Agenda and Packet
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
/ 360
Agenda and PacketAGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2018 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.5:30 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Note:  Work sessions are open to the public.If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda. 1.2019 Detailed Budget Presentation 2.Mid­Year Key Financial Strategy Update 3.Key Financial Strategy: Chanhassen Railroad Depot Improvements B.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDER C.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Teen Volunteer Recognition D.CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will be considered as one motion.  There will be no separate discussion of these items.  If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.  City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item.  Refer to the council packet for each staff report. 1.Approve of City Council Minutes dated August 13, 2018 2.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated August 7, 2018 3.Receive Park & Recreation Summary Minutes dated July 24, 2018 4.Approve Flood Reduction Grant Agreement for Acquisition of Property at 770 Pioneer Trail 5.Resolution 2018­41: Authorize the City of Chanhassen to participate in the GreenStep Cities program 6.Resolution No. 2018­42: Accept Ads for Bid; Award Contract for the Lake Susan Trail Rehabilitation Project 7.Award of Bid: Audit Services Contract for Fiscal Years 2018­2020 E.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2018CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDA.5:30 P.M. ­ WORK SESSIONNote:  Work sessions are open to the public.If the City Council does not complete the worksession items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regularagenda.1.2019 Detailed Budget Presentation2.Mid­Year Key Financial Strategy Update3.Key Financial Strategy: Chanhassen Railroad Depot ImprovementsB.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDERC.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS1.Teen Volunteer RecognitionD.CONSENT AGENDAAll items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council andwill be considered as one motion.  There will be no separate discussion of these items.  Ifdiscussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and consideredseparately.  City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item.  Refer to thecouncil packet for each staff report.1.Approve of City Council Minutes dated August 13, 20182.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated August 7, 20183.Receive Park & Recreation Summary Minutes dated July 24, 20184.Approve Flood Reduction Grant Agreement for Acquisition of Property at 770 PioneerTrail5.Resolution 2018­41: Authorize the City of Chanhassen to participate in the GreenStepCities program6.Resolution No. 2018­42: Accept Ads for Bid; Award Contract for the Lake Susan TrailRehabilitation Project7.Award of Bid: Audit Services Contract for Fiscal Years 2018­2020 E.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 1.The Garden by the Woods: Proposal for Pollinator Garden on City Property F.FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE 1.Fire Department Update 2.Law Enforcement Update G.OLD BUSINESS H.PUBLIC HEARINGS I.NEW BUSINESS J.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS K.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS L.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION 1.Review of Claims Paid 08­27­2018 M.ADJOURNMENT N.GUIDELINES GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting.  In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council.  That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor.  When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic.  All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City Council. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson that can summarize the issue.  Limit your comments to five minutes.  Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor.  If you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion.  Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion or request. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed.  Personnel concerns should be directed to the City Manager. Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan's, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event.  All members of the public are welcome. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, August 27, 2018 Subject 2019 Detailed Budget Presentation Section 5:30 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.1. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: A­039W 2019 Budget ATTACHMENTS: Detailed Budget PPT Yard Waste Report Staff Report 8­13 Gen Fund Budget Bond Tax Levies Dept Head Wage Survey City of Chanhassen 2019 Budget 2019 Budget LEGISLATIVE 1110 The City Council is responsible for formulating City policy, enacting legislation and overseeing City Administration. Services Provided Legislative, 1110 •Salaries, special meeting reimbursements, travel, and training for the City Council •Chanhassen Connection •Memberships: League of Minnesota Cities, Metro Cities, Minnesota Association of Mayors, Municipal Legislative Commission and SouthWest Transportation Coalition •Publication of ordinances and agendas Legislative -1110 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $46,700 $0 $81,600 $128,300 2018 $44,900 $0 $81,600 $126,500 Percent Change +4.0%0.0%14.0%+1.4% Significant Changes: •Increase in city council wages based on ordinance 601. 2019 Budget ADMINISTRATION 1120 Provides for the administration of the entire City organization including human resources, economic development, contract and records management, coordination of the budget and CIP, and general departmental support. Services Provided/Outcomes Administration, 1120 •Staff: City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Office Manager, Communications Specialist, Administrative Support Specialist, Senior Administrative Support Specialist •Human Resources •Prepare City Council packets •Licensing •Economic Development •Customer and Support Services •City communications –Connection, electronic message center, website, etc. •Postage Administration -1120 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $501,400 $0 $59,500 $560,900 2018 $478,500 $0 $56,600 $535,100 Percent Change +4.8%0.0%+5.1%+4.8% Significant Changes: •Small increase to match actual postage costs. 2019 Budget FINANCE 1130 The finance department is responsible for the management of the City’s financial resources and assets, and performs all accounting functions to measure and preserve those resources. Services Provided/Outcomes Finance, 1130 •Staff: Finance Director, Assistant Finance Director, and two accounting clerks. •The department produces the CAFR (audit), Budget, CIP, and all other long-term financial planning documents •The department manages payroll, utility billing, investments, accounts payable/receivable, and all other accounting and financial reporting functions. Finance -1130 Personal Service Materials Supplies Contractual Services Capital Outlay Total Budget 2019 $332,800 $200 $46,300 $0 $379,300 2018 $308,900 $200 $49,600 $0 $358,700 Percent Change +7.7%0.0%-6.7%0.0%+5.7% Significant Changes: •No significant changes. 2019 Budget LEGAL 1140 Provides for attorney services that advise the City on all questions of law, reviews all ordinances, contracts, and other legal documents of the City, and represents the City in court actions. Services Provided Legal, 1140 •Contract with Campbell Knutson for City Attorney, prosecutorial services, etc. Legal -1140 Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $200,000 $200,000 2018 $190,500 $190,500 Percent Change +5.0%+5.0% Significant Changes: •Increase for additional services provided related to expanded development and other legal reviews. •Offsetting revenue in 2017 of $110,000 (includes all traffic violations and prosecution fees collected) •Prosecution services accounts for approximately $70,000 of the total budget. 2019 Budget PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 1150 Provides for the valuation of residential, commercial and industrial real estate parcels and personal property. Services Provided Property Assessment, 1150 •Contract with Carver and Hennepin Counties Property Assessment, 1150 Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $156,000 $156,000 2018 $150,000 $150,000 Percent Change +4.0%+4.0% Significant Changes: •Small adjustment for increased properties assessed and inflationary contract adjustment. 2019 Budget MIS 1160 Ensures that all City users are provided with the appropriate technology to efficiently perform their job functions. Services Provided/Outcomes MIS, 1160 •Staff: MIS Coordinator/PC Specialist •Acquisition, Service & Support for Network Servers, Printers, and Infrastructure •Acquisition, Service & Support of End User Computers and Devices •Support PC Software Applications, Manage Vendor Software •Acquisition, Service & Support Telecommunications Hardware and Software MIS -1160 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $168,800 $44,700 $46,000 $259,500 2018 $157,900 $30,000 $46,900 $234,800 Percent Change +6.9%+49.0%-1.9%+10.5% Significant Changes: •The increase is primarily due to support cost for hardware that is coming off warranty. These items are the primary storage systems, ($6,300), two production network servers, ($3,400) and a backup appliance ($2,800). 2019 Budget CITY HALL 1170 Provides for the operation of City Hall, including maintenance, office supplies, and liability and property insurance. Services Provided/Outcomes City Hall, 1170 •Staff: Building Maintenance •Cleaning and Waste Removal •Insurance: Auto, Property, General Liability •Office Supplies City Hall -1170 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $95,100 $40,300 $262,000 $397,400 2018 $91,200 $41,600 $281,000 $413,800 Percent Change +4.3%-3.1%-6.8%-4.0% Significant Changes: •Adjustment of some line items to reflect actual costs. 2019 Budget ELECTIONS 1180 Provides for the administration of elections and official records. Services Provided / Outcomes Elections, 1180 •Staff: Election Judges (PT, temporary positions) •The City budgets one-half of election costs each year to avoid budget fluctuations Elections -1180 Significant Changes: •Small increases for expanded absentee voting and wages paid to account for minimum wage increases. Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $26,000 $4,000 $18,000 $48,000 2018 $24,600 $4,000 $14,000 $42,600 Percent Change +5.7%+0.0%+28.6%+12.7% 2019 Budget LIBRARY 1190 Provides for the maintenance and operations of the Chanhassen Library. Services Provided / Outcomes Library, 1190 •Staff: none (provided by Carver County) •City is responsible for: •Cleaning •Waste removal •Utilities •Phones •Building maintenance Library -1190 Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $2,500 $109,100 $111,600 2018 $2,500 $109,100 $111,600 Percent Change 0%0%0% Significant Changes: •No significant changes. 2019 Budget POLICE ADMINISTRATION 1210 Provides for law enforcement services through the contract with the Carver County Sheriff’s Office. Services Provided/Outcomes Police Administration, 1210 •Contract with Carver County Sheriff’s Office to provide Liaison Lieutenant, 3 Sergeants, 1 School Resource Officer, 1 Investigator, and 9 Deputies •Participate in Southwest Metro Drug Task Force Police Administration -1210 Significant Changes: •The crime prevention specialist position is being eliminated from the budget. •No increase in the police contract due to staffing changes in the sheriffs department. Personal Service Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $0 $1,885,800 $1,885,800 2018 $73,900 $1,887,500 $1,961,400 Percent Change -100.0%0%-3.9% 2019 Budget FIRE DEPARTMENT 1220 The mission of the Chanhassen Fire Department is to minimize loss of life and property from fires, natural disasters, and life-threatening situations. Services Provided/Outcomes Fire Department, 1220 •Full Time Staff: Fire Chief, Fire Marshal, and .50 Admin Support •48 Paid on Call Staff: Command Staff, Officers, and Firefighters •Services Provided: •Professional Emergency Response to Chanhassen and other Mutual Aid Partners •Fire Prevention and Education within the community •new and existing commercial business inspections •State mandated inspections of schools •new construction plan reviews •emergency management •non-emergency community events and activities Fire Department -1220 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $788,000 $45,100 $170,400 $1,003,500 2018 $699,100 $45,100 $175,400 $919,600 Percent Change +12.7%0.0%-2.9%+9.1% Significant Changes: •The fire department has seen an increase in call activity. There is also a cost of living increase for on call pay and a small market adjustment in full time wages. 2019 Budget CODE ENFORCEMENT 1250 Provide for the health, safety and welfare of the city through the administration of building and fire codes. Services Provided Code Enforcement, 1250 •Staff: •Building Official •2 Building Inspectors •2 Mechanical Inspectors •3 Support Staff (1 new in 2017) •Responsibilities include plan review; permit issuance; inspections of building, plumbing and mechanical systems; fire sprinklers; alarm systems; and individual sewage treatment systems. •Also responsible for inspections of existing buildings for fire code violations, property maintenance. •Staff support to the city law enforcement and community service staff. •Admin Staff will now also assist with some Crime Prevention duties. Code Enforcement 1250 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $722,600 $6,400 $13,200 $742,200 2018 $698,500 $6,600 $13,000 $718,100 Percent Change +3.5%-3.0%+1.5%+3.4% Significant Changes: •No significant changes. 2019 Budget COMMUNITY SERVICE 1260 Provides animal control, code enforcement, and supports law enforcement. Services Provided/Outcomes Community Service, 1260 •Staff: 2 PT Community Service Officers (30 hrs per week) •Respond to domestic and wild animal calls •Vehicle Lockouts •Assist with traffic direction, stalls, and medical calls •Community Education •Code Enforcement (i.e. Weeds & Grass) Community Service -1260 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $53,700 $1,700 $5,800 $61,200 2018 $58,700 $1,700 $6,000 $66,400 Percent Change -8.5%0.0%-3.3%-7.8% Significant Changes: •No significant changes. 2019 Budget ENGINEERING 1310 Our mission is to provide efficient, centralized, and cost effective municipal engineering services to the citizens, as well as other departments of the City. Furthermore, we intend to be good stewards of public resources in order to enhance the quality of life in the City. Services Provided Engineering , 1310 •Staff: 7 Employees •Significant contracts: Annual bridge inspection and certification, Suburban Rate Authority annual dues, street condition survey and data collection, traffic studies, contract survey work as needed. •The Engineering Department is responsible for: •Design and project management services for roadways, sanitary and storm sewers, storm water management, water distribution mains and other civil engineering projects funded in the City's Capital Improvement Program •Mapping –GIS services used for all departments •Plan review for proposed developments •Pavement management •Traffic complaints •Surface Water Management -protect and improve the water quality of area streams, rivers, lakes and wetlands through proper planning, project implementation, and public education and outreach. •Permits –Approximately 1,200 permits reviewed annually •Variance, Encroachment Agreement & Vacation Requests •Work with other agencies such as MnDOT and Carver County on joint projects Engineering -1310 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $655,400 $800 $26,900 $683,100 2018 $652,500 $1,300 $27,500 $681,300 Percent Change +0.4%-38.5%-2.2%+0.3% Significant Changes: •No significant changes. 2019 Budget STREET MAINTENANCE 1320 The mission of the Street Department is to provide the highest quality public works services to the public and other City departments, balanced through efforts to maintain a cost effective operation and to provide these services in a responsible and efficient manner. This mission is accomplished through the prudent use of resources, technology, innovations, teamwork, and coordination with other service providers. Services Provided Street Maintenance Department 1320 •Staff: 7 Employees •Significant Contracts –Salt joint purchase agreement with MnDOT •Responsibilities of Street Department: •Snow and Ice Control •Pothole Patching and Crack Sealing •Tree Trimming and Mowing Activities •Traffic Sign Installation and Maintenance •Traffic Signal & Street Light Maintenance •Pavement Marking •Pedestrian Trail Sidewalk Repairs •Street Sweeping •Storm Sewer Maintenance •Pond Cleaning Street Department -1320 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $882,800 $113,300 $35,400 $1,031,500 2018 $853,400 $112,600 $30,900 $996,900 Percent Change +3.4%+0.6%+14.6%+3.5% Significant Changes: •No significant changes. 2019 Budget STREET LIGHTING & SIGNALS 1350 To provide for the operation and maintenance of the street lights and signal systems in the community. Services Provided Street Lighting and Signals, 1350 •Staff: Maintenance work completed by Street Department and Electric Utilities. •Significant contracts: •Xcel Energy •Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative Street Lighting & Signals -1350 Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $3,000 $354,500 $357,500 2018 $2,000 $354,500 $356,500 Percent Change +50.0%0.0%+0.3% Significant Changes: •No significant changes. 2019 Budget FLEET DEPARTMENT 1370 Keeps City vehicles and equipment in a good and safe working condition with minimal down time and to work on cost effective replacement of vehicles and equipment. Services Provided Fleet, 1370 •Staff:4 Employees •3 Mechanics •1 Office assistant responsible for entire Public Works, Utility and Park Departments. •Significant contract -Joint fuel contract with MnDOT Fleet Department -1370 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Capital Outlay Total Budget 2019 $323,100 $172,000 $61,800 $5,500 $562,400 2018 $311,400 $177,400 $57,800 $5,500 $552,100 Percent Change +3.8%-3.0%+6.9%0.0%+1.9% Significant Changes: •No significant changes. 2019 Budget PLANNING COMMISSION 1410 The commission conducts public hearings and makes recommendations to the City Council on proposed changes affecting zoning and land uses within the City, considers site plan reviews, conditional use permits, variances, special use permits, and other planning related items. Services Provided Planning Commission, 1410 •7 Member Commission –no salary •Subscription to Planning Commission Journal & Training (Government Training Service) •75% of budget for public hearing notices Planning Commission 1410 Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $200 $1,500 $1,700 2018 $200 $1,500 $1,700 Percent Change 0.0%0.0%0.0% Significant Changes: •No significant changes. 2019 Budget PLANNING ADMINISTRATION 1420 Identify community needs and goals to guide amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The planning staff prepares and maintains the Comprehensive Plan for the City and advises the City Council on matters regarding implementation of the plan. Review development/redevelopment plans for compliance with city ordinance. Services Provided Planning Administration, 1420 •Staff: •Community Development Director, o Senior Planner (2), o Planner II (1) o Senior Administrative Support Specialist •Staff Support to the Planning Commission & City Council •Maintain, Update and Enforce the City Code •Coordinate city statistical data: demographics, permit activity, available land inventory, etc. •Economic Development •Special Studies Planning Administration -1420 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $548,700 $400 $11,300 $560,400 2018 $482,700 $400 $11,300 $494,400 Percent Change +13.7%0.0%0.0%+13.3% Significant Changes: •Wages includes transition of Assistant Planner position to Planner II. 2019 Budget SENIOR COMMISSION 1430 The Senior Commission examines the needs of senior citizens in the community. They review issues such as housing, information and referral services, and transportation. Services Provided Senior Commission, 1430 •Staff: •25% of Senior Planner Salary •7 Member Commission –no salary •Fees for Services provides contract with CAP (Community Action Program) to manage congregate dining program Senior Commission 1430 Personal Service Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $29,500 $11,000 $40,500 2018 $28,600 $9,700 $38,300 Percent Change +3.1%+13.4%+5.7% Significant Changes: •No significant changes. 2019 Budget PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION 1510 The Park & Recreation Commission provides recommendations and advice to the City Council regarding parks, recreation and leisure services. The Commission is comprised of nine members appointed by the City Council for staggered terms. Services Provided/Outcomes Park & Recreation Commission, 1510 •9 Member Commission, no salary •Staff: None (Supported by Park and Recreation Director) •Prepares park and recreation section of comprehensive plan •Subdivision review (Parks/Open Space/Trails) •Advisory capacity to Council in all matters relating to parks and recreation in the City. Park & Recreation Commission -1510 Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $200 $1,000 $1,200 2018 $200 $1,000 $1,200 Percent Change 0.0%0.0%0.0% Significant Changes: •No significant changes. 2019 Budget PARK & RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 1520 The Park & Recreation administration budget manages leisure time activities in the community. This function physically plans and develops parks, open space, trails and indoor recreation facilities. Staff also coordinates programs with school districts, local athletic associations, and other groups. Services Provided/Outcomes Park & Recreation Administration, 1520 •Staff: Park and Recreation Director & Administrative Support/Communications Specialist •Developing a park and open space plan •Encouraging citizen participation •Developing a comprehensive interconnected trail/sidewalk system •Facilitating cooperative efforts between local school systems and the city in acquisition, development and usage of recreational lands and facilities Park & Recreation Administration -1520 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $253,600 $200 $6,000 $259,800 2018 $239,500 $200 $5,900 $245,600 Percent Change +5.9%0.0%+1.7%+5.8% Significant Changes: •No significant changes. 2019 Budget RECREATION CENTER 1530 The Recreation Center provides fitness activities, recreational opportunities and meeting spaces for the community. Year-round indoor and outdoor recreational programs are offered. The facility was constructed under a joint powers agreement with ISD 112 and is operated through a lease agreement with the District. Services Provided/Outcomes Recreation Center, 1530 •Staff: 1 Recreation Center Manager, 10 Facility Supervisors, 1 Dance Coordinator, and 1 Dance Instructor •Fitness and recreational programs for community members of all ages •Community events •Facility rental space •Activity space for local school, city, county, and state governments provided at no charge. In 2016, we provided 4,400 hours of free space, valued at $83,000, for these agencies Recreation Center -1530 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $234,100 $17,700 $95,900 $347,700 2018 $229,400 $23,000 $93,800 $346,200 Percent Change +2.0%-23.0%+2.2%+0.4% Significant Changes: •No significant changes. 2019 Budget LAKE ANN OPERATIONS 1540 This department provides for the operations at Lake Ann Park. Revenues, which offsets 40% of expenses, include facility rental, watercraft and equipment rental, and concession fees. Services Provided/Outcomes Lake Ann Park Operations, 1540 •Staff: 4 Seasonal concession stand employees •Beach season runs from June-August •Accounts for concession food sales and watercraft rentals •Lifeguards monitor 25,000 swimmers during lifeguard hours •Lake Ann Park is the most visited and widely recognized park in the city Lake Ann Park Operations -1540 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $12,000 $9,200 $47,600 $68,800 2018 $12,200 $9,200 $49,100 $70,500 Percent Change -1.6%0.0%-3.1%-2.4% Significant Changes: •No significant changes. 2019 Budget PARK MAINTENANCE 1550 Maintains and cares for City park and open space sites, play equipment, athletic facilities, and trails. Also responsible for landscaping maintenance of the downtown business district including City Center Park, Old Village Hall, Train Depot, boulevards, lighting, banners, and related items. Services Provided/Outcomes Park Maintenance, 1550 •Staff:7 full time & 16 seasonal park maintenance employees •Maintenance of 30 parks, 14 preserves, 104 miles of trails, 48 athletic fields, 15 tennis courts, 10 pickle ball courts, skate park and the downtown greenscapes •Landscaping maintenance for 2 fire stations, City Hall, Library, Old Village Hall and Train Depot Park Maintenance -1550 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $860,000 $80,800 $101,800 $1,041,600 2018 $848,400 $80,800 $101,100 $1,030,300 Percent Change +1.4%0.0%-0.3%+1.1% Significant Changes: •No significant changes. 2019 Budget SENIOR CENTER 1560 The Senior Center budget plans and implements a variety of year-round programs, special events, monthly one-day tours, and health and wellness activities for older adults. The Center provides a welcoming setting which improves the quality of life and use of leisure time for all seniors. Programs and activities are funded through a combination of fees, property tax levy, and community partnerships. Services Provided/Outcomes Senior Citizens Center, 1560 •Staff: Senior Center Coordinator in addition to 100+ volunteer hours per month •Maintains a strong and respected reputation for providing quality senior services •Relevant and affordable programs are offered •Friendly and welcoming environment •Networked with other local service providers •Valued partnerships are formed with local business community Senior Citizens Center -1560 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $86,200 $4,300 $32,700 $123,200 2018 $80,100 $4,300 $29,700 $114,100 Percent Change +7.6%0.0%+10.1%+8.0% Significant Changes: •Increase in contractual services for increased demand in programming 2019 Budget RECREATION PROGRAMS 1600 To provide a year-round recreational program that reflects a variety of interests in the community and develops a social, physical, cultural, and aesthetic quality for our citizens. These programs are funded by a combination of fees, property tax levy, and a community sponsorship program. Services Provided/Outcomes Recreation Programs, 1600 •Staff: Recreation Superintendent, Recreation Supervisor, 27 Seasonal Positions •Adaptive recreation services •Plan and host special events and recreation programs •Summer playground program, summer concert series, warming houses, and skate park attendant Recreation Programs -1600 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $236,860 $22,100 $120,500 $376,960 2018 $214,900 $21,100 $116,100 $352,100 Percent Change +9.0%+5.2%+3.8%+7.1% Significant Changes: •Wage allocation between Self Supporting programs and Recreation Programs adjusted to reflect actual time spent on the programs in each department. Net impact to the General Fund is zero. 2019 Budget SELF-SUPPORTING PROGRAMS 1700 This department funds adult programs, crafts and instructional classes that cover all costs from fee revenue. New programs may be started from this budget and not recover all costs in their first years. Activities are expected to become self-sufficient in following years and are evaluated annually. Services Provided/Outcomes Self Supporting Programs, 1700 •Staff: Program instructors and softball umpires •Adult sporting leagues •Assist other departments with programs; i.e., Safety Camp, Pinky Swear 5K & Fun Run, Homecoming Parade •Children’s enrichment programs •Variety of sporting lessons and camps Self Supporting Programs 1700 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Total Budget 2019 $19,900 $4,500 $12,500 $36,900 2018 $36,300 $4,500 $15,000 $55,800 Percent Change -45.2%0.0%-16.7%-33.9% Significant Changes: •Wage allocation between Self Supporting programs and Recreation Programs adjusted to reflect actual time spent on the programs in each department. Net impact to the General Fund is zero. 2019 Budget RECREATION SPORTS 1800 Recreation Sports provides preschool and school-age children safe, educational, and healthy experience in sports where recreation and fun are emphasized. Services Provided / Outcomes Rec Center Sports, 1800 •Staff: 1 PT Coordinator and 5 Youth Sports Leaders •A variety of preschool sports and after-school sports for elementary-age children •Increased customer service and program quality over previously offered contracted services Recreation Sports -1800 Personal Service Materials & Supplies Total Budget 2019 $30,400 $8,200 $38,600 2018 $29,300 $8,200 $37,500 Percent Change +3.8%0.0%+2.9% Significant Changes: •No significant changes. Potential Service Level/Levy Reduction Ideas •Most Likely a reduction in Healthcare Costs based on upcoming bids. Result –No impact on services.$40,000 •Reduction in Audit Services Contract. Result –No impact on services.$4,000 •Reduction in Sealcoat Levy, total levy is $93,000. Result –The reduction in this levy would need to be replaced by using other funds such as MSA funding or Franchise Fee dollars. $36,000 TOTAL :$76,000 2019 Budget THANK YOU! MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist DATE: August 2018 SUBJ: Staff Report – Chanhassen Yard Waste Collection Options BACKGROUND The City of Chanhassen has long had a history of managing yard waste for residents. In the 1980’s the city would do curbside pick up throughout the city in the spring and fall. In 1991, the city opened a yard waste site in what is now Bandimere Park. Every Saturday, Chanhassen residents could bring yard waste to the site which was open on Saturdays, 9a – 3p, from April until November. Around 2000, the Bandimere compost site closed for park expansion. The city then offered spring and fall brush collection days. These collection days took place in the front parking lot of Lake Ann Park on one Saturday in the spring and fall. In 2002, the last year of collection, the cost to the city was $10,000 for the two days. In 2003, the Carver County Environmental Center opened. This became the new yard waste collection site and has continued to be such for 15 years. Over time, the Center justly became a popular drop off site for yard waste from Chanhassen residents. In 2015, the county began to search for an alternative site for yard waste drop off due to an increase in traffic at the Center. In 2018, the county proposed to the Board of Commissioners a partnership with the UMN Landscape Arboretum for a yard waste drop off site located on Arboretum property. Neighbors to the site strongly opposed the location and in the spring of 2018, the Carver County Board of Commissioners voted to not pursue an alternate location and not accept yard waste at the Environmental Center beginning in January 2019. The City of Chanhassen had assisted the county in their search for suitable yard waste sites. Throughout the two-year search, the city had found no suitable parcels within Chanhassen for the relocation. Possible sites were too small, in residential neighborhoods, and/or lacked good access and traffic stacking capabilities. The city simply does not have public property that is appropriate for a community yard waste site. However, starting in 2019 the city will be forced to confront the yard waste issue. City Council Chanhassen Yard Waste Collection Options August 2018 Page 2 of 6 Other cities in Carver County offer yard waste collection in addition to their residents being able to access the Environmental Center until 2019. See Attachment A for the city list and details. City staff have been in discussions internally concerning various options for yard waste disposal within the city. This report will present all options available. ISSUE Starting January 2019, Chanhassen residents will no longer be able to drop off yard waste and brush at the Carver County Environmental Center. SUMMARY The city has assisted residents in managing yard waste from their properties since the 1980s. With the elimination of yard waste collection at the Carver County Environmental Center, Chanhassen residents will be looking for alternatives. The Carver County Board of Commissioners noted in their April 3 vote to end yard waste collection at the Center and that residents preferred a private sector option. From the county board meeting minutes, this preference was not voiced by any Chanhassen residents. The city now has to decide what options will be available to Chanhassen residents for yard waste in 2019. The options available include: • Residents contract with their private haulers for yard waste collection and/or haul it to drop-off sites in Minnetrista, Watertown or Shakopee. See Attachment B • The city contracts with a single hauler to do curbside collection of yard waste. • The city offers yard waste collection days at a specific location on specific days. • The city operates a yard waste collection site open multiple days throughout the season. ANALYSIS Option 1: Private haulers and compost sites Chanhassen residents are required to properly dispose of all waste, including yard waste. Homeowners can compost yard waste on their property, contract with their private hauler for yard waste disposal, or take the waste to a composting facility. The nearest facilities are in Shakopee, Minnetrista or Watertown. The cost for drop off varies by site. Homeowners can use this option as needed and with any amount and size of brush. The disadvantages include cost and time of driving to site, labor of loading and unloading, limited hours and days of operation at the sites. Contracting for yard waste collection through a private hauler is available from every hauler servicing Chanhassen. Collection is weekly and is limited to one container and/or a certain number of bags and bundles. The average cost per season for yard waste collection is around $100 per household and the season runs from the beginning of April through Thanksgiving City Council Chanhassen Yard Waste Collection Options August 2018 Page 3 of 6 week. Extra bags or bundles are charged back to the homeowner per item. This option is very convenient, involving no extra loading time or transportation, the waste is taken away weekly, and for a price, homeowners can set out as much waste as they would like. Disadvantages include the cost of service, limited sizes of brush, and space needed for another waste container on the property. Option 2: City contracts with private hauler for city-wide yard waste collection The city could send out an RFP to contract directly with a hauler to collect yard waste throughout the city during the growing season. Residents would have a weekly collection that would run April through October, or whatever months designated by the city. While a number of cities contract with haulers for recycling and organics collection, staff couldn’t find any city in the metro that contracts specifically for yard waste. This doesn’t mean it can’t be done. This option would provide the most convenience for residents, avoid all site improvement costs at the Public Works facility, and not require any daily ongoing staffing costs and issues. Disadvantages include contract negotiations and oversight of the contractor. The RFP could also include recycling collection which would help consolidate services, reduce truck traffic in neighborhoods and allow residents to continue to choose solid waste contractors on their own. Option 3: Spring and Fall Yard Waste Collection In the early 2000’s the city offered Yard Waste Collection Days in the spring and fall for residents. On one Saturday in April and October, residents could drop off unlimited amounts of yard waste at no charge. The city contracted with a hauler to supply roll offs which would be filled during the event. Three city employees, two paid overtime and one salaried, worked the event, directing traffic and managing the waste. The cost for hauling the yard waste to a disposal site was $10,000 in 2002. The city could offer this option again choosing 1 or more days in the spring and fall during which residents could drop off waste for collection. This option would limit the cost of site improvements since only a parking lot would be needed as a temporary site for 2 or more days a year. Hauling costs and employee costs would still accrue, but only for the few days. A minimum of two employees would be required to direct traffic, check residency, manage waste, etc. Costs for spring and fall yard waste collection: Item Cost ESTIMATE Per Daily Event Employee – fulltime, benefitted, overtime $366.16 - $594.88 (Average $480.48) Employee – seasonal, non-benefitted $214.24 Hauling - $9.50/cu yd – 400 cu yd $3800 ESTIMATED Total per event $4,494.72 The quantity dropped off at such an event may be significantly underestimated. City Council Chanhassen Yard Waste Collection Options August 2018 Page 4 of 6 For comparison, the City of Chaska has spent approximately $15,000 - $17,000 per event when hosting. Option 4: City operated permanent yard waste site at the Public Works facility This option would provide residents with a convenient disposal option for yard waste by potentially offering more hours of operation than spring and fall collection days, a closer location than the County Environmental Center and little or no fees for drop-offs. The site is centrally located within Chanhassen at the Public Works facility. There would be no impact on any residential neighborhoods since the site is in an industrial area. Traffic issues from stacking would not affect any major roadways. Disadvantages of this option include the cost of site improvements, increase in costs for employee staffing, elimination of snow storage area at public works, wear and tear on site pavement, and elimination of storage areas for dumpsters, mulch, soil, backfill and spoils. Reconfiguration of the site would make operations more difficult for city staff by reducing the usable area for daily work and storage. To modify the city Public Works (PW) site to accommodate a permanent yard waste collection operation the following items would need to be addressed: • The best and only location on the PW site for yard waste collection is near the front of the site as shown in Attachment B. This area is currently being used to store soil, backfill, spoils and other incidentals that don’t have dedicated storage elsewhere on site. This location would provide better safety for city employees if drop-off hours are concurrent with work hours, reduce the number of non-city vehicles in the PW site and provide better security for the site. • A minimum of two employees would be required to direct traffic, check residency, manage waste, etc. • Site improvements that would need to be made to accommodate a permanent yard waste site include: o Removing stored piles from area o Reconfiguring storage bunkers in rear to accommodate more materials o Improving the surface of the proposed yard waste area o Removing sections of berm to create flow-through traffic access to yard waste site o Building walls around the yard waste area to keep materials on site, assist with mechanical collection of yard waste, and buffer views. o Installing a security gate to eliminate afterhours access by the public into the site o Installing a security camera o Additionally, a gate house of some sort may be needed to accommodate staff checking residency of customers and collecting any fees. City Council Chanhassen Yard Waste Collection Options August 2018 Page 5 of 6 The costs of site improvements are as follows: Item Cost Storage bunkers – remove, replace, build walls to relocate storage $50,795.00 Yard waste area site improvements – class 5 gravel, block walls $14,559.75 Security gate $20,620.00 Power to gate $3,230.00 Security cameras and card reader $16,045.00 Power to cameras and card reader ESTIMATE $2,000.00 TOTAL $107,249.75 The quotes for site improvement costs are Attachment C. The yard waste site would potentially be open every Saturday from April to November. Possible hours would be 8a – 4p to accommodate residents and allow for a pacing of customers. Additional hours on a weekday evening could be added to provide residents added convenience. Potentially, these hours would be Noon-7p to accommodate those going to evening work or activities as well as those returning home from work. Employee needs for the site would range from 1-2 staff per event. The busiest spring and fall days would require 2 employees to ensure traffic safety and site management. At every event, one employee with the ability to operate a bobcat would be required. Since the event would happen on Saturdays and evenings, overtime rates would be required for staff. Employee costs for a public works staff to work the site would include the overtime hourly rate, PERA, SS/Medicare, HCSP Contribution and Workers Comp. A seasonal employee cost would include an hourly rate, SS/Medicare and Workers Comp. Operational costs for yard waste site: Item Cost ESTIMATE Employee – fulltime, benefitted, overtime – high end of pay scale $74.36 per hour Employee – fulltime, benefitted, overtime – low end of pay scale $45.77 per hour Employee – fulltime, benefitted, overtime AVERAGE $60.06 per hour Employee – seasonal, non-benefitted $26.78 per hour Yard waste hauling - $9.50/cu yd – minimum 80 cu yds $760.00 minimum haul cost City Council Chanhassen Yard Waste Collection Options August 2018 Page 6 of 6 ESTIMATED TOTAL PER WEEK –– MINIMUM COSTS Item Cost Per Event Sat (8a-4p) only – 8 hrs Cost Per Year (35 weeks/280 hrs) Employee – high rate ($594.88) + 160cy hauling $2,114.88 per event $74,020.80 annually Employee – low rate ($366.16) + 160 cy hauling $1,886.16 per event $66,015.60 annually Employee – average ($480.48) + 160 cy hauling $2,000.48 per event $70,016.80 annually Seasonal ($214.24) + hauling $1,734.24 per event $60,698.40 annually Employee - average + Seasonal +hauling $2,214.72 per event $77,515.20 annually ESTIMATED TOTAL PER WEEK –– MINIMUM COSTS Item Cost Per Week Sat & Wkday (12-7p) – 15 hrs Cost Per Year (35 weeks/525 hours) Employee – high rate ($1,115.40) + 160cy hauling $2,635.40 per event $92,239.00 annually Employee – low rate ($686.55) + hauling $2,206.55 per event $77,229.25 annually Employee – average ($900.90) + 160 cy hauling $2,420.90 per event $84,731.50 annually Seasonal ($401.70) + hauling $1,921.70 per event $67,259.50 annually Employee average + Seasonal +hauling $2,822,60 per event $98,791.00 annually RECOMMENDATION Staff looks to the City Council for direction on the preferred option for the city. ATTACHMENTS A) Yard Waste Collection in neighboring communities B) Nearby Private Compost Sites C) Public Works Site Improvement Quotes D) Diagrams of Site Improvement at Public Works G:/Plan/JS/Recycling/County Compost Site/Yard Waste Site MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Greg Sticha, Finance Director DATE: August 13, 2018 SUBJ: 2019 Budget Discussion BACKGROUND During this evening’s 2019 budget discussion, staff will present three different scenarios for setting the preliminary levy. Items that will be reviewed include the assumptions made while preparing the budget document, the impact of each scenario on the average home, and staff’s recommendation for setting the preliminary levy. Attached is the budget document that will be used to present tonight’s discussion and the detailed PowerPoint presentations. The preliminary levy will be set on September 24, 2018. BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS Staff has prepared the preliminary budget based on the following assumptions: 1. A wage increase for employees in 2019 of 3%, which will include a merit-based portion. 2. Market Adjustments for department heads, additional 2%-5% 3. Building permit revenue $100,000 larger than previous years. 4. An increase in healthcare costs of 18%. 5. No increase in the Law enforcement contract. 6. New growth of 0.97% ($106,000) 7. Elimination of the Crime Prevention Specialist position from the budget ($73,000) For 2019, staff is including a health insurance cost increase of 18% ($106,000). This is the second year of a two-year contract for healthcare insurance with Blue Cross Blue Shield. The current contract includes a rate cap increase at 18%. It is possible for the city to get a rate increase below 18% due to our experience rating or competitive outside bids, which we are currently soliciting. Final healthcare numbers are not expected to be available until mid- September. Mayor & City Council August 14, 2017 Page 2 Additionally, the city experienced a 0.97% increase in new construction. This results in approximately $106,000 in new property tax dollars payable in 2019. Staff did include an increase of $100,000 in building permit revenue. Staff believes the new base building permit revenue year to be closer to $1M rather than the $900,000 that the city has used for the past several years. The law enforcement contract for 2019 does not have an increase over the 2018 contract. The lack of increase is due to the fact that some of the officers assigned to Chanhassen in 2019 are newer to Carver County, and therefore lower in their pay ranges than the previous, more tenured staff. All staffing levels and equipment maintenance schedules will remain the same, so there is no anticipated decrease in the current service levels. Staff did include wage increases of 3% for all employee’s and also included market adjustments for department head positions. A department head salary survey was completed of all of our KFS cities and regional competitor cities. Based on that data from the survey we found our department heads are paid 1.95% more than average of our KFS cities and are paid nearly 13% lower than our competitor cities. Within the current budget we have included a 5% market rate adjustment in additional to the cost of living adjustment (3%) to get those positions at or near the top of our KFS cities and around only 8% lower than the average of our competitor cities. The Crime Prevention Specialist position has been vacant for over a year and staff has proposed eliminating the position from the budget for 2019. The duties of the position have been accomplished in most part by the CSO positions and with administration picking up some of the other small duties. Staff believes that at least for the immediate future, the duties can be managed in a similar manner but should be monitored on an ongoing basis. The result of all these calculations, along with a detailed review of all line items and anticipated changes in the General Fund Budget, results in a levy of $76,000 above new growth. SCENARIOS Consistent with prior year’s preliminary budget adoptions, staff is presenting three scenarios for city council to consider when setting the preliminary levy. When discussing the following scenarios it is important to note that the average home in Chanhassen increased in value by 7.52% for budget year 2019. As always, the value of individual homes compared to the average home will dictate the final outcome of individual property tax bills. Scenario #1: This scenario includes an increase in the total levy from the previous year of $182,000 or 1.67%. Included in that amount is $106,000 in new property tax dollars thus resulting in a .69% or $6-$7 increase in the city portion of the property tax bill for the average home in the city ($76,000 above new growth). Mayor & City Council August 14, 2017 Page 3 This scenario includes wage increases for employees of 3% and market adjustments for department head positions, elimination of the crime prevention specialist position, an increase in total building permit revenue budget of $100,000, a possible 18% ($106,000) for the increase to the healthcare contract, and other small adjustments to various line items (both decreases and increases). Scenario #2: This scenario includes an increase in the total levy of $106,000 or 0.97%, the result of this scenario is a zero percent increase in the city portion of the property tax bill on the average home in the city (new growth). This scenario includes wage increases for employees of 3% and market adjustments for department head positions, elimination of the crime prevention specialist position, an increase in total building permit revenue budget of $100,000, a possible 18% ($106,000) for the increase to the healthcare contract, and other small adjustments to various line items (both decreases and increases). In order to achieve this levy, either a combination of the healthcare contract increase would need to come in lower than 18%, reduction in other expenses, or increased budgeted revenues would need to amount to $76,000 as compared to scenario #1. Scenario #3: The third scenario includes an increase in the total levy of $56,000 or 0.51% higher from the previous year. Included in that amount is $106,000 in new property tax dollars thus resulting in a 0.51% or $5-$7 decrease in the city portion of the property tax bill on the average home in the city ($50,000 below new growth). This scenario includes wage increases for employees of 3% and market adjustments for department head positions, elimination of the crime prevention specialist position, an increase in total building permit revenue budget of $100,000, a possible 18% ($106,000) for the increase to the healthcare contract, and other small adjustments to various line items (both decreases and increases). In order to achieve this levy, either a combination of the Healthcare contract increase would need to come in lower than 18%, reduction in other expenses or increased budgeted revenues would need to amount to $126,000 as compared to scenario #1. YARD WASTE COLLECTION SITE As city council may be aware, Carver County has made the decision to close their yard waste collection site for residents within the county. If the City Council would like to offer this service to Chanhassen residents staff has begun researching one-time costs as well as ongoing operating costs for a potential site at the Public Works Facility. You will find attached a memo prepared by the city’s Environmental Resource Specialist that goes into more detail of total costs and options to either provide or not provide this service going forward. Mayor & City Council August 14, 2017 Page 4 If the city council would like to pursue this service, staff is recommending a special revenue fund be set up to account for all the activity both revenue and expenditure line items to allow for the most transparency. The revenues could include grants, a small fee for service and a small property tax levy depending on the availability of grants and how much of a service fee would be charged for those dropping off yard waste. Based on the options presented in the memo drafted by the Environmental Resources Specialist, the annual operating expenditures would include fees for disposal, wages to man the drop off site and some potential small ongoing security and other costs. Staff is estimating the total operating cost based on manned operating hours of 280/year (Saturday only drop off) to 525/year (Saturday & 1 weekday7 hours), to be between $60,000/year to as much as $150,000/year, depending on the option/service level selected. Currently the county funds the city with a solid waste grant of $17,000/year. It is possible the county could decide to the allocation of additional resources because of the elimination of their yard waste collection site, but because of this unknown, there is a potential of a unfunded portion of this service to be between $43,000-$135,000 per year. It is important to note that if the current solid waste grant funds were to be utilized for this service it would mean no availability of funds for recycling coupons and other public recycling and composting services being offered to residents currently. Therefore, a service disposal fee or property tax levy would need to be instituted to account for as much as $150,000 per year, depending on the option/service level for yard waste, recycling and public composting services the city council desires to provide. This item is currently not included in any of the budget assumptions previously discussed and staff is looking for direction from the city council on how to proceed with this item. Staff will also be bringing with it to this evenings meeting information on potential private collection costs for individual residential yard waste collection by local refuse companies. RECOMMENDATION Based on all the information presented above, staff believes setting a preliminary levy as described in Scenario #1 would give the most flexibility before setting a final levy in December. Staff has researched all estimated costs and revenues to the fullest extent possible at this point in the year; however, a number of factors could either adversely or positively impact the budget between now and December. The unknown of the change in the healthcare insurance contract has the most significant impact on the budget. Since the final levy can only go down from the preliminary levy, staff believes setting a levy lower than Scenario #1 would not give the city as much flexibility to recover from any potential adverse factors that could impact the budget. NEXT STEP No action is required on this item. The next budget discussion will occur when department heads present their proposed 2019 budgets by department. Their presentations will be based on Scenario #1 and will highlight any significant changes in their departments. ATTACHMENTS Mayor & City Council August 14, 2017 Page 5 1. Levy Impact Scenarios. 2. Detailed General Fund Expenditure & Revenue Budget. 3. Carver County Assessor’s Office – Chanhassen Assessment Summary. 4. Debt Levies. 5. KFS & Regional Department Head Salary Survey 6. Environmental Resource Specialist Memo f:\gregs\budget\2018 budget\8-14 prelim bud discussion.docx 2018 2019 % Change Operational & Capital Levies General Fund 8,704,333$ Capital Replacement 800,000 Revolving Imp Street Reconstruction 384,838 MSA (Sealcoating) 93,000 Total Operational & Capital Levies 9,982,171$ -$ -100.00% Debt Levies Public Works Facility 470,400 Library Referendum 461,297 Total Debt Levies 931,697$ -$ -100.00% Total All Levies 10,913,868$ -$ -100.00% 2019 Tax Levy Personal Materials Contractual Capital 2019 2018 %2017 Services & Supplies Services Outlay Total Total Change Actual General Government 1110 Legislative 46,700 - 81,600 - 128,300 126,500 1.42%122,613 1120 Administration 501,400 - 59,500 - 560,900 535,100 4.82%522,872 1130 Finance 332,800 200 42,300 - 375,300 358,700 4.63%339,100 1140 Legal - - 200,000 - 200,000 190,500 4.99%198,417 1150 Property Assessment - - 156,000 - 156,000 150,000 4.00%146,422 1160 MIS 168,800 44,700 46,000 - 259,500 234,800 10.52%223,613 1170 City Hall 95,100 40,300 262,000 - 397,400 413,800 -3.96%390,266 1180 Elections 26,000 4,000 18,000 - 48,000 42,600 12.68%- 1190 Library Building - 2,500 109,100 - 111,600 111,600 0.00%109,165 *Total 1,170,800 91,700 974,500 - 2,237,000 2,163,600 3.39%2,052,467 Law Enforcement 1210 Police Administration - 1,000 1,884,800 - 1,885,800 1,961,400 -3.85%1,804,236 1220 Fire Prevention & Admin 788,000 45,100 170,400 - 1,003,500 919,600 9.12%895,087 1250 Code Enforcement 722,600 6,400 13,200 - 742,200 718,100 3.36%736,784 1260 Community Service 53,700 1,700 5,800 - 61,200 66,400 -7.83%48,665 *Total 1,564,300 54,200 2,074,200 - 3,692,700 3,665,500 0.74%3,484,772 Public Works 1310 Engineering 655,400 800 26,900 - 683,100 681,300 0.26%658,709 1320 Street Maintenance 882,800 113,300 35,400 - 1,031,500 996,900 3.47%931,096 1350 Street Lighting & Signals - 3,000 354,500 - 357,500 356,500 0.28%359,197 1370 Fleet Department 323,100 172,000 61,800 5,500 562,400 552,100 1.87%518,808 *Total 1,861,300 289,100 478,600 5,500 2,634,500 2,586,800 1.84%2,467,810 Community Development 1410 Planning Commission - 200 1,500 - 1,700 1,700 0.00%1,338 1420 Planning Administration 548,700 400 11,300 - 560,400 494,400 13.35%496,230 1430 Senior Commission 29,500 - 11,000 - 40,500 38,300 5.74%43,254 *Total 578,200 600 23,800 - 602,600 534,400 12.76%540,823 Park & Recreation 1510 Park & Rec Commission - 200 1,000 - 1,200 1,200 0.00%175 1520 Park & Rec Administration 253,600 200 6,000 - 259,800 245,600 5.78%233,149 1530 Recreation Center 234,100 17,700 95,900 - 347,700 346,200 0.43%312,419 1540 Lake Ann Park Operations 12,000 9,200 47,600 - 68,800 70,500 -2.41%67,573 1550 Park Maintenance 860,000 80,800 100,800 - 1,041,600 1,030,300 1.10%1,041,692 1560 Senior Citizens Center 86,200 4,300 32,700 - 123,200 114,100 7.98%117,940 1600 Recreation Programs 234,260 22,200 120,500 - 376,960 352,100 7.06%353,384 1700 Self-Supporting Programs 19,900 4,500 12,500 - 36,900 55,800 -33.87%50,614 1800 Recreation Sports 30,400 7,900 300 - 38,600 37,500 2.93%35,258 *Total 1,730,460 147,000 417,300 - 2,294,760 2,253,300 1.84%2,212,203 Total Operational Expenditures 6,905,060 582,600 3,968,400 5,500 11,461,560 11,203,600 2.30%10,758,075 Transfer for Roads - - - - **Total General Fund 11,461,560 11,203,600 2.30%10,758,075 Dollar Change from Previous Year 257,960 2019 General Fund Budget Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 Inc Over 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget PY Budget Estimate General Property Tax 3010 Current Property Tax 8,000,093 8,475,905 8,704,333 8,810,333 1.2% 3002 Allowance for Delinquent Taxes (39,158) (75,108) (40,000) (55,000) 3011 Delinquent Property Tax 34,408 7,050 45,000 25,000 3090 Excess TIF Taxes 33,069 86,633 - - *Total General Property Tax 8,028,411 8,494,480 8,709,333 8,780,333 0.8%- Licenses 3203 Dog Kennel 500 250 500 500 500 3206 Massage License 600 150 800 500 500 3213 Solicitor - - - - - 3226 Liquor On and Off Sale 92,221 92,018 93,000 93,000 93,000 3284 Rubbish 2,400 3,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 *Total Licenses 95,721 95,418 97,800 97,500 -0.3%97,500 Permits 3301 Building 524,996 518,620 500,000 500,000 500,000 3302 Plan Check 252,621 253,777 235,000 235,000 235,000 3305 Heating & A/C 114,854 172,701 82,800 82,800 82,800 3306 Plumbing 92,927 97,615 65,000 65,000 65,000 3307 Trenching 40,641 55,066 30,000 30,000 30,000 3308 Hunting/Shooting 940 840 1,400 1,400 1,400 3309 Sprinkler 8,335 11,074 11,000 11,000 11,000 3311 Sign 8,590 4,015 6,500 6,500 6,500 3316 Septic Tank 1,560 - - - - 3320 Stable 200 200 300 300 300 3331 Firework's Application Fee 200 200 - - - 3390 Misc. Permits 3,410 5,525 3,000 3,000 3,000 *Total Permits 1,049,275 1,119,633 935,000 935,000 0.0%935,000 Fines & Penalties 3401 Traffic & Ordinance Violation 113,232 126,636 115,000 120,000 120,000 3402 Vehicle Lockouts 692 950 1,000 1,000 1,000 3404 Dog/Cat Impound 427 808 - 500 500 3405 Other Fines and Penalties 16 - - - - *Total Fines & Penalties 114,368 128,394 116,000 121,500 4.7%121,500 Intergovernmental Revenue 3503 Reimbursement from School Dist.47,056 49,407 47,000 50,000 50,000 3509 Other Shared Taxes 196,298 196,021 200,000 200,000 200,000 3510 Grants-State 162,175 163,912 162,000 162,000 162,000 3530 Grants-Federal - - - - - 3533 Grants-Other 692 6,291 - - - *Total Intergovernmental Revenue 406,222 415,632 409,000 412,000 0.7%412,000 2019 General Fund Budget Revenue 2016 2017 2018 2019 Inc Over 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget PY Budget Estimate Charges for Current Services 3601 Sale of Documents 863 950 500 800 800 3602 Use & Variance Permits 13,309 21,533 20,000 20,000 20,000 3603 Rezoning Fees 2,700 1,750 2,000 2,000 2,000 3604 Assessment Searches 15 - 300 - - 3605 Plat Recording Fees 1,650 2,290 4,000 4,000 4,000 3607 Election Filing Fees - - - - - 3613 Misc.-General Government 2,892 5,616 5,000 5,000 5,000 3614 Admin. Charge-2% Constr.56,079 52,225 55,000 55,000 55,000 3617 Engineering General 125 - - - - 3619 Investment Management Fee 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 3629 Misc.-Public Safety 9,465 9,971 10,000 10,000 10,000 3630 Recreation Program Fees 52,417 59,520 52,000 58,000 56,000 3631 Recreation Center 218,732 217,077 218,000 217,000 218,000 3633 Park Equipment Rental 57 93 300 100 100 3634 Park Facility Usage Fee 19,395 19,022 19,000 19,000 19,000 3635 Watercraft Rental 16,169 18,020 16,000 18,000 18,000 3636 Self-Supporting Programs 42,001 45,276 42,000 42,000 42,000 3637 Senior Programs 45,854 47,025 45,000 47,000 47,000 3638 Food Concessions 11,470 10,862 12,000 11,000 11,000 3639 Misc.-Park & Rec.905 1,347 1,200 1,200 1,200 3642 Recreation Sports 44,556 44,384 46,000 45,000 45,000 3649 Misc.