CC Minutes 1994 12 12CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason, Councilwoman
Dockendorf and Councilman Wing
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Tom Scott, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, Todd Gerhardt,
John Rask and Charles Folch
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
agenda with the following changes and additions: deleting items 8 and 10(b) per the applicants' requests, and
Councilwoman Dockendorf wanted to discuss the intersection of Highway 5 and CR 117 under Council
Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
PROCLAMATION DECLARING DECEMBER NATIONAL DRUNK AND DRUGGED DRIVING
PREVENTION MONTH.
Mayor Chmiel: The proclamation reads, Whereas drivers and pedestrians impaired by alcohol and other drugs
account for nearly 17,500 highway deaths annually; and Whereas, motor vehicle crashes are the number one
cause of death for children, adolescents and young adults in the United States; and Whereas, alcohol is involved
in nearly half of all traffic fatalities; and Whereas, injury and property damage resulting from alcohol-impaired
driving cause physical, emotional and economic hardship for hundreds of thousands of adults and young people;
and Whereas, comprehensive community based strategies to further reduce and prevent impaired driving
tragedies are known; and Whereas, health care costs resulting from motor vehicle injuries cost American society
over $14 billion a year; and save $35,000.00 in health care costs alone for each serious injury that is prevent.
Whereas, if we take a stand now, we can prevent impaired driving. Now Therefore, I, Donald J. Chmiel do
hereby proclaim December 1994 as National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month in the city of
Chanhassen. I also call upon all citizens, government agencies~ public and private institutions, businesses,
hospitals, and schools in the city of Chanhassen to promote awareness of causes of driver impairment existing
and proposed laws intended to further reduce and prevent impaired driving, and opportunities to establish safer
and healthier norms regarding the use of alcohol and other drugs for all citizens, particularly young people. I
think we're really looking at that, the nation is going to put forth this and I think each city, and our city as well,
should really stand out and be number one to prevent some of these things as we see them occurring. So with
that we will move right along with the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve ~he following
consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Resolution #94-127: Approve Senior Linkage Line Contract Renewal.
¢. Resolution #94-128: Receive Feasibility Study for Powers Boulevard (CR 17) Improvement Project No. 93-
29, Carver County Project.
e. Approval of Bills.
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
City Council Minutes dated November 28, 1994
Planning Commission Minutes dated November 16, 1994
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 15, 1994
g. Consider Granting Extension to Byerly's Interim Use Permit, Project 93-2 Site Grading.
h. Resolution #94-129: Accept Public Street Improvements in Willow Ridge 2nd Addition, Project 93-4.
i. Resolution #94-130: Accept Public Street Improvements in the Summit at Near Mountain 2nd Addition,
Project 93-2.
j. Resolution #94-131: Approve Contract Amendment No. I for the 1994 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation
Program, Project 94-9.
k. Resolution #94-132: Approve Change Order No. 3 for Lilac Lane, Project 91-4.
m. Resolution #94-133: Approve Resolution Authorizing Acquisition of Permanent and Temporary Easements
for Improvement Projects 91-17A, 91-17B and 93-26.
All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Dockendorf who abstained, and the motion carried.
I(L). APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR REGIONAL LRT TRAILS/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
NO. 10533 OVER TH 101 {HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT), PW 350.
Councilman Mason: My only issue is what kind of bridge we're going to get over TH 101 there. I understand
Hennepin County is fronting the money. This is for the regional trail and they're, now that the railroad bridge
has been torn down over TH 101, and we're getting a pedestrian bridge over there. Vinyl coated, fully enclosed
bridge. I guess I'd kind of like to see pictures or at least let Hennepin County 'know that xve want it to at least
look presentable. I'm not quite sure what they're talking about and Charles, you had mentioned we could send a
letter. Obviously it's not our money and I guess they can do pretty much whatever they want to with it but I
guess I'd like a little input. It could probably be very little.
Charles Folch: I'll send a letter along with this and request some formal drawings which would show in more
detail what it would look like.
Councilman Mason: Super. With that I would move approval of item l(l).
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Resolution #94-134: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Se'nn seconded to approve plans and specifications
for Regional LRT Trails/Pedestrian Bridge No. 10533 over TH 101 (Heunepin County Pmjee0, PW-350. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
2
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING: METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION TO SUBDIVIDE LOT 3, MINNEWASHTA
PARK INTO 2 LOTS; LOCATED NORTH OF ORCHARD LANE AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 7, 2540
ORCHARD LANE, OBED AND MILDRED MELONL
Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing.
Kate Aanenson: The applicant is proposing to subdivide 1.66 acres into 2 single family lots. This property is
bordered by Highway 7 on the north and Orchard Road on the south. To the east of the property is existing
non-conforming business. Both lots do meet the proposed standards of the RSF zone. Really the only issue
here is we...applieant of the fact that in order to get sewer to Tract A, they will have to extend services 100 feet
and they'll be required to comply with city standards for that. No other additional assessments will be charged
except at the time of building permit. The other issue is that there were some buildings on the outlot that staff
had met with the owners on to have removed. One of the buildings, it's identified in the report as a cabin. It's
kind of a I guess a multi purpose building that straddles the property line and this would be in non-
conformance. The applicant is prepared to move that building before this gets recorded so we don't end up
having a property line separating that. Other than that we would recommend approval with the conditions
outlined in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Is the applicant here this evening? Okay, is there anyone wishing to
address this issue at this particular time? If seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to close the public heating. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The public heating was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark, do you want to, do you have anything?
Councilman Senn: I'd move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike?
Councilman Mason: I have no comment. It looks good.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard.
Councilman Wing: Nothing.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I have nothing either. There's a motion on the floor with a second.
Resolution #94-135: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Subdivision
#94-19 as shown on the plans dated October 16, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Tract A, a detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
In lieu of the City's Surface Water Management fees, the applicant shall dedicate a drainage and utility
easement over the northerly 25 feet of Tracts A and B.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for extending sanitary sewer service to Tract A. Detailed construction
plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail
Plates shall be submitted to the city engineer for review and City Council approval. The applicant shall
also enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with a financial escrow to
guarantee installation of the sewer line and street restoration.
4. The standard 5 foot side, 10 foot front and rear lot line drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to
the City around both Tracts A and B.
5. Access to the lot shall be limited to Orchard Lane.
6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the MWCC, Health Department, and PCA for
extension of the sanitary sewer line.
7. Full park and trail fees be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount of the park fee in
force at the time of building permit application.
8. The existing garage shall be removed no later than December 31, 1994. Financial guarantees shall be
posted with the city to ensure compliance with this condition.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
ADOPT 1995 BUDGET INCLUDING RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 1995 TAX LEVY.
Mayor Chmiel: It seems like the person to address this is Don and I don't 'know where he went. Mr. Ashworth,
are you there? Oh there he is. It was suggested that we approve it and just move on.
Don Ashworth: I xvould like that. As this is your second hearing though, and I don't think that unless you
would like me to, to go through a repeat from the first hearing. I would suggest that we open this for public
comments and then if after public comments, if I could make a few statements about my cover memo, that
would be included.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there anyone wishing to address the 1995 budget including the tax certification?
This is your opportunity. Seeing none, you've got the floor Don.
Don Ashxvorth: We have had, really we've had five sessions. The first one was sort of short. I kind of hate to
count that one. At our last work session the Council had asked, oh by the way I do have Councilman Senn's
budget. I should pass that back down to him.
Councilman Senn: I grabbed it right before the meeting tonight.
Don Ashworth: Oh you got it? Okay. We tried to respond to each of the points that were presented. The
amount of savings in those areas was relatively small. About $7,700.00. I've got to thank Pam's efforts as she
;vent back through and really looked at some additional areas that she was able to come up ;vith an additional
City Council Meeting -December 12, 1994
$76,000.00 which, when added to the $7,700.00, produces net reductions of $83,700.00 and the Council will
recall after our fourth session we were $801,000.00 out of balance so the work that was done from that session
until the public, the official public hearing reduced that by about $801,000.00. We're identifying here an
additional $83,700.00. One point that we did not get an opportunity to talk about as a part of the work sessions
was whether or not the City Council wished to see the special referendum for park and recreation included as a
1995 item. I should note that if the Council does act, let's assume that you would act to approve my suggestion
of approving the budget with an additional $800,700.00 in cuts, you would very closely approximate the tax rate
for 1994. It'd be almost, maybe .2 of a percent increase. If you deleted the park referendum, that would delete
an additional $21,000.00 to produce overall cuts of about $105,000.00-$106,000.00. Our current estimates is to
get the budget to last year's tax rate would require cuts of about $100,000.00 so the extra $5,000.00 or
$6,000.00 in there is just, there are some end of year abatements and what not so you almost need a little bit
more than whatever you truly calculate so I think the $105-106 would produce a tax reduction, albeit very, very
small. One of the reasons that you may xvant to consider not including the dollars for the referendum, although
I support the Park and Rec very much, I've had an opportunity to meet with Springsted and meet with Charles.
We have a number of bonding obligations that we are faced with in 1995. In 1994 we stayed under the $10
million that your required to stay under if you want to sell your bonds as bank qualified. If it goes over the $10
million you're, well you may not even be able to sell them. But at issue is really clean up funding from 1994.
For example we did not bond for Chan Estates. West 78th Street realignment. There is 3-4 projects that will
total approximately $3 million. Then you have Galpin and the south frontage road. That's going to be $3 to $4
million. You've got Lyman water and sewer extensions. That's going to hit close to $2-$3 million. Powers
Boulevard will be $3 million. Funding for the second part of the elementary school xvill be about $1 to $2
million. So if you start adding all of those up and it exceeds the $10 million. So the only way you'll be able to
meet that would be to take certain projects. CR 17 would be a good example. Powers. That truly is a '95-96
project so you'd split the funding in half for that. Part of it representing funding for '95. The other half
funding in '96. I guess my point is, with those number of projects that we have already committed ourself to, I
sincerely question whether or not we would be able to also fund the referendum if it were approved. Now that
may be alright as well if you did the referendum in '95 and used that as a basis for sale in early 1996. But one
of the issues that I do not know about is whether or not, are Park and Recreation really looking to $1 million?
$2 million? Is it kind of on that bottom end? Or is it on the top end? The $5 to $6 million and I don't know
that answer. One other issue that we're going to have to address, in light of this overall bonding issue, is senior
housing and that issue has now moved itself up to about $5 1/2 million. And I really think I'm going to need to
re-examine that issue with the City Council and our consultants. That one definitely would be a '95-96 project
so you could split that one. But even at that you start adding up all those numbers and you quickly go to $10
million. The final is that staff does think that we have done a good job in trying to meet the requests from our
departments. There have been a number of sacrifices. Some of the areas I was a little disappointed that we
didn't get to talk about is the total changes that were included in the '95 budget to balance it. For example
nearly almost all of the new positions for 1995, we put those as late starts meaning April-May. We were able
to shave about a third to a fourth off of the total cost for each of those positions. We were able to increase and
put on one additional inspector so last time the Council looked at this, we were talking about one inspector and
one clerical person to help out. Now we're looking to two inspectors. One with a January-February start. One
with a April-May start. Overall I really think that it's a good budget. And the last point is, I would challenge
the Council to think of one year in the last four that we have not received a notice from the State whereby the
State has said, we're going to further, we promise you x amount of revenue. We've already cut that by 3% so
that becomes an additional cost that we have to work with with the 1995 budget. So our overall budget literally
went up by the 3% that we lost from the State and again that was covered through new growth. New growth
also picked up the cost associated with the new recreation center. New growth picked up the cost of living type
of costs that we were anticipating. New growth picked up the additional funding for equipment. And so that,
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
it's because of that new growth that we've been able to present a budget that does not increase taxes over 1994
and in fact, if approved as recommended, would actually create a tax decrease. Approval of that budget,
including that tax certification going along with it is recommended.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any discussion?
Councilman Senn: Well I guess I do.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, go ahead Mark.
