a permit.
21
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Councilman Senn: Well but I mean my only point is, are we comparing apples to apples here? I mean if Deloitte
could have the same access, is that going to change their numbers? I mean the way I look at this is real simple. I
first went to look at the numbers. You all know me well enough, that's what I do. So I went and looked at the
numbers, okay. And I saw the discrepancies in the numbers. So that really made me kind of lean towards the new
people and stuff like that to look at it. But then I looked at the hours, kind of like Steve did and I said boy,
something's really screwy here. Because I didn't expect to see that kind of a differential. And I liken it to a
construction contract. I never see that kind of differential. Not in hours and when you start looking at base units.
And you know the next thing I did was kind of unable to resolve that just started to thinking in general. You know
I thought about the last four years and I just thought about the comfort level with Deloitte, which at least in my
case I'd have to say, after I thought about it a while, seemed pretty high. You know simply because you know
we're not out of the woods yet. I mean we've had some real fun problems in the last 4 years. You know Deloitte's
always been there and they've been real open and frank with this Council. In the face I'm going to say at
sometimes rather adverse circumstances involving staff, procedures, investments and all kinds of other things.
You know any time I've ever had questions over the last four years, you pick up the phone and call Cliff Hoffman,
he had an answer right there on the spot. He didn't have to say I have to go check with three other staff people and
get back to you. He had the answer. He was always knowledgeable. And again he was always very frank in terms
of answering the question. And that's just tangible. I mean if it's a given quantity. So I mean I can't do that with
the new guy because I mean we haven't had that type of an arrangement with the new guy but, you know. Coming
back to the economic side again, which I think you know I guess I'd have to agree a little bit with Mike.
Ultimately a little bit that's, I mean we have to look at that. I mean I always look at that. I'm not going to stop
now. But at the same time I don't think we're comparing apples to apples based on what I just heard and I guess
I'd like to see this go back and I'd like to see the question posed to Deloitte that if you can have access to hook into
our system and have this same information available to you, I guess I'd like to see the numbers the same way.
Pam Snell: They can have access to our system. We can set anyone up as a user with inquiry services. TR
Systems developed the software so they know how to use it and what they can get from it.
Don Ashworth: I think that's the big difference. I mean to date, we can go back and pose the question. However
there has not been a demonstration by Deloitte with really any of their clients, because they're so multiple, to move
into the area of trying to take and provide that integration of data. Versus Tautges has put a lot of money and
effort into doing that. Training people in terms of how to get into the system and how to use that and how to have
it do the work for you.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean I'd like, now that I know that I wish they were back here because I'd like to ask
them the question because to me, from that standpoint, maybe one theory is that that taints the process of the audit.
I mean I don't know. I mean what I'm just saying is maybe there's a reason. I mean it seems to me ifDeloitte's
not getting into that, maybe there's a reason for that so why don't we ask them that question. But you know to just,
I don't know. I don't know.
Councilman Mason: Well if the issue is one is more technologically computer literate than the other one is, I think
in today's world, if that's the issue, there's absolutely no doubt who I would go with. If that's the only question
here. If one firm has the technological and computer expertise and the other one doesn't have, I personally think
it's a no brainer with all the other information we have. Just with what's out there right now and the ability to
garner information from an office as opposed to doing field reports and what not.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and in asking those specific questions from each of the two. Did Tautges come up with a,
that specific question as where maybe Deloitte did not ask that question?
Don Ashworth: I do not know. We gave them the hours that it has taken Deloitte, you know over the last 2 years.
I don't know why Rob reduced those. We're kind of guessing as to the answer on some of those.
Councilman Senn: Well the interesting part is when Steve asked him, he didn't give a real clear answer either. I
mean that's what has me still kind of unclear.
22
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Councilman Berquist: Let me ask one other question. Did you, we have a large list of folks who they provide
services for. Did you call any of your peers?
Don Ashworth: On Tautges, yes. I don't think we called anyone on Deloitte.
Pam Snell: I spoke with people that work with Deloitte and...
