The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda and PacketAGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 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.Pavement Management Program Funding Discussion and 8/20/18 Meeting Follow Up 2.2019 Budget Discussion Follow Up 3.Discuss Chanhassen Retail Center PUD Amendment to allow additional signage B.7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER C.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Proclamation Chanhassen Red Birds 2018 State Amateur Baseball Class "B" Champions 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 City Council Minutes dated August 20, 2018 2.Approve City Council Minutes dated August 27, 2018 3.Approve Fireworks Display at St. Hubert Catholic Community, September 15, 2018 4.Approve Fireworks Display at Chanhassen High School, October 5, 2018 5.Approve Bill of Sale for Ladder 11 E.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 1.Senator David Osmek F.NEW BUSINESS AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 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.Pavement Management Program Funding Discussion and 8/20/18 Meeting Follow Up2.2019 Budget Discussion Follow Up3.Discuss Chanhassen Retail Center PUD Amendment to allow additional signageB.7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDERC.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS1.Proclamation Chanhassen Red Birds 2018 State Amateur Baseball Class "B"ChampionsD.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 City Council Minutes dated August 20, 20182.Approve City Council Minutes dated August 27, 20183.Approve Fireworks Display at St. Hubert Catholic Community, September 15, 20184.Approve Fireworks Display at Chanhassen High School, October 5, 20185.Approve Bill of Sale for Ladder 11E.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS1.Senator David Osmek F.NEW BUSINESS G.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS H.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS I.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION 1.Review of Claims Paid 09102018 2.Web Analytics Report August 2018 J.ADJOURNMENT K.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, September 10, 2018 Subject Pavement Management Program Funding Discussion and 8/20/18 Meeting Follow Up Section 5:30 P.M. WORK SESSION Item No: A.1. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: BACKGROUND Since the August 20th public meeting, staff has been working on updating the revolving assessment construction fund projections with current data. Since we initially prepared the projections that resulted in a Franchise Fee of $4$6 for residential property owners, the fund has had an audit completed with a more accurate yearend fund balance, street projects have been put on hold and estimated start dates for some projects have now been revised, and prior projections that had anticipated Franchise Fee revenues would already be coming into the fund late in 2018. We have updated the franchise fee revenue stream to now be coming into the fund in the second half of 2019. With all of those changes, staff has put together some scenarios with the updated information. In order for the fund to remain with a positive balance for 14 years (thru 2033) an additional $1.9M is needed either from a franchise fee or property tax increase. We've prepared three scenarios with a franchise fee split of 50/50, 60/40 and 70/30 (Residential/Commercial) in order for you to see the comparison of each to what a property tax levy increase would look like. The following assumptions were used in preparing these scenarios: 1. The current special assessment practice would stay in place at the current ratio (60/40). 2. The current levy of $384,000 would stay in place. 3. Special Assessments will be repaid at the current rate of 5.75%. 4. Construction costs will increase at 3% per yea I have included a spreadsheet that breaks down the results for each scenario as well as a property tax levy increase to pay for the additional $1.9M. We put this together to give the council some perspective on where the fund sits at this point in time. These scenarios are by no means the only possibilities to consider. The discontinuing of the assessment practice, use of a property tax levy or franchise fee, and breakout of a franchise fee (if used) between residential and commercial properties all could be changed. Some additional information that has been asked for by fellow city council members: 1. What is the breakdown of tax exempt properties within the City.There are 697 tax exempt parcels of which there are 74 that have structures on them.It would be assumed that if the property has a structure it most likely would have a gas and electric bill associated with it.I have attached a map of those parcels as well as a spreadsheet with the names of those property owners and the site address. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, September 10, 2018SubjectPavement Management Program Funding Discussion and 8/20/18 Meeting Follow UpSection5:30 P.M. WORK SESSION Item No: A.1.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: BACKGROUNDSince the August 20th public meeting, staff has been working on updating the revolving assessment construction fundprojections with current data. Since we initially prepared the projections that resulted in a Franchise Fee of $4$6 forresidential property owners, the fund has had an audit completed with a more accurate yearend fund balance, streetprojects have been put on hold and estimated start dates for some projects have now been revised, and priorprojections that had anticipated Franchise Fee revenues would already be coming into the fund late in 2018. We haveupdated the franchise fee revenue stream to now be coming into the fund in the second half of 2019.With all of those changes, staff has put together some scenarios with the updated information. In order for the fund toremain with a positive balance for 14 years (thru 2033) an additional $1.9M is needed either from a franchise fee orproperty tax increase. We've prepared three scenarios with a franchise fee split of 50/50, 60/40 and 70/30(Residential/Commercial) in order for you to see the comparison of each to what a property tax levy increase wouldlook like.The following assumptions were used in preparing these scenarios:1. The current special assessment practice would stay in place at the current ratio (60/40).2. The current levy of $384,000 would stay in place.3. Special Assessments will be repaid at the current rate of 5.75%.4. Construction costs will increase at 3% per yeaI have included a spreadsheet that breaks down the results for each scenario as well as a property tax levy increase topay for the additional $1.9M. We put this together to give the council some perspective on where the fund sits at thispoint in time.These scenarios are by no means the only possibilities to consider. The discontinuing of the assessment practice, use ofa property tax levy or franchise fee, and breakout of a franchise fee (if used) between residential and commercialproperties all could be changed.Some additional information that has been asked for by fellow city council members:1. What is the breakdown of tax exempt properties within the City.There are 697 tax exempt parcels of whichthere are 74 that have structures on them.It would be assumed that if the property has a structure it most likely would have a gas and electric bill associated with it.I have attached a map of those parcels as well as a spreadsheet with the names of those property owners and the site address. 2. What would the impact of issuing a levy for the additional $1.9M be for homes valued at $200,000, $360,000, $600,000, $1,000,000, $1,500,000.I have added the property tax impact to the previously prepared spreadsheet on the impact of franchise fees I had sent out last week. (see attached) 3. If the City wanted to issue a percent based franchise fee, would the utility companies be required to agree to a percent based franchise fee? The answer is legally yes, statute would require the utility companies to agree to a percent based franchise fee agreement (see,Minn. Stat. §216B.36). However, using percent of gross revenue vs. the utilitypreferred fixed monthly fee has debatable differences in fee collection totals and may become an issue with utilities and residences and businesses as the council evaluates the method. Staff has asked Jim Strommen from Kennedy & Graven to attend next Monday’s meeting. Mr. Strommen has been asked by staff to assist with the preparation and negotiation of any franchise agreements and franchise fee agreements the city council may decide to pursue. Mr. Strommen will also give some guidance on how the process of implementing a franchise fee agreement with the utility companies would go and how it differs from the current franchise agreements the city has in place. If the city council wants to pursue a property tax levy increase rather than a franchise fee to fund the $1.9M additional funds needed, staff is reminding to the city council that it would need to include that levy as part of its preliminary levy due to the county at the end of September if they wanted to collect those funds in 2019. DISCUSSION The guidance staff will be looking to obtain from the city council will include: 1. Will the city continue its current assessment practice? 2. Will the city use a franchise fee or a property tax levy to pay for the additional funding needed for the PMP program? 3. Will the city keep the current levy of $384,000 in place? 4. If a franchise fee is chosen, will it be a fixed or percent based franchise fee? 5. If a franchise fee is chosen, what will the desired franchise fee split between commercial and residential properties be (50/50, 60/40, 70/30)? ATTACHMENTS: Revolving Assessment Construction Fund Franchise Fee Scenarios Scenario Impacts Map of Exempt Parcels Spreadsheet of Exempt Parcels with Structure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Project Cost2,752,000 1,600,000 1,000,000 1,900,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Assessments 40%(1,300,000) (640,000) (400,000) (760,000) (480,000) (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) City Share1,452,000 960,000 600,000 1,140,000 720,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 Fund Bal - BOY5,366,920 2,969,119 1,406,444 530,959 (852,499) (1,430,633) (1,742,535) (1,996,830) (1,980,433) (1,932,321) (2,030,453) Levy210,720 (269,986) (260,313) 107,595 107,370 105,390 105,990 334,790 334,690 336,190 610,090 Repayment57,000 266,347 369,363 433,777 556,164 633,461 697,875 739,289 769,703 624,817 586,168 Less Prepaid SpecialsProject Costs(2,752,000) (1,600,000) (1,000,000) (1,900,000) (1,200,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) Investable Balance2,882,640 1,365,480 515,494 (827,668) (1,388,964) (1,691,782) (1,938,670) (1,922,751) (1,876,040) (1,971,314) (1,834,195) Interest86,479 40,964 15,465 (24,830) (41,669) (50,753) (58,160) (57,683) (56,281) (59,139) (55,026) Fund Bal - EOY 5,366,920 2,969,119 1,406,444 530,959 (852,499) (1,430,633) (1,742,535) (1,996,830) (1,980,433) (1,932,321) (2,030,453) (1,889,221) Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 6%Project Year 2005 $142,000.00 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 2006 $34,000.00 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 2007$209,346.73 209,300 209,300 209,300 209,300 209,300 209,300 209,300 2008$103,063.00 103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 2009$64,414.38 64,414 64,414 64,414 64,414 64,414 64,414 64,414 2010$122,387.32 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 2011$77,297.25 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 2012$64,414.38 64,414 64,414 64,414 64,414 $64,414.38 64,414 64,414 64,414 $64,414.38 64,414 64,414 $64,414.38 64,414 $64,414.38Revolving Assessment FundAssessed Share Financed Thru City 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Project Cost2,752,000 1,600,000 1,000,000 1,900,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Assessments 40%(1,300,000) (640,000) (400,000) (760,000) (480,000) (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) City Share1,452,000 960,000 600,000 1,140,000 720,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 Fund Bal - BOY5,366,920 2,969,119 2,065,644 1,515,780 772,166 438,611 216,610 (11,433) (34,344) (93,064) (367,581) Levy210,720 (269,986) (260,313) 107,595 107,370 105,390 105,990 334,790 334,690 336,190 610,090 Repayment57,000 266,347 266,300 266,300 266,300 266,300 266,300 243,300 209,300 - - Less Prepaid SpecialsProject Costs(2,752,000) (960,000) (600,000) (1,140,000) (720,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) Investable Balance2,882,640 2,005,480 1,471,631 749,675 425,836 210,301 (11,100) (33,343) (90,354) (356,874) (357,491) Interest86,479 60,164 44,149 22,490 12,775 6,309 (333) (1,000) (2,711) (10,706) (10,725) Fund Bal - EOY 5,366,920 2,969,119 2,065,644 1,515,780 772,166 438,611 216,610 (11,433) (34,344) (93,064) (367,581) (368,215) Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 6%Project Year 2005 $142,000.00 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 2006 $34,000.00 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 2007$209,346.73 209,300 209,300 209,300 209,300 209,300 209,300 209,300 20082009201020112012Revolving Assessment FundAssessed Share Financed Thru Bond Sale & New Facilities 2005 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023Project Cost1,700,000 950,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 Assessments 40% (680,000) (380,000) (560,000) (480,000) (480,000) (520,000) (520,000) (520,000) (560,000) (560,000) (560,000) (600,000) City Share1,020,000 570,000 840,000 720,000 720,000 780,000 780,000 780,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 900,000 Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2012**** 1,133,539 385,450 312,580 59,256 145,403 79,123 127,321 202,858 235,790 174,993 84,551 496,492 Levy437,842 130,680 444,410 450,192 431,698 670,538 664,293 659,378 660,978 653,293 1,114,690 1,111,790 Repayment627,842 737,346 775,540 831,720 699,717 673,951 705,336 666,687 673,128 653,803 682,789 682,789 Project Costs(1,825,000) (950,000) (1,475,000) (1,200,000) (1,200,000) (1,300,000) (1,300,000) (1,300,000) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (1,500,000) Investable Balance 374,223 303,476 57,530 141,168 76,818 123,612 196,949 228,922 169,896 82,089 482,031 791,071 MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest11,227 9,104 1,726 4,235 2,305 3,708 5,908 6,868 5,097 2,463 14,461 23,732 Fund Bal - EOY385,450 312,580 59,256 145,403 79,123 127,321 202,858 235,790 174,993 84,551 496,492 814,803 Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 6%Project Year 2005 23,000 23,000 23,000 2006 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 2007 209,300 209,300 209,300 209,300 209,300 2008 103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 2009 58,795 58,795 58,795 58,795 58,795 58,795 58,795 2010 $122,387.00 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 2011 $77,297.00 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 2012$109,504.44 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013$61,193.66 61,194 61,194 61,194 61,194 61,194 61,194 61,194 2014$90,180.13 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 2015$77,297.25 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 2016$77,297.25 83,738 83,738 83,738 83,738 83,738 83,738 2017$83,738.69 83,738 83,738 83,738 83,738 83,738 2018$83,738.69 83,738 83,738 83,738 83,738 2019$83,738.69 83,738 83,738 83,738 2020$90,180.13 90,180 90,180 2021$90,180.13 90,180 2022$90,180.1320232024202520262027202820292030Revolving Assessment Fund 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 20301,500,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 (600,000) (640,000) (640,000) (680,000) (680,000) (720,000) (720,000) 900,000 960,000 960,000 1,020,000 1,020,000 1,080,000 1,080,000 814,803 1,160,714 1,426,550 1,715,425 1,931,828 2,173,640 2,339,096 1,109,990 1,109,290 1,104,590 1,106,490 1,099,090 1,098,590 1,098,590 702,114 714,997 734,321 753,646 779,412 798,736 824,502 (1,500,000) (1,600,000) (1,600,000) (1,700,000) (1,700,000) (1,800,000) (1,800,000) 1,126,906 1,385,000 1,665,461 1,875,561 2,110,330 2,270,967 2,462,187 33,807 41,550 49,964 56,267 63,310 68,129 73,866 1,160,714 1,426,550 1,715,425 1,931,828 2,173,640 2,339,096 2,536,053 83,738 83,738 83,738 83,738 83,738 83,738 83,738 83,738 83,738 83,738 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 $96,621.57 96,621 96,621 96,621 96,621 96,621 96,621 $96,621.57 96,621 96,621 96,621 96,621 96,621 $103,063.00 103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 $103,063.00 103,063 103,063 103,063 $109,504.44 109,504 109,504 $109,504.44 109,504 $115,945.88 2005 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023Project Cost (Street Only) 1,700,000 1,695,000 1,400,000 2,255,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Assessments 40%(680,000) (678,000) (560,000) (902,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) City Share1,020,000 1,017,000 840,000 1,353,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 Other project Costs(200,000) (75,000) Tsfs in2,000,000 - Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2012**** 1,133,539 385,450 1,399,230 1,150,684 232,370 (20,859) (42,319) (31,916) (52,824) (52,829) (74,041) 366,371 Levy437,842 130,680 444,410 450,192 431,698 670,538 664,293 659,378 660,978 653,293 1,114,690 1,111,790 Repayment627,842 737,346 823,528 879,726 815,680 809,235 847,040 821,253 840,556 827,652 815,052 821,472 Project Costs(1,825,000) (1,695,000) (1,475,000) (2,255,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) Investable Balance374,223 1,358,476 1,117,169 225,602 (20,252) (41,087) (30,987) (51,286) (51,291) (71,885) 355,700 799,633 MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest11,227 40,754 33,515 6,768 (608) (1,233) (930) (1,539) (1,539) (2,157) 10,671 23,989 Fund Bal - EOY385,450 1,399,230 1,150,684 232,370 (20,859) (42,319) (31,916) (52,824) (52,829) (74,041) 366,371 823,622 Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 6%Project Year 2005 23,000 23,000 2006 34,000 34,000 34,000 2007 209,300 209,300 209,300 209,300 2008 103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 2009 58,795 58,795 58,795 58,795 58,795 58,795 2010 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 2011 $77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 2012$109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013$109,182 109,200 109,200 109,200 109,200 109,200 109,200 109,200 2014$90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 2015$145,254 145,250 145,250 145,250 145,250 145,250 145,250 145,250 2016$96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2017$96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2018$96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2019$96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 2020$96,622 96,600 96,600 2021$96,622 96,600 2022$96,62220232024202520262027202820292030Revolving Assessment Fund 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 20301,500,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 (600,000) (640,000) (640,000) (680,000) (680,000) (720,000) (720,000) 900,000 960,000 960,000 1,020,000 1,020,000 1,080,000 1,080,000 823,622 1,242,626 1,570,480 1,909,963 2,165,244 2,433,854 2,620,298 1,109,990 1,109,290 1,104,590 1,106,490 1,099,090 1,098,590 1,098,590 772,822 772,822 779,263 785,726 798,630 811,534 830,880 (1,500,000) (1,600,000) (1,600,000) (1,700,000) (1,700,000) (1,800,000) (1,800,000) 1,206,433 1,524,738 1,854,333 2,102,179 2,362,965 2,543,978 2,749,768 36,193 45,742 55,630 63,065 70,889 76,319 82,493 1,242,626 1,570,480 1,909,963 2,165,244 2,433,854 2,620,298 2,832,261 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 $96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 $96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 $103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 $103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 $109,504 109,504 109,504 $109,504 109,504 $115,946 2005 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Project Cost (Street Only) 1,410,000 1,400,000 2,255,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 Assessments 40% (564,000) (560,000) (902,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (640,000) City Share 846,000 840,000 1,353,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 960,000 Other project Costs (200,000) (75,000) Tsfs in- Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2013**** 2,600,000 1,913,767 1,507,247 445,131 43,784 (130,236) (276,971) (459,731) (626,443) (819,363) (555,811) (280,725) (49,351) Levy130,680 294,410 300,192 281,698 520,538 514,293 509,378 510,978 503,293 964,690 961,790 959,990 959,290 Repayment 737,346 805,170 879,726 815,680 809,235 847,040 821,253 840,556 827,652 815,052 821,472 772,822 772,822 Project Costs (1,410,000) (1,475,000) (2,255,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,600,000) Investable Balance 1,858,026 1,463,347 432,166 42,509 (126,443) (268,904) (446,340) (608,197) (795,498) (539,622) (272,549) (47,914) 82,760 MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest55,741 43,900 12,965 1,275 (3,793) (8,067) (13,390) (18,246) (23,865) (16,189) (8,176) (1,437) 2,483 Fund Bal - EOY 1,913,767 1,507,247 445,131 43,784 (130,236) (276,971) (459,731) (626,443) (819,363) (555,811) (280,725) (49,351) 85,243 Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 6%Project Year 2005 23,000 2006 34,000 34,000 2007 209,300 209,300 209,300 2008 103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 2009 58,795 58,795 58,795 58,795 58,795 2010 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 2011 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 2012 $109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013 $90,824 109,200 109,200 109,200 109,200 109,200 109,200 109,200 2014$90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 2015$145,254 145,250 145,250 145,250 145,250 145,250 145,250 145,250 2016$96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2017$96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2018$96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2019$96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2020$96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2021$96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 2022$96,622 96,600 96,600 2023$96,622 96,600 2024$96,622202520262027202820292030Revolving Assessment Fund 2026 2027 2028 2029 20301,600,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 (640,000) (680,000) (680,000) (720,000) (720,000) 960,000 1,020,000 1,020,000 1,080,000 1,080,000 85,243 225,669 275,922 333,351 302,280 954,590 956,490 949,090 948,590 948,590 779,263 785,726 798,630 811,534 830,880 (1,600,000) (1,700,000) (1,700,000) (1,800,000) (1,800,000) 219,096 267,885 323,642 293,476 281,750 6,573 8,037 9,709 8,804 8,452 225,669 275,922 333,351 302,280 290,202 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 $103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 $103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 $109,504 109,504 109,504 $109,504 109,504 $115,946 2005 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Project Cost (Street Only) 1,410,000 1,400,000 1,850,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 Assessments 40% (564,000) (560,000) (740,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (600,000) (640,000) City Share 846,000 840,000 1,110,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 960,000 Other project Costs (200,000) (175,000) Tsfs in467,919 Tenn Courts &61 studyFund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2013**** 2,600,000 2,395,723 2,055,163 1,581,133 1,341,497 1,334,042 1,358,870 1,352,820 1,368,119 1,362,670 1,339,856 1,319,984 1,274,418 Levy130,680 444,410 450,192 431,698 670,538 664,293 659,378 660,978 653,293 649,193 646,293 644,493 643,793 Repayment 737,346 805,170 879,726 789,593 783,152 820,957 795,170 814,473 801,569 788,969 795,389 772,822 772,822 Project Costs (1,410,000) (1,475,000) (1,850,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,600,000) Investable Balance 2,325,945 1,995,304 1,535,081 1,302,424 1,295,186 1,319,291 1,313,418 1,328,271 1,322,980 1,300,831 1,281,538 1,237,299 1,091,032 MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest69,778 59,859 46,052 39,073 38,856 39,579 39,403 39,848 39,689 39,025 38,446 37,119 32,731 Fund Bal - EOY 2,395,723 2,055,163 1,581,133 1,341,497 1,334,042 1,358,870 1,352,820 1,368,119 1,362,670 1,339,856 1,319,984 1,274,418 1,123,763 Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 6%Project Year 2005 23,000 2006 34,000 34,000 2007 209,300 209,300 209,300 2008 103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 2009 58,795 58,795 58,795 58,795 58,795 2010 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 2011 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 2012 $109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013 $90,824 109,200 109,200 109,200 109,200 109,200 109,200 109,200 2014$90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 2015$119,167 119,167 119,167 119,167 119,167 119,167 119,167 119,167 2016$96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2017$96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2018$96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2019$96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2020$96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2021$96,622 96,600 96,600 96,600 2022$96,622 96,600 96,600 2023$96,622 96,600 2024$96,622202520262027202820292030Revolving Assessment Fund 2026 2027 2028 2029 20301,600,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 (640,000) (680,000) (680,000) (720,000) (720,000) 960,000 1,020,000 1,020,000 1,080,000 1,080,000 1,123,763 970,383 718,015 463,745 111,624 639,093 640,993 633,593 633,093 633,093 779,263 785,726 798,630 811,534 830,880 (1,600,000) (1,700,000) (1,700,000) (1,800,000) (1,800,000) 942,119 697,102 450,238 108,373 (224,403) 28,264 20,913 13,507 3,251 (6,732) 970,383 718,015 463,745 111,624 (231,135) 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 $103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 $103,063 103,063 103,063 103,063 $109,504 109,504 109,504 $109,504 109,504 $115,946 2005 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Project Cost (Street Only) 1,850,000 1,560,000 1,622,400 1,687,296 1,754,788 1,824,979 1,897,979 1,973,898 2,052,854 2,134,968 2,220,366 2,309,181 2,401,548 Assessments 40% (740,000) (624,000) (648,960) (674,918) (701,915) (729,992) (759,191) (789,559) (821,141) (853,987) (888,147) (923,672) (960,619) City Share 1,110,000 936,000 973,440 1,012,378 1,052,873 1,094,988 1,138,787 1,184,339 1,231,712 1,280,981 1,332,220 1,385,509 1,440,929 Other project CostsTenn Courts &(150,000) Tsfs in194,751 194,751 194,751 194,751 Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2014**** 2,148,552 1,636,854 1,494,985 1,524,599 1,525,724 1,282,774 952,408 537,815 64,427 (465,327) (1,078,333) (1,754,757) (2,501,964) Levy - From Debt Levy Schedule 450,192 431,698 670,538 664,293 659,378 660,978 653,293 649,193 646,293 644,493 643,793 639,093 640,993 Reduction for Other purposesRepayment 856,015 762,369 756,830 799,461 782,556 814,961 819,547 850,053 885,931 898,612 934,557 971,939 1,010,817 Project Costs (1,850,000) (1,560,000) (1,622,400) (1,687,296) (1,754,788) (1,824,979) (1,897,979) (1,973,898) (2,052,854) (2,134,968) (2,220,366) (2,309,181) (2,401,548) Investable Balance 1,604,759 1,465,672 1,494,705 1,495,808 1,257,621 933,733 527,270 63,163 (456,203) (1,057,190) (1,720,350) (2,452,906) (3,251,703) MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest32,095 29,313 29,894 29,916 25,152 18,675 10,545 1,263 (9,124) (21,144) (34,407) (49,058) (65,034) Fund Bal - EOY 1,636,854 1,494,985 1,524,599 1,525,724 1,282,774 952,408 537,815 64,427 (465,327) (1,078,333) (1,754,757) (2,501,964) (3,316,737) Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 5.25%Project Year 200520062007 209,300 2008 103,063 103,063 2009 58,795 58,795 58,795 2010 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 2011 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 2012 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,1472014 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,5222015 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,6542016$97,524 $97,524 $97,524 $97,524 $97,524 $97,524 $97,524 $97,5242017$101,425 $101,425 $101,425 $101,425 $101,425 $101,425 $101,425 $101,4252018$105,482 $105,482 $105,482 $105,482 $105,482 $105,482 $105,482 $105,4822019$109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,7022020$114,090 $114,090 $114,090 $114,090 $114,090 $114,090 $114,0902021$118,653 $118,653 $118,653 $118,653 $118,653 $118,6532022$123,400 $123,400 $123,400 $123,400 $123,4002023$128,336 $128,336 $128,336 $128,3362024$133,469 $133,469 $133,4692025$138,808 $138,8082026$144,3602027202820292030Revolving Assessment Fund 2028 2029 20302,497,610 2,597,515 2,701,415 (999,044) (1,039,006) (1,080,566) 1,498,566 1,558,509 1,620,849 (3,316,737) (4,212,095) (5,184,882) 633,593 633,093 633,093 1,051,249 1,093,299 1,137,031 (2,497,610) (2,597,515) (2,701,415) (4,129,505) (5,083,217) (6,116,173) (82,590) (101,664) (122,323) (4,212,095) (5,184,882) (6,238,496) $114,090$118,653 $118,653$123,400 $123,400 $123,400$128,336 $128,336 $128,336$133,469 $133,469 $133,469$138,808 $138,808 $138,808$144,360 $144,360 $144,360$150,134 $150,134 $150,134$156,140 $156,140$162,385 2005 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Project Cost (Street Only) 1,850,000 2,260,000 922,400 1,687,300 1,754,792 2,500,000 1,900,000 1,976,000 2,055,040 2,137,242 2,222,731 2,311,641 2,404,106 Assessments 40% (740,000) (904,000) (368,960) (674,920) (701,917) (1,000,000) (760,000) (790,400) (822,016) (854,897) (889,093) (924,656) (961,642) City Share 1,110,000 1,356,000 553,440 1,012,380 1,052,875 1,500,000 1,140,000 1,185,600 1,233,024 1,282,345 1,333,639 1,386,984 1,442,464 Other project CostsTenn Courts & (340,000) (150,000) Tsfs in125,000 194,751 194,751 194,751 194,751 Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2015**** 1,825,583 1,088,126 221,282 984,058 974,368 720,387 (309,747) (708,601) (1,165,889) (1,679,173) (2,275,329) (2,979,150) (3,709,611) Levy - From Debt Levy Schedule 450,192 431,698 670,538 664,293 659,378 660,978 653,293 649,193 646,293 644,493 643,793 639,093 640,993 Reduction for Other purposesRepayment 856,015 762,369 800,591 799,461 782,557 814,962 861,747 892,379 928,388 941,207 933,532 1,014,823 1,053,855 Project Costs (1,850,000) (2,260,000) (922,400) (1,687,300) (1,754,792) (2,500,000) (1,900,000) (1,976,000) (2,055,040) (2,137,242) (2,222,731) (2,311,641) (2,404,106) Investable Balance 1,066,790 216,944 964,763 955,263 706,262 (303,673) (694,707) (1,143,029) (1,646,248) (2,230,715) (2,920,735) (3,636,874) (4,418,870) MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest21,336 4,339 19,295 19,105 14,125 (6,073) (13,894) (22,861) (32,925) (44,614) (58,415) (72,737) (88,377) Fund Bal - EOY 1,088,126 221,282 984,058 974,368 720,387 (309,747) (708,601) (1,165,889) (1,679,173) (2,275,329) (2,979,150) (3,709,611) (4,507,247) Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 5.25%Project Year 200520062007 209,300 2008 103,063 103,063 2009 58,795 58,795 58,795 2010 122,387 122,387 122,387 122,387 2011 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 2012 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,1472014 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,5222015 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,6542016$141,285 $141,285 $141,285 $141,285 $141,285 $141,285 $141,285 $141,2852017$57,664 $57,664 $57,664 $57,664 $57,664 $57,664 $57,664 $57,6642018$105,483 $105,483 $105,483 $105,483 $105,483 $105,483 $105,483 $105,4832019$109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,7022020$156,289 $156,289 $156,289 $156,289 $156,289 $156,289 $156,2892021$118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,7802022$123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,5312023$128,472 $128,472 $128,472 $128,4722024$133,611 $133,611 $133,6112025$138,956 $138,9562026$144,5142027202820292030Revolving Assessment Fund 2028 2029 20302,500,270 2,600,281 2,704,292 (1,000,108) (1,040,112) (1,081,717) 1,500,162 1,560,169 1,622,575 (4,507,247) (5,385,067) (6,382,948) 633,593 633,093 633,093 1,094,447 1,094,464 1,138,242 (2,500,270) (2,600,281) (2,704,292) (5,279,478) (6,257,792) (7,315,905) (105,590) (125,156) (146,318) (5,385,067) (6,382,948) (7,462,223) $156,289$118,780 $118,780$123,531 $123,531 $123,531$128,472 $128,472 $128,472$133,611 $133,611 $133,611$138,956 $138,956 $138,956$144,514 $144,514 $144,514$150,294 $150,294 $150,294$156,306 $156,306$162,558 2005 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028Project Cost (Street Only) 2,260,000 922,400 1,687,300 1,754,792 2,500,000 1,900,000 1,976,000 2,055,040 2,137,242 2,222,731 2,311,641 2,404,106 2,500,270 Assessments 40% (904,000) (368,960) (674,920) (701,917) (1,000,000) (760,000) (790,400) (822,016) (854,897) (889,093) (924,656) (961,642) (1,000,108) City Share 1,356,000 553,440 1,012,380 1,052,875 1,500,000 1,140,000 1,185,600 1,233,024 1,282,345 1,333,639 1,386,984 1,442,464 1,500,162 Other project CostsTenn Courts & 382,365 (150,000) Tsfs in194,751 194,751 194,751 194,751 Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2016**** 1,680,000 1,215,007 1,997,657 2,008,239 1,774,935 765,892 388,551 (46,794) (537,696) (1,111,023) (1,791,557) (2,498,267) (3,271,676) Levy - From Debt Levy Schedule 431,698 670,538 664,293 659,378 660,978 653,293 649,193 646,293 644,493 643,793 639,093 640,993 633,593 Reduction for Other purposesRepayment 762,369 800,591 799,461 782,557 814,962 861,747 892,379 928,388 941,207 933,532 1,014,823 1,053,855 1,094,447 Project Costs (2,260,000) (922,400) (1,687,300) (1,754,792) (2,500,000) (1,900,000) (1,976,000) (2,055,040) (2,137,242) (2,222,731) (2,311,641) (2,404,106) (2,500,270) Investable Balance 1,191,183 1,958,487 1,968,862 1,740,133 750,875 380,932 (45,877) (527,153) (1,089,238) (1,756,429) (2,449,281) (3,207,525) (4,043,907) MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest23,824 39,170 39,377 34,803 15,017 7,619 (918) (10,543) (21,785) (35,129) (48,986) (64,151) (80,878) Fund Bal - EOY 1,215,007 1,997,657 2,008,239 1,774,935 765,892 388,551 (46,794) (537,696) (1,111,023) (1,791,557) (2,498,267) (3,271,676) (4,124,785) Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 5.25%Project Year 2005200620072008 103,063 2009 58,795 58,795 2010 122,387 122,387 122,387 2011 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 2012 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,1472014 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,5222015 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,6542016 $141,285 $141,285 $141,285 $141,285 $141,285 $141,285 $141,285 $141,2852017$57,664 $57,664 $57,664 $57,664 $57,664 $57,664 $57,664 $57,6642018$105,483 $105,483 $105,483 $105,483 $105,483 $105,483 $105,483 $105,4832019$109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,7022020$156,289 $156,289 $156,289 $156,289 $156,289 $156,289 $156,289 $156,2892021$118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,7802022$123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,5312023$128,472 $128,472 $128,472 $128,472 $128,4722024$133,611 $133,611 $133,611 $133,6112025$138,956 $138,956 $138,9562026$144,514 $144,5142027$150,294202820292030Revolving Assessment Fund 2029 20302,600,281 2,704,292 (1,040,112) (1,081,717) 1,560,169 1,622,575 (4,124,785) (5,097,459) 633,093 633,093 1,094,464 1,138,242 (2,600,281) (2,704,292) (4,997,509) (6,030,416) (99,950) (120,608) (5,097,459) (6,151,025) $118,780$123,531 $123,531$128,472 $128,472$133,611 $133,611$138,956 $138,956$144,514 $144,514$150,294 $150,294$156,306 $156,306$162,558 2005 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028Project Cost (Street Only) 2,260,000 922,400 1,687,300 1,754,792 2,500,000 1,900,000 1,976,000 2,055,040 2,137,242 2,222,731 2,311,641 2,404,106 2,500,270 Assessments 40% (904,000) (368,960) (674,920) (701,917) (1,000,000) (760,000) (790,400) (822,016) (854,897) (889,093) (924,656) (961,642) (1,000,108) City Share 1,356,000 553,440 1,012,380 1,052,875 1,500,000 1,140,000 1,185,600 1,233,024 1,282,345 1,333,639 1,386,984 1,442,464 1,500,162 Other project CostsTenn Courts & 382,365 (150,000) Tsfs in194,751 194,751 194,751 194,751 Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2016**** 1,680,000 1,215,007 1,752,143 1,512,301 1,023,564 (246,020) (889,114) (1,595,526) (2,362,917) (3,218,262) (4,186,455) (5,186,577) (6,259,266) Levy - From Debt Levy Schedule 431,698 429,838 423,593 418,678 420,278 412,593 408,493 405,593 403,793 403,093 398,393 400,293 392,893 Reduction for Other purposesRepayment 762,369 800,591 799,461 782,557 814,962 861,747 892,379 928,388 941,207 933,532 1,014,823 1,053,855 1,094,447 Project Costs (2,260,000) (922,400) (1,687,300) (1,754,792) (2,500,000) (1,900,000) (1,976,000) (2,055,040) (2,137,242) (2,222,731) (2,311,641) (2,404,106) (2,500,270) Investable Balance 1,191,183 1,717,787 1,482,648 1,003,494 (241,196) (871,680) (1,564,242) (2,316,585) (3,155,159) (4,104,368) (5,084,879) (6,136,535) (7,272,197) MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest23,824 34,356 29,653 20,070 (4,824) (17,434) (31,285) (46,332) (63,103) (82,087) (101,698) (122,731) (145,444) Fund Bal - EOY 1,215,007 1,752,143 1,512,301 1,023,564 (246,020) (889,114) (1,595,526) (2,362,917) (3,218,262) (4,186,455) (5,186,577) (6,259,266) (7,417,640) Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 5.25%Project Year 2005200620072008 103,063 2009 58,795 58,795 2010 122,387 122,387 122,387 2011 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 2012 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,1472014 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,5222015 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,6542016 $141,285 $141,285 $141,285 $141,285 $141,285 $141,285 $141,285 $141,2852017$57,664 $57,664 $57,664 $57,664 $57,664 $57,664 $57,664 $57,6642018$105,483 $105,483 $105,483 $105,483 $105,483 $105,483 $105,483 $105,4832019$109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,702 $109,7022020$156,289 $156,289 $156,289 $156,289 $156,289 $156,289 $156,289 $156,2892021$118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,7802022$123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,5312023$128,472 $128,472 $128,472 $128,472 $128,4722024$133,611 $133,611 $133,611 $133,6112025$138,956 $138,956 $138,9562026$144,514 $144,5142027$150,294202820292030Revolving Assessment Fund 2029 20302,600,281 2,704,292 (1,040,112) (1,081,717) 1,560,169 1,622,575 (7,417,640) (8,701,686) 392,393 392,393 1,094,464 1,138,242 (2,600,281) (2,704,292) (8,531,065) (9,875,343) (170,621) (197,507) (8,701,686) (10,072,850) $118,780$123,531 $123,531$128,472 $128,472$133,611 $133,611$138,956 $138,956$144,514 $144,514$150,294 $150,294$156,306 $156,306$162,558 2005 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028Project Cost (Street Only) 600,000 3,275,000 1,600,000 1,100,000 3,300,000 1,100,000 1,900,000 1,976,000 2,055,040 2,137,242 2,222,731 2,311,641 2,404,106 Assessments 40% (240,000) (1,310,000) (640,000) (440,000) (1,320,000) (440,000) (760,000) (790,400) (822,016) (854,897) (889,093) (924,656) (961,642) City Share 360,000 1,965,000 960,000 660,000 1,980,000 660,000 1,140,000 1,185,600 1,233,024 1,282,345 1,333,639 1,386,984 1,442,464 Other project CostsTenn Courts & 382,365 750,000 (150,000) Tsfs in194,751 194,751 194,751 194,751 Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2016**** 1,680,000 2,908,207 978,293 1,625,775 1,850,383 (217,231) 8,698 (125,994) (311,975) (576,098) (837,281) (1,268,231) (1,756,841) Levy - From Debt Levy Schedule 431,698 434,338 428,093 423,178 424,778 417,093 878,493 875,593 873,793 873,093 868,393 870,293 862,893 Reduction for Other purposesRepayment 762,369 696,815 842,759 820,397 811,868 908,665 889,285 920,543 928,420 1,019,383 948,255 987,186 1,062,932 Project Costs (600,000) (3,275,000) (1,600,000) (1,100,000) (3,300,000) (1,100,000) (1,900,000) (1,976,000) (2,055,040) (2,137,242) (2,222,731) (2,311,641) (2,404,106) Investable Balance 2,851,183 959,111 1,593,897 1,814,101 (212,972) 8,527 (123,524) (305,858) (564,802) (820,864) (1,243,364) (1,722,393) (2,235,122) MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest57,024 19,182 31,878 36,282 (4,259) 171 (2,470) (6,117) (11,296) (16,417) (24,867) (34,448) (44,702) Fund Bal - EOY 2,908,207 978,293 1,625,775 1,850,383 (217,231) 8,698 (125,994) (311,975) (576,098) (837,281) (1,268,231) (1,756,841) (2,279,824) Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 5.25%Project Year 2005200620072008 103,063 2009 58,795 58,795 2010 122,387 122,387 122,387 2011 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 2012 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,1472014 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,5222015 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,6542016 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,5092017$204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,7392018$100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,0252019$68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,7672020$206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,3022021$68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,7672022$118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,7802023$123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,5312024$128,472 $128,472 $128,472 $128,4722025$133,611 $133,611 $133,6112026$138,956 $138,9562027$144,514202820292030Revolving Assessment Fund 2029 20302,500,270 2,600,281 (1,000,108) (1,040,112) 1,500,162 1,560,169 (2,279,824) (2,968,992) 862,393 862,393 1,006,925 1,094,464 (2,500,270) (2,600,281) (2,910,776) (3,612,416) (58,216) (72,248) (2,968,992) (3,684,665) $68,767$118,780 $118,780$123,531 $123,531$128,472 $128,472$133,611 $133,611$138,956 $138,956$144,514 $144,514$150,294 $150,294$156,306 2005 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028Project Cost (Street Only) 600,000 3,275,000 1,600,000 1,100,000 3,300,000 1,100,000 1,900,000 1,976,000 2,055,040 2,137,242 2,222,731 2,311,641 2,404,106 Assessments 40% (240,000) (1,310,000) (640,000) (440,000) (1,320,000) (440,000) (760,000) (790,400) (822,016) (854,897) (889,093) (924,656) (961,642) City Share 360,000 1,965,000 960,000 660,000 1,980,000 660,000 1,140,000 1,185,600 1,233,024 1,282,345 1,333,639 1,386,984 1,442,464 Other project CostsTenn Courts & 382,365 750,000 (150,000) Tsfs in194,751 194,751 194,751 194,751 Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2016**** 1,680,000 2,908,207 943,613 1,562,091 1,758,441 (342,381) (149,918) (318,747) (534,958) (831,446) (1,126,865) (1,589,574) (2,114,046) Levy - From Debt Levy Schedule 431,698 400,338 400,338 396,723 394,023 386,738 848,135 849,735 846,435 844,535 842,935 841,435 834,935 Reduction for Other purposesRepayment 762,369 696,815 842,759 820,397 811,868 908,665 889,285 920,543 928,420 1,019,383 948,255 987,186 1,062,932 Project Costs (600,000) (3,275,000) (1,600,000) (1,100,000) (3,300,000) (1,100,000) (1,900,000) (1,976,000) (2,055,040) (2,137,242) (2,222,731) (2,311,641) (2,404,106) Investable Balance 2,851,183 925,111 1,531,462 1,723,962 (335,668) (146,978) (312,497) (524,469) (815,143) (1,104,770) (1,558,406) (2,072,594) (2,620,285) MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest57,024 18,502 30,629 34,479 (6,713) (2,940) (6,250) (10,489) (16,303) (22,095) (31,168) (41,452) (52,406) Fund Bal - EOY 2,908,207 943,613 1,562,091 1,758,441 (342,381) (149,918) (318,747) (534,958) (831,446) (1,126,865) (1,589,574) (2,114,046) (2,672,690) Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 5.25%Project Year 2005200620072008 103,063 2009 58,795 58,795 2010 122,387 122,387 122,387 2011 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 2012 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,1472014 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,5222015 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,6542016 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,5092017$204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,7392018$100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,0252019$68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,7672020$206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,3022021$68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,7672022$118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,7802023$123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,5312024$128,472 $128,472 $128,472 $128,4722025$133,611 $133,611 $133,6112026$138,956 $138,9562027$144,514202820292030Revolving Assessment Fund 2029 20302,500,270 2,600,281 (1,000,108) (1,040,112) 1,500,162 1,560,169 (2,672,690) (3,398,743) 833,935 833,935 1,006,925 1,094,464 (2,500,270) (2,600,281) (3,332,101) (4,070,625) (66,642) (81,413) (3,398,743) (4,152,038) $68,767$118,780 $118,780$123,531 $123,531$128,472 $128,472$133,611 $133,611$138,956 $138,956$144,514 $144,514$150,294 $150,294$156,306 2005 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028Project Cost (Street Only) 600,000 3,275,000 1,600,000 1,100,000 3,300,000 1,100,000 1,900,000 1,976,000 2,055,040 2,137,242 2,222,731 2,311,641 2,404,106 Assessments 40% (240,000) (1,310,000) (640,000) (440,000) (1,320,000) (440,000) (760,000) (790,400) (822,016) (854,897) (889,093) (924,656) (961,642) City Share 360,000 1,965,000 960,000 660,000 1,980,000 660,000 1,140,000 1,185,600 1,233,024 1,282,345 1,333,639 1,386,984 1,442,464 Other project CostsTenn Courts & 382,365 750,000 (150,000) Tsfs in194,751 194,751 194,751 194,751 Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2016**** 1,680,000 2,908,207 927,803 1,530,155 1,710,056 (407,544) (232,194) (418,479) (652,494) (967,143) (1,281,086) (1,762,689) (2,306,433) Levy - From Debt Levy Schedule 431,698 384,838 384,838 381,223 378,523 371,238 832,635 834,235 830,935 829,035 827,435 825,935 819,435 Reduction for Other purposesRepayment 762,369 696,815 842,759 820,397 811,868 908,665 889,285 920,543 928,420 1,019,383 948,255 987,186 1,062,932 Project Costs (600,000) (3,275,000) (1,600,000) (1,100,000) (3,300,000) (1,100,000) (1,900,000) (1,976,000) (2,055,040) (2,137,242) (2,222,731) (2,311,641) (2,404,106) Investable Balance 2,851,183 909,611 1,500,152 1,676,526 (399,553) (227,641) (410,273) (639,700) (948,179) (1,255,966) (1,728,127) (2,261,209) (2,828,172) MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest57,024 18,192 30,003 33,531 (7,991) (4,553) (8,205) (12,794) (18,964) (25,119) (34,563) (45,224) (56,563) Fund Bal - EOY 2,908,207 927,803 1,530,155 1,710,056 (407,544) (232,194) (418,479) (652,494) (967,143) (1,281,086) (1,762,689) (2,306,433) (2,884,735) Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 5.25%Project Year 2005200620072008 103,063 2009 58,795 58,795 2010 122,387 122,387 122,387 2011 77,297 77,297 77,297 77,297 2012 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,1472014 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,5222015 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,6542016 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,5092017$204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,7392018$100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,0252019$68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,7672020$206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,3022021$68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,7672022$118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,7802023$123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,5312024$128,472 $128,472 $128,472 $128,4722025$133,611 $133,611 $133,6112026$138,956 $138,9562027$144,514202820292030Revolving Assessment Fund 2029 20302,500,270 2,600,281 (1,000,108) (1,040,112) 1,500,162 1,560,169 (2,884,735) (3,630,839) 818,435 818,435 1,006,925 1,094,464 (2,500,270) (2,600,281) (3,559,646) (4,318,221) (71,193) (86,364) (3,630,839) (4,404,586) $68,767$118,780 $118,780$123,531 $123,531$128,472 $128,472$133,611 $133,611$138,956 $138,956$144,514 $144,514$150,294 $150,294$156,306 2005 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030Project Cost (Street Only) 3,275,000 1,600,000 1,100,000 3,300,000 1,100,000 1,900,000 1,976,000 2,055,040 2,137,242 2,222,731 2,311,641 2,404,106 2,500,270 2,600,281 Assessments 