Councilman Senn: I'm at a little, I'm going to say I'm at a little bit of a disadvantage because I did get the staff
report and get to read it over the weekend. However, my budget book xvas not returned to me and I had no
budget in front of me nor my original comments or questions in front of me to make any comparison between
the two. I got my book here when I came back tonight and sorry, but I haven't had time to go through the
many, many items but I guess I'm at a little bit of a loss, like I said because I'm not prepared to act on this
budget tonight. Reading staff's report through on the additional comments, many of my comments still have not
even been addressed. Specifically those comments which I made in salary related accounts where there were
increase in accounts and exceeding 20%-30%. In one case 250% and yet we're going from a cost of living
increase to 3% and not one of those have been addressed, at least as far as I could find in the staff report so
those questions I have still remain. I tried to do just a quick check here and I went into one account where I
had raised a question over $2,900.00 in a contributions retirement account increasing to $8,000.00. Somebody's
penciled in $2,900.00 next to the $8,000.00. I don't know if that means you've changed to $2,900.00. If that's
the case, that...say $5,000.00 and you're saying my comments for 8, a total of $7,700.00, if that's 5 in that one
item, I guess I want a chance to go through and analyze some more of these again before at least I'm willing to
commit that this is a final budget. And again, I really would like some further reviexv and answers as it relates
to those salary accounts because again, I don't see any of them addressed. Now unless that's an exercise that
Pam went through that's somehoxv being referred to here as something else and it relates to the salary accounts
and that's where the 837 savings is coming from, but that's not what you're saying here so it appears the 837 is
coming, or the...is coming from somewhere else. I'd still like to really address those issues so I guess that's
where I'm at.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Maybe with those salary issues that you're bringing up, part of that, maybe Don can
give an explanation of that.
Councilman Senn: I mean do you xvant to go through each one of them? I mean there are a number of them
here. Probably about 10.
Don Ashworth: Well except to say that, I mean the generalized increase.
Mayor Chmiel: What page were you referencing now in the budget?
Councilman Senn: Well we could take any number of them I suppose. Page 49 we had salary increases going
from $286,000.00 to $391,000.00 in one department category. Another department category here we had a 20%
increase. Another one we had 30% increase. I mean there's quite a number of them. I mean I brought those up
in the work session. And again, I don't see any of those addressed in the staff comment.
6
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Don Ashworth: I apologize. I did not have them marked from the xvork session. I recall as we went through
those I thought that Pam, I thought had done a good job in explaining. If they were new people, how those
affected the individual departments. If there had been reclassifications, how those affected them. There's a
person had been moved from, if their percentage as far as distribution of salary from one portion of the budget
versus another.
Councilman Senn: But Don when I asked those questions in the work session I was told we didn't know the
answer to them. I wasn't given answers. I was told we didn't know the answers and that was one of the reasons
why I gave you my book and my comments. I mean public safety, police administration went from
$110,000.00 to $152,000.00 supposedly with no new people being added find you know, not a 3% cost of living
increase, which would be $3,300.00. I mean that's a $40,000.00 some increase. And again, those are the
answers I'm looking for. Why?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I recall the discussion as well and I didn't think the answer was, we don't
know. I think on several occasions the answer was, well now we're sharing that person with such and such
department. Therefore, it was a reclassification of a position. Also adding a person, planning on adding a
person mid-year was some of the percentage increases. But I mean I think what your concern may be is that
we're bumping salaries up by an incredible amounts and that's not document at all. It's more of a, from my
recollection of the discussion, changing positions around. The only people that we're adding is we're fixing a
problem in the inspections department and we're adding a couple necessary personnel mid-year but those jumps
don't concern me because I thought I got a satisfactory answer as to why we were seeing the percentage
increases.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard.
Councilman Wing: As far as the salaries issues go, I think they were handled well. And we have our pay scale
and our pay plan and I'm not aware of anybody in this city that is above the median point. I don't care how
you raised their wages, they're not above the median point. But what frustrates me and one of the reasons I'd
like to stop the budget, I'd like to talk about wages. I don't think they're high enough. I think our people are
under paid. This is a growing city. We're expecting them to be here every night of the week. We're putting
pressures on them. This city is putting profound pressures on their employees and every year I've been here I've
said I think they're under paid. I don't think they should be at the median point. I think they should be well
above the median point and being paid at the bottom of the bigger cities. In one case that we just discussed
very recently, we have a significant department head that isn't even being union wages. So if there's any
growth, anybody can pick any numbers out of here they want but they still aren't above the median position, and
that's our pay scale. So no one's been getting raises. No one's been getting bumped. The one person is grossly
under paid. Is below union wage, as I see it and if you want to stop and talk about wages, we've got some
major bumps coming. I could find another 3%, I could find an additional 3% in this budget just on wages if
you want to stop and talk about it. So I think our people are paid at the median or under and we're getting a lot
of work out of them so I don't think there's any pay issues here whatsoever. Other than as the format and Mark
is concerned about the format and the explanation and the clarification and one thing he did say the other night
was, xvhy can't we, if you're split 10 ways, why can't we have a listing of where the 10%% are so we can see
them all in one spot. And I think in the future that would be an excellent idea. But there's no significant pay
raises in this budget.
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Don Ashworth: And I had agreed to that from the other night that I would provide that listing but I just, to
have that completed from last Monday night for distribution on Thursday was virtually impossible I felt. I
would agree it would be in there in the future.
Councilman Senn: Well Dick, I'm not advocating that there are wholesale increases in salaries. Okay. What
I'm doing is I'm looking at a budget. In that budget for example in public works/city garage, I see the positions
all labeled out. I see 90% of one. 90% of another. 25% of the other. 1994 I see the same percentages from
'94 as '95. No net change in personnel. Then [ go over to the salary line and I see increases from $104,000.00
to $121,000.00. That is a 20% increase. Yet I go back on the assumption that the budget is a 3% cost of living
increase. Now, how do the percentages and the bodies remain the same and how do we go up 20%. There are
a number of these in here. I raised those the other night. I still don't have the answers to them. I have no
intention of voting on this budget until I do.
Don Ashworth: So you're picking out engineering?
Councilman Senn: Don, I'm telling you an example. If you want to go through the specifies, I can go through
every one of them right now. It's up to you, I don't care.
Don Ashworth: Well the one, City Council was made aware of the fact that there's one department head
position that I felt xvas very much out of whack. Going back to Councilman Wing's point and that is to see
somebody of Charles' caliber take a position let's say in Crystal, and I'm not picking on Crystal, but simply
because he could make $5,000.00 more just seemed totally inappropriate. Every assistant position I looked at in
the Twin Cities area, of a decent size. You know the Roseville, Burnsvilles, whatever, because that might be a
potential candidate. Those assistants are making more money than Charles if making now. So the one
modification that is included in here is a bump up in his salary as a percent of midpoint and Charles and I have
reached that agreement. Otherwise under engineering, the percent increases there are just the normal increases
that would apply. I mean I don't see where that's out of whack.
Councilman Senn: Well you're in a different category than I am but if you want to look at engineering or
public works, you have basically the same percentages in '94 as '95 other than under city engineer where you've
gone from 50% to 55%. Under the salaries you've gone from $97,000.00 to $109,000.00 which is a 10%
increase. Now, if that 10% increase is being caused 3% by cost of living and 7% by a raise for Charles or
change of category, then why can't it be explained in the explanation that that dollar amount is there for Charles'
increase. There's absolutely no explanation here under salaries at all, okay. As I go to public works, city
garage accounts. I have 90%, 90%, 25%. '94, same percentages in '95. No change in staff. Okay, I see an
increase from $104,000.00 to $121,000.00. That's over a 20% increase with no changes in staff. Take that
20%. Deduct the 3% for cost of living, 17%'s going somewhere. Okay. That again has not been put in the
explanation or any of the answers that I've been given in ielationship to my question. I mean now those are just
two. Again, there's a lot more than two in here. These are for example purposes.
Don Ashworth: I don't know how you wish to handle this Mr. Mayor. Again, I did not see those as questions
from our last work session. Or at least I thought they had been responded. I responded that I would take and
for the 1996 budget process, that I would include an additional exhibit that would show every employee. The
salary changed. The proposed changes, midpoint, etc. I know that in previous years that you have personally
asked for that information and I've provided it to you. Most of that is generated under your position
classification plan. And again, staff is responsible for administering it. There are no salaries in here that are not
in conformance with the plan and we've talked about them now with a generalized increase but where additional
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
people are shoxvn, xvhat the additional costs for those people are. So I guess I'm at a little loss as to how to
further respond this evening.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Some of the things that I guess Don and I had discussions on this after Monday night's
meeting and we visited for some time after that meeting. I indicated to him that I did have a desire to insure
that the 1995 budget did not produce a property tax increase in that discussion. In getting back from that to
where we're at with the questions that Mark is involving, I think that much of what has been brought to mind in
showing what had been shown within each of these funds, whether it be salaries or wages or supplies and
equipment, and the other things that you had also asked. I see that, from coming up with some of those specific
questions I thought that Don too was going to address that within next year's budget so that we do know exactly
where those things are going to be going and the explanations for them within. So it would eliminate some of
the problems that we're seemingly tO have with the budget this particular year. As I see the reductions to come
back down to about another $83,000.00. $83,700.00, I too feel that there may be a need for the funding of the
referendum for the park and trail but I also see that $21,000.00 to be reduced from that budget as well, which
would bring it down to $104,700.00. And by, even though I think that need is there for those trails and I've
advocated that, there's some places that I think you have to choose and pick and sort of draw from and as far as
at least my own feeling, I think government is becoming very costly and we, I know have tried over the years in
trying to be fiscally responsible for the residents within the community. Trying to determine that we not have
any increases within taxes from the city portion. We've always said we can't do anything with the County. We
can't do anything xvith the school district, and we can't. Those things are there but with those two there, that
would bring the budget into compliance from where it was before and I think it would probably make the
citizens happy. I know it would make me happy, but I'm not sure as to the balance of Council so I'll throw that
open.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Well I'll take it if you're going to throw it. I understand your concern in wanting
to continue our track record of keeping the budget with no, or extremely minimal increases. However it's hard
to reconcile that with thinking back to the really productive, nice meeting that we had with Park and Rec and
our commitment to let them pursue this issue. Just because we are funding this potential referendum, and we
don't know if it's going to fly or not. Or xvhether we'll even submit it.
Mayor Chmiel: Or whether we can, yes.
Councihvoman Dockendorf: Or whether we can. I'd like there as a contingency. We can always carry it over.
But I think given, I'm thinking of what happened in Eden Prairie and the overwhelming support for that
referendum and I'd like the opportunity to explore if that's what our citizens want. So although certainly the
biggest trend this year, as we've seen from the elections, is keeping the budget in line and fiscal
conservativeness. I'm balancing that with the potential desire of our citizens to want to acquire additional
parkland that next year may not be available so I'd like to keep that $21,000.00 in the budget with you know,
the 'knowledge that it may not be used.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike?
Councilman Mason: Well, I'm ready to move on the budget tonight, notwithstanding some of the other concerns
expressed. I firmly believe that the 5 of us that sit up here are leaders of this city and I also firmly believe that
xve have hired some very capable people to manage this city. I think that's been done and I think that's been
done in the four years that I've been on Council and I see no reason why that would change. The work session
we had last Monday night, we spent a good deal of time talking about $1,000.00 over here, or $5,000.00 over
9
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
here, over a certain amount. I looked at the bottom line and saw that the bottom line was in fact where it was
supposed to be. Now I will freely admit I do not do the budget in my household, but I also know for a fact that
some items go over the budget and some items go under the budget and we're still solvent so the bottom line
must be intact. And that's how I see this issue tonight. So in that regard I'm ready to move on it. I'm
concerned about our bonding capabilities. I don't know, from a management perspective Don or can we do
something like that7 What Colleen suggested. Hold the, say we're going to do it but maybe we won't.
