Loading...
1993 08 09CK4N~$~EN CITY COUNCIL REGUL~ MEETING AUGUST ~ 1~ Mayor Chmicl called the meeAing to orde~ at 7:30 pm. The mcc~%o was opened with thc Pled~ to the Flag. COUNCIL MEbtBERS PRF~ENT: ~yor Chmie[, Colmgilwolll~ Doak~lc~, ~ SE~Im azId STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashwonh, Roger Knntsoa, Todd Gedmrdt, Charles Folch, Todd Noff'num; Kat~ A,ang~son, Sharmin AI-Jaff, Tom _C'~ffee, and B~y glldsm APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Cotmcilwoman DocJm~loff moved, C_.oongJln~ 5cnn leconded ~o approv~ tho aggnda alX~ndgd ~ follows: Mayor Chmic] had a publig Announge~e~t rggzrdJng shootJllg~unting bo~dsr[~ in the city of ChAn~en public he, sting; District #112 Youth Commi~i4m repm~ and ~_aing to the Coasmt Agenda item (j) TH 101 and Pioneer Trail, Mrs. DeJ~ conveying a piece of PrOlmW/of 8 scres to Worms; and und~ Council Present. ions, Clumhassm Volunteer Fire l~p~anmt conc~m~ adjusunez~ ~o fire pemion PtmUC issue of shooting and hunting boundaries within the city of C~mml2sse~ The public hearing win be held in the Council Chsmb~rs on Thursday evening, August 12th ~ 6.'00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.. If you have auy thon~ht~ or within the city, please plan to atUmd the August 12th Public Ssfety ~C. ommi~udon public he~ from 6.'00 to ?:00 p.m. in the Council Clmmbcrs. We have had cae public hearing on thi& The response was very minims1 snd make~addilional mmouncc~cnt. It was also put in the ~. At this fime l would like to can on N. IAlio Rosini to provide to us thc status of District #112 Youth Commi~odon, inghtd~ an overview of their year end rcpcrc TodcL Todd Hoffman: Maym' Chmicl, NntA11e called late last week and due to a ChAnge in pin_ ns with both ~ and tho adult ~tative. they would like to xv. schedule until the second meeting of the month. CONSENT AGENDA: CouncilmAn Senn moved, Council_womAn Do~:~~ secomied Io appro~ tho following Consent A~eada items pursnsnt to the City Mnns_~,'s recommeadafion~ Approve Cons~ Plans and ~ons for ~ Sn_~m I-Tillg West 9th Addition, Project No. 93- 5. bi Bluff Creek ~: 1) Pinal ~ Approval 2) Approve Construc~n Plans and Spec~ficaliom smi Dvwelolxne~t Contract cl. REmolu ,flgn .#9~-66: Approve Tnfil~afio~!nfloW Ms_~bing Orant ~ wigl tho ~. City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 City Council Minutes dated July 26, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes dated Suly 21, 1993 Park and Recre~on Commission Minutes dated Suly 22, 1993 g! Considm'ation of Granting Trail Fee Credits for Trail Construction and Amendment to Development Conlract, Chanhassen Business Center (CBC), Audubon 92 ~p. Resolution 893-67: Approve Change Order No. 4 for Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvement, Phase I, Project 91-17A. AH voted in favor, except Councflmnn Wing who was not present, nnd the motion cnrrled. (Councilman Wing arrived during discussion of item (e).) E. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS. Councilman Senn: On (e), I think I just had one question. I didn't get a chance to ask before. On page 6. There's nn expenditure of $2,572.62 to Harnmel C-r~n for fees and services on the En~¢nt Complex study. I thought that was being done by the liRA. And if so, I was wondering why it was paid out of the City. Mayor Chmiel: Don, could you clarify that? Hammel Gre~'s fees being paid. Don Ashworth: I'd have to pull the invoice but I'm sure that it's associated with the School Imapmy and so it is being paid by the tax increment district but it's Tax Increment District #3, which is under the purview of the City Council. Councilman Senn: Then we have a wrong entry hero because it says, Entertainment Complex Study. Don Ashworth: I think that that's what they have referreA to it as if they're going to in~ a recreational clement into the elementary prope~. So we have 22 acres and the school has 20 acres and the question, which will be lator on this agenda ia, is should we be adding blocks to that such as an additional height on the gymnasium. Soccer fields, baseball fields, etc. And this billing represents their work efforts to date to analysis the cost associated with those options. It's basically th~ relxa~ that you received from 2-3 weeks ago. Councilman Senn: I just don't understand how we're meshing the school site with the entertainment complex. I mean that doesn't make any sense to me at all And both of them ar~ TIF districts and both of them are liRA. Don Ashworth: The downtown is within TH) #1 and is under the purview of the I-IRA. The McOlynn district is an Economic Development District and it is under the purview of the City Council. The work that they're char$ing ns here for is the study that they came up with to, what would it cost to have the elementary gym go to a full sized gym7 What would be the cost associated with a field house? What would be the cost of adding a timess center to that, etc7 Councilman Senn: So is it a correct statement to say then that okaying this expenditure is not for the entertainment complex study but is for thc school study7 I mean if we can just say that, then ! have an answer but I'm not getting an answer. Don Ashworth: It is not for the entertainment complex that had been considered in the downtown area. City Cotmcil Meeting - August ~, lg93 Councilman Senn: What other eatmninmeat comp~ do we lmve under cmsidemion? Mayor Chmiel: This is bnsic~y, I guess maybe what I'm trying, ns I'm listminS to both of you he~ the~'s sort of a misnomer t~t rather thnn having th~ ent~ninment comple~ study, it probably should have beea fer the Councilman Senn: T'nnt's what I'm asking. T'nat'salllnskedbutI~notgettingaycsnnswertothat. May~' Chmiel: T'nnt's what it reads ~ Councilman Senn: Is t~_t true? Don Ashworth: Right. If yon would prefer to change ~ to be stndy elementary school oMtons, _~nt would be a clenrer ~o Councilnmn Senn: Nope. M_ny~' Chndel: Would you li~ to move thnt? Counctlwomnn ~ Second. Cotmcilmnn Senn: I'm really sure but. elnrify thnt a cheek in the nmonnt of $2,.~/2.62 imynble to Hammel-Green should be for the stndy of the H. APPROVE CONTRACT ~A4I~IT TO WI~ST 78TH ~ Di~TACHM~VI' AND DOWNTOWN IMPRO~ PROJECT 92-3 I~OR ~x'~'mqDED WORK HOURS AND OVI~TIM~ COMPI~SATION. Cotmciimn, S6nn: Item (h). As I nndm~m~d whnt we're being nsked to do is okay in effect nn overtime premi~ or expenditure of $25,000.00 to nccommodnte the Tnrget time lines. Mayor Chtniel: T'nat's good, ~ it's one of the same questions I nsk~ nnd I got a very good nnswer so hopefully he's going to nnswcr you the same way he did me. Chnrles Folch: Bottom line is, yes. We do not went to end up with another project going tln'ough the winter as Coun~ilmnn Senn: So it's not to nccomm~ the Tnrgct schedule but it's to vrt~tr~, sure ~ we don't we hit City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Charles Folch: It's ac.really a combination of both. We need to accelerate the remaining time schedule on the project to make up for at least 3 weeks that have been lost this year already due to poor weather conditions and additional work on the project. So it's a combination of both. Target is integrally a part of gotting this project completed yet in October. Councilman Senn: Is there a reason why there's not a cost sharing on the $25,000.007 I mean why is the City paying the full $25,000.00 in ovextime7 Charles Folch: There is a cost sharing. Basically on all overtime work, the contractor would pay tho, let's say the time. Of tho time and a half premium wage, they would pay the full 100% of the straight time of that overtime and then the City and tho contractor would split the premium share of that time 50/50. And basically we estimate it might be around $25,000.00 so there is sharing between the contractor and the City on that. Councilman Senn: But the sharing I'm asking about really isn't an issue between the City and the contractor. It's an issue betweea the abutting property owners who are supposed to be paying for part of the project. I mean why is the City being hit for the whole diffexence? I mean why isn't Target, why aren't the other abutting property owners paying a share of this additional project cost? Charles Folch: Actually it is, you're correct. It is considered a project cost which does go in, when we finally do the totals and tallies for what this project costs and what we propose to assess, it does affect the assessment to the abutting propexties that are benefitting from this project. Councilman Senn: So this will be included in that7 Charles Folch: Absolutely. Councilman Senn: Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: My questions were basically the same but I also have a question about the soil correction work. Is that because of the rains or is that just something you discovered when they started digging? Charles Folch: That was something we discovered once we got into it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you can't find that out by soil borings beforeAmnd? Charles Folch: We did do extensive soil borings before the project. It's one of those unfortunate situations where you missed it. Bottom line, you missed a bad spot. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And my othe~ question is, is it going to get done in time? Charles Folch: We're going to make every effort and that's why we're trying to como up with creative solutions like this to try and do what~ver we can to get this thing done this year. Yes, that's bottom line is we want it done. Mayor Chmiel: As I've been talking to many of my neighbors and a lot of people that utilize CR 17 to get onto TH 5, I'm hopof~ it's going to get done too because I don't want it to be like bfmnewashta. Receiving calls as to when it's going to get done and let's get rid of the mud. City Comu:a ~g - August 9, 1993 CouncilwomAn ~: Charles, I nol~d you let~r on the Adminiswalive ParJt~ and I don't mcan if it wns to this contmct~ or the TH 101. Charles Foletc It was to this conlrncl~. He's ac_umlly ~ name conlract~. MayorChmiel: Yes. I was concen~ about the mobilizafion as ~o the timefxame thnt li~ indicated they were going to start. And I thought they were probably behind a good 2 weeks whea I discussed thia with Charles and which is causing problems just ~ vn~ have with snow. I'd ~ have it rain right now and mov~ on with thi~ thing nnd get it cmnplea~ So is there a motion? Cooncilr~n Senn: I'll move aopmval wilh tl~ caveat thon~ ~ ~ c~t ia b~ split nmongst the pmtmny Mayor Chmiel: ~ere's anoth~ thing within that too snd ttu~'s some discussions we're doing with the County to see if some of that's not going to be~up as well Council~ ~ I'U second it. Resolution #93-68: Conncflnmn Senn moved, CouncHwemmn Dockendorf seconded to approve Contract Amendment to West 78th Street Detachment and Downtown Improvement Project 9~.3 fiat l~teaded Work Horn and Gverllme Compenmticn with a note Ihat the costs will be split betm~ em'yone J. HIGHWAY 101/PIO _I~_.~.R TI~IL: MRS. DlC~.OODE SELLING 8 ACRES TO WORMS~ AD~TIVE SUBDIVISION. on a public right-of-why. It's actn_ n11y ]and locked. We have, Mrs. DeJoode owns 5 ncres here and 8 ac~s just north of _that 5. Whnt she would lii~ to do is combine this 8 notes with the neighboring 2 hare part of Lot 2 of Jemissen Addition. This parcel is a met~s and bounds. This one is a platted lot. You can't combine a metes ownership and at the snme time we would m_nt-~, sure that no b~rildin~ permi~ be issued on mt, portion. On the 8 acres tmless it is platuxl in the furore. A?in, it is such a simple subdivision. Or ac~n_ 11y it's just chansin8 ~ of the parcel thnt it doesn't warrant being platted, and with that we're rccomm~g appm~ with MayorChmiel: Mrs. DeJoodeishere~ I don't know ff she'd lik~ to add anything more to thnt_ Towhat Sharminhasrcallyhroughtup. Thankyou. Are there nny other questions? Councilman Senn: Shannin what is the, it says here there'd be some type of a document prohibiting lite 8 acre parcel from being sold as a separate paxceL Sharmin AI-JafP. Conccc I-Icrc's the document and it will be zccordcd %o~in~t the property. City Council Meeting-- August 9, 1993 Councilman Senn: Okay what if the, let's say it's not sold and let's say the current ~ owner tries to use it as an 8 acm parcel. Sharmin AI-Jaff: Wc won't issue a building permit for it. I Mayor Chmiel:' You're going into a total 13 acre combined total there now. DeJ~'s are cutting their's from 13 acres to 5 which is required as opposed to the Worm's who are acquiring the additional 8 acres and will bo giving them a total of 13, is that correct7 Sharmin g-Jail': Correct. Councilman Senn: So Worms will be in conformance? Sha.rmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Councilman Senn: And DeJoode's will not bo in conformance then with tho 5 acre parcel7 Sharmin Al-laff: However the density will not change. So we're not changing anything in essence. This is what we have fight now. Councilman Senn: You have 2 parcels now. Sharmin A1-Jaff: CorrecC And this is what will result from what you will approve if you approve it. Councilman Senn: And what's happening with the other, the one with 750 written on it? The other part of the parcel. Sharmin AI-Jaff: It is an existing platted lot. Councilman Senn: It is? Okay, that one is platte& Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If heating none, I'll make a motion to approve item (j). Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Administrative Subdivision of property by Mrs. DeJoode located at Highway 101 and Pioneer Trail as proposed by mfr. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Jim Andrews: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This ~oon I did drop off a copy of a letter which I hope you all received for your packets tonight. I'd just like to read what the letter says and ask for the Council to take a leadership position in maUns it clear what their intentions are, and I'll read the letter now. On July 21st, 1993 1 attended a Planning Commission meeting. On one of the agenda items a Pls~nning Commission member had played an active role in a special interest group intergsted in a certain outcome of the Planning Commission. The commission member never publically disclosed his involvement with this special interest group. I believe that the City Council needs to create an official city policy which necessitates public disclosure city counc,~ ~ - August 9. ~993 when a city official, Council penmn or Commission member has played an active role in any special inUm~ group lobbying for a specific action before the city. If such a policy is sltmdy in existmce, I suggest the members and Commissioners on an snnual _i~,i,. Number two, have the Council mske a public stslmneat of such a policy and ss a sub i~m, nmk~. the s~mo. stsmnent at the first meeting of every n~w Council And number three, take whalevcr apptoprialo action may be necessary related to thst specific incident at thc phmnin~o Commission meetly. T1umk you very much. the~ has not been, I would say thst the city will ~ it under advisem~t and uy to como up with som~hine to ~ any given problems thst could come up as such. Richard. Conncilmsm W'mg: I'm not, I may have been at this meetin~ and I guess, if this occurred I didn't read it the ~me way so I guess I'd lik~, this is a~nning Ihnt a pinnnin~ Cr~nmi~ me~ber acted i .nsl~riaIely. I guess I'm at this point not a_~_epfing thnt a~ fact but I'd h'ke to know more abo~ it and if that's the case, I think we should we react to it and it pens__ in* to all of us. I guess I'd like ~hi~ parfi~_]sr incident or the 1Wmutes reviewed and see if there was any discn~lxmgy. Councilwoman ~: I was at the same meeting ami I don't recall anyooe on the _C. omm~ advocati~ a particulsr position strongly. ~, maybe I was oblivious to it. all our acting conuni~io~. Idon'tthinkthisimsbecncleadyslm~asapolicy. Notinth~Syears~I'~ been ~ of th~ Park Board. So the~ may hav~ be~n a proble~ with th~ pl~nnin~ _Commi~doo_ That is llot really the issue to me. It's thst I think the City needs to provide leader~'.m fur all _commie~ion,, _nffi~sh and Coon~~sn Dock~lldorf: No, I think it's excelle~ idea Jim. lust wanted to nm~. a point emt I didn't see it 8I thnt meeting but as a nmUe~ of course we should do that Coungilnum Senn: I think we should look at el~abli~in.o an ordJ'mmce. I thon~oht w~ tsllred_ about thst in file past. Anethic~ordinan~or~methingli~~ I'm not sur~ we've ever done anythins about it but it's probably a good idea that we go ahead. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it was something _th_~_ I Ixo~ht up m~my ymr~ ~o t~ptdin~ thst as ~ Ami somehow I was reassured thai wo had som~l~ing on the books so I didn't carry it any furth~. And I tMnk ~vibody should be well aware as to what the ethics are within their Own ~ decision making. SiIfillg at this particular ruble or any of the othe~ _commi~odol~. So I'd ~ that we do review this and if we hav~ one, let's get it established. If ~ I think we should set someJhing up. Okay. Anyone else f-re' ~ ~oa? PUBLIC I~.AR~IG: VACATION OF l~Dgq'l~_ ~ W?,LKWAY EA~4ENTS OVER LOTS 33 AND z4~ SLOCK 4~ moo~ VALLgY. Mayor Chmiel: Once asain I'd like to say, as I've menflmmi, this is a public hearing ~ I'm opening the public heging for this. Todd Hoffm~m. City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. The subject easements represent old easements. In fact the new easements have already been ~. This parflc, lar trail from Rico Marsh Lake to Lake Susan has already bccn conslructcd. Thc change in the casement locations allowed thc trail to take a more natural linc and create an additional separation from the LOw~ and Meyer residences. Both the Lowdcnuilk's and the Meyer's were receptive to this change and work with the City in that regard. It is recommended that tho attached resolution in regard to the vscation of pedestrian walkway easements over Lots 33 and 34, Block 4, Hidden Valley be adopted. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone at this time wishing to address this issue? Again, this is a public hearing. It's an opportunity to address it. If seeing none, I'll ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Coun~eilmlm Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf ~econded to close the public hearing. AH voted In favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion on this7 Hearing none, I'd ask for a motion. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I move approval of vacation of pedestrian walkway easements over Lot~ 33 and 34, Block 4, Hidden Valley. Councilman Wing: Second. Resolution 893-69: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Conncilmnn Wing seconded to adopt the re~olution in ~ to the vacation pedestrian walkway easements over Lots 33 and ~4, Block 4, Hidden Valley. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTH,ITY EASEMENTS LOCATED ALONG THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN LOT 1 AND LOT 3, BLOCK MINNEWASHTA HIGHLANDS, KENNETH AND GLADY$ BLOMQUIST. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As you'll see on the Figure attached to the staff rclx~ there is a narrow strip of land which ran along the north side of Lot 3 which was originally reserved for tho plat of Minnewashta Heights to serve as a driveway access for Lot 1, which was a flag lot. However, tho builder of Lot I chose to take driveway ~ from Minnewashta Parkway and no longer needed this space reserved accordingly. So this piece of property was recombined with Lot 3 and now tho ~ owners on Lot 3 are wishing to build a home and just as a matter of housekeeping, we no longer need the typical $ foot side lot drainage easements over that piece so the vacation is recommended as requested. Mayor Chmieh Okay. Is there anyone at this time wi.~hing to _address thc Council? If you could come forward and please state your name and your address. Kenneth Blomquist: I'm Kenneth Blomquist and the address of which we speak is 3900 Minnewashta Com't. I have a prepared statement which isn't very long. May I read that~ Mayor Chmi~: Yes sir. Kenmth Blomquist: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council In the title hero is a stsmment and need for the City to vacate thc right-of-way of the said pwpe~. We were shown this Lot 3, Block 1, ~finn~ta City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 I-[i-ohLqr~d8 who'8 flddro88 i8 3900 ~[innew~ghla CollrL We w{2~ ~ in~ in thtg WRikOllt lot blR it w~ rev/n~ in &e ~ ~y ~ ~ We then ~ ~ ~ ~ of this lot also owned tbe unused We then learned the City would not give us a b~rlin-o permit because of the ri.out-of-way which the City hag on Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Is there anyone else? Do you have a question Richard? Councilman V~m8: I'd move we close the public lmu'ing. Maycr Chmiel: A motion to close the public hearing. Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Sure. SecomL Councflnmn Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to clme the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion mrflaL The public hesring was Councilman W'mg: I would move we approve thin v~_~ of Lot 1, Lot 3, Block 3, M'mnewashta I-l]-ohlnnd, as reXlUeSt~ FOe No. 93-4. Resolution ~95-'/0: Councflmn Wing moved, Coundlman Senn seconded that the City Council approve the vacation of drfdnase and utility easements as dedimted on the recorded plat of MtnnawashM Highlands lying S feet on either side of the nm'th line of Lot 3, BLock 1, and lies emte~ of the 10 foot wide draiImae and utility easement over Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 1 along Minnsmmhfa Corn% as dedicated on said plat. And lies westerly of' the $ foot dmhase ~nd utility easements as dedJeM~ on said plat, over the easUrly $ f~eet of' said Lots 1 anti 2, Block 1 at b northerly nd southerly mension. All voted in favor and the motion corrled unanimously. NON-CONFORMING USE PERMFF FOR COLONIAL GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. Kst~ Aanenson: Colonial Orove was approved in 1956. In 1981 they were grantexl a non-ccmfimning use permit from the City. At ~_~_~ time it was not ~y ~ out, the beats should be docked ovemig~ Su~ conforming bea~hlots to 8o through, thst they would need to come in n~ get a permit based on the fact that a survey in 1981 showed 3 boats docked overnight This went to the pl~nnin-o Commi~_'_On twico. ~ ~ timo it went thero was an errur made by staff so the applic2mls did request to go back bexec~ tbe Planning believe that the number of boats st the dock wea~ 8 in 1981. I've attacl~ in your ~ tho afrxla~m and also City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 the level of use. In addition there's Minutes from when the plat was approved. The second phase with the beachlot that stated thai if they were to have boats or canoe racks of the like, they would have to come back and get a conditional use permit. That's where the staff came up with the interpretation that it was maybe not the intent to have boats docked overnight. The Planning Commission did on their Wednesday, Suly 21st meeting recommend that 3 boats be docked overnight. Again the Association's requesting, based on what they believe the level of use to be is 8 boats to be docked overnight. That's all I had. Mayor Chiniel: Alright, thank you. Is there anyone here representing the Colonial Grove7 Yes Roger. Roger Knutson: Maybe I could give my short introductory speech... This is our, I believe 14th recreation,! beachlot that the City has dealt with in this process of registering a non-conforming beachlot. Sust so we're clear on what the ordinance requires. The ordinance requires the City Council to decide what was there in 1981. That's all. Not whether that use is apIgopriate. Not whether there should be moro or less than there was in 1981. Not whether taxes are going up or down. Not whether there's trash there or other problems there. Just one issue. One issue only. What was there in 1981. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Cliff Whitehill: Good evening Mr. Mayor and Councilmen. My name is Cliff WhitehilL 7001 Dakota Avenue in Colonial Grove. I think the City Attorney has stated succinctly and accurately what the issue is before you and that is, what was the use of the dock in thai particulsr outlet in 1981. There will be a lot of statements wnight about what the use should be today or what it shouldn't be today or why it should be this or that ar something else. In 1981, because I was very much a pan of the formation of the Association and participated in the drafting of the request for the non-conforming use permit, it was not the practice of the city at that time to specify the number of boats to be moored, and moored is a very important word and that's the word that is commonly used. As to the number of boats that could be moc~d at a dock that was authorized for the outlet. Clearly the non-conforming use permit specified that there would be allowed a 100 foot dock. And in the memorandum of the City to the Council this evening there are a number of statements and sentences there that do need clarification. First, what was addressed7 For instance on page 2 of the memorandum that you received. It did state that under item 4, "no boats are to be moc~/". Unfortunately that is incorrect. That is not what the permit specifies nor what the Minutes addressed at that time. What was specified was that tbea~ were no mooring buoys to be added to the use of the outlet in addition to the 100 foot dock. It did not say anything about the number of boats to be moored. The Minutes of the Council at _ths_t particul~ time did address, and was very specific as to uses that were not permitted and tho uses that were not permitted was that no overnight parking or overnight storage, not the word moored, storage of boats were to be allowed on the outloL Again, not addressing the question of the number of boats to be moored or moored overnight on the dock. When we received our use permit I specifically inq~ of staff at that time as to the number of boats that would be allowed and the answer back, and which ires been the consistent answer back, well whatever a 100 foot dock can normally accommodate. That is what is to be allowed. And that's why the issue before you is what was the number of boats that were being stored or allowed in 1981. The survey that was taken shortly after tho granting of the use permit, which is an unsigned survey, was far a particular moment in time,. Nobody knows whether or not that early June '81 survey indicated that there were other boats that were at the dock that were out at the lake at the time. That was early in the summer. Nobody knew whether everybody had put their boat in. Most people don't even put it in by that time of ~Iune, etc and staff has said that the, again staff, quoting from your memm'andum has always stated that this survey is based on one day during the summer of 1981 and may not be a true representation of the level of use of the beachlot. You have been fin'nlshed with affidavits of 5 individuals who were all residents of Coloni_a_l Grove in 1981. Were concetrw~ with tho building of the. dock, the use of the dock and other matters associated with the use of that particular tmrcel. One thing that the survey clearly l0 City Council Meeting - Angnst 9, 1993 - indicated of course is thnt the outlot has nlways been mnintnin~ in excellent condition. It's the pride of the neighborhood nmi certainly I think should be a pride of _Chnnhnm~l. Alld ~ [ms n~r~" bix}Il on~ com?lnlnt Of the outlot. You'H probably also hear from Rte Lotus Lak~ Associafio~ people ~nt we~ really not f'nmninr with the useage ~f the lot in 1981, about wha~ they think may or may not hav~ been ~ use ~f the dock and the number of boats. Bven in the Plnnning _Commis~_'on thoy iIldicatgd all aistial ~ takl~ mc~ or less ~ the 101, clog up the ramp which is already ove~m~ in any event, and just cause them to put their bo~s in and out the first hslf of the ~nmer and the mher pe~on gets the second hs~f of the summer. So we have faced the there was a statement that when peopleboughtfl~ir~ in Colonis! Grove~~~~ Imean the moori~ of bos~ of course and the ~nni, courts ami otlmr thin? ~ ~O with iL ~ ono of ~le ~ They would have been told exactly what's lmppened and t_h~ is, well the number of bo~s thst am down th~m, presumably that's what's allowed. If the use tmrmit did not anow bom~ ~o be mooed ov~mi~oht, the~ ~h~ ~ h~ been in non-gomp!i__m~o singo 1981 in spite of so called three ~. Now that's just moored~these~~. Weweretold~t~wasjustamat~r0fclsrific,~Je~ We're not spplying f~ranewusepermiL Weahv,~yhave~ What was asked for is that wo ~imply clarify for the city tho would be approved f~' today's useage. We could, a 100 foot dock, it's a T dock, could acmslly accommoda~ mc~e boats ~zn that. Well we've said, we'll just have to live with what we hsd ~ then and so we're, Association. Nothing more. Nothing lgss. The last thing is that a number of other people will speak as to aerial ~ ~ ~ ~ny differently. The ~ the one storey that was talam by the ci~ in '81, as I indications ofasurvey haveno ~ even thebs~infamu~on thatthe '81 survey Ires. It'sjust alistin Any such survey was taken because thero's no bac, kgtoum:l infurmnti_nu on it. It could have been raima li1~llly at any time. So ~in, in C.