40% (1,310,000) (640,000) (440,000) (1,320,000) (440,000) (760,000) (790,400) (822,016) (854,897) (889,093) (924,656) (961,642) (1,000,108) (1,040,112) City Share 1,965,000 960,000 660,000 1,980,000 660,000 1,140,000 1,185,600 1,233,024 1,282,345 1,333,639 1,386,984 1,442,464 1,500,162 1,560,169 Other project CostsTenn Courts & 750,000 (150,000) Tsfs in 474,751 194,751 194,751 Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2016**** 2,689,263 990,081 1,593,678 1,774,850 (341,455) (164,782) (349,719) (582,360) (895,606) (1,208,118) (1,688,262) (2,230,517) (2,807,301) (3,551,856) Levy - From Debt Levy Schedule 384,838 384,838 381,223 378,523 371,238 832,635 834,235 830,935 829,035 827,435 825,935 819,435 818,435 818,435 Reduction for Other purposesRepayment 696,815 842,759 820,397 811,868 908,665 889,285 920,543 928,420 1,019,383 948,255 987,186 1,062,932 1,006,925 1,094,464 Project Costs (3,275,000) (1,600,000) (1,100,000) (3,300,000) (1,100,000) (1,900,000) (1,976,000) (2,055,040) (2,137,242) (2,222,731) (2,311,641) (2,404,106) (2,500,270) (2,600,281) Investable Balance 970,667 1,562,429 1,740,049 (334,760) (161,551) (342,862) (570,941) (878,045) (1,184,429) (1,655,159) (2,186,782) (2,752,256) (3,482,212) (4,239,238) MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest19,413 31,249 34,801 (6,695) (3,231) (6,857) (11,419) (17,561) (23,689) (33,103) (43,736) (55,045) (69,644) (84,785) Fund Bal - EOY 990,081 1,593,678 1,774,850 (341,455) (164,782) (349,719) (582,360) (895,606) (1,208,118) (1,688,262) (2,230,517) (2,807,301) (3,551,856) (4,324,023) Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 5.25%Project Year 20052006200720082009 58,795 2010 122,387 122,387 2011 77,297 77,297 77,297 2012 109,504 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,1472014 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,5222015 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,6542016 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,5092017 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,7392018$100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,025 $100,0252019$68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,7672020$206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,302 $206,3022021$68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,767 $68,7672022$118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,780 $118,7802023$123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,531 $123,5312024$128,472 $128,472 $128,472 $128,472 $128,472 $128,4722025$133,611 $133,611 $133,611 $133,611 $133,6112026$138,956 $138,956 $138,956 $138,9562027$144,514 $144,514 $144,5142028$150,294 $150,2942029$156,3062030Revolving Assessment Fund Revolving Assessment Fund - Option #2A (suggested new franchise fee)2005 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030Project Cost (Street Only) - 2,700,000 3,300,000 1,100,000 2,200,000 3,300,000 3,399,000 3,500,970 3,605,999 3,714,179 3,825,604 3,940,373 4,058,584 Assessments 40%City Share- 2,700,000 3,300,000 1,100,000 2,200,000 3,300,000 3,399,000 3,500,970 3,605,999 3,714,179 3,825,604 3,940,373 4,058,584 Other project CostsTenn Courts (185,000) (150,000) (75,000) Tsfs in Market Blvd 194,751 194,751 (600,000) Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2016**** 1,200,000 2,486,095 3,316,243 3,426,504 4,982,777 6,046,765 5,920,761 5,573,289 5,076,599 4,254,012 3,304,630 2,222,606 1,001,878 Levy - From Debt Levy Schedule 384,838 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 Reduction for Other purposesRepayment 842,759 720,372 643,075 533,571 445,424 357,902 242,248 204,739 - - - - - Project Costs- (2,700,000) (3,300,000) (1,100,000) (2,200,000) (3,300,000) (3,399,000) (3,500,970) (3,605,999) (3,714,179) (3,825,604) (3,940,373) (4,058,584) Investable Balance 2,437,348 3,251,218 3,359,318 4,885,076 5,928,201 5,804,668 5,464,009 4,977,058 4,170,600 3,239,833 2,179,025 982,233 (356,706) MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest48,747 65,024 67,186 97,702 118,564 116,093 109,280 99,541 83,412 64,797 43,581 19,645 (7,134) Fund Bal - EOY 2,486,095 3,316,243 3,426,504 4,982,777 6,046,765 5,920,761 5,573,289 5,076,599 4,254,012 3,304,630 2,222,606 1,001,878 (363,840) Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 5.25%Project Year 200520062007200820092010 122,387 2011 77,297 77,297 2012 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,1472014 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,5222015 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,6542016 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,5092017 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,73920182019202020211 Revolving Assessment Fund - Option Levy or FF & Assess2005 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039Project Cost (Street Only) - 2,700,000 3,300,000 1,600,000 2,200,000 3,300,000 3,399,000 3,500,970 3,605,999 3,714,179 3,825,604 3,940,373 4,058,584 4,180,341 4,305,752 4,434,924 4,567,972 4,705,011 4,846,161 4,991,546 5,141,292 5,295,531 Assessments 40%City Share- 2,700,000 3,300,000 1,600,000 2,200,000 3,300,000 3,399,000 3,500,970 3,605,999 3,714,179 3,825,604 3,940,373 4,058,584 4,180,341 4,305,752 4,434,924 4,567,972 4,705,011 4,846,161 4,991,546 5,141,292 5,295,531 Other project CostsTenn Courts (185,000) (150,000) (75,000) Tsfs in Market Blvd 194,751 194,751 Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2016**** 1,200,000 2,486,095 2,296,243 3,304,104 5,877,929 7,877,820 8,706,437 9,332,679 9,829,177 10,019,641 10,103,571 10,075,526 9,929,857 9,660,699 9,261,964 8,727,337 8,050,261 7,223,935 6,241,303 5,095,045 3,777,568 2,281,001 Levy - From Debt Levy Schedule 384,838 1,700,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 Reduction for Other purposesRepayment 842,759 720,372 643,075 533,571 445,424 357,902 242,248 204,739 - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Project Costs- (2,700,000) (3,300,000) (1,600,000) (2,200,000) (3,300,000) (3,399,000) (3,500,970) (3,605,999) (3,714,179) (3,825,604) (3,940,373) (4,058,584) (4,180,341) (4,305,752) (4,434,924) (4,567,972) (4,705,011) (4,846,161) (4,991,546) (5,141,292) (5,295,531) Investable Balance 2,437,348 2,251,218 3,239,318 5,762,676 7,723,353 8,535,723 9,149,685 9,636,448 9,823,178 9,905,462 9,877,967 9,735,154 9,471,273 9,080,357 8,556,213 7,892,413 7,082,290 6,118,924 4,995,142 3,703,498 2,236,276 585,470 MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest48,747 45,024 64,786 115,254 154,467 170,714 182,994 192,729 196,464 198,109 197,559 194,703 189,425 181,607 171,124 157,848 141,646 122,378 99,903 74,070 44,726 11,709 Fund Bal - EOY 2,486,095 2,296,243 3,304,104 5,877,929 7,877,820 8,706,437 9,332,679 9,829,177 10,019,641 10,103,571 10,075,526 9,929,857 9,660,699 9,261,964 8,727,337 8,050,261 7,223,935 6,241,303 5,095,045 3,777,568 2,281,001 597,180 Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 5.75%Project Year 200520062007200820092010 122,387 2011 77,297 77,297 2012 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,1472014 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,5222015 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,6542016 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,5092017 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,7392018 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02019$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02020$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02021$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02022$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02023$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02024$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02025$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02026$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02027$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02028$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02029$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02030$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02031$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02032$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02033$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02034$0 $0 $0 $0 $02035$0 $0 $0 $02036$0 $0 $02037$0 $02038$02039 Revolving Assessment Fund - Option FF, Assess & Bond Lyman & Galpin2005 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039Project Cost (Street Only) - 2,700,000 3,300,000 1,600,000 2,200,000 3,300,000 3,399,000 3,500,970 3,605,999 3,714,179 3,825,604 3,940,373 4,058,584 4,180,341 4,305,752 4,434,924 4,567,972 4,705,011 4,846,161 4,991,546 5,141,292 5,295,531 Assessments 40%(1,080,000) (1,320,000) (1,140,000) (880,000) (1,320,000) (1,359,600) (1,400,388) (1,442,400) (1,485,672) (1,530,242) (1,576,149) (1,623,434) (1,672,137) (1,722,301) (1,773,970) (1,827,189) (1,882,004) (1,938,465) (1,996,618) (2,056,517) (2,118,212) City Share- 1,620,000 1,980,000 460,000 1,320,000 1,980,000 2,039,400 2,100,582 2,163,599 2,228,507 2,295,363 2,364,224 2,435,150 2,508,205 2,583,451 2,660,954 2,740,783 2,823,007 2,907,697 2,994,928 3,084,775 3,177,319 Other project CostsTenn Courts (185,000) (150,000) (75,000) Tsf's Bond Lyman&Gal 194,751 194,751 (550,000) (550,000) (550,000) (930,000) (930,000) (930,000) (930,000) (930,000) (380,000) (380,000) (380,000) Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2016**** 1,200,000 2,486,095 2,296,243 1,796,750 3,047,753 3,883,769 3,280,752 2,661,407 2,108,524 1,456,372 915,419 876,970 754,881 580,708 787,367 927,511 997,689 994,320 913,684 751,919 505,018 168,821 Levy - From Debt Levy Schedule 384,838 1,700,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 Reduction for Other purposesRepayment842,759 720,372 815,277 916,242 1,009,864 1,062,655 1,157,470 1,336,744 1,355,291 1,585,277 1,649,960 1,683,482 1,753,024 1,871,562$ 1,927,709$ 1,985,540$ 2,045,106$ 2,106,459$ 2,169,653$ 2,234,743$ 2,301,785$ 2,370,839$ Project Costs- (2,700,000) (3,300,000) (1,600,000) (2,200,000) (3,300,000) (3,399,000) (3,500,970) (3,605,999) (3,714,179) (3,825,604) (3,940,373) (4,058,584) (4,180,341) (4,305,752) (4,434,924) (4,567,972) (4,705,011) (4,846,161) (4,991,546) (5,141,292) (5,295,531) Investable Balance 2,437,348 2,251,218 1,761,520 2,987,993 3,807,617 3,216,424 2,609,222 2,067,180 1,427,816 897,470 859,775 740,079 569,321 771,928 909,324 978,127 974,824 895,768 737,176 495,116 165,511 (255,872) MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest48,747 45,024 35,230 59,760 76,152 64,328 52,184 41,344 28,556 17,949 17,195 14,802 11,386 15,439 18,186 19,563 19,496 17,915 14,744 9,902 3,310 (5,117) Fund Bal - EOY 2,486,095 2,296,243 1,796,750 3,047,753 3,883,769 3,280,752 2,661,407 2,108,524 1,456,372 915,419 876,970 754,881 580,708 787,367 927,511 997,689 994,320 913,684 751,919 505,018 168,821 (260,989) Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 5.75%Assess $500k Market BlvdProject Year 200520062007200820092010 122,387 2011 77,297 77,297 2012 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,1472014 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,5222015 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,6542016 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,5092017 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,7392018$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02019$172,202 $172,202 $172,202 $172,202 $172,202 $172,202 $172,202 $172,2022020$210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,4692021$181,769 $181,769 $181,769 $181,769 $181,769 $181,769 $181,769 $181,7692022$140,313 $140,313 $140,313 $140,313 $140,313 $140,313 $140,313 $140,3132023$210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,4692024$216,783 $216,783 $216,783 $216,783 $216,783 $216,783 $216,783 $216,7832025$223,287 $223,287 $223,287 $223,287 $223,287 $223,287 $223,287 $223,2872026$229,985 $229,985 $229,985 $229,985 $229,985 $229,985 $229,985 $229,9852027$236,885 $236,885 $236,885 $236,885 $236,885 $236,885 $236,885 $236,8852028$243,991 $243,991 $243,991 $243,991 $243,991 $243,991 $243,991 $243,9912029$251,311 $251,311 $251,311 $251,311 $251,311 $251,311 $251,311 $251,3112030$258,850 $258,850 $258,850 $258,850 $258,850 $258,850 $258,850 $258,8502031$266,616 $266,616 $266,616 $266,616 $266,616 $266,616 $266,616 $266,6162032$274,614 $274,614 $274,614 $274,614 $274,614 $274,614 $274,6142033$282,853 $282,853 $282,853 $282,853 $282,853 $282,8532034$291,338 $291,338 $291,338 $291,338 $291,3382035$300,079 $300,079 $300,079 $300,0792036$309,081 $309,081 $309,0812037$318,353 $318,3532038$327,9042039 Revolving Assessment Fund - Option FF, Assess & Bond Lyman & Galpin2005 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039Project Cost (Street Only) - 2,700,000 3,300,000 1,600,000 2,200,000 3,300,000 3,399,000 3,500,970 3,605,999 3,714,179 3,825,604 3,940,373 4,058,584 4,180,341 4,305,752 4,434,924 4,567,972 4,705,011 4,846,161 4,991,546 5,141,292 5,295,531 Assessments 40%City Share- 2,700,000 3,300,000 1,600,000 2,200,000 3,300,000 3,399,000 3,500,970 3,605,999 3,714,179 3,825,604 3,940,373 4,058,584 4,180,341 4,305,752 4,434,924 4,567,972 4,705,011 4,846,161 4,991,546 5,141,292 5,295,531 Other project CostsTenn Courts (185,000) (150,000) (75,000) Tsf's Bond Lyman&Gal 194,751 194,751 (550,000) (550,000) (550,000) (930,000) (930,000) (930,000) (930,000) (930,000) (380,000) (380,000) (380,000) Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2016**** 1,200,000 2,486,095 2,296,243 3,151,104 5,568,869 7,409,579 7,688,231 7,753,509 7,677,823 7,284,661 6,773,291 6,699,040 6,506,241 6,189,011 6,128,843 5,939,553 5,614,722 5,147,685 4,531,527 3,759,073 2,822,878 1,715,217 Levy - From Debt Levy Schedule 384,838 1,700,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 Reduction for Other purposesRepayment842,759 720,372 643,075 533,571 445,424 357,902 242,248 204,739 - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Project Costs- (2,700,000) (3,300,000) (1,600,000) (2,200,000) (3,300,000) (3,399,000) (3,500,970) (3,605,999) (3,714,179) (3,825,604) (3,940,373) (4,058,584) (4,180,341) (4,305,752) (4,434,924) (4,567,972) (4,705,011) (4,846,161) (4,991,546) (5,141,292) (5,295,531) Investable Balance 2,437,348 2,251,218 3,089,318 5,459,676 7,264,293 7,537,481 7,601,479 7,527,278 7,141,824 6,640,482 6,567,687 6,378,668 6,067,658 6,008,669 5,823,091 5,504,629 5,046,750 4,442,674 3,685,366 2,767,527 1,681,585 419,686 MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest48,747 45,024 61,786 109,194 145,286 150,750 152,030 150,546 142,836 132,810 131,354 127,573 121,353 120,173 116,462 110,093 100,935 88,853 73,707 55,351 33,632 8,394 Fund Bal - EOY 2,486,095 2,296,243 3,151,104 5,568,869 7,409,579 7,688,231 7,753,509 7,677,823 7,284,661 6,773,291 6,699,040 6,506,241 6,189,011 6,128,843 5,939,553 5,614,722 5,147,685 4,531,527 3,759,073 2,822,878 1,715,217 428,080 Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 5.75%Assess $500k Market BlvdProject Year 200520062007200820092010 122,387 2011 77,297 77,297 2012 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,1472014 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,5222015 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,6542016 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,5092017 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,7392018$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02019$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02020$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02021$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02022$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02023$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02024$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02025$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02026$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02027$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02028$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02029$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02030$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02031$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02032$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02033$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02034$0 $0 $0 $0 $02035$0 $0 $0 $02036$0 $0 $02037$0 $02038$02039 Revolving Assessment Fund - Levy or FF & Assess2005 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034Project Cost (Street Only) - 1,900,000 2,700,000 3,300,000 3,300,000 3,399,000 3,500,970 3,605,999 3,714,179 3,825,604 3,940,373 4,058,584 4,180,341 4,305,752 4,434,924 4,567,972 4,705,011 Assessments 40%(760,000) (1,080,000) (1,320,000) (1,320,000) (1,359,600) (1,400,388) (1,442,400) (1,485,672) (1,530,242) (1,576,149) (1,623,434) (1,672,137) (1,722,301) (1,773,970) (1,827,189) (1,882,004) City Share- 1,140,000 1,620,000 1,980,000 1,980,000 2,039,400 2,100,582 2,163,599 2,228,507 2,295,363 2,364,224 2,435,150 2,508,205 2,583,451 2,660,954 2,740,783 2,823,007 Other project CostsTenn Courts & (400,000) (75,000) Tsfs in Trail 194,751 194,751 Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2018**** 1,485,000 2,473,081 1,889,723 1,962,198 1,449,622 1,054,294 703,080 495,832 543,620 507,772 599,175 700,611 764,192 754,201 673,362 518,137 284,857 Levy And/Or Franchise Fee 384,838 1,084,838 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,284,000 Reduction for Other purposesRepayment 360,000 400,000 450,000 550,000 600,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,359,128 1,384,374 1,621,259 1,744,071 1,823,181 1,871,562 1,927,709$ 1,985,540$ 2,045,106$ 2,106,459$ Project Costs- (1,900,000) (2,700,000) (3,300,000) (3,300,000) (3,399,000) (3,500,970) (3,605,999) (3,714,179) (3,825,604) (3,940,373) (4,058,584) (4,180,341) (4,305,752) (4,434,924) (4,567,972) (4,705,011) Investable Balance 2,424,589 1,852,670 1,923,723 1,421,198 1,033,622 689,294 486,110 532,961 497,816 587,427 686,874 749,208 739,413 660,158 507,978 279,272 (29,695) MVHC Street Levy & TsfInterest48,492 37,053 38,474 28,424 20,672 13,786 9,722 10,659 9,956 11,749 13,737 14,984 14,788 13,203 10,160 5,585 (594) Fund Bal - EOY 2,473,081 1,889,723 1,962,198 1,449,622 1,054,294 703,080 495,832 543,620 507,772 599,175 700,611 764,192 754,201 673,362 518,137 284,857 (30,288) Repayment Schedule8 yr assmt @ 5.75%Project Year 200520062007200820092010 122,387 2011 77,297 77,297 2012 109,504 109,504 109,504 2013 $88,147 $88,147 $88,147 $88,1472014 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,522 $87,5222015 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,654 $115,6542016 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,509 $37,5092017 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,739 $204,7392018$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02019$121,179 $121,179 $121,179 $121,179 $121,179 $121,179 $121,179 $121,1792020$172,202 $172,202 $172,202 $172,202 $172,202 $172,202 $172,202 $172,2022021$210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,4692022$210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,469 $210,4692023$216,783 $216,783 $216,783 $216,783 $216,783 $216,783 $216,783 $216,7832024$223,287 $223,287 $223,287 $223,287 $223,287 $223,287 $223,287 $223,2872025$229,985 $229,985 $229,985 $229,985 $229,985 $229,985 $229,985 $229,9852026$236,885 $236,885 $236,885 $236,885 $236,885 $236,885 $236,885 $236,8852027$243,991 $243,991 $243,991 $243,991 $243,991 $243,991 $243,9912028$251,311 $251,311 $251,311 $251,311 $251,311 $251,3112029$258,850 $258,850 $258,850 $258,850 $258,8502030$266,616 $266,616 $266,616 $266,6162031$274,614 $274,614 $274,6142032$282,853 $282,8532033$291,338203420352036203720382039 2035 2036 2037 2038 20394,846,161 4,991,546 5,141,292 5,295,531 5,454,397 (1,938,465) (1,996,618) (2,056,517) (2,118,212) (2,181,759) 2,907,697 2,994,928 3,084,775 3,177,319 3,272,638 (30,288) (431,252) (922,137) (1,507,197) (2,190,848) 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,284,000 2,169,653$ 2,234,743$ 2,301,785$ 2,370,839$ 2,441,964$ (4,846,161) (4,991,546) (5,141,292) (5,295,531) (5,454,397) (422,797) (904,056) (1,477,644) (2,147,890) (2,919,281) (8,456) (18,081) (29,553) (42,958) (58,386) (431,252) (922,137) (1,507,197) (2,190,848) (2,977,667) $243,991$251,311 $251,311$258,850 $258,850 $258,850$266,616 $266,616 $266,616 $266,616$274,614 $274,614 $274,614 $274,614 $274,614$282,853 $282,853 $282,853 $282,853 $282,853$291,338 $291,338 $291,338 $291,338 $291,338$300,079 $300,079 $300,079 $300,079 $300,079$309,081 $309,081 $309,081 $309,081$318,353 $318,353 $318,353$327,904 $327,904$337,741 vi al m Cr r-INI rn ro 1 CY Ln Q v n 4 lD Ol N a) U— N co' N .-1 •0 w c0 a5 > N .--1 L!1 co N a) 00 ri r-- th 0CO E m N O O U C X m LD o o O Q 4-, • ll Ln QCfL /1 L U C 00 al 0 C O u f°0 c O m v o 0 0 0 0 C C LL aS fb0 Cr •--1 •--I •--1 •--1 C (O al a1 Q V to L Ln LA m -O 6 al -0 a)fo E > cv cc O K O O> 0 rri c-I CY lD O -0COO41 in p n N m lD X tDCU O > K h N N 4 4 Nal N m LDO (1) 00 O .1 .1 m co w m Nv). .--I 1 r-1Y LL t/} t/? N N ri C L vl v? t/ C U t/} J.A. to 1 c 0 N G Vo w ra alY O f0 as0 uYcUc (0 N co cuY (0 N V E V aJ co N a50) E al 7 u — U — E O E LL 0 E U E io 0 3 E v J ELLS n3 0 g0s -a ao CO v CO Y U cc vEi c 3 vl x C Y 0 n ri LON ._ d v, al T >.Y (0 lJ 0" 0) (0 c rn o Cr) CO CY N Ql al m .-1 r-1 N r-I H -O al N Ql Ql N r LL 0) Ol O CY co N O al 00 c-I c-I Nn t/} O O O O O m Ccc V)- Co0 0, ri 0 0 c N O m LD LD m m N Q al 00 ( V Ln Ln V a) u ra co Y Oal =c m C co ro ro Y @ y C O O O O O * t c C c c O a5 c r-- n n N n a,a,a, n 4 V V 4 Vc -a a, 10 al -a al m E >J = N L N t N t O_ CC O a' O LL' O E Q @ ri m Ol (-I CY Lb a) - Q > W chi N co r- 00 e-1 I ,X O O0LACY ,i Co O m C LL a/ n 0 N n mC- a1 Q1 O .--N N al >. U 0 V OQlCYNJ CO CO ri s C Ln 4-• Y CO t/? ' O r-1 O W L U tom/} t/} N N ri t/? to VT t/? O U i/? t/T to O H 0t0 2 Y cCDL N O O L) 7 E 0 al @ 0 00 u — u Y c0 w- co f_6 c0. c _ N u E u v7alODCO4) Co)cs7 C i 2 LL C E 0 E LL n :-0)C A EUE70m h i N ' v OE O =0 IEU U 0 O N N >C a7 v, - a) -O 00 (0 CU al >6 N al E (O EJLLLI—U K vl J V) Y Y 7 = 0 0 IZ I? i 0 0 C C 0 0 6.Cr ri N O co o_ o_ a N aJ Q rl N c% t% an to A A A A44, 7 7 CL a C C vi a) 0 N m N v CC a) ,--i m to N elp, I Cr N r-N ,-i a) u- ,-1 m O t0 Cf; CU f—o > LC) al N ,-N ,-1 O O U? e-7 LID in 0 0 •,):,./ 0 o I t i/ 0 m n O O CO C x Lri v o O o Q L C to a O C — L C ° m o t) r0 C. j v o o \ \ o\° C C LL m 4 ,00000CToa)a) 4. Ln V V V 4 a ) -° a,E j C v, CC O cc 0 O> Q 11a LO 00 0Mv 0) ut 0 i 00 r•-• N cc x C I 00 O rr E LL m 00 N O2 O Li-)of Lr) V N 'i o >, n O o o N m O (0 in.in O t--)t inyVC r0 N C VO w C 7) a) O CU CO ro U T t V V w 0 6 CU ro v V E iu r0 N no a1 a) 7 7 v E O E LLL.)ft E U E To 0 3 CU E Eu 3uo 0CU Co -a m m ro v Lo c) Nr vE c 47, LC) X °ro roY N a"1O L N 0 f1 N A 7 f0 v 0- 0) ro Y c a o m m V Q) a) N m ,--I ,--N N a'-7 N -6 0) N 01 CT) N N. LL a1 0l -4 Cr m N 7 0) 00 ,--N ,-I N in O m 0 0 0 0\° o o C C N 00 m ri o o t'... C v, 0 CO L0 to rO CO N a) Y CO ,-N V Li-) Lr) V V0O C f, co7, c ° C 0 0 0 0 L 000 C C C ra r0 N N N N. N a)0a1 Q V Q 4 V V 0 a) ID a) 'B a) E > J N N L v, L7 . -C . Q w CC O CC O CC O E — Q N To N Ol Ol ,-i d' t0 a) -° O' > W .moi N N- co LO N N OO ,-i L1 X O O Lrl V ,--i 00 O CO'C U- N Ln O f\ N m 0) 0. C 00 O N O LL r0 00 O 00 00ID n. n.LT O UN N i? O a) bp 2 N C CC m CU O V 7 O C ro E 00 a) a m ro C aa) a) i N aJ Dl O 0 co .-- 1 ro aJ ro co ln N M M Ol LL C — > Ns l000 O 1--1i- O (a a) N L} in - to ro M I• I O O u C + x 1- Nd O O Q 00 lD M I, M Q i C 00 a) 0 C = c '47.• r° O mTocoD +' o-, 0 0 e 0 0O C C LL U oo 01 Ol Ol 01 C To a `) a1 Q 0 NN N N r° 0 a -a v co E QJ r° J v +L+ v L Q c ', O O oaJa' 0 I-1 an W O O7l U in p In Cr c-1 00 w X N cc N N- O al CO O >. i0 oo .--1 - L• O 00 N- I 1 tom/? L S Vim} 1-1 CO Nin- V? C U in V} in L 0 lc u co N UO u- C TO (L) y a 6 roU —c 5 U — U c tn I- L ro u ro a' E a u _ U _ EE LL L. ° E U E TO o E ooNEvu ° u o 0v a (a 0 000 i° QJ E v co E O X C CO t\ L T-1 .O L N bD 0K 0A LL N A N aJ 7 @ Q QU aJ m L-+ 7 Ql O n'1 M V N M e-4 e-1 N .--1 ry a N N Ol Ol N n LL 7 a.) ON O V M N CC 00 .--1 .--1 N- /}i 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cin in in VT 3 c N 00 Cr) .--1 O O C n O r lD l0 M M N Q aJ ..c, oo c-1 a I.n Ln v lIr.; u ro O.i, O 0 mCraToisioQO 00 y, C aJ o° N N o- oCCCCCruo 6 n n r n n u a v a v v v v J 0 CO L CO. L 7 L Q E > CC O Cc O CC O E Q u R c-I al 01 e-1 lD aJ -0vcri m lD N n a,• 0 > 00 N N- 00 .- 1 LL X O O V1 GI' 1-1 05'. 0 r»c I.L a' LI) o N- I\ ON0'' a) 0° 0 -1 N aJ >. b. O v o a C J co co00ONO L COIC I y M in t/} .-I c-1 .--I L to in (N N .--1 0 in .n cn o U in 0 N 10,0YC C 00 C O• u c E v v U m do u — u — ro ra C Y= To N To u To7CU00r° N 5 aJ D c v c v — E E LLay1oLr° E U E Tcw• a C N C aJ .-. O O a N 0 t LL EO N u m U o uin 'v, >C v E C ro ECDaJt) ca J LL H U cc N L J N Y .+0 O 0 0_ Q O O C C co O Tr' cr- i N Co 00 Q Q M N Cil aJ W N N in VT A A A A 7 7 C CLCCC Residential FF Med. Comm FF Residential FF Med. Comm FF Residnetial Prop Rax Inc Residnetial Prop Rax Inc Residnetial Prop Rax Inc Residnetial Prop Rax Inc Residnetial Prop Rax IncPer Utility Per Month Per Utility Per Month Total Annual Cost Total Annual Cost on Avg Home $200,000 on Avg Home $360,000 on Avg Home $600,000 on Avg Home $1,000,000 on Avg Home $1,500,000Franchise Fee 50/50 split 3.74$ 26.78$ 89.76$ 642.72$ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AFranchise Fee 60/40 split 4.78$ 21.10$ 114.72$ 506.40$ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AFranchise Fee 70/30 split 5.81$ 15.42$ 139.44$ 370.08$ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AProperty Tax Levy Issued (83/17)N/A N/A N/A N/A75.00$ 175.00$ 245.00$ 440.00$ 670.00$ Lotus Lake Lake Riley Lake Minnewashta Lake Lucy Rice Lake Lake S usa n LakeAnn Lake Virginia LakeHarrison R iceMarshLa ke Clasen Lake Lak e St Jo e Ch ristmasLake Lyman Blv d ( C S AH1 8 ) Lyman Blvd (CSAH 18)Pione e r Trail (C S AH14)(C S A H 6 1 )F ly in g C lo u dD rivePowersBlvd(C.R.17)AudubonRoad(CSAH15)State Highway101Hwy 1 0 1GreatPlainsBlvd Hwy 101Great P l a insBlvdState Hwy 5 State Hwy 5Arboretum Boulevard Highway 41GalpinBlvd.(C.R.117)State Hwy 5State H w y 7Hazeltine Blvd (Hwy 41)Chanhassen Rd. Hwy. 101AudubonRoad(C S A H 61 )F ly in g C lo u d D rMinnewashtaPkwyGalpinBlvd(C.R.15)£¤212 £¤212 £¤212 PowersBlvd(C.R.17)Bluff Creek DrBluffCreekBlvdCity of Chan hassenTax Exempt Parcels with and without Building Value Legend Exempt Parcels with Building Value Exempt Parcels with no Building Value µ 8/30/2018 Document Path: K:\NickLH\Projects\Finance\2018\August\Exempt Parcels with Structure 11x17.mxd PIN TAX_NAME HOMESTEADEMV_LAND 250880310 CARVER COUNTY CDA N 39600.00000000000 251820740 CHANHASSEN CITY N 1507600.00000000000 250090500 REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA N 1921800.00000000000 252790200 CHANHASSEN CITY N 901000.00000000000 251680010 SOUTHWEST TRANSIT N 557500.00000000000 250500300 CARVER COUNTY CDA N 74500.00000000000 250220100 IND SCHOOL DIST 112 N 4994400.00000000000 253480020 CHANHASSEN CITY N 63100.00000000000 250033300 CHANHASSEN CITY N 775100.00000000000 250880550 CARVER COUNTY CDA N 39600.00000000000 250100300 CHANHASSEN CITY N 61300.00000000000 251500090 CARVER COUNTY N 699900.00000000000 253010010 CHANHASSEN CITY N 1299600.00000000000 256460200 CHANHASSEN CITY N 73600.00000000000 257740020 CHANHASSEN CITY N 1601000.00000000000 255560010 CARVER COUNTY CDA N 1067600.00000000000 253451120 DISCOVERY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH N 1745300.00000000000 252020440 CARVER COUNTY CDA N 51700.00000000000 256090460 CHANHASSEN CITY N 620400.00000000000 250880640 CARVER COUNTY CDA N 39600.00000000000 257740010 CHANHASSEN CITY N 1986700.00000000000 250122100 CHANHASSEN CITY N 1150900.00000000000 250033000 IND SCHOOL DIST 276 N 3691200.00000000000 255700030 CHANHASSEN HRA N 163500.00000000000 252030770 CARVER COUNTY CDA N 40400.00000000000 256150720 MN CONFERENCE ASSN OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENT N 1427500.00000000000 257600010 CARVER COUNTY CDA N 118800.00000000000 250110200 CHANHASSEN CITY N 5470700.00000000000 253500060 MOUNT OLIVET ROLLING ACRES N 77600.00000000000 250170100 REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINN N 2136400.00000000000 251940020 LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE N 1029300.00000000000 251870820 CHANHASSEN CITY N 554100.00000000000 256150080 MOUNT OLIVET ROLLING ACRES N 111400.00000000000 250093200 WESTWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH N 135000.00000000000 250041200 CARVER COUNTY N 8472000.00000000000 250880560 CARVER COUNTY CDA N 39600.00000000000 258120240 CHANHASSEN CITY N 613300.00000000000 250500010 CHAPEL HILL ACADEMY N 2101700.00000000000 256890020 ECKANKAR N ################### 250160311 REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA N 470600.00000000000 258680020 CHURCH OF ST HUBERT N 1477600.00000000000 258482180 CARVER COUNTY CDA N 38500.00000000000 255670480 CHANHASSEN CITY N 556200.00000000000 250080100 REGENTS OF THE UNIV OF MINN N 3150600.00000000000 251930051 CHANHASSEN HRA N 1856700.00000000000 250880660 CARVER COUNTY CDA N 39600.00000000000 252810010 FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTH CHURCH N 1056600.00000000000 257680010 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMM N 1672500.00000000000 250570050 WESTWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH N 5997200.00000000000 250134000 CHURCH OF ST HUBERT N 116100.00000000000 258482360 CARVER COUNTY CDA N 38500.00000000000 250125200 IND SCHOOL DIST 112 N 2226100.00000000000 252620570 CHANHASSEN CITY N 540300.00000000000 251790010 CHAN CONGR JEHOVAHS WITNESSES N 1220000.00000000000 252020470 CARVER COUNTY CDA N 51700.00000000000 251910040 CHANHASSEN CITY N 743600.00000000000 251640040 U S POSTAL SERVICE N 992500.00000000000 250170400 REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA N ################### 250040600 CARVER COUNTY N 312900.00000000000 250880630 CARVER COUNTY CDA N 39600.00000000000 250120100 CHANHASSEN CITY N 307200.00000000000 251240010 IND SCHOOL DIST 112 N 1780500.00000000000 250041300 CARVER COUNTY N ################### 251460020 CHANHASSEN CITY N 151500.00000000000 257700030 CHANHASSEN CITY N 240700.00000000000 252031170 CHANHASSEN CITY N 1800900.00000000000 258480600 WALNUT GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSN N 0.00000000000 253000850 CHANHASSEN CITY N 305400.00000000000 251602450 CHANHASSEN CITY N 164000.00000000000 250170300 REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA N 4128300.00000000000 250170500 REGENTS OF THE UNIV OF MINN N 209000.00000000000 254400010 CHANHASSEN CITY N 160000.00000000000 250083200 MINNESOTA CAMP FIRE FOUNDATION N ################### 250136500 CHURCH OF ST HUBERT N 1088400.00000000000 EMV_BLDG EMV_TOTAL 137800.00000000000 177400.00000000000 72300.00000000000 1579900.00000000000 29200.00000000000 1951000.00000000000 8300.00000000000 909300.00000000000 3602600.00000000000 4160100.00000000000 157700.00000000000 232200.00000000000 132649700.00000000000 137644100.00000000000 18200.00000000000 81300.00000000000 10900.00000000000 786000.00000000000 137800.00000000000 177400.00000000000 18000.00000000000 79300.00000000000 1866700.00000000000 2566600.00000000000 698300.00000000000 1997900.00000000000 112200.00000000000 185800.00000000000 4106100.00000000000 5707100.00000000000 5229900.00000000000 6297500.00000000000 765400.00000000000 2510700.00000000000 128700.00000000000 180400.00000000000 41200.00000000000 661600.00000000000 137800.00000000000 177400.00000000000 1960000.00000000000 3946700.00000000000 1415000.00000000000 2565900.00000000000 19593900.00000000000 23285100.00000000000 50200.00000000000 213700.00000000000 131900.00000000000 172300.00000000000 579000.00000000000 2006500.00000000000 443000.00000000000 561800.00000000000 598800.00000000000 6069500.00000000000 228200.00000000000 305800.00000000000 381700.00000000000 2518100.00000000000 1649200.00000000000 2678500.00000000000 10900.00000000000 565000.00000000000 209400.00000000000 320800.00000000000 193100.00000000000 328100.00000000000 196400.00000000000 8668400.00000000000 137800.00000000000 177400.00000000000 21900.00000000000 635200.00000000000 6067800.00000000000 8169500.00000000000 10642800.00000000000 21080900.00000000000 180300.00000000000 650900.00000000000 18644000.00000000000 20121600.00000000000 112200.00000000000 150700.00000000000 69300.00000000000 625500.00000000000 2516700.00000000000 5667300.00000000000 3611700.00000000000 5468400.00000000000 137800.00000000000 177400.00000000000 1758700.00000000000 2815300.00000000000 2886500.00000000000 4559000.00000000000 16894600.00000000000 22891800.00000000000 182500.00000000000 298600.00000000000 112200.00000000000 150700.00000000000 4621300.00000000000 6847400.00000000000 10900.00000000000 551200.00000000000 373200.00000000000 1593200.00000000000 134300.00000000000 186000.00000000000 231700.00000000000 975300.00000000000 3192300.00000000000 4184800.00000000000 8255800.00000000000 22315200.00000000000 32300.00000000000 345200.00000000000 137800.00000000000 177400.00000000000 17900.00000000000 325100.00000000000 22912000.00000000000 24692500.00000000000 624300.00000000000 16290400.00000000000 24000.00000000000 175500.00000000000 226100.00000000000 466800.00000000000 58300.00000000000 1859200.00000000000 100.00000000000 100.00000000000 11800.00000000000 317200.00000000000 11800.00000000000 175800.00000000000 10800.00000000000 4139100.00000000000 327800.00000000000 536800.00000000000 566100.00000000000 726100.00000000000 703800.00000000000 11245400.00000000000 193600.00000000000 1282000.00000000000 SITEADD 2374 HARVEST WAY 7780 ARBORETUM BLVD 500 MARKET ST 207 77TH ST W 2200 LYMAN BLVD 7001 HAZELTINE BLVD 1720 LAKE LUCY LN 7840 HARVEST LN 7808 KERBER BLVD 201 79TH ST W 7711 KERBER BLVD 820 SANTA VERA DR 275 LAKE DR E 6999 PIMA LN 9630 BLUFF CREEK DR 7852 HARVEST LN 7700 MARKET BLVD 7610 LAREDO DR 6421 HAZELTINE BLVD 7805 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 1013 PONTIAC CT 4151 HIGHWAY 7 640 SANTA VERA DR 1456 78TH ST 410 76TH ST W 3090 82ND ST W 820 LAKE DR 3921 LESLEE CURV 0 WESTWOOD DR 6850 HAZELTINE BLVD 7830 HARVEST LN 306 78TH ST W 7450 POWERS BLVD 3160 82ND ST W 8201 MAIN ST 7729 CONEFLOWER CURV S 3675 ARBORETUM DR 7901 PARK PLAC 7854 HARVEST LN 2020 COULTER BLVD 650 SOUTHWEST VILLAGE DR 3121 WESTWOOD DR 8201 GRANDVIEW RD 7705 CONEFLOWER CURV S 7600 LAREDO DR 8300 AUDUBON RD 7011 PIMA LN 1771 LAKE DR W 3675 ARBORETUM DR 6731 CHES MAR DR 7862 HARVEST LN 2310 COULTER BLVD 2323 LAKE LUCY RD 6400 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 7681 PRAIRIE FLOWER BLVD 7110 UTICA LN 3210 82ND ST W 3335 ARBORETUM DR 2100 LAKE HARRISON RD 3300 TANADOONA DR 381 78TH ST W PID Site Address 250880310 2374 HARVEST WAY CHANHASSEN 55317 251820740 8119 Erie Circle, Chanhassen 55317 250090500 7780 ARBORETUM BLVD EXCELSIOR 55331 252790200 7220 Galpin Boulevard, CHanhassen 55317 251680010 500 MARKET ST 55317 250500300 207 77TH ST W CHANHASSEN 55317 250220100 2200 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN 55317 253480020 7001 HAZELTINE BLVD CHANHASSEN 55317 250033300 1720 LAKE LUCY LN EXCELSIOR 55331 250880550 7840 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN 55317 250100300 7151 Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen MN 55317 251500090 7808 KERBER BLVD CHANHASSEN 55317 253010010 201 79TH ST W CHANHASSEN 55317 256460200 1801 Lyman Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 257740020 7711 KERBER BLVD CHANHASSEN 55317 255560010 820 SANTA VERA DR CHANHASSEN 55317 253451120 275 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN 55317 252020440 6999 PIMA LN CHANHASSEN 55317 256090460 9630 BLUFF CREEK DR CHANHASSEN 55317 250880640 7852 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN 55317 257740010 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN 55317 250122100 7610 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN 55317 250033000 6421 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR 55331 255700030 7805 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN 55317 252030770 1013 PONTIAC CT CHANHASSEN 55317 256150720 4151 HIGHWAY 7 EXCELSIOR 55331 257600010 640 SANTA VERA DR CHANHASSEN 55317 250110200 1456 78TH ST CHANHASSEN 55317 253500060 410 76TH ST W CHANHASSEN 55317 250170100 3090 82ND ST W CHANHASSEN 55317 251940020 820 LAKE DR CHANHASSEN 55317 251870820 8579 Chanhassen Hills Drive, Chanhassen MN 55317 256150080 3921 LESLEE CURV EXCELSIOR 55331 250093200 3010 W 78th St, Excelsior MN 55331 250041200 6850 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR 55331 250880560 7830 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN 55317 258120240 2250 Stone Creek Lake East, CHanhassen MN 55317 250500010 306 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN 55317 256890020 7450 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN 55317 250160311 3160 82ND ST W CHASKA 55318 258680020 8201 MAIN ST CHANHASSEN 55317 258482180 7729 CONEFLOWER CURV S CHANHASSEN 55317 255670480 3950 Kings Road Excelsior MN 55331 250080100 3675 ARBORETUM DR CHASKA 55318 251930051 7901 PARK PLAC CHANHASSEN 55317 250880660 7854 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN 55317 252810010 2020 COULTER BLVD CHANHASSEN 55317 257680010 650 SOUTHWEST VILLAGE DR CHANHASSEN 55317 250570050 3121 WESTWOOD DR EXCELSIOR 55331 250134000 8201 GRANDVIEW RD CHANHASSEN 55317 258482360 7705 CONEFLOWER CURV S CHANHASSEN 55317 250125200 7600 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN 55317 252620570 1300 Stratton Court, Chanhassen MN 55317 251790010 8300 AUDUBON RD CHANHASSEN 55317 252020470 7011 PIMA LN CHANHASSEN 55317 251910040 8251 Powers Boulevard, Chanhassen MN 55317 251640040 1771 LAKE DR W CHANHASSEN 55317 250170400 3675 ARBORETUM DR CHANHASSEN 55317 250040600 6731 CHES MAR DR EXCELSIOR 55331 250880630 7862 HARVEST LN CHANHASSEN 55317 250120100 191 W 77th St, Chanhassen MN 55317 251240010 2310 COULTER BLVD CHANHASSEN 55317 250041300 6900 Hazeltine Boulevard, Excelsior MN 5531 251460020 2323 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN 55317 257700030 6400 MINNEWASHTA PKWY EXCELSIOR 55331 252031170 921 Pontiac Lane, Chanhassen MN 55317 258480600 7681 PRAIRIE FLOWER BLVD CHANHASSEN 55317 253000850 7110 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN 55317 251602450 900 Carver Beach Road, Chanhassen MN 55317 250170300 3210 82ND ST W CHANHASSEN 55317 250170500 3335 ARBORETUM DR CHANHASSEN 55317 254400010 2100 LAKE HARRISON RD CHANHASSEN 55317 250083200 3300 TANADOONA DR EXCELSIOR 55331 250136500 381 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN 55317 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 10, 2018 Subject 2019 Budget Discussion Follow Up Section 5:30 P.M. WORK SESSION Item No: A.2. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: A039W 2019 Budget BACKGROUND Prior to this evening, the city council has had two meetings discussing the 2019 preliminary budget and tax levy.The first discussed some general impacts to the 2019 budget and tax levy, and the second was a General Fund departmentbydepartment budget presentation.At the time of those presentations the total tax levy was $76,000 over new growth (Scenario #2 or $106,000) based on the initial General Fund budget. Since the first two meetings there has been one significant change.The 2019 healthcare contract came in at 8% rather than the previously budgeted 18%.This change along with a few other minor changes within the General Fund budget now have staff able to recommend a preliminary tax levy at new growth or scenario #2. One thing that could impact the total tax levy would be a change in the levy for the revolving assessment construction fund (PMP program) which is currently $381,323.This evening the council will begin discussions on funding the PMP program into the future.If the city council wants to make a change in the current levy of $381,323 for PMP, it would need to include that as part of the preliminary tax levy if the levy was going to be larger than the $381,323.A levy smaller than the current levy could be considered even after the preliminary levy is set at the end of September. With these factors in mind, staff will be looking for direction in setting a preliminary levy.We have included the current budget assumptions and levy impact sheet of all three scenarios.The city council will set a 2019 preliminary tax levy 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 meritbased 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 8%. 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 8% ($48,000). This is the second year of a twoyear contract for healthcare insurance with Blue Cross Blue Shield. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, September 10, 2018Subject2019 Budget Discussion Follow UpSection5:30 P.M. WORK SESSION Item No: A.2.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: A039W 2019 BudgetBACKGROUNDPrior to this evening, the city council has had two meetings discussing the 2019 preliminary budget and tax levy.Thefirst discussed some general impacts to the 2019 budget and tax levy, and the second was a General Funddepartmentbydepartment budget presentation.At the time of those presentations the total tax levy was $76,000over new growth (Scenario #2 or $106,000) based on the initial General Fund budget.Since the first two meetings there has been one significant change.The 2019 healthcare contract came in at 8% ratherthan the previously budgeted 18%.This change along with a few other minor changes within the General Fund budgetnow have staff able to recommend a preliminary tax levy at new growth or scenario #2.One thing that could impact the total tax levy would be a change in the levy for the revolving assessment constructionfund (PMP program) which is currently $381,323.This evening the council will begin discussions on funding the PMPprogram into the future.If the city council wants to make a change in the current levy of $381,323 for PMP, it wouldneed to include that as part of the preliminary tax levy if the levy was going to be larger than the $381,323.A levysmaller than the current levy could be considered even after the preliminary levy is set at the end of September.With these factors in mind, staff will be looking for direction in setting a preliminary levy.We have included the currentbudget assumptions and levy impact sheet of all three scenarios.The city council will set a 2019 preliminary tax levyon September 24, 2018.Budget AssumptionsStaff has prepared the preliminary budget based on the following assumptions:1. A wage increase for employees in 2019 of 3%, which will include a meritbased 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 8%.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 8% ($48,000). This is the second year of a twoyear contract for healthcare insurance with Blue Cross Blue Shield. 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, moretenured 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 employees and also included market adjustments for department head positions.It is important to note that the 3% for city employees includes 2% COLA and approximately a 1% performancebased pay component.Staff has surveyed the KFS cities and the results are attached.In almost all cases, our KFS cities are using COLA of 3% for their 2019 budgets.All but one of our KFS cities have step increases for their employees in addition to COLA (see attachment). A department head salary survey was completed of all of our KFS cities and regional competitor cities. Based on that survey data, we found our department heads are paid 1.95% more than the average of our KFS cities, and are paid nearly 13% lower than our competitor cities. Within the current budget we have included a 25% market rate adjustment in addition 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 (see attachment). 