Don Ashworth: If you got voter approval in 1995 and you then, during the course of '95 you said well geez
you know, we just don't have the bonding capacity, you could go into the first part of 1996 and sell those
bonds. You could instruct the park department to go out and wherever possible. I mean if you knew you had
the successful referendum so you knew the dollars were going to be coming, you could instruct them to go out
and negotiate for those properties. Enter into purchase agreements where you would have relatively small
amount of money down with the actual closing would occur in 1996. So you could literally sign up the
property owner in 1995 and close on the property in '96. That's assuming you had a willing seller. If you
didn't, it'd be back through the condemnation process and that probably would take you through '96 anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: In looking, and just looking at the park as one of the issues, that would still be outside of the
MUSA line so I don't see that going quite that fast either. For one of the things they were looking for. The
trails are another issue. And Don and I did discuss that portion. In fact I brought that up. Could xve go that
particular way by acquiescing and giving a purchase price with that particular individual who owns that property
and making an offer and seeing it they could just, we would put x number of dollars and then hold that until
we're able to get through, and if that funding were to go through. And if not, then you just lose those dollars.
Councilman Mason: Right. If xve choose to delay the referendum until an election year, that $21,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Would be eliminated.
Councilman Mason: I mean it's gone. I mean it essentially wouldn't cost us, right?
Mayor Chnfiel: It's not needed.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's a carry over.
Councilman Mason: Well no. But see if we don't, if we have the referendum on a general election ballot, it
doesn't cost us $21,000.00.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, right. But I'm saying if we don't do it next year, the $21,000.00 is unspent
and it gets carried over.
Councilman Wing: And I just want to comment along with Mike, you have the floor and I appreciate that but
on this $21;000.00, if we look out to that Minnewashta Regional Park, which we could have had 4 years ago for
$100,000.00, xve're now buying it for $300,000.00. This $21,000.00 is going to be a pretty small amount of
money if the land continues to grow. So if we in fact don't approve the $21,000.00 and they need it, and we
delay it a year, is in fact the land cost not going to far exceed that $21,000.007 I mean a penny wise, a dollar
cheap, or how does that go?
Councilman Mason: Close...
10
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Councilman Wing: Okay, grease the skids. But this $21,000.00 may be a minor issue if we delay that
referendum or the land purchase for years so I'm not so sure, I concur with Colleen. I didn't mean to.
Councilman Mason: No, no, that's a valid point. I can see leaving the $21,000.00 in but I think there are a lot
of other things we need to look at before we decide to hold that collection next year. With that referendum. I
mean this bonding, with what we do have coming up, it's got to happen is a major concern and ~e can't exceed
that $10 million. We just can't do it.
Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly right. With the other needs that we've already committed to prior to that, I guess
that's where I'm coming from.
Councilman Mason: Right. And Don, I do understand where you're coming from with maintaining zero
increase. I think Richard does raise a very good point that maybe we should at least leave that in there with the
understanding that we don't have to use it. But I think he is right. As land prices increase, saving $21,000.00
now, I suspect we'll lose it 5 years down the road.
Councilman Senn: You're going to lose more than that 5 years down the road because when there's no growth
there to fund the budget you're going to find...
Councilman Mason: Well, well, that's true too.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. So any Other discussion? Richard.
Councilman Wing: Something else I wanted to comment on this. I think when I first started, and one of my
favorite councilwomen that I sat next to back then, and both of us kind of liked to get into the micro managing
and the line item veto if you will. I remember a lawn mower issue and finally I kind of came to the reality that
I really don't know what Harold's doing out there. As a matter of fact, last year I think I semi embarrassed
some of the Council when I said, I went out and spent a whole morning going through he equipment and talking
to Harold and I finally said you know, no one has the right to cut his budget except Harold because he knows
what's going on unless you've been out there and talked to him. Same with the fire department. Pretty hard for
you people to cut some issues here unless as a chief I say it's okay to cut them because I know what I need and
you don't. I could cut them but maybe we should cut other things. You know the department kind of have to
have their responsibilities I feel so I guess I really agree with Mike that it's the bottom line and it's the trust for
management and as I've spent this week, and part of last week and today in Don's office going over some of the
very issues Mark's talked about, I'm really comfortable that the job's been done. The bottom line makes sense.
One thing that is new here though that is hurting us a little bit is this equipment funding and for my 30 years in
the city, we've waited until a piece of equipment is down the tubes and suddenly we say, you mean a dump
truck costs $210,000.007 Well ~ve don't have the money. So we either go to a referendum or we react and we
panic. So this year the change has occurred. We said you know, we know that we've got 1971 fire trucks that
ought to be off the road. When do you want to change them so all we've done in the fire department is say, we
need to get on a schedule and we need to plan. Every Council up until this one has wanted to avoid that
because it means kicking x dollars into the kitty that they don't want to be responsible for because it may mean
a .2% increase in taxes. At some point we have to start that and then eventually it will level out but there, if
there's a .2% increase this year, that's it. We're only saying that rather than have a referendum and buy a half
million dollar fire truck, let's start planning for it right no,v, this year. So I want to defend that small increase
because that's good planning for the future. Good management for the future and it hasn't been done up until
this Council's had the nerve to tackle it. Thank you.
11
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: You're welcome. Okay, any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: Oh, I support Mark's comments. I think Don, the format could be improved. It could be
easier to read. Easier to track. Mark should be able to answer his questions by going right straight through it.
We ought to 'know exactly where your salary's coming from. It's paid 10%, 5%, 50%. Not, we shouldn't have
to go through, I don't like the format. It isn't worth stopping the budget this year but I think next year you can
do a much better job on the format for a laymen sense easy to ready it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? No other discussion? Let's call the question. Is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: Yeah. I will make a motion approving the 1995 budget, including tax certification. I
would like to see that the $21,000.00 is maintained in the budget with the $83,700.00 cut. I would also like it
noted that the $21,000.00, what's the wording on this? That the $21,000.00, if it is not spent for a referendum
in 1995 for Park and Rec would then be carried over to 1996.
Council~voman Dockendorf: I'll second the motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, motion's been made and seconded. Is there any other discussion?
Don Ashworth: If staff could have a clarification. I'm assuming that what you're saying is you'd like to see the
$21,000.00 put as a contingency? Is that what I'm hearing you say? Or do you want to see it left? Right now
it's under Park and Recreation. Did you want it left there?
Councilman Mason: Well if it stays under Park and Rec it is earmarked for the referendum, right?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Mason: Well I think it should stay in Park and Rec. Are you okay with that?
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Well it's going to carry over automatically. I don't think xve need to earmark it for
the '96 budget.
Councilman Mason: Oh that's fine. Okay, that's fine. I'll accept that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? The only thing that we're doing basically with this is we have
found the $83,700.00 that was previously discussed and rather than include the $21,000.00, that's going to
remain in the budget for Park and Rec to either go for a referendum in '95 or carry this over to 1996 as part of
the regular election portion, correct?
Councilman Mason: That's my understanding.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And with that it would then leave our budget for the city at 2/10 of 1% increase from
the city standpoint. Is that correct?
Don Ashworth: Probably a little bit less than that but yeah, right around 2/10 of 1% would be. So you'd move
from 25.5 to about 25.7.
12
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Resolution #94-136: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the 1995
budget, including Tax Certification, mainlaining the $21,000.00 in the Park and Rec budget and cuffing
$83,700.00. Ail voted in favor, except Mayor Chmiel and Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor? I don't want to put Mark on the spot. Mark can you, just off the cuff be
specific on your no vote? That might be helpful for next year. Or would it take more.
Councilman Senn: Well, I guess if you want me to be specific, I'm going to go back to work session. I mean
yes, we've had work sessions. At the first work sessions we had the departments come in and basically present
us budgets, okay. Then the budget comes in for hearing and the Council hasn't even had a discussion about the
line items in the budget, yet we're out at the public and presenting a city budget that has the word proposed on
it. And that budget has increased city spending over a million dollars. And I'm sorry, I go through a budget
and I don't budget from the basis that it's going to increase or not increase taxes. I go through a budget and say
what's needed and the only way that I can answer that question, at least in the responsibility I feel I've been
given as a council person is to ask the questions and understand the budget before I vote on it. And I'm sorry, I
don't understand this budget at all. I can't understand a budget where I'm told that there's no changes in
personnel. There's a 3% cost of living increase yet in almost every personnel account there are 10% plus
increases, okay. And I still don't have a good explanation of that. That's just one item. Okay, there's a lot of
other items in here that are the same type of thing. I just I don't understand the budget. I don't see how this
Council can adopt it but they've chosen to do so, so be it and I'll go from there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, if I could ask your.
Mayor Chmiel: You're out of order Mr. Mason. No you're not.
Councilman Mason: I'm assuming your dissent is because of the increase.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Yes. Plus the fact that I also feel that in acquiescing park properties could still be done
outside of the MUSA line because those properties are not moving that quickly, nor the prices raising within
that particular location. Plus the fact that I think with the 15% increase that we've gone through on the entirety
of that and the total amount of dollars that have come back in, I still think there are still some dollars that can
be pulled and tightened a little more to come up with where I felt we should be and that's where I am.
Councilman Wing: Which is zero?
Mayor Chmiel: Which is zero.
Councilman Wing: Are you still holding discussion?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
13
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Councilman Wing: Don, if that equipment fund, instead of 4% was 3.8%, that would even out the budget.
Wouldn't we still meet our needs and generally meet our needs and our gains7
Don Ashworth: That was one area that Councilman Senn had asked about.
Councilman Wing: No, I don't mean pay down off the existing fund. I'm just if saying the 4% that's needed for
equipment, what if we just simply took 3.8% rather than 4%, doesn't that kind of start to even out the money
and need to have a zero increase?
Councilman Senn: No. Not on the basis that that's being funded.
Don Ashxvorth: I think your percents as they're applied to a property tax base is different than the percents that
are applied to the budget. So I don't think that 2/1 of a percent back against the budget produces the same
dollars...
Councilman Wing: Wouldn't drop it enough.
Don Ashworth: I did have, and that's the reason Pam was running back and forth because we had forgotten
about...question but we did go through a cash analysis of what would happen if you did not provide the
$427,000.00 and basically what that, I'1I pass these down. The first sheet basically shows meeting all of our
equipment obligation as we're looking at it over the 20 year period. Into that period we're still fully funding
depreciation and you're able to restart the cycle. The second page was, I think Mark had suggested that we
decrease that by like $100,000.00 and that that should produce, everything should kind of be fine. And what
happens in the year 2014, you move into a position of being a $1.3 million in the hole during a timeframe
where you're going to be restarting acquisition processes so you're going to be looking to liabilities in that year
of probably $900,000.00 and that doesn't include any cost of living type of fact9rs in there. So you could very
easily be looking to trying to fund well over a million dollars in acquisitions and being a $1.2 million in the
hole. The third sheet cuts it from the $3.7, that I think we discussed, to $377,000.00 and that similarly runs you
in the hole 2014 and again places that Council in a very difficult position to try to carry out funding at that
point in time. Staff continues to make the recommendation that the funding levels that we've shown in there, in
the current budget should insure that we meet equipment needs next year and the years thereafter without
literally devastating the future City Council so our recommendations stays the same.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll move on to item number 5.
REVIEW CONCEPT PLAN FOR REVISED PLAT OF TOWER HEIGHTS.
Tom Scott: Mr. Mayor, Council members. This matter is here tonight because Mr. Beddor has approached the
city with a settlement proposal to resolve the ongoing litigation over the extension of Nez Perce and in a
nutshell the settlement proposal involves Mr. Beddor dropping his opposition to the Nez Perce extension. And
secondly, in the context of the settlement there would be a revised Tower Heights plat which would be
submitted to the Council which instead of accessing off of the extended Nez Perce Drive to the north, would
access to the south from Lake Lucy Road. Now in your packets is a letter from myself outlining the settlement
framexvork. There's also a concept plan that's been submitted by Mr. Beddor's planners which outlines hou/the
revised Toxver Heights plat would lay out. And if I could briefly just go back through a little bit. I think most
people are familiar with the history of the litigation but let me just go back a little bit and outline where we
were and where we're at at this point in time. Back in May of 1993 the City decided to construct the extension
14
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
of Nez Perce Drive through to Pleasant Viexv Road and directed condenmation of Mr. Beddor's property to
acquire his lot upon which the right-of-way would be constructed. Mr. Beddor sued the city challenging the
extension of Nez Perce Drive on environmental grounds. That went to Court in Carver County in February and
March of this year. And in July of this year we received a ruling from the District Court Judge in favor of the
city and dismissing Mr. Beddor's lawsuit. Mr. Beddor has appealed that lawsuit to the Minnesota Court of
Appeals. We're right in the process of that appeal at this point in time. That appeal should be decided in June
or July of this year. From our standpoint we've always felt that we have a strong legal position and continue to
feel that we have a strong legal position on the appeal. Once we get over the hurdle of the environmental
challenge, to the extension of Nez Perce, we're then in a position where we can initiate condemnation
proceedings to acquire Mr. Beddor's lot for purposes of constructing the roadway. Now at the same time that
Nez Perce Road...that was, the preliminary plat approval was in late 1993. What's happened now is that Mr.