Councilman Berquist: What was the response you got? How long have they been auditing? They were happy with
their services. And then I would be curious to know what swayed the decision to go with their firm versus stay
with their audit firm that they had previous. And were in fact the estimates consistent with the, were the invoicing
consistent with the estimates?
Don Ashworth: Pam?
Pam Snell: I don't know.
Councilman Berquist: I mean I hate to sound so dang cynical but there's a significant difference in the deal.
Councilman Mason: In question number 8 it says please explain your firm's computer capabilities. Tautges
certainly went into that a whole lot more in depth than Hoffman did and from my work with computers in the
classroom and how work, the incredible time savings that I have in my classroom because of my ability to manage
things via computer and teach via computer, I'm certainly no expert in how many hours it takes to do things but it
doesn't surprise me that their hours would be significantly less if they're as computer accessible as they claim to
be. They even mention in their response form about how they're set up to exchange process and progress through
E-mail and Internet as opposed to having to come face to face, which is an incredible time savings.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? I should clarify Pam's response to Council member Berquist's question. We did
contact Tautges firms. We did ask questions as it dealt with consistency of staffing and the response there was
continuously positive. We did not ask the question, why did you switch to Tautges or why did you stay with them.
I'm not sure what that, so Pam's response of I don't know who they dealt with, why did you switch or stay.
Councilman Senn: And did your billings match the estimates and things...
Pam Snell: What was that?
Councilman Senn: Did the billings match the estimates...and you said you didn't know the answer to that.
Pam Snell: I guess I don't understand your question.
Councilman Senn: In their estimates, there's a contract and the billings in effect matched...
Pam Snell: Yes, yes. Yes.
Councilman Senn: It was the other one you didn't know.
Don Ashworth: That you didn't know or you do know?
Pam Snell: Their estimates do match their billings.
Don Ashworth: Okay, so we do know the answer.
Councilman Senn: Oh you do know the answer?
Councilman Mason: In Tautges?
23
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Pam Snell: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Don Ashworth: Would the Council like to take and table and I can pose the same question back over to both or I
could take and have one or the other back for a 7:00, before our next City Council meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it probably might be advisable if this Council feels that they have all their questions
answered. I would think that we would at least feel, or be a lot clearer to what it is as we discussed as opposed to
really not knowing all the... Maybe it might be a good idea. Go back and get some of those additional answers as
well. What do you think?
Councilman Berquist: What I'm going to do is I'm going to call a few of these people and just ask the same types
of questions and be a little bit redundant. I don't, like I say, I don't like change for change sake. There's a big
number difference, which I can certainly appreciate. They seem like nice people and I'm certain they're
extraordinarily qualified. I've been very happy in the two years that I've been here with Cliff Hoffman and
Natasha. I mean if I look at, if I weigh it, they're pretty darn close. The big difference is the hours and the
numbers. I mean I'm not interested in paying overhead to pay overhead. But that's just my feeling. If someone
wants to...
Mayor Chmiel: If someone wants to make a motion to table this or to move forward.
Councilman Senn: I'll move to table it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. It's been moved and seconded.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to table the section of the 1998-98 Auditing
Services Contract. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason who opposed, and the motion carried with
a vote of 3 to 1.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mayor Chmiel: Mark, you had three items on the consent. One was item (b).
B. APPROVE COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT NO. PW46-55-96 WITH
HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO CSAH 62 AT TRUNK HIGHWAY 101;
PW197B.
Councilman Senn: On (b), where are we in relationship to a response to the motion that we passed incorporating
trail design effectively into that design? At least in terms of the design which is attached to this contract. There's
been no change made so where does that issue sit at this point?
Charles Folch: I don't know if I included the Minutes from that.., basically the second meeting... Basically at my
recommendation.
Tom Scott: Charles, there's a resolution on the back side.
Charles Folch: Oh! I guess there is... That's pretty well a short form. We presented the information. The
information was presented showing that with this project most of what would be done.., or destroying if you will in
24
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
the next year or two with the much larger road improvement project is constructed so basically at the second
Council meeting Council voted on a motion to not build the trail adjacent to the temporary roadway. That
resolution's on the last page of the staff report.