~lg~ 8nd in 811mmary, [ho ~ i8 simply asking for comfirm~ion by the Council that in 1981 8 boa~ w~re moored at rust dock which is an a~op~um~ number of beats for a 100 foot City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue at this lime? Serf Kvichaug: You'll have to excuse me. I get a little nervous at these things so if my voice cmc~ or. Mayor Chmiel: Iust think you're sitting at your coffee table and we're sitting there with you. Jeff Kviehang: Okay. I'm a resident of Lotus Lake. I was also present at the Planning Commission meeting and my name is Jeff Kvichaug. I reside at 6681 Horseshoe Curve. I'm not as eloquent or as silver tongued as Mr. Whitehill but as a resident I believe I have some information that conflicts a little bit with some of the information Mr. Whitehill has presented. My goal tonight is just to proseat this information and clarify certain statements that may have been made to date. I agree the key issue here is the number of boats that were moon~ overnight in 1981. The issue is not deeded access. The issue is not real estate values. The issue is not the maintenance and upkeep of the common area and the issue is not the use or overuse of the public access. The issue is the number of boats that were there in 1981. When this matter first came up and I became aware of it, I took the opportunity to discuss this matter with various members of the City staff. Past and current board members of the Lotus l~i~e Homeowners Association. Various residents on the lake. Tho D/qR. The Ag Extension Service. Certain past city staff members and selected County officials as well While I'm sympathe~ to the concerns of the Colonial Grove residents, I feel that cerufin information that's been presented is inaccurate. I have been a Lotus Lake user for 6 years. Most recently I've been a homeowner on the lake. I've enjoyed the access to the lake, both from a trailer boating ~five through the public access and as a homeowner. I can certainly understand why they're upset about the possibility of being limited in their mooring fights. But certain infonnafion is not consistent with that of my research or our research. Number one, the number of boats that were docked at that dock in 1981, Mr. Whitehill made reference to some information that a Lotus Lake Homeowners Association had tn'esen~. I believe you probably have a copy of this letter but I'm presenting another one for the record. That's a lettex that was signed by the past and current Board members of the Homeowners Association that were very active at that time and were also residents on the lake. I believe in your packet of information there should also be a note that there were going to be several ~vits submitted. That because of time constraints we couldn't get into your packet before the meeting tonight. I have a total of 8 affidavits regarding the use of the boats from homeowners on Lotus Lake as of 1981. There were some questions made at the Planning Commission whether our letter was suf~lent evidence or whether their affidavits should take precedence. As a result we followed up to make sure that they're weighed eq~_a_lly, or had equal value. There's also been several questions about the accuracy of the 1981 survey. And speedy Mr. White, hill has referred to it as an unsigned survey and _that_ nobody knows about the boats under use at the time of the survey. I took the opportunity to talk to several of the people involved in the lake study committee which the City Council appointed in 1981 specifically to address the beachlot caxtinance that was proposed in that year and the water surface useage tndinance proposed in that year. The lake study committee was commissioned or charged with the responsibility to work with city staff to, for one thing survey the number of boats moored at common areas in 1981 for all the various lakes in Chanhassen. The city staff was responsible for conducting this survey and the individual that was responsible for it was a person by the name of Scott Martin. I don't believe anybody with Colonial Grove took the ~ty to ~llr to Scott Martin and I spoke with him today. Scott Martin served fxom 1981 to 1984 as the Community Development Director for the City of Chanhnssen, and as such he is responsible for supervise the city planning department, as I understand it. I-Ie also was personally involved or personally performed a survey. He indicated to me that the surveys were performed on weekdays when there was little or no useage for ali tho various Chanhassen lakes. It was performed once during 1981 for each lake. But it was clear to him as a member of the city stuff that this survey would be used as a benchmark and I'm going to quote him as closely as I can here. And he said therefore it was done, and I quote, tho accuracy and integrity of a reasonable person. Now cetlainly that doesn't mean that 3 is the exact number but it does mean that his count was done when there was very little or no useago and it was as reasonable and acctuate r City Council Meetiag - August 9, 1993 '" houses that were boilt in that Asmcia~a in 1981, 10 of which were t,~ propmies, meaning a total of 18 non-~ pmlnaqios resided in 1981. Finally the~'s beea some comments _m~,i~t, or in the Pla~mln~ mean that you have deeded mooring rights and %mia, aa Mr. While~ill ~ mooring ia a ~ imlxa'tsnt Imm :; Ix~ats allowed or whctl~r a.~'s 8 boats allowed, no on~ is mktn~ that rlsht away. It will he lms comnmim~ but only 3 can be moored overnight unda' the gropo~ as ~celned by or rect~aea~! by tho lnanntn_,. e. onflie~8 affidavits la'esent~l which I ~ ~ith the ~ and the Mm/ix to ~ to ~ thron~h: The City ma-v~y, aa inacctm~ as it may !~ pre. acat~d to he, I ~ ia the moat ac~unU~ inf~mmaon we lmv~ from tlmt IX~illt in ~ and that ~ 3. ~ dry Pl_annin~ _Commtmi_nn rooornmlmd~ the apIa'oval of 3 mo~in8 hetw~a 3 and 8 a~ma too larg~ to r~4mc~ for a r~a~ma_ _hl~ pa'son. And Fmany, ~ minting riEh~ dom not mean limil~l ~ As a final not~, I haw ~ fmth~ amttnvtt and it'a fxom a person who was involved in the ]ak~ alxidy committc~ and ~y charg~l with ~ a ma'v~ of th~ number of boats ~ at the varioua commoa are~ and it diacuaa~ ~!~ char8~ of ~ the accoants wa~ com~ or ac4nm~ and ~ diroctty with th~ accuracy. Thank you. Mayor Chmied: T~an~ you. la thc~ anyme else wishing to ~ thiff/ ChuckFrln: My name is Chuck Hin, 7007~TmlL Ihavebee. naregdemofColonis~Gmvestnce 1971. Iamoneofthepartios~_stsignedanaffidavit~~a~onthe~in 1981. The~'sacouplethingsI a snmmer and sees 2 boals, that that's the survey for the entire summ~. I mean ~ can be 10 boats down I wag ~8 tomr. k my Imtin andthtnk 12 ycarsback exactly who was on the docJc Iknow Ilmvcabout 6 names and I can't rcmcmher the others, and it's interestin8 that ti~ Lotus 1981, 12 years ago, can remember how many boats we~ on our dock. I was there all the time and I can't remem~ exactly evca'y person that was thea'c, and they can remembea' 12 years ago th_st we just trna 3 docks the~. That's pretty hard fix me to boliovo. Tho othm7 thinE I want to addr~, he mesltioned how the planning Commission had ~ thc 3 bom. I wouldn't say it was an ovcrwhelmin~ vote. It was 4 to 2 and one of first person that talked and I wanted to say somcains after he talk~ but thc Imblk lmrins was closed but thc first thins hc uttered almost, well ia all faimoss and he weat on to mllr about 3 boats. This has nothin8 to do boats, that makes no sense wlmtsocver. So I wouldn't call the plsnninE Commi~ vot~ a v~y C. Ollc. hisive as far as overwhelmingly ~ 3 boats. Thank yom Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Chris Engel: Mr. Mayor, my name is Chris EageL I'm lXosengy the A~_'ng FTesld~t of Colonial Omve at 13 City Council Mee~g - August 9, 1993 Lotus Lake. I have been in that position for the last 3 1/2 years and simply the points I would like to make, an emphasis of Mr. Whitehiil's comments surround, I would ask that the Council try to separate, ff they will, our parfic~hr permit from the others that you've dealt with in the past. The point that needs to be made, qui~ honestly is that our Association, if you will, was one of the o~y associations at the time that the ordinance was developed, that was I guess approxima~ly 2 years ago that had a non-conforming beaehlot permit from 1981. Our position is quite clear, and I think we've made that position clear that we felt all along that we have a permit that's withstanding. Quite honestly I have acted over the last 2 1/2 years when Jo Ann Olsen was still involved with the city, I approached the PLanning Commission at the initial meetings where I was asked to show up as the President with our permit in hand. And in fact at flint point tallred specifically with Jo Ann and I said, do I even need to be at this meeting. We in fact do have a permit and is it valid. She said yes, and I'm quite surprised you have one because I don't know of any other Association in all of Chanhassen that has one. Well I thank the founders of our Association for getting that piece of information and I guess I would ask that we not be lumped in with the other associations that you've dealt with in the past that have in fact asked for a new permit based on what they've used in the past or asked for more boats or were at 16 and we're now down to 8. We in fact are asking for what we had in 1981 when we had a permit. A very valid permit. And at that point, for whatever reason, there was no ~cation to the number of boats but only to the length of the dock. 100 feet. I think there is an implication that if you're going to have a 100 foot dock, that you're going to put boats on it. I've been involved in the Association since 1986 and Mr. Whitehill also makes a very valid point. I've also worked on the dock in coordinating parking places. If I'm not mistaken in 1986 they did a survey. I have had a boat at the dock since 1986 and we had 7 or 8 boats on the dock in 1986 yet the survey says that we had 3. Again, I have to emphasize from the survey's point of view, what is the validity of the survey when they're not even signed. There's no testiment as to who did it. Wt~ time of day. Where in fact does the information come? We have $ affidavits that in fact specify that we have the 8 boats. Have had the 8 boats since 1981 parked at our dock and we had asked that the surveys be upstanding, be thrown out and actually the affidavits be the upstanding evidence in this case. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Tban~ you. Is thexe anyone else? Okay, seeing none, I'I1 bring this back to Council and come up with some kind of conclusion here, hopefully. I might add this is not one of the best things we enjoy doing, believe me. Makes you sometimes sit up here and think you're God and we're not. But to come up with a conclusion. I must say that we have been rather consistent in all of our decisions that we have done, specifically going back to what was there in 1981 and there's a lot of arguments on both sides of the aisle on that particular issue. But with that I'd like to start with Mark. Do you have anything you'd like to add? Councilman Senn: I started out I guess real, we've got this thing kind of torn on it primarily because of all tho, I guess other ones that we've had through with it. The more and more I looked into it though I really started to think that this was really a lot different than the ones, at least that I've seen since I've been on the Council. Most of the ones I've seen at least since I've been on the Council have been very ill defined. No permits. No rules, no nothing in place. No deeds reciting what is or what the rules are or aren't. In fact I think most of them I've seen come into Council we've had two sets of people in the same neighborhood arguing over what was and what wasn't. I think after really looking through all the history on this, again I think this one is different. I think in 1981 before this ordinance was put in place, this neighborhood in effect did have a permit. I've looked very closely at the permit and the closest thing that I can see that rela~ to boa~s is no mooring buoys shall be placed upon Outlet A. There is not any more specific reference than that that I can find. Something that even resembles an issue of a boat. Likewise look very specifically back at the Phnning Commission Minutes from 1980 and those l~tnutes I think have kind of a key word in it and that is where it talks about, it says here Mr. Metz stated that the Covenants appear to be in order although they do not spedflcally ~__s_li~ about overnight parking, overnight sim'age of boats or erecting s~ructures. However it was explained that any, and I'll underline this word changes requesting any of the above would be required to go, or City Council Mee~g - August 9, 1993' to ~ a public hearing for conditional use permit. And what n~lly sram to u~ar me at that po~t is you have a neighborhood here who thinks they have a valid