Beddor has approached us with a settlement proposal which, as outlined in my report has really four aspects to
it. Number one as I mentioned, he would drop his lawsuit and agree that Nez Perce Drive would be extended
through to Pleasant View Road. Secondly Mr. Beddor would donate to the city the necessary right-of-way to
construct Nez Perce Drive across his property. The city would drop it's proposal to acquire his entire lot. We
would simply acquire the portion that's necessary for the roadway. Thirdly, there would be a revised Tower
Heights plat that would be submitted along with the settlement proposal which would provide for access from a
50 foot outlot that the city owns off of Lake Lucy Road accessing then through that outlot to the north to
service this 13 lot revised Tower Heights plat. Mr. Beddor is in the process of negotiating with the current
developer of Tower Heights to acquire the right to develop that property and this settlement would obviously be '
premised upon Mr. Beddor being in a position where he would come back to the city with the revised Tower
Heights plat accessing off of Lake Lucy Road. What we're looking for is direction from the Council as to
whether or not they want us to enter into settlement negotiations with Mr. Beddor along these lines. What this
does is number one, it stops the litigation. Number two, it does result in Nez Perce Drive being extended
through to Pleasant View Road. And it gets it accomplished in this next construction season. It also involves
accessing the 13 lot Tower Heights subdivision from Lake Lucy Road through that 50 lot subdivision. That's
what we're here for tonight to get direction from the Council. If the Council is interested in pursuing this
settlement agreement, then there would be a formal submission of the plat by Mr. Beddor, the negotiation of the
terms of the settlement agreement. The plat would then go back through the public hearing process and come
back to the Council for final approval along with the settlement agreement. If the Council is not interested in
pursuing this concept, then there won't be any discussions that take place and we'll continue on with the ongoing
litigation and the condemnation once this particular litigation is concluded. So I'm open to any questions or
comments. Mr. Beddor's attorney, Larry Moloney is here tonight and I believe would like to make some
comments at the appropriate time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Just let me ask you your opinion. In this it appears as though the city has a case with
the existing proposal as we have submitted. Judge Goggins has reviewed this and has come forward to support
basically the City of Chanhassen and I don't think he does that just because he wants to do it. He bases
everything on facts that are there. I was just looking for your opinion if we continued on and furthering the
court's actions. Just give me a little bit of your feel for that.
Tom Scott: As far as the merits of our case?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Tom Scott: We're in a strong position. We fully expect to win the appeal. I don't think this is, we're not here
because xve feel there's any weakness in the legal position. It's a question of, if this alternate access is
15
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
acceptable to the city, xve stop the cost of the additional litigation. We get the road constructed sooner and Mr.
Beddor would donate the right-of-way as opposed to us condemning it and paying him for that right-of-way. So
it's not a matter of any change in the legal position. We fully expect to win the appeal.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, does Council have any other questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What kind of dollars are we talking about in terms of estimated legal, additional
legal fees and what you would expect condemnation to cost?
Tom Scott: Well on the legal fees, on the appeal that's ongoing right now, a ballpark guesstimate might be
$10,000.00.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And for the value of the land?
Tom Scott: That one I don't knoxv.
Councilwoman Dockendorf:
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilwoman Dockendorf:
Kate, do you have any inkling? Not at all?
You had to expect this question. Come on guys.
Kate Aanenson: I don't know, Charles may know more than me on this.
Roger Knutson: How many acres are we talking about?
Tom Scott: I think we're talking about roughly 5 acres and ! believe Mr. Beddor purchased the property, and
Mr. Moloney can correct me if I'm wrong, out of Mr. Owens' bankruptcy proceedings 3 years ago I believe for
$100,000.00. Now what the value of that property is today, I don't -know.
Roger Knutson: That'd be a benchmark for it,
Couneil~voman Dockendorf: Okay. So that is significant. Yeah. Very minimal at this point.
Councilman Senn: A minimum of $150,000.00.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Yeah I would think so.
Councilman Mason: Well that's conjecture and I.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I mean, $30,000.00 an acre, that's not out of range.
Mayor Chmiel: I think what we're looking at is discussionary but I don't think it's realistic. Maybe Don, can
you.
Don Ashworth: Well the issue that I'd like the Council to be axvare of is that as it currently sits we're looking at
condemnation of the entire 5 acres and I think before the process is completed, well two things will happen.
16
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Number one, if that would occur I would anticipate the city turning around and selling a good portion of that for
2, 3, possibly 4 lots. I don't think that Mr. Beddor would care to see that occur and would like to see that the
filing's amended probably just to carry out the acquisition for the road solely and would want to take control
how those lots were developed and see potentially 2 lots developed instead of if the city were to d6 it, it's 3 or
4. I think in any of those instances the cost implications, at least as it deals with acquisition of the land, is not
really an issue. I mean because that will sort itself out. I don't, I think being concerned with the cost of
litigation and then moving that on up through state court system in recognition that it might happen again as it
deals with, is there a public purpose or the actual taking of the land and you could have the same process occur
one more time. With the actual bidding process you could have the same issue occurring again. To me those
are the intangibles. That those are the ones that maybe move this from being a cost factor of $70,000.00 to
potentially $140,000.00 to potentially $200,000.00.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, it's not as specific an answer as I had hoped. My second question relates to
the current property oxvner of Tower Heights, JMS. And maybe Mr. Moloney has a better answer as to their
willingness to sell the property, or otherwise this whole argument is moot.
Tom Scott: I can address that one initially. Based on my conversations with Mr. Moloney and also the attorney
for JMS we xvould, I don't think we'd be, we wouldn't be here tonight if that wasn't a real probability and I'm
comfortable xvith, based on xvhat I've been told that there have been significant negotiations and that there's a
high probability of that happening.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Those are the extent of my questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: I don't have any questions at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: No questions, no.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard?
Councilman Wing: Just questions or no comments at this point. Will we have a question period or comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Well we can...for questions as we go.
Councilman Mason: I'll comment later.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anything more?
Tom Scott: Just to follow up maybe briefly on what Don indicated. The figure I cited for the attorneys fee
relates to the ongoing environmental lawsuit, the appeal. If there's additional litigation over the condemnation,
there would be additional fees in connection with the condemnation process itself.
Councilman Wing: Do we have a total of legal fees to date on this issue?
17
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Don Ashworth: I really don't and the reason for that is, I can tell you that the fund which was established for a
connection and set up as a construction project as we would do Chan Estates or any other type of project
currently has a deficit position of $109,000.00 and that's literally as of today. But the Court did axvard the city
it's expert witness fees and all of the consulting fees and to the best of my kno~vledge, that amount has not been
paid but that did go through one of your last packets. My recollection was the amount of the reimbursement
was about $30,000.00. Secondly, included in those cost figures of $109,000.00, minus the 30, are the costs
associated with the feasibility study itself which actually carries out the construction of the road, or at least the
premise for that and those costs are proposed to be assessed back to benefitting properties and I don't know, I
would assume that a good estimate for feasibility study costs which would be a cost of normally be in there. A
cost that we would recoup our money on, would be about $30,000.00 to $40,000.00. So if we look at just pure
attorney fees, the cost we haven't been reimbursed, I would say that we're $60,000.00 to $70,000.00 under the
$110,000.00 so $40,000.00, maybe up to $50,000.00.
Councilman Wing: Don, 1% of the tax capacity or 1% is $100,000.00. So without this la~vsuit we would have
had a tax cut this year.
Don Ashworth: Well actually see, that's sitting as a deficit just like Chan Estates is. I mean that Chan Estates,
we'll bond for that this next year. The only difference there is that Chan Estates we know that the assessments
are going to equal the cost associated with that project. For this particular one, I can't sit here and tell you that
I know that assessments. Well in fact xve know that assessments will not equal the cost of the, what you want
to call general attorney fees.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I know that we have quite a few people here from Tower Heights. Or I should say off
in that specific area. They certainly aren't there from Tower Heights yet, who have had discussions previously
and have indicated their concerns to us. I think we know at least where everyone is coming from. They were
satisfied with the road selection that we had taken by the city and were very supportive for what we have taken
a position on and taking it through the court systems. If there's something new that you may have, this is not a
public hearing but I just thought I'd like to just open that to you. If there's something nexv other than the fact of
what we've already discussed previously, I would entertain. Would you come up and just indicate those other
concerns that you just might have.
Rod Johnson: Quickly, so you get it on record...my name is Rod Johnson...Lake Lucy.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you go back to that, just to the microphone Rod so we can pick it up for our tape.
Rod Johnson: My name is Rod Johnson and I'm on 1061 Lake Lucy Road.
Councilman Mason: We've got copies of that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, we all have that.
Rod Johnson: I don't want to go over the old points but...have been said because I know there are cases this has
been all the way through. What we look at in our street too is precedence in the case of the city. Planning
Commission last week, which I did hear come out, said hold your course and I'm sure they probably...we don't
feel that it's worth backing up on this. They also said that we're sitting here with a situation that has been
thrown in but hasn't been put up for public debate, although that...'89 or ~vhenever this thing started. So those
are issues that have come up that ~ve see, that I know are different. There are all the safety factors and I 'kno~v
18
City Council Meeting- December 12, 1994
the arguments... It seems to us anyway that we're looking at it more or less as a, it feels like kind of blackmail
in a xvay or extortion because we're sitting here saying, wait a minute...and I believe you also heard that the '89
codes are being used. Well we could use '89 codes for the access to Lake Lucy. I don't -know where that
originated from but I know that that one house on the one side has a setback minimum of 24 feet and the other
one is 27 feet from that road, where this proposed thing would come out on Lake Lucy. And that particular
case, if you use '89 codes...Thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I think what you're really saying is that was specifically as an outlot rather
than be designated as a street because 50 feet does not constitute street width. 60 feet normally does. Thanks.
Okay. I presume that you are sort of representing your neighbors there as well.
Audience: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: And I appreciate that. Was there a hand in back there that raised for any.
Audience: No, I just wanted to say that I'm a part of it...part of Lake Lucy Road altogether.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Senn: Don on the question he had raised. If the 50 foot outlot was not for road purposes, what is
it for7
Kate Aanenson: When the outlot was taken it was a possibility and at that time it was 50 feet. I think that's
what he's referring to. Now our streets are at 60 feet.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so at the time that it was taken it was for road purposes.