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. DISCUSSION Staff is looking for direction from the city council in setting a preliminary levy on September 24, 2018. ATTACHMENTS: Levy scenarios Gen Fund Budget KFS COLA Survey Dept Head Survey Debt Levies CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2019 Budget 2018 2019 Dollar Percent OPERATIONAL & CAPITAL LEVY Levy Levy Change Change General Fund $8,704,333 $8,810,333 Capital Replacement Fund (for equipment) 800,000 800,000 Revolving Imp Street Reconstruction 384,838 381,223 Pavement Mgmt Fund (Sealcoating)93,000 93,000 Total Operational & Capital Levy 9,982,171 10,084,556 102,385 1.03% DEBT LEVY Public Works Facility 470,400 475,800 Library Referendum 461,297 459,512 Total Debt Levy 931,697 935,312 3,615 0.39% TOTAL TAX LEVY $10,913,868 $11,019,868 $106,000 0.97% Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3 Levy Levy Levy Taxes applied to:General Fund $8,886,333 $8,810,333 $8,760,333 Capital Replacement 800,000 800,000 800,000 Pavement Mgmt 93,000 93,000 93,000 Revolving Imp St Recon 381,223 381,223 381,223 Total Levy subject to levy limits $10,160,556 $10,084,556 $10,034,556 Library Referendum $475,800 $475,800 $475,800 Public Works Building 459,512 459,512 459,512 Total $11,095,868 $11,019,868 $10,969,868 Tax Generation Capacity (Not actual levy, Used only for estimating the impact on the average home) Prior Year $10,913,868 $10,913,868 $10,913,868 New Construction (0.97%)$106,000 $106,000 $106,000 Total Capacity $11,019,868 $11,019,868 $11,019,868 Percent Change (To avg home city prop tax) after New Growth 0.69%0.00%-0.45% Staff recommendation for final Levy TAX LEVY 2018 2019 % Change Operational & Capital Levies General Fund 8,704,333$ 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 496,900 - 59,500 - 556,400 535,100 3.98%522,872 1130 Finance 329,000 200 42,300 - 371,500 358,700 3.57%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 167,100 44,700 46,000 - 257,800 234,800 9.80%223,613 1170 City Hall 93,500 40,300 262,000 - 395,800 413,800 -4.35%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 1,159,200 91,700 974,500 - 2,225,400 2,163,600 2.86%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 784,500 45,100 170,400 - 1,000,000 919,600 8.74%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 1,560,800 54,200 2,074,200 - 3,689,200 3,665,500 0.65%3,484,772 Public Works 1310 Engineering 649,000 800 26,900 - 676,700 681,300 -0.68%658,709 1320 Street Maintenance 873,300 113,300 35,400 - 1,022,000 996,900 2.52%931,096 1350 Street Lighting & Signals - 3,000 354,500 - 357,500 356,500 0.28%359,197 1370 Fleet Department 319,400 172,000 61,800 5,500 558,700 552,100 1.20%518,808 *Total 1,841,700 289,100 478,600 5,500 2,614,900 2,586,800 1.09%2,467,810 Community Development 1410 Planning Commission - 200 1,500 - 1,700 1,700 0.00%1,338 1420 Planning Administration 536,900 400 11,300 - 548,600 494,400 10.96%496,230 1430 Senior Commission 29,200 - 11,000 - 40,200 38,300 4.96%43,254 *Total 566,100 600 23,800 - 590,500 534,400 10.50%540,823 Park & Recreation 1510 Park & Rec Commission - 200 1,000 - 1,200 1,200 0.00%175 1520 Park & Rec Administration 250,600 200 6,000 - 256,800 245,600 4.56%233,149 1530 Recreation Center 233,200 17,700 95,900 - 346,800 346,200 0.17%312,419 1540 Lake Ann Park Operations 12,000 9,200 47,600 - 68,800 70,500 -2.41%67,573 1550 Park Maintenance 853,000 80,800 100,800 - 1,034,600 1,030,300 0.42%1,041,692 1560 Senior Citizens Center 84,700 4,300 32,700 - 121,700 114,100 6.66%117,940 1600 Recreation Programs 233,460 22,200 120,500 - 376,160 352,100 6.83%353,384 1700 Self-Supporting Programs 19,800 4,500 12,500 - 36,800 55,800 -34.05%50,614 1800 Recreation Sports 30,400 7,900 300 - 38,600 37,500 2.93%35,258 *Total 1,717,160 147,000 417,300 - 2,281,460 2,253,300 1.25%2,212,203 Total Operational Expenditures 6,844,960 582,600 3,968,400 5,500 11,401,460 11,203,600 1.77%10,758,075 Transfer for Roads - - - - **Total General Fund 11,401,460 11,203,600 1.77%10,758,075 Dollar Change from Previous Year 197,860 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 113,232 126,636 115,000 125,000 120,000 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 114,368 128,394 116,000 126,500 9.1%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 50,000 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 27,227 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 341,039 345,843 308,767 413,727 34.0%406,500 **Total General Fund Revenue 10,657,035 11,237,962 11,203,600 11,401,460 1.8%2,607,900 Total General Fund Expenditures 11,401,460 Net Levy Remaining (Use of Gen Fund Reserves)- 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 60,100 3.6%67,400 4050 Workers Compensation 2,995 3,045 3,500 3,700 5.7%3,900 *Total Personal Services 487,832 473,517 478,500 496,900 3.8%518,200 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 549,123 522,872 535,100 556,400 4.0%577,700 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 50,900 6.0%57,000 4050 Workers Compensation 1,643 1,937 2,200 2,300 4.5%2,500 *Total Personal Services 281,814 300,279 308,900 329,000 6.5%343,600 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 323,083 339,100 358,700 371,500 3.6%387,100 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 23,300 2.2%26,200 4050 Workers Compensation 921 957 1,100 1,200 9.1%1,400 *Total Personal Services 161,475 149,389 157,900 167,100 5.8%174,400 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 238,095 223,613 234,800 257,800 9.8%268,300 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 19,300 5.5%21,700 4050 Workers Compensation 3,249 3,479 3,900 4,200 7.7%5,000 *Total Personal Services 79,795 84,870 91,200 93,500 2.5%98,900 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 375,331 390,266 413,800 395,800 (4.3%)401,200 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 23,500 5.9%26,200 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 652,675 725,763 699,100 784,500 12.2%817,800 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 1,000,000 8.7%1,043,500 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%116,900 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%757,700 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%777,300 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 87,300 (9.9%)97,700 4050 Workers Compensation 3,942 3,588 4,800 4,000 (16.7%)4,500 *Total Personal Services 629,261 638,144 652,500 649,000 (0.5%)679,900 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 654,493 658,709 681,300 676,700 (0.7%)707,600 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 88,894 100,282 123,500 126,900 2.8%142,300 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 730,608 781,789 853,400 873,300 2.3%914,500 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 1,022,000 2.5%1,064,200 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 48,300 2.3%54,200 4050 Workers Compensation 8,927 9,266 11,400 11,000 (3.5%)13,000 *Total Personal Services 279,669 295,498 311,400 319,400 2.6%334,900 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 457,199 518,808 552,100 558,700 1.2%574,200 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 68,700 (5.9%)77,000 4050 Workers Compensation 2,390 2,860 3,200 3,800 18.8%4,200 *Total Personal Services 427,035 453,704 482,700 536,900 11.2%559,700 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 434,915 496,230 494,400 548,600 11.0%571,400 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 2,900 0.0%3,200 4050 Workers Compensation 155 182 200 200 0.0%200 *Total Personal Services 26,403 27,735 28,600 29,200 2.1%30,200 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 40,200 5.0%45,200 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 38,900 5.1%43,700 4050 Workers Compensation 1,195 1,452 1,600 1,800 12.5%2,000 *Total Personal Services 209,635 226,420 239,500 250,600 4.6%261,800 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.214,483 233,149 245,600 256,800 4.6%268,000 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 11,600 2.7%13,000 4050 Workers Compensation 6,869 9,909 8,200 10,500 28.0%11,000 *Total Personal Services 203,502 205,079 229,400 233,200 1.7%241,200 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 319,873 312,419 346,200 346,800 0.2%358,000 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 91,000 4.6%102,200 4050 Workers Compensation 26,127 36,995 32,000 39,000 21.9%42,000 4060 Unemployment 864 - - - 0.0%- *Total Personal Services 821,630 837,263 848,400 853,000 0.5%888,200 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 1,034,600 0.4%1,069,800 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 19,300 451.4%21,700 4050 Workers Compensation 339 535 600 600 0.0%600 *Total Personal Services 51,889 78,268 80,100 84,700 5.7%89,000 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 85,585 117,940 114,100 121,700 6.7%127,000 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 13,600 13.3%14,900 4050 Workers Compensation 3,045 4,802 3,600 5,000 38.9%5,400 *Total Personal Services 188,269 203,942 214,900 233,460 8.6%243,800 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 316,128 353,384 352,100 376,160 6.8%387,000 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 1,500 (50.0%)1,600 4050 Workers Compensation 267 337 400 400 0.0%400 *Total Personal Services 33,164 34,757 36,300 19,800 (45.5%)20,400 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 36,800 (34.1%)37,900 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 COLA only adjustment Chaska 3.00% Cottage Grove 3.00% Elk River 3.00% Inver Grove Heights 2.50% Lino Lakes 2.75% Prior Lake 3.00% Rosemount 2.75% Savage 3.00% Shakopee 3.00% Stillwater 3.00% AVERAGE 2.90% All of our KFS cities but one have COLA and step increases KFS 2019 Budgeted Wage Adjustments 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 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! CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 10, 2018 Subject Discuss Chanhassen Retail Center PUD Amendment to allow additional signage Section 5:30 P.M. WORK SESSION Item No: A.3. Prepared By MacKenzie Walters File No: PC 201815 SUMMARY Target is requesting an amendment to the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) to permit signage along their building’s north façade at 851 W. 78th Street. The PUD currently limits signage to two street frontages and the building has existing signage along its western and southern frontages. Target recently added a liquor section to the northwest corner of their store as part of extensive interior and exterior renovations and feels that signage along the W. 78th Street frontage is needed to provide visibility for the new liquor section. Other buildings within the PUD already have signage along three street frontages. In reviewing the requested PUD amendment, staff examined the general sign code that would govern the property in the absence of a PUD ordinance, other PUDs and sign plans within the city, and the existing signage within the PUD. Staff believes that amending the PUD to allow signage along each street frontage would be in line with the city’s general sign code and the treatment of similar properties. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed PUD amendment. Please see the attached planning commission report for a full analysis of the requested PUD amendment. BACKGROUND Chanhassen Retail Center PUD: On October 26, 1992, the City Council gave final approval for the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD and Target Project. The PUD stipulated that wall signage was limited to a maximum of two street frontages. On February 8, 2010, the City Council approved an amendment to the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD that allowed for the use of LED lights and adopted the Central Business District standards for the PUD’s setbacks, height, landscape, lot cover, and other standards not stipulated by the PUD. On December 6, 2017, sign permits were issued for revised signage along Target's south and west elevations. On December 28, 2017, a building permit was issued for an interior and exterior remodel of the Target store. On February 12, 2018, the City Council approved an offsale intoxicating liquor license for Target. On September 4, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed PUD amendment. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, September 10, 2018SubjectDiscuss Chanhassen Retail Center PUD Amendment to allow additional signageSection5:30 P.M. WORK SESSION Item No: A.3.Prepared By MacKenzie Walters File No: PC 201815SUMMARYTarget is requesting an amendment to the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) to permitsignage along their building’s north façade at 851 W. 78th Street. The PUD currently limits signage to two streetfrontages and the building has existing signage along its western and southern frontages. Target recently added a liquorsection to the northwest corner of their store as part of extensive interior and exterior renovations and feels thatsignage along the W. 78th Street frontage is needed to provide visibility for the new liquor section. Other buildingswithin the PUD already have signage along three street frontages.In reviewing the requested PUD amendment, staff examined the general sign code that would govern the property inthe absence of a PUD ordinance, other PUDs and sign plans within the city, and the existing signage within the PUD.Staff believes that amending the PUD to allow signage along each street frontage would be in line with the city’sgeneral sign code and the treatment of similar properties. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed PUDamendment.Please see the attached planning commission report for a full analysis of the requested PUD amendment. BACKGROUNDChanhassen Retail Center PUD:On October 26, 1992, the City Council gave final approval for the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD and Target Project.The PUD stipulated that wall signage was limited to a maximum of two street frontages.On February 8, 2010, the City Council approved an amendment to the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD that allowed forthe use of LED lights and adopted the Central Business District standards for the PUD’s setbacks, height, landscape, lotcover, and other standards not stipulated by the PUD.On December 6, 2017, sign permits were issued for revised signage along Target's south and west elevations. On December 28, 2017, a building permit was issued for an interior and exterior remodel of the Target store.On February 12, 2018, the City Council approved an offsale intoxicating liquor license for Target. On September 4, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed PUD amendment. DISCUSSION A local business owner spoke during the public hearing. He was opposed to the proposed PUD amendment because he had been told that he was restricted to signage along two elevations, and felt it was unfair that the rules were being changed. The commissioners asked staff to comment. Staff stated that without knowing the business’ location, zoning, and context it was difficult to speak to its situation; however, staff noted that building and development sign plans often restrict signage to two elevations for reasons of architecture and surrounding land uses. The commissioners asked staff if other businesses within the Central Business District (CBD) area had signage along three elevations. Staff responded that it was allowed by the city’s general sign code for properties zoned CBD. The commissioners asked if the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD could be amended to only allow Target signage along three street frontages. Staff responded that this was possible, and one other PUD in the city had unique wall signage provisions for the major/anchor tenant. Commissioner McGonagill expressed interest in this option. The commissioners noted that they felt it was very important that the city treated everyone fairly, and that since PUD’s have unique sign provisions, it was most important that all businesses within the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD be subject to the same provisions. The commissioners questioned the need for additional signage. They noted that the City Code was recently amended to allow for Pick up/Drive up area signage. They also noted that retail was changing, and that this required some flexibility in signage. Note: Due to the city’s packet schedule, the above summary was prepared without the benefit of verbatim minutes. Staff has endeavored to accurately convey the comments made during the public hearing and Commissioners discussion of the issue, but errors may be present. RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Undestad motioned and Commissioner Randall seconded the motion that: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Amendment 201815, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.” The recommended amendment would allow businesses in the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development to have signage along each street frontage by removing the clause limiting each business to two street frontages. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report_Target PUD Amendment Chanhassen Retail Center PUD Ord as of Feb 8, 2010 Chanhassen Retail Center PUD Ord Amendment 201815 Findings of Fact (Approval) Findings of Fact (Denial) Development Review Application Chanhassen PUD Amendment Cover Letter Elevations Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes 9/4/18 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: September 4, 2018 CC DATE: September 24, 2018 REVIEW DEADLINE: 10/2/2018 CASE #:2018-15 Chanhassen Retail Center PUD Amendment BY: MacKenzie Walters SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting that the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development be amended to allow signage along three street frontages. LOCATION: 851 W. 78th Street APPLICANT: Leila Bunge (Kimley-Horn & Associates) 2550 University Ave. W. 238N St. Paul, MN 55113 OWNER: Target Corporation PO Box 9456 Minneapolis, MN 55440 PRESENT ZONING: PUD 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial ACREAGE: 18.69 Acres DENSITY: N/A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUDs and amendments to PUDs because the city is acting in its legislative or policy-making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Amendment 2018-15, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.” (Note: a motion for denial and appropriate findings of fact are also included at the end of the report.) Planning Commission Chanhassen Retail Center (Target) – Planning Case 2018-15 September 4, 2018 Page 2 of 5 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Target is requesting an amendment to the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) to permit signage along their building’s north façade at 851 W. 78th Street. The PUD currently limits signage to two street frontages and the building has existing signage along its western and southern frontages. Target recently added a liquor section to the northwest corner of their store as part of extensive interior and exterior renovations and feels that signage along the W. 78th Street frontage is need to provide visibility for the new liquor section. Other buildings within the PUD already have signage along three street frontages. In reviewing the requested PUD amendment, staff examined the general sign code that would govern the property in the absence of a PUD ordinance, other PUDs and sign plans within the city, and the existing signage within the PUD. Staff believes that the requested PUD amendment is in line with the city’s general sign code and the treatment of similar properties. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed PUD amendment. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Ordinance: Limits wall signs to two street frontages per business, and a maximum of 15 percent (15%) total wall area. Chapter 20, Article XXVI. – Signs: Limits wall signs in Central Business District (CBD) to one sign per street frontage per business, and provides a sliding scale for maximum display area. BACKGROUND Chanhassen Retail Center PUD: On October 26, 1992, the City Council gave final approval for the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD and Target Project. The PUD stipulated that wall signage was limited to a maximum of two street frontages. On February 8, 2010, the City Council approved an amendment to the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD that allowed for the use of LED lights and adopted the Central Business District standards for the PUD’s setbacks, height, landscape, lot cover, and other standards not stipulated by the PUD. Relevant Sign Variances: 2003-05: Allowed Giant Panda to place signs on three building elevations, sign plan limited Highway 5 Centre to two elevations. 2017-03: Allowed Dominos to place sign on eastern façade, sign plan limited Colonial Square to southern façade. Planning Commission Chanhassen Retail Center (Target) – Planning Case 2018-15 September 4, 2018 Page 3 of 5 ANALYSIS In regulating signage the city attempts to balance the advertising needs of businesses with the potential visual nuisance/negative aesthetics that can be created by unrestricted signage. One of the main ways that the city does this is by limiting which elevations can display wall signage. The city’s general sign code allows businesses to display signage along each street frontage and allows signage on the entrance façade in cases where the individual entrance does not front a public street. The city also uses sign plans to further regulate the signage of planned centers and multi-tenant buildings. These sign plans often designate the location of the building’s sign bands and can limit the number and height of elevations where signage is permitted. PUDs often also have unique sign criteria that can specify which elevations are allowed to display signage, and often establish design and style criteria for the development. Staff conducted a survey of 29 PUD ordinances and sign plans in order to determine what the general trend for provisions regulating the maximum number of elevations were for these developments. Almost half of these developments allow businesses to display signs on each street elevation, with the next most common limit being a maximum of two elevations. Staff also found two instances in which variances were granted to allow businesses to display signage along a façade prohibited by their sign plan or development’s PUD. The Chanhassen Retail Center PUD limits each building’s wall signage to a maximum of two street frontages, but does not specify which frontages are allowed signage. As shown by the table to the left, the various buildings have signage facing all four potential directions and two of the PUD’s five buildings already have signage along three street frontages. The building shared by Noodles and Jersey Mike’s has signage along three frontages because the interpretation was made that each business was entitled to signage along two elevations. Staff believes that Perkins was allowed signage along three elevations due to a permitting error. In many cases where buildings are limited to specific number of elevations, the elevations are specified (i.e. signage is only permitted on north and south elevations). These specific restrictions tend to reflect the architectural design of the building or the nature of adjacent land uses. The intent is typically to prevent unnecessary signage, signage that will detract from the aesthetics of the building, or signage that will be highly visible to a residential neighborhood. The Chanhassen Retail Center PUD is not located near any residential neighborhoods and is surrounded by commercial and industrial uses. In this situation, the primary intent of the restriction is to prevent superfluous Survey of Number of Permitted Sign Frontages Frontages allowed 1 2 3 1 per street frontage Total PUD 0 3 1 9 13 Sign Plans 1 8 1 6 16 Combined 1 11 2 15 29 Chanhassen Retail Center Signage Business Frontages Target South and West Noodles and Company* South and East Jersey Mike's Subs* North and East Taco Bell North and East Leeann Chin North and South Perkins North, East, and West *Noodles and Jersey Mike’s share a building so their building has signage on three frontages. Planning Commission Chanhassen Retail Center (Target) – Planning Case 2018-15 September 4, 2018 Page 4 of 5 signage as some of the buildings have street frontages where additional signage would not increase the business’s visibility or would be redundant due to the presence of monument or pylon signs. During the development’s September 16, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, commissioners discussed concerns related to superfluous signage as it pertained to Target’s proposed pharmacy sign; ultimately, they decided to support the presence of the pharmacy sign on the Target building because it advertised a service not present at all Targets. As a separate issue, the Planning Commission also discussed the fact that the Target would be allowed signage along W. 78th Street under the general sign code, which was not being requested. One commissioner indicated that they felt signage along W. 78th Street might make the development “friendlier” and help break up the large expanse of wall; however, no action was taken on the comment as Target felt the proposed signage was sufficient. Target’s recent remodel has added a new liquor store section with a separate entrance in the northeast corner of the store. Since this is a new service not found in many Targets and which, due to the separate entrance, functions largely as a separate store, Target feels that additional signage is necessary to market the liquor store. Locating a sign near the intersection providing access to Target’s parking lot facing 78th Street West is the most effective location for the sign. Staff agrees that the proposed signage is not redundant and that its proposed location is not problematic. Target Proposed North Elevation Since multiple buildings within the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD already have signage along more than two elevations and signage within the development already faces north, south, east, and west, it would be appropriate to remove the existing provision restricting signage to a maximum of two street frontages. Amending the PUD to remove that provision would allow the PUD to be governed by the city’s general sign code’s restrictions limiting signage to elevations where a building has street frontage. ALTERNATIVES 1) Remove the provision limiting wall signage within the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD to two street frontages. 2) Amend the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD to limit signage to three street frontages. 3) Add a provision allowing Chanhassen Retail Center’s major tenant signage along three street frontages. 4) Retain Chanhassen Retail Center’s existing two street frontage limit. Planning Commission Chanhassen Retail Center (Target) – Planning Case 2018-15 September 4, 2018 Page 5 of 5 RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that Alternative 1 would provide for equal treatment for all businesses within the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD and would be consistent with the guidelines outlined within the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Amendment 2018-15, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.” Should the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed PUD amendment, it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Amendment 2018-15; and adopts of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.” If adopted the amended portion of the Chanhassen Retail PUD would be amended as follows: 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted ATTACHMENTS 1. Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Ordinance as of February 8, 2010 2. Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Ordinance Amendment 2018-15 3. Findings of Fact and Recommendation (Approval) 4. Findings of Fact and Recommendation (Denial) 5. Development Review Application 6. Chanhassen PUD Amendment Cover Letter 7. Elevations 8. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing G:\PLAN\2018 Planning Cases\18-15 Target PUD amendment\Staff Report_Target PUD Amendment.docx 1 CHANHASSEN RETAIL CENTER Approved 9/28/92 Amended 2/8/ 2010 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD commercial/retail zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. The Central Business District regulations shall apply except as modified by this ordinance. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the City’s CBD development goals. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. 1. Day Care Center 2. Standard Restaurants 3. Health and recreation clubs 4. Retail 5. Financial Institutions, including drive-in service * 6. Newspaper and small printing offices 7. Veterinary Clinic 8. Animal Hospital 9. Offices 10. Health Care Facility 11. Garden Center (completely enclosed) 12. Bars and Taverns 13. Fast Food Restaurants (Maximum of 2) * • Drive-thru’s should be buffered from all public views. c. Setbacks Per City Code. d. Development Standards Tabulation Box USE Lot Area Bldg sq Ft. Parking Permitted Use 20,000 sq. ft. NA Per code 2 e. Building Materials and Design The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block. Painted surfaces shall be allowed on the Target Store only. 2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 4. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated. 5. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components. 6. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 7. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs, except for the Target store shall have a parapet wall for screening. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. 8. All outlots shall be designed with similar material and colors as Target. (Target will be the first store to build and they will establish or set the theme.) 10. All buildings on Outlot B shall have a pitched roof line. f. Site Landscaping and Screening In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 1. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. 2. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 3 3. The master landscape plan for the Target PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan review process. 4. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing wall may be required where deemed appropriate. 5. Outlot B shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas proposed for future development. g. Signage One freestanding pylon sign shall be permitted for Target. This site is limited to a monument sign. 1. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. 3. All signs require a separate sign permit. 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the building materials to be consistent with the signs. This includes the freestanding wall and monument signs. Signs shall be an architecture feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. h. Lighting 1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures or LED. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 2. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination, shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. 3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. 4. Light poles shall be Corten, shoe box light standards. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. ----- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby amended by amending the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Standards, Section g. Signage, subsection 2 to read as follows: 2. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 24th day of September, 2018. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ___________, 2018) g:\plan\2018 planning cases\18-15 target pud amendment\chanhassen retail center ordinance amendment 2018-15.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of The City of Chanhassen to amend the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development. On September 4, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Target for a Planned Unit Development Amendment. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed application preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development District. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Commercial. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A, Chanhassen Retail Addition; Outlot A, Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition; Lots 1-3, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition; Lots 1-2, Block 3, Burdick Park Addition; and, Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail 4th Addition. 4. The proposed amendment to the PUD is consistent with the guidelines outlined within the comprehensive plan. 5. The planning report #2018-15, dated September 4, 2018, prepared by MacKenzie Walters is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Amendment 2018-15. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of September, 2018. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY:___________________________________ Andrew Aller - Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION (DENIAL) IN RE: Application of The City of Chanhassen to amend the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development. On September 4, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Target for a Planned Unit Development Amendment. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed application preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development District. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Commercial. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A, Chanhassen Retail Addition; Outlot A, Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition; Lots 1-3, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition; Lots 1-2, Block 3, Burdick Park Addition; and, Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail 4th Addition. 4. The proposed amendment to the PUD is not consistent with the guidelines outlined within the comprehensive plan. 5. The planning report #2018-15, dated September 4, 2018, prepared by MacKenzie Walters is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council deny the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Amendment 2018-15. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of September, 2018. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY:___________________________________ Andrew Aller - Chairman ?c Utt- ts I-n.^> COMMUNlTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division -7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147 , Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 CITY OT CIIAI.IHASSII'I APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW submittaroate:) 1,If<pc ort"tL'l-l !-L cc Date:1a:Ll-IL 60-Day ReviewDate:tollil* (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submiftal information that must accompany this application) trtr tr tr Comprehensive Plan Amendment ..... $600 ! Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ..... $100 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) fl Single-Family Residence ................................ $325 E All Others......... ........ $425 lnterim Use Permit (lUP) ! ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325fl All others......... ........ $425 Rezoning (REZ) fl Planned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750 EI Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100 fl All others......... ........ $500 Sign Plan Review........ ...$150 Site Plan Review (SPR) E Administrative.......... .................... $100 E Commercial/lndustrial Districts* .. $500 Plus $10 per 1 ,000 square feet of building area:(_ thousand square feet) "lnclude number of g1g{149 employees:.lnclude number of ryemployees:E Residential Districts. .................... $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit (_ units) Subdivision (SUB) E Create 3 lots or less ............. ....... $300! Create over 3 |ots.......................$600 + $15 per lot( lots)E Metes & Bounds (2lots) ..............$300 E Consolidate 1ots....... ...................$150 ! Lot Line Adjustment............... ......$150I rina|P1at.............. ....$700 (lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs)* "Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) .. .. $200 Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) E Single-family Residence............................... $1 50 fl Ail others......... ......$2Zs Zoning Appeal........ ...... $100 Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) ................. $500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. u tr tr tr tr tr tr h x tr Property Owners' List within 500' (city to generate after pre-apptication meeting) ............:....... ...... $3 per address ( I l. addresses) Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)... $50 per document E Site Plan Agreement E Wetland Alteration Permit E Conditional Use Permit E lnterim Use Permit ! Vacation E Variance E Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) fl Easements ( easements)BrTl"E:+3:r,,.oo Description of Proposal: Adding a "Wine & Spirits" sign to the north side of the Target building 851 W 78th St, Chanhassen, MN 55317 qq lziF-t.1- [l*r^- Property Address or Location: Parcel#: 2518400'10 Legal Description:LOT 1 EXC: That part of Lot '1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail Addition TotalAcreage:10.06 Wetlands Present? ! Yes Z ruo Present Zoning:Central Business District (CBD)Requested Zoning: Central Business District (CBD) Present Land Use Designation: Commercial Requested Land Use Designation:Commercial Existing Use of Property: Retail ECheck box if separate narrative is attached. Section 1:allthat Section 2: Reouired lnformation APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name:Leila Bunge (Kimley-Horn & Associates)Contact: Leila Bunge Address:2550 University Ave W, 238N Phone:(763) 251-1015 St. Paul, MN 55113 Cell: Fax: Date:7131118 PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name:Eames Gilmore Contact: Eames Gilmore Address:50 South 1Oth Street #400, TP3-1 1 140 Phone: Cell: (612) 761-1585 City/State/Zip:Minneapolis, MN 55403 Email:Fax: Signature:Date:7t31t18 This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name:Contact: Phone:Address: City/State/Zip: Email: Cell: Fax: leila.bunge@kimley-horn.com Who should receive copies of staff reports?*Other Contact I nformation : Name:Via: Via: Via: Via: trZtrtr Property Owner Applicant Engineer Other" fl Email E Email E Email E Email E trlaiteO Paper Copy f] ttlaiteo Paper Copy ! lvtaiteO Paper Copy E naaieo Paper Copy Address: City/State/Zip: Email: INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing. Section 3:Owner and lnformation City/State/Zip: Email: Signature: Section 4: Notification lnformation kimley-horn.com 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197 July 31, 2018 City of Chanhassen Department of Planning and Zoning 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Target (T-0862) Target PUD Amendment 851 W 78th St Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Walters, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. serves as the engineering consultant for Target, who is seeking a PUD amendment of the Chanhassen Retail Center for the building at 851 W 78th Street, Chanhassen, MN. The PUD amendment is being submitted to include a “Wine & Spirits” sign as a permitted exterior wall sign on the north side of the building. Target has recently remodeled the Chanhassen store with façade and signage improvements, which included a new liquor section. Since Target completed the liquor section, they have found that the current signage is not advertising the service very well to customers. The addition of the “Wine & Spirits” sign on the north elevation will provide more visibility to the store and new liquor section from 78th Street, which is the main street facing the store. We respectfully request to be on your next Planning Commission agenda. Thank you for your time and comments on the initial submittal. If you have any more questions or require any additional information, please feel free to contact me at 763-251-1015 or Leila.bunge@kimley-horn.com. Sincerely, Leila Bunge Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Phone: 763-251-1015 Email: Leila.bunge@kimley-horn.com Attachments: 1 – Development Review Application 2 – Elevations (Proposed Front vs. Existing Front) 3 – Property Deed CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, Mark Randall, and Michael McGonagill MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Michael Clauson 8381 West Lake Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN RETAIL CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ON THE TARGET BUILDING. Walters: Item 1 is Planning Case 2018-15. It is a requested amendment to the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development. So Target Corporation has requested that the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD be amended to allow signage along 3 elevations. So just so people know what we’re talking about when we say the Chanhassen Retail Center. It is an 18.69 acre planned unit development in red here in downtown Chanhassen. The anchor tenant is the Target and the planned unit development has unique sign standards which differ from the general city’s code and they limit businesses within that development to signage along 2 street frontages with a maximum of 15 percent wall area. So if we look at just the existing Target building they currently have signage along the western elevation. This is a visual of the elevation as it stands after their recent remodel. They also have signage along the southern elevation and what they would like to do is place a sign along the northern elevation to help raise awareness and advertise the new liquor store that’s been added to the building. So in evaluating this request staff did a little bit of research. First thing we did was we looked at the Chanhassen Retail Center and it’s wall signage. We went through the different businesses. We found that the building that hosts the Noodles and Company and the Jersey Mike’s Sub has signage along 3 elevations. This is consistent with the district because it’s inhabited by two different businesses so each business only has signage on 2 facades. We also found that the Perkins has signage along 3 elevations, north, east and west. Staff believes this was the result of a permitting error. So we then also looked at the different elevations and as the development currently stands there is already signage along every cardinal direction, north, south, east and west. We looked at how different sign plans and planned unit developments had handled sign elevations and street frontages. We Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018 2 found the most common were either limiting it to 2 frontages. We had 11 of 29 that did that or allowing one per street frontage which is the base standard of the city code. 15 did that. So the request to have signage on additional frontage would not be out of line with how other developments and multi-tenant buildings have been treated in the city. Staff also then, well you can see we also then compared everything to the city code and what it would be if it was just handled by the city ordinance versus the PUD. In general the Chanhassen Retail Center is more restrictive on the number of frontages. More liberal on the amount of building area that can be covered by signage. Due to the fact that there are existing buildings within the Chanhassen Retail Center that has signage along 3 frontages and that this is a pretty typical situation a lot of different developments within the city, staff recommends that the provision limiting Chanhassen Retail Center to 2 street frontages be removed. This would allow the development to be governed by the city ordinance in terms of determining which street elevations are allow to have signage. With that I’d be happy to take any questions. Aller: When you say that the, by shifting that, pulling it out of the PUD that one term to make it 2 frontages as opposed to 1 that it will automatically go by city code. Would it be better if we just change the PUD to state that it will go by city code or is that going to impact anyone else? Walters: We could. Aller: I mean is that our desired impact? Walters: Our desire is not to remove all unique provisions governing signage within the planned unit development. The goal was just to, from our perspective to remove the more restrictive street frontage and then to allow the rest of the provisions to stand. The PUD also has you know this is a, outside of wall signage but it specifies one monument sign per property which is different than city code standards and limits the development to one pylon sign. Again under general city code each property would be allow it’s own pylon sign so our goal was to make the smallest possible change that would, well and remove the non-conformity within the Perkins restaurant. Clear up any potential ambiguity about the multi-tenant building that has signage on 3 frontages and accommodate Target’s request. Which we felt was reasonable when we looked at the changes to the building. Advertising needs and how similar developments had been treated throughout the city. Aller: So this modification isn’t going to cause one of the other businesses if they want to change their signage to increase it? Walters: It would allow every building within the PUD to have one sign per street façade so the Perkins for instance would be allowed to have 3. I believe several of the other buildings also have street frontages along 3 elevations and would, if they wanted to be entitled to add a sign along that as well. We do have one PUD in the city where we have unique provisions for the anchor tenant which allow them to have signage on 3 elevations but restrict other businesses Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018 3 within that development to have signage on only 2 so it wouldn’t be unprecedented if the Planning Commission preferred to limit this to Target only. Aller: Thank you. Any further questions or questions based on that? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I would just like to clarify how many signs a business could have in the central business district. If that Chapter 20 that’s quoted in our cover sheet, so it’s one sign per street frontage, is that correct? So currently a business that might not be located in the PUD could have a sign on 3 sides? Walters: That is correct. And an example, well I’m trying to think of, oh. No Lunds only has 2 frontages so they’re limited to 2. Off the top of my head I’m not thinking of one that I know for sure is zoned CBD rather than PUD within the central business district but yes, that is the base standard of the code. Madsen: But so a business, if it was on 3 frontages in the central business district could also have as many signs as this PUD area. Walters: They could have signage on each elevation yeah could be treated the same. Madsen: Each elevation, yep. Walters: Yep. Madsen: Just so that it’s fair throughout that area. Okay thank you. Aller: Based on that any additional questions? Hearing none we’ll have the applicant make their presentation if they’d like to do so. If you could come up and state your name and your representational capacity. Leyla Bungee: Good evening, my name is Leila Bungee with Kimley-Horn and Associates. We submitted this application on behalf of Target to add the additional Wine and Spirits sign on the north elevation as part of the recent remodel as MacKenzie had stated. Jay Richardson: Yes, hi I’m Jay Richardson. I’m with RSP Architects and we’ve done the design of the exterior of the building. And coordinated the signs with the sigh company. Aller: Welcome. So could you explain how it’s a coordinated effort on those signs, what the impact would be on the frontage and why you’ve come up with this particular sign scheme. Leyla Bungee: Yeah I can start it. Jay Richardson: Okay go ahead. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018 4 Leyla Bungee: So we have been doing a lot of back and forth with planning staff just to make sure that we’re meeting all the requirements currently of the PUD. The wine and spirits addition in the store that was something that came a little bit later after our initial meetings to discuss the signage plan and so once the design had gotten to a point where we wanted to keep the main Target sign the size that it is on the building today, that didn’t leave that much room on the front for the wine and spirit sign to go on the front which I believe is the west elevation so part of that reason was to move it to the north elevation to accommodate the current allowances for sign area. So right now there is a window decal on that new entrance for the wine and spirit sign but Target realized that they haven’t been seeing as many customers as they were hoping with that new liquor store service so adding the new wine and spirit sign on the, yeah I guess the left hand of the building facing the main street that helps advertise that service to people that might not know it’s there today. Aller: Any questions? Additional questions? Thank you very much. Leyla Bungee: Thank you. Aller: At this time I’ll open up the public hearing portion of the item. Any individual present may come forward and speak either for or against the item before us. Welcome sir. If you could state your name and address for the record that would be great. Michael Clausen: Hello. Michael Clausen, 8381 West Lake Drive in Chanhassen here. Local business owner. We opened our business 5 years ago and we have, I have 3 sides to my building so when I wanted signage on all 3 sides went to you know, I did not put in a formal request or whatever. I just talked to my friend Sharmeen. Said you know what’s the deal here and she said well you’re only allowed 2 signage on 2 sides of your business. It had nothing to do with the building as I understand it’s each business is allowed 2 sides because I could have, I could have put signage on the south side of my business and the east side of my business. The other businesses, tenants in the shop could have still had their signage so we could add signs on all 4 of them but any individual business can only have signage on 2 sides. That’s how it was stated to me and I’m pretty sure that’s how the city code goes. That’s how, that’s why most of these places only have signage on 2 sides so, and now to come along and you know after the fact and you know probably the reason they’re not doing well is we’ve over developed retail liquor in this city so now we’re trying to figure out ways to accommodate it so we want to change the rules to allow people to you know do something different when the rest of us have all been playing by the rules that were set out for years so. You know I guess I just think in the sense of fairness and what’s right you know they should act under the, they should be subject to the same rules as everyone else in town and to do it after the fact is unfair to the other businesses. You know to say that now I can well you go ahead and put it on 3 sides. Well that ship has already sailed and that’s not in our budget to add a $10,000 sign to the side of the building so that’s my thoughts on, if you have any questions or anything. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018 5 Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward to speak either for or against the item? Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing on this matter and open it up for questions. Additional questions of staff or comments or action. Yes Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I’m wondering if staff could address that if that business does have the 3 frontages if they could have had the 3 signs or are they in a different business district or what the difference was? Walters: So without knowing a little bit more it’s hard for me to comment. You know if we go back to our sheet if the business’s zoning is planned unit development it, you know we do have 11 different planned unit developments and sign plans in the city that do restrict businesses to 2 elevations. If the gentleman’s business is located in one of those he would have been you know informed that that was the limit. Under base code it is one per street frontage. It is, again without knowing the location it is possible the gentleman’s business only has frontage along 2 elevations. There are other instances where because there’s a residential development nearby we restrict elevations in the PUD and things like that. So that would be my response to that. Mr. Generous? Generous: And the one other thing I would add is that part of a site plan review there could be a limitation imposed on the development to limit the number of signs they have irregardless of what the city ordinance is so. Aller: Okay. Did that answer your question? Do you have a follow up question? Madsen: Well I guess we don’t know the exact circumstances. I just would be concerned about the fairness of, you know if people are told how many signs they can have that after the fact adding more, you know just want it to be fair for all the businesses in the city. Aller: Any additional comments or I’ll entertain a motion. Undestad: I will make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development amendment 2018-15 and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Randall: Second. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018 6 Aller: I have a motion and a valid second. Any further discussion? I think to Commissioner Madsen’s point we want to be consistent and fair as much as possible throughout the city with all of our zoning and ordinances. In this particular situation we are dealing with a PUD which is a separate zoning in and of itself that’s created for this particular area of property and there were exchanges made in order to achieve that with regard to signage and square footage and that whole process so I kind of look at, and that was the impact of my questioning was I wanted to see whether anyone else within the PUD was going to be impacted so I’m, I’m more concerned with maybe tailoring it to allow for Target to be the only one that gets it at this point in time to determine on a case by case basis whether or not it should be expanded. I don’t know what you opinions would be on that. McGonagill: I was kind of similar thinking Mr. Chairman. Just limit it to Target and take it from there. Aller: Would that be, is that fair to the others that? Undestad: That’d be my feeling is we’re talking about the PUD and the other tenants, the other buildings involved in that were part of that same PUD and, you know I understand the other businesses, you know each case is handled that way but I think if we’re dealing with the whole PUD we ought to look at the whole PUD that way. McGonagill: So it’d be as the PUD is written here. Aller: Yeah that would be my concern is, I want to overall be consistent but at the same time I don’t want to have an impact which is going to create hostility either amongst the tenants or amongst the citizens who all of a sudden have too much signage. Madsen: Yeah. Aller: Any additional thoughts? Randall: Well there are a few in there that already have the, that have more than they’re supposed to based on that PUD correct? Aller: That are non-conforming. Randall: Non-conforming so by us altering the PUD it would bring everyone up to the right level. That would be in conforming. Madsen: My understanding was it was just the Perkins that is on the 3 different frontages and it was in error and the other building, those businesses only have it on 2 frontages each which happens to them because of the 2 tenants happens to be. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018 7 Randall: Yep they can only do the 2 yeah. Madsen: The 4 so really no one else is really approved for it. Randall: Okay. Aller: Okay. Any additional discussion? Madsen: I guess I’m just concerned that you know I don’t know if they have to have the sign. I think everyone knows Target’s there. They’ve seen the development and it, you know the other businesses are following that rule so I’m just not really sure what the need is to have an additional sign. Aller: Well I can certainly understand their desire for the additional signage because the usage of that Target was always with a certain expectation of the items that were sold in there. Whether it be coffee or appliances or food or, but this was a separate escalated purpose that has been separated out and they’ve created that and the City has allowed for that liquor license to be placed in there so I think it’s almost like a different use that’s unexpected so I can understand where they would want and their desire certainly would be there for it. I just don’t want it to impact the community standards that we’re placing out there for purposes of signage in general. Tietz: Chairman Aller? Wasn’t too many months ago that we had a variance I think to allow a pylon sign in the parking lot and what does that constitute? Is that another sign because it’s, it was a variance that was requested at that time. That’s what, back in February or March. It was for parking for. Aller: I think it was a height variance wasn’t it? Tietz: Well it was a height but it was, it’s a sign. Walters: If I’m recollecting it was for the pick up area within the parking lot. Tietz: Right. Walters: Those, it was a code change to the city code and that was adding another category of directional signage that could be allowed businesses without a permit so under the pre-existing city code we had allowed any business to have up to 4 directional signs. Maximum 5 feet in height. 4 feet in, 4 square feet display area and we added another category allowing certain types of uses. Grocery stores. Big box retailers to have a pick up sign designating an area for remote, basically just you know stopping by and having goods put in the car in the parking lot. Tietz: Right. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018 8 Walters: And that had unique standards. Tietz: I think that one was 10 or 12 feet. It’s not a 5 or 6 foot sign. It’s a. Walters: My recollection is 12 or 13 feet. Tietz: It was significant I remember because we had some discussion about it’s height and location. Aller: Right. Undestad: Well and that I think that signage for the pick up area part of that shows how retail is changing. Businesses are changing. They need to change with it and this is part of it I think when they have to put a new, the liquor store in there. We never had one, we never had drive up, pick up your groceries you know and so I think, and again to keep it in the full PUD package out there I think that’s the way it should be put in there. Aller: And just to follow up on that a little bit. We also discussed the fact that there will not be drive up pick up of alcohol. Undestad: Right. Aller: Any additional comments? Questions? Concerns? Otherwise I have a motion and a second. Undestad moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 10, 2018 Subject Proclamation Chanhassen Red Birds 2018 State Amateur Baseball Class "B" Champions Section PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS Item No: C.1. Prepared By Todd Hoffman, Parks & Recreation Director File No: ATTACHMENTS: Red Birds Proclamation Proclamation RECOGNIZING THE 2018 STATE AMATEUR BASEBALL CLASS “B” CHAMPIONS SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 RED BIRDS DAY IN CHANHASSEN Mayor Denny Laufenburger WHEREAS, the Chanhassen Red Birds town baseball team became the Minnesota Amateur Baseball Class “B” State Champions on Monday, September 3rd, 2018 during the playing of the 95th Annual Minnesota Baseball Association tournament, and WHEREAS, the Chanhassen Red Birds during the course of their season won 1st place at the Green Isle/Hamburg tournament and finished second in the Stearns County Classic , and WHEREAS, the team had a season record of 33 wins and only 8 losses, and WHEREAS, the team defeated the Miesville Mudhens in the final two games of the state tournament by the scores of 6 to 1 and 7 to 4, and WHEREAS, the team was coached by Mike Ralston, Mike Arnold, and scorekeeper Matt Schrad, and WHEREAS, the players on the team are: Brandon Arnold, Nick Smith, Derek Smith, Joe Jersak, Kyle Fischer, Ryan Burmeister, Matthew Smith, Logan Spitzack, Michael Jensen, Thomas Thompson, Riley Johnson, Ryan Diers, Gunnar McCarthy, John Eischens, Miles Nablo, Adrian Turner, Chris Choles, Dominic Reed, Zach Hoffman, Garrett Fischer, Justin Anderson, Justin Jeronimous, Jacob Goraczkowski, Shawn Riesgraf and Connor Herd, NOW BE IT RESOLVED, that the Honorable Mayor Denny Laufenburger and the members of the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, on behalf of all citizens, do hereby recognize the Chanhassen Red Birds for being the 2018 Minnesota Amateur Baseball Class “B” State Champions and for being the pride of Chanhassen and do hereby declare September 10, 2018 Chanhassen Red Birds day in Chanhassen, Minnesota. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 10, 2018 Subject Approve City Council Minutes dated August 20, 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 20, 2018.” Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: City Council Summary Minutes dated August 20, 2018 City Council Verbatim Minutes dated August 20, 2018 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES AUGUST 20, 2018 The City Council met at 5:30 p.m. to tour the West Water Treatment Plant. Mayor Laufenburger called the special City Council meeting to order at 7:00 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 Gerhard, Paul Oehme, and Greg Sticha PUBLIC PRESENT: Marlene Schaller 806 Buckingwood Court A. Jay Schreur 8376 Suffolk Drive Terry Kroells 1071 Chap Court Karla Ramsey 400 Deerfoot Trail Judy & Joel Nybeck 7404 Frontier Trail Mack Titus 2747 Century Trail Slammer 491 Bighorn Ray Murray 6618 Brenden Court Randy Raddatz 6340 Elm Tree Larry Koch 471 Bighorn Drive George & Leah Lucas 410 Cimarron Charlie Littfin 7609 Laredo Drive Dave Peck 1521 Lake Susan Hills Drive Tom & Rose Rolland 6211 Greenbriar Scott Mason 1280 Lake Susan Hills Drive Sue Morgan & Linda Scott 4031 Kings Road Reuben Kelzenberg 7604 Iroquois Avenue Pat Pavelko 7203 Frontier Trail Jay Johnson 7496 Saratoga Chris Dahl 1774 Valley Ridge Trail PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING DISCUSSION TO ADD FRANCHISE FEE. Paul Oehme presented the staff report on the need for additional funding in the future for the pavement management program. Greg Sticha presented information on how funding for roads have been done in the past and potential funding options for the future. Mayor Laufenburger City Council Summary – August 20, 2018 2 opened up the meeting for public comments. Mack Titus, 2747 Century Trail asked for clarification of a transit improvement tax which already exists on his Xcel Energy bill and asked if the franchise fee is enacted for the pavement management program will it be totally funded by the franchise fee and not out of his property tax money. Tom and Roseanne Rolland, 6211 Greenbriar explained that they paid their assessment in total up front and asked if they will get a reimbursement if assessments go away. Tom Rolland stated he would favor the continuation of assessments because he’s already paid his assessment up front. Jay Schreur, 8376 Suffolk Drive explained that the roads in his townhome development are private roads maintained by the homeowners association and if the franchise fee goes through it will be double taxation. He asked if their association could get a lesser tax because they maintain their own road or have the City maintain the private road. Charles Littfin, 7609 Laredo Drive explained the discrepancy in assessments on Laredo Drive between residential and the school, post office, fire department and other businesses. He suggested people who have paid assessments not pay the franchise fees until their assessments are paid in full. David Peck, 1521 Lake Susan Hills Drive stated he was in favor of continuing with the assessment practice along with implementing a franchise fee. Randy Raddatz, 6340 Elm Tree Avenue expressed his concerned about pre-paying with franchise fees for something that may or may not be needed in the future and asked about the impact on commercial properties that do not currently pay taxes and reiterated that he is very much opposed to the franchise fee. Ray Murray, 6618 Brenden Court asked for clarification on how residential properties are assessed, how the franchise fees would act as a conduit and if the City would get reimbursed dollar for dollar. Sue Morgan, 4031 Kings Road asked for clarification on the franchise fee being a flat fee and not based on energy usage, if non-profit commercial entities such as churches would be charged, who to contact if there’s a discrepancy on a utility bill, and because they have an 8 acre parcel of property and were assessed in the past for 3 fictitious lots and asked if that practice will be the same for the franchise fee. Steve Stamy Slammer, 491 Bighorn Drive asked when the council will vote on the franchise fee issue, if the issue would be put on a general election ballot, and how the public will be notified if money from the franchise fees are changed in the future. Jay Johnson, 7496 Saratoga, being a former council member from the 80’s and 90’s timeframe and a former public works director for another city, stated he was in favor of keeping the 40/60 assessment practice, implementing the franchise fee to keep the city’s streets in good condition, 50/50 split between residential and commercial, and exploring ways to assist low income property owners. Pat Pavelko, 7203 Frontier Trail asked how the average of $2.2 million dollars per year for street construction was arrived at and where the franchise fee money will go in the general fund. After clarification Mr. Pavelko stated he would prefer either the 60/40 plan or the franchise fee. Karla Ramsey, 400 Deerfoot Trail asked that consideration be given because she lives in an association with a private street. Larry Koch, 471 Bighorn Drive commended the City Council for having a special meeting to allow the public to address issues associated with paying for street improvements, would favor continuation of the 60/40 split for assessments, the need to fix Frontier Trail, Conestoga Trail and Conestoga Court, and that the council make their intentions known that the franchise fee will go towards fixing the roads in the city. Chris Dahl, 1774 Valley Ridge Trail noted that a franchise fee is not a tax deductible item, and would rather the money be put on the property tax statements on a yearly and project basis. City Council Summary – August 20, 2018 3 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 9:20 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 20, 2018 The City Council met at 5:30 to tour the West Water Treatment Plant. Mayor Laufenburger called the special City Council meeting to order at 7:00 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 Gerhard, Paul Oehme, and Greg Sticha PUBLIC PRESENT: Marlene Schaller 806 Buckingwood Court A. Jay Schreur 8376 Suffolk Drive Terry Kroells 1071 Chap Court Karla Ramsey 400 Deerfoot Trail Judy & Joel Nybeck 7404 Frontier Trail Mack Titus 2747 Century Trail Slammer 491 Bighorn Ray Murray 6618 Brenden Court Randy Raddatz 6340 Elm Tree Larry Koch 471 Bighorn Drive George & Leah Lucas 410 Cimarron Charlie Littfin 7609 Laredo Drive Dave Peck 1521 Lake Susan Hills Drive Tom & Rose Rolland 6211 Greenbriar Scott Mason 1280 Lake Susan Hills Drive Sue Morgan & Linda Scott 4031 Kings Road Reuben Kelzenberg 7604 Iroquois Avenue Pat Pavelko 7203 Frontier Trail Jay Johnson 7496 Saratoga Chris Dahl 1774 Valley Ridge Trail PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING DISCUSSION TO ADD FRANCHISE FEE. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you and good evening to everyone. Those of you in the chambers as well as those of you that may be watching on Mediacom cable channel at home or via the City website livestream. First item is just regarding the agenda. Without objection council we will proceed with the agenda which has one item on it for this evening. Is there any objection to that? City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 2 Alright we’ll proceed. Ladies and gentlemen and just for those of you that are watching at home or via Mediacom or the website, I think we have probably 50 people here in the council chambers and this is the first time that I can recall where the meeting of the council is for the sole purpose of public comment. We have public comment. We have visitor presentations. Public hearings at our regular council meetings and that is part of a meeting at which action is taken on any of a number of items but tonight the council has no action on the agenda. Tonight is only about listening and learning. As a result of tonight’s session council, these 5 members here may direct city staff to do further investigation. We may also make this a topic, a subject of a work session. Council may also decide that no action is to be taken on this but tonight is about hearing from you, the citizens. This is how we’ll proceed tonight. First of all we’ll receive a presentation from staff on the subject, including a brief summary of comments gained at other public meetings held prior to this evening. Secondly I’ll ask the council if they have any questions of staff or any clarification of any sort and then thirdly I’ll ask for public comment at which time you will come to the podium individually stating your name and your address for the record and then you make your comments and I would ask that you make your comments, direct your comments to the council. Now council members also I would invite you that if you have any questions during that time, during the public comment if you have any questions you’re certainly welcome to ask those of the person who’s presenting so wanted this to be a little less formal than we might normally follow during the council meeting. Agreed? Everybody okay? Alright. I expect that we will hear from many of you this evening so I ask that your comments be limited to 3 to 5 minutes if possible. Be respectful of the council and also respectful of those present that may have views that are a little different than your own. Also I know that some of the things you hear tonight you may really like or really not like but I just, I ask that you just keep your response to those items to yourself. We want to hear from all who would like to speak tonight and I don’t want anyone to feel like they need to be intimidated or hindered in speaking their views and convictions. Also if you’d like to include in your comments stating whether or not you think the council should act to maintain a certain level of street condition known as the PCI or the pavement condition index you may include that in your comments so. Also remember that the City Council has had an opportunity to read and hear many comments already. There have been 4 public sessions at the library and many of those comments and the results of those sessions have been shared with the council as well so unless there’s any questions or comments from council at this time let’s begin. Staff report please. Mr. Oehme are you beginning this? Paul Oehme: Mayor, City Council members, thank you. So I’d like to just go through the agenda like, that staff would like to present tonight. This presentation, this power point that staff has put together is really similar to the other meetings that we’ve had at the library with the community and we’ve been tweaking the I would say the power point over the last couple meetings here just to make things a little more clear and clarify a couple things and add some more information too so we’ve added a couple things to this power point that we did not present at our last open house. So what I’d like to do tonight is explain kind of the purpose and need for the additional funding request for our pavement system. Our pavement management system. Then Greg Sticha will talk about one option is talk about the franchise fee option that we’ve been discussing with you and then we’d like to take public comment and input from the audience and City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 3 the community on the proposed franchise fee and then the current assessment practice that we currently have so with that, what is a pavement management program and what exactly does it involve. So I mean the City’s goal is to implement changes to our current funding for pavement management by maintaining a sustainable and consistent funding source for our pavement management of our streets and our trails so that’s kind of the goal that we’re working under. Just a little background and our system as it currently sits. We currently own, maintain, operate about 112 lineal miles of streets within our community. If you look at what the cost, the capital cost for that network is, if it would have to be replaced today, it’s about $183 million dollars so that is by far our largest capital asset the City currently owns and maintains. Likewise with pedestrian trails. We have approximately 60 miles of paved trails within our community. 37 of those miles are within our current right-of-way or in the back of the curb of streets like on 78th Street and then there’s another 23 miles with our community and parks and open spaces in city land so if you add up those costs, what it would take to replace those trails today it’s a little over $9 million dollars in value so it’s a substantial amount of capital outlay that it took to build and build up the trail network over the years. So our goal again is try to do the right thing with these pavements at the right time to try to prolong the pavement life as long as we can. Keep again the city’s infrastructure in good repair as best as we can. Maintain or increase property values that curbside appeal. And then also try to implement and have a system that’s cost effective as well. So the pavement management program was started right around 1991. Kind of kicked off with our first surveys and then 1994 it really kicked in where we started surveying all of our streets once every 3 years and those surveys would pick up what distresses we find in each of the segments of the roads and the network that we have out here. For example we identify the severity of the potholes. How big they are. How distressed they are. How many cracks per block we have. Rutting. That’s the tire marks that potentially are in the road and a bunch of other little distresses. We gather that information. We have that information inserted into a pavement program basically it’s called and that program identifies and rates our streets and it’s called a pavement condition index so that computer program would tell us what condition our streets are in. So for example a new street in our community would be rated 100 by this program because there are no distresses that would be out there and the road’s, no potholes and those type of things. But however if a road is gravel or severely distressed it would be down closer to the zero mark where it’d be almost looking like a gravel street if you had a zero. So over the years again we’ve obtained this data or collected this data and we have a pretty good record of what our streets are, have been over the last 10 years. So for example in the last 10 years overall our street networks on average would be rated, have been rated right around a 70 which is considered fairly good street conditions. So there’s a few potholes, a few cracks but no major distresses on average through our networks. So our street network has been built as development has come into the community so this graph shows when all of our streets were constructed so this graph here shows that approximately 20 percent of our streets were built in the 1970’s and then as we go along, 1980’s. That 10 year span there was 27 miles of streets that were constructed and then in the 1990’s 38 miles of streets were constructed so the city did have a very big growth period in the 80’s and 90’s. In fact about 60 percent of our streets were constructed in those two decades. However now these streets are starting to deteriorate a little bit and they’re coming due for maintenance. We’ve tried to prolong these streets as much as we can by patching, City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 4 sealcoating, regular maintenance but it’s coming to the point where those type of treatments are not going to be cost effective anymore. If we look in this pavement management program can also project out in the future what the pavement condition will be so if we estimate, we can estimate out into the future what our pavement condition will be if we currently funding levels as they are today so looking out about 20 years our pavement condition index would right now is about a 70, would drop to a 44 in 20 years with the current funding levels that we have. And this is specifically due to the fact that we have so many streets again that were built in the 80’s and 90’s that are coming due for some sort of maintenance. This slide just shows graphically what the pavement condition index looks like so again upper left hand corner, this is a very good street. Recently paved maybe one or two years ago. It’s rated at a 95. You know very smooth. Very consistent. No cracks. No potholes. Those type of things. A good street is shown here visually. There’s some cracks. Maybe there’s some settlements in the road but no significant distresses in terms of alligatoring or potholes. Those type of things but as we go down you can see that roads at each of these PCI levels are significantly deteriorated so again if we were, we’re currently up in the 70 range but if we’re looking at not increasing the, or doing more streets in our community over the next 20 years we project that our street condition is going to be on average again looking more towards this visual representation of PCI that’s at 45. So what can we do to address that need? This is a typical life cycle cost of a pavement. This graph represents what a pavement life cycle can be. These graphs, life cycle costs are nationally and state accepted. The treatments that we’re looking at are no different than other communities currently offer and do. So I just wanted to explain this graph a little bit. So if we start on the left hand side at zero for pavement age on the lower level of the graph and as we go up the pavement condition rises so again 100 on the PCI scale is basically a brand new street and if you’re at zero you would expect that street to be brand new or at 100 so but over the time as we go to the right of the graph, the pavement’s going to age. It’s going to deteriorate over time and how best to maintain that, that roadway. So the red line represents a pavement, a street, a road that has no maintenance involved with it so it’s going to deteriorate kind of on a gradual basis and as we get out to 20-25 years, maybe 30 years it’s going to run down to the PCI level of you know 30 and lower where you know you’re going to eventually need a reconstruction if no maintenance is completed. What the city and other communities have took on is try to extend those life, those pavement lives as long as we can so the blue line represents a well maintained or a life cycle cost of a street where say after 8 years we’re looking at a sealcoat and that’s the chip seals that we put down on our roads with an asphalt binder to it. That bumps up our roadways to a little bit. We also crack seal our roads to try to keep the water out of the subsurface but over time that sealcoat’s going to deteriorate too so another maybe 8 years or 10 years after that first sealcoat then we’re going to do maybe another sealcoat and that will bump us back up to another 10 points or something like that but over time where our streets are going to deteriorate and those sealcoats aren’t going to be cost effective anymore where we’re going to have to do some sort of major, more major rehabilitation. That’s where we’re talking about maybe looking at a mill and overlay or a full depth reclamation project where for a mill and overlay that’s where we’re maybe grinding off or removing the first inch, inch and a half of asphalt and then repaving that. That roadway. That would bump us back up to 100 PCI and then we would go through that life cycle again so maybe do another two sealcoats and then at this point in time maybe after 40 years City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 5 or longer we’re looking at a reclamation where we’re digging up all the asphalt and replacing that and that would bump us back up again. But over time it’s going to, that road’s going to deteriorate and the sub-base is going to weaken and maybe some utilities would have to get replaced so you know after 50-60 years or longer potentially we’d be looking at a reconstruction. And the reason why we try to do, go through this life cycle cost, do some overlays, mill and overlays. Sealcoating, those type of things and try to extend the road as much as we can is just because of the cost effectiveness of these type of programs where we’re not reconstructing roads every 25 or 30 years. If you look at what the costs for some of these treatments are, sealcoating about a buck 40 a square yard versus a mill and overlay which is at $13 dollars a square yard versus a reclamation where you’re digging up the asphalt again and replacing all the asphalt. That’s about $21 and when you come down to a reconstruction where it’s over $100 a square yard comparatively. So if you look at the life cycle cost again or if you’re reconstructing roads and not doing any maintenance we’re project, you know it’s about 2 ½ times more expensive to let the road deteriorate and reconstruct versus going through the life cycle cost and doing some of these treatments down the road. This is a proposed 10 year local street plan that staff has generated if additional funds are available for, through the franchise fee or some other funding source. This is the improvement plan that we’d like to put forward over the next 10 years to try to have our street system maintained at that 70 PCI level and these again are for a local streets. These are more the neighborhood streets that we are proposing and it includes the overlays. The mill and overlays and the full depth reclamation projects and the total reconstructions as well. And then likewise for our collector roadways, this is just a 5 year projection. We do have a 10 year projection. I just wanted to show you a 5 year and these are the roads that we have planned over the next several years as well so if we look at all of that, all the improvements that we’re looking, we’re proposing again to maintain our PCI level at right around that 70 level, the streets that we’re proposing to improve here in the next 10 years is right around 45 miles worth of streets and it represents about 40-41 percent of our total street network as well. So with that I think Greg will talk about the funding as well so unless there’s questions. Sure. Councilman Campion: Mr. Oehme, do those collector roads repairs, were those overlays or are those reconstructions? Paul Oehme: Yep so most of these improvements would be overlays. I know Market Boulevard that would be a reconstruction. That would be, we’re looking at widening Market Boulevard from 78th Street down to Highway 5 in the near future. Most of the other projects that we’re proposing here are mainly mill and overlays. I know the Bluff Creek Drive we’re going to have to replace the storm sewer out there so that’s a little bit more intense project so there’s some reconstruction associated with that project. Pleasant View Road, that one’s more of a reclamation project as well too. I think that’s more, and there’s going to be some reconstruction areas out there as well too so that maybe is more of a hybrid out there. With that project. Councilman Campion: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead Mr. McDonald. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 6 Councilman McDonald: Mr. Oehme, one of the questions I’ve had on all this and one of the ideas that I looked at one time was the PCI number. If we were to allow that to slip down. Right now we’re, we do things around a 70 is that correct? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Councilman McDonald: Is when we start looking to redo and you say we go out another 20 years and it could be down in the 40’s if we did nothing. The drawing you have in your packet shows a street at about a 45. It’s got a number of cracks and those types of things. What risk do we run, what harm do we cause if we don’t repair this road say 20, or well about 20 years sooner and we just allow it to get down to this condition where what you’re doing is constantly patching and the road’s cracked and probably disheveled in a couple of areas. What harm do we actually do? Paul Oehme: Sure, so there’s a lot of factors and a lot of things that go into that. I would say you know complaints I think from the public. The general driving public. We would receive a lot more complaints about you know the ride ability of our roads. The quality of our roads. The again if you’re not addressing and maintaining the streets when we should be, you know we’re postponing the improvement, it’s just going to cost us more down the road to do those type of treatments so for example if we can do a mill and overlay when it needs it versus a reclamation project you know maybe in 10 years down the road after that, you know there’s some significant monies that would be saved by doing those smaller projects. Less intrusive projects versus doing the reclamation projects and the reconstruction projects. So I think it’s two fold. One is it’s a monetary savings. You know we try to keep our roadway system at a higher PCI. I think financially we’ll be spending less money and then also from a public perception as well. We’re not going to get as many complaints I think from the public if we try to maintain our network to our current levels as well. I think those are the two factors. Another factor that you know can play into that as well, you know we’re, we potentially have to farm out patching if we, to contractors. I have to contract out for patching in the future if we drop our PCI’s lower than they currently are today. Our street crews are out basically from you know when road restrictions are out all the way til September-October sometimes patching our streets currently at our current PCI level. If we drop them, if we drop the PCI lower than it is today you know we’re just not going to have enough staff in-house to maintain those roads in the future. Councilman McDonald: Okay let me ask another question. If you go to your next slide after the pictures, that’s the maintenance strategies for life cycle extension. If I allow the roads to get down to about a 45 am I roughly the first downturn on the blue or am I at the second? Paul Oehme: Yep it all depends on you know how old the street is. When you’re down to about a 45 that’s kind of right at our threshold that we’re really looking at you know is it a reclamation project or do we have to go to the next level of, you know do we have to reconstruct the whole street just because of the amount of distresses in those roads. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 7 Councilman McDonald: Okay so by trying to save some money and really not do too much at all I’m really going to be shooting myself in the foot because now I’ve put this road in a condition where I may no longer be able to rehab it. I may have to rebuild it. Is that? Paul Oehme: That’s the gist exactly. You said it correctly. Councilman McDonald: Okay and roughly the difference in cost between a rehab and reconstruction that would be your graph down here at roughly $108 a square yard versus if I do, well I can do sealcoating, mill and overlay and some reclamation and I haven’t even come close to $108 a square yard. Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Councilman McDonald: So in the long run even though I’m probably working on roads maybe a lot more frequently I’m doing less intrusive work on the roads so that way I’m really not shutting things down for too long of a period and I’m not having to rebuild a road. Paul Oehme: Right. We can do a mill and overlay and a reclamation project in les than half the time that a reconstruction project takes place. Councilman McDonald: Okay thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Oehme a couple questions. Can you go to your MSA slide please. Yeah the 5 year. What’s the source of revenue to pay for those projects? Paul Oehme: So most of the revenue generated to pay for these projects would come from our state gas taxes that we receive annually from the State so. Mayor Laufenburger: Is there a limit to how many dollars we can get on an annual basis? Paul Oehme: We do yep, exactly. So the money is distributed through a complicated formula between all the state aid cities within the community and a lot of the money goes to the counties as well too but they’re split but there’s a formula. Mayor Laufenburger: What’s the formula result in how many dollars is made available to Chanhassen say on an annual basis? I’m not looking for a precise number but kind of a general number. Paul Oehme: Yeah roughly it’s right around $800,000. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so $800,000 but those, that $800,000 is stuff that we get from the State. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 8 Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: We bring it in and it’s used for MSA qualified roads. Paul Oehme: Yep exactly. Mayor Laufenburger: So not all roads qualify for MSA funding is that correct? Paul Oehme: Correct. That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: So we can only use those dollars from the State to repair those roads. Paul Oehme: Right, exactly. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Can we go, can we go in kind of in advance on MSA? Can we ask for more money than we should have in a particular year? Paul Oehme: We can. Yeah so the State allows us to advance a certain amount of funds if we have a larger project that we want to complete and then maybe take 1, 2, 3 years of our annual allotment to pay back so we can request that and we have in the past. Mayor Laufenburger: But if we do that, that means that somehow we’re going to have to not get funds for a couple years in order for that fund to build up for us. Paul Oehme: Exactly. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Okay one more thing. You said we’ve been maintaining at 70 and Mr. McDonald said if we do nothing it will go down to 44. I don’t think that’s what you said is it? If we continue at the current pace. Paul Oehme: Right. Mayor Laufenburger: Over time the PCI index will go down to 44. Paul Oehme: Yep. Yep. Mayor Laufenburger: So in order to keep the PCI index at 70 we’ve got to spend more than we have been over the last few years. Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 9 Paul Oehme: Thank you for that clarification. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. Oehme. Are we with you Mr. Sticha now? Greg Sticha: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay you’re up. Greg Sticha: So Mr. Oehme kind of went over the condition of our roads. Where they’ve been and kind of the life cycle of the roads. I’m going to go over how we have spent, or how we have paid for our local roads to date. I’m also going to go over what the funding options would be for the council to pay for any additional funding that would be set aside for roads. And I’m also going to discuss to some extent how a franchise fee works. What it is and exactly what some potential impacts could be on either a residential home or commercial property if a franchise fee was used to help fund some of these roads. This first slide talks about some of the numbers that essentially are generated out of our pavement management program so to date we’ve been spending about $2 million dollars a year on local roads doing an average of about 2.6 miles per year and that’s been able to keep us at or near that 70 mark that Paul talked about but what our program is telling us is that based on all these additional roads that were built in the 80’s and 90’s, that’s not enough and in order to maintain that same PCI throughout the city on average $3.3 million per year is needed and not the $2 million that we’ve been spending or 4.1 miles instead of the 2.6 miles. So how have we paid for our local roads to date and I guess the simplest answer at least since the early 2000’s is the revolving assessment construction fund. So in 2006 this fund was started with about $6.7 million in transfers into the fund and within that fund we also have our special assessment practice so it’s the City’s current practice to assess local benefitting property owners 40 percent of the street reconstruction portion of a project. Not water and sewer or stormwater improvements but only the street portion of a project when it’s put in. The total expenses per year that we’ve talked about, we’ve been spending on average about $2 million a year so of that $2 million a year if you assume 40 percent of that $2 million is assessed for, the residents have been paying about $800,000 a year in assessments to go towards that. That leaves $1.2 million in city costs to pick up the other 60 percent and one of the funding challenges we’re having is, we’re running out of funds for the city portion. The 60 percent that the City is responsible for we don’t have enough funds left currently in this revolving assessment construction fund to fund it into the future yet alone increase the funding to $3.3 million a year. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Sticha I’m going to stop you just for a second. You use a term 40 percent to the benefitting property owners and 60 percent to the City and essentially the City is the rest of the citizens correct? Greg Sticha: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so 40 percent specifically is paid for by the benefitting property owner and the other 60 percent is paid by everybody in the city. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 10 Greg Sticha: Everybody who is a property tax paying property owner. Mayor Laufenburger: So if they pay a property tax then they’re contributing to the 60 percent. Greg Sticha: In portion. Mayor Laufenburger: Right, yep. Okay. Well what if somebody gets a street fixed in front of them and they’re not a property taxpayer, how much do they pay? Greg Sticha: Unless they would be assessed, and I think it’s been pretty rare that we’ve assessed for certain projects in certain areas that are non-property tax paying portions of the city, they would pay essentially nothing. Mayor Laufenburger: Well if a benefitting property owner happens to be a non-property tax paying business, citizen, entity, don’t they get assessed 40 percent? Greg Sticha: They would and certain projects we have but there just hasn’t been a ton of those projects in front of non-profit organizations to this point in our history. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Greg Sticha: We’ve had one that I can think of and, but that was one in the last I think 10 or more years. Mayor Laufenburger: What you’re saying is most of the streets for which we are responsible are in front of property tax paying entities. Greg Sticha: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Sorry for that interruption. Thank you. Greg Sticha: So how has the City paid for it’s share of the $1.2 million that I just talked about? So the fund was created with those transfers. The other thing the city councils have done historically in the past is when they’ve had the opportunity to have general fund surpluses they’ve dedicated those funds for this purpose. Over the last several years several city councils have done that. In addition the repaid assessments that the property owners pay go right back into this fund along with any interest that is earned from those repaid assessments. Also the fund has earned some interest on it’s fund balance or reserves over the years so that money stays in there and then in 2015 the City Council had an opportunity to use a debt levy that was coming off the books of at the time was roughly $400,000. Right now it’s $384,000 and dedicated that specific property tax levy to be used in this fund for the City’s share of local road improvements. And that formula has worked for the time being. But the real need is the $3.3 and the funds that City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 11 are available to us just can’t keep the fund balance positive for more than a year or two at this point in time. So by increasing the spending to $3.3 without increasing any funding the fund essentially will be out of all funds by 2019 or 2020 at the latest. So just to kind of give some perspective as to how much we talk about roads at the City Council level and in general. This is just a list of dates in 2017 alone that we’ve talked at a work session about funding our roads to one extent or another. Some of the options we’ve discussed over the last year have included changing the percentages on assessments. Raising the levy. Reducing the levy. And we’ve also had some very brief discussions on establishing a franchise fee and when we had those discussions with council the council directed staff to begin to take public comment on our special assessment practice and the franchise fee itself. We did that in early 2018 with 3 different meetings and the results of some of those comments are included in your packet this evening and a number of people who are here this evening did attend those meetings so we in total had about 100 people at those 3 meetings over the spring and summer. So what is a franchise fee? I guess the simplest way to describe it is a line item on your electric or gas bill at the bottom that by state statute has to be called a franchise fee but it has the same impact as a tax and we’ll get into that a little bit later but each city in the state of Minnesota has statutory authority to have franchise agreements with all of the utility companies and those agreements are put into place to help maintain the city’s right-of-way. Within many communities within those agreements they charge a franchise fee as part of those agreements to pay for various things in cities and we’ll get into what some cities use a franchise fee to pay for certain things other than roads but, so how it works is, currently the City does not impose a franchise fee and we’re getting into what communities do and do not but the City of Chanhassen to this point in time has not instituted a franchise fee on gas and electric bills. The City does have a franchise fee on it’s cable TV operator and those funds are used to help pay for these council chambers broadcasting these meetings and then pretty much anything that comes out of the public television broadcasting that you see on your cable channels. So who has franchise fees in Minnesota and this is already a year old and I know of at least one community that has been added to this list since then but if you take a look at the communities that do have franchise fees in place, one of the things you begin to notice real quickly is that as you center towards the urban areas it’s more likely that a community will have a franchise fee and then as communities begin to grow and their roads become aged you’ll notice that more franchise fees have been instituted over the last couple of decades so that’s one characteristic that you’ll notice of this map. The other thing you’ll notice is that all of our neighbors, and I’ll try to point this out right here, currently do have a franchise fee. Shorewood just recently instituted their’s. Shakopee, Eden Prairie, Chaska, Victoria, Minnetonka all have franchise fees in place. To the right you’ll see what a list of some communities use their franchise fee to fund. You’ll notice some cities use it to directly offset some of their costs in their general fund but by far the most common practice is to use a franchise fee to help pay for road improvements and the majority of cities do exactly that. So then the question becomes why would you use a franchise fee over a property tax levy to help pay for roads? And I think there’s one simple answer and that is a franchise fee is much more flexible than a property tax levy and I’ll try to explain this as simply as possible but essentially the City of Chanhassen is made up of just over 80 percent of it’s total taxable market value is made up of residential properties. The other 20 percent is commercial industrial properties. So City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 12 every time the City issues a property tax levy in essence 80 center of every dollar is being paid for by a home. A resident in Chanhassen. Mayor Laufenburger: By the collective residents. Greg Sticha: By the collective residents. 