Don Ashworth: I was kind of hoping. I had written a letter to a resident along TH 101 and along with that I had
put kind of an update report as to where we're standing with Carver County and Hennepin County and there have
been a couple of subsidiary meetings with Hennepin County. At the current point in time that kind of agreement to
agree presently includes a trail along both sides of TH 101, and again although I was not able to get that into this
packet, I will have it into your next packet so I guess what Charles is saying. This first segment, we did agree not
to include the trails as part of the temporary section but we very much want that as a part of a permanent
improvement.
Councilman Senn: And what's the timing then on this now? I thought when they appeared before us last time, it
was going to happen this fall.
Charles Folch: This particular project, we're finding some delays. It appears they will, at this point, still try to
start some of the work yet this fall but it looks like the bulk of it will occur next year. There was some reason they
had some delays in their review process and...project so there's some extra hurdles that they had to go through in
that process. So I know when Bruce Polaczyk was here earlier, earlier this spring and made a presentation at that
point in time, I think they wanted to schedule the contract letting in the early part of August and that has slipped.
Councilman Senn: So it's not going to happen until the following... '97?
Charles Folch: Not the bulk. The bulk will be next year.
Councilman Senn: Okay. If it's going to happen in '97, and things look like they're proceeding on the turn back
and at that proceeding the timing would be roughly '97 or '98 start or whatever there. Why would we go ahead
and start this only to turn around and start redoing it a year later?
Charles Folch: There's, as I understand it, a portion of this improvement that would have to be redone, and
basically that's the transition zone from their permanent improvements on the north end of this project limit.
There's a transition point back out existing and that would be wasted but this particular project has been developed
as a stand alone project. Actually the last phase of an overall improvement to Crosstown. It has a separate source
of funding. Separate approval...associated with that. This was all developed prior to any of the TH 101 turnback
developments so it's...to continue to proceed with completing this particular project and that the plan to redo some
of that transition zone again is just the nature of the way these projects look like they're tracking.
Councilman Senn: Have the affected Chanhassen property owners been effectively contacted? I mean have deal's
been reached with them in terms of you know acquiring.
Charles Folch: It's my understanding that Hennepin County has made contact with the particular property owners
in Chanhassen for which either temporary or permanent easements are needed from. At this point I'm not aware
that they have actually.., agreed upon or have signed agreements of these easements but that there is a negotiation
process right now.
Councilman Senn: Have any of those people been informed or notified of this or our decision process relating to
this project?
Charles Folch: Not through a specific notification sent out.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a requirement?
25
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Councilman Senn: Not that I'm aware of.
Mayor Chmiel: I didn't think there was. That's why I asked the question.
Councilman Senn: Well I understand there's no requirement but there's a great deal of concern on the people's
parts that are involved and they're effectively being left out of the process.
Charles Folch: I am not aware that I or any of my staff or myself have received a call from any of the affected
property owners for temporary or permanent easements. Usually if there's a concern about that, the person may
call or if there's another agency... I haven't heard anything to date.
Councilman Senn: But at the same time we haven't been notifying them of any city action we've taken one way or
the other correct? I mean their only knowledge...
Charles Folch: Not individually. Just based on...
Councilman Senn: Well that, I mean that answers the question I had. I guess the primary reason I pulled this is, I
guess my feelings on it haven't changed at all since last time so I didn't want to leave it on the consent. I think it's
just...going ahead with an intersection improvement...62 traffic onto TH 101 when TH 101 is not in any way,
shape or form able to accommodate it. TH 101's already a very unsafe condition for those people who live in
proximity to it and this is only going to further exacerbate the problem. This improvement should be tied into an
overall improvement of TH 101 and should not, in my mind, be occurring before that. And so for that reason I still
plan on voting against it.
Mayor Chmiel: Well you already did.
Councilman Senn: Well I'm going to again since it's another vote on it.
Councilman Mason: Move approval of item l(b) on the consent agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I want to clarify first. Don, you mentioned that at the next Council meeting you'll have a
letter hopefully providing documentation of the.., finality and the turnback.