Kate Aanenson:
option but as we
towards Peaceful
We always look at options of where future street extensions could be. And that ~vas a possible
indicated as we went through the platting process, it was determined that the road would go
Lane and tie into Nez Perce.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Dan Rogers: My name is Dan Rogers. I'm at 6500 Nez Perce Road. When I went through the Villager I
noticed that this was in the public hearing area of the agenda but I think in the interest of time I'll do some self
editing here and try to condense this. But what I will do is send my entire letter to each one of you and ask
that you read it because I do feel I have some very good points. So if you'll bear with me for a moment I'm
going to edit as I go here. I am sympathetic that we've revisited this issue numerous times and it's as frustrating
for the rest of us as it is for staff and Council. I guess the main points I'd like to make that the way things are
for everyone right now are working very well. Things are working on Nez Perce, Peaceful. What I would
suggest is that this whole issue is getting to be xvay too expensive. Earlier in the meeting we were counting
pennies and now we're throwing out figures of $60,000.00 and spend quite a bit more depending on whether this
is appealed or whether it goes on to condemnation. What I would suggest is that we leave everything as it is
with the exception of Tower Heights. We need to get that development out somewhere and I would suggest we
do that via Peaceful. That would allow a fe~v things. It would make JMS happy. It could possibly negate the
need to take away part of the Stasson's front yard. They live on Peaceful Lane now. The road as it would be,
if we do that, would have to carry much less traffic. And by doing this I think we'd have a win-win situation
19
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
for everyone. No one would be any worse off then they are right now. The city, or the residents of
Chanhassen, the city, very respectable amount of dollars and if we get this issue off our backs once and for all
because I think this has really been a fairly weighty issue for everyone. Lake Lucy, Nez Perce, Peaceful, the
Council and the staff. This is really draining a lot of resources from our city. Even if, I don't know what the
particulars are but if Beddor was mandated to pay for the staff time for this issue, we still would need to hire
staff to replace them because they can't go about their business...so I'd like to ask that the City look very
seriously at approaching the landowner, Mr. Beddor, about accessing Tower Heights via Peaceful and leaving
the rest of the neighborhood as they are. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Larry Moloney: Can I make a short comment Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: I noticed you were cut off at the Planning Commission.
Larry Moloney: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: You needn't look quite that sad but I'd be willing to just listen for just a few moments.
Larry Moloney: ...everybody is familiar with this and I don't think we need to belabor the... I guess my
introductory remark is that I come in the holiday season suggesting peace and bearing gifts because it was the
intention. It doesn't sound like it's...I can hear comments right but it was the intention of Mr. Beddor to try to
put this matter to rest and I've been in the litigation game for about 20 years now and everybody in the course
of litigation understands where you have deep feelings and passions are involved, and we've got plenty of that in
this ease. But when it comes to settlement time, usually what the parties do is look at things in terms of
compromise and self interest, and I've got to say this settlement proposal is unprecedented in my 20 year career
because it's the only settlement I've ever proposed to an opposing party where if they take the settlement they'll
be better off than with...would possibly be, even if they win the litigation. And that's true of this settlement.
Let's just look at what happens if it be settled. The city gets the Nez Perce extension. I've been here since May
of 1993 listening to your meetings and I know that was the principle concern of the city, and that's why we
came to the city with that proposal because we know that means something to you. We opposed it. We
opposed it for what I believe were good reasons but the fact of the matter is, we're willing to give in and give
you what you've always principally wanted. Not only do you get the extension but you get it for free from the
standpoint of land, which you won't get il' you go forward with the...even if you prevail. There's no need to go
through a condemnation proceeding and to bear the legal expense. Or to bear the expense of paying for Mr.
Beddor's property. The only thing that Mr. Beddor gets frankly is the opportunity to lose money. He laughs
about what the situation is with JMS. I'm telling you as Mr. Beddor's attorney, if you accept this settlement,
Mr. Beddor loses money. If you accept the settlement, you save money. I think in the neighborhood of
$200,000.00. The only parties who I think have some negative concerns, and we might as well put them on the
table because they're no secret, are the people who are on either side of this outlot. There isn't any question that
it's feasible to go out Outlot A. That's why the city obtained the outlot back in the 1980's. To build a road.
But it's a 50 foot road, not a 60 foot road that will take a variance and it xvould be a road that would mean that
the people on either side would be approximately 4 feet within the front setback requirement for the city. But
with respect to those people, I remind you they were on notice when they bought the property. The outlot was
there before the people were. And so they were on notice when they bought the property that the outlot was
there and it xvould be used for this purpose. And therefore I don't think this needs to be a major concern for the
city. The fact of the matter is from a legal perspective, the city has every right, as was acknowledged by Mr.
20
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Krauss and Mr. Hempel in deposition, to build the road through Outlot A. Nobody's ever denied that. With
respect to the Planning Commission meeting, I was there and I can tell you their negative vote really was just a
throwback to the old days. It was filled with passion. No one...considered the proposal. I wasn't allowed to
speak. I had two consultants there to address questions. They weren't allowed to speak. Staff didn't make any
presentations. Planning Commission members said they didn't have enough information and no information was
provided so it was just back to the days of this being some kind of personal battle between Mr. Beddor and the
city, when I think it's time to put that...behind us. And on that perspective, I guess I'd like to make one last
point which doesn't really even have to do with the self interest of the settlement. But I really do regret, I've
been involved in this now for about a year and a half and I truly regret that this became what it did, which was
some kind of emotional battle between the city and Mr. Beddor. And I've got to tell you, I have been
representing Mr. Beddor for a year and a half. He only at this point can have one incentive for doing what he's
proposing right now. He is not going to make money on this deal if it did go through. He's going to be losing
a substantial amount of money. The only motivation that he can have at this point is an idealistic one and what
he wants, believe it or not, is his motivation. He's come to believe, as we did on outside of the litigation,
that's just a legitimate environmental concerns associated with Christmas Lake. Your attorney doesn't believe
us. We do. And if nothing else, even if you reject this proposal I want you to understand that the man that
you've somehow put horns on, is at this point being motivated by no other interest other than to protect
Christmas Lake which he believes is precious, and so does your own consultants. So even if you say no, I hope
in this Christmas season we can put aside these bad feelings and get out of this rut that we've been in a year
and a half and move forward. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks....and with some of the things that you've indicated, I feel a little upset with that,
indicating that we'd even think that way. I think we chose what we chose because it was best for the city, and
not because of Mr. Beddor. Mr. Beddor took the position and he was, he could have done that any time he
wanted, to take it to the courts and he did and he lost. And going back to the Planning Commission, the
Planning Commission did have four no's and two no's that they were still looking for some additional
information contained with it. And I just don't, I don't buy that too well. Mike, did you want to say
something?
Councilman Mason: Well I guess I do, even though you said it. I have no idea where this misconception came
that this xvas a personal vendetta between Mr. Beddor and the city. Either from Mr. Beddor's side or from the
city's side. I, quite honestly I do resent the implication and I don't know where it started from but I do resent
the implication that this has been a personal battle. I just, I really think that's way off the money. Way off.
Councilman Wing: I just want to clarify too. I don't remember what the exact wording was and maybe
somebody could...but we're not giving in. We won. We pure and simple won. No ifs or but's. We didn't give
in. There's nothing to win or lose or oppose to. We won outright and I think the word frivolous was used on
the lawsuit, wasn't it?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Wing: And that's a far cry from your last visit here when you said we were poorly informed and
didn't have a chance. And so I'm just somewhat stunned because in my, I've lived in the city 30 years and I've
been sitting here tonight thinking back over that history, I don't think that any single individual has ever created
or caused a greater hardship financially on my personally as a resident than this has caused and it seemed to
center around one person. And what really frustrates me is this past year I got a phone call from a group of
people on Christmas Lake that don't live in Chanhassen that xvere at a meeting Mr. Beddor created and they
21
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
wanted to know how as a City Councilman I could do what I'm doing to Christmas Lake. And when I heard
the information they had and the things they had been told, I xvas stunned. Stunned enough to go over there
and meet with them and give my viewpoint on what the city is doing with the Surface Water Management and
what it's doing to protect Christmas Lake and how it's impacting Christmas Lake. And that's where I lost it.
That's xvhen I realized that there was no rhyme or reason here. And anyway, I'm getting off. Don't get on me
to get caught up in the passions. Deal with the facts.
Renee Ulrich: Could I...my name is Renee Ulrich and I live on Nez Perce Drive...and I'm at the point living on
Nez Perce where I kind of see that it's definitely going th~,ough and I just simply have two concerns about that.
You know I've resigned to the fact that it's probably going to happen, much to my chagrin but I have resigned
myself to that. However I've heard you speak at these meetings and I've felt that you've said that there...make it
like a thru street like a lot of the traffic, you would put some stop signs and some right angles so that the traffic
would not be sweeping through there. And now with what is up, I see the sweeping street and with a lot of
kids in the neighborhood, I'm very concerned about that and I felt like okay, I'm going to drop all my points
and resign myself to the...street going through. I would hope that as a City Council you could have a strong
impact in making my street a little safer by putting in those stop signs and putting in some right angles. That
would make me tremendously happy. That would make most of us very happy and I think that's a strong
possibility. I mean it's a feasible possibility. I'm also concerned about the cost assessed to the benefitting
parties. You know different people tell me different things but I've been told by several people that I would be
a benefitting party by having the street go through and I don't see that as being fair. I mean to assess me for
the street going through. Those are the few points that I wanted to make.
Mayor Chmiei: Okay, with that I think I'd like to bring it back to Council for additional discussions. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor and Council, I was here when the plat was done so I understand the history. I
know what Jules Smith said. The facts are pretty obvious. Planning says it's good planning to connect this
street. That's an educated long term solution here. Item number one. Contrary to xvhat anything that's been
said, I think that Pleasant View should be protected at all costs. I think it's our number scenic trail in the city.
It's a horse trail. I'm content to leave it that way. I hope it never changes. I don't ever want to see that road
upgraded. I don't want to see it impacted any more than we have to. Second point, Lake Lucy stays intact.
Those people have fought for it. I think they've had commitments on our part. Outlot or not, to me Lake Lucy
simply, nothing to be talked about. I think whatever we do, Lake Lucy stays out of it. There's no need, in my
opinion, no need for Lake Lucy residents to even be here tonight. The Vineland people, they're happy. I guess
it may or may not go through. It may or may not impact them. I don't know what to say about that one. It
boils down to the road going through and I don't want to throw a wrench into this. If I had my druthers,
everybody is happy right now and I guess I would tend to just, if I had to do it over again, I wouldn't put the
road through but the cul-de-sacs exist. Let everybody live and then Mr. Beddor and JMS simply heads north.
If they want to develop the property, if Mr. Beddor wants to develop, he tags onto Pleasant Vie~v. If JMS is
going to develop, xvhich they have a right to do, they would impact up to Pleasant View and then on over. That
may not be the case and I'm not even going to make that a suggestion but I'd be very happy to leave this alone.
In regards to the lawsuit, I think that it stands. I personally am not interested in this proposal or this
compromise. It's old news. It's been talked about. It's been discussed.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Colleen.
22
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well first of all I want to deal with Ms. Ulrich's concerns.
a pretty strong directive from Council that that would be a T intersection. Am I ~vrong?
came down. That's the current plat, right7
I thought we had had
Where Tower Heights
Kate Aanenson: Yes, that's the one that was approved.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Wasn't that going to be a T where Nez Perce hit Peaceful?
Audience: Right, originally it was a T and I can't remember the date but Council discussed...the merits of the
sweeping curve and T and although the T is slightly more expensive, there were concerns on the part of the
Council with traffic traveling much faster with the sweeping curve and Mr. Wing I believe said that there was
no way he would support that sweeping curve.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that's my recollection as well, thank you so, but we haven't done final platting
of that road yet so, let's just make sure it gets done that way. That, having taken care of, Richard I don't want
to talk about...anymore. Regarding the settlement, although me to think out loud. On one hand I do see the
financial benefits of calling it quits at this point. I also know one of my reasons for, one of my reasons for
voting that Nez Perce should go through is that people buying into the neighborhood knew full well that that
road was going to go through. And people on Lake Lucy knew full well that there was an outlot there and that
the potential for this to occur is listed. I balance that with what I believe was a commitment by this Council to
have Tower Heights dump out to the north, and I think what's been demonstrated in the last several weeks is
that we're not adverse to reconsidering prior decisions, but in this case it just, I have to go ~vith my gut. It feels
wrong. It feels really wrong to accept this compromise. And I don't see it as a compromise on Mr. Beddor's
part. He lost the lawsuit and he's, you know in part he's trying to cut a deal because he has additional expenses
and I realize the city may be in for a hit to continue the proceedings. And that's obviously my biggest obstacle
right now but there comes a point where you just have to stand on principles and perhaps this is it so I guess
going with my guts, to me this stinks and I'm not willing to pursue it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: If the only concern ;vas money here, I would say well sure. Let's do it. I want to ramble
on about 5 minutes about hoxv as a third grade teacher one of the biggest issues facing teachers and parents and
educators today is teaching responsibility to children and if the parents aren't acting responsibly, it's a little
tough for the kids to act responsibly. I read through the lawsuit. I heard words like frivolous. No merit.
