Loading...
CC 2005 06 13 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 2005 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Peterson, Councilman Labatt, and Councilman Lundquist COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Tjornhom STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, and Roger Knutson PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Ken Wencl 8412 Great Plains Boulevard PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening. Welcome to everybody here this evening and those watching at home as well. We appreciate you joining us. At this point I would like to ask if there are any additions or amendments to the agenda as distributed with the council packet. If there’s no, we’ll proceed with the agenda as distributed. CONSENT AGENDA:Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Executive Session Minutes dated May 23, 2005 -City Council Work Session Minutes dated May 23, 2005 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated May 23, 2005 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated May 17, 2005 -Park and Recreation Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated May 24, 2005 b. Approval of Memorial Policy. c. Approval of New Route for the Dave Huffman Memorial 5K Fun Run/Walk. d. Approval of Fireworks Permit for July 4, Lake Minnewashta Homeowners Association. City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 e. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, August 20-21, St. Hubert’s Catholic Community Harvest Festival. Resolution#2005-53: f. Approve Resolution for TH 101 GAP Municipal Consent, Project 04-06. Resolution#2005-54: h. Order TH 101 GAP Project 04-06. j. Hidden Creek Meadows: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract Resolution#2005-55: k. Approve Resolution Amending the 2004 Fund Transfers. m. Approve Concrete Quote, 2005 Playground Projects. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. I. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION COMBINING IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF TH 212, PROJECT NUMBERS 04-05, 03-09-3, AND 04-06. Rick Dorsey: Thank you Mayor, council. I’d like to get some clarification. The wording in the resolution suggests that everything dealing with Project 04-05 has been, you know no one has any public comments to make about it. I believe that’s the way it’s worded. My understanding is, from talking to Paul is they’re referring to the items related to the 212 project as there’s a number of items that are included in the feasibility study as presented back in September that aren’t part of that assessment that they needed, but it’s binding projects together and it appears the way it’s, the verbiage that’s in the resolution is that it’s saying that we as land holders and neighbors have had our chance to speak everything we want to say about the project and are in agreement with it, which is not necessarily the case. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members, I can address this issue. What we’re doing here is consolidating the 2005 MUSA improvement project along with the 101 GAP and the 212 project that we’ve ordered. We’re combining those all into one project and thus being able to use the 20% assessments from the 2005 MUSA. That would make this project qualify for general obligation bonds for, through the State of Minnesota. As they stood alone, Mary Ippel had difficulty in giving an opinion as stand alone projects so what this resolution is doing is combining all three projects and using at least 20% of the assessibility from the 2005 MUSA area to meet that general obligation authority ruling. This is not precluding anybody in the 2005 MUSA area from contesting their assessments. At the final assessment hearing I think we’re planning on having in September of 2005, but for us to qualify for the State loan program we have to meet the general obligation statute and by combining these three projects that allows us to do that. I think Roger has also had some conversations with Mary Ippel regarding the consolidation of those three projects. Roger? 2 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 Roger Knutson: Todd has it just right. I mean the part to zero in on is the language after the Now Therefore. All this is is combining the projects. The only purpose for combining them is for bonding purposes. Without them you couldn’t bond for the projects. Councilman Lundquist: I think if I under, and Mr. Dorsey maybe I’m putting words in your mouth. As I understood it, your concern was more about in the first, third and fourth Whereas statements about all persons desiring to be heard and the matter fully considered. But now in reality as we have had public hearings on all these matters and we have ordered all of the projects. Todd Gerhardt: That is correct. th Rick Dorsey: I’d like to go back to September 13 of last year, if you want to look at the minutes. I stood before you and said that we had just gotten much of that information right before that meeting and asked for either the public hearing to be extended or postponed and my reading the notes, the minutes here, the mayor’s words were he’d like to always keep as much information in front as possible and there would be that opportunity is the way I interpret it. And the process, I tried after that point, the project was put on hold until February and we were trying to get issues cleared up but there was not a need because there was no project at that point in time. Then in February, very quickly the project was approved. I happened to actually be out of town myself. I tried to make appointments to go over some issues that are there. I think it’s not just the assessments, that’s part of it but if you look at the east/west collector, which is it’s a collector road but a neighborhood collector. It actually, with the projections is showing it having more traffic on it than any of the 3 county roads around it. That isn’t a neighborhood road and I have concerns about the design of that road going through the neighborhood. It’s impact on the potential neighborhoods that will be there. As a land holder I’m certainly concerned about it. But from the standpoint of the city as well, the long term impact of devaluing a neighborhood by having a road that’s going to have 11,600 cars per day traveling on it as being a neighborhood road is not you know something that is truly a neighborhood road in my mind. I’d like to speak about it. I’d like to bring that information and other information in front of you. Have not had the opportunity to do that at this point. Mayor Furlong: Any response or reply? I don’t recall what I said. We can go back and look at