-Public Works 4,646 3,651 2,000 3,500 3,500 3651 Merchandise Sales 3,702 2,950 2,400 2,800 2,800 *Total Charges for Current Services 622,000 638,562 627,700 636,400 1.4%635,400 Other Revenue 3801 Interest Earnings 27,080 36,120 30,000 45,000 45,000 3802 Equipment Rental & Sale 182,378 186,978 178,000 265,000 265,000 3803 Building Rental 6,692 5,798 6,500 6,000 6,000 3804 Land Sale 35,324 8,100 - - - 3807 Donations 24,275 28,609 25,267 25,327 25,000 3808 Insurance Reimbursements - 18,709 - - - 3816 SAC Retainer 3,404 4,386 4,000 4,000 4,000 3818 Sur-Tax Retainer 662 740 1,000 1,000 1,000 3820 Misc. Other Revenue 418 766 300 500 500 3903 Refunds/Reimbursements 60,805 55,635 63,700 60,000 60,000 3980 Cash Short/Over 0 1 - - - *Total Other Revenue 341,039 345,843 308,767 406,827 31.8%406,500 **Total General Fund Revenue 10,657,035 11,237,962 11,203,600 11,389,560 1.7%2,607,900 Total General Fund Expenditures 11,461,560 Net Levy Remaining (Use of Gen Fund Reserves)(72,000) 2019 General Fund Budget Revenue 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 28,800 42,000 42,000 43,600 3.8%43,600 4030 Contributions-Retirement 1,915 2,804 2,800 3,000 7.1%3,000 4050 Workers Compensation 106 90 100 100 0.0%100 *Total Personal Services 30,821 44,894 44,900 46,700 4.0%46,700 4300 Fees, Services 2,096 - 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4340 Printing & Publishing 28,251 29,911 32,000 32,000 0.0%32,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 41,682 41,560 42,000 42,000 0.0%42,000 4370 Travel & Training 6,500 5,650 6,000 6,000 0.0%6,000 4375 Promotional Expenses 1,679 599 600 600 0.0%600 *Total Contractual Services 80,208 77,719 81,600 81,600 0.0%81,600 **Total Legislative 111,030 122,613 126,500 128,300 1.4%128,300 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Legislative (1110) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 374,858 360,011 362,000 377,300 4.2%388,600 4011 Overtime-Reg 2,503 - - - 0.0%- 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 231 209 300 300 0.0%300 4030 Contributions-Retirement 48,549 51,126 54,700 55,500 1.5%58,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 58,697 59,127 58,000 64,600 11.4%72,400 4050 Workers Compensation 2,995 3,045 3,500 3,700 5.7%3,900 *Total Personal Services 487,832 473,517 478,500 501,400 4.8%523,200 4300 Fees, Services 21,755 4,634 15,000 15,000 0.0%15,000 4310 Telephone 4,934 5,677 5,000 5,800 16.0%5,800 4320 Utilities 89 - 200 200 0.0%200 4330 Postage 21,641 22,968 21,000 23,000 9.5%23,000 4340 Printing & Publishing 220 - 300 300 0.0%300 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 4,221 4,633 4,500 4,600 2.2%4,600 4370 Travel & Training 6,834 9,503 8,600 8,600 0.0%8,600 4380 Mileage 837 1,079 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4410 Rental-Equipment 755 860 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4807 Property Tax Expense 4 - - - 0.0%- *Total Contractual Services 61,291 49,355 56,600 59,500 5.1%59,500 **Total Administration 549,123 522,872 535,100 560,900 4.8%582,700 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Adminstration (1120) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 218,028 226,932 224,600 239,500 6.6%246,700 4011 Overtime-Reg 156 - - - 0.0%- 4030 Contributions-Retirement 32,253 33,129 34,100 36,300 6.5%37,400 4040 Contributions-Insurance 29,734 38,281 48,000 54,700 14.0%61,300 4050 Workers Compensation 1,643 1,937 2,200 2,300 4.5%2,500 *Total Personal Services 281,814 300,279 308,900 332,800 7.7%347,900 4120 Supplies-Equipment - - 100 100 0.0%100 4210 Books & Periodicals - - 100 100 0.0%100 *Total Materials & Supplies - - 200 200 0.0%200 4300 Fees, Services 13,955 14,087 17,000 16,000 (5.9%)16,000 4301 Fees, Financial/Audit 21,599 19,147 26,000 20,000 (23.1%)21,000 4310 Telephone and Communications 972 997 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4340 Printing & Publishing 241 200 600 300 (50.0%)300 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 465 465 500 500 0.0%500 4370 Travel & Training 4,037 3,926 4,500 4,500 0.0%4,500 *Total Contractual Services 41,269 38,821 49,600 42,300 (14.7%)43,300 **Total Finance 323,083 339,100 358,700 375,300 4.6%391,400 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Finance (1130) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4302 Fees, Legal 187,471 198,417 190,500 200,000 5.0%210,000 *Total Contractual Services 187,471 198,417 190,500 200,000 5.0%210,000 **Total Legal 187,471 198,417 190,500 200,000 5.0%210,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Legal (1140) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4300 Fees, Services 146,371 146,422 150,000 156,000 4.0%161,000 *Total Contractual Services 146,371 146,422 150,000 156,000 4.0%161,000 **Total Property Assessment 146,371 146,422 150,000 156,000 4.0%161,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Property Assessment (1150) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 125,068 112,230 116,300 123,800 6.4%127,500 4030 Contributions-Retirement 18,102 16,505 17,700 18,800 6.2%19,300 4040 Contributions-Insurance 17,384 19,697 22,800 25,000 9.6%28,200 4050 Workers Compensation 921 957 1,100 1,200 9.1%1,400 *Total Personal Services 161,475 149,389 157,900 168,800 6.9%176,400 4150 Maintenance Materials 1,264 1,062 1,300 1,300 0.0%1,300 4210 Books & Periodicals 40 55 300 100 (66.7%)100 4220 Software Licensing & Support 20,277 27,670 28,100 43,000 53.0%45,000 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 262 274 300 300 0.0%300 *Total Materials & Supplies 21,843 29,061 30,000 44,700 49.0%46,700 4300 Fees, Services 32,485 21,368 21,300 22,000 3.3%23,000 4310 Telephone and Communications 1,899 1,980 3,300 2,000 (39.4%)2,200 4320 Utilities 11,545 11,070 11,300 11,000 (2.7%)11,000 4370 Travel & Training 5,420 5,755 6,000 6,000 0.0%6,000 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 3,428 4,990 5,000 5,000 0.0%5,000 *Total Contractual Services 54,777 45,163 46,900 46,000 (1.9%)47,200 **Total MIS 238,095 223,613 234,800 259,500 10.5%270,300 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Management Information Systems (MIS) (1160) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 57,088 58,399 59,000 60,000 1.7%61,800 4011 Overtime-Reg 1,702 - 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4030 Contributions-Retirement 8,779 8,301 9,000 9,000 0.0%9,400 4040 Contributions-Insurance 8,977 14,691 18,300 20,900 14.2%23,500 4050 Workers Compensation 3,249 3,479 3,900 4,200 7.7%5,000 *Total Personal Services 79,795 84,870 91,200 95,100 4.3%100,700 4110 Supplies-Office 33,017 32,629 36,000 34,000 (5.6%)34,000 4120 Supplies-Equipment 629 176 900 900 0.0%900 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 699 411 300 500 66.7%500 4150 Maintenance Materials 5,554 4,250 4,000 4,500 12.5%4,500 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 7 144 400 400 0.0%400 *Total Materials & Supplies 39,907 37,611 41,600 40,300 (3.1%)40,300 4300 Fees, Services 11,495 11,166 6,500 11,000 69.2%11,000 4310 Telephone 10,413 10,357 11,000 11,000 0.0%11,000 4320 Utilities 41,055 37,768 42,000 39,000 (7.1%)39,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 29,847 29,201 30,000 30,000 0.0%30,000 4370 Travel & Training - - 200 200 0.0%200 4410 Rental-Equipment 12,236 14,442 14,500 14,500 0.0%14,500 4440 License & Registration 16 - 100 100 0.0%100 4483 Insurance-General Liability 141,936 141,675 163,000 150,000 (8.0%)150,000 4510 Repair & Maintenance-Building 3,548 12,932 9,500 1,000 (89.5%)1,000 4520 Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles 132 - 200 200 0.0%200 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 4,951 10,245 4,000 5,000 25.0%5,000 *Total Contractual Services 255,630 267,785 281,000 262,000 (6.8%)262,000 **Total City Hall 375,331 390,266 413,800 397,400 (4.0%)403,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget City Hall (1170) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 29,581 - 24,000 26,000 8.3%26,000 4030 Contributions-Retirement - - 500 - (100.0%)- 4050 Workers Compensation - - 100 - (100.0%)- *Total Personal Services 29,581 - 24,600 26,000 5.7%26,000 4110 Supplies-Office 691 - 1,500 1,500 0.0%1,500 4120 Supplies-Equipment 40 - 2,500 2,500 0.0%2,500 *Total Materials & Supplies 732 - 4,000 4,000 0.0%4,000 4300 Fees, Services 8,052 - 8,000 12,000 50.0%12,000 4340 Printing & Publishing 208 - 2,500 1,000 (60.0%)1,000 4370 Travel & Training 6,299 - 3,500 5,000 42.9%5,000 *Total Contractual Services 14,560 - 14,000 18,000 28.6%18,000 **Total Elections 44,873 - 42,600 48,000 12.7%48,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Elections (1180) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4150 Maintenance Materials 2,105 2,333 2,500 2,500 0.0%2,500 *Total Materials & Supplies 2,105 2,333 2,500 2,500 0.0%2,500 4300 Fees, Services 7,216 3,258 2,000 3,000 50.0%3,000 4310 Telephone 1,526 1,526 1,600 1,600 0.0%1,600 4320 Utilities 61,902 56,908 63,000 63,000 0.0%63,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 28,723 29,304 34,000 30,500 (10.3%)30,500 4510 Repair & Maintenance-Building 7,050 10,274 5,000 6,500 30.0%6,500 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 3,432 5,562 3,500 4,500 28.6%4,500 *Total Contractual Services 109,850 106,832 109,100 109,100 0.0%109,100 **Total Library Building 111,954 109,165 111,600 111,600 0.0%111,600 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Library Building (1190) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 23,910 5,209 47,400 - (100.0%)- 4030 Contributions-Retirement 2,710 766 7,200 - (100.0%)- 4040 Contributions-Insurance 3,806 1,442 18,900 - (100.0%)- 4050 Workers Compensation 171 45 400 - (100.0%)- *Total Personal Services 30,597 7,463 73,900 - (100.0%)- 4130 Program Supplies 475 313 2,500 1,000 (60.0%)1,000 *Total Materials & Supplies 475 313 2,500 1,000 (60.0%)1,000 4300 Fees, Services 1,683,764 1,795,040 1,882,700 1,882,700 0.0%1,967,500 4370 Travel & Training 173 15 300 100 (66.7%)100 4375 Promotional Expense 1,838 1,405 2,000 2,000 0.0%2,000 *Total Contractual Services 1,685,775 1,796,460 1,885,000 1,884,800 (0.0%)1,969,600 **Total Police Administration 1,716,848 1,804,236 1,961,400 1,885,800 (3.9%)1,970,600 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Police Administration (1210) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 191,863 217,749 195,400 217,000 11.1%223,600 4011 Overtime-Reg - 292 1,000 3,000 200.0%3,000 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 124,317 153,469 167,500 200,000 19.4%210,000 4022 Training Wages 41,344 - - - 0.0%- 4030 Contributions-Retirement 187,866 222,858 220,000 230,000 4.5%240,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 24,098 25,335 22,200 27,000 21.6%29,000 4050 Workers Compensation 51,330 71,572 58,000 75,000 29.3%78,000 4060 Unemployment 162 439 - - 0.0%- 4070 Contracted Wages 31,696 34,048 35,000 36,000 2.9%37,000 *Total Personal Services 652,675 725,763 699,100 788,000 12.7%820,600 4120 Supplies-Equipment 5,859 6,994 7,000 7,000 0.0%7,000 4130 Supplies-Program 477 3,073 2,000 2,200 10.0%2,200 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 9,485 6,943 9,000 9,000 0.0%9,000 4150 Maintenance Materials 403 1 500 400 (20.0%)400 4210 Books & Periodicals - - 600 500 (16.7%)500 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 11,992 9,044 11,000 11,000 0.0%11,000 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 1,770 4,924 8,000 8,000 0.0%8,000 4290 Misc. Materials & Supplies 4,541 3,642 7,000 7,000 0.0%7,000 *Total Materials & Supplies 34,526 34,620 45,100 45,100 0.0%45,100 4300 Fees, Services 24,444 29,088 32,000 32,000 0.0%32,000 4310 Telephone 8,426 8,541 7,200 8,000 11.1%8,000 4320 Utilities 16,542 15,464 22,000 16,000 (27.3%)16,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 4,914 4,469 5,000 5,100 2.0%5,100 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 1,648 1,327 2,500 2,000 (20.0%)2,000 4370 Travel & Training 21,084 40,072 41,500 41,500 0.0%41,500 4375 Promotional Expense 6,506 6,922 10,000 10,000 0.0%10,000 4483 Insurance-General Liability 685 734 1,200 800 (33.3%)1,000 4510 Repair & Maintenance-Building 7,874 5,775 5,500 5,500 0.0%5,500 4520 Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles 1,100 1,909 7,000 7,000 0.0%7,000 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 19,968 20,338 19,500 20,500 5.1%20,500 4531 Repair & Maintenance-Radios 297 63 2,000 2,000 0.0%2,000 Contribution for Performance 34,521 - 20,000 20,000 0.0%30,000 *Total Contractual Services 148,009 134,704 175,400 170,400 (2.9%)180,600 **Total Fire Prevention and Admin 835,210 895,087 919,600 1,003,500 9.1%1,046,300 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Fire Prevention and Administration (1220) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 508,082 537,534 504,000 518,200 2.8%533,800 4011 Overtime-Reg 289 82 - - 0.0%- 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 16,307 14,490 20,000 18,000 (10.0%)18,000 4030 Contributions-Retirement 74,422 75,207 78,000 78,500 0.6%84,200 4040 Contributions-Insurance 84,469 96,731 92,000 103,700 12.7%116,000 4050 Workers Compensation 4,059 3,575 4,500 4,200 (6.7%)4,800 *Total Personal Services 687,628 727,619 698,500 722,600 3.5%756,800 4120 Supplies-Equipment 186 - 100 100 0.0%100 4130 Supplies-Program 409 877 900 900 0.0%900 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 2,722 279 2,700 2,000 (25.9%)2,000 4210 Books & Periodicals 1,129 77 1,500 1,500 0.0%1,500 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 1,197 956 1,000 1,500 50.0%1,500 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 99 344 400 400 0.0%400 *Total Materials & Supplies 5,742 2,534 6,600 6,400 (3.0%)6,400 4310 Telephone 2,827 2,535 4,500 4,500 0.0%4,500 4340 Printing & Publishing - - 1,500 1,000 (33.3%)1,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 724 761 800 1,000 25.0%1,000 4370 Travel & Training 4,541 3,336 4,500 5,000 11.1%5,000 4440 License & Registration 530 - 500 500 0.0%500 4520 Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles 207 - 300 300 0.0%300 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 92 - 900 900 0.0%900 *Total Contractual Services 8,922 6,632 13,000 13,200 1.5%13,200 **Total Code Enforcement 702,293 736,784 718,100 742,200 3.4%776,400 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Code Enforcement (1250) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 43,007 35,473 49,500 45,500 (8.1%)48,000 4021 Overtime-Temp 203 289 200 300 50.0%300 4030 Contributions-Retirement 6,623 4,576 7,000 6,000 (14.3%)6,500 4040 Contributions-Insurance 541 321 700 600 (14.3%)600 4050 Workers Compensation 1,121 1,115 1,300 1,300 0.0%1,500 4060 Unemployment - 527 - - 0.0%- *Total Personal Services 51,495 42,302 58,700 53,700 (8.5%)56,900 4120 Supplies-Equipment 193 175 300 300 0.0%300 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 1,604 17 700 700 0.0%700 4240 Uniforms & Clothing - 801 700 700 0.0%700 *Total Materials & Supplies 1,797 993 1,700 1,700 0.0%1,700 4300 Fees, Services 2,677 4,126 2,800 3,200 14.3%3,400 4310 Telephone 1,615 1,229 1,700 1,600 (5.9%)1,600 4340 Printing & Publishing 697 16 600 100 (83.3%)100 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships - - 200 200 0.0%200 4370 Travel & Training - - 200 200 0.0%200 4520 Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles 73 - 200 200 0.0%200 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip - - 100 100 0.0%100 4531 Repair & Maintenance-Radios - - 200 200 0.0%200 *Total Contractual Services 5,062 5,370 6,000 5,800 (3.3%)6,000 **Total Community Service 58,355 48,665 66,400 61,200 (7.8%)64,600 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Community Service (1260) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 479,255 464,860 462,300 467,000 1.0%481,000 4011 Overtime-Reg 5,229 6,157 5,500 6,000 9.1%6,000 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 5,790 13,897 13,000 14,000 7.7%16,000 4021 Overtime-Temp 126 - - - 0.0%- 4030 Contributions-Retirement 72,025 68,941 70,000 70,700 1.0%74,700 4040 Contributions-Insurance 62,895 80,702 96,900 93,700 (3.3%)105,000 4050 Workers Compensation 3,942 3,588 4,800 4,000 (16.7%)4,500 *Total Personal Services 629,261 638,144 652,500 655,400 0.4%687,200 4120 Supplies-Equipment 262 21 1,000 500 (50.0%)500 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 212 10 300 300 0.0%300 4210 Books & Periodicals 369 - - - 0.0%- *Total Materials & Supplies 843 32 1,300 800 (38.5%)800 4300 Fees, Services 14,593 10,822 16,000 16,000 0.0%16,000 4310 Telephone 3,614 3,915 3,400 4,000 17.6%4,000 4340 Printing & Publishing 140 292 500 300 (40.0%)300 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 1,503 1,383 1,500 1,500 0.0%1,500 4370 Travel & Training 4,444 3,971 4,500 4,500 0.0%4,500 4380 Mileage 95 149 100 100 0.0%100 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip - - 1,500 500 (66.7%)500 *Total Contractual Services 24,389 20,533 27,500 26,900 (2.2%)26,900 **Total Engineering 654,493 658,709 681,300 683,100 0.3%714,900 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Engineering (1310) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 465,380 489,181 531,400 543,100 2.2%559,400 4011 Overtime-Reg 31,835 27,554 26,000 27,000 3.8%30,000 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 18,525 24,366 28,000 28,000 0.0%28,000 4021 Overtime-Temp 327 428 - - 0.0%- 4030 Contributions-Retirement 74,870 77,435 80,500 82,300 2.2%84,800 4040 Contributions-Insurance 88,894 100,282 123,500 136,400 10.4%153,100 4050 Workers Compensation 45,866 59,215 64,000 66,000 3.1%70,000 4060 Unemployment 4,911 3,328 - - 0.0%- *Total Personal Services 730,608 781,789 853,400 882,800 3.4%925,300 4120 Supplies-Equipment 32,557 43,237 45,000 45,000 0.0%45,000 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 8,264 18,263 10,000 12,000 20.0%12,000 4150 Maintenance Materials 46,265 33,014 50,000 48,000 (4.0%)48,000 4210 Books & Periodicals - - 100 100 0.0%100 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 5,438 5,439 5,000 5,500 10.0%5,500 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 2,733 2,758 2,500 2,700 8.0%2,700 *Total Materials & Supplies 95,257 102,710 112,600 113,300 0.6%113,300 4300 Fees, Services 3,256 9,353 2,500 3,500 40.0%3,500 4310 Telephone 4,120 5,128 5,200 5,200 0.0%5,200 4340 Printing & Publishing - 63 300 300 0.0%300 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 969 2,051 1,000 2,000 100.0%2,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships - - 200 200 0.0%200 4370 Travel & Training 1,377 1,589 1,600 1,600 0.0%1,600 4410 Rental-Equipment 844 8,383 1,000 3,000 200.0%3,000 4440 License & Registration 513 5 500 500 0.0%500 4510 Repair & Maintenance-Building - 450 100 100 0.0%100 4520 Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles 756 200 1,000 800 (20.0%)800 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 500 650 1,500 700 (53.3%)700 4540 Repair & Maintenance-Streets 6,757 6,875 5,000 6,500 30.0%6,500 4560 Repair & Maintenance-Signs 8,621 11,850 11,000 11,000 0.0%12,000 *Total Contractual Services 27,712 46,597 30,900 35,400 14.6%36,400 **Total Street Maintenance 853,577 931,096 996,900 1,031,500 3.5%1,075,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Street Maintenance (1320) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4120 Supplies-Equipment 2,785 4,679 2,000 3,000 50.0%3,500 *Total Materials & Supplies 2,785 4,679 2,000 3,000 50.0%3,500 4300 Fees, Services - 2,166 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4310 Telephone 360 360 500 500 0.0%500 4320 Utilities 326,178 320,328 329,000 323,000 (1.8%)323,000 4565 Repair & Maintenance-Light/Signal 30,239 31,664 24,000 30,000 25.0%33,000 *Total Contractual Services 356,778 354,518 354,500 354,500 0.0%357,500 **Total Street Lighting and Signals 359,562 359,197 356,500 357,500 0.3%361,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Street Lighting and Signals (1350) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 198,243 206,685 210,800 217,100 3.0%223,700 4011 Overtime-Reg 5,514 4,771 5,000 5,000 0.0%5,000 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 1,129 4,182 5,000 5,000 0.0%5,000 4030 Contributions-Retirement 29,259 30,569 32,000 33,000 3.1%34,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 36,597 40,026 47,200 52,000 10.2%58,400 4050 Workers Compensation 8,927 9,266 11,400 11,000 (3.5%)13,000 *Total Personal Services 279,669 295,498 311,400 323,100 3.8%339,100 4120 Supplies-Equipment 1,638 1,610 2,000 2,000 0.0%2,000 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 82 48 600 200 (66.7%)200 4150 Maintenance Materials 1,147 113 600 600 0.0%600 4170 Motor Fuels & Lubricants 110,112 144,222 170,000 165,000 (2.9%)165,000 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 1,003 1,055 1,200 1,200 0.0%1,200 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 2,848 2,605 3,000 3,000 0.0%3,000 *Total Materials & Supplies 116,829 149,654 177,400 172,000 (3.0%)172,000 4300 Fees, Services 5,664 4,798 2,500 5,000 100.0%5,000 4310 Telephone 2,456 2,432 3,000 2,500 (16.7%)2,500 4320 Utilities 31,170 32,540 32,000 32,000 0.0%32,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 4,825 5,145 5,500 5,500 0.0%5,500 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 37 40 200 200 0.0%200 4370 Travel & Training 118 691 800 800 0.0%800 4440 License & Registration 93 - 300 300 0.0%300 4510 Repair & Maintenance-Building 9,007 12,451 10,000 12,000 20.0%12,000 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 2,447 8,798 3,500 3,500 0.0%3,500 4933 Sales Tax 141 - - - 0.0%- *Total Contractual Services 55,958 66,895 57,800 61,800 6.9%61,800 4703 Office Equipment - - 500 500 0.0%500 4705 Other Equipment 4,743 6,761 5,000 5,000 0.0%5,000 *Total Capital Outlay 4,743 6,761 5,500 5,500 0.0%5,500 **Total Fleet Department 457,199 518,808 552,100 562,400 1.9%578,400 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Fleet Department (1370) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4210 Books & Periodicals - - 200 200 0.0%200 *Total Materials & Supplies - - 200 200 0.0%200 4340 Printing & Publishing 1,149 1,090 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships - - 200 200 0.0%200 4370 Travel & Training 11 249 300 300 0.0%300 *Total Contractual Services 1,160 1,338 1,500 1,500 0.0%1,500 **Total Planning Commission 1,160 1,338 1,700 1,700 0.0%1,700 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Planning Commission (1410) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 320,925 339,898 353,000 403,400 14.3%415,500 4011 Overtime-Reg 1,348 - - - 0.0%- 4030 Contributions-Retirement 45,870 48,624 53,500 61,000 14.0%63,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 56,502 62,321 73,000 80,500 10.3%90,000 4050 Workers Compensation 2,390 2,860 3,200 3,800 18.8%4,200 *Total Personal Services 427,035 453,704 482,700 548,700 13.7%572,700 4120 Supplies-Equipment 97 62 300 300 0.0%300 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 22 441 100 100 0.0%100 *Total Materials & Supplies 118 503 400 400 0.0%400 4300 Fees, Services 2,270 37,392 5,000 5,000 0.0%5,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 408 909 800 800 0.0%800 4370 Travel & Training 5,083 3,722 5,500 5,500 0.0%5,500 *Total Contractual Services 7,762 42,024 11,300 11,300 0.0%11,300 **Total Planning Administration 434,915 496,230 494,400 560,400 13.3%584,400 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Planning Administration (1420) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 20,907 21,852 22,100 22,600 2.3%23,300 4030 Contributions-Retirement 3,074 3,220 3,400 3,500 2.9%3,500 4040 Contributions-Insurance 2,267 2,481 2,900 3,200 10.3%3,500 4050 Workers Compensation 155 182 200 200 0.0%200 *Total Personal Services 26,403 27,735 28,600 29,500 3.1%30,500 4300 Fees, Services 9,010 14,240 9,000 10,000 11.1%14,000 4370 Travel & Training - 295 200 200 0.0%200 4375 Promotional Expense 320 984 500 800 60.0%800 *Total Contractual Services 9,329 15,519 9,700 11,000 13.4%15,000 **Total Senior Commission 35,733 43,254 38,300 40,500 5.7%45,500 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Senior Commission (1430) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4130 Supplies-Program - - 100 100 0.0%100 4210 Books & Periodicals - - 100 100 0.0%100 *Total Materials & Supplies - - 200 200 0.0%200 4340 Printing & Publishing - - 100 100 0.0%100 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships - - 500 500 0.0%500 4370 Travel & Training 325 175 400 400 0.0%400 *Total Contractual Services 325 175 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 **Total Park and Rec Commission 325 175 1,200 1,200 0.0%1,200 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Park and Recreation Commission (1510) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 161,579 172,863 174,500 182,300 4.5%187,700 4030 Contributions-Retirement 23,446 25,112 26,400 27,600 4.5%28,400 4040 Contributions-Insurance 23,414 26,993 37,000 41,900 13.2%47,000 4050 Workers Compensation 1,195 1,452 1,600 1,800 12.5%2,000 *Total Personal Services 209,635 226,420 239,500 253,600 5.9%265,100 4120 Supplies-Equipment - 16 100 100 0.0%100 4130 Supplies-Program - - 100 100 0.0%100 *Total Materials & Supplies - 16 200 200 0.0%200 4300 Fees, Services - 828 200 300 50.0%300 4310 Telephone 721 617 900 700 (22.2%)700 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 2,903 3,448 2,900 3,100 6.9%3,100 4370 Travel & Training 1,225 1,821 1,800 1,800 0.0%1,800 4380 Mileage - - 100 100 0.0%100 *Total Contractual Services 4,849 6,713 5,900 6,000 1.7%6,000 **Total Park and Rec Admin.214,483 233,149 245,600 259,800 5.8%271,300 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Park and Recreation Administration (1520) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 61,765 64,313 66,400 68,100 2.6%70,200 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 101,768 97,000 115,000 113,000 (1.7%)115,000 4030 Contributions-Retirement 24,105 24,008 28,500 30,000 5.3%32,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 8,995 9,848 11,300 12,500 10.6%14,000 4050 Workers Compensation 6,869 9,909 8,200 10,500 28.0%11,000 *Total Personal Services 203,502 205,079 229,400 234,100 2.0%242,200 4120 Supplies-Equipment 726 1,358 2,000 1,600 (20.0%)1,800 4130 Supplies-Program 14,846 13,066 20,000 15,000 (25.0%)16,000 4150 Maintenance Materials 237 450 500 500 0.0%500 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 438 631 500 600 20.0%600 *Total Materials & Supplies 16,248 15,505 23,000 17,700 (23.0%)18,900 4300 Fees, Services 59,162 50,812 50,000 52,000 4.0%54,000 4310 Telephone 617 917 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4320 Utilities 33,875 35,409 37,000 37,000 0.0%37,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 348 351 300 400 33.3%400 4370 Travel & Training 275 15 400 400 0.0%400 4375 Promotional Expense 654 700 800 800 0.0%800 4510 Repair & Maintenance-Building 3,659 1,978 2,500 2,500 0.0%2,500 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 1,532 1,653 1,800 1,800 0.0%1,800 *Total Contractual Services 100,123 91,834 93,800 95,900 2.2%97,900 **Total Recreation Center 319,873 312,419 346,200 347,700 0.4%359,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Recreation Center (1530) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 9,110 8,164 10,700 10,700 0.0%11,500 4030 Contributions-Retirement 697 625 900 700 (22.2%)700 4050 Workers Compensation 289 500 600 600 0.0%700 *Total Personal Services 10,096 9,288 12,200 12,000 (1.6%)12,900 4130 Supplies-Program 8,433 10,477 9,000 9,000 0.0%9,000 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 200 200 200 200 0.0%200 *Total Materials & Supplies 8,633 10,677 9,200 9,200 0.0%9,200 4300 Fees, Services 32,349 35,341 34,500 35,000 1.4%36,000 4310 Telephone 1,145 1,288 1,200 1,200 0.0%1,200 4320 Utilities 12,947 10,765 13,000 11,000 (15.4%)11,000 4340 Printing & Publishing 428 214 400 400 0.0%400 *Total Contractual Services 46,868 47,607 49,100 47,600 (3.1%)48,600 **Total Lake Ann Park Operations 65,597 67,573 70,500 68,800 (2.4%)70,700 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Lake Ann Park Operations (1540) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 479,890 489,295 490,400 482,000 (1.7%)497,000 4011 Overtime-Reg 32,631 32,956 25,000 30,000 20.0%32,000 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 114,904 112,282 121,000 118,000 (2.5%)120,000 4021 Overtime-Temp 5,211 3,829 5,000 5,000 0.0%5,000 4030 Contributions-Retirement 85,025 83,513 88,000 88,000 0.0%90,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 76,977 78,394 87,000 98,000 12.6%110,000 4050 Workers Compensation 26,127 36,995 32,000 39,000 21.9%42,000 4060 Unemployment 864 - - - 0.0%- *Total Personal Services 821,630 837,263 848,400 860,000 1.4%896,000 4120 Supplies-Equipment 38,744 45,221 40,000 40,000 0.0%40,000 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 2,852 11,122 3,000 5,000 66.7%5,000 4150 Maintenance Materials 26,479 21,561 30,000 27,000 (10.0%)27,000 4151 Irrigation Materials 3,200 3,967 5,000 5,000 0.0%5,000 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 1,295 2,453 2,200 2,600 18.2%2,600 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 2,822 2,032 600 1,200 100.0%1,200 *Total Materials & Supplies 75,393 86,356 80,800 80,800 0.0%80,800 4300 Fees, Services 28,322 52,825 43,000 43,000 0.0%43,000 4310 Telephone 4,512 5,813 5,100 5,900 15.7%5,900 4320 Utilities 4,584 4,796 5,000 4,800 (4.0%)4,800 4340 Printing & Publishing - 105 200 200 0.0%200 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 3,474 3,591 4,000 3,700 (7.5%)3,700 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 10 - 400 400 0.0%400 4370 Travel & Training 501 2,537 600 1,000 66.7%1,000 4400 Rental-Land & Buildings 29,347 29,984 34,000 36,000 5.9%36,000 4410 Rental-Equipment 250 1,274 700 700 0.0%700 4440 License & Registration 429 44 300 300 0.0%300 4510 Repair & Maintenance-Building 759 5,073 1,700 1,700 0.0%1,700 4520 Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles - 2,387 100 100 0.0%100 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 640 8,889 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4560 Repair & Maintenance-Signs 2,093 754 5,000 2,000 (60.0%)2,000 *Total Contractual Services 74,921 118,073 101,100 100,800 (0.3%)100,800 4705 Other Equipment 977 - - - 0.0%- *Total Capital Outlay 977 - - - 0.0%- **Total Park Maintenance 972,921 1,041,692 1,030,300 1,041,600 1.1%1,077,600 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 Rental-Land & Buildings Increase in portable restroom contract 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Park Maintenance (1550) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 44,535 64,425 66,000 56,200 (14.8%)57,900 4030 Contributions-Retirement 6,720 9,772 10,000 8,600 (14.0%)8,800 4040 Contributions-Insurance 295 3,536 3,500 20,800 494.3%23,400 4050 Workers Compensation 339 535 600 600 0.0%600 *Total Personal Services 51,889 78,268 80,100 86,200 7.6%90,700 4120 Supplies-Equipment 56 41 300 300 0.0%300 4130 Supplies-Program 2,483 4,431 4,000 4,000 0.0%4,000 *Total Materials & Supplies 2,540 4,472 4,300 4,300 0.0%4,300 4300 Fees, Services 30,856 34,713 29,000 32,000 10.3%33,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 95 95 100 100 0.0%100 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 107 110 100 100 0.0%100 4370 Travel & Training 99 222 300 300 0.0%300 4375 Promotional Expense - 60 100 100 0.0%100 4380 Mileage - - 100 100 0.0%100 *Total Contractual Services 31,157 35,200 29,700 32,700 10.1%33,700 **Total Senior Citizens Center 85,585 117,940 114,100 123,200 8.0%128,700 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Senior Citizens Center (1560) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 98,490 103,215 105,300 121,860 15.7%125,500 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 56,230 64,368 71,000 68,000 (4.2%)71,000 4021 Overtime-Temp 1,272 402 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4030 Contributions-Retirement 19,207 20,434 22,000 24,000 9.1%26,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 10,026 10,720 12,000 14,400 20.0%15,800 4050 Workers Compensation 3,045 4,802 3,600 5,000 38.9%5,400 *Total Personal Services 188,269 203,942 214,900 234,260 9.0%244,700 4120 Supplies-Equipment 2,321 2,019 2,500 2,500 0.0%2,500 4130 Supplies-Program 15,524 22,063 17,000 18,000 5.9%18,000 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 1,575 2,035 1,600 1,700 6.3%1,700 *Total Materials & Supplies 19,420 26,117 21,100 22,200 5.2%22,200 4300 Fees, Services 61,653 65,606 64,000 66,600 4.1%66,600 4310 Telephone 2,140 2,155 2,700 2,200 (18.5%)2,200 4320 Utilities 3,718 4,660 4,000 4,600 15.0%4,600 4340 Printing & Publishing 9,409 9,683 6,600 7,500 13.6%8,000 4370 Travel & Training 414 507 500 500 0.0%500 4380 Mileage - - 100 100 0.0%100 4400 Rental-Land & Buildings 5,999 8,303 6,200 7,000 12.9%7,000 4410 Rental-Equipment 25,108 32,412 32,000 32,000 0.0%32,000 *Total Contractual Services 108,439 123,325 116,100 120,500 3.8%121,000 **Total Recreation Programs 316,128 353,384 352,100 376,960 7.1%387,900 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Recreation Programs (1600) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 24,624 25,806 26,300 13,600 (48.3%)14,000 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 1,950 1,950 2,400 2,200 (8.3%)2,200 4030 Contributions-Retirement 3,851 4,020 4,200 2,100 (50.0%)2,200 4040 Contributions-Insurance 2,472 2,645 3,000 1,600 (46.7%)1,700 4050 Workers Compensation 267 337 400 400 0.0%400 *Total Personal Services 33,164 34,757 36,300 19,900 (45.2%)20,500 4130 Supplies-Program 4,142 4,283 4,500 4,500 0.0%4,500 *Total Materials & Supplies 4,142 4,283 4,500 4,500 0.0%4,500 4300 Fees, Services 11,766 11,573 15,000 12,500 (16.7%)13,000 *Total Contractual Services 11,766 11,573 15,000 12,500 (16.7%)13,000 **Total Self-Supporting Programs 49,071 50,614 55,800 36,900 (33.9%)38,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Self-Supporting Programs (1700) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 21,370 23,393 25,500 26,000 2.0%26,500 4030 Contributions-Retirement 2,302 2,438 2,700 2,800 3.7%2,800 4050 Workers Compensation 899 1,481 1,100 1,600 45.5%1,700 *Total Personal Services 24,571 27,311 29,300 30,400 3.8%31,000 4120 Supplies-Equipment - 82 - - 0.0%- 4130 Supplies-Program 3,309 2,438 2,500 2,500 0.0%2,500 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 4,852 5,427 5,400 5,400 0.0%5,400 *Total Materials & Supplies 8,161 7,947 7,900 7,900 0.0%7,900 4375 Promotional Expenses - - 300 300 0.0%- *Total Contractual Services - - 300 300 0.0%- **Total Recreation Sports 32,732 35,258 37,500 38,600 2.9%38,900 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Recreation Sports (1800) City of Chanhassen, MinnesotaBond Tax Levies2006-20252005 C Ref1998A Park 2002A Subtotal of 2001C 2003A 2004A Subtotal of 1999 2001B ^^ Subtotal of 2000 Subtotal of Total Year of GO Park GO Library Market GO Equip GO Equip GO GO GO Impr GO Impr Spec Assmt GO Pub Other GeneralCollection Bonds Bonds Value Levies Certs Certs Bonds Levies Bonds Bonds Levies Proj Levies Bonded Debt2006 634,800 486,700 1,121,500 138,814 345,800 484,614 100,000 100,000 122,048 122,048 1,828,162 2007 696,500 489,100 1,185,600 141,380 346,900 488,280 100,000 100,000 122,548 122,548 1,896,428 2008 695,900 490,700 1,186,600 138,173 346,700 484,873 100,000 100,000 122,703 122,703 1,894,176 2009 972,700 491,300 1,464,000 297,900 297,900 - 122,603 122,603 1,884,503 2010 496,400 496,400 122,195 122,195 618,595 2011 495,400 495,400 126,420 126,420 621,820 2012 498,800 498,800 498,800 2013 501,200 501,200 501,200 2014 502,400 502,400 502,400 2015 502,500 502,500 502,500 2016 507,000 507,000 507,000 2017 505,100 505,100 505,100 2018 512,800 512,800 512,800 2019 513,900 513,900 513,900 2020 513,700 513,700 513,700 2021 517,500 517,500 517,500 Totals 2,999,900 8,024,500 11,024,400 - 418,367 1,337,300 1,755,667 300,000 - 300,000 738,515 738,515 13,818,582 2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2008 2010 Total LevyExcess to ** Potential Actual Spec AssmtSpec AssmtSpec AssmtSpec Assmt 212 Bonds PW Facility Fire Station Year w/ CIP EstPay debt Excess Levy Levy200680,000 2006 1,908,162 285,000 - 1,938,790200780,000 2007 1,976,428 63,000 - 1,913,4282008285,000 2008 2,179,176 269,986 - 1,909,1902009285,000 250,000 2009 2,419,503 510,313 - 1,909,1902010285,000 250,000 2010 1,153,595 1,128,299 785,195 1,938,7902011285,000 250,000 370,000 2011 1,526,820 411,970 1,938,7902012285,000 250,000 370,000 2012 1,403,800 534,990 1,938,7902013285,000 250,000 370,000 2013 1,406,200 532,590 1,938,7902014285,000 250,000 370,000 2014 1,407,400 531,390 1,938,7902015285,000 250,000 370,000 2015 1,407,500 531,290 1,938,7902016285,000 250,000 370,000 2016 1,412,000 526,790 1,938,7902017250,000 370,000 2017 1,125,100 813,690 1,938,7902018250,000 370,000 2018 1,132,800 805,990 1,938,7902019250,000 370,000 2019 1,133,900 804,890 1,938,7902020250,000 370,000 2020 1,133,700 805,090 1,938,7902021250,000 370,000 2021 1,137,500 801,290 1,938,7902022250,000 370,000 2022 620,000 1,318,790 1,938,7902023250,000 370,000 2023 620,000 1,318,790 1,938,7902024250,000 370,000 2024 620,000 1,318,790 1,938,7902025250,000 370,000 2025 620,000 1,318,790 1,938,790Totals - - - - - - - 2,725,000 4,250,000 5,550,000 - 40,310 26,343,582 ** - These funds to be used to pay down the debt levy each of the next four years.The PW facility is for $3.9 million of which $3.0 will be bonded for and the Fire Station and Equipment is for $4.5 million in principal.^^ - The 2001B debt service fund has sufficient fund balance due to prepaid specials, we are able to cancel the levy needed to pay the debt in 2008 & 2009. It is our plan to use that excess levy for General Fund Operations rather than lower the use of Cash Reserves to keep the debt levy flat from the previous year. City of Chanhassen, MinnesotaBond Tax Levies2006-20292005 C Ref1998A Park2002A2010ASubtotal of2001C2003A2004ASubtotal of19992001B ^^Subtotal of2000Subtotal ofTotal Year of GO ParkGO LibraryGO RefundMarket GO EquipGO EquipGOGOGO ImprGO ImprSpec AssmtGO PubOtherGeneralCollectionBondsBonds2002A LibValue LeviesCertsCertsBondsLeviesBondsBondsLeviesProjLeviesBonded Debt2006634,800 486,700 1,121,500 138,814 345,800 484,614 100,000 100,000 122,048 122,048 1,828,162 2007696,500 489,100 1,185,600 141,380 346,900 488,280 100,000 100,000 122,548 122,548 1,896,428 2008695,900 490,700 1,186,600 138,173 346,700 484,873 100,000 100,000 122,703 122,703 1,894,176 2009972,700 491,300 1,464,000 297,900 297,900 - 122,603 122,603 1,884,503 2010496,400 496,400 122,195 122,195 618,595 2011495,400 495,400 126,420 126,420 621,820 2012351,648 351,648 351,648 2013445,310 445,310 445,310 2014448,880 448,880 448,880 2015446,098 446,098 446,098 2016452,792 452,792 452,792 2017451,952 451,952 451,952 2018461,297 461,297 461,297 2019459,512 459,512 459,512 2020457,412 457,412 457,412 2021465,497 465,497 465,497 Totals2,999,900 2,949,600 4,440,398 10,389,898 - 418,367 1,337,300 1,755,667 300,000 - 300,000 738,515 738,515 13,184,080 2009A@@20052016 A2008 ##2010 2010Total LevyExcess to ** Potential Actual Excess Lib212 BondsPW RefundPW FacilityFire StationAudubonYearw/ CIP EstPay debt Excess Levy Levy Levy200680,000 20061,908,162 285,000 - 1,938,790200780,000 20071,976,428 67,238 - 1,909,1902008285,000 20082,179,176 269,986 - 1,909,1902009285,000 20092,169,503 460,313 - 1,809,1902010337,500 599,300 253,795 20101,809,190 - - 1,809,1902011336,800 594,000 256,570 20111,809,190 - 1,809,1902012335,900 593,800 437,842 20121,719,190 - 1,719,1902013550,000 593,200 130,680 20131,719,190 - 1,719,1902014233,800 592,100 444,410 20141,719,190 - 1,719,1902015232,300 590,600 55,000 20151,323,998 395,192 1,719,1902016240,700 594,000 20161,287,492 431,698 1,719,1902017596,700 20171,048,652 384,838 1,433,4902018470,400 2018931,697 384,838 1,316,5352019475,800 2019935,312 381,223 1,316,5352020480,600 2020938,012 378,523 1,316,5352021479,800 2021945,297 371,238 1,316,5352022483,900 2022483,900 832,635 1,316,5352023482,300 2023482,300 834,235 1,316,5352024485,600 2024485,600 830,935 1,316,5352025487,500 2025487,500 829,035 1,316,5352026489,100 2026489,100 827,435 1,316,5352027490,600 2027490,600 825,935 1,316,5352028497,100 2028497,100 819,435 1,316,5352029498,100 2029498,100 818,435 1,316,535Totals- - - - - 2,267,000 730,000 5,820,800 4,753,700 - 1,578,297 48,420 28,333,877 1,082,536 ** - These funds to be used to pay down the debt levy each of the next four years.## - The PW facility is for 8 Million and bonding for $7 Million of the 8 Million.@@ - The 2009A Refunded the 2005A Mndot loand and 2006A MUSA area improvements.Debt Levies Excess Levy Available Excess Levy Available Original Bond Scenario New Facil Bond Scenario Difference 2010 785,195$ #REF! #REF! 2011 411,970 #REF! #REF! 2012 534,990 #REF! #REF! 2013 532,590 #REF! #REF! 2014 531,390 #REF! #REF! 2015 531,290 #REF! #REF! 2016 526,790 #REF! #REF! 2017 813,690 #REF! #REF! 2018 805,990 #REF! #REF! 2019 804,890 #REF! #REF! 2020 805,090 #REF! #REF! 2021 801,290 #REF! #REF! 2022 1,318,790 #REF! #REF! 2023 1,318,790 #REF! #REF! 2024 1,318,790 #REF! #REF! 2025 1,318,790 #REF! #REF! 13,160,325$ #REF! #REF! KFS CitiesAsst City ManagerOffice ManagerFire ChiefFinance DirectorPW Dir/City EngComm Dvlp DirMIS CoordinatorPark & Rec DirChaska90,185$ 67,343$ 106,038$ N/A102,663$ 119,208$ 104,532$ 97,864$ Cottage Grove98,936 N/A117,009 136,746 126,693 126,693 98,936 117,009 Elk River N/A 84,431 113,508 114,035 120,200 120,200 96,131 110,953 Inver Grove Heights N/A 90,336 131,856 131,856 131,856 131,856 108,036 131,856 Lino Lakes95,866 78,739 127,763 119,983 118,627 115,631 N/AN/APrior Lake112,512 N/A109,008 134,949 134,949 105,576 N/AN/ARosemount110,912 N/AN/A119,966 124,240 120,726 81,189 113,488 Savage64,228 N/A115,877 111,966 111,966 106,621 83,034 108,139 Shakopee125,116 81,254 127,644 139,020 139,020 129,751 117,601 127,644 StillwaterN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AAverage99,679$ 80,421$ 118,588$ 126,065$ 123,357$ 119,585$ 98,494$ 115,279$ Competitor CitiesAsst City ManagerOffice ManagerFire ChiefFinance DirectorPW Dir/City EngComm Dvlp DirMIS CoordinatorPark & Rec DirEdina149,781$ 75,804$ 149,781$ 141,972$ 141,972$ 134,572$ 127,556$ 141,972$ St. Louis Park N/A N/A 146,393 133,408 148,147 129,780 146,393 155,517 Minnetonka134,244 91,680 135,996 133,380 145,392 135,084 N/A 124,572 Eden Prairie N/A 60,808 136,556 128,588 148,700 140,895 110,448 143,177 Bloomington147,000 80,225 161,980 127,393 176,475 140,000 140,045 133,800 Plymouth137,664 101,976 129,084 N/A 152,136 151,248 121,380 151,248 Maple Grove N/A N/A 133,746 128,918 146,640 133,746 118,612 128,274 Lakeville122,979 N/A129,515 147,125 134,000 127,515 121,603 127,515 Average138,334$ 82,099$ 140,381$ 134,398$ 149,183$ 136,605$ 126,577$ 138,259$ Chanhassen 2018 Budget87,610$ 75,712$ 129,189$ 123,885$ 131,622$ 128,315$ 101,712$ 125,778$ % Different from KFS Avg-12.11%-5.86%8.94%-1.73%6.70%7.30%3.27%9.11%1.95%% Different from Comp Avg-36.67%-7.78%-7.97%-7.82%-11.77%-6.07%-19.64%-9.03%-13.34%Department Head Comparable Salaries CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, August 27, 2018 Subject Mid­Year Key Financial Strategy Update Section 5:30 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.2. Prepared By Todd Gerhardt, City Manager File No:  SUMMARY Attached are the 2018 Key Financial Strategies that staff has accomplished to date.  Listed below are the remaining items and the dates they will come before the City Council: Franchise Fee Discussion on Proposed Options:  September 10, 2018. Implement Park Replacement Schedule:  to be placed on a future agenda after public meeting is held on the use of franchise fees to fund roads. Sanitary Sewer Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) Reduction Plan:  October, 2018 Economic Development:  Draft Business Subsidy Policy by the end of 2018 Downtown Focus Update:  Review by the end of 2018 ATTACHMENTS: 2018 Key Financial Strategies/Work Plan Ordinance 632 Craft Alcohol Production Ordinance 633 Permeable Pavers ESTABLISH ANNUAL GOALS & KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGIES ackground: In July 2002, staff met with Jim Prosser from Ehlers & Associates to begin development of the city’s key financial strategies. At that time, comparisons were completed of similar cities based on tax base mix, growth, allocation, population, five-year budget comparison, debt ratios, tax capacity, and bond ratings. Council and staff identified Financial Foundation Descriptions and prioritized capital improvements. City Council adopted the Key Financial Strategies (KFS) on June 9, 2003. Implementation began with the 2004 budget process, i.e. pavement management system including trails, roads, parking lots; debt service; fixed assets for remodeling/replacement; water treatment and future infrastructure; etc. These strategies will also be used as a part of our 2018 strategic planning process. B 2 Competitiveness Create an environment for innovation and change — building on our strengths, creativity, and skills. MID-YEAR REVIEW OF KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGIES: PREPARE A MID- YEAR REVIEW OF ALL KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGIES FOR PRESENTATION AT THE FIRST MEETING IN JULY On August 27, 2018, staff updated the City Council on each of the items in the City’s 2018 Annual Goals and Key Financial Strategies. BREW PUB/DISTILLERIES ORDINANCE: RESEARCH AND PROPOSE AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD COVER BREW PUBS AND DISTILLERIES IN A VARIETY OF LAND USE AREAS At the April 23, 2018 work session, staff proposed a Craft Alcohol Production ordinance. Staff gave a brief summary of the proposed ordinance. The city’s current ordinance limits these facilities to industrial areas and does not permit brew pubs, taprooms, or cocktail rooms. In order to permit these types of uses, the city would need to create zoning standards, establish what zoning districts they are permitted in, and create the appropriate liquor licenses. City Council authorized staff to hold a public hearing at the Planning Commission. City Council asked about food trucks and staff discussed that we do allow them but not in commercial areas; only at special events in residential areas. The Planning Commission approved the Craft Alcohol Production ordinance, but expressed concern about not requiring a food component either on site or by partnering with delivery restaurants. Staff said the ordinance allows for partnering with existing restaurants to have food delivered to patrons. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance. The City Council approved the Craft Alcohol Production Ordinance at their June 11, 2018 regular City Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the approved Ordinance. 3 PERMEABLE PAVERS: CONTINUE TO EVALUATE STAFF’S RESEARCH AND PROPOSED POLICIES AND CONSIDER IMPLEMENTING AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR PERMEABLE PAVERS TO BE CREDITED TOWARD THE EQUATION FOR HARD COVER ALLOWANCE (CONTINUED FROM 2017) Permeable Pavers was continued from the 2017 Key Financial Strategies. Again, we had numerous discussions regarding this topic, including a work session on April 23, 2018, and a Planning Commission public hearing on May 15, 2018. This item is to provide relief to lot coverage restrictions. The intent is to allow residents to utilize permeable pavers to exceed existing lot coverage caps and provide residents with an option other than requesting a lot coverage variance. It is important to balance the benefits of allowing increased lot coverages with its potential consequences. Staff saw the need to provide alternatives that will allow homes located in Residential Single Family Districts and are outside of the Shoreland Management District five percent additional coverage in the form of pervious pavement which will provide flexibility for homeowners looking to improve their properties. At their June 11, 2018 work session, the City Council indicated they would like to give this a try, but also understands that we can switch it back if it does not work. However, they feel strongly that if the system is designed and constructed property it should successfully accomplish the goal and provide relief for those wanting a little bigger patio or driveway! The City Council approved the attached Ordinance 633 at the June 25, 2018 regular City Council meeting. 4 Strengthen the City’s Financial Position Provide financial stability and resources necessary to achieve the city’s vision by exercising financial stewardship, implementing best practices, and utilizing long-term financial planning tools. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: CONTINUE TO EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY AND COLLECT FEEDBACK ON A POTENTIAL FRANCHISE FEE IN ORDER TO FUND FUTURE ROAD PROJECTS (CONTINUED FROM 2017) Educational material is being mailed out in utility bills and is posted on the city’s website. Open houses are also in the process of being held in order to educate residents on potential implications of a franchise fee. August 20, 2018 Public Meeting Update: To date, staff held seven meetings in 2017 with the City Council to discuss extensively the different options for funding the Pavement Management Program. An additional four to five meetings have been held in 2018. The discussion included changing the percentage of the assessments, raising the levy, or establishing a Franchise Fee to summarize, the feedback received at the August 20, 2018 Special City Council meeting. There were many different funding options provided but by the end if the discussion the consensus was as follows: 1. Keep the assessment practice in place as it has been in the past (40/60 split). 2. Keep the levy the same as it has been in the past ($384,000). 3. Implement a Franchise Fee to make up the difference to achieve the funding needed for the $3.3 million to fund the Pavement Management Program for the next 12 years. The next step is for the City Council to discuss the proposed options as well as other options at their September 10, 2018 meeting and give staff direction regarding next steps into the future. 5 CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A GREENSTEP CITIES PROGRAM: BY IMPLEMENTING ADDITIONAL TASKS WITHIN THE GREENSTEP CITIES PROGRAM, THE CITY WILL HAVE COST SAVINGS, WHICH IMPROVES THE CITY’S FINANCIAL POSITION. THE PROMOTION OF THE CITY’S ATTAINMENT OF LEVELS 1 AND 2 AND THE PLAN TO ATTAIN LEVEL 3, PROVES TO RESIDENTS THAT THE CITY IS CONSCIOUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND SUPPORTS THE CITY’S OBJECTIVE TO BE A “COMMUNITY FOR LIFE”, THEREBY MAKING THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN A STRONG COMPETITOR WHEN RESIDENTS ARE CHOOSING A COMMUNITY IN THE WEST SUBURBS The Mayor and City Council met with the Environmental Commission on June 25, 2018 to discuss the GreenStep Cities Program. The Environmental Commission requested authorization for the city to participate in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program. This is a voluntary, non-regulatory program that dovetails into current city practices. The City Council is under no obligation to complete any of the steps and can withdraw from the program at any time. The next step is for the City Council to consider passing a resolution to participate and direct the Environmental Commission to document current practices that the city is already involved with. 6 Planning for the City’s Infrastructure Create solutions for managing existing infrastructure and future growth in our community while preserving a sustainable quality of life and protecting the environment. IMPLEMENT PARK REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE: INITIATE FUNDING OF AN ANNUAL PARK EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE TO EFFICIENTLY ADDRESS AGED AND DETERIORATED PARK EQUIPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE Background information on how this item became a key financial strategy was provided at the June 25, 2018 City Council work session. The proposed park replacement schedule of projects for 2019 through 2023 was presented. Potential funding options that can used to fund these projects were reviewed. Council members agreed that they are not in favor of doing anything until after the public meeting is held on the use of franchise fees to fund roads. It was discussed that the item would move forward with the budget process. DEVELOP LAKE ANN PARK AND TRAIL EXPANSION MASTER PLAN/PRN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT: INITIATE MASTER PLANNING AND FEASIBILITY STUDY TO GUIDE FUTURE ACQUISITION OF LANDS EXPANDING LAKE ANN PARK AND ASSOCIATED TRAILS. REVIEW THE PARK AND TRAIL PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY SURROUNDING LAKE ANN, AND THE PLANNING TOOLS AVAILABLE (DENSITY TRANSFER) TO ACQUIRE OPEN SPACE On June 11, 2018 the City Council discussed the proposed development by Lennar of the 18- acre Galpin Boulevard property. The discussion included conversation about different architecture being proposed for a development, what discretion is given to home buyers for exterior finishes, potential plat layout, concern over lot sizes not fitting in with surrounding neighborhoods and a desire to preserve the property around Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. How the item will move forward through staff, Planning Commission and City Council was also discussed. On August 13, 2018 the City Council completed a conceptual review of a Planned Unit Development PUD for the property which included a staff report, comments from the applicant and extensive feedback from council members and citizens. Staff has not yet 7 received a response from Lennar following the August 13 review regarding next steps. Staff is proposing that the 2019 Park and Trail acquisition and development Capital Improvement Program CIP include $35,000 for a Lake Ann Park and Trail Expansion Feasibility Study. REVIEW SANITARY SEWER INFLOW/INFILTRATION (I/I) REDUCTION PLAN: STAFF WILL UPDATE COUNCIL ON THE CURRENT I/I REDUCTION PLAN AND SEE IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO MAKE ANY CHANGES. Since 2007 the city has completed Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) projects to limit the amount of groundwater and surface water coming into the sanitary sewer system. The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) placed a surcharge fee on the city for excessive I/I. Excessive I/I takes away from the sewer capacity of the Metropolitan Trunk Sewers and can lead to backups if enough I/I enters the system. In exchange for a fee surcharge the City elected to make improvements to the city-owned sewers to reduce I/I in the city- maintained sanitary sewer system. These projects consist of replacing leaking sewer pipe, grouting joints, rehabilitating manholes and lining sewer pipes. A study was completed in 2006 that identified likely high I/I problem areas. Most of the identified project areas have been investigated and improvements made. In addition, street rehabilitation and street reconstruction projects have had I/I improvements made. The city still has a surcharge placed on it by MCES. MCES has also televised and made I/I improvements to their trunk sewer mains over the past years. They are also planning to complete additional I/I improvements in the upcoming years. Staff will be bringing this item to a City Council work session in October. Staff feels an update to the 2006 I/I study is needed to identify other likely sources of I/I in the community. UPGRADE OF GALPIN BLVD: COMPLETE THE SCOPING AND TRAFFIC STUDY WITH CARVER COUNTY, AND IDENTIFY FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE UPGRADE OF GALPIN BLVD NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 Carver County currently operates and maintains Galpin Boulevard; however, the county has identified this section of Galpin Boulevard as a potential turnback since it functions more as a local collector roadway than a county roadway. A scoping study was completing in June 2018 to help determine if a turnback is in the best interest of the city. The City Council passed a resolution of support for the study finding on June 25, 2018. The reconstruction of Galpin Boulevard is tentatively programed for 2022. 8 IMPROVEMENTS TO CHANHASSEN RAILROAD DEPOT: MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RAILROAD DEPOT IN ORDER TO BETTER UTILIZE A KEY PIECE OF CHANHASSEN’S HISTORY This key financial strategy will be reviewed at the August 27, 2018 City Council work session. 9 Enhance Local Tax Base Evaluate the Comprehensive Plan with current goals and policies; assess the impact. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: ENHANCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, I.E. INCENTIVES, MARKETING, DIRECT MARKETING On May 29, 2018, the current economic development practices and a summary of recent projects were presented to City Council at a work session. City staff discussed tax abatement and tax increment financing examples and programs as options for future economic development programs, as well as a draft of an updated business subsidy criteria policy. City Council directed staff to research policies from neighboring and KFS cities and to present them at a later date. On July 9, 2018 city staff presented economic development or subsidy policy examples from Chaska, Shakopee, Minnetonka, and Elk River, as well as Chanhassen’s previously updated draft policy. City Council discussed whether to update the policy as presented, take requests on a case-by-case basis rather than have a formal policy, or whether to adopt a policy with more specific criteria as to what types of projects would qualify and an outline of what programs could be available to businesses. City Council directed staff to see draft a policy with additional evaluation criteria. Staff has been evaluating criteria from other policies and will bring a draft to City Council for consideration before the end of the year. DOWNTOWN FOCUS UPDATE: CONTINUE TO COLLECT INPUT FROM RESIDENTS, BUSINESS OWNERS, AND CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS ON THEIR VISION FOR DOWNTOWN CHANHASSEN. RESEARCH WHAT OTHER KEY FINANCIAL CITIES ARE DOING WITH DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENTS At the June 9, 2018 City Council work session, Bryan Harjes with Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. reviewed highlights of the Downtown Chanhassen Vision Plan update. The key takeaways from the stakeholders’ meeting was the need for connectivity for automobiles, pedestrians and bicycles, enhancements for intersection crossings, future land use, and providing for flexibility for sub-districts. The City Council would like to 10 include more depth to the study, list the guiding principles of the study, and define the next steps. Staff and Bryan were also asked to review the Survey Monkey ranking as the highest and not the lowest, and bring it back for review at a future work session. 11 Other Projects and Goals Accomplished Department Accomplishments in 2018 That Were Not Included in the Key Financial Strategies. g:\admin\tg\work plan\2018\2018 work plan.docx CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 632 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS; CHAPTER 4, LICENSE, PERMIT AND ADMINISTRAIVE FEES; CHAPTER 10, LICENSES, PERMITS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS REGULATIONS; AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 1-2 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Brew Pub is a brewer who also holds one or more retail on -sale licenses and who manufactures fewer than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year, at any one licensed premises, the entire production of which is solely for consumption on tap on any licensed premises owned by the brewer, or for off -sale from those licensed premises as permitted in Minn. Stat. 340A.24. subdivision 2. Brewer is a person who manufactures malt liquor for sale. Brewery is a location where malt liquor is manufactured for sale. Cocktail room is a location in or adjacent to a microdistillery where the owner of the distillery sells distilled spirits produced by the distiller for consumption on the premises or for off-site consumption as provided for in Minn. Stat. 340A.22. Distiller is a person who manufactures distilled spirts for sale. Distilled spirits is ethyl alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl, spirits of wine, whiskey, rum, brandy, gin, and other distilled spirits, including all dilutions and mixtures thereof, for non -industrial use. Malt Liquor is any beer, ale or other beverage made from malt by fermentation and containing not less than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume. Microdistillery is a distillery operated within the state producing premium distilled spirits in a total quantity not to exceed 40,000 proof gallons in a calendar year. Pickup signs. See Sign, Pickup Sign, Pickup means a sign not attached to a building that designates a specific area of a parking lot for the pickup and loading of goods purchased in advance. Small Brewer is a brewery that produces less than 20,000 barrels of malt liquor in a year. Tap Room is a location in or adjacent to a brewery where the owner of the brewery sells malt liquor produced by the brewery for consumption on the premises or for off-site consumption as provided for in Minn. Stat. 340A.28 and 340A.285. Section 2. Section 4-15(a)(2) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: 2. Various other license fees shall be set as follows: Microdistillery Off -sale ...................$200.00 On -sale Brewer Taproom.................$400.00 On -sale Cocktail Room....................$400.00 Off -sale intoxicating ........................$200.00* Off -sale non -intoxicating .................$ 58.00 On -sale non -intoxicating ..................$410.00 Small Brewer Off -sale .....................$200.00 Sunday sales.....................................$200.00* Wine/beer license.............................$410.00 Fees that are established by state statute. Section 3. Section 10-19(h) to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: h) Temporary on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses. 1) The city council may issue to a club or charitable religious or nonprofit organization in existence for at least three years or to a political committee registered under M.S. § 10A.14 a temporary license for the on -sale of intoxicating liquor in connection with a social event within the city sponsored by the licensee. The license may authorize the on - sale of intoxicating liquor for not more than four consecutive days, and may authorize on - sales on premises other than premises the licensee owns or permanently occupies. The license may provide that the licensee may contract for intoxicating liquor catering services with the holder of a full -year on -sale liquor license issued by the city. The licenses are subject to the terms, including license fee, imposed by the city. The licenses issued under this section are subject to all laws and ordinances governing the sale of intoxicating liquor except M.S. § 340A.409 and § 340A.504, subd. 3, paragraph (d), and the laws and ordinances which by their nature are not applicable. 2) The city council may issue to a brewer who manufactures fewer than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year or a microdistillery a temporary license for the on -sale of intoxicating liquor in connection with a social event within the municipality sponsored by the brewer or microdistillery. The terms and conditions specified for temporary licenses under paragraph (1) shall apply to a license issued under this paragraph, except that the requirements of section M.S. § 340A.409 subd. 1 to 3a, shall apply to the license. 3) Limitations on temporary on -sale intoxication liquor licenses: i) Temporary licenses must first be approved by the Commissioner of Public Safety before they become valid. ii) No more than three four-day, four three-day, or six two-day temporary licenses, in any combination not to exceed 12 days per year, may be issued for the sale of alcoholic beverages to any one organization or registered political committee, or for any one location, within a 12 -month period. iii)Not more than one temporary license may be issued to any one organization or registered political committee, or for any one location, within any 30 -day period. Section 4. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 10-19(k) to Section 10-19(n) to read as follows: k) On -Sale Brewer Taproom License. May be issued to a brewery licensed under Minn. Stat. Section 340A.301, subdivision 6, clause (c), (i), or 0) for the on -sale of malt liquor produced by the brewer for the consumption on the premises of or adjacent to one brewery location owned by the brewer as provided in Minn. Stat. Section 340A.26. 1) On -Sale Brewer Taproom License Holders are allowed Sunday on -sales as provided in Minn. Stat 340A.26, subdivision 5 and do not require a separate On -Sale Sunday Liquor License. No Sunday on -sales are allowed before 10:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. 1) Small Brewer Off -Sale License. May be issued to a brew pub or brewery licensed under Minn. Stat. Section 340A.301, subdivision 6, clause (c), (i), or 0) for the off -sale of malt liquor at its licensed premises that has been produced and packaged by the brewer as provided in Minn. Stat. 340A.24, 340A.28, and 340A.285. 1) Small Brewer Off -Sale License holders are allowed Sunday off -sale as provided in Minn. Stat. 340A.24 and 340A.28, and 340A.285. No Sunday off -sales are allowed before 10:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. m) On -Sales Cocktail Room. License may be issued to a microdistillery for the on -sale of distilled spirits produced by the distiller for the consumption on the premises of or adjacent to one distillery location owned by the distiller as provided in Minn. Stat 340A.22, subdivision 2. 2) On -Sales Cocktail Room License Holders are allowed Sunday on -sales as provided in Minn. Stat 340A.22, subdivision 2 and do not require a separate On -Sale Sunday Liquor License. No Sunday on -sales are allowed before 10:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. n) Microdistillery Off -Sale License. May be issued to a microdistillery for the off -sale of distilled spirits as provided in Minn. Stat. 340A.22, subdivision 4. 1) Microdistillery Off -Sale License Holders are allowed Sunday off -sales as provided in Minn. Stat 340A.22, subdivision 4 and do not require a separate On -Sale Sunday Liquor License. No Sunday off -sales are allowed before 10:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. Section 5. Section 10-53 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 10-53. - Samples. On- or off -sale licensees may provide or permit a licensed manufacturer or wholesaler or its agents to provide on the premise of the retail licensee samples of malt liquor, wine, liqueurs, cordials, and distilled spirits which the licensee currently has in stock and is offering for sale to the general public without obtaining an additional license, provided the malt liquor, wine, liqueur, cordial, and distilled spirits samples are dispensed at no charge and consumed on the licensed premises during the permitted hours of sale in a quantity less than 100 milliliters of malt liquor per variety per customer, 50 milliliters of wine per variety per customer, 25 milliliters of liqueur or cordial, and 15 milliliters of distilled spirits per variety per customer. Section 6. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-314 to read as follows: Sec. 20-314. - Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom, producing more than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor per year. The following applies to all breweries operated in conjunction with a taproom: 1) The brewery shall not produce more than 5,000 barrels of malt liquor per year, unless they are located in an area zoned Industrial Office Park (IOP), in which case the brewery shall not produce more than 20,000 barrels of malt liquor per year. 2) An outdoor seating area is permitted provided it has an enclosure and the enclosure is not interrupted; access to the seating area must be through the principle building; its hours of operation shall be no later than 10:00 p.m. Sunday -Thursday and 12:00 a.m. Friday - Saturday; and the outdoor seating area must be located and designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian and vehicular circulation. 3) Shipping and receiving areas shall be located behind the facility or otherwise screened from view. 4) Compliance plan must be submitted to the city including: a. An inventory of potential or identified odor emission point sources associated with the industry or source. b. An engineering quality plan detailing best available control technologies and appurtenances designed to eliminate or achieve the maximum reduction of odor pollution from an emission point source inclusive of, but not necessarily limited to certain processes, procedures, or operating methods intended to mitigate or control odor pollution. c. A detailed explanation of the specifications and operating parameters of the best available control technologies, monitoring instrumentation and equipment, and processes and procedures intended for the mitigation or control of odor pollution. d. A specification of the documentation that will be made available for the city's review which will verify the data produced by the monitoring equipment, and which will verify that processes and procedures are conducted consistent with the specifications in the facility's odor control study and plan. e. An approved schedule which states, in a time certain manner, the implementation and installation of the best available control technology, processes, procedures, operating methods, and monitoring instrumentation designed to mitigate or control odors at the facility inclusive of an approved completion date. 0 An acknowledgment of the authority of the city and its agents to enter into the facility or its property in order to investigate complaints and to verify the facility's adherence to the compliance plan. Section 7. Section 20-712 to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-712. - Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a "BH" district: 1) Adult day care, subject to the requirements of section 20-966 2) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. 3) Brew pub, subject to the requirements of section 20-968. 4) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom producing less than 3,500 barrels per year, subject to the requirements of section 20-969. 5) Car wash. 6) Community center. 7) Convenience stores without gas pumps. 8) Day care center. 9) Fast-food restaurant. 10) Financial institutions with/or without drive-through services. 11) Funeral homes. 12) Health services. 13) Liquor stores. 14) Microdistillery operated in conjunction with cocktail room, subject to the requirements of section 20-967. 15) Miniature golf. 16) Motels and hotels. 17) Offices. 18) Personal services. 19) Private clubs and lodges. 20) Shopping center. 21) Specialty retail shops. 22) Standard restaurants. 23) Utility services. Section 8. Section 20-714 to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-714. - Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a "BH" district: 1) Automobile rental facilities. 2) Automotive repair shops. 3) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom, producing over 3,500 barrels per year. 4) Convenience stores with gas pumps. 5) Drive-through facilities. 6) Emission control testing stations. 7) Garden centers. 8) Motor fuel stations. 9) Outdoor storage. 10) Small vehicle sales. 11) Supermarkets. 12) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. Section 9. Section 20-732 to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-732. - Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a "CBD" district: 1) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. 2) Ballroom. 3) Barber and beauty salons and spas including hair, nail, skin and scalp services. 4) Bars and taverns. 5) Bowling center. 6) Brew pub, subject to the requirements of section 20-968. 7) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom producing less than 3,500 barrels per year, subject to the requirements of section 20-969. 8) Clothing rental. 9) Clubs and lodges. 10) Coin-operated service machines. 11) Community center. 12) Convenience stores without gas pumps. 13) Convention and conference facilities. 14) Costume rental. 15) Cultural facilities. 16) Day care center as part of shopping center. 17) Fast-food restaurants as part of shopping center. 18) Financial institutions. 19) Health and recreation clubs, instructions and services. 20) Health services, outpatient only. 21) Hotels. 22) Laundry and garment services including self-service. 23) Locker rental. 24) Microdistillery operated in conjunction with a cocktail room, subject to the requirements of section 20-967. 25) Multiple -family dwellings, including senior citizen housing. 26) Newspaper offices. 27) Offices. 28) Parking ramp. 29) Photographic studios. 30) Print shops. 31) Quilting and scrap booking. 32) Retail sales. 33) Schools. 34) Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors. 35) Shopping center. 36) Sporting goods rental. 37) Standard restaurants. 38) Tattoo and body art and piercing services (MS ch. 146B). 39) Theatrical producers and services. 40) Utility service. 41) Wedding chapel. Section 10. Section 20-734 to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-734. - Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a "CBD" district: 1) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom, producing over 3,500 barrels per year. 2) Drive-through facilities. 3) Convenience store with gas pumps. 4) Freestanding fast-food restaurants. Section 11. Section 20-752 to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-752. - Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a "BG" district: 1) Adult day care, subject to the requirement of section 20-966 2) Animal hospital. 3) Antenna. 4) Bars and taverns. 5) Bowling center. 6) Brew pub, subject to the requirements of section 20-968. 7) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom producing less than 3,500 barrels per year, subject to the requirements of section 20-969. 8) Community center. 9) Convenience stores without gas pumps. 10) Day care center. 11) Entertainment. 12) Fast-food restaurants. 13) Financial institutions. 14) Funeral homes. 15) Garden centers. 7 16) Hardware goods. 17) Health and recreation clubs. 18) Health services. 19) Home improvement trades building supply centers. 20) Microdistillery operated in conjunction with a cocktail room, subject to the requirements of section 20-967. 21) Miniature golf. 22) Motels. 23) Newspaper and print shop. 24) Offices. 25) Personal services. 26) Private clubs and lodges. 27) Senior citizen housing. 28) Small appliance and similar repair shops. 29) Specialty retail. 30) Standard restaurants. 31) Supermarkets. 32) Utility services. 33) Veterinary clinic. Section 12. Section 20-754 to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-754. - Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a "BG" district 1) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom, producing over 3,500 barrels per year. 2) Convenience stores with gas pumps. 3) Drive-through facilities 4) Equipment rental. 5) Major auto repair and body shops. 6) Motor fuel stations. 7) Screened outdoor storage. 8) Truck, automobile, farm implement, recreational vehicles and boat sales and service. Section 13. Section 20-793 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-793. - Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in the "OI" district: 1) Adult Day Care as part of a church (subject to the requirements of Sec. 20-966). 2) Parking lots. 3) Signs. 4) Temporary outdoor sales and events (subject to the requirements of section 20- 964). Section 14. Section 20-812 to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-812. - Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "IOP" district: 1) Adult day care, subject to the requirements of section 20-966 2) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. 3) Automotive repair shops. 4) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom producing less than 3,500 barrels per year, subject to the requirements of section 20-969. 5) Conference/convention centers. 6) Health services. 7) Indoor health and recreation clubs. 8) Light industrial. 9) Microdistillery operated in conjunction with a cocktail room, subject to the requirements of section 20-967. 10) Offices. 11) Off -premises parking lots. 12) Print shops. 13) Recording studios. 14) Utility services. 15) Vocational school. 16) Warehouses. Section 15. Section 20-814 to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-814. - Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "IOP" district: 1) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom, producing over 3,500 barrels per year. 2) Contracting yards. 3) Day care centers as part of a multi -tenant building. 4) Day care centers as a separate facility. 5) Food processing. 6) Gun range, indoor. 7) Home improvement trades. 8) Hotels and motels. 9) Lumber yards. 10) Motor freight terminals. 11) Outdoor health and recreation clubs. 12) Screened outdoor storage. 13) Research laboratories. 14) Commercial towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. 15) Electrical distribution and underground electric distribution substations. Section 16. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-967 to Section 20-969 to read as follows: Sec. 20-967. - Microdistillery operated in conjunction with a cocktail room. The following applies to all Microdistilleries operated in conjunction with a cocktail room: 1) The Microdistillery shall not produce more than 40,000 proof gallons of distilled spirits per year. 2) An outdoor seating area is permitted provided it has an enclosure and the enclosure is not interrupted; access to the seating area must be through the principle building; its hours of operation shall be no later than 10:00 p.m. Sunday - Thursday and 12:00 a.m. Friday -Saturday; and the outdoor seating area must be located and designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian and vehicular circulation. 3) Shipping and receiving areas shall be located behind the facility or otherwise screened from view. Sec. 20-968. - Brew Pub. The following applies to all brew pubs: 1) The brew pub shall not produce more than 3,500 barrels per year. 2) An outdoor seating area is permitted provided it has an enclosure and the enclosure is not interrupted; access to the seating area must be through the principle building; its hours of operation shall be no later than 10:00 p.m. Sunday - Thursday and 12:00 a.m. Friday -Saturday; and the outdoor seating area must be located and designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian and vehicular circulation. 3) Shipping and receiving areas shall be located behind the facility or otherwise screened from view. Sec. 20-969. - Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom, producing less than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor per year. The following applies to all breweries operated in conjunction with a taproom: 1) The brewery shall not produce more than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor per year. 2) An outdoor seating area is permitted provided it has an enclosure and the enclosure is not interrupted; access to the seating area must be through the principle building; its hours of operation shall be no later than 10:00 p.m. Sunday - Thursday and 12:00 a.m. Friday -Saturday; and the outdoor seating area must be located and designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian and vehicular circulation. 