permit and you know the right to put 8 ~x 10 or wb_n_~ver number of boats there was down the~, and the renson they need to come into the city is if the~'s a change, And they've never changed ~o I mean I thinir thgy'vo ~ ~ down thei'o off that ba~i8 for all for 12 years, I think it's kind of hnrd now to come bnck~ 12 yents nmi say, you've been doing ano no for 12years. Especially whm you look back at this type~~~thedocumeut. To me if tlmm was a I~oblem we should have beeu ~ing i~ a long time ago. Notnowin 1993. I look back and l say, I~fink~ documenls could have been a lot tighter. Ithink~pmbablyshouldhavelmmalottighm'. Iiooka~allthe now. I .hsl~n~ofeelthelake'skindofa~s__u_~alresom~~~m~~. I'd Hk~ ~ see as msny people in the community who want u~ use it, use il. I'm going to have m say, I've ev~m used Lores ~-~- I think most of my life. As well as Cluismms Lake andI can't remember exac-tly what was down therein 1981, evea tho%o~ I probably used the lake fr~luently rhea. I remember the~ records finther back but I guess I wish the City did too. $o I guess anyway I look at i~, I k~p coming back m a key poinl hea'e is giv~m the agreemmL I walk away and I ~nlr if we don't, how would I say th~s. I get fact ~h~l thinklhey havean agreement ~~ 1981 with theCity whi~ doesa't ~ anm~bea'ofboa~s. I think they could very clearly be ~o a posi~n far mc~, be counu~r tauductive ~s~ the one they am taking. circ-mstances, I think we o~ght to agree to the 8 boals and run m the bank with it so ~o speak becanse it seems to m6 w6'r~ ge.A~ing a good Hm[mH~n tha~ w6 don't hav~ now. AIld I that we don't. So I think we ought to go with the~ is a nea~ing permit and basicany it just doesn't deal with the issue. I'm going to go with the 8, not because of Mr. White, hill's issue of mooring or storage. I think _th~t_'s just semantics n~ does absolme~ not nddr~sspermi~ Notbecau~the~'s 100 foot doc~ because the City sutvey says it was 3 5 feet. Butmote because we have been, we have tried to be faidy h'be~ with these with the ~inE people's rights to use the lake. Somewha~ becmme Ihe valklity of the dry survey is in queslion ~ ~y ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ you know, memori~ get twisted, et~ but I do believe thst ~ Co_kminl Grove Associafim~ members probably do have a lithe bit berm' memory of it, albeit it's probably a ~ bi~ biased. Bu~ for those remons and f~r the ones Couaeilmaa W'mg: Can yoa address thia permit_ issue? You know we're lalking about they hsd a non- 15 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 conforming permit and it doesn't address numbers of boats. What does any of this got to do with the '81 useage? Roger Kautson: That non-conforming use permit they received, they received prior to the enactment of the 1981, 1981 or '82 recreational beaclOot ordinance. The current ordinance was not in effect... Undex what bssis it was issued, the City in fact was looking, we don't know. But it's relevant to the extent it documents what was there in 1981, and only to that extent. Obviously the Planning Commission and Council nt that time looked at the issue and said, here's what you've got. We're registering your non-conforming use but for whatever reason they didn't mention boats. Well when the 1981 ordinance regulating recreational beachlots was passed,'that became a very important issue because it limited the number of boats you could have. So what you do, you have the non-conforming use permit that tells you, answers quite a few questions but you have a big blank as far as that permit goes. As far as how many boats were there in 1981. From looking at it, you can't tell whether there was one boat. I can't anyway, 1 bent there or 100 boats by looking at that document. $o you have to look at people's memories or whatever other evidence they can come up with as to what was there in 1981. Again, it comes back to the same issue. With the agreement or not agreement, what was there in '81. Councilman Wing: That's why I lost my compatrients point hem where they're talking about this being different than the others. I'm granting that they had a non-confmnlng use permit and I'm going to say allowed the use of boats. I don't have an issue with that so let's go back to the number of boats that was there in 1981, becanse there is nothing different. They had permission to use boats. So I have 5 affidavits here that say they had 8 and I have 5 over here that said they had 3. And those people aren't just up on Horseshoe Curve, or any one group. They're scattered around the lake. In fact one of them is real close to the Association. In fact one of them that was signed by, I'm not going to get into that. I guess I have information where the affidavits aren't totally accurate, at least coming from Colonial Grove. Considering a neighbor that was concerned about his siguatm'e on this and the fact that he wasn't comfortable with it. So we get back to what was there. The Planning Commission went over this twice. Not once and in both times the majority of that group voted 3 boats. And two of those votes were over the issue of affidavits. They did not have offsetting affidavits at that time so I'm not going to rely on that issue. So I'm trying to decide here,in fairness to all these other 13 we've done, what was there in 1981. That's all I care about. It's irrelevant of property values or whether there was a permit or non-conforming permit or whether yon had boat use or not. Obviously yon had boats there so I'm going to grant you that. I'm trying to be fair here with the other 13 and decide what was there. During the s,~mmex of 1981 the ~vits claim that there was 8. Other affidavits claimed it was never more than 3. And what compells me to favor those is the fact that the Association, Lotus Lake Homeowners Association in fact had a Complaint that year reporting a violation of the subdivision. Well, even ff I assume they had the right to have those boats there, it still claims that there were 3 boats that were in ques~n, and 2 or 3 boats continued to be present at various times that summer. No one has come forward tonight, or at any Planning Commission meeting and justified any more than 3, and there's all sorts of documentation here saying there was 2 or 3 boats there so I won't question that. But other than the affidavits from this side, which arc offset by this side, who both seem to be real famili__ar with the lake. All were there in 1981. Some of them again are neighbors. 3 boats comes up. 2 to 3 boats so it seems to me the Planning Commission allowing 3 boats was somewhat of a compromise and I think was reasonably fair. And I cannot find any documentation for moro than that number of boats. I also get concerned that by permitting any boats there with the 25 foot beachlot, and then applying our dock se~ ordinance which takes 10 feet off each side automatically for all neighbors, that leaves 10 from 20 that leaves 5 feet to work with for a dock. Well that's access for 8wifpmir~g and other issues but when you start adding boat lifts and docks to that, now you're in the dock setback zone and we have not allowed anyone else to have that violation. But in this case, to impose that ordinance we'd in fact take your uso away so that's not going to work. The other issue I wanted to ask about was this dock length. There's mention of a 100 foot dock City Council Meeting - August 9~ 1993 but yet all these surveys t~lir 35 feet. '81, '86 right on through. Why are we approving 100 foot dock if they've never had more th~m 35? Haven't they lost that right? Roger Knutson: I believe they say they have 100 foot dock tha~ now. Cmmcilman W'mg: Is that correct? Cotlncilmn~l V~mg: The l~fmit says 100 foot dock. What's there is 35. And what's the ncnnnl use this summer? What have yon noted tt~ ~ summet ns the nctml me? Ihaven't~it. Kate Aanenson: I haven't checked it this snmmcr. Councilman W'mg: Okay. So I guess I'm going to support the plsnnin~ _Comml~SiOll'S fe(x~nm~tton bec. ati~ I think they ~ to thi, through two meetings and I think thn_t the 3 boats was a re~smmb~ com~ It doesn't issue, argue the issue of pmni~ or boats. It only tries to address what wns then~ in '83 and the, or '81 boats. When homes ~ being sold by re, al estate people, it oflm~ limes ~hnn~es a position by than to say you have bont~t~ty~u~li~fi~~~. And some of it's lme. I look at tt from th~ smndpoint of the Association's the pull together these specific lots was the intent I thini~ really behind it as a 8wimmin~ ~ Peziod. And it has grown ~ thm part a lil~ more and a little mom and a little mom. I know tmda' my own circumstance when I bought my home, I was mid ~qt we hsd rights to Lak~ Ann with a padt thnt WO hnd Ired it if that was really true. Bat I was told it was nnd I believed the real estate agent. And nfta' findinE out the city owns that piece ofland. It is not an auocia~ piece. It's owned by tt~ C~ and I even t~d the City pail ont ofthestcryw~~inM~me, myself. In going back to what I' m looking nt now. In someoftl~petmit still am leaning townrd the ~ of planning Conmlia~n's ~ m to the 3 boats. And I know if it goes to a vote here it's going to be a 2 I~ 2 ti~ nnd we'r~ lacking one individnal as well But I have also thonEht there is some diff~:~:e in what has ~ ha~ as ~ to sane of the othe~ l~x~n a c, msistaa standtx~t as to how we have conchzded some of our deciidms. I think ~ I'm still lonninE tOWIg~ tl~ 3 bo~ the permit that was issued, by everything that I see here and Dick has memim~ _thta already, it's a mitaafion of it. Is thattha~ has beea in 1981, one seascxmldock35 feet. In L986, 35 feet andin 1991, 35 feet. Residents: No, tl~'s not true... Maym' Chmicl: So ~ seems to bc som~ kind of ~ within iL But I think that all tl~ things ha~ 17 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 and forth has been held and discussed and I still see that, well let me just hold my vote until I make my decision. And I've thought about this long and hard and I've looked at all the pros and cons tn the issues as I've said before. But I still think that there are some, and it's sort of am~ziug. 3 to 8 is quite a difference from what there was to what other people are saying as well. And it depends upon what day you're really looking at. I think you brought that up before. What day it was. So with that I would ask for a motion in regard to this, both Lou~ Lake Recreat~nal Beachlot Councilman Senn: I have a question first Don I'd like to ask, ff I could. Mayor Chmiel: And I was going tn say, we're going tn have discussion with it as well. Go ahead. Councilman Senn: For the attorney. I look at this and we have an agreement, it seems tn me, with the Association dated 1981 befor~ the ordinance okay. Picking one of the things that the agreement is very ~ about, which is the length of the dock being 100 feet okay. This document's then recorded. Okay, through that Association's documents with each ~, okay. How can the city simply pass a new ordinance and say it's changing that dock length? Changing that agreement and not even inform the people that they're doing, specifically. I'm not tslt-iug about genea~al public notice. I'm ~lidug about an agreement hero. Not a general ordinance. I mean it seems to me at that point the burden of proof so to speak ia on the city somehow. If it's going to change an agreement it negotiated and signed, it needs to specifically go back and either renegotiate it, reopen it or do something, especially when it's ~ a..~inst the properties. And I take that issue and I just follow it through and I say, hey this is one of the poor~t things I've ever seen. I mean I can't help the fact that it's poor but I keep coming back tn that nagging question that says tn me, you know geez. How can we mess with this agreement? Roger Knutson: I think this agreement, and I was not around in 1981 when this was done so I wasn't here. I have no personal knowledge of how they reached these conclusions. I don't even know why they had it. There was no recreational beachlot ordinance at that time. There was a recreation ordinance of some sort. Af~ this thing was passed, the current ordinance, the current version of the ordinance came into play. This is excellent evidence of what people thought was there in 1981. I think obviously you'll decide what weigh that should get. The boat issue wasn't addressed as far as I can tell. Why it wasn't addressed, it's a preety obvious issue, why it wasn't, I don't know. I think when the new ordinance went into effect in 1981 it created new rules. This helps you to decide what the baseline is and what was there except for the one issue, which you saw tonight. The number of boats that can bo there overnight on the doc~. From the discussion it obviously was something that was on people's minds. It was discussed for a moment at least in the Planning Commission meeting back then. They didn't tell us what the answer is. I think obviously that's your task under our new ordinnrlce is tO fill in that blank. How morly boats wore there. Councilman Senn: Okay, well. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: I want tn ask Mark how we've violated this agreement. The agreement doesn't address the number of boats. It didn't say they could have 20 or ~i or 3 or none. What have we done to violate this agreemenO Other than trying to enforce the ordinance that came in in 1981, which we've done pretty consistently. And that was done. Councilman Senn: Well if you enforce the ordinance Dick, as it came in in 1981, you're in violation of this agreement because according tn that they're only allowed to have a 3/i foot dock. It's right here in black and City Council Meeling - August 9, 1993 white. Yet we have an agreemeat...sepamte the issues here and likewise this_ sgree~neat is sileat on the nnmher of boa~ Which means Ihcy aren't bound by our ordinsn~ as far as I'm ~ They have an sgr~mm~ Councilnmn W'mg: So they can have any rmmber of boa~ they want to. Councilman Senn: But to me they're coming in and saying, we'n settle on 8. To me that's a ~ of a comlnomim t.i~-. I s~i befo~ w~ ought to ~onah it and run because I think there's some nmi open rodeO, I ones ~ me that seems like R's real ripe f~r litigation and somebody's going to go in and split the baby. And the asmement just has a big hole in it and I don't think that's something we blsme on the netghb~hocd. I think s~ this po~t we have to say hey, wemsdeamisU~. Okay. Solet's swallow ourmismke. Let's agreo to something that the neighboeaood seems to be wining to go with _.ha let's get out of the deal without getting into a buncy ~f liti~ion and everything else. That's ~ way I look at it. Roger Knutson: I mean after the fact I think we certainly have thc fight to enact ordinances regulating the number ~fboats th-t can comein. Fore~smple, ifthey hadnoboats therein 1981...andthey comein 3 yearn later and say, you can't have any. You have the right, subsequent Councils lmve the right to make changes from what ~ Council~ have dono. To enact n~w m'dinanc~. Mnking thin~ moro Councilman Senn: We can't clmnge writtea agreemeats with people. Imeanlwanttonmlrathntclesr. Atleast tl~'s ~ I'v~ ev~r taxi,stood. We can chsnge ordinances lint we can't chango agreemen~ Conuscts. Roger Knutson: It ~ on what you mean by, ff you want to get into... Councilman Seam: I'm just asking the question. Roger Knutsm: That's not 100% true. Planned Unit Dcve~ent A~ signed off by both sides, ~i .mple e~mnplc. It's a zoninE docomeflL Can 8ub~ Co~ ¢lmn~oo that, ~ By mending the zoning. Absolutely. Oouncilman Senn: Inlm~sting. Co~_c'ilmm~ W~mg: We could go bacJc oll ~ ~ ~ ~, ~. ~ R 8~ ~ ~ ~ p~ ~ ~ why~~gom~~~m~~~~~~~~-~. ~~~~~t ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pmn~g ~ it S~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~t ~ ~t ~ ~t ~ ~ nm~ of ~p~in~ got ~ ~ ~ ~W ~ h~ m ~ So ~'~ g~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ O~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~nin~ ~mi~ ~i~y ~ ~ go ~ ~ 1981 ~ ~. N~~in~, ~in~ W~ ~ W~ ~ I ~ink ~M ~t ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ m ~~ ~ ~ ~ m go ~ ~ 1981 ~ ~ ~ ~ 19 City Council ~g - August 9, 1993 Roger Knutson: What we basi~y said is that in 1981 when the ordinance was, the recreational beachlot ordinance was enacted, if you didn't meet those standards as of that date, you were non-conforming and as a non-conforming use you did not have the right to expand. So what we decided to do a couple of years ago, we had constant complaints, is to register what you had there in 1981. So when someone comes in and says over this ~nal beachlot they're doing so and so and that's expansion, they shouldn't be doing that. We can look at our files and say, oh. They're okay or they're not okay and then we can go after them or say there's no Councilman Wing: $o I don't have any interest in taking away their boats, nor taking away their use. I just don't feel it's fair for me to sit here after 13 of these whore we have impacted associations, and do anything other than what was them in 1981 and it does not affect their agreememt, written or verbal or handshake or anything else. It's simply we have an ordinance in 1981 that counted boats. Now if they can show that they had 10 boats, Minncwashta Heights came in and had an incre&'ble number of boats documented. We couldn't argue with it. Got it hands down but anyone else that didn't have full documentation, we went with these counts becmus~ it's the best we could do and the burden of proof is not on us. I'll disagree with that The butxlen of proof is the people coming in and the burden of proof presented to me, and the only reason I went with 3 boats versus 8 is that the burden of proof was 3. And I'm not going to belabor and argue this point. We can go all night on this. I think maybe we should just call it. I'd love to compromise on this. Maybe split it but we can't do that. That is not the question, or I would certainly suggest we do that. Maybe como to grips on this issue. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And yet in my opinion it's not as cut and dried as that. I mean we've been very consistent with tho prior ones and we've said I'm sorry people. I know your real estate agent told you this and I've upheld those decisions but in this one it's my opinion that it is different because they've been given a document from the city stating the use. And I think they have more of a footing to stand on. So I can't be so cut and dried on this and I would like to compromise if we could, because I think if any case, this is one to do it on. Councilman Senn: Well whether they go :3 or 8, it's not going to be thc end of the world and history isn't even going to note this but I guess I have to know, they're different and they have an agreement. How many boats did that agreement allow them? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, it didn't allow any but it did infer that they could have as many boats as would fit on a 100 foot dock. Roger Knutson: To just point out on that. Then subsequent to this permit being issue, an ordinance was enacted which limited the number of boats that they could have. Tho basic concept is flint you can't, this City Council, and no other City Council, can contract away your zoning powers. I mean if for an example, and I'll matte an absurb example. They said you could build a glue factory on hem and this was all signed up. And the next day or the next year the Council changed it's mind to rezone the property, they couldn't do it unless they'd already smzted building it regardless of what that document said. Resident: We already had the dock. Mayor Chmiel: Please, hold it down. Thank you. Councilman Senn: But we do, let me understand. I guess one quick question and that is, we do have a non- 2O City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 conforming usc permit on _this properly now, coffuct7 May~ Chmicl: That's cxnmucL Roger Knutson: Yes, but it's non-conforming use Ixamnit under the existing ordinance. Councilman Se, nn: Iundea~ Iunder~ Okay, butinevcryothe~~itprettym~~~~ meets the issues of thc re'tH,ronco, okay? I mean I gue~ what I'd like to do is ju~ ~mply, I guess to get it off agreemmt to enter an latltlilional ilmn and clarific _-~_'~m that no more than 8 boats would be allowed at the doc. Jo MayorChmicl: Any othcr discussion? I'llcaHaqucstion. Would you lii~ to make, who would like to make a motion7 Don Ashworth: Was the~ a second on the motion7 Roger Knutsm~: No. Councilwoman ])ockendorf: I thought Mad~ did_ Councilman Senn: Just did. May~ Chmicl: No, it's not a motion as yet. You have some c~ Rogur Knutson: I thought Mark just Coun~ Senn: I just move(L are making. I asked for a motion to Councilman Senn: Whatever I just said, risht. Councilman Setm: I'd ~ to move that we anmcad the non--inS use lxn'mit bcachlot for Colonial Grove limits thc number of boats to be tied to thc dock overnight to be 8. Cxnmcilwomnn Dockcndotf: I'H secxmd that. City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion7 If not I'll call the question. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Non. Conforming Use Permit for Colonial Grove Homeowners Association Recreational Beachlot with an amendment to their agreement which limits the number of boats which can be tied to the dock overnight to eight (8). All voted in favor, except Councilman Wing who was silent, and the motion carded unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman Wins: Can I get one clarification item7 What about our dock setback ordinance that we've been so rigid on? It would appear to me that this dock and these bores can't possibly comply with that. We've granted them the authority to operate the site, is that correcO Roger Knutson: Since they, you said it very welL If the existing dock can comply, we require compliance but in this situation since it would not be possible to comply without t__n_lriug out the dock, we cannot reqtth'e compliance. Mayor Chmiei: Okay, does that clarify your question7 Councilman WinE: Yes sir. Mayor Chmiei: Okay. Very good. Councilman Senn: What was the vote7 Mayor Chmiei: It was vote 3 with a no vote which would mean it's a yes vote. Thank you. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 4.47 ACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS~ 7500 FRONTieR TRail.t LOTUS LAKE WOODS~ LEANNA FORCIER AND HUBERT V. FORCIER. Sharmin Al-Jaff: This is a very simple subdivision. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 4.47 acres into 7 single family lots. Ctm'ently the~ is an existing single family home on the site. This residence will bo either demolished or used for practice by the Fir~ Department 3 of the parcels will be serviced by an extension of Del Rio Drive. It will be cul-de-~. The other 4 parcels will be servic~ off of Frontier Trail. There will be ponds built up to NURP standards. Those ponds will not only service the subdivision. However, it will also help retain the water from the surrounding area before it flushes out into Lotus Lake. So it will definitely improve the qnality of Lores Lake. The site is heavily wooded. It is a fairly youn8 forest and staff requested a preservation easement over what is highlighted right now in red. And the applicant has shown this ~ation easement on the plan. The app~t is proposing to replace every sinsle uv, o removed. By the time all trees are replaced, we would have lost 10% of all trees on site, which cmxe~tly the landscaping ordinance is being changed and what plnnning staff is recommending through the Tree Board, what they're recommending is that total tree loss would not exceed 30% so this is definitely under the 30% that would be removed with the new tree ordinance. We are recommendin8 approval for this application. However, there are two changes that we would ~ to make to the conditions of approval. The first one is on page 8. Condition number 11. It should read extension of utility service stubs to Lots 4 and 5, and also the driveway, shall bo in this same general location to minimize disruption and tree removal. And then we would stnTzo out, those two lots shall share a common driveway. We should also strike out the shared portion of the driveway shall be built up to a 7 ton design and 20 feet in width. What the applicant has proposed is those two driveways be within the same geaeral area with a buffer strip between them, which is accep~le. The second condition would be adding condition 22 May~ Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin: Is the applicant hem ~is cvcnin~ Robert Davis: Good mg ~, Cmmcil members. Citizem. We've 8ot a sms11~ group lmre since the last itmn. My name is Robert Davis. I'm an architccc I'm at 4010 West ~6th Street in ]~lins. I'm working along wilti Sunday Bngineefing in the land plsnnin~ of this project f~r the Norcier's. Let me clarify for you some of the items that have been previously ixought up, either with staff or at the Plsnnin~ _Commi~ou meeting residence on 4 1/2ac~althoushitwas~lotsle~_!ly. There was only one residenco ~ ~0 years. $omostof here *ira* for $0 years has been quite heavily wooded. We feel the 4 s/fected houses are Irate, he~ here ~ item we just discussed about. Arcasonably close driveway with a 5 foot green buff~ with 2 1/2 feetcu each bro~t llp at tho PIAnniqg Commi~tiOll WIIS_.011 Del Rio DlJVO, on the 8ooth 8idB. He ~y caned preserv~on list even though it's not 6 inches in dinmeter. Our tree ~ list docum~ 169 trees 6 can 8ave a numb~ of ~ frO08 that ~ in tho right=of-way bet bei:amso wo'ro bo_ldin~ the RsphRlt ID this side rathea' than cefl~ it. we think...snving the trees. The grading Rna_ drnin%oe plan shows tlmt tetnhting wan. that's a good compromise there. So those nre some of the isstes and items ~n~_t have been discussed with and modified nnd discussed n~ the planning Commission meegng. There wns some discussion nlxm~ the pond. They're shown here. Just n pond. Right now there's a storm sewer _coming downhnl and curving out this wny...off hete~ We're proposing n storm sewer off this cul-de-sac to come down to this point too and then a report ~ ~ have~ One of the things I wanUxl to ~ is that in deveJoping thi, amount of land there's a In, get to provide n better water q,~n~ity from off the ~ comin~ to this system. We just speak n mhmte Very simply we're ctferins to replace either every tree cut with cee 2 1/2 inch caliper tree or all Uee c~tper lost RobcrtDavis: Okay. That is a document clmng~ Thegmntingofaneasementf~lhelm~etv~imoflreesin these areas and limt's shown he~. Now lhe two lines here, and Ihese are ~ and Ihey're caned out on your We felt ns we develop this nmi lalked to people nad mlit~l to staff _dm[ we _did_n't want to get into a si_mntlnn 23 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 where $ years from now people start coming back and saying, we want an exception. So we tried to have some foresight here and say, let's give an area close to the building pads that the property owner can cut a tree and replace at full caliper. In other words, ff it's a 25 inch tree, he plants 10 2 1/2 inch trees to replace them. But he can do that and we're considering that ms a probable buildable area for a family room and screened porch. Some addition. We just felt we wanted some thought he~ of not restricting this conservation eamement line so close to the building pad that you'd come, that people are coming back to here in 5 years saying we want an exception. I think staff is agreeing with us. Mayor Chmiel: We've seen too many of those, thank you. Robert Davis: You had one tonight that you're trying to cx~'r~t. Is it appropriate for the Council to consider the cost sharing item or is that to be taken up with staff'? Mayor Chmiel: I think that's a discussionary thing with staff. Robea't Davis: Okay. I'd like to just put out an item for your consideration. For your information. We're proposing 2 trees on the front of each lot and the total here is 3 saved trees, removed and new trees. And there's 2 trees proposed in the front of each lot and then there's 26 trees proposed around the pond. I'd like to consider, the owner feels that he's contributing generally to the public in another way. This lot at one time in the process, we started back in February with our first plans here was 107 feet wide. It's now 90 feet wide and that land in effect has been given to allow the pond to get larger. There was we feel one...and I think it's a good donation for a waterfall. Another item which I feel is a community value is the conservation easement which does not allow the cutting of these trees. Obviously you're working to develop...And we are then replanting trees as a third item. We have we feel, and I think staff is saying, a high qos_lity reforestation plan. I'd like you to consider cost sharing of the trees around the pond because the ponds..Jarger. There's 26 trees in effect going to be re~lae~ in that area and I would take up I guess with staff in the cost sharing that item. I'd like to ask for some consideration. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. ff you were to ask my opinion, ! don't see any cost sharing by the city in association with those particular ponds. At least that's my opinion. I don't know what the balance of the Council would be. Davis: As far as the tree removal goes7 Mayor Chmiel: Right. Richard. Do you have any addition7 Councilman Wing: No, I would concur, only because it doesn't look like it's a real impact. It's a nice development and I don't think t_bat impacts the cost of it significantly that I'd feel guilty about not participating. Or no. Councilman Senn: You said it fight. Councilman Wing: My answer's no, whatever it is. Councilwoman Dockendoff: I agree that it is a benefit to the city about the pending issue. Conservation easements, those are pretty much par for the course. I gu~s I would agree. The city ires very rarely in my knowledge, actually never to my knowledge, undertaken any cost sharing with lice replacement. 24 City Council Meeting - Aul~ust 9, 1993 Robert Davis: Ah 26 Uees. So wc'~ tnrlrln~ hslf of the 26 or 13 at 2 1/2 csr.mcr is $100.00 a csr.mcr inch. something w~ have to look at. CoundlmanW'mg: We stopped at Colleen. I don't know if Mazk is done commenting on thaL Idoa'tmeanm involve you either. CouncilmanSem~: Well l don't know. Imeantfwe'reoveralllhetssues, IguessI'mnotqui~~t~ comment on t~ tree one. Ihadarealques&mfm'~fflcould. Does thi~ tie into the sew~r lift staflon ttmt we've been having the lgoblems with? I've seen Mr. ~'s lette~. I'v~ mi'mt_ with 1~. ~ I'v~ seen his pictures. I think the~'s a very ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ into th~ lak~ a~ that's a real concern to me and I ~hink if ~ is th6 ~flr~ I guess first and foremost I think we hav~ to have an answer ID that bef-m~ w~ go any furth~ on con~d__PTmt_rm for this but i'n throw it inu~ CharlesFokh: Sure~ Toansw~~~~~~. This ~ would tie into the sysmn which ulfimalely goes into Lift Station No. 2 located on Pronticr Trail Would this came a catmcity problem fur t_hst Lift Statim? Under nomml flow conditions, no. 'l"ncm's plenty of capacity in the sysmn. In discn~%o station, Andacmnllyoth~liftslago~aro~d~~~~ Typically wi~ we find ts whmev~ tlmre's a power outage and the lift slafion's down, it's not able ~o function or immedial~ly ~ a ~ rain stcsm. Thai probably 6 to 12 hour ~ where we're probably getting a lot af heavy I and L inflaw into this system capacity standpoint. But outside of a power failur~ in the heavy rain stunns, this system has no prolgem hsnmlng the additional homes ~ with this subdivision. We are raking some steps t~ acquidn~ a mobile unit generaler system which will be mounled on attack so that if ltm~ is a power _o~s? at a lift stagan, we'll be able u) drive the track to that lift stolon, baskally ~ up w it and be able m ~ it opera~. Unless lightning hits the lift stol/on and bums ~hinss o~ Oran it's no good to have a ~ b~ it's care of I and I that's coming in flumlgh Ihe pipes. Throu~ the Carrel' Beach area and I guess one of ~ re~sinin~ things wo'd lilm to tak~ off, ~ in tho ~ flitllto i~ ~ tho ~ pilmp because that's really the heart of what's hurthg us following these Councilman Senn: How long, or I mean, I don't li~ to see mw sewage or whatever you want to call it flowing 25 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 into Lotus Lake, or any ~ in the city of Chanhazsen. How long does it Lake us to...take care of the problem? I mean let's say we keep having more years like we had last year and this year, which I think it caused quite a number of times where we had sewage going into the lake, not associated with power outages or whatever. I mean just like you say, simply over capacity caused by the rains and everything. So I mean that's a real concern to me before we answer the question of should we be allowing additional development in the area. Charles Folch: Again, I guess my response to that is, normal flow the system has been designed to handle the needed capacity for the area. There's not a problem with that. I guess it's a matter that. and we are continuing to press forward to do step by step process which is becoming each step more and more expensive but that's the way we're proceeding with it to find ways to solve _this I and I problem. Mayor Chmiel: It isn't that we've not done nothing at that particnlar site. We have also put an expansion on th~ p~'ticnlnr site, did we not Charles7 Charles Folch: Yes. Last year we did increase the horse power. Councilman Senn: I understood it from you th~_ the main problems really is sump pumps and I guess my real question, to get to the bottom of the matter is, how can we get the sump pumps out of the system quickly7 Charles Poich: Well I guess we'd have to look at trying to do some sort of inspection typo program on a city wide basis. Oltrently what we do is, in our building inspection and utility operators have been very cooperative. Whenever they have the opportunity, by either meter reading or doing a permit inspection of a remodeling in a basem~t, each of the inspectors has done very well at malting note as to what connection they have for their sump pumps and I've got probably over 3 dozen letters in a file that over the last year and a half whe~ inspectors have notified a propc~ owner that yes, this is violation of State Codes. You need to disconnect it and the homeowners have complied once they reali~.ed what problems this was causing for the city. Other than maybe miring the next step and doing some sort of inspection program or public notification pro~uu for the city, that's probably the next big step. Mayor Chrnieh Did we not go through that process through the newsletter informing people? Charles Foich: We did inform them from an informational standpoint. But it was not a requirement. It was not a program set up where we were going to ac,~ally physically verify the connection in each individual home. But again yes, there is a problem and it's typically due to following a heavy rainslmvn or power outaee. But in my opinion there's not a problem with caps~ity under normal flow conditions. Councilman Senn: Okay. Robert Davis: I'm through with my Fresen~ou. I'll answer questions now or later, at your choice. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue at this time7 If not, do we have any questions? Richard. Councilman Wing: No sir. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Do you want comments or questions? 26 City Counc~ Meeting - August 9, 1993 the lot size. It's a ~ood reforestsfim plan and I thi~ we just need to hammer out abo~ this cost s~ ~ lree replacement, and I've already said how I sm~d on thai issue. Councilm~~: I'm going to echo a HUJe bit what Colleen snid. Ithink~a~ofmis~cz~nnd what's hnll)eninlt, I've rarely seen be, tlm'. The applicant's done a uemendot~ job. Oiven the job they'~ probably under some normal cir~m~n~ I might even be more inclined an usual to do somethtnE with the tre~ around thc ponds but I mcan it con~s back to this ~ ~ ~ thc s~w~ thi~ ~ I ~ ~ m or ~ or somelhing, just really beef up our cffc~ ~o do __~e. thtnE ~ ~mt becanso I thlnir with th~ ' sewnge going in, I think it's, if that's not the only location, I'm not Uying to *inSl~ this one out but nt the nme time now we're putti~ ~ m it ~ it's ~ a ~ ~ m ~ it Mayc~ Chmicl: All I'll say is ditto and I'll call Coun~m~ Senm rn move approval as per sm~'s rec~_ m_~-fi~_ And I don't now how this would be done but I guess I'd like to throw mme type of a caveat ~ ~ ~ it ~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~ m ~ ~ the overflow Iroblcm. l~ly~ C'hmi~: Ia the~ a second? Mayor Chmi~: Any other discussion? Conne!~nn Senn moved, Councllw~n_ nn Dockendo~ seconded to npprove Subdivlshn ~3-10 ss shown on the plans d~ted May 13, 1~93, with a caveat timt the city estRblhh prior to completion of the project some type d notification oF prosrmn hpectlon ~o beef up the effort tn the m~8 to try nnd elJminfff~ tbs overflow problem, nd subject to the followJ~ condl~bn~ 2, The applicam shall apply and obtain permits from the Wattzslmd District, DNR and other regulaI/xy a~encies and ccraply with their wndifians of ~ 27 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 5. AH areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPI-I) planting dat~ dictate otherwise. All areas distmt)od with slopes of 3:1 or/reater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket 5. Thc applicant shall enter into a joint cooperative agreement with the City for construction, maintenance and cost sharing of the storm water improvements as detailed in thc feasibility study prepared by Bonestroo & Associates dated April, 1993. 7. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseszexl vegetation and underbra~h. All healthy trees over 5" caliper at 4' bei/ht shall not be pa'mitted to be removed. 8. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide draina/e and utility easement over the existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines in Lots 1, 2, 4 and 7, Block 1. 9. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on the final plat rights over all pending and dralfl/~e areas. 10. The existing house on the property shall bo razed prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary pmnits fixnn the City and State~ 11. Extension of utility service stubs to Lots 4 and 5, and also the driveway, shall be in the same location to minimize disruption and tree removal. The driveway shal! follow the utility service alignment. 12. The existing 15 foot drainafle utility easement through Lot 7, Block 1 shah be increased to 20 feet wide. 13. The front yard setback can be redu~ to 25'. 14. The applicant's engineer shall review the lot ffrad~iug on LOts 1 through 3, Block 1 to see ff adjustments can be made to push the building pads closer to the front property line in an effort to reduce tree loss on said lots. 15. All lots shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation plan for staf approval prior to issuance of a building permiL Staff shall have the ri~t to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetaton. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement 16. The applicant shall pay full park fees in lieu of land dedication. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRESENTATION OF THE 1992 AUDIT REPORT. Don Ashworth: We have Cliff Hoffman with Deloitte and Touche here to make a presentation in re~ards to tho 1992 audit. Cliff. Mayor Chmiel: Cliff, I want you to know t_h~ this was quite a documentation and I really did read this when I wanted to go to bed and it does put you to sleep. No reflection. 28 · .' City Council Meeting - August 9, 1~3 CliffHo~n-' Iundemandthat. 'Hnedocnmeatisover 140ps~esnndasMm'ywilljustcoverh-le~y, that there is a lot of ~ data thnt covers the last 10 years of (~an~ Ifs a very Im~m~ml ~t. just very quickly hit the highlights. Wo do report to the City Council nnd the Mayor. Wo don't work for nmnn~ment. I would like to tell you ttmt ~ you'h~d a gr~at yem' Fm~m~'iany. There's been a significant improvemcat in your financial ~. As Mnry Keilm' who's sitting there win go over in a minm~ whm you to ~ them in the context that you're a city of 13~X}0 mnrching fofwflrd ID 2~,000. ff you're ~ to ~y a chnllenl~ are mole becaus~ you sre growing. In rrmny ways the I~'tivity thnt we se~ at _Chnn~ as employees you have to the POl~dntlm. The line item I'd tike you to focus in ca is in 1990 the~ was 1 city employee for every 260 in the pol~t~ti_rm. That's ~ now to 306. Now you could say thst thnt's good. I stretched even thinn~ thnn that. ff you consider that you're sting to coutinue to grow, you're gdng to have to d~lde ~ y~'m ~ m ~ ~ ~~~ Frankly there's only oue other city that rm awnm of that has a hi~he~ ~ than you do and they're quil~ a bit m~re limited on what they do on the polmlafion, you're doin8 a great job. Looking at the sewer and water fund, you had a beu~r yeaz ttmn the nbout thnt a little bit more later. Turning to page 2, If y~u look at your debt per capitn, the City is much higher than the nnfional average nt $1,590.00 versns the nntional aven~ at $595.00. And ronghly the de~t to value is 3% versus 1.4. Oneofthe things you n~xlto consid~ though is thatnlmnst nil ofyotlr dobtis ontmtn'ov~nent bonds that are pa~ by specific taxpnye~ It's not a general obligatiou of th~ public as a whole in Chanhnss~n. n~cro numbers you may conclude thnt you hnv~ why t~o ranch debt and the city's in a lot of trouble. I don't ~ink you ~ ~ thnt ~ ~ Councilman Wing: Before you go ou, maybe it's, do yon hnve flw nnmber without those i .mlm~nent bonds? CI~ ~ Ttmt'd be the $169.00. $1~9.00 pe~ ~ Oh, what th~ ~ avert'age is? Councilmnn Wing: Well, no, no, no. lust if we mk~. these im~ bonds out, whe~ would we stand with other cities. thnt but I can ~ you $169.00 is a very low number. Nmm what I've seen. I would say thst's subsmntlnlly below the nn~cumlaverage. I can't prove it On the wnm' and sewer _fi_md~n.o, ns you're looking at thnt pnge though you can tell that your profit rotc, your marl~ left over is ouly 9%. Nntionally ~ ~ a lot mo~ can't conu'ol that and it's just like a utility can't control a lot of times what's ~ in the price of coal and 29 