the minutes. Rick Dorsey: I can give you a copy if you’d like. Mayor Furlong: That’d be fine but not right now. I guess my question is, you know the purpose here is to combine. Obviously through the public hearings, as Councilman Lundquist said, you know we’ve had public hearings. Todd Gerhardt: We held the public in September of 2004. We did not close the public hearing. We kept that public hearing open for 6 months to receive input from benefiting properties in that area. My staff has met with Mr. Dorsey several times prior to the February ordering date and we’ve ordered that project in February, and we’ve continued to meet with Mr. Dorsey several times but we have not agreed on the design that he would like to see in that area. 3 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 Rick Dorsey: We haven’t talked about any designs for roads Todd. The 6 months, I’d like to know where that, no. You and I have not talked about the road issue. We talked about other issues. Todd Gerhardt: You met with my staff regarding design. Rick Dorsey: Okay, I met as recent as last week to talk about the road too, but aside from that I don’t know where the 6 months, of it only being open for 6 months was. I never saw that anywhere. As well, like I said, I tried to meet with your staff from the month of September through the month of February and the project was on ice at that time because there were no parties that had projects together and if everybody didn’t agree that it was going forward with the extension of the utilities, the project wasn’t going to go anywhere so staff was not going to take the time to look at it. And you can ask the engineer here. I did try to get through to him and I was told that, I did meet with several times since then. There’s a lot of information. It’s a big project. It’s not something that I think the city should look at lightly. Again the value to the city I just read is $2.2 billion dollars and you’re looking at this project being something that may be $750 million in size. It could be $200 million in size too. If you take the time to put a good project together, which I think it can be with this location. There’s a lot of issues that are there. I guess tonight I don’t necessarily want to hold up the bonding part of it. I do understand that. What I would like to see separated is the other items that are not included as part of the 212 project that you’re pre-ordering being that we can still discuss issues like Lyman Boulevard, the east/west corridor and just the general overall use of the area. Mayor Furlong: I think just a quick response. Mr. Dorsey, I can assure you that the staff and the council has not looked at these projects lightly, and there has been a significant amount of time, both from the council standpoint as well as… Rick Dorsey: I understand. Mayor Furlong: So to leave that impression I think would be false. To that end I guess my question to the attorney is that, are the resolutions in this statement, and the Whereas’s in this statement correct? I mean to the extent that we move forward on this this evening, certainly it doesn’t preclude us from continuing to work with residents and look for opportunities. At the same time Mr. Dorsey, and I’m sure you’re aware of this, when you said at the beginning, it’s everything we want to say and that we’re all in agreement. Sometimes that doesn’t happen anyway. When you go through the process you said that the implication of the resolution was that it implies that everybody said everything they want to say and that we’re all in agreement, and that may not happen even at the end from an agreement standpoint so, so I guess my point, or my question here really to go forward with this tonight or if there is a need, and I don’t know from a timing standpoint, to wait another 2 weeks, if that’s necessary, but I don’t know if that’s necessary for doing what the purpose of this resolution is trying to do. Roger Knutson: No, I mean this resolution certainly does not say everyone agrees to do this project. It does not say that. It says basically it’s saying that a public hearing, people had an opportunity to speak at the public hearing. 4 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 Rick Dorsey: And that’s where my concern is. Roger Knutson: That’s what this says. And all it does it consolidate the projects for bonding purposes. That’s the only action this takes. Rick Dorsey: But at the same time it does say specifically, it says a hearing on Project number 04-05 was duly held on September 13, 2004 and the City Council heard all persons desiring to be heard on the matter and fully considered the same. I did not speak fully at that point in time because I didn’t have all the information. Roger Knutson: Mayor, what that says is you had a public hearing and anyone who wanted to speak on that subject was allowed to speak on that subject. That’s what that statement says. Paul Oehme: And the fully considered implies the City Council fully considered the same. Rick Dorsey: I understand that. I guess my point is that as a citizen, as a taxpayer, someone, I’m not looking to stop the project. I’m looking to try and make it a better project. That the wording in there is just such that it’s binding. It suggests that what’s in 04-05 to me as I read it anyway, if I’m mistaken please tell me. It suggests that binding that I’m in agreement with the location of the road as it’s showing in there. The location of sewer and water, some of which has been pulled out. That’s what the wording says here is all I’m saying so. Mayor Furlong: Just a quick reply. I guess for the city attorney again, I don’t see agreement. I don’t see binding. I don’t see you know mutual agreement of everybody. Roger Knutson: No. I mean this does not say, and everyone in the audience agreed it was a great project just as presented. Doesn’t say that at all. It said you had a public hearing. People had the right to speak at the public hearing and those who wanted to spoke. And you fully considered what they had to say. That’s all it says. It doesn’t say everyone’s in agreement. I mean on any size project typically you never get everyone in agreement. That would be, that’d be unusual. Rick Dorsey: That’s not my point. Roger Knutson: It’s not what this says. Rick Dorsey: That’s not my point is not saying anything to do with agreement. My point is that I have the right to, the desire, it says that everybody wishing to speak has the desire to be heard. It says that the council heard all persons desiring to be heard. If you go back in the notes I specifically requested, because we didn’t have time to get all the information. That I had the opportunity to speak and that is what has not happened. And if you read the minutes, I think that the mayor was in consensus with that at the time. Councilman Peterson: Well, even having that language in there Roger, it’s fair to assume it doesn’t preclude us from getting more public feedback. 