20 cents is being paid for by commercial industrial property owners. A franchise fee is different in that you can set up a franchise fee to collect from whatever property type owners that you want to collect from. For example utility companies have roughly 4 different utility meter types that they have on their bills so if a local jurisdiction wanted to they could collect more or less from a residential property than they could from a commercial property and likewise the same on commercial properties. They could collect more or less if they wanted to structure it in a way that collected more of the total franchise fee from commercial properties versus residential properties and in some of our initial discussions we had discussed the possibility of implementing a franchise fee that would get the total cost of all streets to approximately a 50/50 cost split basis and that is by far the largest advantage of a franchise fee. A property tax levy we can’t do that. Mayor Laufenburger: Who determines the, you said the 80/20. Is that outside of our, outside of this council’s control? Greg Sticha: In theory yes. It’s based on the total taxable market value of all properties within Chanhassen so. Mayor Laufenburger: But that’s a formula you said. Greg Sticha: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Who determines that formula? Greg Sticha: The State of Minnesota in large part determines, largest part determines that formula. Mayor Laufenburger: So legislation, et cetera. So what you’re saying is the City Council cannot alter that 80/20 balance in property tax. If it’s related to property tax, property tax levy, whatever it is we can’t, we in Chanhassen can’t alter that. Greg Sticha: No we could not. Mayor Laufenburger: By what authority can we shift the balance in franchise fee? Who gives us that authority? Greg Sticha: The State Statutes give you that authority. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 13 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so the State Statute says you can’t touch the property tax formula. You can do your own franchise formula. Greg Sticha: Yep. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. That make sense. Greg Sticha: So why would a franchise fee make more sense in some instances than a property tax levy increase and some of these numbers are based on a very, one very simple I guess you could say sample run that we did. This by no means means that the City Council is looking at this dollar amount in particular for setting a franchise fee or property tax levy increase. This was one very, very simple process that we went through to get to some approximate amounts. Now this has a number of variables that impact each of whether you would institute a franchise fee or property tax levy and we’re going to get into those variables here in a little bit but the assumptions behind this particular scenario is keeping the assessment, the revolving assessment construction fund funded for about 12 years and there are two different scenarios up there. One which keeps the assessment practice in place and one which does not. So if, the other assumption that is used in this particular scenario is if you were going to use a franchise fee attempting to collect 50 percent of the total cost of all road improvements from residential properties and 50 percent from commercial industrial properties. So those are some of the assumptions that were used when we put this one particular scenario together. Under this particular scenario you would need about a franchise fee, and we’re going to get into it in just a minute here but of about $4 to $6 dollars per month and that depends on in part if you would keep the assessment practice in place or roughly $100 to $120 per year. Under the exact same funding scenario with the exact same assumptions, if you were to use a property tax levy instead of a franchise fee the impact on the average home would be closer to $200 to $220 and even higher if you eliminated the assessment practice. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so once again this reflects the levy is roughly 80 percent property tax comes from residents and the light blue is franchise fee and the scenario you’re painting is 50 percent coming from residential properties. 50 percent coming from commercial properties. Greg Sticha: Right. The scenario also has one other assumption I forgot to mention. It keeps the current $384,000 levy that is in place in place. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Greg Sticha: So a lot of variables and assumptions used in this one particular scenario. So how does that impact the commercial property? A commercial property which would have what’s considered a medium size meter would see about a $360 a year franchise fee based on a bill of about $3,000 a month in electric or gas consumption. So each meter will vary for commercial properties and it’s based on the meter type that is in at each commercial property. For an example if you are a hair salon and have a very small, light to small commercial meter you could City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 14 structure the franchise fee that would keep that bill at a same or similar percentage as to the same percentage on a let’s say a large manufacturing company in the city of Chanhassen would pay a much higher dollar amount. Again if you went with the principle that you wanted to attempt to keep between commercial properties paying the same percentage of the total bill as a franchise fee. So the meetings we’ve had to date. February, April and July and then this evening we’re here to take input from council. Frequently asked questions we’ve gotten so far and these are just a list of some of the questions we’ve gotten to date. These are not by any means all the questions we’ve received but is a franchise fee a tax and we’ve been very clear that yes. It has the same attributes as a tax. Same impact as a tax. But the State Statute surrounding what it is called on a utility bill is it has to be called a franchise fee and I don’t think anybody at least on city staff has said anything other than that we understand that it has the same impact as a tax. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Sticha. I’m not a tax attorney or an accountant but there are different implications on how people can report or claim a tax versus a franchise fee. Can we just acknowledge that? Greg Sticha: Sure. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah so I, we understand that but from our standpoint it’s a source of revenue from the citizens and businesses in the community of Chanhassen. Okay. Greg Sticha: Yep. Why should a resident pay the same per month as a commercial business who might have more frontage to streets and heavier or more damaging vehicles and I answered that in two slides previous. Under most scenarios, depending on how the council set up the franchise fee, if they were to choose a franchise fee, they would not. More than likely the fixed dollar amount of a franchise fee would be much smaller than what a fixed dollar franchise fee would be for a light commercial user, a medium commercial user or a heavy industrial commercial user. Again you could structure it to be based on a percentage of the bill but it still could be a fixed dollar but so that you had some equity between commercial businesses but had a different fixed dollar amount for residential properties. Under these scenarios, we talked about it a $4 to $6 per month franchise fee would be about in the ballpark and a $10 to $280 per month for commercial utility accounts with the $10 being closer to a light commercial user with a light utility meter. And the $280 dollar amount per month per utility being for a heavy industrial electric or gas meter within the city. Will the franchise fee increase over time? If the City Council were to set a franchise fee, a fixed franchise fee we don’t believe we would need to for approximately 12 to 15 years based on the assumptions we used previously 4 slides ago. So under those scenarios we would not need to increase the franchise fee over that period of time. Obviously some of the outputs coming out of the revolving assessment construction fund will impact which includes construction costs over time and we’ll get into some of those variables here just in a couple slides but based on some of our very simple scenarios that we’ve run you would not need to increase it at least within that timeframe. Can the franchise fee be used for other purposes? Well the statutes allow for the use of franchise fee revenues for pretty much any funding purpose. I believe to this point in time it’s been City Council’s intention to use it solely City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 15 for pavement management. Now whether or not you chose a franchise fee or a property tax levy to be instituted at the beginning for roads, any future city council can change that decision. And it does not matter if it’s a franchise fee or property tax levy and there is no, and we’ve checked with our attorneys. There is no way for a current city council to bind a future city council as to how a funding source can be used. Mayor Laufenburger: So in reality this is determined every year at budget time, is that correct? Greg Sticha: Unless staff got direction from the City Council the, a franchise fee would stay in place unless we received. Mayor Laufenburger: But to the question can it be used for other purposes? Greg Sticha: Oh yes. Yes. So again unless staff got direction from the City Council. Mayor Laufenburger: It will be used for pavement management only. Greg Sticha: Right. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Greg Sticha: Are there other options to pay for roads such as a sales tax, wheelage tax or a utility fee similar to how the City’s water and sewer funds operate? A wheelage tax is not allowed per state law for cities. Those are only allowed for counties and Carver County does have one of those. A street reconstruction utility fee. There were a couple communities that have those and they just recently were challenged to the Supreme Court and the cities lost so that is also not an option that would be available to help pay for roads. A sales tax would be allowed per state law but you need special legislation approval on any sales tax and currently the only special sales taxes that have been made available by the legislature have been for stadiums, park and rec amenities, convention centers, community centers. So I think a sales tax for a local road improvement fund, the likelihood of getting legislative approval for that is probably pretty bleak. So I’ve been talking all night about, so what are all the variables that go into this and how did you come up with $4? I mean how does that make sense? And there are a lot of them and so I’ve listed the most significant ones here on this slide and I’ll do my best to explain them in as simple a way as possible and we still, they’re probably going to have some questions about them but one of the first questions that needs to be answered is, is it the goal of this council to maintain a PCI of at or near 70? If a targeted goal of something less than 70 was wanted that would have an impact on the funding and we could run those numbers in Paul’s pavement management program and it might, in those scenarios it wouldn’t be $3.3 million that we talked about previously. Will the assessment practice continue? And if the answer is yes will it remain at a 60/40 cost share? This probably has the biggest impact on what any franchise fee or property tax levy would be. Obviously when 40 percent of your funding is the assessment, if you eliminate that funding source it’s going to have a significant impact on what you would need City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 16 to collect in another revenue stream, whether that be a franchise fee or a property tax levy. If the assessment practice is discontinued will there be some consideration of rebate for those recently assessed? A question that we got commonly asked at a number of our neighborhood meetings and we’ve included the comments in your packet this evening. Again this would have an impact on if dollars were to be used to pay for some type of rebate this would have again a significant impact on what you may need to charge in a property tax levy or a franchise fee. What is, how long does the City Council want to keep the revolving assessment construction fund with an estimated positive fund balance before re-evaluating the revenue streams? The very simple scenario we ran earlier on the previous slide again was based on about keeping the fund positive for 12 years. We ran other scenarios where we keep the fund positive for 20 years. Is it 15 years? Is it 10 years? Is it 25 years? Whatever the goal of the council is to keep that fund positive without any changes to the revenue streams we would need to know that target goal, whatever that might be. Will the current levy of $384,000 remain in place for street improvements or does a reduced or larger levy want to be considered? I missed number 5. What is the goal of the City Council to fund the total cost of all street improvements between commercial and residential properties? As we said earlier with a franchise fee you have the option to set that where you would like to attempt to do. With a property tax levy you would not have that option. So all of those variables would have an impact on whatever the final answer may or may not be on a franchise fee or a property tax levy. Some of the other estimates that are included in all of our calculations include the current assessment interest rate of 5.75 percent. 2 percent interest earned on the revolving assessment construction fund and 3 percent increase in construction costs. Change any of these variables and the output of what you might need in terms of a revenue stream changes. So I just wanted to reiterate how complicated this discussion actually is and all the things that impact what might the needs be going forward. So one of the things we’ve talked about and we’ve heard at the meetings we’ve had to this point is the assessment practice and probably the most commonly asked question and commented thing is you know the City’s current assessment practice and what we wanted to put on here were some advantages for keeping it and advantages for the potential of eliminating the current assessment practice and we’ve put together a small list of what we believe are some of those advantages. The advantage for keeping the current assessment practice, it allows for diversified revenue streams within the road construction fund. It’s consistent and equitable between previous projects. And if a rebate program were to be considered it could result in some equity and administrative challenges and we can get into those later but if you kept the, if you eliminate the assessment practice and instituted a rebate, that would be a complicated discussion. Advantages for eliminating the current assessment practice. Creates a better relationship, working relationship between the City and it’s residents on new projects. There isn’t as much animosity when it comes to well I don’t want my street assessed because I don’t want to pay a $7,000 assessment and it becomes more of a, it’s just your turn rather than having that discourse over the public with why this year or why my street. Administratively it’s much less time consuming and more efficient process. To this point we’ve assessed fewer properties and as, if you continue the assessment practice and more streets get redone each year, that’s more assessment rolls that will be going to the County. That’s more public hearings. Public meetings and it’s much more time consuming of a process having that assessment practice in place than versus not having that. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 17 And then in some cases the elimination of a perceived double taxation. Some believe that if you’re assessing my property as well as you have a franchise fee, some people are, believe that that is you’re hitting me twice for the same thing which is true but the funding sources that are going towards those roads are using to pay the city share and not the residential share of each improvement project. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Sticha I’m going to ask you to skip that last slide. I think the council’s anxious to hear from the public and we’re prepared to hear whatever it is that they have to say tonight so council do you have any questions or clarifications from, go ahead Dan. Councilman Campion: On slide 12 you showed, I’ll let you get there first. Sorry, forward. It was where you had the franchise fee versus the levy. There. So the assumption here is that the current assessment practice is still in place? Greg Sticha: That would be correct. Councilman Campion: Okay I just wanted to validate that. Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead, please. Councilwoman Tjornhom: One thing that’s kind of perplexing to me so maybe you can explain it to all of us. In 2017 the County passed a transit sales tax and in your presentation you noted that as a city we are not allowed to have a wheelage tax or a gas tax but the County is allowed to pass that onto us when we go fill up our tank and get our tabs and as Chanhassen is one of the largest cities in Carver County that probably spends a lot of money on our gas and our tabs and our wheels and everything else, how much of that money do we really see coming back into Chanhassen and you know what kind of options do we have as a council to go to the county and say listen, you know we need more of that money. We want more of that pie. Greg Sticha: I’ll let Mr. Gerhardt answer the second part to this question. In terms of the make- up of that tax we’ve done some initial calculations on that and approximately 55 to 60 percent of the funds is coming from within Chanhassen, whether that’s from sales tax collected within Chanhassen businesses or whatever the case may be, that’s approximately the amount of funds that would be coming from the City of Chanhassen. In terms of what the County’s intention is for those funds I’ll let Mr. Gerhardt or Mr. Oehme talk about that a little more. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members, similar to the City of Chanhassen we have a capital replacement program for our streets and Carver County has one also for their county roads and right now they only account for a mill and overlay on Galpin Boulevard north of Highway 5. There is some money in for Lyman but that is part of a joint agreement we have with Carver County and different sources of money than the wheelage or sales tax that was mentioned earlier so right now the only money out there is about $800,000 that would come to Chanhassen for mill and overlay on Galpin. And staff and City Council directed staff to request City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 18 that additional money be spent in upgrading Galpin to a fuller urban section road with trails on both sides. What we would call a super two. Right turn lanes. Left turn lanes. Along with one through street on each side going north and south so, and that would change that percentage closer to I think $5 to $7 million dollars. Mayor Laufenburger: The final answers to your question Councilmember Tjornhom is that the people who determine how that sales tax is used throughout the county are the county board so they’re the ones that are determining that and anybody can see what projects are priorities for the county at the county website so, but you know I made a calculation myself. I think from a sales tax standpoint Chanhassen contributes about $2 million dollars a year to that sales tax and wheelage tax fund so. Any other questions? With that I’m anxious to hear from the public. Again I ask that if you have a comment you would like to make to the City Council speaking to what you’ve heard about this before, if you have questions I’m going to accumulate some of those questions and then answer them as we get a group of them so this is your time to present to the council your views on what you’ve heard not only this evening but also what you read in the paper. What you’ve been at, heard from various public sessions. Maybe over coffee or responses you got from council members and remember we as a council we’ve heard from many of you already but we’re anxious to hear from you in person so who would like to break the seal on the public comment? Mr. Titus, please. State your name and address please. Mack Titus: Mack Titus, 2747 Century Trail, Chanhassen. There is already a transit improvement tax on my utility bill here. The Xcel bill so I called and spoke with Xcel and spoke with Tyler who told me that 2005 legislations enacted at the State level which allowed counties to enact legislation which would permit municipalities within those counties to utilize or to place a tax on their, on the utility bills and it started with Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington. Carver apparently passed legislation last September which allowed the use of a franchise fee is my understanding. The guy I talked to Tyler thought this only allowed municipalities within a county to impose a utility or a transit tax but I’ve already got that line item so based on the comments I’ve heard here maybe that the county can do this as well and that’s what I’m seeing here. Do you know if that’s, my assumption is correct? Mayor Laufenburger: I’m not familiar with that term Mr. Titus but I would say that to date, today the City of Chanhassen is seeing nothing of that transit improvement tax. It’s not, none of that is rolling into Chanhassen for our street improvement so I can’t speak to what that is. Mr. Gerhardt could you look into that please or are you familiar with that at all? Todd Gerhardt: The only thing I can think of is a part of the sales tax on your gas and electric that would go back to the County. Mack Titus: No this says transit improvement tax. Mayor Laufenburger: There are, now is this on your Xcel bill? City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 19 Mack Titus: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. We’ll look into that but none of that money is coming to Chanhassen let me assure you. Transit suggests perhaps it’s, it has to do with bus transit. Could be rail transit. Could be any of a number of things but transit does not do anything to repair or improve our streets and roads in Chanhassen. Mack Titus: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: But we’ll look into that. Did you have other comments? Mack Titus: One other question. Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead. Mack Titus: Am I, if the franchise fee is enacted here then the pavement management program will be totally funded by the franchise fee and that chunk of dollars will stop coming out of my property tax money? Mayor Laufenburger: That’s one consideration Mr. Titus. Franchise fee is considered one of the potential sources of revenue to fund street repair over the coming years. Mack Titus: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: It doesn’t mean anything will be eliminated. That will be up for the council to decide but is one of the funding sources. Mack Titus: Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, thank you Mr. Titus. Anybody else? Tom Rolland: One thing that. Mayor Laufenburger: State your name and address please. Tom Rolland: Tom and Roseanne Rolland, 6211 Greenbriar. Are levies, are tax levies and assessments are they two different things? And they’re both used for road improvements. Todd Gerhardt: Can be. Tom Rolland: And what this gentleman here just mentioned that when people took the 10 year plan. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 20 Mayor Laufenburger: With 10 year repayment plan? Roseanne Rolland: Yeah. Tom Rolland: Paying for the assessment yep. Which were kind of discouraged because they said it’s going to be a 5 percent interest so I paid it all upfront. Now if they do away with the people who took the 10 year plan, they’re coming out pretty good and I’m getting shafted. Roseanne Rolland: Do we get a reimbursement for that money? Mayor Laufenburger: So what you’re saying is, when was your street repaired Tom, and Roseanne is that right? Roseanne Rolland: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: When was your street repaired? Tom Rolland: It was 2000, we were assessed in 2012 so it’s been about 6 years that we’ve, you know that people who have paid on time have been paying but I paid it all in lump so I wouldn’t. Mayor Laufenburger: So you would avoid that 5.75 percent interest. Roseanne Rolland: Right. Tom Rolland: Interest so I take money out of my retirement fund to pay us off and now I’m going to have to pay it twice. The other thing is that in your thing here you’re really concerned about administrative challenges but it doesn’t seem like you’re real concerned over. Roseanne Rolland: Reimbursement. Tom Rolland: Paying the residents. Roseanne Rolland: There couldn’t be that many people that paid up front so I can’t see what a big challenge that would be. You added it onto these people’s property taxes and they must have been a lot more than what people that paid up front so I don’t see what kind of a challenge that would be. Tom Rolland: What is the percentage do you know of people that paid? Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Sticha do you know what percent pay up front their assessment versus have it on their property tax bill? City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 21 Greg Sticha: It varies from year to year and depends in large part on the size of the project but typically about 20 percent. Mayor Laufenburger: Pay up front? Greg Sticha: Pay up front. Mayor Laufenburger: So 80 percent choose to finance on their County. And in fact the County collects that money and they pay us is that correct? Greg Sticha: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: So the County acts as an agent through the property tax statement to make that assessment. So are you in favor of a franchise fee? Tom Rolland: No. Well I’m saying our taxes go up every year anyway. I mean my property I don’t has been, a very few years that it never stays the same so I’m paying more taxes there and now if you come up with another franchise fee, which I feel I’ve already paid for, then I’m going to be, just going to be, I’m going to be taxed right out of the county because it’s, they don’t take into consideration people who, you know are retired here and living on fixed income. I don’t know how many, what the percentage of those are in the county or in the city either but these are things that concern me. The other thing that he had mentioned at one of the other meetings which I would probably, I mean if you need more money obviously you need more money would be that if you didn’t have the complete franchise fee and people were still assessed, at least a portion of it I would feel that I would be less taken advantage of than just erasing their debt while I’ve already paid it. Mayor Laufenburger: I understand that Tom. Tom Rolland: And I know there’s other people that feel the same and I guess if I would, if I would have known this before I would have taken the payment plan. Roseanne Rolland: Yeah. Tom Rolland: This is a deal… Roseanne Rolland: Yeah we could pay, we could pay the money that we would have coming back to us, if you pass this. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah I would just like to clarify one thing. I’m not saying that the City’s going to do this but when we assess for street repair it’s a bill. Roseanne Rolland: Yeah and we paid it up front. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 22 Mayor Laufenburger: I understand. It’s a bill. Some people choose to pay it up front, just like some people pay their credit card off every month so they have no debt. Those people that chose to pay over a period of time still have to pay their bill. It’s not like we’re, oh we’re going to change the program and those of you that have only paid 5 years on a 10 year assessment, you’re clear on the other 5. That’s not been determined yet. Tom Rolland: Yeah but that’s a possibility. Roseanne Rolland: Yeah, yeah. Yeah and are we going to find out if that’s a possibility? Mayor Laufenburger: Everything is a possibility. Tom Rolland: That’s what I see as, that’s basically my understanding is that they’re just going to erase that debt because these people are paying the monthly thing too so they would feel why should I pay twice. Roseanne Rolland: Yeah. Mayor Laufenburger: Well let’s clarify one thing. The they that you’re talking about is the 5 of us right here. It’s us. You know it’s not anybody else. We’re tasked with the responsibility of funding the street repair in this community and we have to figure out how to get that revenue. How to find the dollars to pay for that street repair so I appreciate and I understand your comments about the assessment. I understand that. Councilmembers any thoughts? Mr. Gerhardt? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. I think Mr. Sticha talked about kind of the rebate that you’re talking about. Giving some of that money back. The $3.3 million needed to fund the current proposed expansion to our roads, we would need more than the $3.3 if you’re going to give a rebate is what Greg was saying. So the $3.3, you’re going to have to ask for, you’re going to have to get more money if you’re going to start to give rebates back so I don’t think that is a direction that staff would recommend to the council to go. We’re trying to keep the cost down. Tom Rolland: Well that’s why, which was suggested at one of the meetings is that if you do the franchise fee but less franchise fee and keep the assessment, maybe a less assessment. Todd Gerhardt: Right. Tom Rolland: I think it would be more fair all the way around. Todd Gerhardt: Right. Tom Rolland: And right in here you’re talking about. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 23 Mayor Laufenburger: That’s a good suggestion Tom. Tom Rolland: You’re talking about a better relationship with the city and it’s residents, well here’s one resident that wouldn’t be too happy if. Todd Gerhardt: We got that feedback and we shared it with the Mayor and council. Tom Rolland: But I could live with, like I say I wouldn’t necessarily love it but I could live with that. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Tom Rolland: Put it that way. Todd Gerhardt: We shared that with the Mayor and the council and, but it was an option that was on the table. We shared that with the council. They wanted to hear every option that was out there and somebody suggested the rebate so we shared it with them. Tom Rolland: Yeah like I say I can see where that would be a real, a real problem. Todd Gerhardt: Yes it is. Tom Rolland: But not my problem. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay before you go, Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Yeah I think this is kind of confusing. You bring up a good point. The baseline proposal that Mr. Sticha has proposed does not give back a rebate. It continues with the current plan. We’re only looking at we’ve got to fill in this gap. Where’s that money going to come from and that’s what his presentation is based on. That’s the baseline. You know he mentioned these other options. We could do those. You know we asked to look at you know should we just redo the whole plan, the way that we currently do it and what’s that going to cost and how difficult is it going to be implement? It’s an option but the baseline is to continue as it is and to just find a gap, a filler for the current funding gap that we’re going to be facing so that’s the baseline. That’s what we’re really looking at. Anything else would be a totally different discussion because at that point all these numbers change. Roseanne Rolland: So in other words we’re not going to get our money back? Is that what you’re saying? Councilman McDonald: Well under the current baseline. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 24 Roseanne Rolland: Yeah, well okay. Mayor Laufenburger: Here’s the simple truth. We need more money to repair the streets. The question is what does the council decide on where that money comes from and there’s options. Assessment practice. Property levy. Franchise fee and all of them have pros and cons. That’s one of the reasons why we asked for this meeting tonight so we could hear from you all to get your feedback. That’s the purpose of tonight. Tom Rolland: And that’s the other thing is that from the letters and the meetings, I’ve attended at least two of the other meetings and the last one got franchise fee has been everywhere from $3.50 up to $12, somewhere in this window so that seems a little gray shall we say. Mayor Laufenburger: Well there are different variables that are a part of those different calculations. Thank you Tom very much. Dan. Councilman Campion: Mr. Mayor one point I just wanted to make. This is just off of what Mister, or Councilman McDonald was saying. So the baseline plan, but it’s not even a plan or proposal. It’s just a baseline example that Mr. Sticha is giving here so this is simply how to deal with the 40 percent. The City’s portion of the extra pavement management expense. Sorry the 60 percent over the next 10 years right. Now if we look at the miles of road that would need to be repaired over the next 10 years, what was the estimate there Mr. Oehme? That’s 40 to 60 percent of the residents would likely be assessed on top of, you know extra portion that’s going to, would have to be paid by, you know to make up the City portion. Mayor Laufenburger: The dollars are $2.2 million or, $2 million or $3.3. How do we come up with $1.3 million dollars to repair the streets in order to keep the index at 70? That’s the real problem. Councilman Campion: My point was just that the assessed properties would be paying their assessment on top of this additional property tax or franchise fee. Greg Sticha: Under this one very simple scenario. Councilman Campion: Yes, yes. Yes under this one example. Mayor Laufenburger: Exactly. Can we hear from somebody else? Please. State your name and address please. Jay Schreur: My name is Jay Schreur. I live at 8376 Suffolk Drive and our neighborhood is all townhomes and the street that goes north and south and east and west is a private road. We maintain that through our association. Mayor Laufenburger: So you’re talking about Suffolk Drive is a private road? City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 25 Jay Schreur: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Is there another one there too? Jay Schreur: Yeah Essex. Mayor Laufenburger: Essex okay. Jay Schreur: Yep, yep. And my question is we’re paying to maintain this road plus if we get this assessment it’s like double taxation. Mayor Laufenburger: Well let’s just clarify some words Jay. Jay Schreur: Yes. Because we said earlier that this was the same as a tax. Mayor Laufenburger: Well when you repair your streets, Suffolk and Essex, does the City repair those streets Mr. Oehme? Todd Gerhardt: No. Mayor Laufenburger: Those are private, okay. So you are not assessed for those roads because, because the City does not repair those. Jay Schreur: No but we are assessed through our association. Mayor Laufenburger: Correct but the City general fund pavement management program does not see any of those dollars. Jay Schreur: No, no, no, no. I know that. So I guess what could be done is we could, I don’t like to pay a double tax but if we could get a lesser tax because we maintain our own road or else have the City maintain the road that we live on. Either one of those. And I hope they would take this under consideration too so we’re not paying double. That’s the main thing. Make sense? Mayor Laufenburger: I understand what you’re saying. Jay Schreur: Alright, thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Schreur. Charles Littfin: Good evening. My name is Charles Littfin. I live at 7609 Laredo Drive. Right across from the elementary school. We had our road done oh I don’t know, 10 years or so ago and we paid well over 6 grand. The problem we had with that project was all the businesses, the City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 26 school, fire department, post office, and a few other places on that road were assessed at a much lesser level than the residents. They were assessed by the foot because they felt, the meaning was well some of the businesses have corner lots and we don’t think it’s right that they should be assessed less. Or more I should say. The school was hardly assessed anything. Fire department. Post office which is owned by somebody out of state. Private party. Being I paid up front, if you go through with this franchise fee I will be paying an assessment on the road that gets used by everybody in this city. Not just residents. But I will also be paying for this road again and other roads that I don’t use frankly. Now what I say you should do is people that have been assessed already shouldn’t have to pay the franchise fee until their assessment has been paid back. So go back how many years until I’ve been reimbursed this 6 grand. That’s the way I look at it. We went round and round with this street project with the previous administration. They did nothing for us. We pleaded our case about this whole thing when it was all going down. Mayor Laufenburger: You said, when was the street repaired Mr. Littfin? Charles Littfin: I don’t know. 10 years ago roughly. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Charles Littfin: Roughly. And this street’s already been in bad shape already. It’s already been, had a gravel overlay on it. Right in front of my house I have two industrial garbage trucks every morning and when school’s in I have an 18 wheeler every morning going up to the school. And the fire department. So something needs to be done. The franchise fee is, if I get reimbursed or exempt for my 6 grand I’m all for it because you should be fair. I tried to tell that to the City Council years ago. Why is it the residents on this street that are paying for this street that everybody uses? Granted everybody can use every road but that road especially. I tried to get it converted over to a commercial road because of the use that’s on it. Paul Oehme told me all the roads are commercial. Un-un, because I talked to the project manager. He said nope, this stretch right here is done heavier than everything else. I even went to the Carver County on commercial streets and they nope, nothing you can do. You’ve still got to pay the same. So anyways I think the franchise fee is okay. It evens the playing field as long as I don’t have to pay it until the 6 grand is reimbursed to me. That would be the only fair thing to do for people that have been assessed already. That have paid their dues. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay thank you Mr. Littfin. Charles Littfin: You’re welcome. Thank you for listening to me. David Peck: Good evening Mr. Mayor, my name is David Peck, 1521 Lake Susan Hills Drive and I’m mainly concerned about equitability. I’m one of the 20 percent who paid my assessment up front. We had Lake Susan Hills Drive done last year. And as I understand it what we’re talking about is filling the gap between the current system and if that’s the case I think the franchise, these are just my opinions obviously. I think the franchise fee makes sense because it City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 27 spreads a little more fairly between residents and commercial business and the one thing I would ask you not to do is to roll back the process of the rolling assessment. While nobody likes it I think it’s the fairest way. I believe streets should be fixed. Everybody’s got to pay for them. I’m good with that. I just don’t want to be the sucker who paid my bill and then have the rolling assessment discontinued for other people in the future or for people like these gentlemen who have already paid it years past. If it’s just a matter of, if all these are based on the status quo of the rolling assessment and the franchise fee and the property levy, if I’ve got that correct, then I agree with the franchise fee because it splits it a little more evenly to the homeowners because the rates are going up regardless and it’s a smaller increase by and large for most of us. But I do not want to see the rolling assessment rolled back because that just seems to make it unequitable for everybody who’s like he said, played by the rules over the past number of years so I think if the system is kept in place and we use a franchise fee I’m good with that but I do not want to see my good intentions of paying my bills on time or people who are paying on a regular basis get thrown out the window. I don’t even know if this is even a viable possibility that you’re going to remove the rolling assessment but if that’s a consideration I would ask you not to consider that because I think that’s patently unfair to the rest of us who have been doing what we’ve been doing. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Well thank you. David Peck: That’s pretty much it, thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you very much David. Okay. Randy Raddatz: Good evening, I’m Randy Raddatz. We live at 6340 Elm Tree Avenue. I guess my first comment would be that there, I believe there’s a schedule that isn’t in here that was at the previous meetings and it talked about the savings that would occur with franchise fees versus special assessments over 60 years to which I would say well why didn’t the people back in 1958 think about this because that was 60 years ago. My point is you can’t project forward 60 years and determine what the needs are going to be at that point. You, you’re lucky if you can project 10 years out and the reason for that is two fold. One, we don’t know what costs are going to be. Maybe we assume 3 percent increases. Maybe we’ll find that product that’s going to last us 40- 50 years. Flip side, maybe in 50-60 years we’re not going to need streets. We don’t know. We don’t know what the transportation mode will be. Where I’m going with this is I’m concerned about pre-paying for something that may or may not be needed in the future and that is in effect what a franchise fee does. It saves money, if you can call it saves money versus special assessments in two ways. Well there are two ways that are given as examples. One is the interest carrying cost. You collect the money up front. You have the money rather than getting it on the back end. Well that’s great except if you’re a taxpayer. Now that’s money out of your pocket that the City is hold that you don’t get to invest. You don’t get to pay down your debts. You don’t get to put into your savings account. So the City’s got the money. Residents don’t. The second issue, and I’ve heard this one over and over and I brought up the question at the last meeting is what about these commercial properties that don’t pay taxes currently and the answer City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 28 was well like schools for example. We would collect from them. Well that’s great except then my school taxes increase so it doesn’t really matter how it comes out of my pocket, it still comes out of my pocket. This is not a situation of saving money by charging another taxable, or another taxing entity. Let’s see what else did I have? Oh the comment was made in here that it’s the City Council’s intention to use it solely for the pavement management program. Again collecting it up front the intention is to use it for this. There’s no guarantee. The argument is well you can do the same thing with the property tax assessment program. Well it’s a little tougher to do that because you’re collecting that after the work is completed so at least the residents would have an argument for hey you use this for something else and I’ll give you an example. We can argue whether it’s right or wrong but the surplus, what was the original intent of the surplus? We don’t know but it was used to reduce special assessments. City diverted funds, maybe a good thing but the point is future city councils make decisions that current city councils may or may not agree with and that is a big concern of mine. I just get very concerned about the original intent because a future city council can change it. They can use it for whatever they want. They can increase the fee. We anticipate no fee increase for the next 10 to 15 years unless it changes. Then there’s an increase. I’m not a big believer in intent and especially I’m sorry when it comes to government I’m a huge disbeliever in intent because money has a way of getting spent. I guess to sum it up I would rather keep my money. If it comes down to me paying more via a special assessment at the end and I use that word if, that’s the route I’d rather go because I’d rather have the money in my pocket knowing what it was spent for than give it to the City and hear you say trust me. We’ll use it for this purpose in the future. Mayor Laufenburger: So can I ask a question Mr. Raddatz? Randy Raddatz: Thank you, sure. Mayor Laufenburger: So I’m trying to understand what you’re saying and I think what you’re saying is that if we were to change the assessment practice from 40 percent to the benefitting property owner and 60 percent to the remaining City you would be in favor of increasing the amount that the property owner pays. Randy Raddatz: Yes I would. Mayor Laufenburger: To like maybe 60 or 70 percent of the work and 30 percent to the rest of the City. Randy Raddatz: Because the cost is the same either way. We can argue whether or not we want to maintain a 70 or a 60 or a 45 or whatever, but it has to be paid for one way or the other. Mayor Laufenburger: Right and if the, I think Mr. Oehme has made it clear that we don’t perceive that the anticipated cost is the same. We perceive that the anticipated cost is going to be like $1.3 million dollars a year more than what we’ve been practicing in the past. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 29 Randy Raddatz: The cost will but the mechanism for funding, it still has to cover the cost. Mayor Laufenburger: Absolutely. Randy Raddatz: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: And that’s the question that council has to address. Randy Raddatz: Yeah and for that reason I’m very much, based on what I’ve heard in the meetings that I’ve attended and this evening I’m very much opposed to the franchise fee. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, okay. Thank you Mr. Raddatz. Randy Raddatz: Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Sticha I have a question. Mr. Raddatz raises a question regarding how monies can be used. He mentioned the surplus which is the revenue exceeding expenses that we see on a yearly basis. Are there any restrictions on how either the franchise fee can be used or the surplus can be used? For example if we found that our water enterprise fund was short of funds can we transfer, does the State Statue allow us to transfer general fund dollars, property tax levy dollars, can we transfer those to a water bill or to our, to pay for our water plant or water treatment or sewer? Greg Sticha: Yes. Statue would allow you to do that. That would not be following a government best practice where a utility fund is paid for by those using that fund. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Greg Sticha: There are some properties in the city of Chanhassen that do not have water and sewer hook up for example so taking property tax dollars and using it for a user based service. Mayor Laufenburger: Not a good practice. Greg Sticha: Not a good practice. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. How about surplus at the end of the year? Is there, you know we have anywhere from maybe $100,000 or $400,000 or $500,000 because permit revenue you know exceeded anticipation. Is there any restriction on how we use that surplus money? Greg Sticha: No. City Council can direct wherever they would like those funds to go. Mayor Laufenburger: What has been our practice? Recent practice. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 30 Greg Sticha: In large part the surpluses we’ve had have been directed towards the pavement management program. They did make an exception about 5 years ago to put some of the surplus towards the park picnic shelter program which we are just about complete. All of our neighborhood parks now have a picnic shelter program or picnic shelter within the park. Mayor Laufenburger: Yep the gazebo. Greg Sticha: So but those have been the two that have been used to this point in time. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Gerhardt go ahead. Todd Gerhardt: One thing if you go solely with special assessment you have to show benefit and as Mr. Oehme will tell you we do an appraisal every year when we specially assess and the appraiser has to come back in and say this property will benefit by $5,000 worth of road improvements. That that property owner would sell his house and would get that benefit back. Now if you get an assessment of $20,000 and the appraisal shows that the benefit isn’t there that property owner could turn around and sue the City saying I don’t benefit to $20,000 so there is a limit of how much you can specially assess against a property. Mayor Laufenburger: So there’s a test that we have to pass. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Anybody else? Please. Come on up. Ray Murray: My name’s Ray Murray. I live at 6618 Brenden Court. I just have a couple of things to, I’m a little new in the neighborhood so I don’t understand all of it but. Mayor Laufenburger: Welcome to Chanhassen. Ray Murray: Thank you. But we live on a street that’s a cul-de-sac and the cul-de-sac is, as the other gentleman there said will not use as much as his is really a public street because of the drop off of kids at the junior high school. West junior high school because as a walkway between the street and the school. Mayor Laufenburger: Yep. Ray Murray: So we have 50 to 75, maybe even 100 cars driving through there every day of the school year okay. So that’s wear and tear on our street and so I just want to comment on that. I City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 31 recognize also that allocations are difficult. They’re not always fair to anybody. Whether it’s based on, and I don’t know if the say there was an improvement to that street if it’s based on property value or if it’s on street frontage. Mayor Laufenburger: Actually with the residential properties our practice has been the total of the street repair divided by the number of benefiting property owners so if there’s 20 benefitting properties. Ray Murray: So it’d be equal per owner. Mayor Laufenburger: That’s correct. Ray Murray: Okay, alright. Mayor Laufenburger: Per parcel ID. Ray Murray: Okay, alright. And then I just have a couple questions on the franchise fee. The process and so forth. Obviously that would be paid to the utility companies. Mayor Laufenburger: Right. Ray Murray: Would that be a, or are they just acting as a conduit so we would get dollar for dollar from them? Mayor Laufenburger: My understanding is we get dollar for dollar. Is that correct Mr. Gerhardt? Todd Gerhardt: That’s how it’s supposed to operate but our process is that we would do an audit every 3 years to make sure that the proper amount is paid back to the City. We’ve learned in the past that utility companies have difficulty with math and so we do have an audit that is done. Ray Murray: And would those funds be passed back to us quarterly then and if they’re delayed in any way do we also get interest on those funds which would help the funding of this project? Mayor Laufenburger: We had evidence where our audit has shown that we are owed more than we’ve been paid and we’ve been paid interest as well. Ray Murray: Okay thank you. That’s all I had. Mayor Laufenburger: That’s a good question. Thank you Mr. Murray. Anyone else? Good evening. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 32 Sue Morgan: Good evening. My name is Sue Morgan. I live at 4031 Kings Road and I have a few questions. This is the first meeting I’ve been to regarding the fees so hopefully it’s not redundant. I just wanted to clarify that the fee is a flat fee. It’s not based on my energy usage at all, is that correct? Greg Sticha: To this point in time we’ve discussed a fixed or flat fee, yes. You could structure it based on a percentage of bill but we have not discussed that to this point in time. Sue Morgan: Okay I think that would be unfair if it was based on usage because you said. Mayor Laufenburger: You said it would be unfair? Sue Morgan: Unfair. Mayor Laufenburger: Unfair okay. Sue Morgan: Because the usage of trails and roads has nothing to do with how much electricity, how much gas I use. There are some of us retired and we are at home. There’s some of us that work from home so our usage would be different than those people that just commute back and forth from Chanhassen to wherever they work. Mayor Laufenburger: How many cars do you have Sue? Sue Morgan: Two. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Sue Morgan: Two. Also I was wondering if the fee is going to be influenced by a commercial property being for profit or not for profit. By commercial we just assume it’s profit? For example churches. When there are a lot of parishioners and a lot of road usage will they be charged a fee as well? Greg Sticha: Yes they would. Sue Morgan: Okay. Greg Sticha: Anybody who has a gas or electric meter in their either business or home would be charged the fee. Sue Morgan: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: And Sue just to clarify. Mr. Sticha I think you said that the utility companies have ranges of meters is that correct? So did you say 4 ranges or 4 groups of meters? City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 33 Greg Sticha: Depending on the utility company yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Greg Sticha: About 4 different types of meters. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so in that case the more usage, if somebody is a maximum user of electricity in Chanhassen they would be at the top level meter so they would be assessed a certain level of franchise fee is that correct? Greg Sticha: Our initial discussions have structured it that way but you would not necessarily have to do that. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Sue Morgan: Because that would be based on usage then. If it’s based on the size meter you have then that’s based on usage. Therefore the fee is based on usage. Greg Sticha: In theory yes. Sue Morgan: Okay. Where would I find it on my CenterPoint Energy bill? My Xcel Energy bill? Which bill would it be on? Greg Sticha: It would be on both. It would be, there would be, it would be on your. Sue Morgan: Charge a fee on both? Greg Sticha: Gas and electric correct. That’s one option. Sue Morgan: The same amount? The same amount? Greg Sticha: More than likely yes. The utility companies don’t like when a franchise fee is instituted and you’re actually going to have a very difficult time getting the franchise agreement approved where you would charge one utility company and not another. So they like equality across the entire jurisdiction so. Sue Morgan: So if I’m being charged $4 on CenterPoint Energy I’m also being charged $4 on Xcel Energy? Greg Sticha: And that. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 34 Mayor Laufenburger: Sue those numbers, in principle what you’re describing is true but those numbers have not been determined yet. Sue Morgan: Right, right. It’s just theoretical. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah theoretically so if it’s $4 on your CenterPoint, it’s $4 on your Xcel. If you live south of Highway 5 $4 on your CenterPoint, $4 on your Minnesota Valley so it’s, they collect it from you and they pass it along to us. Sue Morgan: Okay. And then my next question would be if, okay so there’s a discrepancy in my utility bill. And maybe these are just detail questions you guys will iron out at some point in time. Do I call the City or do I call Xcel or CenterPoint Energy? Mayor Laufenburger: If you have a discrepancy. Sue Morgan: Based on my fee. My franchise fee. Mayor Laufenburger: Well as Mr. Gerhardt said we would audit this and obviously we would work through with the utility company exactly what it’s supposed to be but if there was a problem on your bill your first call would be to the utility provider. Sue Morgan: Okay. So there’s not going to be, it’s not me. It’s the City. It’s the City. It’s not me. Mayor Laufenburger: I can’t guarantee that Sue. Sue Morgan: Okay. Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: I can’t guarantee that they wouldn’t say hey, call Chanhassen. Sue Morgan: All I’m saying is if you guys decide to do this I hope you have it coordinated and you have it administratively covered so we’re not all dealing with this because that’s usually what happens when you put a middle man in the situation. This happens. Mayor Laufenburger: I agree. Sue Morgan: So that’s my concern. The other is we live on 8 acres. We’ve owned the property for 33 years. Kings Road is a little feeder road. It used to be a dirt road that runs onto Minnewashta Parkway. In ’92 the road was paved and, our road was paved but that’s not the issue I have. Minnewashta Parkway was redone and we don’t have to use Minnewashta Parkway but we use it to get in and out to 7 and 5. We were assessed by the City for 3 fictional properties we could possibly build on our 8 acres. There’s only one house on it. We have two cars. But we were assessed for I don’t know, $750 for each lot. Something like that. We got no big City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 35 retaining walls. We got no fancy fences. It’s just because those 3 lots could factiously be built on. For 33 years they haven’t but we’ve been assessed for those. If this franchise fee goes through are we going to be fee’d for those additional 3 fictitious properties again or are we going to be fee’d based on one house with two cars? Mayor Laufenburger: Well a franchise fee is based on utility usage so unless you have 3 utility meters on those 3 properties I think you’re going to get, you would get one. Sue Morgan: Okay because we only have two cars, one household but we were assessed for 3 that don’t exist so I just want to make sure if we get assessed in 2019 for Minnewashta being done again and then we get levied, we get a franchise fee on top of that, I don’t think that’s quite fair. But if it’s just one household, one set of utilities that’s, I understand that. Mayor Laufenburger: Sue I don’t know the circumstances of 1992 but I believe that our practice is to, if we assess we assess by parcel ID so if there was 3 parcel ID’s in 1992. Sue Morgan: There were not. Mayor Laufenburger: So. Sue Morgan: There were not. There was only one. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor there was, back then if you had the potential of subdividing your property it was based on how many units you would have. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: That’s another assessment practice you can use. Sue Morgan: And then I was wondering if we do go ahead with this franchise fee if there’s some way that we can build a little more efficiency in the trail building, road building. Just for example Roundhouse Park, I swear they put in a trail and they ripped it out 2-3 times in order to get it right so you know I’d like to pay the fees but it’d be nice if the efficiency was kind of monitored a little better in how they built things. And then for the future you know it’s kind of like my own budget. If I can’t afford it then I don’t buy it. If we can’t afford to maintain them why continue to build so many trails? I understand roads but you know that was a big push when we first moved out here was we needed more parks. We needed more trails but if we can’t afford to maintain them why do we keep doing it? So that’s just my hope. We think about the future instead of increasing everybody’s taxes to keep up with more and more and more and more why not just cut back and then we wouldn’t have to. So thank you very much for listening. I appreciate it. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 36 Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you and you said this was the first time you’ve come before the City Council, is that right? Sue Morgan: Oh no, no, no. It’s the first time regarding a franchise fee. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh okay. Sue Morgan: I’ve been here many times. Mayor Laufenburger: I was going to say you speak with a little bit of experience here. Thank you very much Sue. Sue Morgan: Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council? Steve Stamy Slammer: Hi I’m Steve Stamy Slammer from 491 Bighorn Drive. First I’d like to thank the council. I’ve sent several emails and some of you have replied back so I appreciate your time on doing that. A couple quick, I have a lot of questions but a lot of them have already been answered or asked. My question is, when do you think that the council will have a vote on this franchise fee issue? And I also read that if 5 percent of the citizens petition, have a petition that it would go before a general vote on the November election, or on a general election. Is that true? Mayor Laufenburger: I’m not familiar with that statue. Mr. Gerhardt? Steve Stamy Slammer: That’s from, I got that from the State of Minnesota. Greg Sticha: So I can answer that question. Mayor Laufenburger: Please do. Greg Sticha: The State Legislature had a bill in place this past session that would require franchise fees, any new franchise fee agreement to have a reverse referendum as part of all of those new agreements. That bill did not pass. It was not part of the current, or of that session. Mayor Laufenburger: It was proposed, the reverse referendum meaning if a certain number of citizens as Mr. Stamy, is that right? Steve Stamy Slammer: You can call me Slammer Denny. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah okay. Slammer as he said but that’s not, that’s not legislation. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 37 Greg Sticha: Not currently in legislation. Mayor Laufenburger: So what you heard was correct. It’s just, it didn’t get all the way through the legislation. Steve Stamy Slammer: I was going back to a 1992 thing from the Minnesota House. That far back, anyways. And then was new construction and new housing taken into the budget in terms of, there’s a lot of new construction going on in the city. Mayor Laufenburger: Correct. You’re talking about right now? Steve Stamy Slammer: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Steve Stamy Slammer: And also proposed construction that will come up probably in the next 2 or 3 years like, such as Prince’s property. Has any of those been taken into consideration how much money that will contribute to the pavement fund? I mean there’s got to be a way that you’re looking at taxes that are coming out of those construction projects I would think. Mayor Laufenburger: Well we know that last year, what was the property tax percentage increase based on last year’s development? Greg Sticha: New construction. So total new construction property dollars increased .97 percent. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so just under 1 percent. So we’re aware that there are new streets that are coming in. We’re aware that there will be new property taxes coming in. But frankly that’s not a consideration that I give to whether or not a development is approved or not so. Steve Stamy Slammer: And then I’d like to comment. Mayor Laufenburger: Just a second. Steve Stamy Slammer: Oh go ahead. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Gerhardt. Todd Gerhardt: That equates to about a little bit over $100,000 in revenue to the City each year is what the average has been the last 5 years so and that’s helped offset increases in cost. Steve Stamy Slammer: Is that including like any of the TIF money and everything like that too? City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 38 Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Steve Stamy Slammer: Okay. And then the comment the gentleman with the yellow shirt on I like about the intentions you know are all can change over the years very easily and if those intentions do change and money can be diverted anyway the City Council deems important and according to what I heard from Mr. Mayor Laufenburger: Sticha. Steve Stamy Slammer: Stocha. Mayor Laufenburger: Sticha. Steve Stamy Slammer: How do you pronounce it? Greg Sticha: Sticha. Steve Stamy Slammer: Sticha. Sticha, I’ll get it right. Anyway so is there a mechanism in place that the council or the City will notify the public that the money is being diverted and into what kind of fund? Mayor Laufenburger: The mechanism is, we give public notice of budget meetings. We give public notice of agendas so if there’s any discussion about how monies are used, transferred, various there’s always public notice given to that Slammer. Steve Stamy Slammer: And then one last comment. If I heard it right the current assessment program will still stay in place along with the proposed franchise fee. Mayor Laufenburger: Well that’s yet to be determined but that’s one of the considerations. Steve Stamy Slammer: Alright, thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thanks Slammer. Audience: You didn’t answer your question on when you’re going to vote on this. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh good point. Mr. Sticha can you talk a little bit about anticipated timeline on this? Steve Stamy Slammer: Thank you. Greg Sticha: Well there’s, the first thing that would need to happen is the variables that we had on the one slide, we’d have to make a determination about. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 39 Mayor Laufenburger: Are those the right variables? Greg Sticha: Yeah what exactly does the City Council want to do so that probably is going to take a few work sessions. You will have to hold a public hearing on a final approval of a franchise agreement and franchise fee related to that agreement. Mayor Laufenburger: Yep. Greg Sticha: My guess at this point in time the soonest we would see any revenue rolling in from a franchise fee, if the council decided to implement a franchise fee, would probably at the very soonest second quarter next year. More likely third quarter so there’s still a number of decisions that need to be made as well as additional public meetings that have to be had. Mayor Laufenburger: But in fact if we do nothing the current practice will continue which is we’ll figure out which streets need to be repaired. The funding needed for that and we’ll use the existing funds. You said that the current pavement management program under current process would run out when? 2020 maybe? 2019? Greg Sticha: If you kept the assessment practice in place you probably have one to one and a half more years of streets available that you could do yet. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so Slammer and Tom, there is no specific time table that has been determined but the council has a lot of talking to do after we hear from the public comments so, and that will as Mr. Sticha says that will likely take place at work sessions and if we propose anything to be presented to the citizens then it will be, it will be presented in the form of a public hearing and that, could that happen before the end of the year? Possibly. That could be a stretch. Mr. Gerhardt. Todd Gerhardt: I would think you need at least 2 to 3 work sessions to talk through this issue and come to agreement on what direction you’d like to go. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: And then call for a public hearing. Calling for the public hearing doesn’t mean you need to make the decision that evening. You’re just taking input again like you’re doing tonight and then you could make the decision at the following meeting or that meeting. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Todd Gerhardt: So I would say you’re looking at the earliest October. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 40 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay and just a reminder, though we’re taking public comment tonight our emails and our phones don’t turn off so if you have additional feedback that you want to provide to us you know how to get a hold of us. Many of you have already done that so we welcome that. Yes sir. Jay Johnson: I’m Jay Johnson, 7496 Saratoga and I’m a former council member from back in the 80’s-90’s timeframe. Mayor Laufenburger: Welcome back. Jay Johnson: And a public works director for another city for 6 years and I really want to say I’m glad you’re tackling this because this is something I brought up with the city that I was working for and how this is going to build up on your and it’s like not changing the oil in your car. Yeah I’m saving a little money now but when I have to replace that engine it’s a whole lot more than what we did. I like to continue the 40/60 split. Excuse me. Hay fever. The 40/60 split on the assessment and the franchise fee as I understand it will kind of reduce our 60 percent that goes out on the whole city budget so we’re, that $1.3 million that we’re, have to increase to keep our streets in the great condition they are, and I’m proud of our streets here. Hate to say it my city had a street that was at zero. I could see where there used to be asphalt. I thought it was a gravel road but I found out there used to be asphalt. That’s a different political situation there. The people on the street didn’t want to pay anything. They didn’t. So anyway keep the, I like the franchise fee. I think it will, our businesses provide a lot of wear and tear to our streets. They get a lot of customers. They get a lot of big trucks and they need to pay a little bigger portion of it and this franchise fee achieves that. I like to see that if you can make that as close to the 50/50. And if it’s a set amount each month for each resident $4. $6. Per meter. Water, or not water meter. Electric and gas meter. That’s affordable. One thing there may be, we do have some residents here that really are, have marginal income and when you say well you know what’s $12 a month. Well $12 a month is you know do I buy this or pay my insurance fee you know and whatever. So maybe some consideration for the extremely low income people that we may have in town. Somehow to help them out a little bit but beyond that I think most of us are in, I’m fixed income. I’m retired but I can afford another $12 a month. It’s two less Starbucks. They’re going to build another one up in Minnetonka or Shorewood so lord knows we need more of those so, anyway I’m for your plan. I like the scenario that Greg has done here and Paul have put together as an example. I think it seems to be the most logical of many of the examples so hopefully it works out. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Jay. Pat Pavelko: Pat Pavelko, 7203 Frontier Trail. Greg one question, we’re spending an average of $2 million dollars. What’s that average taken over? How many years? 4 years? 5 years? 10? 20? Greg Sticha: I think I went back either 10 or 15 years. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 41 Pat Pavelko: 10 or 15 years. Okay what did we spend last year? What did we spend the year before? Greg Sticha: Mr. Oehme might be a little better able to answer that question than I can but the average over the 10 or 15 years was the 2 but I don’t remember what we spent last year and the year before. Paul Oehme: So Mayor, City Council members, I don’t have those numbers in front of me right now but the Minnewashta Heights neighborhood I think that was right in the range of $2.8 million for streets I think in that ballpark. Park Road that we just completed this year, that we spent well in excess of $1.3 million dollars on that project alone for that mill and overlay so the last, we didn’t have a street project in 2018. I’m talking about the 2017 projects. Pat Pavelko: Okay help me out with my midget mind here. We’re looking at $3.3 million in the future but you’re telling that last year or the year before we spent $2.8 million already so we’re only making up a difference of $500,000? I mean when we take an average of 20 years, I mean isn’t that going back quite, isn’t it going back too far? Greg Sticha: We didn’t go back 20 years. The $2 million, there were years I know we did a million dollar or less project so while there were some years that were $2.8 or $3 million there were other years where it was either a million or less so. Mayor Laufenburger: So Mr. Pavelko could you just share with us your thoughts on franchise fee, assessment, property tax levy, what’s your thoughts on that? Pat Pavelko: Well I mean I think that question should be answered first is if we’re looking at $3.3 million but we’re spending $2.8 million now, or we have in this past year then we’re really only looking at a, I don’t know is that $500,000 increase? Mayor Laufenburger: Well what we’re seeing is on average $2 million over the last 10 years. Let me finish. And what we’re seeing is that the pavement management fund, which is used to pay for those projects has been decreasing. You’ve heard Mr. Sticha say that if we don’t change our practice, if we continue to repair the roads at our current rate or at a dissipated rate and we don’t change the funding mechanism we’re going to run out of money. Pat Pavelko: Right. Mayor Laufenburger: So what we’re trying to do is to increase the source of revenue into that fund so we repair the streets at what we believe is an anticipated rate. Pat Pavelko: Right. And I mean when you guys all sit down it might be a $1 franchise fee. Possibly? City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 42 Mayor Laufenburger: That certainly is possible. If we found another source of revenue for the remainder. Pat Pavelko: Okay, right. Now the money. Mayor Laufenburger: Just a second, did you want to make a comment Mr. Gerhardt? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah I mean Mr. Oehme commented on Park Road being you know $3 million or something like that. That’s a municipal state aid. We talk about municipal state aid monies that we get. Not every road is a municipal state aid. Lake Lucy. Park Road. They have to meet certain standards to become a municipal state aid so that’s additional revenue source so that will up that average but not every residential street is a municipal state aid road. Park Drive, or Park Road is a municipal state aid so that number will be higher but when you go up into the Minnewashta area, the residential area those are not municipal state aid roads. So the average is about $2 million. Pat Pavelko: Over 10 years. I mean you’ve got, it’s like excuse me I don’t want to say this but it’s like a shell game then. I mean now you’re saying it’s $2 million but we spent $2.8 million. So I think if you take the average you should take the average maybe over the last 3 years or 2 years and I think you’d have more, a realistic number. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay that’s a good suggestion Mr. Pavelko. Pat Pavelko: Okay now the franchise fee is for PMP. Does that money go into the general fund? Or does that go to PMP and cannot be taken out? Mayor Laufenburger: Well Mr. Sticha do we have a line item that says pavement management program? Is it part of the general fund? Greg Sticha: We do not. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So it’s dollars that come in that are budgeted specifically for street repair, is that correct? But it’s still part of the general fund. Greg Sticha: Okay you lost me on that one. Mayor Laufenburger: Well when the dollars are collected is pavement, we have a water enterprise fund. Greg Sticha: Are you referring to the levy that we have? Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah, $384,000. When those dollars come in where does it go? City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 43 Greg Sticha: That goes directly into the pavement management fund. Mayor Laufenburger: So it’s a separate. Greg Sticha: Separate line item on our total levy. Mayor Laufenburger: On our total general fund. Greg Sticha: Our total property tax levy. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Greg Sticha: Yep. Pat Pavelko: So the money goes to the general fund. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah it all goes to the bank but it’s in the, it’s a line item that says this is to be used for pavement management. Pat Pavelko: So in essence you’re saying it, the money is going to go to PMP? Greg Sticha: Yes. Pat Pavelko: But in essence it’s going in the general fund and it can be spent on anything. And will be spent on anything. Everything. Mayor Laufenburger: Well I don’t know about the will but you’re right, the statute allows money that comes in from franchise fees can be used for a number of different things. The City Council right now is talking about using those franchise fees, if we enact that specifically for street repair. Pat Pavelko: Can the franchise fee specifically go, stay out of the general fund and go to the PMP fund? Greg Sticha: There’s some misunderstanding in some of the verbiage here. The franchise fee would be directed by the City Council to staff and whatever City Council told staff to put those funds in, they would go directly into those funds. If that’s the pavement management program fund and that is what the City Council directed staff to do, every dollar would go directly into the pavement management fund. What the Mayor was referring to is we currently levy $384,000 that is used and put directly into the pavement management fund right now. It’s a part of our total general levy but it goes directly into the pavement management fund right now so unless City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 44 directed differently by City Council those funds would go directly in to that fund and would never be in the City’s general fund. Never. Pat Pavelko: They would never be? Greg Sticha: Not unless directed by a city council. Future city council. Mayor Laufenburger: Just a second. Continue Mr. Pavelko. Pat Pavelko: Yeah so okay let me get this correct then. So it will not go to the general fund? Greg Sticha: No it would not go into the City’s general fund budget. It’s part of the current levy. The total general property tax levy but the money currently goes directly into the pavement management fund. Mayor Laufenburger: So Mr. Pavelko, are you. Pat Pavelko: Okay say the franchise fee collects. Mayor Laufenburger: A million dollars. Pat Pavelko: Well $4 million since we’re looking at $3.3 million so that $4 million is going to go to the PMP and cannot be spent on anything else other than the PMP. Correct? Mayor Laufenburger: I’ll accept your hypothetical of $4 million dollars but I don’t see this council passing action that brings in $4 million dollars in franchise fee every year because that’s not what we need. Pat Pavelko: No, well correct bit of, I guess what I’m saying is, is if we go over what the budget is and the money’s there, the money is going to stay? Mayor Laufenburger: That’s correct. There is carry over every year in the pavement management program fund. Every year there’s money going in and there’s money going out and over time the balance of that fund is going down and what we’re trying to figure out is how do we change the trajectory of that fund. How do we get it moving this way to pay for future street improvements. Pat Pavelko: Okay yeah, I understand. Yeah I understand that. Mayor Laufenburger: So do we specifically dedicate those funds to a pavement management program? That’s what this council, at least that’s the direction that we’ve given to Mr. Sticha and Mr. Gerhardt. How do we make up that difference in the pavement management program? City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 45 Pat Pavelko: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: It’s not how do we do, how do we bring in money for the pavement management program and then also have a little bit extra in order to build a ballfield over at Lake Ann. That’s not part of this discussion. Pat Pavelko: No and I guess I wasn’t insinuating that. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Pat Pavelko: But my concern is that the franchise fee money goes to the general fund and it just kind of disappears so, so okay let’s move on. Mayor Laufenburger: Please. Pat Pavelko: It’s a 60/40 split that we presently have. So it hasn’t been determined, I mean I have to imagine that we’re trying to make this, keep, fill this gap that the 60/40 plan will continue. Mayor Laufenburger: Is that your preference? Pat Pavelko: Well I guess I would want one or the other. 60/40 plan or the franchise fee. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Is there any situation under which you would accept both? Pat Pavelko: I don’t know. I’d have to look at it. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Pat Pavelko: So but it has not been determined whether it will be a 60/40 or a, no. Where the residents could go down to 30. A 70/30 or nothing like that has been determined? You guys all have to work on that yet. Mayor Laufenburger: That’s correct, it has not been determined yet. Pat Pavelko: Okay, thank you very much. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Pavelko. Pat Pavelko: Everybody have a nice night. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you. Anybody else? City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 46 Karla Ramsey: My name is Karla Ramsey. I’m at 400 Deerfoot Trail and I live in a similar situation with the previous gentleman that spoke. We have a 12 home association and we pay 100 percent of our street costs. We recently did a chip sealcoat that cost $8,000 and we all had to endure that burden and even though we have 12 homes only 10 of them are paying right now so that increases our burden for street repairs so just a general comment. If we do go ahead with the franchise fee I would just like consideration given to those of us that do pay 100 percent for our street repairs and if we could get some help from a franchise fee that would be… Mayor Laufenburger: So Deerfoot is a private road. Karla Ramsey: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Gotch ya. Anything else Ms. Ramsey? Karla Ramsey: That’s it. Just a comment. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you very much. Anyone else like to offer at this time? Larry Koch: My name’s Larry Koch. I live at 471 Bighorn Drive. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you. I especially want to talk about your process because I want to commend you for having a special meeting to allow the public to address these issues. I think that is great government practice and I have rare occasions to be before city councils and county commissioners and other government agencies. I personally do not like the idea of a meeting, a public hearing and then immediately a decision. I personally don’t like that. I think this is great so first of all I want to thank you for this process. I think it’s very valuable. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you. Larry Koch: But to the specifics here, lived in Chanhassen since 1990 on that basis. We are a recognized city in this country I think in large part because we care about this city. I know you do. We have to take care of our roads. It’s the old supply and demand. You know we take care of it. People like to come here. Our property values are more stable than a lot of places so we have to do that. I realize the real question is how do we pay for this. What I would, I recommend, my opinion is because of the issues raised about getting rid of the 40/60 split. Continue the 40/60 split. But I also recommend consideration for the people here who mentioned like for example the school issue. I don’t know the specifics. There are some people that I think maybe pay a little bit more than what they think they should because of their nearness to either industry or a school and a lot of traffic and maybe their road wears out earlier or not. I don’t know for sure but I know those are concerns and that does happen and I would just suggest as part of your whole process here that you do look into that. We really do need some improvements here. You know I’ve been here as I said since 1990. Frontier Trail continues to be a mess. I realize that’s a very involved project because I believe there’s curb, gutter, lots of things. It’s a very involved and expensive process but I have to believe that we could have paid City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 47 for a lot of that road if we could have taken all the repairs over all these years and put it into whether it’s a reconstruction or whatever term you use for that. And it is deteriorating and it keeps to do it so however you can fix that road I think is very, very important. I also live, in the area I live in there’s Conestoga Trail and Conestoga Court I believe it’s called. Their area, especially where that one turns into the other. That is really in bad condition and I know there are other places and either patches don’t get made or they’re very, let’s put it this way. A patch is only so good. You know you just cannot blend old tar to new tar. It just doesn’t work and so there are areas that were, I think that as part of your program raising enough money so we can go out there and fix those we would actually save considerable amount of money because I think patching is a very inefficient process because you’re spending time driving to this pothole. That pothole, et cetera so I’m really in favor of raising enough money to do it and do it right okay on that basis. So I’d like to see you retain the percentages. Have the projects. Get them completed. Get them done because we will save money in the long run. My only concern about the franchise fee is I’m a little concerned that it’s a regressive type of a fee for, as I mentioned for some people that are on fixed incomes, et cetera or people who don’t have the same amount of money. Now you know it’s pretty hard to deal with maybe in a flat fee. I think a percentage fee you could consider that but I am concerned about there are people that 12 bucks does make a difference. It really does make a difference so I’d like your consideration of that. And finally is I really would like you know the commitment by the council members that absent some dramatic change if you pass this we are really going to put this into a road improvement fund. Carry it over. Fix our roads. Make us the recognized city that we have been because I think it’s very, very important we do that and we don’t get in the habit, unless we have an emergency of jerking money from one fund and put in another. And I’m not saying you’ve done that. I’m just saying please when you go into this with a conscious mind you can’t control the future council members. I understand that but I think that would be you know a good pledge to say in your part of your resolutions this is our intent. You have to reserve your rights to make changes but I think it’d be important to the people of this city to know that that’s how you’ve approached these topics. So thank you very much. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Larry. Appreciate your comments. We have some more time. Anybody else like to speak at this time? Chris Dahl: My name is Chris Dahl. I live on 1774 Valley Ridge Trail in Chanhassen. Mayor Laufenburger: Welcome Chris. Chris Dahl: I’ve been a resident here for about 18 years. I want to thank you and the council for having this meeting. It’s kind of the first time up here talking. The big thing is transparency. The franchise fee is one thing but I’m looking at from the tax standpoint is that the franchise fee is not deductible as a tax deductible item. If you put it on the real estate tax statement not as a special assessment or some other means there that there’d be residents here that could take that as a tax deduction and reduce their federal and state income tax if they itemize so that’s one thing. Having a. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 48 Mayor Laufenburger: Just a second. So I’m not a tax attorney but what you’re saying, what I’m hearing you say Chris is that a special assessment appearing on your property tax bill can be deducted from your federal tax. Chris Dahl: No not a special assessment but it’s through the general fund. It’s through your general real estate tax. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh okay, so what you’re saying is if you, rather than do a franchise fee which is a balance of potentially 50 from residents, 50 from citizens. If you do a property tax, 80 percent from residents, 20 percent from businesses, that is deductible. Chris Dahl: Yeah the individual, the individual tax return will be able to deduct that as an itemized deduction. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Okay. Chris Dahl: The problem is, is that we have a $10,000 limitation on that now with the new tax law that came through. Todd Gerhardt: Good idea. Chris Dahl: So we’re not as high as Minnetonka’s taxes but we don’t have some of the… Mayor Laufenburger: Hey we’re proud of the fact that we’re not as high as Minnetonka taxes too by the way. Go ahead Chris. I’m sorry for interrupting you. Chris Dahl: No that’s fine. That’s fine. I love living in Chanhassen. Coached many sports in Chanhassen over the years and it’s a great place to bring up a family. I think a lot of people realize that. The franchise fee is I guess the thing that draws back, I look at Comcast is a utility. Southwest Bell. Xcel. Minnegasco. Century Link. Are each one of those public utilities going to be charging the fee or? Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Sticha what does the State say, but you’re right. We already charge a Mediacom franchise fee and that is paid on, if anybody who uses Mediacom for cable TV we eventually that money comes back to the City. What’s the State statute? Chris Dahl: But that might be just for the usage of the land. It’s like cell phone coverage. Mayor Laufenburger: For the right-of-way. It’s the right-of-way. What’s the statute on either cell phone towers or utilities other than electric and gas? City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 49 Greg Sticha: The only legislation that I am aware of that you would allow, be allowed to issue a franchise fee on are a gas utility company and an electric utility company. And a cable TV provider. Mayor Laufenburger: And we’re already doing that. Greg Sticha: And we’re already doing that yep. Chris Dahl: I’m fine with gas. Electricity if it was based on usage. People have solar panels would be charged a lot less fee. This is something I was just sitting here thinking some people in the neighborhood. It’s a little bit more complex the system when you throw in this franchise fee on top of the normal real estate tax statement so we can’t come back to you and say well look, why did our taxes increase. Once that franchise fee is established it will never go away. It’s kind of like the Minneapolis Convention Center. That sales tax to build that stadium and the principle payments once that was done paid for they rolled it into something else and that’s something that the board’s got to make sure that they tell the constituents of the community. That franchise fee once it’s established I don’t think it’s ever going to be abolished. It could be but chances are that once it’s established it will never go away. That’s something about taxes that I’ve seen over time. I think either way you go it’s got to be fair. I’ve heard some instances here that I just never even thought about. If they pre-paid for their road already. The other people need to pay for their portion over the term of the loan. It’s just, that’s the way it is. Mayor Laufenburger: I would agree with you. Chris Dahl: And I never thought about Todd’s mentioning if they put a street assessment and they put in a road and they’re assessed $20,000 for it. Well if the appraiser says $5,000 is what the property went up in value, who eats the other $15,000? Well it’s the rest of the taxpayers essentially. I just wanted to bring up those points to the council about the tax deductibility. How to work that into the equation. My thought about it is, is well if they set a budget for what we’re going to spend in city dollars you’re going to have up’s and down’s in years if you’re going to pay, set the budget this year and next year have a different amount. It’s going to go up and down and you’re either going to be fighting the community about having a 20 percent increase or not fighting the public when there’s a 10 percent decrease in the ebbs and flows of what road maintenance is going to cost. My thought is that I would prefer that way because that would promote transparency in spending would be justified by somebody saying well we need a 20 percent increase this year because we have a $3.8 or a $4 million dollar road improvement next year. It’s expected to go down to $2.2 and that you can’t judge 5 years from now because the variable costs of constructing a road are the materials. Gas prices have gone down. Well who knows, they could double next year and the cost of labor is consistently going up so if your budget, and put that into the real estate tax assessment for the year, maybe the next year say it won’t be a big of bite. I’d like, I don’t mind having a reserve but I don’t like having too big of reserves or okay we’ve got this money. Let’s spend it type of attitude so thank you for having this meeting. Appreciate it. City Council Special Meeting – August 20, 2018 50 Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, Chris thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. Chris Dahl: Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Is there anyone else who would like to address the council on this subject? Okay with that I hope those of you that have been watching at home on Mediacom or on the website have found this informative. At this time the council will now take this under consideration and we will schedule with Mr. Sticha and Mr. Gerhardt appropriate next steps which will include likely discussion at a work session. The council will likely weigh in on what the things that they’ve heard and their views and as Mr. Gerhardt says this may be something that we address even before November so, so with that in mind council any comments or questions from council at this time? Not required. Okay. With that may I have a motion to adjourn. 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 9:20 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 10, 2018 Subject Approve City Council Minutes dated August 27, 2018 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.2. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No: PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the minutes dated August 27, 2018.” Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Work Section Minutes Summary Minutes Verbatim Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AUGUST 27, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger called the work session to order at 5:27 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, and Councilwoman Ryan COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Jill Sinclair, and Greg Sticha PUBLIC PRESENT: None. OPTIONS FOR RESIDENTAL YARD WASTE DISPOSAL. Jill Sinclair reviewed highlights from a power point presentation on how to address residential yard waste disposal since the Carver County Board decided to discontinue the service in January. Options include private compost sites, garbage haulers provide yard waste disposal, city wide organized collection, spring and fall brush days, or the City create a yard waste site and discussed associated costs for each option. Mayor Laufenburger asked for clarification on how the City coupon program works. Jill Sinclair explained how the City uses the grant money of $17,300 from the County. Councilman McDonald stated his preference for the spring/fall option and not a permanent site. Councilwoman Tjornhom had no opinion at this time but would probably favor private haulers. Councilwoman Ryan favored the spring/fall option and would not favor a permanent site. Jill Sinclair suggested using the public works property for spring and fall drop off. Mayor Laufenburger directed staff to explore the spring/fall option and charge the same price that the County has charged and continue the use of coupons. Councilwoman Ryan suggested an option of pre-paying on the City’s website or at City Hall. Council members discussed payment options and favored charging residents for the service. 