Shouldn't, well I didn't hear it shouldn't have happened but I heard frivolous. I heard all this stuff. I feel
personally right now like the City of Chanhassen is being, there's an attempt almost to hold us hostage over this
issue. I think what we did was right. I continue to believe what we did was right and that's my feelings.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I don't know, this is a tough one for me to comment on. I'm the only one who voted against
the 'resolution that put us where we're at. I continue to believe that the ultimate solution here was really that
one .road cul-de-sac to the north and one cul-de-sac to the south. And I've never changed my mind on that. It's
obvious nobody wants these 13 new lots to go into the neighborhood, whether it's the neighborhood or the
neighborhood to the south. Silly question Charles. Have we ever really looked at the idea of the road going
somewhere other than the north or the south....'/
23
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Charles Folch: Going back to one of the first addition of Vineland Forest, when that particular subdivision was
being platted there was like four alternatives that were presented at that point in time. Each time, as the
Vineland Forest Addition was platted, there was no connection made. It was left as an option we'll deal with at
the next plat which turned out to be the Troendle Addition. Well then that was the development to the west.
Well when that happened the connection wasn't made again. It was left to deal with in the future so what
happened is as development moved east to west in that corridor, that little area there, you've not eliminated all
your options in terms of the original four that you could basically choose from, but now you're down to the one.
If you truly xvant to make a connection, that's the only alternative that you have left from the four that began
probably in the late 80's with development in that area.
Councilman Senn: So there's no option of bringing this utilizing say part of the city property or anything like
that to a location on CR 17 or to a location at the intersection of Lucy and CR 17 or anything like that? No
possibility?
Charles Folch: There's weren't considered as part of the original but you're dealing with some very...
Councilman Senn: I understand...
Charles Folch: Tree issues and things like that. Outside of doing some major regrading and that type of work,
trying to create a road off of CR 17, which I think would be very, very difficult, really what you have left is the
only option if you want to make a connection off of Pleasant View Road.
Councilman Senn: Okay. That answers my questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think that I've sort of indicated my position. I think we have already made our
decision I think is where I'm really standing and I think this is probably just a last ditch effort to come in to see
if somehow these things can be accomplished. I don't like spending the additional dollars and I still feel that
the position that we've taken is a strong position. It's really best for the city and I'm willing to move on with
that. So I'd like to have a motion as to whether or not a reconsideration should be done for this. And if not,
continue on xvith the lawsuit as it progresses through the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that we do not consider this settlement and continue the legal
process.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council not consider the
settlement proposal by Mr. Beddor and to continue on with the legal process through the Minnesota Court of
appeals. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who abstained, and the motion carried.
24
City Council Meeting -December 12, 1994
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 8 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS: DELWICHE
ADDITION; 4131 PIPEWOOD CURVE, LYLE DELWICHE.
Kate Aanenson: Mr. Delxviche is proposing to split his piece of property which is partially in the city of
Victoria and partially in the city of Chanhassen. The majority of the lot is in the city of Victoria so obviously
they would have to give approval of the proposed plat before it could be recorded. This is a large piece of
property. Almost 8 acres. The property that he's proposing to split off is well in excess of the requirements of
15,000 square feet. The issues that we had that were the location of the house. There is, this grade drops off.
It's adjacent to Highway 7. A significant grade change and there is some unique trees on the site. We believe
the applicant has located a house pad in the most environmentally sensitive area. The other issue that we would
have is the existing home in Victoria does not have frontage. The lot being created has direct access onto a
public street, Pipewood Curve but the existing home has access via a private drive so they'd have to get a cross
over agreement which is a condition of approval. I indicated that there is a significant amount of trees and
grading. Again, we believe that as the permit comes in, individual grading for the lot will be required and we
believe that that location is the most beneficial for the plat. The Planning Commission did review this item on
November 16th at their meeting and approved it unanimously with the conditions that were outlined in the staff
report. Those are the 8 conditions. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those.
Councilman Senn: Kate, one question. I couldn't tell from basically what was in the sketch but...house pads,
did I understand what you're saying about them that they'd require a variance?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so it'd be alright.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah there xvas an issue as far as the drainage ditch but it is far enough away that it will work.
It does meet all the setback requirements and the lot requirements.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Does anyone else have any questions of Kate?
Councilman Mason: No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is the applicant here this evening? Would you like to either agree to what Kate has said
or state your position. And please state your name and address.
Lyle Delwiche: Lyle Delwiche, 4131 Pipewood Curve. There's probably been enough discussion tonight.
Lived there for 20 years. Got too much property to take care of and that...smaller place next door. I've gotten
all the same requirements from the city Planning Commission. I agreed with all of those requirements and...
approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this at this time? If not.
Councilman Mason: Move preliminary to plat two parcels for two single family lots, Delwiche Addition.
Mayor Chmiel: Could I just put an addition on xvith that? Under utilities. I noticed that the '94 hook-up
charges were indicated in here and the connection charge but I'm not sure whether the SAC charge has been
included in here and Don has asked that question and it's not known but I'd like to have them reviewed and if it
25
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
is, that that be inserted with this as well. And that's Metropolitan SAC charge that's there. Sewer Availability
Charge. Okay?
Councilman Mason: That's fine with me.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve preliminary and final plat for Subdivision
#94-17 for Delwiche Addition for 2 single family lots as shown on the plans dated November 2, 1994, subject
to the follo~ving conditions:
All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or xvood
fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's Best Management Practice
Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development and will be protected by a conservation
easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and
underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall
provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the
legal description.
3. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail
construction.
4. A cross access easement agreement shall be prepared by the applicant to maintain access to Lots 1 via the
existing private driveway.
5. The applicant shall dedicate to the city on the final plat a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement over
the existing drainage ditch.
Lot 2, Block will be responsible for a hook up and connection charge of $8993.42 (1994 figure) for
connecting to municipal utilities. This fee will be payable at the time of building permit issuance. The fees
may also be assessed. The issue of the Metropolitan SAC charges will be clarified by staff.
7. The applicant shall escrow with the City $300.00 to cover the city attorney's time for review and recording
of the final plat.
8. Approval of the plat from the City of Victoria.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
26
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE, ARTICLE XXVI, REGARDING THE SIGN ORDINANCF_.
John Rask: During the past txvo years staff, Planning Commission and members of the business community
have been working on changes to the sign ordinance. The original draft was developed xvith a subcommittee
that included a member of the City Council, Planning Commission and two chamber members. Our most recent
efforts included three work sessions with the Planning Commission and Chamber. I'm going to take a few
moments here to just over some of the more significant amendments to the ordinance. One issue that was
closely examined was the relationship between the size of the building and the scale of the sign. The ordinance
was rewritten to included which base the size of the sign on the size of the wall. Wall signs are still limited to
15% of the total wall area but the maximum sign area of 80 square feet has been increased based on the size of
the wall area. The maximum sign area would be 240 square feet under the proposed amendment. This
provision should help to reduce the need for larger building users to obtain variances for the construction of a
reasonable sized sign. An example of this table. A similar approach was used to relate the size of a pylon sign
and monument signs to the size of the principle structure for the business. Monument signs are limited to a
maximum of 10 feet in height with the 80 square feet in sign area. Pylon signs would be limited to properties
that directly abut State Highway corridors only and limited to a maximum of 20 feet in height with 80 square
feet in sign area. Both of these sign maximums would be for buildings in excess of 50,000 square feet. The
maximum size of a sign area allowed did not change from the original ordinance. The only difference is that
smaller buildings would be allowed less signage under the proposed amendment. In no case I guess the
maximum size was 64 square feet and this holds true for buildings of less than 50,000 square feet.
Mayor Chmiel: John, prior to that, those signs that are there would be larger on the smaller buildings. Would
those be grandfathered in?
John Rask: Yes they would.
Councilman Senn: ...number of pylons.
John Rask: For pylons? Yes. Another amendment that was not in the old ordinance involved window signage.
Under the proposed draft we ~vould limit the amount of window signage as a percentage of the total window
area. A window sign shall not cover more than 50% of the total window area in which they are located under
the proposed amendment. Buildings with less than 32 square feet of window area would be exempt from this
provision. This was thrown in to kind of add some equity to it so that businesses that don't have a large
windoxv area would still have the opportunity to advertise in that fashion. A cap was also added to the total
window sign, square footage permitted based on the total wall sign area formula permitted for that district. I
guess what that means is that based on this table you would not be able to exceed that amount of signage for
window signage. So again we've put a cap. If a building has a large window area, they would be limited on
the amount of window signs based on that table. And again the current sign ordinance does not limit the use of
window signs. Permit standards for the use of temporary signs, search lights and banners have been revised in
the ordinance amendment. The size of banners is not limited in the current ordinance. As proposed, the new
ordinance would limit the size of a banner to 140 square feet. Banners and portable signs are currently allowed
for no more than 10 consecutive days with no more than 3 permits per business during any calendar year.
Again this has not changed in the proposed draft. However, banners and portable signs would be allowed a 30
day display period to coincide with the grand opening of a business or new development. Search lights would
still be allowed under the new ordinance but would be limited to three occasions per year with each occasions
not to exceed 2 days. In addition we added an amendment which states search lights may not be illuminated
between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 a.m.. As these amendments represent the more significant
27
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
changes to the ordinance, we made a number of minor amendments throughout the ordinance for clarification
purposes. In addition, several other minor amendments were made to setback requirements, sign location and
the length of temporary real estate and development signs. The proposed amendments kind of give a face. lift to
the ordinance. We tried to arrange definitions, illustrations and standards so that they fit xvith each other and
tried to make a more user friendly document by giving it, by making it easier to interpret and administer. One
issue that came up during the Planning Commission and the public hearings held there was an issue which
involved the use of certain architectural features as signage. If you read the Minutes you'll see that this was
discussed in detail. I guess what the staff did, we put standards in the ordinance as kind of to bring about the
discussion. It was felt that color bands and these type of [hings act more as signage and not to enhance the
building. I guess after discussing it at the Planning Commission it was felt both by staff and the Planning
Commission that these type of standards should not be included in the ordinance but the commission would like
for us to relay the message of the fact that maybe we should take a look at some of these issues. The issues of
using color bands or backlit awnings and maybe address those within the Highway 5 district or further clarify
them within the general ordinance. But again for the purpose of the sign ordinance, color bands, architectural
features associated with company logos and color schemes of a building will not be considered as signage. I
guess with those comments I'd open it up for questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks John. Does anyone have any questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have one quick question. As it relates to windo;v signage and these are, I'm
assuming you're talking about signage that's taken on or off or your 59 cents taco type signs.
John Rask: Yeah.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Anything that is, any businesses that currently are allowed to do that, I would
assume that that is not a grandfathered position for them because they are removable?
John Rask: Yeah, the ordinance does deal with temporary signs and I guess when it comes to window signs, it's
hard to tell I guess what's permanent and what's not.
Councilwoman Dockendorf.' So how do we deal with it? I mean let me ask the question, do we have any
existing today that may be grandfathered in?
John Rask: Not that I'm aware of. I think again we're looking at the temporary poster type signs that are in the
xvindows.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And those are definitely considered temporary?
John Rask: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's my only question.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone from the Chamber here this evening? Is there anything that you'd like
to add to it? And if you'd like to, just come forward and just state your name and your address.
Randy Herman: My name is Randy Herman, 2792 Piper Ridge Trail. Despite a huge turnout, there's some of
us that consider this to be a pretty momentous occasion. I've had some people tell me that this has been in the
28
City Council Meeting -December 12, 1994
works for as long as 7 years. My experience more recently is the last 6 months or so that we've been working
through this thing and kind of picking it apart. There's been a lot of give and take. We've massaged a lot of
these different issues thoroughly and I think overall people feel pretty good about the form that it's in. The
things that were wrong to start with I think have been corrected. There were some concerns by the planning
staff that I think have been addressed and I think it turned out to be a pretty good document. There are two
small issues that I think need more clarification than anything. And if you'll look on page 12 at the top, (b), it
was confusing to us how this might be interpreted concerning signs adjacent to non, or signs on adjacent non-
residential property, that they be positioned so that the copy is not visible from residential uses along adjoining
side and rear yard property lines. And I guess the scenario we're wondering about is if you have the case of say
Byerly's, which I think adjoins the townhouses just to the rear of it. Does that include a sign that those
townhouses can see or would it only include a sign that was actually on the side or rear yard line of that
property'/ I think the intent is to not have signs that project directly to a neighborhood but could that language
be used to disallow a sign that might be visible but isn't actually projected toward a residential...