5 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 Roger Knutson: You can, as historically this council always listens to the public and anyone who wants to talk to you, I’m sure you’d be happy to listen to them. Councilman Peterson: We’re word smithing something that I don’t think is of relevance. I think all you want to do is in some form or fashion continue to be heard. Approving this tonight will not preclude that from happening. Rick Dorsey: I want to be, continue to be heard but I don’t want this used against me is what my point is. To say you had your right to speak and we’ve moved forward. That’s the only thing I want to make sure doesn’t happen. If you’re all in agreement with that, I don’t have a problem with it. I trust you very strongly so I don’t have a problem with it but I just want to make sure that that doesn’t come back as a legal reason to say, you know you had your chance to speak Rick and you didn’t do it. And I just want to be of public record and have the same coming back that we understand it the same way. Mayor Furlong: Well and I understand that, and nobody up here is going to not listen or not give you an opportunity. At the same time there’s things that we need to do to move on to continue going on. To the extent that you know there’s been continuing dialogue that you have had with the staff and your effect on the project and it’s design and such like that, I think that’s good to hear on my part that your input is not just strictly limited here at the podium so you know, I hear what you’re saying. And what I’m also hearing is that what this is saying may not necessarily be the concern that you’re describing. Rick Dorsey: I guess my only, I guess the clarification. I talked with Paul. He suggested that this had really to do with the items that are tied to the 212 project that are extended, but it looks like it’s bigger to me than that. The scope of what it’s saying and if there is that distinction between the two, that maybe it could be worded differently or should be worded differently. Paul, do you understand what I’m saying? That one’s a big project and one’s a part of a big project. Paul Oehme: Yeah, the improvements associated with the resolution before you tonight are going to be, are being considered to be built in conjunction with the 212 design build contract so there is a distinction there between Rick, Mr. Dorsey’s concerns with some of the infrastructure associated with the larger development itself versus what’s going to be built in conjunction with the 212 and that’s the items that we’re looking at bonding for. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments for Mr. Dorsey or for staff? No? Okay, thank you. Is there a motion regarding item 1(i)? Councilman Labatt: Move to approve. Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any discussion? 6 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 Resolution#2005-56: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve the resolution combining improvement projects associated with the construction of TH 212, Project numbers 04-05, 03-09-3, and 04-06. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. L. AWARD OF BID, FINANCIAL SOFTWARE. Councilman Lundquist: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Just wanted to have a brief discussion on this, more around the size of the project. Sizable investment of, somewhere in the neighborhood of over $200,000 on this and so rather than putting it in the consent agenda to bring that up and talk about what it is. I think it’s a good investment. It invests in technology to help us be more productive and be more efficient in one of our key areas, service to the residents and revenue collection and that stuff so again something that we’ve been working on for a long time. A lot of time and energy has gone into it so glad to see it come to fruition and we’ll look forward to seeing it’s successful implementation and gaining the benefits that we get from having it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Any other items of discussion or comments? If not, is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Resolution#2005-57: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council award the bid of a software package from ACS/Springbrook in the amount of $201,428.50. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. NDRD HIGHCREST MEADOWS/HIGHCREST MEADOWS 2 & 3 ADDITIONS: A. PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF EXISTING UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS. B. APPROVE CONSTRUCTION PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS. C. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS. Public Present: Name Address Stephanie Seward 7205 Hazeltine Boulevard 7 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 th Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. As you may recall on April 25 of this year the City Council approved the final plat for the Yoberry Farms development, now Highcrest Meadows development, Additions 1, 2 and 3. One of the conditions of that final plat approval was to vacate existing utility and drainage easements within the project limits. Staff has reviewed the developer’s request to vacate these drainage and utility easements within the Highcrest Meadow area. These easements are originally, were originally dedicated as part of a previous development and are no longer necessary for this development. Currently no utilities exist in this area. The easements that we were discussing are before you tonight are shown in this drawing here. The second addition to the Highcrest Meadow development and they’re 10 foot drainage utility easements around the perimeter of the development. This is consistent with other developments that the city has and vacating easements before final plat is approved. The easements are pretty straight forward for vacation. New easements will be dedicated in conjunction with the new development. Staff recommends that a public hearing be open at this time and I do stand for questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you, any questions for staff. Hearing none, we’ll proceed to open the public hearing at this time with regard to item 2(a), which is vacation of existing utility and drainage easements. Any interested parties can come forward to the podium. Please state your name and address to comment on this item. If there is nobody, then without objection we’ll close the public hearing and proceed. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor. The next two items on the agenda for tonight are typically handled under consent agenda items. They are approving of the development contract and approval of plans and specifications. The plans and specification items that were included in your background are consistent with other developments and staff recommends approval of those plans and specs at this time. The development contract, one modification that the developer has rd requested we change in one of the contracts of 3 Addition. The property owner is Karen Weathers. The developer and the property owner currently are requesting that the developer and the current property owner be included on the final agreement form so I’m sorry. Kate Aanenson: It’s an and/or. Paul Oehme: Or it’s an and/or, okay. Roger Knutson: At this point they haven’t closed. They’d like the flexibility to have either name on the development contract and the mylars. We’ve reviewed that and we see no issue there. We’ll get the letter of credit of everything will be done right, but rather than bring it back after it closes, which we have unfortunately had to do in the past, they’d like it approved so that either name could be on the development contract and the mylars. Councilman Lundquist: Specifically where is that referenced? Paul Oehme: Just be wherever, I think there’s 3 or 4 locations in the development contract. Mayor Furlong: Is that item 2(c)? 8 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 rd Paul Oehme: 2(c), right. And under the 3 Addition which is I believe the last development contract in the back. It refers to the current property owner, in the first paragraph. Special provisions. Councilman Lundquist: So P-1? Paul Oehme: Yep, that’s P-1, correct. Current property owner or. Kate Aanenson: That’s Yoberry Farms LLC. Paul Oehme: LLC, correct. Page SP3…and the current property owner. Councilman Lundquist: So where it says Karen Weathers it would be Karen Weathers and/or. Roger Knutson: It could be either one. It won’t be both. Paul Oehme: It won’t be both, there you go. Roger Knutson: Karen Weathers or Yoberry. Paul Oehme: Yoberry Farms LLC. Mayor Furlong: The third addition. Where that’s referenced. Paul Oehme: Yeah, SP-11. Page SP-11 as well. After the signatures of the city, current property owner or Yoberry Farms LLC. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything else? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, is the developer here? Is that what it is, Yoberry LLC? Not Highcrest Meadows LLC? Developer: Yoberry Farms LLC. Todd Gerhardt: Okay, just wanted to clarify because we changed the name from Yoberry to Highcrest Meadows. Developer: The development entity is Yoberry Farms LLC. Todd Gerhardt: Okay, great. Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Okay, anything else Mr. Oehme? Paul Oehme: That’s it. 9 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 Mayor Furlong: On B or C? Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay. I guess at this point we’d consider a motion. Councilman Lundquist: You want them separate or does it matter? Mayor Furlong: We had the public hearing on item A. Well, just in case there’s confusion. Item A was the only item that we were required to have a public hearing on. Since they’re published as B and C, I would certainly open the podium at this time if anybody wants to comment in the form of a public hearing or public comments on item B or C to the council. You can bring them forward at this time as well. Just to be sure everybody has a chance to be heard. Okay, if not then we’ll proceed with the council. If there’s a motion we can either combine or separate. Is there any objection to combining? If not, is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: Would move approval of item 2 A and B as published and C as rd amended for the 3 Addition to reflect current owner Karen Weathers and, I’m sorry, or Yoberry Farms LLC. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve Highcrest ndrd Meadows/Highcrest Meadows 2 & 3 Additions: a. Resolution#2005-58: Vacation of Existing Utility and Drainage Easements. b. Construction Plans & Specifications. rd c. Development Contract as amended for the 3 Addition to reflect the current owner Karen Weathers or Yoberry Farms LLC. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. APPROVAL OF QUIT CLAIM DEED & AGREEMENT FOR THE FORMER WILLIS KLEIN PROPERTY, 8405 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, TH 101 GAP PROJECT 04- 06. Justin Miller: Good evening Mayor and council. In 1996 the City of Chanhassen purchased the single family home at 8405 Great Plains Boulevard. It is the highlighted parcel here on the map. Sorry it’s not a better map but this would be Highway 101 and this is the house right there. The City did purchase that for $107,000 from Willis and Anita Klein and the purpose of that purchase was the future alignment of the highway 101 GAP project. As you know that project is now right around the corner and so MnDot is in the process of acquiring the necessary property. We’ve put together a list of our expenses that the city has had since we purchased this property and it comes out to an estimated $130,944.00. Approximately. We have exchanged this number 10 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 with MnDot. They’re willing to accept this number. We’re willing to accept that as well. This is a public hearing and notice was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the property and notice was put in the Chanhassen Villager so at this time staff would recommend that you open the public hearing and then approve the attached resolution authorizing the Quit Claim Deed and any necessary paperwork that might be needed. I’ll stand for questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Miller. Hearing none, thank you. I’ll open the public hearing at this time and invite all interested parties to come forward and speak on the matter regarding the potential sale of 8405 Great Plains Boulevard. Please come forward to the podium. State your name and address. If nobody’s interested, is there a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Peterson: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Any further questions for staff or discussion on this matter? I guess my comment is I’d like to commend Mr. Gerhardt and his staff, Mr. Miller for working with MnDot and moving this forward. I think this is one of those things that allows us to recover costs and at the same time move an important project forward for our city so appreciate all their efforts. If there’s no further discussion, is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve as published. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Resolution#2005-59: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the resolution authorizing the sale of the property at 8405 Great Plains Boulevard to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the purpose of the Highway 101 GAP project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. RECEIVE REPORT ON SKATE PARK POLICIES. th Mayor Furlong: This is an item that was referred to the Park and Rec Commission on May 24 by the council. I know that they met and at this point I’d ask if there’s a staff report. 11 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 Todd Gerhardt: Justin went to go get Todd Hoffman. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Ken this is why you came to the meeting, right? For the skate park one. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt, do you want to give a start on this while we’re waiting for Mr. Hoffman? Todd Gerhardt: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Here he is. th Todd Hoffman: Apologize. Paul you’re very quick. That’s good. On May 24 the Park and Recreation Commission held a public meeting to discuss the skate park. The purpose of that meeting was to address a resolution that was adopted by the City Council requesting a plan to curb instances of foul language, excessive litter and graffiti at the skate park. That evening we had approximately 20 people that spoke. Resulted in 21 pages of minutes for the discussion, and historically this is the second time around that we’ve had this same conversation about the skate park. A similar conversation occurred in 2001. It was 2 years after the skate park was opened. Staff did spend some time compiling a variety of historical documents relating to the skate park, and again those documents show that we had this same type of conversation 4 years ago. The minutes speak for themselves. I would say in general that the people that attended this meeting were in favor of the skate park. They saw it as a positive facility in that community, but they did acknowledge that because of the high use at the skate park, there is littering that occurs there. And the use of foul language is another issue at the skate park as well. People that spoke also acknowledged that these are issues at other locations throughout the city as well. It’s not just at the skate park that littering and swearing does occur at other locations throughout our park system in our city. The conclusion of the citizen input, the commission members discussed their ideas about improving that environment at the skate park. Resulted in a motion really with four different steps. Commission Dillon moved and Murphy seconded that the Park and Rec Commission recommend that the City Council adopt this four tier proposal, noting that the commission sees the skate park as a significant asset to the community and did not want to see it closed. First, they re-opened the skate park recognizing, or they recommended that we re-open the skate park recognizing that the community has gone through a wake up period. There are expectations of the skate park, just like any other park in our community. And that we would ask for increased community involvement to make sure that the skate park remain a desirable location. I’m pleased to report that since that time it was re-opened on that Tuesday, or Wednesday morning following that meeting, the skate park is much cleaner and can’t quite tell if that’s a group of kids that are cleaning it up on an annual basis, or evening basis, or just the fact that the kids are talking a little bit more. I think generally the kids are talking a little bit more about the fact that we do need to keep the park clean. One instance we, our seasonals typically pick it up every morning and it was a very busy Sunday afternoon and I think on Monday morning I think they picked up a couple of pop bottles so, where before it might have been a couple hundred pop bottles on a Monday morning so that’s a big improvement. Second, if that 12 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 fails, to solicit a formation of a skate park association. You talked to one association tonight that the Chanhassen Athletic Association. This is would be similar to that with both users and parents to monitor the activities at the skate park. Third, if that, the skate park association and the city is seeing that their expectations are not being fulfilled, that they consider a paid staff and potentially a fee at the park to increase the monitoring level even more. And fourth, if all items fail, to close the skate park altogether as a feature in our park system. All our commissioners voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6-0 that evening. I’ll be pleased to answer any questions that the council would have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Hoffman. Questions, no? Okay. Maybe some others as we get into discussion. With that, why don’t we open this up for discussion councilmen. Thoughts, comments. Mr. Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist, you want to start? Councilman Lundquist: As I read through the minutes was one, glad to see that there was a lot of participation. Obviously that was probably expected. You can drive by any nice day and see that it’s a frequently used amenity and I did walk out there tonight on my way in before too and I would agree that you can notice a marked improvement in the cleanliness of it, so that’s a good thing I think. And it’s good to see it now. The concern that I still, or have still on this are ongoing because is this really going to get us where we need to go. Todd as you stated, we did this similar process in 2001 and while there’s, we’ve made it 4 years before it sort of doubled this far up again, this is an item that has sort of been on my radar on the edge for a couple of years and things that we’ve noticed but just never got to this point so, my concern is that are we just going down the same path that we did last time. Last time we had the public meetings. We brought everybody in. Everybody agreed that we’re all going to do a better job and we’re going to play nice and we’re going to pick up after ourselves and I think it’s one of those, as long as it gets attention it’s fine but going forward is that really going to give us what we need. And so I would propose, especially in light of number 3 as a paid staff person, not in favor of doing that. But propose something along the lines of a fee, similar to what happens at the rec center that we can use to provide some other things there such as a surveillance