Don Ashworth: I don't know if I'd call it finality but it, what it will show is the progress that has occurred and I
think we have five agreements in total. And so what it does is it shows the status report as to each of those.
There's an agreement between the City of Chanhassen and the State of Minnesota that deals with primarily 78th
Street. The one section in there. Chanhassen, Hennepin County. Chanhassen, Carver County. Carver County,
State of Minnesota. Hennepin County, State of Minnesota.
Mayor Chmiel: Scott County, State of Minnesota?
Don Ashworth: We haven't really kept those.
Councilman Berquist: So what will it tell us?
Don Ashworth: It will show the, the Hennepin County one it will show the status of our last meeting with them
and each of the jobs that have now been identified as needing to be completed to ensure that that project stays on a
'97-98 time frame. The State of Minnesota, Chanhassen one is a final document and I believe has been approved
by the City Council. Is that correct Charles?
Charles Folch: Excuse me.
26
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Don Ashworth: The State of Minnesota, City of Chanhassen has been approved by the City Council?
Charles Folch: That one was, correct.
Don Ashworth: Carver County, Chanhassen. We have a final draft on that one.
Charles Folch: A final draft that's being completed by the Carver County Attorney's office. We expect that back
in the next 1 to 2 weeks.
Don Ashworth: And again the Hennepin County, City one, or Hennepin County, Carver County, City is probably
the loosest at this point in time. That's kind of the biggee because Hennepin County's going to be the lead agency
on that one. So that's in more of a bullet time format but it identifies right-of-way. What needs to be done.
Design. What needs to be done. Each of the key work functions. Who's going to do them. When they're going to
be done.
Councilman Senn: So none of that's gone to the Carver County Board yet, correct?
Don Ashworth: It was sent to the Carver County Board but intercepted by the Carver County Attorney's office to
do a review before he wanted it to go onto the Carver County Board's agenda.
Councilman Senn: According to Ursula they haven't seen anything on it at all.
Councilman Berquist: Well I'm not going to withhold approval, or my vote on it but Mark is right. This
intersection is going to be rebuilt and it's going to dump a phenomenal amount of traffic onto TH 101 and that
road is, not to beat a dead horse but TH 101 is just not at all capable of supporting the traffic and it is going to be a
very dangerous thing. Andifthis thing goes to heckin a hand basket, I can't imagine anything worse happening
onthat side ofour, onthe eastern side ofChanhassen. Ifthat road reconstruction falls apart because of someone's.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but on the other hand too Steve, if you look at that, we're not sure whether that traffic is
going to be going south on TH 101 or if it's going to be going north on TH 101. That's going to come offof
Crosstown.
Councilman Senn: Well that's not true. MnDOT knows that. That's why the whole issue came up in the first
place.., didn't want the road turned down in opposition to it because of the fact that the traffic was going south...
Councilman Berquist: Well regardless, there's a pretty good chance that there's going to be a few that go north
and a few that go south. And depending on the time of the day, it's going to be a lot. Anyway, I understand that
this stuff has to happen in incremental little bits and pieces, especially given the few of the different agencies that
we're working with but it scares me. When you start putting this stuff together and allowing people to do what
their little bureaucracies is supposed to do and we have nothing definitive that says this is what's going to happen
when. It's all sort of, it's all very ambiguous yet. And that's spooky.
Don Ashworth: I totally agree with you. I totally agree that we're going to create a much, much more dangerous
situation by having Crosstown traffic dumping into Chanhassen. The question in my own mind, especially
knowing that there's two different levels of funding, is would you rather have that volume of traffic dropping into
what we know to be a very dangerous S curve condition, or getting the S curve into a more safe condition and then
having that traffic dumping either into TH 101 north or south from that point? And I come to the conclusion in
my mind that I would rather get them safely through the S curve area, whether they're going north or south. I
don't like that they're putting that many more cars into Chanhassen. But I think I would rather have them do that
through a safe S than right in the S itself.