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 that cost is automatically passed along to the consumer. I really think you need to think of that cost tho same way. That the City shouldn't pick up the burden for that, Turning to page 4 of the financial statements. What we're doing on page 4 is t_aidng your audited fund balances and then we're backing off propmW so we're looking at what is your liquid fund balance. What is your liquidity and...for instance you have a lot of money tied up in water and sewer plant and equipment. So when you back those off, how does the dry look this year versus last yeau'. Far right hand column you can see that you have $3,896,000.00 in what we call liquid fund balance. That's versus $3,431,000.00 the prior year. It's a very good year of improvement in a very difficult year of municipal finance in general for the State of lVC_mnesott And it's important that you show that improvement beca~ I do think as concut~nt with better financial reporting and telling your case a little more with tho numbers, that that's going to contribute to an improvement in your bond rating. Turning to page Your fund balances in the general fund now are what I would call adequate but not excessive. The City has to nm basic~y for the first 5 months of the year only on about 10% of the revenue that it collects. Most of the money comes in after the first of the Stme, so you need a fund balance to have the working capital to get you through the first 5 months of the year. If you didn't have that you would have to do what's called tax anticipation borrowing, which is what a lot of tho school districts are into now. That's very similar to using your oredit card to buy groceries. It's not a good sit~,nrion to be in, from the liquidity standpoint and then not paying your monthly bill Councilman Wing: Along with that last year we discumsed that, the little fund that Den's seer~ drawer whea'o there's cash reserves and the State was more or less disallowing those. But that little fund was what was neces~ to can'y over from month to month. Have we still got that Don or are we into this position now where, what's the wc~l ho used again? Tho tax. Cliff Hoffnmm The tax anticipation notes. Councilman Wing: Yeah, we haven't gotten to thai point. We're still protected from that? Don Ashworth: Very well. Cliff Hoffman: Okay, turning to the next page we have a chart, and it's a little better in color up there but in looking at how the city is run, we've got depreciation as a separate piece in green there. Thc upper part of your chart. Compare that to the revenue. Looking at your utility funds and you can see th~ the operating revenue and your utility funds covers your operating expenses. Though it's not covea'ing this depreciation so what that means is when the system wears out 30 or 40 years from now, you'll have to rebond and relevy for the whole system. So that's basically, and there are a lot of cities that ~ in a similar philosophy to where you're operating right now. But you do need to be cog~iT_~ut of that. From a rate setting smndpoint~ you're not setting rates to cover depreciation on the system. I'd like you to skip over a couple pages now and we'll go to the schedule Mary, on the debt service schedule. And I think this best graphically shows what the future of Chanhassen is very likely to be. In green and in yellow on the transparency here, the top two are what we talked about our special assessment bonds or tax increment. It's only the very bottom of the chart are the general obligation bonds. And what this means is that by the, right now you have very little general obligation debt and by the year 2000 you'll have paid off most of the tax increment debt and most of the special assessments will be gone by the year 2004. So the legacy that this city has left to the future taxpayers is tremendous. All that tax base is going to be available for the city, tho school district and the county in a very short period of time. So that's a tremendous accomplishment. A lot of times we _m__lir about the skeletons in the closest the government has, that we're not charging today's taxpayers for today's services. Well what you've done is set up a very large schedule of economic development that will pay off in the year 2000. Now as I say that though, there are a lot of tax increment projects around the country that have been done where they 30 r City Council lVleeting - August 9, 1993 pny off. $o wlmt you've done here is the ~ is ttmt you're covering your projects with your fumm ~ so the Imyoff will be a much stronger mx bnse when you get to the yenr 2000. It's really impm~nt runt yon focus on thnt story ns you go down to Moody's. And ns you look nt, you know if yon look nfter 19~(~7, the debt, there's a huge drop. A hnge walk downhi~ as you will in your futnm debt. It's considered ontstnnd~n~ anytJm~ thnt most of~ ~t, halfyou~deJ~i8 going to b~sx:nl~in 10 y~ml~. In yotn'cas~ almost all ofit will these tax increment pmjecls pay off. Which yon'ye had a very good history of so fnr. Briefly m the next page, gemwal fund revenues. Councilman Wing: Cnn I, you know you've mnd~ some real accolades on this page thst we just got done with. Can I ssk who _thnt re~ec~ on? Does it ~ on om' flmmat~l ~ nad_ our city ~ Mayor Chmiel: No, Council Conncilm~n ~r'ms: Some of ~ whJztMmg ~ thnt'S do~ ~ fight Cliff~n-' ]Vlr. Mayor, Coun~lmo~berV~ll8. Sotne people who woukl say it's bettez to be lncky sometimes than it is to be good but I think you've had a good history because tlmm's been a number of lwojects tlllinctc~cntandyouhurtthooxistingbusine88. Thcygoin. PfotesttheirvalHl~ (3~talow~vah~oyoti get less cturent dollars and then your payoff isn't going to come fro' 10 years. So that's, you have to always measure yourself. The if but role. If but we didn't do this, would this development happen in the city. So it's tax increment financing isn't a pnncea thnt's good for everybody. If you over ~ if you mnir~, mi~tnlr~ of numer which says you're over the pntlnnal avenlSc. Does thnt answ~ your question? Co-nci_'lm~n W'ms: Well yeah. I was just gi~ling. I guess it's just you we~, _st~f should be...I guess there's ~lmost room for, with all due respect to Money Bags Chmiei, I think it many speaks highly of staff. I'm really impressed with the re'port so I'm really nppreciafiv~ of how we're doing here. CliffHoffman: Tuming to the slide on revenues. You've got a good news nnd bnd news story lmm to ten. Back in 1987 25% of your money was inner gov~nmeaml which is 1~ stnte. As you know local government aid has disappen~xl fcr you and the~'s a tlmmt to losing even the homesumd credit. Now you're down from 25_9.% to 17.1%. The good news is tho-~ if you count investment earnings over 80~ of wha~ you destiny. You're not depcndent on the State. T'neh~newsi~ _th~___theml~nnd~tnzdoHn~tyonsend into thc Statc arcn't rcally comtng back to thc city of Chanlmsnen. Tuming to thc next pa~ Thereisquil~a change in the expenditure aide ttmt I want to talk a little bit about. You've had a large incrcaso on what you spend in public safety. You were at 28.5% and now you're at 35.3%. Back in '87 thoush you were _n~ny averageis 50%. Now this is fire and police, What we lmve found is, if you go from a voluntcer systcm to a full time system, you'll be at 50%. It's extremely expe~ve. I won't talk about the merits but I would tell you that you can operate in thc 35% to 40~ r~nge eam'ly. Once you go from volunt~r to full time though you'H bo 31 City Council lVleeting - August 9, 1993 at 50%. Councilman Wing: I just want to comment that public safety on our report in '83 found the mean for our metro area and our surrounding communities, everybody was sl~nding, the average was 44%. Shorewood and on and on and we were at 28% and we decided to spend more money effective that year and we're still under this. How are you doing it? As a member of the Fire Department, you are in deep trouble here. Cliff Hoffman: Not to defend the Mayor, Councilmember Wing. The 44 though is made up averages of full time and volunteer and you really see it pohrized. Councilman Wing: We only took the volunteer. Cliff Hoffman: Yeah. You usually see it at 35% or you see it at 50%. There doe~'t seem to be a lot of Councilman Wing: Okay. Cliff Hoffman: So the average is probably 44. Also to mention, bigger is not necessarliy better in that number. The number I always give is Miami spends 65% and the reason you spend money on parks and tees and community development is you want to have a well rounded city that people want to live in. That tends to reduce how much you have to spend on public safety. By controlling community development. So you need to never forget that focus. Investment earnings. Tho last 5 years, as you know, stoff has done an outstanding job in that area. The key thing though that this does take a lot of time for staff to monitor this perfonnance and one of the things that is in our management letter t_hot Mary will mention is that should there be a rapid rise in long term interest rates, tho finance department will need to be on top of that real quickly to make sure that you don't have a loss of principal. And the other thing is, I den't think you can count on _thin type of rate of return every year. You've had a very good year. In fact you've had a very good 2 years, 3 years, but you can't count on the level that we had in 1992 forever. Last page is off the back of your individual income tax return. The focus that I want you to focus in on is your end of the pie is at the top. Local aids and proIzxty lax refunds went from 16.6% of how the state spends it's money down to 5.5%. A normal year of inflation and health care will totally wipe out what's left for cities. So the long term prognosis for what's going to happen here is not too good. The good news is you've proven that you do balance the budget. You do stay on course. You do charge today's taxpayers for today's services. You are booking things like vacation pay as a current liability. You're not deferring that to future generations to pay. So the good news is your foundation is very good to deal with any potential problems that there are in the State budgeL So ff t2m~'s no question on the overview, I'd like Mary Kellex to come up and briefly go through your annual report and then a couple of the management letter comments that we have. Councilman Wing: Just before you sit down. On the capital outlays. Any idea where we stand with a norm, if you will? It seems li~ we've got 1% capital outlay in '92 and we're a growing city. Is that abnormally low? Is flu~ an average? Cliff Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, Councilmember Wing. This percenlage of capital that's in hero is the capital outlay that's in the general fund. And one of the things that you've done, I think that's real good, you've set up an internal service fund this year. At the end of the year and you moved some money out. You're going to start charging now for equipment useage and building some money up. And that's good that mRn_%~oment has decided to do that so thatit won't show up as capital in the general fund here but you will be putting money aside from the general fund into the internal service fund. So that's why the number should get pretty low. It's 32 City Council Me/~g - Angust 9, 1993 you are in complim~ with an of their requi~-me~ and if indeed you me. you will ~ a certlra-.~_ which can in mm servo to increase your bond rating. 'l'ne requirements they have are very lengthy and thnt's why mia rctx~ going to go through them but there's a section with the inm)dn~flon, there's a ansm~Z and thru in tl~ hick there's a slatisflcal section which hns 10 yenrs of hislx~! dsm which is nH ~ nnder OPOA. I don't know who wonld ever read every page of this. We ~ do nnd yonr ~ does b~ it's qn/te a feat nnd qnite a ~ to put this lo~e~f, n~ you ~ we. Il imn,.n~n~ ~ whel~v~ nnmh~-S ChnnEe, i~ ~ oh Him 20 ~ Mayor ChmieJ: Yes. MnryKe21ec. Okay. Ijnstwanttopointontawnpleofthi-~. In the in~ section. OnpngeS. These arethin~sthatwerenother~hst~ar. AletterfromtheCh~Mnn%~er. Thnt'snew. Andpag~7thm 15. the city ns well ns tnndn~ nbout forwnrd looking pwjects. Thnt is a very key element in the reviewers mind_ When the GNOA reviewer looks at it, they pay very close nttenfim to what's in the tmnmnittal letter. This is a well writumletiur. In the finnncial section, onpnge 17, iso~rol/nion. A~ _this is the second year of clean q. nlifi¢.ntlrm on here because ~ ~ not ~ ~ forus tobe able to andit the lpmeral fixed assets. Here's your bnlnnce sheet of all your fands, lf yon l~o over to pa~ 21. Halfway down the page. Right~ 'I'ney increase from 13 1/2 mimna to 18 minion. That's a snbstantial increase. And your expenditnres also went up. Almostby 10million. That'slargelydneloyonr~~ The footnotes lo the repon w~ ~h begin on page 28 and run for many ~ are very _simtlm' ID lair year. 'I'ile~'s on~ in pstlionlm' I woold lik~ to point out and that is on pages 36 and 37. On page 37 pardcnlnrly, we are required to assess the credit risk of yonr classified as U.S. Government obli?~i_rms and they all fail in credit risk category number 1 which means they have. And it goes mi and on and on in the s~si~i_~.~! section. Anybody have any quesficms on this report? 