camera or something like that to help safety and security and protect some of that, and also to give us a little more shall we say, 24 hour supervision of what goes on there sometimes because as you know a lot of these things are not necessary occurring when the park is open. Our recent instance of graffiti is not a kid standing out there doing it at 12:00 noon. They’re coming in at night when nobody’s around so again I don’t want to make it cumbersome but you know I think along the lines of a $10.00 fee for residents and something higher than that for non-residents as well to be put towards things like a surveillance camera or other things that might be deemed necessary. Additional trash receptacles or whatever it may be that we get out there, and then that that also gives the deputies some kind of an enforcement tool. Anybody who’s ever ridden the light rail lately, you have the transit police that come on periodically and just ask you for your ticket, so it’s kind of on the honor system which would this be the same kind of thing. You’re on the honor system and if the deputies show up at the park and you don’t have your punch card or your wrist band or whatever it may be that we would deem, that there’s some enforcement there to have your board taken until you can prove that you paid that fee, or you know pay the fee double or something like that so that we help give the deputies some tools to identify the misbehavior and some of the stuff and put a little bit more responsibility around. And recognize that that creates something of a user fee for a park but I think we have things for other precedents like that, mainly the rec center. 13 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 There’s a significant amenity that a lot of people use that we also charge a fee in certain areas in there too so. I wanted to put that out and see what the other three members thought of that and that’s something to give a little more teeth than, I don’t want to come back here 2 years from now or have another council come back here 4 years from now, 6 years from now and say you know, here we go again and you know, are we really going to play nice this time? I don’t want to be put in this spot where we have to do something like close the skate park down because that’s not going to be a popular decision and it’s not, I don’t think it’s the right decision because if they’re not there, they’re going to be somewhere else. Probably in our park outside the library or in our downtown business district or at the bank or the post office or, they’re going to be somewhere. We’re giving people an outlet. We’ve invested a significant amount of resources and it’s highly used. People enjoy it so I don’t want to close it, but there’s got to get it a little bit more under control so I’d like to have something with a little more teeth in it than what we’ve got there now. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts, comments. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I like all of Brian’s comments and I’ve ridden the light rail. It is an honor system down there. I’d love to see the kids in our skate park have some honor and respect for the property over there. 4 years ago when we had this discussion with similar council, I wanted to impose a user fee on the park. Just to get them to pay for future additions and there was some resistance from other people in the council then. I don’t think anybody was here. I don’t know if you were Craig but…daily thing or as an annual pass. I would think it’d be more like an annual pass where they can come up to the City Hall Monday through Friday 8:00 to 5:00 or and get their annual pass and…kids like stickers on the skateboards. What a better place to put a sticker for an annual pass than on your skateboard. Or on their helmet. Somehow they’d have their annual pass there. Surveillance camera you know, in the world of security and looking at all the surveillance tapes, wouldn’t be a bad idea. You could easily put one at the fire station or on city hall here. On a light pole out there at the hockey rink. I’d also like to look at, I was reading the minutes here when Deputy Kittleson was talking about the effect it had out in Waconia. And the fact that Waconia has a 6 block area where they prohibited skateboarding in downtown and if you’re caught skateboarding, the deputies impound the skateboard and…and those kids get their board back. And he also talks more about the problems over at Spalon Montage and Subway prior to the skate park and also there by the Foss Swim School and how the kids have just wrecked the sidewalks over there. The planters. I think the damage caused by the boarders has decreased since the skate park but they’re still over there at times and I’d like to look at, just I’d like to see Waconia’s ordinance and maybe we could do something like that here too. Restrict them from skateboarding down the sidewalks around here. And I agree with Brian, I’m not interested in hiring a paid staff to go over there and monitor the thing. When I pulled up here tonight for the meeting, I saw the deputy walking from the top lot over there checking and talking to some kids and you know, the more interaction with the deputies and unexpected routine visits over there is certainly going to keep the riff raff down. So those are my comments but I’d like, what I’d rather, I liked Brian’s comments. I think we can, I’d like to really take a look at that user fee for the boarders, and let’s not make it a big thing but if they’re going to use the park by gosh, they should pay. And the non-resident versus resident, I think there should be a distinction there also, just like other communities do at their community centers. 14 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: It’s similar to comments that we’ve got back as well on who’s really responsible for the damage. Are those kids that live in the city or kids that come from outside as well, and I think you don’t want to discourage kids from having their friends from other communities come in as well and maybe there’s a, you know a buddy pass thing or you know, I think there’s some things that we can do to help that out as well, but I mean my thoughts were not some astronomical fee. You know $10.00 for a whole year or something like that. I mean it’s just more or less to pay for the cost of the stickers and the 15 minutes it’s going to take for the staff member to you know do the paperwork. Councilman Labatt: Plus it gives us an idea of just who’s using the park. Resident versus non- resident. Councilman Lundquist: Right. Right, and then also gives us again a message for the deputies to walk up and, if they don’t have their pass, then you get your board impounded as well, and then we’ll find out you know as well so. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: I agree with all those points except I’m not sold on the user fee yet. I’d like to hear staff’s comments on how onerous that would be to work through. I don’t want to sit here and dictate we have to do something and all of a sudden it turns into a really onerous thing for staff which really isn’t probable. It’s no different than us putting an ordinance in that we can’t, you know who’s going to enforce it and how are we going to enforce it so, I think it’s interesting but I’d like to certainly hear staff’s perspective of it and how logical it would be and beneficial. It’s an interesting concept. Councilman Labatt: It’d be very similar to the residents coming up here and getting their license for their dog. I mean it’s just a simple, one a form and pay a fee and get their metal tags for their dogs, they get a sticker for their board. Mayor Furlong: Either a reaction now if you want to or. Todd Hoffman: The user fee concept has been talked around. It’s used at some of the skate parks in the metropolitan area. It’s not at others. When the skate park was first opened, the park commission that worked on it at that time felt very strongly that the facility should be a free facility, similar to a ballfield is free or a playground is free. It was a group of kids that were not being provided a facility and they thought simply because it’s a different group of users in the community, why should we charge them and not charge the baseball kids for a user fee for a baseball field, similar type issue. Or argument. I want to make sure that just like we talked about the conversation at the work session, what would we do with the money to improve the situation. What would we do with the money we collect on the signs to improve the ballfields. Is the fee really to improve the situation at the skate park. If we didn’t charge a fee we could put a, we talked about putting a camera there. What’s a camera going to do? You can’t see at night. Those type of things. Who’s going to watch it? If we enforce the fee and that’s a conversation we would have to have with Carver County, I don’t think they’re going to say we’re in charge of managing your fee system. We’re not in charge of checking your stickers and then who would 15 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 be in charge of that? So it brings up a lot of questions. How would we charge it? What do they buy? How do they buy it on weekends? The enforcement issue. There’s probably maybe 1,000 kids or more that would see that skate park on a given year and on any given day many of them are not going to have a pass. Are you going to be kicking kids out? …if they don’t have their pass. They don’t have it with them. I want to make sure that we go into a program which is realistic and is truly…but we’ve gone through this at Lake Ann Park. Lake Ann Park we originally had a charge. It was for a lot of different reasons but in the end the council decided that it wasn’t a valid user fee for the community and they removed the user fee so before we get back into that business on a specific facility, we’d want to do due diligence to make sure we study it and make sure that we can have a program that would generate some revenue for a valid reason and then have it so it can be efficiently managed at the city level. Mayor Furlong: And you raise some good points Mr. Hoffman, and of the 4 steps that were included in the recommendation there was a fee being generated for a certain benefit, and I think I’m with Councilman Peterson in that I’d like to look at that more. I not outwardly opposed to it for valid reasons that Councilman Lundquist and Labatt had mentioned here. I’m open to considering that but in addition to benefits I’d like to know the cost, both in terms of cost to the city and any other intangible costs as well. Ultimately it should be to provide a safer, cleaner park for those that are using it for the intended purpose, and that was one thing that came up clear in the comments made by residents at the Park and Rec Commission is that the vast majority of teenagers, children, even adults that go there and use it, they use it for what it’s intended for. That’s for recreation. Skateboarding recreation. It’s the others that are causing the problems that we’re trying to say you know is there, how do we find a way to mitigate or minimize or eliminate the problems that are being caused there. So it wouldn’t be something that I’d propose that would be onerous on the users by any means but one that would have to provide some benefit in terms of providing cleaner, safer park. And what it might do is provide some tools to the deputies who are enforcing all of our ordinances and, or the CSO’s or whoever enforces our ordinances. To have some teeth so they can do something which I think is what was being mentioned by the deputy at the park and rec commission about the city of Waconia. In that regard too it was mentioned tonight, I’d like to take a look at it but I’d certainly be open to an ordinance restricting the use of skateboards in the downtown area. Certainly within City Center Park, around our library, city hall. Unlike other cities that have restricted the use of skateboards in certain areas, at least we have a place where we can say you can go skate here. And many cities just say you can’t do it here and it was even raised when they asked where can I go. It’s like well I don’t know but you can’t do it here. Well we’ve got a place where they can do it and I think that’s an advantage both for the skateboarders as well as for everybody else. I think we should obviously work with the Chamber, local businesses, if we want to do something like that and make sure that if we do some restrictions on use in a certain part of our town, that we make that restriction as minimal as possible to serve the needs that we’re trying to do, which is safety obviously is a nuisance issue as well as property. Restrict property damage so, overall I was pleased with the attendance at the Park and Rec Commission. It was nice to see that input and recognition I’m very glad to hear Mr. Hoffman that things have improved since the park re- opened so that’s positive. I concur with Councilman Lundquist. I think we need to keep it at that level and human nature being what it is, it will deteriorate if we don’t try to find some better ways to do things. So overall I think it’s a great amenity to our city. For those that use it, I think it’s something that we need to keep. Keep open and enhance from a use standpoint. So I think 16 