Councilman Berquist: I can't argue with that line of thought.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
27
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Councilman Berquist: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Resolution #96-86: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the Cooperative
Construction Agreement No. PW46-55-96 with Hennepin County for Improvements to CSAH 62 at Trunk
Highway 101; PW197B. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 1.
G. EXTENSION OF FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR SHAMROCK ADDITION, ED RYAN.
Councilman Senn: I pulled item (g) because the...this is the second extension I think. As I read through it I kind
of picked up on a new element of it which is the Findings that are included in here. I don't understand why in
effect when we're saying this, why we have Findings into it. I mean what's the purpose of the Findings? And the
Findings also, at least in my mind kind of substantially change the conditions that the Council voted on or agreed
to previously as it related to this... I got a call over the weekend from the applicant who got notice of these
changes on Friday. Wasn't aware of them before. I think they said they couldn't be here tonight but they were
really concerned about it. They, according to them, they've been working I guess with some, well with a number
of different developers but they've been kind of holding out for a developer who's really willing to do the plan that
we approved. And kind of said was what we wanted in the area but now effectively they were really concerned that
we were starting to effectively provide substantial change to what we agreed to and I guess in reading this, I'd have
to agree with him so.
Kate Aanenson: I'd be happy to answer the question. We've told the Ryan's, the first time they extended it we
were concerned about extending the project. We had concerns last year. We told them this year we were reluctant
to extend it. In deference to them saying that they're working with somebody right now. We wanted to put them
on notice as everybody's looked at that, and more and more information is being revealed about the integrity of the
subdivision. I guess we wanted to put them on notice that if after three years, that the amount of land pressure that
we have in this city, if they can't sell it, there's obviously something wrong with the plat. So I guess we're kind of
giving them this one last year to try to see if they can move it but everybody that's looked at it has provided
additional information that maybe it is flawed.
Councilman Senn: Well Kate I'm not complaining about the one more year.
Kate Aanenson: I told the Ryan's that...more than likely not extend their approval so Ed Ryan is well aware of
that fact.
Councilman Senn: Okay but the basis of the extension here and the Findings, I mean these Findings are very
different than what we approved. These are a lot of new things than what we approved before.
Tom Scott: Mr. Mayor, if I could.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Tom.
Tom Scott: Page 7 1 think is where you're at Mark on the.
Councilman Senn: Correct.
Tom Scott: It's, and I had looked at these before and talked to Kate briefly about them. There's really two parts to
it. The first paragraph is that we're approving the additional one year extension subject to the conditions of
approval approved in 1995. So through November 28th of '97, they have the extension. They can develop the plat
as originally approved. And then the second part of the motion, as Kate was referring to, as to that the Council
would be indicating that there would be no further extensions beyond November 28 of 1997. And then the
28
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Findings are the reasons why we won't extend it beyond '97. The Findings don't add any conditions to the
original approval. So as Kate mentioned, it's basically putting them on notice. We're not going to extend it
another year and here's our reasons why and that's what the Findings address.
Councilman Senn: We're saying, go get your deal done in the next year. All the same rules apply.
Tom Scott: Right. But if you don't, we're telling you right now that it's not going to be extended again and these
are the reasons why.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Well then I think that ought to be explained to them better because I don't think they
understand that. Including getting a copy of this on Friday...if the applicant, if they have problems and want to
talk to us about it, do that.
Kate Aanenson: We were open here on Friday.
Mayor Chmiel: You don't have any problems with that at all?
Kate Aanenson: No. I talk to Ed all the time... He knew what our position was.
Councilman Senn: I mean again, he called me over the weekend. He said that they'd just gotten this, as I
understood it, later Friday or whatever. He hadn't seen these Findings before. Their fear was that these Findings
were effectively conditions being attached to the extension which I'm sorry, I read it and I kind of gathered the
same thing. So that's kind of their concern and I just said well, I said why don't you come Monday night but I
guess on that notice they couldn't be here and I said well, I'll raise the questions. I think we should give them a
chance to get that figured out and that they should have an explanation on this.
Mayor Chmiel: Kate, can you take care of that?
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion on this?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, well I guess the motion would be then, what to table it until, so we can contact him and
explain it to him and if they have any issues with it, come in or what?