33 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Mary Keller: You already did that once right. Mayor Chmiel: It's good rem_ding. Any other questions7 Mary Keller: If you'll t_sl~e out the management letter that was handed out to you tonight, It's the loose leaf. I just want to highlight a few things here. This is the letter where we make observations and recomm~ds_flons regarding the operations of the city. Things that we have noted when we have been out here doing our audit field work. The first page is just our general page. Pretty much boiler plate. If you turn to page 2, I just want to highlight a couple of the more imIxrmnt observations we made during our audit The first one deals with personnel, and this is pretty interesting. We cite that the number of personnel within your finance department here has not changed very much, however the city has grown in size by quite a bit. Right now you have 3 people in finance and particularly one person is re. lied upon to have all the knowledge and skilis to record everything in your accounting records. Now, look at the background. Your population has increased over 10'2% in the last 10 years. Your assets have more than doubled and your revenues have gone from $3.3 million to $18.1 million. Those are substantial increases. We also make reference to the fact that you have a number of capital projects as you're well aware of. More than most cities of your size or cities that even are much Larger than you and you also have a detailed fixed asset system to track all the fixed assets. With all of this development going on, we believe tl~ it would make good sense to have an additional person added to the finance staff. They really are pretty stretched. We can tell you that having been out here for as long as we have. Why is everybody looking here? Councilman Senn: Does that mean we can load our audit fees by that amount~ Mary Keller: But we also in our recommendation cite what we think a candidate should have. You obviously want someone that has significant government experience, and preferably a CPA. As the city continues to grow, and operations continue to expand, it takes more and more time to roll everything up and to keep track of everything and have good records and be able to produce this report. The comment on the bottom of tho page regarding a management fee, I won't go over. You can read t_hst later. On page 3, we have a couple of comments on reconciliations. I would like to cover the second one. This is an internal control issue. Technically the utility clerk is responsible for doing some reconciliations with the subsidisry ledger and the gene~ ledger. That person did not do those reconciliations during risc, al '92. Those reconciliations were performed by the finance coordinstor which is better because the utility clerk also has access to cash. Cash receipts and posting those. If she does have the access to cash receipts and also does the reconciliations, we've got a problem with internal control. So in the event that the finance coordinator no longer does this and it does roll back to the utility clerk, which I believe is where the responsibility is to lie, we may have what is called a reportable condition in internal control. So our recommendation is to shift that responsibility to somebody else. We have one comment on CBDG funds. That's pr~y minor. And on page 5. Pages 5 thru 7 are all prior year comments that we will repeat in subsequent years if tho situation warrants it. The first one is on the investments. And Cliff eluded to this earlier as far as the types of investments tho City is investing in. And we go into the background and the goals that the city should have. As far as complying with State Statutes, which you do. Looking at the maturities of investments to make sum you've got cash available when cash is needed. And maximizing the investment earnings which you obviously have done. But we do caution you to be aware of what can happen, particularly if interest rates rise. You need to be able to react quickly. The next comment on the deferred comp plan, that's a repeat from last year. I won't go into that. And on page 6, the comment in the middle of the page. I think you're all famili_~_r with this regarding the Chanhas~n Bowl. Their delinquency on their payment on their debt. The city did receive the 1991 payment in '93. The City has not yet received the 199~2 payment. Just so you're aware that that continues to be past due together with property taxes. And the other two comments you can read too at your leisure. Does anybody have any questions regarding these? Any 34 City Council Meeting - Angust 9, 1993 ~' -.. Councilman W'mg: Can I n~k a {nyfnnn question? Mayor Chmie{: Su~. Commcilmnn W'mg: I'm trying m get this down to my level, which is quire a bit below everybody else hero on flnnnc'ia[ mal2e~, ff I had to be a tnxlxib'er, bnsed on wtmt I've hem~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~~y ~ ~ ~ a laxpay~ in _~nnhnss~? That s~.ms to b~ what it ~ down to. lVinry I~. Oh absolul~ly. Yeah, absolutely. MayorChmiel: Areituntion. Idon'tknowifnnybody'slwoud~~~~ Councilwonmn Dockendo~. I'm sorry ifI missed it ~ but our current bond ~n~ is B, whatisif/ Tom Chnffce: BAA1. ~ Doclumdorf: BAAl? May~r Chmiel: Right. We've just upgraded it 2 years ago. Or is it 3 now~ Time goes by quickly. 27 We're looking to {{ct an upgr~l__iUg %oni,t shortly hopefully ff and when we receive this. Councilwoman Dockendo~: And you think it is currently where it's at bccanse of the d~t equity ratio? henid too mnuy horror ~ with tax increment projects nmnnd the country. You'vu got to get them out here to look nnd to see nnd then produce the count It's lmrd with a qualified opinion, wlmt you lind 2 yesrs aSo was not only c~ general fixed assets but it was also on your utility _f, md~. And so it crenlus a mint that you really 35 City Council Meet~g - August 9, 1993 don't want, Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, and with the clean record of the past 2 years, great. Councilman Senn: Could you explain your observation recommendation on the Market Square one? You kind of skipped over that. Mary Keller: Oh that's where, Market Square Management Company manages that mall over there and tho City is to get a return on their profits. Councilman Senn: I'm confused. On your recommendation it says company's to verify the firmnc~ position of the management company. Mary Keller: Right. Councilman Senn: Isn't that financial po~ition of the city's investment? I mean we're not inve~ting in the management company ar~ MInT Keller: No, you'r~ not investing in ~he manage, meat company. It would a~tually b~ more the position of the mall but the management company would imv~ all of that information. You have the authority to ask them for audited financials. That has not yet been done so we encourage you to do that to nm~ sure that you getting an equitable return. Right now they're sending you monthly dm~ but no one looks al them. They're not andit~d so who knows. Councilman Senn: So we're getting a Mary Kelly: No. Councilman Senn: We a~n't getting a re, turn? Mary Keller: You've got one more. Ifs just because it's wri~n in the agreement ~ you have that right, I would encourage you to ask for that Don Ashworth: The mrms of th~ agreement allowed them, and I b~liove it was just the one year. If they ended up with a loss flm~ they couM co~ver~ ti~ intmv, st payment and add that to the principal amount. But it wa~ only during tl~ anticipated timeframe whet~ you kind of. you end up with not full temants and not full ~v,c,~ip~. Councilman Senn: How long does thai go on though? Don Ashworth: Well again my recollection was it was only for the one year period of time but I don't recall It's limited, I know that. Councilman Senn: $o all those letters on that issue coming through in our Adminstrativ~ Packe~ that said that we're basically forgiving the interest and tacking it on as princip~, that's over and done with nov/? Don Ashworth: No. They just elected. They had an election process with, they could go throu~ if they were not achieving the reveaues that were originally projected. But again it was only as a start-up type of a thinff and 36 City Council l~gting - August 9, 1993 thru wag in wr/fin/as a part of Ihe ori~n~! a/Feement So it wasn't mme. mlng we modified lam'. Coundlman Senn: $o we're l~ond ~ pcdod ~ ~o~'x~ saying? DonAahworth: They did it for the firgt year. Whether~rnottheyhaveth~tabil~f~thefirgt3 ye~ period or not, I'm not mire. I waa thinking it wag moro limlmd_ th~n that. But I don't recall Todd Gcdm~ Thai documeat's t~t thick. It's a b/~ book isn't R M~... Mayor Chmiel: We can just check tlw out and see. Cliff Hoifmam I'd like w reiterate that we do wock for the City ~ the ~, and not maaagemmt so if any questions come up during the year ctmca~ and furore audi~ that you be sure lo notify us directly. DanAshworlh: Mt. Mayor'/ If l could take a c/mple of minutes. Ireanywouldliketothank~~~ staff. Tom, Betty, lean. I'dliketoflmnkom'andttotsfor%o~ntn~advicedm/ngthecourseofthoyvm'. I'd like to reilemte some points that I don't know were nece/mlzily i~3n~ht ~ ~ in at ~ wl~m aelml revenue e~:~l~ budgeU~ mve, a~ ~ ~ ~ 3% to 4%. This is th~ fiRh y~ar ~ ~ expense was 3% W 4% under tl~ budg~ ~ 'II~'s one srea ~t bas continued to keep our fm~ balances in a tealtl~ position. In fact even allowing fur fully ~f-~in~ any type of sick leave, comI~malion. Any of those types of pro~ mn. Secondarily, we rmi,ted tMs year, I don't know if yuu than tl~y were a yesr ago. We, m tt~ I~st of my knowled~, lmve tt~ ability w ~ on a pmjea and m lmow Coundlwoman Dockendod: If I could re,dm oue _comment. CixmSlwomsn Dockeadoff: Ifoundlhelelm'onpa~e71~ 15, all l needed m read. It was wond~fifl. Very v.r, dnct s~l concise ~ We me sll ti~ inf-~'m~ I ~ COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: up wilh a conclusion for tht~ peasion phn. It's lalmn a lot of time m~d a lot of effort ~ e~rybody's l~rt. 37 City Council ~g - August 9, 1993 Sitting down to do this patrician and discussion. And we sort of have come up with a solution to what we're looking at and also this, rather than being an every year, 2 year affair, we're putting this on a $ year basis. And we should be, we should have the association going back to it's members to discuss this. To come up with a conclusion and then you have to have two readings on this as well. If they're in acceptance of what has been proposed so maybe with that I'll just let Don reiterate some of the other discussions that we've had previously. But I just wanted to make you aware of the fact that it's not just done over a short period of time. It's been done over several, several months. Trying to come up with a conclusion. Don Ashworth: This is an arena that in previous years has been a very difficult one for whichever City Council has had to carry out those negotiations. I recall various times that the discussions were very heated and we even had firemen that were alleging that they may bring in their pagers so I've been very happy with this year's negotiations. Albeit I must state that the real big issue has been whether or not a modification of pension benefits would be made retroactive to firemen who have already re fired. And that issue has, the current firemen recognize that there's only so many dollars av~lahle. This is not the Federal government. We're not going to just simply nm this thing in the hole, which therefore means that you're _mlldng about potentially reducing the benefits avs_ liable to a cturent firemen. And that has I think caused the most anguish between the firemen themselves. I think the solution we've come back with is a good one. You'll be getting a copy of a memorandum that I have prepared thai we use now as an outline Saturday morning going through some of the issues. I'm very happy that the Fire Department has, appem's, because we haven't had the final vote, that appears to be open to some of our suggestions. Means by which we can assure that that fund stays solvent and that we can continue to provide increases over to thc depmtment and stay competitive. So again I would go along with Den's point. I'm really happy with the progress. Again, you'll be getting that memorandum in the near future. It should appear on your agenda for either the 23rd or first, probably the first meeting in September. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Any questions you might have? ADMINISTRATIVE PRF_~ENTATIONS: CITY COUNCIL SALARIES~ 199~ CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: Ag0mlly there was a goof up between Karen and I. I had intended to do this polling of Council members as it dealt with the National League of Cities and I think I've contacted each of you asking that you kind of be prepared for that. In the meantime Karen misunderstood a note. This item should have appeared in the Administrative Section so that you were aware that this survey had been completed. But since we're mitring about it not becoming effective until sometime in 1995, I don't think that we need to really rush in and do this fight away. Councilwoman Doekendorf: Are we ,_8lk4ag about A or B7 I'm sorry. Mayor Chmiel: That would be B. Don Ashworth: Oh, I'm sco'y. I did jump to B. Councilman Senn: You may as well finish it. Don Ashworth: So again, that item B was really supposed to just show up in the Administrative Section. Unless the Council wants to do something. 38 City Council Meeting - Ausust 9, 1993 Councilman V~mg: I'll moro a larg8 incroa~. Councilman Senn: You have to specify an amount Dick. Councilnmn V~mg: I won't get out of thi, one. PR~ SCIH~ULI~ NEW C~ ~.RM~NTARY SCHOQL~ ~ PRQ(~RAM, Don Ashworth: Project schedule, new _C'~nnl~awa Elementary. I did receive today a note fi'om Mark who is ~ with how the memo had gone out frtxn Todd I-Inffmnn_ What I'd first lilm to do Mark is may~ catch you after the Cotmcil meeting and see what ln~u would sugsest but I would, my ~ tho~Eht would be to talin exactly the memo that you sent to me, put a little note on the top saying, total ~ doesn't exist as to what conclusions were reached and then bnsicany send each of tho~ _commim!d_ _cmn yOllf ~ tO mo. But you Todd's memo. But each of you should have receiv~ a Park and ~n Commlnqi~ agenda_ Illld yOIl shollld charged $2,600.00 from HGA nnd I don't know if they call this, it's cnned "New Chnn~ E~ School Program nndPre, liminnry~". You may wnnt to look nt thnt. That is going back to each af the respectiv~ commis~ons nnd their recommco_~tlon will be coming to you nnd w~'re anticipntin8 that that's going to be on Cotmdl~~ If l could just mnim one _comme~tonthememo,~'justaclarlfr. afi~l. Iwasnot at that July 19 meetly. Councilman Wins moved, Councilwotnan Dockendorf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted h favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Mar, at{er 39