10 3) Shipping and receiving areas shall be located behind the facility or otherwise screened from view. Section 17. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-1124(2)(z) to read as follows: z. Brew pub, Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom, or Microdistillery operated in conjunction with a cocktail room -One space for each 50 square feet of gross taproom, cocktail room, or restaurant floor area, and one space for each 1,000 square feet of gross production area. Section 18. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-1255(14) to read as follows: 14) Pickup Signs; big box retailers and grocery stores are allowed one sign to designate an area of the parking lot for pickup/driveup loading of goods purchased in advance subject to the following conditions: a. The pickup sign must be located within the parking lot and the placement of pickup sign shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties or navigability of the parking lot (including sight lines, confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights of way. b. No more than one pickup sign shall be allowed per business c. The pickup sign may not exceed thirteen feet in height. d. The pickup sign's base shall be not more than two -feet wide on a side, and no portion of the sign may project beyond the base. e. The pickup sign is limited to four square feet of display area per sign face, and no more than 30 percent of the display area shall be used for the business logo or identification. f. Businesses with a drive-through facility may not also have a pickup sign. Section 19. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this l la' day of June, 2018 by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen,, Minnesot Todd Gerhardt, City Manager cc Denny Lau nburger, Mayor Summary Ordinance 632 published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 21, 2018) 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 633 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7, BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 7-19(21) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: 21) Calculation of the amount and percentage of the lot coverage for the lot or parcel broken out by impervious surfaces and pervious pavement, if present. Section 2. Section 20-109(4)(h)(4) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: 4. Percent of lot coverage on site broken out by impervious surface and pervious pavement. Section 3. Section 20-615(5) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: 5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 30 percent, of which no more than 25 percent can be impervious surfaces. For flag/neck lots neither the area within the neck, nor the lot coverage of the driveway within the neck shall be included within the calculation of the lot area or lot coverage of the lot. Section 4. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-921 to read as follows: Sec. 20-921 —Pervious Pavement Properly designed, installed, and maintained pervious pavements have the capacity to allow for stormwater detention and/or infiltration. When not properly designed, installed, and maintained pervious pavements fail to facilitate the detention and/or infiltration of stormwater. Additionally, pervious pavements contribute to the creation of heat islands and do not provide the same surface water management benefits as native vegetative cover. For these reasons, it is necessary to regulate the lot coverage, design, installation, and maintenance of these systems. 1) Lot Coverage: Pervious pavements are considered to constitute lot coverage; however, when built to the standards espoused in this section they do not constitute impervious surfaces. Systems not built to the standards espoused in this section are considered to constitute impervious surfaces. 2) Location Restrictions: a. Pervious pavements may not be installed in areas where trash or garbage receptacles will be stored. 3) Design and Installation: a. A building permit is required for the instillation of pervious pavement systems. b. Pervious pavement systems must be designed to provide for rate and volume control for the first half inch (0.5") of treatment area and follow the current version of The City of Chanhassen Standard Specification and Detail Plates. Treatment area includes the total square footage of the pervious pavement system plus the total square footage of impervious surface draining directly to the pervious pavement system. c. To meet the city's definition of pervious pavement the system must: 1) be designed in compliance with standards established by the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI); 2) be installed by an ICPI certified installer; and, 3) be designed to meet or exceed the standards listed in paragraph (b). d. The City Engineer may permit pervious pavement technologies other than permeable interlocking concrete pavers, so long as the City Engineer determines: 1) they are functionally equivalent or better; 2) the system is designed in compliance with accepted guidelines and is installed by an appropriately certified installer; and, 3) the system will meet or exceed the standards listed in paragraph b)• 4) Maintenance: a. The owner of a pervious paver system must enter into a maintenance agreement with the city to ensure the system performs as designed in perpetuity. This agreement must conform to the manufactures guidelines, and stipulate the frequency and type of maintenance to be performed. District restrictions: a. Planned Unit Developments Residential Districts (PDDR) are limited to the lot coverage specified by their ordinance and/or compliance table. For PUDRs created before June 11, 2018 the terms hardcover, hard surface, impervious surface, and similar phrases shall be understood to mean lot cover inclusive of both pervious pavements and impervious surfaces, and in no circumstance shall the failure of the ordinance or compliance table to mention pervious pavements be understood to mean that pervious pavements are not subject to the lot cover, hardcover, hardscape, or similarly identified limits that govern the PUDR. b. Shoreland Management District restricts properties zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF) to 25 percent lot coverage. 5) Section 5. This ordinance shall be effective as of the 1" day of August, 2018. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25a' day of June, 2018 by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota/ ! eo , --" V odd Gerhardt, City Manager w Denny Lau nburger, Mayor Published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 5, 2018) CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, August 27, 2018 Subject Key Financial Strategy: Chanhassen Railroad Depot Improvements Section 5:30 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.3. Prepared By Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Department File No:  SUMMARY The City of Chanhassen 2018 Annual Goals and Key Financial Strategies includes the following item under the heading "Planning for the City's Infrastructure:" Improvements to Chanhassen Railroad Depot­Make improvements to the Railroad Depot in order to better utilize a key piece of Chanhassen's history.  BACKGROUND The Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad built a small depot in Chanhassen in 1882.  Back then, the newspaper described it as "one of the handsomest and most convenient of any on the line." The railroad provided a connection to Minneapolis and soon businesses sprung up around it. During World War II, the depot was no longer needed and the building was sold to Joseph and Mary Kerber for $75. They moved it to their farm just west of Lake Ann Park and used it as a workshop.  In celebration of the city's centennial in 1996, the depot was purchased by the Chanhassen Housing & Redevelopment Authority and moved to its the current site, which is near its original location. DISCUSSION Upon return to downtown Chanhassen the exterior of the depot was extensively refurbished to persevere its condition and renew its appearance. The 2018 estimate to completely renovate the interior and exterior of the structure, add parking and a driveway entrance, gas, water, electrical and fiber optic utilities is $774,215. It is staff's position that the highest and best use of the depot is that of a historic landmark.  In 2012 the depot was repainted by 75 AmeriCorps Volunteers in a single day with paint, materials and equipment donated by Kent and Debbie Ludford from Merlins Ace Hardware. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council receive the report and take no action towards continued renovation of the Chanhassen Historic Train Depot. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, August 27, 2018SubjectKey Financial Strategy: Chanhassen Railroad Depot ImprovementsSection5:30 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.3.Prepared By Todd Hoffman, Park & RecreationDepartment File No: SUMMARYThe City of Chanhassen 2018 Annual Goals and Key Financial Strategies includes the following item under theheading "Planning for the City's Infrastructure:" Improvements to Chanhassen Railroad Depot­Make improvements tothe Railroad Depot in order to better utilize a key piece of Chanhassen's history. BACKGROUNDThe Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad built a small depot in Chanhassen in 1882.  Back then, thenewspaper described it as "one of the handsomest and most convenient of any on the line." The railroad provided aconnection to Minneapolis and soon businesses sprung up around it. During World War II, the depot was no longerneeded and the building was sold to Joseph and Mary Kerber for $75. They moved it to their farm just west of LakeAnn Park and used it as a workshop. In celebration of the city's centennial in 1996, the depot was purchased by the Chanhassen Housing & RedevelopmentAuthority and moved to its the current site, which is near its original location.DISCUSSIONUpon return to downtown Chanhassen the exterior of the depot was extensively refurbished to persevere its conditionand renew its appearance. The 2018 estimate to completely renovate the interior and exterior of the structure, addparking and a driveway entrance, gas, water, electrical and fiber optic utilities is $774,215.It is staff's position that the highest and best use of the depot is that of a historic landmark.  In 2012 the depot wasrepainted by 75 AmeriCorps Volunteers in a single day with paint, materials and equipment donated by Kent andDebbie Ludford from Merlins Ace Hardware.RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council receive the report and take no action towards continued renovation of the Chanhassen Historic Train Depot. ATTACHMENTS: Project Narrative and Cost Estimate Depot after relocation to current site Depot in the process of being repainted in 2012 Depot after completion of repainting by AmeriCorps Volunteers in 2012 Depot in its current state CHANHASSEN HISTORIC TRAIN DEPOT PROJECT NARRATIVE: In celebration of the city’s centennial in 1996, the depot was purchased by Chanhassen Housing & Redevelopment Authority and moved to this site, which is near its original location. To help fund the move and exterior restoration, brick and pavers were sold that were inscribed with the names of many local families. the 2019 initiative is to bring the train depot up to code and utilize the building and site for historical society meetings and purposes. PROJECT OBJECTIVES: • provide parking with ada stall • provide ada access to entry • refurbish exterior and roof • refurbish interior with ada access • provide interior restrooms • provide updated utilities • provide updated electrical and hvac • provide site resoration and landscaping CHANHASSEN, MN DAMON FARBER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS - 5-24-18 NEW LANDSCAPE AND TURF RESTORATION NEW ADA ENTRY RAMP WITH HANDRAIL NEW STEPS WITH HANDRAIL NEW BITUMINOUS PARKING WITH CURBING NEW SITE RETAINING WALLS CONCEPT SITE PLAN CHANHASSEN HISTORIC TRAIN DEPOT CHANHASSEN, MN DAMON FARBER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS - 5-24-18 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, August 27, 2018 Subject Teen Volunteer Recognition Section PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS Item No: C.1. Prepared By Katie Mathews, Recreation Supervisor File No:  BACKGROUND On behalf of the City Council and the Park & Recreation Commission, I would like to recognize the 2018 Teen Volunteers. These 13­16 year­olds were selected to serve as volunteers for city­sponsored recreation programs from June through August. The programs consisted of the KleinBank Summer Concert Series, Lake Ann Adventure Camp, youth sports at the Rec Center, and Discovery Playground Program. The city would like to thank this year’s teen volunteers for their service. Together they compiled over 490 hours of service to the City of Chanhassen! Please come forward when your name is called to receive your certificate: 1. Alena Nugent 2. Ben Schubbe 3. Brian Gilbertson 4. Bridget McNaney 5. Caleb Blong 6. Derek Puzak 7. Fin O’Brien 8. Holley Marini 9. Hope Durenberger 10. Jack Dietz 11 . Jack Liwienski 12. Josh Boevers 13. Lolly Walsh 14. Melanie Stewart­Hester 15. Madi Hamilton 16. McKenna Aker CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, August 27, 2018 Subject Approve of City Council Minutes dated August 13, 2018 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the minutes dated August 13, 2018.” Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: City Council Work Session Minutes dated August 13, 2018 City Council Summary Minutes dated August 13, 2018 City Council Verbatim Minutes dated August 13, 2018 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AUGUST 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger called the work session to order at 5:28 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Ryan, and Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Jill Sinclair, and Greg Sticha PUBLIC PRESENT: Tim Erhart Chanhassen Mike McGonagill 2451 Hunter Drive Brian & Donna Strauss 6840 Lucy Ridge Lane Bob & Cheryl Ayotte 6213 Cascade Pass Greg Andrews 6895 Ruby Lane 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. Kate Aanenson reviewed meetings held with the Planning Commission to discuss the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Bob Generous reviewed highlights of changes made in the 10 chapters. Councilman Campion asked for clarification on the addition of 40 acres in the community. Mayor Laufenburger asked about the sewer, water and surface water management plans. Councilwoman Ryan suggested wording changes regarding infill development specifically in the downtown core area, and expressed concerns with wording for policies regarding density. Mayor Laufenburger discussed wording under transportation, Highway 101 trail, and operations regarding a tobacco use policy. Tim Erhart discussed issues related to a request for land use changes to protect and create a greenway along the Bluff Creek corridor as it relates to his vision for development of a high end office project on his property. Councilwoman Ryan asked for clarification on how the boundary line for the Bluff Creek corridor was determined. Tim Erhart continued with discussion of development potential for his property and his request to get clarity of the Bluff Creek overlay district to add land to the Fox Woods Preserve. Councilwoman Ryan asked for clarification on the progression of shifting the Bluff Creek overlay district boundary line. Mayor Laufenburger recommended that council members get an opportunity to walk Tim Erhart’s property. City Council Work Session – August 13, 2018 2 REVIEW OF SECOND QUARTER REVENUE ACTIVITY TO DATE AND INVESTMENTS. Greg Sticha explained that revenue numbers for the second quarter are greater than budgeted numbers before introducing Reed Christenson, the investment consultant with Wells Fargo who reviewed results of the investment portfolio. Mayor Laufenburger asked for clarification on how the investment portfolio compares to debt. Councilman Campion asked if the numbers being presented can be compared to key financial strategy cities. PRELIMINARY BUDGET AND LEVY DISCUSSION. Greg Sticha discussed assumptions used in setting up the preliminary budget as related to new growth, wage adjustments, health care, elimination of the crime prevention specialist position, and police contract numbers which results in a levy that is $76,000 above the new growth number. He explained that reduction of the $76,000 is represented in scenario 2. Mayor Laufenburger discussed the three scenarios and asked how the budget and levy schedule will proceed. Councilman Campion stated there seemed to be barely no difference between the 3 scenarios being presented and asked staff to look at presenting more differences in the 3 scenarios. Todd Gerhardt explained how service cuts have been addressed in the past. Mayor Laufenburger asked that Jill Sinclair come back at a future work session to discuss yard waste collection options. Mayor Laufenburger adjourned the work session meeting at 6:57 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES AUGUST 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Ryan, and Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Jill Sinclair, and Andrea McDowell Poehler PUBLIC PRESENT: Conrad Fiskness 2385 Bridle Creek Circle Mike and Andi McGonagill 2451 Hunter Drive Suzanne Hunt 1521 Lake Susan Hills Drive Baro Egh Thiede 2091 Hennepin Avenue, Glencoe Dale Hayne 7510 Cahill Road, Edina Dennis Scheppmann 6740 Lakeway Drive Shelley Berken 6820 Diamond Court David & Jeff Allen 6870 Lake Harrison Circle Jessica Hansgen 7555 Walnut Curve Meghan Davy Chan Villager Cristin Maschka 2086 Majestic Way Ladd Conrad 6625 Horseshoe Curve Donna & Brian Strauss 6840 Lucy Ridge Lane Sue Bogan 7757 Butter? Court Janet Taylor 2051 Blue? Lane Paul Engebretson 7050 Tecumseh Lane Erika LaBarge 7050 Tecumseh Lane Mack Titess 2747 Century Trail Mauricio Goes 6930 Ruby Lane Mark Phillips 1760 Lucy Ridge Court Brian & Donna Strauss 6840 Lucy Ridge Lane Michelle & Matthew Myers 7421 Windmill Dive Greg Andrews 6895 Ruby Lane Steve Barnes 7100 Utica Lane Peter Polingo 1981 Topaz Drive Jay & Ann Marie Gerczak 1941 Topaz Drive Tom K. Lannom 6920 Ruby Lane City Council Summary – August 13, 2018 2 Bark Klick 7116 Utica Lane Dale & Gloria Carlson 6900 Utica Lane Steve Wallace 6900 Lucy Ridge Lane Kris Lenk 6895 Lucy Ridge Lane Joanne & Bill Lambrecht 6990 Utica Lane Michael Bierden 2300 Lukewood Drive Linda Zabrosky 2940 Highwood Drive Eric Hamborg 18612 Topaz Drive Mark Gilk 6890 Ruby Lane Matt & Deb Chambers 2169 Red Fox Circle Lora & Tony Hicks 6910 Ruby Lane M.J. & Allan Olson 7461 Windmill Drive Cheree Theisen 2072 Majestic Way Serena O’Brien 6879 Ruby Lane Deirdre & Dake Chatfield 2200 Majestic Way Adam & Steph Tollefson 4000 Stratford Ridge Jeff Ische 25365 Smithtown Road, Shorewood Wittas 24625 Yellowstone Trail, Shorewood Jim Fredrickson & Michelle Treptar 6935 Ruby Lane Jeff & Stacey Morken 6945 Ruby Lane Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded to approve the agenda as modified to table item G-2, Control Concepts. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approval of City Council Minutes dated July 9, 2018 2. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 26, 2018 3. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated July 17, 2018 4. Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License Request: St. Hubert’s Catholic Community; Harvest Festival on September 15, 2018 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Don Amorosi, 2368 Grays Landing Road, Wayzata, speaking as the father of Archer Amorosi who was killed by Carver County Deputies, requested that the City form and fund if necessary an independent committee that reports to the city council and is City Council Summary – August 13, 2018 3 comprised of a representative from social services, the area crisis center, law enforcement, and a council member as well as a mental health professional, a parent, a student, an educator and a member of the press. He asked that the committee’s charge should be to evaluate the circumstances around this tragedy, identify breakdown’s and opportunities for improvement and make recommendations to better systems, procedures, protocol and training which may reduce if not eliminate something like this from happening ever again. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE VACATION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MINGER ADDITION (2300 LUKEWOOD DRIVE). Jill Sinclair presented the staff report on this item. Councilwoman Ryan asked if other lots in this neighborhood are impacted by the conservation easement. Mayor Laufenburger opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Resolution #2018-40: Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council adopts the resolution approving the vacation of a portion of conservation easement legally described as the northerly 50 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Minger Addition according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. GALPIN PROPERTY: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPM,ENT CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Todd Hoffman discussed the City’s Park System Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan and how it affects this development. City Engineer Paul Oehme, filling in for the Water Resources Coordinator, discussed how development affects the water quality of Lake Lucy and Lake Ann. Councilman McDonald asked for clarification of the street connection with the neighborhood to the north of this development. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked about blending the new development with the surrounding neighborhoods. Councilman Campion asked about signage regarding the stub street going through in the future. Mayor Laufenburger asked about the traffic study, and how the property being preserved around Lake Ann and Lake Lucy will be conveyed to the City of Chanhassen. Representing the applicant, Joe Jablonski with Lennar Corporation addressed issues related to how Lennar was chosen by the estate of Prince Rogers Nelson to develop the property, and outlined the work that’s been performed on the property to date. Councilmember Ryan voiced her disappointment in not being presented a Plan C from Lennar. Councilman Campion asked about the purchase of 10 acres on the north side of the property abutting Lake Lucy. Mayor Laufenburger asked the developer if he was prepared to work with city staff to address the 13 pages of issues and where examples of the empty nester villa homes are located before opening up the meeting for public comments. Matthew Myers, 7421 Windmill Drive asked if the City could buy 41 acres of the property for the park and not do the density transfer. Brian Strauss, 6840 Lucy Ridge Lane, who had submitted a letter to the council, raised additional points regarding current zoning as rural residential, road connections to City Council Summary – August 13, 2018 4 the northern neighborhood, buffers, and that road connections be made to Galpin Boulevard. Greg Andrews, 6895 Ruby Lane questioned the accuracy of the water quality study done on Lake Lucy and expressed concerns with Lake Ann, wildlife, and that he was not aware and not in favor of the stub street connection. He described where he lived in California where space is provided between developments for emergency access. Jessica Hansgen, 7555 Walnut Curve expressed concern with the increase in traffic, and discussed how her family uses their property. Cheree Theisen, 2072 Majestic Way, having built her home in 1995 discussed wildlife in the area, traffic and water issues. Barb Klick, 7116 Utica Lane, having been a nurse for 40 years urged everyone to have a health care directive, before discussing her use of Lake Ann and suggested the use of guide posts to help preserve green space. Cheree Theisen addressed preservation of the tree line on Prince’s property. Jay Gerczak, 1941 Topaz Drive stated the council has heard enough about the environmental and safety concerns, but his main issue is with the process and the fact that he did not receive a notice for the Planning Commission meeting. Peter Polingo, 1981 Topaz Drive asked that the council listen to their concerns regarding not connecting the subdivisions, building a quality community, making sure safety is fundamental, and traffic congestion. Jon Hebeisen asked two rhetorical questions. One, where is it written that Lennar or whoever buys this property has to build 200 houses? And two, what does the City get in return for saving the 94 acres of parkland? The public comment period was closed. Council members provided direction for the developer and city staff on how to proceed. CONTROL CONCEPTS: APPROVE SITE PLAN WITH A VARIANCE FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 7TH ADDITION. This item was tabled. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Councilman McDonald provided an update on the Chanhassen Red Birds going into the State Tournament. Mayor Laufenburger discussed that Wednesday, August 15th is Chanhassen Day at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and that Monday, August 20th there will be a special City Council meeting to discuss funding options for the pavement management program. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Ryan, and Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Jill Sinclair, and Andrea McDowell Poehler PUBLIC PRESENT: Conrad Fiskness 2385 Bridle Creek Circle Mike and Andi McGonagill 2451 Hunter Drive Suzanne Hunt 1521 Lake Susan Hills Drive Baro Egh Thiede 2091 Hennepin Avenue, Glencoe Dale Hayne 7510 Cahill Road, Edina Dennis Scheppmann 6740 Lakeway Drive Shelley Berken 6820 Diamond Court David & Jeff Allen 6870 Lake Harrison Circle Jessica Hansgen 7555 Walnut Curve Meghan Davy Chan Villager Cristin Maschka 2086 Majestic Way Ladd Conrad 6625 Horseshoe Curve Donna & Brian Strauss 6840 Lucy Ridge Lane Sue Bogan 7757 Butter? Court Janet Taylor 2051 Blue? Lane Paul Engebretson 7050 Tecumseh Lane Erika LaBarge 7050 Tecumseh Lane Mack Titess 2747 Century Trail Mauricio Goes 6930 Ruby Lane Mark Phillips 1760 Lucy Ridge Court Brian & Donna Strauss 6840 Lucy Ridge Lane Michelle & Matthew Myers 7421 Windmill Dive Greg Andrews 6895 Ruby Lane Steve Barnes 7100 Utica Lane Peter Polingo 1981 Topaz Drive Jay & Ann Marie Gerczak 1941 Topaz Drive Tom K. Lannom 6920 Ruby Lane Bark Klick 7116 Utica Lane Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 2 Dale & Gloria Carlson 6900 Utica Lane Steve Wallace 6900 Lucy Ridge Lane Kris Lenk 6895 Lucy Ridge Lane Joanne & Bill Lambrecht 6990 Utica Lane Michael Bierden 2300 Lukewood Drive Linda Zabrosky 2940 Highwood Drive Eric Hamborg 18612 Topaz Drive Mark Gilk 6890 Ruby Lane Matt & Deb Chambers 2169 Red Fox Circle Lora & Tony Hicks 6910 Ruby Lane M.J. & Allan Olson 7461 Windmill Drive Cheree Theisen 2072 Majestic Way Serena O’Brien 6879 Ruby Lane Deirdre & Dake Chatfield 2200 Majestic Way Adam & Steph Tollefson 4000 Stratford Ridge Jeff Ische 25365 Smithtown Road, Shorewood Wittas 24625 Yellowstone Trail, Shorewood Jim Fredrickson & Michelle Treptar 6935 Ruby Lane Jeff & Stacey Morken 6945 Ruby Lane Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you and I want to welcome all of you to this meeting this evening. For those of you that are present in the chamber as well as those of you that are watching via Mediacom cable channel at home or anywhere on the world wide web through our Chanhassen website. And just for a note, for those of you that are not present I think we probably have, I’m going to guess about 100 people here in council chambers and there’s probably some more that are over next door in the senior center. We’re pleased to have so many people with us tonight. Also for the record please note that all council members are present this evening along with City Manager Todd Gerhardt and our legal counsel Andrea. Not Knutson. Andrea, nice to have you with us tonight. First action for tonight is our agenda. Council members are there any modifications to the agenda this evening? Mr. Gerhardt we have one modification do we not, is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: The item listed as item G-2, the Control Concepts, that has been removed from the agenda is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: That item has been tabled to our next meeting Mayor. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Any other changes to the agenda? May I have a motion to approve the modified agenda. Councilman McDonald: So moved, Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 3 Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. McDonald. Is there a second? Councilman Campion: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Campion. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded to approve the agenda as modified to table item G-2, Control Concepts. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approval of City Council Minutes dated July 9, 2018 2. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 26, 2018 3. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated July 17, 2018 4. Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License Request: St. Hubert’s Catholic Community; Harvest Festival on September 15, 2018 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Laufenburger: At this time anyone wishing to address the council on a matter that is not on the agenda this evening you may address the council by stepping to the podium. Stating your name and your address for the record. Don Amorosi: My name is Don Amorosi. Mayor Laufenburger: Say your name again? Don Amorosi: Donald E. Amorosi. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, and your address. Don Amorosi: My address is 2368 Grays Landing Road in Wayzata. I also am here on behalf on my ex-wife who’s address is 6451 Oriole Avenue, Chanhassen, Minnesota. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 4 Mayor Laufenburger: And what’s your presentation Mr. Amorosi? Don Amorosi: It’s regarding a request of this committee to develop or set up a committee associated with investigating beyond the scope of the BCA’s investigation in my son’s shooting by two Carver County sheriff’s. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, is there anything you want to say about that? Don Amorosi: Is this where I do it now or is that some other? Mayor Laufenburger: This is visitor presentation Mr. Amorosi and we welcome any comments to the council. Don Amorosi: Okay Mr. Mayor, I know you’ve seen my email and my concerns, as have all of you councilmen and councilwomen. I did not hear back from any of you so I think that this will be pertinent to share again and to some of the people that are here with me. First I do want to thank you for giving me and anyone who wants to have time to speak on behalf of what happened in our community about something that is of great interest and concern to all of us I believe, at least many, many, many in our community on both the north and south side of Highway 7. I don’t know how this process works in this forum however I have a lot to say and I need to be heard. I’ll be as brief as I can and hope for feedback when I’m finished. One month ago today my son Archer Amorosi was shot and killed mercilessly by two Carver County sheriff’s in the front yard of his mother’s home before both me and his mother. It was a horrific and unnecessary tragedy by my account. Before I go further I would remiss not to stress the importance to all of us that our city officials, you among then, recognize this as a tragedy. That it happened in our community and express some measure of condolence to my family and to the broader community. I have yet to see anything of the sort. In addition I think we would all benefit to hear what actions have been taken so far by the City regarding this matter and what we can anticipate from the City in the near future. We’re aware that this tragedy is part of an open investigation by the State’s Bureau of Criminal Activity and that a decision about prosecuting the case will be made by the Carver County Attorney in the future. What I would like to talk about and propose tonight has nothing to do with that investigation. I want to be clear it has nothing to do with that investigation. Instead I seek a resolution, a motion, a sponsorship of some kind to adopt my, our request or simply to set aside time at a future meeting to present and discuss this further. The request is as follows. To form and fund if necessary an independent committee that reports to this council and is comprised of a representative from social services, the area crisis center, law enforcement, and a council member and potentially others who this council may recommend. In addition this council should be comprised of a mental health professional, a parent, a student, an educator and even a member of the press. None of whom being employees of the city or have any affiliation with the City or the County. To me the committee’s charge should be to evaluate the circumstances around this tragedy. Identify breakdown’s and opportunities for improvement and make recommendations to better systems, procedures, protocol and training which may reduce if not eliminate something like this from happening ever Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 5 again. You see I was there before, during and after this ugly mess and I am now living with the horrific aftermath. So are many in our community. And as I am learning I see that neither the judiciary nor the BCA’s scope are broad enough to drive change, nor are either of those entities advocates for your constituency, us. You are. I believe that you have an obligation, excuse me. I do not want this to happen to one our precious youth again and I assume you don’t either. It is also my strong and firm belief that law enforcement cannot self govern or go unchecked by the public. As our elected public servants I believe you have an obligation to fill this void. I ask if not you, who? If not now, when? What is it going to take? I’ll close with my bottom line. Our kids cannot be killed by those who are here to protect and serve. We cannot second guess as parents or anyone whether it is safe to call upon law enforcement under any circumstance. Thank you and I look forward to your comments. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Amorosi. Appreciate your presentation. Is there any other, anybody else who would like to make a presentation at this time? Mr. Gerhardt is there anything that you would, you or our legal counsel would advise on the council’s behalf at this time? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council, I did send a letter to Mr. Amorosi talking about the difficulty of the situation that occurred and that as sad as it may be there is an ongoing investigation. With the Mayor and council not attending the event or seeing the event there’s really a missing piece of the puzzle and that is getting that full investigative report back from the BCA before any further action is taken so that was what I said in my letter to Mr. Amorosi. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you Mr. Gerhardt. I would also make this comment Mr. Amorosi. Did you want to say anything else? Don Amorosi: Yeah I will add that I am aware of the investigation. I stated that in my remarks and I am asking that something much more broad be put in place from our community. To me it’s a cop out to say there’s an ongoing investigation. We have a community here not knowing anything that happened in the investigation there’s an opportunity and by your reaction asking council whether you can offer condolences or whether you can even tell us that you’ve done anything in the past or have any intention to do anything in the future to represent this community in this matter is, forgive me but pathetic. Those are my comments. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you Mr. Amorosi. I would just like to make this comment. Please don’t misinterpret our silence as not caring. Mr. Amorosi I was at your son’s funeral and I shared the tragic nature of his departure. I saw a church service filled with probably 600 kids all of whom cared deeply for him. It really is a tragedy and you’re right, nobody on this council wants to see any other member of our community, young or old die in that manner. Is there anybody else who would like to speak at this time on visitor presentations? Just a reminder that visitor presentations are a part of every regularly scheduled council meeting and we invite any member of the community to come forward and speak on any topic that is not on the agenda and Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 6 this is a perfect opportunity for you to address the council. There being no other presentations at this time I will close visitor presentations. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE VACATION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MINGER ADDITION (2300 LUKEWOOD DRIVE). Mayor Laufenburger: Is this your’s Mr. Oehme? Or this is Jill’s, okay. Alright. Ms. Sinclair, nice to have you here. Jill Sinclair: Thank you Mayor and council members. This item is a request to vacate a portion of a conservation easement at 2300 Lukewood Drive. Sorry, technical difficulties. Thank you Vanna. Okay. The property is in the Minger Addition located east of Galpin Boulevard. The northerly 50 feet of the property is within a conservation easement that was established with the development. Prior to this development the area along the north property line contained a driveway to the existing home. The easement was established to protect the large oaks along the driveway. Mayor Laufenburger: Just a moment Jill. Could I have somebody close that door please? Thank you. Just a reminder we do have extra seating in the adjacent senior center so sorry Jill. Jill Sinclair: That’s alright. Thank you. So the easement was put in place to protect the large oaks that were existing along the driveway along the north property line to the home, as well as to establish and encourage tree planting in the open area that was left after their driveway was removed. Next. When the building permit survey was submitted for 2300 Lukewood the builder asked to locate the home in the middle of the property to maximize tree preservation on the lot. As you can see very few existing trees were removed for the home and the driveway. The City supported and approved the location of the home and drive in the easement. At the time the staff was under the assumption that modifications to the easement could be done administratively and giving approval for construction within the easement was acceptable in order to save the trees on the lot. Next. The current property owners are requesting an amendment to the conservation easement removing a portion of the property from the easement. Existing trees and vegetation would still be covered by the easement while the open yard of the area, or the open area of the yard, the driveway and a portion of the home would be released from the easement restrictions. The area in pink is to be vacated and the area in green is what would be remaining in the easement. Staff supports the vacation of a portion of the easement. There were no trees in this area of the easement when the home was built and the area has not been reforested. All of the existing vegetation in the easement would still remain under protection in the conservation easement. These are pictures of the existing conditions on site. Next. Staff recommends adopting the resolution in support of the vacation of a portion of the conservation easement. I’d be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Ms. Sinclair. Any questions of staff from council? Councilmember Ryan yes. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 7 Councilwoman Ryan: Ms. Sinclair do you, does the easement go along other properties? Are other properties impacted and does it make sense to you know adopt the resolution for the whole neighborhood or just this single property? Jill Sinclair: This one is different from, there’s no other property that has a home and a driveway constructed in the easement. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Jill Sinclair: So this is different from any of the other ones. The easement does run 50 feet or along the entire northern property line. Two other homes in the area have had amendments to the easement to construct pools. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Jill Sinclair: Which is a different circumstance than this. This is, when the house was built this should have been taken care of when the house was built. Councilwoman Ryan: And I know we talked about that. I called you earlier and asked you about specifically to this property and that’s my question is, you know we’re doing it for this property and if there’s amendments to other properties does it make sense to re-evaluate this easement as a whole? Jill Sinclair: And so the other two properties, I think it’s just this northerly one because the, many lots in this development have a conservation easement in their back yard and their back yards are totally wooded. The properties to the north had that driveway running through it so when the driveway was removed, there were scattered trees but there was also large open areas in a conservation easement. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Jill Sinclair: So other neighbors had taken advantage of that to construct a pool where there were no trees or you know in this case a house. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. So continue to take it on a case by case situation. Jill Sinclair: Yeah, that would be best. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay, thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor? Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 8 Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Gerhardt go ahead. Todd Gerhardt: We, the council has within their authority to grant across the board vacation of an easement in the back yard but I think your last comment is to take it on a case by case basis because each individual will have maybe a different situation or a different desire of how they may want to develop the rear yard of their property. It might not need the entire easement vacated so as Jill stated and as Councilmember Ryan stated I think we should really honestly take a look from a case to case basis. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, any other questions from council for staff? Then I’d welcome further discussion or a motion. Councilwoman Ryan: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: I’d like to propose the motion that the City Council adopts the resolution approving the vacation of a portion of conservation easement legally described as the northerly 50 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Minger Addition according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Councilmember Ryan. We have a valid motion. Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: I’ll second it. Kate Aanenson: Mayor if I may. This was noticed as a public hearing so I don’t know if we want to take some public comment. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you very much. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: So I’m going to hold that motion. I’m going to take your second but at this time I would like to open the public hearing. Anybody that would like to speak on the matter of the vacation of this, a portion of this conservation easement please step forward to the podium at this time. There being no one coming forward to speak to that I would close the public hearing. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion on this motion? Resolution #2018-40: Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council adopts the resolution approving the vacation of a portion of conservation easement legally described as the northerly 50 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Minger Addition Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 9 according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Ms. Sinclair. We have removed item number G-1. Excuse me G-2 from the agenda so we’ll move to item G-1. GALPIN PROPERTY: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPM,ENT CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW. Mayor Laufenburger: And before we take on this item let me just take a few minutes to describe to all of you the sequence of steps that we’re going to follow over the next few minutes. I’d like to clarify the steps that we’re about to take related to this item. The review of the Galpin Property development. The council is not scheduled to take a formal vote tonight on this subject. There likely will be no specific decision on what will happen with the Galpin Property tonight. Here’s the sequence that we will follow. First of all the council will hear a presentation from staff on the options that are available regarding the possible development of the parcels of land known as the Galpin Property. This will include the discussion of a conceptual planned unit development and also what could be developed without the planned unit development. Second council will hear from the proposed developer who as I understand it has an option to buy the land from the estate. The Prince’s estate as authorized by the presiding Judge Kevin Eide. Now of course during these the councilmembers may make a comment or ask questions as they choose but please remember this. That the members of the council have all had the opportunity to hear from many of you, the public via emails. Via phone conversations. By personal visits. By walking the land. Visiting surrounding neighborhoods. The council has also had the opportunity to view the entire packet which was delivered to us on this particular item, including the verbatim Minutes and the video of the Planning Commission meeting on July 17th at which about 22 citizens from the surrounding neighborhoods provided comments, views and concerns. Next. Though the Planning Commission is used for public comment I understand the angst associated with many of you not receiving notice of the Planning Commission meeting. Though we did provide notice I think we erred by not including some of the neighbors that would be affected by this development and on behalf of the city staff and the council I’m sorry about that. I believe city staff did send out notices to a much broader geography for tonight’s meeting and could I just get a nodding of heads if you received a notice about tonight’s meeting. Okay thank you. Now because of that error and without objection from the council I will allow time for public comment to the council. I will ask however that those of you that were present, or those of you present right now that made your concerns known at the Planning Commission please allow others who have not yet spoken in public to be given the opportunity to speak. Now I’ll talk more about that when we arrive at that point of the review of this item. I fully expect that many of you are here tonight to see what the final action will be but as I said earlier that is not likely to happen tonight. In fact there are things procedural wise that our counsel would suggest that we can’t do because we didn’t give public notice on some other things but as I said earlier tonight the members of the council will have the opportunity, just like all of you have, to provide comments to city staff and to the proposed developer on their individual thoughts and review of Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 10 the potential development of the Galpin Property. Following these comments by the council members the developer will determine if and how they will proceed in their planning process. Now ultimately this item will likely return to the council at some date in the future for final action such as approving a PUD ordinance or approving a preliminary and a final plat of that parcel. But before we begin with the staff report let me ask all of you to respectfully listen to everything that is said and is asked this evening. This may seem like a cumbersome and an arduous process and the truth is it is and this is how we do things here to ensure that all available information and comments are shared and eventually acted on by this council. And lastly let me add this comment. We are not your adversaries. We as a council think about the same things that you do regarding this development and any development in the city. Now we may not always agree with the public 100 percent of the time and we certainly don’t always agree as a council but your comments and our comments are to be considered and listened to so I ask that you be respectful of the council and I also ask that the council be respectful of all of you this evening. Throughout the evening so with that thank you and Ms. Aanenson is this your’s? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright Ms. Aanenson. This is the item, planned unit development concept review. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. Again U.S. Home Corporation doing business as Lennar has made an application for concept PUD. I put in the staff report the process for a PUD concept. It’s certainly advised but it’s not required to do a concept review. It’s optional. Under the concept review we believe that it’s a good way, as we’ve noted at the Planning Commission and here again at the City Council for the City Council and the residents to provide feedback to the developer on the direction of the development of this property so again while this isn’t legally binding. It’s an opportunity for the developer to hear from the City Council as well as the residents and the staff as incorporating some of their concerns or comments also in your staff report. So again your motion is just to give, it won’t be a motion. Your goal then at the end is to give direction as well as what’s received in the public comments. So again the property, five different properties for 188 acres is included and the property under proposed development again a Lennar pursuing under the purchase agreement to propose a development. This property is currently zoned rural residential and it’s been that way for 25-30 years since we put in the Lake Ann interceptor. There’s a sewer line that runs through the property that the Met Council put in so sewer has been available for a number of years. It’s just been ownership that hasn’t desired to, up until this point to take advantage of that. So what does that mean when it’s rural residential? Well there’s a land use guiding. It’s guided low density which means 1.2 to 4 units an acre can be developed on this site. So within the zoning there’s different zoning applications that can be applied. Residential single family is one of the city’s more predominant zoning districts. Is a 15,000 square foot lot minimum. R-4 allows for 15,000 square foot minimum and 10,000 for twin homes so you could do a project applying for R-4 and do a combination of the two. The RLM district allows for 9,000 square foot for single family dwelling. Two family dwelling could be 7,260 and then townhouses of multiple units Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 11 could be 5,404. The difference with the RLM from the R-4 and the RSF, in order to get the RLM it’s anticipated that you’re going to dedicate some property in preserve so we’ve used that predominantly along the Bluff Creek corridor where we’re identified a corridor that we’d like to preserve. So the PUD cluster development, there is no minimum lot size. However it cannot exceed the density guidelines so the density guidelines in here would be 4 would be the maximum. So the developer in reviewing this put together a plan showing a traditional single family, what they could come in with under just straight zoning RSF would be 1.56 units and acre and we’ll show that in a little bit more detail in a minutes. The PUD also comes under the 4 units an acre at 2.26. The zoning has to be consistent with the land use so the two have to align. That’s required so those are the different zoning options. This developer has chosen the PUD and we also recommended, as did they, want to go through the concept to get feedback as they move forward. Again the concept is if we were to bring in a straight subdivision or a PUD the risk they would run if there was a lot of changes. There’s a lot of investment made already so this is to get a read from all groups and the like. I also want to note that we did send it out for jurisdictional comments so we did get feedback from other agencies that would have feedback on this and that also helps the developer to move forward in making some of their decisions for the property. Mayor Laufenburger: Ms. Aanenson can you just identify some of those agencies that you included in the jurisdictional review? Kate Aanenson: Sure it’d be all the utilities. The watershed district. The DNR. The County because they have jurisdiction on Galpin Boulevard would be the main ones. School District. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay thank you. Kate Aanenson: I’ll let the Park Director take a minute just to talk about the park master plan and how it forms the project. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Hoffman. Todd Hoffman: Thanks Kate, Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. It’s my pleasure this evening to talk about a couple different things regarding the Park Master Plan. The Park System Master Plan which was just approved and then also the Comprehensive Plan which the City has held for oh close to 40 years or at least over 30 years on this particular property. So Lake Ann Park is located to the south and east of the property that is being developed or proposed for development and then Lake Ann is inbetween those two properties. Lake Ann Park is about 100 acres in size. The proposal at least as designed by the Comprehensive Plan is to expand that size by nearly double and so the land that you see in this diagram by the dashed line is about another 94 acres. It includes about 40 some acres of wetland and then about 50 of upland in the middle of the two lakes. Subdivisions are an opportunity for the City and an applicant or a developer to negotiate some kind of a land use arrangement which may or may not include park so many developments in our community have not included park space. Some do. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 12 In this particular case it’s a unique situation that it includes such a large parcel that was dedicated or at least identified as potential future park space. For this to occur a subdivision, it’s not a designation. It doesn’t mean that the City’s going to get that property. It just designates to anybody who is interested in the property, Prince himself probably knew that this was designated as future park space and so did Lennar and so, but how do you get there? So park dedication is, can be included or a cash equivalent of any particular subdivision and so park dedication is about 10 percent or in this case it’s about 9 acres and so it’s based off of 1 acre for every 75 people that are going to be brought to an area and so in this particular case that’s 9 acres. So when you have 50 acres of upland that you’re talking about potentially preserving, 9 acres only gets you part of the way so how are you going to gain access to that other 41 acres? You simply can’t take it from a landowner or an applicant and so that’s where the density transfer scenario would come into play and so you would say okay, you have 40 some acres left to acquire as park space. How many houses could be developed in that 40 acres? Instead of putting them there let’s move them over to another area of the plat and so that’s what a density transfer would do and that’s, in this particular scenario at least the concept about how that would be developed. Back on June 26th the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed that. They reviewed both the concept plans. The one including the full lot layout of the 199 lots and the density transfer and that motion that night from the Park and Recreation Commission was that they recommended that the City Council acknowledge Lennar Concept Plan 7 dated June 1, 2018 depicting 199 lots clustered to the west central and north central quadrants of the property and thus preserving 50 plus acres, plus or minus acres of public park area utilizing a density transfer and park dedication in the eastern quadrant of the property as a preferred starting point for the design of the preliminary plat for the proposed development and so that’s what the Park and Recreation Commission recommended. This is a diagram from the Park System Master Plan which just identified, as we went through that if you’ll recall we had overwhelming citizen input in the Park System Master Plan and this was the top commented item and so a priority expansion area preserving additional land between Lake Lucy and Lake Ann in the area of this property so the notes there are develop a Park System Master Plan. Define the limits of the park expansion to the north and west. Preserve natural areas. Complete a trail loop around Lake Ann. Now any activity in this particular plat wouldn’t complete the loop. There’s still one more property. The Gorra property at the southwest corner but it would complete a good portion of the trail. And then potentially identify any new facilities or user amenities that would go in that area. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay let me just pause for a second. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Council feel comfortable, if there’s a pause in the discussion you’re welcomed to ask any questions pertinent to what we just heard so feel comfortable in raising your hand in that okay. Kate? Kate Aanenson: Yes thank you. So again I’m just talking about the issues that kind of framed up the proposal as we’re moving forward so in looking at this, the applicant, actually the Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 13 representative or Comerica Bank the trustee looked at doing the wetland delineation. It’s always good to know kind of what’s out there. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay just a second. Let’s just clarify. The developer that’s talking to us is U.S. Home doing business as Lennar. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: You just talked about Comerica. Who’s Comerica? Kate Aanenson: Comerica is the trustee for the estate. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So they were the seller. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So in looking at this it’s always good to know what’s, you know what are the, again the framework issues out there so they did a wetland delineation and have submitted that to the City to review. We made some comments on that. The City’s Water Resources Coordinator has walked the site as well as the City Forester to identify, making sure that it was complete, as did the person doing the delineation. So that’s one piece of information as we move forward on this document. Framing up. Councilwoman Ryan: Can I ask you a question? Kate Aanenson: Yeah absolutely. Councilwoman Ryan: So here we see the wetland locations but when the developer laid out the concept plan it doesn’t, it doesn’t allow for whether or not the wetlands are going to be mitigated or how they’re going to be handled. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s a good question yep. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So that’s part of the process moving forward that they would have to work through so whether it gives legitimacy to all that but I don’t want to jump too far ahead but that’s one thing the watershed district they felt strongly about preserving the ones that are closer to the lake and working through those but yes they do have to go through a process. That’s one of the conditions. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 14 Councilwoman Ryan: Okay, thank you. Kate Aanenson: Yep. In addition Jill who was just here put together the, this is a little harder to read, the inventory of the significant trees in the area. There are some significant trees scattered on the western side of the property that certainly as we’re working with the developer, as they do have to do a tree inventory. It’s a requirement of any subdivision. Some of those unique trees that we can try to save but what we are doing is we’re saving the majority of the trees along this side. Again that’s preferred. So they wouldn’t have to do the tree count here. Only on the property that they’re developing but again that would be part of the information as we move to the next step so these are all again the framework issues as we move forward. So taking that information, what the park commission or the park Comprehensive Plan stated, looking at some of the other data the Lennar team put together our standard residential subdivision. Again this is illustrative. Nobody’s put an exact review of this. Of each individual lot but in working with Lennar they have shown what they could get on with a traditional subdivision. Just over 200 lots so that’s kind of the point of beginning as we talked about moving the density transfer. So to say we wanted to try to meet preserving everything on the lake, on the Lake Ann side. Transferring those lots out. That’s how we ended up with the other proposal so again this is an aerial view of that same piece of property showing how it would connect. Again this is a traditional RSF which is permitted in that zoning district which they could pursue. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Campion go ahead. Councilman Campion: Ms. Aanenson so based on discussions with the watershed so far is there any indication whether this is generally possible or? Kate Aanenson: To do this one? Councilman Campion: Yes. Kate Aanenson: Yes it’s possible but it’s not as desirable because I think in doing this you’re, greater impacts to the wetlands and the like so it would be preferred, it does meet ordinance requirements. They could go through and demonstrate all that. So but their preference would be to do the density transfer and that’s stated in a letter that we received from the DNR and those were included in your packet. There was another one that just came back too so. Let me go back to this slide. Mayor Laufenburger: But just for follow up to Mr. Campion. They could follow the ordinances of the city and the zoning and the guidance and they could build this. Kate Aanenson: Correct and that’s why we asked them to show that because you don’t want to just say we can put 200 units over there if you couldn’t get them. Now to be clear everything in this district right here, this is the shoreland district so everything in this has to be 15,000. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 15 Mayor Laufenburger: Now east of that solid line. Kate Aanenson: Correct, that all has to be 15,000 square feet and that’s what they’re representing. So we asked them in good faith to show what they could put on the property and so yes, there’s still the same hurdles to go through for the wetland permitting, the same hurdles you would do with any other subdivision but yes that’s, so all those lots are 15,000 which is required in the shoreland district. And all of these lots would also be 15,000 so they’re representing again in good faith, they’re showing what they could do with the parcel if it was a straight subdivision. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, Mr. Campion is your question answered? Councilman Campion: I believe so but what I was trying to get at is just based on experience with the watershed if there is any chance that this plan would actually be approved or if likely, if they went this route if it would be you know probably 20 percent less homes that would actually get approved. Kate Aanenson: Well if, they’d have to go through the permitting process. Just like any other project. Just like Avienda you knew so. Councilman Campion: Right. Mayor Laufenburger: But Ms. Aanenson to Mr. Campion’s question the watershed really doesn’t determine the density, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. As long as they meet all the rules for managing stormwater. Mayor Laufenburger: Right. Kate Aanenson: And going through the wetland. Mayor Laufenburger: Wetland mitigation and things like that. Kate Aanenson: Correct. That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: That Councilwoman Ryan spoke of. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. So this, what you’re showing here is, if this land was a little simpler and didn’t have all of the complications of wetland and trees and stuff they could build this. If this was for example Bluff Creek Golf Course. 200 acres. They could build. They Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 16 could design. Put the land together and they could put in RSF 15,000 square foot lots and they could build houses to their hearts content. Kate Aanenson: Sure. I want to be clear that I don’t know if every lot’s going to work just like on the other plan where we know every lot’s going to work. Mayor Laufenburger: It’d have to be buildable. Kate Aanenson: It would have to be buildable correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Kate Aanenson: But it has potential correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Campion? Councilman Campion: It’s an answer yeah. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilwoman Ryan: May I add to that? Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead sure. Councilwoman Ryan: Because I think this is where I’m a little challenged with the proposal A and B and when we talk about conceptually that we are, we’re saying or the developer is saying yes, we could come back and put 40 lots on this parcel and since we would prefer because of the comp plan and the park and rec commission and the feeling at large is that we want to do a density transfer and save that land and then move it over and so then you take those 40 lots and now you have smaller lots on this other parcel. The confusion is that we don’t know that, as you stated that they’re going to be able to get all of those because as you saw in the previous slide there’s a lot of wetlands so we have the wetland buffer rules and setbacks from the lake and wetland on the other side and so I think that the challenge that I see when we’re presented with Option A or B is that we’re being told that these 40 lots could go there if you know, if we don’t approve the Plan B and not to speak for Mr. Campion but that’s the concern of, this is just merely concept if you were taking a piece of paper and drawing boxes on a piece of paper and saying here’s the acreage. Here’s a 15,000 square foot lot. This is what can go in this but there’s no guarantee that any of that could happen. Kate Aanenson: Correct but I’ll go back to what Mr. Hoffman and the Park and Rec Director said and that is, there’s value to that land. Councilwoman Ryan: Absolutely. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 17 Kate Aanenson: Yep so it’s trying to find out could they go through that process to try to figure that out. Councilwoman Ryan: Right I’m not arguing the value. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Councilwoman Ryan: More concerned of that we’re being told that it’s either A or B. Kate Aanenson: Well somewhere, yeah. I mean that’s, that’s every project just like with Avienda we approved the wetland waiting to see what the watershed district was going to say so. And that was accomplished using some dedication so that’s the one, so that’s our starting point. So we give them all the wetland information. We look at the tree preservation that we talked about. You have to count the trees on the site and obviously that comes into how they develop the subdivision. So meeting our goals, the City’s goals of the park showed the other plan. Again all these lots within the shoreland district have to meet the 90 foot of frontage, 15,000 square foot minimum and the rest of the lots then pick up that so it’s less lots. Again the same question that you asked before would apply here. Do all the lots work? They’re not all the street grades aren’t engineered. We haven’t seen that. They may have more information than we have as far as what they believe they can do and that’s why they’re gathering all this information but all those lots would have to be demonstrated that they work and the wetland replacement and the like would have to be accomplished. Those are all part of the next steps. So with that again here it is illustratively in an aerial where you can see the 90. So these would be at the 15,000 and then the 65 foot lots and then the 58 foot lots. The smaller lots on the southern part. Certainly we recognize, if you go back to the tree one there’s significant trees on the southern end. We’ve talked to them about that. There’s significant trees on the northern end and we always try to preserve those buffers and those transitions so that’s some of the details that we’d be looking at no matter what project was to go forward that we would work and try to preserve those and make those transitions work so again next steps. So if you look at the preservation as a whole, again Mr. Hoffman talked about the acreage and the breakdown but this would be the building area. The preservation area whether it’s the wetland or the wooded area would be in here. So some of the questions that came up, I just highlighted a few that people thought just to your point Councilwoman Ryan is the mix right. Too many houses get put in too small of a space. Transition between the existing neighborhoods and small lots maybe adjacent to traditional lots on the south and how we to blend that. Street connections to the existing neighborhoods. That’s predominantly to the north. There’s no other connections except potentially to the north. Traffic we included in the staff report that went to the Planning Commission. That Galpin Boulevard is a potential for an upgrade in the future if this project was to go forward we’d want the upgrade of Galpin to occur after that. Tree loss. Again the significant portion on the eastern side and we work, they have to do a tree survey and look at selecting some significant trees that we’d like to save. A question was asked about school capacity. As part of the Comprehensive Plan we did meet with both superintendents of the school district and I did speak to someone at the school Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 18 district to verify after a question was raised and there is adequate capacity in the school district. Another question that came up was regarding water quality at Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. Again there’s a letter to support both the DNR and the watershed support the cluster development. They think that’s a better way of saving those significant trees for the extraction of the shoreland and the City Engineer has some additional comments regarding the reports on Lake Lucy. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Oehme. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, thank you Ms. Aanenson. So the Water Resources Coordinator couldn’t be here tonight so I’m just kind of filling in for her with some comments regarding the water quality at Lake Lucy and Lake Ann so, the City does partner with Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District on water quality initiatives and studies and those type of things so annually the watershed district does take water samples. Clarity readings for each of those lakes and I just wanted to highlight the report and I think it was 2017. I think this report’s on their website on the watershed district website that the water quality of Lake Lucy has increased between 2016 and 2017 that meets two of the clear water standards set by Metropolitan Pollution Control Agencies so at a city level I mean we value that Lake Lucy and Lake Ann, those are some of our best water quality lakes and we definitely want to preserve those assets for our community and like Kate said clustering does support and does go a long ways to help lake quality and preserve these lakes. This is a map from again from the watershed district just showing Lake Ann up here in the upper left hand corner does meet all the standards again for chlorophyll phosphorus and water clarity and does Lake Lucy does have a little bit of an issue with the algae and chlorophyll but looking over the, I think the watershed district and others have taken studies all the way back from 1972 to the date and basically there really hasn’t been an increase in any of these standards or decrease in the water quality over those years. They have been pretty much average or standard over those years so just wanted to point that out. Councilman Campion: Either Kate or Paul, so you said those are updated each year. Paul Oehme: Right. Councilman Campion: Looking online I saw on our city website we have the UAAU for Lake Lucy and it looked like that was, I think that was last updated in 2013. That’s a more comprehensive report. Paul Oehme: Okay. Councilman Campion: Is that updated, do either of you know if it’s updated on a certain frequency or? Paul Oehme: I don’t think that one’s updated. There’s the testing and the report that watershed district completes. I don’t think that’s on our website. That’s done outside of our, it is basically Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 19 just done by the watershed district and updated annually just so we have a record of what the water quality are, is in these lakes. And just basically as a baseline moving forward. Kate Aanenson: So the data he presented was from 2017, 2016. Paul Oehme: Right this is from 2017. Councilman Campion: And that’s, but that’s not from a UAAU. That’s a different… Paul Oehme: There might be a different study or different document. I’m just referencing what the watershed district data has shown. Councilman Campion: Okay. Councilwoman Ryan: And Paul do you know if this data for the 2017 report was done, I know you said it was 16-17. Was it done after the development on Lake Lucy and Yosemite? Paul Oehme: I’m not aware of when that data was taken. Typically it’s done during the summer months. June through August but I’m not exactly sure what the timing of that was. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Alright well I’ll follow up with them. That would be a concern of mine because of the development that was done there and the grading and the impact to Lake Lucy and Lake Ann from there. Paul Oehme: Sure, okay. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay thanks. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Gerhardt. Todd Gerhardt: Vanessa Strong, our Water Resources Coordinator did give her analysis of the development to the north of Lake Lucy. Mayor Laufenburger: Anthem? Todd Gerhardt: Anthem. And there was significant amount of silt that did come from the Anthem development and, but it was retained into the wetlands on the south side of Lake Lucy. Mayor Laufenburger: No. North side. Todd Gerhardt: South side. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 20 Mayor Laufenburger: Well just please. Todd Gerhardt: Anthem development’s on the north side but it drains. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh on the south side of Lake Lucy Road. Todd Gerhardt: Right. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh excuse me, okay. My apologies. So you said there’s stormwater ponds there? Todd Gerhardt: There is wetlands and the silt went into a series of, is it 2 or 3 wetlands that go through there before it ultimately goes into Lake Lucy. Paul Oehme: Right, correct. So Mayor from the Anthem development there’s a infiltration basin on the north side that was required with that development. Any overflow goes through a culvert underneath Lake Lucy and then discharges. Mayor Laufenburger: Road. Paul Oehme: And there’s a 3 wetland cells that eventually work it’s way down to Lake Lucy. Mayor Laufenburger: So they follow the grade. Paul Oehme: They follow the grade yep. Mayor Laufenburger: And eventually when each of those wetlands fill or overflow or fill and overflow, then eventually they would get down to. Paul Oehme: Yeah it potentially could get down to Lake Lucy. I’m just, the amount of volume that would have to actually go through those wetlands to make it to Lake Lucy is, would be significant. Very significant. If you look on the topography on GIS on Carver County’s website the contours there, those wetlands would have to bounce about 4 to 5 feet to make it all the way down to Lake Lucy so what happens in that area is the water congregates in those wetlands and infiltrates or evaporates. Mayor Laufenburger: And the sediment… Paul Oehme: And the sediment yep, discharges and the particulates would settle in those wetlands as well. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 21 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Councilmember Ryan, do you want to make your comments now or? Councilwoman Ryan: And just to follow up on that. Correct me if I’m wrong in terms of the property but I, didn’t the property owner, one of the property owners south of Lake Lucy once the development happened some of the grading how he did clear the culvert and she was having some flooding because of the excess runoff? Paul Oehme: During the construction there was some overflow and some sediment did release from that development site. However my understanding and I was out there shortly after that, there was no sediment really left her property. It more or less settled in, on her property and we couldn’t find any evidence of it migrating farther to the south to Lake Lucy. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: Is one of these three wetlands on her property? Paul Oehme: It is correct. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. I just remember that there was some issues around that so I didn’t know if it then continued down to Lake Ann or Lake Lucy. Paul Oehme: Staff has been out there several times on her property reviewing that and trying to figure out you know, because over the last say 2 years there’s been significant rainfall events that has contributed to the expansion I think of that wetland area that’s concerning her and some of her tree loss that she’s seeing. Councilwoman Ryan: Right. Mayor Laufenburger: Anything else? Councilwoman Ryan: No go ahead. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. You use the term algae bloom. I think I heard you say that. On Lake Lucy. What causes an algae bloom? Paul Oehme: I’m not expert on that unfortunately but it, you know it could be a variety of reasons. You know I know carp can stir up the bottom of lakes and stir up some of the sediment and phosphorus and cause some of that. You know developments, additional runoff from new developments in the area could potentially impact water quality but in this case we really haven’t seen any major development on Lake Lucy since I think 2002 maybe with the Ashling Meadows development so. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 22 Mayor Laufenburger: Right. And just related to the water quality, I recall sometime within the last 2 years we’ve closed Lake Ann beach. Mr. Hoffman this might be for you. We closed Lake Ann swimming beach. What’s your recollection or maybe you know exactly why we closed that beach. There was something. What was that? Todd Hoffman: Just would have been an indicator of potential …pollen form but not likely because of geese. Goose droppings. Mayor Laufenburger: Build a dome over that lake. Alright. Todd Gerhardt: Or get a couple of Gordon Setters. Mayor Laufenburger: A couple of Gordon Setters. Allow hunting. No, no, no. We’re not going to do that okay. Todd Gerhardt: No they just chase them. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Let’s get back on track here Ms. Aanenson. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor. So just want to outline what the project steps would be if this project was to advance or if a different project would come in. So once you give some feedback or the developer hears feedback on the PUD cluster zoning they would proceed through a preliminary plat. So that would require the watershed and additional jurisdictional approvals so that could take a few months to get all that. Again the typical process for that would be, they would submit 30 days ahead of time and that would give us time to notice. And give the neighbors an opportunity to provide their input so that would be a public hearing at the Planning Commission and then back up to the City Council for their review. After that it comes in for final plat and construction plans. But again as I indicated the preliminary plat requires a lot of civil work so that would be designing all the roads. All the lots. Showing that they meet all the standards. Again the watershed approvals and the like so it’s a lot of engineering work on that part of it. And again another public hearing is required and we would hope that between the submittal of that application that the developer would work with the property owners to the north and south and work through some of their specific concerns so again that’s the process. Again it’ll be a few months at a minimum before this would come back. So again you’re not giving a formal recommendation. You’re just providing feedback on the concept for the planned unit development request so with that I’d be happy to answer any other questions you may have. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay before we go to presentation from the developer, any questions to staff? Mr. McDonald go ahead. Councilman McDonald: Ms. Aanenson I heard you say that basically what this is, is a concept development that they take a piece of paper. We’ve delineated where the wetlands are at and then at that point you just draw out what you think are the lot lines. I know you can’t say with Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 23 any kind of certainty that all of those lots would translate into houses but the probability is the vast majority would, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Potentially. Again what it doesn’t take into consideration is the individual quality of each wetland. How the watershed districts or we’re going to review that but that should be the intent that most of them do meet. Councilman McDonald: Okay and then the next step, once they’ve got these lots identified is the detailed engineering has to go into each lot which would again look at what you’re talking about as far as it’s buildability because the next step is to determine okay we’ve got lots but what’s buildable. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman McDonald: So that would be the next step in the process and at a concept review the only purpose of that really is to show a probability of what could happen. The other thing you haven’t talked much about, I don’t know if I should wait for the developer or not but it’s the connection between the development to the north and also to Prince. Can you talk a little bit about that because I understand there’s some challenges there. Kate Aanenson: Right so there’s existing stub streets and some significant grading to make those work and maybe I’ll let the City Engineer talk a little bit about that. Paul Oehme: Sure. Mayor Laufenburger: Can you speak to that Mr. Oehme? Paul Oehme: Yep so there is again significant grade from the north to the south. I can’t recall off the top of my head how much elevation change is, is currently out there but to build that road will take some significant effort to make that connection and it’s, we haven’t, we don’t have any engineering drawings to really review their proposal at this point so we really can’t comment on if it really meets our standards right now or you know if it’s even feasible to build it. Councilman McDonald: Right at this point it’s just a road on a flat surface which could go anywhere. When you say significant would you envision anything like retaining walls needing to be put out there? Paul Oehme: Absolutely. I think there would have to be a retaining wall on the north side of those lots on the road and then potentially on the south end. South side on back of the lots as well just to kind of bridge or, bridge that area. Councilman McDonald: Well and that point wouldn’t that take away from the lots that they have there in order to put retaining walls in. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 24 Paul Oehme: Yeah again I can’t really comment until I really see some engineering. Councilman McDonald: Well I’m not asking. I’m not going to hold your feet to the fire or anything but I mean just in general with your background and you know knowledge of any engineering what does it take to put up a retaining wall? How much space and those kind of things? Paul Oehme: Yeah it’s not, you can’t just build a wall. You have to go back at least a 1 to 1 slope to build the wall plus all the potential, if it’s high enough you’re going to have to put in some geogrid as well to reinforce the wall so there is significant impacts that would take place to build that wall you know with the layout they have here I don’t, it’s going to be challenging I think at the very least to build those walls and with the current alignment that they’re showing right now. Councilman McDonald: So is it safe to say that those would be a structurally engineered wall? Paul Oehme: Absolutely. I mean knowing the topography that’s out there, the grade challenges that they’re going to run into it’s definitely have to be engineered with either big block retaining walls and geogrid or some other mechanism or some other material that make sure those walls stay in place. Kate Aanenson: If I may Commissioner McDonald, it’d probably be similar to Lennar did a project out in Camden Ridge so if you go back behind where we’ve got the Bluff Creek overlay down behind the, Mr. Degler’s property and then you’ve got a pretty tall structure wall there. They also have a wall on the back side as you overlook the property down towards 212. There’s also another wall there so. They have done it before. Mayor Laufenburger: So you’re referring to the wall at Camden Ridge or the Jeurissen property. You’re referring to the retaining wall that was built on the north side of that. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Separating Camden Ridge from what will eventually be… Kate Aanenson: More on the south side there’s another wall too on that southern end too. Mayor Laufenburger: There’s also a sound barrier right on 212. Kate Aanenson: Correct on 212. Correct. Councilman McDonald: And then just to follow up on the south part of the property are you aware of any engineering challenges that would be down there? Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 25 Paul Oehme: Wetland mitigation, I know that’s going to be a challenge with the stubbing in the street at Galpin in it’s current location that’s shown there. I know there’s, based upon some of the comments we’ve received from the property owners I know there’s some high water, ground water table issues there that we’ll have to take a look at and try to address under this development as well so those two things and wetland setbacks. Buffer areas along some of the properties on the south, I think it’s going to be challenging as well to meet those, our ordinance. Councilman McDonald: Okay so as this thing moves forward and we get more detailed engineering information it could turn out that a lot of these lots are just not buildable. Paul Oehme: Again I mean if, until we see some drawings we can’t really comment too much on that. Councilman McDonald: Okay, thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Tjornhom, yep. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I just want to say welcome to everybody tonight. I am, I appreciate the staff reports and I will appreciate listening to the Lennar, Mr. Lennar or the Lennar company and what they have proposed but what I really am looking forward to is hearing what you are proposing. I think that this is a time for all of us to walk through this development together. I’ve enjoyed talking to several residents and just hearing your thoughts and your concerns and suggestions about how to make this development something that’s going to be impactful in a positive way for everybody. You know we talk about what the impact’s going to be on the environment and we talk about what the impact’s going to be on traffic. We talk about the impact of all sorts of different things that are happening with this but I think that you know tonight’s the time that we talk about what’s the livable and lifestyle impacts of all of you and your neighborhoods and so I really am looking forward to hearing your suggestions. I know that in the PUD when it talks about it and it explains what it is Kate, one of the statements that kind of jumps out at me all the time is the fact that the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly high quality and sensitive proposal and that really means a lot I think to all of us because that’s what we’re all looking for and what we’re trying to create so what, can you give me some boundaries Kate as to what that means. Kate Aanenson: I would say in this circumstance the fact that you’re getting the almost 95 acres to the west. A significant opportunity to make Lake Ann wooded all the way around is a big factor in that. Councilwoman Tjornhom: High quality, yes. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 26 Kate Aanenson: High quality yep. I mean it’s a unique piece of property where people can walk. I think if you look at what we did with the RLM zoning district up on Fox Woods, those people have that nice trail to walk through and that was also compressed some of those smaller lots and provided an opportunity to preserve some woods and create a nice trail to go into the City’s property. The woods that we have up there so again I think it’s the same opportunity here when you connect the trails. We have an opportunity for all people on the other side of Galpin also to come through and enjoy the property. Walk around the lake. Walk downtown. We think that’s a very unique opportunity. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I know there’s some questions also with blending of neighborhoods when it comes to lot size. When it comes to square footage of the homes. The neighbors concerned about how that’s going to look. What kind of, what can we do to kind of help that process also or make them blend? Do we have any way we can help them blend? Kate Aanenson: Yep so that’s a great question. Again one of the things that we talked about with Lennar early on was the transition of the buffers. Trying to create those buffers. There’s some significant trees on the south and on the north. Retaining wall aside that we’d want to preserve those to make those work. We have places all over the city where we have different lot sizes. Sometimes those homes are on smaller lots but they’re higher value so there’s a lot of different ways to look at that. How that blends together. Again don’t know if all those lots are going to fit. We haven’t seen that detail yet but understand the issue. Certainly again we’ve asked the developer if this project was to move forward or if that’s what they chose to do that they would work with those neighbors. I’d also like to add that when those subdivisions went in, both Ashling Meadows and Royal Oaks, the wetland standards were a lot different. I know we heard anecdotally that people have sump pumps. They’re next to the wetland there and the way we treat wetlands today is drastically different of how much they have to manage the stormwater is such a higher capacity than when those subdivisions went in so that will certainly be addressed too. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Because I think that I, you know one of my goals when I see this, it’s our opportunity to create just a really, you know we talk about Lake Ann, the park being a real gem and taking this development and turning it into a gem and so it’s something that the community’s proud of and it’s desirable for people to live in and to you know give us something once again to brag about so I’m hoping that we can work with the developer to kind of make sure he sees that vision. That it is something unique and something that is worthy of having the address of Chanhassen. Mayor Laufenburger: Any other questions or comments at this time? Councilmember Ryan I think you had your hand up. Councilwoman Ryan: I did but I’ll wait to hear from the developer and then follow up with questions then. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 27 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay you’re certainly welcome to do that. Mr. Campion did you have a question? Councilman Campion: Yeah one more question. Kate I think this is for you. I’d seen some commentary where, and it kind of goes off of Councilman McDonald was talking about with the street connections up on the north side. They complained about a lack of signage there you know where those streets were stubs exist. Is that something that, that should have been there and wasn’t or? Kate Aanenson: I think we started doing that a number of years after those subdivisions went in. If it’s a stub street I would assume that it would go through in the future, yeah. Mayor Laufenburger: What signage? Are you referring to a sign that says this street will go through in the future? Is that what you’re saying? Councilman Campion: Essentially yeah, or there’s, yes. It’s potential, a potential connection in the future. Mayor Laufenburger: Yep. Any other questions at this time? Councilman Campion: Not at the time no. Mayor Laufenburger: Kate just I want to clarify a couple things before we ask the developer to come forward. You said that, or Mr. Oehme said that the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District has weighed in on this concept PUD. Is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: And what they, what have they said about? Kate Aanenson: They liked the preservation area. The density transfer was. Mayor Laufenburger: So they’re speaking in general about… Kate Aanenson: Correct. They’re not weighing in on… Mayor Laufenburger: Preserve the area around Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. How about the DNR? Have they done that as well? Kate Aanenson: Yes, the DNR also weighed in on that. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 28 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. But the DNR, they also, they weighed in and said we favor this but they would be part of the jurisdictional review once we get a more detailed preliminary plat is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. I did talk to the regional person from the DNR over this area and just reviewed our PUD ordinance and how it works and they thought this was a very good, favorable approach to preserve all the woods. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Mr. Oehme you haven’t spoken about this but certainly one of the things that I’ve heard from neighbors is relative to a concern about the volume of traffic that this development would generate. Have you done a traffic analysis including potentially upwards of 200 residences in this area? Have you done this traffic analysis on Galpin? And if so how, make us feel comfortable that you and your work has been done properly. Paul Oehme: So thank you Mayor, City Council members. So in conjunction with the Galpin Boulevard study that was recently completed this year. Mayor Laufenburger: By the way what was the purpose of that study for people that may not be familiar with it? Paul Oehme: Sure. The City and Carver County jointly completed a Galpin Boulevard study which looked at potentially transferring the jurisdiction of Galpin Boulevard from Carver County over to the City of Chanhassen in the future. We wanted to look at the feasibility of that. The costs. What needed to be done, completed with Galpin Boulevard to bring it up to our standards because right now it’s a rural section road. Poor shoulders. Intersections that really need to be improved so we looked at all those. All that information. We also looked at potential development that could take place along Galpin in the area as well that would impact traffic or add to traffic along Galpin so that was part of that Galpin Boulevard study and it took I think the City about 6 months to complete that. We just recently finished that up. Mayor Laufenburger: Do you recall what’s the average daily traffic on Galpin today? Do you recall? Paul Oehme: I do have that here. So it varies. So as you would think there’s a lot more traffic to the south of Galpin Boulevard. Right today south of 78th Street. That little section between 78th Street and Highway 5. It’s about 10,000 trips per day but as you go north from there it drops off significantly. Say up by Wynsong there’s about, actually that was in 2040 so yeah, so south of 78th Street it’s 8,700 today. Up by Wynsong it’s about 2,700. Mayor Laufenburger: Today? Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 29 Paul Oehme: Today, yeah. Trips per day so which for a two lane rural section of road, that’s not too significant. As we’ve moved forward though we looked at 2040 data. Again assuming that everything in the area would be developed and looking at potentially infill developments as well too. We assumed for this particular development or piece the 188 acres we assumed 250 trips, or 250 units which is well above what the developer. Mayor Laufenburger: But that takes into consideration the word infill. If there’s other infill farther north on Galpin. Paul Oehme: Correct, yeah I mean potentially some of those large lots were to subdivide or divide you know there’d be. Mayor Laufenburger: So what do you estimate the daily, average daily traffic to be after that? Paul Oehme: So right again our traffic data that Kimley-Horn completed again right at Wynsong the traffic goes up by a little. About 1,000 trips per day so, and we’re assuming that in 2040 or you know when most of this development would potentially be completed that the Galpin Boulevard project would come in shortly thereafter because we do have some concerns with some topography that’s out there. Some of the intersections. We want to make some intersection improvements. We wouldn’t expand the road to you know anything more than two lanes but we want to add to maybe some left turn lanes at some of these intersections and other intersection improvements such as roundabouts as well. Mayor Laufenburger: But your analysis with Kimley-Horn for the purpose of anticipating the turnback of the road from the County to the City incorporates things like curb and gutter for stormwater management. Change of stop signs to potentially roundabouts. Mini roundabouts as well as full roundabouts. Paul Oehme: Yep. Mayor Laufenburger: And also the addition of access points into the Galpin property to the east is that correct? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Paul Oehme: It also looked at stormwater as well. We looked at if we’re urbanizing a roadway how are we going to treat that water so we wanted to look at where that water would also be treated. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay just to clarify Mr. Hoffman, you said the Park and Rec Commission did weigh in on this and recommended something like the concept PUD where that land would Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 30 be, the density would be transferred to the west to preserve that 50 acres of tree stand and the acreage around Lake Ann and Lake Lucy right. Todd Hoffman: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: So where’s the 94 acres come if it’s only going to be preserving 50? Is there 40 acres in that wetland? Todd Hoffman: There is. It’s a very large wetland. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So Ms. Aanenson just to clarify that, if the developer chooses to go forward with the concept PUD he buys, he or she. He. It’s the corporate he okay. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: He buys this land from the estate and then do they just deed it to us? Do they just give it to us for a dollar or is it free? Kate Aanenson: No. That’s part of the process. So under the park dedication, as Mr. Hoffman stated that they could probably get 9 acres. I think his preference would probably be to take the shoreline. Mayor Laufenburger: But 9 acres under the subdivision. Kate Aanenson: Correct or under. Mayor Laufenburger: Under the PUD as well? Kate Aanenson: Well under the PUD, that’s where you would negotiate to say we’d like to, in order for you to negotiate what you want to preserve. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So let’s say we take the position of we want 50 acres of the shoreline and the woodlands and you’re not going to build on the wetlands so you might as well give that to us too so we end up with 94 acres. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Of City property. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: And how much does that cost us? Dollars. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 31 Kate Aanenson: Well at this point it’s. Mayor Laufenburger: That’s subject to negotiation. Kate Aanenson: Yeah subject to negotiation. The intent is to recoup that on the other side. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Kate Aanenson: The value. Mayor Laufenburger: So we get that land by giving some potential concessions on the other side. Kate Aanenson: That’s right. Okay. Alright. Any other questions for staff? At this time I’d like to hear from the developer. Would you identify yourself please. Joe Jablonski: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council. My name is Joe Jablonski representing Lennar Corporation this evening. Mayor Laufenburger: In what capacity do you represent them Mr. Jablonski? Joe Jablonski: As the Director of Land Development and Entitlement. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Joe Jablonski: I want to start by thanking staff. I think the thoroughness of their presentations will help limit my presentation to a relatively short conversation but there are a few things I just wanted to highlight or point out to kind of supplement what has already been discussed. One of the things kind of going back to the beginning of how this starts, the property, the current property owners went through the decision to list the property for sale. Lennar Corporation was lucky to be selected as the purchaser of that property which is why it kind of comes to this point of where we are today. What we’re doing now for our standpoint is going through our proper due diligence to figure out what we can, what the expectations for the property are. Some of the other things that we have been doing in addition to the wetland delineation. We have been doing some soil investigation work on the property. Part of that is how we start to formulate or figure out what some of the requirements for stormwater are and how we go about meeting those. It’s kind of this building process of working our way up to a preliminary plat and making business decisions to get there to figure out you know what the feasibility of moving the project forward for us is. And a big part of that, that I’m hoping that we can discuss and get some direction from you folks on, recognizing that it’s not a vote but what we’re really interested in is getting good feedback from you folks on which type of plan or which scenario you’re the most comfortable with. I think staff did a great job of pointing out the differences between the two plans. I think one of the things in our PUD application recognizes the fact that it is a special property and I Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 32 think that we’ve recognized that with the opportunity to preserve or look at the preservation of as much open space as we have. The exchange for that is a little bit higher density in some of the upland and doing that with some smaller lots or some cluster style lots. The, one of the advantages or one of the things that comes with that is also the opportunity to meet some of your housing goals for diversity. The City does have the opportunity here to, each one of the different lot sizes would bring a different product type including on the south end more of an empty nester type of single level villa which is a very under served type of product in the market today. Not just in Chanhassen but also in the Twin Cities in general. So as we’ve continued to think about this and continue to talk about this, you know I think some of the comments on the north end are very valid. It’s certainly challenging but again at this point we’re at a pretty high level of conceptual thinking and we’re really trying to dial in, is the City willing to support the density transfer approach or is it really the desire, the direction of the City to go more in the direction of traditional lot sizes throughout knowing that based on some of the various comment letters and things that it appears from an environmental standpoint that the density transfer option certainly has a lot less environmental impact. But you know I certainly will be here and certainly will be available to answer any questions and would be happy to do so but you know I think it’s important to recognize that while we are looking for an option for smaller lots, the maximum density on this property could be significantly higher following the RSF guidelines of up to 4 units an acre. Even averaging just on the property we’re using we’re at about 2.26 I think is what I remember calculating that out so, and that I think that was across about 89 acres which is shown on the plan in front of you right now. So I think we’ve done a lot of things to try to meet different goals of the City and try to really start the conversations of how does the City want to go about developing this in a way or helping give us direction on what you want to see and what we want to do knowing that the next step for us will be a big one in making the decision of taking your feedback from tonight and starting to prepare hopefully to start getting us to the next level where we start getting into the preliminary plat type of drawings and that level of detail. So with that I guess I would be happy to answer any questions. I didn’t talk much specifically about housing types and that. Mayor Laufenburger: We have pretty good pictures of that in the. Joe Jablonski: Yes there’s pictures in the packet. Mayor Laufenburger: And the pictures that you, that are in the packet with the description of the floorplans, the sizes, things like that, does that represent the full spectrum of homes that Lennar builds? Joe Jablonski: It does not. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Joe Jablonski: It represents I would say a supplemental package of what we would envision at least initially starting with here. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 33 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Joe Jablonski: And certainly I can point you in directions of you know if you want to go see any of them we have them built in several locations locally as well but. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Before we open this to public comments are you prepared to answer some questions from council at this time? Joe Jablonski: Absolutely. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Councilmember Ryan I think you said you had some questions of him is that correct? Councilwoman Ryan: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah please go ahead. Councilwoman Ryan: Thank you Mayor. Thank you for being here again. I’m a little disappointed. I was looking forward to having a Plan C. You presented at the Planning Commission. Heard from you know as the Mayor said about 22 people. I know staff has given you or likely given you feedback along, over the past couple weeks and when we got our packet I was anticipating as Chairman Aller from the Planning Commission said, it might not be Plan A or B but maybe a Plan C and so I know that’s not expected of you because it is just a concept review. However it would have been nice to see that some of the considerations that the residents shared with you were taken seriously to present any kind of option C. Specifically you know just going through the property, you know I can share those comments for later. But to come back tonight and just have option A or B presented to us again was, and you talk about doing your due diligence with soil correction. Was there a thought of coming back with a Plan C or not? Joe Jablonski: Well Councilmember Ryan what I would say is we are, or we are working on a revision or potentially a little bit more refined plan but at the same time we really need to get the direction on which way we’re going before we spend too much time on that because while we can get more information on the north and it might change how the road connection and layouts are affected, it really doesn’t affect the concept of whether we’re going to do density transfer or not. And so I. Councilwoman Ryan: And so when you talk about looking for direction you’re specifically meaning whether or not you’re going to come back with just the straight forward residential plan or it’s going to be the density transfer. That’s really what the, when you talk about direction that’s what you’re looking for. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 34 Joe Jablonski: That is item number one that we would like some feedback on for sure. You know if we want to get into other things like where the road connections are. How the street stub and all that stuff, that’s a little bit more level of detail than actually we’re looking for at this point. We really want to dial in you know what is staff, or what is the City comfortable with or what direction are we really looking at here and. Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan, I think that if I may just for a second. Clearly I heard you say Mr. Jablonski that you have a decision to make about whether or not you move forward. Is that correct? Joe Jablonski: Or how we move forward. Mayor Laufenburger: Or how you move forward. Joe Jablonski: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: And that decision is based on, you talk about feedback from the City Council. To me I interpret that not only now but in the dialogue that I’ve had with even with you is, you want to hear what these members of the council. These 5 members of the council who are likely in a position to vote approval or disapproval of some preliminary in the future, you want to hear what we have to say about what you’ve shown us. Is that correct? Joe Jablonski: Correct. Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: So you’ve shown us 2 pieces of artwork and you’re saying which of these pieces of artwork do you like best. Not to say that this road is going to be exactly this place or this lot is going to be that size but you’re looking for general views from these council members as to what do you like about the plan. Either plan or what do you not like about either plan. Joe Jablonski: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Joe Jablonski: This is an information gathering process for us. As Ms. Aanenson pointed out the concept plan isn’t required but it’s an opportunity for us to get, start gathering as much information as we can to start making the business decisions on how to move forward. Mayor Laufenburger: So you’ve heard from the public. You’ve heard from the public at the Planning Commission. I don’t know if you’ve seen any of the comments in the packet so you know some of the general sentiment that’s coming from the public. Now you want to hear from this 5 member group who ultimately probably is most significant in your decision making process. Would you say that’s true? Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 35 Joe Jablonski: That’s correct, yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so I just wanted to clarify that Councilmember Ryan. It’s certainly your perspective that you wanted a Plan C but I think a Plan C is out there and that Plan C will be governed by, to some extent by what we have to say tonight. That’s my view so Councilmember Ryan your turn. Councilwoman Ryan: And I, I believe that what you initially said that you want either Plan A or Plan B is the truth and because with your continued commentary you also said that you’re being, you know generous or flexible in terms of the lot sizes and that hasn’t been the feedback from the residents that, I don’t know how my fellow councilmembers will say but that isn’t my feedback. That I think that this plan option B is a viable option based on the questions that Mr. McDonald, Councilman McDonald asked our city engineer about the viability of the 90 foot lots up there. How can we say yes, I think that Plan B is a viable option when we don’t know with based on the slope and the retaining walls if those, you know those lots are going to be something, you know something that’s going to be buildable. I’m concerned about the lots. You know the road extension because of traffic safety so you, you know Mr. Mayor when you, I know that there’s an Option C out there but my concern is that tonight we’re being presented with making a decision on whether it’s Option A or Option B and I don’t think, I don’t think that’s really the choice that we should be asked to make because I don’t think either one of them are concepts that I could comfortably move forward with. Mayor Laufenburger: Please. Please. Let this dialogue occur. Councilmember Ryan, there is no decision. Unless a motion is made, and I don’t think it will be made, there’s no decision of A or B tonight. The only thing that the council members are asked to do tonight is to make comments to the developer and city staff. What do you like? What do you don’t like? What would you like to see? What would you not like to see? That’s our responsibility. Our responsibility is not to choose A or B tonight. I’m not choosing A or B tonight because I don’t think it’s A or B is the option. I think there’s something else out there that U.S. Home Corporation, after listening to all of us they’ll come back with something else. That’s my belief. Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Yeah I guess I want to just weigh in on this a little bit. I’ve been involved in this a lot longer than Councilmember Ryan has. This whole idea goes back to Walmart and one of the things that the City learned out of that was that we needed an idea better from the developer as to what they were looking for and what their questions were. That’s why we came up with this concept review. It was never meant to be a final plat or a final plan. It was only meant to give you a generalized concept and the reason for that is, is as I went through earlier there are a lot of detailed engineering information that has got to be gathered and that costs money and it doesn’t do the developer any good to try to get information based upon the RSF plan when that information is probably not going to totally transfer over to doing something with the PUD so that’s why we put it together was to let them pose the questions. Give us a concept. I do not expect a detailed drawing of what this development looks like. I just need a Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 36 general idea to decide whether or not I want to say well I’m not in favor of a density transfer but you can do the RSF. Go ahead and develop all the land to the fullest extent you can and good luck. That’s not the purpose of being here tonight. It’s to try to understand what our options would be so I think it’s a little disingenuous to berate the developer because there is no Plan C. The City by it’s own standards does not require a Plan C. That is council’s responsibility to give the go ahead to move forward and say okay, we’ve got a general idea. Go out and spend some money now and let’s get some details so that we can make some decisions as to whether these lots are buildable or whether or not we want the road to go through. What’s it going to take to get the road through because if it gets too onerous and too expensive as far as the city, because again at some point we’re going to have to maintain these roads. We have to maintain any kind of a retaining wall or those kind of things. We need to make a decision if that’s something we want to take on or if that really is just not something that is feasible that the City should be doing and we need to look at other alternatives. As the Mayor has said, this whole thing as to whether a road goes through on the north, that’s a long way from being decided and there’s a lot more information we need. It’s nice to see this concept and it’s a great thing but as I pointed out it’s lines on a flat piece of paper and as Mr. Oehme, our engineer said the reality is when you get out there and you start looking at the topography and you try to put a road into something as challenging as this, it just may not be feasible so I think that’s where we’re at. It’s not to come here and berate the developer for saying where’s your plan C. Where’s the detail? That’s not what we invited the developer here for and that was never the purpose of doing this. Again after Walmart what we learned was, City Council needed a lot more information before we could decide whether or not it’s even a good idea to go forward or not. That’s what we’re here for tonight is to make that decision as to how do we go forward. What’s our marching orders to City staff based upon the information that we’ve received. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, Councilmember Ryan do you have other questions or clarifications you want to make? Go ahead. Councilwoman Ryan: Just there’s a couple. One I know I was not on council but I didn’t have my head in the sand either so I’m aware of what’s going on. Second of all me sharing my disappointment in not having a Plan C is not to berate or embarrass or discredit the work that you’ve done or Lennar as a developer. It is simply my request as a council member representing the people in this room. The people at home that the Chairman Aller who said that he would like, based on the feedback from the commission a Plan C so all I’m doing is expressing that I would have liked to see a Plan C. That’s it. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Do you have other questions or comments at this time for the developer? Councilwoman Ryan: Not at this time, thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Anybody else questions for the developer? Mr. Campion. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 37 Councilman Campion: I have one more question for Mr. Jablonski. So from speaking to some of the residents they were asking or expressed interest in possibly purchasing a 10 acre lot on the north side and the question is, I know you can’t answer that. You know whether that would be done or not but if, and so it would be a 10 acre lot that is on the north side that is relatively abutting the Lake Lucy shore there. If neighbors had interest with that and you happened to go forward with the PUD concept is that something that Lennar would entertain? The potential of selling off 10 acres to neighbors for their own preservation. Joe Jablonski: It’s something that we would look at. I was contacted by one of the homeowners. We haven’t had a chance to connect. I understand he’s out of town but we plan to do so when he returns so. Councilman Campion: Okay. Joe Jablonski: Need more details on that and, but it’s something that we would consider sure. Councilman Campion: Alright. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Campion anything else? Councilman Campion: Not at this time. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Sure Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Let me ask my question now. We’ve talked a little bit about some of these challenges. Are you up for working with city staff if you know part of our direction is we would like to see things change a little bit? I mean is that part of the negotiations going forward in your own mind? Joe Jablonski: Yeah I think so. Again I think you described it pretty well that this is a, at this point a fairly unrefined two dimensional drawing that we will continue working on. Getting, continuing to build on direction and continuing to build on feedback on what the, not only on what some of the desires of the neighborhood and feedback from council and staff is but you know as we continue to gather more information and field studies and things like that on what we can and can’t do out there as well. Councilman McDonald: Okay thank you. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 38 Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Jablonski part of the packet that the council members received was I think about a 13 page document that represents comments from city departments like the planning department. Engineering comments. Water resources comments. Landscaping. All of those things. Are you familiar with that document? Joe Jablonski: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Is there anything, are you prepared to work with city staff to resolve these? Joe Jablonski: Absolutely. We’ve done so on many other projects. Mayor Laufenburger: Where have you done what you called empty nester homes? That would be like the villa homes. Have you done any of those near Chanhassen? Joe Jablonski: We have. We currently have an active community in Minnetonka. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Joe Jablonski: That’s fairly close by. It’s on the site of the old Minnetonka Golf Club so right off of. Mayor Laufenburger: Is that Smithtown Bay Road? Joe Jablonski: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: In what’s Yellowstone is on the south side of that I think, yeah. Joe Jablonski: Yes and we’ve also done them in, we have an active community in Cottage Grove right now with that type of product. We have an active community in Rogers on the north side of town. One in Otsego. It’s a very well received type of product with the growing empty nester demographic for sure. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Regarding your purchase option from the estate or from Comerica’s representatives, are you at liberty to talk at all about the contents of that? Joe Jablonski: I guess it depends on what the question is. You know I don’t want to get in. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay well let me ask, let me ask my question and then you can decide whether or not you want to share. Joe Jablonski: Okay. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 39 Mayor Laufenburger: Is there anything in that contract that talks about desires that the estate or the heirs have about this property? Joe Jablonski: Well I guess I would say first and foremost the estate desires to sell it. Mayor Laufenburger: Hence their invitation to all of the bidders. Joe Jablonski: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Right okay. Joe Jablonski: And there is some acknowledgement that the heirs would like the opportunity to work with staff and/or the City to come up with any opportunity for theming throughout the neighborhood but that is not the direction that we will be taking as Lennar. Mayor Laufenburger: When you say theming what do you mean? Joe Jablonski: Any kind of opportunity to recognize the prior property owner. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. So they have asked for that but you have not made. Joe Jablonski: That is not. Mayor Laufenburger: That’s not a direction you’re. Joe Jablonski: That’s not our requirement. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Joe Jablonski: That is something that they will perhaps approach the City on. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Okay. Well with that Mr. Jablonski get ready to listen okay. Joe Jablonski: Sure. Mayor Laufenburger: Alrighty, thanks. Alright. Oh sure, just a moment Mr. Jablonski. Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, no, you can. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay go ahead. Councilmember Tjornhom yeah. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 40 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Before we start public comment, because we are here tonight to give our opinion whether think this property should be an RSF or a PUD, if it would be okay with you Mr. Mayor if when people do come to the podium and speak, I’d like to hear their opinion on what they think it should be. Should it be an RSF or a PUD? Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Let me also say this. I mentioned this briefly. I would simply ask that you be concise. Remember that you’re speaking to the council. You’re not speaking to the audience or to anybody who may be watching at home. You’re speaking to the council. Address your comments here. Be respectful but also understand that the council has seen emails and have had phone conversations. Talked personally with many of you so we have a little bit of the flavor already. However I think it’s important that those of you that have not had an opportunity to address either the Planning Commission or the City Council be given an opportunity to do so, so with that and I don’t know how long we’ll go on this but I’m going to do my very best to manage this in a respectful and an efficient way so is there somebody would like to break the seal. Alright, I just would ask, state your name and address and if you don’t mind stating somewhere in your comments a preference for the concept PUD or the RSF as Councilmember Tjornhom so your name and address please. Matthew Myers: Matthew Myers, 7421 Windmill Drive on the south side of the property. I’ll give you a Plan C. The 41 acres that the park board wants, could the City buy that from the estate. Not transfer the 40 homes and then let Lennar buy the rest of the property and build what would be 150. So not do the transfer of the density. Let them do regular density and 150 homes generates a lot of property tax and over the years we just, as a City buy the 41 acres for the park and not do the transfer. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Matthew Myers: So there’s a Plan C. Mayor Laufenburger: So do you have any preference. Matthew Myers: Yes less density. Well I don’t know which one is the less density. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Matthew Myers: Which is a PUD the less density? RSF? Yeah, bottom line less density is what we’d like. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Myers. Anybody else would like to speak? Brian Strauss: Hello my name is Brian Strauss and I reside at 6840 Lucy Ridge Lane. I would just like to add to my comments. My wife and I had written a letter to the council. A fairly long letter and I’d just like to raise a few additional points. I’m appreciative of the recognition that Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 41 the notice may not have been precise. I think it’s important that we have proper governance and transparency. I will note that my current notice got here on Wednesday so still within 10 days but I appreciate that. It’s unclear to me Mr. Mayor, I know you’ve been asking about whether the land can be developed as is and it’s currently zoned rural residential is it not? So not a single variance is needed to do that option. Is that right? Kate Aanenson: That’s inconsistent with the guiding of the Comprehensive Plan. You have to go back and look at, how the property was being appraised. The property’s being appraised by the County Assessor based on the ultimate capacity of the land so right now if you look up the appraisal value I believe it’s about $20 million dollars approximately. And that’s based on the fact that they can subdivide that property. So if you were to say now you can only develop at one acre lots, you’ve done a taking. And I’ll ask the city attorney on that question but I would assume that the property owner would probably object to that. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Strauss I appreciate your comments. Brian Strauss: Yeah. Mayor Laufenburger: I just would ask that you make them in the form of your preference or your presentation to us okay. Brian Strauss: Okay. My preference is neither A or B. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Brian Strauss: From my research the land is currently zoned rural residential and there’s a statement in there, at least based on my research, that the minimum lot sizes for that are 2.5 acres per home. I’m not a land developer but that’s based on my research. I’m not in favor of either A or B. I’d point to some of the issues that I wrote about in my letter. The connections to the northern neighborhood as well as the size of the buffers in the north and the south. I’d recommend an Option C be developed where there’s lower density. More environmentally friendly and connections only out to Galpin so okay. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you for being concise, thank you Brian. And thank you for your letter. All 35 pages by the way. Brian Strauss: I would encourage everyone to read it. Mayor Laufenburger: Anybody else wishing to address the council that hasn’t had an opportunity to speak to the Planning Commission. We’re not going to bite you so just state your name and address please. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 42 Greg Andrews: Hi I’m Greg Andrews. I live at 6895 Ruby Lane. Lived there a little over 5 years. Mayor Laufenburger: Nice to meet you face to face Greg. Greg Andrews: Good to talk to you on the phone Denny. So first point is all about protecting Lake Ann. So I just question the water study on north Lake Lucy that it may, you may want to wait and do it in 2018 because I know my neighbors in Lake Lucy Ridge they built a dock last year and now it’s sunk in green muck and weeds and they can’t even use it for boats and it got that way after that development got put in up to the north so. I guess I’m concerned about the same thing happening to Lake Ann because this much development, and I know a lot of protections are, everyone’s going to try to make but things happen, is I’d hate to see that happen over there on a lake that my son and his cub scout pack 409 use and a lot of people use. It truly is the gem of Chanhassen so I know people will try to protect it but there’s a lot of things that happen in a wetland and overflows, et cetera. Excessive rains. Excessive snows. I watch the footage of the people living to the south that, when there’s a lot of snow and a lot of runoff they’re running their sump pumps and they can’t even keep up so that stuff can also go into Lake Ann too. A lot of phosphorus. A lot of problems that can happen. So we live kind of on a natural ridge that kind of connects up areas below us to Lake Lucy Ridge and then to Lake Ann. Where deer kind of go through in a natural trail. If you follow that back. I’m jealous of the one guy who said he trespassed on Prince’s property. I’ve never done that and to follow that trail is, you know it just makes me think what’s going to happen to all the wildlife because the plan, and even in the PUD plan is, it’s just going to put up houses and a wall right there and all those deer that we’ve enjoyed for all those years and I don’t know about all the other animals that are back there too. I don’t know, nobody really talks about that in the plan but I know those deer are going to have to go find someplace else to live when this happens because their natural trail is going to be gone. Alright. So my second point, and last point is about the stub streets. Is, wasn’t aware that they were intended to connect through. When I first moved here, corporate relo, lived on a busy street. I went out to the store and bought a big yellow cone that said Caution, Children at Play. Every afternoon I’d come home from work. I’d throw that in the middle of the street. I haven’t had to do that in Ashling Meadows so I feel really safe for my kids there. If they obey the rules but I’d be very, very concerned that another 90 homes would connect up with our neighborhood there so you know there’s different proposals for different types of houses and not connecting. I grew up in California where hey, there’s millions and millions of people in some neighborhoods. Instead of connecting the roads that I don’t know the reason for connecting roads. I don’t know if it’s safety or not or just the design. Mayor Laufenburger: In California or here? Greg Andrews: No here. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh okay. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 43 Greg Andrews: Yeah, I don’t know what the desire for connecting them is but I know that where I lived is, there were certain neighborhoods that were built after ones. They weren’t roads through but there was a space that emergency vehicles could get through. It was kind of like a, just almost like a park that you could drive through in an emergency but the neighborhoods weren’t connected at all. You could drive through them but only emergency vehicles could so just an option where you’re not really connecting up the neighborhoods but if it’s around safety there’s another option. Okay but, sorry. Just want to make sure I’m making all my points here. So I guess I know that Lennar is trying to monetize the property there but to try to shove a bunch of, you know 90 more homes and connect up with our neighborhoods, I’m just concerned that it’s going to be a major thoroughfare. Our neighborhood as well as Lake Lucy Ridge so that’s my major concern. For people like me who have young kids who want to ride their bikes, run out in the street, et cetera. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. Andrews. Greg Andrews: Thank you. Anyone else? Jessica Hansgen: I wasn’t going to stand up but I have to. So my name’s Jessica Hansgen and I live at 7555 Walnut Curve. On that horseshoe down to the south of the proposed development. Mayor Laufenburger: You said Jessica what? Jessica Hansgen: Hansgen. Mayor Laufenburger: Hansgen? Jessica Hansgen: I don’t know should I tell you how to spell my name? Mayor Laufenburger: No I’ll do it phonetically. Jessica Hansgen: Hansgen. Yep. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Jessica Hansgen: So I know Councilwoman Tjornhom you had asked earlier how we spend time in the community and you wanted to hear from us. I also have 2 young children who live in that horseshoe area and we already have a hard enough time crossing Galpin to use the parks that we have. Thanks to the boy scouts who put the flags at every 4 way stop. We still have to dodge cars and I’ve seen the road proposals for the roundabouts on Galpin in preparation, I’m assuming in preparation for this development and it, it breaks my heart that we live that close to a park and we can’t use it. We also spend a lot of time going down the hill up towards Longacres counting deer in the field that you just talked about. Our favorite thing to do right now is when there’s sirens on Highway 5 count how many coyotes we think are howling back in, I think we’re up to Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 44 about, we think maybe 10 right now. Different howls based on what we hear back in the berm and my property doesn’t back up to the proposed development but my neighbors in front do and we use that area so I just wanted to speak on how we use the area and use the, sorry I’m nervous. I don’t know why. Use the community and the space that we have. And I also spend a lot of money at Chaska Community Center so it’d be great to be able to have some sort of area within Chanhassen that we could also put our own money towards to be a community center similar to that. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Ms. Hansgen. Cheree Theisen: Hello, my name is Cheree Theisen. I live at 2072 Majestic Way. I’m in the Royal Oaks development. I was one of the very first people to go into that development and build my custom home. Prior to building it I had checked out the school district which was a priority and then the small time community that we had because I lived there when I graduated from school. Mayor Laufenburger: How long did you say, how long have you been at Majestic Way? Cheree Theisen: I’ve been there since 1995. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so 23 years. Okay. Cheree Theisen: And I bought it for that very same reason. I went down there. It used to be a turkey farm and I was able to pick out the lot that I wanted. I had a beautiful and still have a beautiful back yard of nothing but woods. We treasure the turkeys coming into our neighborhood. The coyotes, like she mentioned, howling and carrying on just on the other side of the fence from where I live. And the deer. All of the animals. And plus we have a very quiet neighborhood. We have small children that get to play in the street and have fun but we are just small. You know I go out to Galpin to turn, you can’t get off Majestic Way. You’ve got people coming from Longacres. You’ve got, if there’s cars stopped at the 4 way stop further south on Galpin, by the time one comes you can’t get out because the other one’s on it’s way and you sit there for quite a long time. I can’t imagine what’s going to happen to us when we bring in 190 some houses. I mean you guys are trying to put 10 pounds in a 5 pound bag. I have a big yard. I’ve got a beautiful yard. I looked up every single one of your houses online. You have beautiful back yards with wonderful trees. Wonderful trees. Mine. Mayor Laufenburger: Did you put a camera back there? Cheree Theisen: I have pictures of them all with me. But I will say I get to look at my next 10 years or whatever, maybe just one now, looking at a fricking clear cut. I mean go figure. I put a lot of money. I was a single mom. I still am. I put everything into my business and my home for my children and I love, and I am so disappointed and for all the same reasons. The traffic. The, my house actually the basement caved in on me because of the amount of water that would Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 45 come off from the hill. It froze in the wintertime and pushed my basement in. I had to have it dug out. Jacked up. Steel beams put in. State of Minnesota came out to do the structural work on it and I know that there’s other houses in my neighborhood that have had water problems. I have 2 sump pumps and I have a generator that has the cord ready to go the minute we lose our power because my basement is flooded more than once but I still choose to live there. But not for long if this keeps up. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, thank you for your comments Cheree. Welcome. Barb Klick: Good evening. I’m Barb Klick and I reside at 7116 Utica Lane in Chanhassen for 31 years and I get to use Lake Ann almost every day of my life and I’ve been blessed. So the first moral of the story here as a 40 year old nurse, 40 years. I wish I was 40 years old. 40 years I’ve been a nurse. Please if Prince would only have some estate planning in advance, health care directive things would be easier so please everybody do that. I think that. Mayor Laufenburger: Very well said. It’s a little late for Prince but it’s not too late for all of us. Barb Klick: Everybody else. We live here and we’re so proud of this town and what Todd Gerhardt and Todd Hoffman, is he not the best director of parks and recs you’ve ever had. Right here. This guy. Mayor Laufenburger: He’s the best one that I’ve ever seen. Barb Klick: Right here, this guy. And we’re here for the green space and we’re here for the lakes and that’s why people keep rating us number 2 and number 1, number 5 and yet we don’t have $20 million dollars and America’s a great country to live in and Lennar can buy this land so maybe there’s some guide posts we could come up with around our green space and the things that we value and maybe Lennar would be willing to work with us about saying we know that you have a right to build but we really want to preserve the things that are near and dear and if we had some guide posts to help maybe that would move this along. Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Barb. Cheree Theisen: I’ve got a footnote. I’ll come up with a few more here too. Mayor Laufenburger: Recalling the witness. Cheree Theisen: When I decided I wanted to build a house where I’m at I went to the City of Chanhassen and I said okay, I’m right next to Prince’s property. He’s got a beautiful tree line. If he sells that property what’s going to happen to that tree line? The City told me flat out they will not take that out. They’ll never remove a natural tree line. Now granted that was 23 years ago and a lot changes but that’s still disheartening. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 46 Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah. Cheree let me ask you a question. Do you have trees that are on your property back there? Cheree Theisen: No. That’s why. Most of our neighbors in our neighborhood, we have huge open back yards with maybe one tree back there. I have the forest and so does my neighbors. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Cheree Theisen: They might have like, well my neighbor has a pool and landscape but for the most part there isn’t a lot of trees in our neighborhood. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, thank you Cheree. Jon Hebeisen: Good evening. Mayor Laufenburger: Good evening. Jon Hebeisen: Jon Hebeisen, 2150 Majestic Way. Mayor Laufenburger: Jon could I just stop you for a second? Jon Hebeisen: Sure. Mayor Laufenburger: I think you spoke at the Planning Commission didn’t you? Jon Hebeisen: I did but I think that’s a made up rule. Mayor Laufenburger: Say that again. Jon Hebeisen: I think your rule is a made up rule, am I not right council? Mayor Laufenburger: Well actually it’s a practice that I’ve been following for almost 4 years so I’m not saying you can’t speak. I would just like to give, if anybody else who hasn’t spoken yet so if you wouldn’t mind just taking a seat for a moment and we’ll give some time. Jon Hebeisen: I was doing that. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you. Is there anybody else who has not yet spoken at the Planning Commission that would like to speak at this time? Jay Gerczak: Hi I’m Jay Gerczak and I live at 1941 Topaz Drive in Ashling Meadows and I think we’ve heard enough about the environmental and the safety issues so you guys all get that. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 47 I’m here a little bit about the process and I know that tonight there was discussions about, that you’re not voting on a plan. Mayor Laufenburger: Right. Jay Gerczak: We’re really kind of at a artist depiction level. But I’m in software development and we start with an artist depiction of kind of what the future is going to be and then we work down into the engineering and my concern is that if we’re saying conceptually that we agree to one of these plans, it’s really giving the builder the notion that they’re headed in the right direction and I think we’ve heard a lot of concerns tonight, in letters, at the Planning Commission meeting which I did not receive a notice which you’ve addressed, and there’s concerns and we want to see those concerns addressed in another concept view and I think that was discussed tonight but I didn’t really hear maybe your viewpoints on the process of that moving forward. Mayor Laufenburger: Well let me speak to that Jay if I may. I tried to make it clear at the beginning that there’s a sequence of steps that we’re going to follow which will conclude with comments from the council to city staff and developer and then the developer will be able to hear those comments in conjunction with the comments of the public. Through emails. City staff. You saw me reference 13 pages of comments from city staff. It’s really up to the developer then to, with all of that information decide if and how they choose to move forward. As you heard me say before I don’t believe we’re approving A or B. I understand that the inclination would be well if we say yes to B that means that’s the direction they’re going to go to or if we say yes to A, that’s the direction they’re going to go through. But this is a, this is intended to be an iterative process. Ultimately the developer decides or the potential developer decides if they feel like they can work the economies the way they need to but those economies are governed by what they hear from this council and from city staff on what we’re looking to see on this development so I stated right up front. This can be a cumbersome process but it’s a deliberate process that we try to follow to ensure that all views, all facts, all perspectives are heard so I’m sorry you weren’t able to be at the Planning Commission. I hope that tonight turns out to be informative for you. You have the last comment if you’d like. No, just the last work between you and I. Anything? Jay Gerczak: Okay. Maybe I misunderstood because I thought that they’re really looking for feedback on what concept to go with and so. And then I just would like to hear a little more on so if they do come back you know when does the public get back involved and does it go back to the planning committee. I was thinking of your slide that you had up there and back to the City Council and how many iterations does that go through before something is finalized. Mayor Laufenburger: Good. Those are good questions. I think you’ll get your answers tonight. Somebody else? Peter Polingo: I’m Peter Polingo, 1981 Topaz Drive. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 48 Mayor Laufenburger: Hello Peter. Peter Polingo: Just following up on what Jay has to say Mr. Mayor. To keep it simple we’re asking you to listen to the things we’re saying about not connecting the subdivisions. About trying to build something that we can be proud of as a quality community and to make sure the safety is fundamental and the congestion. Just keep it simple. That’s what we’re asking you to do. Then we want you to come back and tell us what you think and then let us get back together again. Okay? Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, thank you Peter. Peter Polingo: Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Appreciate your comments. Anybody else? Going once. Going twice. Mr. Hebeisen, would you join us please. Jon Hebeisen: Since you asked so nice. Jon Hebeisen, 2150 Majestic Way. I’m the guy that did the trespassing by the way, with my sons for the last 16 years. Mayor Laufenburger: Your secret’s safe with us Jon. Jon Hebeisen: Statute of limitations has run. Two questions both rhetorical. Where is it written that Lennar or whoever buys this property has to build 200 houses? That seems to be the assumption we’re making here. 200 houses. Either on the big version we’re going to have it near the water or we’re going to cram them all in. That’s the assumption. They don’t. Lennar is an $8 billion dollar company. Not to demonize them but they’re an $8 billion dollar company. They build, according to their own publicity they’re going to build 35,000 homes this year. It’s not a big deal to Lennar. This is not a big deal. Do you think they care about Chanhassen? We are .0057 percent, this development that they want to do of one year’s production and of course this would be several years in building. They don’t care about Chanhassen and they don’t have to care about Chanhassen. That’s your job. You guys got to care about Chanhassen. They’re here to make money. We don’t need to conform to their business plan of allowing the Prince heirs to monetize their property by selling 200 houses. I don’t buy the premise. Build 50 less. 50 less out of your 35,000 annual. They can do that. At what cost to them? Nothing. What do we get from that? We maybe preserve these gems. These lakes. Maybe we don’t clear cut some of the big woods. Can you believe we’re going to clear cut the big woods. So they can build .0057 percent of one year’s houses. Do you think that’s a smart long term plan for the city of Chanhassen that has the maple leaf? I don’t think so. Second rhetorical question. Why do you think we get something for nothing? Why do you think, you said 94 acres. What’s the price? Being implied being very little or nothing. Maybe a dollar. Free. It’s free. This is great. I can’t believe it and you shouldn’t believe it either. If you’re going to get that land for free it’s going to be on the backs of the rest of these people, including myself obviously. I heard the term, the number 15,000 square foot lots bandied about. There’s some of those up on the north side and I Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 49 understand this plan is not etched in stone but it’s the only plan we’ve seen. We don’t have a Plan C. The lots along the back side, not coincidentally which border my home. Mayor Laufenburger: Back side, south side? Jon Hebeisen: Correct, south side. Well the city minimum is 9,000. Those lots are 6,000. That’s not a variance. As I said previously the Planning Commission that’s an evisceration. That’s part of the price you’re paying. We’re paying. The homeowners are going to pay for that land that you’re getting for free. And speaking of Lake Ann and free land, we have a gentleman here that knows, he was here back then. We didn’t Lake Ann Park for free. We paid for it. Why aren’t we paying for this land? Why do we think we’re getting it for nothing? I’m saying we’re not and any intelligent analysis would tell too, there’s a price to pay. We’re going to get the free land including the wetlands and we’re going to jam in 200 houses because that is written in stone that you have to have 200 houses and you don’t. Just do your jobs looking out for Chanhassen. Not for Lennar. Thanks. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Hebeisen. Is there anybody else? Is there anybody else either that did or did not speak at the Planning Commission who would like to address the council at this time? Okay I thank you for your comments. For your respectful presentation of information and now I’m going to bring this back to the council. First of all is there any questions or clarifications that any council member would like to ask for at this time? Okay. Mr. McDonald I’ll start with you and we’ll just move down the row here and I will reserve my comments until last. I’m looking for your comments on, everybody comments to the developer and to city staff on what you would like to see in this property. Councilman McDonald: Well this is a very difficult decision but you know I do believe that the owners of the property have got a right to sell the property. They’ve elected they’re not going to divide it up and sell it piecemeal so what we need to do as government to do our responsibility is we have certain rules in place as to how property can be developed. So based upon that one of the things I would like to see, I would be in favor of the density transfer because I do want to see us get the land around Lake Ann and develop that into a park. I also would like to see more detailed drawings and one of the things I would like staff to particularly do is any connection between the Prince property and the property to the north I would like that to be looked at and if it has to go to any kind of structural engineering or we have to put up all kinds of retaining walls then I would like to see that connection not be there. The other thing that helps that is that’s also the school boundary line between Chanhassen and Minnetonka so it’s kind of a natural barrier from a school district. It’s also a natural barrier from the topography so I would like staff to look at that. Then what I would like to also see is that again as I’ve said we do need the detailed engineering plans. At this point all this is is lots drawn on paper. I’m not sure all those lots are even buildable and I would like to get a count as to what actually is buildable. As far as the trees to the north and to the south, yeah I would like to see all of those preserved. I would like staff to work with the developer to find some way to make sure that any cutting of trees is minimized and that to the best that we possibly can to keep those barriers between neighborhoods to kind of Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 50 have a transition between areas and to keep the trees in place in order to do that. Beyond that I think that again looking at the two choices, because the developer as I said, you have to first start with the premise can they develop the land and the answer to that question is yes. Then the thing you need to look at is okay, what’s best for the city. I hear the gentleman that wants Lennar to build fewer homes. Then let’s get an idea of what the buildable lots are to address that. The wildlife and those issues, yes that’s why I want to see as many trees and habitat left as possible. As far as Lake Ann and the environmental potential damage there. I think that that should be something that’s built into the next PUD and I would like staff to come back with assurances as to how we’re going to protect Lake Ann. And especially during a construction process and even after the construction process because as everybody has mentioned one of the big problems up on Lake Lucy was phosphorus and those types of chemicals. Well that comes off of people fertilizing their yards so let’s look at a way to keep all of that out of Lake Ann. And that’s what I would ask and give direction to staff to do. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. McDonald. Moving on down the line. Councilmember Tjornhom do you have any comments you’d like to make to the staff and to the developer? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I do. I do. I think Councilman McDonald explained how this whole process started. It started back with Walmart and the fact that Walmart brought a bunch of stuff to the table. Spent a bunch of money and we said no thank you. It was not something that was a good fit for our community and now when I look back on it, this community was absolutely right when they made that very loud and clear. Tonight once again we are with a developer that would like to create a project in this town and once again tonight we are having a meeting. Letting the developer know what our expectations are. What our concerns are. What we want to see happen with this project. I’m pretty sure he heard the concerns about traffic. He heard concerns about the tree lines being cut down. He heard concerns about water quality. He heard concerns about density. He heard concerns about your quality and your life being changed because of 200 homes being built in the area that you just feel isn’t ready for that type of development. I don’t believe that doing an RSF is the right thing to do. I believe that a PUD, and this is me talking to the developer saying that a planned unit development makes way more sense than you having carts blanche just to go in and build the lots you want, where you want and how you want. I don’t think that’s responsible as a city or a council to go ahead and say yep, you bought the land. Go ahead and do that so I think that we have expressed very well what we’re all really concerned about and I think that the Lennar representative has heard those comments and you’re not the first developer. This isn’t your first meeting where you’ve heard these things but I think that this is the first meeting everybody and so I think we have to realize that. Once he goes back and he has his conference with his partners tomorrow and he talks about our comments. Our frustrations. Our concerns. Our hesitancy to have this happen they’ll discuss the options. What is going to make sense for them? Will it make sense for them to proceed by maybe cutting out 50 homes from this development. You know maybe rearranging where the roads go. Rearranging some of the grading so we’re not totally destroying what’s already there. And then he’ll come back and he’ll say you know what, we can do this. Let’s Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 51 work together and find a way or he’ll say this isn’t for us and so to me that’s why I’m here tonight to listen to you and to send a message at the request of the developer as to what our expectations are and so my expectation is that if you were to move forward it would be a PUD but it would be with all of these elements everyone has talked about here tonight. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Councilmember Tjornhom. Councilmember Ryan, your comments. Councilwoman Ryan: Thank you Mayor. I would like to see an Option C so I, and I say that in all seriousness. I say that because I would like to take one additional step in the process so instead of approving or moving forward with either RSF or PUD I’d like to have the developer take these comments and this feedback and I’d like to have another concept review conversation. I don’t think that then we have to move immediately forward to Lennar making the, making the investment with the engineering and the planning because I understand you know that situation for Lennar so I think that if we take an extra step along this way we’re thinking long term versus kind of the tactically short term how are we going to get this done and what streets are going to be. How the streets are going to connect and what not so I’d like to in all seriousness I would like to have another option or options or thoughts from the developer in how they’re going to work around some of the constraints of the site. Some of the thoughts that I would like to hear from Lennar and again not specific engineering detail but I look to get a better understanding of what’s the intention when it comes to your grading plan. What is that going to look like? What is it going to look like when you, you know when you lay the plan that you presented over this, what’s up on the screen right now, all the development is occurring where the woods are and as I understand Ms. Sinclair’s going to evaluate the trees that we’d like to keep. Is that one tree? Is it two trees? I mean what are we. Kate Aanenson: Again we’re weighing that against the area in preservation so this, if you look at what percentage I mean I think we don’t have that number. What percentage is being impacted so yes, there’s specific spot trees that we would try to, she would try to preserve. Councilwoman Ryan: And again I would like to have that feedback as part of this. I know we had sent out some jurisdictional review. My understanding again when they reviewed this is that it was what would you prefer the option, or Plan A or Plan B and I don’t doubt that anybody in, with the DNR or the watershed is going to say let’s develop on Plan A so I would like to get a better understanding of what their concerns are with the PUD and the environmental impacts so I’d like to hear some of that. Specifically when we talk about each parcel of land and the way that when I was evaluating I was looking at it, I was looking at the northern, the central and the southern portion of it and when I look at the northern piece of this parcel I would like to see a concept where Lake Lucy Ridge and Ashling Meadows either have a cul-de-sac so there is no connection through off to Galpin. It’s a cul-de-sac or that land up on the ridge, that 10 acres remains undeveloped because of the potential impact into Lake Lucy. If it is something that Lennar feels that they need to develop and don’t want to sell off the property, obviously that’s their discretion. I would like to ask them to consider larger lots that mirror or match the existing Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 52 neighborhood up there so I would ask that for that 10 acre parcel. Moving directly south I still find it very hard to believe that the homes that are listed, well really that whole area is all big woods and the thought of cutting all that down and what that’s going to do to the drainage and the wetland is concerning to me. I would like to get a better understanding of how that is even a viable option to build out those lots. I think there’s a stream running through a portion of it. There’s a wetland at the entrance of Galpin. Again I just, I don’t see how this is a possibility so is there another configuration that Lennar is willing to consider? And safety is a concern. I know we’re going to, the proposal would be to build retaining walls but in the documents that we read, our engineering department said that the bluff stability is part of the, a concern over there. At the center of the property when you look at it that’s planned for 102 lots and that just seems in my view excessive the way that you’re, that those lots build out. If you look at Lots 10 through 23 which is that cul-de-sac off to the northeast there. That cul-de-sac, again that would require significant tree loss of oak trees abutting the edge of the wetland and I understand this is all part of the density transfer but I think that regardless of the density transfer we still need to be stewards of the environment here. And again understanding your grading plan because when we did the walking that was one of the high points and I’m concerned about what the grading is going to do. On the southern portion we heard people tonight talk about the runoff and the high water flooding their basements. I also believe that at the Planning Commission there were comments that although that the, some of the wetlands were identified maybe we could take another look at that if those are all of the wetlands because there was some thought that the ones that were identified is not a complete picture of what those wetlands are. And maintain a buffer. Keep the trees and protect the houses on the south side of the home and I skipped ahead. And again on the center when I talk about the number of lots, I would prefer to see it mirrored to what is going on in Longacres or west of Galpin. Those lot comparisons are, it’s, I just don’t like the look of that, the density right across the street from Longacres. Mass grading. And then finally again understanding that’s part of when we talk about a density transfer the 35 percent lot coverage. We’re so careful and diligent when we look at individual properties and coming in for variances for lot coverage and that’s on a single property and we’re looking at a 35 percent lot coverage on you know the central and south portions of this development and that to me is unacceptable. So to sum up my specific points and long term is I’d like to take one more look at a Plan C or additional options with a little more work on Lennar’s end but I think in the long run it will pay off for Lennar but more importantly for our community. Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Councilmember Ryan. Mr. Campion do you have any comments? Councilman Campion: I do. So I’d also like to thank everyone for sharing their opinions tonight and over the past few weeks and month and at the Planning Commission meeting as well. My input is that I also support a Plan C that would be a modification of the PUD. Something we haven’t seen yet but something that addresses you know most or as many as possible of the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors. I want to see things like you know sharing of what the buffers or habitat, tree cover. You know what the, what the grading plan is going to look like before we can really respond you know with a strong support of one plan over another. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 53 Obviously the RSF just, you know is not acceptable in general. I would like Lennar to seriously consider offers that might come from the neighbors to purchase that 10 acres to hold that as a buffer. Increased buffer for Lake Lucy to help protect and preserve that. I don’t know what the mechanism is to trigger it but I would like the watershed ideally to either update that UAAU or water quality measurements before this comes back to us next. Whether it’s another concept review or the preliminary plat but I think it’d be good to see if there has been a shift in the past year since those other, that development went in off Lake Lucy Road. And I acknowledge development will continue to happen as long as there’s a willing seller and a willing buyer but even in my short tenure on council here over the last 4 years I’ve seen developers that do listen to the neighbors and you know they make some concessions to make sure that this development is you know well received by the community and has a positive feeling going forward and I would think that that would show well upon Lennar for when they’re potentially looking at trying to make another development in Chanhassen down the line. Right to leave a good picture in people’s minds. An example of that I think there was a West Park development that I think is still in progress now off of Great Plains and that was one where I know that there was a lot of feedback on it but it seemed like the issues just got addressed between the developer and neighbors and I’d love to see that happen here. In going forward I would like to see the process run more smoothly next time and from now on. You know make sure that all residents are notified before there’s a potential for public input. Make sure signs are posted for potential connections and all that and I trust we’ll do better going forward. But again I just want to close that I appreciate the dialogue. Keep sharing your input. Good job. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, anything else Mr. Campion? Okay. Before I make comments Peter Polingo asked the question regarding the time line. Kate could you speak to that? I know you had a triangle that showed the sequence of steps. Can you just give us a, not specifics but can you give us a general timeline of what you think would likely occur here. Kate Aanenson: Sure. I guess a lot of it is predicated on what the developer chooses to do. Mayor Laufenburger: Absolutely. The developer has a choice but let’s assume that the developer chooses to move forward with something. Kate Aanenson: So whether he comes back formally before this group with a concept. So some of the things you’re asking for is really going into the preliminary plat so now we’re into pretty committed on that so I think they’re up to. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, so what’s his timeline for him to deliver a preliminary plat? Kate Aanenson: Well you’d have to do a lot of engineering so I’m guessing it’s going to be at least 2 to 3 months I’m guessing. Yeah. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 54 Kate Aanenson: Yeah it’s pretty common. I mean it’s a lot of engineering. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh yeah. Yeah. Do we have any other developments in town that we could look at as a predictor of how this might happen like? Kate Aanenson: Well you know we did the Woods in Longacres which is equal the number of lots on the other side of the street and. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah a little bit bigger in fact I think isn’t it? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. Combined so it really depends on that complexity of the issues there so, and the timeliness of getting through the watershed district and all the other approvals from the other jurisdictions so. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So it sounds like we’re looking at 60 to 90 days probably. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Before something comes back. Kate Aanenson: But I want to be clear on one other question that came up. And so what we’ve spoken to Lennar about is that, whether they come back here for C or whatever, what path they choose to go down. We’ve asked them to meet with the property owners on the north side and the south side to work through their issues so they can see the plans as they’re working drawings before it comes back. We’ve asked them to do that in this process because it is hard when you’re in a formal setting to look at something. The concept review is not formalized for that specific purpose so we can have this dialogue and they can get that feedback so however the developer chooses to come back with is a more informal concept C here or in working with the neighbors to formalize that before they bring it back under a concept that would extend the process in and of itself before they make a more formal plan. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. I want to be very specific with my comments, as specific as I can. I don’t support A or B either which means that in my view there is a C somewhere. Whether it’s a D or an E or an F, I don’t know but I can’t support A or B the way it is present. However I do support the guidance and the policies of previous councils that have established land use guidance and zoning as presented in the Comprehensive Plan and obviously Mr. Jablonski you’ve reviewed that so you know what the City would like to do. I do support reasonable and multiple access points to the development from Galpin Boulevard. Now I know that that, I know that Mr. Oehme spoke about the study, the traffic study and you took that into consideration. I’m not prescriptive about where they occur but it’s logical that they occur at intersections that already exist and it seems to me that some of the, you know multiple access points. They don’t exist now so I would support multiple but from Galpin Boulevard. I do agree with the planned unit development which allows the density transfer from the east to the west. And I do that Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 55 because most of primary important is to preserve and protect a majority of the shoreline of both Lake Ann and Lake Lucy and I’m pleased to see that that concept of density transfer was also supported by Riley-Purgatory watershed district and the DNR. Neither of which gave tacit approval for the plan but they said conceptually we support keeping as much development as you can away from Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. I do not support the purchase of these parcels by the City. I think the purchase of Lake Ann back in 1967, that was a different circumstance than we’re faced with right here and yes Mr. Hebeisen it’s not free land. I understand that. There is a cost associated with it but the financial burden to the citizens of Chanhassen with a concept PUD is significantly less than purchasing 41 acres from the developer, or excuse me from the land owner. I support the concepts of the city staff and a review of the concept PUD and I’m referring to the 13 pages that I made reference to you Mr. Jablonski. There’s a lot of detail in there that Lennar may be very familiar with accomplishing satisfactory resolution of these and some of them are minutia but they all represent a picture of what the city staff is willing to comment on and call it a laundry list if you will but that’s a laundry list that I trust because the city staff has proven to me over the 11 years that I’ve been involved with city government that the city staff knows what’s right for this community and they do the due diligence to make sure that those of us in elected leadership don’t make a mistake. Okay I’m confident that you as a developer in working with city staff can provide a preliminary plan, whether it’s C or D that the council could ultimately agree with. However I’m not sure it’s a plan that the developers can find, that satisfies your economies. This was a phrase that you used at the Planning Commission. However that’s for you to determine based on what the City is allowing you. It’s not our job in the city to make you a profit. Our job is to give you the parameters by which we will allow your development of this land. As many of the council members have said here, we want a quality project. Our objective is not for you to make money. I do support the spectrum of home options and I’m not going to give a specific number to this development but I insist that each and every lot must be buildable and in the packet there was the, I like the idea of building the lots, or building the homes on each lot in such a way that the eventual homeowner has the ability to expand their hard surface coverage 5 percent and not exceed the allowable limit. I’m not interested in homeowners having to come to the City Council to ask, seek for a variance to go over 5 percent. Regardless of what we, what you build I know that homeowners want to add value to their home. They want to add a patio. They want to add a fire pit. They want to add a who knows. Whatever it is that they want. I’d like to make sure that they have an opportunity to do that without having to ask for a variance. Regarding lot sizes. Like Councilmember Ryan said, I’d like to see the lots adjacent to the existing neighborhoods be a size closely similar to the lots that they abut. And if you can’t do that I would ask for perhaps additional buffer space as a transition to these lots. I’m reminded or I’m remembering that on the south side of Walnut Curve there is very, very dense housing and that housing serves a very valuable purpose for this community. Those are Ms. Aanenson do you have any idea what, what’s the general market value of those homes. I think it’s under $200,000 isn’t it? $200,000 to $250,000? Kate Aanenson: Around there, yeah probably. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 56 Mayor Laufenburger: So we know that there can be a coexistence of more dense property in reasonable proximity. I’m not opposed to that. I just, let’s recognize that the buffers are important to maintain. Regarding the infrastructure, specifically the northern portion of the property. Topaz, Lucy Ridge Lane and Ruby were all stubbed for eventual connection to future development. I know the realtors know that. The City policy is such that our policy is to connect neighborhoods, and here’s why. For public safety. For efficient delivery of services. That’s why we connect neighborhoods. But the Comprehensive Plan also speaks to limiting the use of existing streets to handle high volume of pass through traffic. And the Comprehensive Plan also speaks to a limited use of cul-de-sacs unless topography and/or other natural features prevent pass through. So this becomes a judgment call and is often the case with things that aren’t clearly stipulated in city code or policy. So here’s my view on this Mr. Jablonski. And more importantly city staff. I could support not connecting Ruby Lane south. I understand that there’s topography issues there. I could support turning that into a cul-de-sac. Also I could support connecting Topaz to Lucy Ridge Lane, and I think Councilmember Ryan you talked about that as a, what’s the word that you used? Like a loop cul-de-sac or something. Loop cul- de-sac. Now what’s interesting is that if in fact a road then goes from Galpin, as I talked about an entry point from Galpin to the development, that cul-de-sac would be 1,760 feet long. The city code allows 800 feet of cul-de-sac. We have a cul-de-sac in Chanhassen that’s 4,200 feet so does the City allow longer cul-de-sacs? Our preference is 800 feet but we allow longer so that’s one consideration. Another consideration for safety purposes, I’m not sure who said it. Who spoke about, who’s in California? Was that you Greg? Yeah. I gave some thought to this. Is it possible in that Topaz to Lucy Ridge Lane cul-de-sac, is it possible to extend a cul-de-sac down into the Galpin property a little bit. Make those homes similar, or those lot size similar to the Lucy Ridge Lane and could it possibly be that we create like a, what did you call it Greg? Greg Andrews: Almost like a park. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah like a park road. Greg Andrews: A green space. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah for public service. I mean I think about this, if there’s an emergency services on the end of that 1,760 foot cul-de-sac and there’s anything going on on the street before that, that could be a problem for that family so just city staff that’s something I’d like you to consider. Lastly, I understand Mr. Jablonski that the sellers have requested that the developer work with the City to include a memorial or a remembrance of Prince’s ownership of that land. If given suggestions I would be open to consider that if it’s done tastefully. I don’t know what that looks like, and by the way for those of you that may have seen. You may have seen the KSTP Channel 5 Tom Houser who lives in your neighborhood, he interviewed me and he said so what are you, what are they going to call these streets and I said they’re not going to call them Love Sexy Lane, Purple Rain Parkway or Little Corvette Court. Those are trademark intellectual property. If the heirs can get them to you know name those streets, I don’t care but I didn’t think that that was a likelihood so for the record I got into some heat from the heirs about saying that Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 57 so I wanted to clarify. I could support something that would memorialize Prince’s ownership. And with that Mr. Jablonski, Kate and staff, Mr. Gerhardt and all of you present you now have the sum total of the comments and I’m hoping that you would take those comments, not only from city staff but also from the public and work the magic that Lennar has proven to be able to work, not only in our community but all across the country and give us a development that truly we can be proud of. That honors and respects the desires of your council and the citizens here in Chanhassen. And with that I’m going to. Kate Aanenson: Can I just make one more comment? Mayor Laufenburger: You always do Kate. Kate Aanenson: Because I know all these people are going to want to call, call and ask. If we could put something out once they make a decision kind of what their course is going to be. I don’t know when that’s going to be that if we can somehow figure out. Mayor Laufenburger: Can we do that? Kate Aanenson: Well we put under development site. What the current action is so they can go to the City’s website and check this project and get an update. Mayor Laufenburger: Well when you say put it on the development site. You mean the place where the sign was. Kate Aanenson: No, no, no, no. I’m talking about the City’s website. Mayor Laufenburger: Website okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah. So people are going to call and ask what’s going on so when we know something we’ll put something out. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Thank you Kate. That concludes this item on our agenda and if you don’t mind I think we’re going to conclude the rest of the meeting very quickly so would you bear with us folks. CONTROL CONCEPTS: APPROVE SITE PLAN WITH A VARIANCE FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 7TH ADDITION. This item was tabled. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Chanhassen City Council – August 13, 2018 58 Mayor Laufenburger: Council presentations, do you have any council presentations anybody? Okay I have two. Go ahead. Councilman McDonald: I was going to give you a segue. The Red Birds played this past weekend and I. Mayor Laufenburger: Could I just ask you to remain here for just a second so we don’t have to speak over your movement. We’ll do this in 4 minutes okay. Thank you. Councilman McDonald: And I think they did the City proud by gaining the number one seed in the upcoming State Tournament so I think that’s something the City should be very proud of. The guys fought back on both games. It was nip and tuck but they did prevail and they looked very good doing it. Mayor Laufenburger: Good, alright. Any other council presentations? Two things I want to add. Number one, Wednesday, August 15th is Chanhassen Day at the Arboretum. Free entry at the Arboretum on Chanhassen and activities begin at 8:00 in the morning and they go all through the day so if you, if you happen to have some kids that you want to entertain on Wednesday, take them out to the Arboretum. And secondly next Monday night, August 20th we are having a City Council meeting, and it’s not a regularly scheduled meeting but it’s a council meeting solely for the purpose of hearing from the public regarding the pavement management program and how we fund it and one of the considerations is a franchise fee so if you’d like to come back and make public comment to the council, that would be next Monday night. We start at, is it 7:00 or, 7:00. Yeah 7:00. Okay. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Gerhardt any administrative presentations? Todd Gerhardt: None this evening Mr. Mayor. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, August 27, 2018 Subject Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated August 7, 2018 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.2. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council receives the Planning Commission minutes dated August 7, 2018.” Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Summary Minutes Verbatim Minutes CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES AUGUST 7, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, Mark Randall, and Michael McGonagill MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer, and Vanessa Strong, Water Resources Coordinator PUBLIC PRESENT: Russ & Diana Jones 3961 Country Oaks Drive Lynn & Nancy Simpson 3980 Country Oaks Drive Court MacFarlane 3800 Leslee Curve Jane Bender 4001 Stratford Ridge Steve Arndt 2960 Stratford Ridge David Robertson 2900 Stratford Ridge Jason Watt 3961 Stratford Ridge Trent Birkholz 3851 Stratford Ridge David & Diane Lieser 3881 Stratford Ridge Linda Brand 3981 Country Oaks Garit Solheim-Witt 3850 Leslee Curve PUBLIC HEARING: CONTROL CONCEPTS: REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Weick asked for clarification on the need for the trail. Commissioner McGonagill asked about fencing. Chairman Aller asked for clarification on the speed of runoff between having one or two retaining walls. Representing the applicant, Cory Watkins explained that the need for the variance was because of requests to have the trail be a different user experience than the first proposal. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Undestad moved, McGonagill seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of a variance to permit construction of retaining walls within the Bluff Creek primary zone setback as shown in the plans prepared by Loucks, dated 06-15-2018, revised Planning Commission Summary – August 7, 2018 2 7-12-18, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Building 1. Retaining walls over 4 feet in heights require an engineered design. Environmental Resources 1. The applicant shall coordinate a trail inspection with the city arborist to review tree removals prior to any trail construction activities. 2. Tree protection fencing must be installed at the edge of grading limits along the trail. Parks 1. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the “wetland trail.” Connection points for this new trail shall be the terminus of the Trotters Ridge trail and the intersection of Century Boulevard and Water Tower Place. Bid documents, including plans and specifications, shall be approved by the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to soliciting bids. Project bidding shall occur in a competitive environment with a minimum of three bids being received. The results of the bidding process shall be reviewed with the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to award. Cash payment for trail construction shall be made from the City of Chanhassen to the developer upon completion, inspection, and acceptance of the trail. 2. Trail easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th shall be dedicated to the city to accommodate the “wetland trail”. Water Resources and Engineering 1. The limits of the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) shall be identified throughout the plan set. 2. Add detailed design for the retaining walls including a profile, proposed construction materials, and railings/fences. 3. Add cut sections through the retaining walls and the trail to provide for easier visualization and enhance constructability. 4. Create a parapet design along the upper wall when it is above the trail. 5. Extend the silt fence installation as appropriate to protect from construction. Planning Commission Summary – August 7, 2018 3 6. Identify snow storage locations on the plans. 7. Provide a restoration plan for grading in the wetland buffer and in the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) buffer. 8. The proposed redevelopment will need Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) permits. 9. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, RPBCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA, etc.). 10. The grade through the ADA areas of the parking lot shall be a maximum of 2% slope in any direction. The point elevations should be re-checked. Add this code requirement in a note on the plans. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: GLENDALE DRIVE SUBDIVISION REQUEST. Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. George Bender addressed the street layout and Vanessa Strong discussed stormwater runoff issues. The applicant, Curt Fretham with Lake West Development, 14525 Highway 7, Minnetonka, discussed issues related to the subdivision standards, requirement for a through street from Stratford Ridge to Glendale Drive, and how cul-de-sac lengths are determined. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. Jason Watt, 3961 Stratford Ridge expressed concerns and frustration with notification, issues associated with Minnewashta Parkway being a collector road and how that affects the request for a through street connection with Stratford Ridge, and asked how undue hardship is defined. David Lieser, 3881 Stratford Ridge expressed opposition to the extension of the cul-de-sac on Stratford Ridge to Glendale or any other road. David Robertson, 3900 Stratford Ridge discussed the fact that when he bought his property there was nothing in the title search that indicated that the Stratford Ridge cul-de-sac was temporary, and how this subdivision will affect their Homeowners Association. Court MacFarlane, 3800 Leslee Curve expressed concern with stormwater runoff and the confusion surrounding how cul-de-sac footage is measured, but noted he was in favor of this development. Carin Moore, 6760 Minnewashta Parkway, owner of the property directly south of the development, explained that her major concern was drainage, future development possibilities of her property, and traffic circulation. Jane Bender, 4001 Stratford Ridge expressed concern with adding these 5 lots to the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association and the additional hard cover being added. Chairman Aller closed the public hearing. After discussion by commission members the following motion was made. Planning Commission Summary – August 7, 2018 4 McGonagill moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission tables action on the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.14 acres into 5 lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50 foot public right-of-way and directs the applicant to address the issues, address issues in the staff report and preserves the right for public comment. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Weick who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 17, 2018 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Bob Generous presented the update on City Council action and outlined future Planning Commission agenda items. Randall moved, Madsen seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 7, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, Mark Randall, and Michael McGonagill MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer, and Vanessa Strong, Water Resources Coordinator PUBLIC PRESENT: Russ & Diana Jones 3961 Country Oaks Drive Lynn & Nancy Simpson 3980 Country Oaks Drive Court MacFarlane 3800 Leslee Curve Jane Bender 4001 Stratford Ridge Steve Arndt 2960 Stratford Ridge David Robertson 2900 Stratford Ridge Jason Watt 3961 Stratford Ridge Trent Birkholz 3851 Stratford Ridge David & Diane Lieser 3881 Stratford Ridge Linda Brand 3981 Country Oaks Garit Solheim-Witt 3850 Leslee Curve PUBLIC HEARING: CONTROL CONCEPTS: REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE. Generous: Thank you Chairman, commissioners. Control Concepts, this is part two Planning Case 2018-11. We saw the site plan at the July 17th meeting. As part of that there was concern about the size of the retaining walls adjacent to the pedestrian trail that’s being put in. So we worked with the applicant to come up with an alternative design that would reduce the size of those walls. However to do that they need a variance to encroach the retaining walls into the Bluff Creek primary zone setback. Not into the primary zone itself but into the 40 foot setback from that one. The property is located at 8077 Century Boulevard. This is in the Arboretum Business Park planned unit development. The request is in conjunction with the site plan so this is only a recommendation that we’ll make tonight. You won’t make a final decision as a Board of Appeals and Adjustments to permit the retaining wall to encroach into the primary zone setback as shown on their plans. The property is guided for office industrial uses. It’s zoned planned unit development as part of the Arboretum Business Park. It’s also within the Bluff Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 2 Creek corridor which has additional protection requirements. This was the site plan that was approved on, or recommended for approval on the 17th. Unfortunately it’s only two dimensional so it looks really great and easy on the screen. It’s a 54,600 square foot building. The western portion is, has a two story office component and then it has warehouse and manufacturing or manufacturing space on the eastern side. There is a tenant space on the extreme eastern end of the building. As submitted with the site plan review they were proposing one, a single retaining wall adjacent to the trail system. This raised, had high points of over 18 feet at the corner of the property. At the turning points in the trail and then also down on the east end of it. That was a concern of the Planning Commission and staff and the Parks Director and what type of environment would that create for the trail users. The applicant was able to provide us with a cross section to give you an idea of what the experience would be and you can see that wall would really dominant the walking in that area so, and this is I believe at the point 7 on the trail. So as part of the alternative design we came up with the tiered wall system. It reduced, basically split the height of the retaining wall so half was on top and half was below. It reduced the highest point in the retaining wall to 12 feet on the eastern end of the building but at that corner point down in here it had an upper elevation of almost 9 feet. Just under 9 feet for the retaining wall and then another 9 foot retaining wall below it so they created like an overview or shelf area in the corner that would allow people to look over the wetland complex to the northeast of that. This is, however having this wall encroach into the 40 foot setback requires a variance and so that’s what we’re here for tonight. Again they provided a cross section to show how the experience for people using the trail would be much more human scale and so we would think it will provide an enhanced environment for people to go forward. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to permit the retaining walls within the Bluff Creek primary zone setback. We have Findings of Fact that it is in harmony with our ordinance and it does not change the character of the area but we believe will enhance the pedestrian experience as they use this trail system. Additionally there’s adoption of Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Any questions at this time of staff? Commissioner Weick. Weick: First time this came up I just did a bad job of getting clarification for myself so I just, I’m looking for clarification on the necessity for the trail. So is there currently like a dead end trail in the Preserve that’s waiting to be connected? Generous: There is a fork that was established with the 7th Addition which was built in 2007 to come towards the north. Weick: Okay. Generous: And so that was the plan and this would actually connect to the heart of the Arboretum Business Park area and provide really easy access for people to get onto the system. Right now you can get into it off of 82nd Street. There’s a connection that goes around, there’s a big stormwater pond in that corner. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 3 Weick: Yeah. Generous: And then into it so it was felt at the time of the subdivision and approval that this was an important connection so we’re trying to implement that. As part of the approval for the 7th Addition the developer was required to do that but we allowed them to wait until this site developed before putting in the trail. We could have had them put in the trail back in 2007 and then the development would have to come in and either fit into, their design into where the trail was or. Weick: Yeah, okay. That’s all I had. Aller: Great. Any additional questions? Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: Bob on the down slope wall, what would the fencing be along that wall to keep people from falling off of it? Do you recall? Generous: Yeah it’s a dual pipe system so two rails of pipe. Black pipe that would go along there. About 42 inches high. McGonagill: Okay, thank you. Generous: And it’s the open design so when we push snow it can go through that in the winter so that people would be able to use that year round. McGonagill: Okay thank you. Keeps bikes from going off it. Generous: Yes. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Is that fence similar to the one that goes along 101? It’s on the right side, or on the west side of 101. Generous: Yes that’s what the design that they were talking, the Parks Director was talking about. That it’d be similar to that. Madsen: Yep south of Lyman, north of Pioneer Trail. Generous: Correct. Madsen: Okay thank you. Aller: Okay I have a question for Ms. Strong. As always I’m always concerned about the Bluff Creek so obviously they made an effort to alter their plans based upon the comments from the Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 4 last hearing. The question I have basically is going towards when we stagger this we’re going to reduce the speed of the runoff. How will that impact, based upon the grade and the elevations or would it impact the flow as compared to, are we getting a better deal with the two as opposed to one? Strong: I thought about that too. It’s really tough to say. I think they’re attempting the best they can to meet the needs for the trail so I think when it comes to runoff, the ground level versus the two tiered, the difference is not considerable compared to the fact that they actually need to meet the trail in the first place. Obviously ideal would be to have a wider buffer. That’s really what we need. But with a balance to meet many needs so. Aller: Any additional questions based, hearing none we’ll have the applicant come forward and make a presentation. Answer questions. If you could state your name and address and representational capacity for the record that would be great. Cory Watkins: Hi. Cory Watkins. I’m with Control Concepts. We’re at 18760 Lake Drive East in Chanhassen. Aller: Welcome back. Cory Watkins: Thank you. You know I don’t have a lot to present. Your staff did a good job of presenting what we’re doing. I would say that the original proposal that we put forward did not require a variance and so the variance is really specifically because of requests to have it be a different user experience so it’s more of a trail causing the variance versus us as an entity looking for the variance so that’s really our position on it so. Aller: Additional questions, comments. Alright, thank you sir. Cory Watkins: Alright thank you. Aller: At this time I’ll open up the public hearing portion of the item. This is an opportunity for those present to come forward and speak either for or against the item. Seeing no one come forward I’m going to close the public hearing portion of the item and open it up for commissioner discussion or action. Weick: Yeah the only comment I would make, I’m not opposed to this in any way. It seems like we’re putting an awful lot of work into making this connection. I’m, I don’t know that we really need to make this connection. I use that area and you can get around. I think sufficiently without that connection. It’s really not that far from the 82nd Street that kind of brings you around in on the other side so I, personally I don’t even think we need to make the connection. It doesn’t, you know if that’s what we want to do that’s fine. It seems like a good solution. I’m just not convinced that it’s needed. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 5 Aller: Additional comments? Questions? I’d entertain a motion for or against. Undestad: I’ll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of a variance to permit retaining walls within the Bluff Creek primary zone setbacks subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? McGonagill: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Okay. Comments. Otherwise we’ll entertain a vote. Undestad moved, McGonagill seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of a variance to permit construction of retaining walls within the Bluff Creek primary zone setback as shown in the plans prepared by Loucks, dated 06-15-2018, revised 7-12-18, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Building 1. Retaining walls over 4 feet in heights require an engineered design. Environmental Resources 1. The applicant shall coordinate a trail inspection with the city arborist to review tree removals prior to any trail construction activities. 2. Tree protection fencing must be installed at the edge of grading limits along the trail. Parks 1. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the “wetland trail.” Connection points for this new trail shall be the terminus of the Trotters Ridge trail and the intersection of Century Boulevard and Water Tower Place. Bid documents, including plans and specifications, shall be approved by the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to soliciting bids. Project bidding shall occur in a competitive environment with a minimum of three bids being received. The results of the bidding process shall be reviewed with the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to award. Cash payment for trail construction shall be made from the City of Chanhassen to the developer upon completion, inspection, and acceptance of the trail. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 6 2. Trail easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th shall be dedicated to the city to accommodate the “wetland trail”. Water Resources and Engineering 1. The limits of the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) shall be identified throughout the plan set. 2. Add detailed design for the retaining walls including a profile, proposed construction materials, and railings/fences. 3. Add cut sections through the retaining walls and the trail to provide for easier visualization and enhance constructability. 4. Create a parapet design along the upper wall when it is above the trail. 5. Extend the silt fence installation as appropriate to protect from construction. 6. Identify snow storage locations on the plans. 7. Provide a restoration plan for grading in the wetland buffer and in the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) buffer. 8. The proposed redevelopment will need Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) permits. 9. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, RPBCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA, etc.). 10. The grade through the ADA areas of the parking lot shall be a maximum of 2% slope in any direction. The point elevations should be re-checked. Add this code requirement in a note on the plans. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: GLENDALE DRIVE SUBDIVISION REQUEST. Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is for a 5 lot subdivision and a variance that is being recommended by city staff for narrowed width of a right-of-way from 60 feet to 50 feet. Briefly the subject site is located southeast of the intersection of Glendale Drive and Minnewashta Parkway. It is zoned single family residential. It is guided low density. It does lie within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnewashta which makes it Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 7 within the shoreland overlay district. Any regulations pertaining to shoreland will apply to this site. The grades overall slope southeast on this property. There is Roundhouse Park located within the service area of the site. There are trails along Minnewashta Parkway which this site will have access to. Just a brief background. The reason we’re going to provide this information is because staff has received a large number of phone calls and inquiries. Whenever a subdivision appears before staff and when we meet with a property owner or a developer, staff does not look at a property in a vacuum. We always have to look at the big picture. How is the, yes we do look at lot areas such as in the single family residential district we look at lot area that has to be 15,000 square feet. Lot frontage on a street that is 90 feet. Depth that is 125. Those are the simple things. The way we provide connection to other properties located in the surrounding area. How do we extend sewer, water. If we do add development to an area can emergency vehicles approach these sites. Can they, if we build homes where is the water going? Overall what direction is it going? When you have property that is next to shoreland where is the water being treated before it goes into the lake because ultimately that’s where it’s going to end up so again overall when we look at a subdivision there is more to it than just meeting the simple requirements of lot area, lot width and lot depth. We have to look at circulation. We have to look at emergency management. With that said that will allow me to talk about the surrounding area. One of the issues that we need to point out or one of the facts that we need to point out at this point, the property that is immediately west of the subject site which is the Country Oaks development left a very small sliver that was always intended to be part of the development that is before you today. It was going to be combined with it and subdivided. That piece went tax forfeit and the City ended up owning it. It is our intent to turn over that piece of property. The other thing I want to point out is this bubble of a cul-de-sac right here which is temporary in nature, back in 1987 there was a development proposed for this site which is the Stratford Ridge development. As I mentioned earlier whenever city staff looks at a development we cannot, we may not look at it in a vacuum. We have to look at the big picture. The developer for Stratford Ridge came back with two options for developing these sites and at that time the only existing development that was a platted development was northwest of where we are right now. Of the site we’re looking at. Throughout this area the roads were extended specifically through to the north between Stratford Ridge and Glendale. Option B, which is closer to what actually got developed cul-de-sacked this section rather than putting it through on both sides. But this connection still was maintained through these parcels to the north. At this point I want to turn it over to our engineering staff that will address both, will address the stormwater as well as the street connections and basically elaborate on that portion of the background and why we’re recommending some of the issues be resolved. Bender: Okay I’ll take it from there Sharmeen. Thank you very much. To speak about the access one thing that I want to explain is Minnewashta Parkway is a, known as a, has collector status designation by the city code. It means that it’s a primary street with higher average daily traffic volumes. It’s meant to be a faster circulation road rather than residential, just a regular residential street. And as such along Minnewashta Parkway it is a goal of the City and as expressed in the city code to limit the access to it so similar to more of a highway type design where it’s controlled access. So the goal essentially that we apply when engineering projects Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 8 touch these type of things, these roadways, is to not allow additional accesses to the collector street and to eliminate accesses where possible. So when areas redevelop that is a consideration. In addition to the area that Sharmeen was explaining is this bubble down here is actually platted with a stub to go to the northeast towards Leslee Circle. Or Curve. And that’s the, one of the primary indications that led us to go looking through our records to find the information from 1987 that Sharmeen presented. In addition there’s narrative within the development files that discusses it as she was trying to summarize for it to go through. One of the things that the 5 lot development would do is cut off access to Leslee Curve from Stratford Ridge. In speaking with the Fire Marshal about that on behalf of the fire department and emergency management services they would be against doing that so if the two parcels to the south developed, that cul-de-sac would essentially have to propagate to the north and become permanent and the fire department, Fire Marshal’s review would prefer more access, quicker access and more convenient access as in a through street through the area. And in addition this cul-de-sac is already at a maximum length per our city code. It’s at 782 feet. Our city code is currently maximizes that length at 800 feet. As a technicality the fire code actually limits that to 750 feet that is currently applied so there’s a little bit of a discrepancy between our code and the fire code by 50 feet. What it says is you know we’re basically at the maximum length. So extending that further would have to be you know a special consideration that would be recommended by City Engineer and then approved by many other parties along the way that believed it would be the right thing to do. One last consideration is that bubble is 90 feet in diameter. That would place an awful lot of extra area coming off of these two lots that instead of having the through street that would go here. So in order to allow 5 lots here there’s a little bit of a future undue burden upon the two lots to the south. So you know there’s access so the lots that would be considered with a through street along here would have access off, taken off of Minnewashta Parkway which we feel is a benefit and they would have a through street in order to allow however the development configuration takes place and these lots up here of course would have access to Glendale so. From an access standpoint that’s the discussion that I wanted to convey. So this is kind of a ghost plat. Kind of shows the size of the bubble. I don’t even believe the size of that bubble is actually the true 90 feet in diameter. It would actually look bigger. And you know it also is going to have to work from a stormwater perspective as well and that’s where access kind of turns it over to you know water resources to you know holistically look at this development. So lastly that’s kind of what this statement is saying. It’s kind of our guidance from developing street design. You know we consider traffic circulation. We consider the topography. We certainly consider the runoff of storm water where it’s headed. We look at the public convenience and public safety. You know how the land is being proposed to be developed in serving the community. So you know and this is another statement in the city code where street arrangement and configurations are not allowed to cause undue hardship upon owners of adjoining property when a subdivision is going, taking place. At this point I’ll turn it over to Vanessa. Strong: So there were many, many comments from a water resources perspective when we reviewed this. I’m just going to highlight kind of maybe the major four that made it very, very difficult and in fact not possible to, for the staff to give a decision at this time. Because Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 9 addressing these big questions could significantly change the overall design of the development to the point where conditions of approval may not apply or it may not even be able to make the appropriate conditions of approval. So the first thing I’m going to start out with is, this diagram here, now this is something that I made. I overlaid the applicant’s submission over the City’s GIS system and then I highlighted his ponds and I drew the arrows and I identified where he put information. Emergency overflows are where your stormwater during a significant rain event goes so we’re talking in this case anything over an inch and we all know we have a lot of storms over an inch and these are big storms so this is very focused. Very heavy water that’s moving through which is why city code has a couple of really important rules when it comes to emergency overflows. One of them that it be identified. Well first and foremost he didn’t identify any, the applicant did not identify any. It were just the overflow routes. My biggest concern is that many of these ponds are all right along the property line. Well I mean I’m just guessing. I’m guessing but you know based upon the contours those emergency routes are going directly onto the neighbor. Well that’s not really a route. That’s just discharging directly onto your neighbor. So city code says emergency overflow routes, if it’s adjacent to a property the lowest building opening must be a minimum of one foot above the emergency overflow. Well this lowest based upon the property records from the building file of this home, the lowest floor opening is 976 feet. The emergency overflows for 4 of these ponds is at 978. To meet code they would have to be a minimum of at 975. As proposed there’s no grading contour at 975 for this entire parcel so they’re very high. The lowest building opening is very low. How are they going to meet that elevation difference? The second piece is that again these emergency overflow routes are discharging directly onto this property. We do have responsibility to look out for all surrounding properties and city code again says they must not create a nuisance condition onto adjacent property and at this point the applicant hasn’t provided information to at all address whether or not that can be done. This is also a bit of a land locked parcel so there’s not really a good outlet for all the water that comes here. So yes while you are allowed to send storm water in it’s natural direction, when it comes to high volume, high rate emergency out falls and overflows, there are requirements that must be met and there are many questions based upon how this was addressed. Can you go to the next slide please? The second piece is placements and easements. Now I just took two different pages from the applicant’s documents. Unfortunately they did not place all of the stormwater information that would be relevant on one page so I kind of had to flip and line out the best I could. Private storm water best management practices, that’s what these rain gardens are that they proposed, they’re not actually permitted in public drainage and utility easements. These are private structures so to the best of my ability it looks a bit like these are the drainage utility easements for the City and when the applicant proposed them they’re right against the property line in several cases. So between that and the fact that infiltration/filtration basins must be located a minimum of 10 feet from the building envelope of any primary structure because again this is a typical proposed pad. We don’t know where in here that they’re actually going to put the house per se and that’s plumbing code and storm that, they must be a minimum of 10 feet away from the structure to prevent any issues with water infiltration into basements. That leaves a very small, little gap here. In fact you take the full 30 feet that’s given here, you subtract 10 feet from the rear property line. 10 feet from that building setback and you’ve got now a tiny 10 foot strip. So it was very difficult to see how the applicant Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 10 was proposing these would actually be placed. It was just very unclear. So next slide please. Additionally, I won’t go to great depths but the lot area, pervious and impervious calculations were inconsistent between the plan set and stormwater report and the soil borings. You have to use all 3 together to build their case and unfortunately if they’re not consistent data I’m not, you know it’s never quite clear which data is the accurate data and what are we reviewing here at this point. For example it appeared the draft soils report identified moderately slow permeability of soils. Yet it would appear that the basins were designed for high draining soils. So these are different inconsistencies that made it very difficult to make a recommendation because you weren’t sure exactly what was the accurate data you were reviewing. Finally this is also rather significant. Operation and maintenance of private storm water best management practices is required in perpetuity. Both through the watershed district stormwater rule and the City’s MS4 Permit, Part 3D5, Section sub 5. That means private stormwater treatment devices, which these are 5 little rain gardens, they most, first of all they’ve got to be placed in stormwater easements that are recorded against the property. They must have an operation and maintenance plan approved and recorded against the properties that provide for the permanent inspection, maintenance and funding mechanism to ensure that they will function as designed permanently. They need to provide, in order for us to make a decision, an operation and maintenance plan that meets those requirements. And some explanation as to how they can ensure whichever resident lives here and from now until forever basically has that capacity and to me that seems like a very complex hurdle to overcome. I don’t know how you can anticipate any resident would have that technical skill or funding mechanism and how you can ensure that in perpetuity. So you know staff tries very hard to provide recommendations. Unfortunately there are times when it is just too difficult. The applicant is responsible for submitting the proof necessary for staff to make a decision and we’re not there right now so. Al-Jaff: As far as the plat goes, and as I mentioned at the beginning that we look at lot area, depth, width. All of that information has been provided by the applicant and yeah, we do have parcels that exceed 15,000 square feet, 90 foot frontage, 125 foot depth for lots. One of the, we really don’t know how this happened but the parcel extends across the public right-of-way and into adjacent to neighboring properties that the applicant is proposing to outlot the right-of-way over Country Oaks Drive will be dedicated to the City. The outlot, it is our recommendation that the applicant contact the adjacent property owner and see if they would be interested in this parcel because otherwise it will be a parcel that will not benefit anyone. With that said it is staff’s intent to recommend approval. We want to recommend approval of a subdivision and historically and with every subdivision that appears before the Planning Commission, City Council we recommend conditions attached to an application. The approval always has some adjustments that need to be made. In this case staff found it very difficult to make a recommendation that we knew what the outcome would be that we would feel comfortable with presenting it to you and to the City Council that we can stand behind. We do recommend that you direct the developer to look at staff’s recommendation that they, you table action on this application. Allow the developer to address these concerns and bring it before you at a future date and I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you might have for us. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 11 Aller: Questions at this time of staff? Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: Pretty simple. George, can we go to your map that you had where it showed, it had that yellow arrow one. That one. How, you know I just want to be sure I understand on the Minnewashta Parkway side it looks like there’s two driveways that you’re trying to eliminate or is there 3 and you’re going to...at some point that you’re trying, would like to see. Bender: Yeah there is two and you know the lot that’s currently being developed does not have an access off of Minnewashta Parkway. There’s not a home on the property. McGonagill: Okay, thank you. Bender: Yep. Aller: Additional questions? If this matter was tabled are we up against the timeline for the City to make a decision where the applicant would have to sign a request? Al-Jaff: We have 120 days with subdivisions. We contacted legal counsel, city attorney and he concurred that we are fine. Aller: So there’s sufficient time for this to be tabled to a reasonable date? Al-Jaff: Correct. And it should give the applicant adequate time to make the revisions should the Planning Commission recommend tabling action on the application. Aller: Additional questions of staff based on any of the questions asked already? Hearing none, if the applicant would like to come forward. If you could state your name and address and representational capacity for the record that would be great. Curt Fretham: Good evening Planning Commission and city staff. My name is Curt Fretham from Lake West Development. Our address is 14525 Highway 7, Minnetonka. My phone number is 952-930-3000. I appreciate you taking the time to review our application. There are certainly some additional work that needs to take place on it. We have acknowledged that and we’ll work with you and staff and the neighbors to, with hopes to come up with a plan that everybody can feel good about and be a win/win. I prepared an exhibit that I want to share with you but I’d like to go through the staff report a little bit and if I could take you to page 1 of the staff report. Towards the bottom of the page, the first paragraph it says the City’s discretion in approving or denying preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance. If the standards are met the City must approve, I repeat must approve the preliminary plat. So my thoughts were we felt we were submitting a preliminary plat that was conforming and met all the requirements and I know there’s some uncertainty with that but I want to go through that tonight to hopefully bring some clarity to myself and understand it better but also for the other parties that have concerns over it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 12 I also look to the next paragraph and I’m not intending to go through every paragraph on this page but, or the pamphlet but, or the City’s report but it talks about a variance and we did not ask for a variance. I understand why city staff is recommending a variance but we also feel like we could make a minor modification to allow for that additional right-of-way that you’re asking for by, because we have the square footage and the lot right-of-way that we could make those adjustments to remove that variance requirement and we’re willing to do that so just wanted to make that point known. If I go to, and I also want to turn you to Exhibit A on this pamphlet that was handed out it just shows the site and then if I go to the bottom of the staff report page 2, not that I mean to skip over things but a lot of this was covered so I’m trying to hit the highlights but the bottom of page 2 in the staff report talks about the streets and it’s the first sentence the development does not incorporate a through street stubbed to facilitate the extension of Stratford Ridge to Glendale Drive. I understand the rationale as to why it’s being asked for but when I go to Exhibit B, the second page of the pamphlet that I hand out to you, this is an excerpt from the comprehensive guide plan. Generous: Yeah just put it on there. Curt Fretham: Oh right here? Generous: Yes. Then you can… Curt Fretham: Excellent, I’ll do that. Under roadways on the comprehensive guide plan it says residential street systems should be designed to discourage through traffic and to be compatible with other transportation modes including transit, bicycle, walking, et cetera. But my point is here’s your rules. Here’s what the City’s asking for. It’s written. It’s a goal. It’s in your comprehensive guide plan. I’m getting conflicting direction to do exactly the opposite, put in a through street. It says the property also was planned for a through street by, back in 1988 when some of the other properties were platted. However there’s a contradictory plan in that our site has 7 sewer and water stub in’s that were paid for so there must have been an alternative plan that called for 7 lots on Glendale and if there was going to be 7 lots that conflicts with any kind of a stub in for a through street connection so what plan over rules which plan? I’m not sure. I want to talk about, so it just adds to some additional confusion. I could go to the top of the page on the next page 3 but I’m going to skip and go to the second paragraph first. Second paragraph talks about, we had proposed to, showing that the properties to the south could be developed by extending the cul-de-sac on the south and I’ve got an exhibit that I want to put up to help show that. Right here. It shows that you’re ghost platting this or showing how this, these two parcels could be developed in the future with extension of this cul-de-sac. Showing 5 homes on here. It allows these homes to stay. There was another concern about removing driveways onto Minnewashta Parkway. This plan accomplishes that because it gives them alternative access through a cul-de-sac so there’s not an advantage for the through street for that purpose. Alternatively if you look at the through street scenario what it does is it provides for 1, 2, 3, 4 lots for this property owner loses one of their lots. Less efficient layout. Less, and it causes removal of the home whether they choose to or not. It also is a disservice to this lot right here Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 13 because it creates a double frontage lot which if I go to city code it talks about double frontage lots on C-2. No, let’s see it’s on, is it C-2? C-2(f) talks about street arrangements proposed shall not cause undue hardship. Lot 4 has undue hardship by the through street from the fact that it’s not going to meet the additional lot depth requirements by a double frontage lot. Double frontage lots require, can you share with me where that section’s at? I think I missed it but. I’ll come back to that in a moment but, but regardless it is a much less desirable. On the cul-de-sac version that’s an A lot. If it’s a through street that lot becomes a D lot. I think that’s an undue hardship to that property in and of itself. What does it do to Lot 5? My lot. It takes my best lot in the group. A nice corner lot that fronts Minnewashta Parkway and turns it into a lot that has street frontage on 3 sides. Three sides. It’s not a double frontage. It’s a triple frontage lot. It creates an undue hardship onto my development. But none of that can happen according to the staff report unless you issue a variance. Maybe that’s why the variance talk is on the front page of the staff report but I would suggest that another level of confusion I have is I read the second paragraph about where it starts out that it says the current length of the cul-de-sac is approximately 700, put it right here. 782 feet. Measured from the center line of Minnewashta Parkway. Then along Stratford Lane. Then along Bradford Boulevard. Then along Stratford Ridge to the center of the cul-de-sac. I’m going wow. If I look at city code and that is on D-1. Excuse me D-3. How do you define the depth of a cul-de-sac? D-3. This is out of city code. It’s out of 518457, Section K. It says the length of a cul-de-sac shall be measured from the intersection of the cul-de-sac to the street’s center line. To the center point of the cul-de-sac turn around. It doesn’t say go down this street and that street and this street and that street. Here’s a diagram right here. And so if I put the dimensions about how this is measured here it is right here. It’s taking it down this street, then down this street, then down here. According to city code it’s measured at the intersection right here. If that’s 782 feet so be it. This is only less than half that so we’ll call it 350 plus a slight extension I’m up around 400 plus or minus. An extension of a cul-de-sac meets city code requirements. And then furthermore you can say no, that’s not how we measure it. Alright if that’s not, if we measure it from the other streets, which is not how city code reads, take a look at Exhibit D-2. Alright here’s Minnewashta Parkway. Let’s measure it the way that the staff report calls it out. Starting at Minnewashta Parkway. Down Kings Point Road. Go north on this street. West on that street. It’s 2,100 feet. That’s two blocks south. Is that how you measure it? I’m confused because that’s not what city code says how you measure it. Let’s take a look at another one. They’re all over. Mine’s one of the shortest ones after extended. So I don’t believe, unless I’m mistaken but it appears to me this is a big error in this entire staff report. With that said go back to the paragraph above and it’s referring me to section of city code of 18.57 and 18.60. They’re moot points. I’ll take you back to this first exhibit. Look at the make-up of this neighborhood right here. What do you see? Cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul- de-sac. All dead ends and then we’re going to put a through street in right there. The only through street in the whole neighborhood. It’s against historically against the make up of the neighborhood so you wonder why we’re not interested in putting a through street in. There’s a lot of reasons behind it. I have a lot more but I think I’ve given you enough already to be respectful of your time. We’re willing to work with staff. We know there’s some water resource issues that we can work through and they can be happy with. We know we can accomplish the Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 14 city goals. We think we can do the best we can to satisfy the neighbors on their concerns. I’m available for additional questions if you have any. Thank you so much for hearing us. Aller: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant before he steps down? No questions? Okay we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Any individual wishing to come forward and speak either for or against the item before us can do so. The matter is open. As you come forward please state your name and address for the record and tell us what your concerns or your proposals are. Jason Watt: Sure. Good evening. My name is Jason Watt. I live at 3961 Stratford Ridge. Lived there for about 4 years. Thank you very much for your service. I was once…employee as well and appreciate your service. I’ve had to do a lot of education in the past 8 hours and that’s what I maybe want to start with is just maybe to share with you my perspective of some frustration in just terms of notice. Probably about 2-3 weeks ago there was a sign posted at the corner of Stratford Ridge and Minnewashta Parkway stating that there was a proposed development or a variance so I called the City or the County. City and asked what is this all about and that employee, which I can give you the name at another date. I don’t have the name with me, had informed me that all that has really nothing to do with your neighborhood. It’s north of you so no concerns. So I shared that with the rest of our neighborhood that really there’s no concern at all. And then as of late last night it was discovered that actually this does affect our neighborhood. There’s an affidavit in the handout tonight that I, it says that there was something mailed out just today and I just want to note for the record that my address doesn’t have a name assigned to it for some reason so if it’s helpful again my name is Jason Watt. My wife’s name is Katie. We live at 3961 Stratford Ridge. So just I’ll start with that just some frustration in terms of process and notice. You mentioned that the decision cannot be made in a vacuum but I feel like from what I’ve seen so far in the report that although it may be accurate it’s not complete and that’s kind of why we’re here this evening is to share our perspective on this proposal. You’ve mentioned that Stratford Ridge is a collector. I’m not familiar with that term. Just learned that term today but it’s a collector road and I would just ask for some consistency I guess in terms of how we apply that rule. I just counted north of where our turn in for our neighborhood is and there’s 12 homes already that exist right on the parkway so removing these 2 homes, I’m not sure what the logic of that is. It’s not really going to accomplish that much in terms of what the intent of that ordinance is. In addition to that when you look north from where we turn into our neighborhood I know that there was a new development just north of us on the parkway within the past year or two. Just south of us there was another new development that was split that this also attaches directly to the parkway so to me it seems a little bit inconsistent in the analysis or the application of that rule. I’ll just leave it at that. Also with the idea of the collector road, without knowing much about real estate development I would think that you’d want those lots to be used for best use so the 2 existing homes that have access straight to Stratford Ridge, if you drive along that parkway you’ll notice that most of the homes that are placed right on the parkway they’re very large homes. They have lake access so I don’t really think they would be best used for those homes to not have a direct driveway from Stratford Ridge, or from Minnewashta Parkway to their homes. It just doesn’t Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 15 seem logical to me to reverse that into a cul-de-sac versus having direct access to the parkway. I think they’d probably get a better dollar for those lots if they’re directly, they have direct access from the parkway. There was a comment about the Fire Marshal and his desire to have a direct route through our neighborhood. This is National Night Out. You can see that most of our neighborhood is here rather than celebrating at home with our neighbors. We’ve had the fire department there many years. They’ve never had a problem getting in and out of our neighborhood so I don’t know that that’s necessarily a requirement for us to install a road simply for fire access. We’d prefer that this not be installed period. Whether it’s an entire road or if it’s a cul-de-sac we just, it’s not our preference to have this done. I would be curious to learn a little bit more about how you define undue hardship. I think maybe there’s one other option of how this, these properties could be developed that’s not been discussed so far. I don’t have a diagram with me but you have the 5 lots have been proposed. Then you have 2 lots south of that there as well and is it Leslee Curve I think that is to the west of there. If you’re talking about undue hardship we don’t necessarily have to have the easiest way to develop it but just a way in which it could be developed so I’m curious how we define undue hardship. If you look at the middle lot it technically could have access through the road to the west of there. Then the farther south lot that’s partially developed above our development, it could just have access through our little cul-de-sac there so maybe one additional home rather than blowing us all up and installing a whole new cul-de-sac or putting a road through. There are different ways to have access for development for those 2 lots for the future. Just one other note that maybe there’s a lack of creativity or we’ve not discussed all options on the table. That we’re just talking about access. We’ve not talked about runoff or all the dimensions but just wanted to note that there are different ways to have access to those 2 lots. We have about 15 kids in our neighborhood so we’re talking about safety. Again back to the Fire Marshal’s comment. We really would prefer not to have more cars coming through there. We’re already worried with other cars coming through with you know high school kids getting a little bit lost so we’re always watching our little kids. I used to live in Minneapolis. We wanted to put some speed bumps on our street because they had redirected traffic onto our street. We were willing to pay for them. Same number of kids. The City had declined our offer to pay for those speed bumps. That was one of the primary reasons why we left the city so I feel like 4 years later I’m in the same spot here dealing with something that we never anticipated and I know that maybe justice or the idea of this being unfair is not really something that’s considered in this process but there was never, when we looked at this, you know the possibility of buying a home in this neighborhood we did our title check. We did all, I’m an attorney. We did all the responsible things that you should do. I guess we never looked at the plots or about you know potential development in the future. There’s a term that I’m not familiar with but what is that road called where it’s called a partial road? You just kind of put in the curbs there. A stub road so there was never a stub road installed in that northern cul-de-sac. I think that would have been a nice way to maybe give people notice that that was the plan of the city to install a road in the future. With that any questions? Aller: If we were to take action tonight what action would you like to see? Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 16 Jason Watt: Well I think the motion is that we delay the decision so we would be in favor of delaying the decision but bottom line I think we’re going to fight the best we can against having that road installed. Or a cul-de-sac. Aller: Thank you. Jason Watt: Thank you. Weick: I’m sorry, can you just restate your address so I can… Jason Watt: You can update it. 3961 Stratford Ridge. Weick: So you’re on that, okay. Thank you. Jason Watt: Yeah, thank you. David Lieser: Good evening. My name is David Lieser. My wife and I own the property at 3881 Stratford Ridge. Aller: Welcome. David Lieser: In addition to the things that Jason has brought up I’d like to point out that it seems to me, and I think to many other people that considerations on future hardship which may be incurred possibly by people subdividing 2 other properties between our properties and the Glendale Road project. Measuring that against the actual hardship to 15 families on Stratford Ridge is kind of a no brainer. I don’t know how far the rest of the project is going to get considering the fact that there were so many objections by the planning people involved here as to the water problems. It looked like there was an issue about density with the 5 lots versus perhaps strict adherence to the city code. But I do know that when I bought my house 21 years ago that there was no, no document was pointed out to us in any way, whether it was title document or whether it was reviewing the plat which I believe that the attorneys did. That would indicate to us that the cul-de-sac at our end of the street had what you’re calling a stub and that any Comprehensive Plan of the city was to make this into a super highway running parallel to Minnewashta Parkway. We have the same concerns that the neighbors do about their children. We have grandchildren that visit with us and our primary concern is their safety. Secondary concern is that now that the City is bringing up the idea that oh there should be this grand through way to Leslee Curve, it seems to me that our property values are already being impacted by that because now that this is said to be a possibility because of all this adherence that we have to have to the possible rights of subdivision to possible future owners of 2 lots between us and Glendale that would deprive us of our cul-de-sac. That would have to be revealed to any possible buyers of our properties in the future and I think just the fact that that’s now on this collateral record to the property, we’re in a position to really be at a great disadvantage as a result of this. We don’t, I personally and my wife don’t have information enough about the Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 17 impact of the water problems and so forth that would, whether there would be any impact on us or the other requirements that the city staff has set forth on the report, and I got a copy of today to read but our concern is strictly as to the extension of the road from our cul-de-sac to either Glendale or any other space inbetween where it is now and the Glendale project. And that’s the gist of what I have to say. If you have any questions. Aller: Thank you sir. David Lieser: Thank you. David Robertson: This is a tag team from Stratford Ridge just so you know. Aller: If you can spend National Night Out together. David Robertson: You bet. My name is David Robertson. I live at 3900 Stratford Ridge which puts me right on that cul-de-sac that’s outlined in blue. That means that if any road is extended it will go through my property as well as Trent’s somewhat and will affect us probably most dramatically. Jason summarized a lot of the main concerns from a neighborhood perspective. David added a few. I would just like to elaborate a little bit more on one. When we bought our property 4 years ago in there, there was nothing in my title, and I looked at it today, that indicated that this was ever a temporary cul-de-sac which is what is reflected in the report. We have not had the time to review all of the titles of every neighbor or any narrative or anything else but obviously if we see nothing there that could be an actionable thing on our part if it ever came to that and I just wanted, I should express that. The other thing about it as well is I don’t understand, again a little bit dovetailing on what David’s point. We bought into this property because we had 14 homes, a house, an association that owned 450 feet of lakeshore collectively that we share. I renovated a good portion of our house 2 years ago by gutting the entire main level under the auspices of the fact that I have lake access and if our neighborhood has changed in any way I believe it will diminish our property values because I don’t know how we include these additions in regard to our HOA. I don’t know, I do know that when my house was appraised to pay for the renovations that we did, that they took that into consideration. The HOA. The lake frontage. The partial ownership. That still continues but that creates a mess for us down the road as a neighborhood and how do we deal with this depending on what happens so you know I’m, I talked to the developer the other day. I don’t have a fundamental issue with his idea of what he’s going to do but I do have some concerns on how it would affect the neighborhood if any stub is required by him that would in my mind insure that there’s probably going to be a road put in at some point. Right through our property. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Court MacFarlane: Good evening. My name is Court MacFarlane. I live at 3800 Leslee Curve. I’m on the north end of the property, or north side of the property. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 18 Aller: Welcome. Court MacFarlane: At the corner of Glendale Drive and Leslee Curve. I didn’t realize that there were the issues with the water as far as you know the stormwater that would run off of those 5 lots. I’m hoping that there’s some way to solve that. My wife and I have lived, my wife built that house 50 years ago. I’ve been there for the last 40 years and we’re very much in favor of the kind of development that’s proposed to go across the street from us. I think there’s some real confusion as to the way the measurements are made as far as how far a cul-de-sac has to be from a main artery. In other words Minnewashta Parkway. I think there have been an awful lot of good examples of just how inconsistent that is. I was surprised to hear or to see your diagram as to just how far they had to go back to come up with the footage. One more thing would be the through street that’s proposed or you might want to see go through. I would be very opposed to additional traffic going through there. We get an awful lot of traffic coming up Glendale Drive off of Minnewashta Parkway. That gets to be a bit of a speedway. The only good thing I think is as you turn off of Minnewashta Parkway onto Glendale Drive there’s a real dip in the road so nobody goes through there fast but they accelerate up the hill quite a bit. It would just another dimension. There’s a stop sign on Leslee Curve as you turn onto Glendale Drive and people don’t always stop there either. My driveway’s on Glendale Drive but that’s basically all I wanted to say. I’m in favor of what he’s proposing. Aller: Thank you. Carin Moore: My name is Carin Moore, C-a-r-i-n and actually I’m the owner of the property directly to the south of the development. 6760 Minnewashta Parkway. I was actually born and raised at this property so I’m not going to say how many years I lived there. I’m just kidding. 42 years. I actually do not currently live at the property. My parents have both passed. I am now the owner of the property and looking at the for sale sign in my yard currently. I do have major concerns for the drainage. Obviously. The Knetson’s who live to the south, I’m not going to speak for them but you can see on the watershed, the maps, it not only drains into my property but it goes right into their’s as well. They actually have the low point of all 3 properties. There is the, if it’s called the actual water table or the actual draintile, there is actually an underground path that goes underneath the parkway out to the lakeshore. About 17 to 20 years ago there was a major washout and actually the access going down to both our property and the association’s property, the road was washed away and a portion of it and we had to get it fixed and that came right down on the south side. On the north side property line of our property and the south side of Foy’s, that’s the direction it came down and washed out. The City I believe made some improvements with the roadway at that point as well. 17 years ago I wasn’t quite as involved but I do know that my parents you know played a part along with Pleasant Acres to make sure that that was maintained and fixed. So definitely I would like to see some work done to understand how this is not going to continue especially adding 5 new homes to that causing that potential damage again. And also causing damage to our property. I have questions and comments but I don’t want to take up too much time too. I’ve met for the last 6 years I think with Sharmeen on this property. We’ve looked at other options. We’ve actually looked at access on the back side. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 19 Not possible currently with the way the property lines are marked and we’ve tried because we were looking at trying to get a, split our property in half east to west and put an access between the Dorsey’s who is to the west side of our property right on Country Oaks and our property and create a driveway to allow for a split property and leave it at that. No additional roads. No additional stuff. Driving into the sewage and electricity and drainage and everything for Country Oaks and keeping the parkway, okay. So unless something changes there that’s not a possibility. The Stratford including a new development, I wanted to comment on that. We actually own 187 feet of lakeshore private as well as our neighbor’s to the south owning another 133 feet of lakeshore. Pretty sure that if any development came on those two properties we would not be including Stratford. It would be just that lakeshore so I think that HOA concerns for Stratford in my opinion, take it or leave it, would not be an issue because we actually have our own private lakeshore property. The biggest thing for me, like I said is the drainage. I am not, I’m not opposed or for either option quite, right at this moment because I don’t think there’s enough detail. I think throwing a cul-de-sac into my neighbor’s backyard and into my backyard is potentially damaging in essence because it’s taking up a lot more of my land. I’m also not fully looking at the diagram that Curt you know showed me, which I appreciate as being really verbatim. I don’t see how a house can come on one of these lots. I don’t, you know I would love to see more information and be totally in support of that but I don’t have it today to be able to be in support of that. As for a road I’ve, like I said I grew up there. I learned how to ride my bike there. I learned how to swim there. I’ve walked to friends houses before Stratford was even there. I walked through that field and I rode horses. I mean I’ve been there since it was cornfields and hay. My parents could have said even longer than that but the traffic that I see potentially coming in if a road was added, you’re adding 4 lots. I don’t see how anybody who’s familiar with the area would think jumping onto Glendale and coming down that road is more convenient to get into Stratford and vice versa, why would they skip the parkway and jump onto Stratford to go through the windy road to get over to Glendale Drive? That’s not, doesn’t make sense. Again I’m not an engineer. I’m not a traffic coordinator so that’d be good information to know. I have noticed a lot more traffic going through there. I have been there quite a bit so I do understand those concerns. I also have concerns. I have little children. We go to the lake. We have to cross Minnewashta Parkway to get to our property so I understand that but at the same time I think that some sort of actual facts would be really helpful in understanding that because I think a lot of people are just really nervous of the what if’s without any details behind it. I think I’ve kind of hit most of my concerns at this time. I know you asked the other people. I’d say table it. I think more information is needed. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Yes sir. Court MacFarlane: I have just one point and I think I can help clarify. The property that’s being developed was part of the original land that was owned by Les and Lee Anderson that was subdivided into Pleasant Acres and then later Country Oaks. But on their title any property that was part of their original parcel of land, when it was eventually subdivided any owner of those lots would become members of the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association and have access to the beachlot that we have which is down, well just immediately down from Glendale Drive so I Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 20 don’t think there should be any concern by the people in Stratford, is it Stratford? That there would be any use of the shoreline by these 5 lots. They would then become members of Pleasant Acres. That’s my understanding. Aller: Just for the record you’re Mr. MacFarlane right? Court MacFarlane: Pardon? Aller: You’re Mr. MacFarlane? Court MacFarlane: MacFarlane yes. Yes. Aller: Thank you. Jane Bender: Hi I’m Jane Bender. I’m at 4001 Stratford Ridge. I’m at the other end of the cul- de-sac but I’ve been there for 20 years. I enjoyed raising my children in the area and I want to thank you for your dedication to having parks so close to all the homes and being conscious of green space as well as conserving our lake. I just kind of feel like a little bit of clarification in terms of using the Pleasant Acres area. We’re concerned about if we extend our cul-de-sac, we already have a homeowners association and so then that would add, and this is like preparing for something that hasn’t even been, you know no one has asked for yet but should the cul-de-sac be expanded then if the new homes were put in that cul-de-sac they wouldn’t really be part of our homeowners association so that could run into some awkwardness. But along the lines too I just wanted to mention that adding all of these roads and adding the cul-de-sac and being concerned about drainage and water and things I feel that we’re just taking away more green space. I hate to see more cement lay down and then you have to maintain it and our cul-de-sac, I don’t know the last time it was actually kind of smoothed over, redone. It’s been several years and I know it’s very, very expensive but just that whole maintenance part of it too is a concern for me. We, you know we really do take pride in our curbside appeal and you know roads and access in and out is part of that. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward at this point? Audience: Can the City define undue hardship for us? Aller: I think it’s. Bender: I’ll try to and maybe Sharmeen will jump in and add something to that. It’s about an uneven distribution of the land required in order to allow each of these 3 lots a fair course at subdivision. So is that understood? I mean did I explain? Audience: …or is that just your, I’m not trying to disrespectful. Is it somewhere with that definition or? Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 21 Bender: No I was just trying to explain it there so. Generous: Mr. Chairman. Aller: Yes. Generous: There’s nothing specifically written. It says you look at it is there a reasonable expectation that if they follow the requirements of the ordinance they won’t be unduly prohibited from having a reasonable use of their property. But there’s nothing, you know there’s no quantitative measure that you could really look at. It’s a little bit subjective because it’s not quantifiable. But it’s when you put too much burden on someone else so that your, you can go forward with what you do then that’s a hardship. Aller: Thank you. Al-Jaff: There is one other thing that we might want to point out. If you look at the grade at the end of the cul-de-sac there is approximately a 10 foot drop. You need a distance, the grade of a street has to be no more than 7 percent and to maintain that 7 percent you really need to grade those, the area over a stretch and we don’t believe that they would be able to meet ordinance requirements with just an extension of a cul-de-sac. If the cul-de-sac ended in this vicinity with that type of drop they’re not going to be able to make the 7 percent. It would need to be extended further so that’s one of the reasons also why we recommended the road extend out to Glendale Drive. Aller: Okay. Was anyone else going to come forward? So you just got back or you just appeared. Would you like an opportunity to speak on the Glendale matter? Audience: No. Aller: Okay. Having no one come forward at this time I’m going to go ahead and close the public hearing on this matter at this point in time and open it up for commission discussion, action including the recommendation. Commissioner Randall. Randall: This is pretty complicated here. I think there’s a lot of issues on the table with it. I appreciate everyone coming in to talk tonight about it. Their concerns and their feedback on it. There’s a lot of different moving parts to this. I mean obviously we have 2 other property owners right there at the end of this stub or cul-de-sac, whatever you want to call it. At this time I would feel better tabling it so we can get those water runoff issues going and after hearing their concerns I think we got a lot of unanswered questions right now with it. That’s how I feel about it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 22 Aller: Any additional comments at this time? If someone was to make a motion to table it is non-debatable so we would not have an opportunity to discuss any further so any additional comments or concerns at this point? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I would agree to table it. I would like to see more information about if the through street was developed what sort of traffic would that be expected to generate just so that could be quantified. I would also like to find out the reasoning why extending the road to the middle lot was not an opportunity previously and so that it can’t be considered going forward and then more information about why you’re proposing that it needs to be a through street and not a cul-de-sac on Stratford Ridge. More information about geographical limitations. Al-Jaff: Okay. Aller: Additional, Commissioner Weick. Weick: This might be difficult and I might be all over the place a little bit but bear with me if you will. I do want to make a couple comments and then it might ultimately get to a point at the end and it might not. But I share your heartbreak over losing green space. It’s something I struggle with every time a development comes in front of us personally. I agree with you the reality of large lots becoming small lots I just, it hurts. But it’s also a reality of kind of our city and there’s a lot of large lots that have the opportunity to be profitable for the landowner and so I think we need to respect that as well. The second thing is I’m concerned, I’ve heard a little bit about not wanting the through street necessarily or at least the stubs for the through street. I’m just concerned like, we can’t promise what those other 2 lots will develop into in the future so I’m concerned, I am just, I think the reality is even if there weren’t stubs for a through street put in it’s not to say that in the future something wouldn’t happen on those 2 southern lots that would be you know potentially a cul-de-sac or an extension or something. I mean who knows and that’s, so that needs to be considered as well. I’m opposed though to tabling this because I’m not sure, and this is where it sort of comes around. I probably go 360 but, or 180. The burden to me is on the landowners and so the conditions that exist around these 3 properties are the realities of kind of how that land has been developed. I think in my opinion the, I don’t see anything in that, in what’s been proposed today that we would oppose or could oppose as a preliminary plat and I would welcome contrary opinion to that. So that land is developable, if that’s a word. The impact that that has in the future on the 2 properties to the south unfortunately if people aren’t working together with that land, I don’t know that we should be taking that into consideration today so I don’t think we should suggest a through street or the stubs. I think that property can be developed into 5 lots that make sense. I’m not sure we have a position contrary to that and so if we do, maybe I’m misunderstanding but we’re considering things that are, we’re sort of looking into the future and saying well if all of these properties would be developed together it might look different but they’re not. Right? It’s one property that’s being developed and I think we have to consider if the middle property wants to develop we have to consider that separately and if the third southern property wants to try and develop at that time that needs to be considered separately but, am I, and if I’m missing please correct me. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 23 Aller: I just look at it as, and that’s why I asked originally whether there was a timeline in position that would be impacting and maybe prejudicial to either side and since we have the time to do it and we have everyone basically coming in, or most people coming in, in my mind and saying there’s a lot more information that they would like to have to perhaps to voice a different opinion then I would be in favor, if somebody was going to table it to go ahead and table it. If they were requesting a, if they want to go through with a plat I don’t think I have enough information. You know how I am with my water issues to really determine whether or not the water impacts would be protected and whether or not the, there’s enough information for me to move forward and vote for the project at this point so I would be voting against so for me I think it’s favorable to go ahead and table it and give the City and the neighborhood and the applicant to get together on some of these issues and come back and maybe we’ll see something different. I mean I’ve heard people say that wisdom, it’s not really smart to be in a position not to change your mind. It’s being in a position of wisdom and shown by actually changing your mind when you’re shown different facts and circumstances so I’m a great believer in the fact that, as in the prior situation where people are, the City and the applicants are willing to get together and work on things and we’ve had plenty of input from the neighborhood at this point in time, that they can all use that to their benefit and come up with a plan that again may not be perfect but it’s going to be better than this one. McGonagill: If I may. Aller: Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: Commissioner Weick I agree with you it’s one property we’re talking about. I look at it that way and it’s with the issue of that one property that I also will vote to table because I have the concerns on the water and how it will accelerate, to use that word or increase the amount of water runoff to the lots to the south and to me that’s a hardship on the, you know we’ve just got to be sensitive to and be sure that there’s a good water management plan in place. There’s already a bad, well I say there’s a bad situation there. You can look at the topo’s and see it and ultimately I agree with what you said. Those lots will be developed and water issues, how we manage those here are going to start setting precedent for how that water will be managed down the road and the impact it has on Lake Minnewashta itself. As one of the public commenters tonight is there’s a lot of water that moves through there in big storm events and so I want to see a better plan for that or better understanding of that or what we’re going to do. I realize we’re only doing the one and that’s what we have to consider but what I saw tonight didn’t answer my questions to the point where I could vote in favor. Weick: Can I ask a question? Aller: Sure. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 24 Weick: Is preliminary plat, do you have to have your water plan complete at the time of preliminary plat approval? Al-Jaff: Yes. Weick: You do, okay. Al-Jaff: It’s required by ordinance. Aller: And I think the staff report went through and said, these are things that we’re looking at as being required and that we would require of all applicants and we don’t have enough information to really make a decision or a recommendation to us. I don’t feel comfortable making a decision with them not feeling comfortable. But I may decide I don’t agree with them but I don’t even have that before me to make my decision. Weick: Okay. And that’s good information I think because I certainly wouldn’t approve based on the water alone the plat. I think that does need to be fixed. I just want to be clear that I’m not in favor of tabling this in order to study the road situation anymore. I don’t, I’m concerned about the canopy coverage which I think was probably just an omission because there was just all zeroes. And then the water which is significant. I think if that can be fixed over this time that we table it I think that would be a benefit to the developer. Aller: Additional comments? Or action. I can’t make a motion so. Weick: What did you think? Undestad: No I agree. I know what you’re saying there but again it’s not tabling it just for the street. It would be for, and the zeroes on the canopy coverage, there was no landscape plan submitted. Weick: That’s what I mean, yeah. Undestad: So there is nothing, you know again that was more information that’s required to get that covered too so I agree with it. I think tabling is the right thing to do. Weick: Okay. Aller: So I’ll entertain a motion of some sort. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman I can do that. Aller: Commissioner McGonagill. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 25 McGonagill: Recommend that the Chanhassen Planning Commission tables action on the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.14 acres into 5 lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50 foot public right-of-way and directs the applicant to address the issues, address issues in the staff report. Aller: And with the, I would like to add that we preserve the right to have a continuation of a public hearing on any information provided so we basically, because we’ve heard what the public has said and what the community wants to do based on the information that they have in front of them but that might change. McGonagill: I would agree to that addition to the motion, is that what you’re requesting? Okay so it would read like we said but add an addition for additional time for public comment. Generous: Preserve the right. McGonagill: Preserve the right for public comments. I would agree with that Mr. Chairman. Aller: And I have a motion. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, it’s non-debatable so there’s no further comment. McGonagill moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission tables action on the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.14 acres into 5 lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50 foot public right-of-way and directs the applicant to address the issues, address issues in the staff report and preserves the right for public comment. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Weick who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Aller: So the motion carries with Commissioner Weick opposing. That’s fine. Before you leave I’d like to thank everyone present for coming tonight and sharing your National Night Out with us and making us a part of your neighborhood. We really appreciate you coming in and giving us your viewpoint and since I had to miss mine and leave mine early I was just grateful to have you all here and share it with you so thank you for being here. Let’s take a one minute recess while the room clears. (There was a short recess at this point in the meeting.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 17, 2018 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 26 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aller: We’ll have a City Council action update. Generous: The subdivision on the Red Cedar Point was approved with a variance. It was creating two lots and they used a cul-de-sac…with variance. And future Planning Commission, there’s no meeting on the 21st unless this item can magically turn around by Friday. Aller: I don’t think it will. There’s a lot of work to be done but I think that, they all realize that and that it will get done. Generous: And just to remind you that the joint commission tour is tomorrow night so be here at 6:00. If you can make it let me know, or let Kate know. McGonagill: It starts at 6:00? Generous: Yes. And you’ll just meet right out front here. And we have a bus. Aller: How’s the weather report? Generous: It’s going to be hot. Aller: Hot and muggy right? Generous: (Yes). Al-Jaff: You will be done by 8:00 we promise. Aller: Footwear? Al-Jaff: Comfortable shoes. There will be a half mile walk. Aller: Great. Generous: On the trail. On the new trail. By the water treatment plant. Aller: Wonderful. Generous: We’ll start at the bottom and finish up on top. Aller: That’s a water treatment plant? It doesn’t look like a water treatment plant. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018 27 Generous: That’s my summer home. If you go on Manchester that looks great. We do have 2 items for the September 4th meeting. There’s a variance request on South Shore Drive and then a PUD amendment for the Target Chanhassen Retail Center. It’s a minor amendment regarding signage so. That’s it for now. Aller: Great. So those of you at home want to see what’s coming up make sure you check the website and take a look at the packets as they appear on the website and you can come on in and make comments if you desire to do so as matters come before us. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Randall moved, Madsen seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, August 27, 2018 Subject Receive Park & Recreation Summary Minutes dated July 24, 2018 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.3. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder'File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council receives the Park & Recreation Commission summary minutes dated July 24, 2018.” Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Summary Minutes CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES JULY 24, 2018 Chairman Scharfenberg called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. MEMBERS PRESENT: Karl Tsuchiya, Cole Kelly, Jim Boettcher, Meredith Petouvis, Rick Echternacht, Grant Schaeferle and Steve Scharfenberg. MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Scanlon STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park ad Rec Director; and Katie Mathews, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF AGENDA: the agenda was approved as presented PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS; Park and Recreation Director Hoffman informed the commission about Night Out on the Town, Thursday, July 26 downtown Chanhassen and National Night Out, Tuesday, August 7 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Dennis Gallaher, Southwest Metro Pickelball Club APPROVAL OF MINUETS: Boettcher moved, Echternacht seconded to approve the verbatim and summary minuets of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated June 26, 2018. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. NEW BUSINESS Initiate discussion regarding recommendation to City Council, 2019 through 2023 park and trail acquisition and development capital improvement program (CIP): Todd Hoffman gave an overview of the scheduled 2019 Park and Trail Capital Improvement Program (CIP) REPORTS: Katie Mathews gave a report on the 2018 4th of July Celebration COMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS – None COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS – None AMINISTRATIVE PACKET ADJOURNMENT Boettcher moved, Echternacht seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned. Prepared and submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, August 27, 2018 Subject Approve Flood Reduction Grant Agreement for Acquisition of Property at 770 Pioneer Trail Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.4. Prepared By Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer File No: SWMP19: 88­02 PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves a DNR Flood Mitigation Grant Agreement for Acquisition of Flood Prone Property at 770 Pioneer Trail." Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND On March 12, 2018, the City Council authorized submitting to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) a grant application for acquisition of three properties located at 730, 750 and 770 Pioneer Trail. The homes were constructed in the 1960's and 1970's and have historically been susceptible to flooding. Rain events over 2.5 inches in a 24­hour period flood the yards, and events over 3.5 inches can potentially flood the structures on the properties. The properties are in an 11.4­acre subwatershed that extends east to Foxford Road in the Lake Riley Woods Development. Most of the acreage on these parcels are in a wetland so flood mitigation opportunities are limited per wetland rules. Flooding on these properties has been reported as far back as the 1970's before significant development in the area began. The DNR has awarded grant funds to help the city purchase one of the homes at this time.  DISCUSSION The Minnesota DNR Flood Reduction Grant Assistance Program (FDR) application was approved to purchase the property at 770 Pioneer Trail. The city will be reimbursed 50% for eligible project expenses, not to exceed $180.000.00. The city must provide a match equal to the State’s contribution. The proposed project would be to purchase the home, remove the structures, cap the well and remove the septic system. Staff has discussed purchasing the parcels and re­establishing wetlands on the parcel with the Riley­Purgatory­Bluff Creek Watershed District staff and Board. The Watershed District has stated they are very interested in the project and are willing to financially partner on the property acquisition and a future wetland restoration project. Also, the project was identified during the Avienda WCA permit process. If the Avienda project moves forward, the developer is required to contribute funds to the city for a wetland or stormwater project. These funds could be used to help with the acquisitions and a future wetland improvement project.  CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, August 27, 2018SubjectApprove Flood Reduction Grant Agreement for Acquisition of Property at 770 Pioneer TrailSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.4.Prepared By Paul Oehme, Director of PublicWorks/City Engineer File No: SWMP19: 88­02PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council approves a DNR Flood Mitigation Grant Agreement for Acquisition of Flood Prone Property at770 Pioneer Trail."Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDOn March 12, 2018, the City Council authorized submitting to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources(DNR) a grant application for acquisition of three properties located at 730, 750 and 770 Pioneer Trail. The homeswere constructed in the 1960's and 1970's and have historically been susceptible to flooding. Rain events over 2.5inches in a 24­hour period flood the yards, and events over 3.5 inches can potentially flood the structures on theproperties. The properties are in an 11.4­acre subwatershed that extends east to Foxford Road in the Lake RileyWoods Development. Most of the acreage on these parcels are in a wetland so flood mitigation opportunities arelimited per wetland rules. Flooding on these properties has been reported as far back as the 1970's before significantdevelopment in the area began.The DNR has awarded grant funds to help the city purchase one of the homes at this time. DISCUSSIONThe Minnesota DNR Flood Reduction Grant Assistance Program (FDR) application was approved to purchase theproperty at 770 Pioneer Trail. The city will be reimbursed 50% for eligible project expenses, not to exceed$180.000.00. The city must provide a match equal to the State’s contribution. The proposed project would be topurchase the home, remove the structures, cap the well and remove the septic system. Staff has discussed purchasingthe parcels and re­establishing wetlands on the parcel with the Riley­Purgatory­Bluff Creek Watershed District staffand Board. The Watershed District has stated they are very interested in the project and are willing to financiallypartner on the property acquisition and a future wetland restoration project. Also, the project was identified during theAvienda WCA permit process. If the Avienda project moves forward, the developer is required to contribute funds tothe city for a wetland or stormwater project. These funds could be used to help with the acquisitions and a future wetland improvement project.  If the grant agreement is approved, city staff will obtain an appraisal, work on a sale amount with the homeowner and secure additional matching funds from either a WMO or use the Avienda funds if they are available. The City Council will still need to approve the sale of the property so staff will have a complete funding package with the future acquisition Council item.  The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement Location Map 145835 / 3000138988 Grant (Rev. 08/2018) 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND GRANT CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN FOR ACQUISITION OF FLOOD PRONE PROPERTY This grant contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Natural Resources, ("State") and the City of Chanhassen, 7700 Market Boulevard, PO Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota, 55317 ("Grantee"). Recitals 1. Under Minnesota. Statutes, Section 103F.161, Subdivision 1, the State is empowered to enter into this grant agreement. 2. The State agrees that removal of structures from flood prone areas is in the interest of the State. 3. The Grantee represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services described in this grant contract to the satisfaction of the State. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §16B.98 Subdivision 1, the Grantee agrees to minimize administrative costs as a condition of this grant contract. 4. The Grantee attests it has the financial capacity to provide any required local match for the project or phase funded under the terms of this grant contract, and agrees to complete the project or phase if the cost of the project or phase exceeds the amount of state funding and required local match. 5. The monies allocated to fund the grant to the Grantee are proceeds of state general obligation (G.O.) bonds authorized to be issued under Article XI, § 5(a) of the Minnesota Constitution; and 6. The Grantee’s receipt and use of the G.O. Grant to acquire an ownership interest in and/or improve real property (the “Real Property”) and, if applicable, structures situated thereon (the “Facility”) will cause the Public Entity’s ownership interest in all of such real property and structures to become “state bond financed property”, as such term is used in Minn. Stat. § 16A.695 (the “G.O. Compliance Legislation”) and in that certain “Fourth Order Amending Order of the Commissioner of Finance Relating to Use and Sale of State Bond Financed Property” executed by the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget and dated July 30, 2012, as amended (the “Commissioner’s Order”), even though such funds may only be a portion of the funds being used to acquire such ownership interest and/or improve such real property and structures and that such funds may be used to only acquire such ownership interest and/or improve a part of such real property and structures. Grant Contract 1 Term of Grant Contract 1.1 Effective date: August 15, 2018, or the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minnesota Statutes §16C.05, subdivision 2, whichever is later. 1.2 Expiration date: December 31, 2019 or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. 1.3 Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this grant contract: 8. Liability; 9. State Audits; 10. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; 13. Publicity and Endorsement; 14. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and 16. Data Disclosure. 2 Grantee’s Duties The Grantee, who is not a state employee, will be responsible for: Acquisition of as many flood prone properties identified in the Grantee’s March 13, 2018 application for Flood Damage Reduction Grant Assistance as funding allows. The Grantee shall acquire title to property, remove all structures, disconnect utilities, and restore topsoil and landscaping. All demolition material is to be disposed of in compliance with Federal, State, and local standards. Property acquired by the Grantee shall remain in permanent public ownership. The Grantee agrees that the land shall be used only for purposes compatible with open space, recreational, or wetlands management practices per adopted State and local floodplain and shoreland management ordinances. 145835 / 3000138988 Grant (Rev. 08/2018) 2 All project expenses not identified as being related to work outlined above, or as subsequently amended in this agreement, must be approved by the State in writing prior to the Grantee incurring said expense. 3 Time The Grantee must comply with all the time requirements described in this grant contract. In the performance of this grant contract, time is of the essence. 4 Consideration and Payment 4.1 Consideration. The State will reimburse for all eligible services performed by the Grantee under this grant contract as follows: (a) Compensation. The Grantee will be reimbursed 50% for eligible project expenses, not to exceed $180.000.00. Grantee must provide a match equal to the State’s contribution. (b) Travel Expenses. Reimbursement for eligible project-related travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily incurred by the Grantee as a result of this grant contract will be reimbursed in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "Commissioner’s Plan” promulgated by the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB). The Grantee will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside Minnesota unless it has received the State’s prior written approval for out of state travel. Minnesota will be considered the home state for determining whether travel is out of state. (c) Eligible Expenses. Eligible expenses are those costs directly incurred by the Grantee that are solely related to and necessary for producing the work products described in Provision 2 of this Agreement. Eligible costs may include the following: advertising costs for bids and proposals; capital expenditures for facilities, equipment and other capital assets as expressly approved by the State; materials and supplies; architectural and engineering services; construction management and inspection services; surveys and soil borings; attorney fees solely related and necessary to accomplish the Project, as determined by the State and actual construction of the Project. Certain other types of costs may be eligible provided that they are (1) directly incurred by the Grantee; (2) are solely related to, and necessary for, producing the work products described in Provision 2; and (3) have prior written approval of the State. Any cost not defined as an eligible cost or not included in the Project Plan shall not be paid from State funds committed to the Project. (d) Ineligible Expenses. Non-eligible costs for reimbursement means all costs not defined as eligible costs, including but not limited to the following: Any costs incurred before the effective date of this Grant; fund raising; taxes, except sales tax on goods and services; insurance, except title insurance; attorney fees not necessary to accomplish the project; loans, grants, or subsidies to persons or entities for development; financing; bad debts or contingency funds; interest; operation and maintenance costs; options for acquisition of real estate; lobbyists; and political contributions. 4.2. Payment Invoices. To obtain reimbursement for eligible costs under this Grant, the Grantee shall provide the State with invoices and evidence that the portion of the Project for which payment is requested has been satisfactorily completed. All invoices shall be sent to the person designated in Section 6. Grantee shall submit invoices and evidence that the required contribution toward any required local match are being met. Invoices will be submitted for the amount and should differentiate, when applicable, between the Federal and Non-Federal Project costs, as well as the State and local share of the Project costs. Invoices must be received by the State within thirty (30) days after the completion of the Project or the expiration of this Grant as set forth in Section 1.2, whichever occurs first. Invoices received after that date may not be 145835 / 3000138988 3 eligible for reimbursement, at the State’s discretion. The State’s authorized agent has final authority for acceptance of Grantee’s services, determination as to whether the expenditures are eligible for reimbursement under this Grant, and verification of the total amount requested. The Grantee shall not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory, or performed in violation of federal, state or local law, ordinance, rule or regulation. At its discretion, the State may retain 10% of the total grant award until the State has determined that the Grantee has satisfactorily fulfilled all of the terms of this Grant. If requested by the State, the Grantee shall arrange for a tour of the Project area prior to release of the final ten (10) percent of the funds. Invoices must be submitted timely and according to the following schedule: It is required that invoices be submitted, at a minimum, at the close of each state fiscal year which is July 1 – June 30. If expenses are extensive, reimbursement requests may be submitted monthly or quarterly. Please itemize the eligible expenses by the month of occurrence, not liquidation. If invoices are not received in this format, it could delay receipt of payment. 