2019 DETAILED BUDGET PRESENTATION. Greg Sticha reviewed highlights of details for the 2019 budget by department. In discussing the legal department Councilman McDonald has heard feedback that talking to an actual attorney is difficult with Campbell-Knutson Law Firm so would like to see them become more customer service friendly. The concern is their phone system is a little too automated. In discussing elimination of the crime prevention specialists position Councilman McDonald asked how services are being provided. Todd Gerhardt explained the need for increasing the Assistant Planner position to a Planner II position in order to keep MacKenzie Walters. Councilwoman Ryan asked how rec programs are evaluated in comparison to what other communities provide. City Council Work Session – August 27, 2018 2 Greg Sticha concluded that the 2019 budget looks very similar to the 2018 budget and the services provided. Mayor Laufenburger asked that this item come back to a work session before the preliminary levy is set and discussion of franchise fees at the September 10th work session. He suggested council members get in touch with staff prior to that meeting so that questions can be answered at the work session. MID-YEAR KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGY UPDATE. Todd Gerhardt provided an update on the mid-year key financial strategies that have been discussed to date. Councilman McDonald asked about feedback from the brew pub ordinance. In discussing the Chanhassen Railroad Depot improvements Todd Gerhardt estimated that the railroad depot improvements would be around $750,000. Council members agreed they were not in favor of spending that amount of money for upgrading the railroad depot. Mayor Laufenburger adjourned the work session at 6:57 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES AUGUST 27, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, and Councilwoman Ryan COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Katie Matthews, and Roger Knutson PUBLIC PRESENT: Greg Hawks 1806 Colonial Lane #1 Bob Haak 770 Pioneer Trail Renee & Marc Schubbe 6550 Shadow Lane Mack Titus 2747 Century Trail Caleb Blong 6491 Devonshire Drive Hope Durenberger 6321 Steller Circle Bill Chappell 8736 Stonefield Lane Dan Vasatka 9120 Degler Circle Keith Butcher 1770 Pheasant Circle Kristin Fulkerson 6989 Country Oaks Road PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Laufenburger, along with Sofia Thompson, thanked and recognized the following 2018 Teen Volunteers: Alena Nugent, Ben Schubbe, Bridget McNaney, Caleb Blong, Hope Durenberger, Josh Boevers, Lolly Walsh, and Madi Hamilton. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ryan seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated August 13, 2018 2. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated August 7, 2018 3. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated July 24, 2018 4. Pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion. City Council Summary – August 27, 2018 2 5. Resolution #2018-41: Authorize the City of Chanhassen to Participate in the GreenStep Cities Program 6. Resolution #2018-42: Accept Ads for Bid; Award Contract for the Lake Susan Trail Rehabilitation Project 7. Award of Bid: Audit Services Contract for Fiscal Years 2018-2020 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Todd Gerhardt noted that the Garden by the Woods item had been tabled per their request. FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE. Fire Marshal Don Nutter presented the Fire Department monthly statistics for July and announced that the Fire Department Open House will be held on Monday, September 24, 2018. Sergeant Jason Bruenig presented the monthly statistics for July, discussed school bus safety, and read a prepared statement from the Sheriff’s Administration regarding the Archer Amorosi BCA investigation. CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVE FLOOD REDUCTION GRANT AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT 770 PIONEER TRAIL. Mayor Laufenburger asked Paul Oehme to provide background information on this item. Mayor Laufenburger asked for clarification of the process and why this property was selected. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves a DNR Flood Mitigation Grant Agreement for Acquisition of Flood Prone Property at 770 Pioneer Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Councilman McDonald provided an update on the Chanhassen Red Birds schedule for the Class B World Series tournament. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson asked that the City Manager extend her appreciation to the Mayor, City Council members, all the department heads and staff for their support for her with the unlikely passing of her husband, Dave Aanenson. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ryan seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, and Councilwoman Ryan COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Katie Matthews, and Roger Knutson PUBLIC PRESENT: Greg Hawks 1806 Colonial Lane #1 Bob Haak 770 Pioneer Trail Renee & Marc Schubbe 6550 Shadow Lane Mack Titus 2747 Century Trail Caleb Blong 6491 Devonshire Drive Hope Durenberger 6321 Steller Circle Bill Chappell 8736 Stonefield Lane Dan Vasatka 9120 Degler Circle Keith Butcher 1770 Pheasant Circle Kristin Fulkerson 6989 Country Oaks Road Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you and welcome to this council meeting. Those of you that are in the council chambers as well as those of you that may be watching on Mediacom cable channel at home or via the world wide web through the Chanhassen website agendas. We’re pleased to have you with us. Just as a note all council members are present tonight with the exception of Dan Campion who is on an excused absence. Our first action is on the agenda. Council members we have a printed agenda in front of us this evening. Is there any modifications to the agenda that you’d like to see made? If not then we’ll proceed with the agenda as printed. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Laufenburger: Our first item on the agenda is public announcements and we have some people that we’re going to recognize. You need me out front is that right? Okay. We have Sofia Thompson with us. She was one of our recreation supervisors this summer and glad you came back all the way from up north to be here tonight. I just want to read a little bit. On behalf of the City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission I want to recognize the 2018 Teen Chanhassen City Council – August 27, 2018 2 Volunteers. These 13 to 16 year olds wee selected to serve as volunteers for city sponsored 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 wants to thank these teens, this year’s teen volunteers for their service. Together they compiled over 490 hours of service to the City of Chanhassen. Before I recognize these individually I just want to ask a couple questions. How many of you have volunteered more than just this year? How many have volunteered 2 years? Anybody 2 years? So these are all new? A new crop every year is that right? Katie Matthews: We have one girl in her second year, but Holley is her name and she actually lives in Kansas so she wasn’t able to make it tonight. Mayor Laufenburger: What she couldn’t commute up from Kansas? I don’t understand that. Katie Matthews: No. They started school already. Mayor Laufenburger: But here’s the thing that is so cool. The things that you do in interacting with the young people in our community, you set a pattern of service early in their, not only in your life but also in their life so I say personally thank you to all of you who assisted with that. So we have some certificates that Sofia’s going to help us give out. I guess I can do from these right? Sofia Thompson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: One at a time. I’m going to ask that you come up and we’ll get a picture of you and then you can go back and get seated. Katie Matthews: You’ll stay up and we’ll get a group shot. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh yeah she knows. Is it Alena Nugent? Is she here this evening? Alena. So first of all congratulations and you can stand right between us and we’ll get a picture here. Okay. Now if you don’t mind just queueing up here alright. Next we have Ben Schubbe. Ben? Congratulations Ben. You’ve got to stand between us. You know the drill now. Okay. Next we have Bridget McNaney. Bridget do you have an older sister? Bridget McNaney: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: There you go. Bridget McNaney: Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Next we have Caleb Blong. Caleb are you here? Sporting a Chanhassen maple leaf too. Congratulations Caleb. Chanhassen City Council – August 27, 2018 3 Caleb Blong: Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Stand right here. Hope Durenberger. Hope. Congratulations. My oh my you’re tall. Taking after your brother I can tell. Josh Boevers. Josh are you here tonight? No Josh. We’ll just set that right here. How about Lolly Walsh. Lolly? Congratulations Lolly. Who’s next? Madi Hamilton. Congratulations Madi. Madi Hamilton: Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: You’ve got to stand here for a couple people want to get your picture. Okay. Did we miss anybody? Oh goodie. Alright now let’s, Sofia you stand on that side and we’ll have everybody in the middle here. I was going to say by height but I don’t care. Alena, you have the distinguish of being able to stand in front okay. Is that alright? Let’s hear it for them. Our future is in good hands. Public service starts very early in Chanhassen. Give them just a chance to exit here. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Laufenburger: Tonight we have items D(1) through (7) and consent agenda items are considered to be routine and will be considered in a single motion based on staff recommendation unless anyone on the council or visitors present would like to have a discussion. If discussion is desired we’ll simply move that item to be considered separately. Council members is there any item that you’d like to see taken off the consent agenda? Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor I’d make a motion to accept items D(1) through D(7). Mayor Laufenburger: Okay before you do that I would like to take one of those items off the consent agenda. I’d like to have a discussion around item D(4) so there’s just some comments I’d like to make about that and I think it’s important that we have that so now I will accept your. Councilman McDonald: Then I would amend my motion to accept items D(1) through (3) and D(5) through (7). Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, do we have a second? Councilwoman Ryan: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Elise. Councilmember Ryan. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ryan seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: Chanhassen City Council – August 27, 2018 4 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated August 13, 2018 2. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated August 7, 2018 3. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated July 24, 2018 4. Pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion. 5. Resolution #2018-41: Authorize the City of Chanhassen to Participate in the GreenStep Cities Program 6. Resolution #2018-42: Accept Ads for Bid; Award Contract for the Lake Susan Trail Rehabilitation Project 7. Award of Bid: Audit Services Contract for Fiscal Years 2018-2020 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Laufenburger: That motion carries 4-0 and I’d like to address item D(4) immediately after visitor presentations okay? Okay. That brings us to visitor presentations. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members, the Garden by the Woods asked that that item come back at another meeting. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay that was originally scheduled but they asked to have it removed is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah they couldn’t make it this evening. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Very well. Let’s see, at this time I’ll close visitor presentations reminding everybody that visitor presentation is a time for open public comment about any item that’s not to be discussed on the agenda at any meeting and we do this at every regularly scheduled council meeting so if you’d like to address the council on anything please come here and we’re happy to hear whatever your presentation is about. FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE. Mayor Laufenburger: Let’s do fire department first. We have our Fire Marshal with us here. Fire Marshal Don Nutter: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I’m not Chief Don Johnson in case you’re confused. We look a lot alike but he couldn’t be here tonight. He’s Chanhassen City Council – August 27, 2018 5 out of town teaching fire command classes in South Dakota I believe so he asked me to do the update and I haven’t met some of you so I apologize for that. Hopefully I just didn’t drive those people out of here but. Mayor Laufenburger: No they were happy that one of their items on the consent agenda passed. Fire Marshal Don Nutter: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay because the Fire Marshal comes a lot of people just go the other way a lot of times so you never know. Todd Gerhardt: You’re the good Don though. Fire Marshal Don Nutter: Well I try to be. I’ll quickly run through some of our key points in our update. Right now looks like our staffing is at 43 out of 45 paid on call firefighters. That was at the end of July. We do have one firefighter currently on medical leave. Our rookie class has started their Southwest Fire Academy and they’ll be training through Firefighter I which then after that they can start getting on our trucks and responding to calls. That should be right around November and then school for them wraps up in May. Response has been up. We responded to 76 calls in June and 66 in July. That’s about a 12 percent increase over 2017 and we’re not looking at that trend ending any time soon with some of the stuff going up in our city so many of our calls, significant calls anyway were rescue and medicals. We did have 3 structure fires but not in the city. We went to Long Lake, Excelsior and Eden Prairie to assist them. Some of our other activities that were very successful were 4th of July went off without a hitch this year. We did a lot of assisting to Park and Rec and Camp Tanadoona. Went out and sprayed water on the kids. Nicely. Lobbed it nicely. We did spray them in the face or anything. National Night Out went very, very well. We had 5 apparatus and 2 command vehicles visiting over 40 parties and I myself was on one of the vehicles. I really enjoyed it so. We just had our annual physical, firefighter physical exams also was successful as far as I know. We also assisted Carver County with their fair. Chief Johnson assisted Mdewakanton Fire as an instructor for tactical medical course with a lot of hands on. You get a lot of bruises on his arms teaching that. And then the truck committee just went out to Appleton, Wisconsin. It looks like our new ladder truck should be here hopefully in September in time for the open house and I’m going to push that in a minute. And then we both have new command vehicles. If you saw the nice shiny new white SUV’s out there with Fire Chief and Fire Marshal on there and I’m very appreciative of that coming from the red old Fire Marshal car so thank you to the City for that. Council update for Fire Marshal. We have a lot of construction going on. Obviously you’ve noticed in town. West Park townhomes are popping up pretty fast out there at 212 and 101. As you see across the street we’ve got a lot of construction going on over there and that’s going up pretty fast. Everything’s building fast in the city. The new water treatment plant went online. We finished up everything out there. That all went well at the end and just a lot of DHS inspections for the upcoming school year. Assisted St. Hubert’s and Methodist Church and some other places with their DHS licensing. As far as fire prevention we’ve done a lot of kind of Chanhassen City Council – August 27, 2018 6 going out in the community and being proactive. We’re trying to push that even more. Getting into the schools. We did a couple of elementary school tours but right now we’re ramping up for fire prevention week and right now we have 8 schools scheduled with about 10 more visits that we’re going to be going out and doing and coming to the station this year so it’s going to be a little bit different. We’ve been doing CPR training in the community and AD training and the Bernard Group we’ve done over 12 classes I believe for them. Training almost all their employees. And I went out with the Minnetonka Aquatics Safety Group and did a safety camp with them. I think we hit over 100 children on that day for fire safety and water safety. As far as fire investigations this month, the only thing we really had this summer was the bus fire out at Bluff Creek which everybody probably saw on the news so that was just ended up being an accident. A mechanical in nature fire so. Anything else I really want to talk about too is our open house coming up and my apologies as I found out as we have a meeting that night so, but it’s Monday, September 24th and I promised Chief next year I’ll plan that better. I did not know but from 6:00 to 8:30 p.m. at our Fire Station I we’re doing a whole new thing this year. We have a lot of the community businesses are coming in so Cub and Lunds and Target. Chick-fil-A are all going to be there giving out food, water, cookies. We’re doing live fire demonstrations. We’re doing the fire truck rides. We’re doing fire safety. Escape trailers for kids so we have a lot of new things this year that we’re doing and really like to see the community there. Mayor Laufenburger: This is for the entire community. Free to attend right? Fire Marshal Don Nutter: Correct. It’s free to attend. Yep. Show up. There’s no cost for food. There’s no cost for fun. Mayor Laufenburger: What time does it start? Fire Marshal Don Nutter: 6:00 p.m. Monday, September 24th. Mayor Laufenburger: 6:00 to 8:30 I think is what I heard you say. Fire Marshal Don Nutter: Correct. Yep, yep and. Mayor Laufenburger: So you don’t want the council members there obviously. Fire Marshal Don Nutter: I wanted the council members there. It was my fault though. I didn’t look on the City website for what else is going on and we changed it. When I started last year it was the first night, the first day I started was actually our open house and they had changed it to a Monday from a weekend and Chief thought that was very successful. He wanted to keep it and that was the only opening in our training calendar and unfortunately I scheduled it for that so. Mayor Laufenburger: You know everybody’s allowed one strike Don. Chanhassen City Council – August 27, 2018 7 Fire Marshal Don Nutter: Yeah so, but it goes til 8:30 so if everybody gets over there. Run across the street. The bouncy house… Mayor Laufenburger: If we operate efficiently we can come over and kind of pick up some of the leftover food is that correct? Fire Marshal Don Nutter: Correct. Yeah fire truck ride maybe and some other stuff so, and we’re going to end of the night we’re actually building a room and contents and we’re going to light that on fire and show people how the fire grows with today’s furniture and then we’re going to have the fire truck come in and pull a hose and put it out and the kids can see that and so we’re ramping it up this year. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Fire Marshal Don Nutter: That’s all I have. If you have anything for me. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay let’s see. Council any questions of Fire Marshal Mr. Nutter? You’re good to go. Fire Marshal Don Nutter: Thank you for your attention. Appreciate it. Mayor Laufenburger: And actually I had, I mistakenly skipped over item D(4) but we’re going to do the law enforcement update first and then we’ll come back to that item D(4) which relates to flood reduction grant agreement for acquisition of property so law enforcement update. Sergeant Jason Breunig: Good evening Mr. Mayor, council members. I have the monthly law enforcement update for you this evening. Monthly calls for service July summary. We had 44 Group A crimes. 33 Group B. 432 miscellaneous non-criminal. 438 total traffic. 33 administrative for a total of 960. 24 individuals were arrested and charged with 41 crimes in 23 separate incidents. To note 4 of those were DWI’s, 3 drug violations, 3 for disorderly conduct, 77 citations were issued. Mostly for speed. No proof of insurance and driving after suspension. 206 verbal warnings were issued. 178 of those were on traffic stops. Training update. In the last month staff attended range on duty where they demonstrated proficiency with their firearms. Our final week of Minnesota Crisis Intervention training will take place September 24th through the 28th. At that time all licensed sheriff office staff will have completed the training. Community relations. Deputies worked the Chanhassen 4th of July celebration. July 2nd through July 4th. All of the events were very well attended and no incidents to speak of. Deputy Zydowsky worked Night on the Town. That event was on July 26th. The event was extremely well attended this year with no incidents. Deputies were scheduled to assist with Tour de Tonka on August 4th. However that event was cancelled due to the possibility of severe weather. Deputies in the sheriff’s office mounted posse attended almost 40 National Night Out neighborhood parties. There were over 80 gatherings registered with the City this year. This is a record for this event. Lieutenant Kittelson conducted interviews for deputy candidates the week Chanhassen City Council – August 27, 2018 8 of August 13th through the 17th. Staffing update. Detective Joe DeRosier began his assignment as the Chanhassen Investigator on July 23rd. We’re glad to have Joe with us. He previously worked as a patrol deputy in Chanhassen. Deputy Mike Hanson is still out on medical leave and his next medical appointment is on September 7th. And with school starting next week I’d like to talk about some back to school reminders. With school bus safety. School children need to be alert when getting off of a bus. Look to be sure no cars are passing on the shoulder. Before crossing the street they should take 5 giant steps out from the front of the bus or until the driver’s face can be seen. Wait for the driver to signal that it’s safe to cross. Look left, right and then left when coming to the edge of the bus to make sure that traffic is stopped. Keep watching traffic when crossing. Keeping children safe. School buses are the safest mode of transportation for children. The mass of the bus is designed to take the bulk of the crash force. They’re also less likely to roll over. The inside of the bus is designed as an egg carton with strong closely spaced seats, energy absorbing seat backs and padded seats. The biggest safety concern is for children outside of the bus. That’s why motorists need to stop and stay back from buses when red lights are flashing. This means kids are entering or exiting the bus and likely trying to cross the street in front of the bus where they’re not easily seen. Parents also play a vital role in teaching their children what to do around buses. This includes how to cross safely. The importance to stay back from the road while waiting for the bus and the importance of making eye contact with the driver before crossing the street to ensure that the driver sees them. Lastly I would like to conclude with a prepared statement from Sheriff’s administration. This is in response to the visitor presentation by Mr. Amorosi recently. I want to provide information on the following process. We, the sheriff’s office are not involved in the investigation at all and do not get updates from the Minnesota BCA on timelines. Their investigation is independent from us. The BCA communicates directly with the County Attorney, Mr. Mark Metz. When the BCA has concluded their investigation they present it to the County Attorney. The investigation does not become public until one of two things occur. The County Attorney determines that criminal charges against the two officers are not applicable or if he determines the officers should be criminally charged after the trial is complete. That concludes my report. I’ll stand for questions. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you Sergeant. Any questions or comments from council? Okay, thank you Jason. Sergeant Jason Breunig: Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: That concludes our fire and law enforcement update. Now let’s move to item D(4) on the consent agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVE FLOOD REDUCTION GRANT AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT 770 PIONEER TRAIL. Mayor Laufenburger: This is to approve a flood reduction grant agreement for acquisition of property at 770 Pioneer Trail. Mr. Oehme is this your’s? Chanhassen City Council – August 27, 2018 9 Paul Oehme: It is. Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Would you just give us a staff report on this so we can see what this is all about please. Paul Oehme: Sure, thank you Mayor. City Council members. So just a little background on this project. Back in March 12th of this year the City Council authorized submitting to the DNR a grant application for 3 properties to be considered for acquisition at 730, 750 and 770 Pioneer Trail. These houses were built in the 60’s and 70’s and they’ve been prone to flooding ever since. We have historical records of flooding on these properties and potentially impacting the properties way back even rain events, inch and a half or so can actually flood close to the property as well. We’ve been, staff has been working with these properties over the years and try to come up with remedies and mitigation to help the situation but unfortunately their back yard is, it’s considered a wetland so there are, there’s rules in place where we can’t, or we’re kind of restricted to make some modifications in that area to relieve some of the flooding. However the, staff has talked to the DNR State and there are some flood reduction grant funds that are available and application that was made back in March was approved by the DNR for one house at 770 Pioneer Trail. These funds would be allocated for acquisition and removal of the structure as well and the City would be responsible for 50 percent of the rest of the cost. The DNR matches the 50, the other 50 percent. So if this application moves forward we’d be working with the property owner on appraisal and going through the appraisal process and the purchase of that property. This is a volunteer program so we’d have to, the property owner would have to agree to whatever settlement is established. There is, the City staff has talked to the watershed district and watershed districts actually, Carver County as well and there is, there are some funds out there for the other 50 percent matching grant dollars that we can use towards the acquisition of this property as well. Plus there is a potential development out there that we could use some other stormwater mitigation money that this development is required to send to the city so we could use that money for also acquisition of the property or future wetland mitigation work on these sites so with that it’s a brief background on the importance of the project. The need for the acquisition so I believe the property owner is here in presence tonight so if you have questions for him as well. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Well council any questions? Okay. Mr. Oehme just a couple things I want to clarify. So the DNR says they will pay up to 50 percent of the costs that are incurred, not to exceed $180,000. Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: And they’re saying that the City of Chanhassen would be responsible for the other half. Let’s assume it’s $180,000 and did I read you correctly that you said the watershed district could come up or could potentially support half of the City’s responsibilities so that would be roughly, it would be $90,000. Chanhassen City Council – August 27, 2018 10 Paul Oehme: It could be or actually could be more than that as well. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Now does the watershed support his program? Paul Oehme: Yes they have. The City staff has talked to the watershed district staff and also their board and they are very interested in partnering with the City on this. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So this is one of three properties down along Pioneer Trail in this area. Has this area been impacted at all by other development activity in that area? You mentioned that as part of a watershed that extends from the east and how about Highway 101? Isn’t there a stormwater pond there? Paul Oehme: There is yep. So the water that runs off of Highway 101 is treated in those stormwater ponds and then is discharged into that wetland. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Paul Oehme: So the volume has increased but the rate of the runoff has more or less stayed similar over the years so. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so what’s the big advantage for Chanhassen in removing this property as a resident and turning it into a, essentially returning it to a floodplain is that correct? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So what do we get? Paul Oehme: Yeah so I think the benefits for the City are, well these 3 houses aren’t in our current comp plan. They’re kind of removed from any sewer and water in this area currently and into the future. Mayor Laufenburger: So all 3 of them have septic? Paul Oehme: Correct. They all have septic and wells so it’d be, if their septic fails it’d be very difficult for them to I think find a location acceptable to replace that septic system so from the homeowners perspective that’s important. Also from a wetland perspective as well, if we treat the water and hold back the water in this area better than it currently is and re-establish wetlands we’re going to increase the water quality and this water eventually runs into Bluff Creek which is an impaired water body so, and then we also have erosion and sediment issues farther downstream that this project would help mitigate. Chanhassen City Council – August 27, 2018 11 Mayor Laufenburger: So do I read that right that right now we’re trying to get water off of that property. There are impediments to an increased water flow from this property so by returning to a floodplain it will mean we don’t have to hurry to get that water off the property. Paul Oehme: That’s correct. We’d like to retain that water as much as we can and then also treat it through a natural process before it ends up in Bluff Creek. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. The next is a difficult question. There’s 3 properties down there and this is 770 which is the western most of those 3. Why is this one being selected as the property that we move? Paul Oehme: So this property I think is the lowest open floor elevation so this is the property that is most prone to flooding. The first one to flood so this is the one that was chosen to be the first one in line to receive the DNR funds. Mayor Laufenburger: So when you say first in line it sounds like as funds become available or as grants become available your plan would be to acquire all 3 properties and make the entire thing, the entire area a wetland floodplain? Paul Oehme: Absolutely. That’s the goal. Mayor Laufenburger: Does that also have support from the watershed? Paul Oehme: It does yeah. It has from the watershed and has so far from the DNR so the plan would be for this council approves and make another application early next year for more DNR flood mitigation grant dollars for the next two properties and then see if we are eligible or receive those funds next year. Mayor Laufenburger: Were we to approve this are we creating any animosity between those 3 neighbors? Paul Oehme: I don’t believe so. I’ve been in contact with the other two property owners and they’re willing to, they’re willing to work with us on the acquisitions as well too. We’re already talking about you know estimating their costs for the future grant applications as well so. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. I know that the property owner is with us tonight and, do you have any interest in addressing the council Bob? Bob Haak: I don’t think so. They covered it pretty well. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. His answer was not on microphone but he sounded like the staff covered it pretty well. Alright. Council then, Mr. Gerhardt do you want to make any comments about this? Chanhassen City Council – August 27, 2018 12 Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. During the Avienda development there were concerns expressed both by Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District and some council members that the group or individuals would like to see improvement of wetlands in and around the Avienda development and this was one of the projects that were highlighted that they wanted to see improved and removing some of the impervious surfaces. Retaining more of that water in that wetland. Getting it back to a wetland state was the goals of both the watershed district staff and the Avienda group. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Well with that I, my questions are answered and Paul thank you for taking time to explain this to us because this is a, obviously this is a significant investment on the part of the City in cooperation with the watershed district and the DNR for this purpose so I know that Mr. Haak at 770 and the other two residents, I know they’ve been dealing with this for a long time and I’m pleased to see that this is now at the point that we’re ready to, sounds like we’re ready to move forward on this so I thank you for that. Is there anybody would like further discussion or to make a motion on this? Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor I’ll do a motion. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. McDonald go ahead. Councilman McDonald: I would make the motion that the City Council approves a DNR flood mitigation grant agreement for acquisition of flood prone property at 770 Pioneer Trail. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, we have a valid motion. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Councilmember Tjornhom. Any further discussion? Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves a DNR Flood Mitigation Grant Agreement for Acquisition of Flood Prone Property at 770 Pioneer Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Laufenburger: That motion carries 4 to 0. Thank you Mr. Oehme. Thank you Mr. Haak for your patience. Bob Haak: Thank you. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Chanhassen City Council – August 27, 2018 13 Mayor Laufenburger: Any council presentations this evening? Mr. McDonald did you have something you wanted to say? Councilman McDonald: Well I was just going to say that it’s kind of déjà vu all over again with the Chanhassen Red Birds. It’s a replay of last year’s I think Class B World Series and I’m hoping for a different outcome this year but we’re going to go back up in the, I think winner’s bracket and we’re going to face Miesville again. The loser will go down to the loser’s bracket. Then will face the winner of the loser’s bracket and hopefully we’ll put an end to it at that game and won’t have to go to the second game but it’s just interesting that it’s playing out the same as it did last year. Mayor Laufenburger: Just another comment about that. You know Chanhassen Red Birds is a town team and it’s made up of young ball players who love the game and they’re, they may be playing in college but obviously they’re not playing in college during the summer but they’re not semi pro. They’re not minor leaguers. These are just guys that really love this game and Chanhassen is a little bit unique in that, of the 20 plus members that we have on the squad 10 of them are from the Chanhassen area which includes not only our community but also the Eastern Carver County School District so this really is a local team supplemented by some very, very good players from around the area so the next game is Saturday at 7:30 at Jordan and assuming, as Mr. McDonald has predicted that they will, they win that game then they will play again on Monday, Labor Day at Shakopee so if you’re a baseball fan, and even if you’re not, come out and cheer the local team so. Anything else? Councilman McDonald: Wings up. Mayor Laufenburger: Wings up. Wings up for the Red Birds, exactly. Any other council presentations? ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Gerhardt any administrative presentations? Todd Gerhardt: I do have one. It’s unfortunate but Kate Aanenson our Community Development Director asked me to extend her appreciation to the Mayor, City Council members, all the department heads and staff for their support for her unlikely passing of her husband this past week and she said you can’t appreciate enough support that she’s gotten from everybody here at City Hall and I’ve talked to her a couple of times. She’s doing very well. She’s got a lot of family support with her right now and I just told her to take her time and whatever she needs we’re here for and so both the wake and funeral were well attended and a lot of Minnetonka pride support was there. Both Kate and her husband Dave were Minnetonka Skipper graduates and I don’t know but once you graduate from Minnetonka that’s something that is instilled in your for life so, but they had a lot of support from family and friends there and she did want to Chanhassen City Council – August 27, 2018 14 extend her appreciation to everybody here so thank you and we’ll continue to support Kate as she comes back and starts back to work in the future. Mayor Laufenburger: Very well. Anything else Mr. Gerhardt? Todd Gerhardt: That’s it. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. There being no other presentations is there a motion to adjourn? Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ryan seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 10, 2018 Subject Approve Fireworks Display at St. Hubert Catholic Community, September 15, 2018 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.3. Prepared By Don Nutter, Fire Marshall File No: PROPOSED MOTION "The City Council approves the permit request from RES Pyro on behalf of St. Hubert Catholic Community to conduct a fireworks show at 8201 Main Street at 8:30 pm. The display will be conducted on September 15, 2018 in conjunction with the church's annual Harvest Festival." Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND Private pyrotechnic displays require a licensed contractor and approval of the Fire Chief and city officials. The Fire Chief/Fire Marshal will conduct a prelaunch inspection and verify operators' credentials prior to the event. Additionally, Chanhassen Fire Department will assign a fire suppression crew to the event. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the permit application. ATTACHMENTS: Permit Application CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 10, 2018 Subject Approve Fireworks Display at Chanhassen High School, October 5, 2018 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.4. Prepared By Don Nutter, Fire Marshal File No: PROPOSED MOTION "The City Council approves the fireworks display permit from Pyrotechnic Display, Inc. on behalf of the Chanhassen High School Storm Chasers Booster Club, to conduct a fireworks show from Chanhassen High School Athletic Fields located at 2200 Lyman Boulevard. The display will be conducted on October 5, 2018 between 7:00 pm and 8:30 pm." Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY This is an annual request and utilizes Pyrotechnic Display, Inc., to conduct a fireworks display at Chanhassen High School in celebration of their Homecoming event, which is scheduled for October 5, 2018. BACKGROUND Private pyrotechnic displays require a licensed contractor and approval of the Fire Chief and city officials. The Fire Chief/Fire Marshal will conduct a prelaunch inspection and verify operators' credentials prior to the event. Additionally, Chanhassen Fire Department will assign a fire suppression crew to the event. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the permit application. ATTACHMENTS: Permit Application CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 10, 2018 Subject Approve Bill of Sale for Ladder 11 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.5. Prepared By Don Johnson, Fire Chief File No: A238 PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the bill of sale for the 1990 Fire Apparatus (Ladder 11) in the amount of $25,000 to be paid by the City of Pine City.” Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND On November 27, 2017, the City Council approved the purchase of the Fire Department Replacement Ladder Truck No. 11, which is expected to be delivered in late 2018. The City of Pine City offered to purchase the City of Chanhassen's 1990 Ladder Truck 11 at a price of $25,000.00. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the bill of sale for the 1990 Fire Apparatus (Ladder 11) in the amount of $25,000 to be paid by the City of Pine City. ATTACHMENTS: Bill of Sale 199001v1 BILL OF SALE The CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“Seller”), owner of the following described property: 1990 Fire Apparatus, Spartan Motors Inc., VIN 4S7BT9B08LC002498, including Vent Saw, Cut Saw, Ground Ladders, all manuals and Certification History, and any spare parts left in inventory (“Apparatus”) in consideration of the sum of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) to be paid by the CITY OF PINE CITY, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“Buyer”) before taking possession of the Apparatus, does hereby Grant, Bargain, Sell and Convey unto Buyer, in an “AS-IS” condition without representation as to condition or its fitness for a particular purpose. Seller warrants that it is the owner of the personal property described above, that the personal property is free from all encumbrances and that Seller has the right to sell and convey the personal property to Buyer. Buyer may take possession and pick-up the Apparatus on September 11, 2018. CITY OF CHANHASSEN By: Denny Laufenburger, Mayor And: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager CITY OF PINE CITY By: Carl Pederson, Mayor And: Kenneth Cammilleri, City Administrator/ Clerk CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 10, 2018 Subject Review of Claims Paid 09102018 Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: I.1. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: SUMMARY The following claims are submitted for review on September 10, 2018: Check Numbers Amounts 167704 – 167859 $272,147.90 ACH Payments $755,004.55 Total All Claims $1,027,152.45 ATTACHMENTS: Check Summary Check Summary ACH Check Detail Check Detail ACH Accounts Payable User: Printed: dwashburn 8/31/2018 8:25 AM Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount BCATRA BCA 08/23/2018 0.00 15.00167704 CEMPRO CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 08/23/2018 0.00 1,971.30167705 COMASP Commercial Asphalt Co 08/23/2018 0.00 1,759.98167706 CORMAI CORE & MAIN LP 08/23/2018 0.00 675.00167707 CULLIG CULLIGAN 08/23/2018 0.00 22.50167708 CUTABO CUT ABOVE INC 08/23/2018 0.00 1,800.00167709 DEMCON DEM-CON LANDFILL 08/23/2018 0.00 325.60167710 EHLERS EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 08/23/2018 0.00 2,520.00167711 ESOSOL ESO Solutions Inc 08/23/2018 0.00 795.00167712 FACMOT FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 08/23/2018 0.00 35.00167713 FISHKELL Kelly Fisher 08/23/2018 0.00 74.00167714 GIACDON Don Giacchetti 08/23/2018 0.00 300.00167715 GooCom Goodyear Commercial Tire & Service Centers08/23/2018 0.00 363.84167716 GRADCAIT Caitlin Grady 08/23/2018 0.00 45.00167717 GRABAR GRAYBAR 08/23/2018 0.00 2,459.52167718 HEACOO HEATING & COOLING TWO INC 08/23/2018 0.00 288.48167719 ITPROTV ITProTV 08/23/2018 0.00 1,199.80167720 KALCON Kali Concrete 08/23/2018 0.00 250.00167721 KEENDAVI David and Lynne Keenan 08/23/2018 0.00 250.00167722 KENGRA KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 08/23/2018 0.00 65.70167723 MinuPre Minuteman Press 08/23/2018 0.00 32.00167724 MNHEAL MN DEPT OF HEALTH 08/23/2018 0.00 13,252.50167725 MTIDIS MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 08/23/2018 0.00 137.83167726 PEOELE PEOPLES ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS08/23/2018 0.00 454.43167727 SAFCON SAFEASSURE CONSULTANTS INC 08/23/2018 0.00 8,482.90167728 SCHELE SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP 08/23/2018 0.00 613.08167729 SHEWIL SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/23/2018 0.00 102.69167730 SIGNSO SIGNSOURCE 08/23/2018 0.00 381.50167731 ShaMde SMSC Organics Recycling Facility 08/23/2018 0.00 7,413.92167732 TayEle Taylor Electric Company, LLC 08/23/2018 0.00 4,390.00167733 TFOFIN TFORCE FINAL MILE 08/23/2018 0.00 87.90167734 TIMBUIL Timberstone Builders Inc 08/23/2018 0.00 250.00167735 WESBAY WEST BAY HOMES CORPORATION 08/23/2018 0.00 750.00167736 UB*01462 DEANNE & SHAWN MYERS 08/24/2018 0.00 282.53167737 UB*01491 ALL AMERICAN TITLE CO INC 08/30/2018 0.00 43.71167798 ASPMIL ASPEN MILLS 08/30/2018 0.00 55.70167799 BENTMARL MARLENE BENTZ 08/30/2018 0.00 20.00167800 UB*01481 CHAD BROSE 08/30/2018 0.00 49.52167801 UB*01463 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 0.00 19.08167802 UB*01472 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 0.00 19.05167803 UB*01482 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 0.00 23.30167804 UB*01490 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 0.00 12.76167805 CasGat Castle Gate Construction 08/30/2018 0.00 2,250.00167806 UB*01487 AMY & BERIN CHMIELEWSKI 08/30/2018 0.00 18.98167807 cormai CORE & MAIN LP 08/30/2018 0.00 465.33167808 CULLIG CULLIGAN 08/30/2018 0.00 24.00167809 CustHom Custom Home Builders Title, LLC 08/30/2018 0.00 3,500.00167810 Page 1AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (8/31/2018 8:25 AM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount UB*01471 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP LLC 08/30/2018 0.00 86.77167811 UB*01473 EDINA REALTY TITLE 08/30/2018 0.00 682.66167812 UB*01467 DANIEL & DIANE EIDSMO 08/30/2018 0.00 31.53167813 UB*01498 CONRAD & BARBARA EIMERS 08/30/2018 0.00 59.54167814 UB*01469 EXECUTIVE TITLE OF MN LLC 08/30/2018 0.00 5.55167815 FACMOT FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 08/30/2018 0.00 107.40167816 UB*01477 TRAVIS FEDOR 08/30/2018 0.00 89.37167817 FIREINS Fire Instruction & Rescue Education 08/30/2018 0.00 5,146.44167818 UB*01486 JOAN FOLEY 08/30/2018 0.00 14.36167819 ForCon Forterra Concrete Products, Inc 08/30/2018 0.00 1,280.80167820 UB*01470 ANN FURY 08/30/2018 0.00 32.47167821 UB*01479 GLOBAL CLOSING & TITLE SERVICES 08/30/2018 0.00 9.92167822 gonhom GONYEA HOMES 08/30/2018 0.00 1,500.00167823 UB*01480 STACEY GROSS 08/30/2018 0.00 42.62167824 HEALSTEV STEVE HEALY 08/30/2018 0.00 98.00167825 UB*01475 ALAN & KATHRYN HIEBERT 08/30/2018 0.00 30.62167826 INTLAN Integrity Landscape LLC 08/30/2018 0.00 500.00167827 JenkJoel JOEL JENKINS 08/30/2018 0.00 196.00167828 JOHNSJER JERRE JOHNSON 08/30/2018 0.00 68.00167829 KAPAMARI MARILYN-PAT KAPAUN 08/30/2018 0.00 68.00167830 UB*01485 LENDSERV- BLOOMINGTON 08/30/2018 0.00 133.79167831 UB*01489 BRIAN & KRISTEN MELANSON 08/30/2018 0.00 56.25167832 METPLU Metropolitan Plumbing 08/30/2018 0.00 30.05167833 UB*01497 MIDWEST REALTY SERVICES 08/30/2018 0.00 114.14167834 NEWSIG NEWMAN SIGNS INC 08/30/2018 0.00 1,228.03167835 UB*01466 NURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 0.00 17.32167836 UB*01494 PARTNERS TITLE 08/30/2018 0.00 131.97167837 UB*01476 PILLER TITLE SERVICES 08/30/2018 0.00 19.74167838 POST POSTMASTER 08/30/2018 0.00 687.00167839 prehea Precision Heating and Cooling Inc 08/30/2018 0.00 63.06167840 UB*01468 SANDRA RESNIK 08/30/2018 0.00 31.62167841 UB*01484 RESULT TITLE 08/30/2018 0.00 6.66167842 ROECOM Roers Companies 08/30/2018 0.00 200,000.00167843 UB*01465 DAVID & TAMMY SHADE 08/30/2018 0.00 26.39167844 SHEWIL SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/30/2018 0.00 9.89167845 SIGNSO SIGNSOURCE 08/30/2018 0.00 296.00167846 SOFHOU SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 08/30/2018 0.00 172.00167847 SPAHSAND Sandra Spahr 08/30/2018 0.00 10.00167848 SWANPAUL Paul Swanson 08/30/2018 0.00 45.00167849 UB*01495 THE TITLE GROUP INC 08/30/2018 0.00 106.75167850 UB*01478 JOSEPH THOMSON 08/30/2018 0.00 207.09167851 UB*01483 TITLE ONE INC 08/30/2018 0.00 23.86167852 UB*01496 TROY & MARY JANE WALDEE 08/30/2018 0.00 80.51167853 UB*01464 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/30/2018 0.00 59.78167854 UB*01474 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/30/2018 0.00 17.30167855 UB*01488 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/30/2018 0.00 21.30167856 WSDPER WS & D PERMIT SERVICE 08/30/2018 0.00 141.96167857 UB*01492 YOSEMITE HOLDINGS LLC 08/30/2018 0.00 5.98167858 UB*01493 YOSEMITE HOLDINGS LLC 08/30/2018 0.00 5.98167859 Report Total (96 checks): 272,147.90 0.00 Page 2AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (8/31/2018 8:25 AM) Accounts Payable Checks by Date - Summary by Check User: dwashburn Printed: 8/31/2018 8:26 AM Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH A1ELE A-1 ELECTRIC SERVICE 08/23/2018 0.00 497.82 ACH AFLAC American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus 08/23/2018 0.00 39.78 ACH AlHiJuli Juli Al-Hilwani 08/23/2018 0.00 174.25 ACH ALLBLA ALLIED BLACKTOP 08/23/2018 0.00 172,401.70 ACH Avesis Fidelity Security Life 08/23/2018 0.00 177.54 ACH BATPLU BATTERIES PLUS 08/23/2018 0.00 727.72 ACH Choice Choice, Inc. 08/23/2018 0.00 175.47 ACH CORMEC CORPORATE MECHANICAL 08/23/2018 0.00 362.50 ACH CRYINF Crystal Infosystems LLC 08/23/2018 0.00 33.75 ACH DelDen Delta Dental 08/23/2018 0.00 2,309.80 ACH EMEAUT EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 08/23/2018 0.00 35.96 ACH EmeRes Emergency Response Solutions 08/23/2018 0.00 582.92 ACH FergEnte Ferguson Waterworks #2516 08/23/2018 0.00 8,418.57 ACH H&LMES H & L Mesabi 08/23/2018 0.00 1,210.04 ACH HAWCHE HAWKINS CHEMICAL 08/23/2018 0.00 7,047.03 ACH HeaStr Health Strategies 08/23/2018 0.00 6,270.00 ACH ImaTre ImageTrend, Inc 08/23/2018 0.00 575.00 ACH InnOff Innovative Office Solutions LLC 08/23/2018 0.00 64.96 ACH JEFFIR JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 08/23/2018 0.00 724.90 ACH JOHSUP JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 08/23/2018 0.00 47.01 ACH KATFUE KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE 08/23/2018 0.00 18,653.10 ACH LANZBOB BOB LANZI 08/23/2018 0.00 294.00 ACH METFOR METROPOLITAN FORD 08/23/2018 0.00 99.52 ACH MinEqu Minnesota Equipment 08/23/2018 0.00 227.39 ACH MUSTOG MUSIC TOGETHER LAKESIDE 08/23/2018 0.00 739.00 ACH NAPA NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 08/23/2018 0.00 302.67 ACH NusEqu Nuss Truck & Equipment 08/23/2018 0.00 681.83 ACH NYSPUB NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMPANY INC 08/23/2018 0.00 9,030.50 ACH RBMSER RBM SERVICES INC 08/23/2018 0.00 4,413.04 ACH STRGUA STRATOGUARD LLC 08/23/2018 0.00 160.00 ACH SunLif Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 0.00 1,381.46 ACH TarLea TargetSolutions Learning, LLC 08/23/2018 0.00 4,769.24 ACH ULTCON ULTIMATE CONTROLS ELECTRIC LLC 08/23/2018 0.00 705.00 ACH UniFar United Farmers Cooperative 08/23/2018 0.00 367.13 ACH VESSCO VESSCO INC 08/23/2018 0.00 540.00 ACH VIKIND VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 08/23/2018 0.00 242.86 ACH WarLit Warning Lites of Minnesota, Inc. 08/23/2018 0.00 444.20 ACH WitPub Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc. 08/23/2018 0.00 62.43 ACH WMMUE WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/23/2018 0.00 3,518.39 ACH XCEL XCEL ENERGY INC 08/23/2018 0.00 17,000.15 ACH carcou Carver County 08/30/2018 0.00 46,917.00 ACH ColLif Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 08/30/2018 0.00 202.08 ACH COMINT COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN. 08/30/2018 0.00 118.00 ACH EmeRes Emergency Response Solutions 08/30/2018 0.00 4,164.32 ACH FergEnte Ferguson Waterworks #2516 08/30/2018 0.00 13,950.76 ACH gssys GS Systems, Inc. 08/30/2018 0.00 7,725.00 ACH hawche HAWKINS CHEMICAL 08/30/2018 0.00 5,028.70 Page 1 of 2 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH HeaStr Health Strategies 08/30/2018 0.00 342.00 ACH InnOff Innovative Office Solutions LLC 08/30/2018 0.00 90.48 ACH KubiTere Terence Kenneth Kubista 08/30/2018 0.00 50.00 ACH LifSup Life Support Innovations LLC 08/30/2018 0.00 3,858.55 ACH MACEQU MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 08/30/2018 0.00 383.08 ACH minpum Minnesota Pump Works 08/30/2018 0.00 7,943.18 ACH MVEC MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 08/30/2018 0.00 114.69 ACH NAPA NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 08/30/2018 0.00 134.82 ACH neefou Neenah Foundry Co. 08/30/2018 0.00 190.00 ACH valpav VALLEY PAVING INC 08/30/2018 0.00 384,433.41 ACH WMMUE WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/30/2018 0.00 634.37 ACH XCEL XCEL ENERGY INC 08/30/2018 0.00 13,215.48 Report Total: 0.00 755,004.55 Page 2 of 2 Accounts Payable Check Detail-Checks User: dwashburn Printed: 08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM Name Check Da Account Description Amount ALL AMERICAN TITLE CO INC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 6.49 ALL AMERICAN TITLE CO INC 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 14.98 ALL AMERICAN TITLE CO INC 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 20.62 ALL AMERICAN TITLE CO INC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.62 ALL AMERICAN TITLE CO INC 43.71 ASPEN MILLS 08/30/2018 101-1220-4240 Navy Pants, Name Tag 55.70 ASPEN MILLS 55.70 BCA 08/23/2018 101-1120-4300 Background investigation 15.00 BCA 15.00 BENTZ MARLENE 08/30/2018 101-1560-3637 Refund Driver Safety course 20.00 BENTZ MARLENE 20.00 BROSE CHAD 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 15.11 BROSE CHAD 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 25.89 BROSE CHAD 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 7.24 BROSE CHAD 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.28 BROSE CHAD 49.52 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.49 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 11.14 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 6.33 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.12 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.44 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 7.94 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 8.18 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.49 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.11 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 7.45 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 11.01 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.73 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.90 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 7.21 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.91 BURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.74 BURNET TITLE LLC 74.19 Castle Gate Construction 08/30/2018 815-8201-2024 Landscape Escrow - 9063 Degler Lane 750.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM)Page 1 of 9 Name Check Da Account Description Amount Castle Gate Construction 08/30/2018 815-8201-2024 Landscape Escrow - 9073 Degler Lane 750.00 Castle Gate Construction 08/30/2018 815-8201-2024 Landscape Escrow - 9092 River Rock Dr N 750.00 Castle Gate Construction 2,250.00 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 08/23/2018 701-0000-4551 3A32 3900 PSI 6BG 3/4 368.25 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 08/23/2018 420-0000-4751 3A32 3900 PSI 6BG 3/4 522.00 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 08/23/2018 420-0000-4751 Vulkem 116 Gray CTG 31.80 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 08/23/2018 420-0000-4751 3A32 3900 PSI 6BG 3/4 527.25 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 08/23/2018 420-0000-4751 3A32 3900 PSI 6BG 3/4 522.00 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 1,971.30 CHMIELEWSKI AMY & BERIN 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 7.40 CHMIELEWSKI AMY & BERIN 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 10.41 CHMIELEWSKI AMY & BERIN 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.99 CHMIELEWSKI AMY & BERIN 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.18 CHMIELEWSKI AMY & BERIN 18.98 Commercial Asphalt Co 08/23/2018 420-0000-4751 Tack Oil, Rec Wear 1,759.98 Commercial Asphalt Co 1,759.98 CORE & MAIN LP 08/23/2018 701-0000-4551 Copperhead Anode, Lids 263.20 CORE & MAIN LP 08/23/2018 701-0000-4551 Copperhead Lids 160.00 CORE & MAIN LP 08/23/2018 700-0000-4250 Remote wire, Gaskets 251.80 CORE & MAIN LP 08/30/2018 700-0000-4552 Str Cplg PVCxMIP/CPLG PJCSxMIP/brass coupling 115.16 CORE & MAIN LP 08/30/2018 700-0000-4552 CB 1-1/4x12" MIP REPAIR CPLG 142.24 CORE & MAIN LP 08/30/2018 700-0000-4550 8' MP Curb Box/Stationary rod 207.93 CORE & MAIN LP 1,140.33 CULLIGAN 08/23/2018 101-0000-2033 Permit overpayment-1571 Lake Lucy Road 22.50 CULLIGAN 08/30/2018 101-1250-3306 Permit refund - wrong city 24.00 CULLIGAN 46.50 Custom Home Builders Title, LLC 08/30/2018 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 7530 Fawn Hill 3,500.00 Custom Home Builders Title, LLC 3,500.00 CUT ABOVE INC 08/23/2018 720-7202-4300 Tree removals 1,800.00 CUT ABOVE INC 1,800.00 DEM-CON LANDFILL 08/23/2018 101-1320-4150 Street Sweeping, Mattress/Box Spring 325.60 DEM-CON LANDFILL 325.60 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP LLC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 18.61 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP LLC 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 45.81 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP LLC 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 19.00 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP LLC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.35 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP LLC 86.77 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM)Page 2 of 9 Name Check Da Account Description Amount EDINA REALTY TITLE 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.94 EDINA REALTY TITLE 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 578.13 EDINA REALTY TITLE 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 84.66 EDINA REALTY TITLE 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 14.93 EDINA REALTY TITLE 682.66 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 08/23/2018 601-0000-4300 Franchise Fee Analysis 360.00 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 08/23/2018 300-0000-4300 TIF Reporting 2,160.00 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 2,520.00 EIDSMO DANIEL & DIANE 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 22.61 EIDSMO DANIEL & DIANE 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 8.92 EIDSMO DANIEL & DIANE 31.53 EIMERS CONRAD & BARBARA 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 13.40 EIMERS CONRAD & BARBARA 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 42.57 EIMERS CONRAD & BARBARA 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.03 EIMERS CONRAD & BARBARA 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.54 EIMERS CONRAD & BARBARA 59.54 ESO Solutions Inc 08/23/2018 101-1220-4300 Enduser Chanhassen Fire Dept - License Support Contracts 795.00 ESO Solutions Inc 795.00 EXECUTIVE TITLE OF MN LLC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.34 EXECUTIVE TITLE OF MN LLC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.49 EXECUTIVE TITLE OF MN LLC 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.78 EXECUTIVE TITLE OF MN LLC 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.94 EXECUTIVE TITLE OF MN LLC 5.55 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 08/23/2018 700-0000-4120 Battery Core, 12V CCA300 35.00 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 08/30/2018 101-1320-4120 N/C Brake Clean 15oz 35.80 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 08/30/2018 101-1550-4120 N/C Brake Clean 15oz 35.80 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 08/30/2018 700-0000-4120 N/C Brake Clean 15oz 35.80 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 142.40 FEDOR TRAVIS 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 27.49 FEDOR TRAVIS 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 45.95 FEDOR TRAVIS 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 13.54 FEDOR TRAVIS 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.39 FEDOR TRAVIS 89.37 Fire Instruction & Rescue Education 08/30/2018 101-1220-4370 SW Metro Fire Academy - Foote, Gish, Kley, Skogen 5,146.44 Fire Instruction & Rescue Education 5,146.44 Fisher Kelly 08/23/2018 101-1534-3631 Refund - Ballet and Tap #3184.107 74.00 Fisher Kelly 74.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM)Page 3 of 9 Name Check Da Account Description Amount FOLEY JOAN 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.22 FOLEY JOAN 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.51 FOLEY JOAN 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.93 FOLEY JOAN 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.70 FOLEY JOAN 14.36 Forterra Concrete Products, Inc 08/30/2018 720-7025-4706 Pipe and precast 1,280.80 Forterra Concrete Products, Inc 1,280.80 FURY ANN 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 8.36 FURY ANN 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 15.21 FURY ANN 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 7.56 FURY ANN 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.34 FURY ANN 32.47 Giacchetti Don 08/23/2018 700-0000-4550 Plumbing reimbursement 300.00 Giacchetti Don 300.00 GLOBAL CLOSING & TITLE SERVICES 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 9.92 GLOBAL CLOSING & TITLE SERVICES 9.92 GONYEA HOMES 08/30/2018 815-8201-2024 Landscape Escrow - 7590 Fawn Hill Road 750.00 GONYEA HOMES 08/30/2018 815-8201-2024 Landscape Escrow - 7580 Fawn Hill 750.00 GONYEA HOMES 1,500.00 Goodyear Commercial Tire & Service Centers 08/23/2018 101-1310-4140 GY 235/75R15 WRL TRAILRNR AT 363.84 Goodyear Commercial Tire & Service Centers 363.84 Grady Caitlin 08/23/2018 101-1531-3631 Refund - Phillips for Congress 45.00 Grady Caitlin 45.00 GRAYBAR 08/23/2018 101-1350-4565 Millerbernd MFG CO 2,459.52 GRAYBAR 2,459.52 GROSS STACEY 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 16.99 GROSS STACEY 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 20.63 GROSS STACEY 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.25 GROSS STACEY 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.75 GROSS STACEY 42.62 HEALY STEVE 08/30/2018 101-1767-4300 Adult Fall League Softball Umpire 98.00 HEALY STEVE 98.00 HEATING & COOLING TWO INC 08/23/2018 101-1250-3305 Permit Overpayment - 6491 Nez Perce Drive 288.48 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM)Page 4 of 9 Name Check Da Account Description Amount HEATING & COOLING TWO INC 288.48 HIEBERT ALAN & KATHRYN 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 7.89 HIEBERT ALAN & KATHRYN 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 20.59 HIEBERT ALAN & KATHRYN 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.82 HIEBERT ALAN & KATHRYN 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.32 HIEBERT ALAN & KATHRYN 30.62 Integrity Landscape LLC 08/30/2018 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 1485 Hemlock Way 500.00 Integrity Landscape LLC 500.00 ITProTV 08/23/2018 101-1160-4370 Premium Annual Subscription 1,199.80 ITProTV 1,199.80 JENKINS JOEL 08/30/2018 101-1766-4300 Adult Summer League Softball Umpire - 8 games 196.00 JENKINS JOEL 196.00 JOHNSON JERRE 08/30/2018 101-1560-3637 Refund Murals & Music Day Trip 68.00 JOHNSON JERRE 68.00 Kali Concrete 08/23/2018 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 7613 Kiowa 250.00 Kali Concrete 250.00 KAPAUN MARILYN-PAT 08/30/2018 101-1560-3637 Refund Murals & Music Day Trip 68.00 KAPAUN MARILYN-PAT 68.00 Keenan David and Lynne 08/23/2018 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 1800 Valley Ridge Tr S 250.00 Keenan David and Lynne 250.00 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 08/23/2018 601-0000-4300 Franchise Fee - through 7/31/18 65.70 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 65.70 LENDSERV- BLOOMINGTON 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.56 LENDSERV- BLOOMINGTON 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 47.63 LENDSERV- BLOOMINGTON 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 79.86 LENDSERV- BLOOMINGTON 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.74 LENDSERV- BLOOMINGTON 133.79 MELANSON BRIAN & KRISTEN 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 42.68 MELANSON BRIAN & KRISTEN 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 10.60 MELANSON BRIAN & KRISTEN 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.52 MELANSON BRIAN & KRISTEN 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.45 MELANSON BRIAN & KRISTEN 56.25 Metropolitan Plumbing 08/30/2018 101-0000-2033 Overpayment - Refund permit# 2018-02324 30.05 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM)Page 5 of 9 Name Check Da Account Description Amount Metropolitan Plumbing 30.05 MIDWEST REALTY SERVICES 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 29.89 MIDWEST REALTY SERVICES 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 69.05 MIDWEST REALTY SERVICES 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.02 MIDWEST REALTY SERVICES 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 10.18 MIDWEST REALTY SERVICES 114.14 Minuteman Press 08/23/2018 101-1170-4110 Business Cards - Henricksen and Ferraro 32.00 Minuteman Press 32.00 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 08/23/2018 700-0000-4509 Water Supply Service Connection Fee 13,252.50 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 13,252.50 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 08/23/2018 101-1550-4120 Cover, Latch, Nut Lock 137.83 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 137.83 MYERS DEANNE & SHAWN 08/24/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 243.73 MYERS DEANNE & SHAWN 08/24/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 34.40 MYERS DEANNE & SHAWN 08/24/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.74 MYERS DEANNE & SHAWN 08/24/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.66 MYERS DEANNE & SHAWN 282.53 NEWMAN SIGNS INC 08/30/2018 101-1320-4560 Signs 1,228.03 NEWMAN SIGNS INC 1,228.03 NURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.00 NURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 7.72 NURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.76 NURNET TITLE LLC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.84 NURNET TITLE LLC 17.32 PARTNERS TITLE 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 79.19 PARTNERS TITLE 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 44.33 PARTNERS TITLE 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 7.18 PARTNERS TITLE 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.27 PARTNERS TITLE 131.97 PEOPLES ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS 08/23/2018 101-1550-4300 307011 Park Hand Dryer - June 2018 454.43 PEOPLES ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS 454.43 PILLER TITLE SERVICES 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 6.43 PILLER TITLE SERVICES 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 10.89 PILLER TITLE SERVICES 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.06 PILLER TITLE SERVICES 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.36 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM)Page 6 of 9 Name Check Da Account Description Amount PILLER TITLE SERVICES 19.74 POSTMASTER 08/30/2018 700-0000-4330 Postage 343.50 POSTMASTER 08/30/2018 701-0000-4330 Postage 343.50 POSTMASTER 687.00 Precision Heating and Cooling Inc 08/30/2018 101-1250-3305 Refund permit# 2018-02162 - job cancelled 63.06 Precision Heating and Cooling Inc 63.06 RESNIK SANDRA 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 9.53 RESNIK SANDRA 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 13.81 RESNIK SANDRA 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 7.04 RESNIK SANDRA 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.24 RESNIK SANDRA 31.62 RESULT TITLE 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.93 RESULT TITLE 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.09 RESULT TITLE 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.24 RESULT TITLE 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.40 RESULT TITLE 6.66 Roers Companies 08/30/2018 815-8221-2024 Venue 2017-11 200,000.00 Roers Companies 200,000.00 SAFEASSURE CONSULTANTS INC 08/23/2018 700-0000-4300 Safety Training 5,655.26 SAFEASSURE CONSULTANTS INC 08/23/2018 101-1550-4300 Safety Training 1,413.81 SAFEASSURE CONSULTANTS INC 08/23/2018 101-1320-4300 Safety Training 1,413.83 SAFEASSURE CONSULTANTS INC 8,482.90 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP 08/23/2018 101-1170-4300 Inspection Service - 8/1/18 to 7/31/19 613.08 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP 613.08 SHADE DAVID & TAMMY 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.65 SHADE DAVID & TAMMY 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.65 SHADE DAVID & TAMMY 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 8.05 SHADE DAVID & TAMMY 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 14.04 SHADE DAVID & TAMMY 26.39 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/23/2018 700-0000-4150 Paint and Recycling Fee 102.69 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/30/2018 101-1320-4120 Pump Protector 32oz 9.89 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 112.58 SIGNSOURCE 08/23/2018 101-1220-4120 Misc Tags & Reflective Vinyl Names 381.50 SIGNSOURCE 08/30/2018 101-1220-4120 European Helmet Graphics 296.00 SIGNSOURCE 677.50 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM)Page 7 of 9 Name Check Da Account Description Amount SMSC Organics Recycling Facility 08/23/2018 700-7050-4706 Organics Recycling July 2018 7,413.92 SMSC Organics Recycling Facility 7,413.92 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 08/30/2018 700-7050-4705 MS Windows RDS Client License 172.00 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 172.00 Spahr Sandra 08/30/2018 101-1560-3637 Refund Pancake Breakfast & WWII on Alaska Soil 10.00 Spahr Sandra 10.00 Swanson Paul 08/30/2018 101-1541-3634 Picnic - Cancelled due to weather 45.00 Swanson Paul 45.00 Taylor Electric Company, LLC 08/23/2018 410-0000-4710 labor and equipment for Hwy 101 street lighting 4,390.00 Taylor Electric Company, LLC 4,390.00 TFORCE FINAL MILE 08/23/2018 101-1420-4300 City of Chanhassen to Campbell Knutson 41.49 TFORCE FINAL MILE 08/23/2018 700-0000-4330 Public Works to MN Dept of Health/St Paul 46.41 TFORCE FINAL MILE 87.90 THE TITLE GROUP INC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 24.18 THE TITLE GROUP INC 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 55.81 THE TITLE GROUP INC 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 22.75 THE TITLE GROUP INC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.01 THE TITLE GROUP INC 106.75 THOMSON JOSEPH 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 76.08 THOMSON JOSEPH 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 125.07 THOMSON JOSEPH 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.95 THOMSON JOSEPH 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.99 THOMSON JOSEPH 207.09 Timberstone Builders Inc 08/23/2018 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 6611 Horseshoe Curve 250.00 Timberstone Builders Inc 250.00 TITLE ONE INC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 14.68 TITLE ONE INC 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 6.84 TITLE ONE INC 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.99 TITLE ONE INC 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.35 TITLE ONE INC 23.86 WALDEE TROY & MARY JANE 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 27.50 WALDEE TROY & MARY JANE 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 50.78 WALDEE TROY & MARY JANE 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.17 WALDEE TROY & MARY JANE 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.06 WALDEE TROY & MARY JANE 80.51 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM)Page 8 of 9 Name Check Da Account Description Amount WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 26.07 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 27.79 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.03 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.89 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 8.22 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 7.63 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.86 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.59 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 8.22 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/30/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 10.33 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.34 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/30/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.41 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 98.38 WEST BAY HOMES CORPORATION 08/23/2018 815-8201-2024 Landscape Escrow - 6950 Highover Drive 750.00 WEST BAY HOMES CORPORATION 750.00 WS & D PERMIT SERVICE 08/30/2018 101-1250-3301 Permit refund - job cancelled 141.96 WS & D PERMIT SERVICE 141.96 YOSEMITE HOLDINGS LLC 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.98 YOSEMITE HOLDINGS LLC 08/30/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.98 YOSEMITE HOLDINGS LLC 11.96 272,147.90 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM)Page 9 of 9 Accounts Payable Check Detail-ACH User: dwashburn Printed: 08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM Name Check D Account Description Amount A-1 ELECTRIC SERVICE 08/23/2018 701-0000-4551 Lift Station #20 - move control panel 319.48 A-1 ELECTRIC SERVICE 08/23/2018 701-0000-4150 Public Works Bldg - install cord ends for remote generator 178.34 A-1 ELECTRIC SERVICE 497.82 Al-Hilwani Juli 08/23/2018 101-1533-4300 Personal Training - 5 pk Tammy Flolid 146.25 Al-Hilwani Juli 08/23/2018 101-1539-4300 Personal Training - Fit for Life 28.00 Al-Hilwani Juli 174.25 ALLIED BLACKTOP 08/23/2018 420-4222-4751 2018 Sealcoat Project 172,401.70 ALLIED BLACKTOP 172,401.70 American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus08/23/2018 101-0000-2008 August 2018 premium 39.78 American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus 39.78 BATTERIES PLUS 08/23/2018 101-1160-4530 12V Lead 79.96 BATTERIES PLUS 08/23/2018 700-0000-4150 12V Lead 269.90 BATTERIES PLUS 08/23/2018 700-0000-4150 12V Lead 377.86 BATTERIES PLUS 727.72 Carver County 08/30/2018 101-1160-4320 CarverLink internet/fiber - June 2018 537.50 Carver County 08/30/2018 700-7043-4320 Dark Fiber Services to WWTP 350.00 Carver County 08/30/2018 700-7050-4706 Construction services - Fiber Construction of Lateral - WWTP 45,100.00 Carver County 08/30/2018 101-1160-4320 CarverLink internet/fiber - August 537.50 Carver County 08/30/2018 700-7043-4320 Dark Fiber Service to WWTP 350.00 Carver County 08/30/2018 700-7043-4320 CarverLink - Annual Maintenance 42.00 Carver County 46,917.00 Choice, Inc.08/23/2018 101-1220-4350 cleaning 6/18-7/13 175.47 Choice, Inc. 175.47 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 08/30/2018 101-0000-2008 August premium 60.72 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 08/30/2018 700-0000-2008 August premium 70.68 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 08/30/2018 701-0000-2008 August premium 70.68 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 202.08 COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN.08/30/2018 101-1160-4220 Aruba AP Foundation Care Annual Renewal 118.00 COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN. 118.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM)Page 1 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount CORPORATE MECHANICAL 08/23/2018 101-1370-4300 Public Works - no cooling RTU#4, pressure switch tripping 362.50 CORPORATE MECHANICAL 362.50 Crystal Infosystems LLC 08/23/2018 101-1170-4110 HP 950 XL Black ink 33.75 Crystal Infosystems LLC 33.75 Delta Dental 08/23/2018 101-0000-2013 dental insurance - Sept 1,591.75 Delta Dental 08/23/2018 101-0000-2013 dental insurance - Sept cobra 30.20 Delta Dental 08/23/2018 700-0000-2013 dental insurance - Sept 279.10 Delta Dental 08/23/2018 701-0000-2013 dental insurance - Sept 248.91 Delta Dental 08/23/2018 720-0000-2013 dental insurance - Sept 159.84 Delta Dental 2,309.80 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 08/23/2018 101-1550-4120 50 WATT HALOGEN BULBS 35.96 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 35.96 Emergency Response Solutions 08/23/2018 101-1220-4530 Cover, Harness Assy, Strap, AAA Battery Cart 582.92 Emergency Response Solutions 08/30/2018 101-1220-4530 SCBA Flow Test, Replacement Kit, Fit Test 4,164.32 Emergency Response Solutions 4,747.24 Ferguson Waterworks #2516 08/23/2018 700-0000-4250 5/8X3/4 T10 MTR ECDR USG INSIDE 8,418.57 Ferguson Waterworks #2516 08/30/2018 700-0000-4250 5/3 x 3/4 T10 mtr ecdr usg inside 13,950.76 Ferguson Waterworks #2516 22,369.33 Fidelity Security Life 08/23/2018 101-0000-2007 vision insurance - September 2018 134.43 Fidelity Security Life 08/23/2018 700-0000-2007 vision insurance - September 2018 23.30 Fidelity Security Life 08/23/2018 701-0000-2007 vision insurance - September 2018 17.35 Fidelity Security Life 08/23/2018 720-0000-2007 vision insurance - September 2018 2.46 Fidelity Security Life 177.54 GS Systems, Inc.08/30/2018 701-0000-4551 Software renewal/maintenance 7,725.00 GS Systems, Inc. 7,725.00 H & L Mesabi 08/23/2018 700-0000-4120 Milling Bit 1,210.04 H & L Mesabi 1,210.04 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 08/23/2018 700-7019-4160 Sodium Permanganate, Corrosion Inhibitor 7,047.03 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 08/30/2018 700-7019-4160 Azone 5,028.70 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 12,075.73 Health Strategies 08/23/2018 101-1220-4300 Medical Exam, PSA, Mantoux 6,270.00 Health Strategies 08/30/2018 700-0000-4300 Respirator Qualifi/mask fit 342.00 Health Strategies 6,612.00 ImageTrend, Inc 08/23/2018 101-1220-4370 Image Trend Connect 2018 575.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM)Page 2 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount ImageTrend, Inc 575.00 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 08/23/2018 101-1170-4110 Markers, Forks, Spoons, Knives, Pens 64.96 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 08/30/2018 101-1170-4110 Coffee sticks, Creamer 90.48 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 155.44 JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 08/23/2018 400-4105-4705 Helmets, Helmet Lights 724.90 JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 724.90 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 08/23/2018 101-1170-4260 TH4110U2005 Pro TStat 47.01 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 47.01 KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE 08/23/2018 101-1370-4170 Ultra Low #2 Dyed, Unleaded 87 ETH 10 18,653.10 KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE 18,653.10 Kubista Terence Kenneth 08/30/2018 101-1560-4300 British History Presentation-Royal Weddings 50.00 Kubista Terence Kenneth 50.00 LANZI BOB 08/23/2018 101-1766-4300 Adult Softball Umpire - 12 games 294.00 LANZI BOB 294.00 Life Support Innovations LLC 08/30/2018 201-0000-4705 Cardiac Science G3 AED Electrodes 3,858.55 Life Support Innovations LLC 3,858.55 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 08/30/2018 701-0000-4120 Pressure Transm #48035B-30 383.08 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 383.08 METROPOLITAN FORD 08/23/2018 101-1220-4140 BC3Z 16A550 GA Spor Kit - Return -37.49 METROPOLITAN FORD 08/23/2018 101-1220-4140 CL3Z 16A550 K Spor Kit 101.25 METROPOLITAN FORD 08/23/2018 101-1220-4140 CL3Z 16A550 K Spor Kit - Return -101.25 METROPOLITAN FORD 08/23/2018 101-1220-4140 BC3Z 16A550 GA Spor Kit 37.49 METROPOLITAN FORD 08/23/2018 701-0000-4140 SPOR SENSOR AS 99.52 METROPOLITAN FORD 99.52 Minnesota Equipment 08/23/2018 101-1550-4120 Antenna, Revolving Light 40.14 Minnesota Equipment 08/23/2018 101-1320-4120 Hydraulic Filter, Cover 136.54 Minnesota Equipment 08/23/2018 101-1550-4120 Radiator Hose 50.71 Minnesota Equipment 227.39 Minnesota Pump Works 08/30/2018 701-0000-4551 impeller/repair kit/terminal board/cable 7,838.18 Minnesota Pump Works 08/30/2018 701-0000-4530 Anchor Scientific Eco Float 105.00 Minnesota Pump Works 7,943.18 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 08/30/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 32.88 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 08/30/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 81.81 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM)Page 3 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 114.69 MUSIC TOGETHER LAKESIDE 08/23/2018 101-1537-4300 Summer 2018 music for 7 families 739.00 MUSIC TOGETHER LAKESIDE 739.00 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 08/23/2018 101-1250-4140 Oil Filters 9.29 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 08/23/2018 101-1320-4120 Boxed Miniatures 31.00 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 08/23/2018 101-1370-4140 U Bolt 95.44 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 08/23/2018 101-1550-4120 Fuel, Trans and Oil Filters, Plugs, Winter Blades 131.04 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 08/23/2018 101-1320-4120 Fuel and Oil Filters, Lamps 35.90 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 08/30/2018 101-1310-4140 Oil Filter 8.01 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 08/30/2018 101-1550-4120 Brake Wheel Cylinder - Rear 21.36 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 08/30/2018 101-1550-4120 Oil, Trans and Fuel Filters, Wiper blades, Weatherstrip Adhv 105.45 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 437.49 Neenah Foundry Co.08/30/2018 700-7050-4705 grate 190.00 Neenah Foundry Co. 190.00 Nuss Truck & Equipment 08/23/2018 101-1320-4140 Exhaust Pipe, Gasket 681.83 Nuss Truck & Equipment 681.83 NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMPANY INC 08/23/2018 101-1120-4340 Chanhassen Connection 6,166.41 NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMPANY INC 08/23/2018 101-1120-4340 Recycling Coupons 1,030.85 NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMPANY INC 08/23/2018 101-1120-4330 Postage 1,833.24 NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMPANY INC 9,030.50 RBM SERVICES INC 08/23/2018 101-1170-4300 Nightly Janitorial/Shampoo Public Safety Monthly - Sept 2018 2,239.99 RBM SERVICES INC 08/23/2018 101-1190-4300 Nightly Janitorial/Weekend Janitorial+Library - Sept 2018 2,173.05 RBM SERVICES INC 4,413.04 STRATOGUARD LLC 08/23/2018 101-1160-4300 Proofpoint Business Inbound & Outbound Filtering - Sept 160.00 STRATOGUARD LLC 160.00 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1600-4040 Life insurance - September 9.58 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1520-4040 Life insurance - September 15.35 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1120-4040 Life insurance - September 29.90 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1130-4040 Life insurance - September 20.59 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1320-4040 Life insurance - September 47.34 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1160-4040 Life insurance - September 10.53 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1250-4040 Life insurance - September 45.54 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1310-4040 Life insurance - September 38.70 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1370-4040 Life insurance - September 18.60 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1560-4040 Life insurance - September 4.95 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1530-4040 Life insurance - September 6.03 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1700-4040 Life insurance - September 2.39 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1550-4040 Life insurance - September 37.25 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1420-4040 Life insurance - September 28.26 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1430-4040 Life insurance - September 1.98 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM)Page 4 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 210-0000-4040 Life insurance - September 7.65 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 720-7201-4040 Life insurance - September 2.34 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 720-7202-4040 Life insurance - September 2.34 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1170-4040 Life insurance - September 5.31 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-1220-4040 Life insurance - September 18.45 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 701-0000-4040 Life insurance - September 33.57 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 700-0000-4040 Life insurance - September 44.55 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 720-0000-4040 Life insurance - September 16.01 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 101-0000-2011 Life insurance - September 688.39 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 210-0000-2011 Life insurance - September 6.00 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 700-0000-2011 Life insurance - September 103.76 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 701-0000-2011 Life insurance - September 103.76 Sun Life Financial 08/23/2018 720-0000-2011 Life insurance - September 32.34 Sun Life Financial 1,381.46 TargetSolutions Learning, LLC 08/23/2018 101-1220-4300 Maintenance Fee 395.00 TargetSolutions Learning, LLC 08/23/2018 101-1220-4370 Premier Membership Platform 4,374.24 TargetSolutions Learning, LLC 4,769.24 ULTIMATE CONTROLS ELECTRIC LLC 08/23/2018 700-7050-4706 New water plant pressure Transmitters 705.00 ULTIMATE CONTROLS ELECTRIC LLC 705.00 United Farmers Cooperative 08/23/2018 101-1550-4120 Relube Flange/Fitting 80P 40.60 United Farmers Cooperative 08/23/2018 101-1550-4120 Fan Blower, Shredder, Echo mix, Ultra Oil, Fan Outter and Inner 126.57 United Farmers Cooperative 08/23/2018 700-0000-4120 Stihl Blower 199.96 United Farmers Cooperative 367.13 VALLEY PAVING INC 08/30/2018 601-6033-4751 Park Rd/Park Place Resurfacing 16-04 384,433.41 VALLEY PAVING INC 384,433.41 VESSCO INC 08/23/2018 700-7019-4150 Injector quil, VSI 750 540.00 VESSCO INC 540.00 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 08/23/2018 701-0000-4150 Runestone Hand & Surface Towel 119.88 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 08/23/2018 701-0000-4150 Disposable Nitrile Gloves 122.98 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 242.86 Warning Lites of Minnesota, Inc.08/23/2018 700-0000-4550 Rental - Barricades, Barrels, Cones, Arrows 444.20 Warning Lites of Minnesota, Inc. 444.20 Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc.08/23/2018 101-1220-4120 Leather Fronts - Pribble 62.43 Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc. 62.43 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/23/2018 700-0000-4552 Water Main Break 80.00 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/23/2018 700-0000-4552 Water Main Break 160.00 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/23/2018 700-0000-4552 Water Main Breaks 168.00 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/23/2018 420-0000-4751 Asphalt Plant 236.21 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM)Page 5 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/23/2018 700-0000-4552 Water Main Breaks 280.00 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/23/2018 420-0000-4751 Asphalt Plant 315.21 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/23/2018 420-0000-4751 Asphalt Tack 707.75 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/23/2018 700-0000-4552 Water Main Breaks 168.00 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/23/2018 420-0000-4751 Asphalt Plant 476.37 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/23/2018 420-0000-4751 Pond Excavation 926.85 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/30/2018 420-0000-4751 Asphalt Plant 634.37 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 4,152.76 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/23/2018 700-0000-4320 electricity charges 10,154.94 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/23/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 10.27 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/23/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges -35.74 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/23/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 25.06 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/23/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 5.89 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/23/2018 700-0000-4320 electricity charges -29.31 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/23/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 11.31 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/23/2018 101-1600-4320 electricity charges -27.15 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/23/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 11.31 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/23/2018 101-1600-4320 electricity charges 12.15 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/23/2018 700-7019-4320 electricity charges 6,861.42 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/30/2018 101-1540-4320 electricity charges 604.21 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/30/2018 101-1600-4320 electricity charges 55.57 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/30/2018 101-1550-4320 electricity charges -305.74 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/30/2018 101-1600-4320 electricity charges 162.22 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/30/2018 701-0000-4320 electricity charges 6,033.82 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/30/2018 700-0000-4320 electricity charges 4,208.37 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/30/2018 101-1170-4320 electricity charges -904.71 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/30/2018 101-1190-4320 electricity charges -259.47 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/30/2018 101-1220-4320 electricity charges 1,114.20 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/30/2018 101-1370-4320 electricity charges 1,875.30 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/30/2018 101-1120-4320 electricity charges 162.89 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/30/2018 700-0000-4320 electricity charges 234.41 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/30/2018 701-0000-4320 electricity charges 234.41 XCEL ENERGY INC 30,215.63 755,004.55 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (08/31/2018 - 8:30 AM)Page 6 of 6 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 10, 2018 Subject Web Analytics Report August 2018 Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: I.2. Prepared By Annie Lundell, Administrative Specialist File No: ATTACHMENTS: August 2018 Web Analytics Report City of Chanhassen All Web Site Data GO TO REPORT Top Channels Users Conversions Acquisition Behavior Set up a goal. To see outcome metrics, define one or more goals. GET STARTED Conversions Acquisition Overview Aug 1, 2018 -Aug 31, 2018 Primary Dimension:Conversion: Edit Channel Grouping To see all 4 Channels click here. Top Channels All Goals Organic Search Direct Referral Social22.9% 72.6% Users Goal Conversion Rate …Aug 8 Aug 15 Aug 22 Aug 29 600600 1,2001,200 …Aug 8 Aug 15 Aug 22 Aug 29 0.00%0.00% 100.00%100.00% 1 Organic Search 2 Direct 3 Referral 4 Social Users 13,535 New Users 10,990 Sessions 18,731 10,004 3,151 493 140 Bounce Rate 56.82% Pages / Session 2.37 Avg. Session Duration 00:02:07 54.02% 67.38% 48.95% 60.17% © 2018 Google All Users 100.00% Users City of Chanhassen All Web Site Data GO TO REPORT Page Rows 1 - 10 of 2589 Pages Aug 1, 2018 -Aug 31, 2018 Explorer Pageviews Unique Pageviews Avg. Time on Page Entrances Bounce Rate % Exit Page Value 44,450 % of Total:100.00% (44,450) 35,344 % of Total:100.00% (35,344) 00:01:33 Avg for View:00:01:33 (0.00%) 18,731 % of Total:100.00% (18,731) 56.82% Avg for View:56.82% (0.00%) 42.14% Avg for View:42.14% (0.00%) $0.00 % of Total:0.00% ($0.00) 1.6,514 (14.65%) 4,253 (12.03%)00:02:16 3,961 (21.15%)33.27%30.00%$0.00 (0.00%) 2.1,575 (3.54%) 1,347 (3.81%)00:03:13 919 (4.91%)85.53%73.78%$0.00 (0.00%) 3.1,450 (3.26%) 1,125 (3.18%)00:03:18 574 (3.06%)78.22%63.86%$0.00 (0.00%) 4.1,078 (2.43%) 893 (2.53%)00:01:43 776 (4.14%)57.35%56.77%$0.00 (0.00%) 5.1,057 (2.38%) 724 (2.05%)00:00:29 265 (1.41%)17.74%15.42%$0.00 (0.00%) 6.872 (1.96%) 736 (2.08%)00:00:45 636 (3.40%)30.97%31.77%$0.00 (0.00%) 7.787 (1.77%) 659 (1.86%)00:00:53 523 (2.79%)24.47%24.78%$0.00 (0.00%) 8.654 (1.47%) 558 (1.58%)00:02:56 278 (1.48%)75.54%66.97%$0.00 (0.00%) 9.637 (1.43%) 532 (1.51%)00:04:57 303 (1.62%)73.27%66.25%$0.00 (0.00%) 10.629 (1.42%) 505 (1.43%)00:00:51 188 (1.00%)39.89%30.68%$0.00 (0.00%) Pageviews …Aug 8 Aug 15 Aug 22 Aug 29 2,0002,000 4,0004,000 / /1018/Job-Opportunities /240/Agendas-Minutes-Videos /284/Lake-Ann-Park /194/Proposed-Developments /296/Recreation-Center /252/Voting-Elections /690/Polling-Locations /780/Mayor-City-Council-Candidates /31/Parks-Recreation © 2018 Google All Users 100.00% Pageviews City of Chanhassen All Web Site Data GO TO REPORT Search Term Rows 1 - 10 of 1080 Search Terms Aug 1, 2018 -Aug 31, 2018 Explorer Site Usage Total Unique Searches Results Pageviews / Search % Search Exits % Search Refinements Time after Search Avg. Search Depth 1,409 % of Total:100.00% (1,409) 1.22 Avg for View:1.22 (0.00%) 30.45% Avg for View:30.45% (0.00%) 17.84% Avg for View:17.84% (0.00%) 00:02:54 Avg for View:00:02:54 (0.00%) 1.72 Avg for View:1.72 (0.00%) 1.2018 Mayor 42 (2.98%)1.31 11.90%1.82%00:03:48 1.55 2.Candidate Filing 16 (1.14%)1.44 12.50%39.13%00:00:24 1.19 3.Is broadband Internet service available in Chanhassen?16 (1.14%)1.50 100.00%0.00%00:03:14 0.00 4.Pickleball 11 (0.78%)1.18 18.18%7.69%00:04:19 1.45 5.Zumba 11 (0.78%)1.27 54.55%21.43%00:01:14 0.64 6.permits 7 (0.50%)1.29 14.29%22.22%00:07:15 2.14 7.garbage 6 (0.43%)1.50 16.67%11.11%00:01:33 2.50 8.Proposed Developments 6 (0.43%)1.00 0.00%33.33%00:03:55 8.33 9.soccer 6 (0.43%)1.00 0.00%0.00%00:00:43 2.00 10.Tai chi 6 (0.43%)1.17 33.33%0.00%00:03:09 1.17 Total Unique Searches …Aug 8 Aug 15 Aug 22 Aug 29 5050 100100 © 2018 Google All Users 100.00% Total Unique Searches City of Chanhassen All Web Site Data GO TO REPORT Rows 1 - 3 of 3 Overview Aug 1, 2018 -Aug 31, 2018 Explorer Summary 13,535 % of Total: 100.00% (13,535) 13,535 % of Total: 100.00% (13,535) 1.desktop6,88050.88% 2.mobile5,62541.60% 3.tablet1,0187.53% Users …Aug 8Aug 15 Aug 22 Aug 29 600600 1,2001,200 Device CategoryUsersUsers Contribution to total: Users 7.5% 41.6% 50.9% © 2018 Google All Users 100.00% Users City of Chanhassen All Web Site Data GO TO REPORT Rows 1 - 3 of 3 Overview Aug 1, 2018 -Aug 31, 2018 Explorer Summary 13,535% of Total: 100.00% (13,535)13,535% of Total: 100.00% (13,535) 1.desktop 6,880 50.88% 2.mobile 5,625 41.60% 3.tablet 1,018 7.53% Users …Aug 8 Aug 15 Aug 22 Aug 29 600600 1,2001,200 Device Category Users Users Contribution to total: Users 7.5% 41.6% 50.9% © 2018 Google All Users 100.00% Users AUGUST 2018 WEBSITE ANALYTICS OVERVIEW City of ChanhassenAll Web Site Data GO TO REPORT Language Users % Users 1.en-us 13,275 97.95% 2.fr 82 0.61% 3.en-gb 58 0.43% 4.en-ca 15 0.11% 5.ko 14 0.10% 6.zh-cn 13 0.10% 7.es-xl 9 0.07% 8.en 8 0.06% 9.es-419 8 0.06% 10.ru-ru 8 0.06% Audience Overview Aug 1, 2018 -Aug 31, 2018 Overview Sessions Pageviews …Aug 8 Aug 15 Aug 22 Aug 29 750750 1,5001,500 2,0002,000 4,0004,000 Users 13,535 New Users 10,990 Sessions 18,731 Number of Sessions per User 1.38 Pageviews 44,450 Pages / Session 2.37 Avg. Session Duration 00:02:07 Bounce Rate 56.82% New Visitor Returning Visitor 26.7% 73.3% © 2018 Google All Users100.00% Users SESSIONS VS. PAGEVIEWS 18,731 Sessions vs. 44,450 Pageviews Session: The period of time a user is actively engaged with our website, app, etc. Pageview: Total # of pages viewed. Repeated views of a single page are counted. HOW ARE THEY FINDING US? 10,004 Organic Search 3,151 Direct 493 Referral 140 Social WHAT ARE THEY USING TO VIEW OUR SITE? WHAT ARE THEY SEARCHING FOR?WHAT PAGES ARE THEY VISITING? NEW VS. RETURNING VISITOR 22,508 New Visitors 8,531 Returning Visitors WHAT CAN WE LEARN? Website traffic is back down after the 4th of July holiday. There has been an increase in searches unrelated to Park & Rec (our biggest source of traffic usually) with the election taking place. The main draws in August were jobs, agendas/minutes, Lake Ann Park, and elections information.