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 in addition to the items recommended by the commission, and they had a short time period. Short fuse here. 30 days to try to come up with something. I think what they did was good, but there may be, from our discussion tonight as well as other comments that we hear, there may be some other things that we can look at going forward as well. So other thoughts, comments in this? Councilman Labatt: Well I mean just some comments as far as the monitoring or enforcement. You look at the deputies right now are out at Minnewashta Park checking park stickers. Making sure you have your park permit to use the park. So they’re already doing that type of activity and enforcement. And that is something like a user fee and a sticker, many times the deputies…not every time to go over there and check with a simple walk up and walk over to a group and say, hey you guys flip your boards up. Let me see your sticker. Have you got your sticker? Similar to what the transit police do on light rail. They board the transit and they may say walk up to a group of passengers and say let me see your ticket please. And if you don’t have one, it’s $180 fine for a $1.75 ride and not paying your fee, so I mean it’s you know doable. I think if we looked at due diligence and explore, come up with the right program or plan. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I think Councilman Labatt to your point, I don’t think what I’m not hearing up here is hiring skateboard police to patrol that park. The one thing that you brought up in earlier council meetings and work session Councilman Labatt is that sometimes there are tools that if somebody’s called in upon, to have a tool like that. You know if somebody’s causing a problem with a skateboard but they don’t have the license or the user fee to do it, it might give them a tool to manage it so you know I think those are the issues that we need to thoughtfully consider and take a look at. I’m not proposing that we pass anything tonight by any means but some feedback for staff based upon what they received from the commission as well as what we’re hearing tonight as some other things to pursue. And let’s shake it up. Let’s talk about the options. Let’s continue to have the Park and Rec Commission involved in the discussions so that they can be a part of the policy making, but ultimately let’s see if there’s some other things in addition to those that have been recommended already. Councilman Lundquist: Or other ideas just thinking out loud is, if a fee is an issue then let’s allow residents to get them for free. Come in. Sign your name on the paper. Get your sticker and non-residents come in and use a fee. There’s an opportunity that people are coming in and using the amenities that they haven’t paid for or something, you know or so you know, I don’t want everybody to get hung up on a fee. I’m looking for something, somehow, some way where we have the tools to you know let people know that if you’re not you know additional method, if you’re not following the rules, then there’s going to be a consequence for that so. Mayor Furlong: And I think it may be, because obviously it’s going to be clear, it’s going to be a series of actions. There’s no one silver bullet and nothing is full proof either so let’s take a look and see what might be out there. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council, I see us going down kind of two paths here. One, reviewing the permit, sticker approach and the other I think where we were lax over the last 2 years is not really enforcing the last time we had an incident, you know. We saw the garbage collecting and the issues going on there and you know I think the direction now is, if we get to 17 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 that state, you close the skate park down. And I think it had a dramatic impact. They cleaned up their act over there and some people may disagree with me on that but you know there’s a consequence for an action and their action was to do graffiti and leave their garbage lay around, and the action was to close the skate park. Our whole ordinance system is based on penalties and I think it was an effective point. You can see it today and I think it’s something that we have to continue to let them know. I don’t think we need to put cameras to monitor activity in the park. It’s not, if we’ve got issues, you know we send a message by closing it. Our deputies are busy enough to go out and patrol traffic, which you will see is our number one issue in this town, and to think that they need to patrol and see if people got their stickers, I don’t want to see that resource used up for that. Maybe the CSO’s but it’s something that our Park and Rec Commission should take a look at as a second option but I think the key thing there is the penalty is to close it and I think we put periods of times on that and monitor it. I think in the last month or the last 30 days it’s looked pretty nice over there. They did not enjoy that closure time. And it also sent a message to those people outside the community that they had to look elsewhere if they had issue with using the facility and I think some of the trouble came from outside the city. So what my two thoughts are. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other thoughts? Comments. No, okay. Is there any desire for action this evening? I hear continue to look at some items and determine where we want to go. Todd Hoffman: We’ll report back to the council probably towards the end of the summer. Mayor Furlong: Alright, very good. Thank you. Councilman Labatt: Just a real quick thank you to Brian for bringing this up a month ago. It was, it needed to be done. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Good point. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: th Todd Gerhardt: Two items. One, Lifetime moved up their grand opening to July 8. August to th July 8. Lakewinds has started construction on their new grocery store next to Starbucks so if you see some activity in that area, that’s what’s going on there. We also are hosting the 276 Leaders Meeting here Wednesday. Tom and I will be in attendance for that. And that’s all I had. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Gerhardt or staff. No? None. Okay. CORRESPONDENCE PACKET. None. Mayor Furlong: If there’s no other business to come before the council this evening, we will continue the unfinished items under our work session immediately following the meeting. This council meeting in the Fountain Conference Room. Public is always invited. 18 City Council Meeting – June 13, 2005 Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 19