Kate Aanenson: I wouldn't change the recommendation.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I wouldn't either.
Councilman Berquist: Just change the language a little bit to make certain that the motion addresses the
consistency with the zoning ordinance after the next year.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so the motion would be to approve the extension based on the existing terms and
conditions of the development, or subdivision approval and.
Councilman Mason: That's exactly what it says. Subject to the conditions of approval approved on August 28,
1995. Second paragraph reads, shall not be further extended and shall void preliminary plat unless the final plat
app is filed by November 28 '97 based on the following Findings. I think that's pretty clear. I mean if they don't
understand it, let's talk with them about it but.
Councilman Senn: The City Council also determines that this preliminary plat extension shall not be further
extended and shall void the preliminary plat unless the final plat is filed by November 28th based on the following
findings. Okay it's kind of like, to me that's saying whatever you file before November better be based on this.
29
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Councilman Mason: Well fine. If there's a misunderstanding, that needs to get cleared up and I'm hearing Kate
say, she'll be happy to talk to them but I mean this is the recommendation as far as I'm concerned that's going to
stand. Right?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Berquist: As long as it's clear.
Councilman Mason: Yeah. If it's not clear to them, something tells me Kate will make it clear.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion on this? Conditions that have been indicated.
Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of item l(g).
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: You don't want to second Mark?
Mayor Chmiel: It's basically what you're asking.
Councilman Senn: No. What I was asking for was some clarifying language that the Findings have nothing to do
with the current approval or extension. I don't think that's clear.
Mayor Chmiel: How else can you do it?
Councilman Senn: By simply saying that. That the Findings have to do with the situation only if it is extended
beyond November of' 97.
Councilman Berquist: Sounds like a good friendly amendment to me.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom. How does that fit in with the balance?
Tom Scott: Well I think what we could probably do is just leave the language as in the staff report and then add a
sentence that would say exactly what Mark said. That these Findings only apply. Well these Findings do not
apply to the extension, the one year extension through November 28, 1997.
Mayor Chmiel: And that was basically your intent anyway Kate?
Kate Aanenson: (Yes).
Councilman Senn: Okay, that's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, do you want to second that?
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the preliminary plat extension request
(Sub #94-7) for Shamrock Ridge Addition, to subdivide 37.92 acres into 45 single family lots and a wetland
alteration permit (WAP #94-3) to fill and dredge wetlands located on site until November 28, 1997, subject to
the conditions of approval approved on August 28, 1995.
The City Council also determines that this preliminary plat extension shall not be further extended and shall
void the preliminary plat until the final plat application is filed by November 28, 1997, based on the
following Findings. These Findings do not apply to the plat conditions prior to November 28, 1997.
30
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
FINDINGS:
Subdivision, Section 28-39(1)
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets the minimum lot area requirements of the RSF, Residential Single
Family District. However, Section 18-60(d) of the City Code requires that lots be placed to protect
natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses, and historic areas. The
proposed development is inconsistent with this ordinance.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not
limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the city's land use plan in regard to net density.
The proposed development is inconsistent with the following natural resource policies: "Future
developments should be designed so that they are sensitive to natural features. Such features which are
determined to have significant environmental, cultural, historical, and/or archeological values should be
preserved and maintained through the use of easements and dedication." And "The City of Chanhassen
will discourage the alteration of steep slope areas and bluffs to minimize soil loss from erosion,
minimize tree loss where appropriate and to protect visual amenities such as those found along river
bluff lines." In addition, the alignment for Lake Lucy Road does not comply with the city's preferred
alignment.
The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation,
susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the
proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development in some areas of the project and unsuitable in
other areas based on the proposed subdivision. The applicant's proposed stormwater ponding system
must be revised and a final design will be determined. The steep slopes on the western half of the
development proposal due to the severe slopes and soil conditions. The wetland complex in the
southwest corner of the site could be better protected. Alternative site designs would provide additional
protection of natural resources.