Kate Aanenson: Can I make clarification? That was a discussion. I believe the way it was written before is it
cannot be visible. Well that's almost impossible because the people in the Oaks can look over Byerly's to
Festival so what we did is we changed the word to say adjacent. So there is no signage on the back of Byerly's
so what we're trying to do, and we did the same thing when we looked at Abra-Goodyear to try and protect
those people from signs. So what we're saying is that adjacent face, that's where we should be limiting. I think
before what it said, something like visible. There's no way it cannot be visible but I think the intent of the
adjacent to that direct facing.
Randy Herman: Okay. I think we were just looking for clarification on that. We assumed that was the intent.
It's almost impossible to not have some signage visible from some residential uses.
Councilman Senn: Before we leave that point. Kate, I had that note down too. I mean can we word that
different like signs on adjacent building surfaces or something? Define it as, yeah I had the same concern you
did. It didn't make any sense to me at all. It was like...but if we define it from building surfaces adjacent, then
it seems to me we're saying...
Randy Herman: The only other issue that really struck us in the final form on page 7, number 10(a)(2). Sign
display area. This is, I won't read through it. Obviously you can read it. It deals with the difference in size
between the signs on property less than 10 acres or property greater than 10 acres. Again I try to kind of take
these things and picture the situation in my mind where they might occur. If you've got a kind of standard,
commercial industrially zoned parcel along Highway 5, it might be 5 acres or 8 acres or whatever. A 16 square
foot sign, 4 feet x 4 feet, in that situation might still be kind of small. On Main Street it's going to be plenty
big and we had meant to try to propose some language to kind of make the divisions follow maybe zoning
districts a little more or something to kind of, to have it so if you've got a big parcel on a main highway, you
might need a full 4 x 8 sign... That was really the only other area. Otherwise again, I think from the standpoint
of the business community and the aesthetics of the city, I think this ordinance does a really good job of
protecting both and allowing for some signage to development really undue restrictions and...both ways. So
we're pretty pleased with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thanks Randy.
Vernelle Clayton: ...the reason that there are only two of us here from the Chamber is I think a testimony to
the process that xve're in. I just want to make two points...and from our perspective in terms of...and that was
29
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
because we had a little misunderstanding and we did have a room filled with people...but it was a good process
and I think...
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Is there anyone else? If not I'll bring it back to Council. Richard.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just make one other comment on the process too?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead.
Kate Aanenson: I think you owe the Planning Commission a lot of thanks because they ;vent through this thing
page by page, item by item and it ;vas a lot more than 3 meetings. And Matt's here and he knows. They spent
a lot of time on this so you're seeing the fruits, as Vemelle indicated, a lot of ;vork by the Planning Commission
and by the Chamber.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I was going to make that comment but I'm glad you did. It eliminates my need for
saying it.
Councilman Senn: Can I ask a couple questions before we get into comments?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Senn: If it's a wood sign, let's say a wood sign box, what constitutes the sign face area? The
lettering or the box?
Kate Aanenson: The box. So for like Byerly's, the way we figured that out is just take the outside extremities
and kind of draw a box around it for the individual letter.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And then as far as what you're suggesting in terms of wall area, you're removing the
80 square foot max wall area and increasing it to 240 square feet on a wall area?
John Rask: Yes, that's correct, based on this table.
Councilman Senn: So they can put more walls to that or what.
John Rask: No, they're still limited to t~vo walls.
Kate Aanenson: What we're saying is we're trying to put a proportionality between the size of the building and
the size of the sign. That's why Byerly's came in here. It's set back so far. It didn't work for them and we
know there's a relationship problem there. Target needed a bigger size. It didn't meet this ordinance. So what
we're saying is there needs to be a relationship between the size of the sign and the building. So that's where
this formula came in.
Councilman Senn: Hoxv does, I don't know how to say this.
Kate Aanenson: We tried to keep those same proportions, if I can follow that logic through. The same
proportions that we had so there's that relationship that carries through. We've used the factors. Unfortunately I
don't have all the background here but we looked at the Target sign and the Byerly's sign and we looked at the
30
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
proportions and looked at that 80 square feet and we tried to carry that same thing forward if you had bigger so
we tried to keep the proportions the same but obviously when you cap it it doesn't meet those bigger buildings.
Councilman Senn: Okay, but the assumption you're ~vorking from is that a bigger building needs bigger
signage.
Kate Aanenson: They have the option, sure.
John Rask: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor xve have a very significant event here. Number one, the Planning Commission
seems to be in concurrence with this along with concurrence with the Chamber and the business community,
and there's no amount of money would get in the middle of that. This has been a long time in the making. I
really appreciate Randy's comments tonight. I think those are fine points. And this just means ~ve're not going
to look Broadway Avenue and I'm real glad about that and whatever give and take there was, it's fine with me.
It's hard for me to really fully understand it and I'm going to fall back on the Chamber and the Planning
Commission and accept it as is with their recommendation. I think Randy's comments were well received.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councihvoman Dockendorf: I'm not going to pretend that I understand this. There are .certain things I'm willing
to delegate and a project like this is one of them. Excellent job and a personal thank you to the members who
were involved in putting this document together. And good report John.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well I'll throw some roses too. It's great. I mean I think Vernelle's comments were right
on and Randy made some real good points and it does seem to me when everyone is in concert, who am I to be
a noted dissident so let's get on with it. This is yeah, job well done I think by everybody.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: Well I guess I have to say the same thing. It's great if everybody's in agreement so it should
go forward and everybody should live happily ever after I guess.
Councihvoman Dockendorf: I hear a but coming in.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, there's always a but right. You know I know any process like this is negotiation of
give and take and I know they've done that and they've worked out a good middle ground and I think that's
great. And so I have every intention of voting for it on that basis. I just I don't believe that signage should be
defined on the size of the building or the size of a piece of land. I think the signage should be defined on the
basis of need and I think when you do it on this basis you are hurting small business very badly because you're
telling small business, because they're small they deserve a lot less exposure than someone who's big. And I
just, I don't agree with that concept. The other concept I don't agree with is I don't believe accent stripes or
color bands should be considered part of signage. At this point if you adopt that concept, then every accent
31
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
band or every color band becomes suspect as part of signage where I view them as nice architectural elements to
a lot of buildings and I don't know how you're going to separate difference of that on a retail building versus an
industrial building or anything else. If you take the large wall spanses on industrial buildings and look at side
bands and color bands and stuff, whether they work or don't work in with a company color of a sign or logo
whatever, again I think they're important architectural elements and I don't think they should just simply be,
xvhat I'd say thrown aside on the basis of a couple retail uses that some people may or may not like. So those
are just my added comments.
Councilman Mason: If I could just, after reading the Planning Commission Minutes about that same, Mark's
concern I found them a little hard to follow but I thought Ladd, as you said over the phone today Kate, cut to
the chase. I don't see personally see that as being an issue right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess or Kate said what I wanted to say but I'll say it anyway. Thanks to both the
Planning Commission and the Chamber in coming up with a solution to a problem that I thought was existing
and I think it's in good taste. I'd like to have a motion with the correction on page 12, item (b) as was indicated
for the acceptance of the amendment to the City Code.
Councilman Mason: I will move that.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Sure.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the amendment to the City Code, Article
XXVI regarding the Sign Ordinance amended on page 12, item (b). All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilwoman Dockendorf: In looking through the Administrative, actually I wanted to talk about this before I
even looked through the Administrative section and saw Charles' letter to MnDot and to the County Engineer,
and it was a good letter and I appreciated it. My only concern is, yeah they'll look at it and they'll file it.
Again, and you say in your letter, on a xveekly basis there is something that is occurring at this intersection and
at some point I think the city becomes liable. I really do. It's that dangerous of an intersection and we cannot
wait until early August. And we can send out all the letters that we want but it's just going to get delayed and
delayed and something needs to happen immediately. And my concern is that, this like I said will get filed. I
don't hoxv to sa3, it again or more or.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I've had some discussion with Charles and Charles has indicated some of the problems
and the time framing in trying to get these particular lights in. Maybe you should expound on that just a little
bit as you did to me on the timeframe as to, it's the same question I have asked. Let's get them in. Let's get
them in sooner and not only that but Charles and I are also going to be meeting with Chuck Seigrud who is a
MnDot representative who has charge of this particular district. And sometime the early part of January we're
going to be sitting down with him. So there's other things that we're discussing. Not only that but a few other
things.
32
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Charles Folch: Yes, I've had the opportunity to meet with Barton-Aschman, the project engineer for all the
improvements that we're looking at doing out there next year and in discussing it with them in terms of options,
ways we can stage the project to try and advance the completion of the signal improvements first, including the
lane, turn lane improvements on Highway 5. And looking at the project schedule that we have set up now, as
we're looking at breaking ground in June and within a 2 month window having the signal operational and that's
about as quick as they can attack the process on Highway 5. Create the necessary turn lane improvements on
both Galpin and Highway 5 so that the traffic signal will function properly and allow the capacity needed there.
So in terms of advancing the installation of a true traffic signal, that probably is about as quick as we're going
to get it. In terms of some of the other ideas of putting up a flashing beacon out there or maybe some other
type of signage that might elude to motorists that this is a potentially hazardous intersection such as an
investigation site area, signage or some other type, and I have had the opportunity to talk to Roger Gustafson
late last week following up his receipt of my letter. I would suspect if I don't hear back from MnDot by the
first of next week, at least some initial response, I will contact them by phone also to follow up and make sure
that this continues to at least get some action and does not just sit on a desk in his file somewhere. At least I'd
like to get some response back from them as to what things we can do to try and during the interim help the
situation out.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is there any way that we can, without putting additional blacktop down or turn
lanes, put a signal out there without that?
Charles Folch: I think you'd almost make more of a dangerous situation.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Yeah, I can see that. Thanks, I'd appreciate it if you could follow up.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's then move on to item 10(a).
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. UPDATE ON HALLA'S GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT, PLANNING
DIRECTOR.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The reason this item is before you is, there's no action being requested but we
did recommend, when you approved this plat, gave it a March 1st deadline, that we bring it back before you in
the December time frame just to show that Mr. Halle is moving forward and progressing to get this plat
recorded because it has been in kind of the preliminary stages for so long. We want to make sure we can make
this March 1 st deadline so we asked that it be brought here. So again, it's not here for your action but we just
want to show you the direction that he's moving in and we do believe that he's making a good faith effort to get
this accomplished. The most recent revised plat is, we've given you copies of. There are some issues that we
still have to resolve. Most notably the issue that we are concerned about is the location of septic sites. That
information was received today. The concern that the building official has would be the location of the
individual sewage treatment sites and whether or not those can be accomplished before that March 1st deadline.
A lot of the other issues, we are progressing in a positive manner and we hope that we can meet the March 1st
deadline and just wanted to let you know that he seems to be working in a good faith effort to get this
accomplished.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Kate. Are there any questions by Council.'?
33
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Councilman Mason: Sounds good.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. It xvas important to receive this.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I see that some of the things that I requested too as far as the drawing was concerned
have been removed from it as well so I guess I don't really have.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah we just, I mean there's a few issues we have as far as, we've got the iandseape buffer.
The issue which we're still trying to resolve is in the futurp if these lots were ever to subdivide, maybe it should
be connected... Again, this would be the major area of concern...beeause that's where there are the growing area
right now for the trees. If those trees were removed, what's the liability of those as future sites so. But we are
moving forward and Mr. Halla is working with us.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And I've see that you've sat here all this time. You can go home now. Do you have
anything you'd like to say Don?