5 Conditions of Payment All services provided by the Grantee under this grant contract must be performed to the State’s satisfaction, as determined at the sole discretion of the State’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The Grantee will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal, state, or local law. 6 Authorized Representative The State's Authorized Representative is Patrick Lynch, Floodplain Hydrologist, Department of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55155, 651-259-5691, pat.lynch@state.mn.us , or his/her successor, and has the responsibility to monitor the Grantee’s performance and the authority to accept or reject the services provided under this grant contract. If the services are satisfactory, the State's Authorized Representative will certify acceptance on each invoice submitted for payment. The Grantee’s Authorized Representative is Paul Oehme, Public Works Director/City Engineer, City of Chanhassen, 7700 Market Blvd., PO Box 17, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, 952-227-1169, poehme@ci.chanhassen.mn.us . If the Grantee’s Authorized Representative changes at any time during this grant contract, the Grantee must immediately notify the State. 7 Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Grant Contract Complete 7.1 Assignment. The Grantee shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant contract without the prior written consent of the State, approved by the same parties who executed and approved this grant contract, or their successors in office. 7.2 Amendments. Any amendments to this grant contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original grant contract, or their successors in office. 7.3 Waiver. If the State fails to enforce any provision of this grant contract, that failure does not waive the provision or the State’s right to enforce it. 7.4 Grant Contract Complete. This grant contract contains all negotiations and agreements between the State and the Grantee. No other understanding regarding this grant contract, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party. 8 Liability The Grantee must indemnify, save, and hold the State, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims or causes of action, including attorney’s fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this grant contract by the Grantee or the Grantee’s agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies 145835 / 3000138988 4 the Grantee may have for the State's failure to fulfill its obligations under this grant contract. 9 State Audits Under Minn. Stat. §16B.98, Subd.8, the Grantee’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the Grantee or other party relevant to this grant agreement or transaction are subject to examination by the State and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this grant agreement, receipt and approval of all final reports, or the required period of time to satisfy all state and program retention requirements, whichever is later. 10 Government Data Practices The Grantee and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this grant contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Grantee under this grant contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Grantee or the State. If the Grantee receives a request to release the data referred to in this Clause, the Grantee must immediately notify the State. The State will give the Grantee instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. The Grantee’s response to the request shall comply with applicable law. 11 Prevailing Wages Grantee agrees to comply with all of the applicable provisions contained in Chapter 177 of the Minnesota Statutes, and specifically those provisions contained in Minn. Stat. §§ 177.41 through 177.435, as they may be amended, modified or replaced from time to time with respect to the Project. 12 Workers’ Compensation The Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. § 176.181, subd. 2, pertaining to workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The Grantee’s employees and agents will not be considered State employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act on behalf of these employees and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees are in no way the State’s obligation or responsibility. 13 Publicity and Endorsement 13.1 Acknowledgments. The Grantee agrees to acknowledge the State's financial support for the Project. Any statement, press release, bid, solicitation, or other document issued describing the Project shall provide information reflecting that State funds were used to support the Project and will contain the following language: This Project is made possible in part by a grant provided by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, through an appropriation by the Minnesota State Legislature. Any site developed or improved by the Project shall display a sign, in a form approved by the State, stating the same information. 13.2 Endorsement. The Grantee must not claim that the State endorses its products or services. 14 Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this grant contract. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this grant contract, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 145835 / 3000138988 5 15 Termination 15.1 Termination by the State. The State may immediately terminate this grant contract with or without cause, upon 30 days’ written notice to the Grantee. Upon termination, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 15.2 Termination for Cause. The State may immediately terminate this grant contract if the State finds that there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of this grant contract, that reasonable progress has not been made or that the purposes for which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled. The State may take action to protect the interests of the State of Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds and requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed. 16 Data Disclosure Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, Subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Grantee consents to disclosure of its social security number, federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Grantee to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any. 17 Preservation of Tax Exempt Status In order to preserve the tax-exempt status of the G.O. Bonds, the Grantee agrees as follows: A. It will not use the Real Property or, if applicable, Facility, or use or invest the G.O. Grant or any other sums treated as “bond proceeds” under Section 148 of the Code including “investment proceeds,” “invested sinking funds,” and “replacement proceeds,” in such a manner as to cause the G.O. Bonds to be classified as “arbitrage bonds” under Section 148 of the Code. B. It will, upon written request, provide the Commissioner of MMB all information required to satisfy the informational requirements set forth in the Code including, but not limited to, Sections 103 and 148 thereof, with respect to the G.O. Bonds. C. It will, upon the occurrence of any act or omission by the Grantee or any Counterparty that could cause the interest on the G.O. Bonds to no longer be tax exempt and upon direction from the Commissioner of MMB, take such actions and furnish such documents as the Commissioner of MMB determines to be necessary to ensure that the interest to be paid on the G.O. Bonds is exempt from federal taxation, which such action may include either: (i) compliance with proceedings intended to classify the G.O. Bonds as a “qualified bond” within the meaning of Section 141(e) of the Code, (ii) changing the nature or terms of the Use Contract so that it complies with Revenue Procedure 97-13, 1997-1 CB 632, or (iii) changing the nature of the use of the Real Property or, if applicable, Facility so that none of the net proceeds of the G.O. Bonds will be used, directly or indirectly, in an “unrelated trade or business” or for any “private business use” (within the meaning of Sections 141(b) and 145(a) of the Code), or (iv) compliance with other Code provisions, regulations, or revenue procedures which amend or supersede the foregoing. D. It will not otherwise use any of the G.O. Grant, including earnings thereon, if any, or take or permit to or cause to be taken any action that would adversely affect the exemption from federal income taxation of the interest on the G.O. Bonds, nor omit to take any action necessary to maintain such tax exempt status, and if it should take, permit, omit to take, or cause to be taken, as appropriate, any such action, it shall take all lawful actions necessary to rescind or correct such actions or omissions promptly upon having knowledge thereof. 18 Use of State Bond- Financed Property, Deed Restrictions, and Real Estate Declarations "State bond- financed property" means property acquired or bettered in whole or in part with the proceeds of state 145835 / 3000138988 6 general obligation bonds authorized to be issued under article XI, section 5, clause (a), of the Minnesota Constitution. Use of State bond- financed property must be operated in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes chapter 16A.695, all state and federal laws, and in a manner that will not cause the interest on the state general obligation bonds to be or become subject to federal income taxation for any reason. Upon acquisition or betterment of any land and or structures using these grant funds, Grantee shall record permanent deed restrictions requiring any new or future public structures on the parcels to be in strict conformance with adopted floodplain and shoreland standards. Grantee shall record a declaration for real estate rights acquired or property bettered under this Agreement. The declaration must acknowledge the property rights or betterments were acquired in whole or in part with State general obligation bond funds and subject to the encumbrance created and requirements imposed by Minnesota Stat. Sec. 16A. Grantee shall submit a copy of the recorded real estate declaration for real estate acquired or bettered under this Grant to the State’s Authorized Agent using the form in Attachment A of this Grant or on an alternative form pre- approved by the State. Proof of recordation of the deed restrictions and declaration for each property acquired or bettered under the terms of this Agreement must be submitted to the State’s authorized agent within 60 days of acquisition or betterment, and before final payment is made by the State to the Grantee. 19 Invasive Species The DNR requires active steps to prevent or limit the introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive species during contracted work. The contractor shall take measures to prevent invasive species from entering into or spreading within a project site by cleaning equipment prior to arriving at the project site. If the equipment, vehicles, gear, or clothing arrives at the project site with soil, aggregate material, mulch, vegetation (including seeds) or animals, it shall be cleaned by contractor furnished tool or equipment (brush/broom, compressed air or pressure washer) at the staging area. The contractor shall dispose of material cleaned from equipment and clothing at a location determined by the DNR Contract Administrator. If the material cannot be disposed of onsite, secure material prior to transport (sealed container, covered truck, or wrap with tarp) and legally dispose of offsite. 20 Jobs Reporting Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 16A.633, subd. 4, the Grantee shall collect, maintain and, upon completion of the project, provide the information to the State on forms provided by the State. The information must include the number and types of jobs created by the project, whether the jobs are new or retained, where the jobs are located, and pay ranges of the jobs. 21 Construction Contract Language on Jobs Reporting The Contractor is hereby advised that this Project is funded all or in part by state bond funds and subject to the reporting requirements of Minnesota Statute 16A.633, Subdivision 4 (MN Laws of 2012 Chapter 293, Section 28). 22 Permits, Approvals and Environmental Review This grant does not constitute State approval of the project or phase funded under this agreement, and neither negates nor precludes any mandatory environmental review or permitting requirements that may apply to the project or phase. Grantee may not commence construction until all necessary permits and approvals have been obtained and the requirements of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 have been satisfied. 145835 / 3000138988 7 1. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION 3. STATE AGENCY Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as Individual certifies the applicable provisions of Minn. Stat. required by Minn. Stat. §§16A.15 and 16C.05. §16C.08, subdivisions 2 and 3 are reaffirmed. Signed: ___________________________________________ By: __________________________________________ (with delegated authority) Date: __8/7/2018_________________________________ Title _______________________________________ SWIFT Contract/PO No(s)._145835/3000138988__________ Date: _______________________________________ 2. GRANTEE The Grantee certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the grant contract on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances. By: ________________________________________________ Title: ______________________________________________ Date: _______________________________________________ By: ________________________________________________ Title: ______________________________________________ Distribution: Date: _______________________________________________ Agency Grantee State’s Authorized Representative - Photo Copy Lake Ann Park Rice Marsh Lake Preserve North LotusLake ParkLake Minnew ashta Regional Park (County Park)SunsetRidgeParkMeadowGreenPark K erb erP o n d P a rk Lake Susan PreserveBluff C reek Preserve ChanhassenRecreationCenter Hesse Farm Preserve Pheasant HillPark CurryFarmsPark CityCenterParkStoneCreekPark RoundhousePark HermanFieldPark CarverBeachPlayground Park PrairieKnollParkPowerHillPark Ch an hassenHillsPark Bandi mereHeightsPark Greenwood Shores Park CarverBeachPark Bluff Creek Golf Course RaguetWildlifeManagement Area (WMA) MN Valley NationalWildlife Refuge Minnesota Landscape Arboretum S ugar bushPark ChanhassenNaturePreserve M innesota Land sc ape Ar bor etum Pleasant ViewPreserveFoxwoodsPreserve Minnewashta Heights Park S LotusLake Park B andim erePark Chanhassen Estates Park Lake Susan Park Seminary FenScientific andNatural Area (SNA) Park RileyRidge Park PioneerPass Park Raguet WildlifeManagement Area (WMA) Bluff CreekPreserve Rice MarshLake Park OHW 877.0 OHW 699.2 OHW 896.3 OHW 865.3 OHW 944.5 OHW 956.1 OHW 881.8 OHW 955.5 OHW 993.6 O HW945.2 OHW 932.77 OHW 929.8 Lotus Lake Lake Riley Lak e M innew ashta Lake Lucy Rice Lake Lake Susa n Lake Ann Lake Virginia Lake Harrison Rice Marsh Lake C lasen Lake La ke St J o e Christmas Lake Ca stle Rid g e C a s c a d e P a s s Town Line Road Pleasant View Road C a s c a de Pass Trapp e r s P a s s Timber H ill Road Sta gHornLane Trap Lin e Circle TrapLineLane O x b owBendOxbow Bend Oxbo w B e n d Shasta Cir E C a s c a de Circle M ountainV iewCo urtP i e d m o n tCourt TrappersPassOxbowBendOx b o wBe n d FoxHollow Dri ve Pleasant View Road FoxH o ll ow DriveHuntersCourt BluffRidgeCourtF o x H ollow Drive G r a yFoxCur veFoxta il C o urtQuailCrossi ngGrayFoxCurv GreyFoxCurve Gray F o xCurveGrayFoxCurveBruleCircleChocta w Circle S a n d y HookRoad Hwy101GreatPlainsBlvdFox Path F o x C o u rtLake P oint Lotus TrailNava jo D rCa r v e r Bea c h Ro ad Ponderosa Drive Broken Arr o w D r L o t u s T r a i l Lotus Trail R ojinaLanePle a s a n t V i e w R o a d Pleasa n tV iew RoadHorseshoeC u rv e Pleasant Vie w R oa d F o x P a thFox Pat h Vineland Court H o lly L a n e Holly Lane W illo w C reekP ow e r s B l v d (C .R . 1 7 )PleasantViewC o v e Pleasant View Road Peaceful LanePleasant View R o a d Nez Perce DrivePowers Blvd (C.R. 17)DevonshireDrWelsleyCourtArlingtonCrt.DevonshireD riv eStrattonCourtBrett o n Wa y Teton L a n e Bretton Way Ashton Court Teton LaneIthilienTroendle CircleCharingBendShadowLaneYosemite AveYosemite AveLakew a y Lane PointeLakeLucyKerber Blvd Kerber BlvdPowers Blvd (C.R. 17)P im licoLaneK e r b e r B l v d P ontia c L a n e Buckingw oodC tTrotter sCi r cl ePon t i a cCircleP o n tia c C o u rtButte Co u rtPont i acCir c l e Pontiac Lane Redman LaneDeclarationDrShawnee LaneU ti c a L a n e Powers B lvd (C .R . 17 ) C actusCurve Canyon C urve Powers Blvd (C.R. 17)Santa Vera DriveTargetLaneW 78th S t Hwy 101 Great Plains BlvdHwy 101 Great Plains BlvdHwy101GreatPlainsBlvdWest Village Road S a n d y Hook Road Sand y Hook C irCheyenneDakotaDakota C ir cl e Dakota Cheyenne Basswood CirKurversPointRoad W illow ViewCove Twin M aple Lan e S o u th S h oreCourtChan View Erie AvenueErieAvenueSouthShoreDriveSouth Shore Dr i veHill StreetW 77th St Canterbury Circle DerbyDriveBelmo nt L n Kerber BlvdK e r b e r B l v d Laredo Drive(W 78th St) C hanView StoneCr ee k Dr AudubonRoadCommerce Drive AudubonRoadP a rk R o a d P a rk R o a d Park Court Pa rk Place Park DrivePark Road PowersBlvd(C.R.17)V alley Vie w Crt ValleyRidgeCrtValleyRidge Trail North Coulter Boulevard T im b e rw oodD rP i n e w o o d C i r Oakwoo d R i d g eTimberwoodDr Ti mberwoodDrBluffView Crt StoneCreekD r CreekviewCrt StoneCreekDrRenaissance Crt Lyman Blvd (CSAH 18)BoulderR o a d StoneCreek D r Bethesda CirWashi ngtonBlvdWashingtonBlvdCommonwealthBlvdLincoln Ln W a shingtonCirFranklin L nJefferson DrMadison DrTWIN CITI E S & W E S T E R N R AI L R O A D Lake R il eyTrlHighover LaneJe rs e y Way L a k e A n n P a rkDrIroquois AveHuronKiowaGreatPlainsBlvdW 78th St W 76th St Frontier TrailW 78th S t re e t S t a t e Hw y No .5 Hill Str e et Chippewa Cir Chippewa TrailS a n ta Ve r a Drive SaratogaDriveSaratoga DriveSaratogaCir Laredo L a n e Laredo LaneIr oqu o is Santa Fe TrailDelRioDrive Del Rio Drive Cimarro n Circ leLaredoDrive FrontierTrailFrontier Court F r o n t i e r T r a i l Kurver s Point Road Frontier Trail Highland DriveLaredoDriveLongview CircleSierra Court Sierra T ra ilConestogaCourtConestoga TrailBighor n DriveF r o ntier Trail KiowaFrontier TrailHighland Drive S h a d owm e r e Bighorn D r ive State Hwy 5 Arboretum Boulevard Shasta Cir W Olympic Cir Castle Ri d g e Ca s t l e R i d g e C o u r t Ca s c a d e C o u r t NearMountainBlvdN ear M o u n t a i nBl vdNe ar MountainBlvdMountain Way S u mm i t C i r c l e Pleasant View Road Indian Hill RdPleasantParkDrGrayFoxLaneMarketBl vdM arket B lv d S t a t e H w y 5 A r b o r e tu m B o u le v a rd StateHwy5ArboretumBoulevardKerberBlvdPicha Chan View V ioletRoadCarverB e a c h RoadCree DriveYuma Dr ive Ri n g o D r i v e Yuma D r iveDeerwoodDrN e z P e r c e D r i v e Imperial Dr Ponderosa DriveNezPerceDrive NezPerceCtHeatherCourt H o p i R d Carver Beach Road Penamint Court P e n a m intLaneRedw ing LaneChaparral LaneChaparral CtRedman LaneUtica CircleTecumsehLan e Preakness Lane R e d w i n g L a n e R e d wing Lane Pi maLaneUtica LanePreakness Lane Carver Beach Road RooseveltDrLake Lucy Road Western Drive Hiawatha Dr Cree Drive Woodhill Dr Redwi ng Crt C h a p a rr al LaneUtica La n eUticaTer r a c eLakewayDriveLake Lucy Road Lake Lucy Road West 63rd StAudubon CirCreekRu nTr a ilCardinalBlue Jay CirWest 63rd St Koehnen Circle East Koehnen Circle West Ringneck D rive P hea santCirRingneck D r ive WoodDu c k L anePartridge Cir WhiteDo ve Drive PheasantDrive S te ll e r Cir WoodD uckCirWood D u c k L aneTe a l C i r PintailCir WhiteDoveCirWood Duck LaneL a k e L u cy Road Lak e L u c y L a n eMurray Hill RoadGal pi nBl vd.(C.R.117)ChaskaRoadMelody Hill Lake Lucy RoadHummingbird RoadMolineCirMelody HillCirGalpinBlvd.(C.R.117)Melody H ill West 65th St reetMurrayHillRoad W h it e T a ilR id g e C t Crestv i e w C i r GalpinBlvd.(C.R.117)Crestview Dr Steller C o u r t Galpin Blvd. (C.R. 117)Highgate Cir Briarwood Ct.ManchesterDriveLakeLucyRoadLakeLucyRoadBrenden C r t Lake L u c y R oad HighoverDriveHighoverWay HighoverCrtSHa r ri s onHillTrailHa rriso n H illCrtHazeltineBlvd(Hwy41)Galpin Blvd. (C.R. 117)NorthwoodCrtLonga c r e s D r iv e FawnHillRoadRed F o x C i r LodgepolePointLongacresD riv e Hunte r Drive Hunter Drive GalpinBlvd.(C.R.117)H unter DriveFawnHillRoad FawnHillRoadFawnHill C r t L o n g a c r e s D riveS o u th e r n C rtGunflintCrt GunflintTrailH ills d ale C ourt M occasinTrl BentBowTrail M o cc a sinTrlBentBowTrailL o n g a cr esDrive HazeltineBlvd(Hwy41)Tanadoona Drive Ma j e s t i c W ay Windmill DriveBrinker StreetTulip CrtCrocusCrtWalnut Curve Praire Flower Blvd Galpin Blvd. (C.R. 117)St at e Hw y 5 Arboretum Boulevard S t a t e H w y 5 A r boretum Boulevard Cactus Cu rveS addlebrookC u r v e SaddlebrookPass Cany o n C u r v e State Hwy 5 A rbo re tum Boulevard A rboretumDrCri m sonBayRoadDogwood RdDogwood RdTanadoona Drive Chaska RoadHazeltineBlvd(Hwy41)Sommer Gate Hazeltine Blvd (Hwy 41)North M a n o r R o a d TanagersPointPiper R id g e L a n eTanagers LaneS a n d p ip e rTrailMinnew as hta WoodsDriveO r c h a r d Lane ForestCirForestAve Foxford RoadEastwood Court Foxford RoadP io n e e rT ra il(C S A H 14)Pioneer CirD e e rb ro o kD riveMea d o wl arkLaneHwy101 GreatPl a i nsBlvdW 94th S TSummerfieldDriveSummerfieldDr iveG reenview Dr i v eStone Creek CtLake Drive East Lake Drive East Ess e xRdSuffolkDrBurlwood DrR ose w o o dD rRo s e w o o d D r Po wers PlacePowers PlacePowersPlaceLake Riley BlvdLake R i l e y B l v d W 78th Street 6 4thStreetState Hwy 7 O r c h a r d L a n e Oriole AveState Hwy 7W.62nd St.S t a t e H w y 7 FirtreeAveDogwoodAveState Hwy 7 B a rbe rr yCircleCy pr es s Dri v eEl mtreeAveMaplew o od Cir Gr eenbri ar AveShore Drive ShoreDrive S ta te H w y7Church Road M eadow Crt MeadowL a n eCartway LaneW. 62nd St. S tateH w y 7 LandingsCourtL a n dingsDriveL a n d ingsDriveMinnewashtaParkwayK irk w ood C ir L in d e n Circle J o s h u a Cir LindenCircle PipewoodCurveP a d dock L ane StateHwy7Leslee CurveGlendaleDrive LesleeCurveCrestvie w D r Crestview Dr Maple DriveMaple Cir Glendale Drive Glendale Drive MinnewashtaParkwayCountryOaksRoadWhite Oak Lane Red Oak Lane CountryOaksRoadKings Road MinnewashtaParkwayJuniper AvenueRed Cedar Point Road South Cedar Driv e Red C e d a r P o i n t R o a d Maple S h or es D r i v e Hawthorne Cir Lakeridge R d MinnewashtaCrt MinnewashtaParkwayLak e ridgeRd Laker i d g e R d F o rrestRidgeCir77th St 77th St LoneCedarLa n e StateHwy5 W82ndStW 8 2 n d S t Highway 41W 82nd St CenturyBlvdGalpin Blvd (C.R. 15)BridleCre e kCir Stone Cre ek L n W Lukew ood Dr BenwoodCi rS t o n e C reek L nEStoneCreekRdGal pi nBl vd(C.R.19)Stone Cr ee k D rS to n e C r e e k D r LymanBlvd ( C S A H 1 8 )Ly manBl v d(CSAH18)ValleyViewPlaceValley Ridge Place ValleyRidge Trail South Sunrid g e C ourtAudubon RoadAudubon RoadAudubon RoadLake Drive West Lyman Blvd (CSAH 18) LymanBlvd(CSAH 18)Alisa LaneAlisaCourtOsprey Lan e Osprey Lane O s p r eyLaneBluebill Trai lSpoonbillCirB luebill TrailHeron Dr HeronD rBitternC o urt SwanCourtHeron Dr M allardCrt I bi s CourtSunsetTrailFlamingoDr Her o n D rLakeS us a n H i l l s D rive EgretCourtPelican Crt M erganserC rtTern Crt L ake S usa n H ill s Driv e PowersBlvd(C.R.17)Lake Drive W estLake Driv e W e s tMal lory CrtUpland C i rc le Lake Dri v e WestLa k e Court LakeSusanHillsD riv e West Lake DrLake S u sanHillsDriveDove Court Lake Sus a n H illsD riveWest Lak e D r DrakeCourtL a k e Su s a n H ills DriveLake Susan Drive Mary J aneCirLake Su s a n Dri v eChanhassenHillsDrNorthBarbara Crt LymanCourt L a k e SusanDriveLyman Blvd (CSAH 18)PowersBlvd(C.R.17)OaksideCirLakeSusanHill s D rive FlamingoDrThrush Crt Kingfisher Crt FlamingoDrLyman Blvd (CSAH 18)AudubonRoad(CSAH15)Audubon Road (CSAH 15)Pione e r T r a il(C S A H 1 4) Bl u f f C r e e k D r i v e Bluff Creek Drive WestFarmRoad We st F a r mRoadHeidi Lane West F a r m R o a d Bluff CircleWest Far m Road He sse FarmRd He s s e F a r m C i r c l e Bl u f f C r e e k D r i v e Hesse Farm Rd CS A H 6 1 / F l y i n g C l o u d D r i v e Stoughton Ave (C.R. NO. 10)StoughtonAve(C .R .N O .1 0 )CSAH 6 1/ Fl yi n g Cl o u d Dr CSAH 61/Fl yi n g Cl o u d D r CSAH 61/Flying Cloud Dr Hwy101GreatP la in s B lvdS tate H ig h w a y 1 0 1 C S A H 6 1 /F ly in g C lo u d D rCo Rd 61/ Fl yi n g Cl o u d Dr Vogelsb e r g T r l Hwy1 0 1 G r e atPlainsBlvdLakota Lan eMandanCreekwood Drive Hwy101 G r e at Pl ai nsBl vdBramble Driv eDelphinum LaneRaspberryHillHwy101GreatPlainsBlvdPioneer Trail (CSAH 14) Homestead LaneHomesteadLane FlintlockTrailH o me s t ea dLaneW. 96th Street Hwy101GreatPlainsBlvdPioneer Trail (CSAH 14) Pineview Court FoxfordRoadOverlookCrtSpringfieldDrive SpringfieldDriveS un n y v a l e D r iv e Sunnyvale D riv e S h o r e v ie wCrt Par klandWa y GreenleafCrtDeerfoot Trail DeerfootTrail Lyman Blvd (CSAH 18)Kiowa TrailLyman Blvd (CSAH 18)Quinn RoadL y m a n Blvd Lak e v i e w R o a d E N o rth B ayDr W 8 6 t h S t T i g u a L a n e Mission H illsCrt MissionHillsLaneHwy101GreatPlainsBlvdHwy101 Gr e at P lai n s B lv d Lake Drive Main StreetHidd e n CourtH iddenLane H id denLaneHiddenCourtSinne n C irMar s hDriveD a k o t a LaneLake Drive E ast Hi d d e n C i r DakotaLaneErie CirDakotaLaneErie SpurErie AveErie AveC h e yenneAveDakota A v e Cheyenne Av eDakota AveErie Av e Lake Drive East LakeDriveEastDell RoadDell RoadW 78th St. W 7 9 t h S t DakotaAveDakotaCir C h e ySp u r MarshDrive Grandview RdDakotaLnSantaFeCirES a d d l e b rook Trail Saddl eb r o o k Tr ailHighoverDriveChes Mar DrLilac Lane Lilac Lane Ridge RoadInd i a n H i l l R d Quiver D r Napa Dr Fox Hill Dr A u tu m n R id g e C tA utumnRidge W a yAutumn Ridge LNHarvest Way AutumnRidgeAveHarvestLaneAndrew Court McGlynn Drive 77th St.77th St.W 187th Ave.Q uattroDrDell RoadDell RoadDell RoadBlue Sage LN E S napdragonDrL a d ySlipperLN B lu e B o n n e t B lv d BlueBonnetBlvdPoppy Dr C o n e f l o w e rCrvSBanebe r r y W ay E BaneberryWayE But t ercupCr tConeflower CrvNPrimrose PlChicory WayCentury BlvdTrails E n d RdT ra ilsE n d R dTrailsEndRdArboretumVillageCt.Highwood Dr Market St Crestview Dr ManchesterDriveChest nutL N EdgewoodCt Expl o r e r T r .TrailsEndRdBridleCreekTr ai l BridleCreekTra i l TWIN CI TI E S & W E S T E R N R AI L R O A D TWIN CI TI E S & W E ST E R N R AI L R O A D TWIN CITIES & W E S T E R N R A I L R O A D W 86th St Marshland Trl M o n k C r t R ic e CrtMissionWayHillW Mission W ayHillEHeartlandCrtBlac k birdCrt M a y f ieldCrtLake Susan DriveLake Riley DrMissionH ills Dr. Mission Hills Dr.Frisc oCrtCoulter Blvd. Coulter Bl v d . Acorn L a n e Maple wood Ter Mission HillsLane MissionHillsCircleMerry Pl a c e Lone Eagle Dr M e l o d y H i l l Melody LaneCypressDriveTop a z Dri veSapphireLaneDia mo n dCrt RubyLaneRuby L a n e BaneberryWay W Clov e r Cou rt Clover Co u r t B l u e S a g e L N W WaterleafLane EWaterleafLaneW Century Cir W78th Stre e t Arbo r e tu mVillageCir(pvt. rd)Pleasant View WayRedCedarCoveRed CedarCove Ches M a r F a r m R d Big Wood s Blvd KimberlyL n Kimberly LN Kelly Ct N ic k o lasWaySantaFeCirWMulberryCir cl e WMulb e rry Circl eEC h anhassenHillsDrSouthL ake Sus a nC ourtHallgren L a n e Country Oaks Drive Stratford LnStratfordBlvdStratfordRidge HorseshoeCrvState Hwy 5 Arboretum Boulevard W 78THStreet W 7 8 T H Street Chan h assen Hills Dr North T.H.212T.H.212 T.H.212T.H.212T.H.212Century Tr a ilArboretum VillageCirLucyRidge C ourtLucyRidgeLan eCoulter Boul e v a r dCentury BlvdCorporate Place Village Lane Village Crt Powers BlvdWestwood DrVillage Cir Village PlVi l lage S t CoachCtC o a c h Dr Arboretum V i l la g e T rCoachLnCoach PlArboretum Vill. Ln.Century CtCentury PlArboretum Village Crv ArboretumVillagePl.W78TH Street Murray Hill Crt L ake Drive P o n d P rom e n a d ePipewoodCurvePipewood LanePipewood Curve Leslee C u r v e Emerald L a n e RubyLaneTopaz Drive Ridgevie w P oi n t Water Tower Place VassermanTr RidgeviewWayRi d g e v i e w W a y Mohawk DrPawnee DriveArbor LaneWashtaBay Ct D a r t m o u t h Drive Ridgehill RdTristin Knol l TristinDrive Was h t aBayRoad KNOB HILL LA N E Vasse r manTrailVassermanPlace Hickory Rd Hick ory R o a d Shenandoah GoldenCourtTreetop RoadMill Creek LnKings Road Kings RoadPipew ood Crt Pipewood Cir W79th S t Great Plains BlvdGreat Plains BlvdS te llers CtPinehurstDrA m berwo o d L a n e Al d e r W a y F o x DrLakeHarriso n C ircle L a k e H arrisonRoad Highov e r T r a ilGal pin CourtL ongacre s D riv eArrowheadLnGunflintTrailHighcrestCirHighoverDrHighoverCrtNPipewood Lane StonefieldLaneB lu ffCreekBlvdColonial Ln Plymouth Ln Freedom LnIndependence CirI ndependenceCirHorseshoe LnBlaze TrlB lu ffCreekBlvdEllendale LnPembrokePass Degler Circle RiverRockDriveN78thStW BeaconCrtW atersEdgeDrWaters Edge DrFoxHollowCtCrossroadsBlvd Co lu mb ia Ln Co m m o n w ealth Blvd Bluff Creek BlvdHwy 101 Great Plains BlvdWestw o o d D r Westwood DrSouthwest Village Dr Southwest Village DrApple Tree LaneBluffCreekDriveM a y a p p lePassH e m lo c k W a y Mills Drive Mills Drive Lake Riley DrHallgren Ct 6829RockyI sl a ndLN RileyRidge Arrow- head Ct ReflectionsRdChesterfieldLn Motorplex Ct C o u l t e r Boulevard Reflections RdBellevueCtL a k e viewRoadEDegler Circl e Hemlock Way H e mlo c k Way Cottongr a s s Ct M a r ig o ld C o u r tWy n s o n g L N Jeurissen LnRiverR oc k Dr SRiver Rock Dr NRive r RockDriveS C a md en RidgeDrHenryCo urtSouthWestVillage LoopStra w b e r r y L a n eStrawbe r r y Lane F a wnHi l l Road Pres e r v e CtDegler LNRiver Rock Dr N StateHWY101EagleRidgeR dHawkcrestCir HawkcrestCtEagle CtEagleRidgeRdCrossroad Ct AnthemPlace Potential Property Acquisition Taxparcel µ 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,0001,000 FeetDelphinum LaneRaspberryHillPioneer Trail (CSAH 14)FlintlockTrailH o me s t ea dLanePioneer Trail (CSAH 14) Pictometry 2017 0 500 1,000250 Feet Potential Property Acquisition K:\NickLH\Projects\PW\Engineering\For Paul\2018\January\PropertyAcquis\Property Acquistion_V2.mxd CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, August 27, 2018 Subject Resolution 2018­41: Authorize the City of Chanhassen to participate in the GreenStep Cities program Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.5. Prepared By Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The Chanhassen City Council Adopts a Resolution Authorizing the City of Chanhassen to participate in the GreenStep Cities program.” Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. DISCUSSION The Chanhassen Environmental Commission is requesting authorization for the city to participate in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program. This is a voluntary, non­regulatory program that dovetails into current city practices, such as permeable pavers.  The program recognizes cities’ accomplishments through a series of steps. Cities are under no obligation to complete any of the steps and can withdraw from the program at any time. Step 1 is passing a resolution to participate. By adopting this resolution, the city would become a Step 1 city. Step 2 involves documenting current practices, which the Environmental Commission will assist city staff in gathering. There are no expectations to achieve any number of actions or steps and the city will work at its own pace and interest. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: RESOLUTION N0: MOTION BY: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SECONDED BY-: - - - - - - - - - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MINNESOTA GREENSTEP CITIES PROGRAM WHEREAS, Minnesota Session Laws 2008, Chapter 356, Section 13 directed the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”) and Office of Energy Security in the Department of Commerce (“Office of Energy Security”), in collaboration with Clean Energy Resource Teams (“CERTs”); and WHEREAS, a broad coalition of public and private stakeholders including the League of Minnesota Cities, the MPCA, Office of Energy Security, and CERTs responded to the 2008 legislation by establishing the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program; and WHEREAS, Minnesota GreenStep Cities is a voluntary challenge program; and WHEREAS, GreenStep is a free, continuous improvement program, managed by a public- private partnership, and based upon 29 best practices covering five categories: (1) Buildings and Lighting; (2) Transportation; (3) Land Use; (4) Environmental Management; and (5) Economic and Community Development; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program with 122 currently participating municipalities, including many neighboring cities, assists in collaboration and facilitating technical assistance; and WHEREAS, efforts taken by the City of Chanhassen closely align with the goals promoted by the GreenStep Cities Program. To date, the City of Chanhassen has already: (1) Adopted a comprehensive plan approved by the Metropolitan Council; and (2) Adopted a water ordinance to preserve and protect drinking/ground water resources; and (3) Been designated as a Tree City USA for the last 23 years; and (4) Adopted a tree preservation and/or native landscaping ordinance; and (5) Adopted a shoreland ordinance for all river and lake shoreland areas; and (6) Created a mechanism to address failed or non-compliant septic systems; and (7) Adopted a subsurface sewage treatment system ordinance based on the Association of Minnesota Counties’ model ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen continues ongoing pursuit of voluntary activities and continual process improvements such as: (1) Conducting public service education campaigns to conserve our community’s water resources; and (2) Continuing to improve the City’s parks and trails; and (3) Promoting recycling and composting; and (4) Promoting and implementing cost-effective energy efficiency improvements in all city operations to minimize the tax burden on our citizenry; and (5) Continuing to be good stewards of our valuable and limited natural resources. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Chanhassen City Council does hereby authorize the City of Chanhassen to participate in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program. Be it further resolved that the City appoints the City of Chanhassen Environmental Commission to serve as GreenStep coordinator to document, identify, and facilitate best practice implementation. In addition, the Environmental Commission shall provide a report to the City Council once a year on how well the GreenStep Cities Program is serving the city. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this ____ day of _______, 201_. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, August 27, 2018 Subject Resolution No. 2018­42: Accept Ads for Bid; Award Contract for the Lake Susan Trail Rehabilitation Project Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.6. Prepared By George Bender, Assistant City Engineer File No: PW440A PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the low bid for the Lake Susan Trail Rehabilitation Project from Barber Construction in the amount of $202,800.00."  Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND The Engineering and Parks departments have worked together to determine the overall condition of the trail along the west side of Lake Susan which has declined to the point of necessitating a rehabilitation project in order to maintain its functionality. In several areas, tree roots have grown under the trail and created problematic areas. Engineering has also identified several areas where drain tile should be installed to address high groundwater and areas that drain poorly.  Culverts under the trail have deteriorated and should be replaced.  The Parks department suggested several improvements to assist with the maintenance of the trail. There are sharply curved areas along the existing trail that are being widened or slightly re­aligned to allow maintenance and plowing vehicles improved access in order to efficiently perform their tasks. In addition, there are trail connections to the nearby streets that required Engineering to coordinate with existing homeowners in order to facilitate access and trail widening. New ADA accessible pedestrian ramps meeting current standards are being added at the trail connections to the street. DISCUSSION The existing trail is proposed to be reclaimed and the gravel generated by the project will be reused under the trail. A new bituminous trail section built to current city standards will be paved to re­establish the trail surface. Several improvements are being made to address user safety such as removal of some trees that have matured over time or individual roots that are growing under the trail and creating hazards.  RECOMMENDATION CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, August 27, 2018SubjectResolution No. 2018­42: Accept Ads for Bid; Award Contract for the Lake Susan TrailRehabilitation ProjectSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.6.Prepared By George Bender, Assistant City Engineer File No: PW440APROPOSED MOTION“The City Council approves the low bid for the Lake Susan Trail Rehabilitation Project from Barber Construction inthe amount of $202,800.00." Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDThe Engineering and Parks departments have worked together to determine the overall condition of the trail along thewest side of Lake Susan which has declined to the point of necessitating a rehabilitation project in order to maintain itsfunctionality.In several areas, tree roots have grown under the trail and created problematic areas. Engineering has also identifiedseveral areas where drain tile should be installed to address high groundwater and areas that drain poorly.  Culvertsunder the trail have deteriorated and should be replaced. The Parks department suggested several improvements to assist with the maintenance of the trail. There are sharplycurved areas along the existing trail that are being widened or slightly re­aligned to allow maintenance and plowingvehicles improved access in order to efficiently perform their tasks.In addition, there are trail connections to the nearby streets that required Engineering to coordinate with existinghomeowners in order to facilitate access and trail widening. New ADA accessible pedestrian ramps meeting currentstandards are being added at the trail connections to the street.DISCUSSIONThe existing trail is proposed to be reclaimed and the gravel generated by the project will be reused under the trail. Anew bituminous trail section built to current city standards will be paved to re­establish the trail surface. Severalimprovements are being made to address user safety such as removal of some trees that have matured over time orindividual roots that are growing under the trail and creating hazards.  RECOMMENDATION The City of Chanhassen put together a rehabilitation project and solicited bids from contractors. Bids were opened on Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. Three quotes were received as follows: 1. Barber Construction       $202,800.00 2. Bituminous Roadways    $308,856.05 3. GMH Asphalt                  $336,466.10 The low bidder was Barber Construction. The Engineer's Estimate for the project was $229,212.50. Barber Construction has previously worked for the city on other trail projects; the most recent being the Rice Marsh Lake trail project. This project was constructed in 2013 and was similarly sized to the Lake Susan Hills Trail project from an overall value perspective. Barber Construction's previous work has been acceptable. Funding is proposed to come from the revolving street assessment fund.  The 2018 project was delayed due to funding discussion regarding proposed franchise fees.   ATTACHMENTS: Bid Summary and Tabulation Resolution PROJECT: Lake Susan Trail Rehabilitation Project OWNER: City of Chanhassen CITY PROJECT NO.: PW440A Bids Opened: Tuesday, August 21st, 2018 at 2:00PM Contractor Bid Security (5%) Add. No. 1 Rec'd.Grand Total Bid Corrected Total Bid 1 Barber Construction Co., Inc. X N/A $202,800.00 2 Bituminous Roadways, Inc. X N/A $308,856.05 3 GMH Asphalt Corporation X N/A $336,466.10 $342,457.10 Engineer's Opinion of Cost $229,212.50 Denotes corrected value Assistant City Engineer BID TABULATION SUMMARY George Bender, PE I hereby certify that this is a true and correct tabulation of the bids as received on August 21st, 2018. Item Description Estimated Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total#Quantity Units Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price1 Mobilization1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $27,000.00 $27,000.002 Perimiter Erosion Control Fence1,650 LF $2.00 $3,300.00 $1.50 $2,475.00 $1.55 $2,557.50 $2.25 $3,712.503 Bio Logs1,650 LF $2.00 $3,300.00 $1.00 $1,650.00 $2.75 $4,537.50 $3.50 $5,775.004 Remove Culvert49 LF $20.00 $980.00 $5.00 $245.00 $50.00 $2,450.00 $7.50 $367.505 Clear and Grub1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,600.00 $5,600.00 $5,800.00 $5,800.006 Clear and Grub per Tree 6"-10"6 EA $800.00 $4,800.00 $300.00 $1,800.00 $330.00 $1,980.00 $575.00 $3,450.007 Clear and Grub per Tree 10" & Greater3 EA $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 $550.00 $1,650.00 $650.00 $1,950.008 Remove Tree Roots Under Trail (See S.P.) 6 EA $100.00 $600.00 $200.00 $1,200.00 $220.00 $1,320.00 $300.00 $1,800.009 Common Excavation38 CY $10.00 $380.00 $20.00 $760.00 $100.00 $3,800.00 $55.00 $2,090.0010 Subgrade Excavation (For Soft Areas Encountered) 50 CY $10.00 $500.00 $20.00 $1,000.00 $100.00 $5,000.00 $65.00 $3,250.0011 Full Depth Reclamation5,283 SY $3.50 $18,490.50 $1.50 $7,924.50 $5.35 $28,264.05 $8.90 $47,018.7012 Topsoil Borrow200 CY $20.00 $4,000.00 $20.00 $4,000.00 $48.00 $9,600.00 $65.00 $13,000.0013 Seed MnDOT Mix 25-1316,900 SY $0.25 $1,725.00 $0.25 $1,725.00 $0.45 $3,105.00 $0.30 $2,070.0014 Sod Disturbed Area850 SY $7.00 $5,950.00 $10.00 $8,500.00 $16.50 $14,025.00 $7.50 $6,375.0015 Erosion Control Blanket (Cat. 3N)6,901 SY $2.00 $13,802.00 $1.50 $10,351.50 $1.50 $10,351.50 $1.50 $10,351.5016 Adjust Existing Sanitary Manhole Casting 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00 $250.00 $500.00 $350.00 $700.00 $600.00 $1,200.0017 I & I Shield For Sanitary Manholes2 EA $200.00 $400.00 $250.00 $500.00 $750.00 $1,500.00 $100.00 $200.0018 12" RCP Class 584 LF $50.00 $4,200.00 $50.00 $4,200.00 $100.00 $8,400.00 $104.75 $8,799.0019 12" FES6 EA $1,000.00 $6,000.00 $800.00 $4,800.00 $900.00 $5,400.00 $1,225.00 $7,350.0020 RIP RAP Class III28 CY $100.00 $2,800.00 $100.00 $2,800.00 $220.00 $6,160.00 $125.00 $3,500.0021 4" PVC Pipe145 LF $30.00 $4,350.00 $5.00 $725.00 $26.00 $3,770.00 $23.50 $3,407.5022 4" Perforated PVC Draintile w/Drainage Rock & Fabric 295 LF $30.00 $8,850.00 $9.00 $2,655.00 $28.00 $8,260.00 $29.60 $8,732.0023 4" Drain Tile Clean Out5 EA $95.00 $475.00 $250.00 $1,250.00 $600.00 $3,000.00 $175.00 $875.0024 Pipe Foundation34 CY $35.00 $1,190.00 $30.00 $1,020.00 $80.00 $2,720.00 $29.25 $994.5025 Remove Exisitng Casting & Replace with R-3501-TR Casting 1 EA $850.00 $850.00 $950.00 $950.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $750.00 $750.0026 Adjust Existing Storm Manhole Casting2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00 $250.00 $500.00 $350.00 $700.00 $600.00 $1,200.0027 4" Concrete Headwall5 EA $200.00 $1,000.00 $600.00 $3,000.00 $1,200.00 $6,000.00 $350.00 $1,750.0028 Remove Exisitng Curb & Gutter w/Sawing 60 LF $5.00 $300.00 $14.00 $840.00 $23.00 $1,380.00 $12.00 $720.0029 Sawcut Bituminous90 LF $3.50 $315.00 $5.00 $450.00 $1.65 $148.50 $3.50 $315.0030 Remove Existing Concrete Sidewalk w/Sawing 100 SF $1.00 $100.00 $5.00 $500.00 $14.50 $1,450.00 $6.25 $625.0031 Remove Existing Bituminous Pavement 68 SY $4.00 $272.00 $7.00 $476.00 $18.00 $1,224.00 $6.25 $425.0032 Class 5 Aggregate Base 200 TON $35.00 $7,000.00 $20.00 $4,000.00 $36.00 $7,200.00 $33.60 $6,720.0033 3" Minus Rock (For Soft Areas Encountered) 50 CY $90.00 $4,500.00 $49.00 $2,450.00 $115.00 $5,750.00 $40.00 $2,000.0034 Bituminous Wear (MnDOT 2360 SPWEA340B) 943 TON $95.00 $89,585.00 $86.00 $81,098.00 $103.00 $97,129.00 $127.45 $120,185.3535 Concrete Mountable Curb & Gutter60 LF $30.00 $1,800.00 $70.00 $4,200.00 $72.00 $4,320.00 $69.75 $4,185.0036 Bituminous Pavement Patching18 SY $6.00 $108.00 $50.00 $900.00 $80.00 $1,440.00 $33.60 $604.8037 5' Concrete Sidewalk w/ 4" Base200 SF $7.00 $1,400.00 $20.00 $4,000.00 $18.00 $3,600.00 $13.75 $2,750.0038 Pedestrian Curb Ramp3 EA $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $3,500.00 $10,500.00 $3,650.00 $10,950.00 $3,500.00 $10,500.0039 Type 3 Barricades6 EA $300.00 $1,800.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 $950.00 $5,700.00 $1,200.00 $7,200.0040 Remove Stump/Rock from Trail Subgrade 4 EA $200.00 $800.00 $250.00 $1,000.00 $350.00 $1,400.00 $350.00 $1,400.0041 Street Sweeping10 HR $120.00 $1,200.00 $100.00 $1,000.00 $165.00 $1,650.00 $140.00 $1,400.0042 Floating Silt Curtain50 LF $60.00 $3,000.00 $10.00 $500.00 $15.50 $775.00 $16.50 $825.0043 Class 5 Aggregate Base for Trail Bypass Lane 24 TON $35.00 $840.00 $20.00 $480.00 $36.00 $864.00 $28.75 $690.0044 6' Cedar Fence175 LF $30.00 $5,250.00 $65.00 $11,375.00 $55.00 $9,625.00 $52.25 $9,143.75TOTALS$229,212.50 $202,800.00 $308,856.05 $342,457.10Corrected due to error =Lake Susan Trail Rehabilitation ProjectBid Tabulation and ComparisonBarber Construction Co., Inc. Bituminous Roadways, Inc.Engineer's EstimateGMH Asphalt Corporation CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: August 27, 2018 RESOLUTION NO: 2018-43 MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE LAKE SUSAN TRAIL REHABILITATION PROJECT PW440A WHEREAS, pursuant to an ad for bids for the Lake Susan Trail Rehabilitation project, three bids were received and opened. The bids are as follows: AND WHEREAS, Barber Construction is the lowest responsible bidder with a total bid amount of $202,800.00. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Chanhassen City Council: 1. The mayor and clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Barber Construction in the name of the City of Chanhassen for the Lake Susan Trail Rehabilitation project according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the city clerk. 2. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 27th day of August, 2018. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor YES NO ABSENT Bidder Total Bid 1. Barber Construction $202,800.00 2. Bituminous Roadways $308,856.05 3. GMH Asphalt $336,466.10 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, August 27, 2018 Subject Award of Bid: Audit Services Contract for Fiscal Years 2018­2020 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: A­066 PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council awards the bid for the Audit Services Contract for Fiscal Years 2018­2020 to Redpath and Company.” Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND Approximately every three years staff accepts bids for a professional services contract for auditing services. The city’s current contract is with Redpath and Company. Attached are the bids received from five firms that specialize in local government audits. Staff also requested that the proposals include a bid to provide audit services for the Chanhassen Fire Relief Association. The evaluation was based on five criteria: 1. Cost 2. Audit Start Date 3. Experience of Staff 4. Audit Approach 5. Involvement in the MNGFOA After reviewing the bids for both the City and Fire Relief Association, it is staff’s opinion that the proposals were all relatively close in terms of cost, staff experience, and involvement with the MNGFOA. The separating factors were the audit approach proposed by Redpath and Company of a continuous audit that reviews more of the inputs, and the audit start date. Staff is recommending that the city engage the firm of Redpath and Company for audit years 2018­ 2020. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council award the bid for the audit services contract in years 2018­2020 with Redpath & Company, per the attached engagement. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, August 27, 2018SubjectAward of Bid: Audit Services Contract for Fiscal Years 2018­2020SectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: A­066PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council awards the bid for the Audit Services Contract for Fiscal Years 2018­2020 to Redpath andCompany.”Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDApproximately every three years staff accepts bids for a professional services contract for auditing services. The city’scurrent contract is with Redpath and Company.Attached are the bids received from five firms that specialize in local government audits. Staff also requested that theproposals include a bid to provide audit services for the Chanhassen Fire Relief Association. The evaluation wasbased on five criteria:1. Cost2. Audit Start Date3. Experience of Staff4. Audit Approach5. Involvement in the MNGFOAAfter reviewing the bids for both the City and Fire Relief Association, it is staff’s opinion that the proposals were allrelatively close in terms of cost, staff experience, and involvement with the MNGFOA. The separating factors werethe audit approach proposed by Redpath and Company of a continuous audit that reviews more of the inputs, and theaudit start date. Staff is recommending that the city engage the firm of Redpath and Company for audit years 2018­2020.RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council award the bid for the audit services contract in years 2018­2020 with Redpath & Company, per the attached engagement. ATTACHMENTS: Bid Results Engagement Letter/Contract CityFirm 2018 2019 2020 Audit Start Date Involve MNGFOA Staff Experience Audit Approach Audit Start Date Cost ScoreRedpath 37,000$ 38,000$ 39,000$ 4/22/2019 20 15 20 20 10 85KDV34,800 35,200 35,750 April 15 15 10 15 20 75MMKR38,400 39,140 39,950 April 15 15 15 15 10 70Abdo Eick & Meyers 37,000 37,900 38,800 4/1/2019 15 15 15 15 10 70Clifton Larson Allen 34,500 35,500 36,500 4/22/2019 15 15 10 20 20 80Fire ReliefFirm 2018 2019 2020Redpath6,250$ 6,600$ 6,850$ KDV5,950 6,000 6,100 MMKR6,595 6,710 6,850 Abdo Eick & Meyers 6,700 6,830 6,960 Clifton Larson Allen 6,100 6,250 6,400 City of Chanhassen2018 City & Fire Relief Audit Bids 4810 White Bear Parkway, St. Paul, MN, 55110 651.426.7000 www.redpathcpas.com August 16, 2018 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we are to provide the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota (the City) for the years ending December 31, 2018 through 2020. The scope of services includes the following: Audit and Related Services  We will audit the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business- type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information, including the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements of the City of Chanhassen , Minnesota as of and for the years ending December 31, 2018 through 2020. Accounting standards generally accepted in the United States of America provide for certain required supplementary information (RSI), such as management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A), to supplement the City’s basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. As part of our engagement, we will apply certain limited procedures to the City’s RSI in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. These limited procedures will consist of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We will not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. The following RSI is required by generally accepted accounting principles and will be subjected to certain limited procedures, but will not be audited: 1. Management’s discussion and analysis 2. Budgetary comparison schedules presented as RSI 3. Pension Related RSI (GASB 68) 4. Schedule of funding progress - OPEB City of Chanhassen Contract for Auditing Services Page 2 2840062 We have also been engaged to report on supplementary information other than RSI that accompanies the City’s financial statements. We will subject the following supplementary information to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and will provide an opinion on it in relation to the financial statements as a whole in a report combined with our auditors report on the financial statements: 1. Combining and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules 2. Supplementary Financial Information The following other information accompanying the financial statements will not be subjected to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements, and our auditor’s report will not provide an opinion or any assurance on that other information: o Introductory section o Statistical section The following other reports will be issued in conjunction with the financial audit:  State Legal Compliance Audit  Audit Management Letter Nonaudit Services  Preparation of draft financial statements document. City to provide introductory section, MD&A, footnote information and statistical section.  Copying and binding of financial statement document. Audit Objectives The objective of our audit is the expression of opinions as to whether your financial statements are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and to report on the fairness of the supplementary information referred to in the second paragraph when considered in relation to the financial statements as a whole. Our audit will be conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and the minimum procedures for auditors as prescribed by MS 6.65, and will include tests of the City of Chanhassen Contract for Auditing Services Page 3 2840062 accounting records of the City of Chanhassen and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express such opinions. We will issue a written report upon completion of our audit of the City’s financial statements. Our report will be addressed to the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. We cannot provide assurance that unmodified opinions will be expressed. Circumstances may arise in which it is necessary for us to modify our opinions or add emphasis-of-matter or other-matter paragraphs. If our opinions on the financial statements are other than unmodified, we will discuss the reasons with you in advance. If, for any reason, we are unable to complete the audit or are unable to form or have not formed opinions, we may decline to express opinions or issue reports, or may withdraw from this engagement. We will also provide a report (that does not include an opinion) on internal control related to the financial statements and compliance with the provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a material effect on the financial statements as required by Government Auditing Standards. The report on internal control and on compliance and other matters will include a paragraph that states (1) that the purpose of the report is solely to describe the scope of testing of internal control and compliance, and the result of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control on compliance, and (2) that the report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. The paragraph will also state that the report is not suitable for any other purpose. If during our audit we become aware that the City is subject to an audit requirement that is not encompassed in the terms of this engagement, we will communicate to management and those charged with governance that an audit in accordance with U.S. generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards may not satisfy the relevant legal, regulatory, or contractual requirements. Audit Procedures - General An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of transactions to be examined and the areas to be tested. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We will plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable rather than absolute assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether from (1) errors, (2) fraudulent financial reporting, (3) misappropriation of assets, or (4) violations of laws or governmental regulations that are attributable to the entity or to acts by management or employees acting on behalf of the entity. Because the determination of abuse is subjective, Government Auditing Standards do not expect auditors to provide reasonable assurance of detecting abuse. City of Chanhassen Contract for Auditing Services Page 4 2840062 Because of the inherent limitations of an audit, combined with the inherent limitations of internal control, and because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material misstatements may exist and not be detected by us, even though the audit is properly planned and performed in accordance with U.S. generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards. In addition, an audit is not designed to detect immaterial misstatements or violations of laws or governmental regulations that do not have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, we will inform the appropriate level of management of any material errors, any fraudulent financial reporting, or misappropriation of assets that come to our attention. We will also inform the appropriate level of management of any violations of laws or governmental regulations that come to our attention, unless clearly inconsequential, and of any material abuse that comes to our attention. Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to later periods for which we are not engaged as auditors. Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the accounts, and may include tests of the physical existence of inventories, and direct confirmation of receivables and certain other assets and liabilities by correspondence with selected individuals, funding sources, creditors, and financial institutions. We may request written representations from your attorneys as part of the engagement, and they may bill you for responding to this inquiry. At the conclusion of our audit, we will require certain written representations from you about the financial statements; compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements; and other responsibilities required by generally accepted auditing standards. Audit Procedures - Internal Controls Our audit will include obtaining an understanding of the entity and its environment, including internal control, sufficient to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and to design the nature, timing, and extent of further audit procedures. Tests of controls may be performed to test the effectiveness of certain controls that we consider relevant to preventing and detecting errors and fraud that are material to the financial statements and to preventing and detecting misstatements resulting from illegal acts and other noncompliance matters that have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. Our tests, if performed, will be less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on internal control and, accordingly, no opinion will be expressed in our report on internal control issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards. An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. However, during the audit, we will communicate to management and those charged with governance internal control related matters that are required to be communicated under AICPA professional standards and Government Auditing Standards. City of Chanhassen Contract for Auditing Services Page 5 2840062 Audit Procedures—Compliance As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we will perform tests of the City’s compliance with the provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, agreements, and grants. However, the objective of our audit will not be to provide an opinion on overall compliance and we will not express such an opinion in our report on compliance issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards. The Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Cities requires that we test whether the auditee has complied with certain provisions of Minnesota Statutes. Our audit will include such test of the accounting records and other procedures as we consider necessary in the circumstances. Management Responsibilities Management is responsible for designing, implementing and maintaining effective internal controls, including evaluating and monitoring ongoing activities, to help ensure that appropriate goals and objectives are met; following laws and regulations; and ensuring that management is reliable and financial information is reliable and properly reported. Management is also responsible for implementing systems designed to achieve compliance with applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements. You are also responsible for the selection and application of accounting principles, for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, and for compliance with applicable laws and regulations and the provisions of contracts and grant agreements. Management is also responsible for making all financial records and related information available to and for the accuracy and completeness of that information. You are also responsible for providing us with (1) access to all information of which you are aware that is relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements, (2) additional information that we may request for the purpose of the audit, and (3) unrestricted access to persons within the government from whom we determine it necessary to obtain audit evidence. Your responsibilities include adjusting the financial statements to correct material misstatements and for confirming to us in the written representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by us during the current engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. City of Chanhassen Contract for Auditing Services Page 6 2840062 You are responsible for the design and implementation of programs and controls to prevent and detect fraud, and for informing us about all known or suspected fraud affecting the government involving (1) management, (2) employees who have significant roles in internal control, and (3) others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements. Your responsibilities include informing us of your knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the government received in communications from employees, former employees, grantors, regulators, or others. In addition, you are responsible for identifying and ensuring that the entity complies with applicable laws, regulations, contracts, agreements, and grants and for taking timely and appropriate steps to remedy fraud and noncompliance with provisions of laws, regulations, contracts or grant agreements, or abuse that we report. You are responsible for the preparation of the supplementary information in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. You agree to include our report on the supplementary information in any document that contains and indicates that we have reported on the supplementary information. You also agree to include the audited financial statements with any presentation of the supplementary information that includes our report thereon. Your responsibilities include acknowledging to us in the written representation letter that (1) you are responsible for presentation of the supplementary information in accordance with GAAP; (2) you believe the supplementary information, including its form and content, is fairly presented in accordance with GAAP; (3) the methods of measurement or presentation have not changed from those used in the prior period (or, if they have changed, the reasons for such changes); and (4) you have disclosed to us any significant assumptions or interpretations underlying the measurement or presentation of the supplementary information. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a process for tracking the status of audit findings and recommendations. Management is also responsible for identifying for us previous financial audits, attestation engagements, performance audits or other studies related to the objectives discussed in the Audit Objectives section of this letter. This responsibility includes relaying to us corrective actions taken to address significant findings and recommendations resulting from those audits, attestation engagements, performance audits, or other studies. You are also responsible for providing management’s views on our current findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as well as your planned corrective actions, for the report, and for the timing and format for providing that information. With regard to the electronic dissemination of audited financial statements, including financial statements published electronically on your website, you understand that electronic sites are a means to distribute information and, therefore, we are not required to read the City of Chanhassen Contract for Auditing Services Page 7 2840062 information contained in these sites or to consider the consistency of other information in the electronic site with the original document. You agree to assume all management responsibilities relating to the financial statements and related notes and any other nonaudit services we provide. You will be required to acknowledge in the management representation letter our assistance with preparation of the financial statements and related notes that you have reviewed and approved the financial statements and related notes prior to their issuance and have accepted responsibility for them. Further, you agree to oversee the nonaudit services by designating an individual, preferably from senior management, with suitable skill, knowledge, or experience; evaluate the adequacy and results of those services; and accept responsibility for them. Engagement Administration, Fees and Other We may from time to time, and depending on the circumstances, use third-party service providers in serving your account. We may share confidential information about you with these service providers, but remain committed to maintaining the confidentiality and security of your information. Accordingly, we maintain internal policies, procedures, and safeguards to protect the confidentiality of your personal information. In addition, we will secure confidentiality agreements with all service providers to maintain the confidentiality of your information and we will take reasonable precautions to determine that they have appropriate procedures in place to prevent the unauthorized release of your confidential information to others. In the event that we are unable to secure an appropriate confidentiality agreement, you will be asked to provide your consent prior to the sharing of your confidential information with the third-party service provider. Furthermore, we will remain responsible for the work provided by any such third-party service providers. We understand that your employees will prepare all cash or other confirmations we request and will locate any documents selected by us for testing. We will provide copies of our reports to the City, however, management is responsible for distribution of the reports and the financial statements. Unless restricted by law or regulation, or containing privileged and confidential information, copies of our reports are to be made available for public inspection. The audit documentation for this engagement is the property of Redpath and Company, Ltd. and constitutes confidential information. However, subject to applicable laws and regulations, audit documentation and appropriate individuals will be made available upon request and in a timely manner to a federal agency providing direct or indirect funding, or the U.S. Government Accountability Office for purposes of a quality review of the audit, to resolve audit findings, or to carry out oversight responsibilities. We will notify you of any such request. If requested, access to such audit documentation will be provided under the City of Chanhassen Contract for Auditing Services Page 8 2840062 supervision of Redpath and Company, Ltd. personnel. Furthermore, upon request, we may provide copies of selected audit documentation to the aforementioned parties. These parties may intend, or decide, to distribute the copies or information contained therein to others, including other governmental agencies. The audit documentation for this engagement will be retained for a minimum of five years after the report release date or for any additional period requested by the federal agency. If we are aware that a federal awarding agency or auditee is contesting an audit finding, we will contact the party(ies) contesting the audit finding for guidance prior to destroying the audit documentation. David J. Mol, CPA is the engagement partner and is responsible for supervising the engagement and signing the report. Our standard hourly rates vary according to the degree of responsibility involved and the experience level of the personnel assigned to your audit. Our invoices for these fees will be rendered each month as work progresses and are payable on presentation. Unless additional work is requested, or circumstances require additional work, we estimate the basic audit fees will be as follows: 2018 2019 2020 Financial and State legal compliance audits and CAFR preparation and processing $37,000 $38,000 $39,000 The above fees are based on the anticipated scope of services and the completion of accurate special assessment work papers by City personnel. An increase in the scope of service will necessitate an addendum (change order) to this agreement. Examples of items that may result in an increase in the scope of service include additional audit procedures resulting from certain accounting issues or events, significant change in the level of activity/number of transactions, if there is an indication of misappropriation or misuse of public funds, or difficulties encountered due to lack of accounting records, incomplete records, inaccurate records or turnover in the City’s staff. City of Chanhassen Contract for Auditing Services Page 9 2840062 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota and believe this letter accurately summarizes the significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions, please let us know. If you agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please sign the enclosed copy and return it to us. Sincerely, REDPATH AND COMPANY, LTD. David J. Mol, CPA DJM/ajf Response This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota: Management signature: Governance signature: By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: Nonaudit Services The employee(s) assigned to oversee the nonaudit services is as follows:  Finance Director  Other employee (name and title) CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, August 27, 2018 Subject The Garden by the Woods: Proposal for Pollinator Garden on City Property Section VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Item No: E.1. Prepared By Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist File No:  SUMMARY A representative from The Garden by The Woods will be giving a Visitor Presentation to the City Council regarding a proposed pollinator garden project to be located on city property near the garden center. The proposed project will beautify city property, offer an opportunity for community members to be engaged, and provide habitat for pollinators. The project proposal is attached. ATTACHMENTS: Project Proposal CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, August 27, 2018 Subject Fire Department Update Section FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE Item No: F.1. Prepared By Don Johnson, Fire Chief File No:  SUMMARY The monthly update for the Chanhassen Fire Department to include call data from June/July 2018.  