The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal,
streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter;
Finding: The stormwater ponding must be revised. If the applicant does not intend to construct Lake
Lucy Road, then the applicant needs to petition the city for extension of Lake Lucy Road and utilities.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will impact the land form and existing wetlands and vegetation by
the amount of grading. Staff has recommended changes that will significantly reduce environmental
impacts.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and
provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists:
31
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure provided the utilities
are extended from the west. Final calculations for the provision of on site stormwater ponding, a final
decision on the alignment of Lake Lucy Road and providing access to the northwest third of the
development must be made prior to platting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
J. APPROVAL OF BILLS.
Councilman Senn: Pam, I apologize. I didn't get a chance to...didn't get a chance to get my normal questions or
whatever. Don, can we please do something on these explanations? I mean we've been at this for months now and
there's still just a tons of explanations where it just simply say things like professional services and don't tell us
one iota about what it's for or what project it relates to and when it does, it references something like Project 95-
21, which I'm sorry, I don't remember what the 21st project in '95 was. Couldn't we say Coulter or you know
couldn't we say something that the Council would understand?
Don Ashworth: I will bring it up tomorrow at our staff meeting again that department heads should highlight.
The problem that Chris have, they don't, they're not sure either what Project 22- whatever. But whatever
consulting firm has signed off on it and they've gone through Charles' office or whomever, that's what's important
to them. I've just got to again remind people. Try to circle a description that makes sense.
Councilman Senn: You know, HGA having professional services again. It doesn't say for what. Hamline
University, Deposit Registration Fee. It doesn't say for whom or for what. More and more. Professional Career
Workshops. Workshop registration for whom, for what? I mean it just.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other concern?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I guess what Fed Ex for Applebee's photos were. $104.42. The biggest Fed Ex bill I've
ever seen but I'm kind of curious.
Todd Gerhardt: The only thing I can think of is that on their walls they display a variety of local pictures and they
took some photos of our fireman that are on display in there. That'd be the only thing that.
Councilman Senn: And I'm assuming they've reimbursed us for that then or whatever, for these costs?
Todd Gerhardt: I have no idea.
Councilman Senn: I didn't order it. It was Scott's.
Don Ashworth: Why don't you make the assumption we'll pull that bill and will not send that check out until you
get an answer.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, sounds good. Anything else?
Councilman Senn: No. I guess a better explanation.
Councilman Berquist: And as much as I hate to hear him complain about it, I agree with him.
32
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1996
Councilman Senn: Of course I've been complaining for four years about it and it still doesn't get done.
Mayor Chmiel: Well it will get in. Okay, is there a motion with the removal of that one item?
Councilman Senn: Sure.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the bills with the exception of the check to
Federal Express in the amount of $104.42. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Don Ashworth: Could I have a clarification as to what staffwas supposed to do on the, are we to bring in both
Deloitte and Tautges? Are we to bring in one of the two or are we simply to try to get the answers and have staff
portray, present those answers to you?
Mayor Chmiel: I think it'd be the later one that you mentioned. Have staff make the contact. Get the answers.
Bring them back.
Councilman Senn: Well I don't know. I'd kind of like to hear Deloitte's response to.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's what they're going to get from those questions that are going to be asked. No sense in
wasting their time.
Councilman Senn: Well then maybe buzz the questions by us and make sure that you're covering all the questions
we want asked.
Don Ashworth: Well why don't I do this. Why don't I see if I can take and get the answers but then turn right
around and ask Cliff, and maybe we should start it at like 7:00. I'll have to see what else we have going on. Board
of Equalization. Board of whatever. If he would be available for a telephone call in case I don't ask all the
questions I should ask.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that'd be fine. Okay, Steve.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Berquist: As I was sitting waiting for the Board of Adjustments to be done, Dan Dahlin, the owner of
the Chanhassen Bowl came in. Introduced himself and asked me to pass along the fact that the second half, pay
'96 taxes would be current as of tomorrow. October 15th, and that he is working tirelessly in an effort to get the
back taxes up to snuff. But he did want the Council to be aware that the second half pay '96 will be current.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Appreciate that. Is there a motion for adjournment?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
33