Don Halla: No. There's really no problems...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. We'll move back to two items that Mark had pulled off the Consent Agenda.
I(B). ESTABLISH 1995 PARK AND TRAIL FEES.
Councilman Senn: Item (b). I asked this to be pulled because last year when this came up I basically made this
same request and/or statement or whatever but I really still don't understand why there should be a difference
between what we charge a multi-family unit versus a single family unit. In my mind a family puts the same
pressures on the park and trail systems regardless of whether they live in a single family home or multi-family
home and I still continue to believe that the commercial/industrial allocation that we have is disproportionate
and is somewhat exorbinate in comparison to the pressure they put on it versus the residential units. And when
we talked about this last year I thought we were going to kind of do some more looking and studying of that
during the year and I'm not sure that that's been done or not done but I continue to look at it the same way. So
if it's going to go this way, I guess that's up to the rest of the Council but I once again will not support it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike, do you have any concern with it?
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Well in response to Mark's comments. I also recall the discussion last year and I
don't argue with this premise of payment according to need. However, this seems to be the system that is used
throughout the Metro area, if not on a state or national level, with different levels of fees dependent on what the
property is. I guess I don't have an issue with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: No sir.
34
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: I'm sorry. I wasn't looking. I was waiting for an answer. Okay. I guess I think the fees that
have been established are fairly consistent with other communities in and adjacent to our's and I guess I don't
think that they're exorbitant to a point unless you're in the business of trying to get those things accomplished or
to get something built within the community. And I think if they want to be here, they probably don't mind
those particular fees at all either. So with that I would ask to have a motion to accept and establish the 1995
park and trail fees.
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel; Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Resolution #94-137: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to establish the 1995
park and trail fees as proposed. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion
carded with a vote of 4 to 1.
I(DL APPROVE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY COMPENSATION PLAN: AND PERSONNEL
POLICY.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe if you'd just call off what pages you're looking at.
Councilman Senn: You had a couple points, let's see here. The overtime, overtime means the hours a non-
exempt employee works over 40 hours a week which is cumulated at 1 1/2 times the employee's rate of pay. So
basically all hours over 40 a week for all employees effectively are at 1 1/2 other than, basically other than the
non-exempt employees, which are relatively few?
Don Ashxvorth: That answer is correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and xvho are the non°exempt employees?
Don Ashxvorth: Everybody here. I mean exempt are.
Roger Knutson: That means you don't have to pay them overtime.
Councilman Senn: Okay, but there's no definition in here anywhere as to what.
Todd Gerhardt: Page 2.
Roger Knutson: Exempt is defined under the Fair Labor Standards...
Councilman Senn: Okay. What I'm saying is what position? There's nowhere in this policy that it delineates
what positions are which?
Todd Gerhardt: I've got the Fair Labor Standards Book and basically anybody that does non-menial labor and is
paid over $300.00 or $450.00 a week or a month. Something like that.
35
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Roger Knutson: There are various tests. There's a professional test. There's an administrative test. There's an
executive test. There are a whole series of tests and there's a short test and a long test for each position.
Councilman Senn: But I guess, shouldn't xve have that defined in our policy what is and what isn't?
Roger Knutson: Each job description should have the test, or somewhere yeah. You have to have it. You're
either paying or not paying. I'm sure you have it...
Don Ashworth: But in some instances, Jerry Schlenk was paid as a supervisor and he was, if it was part of his
duties and responsibilities to receive the phone calls from the County Sheriff and make a determination as to
whether or not we'd be going out that evening or not. If he had to go outside and look up at it or go out or
whatever, he wasn't paid for that. If we had a truck down and he physically had to take a route, he was paid as
overtime for that service because he was performing xvork similar to any other non-exempt type of employee.
Maybe to answer Mark's question xvhat we should do is make, give the City Council a complete listing of all of
our employees and mark next to each one generally, you know and again, there are some exceptions. I mean
generally Karen Engelhardt is not paid for additional work that she has to do to take and basically keep up with
her responsibilities. If I am really desperate and I need to take and have a true secretarial job completed, well I
don't think ~ve've ever had that instance hut hypothetically she would have to be paid for that one particular
thing. But I think we can generally categorize for the City Council all those people who are exempt, which
basically is myself, all of your department heads, and most of the subdepartment head people such as Jerry,
Dave, Sharmin.
Kate Aanenson: The xvhole planning department is exempt. Everybody at City Hall pretty much.
Councilman Senn: Well and I'm not even sure you need a separate list but I mean maybe we could add that
element because when you go through the job descriptions there no indication one way or the other whether
they are or they aren't exempt. And shouldn't we be doing that?
Todd Gerhardt: We could put an exempt, non-exempt category on each job description.
Councilwoman Dockendor£: I think that's a good idea.
Don Ashworth: Again realize, if a person in an exempt category is asked to do a non-exempt job, then they
would be paid for that, which is very, very seldom occurs.
Mayor Chmiel: When Don mentioned about Karen. Part of her job responsibilities, Wednesday night I came in
here at about 7:30 and Karen was here already working, pulling our packets together. And I left here at quarter
to 11:00, xvent back upstairs and she was still there and you don't see that as OT. That's part of her job and she
counts it by that time.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I'm not raising question with that. I'm simply raising a question over some sort of
categorization of the jobs in the city so you 'know they are or they aren't. Then as it relates to flex time. Okay,
I could find no definitions in here or any address at all of flex time yet I see us constantly approving and paying
flex time. Why is that not part of the personnel policy?
Don Ashworth: I have no idea. What is flex time? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
36
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Todd Gerhardt:
Mayor Chmiel:
Todd Oerhardt:
We don't pay for flex time. Comp time?
Flex time, is that what you're referring to is the monthly.
The non-exempt employee has the option...
Councilman Senn: I mean every month or every meeting in our chart of accounts we're approving flex time
payments.
Todd Gerhardt: That's for daycare reimbursement. Health care. It's called flexible benefits.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Section 125 payments. That's if I take a.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand that. Again, why is that not incorporated into the personnel policy?
Todd Gerhardt: Because that's their own personal money. You budget each year how much you want to set
aside for daycare, health.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Isn't it part of the benefits policy?
Councilman Senn: I thought there was definition and we have to have an adoptive policy on it.
Todd Gerhardt: We do have an adopted plan.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's part of the benefits plan as opposed to a personnel policy.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so it's part of the benefits plan and that's why you don't include it in the personnel
file?
Todd Gerhardt:
Roger Knutson:
by that amount.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But there is a plan document covering that.
Don Ashworth: If you're an employee, you're given a copy of that and it goes through each of the benefits
outlined under each...
Todd Gerhardt: But we do automatically enroll people with family coverage.
Councilman Senn: Okay, on page 8, item 3(b). Why are we changing from 16 to 8? No employee shall be
permitted to use more than 16 hours of compensatory time in a scheduled work week. Why are we changing
that from 16 to 8?
Don Ashworth: That was an area that I felt there was some abusing and I think the department heads felt that
maybe I was trying to pick on them and we kind of negotiated back to, I was at a point lower than that. We
Right. It's each individual employee's wish to be a part of it. It's a pre-tax dollar program.
Salary reduction program. If you want the benefit, you want a dollar benefit, your salary is cut
37
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
kind of came back to the 8 hours as reasonable and the person involved with the potential abuse is no longer
xvith us and therefore not really an issue.
Councilman Senn: Did you send him some kind o£ a love letter? The second part of that though you changed
to say compensatory time can be used in conjunction with vacation time which previously was that it could not
be. I mean that doesn't.
Don Ashworth: That's been in there for a lot of years.
Todd Gerhardt: What page is that?
Councilman Senn: Well according to this it's being changed.
Kate Aanenson: No, Todd had it drafted that said it couldn't be but we kind of argued that one.
Todd Gerhardt: She didn't take my.
Kate Aanenson: We've always been allowed to take up to 16 with a vacation.
Councilman Senn: So that was an error and it's just being crossed out rather than a change?
Todd Gerhardt: Well as a part of Don's changes to the original plan, he did not want to use it in conjunction
with vacation time. And in one of the drafts it said not and I told Karen not to take it out because we're not
making any changes.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so it can be. And it continues to be can be, I guess is what you're saying. Okay. In
terms of page 9, items I don't know, I guess it's items 3(a), sub (4) and (5). I guess I really have a question on
that and would like to understand it because that's a standard I have never seen anywhere in all my years of
either government or private sector. Where we go to, after the 21st year you to go to 25 working days of
vacation and then start adding a day of vacation for every year after that. Is that some kind of a new standard
that's being set or whatever?
Councilman Mason: It sounds to me like a nice bene, if you've worked that long for the city.
Councilman Senn: Well nice bene but I mean.
Councilman Mason: I kind of like that.
Councilman Senn: ...you start getting over 5-6 weeks of vacation, I mean what's the expense to the city to
replace you for the 5 or 6 weeks while you're gone?
Councilman Mason: Well I think if somebody has devoted that much time for the city.
Mayor Chmiel: Their share the job.
38
City Council Meeting - December 12,' 1994
Councilwoman Dockcndorf: Yeah and I would make the argument that vacation dollars are soft. You're not, if
someone takes a vacation you're not per se replacing that person with a temp, particularly someone that's worked
for the city that long. Can we get a temp for Don?
Councilman Senn: Well I guess my only question to Don is, that's a change in the policy and you're saying you
can live without those employees for 6+ weeks a year.
Councilman Mason: Well it doesn't come out to be 6+ weeks a year because they've got, if they've been there
20 years, they've got 4 weeks anyway, right? I mean whatever so yeah, but it's not, to say Mark to say that
we're doing without them for 6 weeks I don't think is really true. Because they're going to get.
Councilman Senn: After 25 years they are.
Councilman Mason: It sounds to me like your beef is I day a year for every year.
Councilman Senn: Well, after 25 years you're up to 6 weeks.
Todd Hoffman: Nobody's going to make it that long.
Councilman Senn: Nobody else seems to care I guess.
Todd Gerhardt: I thought we looked at this and we did a comparison, but there's not a lot of people that work
out for that long.
Councilman Senn: I'm raising the question only because I've never seen it go out that long.
Todd Gerhardt: We can research it and bring it back to you. It's not impacting anybody directly right now so.
Don Ashworth: It could be Jean but she's officially retiring at the end of April.
Councilman Senn: This last one is for Roger. The suggested service awards do not put us in any problems or
conflicts with that wonderful new piece of State legislation.9
Roger Knutson: What page are we on?
Councilman Senn: Back on 17 where it's being changed and suggested that after 5 years, there would be a
plaque in 25 years. 10 years a plaque and $50.00.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's also a cheap plaque.
Councilman Senn: Well it doesn't say a cheap plaque but a 15 year plaque and $75.00 or 20 year plaque and
$100.00 or whatever.
Roger Knutson: That creates no problems.
Councilman Senn: No problem with it? Okay.
39
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other questions?
Councilman Wing: This got by me. I didn't notice that the gold watch was taken out. What page, it's money
now instead of the gold watch?
Councilman Senn: Well according to the old policy Dick, there was no gold watch.
Todd Gerhardt: Or selected merchandise it says.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to see something back on that vacation time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that, can we have a motion?
Councilman Mason: I'll move l(d).
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councihvoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Position Classification and Pay
Compensation Plan and Personnel Policy with clarification regarding vacation time. All voted in favor and the
motion carded unanimously.
Councilman Mason: Prior to adjournment, you've got to give me a minute.
Mayor Chmiel: I can't.
Councilman Mason: 30 seconds?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Mason: You're going to do it then?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Mason: Well then I'm going to take it anyway. I know for a fact this is Richard's last meeting and
we came on at the same time and thanks.
Councilman Wing: Thank you. It's been wonderful.
Councilman Mason: Yep it has and I hope, well I know it will continue in one form or another. I have valued
your comments. Your willingness to listen and your willingness to talk and your willingness to make decisions
when they need to be made and it's time to move on. Thanks a lot Dick. With that I'll move adjournment.
Mayor Chmiel: So with that thank you.
40
City Council Meeting - December 12, 1994
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to adjourn the meeting.
motion carded. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
All voted in favor and the
41