BACKGROUND Fire Department Staffing Staffing is at 43 of 45 paid on­call firefighters as of the end of July. We have one firefighter currently on medical leave. The 2018 rookie class started the Southwest Fire Academy on July 31st and will be in training until May 2019. The academy is currently being held in Edina and Captain LeFevere is assisting with much of the teaching. The current curriculum is Firefighter I training scheduled to wrap up at the end of the November. This group can begin responding to calls after completing FF1. Fire Department Response The fire department responded to 76 calls in June and 66 calls in July. Year­to­date total was 494 calls by the end of July and represents a 12% increase over 2017 of 441 calls. Significant calls included the following: 73 Rescue/EMS calls with 9 motor vehicle accidents 3 Structure Fire Responses (Long Lake, Excelsior, Eden Prairie) Monthly Training Training that occurred since my last update: EMS Training Response to Commercial Structures – Westwood Church Officer Development Training Ladders/Ropes/Knots Truck Maintenance Checks CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, August 27, 2018SubjectFire Department UpdateSectionFIRE DEPARTMENT/LAWENFORCEMENT UPDATE Item No: F.1.Prepared By Don Johnson, Fire Chief File No: SUMMARYThe monthly update for the Chanhassen Fire Department to include call data from June/July 2018. BACKGROUNDFire Department StaffingStaffing is at 43 of 45 paid on­call firefighters as of the end of July. We have one firefighter currently on medical leave.The 2018 rookie class started the Southwest Fire Academy on July 31st and will be in training until May 2019. Theacademy is currently being held in Edina and Captain LeFevere is assisting with much of the teaching. The currentcurriculum is Firefighter I training scheduled to wrap up at the end of the November. This group can begin respondingto calls after completing FF1.Fire Department ResponseThe fire department responded to 76 calls in June and 66 calls in July. Year­to­date total was 494 calls by the end ofJuly and represents a 12% increase over 2017 of 441 calls.Significant calls included the following:73 Rescue/EMS calls with 9 motor vehicle accidents3 Structure Fire Responses (Long Lake, Excelsior, Eden Prairie)Monthly TrainingTraining that occurred since my last update:EMS TrainingResponse to Commercial Structures – Westwood ChurchOfficer Development Training Ladders/Ropes/Knots Truck Maintenance Checks Other Activities All annual 4th of July Events went very well again this year. Assist to Park and Rec with spraying kids for water week at several city parks Assist to Camp Tanadoona with spraying kids during a water event day I assisted the Carver Fire Department with Fireground Incident Command training on August 6th Assist with National Night Out with 5 apparatus and 2 command vehicles visiting over 40 parties Assist to Tonka Mud Run again this year – Reimburse staff costs Annual Firefighter Physical Exams on August 6th Annual SCBA certification for NFPA Compliance on August 6th Assist Carver County with a crew at the Carver County Fair for the Demolition Derby I assisted Mdewakanton Fire as an instructor for their Tactical Medical Course for 3 days in August. A contingency of the truck committee traveled to Appleton WI on 8/16­8/17 for a mid­construction inspection on the new ladder. Both new command vehicles were placed in service in August. These vehicles replaced two aged­out vehicles in the fleet. Fire Marshal Update Construction Projects of Note/Fire Inspections: West Park II Townhomes: several more units were given final occupancy inspections with many more sprinkler system final inspections. Several units are now occupied while the second set of buildings are going up just to the north/east. Several businesses applied for and were inspected for retail fireworks sales including Target and Cub Foods. Hydro and sprinkler inspections were completed at the new West Water Treatment Plant. Fire alarm plans were submitted and approved. Generator power transfer testing was witnessed and approved. Demolition of the Frontier building was completed. Several site meetings with the contractor took place to pre­ plan the area for emergency response into and out of the gated areas as well as the safety of the other buildings surrounding the work area. Camp Tanadoona completed all fire inspection violations and I signed off on their DHS licensing for the year. Several smaller remodel projects were inspected and given occupancy including: Remax; Edward Jones, and several residential townhomes and small office spaces. Fire Code issues at Powers Ridge Senior Living were addressed relating to open fire doors and tenant storage. Remodel of the Coffee Store at Cub foods was completed and occupancy given. Pre­occupancy inspection of Discovery Methodist Church for Prairie Adult Daycare to be licensed to move the daycare operation into the church. Temporary license was granted for 30 days during modifications being made to come up to code. The West Water Treatment Plant was given temporary occupancy. Final testing of all fire alarm, pre­action, and sprinkler systems was completed. Building signs were ordered to be placed on building. Permission was given to begin bringing chemicals into building. Fire Prevention I attended the International Association of Arson Investigators meeting at Bloomington Fire Department for the quarterly meeting and training. More focus on Lithium Ion battery fires was the topic. Publications were completed for both city social media and the upcoming Connection on Battery and Charger Safety; Chanhassen Fire Open House; Fall Yard Clean Up/Burning Restrictions. We hosted Chanhassen Elementary Pre­School Fire Station tour at our Station 1. Over 60 children and 10 staff attended. CPR/AED Training Class for The Bernard Group – several sessions with over 40 people trained. I collaborated with the Minnetonka Aquatics Safety Group at the annual Safety Camp at Minnetonka West Middle School. Fire Safety presentations and handouts were given to over 100 children ages 5­14. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, August 27, 2018SubjectFire Department UpdateSectionFIRE DEPARTMENT/LAWENFORCEMENT UPDATE Item No: F.1.Prepared By Don Johnson, Fire Chief File No: SUMMARYThe monthly update for the Chanhassen Fire Department to include call data from June/July 2018. BACKGROUNDFire Department StaffingStaffing is at 43 of 45 paid on­call firefighters as of the end of July. We have one firefighter currently on medical leave.The 2018 rookie class started the Southwest Fire Academy on July 31st and will be in training until May 2019. Theacademy is currently being held in Edina and Captain LeFevere is assisting with much of the teaching. The currentcurriculum is Firefighter I training scheduled to wrap up at the end of the November. This group can begin respondingto calls after completing FF1.Fire Department ResponseThe fire department responded to 76 calls in June and 66 calls in July. Year­to­date total was 494 calls by the end ofJuly and represents a 12% increase over 2017 of 441 calls.Significant calls included the following:73 Rescue/EMS calls with 9 motor vehicle accidents3 Structure Fire Responses (Long Lake, Excelsior, Eden Prairie)Monthly TrainingTraining that occurred since my last update:EMS TrainingResponse to Commercial Structures – Westwood ChurchOfficer Development TrainingLadders/Ropes/KnotsTruck Maintenance ChecksOther ActivitiesAll annual 4th of July Events went very well again this year.Assist to Park and Rec with spraying kids for water week at several city parksAssist to Camp Tanadoona with spraying kids during a water event dayI assisted the Carver Fire Department with Fireground Incident Command training on August 6thAssist with National Night Out with 5 apparatus and 2 command vehicles visiting over 40 partiesAssist to Tonka Mud Run again this year – Reimburse staff costsAnnual Firefighter Physical Exams on August 6thAnnual SCBA certification for NFPA Compliance on August 6thAssist Carver County with a crew at the Carver County Fair for the Demolition DerbyI assisted Mdewakanton Fire as an instructor for their Tactical Medical Course for 3 days in August.A contingency of the truck committee traveled to Appleton WI on 8/16­8/17 for a mid­construction inspectionon the new ladder.Both new command vehicles were placed in service in August. These vehicles replaced two aged­out vehicles inthe fleet.Fire Marshal UpdateConstruction Projects of Note/Fire Inspections:West Park II Townhomes: several more units were given final occupancy inspections with many more sprinklersystem final inspections. Several units are now occupied while the second set of buildings are going up just tothe north/east.Several businesses applied for and were inspected for retail fireworks sales including Target and Cub Foods.Hydro and sprinkler inspections were completed at the new West Water Treatment Plant. Fire alarm plans weresubmitted and approved. Generator power transfer testing was witnessed and approved.Demolition of the Frontier building was completed. Several site meetings with the contractor took place to pre­plan the area for emergency response into and out of the gated areas as well as the safety of the other buildingssurrounding the work area.Camp Tanadoona completed all fire inspection violations and I signed off on their DHS licensing for the year.Several smaller remodel projects were inspected and given occupancy including: Remax; Edward Jones, andseveral residential townhomes and small office spaces.Fire Code issues at Powers Ridge Senior Living were addressed relating to open fire doors and tenant storage.Remodel of the Coffee Store at Cub foods was completed and occupancy given.Pre­occupancy inspection of Discovery Methodist Church for Prairie Adult Daycare to be licensed to move thedaycare operation into the church. Temporary license was granted for 30 days during modifications being madeto come up to code.The West Water Treatment Plant was given temporary occupancy. Final testing of all fire alarm, pre­action, andsprinkler systems was completed. Building signs were ordered to be placed on building. Permission was givento begin bringing chemicals into building.Fire PreventionI attended the International Association of Arson Investigators meeting at Bloomington Fire Department for thequarterly meeting and training. More focus on Lithium Ion battery fires was the topic.Publications were completed for both city social media and the upcoming Connection on Battery and ChargerSafety; Chanhassen Fire Open House; Fall Yard Clean Up/Burning Restrictions.We hosted Chanhassen Elementary Pre­School Fire Station tour at our Station 1. Over 60 children and 10 staffattended.CPR/AED Training Class for The Bernard Group – several sessions with over 40 people trained.I collaborated with the Minnetonka Aquatics Safety Group at the annual Safety Camp at Minnetonka West Middle School. Fire Safety presentations and handouts were given to over 100 children ages 5­14. Fire Investigations The bus fire at Bluff Creek Elementary was investigated and proved to be accidental and mechanical in nature. Exact cause of the fire is unknown. ATTACHMENTS: June/July Graphs and Tables           0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 May June July 2018 Calls by Month and Type   Rescue & Emergency Medical Service Alarm Calls Good Intent Call Hazardous Condition Service Call Fire 50 53 53 53 58 61 81 54 52 66 51 5855 51 63 65 55 86 66 60 59 80 57 56 71 50 66 79 86 76 66 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Chanhassen Fire Department Calls By Month Comparison 2016 2017 2018       621 691 690 753 621 691 690 753 851 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 PROJECTEDNumber of CallsYears Chanhassen Fire Department Total  Calls by Year  ‐5 Year  Table 51% 17% 17% 6% 5%4% 2018 % OF TOTAL  CALLS BY  TYPE Rescue & Emergency Medical Service Alarm Calls Good Intent Call Hazardous Condition Service Call Fire City of Chanhassen Fire Calls for Ser vice6/1/2018 - 6/30/2018 K Fire Box Alarm Zones Calls for Serv ice North Bo x South Bo x We st Bo x Date: 7/10/2018Document Path: K:\Nick LH\Pro jects\Fire\Fo rDon\FireCa llMa ps\2 018\J une\Fire Incident Map Ge ocode June 2 018.mxd City of Chanhassen Fire Calls for Ser vice7/1/2018 - 7/31/2018 K Fire Box Alarm Zones Calls for Serv ice North Bo x South Bo x We st Bo x Date: 8/6/2018Document Path: K:\Nick LH\Pro jects\Fire\Fo rDon\FireCa llMa ps\2 018\J uly\Fire Incident Ma p Geocod e July 2018 .mxd CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, August 27, 2018 Subject Law Enforcement Update Section FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE Item No: F.2. Prepared By Lieutenant Eric Kittelson, Carver County Sheriff's Office File No:  SUMMARY Monthly law enforcement update for June/July 2018. ATTACHMENTS: Cover Memo Activity Description by Class June 2018 Statistics July 2018 Statistics CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, August 27, 2018 Subject Review of Claims Paid 08­27­2018 Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: L.1. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No:  SUMMARY The following claims are submitted for review on August 27, 2018: Check Numbers Amounts 167598 – 167703 $865,542.46 ACH Payments $402,162.94 Total All Claims $1,267,705.40 ATTACHMENTS: Check Summary Check Summary ACH Check Detail Check Detail ACH Accounts Payable User: Printed: dwashburn 8/17/2018 9:11 AM Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount UB*01442 DOUGLAS AHRENS 08/09/2018 0.00 25.54167598 ASPMIL ASPEN MILLS 08/09/2018 0.00 323.80167599 BluCro BCBSM, Inc.08/09/2018 0.00 87,140.02167600 BENPRO BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES INC 08/09/2018 0.00 500.00167601 BORSTA BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 08/09/2018 0.00 162.60167602 BroGar Brookside Garden Center, Inc.08/09/2018 0.00 281.28167603 UB*01439 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/09/2018 0.00 30.28167604 UB*01444 BRIAN & DEANN CARIGNAN 08/09/2018 0.00 75.00167605 CARVCO Carver Construction Inc 08/09/2018 0.00 250.00167606 UB*01457 CCA & T 08/09/2018 0.00 47.19167607 CENENE CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/09/2018 0.00 513.83167608 UB*01460 CHAMPION TITLE & SETTLEMENT INC 08/09/2018 0.00 175.22167609 UB*01449 BRYANT & STEPHANIE COOPER 08/09/2018 0.00 130.22167610 CORMAI CORE & MAIN LP 08/09/2018 0.00 2,857.78167611 CulBot Culligan Bottled Water 08/09/2018 0.00 129.34167612 UB*01451 DOROTHY S JAMES TRUST 08/09/2018 0.00 38.72167613 UB*01456 EAGLE CREEK TITLE LLC 08/09/2018 0.00 57.55167614 EARAND Earl F Andersen Inc 08/09/2018 0.00 50.00167615 UB*01454 EDINA REALTY TITLE 08/09/2018 0.00 5.27167616 FOXWOO FOXWOOD LLC 08/09/2018 0.00 504,365.19167617 UB*01452 JAMES GALAROWICZ 08/09/2018 0.00 54.06167618 UB*01445 KAREN & TIMOTHY GETTY 08/09/2018 0.00 58.01167619 UB*01448 GRAEBEL RELOCATION SERVICES WORLDWIDE INC08/09/2018 0.00 163.50167620 UB*01455 GUARDIAN TITLE LLC 08/09/2018 0.00 36.65167621 HARTLIFE Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company08/09/2018 0.00 1,040.28167622 HERLAN HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 08/09/2018 0.00 59.63167623 HOMEDEP Home Depot USA Inc 08/09/2018 0.00 82.56167624 INDSCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 112 08/09/2018 0.00 8,330.72167625 JAGCOM Jaguar Communications Inc 08/09/2018 0.00 53.46167626 JOHNNANC NANCY JOHNSON 08/09/2018 0.00 30.00167627 josroy Joseph Roy Construction 08/09/2018 0.00 250.00167628 K2Ele K2 Electrical Services Inc 08/09/2018 0.00 877.00167629 UB*01446 PATRICIA KOHN 08/09/2018 0.00 86.78167630 KOSKDUST DUSTIN KOSKELA 08/09/2018 0.00 74.50167631 MADGAL MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN LLP 08/09/2018 0.00 390.00167632 MCFOA MCFOA 08/09/2018 0.00 45.00167633 MetGar Metro Garage Door Company 08/09/2018 0.00 623.81167634 METCO2 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 08/09/2018 0.00 152,094.89167635 UB*01438 HOWARD & MARY MEUWISSEN 08/09/2018 0.00 6.74167636 UB*01441 KJRSTEN & JAMES MICKESH 08/09/2018 0.00 124.42167637 MIDCOU MID COUNTY COOP 08/09/2018 0.00 19,371.59167638 MIDPLA MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES 08/09/2018 0.00 4,985.79167639 MILLDAVE Dave Millard 08/09/2018 0.00 30.25167640 MNHEAL MN DEPT OF HEALTH 08/09/2018 0.00 175.00167641 Ove&Son Overline & Son, Inc.08/09/2018 0.00 1,350.00167642 UB*01459 PILLAR TITLE SERVICES 08/09/2018 0.00 54.17167643 PREMRM PRECISE MRM LLC 08/09/2018 0.00 146.16167644 Page 1AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (8/17/2018 9:11 AM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount UB*01453 PREMIER TITLE INC AGENCY 08/09/2018 0.00 17.89167645 UB*01440 PREMIER TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY INC08/09/2018 0.00 29.61167646 UB*01458 CODY & AMANDA PRIBBLE 08/09/2018 0.00 5.53167647 RAITRE RAINBOW TREE COMPANY 08/09/2018 0.00 12,335.70167648 UB*01443 RESULTS TITLE 08/09/2018 0.00 61.54167649 UB*01447 RESULTS TITLE 08/09/2018 0.00 84.40167650 UB*01450 KENNETH & ELLEN ROWE 08/09/2018 0.00 9.93167651 SATDES Sather Design/Build 08/09/2018 0.00 500.00167652 SHEWIL SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/09/2018 0.00 22.99167653 SIGNSO SIGNSOURCE 08/09/2018 0.00 85.00167654 SpeScr Spectrum Screen Printing Inc 08/09/2018 0.00 450.05167655 STEPAARO Aaron Stephan 08/09/2018 0.00 250.00167656 UB*01461 STEWART TITLE COMPANY 08/09/2018 0.00 123.39167657 SUBRAT SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 08/09/2018 0.00 1,329.00167658 UB*01437 SUE SUTER 08/09/2018 0.00 12.40167659 THORSUSA Michael and Susan Thorud 08/09/2018 0.00 250.00167660 TIMLAN TIMBERWALL LANDSCAPING INC.08/09/2018 0.00 313.00167661 TOWFEN TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE 08/09/2018 0.00 2,150.00167662 USMINE U S MINERALS INC 08/09/2018 0.00 281.20167663 UNIMIN UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 08/09/2018 0.00 5,390.00167664 VavrMatt Matthew Vavrichek 08/09/2018 0.00 300.00167665 WastMana Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 08/09/2018 0.00 1,613.56167666 MNCHPO MN Chiefs of Police Assoc 08/10/2018 0.00 110.00167667 AARP AARP 08/16/2018 0.00 265.00167668 ASPMIL ASPEN MILLS 08/16/2018 0.00 119.30167669 BCATRA BCA 08/16/2018 0.00 60.00167670 BERCOF BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 08/16/2018 0.00 1,025.75167671 BLAMAN Blackburn Manufacturing Company 08/16/2018 0.00 734.16167672 CENENE CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/16/2018 0.00 128.52167673 CenLin CenturyLink 08/16/2018 0.00 64.00167674 CUBFOO CUB FOODS 08/16/2018 0.00 217.64167675 EHLERS EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 08/16/2018 0.00 4,450.00167676 hach Hach Company 08/16/2018 0.00 1,115.81167677 HANSJESS Nicholas and Jessica Hansgen 08/16/2018 0.00 1,000.00167678 HOOTHREA HOOPS AND THREADS LLC 08/16/2018 0.00 56.00167679 ICMART ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 08/16/2018 0.00 1,445.83167680 INNWOO INNOVATIVE WOODWORKING SOLUTIONS08/16/2018 0.00 5,800.00167681 kraande Kraus Anderson Inc 08/16/2018 0.00 432.80167682 LANSALAN ALAN LANGSETH 08/16/2018 0.00 392.00167683 MetGar Metro Garage Door Company 08/16/2018 0.00 3,317.76167684 METPLU Metropolitan Plumbing 08/16/2018 0.00 30.05167685 MOOMED MOORE MEDICAL 08/16/2018 0.00 664.07167686 NARCON NARR CONSTRUCTION 08/16/2018 0.00 2,500.00167687 PULTGROU Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/16/2018 0.00 5,000.00167688 PULTHOME Pulte Homes of Minnesota LLC 08/16/2018 0.00 2,500.00167689 PYRZSUSA Susan or Joseph Pyrz 08/16/2018 0.00 87.65167690 ReaWat Ready Watt Electric 08/16/2018 0.00 4,815.00167691 RotRoo Roto Rooter Services Company 08/16/2018 0.00 40.00167692 RUEGJERR JERRY RUEGEMER 08/16/2018 0.00 300.00167693 SHEWIL SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/16/2018 0.00 686.13167694 SHOTRU SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 08/16/2018 0.00 71.00167695 SIGNSO SIGNSOURCE 08/16/2018 0.00 1,267.00167696 SouRen Southwest Rental & Sales 08/16/2018 0.00 91.14167697 SpeScr Spectrum Screen Printing Inc 08/16/2018 0.00 1,047.05167698 SRCM SRCM, LLC 08/16/2018 0.00 1,500.00167699 STACONLL Sta Con LLC 08/16/2018 0.00 8,193.11167700 triedeea DeeAnn Triethart 08/16/2018 0.00 46.70167701 Page 2AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (8/17/2018 9:11 AM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount WESBAY WEST BAY HOMES CORPORATION 08/16/2018 0.00 2,500.00167702 WINGRICH RICHARD WING 08/16/2018 0.00 100.00167703 Report Total (106 checks): 865,542.46 0.00 Page 3AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (8/17/2018 9:11 AM) Accounts Payable Checks by Date - Summary by Check User: dwashburn Printed: 8/17/2018 9:11 AM Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH adveng Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 08/09/2018 0.00 594.47 ACH AppEco Applied Ecological Services Inc 08/09/2018 0.00 981.00 ACH BENEXT BENEFIT EXTRAS INC 08/09/2018 0.00 130.00 ACH CAMKNU CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/09/2018 0.00 13,648.87 ACH CCPNIM CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 08/09/2018 0.00 6,160.07 ACH DAMFAR DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES 08/09/2018 0.00 2,094.75 ACH FASCOM FASTENAL COMPANY 08/09/2018 0.00 96.22 ACH GENPAR GENERAL PARTS LLC 08/09/2018 0.00 122.00 ACH GMHASP GMH ASPHALT CORP 08/09/2018 0.00 248,290.28 ACH GOPSTA GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC 08/09/2018 0.00 827.55 ACH HAWCHE HAWKINS CHEMICAL 08/09/2018 0.00 13,935.86 ACH IdeSer Ideal Service Inc. 08/09/2018 0.00 1,982.50 ACH IMPPOR IMPERIAL PORTA PALACE 08/09/2018 0.00 4,825.55 ACH IndPla Indelco Plastics Corporation 08/09/2018 0.00 75.44 ACH InnOff Innovative Office Solutions LLC 08/09/2018 0.00 517.01 ACH JEFFIR JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 08/09/2018 0.00 896.33 ACH JOHSUP JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 08/09/2018 0.00 76.50 ACH LARSDALE DALE LARSEN 08/09/2018 0.00 208.50 ACH Marco Marco Inc 08/09/2018 0.00 4,030.29 ACH MERACE MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 08/09/2018 0.00 1,206.40 ACH MINCON SUMMIT COMPANIES 08/09/2018 0.00 500.00 ACH MVEC MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 08/09/2018 0.00 6,001.10 ACH NAPA NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 08/09/2018 0.00 26.49 ACH OREAUT O'Reilly Automotive Inc 08/09/2018 0.00 223.84 ACH PotMN Potentia MN Solar 08/09/2018 0.00 8,390.47 ACH PRARES PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 08/09/2018 0.00 660.00 ACH PreWat Premium Waters, Inc 08/09/2018 0.00 82.69 ACH RBMSER RBM SERVICES INC 08/09/2018 0.00 175.00 ACH TESSEE TESSMAN SEED CO 08/09/2018 0.00 877.00 ACH ULTCON ULTIMATE CONTROLS ELECTRIC LLC 08/09/2018 0.00 5,269.00 ACH USABLU USA BLUE BOOK 08/09/2018 0.00 31.97 ACH VERIZO VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 0.00 4,374.02 ACH WATSON WATSON COMPANY 08/09/2018 0.00 167.75 ACH WMMUE WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/09/2018 0.00 392.00 ACH WWGRA WW GRAINGER INC 08/09/2018 0.00 1,497.32 ACH ADAPES ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC 08/16/2018 0.00 125.00 ACH ALLENG Alliant Engineering Inc 08/16/2018 0.00 2,312.07 ACH CENFEN CENTURY FENCE COMPANY 08/16/2018 0.00 6,388.00 ACH engwat Engel Water Testing Inc 08/16/2018 0.00 520.00 ACH FASCOM FASTENAL COMPANY 08/16/2018 0.00 17.67 ACH FergEnte Ferguson Waterworks #2516 08/16/2018 0.00 610.01 ACH GRANIC GRANICUS INC 08/16/2018 0.00 5,040.00 ACH HAWCHE HAWKINS CHEMICAL 08/16/2018 0.00 4,982.76 ACH INDLAN Indoor Landscapes Inc 08/16/2018 0.00 187.00 ACH InnOff Innovative Office Solutions LLC 08/16/2018 0.00 36.58 Page 1 of 2 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH JOHSUP JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 08/16/2018 0.00 96.21 ACH METCO Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 08/16/2018 0.00 39,362.40 ACH MNLABO MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 08/16/2018 0.00 5,543.93 ACH SafVeh Safety Vehicle Solutions 08/16/2018 0.00 3,850.00 ACH SPRPCS SPRINT PCS 08/16/2018 0.00 103.44 ACH UNIWAY UNITED WAY 08/16/2018 0.00 28.40 ACH WarLit Warning Lites of Minnesota, Inc. 08/16/2018 0.00 219.50 ACH WMMUE WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/16/2018 0.00 2,539.67 ACH XCEL XCEL ENERGY INC 08/16/2018 0.00 832.06 Report Total: 0.00 402,162.94 Page 2 of 2 Accounts Payable Check Detail-Checks User: dwashburn Printed: 08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM Name Check D Account Description Amount AARP 08/16/2018 101-1560-4300 Driver Safety-Refresher Course 265.00 AARP 265.00 AHRENS DOUGLAS 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 25.54 AHRENS DOUGLAS 25.54 ASPEN MILLS 08/09/2018 101-1220-4240 Cargo Pants, Belt 80.95 ASPEN MILLS 08/09/2018 101-1220-4240 Cargo Pants, Belt 80.95 ASPEN MILLS 08/09/2018 101-1220-4240 Cargo Pants, Belt 80.95 ASPEN MILLS 08/09/2018 101-1220-4240 Cargo Pants, Belt 80.95 ASPEN MILLS 08/16/2018 101-1220-4240 Name Tag, Pants, Shirt, Patches 119.30 ASPEN MILLS 443.10 BCA 08/16/2018 101-1120-4300 Background investigation 60.00 BCA 60.00 BCBSM, Inc.08/09/2018 101-0000-2012 September - Family 43,998.29 BCBSM, Inc.08/09/2018 101-0000-2012 September - Family Cobra 6,994.96 BCBSM, Inc.08/09/2018 700-0000-2012 September - Family 6,457.23 BCBSM, Inc.08/09/2018 701-0000-2012 September - Family 4,708.49 BCBSM, Inc.08/09/2018 720-0000-2012 September - Family 2,544.41 BCBSM, Inc.08/09/2018 101-0000-2012 September - Single 16,023.35 BCBSM, Inc.08/09/2018 210-0000-2012 September - Single 874.64 BCBSM, Inc.08/09/2018 700-0000-2012 September - Single 2,361.52 BCBSM, Inc.08/09/2018 701-0000-2012 September - Single 1,661.81 BCBSM, Inc.08/09/2018 720-0000-2012 September - Single 1,469.40 BCBSM, Inc.08/09/2018 101-1220-4483 September - Firefighter EAP 45.92 BCBSM, Inc. 87,140.02 BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES INC 08/09/2018 101-1550-4300 Round-Abouts , weed pulling/spraying and debris removal 500.00 BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES INC 500.00 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 08/16/2018 101-1170-4110 Coffee 75.36 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 08/16/2018 101-1170-4110 Coffee 711.59 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 08/16/2018 101-1180-4110 Coffee - Elections 238.80 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 1,025.75 Blackburn Manufacturing Company 08/16/2018 701-0000-4150 Marking Products 734.16 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 1 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount Blackburn Manufacturing Company 734.16 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 08/09/2018 101-1190-4510 Lamps 162.60 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 162.60 Brookside Garden Center, Inc.08/09/2018 101-1550-4150 CP-Pulverized Dirt bulk per yard 88.00 Brookside Garden Center, Inc.08/09/2018 101-1550-4150 CP-Mulch-Western Red Cedar bulk 193.28 Brookside Garden Center, Inc. 281.28 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 12.86 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 13.32 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.48 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.62 BURNET TITLE LLC 30.28 CARIGNAN BRIAN & DEANN 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 8.60 CARIGNAN BRIAN & DEANN 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.52 CARIGNAN BRIAN & DEANN 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 22.48 CARIGNAN BRIAN & DEANN 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 42.40 CARIGNAN BRIAN & DEANN 75.00 Carver Construction Inc 08/09/2018 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 2383 Longacres Drive 250.00 Carver Construction Inc 250.00 CCA & T 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 17.33 CCA & T 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 28.26 CCA & T 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.79 CCA & T 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.81 CCA & T 47.19 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/09/2018 101-1190-4320 gas charges 153.41 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/09/2018 101-1550-4320 gas charges 23.77 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/09/2018 101-1170-4320 gas charges 128.06 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/09/2018 700-7019-4320 gas charges 48.68 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/09/2018 700-0000-4320 gas charges 16.98 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/09/2018 101-1370-4320 gas charges 83.59 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/09/2018 700-0000-4320 gas charges 10.45 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/09/2018 701-0000-4320 gas charges 10.45 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/09/2018 701-0000-4320 gas charges 21.46 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/09/2018 101-1600-4320 gas charges 16.98 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/16/2018 101-1220-4320 monthly charges 6/27/18-7/30/18 76.35 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/16/2018 101-1530-4320 monthly charges 6/27/18-7/30/18 35.19 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/16/2018 101-1120-4320 monthly charges 6/27/18-7/30/18 16.98 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 642.35 CenturyLink 08/16/2018 700-0000-4310 Monthly services Aug 2018 32.00 CenturyLink 08/16/2018 701-0000-4310 Monthly services Aug 2018 32.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 2 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount CenturyLink 64.00 CHAMPION TITLE & SETTLEMENT INC 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 175.22 CHAMPION TITLE & SETTLEMENT INC 175.22 COOPER BRYANT & STEPHANIE 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.22 COOPER BRYANT & STEPHANIE 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 38.10 COOPER BRYANT & STEPHANIE 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 63.97 COOPER BRYANT & STEPHANIE 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 23.93 COOPER BRYANT & STEPHANIE 130.22 CORE & MAIN LP 08/09/2018 700-0000-4550 CB 1 1/4" MIP Repair CPLG 108.66 CORE & MAIN LP 08/09/2018 700-0000-4550 12 and 18 HYD EXT 5 1/4 MED 2,277.90 CORE & MAIN LP 08/09/2018 701-0000-4551 Pipe, EPXY IMP, Gasket, T-Head 471.22 CORE & MAIN LP 2,857.78 CUB FOODS 08/16/2018 101-1220-4290 Special Event Lunch - buns, hamburger, pop, cheese, salad 58.64 CUB FOODS 08/16/2018 101-1540-4130 Buns 39.78 CUB FOODS 08/16/2018 101-1540-4130 Chips, Paper Towels 51.56 CUB FOODS 08/16/2018 101-1540-4130 Buns, Chips, Cheese 32.55 CUB FOODS 08/16/2018 101-1540-4130 Wipes, Chips 23.11 CUB FOODS 08/16/2018 101-1540-4130 Buns 12.00 CUB FOODS 217.64 Culligan Bottled Water 08/09/2018 101-1220-4300 Water/Aug 2018 equipment rental 129.34 Culligan Bottled Water 129.34 DOROTHY S JAMES TRUST 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 12.79 DOROTHY S JAMES TRUST 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 21.73 DOROTHY S JAMES TRUST 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.50 DOROTHY S JAMES TRUST 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.70 DOROTHY S JAMES TRUST 38.72 EAGLE CREEK TITLE LLC 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 33.30 EAGLE CREEK TITLE LLC 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.24 EAGLE CREEK TITLE LLC 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.74 EAGLE CREEK TITLE LLC 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 19.27 EAGLE CREEK TITLE LLC 57.55 Earl F Andersen Inc 08/09/2018 700-0000-4150 6X18 W/BLUE DG3 2100 - SIGN 50.00 Earl F Andersen Inc 50.00 EDINA REALTY TITLE 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.27 EDINA REALTY TITLE 5.27 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 08/16/2018 300-0000-4300 Continuing Disclosure Reporting, County Auditor Fee 4,450.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 3 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 4,450.00 FOXWOOD LLC 08/09/2018 700-7025-4706 Foxwood Highway 101 Trail Construction 41,579.42 FOXWOOD LLC 08/09/2018 410-0000-4710 Foxwood Highway 101 Trail Construction 462,785.77 FOXWOOD LLC 504,365.19 GALAROWICZ JAMES 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 21.02 GALAROWICZ JAMES 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 26.09 GALAROWICZ JAMES 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.91 GALAROWICZ JAMES 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.04 GALAROWICZ JAMES 54.06 GETTY KAREN & TIMOTHY 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 19.04 GETTY KAREN & TIMOTHY 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 37.03 GETTY KAREN & TIMOTHY 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.94 GETTY KAREN & TIMOTHY 58.01 GRAEBEL RELOCATION SERVICES WORLDWIDE INC08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 19.41 GRAEBEL RELOCATION SERVICES WORLDWIDE INC08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 114.96 GRAEBEL RELOCATION SERVICES WORLDWIDE INC08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 24.76 GRAEBEL RELOCATION SERVICES WORLDWIDE INC08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.37 GRAEBEL RELOCATION SERVICES WORLDWIDE INC 163.50 GUARDIAN TITLE LLC 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 36.65 GUARDIAN TITLE LLC 36.65 Hach Company 08/16/2018 700-7043-4150 Buffer, Citrate Type 54.24 Hach Company 08/16/2018 700-7019-4150 misc parts/supplies 1,061.57 Hach Company 1,115.81 Hansgen Nicholas and Jessica 08/16/2018 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 7555 Walnut Curve 1,000.00 Hansgen Nicholas and Jessica 1,000.00 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1120-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 69.45 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1130-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 47.83 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1160-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 24.74 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1250-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 106.89 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1310-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 73.97 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1320-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 112.04 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1370-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 44.79 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1520-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 35.08 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1530-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 14.05 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1560-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 11.58 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1600-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 22.34 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1700-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 5.59 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1550-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 88.54 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1420-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 73.79 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1430-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 4.67 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 4 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 210-0000-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 17.84 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 720-7201-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 5.51 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 720-7202-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 5.51 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1170-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 12.37 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 101-1220-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 42.30 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 701-0000-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 79.12 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 700-0000-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 104.95 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 08/09/2018 720-0000-4040 August 2018 insurance premium 37.33 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 1,040.28 HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 08/09/2018 101-1550-4150 Yd Pulverized Dirt 59.63 HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 59.63 Home Depot USA Inc 08/09/2018 101-1250-3301 Refund permit fee. Job cancelled. 82.56 Home Depot USA Inc 82.56 HOOPS AND THREADS LLC 08/16/2018 700-0000-4240 Utilities logo on left chest above pocket 8.00 HOOPS AND THREADS LLC 08/16/2018 701-0000-4240 Utilities logo on left chest above pocket 8.00 HOOPS AND THREADS LLC 08/16/2018 701-0000-4240 Utilities logo on left chest 20.00 HOOPS AND THREADS LLC 08/16/2018 700-0000-4240 Utilities logo on left chest 20.00 HOOPS AND THREADS LLC 56.00 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 08/16/2018 101-0000-2009 8/17/2018 ID #304303 1,114.56 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 08/16/2018 210-0000-2009 8/17/2018 ID #304303 25.00 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 08/16/2018 700-0000-2009 8/17/2018 ID #304303 152.52 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 08/16/2018 701-0000-2009 8/17/2018 ID #304303 152.49 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 08/16/2018 720-0000-2009 8/17/2018 ID #304303 1.26 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 1,445.83 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 112 08/09/2018 101-1530-4320 electricity/gas/water and sewer - May-June 2018 8,330.72 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 112 8,330.72 INNOVATIVE WOODWORKING SOLUTIONS 08/16/2018 422-0000-4704 Tahoe, Rear Cargo Organizer #205, #206 5,800.00 INNOVATIVE WOODWORKING SOLUTIONS 5,800.00 Jaguar Communications Inc 08/09/2018 700-7043-4310 August 2018 phone charges 53.46 Jaguar Communications Inc 53.46 JOHNSON NANCY 08/09/2018 101-1539-3631 Refund Gentle Flow Yoga 30.00 JOHNSON NANCY 30.00 Joseph Roy Construction 08/09/2018 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 981 Saddlebrook Trail 250.00 Joseph Roy Construction 250.00 K2 Electrical Services Inc 08/09/2018 101-1550-4300 Lake Ann Park - Labor/Materials for parking lot lights/ballast 387.00 K2 Electrical Services Inc 08/09/2018 101-1550-4300 State Permits filed for 4th Celebration/Temp pwr units/Generator 180.00 K2 Electrical Services Inc 08/09/2018 101-1550-4300 Labor for troubleshoot/repair lighting on Lake Ann Field #4 310.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 5 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount K2 Electrical Services Inc 877.00 KOHN PATRICIA 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 24.14 KOHN PATRICIA 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 43.50 KOHN PATRICIA 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 16.27 KOHN PATRICIA 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.87 KOHN PATRICIA 86.78 KOSKELA DUSTIN 08/09/2018 101-1550-4240 2 pairs of cargo pants 74.50 KOSKELA DUSTIN 74.50 Kraus Anderson Inc 08/16/2018 101-1250-3301 refund overpayment on permit# 2018-01203 247.15 Kraus Anderson Inc 08/16/2018 101-1250-3302 refund overpayment on permit# 2018-01203 160.65 Kraus Anderson Inc 08/16/2018 101-0000-2022 refund overpayment on permit# 2018-01203 25.00 Kraus Anderson Inc 432.80 LANGSETH ALAN 08/16/2018 101-1766-4300 Adult Softball Umpire - 16 games 392.00 LANGSETH ALAN 392.00 MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN LLP 08/09/2018 101-1140-4302 Labor Relations Services - July 2018 390.00 MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN LLP 390.00 MCFOA 08/09/2018 101-1120-4360 Membership - K Meuwissen 45.00 MCFOA 45.00 Metro Garage Door Company 08/09/2018 101-1370-4510 Repair SE over head door 623.81 Metro Garage Door Company 08/16/2018 101-1370-4510 Replaced springs and loop detector on city service building 2,812.17 Metro Garage Door Company 08/16/2018 101-1370-4260 Drums 83.82 Metro Garage Door Company 08/16/2018 101-1370-4510 Replaced both drums, service and adjust the south door 421.77 Metro Garage Door Company 3,941.57 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 08/09/2018 701-0000-4509 Waste Water Services - Sept 2018 152,094.89 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 152,094.89 Metropolitan Plumbing 08/16/2018 101-0000-2033 Overpayment - refund permit# 2018-02131 30.05 Metropolitan Plumbing 30.05 MEUWISSEN HOWARD & MARY 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.87 MEUWISSEN HOWARD & MARY 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.96 MEUWISSEN HOWARD & MARY 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.47 MEUWISSEN HOWARD & MARY 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.44 MEUWISSEN HOWARD & MARY 6.74 MICKESH KJRSTEN & JAMES 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.53 MICKESH KJRSTEN & JAMES 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 55.15 MICKESH KJRSTEN & JAMES 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 20.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 6 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount MICKESH KJRSTEN & JAMES 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 45.74 MICKESH KJRSTEN & JAMES 124.42 MID COUNTY COOP 08/09/2018 101-1370-4170 No Lead Gasoline, Diesel Fuel 19,371.59 MID COUNTY COOP 19,371.59 MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES 08/09/2018 101-1550-4150 Engineered Wood Fiber 2,827.79 MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES 08/09/2018 400-4008-4706 Medium Group Grill 2,158.00 MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES 4,985.79 Millard Dave 08/09/2018 101-0000-2022 Refund permit# 2018-02113 0.25 Millard Dave 08/09/2018 101-1250-3305 Refund permit# 2018-02113 30.00 Millard Dave 30.25 MN Chiefs of Police Assoc 08/10/2018 101-1120-4370 Todd Gerhardt: Training Fee 110.00 MN Chiefs of Police Assoc 110.00 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 08/09/2018 700-0000-4550 Water Well Status Report - Permit Renewal 8/26/18-8/25/19 175.00 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 175.00 MOORE MEDICAL 08/16/2018 101-1220-4130 Cold packs, gloves 117.23 MOORE MEDICAL 08/16/2018 101-1220-4130 Oxygen Regulator, Sheears, Cutter, Wound wash, Bandages 546.84 MOORE MEDICAL 664.07 NARR CONSTRUCTION 08/16/2018 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 6611 Horseshoe Curve 2,500.00 NARR CONSTRUCTION 2,500.00 Overline & Son, Inc.08/09/2018 701-0000-4551 Unscheduled televising/reporting of sewer lines 1,350.00 Overline & Son, Inc. 1,350.00 PILLAR TITLE SERVICES 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 16.34 PILLAR TITLE SERVICES 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 34.00 PILLAR TITLE SERVICES 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.26 PILLAR TITLE SERVICES 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.57 PILLAR TITLE SERVICES 54.17 PRECISE MRM LLC 08/09/2018 101-1320-4310 pooled data plan/network access fee 146.16 PRECISE MRM LLC 146.16 PREMIER TITLE INC AGENCY 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.15 PREMIER TITLE INC AGENCY 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 11.35 PREMIER TITLE INC AGENCY 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.73 PREMIER TITLE INC AGENCY 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.66 PREMIER TITLE INC AGENCY 17.89 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 7 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount PREMIER TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY INC 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 11.88 PREMIER TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY INC 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 13.47 PREMIER TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY INC 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.62 PREMIER TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY INC 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.64 PREMIER TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY INC 29.61 PRIBBLE CODY & AMANDA 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.47 PRIBBLE CODY & AMANDA 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.67 PRIBBLE CODY & AMANDA 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.39 PRIBBLE CODY & AMANDA 5.53 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/16/2018 815-8226-2024 As-Built Escrow - 727,729,731,733 Wildflower Lane 2,500.00 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/16/2018 815-8226-2024 As-Built Escrow - 701,703,705,707 Rockburn Road 2,500.00 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 5,000.00 Pulte Homes of Minnesota LLC 08/16/2018 815-8226-2024 As-Built Escrow - 719,721,723,725 Wildflower Lane 2,500.00 Pulte Homes of Minnesota LLC 2,500.00 Pyrz Susan or Joseph 08/16/2018 101-0000-2033 Overpayment - Admin Subdivision 87.65 Pyrz Susan or Joseph 87.65 RAINBOW TREE COMPANY 08/09/2018 720-7202-4300 2018 EAB Treatments 12,335.70 RAINBOW TREE COMPANY 12,335.70 Ready Watt Electric 08/16/2018 101-1220-4300 18-620 2018 Siren Maintenance 4,815.00 Ready Watt Electric 4,815.00 RESULTS TITLE 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.94 RESULTS TITLE 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.72 RESULTS TITLE 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 37.06 RESULTS TITLE 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 19.82 RESULTS TITLE 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 37.89 RESULTS TITLE 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 13.43 RESULTS TITLE 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.37 RESULTS TITLE 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 30.71 RESULTS TITLE 145.94 Roto Rooter Services Company 08/16/2018 101-1310-3307 Refund permit# R18-62 40.00 Roto Rooter Services Company 40.00 ROWE KENNETH & ELLEN 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.11 ROWE KENNETH & ELLEN 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.35 ROWE KENNETH & ELLEN 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.61 ROWE KENNETH & ELLEN 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.86 ROWE KENNETH & ELLEN 9.93 RUEGEMER JERRY 08/16/2018 101-0000-1027 Petty Cash - Extra Change Lake Ann Concessions 300.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 8 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount RUEGEMER JERRY 300.00 Sather Design/Build 08/09/2018 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 20 Hill Street 500.00 Sather Design/Build 500.00 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/09/2018 101-1370-4510 POLYUREA JOINT FILLE 22.99 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/16/2018 700-0000-4550 Paint 36.99 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/16/2018 700-0000-4550 Paint 36.99 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/16/2018 700-0000-4550 POLANE RETRDR REDCR, 8511 RESP 2 PACK 93.39 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/16/2018 700-0000-4550 Supplies 79.35 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/16/2018 700-0000-4550 Supplies 439.41 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 709.12 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 08/16/2018 101-1220-4350 Bleach, Cleaners, Garbage bags 54.93 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 08/16/2018 700-0000-4150 Galv Coupling 9.58 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 08/16/2018 101-1190-4510 MNT Tape 6.49 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 71.00 SIGNSOURCE 08/09/2018 101-1550-4560 No Parking Vinyl Text 85.00 SIGNSOURCE 08/16/2018 700-7043-4510 Room ID Signs 971.00 SIGNSOURCE 08/16/2018 101-1220-4120 Helmet Graphics - FF's 296.00 SIGNSOURCE 1,352.00 Southwest Rental & Sales 08/16/2018 420-0000-4751 Concrete Vibrator 1 1/2" x 8' 45.57 Southwest Rental & Sales 08/16/2018 101-1320-4410 Concrete Vibrator 1 1/2" x 8' 45.57 Southwest Rental & Sales 91.14 Spectrum Screen Printing Inc 08/09/2018 101-1550-4120 Caps 450.05 Spectrum Screen Printing Inc 08/16/2018 101-1731-4300 Lake Ann Camp T-shirts 1,047.05 Spectrum Screen Printing Inc 1,497.10 SRCM, LLC 08/16/2018 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 2071 West 65th Street 1,500.00 SRCM, LLC 1,500.00 Sta Con LLC 08/16/2018 701-0000-4551 Control Panel 8,193.11 Sta Con LLC 8,193.11 Stephan Aaron 08/09/2018 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 8661 Chan Hills Dr 250.00 Stephan Aaron 250.00 STEWART TITLE COMPANY 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 123.39 STEWART TITLE COMPANY 123.39 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 08/09/2018 101-1310-4300 2018 Membership - 2nd half 1,329.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 9 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 1,329.00 SUTER SUE 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.56 SUTER SUE 08/09/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.61 SUTER SUE 08/09/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.59 SUTER SUE 08/09/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.64 SUTER SUE 12.40 Thorud Michael and Susan 08/09/2018 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 8243 Marsh Drive 250.00 Thorud Michael and Susan 250.00 TIMBERWALL LANDSCAPING INC.08/09/2018 101-1550-4150 Holland Autumn Blend, Borgert Pallet, Paver Seal Xtreme 313.00 TIMBERWALL LANDSCAPING INC. 313.00 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE 08/09/2018 101-1550-4300 Repair/Replace fence - Hwy 101 @ Kiowa Trail 2,150.00 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE 2,150.00 Triethart DeeAnn 08/16/2018 101-1250-4130 Supplies-Forks, Spoons, Plates 46.70 Triethart DeeAnn 46.70 U S MINERALS INC 08/09/2018 700-0000-4550 80# Bag, Dust Suppressant 281.20 U S MINERALS INC 281.20 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 08/09/2018 700-0000-4370 HazMat Training July 23-27 5,390.00 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 5,390.00 Vavrichek Matthew 08/09/2018 101-1766-3636 Return Adult Summer Softball League Fee 300.00 Vavrichek Matthew 300.00 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 08/09/2018 101-1220-4350 garbage service - Aug 2018 26.25 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 08/09/2018 101-1190-4350 garbage service - Aug 2018 212.18 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 08/09/2018 101-1370-4350 garbage service - Aug 2018 165.90 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 08/09/2018 700-0000-4350 garbage service - Aug 2018 20.74 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 08/09/2018 701-0000-4350 garbage service - Aug 2018 20.74 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 08/09/2018 101-1170-4350 garbage service - Aug 2018 173.94 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 08/09/2018 101-1220-4350 garbage service - Aug 2018 67.89 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 08/09/2018 101-1613-4410 garbage service - Aug 2018 553.17 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 08/09/2018 101-1550-4350 garbage service - Aug 2018 372.75 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 1,613.56 WEST BAY HOMES CORPORATION 08/16/2018 815-8226-2024 As-Built Escrow - 6950 Highover Drive 2,500.00 WEST BAY HOMES CORPORATION 2,500.00 WING RICHARD 08/16/2018 101-1220-4350 Station 2 Cleaner - July 2018 100.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 10 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount WING RICHARD 100.00 865,542.46 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 11 of 11 Accounts Payable Check Detail-ACH User: dwashburn Printed: 08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM Name Check D Account Description Amount ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC 08/16/2018 101-1170-4300 Monthly service 125.00 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC 125.00 Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 08/09/2018 701-0000-4300 P05126-2018-000 2018 SCADA Services through 6/2/18-7/6/18 594.47 Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 594.47 Alliant Engineering Inc 08/16/2018 410-0000-4300 Foxwood Hwy 101 Pedestrian Trail Extension - 4/1/18 to 6/30/18 2,312.07 Alliant Engineering Inc 2,312.07 Applied Ecological Services Inc 08/09/2018 720-7202-4300 14-0988 The Preserve Management - Prairie 981.00 Applied Ecological Services Inc 981.00 BENEFIT EXTRAS INC 08/09/2018 101-0000-2012 Monthly COBRA Participant Admin Fees 130.00 BENEFIT EXTRAS INC 130.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/09/2018 101-1140-4302 Legal Services 13,648.87 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 13,648.87 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 08/09/2018 101-1220-4320 June 2018 103.34 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 08/09/2018 101-1350-4320 June 2018 2,699.19 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 08/09/2018 101-1540-4320 June 2018 303.55 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 08/09/2018 101-1550-4320 June 2018 323.24 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 08/09/2018 101-1600-4320 June 2018 24.78 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 08/09/2018 700-0000-4320 June 2018 95.11 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 08/09/2018 700-7019-4320 June 2018 1,506.88 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 08/09/2018 701-0000-4320 June 2018 1,103.98 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 6,160.07 CENTURY FENCE COMPANY 08/16/2018 700-0000-4530 Generator Enclosure - Furnish & Install 6,388.00 CENTURY FENCE COMPANY 6,388.00 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES 08/09/2018 410-0000-4300 18-199 Chanhassen Commons Paver Replacement 1,433.25 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES 08/09/2018 400-0000-4706 18-159 Chanhassen Depot Improvements 661.50 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES 2,094.75 Engel Water Testing Inc 08/16/2018 700-0000-4300 26 water samples collected - July 2018 520.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 1 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount Engel Water Testing Inc 520.00 FASTENAL COMPANY 08/09/2018 101-1550-4120 Steel banded earmuff 71.72 FASTENAL COMPANY 08/09/2018 101-1550-4120 Flex GuardXL Gloves 30.16 FASTENAL COMPANY 08/09/2018 700-0000-4240 Med 3 Piece Rainsuit 14.17 FASTENAL COMPANY 08/09/2018 101-1320-4120 PPHM #1172590 -6.33 FASTENAL COMPANY 08/09/2018 101-1320-4120 supplies #1136314, #1171029 -13.50 FASTENAL COMPANY 08/16/2018 101-1320-4140 Washer, Lock Nuts 17.67 FASTENAL COMPANY 113.89 Ferguson Waterworks #2516 08/16/2018 101-1370-4510 6" butterfly valve for washbay fill station 610.01 Ferguson Waterworks #2516 610.01 GENERAL PARTS LLC 08/09/2018 101-1170-4350 repair soap system 122.00 GENERAL PARTS LLC 122.00 GMH ASPHALT CORP 08/09/2018 601-6032-4751 Street Reconstruction Proj 16-01 Minnewashta Manor 248,290.28 GMH ASPHALT CORP 248,290.28 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC 08/09/2018 400-0000-4300 FTP Tickets - July 2018 827.55 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC 827.55 GRANICUS INC 08/16/2018 210-0000-4300 Granicus Encoding Appliance Software, Transparency Suite 5,040.00 GRANICUS INC 5,040.00 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 08/09/2018 700-7043-4160 Chlorine - West Plant 2,100.00 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 08/09/2018 700-7019-4160 Chlorine Cylinder 130.00 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 08/09/2018 700-7043-4160 LPC-9 Corrosion Inhibitor 683.16 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 08/09/2018 700-7043-4160 150 Lb Chlorine Cylinder - Water Plant 80.00 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 08/09/2018 700-7019-4160 Hydrofluosilicic Acid, LPC-9 Corrosion Inhibitor 10,942.70 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 08/16/2018 700-7019-4160 Azone 15 - EPA Reg No 7870-5 4,982.76 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 18,918.62 Ideal Service Inc.08/09/2018 701-0000-4551 Lift Station #5 - svc/labor, Motortronics/misc parts 1,982.50 Ideal Service Inc. 1,982.50 IMPERIAL PORTA PALACE 08/09/2018 101-1550-4400 Portable Rest Rooms - June 2018 4,825.55 IMPERIAL PORTA PALACE 4,825.55 Indelco Plastics Corporation 08/09/2018 700-7043-4150 MPT CONNECTOR, ELBOW 75.44 Indelco Plastics Corporation 75.44 Indoor Landscapes Inc 08/16/2018 101-1170-4300 August Plant svc 187.00 Indoor Landscapes Inc 187.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 2 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount Innovative Office Solutions LLC 08/09/2018 400-0000-4703 Bookcase 249.00 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 08/09/2018 101-1170-4110 Tape dispenser 4.84 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 08/09/2018 101-1170-4110 Pens, Tape, Paper, Post-Its 48.01 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 08/09/2018 101-1170-4110 Paper 130.80 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 08/09/2018 101-1170-4110 Tape, Envelopes, Pads, Cocoa, Flags 84.36 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 08/16/2018 101-1170-4110 Adhesive, Badges, Clips 36.58 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 553.59 JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 08/09/2018 400-4105-4705 21 - Airgas Hex Armor Chrome Extrication Gloves 896.33 JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 896.33 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 08/09/2018 101-1190-4530 Flame Sensor 76.50 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 08/16/2018 101-1190-4530 Kit Ignitor, Hex Driver Dual 96.68 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 08/16/2018 101-1190-4530 Credit sales tax from inv# 1157992 -0.47 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 172.71 LARSEN DALE 08/09/2018 101-1320-4240 3 pairs of cargo pants 208.50 LARSEN DALE 208.50 Marco Inc 08/09/2018 101-1170-4410 Overage charge 675.65 Marco Inc 08/09/2018 700-0000-4410 Overage charge 100.00 Marco Inc 08/09/2018 701-0000-4410 Overage charge 100.00 Marco Inc 08/09/2018 720-0000-4410 Overage charge 50.00 Marco Inc 08/09/2018 101-1170-4410 Overage charge 2,328.48 Marco Inc 08/09/2018 700-0000-4410 Overage charge 310.46 Marco Inc 08/09/2018 701-0000-4410 Overage charge 310.46 Marco Inc 08/09/2018 720-0000-4410 Overage charge 155.24 Marco Inc 4,030.29 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 08/09/2018 101-1220-4290 misc parts/supplies 41.37 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 08/09/2018 101-1320-4150 misc parts/supplies 7.73 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 08/09/2018 101-1530-4120 misc parts/supplies 32.39 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 08/09/2018 101-1530-4130 misc parts/supplies 3.23 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 08/09/2018 101-1530-4150 misc parts/supplies 7.51 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 08/09/2018 101-1550-4120 misc parts/supplies 321.35 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 08/09/2018 101-1550-4150 misc parts/supplies 21.35 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 08/09/2018 101-1600-4130 misc parts/supplies 89.89 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 08/09/2018 101-1613-4410 misc parts/supplies 209.88 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 08/09/2018 700-0000-4150 misc parts/supplies 150.19 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 08/09/2018 700-7019-4150 misc parts/supplies 38.37 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 08/09/2018 700-7019-4530 misc parts/supplies 80.99 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 08/09/2018 700-7043-4150 misc parts/supplies 116.03 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 08/09/2018 700-7050-4705 misc parts/supplies 68.86 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 08/09/2018 701-0000-4150 misc parts/supplies 17.26 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 1,206.40 Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 08/16/2018 701-0000-2023 SAC-July 39,760.00 Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 08/16/2018 101-1250-3816 SAC-July -397.60 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 3 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 39,362.40 MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 08/16/2018 101-1250-3818 Surcharge - July 2018 -113.14 MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 08/16/2018 101-0000-2022 Surcharge - July 2018 5,657.07 MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 5,543.93 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 08/09/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 4,857.26 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 08/09/2018 101-1600-4320 electricity charges 36.83 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 08/09/2018 700-0000-4320 electricity charges 186.12 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 08/09/2018 701-0000-4320 electricity charges 639.57 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 08/09/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 32.35 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 08/09/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 146.87 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 08/09/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 70.74 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 08/09/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 31.36 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 6,001.10 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 08/09/2018 101-1550-4120 Coupler 26.49 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 26.49 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 08/09/2018 101-1220-4120 misc parts/supplies 11.74 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 08/09/2018 701-0000-4150 misc parts/supplies 20.06 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 08/09/2018 101-1170-4120 misc parts/supplies 8.22 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 08/09/2018 700-0000-4140 misc parts/supplies 143.77 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 08/09/2018 101-1250-4140 misc parts/supplies 16.64 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 08/09/2018 101-1550-4120 misc parts/supplies 23.41 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 223.84 Potentia MN Solar 08/09/2018 700-0000-4320 electricity charges 1,940.38 Potentia MN Solar 08/09/2018 101-1190-4320 electricity charges 3,642.97 Potentia MN Solar 08/09/2018 101-1170-4320 electricity charges 2,807.12 Potentia MN Solar 8,390.47 PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 08/09/2018 720-7202-4300 Bluff Creek Prairie Mgmt 660.00 PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 660.00 Premium Waters, Inc 08/09/2018 101-1550-4120 Chippewa 5 Gal Spring/Monthly charge Aug 2018 82.69 Premium Waters, Inc 82.69 RBM SERVICES INC 08/09/2018 101-1170-4350 Extract/scrub accounting department 7/11/18 175.00 RBM SERVICES INC 175.00 Safety Vehicle Solutions 08/16/2018 422-0000-4704 Tahoe #2 3,850.00 Safety Vehicle Solutions 3,850.00 SPRINT PCS 08/16/2018 700-0000-4310 monthly charges 51.72 SPRINT PCS 08/16/2018 701-0000-4310 monthly charges 51.72 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 4 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount SPRINT PCS 103.44 SUMMIT COMPANIES 08/09/2018 700-7019-4300 MCFS-Monitoring June 2018-May 2019 Water Treatment Plant 500.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 500.00 TESSMAN SEED CO 08/09/2018 101-1550-4150 Turface MVP/REG, Turface Quick Dry 877.00 TESSMAN SEED CO 877.00 ULTIMATE CONTROLS ELECTRIC LLC 08/09/2018 700-0000-4530 Chanhassen Well House VFD - Well House #2 1,688.25 ULTIMATE CONTROLS ELECTRIC LLC 08/09/2018 700-7050-4706 Chanhassen New Water Plant SCADA Material 1,110.75 ULTIMATE CONTROLS ELECTRIC LLC 08/09/2018 700-0000-4530 Chanhassen Service Work - Well House #2 2,470.00 ULTIMATE CONTROLS ELECTRIC LLC 5,269.00 UNITED WAY 08/16/2018 101-0000-2006 PR Batch 00417.08.2018 United Way 28.40 UNITED WAY 28.40 USA BLUE BOOK 08/09/2018 700-0000-4550 Sampling Tap 1/2"-14 NPT, 3/4"x1/2" Bushing M x F 31.44 USA BLUE BOOK 08/09/2018 701-0000-4260 42' Alloy T-Probe 255.88 USA BLUE BOOK 08/09/2018 701-0000-4551 ABS S20-2W Grinder Pump -1,789.95 USA BLUE BOOK 08/09/2018 700-7043-4510 Submers Caged Level Transmittr 1,281.25 USA BLUE BOOK 08/09/2018 700-7043-4120 Foot Valve 1/2 185.93 USA BLUE BOOK 08/09/2018 700-7043-4510 Diecut Lettering 67.42 USA BLUE BOOK 31.97 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 101-1550-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 437.98 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 101-1520-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 51.42 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 101-1600-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 151.44 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 101-1530-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 51.42 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 101-0000-2006 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 10.00 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 700-0000-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 619.67 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 701-0000-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 486.05 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 720-0000-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 118.17 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 101-1160-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 112.84 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 101-1120-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 374.38 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 101-1170-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 31.74 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 101-1260-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 103.49 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 101-1130-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 51.42 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 101-1250-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 144.58 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 101-1310-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 270.17 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 101-1370-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 119.90 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 101-1320-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 411.42 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 101-1320-4320 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 339.98 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/09/2018 101-1220-4310 phone charges 06/19/18-07/18/18 487.95 VERIZON WIRELESS 4,374.02 Warning Lites of Minnesota, Inc.08/16/2018 101-1320-4410 Grasper Cones, Barricades, Road Closed, Arrows 219.50 Warning Lites of Minnesota, Inc. 219.50 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 5 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount WATSON COMPANY 08/09/2018 101-1540-4130 Lake Ann concession supplies 167.75 WATSON COMPANY 167.75 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/09/2018 700-0000-4552 Watermain Breaks 392.00 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/16/2018 700-0000-4552 Pond Excavation 120.00 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/16/2018 700-0000-4552 Pond Excavation 120.00 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/16/2018 420-0000-4751 Asphalt Plant 602.77 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/16/2018 420-0000-4751 Asphalt Tack 741.00 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/16/2018 420-0000-4751 Asphalt Plant 322.32 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/16/2018 420-0000-4751 Asphalt Plant 633.58 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 2,931.67 WW GRAINGER INC 08/09/2018 700-7050-4703 Lateral File Cabinet #48YC39 1,497.32 WW GRAINGER INC 1,497.32 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/16/2018 700-0000-4320 electricity charges 7/10/18-8/8/18 832.06 XCEL ENERGY INC 832.06 402,162.94 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (08/17/2018 - 9:16 AM)Page 6 of 6