Loading...
Agenda and PacketAGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2018 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.**6:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION** Note:  Work sessions are open to the public.If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda. 1.Discussion of Final Levy, 2019 Budget, and 2019­2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) B.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDER ­ REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING (Pledge of Allegiance) C.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS D.CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will be considered as one motion.  There will be no separate discussion of these items.  If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.  City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item.  Refer to the council packet for each staff report. 1.Approve City Council Minutes dated November 26, 2018 2.Approve City Council Minutes dated December 3, 2018 3.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated November 20, 2018 4.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated December 4, 2018 5.Approve 2019 Police Contract with Carver County Sheriff's Office 6.Resolution 2018­58: Adoption of 2040 Comprehensive Plan 7.Resolution 2018­59: Approve Quote for Ithilien Pond Maintenance Project 8.Resolution 2018­60: Designate Polling Place Locations for 2019 Elections 9.Resolution 2018­61: Orchard Lane Area Street & Utility Reconstruction Project ­ Call Assessment Hearing E.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS F.PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2018CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDA.**6:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION**Note:  Work sessions are open to the public.If the City Council does not complete the worksession items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regularagenda.1.Discussion of Final Levy, 2019 Budget, and 2019­2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)B.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDER ­ REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING (Pledge ofAllegiance)C.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTSD.CONSENT AGENDAAll items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council andwill be considered as one motion.  There will be no separate discussion of these items.  Ifdiscussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and consideredseparately.  City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item.  Refer to thecouncil packet for each staff report.1.Approve City Council Minutes dated November 26, 20182.Approve City Council Minutes dated December 3, 20183.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated November 20, 20184.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated December 4, 20185.Approve 2019 Police Contract with Carver County Sheriff's Office6.Resolution 2018­58: Adoption of 2040 Comprehensive Plan7.Resolution 2018­59: Approve Quote for Ithilien Pond Maintenance Project8.Resolution 2018­60: Designate Polling Place Locations for 2019 Elections9.Resolution 2018­61: Orchard Lane Area Street & Utility Reconstruction Project ­ CallAssessment HearingE.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS F.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Resolution 2018­62: Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project Public Hearing ­ Order Improvements and Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications G.NEW BUSINESS 1.Resolution 2018­63: Venue Project­Approve Registered Land Survey 2.Holasek Business Park­Consider Approval of Rezoning Parcel (Ordinance 635), Preliminary and Final Plat, Development Contract, Wetland Alteration Permit and Site Plan Review 3.Resolution 2018­64: Approve Application for Funding from the Carver County Community Development Agency Community Growth Partnership Initiative Program for the Holasek Business Park Development 4.Ordinance 636: Update Flood Plain Protection Ordinance and Approve Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes 5.Ordinance 637: Amendment to City Code Chapter 4 Concerning Fees and Chapter 5 Concerning Animals 6.Resolution 2018­65: Adopt Final Levy, 2019 Budget, and 2019­2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) H.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1.Announce Results of City Manager's 2018 Performance Review I.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS J.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION 1.Review of Claims Paid 12­10­2018 2.Mediacom Rate Adjustments 3.Building Permit Data 4.November Website Analytics Overview K.ADJOURNMENT L.GUIDELINES GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting.  In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council.  That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor.  When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic.  All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City Council. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson that can summarize the issue.  Limit your comments to five minutes.  Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor.  If you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council. AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2018CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDA.**6:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION**Note:  Work sessions are open to the public.If the City Council does not complete the worksession items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regularagenda.1.Discussion of Final Levy, 2019 Budget, and 2019­2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)B.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDER ­ REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING (Pledge ofAllegiance)C.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTSD.CONSENT AGENDAAll items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council andwill be considered as one motion.  There will be no separate discussion of these items.  Ifdiscussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and consideredseparately.  City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item.  Refer to thecouncil packet for each staff report.1.Approve City Council Minutes dated November 26, 20182.Approve City Council Minutes dated December 3, 20183.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated November 20, 20184.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated December 4, 20185.Approve 2019 Police Contract with Carver County Sheriff's Office6.Resolution 2018­58: Adoption of 2040 Comprehensive Plan7.Resolution 2018­59: Approve Quote for Ithilien Pond Maintenance Project8.Resolution 2018­60: Designate Polling Place Locations for 2019 Elections9.Resolution 2018­61: Orchard Lane Area Street & Utility Reconstruction Project ­ CallAssessment HearingE.VISITOR PRESENTATIONSF.PUBLIC HEARINGS1.Resolution 2018­62: Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project Public Hearing ­Order Improvements and Authorize Preparation of Plans and SpecificationsG.NEW BUSINESS1.Resolution 2018­63: Venue Project­Approve Registered Land Survey2.Holasek Business Park­Consider Approval of Rezoning Parcel (Ordinance 635),Preliminary and Final Plat, Development Contract, Wetland Alteration Permit and SitePlan Review3.Resolution 2018­64: Approve Application for Funding from the Carver CountyCommunity Development Agency Community Growth Partnership Initiative Programfor the Holasek Business Park Development4.Ordinance 636: Update Flood Plain Protection Ordinance and Approve SummaryOrdinance for Publication Purposes5.Ordinance 637: Amendment to City Code Chapter 4 Concerning Fees and Chapter 5Concerning Animals6.Resolution 2018­65: Adopt Final Levy, 2019 Budget, and 2019­2023 CapitalImprovement Program (CIP)H.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS1.Announce Results of City Manager's 2018 Performance ReviewI.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONSJ.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION1.Review of Claims Paid 12­10­20182.Mediacom Rate Adjustments3.Building Permit Data4.November Website Analytics OverviewK.ADJOURNMENTL.GUIDELINES GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONSWelcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting.  In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen CityCouncil wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council.  That opportunity is providedat every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations.Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor.  Whencalled upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic.  All remarks shall be addressed to the CityCouncil as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the CityCouncil.If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokespersonthat can summarize the issue. Limit your comments to five minutes.  Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor.  If you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion.  Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion or request. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed.  Personnel concerns should be directed to the City Manager. Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan's, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event.  All members of the public are welcome. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Discussion of Final Levy, 2019 Budget, and 2019­2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Section **6:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION**Item No: A.1. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No:  PROPOSED MOTION The City Council adopts a resolution establishing the 2019 final levy at $11,019,868 and approves total general fund expenditures of $11,395,360.  It also approves the CIP for 2019­2023 in the total amount of $104,527,245. Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND On September 24, 2018, the City Council approved the preliminary levy in the amount of $11,019,868.This includes an increase in the total levy of $106,000 or 0.97%, which is the amount of new growth for taxes payable in 2019. This would result in a zero percent increase in the city portion of the property tax bill on the average home in the city (new growth). Since setting the levy in September staff has not been made aware of a change in economic conditions or other factors that would impact any of the General Fund expenditure line items.There have been some changes in personnel expenditure line items in various departments (some due to changes in employees within that department and some from changes in health care benefit elections), but all of the changes have a neutral impact on total expenditures in the General Fund. The budget includes 3% wage increases for all employees (which has a COLA and performance portion within the 3%).The 3% for all employees (including department heads) totals $140,000.In addition market adjustments are included for the department heads and those market adjustments range from an additional 0%­5%, with the average being about an additional 4%.The market adjustments for department heads total $40,000.Together the total is $180,000 and is 1.58% of the entire General Fund Budget.There are two attached surveys that are the basis for the 3% increase and for the market adjustments. The CIP document reviewed in October only had changes in proposed projects (almost all related to utility improvements) that were delayed for either construction timing reasons or for a better fit within the cash flows of each of the utility funds.None of the delays has a significant impact on the overall condition or ability to keep utility infrastructure maintained appropriately. Staff will be reviewing the impacts of the budget and levy in a PowerPoint with city council similar to what was reviewed at the public budget meeting last week. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectDiscussion of Final Levy, 2019 Budget, and 2019­2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)Section **6:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION**Item No: A.1.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: PROPOSED MOTIONThe City Council adopts a resolution establishing the 2019 final levy at $11,019,868 and approves total general fundexpenditures of $11,395,360.  It also approves the CIP for 2019­2023 in the total amount of $104,527,245.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDOn September 24, 2018, the City Council approved the preliminary levy in the amount of $11,019,868.This includesan increase in the total levy of $106,000 or 0.97%, which is the amount of new growth for taxes payable in 2019.This would result in a zero percent increase in the city portion of the property tax bill on the average home in the city(new growth).Since setting the levy in September staff has not been made aware of a change in economic conditions or other factorsthat would impact any of the General Fund expenditure line items.There have been some changes in personnelexpenditure line items in various departments (some due to changes in employees within that department and somefrom changes in health care benefit elections), but all of the changes have a neutral impact on total expenditures in theGeneral Fund.The budget includes 3% wage increases for all employees (which has a COLA and performance portion within the3%).The 3% for all employees (including department heads) totals $140,000.In addition market adjustments areincluded for the department heads and those market adjustments range from an additional 0%­5%, with the averagebeing about an additional 4%.The market adjustments for department heads total $40,000.Together the total is$180,000 and is 1.58% of the entire General Fund Budget.There are two attached surveys that are the basis for the3% increase and for the market adjustments.The CIP document reviewed in October only had changes in proposed projects (almost all related to utilityimprovements) that were delayed for either construction timing reasons or for a better fit within the cash flows of eachof the utility funds.None of the delays has a significant impact on the overall condition or ability to keep utilityinfrastructure maintained appropriately.Staff will be reviewing the impacts of the budget and levy in a PowerPoint with city council similar to what was reviewed at the public budget meeting last week. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the 2019 final levy at $11,019,868, and approving total general fund expenditures of $11,395,360.It also approves the CIP for 2019­2023 in the total amount of $104,527,245. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution PowerPoint Presentation Detailed General Fund Budget KFS Wage Comparison KFS/Competitive Cities Dept Head Wage Comparison Special Revenue Funds Detail 2019­2023 CIP 2019 Final Levies Revolving Assessment Construction Fund Debt Levies MSA Projected Fund Balance CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: December 10, 2018 RESOLUTION NO: 2018-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2019 BUDGET AND CIP, AND ESTABLISHING TAX LEVIES FOR 2018, COLLECTIBLE IN 2019 WHEREAS, the City Council has examined the budgetary and tax levy needs for Chanhassen for the calendar year 2019 through detailed public budget meetings; and WHEREAS, the Public Budget meeting was held on December 3rd 2018, to receive public input into the budget and tax levy for 2019; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen that the 2019 Budget for the City of Chanhassen is adopted with revenue and expenditure amounts for the General Fund of $11,395,360, Special Revenue Funds of $51,500, $2,700, and $168,500 respectively which are detailed in the 2019 Budget which is made part of this motion by reference; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen adopts a total tax levy of $11,019,868 for 2019; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen adopts a tax levy of $800,000 for the purpose of equipment upgrades and purchases for 2019; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen determines that certain bonded indebtedness levies are hereby adopted to meet statutory requirements and bond covenants and that the County Auditor is hereby authorized to spread the adopted bonded debt levies as shown on the attached Tax Levy Certification document; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts a Capital Improvement Program for years 2019-2023 in the total amount of $104,527,245. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen authorizes the County Auditor to levy the amounts shown on the attached Tax Levy Certification document upon taxable property in the City of Chanhassen in 2018 for collection in 2019, as set forth in the attached Tax Levy Certification document. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day of December, 2018. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor YES NO ABSENT 1 Final Levy & Budget Adoption For taxes payable in 2019 City of Chanhassen –December 10, 2018 Budget Process 2 Preliminary budgets submitted by Department Directors in early July Budget reviewed by Finance Director and City Manager in late July Detailed Budget Meeting held in August Preliminary Tax Levy Adopted for Truth-in- Taxation Statement purposes, September 24 Public budget meeting held on December 3 Budget adoption on December 10 Expenditures 2018 Final Budget 2019 Preliminary Budget 2019 Recommended Final Budget % Change from 2018 General Government $2,163,600 $2,233,300 $2,233,300 +3.2% Law Enforcement/Fire $3,665,500 $3,709,500 $3,709,500 +1.2% Public Works $2,586,800 $2,601,200 $2,601,200 +0.6% Community Development $534,400 $582,800 $582,800 +9.1% Park & Recreation $2,253,300 $2,268,560 $2,268,560 +0.7% Total $11,203,600 $11,395,360 $11,395,360 +1.7%3 3 Revenues 2018 Final Budget 2019 Preliminary Budget 2019 Recommended Final Budget % Change from 2018 Property Tax $8,709,333 $8,755,333 $8,755,333 +0.5% Licenses & Permits $1,032,800 $1,132,500 $1,132,500 +9.7% Intergovernmental Rev.$409,000 $400,000 $400,000 -2.2% Charges for Services $627,700 $620,900 $620,900 -1.1% Fines & Penalties $116,000 $116,500 $116,500 +0.4% Other Revenue $308,767 $370,127 $370,127 19.9% Total Revenue $11,203,600 $11,395,360 $11,395,360 +1.7% 4 4 What factors change the budget for 2019? 5 ▪$106,000 (0.97%) increase in levy dollars due to new construction ▪A 8% increase in healthcare costs ▪Building permit revenue budgeted $100,000 higher than 2018 ▪A 3% increase for cost of living and merit pay ▪Market adjustments for department heads ▪No increase in the police services contract ▪Elimination of the Crime Prevention Specialist position Operational/Capital & Debt Levy Changes Operational & Capital Levies 2018 Final Levies 2019 Preliminary 2019 Recommended Final Levies % Chg General Fund $8,704,333 $8,810,333 $8,810,333 Capital Replacement $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 MSA (Sealcoating) Revolving Street Const Fund $93,000 $384,838 $93,000 $381,223 $93,000 $381,223 Total Operational & Capital Levies $9,982,171 $10,084,556 $10,084,556 +1.0% 6 Debt Levies Public Works Facility $470,400 $475,800 $475,800 Library Referendum $461,297 $459,512 $459,512 Total Debt Levies $931,697 $935,312 $935,312 +0.4% TOTAL ALL LEVIES $10,913,868 $11,019,868 $11,019,868 +0.97% 6 Total Levy vs. New Growth 7 -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Pre & Final 2.91% 2.23% 1.38% 0.53% -0.30% 0.40% 1.36% 1.45%1.39%1.56% 1.10%0.97% 1.82% 2.45% 1.39% 1.06%1.16% 1.82%1.77%1.76%1.87% 1.56% 1.10%0.97% Total Levy New Growth Effect on Homeowners Below are some examples of how the 2019 levy will impact property owners. The average home in Chanhassen increased in value approximately 7.5% in taxable market value for 2019. Parcel 2018 Value 2019 Value Percent Change 2018 City Property Tax 2019 City Property Tax Percent Change 1 $199,900 $217,200 +8.6%$477 $481 0.8% 2 $316,700 $346,400 +9.4%$754 $766 +1.6% 3 $354,700 $381,100 +7.4%$844 $842 -0.2% 4 $912,700 $981,600 +7.5%$2,404 $2,422 0.7% 8 Actual Property Tax Statement for Proposed 2019 Taxes 9 31% 44% 20% 5% Property Taxes County 31%School 44%City 20%Other 5% Gen Fund Budgeted Expenditures % Increase City Population 2017 2018 From 2017 Chanhassen 25,955 11,192,800 11,414,000 2.0% Chaska 26,941 15,043,932 16,841,385 9.3% Cottage Grove 36,399 19,839,100 20,160,615 1.6% Elk River 24,567 15,182,950 16,072,250 5.9% Inver Grove Heights 35,106 23,628,900 24,925,500 5.5% Lino Lakes 21,117 9,583,744 9,675,086 1.0% Prior Lake 25,735 12,141,543 12,651,813 4.2% Rosemount 23,965 12,836,600 13,566,000 5.7% Savage 30,713 14,521,627 14,948,819 2.9% Shakopee 41,519 24,253,200 26,928,100 11.0% Stillwater 19,748 14,270,848 14,966,044 5.1% Average 28,342 15,681,386 16,559,056 5.4% KFS General Fund Budgeted Expenditure Comparison 201 9 Per Capita City Spending 2018 Chanhassen 440 Chaska 625 Cottage Grove 554 Elk River 654 Inver Grove Heights 710 Lino Lakes 458 Prior Lake 492 Rosemount 566 Savage 487 Shakopee 649 Stillwater 758 Average 581 KFS General Fund Per Capita Spending Comparison 201 9 City 2019 Tax Rate** Chanhassen 21.066 Chaska 27.614 Victoria 31.439 Mayer 49.901 Carver 50.512 Waconia 52.710 Watertown 56.635 Cologne 62.260 Norwood Young America 70.287 New Germany 97.451 Hamburg 140.176 Average 60.005 ** Based on Urban Tax Rates Carver County Tax Rates –Preliminary Levies 201 9 Hennepin County Tax Rates -2018 201 9 City Tax Rate**City Tax Rate** Medina 21.521 Mound 44.923 Wayzata 21.749 St. Louis Park 46.383 Chanhassen 22.666 Crystal 49.168 Plymouth 26.344 Robbinsdale 48.881 Minnetrista 25.742 Brooklyn Park 51.159 Edina 27.751 Rockford 52.999 Excelsior 27.133 Golden Valley 55.152 Shorewood 28.635 Richfield 57.730 Eden Prairie 32.348 New Hope 57.709 Minnetonka 35.710 Minneapolis 59.556 Maple Grove 36.709 Hopkins 66.293 Rogers 36.810 Osseo 63.157 Bloomington 40.573 Brooklyn Center 67.067 Champlin 39.704 AVERAGE 42.355 ** Based on Urban Tax Rates Discussion Points 14 Staff recommends adopting a 2019 final levy at $11,019,868 and approves total general fund expenditures of $11,395,360. It also approves the CIP for 2019-2023 in the total amount of $104,527,245. DECEMBER 10, 2018 2019 General Fund Budget Expenditures Personal Materials Contractual Capital 2019 2018 2017 Services Supplies Services Outlay Total Total Change Actual General Government 1110 Legislative 46,700 81,600 128,300 126,500 1.42% 122,613 1120 Administration 504,800 59,500 564,300 535,100 5.46°/% 522,872 1130 Finance 329,000 200 42,300 371,500 358,700 3.57% 339,100 1140 Legal 200,000 200,000 190,500 4.99% 198,417 1150 Property Assessment 156,000 156,000 150,000 4.00% 146,422 1160 MIS 167,100 44,700 46,000 257,800 234,800 9.80% 223,613 1170 City Hall 93,500 40,300 262,000 395,800 413,800 4.35% 390,266 1180 Elections 26,000 4,000 18,000 48,000 42,600 12.68% 1190 Library Building 2,500 109,100 111,600 111,600 0.00% 109,165 1,167,100 91,700 974,500 2,233,300 2,163,600 3.22% 2,052,467Total Law Enforcement 1210 Police Administration 1,000 1,884,800 1,885,800 1,961,400 3.85°/% 1,804,236 1220 Fire Prevention & Admin 824,500 45,100 150,400 1,020,000 919,600 10.92% 895,087 1250 Code Enforcement 722,900 6,400 13,200 742,500 718,100 3.40% 736,784 1260 Community Service 53,700 1,700 5,800 61,200 66,400 7.83% 48,665 1,601,100 54,200 2,054,200 3,709,500 3,665,500 1.20% 3,484,772Total Public Works 1310 Engineering 642,200 800 26,900 669,900 681,300 1.67% 658,709 1320 Street Maintenance 866,400 113,300 35,400 1,015,100 996,900 1.83% 931,096 1350 Street Lighting & Signals 3,000 354,500 357,500 356,500 0.28% 359,197 1370 Fleet Department 319,400 172,000 61,800 5,500 558,700 552,100 1.20% 518,808 1,828,000 289,100 478,600 5,500 2,601,200 2,586,800 0.56% 2,467,810Total Community Development 1410 Planning Commission 200 1,500 1,700 1,700 0.00% 1,338 1420 Planning Administration 529,200 400 11,300 540,900 494,400 9.41% 496,230 1430 Senior Commission 29,200 11,000 40,200 38,300 4.96%1 43,254 558,400 600 23,800 582,800 534,400 9.06% 540,823Total Park & Recreation 1510 Park & Rec Commission 200 1,000 1,200 1,200 0.00% 175 1520 Park & Rec Administration 250,600 200 6,000 256,800 245,600 4.56% 233,149 1530 Recreation Center 233,200 17,700 95,900 346,800 346,200 0.17% 312,419 1540 Lake Ann Park Operations 12,000 9,200 47,600 68,800 70,500 2.41% 67,573 1550 Park Maintenance 821,100 80,800 100,800 1,002,700 1,030,300 2.68% 1,041,692 1560 Senior Citizens Center 84,700 4,300 32,700 121,700 114,100 6.66% 117,940 1600 Recreation Programs 250,860 22,200 120,500 393,560 352,100 11.78% 353,384 1700 Self -Supporting Programs 21,400 4,500 12,500 38,400 55,800 31.18% 50,614 1800 Recreation Sports 30,400 7,900 300 38,600 37,500 2.93% 35,258 1,704,260 147,000 417,300 2,268,560 2,253,300 0.68% 2,212,203Total Total Operational Expenditures 6,858,860 582,600 3,948,400 5,500 11,395,360 11,203,600 1.71% 10,758,075 Transfer for Roads Total General Fund 11,395,360 11,203,600 F 1.71%1 10,758,075 191,760DollarChangefromPreviousYear 2019 General Fund Budget Revenue 2016 2017 2018 2019 Inc Over 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget PY Budget Estimate General Property Tax 3010 Current Property Tax 8,000,093 8,475,905 8,704,333 8,810,333 3002 Allowance for Delinquent Taxes 39,158) 75,108) 40,000) 70,000) 3011 Delinquent Property Tax 34,408 7,050 45,000 15,000 3090 Excess TIF Taxes 33,069 86,633 Total General Property Tax 8,028,411 8,494,480 8,709,333 8,755,333 Licenses 114,368 128,394 116,000 116,500 0.4% 121,500 3203 Dog Kennel 500 250 500 500 3206 Massage License 600 150 800 500 3213 Solicitor 3226 Liquor On and Off Sale 92,221 92,018 93,000 93,000 3284 Rubbish 2,400 3,000 3,500 3,500 Total Licenses 95,721 95,418 97,800 97,500 Permits 406,222 415,632 409,000 400,000 2.2% 412,000 3301 Building 524,996 518,620 500,000 520,000 3302 Plan Check 252,621 253,777 235,000 255,000 3305 Heating &A/C 114,854 172,701 82,800 119,300 3306 Plumbing 92,927 97,615 65,000 90,000 3307 Trenching 40,641 55,066 30,000 30,000 3308 Hunting/Shooting 940 840 1,400 1,400 3309 Sprinkler 8,335 11,074 11,000 11,000 3311 Sign 8,590 4,015 6,500 5,000 3316 Septic Tank 1,560 3320 Stable 200 200 300 300 3331 Firework's Application Fee 200 200 3390 Misc. Permits 3,410 5,525 3,000 3,000 Total Permits 1,049,275 1,119,633 935,000 1,035,000 1.2% 0.5% 500 500 93,000 3,500 0.3% 97,500 520,000 255,000 119,300 90,000 30,000 1,400 11,000 5,000 300 3,000 10.7% 1,035,000 Fines & Penalties 3401 Traffic & Ordinance Violation 113,232 126,636 115,000 115,000 120,000 3402 Vehicle Lockouts 692 950 1,000 1,000 1,000 3404 Dog/Cat Impound 427 808 500 500 3405 Other Fines and Penalties 16 Total Fines & Penalties 114,368 128,394 116,000 116,500 0.4% 121,500 Intergovernmental Revenue 3503 Reimbursement from School Dist. 47,056 49,407 47,000 45,000 50,000 3509 Other Shared Taxes 196,298 196,021 200,000 195,000 200,000 3510 Grants -State 162,175 163,912 162,000 160,000 162,000 3530 Grants -Federal 3533 Grants -Other 692 6,291 Total Intergovernmental Revenue 406,222 415,632 409,000 400,000 2.2% 412,000 2019 General Fund Budget Revenue Account Description 2016 Actual 2017 Actual 2018 Budget 2019 Inc Over Budget PY Budget 2020 Estimate Charges for Current Services Interest Earnings 27,080 36,120 30,000 30,000 3601 Sale of Documents 863 950 500 800 800 3602 Use & Variance Permits 13,309 21,533 20,000 20,000 20,000 3603 Rezoning Fees 2,700 1,750 2,000 2,000 2,000 3604 Assessment Searches 15 300 3605 Plat Recording Fees 1,650 2,290 4,000 3,000 4,000 3607 Election Filing Fees 3613 Misc.-General Government 2,892 5,616 5,000 5,000 5,000 3614 Admin. Charge -2% Constr. 56,079 52,225 55,000 50,000 55,000 3617 Engineering General 125 3619 Investment Management Fee 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 3629 Misc.-Public Safety 9,465 9,971 10,000 10,000 10,000 3630 Recreation Program Fees 52,417 59,520 52,000 52,000 56,000 3631 Recreation Center 218,732 217,077 218,000 218,000 218,000 3633 Park Equipment Rental 57 93 300 100 100 3634 Park Facility Usage Fee 19,395 19,022 19,000 19,000 19,000 3635 Watercraft Rental 16,169 18,020 16,000 18,000 18,000 3636 Self -Supporting Programs 42,001 45,276 42,000 42,000 42,000 3637 Senior Programs 45,854 47,025 45,000 45,000 47,000 3638 Food Concessions 11,470 10,862 12,000 11,000 11,000 3639 Misc.-Park & Rec. 905 1,347 1,200 1,200 1,200 3642 Recreation Sports 44,556 44,384 46,000 44,000 45,000 3649 Misc.-Public Works 4,646 3,651 2,000 2,000 3,500 3651 Merchandise Sales 3,702 2,950 2,400 2,800 2,800 Total Charges for Current Services 622,000 638,562 627,700 620,900 -1.1% 635,400 Other Revenue 3801 Interest Earnings 27,080 36,120 30,000 30,000 45,000 3802 Equipment Rental & Sale 182,378 186,978 178,000 250,000 250,000 3803 Building Rental 6,692 5,798 6,500 5,800 6,000 3804 Land Sale 35,324 8,100 3807 Donations 24,275 28,609 25,267 24,127 25,000 3808 Insurance Reimbursements 18,709 3816 SAC Retainer 3,404 4,386 4,000 4,000 4,000 3818 Sur -Tax Retainer 662 740 1,000 700 1,000 3820 Misc. Other Revenue 418 766 300 500 500 3903 Refunds/Reimbursements 60,805 55,635 63,700 55,000 60,000 3980 Cash Short/Over 0 1 Total Other Revenue 341,039 345,843 308,767 370,127 19.9% 391,500 Total General Fund Revenue 10,657,035 11,237,962 11,203,600 11,395,360 1.7% 2,692,900 Total General Fund Expenditures Net Levy Remaining (Use of Gen Fund Reserves) 11,395,360 2019 General Fund Budget Legislative (1110) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4300 Fees, Services 4340 Printing & Publishing 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 4370 Travel & Training 4375 Promotional Expenses Total Contractual Services Total Legislative SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2,096 2020 1,000 28,800 42,000 42,000 43,600 3.8% 43,600 1,915 2,804 2,800 3,000 7.1% 3,000 106 90 100 100 0.0% 100 30,821 44,894 44,900 46,700 4.0% 46,700 2,096 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 28,251 29,911 32,000 32,000 0.0% 32,000 41,682 41,560 42,000 42,000 0.0% 42,000 6,500 5,650 6,000 6,000 0.0% 6,000 1,679 599 600 600 0.0% 600 80,208 77,719 81,600 81,600 0.0% 81,600 111,030 122,613 126,500 128,300 1.4% 128,300 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Adminstration (1120) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 4011 Overtime -Reg 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4040 Contributions -Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4300 Fees, Services 4310 Telephone 4320 Utilities 4330 Postage 4340 Printing & Publishing 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 4370 Travel & Training 4380 Mileage 4410 Rental -Equipment 4807 Property Tax Expense Total Contractual Services Total Administration SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 374,858 2,503 231 48,549 58,697 2,995 360,011 209 51,126 59,127 3,045 362,000 300 54,700 58,000 3,500 377,300 300 55,500 68,000 3,700 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 17.2% 5.7% 388,600 300 58,800 76,200 3,900 487,832 473,517 478,500 504,800 5.5% 527,800 21,755 4,634 15,000 15,000 0.0% 15,000 4,934 5,677 5,000 5,800 16.0% 5,800 89 200 200 0.0% 200 21,641 22,968 21,000 23,000 9.5% 23,000 220 300 300 0.0% 300 4,221 4,633 4,500 4,600 2.2% 4,600 6,834 9,503 8,600 8,600 0.0% 8,600 837 1,079 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 755 860 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 4 0.0% 61,291 49,355 56,600 59,500 5.1% 59,500 549,123 522,872 535,100 564,300 5.5% 587,300 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Finance (1130) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 4011 Overtime -Reg 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4040 Contributions -Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4120 Supplies -Equipment 4210 Books & Periodicals Total Materials & Supplies 4300 Fees, Services 4301 Fees, Financial/Audit 4310 Telephone and Communications 4340 Printing & Publishing 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 4370 Travel & Training Total Contractual Services Total Finance SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 100 218,028 226,932 224,600 239,500 6.6% 246,700 156 0.0% 32,253 33,129 34,100 36,300 6.5% 37,400 29,734 38,281 48,000 50,900 6.0% 57,000 1,643 1,937 2,200 2,300 4.5% 2,500 281,814 300,279 308,900 329,000 6.5% 343,600 100 100 0.0% 100 100 100 0.0% 100 200 200 0.0% 200 13,955 14,087 17,000 16,000 5.9%) 16,000 21,599 19,147 26,000 20,000 23.1%) 21,000 972 997 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 241 200 600 300 50.0%) 300 465 465 500 500 0.0% 500 4,037 3,926 4,500 4,500 0.0% 4,500 41,269 38,821 49,600 42,300 14.7%) 43,300 323,083 339,100 358,700 371,500 3.6% 387,100 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Legal (1140) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4302 Fees, Legal Total Contractual Services Total Legal SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 187,471 198,417 190,500 200,000 187,471 198,417 190,500 200,000 187,471 198,417 190,500 200,000 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 5.0% 210,000 5.0% 210,000 5.0% 210,000 2019 General Fund Budget Property Assessment (1150) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4300 Fees, Services Total Contractual Services Total Property Assessment SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 146,371 146,422 150,000 156,000 146,371 146,422 150,000 156,000 146,371 146,422 150,000 156,000 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 4.0% 161,000 4.0% 161,000 4.0% 161,000 2019 General Fund Budget Management Information Systems (MIS) (1160) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 125,068 112,230 116,300 123,800 6.4% 127,500 4030 Contributions -Retirement 18,102 16,505 17,700 18,800 6.2% 19,300 4040 Contributions -Insurance 17,384 19,697 22,800 23,300 2.2% 26,200 4050 Workers Compensation 921 957 1,100 1,200 9.1% 1,400 Total Personal Services 161,475 149,389 157,900 167,100 5.8% 174,400 4150 Maintenance Materials 1,264 1,062 1,300 1,300 0.0% 1,300 4210 Books & Periodicals 40 55 300 100 66.7%) 100 4220 Software Licensing & Support 20,277 27,670 28,100 43,000 53.0% 45,000 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 262 274 300 300 0.0% 300 Total Materials & Supplies 21,843 29,061 30,000 44,700 49.0% 46,700 4300 Fees, Services 32,485 21,368 21,300 22,000 3.3% 23,000 4310 Telephone and Communications 1,899 1,980 3,300 2,000 39.4%) 2,200 4320 Utilities 11,545 11,070 11,300 11,000 2.7%) 11,000 4370 Travel & Training 5,420 5,755 6,000 6,000 0.0% 6,000 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 3,428 4,990 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 Total Contractual Services 54,777 45,163 46,900 46,000 1.9%) 47,200 Total MIS 238,095 223,613 234,800 257,800 9.8% 268,300 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget City Hall (1170) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget %Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 57,088 58,399 59,000 60,000 1.7% 61,800 4011 Overtime -Reg 1,702 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 4030 Contributions -Retirement 8,779 8,301 9,000 9,000 0.0% 9,400 4040 Contributions -Insurance 8,977 14,691 18,300 19,300 5.5% 21,700 4050 Workers Compensation 3,249 3,479 3,900 4,200 7.7% 5,000 Total Personal Services 79,795 84,870 91,200 93,500 2.5% 98,900 4110 Supplies -Office 33,017 32,629 36,000 34,000 5.6%) 34,000 4120 Supplies -Equipment 629 176 900 900 0.0% 900 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 699 411 300 500 66.7% 500 4150 Maintenance Materials 5,554 4,250 4,000 4,500 12.5% 4,500 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 7 144 400 400 0.0% 400 Total Materials & Supplies 39,907 37,611 41,600 40,300 3.1%) 40,300 4300 Fees, Services 11,495 11,166 6,500 11,000 69.2% 11,000 4310 Telephone 10,413 10,357 11,000 11,000 0.0% 11,000 4320 Utilities 41,055 37,768 42,000 39,000 7.1%) 39,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 29,847 29,201 30,000 30,000 0.0% 30,000 4370 Travel & Training 200 200 0.0% 200 4410 Rental -Equipment 12,236 14,442 14,500 14,500 0.0% 14,500 4440 License & Registration 16 100 100 0.0% 100 4483 Insurance -General Liability 141,936 141,675 163,000 150,000 8.0%) 150,000 4510 Repair & Maintenance -Building 3,548 12,932 9,500 1,000 89.5%) 1,000 4520 Repair & Maintenance -Vehicles 132 200 200 0.0% 200 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 4,951 10,245 4,000 5,000 25.0% 5,000 Total Contractual Services 255,630 267,785 281,000 262,000 6.8%) 262,000 Total City Hall SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 375,331 390,266 413,800 395,800 (4.3%) 401,200 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Elections (1180) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4110 Supplies -Office 4120 Supplies -Equipment Total Materials & Supplies 4300 Fees, Services 4340 Printing & Publishing 4370 Travel& Training Total Contractual Services Total Elections SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2,500 2020 0.0% 29,581 24,000 26,000 8.3% 26,000 500 100.0%) 100 100.0%) 29,581 24,600 26,000 5.7% 26,000 691 1,500 1,500 0.0% 1,500 40 2,500 2,500 0.0% 2,500 732 4,000 4,000 0.0% 4,000 8,052 8,000 12,000 50.0% 12,000 208 2,500 1,000 60.0%) 1,000 6,299 3,500 5,000 42.9% 5,000 14,560 14,000 18,000 28.6% 18,000 44,873 42,600 48,000 12.7% 48,000 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Library Building (1190) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4150 Maintenance Materials 2,105 2,333 2,500 2,500 0.0% 2,500 Total Materials & Supplies 2,105 2,333 2,500 2,500 0.0% 2,500 4300 Fees, Services 7,216 3,258 2,000 3,000 50.0% 3,000 4310 Telephone 1,526 1,526 1,600 1,600 0.0% 1,600 4320 Utilities 61,902 56,908 63,000 63,000 0.0% 63,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 28,723 29,304 34,000 30,500 10.3%) 30,500 4510 Repair & Maintenance -Building 7,050 10,274 5,000 6,500 30.0% 6,500 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 3,432 5,562 3,500 4,500 28.6% 4,500 Total Contractual Services 109,850 106,832 109,100 109,100 0.0% 109,100 Total Library Building SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 111,954 109,165 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 111,600 111,600 0.0% 111,600 2019 General Fund Budget Police Administration (1210) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4040 Contributions -Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4130 Program Supplies Total Materials & Supplies 4300 Fees, Services 4370 Travel & Training 4375 Promotional Expense Total Contractual Services Total Police Administration SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 73,900 2020 100.0%) 23,910 5,209 47,400 100.0%) 2,710 766 7,200 100.0%) 3,806 1,442 18,900 100.0%) 171 45 400 100.0%) 30,597 7,463 73,900 100.0%) 475 313 2,500 1,000 60.0%) 1,000 475 313 2,500 1,000 60.0%) 1,000 1,683,764 1,795,040 1,882,700 1,882,700 0.0% 1,967,500 173 15 300 100 66.7%) 100 1,838 1,405 2,000 2,000 0.0% 2,000 1,685,775 1,796,460 1,885,000 1,884,800 0.0%) 1,969,600 1,716,848 1,804,236 1,961,400 1,885,800 3.9%) 1,970,600 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Fire Prevention and Administration (1220) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 191,863 217,749 195,400 217,000 11.1% 223,600 4011 Overtime -Reg 292 1,000 3,000 200.0% 3,000 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 124,317 153,469 167,500 200,000 19.4% 210,000 4022 Training Wages 41,344 0.0% 4030 Contributions -Retirement 187,866 222,858 220,000 230,000 4.5% 240,000 4031 Fire Relief Required Contribution 34,521 20,000 40,000 100.0% 40,000 4040 Contributions -Insurance 24,098 25,335 22,200 23,500 5.9% 26,200 4050 Workers Compensation 51,330 71,572 58,000 75,000 29.3% 78,000 4060 Unemployment 162 439 0.0% 4070 Contracted Wages 31,696 34,048 35,000 36,000 2.9% 37,000 Total Personal Services 687,196 725,763 719,100 824,500 14.7% 857,800 4120 Supplies -Equipment 5,859 6,994 7,000 7,000 0.0% 7,000 4130 Supplies -Program 477 3,073 2,000 2,200 10.0% 2,200 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 9,485 6,943 9,000 9,000 0.0% 9,000 4150 Maintenance Materials 403 1 500 400 20.0%) 400 4210 Books & Periodicals 600 500 16.7%) 500 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 11,992 9,044 11,000 11,000 0.0% 11,000 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 1,770 4,924 8,000 8,000 0.0% 8,000 4290 Misc. Materials & Supplies 4,541 3,642 7,000 7,000 0.0% 7,000 Total Materials & Supplies 34,526 34,620 45,100 45,100 0.0% 45,100 4300 Fees, Services 24,444 29,088 32,000 32,000 0.0% 32,000 4310 Telephone 8,426 8,541 7,200 8,000 11.1% 8,000 4320 Utilities 16,542 15,464 22,000 16,000 27.3%) 16,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 4,914 4,469 5,000 5,100 2.0% 5,100 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 1,648 1,327 2,500 2,000 20.0%) 2,000 4370 Travel & Training 21,084 40,072 41,500 41,500 0.0% 41,500 4375 Promotional Expense 6,506 6,922 10,000 10,000 0.0% 10,000 4483 Insurance -General Liability 685 734 1,200 800 33.3%) 1,000 4510 Repair & Maintenance -Building 7,874 5,775 5,500 5,500 0.0% 5,500 4520 Repair & Maintenance -Vehicles 1,100 1,909 7,000 7,000 0.0% 7,000 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 19,968 20,338 19,500 20,500 5.1% 20,500 4531 Repair & Maintenance -Radios 297 63 2,000 2,000 0.0% 2,000 Total Contractual Services 113,488 134,704 155,400 150,400 3.2%) 150,600 Total Fire Prevention and Admin 835,210 895,087 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 919,600 1,020,000 10.9% 1,053,500 2019 General Fund Budget Code Enforcement (1250) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 508,082 537,534 504,000 504,000 0.0% 520,000 4011 Overtime -Reg 289 82 0.0% 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 16,307 14,490 20,000 18,000 10.0%) 18,000 4030 Contributions -Retirement 74,422 75,207 78,000 76,400 2.1%) 78,700 4040 Contributions -Insurance 84,469 96,731 92,000 120,300 30.8% 135,000 4050 Workers Compensation 4,059 3,575 4,500 4,200 6.7%) 4,800 Total Personal Services 687,628 727,619 698,500 722,900 3.5% 756,500 4120 Supplies -Equipment 186 100 100 0.0% 100 4130 Supplies -Program 409 877 900 900 0.0% 900 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 2,722 279 2,700 2,000 25.9%) 2,000 4210 Books & Periodicals 1,129 77 1,500 1,500 0.0% 1,500 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 1,197 956 1,000 1,500 50.0% 1,500 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 99 344 400 400 0.0% 400 Total Materials & Supplies 5,742 2,534 6,600 6,400 3.0%) 6,400 4310 Telephone 2,827 2,535 4,500 4,500 0.0% 4,500 4340 Printing & Publishing 1,500 1,000 33.3%) 1,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 724 761 800 1,000 25.0% 1,000 4370 Travel & Training 4,541 3,336 4,500 5,000 11.1% 5,000 4440 License & Registration 530 500 500 0.0% 500 4520 Repair & Maintenance -Vehicles 207 300 300 0.0% 300 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 92 900 900 0.0% 900 Total Contractual Services 8,922 6,632 13,000 13,200 1.5% 13,200 Total Code Enforcement 702,293 736,784 718,100 742,500 3.4% 776,100 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Community Service (1260) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 43,007 35,473 49,500 45,500 8.1%) 48,000 4021 Overtime -Temp 203 289 200 300 50.0% 300 4030 Contributions -Retirement 6,623 4,576 7,000 6,000 14.3%) 6,500 4040 Contributions -Insurance 541 321 700 600 14.3%) 600 4050 Workers Compensation 1,121 1,115 1,300 1,300 0.0% 1,500 4060 Unemployment 527 0.0% Total Personal Services 51,495 42,302 58,700 53,700 8.5%) 56,900 4120 Supplies -Equipment 193 175 300 300 0.0% 300 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 1,604 17 700 700 0.0% 700 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 801 700 700 0.0% 700 Total Materials & Supplies 1,797 993 1,700 1,700 0.0% 1,700 4300 Fees, Services 2,677 4,126 2,800 3,200 14.3% 3,400 4310 Telephone 1,615 1,229 1,700 1,600 5.9%) 1,600 4340 Printing & Publishing 697 16 600 100 83.3%) 100 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 200 200 0.0% 200 4370 Travel & Training 200 200 0.0% 200 4520 Repair & Maintenance -Vehicles 73 200 200 0.0% 200 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 100 100 0.0% 100 4531 Repair & Maintenance -Radios 200 200 0.0% 200 Total Contractual Services 5,062 5,370 6,000 5,800 3.3%) 6,000 Total Community Service 58,355 48,665 66,400 61,200 (7.8%) 64,600 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Engineering (1310) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 4011 Overtime -Reg 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 4021 Overtime -Temp 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4040 Contributions -Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4120 Supplies -Equipment 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 4210 Books & Periodicals Total Materials & Supplies 4300 Fees, Services 4310 Telephone 4340 Printing & Publishing 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 4370 Travel & Training 4380 Mileage 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip Total Contractual Services Total Engineering SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 479,255 464,860 462,300 473,000 2.3% 487,000 5,229 6,157 5,500 6,000 9.1% 6,000 5,790 13,897 13,000 14,000 7.7% 16,000 126 0.0% 72,025 68,941 70,000 71,700 2.4% 73,800 62,895 80,702 96,900 73,500 24.1%) 81,700 3,942 3,588 4,800 4,000 16.7%) 4,500 629,261 638,144 652,500 642,200 1.6%) 669,000 262 21 1,000 500 50.0%) 500 212 10 300 300 0.0% 300 369 0.0% 843 32 1,300 800 38.5%) 800 14,593 10,822 16,000 16,000 0.0% 16,000 3,614 3,915 3,400 4,000 17.6% 4,000 140 292 500 300 40.0%) 300 1,503 1,383 1,500 1,500 0.0% 1,500 4,444 3,971 4,500 4,500 0.0% 4,500 95 149 100 100 0.0% 100 1,500 500 66.7%) 500 24,389 20,533 27,500 26,900 2.2%) 26,900 654,493 658,709 681,300 669,900 1.7%) 696,700 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Street Maintenance (1320) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 465,380 489,181 531,400 543,100 2.2% 559,400 4011 Overtime -Reg 31,835 27,554 26,000 27,000 3.8% 30,000 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 18,525 24,366 28,000 28,000 0.0% 28,000 4021 Overtime -Temp 327 428 0.0% 4030 Contributions -Retirement 74,870 77,435 80,500 82,300 2.2% 84,800 4040 Contributions -Insurance 88,894 100,282 123,500 120,000 2.8%) 133,500 4050 Workers Compensation 45,866 59,215 64,000 66,000 3.1% 70,000 4060 Unemployment 4,911 3,328 0.0% Total Personal Services 730,608 781,789 853,400 866,400 1.5% 905,700 4120 Supplies -Equipment 32,557 43,237 45,000 45,000 0.0% 45,000 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 8,264 18,263 10,000 12,000 20.0% 12,000 4150 Maintenance Materials 46,265 33,014 50,000 48,000 4.0%) 48,000 4210 Books & Periodicals 100 100 0.0% 100 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 5,438 5,439 5,000 5,500 10.0% 5,500 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 2,733 2,758 2,500 2,700 8.0% 2,700 Total Materials & Supplies 95,257 102,710 112,600 113,300 0.6% 113,300 4300 Fees, Services 3,256 9,353 2,500 3,500 40.0% 3,500 4310 Telephone 4,120 5,128 5,200 5,200 0.0% 5,200 4340 Printing & Publishing 63 300 300 0.0% 300 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 969 2,051 1,000 2,000 100.0% 2,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 200 200 0.0% 200 4370 Travel & Training 1,377 1,589 1,600 1,600 0.0% 1,600 4410 Rental -Equipment 844 8,383 1,000 3,000 200.0% 3,000 4440 License & Registration 513 5 500 500 0.0% 500 4510 Repair & Maintenance -Building 450 100 100 0.0% 100 4520 Repair & Maintenance -Vehicles 756 200 1,000 800 20.0%) 800 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 500 650 1,500 700 53.3%) 700 4540 Repair & Maintenance -Streets 6,757 6,875 5,000 6,500 30.0% 6,500 4560 Repair & Maintenance -Signs 8,621 11,850 11,000 11,000 0.0% 12,000 Total Contractual Services 27,712 46,597 30,900 35,400 14.6% 36,400 Total Street Maintenance 853,577 931,096 996,900 1,015,100 1.8% 1,055,400 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Street Lighting and Signals (1350) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 lccount Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4120 Supplies -Equipment 2,785 4,679 2,000 3,000 50.0% 3,500 Total Materials & Supplies 2,785 4,679 2,000 3,000 50.0% 3,500 4300 Fees, Services 2,166 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 4310 Telephone 360 360 500 500 0.0% 500 4320 Utilities 326,178 320,328 329,000 323,000 1.8%) 323,000 4565 Repair & Maintenance-Light/Signal 30,239 31,664 24,000 30,000 25.0% 33,000 Total Contractual Services 356,778 354,518 354,500 354,500 0.0% 357,500 Total Street Lighting and Signals 359,562 359,197 356,500 357,500 0.3% 361,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Fleet Department (1370) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 198,243 206,685 210,800 217,100 3.0% 223,700 4011 Overtime -Reg 5,514 4,771 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 1,129 4,182 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 4030 Contributions -Retirement 29,259 30,569 32,000 33,000 3.1% 34,000 4040 Contributions -Insurance 36,597 40,026 47,200 48,300 2.3% 54,200 4050 Workers Compensation 8,927 9,266 11,400 11,000 3.5%) 13,000 Tolal Personal Services 279,669 295,498 311,400 319,400 2.6% 334,900 4120 Supplies -Equipment 1,638 1,610 2,000 2,000 0.0% 2,000 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 82 48 600 200 66.7%) 200 4150 Maintenance Materials 1,147 113 600 600 0.0% 600 4170 Motor Fuels & Lubricants 110,112 144,222 170,000 165,000 2.9%) 165,000 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 1,003 1,055 1,200 1,200 0.0% 1,200 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 2,848 2,605 3,000 3,000 0.0% 3,000 Total Materials & Supplies 116,829 149,654 177,400 172,000 3.0%) 172,000 4300 Fees, Services 5,664 4,798 2,500 5,000 100.0% 5,000 4310 Telephone 2,456 2,432 3,000 2,500 16.7%) 2,500 4320 Utilities 31,170 32,540 32,000 32,000 0.0% 32,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 4,825 5,145 5,500 5,500 0.0% 5,500 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 37 40 200 200 0.0% 200 4370 Travel & Training 118 691 800 800 0.0% 800 4440 License & Registration 93 300 300 0.0% 300 4510 Repair & Maintenance -Building 9,007 12,451 10,000 12,000 20.0% 12,000 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 2,447 8,798 3,500 3,500 0.0% 3,500 4933 Sales Tax 141 0.0% Total Contractual Services 55,958 66,895 57,800 61,800 6.9% 61,800 4703 Office Equipment 4705 Other Equipment Total Capital Outlay Total Fleet Department SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 500 500 0.0% 500 4,743 6,761 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 4,743 6,761 5,500 5,500 0.0% 5,500 457,199 518,808 552,100 558,700 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 1.2% 574,200 2019 General Fund Budget Planning Commission (1410) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4210 Books & Periodicals Total Materials & Supplies - - 4340 Printing & Publishing 1,149 1,090 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships - - 4370 Travel & Training 11 249 Total Contractual Services 1,160 1,338 Total Planning Commission 1,160 1,338 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 200 200 0.0% 200 200 200 0.0% 200 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 200 200 0.0% 200 300 300 0.0% 300 1,500 1,500 0.0% 1,500 1,700 1,700 0.0% 1,700 2019 General Fund Budget Planning Administration (1420) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 320,925 339,898 353,000 403,400 14.3% 415,500 4011 Overtime -Reg 1,348 0.0% 4030 Contributions -Retirement 45,870 48,624 53,500 61,000 14.0% 63,000 4040 Contributions -Insurance 56,502 62,321 73,000 61,000 16.4%) 68,200 4050 Workers Compensation 2,390 2,860 3,200 3,800 18.8% 4,200 Total Personal Services 427,035 453,704 482,700 529,200 9.6% 550,900 4120 Supplies -Equipment 97 62 300 300 0.0% 300 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 22 441 100 100 0.0% 100 Total Materials & Supplies 118 503 400 400 0.0% 400 4300 Fees, Services 2,270 37,392 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 408 909 800 800 0.0% 800 4370 Travel & Training 5,083 3,722 5,500 5,500 0.0% 5,500 Total Contractual Services 7,762 42,024 11,300 11,300 0.0% 11,300 Total Planning Administration 434,915 496,230 494,400 540,900 9.4% 562,600 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 20"20 2019 General Fund Budget Senior Commission (1430) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4040 Contributions -Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4300 Fees, Services 4370 Travel & Training 4375 Promotional Expense Total Contractual Services Total Senior Commission SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 0.0% 2020 26,403 20,907 21,852 22,100 22,600 2.3% 23,300 3,074 3,220 3,400 3,500 2.9% 3,500 2,267 2,481 2,900 2,900 0.0% 3,200 155 182 200 200 0.0% 200 26,403 27,735 28,600 29,200 2.1% 30,200 9,010 14,240 9,000 10,000 11.1% 14,000 295 200 200 0.0% 200 320 984 500 800 60.0% 800 9,329 15,519 9,700 11,000 13.4% 15,000 35,733 43,254 38,300 40,200 5.0% 45,200 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Park and Recreation Commission (1510) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4130 Supplies -Program 4210 Books & Periodicals Total Materials & Supplies 4340 Printing & Publishing 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 4370 Travel & Training Total Contractual Services Total Park and Rec Commission SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 1,000 2020 1,000 100 100 200 100 500 325 175 400 325 175 1,000 325 175 1,200 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 100 0.0% 100 100 0.0% 100 200 0.0% 200 100 0.0% 100 500 0.0% 500 400 0.0% 400 1,000 0.0% 1,000 1,200 0.0% 1,200 2019 General Fund Budget Park and Recreation Administration (1520) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4040 Contributions -Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4120 Supplies -Equipment 4130 Supplies -Program Total Materials & Supplies 4300 Fees, Services 4310 Telephone 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 4370 Travel & Training 4380 Mileage Total Contractual Services Total Park and Rec Admin. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 100 2020 0.0% 161,579 172,863 174,500 182,300 4.5% 187,700 23,446 25,112 26,400 27,600 4.5% 28,400 23,414 26,993 37,000 38,900 5.1% 43,700 1,195 1,452 1,600 1,800 12.5% 2,000 209,635 226,420 239,500 250,600 4.6% 261,800 16 100 100 0.0% 100 100 100 0.0% 100 16 200 200 0.0% 200 828 200 300 50.0% 300 721 617 900 700 22.2%) 700 2,903 3,448 2,900 3,100 6.9% 3,100 1,225 1,821 1,800 1,800 0.0% 1,800 100 100 0.0% 100 4,849 6,713 5,900 6,000 1.7% 6,000 214,483 233,149 245,600 256,800 4.6% 268,000 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Recreation Center (1530) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 61,765 64,313 66,400 68,100 2.6% 70,200 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 101,768 97,000 115,000 113,000 1.7%) 115,000 4030 Contributions -Retirement 24,105 24,008 28,500 30,000 5.3% 32,000 4040 Contributions -Insurance 8,995 9,848 11,300 11,600 2.7% 13,000 4050 Workers Compensation 6,869 9,909 8,200 10,500 28.0% 11,000 Total Personal Services 203,502 205,079 229,400 233,200 1.7% 241,200 4120 Supplies -Equipment 726 1,358 2,000 1,600 20.0%) 1,800 4130 Supplies -Program 14,846 13,066 20,000 15,000 25.0%) 16,000 4150 Maintenance Materials 237 450 500 500 0.0% 500 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 438 631 500 600 20.0% 600 Total Materials & Supplies 16,248 15,505 23,000 17,700 23.0%) 18,900 4300 Fees, Services 59,162 50,812 50,000 52,000 4.0% 54,000 4310 Telephone 617 917 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 4320 Utilities 33,875 35,409 37,000 37,000 0.0% 37,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 348 351 300 400 33.3% 400 4370 Travel & Training 275 15 400 400 0.0% 400 4375 Promotional Expense 654 700 800 800 0.0% 800 4510 Repair & Maintenance -Building 3,659 1,978 2,500 2,500 0.0% 2,500 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 1,532 1,653 1,800 1,800 0.0% 1,800 Total Contractual Services 100,123 91,834 93,800 95,900 2.2% 97,900 Total Recreation Center 319,873 312,419 346,200 346,800 0.2% 358,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Lake Ann Park Operations (1540) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 9,110 8,164 10,700 10,700 0.0% 11,500 4030 Contributions -Retirement 697 625 900 700 22.2%) 700 4050 Workers Compensation 289 500 600 600 0.0% 700 Total Personal Services 10,096 9,288 12,200 12,000 1.6%) 12,900 4130 Supplies -Program 8,433 10,477 9,000 9,000 0.0% 9,000 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 200 200 200 200 0.0% 200 Total Materials & Supplies 8,633 10,677 9,200 9,200 0.0% 9,200 4300 Fees, Services 32,349 35,341 34,500 35,000 1.4% 36,000 4310 Telephone 1,145 1,288 1,200 1,200 0.0% 1,200 4320 Utilities 12,947 10,765 13,000 11,000 15.4%) 11,000 4340 Printing & Publishing 428 214 400 400 0.0% 400 Total Contractual Services 46,868 47,607 49,100 47,600 3.1%) 48,600 Total Lake Ann Park Operations 65,597 67,573 70,500 68,800 (2.4%) 70,700 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Park Maintenance (1550) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 479,890 489,295 490,400 457,100 6.8%) 470,900 4011 Overtime -Reg 32,631 32,956 25,000 30,000 20.0% 32,000 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 114,904 112,282 121,000 118,000 2.5%) 120,000 4021 Overtime -Temp 5,211 3,829 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 4030 Contributions -Retirement 85,025 83,513 88,000 88,000 0.0% 94,000 4040 Contributions -Insurance 76,977 78,394 87,000 84,000 3.4%) 93,400 4050 Workers Compensation 26,127 36,995 32,000 39,000 21.9% 42,000 4060 Unemployment 864 0.0% Total Personal Services 821,630 837,263 848,400 821,100 3.2%) 857,300 4120 Supplies -Equipment 38,744 45,221 40,000 40,000 0.0% 40,000 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 2,852 11,122 3,000 5,000 66.7% 5,000 4150 Maintenance Materials 26,479 21,561 30,000 27,000 10.0%) 27,000 4151 Irrigation Materials 3,200 3,967 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 1,295 2,453 2,200 2,600 18.2% 2,600 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 2,822 2,032 600 1,200 100.0% 1,200 Total Materials & Supplies 75,393 86,356 80,800 80,800 0.0% 80,800 4300 Fees, Services 28,322 52,825 43,000 43,000 0.0% 43,000 4310 Telephone 4,512 5,813 5,100 5,900 15.7% 5,900 4320 Utilities 4,584 4,796 5,000 4,800 4.0%) 4,800 4340 Printing & Publishing 105 200 200 0.0% 200 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 3,474 3,591 4,000 3,700 7.5%) 3,700 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 10 400 400 0.0% 400 4370 Travel & Training 501 2,537 600 1,000 66.7% 1,000 4400 Rental -Land & Buildings 29,347 29,984 34,000 36,000 5.9% 36,000 4410 Rental -Equipment 250 1,274 700 700 0.0% 700 4440 License & Registration 429 44 300 300 0.0% 300 4510 Repair & Maintenance -Building 759 5,073 1,700 1,700 0.0% 1,700 4520 Repair & Maintenance -Vehicles 2,387 100 100 0.0% 100 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 640 8,889 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 4560 Repair & Maintenance -Signs 2,093 754 5,000 2,000 60.0%) 2,000 Total Contractual Services 74,921 118,073 101,100 100,800 0.3%) 100,800 4705 Other Equipment 977 0.0% Total Capital Outlay 977 0.0% Total Park Maintenance 972,921 1,041,692 1,030,300 1,002,700 2.7%) 1,038,900 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 Rental -Land & Buildings 2020 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE Increase in portable restroom contract 2019 General Fund Budget Senior Citizens Center (1560) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4040 Contributions -Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4120 Supplies -Equipment 4130 Supplies -Program Total Materials & Supplies 4300 Fees, Services 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 4370 Travel & Training 4375 Promotional Expense 4380 Mileage Total Contractual Services Total Senior Citizens Center SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 0.0% 2020 2,483 44,535 64,425 66,000 56,200 14.8%) 57,900 6,720 9,772 10,000 8,600 14.0%) 8,800 295 3,536 3,500 19,300 451.4% 21,700 339 535 600 600 0.0% 600 51,889 78,268 80,100 84,700 5.7% 89,000 56 41 300 300 0.0% 300 2,483 4,431 4,000 4,000 0.0% 4,000 2,540 4,472 4,300 4,300 0.0% 4,300 30,856 34,713 29,000 32,000 10.3% 33,000 95 95 100 100 0.0% 100 107 110 100 100 0.0% 100 99 222 300 300 0.0% 300 60 100 100 0.0% 100 100 100 0.0% 100 31,157 35,200 29,700 32,700 10.1% 33,700 85,585 117,940 114,100 121,700 6.7% 127,000 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Recreation Programs (1600) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 98,490 103,215 105,300 121,860 15.7% 125,500 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 56,230 64,368 71,000 68,000 4.2%) 71,000 4021 Overtime -Temp 1,272 402 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 4030 Contributions -Retirement 19,207 20,434 22,000 27,000 22.7% 26,000 4040 Contributions -Insurance 10,026 10,720 12,000 28,000 133.3% 31,300 4050 Workers Compensation 3,045 4,802 3,600 5,000 38.9% 5,400 Total Personal Services 188,269 203,942 214,900 250,860 16.7% 260,200 4120 Supplies -Equipment 4130 Supplies -Program 4240 Uniforms & Clothing Total Materials & Supplies 4300 Fees, Services 4310 Telephone 4320 Utilities 4340 Printing & Publishing 4370 Travel & Training 4380 Mileage 4400 Rental -Land & Buildings 4410 Rental -Equipment Total Contractual Services Total Recreation Programs SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 2,321 2,019 2,500 2,500 0.0% 2,500 15,524 22,063 17,000 18,000 5.9% 18,000 1,575 2,035 1,600 1,700 6.3% 1,700 19,420 26,117 21,100 22,200 5.2% 22,200 61,653 65,606 64,000 66,600 2,140 2,155 2,700 2,200 3,718 4,660 4,000 4,600 9,409 9,683 6,600 7,500 414 507 500 500 100 100 5,999 8,303 6,200 7,000 25,108 32,412 32,000 32,000 108,439 123,325 116,100 120,500 316,128 353,384 352,100 393,560 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 4.1% 66,600 18.5%) 2,200 15.0% 4,600 13.6% 8,000 0.0% 500 0.0% 100 12.9% 7,000 0.0% 32,000 3.8% 121,000 11.8% 403,400 2019 General Fund Budget Self -Supporting Programs (1700) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 24,624 25,806 26,300 13,600 48.3%) 14,000 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 1,950 1,950 2,400 2,200 8.3%) 2,200 4030 Contributions -Retirement 3,851 4,020 4,200 2,100 50.0%) 2,200 4040 Contributions -Insurance 2,472 2,645 3,000 3,100 3.3% 3,200 4050 Workers Compensation 267 337 400 400 0.0% 400 Total Personal Services 33,164 34,757 36,300 21,400 41.0%) 22,000 4130 Supplies -Program 4,142 4,283 4,500 4,500 0.0% 4,500 Total Materials & Supplies 4,142 4,283 4,500 4,500 0.0% 4,500 4300 Fees, Services 11,766 11,573 15,000 12,500 16.7%) 13,000 Total Contractual Services 11,766 11,573 15,000 12,500 16.7%) 13,000 Total Self -Supporting Programs 49,071 50,614 55,800 38,400 31.2%) 39,500 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Recreation Sports (1800) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4120 Supplies -Equipment 4130 Supplies -Program 4240 Uniforms & Clothing Total Materials & Supplies 4375 Promotional Expenses Total Contractual Services Total Recreation Sports SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 21,370 23,393 25,500 26,000 2.0% 26,500 2,302 2,438 2,700 2,800 3.7% 2,800 899 1,481 1,100 1,600 45.5% 1,700 24,571 27,311 29,300 30,400 3.8% 31,000 82 0.0% 3,309 2,438 2,500 2,500 0.0% 2,500 4,852 5,427 5,400 5,400 0.0% 5,400 8,161 7,947 7,900 7,900 0.0% 7,900 300 300 0.0% 300 300 0.0% 32,732 35,258 37,500 38,600 2.9% 38,900 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE City COLA only adjustment Chaska 3.00% Cottage Grove 3.00% Elk River 3.00% Inver Grove Heights 2.50% Lino Lakes 2.75% Prior Lake 3.00% Rosemount 2.75% Savage 3.00% Shakopee 3.00% Stillwater 3.00% AVERAGE 2.90% All of our KFS cities but one have COLA and step increases KFS 2019 Budgeted Wage Adjustments KFS CitiesAsst City ManagerOffice ManagerFire ChiefFinance DirectorPW Dir/City EngComm Dvlp DirMIS CoordinatorPark & Rec DirChaska90,185$ 67,343$ 106,038$ N/A102,663$ 119,208$ 104,532$ 97,864$ Cottage Grove98,936 N/A117,009 136,746 126,693 126,693 98,936 117,009 Elk River N/A 84,431 113,508 114,035 120,200 120,200 96,131 110,953 Inver Grove Heights N/A 90,336 131,856 131,856 131,856 131,856 108,036 131,856 Lino Lakes95,866 78,739 127,763 119,983 118,627 115,631 N/AN/APrior Lake112,512 N/A109,008 134,949 134,949 105,576 N/AN/ARosemount110,912 N/AN/A119,966 124,240 120,726 81,189 113,488 Savage64,228 N/A115,877 111,966 111,966 106,621 83,034 108,139 Shakopee125,116 81,254 127,644 139,020 139,020 129,751 117,601 127,644 StillwaterN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AAverage99,679$ 80,421$ 118,588$ 126,065$ 123,357$ 119,585$ 98,494$ 115,279$ Competitor CitiesAsst City ManagerOffice ManagerFire ChiefFinance DirectorPW Dir/City EngComm Dvlp DirMIS CoordinatorPark & Rec DirEdina149,781$ 75,804$ 149,781$ 141,972$ 141,972$ 134,572$ 127,556$ 141,972$ St. Louis Park N/A N/A 146,393 133,408 148,147 129,780 146,393 155,517 Minnetonka134,244 91,680 135,996 133,380 145,392 135,084 N/A 124,572 Eden Prairie N/A 60,808 136,556 128,588 148,700 140,895 110,448 143,177 Bloomington147,000 80,225 161,980 127,393 176,475 140,000 140,045 133,800 Plymouth137,664 101,976 129,084 N/A 152,136 151,248 121,380 151,248 Maple Grove N/A N/A 133,746 128,918 146,640 133,746 118,612 128,274 Lakeville122,979 N/A129,515 147,125 134,000 127,515 121,603 127,515 Average138,334$ 82,099$ 140,381$ 134,398$ 149,183$ 136,605$ 126,577$ 138,259$ Chanhassen 2018 Budget87,610$ 75,712$ 129,189$ 123,885$ 131,622$ 128,315$ 101,712$ 125,778$ % Different from KFS Avg-12.11%-5.86%8.94%-1.73%6.70%7.30%3.27%9.11%1.95%% Different from Comp Avg-36.67%-7.78%-7.97%-7.82%-11.77%-6.07%-19.64%-9.03%-13.34%Department Head Comparable Salaries 2019 Special Revenue Funds 201 10% Charitable Contribution 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate Revenue 4030 3801 Interest Earnings 3807 Donations 3903 Refunds/Reimbursements Total Other Revenue Total Revenue Expenditures 4030 Retirement Contributions Total Contractual Services 4370 Travel & Training Total Contractual Services 4705 Other Equipment Total Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Revenue Over/(Under) Expenditures SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 266 324 - - 36,527 41,603 38,000 38,000 104 - 36,792 42,031 38,000 38,000 36,792 42,031 38,000 38,000 0.0% 0.0% 38,000 0.0% - 0.0% 38,000 0.0% 38,000 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 3,383 3,500 100.0% 3,700 3,383 3,500 100.0% 3,700 16,670 46,082 46,000 48,000 4.3% 48,000 16,670 46,082 46,000 48,000 4.3% 48,000 5,900 4,516 0.0% 5,900 4,516 0.0% 22,570 53,981 46,000 51,500 12.0% 51,700 14,223 11,949) 8,000) 13,500) 13,700) DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 Special Revenue Funds 202 Cemetery 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate Revenue 3670 Internment Fee 450 750 900 700 22.2%) 700 Total General Property Tax 450 750 900 700 22.2%) 700 3801 Interest Earnings 167 279 100 200 100.0% 200 3804 Land Sale 25,400 3,400 3,000 3,000 0.0% 3,000 3807 Donations 349 0.0% Total Other Revenue 25,567 4,028 3,100 3,200 3.2% 3,200 Total Revenue 26,017 4,778 4,000 3,900 2.5%) 3,900 Expenditures 4300 Fees, Services 1,104 1,963 3,000 2,200 26.7%) 2,400 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 500 500 0.0% 500 Total Contractual Services 1,104 1,963 3,500 2,700 22.9%) 2,900 Total Expenditures 1,104 1,963 3,500 2,700 22.9%) 2,900 Revenue Over/(Under) Expenditures 24,912 2,815 500 1,200 1,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 Special Revenue Funds 210 Cable TV 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate Revenue 3080 Franchise Fees 194,082 187,802 195,000 190,000 2.6%) 190,000 Total General Property Tax 194,082 187,802 195,000 190,000 2.6%) 190,000 3801 Interest Earnings 2,371 3,326 2,000 2,000 0.0% 2,000 3903 Refunds/Reimbursements 249 0.0% Total Other Revenue 2,620 3,326 2,000 2,000 0.0% 2,000 Total Revenue 196,702 191,129 197,000 192,000 2.5%) 192,000 Expenditures 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 4011 Overtime -Reg 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4040 Contributions -Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4120 Supplies -Equipment Total Materials & Supplies 4300 Fees, Services 4340 Printing & Publishing 4370 Travel & Training 4483 Liability Insurance Total Contractual Services 4705 Other Equipment Total Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Revenue Over/(Under) Expenditures SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 78,245 82,014 82,000 87,600 6.8% 90,200 464 0.0% 11,805 12,244 12,500 13,300 6.4% 13,700 11,244 12,314 13,500 14,500 7.4% 16,300 591 695 600 800 33.3% 900 102,350 107,267 108,600 116,200 7.0% 121,100 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 62,665 29,595 30,000 30,000 0.0% 30,000 500 500 0.0% 500 600 300 300 0.0% 300 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 0.0% 1,500 64,765 31,095 32,300 32,300 0.0% 32,300 4,557 15,000 15,000 0.0% 15,000 4,557 15,000 15,000 0.0% 15,000 171,671 138,362 160,900 168,500 4.7% 173,400 25,031 52,767 36,100 23,500 18,600 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE City of Chanhassen, MN Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY Source 2019 2020 2021 AssessmenttRevolving Assess Fund Cable TV Fund Capital Replacement Equipment Fund Cash Reserves Developer Assessments MSA Other Agency Contribution Park Dedication Fund Park Replacement Fund Sewer Utility Fund State Funds Street Pavement Management Surface Water Utility Fund Tax Levy Water Utility Fund 2022 2023 Total 2,025, 000 300,000 4,875,000 2,200,000 9,400,000 40,000 25,000 25,000 42,000 25,000 157,000 1,177,000 765,000 756,900 860, 945 2,122,400 5,682,245 1,000,000 1,000, 000 8,850,000 8,850, 000 2,500, 000 1,900,000 1,100,000 3,000,000 100,000 8,600, 000 17,725,000 21,350, 000 465,000 7,310,000 46,850,000 225, 000 625,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 925,000 245,000 255,000 245, 000 250,000 255,000 1,250,000 519, 500 1,175,500 395,000 3,333, 500 535,000 5,958, 500 500,000 500, 000 290,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 1,330,000 986,000 590,000 570,000 375,000 660,000 3,181,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 465,000 2,824,500 1,975,500 315,000 1,698,500 3,565, 000 10,378,500 GRAND TOTAL 3u,lbu,uuu ZV,314,UVU V'1Z4'UVV w,VVi,a4o U,O4V, YVV IVY,OU,LYJ City of Chanhassen, MN Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Source Project # Priority 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Assessment/Revolving Assess Fund Capital Replacement Equipment Fund Tennis Court Refurbishment PK&T-072 n/ a 150,000 n/a 75,000 225,000 Annual Street Improvement Program ST -012 n/ a 1,850,000 300,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 6,550,000 Market Blvd Improvements ST -037 n/ a 158,500 Computer/Network Equipment Purchases/Upgrades 2,600,000 n/a 2,600,000 TH 5 Corridor Study (West of Hwy 41) ST -044 n/a 25,000 402, 000 Telecommunication Purchases/Upgrades EQ -014 25,000 Assessment/Revolving Assess Fund Total 2,000 2,025,000 300, 000 4,875,000 2,200,000 9,400,000 EQ -015 n/a 31,000 33,000 33,000 97,000 Dump/Plow Truck Replacements/Additions EQ -016 n/a 216,000 Cable TV Fund Audio/Visual Equipment EQ -026 n/ a 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Citizen Survey MB -023 n/a 15,000 Software Purchases EQ -048 17,000 32,000 Cable TV Fund Total 40,000 25,000 25,000 42,000 25,000 157, 000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund Fire Dept.: SCBA Equipment EQ -004 n/a 200,045 200, 045 PPE: Turnout/Helmets EQ -010 n/a 35,500 30,000 30,400 31,300 31,300 158,500 Computer/Network Equipment Purchases/Upgrades EQ -013 n/a 82,200 85,600 75,500 87,500 71,200 402, 000 Telecommunication Purchases/Upgrades EQ -014 n/a 2,600 2,000 3,200 1,200 50,000 59,000 Light Duty Trucks: Community Dev. EQ -015 n/a 31,000 33,000 33,000 97,000 Dump/Plow Truck Replacements/Additions EQ -016 n/a 216,000 230,000 237, 000 683,000 Light Duty Trucks: Public Works EQ -029 n/a 47,000 85,000 132,000 Software Purchases EQ -048 n/a 85,100 85,800 83,500 88,300 91,700 434, 400 Computerized Records Retention System EQ -049 n/a 22,000 21,900 3,000 5,000 7,000 58,900 Fire Vehicles EQ -054 n/a 650, 000 77,000 795,000 1,522,000 Aerial Photography for City GIS Datasets EQ -055 n/a 2,300 26,000 2,300 2,300 26,000 58,900 Storage Area Network (SAN) EQ -081 n/a 55,000 55,000 110,000 Office Furniture EQ -084 n/a 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 Light Duty Trucks - Parks EQ -100 n/ a 35,000 38,000 36,000 42,000 36,000 187,000 Mower Replacement - Park EQ -104 n/ a 70,000 98,000 168,000 Tractor Replacement - Park EQ -106 n/ a 18,000 113,000 131,000 Brush Chipper EQ -115 n/ a 112,000 112,000 Annual Skid Loader Trade In EQ -124 n/a 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 76,000 Copier Replacements EQ -127 n/a 18,500 9,000 9,000 9,500 46,000 Fleet Vehicles EQ -132 n/a 32,000 32,000 Miscellaneous Fire Equipment/Hose Replacement EQ -137 n/ a 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 80,000 Recreation Center Revitalization Project EQ -140 n/ a 25,000 25,000 Security /Access Control Systems EQ -152 n/ a 18,300 7,200 25,500 Zero Turn Mower Replacement - Parks EQ -154 n/ a 18,000 18,000 Tar Kettle EQ -157 n/a 43,000 43,000 Hot Box with Asphalt Premix Heater EQ -158 n/ a 44,300 44,300 Crack Sealer EQ -159 n/ a 47,000 47,000 Compact Excavator EQ -163 n/ a 37,000 37,000 Annual Zero Tum Mower Replacement - Park EQ -164 n/ a 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Source Project # Priority 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total City Hall Remodel MB-010 n/ a 150,000 150,000 Fire Department Building Improvements MB-026 n/ a 100,000 100,000 Senior Center Kitchen Update MB-031 n/a 15,000 15,000 City Hall Roof Replacement MB-033 n/ a 300,000 300,000 Recreation Center Wall Replacement MB-034 n/ a 69,700 69,700 Lake Ann Lake Side Pavilion Roof Replacement PK&T-132 n/ a 30,000 30,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 1,177,000 765,000 756,900 860,945 2,122,400 5,682,245 Total Cash Reserves - Lyman Blvd Improvements-Galpin Blvd to TH 41 ST-038 n/ a 1,000,000 1,000,000 Cash Reserves Total 1,000,000 1,000,000 LDeveloper Assessments 2010 MUSA Sanitary Lift Station SS-020 n/a 950, 000 950, 000 Lower Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvements SS-024 n/a 7,900,000 7,900, 000 Developer Assessments Total 8,850,000 8,850,000 iMAA Annual Street Improvement Program ST-012 n/ a 700,000 1,900,000 500,000 3,100,000 Market Blvd Improvements ST-037 n/ a 600,000 600,000 Lyman Blvd Improvements-Galpin Blvd to TH 41 ST-038 n/ a 1,500,000 1,500,000 Enhanced Pedestrian Roadway Crossings ST-039 n/a 300,000 300,000 Galpin Blvd Improvements-Hwy 5 N to City limits ST-040 n/ a 3,000, 000 3,000,000 TH 41 Rehabilitation - Pioneer Trail to TH 5 ST-042 n/ a 100,000 100,000 MSA Total 2,500,000 1,900, 000 1,100,000 3,000,000 100,000 8,600, 000 Other Agency Contribution Vactor Street Sweeper EQ-118 n/a 30,000 30,000 TH 101 Imp-Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr(CSAH 61) ST-032 n/ a 7,500, 000 20,450,000 27,950,000 Lyman Blvd Improvements-Galpin Blvd to TH 41 ST-038 n/a 9,100,000 9,100,000 Enhanced Pedestrian Roadway Crossings ST-039 n/a 300,000 300, 000 Galpin Blvd Improvements-Hwy 5 N to City limits ST-040 n/a 7,000,000 7,000,000 Lower Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation SWMP-024 n/a 100,000 900, 000 1,000, 000 Lotus Lake Channels & Outfall Improvements SWMP-046 n/a 200,000 200, 000 Upper Riley Creek Channel Stabilization SWMP-048 n/a 15,000 60,000 75,000 Rice Marsh Lake Iron Enhanced Sand Filter SWMP-053 n/a 250,000 250, 000 Pioneer Trail Flood Mitigation SWMP-056 n/a 685,000 685,000 Downtown Water Reuse Project SWMP-057 n/a 250,000 250,000 Lake Virginia TMDL Load Reduction SWMP-058 n/a 10,000 10,000 Other Agency Contribution Total 17,725, 000 21,350,000 465,000 7,310,000 46,850,000 Park Dedication Fund Picnic Tables/Park Benches PK&T-042 n/a 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Trees PK&T-043 n/a 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 Chanhassen Nature Preserve Trail, Final Phase PK&T-099 n/a 200, 000 200,000 Arboretum Trail and Hwy 41 Underpass Cost Share PK&T-138 n/ a 600,000 600,000 Source Project # Priority 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Park Dedication Fund Total 225,000 625,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 925,000 JP_a Replacement Fund i Park Equipment Replacement PK&T-141 n/a 245,000 255,000 245,000 250,000 255,000 1,250,000 Park Replacement Fund Total 245,000 255,000 245, 000 250,000 255,000 1,250, 000 Sewer Utility Fund Light Duty Trucks: Utilities EQ -062 n/a 15,000 15,500 30,500 Annual Skid Loader Trade In EQ -124 n/a 9,500 9,500 Bobcat Trailer Replacement EQ -160 n/ a 3,500 3,500 Mailing Folder/Inserter EQ -161 n/ a 5,000 5,000 Inflow and Infiltration Abatement SS -012 n/ a 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Sanitary Sewer Replacement SS -014 n/ a 160,000 75,000 75,000 250, 000 560,000 Sanitary Lift Station Rehabilitation Program SS -017 n/ a 135,000 130,000 120,000 130,000 85,000 600,000 2010 MUSA Sanitary Lift Station SS -020 n/a 950, 000 950,000 Lower Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvements SS -024 n/ a 1,800,000 1,800, 000 TH101 Imp -Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr (CSAH 61) ST -032 n/ a 750,000 750,000 Galpin Blvd improvements -Hwy 5 N to City limits ST -040 nla 250,000 250,000 Sewer Utility Fund Total 519,500 1,175,500 395,000 3,333,500 535,000 5,958,500 State Funds TH101 Imp -Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr(CSAH 61) ST -032 n/ a 500,000 500,000 State Funds Total 500,000 500,000 Street Pavement Management Pavement Management ST -018 n/a 260,000 260,000 260,000 260, 000 260, 000 1,300,000 Downtown Signal Controller Replacement ST -043 n/ a 30,000 30,000 Street Pavement Management Total 290,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 1,330,000 Surface Water Utility Fund Vactor Street Sweeper EQ -118 n/ a 261,000 261,000 Mailing Folder/Inserter EQ -161 n/ a 5,000 5,000 Property Acquisition SWMP-014 n/ a 75,000 75,000 75,000 225, 000 Street Improvement Projects - Storm Water Mgmt SWMP-019 n/ a 360,000 250,000 250,000 100,000 350,000 1,310,000 Lower Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation SWMP-024 n/ a 75,000 50,000 125,000 Stormwater Pond Improvements SWMP-032 n/ a 80,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 720,000 Storm Water Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement SWMP-045 n/ a 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 275,000 Lotus Lake Channels & Outfall Improvements SWMP-046 n/ a 50,000 50,000 Upper Riley Creek Channel Stabilization SWMP-048 n/a 10,000 15,000 25,000 Rice Marsh Lake Iron Enhanced Sand Filter SWMP-053 n/ a 50,000 50,000 Pioneer Trail Flood Mitigation SWMP-056 n/ a 75,000 75,000 Downtown Water Reuse Project SWMP-057 n/ a 50,000 50,000 Lake Virginia TMDL Load Reduction SWMP-058 n/ a 10,000 10,000 Surface Water Utility Fund Total 986,000 590,000 570,000 375,000 660,000 3,181,000 Tax Levy Source Project # Priority 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Pavement Management ST -018 n/a 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 465,000 Tax Levy Total Water Utility Fund Light Duty Trucks: Utilities EQ -062 Annual Skid Loader Trade In EQ -124 Bobcat Trailer Replacement EQ -160 Mailing Folder/Inserter EQ -161 Lower Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvements SS -024 TH101 Imp -Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr(CSAH 61) ST -032 Galpin Blvd Improvements -Hwy 5 N to City limits ST -040 Downtown Water Reuse Project SWMP-057 Watermain Replacement W-024 Well Rehabilitation Program W-032 Low Zone 1 million gallon Storage Tank W-046 MUSA Trunk Watermain Oversizing W-056 Repaint Watertower Place Tank W-061 Water Utility Fund Total 5,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 465,000 n/ a 15,000 15,500 30,500 n/ a 9,500 9,500 n/ a 3,500 3,500 n/ a 5,000 5,000 n/ a 1,100,000 1,100,000 n/ a 800,000 800,000 n/ a 500,000 500,000 nla 50,000 50,000 n/ a 600,000 1,100,000 200,000 900,000 2,800,000 n/a 50,000 55,000 65,000 95,000 65,000 330,000 n/a 2,600,000 2,600,000 n/a 150,000 150,000 n/a 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,824,500 1,975, 500 315,000 1,698,500 3,565,000 10,378, 500 GRAND TOTAL 30,150,000 29,314,000 9,124,900 26,097,945 9,840,400 104,527,245 City of Chanhassen, MN Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 DEPARTMENT SUMMARY Department 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Major Equipment 1,542,000 836,000 781,900 892, 945 1,482,700 5,535, 545 Municipal Buildings 15,000 17,000 634, 700 666,700 Park & Trail Improvements 620,000 880,000 345,000 275,000 310,000 2,430,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements 495,000 405,000 395,000 13,030,000 535,000 14,860,000 Street Improvements 23,158,000 24,553,000 6,253,000 11,103,000 2,653,000 67,720,000 Surface Water Management 1,520,000 1,485,000 1,085,000 685, 000 660,000 5,435, 000 Water System Improvements 2,800,000 1,155,000 265,000 95,000 3,565,000 7,880,000 TOTAL 30,150,000 29,314,000 9,124,900 26,097,945 9,840,400 104,527,245 City of Chanhassen, MN Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Project # Priority 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Major Equipment Fire Dept.: SCBA Equipment EQ -004 n/ a 781,900 892,945 1,482, 700 5,535,545 FA4unicipal Buildings -----i 200,045 200,045 PPE: Turnout/Helmets EQ -010 n/a 35,500 30,000 30,400 31,300 31,300 158,500 Computer/Network Equipment Purchases/Upgrades EQ -013 n/a 82,200 85,600 75,500 87,500 71,200 402,000 Telecommunication Purchases/Upgrades EQ -014 n/a 2,600 2,000 3,200 1,200 50,000 59,000 Light Duty Trucks: Community Dev. EQ -015 n/a 69,700 31,000 33,000 33,000 97,000 Dump/Plow Truck Replacements/Additions EQ -016 n/a 216,000 230, 000 237,000 683,000 Audio/Visual Equipment EQ -026 n/a 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Light Duty Trucks: Public Works EQ -029 n/a 47,000 85,000 132,000 Software Purchases EQ -048 n/a 85,100 85,800 83,500 88,300 91,700 434,400 Computerized Records Retention System EQ -049 n/a 22,000 21,900 3,000 5,000 7,000 58,900 Fire Vehicles EQ -054 n/ a 650,000 77,000 795,000 1,522, 000 Aerial Photography for City GIS Datasets EQ -055 n/ a 2,300 26,000 2,300 2,300 26,000 58,900 Light Duty Trucks: Utilities EQ -062 n/ a 30,000 31,000 61,000 Storage Area Network (SAN) EQ -081 n/a 55,000 55,000 110,000 Office Furniture EQ -084 n/ a 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 Light Duty Trucks - Parks EQ -100 n/a 35,000 38,000 36,000 42,000 36,000 187,000 Mower Replacement - Park EQ -104 n/a 70,000 98,000 168,000 Tractor Replacement - Park EQ -106 n/ a 18,000 113,000 131,000 Brush Chipper EQ -115 n/a 112,000 112,000 Vactor Street Sweeper EQ -118 n/a 291,000 291,000 Annual Skid Loader Trade In EQ -124 n/a 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 95,000 Copier Replacements EQ -127 n/a 18,500 9,000 9,000 9,500 46,000 Fleet Vehicles EQ -132 n/a 32,000 32,000 Miscellaneous Fire Equipment/Hose Replacement EQ -137 n/a 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 80,000 Recreation Center Revitalization Project EQ -140 n/a 25,000 25,000 Security I Access Control Systems EQ -152 n/a 18,300 7,200 25,500 Zero Turn Mower Replacement - Parks EQ -154 n/a 18,000 18,000 Tar Kettle EQ -157 n/ a 43,000 43,000 Hot Box with Asphalt Premix Heater EQ -158 n/a 44,300 44,300 Crack Sealer EQ -159 n/ a 47,000 47,000 Bobcat Trailer Replacement EQ -160 n/ a 7,000 7,000 Mailing Folder/Inserter EQ -161 n/a 15,000 15,000 Compact Excavator EQ -163 n/a 37,000 37,000 Annual Zero Tum Mower Replacement - Park EQ -164 n/a 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Major Equipment Total 1,542,000 836,000 781,900 892, 945 1,482,700 5,535,545 FA4unicipal Buildings -----i City Hall Remodel MB -010 n/a 150,000 150,000 Citizen Survey MB -023 n/a 15,000 17,000 32,000 Fire Department Building Improvements MB -026 n/a 100,000 100,000 Senior Center Kitchen Update MB -031 n/a 15,000 15,000 City Hall Roof Replacement MB -033 n/a 300, 000 300,000 Recreation Center Wall Replacement MB -034 n/a 69,700 69,700 Department Project # Priority 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Municipal Buildings Total 15,000 200, 000 200, 000 Fark & Trail Improvements Picnic Tables/Park Benches PK&T-042 Trees PK&T-043 Tennis Court Refurbishment PK&T-072 Chanhassen Nature Preserve Trail, Final Phase PK&T-099 Lake Ann Lake Side Pavilion Roof Replacement PK&T-132 Arboretum Trail and Hwy 41 Underpass Cost Share PK&T-138 Park Equipment Replacement PK&T-141 Park & Trail Improvements Total 75,000 n/a 150,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Inflow and Infiltration Abatement SS -012 Sanitary Sewer Replacement SS -014 Sanitary Lift Station Rehabilitation Program SS -017 2010 MUSA Sanitary Lift Station SS -020 Lower Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvements SS -024 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Total n/a 495,000 405, 000 Street Improvements Annual Street Improvement Program ST -012 Pavement Management ST -018 TH101 Imp -Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr (CSAH 61) ST -032 Market Blvd Improvements ST -037 Lyman Blvd Improvements-Galpin Blvd to TH 41 ST -038 Enhanced Pedestrian Roadway Crossings ST -039 Galpin Blvd Improvements -Hwy 5 N to City limits ST -040 TH 41 Rehabilitation - Pioneer Trail to TH 5 ST -042 Downtown Signal Controller Replacement ST -043 TH 5 Corridor Study (West of Hwy 41) ST -044 Street Improvements Total 275, 000 310, 000 2,430,000 Furface Water Management Property Acquisition SWMP-014 Street Improvement Projects - Storm Wafer Mgmt SWMP-019 Lower Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation SWMP-024 Stormwater Pond Improvements SWMP-032 Storm Water Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement SWMP-045 Lotus Lake Channels & Outfall Improvements SWMP-046 Upper Riley Creek Channel Stabilization SWMP-048 Rice Marsh Lake Iron Enhanced Sand Filter SWMP-053 Pioneer Trail Flood Mitigation SWMP-056 Downtown Water Reuse Project SWMP-057 Lake Virginia TMDL Load Reduction SWMP-058 Surface Water Management Total 250, 000 100,000 350, 000 Water System Improvements Watermain Replacement W-024 Well Rehabilitation Program W-032 n/ a 15,000 200,000 200, 000 17,000 634,700 666, 700 n/a 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 n/a 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 n/a 150,000 75,000 1,900, 000 225,000 n/a 200,000 10,800, 000 200,000 n/a 495,000 405, 000 395,000 13,030, 000 30,000 30,000 n/a 600,000 10,750, 000 600,000 n/a 245,000 255,000 245,000 250,000 255,000 1,250, 000 n/a 620, 000 880,000 345,000 275, 000 310,000 2,430,000 n/ a 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 n/a 160,000 75,000 75,000 353, 000 250,000 560,000 n/a 135,000 130,000 120,000 130,000 85,000 600,000 n/a 3,200, 000 1,900, 000 1,900,000 n/a 11,600, 000 10,800, 000 10,800,000 n/a 495,000 405,000 395,000 13,030, 000 535,000 14,860,000 n/a 2,550,000 2,200,000 2,700,000 2,200,000 9,650,000 n/a 353,000 353,000 353,000 353, 000 353,000 1,765,000 n/a 8,000,000 22,000, 000 30,000,000 n/a 3,200, 000 3,200, 000 n/a 11,600, 000 11,600,000 n/a 600, 000 600, 000 n/a 10,750, 000 10,750,000 n/ a 100,000 100,000 n/a 30,000 30,000 n/ a 25,000 25,000 23,158,000 24,553,000 6,253,000 11,103,000 2,653,000 67,720,000 n/a 75,000 75,000 75,000 225,000 n/a 360,000 250,000 250,000 100,000 350,000 1,310,000 n/a 175,000 950,000 1,125,000 n/ a 80,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 720,000 n/a 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 275,000 n/ a 250, 000 250,000 n/a 25,000 75,000 100,000 n/a 300, 000 300,000 n/a 760,000 760,000 n/a 350,000 350,000 n/a 20,000 20,000 1,520, 000 1,485,000 1,085,000 685,000 660,000 5,435,000 n/ a 600,000 1,100,000 200,000 900,000 2,800, 000 n/ a 50,000 55,000 65,000 95,000 65,000 330,000 Department Project # Priority 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Low Zone 1 million gallon Storage Tank W-046 n/a 2,600,000 2,600,000 MUSA Trunk Watermain Oversizing W-056 n/a 150,000 150,000 Repaint Watertower Place Tank W-061 n/a 2,000, 000 2,000, 000 Water System Improvements Total 2,800,000 1,155,000 265,000 95,000 3,565,000 7,880,000 GRAND TOTAL 30,150,000 29,314,000 9,124,900 26,097,945 9,840, 400 104,527,245 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -004 Project Name Fire Dept.: SCBA Equipment Account#1 400-4115- 4705 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact Don Johnson Type Equipment Useful Life 20 years Category Fire Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $349,145 s program is to provide additional and/or replacement SCBA air bottles, SCBA face masks, and upgrades to SCBA air packs as needed. Justification Firefighting is a very rigorous and demanding activity that is performed in an environment of extremes. The periodic replacement and/or additions to SCBA equipment is required to maintain current quantities through replacement of damaged or destroyed equipment and to equip new Prior Expenditures 149,100 Equipment Total Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 200,045 200,045 200,045 200,045 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 149,100 Capital Replacement 200,045 200,045 Total Equipment Fund Total 200,045 200,045 Budget Impact/Other Fhere should be no operational impact from this purchase. The current maintenance budget will accommodate for this addition. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -010 Project Name PPE: Turnout/Helmets Account#1 400-4105-4705 Account #2 Account #3 Account 44 Department Major Equipment Contact Don Johnson Type Equipment Useful Life 5-7 years Category Fire Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $428,150 This is for the purchase of PPE (turnout gear) to meet the NFPA 1851 standard, along with the replacement of turnout gear that has reached its average service life of 5 to 7 years. The department will also provide new members with turnout gear after they complete their probationary period. Justification Turnout gear lasts approximately 5-7 years on average. Purchases in 2019 were increased due to higher than anticipated hiring. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 269,650 Maintenance 35,500 30,000 30,400 31,300 31,300 158,500 Total Total 35,500 30,000 30,400 31,300 31,300 158, 500 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 269,650 Capital Replacement 35,500 30,000 30,400 31,300 31,300 158,500 Total Equipment Fund Total 35,500 309000 30,400 31,300 31,300 1589500 Budget Impact/Other There should be no operational impact from this purchase. The current maintenance budget will accommodate for this addition. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -013 Project Name Computer/Network Equipment Purchases/Upgrades Account #1 400-4126-4703 Account #2 Account#3 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Equipment Useful Life 3- 8 years Category Administration Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $1,384,150 Funds the purchase of replacement user and network computer, printer, peripherals, and networking hardware. The replacement schedule was adopted in 1999 and is subject to modification by the MIS Coordinator with the approval of the City Manager and department heads. Justification Budgeting and purchasing computer equipment through this project allows the City greater flexibility to direct equipment to where it is needed the most, rather than in individual budgets. The replacement schedule was developed by the MIS Coordinator in 1999 and approved by the 1999 Council appointed IT Task Force. Expenditures in the 2019 budget requests are for the replacement of 4 workstations, 15 desktop PC's, 5 laptop PC's and 12 tablets. Also included are the Engineering plotter and the Fountain Room projector. Most of the equipment being replaced will be recycled and re -issued to City staff. The oldest equipment in the inventory will be sold on the City public surplus auction site. Security related expenditures have been moved to the Security/Access Control Systems project. Prior 982,150 Total Prior 982,150 Total Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Office Equipment 82,200 85,600 75,500 87,500 71,200 402, 000 Total 82,200 85,600 75,500 87,500 71,200 402,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 82,200 85,600 75,500 87,500 71,200 402, 000 Equipment Fund Total 82,200 85,600 75,500 87,500 71,200 402,000 Budget Impact/Other Most items purchased for this account come with a I to 3 year warranty. Repairs to items are done by MIS staff after the warranty period expires. Spare parts or outside repairs are funded out of 101-1160-4530 (Repair & Maintenance -Equipment) or 101-1160-4300 (Consulting). Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -014 Project Name Telecommunication Purchases/Upgrades Account#1 400-4101-4703 Account #2 Account #3 Account#4 Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Equipment Useful Life 10 years Category Administration Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $160,550 This project funds the expansion and upgrades to the City telephone systems, excluding cellular equipment and service which remains an individual department budget item. The current City telephone system is a Mitel model 5000 and is located in the server room at City Hall. This system provides phone service for City Hall, the Library, Public Works, the Recreation Center, Fire Station 1 and the Water Treatment Plant. Justification I A central PBX system simplifies the management of phone services and allows for the integration of phone services with other City applications such as unified messaging and fax services. The PBX system was replaced with a Mitel 5000 in 2012. Additional IP and digital handsets will be ordered as replacements for existing Intertel digital phones at City Hall and the Fire Station. The conference phones for the small conference rooms, along with some headsets for existing phones are being replaced beginning in 2018. Prior 101,550 Total Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Office Equipment 2,600 2,000 3,200 1,200 50,000 59,000 Total 2,600 2,000 3,200 1,200 50,000 59,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 10-1-,5-5-oJ Capital Replacement 2,600 2,000 3,200 1,200 50,000 59,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 2,600 2,000 3,200 1,200 50,000 59,000 Budget Impact/Other Maintenance for the replacement telephone system will be funded out of the 1160-4300 services account. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -015 Project Name Light Duty Trucks: Community Dev. Account #1 400-4107-4704 Account #2 Account #3 Account#4 Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Vehicles Useful Life Unassigned Category Community Development Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $270, 000 These purchases are consistent with the Vehicle Replacement Schedule. Replacement units are generally purchased early in the year to accommodate the time frames established by Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Program. 0 - #607 2007 GMC Canyon 2 - #6112008 GMC Canyon 3 - #612 2008 GMC Canyon Justification These vehicles are used to provide building inspection services throughout the community. The average replacement age is over 13 years. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 173,000 Vehicles 31,000 33,000 33,000 97,000 Total Total 31,000 33,000 33,000 97,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 173,000 Capital Replacement 31,000 33,000 33,000 97,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 31,000 33,000 33,000 97,000 Budget Impact/Other These purchases will include a limited warranty and will reduce the annual maintenance and repair costs as compared to the vehicles replaced. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -016 Project Name Dump/Plow Truck Replacements/Additions Account #1 400-4108-4704 Account #2 Account#3 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Vehicles Useful Life Unassigned Category Street Equipment Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $2,052,800 These purchases are required to maintain a reliable truck fleet. Costs include truck chassis, dump box, hydraulic system, snow wing, snow plow and sander. These vehicles are purchased using either the Hennepin County or State of MN cooperative bid systems. Orders for truck chassis are typically required to be placed up to one year in advance of delivery. Replacement schedule is as follows: 2020 - # 124 1998 Ford L8513 Dump/Plow Truck -with plow, wing and sander 2022 - # 126 2000 Sterling L8513 Dump/Plow Truck -with plow, wing and sander 2023 - # 127 2001 Sterling L8513 Dump/Plow Truck -with plow, wing and sander Justification These vehicles are used to provide a variety of maintenance services throughout the community including winter response for plowing and hauling snow. The average replacement age is 18.5 years. Winter emergency service necessitates these vehicles be reliable and dependable. Growth in the community creates additional work for these trucks. These vehicle purchases are consistent with the Vehicle Replacement Schedule. Prior 1,369,800 Total Prior 1,369,800 Total Expenditures Vehicles 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 216,000 230,000 237, 000 683, 000 Total 216,000 230,000 237, 000 683,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 216,000 230,000 237, 000 683,000 Equipment Fund Total 216,000 230,000 237, 000 683,000 Budget Impact/Other Fhese purchases will include a limited warranty and will reduce the annual maintenance and repair costs as compared to the vehicles replaced. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -026 Project Name AudioNisual Equipment Account#1 210-0000-4705 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Description 3rovides for the systematic maintenance and upgrading of audio/visual equipment. Justification The original AN equipment was purchased in 1989, with the upgrades in 1994, 2008 and 2012. Prior Expenditures 200,000 Maintenance Total Prior Funding Sources 200,000 Cable N Fund Total Department Major Equipment Contact Chelsea Petersen Type Equipment Useful Life Unassigned Category Administration Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $325,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Total 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125, 000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Total 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125, 000 Budget Impact/Other uture upgrades include expanding access to programming to those without access to cable, and continued enhancement of the live and broadcast Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -029 Project Name Light Duty Trucks: Public Works Account #1 400-4120-4704 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact PaulOehme Type Vehicles Useful Life Unassigned Category Street Equipment Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $283,000 rovides for scheduled replacement of light duty trucks in the street and garage departments. Replacement units are generally purchased early in he year in order to accommodate the time frames established by Hennepin County and the State of MN Cooperative Purchasing Program. 0 - #10 1 2004 Chevrolet 3/4 ton pickup, with plow 1 - # 130 2007 Chevrolet 3/4 ton pickup, with plow Justification These vehicles are used for a variety of services throughout the community. The average replacement age is 14 years. These purchases are consistent with the Vehicle Replacement Program. Prior Expenditures 151,000 Vehicles Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 47,000 85,000 132,000 Total 47,000 85,000 132,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 151,000 Capital Replacement 47,000 85,000 132,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 47,000 85,000 132,000 Budget Impact/Other these purchases will include a limited warranty and will reduce annual maintenance and repair costs as compared to the vehicles replaced. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -048 Project Name Software Purchases Account #1 400-4117-4703 Account #3 Account #2 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Equipment Useful Life 3-6 years Category Administration Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $1,253,370 This project funds the purchase and renewal of major software programs for all City departments that are not associated with a specific, individual project. Smaller annual software support and license renewal fees are funded out of account 101-1160-4300. The major reoccurring software costs were moved to this account in 2010. Justification The major portion of funds requested for this project are for Springbrook Software, ESRI, Laserfiche, Microsoft and Cartegraph software purchases and renewals. Those reoccurring costs were moved to this project in 2010. The City joined the Microsoft Enterprise Purchasing Agreement for the State of Minnesota in 2007. All Microsoft software is purchased and renewed under this agreement. Participating in the state agreement allows the City to spread the cost of the product over a period of three years. Products are purchased with Software Assurance to allow for upgrades when they are released. These costs are also spread over a three year period. The City is participating in a joint software licensing agreement with Carver County and several other cities for ESRI GIS software which is funded from this project. This allowed for unlimited GIS application licenses which are in use in every department at reduced cost. The asset management software purchased from Cartegraph was jupgraded to a new version in 2017. Purchase costs were divided into 4 different funding sources with one quarter of those costs in this project. Prior 818,970 Total Prior 818, 970 Total Expenditures 2019. 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Office Equipment 85,100 85,800 83,500 88,300 91,700 434,400 Total 85,100 85,800 83,500 88,300 91,700 434, 400 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 85,100 85,800 83,500 88,300 91,700 434, 400 Equipment Fund Total 85,100 85,800 83,500 88,300 91,700 434,400 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -049 Project Name Computerized Records Retention System Account #1 400-4124-4703 Account #2 Account #3 Account#4 Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Equipment Useful Life 3-5 Years Category Administration Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $176,700 This project originally funded the purchase of an electronic records retention system in 2002. Laserfiche was the vendor chosen for the project. This project is now used to fund its add on modules and the replacement costs for associated scanning equipment, which have a useful life expectancy of 5 to 7 years. Additional client licenses are planned to accommodate additional users and project workflows in 2018. Additional software modules are proposed for later years to allow for improved integration with the City web site. Justification This system allows for quick and simultaneous retrieval of documents from any computer on the City network. Both physical document storage space and the occurrence of lost or misfiled documents will be significantly reduced. In addition, documents specified for public access can be easily made available to the public from any internet capable computer or mobile device. The system was upgraded to the Laserfiche Avante platform in 2015. This upgrade included a new workflow engine, web enabled clients and improved auditing and scanning functions. Workflows for automating the scanning and importing of documents were started in 2015. Additional workflow will be created to manage property development records. The 10 user Public Portal starter module included with the Avante upgrade is planned to be upgraded to the standard 25 user module in 2019. Prior 117,800 Total Prior 117,800 Total Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Office Equipment 22,000 21,900 3,000 5,000 7,000 58,900 Total 22, 000 21,900 3,000 5,000 7,000 58,900 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 22,000 21,900 3,000 5,000 7,000 58,900 Equipment Fund Total 22,000 21,900 3,000 5,000 7,000 58,900 Budget Impact/Other Hardware maintenance and repairs are funded out of the 101-1160-4300 services account. A proposed upgrade to 25 external users from the current 10 will add $2,000 to the 400-4117-4703 account. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -054 Project Name Fire Vehicles Department Major Equipment Contact Don Johnson Type Vehicles Useful Life 10-15 years Category Fire Account #1 400-4135-4704 Account #3 Priority n/ a Account #2 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: $3,493,500 teplacement of existing emergency response vehicles and major apparatus. This request outlines a schedule for existing vehicles. 19 - Replace 1996 Toyne Engine 12 21 - Replace 2005 Polaris Grass Response Replace 2013 Chevy Tahoe #203 23 - Replace 2015 Chevy Tahoe #202 Replace 2015 Chevy Tahoe #204 Replace 1996 Tovne Eneine 21 Justification Vehicles are reaching or exceeding useful life standards outlined by NFPA for emergency response front line service. Major apparatus require a wo year process to spec, order and manufacture. Prior Expenditures 1,971,500 Vehicles Total Prior Funding Sources 1,971,500 Capital Replacement Total Equipment Fund 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 650,000 77,000 795,000 1,522,000 Total 650,000 77,000 795,000 1,522,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 650,000 77,000 795,000 1,522,000 Total 650,000 77,000 795,000 1,522,000 Budget Impact/Other Chese are considered front line response vehicles and impact response to fire incidents within the City and to mutual aid partners. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -055 Project Name Aerial Photography for City GIS Datasets Account#1 400-0000-4752 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Improvement Useful Life 2-3 years Category Administration Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $154,350 This project funds the aerial photography for the integration with the City's existing GIS datasets. The City is participating with Carver County and several other cities and counties in a joint project to purchase services and data. An initial joint aerial flyover for high resolution orthographic imagery data was conducted in April of 2005 and was scheduled to be re -flown every three years. The schedule was revised as needed to accommodate budget changes and to allow for a collaborative project. The last county/city aerial flyover for high resolution photography was completed in 2016. The next flight will be done in 2019. The County has decided to cover the costs of all future orthographic layers. The City will need to fund for Planometrics, Pictometry, LiDAR, Contours and other specialty map layers in 2020. Justification City Planners, Engineers and Utility staff use this data in conjunction with other GIS datasets to help resolve geographical issues with residents and contractors without repeated site visits. It is used in nearly every scheduled staff meeting and has proven useful to the Sheriffs Office and fire department when conducting area searches. In 2008, Carver County chose a new vendor (Pictometry), which added a three dimensional view to mapping data. The Pictometry solution provides the ability for staff to view each side of buildings and includes a toolset which allows for accurate measurement of areas and lines. Enhanced map layers (Planometrics), created from the aerial data collected is also used by staff to measure and display hard surface coverage such as driveways, parking lots and others. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 95,450 Maintenance 2,300 26,000 2,300 2,300 26,000 58,900 Total Prior Funding Sources Total 2,300 2019 26,000 2020 2,300 2021 2,300 2022 26,000 2023 58,900 Total 95,450 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 2,300 26,000 2,300 2,300 26,000 58,900 Total Total 2,300 26,000 2,300_ 2,300 26,000 58,900 Budget Impact/Other Vo operational impact is expected. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN roject # EQ -062 Project Name Light Duty Trucks: Utilities Account #1 700-7025-4704 Account 42 701-7025-4704 Account#3 Account #4 This allows for replacement of existing vehicles in the Water and Sewer department. 2019 - 4304 2005 Chevrolet 3/4 ton pickup 2020 - #305 2006 Chevrolet 3/4 ton pickup Justification This replaces pickups in accordance with the vehicle replacement plan. Prior Expenditures 412,000 Vehicles Total Department Major Equipment Contact PaulOehme Type Vehicles Useful Life Unassigned Category Utilities Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $473, 000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 30,000 31,000 61,000 Total 30,000 31,000 61,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 412,000 Sewer Utility Fund 15,000 15,500 30,500 Total Water Utility Fund 15,000 15,500 30,500 Total 30,000 31,000 61,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -081 Project Name Storage Area Network (SAN) Account#1 400-4147-4703 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Description Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Improvement Useful Life 5-7 years Category Administration Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $293,600 This project funds the data storage equipment for the City storage area network, which is where the majority of all City electronic data is maintained. This storage are network (SAN) is a system comprised of numerous individual storage arrays, all managed from a single console. The SAN allows disk storage to be easily modified as storage needs change, without any downtime for users. This equipment also hosts the City's virtual network servers. Production storage arrays are located at City Hall in the main server room. Backup replication storage arrays are located in an auxiliary server room at the Public Works facility. Justification The need for digital storage space for City documentation and applications is growing at a rate of approximately 1 Tb per year. Existing storage space became difficult to manage on individual physical network servers. Internal storage utilization is inefficient, and requires system downtime to reconfigure. Storage area network (SAN) technology allows for real time reconfiguration as well as the ability to make real time copies for redundancy and for daytime backup processes. The majority of the City physical network servers were virtualized and integrated into just three host servers which utilize this storage. A Compellent storage array was installed in 2016 and is now the production storage array. A new Compellent array is proposed for 2019 which will become the production storage array. The existing Compellent array will be moved to Public Works to replace the two older EQualloeic arrays. one of which will reach end of service life in November of 2018. Prior 183,600 Total Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 55,000 55,000 110,000 Prior Funding Sources 183,600 capital Replacement 55,000 55,000 110,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 55,000 55,000 110,000 Total 55,000 55,000 110,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Budget Impact/Other arrays will be purchased with 5 years of warranty support. Software and hardware support for the storage arrays beyond 5 years will be d out of the MIS services account 101-1160-4220. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -084 Project Name Office Furniture Account#1 400-0000-4703 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Description Provide for office furniture and chair replacements. Justification This item will allow items to be replaced as they wear out or needs change. Prior Expenditures 55,000 Office Equipment Total 2019 2020 2021 5,000 5,000 5,000 Department Major Equipment Contact Chelsea Petersen Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Administration Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $80,000 2022 2023 Total 5,000 5,000 25,000 Total 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 55,000 Capital Replacement 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -100 Project Name Light Duty Trucks - Parks Account#1 400-4120-4704 Account #2 Account#3 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Vehicles Useful Life Category Park Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $359, 000 Provides for scheduled replacement of light duty trucks in the parks department. These vehicles are purchased using the State of Minnesota nurchasina contract. Justification 2019 - #403 2006 Chevrolet 4x4 2020 - #401 2004 Chevrolet 4x4 with plow 2021 - #402 2004 Chevrolet 4x4 2022 - #408 2008 Chevrolet 4x4 with plow 2023 - #411 2010 GMC Sierra 4x4 Prior Expenditures 172,000 Vehicles Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 35,000 38,000 36,000 42,000 36,000 187,000 Total 35,000 38,000 36,000 42,000 36,000 187,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 172,000 Capital Replacement 35,000 38,000 36,000 42,000 36,000 187,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 35,000 38,000 36,000 42,000 36,000 187,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -104 Project Name Mower Replacement - Park Account 41 400-0000-4705 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Description 2019 - 2003 Toro 4000D (#454) 2020 - 2009 Toro Groundsmaster 5900 (#450) Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life Category Park Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $478,000 Justification The City had 4 high -production grounds mowers. Each machine is used daily during the growing season and needs to be in good working condition. In 2012, the City replaced two 325D mowers with one large Toro 4000 mower. It is anticipated that staff will be able to mow just as much with one large mower. Prior Expenditures 310.000 Equipment Total Prior Funding Sources F___31_o_,00_o1 Capital Replacement Total Equipment Fund Budget Impact/Other 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 70,000 98,000 168,000 Total 70,000 98,000 168,000 2019. 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 70,000 98,000 168,000 Total 70,000 98,000 168, 000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -106 Project Name Tractor Replacement -Park Account#1 400-0000-4705 Account #2 Account #3 Account#4 Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life Category Park Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $147, 000 These tractors are used for ball field maintenance, maintaining skating rinks and sweeping trails. 2019 - 1997 John Deere 455 (#468) 2021 - 2001 John Deere 5520 with snowblower (#471) Justification These tractors are used for maintenance and upkeep of baseball fields, skating rinks and trails. These tractors will be at least 20 years old before they are replaced. Prior Expenditures 16,000 Equipment Total Prior Funding Sources 16,000 Capital Replacement Total Equipment Fund Budget Impact/Other 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 18,000 113,000 131,000 Total 18,000 113,000 131,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 18,000 113,000 131,000 Total 18,000 113,000 131,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 Department Major Equipment City of Chanhassen, N N Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Project # EQ -115 Useful Life Project Name Brush Chipperp Category Street Equipment Account #1 400-0000-4705 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: $112, 000 This item is to replace the brush and tree limb chipper. This unit will be 18 years old when it is replaced. This unit is used heavily year round by all the public works departments and needs to be in good working condition. 2021 - # 147 1999 Vermeer 1800A Brush Chipper Justification To keep equipment in good repair. This purchase is consistent with the vehicle replacement program. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 112,000 112,000 Total Funding Sources 2019 2020 112, 000 2021 2022 112,000 2023 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 112, 000 112,000 Total 112,000 112,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -118 Project Name Vactor Street Sweeper Account #1 720-7025-4705 Account #2 Account #3 Account#4 Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life Category Street Equipment Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $291, 000 Chis purchase is for a vacuum street sweeper. A loader would be sold in conjunction with this purchase (#140 - 1987 caterpillar 936 with 8,400 lours). The estimated value of the loader is $30,000. The trade in value of the loader will be used to offset the purchase of the sweeper. Justification rhe street department sweeps all the streets at least once a year starting as soon as weather permits in the spring. The vactor sweeper is necessary o pick up debris and fine particulates that street sweepers cannot pick up. The vactor street sweeper would help meet the City's storm water MS4 ermit requirement. This vactor sweeper will be used more often in the downtown and around impaired water bodies to help keep street debris rom entering these features. It is one of the most cost effective best management practices available to municipalities. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 291,000 291,000 Total Funding Sources 291,000 2019 2020 2021 291,000 2022 2023 Total Other Agency Contribution Surface Water Utility Fund 30,000 261,000 30,000 261,000 Total 291,000 291,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, NIN Project # EQ -124 Project Name Annual Skid Loader Trade In Account#1 700-7025-4705 Account#2 701-7025-4705 Account#3 Account#4 Description I The item would fund the annual trade in of skid loaders. 5570 Bobcat Skidloader (4149) T590 Bobcat Skidloader (#413) S630 Bobcat Skidloader (# 150) T750 Bobcat Skidloader (#318) Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life Category Street Equipment Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $166,000 Justification due to the state bid pricing, the City is able to trade our skid loaders annually for approximately $14.00 per hour. Trading in newer machines uarantees there will be no other expenses except oil changes and grease jobs because the machine will always have a warranty. This approach is also a better life cycle cost over keeping the machines for 15 years. There is no guarantee on the state bid pricing or the trade in price, so staff will e pricing annually to determine if it is a good deal or if we should hold on to the machine for an extended period. Prior Expenditures F---7-1—,00-01 Equipment Total Prior Funding Sources 71,000 Capital Replacement Total Equipment Fund Sewer Utility Fund Water Utility Fund Budget Impact/Other 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 95,000 Total 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 95,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 76,000 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 Total 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 95,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -127 Project Name Copier Replacements Account#1 400-4109-4703 Account #2 Account N3 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Equipment Useful Life 5-7 years Category Administration Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $69,000 This item funds the replacement of departmental copiers. Copiers were previously part of individual department budgets but were moved to the MIS CIP budget by the Finance Director in 2012. Justification The City has 4 multifunction departmental copiers located in City Hall and the Public Works Facility. The three copiers located at City Hall were replaced in 2013 and are under a shared maintenance plan. A new color copier was purchased in 2016 to replace the existing black and white copier and a color printer located at the Public Works Facility. Replacement units will be ordered one per year beginning in 2020. Dept Item Year Purchased Administration Konica Bizhub C754 2013 Building Konica Bizhub C454 2013 Engineering Konica Bizhub C454 2013 Public Works Konica Bizhub 250 2016 Prior Expenditures F---23-,-00-01 Equipment Total 2019 2020 2021 18,500 9,000 2022 2023 Total 9,000 9,500 46,000 Total 18,500 9,000 9,000 9,500 46,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 2-3—,00-61 Capital Replacement 18,500 9,000 9,000 9,500 46,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 18,500 9,000 9,000 9,500 46,000 Budget Impact/Other vlaintenance and supplies are funded from account 101-117-4110, city office supplies. Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -132 roject Name Fleet Vehicles 2019 thru 2023 Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Vehicles Useful Life Category Public Works Account #1 400-4120-4704 Account 43 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: $62,000 fhe vehicles in the fleet department are used for picking up parts, delivering vehicles for service and other public works related travel. 2021 - # 155 2002 Chevrolet 1/2 ton pickup Justification These vehicles will average 19 years old when they are replaced. They are becoming rusty and unreliable. Prior Expenditures 30,000 Vehicles Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 32,000 32,000 Total 32,000 32,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 30,000 Capital Replacement 32,000 32,000 Equipment Fund Total Total 32,000 32,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -137 Project Name Miscellaneous Fire Equipment/Hose Replacement Department Major Equipment Contact Don Johnson Type Equipment Useful Life Category Fire Account #1 400-4127-4705 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $135,000 Specialized fire department emergency response equipment with a service life of more than 5 years. Equipment included with this project: Air Monitoring, Thermal Imaging, Positive Pressure Ventilation Fans, Hose Replacement, Nozzles and Appliances. Justification The fire department utilizes specific, specialized equipment to perform specific fire ground and emergency response work. Expenditures will be used annually to replace aging equipment on fire department apparatus. Prior Expenditures 55,000 Equipment Total 2019 2020 15,000 15,000 2021 2022 15,000 15,000 2023 Total 20,000 80,000 Total 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 80,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 55,000 Capital Replacement 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 80,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 80,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -140 Project Name Recreation Center Revitalization Project Account#1 400-4125-4706 Account #2 Account#3 Account 94 Department Major Equipment Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $125,000 Purchase of new fitness center equipment, replacement carpet, countertops, window treatments throughout the facility, failing tables and chairs need replacement, upgrades are required to the fitness center audio system for participants and a digital lobby information system is needed to improve customer experience at the Chanhassen Recreation Center. Justification I The Recreation Center is entering its 20th Anniversary. Due to age, usage and wear; a number of items require replacement or upgrades at this 2023 - window treatments for Lake Susan and Lotus Lake Rooms, replacement countertops for locker rooms, ten padded chairs and five, eight foot tables and one stair climber and two elliptical machines for fitness center 2024 - window treatments for fitness center, studio and Conference Room, ten padded chairs, four, six foot tables and a five foot round table and one elliptical machine one treadmill and one recumbent bike for fitness center Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Future 75,000 Maintenance 25,000 25,000 25,000 notal Prior Total Funding Sources 2019 2020 25,000 2021 2022 2023 25,000 Total Total Future 75,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 TotalTotal Total 25,000 25,000 Impact/Other repair costs and increased customer experience at the Recreation Center. Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -152 Project Name Security / Access Control Systems Account #1 400-4148-4703 Account #2 Account #3 Account#4 Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Equipment Useful Life 10 years Category Administration Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $38,600 This project funds the expansion of the security and access control systems in all City buildings with the exception of the Water Treatment Plants which come out of an enterprise fund. An access control system was installed in City Hall and Fire Station 1 in 2015. The project also included software and hardware conversions for the system originally installed at the Public Works facility. All access control systems are now on one central control system, including the Water Treatment plants. Justification The access control system allows for more efficient control of City building access through the use of proximity cards and readers and greatly reduces the need for issuing and re -issuing keys as staff and vendor needs change. Additional readers were installed at City Hall and the Fire Stations to allow access to Carver County Sheriffs staff utilizing their county issued badges. Combined with the network of surveillance cameras, the system provides the means to secure and document security events or issues. Four interior cameras will be placed at the Recreation Center with newer higher resolution cameras. An additional camera is proposed to cover the NE corner of Public Works. One interior camera is proposed for Fire Station 2 and three exterior cameras are proposed for Fire Station 1. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 13—,l 05- 01 Equipment 18,300 7,200 25,500 Total Prior Funding Sources Total 18,300 2019 7,200 2020 2021 25,500 2022 2023 Total 13,100Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 18,300 7,200 25,500 Total Total 18,300 7,200 25,500 Budget Impact/Other viaintenance for the security system will be funded out of the 101-1160-4300 services account. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -154 Project Name Zero Turn Mower Replacement - Parks Account#1 400-0000-4705 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Description 020 - 2005 Toro 5977 60" Z -Master Zero Turn Mower (#462) Justification Chese mowers have extensive hours and are starting to need expensive repairs. Prior Expenditures 16,000 Equipment Total Total Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life Category Park Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $34,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 18,000 Capital Replacement 18,000 18,000 Equipment Fund Total Total 18,000 18,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 Department Major Equipment City of Chanhassen, MN Contact Paul Oehme Project # EQ -157 Project Name Tar Kettle Account#1 400-0000-4705 Account #2 Account#3 Account#4 Description 157 - 2008 Stepp SBF300 tar kettle for tack oil when blacktopping Type Equipment Useful Life Category Public Works Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $43,000 Justification This machine has a weak engine that is burning oil and the kettle is rusting from the burner. This machine is used for street pothole patching. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 43,000 43,000 Funding Sources Total 43,000 2019 2020 2021 43,000 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 43,000 43,000 Total 43,000 43,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -158 Project Name Hot Box with Asphalt Premix Heater Account#1 400-0000-4705 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Description The 2009 hot box is used for pothole patching. 158 - 2009 Hot Box with Asphalt Premix Heater Justification The hot box is worn from years of use. Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life 44,300 2022 2023 Category Public Works Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $44,300 Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 44,300 44,300 Total Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 44,300 2022 2023 44,300 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 44,300 44,300 Total 44,300 44,300 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN roject # EQ -159 Project Name Crack Sealer Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life Category Public Works Account #1 400-0000-4705 Account 93 Priority n/a Account#2 Account#4 Description I Total Project Cost: $47,000 The crack sealing machine is used to blow out the cracks in streets and trails and fill the cracks with a sealer to stop the crack from getting larger. 153 - 2003 Stepp Crack Sealer Justification The 2003 Stepp crack sealer will be 19 years old. This machine should be replaced due to the rust from the burner in the material tank. Expenditures Equipment 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 47,000 47,000 Total 47,000 47,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 47,000 47,000 Equipment Fund Total 47,000 47,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 chru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -160 Project Name Bobcat Trailer Replacement Account#1 700-7025-4705 Account#2 701-7025-4705 Description OB - 2003 Felling Bobcat Trailer Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life 7,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 Category Public Works Account #3 Priority n/a Account #4 Total Project Cost: $7,000 Justification This trailer is 19 years old and the rating is not enough for the load they are hauling. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 7,000 7,000 Total Funding Sources 2019 7,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 7,000 Total Sewer Utility Fund Water Utility Fund 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Total 7,000 7,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -161 Project Name Mailing Folder/Inserter Department Major Equipment Contact Greg Sticha Type Equipment Useful Life 15,000 2020 2021 Category Finance Account #1 700-7025-4703 Account #3 720-7025-4703 Priority n/a Account #2 701-7025-4703 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: $15,000 This is a replacement of the existing folder/inserter machine. This machine is used monthly for all City utility statements and on an as needed basis for other city-wide mailings. Justification The existing machine was purchased in 2010 and is starting to need more frequent repairs resulting in periods of down time. The average life expectancy of this type of machine is 7 years, replacing it in 2020 will give us approximately 10 years of use from it. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 15,000 15,000 Total Funding Sources 2019 15,000 2020 2021 15,000 2022 2023 Total Sewer Utility Fund Surface Water Utility Fund Water Utility Fund 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Total 15,000 15,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, NIN Project # EQ -163 Project Name Compact Excavator Account #1 400-0000- 4705 Account #2 Description 3obcat E55 Mini Excavator Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life Category Public Works Account #3 Priority n/a Account#4 Total Project Cost: $37,000 Justification This machine will be used for various projects, digging, tilling and grading. This machine is compact for use in tight spaces and light weight for less disturbance for easy restoration. This machine will replace the 1996 Caterpillar dozer. The dozer will be traded in for the mini excavator. The trade in value of the dozer is estimated at $27,000. This trade in value will be used to offset the purchase of the excavator. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 37,000 37,000 Total 37,000 37,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 37,000 37,000 Equipment Fund Total 37,000 37,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -164 Project Name Annual Zero Turn Mower Replacement - Park Account#1 400-0000-4705 Account#3 Account#2 Account#4 Description 018 Toro 5000 Zero Turn Mower - 4482 Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life Equipment Category Park Priority n/ a Total Project Cost: $5,000 Justification due to the state bid pricing, the City is able to trade this mower annually for less than the average cost of keeping the mower and replacing it at the and of its life expectancy. Trading in newer machines guarantee there will be no other expenses except for oil changes and grease jobs because the nachine will always be under warranty. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 11000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Total Funding Sources 1,000 2019 1,000 2020 1,000 2021 1,000 2022 1,000 2023 5,000 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Total 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # MB -010 Project Name City Hall Remodel Department Municipal Buildings Contact Chelsea Petersen Type Improvement Useful Life Category Administration Account #1 400-4148-4xxx Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $190,000 This project will remodel and refurbish areas of City Hall that need paint, carpet or storage areas added. Justification The entry and front reception area of City Hall need security improvements for employee safety and reconfiguration for a better customer service experience for residents. Prior Expenditures 40.000 Maintenance Total Prior Funding Sources 40,000 Capital Replacement Total Equipment Fund Budget Impact/Other 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 150,000 150,000 Total 150,000 150,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 150,000 150,000 Total 150,000 150, 000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, NIN Project # MB -023 Project Name Citizen Survey Account #1 210-0000-4300 Account 43 Account#2 Account#4 Description Fhe City will conduct a triennial survey of residents. Justification The City will use the feedback to monitor and respond to residents values and concerns. Prior Expenditures 28,000 Study Total Prior Funding Sources 28,000 Cable N Fund Total Budget Impact/Other Department Municipal Buildings Contact Chelsea Petersen Type Improvement Useful Life Category Administration Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $60,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 15,000 17,000 32,000 Total 15,000 17,000 32,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 15,000 17,000 32,000 Total 15,000 17,000 32,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # MB -026 Project Name Fire Department Building Improvements Account #1 400-4003-4xxx Account #3 Account #2 Account #4 Description Chis project would renovate the main fire station. Department Municipal Buildings Contact Don Johnson Type Maintenance Useful Life Category Fire Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $303, 000 Justification Fhe fire department is utilized for several public events such as; elections, open house, Lion's breakfast, and official fire department ceremonies. ity employees frequent the kitchen and work out areas on a regular basis as well. Prior Expenditures 203,000 Maintenance Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 100,000 100,000 Total 100,000 100,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 203,000 Capital Replacement 100,000 100,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 100,000 100,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # MB -031 Project Name Senior Center Kitchen Update Department Municipal Buildings Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Account #1 400-4130-4xxx Account #3 Priority n/a Account 42 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $15,000 Additional counter space is needed as well as more storage, cabinets and built in recycling. The dishwasher, refrigerator and sink also need to be replaced. Justification The senior center and kitchen is over 15 years old and the countertops and equipment are aging. With additional programs and participants the current kitchen is used daily and is not meeting current needs. There will be no renovation costs as we will be adding new space and storage. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Improvement 15,000 15,000 Total 15,000 15,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 15,000 15,000 Equipment Fund Total 15,000 15,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # MB -033 Project Name City Hall Roof Replacement Account #1 400-4148-4702 Account #3 Account #2 Account #4 Description The City Hall roof is in need of replacement. Department Municipal Buildings Contact Chelsea Petersen Type Maintenance Useful Life Category Administration Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $300,000 Justification The oldest section of roof is 30 years old and has had minimal improvements. This project will replace the City Hall roof in three sections, as the building was built and expanded in three segments. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Maintenance 300,000 300,000 Total 300,000 300,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 300, 000 300,000 Equipment Fund Total 300,000 300,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # MB -034 Project Name Recreation Center Wall Replacement Account #1 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Description This request is to replace the 3 moveable walls in the rooms at the Recreation Center. Department Municipal Buildings Contact Todd Hoffman Type Maintenance Useful Life Category Park Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $69,700 Justification The current walls are original to the building. They are showing significant wear and have damage on each side. The floor seals are not working correctly, which causes a great deal of noise coming from adjoining rooms. The internal wall mechanisms are plastic and a repair company is called several times each year to keep them functional. The walls are moved daily and are crucial to the Rec Center operations. Customers and program participants have complained about the impact on meetings and activities caused by noise from neighboring rooms. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Maintenance 69,700 69,700 Total 69,700 69,700 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 69,700 69,700 Equipment Fund Total 69,700 69,700 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-042 Project Name picnic Tables/Park Benches Account #1 410-000-4705 Account #3 Account #2 Account 44 Description Purchase of picnic tables and park benches. Justification New tables and benches are needed annually to replace old stock and meet new needs. Prior Expenditures 106,000 Equipment Total Prior Funding Sources 106,000 Park Dedication Fund Total Budget Impact/Other Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Useful Life 30 Years Category Park Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $156,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Total 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Total 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-043 Project Name Trees Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Useful Life 50 Years Category Park Account #1 410-0000-4701 Account #3 Priority n/a Account 92 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: $245, 000 Annual tree planting program. This program is proposed to be accelerated to mitigate the affects of Emerald Ash Borer. Justification Parklands and other City properties experience tree loss annually, due to storm damage, disease, stress, etc. Prior Expenditures 170,000 Land Improvement Total Prior Funding Sources 170,000 Park Dedication Fund Total Budget Impact/Other 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 Total 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 Total 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN roject # PK&T-072 roject Name Tennis Court Refurbishment Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Useful Life 25 years Category Park Account #1 601-0000-4706 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $425,000 Crack seal and resurface tennis courts. 2019 - Lake Susan Park, Meadow Green Park, North Lotus Lake Park, South Lotus Lake Park and the Chanhassen Recreation Center 2021 - City Center Park and Lake Ann Park Justification Tennis courts offered are kept in playable condition through patching and resurfacing on a six to ten year cycle. Prior Expenditures 200,000 Maintenance Total Prior Funding Sources 200,000 Assessment/Revolving Assess Fund Total Budget Impact/Other vlaintenance and operations costs. 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 150,000 75,000 225,000 Total 150,000 75,000 225,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 150,000 75,000 225, 000 Total 150,000 75,000 225,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-099 Project Name Chanhassen Nature Preserve Trail, Final Phase Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Account #1 410-0000-4710 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $200,000 k 900 foot section of eight foot wide bituminous trail, located at the perimeter of Lot 2, Block 1 Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition. Justification This section of trail is the final phase of a two mile trail loop around the Chanhassen Native Preserve. The trail project was initiated in 1995. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 200,000 200,000 Total Funding Sources 200,000 2019 2020 200,000 2021 2022 2023 Total Park Dedication Fund 200,000 200,000 Total 200,000 200,000 Budget Impact/Other vlaintenance and operation costs. Will need to be included in the pavement management program. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-132 Project Name Lake Ann Lake Side Pavilion Roof Replacement Account 91 400-0000-4702 Account #3 Account #2 Account #4 Description of the roof at the Lake Side Pavilion at Lake Ann Park. Justification The roof is 25 years old and is in need of replacement. Expenditures Maintenance Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Maintenance Useful Life Category Park Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $30,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 30,000 30,000 Equipment Fund Total 30,000 30,000 Budget Impact/Other vlaintenance costs will be reduced. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-138 Project Name Arboretum Trail and Hwy 41 Underpass Cost Share Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Account #1 410-0000-4710 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: 5600,000 k ten foot wide bituminous pedestrian trail located on the south side of State Highway 5, from Century Boulevard to the Minnesota Landscape krboretum entry road. The project will also include a pedestrian underpass at State Highway 41. Carver County is the lead agency on the project. Chis funding allocation is the City's share of the local match for a transportation enhancement grant. Justification Completing a pedestrian/bicycle trail route to the Arboretum has been a long range goal for the City, Carver County and the Arboretum. The public will have access to the first pedestrian trail to the Arboretum from the east. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 600,000 600,000 Total 600,000 600,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Park Dedication Fund 600,000 600, 000 Total 600,000 600,000 Budget Impact/Other additional trail maintenance duties will be added to the weekly park maintenance department schedule. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-141 Project Name Park Equipment Replacement Account#1 401-0000-4xxx Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Description Replace existing park equipment that has reached its useful life expectancy. Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Equipment Useful Life Category Park Priority n/ a Total Project Cost: $1,250,000 2019 - Herman Field Park Playground, Prairie Knoll Park Playground and Sunset Ridge Park Playground 2020 - Curry Farms Park Basketball Court & Trail, Lake Ann Beach Playground, Powers Blvd Pipe Rail Fence, Rice Marsh Lake Park Backstop and Ballfield Benches, Meadow Green Park Backstop and Ballfield Benches and South Lotus Lake Park Playground 2021 - Carver Beach Park Playground, Lake Susan Park Basketball Court, Pheasant Hills Park Playground, Roundhouse Park Structure and Stone Creek Park Playground 2022 - Bandimere Park Playground and North Lotus Park Hockey Rink 12023 - Carver Beach Playground, Power Hill Park Playground and Sugarbush Park Playground Justification Existing playground equipment has reached its useful life expectancy of 25 years. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 245,000 255,000 245,000 250,000 255, 000 1,250, 000 Total 245,000 255,000 245,000 250,000 255,000 1,250,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Park Replacement Fund 245,000 255,000 245,000 250,000 255, 000 1,250, 000 Total 245,000 255, 000 245, 000 250,000 255,000 1,250, 000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SS -012 Project Name Inflow and Infiltration Abatement Account#1 701-70xx-4751 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Department Sanitary Sewer Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Category Utilities Priority n/ a Description I Total Project Cost: $2,500,000 This annual project includes televising, repairs and rehabilitation of existing sanitary sewer. The program also detects and eliminates points of entry of ground water and surface water into the City sanitary sewer system. Projects have been identified from the 2006 Inflow and Infiltration Report and aspects of the program are included in the annual street project. The projects were reviewed by Metropolitan Council and approved in lieu of surcharge fees. Justification City staff has identified numerous older sewer lines that are in need of repair. The City of Chanhassen pays the Metropolitan Council for sewage treatment. Those payments are based on the amount of flow generated by the City of Chanhassen. Surface water and ground water that makes its way into the system either through breaks, displaced joints, manhole covers, or private connections to the system increase the amount charged to the City for sewage disposal and increasing the load on the City's lift stations. Prior 1,500,000 Total Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Maintenance 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000, 000 Total 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 1,500,000 Sewer Utility Fund 200,000 200,000 200,000 200, 000 200,000 1,000, 000 Total Total 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200, 000 1,000,000 Budget Impact/Other The efforts may decrease operational costs, MCES fees and emergency call outs. It is also the City's intent to use connection charges to help fund for those costs. It is the City's belief that as new customers come on line those connection fees should help fund future infiltration problems. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SS -014 Project Name Sanitary Sewer Replacement Department Sanitary Sewer Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Category Utilities Account #1 701-7025-4751 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $2,220, 000 2eplacement or rehabilitation of existing sanitary sewer lines in conjunction with the reconstruction of the City street. Justification The City considers the condition of the existing utilities in the process to select streets for rehabilitation in an effort to realize cost savings by consolidating these projects. Prior Expenditures 1,660, 000 Construction Total Prior Funding Sources 1,660,000 Sewer Utility Fund Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 160, 000 75,000 75,000 250,000 560, 000 Total 160,000 75,000 75,000 250,000 560,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 160,000 75,000 75,000 250,000 560,000 Total 160,000 75,000 75,000 250,000 560,000 Budget Impact/Other Chis project will decrease maintenance costs. Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, N N Project # SS -017 roject Name Sanitary Lift Station Rehabilitation Program Department Sanitary Sewer Improvements Contact PaulOehme Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Category Utilities Account #1 701-7025-4751 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $1,230,000 The sanitary lift station rehabilitation program is designed to minimize sewer backups and emergency calls due to failed lift station equipment. The City currently maintains 32 lift stations. Many of these lift stations are high service pumps and need frequent servicing. The program will service or replace pumps, pipe gallery, and electrical components as needed. The proposed lift stations scheduled for improvements over the next 5 years are as follows: 2019-#18&#28 2020 - #13 & #22 2021 - #2 2022 - # 17 2023 - #1 Justification Reduce emergency calls and potential sewer backups. Prior Expenditures 630,000 Maintenance Total Prior Funding Sources 630,000 Sewer Utility Fund Total Budget Impact/Other 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 135,000 130,000 120,000 130,000 85,000 600, 000 Total 135,000 130,000 120,000 130,000 85,000 600,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 135,000 130,000 120,000 130,000 85,000 600, 000 Total 135,000 130,000 120,000 130,000 85,000 600,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SS -020 Project Name 2010 MUSA Sanitary Lift Station Department Sanitary Sewer Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Utilities Account #1 701-7025-4702 Account 43 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $1,900,000 Fhis lift station will be located on Powers Boulevard south of TH 212 to service the future 2010 MUSA and will also be used to service the area o he City south of Pioneer Trail. The project needs to be constructed before this area starts to develop and is contingent on when that happens. Justification Required for future development of the 2010 and 2015 MUSA's. The cost for this improvement will be paid for by future developments with future connection fees and development assessments. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 1,900,000 1,900,000 Total 1,900,000 1,900, 000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Developer Assessments 950,000 950, 000 Sewer Utility Fund 950,000 950,000 Total 1,900, 000 1,900,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SS -024 Project Name Lower Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvements Account #1 701-7025-4751 Account#2 700-7025-4751 Account #3 Account#4 Department Sanitary Sewer Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Utilities Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $10,800, 000 Chis project will help pay for trunk sewer, lift station and water main below the bluff along Flying Cloud Drive. The project primarily will help ay for lift station improvements and watermain oversizing necessary to service future development along Flying Cloud Drive. This project will be levelopment driven and may be constructed along with a development of a standalone City project. This project has been budgeted through the itility rate study and paid for with hookup charges. Justification To provide sewer service to the Lower Bluff Creek Sewer District. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 10,800,000 10,800,000 Total Funding Sources 2019 10,800,000 2020 2021 2022 10,800,000 2023 Total Developer Assessments Sewer Utility Fund Water Utility Fund 7,900, 000 1,800,000 1,100,000 7,900,000 1,800,000 1,100,000 Total 10,800, 000 10,800, 000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST -012 Project Name Annual Street Improvement Program Account#1 601-xxxx-4751 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Department Street Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Category Streets/Highways Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $33,130,000 Annual project to rehabilitate and reconstruct streets in the City. Current 5 -year plan shows the following neighborhood areas: 2019 - Orchard Lane area MSA - Lake Drive East and Dakota Ave (TH 5 to Lake Drive East) 2020 - MSA - Minnewashta Parkway overlay and trail and Lake Lucy (TH 41 to Galpin Blvd) 2021 - Stone Creek, Meadow Lane, Saddlebrook, Kurvers Point, Lake Lucy east of Powers Blvd, Vineland Court and Troendle Circle area MSA - Lake Drive (Dakota Ave to Great Plains) and Great Plains (south of TH 5) 2023 - Creekview area from this program also funds annual trail and parking lot Justification The City uses a Pavement Management System to monitor the condition of the City streets. While proper preventative maintenance extends the life of the street and is cost effective, a street will eventually deteriorate to a point that major maintenance is required. Rehabilitation projects extend the life of the street. In cases when utilities or poor sub grade needs to be replaced or where streets have deteriorated to a point where rehabilitation will no longer be practical, reconstruction of the street is necessary. A feasibility study is written to consider the merits of the project and scope of work. Prior Expenditures 23,480,000 Construction Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 2,550,000 2,200,000 2,700,000 2,200,000 9,650,000 Total 2,550,000 2,200,000 2,700,000 2,200,000 9,650, 000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 23,480,000 Assessment/Revolving 1,850,000 300,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 6,550,000 Assess Fund Total MSA 700,000 1,900,000 500,000 3,100,000 Total 2,550,000 2,200,000 2,700,000 2,200,000 9,650,000 Budget Impact/Other This project may decrease maintenance costs. Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST -018 Project Name Pavement Management Department Street Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Maintenance Useful Life 7-10 years Category Streets/Highways Account #1 420-0000-4751 Account #3 Priority n/a Account#2 Account#4 Description Total Project Cost: $5,038,000 This project will provide maintenance such as crack sealing, seal -coating, pothole patching, replacement of curb and gutter and sidewalk repairs for City streets. Also included in this project are trails and City parking lot rehabilitations. Seal -coat projects will be determined annually based on the pavement condition index as generated by the pavement management program. The street department uses this funding source to pay for bituminous material for annual street patching. Justification This will provide a centralized funding mechanism that will help reduce the effect on General Fund operating expenditures. Prior Expenditures 3,273,000 Maintenance Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 353,000 353,000 353,000 353,000 353,000 1,765,000 Total 353,000 353, 000 353,000 353,000 353, 000 1,765,000 Prior Funding Sources 3,273,000 Street Pavement Management Total Tax Levy Total 353,000 353,000 353,000 353,000 353, 000 19765,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 260,000 260,000 260,000 260, 000 260,000 1,300,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 465,000 Budget Impact/Other Chese improvements will cost effectively prolong the life of the street so major improvements such as reconstruction projects can be delayed. Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, NIN Project # ST -032 Project Name TH101 Imp -Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr (CSAH 61) Account#1 605-0000 Account #2 Account #3 Account#4 Department Street Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Streets/Highways Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $32,710,000 This project will reconstruct TH 101 from Pioneer Trail (CSAH 14) to Flying Cloud Drive (CSAH 61). This is the last section of TH 101 that needs improvements from TH 5 into the City of Shakopee. The improvements are proposed to improve safety, mobility and to plan for future growth in the region. The project is consistent with the 2007 TH 101 corridor scoping study. State and Carver County funds will be used to pay for most of the improvements. The City contribution to the project is anticipated to help pay for some environmental work, watermain improvements, corridor landscaping, trails and storm sewer improvements. The tentative schedule is to complete final design and right of way acquisition in 2019 and construction would commence in 2020. Justification To improve safety and mobility on TH 101. The project also plans for growth in the region. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 2,710,000 Planning/Design 2,000,000 2,000,000 notal Land Acquisition 6,000,000 6,000,000 Construction 22,000,000 22,000, 000 Total 8,000,000 22,000,000 30,000,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 2,710,000 Other Agency Contribution 7,500,000 20,450,000 27,950,000 Total Sewer Utility Fund 750,000 750,000 State Funds 500,000 500,000 Water Utility Fund 800,000 800, 000 Total 8,000,000 22,000,000 30,000,000 Budget Impact/Other The City would be responsible for the future maintenance of the trunk watermain and trails. Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST -037 Project Name Market Blvd Improvements Department Street Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life 30 Years Category Streets/Highways Account 41 601-0000-4752 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $3,240,000 This project would make improvements to Market Blvd from West 78th Street to Highway 5. A corridor study was completed in 2016 that identified safety and mobility needs. A feasibility study will be completed prior to construction. Justification s the downtown continues to develop, more traffic is anticipated to use Market Blvd. To improve safety, mobility and continuity of the corridor, he roadway is expected to need improvements. Prior Expenditures 40-,-000-1 Construction Total Prior Funding Sources 40,000 Assessment/Revolving Assess Fund Total MSA Budget Impact/Other 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 3,200,000 3,200,000 Total 3,200,000 3,200,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 2,600,000 2,600, 000 600,000 600,000 Total 3,200,000 3,200,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST -038 Project Name Lyman Blvd Improvements-Galpin Blvd to TH 41 Account#1 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Department Street Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life 50 Years Category Streets/Highways Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $11,600,000 Fhis project will upgrade Lyman Blvd to current design standards. The project will construct three round -a -bouts at the TH 41, Peavey Road and Vorex Drive intersections. Justification To improve safety and mobility along the corridor and to replace the deficient pavement section. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 11,600,000 11,600, 000 Total 11,600,000 11,600,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Cash Reserves 1,000,000 1,000, 000 MSA 1,500,000 1,500,000 Other Agency Contribution 9,100,000 9,100,000 Total 11,600,000 11,600,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST -039 Project Name Enhanced Pedestrian Roadway Crossings Department Street Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Streets/Highways Account #1 601-xxxx-4751 Account #3 Priority n/a Account 42 Account 44 Description I Total Project Cost: $900,000 This project would install an enhanced pedestrian crossing at Powers Blvd and Lake Lucy Road. A study will be completed in 2018 to justify the enhancement. Typically these crossings include a push button actuated rapid flash system. Carver County is expected to participate in funding the Justification For increased pedestrian safety. Prior Expenditures 300,000 Construction Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 600,000 600,000 Total 600,000 600,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 300,000 MSA Total Other Agency Contribution Total 600,000 600,000 300,000 300,000 300, 000 300,000 Budget Impact/Other The city would need to own, operate and maintain the system. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST -040 Project Name Galpin Blvd Improvements -Hwy 5 N to City limits Account#1 601-6040-4751 Account #2 Account #3 Account#4 Department Street Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Streets/Highways Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $10,840,000 Fhe project will reconstruct Galpin Blvd from 78th Street north to the City limits. The street is proposed to have geometric improvements made to onform to current design standards and urbanized to have concrete curb and gutter. Turn lanes will be constructed and trail improvements made. Fhis section of Galpin Blvd is on Carver County's tumback list for roadways to be jurisdictionally transferred to the local agency. Once Galpin 3lvd is reconstructed the City would be responsible for operations and future maintenance. Justification The pavement of Galpin Blvd has reached its life expectancy. The roadway at this time should be reconstructed and designed to current standards. The project is also planned for growth in the area. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 90,000 Construction 10,750,000 10,750,000 Total Total 10,750, 000 10,750,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 90,000 MSA 3,000,000 3,000,000 Total Other Agency Contribution 7,000,000 7,000,000 Sewer Utility Fund 250,000 250,000 Water Utility Fund 500,000 500,000 Total 10,750,000 10,750,000 Budget Impact/Other The project will require the City to have operational and maintenance over this section of Galpin Blvd. Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 Department Street Improvements City of Chanhassen, NIN Contact Paul Oehme Project # ST -042 Type Maintenance Useful Life Project Name TH 41 Rehabilitation - Pioneer Trail to TH 5 Category Streets/Highways Account #1 Account #3 Priority n/a Account 42 Account#4 Description Total Project Cost: $100,000 The State of Minnesota is planning to resurface TH 41. In conjunction with the roadway project, the signal at 82nd Street will be replaced. The City is responsible for the eastern leg of the signal. Justification Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Maintenance 100,000 100,000 Total Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 100,000 2022 2023 100,000 Total MSA 100,000 100,000 Total 100,000 100,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST -043 Project Name Downtown Signal Controller Replacement Department Street Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Streets/Highways Account #1 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: $30,000 Chis project will replace the signal controllers for the downtown signals. The controllers are 26 years old and have reached their life expectancy. Che new controllers are more technically capable and allow for better pedestrian crossing options. Justification Co improve traffic flow and enhance pedestrian crossing timing. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Improvement 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Street Pavement Management 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST -044 Project Name TH 5 Corridor Study (West of Hwy 41) Account #1 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Department Street Improvements Contact PaulOehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Streets/Highways Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $25,000 Carver County and MnDOT are asking the local agencies to participate in a corridor study of TH 5 and other County roads west of TH 41. The primary purpose of this study is to provide for short-, mid- and long-term transportation improvements along TH 5. The proposed project will include reviewing traffic and design needs, access management, safety, connectivity to other major highways in the area, bicycle/trail and pedestrian connections, storm water requirements and environmental screening and documentation. As part of the project process, public communication, public engagement, consensus, and decision-making will be required. The study will take about 18 months to complete. Once the study is complete, Carver County plans to seek funding for improvements to the corridor. Carver County is planning to study other corridors in the TH 5 area, but Chanhassen would only participate in the TH 5 study area from TH 41 to Minnewashta Parkway and TH 41 south of TH 5 to 82nd Street. A joint powers agreement will need to be approved by the City Council before this project is authorized. Justification To help plan for future improvements to TH 5. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Study 25,000 25,000 Total Funding Sources 25,000 2019 2020 2021 25,000 2022 2023 Total Assessment/Revolving Assess. Fund 25,000 25,000 Total 25,000 25,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 Department Surface Water Management City of Chanhassen, MN Contact Paul Oehme Project # SWMP-014 Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Project Name Property Acquisition Category SWMP Account #1 720-7025-4701 Account 43 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $875,000 The City will acquire property in accordance with its Comprehensive and Surface Water Management Plans. Justification Properties within the City must be acquired in order to achieve the goals set forth in the Comprehensive and Surface Water Management Plans. Prior Expenditures 650,000 Land Acquisition Total Total 75,000 75,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 75,000 75,000 75,000 225,000 75,000 225,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 650, 000 Surface Water Utility Fund 75,000 75,000 75,000 225, 000 Total Total 75,000 75,000 75,000 225,000 Budget Impact/Other Citywide. No map Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-019 Project Name Street Improvement Projects - Storm Water Mgmt Department Surface Water Management Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Category SWMP Account #1 720-7025-4751 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $3,335,000 kn annual amount set aside for storm water management infrastructure construction or expansion associated with street improvement projects rndertaken by the engineering and public works departments. Justification Street improvement projects frequently require construction or expansion of storm water management infrastructure in order to comply with federal, state and local regulations, as well as protecting existing and proposed development adjacent to the projects. Prior Expenditures 2,025,000 Construction Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 360,000 250,000 250,000 100,000 350,000 1,310,000 Total 360,000 250,000 250,000 100,000 350,000 1,310,000 Prior Funding Sources 2,025,000 Surface Water Utility Fund Total Total 360,000 250,000 250,000 100,000 350,000 1,310, 000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 360,000 250,000 250,000 100,000 350, 000 1,310, 000 Budget Impact/Other Inventory, inspection and maintenance of new infrastructure will be required. Citywide. No map Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-024 Project Name Lower Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation Account#1 720-7025-4751 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Department Surface Water Management Contact PaulOehme Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Category SWMP Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $2,400,000 The Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report identified the lower reach of Bluff Creek (south of Pioneer Trail) as the primary source of total suspended solids (TSS). During the calibration time period (6/25 to 11/17) TSS loads at the TH 101/CR 61 "Y" exceeded the TSS load at Pioneer by more than 400% - 41,280 lbs to 9,900 lbs. In addition to the turbidity issues, there exists a discontinuity between the lower reach and the upper reach resulting from a severe drop in elevation at the downstream end of the culvert under the Hennepin County Regional Trail. These findings are consistent with the Bluff Creek Natural Resource Management Plan. Both indicate that the numerous escarpments and gullies tributary to and contained within the Bluff Creek channel are the primary source of sediment to Bluff Creek. This project will decrease sediment load to Bluff Creek, improve the fish assemblage within Bluff Creek and will assist Chanhassen in meeting their Waste Load Allocation WLA) for Bluff Creek, the Minnesota River and the Metro Mississippi Watershed. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District has expressed their interest in partnering with Chanhassen on this project. Justification 2019 - Source Volume Reduction and Rate Control 2020 - TH 101 Stormwater Improvements, including Chloride Management Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 1,275,000 Construction 175,000 950,000 1,125,000 Total Total 175,000 950,000 1,125,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 1,275,000 Other Agency Contribution 100,000 900,000 1,000,000 Total Surface Water Utility Fund 75,000 50,000 125,000 Total 175,000 950,000 1,125,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-032 Project Name Stormwater Pond Improvements Account #1 720-7025-4751 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Department Surface Water Management Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category SWMP Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $1,160,000 Phis project will provide inspection and cleaning of City stormwater ponds. This work may include sediment removal, placement of blanket, rip- ap or other erosion control BMP's, vegetation management and assessment, repair and replacement of inlet and outlet structures. Justification There are over 170 stormwater ponds in the City of Chanhassen, all requiring regular maintenance to assure they function to National Urban Runoff Program recommendations. This measure has also been identified in Chanhassen's National Pollution Discharge Elimination Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permit. The project will also minimize flooding potential. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 440,000 Maintenance 80,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 720,000 Ibtal Total 80,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 720,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 440,000 Surface Water Utility Fund 80,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 720,000 Total Total 80,000 160, 000 160,000 160,000 160,000 720,000 Budget Impact/Other This will require an input of other public works staff hours. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-045 Project Name Storm Water Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement Account#1 720-7025-xxxx Account #2 Account#3 Account#4 Department Surface Water Management Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category SWMP Priority n/ a Description Total Project Cost: $525,000 This project is an annual maintenance budget used to maintain or replace failing or deficient public storm water infrastructure and have a construction cost less than $75,000. In some instances public works staff can complete the work in house and pay for materials out of this fund. Other times a contractor may be needed to complete the work. Justification very year the City replaces culverts, storm water structures and pipe throughout the City that have failed. These replacements are unforeseen and ire typically noticed only after they have failed. Often these failures result in public safety issues or pose a potential threat to private property or ther City infrastructure. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 250, 000 construction 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 275,000 Total Prior Total Funding Sources 50,000 2019 50,000 2020 50,000 2021 50,000 2022 75,000 2023 275,000 Total 250000 Total Surface Water Utility Fund Total 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 275, 000 275,000 Budget Impact/Other These activities will likely involve the utilization of public works labor. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-046 Project Name Lotus Lake Channels & Outfall Improvements Account#1 720-7025-4751 Account #2 Account #3 Account 44 Description Stabilization of deeply incised outfalls and channels draining to Lotus Lake. Department Surface Water Management Contact PaulOehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category SWMP Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $275, 000 Justification I Fhis work was identified in the 2007 feasibility study and in the 2015 RPBCWD gully inventory. Channels and outfalls are rapidly eroding and xhibit substantial undercutting of the embankments. This erosion is impacting property adjacent and resulting in the deposition of significant unounts of sediment into Lotus Lake. Over time, the erosion will begin to impact nearby sanitary sewer utilities. 1 - W. Central Lotus Lake Channel Restoration, Phase II 4 - Lotus Lake Outfall Improvements Prior Expenditures 25,000 Maintenance l otal 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 250,000 250, 000 Total 250,000 250, 000 Prior Funding Sources 25,000 Other Agency Contribution Total Surface Water Utility Fund Total 250,000 250, 000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 200,000 200, 000 50,000 50,000 Budget Impact/Other I Long term maintenance will be required including vegetation management. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-048 Project Name Upper Riley Creek Channel Stabilization Account #1 720-7025-4xxx Account #3 Account #2 Account #4 Description Stabilization of in and near stream bank undercutting, escarpment and gully erosion. Department Surface Water Management Contact Paul Oehme Type Unassigned Useful Life 25,000 Category SWMP Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $132, 500 Justification As part of the approval for the Public Works Facility, Riley Creek adjacent to the facility was to be stabilized. In 2013, a visual assessment of the upper Riley Creek Corridor from Lake Ann to Lake Susan was evaluated. This assessment revealed significant in and near stream erosion issues resulting in sediment deposition into Riley Creek and, subsequently, into Lake Susan. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 32,500 Maintenance 25,000 75,000 100,000 Total Total 25,000 75,000 100,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total F---3-2, 5-001 Other Agency Contribution 15,000 60,000 75,000 Total Surface Water Utility Fund 10,000 15,000 25,000 Total 25,000 75,000 100,000 Budget Impact/Other luring construction, some of the City expense will involve in-kind labor. This would likely involve the use of City staff and equipment for iauling materials. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-053 Project Name Rice Marsh Lake Iron Enhanced Sand Filter Account #1 720-7025-4xxx Account #3 Account #2 Account #4 Description Installation of an iron filing enhanced sand filter within Rice Marsh Lake Park. Department Surface Water Management Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category SWMP Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $300,000 Justification Neither Rice Marsh Lake nor Lake Riley meet MPCA standards for total phosphorous, chlorophyll -a or secchi disc depth readings. This watershed contributes the largest total phosphorous load to Rice Marsh Lake at 232 lbs (or 32% of the entire watershed load to Rice Marsh Lake) and is only one of two watershed with a load greater than 100 lbs/year. This project, once complete, could reduce the load to Rice Marsh Lake by as much as 115 lbs/year (z50%). Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 300,000 300,000 Total 300, 000 300,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Other Agency Contribution 250,000 250, 000 Surface Water Utility Fund 50,000 50,000 Total 300, 000 Budget Impact/Other This filtration feature will require some annual maintenance and will require an input of iron in approximately 25 years. 300, 000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-056 Project Name Pioneer Trail Flood Mitigation Account #1 Account #2 Account #3 Account 44 Department Surface Water Management Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category SWMP Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $760, 000 Fhis project will help reduce the flooding potential of properties west of Highway 101 and north of Pioneer Trail. After large rain events the vetland and backyards of properties in this area flood and the water does not subside for several days. The area is mostly drained by a very old oncrete farm tile which is in very poor condition. This project would abandon the old farm tile and replace the tile with new storm sewer pipe. Che proposed storm sewer system will need to be modeled to reduce flooding potential. Some of the drainage is from Carver County roadways. Justification To reduce flooding potential to residential structures. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 760,000 760,000 Total 760,000 760, 000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Other Agency Contribution 685,000 685,000 Surface Water Utility Fund 75,000 75,000 Total 760,000 760,000 Budget Impact/Other Fhe City would be responsible for owning and maintaining the storm sewer. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-057 Project Name Downtown Water Reuse Project Account #1 Account #2 Account#3 Account#4 Department Surface Water Management Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category SWMP Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $350,000 fhe City is considering improvements to Market Blvd in the future. The storm water pond at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Market Blvd las been identified as a viable water reuse resource for irrigation. It is estimated that all of the City's downtown irrigation areas could be switched o the surface water source plus other private irrigation systems. A study will need to be completed to document the reuse potential of this pond. fhe study is proposed to be completed by another agency. Justification Chis project will reduce the amount of potable treated water which will help postpone the potential for drilling new wells as the City grows. Water euse is also identified as a best management strategy in the City's MS4 permit. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 350, 000 350, 000 Total Funding Sources 2019 350,000 2020 2021 2022 350,000 2023 Total Other Agency Contribution Surface Water Utility Fund Water Utility Fund 250,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 50,000 50,000 Total 350,000 350, 000 Budget Impact/Other Some operational staff time will be expected in the spring and the fall. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-058 Project Name Lake Virginia TMDL Load Reduction Account #1 Account #3 Account#2 Account#4 Description 019 - Lake Minnewashta erosion & channelization stabilization project Department Surface Water Management Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life 20,000 2019 2020 Category SWMP Priority n/ a Total Project Cost: $20,000 Justification ake Minnewashta and Lake St. Joe are located in the Lake Virginia subwatershed. Lake Virginia is an impaired water body. Stormwater mprovement projects in the subwatershed show progress towards meeting the City's Waste Load Allocation. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Improvement 20,000 20,000 Total Funding Sources 20,000 2019 2020 20,000 2021 2022 2023 Total Other Agency Contribution Surface Water Utility Fund 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total 20,000 20,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # W-024 Project Name Watermain Replacement Account#1 700-7025-4751 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Description Department Water System Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Category Utilities Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $6,200,000 Replacement of existing water main lines in coordination with the reconstruction of the City street projects or minor fixes of water distribution system for street rehabilitation projects. Justification I The City considers the condition of the existing utilities in the process to select streets for rehabilitation in an effort to realize cost savings by consolidating these projects and also to avoid potential cuts in recently improved streets. If significant repairs are necessary to the existing water main, replacement may be the most cost effective option. Given the highly corrosive soils in the City, water main replacement is an ongoing project in the City. Prior 3,400,000 Total Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 600,000 1,100,000 200,000 900,000 2,800,000 Total 600,000 1,100,000 200,000 900,000 2,800,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 3,400, 000 Water Utility Fund 600,000 1,100,000 200,000 900,000 2,800,000 Tota I Total 600,000 1,100,000 200,000 900,000 2,800, 000 Budget Impact/Other these projects will decrease maintenance costs. Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # W-032 Project Name Well Rehabilitation Program Account 91 700-7025-4530 Account #2 Account#3 Account 44 Department Water System Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Category Utilities Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $893,000 This program annually inspects and performs regular maintenance of the City's wells. Well pumps are recommended to be serviced every 8 years. It is recommended that the following pumps and motors be pulled and inspected for wear: 2019 - Well #4 2020 - Well #3 2021 - Well #9 2022 - Well #10 2023 - Well #2 Justification Performing regular maintenance will extend the life of well components, reduce emergency calls and have a more reliable water supply system. Prior Expenditures 563,000 Maintenance . Total Prior Funding Sources 563,000 Water Utility Fund Total Budget Impact/Other 2019 2020 2021 50,000 55,000 65,000 2022 2023 Total 95,000 65,000 330, 000 Total 50,000 55,000 65,000 95,000 65,000 330,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 50,000 55,000 65,000 95,000 65,000 330,000 Total 50,000 55,000 65,000 95,000 65,000 330,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # W-046 Project Name Low Zone 1 million gallon Storage Tank Department Water System Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Utilities Account #1 700-7025-4751 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: $2,600,000 Phis tank is needed to meet the peak day irrigation demand and potential emergency demand for the growth of the community. It is needed in the ow zone pressure area to service the growth area south of Lyman Boulevard. The location of the tank is proposed on the Public Works Building ide on the ease site of Audubon. This tank is dependent on development. Staff plans to evaluate the need for this tank annually and adjust the onstruction date accordingly. Justification To meet peak irrigation and emergency water demands for the growing community as identified in the 2008 water comprehensive plan. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 2,600,000 2,600,000 Total 2,600,000 2,600,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Water Utility Fund Budget Impact/Other 2,600,000 2,600, 000 Total 2,600,000 2,600, 000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # W-056 Project Name MUSA Trunk Watermain Oversizing Account 01 700-7025-4xxx Account #2 Account#3 Account #4 Department Water System Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Utilities Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $200, 000 Fhis project pays for the oversizing of lateral watermains for future developments and is development driven. Payment for this project will e from he Trunk Water fund which is funded by development hook-up charges. The infrastructure will most likely be constructed with a development roiect. Justification Fhis project is necessary to support growth in the City and to ensure proper water pressure and fire flows. Prior Expenditures F -7—o—,66-61 construction Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 150,000 150,000 Total 150,000 150,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total F___5_0_,00_01 Water Utility Fund 150,000 150,000 Total Total 150,000 150,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN EProject # W-061 Pr°feet Name Repaint Watertower Place Tank Department Water System Improvements Contact PaulOehme Type Maintenance Useful Life Total 2,000,000 2019 2020 2021 Category Utilities Account #1 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: $2,000,000 chis project will remove the existing paint and repaint the interior and exterior surface of the tower. The tank was constructed in 1995 and the xpected life expectancy of a tank coating is 20 years. Justification An inspection report will be drafted prior to construction to justify the work. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Maintenance 2,000,000 2,000, 000 Funding Sources Total 2,000, 000 2019 2020 2021 2,000, 000 2022 2023 Total Water Utility Fund 2,000,000 2,000,000 Total 2,000,000 2,000,000 Budget Impact/Other CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2019 Budget 2018 2019 Dollar Percent OPERATIONAL & CAPITAL LEVY Levy Levy Change Change General Fund $8,704,333 $8,810,333 Capital Replacement Fund (for equipment) 800,000 800,000 Revolving Imp Street Reconstruction 384,838 381,223 Pavement Mgmt Fund (Sealcoating)93,000 93,000 Total Operational & Capital Levy 9,982,171 10,084,556 102,385 1.03% DEBT LEVY Public Works Facility 470,400 475,800 Library Referendum 461,297 459,512 Total Debt Levy 931,697 935,312 3,615 0.39% TOTAL TAX LEVY $10,913,868 $11,019,868 $106,000 0.97% Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3 Levy Levy Levy Taxes applied to:General Fund $8,886,333 $8,810,333 $8,760,333 Capital Replacement 800,000 800,000 800,000 Pavement Mgmt 93,000 93,000 93,000 Revolving Imp St Recon 381,223 381,223 381,223 Total Levy subject to levy limits $10,160,556 $10,084,556 $10,034,556 Library Referendum $475,800 $475,800 $475,800 Public Works Building 459,512 459,512 459,512 Total $11,095,868 $11,019,868 $10,969,868 Tax Generation Capacity (Not actual levy, Used only for estimating the impact on the average home) Prior Year $10,913,868 $10,913,868 $10,913,868 New Construction (0.97%)$106,000 $106,000 $106,000 Total Capacity $11,019,868 $11,019,868 $11,019,868 Percent Change (To avg home city prop tax) after New Growth 0.69%0.00%-0.45% Staff recommendation for final Levy TAX LEVY 12/5/2018 G:\ENG\state-aid\MSA Projected Fund Balance City of Chanhassen, City # 194 Municipal State Aid Construction Fund Account Estimated Yearly Expenditures and Balances Assumes State Aid has sufficient funds to Advance Maximum Advancement $4M Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Beginning Year Balance $10,276 -$1,566,400 -$2,524,609 -$2,663,982 -$4,684,143 -$3,784,707 -$4,265,282 Allocation (assume 2% adjustment annually $923,324 $941,791 $960,627 $979,839 $999,436 $1,019,425 $1,039,813 Yearly Programmed Expenditure $2,500,000 $1,900,000 $1,100,000 $3,000,000 $100,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 Year Ending Balance -$1,566,400 -$2,524,609 -$2,663,982 -$4,684,143 -$3,784,707 -$4,265,282 -$5,225,469 Lake Drive E Minnewashta Pkwy Market Blvd Galpin Blvd.TH 41/82nd St. Signal Bluff Creek Drive Pleasant View Road $700,000 Powers Blvd. Ped Crossing $300,000 $1,200,000 $600,000 $3,000,000 $100,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 Lyman Blvd. Galpin to 41 Lake Lucy Road Lake Drive W. & Great Plains $1,500,000 $700,000 $500,000 $900,000 - Closed Bond Fund $100,000- 212 MUSA Assessment Bonds Subtotal $2.5 Million Lyman Signal Imp. On TH 41 Bluff Creek Drive (Pioneer Trail to Flying Cloud Drive) Pleasant View Road (Powers to TH 101)Projects Lake Drive Imp. (Dell to Dakota) Lyman Blvd west of Galpin Blvd. Powers Blvd. Ped Crossing Galpin Blvd. (TH 5 to north City limits) Market Blvd. Imp. (78th to TH 5) Lake Drive E ( Dakota to Great Plains) Great Plains south of TH 5 Minnewashta Pkwy (TH 7 to south City limits), Lake Lucy TH 41 to Galpin Blvd. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Approve City Council Minutes dated November 26, 2018 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the City Council minutes dated November 13, 2018.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 26, 2018 City Council Summary Minutes dated November 26, 2018 City Council Verbatim Minutes dated November 26, 2018 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 26, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger called the work session to order at 5:32 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Ryan, and Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman and Greg Sticha MENTAL HEALTH EDUCATION DISCUSSION. Todd Gerhardt introduced Rod Franks, Director of Carver County Health and Human Services who discussed information associated with the Carver County Mental Health Crisis Program which runs 24/7 365 days a year. He reviewed the Crisis Program’s mission and goals, mobile crisis response as defined by MN State Statute, and services provided by the mobile crisis response service. Mayor Laufenburger asked how that program is related to 911 calls and how the team interacts with law enforcement. Todd Gerhardt asked about mental health professionals credentials. Rod Franks continued outlining crisis response and crisis stabilization services. Todd Gerhardt asked about the facility located in Savage. Rod Franks discussed the difference between that facility which is a facility for up to 90 days as compared to the facility in Carver County which is a short term crisis stabilization service and holds up to 12 people for up to 10 days. Rod Franks continued with graphs showing mental health crisis program statistics, primary reason for intervention, initial crisis referral sources, time and day of the week for calls, locations of face to face assessments which primarily occur at medical center emergency rooms. Councilman Campion asked for clarification on funding sources for this crisis program and training for law enforcement. Mayor Laufenburger asked how this program is involved with the opioid epidemic. Councilwoman Ryan asked how patient information is shared with law enforcement. Todd Gerhardt asked Rod Franks to explain what the City of Chanhassen can do to help raise the level of mental health awareness. Mayor Laufenburger adjourned the work session at 6:27 p.m. The City Council met in executive session from 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. to discuss the City Manager’s performance review. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was started with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Ryan, and Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Greg Sticha, and Roger Knutson PUBLIC PRESENT: Norma May 2050 Clover Court Nicole Nejezchleba 4150 Red Oak Lane Judy Wollan 7972 Autumn Ridge Way Suzanne Flake 7973 Autumn Ridge Way Chad Herman 4150 Red Oak Lane Jim Cradit 8469 Powers Place Tim Crain 1956 Andrew Court Sue Pekarna 2090 Clover Court T. Kroells 1071 Chaparral Court Joel Nybeck 7404 Frontier Trail Mack Titus 2747 Century Trail Steven Brown 6330 Elm Tree Avenue Julia Coleman 434 Mission Hills Way East Bob Heise 8591 Flamingo Drive Joel & Sharon Dudziak 8557 Powers Place Gloria Leone 8584 Powers Place Carole Fandrey 8186 Powers Place Dick Brown 263 Orchard Lane Mary Ann Carr 8547 Powers Place Julie Skoog 2400 Harvest Way Cheryl Yoes 7861 Autumn Ridge Avenue Carrie Barclay 6545 Gray Fox Curve Kauthar Al-Mottahar 9570 Jefferson Drive #2 Barb Youngburg 2035 Chicory Way Charles Johnson 6970 Nez Perce Drive Gerald Schmitz 6360 Forest Circle Charlie Pickard 1215 Lilac Lane City Council Summary – November 26, 2018 2 Bill Coldwell 3501 Shore Drive George Prieditis 7401 Frontier Trail Craig Mertz P.O. Box 261, Chanhassen Dave Nickolai 552 Mission Hills Drive Randy Raddatz 6340 Elm Tree Drive Steve Stamy 491 Bighorn Drive Larry Kerber 6420 Powers Boulevard Charles Littfin 7609 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT: Mayor Laufenburger read an invitation to the Tree Lighting Ceremony being held on December 1st at City Center Park. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ryan seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated November 13, 2018 2. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 23, 2018 3. Resolution #2018-56: Certify Water Hook-Up Charges 4. Pulled by Councilwoman Ryan for discussion. 5. Tort Liability Limits 6. Approve Geotechnical Consultant Contract for TH 101 Improvements, Pioneer Trail to Flying Cloud Drive All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Chief Don Johnson invited Joe Brennan, his wife Rochelle and two sons to join him where he presented Rochelle with flowers, Joe Brennan with a signed black helmet and axe while reading his list of accomplishments during 20 years of service on the fire department. Mack Titus, 2747 Century Trail provided an article from the Washington Post regarding police dealing with mental health issues, complimented the City on the publication of the Chanhassen Connection, and complimented Mayor Laufenburger on his professional handling of meetings. Robert Heise, 8591 Flamingo Drive expressed concerns with short term rentals associated with Airbnb and VRBO. There was a short recess at this point in the meeting. City Council Summary – November 26, 2018 3 FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE. Chief Don Johnson presented the statistics for staffing, calls for service, training, and special events. Lt. Eric Kittelson presented the monthly numbers for calls for service, training, and community relations update. Councilwoman Ryan asked about mental health crisis training for law enforcement. CONSENT AGENDA: 4. LAKE DRIVE EAST STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 18-02: ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDYL; CALL PUBLIC HEARING. Councilwoman Ryan asked that this item be pulled from the consent agenda to request an alternative bid. Resolution #2018-57: Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the City Council accepts the feasibility report adding alternative bids for the Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project 18-02 A, B, and C, and calls for the public hearing to be held on December 10, 2018. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. REVIEW FINAL DRAFT OF 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Councilwoman Ryan asked for clarification of traffic and housing numbers. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER FRANCHISE AGREEMENT ORDINANCES AND FRANCHISE FEE ORDINANCES. Paul Oehme and Greg Sticha presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Laufenburger opened the public hearing. Craig Mertz, P.O. Box 216 and an attorney explained that it’s impossible for the public to expect that the City is going to come up with a formula for spreading the pavement management program costs that is going to be fair to every property owner in the city. Dick Brown, 2630 Orchard Lane asked if he has to pay for the street assessment for Orchard Lane plus a franchise fee. Dave Nickolai, 552 Mission Hills Drive, representing the Mission Hills Garden Home Association, stated they are not opposed to a franchise fee but believe a compromise needs to be worked out with those people living in neighborhoods that maintain their own private streets. Tim Crain, 1956 Andrew Court, also living in an association with private streets, asked that they get a fair share of the franchise fee taking into account they do not live on streets owned and maintained by the City of Chanhassen. Charles Littfin, 7609 Laredo Drive asked if the council has taken into consideration people who have been assessed for street projects be excluded from a franchise fee. Randy Raddatz, 6340 Elm Tree Drive explained that the new proposed franchise fee opens up all kinds of issues and concerns, taxpayers paying for tax exempt organization to cover the franchise fees, and his belief of not giving money to government up front and saying trust me. Nicole Nejezchleba, 4150 Red Oak Lane expressed concern with the percentages between commercial and residential properties and voiced belief that the percentage should be the same for both. Cheryl Yoes, 7861 Autumn Ridge Avenue and secretary of her townhome association, explained how their association runs a tight City Council Summary – November 26, 2018 4 financial budget to take care of their private roads and properties. Charlie Pickard, 1215 Lilac Lane stated he felt like the residential franchise fee was regressive and would impact low income housing units. Steve Brown, 6330 Elm Tree Avenue discussed how road use in the future may change and would favor paying as needed. Sue Pekarna, 2090 Clover Court reiterated the concern about living on a private road within an association and that the council reconsider the percentages between residential and commercial. Chad Herman, 4150 Red Oak Lane asked for clarification on what is being proposed with assessments and franchise fees, that this issue is self inflicted because the City picked an arbitrary PCI number of 70 and his belief that the PCI number could be lower. He believes the City does not need to impose the franchise fee and needs to tighten their belt. Bill Coldwell, 3501 Shore Drive voiced his support for the franchise fee because the City does not want to let the PCI index drop too low. Steve Stamy, 491 Bighorn Drive explained that the City can change the use for franchise fees in the future without notifying citizens and asked if the formula for assessments will change in the future. Larry Kerber, 6420 Powers Boulevard explained that because he lives on a county road his belief that he will not benefit from the use of franchise fees on local city streets. Jim Strommen, an attorney with Kennedy and Graven in Minneapolis, explained that the franchise fee process is regulated by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and discussed the regulations covering collection of franchise fees by cities from utility companies. Mayor Laufenburger closed the public hearing. After comments from council members it was the consensus of council not to take action on this matter at this time. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None. Mayor Laufenburger reminded people of the Truth in Taxation hearing being held on Monday, December 3, 2018. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Campion seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was started with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Ryan, and Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Greg Sticha, and Roger Knutson PUBLIC PRESENT: Norma May 2050 Clover Court Nicole Nejezchleba 4150 Red Oak Lane Judy Wollan 7972 Autumn Ridge Way Suzanne Flake 7973 Autumn Ridge Way Chad Herman 4150 Red Oak Lane Jim Cradit 8469 Powers Place Tim Crain 1956 Andrew Court Sue Pekarna 2090 Clover Court T. Kroells 1071 Chaparral Court Joel Nybeck 7404 Frontier Trail Mack Titus 2747 Century Trail Steven Brown 6330 Elm Tree Avenue Julia Coleman 434 Mission Hills Way East Bob Heise 8591 Flamingo Drive Joel & Sharon Dudziak 8557 Powers Place Gloria Leone 8584 Powers Place Carole Fandrey 8186 Powers Place Dick Brown 263 Orchard Lane Mary Ann Carr 8547 Powers Place Julie Skoog 2400 Harvest Way Cheryl Yoes 7861 Autumn Ridge Avenue Carrie Barclay 6545 Gray Fox Curve Kauthar Al-Mottahar 9570 Jefferson Drive #2 Barb Youngburg 2035 Chicory Way Charles Johnson 6970 Nez Perce Drive Gerald Schmitz 6360 Forest Circle Charlie Pickard 1215 Lilac Lane Bill Coldwell 350 Shore Drive Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 2 George Prieditis 7401 Frontier Trail Craig Mertz P. O. Box 261, Chanhassen Dave Nickolai 552 Mission Hills Drive Randy Raddatz 6340 Elm Tree Drive Steve Stamy 491 Bighorn Drive Larry Kerber 6420 Powers Boulevard Charles Littfin 7609 Laredo Drive Mayor Laufenburger: Well welcome to this council meeting this evening. To those that are present in the council chambers as well as those of you that may be observing at Mediacom cable TV from your home or through the world wide web at the Chanhassen website livestreaming this meeting. Just for the record all council members are present this evening along with Mr. Gerhardt, City Manager, our attorney Mr. Knutson and several staff. Also you may not be able to see this but the council is filled with probably I’m guessing 120 people, many of whom are in black uniforms in honor of recognizing one of our firefighters this evening. Let’s see, first of all let’s deal with our agenda. Council members are there any modifications to the agenda as it is printed this evening? Very well then we will proceed with the agenda as printed. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT: Mayor Laufenburger: First I have an announcement or an invitation to make. This Friday, December 1st the official tree lighting ceremony will take place at Chanhassen City Center Park. With the holiday season approaching I’m excited to invite everyone to our annual Chanhassen tradition the 2018 tree lighting ceremony presented by the City of Chanhassen, Buy Chanhassen, Southwest Metro Chamber of Commerce and the Mustard Seed Landscaping and Garden Center. I invite all residents, area residents, their families and friends to join me Saturday, December 1st starting at 5:00 p.m. on the plaza at City Center Park. People of all ages will enjoy activities including the official lighting of City Center Park, refreshments, caroling, gingerbread house displays, live reindeer and a special visit from Santa Claus. The entire event is free. Registration is not required and for more information feel free to contact City Hall at 952-227-1100. And I know that Mr. Hoffman’s Park and Rec Department has been busy preparing the City Center Park. We have a Santa Workshop out there so I would encourage you, especially any of you kids under the age of 12, bring your parents. It should be a fun, fun evening alright. Thank you. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Laufenburger: This evening we have consent agenda items 1 through 6. Consent agenda items are usually, are considered to be routine. Will be considered in a single motion based on staff recommendation unless anyone on the council or visitors present would like to have a discussion. If discussion is desired we’ll simply move that item to be considered separately. Is there any item E 1 through 6 that the council would like to have considered separately? Councilwoman Ryan: Mr. Mayor? Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 3 Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: E(4) please. Mayor Laufenburger: E(4). Is staff prepared to address that? Paul Oehme: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Anything else? Alright what we’ll do is I’m going to address that immediately following visitor presentations. Is that okay Councilmember Ryan? Councilwoman Ryan: Sure. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright is there a motion to approve items E 1 through 4 and 6. Councilman McDonald: So moved. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. McDonald. Is there a second? Councilwoman Ryan: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ryan seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated November 13, 2018 2. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 23, 2018 3. Resolution #2018-56: Certify Water Hook-Up Charges 4. Pulled by Councilwoman Ryan for discussion. 5. Tort Liability Limits 6. Approve Geotechnical Consultant Contract for TH 101 Improvements, Pioneer Trail to Flying Cloud Drive All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 4 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay next I’m going to move to visitor presentation. Is somebody getting paged? I’m going to move to visitor presentation. Visitor presentations are a time where anyone wishing to address the council on a matter that is not on the agenda this evening, they may step to the podium stating their name and their address for the record. We do have a scheduled visitor presentation. Chief Johnson is this your’s? Chief Don Johnson: It is Mayor. Mayor Laufenburger: Please. Chief Don Johnson: Thank you Mayor. Good evening Mayor and council. Tonight we’re, we’ve shown in force here with respect for one of our retirees that retired this year in 2018. Joe Brennan, or as we affectionately call him Joker. Joining Joe tonight is his wife Rochelle and his two boys Andy and Sam. Would you like to join me up here tonight please? First off Rochelle, Sam, Andy, thanks for sharing Joe with us over these past many, many years. We know that this is as much a part of what you do and being part of what we do is very important in that your support has been key to Joe staying on so we truly appreciate that and thank you for the service. We do have a gift for you as well. Joe said he joined the fire department back in 1997. However I reviewed his personnel file and it actually show 1993. I’m not sure where those 4 years went Joe. Mayor Laufenburger: Well maybe he was working free of charge. Chief Don Johnson: But Assistant John Murphy is listed as his personal reference on his application so that does probably explain some things. Joe had two thank you letters in his file. One for assisting with the Memorial Day service and another for operating a Bobcat. I’m not quite sure what that has to do with the fire service but he still had it in his file. So if you start doing the math 20 years really doesn’t add up. Joe did take some off several years but then returned in 2010 to finish off his 20 year career. I know I’ve shared some light humor tonight but doing 20 years on a paid on call fire department is quite an accomplishment and very hard to pull off. Much less taking significant time off to come back to finish it so kudos to you Joe for coming back and finishing 20 years. During his career Joe was a great firefighter and several people have commented that they looked up to him during their career. Joe spent time as a Lieutenant and participated with a group of firefighters that traveled nationally to compete in the Firefighter Challenge. During that timeframe Joe was both a body builder and the fire department’s fitness coordinator. I recognized Joe’s qualities early on and attempted to entice him into an officer position which he respectfully declined saying he’s been there and done that. I also tried diligently to keep Joe on the department as he is very well respected and serves as a great mentor to the younger firefighters. Again Joe declined stating it was his time. We have to respect and accept that 20 years is a long time. On behalf of the Chanhassen Fire Department thank you Joker for 20 years of dedicated service to the citizens of Chanhassen and Chief Murphy has a gift. It’s a tradition that we’ve started is signing off on that firefighter’s helmet so Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 5 each of have taken some time to, and hopefully you can cherish that somewhere in the house and not just leave it in the garage to gather dust. And Mayor with your permission tradition starts somewhere so I would ask that in starting a new tradition for the Chanhassen Fire Department as we recognize 20 year retirees I would like to invite the Chanhassen Fire Relief President Matt Kutz up for a brief presentation. Mayor Laufenburger: Very well. Chanhassen Fire Relief President Matt Kutz: Council, Joe. We as a membership want to thank you for your years of service. I can’t think of a better fireman, friend and brother than you’ve been to us over the years here. There’s a bunch of stories we’d like to tell everybody but just can’t quite do that and although we’ll miss having you around we are very happy for you, Rochelle and family. So on behalf of the membership please accept this gift as a token of our appreciation. Jim. What we have here is an axe engraved with Joe’s name and 20 years of service and a little bit of an inscription on the handle there. Thanks buddy. Joe Brennan: Thanks man. Mayor Laufenburger: Did you have anything else? Chief Don Johnson: No. Mayor Laufenburger: Joe did you want to say a couple words? Joe Brennan: Sure. Mayor Laufenburger: Do I have to limit you? Joe Brennan: No, it’ll be quick. Mr. Mayor I appreciate you and the council for having me and my family here tonight. It’s been a great honor to serve the city of Chanhassen and it’s been awesome working with all these guys and gals. Made a lot of great friendships and I wouldn’t give it up for the world so appreciate it. Mayor Laufenburger: Well Joe before you go, council anybody who would like to say anything? Mr. McDonald, sure. Councilman McDonald: Thanks for 20 years of service and good luck in retirement. I hope that’s as good to you as what 20 years of service has been. Joe Brennan: Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Joe I would just say that what you have done in your perseverance and your dedication to this, to your craft. Albeit a volunteer craft is a great model for not only your Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 6 fellow firefighters but also for other young people in this community and in other communities so I’m going to stand in honor of you so will you please join me in celebrating Joe Brennan on his retirement. Now I don’t want to find that axe on some football field in Wisconsin okay. Okay. Are you going to take any of these folks with you? Chief Don Johnson: I can Mayor. As long as I’m standing I can do the fire department report if you’d like. Or would you like to continue? Mayor Laufenburger: I’m going to continue just allow visitor presentations and then if you will just pause for a second just to, I’ll give a brief recess while you leave. Is there any other visitor presentation this evening? Mr. Titus. Mack Titus: Mack Titus, 2747 Century Trail in Chanhassen. Mayor Laufenburger: Good evening Mr. Titus. Mack Titus: I have 3 very quick items. In light of recent events I came across a newspaper article in the Washington Post entitled police encounter many people with mental health crisis could psychiatrist help and I’d like to present it to council just as food for thought. I’m not advocating any position at all. Mayor Laufenburger: When you finish you’re welcomed to give that to Mr. Gerhard. He’ll make sure we receive it. Mack Titus: Secondly I want to compliment council on the publication of the Chanhassen Connection. Where I’ve lived previously I’ve not had something like this and it shows the vibrancy I think of, for Chanhassen and is very much appreciated and I found another number of activities in here that I’ve participated in. Mayor Laufenburger: We’ll pass that along to the staff that prepares that, thank you. Mack Titus: And the third thing is I want to compliment Mayor Laufenburger on his professional handling of the meetings. His innate ability to sum up issues and point out the salient points and it’s very, very professional. Very much appreciate it. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Titus. Thank you. Any other visitor presentation this evening? Please. State your name and address please. Robert Heise: Robert Heise, 8591 Flamingo Drive. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Welcome. Robert Heise: Mr. Mayor, members of council. I’m here to talk tonight about short term rentals. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 7 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Robert Heise: I’ve noticed a problem in my neighborhood. I’m talking about Airbnb’s and VRBO’s. I’d like to think, and I’d like to keep my neighborhood first and I feel like the neighborhood’s changing a little bit and I have some concerns. I’ve been there for 20 years and I’ve never really noticed anything like this and I made a list of things I’ve observed over the last 6 months. I’ve observed parking 4 or 5 cars in a driveway. This weekend I observed a white van with an Illinois license plate. I thought that was kind of odd. Nuisance violations. Noise. At late hours of the night. Parties and when you have 4 cars in the driveway you have 8 to 10 people walking out at different times of the day. Maybe enjoying Chanhassen. Maybe not. Property maintenance issues. I have a picture. I won’t show it to you now but I noticed there’s 2 trash cans but there’s 3 or 4 bags of trash. Some of the bags are open because there’s not enough room for the trash because of maybe 10 occupants in a house that particular weekend. Driveway. Of course you know it’d have the kind of maintenance issues when you’re not living in the house and perhaps there’s an absentee landlord. Driveway’s crumbling. Leaves not racked. Grass this summer in the back yard up to the knee. I think when you have absentee landlords people from out of town visitors really have no stake in our community. I don’t want to think of it as a Holiday Inn. When I think of Holiday Inn I think of the Chan Dinner Theater right? But I don’t want a Holiday Inn in my neighborhood is what I don’t want and I know there’s zoning laws and that keeps hotels out of residential neighborhoods. The short term rentals really ignore I think a little bit of the zoning restrictions and make virtually any residence into a hotel so you can tell I’m uncomfortable with the short term rentals. I don’t know if anyone else has experienced them but they’re making me uncomfortable. By the way, and I haven’t talked to my neighbors directly except one. Both houses are for sale. This house I’m talking about is 2 doors down from my home on Flamingo Drive. The house on the right of it and the house on the left of the short term rental are for sale. A coincidence or not I don’t know but it’s making me uncomfortable. Now the Planning Commission did a good job in January, and thank you Mr. Mayor for sharing that report with me earlier, I guess it was earlier this month. Thank you very much. I read that report and they did a good job I think outlining the problem of the short term rentals but I think the report fell a little short in two areas. One area was it only said there was 50 to 100 short term rentals in Chanhassen but this morning I said in the VRBO’s where to stay around Chan, and it said 605 vacation rentals. Now they can’t possibly all be in our city but they’re around our city and we have nice things in our city. Prince’s museum. The Arboretum which I’m a member of, etcetera so I think it’s more than 50 to 100. The problem is it’s hard to determine how many but I think the report was a little short in saying 50 to 100. That’s one problem I had with the report. It was a good report. And then the second problem I had, the staff recommended no action as their first recommendation and their second recommendation was number 4 in the report, and I have it here with me tonight and there was, let’s see. There was alternative. It goes from 1 to 6. I won’t read each one but the recommendation was number one, do nothing. And then or staff recommends alternative number 4 and number 4 was allow short term rentals regardless of owner’s presence and in that general zoning standards to govern them. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 8 Mayor Laufenburger: Well Mr. Heise just to be sure and I want to give you your time but that report was, I don’t think it was current and also it was a preliminary report so that report has not, has not been presented to council so that’s not to say that council won’t consider it in the future but it’s considered as it would, it’s early information at this time. Robert Heise: So right now I think the City’s position is no action. And if I’m wrong please correct me but just in summary, I know you have a busy agenda here. I would just encourage council. I will certainly talk to my council member. I would encourage you all to take a closer look at this. Other cities have placed some enforceable regulations on short term rentals and I think Chanhassen being a desirable destination now for a lot of people, I think we have to look a lot closer at this. I’d prefer a ban. I don’t want to see them all in our community but that might be a little tough to bite off. Mayor Laufenburger: There certainly is a spectrum of thought on that process. Robert Heise: Yeah, I would prefer a ban but I’m certainly you can come up with some decent regulations and enforceable regulations. Thank you for your time. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. Heise. Appreciate it. Any other visitor this evening? Alright with that I will close visitor presentation. Thank you to those of you that came forward this evening and visitor presentations are a part of all of our regularly scheduled council meetings so if you’re watching at home or if you’re in the chamber if there’s ever a time that you’d like to address the council on any matter that’s not on the agenda you’re welcomed to do so at this time. With that I will close visitor presentation and let’s go to our, actually let’s take just about 3 minutes and allow those of you, are they headed to training this evening? Chief Don Johnson: Go celebrate with cake. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. I will allow, we’re just going to pause for a few minutes and thank you all you firefighters for coming this evening. Appreciate your diligent work. Joe, best of luck to you and to your boys and you wife as well. There was a short recess at this point in the meeting. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright I had originally said that we would deal with item E(5) immediately after visitor presentation but let’s do our fire update and also our law enforcement update. FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE. Mayor Laufenburger: Chief I think you’ve earned the right to go first here tonight. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 9 Chief Don Johnson: Thank you Mayor, council. The fire department report for this month including statistics for last month. We’re currently staffed at 42 of our 45 allotted positions with 2 firefighters currently on leave. With the assistance of the Chanhassen Relief Association this year we added a help wanted letter to the Annual Relief fundraiser and that has yielded some pretty good effects. We’re up to about 10 applications thus far. We’ve got our plan will be to hire in February and the actual Southwest Academy will start in March this year. Our current 4 that we have in the academy did pass their Firefighter I exam and are riding trucks so they’ve been going to school since the end of July and they just got their first certification out of the way and can start riding fire trucks and helping us out so they’ve still got about 6 months of school left but at least they can get on the apparatus. The fire department responded to 85 calls in October. Year to date calls total 735 which represents a 15 percent increase overall of 2017. On November 8th of this year we met last year’s totals and currently right now we’re at 806. Significant calls included in the month were 44 rescue calls with 9 motor vehicle accidents. We responded to 6 structure fires. 2 in Chanhassen. One at the Bluff Creek Golf Course where a minor outside fire at the clubhouse and a small electrical fire at the Chanhassen Apartments. We also assisted Victoria, Excelsior and Chaska. Officers training was hose loads on our new truck and EMS hypothermia training. As many of you were there, and we appreciated your presence on October 29th, we dedicated our new ladder truck, Truck 1 into service. That vehicle has served us well to date. We’ve had many opportunities to train and use the vehicle on calls and it’s certainly what it’s cracked up to be so we’re still very appreciative of your support and we’ll continue to move forward in the future with use of that vehicle. We continue to support the Chanhassen High School this year with homecoming games, or with the homecoming game. The homecoming fireworks but all football home games. It’s always been a good partnership for us. Luckily no injuries this year of any substantial nature. November 15th we provided a firefighter EMT for Paisley special event and on November 26th we tonight are honoring Joe for his 20 years of service. With that I can stand for questions. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you Chief. Any questions from council of the Chief? Thanks Chief. You’re dismissed to go join the party. Chief Don Johnson: Thank you Mayor. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thanks Chief. Next is our monthly law enforcement update. Lieutenant Kittelson, welcome. Lt. Eric Kittelson: Good evening Mr. Mayor, council members. I have the monthly law enforcement update for you this evening from the month of September and September the calls for service summary, we had 43 Group A crimes. 16 Group B crimes. 448 miscellaneous and non-criminal calls for service. 332 traffic incidents. 37 administrative functions for a total of 876 calls for service in the month of September. Arrests, citations and verbal warnings summary, we had 40 individuals who were arrested and charged with 51 crimes in 38 separate incidents. 6 of those were for DUI or liquor law violations, 11 for drug violations and 6 for shoplifting. We had 39 traffic citations with a majority of those being for speed. Training Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 10 update, all of our staff attended range training and went through various scenario based decision making simulations at our joint training facility with Scott County down in Jordan named Scale. Community relations update. I attended the Steiner Kelting Mental Health facility advisory committee meeting on November 20th. This facility is in Chaska and will provide short term residential stabilization services to people in mental health crisis before returning home and that is set to open late Fall 2019. I’ll be attending the Carver County Roadway Safety Plan Update workshop tomorrow. This workshop will examine infrastructure safety strategies to help advance the state and county’s efforts in reducing severe crashes on our local roads. And a staffing update. Deputy Mike Hanson’s last day with Carver County and serving in the city of Chanhassen was yesterday, November 25th and Mike accepted a position as a police officer with Mounds View Police Department. And that concludes my report and I’ll stand for questions. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you Lieutenant. Any questions or comments for Lieutenant Kittelson? Councilmember Ryan go ahead. Councilwoman Ryan: Thank you. Lieutenant earlier at our work session Rod Franks came to talk about the Carver County mental health crisis group and one of, and we were just generally talking about the mental health issues facing the area and you mentioned that the 40 hours of training, mental health training that your officers get, is it a one time training or is it an annual training? What is that the mental health training look like? Lt. Eric Kittelson: So this year all licensed personnel attended Minnesota CIT which is Crisis Intervention Training and that is a 40 hour certification that it’s anticipated that that will be in practice throughout your career and that you’ll build on those skills that you learned there. July 1st of this year the Minnesota POST Board which is the Police Officers Standardized Training passed through legislation increased the mandatory minimum number of training hours to recertify for your licensure every 3 years and they added an additional 16 hours of training. Within that 16 hours of training it needs to be on mental health crisis intervention, implicit bias and cultural diversity so that’s a new standard that Minnesota has enacted for it’s law enforcement so that went into effect July 1st but it will be added beginning next year to your, so if you’re in the middle of your licensure period it will start at the beginning of your next licensure period. So in essence the State required 16 hours of additional training with part of that being a crisis intervention and Sheriff Olson wanted to exceed that so we did 40 hours of additional crisis intervention training just for mental health crisis this year so then it’s our new standard minimum training so all new officers hired from here on out will receive that 40 hours and then we’ll have the mandatory minimum of 16 for every time our license is renewed and I expect or anticipate that we’ll continue to exceed the State mandate for that. Councilwoman Ryan: Great, thank you. Lt. Eric Kittelson: Yep. Mayor Laufenburger: Any other comment or question from council? Thank you Lieutenant. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 11 Lt. Eric Kittelson: Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: You’d better go police that fire department party over there. Make sure they don’t get out of hand. CONSENT AGENDA: 4. LAKE DRIVE EAST STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 18-02: ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDYL; CALL PUBLIC HEARING. Mayor Laufenburger: Next item is our, we have an item of old business. This is a review of the final draft of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Is this your’s Ms. Aanenson? Oh excuse me. Good thing I have you all here. Let’s move to consent agenda item E(4) which was the resolution 2018-57. This was related to Lake Drive East Improvement Project. Accept the feasibility study and call for a public hearing. Mr. Oehme is this your’s? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright before you begin, was there a specific question you had Councilmember Ryan? Councilwoman Ryan: Yes and Mr. Oehme is aware of it. It’s to request an alternative bid so he can give his report. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, go ahead Mr. Oehme. Paul Oehme: Sure. So thank you Mayor, City Council members. So this item is consideration of moving forward with improvements on Lake Drive and Dakota Avenue just south of Highway 5. This is mainly a mill and overlay project. It also includes a pedestrian safety items. Sidewalks. Curb and gutter. ADA ramps. Those type of things. It is MSA, it is an MSA collector roadway so the City had anticipated using state aid funds on this project. I think Ms. Aanenson your question relates to maybe. Mayor Laufenburger: Member Ryan. Paul Oehme: Or I’m sorry, Ms. Ryan. Yeah the carving out the intersection of Dakota and Lake, is that correct? Councilwoman Ryan: Yes. Paul Oehme: I’m sorry. Councilwoman Ryan: I support the feasibility report. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 12 Paul Oehme: Okay. Councilwoman Ryan: My question was about the portion or the segment of the road, the Lake Drive East so from McDonalds to, all the way to Dell. I know the road right now the PCI or OCI sits I think what you said was at 58 and normally we look at something in the 40’s or 50’s so my request was that if we could get a report that breaks out that portion of road. Basically broken out in 3 ways. To have one, the Dakota Avenue and the intersection improvements which I know that there is a need there for sure. Two, the watermain and sewer improvements and then three, the Lake Drive East, the street improvements east of the McDonalds. Paul Oehme: Okay yep. We can break those costs out very simply. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Paul Oehme: Get an updated feasibility study to you before the public hearing. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay that would be great, I’d appreciate it. Thank you. Paul Oehme: Sure. Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan are you prepared to make a motion here? Councilwoman Ryan: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Or not yet. Councilwoman Ryan: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay go ahead. Councilwoman Ryan: I’d like to make the motion that the City Council accepts the feasibility reports, report adding the alternative bids for the project for the Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project 18-02 and calls for the public hearing to be held on December 10, 2018. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay I want to make sure I understand your motion. What you’re saying is you want this improvement project number 18-02 to be broken up into 3 separate projects, is that correct? Councilwoman Ryan: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So rather than dealing with it as a single project 18-02 you would prefer it to be, I’m just going to come up with some nomenclature. 18-02-A, B and C. Mr. Oehme does that make sense? Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 13 Paul Oehme: That does. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. And you want, your action here is to accept the report with the next step being, you’ll present alternatives for A, B and C. Paul Oehme: Correct assuming stand alone projects or alternate bids for each of those items. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Including the breakdown of the costs of those. Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Is that acceptable for your? Councilwoman Ryan: Perfect, thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Mr. Knutson do we have a valid motion? Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay alright. Okay may we have a second? Councilman Campion: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. Campion. Any discussion on the motion? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor I would ask that the resolution reflect those changes also. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So the motion is to accept the feasibility report for the Lake Street Improvement Project Number 18-02. Modify the resolution to reflect the project in three segments 18-02 A, B and C. Okay. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Oehme will we see that on the 10th? Paul Oehme: Yes. We should be able to put those numbers together and those breakdowns. Mayor Laufenburger: Adequately enough so that the public can, are we going to have a public hearing at that time as well? Paul Oehme: I think so. We have all the numbers. We just need to split them out. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Thank you. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 14 Resolution #2018-57: Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the City Council accepts the feasibility report adding alternative bids for the Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project 18-02 A, B, and C, and calls for the public hearing to be held on December 10, 2018. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Laufenburger: That motion carries 5-0. Thank you Mr. Oehme and thank you Councilmember Ryan for preparing him for that too. Alright now can I proceed? Alright. REVIEW FINAL DRAFT OF 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Mayor Laufenburger: Ms. Aanenson is this your’s? Kate Aanenson: Yes it is. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. Before you tonight is just to review and summary the changes that have been made to the Comprehensive Plan. I think what I’d like to do is kind of step back just to kind of what we’ve done to date. We’ve been working on this. We had our kick off meeting if you recall back on April 21st of 2016. We actually had a visioning with the Planning Commission, City Council, Senior Commission, and Park and Rec Commission so then we started with all the draft elements and then we had a work session with the City Council. We had to agree to what the population projections were. Employment projections and the like and then we started drafting the different elements. The Planning Commission acted as the kind of the review committee. Holding the open houses and the public hearings so we worked through all of the different elements and then in, we had open houses in September on the Comprehensive Plan at two different locations. And then also we then started working on the surface water management plan. We did send it out for jurisdictional review with your approval. We came back to the City Council and showed them what the issues that were raised at the meetings and then went out for jurisdictional review. So that 6 month period we shared with you all the comments that we got back not only from the Metropolitan Council but from our neighboring cities. Comments that they had. For the most part the comments were pretty minor. I think what really held up the Comprehensive Plan was that there’s 4 watershed districts and in order to get those aligned so we have a unified response when we’re working with the developer. That took the longest time and actually the Minnehaha Watershed District was kind of the last one to get in and that one didn’t get approval for us until September 12th. During that time we also were tracking some requests from 2 property owners that wanted to do land use changes. For the most part because we did a significant amount of land use change on the 61 corridor when we did a very comprehensive study, looking at whether or not the City could you know in a responsible way provide municipal services down in the area so in this go around looking at what we had for housing. How much availability. The different types. How much commercial office industrial. The staff wasn’t recommending any changes although there Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 15 were 2 requests to come in and those kind of then slowed down the process a little bit more so we were ready to resubmit to the Met Council so we did some further analysis of that and the changes in the Comprehensive Plan that you have before you that was put online reflect the changes to the Erhart would added 3 additional office institutional zoning and then the other 50 acre request including 3 parcels on the Halla was withdrawn so that would be something that could be studied in the future. So with that the changes that you have before you now then are what were in there and some of it were just maybe some Scribner’s. I think the biggest change that we talked about before that the staff had, give compliments to Bob Generous on the planning staff who does a good job on the projections was the employment projections we felt they were a little bit low. We use our own floor area ratio based on office industrial and then commercial also so we wanted to make sure we were in alignment what we believe were some of the population, or excuse me, employment projections so with that they did agree to make some of those changes. But otherwise the minor changes you have before you tonight then are very small in just a couple of chapters and unless you had questions I wasn’t planning on going through those but I do want to talk about next steps. So the next step it’s our intention to put on a resolution for you to send this back up to the Metropolitan Council so when that goes back up it will be the resolution for you. Approved by you to review all the changes that says we made the modifications. We have a complete application now. We’ve made the changes and recommendations that you have given us and also how we’ve addressed some of the neighboring communities concerns and so they have 15 days to decide whether or not it’s complete. Just like we would in our process and then they have another 120 days to review that. So it goes through their community development, just like we would through our city. They would have a public hearing there and then the council would approve it and it would come back and then we’d formally adopt it. And once we do that then we start the work on making some of the changes. And I think we talked about some of the biggest code amendments that we’ll be having regard stormwater so that will, you know just making sure that we’re aligned in how we’re managing that so there’ll be some work and we’ll probably talk about that in your work session. Some of the things that we’ll be working on next year but with that I just want to share with you and then take any questions that you may have regarding the Comprehensive Plan. We think we’ve addressed all the issues that had been brought before you and are going to put it on your next agenda for consent for recommending of sending it up to the council. Mayor Laufenburger: So in a moment I’ll ask the council if they have any questions or comments but Ms. Aanenson I think what I heard you say is that this will come before the council December 10th in the form of a resolution and we will adopt the resolution recommending the presentation of our comp plan to the Met Council, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so on December 10th then after we’ve gone through all of these my oh my, 2 ½ years of machinations we essentially are presenting it to the Metropolitan Council by requirement our Comprehensive Plan. Our vision for the next 22 years right? 2040. Okay. And Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 16 if you don’t hear any other comments tonight council can still come to via email or phone call or personal visit to make any other comments is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Council members any questions or comments on what Ms. Aanenson has talked about and what was included in the packet this evening? Councilwoman Ryan: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan go ahead. Councilwoman Ryan: Thank you. The letter from Chief Johnson talking about his concern with the increase in density. Could you just explain that please? Kate Aanenson: Yeah and I apologize, that was a little bit confusing. That was kind of wrapped in with some of the Halla requests. I think that was about the amount, because we haven’t requested any additional increase. That was related to the request for the Halla request. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Kate Aanenson: For additional because that was another 700-800 high density and so that was related to that. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. So is that, is a report from the Fire Chief part of the Comprehensive Plan. Kate Aanenson: That will not go forward. Councilwoman Ryan: Nothing, okay. Kate Aanenson: That was really for your edification and that was part of the request tied to the Halla request. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay so it doesn’t impact any of the decisions as it relates to senior housing in the community? Kate Aanenson: No you know, we talked about that. If we go back to the housing section and that was one of our concerns of doing the additional, adding additional housing. Senior housing. You know while you give it high density, until it comes in and there’s a market study you don’t know what it’s going to be and I think one of the things that I like about how we set up our housing section is that we have buckets. So we have how much housing do we need? How much do we need in rental? How much do we need in owner occupied? Then within the rental Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 17 we break it into senior. Senior affordable. Senior coops so there’s different buckets and so what we were saying and that request with the Halla’s is that they were far exceeding what we believe we need through the 2040 and we already have that in place so if you look at what we’ve got for Avienda. Some of the stuff that may still potentially happen on Village on the Pond, we believe that we’ve got that capacity already in place. Councilwoman Ryan: Perfect and that you touched on two other points. Has the request for the Avienda, their housing increased at all to date or no? Kate Aanenson: No that has to come back to you. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay that still has to come back. Kate Aanenson: Yep, yeah. Councilwoman Ryan: And then the last question and you just touched on it a little bit. When you look at employment and you do the employment estimates. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilwoman Ryan: Is there a correlation to the type of housing then based on what you anticipate the employment needs being? Kate Aanenson: A lot of what we do is we call, they call it a traffic analysis and so we look at trip generation and some of that stuff. Road capacity. Some of those sort of issues. I think anecdotally what we do know when we have businesses in town here there’s also a subset of how much that supports commercial. People go to lunch on their, run errands on their lunch hour so. Councilwoman Ryan: Right but in terms of employees being able to work and live in the same community, do you do that? Make that correlation when you. Kate Aanenson: I think maybe just anecdotally but it’s not, it’s not put in here. We kind of look at that who’s here and who may want to stay here and we also know how many people drive. Come to the city and how many people leave. That’s part of what also Southwest Transit tracks some of that too. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay perfect. Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Member Ryan. Any other council comments? Alright. Thank you Ms. Aanenson and thanks to your team for getting us to this point and I would just invite any council members to do a final review of the comp plan because when it comes before us as a resolution on December 10th that’s the plan that we will present to the Met Council so I know we’ve, this has been the subject of probably a dozen or more work sessions that we’ve talked Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 18 about many different areas and we’ll be ready to put our John Henry’s on it come December 10th, okay. Thank you Ms. Aanenson. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER FRANCHISE AGREEMENT ORDINANCES AND FRANCHISE FEE ORDINANCES. Mayor Laufenburger: We have one public hearing tonight. This is to consider franchise agreement ordinances and franchise fee ordinances. This also has been a long and arduous process. Mister, who’s doing this one? Mr. Sticha? You’re kind of a combo? Let me begin by saying he reason this is on the agenda tonight, for those of you that I expect many of you are here tonight because of this item. This is on the agenda tonight because at our last work session on November 12th. Todd Gerhardt: 13th. Mayor Laufenburger: 13th, that’s right. It was because Veteran’s Day on the 12th. Thank you to all you veterans for serving. On November 13th the work session agreed that as a result of all of the input that we’ve received we directed staff to conduct a public hearing tonight presenting the consensus that came from the council. Now consensus doesn’t mean approval but the consensus was that we wanted to get a public hearing on a proposed franchise fee ordinance and a fee structure so that’s what you’re about to see tonight folks and that’s why we’re doing it tonight because City Council directed staff to do that so Mr. Sticha, you’re on. Greg Sticha: We’re going to start with Mr. Oehme. Paul Oehme: Yeah. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh excuse me. So it’s already a hand off? Greg Sticha: Yep. Paul Oehme: That’s right, okay. Thanks again Mayor, City Council members. So this power point is similar to some of the information that was presented back in the work sessions and some of the neighborhood meetings as well. So for the agenda tonight we’d like to just go through a couple points here. Explain the purpose and the need for additional funding for the pavement management program system. I’d like to discuss what a franchise fee is again. Review the proposed franchise fee and the rate classes and then again consider opening a public hearing and then considering the franchise fee agreement and ordinance. So what is pavement management program. Our goal again is to implement changes in the funding of the pavement management program to maintain and sustain the consistent funding source for the pavement management of streets and trails within our community. So just a little background. The community has about 112 miles of streets that we currently own and maintain. If you break that down and look at the current cost of that capital asset it’s right around $183 million dollars Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 19 which is by far the largest asset the City currently owns and maintains. And likewise for trails we have 16 miles of asphalt trails within our community. About 37 of those trails are within our street right-of-way such as trails along Kerber and 78th Street out to Lake Ann and we also have about 23 miles within our community parks and open spaces and if you take all the trails, if we had to replace those all today it’s a little over $9 million dollars worth of trail assets that we currently own and maintain. So our goal here again is to try to prolong the pavement as long as we can. Try to get the best bang for our buck. Keep the city’s infrastructure in good, as good a condition as we can. Maintain and increase property values to that curb appeal that we’ve talked about in the past and then have a cost effective program where we look at doing overlays and reconstructions at the needed timeframes. So pavement management program was originally started in 1991. Really kicked into high gear in about 2004 where we started to evaluate streets and trails and survey each of those trail segments or blocks every 3 years. You know we identified potholes, the cracks, the rutting, the alligatoring, depressions, those type of things. We can break that information down to a quantitative rating system so for example a new street would be 100 where a very poor street in disrepair street is basically a gravel would be a zero. So basically over the last 10 years the City has maintained an average PCI rating of about 70 which can be considered in fairly good condition overall for our city network. Obviously there are streets that are above that rating and then streets below but on average we’re hovering right around a 70. So the impetus for the franchise fee and the needed funding is we’re coming to basically a bubble here. A lot of the community streets, developments, neighborhoods were built in the 80’s and 90’s. For example in the 80’s 27 miles of new streets were built in that decade and likewise in 1990’s there were 38 miles of streets built in those decades which you add them up about 60 percent of our total street networks so a large volume of our streets built in those two decades are now coming due for maintenance. So pavement management, the program we can look out, project out what our estimate is for pavement condition over the next 20 years or 5 years or whatever. But if you look at our currently funding levels when we get, when these streets are coming due that were built in the 80’s and 90’s we’re not going to be able to get to those streets and make the improvements necessary to keep our pavement PCI level up at our current level of 70 so we’re estimating it’s going to drop significantly down into potentially the 40’s. So this, I just wanted to show a graphic representation what pavement condition streets are. So for example you know very new streets would be in the 90-95 range. Again our PCI range right now on average is at about a 70 so that can be considered a pretty good street. Very little cracking. No alligatoring. No block cracking. Those type of things but as you move down the scale we see some pavement distresses in the 60’s and 45’s. When we get down in the 20’s those are the type of streets that we’re looking at reconstructing so our goal is to try to keep the pavement condition up as high as we can so we don’t get the complaints. The pothole patching requests. Try to keep the maintenance, preventive maintenance type of items down as low as we can. So again using our current funding estimates. If we continue on with our current level of funding, you know if we were say going to invest $1.1 million dollars worth of money into our streets annually this is kind of the projection that the pavement condition has indicated. And again this is based upon that bubble, those streets that are coming due now in the 80’s and 90’s that we’re just not getting ahead of and maintaining as we should. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 20 Todd Gerhardt: Paul sorry to interrupt but that would be answering the question that came up last week. If we do nothing scenario. Paul Oehme: Yes. I mean basically if we take the current levy dollars. Reinvest those in our streets. Taking the assessment amounts that we gather on an annual basis. Reinvesting that in future street improvement projects that’s what our current estimate for funding would be. Greg Sticha: I’d just like to interject one more along that point Mr. Gerhardt. Under this scenario the revolving assessment construction fund would also be out of money in 2032 so you would still have to find some revenue stream by 2032 going forward so this would keep the revolving assessment construction fund positive and spending $1.1 million per year until then. Paul Oehme: Okay. So what our, what staff’s proposal is to add an additional funding to our program. Increase the amount of projects that we’re doing on an annual basis and the miles of streets we’re doing on an annual basis to try to keep our pavement condition up basically at what it is currently today. So with the current proposal that we’d be talking about tonight, this is what our estimate is for pavement condition over the next say 20 years or so. And again these are estimates but these are our best information that we have to date. So and again so if we’re, this is a plan for our local streets. If the franchise fee were to be implemented over the next 10 years these are the neighborhoods that are projected that would be reconstructed or overlaid or made improvements to these neighborhoods. And likewise for our collector roadways, you know most of these roads are funded through our state aid or our gas tax that we get from the State annually. However based upon our current assessment practice a portion of these projects would be assessed back to the benefiting property owners so a portion of the franchise fee dollars would actually help support and pay for these projects. Mayor Laufenburger: Paul can you go back one slide to where it says 10 year local street plan. Okay so those of you that are in the council chambers and Nann are you showing this map online at this time? Okay. So you can look for your neighborhood and you can see if you can see it there. If your neighborhood has a colored street on it, that means according to our current plan it’s scheduled for improvements sometimes within the next 10 years. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead. Todd Gerhardt: It’s also available on our website. Mayor Laufenburger: Absolutely. Now let’s go to the next page. And this page this also shows the Chanhassen streets but it shows those streets that are you called them MSA. What does that stand for? Paul Oehme: Municipal state aid streets. Collector roads. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 21 Mayor Laufenburger: So that means we get money from the federal, or excuse me, from State government to repair these roads. Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. So just hold that there. Again if you see your neighborhood in here and you’ve got, it looks like I’ve got Minnewashta. Looks like Lake Lucy. Looks like Pleasant View. Bluff Creek. Let’s see is that Market Boulevard? Lake Drive East by the Legion, that area. Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright, okay. Continue. Thank you Mr. Oehme. Paul Oehme: Okay. So I’ll give it to Greg now to talk about funding. Greg Sticha: So before we get into some of the details on the numbers because they can be a little confusing and I want to give just a brief overview of how we got to this point this evening. Earlier in the year the City Council directed staff to hold some public meetings with the public and ask a few questions and get input from the public. Number one being their thought on what their opinion was on a franchise fee versus a property tax levy in paying for the additional road needs that the City has coming forward in the future. And the second was what people thought about continuing it’s assessment practice. We held 3 public meetings. After all 3 public meetings I think in terms of the assessment practice I think by far the opinion was to continue the assessment practice as is. In large part because of equity based on those that have been recently assessed. In terms of whether a franchise fee or levy was preferred, the majority by far preferred a franchise fee simply from the standpoint of it was a little less costly to residential properties as compared to a property tax levy which would be slightly more costly to residential properties. So after all that discussion we brought forward some potential proposed franchise fee to the City Council this fall. During that process we were also negotiating with the utility companies to come up with extensions on our two electrical franchise agreements as well as putting together franchise fee ordinances together with each of the utility companies in town. All of that brought us to this evening and before I get into the numbers one other thing I’m going to add so, all of the proposals that we’ve looked at this fall and all the numbers that are in this presentation assume that the assessment practice will continue as is and there are no changes in any of the numbers for that so that’s number one. I think the funding issue comes in when it comes to finding the City’s 60 percent share. So the 40 percent share are obviously assessments that are repaid to the City and then put back into the revolving assessment construction fund. The funding issue comes in with the City’s 60 percent share. The fund that has been used to pay for that 60 percent over the last decade is running out of money and we have the additional need of the additional roads that Paul mentioned and so we brought this to the council well over a year ago to start looking into this to figure out how are we going to fund this going forward so that’s just some. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 22 Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Sticha just for a second. When you say the City portion of the 60 percent, what you’re referring to is the portion that 60 percent that is paid for by the citizens and the businesses in this community. Greg Sticha: Yep. Mayor Laufenburger: So it’s not like the City Hall is just printing money here. Greg Sticha: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: The only thing we can use to fund that 60 percent is revenue claimed from the citizens and the businesses in this community. Greg Sticha: Right. Mayor Laufenburger: The property owners. Greg Sticha: Yep. So one of the things that we did look into along the way as well is what are our options for funding these roads and the answer became pretty clear quickly. You really only have two options. A property tax levy or a franchise fee that can then be used for roads. A franchise fee could be used for any purpose. A large amount of cities do use it for the purpose of road reconstruction. Other cities use it for other purposes but those quickly became the only two funding sources that we were able to identify to help pay for the City’s 60 percent share of the road costs. So let’s start talking about some of the numbers. We’ve been spending about $2 million dollars a year prior to right now on roads during an average of 2.6 miles, and as Paul noted that’s been able to keep our PCI or our pavement condition index at or around 70. The pavement management program is estimating based on the additional roads that are going to need funding that we really need to start spending $3.3 million a year if we want to maintain a PCI at or near that 70. That means 4.1 miles of roads per year instead of 2.6. So how have we paid for the City’s share of improvements to date or all of the improvements to date and it’s a slightly complicated answer but I’ll do my best to make it as understandable as possible. So in 2006 the City Council started a revolving assessment construction fund and into that fund was transferred $6.7 million in reserves or surpluses that came from either decertified TIF districts or other funds that had reserves identified in them. The assessed portion, the 40 percent had always been planned to been repaid to this fund for the improvements to the streets so whenever a assessment is paid, either up in full at the time it’s assessed or over the 8 or 9 or years or so that is assessed over, all of those funds are returned immediately into this fund for use on future road improvement projects. So we’ve been spending on average about $2 million a year. So the City share of the $2 million is roughly $1.2 and then we’d be on a typical or average year be assessing roughly $800,000 a year to benefiting properties. So what has happened over time with the initial $6.7 million dollar transfer into the fund is the City has slowly spent those funds down. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 23 We have made other investments into that fund along the way. When possible previous city councils have transferred in city surpluses from the City’s general fund to help maintain the fund balance in that fund. We’ve earned interest on the repaid assessments. We’ve also earned interest on the fund balance reserves in that fund so over time all of those things have been helpful in keeping the fund balance growing or at least maintaining some type of reasonable balance along the way. And then in 2015 the City Council that year saw an opportunity to take a debt levy that was coming off the books and use that levy to be a permanent or at least at this point in time a permanent revenue stream into the revolving assessment construction fund so that $384,000 a year has also been going into that fund since 2015. So as we discussed earlier the real need is the $3.3 and not the $2 million if it is the goal of the council to maintain that PCI at or near the 70. Increasing the spending without increasing a revenue stream was going to have this fund in a deficit by, well actually next year would be the last year that you would be able to do any projects without an increased revenue stream into this fund. So as we talked about with the public in the previous meetings what is a franchise fee. Cities have a statutory authority to have franchise agreements with each of the utility companies, gas and electric for maintaining the city owned right-of-way. Within those agreements cities may charge the utility companies a fee for the use of that right-of-way. To this point in time the City of Chanhassen has not done so. A significant number of other communities have and they’ve used it as I mentioned to fund a various number of things. Largely, mostly roads. So who in the 7 county metro area has franchise fees and this map is actually slightly outdated. I know there’s been a couple of additional communities that have just recently added a franchise, two of which are in Carver County and I believe Minnetonka just increased their franchise fee and Chaska is looking to do so as well. But this is a map of the communities and listed to the right are what they are using their franchise fees for. So why a franchise fee versus a property tax levy? I guess the simplest way to answer that question is to look at it in the terms of these two pies that I have on the graph. With a property tax levy based on the property tax, total taxable market value of the city of Chanhassen has of all of it’s properties, the rough break out is 83 percent are taxable market values from residential properties and 17 percent are from commercial properties. Therefore 83 cents out of every property tax levy dollar issued is paid for by a home and 17 cents out of every property tax dollar issued is paid for by a business. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Sticha just to clarify. A business that is not property tax exempt. Greg Sticha: That is correct. Yep. With a franchise fee you’re given a little more flexibility in how you go about collecting from either residential properties or commercial properties. You’re given the option of setting up rates that do differ slightly between each of the class categories. Therefore you could collect differing amounts from each of the two differing types of property tax. In addition a franchise fee would allow you to collect a revenue from those that are currently not paying property taxes in the city of Chanhassen but still use the roads in Chanhassen. So based on the last set of options that we reviewed with City Council and based on our negotiations with utility companies we came up with a rate structure and that rate structure roughly breaks out the $1.76 million that is being requested into a 63/37 split. In other words 63 cents of every franchise fee dollar would come from a residential or home and 37 cents Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 24 out of every dollar would come from a business. As the Mayor said, a non-profit or other billing type of classification versus 83/17 which would be the break out of a property tax levy. This just kinds of goes over the impact of if you were to levy $1.76 million versus if you were to collect $1.76 million on a franchise fee based on the proposed franchise fee that we put forth to council this evening, the average home in Chanhassen, a $360,000 dollar home would probably pay about $170 to $180 a year if a property tax levy of $1.76 million was issued. With a franchise fee they would pay $120 a year so there’d be about $50 a year savings for the average home in Chanhassen if a franchise fee was issued over a property tax levy. Mayor Laufenburger: Just to be clear, the levy only, the green bar on the left shows the annual property tax for an average home and there are many homes above average and many homes below average in terms of property tax value. Whereas the blue picture on the right shows every home regardless of the property tax value would be paying a franchise fee of $120. Greg Sticha: That is correct. I’ve done some estimations on where the break even point would be on what value home. I’m estimating that somewhere between $250,000 and $270,000 valued home is about where the break even point would be and that would be regardless of how much you levied. That would be regardless of issue, if you issued a levy for $1.76 million. $500,000. A million. The break even point in terms of a franchise fee structured the way this franchise fee is structured and a property tax levy, that’s about where the break even point would be. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, appreciate that clarification. Thank you Mr. Sticha. Greg Sticha: So after a myriad of discussions with City Council, taking public input and discussions with the utility companies we came up with this proposed franchise fee rate schedule. As you can see this option would have a proposed residential fee per utility of $5 so assuming most homes have two utilities, an electric and a gas utility, they would pay $10 a month times 12 is $120 a year. That’s where we came up with the $120 you saw earlier and depending on the type of meter, a commercial or non-profit or school or city building would have, you would pay the listed below franchise fees for each of the electric and gas commercial types. We attempted to accommodate the billing rates within each of these classifications to make it as least painful to a number of the large commercial customers as we possibly could. We put in a lot of effort to try to come up with something that we felt that the utility companies would be in agreement with as well as based on the direction we receive from City Council so that was the long and short and the end of how we came up with the proposed rate structure that you’re looking at this evening. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, Mr. Sticha before you move to the next slide. How many gas and electric utilities serve Chanhassen, either residential or commercial? Greg Sticha: Oh utility companies? Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 25 Greg Sticha: Three utility companies. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so gas is CenterPoint. Greg Sticha: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: They serve all of Chanhassen. Greg Sticha: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Residence and commercial. What are the two electric utilities? Greg Sticha: Minnesota Valley Electric and Xcel Energy. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. And generally Minnesota Valley Electric is in the southern portion of Chanhassen is that correct? Greg Sticha: That is correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Greg Sticha: But the map, if you were to look at a map it’s kind of weird. There’s little pockets kind of all over the place which I don’t understand but. Mayor Laufenburger: Yep we understand that. So those of you that are here in the chambers as well as those of you that are watching at home you know who your electric utility provider is and is it easy looking at this chart, is it possible to discern, are the small electric, medium electric and large electric, do those apply to both Xcel and to Minnesota Valley? Greg Sticha: Yes they would. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. And the gas commercial through gas small volume, that relates to CenterPoint customers. Greg Sticha: That would be correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Commercial CenterPoint customers. Greg Sticha: Commercial CenterPoint customers. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Sorry for that, thank you Mr. Sticha. Next. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 26 Greg Sticha: So just kind of a review of all of the meetings we’ve had to this point. In addition to all of these meetings we’ve had several work session meetings with the City Council to discuss funding of our roads over the last year, year and a half so these are just the public meetings that we’ve had and so this evening what we’re asking the City Council to do is to hold a public hearing and consider an adoption of a franchise agreement ordinance and franchise fee ordinances. Currently as for clarification the City does have expired franchise agreements with the two electric utilities in town and we have one franchise agreement with CenterPoint Energy that does not expire until 2022 so we would not need to adopt a new franchise agreement ordinance for CenterPoint Energy. That’s why you see 5 items in your packet and not an agreement ordinance with CenterPoint. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. In just a few minutes I’m going to open the public hearing and give those of you an opportunity to address the council if you’d like but before I do that, council members is there any question, comment or clarification that you’d like from Mr. Sticha or Mr. Oehme before we open the public hearing? Anybody? Mr. Campion go ahead. Councilman Campion: Mr. Sticha can you explain earlier in the presentation you were saying the gap between the need, the funding need per year was about $1.3 million you know where we’re trying to get from $2 million on average up to $3.3. And the amount that we’re discussing for the franchise fee is $1.76. Can you explain the difference between those two? Greg Sticha: Sure. So initially when we began some of these negotiations and discussions with City Council the pavement management program has always consistently said in order to maintain at or near a 70 we need to spend $3.3 million. But as we got along through discussions with council and negotiations with the utility company it became clear we weren’t, which would mean we would need to collect $2. or excuse me, $1.9 million a year. Not $1.76 in order to keep the fund funded for 13 years. Those were the initial discussions we had back in July and August. As we involved the utility companies into the discussion it became clear that the amount we were asking from their commercial customers was larger than what they felt comfortable with so we made an adjustment to lower the request from $1.9 to $1.76 and in order to accomplish still having the fund maintain a positive fund balance for 11 years we had to cut $700,000 in spending out of the revolving assessment construction fund in the first 3 years in order to accomplish still maintaining a positive fund balance in that fund for 11 years. So we had to cut some spending in order to accomplish the lower funding request. Councilman Campion: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Sticha isn’t it also true that predicated on the council putting any form of adopting a franchise fee tonight it takes time for those franchise fees to be incorporated into the utility bills. We assume that they’re going to pass that fee onto the customer correct? Greg Sticha: Correct. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 27 Mayor Laufenburger: So it takes some time for that to come into the bill so we can’t, we can’t count on a full year’s for 2019. We can’t count on a full year of full revenue from any franchise fee is that correct? Greg Sticha: There would be a minimum of a 90 day period where the utility companies will have to go to the utility commission and prepare their billing records so the soonest we would even if it was adopted this evening, the soonest the City would receive any funding probably wouldn’t be until April or Map of next year. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Okay. Council any other comments or questions? Greg Sticha: Actually excuse me it’d be even later than that because they only remit quarterly so it’d be another 3 months after that. It’d be June-July. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay with that I’m going to open a public hearing. Just a reminder, when you, I should do this. So the public hearing is open. If you’d like to make comment to the council on this issue, thank you for having that on the screen. Simply come to the podium. State your name and your address and there are many people here that I think would like to make comment tonight so I’m going to ask that you keep your comments to 3 to 4 minutes if you wouldn’t mind and we’ll do our best to hear as many comments as we can so anybody want to be first? State your name and address please. Craig Mertz: My name’s Craig Mertz. I’m a resident to the city of Chanhassen. My mailing address is Post Office Box 216 in Chanhassen. I’m an attorney in private practice. I have been doing that for more than 40 years. I have gone, I have represented this city in the past on litigation concerning the spreading of the costs of replacing streets. Maintaining the streets. Replacing the streets. I’ve done legal work in other municipalities on the same topic and my theme is that it is impossible for the public to expect that the City is going to come up with a formula for spreading these costs that going to be fair to every property owner in the city. It is just impossible. Over the years I’ve gone to many, many council meetings like this, both here and worked in other municipalities with the same thing has come up and I’ve heard many, many formulas on what people thought was a fair way to spread these costs. I’ve heard people say it ought to be based on square footage in the property. That developed properties ought to pay more than undeveloped properties. I’ve heard just the opposite. That properties that are larger with development potential to be further subdivided ought to pay more, pay a bigger share of this. That people with longer street frontages ought to pay more. Or I’ve heard the opposite argument. That they ought to pay less. That corner lots ought to pay more or corner lots have to pay less. That through streets ought to pay more than non-through streets. That properties that are occupied by non-profits ought to pay less. That commercial properties occupying the frontage ought to pay more than non-commercial properties fronting on these streets. That cul- de-sacs ought to pay more than non-cul-de-sacs. That townhouse projects with privately owned internal street systems ought to pay more. I’ve heard just the opposite. That they ought to pay less. That townhouse projects with publicly owned internal street projects, street ownership Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 28 ought to pay more. I’ve heard the opposite. That they ought to pay less. I’ve heard the arguments about franchise fees. I’ve heard the arguments that it ought to be paid 100 percent out of the general revenue fund. I’ve heard the arguments that new developers coming to town should pay a bigger share. I’ve heard the arguments that people who have newer streets ought to pay less. I’ve heard the opposite. That people on the newer streets ought to pay more. I’ve heard the arguments that people with expensive houses should pay more. I’ve heard the opposite that they ought to pay less. So my point is, it’s impossible to come up with a formula that is 100 percent fair to everyone in town and I would ask the other people in the audience to take that into account when they speak to the council so thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mertz. Appreciate your comments. Anybody else? Dick Brown: My name is Dick Brown. I live at 2630 Orchard Lane. I guess you can’t please everybody. My question or do I get to ask a question rather than a comment? Mayor Laufenburger: Is it Mr. Brown? Dick Brown: Brown like the color. Dick like Richard and Brown like the color. Mayor Laufenburger: I’ll just call you Dick if you don’t mind. Dick this is a time for the council to hear your comments and your thoughts. If you have a question I may wait until we get a few people asking the same question. Dick Brown: It will be real simple though. And I agree with a franchise fee first. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Dick Brown: I agree with that and I think that. Mayor Laufenburger: Tell you let’s do this. You make your presentation. Ask your question and then I’ll do my best to either answer. Dick Brown: Well the question would be for these gentlemen. I received an assessment for this coming year on Orchard Lane which includes sewer and water upgrade I presume but also the streets so do I get to pay the assessment plus the franchise fee? Mayor Laufenburger: Well Mr. Brown the assessment is on the street improvement. Not on the sewer and water. The sewer and water is paid for out of the city general fund okay. Dick Brown: So that assessment I got is just for the street? Mayor Laufenburger: That’s correct, street only. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 29 Dick Brown: Okay, thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Brown. Dave Nickolai: My name is Dave Nickolai. I live at 552 Mission Hills Drive. I’m here representing the Mission Hills Garden Home Association tonight. We are a homeowners association of 56 homes. We previously submitted a letter to the council dated August 16th stating that we are not opposed to a franchise fee but we believe a compromise needs to be worked out with those of us that already are maintaining our own streets. And so we are willing to share our cost information with you and to come up with a, what we feel it would be a compromised approach to the franchise fee versus the blanketing and us being included in the total of the same fee that all others pay. We’re required by State law to do a reserve study to make sure that we have the funds available for an association like our’s and we just completed that study and over the next 12 years our 56 homeowners are going to pay $342,754 to fix our streets and our curbs and so we aren’t coming to the City to pay for this. This is a cost that our association will generate through our dues to make sure that we have those funds available at the time that those streets need and those curbs need to be repaired. Mayor Laufenburger: So these are the streets within the Mission Hills neighborhood that are private streets is that correct? Dave Nickolai: That is correct yeah. And again we fully support the franchise fee and us paying our fair share because we do drive on other streets and so we’re not saying we want to be exempt but we also don’t feel that we should have to pay the same amount and fee that homeowners that don’t pay for their own maintenance of their streets. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Dave Nickolai: Alright. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Nickolai. Dave Nickolai: Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: You said that was 56 homes is that correct? Dave Nickolai: 56 homes. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you. Good evening. Tim Crain: Good evening. Tim Crain, 1956 Andrew Court, Chanhassen. Mayor and City Council members. Thank you for the opportunity to address you. I also live in a townhome association. We have 25 homes on Andrew Court and we are cul-de-sac. This past 2 years we Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 30 spent $102,000 replacing all of our concrete curbing and the sewer, the storm sewer accesses to the street. The City does not plow our streets. You do not maintain our streets. You do not sweep our streets. We have to do that all ourselves and so again I also ask as the other gentleman said that we get a fair share of the franchise fee. Not pay the full amount that other people do on the streets that they live on that belong to the Chanhassen. We agree that we should pay some fair share because we do drive on the streets and we do live in Chanhassen and get the benefits of being able to get around and the improvements on the streets. I drive Park Drive practically every day and that was completely redone this past year and it’s wonderful but anyway please consider the fact that our street is 20 years old. In the next 2 or 3 years we’re probably going to have to spend another $100,000, which is about $4,000 per resident, to completely redo our street also so please consider that there should be some leeway for those. There are 18 townhome and condominium associations in Chanhassen. They represent well over 1,000 units. Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Crain. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council this evening? We’ve got a race going on here. Charles Littfin: Beat ya. Mayor Laufenburger: Stay close. Your name please. Charles Littfin: Good evening. My name is Charles Littfin. I live at 7609 Laredo Drive, Chanhassen. Have you taken any consideration to people who have already been assessed for street projects? That they might be excluded from this franchise fee. Because frankly as far as I’m concerned we’ve already paid. I paid $6,000 for Laredo Drive and I know it’s a street that everybody in this town uses. I don’t think I have the right to pay twice. I have the right to pay twice. I hope you don’t force it on me because I don’t want to. You know. There’s a lot of people that have been assessed in this town. Now they’re looking at a double whammy again. Here we go. Whether they like it or not they’re going to pay. That’s how I feel so if you pass this another reason to leave this town. Thank you very much for listening. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Littfin. Randy Raddatz: Good evening. My name is Randy Raddatz. We live at 6340 Elm Tree Avenue. I agree with the previous speaker. I think you’re opening up a huge can of worms in terms of who pays for this. Under the special assessments program there’s really not a question. If it affects your neighborhood you’re going to pay for it. The issue wasn’t whether or not we need funding for street improvements. The issue is how are we going to pay for it and the current system works. Whether it’s 60/40, 70/30, 80/20, whatever it might be the current system works. This new proposed franchise fee opens up all kinds of issues and all kinds of concerns. And a lot of them were brought up at the, I’ll call them the so called listening sessions because none of them ever get brought up here. When we have the next listening session or we have a council meeting, I think I attended 3 of the listening sessions. None of the concerns get brought Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 31 up. We bring them up again and again and then the next time around only the positives are shown and I think, I think the agenda shows very clearly that you don’t so much want to hear what people have to say as you want people to agree with the franchise fee and that really concerns me. Mr. Mayor you mentioned that you know people think the City pays for 60 percent of the cost when it’s really the residents who pay for that. Mayor Laufenburger: It is. Randy Raddatz: Or the businesses I should say. The homeowners and, or property owners. Mayor Laufenburger: Property owners that’s correct. Randy Raddatz: Yes. The same holds true, we talk about we’re going to assess the schools. Well the schools don’t pay for that. We pay for that so to say that there’s this. Mayor Laufenburger: Wait a second. Randy Raddatz: So to say that there’s this $60 difference or whatever, there’s not because they’re going to pass that through in an operating levy referendum or increase operating expenses so one way or another we pay for it. It’s not a question of you know gee, we all get a break because the City isn’t paying for it anymore. No. The taxpayers still pay for it. There’s no way of getting around it. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah Randy I don’t think you’ve ever heard me say that the citizens are not going to be paying. Randy Raddatz: And I agree. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah. Randy Raddatz: What you did say though, you used the example of the 60 percent isn’t, you know it’s not the City. It’s the taxpayers. Mayor Laufenburger: That’s right. Randy Raddatz: I’m making the point it’s not the schools. It’s the taxpayers. There’s no difference between the two. I don’t care if you charge me $60 out of this pocket or $60 out of this pocket. It’s $60 out of my pocket. Mayor Laufenburger: So I think what you’re referring to is the franchise fee that we collect from the tax exempt organizations, is that what you’re referring to? Randy Raddatz: Correct. You currently don’t collect property taxes from those organizations. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 32 Mayor Laufenburger: That’s correct we do not. Randy Raddatz: You’re proposing to charge those currently tax exempt organizations a franchise fee. Doesn’t matter to me because either way I’m going to pay for it. Mayor Laufenburger: I do not disagree with that. Randy Raddatz: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: I’m not sure how many tax exempt properties are in Chanhassen for the school district. I think the high school, Chan Elementary and Bluff Creek. Is that correct? Yeah. Todd Gerhardt: We can assess schools. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh in fact we do assess schools when they are the benefiting property owner. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Todd Gerhardt: But they would pay into the franchise fee if the franchise fee was adopted. Randy Raddatz: Correct. We would pay into the franchise fee if the franchise fee was adopted because we are the taxpayers for the schools. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Well we’re 1 of 4 cities. Actually 1 of 4 cities in Eastern Carver County Schools. One of several, about 11 cities in the 276 schools. That’s true. Todd Gerhardt: Right. Randy Raddatz: Right. Two more quick points. Mayor Laufenburger: Sure. Randy Raddatz: I’m a big believer in not giving the money to government up front and saying trust me. I’m a big believer in giving the money to government after the fact. I’m more than willing to pay a little extra. I’m more than willing to pay a little extra. I’m more than willing to pay interest on it if I don’t have the money. I don’t like giving you the money and you saying Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 33 we’ll almost sure we’re going to spend it on this item because I want to hear somebody tell me that I’m wrong with this. There is zero, no guarantee whatsoever that these funds will be used for street improvements in the future. Zero. Can city staff address that? Mayor Laufenburger: Well I can address that. Randy Raddatz: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: You’re absolutely correct. Randy Raddatz: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: This council, this council has made a decision that we, that the intent for funding the 60 percent which is the City responsibility in the pavement management program, this council has gone on record to say that it will be used for the pavement management program. But you’re right. And Mr. Knutson can verify this. We cannot bind future councils. Randy Raddatz: Right. Mayor Laufenburger: So future council could say aaah, that council back in 2018, they didn’t know what they were doing. We’re going to use this money for buying a park. We’re going to use this money for something else. So you’re right, this council cannot bind a future council. Randy Raddatz: As a matter of fact this council won’t exist in about 2 months. Mayor Laufenburger: That’s exactly correct. Randy Raddatz: So I just want to make sure everyone’s aware of that because that’s never brought up. If you ask the question people address it but I think that’s probably the biggest concern is there’s no guarantee. This money could be squandered in a year. 10 years. 20 years. 40 years. Whatever. Mayor Laufenburger: Well I would. Randy Raddatz: And you need to look no further, farther than some of the cities you mentioned. You know the City of Minneapolis doesn’t exactly run a tight ship when it comes to funding. Mayor Laufenburger: Right and fortunately we don’t live in Minneapolis. Randy Raddatz: And I wouldn’t want us to be like the City of Minneapolis. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay well, I didn’t want to interrupt your comments. Were you done? Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 34 Randy Raddatz: I had one more point and now I don’t remember what it is. Mayor Laufenburger: I’m sorry for interrupting you. Randy Raddatz: I guess those are my main points and thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay well Mr. Raddatz let me just say that I would, I believe that the people who are elected in the city of Chanhassen they’re elected to serve with honesty and with integrity and while it’s possible I think it’s very unlikely that any council in Chanhassen would say oh those guys back in ’18 didn’t, they didn’t know what they were talking about and we’re going to spend this money any way we want to because I think that there would be a hue and cry against that position at some point in time. Only my thoughts. Randy Raddatz: And whether we agree or disagree the money, how did we arrive at the point where we had excess funds to use for street improvements? Because the City over collected on revenue and made the decision to use it so my point is we can agree that that was a good thing or bad thing to do but the City when it has money to use will use it for whatever purpose the City determines it to be. Mayor Laufenburger: Well there are guidelines on how we use money Mr. Raddatz. Randy Raddatz: I agree there are. Mayor Laufenburger: The Statute gives us guidelines for example. Randy Raddatz: But this, there are not guidelines on this as to whether or not you have to use it for street improvements. Mayor Laufenburger: Needs to be used for general fund. Randy Raddatz: Yes, thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Raddatz. Nicole Nejezchleba: Good evening Mr. Mayor, council. My name is Nicole Nejezchleba and I live on 4150 Red Oak Lane in Chanhassen. Mayor Laufenburger: Welcome Nicole. Nicole Nejezchleba: Thank you. Thank you Mr. Sticha for your presentation. I was a little bit confused about the franchise fee. I now understand. I looked at it as a substitution to the assessment practice but the City’s saying it’s an addition so people are still going to be assessed. We were assessed with our old home $8,000 so people will still keep getting assessed so this is Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 35 an additional fund. I also appreciate the power point on how it will be split up in terms of percentage contribution between residential and commercial which is the screen you have up here and looking at that screen it is apparent that the lowest contribution is for large electric commercial. There’s only 1.9 percent which is the bigger commercial residence of our city and it appears that homeowners that are residential pay the biggest chunk of 5.2 percent. I also heard you say Mr. Sticha that the bigger consumers, commercial consumers weren’t comfortable with paying more so that’s why it was negotiated down. I’m wondering if the residential people that are here if we’re not comfortable with the amount can we get it negotiated down? Mayor Laufenburger: It’s a question for the. Nicole Nejezchleba: It is a question. Mayor Laufenburger: It’s a question for the council I think to… Nicole Nejezchleba: It is a question. I understand that the pie chart was helpful about how the commercial properties would pay more with the franchise fee versus the levy. However they’re not paying their fair share because it ends up being the residents that pay more. That’s why low percentages, percentages are fair and clearly we pay the highest percentage. I also agree with the previous speaker. Our schools frequently ask us for additional funds in the forms of levies, all kinds of things when their operating costs increase so the schools will clearly pass these costs down as will the businesses so I think at the end of the day I’m doubtful that the businesses will even pay the 1.9 percent. But at the outset I think when you have a 4.6 percent imbalance between residential and commercial I don’t think anyone can stand here and say that’s fair. We’re all paying our fair share. I’m not opposed to a franchise fee altogether but I think the percentages need to be the same whether you’re a resident or you’re commercial and then that would be fair. 10 percent is 10 percent. If you make a dollar or a million. It hurts the same. So that’s my comment. Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Nicole. Cheryl Yoes: Good evening my name is Cheryl Yoes. I live at 7861 Autumn Ridge Avenue. Thank you for this opportunity. Mayor Laufenburger: Could you spell your last name Cheryl? Cheryl Yoes: Y-o-e-s like in Sam. Just think of toes but with a Y. Yoes. Mayor Laufenburger: How many times have you been asked that question? Cheryl Yoes: A lot. Especially when my maiden name was Johnson. Todd Gerhardt: Son or sen? Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 36 Cheryl Yoes: Good point. Mayor Laufenburger: Ms. Yoes go ahead. Nice to have you here. Cheryl Yoes: I agree with everything that everybody has said and I am very appreciative of our city. I think we have a fine city. I represent, not as the President of the association but the secretary on the board and we’re in a townhome association. We have 88 units and we run a really tight financial budget. We were able at one point to replace roofs without doing an assessment to our homeowners and we’ve just upped our association fee. We also take care of our own roads so I just wanted to piggyback on the other homeowners from condominium associations. Townhome living. I agree with their statements and I just hope that it can be resolved in an equitable manner and thank you for this opportunity. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Ms. Yoes. Good evening. Charlie Pickard: Hi. My name’s Charlie Pickard. I live at 1215 Lilac Lane. I feel like the residential franchise fee is regressive and I feel like, we have, I think we have, we’re looking for low income housing and we have apartments. I assume that apartment renters will be paying the franchise fee if they have their own meter. It’s per meter. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Pickard that’s correct. This is assessed per meter on a utility bill so if an apartment dweller gets their utility included then the fee would be assessed to the apartment, the property owner which would likely be a commercial property, is that right Mr. Sticha? Greg Sticha: We can say most likely yes. Not in all cases. Mayor Laufenburger: But your assumption is correct. If you have a meter and you get a bill, either electric or gas, then likely you would see a franchise fee that’s correct. Charlie Pickard: Right so it’s a more important cost to low income people I think than most of the rest of us so my concern is that it’s not, that it’s regressive. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay thank you Mr. Pickard. Good evening. Steve Brown: Good evening. Steve Brown, 6330 Elm Tree Avenue. I have the privilege of living next door to Randy Raddatz and one thing that came to mind was the way our society changes and the changes we’ve seen over decades in our country, are we sure that we’re going to be using our roads the same way in 20 or 30 years. Will we be seeing the same levels of traffic? Will we start seeing driverless cars and will we start getting from A to B in different ways? And for that matter will we continue to receive electricity through the power company or the gas company? If those kind of things change, society will change and the city will be looking for new funding again one way or the other and rather than slipping one more thing into our electric Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 37 bill that we don’t have a choice about so to speak, you know could we just continue to pay it as we go as property owners? I think people that are fortunate enough to own property in this city take that pretty seriously. They enjoy living in the city and all the benefits of it. The amenities in the city and I think that if the cost has to go up they’d rather have an honest assessment and pay for what they’re getting and see it in black and white rather than just oh it’s just an extra $5 in the electric bill. Things like that have a way of getting away from people and pretty soon they’re paying a lot more than they realize so that’s my two cents. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Brown. Sue Pekarna: Hi. Mayor Laufenburger: Hi. Sue Pekarna: My name’s Sue Pekarna and I live on 2090 Clover Court which is a private road in. Mayor Laufenburger: Is that off Prairie Flower? Sue Pekarna: Yep. Yeah. Mayor Laufenburger: Could you spell your last name? Sue Pekarna: P-e-k-a-r-n-a. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Sue Pekarna: So I just want to reiterate the concern about living on a private road within an association. We have 44 units in the Walnut Grove Association and that’s our concern as well about having to pay for the, maintain the road out of our funds and budget it and paying for snowplow removal and upkeep. And I just also want to say I agree with this woman’s assessment on the percentages between residential and commercial so I just want to have you to reconsider that and reconsider private road. The owners that are on private roads. Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Ms. Pekarna. Good evening. Chad Herman: Hello, my name’s Chad Herman. I’m at 4150 Red Oak Lane as well. I guess I had a couple questions and comments. I’ll start with the comments first. This whole franchise fee to me is like a big giant tornado. I went to quite a few of what the other gentlemen called listening sessions. I think I was at 2 of the 3 where a lot of the comments the residents gave city staff kind of gave deer in headlight looks regarding assessments versus franchise fee versus levies and a lot of the answers that I was hearing was well it depends on what City Council has to decide. So coming to this meeting tonight I was coming in with the notion that this was going to Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 38 be an extra fee that’s tacked onto the levy as well as assessments and if you got the duteous honor of being charge an assessment in the past few years, like I did to the amount of $8,500, this would just be one more thing the City would tack on. But sitting here listening to city staff talk and City Council members talk and Mr. Mayor yourself talking I got really confused and really confused on how this franchise fee is going to work so I’m going to try and restate what I heard and make sure I heard the right thing. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Chad Herman: So from what I heard from Mr. Sticha the assessments, the 60/40 percent with the 40 percent being assessments, special assessments are staying. The 60 percent that used to be a property tax levy that you paid on your property taxes to the County. That the County broke off and gave to the City will be stopped and will be replaced by this franchise fee. Is that a fair statement? Mayor Laufenburger: Well that’s not what’s being proposed. Let me restate it as I can. Chad Herman: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: And to say it’s being proposed that’s not correct. The council, as I said in my opening comments the council directed staff to conduct a public hearing using franchise fee. Explaining that assessments will continue and I think what Mr. Sticha may not have stated clearly is that the $384,000 property tax levy which has been part of the city budget for how many years Mr. Sticha? Greg Sticha: Since 2015. Mayor Laufenburger: Since 2015. That that $384,000 is a property tax levy would continue and that would continue to move into the pavement management fund that funds the 60 percent not paid for by the property. By the benefiting property owners. So here’s the problem Mr. Herman. Let’s just assume we’ve been paying $100 a year for 20 years. 40 of those dollars coming from the property owners who live on the streets that are being fixed. The other $60 dollars come from the rest of the city taxpayers including the people who are benefiting from the, the people who are paying the assessment so that $60 dollars of $100 dollars now needs to go from $100 to let’s just call it $330 dollars. So we are saying 40 percent of $330 will be paid for by the benefiting property owners but the other 60 percent of the $330 has to come from everybody in the city. And the City Council is considering that that remaining 60 percent of a higher number to keep our property or our pavement condition index high, that higher number will come from $384,000 property tax levy plus a higher franchise fee or a franchise fee collecting $1,760,000. Chad Herman: In addition. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 39 Mayor Laufenburger: So it’s an additional source of funds that if we don’t have those funds the pavement condition index will continue to go down through 2032 and the fund will run out. Chad Herman: I get that. So that leads me to my next point then. So I’m looking at those numbers here and I’m looking at, listening to everything. So first off that information about adding the franchise fee was unclear and it’s been unclear in all the listening sessions. Mayor Laufenburger: Is it clear now? Chad Herman: It is clear now. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Chad Herman: That’s why I asked the question. Because I understood it as the levy is gone and the franchise fee replaces it which looking at a couple of these slides I thought hey, that’s a great deal because the property tax levy especially the slide that talks about the green bar and the red bar. Mayor Laufenburger: $200 for resident versus $120. Chad Herman: Yep, versus $120. I thought that’s a great deal especially if you have a big mansion you go from thousands of dollars for property tax levy to $120 bucks. That’s a no brainer. But for people that have smaller homes maybe that’s not a good idea. Mayor Laufenburger: That’s what Mr. Pickard was referring to. Chad Herman: Correct. So now that I know that it’s an additional fee that’s just kind of adding a little bit more insult to injury especially for people that are already getting paying through the nose right now with levies and assessments. But I guess my other concern is that these values and numbers that the city staff came up with to propose to City Council is self inflicted. Mayor Laufenburger: How so? Chad Herman: It’s self inflicted because they picked an arbitrary PCI number of 70. Doesn’t need to be 70. It could be 60. It could be 50. It could be 44. Our road that was reconstructed last, supposed to be 3 years ago but it took 3 years to do due to all kinds of issues so completed last year. Had a PCI rating of I think 44 and that was that way for the 14 years I lived there so I don’t think the number needs to be 70. It could be much lower and I think the revenue numbers are based on a PCI of 70 which is totally self inflicted. If the City would propose a lower number they could do with a lower gap. They could do with a less franchise fee or maybe no franchise fee. I think this is completely self inflicted and it’s self inflicted by the City itself. I don’t think the residents are going woo, I got a PCI 70 road. I’m great to go. I mean I don’t see many of those at all. I see a lot of whole cities with potholes galore that you have to kind of beg Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 40 the city to fix sometimes. So I think lower roads we’ve been living with those for years. I think if you move the PCI number down a little bit you can stretch out the dollars. Work within the means of the budget of the city like all of us residents have to do when times are tough and you need to pay for something and you can’t afford it. You tighten your belt. I mean when I got the assessment for $8,500 to pay from the City for my road I couldn’t go to my boss and say hey I’m having tough times here. Can you give me a raise so I can pay for the road? They would say go out the door and look for another job. So I guess I’m a little bit surprised and a little bit concerned and kind of disappointed with the City because like I said I feel these are completely self inflicted. I mean how did the City come up with a 5.2 percent for residents while big business only has to pay 1.9 or sorry 2.9. Oh 1.9, sorry. I mean I don’t think the City was doing a great job negotiating for the residents here. They’re negotiating for big business. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay Mr. Herman, and everybody else. Let me clarify. That percentage is not a percentage of the fee that they’re paying. It’s a percentage of their total utility bill. Chad Herman: That’s the same thing. Mayor Laufenburger: No it’s not the same thing but just to clarify it’s a percentage of their utility bill so. Chad Herman: Okay, well we can agree to disagree. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Chad Herman: I’m okay with that. I guess my other question is, with this franchise fee I think I know the answer but the franchise fee would also be imposed on the City of Chanhassen facilities correct? Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Sticha we talked about that and actually it would not be imposed on the City of Chanhassen, is that correct? Greg Sticha: On some facilities it still would be. User based facilities like the water treatment plant and those I think we would still, I think we have language in for some facilities where it would still be paid by the City. We could certainly discuss with council at a later point in time of either reimbursing the City or not collecting that portion but that’s a discussion we can. Mayor Laufenburger: I think what was, do you recall what was the total amount of franchise fees that the City would be responsible for if they… Greg Sticha: I think of the total, at the time we were discussing $1.9 and I think at that point in time it was about $40,000 of the $1.9 so it would be less than that. It’ll be $30,000. $35,000 of the $1.76. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 41 Chad Herman: But then at the end of the day that cost will be passed right to the residents of Chanhassen. Mayor Laufenburger: Absolutely. Absolutely because. Chad Herman: So we’re paying for that again. Mayor Laufenburger: Not again but plus. Chad Herman: In addition to. So I guess just like, oh I don’t know. I guess just like other people in the room here I think, I think the franchise fee might be a good idea but I think in this situation it’s just an extra thing that I believe the City does not need to ask the residents to do. I think the City needs to tighten their belt a little bit better and sharpen their pencil which I don’t think they’re doing a good job with right now. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Herman. Bill Coldwell: Well then it’s time for me to say something. Mayor Laufenburger: And you are? Bill Coldwell: My name is Bill Coldwell. I live at 3501 Shore Drive. How many have a better understanding tonight now after this what the franchise fee is all about then they did before they came in? Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Coldwell. Bill Coldwell: Sorry. I want to commend you for explaining it first of all. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Bill Coldwell: I’m in support of it. I agree with Mr. Picking. Pickering. Mayor Laufenburger: Pickard. Bill Coldwell: Pickard that it’s a little bit regressive but it’s a pretty small fee and I just wanted to thank you guys. I manage commercial properties for a corporation for a living. I know what PCI indexes are all about. You do not want your PCI index to go too low because it will cost you a lot more to fix than what eventually the residents scream and shout than it does by taking this $5 or $10 bucks a month out of it so I just wanted people to understand that. We pay these people as city staff as professionals. You can’t do everything yourself. That’s why we have city government. We have to put a little bit of faith and trust in these people. They’re doing the best they can. They’re listening to all of us and I think we need to just give it a rest like the Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 42 gentleman said from the start. There’s really no great fair way to do this. I think we heard right from the front that the franchise fee is a pretty simple cost effective collection methodology versus an assessment. Little bit better. Greg Sticha: Tax. Mayor Laufenburger: It’s still money from the citizens Bill. Bill Coldwell: Yeah, yeah but I mean the method of collection is pretty simple so anyway I’m in support of it. Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Coldwell. Steve Stamy: Good evening Mayor. Mayor Laufenburger: Good evening. Steve Stamy: Council. I did a lot of research on the franchise fee when I first heard about it. Mayor Laufenburger: Your name. Steve Stamy: Because I didn’t think it was anything more than a Dairy Queen. Mayor Laufenburger: Slammy your name and address please. Steve Stamy: Steve Stamy, 491 Bighorn Drive. So I understood the franchise fee and Mr. Sticha set me straight on a couple things on emails that I was questioned but he gave some very good answers and very prompt answers for a government official. My questions are, and Mr. Pickard addressed a lot of the things that I had written down but the one thing, a couple things. One, the City doesn’t need to notify anybody about how they spend these franchise fee if they decide to deviate from the road and trail maintenance, is that correct? Mayor Laufenburger: Everything that the City Council does with minor exception Steve is a matter of public record so if at some point in the future, again I’m assuming if this council chooses to adopt a franchise fee, if some council in the future changes the way in which the franchise fees are used it will be a matter of public record. It can’t be done differently. It would be a subject of budget. For example in you know 3 or 4 years Mr. Oehme comes forward with a recommendation to repair streets X, X, X, X. One of the questions a council member will ask is well what’s the source of funds? Well it’s going to be the source of pavement management fund so I think it’s not reasonable that any council could change this quietly or in secret. Okay? Steve Stamy: I get that but under State law there is no obligation for the council to notify the city. If they make a decision. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 43 Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Knutson do you want to speak to that? You understand the question? Roger Knutson: When you say notify the city you mean, I’m not sure what you mean. Steve Stamy: No what I’m saying is that under State law, if I read it correctly, is that the city if they decide to avert those funds to other things other than trail and road maintenance they could do so without notifying the citizens of the city. Roger Knutson: They wouldn’t have to give mailed notice or published notice. Steve Stamy: Okay. And then the other thing is on the levy for new streets or street repair, will that assessment be changed at all? The formula for making that levy or is it going to be the same now that the franchise fees will probably be in effect. Mayor Laufenburger: Well part of the assumption that we’re making is that the $384,000 levy, which those funds are earmarked for the pavement management program. That that levy will continue. Steve Stamy: What I’m asking though some people already pay the levy. I believe you folks mentioned it. Mayor Laufenburger: Well no that’s an assessment. Steve Stamy: Oh assessment. So will the assessment be changed in terms of the formula used on that? Mayor Laufenburger: The council has not voted finally on that but in general the consensus from this council is that the 40 percent assessment to the benefiting property owners will continue. That that practice will continue. Steve Stamy: Then the final thing is, is that I believe also State law says that the city can increase their franchise fee if they deem to do so. Does that need public approval or public notification also? Todd Gerhardt: Anything that would change the franchise agreement we’d have to go through the same process again. So right now there’s no requirement for a public hearing when you change or adopt the franchise fees so council definitely wanted to have a public hearing so we’re having a public hearing so I would keep checking our website. Our agendas for ordinance changes because it could change, yes. Steve Stamy: Alright thank you. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 44 Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Steve. Good evening. Larry Kerber: My name is Larry Kerber. I live at 6420 Powers Boulevard which is a county road and I know I brought this up at one of the information meetings and they said we’re going to address this but I haven’t heard anything back. How are you going to treat county and state road people? I’m being asked to contribute to a fund, as I understand it, that is going to go to improve city streets. I will never get a benefit out of that. I’m on a county road. The utilities that serve my place are not in city streets. They’re in a county road. I think this is a big question that has to be answered. Why should I contribute when I will never have any value added out of this? Those are my comments. I’d like just to have this considered when you’re thinking about this franchise fee. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Today you are, you know the City does not, correct me if I’m wrong Mr. Oehme, Powers Boulevard. Does the City contribute to the county’s work to repair that street? Paul Oehme: Not regular maintenance. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. So the City does not, the citizens do not contribute to the county. You would not be assessed, wait a minute. Would he be assessed by the County Mr. Oehme? Paul Oehme: No. The County does not assess. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so Powers Boulevard would not be, if repairs are made to Powers Boulevard you would not be assessed as a benefiting property owner. But as a taxpayer, as a property owner in the city you would pay for the 60 percent that is the responsibility of the City for city streets. Larry Kerber: I understand that. Mayor Laufenburger: Yep. Larry Kerber: Yeah I understand I’m not assessed by the county for any street repairs. Mayor Laufenburger: Right. Larry Kerber: I made that decision when I moved there 35 years ago. I said I’ll put up with the noise and the traffic and not being able to get on the road all the time because I’m not going to be assessed for a road. I don’t want to be assessed now or contribute to a fund that repairs my neighbor’s streets when I will never have a benefit from that. I think that’s totally unfair. Mayor Laufenburger: So you will never have the benefit of repairs on any city streets? Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 45 Larry Kerber: It will not be a value added to my property for my neighbors to have their street repairs. I think we use a lot of terms here. How this is going to increase property values and curb appeal and things like that. It isn’t going to help me one bit. I’m not on a city street. I’m on a county road. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor the 60 percent goes more than to the benefiting properties. It goes to the overall road which I think you probably use Lake Lucy. Any of the collector streets. Kerber. Larry Kerber: Say again. Todd Gerhardt: You use Lake Lucy and Kerber? Larry Kerber: Occasionally. Todd Gerhardt: Occasionally. Don’t you drive a truck? Larry Kerber: Yeah. I take Powers Boulevard to Highway 5 or Highway 7. Todd Gerhardt: Okay. Larry Kerber: But who doesn’t use a city street? The UPS guy. The garbage guy. Joe’s grandmother from Rochester when she comes up to visit. So should they all be assessed? Mayor Laufenburger: Well you know Mr. Kerber you bring up a real valid point and I’m going to defer back to Mr. Mertz’s comments at the opening. If there is a fair way to assess or to pay for the city streets, the repair of city streets based on usage then one consideration would be to put a, kind of a coin operated toll at everybody’s driveway and you pay based on. Larry Kerber: That’s what you’re saying. Mayor Laufenburger: No, you pay based on, you know if you want to go on Highway 5 you pay a Highway 5 coin. If you want to go on Highway 7 you pay a Highway 7. The City of Chanhassen is granted the authority to collect from it’s citizens in order to pay for community services. Plowing roads. Our parks. If it’s a community service we collect from the citizens. That’s the authority that we are given in the form of a property tax levy, and by the way we are also given the authority to collect franchise fees. We can’t collect a sales tax. We can’t collect a wheelage tax. We have, I don’t know that we’ve been presented with the option but we don’t have toll roads in our community so we spread the cost of community services as best we can to the users of those community services. For example has your house ever been on fire? Larry Kerber: No. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Well you’re paying for a fire department. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 46 Larry Kerber: I understand. Mayor Laufenburger: And you’re getting no value because the fire department has never visited you. Larry Kerber: But as a citizen that’s part of my responsibility. Mayor Laufenburger: I would agree and I would put city streets in the same category of a responsibility for the entire city so that’s. Larry Kerber: Well in this case if we were collecting a franchise fee for keeping up the parks or doing something else but we’re collecting it specifically to maintain city streets. That’s my problem. I don’t have a benefit from this. Like everybody else like the people who live on them, they’re getting a direct benefit. I am not so anyway I think you get my point and I hope you consider it. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Kerber. Larry Kerber: Yeah. Nicole Nejezchleba: Hello. Mayor Laufenburger: Just a moment. I want to, is there anybody else that would like to address the council? Go ahead. Nicole Nejezchleba: I just had one quick comment. Mayor Laufenburger: Just state your name so. Nicole Nejezchleba: Okay Nicole Nejezchleba, 4150 Red Oak Lane, Chanhassen. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Nicole. Nicole Nejezchleba: Thank you. Rolls right off the tongue. I actually had a quick question or comment based on the gentleman that just talked previously. We keep talking about the franchise fee being collected for the roads and based on the power point from city staff it’s not collected for maintaining roads. It’s collected from the utility company. From the utility company because the City is maintaining the city owned right-of-way. So we’re collecting it for the roads. That’s what the franchise fee agreement is for so based on what the gentleman before said, if he doesn’t have utilities on a city owned right-of-way technically he doesn’t fall within the statute, correct? Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 47 Mayor Laufenburger: We collect from the utilities for their usage of the right-of-way. Nicole Nejezchleba: Correct. Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Essentially we’re collecting from them something or we’re anticipating collecting from them something that they’ve been getting for free. Nicole Nejezchleba: Correct, right. Mayor Laufenburger: And we are simply saying we’re going to charge you the rent for, because it costs money. We’re going to charge that for the right-of-way and we’re going to use those funds specifically for the pavement management program. Nicole Nejezchleba: Right but the statute itself doesn’t talk about the franchise fee being used for that. It’s specifically used for maintaining the city owned right-of-way and the City’s charging the utility companies for that so my argument with the gentleman previously that was saying he has utilities in a county owned right-of-way and he lives on a county street, he would not fall within that statute. So I think the City’s opening itself up for a little bit of liability here. Just want to make sure that you understand that. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay Nicole just let me stop you a second. Nicole Nejezchleba: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Knutson. Nicole Nejezchleba: Go for it. Mayor Laufenburger: Does the franchise fee open the City up for any liability? Nicole Nejezchleba: He’s going to say depends. That’s what all lawyers say when they. Roger Knutson: No. Mayor Laufenburger: Not that I’m aware is what he said. Nicole Nejezchleba: I’m just basing it off of what city staff provided us in terms of what the statutory basis is so cities have statutory authority to have franchise agreements with each utility company for maintaining owned right-of-way. So you’re charging the utility companies for maintaining the city right-of-way. Mayor Laufenburger: Right. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 48 Nicole Nejezchleba: In reality the residents maintain the city right-of-way also. Right? Mayor Laufenburger: Well the city, I suppose you could say the city residents up until now any cost that the City has incurred in maintaining the right-of-way the citizens have been incurring that cost because the utilities have not been paying that. Nicole Nejezchleba: So then when we implement the franchise fee are residents then no longer required to maintain the city right-of-way? Mayor Laufenburger: Well I suppose you could say that the money we are now collecting from the utility companies will not go towards paying the right-of-way. They will instead be going directly to paying for the streets which means that we’re going to continue to ask the citizens to maintain the right-of-way so the citizens will maintain the right-of-way and the utility companies will help us maintain the streets. Nicole Nejezchleba: I understand that the franchise fee will be used for that. Mayor Laufenburger: That’s correct. Nicole Nejezchleba: And we’re going to help you maintain the streets. Mayor Laufenburger: That’s correct. Nicole Nejezchleba: It’s not the utility companies. Mayor Laufenburger: That’s correct. Nicole Nejezchleba: Because they’re going to pass. Mayor Laufenburger: That’s correct because in fact the only source of revenues. Nicole Nejezchleba: Is the citizens. Mayor Laufenburger: That we have for city services are the citizens. Nicole Nejezchleba: Absolutely. But my point is, I’m just again looking at what staff provided and me looking at this I could see many openings for my fellow resident here. He has a very good case where he does not fall within that statute and I can also see a very good case for a citizen saying we no longer need to maintain our right-of-way. In terms of mowing. Debris removal. I’m just going to call the City. I just want to make council aware. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Nicole. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 49 Nicole Nejezchleba: Alright thank you. Greg Sticha: Mr. Mayor maybe in regards to that particular question we could have Mr. Strommen weigh in on our legal expert on. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Strommen do you wan to introduce yourself so we know who you are tonight? Jim Strommen: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the council and staff. My name is Jim Strommen. I’m an attorney with Kennedy and Graven in Minneapolis and I have assisted city staff in the franchise and franchise fee process. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Jim Strommen: It’s been a very interesting dialogue and appreciate the comments that I’ve heard and I guess I’ll just address the last comment so that, I don’t know if it will add clarity because I will add an important stage agency here that has not been mentioned that drives many of the requirements for the collection of a franchise fee and that’s the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission which regulates the utilities. There has been precedent for how the franchise fees that are properly required by the city from the utility are collected and that is why we have the structure that we’re talking about here which is the utilities have the right by approval of the Public Utilities Commission to collect the fee from the rate payers in the city that is not the city’s direction and that may have been implied here. It is what the utilities are allowed to do by the Public Utilities Commission. It is collected and then paid over to the city. The utility, as has been mentioned, is paying the franchise fee because of the valuable right given by the city to the utilities to use the right-of-way without condemning the land. Buying private property to lay their facilities and serving the public within the city and so that is the quid pro quo of that process and as been pointed out yes, ultimately it comes back to the city residents or businesses and the fee structure on the overhead there reflects the negotiation between the city and the utilities and I guess the last point I will make is that franchises are regarded under law as agreements and they are a negotiated. There’s a give and take between the city and the utility as to what they regard as fair what the needs of the city are and what the utilities’ concerns are with respect to their customers and this was a very lengthy process. I think the staff did a very good job and I think we may have utility representatives here but that is the structure. The final comment is, as Mr. Knutson pointed out, the City is well within the law. Well within well settled law in Minnesota in what it is considering and there would not be I can say categorically a lawsuit that would be recognized in court over the structure that you’re proposing. Whether you have policy decisions to make and good points have been made but legally this is on a very firm ground under Minnesota law. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. Strommen. Appreciate that. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council on this matter this evening? Alright there being none I’m going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the council. And as is our practice we have Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 50 a, let’s see Greg. Would you put the, put your motion up there for a moment please and I’m going to ask for, first of all are there any questions that the council has of staff at this time? Okay. I’m going to ask if there’s any council comments and I’m going to begin with you Mr. Campion. Councilman Campion: So we have discussed this topic of franchise fees for quite a while. The past several months at a minimum here and it does sound like a relatively easy solution to a complicated problem but I do believe that it sets a dangerous precedent with enacting the franchise fees. Alluding to Mr. Raddatz said, had mentioned as a can of worms. The projections are based on estimates and models and we all know that models are, you know models are all flawed and I believe that there are some wrinkles to the implementation of franchise fees that you know could require more thought and more consideration whether the amount that we have estimated to start collecting year after year is in fact the right amount. This is a problem that has been building over time and I fear that this moves the problem or the challenge of dealing with the roads and the repairs that have to be made over the next several years off of our desk effectively by creating this revenue stream that’s just going to keep coming in month after month and it will become somewhat out of sight and out of mind for residents once it is passed. Instead I do believe that the most straight forward and best stewardship way of dealing with this challenge would be to use the current model. The current practice of using the levy and the assessments and taking it more or less you know at least a couple more years at a time to look at you know as we repair the outliers. The lowest OCI or PCI streets, what effect does that have on the overall average OCI or PCI? We did see a pretty big spike in 2016 with some road improvements that were completed then that shot our OCI up nearly 8 points year over year from 2015 to 2016 so certain improvements resolving certain outlier streets can make a big difference and so my opinion is that, at least for the next year or couple years I would favor dealing with it through the current practice of using the levy and assessments. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Campion. Ms. Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: Thank you Mayor. Like Councilman Campion obviously we’ve talked about this for well over a year and I put together a pros and cons list to help me arrive at some sort of a conclusion in addition to the feedback which was in alignment with some of my cons that we heard today. So some of the pros I think for budgeting purposes, having a flat fee for residents and businesses to plan around is helpful. I like the idea that a franchise fee does target a specific funding goal so you can set out what that number is again helping in the budgeting process. It takes some of the burden, not all of it as we saw in the slide that was referenced throughout this evening and disperses it a little bit more between residents and commercial. Not fully but it does take some of the burden off the residents so those are what I could come up with the pros. But the cons tend to outweigh that a little bit more at this point for me and I, so first of all and from the beginning what I’ve struggled with is the way I look at it is we are taxing the residents four ways for the same program. We are taxing them first with the general fund. Whether it’s a surplus or otherwise goes into the 60 percent. We have a pavement management levy for $384,000. We then assess for people that are getting their roads done that year for 40 Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 51 percent and now we’re asking for an additional franchise fee. And I struggle when we continue to go back and say here are four different ways we’re going to tax the residents and businesses for the same program or, for the same program. That’s over taxing to me. Additionally a comment was asked about did the City negotiate with their utility company and another comment that stuck in my head when we first found out that the utility company sometimes present councils or cities with their, what their plan would be. It had always been what the city staff had brought forward to City Council and then we then realized that utility companies can also put programs together for cities to reach their funding. And a couple of the utility companies were represented at one of our work sessions and at the first one before we arrived at this current number and this has really stuck out in my head is we were told by one of the utility companies that they were a little bit taken aback because between the relationship between the customer base and dollar amount is one of the highest that they’ve seen and so right there I was very concerned about, about how much we were asking to help fund our pavement management project and asking for what started out as $1.9. Then was reduced to $1.76 but it’s still, it’s still a significant amount of money. We also reviewed a chart that talked about, when we make decisions a lot of times we compare what we call key financial strategies or key financial cities that are like, similar in population and so we did that analysis for some of our neighboring cities as well as some of our KFS cities and we are one of the highest of what this percentage of this franchise fee would be as it relates to our overall general fund budget. It ends up being 16.67 percent. That was something else that concerned me. Thank you for your patience while I continue to read through your notes. Or my notes and some of your feedback. A couple other concerns tonight we, while we did receive emails from some of the homeowners associations that were representative of townhomes and we received an answer about you know maintaining city streets and the responsibility of what we as a council I still feel should be addressing the equity. We talk a lot about equity when we make decisions and the equity to charge this franchise fee or what amount of franchise fee to townhomes or people that live on private streets. And then the other point that Mr. Raddatz made I believe, or maybe it was Nicole who talked about the, sorry call you by your first name. The, have we looked at changing the percentage of the assessment. I think it was Mr. Raddatz. Changing the percentage of the assessments so we know exactly what, when you’re being assessed this is, you know this is what you’re paying for so does that $1.76, is that really the number? I’m not sure that’s the number we should be trying to achieve because I think that there are some other information that we should analyze. In the whole picture we also are proposing in the next meetings an increase in you know with our utility bills. With sewer rates and water rates and our stormwater so I’m just concerned about the over, just the continual increase in fees that we’re assessing to our residents and I’m not comfortable moving forward at this time. Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Member Ryan. Councilmember Tjornhom, do you want to make any comments at this time? Please. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well thank you everyone for coming tonight. I think that we have these public hearings it’s very beneficial to hear what you’re really thinking. I know that you’ve had other opportunities to go to public meetings and express your thoughts and hear comments Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 52 and sometimes you walk away and then you come back here and you get more information and then you have comments and you have questions and you have concerns about what’s actually going on and I have those same comments, questions and concerns about this issue. Tonight we’re talking about finding a consistent, sustainable revenue source for one of the City’s largest assets and that’s not necessarily an easy answer and there’s no quick fix for it. I don’t like a fee. I don’t like raising anyone’s taxes and so right there I’m caught between a rock and a hard place because I don’t have a right answer for any of that. When at our last work session some of our options were proposed I asked staff to bring back tonight the option of just simply doing nothing and just sustaining what we have right now. And I think that I’m not, that’s not a fix for the future. I mean we saw the revenue projections and we see what’s going to happen to this balance over time and how are we going to fill those sources up again I’m not sure right now but I do know that a fee to me, or a franchise fee to me is very, very risky because tonight this council we could have all said and I don’t know what will happen but we could have all said yes we want a franchise fee because our intentions are good. We want to keep our roads at the 70 percent and we want to maintain our consistency with our pavement management program and with all good intentions we could say that and we could pass it and someone said next year we have a new council. That new council could come in and say gosh we’d really like to have a new park or we would really like to do something else and they could take that revenue stream, which is consistent and reliable and shift it over there and we’d be having this same conversation except then we’d be talking about increasing the levy and so I am not comfortable in giving that option to any council to just go ahead and shift gears. This isn’t consistent and there is no guarantee that this money would always go to roads and for that reason I will not be supporting that. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Ms. Tjornhom. Mr. McDonald would you like to make a comment? Councilman McDonald: Thank you Mr. Mayor. This has been a very difficult decision because we started out with all this and to me seemed pretty straight forward and it was an easy decision to make because I do not want to raise people’s property taxes. But when I began to hear that people were in favor of raising property taxes I guess I just, I cannot understand that but if that’s you know what everybody would prefer okay I’ll take that into consideration. We have a problem. I mean I know everybody talks about are the models good or you know is the projections good. The projections are good. I’ve been on council now for going on 11 years. Staff’s never been wrong in their projections. They do a very good job of maintaining funds. Maintaining accounts and letting council know exactly where we stand as far as money so I believe the numbers. I believe what they’re telling me. I believe that if we do nothing, I believe 2020 we’ve got a big problem but that seems to be acceptable to the residents and I think what that does that takes us back to a time back in oh the early 2000’s when basically taxes in this town were a rollercoaster. They were up and down and all over the place. Utilities, sewer fund, water fund, all of that stuff, there was no consistency whatsoever to it and that’s one of the things that Tom Furlong as Mayor did he came in and we started to level out all of those numbers and we made things consistent so that at least year to year you know what your taxes were going to be and how much you were going to pay and what you were paying for. I’ve heard a lot about Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 53 well yeah, future council may decide to undue all this. Hide the ball. Do whatever they want. That’s been one of my arguments about future councils always. A current council cannot bind a future council. That’s just a fact of life. There’s nothing I can do about it. The only thing you can do about it is to make sure that when you vote for people for council you understand what their philosophy is as far as spending your money. So I’m also not a big proponent of kicking problems down the road. There is no other solution. I have not heard anything tonight. I have not heard anything from any of my members on council as to what a solution to this problem would be. We’ve spent over a year and a half looking at what is a solution to this problem. The problem becomes more than that. You talk about paying on taxes. One of the reasons we have a AAA bond rating is because we take care of the infrastructure. Because we do things. That has lowered our interest rate for whenever we want to borrow money. We lose that bond rating and rates go up significantly so okay we do nothing and you think I’ve saved all this money. In reality you haven’t because we’re going to pay for it in the cost of borrowing funds so I’m not in favor of generally kicking the problem down the road to someone else and I would never do this before but tonight I think that the future council should probably deal with this problem and I think what they’re going to come up with is the same solution that we have presented to you tonight only at that point it’s going to cost you more money. As the guy said with the PCI number, I didn’t fully understand that number either but what the impact of that number is, if that number drops too low we’re no longer doing a mill and overlay of a street. We’re reconstructing a street. Most of you have been assessed except for I believe you all were assessed for a brand new street so you know what the cost of that is but a mill and overlay is a fairly cheap approach to fixing a street and it buys you another 10-12 years on that road before it finally gets to the point where it does need to be reconstructed. But if that is the will of what everybody wants then again I am perfectly willing to kick this problem down the road and a future council can deal with it so tonight I will not support a franchise fee either. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you Mr. McDonald. Let’s see. Members that are, I mean citizens that are present in the chamber as well as those of you that are watching online I think you know that this city council is a majority rules city council and it’s important for, it’s important for all of us as council members to recognize that one of the key elements that I’ve tried to make part of my time as mayor is to allow the council to make the decisions and I do my very best to let other council members speak first before I do but I do have some things that I want to say about this and they will, they will be the minority view but it’s important that you know how I feel. To Mr. Herman you are exactly correct. The 70 PCI is absolutely arbitrary. But it represents, at least in my mind, it represents a policy that drives our actions. This is, tonight is all about what do we do to help Mr. Oehme, give Mr. Oehme a target that he can appropriately do his job. You’re right. We could make it 60. We could make it 50. We could make it 40. We could make it anything we want. In my view, and in fact this was the consensus of the council at, within the last 3 months that though 70 is not a perfect index it is a target. So if we were to stick with a target of 70 we would essentially say Mr. Oehme we, your job is to maintain an average PCI or approach a PCI of 70. And if we ask him to do that then we also have to give him money so that he can. And if we don’t give him money to do that then we’re essentially hamstringing him and we’re saying do the job but you can’t spend any more money Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 54 that you’ve currently been doing and if he were a wise man he would come back and say take your choice. You want 70 or do you want current spending because you can’t have both. Now we’ve been told, and I believe that roads developed in the 80’s and 90’s will require more money spent on street repair in the coming 10-15 years. We’ve been told that and we’ve been told not with absolute precision but using the models that Mr. Oehme has available to him, that’s money that we believe needs to be spent and if we choose not to do that through current sources we have to figure out how to put money into the street repair mode. And by the way I do support the continuation of the 40 percent assessment to benefiting property owners. I will tell you early on I thought well let’s get rid of the assessment and do franchise only but when we heard from some of the listening sessions that people were saying okay, well I was just assessed. What are you going to do for my rebate? Well I realize that there is absolutely no fair way to get rid of the assessments without doing some form of rebate. Well then what’s a fair rebate? Do we go back and rebate those that have been assessed within the last 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? We had somebody come to a public meeting and said I had my street repaired 12 years ago. I want some money back. So that contributed to my reasoning that the 40 percent assessment to the benefiting property owner, whoever that property owner is. Whether it’s a residence, commercial, a property tax exempt, that’s a practice we should continue and the longer we continue the more validity it has so I would hope that future councils continue with that. Ladies and gentlemen there are only two ways that we can collect money to pay for streets. Property tax and franchise fee. Now there are other means. The assessment practice that Councilmember Ryan spoke to. That is one way of doing it and I believe in that practice and I think the rest of this council does as well so that’s one way that it affects everybody when your property is repaired but there is a limit to Mr. Raddatz, it’s not, we can’t just take that 40 up to 70. We have to prove that there’s an amount of benefit that comes to the homeowner and we’ve determined that 40 percent of the cost is the benefit that comes to the homeowner so we can’t take it to 50. We can’t take it to 70. We can’t take it to 80 if we use that assessment as a basis. So the only two ways, and you heard me say this earlier, we can’t do a sales tax. We can’t do a gas sales tax. We can’t tax the tires. We can’t tax wheelage. Some of those have been taken by the County because the County has authority to do that and we will likely see some of those dollars that you pay into the County over time so the only two things we have is property tax levy and franchise fee. I agree with Mr. Pickard, franchise fee is a regressive tax. It’s a regressive tax because if you take $5, if you take $10 a month from everybody in this city, $10 from a property owner who has a property value of say $200,000 that $10 a month is a much greater percentage of their potential income than the people who live in the million five so to Mr. Mertz’s comment earlier, there’s no such thing as fair for everybody. So we’ve got two ways to do it. And the only way that we can get funding from the property tax exempt properties of the 60 percent paid for by the cities, we’re not going to get that from a levy. We only get that from a franchise fee. Yes I recognize that those fees will roll down to you. Yes the schools will have to increase their operating expense. They will apportion that operating expense not over just the people in Chanhassen. They’ll do it over the people in Chanhassen, Victoria, Carver and Chaska as well. So the funding of the 60 percent falls on the Chanhassen property owners. I’m not in favor of the property tax levy alone because it ignores the tax exempt properties and that, those tax exempt properties would bring in, I think the number I heard from you Mr. Sticha was between Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 55 $50,000 and $60,000. So if we don’t get those from property tax exempt properties that $50,000 or $60,000 needs to come from the rest of the city through a property tax. I believe the franchise fee is fair for the citizens. It’s interesting Mr. Sticha you were, you said was there, I wrote the question. Was there a unanimous consensus in all of your findings and one of the things you said that was not unanimous by the way, but people said continue the assessment practice. That seemed to be a strong, and also the franchise fee because it’s less costly than the levy. Well yes it is less costly than the levy but to the low property tax owners, and I’m not referencing you Mr. Pickard because that’s who you are but because that’s, you brought that issue up. It’s going to be a bigger burden on them than it is on the people who have the 5,000 square feet, 4 car garages, probably 3 or 4 teens that are driving and using the streets more than that 80 year old couple. Now the franchise fee can be modulated. Yes these are the fees that are in place but, to Mr. Raddatz’s point, if we find that the pavement management program, wouldn’t it be great if it has more money than we need? Yes we can modulate down. We could also modulate down the $384,000 levy that we make a decision on every year. And I do prefer a designated funding source even for the upcoming year 2019. Mr. Oehme, what’s the estimated value of the street repairs you want to do in 2019? Paul Oehme: Well the Orchard Lane project is like $1.3 million dollars for the streets and then for Lake Drive I think it was $800,000 or so. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so figure $2.8-$2.9 million dollars. So today, today we do not have funds, if we do not do a franchise fee we do not have funds so that means we will dip into the pavement management program fund faster in 2019. Or we don’t do those two streets. Yes Steve Slammer, we cannot bind future councils and the future council could change any decision that we make tonight. And then what it really comes down to for me is, I believe that Mr. Raddatz I think you might have made this comment. The make-up of this council will change in, on January 12th. Or 13th. Whatever it is. But this council, this council has been in place since 1967 so we have acted as a council. Different people and some people in here may have been on that council but this council generally makes decisions based on information we have today and like Mr. McDonald has said, I think we have a responsibility to make a decision when we have the information that we can use to make that decision. I believe that we have that information and yes, it is not fair to everybody. But it does spread the cost of street repair across everybody in the community including Mr. Kerber who lives on Powers Boulevard because he does use the private streets. Even though he doesn’t live on one he still uses those private streets. So I’m going to speak to the private, the homeowners associations. The private roads are private not because the City said they had to be private. The private roads are private because the developer chose to make them private. In developments some developments have city streets. Those streets are built to city standards. The private roads are not. The private roads are private because they are not built to city standards and yes the private road, the people who live on private roads, I live in a homeowners association. My street happens to be a public road but I use the other roads as well and the people who come out of the private road right across the street from me, they immediately get onto the public road so they’re using the public roads as well. This notion about I live on a private road, therefore I shouldn’t have to pay the franchise fee, that Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 56 doesn’t sway with me. Now I’ve shared with you my views. And by the way, you heard earlier tonight, let me remind you. The property tax levy is imposed on the citizens with the percentage of 83 percent going to the residences, and 17 percent going to commercial businesses. If we implement the franchise fee the way Mr. Sticha has presented this tonight, the balance of payments for all city services, including city streets, moves residence from 83 percent of the load to 80.25 percent of the load and it moves commercial properties from 17 percent to 19.75 percent of the load. A very small shift. Nevertheless it is a shift that takes the burden off of the residence and puts it more onto the businesses. I’d like to see this happen. I’d like to see the franchise fee happen. I can’t be guaranteed that a future council will consider it the same way but I would like to see a franchise fee adopted and the ordinances adopted so Mr. Campion did you want to make a comment? Councilman Campion: When you’re finished. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you. I would like to see the work of the council up til now, the work of the citizens in sharing your views, many of whom are not with us tonight and the work of the city staff, I’d like to see us fund a target of 70 PCI for Mr. Oehme so that’s my views. Mr. Campion go ahead. Councilman Campion: Mr. Mayor I just wanted to make a point of clarification and it’s a bit in response to comments that Councilman McDonald made earlier that seem to suggest that it’s this council that’s deciding to kick the can down the road by not enacting franchise fees today. I just want to note it’s not, it wasn’t in the presentation today but if you look back at the historical OCI from 2008 it was 73 and it fell at a steady rate from 73 down to approximately 66 by 2014 you know so there was a pretty evident problem that was happening for a period of 6 years with that steady decline. Mayor Laufenburger: And I’m awfully glad we’re trying to address it right now. Councilman Campion: And with projects that were performed over 2014 and 2015 it grew from 66 up to 78 in the course of 2 years with a handful of projects and so with all due respect that is part of the justification for why I’m saying that you know let’s be diligent. Let’s recognize that we have a problem and a challenge with some roads that need repairs. Let’s look for ways to cu the budget. Cut the levy in the next couple years to address more projects and let’s monitor it closely to see what affect addressing those outlier roads has. You can get a pretty big bounce in a couple years from addressing a few big projects and the problem could look quite different. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Campion. Any other comment? Councilman Campion: No thank you. Chanhassen City Council – November 26, 2018 57 Mayor Laufenburger: Is there any action the council would like to take tonight on this matter? There being no action Mr. Oehme, Mr. Sticha, Mr. Gerhardt, thank you for your work and no action at this time. That concludes our business tonight. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay I just have one comment that I want to make. Our Truth in Taxation meeting is on Monday, December 3rd and this is an opportunity for any citizens to come in and address the council based on the preliminary tax levy statements that were distributed to all citizens I think within the last 2 weeks. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Campion seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Approve City Council Minutes dated December 3, 2018 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.2. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the City Council minutes dated December 3, 2018.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Work Session Minutes Summary Minutes Verbatim Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DECEMBER 3, 2018 The City Council met in executive session from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. to discuss the City Manager’s performance evaluation. Mayor Laufenburger called the work session to order at 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, and Councilwoman Ryan COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRESENT: J. Gorra 1680 West 78th Street J. Bossardt Prior Lake Doris Butler Prior Lake Steve Ach Jon Rausch GALPIN PROPERTY DISCUSSION. Joe Jablonski with Lennar reviewed an updated proposal for development of the Galpin Boulevard property with changes made after hearing feedback at neighborhood meetings. Mayor Laufenburger asked about lot sizes and marketing the north property to other builders. Todd Gerhardt asked about discussions of building certain trail segments prior to development. Joe Jablonski continued with review of development changes made to the southern portion of the property. He discussed concerns with stormwater and landscape buffering. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked about access to neighborhood parks. Mayor Laufenburger asked for clarification of what will be included in the PUD. Councilwoman Ryan asked for clarification of what will be included in the landscape buffer along the southern property line and grading plans. Joy Gorra asked about runoff into the wetland on her property. Mayor Laufenburger asked about conversations with the estate heirs for memorialization throughout the development. Joe Jablonski continued with review of their schedule moving forward. Jon Rausch asked about council opinion on memorialization. Councilwoman Ryan stated she would prefer subtle. Councilman McDonald and Councilwoman Tjornhom stated that would be between the estate and the developer to come up with a proposal for council to review. Todd Gerhardt suggested Lennar hold a listening session between Planning Commission and City Council to educate the City Council Work Session – December 3, 2018 2 public moving forward. Mayor Laufenburger asked about comments made at the August meeting with residents buying property on the north side of the development. Mayor Laufenburger adjourned the work session at 6:50 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING SUMMARY MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Ryan, and Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, and Greg Sticha PUBLIC PRESENT: Ann Miller 6561 Fox Path Steve & Lisa Ehlers 6741 Country Oaks Road Don Amorosi 2368 Grays Landing Road, Wayzata PUBLIC MEETING ON THE PROPOSED 2019 BUDGET. Greg Sticha presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Laufenburger opened the public hearing. Ann Miller, 6561 Fox Path asked for clarification of the term billed by authority listed on her tax statement and comparisons to her neighbors. Don Amorosi, 2368 Grays Landing Road, Wayzata asked for clarification on the position that was removed from the budget under police and fire, and asked if there were any additional resources, funds for training, technology, tools or additional personnel that would help law enforcement agencies in crisis or mental health engagements in the 2019 budget. Mayor Laufenburger closed the public hearing. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council special meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING DECEMBER 3, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, and Councilwoman Ryan COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, and Greg Sticha PUBLIC PRESENT: Ann Miller 6561 Fox Path Steve & Lisa Ehlers 6741 Country Oaks Road Don Amorosi 2368 Grays Landing Road, Wayzata PUBLIC MEETING ON THE PROPSED 2019 BUDGET. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you and welcome to everybody to tonight’s Truth in Taxation hearing meeting. Those of you that are present in the council chambers as well as those of you that may be watching at home on Mediacom cable television or through our world wide web reaching all corners of the globe. Before we begin our session I just want to clarify something. It was announced earlier today that Governor Mark Dayton has ordered that all flags at public facilities be flown at half staff for 30 days I believe, is that correct? For 30 days to honor President, former President George H.W. Bush who now lays in state in the Capitol so just wanted people to be aware of that. Tonight is our Truth in Taxation meeting. And by the way just to make note that all members of the council are present with exception of Dan Campion who is traveling on business. Tonight the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to give the public an opportunity to hear the detail behind the preliminary levy which was set back in September. All this in anticipation of establishing the final levy for the City next Monday night on December 10th. So tonight we will have a presentation and then I will open the meeting to the public to hear any questions or to hear any comments from the public regarding the presentation of the details supporting the preliminary levy as it was established back in September. So Mr. Sticha is this your’s? Your item this evening. Alright welcome. Go ahead. Greg Sticha: Thank you Mayor and council. Annually at this time of the year the City Council holds a, well they’ve changed the name over the years a couple times but they at one point called it a public budget meeting. At one point they called it Truth in Taxation hearing. It’s the same thing. And we have that meeting the first Monday of December every year to give the public the Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2018 2 opportunity to comment on the preliminary budget and levy that was set so I’m going to just over what was in the preliminary budget back in September. Just to kind of give the audience an idea of the process that we went through, we actually start work on the budget well before this fall. As early as June. The budgets that are submitted to Mr. Gerhardt and myself are done so in early July by the various department directors. The City Manager and myself review those. Make any needed adjustments within the department’s budgets. We hold a detailed budget meeting work session in August with the City Council to go over the details of what is in the general fund budget. In September as the Mayor referred we hold a preliminary levy adoption. This was done on September 24th. The purpose of holding a preliminary levy and adoption is what is used for the basis of producing the Truth in Taxation statements that all residents should have received this past week or so. On that statement is the breakdown of the requested levies of the taxing jurisdictions where your home or business might be. Included is the City of Chanhassen obviously so this evening we’re just going to go over what the City’s portion of your property tax bill makes up and attempt to answer any questions. And then on December 10th the City Council will meet and set a final levy and budget for taxes payable in 2019. So I have 3 columns on this particular slide. The left column being what was set as a budget in 2018. The middle column being what was set as a preliminary budget back in September. We have also included what staff is going to be recommending as a final budget next Monday. You’ll notice there are no changes between the preliminary and final. There have been no substantial changes in any items that impact the general fund since we set the levy in September. All items have remained unchanged within, whether that might be a change in either the health care contract, which there are none, or any other line items within the budget. The staff is not recommending any changes between what was set in September and what they’re recommending for the final next Monday. Looking at each of these line items individually, while there’s a 10 percent increase in the community development line item, the dollar amount is not significantly different. There was one salary adjustment within that department to get one of the community development staff on a pay range with the comparable work that he is doing. But other than that no significant changes from the 2018 budget as compared to what’s recommended as a final 2019. On the revenue side there are a couple items I do want to point out. Well actually one item in particular. If you look at the licenses and permit lines you’ll notice a 9.7 percent increase. As part of setting the preliminary levy what was established is we did increase the permitted, budgeted permit revenue for 2019 as compared to 2018 by $100,000 as a part of the budget setting process so you’ll notice that line item is up 9.7 percent. The majority of the remaining line items are relatively flat. There is an increased budgeted revenue under other revenue and that is for, and some additional cell tower leases that the City is going to be the benefactor of starting in 2019. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Sticha can I interrupt? Regarding licenses and permits, you’re showing a $100,000 revenue target goal for license and permits. When was the license and permit goal last changed, do you recall? Greg Sticha: Prior to, for budget year ’19 I want to say maybe 3 or 4 years ago. There has been small changes in it in the last 9 years. I believe there was one $50,000 increase about 4 years ago. The goal of the council in going back to 2009, if people recall the shortfall the economy Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2018 3 saw in that point in time led to a severe shortage of permit revenue at the City of Chanhassen in 2009. And that council going forward made the effort to keep that line item relatively flat at it’s lowest point rather than try to adjust the permit revenue each year to match what exactly the market is going to do as the markets are volatile and can change so within $100,000 of the $1,032,000 is where the initial amount would have been back in 2009 so. Mayor Laufenburger: So what you’re saying, I interrupt that to mean we’ve been conservative in our permit revenue forecast or budgets over the last 7-8, well 9 years now and staff is simply recommending that you’re comfortable that permit revenue of an additional $100,000 is not inconsistent with the performance of that line item in actual over the last 7 years. Greg Sticha: Correct. Over that time the base line has shifted a little north. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Greg Sticha: The baseline low amount so we’re comfortable increasing that line item by $100,000. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay thank you. Greg Sticha: So what are some of the factors that changed the budget for 2019 as compared to 2018? The City of Chanhassen experienced .97 percent increase in new construction dollars in the city of Chanhassen and that number is relatively important as it will get into some of the other slides a little later on and will show the impact of the average home here in just a moment but that relates to or correlates to about $106,000 in new property tax dollars. These were new homes or new businesses that were constructed in Chanhassen in the past year so that dollar amount is important because it’s the new growth that if you levied just the new growth assuming all other factors are the same, i.e. market value, you would have no change in anyone’s property taxes. Market values did change and I’ll explain that here shortly. The City saw an 8 percent increase in it’s health care cost for 2019. I mentioned the $100,000 higher budgeted building permit revenue. A 3 percent increase for cost of living and merit pay is included in the 2019 budget as well as some market adjustments for department heads. There is no increase in the policing services contract in terms of total cost. The staffing levels all remain the same. It’s just they’ve had some changes in their personnel over the past year that’s allowing that contract to be flat as compared to the previous year. And the budget does have the elimination of the Crime Prevention Specialist position and as we’ve talked earlier this fall when we set the preliminary levy we’ve been able to get by handling those duties amongst some of the other departments within City Hall and at this point in time staff is recommending that that position is not needed right now. So taking a look at the total levies as they compare to last year and for 2019. The general fund levy which was the levy I was primarily talking about in the previous slides. The City also has an $800,000 levy for it’s equipment and that is staying the same as compared to the previous year. City also has a $93,000 levy for sealcoating. This is just the sealcoating program that we also get some small state aid dollars for sealcoating our roads. Not an overlay or a Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2018 4 patching program. It’s just a sealcoating program. The City does have in place a levy for it’s revolving assessment construction fund. In 2018 that amount was $384,000. As it compares to the debt levies below it gets adjusted slightly for 2019 to $381,223. And then the debt levies down below. One for the public works facility which was built in 2006 and the one for the library which was built in 2001 and last payment will be made on the library in 2022. So taking a look at our levy as it compares to new growth in the city of Chanhassen, and as I mentioned earlier it’s fairly important to note that if your levy increases by more than new growth and your home increases or decreases by more than the average home in Chanhassen, this is what’s going to have an impact on your city portion of your property tax bill. You can see going back to the earlier in the 2000’s the purple line being the new growth the City experienced or the new construction dollars available for property taxes to be used towards various levies, that number exceeded the total levy. But you’ll also note that our new growth over the last 3 years has been shrinking. We’re not experiencing as much new growth as we did in the earlier, in 2008, 9 and 10. We had the downturn in ’11 and ’12. Keeping in mind the assessment process is lags the economy typically by a year or two so not surprisingly, when the market started to turn in late 2008 and 2009, a couple years later you see new growth start to lag behind a little bit as well. So how does this impact a home in Chanhassen? And I have four, these are actual Truth in Taxation statements that went out last week. Four different valued homes on the screen. Again it’s important to keep in mind that the average home increased in value in the city of Chanhassen by 7.5 percent. It increased in market value by 7.5 percent. So with the City Council setting a preliminary levy at new growth, if your home increased in market value by 7.5 percent you should have seen no change in your city portion of your property tax statement and parcel number 3 is a perfect example of exactly that. That parcel saw a 7.4 percent increase in it’s market value and it’s city property taxes actually saw a slight of $2. Actually less than $2 decrease in it’s city portion of it’s property taxes. This was as close to the average home in Chanhassen I could find. The average home in Chanhassen is valued at about $360,000 and the average home as I mentioned earlier increased in market value by 7.5 percent. As you look at some of the other examples including parcel number 1, it’s also important to note that the State of Minnesota has a progressive property tax system. So as your home increases in value the property tax system in Minnesota puts more of a burden on the larger value homes. So you’ll notice parcel 4, while it also saw exactly a 7.5 percent increase in it’s market value it’s bill did go up by $18 so even though it’s very close in terms of increase to parcel 3 it still saw a slight increase in it’s city portion of it’s property taxes simply because it’s a higher valued home than parcel 3. And parcel 1 correspondingly saw an even larger than new growth change, 8.6 percent but only saw a $4 increase in it’s city portion of it’s property taxes. Based on the preliminary levy the City Council set in September all of these statements make very clear sense as it compares to the average home in Chanhassen. Audience: Can I ask a question? Mayor Laufenburger: You’re going to have a chance to ask that question later okay. Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2018 5 Greg Sticha: On the screen now is the breakdown of the property taxes by taxing jurisdiction. I note that it’s School District 112 but the difference between School District 112 and 276 is less than a percent so the percentages do not change significantly on this pie chart. I believe 276 the green, the largest green piece of the pie would probably be 45 ½ percent increase of 44 ¼ or whatever it is do, but in general the city portion of your property tax bill is around 20 cents on every dollar or 20 percent. As we do every year we compare ourselves to our KFS cities. These are our cities that we compare ourselves to in terms of geographic. Location. Growing communities and other demographics that are similar to the city of Chanhassen so taking a look at the budgeted expenditures for 2018 as compared to 2017 which is the most current data available on the State Auditor’s website. You’ll notice the general fund expenditures for the City of Chanhassen increased 2 percent. There’s a number of changes in a number of other jurisdictions listed on this list. The average being 5.4 percent but I think one thing I always like to point out each year on this particular screen, Chanhassen typically is always the flattest or most consistent change from year to year or year over year. Whereas some communities see a 9.3 percent increase in one year and might see a zero percent increase in one year, it’s been the goal of some of the previous city councils to keep the budgeted expenditures consistent from year to year with maybe 2 percent or less increases as compared to the previous years budgeted expenditures. Mayor Laufenburger: So Greg just pausing right here for a second. So you’re showing Chanhassen’s budget expenditure growth from 2017 to 2018 was 2 percent. What’s the expenditure growth that you’re proposing from 2018 budget to 2019? Do you know what that number is? 1.73 percent. Greg Sticha: Yes. Now it also takes into account the State Auditor’s Office provides this data so it also takes into account some special revenue funds which have a minor impact on that so the bulk of it though is the general fund so it will be right around that number next year. Mayor Laufenburger: So it will be somewhere in the realm of 2 percent or less? Greg Sticha: Most likely. Mayor Laufenburger: For Chanhassen. Greg Sticha: Yes, yep. For Chanhassen. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright thank you. Greg Sticha: So then we do a per capita spending comparison of those exact same cities so real simple calculation. Just dividing the population by the total general fund spending and of those KFS cities Chanhassen is easily the lowest. The average being $581. They’re listed in alphabetical order. And then we also each year take a look at the tax rates within Carver County and within the Twin Cities metro in general. This slide is an indication of what the preliminary Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2018 6 2019 tax rates are for all the cities within Carver County so like we’re having this meeting this evening, each of these jurisdictions will be having their meeting sometime this week and based on the preliminary levies each of those jurisdictions set back in September, the County calculates a preliminary tax rate. Chanhassen’s went down again as compared to the previous year. 21.066. The average in Carver County is 60 and you can see the other taxing jurisdictions what their preliminary tax levies are based on. As long as we’re talking about this particular item, when the preliminary levy is set in September that is the high point as to which the City Council can set a levy for taxes payable in 2019. So when the City Council sets the final levy on December 10th they cannot go up from that number. They can only go down from the number that they set as a levy on September 24th. So this tax rate, the 24.066 would be the worst case scenario if the City Council set the exact same levy that it set on September 24th. And same with all the other jurisdictions on this slide. So how do we compare to some of the Hennepin County tax rates. Again Chanhassen, you’ll notice I used 22.66 primarily because I’m comparing all the other jurisdictions to 2018 tax rates. I don’t have access to the 2019 preliminary tax rates for all of Hennepin County at this point in time but taking a look at the 2018 tax rates for each of these cities in Hennepin County, again Chanhassen very competitive amongst all those with only two cities having a lower tax rate and by far the majority of cities in Hennepin County have a significantly higher tax rate than the City of Chanhassen. So staff will be meeting with the City Council next Monday to go over any final details on the budget and then next Monday at the regular session, the City Council will adopt a final budget. A final tax levy and a final CIP document for taxes payable in 2019. With that I’ll just take some time for some questions. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, thank you Mr. Sticha. In just a few moments I’m going to open this to the public hearing then I’ll invite you to ask your question ma’am but before I do that is there any questions from council of Mr. Sticha at this time? Anybody? Okay. Before I open the public hearing I just want to make a couple comments. First of all that this public hearing is about the city tax portion of your tax, Truth in Taxation statement. This is not about the market valuation of your home. That is done through a, it’s done through a visit with the tax court or what’s that again? Todd Gerhardt: Open book process through the County Assessor. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah through the County Assessor so if you have a question about your market valuation that’s not something that we can deal with. This is your opportunity to comment to the staff and council regarding the preliminary levy, which Mr. Sticha as just gone over and this is for the city only. Not for the county tax levy or the school district tax levy or the others that are identified so at this time I would open the public hearing and I would invite anyone who would like to make a comment to the podium. And if you’d like ma’am I would invite you to come up first and just step up to the microphone. State your name and your address and your comments. Ann Miller: Okay, hello. I’m Ann Miller. I live at 6561 Fox Path in Chanhassen and I received the proposed taxes from the Carver County property tax department and I understand that you Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2018 7 just mentioned that this is only for the city. However in looking at my own information for my own property it’s mentioned, billed by authority. Do you know what I’m talking about? And I can, you want me to show you? Mayor Laufenburger: Sure why don’t you do that. Ann Miller: So I guess I don’t know if you can answer this or not but I got billed by authority so for instance, I think WS stands for watershed and we’re in the Minnehaha Creek so when I compare it to my neighbors around me the numbers are never the same and why is that? If I want to compare apples to apples. And then I’m wondering about the other list there too when they’re documented out. I mean if I put my neighbor’s next to me it’s like, it’s almost willy nilly like who decides all that? Or are you not the right people to ask? Greg Sticha: I can I think mostly answer this question. Ann Miller: Okay. Greg Sticha: So the largest portion of the calculation is based on the market value of your home so I don’t know how your home compares in terms of market value to your neighbors. Ann Miller: Right because I’ve lived there since 1992. Greg Sticha: Right and some of their market values could have increased or decreased depending on if they’ve made improvements to their home so if let’s say your home has a market value of let’s say the average $360,000 but your neighbor had an addition and you know added an extra 500 square feet. Their home market value could potentially be $400,000-$425,000. The difference in those two market values will significantly change each of these line items because their home is now worth more in taxable market value than your home so while I can’t speak to what your taxable market values in your neighborhood are, that first and foremost has the most impact on why you might see a difference between the watershed district at your home and compared to the watershed district at your neighbor’s home. I’m guess most likely it’s because there’s a significant difference in the market values of your home. Ann Miller: Really? Huh interesting. Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: Did you have another question Ms. Miller? Ann Miller: Oh I live in a ranch house. It is above grade. It’s 2,058 square feet so I’m one of three houses in the Fox Chase development that is a ranch house and I’m just amazed at the difference. The difference in those numbers on that list that you’re looking at sir. And so I’m just trying to figure out, so do I have to go to everybody’s meeting to decide how they figure things out because it just doesn’t seem, it just seems crazy to me. Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2018 8 Mayor Laufenburger: Ms. Miller? Ann Miller: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: The unfortunate answer is yes. Ann Miller: I thought so. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah. This, each of the, each of the taxing authorities are granted their taxing authority from the State Legislature and each of them have different methodologies for calculating the taxing levy that they can provide and we, you know our responsibility is specifically for the city portion of that levy. Ann Miller: Alright. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, I hope though that’s not a great answer. It doesn’t necessarily help you at all. Ann Miller: No but that’s okay. Mayor Laufenburger: But that’s the truth. Ann Miller: It’s a learning moment at age 71 yeah. Mayor Laufenburger: And you’ve been here since 1992? Ann Miller: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: My oh my. 26 years in the community. Ann Miller: Yeah and we have not expanded our house so yeah. And the taxes were horrible one of those years. They were like Connecticut. They went down but now they’re going back up. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor. Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead Mr. Gerhardt. Todd Gerhardt: Okay. Ann just so you know if you can find another home with the exact same market value that you have. Ann Miller: Does that mean the price it was sold for? Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2018 9 Todd Gerhardt: Nope, the market value. Mayor Laufenburger: Market valuation right at the top. Todd Gerhardt: Right at the top of your sheet. Greg Sticha: She printed what was on the County’s website. I do not have her market value listed but I can certainly research. Ann Miller: Oh is this it right here? This one. The assessor information. Greg Sticha: Yes so that’s your estimated market value but that doesn’t necessarily correlate to your taxable market value but they’re typically generally close. So if you’d like, if you’d give me your email I can check. Go online and check your records. Find out what change in your taxable market value was for 2019. Tell you how that compares to the average home in Chanhassen and I can even check out some of your neighbors tax statements then to see if their market value changed significantly different than your’s. Ann Miller: Okay, well that’s pretty nice of you… Todd Gerhardt: And we find one probably the exact same market value as your’s and show you how it relates back to that same watershed district. The school district and the county and the city too and it should be right in line with each. Ann Miller: Okay thank you. Todd Gerhardt: But it’s got to be the exact same market value because in the system that we have in the State of Minnesota it changes with whatever the market value of your home is. If it’s higher you’re going to pay more. If it lower you’re going to pay a little less. Ann Miller: Okay, thank you very much. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Ms. Miller. Nice to have you here. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council related to the Truth in Taxation this evening? State your name and address please. Don Amorosi: I’m Don Amorosi. The bad penny from Wayzata, Minnesota. Mayor Laufenburger: What’s your address in Wayzata please? Don Amorosi: It’s 2368 Grays Landing Road. If you need a Chanhassen address I’m sure I can be a proxy for my ex-wife. Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2018 10 Mayor Laufenburger: No, that’s alright. Nice to have you here Mr. Amorosi. What’s your comments? Don Amorosi: So first on the budget there was, on the budget under police and fire there was a discontinuation of a position if I read it correctly. Can you tell me what that, what position was removed and why? That’s my first question. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright Mr. Sticha can you speak to that? Greg Sticha: I think Mr. Gerhardt probably can answer that question better. Todd Gerhardt: Beth Hoiseth was our Crime Prevention Specialist and she retired about 3 to 4 years ago and her responsibilities were taken over by the Assistant City Manager, CSO’s and spread out amongst some of the support administrative staff and a lot of the key ones were neighborhood, National Night Out and making sure that car seats are fitted correctly for infants and coordinating with all the neighborhood watch groups. Don Amorosi: Okay thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: So just if I may. So Beth and that responsibility, and didn’t the CSO’s actually report to Beth? Is that true? Todd Gerhardt: Not directly no. Mayor Laufenburger: They work for Chelsea? Todd Gerhardt: They work for Chelsea. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright but those activities were specifically proactive efforts on the part of the City to engage with the neighborhood. Plan for as you say car seats. I think there were. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah she was not a licensed law enforcement officer. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay alright. Don Amorosi: That’s more than satisfactory, thank you. My second question is that the budget for police and fire is relatively flat from 2017 to ’18. I believe that your contracts with the City run from year to year and at least based on my research. Mayor Laufenburger: You mean with the County? Contract with the County. Don Amorosi: With the county. With the county. And so what your budget expenditures would coincide with your contract with the county for law enforcement services if I’m correct. Then Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2018 11 I’ll ask my question this way. In the 2019 budget are there any additional resources, funds for training, technology, tools or additional personnel that would help those law enforcement agencies in crisis or in mental health engagements? Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so I think what your question is, does the contract price that the City engages with Carver County include any of those things that you mentioned. Don Amorosi: Incremental. Mayor Laufenburger: Incremental, okay. Mr. Sticha or Mr. Gerhardt, do you want to speak to that? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. As a part of the contract with Carver County officers are union and so they get to bid on what positions come available so they would bid to come onto work in the city of Chanhassen. This year we got people with less seniority that’s going to be working in Chanhassen so they’re paid less so our contract amount is less. But we still contribute to the overall training of the officers and so that is included into the contract and any increases are all based on the contract that the County would approve through the County Commissioners. Mayor Laufenburger: So Mr. Amorosi let me add to that. So if there are any activities specifically earmarked for training Carver County deputy personnel. The people with whom we contract then they would engage in those activities but we don’t necessarily stipulate what those specific activities are. Those are stipulated by the Carver County Sheriff’s Office. Todd Gerhardt: Through the Carver County Commissioners. Mayor Laufenburger: Right. Don Amorosi: The contract does stipulate that you may stipulate additional training resources if you choose to so I presume that you’ve delegated that to the County’s discretion and have not incorporated any incremental training to support law enforcement and presumably a crisis team or etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Mayor Laufenburger: The contract price that we have negotiated for 2019, you know if you’re referring to a document that already exists that I’m not familiar with, I’ll trust your words that that’s correct. Don Amorosi: I just read it off the 2017, 2018 contract that’s on the internet so. I guess said differently do you feel that the contract that you have provides adequate mental health and crisis services and training through law enforcement for the residents of Chanhassen? Mayor Laufenburger: I would answer that Mr. Amorosi that I believe that our contract with Carver County Sheriff’s Office provides adequate public safety and if it’s necessary for Chanhassen City Council – December 3, 2018 12 additional public safety to be, public safety activities to be included then that will be the subject of the council discretion in 2019. Don Amorosi: Okay that’s a great political answer. Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Any other comment? Don Amorosi: No. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay thank you Mr. Amorosi. Is there anybody else that would like to address the council this evening? There being none I will close the public hearing. Council is there any questions or comments that you’d like to address with Mr. Sticha? Alright that concludes our business for this evening. Thank you to those of you that were in council chambers as well as those of you that were watching at home and I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council special meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated November 20, 2018 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.3. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council receives the Planning Commission minutes dated November 20, 2018.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated November 20, 2018 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated November 20, 2018 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; and Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Pete Moreau 411 Jefferson Avenue So, Edina Brady Busselman 12800 Whitewater, Minnetonka 55434 Ed Farr 7710 Golden Triangle Drive, Eden Prairie PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS (FIRM) AND AMEND FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION ORDINANCE. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: HOLASEK BUSINESS PARK CONSIDER APPROVAL OF REZONING PARCEL, SUBDIVISION, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW. Commissioner Mark Undestad recused himself from this item. Bob Generous and Erick Henricksen presented the staff report. Commissioner Tietz asked for clarification on traffic, fill, water for fire suppression, and wetland mitigation. Chairman Aller asked about concerns with the bluff. Commissioner Madsen asked about concerns with the pipeline running through the property. Ed Farr with Edward Farr Architects, spoke on behalf of Eden Trace Corporation and outlined their proposal. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 2 Tietz moved, Madsen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A-2, to Industrial Office Park, IOP; Preliminary Plat approval creating three lots and one outlot with access via a private street; a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill wetlands on site; and Site Plan approval for three office industrial buildings for a total of 449,350 square feet, plans prepared by Sambatek, dated 11-02-2018, and Edward Farr Architects, dated 10-19-2018, subject to the following conditions: SUBDIVISION Engineering All ingress/egress locations, including the right-in/right-out access located at the northwestern portion of the property, and subsequent impacts of trip generation by the development, shall be designed to Carver County standards and shall meet all Carver County’s requirements. Any requirements set by Carver County to improve the intersection shall be addressed by the applicant (if necessary). The applicant shall dedicate the 40’ x 120’ drainage and utility easement at the northwest corner of Lot 1 on the preliminary and final plat prior to recording. An executed agreement between the developer and Magellan Pipeline Company allowing construction over Magellan Pipeline Company’s easement shall be provided to the city prior to the issuance of grading permits. The preliminary and final plat shall not include the 5’ drainage and utility easements located at the south side of Lot 2, and the north side of Lot 3, prior to acceptance and recording. All retaining walls exceeding 4’ in height shall have plans and details prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect prior to issuance of building permits. At the time of building permit submittal, connection methodology to the existing stubs (sanitary sewer and water services), material type, and location of service valves and other appurtenances shall be identified for review. Prior to construction of the water and sanitary utilities within the development, all required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required. An O&M plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 3 Improvements to the existing manhole where the effluent will be received via the lift station. Parks Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected for the three proposed lots totaling 36.39 acres as a condition of approval for Holasek Business Park. These park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Planning A 40-foot access and maintenance easement shall be recorded over the private streets. The private streets shall be constructed to a nine-ton design with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet and a maximum slope of 10 percent. A street name for the private street at Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard shall be submitted to the Building Official and Fire Marshall for review and approval prior to recording the final plat. Water Resources Coordinator Stormwater Development Charges. Estimated stormwater development fees in the amount of $770,012.40 (36.39 acres x $21,160) shall be paid prior to recording the final plat. Financial Assurance. To guarantee compliance with the plan and related remedial work, a cash escrow or letter of credit, satisfactory to the city, shall be furnished to the city before a building permit is issued. The escrow amount shall be $7,500.00 per acre. The city may use the escrow or draw upon the letter of credit to reimburse the city for any labor or material costs it incurs in securing compliance with the plan or in implementing the plan. If the city draws on the escrowed funds, no additional building permits shall be issued until the pre-draw escrow balance has been restored. The city shall endeavor to give notice to the owner or developer before proceeding, but such notice shall not be required in an emergency as determined by the city. The assurance shall be maintained until final stabilization and removal of erosion and sediment controls. Drainage and utility easements will be required over all remaining wetlands and public stormwater utilities. This includes the western boundary of the project as well as the southwest corner of the parcel which should have a sufficient easement for the main drainage pipe for this area (required in conjunction with final plat). Private stormwater easements will be required over all private stormwater facilities using the city’s template (required in conjunction with final plat). Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 4 The Holasek Business Park construction plans show areas of grading over the main stormwater pipe that runs north to south along the western property boundary. Construction on this pipe may be planned for the next couple of years. Please coordinate earthwork in this area with the city and Carver County Public Works Department. The plans show significant grading in the south outlot. Sec. 19-145 of City Code does not allow unbroken slopes greater than 30’ and slopes steeper than 3:1. Additionally, the proposed grading would trigger bluff regulations Sec. 20-1401 and Sec. 20-1405. Staff recommends removing the stockpile from the proposed plans. If the stockpile cannot be removed it will need to be reduced to slope less than 20’, 3:1 max. It must meet all other regulatory requirements for wetland hydrology, erosion and sediment control, and surface water management. Erosion and sediment control must meet the requirements of Sec. 19-145 including a dewatering plan. Erosion and Sediment Control Practices including temporary sedimentation basins, silt fence, the construction entrance, and ESC BMPs are shown in the legend on sheet C5.02, but not on the plans. Indicate the location of these practices on the Erosion Control Plan sheet. EOFs should be stabilized with TRM or similar. Include chosen stabilization measures in the construction plans. Temporary Sediment Ponds. The proposed stormwater ponds will need to be utilized as temporary sediment ponds during construction. A faircloth skimmer will need to be installed, and the outlets of the pond will need to be sealed off for the duration of construction until the site is stabilized. Skimming devices should be designed to remove oils and floatable materials up to a one-year frequency event. The skimmer should be set 12 inches below the normal surface water elevation and should control the discharge velocity to 0.5 fps. Incorporate these notes and details into the construction plans. Topsoil Management a. Subsoil Decompaction. Please add a note about subsoil decompaction to the topsoil section on sheet L1.03. Subsoil must be decompacted to a depth of six inches in all pervious areas, prior to placement of six inches of topsoil. Contractor must identify the method used to decompact six inches of subsoil prior to placing topsoil. b. Topsoil Depth. Note 5 under Turf Establishment on sheet L1.03 reads that a minimum of four inches of topsoil is required. CCWMO Standards require that six inches of topsoil be replaced in all disturbed pervious areas. Update this note to reflect the six inch requirement. c. Stockpiles. Please indicate the quantity of topsoil needed to restore six inches in all pervious areas of the development. Show location(s) where existing topsoil is to be stockpiled on the site. Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 5 d. Soil Hauling. Describe topsoil hauling plans, including locations and estimated quantities. Note that if topsoil is exported or imported to the site, an additional permit may be required. e. Vegetative Cover. Note 5 under Turf Establishment on sheet L1.03 refers to a healthy stand of vegetation in all disturbed pervious areas of the development. Please note that 90% of the expected vegetative density is required. Stormwater Management Sec. 19-142. Plans required. All plans shall be reviewed and stamped “Approved by the City Engineer” and all applicable permits must be obtained prior to commencing construction. For all newly constructed stormwater facilities (ponds, retention areas, infiltration basins, storm sewer, etc.) or existing facilities that are modified, as-built plans shall be prepared by the developer. As- built plans shall be signed and certified by a licensed professional engineer in the State of Minnesota and record drawings shall be provided to the city. Standard details for many typical storm structures (e.g., storm sewer, outlet structures, catch basins, sump manholes, etc.) are available on the city's website. Sec. 19-144. Major facility design elements. a. For basins intended to have permanent water levels, a minimum of four feet of standing water (dead storage depth) and a maximum of ten feet shall be provided. b. Separation between the inlet(s) and outlet shall be maximized to prevent short- circuiting. c. Outlets shall be evaluated for the need to dissipate energy so as to reduce velocities to permissible levels as allowed by the soil and vegetation. At a minimum, flared-end sections should be provided with riprap consistent with Minnesota Department of Transportation standards. For areas with high flows or where excessive erosion occurs or is anticipated, energy dissipation per Federal Highway Administration standards shall be followed. d. Riprap shall be provided below the channel grade and above the outfall or channel bottom to ensure that riprap will not be undermined by scour or rendered ineffective by displacement. Riprap consisting of natural angular stone suitably graded by weight shall be designed for anticipated velocities. Riprap shall be placed over a suitable filter material or filter fabric to ensure that soil particles do not move through the riprap and reduce its stability. BMP Details. Include the following BMP details in the construction plans: a. BMP Cross Sections. Include site-specific elevations on the Bioretention Bench and Bioretention Trench details on sheet C4.02. Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 6 b. OCS Details. Include Outlet Control Structure Details (attached) for the stormwater BMPs with specific elevations for inlets, outlets, and draintile (when applicable). c. BMP Profiles. Include profiles of the stormwater BMPs with draintile (Pond B Filtration Bench and Filtration Trench) showing draintile slope. Please note that all draintile must have a positive drainage slope of at least 0.5%. Include site-specific invert elevations for assistance with field construction. d. EOF elevations. EOF elevations should be set to at least 0.5 ft. above the HWL to allow for construction tolerance. Include cross-sections of the EOFs in the plan set. Impervious Acreage. The area (ac) of proposed new impervious is inconsistent between the application (25.10), stormwater report (27.5), project narrative (25.08), plan sheet C5.03 (28.4), and HydroCAD model (25.34). Clarify the correct area of new impervious and update components of the submittal to match. Elevation-Storage Tables. Include the Filtration Bench bottom (should be 928.5) in the elevation- storage table in the HydroCAD report so that the treatment volumes can be determined for the ponds, bench, and re-use system. Filtration Trench. The filtration trench design is not compliant in the current design. a. Contributing Area. The filtration trench appears to receive runoff from pervious areas only. Stormwater BMPs should capture and treat runoff from impervious areas on the site. b. Tree Roots. The filtration trench is proposed in an area that is wooded on the landscape plan. Trees may be planted on the side-slopes or adjacent to the trench but are not allowed in the trench bottom. Tree roots may impact the draintile and prevent proper drainage. c. Model and Plan Details. The filtration trench is not included in the HydroCAD model and the construction plans do not show details (bottom, NWL, HWL, OCS, EOF) for this BMP. Please include the details listed in Comment #2 above and include information for this practice in the construction plans and HydroCAD model. Operation & Maintenance Plan (O&M). Provide a draft O&M plan outlining the responsibilities for inspecting and maintaining the stormwater BMPs on site. The O&M plan must be signed by all responsible parties. Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 7 a. Reuse Maintenance Plan. Provide a draft Reuse Maintenance Plan as part of the overall O&M plan. Please include all details outlined in the corresponding section on the Stormwater Reuse Design Guidance document. Reuse Plan Sheet. Please add the following information to the stormwater reuse plan: a. Location of the following reuse system components: irrigation lines, irrigation zones, sprinkler heads, pumps, intakes from ponds, and usage meters. If applicable, include the locations of the potable connection, backflow prevention devices, filters, and debris collection sumps. b. Narrative describing operation of the systems. If the irrigated areas will be actively used during daytime hours, the irrigation needs to be scheduled for times when the areas will not be in use. c. Location of access for reuse system maintenance. d. Drawdown elevations of the reuse ponds. e. Volume reduction and/or water quality calculations. f. Other information relevant to the reuse systems. SWPPP. A copy of the SWPPP including soils/infiltration data within the perimeter of all infiltration/filtration devices is required prior to review for final plat. The SWPPP must also meet all requirements of City Code 19-145. Basin. There is a bioretention basin south of Lyman Boulevard in the road construction plans. Please show this basin on the construction plans for Holasek Business Park and demonstrate that the road project plans don’t interfere with this project. Chloride Management Plan. A chloride management plan is required. Applicant will need to respond to the comments received by Twin Cities & Western (Wednesday, October 24, 2018 6:39 AM): “In response to this proposal Twin Cities & Western offers the following comment: Twin Cities & Western has concerns of stormwater and general runoff impacts with this land being developed making it non-pervious. What will happen to the stormwater runoff and will the increased runoff adversely impact the railroad roadbed?” SITE PLAN Engineering Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 8 Must comply with the conditions of the Holasek Business Park conditions of approval for the subdivision. Environmental Resources The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to increase quantities to meet minimum ordinance requirements for parking lot trees. Additional tree species will need to be added rather than increasing quantities of existing selection. The applicant should consider limiting the number of lindens called for in the plant schedule and avoid planting elms and lindens in groupings. The applicant should designate snow removal/storage areas on each lot that do not conflict with proposed landscaping. All parking lot islands and peninsulas that contain a tree planting must have an inside width of 10 feet. They also will be required to have proper planting soil as specified in the Planting Notes. Parking lot islands located in the pipeline easement shall be planted with small shrubs or perennial plantings, if allowed. Planning The applicant shall enter into separate site plan agreements with the city for each lot and building and provide the necessary security to guarantee grading and erosion control, site restoration, stormwater and landscaping. Pedestrian ramps shall be added at each curb at the driveway entrance to Building A and included on the site plan sheet C3.01. Community features including benches, bike racks and picnic tables shall be incorporated in the site. Due to the wetland in the southwest corner of the site, Building C on Lot 3 may need to be shifted east or reduced in size, the drive aisle, parking and loading areas may need to be shifted to the east and north. Water Resources Coordinator Must comply with the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit. Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 9 WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT a. Sec. 20-409. Decisions under this article must not be made until after receiving the determination of the technical evaluation panel regarding wetland public values, location, size, and/or type if the city council, the landowner, or a member of the technical evaluation panel asks for such determinations. b. Any projects seeking a wetland alteration permit subject to this article will also be required to submit the following incomplete requirements: Existing and proposed drainage areas to wetlands; Buffer strip plan meeting the criteria of subsections 20-411(c) and (d) c. Sec. 20-416. Mitigation. Wetland mitigation shall be undertaken on-site. If this is not feasible, then mitigation may occur locally within the subwatershed. If this is not possible, then mitigation may occur outside the subwatershed, elsewhere in the city. If mitigation cannot be accomplished on-site, or if the city deems it necessary to perform mitigation off- site, then the applicant shall be responsible for providing off-site mitigation within the major subwatershed, as designated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, or purchasing wetland credits from the state wetland bank. Staff believes mitigation can occur on site by expanding the wetlands in the south outlot. d. Stormwater runoff shall not be discharged into wetlands without water quality pretreatment as prescribed by this Code. e. If a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing wetland alteration, the following standards shall be followed: (1) The alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland; (2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation; (3) It shall not adversely change water flow; (4) The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action; (5) The disposal of any excess material is prohibited within remaining wetland areas; (6) The disposal of any excess material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures; (7) Alterations to any wetland area are prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning; (8) Alterations to wetland areas shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of wetland area and/or function and value of the wetland. f. The alteration shall not alter the hydrological patterns in the remainder of the wetland, if a portion of the wetland remains, unless exempted under Sec. 20-417. Please show how hydrologic patterns will not be altered for the remaining wetlands. g. Sec. 20-405. Wetland delineation. An electronic copy of the delineated wetland boundaries must be submitted in a format compatible with the city's GIS database. h. Sec. 20-406. Wetland classification. All wetlands delineated under Sec. 20-405 of this article that have not been previously classified shall be classified using the results from the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions (MnRAM Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 10 Version 3.0), or future versions. A MnRAM shall be completed by the property owner or applicant for each previously unclassified wetland. An electronic version of the MnRAM evaluation must be submitted to and approved by the city to establish the classification of each wetland prior to any alteration or impact to the wetland. i. An approved Notice of Decision (NOD) for Boundary and Type is required for a complete application, however, the applicant has been very involved, communicative, responsive, and fully participatory in the application process. Staff will accept the application in process as the TEP has met prior to deadline for completion. The NOD will be issued by November 27, 2018. j. Staff review will be conditional upon an approved NOD for Boundary and Type. k. Based on the submission the site will require at least one additional Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Application. A grading permit cannot be issued until the applicant has completed the WCA process. l. Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers and buffer monumentation will be required adjacent to the wetlands on-site. Please indicate wetland buffers widths and locations where signage will be placed on a plan sheet. Please find additional information on signage placement in the guidance document attached. The WMO provides signs and sign posts for the cost of materials. Alternative signs (by the city or applicant) are also acceptable provided they contain similar information. Due to the wetland in the southwest corner of the site, Building C on Lot 3 may need to be shifted east or reduced in size, the drive aisle, parking and loading areas may need to be shifted to the east and north. m. Sec. 19-146. Wetland elements. 1) Water level fluctuations (peak elevation and duration) for wetlands shall be limited to two feet and duration not to exceed 48 hours so as to prevent the destruction of wildlife habitat and wetland vegetation. 2) Sedimentation basins or sediment removal devices shall be provided prior to discharge into wetlands. 3) Variable bottom contours should be considered to provide deeper holes and flat shallow benches. This feature will provide habitat for diversity of plants and wetland inhabitants for wetland mitigation sites and stormwater basins. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 2, 2018 and the summary Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 11 Minutes of the Planning Commission Work Session meeting dated October 16, 2018 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson discussed items from the City Council meetings dated October 8, 2018, October 22, 2018 and November 13, 2018 before discussing future Planning Commission agenda items. Commissioner Weick moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; and Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Pete Moreau 411 Jefferson Avenue So, Edina Brady Busselman 12800 Whitewater, Minnetonka 55434 Ed Farr 7710 Golden Triangle Drive, Eden Prairie PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS (FIRM) AND AMEND FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION ORDINANCE. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman. This is a continuation of the work session that we had back in October 16th just to talking about why the City is going through this process. Is that more helpful? There we go. So this is a public hearing and then this item will be followed up to the City Council on December 10th. We are in a short timeline to adopt to make sure that we meet the guidelines for staying within the requirements of the flood mapping. So again why are we doing this? Carver County is updating the FEMA maps. The City update and their floodplain ordinance have to be adopted by December 21st so this will go to the City Council on the 10th and then we have publication requirements and then there’ll be, we want to stay in the floodplain mapping. So the issues are now that there’s better data which means some properties that were not previously shown in the floodplain are now in and some properties that were previously shown in the floodplain are now out. So there’s a known mapping error on Bluff Creek and then the existing floodplain ordinance does not sync well up with the model ordinance so those are some of the ongoing issues which you are not the body to resolve that. Your authority then here tonight is to adopt the ordinance itself. So the federal regulated and/or insurance lenders must requite floodplain insurance for those properties in the flood areas and any portion of the house or attached deck or the structure is required so that’s, while your house may not be in there, we get this request from mortgage holders all the time. If part of their property’s in the floodplain but the way this requires is if any structure which would be a deck attached to the house or the like would be a part of that. So the new map versus the old map. So our flood maps go back to Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 2 the 70’s so we’ve got much better data so the new maps based on better data reflect the changes in the water behavior due to changing weather patterns and development. And the new flood maps more accurately depict the actual location of the floodplain area and then some houses have been added or removed from the area itself. So again we know there’s an issue on the Bluff Creek. These new maps show that the flood area and the elevations do not correspond to the creek’s base flood elevation. These residents may receive letters from their mortgage holder and then they would have to go through the process with their mortgage holder to resolve it again. That’s not your issue to resolve. Your role here tonight and that is to adopt the ordinance for the new floodplain. Again homeowners can appeal through that determination. So many banks use outside firms to determine flood insurance requirements and they have 45 days if they’re outside of the area. If homeowners believe they were incorrectly included they can get their LOMA or either shown as using the GIS or some other data points to work through those surveys. Again that’s the responsibility of the property owner. The City would be willing to help if we’ve got technical information here such as our GIS information where we can help them with some data points that they can provide to their mortgage holder but otherwise it’s up to the bank to determine that. And just so you know we went the extra, and we mailed to 16 properties that we believe are mistakenly in the area so that’s up to them again to work with their mortgage holder on that. Aller: Just to break in. The City has no responsibility with regard to that? That was something that you did that was above and beyond? Aanenson: That’s correct, yep. So there was about 130 properties that we identified using the engineering department’s GIS specialist and then of those we kind of narrowed it down to the 16 affected properties. Some are in, some are out so we let them know and then they can work with their, those letters haven’t gone out. Once we adopt it they’ll be getting those letters but then they can work with that. Again we’re here to assess with some technical information but they would have to work on that their own. So in adopting, yes. Tietz: Just to follow up on Andrew’s question. If they were out, if they are now outside would it affect their insurance? Aanenson: They may be able to drop it. Tietz: So they have to notify their banker as well? Aanenson: Yes, that’s correct. Tietz: Not just the folks that… Aanenson: And I’m not sure the mortgage holder may not notify them so if they get notified then they could work through that themselves. If the mortgage holder doesn’t. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 3 Tietz: It goes both ways. Aanenson: Correct, right. Yeah. So again the goal here is to adopt the new language. So there’s some terminology that we’ve added so there’s 2 sections of the city code. One is in definition so that’s Chapter 1 and that’s the model ordinance that we’ve attached so that would providing better definitions. And then Chapter 20 where we have the floodplain ordinance. We have an ordinance in place already when we review housing. It has to be so many feet above the lowest level. Opening has to be so many feet above the ordinary high water mark so this is clarifying some of those terminologies. So in adopting the ordinance we’ve met their qualifications. We did attach the most recent letter we got. We had the DNR review our draft ordinance. They just had a couple of recommended changes which we have made to the ordinance so our ordinance is in compliance. Again we’re kind of on this short timeline here so our ordinance does meet the requirements of the DNR so then the goal then would be after you hold the public hearing that we would send this onto the City Council for their recommended approval of the ordinance itself and then we would have it sent up to DNR. We’d have to officially publish the ordinance and then send it up to them. Again so the original 1979 ordinance is similar structure to this model ordinance but then we’re just modifying some of the terminology and incorporating into the city code and then we are recommending that the City adopt the modified version of the DNR. Again they give a model ordinance. We pick those things that are most appropriate for Chanhassen. Some of the terminology will be modified to make it consistent with the terminology that we use and then we did receive the conditional approval from the DNR as I mentioned. So again the key changes are the critical facilities. Again these are recommendations from ’79 to the current recommendations from the DNR. Critical facilities and just for the Planning Commission’s information before I read all these, this is also for anybody that’s watching this that may want to know kind of what this, how this affects them. So critical facilities. There are special provisions have been adopted regulating the placement of utilities in the floodplain. Sometimes that we’ve got lift stations that are close in proximity. Those sort of things. Again regulatory flood protection elevation increased from 2 feet. As I mentioned before we’ve used 2 feet. Not to say now 3 feet above the ordinary water mark. And then new performance standards for permitted and conditional uses. We have a process to go through conditional uses. We’ve actually processed subdivisions where they can ask for clarification or modification if they believe that the floodplain is in error or modify just portions of that. So there’s a process then for determining flood way, flood fringe and general floodplain which we have done on specific subdivisions and stricter provisions of regulating non-conforming uses within the floodplain. So if you recall when we did the 212 or the 61 corridor study there are some structures along that that are in the floodplain and so we’ve addressed those as we move forward with those non-conforming structures. We believe that when those properties are redeveloped that those will change. So with that I would recommend that you would hold a public hearing and then we are recommending that you adopt the ordinance as we have outlined in the staff report and with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 4 Aller: Okay I’m remembering that we had the work session October 16th and the materials which are well presented, are there any questions for staff at this time? Weick: I have one. Aller: Sure, Commissioner Weick. Weick: You mentioned before that a homeowner can appeal, who do they appeal to? It’s not to the City is it? Aanenson: No, it’s through their mortgage. Weick: That’s what I thought, okay. Aanenson: Yep. Weick: I just wanted to clarify that. And then also I think it’s just a typo right. An f-r-i-m is the same as an F-i-r-m in the report. Aanenson: Yes, yes. Weick: Because it kind of varies. Aanenson: Yes, yes. Weick: Okay. Just wanted to put that on the record. Aanenson: Thank you yeah. So along that same point so we, there were 6 that we thought possibly added 6 homes that were property that were added and then again like I said 10 that were possibly could be removed but that’s up to them. Again this gives them the opportunity to go through that federal program so a better rate for flood insurance. Aller: So it sounds like anybody that has flood insurance this is a good time to reassess. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: Take a look at it. Alright hearing no other questions I’ll open the public hearing on the item. Any individual wishing to come forward and speak either for or against this item may do so at this time. For those of you at home please remember that all these materials will be forwarded onto the City Council for final action on December 10, 2018. That’s your opportunity to look at these and any other materials that are presented to the City Council. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing and open it up for commission discussion, comment or I’ll request a motion. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 5 Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Alright. Undestad: I make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: Having a valid motion and second before us, do we have any further discussion? Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: HOLASEK BUSINESS PARK CONSIDER APPROVAL OF REZONING PARCEL, SUBDIVISION, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW. Mark Undestad recused himself from this item. Generous: Thank you Chairman, commissioners. Holasek Business Park, Planning Case 2018- 18. There’s 4 parts to this request. There’s a rezoning, a subdivision request, a wetland alteration and a site plan review. The applicant is Eden Trace Corporation. I should note that Mark Undestad has left the council chambers. Recused himself from this discussion. Property owners is Holasek Farms Limited Partners. This is the public hearing. This is also scheduled to go to City Council on December 12th. Or 10th. The property is located at 8610 Galpin Boulevard. It’s on the south side of Lyman Boulevard at the intersection with Galpin Boulevard. The property will be accessing off of Lyman which is a county road. Again the request is a rezoning from Agricultural Estate District A2 to Industrial Office Park District, IOP. A subdivision review to create 3 lots and one outlot. A wetland alteration permit to fill wetlands on the site and impact additional wetlands, and site plan review of a total of 449,350 square feet in 3 office industrial buildings so this will be a little industrial park. Office warehouse space primarily. The property is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for office industrial uses. The rezoning is to industrial office park and that development, the proposed development complies with all the requirements of the IOP. Office manufacturing, light manufacturing and warehouse uses are permitted in the IOP district. The Comprehensive Plan specifies, and it was just the last sentence of this that office industrial uses are facilitated by the IOP industrial office park and PUD planned unit development zoning districts. Because this property complies with all the standards of the IOP district and they’re not looking for any relief from the standards, that’s Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 6 more appropriate zoning to go forward with and so staff is recommending approval of the rezoning to IOP. The second part of this application is for the wetland alteration permit. I’ve highlighted on the map in front of you, or the schematic in front of you where the wetlands that will be impacted are. There’s 5 of them that are shown. Four of them will be filled and the one along the south and west side will be, may be impacted and so we’re working with them. As part of this review they have to, oh did I skip the subdivision? Yeah. I’ll have to go back. As part of the development they’re filling these sites. The first one is impacted immediately with the access road that’s coming in. This, both access roads will be private streets and so there’ll be no public improvements as part of this subdivision. The second, the two middle ones will be impacted through the placement of the buildings and parking lot. It’s also between the Building C and Building B there’s a gas easement that runs down the middle of that parking lot area. And then finally the third one, there’s a small wetland in the ball pit site and the fill site that will be filled as part of the development. We’re looking at working with them. We just received a report on the type of wetland this is. They’re still proceeding through the Wetland Conservation Act process which is the Army Corp of Engineers is involved with that and they don’t anticipate to have a final determination until the November 27th so that will be one thing that delays any development on the site that that be finalized. Sorry, excuse me. The subdivision of this property is, oh staff is recommending approval of the wetland alteration permit subject to the conditions in the staff report for the wetland alteration permit. Primarily that they meet all the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act and receive all those approvals. The subdivision creates 3 building lots. One for each of the buildings and an outlot which will contain stormwater ponds and it’s an excess material site. They’re going to be storing material in it. All the lots exceed the minimum requirements of the IOP district by substantially. And again they will be accessed via private streets at the intersection of Galpin and on the very westerly portion of the site. As part of the subdivision we’re requesting that they provide additional drainage and utility easements up in the northwest corner of the property and that they work in conjunction with Carver County to resolve some drainage concerns and issues that the Carver County has in conjunction with the Lyman Boulevard project. Additionally we currently show a drainage and utility easement between Lots 2 and 3 and this runs over the center of the Magellan Pipeline easement and so we want to have that removed. And finally as part of the subdivision we would request have the developer dedicate additional drainage and utility easements over any wetlands and that are remaining on site in the stormwater system. Staff is recommending approval of the plat for the Holasek Business Park. So and finally we can go to the site plan. It’s for site plan consists of 3 buildings. Building A and C are pretty much mirrors of each other. Their Building A is shown as 179,000 square feet. This includes a second story mezzanine of approximately 18,000 square feet. If the person, the tenant who comes in does not want that, or does not use that then they will shift that square footage down to Building C and that will be approximately 179,000 so those, each of those buildings can shift between 160,000 and 179,000 square feet in area depending on the final usage. Building B is slightly smaller. It’s 109,000 square feet. They are all, again they will have the same architectural detailing. On each corner of the building, on the front corners of the buildings they have these highly articulated entrance areas. The two levels of the vision windows. Canopies over the entrance as well as tenant space. They’re highlighted by a column to the left of the entrance as you’re going in and then they recess it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 7 Additionally in the middle of the building they have located for each of the buildings two additional tenant space entrances and they’ve articulated again with the columns and the canopy above the entrance area as well as two levels of windows. The window system is unique in that the upper panes are spandrel windows and the bottom panes will all be vision glass windows so. And this architectural and detailing continues in each of the buildings. Building materials. It doesn’t show up as well. Just go out a little bit. But the two primary, it’s tilt up pre-cast concrete materials. The primary colors are red and a buff color which is a tan in color. They have coping that is dark bronze. Dark brown in color. Champagne colored window framing and then they have dark window panes. Again this will provide a lot of architectural interest and articulation in the front of each of these buildings and break up the large expanse of these walls because they are very long buildings. Again the building is, will be designed to be multi-tenant areas and so they’ll be able to snap in additional walls on the interior. The bottom it’s a little hard to see but they, every 53 feet or so they have a break in the building materials. Around all the windows areas they used the red. Exposed aggregate tilt up pre-cast and in the other areas of the building they have the buff and then again adjacent to the entrance areas they have the smooth, I don’t remember what we called it. Pre-cast without. An etched finish. Again Building B is a little smaller in size. It’s 109,000 square feet so it’s about 70,000 square feet less. Little shallower and it picks up, it shows that on the end of each of these buildings they have the highly articulated entrance areas with the vision glass and the canopies. And now I’ll turn it over to our engineering staff to discuss. Henricksen: Thanks Bob. Yep traffic. So Vernon Swing a professional engineer with Traffic Solutions conducted a trip generation analysis as requested by the City. From the proposed site usage trip generations were estimated using the methodology of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, traffic, trip generation workbook the 10th Edition. As you can see from the table the key numbers to take away are the 185 a.m. peak hour trips and the 195 p.m. peak hour trips. This is what would be generated during those peak hours and then the daily trips of 1,649 trips. Additionally this report or the memo that was supplied to the City concluded that Lyman Boulevard is operating at 40 percent capacity and after the development Lyman Boulevard would be operating at 45 percent capacity. These are using current year numbers as well. The City in concert with MnDOT Access Management Manual guidelines does not find a need for a full traffic impact study. This is because those recommendations are for any development that would propose an impact of fewer than 250 a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips and fewer than 2,500 daily trips does not warrant a full traffic impact study. Based on these findings engineering doesn’t anticipate any extraordinary transportation impacts associated with the development and didn’t propose any conditions. However access is being had off Lyman Boulevard which is a Carver County jurisdictional road. Therefore any conditions and all conditions shall be met by the applicant prior to any construction. The applicant has been informed by city staff that coordination with the county is mandatory along with the improvements that will be happening with Lyman Boulevard. We can go onto grading. Aanenson: Yeah I was just going to just add too. The County is considering the upgrade to Lyman Boulevard so this project is in conjunction with that so if there’s additional right-of-way Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 8 that would be required or the like they would be working with this property on that. I think one of the other things that they were potentially considering is a right-in/right-out on this side of the property so that’d be something again they’d have to coordinate with Carver County to make sure that it meets their requirements. Henricksen: Correct. Aanenson: I was just going to bring up one other point really quick. We kind of glossed over it kind of at the beginning of the whole project. Kind of the sitting of where this property is. So this was the Holasek Greenhouse. If anybody remembers the greenhouses were here and they had the growing fields in the back. There was actually some houses on the property at the time so if you look at where it’s sitting. When Galpin Boulevard was built access was provided to that property so this, since Holasek’s have closed the greenhouse and removed those structures, they’ve been working on trying to find a suitable users and it’s been challenging a little bit. You’ve got the railroad to the south. As we talked about there’s some significant wetlands so it would take some, to maximize the property or to make it work and to make a successful project you’d have to kind of maximize that so you’ve got the storage units over here in Chaska. So it is surrounded. It’s also got an industrial park to the north. Again some of those buildings would look somewhat similar. Probably more the Waytek building up here and I know Bob’s going to talk a little bit about a retaining wall in there so these buildings aren’t out of character. If you look at the last one we did, probably Federal Packaging was probably the last largest one. That was probably 140. That’s just on the other side of Powers Boulevard. Otherwise the last ones we probably did of this scale, I was trying to think. There was about 2 or 3 of them that were of this size but it’s been a little while since we’ve seen some industrial so there’s definitely some pent up demand. We’ve had some other users try to lay something out on this property but we know there’s users looking and I believe he’s got some users to final plat that but I just wanted to remind everybody kind of how we got to this point and it’s been worked on for a couple years so we’re excited to see a project that can come forward on this so. Past the traffic. Grading, back to that. Henricksen: Alright thanks. From the proposed grading plan, stormwater or drainage will be routed away from all the buildings and routed to a stormwater conveyance system where then it will be conveyed over to the 2 wet ponds that are located at the east outlot and then will go through the stormwater, which are to act as stormwater treatment facilities. Due to substantially lower grades from Lyman Boulevard and the proposed development and the proposed grading plans, as you can see on the north side these are, in red are the retaining walls that are to be constructed so due to that substantial grade change and on the southwest corner there’s also some substantial grade changes. Those retaining walls are proposed to be over 4 feet in height. Any retaining wall over 4 feet has to be constructed and plans submitted by a professional engineer or landscape architect for review by the City prior to construction. The plan also if you look to the south and the south outlot where that tiny little wetland is, the plan shows significant grading and fill in this outlot. As proposed the grading plan and stockpile area would create a bluff by definition by city code and all bluff regulations would therefore be enacted. Staff does Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 9 recommend the removal of the stockpile area or if it cannot be removed limiting the height to 20 feet and a slope less than 3 to 1. Currently it is over 30 feet and has a slope greater than 3 to 1 which makes it a bluff. Also about that stockpile area it must meet all other regulatory requirements for wetland hydrology. Erosion and sediment control. Surface water management. We have had correspondences with the applicant and they have informed us that this is something they’re taking into the design of their construction plans to reduce it based on our recommendations. We can move onto utilities. Aanenson: Can I just add one other thing? I just want to point out this retaining wall…different when we looked at the Avienda project we had a significant retaining wall on the north side of Avienda. I also want to remind there is residential homes over on this side and I know when the Waytek building came in that was a concern so the grade change is putting the buildings lower so the buildings are 38 feet tall and so you’re, with the grade change you’re looking not at the whole building when you’re in that residential area so it’s a benefit that you’re not seeing. It’s similar again to when we looked at that office building on the north side of, office buildings on the north side of Avienda that they’re actually recessed. You’re looking at not the whole 38 feet of significantly. Weick: Similar to the view across. Aanenson: Yep exactly. Yep, yep. That Waytek building, yep so those are also recessed so it’s not as severe so I think that’s a positive thing and with the landscaping so that is a large retaining wall. I know Erik mentioned over 4 feet has to be engineered but I believe it’s closer to 12 feet. Henricksen: I think at the highest point on the northern section it’s about 900 feet long and it’s 12 ½ feet at the tallest. Aanenson: So it takes the bottom part of that building which is a positive thing, especially for those residential areas. Henricksen: Looking at their site utilities on their site plans, the blue indicates the private watermain utility that would be installed and the red indicates the private sanitary sewer service. A 10 inch ductile iron pipe water service and an 8 inch PVC sanitary sewer service are currently stubbed to the property. Those stubs are located within the 50 foot wide access to the northeast corner just at the intersection of Galpin and Lyman Boulevard. The applicant has proposed connecting to the 10 inch water service. They’re going to be creating a looped system to service all 3 of the proposed buildings. Material type on the utility plan was not given. Engineering has recommended the use of what is typically our standard which is the PVC C900 material type for that installation. For the water installation all applicable permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies would have to be gained before construction could begin of the private water utility. While an 8 inch PVC sanitary service is stubbed to the site the applicant is proposing to discharge their sewer effluent to the neighboring city of Chaska. Currently at this time that approach is not approved. The applicant may be required to submit plans that utilize the Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 10 discharge to the existing sanitary sewer stub and because and based on the topographic conditions and the proposed grading plans this would require a lift station. A private lift station with a maintainable forcemain. This is something that public works would want to have an operation and maintenance plan on due to things that can happen with lift stations so we’d want to just ensure that it’s being maintained and properly operated. However the applicant can continue to pursue a connection with Chaska. That is something that both Chaska and Chanhassen would have to have formal approval of. This is something the applicant could, they’d have to facilitate a meeting to discuss some of the concerns that Chaska may have with their capacity. How sewer billing would work and any other additional analysis that either Chaska or Chanhassen would want to see for that connection. I did actually just get a meeting request for that meeting so I think they’re continually trying to spearhead that approach to discharge up their sanitary sewer effluent. Generous: And then finally the landscaping plan for the development. Based on our natural resource review they are deficit in, deficient in their parking lot landscaping. They have been working with city staff on coming up with a revision for that and they will, their intention is to provide a revised plan in time to go, to bring it to City Council. I should point out that up in the northwest, northeast corner of that site they have, they’re providing extensive landscaping to help buffer the residential neighbor to the northeast so eventually they probably won’t even be able to see these buildings because of all the trees. And because of it’s location the loading docks are sandwiched between the buildings and to the south of the building and they’re going to have landscaping on the east side so those areas will not be visible to the public. Good layout and design for providing those truck dock areas. And then with that staff is recommending approval of the rezoning, the preliminary plat, the wetland alteration permit and the site plan approval for the 3 buildings subject to the conditions within the staff report and we broke them down by type of development. The zoning doesn’t have any conditions but it will be contingent on final plat approval because the legal description would be Holasek Business Park Addition so. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Does anyone have any questions of staff at this time? Commissioner Randall. Randall: Were there any other issues with the City of Chaska being a bordering property like that? Did they have, or is the County pretty much taking care of that? Henricksen: There is some discussion about the storm water that’s going to come off Lyman from the project where they’re going to need to coordinate with Chaska and Carver County in conjunction. There’s going to be storm water improvements to a storm line that’s just abutting the property on the west portion. Right now we’ve been mainly working with, discussion on the sewer effluent. Randall: Okay thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 11 Bender: To maybe add to that is, they’re talking about you know a possible regional pond between the city of Chaska and Chanhassen and Carver County. Whether that you know gains any steam is yet to be determined. Randall: Okay. Aanenson: I just wanted to clarify. So there’s two moving parts here. One is getting the plat approval and what they need to do and the other is the County’s moving forward with the Lyman project and there’s things that they would like to desire as an opportunity now as this project’s moving forward if that makes sense. Aller: Any other additional questions of staff at this time? Tietz: Chairman, I have a question. Erik I just want to follow up. One question is just for my own education. The increase in traffic you said is probably about 5 percent? Henricksen: Correct. Tietz: I know from experience that where Lyman intersects with 41 that’s an extremely long light when you’re coming out. Obviously that’s two county roads. I suppose the county controls that for the speed and traffic on 41. But it is a difficult intersection to get up and if you start backing up a lot of traffic just a point and a question because I experience that. The other is, in ’95 there was a permit granted for 36,000 cubic yards of fill for Holasek. I assume that that’s creating some problems for the developer because I have no idea where it is and probably they don’t either. Maybe they do, the developer does now but Holasek’s I don’t know what kind of, it wasn’t probably clean fill. I’m just curious what it is, where it’s going and how much of a problem it’s creating for the development. Do we know? Bender: We might be able to let the developer’s engineer help respond to that question. We are still waiting for more information back as far as where soil materials of varying quality are probably going to be ultimately transported to and but that can be a function of which contractor is involved and what their connections are as well so it’s kind of preliminary to find answers to those questions. Tietz: Sure. Bender: Do you want to add anything to that Brady? Brady Busselman: Sure, thanks George. Brady Busselman with Sambatek. Civil engineering consultant. You’re correct that soils are a huge challenge on this site. We’re primarily finding a lot of organic material. Peat that’s not suitable for structural support and that’s why you see the large stockpile at the south end of the site and we appreciate staff’s willingness to work with us on that. We want to continue to work on you know determining the right height and the right Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 12 slopes for that because we want it to be as high as we can to avoid the need to truck a bunch of that material back off site so. Tietz: And some of the non-organic or whatever was used as fill you know back where the greenhouses were, I remember that was. Brady Busselman: Sure. Tietz: When the greenhouses were removed the soil and top looked like there was a lot of stuff in there. Is that going to be maybe the base of the stockpiled area? You’re going to try to use it as just? Brady Busselman: Yeah there is a certain amount of unknown fill there that could be structurally suitable to support buildings so that will have to be sorted through and determined whether it needs to, whether it has too much organic material to be useful or whether it can reused. You know there were a number of test pits dug out here this summer. I think somewhere in the order of 40 so we are, our geotech does have a pretty good idea now what’s going on out there. Tietz: Yeah okay. I’m sure it’s a challenge yeah. And Erik just a couple more. Sorry everybody but the water loop. Do we have adequate pressure for fire suppression and sprinkler system there or will they have to install additional pumps for fire protection? Henricksen: From the fire flow test and from our meeting with our utility superintendent it looked like pressures were going to be adequate for the system that was in place. One of the things that was not included on the utility plan were where the location of the valves were going to be. You know all kind of pertinences that go with the watermain system. Although this is private you know that’s something that we would like to take a look at in the event that at some point for some reason this would get dedicated to the City so as of right now yes. It looks like there’s the adequate pressure is there. Tietz: Adequate pressure, okay. One more for staff maybe on the wetlands. You talked about on site mitigation. Can you explain how we’re going to have on site mitigation with the loss of wetlands? Generous: I know that our Water Resources Coordinator has been discussing it with their engineer. They’re looking possible in that southwest corner of the site to see if there could be any expansion to that wetland area. However now with the Carver County also wanting to do regional ponding down there it may become a moot point so, but they’ll continue as part of the wetland conservation act reviewing this development to see if there’s any place on site that they can create the additional wetlands. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 13 Tietz: So otherwise we’d be faced with like Avienda where they’re having to buy land or buy rights someplace else in, either within, hopefully within the watershed but I think we ended up outside the watershed with Avienda. Aanenson: Yeah well we got some that was on Lyman Boulevard. Actually Pioneer Trail on and so. Tietz: Yeah, oh we did end up with it? Aanenson: Yep, yep so yeah we’re working with the County on a project there too so I think there’s another opportunity to kind of add to that ponding area there so I think we’re trying to partner with the watershed district and the County to upgrade that on Pioneer and replace some of those homes so that’d be an opportunity maybe to buy another home there and increase that. Tietz: Okay thanks. Aller: Well Commissioner Tietz’s question dovetails with mine which was the bluff where we mentioned that you prefer it not to be a bluff but it’s presently a bluff. It’s going to be used for stockpile so what is the impact of stockpiling on top of the bluff? Why is it preferential to remove a bluff that’s already existing? Henricksen: So currently there is no bluff there. That’s from the existing site condition it’s a wetland and I guess you could call it concaved. What you’re seeing on this grading plan, those topo lines they’re really, really close and that’s actually a hill going up so this is actually the creation of a bluff where none existed prior to that. That does, would put additional regulations that we have in our code for bluff setbacks. All that kind of stuff which would impact the design as well, and then also I mean one of the concerns is the wetland that you were discussing as well as you know, is it necessary to fill it there? Again with construction and stockpiling there’s a lot of erosion and sediment control concerns when we have slopes that steep. One of our city code, I think it’s in Section 19 discusses where if you have slopes over 3 to 1 you know you can’t have an unbroken slope so it would have to be terraced so there’s just concerns about having that type of stockpile and then permanent stabilization afterwards as well. Aller: Okay. Any additional questions? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I have a question about the petroleum pipeline and I just am not familiar, I haven’t seen one in a development recently and is it a common practice to put a parking lot over a pipeline? And the other question would be are there any other additional safety precautions during excavation and construction around that pipeline? Generous: The quick answers are yes and yes. From the City’s zoning ordinance we have additional 20 foot building setback from the edge of that easement. They have to get permission from Magellan to do any activity on top of it but parking lots are one of the things that they do Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 14 permit. It’s, they don’t allow other structures. Buildings, things like that. Arbor Glen is an example where the pipeline goes through the development. The private street coming in runs across that. Aanenson: The high school. Generous: And the high school property has it also. So but yes, it’s part of the report. One of the attachments. Magellan provided us with their standards and so we included that in there. So yes they’ll have to coordinate that with them. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Aller: Great. Commissioner Weick. Weick: As is often the case I got more confused and so I apologize. Down in that south corner where we were talking about where they want to stockpile, currently it’s a hill and they just want to make it a bigger hill or? Henricksen: No. Weick: It’s not. Henricksen: No. It’s currently from the existing conditions, topo lines it’s not a hill. It slopes I believe east to west. It’s semi gradual and then in the very center you have the wetland where you have that concave topo line. Weick: Yeah. Henricksen: It’s well surveyed on the existing conditions and when we’re looking at it through this lens it kind of is difficult to see. I can understand that so no currently there is not any type of hill. That would be the stockpile itself. Weick: Okay. And I understand the cost implications for the developer of removing you know, taking the dirt somewhere other than putting it there but say that wasn’t a consideration, would it be, in your opinion would it be an option to make that area a bigger, in other words keep it low and not stockpile at all and make it a bigger wetland? Or a bigger water basin or something. Henricksen: Yeah I believe that could be an option. We don’t have that I found through my research any ordinances or standards that say you can’t create a bluff so I mean is it an option? Yeah, I don’t know. Weick: Okay. Maybe you can help, yeah. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 15 Aanenson: Yeah no, the challenge there is there’s a railroad tracks so you can see the change in grade. Weick: Oh that’s right. Aanenson: Then there’s Lake Hazeltine to the south so if we kind of go back. I think sometimes when we look so close we lose kind of frame of reference. I’m just going to go back. Weick: Yeah please. Aanenson: Yep, oops. I’m going the wrong way. Go back to this one. So if you go back, this is Lake Hazeltine right here. Weick: Right. Aanenson: And then you’ve got the raised bed of the railroad tracks here. So this is kind of where that ends up with that low area there. And then this is the other wetland over here so that’s kind of what, what came into play here is the shoreland regs and the wetland part of that for this area here but you can see now it’s, as Erik was saying, you can see now that it’s the lower area there. Weick: It’s low right, okay. Aanenson: It’s low yep so it’s dropping off from the tracks there, yeah. Weick: Okay. Bender: So to maybe add a little bit more to that. From the perspective of the public you know and finding good spots for regional stormwater which can be a significant challenge, especially you know when you get approach the edges of a jurisdiction, you know the proposal to leave it similar to it’s current functionality and maybe expand it would definitely be something that you know is an option and that’s kind of what Chaska and the Carver County, I’m under the understanding that they still want to have that discussion so. Weick: Okay. Bender: As part of that would probably bring with it you know some sort of give and take which could be a reduction in the stormwater fees. More of a partnership and, in addition to you know I mean the problem is the expense that comes with removal of the dirt and maintaining the viability of the site and you know the shared nature of that for you know I mean because the developer owns the site. Benefits from the site. You know improvements and you know I mean obviously the viability you know financially has to be maintained. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 16 Tietz: But it does seem possible George and Erik that if there’s a way to make that borrow, or become a borrow pit because it’s organic material. Principally organic. If there’s some way of making some transition of that. Re-sculpting that area and working with the County to increase the size of that drainage area might be a possibility. You know it’s such an engineered looking mound right now. It’d be nice to have that you know change a little bit and if it came down a little bit maybe it could come in and come up and we solve a lot of problems that way potentially by, you know we’re not here to redesign but it seems like that corner, if there is a mutual interest in the corner and if there’s some way that the developer could benefit from removing some of that soil it may be, there could be a win/win. Aanenson: Yeah I think it’s safe to say that’s a consideration for negotiation that’s underway. Tietz: Okay. Aanenson: I think it’s as much as we’re going to say about that, yeah. Tietz: I think that helps. Aanenson: Yeah. I was just going to point out too, you can see where the pipeline comes through then, through the school. Right through there. Aller: Okay, any additional questions at this time? Hearing none we’ll open it up for the applicant to make it’s presentation. If you could please step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Your representational capacity and tell us about your project. Ed Farr: Thank you. Good evening Chairman, commissioners and staff. My name is Ed Farr at Edward Farr Architects representing Eden Trace Company on this application. Aller: Welcome. Ed Farr: And with me tonight are two representatives from Sambatek, Brady Busselman who you already met, as well as Pete Moreau. I always have 2 to 1 engineers to architects. A lot of engineering questions going on here so they can save me when I misspeak. We’re very happy to propose this project to you tonight and frankly a lot of the talking points that I’ve had on my notes here have already been covered by staff so I’ll try and keep my comments additive and not redundant as best I can. So with that maybe if we could have the site plan up and I’ll just touch on some points that maybe haven’t been discussed yet. Thank you. That’s perfect. The building layout as it’s been told already is pretty much based off of this Magellan Pipeline route right through the middle of our site so we’re very happy to have a little back to back, like wagon trains huddling around the loading dock there to keep that from any visibility to the public way for A and B to the north side of the site and then of course Building C then to the south of Magellan Pipeline with parking over the top of it like you said. Along Lyman Boulevard there is the stop light already at Galpin for our main access and with the reconstruction of Lyman, the redo there Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 17 we are asking for the right-in/right-out on the far northwest corner of our property for additional truck circulation so the trucks can always enter the loading docks easily in a clockwise or counter clockwise movement depending upon which building they’re going to for ease of backing into the loading dock. So this project pretty much attacks the target market of office warehouse generally throughout that area of just north of this site in Chanhassen. A 28 foot clear product in the marketplace. 20 to 30 percent office finish. Warehouse manufacturing. Could be a variety of multi-tenant uses that we’re targeting so pretty standard stuff but there is market demand for that so. On the frontage of Lyman Boulevard and all the buildings architecturally, the buildings are tall enough. About 36 feet like staff said so we’re trying to make it look like a two story building by adding that clear story window up on top. That will let daylight in for warehouse manufacturing areas that only have single story space where we may have that mezzanine. It will offer windows up there on the second floor for the occupants to see out of the second floor as well as first floor. We’ve tried our best to have some architectural articulation, both in the step roof line as well as the in and out architecture of the front to back of the façade. All along the front as staff pointed out so we are excited about the palate of our architectural precast with some limestone, granite, and quartz chips in it. Real good rock selections with tinted precast and everything. The champagne anodized frames and so the materials look better than the colored renderings you have in front of you so I think it will look very handsome out there. We’re using LED lighting throughout. Very energy efficient lighting. There was a LED illumination plan in the packet and all of the rooftop units will be screened both by the parapet height itself despite the fact that the buildings are low on the site. We did a cross sectional view on one of our sheets to demonstrate the view angle from Lyman Boulevard so they’ll be set back from the front façade as well as the parapet. Anything that may be out of the ordinary that sticks up we would put an architectural screen in front of that as needed. Talked on the building size. Magellan Pipeline. Lighting. The parking. I think that’s about it. You covered everything else but we’re going to, we’re going to really do a really good job on landscaping. Sorry for the numbers that were short. It wasn’t our intent and realized the math problem. That’s going to get picked up and meet, probably exceed landscape requirements. Aller: Nobody likes to do math in public. Ed Farr: We’re not going to do it here either but we’re going to put our best foot forward there. So I’ll sit back. Again I’ve got 2 engineers behind me so if there are any further questions of us we’re more than happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Aller: Great, thank you. Questions at this point in time of the applicant? For the water alteration. Most of the time we’re looking at a choice of A, B, C and we’re looking at the lesser of the evils to get to where we are. Can you explain the process that you went through in coming up with this design and the alteration request that you’re making? Brady Busselman: Sure I can take a stab at it. We do have a wetland expert in our office who isn’t here tonight who is helping us with the procedure but one thing I will point out is that the initial plan for this site had 4 buildings. I think we were over 600,000 square feet and as we got Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 18 into it we realized that the building on the south, we’d benefit more if we removed that building and utilize that area to mine because that had good structural material and then back fill the bad peat material in that excavation and then build out the berm in that area. We did focus on the wetland in the southwest corner and try to plan around that and make it work. The challenge with this site, besides the poor materials and the wetlands is also the pipeline and that’s really a non starter to try to move that. I think it’s on the order, I’m going to shoot from the hip but I think it was $200 bucks a foot if we had to move that so that really set where our buildings started from, from that pipeline and we went out from there so I don’t think we have the wetland exhibit up here that would, that would help because they fall in kind of unfortunate areas. Especially the one directly south of the pipeline. I will say that the one east of Building B we are continuing to work with the Corps on because that is a result of a topsoil mining operation in 2015 and we want to make sure that that’s appropriately labeled. I think the City would determine that incidental. Correct me if I’m wrong Bob but the wetland, and maybe I’m, maybe you’re not the one to answer but, but the Army Corps does not do incidental wetlands so we’re still working with them on yes, it was definitely created by this mining action but how, you know how does that get to the point where they acknowledge that. So really the prime motivator then was to preserve the wetlands in the south and southwest corner and that’s how we’ve laid out the site to help with those. Hopefully that made sense. Aller: It does thank you. I can see where economically it would be great if you could put 4 buildings on there but no one realizes without you making that explanation the process that you go through that this is a better plan for purposes of water and being able to preserve what we can. Brady Busselman: Yeah. Aller: And making the least request for alterations as possible. Brady Busselman: And I really, I really can’t overstate the impact of soils on this site. It is the number one challenge to getting this project to work. Aller: Thank you. Brady Busselman: Thank you. Aller: Additional questions at this time? Hearing none I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Again this is an opportunity for an individual to come forward to speak either for or against the item. Having heard the questions and the presentations and of course there are many items that are in the package that is presented and that’s on the website for your review and again you can look at those and then come in and ask any questions you have during this opportunity for the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing. Open it up for further discussion of the commissioners. If there is no discussion then I’d request a motion. Tietz: I’ll make a motion. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 19 Aller: Okay. Tietz: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning from Agricultural Estate District A2 to IOP, preliminary plat approval creating 3 lots and one outlot. Approval of the wetland alteration permit and a site plan approval for a total of 449,350 square feet in 3 office industrial buildings subject to the corresponding conditions of the approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? I would just say that from review of the package it looks like it is a very difficult project and the soils and the water features will create some ongoing processes but I think that they’re working hard and are diligent and I think they meet the requirements of the OIP and I’ll be voting in favor. Alright hearing no additional discussion all those in favor should signify by saying aye. Tietz moved, Madsen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A-2, to Industrial Office Park, IOP; Preliminary Plat approval creating three lots and one outlot with access via a private street; a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill wetlands on site; and Site Plan approval for three office industrial buildings for a total of 449,350 square feet, plans prepared by Sambatek, dated 11-02-2018, and Edward Farr Architects, dated 10-19-2018, subject to the following conditions: SUBDIVISION Engineering All ingress/egress locations, including the right-in/right-out access located at the northwestern portion of the property, and subsequent impacts of trip generation by the development, shall be designed to Carver County standards and shall meet all Carver County’s requirements. Any requirements set by Carver County to improve the intersection shall be addressed by the applicant (if necessary). The applicant shall dedicate the 40’ x 120’ drainage and utility easement at the northwest corner of Lot 1 on the preliminary and final plat prior to recording. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 20 An executed agreement between the developer and Magellan Pipeline Company allowing construction over Magellan Pipeline Company’s easement shall be provided to the city prior to the issuance of grading permits. The preliminary and final plat shall not include the 5’ drainage and utility easements located at the south side of Lot 2, and the north side of Lot 3, prior to acceptance and recording. All retaining walls exceeding 4’ in height shall have plans and details prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect prior to issuance of building permits. At the time of building permit submittal, connection methodology to the existing stubs (sanitary sewer and water services), material type, and location of service valves and other appurtenances shall be identified for review. Prior to construction of the water and sanitary utilities within the development, all required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required. An O&M plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Improvements to the existing manhole where the effluent will be received via the lift station. Parks Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected for the three proposed lots totaling 36.39 acres as a condition of approval for Holasek Business Park. These park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Planning A 40-foot access and maintenance easement shall be recorded over the private streets. The private streets shall be constructed to a nine-ton design with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet and a maximum slope of 10 percent. A street name for the private street at Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard shall be submitted to the Building Official and Fire Marshall for review and approval prior to recording the final plat. Water Resources Coordinator Stormwater Development Charges. Estimated stormwater development fees in the amount of $770,012.40 (36.39 acres x $21,160) shall be paid prior to recording the final plat. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 21 Financial Assurance. To guarantee compliance with the plan and related remedial work, a cash escrow or letter of credit, satisfactory to the city, shall be furnished to the city before a building permit is issued. The escrow amount shall be $7,500.00 per acre. The city may use the escrow or draw upon the letter of credit to reimburse the city for any labor or material costs it incurs in securing compliance with the plan or in implementing the plan. If the city draws on the escrowed funds, no additional building permits shall be issued until the pre-draw escrow balance has been restored. The city shall endeavor to give notice to the owner or developer before proceeding, but such notice shall not be required in an emergency as determined by the city. The assurance shall be maintained until final stabilization and removal of erosion and sediment controls. Drainage and utility easements will be required over all remaining wetlands and public stormwater utilities. This includes the western boundary of the project as well as the southwest corner of the parcel which should have a sufficient easement for the main drainage pipe for this area (required in conjunction with final plat). Private stormwater easements will be required over all private stormwater facilities using the city’s template (required in conjunction with final plat). The Holasek Business Park construction plans show areas of grading over the main stormwater pipe that runs north to south along the western property boundary. Construction on this pipe may be planned for the next couple of years. Please coordinate earthwork in this area with the city and Carver County Public Works Department. The plans show significant grading in the south outlot. Sec. 19-145 of City Code does not allow unbroken slopes greater than 30’ and slopes steeper than 3:1. Additionally, the proposed grading would trigger bluff regulations Sec. 20-1401 and Sec. 20-1405. Staff recommends removing the stockpile from the proposed plans. If the stockpile cannot be removed it will need to be reduced to slope less than 20’, 3:1 max. It must meet all other regulatory requirements for wetland hydrology, erosion and sediment control, and surface water management. Erosion and sediment control must meet the requirements of Sec. 19-145 including a dewatering plan. Erosion and Sediment Control Practices including temporary sedimentation basins, silt fence, the construction entrance, and ESC BMPs are shown in the legend on sheet C5.02, but not on the plans. Indicate the location of these practices on the Erosion Control Plan sheet. EOFs should be stabilized with TRM or similar. Include chosen stabilization measures in the construction plans. Temporary Sediment Ponds. The proposed stormwater ponds will need to be utilized as temporary sediment ponds during construction. A faircloth skimmer will need to be installed, and the outlets of the pond will need to be sealed off for the duration of construction until the site is stabilized. Skimming devices should be designed to remove oils and floatable materials up to a Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 22 one-year frequency event. The skimmer should be set 12 inches below the normal surface water elevation and should control the discharge velocity to 0.5 fps. Incorporate these notes and details into the construction plans. Topsoil Management a. Subsoil Decompaction. Please add a note about subsoil decompaction to the topsoil section on sheet L1.03. Subsoil must be decompacted to a depth of six inches in all pervious areas, prior to placement of six inches of topsoil. Contractor must identify the method used to decompact six inches of subsoil prior to placing topsoil. b. Topsoil Depth. Note 5 under Turf Establishment on sheet L1.03 reads that a minimum of four inches of topsoil is required. CCWMO Standards require that six inches of topsoil be replaced in all disturbed pervious areas. Update this note to reflect the six inch requirement. c. Stockpiles. Please indicate the quantity of topsoil needed to restore six inches in all pervious areas of the development. Show location(s) where existing topsoil is to be stockpiled on the site. d. Soil Hauling. Describe topsoil hauling plans, including locations and estimated quantities. Note that if topsoil is exported or imported to the site, an additional permit may be required. e. Vegetative Cover. Note 5 under Turf Establishment on sheet L1.03 refers to a healthy stand of vegetation in all disturbed pervious areas of the development. Please note that 90% of the expected vegetative density is required. Stormwater Management Sec. 19-142. Plans required. All plans shall be reviewed and stamped “Approved by the City Engineer” and all applicable permits must be obtained prior to commencing construction. For all newly constructed stormwater facilities (ponds, retention areas, infiltration basins, storm sewer, etc.) or existing facilities that are modified, as-built plans shall be prepared by the developer. As- built plans shall be signed and certified by a licensed professional engineer in the State of Minnesota and record drawings shall be provided to the city. Standard details for many typical storm structures (e.g., storm sewer, outlet structures, catch basins, sump manholes, etc.) are available on the city's website. Sec. 19-144. Major facility design elements. a. For basins intended to have permanent water levels, a minimum of four feet of standing water (dead storage depth) and a maximum of ten feet shall be provided. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 23 b. Separation between the inlet(s) and outlet shall be maximized to prevent short- circuiting. c. Outlets shall be evaluated for the need to dissipate energy so as to reduce velocities to permissible levels as allowed by the soil and vegetation. At a minimum, flared-end sections should be provided with riprap consistent with Minnesota Department of Transportation standards. For areas with high flows or where excessive erosion occurs or is anticipated, energy dissipation per Federal Highway Administration standards shall be followed. d. Riprap shall be provided below the channel grade and above the outfall or channel bottom to ensure that riprap will not be undermined by scour or rendered ineffective by displacement. Riprap consisting of natural angular stone suitably graded by weight shall be designed for anticipated velocities. Riprap shall be placed over a suitable filter material or filter fabric to ensure that soil particles do not move through the riprap and reduce its stability. BMP Details. Include the following BMP details in the construction plans: a. BMP Cross Sections. Include site-specific elevations on the Bioretention Bench and Bioretention Trench details on sheet C4.02. b. OCS Details. Include Outlet Control Structure Details (attached) for the stormwater BMPs with specific elevations for inlets, outlets, and draintile (when applicable). c. BMP Profiles. Include profiles of the stormwater BMPs with draintile (Pond B Filtration Bench and Filtration Trench) showing draintile slope. Please note that all draintile must have a positive drainage slope of at least 0.5%. Include site-specific invert elevations for assistance with field construction. d. EOF elevations. EOF elevations should be set to at least 0.5 ft. above the HWL to allow for construction tolerance. Include cross-sections of the EOFs in the plan set. Impervious Acreage. The area (ac) of proposed new impervious is inconsistent between the application (25.10), stormwater report (27.5), project narrative (25.08), plan sheet C5.03 (28.4), and HydroCAD model (25.34). Clarify the correct area of new impervious and update components of the submittal to match. Elevation-Storage Tables. Include the Filtration Bench bottom (should be 928.5) in the elevation- storage table in the HydroCAD report so that the treatment volumes can be determined for the ponds, bench, and re-use system. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 24 Filtration Trench. The filtration trench design is not compliant in the current design. a. Contributing Area. The filtration trench appears to receive runoff from pervious areas only. Stormwater BMPs should capture and treat runoff from impervious areas on the site. b. Tree Roots. The filtration trench is proposed in an area that is wooded on the landscape plan. Trees may be planted on the side-slopes or adjacent to the trench but are not allowed in the trench bottom. Tree roots may impact the draintile and prevent proper drainage. c. Model and Plan Details. The filtration trench is not included in the HydroCAD model and the construction plans do not show details (bottom, NWL, HWL, OCS, EOF) for this BMP. Please include the details listed in Comment #2 above and include information for this practice in the construction plans and HydroCAD model. Operation & Maintenance Plan (O&M). Provide a draft O&M plan outlining the responsibilities for inspecting and maintaining the stormwater BMPs on site. The O&M plan must be signed by all responsible parties. a. Reuse Maintenance Plan. Provide a draft Reuse Maintenance Plan as part of the overall O&M plan. Please include all details outlined in the corresponding section on the Stormwater Reuse Design Guidance document. Reuse Plan Sheet. Please add the following information to the stormwater reuse plan: a. Location of the following reuse system components: irrigation lines, irrigation zones, sprinkler heads, pumps, intakes from ponds, and usage meters. If applicable, include the locations of the potable connection, backflow prevention devices, filters, and debris collection sumps. b. Narrative describing operation of the systems. If the irrigated areas will be actively used during daytime hours, the irrigation needs to be scheduled for times when the areas will not be in use. c. Location of access for reuse system maintenance. d. Drawdown elevations of the reuse ponds. e. Volume reduction and/or water quality calculations. f. Other information relevant to the reuse systems. SWPPP. A copy of the SWPPP including soils/infiltration data within the perimeter of all infiltration/filtration devices is required prior to review for final plat. The SWPPP must also meet all requirements of City Code 19-145. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 25 Basin. There is a bioretention basin south of Lyman Boulevard in the road construction plans. Please show this basin on the construction plans for Holasek Business Park and demonstrate that the road project plans don’t interfere with this project. Chloride Management Plan. A chloride management plan is required. Applicant will need to respond to the comments received by Twin Cities & Western (Wednesday, October 24, 2018 6:39 AM): “In response to this proposal Twin Cities & Western offers the following comment: Twin Cities & Western has concerns of stormwater and general runoff impacts with this land being developed making it non-pervious. What will happen to the stormwater runoff and will the increased runoff adversely impact the railroad roadbed?” SITE PLAN Engineering Must comply with the conditions of the Holasek Business Park conditions of approval for the subdivision. Environmental Resources The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to increase quantities to meet minimum ordinance requirements for parking lot trees. Additional tree species will need to be added rather than increasing quantities of existing selection. The applicant should consider limiting the number of lindens called for in the plant schedule and avoid planting elms and lindens in groupings. The applicant should designate snow removal/storage areas on each lot that do not conflict with proposed landscaping. All parking lot islands and peninsulas that contain a tree planting must have an inside width of 10 feet. They also will be required to have proper planting soil as specified in the Planting Notes. Parking lot islands located in the pipeline easement shall be planted with small shrubs or perennial plantings, if allowed. Planning Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 26 The applicant shall enter into separate site plan agreements with the city for each lot and building and provide the necessary security to guarantee grading and erosion control, site restoration, stormwater and landscaping. Pedestrian ramps shall be added at each curb at the driveway entrance to Building A and included on the site plan sheet C3.01. Community features including benches, bike racks and picnic tables shall be incorporated in the site. Due to the wetland in the southwest corner of the site, Building C on Lot 3 may need to be shifted east or reduced in size, the drive aisle, parking and loading areas may need to be shifted to the east and north. Water Resources Coordinator Must comply with the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT a. Sec. 20-409. Decisions under this article must not be made until after receiving the determination of the technical evaluation panel regarding wetland public values, location, size, and/or type if the city council, the landowner, or a member of the technical evaluation panel asks for such determinations. b. Any projects seeking a wetland alteration permit subject to this article will also be required to submit the following incomplete requirements: Existing and proposed drainage areas to wetlands; Buffer strip plan meeting the criteria of subsections 20-411(c) and (d) c. Sec. 20-416. Mitigation. Wetland mitigation shall be undertaken on-site. If this is not feasible, then mitigation may occur locally within the subwatershed. If this is not possible, then mitigation may occur outside the subwatershed, elsewhere in the city. If mitigation cannot be accomplished on-site, or if the city deems it necessary to perform mitigation off- site, then the applicant shall be responsible for providing off-site mitigation within the major subwatershed, as designated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, or purchasing wetland credits from the state wetland bank. Staff believes mitigation can occur on site by expanding the wetlands in the south outlot. d. Stormwater runoff shall not be discharged into wetlands without water quality pretreatment as prescribed by this Code. e. If a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing wetland alteration, the following standards shall be followed: (1) The alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 27 hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland; (2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation; (3) It shall not adversely change water flow; (4) The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action; (5) The disposal of any excess material is prohibited within remaining wetland areas; (6) The disposal of any excess material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures; (7) Alterations to any wetland area are prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning; (8) Alterations to wetland areas shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of wetland area and/or function and value of the wetland. f. The alteration shall not alter the hydrological patterns in the remainder of the wetland, if a portion of the wetland remains, unless exempted under Sec. 20-417. Please show how hydrologic patterns will not be altered for the remaining wetlands. g. Sec. 20-405. Wetland delineation. An electronic copy of the delineated wetland boundaries must be submitted in a format compatible with the city's GIS database. h. Sec. 20-406. Wetland classification. All wetlands delineated under Sec. 20-405 of this article that have not been previously classified shall be classified using the results from the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions (MnRAM Version 3.0), or future versions. A MnRAM shall be completed by the property owner or applicant for each previously unclassified wetland. An electronic version of the MnRAM evaluation must be submitted to and approved by the city to establish the classification of each wetland prior to any alteration or impact to the wetland. i. An approved Notice of Decision (NOD) for Boundary and Type is required for a complete application, however, the applicant has been very involved, communicative, responsive, and fully participatory in the application process. Staff will accept the application in process as the TEP has met prior to deadline for completion. The NOD will be issued by November 27, 2018. j. Staff review will be conditional upon an approved NOD for Boundary and Type. k. Based on the submission the site will require at least one additional Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Application. A grading permit cannot be issued until the applicant has completed the WCA process. l. Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers and buffer monumentation will be required adjacent to the wetlands on-site. Please indicate wetland buffers widths and locations where signage will be placed on a plan sheet. Please find additional information on signage placement in the guidance document attached. The WMO provides signs and sign posts for the cost of materials. Alternative signs (by the city or applicant) are also acceptable provided they contain similar information. Due to the wetland in the southwest corner of the site, Building C on Lot 3 may need to be Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 28 shifted east or reduced in size, the drive aisle, parking and loading areas may need to be shifted to the east and north. m. Sec. 19-146. Wetland elements. 1) Water level fluctuations (peak elevation and duration) for wetlands shall be limited to two feet and duration not to exceed 48 hours so as to prevent the destruction of wildlife habitat and wetland vegetation. 2) Sedimentation basins or sediment removal devices shall be provided prior to discharge into wetlands. 3) Variable bottom contours should be considered to provide deeper holes and flat shallow benches. This feature will provide habitat for diversity of plants and wetland inhabitants for wetland mitigation sites and stormwater basins. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 2, 2018 and the summary Minutes of the Planning Commission Work Session meeting dated October 16, 2018 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. Aller: Anyone wishing to discuss any item or? Madsen: I just have one question. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I happened to see a sign when I was driving down Pioneer Trail. It was actually in Eden Prairie and the sign said future road expansion. Aanenson: Yep. Madsen: So it was a development where at some point there’s going to be a road coming through and I was wondering if that’s something that we ever used here to help communicate. Aanenson: Yes we do those now. I think the problem is some of those older subdivisions, they’re not there but yes. If you go put them back in now it’s still controversial so right now all subdivisions, I would say the last probably 10 years we’ve done that. Yeah, yeah. Madsen: Okay great, thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 29 Aanenson: Yeah it’s an ongoing source of consternation. Aller: The bigger the sign the smaller the project and people are in an uproar. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aller: Okay administrative presentations. City Council action update. Aanenson: I cannot find it on my, let’s see. Let me try one more time here. The Glendale Drive, got it. The Glendale Drive was approved without the extension but that may be back for revisiting on that one so again the staff’s position is you try not to landlock somebody or deter them so that one may come back. The council did approve it without, with the applicant’s request so we’ll see where that goes. We also, it was really at the council level there was a request from Mr. Halla who owns the Mustard Seed to do, modify his Stipulation Agreement. They were regulated in how they could use that property. They also wanted to enjoy some of the benefits of the temporary use permits similar to what we do to other events such as the Autoplex so we worked through, with the council on that one so that’s been modified so they can also have a number of temporary events permitted by ordinance that run through the planning office so that was approved. And then the downtown vision plan was accepted. I also want to note that it’s out on the website now. We’ve moved that so if you go to, this is for anybody else. If you go to the planning department and then you go special studies it’s listed in there and so there’s some key strategies that we’ll be working on. You’ll probably see those and some of the council will be looking at those. This year we talked about, a lot of it has to do with downtown walkability. Maybe some landscaping improvements. Some signature things as we move forward in the downtown. Some of the projects that are ongoing so you’ll probably be seeing a little bit more on that as the council moves forward on that and that’s all I have on the council update. Aller: Great. Future Planning Commission items. Aanenson: Sure, so your next meeting, the last one of the year is December 4th. There are two items on there. A variance and then there’s a PUD amendment for PPark. They also want to take the opportunity of special events with liquor so that’s being noticed for that so they were allowed one last year during the Super Bowl. They just had one last week regarding the Timberwolves but some of those they would like to have that liquor so that’s what the public hearing will be at. We have to amend the PUD ordinance. I do want to let you know in January the first meeting in January is normally on the first Tuesday of the month is January 1st so we’re not going to meet. So we only have one meeting in January the 15th so we do have a couple big items. There might be a big follow up subdivision on that meeting so be prepared for that. Potentially kind of revisiting the Galpin property. I believe they’re having some neighborhood meetings and then we’ll revisit that with the council before it comes back to the Planning Commission so we’ll stay tuned on that. As much as updates I can give you on that I will be sharing that with you so just following up some of that information today so we’ll give you an Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 30 update on that. So I think that’s all I had for upcoming. There’s one more meeting and if you can’t be there I appreciate, thank you Mr. Tietz for coming in tonight. Tietz: Well I should have waited an hour because my plans changed an hour after I called you. Aanenson: I was just going to mention one other thing. Mr. McGonagill went to, there’s the government training service that does planning classes so he had actually signed up for the, not the introductory one but the secondary, kind of more comprehensive plan but he really enjoyed it. He sent me an email on that. I think he went to that last week so always if there’s an opportunity that you want to I can sign you up for a class but he found it very helpful. I think it’s always good to hear from a different person but so that’s where that’s at. That’s all I had. Aller: Any last comments for anyone? Otherwise here’s wishing that all of you have a great Thanksgiving and may you spend it with family and friends and neighbors here in Chanhassen and when it becomes Black Friday at the end of the week remember to Buy Chanhassen so I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Weick moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated December 4, 2018 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.4. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council receives the Planning Commission minutes dated December 4, 2018.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Summary Minutes Verbatim Minutes CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES DECEMBER 4, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, Mark Randall, and Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and MacKenzie Walters, Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Rick Morris 3790 Lone Cedar Lane Karen White, Paisley Park 7801 Audubon Road Tim Fitch, Paisley Park 7801 Audubon Road PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER VARIANCE TO BUILD AN ACCESSORY BUILDING (GARAGE) AT 3790 LONE CEDAR LANE. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Weick questioned how you could reasonably build a single home on this lot when two variances are needed for a 1,000 square foot garage. Commissioner Madsen asked about restrictions on using the accessory structure as a dwelling unit. The applicant Richard Morris explained the need for this accessory structure. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 13 foot front yard setback and a 4 foot shoreland setback variance subject to the following conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Parcels PID 251700010 and PID 251700020 must be combined. 3. The drainage and utility easement between parcels PID 251700010 and PID 251700020 must be vacated. 4. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger within the construction limits for the accessory building and note trees to be removed. All preserved trees must be protected during construction. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Planning Commission Summary – December 4, 2018 2 PUBLIC HEARING: PUD AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIQUOR SALES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A TEMPORARY EVENT PERMIT AT PAISLEY PARK MUSEUM. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McGonagill asked how the permit is enforced if there are violations. Commissioner Tietz asked about the hours of operation to sell alcohol. Karen White, Sales Manager for Paisley Park Museum explained the need for their request. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Weick moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve an ordinance amending the PUD to allow liquor sales in conjunction with a temporary event permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 20, 2018 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson discussed future Planning Commission agenda items including the Galpin Boulevard development scheduled for January 15, 2019. Commissioner Undestad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, Mark Randall, and Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and MacKenzie Walters, Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Rick Morris 3790 Lone Cedar Lane Karen White, Paisley Park 7801 Audubon Road Tim Fitch, Paisley Park 7801 Audubon Road PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER VARIANCE TO BUILD AN ACCESSORY BUILDING (GARAGE) AT 3790 LONE CEDAR LANE. Walters: Alright the first item is Planning Case 2018-20. A variance for 3790 Lone Cedar Lane. If appealed this would go before the City Council on January 14th and the variance is for a 13 foot front yard setback and a 4 foot shoreland setback variance for the construction of a 1,000 square foot detached garage. So the location in question is actually the vacant lot next to the property address as 3790 Lone Cedar Lane. The property is zoned residential single family. It would typically be required to have a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setback, 75 foot shoreland setback and there is a wetland along the north which is required to have a 40 foot wetland buffer and then a 20 foot wetland buffer setback for accessory structures. Residential single family has a maximum for 1,000 square feet for accessory structures and is limited to a maximum of 25 percent lot cover. So the current site, the applicant owns the parcel at 3790 Lone Cedar. That has an existing single family home and then has also acquired the vacant parcel to the east. The vacant parcel is about 15,000 square feet. The parcel that has a primary structure has about 17 ½ percent lot cover. It does have a non-conforming 75.5 foot wetland buffer setback but it meets all other standards for the district. Regarding the two parcels there is currently a drainage and utility easement separating them. It’s 10 feet on each side. The applicant intends to have the City vacate that easement and I believe it is currently out for review with the Department of Natural Resources and other agencies but the vacation request is in progress and would be a condition for granting the variance. That that be vacated. And as I mentioned there is a large wetland to the north which is of the preserve class so that is the second highest quality wetland present in our city. So the applicant is proposing to combine Lot 1. So Lot 1 and Lot 2 into one parcel. Vacate the drainage and utility easement and then construct a 1,000 square foot accessory structure on what had previously been the vacant parcel. In order to Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 4, 2018 2 do this they would need a 13 foot front yard setback variance and then the very corner of this structure would be within the 75 foot shoreland setback so that would necessitate the 4 foot shoreland setback variance. The main, one of the main arguments in favor of granting this variance is that as a lot of record Lot 1 could potentially be used for a single family home. That’s what it’s zoned for and that is generally what would be considered reasonable use for the parcel. By combining the two parcels the potential for a new home to be built on that lot is essentially removed forever going forward and the accessory structure represents a much less intense level of use for the parcel than a single family home would. The applicant has talked with staff, the Water Resources Coordinator and other agencies and has made every effort to locate the accessory structure as far from the wetland and lake as possible and that is why they are requesting the front yard setback variance to move it outside of the buffer setback and try to protect that aquatic resource. It would also minimize the amount of impervious surface needed to access the garage. So staff, looking over the proposal as I mentioned, agrees that combining the lots and constructing the accessory structure represents the lowest intensity of development that could reasonably be expected for the vacant parcel. And to combine the parcels would mean that a single family home would not be built on that which would have a much larger impact on the wetland and the lake. Looking at the vacant parcel staff calculated the buildable area essentially that’s clear of the setbacks and as you can see due to the triangular configuration it’s a non-usable space. Some variance would be necessary to grant use of it. Because the applicant has proposed the forward location to help protect the lake and because the parcel’s location at the end of a private road with no adjacent residential uses, no residential use across the street that would have a view of it, staff believes the proposed front yard setback would have minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood and that many of the concerns that typically make us reluctant to recommend approving front yard setback variances do not apply in this case. For all these reasons staff is recommending approval of this. Both the DNR and water resources have also expressed their support for this. If you have any questions I would be happy to address them at this time. Aller: Any questions of staff? Commissioner Weick. Weick: In your opinion if you need two variances for a 1,000 square foot garage how would you reasonably build a single family home on this lot? Walters: Because it is a lot of record we are required to grant reasonable use and reasonable use for a lot zoned for single family occupancy would be a single family home meeting the City’s minimum standards so that would be a two car garage. A minimum of 960 square foot footprint if it’s a rambler so we would be essentially required to grant the variances necessary for the construction of that home or we would be in a regulatory taking. If that makes sense. So because the lot’s platted it somewhat ties our hands. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 4, 2018 3 Madsen: Are there any prohibitions for an accessory out building to prohibit people staying in there? Are they able to put plumbing in there? That sort of thing. Walters: So the city code would prevent a dwelling unit so they wouldn’t be able to have a bedroom, kitchen and bathroom in it. That being said the, they would be allowed to run plumbing. You know a lot of people have a workshop garage and have a bathroom in there. But it would not be able to be used for a home occupation under the city code and it would not be able to be used as a dwelling unit. Madsen: Okay thank you. Aller: Any additional questions? Hearing one if the applicant would like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record and tell us about your project. Richard Morris: Hello I’m Richard Morris or Rick. I go by Rick Morris. I just bought the property in late September. Moving over this way from Medina. So yeah I’m looking to build a garage. My father’s getting on in years and has a nice ’59 Corvette convertible, red and white so it’d be a nice little showroom for that to be safe. I only have a two car garage right now and I come from a house over in Cottage Grove where I said well I had 6 cars so I’m really stuck in a two car garage right now with a motorcycle, two cars. I now have a lawn tractor. Snowblower. It gets tight as you guys know so it just seems like a really good place for a garage to be. It’ll be a nice garage. It will be concrete eventually and you know I’ll landscape and put shutters on those windows and things like that so would appreciate consideration on this. I think it’s a good solution for the city because as opposed to trying to sell this land off as another lot and try to make money on it. I plan on being here for a long time and this seems to be a good win/win for everybody. Aller: Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you sir. Richard Morris: Thank you. Aller: Okay at this time we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item and it’s an opportunity for individuals present to come before us. State your name and address for the record and give us your thoughts on the item. Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing and open it up to the commissioners for comment. And/or motion. Anyone? I think the report was very good and I’ll start off. I think it was a great explanation of the opportunity that I see being presented here to utilize this property in a highly beneficial fashion for both the homeowner and the City and the City as a whole because our water table and our shorelines will be that much better off not having an additional project going based upon the fact that it is a separate lot so I appreciate it when I see a homeowner come in and work with the City to find a win/win like this so I will be voting in favor. Anyone else? Commissioner Weick. Weick: You know I spaced out. I did have a question for the homeowner. Is it? Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 4, 2018 4 Aller: It has to be a good one. We can open up the public, or actually just the homeowner. The applicant so come on up here. Weick: Yeah I was just sort of thinking about something else but did you consider building the structure anywhere where you wouldn’t need a variance? So somewhere else on the property or anything like that. Richard Morris: Yeah it’s really a tough landscaping situation. Weick: I’m not familiar with it. Richard Morris: Yeah it’s Highway 5 which is basically a freeway now as you know every night and so it’s very noisy and loud and there’s no room in the front of the house. It’s just some protective trees. Two layers of trees that the previous gentleman planted and then the back is all setback with the lake of course so there’s really, that lot is the best spot for it to be. Weick: Okay. Richard Morris: It’s grassy. It’s got nice trees in the front. A little bit of a buffer with trees and so we moved it as far forward as we could. Weick: Good explanation, thank you. Aller: And while I have you up there, just to keep you going. There will be, and it’s been indicated if this is approved, a request that you go ahead and designate those trees. The trees, the plan hadn’t been provided prior to the hearing so if there a problem with doing that? Just interested. Richard Morris: No. No, there’s a ditch. There’s a ditch right where the PID is listed. That’s about the only, those are the trees and then there’s brush along the wetland in the northeast corner. Aller: But having read the report you don’t foresee any difficulty in complying with any of the conditions? Richard Morris: No there’d be no trees removed at all. It’s basically grass right now. Aller: Awesome thank you. Richard Morris: Thank you, yeah. Aller: Okay having that additional information would anyone like to then make a motion? Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 4, 2018 5 Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: If Kate will bring it back up for me. Make a motion the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 13 foot front yard setback and a 4 foot shoreland setback variance subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 13 foot front yard setback and a 4 foot shoreland setback variance subject to the following conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Parcels PID 251700010 and PID 251700020 must be combined. 3. The drainage and utility easement between parcels PID 251700010 and PID 251700020 must be vacated. 4. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger within the construction limits for the accessory building and note trees to be removed. All preserved trees must be protected during construction. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Aller: Motion carries. Congratulations sir. Welcome to the neighborhood. I think Medina’s a fine place to live but I welcome you to Chanhassen. PUBLIC HEARING: PUD AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIQUOR SALES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A TEMPORARY EVENT PERMIT AT PAISLEY PARK MUSEUM. Aanenson: There’s no visuals up on this one so I will just go through the application here. So this application is a request from PPark Management. Paisley Park Museum to allow, request an amendment to allow in the PUD the use of the property, liquor on the site as a temporary event permit. Through the temporary event permit so as you recall over a year ago they did request for the Super Bowl to have an event out there with liquor. As we reported back to the City Council Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 4, 2018 6 last summer there was no problems with that. Since then they’ve had two other special events out there. Most recently with the Timberwolves and then last weekend with Red Bull. Neither one of those involved liquor because it wasn’t permitted at that time. So the special event permits limits the number of those type of activities that they can do that would involve liquor and catering so we would regulate that way. So what they’d like to do is through that process be able to provide alcohol. And again it does require the catering license. Also with a special event permit it does require that they do a floor layout plan so the fire chief can check that. Also it goes to the different departments so MacKenzie on our staff would be reviewing those. Someone from engineering and so to date we’ve had no problems. We have a good relationship with them on that so again it is tied to, and our PUD ordinance which I did attach, and I apologize the language isn’t clear in there so what we would want to put in there, where it talks about the liquor sale consumptions we would say limited to the special event permit process. So typically those go to a maximum number of. Aller: Is it 15 dates? Walters: Yeah so typically our temporary events, they’re allowed 15 per year. In this case I believe the PUD limits it to 12 indoor concerts. Aanenson: Correct. Walters: And it’s linked then to that limit. It’s a little more restrictive. Aanenson: So that’s how it would be handled. Again they would have to come in to get that special event permit so we have to make sure that they’re managing. A lot of what we manage is to make sure that the traffic circulation works. That they’ve got all that put in place. Again the fire chief makes sure that they get a CAD or a layout of the floorplan and then it’s inspected before the event and any other little nuances that would go with it. If they need the sheriff’s office for security and driving, routing so that’s all put in place with that permit. So that’s how it’s been managed and again like to date we haven’t had problems with that so the staff is recommending approval of those limited use of alcohol. Again not all special events are going to have alcohol but it gives them that, affords them that opportunity whether it’s a corporate event or some other type of special event so with that we are recommending approval and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Aller: Any questions at this time? Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: If we approve this and let’s say their behavior becomes not what is expected. Can you pull this back? Can you reduce it? How do you discipline them? Aanenson: That’s a great question. So certainly we can always amend the ordinance back if there’s problems yeah. Or not give them a temporary use yeah. Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 4, 2018 7 Walters: Yeah under the temporary events ordinance violation of terms of a temporary event is grounds not to issue one for one calendar year so if, again not that we anticipate this but let’s say conditions were not followed. There were significant issues. We would likely withhold future events until we were given assurances that would not happen again. McGonagill: Is that decision to withhold one that staff can make or does it have to come back to the Planning Commission to withhold? Aanenson: That would be a staff decision. So there’s a two prong process. I think certainly we would work with the, with PPark Management and explain what happened. However it happened. If we can correct that. If it seems like it can’t be met then we maybe do a suspension. Or if it’s can’t be resolved then you can always come back and recommend that they remove that. McGonagill: Okay, thank you. Aller: Additional questions of staff. Commissioner Weick. Weick: So right now they can’t serve alcohol. Aanenson: That’s correct. That was part of the original PUD that we put in the packet right. Weick: And then with this they would be able to apply. Aanenson: Right up to so many times a year correct. So it’s not wide open. Again they still have to come in through the special event which requires that they get a licensed caterer so that’s all the things that we approve. So we’re approving who the caterer is. That they’re capable and then any other requirements of the special event and I did attach the special event and that’s one that MacKenzie had written. It’s been very successful. We use it for a lot of other events too. Just to know who’s in town. If they need additional security. Goes from anywhere from school fun runs to Paisley Park. Weick: Thank you. Tietz: Kate I just have a quick question. How is this different, when they had the Super Bowl event they had to come in for a special right? Aanenson: Yep. Tietz: A variance. Aanenson: So that was a one time. We only amended this PUD. Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 4, 2018 8 Tietz: I know. Aanenson: Yep. Tietz: But why would they not be able to, they can still go through that process every time. Aanenson: Well because this requires a public hearing at the Planning Commission and then it’s sent up to City Council and sometimes it’s a time line issue. So I think we felt like, they just had two recent pretty close events with the Timberwolves and we haven’t, and again neither one of those had alcohol but sometimes they’re working with somebody that that’s something that they want to accomplish so right now what they’re saying, there may be 6. I’ll let them address those questions but so we would manage it that way. And often times they have an estimated number and it’s usually below that so I think it’s just a time commitment. It also gives them if they’re working with somebody that’s for example American Express and they say well we’re not sure. We have to go through the process. It limits their ability to try to market the property. Tietz: And then the hours of operation they could not sell liquor after what our local hours? Aanenson: It’s the same hours yep. Tietz: It’s tied to what our local bars are tied to. Aanenson: Yeah, yep. Or the hours of operation of the museum under their permit yeah. That’s a good question, yep. Tietz: Okay. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: The current PUD prohibits outdoor events. Does this change that at all? Okay so it would always be indoors. Aanenson: Correct. Madsen: Okay. Aanenson: If they want to do under special event permit that’d be something that we’d have to process but yeah. Right now that’s not the intent. Aller: No additional questions of staff. Hearing none would the applicant like to come forward. State your name, address, representational capacity and then tell us about your plan. Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 4, 2018 9 Karen White: Sure hi, I’m Karen White. I’m the Sales Manager at Paisley Park. I was here last year for the Super Bowl. Aller: Welcome. Karen White: We are looking and seeking approval for, as Kate had mentioned, an ongoing you know I guess permission to serve alcohol or accommodate requests by our clients for private events where they are looking to provide alcohol. And also as Kate mentioned it is really kind of a time constraint issue that we hate to take up your time every month as well and these things do come to us you know at the last minute sometimes. For example the Timberwolves, they did want to serve liquor. We explained that we couldn’t because there was a Planning Commission meeting that we would have to attend and apply for and it just, you know again for ease of use it would be nice to be able just to submit our event plan to you each time and then designate whether it’s an alcohol event or not. And not all are as Kate also mentioned. Aller: Okay. Any questions? Alright thank you very much. Karen White: Okay. Aller: I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. That gives again an opportunity for an individual to come before us and speak either for or against the item. For those of you at home watching, again these items are on the website. You have an opportunity to review them before the hearing and then come in and take part in this public hearing process. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing. Open it up for commissioner comments and potential action. Comments? I think it’s been a year since we were here with, I think it was last December when we talked about it and I remember there were some individuals that had come forward and were indicating that they were concerned about some potential problems. Thankfully those did not appear. I think Paisley Park has been a good partner in the process. They’ve amended traffic plans and different things and this process to accommodate the needs of the citizens in the city and it’s been a real, a good partnership so far and I think that there’s no reason why I would not be, and I will be voting in favor of this to allow them the same opportunities as other businesses in town to allow for these special permits. With that I’ll entertain a motion. Weick: I’ll propose a motion. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve an ordinance amending the PUD to allow liquor sales in conjunction with a temporary event permit. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 4, 2018 10 Undestad: Second. Aller: Having a valid motion and a second, any further discussion? Weick moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve an ordinance amending the PUD to allow liquor sales in conjunction with a temporary event permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Aanenson: This item will go to the City Council not until January. Their first meeting in January. Aller: So this is our last meeting certainly of the year and I guess it would be the January 14th then? Aanenson: That’s correct. There is a meeting next Monday but typically we don’t turn them around that quickly so. Aller: So this item, if you wish to follow the item would go to City Council on January 14, 2019 so mark your calendars. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 20, 2018 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: I would just add that as you mentioned this is our last meeting of the year. We do have a meeting, our first meeting of the year will be on the 15th of January. As I mentioned our first meeting of the year would have been New Year’s Day and I figured most of you probably had other things to do so we only have one meeting on that Tuesday. So it actually is a back to back Planning Commission, City Council meeting. But that meeting we are anticipating Galpin coming in. They’re trying to meet a deadline of getting their plans in for the 14th. As soon as we get those, I know people are interested. We’ll upload those as soon as we get the full set of plans in and then the first thing we have to do is make sure it’s a complete application so we’ll do that but they’re anticipating going on then to the Planning Commission on the 15th and that would be actually a February, the first City Council meeting in February would be the date that that would be on so do anticipate trying to keep that agenda limited because that will probably be a lengthy discussion at that meeting. I think there is one other registered land survey. Pretty straight forward that we’ll take care of that one first and then now we’re trying to keep that as the only thing on the agenda. It gives everybody adequate time to address all the issues on that. Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 4, 2018 11 McGonagill: Kate this is a process question. Will there be a work session around that before or after. Before the City Council meeting or anything or is it just going to be this session and the council meeting. I know they had a work session. Aanenson: Yes. McGonagill: Is there going to be another one? Aanenson: Yep so the only work session, they had a neighborhood meeting so that work session was just to discuss with the council what they heard at the neighborhood meeting and what accommodations they were making on that so. I’m just going to close this. So that was, there was a neighborhood meeting held and so that will be obviously part of the, to talk about what’s changed since the concept. Where we moved so everybody can understand that. How the plan has changed and give direction. Your recommendations that you would give to the City Council. I think the plan, City Council may want to take between your meeting and their meeting, maybe take another work session. It’s a pretty deep you know project and you might not get through all in one meeting. It might take two meetings for the Planning Commission too so if there’s a lot of questions that you have too. But if anybody wants to talk to me about it as they get it or sit down with engineering department individually that’d be great too. So that is all I had Chairman. Aller: Great. With that entertain a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Undestad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Approve 2019 Police Contract with Carver County Sheriff's Office Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.5. Prepared By Chelsea Petersen, Assistant City Manager File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The Chanhassen City Council approves the 2019 Contract for Police Services with Carver County.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND Attached to this report is the proposed 2019 Contract for Police Services with the Carver County Sheriff’s Office. The City of Chanhassen contracts for full­time equivalents (FTEs) as well as participation in the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. The proposed contract for 2019 will include 15 sworn officers and 8 vehicles divided into the following structure: PERSONNEL COSTS 8 FTE Patrol Deputy (2184 hours)  =  $864,216 1 FTE Patrol Deputy (2080 hours)  =  $103,206 2 FTE Sergeants (2184 hours)=$257,598 1 FTE Sergeant (2080 hours)=$139,099 1 FTE Liaison Lieutenant (2080 hours)=$148,275 1 FTE Investigator (2080 hours)=$103,206 1 FTE School Resource Deputy (2080 hours)=  $103,206 1 CSO (26 hours)=$1,001 VEHICLE COSTS CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectApprove 2019 Police Contract with Carver County Sheriff's OfficeSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.5.Prepared By Chelsea Petersen, Assistant CityManager File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves the 2019 Contract for Police Services with Carver County.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDAttached to this report is the proposed 2019 Contract for Police Services with the Carver County Sheriff’s Office.The City of Chanhassen contracts for full­time equivalents (FTEs) as well as participation in the Southwest MetroDrug Task Force.The proposed contract for 2019 will include 15 sworn officers and 8 vehicles divided into the following structure:PERSONNEL COSTS8FTE Patrol Deputy (2184 hours)  =  $864,2161FTE Patrol Deputy (2080 hours)  =  $103,2062FTE Sergeants (2184 hours)=$257,5981FTE Sergeant (2080 hours)=$139,0991FTE Liaison Lieutenant (2080 hours)=$148,2751FTE Investigator (2080 hours)=$103,2061FTE School Resource Deputy (2080 hours)=  $103,2061CSO (26 hours)=$1,001 VEHICLE COSTS 5 Patrol Vehicles = $102,770 1 Investigator Vehicle =  $4,152 1 Lieutenant Vehicle = $4,152 1 School Resource Vehicle =  $5,712 TOTAL COST = $1,836,593 The contract does not provide for overtime, which may be required to backfill deputy shifts during vacations or other leave periods, or to provide staff for court appearances. The Sheriff’s Office is recommending that the city plan for $60,000 in overtime. Overtime is charged based on actual use. The City of Chanhassen employs two part­time CSOs, but because of the part­time schedule and the natural turnover in that position there are times when no city staff coverage is available. To account for these gaps in coverage we contract for a small allotment of Carver County CSO hours to assist when necessary. These hours will be charged upon actual use. In addition to the contract amount, the City of Chanhassen has historically participated in the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force (SWMDTF). For 2019, the cost of participation is $2,100, which has been the same rate since 2005. These costs are paid directly to SWMDTF. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approve the attached contract for police services with the Carver County Sheriff’s Office in the amount of $1,836,593 for 2019 policing services and continuation of membership in the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force for $2,100. This action requires a majority vote of the City Council for approval. ATTACHMENTS: 2019 Proposed Police Contract Page 1 of 8 CONTRACT FOR POLICE SERVICES Chanhassen THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , by and between the County of Carver, through its Sheriff’s Office (hereinafter, "County"), and the City of Chanhassen (hereinafter, the “City"), and, collectively known as the "parties". WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a contract with the County whereby the County will provide police services within the boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, the County agrees to render such services upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 authorizes governmental units in the State of Minnesota to enter into agreements by resolution with any other governmental unit to perform on behalf of that unit any service or function which that unit would be authorized to provide for itself; and WHEREAS, said contract is authorized by Minnesota Statute, Section 471.59, 436.05, and Minnesota Statute, Section 366 and 367; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties as follows: ARTICLE I PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agreement is to secure police contracting services for the City. Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 authorizes two or more governmental units to jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties. Minnesota Statutes, Section 436.05 allows municipalities to contract with other municipalities for police services. ARTICLE II 1. POLICE SERVICES. The County agrees to provide police service within the corporate limits of the City to the extent and in the manner set forth below: 1.1 Police services to be provided under this contract shall encompass those police duties and functions which are the type statutorily deemed to be the responsibility of the local communities; 1.2 With input from the City, the County shall assign personnel as necessary; 1.3 All matters incident to the performance of such service or the control of personnel employed to render such service shall be and remain in the control of the County; Page 2 of 8 1.4 In the event a dispute arises between the parties concerning the type of service to be rendered, or the manner in which such service is provided, the County shall retain sole discretion in determining a solution to said dispute (e.g., re-assignment of personnel, types of patrol, level of service available); and 1.5 The police services will be provided to the City for the selected number of contracted hours and/or full time equivalent (FTE) personnel. Such services shall not include situations in which, in the opinion of the County, a police emergency occurs which requires a different use of the personnel, patrol vehicle, equipment, or the performance of special details relating to police services. It shall also not include the enforcement of matters which are primarily administrative or regulatory in nature (e.g., zoning, building code violations). ARTICLE III SPECIAL EVENT OR ADDITIONAL SERVICES. If the City desires additional police services over and above the hours and/or FTE’s contracted for in this Agreement, the City shall contact the Sheriff’s Office contract manager or designee noted in this Agreement. The County will invoice the City for these additional services pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Section 471.425, Prompt payment of local government bills, Subdivision 2(a) For municipalities who have governing boards which have regularly scheduled meetings at least once a month, the standard payment period is defined as within 35 days of the date of receipt. ARTICLE IV COOPERATION AMONG PARTIES. It is hereby agreed that the parties and all of their officials, personnel, agents and employees shall render full cooperation and assistance to each other to facilitate the provision of the services selected herein. ARTICLE V 1. PROVISION OF EQUIPMENT. It is agreed that the County shall provide all necessary labor, supervision, vehicle, equipment, and supplies to maintain and provide the police services selected herein. 2. OFFICE SPACE. If an FTE is requested, the City shall provide office and work space for the assigned personnel. 3. FINANCIAL LIABILITY. The City does not assume liability for the direct payment of any salaries, wages, or other compensation to personnel employed by the County to perform the selected services. It is agreed that all personnel shall be employees of the County and the County shall be responsible for providing worker's compensation insurance and all other benefits to which such personnel shall become entitled by reason of their employment with the County. Page 3 of 8 4. MUTUAL INDEMNIFICATION. Each party shall be liable for its own acts to the extent provided by law and hereby agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the other, its personnel and employees against any and all liability loss, costs, damages, expenses, claims or actions, including attorney’s fees which its personnel and employees may hereafter sustain, incur or be required to pay, arising out of or by reason for any act or omission of the party, its agents, servants or employees, in the execution, performance, or failure to adequately perform its obligations pursuant to this contract. Liability of the County or other Minnesota political subdivisions shall be governed by the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, and other applicable laws. It is further understood that Minnesota 471.59, Subd. 1a applies to this Agreement. To the full extent permitted by law, actions by the parties pursuant to this Agreement are intended to be and shall be construed as a "cooperative activity" and it is the intent of the parties that they shall be deemed a "single governmental unit" for the purposes of liability, all as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, Subd. la(a); provided further that for purposes of that statute, each party to this Agreement expressly declines responsibility for the acts or omissions of the other party. Each party agrees to promptly notify the other party if it knows or becomes aware of any facts or allegations reasonably giving rise to actual or potential liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs or expenses, including attorney’s fees, involving or reasonably likely to involve the other party, and arising out of acts or omissions related to this Agreement. LIABILITY (a) It is understood and agreed that liability shall be limited by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. This Agreement to indemnify and hold harmless does not constitute a waiver by any participant of limitations on liability provided under Minnesota Statutes Section 466.04. To the full extent permitted by law, actions by parties pursuant to this Agreement are intended to be and shall be construed as a “cooperative activity” and it is the intent of the parties that they shall be deemed a “single governmental unit” for the purposes of liability, all set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, Subdivision 1a(a): provided further that for purposes of that statute, each party to this Agreement expressly declines responsibility for the acts or omissions of the other party. (b) For purposes of determining total liability damages, the participating governmental units and the joint board, if one is established, are considered a single governmental unit and the total liability for the participating governmental units and the joint board, if established, shall not exceed the limits on governmental liability for a single governmental unit as specified in State Statute, Section 3.736 or Section 466.04, Subdivision 1, or as waived or extended by the joint board or all participating governmental units under State Statute, Section 3.736, Subdivision 8 or Section 471.981. The parties of this Agreement are not liable for the acts or omissions of the other participants to this Agreement except to the extent to which they have agreed in writing Page 4 of 8 to be responsible for acts or omissions of the other parties. 5. INSURANCE. The County agrees that all insurance required to adequately insure vehicles, personnel and equipment used by the County in the provision of the selected services will be provided by the County. ARTICLE VI 1. TERM. The term of this contract shall be January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. The term of this Agreement may be extended for up to an additional sixty (60) days under the same terms and conditions, provided the parties are attempting in good faith to negotiate a new Agreement. This Agreement extension shall automatically terminate upon the parties’ entering into a new written Agreement, or on the sixtieth (60th) day, whichever occurs first. 2. RATE. As contained in this contract. 3. NOTICE. 3.1 If the County does not desire to enter into a contract for police service for 2020, the City shall be so notified in writing six (6) months prior to the expiration of the current contract. 3.2 On or before August 15 of the current contract year, the County shall notify the City of the police contract rates for the following year. 3.3 The City shall notify the County of its intention to contract for police services for the following year no later than October 15 of the current contract year. 3.4 In the event the City shall fail to give notice as required above, the County shall presume the City does not desire to enter into an Agreement with the County for police services. 3.5 Notice under the above provisions shall be sent to: Commander Paul Tschida Carver County Sheriff’s Office 606 East 4th Street Chaska, MN 55318 ptschida@co.carver.mn.us Office: 952-361-1207 Cell: 952-457-7302 City of Chanhassen Todd Gerhardt, City Manager 7700 Market Blvd. PO Box147 Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 Phone: 952-227-1100 Page 5 of 8 ARTICLE VII MENU OF POLICE SERVICES 1. POLICE STAFFING OPTIONS 1.1 FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) PERSONNEL OPTION 1.1.1 FTE personnel are Full Time Employees dedicated to the contract community. The FTE deputies compensated time includes regular assignment duties, training, holidays, vacation, sick leave and other benefited time. The FTE deputy position is not automatically backfilled when the deputy is away from assignment for the above types of compensated time. The FTE deputy costs include: salary, benefits, supervision, administration, training, clerical support, insurance, and county overhead. The FTE costs do not include additional hours which are necessary for court or filling a shift for a compensated day off. The first forty (40) hours the deputy is gone from the community while on military leave will not be backfilled. The Sheriff’s Office will backfill the position or credit back the time for military leave after the first 40 hours. The first eighty (80) hours a deputy is gone from the community on FMLA leave will not be backfilled; it will be treated like sick leave. The Sheriff’s Office will backfill the position or credit back the time for FMLA after the first 80 hours of FMLA is completed. If the City requests coverage for compensated days off noted above, it is recommended the City set aside a contingency for additional hours. Additional hours for deputies will be billed at $64.17. The SouthWest Metro Drug Task Force will invoice $2,100 separately. Hours worked on a designated holiday will be billed at double the FTE’s hourly pay rate per the collective bargaining agreement(s). PERSONNEL COST Sergeant 1 (2080 FTE) $139,099 Deputy 1 (2080 FTE) $103,206 Deputy 8 (2184 FTE) $864,216 Sergeant 2 (2184 FTE) $257,598 Investigator 1 (2080 FTE) $103,206 SRO 1 (2080 FTE) $103,206 Lieutenant 1 (2080 FTE) $148,275 CSO 26 hours $1,001 Page 6 of 8 VEHICLE COST Patrol Vehicle 5 $102,770 SRO vehicle 1 $5,712 Investigator vehicle 1 $4,152 Lieutenant 1 $4,152 TOTAL POLICE SERVICES $1,836,593 2. PAYMENT. The Sheriff shall invoice one half of the total amount of the current year police staffing option cost hereunder, or $918,296.50 to be paid on or before June 30 of the current contract year. The Sheriff shall invoice the remaining half, or $918,296.50 to be paid on or before November 30 of the current contract year. 3. MINNESOTA STATE POLICE AID. The County, upon receiving Minnesota State Police Aid, shall reimburse the City pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Section 69.011. ARTICLE VIII 1. DATA. All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated in any form for any purposes by the activities of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statute Section 13, or the appropriate Rules of Court and shall only be shared pursuant to laws governing that particular data. 2. AUDIT. Pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 16C.05, Subdivision 5, the parties agree that the State Auditor or any duly authorized representative at that time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc. which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures related to this Agreement. All such records shall be maintained for a period of six (6) years from the date of termination of this Agreement. 3. NONWAIVER, SEVERABILITY AND APPLICABLE LAWS. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver by the parties of any statute of limitation or exceptions on liability. If any part of this Agreement is deemed invalid such shall not affect the remainder unless it shall substantially impair the value of the Agreement with respect to either party. The parties agree to substitute for the invalid provision a valid one that most closely Page 7 of 8 approximates the intent of the Agreement. The laws of the State of Minnesota apply to this Agreement. 4. MERGER AND MODIFICATION. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement and signed by the parties hereto. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Municipality has caused this Agreement to be executed by its Mayor and by the authority of its governing body on this __ day of ______________, ________ SIGNED: ____________________________________ DATE: _______________________ Mayor SIGNED: ____________________________________ DATE: _______________________ City Manager IN WITNESS THEREOF, the County of Carver has caused this Agreement to be executed by its Chair and attested by its Administrator pursuant to the authority of the Board of County Commissioners on this day of ___________________, _____________ COUNTY OF CARVER: SIGNED: ____________________________________ DATE: _______________________ CHAIR, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SIGNED: ____________________________________ DATE: _______________________ SHERIFF SIGNED: ____________________________________ DATE: _______________________ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Page 8 of 8 June 2015 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Resolution 2018­58: Adoption of 2040 Comprehensive Plan Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.6. Prepared By Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director File No: General 130 PROPOSED MOTION “The Chanhassen City Council approves a resolution authorizing submittal of the City of Chanhassen 2040 Comprehensive Plan for Metropolitan Council review and approve a resolution approving the Local Surface Water Management Plan." Approval requires a 2/3 Vote. SUMMARY Minnesota Statutes Section 473.858 requires a local governmental unit to submit its proposed Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council following recommendation by the Planning Commission, and after consideration but before final approval by the governing body of the local governmental unit. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 17, 2018 to review the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission voted 6­0 to recommend approval of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for submittal to the Metropolitan Council. The Planning Commission minutes for July 17, 2018 are attached. Staff presented the final revisions to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to City Council on November 26,  2018. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2040compplan DISCUSSION The city must submit the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council by December 31, 2018. The Metropolitan Council than has 15 business days to determine completeness of the submittal. If the plan is found to be complete for review, the Metropolitan Council than has 120 calendar days from the date they received the plan to complete their review and take formal action on the plan. Only after approval by the Metropolitan Council may the city adopt a resolution implementing the 2040 Comprehensive. The Local Surface Water Management Plan must follow a separate and mandatory review process pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules 8410 and therefore, a separate resolution is proposed to approve it. The Local Surface Water Management Plan is also a required chapter in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectResolution 2018­58: Adoption of 2040 Comprehensive PlanSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.6.Prepared By Kate Aanenson, AICP, CommunityDevelopment Director File No: General 130PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves a resolution authorizing submittal of the City of Chanhassen 2040Comprehensive Plan for Metropolitan Council review and approve a resolution approving the Local Surface WaterManagement Plan."Approval requires a 2/3 Vote.SUMMARYMinnesota Statutes Section 473.858 requires a local governmental unit to submit its proposed Comprehensive Plan tothe Metropolitan Council following recommendation by the Planning Commission, and after consideration but beforefinal approval by the governing body of the local governmental unit.BACKGROUNDThe Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 17, 2018 to review the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan.The Planning Commission voted 6­0 to recommend approval of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for submittal to theMetropolitan Council. The Planning Commission minutes for July 17, 2018 are attached.Staff presented the final revisions to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to City Council on November 26, 2018. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2040compplanDISCUSSIONThe city must submit the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council by December 31, 2018. TheMetropolitan Council than has 15 business days to determine completeness of the submittal. If the plan is found to becomplete for review, the Metropolitan Council than has 120 calendar days from the date they received the plan tocomplete their review and take formal action on the plan. Only after approval by the Metropolitan Council may thecity adopt a resolution implementing the 2040 Comprehensive.The Local Surface Water Management Plan must follow a separate and mandatory review process pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules 8410 and therefore, a separate resolution is proposed to approve it. The Local Surface Water Management Plan is also a required chapter in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the resolution authorizing submittal of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, as revised based on comments from the City Council, to the Metropolitan Council for their review and determination of consistency with the metropolitan system plans and approval of the Local Surface Water Management Plan. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Authorizing Submittal to the Metropolitan Council Resolution Approving the Local Surface Water Management Plan Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated July 17, 2018 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: December 10, 2018 RESOLUTION NO: 2018- MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.864 requires each local governmental unit to review and, if necessary, amend its entire Comprehensive Plan and its fiscal devices and official controls at least once every ten years to ensure its comprehensive plan conforms to metropolitan system plans and ensure its fiscal devices and official controls do not conflict with the comprehensive plan or permit activities that conflict with metropolitan system plans; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes sections 473.858 and 473.864 require local governmental units to complete their “decennial” reviews by December 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City Council, Planning Commission, and the City Staff have prepared a proposed Comprehensive Plan intended to meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and Metropolitan Council guidelines and procedures; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.858, the proposed Comprehensive Plan was submitted to adjacent governmental units and affected special districts and school districts for review and comment on October 20, 2017, and the statutory six-month review and comment period has elapsed (April 20, 2018); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the proposed Comprehensive Plan and all public comments, and thereafter submitted its recommendations to this Council; and WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen conducted a public hearing on July 17, 2018 relative to the adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan and those recommendations, public comments, and comments from adjacent jurisdictions and affected districts; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.858 requires a local governmental unit to submit its proposed Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council following recommendation by the Planning Commission and after consideration but before final approval by the governing body of the local governmental unit; and WHEREAS, based on its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Planning Commission and staff recommendations, the City Council is ready to submit its proposed plan to the Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.864. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Community Development Director is directed to distribute said Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council by December 31, 2018 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.864. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day of December, 2018. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor YES NO ABSENT CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: December 10, 2018 RESOLUTION NO: 2018- MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS The Local Surface Water Management Plan was prepared in conformance with Minnesota Statutes 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules 8410. This plan is intended to provide the City of Chanhassen with information and direction in the administration and implementation of water resource management activities within the city during the period 2018-2027. It serves as a guide to projects and programs, provides for effective allocation of resources, and sets forth a funding plan for projects and programs over the next 10 years; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 103B.235, the proposed Local Surface Water Management Plan was submitted to adjacent governmental units and the local watershed districts for review and comment on February 1, 2019 and comment response draft on July 27, 2018, and the received approval from all review agencies on September 13, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Local Surface Water Management Plan must follow a separate and mandatory review process pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules 8410; and WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen conducted a public hearing on July 17, 2018 relative to the adoption of the proposed Local Surface Water Management Plan in conjunction with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the proposed Local Surface Water Management Plan and all public comments, and thereafter submitted its recommendations to this Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed Local Surface Water Management Plan and those recommendations, public comments, and comments from adjacent jurisdictions and affected districts. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Approves the Local Surface Water Management Plan. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day of December, 2018. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor YES NO ABSENT CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 17, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Vanessa Strong, Water Resources Coordinator; and George Bender, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Katrina Fiihr BDH & Young Jeff Gears BDH & Young Patrick Schneider Bob Ayotte 6213 Cascade Pass Danly Jones 7026 Pima Lane Kris Lenk 6895 Lucy Ridge Lane Mark Gempler 1877 Topaz Drive Kevin Sundem 1845 Topaz Drive Geri & Greg Stewart 1893 Topaz Drive Meredith McGuirk 1770 Lucy Ridge Court Jeff Cannon 1810 Emerald Lane Charles Loeffler 7327 Fawn Hill Road Deborah Medeiros 6820 Lucy Ridge Lane Tamara Sather 7090 Utica Lane Joanne & Bill Lambrecht 6990 Utica Lane Ryan Johnson Assessor Denny Scheppmann 6740 Lakeway Drive Barry Dallavalle 6960 Utica Lane Sam Kimball 6748 Kingston Drive Joy Gorra 1680 West 78th Street Cara & Angelo Galioto 1805 Emerald Lane Dale & Gloria Carlson 6900 Utica Lane Josh Kimber 2060 Majestic Way Mehdi Ayouche 2102 Majestic Way John & Julie Butcher 6915 Lucy Ridge Lane Andy Lenk 6895 Lucy Ridge Lane Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 2 Matt & Deb Chambers 2169 Red Fox Circle Stacy Semler 517 Mission Hills Way West Laura Tiebert 6420 Fox Path Tim Nordberg 2126 Majestic Way Dake Chatfield 2200 Majestic Way Ron & Mary Kneedten 6850 Utica Terrace Jon Hebeisen 2150 Majestic Way Brian Hugh 7441 Windmill Drive Steve Wallace 6900 Lucy Ridge Lane PUBLIC HEARING: CONTROL CONCEPTS: SITE PLAN REVIEW. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Control Concepts, Planning Case 2018- 11 is a public hearing for a site plan review for a 54,600 square foot office warehouse building. The public hearing is tonight. This item is scheduled to go forward to City Council on August 13th. The property is located at 8077 Century Boulevard. It’s one of the last two properties in the Arboretum Business Park. To the north of this site is a city owned land, part of the Chanhassen Nature Preserve. This property is Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition. The subdivision for this addition was approved in 1997. The overall project for Arboretum Business Park actually began in 1992 with initial preliminary approval in 1997 so this has been a long time coming and this completes one of the elements that the City’s been looking forward to. It’s called the Wetland Trail which goes along the north side and to the east of this property and connects to an existing trail in the Chanhassen Nature Preserve. The request is for a two story, 54,000 square foot multi tenant building. There’s only space in it for two tenants but that’s what makes it a multi tenant building. The property is guided in our Comprehensive Plan for office industrial uses. It’s zoned planned unit development and is part of the Arboretum Business Park. Office manufacturing and warehouse uses are permitted within this PUD so the uses that are proposed in the building would be permitted by the zoning district. The property itself is approximately 5.2 acres in size. The floor area ratio is less than, is around 2 so there’s twice as much, 5 times as much land as there is building that is going on this site. However there’s a plateau where the building is going in that’s about 970 feet. The property drops down to the northeast to a 940 foot elevation so there is significant elevation change on the property and that’s part of the issue or the concern that staff has had. There’s a retaining wall that wraps around the parking lot area. At it’s high point in the northeast corner it’s about a 17 foot tall retaining wall. This is the wetland trail that is being developed in conjunction with this. It was part of the original approval but they were waiting for this site plan to come forward before it was constructed. Control Concept is proposing taking over the west end of this building. The extreme western portion of the building is two stories. The eastern half is one story construction but it’s a 38 foot tall to the top of the parapets so it’s a pretty tall looking building. Again this is something that the, has been a little bit in flux. This picture doesn’t present a true representation of the building materials and so the applicant’s architect will be discussing that as part of their presentation but it would be an exposed, an aggregate or concrete tip up construction panels. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 3 They are proposing the use of metal panels in the corner of the building and as highlights on the top and to help break up the expanse of the walls. This would be the entrance for the, it’s sort of backwards and I’ll let them get into that but the height of the building, it’s articulated. It provides a lot of windows on the west side of the building which will be visible from Century Boulevard. That’s their primary office space and then as you go into the building they have manufacturing and warehouse space going on. Again here’s the first floor layout. This is a future tenant space. They don’t have the ultimate design so it’ll be a shell and when someone leases the space they’ll come in and do the tenant finish that they need for it. Warehouse area. Office area. And on the second floor which is only the extreme western end of the building they have additional office space and manufacturing space. The grading plan, they are going to mass grade the site including providing grading for this trail system. Some of our issues with the design and layout of the building is this parking lot area is very near to the top of the retaining wall and we’re concerned about snow storage in the winter and where they’re going to push the snow. We have been working with them on the retaining wall design and we’re still in conversations with that. We received the schematic for what they’re proposing which would be the big block type retaining wall that you’d see like at Bandimere Park and it’s subject to the Parks Director approval and review of the final plans. We believe that shall be going forward. However there is insufficient space on site for snow storage and we’re looking potentially in the southeast corner of the parking lot that they would be able to provide an open area for them to put the snow and store for it until it can be removed from the site. Again there’s a 17 foot elevation drop from the top of this retaining wall down to the trail below it. To meet ADA requirements they’re trying to maintain a 5 percent slope maximum on the trail system and then once we get off the site it will connect to existing trail that is in place. Landscaping plan. They’re providing a basic landscaping. There are, there’s a condition in there that there’s additional oaks that are being required of the developer as a part of the site plan. And shrubs along this parking area on Century Boulevard to help screen it from traffic that goes by. Utilities. Sewer and water are in Century Boulevard so they will connect to it. One of the conditions is that they connect to our existing manhole for our sanitary sewer rather than putting in a new one and the applicant has agreed to make that change as part of their approval. There is an underground stormwater system that they’re proposing for the site. There are some, we would need to get additional information from them to verify that it’s providing true treatment for the water before it discharges into the city stormwater system and goes down to our stormwater pond which is located just south of Coulter Boulevard off of Century so. Again their stormwater system would tie in and discharge around to the northwest corner of the property. Sewer and water come in on the south side of the building. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Again the applicant as a part of their presentation will discuss the architectural detailing on this and mention also the retaining wall discussion that we’re having. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Does any of the commissioners have questions at this point in time? Alright, hearing none. Would the Water Resources Coordinator like to wait until the applicant discusses my Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 4 questions regarding the water flow and runoff issues or would you like to espouse some comments on what your thoughts are on that now? Strong: We’ll wait until they had their chance. Aller: Thank you. Strong: They might address them there. Aller: Okay, if the applicant would like to come forward. Please state your name and representational capacity and tell us about your project. Jeff Gears: Good evening commissioners, I’m Jeff Gears with the architectural firm BDH & Young and we’ve been working with Control Concepts to develop the building plan to date. We also have the civil engineer with us and I’ll let them address some of the comments pertaining to stormwater management but what I’d like to speak about this evening, as Bob had mentioned when we submitted drawings for site plan review to the City we were still working with the client in regards to the exterior precast material. We knew that we were going to be using a precast panel. We’ve been working with, the intent is to be working with Fabcon and so the original renderings that were submitted suggested a design intent. Since then we’ve elaborated on that design so I’ll start with where the concept image started. Right here? Alright. This is a photo from an existing building and what was decided upon is the aesthetic that was, the client was hoping to achieve is a, what Fabcon refers to as a random rake on the bottom portion and then exposed aggregate on the upper portion. That being said one potential option that we’re still exploring, Fabcon is in the process of producing larger samples for our review would be this scenario where on the bottom they could apply a sealer that would not actually, that’s not a different color or stain. It’s just a sealer that makes the concrete look darker so we have a little bit more tonal quality. That’s still, we’re still exploring that. We haven’t seen a final sample. But as that relates to the elevations, the intent is very similar to I think what was presented in the drawings submitted. It’s just the panels have a little more accuracy so you can see what we’re proposing in attempts to break down the building massing slightly. We have over in this area and on this area where the office space is we have this random rake going up to the second floor area. And as we work our way to the east side of the building where the warehouse space is located the raking is only on the bottom portion. So this would be a scenario if we did not use the sealer. And then this is a rendering that depicts what it might look like if we choose to go that route. Again we’re still in exploration with the precast manufacturer. This is a sample of the color of the panel. This is not showing any of the raking. They cannot achieve that raking for our review at a sample of this size so once we get a bigger sample we can share that. As mentioned there will be some accent materials. There will be, this front corner which would be facing northwest is the main entry for the office space so in lieu of precast panels in this area we’re proposing a metal panel and it will be a combination of a metal panel that has a clean anodized look to match the windows. There’ll be an accent color if red, The areas that are reflected, that are shown darker. Unfortunately I don’t have that sample but it’s a perforated Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 5 metal. It’s basically there’s round holes punched through it and so that’s what we’re seeing up here and above these other glass elements to help break up the building massing. Originally on the rendering that was submitted originally we had a red flashing at the top of the parapet. We have changed that to be a dark metal that would be similar to what we have at the main entry. So we’re limiting the amount of red on the building just to an accent band. So that is all I have for the presentation of the changes that we’ve made to the exterior from what was submitted. Aller: I guess any questions at this point in time? As far as the articulation for the color or the materials. Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: And this question may be, staff may have to address it but are all these materials that you’re using, are they, well for a PUD it’s for a better design. To use better materials. Those sorts of things and are all the materials that you’re proposing in alignment with the materials that the City would require for a PUD? Generous: They were all specified as a part of the design standards for this PUD as acceptable material. They’re using the metal as an accent rather than a primary material and so that’s one of the requirements that we have. So plus they have a lot of window space in here that really helps to break up the mass and they’ve alternated the massing on the side with that metal panel and the glass door front openings so yes we’d say it complied with the PUD standards. Madsen: Okay thank you. Tietz: Chairman Aller. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: I don’t know if this is an appropriate question for Bob or for the architect but I’m just, I’m concerned a little bit about the location of the trail beneath a 17 foot wall and so tight to the property line. It’s a pretty expansive use of the site. I assume that there’s been other options explored and I’m just wondering if, you know looking at the aerial photo it’s not probably indicative of what’s on site but it looks like if you went off the northeast corner of the property, it appears to be some trees out in that wetland area which might tell me that there’s some ground out there. I’m just wondering if there’s a route that could get extend north from the northeast corner up to the parkway or if there could be a route that’s adjacent. Even though it’s between two industrial properties if there could be a route that hugs the south property line directly east and west. Just seems like we’re pushing a trail in a very, I don’t want to say precarious but it’s not a real hospitable area if you’ve got a 17 foot block wall looming above you. Jeff Gears: I think you ask a very good question. It’s actually been something that we’ve been having great amounts of conversation about in the last couple days. To answer your question yes. We’ve looked at a couple solutions. The location of the trail, and correct me if I’m wrong was something that we had negotiated and worked out with the park department where their Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 6 preferred route was. There was conversation about the possibility of locating it on the south side of the site. I don’t think that was, the choice that the park department nor the client would prefer so it’s location is I think the route that was most preferred. The challenge we have is, the economics of the site and the amount the site can be developed with the Bluff Creek overlay district and the wetlands and the building size and massing is really a reflection of the size required to make it an economic success for the client and then the net result of the parking is what’s required to meet that size so we’re really kind of between a rock and a hard place. If the building gets much smaller it’s not going to be economically feasible for the client. If we reduce the number of parking we’re not meeting city requirements. The trail is in a location that we understand the park would prefer and we all understand that the 17 foot high retaining wall is not the best potential solution but right now it’s the one that works. So we’re looking at alternatives. Other ways that we can maybe address that. I do understand that we’ve had communication with the park department and they have similar walls of similar height in the city that are used in parks and it’s my understanding, I wasn’t part of the conversation but I’ve been told that that was an application that they were okay with that if we used the larger block type wall with a fencing material on the top. I don’t know if that answers your question. Tietz: Well I guess that’s as far as I can go today. Jeff Gears: Yeah. Tietz: But I’m looking at this ceiling and it’s probably not even 12 feet. Jeff Gears: Yeah if there would be opportunity to potentially develop the site a bit into the Bluff Creek area I think that would be an advantage to everyone but understood that might be, there would be a variance process involved with that and we’re trying to see if there’s a way we can resolve this without having to go that route. Tietz: Okay thank you. Aller: Any additional questions Vanessa his response… What I would like to hear is about the water runoff. How you’re going to deal with the environmental impact. It looks like we’re still waiting on some information to go to Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek regarding the Bluff Creek and the watershed district and it’s rules and regulations. Where are we on that? Jeff Gears: I will defer to the civil engineer who is with me tonight. Trevor Guys: Commissions, my name is Trevor Guys. I’m a civil engineer with Loucks. Aller: Welcome. Trevor Guys: And we have been working with Riley-Purgatory. We received their initial review comments and they had deemed us incomplete but gave us quite a bit of feedback. We have Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 7 since adjusted our design to go with more of an underground filtration system since there were spots in the site where the soils allowed that to happen so we adjust to do an underground infiltration system. We have addressed most of their comments and we have resubmitted. Aller: Do we have an idea when they expect a response back? Trevor Guys: I don’t, no. It’s been a week and a half though. Typically they’re around a 3 week review period so. Aller: Great. So why don’t you explain for the people that are present here and for myself included what that, what your plan process is to get rid of the water. Trevor Guys: So we are capturing runoff around the site with on site catch basins that’s going into a large diameter pipe that’s solid that wraps around the site. That helps reduce rates that the water’s going to run off the site and then after that it dumps into a secondary system that’s perforated so that allows even more water to percolate back into the soils underground and that would refeed that wetland and the pond coincidently. Aller: Okay. Any questions regarding environmental at this point? Tietz: No. We seem to be moving in that direction with a lot of projects in the city. It appears to be a good solution to work with stormwater. Aller: Alright. And then with regard to the wall, is there any runoff impact based upon the wall? Trevor Guys: So the nice thing with, well there’s parking above it which is a concern but the nice thing with that is we are capturing all the runoff that would potentially go at the wall and you might see some freeze thaw issues on other sites but we are taking that aware from the wall underground and remediating any issues that we might have with water infiltrating behind the wall. Aller: Great. Additional questions or comments? Commissioner Randall. Randall: …for the snow capture. Trevor Guys: So as Bob had mentioned we’re looking at the southeast corner. What I think ideally us and the client want to do is maybe look at regrading that to take that wall and bring it up north so it doesn’t extend so far and then we can open up that area to push snow and store in that Bluff Creek overlay district and it is our understanding that that is permitted in the city so that is our plan of attack. Aller: Alright any additional questions based on the application? Thank you very much. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 8 Trevor Guys: Thank you. Jeff Gears: Thank you. Aller: So my question before we open it up to the public hearing would be, what are your thoughts on the water runoff situation and the application that’s been, I assume we’ve got a copy of the new application. Strong: Yeah I haven’t had a chance honestly to fully review it. We have taken the policy at the moment that we try not to dual regulate so I’ve been following along with their process through Riley-Purgatory and then not duplicating that one. At the moment it’s not how unique for them to not make it through completion the first time around. They do have some challenges. There are some challenges with verifying that their connection to the city is a connection that they can make and the city system has that capacity to take it. They have to prove that. That’s not through the watershed district. That’s just through the City but that’s also pretty standard. They certainly have the land to do you know underground detention so it depends on how they design their system. We’ll see. Aller: Very good, thank you. And Mr. Bender, with regard to the wall and the, we obviously have the requirement that it be properly engineered. Based on your experience and review of the plans are we fairly comfortable with the fact that this can actually happen? Bender: I believe the wall certainly can be built in a safe manner. One thing that comes to my mind when I’m looking at something like that is, the same as Commissioner Tietz was referring to is, you know when you walk along that you know you might feel kind of like the ant below the skyscraper a little bit and you know making sure that when I’m walking along a trail like that that I don’t have anything that’s going to be coming off of it. You know blowing on top of me so they are proposing a fence along there. Another thing that comes to my mind is maybe that wall could be extended upwards a little bit so that it creates a little bit of a parapet to kind of catch things that could be blowing in the wind or you know that could be going over the wall so. Aller: Thank you. Commissioner Weick. Weick: Now that you’ve brought it up I guess. I assume there’s no space to split the wall like, to have it be offset. Bender: Terraced. Weick: Yeah. There’s just not enough space to do that with the parking spaces that are required right? Bender: We have had that conversation with the applicant. Trying to give appropriate advice as far as alternatives. That was one that we asked them to look at. Again the response was that you Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 9 know the site is viability of the site regarding parking and building size you know as taking priority versus terracing. Weick: Yeah. Bender: And trying to create a flat spot that would be less imposing. Weick: And for reference do we know roughly how, there’s some tall retaining walls at Bandimere. Do we know? Aanenson: Yeah and also the one that’s under construction right now at, on the other side at Lyman and 101. Weick: Yeah. Aanenson: Yeah going by that new subdivision. Weick: I mean roughly do we know? It’s okay if you don’t. Aanenson: They’re pretty tall. Weick: Yeah I was going to say. Aanenson: You can’t see somebody. It’s got to be 13-20 feet yeah. Weick: Yeah and I run along there so I would assume it’s going to be similar to that. Bender: It will feel open on the other side and so you know I mean I wouldn’t be surprised if people naturally kind of walk on the part that’s almost 12 feet away from the wall just you know so it isn’t as imposing so. Aller: Okay. Anything else from the commissioners at this point? If not we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. This again is an opportunity for an individual present to come forward. Speak either for or against an item before us. Anyone wishing to come forward? Seeing no one come forward I’m going to close the public hearing at this point and put it out for commissioner comments and action. Commissioner Weick. Weick: I thought the, you know there were some questions in the report that were answered well. I’m satisfied with the water runoff as well so I think it’s a good use on the land. Aller: Any other comments? Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 10 Tietz: We’re playing designer over here. If you, if as George indicated you step that wall and pushed it out and because as there’s as indicated there’s a ADA or accessibility issue with the grade of the path. If that step out was wide enough that that could that path or trail be on that mid-portion? Or is that not practical or is that a problem with the city ownership and maintenance and who knows what? Bender: Maybe I’ll try to respond to this. Aller: It’s not to scale. Bender: This portion of the trail right here, this is the wetland itself and this is the buffer and then the trail is squeezed between here and where kind of the top where the site starts. So there’s your design point that is creating you know the toughest spot. So for it to go further to the north it could do that along here but keep in mind that that are is dropping so when the trail needs to tie back in, you know the grades will have to increase to get back up to where it needs to meet here so they’d have to kind of look at that a little closer to see whether they could create any additional space by moving that trail along this area but you know it can’t really go any further to the northeast at this point. Tietz: Thanks. Aller: Any additional comments? Commissioner Weick. Weick: Every time you ask a question about the trail I think of something else so keep going. Where are people going now? Generous: There’s a connection off of 82nd and Century. Weick: Right. Here right? Generous: So yeah. It comes down in this corner. Wraps around this stormwater pond and then connects to there. Just to the south of… Weick: And then it dead ends? Generous: No, then it continues around the wetland complex. So what they’re, this is the last connection to bring it. Weick: Otherwise there’s an existing path then that goes along the back of the? Generous: Yes it goes right here. Weick: I mean there’s a way around this building. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 11 Bender: There are some people trails through that, you know people are just walking over land similar to a deer trail. They’re making their own path so. Generous: Which follows basically the alignment that this trail that’s proposed. Weick: Okay. Aller: Additional comments, questions? Otherwise I’ll entertain a motion. Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I make a motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for a 54,600 square foot office warehouse and manufacturing building subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: Any further discussion or comments? I think it meets all the standard requirements and since we’re, as long as it does that we’re kind of obligated to go ahead and approve. I would suggest we approve and move it along to the City Council for action. I would only request that the City Council take to heart the comments that are made and I guess we’ll see what happens with the new Riley creek decision and how that comes down and to continue to explore any modifications that would be favorable for both safety as well as efficacy of the wall. Any other comments? Madsen moved, Weick seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council the site plan for a 54,600, two story building, plans prepared by Loucks and BDH & Young, dated 06-15-2018, subject to the following conditions: Building 1. Sheets C4.1 & C4.2 a. Utility notes 8 & 9. Sanitary sewer must be schedule 40. MPC table 701.1 b. Utility notes 11, 12 & 13. Minnesota rules 4715 is no longer the State plumbing code. Minnesota rules 4714 is the current code. Please change all references to 4714 along with the current code sections. 2. Submit details on the storm detention system. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 12 3. Retaining walls over 4 feet in heights require an engineered design. 4. Plans must be submitted by a design professional on the proposed structure. All design information should be included (i.e. exiting, code analysis, proposed occupancies and occupancies). Environmental Resources 1. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to add three bur oaks to the north property line native seed area. 2. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to add a row of shrubs for screening of the parking area along Century Blvd. The screening shall be a minimum of 3 feet tall at maturity. 3. The Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be shown on the site and landscape plans. 4. The applicant shall install Conservation Area signs at the edge of the Bluff Creek Overlay District at the north and south property lines and at the trail. The signs are available for purchase at the Chanhassen Public Works. Fire 1. Fire Lane No Parking areas for all the curbing except those directly adjacent to parking spaces will need to be painted yellow with NO PARKING FIRE LANE signs posted per city/fire code. Parks 1. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the “wetland trail.” Connection points for this new trail shall be the terminus of the Trotters Ridge trail, the intersection of Century Boulevard and West 82nd Street, and the intersection of Century Boulevard and Water Tower Place. Bid documents, including plans and specifications, shall be approved by the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to soliciting bids. Project bidding shall occur in a competitive environment with a minimum of three bids being received. The results of the bidding process shall be reviewed with the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to award. Cash payment for trail construction shall be made from the City of Chanhassen to the developer upon completion, inspection, and acceptance of the trail. 2. Trail easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th shall be dedicated to the city to accommodate the “wetland trail”. Planning Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 13 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the security required by it prior to receiving a building permit. 2. Additional architectural articulation shall be provided for the second unit primary access. 3. Add bike racks as well as an outdoor seating/picnic area. 4. A separate sign permit application, review and approval shall be required prior to site sign installation. Water Resources and Engineering 1. The limits of the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be identified throughout the plan set. 2. Show the western curb line along Century Boulevard and the crosswalk at Water Tower Place throughout the plan set. 3. Vacate drainage and utility easements except the standard 10 foot wide easement associated with the front of the parcel in addition to the standard 5 foot wide easement associated with the side and rear portions of the parcel. 4. The wetland, wetland buffer, and the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be designated as Outlots. 5. Provide a permanent easement over the trail throughout the parcel. 6. Apply for an Encroachment Agreement for the private sidewalk. 7. Add detailed design for the retaining wall including a profile, proposed construction materials, and railing/fence. The trail is designed to be on the bottom side of a retaining wall that has portions of it detailed to be 17 feet in height. The safety of the users of the trail needs to be coordinated. 8. Consider adjustment of the site design to facilitate maintenance and snow removal. 9. Include a detail for tree protection. 10. Add note to protect the existing line of trees on the shared property with the parcel to the south. 11. Detail asphalt cut-out and replacement in the street to facilitate the installation of the concrete aprons. 12. Install ADA pedestrian ramp for trail crossing at Century Boulevard. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 14 13. Adjust curb radius design to meet city detail #5207 in association with the commercial entrances. A radius smaller than 20 feet may be appropriate for the shared property with the parcel to the south. 14. Adjust slope of the northern commercial entrance to meeting city detail #5207. 15. Replace any striping removed in Century Boulevard. 16. All parking stalls shall be 9 feet in width including handicapped stalls. 17. Add a radius to the trail where it connects to the existing bituminous trail to facilitate maintenance. Include additional tree removal area. 18. All striping and signage shall meet the requirements of the MN-MUTCD manual. 19. Indicate lineal slope design for the trail. 20. All disturbed areas require a minimum of 6 inches of topsoil and must meet decompaction requirements. 21. Salvage existing topsoil and indicate stockpile location. 22. Add inlet protection in the catch basins on the west side of Century Boulevard. 23. Add rock construction entrance at the southern commercial entrance. 24. Extend the silt fence installation as appropriate to protect from construction. 25. The patch for the watermain connection shall be the full width of Century Boulevard. 26. Detail 5302A is shown twice on the SWPPP plan sheet. 27. Utilize C900 PVC pipe for the water service pipe material in lieu of DIP. Fittings shall be epoxy coated. 28. Sanitary manhole detail #5101 requires the pipe connections to be sealed with a cored and sealed connection. The utility plan details a build over manhole for the sanitary service connection. Add notes identifying the pipe connection requirements. 29. Review sanitary design from a future maintenance and a cost perspective. Adding Sanitary manhole #1 approximately 35 feet to the south of an existing manhole is questionable. The sanitary service line could be routed directly to the existing manhole. The invert would need to be reconstructed and a cored and booted connection would be required. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 15 30. Applicant is permitted a connection to municipal stormdrain system after meeting treatment and discharge requirements of city and RPBCWD. Applicant is responsible for ensuring municipal system is capable of handling the additional capacity. 31. Applicant is responsible for any improvements necessary to the municipal system to meet capacity and regulatory requirements from the point of connection up to and including the outlet/receiving water body 32. Connection is not permitted in catchbasin. Must connect to storm main in Century Blvd. Include access manhole. Invert elevation in the manhole shall allow for 0.1 inches of fall through the structure. 33. Access MH missing from western most section of Contech structure. 34. Proprietary filtration devices should be used as pretreatment vs post treatment. 35. Identify snow storage location on plans. 36. Identify stockpile locations on plan. 37. Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) signs and locations are required on plans. Signs are required at each point the BCOD crosses the property boundary, every 100 feet, every point of deflection. 38. Include BCOD sign detail. 39. The proposed redevelopment will need Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) permits. 40. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, RPBCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA, etc.). 41. Project will require stormwater management fees associated with city development review and permitting process. 42. The city is in agreement with the RPBCWD comments identified in the email dated June 26, 2018 titled ‘RPBCWD Permit 2018-43: Control Concepts – Initial Completeness Review Comments.’ With one exception: J10 – the city requests applicant provide additional performance monitoring field data to support manufacturers removal estimates. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 16 Aller: Second item before us tonight is the review of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This matter has been before us throughout the year. We took it section by section. It’s been on the website and there have been meetings where this has been discussed. The current form has been provided and again is on the website for review. I don’t think it will take too long to move through the sections and maybe highlight the sections and the purpose of this hearing is to again take public comment on the matter before us and forward it to the City Council for final action. So at this time we’ll take that matter up. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated we’ve had numerous opportunities to review this plan. We’ve had at least 8 meetings in this chamber regarding it. There were 2 open houses that the City had. We also went out to last year’s 4th of July celebration. Had a little kiosk and the Feb Festival to try to get people’s comments and interest in this document. The Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for the future development of the city. We look at as the build out plan for the community. What the land uses would be approximately and it provides the goals and policies to reaching that buildout. We anticipate that we will be fully developed by 2040. The Comprehensive Plan contains 10 chapters. The first one is an introduction which expresses the City’s vision for itself as well as we’ve incorporated all the goals and policies from all the chapters in the Comprehensive Plan right up front so people could know what our vision is and how we intend to get there. The second chapter is our land use. There were some changes that were made based on comments that we received from the review agencies. Down in the Minnesota River valley there are some wildlife refuges that were shown as agricultural land uses. We’ve not re-guided them for parks and open spaces which is what they really are and there’s no misunderstanding about what the future holds for that. The City did also, we have a 1.9 acre parcel of land off of Powers Boulevard in the northern part of the city that we’re preserving as permanent open space. People see it on the land use plan as low density residential and they want to develop it for us and so we’re taking that out also so. We do as part of the land use element there were 3 requests for land use amendments. We provided all the information in the report from what they presented in our analysis. At the present time we are not recommending that any of those amendments be adopted for the individual properties. They would have an opportunity when they came in for development to request either land use amendments or changes in the zoning and so we believe that would be the appropriate time for that to happen. Again as part of our review of this we, our GIS system has gotten better. We picked up 40 acres of land as part of our analysis. However we de-annexed 5 acres of that with Cathcart Park and that’s now in the city of Shorewood so that’s why some of the numbers have changed. The total numbers have changed over time but it’s better geographic information system analysis. As part of the housing plan we’ve looked at the, how the city’s going to meet the diversity of housing that we have in here. We’ve done our analysis for the multi-family land that say there is sufficient land available to meet Met Council targets for the community to provide housing that is affordable or work force type housing. We also discuss the different strategies that are involved in providing that type of opportunity and we acknowledges when we would use those tools and when we would not use them. Natural resources. The only change we had was about the solar, we clarified the goal on solar. We want to provide the opportunity for people to do it and in fact our ordinance does permit it already so. The City’s biggest thing is preserving our water resources and preservation of trees and diversifying our tree canopy because the rule of not having any one species dominate our Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 17 community because of insects coming in. Parks and trails. That we just adopted, it’s long term the City’s need for facilities that people want and it provides analysis of initiatives that the City will be undertaking in the future. Under transportation we had to expand that to show where the freight is moving. Where the trucks are actually moving on that so we got that information from Carver County as well as expansion of the light rail or the transit opportunities in the community. We showed where the park and ride lots are. There’s only 2 in the city but there are some in Chaska. Victoria’s looking at one and then Eden Prairie is the main hub for Southwest Transit. We want to provide transportation, we went through all our deficient roadways in here. We have a system classification that has a hierarchy of roadways and based on that hierarchy the city also reviews it as part of any development to preserve it’s transportation capacities. The sewer chapter looks at providing sewer to the community. Again we long term we believe that we can service everyone and our plan shows that we can do it. We provide a staging plan. Our preference is to use existing facilities rather than expanding new facilities but we show how they can be expanded and what the sizes would generally be. It has a general staging plan. There are several critical facilities that need to be constructed for the rest of the community to develop. There’s several lift stations south of 212 that need to go in before we can develop the southern part of the community. A water, we know that we need one more storage facility of approximately a million gallons and then we’ll need 4 more wells and then we should be able to supply sufficient water to service our buildout numbers. I should go back as part of the transportation element we did make all our numbers consistent this time so that each chapter has the same number. As part of our negotiations with the Met Council we were able to up our final employment numbers by about 1,400 in 2040 so they agreed with our analysis and that the total way we wanted to go but they were moving to show that we can accommodate that with our land uses. Surface water management, I’ll have Vanessa talk to you on that. And then finally in Chapter 10 is the capital improvements. That’s just a snapshot right now of what we would need over the next 10 years to implement portions of the Comprehensive Plan. Aanenson: If I may. Aller: Yes Kate. Aanenson: Planning Commission members. So our goal here tonight, because you’ve reviewed each of these and then your most recently your April 3rd we went through all this so we had jurisdictional comments which means we already had a public hearing on this whole document. This is for anybody that may be listening. And then we got feedback from the Met Council and all the other jurisdictions which would mean the DNR, surrounding communities, to making sure we’re consistent and we had some of our graphics were a little bit truncated in the publication so all those have been remedied and so this is the second public hearing, just incorporating those as Mr. Generous has gone through. So the biggest component that we were still working through, which was very complex is the four watershed districts. Making sure how with the new regs that we’re aligned with all those so Vanessa’s been working very hard on making sure that’s all consistent so that’s the biggest part of the public, we expect of the public hearing tonight. I know Mr. Erhart’s here to still talk about the land use request that he has in place so I’m sure he’ll comment during the public hearing process but I’d like to maybe give a little bit more time to Vanessa just to explain too kind of how we worked or she worked to get all that through and into the chapter for the surface water. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 18 Aller: Thank you and as an additional comment this is really a dual purpose chapter because for our permitting we have to have this completed and we’ve been behind the 8 ball on that for a little bit of a while now and so it’s great that we’re coming forward and we’re catching up with all our requirements for the NPDES and other permits so please let us know what we’re doing in Chapter 9. Strong: Thank you. So as Kate mentioned this is a chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. It also has it’s own rules and regulations under Minnesota Statute 103B and it’s own requirement for review and comment which means I have to send this to the 4 watershed districts as well as Met Council for approval. Since that time, after a 60 day comment period we received all of our comments back from the watershed districts. They were all very positive in we received 3 approvals with conditions. Now these of course as you know conditions can be extensive but as in Minnehaha Creek watershed district we received an incomplete and that was primarily because their plan was actually approved while our’s was out for comment. There was an overlap with that. At this point you know this version is not 30 percent bigger to have addressed all of those comments. It might not look that way but each watershed organization kind of had it’s own comments and requirements that must be included in the plan. The City wanted to take on the role of being a single stop shop so in addition to just meeting state requirements we absolutely must address everything the watershed district has asked for in order to take back that regulatory role that would improve the development process for our residents and property owners so some of these are specifically to allow us to have that role. The other issue of course which is not something that necessarily is addressed by the watershed districts is we do have an older infrastructure. We have a lot of ponds and a lot of pipe and how do we take care of that and how do we maintain that when you know there, we have over 300 ponds. Over 500 wetlands. We have 12 lakes. We are a very water rich city and that’s a lot of benefit but it’s also something you need to balance with wanting to be a very lean and responsible city so that was another issue that we’ve kind of had to address on our own. So just to give you a surface view of kind of what we covered in this update. This comment response update. So as I said each watershed district had it’s own comments and requirements that must be addressed in the plan and they must be included in the plan. Many of these requirements and most of them involve the adoption of their strategies, standards, goals and capital improvement projects. A lot of this was including their language verbatim. They’re reflected either in the plan narrative, policies or in the implementation plan. Each watershed district did have it’s own unique focus. They are all different and so they all have their own way of looking at ways that are important to them. Lower Minnesota River, many of you might assume and it would be true that they focus a lot on the river bluff standards. Unique and natural resources and features, native protection of wetlands and native areas. The Carver County WMO really wanted more focus on education and wetland and ground water protection. That was kind of their focus. Riley-Purgatory was very technical focused as well as including research studies and standards in their specific technical language that they want to make sure are included. Minnehaha Creek watershed district, their new plan if you hadn’t had a chance to read it is very interesting and it’s a good read. They really want to incorporate planning. They’re very progressive about planning now and wanting to add value into the city’s planning process and where they can come in and best fit. Help best assist the city and best work with the city. As well as then of course they were very focused on understanding our inventories and what our procedures were for implementing our surface water Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 19 management plan so, and then each one had it’s own capital improvement project and policies as well and standards so that’s kind of the big overview of that additional 30 percent. Aller: Great thank you. And so my follow up question would be, as a homeowner, a business person or a developer when I come in where you use the term one stop shop. Just what would be an overview of that process if I wanted to come in and do something with my property and it involved this chapter? Strong: So for example Control Concepts. When they were in here they would have to come in through the City. They have to apply through the City. You know we are required to have our own requirements but then they also then have to go through the watershed districts and that process as well and so they’re running a dual process which seems burdensome to many people and I can understand that so in the future they would just come to the city. They still have to follow the same rules and requirements but they don’t have to go through two agencies to do that now. They just go to one place. Aller: Alright, and so if a homeowner or business person or a developer wants to know what our guidance on that is they can come in and they look at this book now and they can see that, along with that process these are the guidelines and our goals with regard to what we want to do. Strong: Yep and the watershed districts will always be there as technical reference and also as a resource as well. They’re not going anywhere and they’re still the… Aller: Thank you. Any additional questions? Aanenson: I was just going to add one more comment before you open up the public hearing. So with the Comprehensive Plan there’s going to be some follow up implementation things so you’ll be seeing some ordinance changes too and maybe some of the wetland buffers. It may be some of the, yeah and surface water but there might be also too some in the code alignment too so those will all require public hearings too so there’ll be plenty of opportunities to comment on those too but as part of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan we have a timeline to go through to get some of those in place. Again going back to the one stop shop. We used to do it that way and it’s burdensome for the developers and for residents when you’re bouncing between the two. Especially if you have to place security. Often you have to place security in both places which is very onerous, especially for homeowners so trying to reconcile that. Aller: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Weick. Weick: Are we open to questions about any of this? Can I ask? Generous: Yes. Aanenson: Sure. Weick: And this is specific to Section 8 on water. I recall having good conversations about not just being able to supply the amount of water that we think we need to supply but also incentive Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 20 programs potentially to conserve and encourage homeowners to use less. Is this the, in the future is this the appropriate document to start? Aanenson: That’s correct and those will be some of the implementation strategies. Weick: Yeah. Aanenson: But they look at as part of you have to show what your, how much water are you using. There’s reduction requirements so those will be some of the things. Right now we do Water Wise. We have a tiered system on our utility so those will be some of the things that we may be revisiting. Weick: Okay, thank you. Aller: And of course there’s crossover to just about every chapter here so we’ll be hitting that with the education process as well and that’s required so, yes. Strong: We do also address in the surface water re-evaluating our credit system to allow for more of those opportunities as well because again our credit system for that type of thing is, was written in 2006 so. Weick: Thank you. Aller: Okay. Nothing further from the commissioners at this point in time I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this particular item. So any individual wishing to come forward and speak either for or against or comment on the proposed 2040 plan. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing and remind all of you present and at home that these items can be found on the city’s website for your review and that you can follow this item for action with the City Council when it moves forward. I’ll entertain a motion. Weick: I’ll propose a motion. Aller: Thank you Commissioner Weick. Weick: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and submit the plan to the Metropolitan Council for their determination of consistency with the Metropolitan System Plans. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Randall: Second. Aller: I have a valid motion and a second. Any further discussion or comment? Weick moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and submit the plan to the Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 21 Metropolitan Council for their determination of consistency with the Metropolitan System Plans. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aanenson: Chairman just for anybody that’s following this we will go at a work session at the next City Council meeting which is August 13th. At that meeting we’ll go through the changes in a little bit more detail and so then it will be on for a later date for the adoption so there’s an opportunity for kind of a work session with the City Council. Aller: Great, thank you. GALPIN PROPERTY: PUD CONCEPT REVIEW. Aller: Moving onto new business. We have the item for Galpin Property which is a PUD concept review. Again the City Council and the City had a process in place back around 2012 which was modified to allow for this concept review type of process. You can come before the administrative review on smaller different projects or for the larger projects like this one you come before the Planning Commission to give a broader perspective and the developer receives input and direction before making further decisions on how it’s going to move forward and the Planning Commission prefers it to be a less formal process which allows for all of you to have input at this type of concept hearing. With that we’ll go ahead and have the matter heard. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. This is a concept review, PUD review. Applicant U.S. Homes doing business as Lennar. Again the work session here, excuse me the conceptual review here tonight and then the City Council will review it on August 13. As you stated the concept review is not a public hearing but is the intent to get public comment because the goal for this is to allow the developer to hear the comments from the residents in order to see how they want to advance the project. So with that I’ll give a little bit of the background. So the property as was listed by Comerica Bank who is the trustee for the estate of P.R. Nelson and Paisley Park Enterprises worked with a local broker and put this on the market and Lennar was the property developer selected for the site. So what we’ve included here is all of the property which is 188.58 acres and it is guided low density. Low density is the in the city is the largest zoning district we have in the city. It’s about 32 percent of the city so that’s a majority of the city. Within the low density district there’s a lot of different zoning applications that you can use as long as it stays within the 1.2 to 4 units an acre. So that’s kind of how we got to this point. So quite a frameworks that we looked at and when we sat down with Lennar, when they introduced themselves as the developer of the property and I’m going to kind of go through those framework issues on how we got to this proposed development. So the park master plan which is currently in place, while it’s also been reiterated in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan it’s currently in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan so the park master plan around and it’s intentions around Lake Ann certainly was a major factor in how the project got laid out. The second is that there’s a Met Council sewer line that runs through it. It’s actually a large interceptor line that runs through the property. There’s significant natural features. Wetlands and in addition to that some forest, heavily forested areas which we’ll talk about and in addition the county is working on the upgrade of Galpin Boulevard and there’s been neighborhood meetings on that so all those factors come into play on how this property could be developed. So the first thing I’d like to talk about is the park master plan. As you can see on this Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 22 proposal here, this area here is, well here’s the park right here. It’s the City’s intention as this trail goes around is to continue that trail all the way around and ultimately when the property, the Gorra property comes in for development that would be the continuation of that so this wooded area here would be preserved in perpetuity and that’s been on the plan. The other plan would be the connection of these trails. In addition to that a trail connection that would tie into Galpin and that connection touchdown point is being in consideration with the upgrade and redesign of Galpin Boulevard. In the staff report I went through and talked about the surrounding properties that are neighboring this site. So the property to the south, the Gorra property actually has a couple different zoning districts in there and that’s this property down in this area here so they have some low density. Some medium density. And also some high density so there’s a potential for quite a few units there in the southern part. Otherwise the rest of this property is guided for, and maybe I can go back to this map. So this is the Gorra property and then you have a couple of different subdivisions. Majestic Way. The Brinker and then Ashling Meadows and the Lucy Ridge area and then the Longacres on the west side. So the Rottlund piece to the south is probably similar to what you’d see on this side so you’ve got some attached product there. Some smaller patio homes and then they transition into the two subdivisions to the north here. So back to the park issue. So this area right here where the interceptor runs through is a large wetland. Typically the sewer lines follow the low land in the city so with that this would be a preservation area. So that was kind of a beginning of the genesis of some of the discussions. In addition to this, this is currently in the Comprehensive Plan shows in addition the expansion of the Lake Ann trail has always been the goal and then tying that somewhere into Galpin. Again that would be worked into the subdivision design itself. So this is part of the new 2017 or going into the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Again this revisiting, reaffirming that decision to connecting that so there would be no homes inbetween Lake Lucy and Lake Ann. That would just be a trail and then a bridge crossing over the creek there connecting those two. So that’s one of the driving issues of the potential layout. In addition to that wetland delineation was done on the property so as a part of this development they will have to go through any filling of wetlands still has to go through the wetland process which we do not, we have the jurisdiction over that but they have to show and demonstrate going through all the steps and that’s still a permitting process that has to work but in order to understand the property itself, looking at the site, that was done. The delineation of the wetland and also for the potential buyer to understand how much property was upland. I failed to mention on the first section there are some other issues that were driving this factor. There is two pieces of property. One is owned by the City. That’s a well station. Then there’s also another piece of property that a little under 3 acres that’s also not included in this. Otherwise it encompasses that entire area. So back over to this side over here. You can see the comments that were attached then there. The watershed district, DNR, Board of Soil and Water Resources liked the fact that this area would be intended for preservation. So this is the forest cover. So in looking at that, that was another issue that we felt certainly drove the factor of preservation of this area over here so you can see there’s a an oak, maple overstory and then there’s maple overstory with some buckthorn underneath here so everything in this area including the low end hardwoods in this area would also be preserved in this area here. So some of these trees up in this area, when we look at the development scenario, some of those trees would be removed. Our tree ordinance allows for tree removal. If you looked at historical photos of the, for example The Woods at Longacres. There was a lot of woods in there and then also to the north. Some of these areas also had woods in there that were removed so what we do is say if you take all the trees out then you’re heavily penalized. Our Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 23 goal would be to try to create some buffers along the subdivisions to the south and around some of the adjacent properties at some of those trees preservation. There’s a significant grade change from the north to the south right here and some of those are minor bluffs. I know one of the other issues that were included in your, the email packets which you, I had shared with the Planning Commission was the connection of the streets. All these stub streets to the south were intended to in some way in the future tie into development. That’s how they get access to those parcels because this piece of property would most likely be landlocked if not providing those so that’s something we needed a little bit more information and I’ll talk about that in some of the proposals. But looking at the wetland and forest then, if all this is preserved they would still have to do the individual landscaping per lot. We require certain amount of trees per lot and the like so those were the framework issues that when we met with Lennar to tell them these are the things that they need to take into consideration how they make their subdivision work. So they brought in, showed us a traditional residential single family and as you know if a residential single family meets all the requirements of zoning districts then, and goes through the permitting process for the wetlands and the like then that would be one that you could permit but there’s also other zoning districts within the low density. One would be the RLM which we’ve done on the other side of Galpin. The most recent is, the name of that one escapes me. It’s under construction right now. The extension. Generous: Fawn Hill. Aanenson: Thank you, Fawn Hill. That one’s under construction. That’s an RLM subdivision and the PUD. The PUD, to get the PUD you have to dedicate additional or a significant amount of upland in order to get the, that zoning designation. Twin homes are also permitted in a low density zoning district and those are permitted by right. As are the residential single family so this, I had this wrong in my staff report. There was 202 units could be permitted on here. Again this is a conceptual drawing so we don’t know all the wetland permitting. If that affects anything. If all the lots work. All the street grades work. There’s a lot of information that still needs to be generated but this is the conceptual, the direction that they’re moving. So again this plan, you can see it on the aerials here, some of their intentions here and these were some of the road connections. Still would have to meet all the requirements but it doesn’t meet the requirements of the City’s desire to, and the park commission did look at this, to preserve this area as a open space. So everybody on this side could benefit from that. So the developer came back with the PUD concept so that provides 3 different types of lot sizes within that district which are permitted under the PUD. Dedicates a significant amount of open space so within that the transition to the north would be similar lot sizes as is in Ashling Meadows. Again Lennar did the Ashling Meadow project and then to the south. Again our concern here on that south side too is some of the tree preservation creating a buffer along that. In addition with the upgrade of Galpin Boulevard they’ll be dedicating an additional 1 acre for the widening of that road so the timing of that road would be after this project. I believe the County’s got that scheduled for 2021 and so that project would be done after this project is completed so not all of this development goes north and not all of the, from the north goes south so this is a separate kind of a development or neighborhood than would be to the south so this is the developer’s and the City’s preferred concept meeting some of the overriding goals so here it is with the aerial to give you a better idea of some of the issues regarding the tree preservation and the like. One of the other goals that we talked about is, and we talk about some of the, we have a lot of two story Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 24 homes in the city. Again it’s our predominant land use. Some of the older parts of town, maybe some ramblers. We like to see a mix of some other types of homes in the city and so we did ask them to provide a mix of different types of housing. You saw in the packet what they, their models. What they’re looking at for different types of housing so that would be something. Again this is all conceptual. Some direction of that, they are pursuing so those were included in the packet and to give you some idea. I also included some of the letters from the other jurisdictions that we got and, because we did send it out for comments so they would be apprised of any red flags that would be coming forward so with that we’re asking that you give open to take public comment and I think the best way to respond is maybe let the developer make a presentation and then if people want to make comments then we would just forward those comments onto the City Council. I’m not sure it’s at this point that we can refute or you know have a dialogue with all them but just listen to those comments and the developer can hear those too. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Aller: Any questions at this time from the commissioners? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: There’s a section in the water resources comments that addresses lot coverage and this has been an issue that’s come up a lot that we’ve seen lately. The proposed coverage is 25 percent in the shoreland overlay district and 35 percent in the other lots and they’re, however they’re wondering if we could, the developer should limit it to 20 percent and 30 percent respectively for those areas. Can that be limited so that it would provide enough room so a homeowner could add a patio and not be outside their lot coverage? Aanenson: Well that was the goal of preserving all this is it allows you, you’re creating a greater preservation area by not allowing any development on here. This line right here is the shoreland overlay district line so most of those lots are already the 15,000 which is standard. I mean that’s what the big, our traditional lot we have in the city so those are the lots that it would be impacting. So how we traditionally do it too, when we do the RLM we give them a higher percentage because they’re actually benefitting from the preservation of a larger area, if that makes sense. So that would kind of turn it on it’s head. It wouldn’t be the benefit that the developer would want to pursue by making it more restrictive if that makes sense yeah. Madsen: Okay because they have the benefit of the open area. Aanenson: That’s correct and that’s why they would be willing to do that correct. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Strong: If I might add. If you might recall the conversation around pervious pavers and the council’s, the Commissioners concerns about new developments coming in and building up to their lot coverage as they come in the door and this, that comment was specifically in consideration of that concern. That was why I put it in there. I wanted that to be something that was thought of in advance with this one because of your concerns from the previous. Aller: Great, so I’ll just ask really quickly to set a little bit of foundation here. The preservation of the area around the lakes was something that was guided by the 2030 plan. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 25 Aanenson: That’s correct. Aller: As well as the preference that we would continue the trail around. Aanenson: That’s correct. Aller: And the 2030 plan, even before the 2030 plan but in general we are guided not to upzone until a project is actually there so we look at parcels preferably on a parcel by parcel basis or a project by project basis as it comes forward to maintain that overall guidance that’s in the plan, whether it be the 2030 or in the future the 2040. Aanenson: Let me answer that a couple different ways. So it’s consistent, it’s still low density. It’s just, it’s taking the opportunity for preservation and taking that green space and attributing that to some of the individual lots that they’re all getting the benefit of that. Also we believe in it, if you look at what, and we’ve been up there next to Avienda where we preserved that large area of Bluff Creek. Those are all smaller lots up there. A lot of those are the RLM because they’re all benefitting from the trails and the preservation that we have around the Bluff Creek corridor. So this is a similar situation around a unique feature in the city. Our premiere park around the city so it’s the City’s belief that all those lots will be benefitting from the opportunity not to have their, you know to be able to walk around the trail and enjoy that benefit as opposed to similar to what we did with Foxwood. That’s also an RLM. The City has all the woods that we acquired behind that and there’s trails through there. Similar situation so they benefit being able to have access to all those opportunities and in trade off for that they, what we allow them for dedicating that to do somewhat smaller lots. It’s still consistent with the 1.2 to 4 units an acre. Aller: And we’ve done it many times before with the trade off in density so we would allow for another feature to be maintained or created whether it be a park area or additional wetland protection and then we traded with the density so that we were able to get those benefits. Aanenson: That’s correct and that’s one of the criteria to get the RLM or the PUD to dedicate a significant amount of upland or usable area, something like that. Aller: Great. Commissioner Weick. Weick: Is it accurate to say though when we say low density zoning options of 1.2 to 4 units per acre as averaged across the development? I mean that’s a more accurate statement. Aanenson: Correct, yes. Weick: Because my issue when I read it is, I assume that means everything sits on at least a quarter of an acre. Aanenson: No. No. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 26 Weick: And that’s not what it says. Aanenson: No. No that’s not what it says. We would never apply it that way. Weick: I understand that. Aanenson: Yep. No it’s a good question. Weick: Because the reality is less than 25 percent of the home actually are on that size lot and I understand the reason why. I understand. Aanenson: Yep. Weick: I just want to make sure. Aanenson: Yeah exactly. The same with Foxwood. The same with Pioneer Pass. Those are all RLM. Those are…so the way we used to do the PUD probably 5-6 years ago was we had this one key average that you could go. If you look at how Longacres was, the smallest lot could be 11,000 but then they made one or two lots really big and then it skewed everything so we said there’s not an average. The goal is to have a great development so and that’s what…make it a good development. Weick: Okay. Audience: Excuse me, would I be out of line to ask you to please use your microphone because I’m not able to hear very well. Thank you. Aller: Absolutely not out of line, thank you. Tietz: Kate is the, to follow up on Steve’s. Is that 1.2 to 4 units per acre based upon developable acreage or total site acreage? Aanenson: It’s upland acreage yeah. Tietz: So all the wetlands, so essentially you’re saying the 88 acres is what, is the base then? Aanenson: Well anything that’s wetland, yeah and if you look at their map that’s how they took all that out too. Tietz: But that does take out the shoreland property on Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. To get the 88 acres that’s developable. Aanenson: Well you could, if you could put a larger lot on there yes. If you could meet the setbacks. Maybe. Tietz: Yeah I’m just wondering how they established the maximum. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 27 Aanenson: Taking out the wetlands. Yes. And our ordinance also says you can’t build on a bluff so anything that’s on a bluff. Tietz: Okay, because you don’t have to develop to the maximum. There’s no criteria that says that because the codes and the land use ordinances allow you to build to a certain level that you as a developer or we as the City have to allow that to occur. Aanenson: Absolutely. They could build an RSF zoning district. Sure they could plat the whole thing as, they could do that one sure. Aller: Great. Hearing no additional comments or questions at this time from the commissioners I will open the public hearing. Aanenson: Do you want to let the developer? Aller: Oh the developer would have the chance. Okay. If the developer would come forward and tell us your name, your representational capacity and then tell us about your project. Joe Jablonski: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Joe Jablonski representing Lennar this evening as the applicant. Appreciate staff’s thorough introduction. I just wanted to fairly briefly go through a little bit more detail and let you know that I’m here to listen, learn and also to answer any questions that you have that I can respond to. Do you have the ability to put the overall? Aanenson: Yes, absolutely. Joe Jablonski: So this is the concept that we had submitted that we’ve talked probably the most about at this point and a few things that I wanted to add just to show that we have provided a couple of trail connections into the park area. There is one shown through here. To the north neighborhood. That was part of the park Comprehensive Plan to show a connection up through that trail system as well as a trail that kind of meanders through here. Again this is a fairly high level concept plan review. We haven’t done a whole lot of engineering. We’re really trying to get feedback on you know what the City’s desires are for the property. We’ve met with staff several times but now kind of getting it into the process and learning what the feedback and the intentions. That’s why we submitted two different plans. It shows and demonstrates two different ways that it can be developed but it’s really up to you folks to help give us some feedback and support on which one you desire so that we can take that information and process it and feel how the best way for us to move forward is so with that a couple of the other things. There was housing types included in your packet. We did kind of break this up a little bit. We show larger home sites up here. These are 90 foot. These are conforming with the RS-1 standards that would match the existing neighborhoods to the north. The central area would be 65 foot wide lots. A little bit smaller maintaining a 2,200 to 3,400 square foot house plus the ability to finish basements so you’re still talking about fairly large houses. We have done this particular product type successfully fairly recently in Boulder. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 28 Aller: Cove. Joe Jablonski: Boulder Cove, yes thank you. And Reflections at Lake Riley and we did some of those size home sites as well in Camden Ridge. In all 3 scenarios they were very well received and we hope to continue that. In the south portion here, this is where we concentrated our villa lifestyle type lots. In the packet you have some of the sample plans. That would be a single story maintenance free type of housing opportunity. I did see in the City’s Comprehensive Plan 2030 that the housing portion of the plan does call out the need for a variety of housing types and a desire to provide housing for all types of life cycles so I think through some direction and guidance from staff we did want to make sure we included that type of housing. Not only for the City’s benefit but it also is an under served market that we recognize is important to provide housing for as well. The other plan, you know we went through, the City did get feedback from a number of jurisdictions from the Board of Water Resources, Riley-Purgatory creek, engineering and it does seem that because of the preservation opportunity a lot of them are favorable to this plan. But again I’m here tonight to listen to the comments. Get the feedback and take that from what we can do moving forward from here so with that I’ll keep my presentation short. I’m happy to answer any questions but I know there’s a lot of people here interested in speaking this evening. Aller: Anybody have any questions immediately? Okay, thank you. Joe Jablonski: Thanks. Aller: So the way I’d like to proceed is, I would love to ask you to listen to the comments of the community as they come forward. Maybe take some notes. To the extent that you can respond once the hearing is going to be closed, maybe we could have you come back and respond to some of them to the extent again that you can. The purpose of this hearing is to have the community, let you know how they feel about the project and the proposal and then move all those comments up to the City Council so both the public and you would have the opportunity to forward additional comments to the City for review at that time. Joe Jablonski: Very good. Aller: Thank you. Okay we’ll open up the public hearing portion of the item. Aanenson: If I may. Aller: Yep. Aanenson: Legally it’s not a public hearing. Aller: Oh I’m sorry it’s a concept. Aanenson: Public comment. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 29 Aller: Comment. Thank you. So we’ll open up the matter for comment. Any individual wishing to come forward, if you could please do so. State your name and address for the record and then let us know what your opinions of the project. Jon Hebeisen: Can you hear me on this mic? Okay. Good evening. My name is Jon Hebeisen. I live at 2150 Majestic Way. It’s on the south end of the proposed development. Just got a few points I want to throw out. I’ve got some notes here. I guess my threshold question is, I’ve read the materials and I’m wondering why or if two proposals are an either or. Lennar bought this property. They’ve got to make money. Here’s your choices. Everybody likes a park. Who doesn’t want a park? Everyone’s going to want that. What’s the cost of the park? Well we’re going to jam 200 houses into the small part of this property because the underlying premise is Lennar bought this property and they have to make money and I’m rejecting that premise. They bought the property just as I bought mine. There were rules in place when I bought mine. There’s rules in place when they bought their’s. One that comes to mind very obviously is the square footage of the property lots. Obviously I saw them on the south and I don’t know if it’s possible to put the picture up there again. Look on the south left there, yeah. That’s where they are. City ordinance that I buy, that I bought into requires 9,000 square feet. These are 6. That’s not a very, that’s a evisceration of any kind of an ordinance. But we’re going to get a park. On the backs of the people that have the bigger lots that we’ve paid for and pay taxes on for decades. Second of all I question the wetlands. I’ve lived there 16 years. My children and I frankly have trespassed on Prince’s land for almost all those years. Not anymore. There’s a sign up. I don’t anymore. It is wet. We’ve seen the flags that the engineering company or the surveyor came in and did. He actually came to our house to get permission to trespass on our land, which we gave him. They do not accurately reflect the wetlands. We took some pictures this spring. We’ve got ducks. Mallards, wood ducks. Their little orange flags, the wetlands go far beyond what is being depicted as the accurate wetlands and that concerns me because frankly in the spring myself and several neighbors we do get some water because we abut wetlands. If you allow development on this area, and if you call their wetlands what the flags say, where’s that water going to go? You’ve got a pretty good idea. Next I guess I’ll have a question that I’d like to address on through if possible. I haven’t heard or read anything about what the intent is for the buffer. Is it going to be a fence? Is it going to be raised land buffer? A berm. Tree planting. I’d be interested in knowing what that is. And finally many of my neighbors are here but many are not and I’m just curious are there any requirements as to some kind of notice being mailed out to people who are affected by this? Because I didn’t get anything. What’s the requirements and what was done? Aanenson: There’s an affidavit of notice. Everyone within 500 feet. There’s an affidavit that’s a part of the staff report so. Jon Hebeisen: Could I see that? Let me ask, does it list who they were sent to? Aller: There should be a name and address list on there. In the report. Jon Hebeisen: The whole south side, the people that are really getting the screws put to them here, our address is Majestic Way. How many Majestic Way people received that notice? Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 30 Aanenson: I don’t see any. Jon Hebeisen: How many? Aanenson: I do not see any on the list. Jon Hebeisen: None of us. Is that a problem? Is that a problem that you didn’t give notice to the people really getting screws put to them here? I think it is. I appreciate your time. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Dake Chatfield: Hello, my name is Dake Chatfield. I live at 2200 Majestic Way. Two houses down from Jon. My house is kind of at the crossroads of what I kind of call ground zero of this big construction project that’s coming up and then the Galpin Boulevard improvements that are going to be made so we’re going to have significant construction going on two sides of our property so it’s quite an impact to my area. I mostly echo a lot of the comments that Jon said. I agree with what he was talking about. With the buffer zone, I don’t quite understand how that’s going to work. You can see that it looks like there’s many 25 foot setback. That’s not very large and where we butt up to the new construction area there’s a significant forest area so it seems like most of that would have to be clear cut to accommodate these properties. So I guess my question or recommendation would be if we could get a bigger buffer. Maybe try to preserve some of that forest to the north of Majestic Way there. That would be ideal. And then I also question some of the wetlands as well that Jon mentioned. I know the one just north of my house is a pretty significant wetland. I’ve noticed you know there’s geese and ducks and turtles and you know it’s a big pond and when I look at the map here it looks like the road and two properties just go right over that pond so I don’t know if we’re okay to just fill in all these wetlands. That seems like an environmental impact that we want to consider as a community. That’s primarily all I had to say. Aller: Thank you sir. Our next individual coming forward from the. Angelo Galioto: Hi Angelo Galioto at 1805 Emerald Lane and I’m in the Lucy Ridge neighborhood on the north part of the development. Aller: Welcome. Angelo Galioto: And I’ll echo what these two men said about the overall density. It’s a travesty. I mean this is going to be disaster but I want to add too, two more things that greatly concern me. We’re trying to I heard here preserve Lake Lucy, Lake Ann and the ability for all of us residents to enjoy it and I have grave fear that if we move through with this based off of minimal 4 housing development that went on Lake Lucy Road and how it impacted Lake Lucy. If you put 200 homes in there or even 150 homes or whatever the number is you’re going to destroy Lake Lucy and that’s going to go right to Lake Ann and you’re going to destroy Lake Ann and everything we’re trying to do to preserve, and I know we have these perspective I guess water quality surveys et cetera. It’s gone. It’s a beautiful lake Lake Ann and we can’t do that. The second thing, maybe it’s specific to my neighborhood. I don’t think it is but in the northern part Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 31 we have significant traffic concerns. Right now we have cars racing through our neighborhood that, you know with the few houses we have it’s bad. If you add 40 houses in that neighborhood with what we have and what we see in the way cars race through there with you know people avoiding stop signs in general. I’m thinking of the kids. I’m thinking of the overall safety. I’m thinking of the nuisance. And I really think you should give hard thought before approving something like this. Thank you. Kris Lenk: Hi my name is Kris Lenk and I live at 6895 Lucy Ridge Lane which is in the northern part and I oppose the current development concept because I have concerns also about making Lucy Ridge Lane a through street. The traffic flow on Lucy Ridge Lane would significantly increase due to the proposed number of houses to be built raising my concerns around traffic safety. We currently get a lot of traffic from our neighbors in Ashling Meadows and many don’t even stop at the stop sign coming into Lucy Ridge Lane or cars come extremely fast down the hill approaching Lake Lucy Road. I can only imagine what will happen with the additional homes. I also worry about the years of construction traffic coming through our neighborhood as there are still young kids in the neighborhood. I’d like to see the entrance of this development come off of Galpin versus making Lucy Ridge Lane a through street. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. John Butcher: Hello, I’m John Butcher and I’m at 6915 Lucy Ridge Lane so I’m thinking the best way to frame up you know all the thoughts going through my head with this development. I have 3 concerns, 2 requests and one suggestion I think tonight. Concerns paramount is the impact to the environment. We mentioned the 4 homes up on Lucy Ridge Lane that are being built or have recently been built across the street at the crossroads of Yosemite and Lucy Ridge Lane. There’s 12 acres that were razed about 2 years ago. Clear cut and that seems to be the way that we’ve been doing things recently. We come in and we completely destroy the forest. When that happened, we’ve been in Chanhassen for 14 years. When that happened Lake Lucy was materially changed and probably for decades. It looked pretty similar to Lake Ann. If you go back and look at watershed photos from the Lake Riley district, because I’m sure everyone knows Lake Lucy is the top of the watershed so what happens there starts to roll downhill. I’ll show you a photo of, anyone that might be able to see it but this is the dock on the north side of Lake Lucy 2 years after all of those trees were cut. It’s green right so there is no lake on the north side of Lake Lucy anymore. It’s all vegetation. I’m sure that the builder did what they could to control runoff but the reality is, is when we cut forests down that have been there for hundreds of year that phosphorus finds a way into the lake and that’s exactly what happened and no matter what we do around 200 acres. Around two lakes that are probably like we said today, you know Lake Ann is the prize. It is the gem of our community. Hundreds of thousands of people a year go there. There’s no way to control this unless we had a different plan for this land. As a resident I understand the need for development and trust me I’m pro commerce. I think we just have to consider something that was said before which is we don’t have to max this out. I love the idea of shared space in park but I can’t imagine that what we can do here can be undone in our generation or maybe even our kid’s unless we’re careful. Second is safety and that was mentioned before but if we have 90 homes with two access points on that north part and Lucy Ridge Lane becomes a through street, I just, I can’t imagine what that would do given all Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 32 the access already with Ashling Meadows. There’d be one entrance going west out to Galpin but anyone going north would come on Lake Lucy or Lucy Ridge Lane and that type of congestion is very concerning for me. And then third would be neighborhood continuity and when I think about the reason that we selected our home in that particular neighborhood, and it wasn’t mentioned. I mean in any of the documents that I read online no one really mentioned the Lake Lucy Ridge neighborhood of 15 homes which is attached to Ashling Meadows or I should say Ashling Meadows became attached to us. The reason we selected it is because it was, there were 14 other executive custom homes in that neighborhood and the idea of 90 homes that don’t match the way that Ashling Meadows and Lake Lucy Ridge were built doesn’t appeal to me. It’s not what I signed up for and it’s not why we bought where we did. We bought because it was a quiet neighborhood that met certain requirements. The lot sizes that are being proposed are not anywhere close to what’s in either of our neighborhoods. 15,000 square feet is, it’s almost half of what our lot sizes are. So it is definitely concerning for a number of reasons. Two requests. I guess one would be do everything in your power to minimize environmental impact here. You know we can’t undo it and make something and design something that our city and our residents can really be proud of. We don’t have many spaces like this left and I applaud the effort around shared use and park space. It’s important. We don’t, we are blessed with these resources in our city and I understand that everyone does what they can to protect it but that’s request number one. Second is there’s a second, there’s a tax ID parcel of 10 acres that abuts our neighborhood and I consider potentially some other uses for that. Either keeping it natural to create more of that buffer on the high side of the bluff. The runoff that comes, the steep bluffs if you look at the grading, and it was referenced in there too which I understand might be a very large retaining wall being proposed to be built, that’s where the natural forestation on the north side comes and runs down into Lake Lucy. I would consider is there something different that we can do with that 10 acre parcel to both protect the environment and that kind of leads me to my one suggestion. As an alternative design there might be a way to connect the streets today that dead end in Ashling Meadows with the street that dead ends on Lucy Ridge Lane but potentially connect that and probably leave maybe 15 or 20 homes up there especially with potentially I hope some larger lot requirements for those homes. I think if we can set some different expectations for what goes on those where we have the ability to protect the lake and the runoff that we should take it and I think you’re killing a lot of birds with one stone. I’d also love to see that whole north side just completely stripped. I mean if we’re really doing what could be the best of both worlds for everybody, you know Lennar would get a buildable site near Galpin that has a large wetland to protect the lakes and then you’d have the forestation up on the top part where the water runoff goes in, down into the wetland space that could remain and minimize any of that impact so I’d encourage everyone to go read the 2013 wetland study that was done. It mentions the fact that this potential exists in the long range plan and the fact that there’s risk to both lakes and you know Lake Ann is a gem. It’s 40 feet deep. It’s crystal clear and if we screw it up it’s not coming back so I understand there’s a lot of things that we’re balancing here and I hope that you guys consider alternative designs. Thank you very much. Aller: Thank you. Callie Edwards: Hello, Callie Edwards ID 18740 Partridge Circle and I just note all the trees in the pictures back there and the leaf over the council members head and I’d like to really comment on what he said earlier about the clear cutting. When we’ve done a lot of developing Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 33 in all of our area and I just want everyone to note the effect on the big woods. And if you’re not familiar with that term we have some of the only big woods in the world left here. I see some heads nodding and previously big woods have been saved such as in the Cenacle in Wayzata was saved by a conservation effort. Here it’s clear that we can’t save all 188 acres, although I know the nature conservancy had some efforts towards that. I’m really appreciative of what you all have done with the 2030 and the upcoming 2040 in the preservation of the trees and what you’re attempting to do also with the development because we all know there’ll be development. I’d just like us all to make note that there’s a way to use forestation without reforestation by keeping the existing big woods, which has an overstory and a canopy that will interact underneath in the ground with the fungi. With the whole entire ecosystem that affects as he so effectively mentioned and showed us what happens in our lakes and how important it is, as Vanessa said we’re really you know a water rich city and we need to be smart and be leaders in saving that and as we go forward just using the big woods concept I would suggest that perhaps an arborist might be included and involved and I know I believe you have Jill Seymour, is she an arborist for the City? Aanenson: Yes, Jill Sinclair on our staff yep. She’s walked the entire property as has the staff so. Callie Edwards: Okay excellent so. Strong: She’s actually a forester. Callie Edwards: Okay yeah, so wonderful and to have an arborist involved with the developer and in the wetlands. Thank you very much. Betsy Randall: I’m Betsy Randall. I live at 1571 Lake Lucy Road. I agree with basically everybody here. I am currently, I currently live across from the new developments at Yosemite and I’ve been working with Vanessa because of all the runoff that I’ve been getting from them. I’m really concerned about runoff. I don’t know that much about Prince’s property other than it’s gorgeous but again our lakes and our trees, our huge trees are very valuable. I’m concerned about clear cutting. It happened to the east of me when they put in the development oh 20 years ago. I’ve been here 22 years and I think part of that had a lot to do with Lake Lucy quality going down but is there any way, like I said I haven’t been on the property but I know I’ve got white pines. I’ve got oaks that are over 100 years old and I’m guessing there’s probably some of those on that property also and if they can be, I know it takes a lot to rope them off so that they don’t get compacted roots and stuff but I really, really think that it needs to be something that’s considered besides the small lots. Even a 15,000 square foot lot is only a third of an acre and the lots to the north I’ve gone through and looked online and most of them, there’s one or two that’s about the same size of the third but most of them are about a half acre. Maybe a little less. The 55, 65 foot lots I think are just way too small for that area. Chan’s growing. We’ve got lots of room to grow and I don’t think we need to have these teeny tiny lots. They can still build the same house on them but I just am really concerned of the quality of life of our water and our trees and the neighbors. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 34 Barry Dallavalle: Hi, I’m Barry Dallavalle and I live at 6960 Utica Lane. I’m going to try to expedite a little bit for our group. I represent the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association which has 14 members that own lots that border the east and north sides of Lake Lucy. A lot of our members are here tonight. Maybe I’ll ask for a show of hands just so you know. I have got comments from some of the other members and I’ll represent them tonight. We have a couple of concerns. One is obviously the water quality and handling of the runoff. We, our 14 members have actually taken it upon ourselves to treat the invasive species every year under the DNR permit that we can obtain so we know that this will probably impact that. Obviously because of that if we have to choose one of these plans we’re for the density transfer plan which provides the maximum amount of land undeveloped. What we only can hope for is that you know the Riley-Purgatory watershed does it’s job and make sure that the water’s properly handled. The phosphorus is removed. I did see Terry Jeffery’s input into the staff report and I’m sure that they’ll be on top of that. We just want to make sure that that’s, that due process is done. Also just to expand beyond that is, if there’s anything that we can do, that the developer can do or the City can do or the watershed can do to educate the new home buyers on proper practices of irrigation, lawn maintenance. I think the watershed’s been trying to do that but here’s a pretty good opportunity I think for a new home buyer to be educated quickly and easily with what they need to do. The other thing is construction noise. I think we are all familiar with the noise of a construction site. Obviously being on a lake that noise is transfers across the lake quite easily and we would like to see that period as short as possible. I think looking at the two plans it appears that the density transfer plan would be the fastest development because it’s developing on less land and maybe because of the lot mix that it would move those properties a little quicker and Lennar wouldn’t have to subcontract the lots to construction companies with longer horizons. And I guess that’s all I have so appreciate it. Thank you. Aller: Thank you sir. Brian Hugh: Hello, my name’s Brian Hugh. I live on 7441 Windmill Drive. Kind of on the south end of the proposed development. Just had a question related to some of what my other neighbors had said about the area kind of just on the very south end. I’ve lived there for 20 years and for as far as I can remember that area has been, is flooded most of the springtime from the melt off and I’ve heard from a fairly well informed source that there’s some discussion about bringing the hill down into there maybe to make that buildable because I can’t see with it how it floods every spring how he could develop kind of on that end. If you kind of notice every spring how it gets pretty well wet until maybe just around June or so, so I just wanted to call out that because I know it’s not marshland but we butt up right to the marshland but if you notice that area every spring it’s pretty wet throughout most of the springtime so just wanted to call that out. Aller: Thank you. Greg Stewart: Hi. My name is Greg Stewart. I live at 1893 Topaz Drive which is the northern edge of the proposed development and if you don’t mind I’d like to back the conversation up a little bit because it seems as though an awful lot of planning has gone on without a lot of public or community comment but the first request I have for the Lennar Corporation is that they deed the property over to the City of Chanhassen for permanent conservancy in the name of Prince Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 35 and this is what the City Council and what the City of Chanhassen should have done to begin with. Prince moved to Chanhassen because of the beauty of this place. In fact he bought this very property for that very reason. It’s therefore incredibly disingenuous to the City then to turn around and allow the planning to go forward to completely destroy that forest. If the City benefits from the property that Prince owns and used to operate as his recording studio and home no doubt derives tremendous amount of benefit and Chanhassen definitely derives tremendous amount of tourist dollars because of that and will continue to do so. So that’s my first request. However apparently Chanhassen likes to develop so all I can see is that there’s going to be more noise. More traffic. Loss of privacy. More crime. More pollution. Lower property values and most importantly destruction of the beautiful pristine forest that bounds our properties and several others. And so I would ask the developer if he isn’t going to deed the property over, as he should, that there be some statutes put in place that insures that the tree canopy is preserved during this building process and there are many simple ways that this could be done including increasing the buffer land between what backs up essentially on our property versus what would be built by Lennar from 10 feet, which will protect nothing given that mature trees have a 15 to 20 foot spacing, you could do the geometry there, to a 40 foot buffer. That would along preserve the main canopy of the forest. We haven’t talked about the biological impact. There are you know 10-20 species of birds. Possum. Raccoon. Deer. I’m sure the neighbors here could shout out any number of species that will all be greatly impacted by this beyond the human species that are here tonight and I hope somebody takes that into consideration. There are also archeologically sensitive areas within this that I don’t believe have been properly considered nor certainly have they been properly researched and I would hope that then they want to make sure that the City Council’s aware of this. That they go through the proper and rigorous means to insure that those archeological sites are thoroughly investigated and preserved. There are Native American burial grounds within this property. Now I don’t know if Lennar wants to be known as the builders not only for raping Prince’s forest but also for building on Native American grounds ala poltergeist but the bottom line is. Aller: Go ahead. Greg Stewart: I’m sorry, humor’s not allowed. So clearly most of the people here, maybe all of us here tonight are completely against this proposal for any number of very valid reasons that you’ve heard. All I can say is I hope going forward that there’s a concerted and honest effort to make sure that the City Council and the developers work with the community that they’re impacting to make sure if they do want to go forward with this proposal that it’s done with all the proper means that will help preserve the canopy and the biological diversity therein and also you know us as the neighbors of this new community. We want to get along with our new neighbors and the best way to do that is to work with us. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Joy Gorra: Well good evening fellow neighbors, city officials and Joe. My name is Joy Gorra and I’m the widow of Mike Gorra. I am the property south, right on Lake Ann. Everybody here in this room knows that area is truly a pristine jewel. We made that comment all through the night and what I’m asking is that we take our time on these projects. Change is inevitable but I’m going to steal a slogan from Great Plains Software. They use the term change without Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 36 change. I would love for that to happen in this area. Fast is not our friend. This has come up so quickly and I know tonight the City is talking about 2004. They’ve talked about the Gorra property as already being developed. That’s very frightening. But tonight we have a wonderful opportunity here because we still have time on our hands I believe. I would love input from my neighbors on how they would like to see that land, the Gorra property developed. I’ve heard a number of different items to go there. A golf course. A boys ranch. An amusement park. Purple Pleasures something on that order. But I know in this room there’s a lot of energy, a lot of smart people and we can do it right. So my request tonight is let’s not be quick. Let’s do it right. And I have to thank my neighbors on Lake Lucy. I have not been talking to my beaver friend and I think you guys may have something to do with that. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Geri Stewart: Hi, I’m Geri Stewart. I live on 1893 Topaz Drive. We’ve only lived there a year and so we actually knew that this land could get developed because had already died. However we thought it would take longer. That woods behind our house is gorgeous and both plans we get the woods cut down and developed and we don’t have a lot of buffer attached to our yard, although I know there’s some. I might get a surveyor out to find exactly which trees are mine but I, they’re talking about buffers but there is no buffer. There is a line like there’s our yard and here’s the other yard. I’m hoping that if it does get built out maybe they could leave a buffer of trees there because I mean the wildlife has to be able to get around somewhere and there is a lot of wildlife. Also I’ve been listening to all the traffic concerns and I’m looking there and I don’t know if there’s ordinances that you have to have more than one way into a neighborhood but I don’t see why if there’s an exit on Galpin and that road does go through, why it couldn’t end in a cul-de-sac and not join up with the Ashling Meadows neighborhood and then into Lucy Ridge. That’s all I have to say right now. Sorry. Aller: Thank you. Josh Kimber: Good evening. I’m Josh Kimber. I live at 2060 Majestic Way. You heard from the 2 gentlemen who are on the front part of the street. I’m at the very end. I’m the last house on that road. I echo pretty much everything everyone said here. I feel like the lot sizes are really small. I feel like we’re putting a ton of houses in here. But I do have a pretty serious question about the trees on the south side of Majestic. Ms. Aanenson said twice, or a couple times during the presentation that the goal is to preserve those trees. There are some huge trees back there and I would like to learn more about what that buffer is. I would imagine this map isn’t to scale but when I look at my lot compared to the house that would be behind me, it is a comparable sized lot. I don’t know how you maintain that tree coverage knowing that our lots are the same size. I have a little bit of trees on mine but how you would maintain that buffer there with the same lot size. I don’t know how that would be achieved so I would like to learn more about that buffer. But me also being at the end of Majestic Way we have had, like I’m in the low side of the street. We had two summers where me and my 3 neighbors were all flooded. My sump pump runs probably 10 or 11 months out of the year. I feel like there’s like a water ground river that goes through there or something but my sump pump is constantly running. I’ve got a sump pump that will pump 50 to 60 gallons a minute and I can’t keep up during rain storms. If they build up those lots behind me I’m going to have to do some major irrigation myself because as is my lot Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 37 goes up and then that lot does go down and if they build that up I’m going to get all that water from that back side and a majority of my neighbors on that north side of Majestic Way will be dealing with a large amount of water and flooding. But again I just can’t echo enough, I agree with everyone here that I oppose the current plan. I would love to see multiple plans. Not just two. This is great land back there. Everyone, anyone who has been back there, there are some serious grave concerns because of the elevation and constant change so I do think we need to take our time and look seriously at this gem that we have. Thanks. Aller: Thank you. Deborah Medeiros: Hi, Deborah Medeiros, 6820 Lucy Ridge Lane and I more have a question. The road that goes along the north side of the development is, like have there been feasibility studies and do we know that that road can even go in because as I looked at a map there were some ponds and I was unsure of how they would get a road in there. Aller: We’re going to hold responses until later. We’re getting comments so. Deborah Medeiros: Okay. I guess I’d want to know that because if not then everything would go through Ashling Meadows and Lake Lucy which doesn’t seem like a good reason for safety reasons and then just echoing all the environmental concerns of everyone in the room. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Mehdi Ayouche: Good evening everybody. My name is Mehdi Ayouche. I live in 2102 Majestic Way. South side. I’m new to the neighborhood so I moved like a year ago but the reason I move is the same reason Jon and other neighbors on Majestic Way moved 20 years ago. 16 years ago is I fell in love with the trees and the quietness of the neighborhood and how clean it is and I think putting the many numbers of houses on the south side, that’s going to be a big mistake because we’re dealing with a lot of wetland. A lot underground water and I feel that is not a realistic plan especially if you look at the Galpin Boulevard is going to be very congested area so I feel that there is a need to review this plan. And also nobody talk about school zoning. So how is that going to affect the neighborhood. 200 houses. Almost 1,000 people. If we average 4 people per house. I mean that’s a lot of kids so I think we should consider a better alternative or I mean I agree with the majority of the folks and I hear what their concerns. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward? There we go. Tamara Sather: Hi, thank you. My name is Tamara Sather and I live at 7090 Utica Lane and I just echo what most of these people say here too. I do appreciate the preservation model because I’ve lived in Chanhassen for 27 years and it’s what drew me to this town also is the trails and the parks and I hope that we can continue that. I also, talking about the Lake Lucy Ridge property. We were here oh 14 years ago maybe and we had the same concern about the developer that was coming into that. I think it was Mr. Necker and we opposed that. My neighbors were here with me as we presented to the Planning Commission about reducing the amount of homes that were Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 38 going to go in there and it was successful and they reduced it and we all live in developments and we understand that, you know that that has to happen but again I echo the idea that does it have to be this many. We understand it’s going to happen. Huge Prince fan and sadly when he died the first thing I thought was crap it’s going to get developed and that just broke my heart and so you know my thoughts are going, I should have started a Go Fund Me page. I mean he’s so famous. All this but I just wonder if there’s another, a third proposal that still allows for the preservation but limits the amount of homes that go in. Thank you. Charles Loeffler: Good evening. My name is Charles Loeffler. I live at 7327 Fawn Hill Road so I guess I’m on the other side of Galpin compared to everybody else today. My property doesn’t quite end up on Galpin Road but there is a retention pond that’s at the end of my property and it’s an area there that’s near Hunter Drive so as the road is proposed to go into this subdivision, as the ladies and gentlemen so far have mentioned from Majestic Way, that wetland area is definitely going to get impacted and as fill gets put in there or what not it does beg to question where that water will go. Will the retention pond on the other side of Galpin grow? Certainly the gentleman who commented about his sump pump, as he mentioned that water is going to go somewhere. We really need to understand what impact that is going to have. I’m fairly new to the area. I moved in about a year and a half ago but again I moved in taking a look at the neighborhood. I looked in a lot of different areas within the Twin Cities and chose Chanhassen because of the area and because of the neighborhood and just feel that even as I look at the development on Fawn Hill Road where the new houses are being built right now and that to me very high density just isn’t part of that neighborhood and that area. And when I take a look at the vast amount of homes being planned in that lower portion, that just is not, it’s not the neighborhood that I planned on moving into a year and a half ago and would hope that as other people have mentioned we take our time. We take a look at it and determine what the right plan is for this area because right now what I’m seeing concerns me. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Danly Jones: Hi there. I’m Danly Jones. I live at 7026 Pima Lane so actually not in this neighborhood but I grew up going to Lake Ann and I have a 6 month old daughter and I want her to be able to swim in the same clean lake that I did and enjoy this land and I just don’t want to see it ruined. So I’d like to ask the question is you know, is this final? Is it final that we have to develop this land? Is there something more the City can do? Is there something more that we can do to come together to preserve either some of this from being so dense or all of it? Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Julie Butcher: Hi, my name is Julie Butcher. I live at 6915 Lucy Ridge Lane and I just wanted to talk about the fact that I was, I really hope that our city can be good stewards of this land. We have 200 acres of forest and wetlands and bluff that is really some of if not the last within the city limits of Chanhassen. Sad enough that we have to have it developed and I same, I would love for this to not be developed at all but if it is going to be developed and we do have to have homes then I really think that this is not a responsible plan for our city. Why we have to have so many homes in such a small area. The density. One builder. A cookie cutter neighborhood Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 39 effect. All the reasons that the people here have spoken already. Chanhassen is a quaint, was a quaint small town kind of community feeling and the more that we clear cut land like this and throw up a whole bunch of houses practically zero lot lines that all pretty much look the same then we lose our identity that I’ve held so dearly to over the last 20 years that we’ve lived here. So I would just ask this committee to be good stewards of this land. What is left of it. I love it here and I want to keep being proud of the town that I live in. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Dale Carlson: Hi everyone. Ditto. Dale Carlson, 6900 Utica Lane, Chanhassen. Been there 46 years or something like that. I just have a question for you guys. I hear all this stuff about destroying wetlands and water quality. Who’s responsible, who’s going to be held accountable if that happens? Is anyone going to be held accountable if the geese go away? I hope they do maybe but I’m saying if the deer go away and all these birds. I mean there’s, I can’t tell you how many different, who will be held accountable? Thank you. Aller: Thank you sir. Audience: Is it too soon to ask questions about construction itself and practices and everything? Aller: What we’re doing here is a concept plan. You’re welcomed to come on up real quick if you have a specific question about the construction so that we’re aware of it but the information, the whole purpose of this communication and this discourse that we’re having is to get information to the developer or the owner or whoever’s going to be building on a piece of property and the City Council and let them get that information so that it can be responded to properly at City Council so if you have a specific question we’ll have you come up again. Audience: Or will there be meetings later once plans are, so that we can bring up those concerns? Aller: Yes and even though the concept may be approved eventually and it becomes a plan, they’ll come forward with an actual plan. One of the reasons why we go through this process is to allow for a less expensive and intrusive situation so they get the feedback before they invest in the property and start moving on things that they can’t turn away from and they can’t back down. They can’t really listen to the concerns of the community so this is really the best way to do it so the community can voice it’s opinion. They can hear it and then if they decide to do so and it works for them then they can take those matters into account and move forward with the project with that information. Audience: I do have one quick question. Aller: Sure. Audience: I sure would have liked to have a hearing like this before the land even got sold. Was there one and I just missed it? Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 40 Aller: Well you know I wouldn’t want to have a hearing if I wanted to sell my house so that’s the kind of situation. Audience: But the City wasn’t given first options on do you want to buy this and conserve this land? Aller: I wouldn’t know but I don’t think so. Any last individuals wishing to come forward, come on up forward. State your name and address for the record and, you’re back. Angelo Galioto: I just had one question. Angelo Galioto, 1805 Emerald Lane again. Aller: Thank you. Angelo Galioto: As we speak here today does Lennar own the property? That’s a question I have. Aller: I believe they have the right to build on the property so. Angelo Galioto: They have the right to build. Do they own it? Aller: We can ask them what their legal position is. Is that the last question? So we’ll ask, now before, it will be. So before I close the comment portion of this process we did receive several emails from individuals that are part of the record. Meredith and Greg McGuirk, David Cohn and Julie Witt and they have been read and they will be made part of the record and forwarded on along with all the other comments. Steve Wallace: I apologize I just showed up late but I’d like to make a comment. I’m Steve Wallace. I live at 6900 Lucy Ridge Lane. Aller: Welcome. Steve Wallace: Strongly oppose the plan for a lot of the reasons that I just heard towards the end of the discussion here. Obviously land conservation is critical. This is beautiful land. We’ve seen a significant impact to Lake Lucy as some of the development and runoff that has created sediment and actually really that lake is turning into a bunch of weeds because of a lot of the sediment runoff so number one oppose. If we need to do a development I would strongly recommend taking the time to evaluate other options. I would look at having a main entrance and an only entrance off of Galpin as opposed to running through some of the other subdivisions. I would cul-de-sac those off and you know buffer zone as well. I think that’s the other component. If there is going to be development a 10 foot buffer zone is not nearly enough in order to maintain the trees that are already there and make sure there’s a significant buffer between subdivisions so I would recommend those things but appreciate the time. Aller: Thank you. Okay I’m going to close the public comment section and ask the developer to come forward again and to the extent possible, with all the information that you’re gathering Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 41 which of course you’ll have a record of, if you could make some comments at this point in time that would be great. Joe Jablonski: I can that. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you for everyone who provided comments. I took a lot of notes. I’m not going to necessarily go through all of them but I’ll try to address a few of the broader details or concerns that were brought up. The first one, does Lennar own the property? At this point we have a contract to purchase the property. An option agreement to purchase the property. We do not own it at this time. Let’s see, let’s talk quick about connectivity and some of this will be broad connectivity discussion but what we’ve done here, which is at the direction of staff and is in general good planning, at least as far as the initial concept plan stage is we’ve attempted to line up the road connections into the property at the existing roads so there’d be one at, I can’t remember the name but there’s one on the south end that lines up there. There’s one at the north that lines there and I think there’s a road that comes across that’s called Winslow Path or. Aanenson: Wynsong. Joe Jablonski: Wynsong Path and we also have made the connections to the existing neighborhoods knowing that when those neighborhoods were built there’s a road connection at them. Probably also, I haven’t verified this but there’s probably also a sign that says future road connection possible so we’ve been given direction by staff, at least at this point to make those connections because it connects the neighborhoods. It’s connectivity. It’s for the long run it’s typical in planning so that you have the ability to get through for public safety, fire, those kind of things. We did eliminate one connection that was right here. There’s a road stub. You can kind of see it. It’s a little tough on the plan but we were not going to make that connection or we weren’t showing it in this plan. We have had other plans that did show that connection but we did eliminate one. So that’s kind of that north quadrant. There is also rules and regulations that the City has imposed that only allow you a certain distance for cul-de-sacs. Part of that I don’t know off the top of my head, I’m sure one of the staff members know what the cul-de-sac length requirements are but that’s kind of where the connectivity also comes from. If you, staff has anything to add to that. Bender: The length of the cul-de-sacs is a maximum of 800 feet. Joe Jablonski: Okay. So that’s the connecting points up in that north neighborhood. You know that obviously traffic connection concerns that was something that we’ve heard, or I heard quite a bit about. That’s something that we’re going to have to rely a little bit on the Planning Commission and council to help give us direction on how important that is to them to have those connecting points and certainly also take the input of staff on that as well. So there are a couple things that also came up. Let’s see related to wetlands and drainage. I’m going to talk real broadly about this because again we haven’t gotten into a whole lot of engineering on this. As the Chairman was explaining part of this process is, we start with a concept plan which helps establish how the lots could be laid out and then as we get into the next level, a preliminary plat and we go through that process we get into a lot more engineering details and we start figuring out some of the details of drainage, grading, some of those things that we haven’t had an opportunity to study a whole lot at this point but some of the things I will point out is, there is Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 42 earlier the wetland delineation plan, there is a wetland shown in this location that we would be impacting. We have attempted to wherever possible limit or eliminate the need to impact wetlands but this is one that is an impact. That road really cannot be moved in one form or fashion getting into that property at that location where there’s a road connection is important which is why we’ve maintained that. We would be required per state and regulator laws to mitigate in some form or fashion that wetland impact. There’s a number of different ways to do that. Drainage off of some of these back yards and buffering, both on the north and the south were also things that I had down that came up several times. Again we haven’t spent a lot of time on that but that’s something that based on the feedback and the comments that I’ve heard tonight that we’ll go back and work on between now and for sure the preliminary plat stage that I would envision us having a landscape plan and working closely with staff as well on establishing some kind of buffer at both the south and the north neighborhoods. There will be land alteration that obviously has to take place. Topography on the site is fairly dramatic so there will be a fair amount of dirt of moving that occurs but also as part of that we also have to follow the watershed and water quality rules knowing that some of that’s going to be directed to ponds that will be built that aren’t there today. A storm sewer that’s put in or will be put in that’s not there today. And just a number of things on the site through the improvement process that isn’t there to help treat that water today as natural runoff but will be with development. And we have to follow very closely the rules and the guidance of the watersheds and the city code and all that thing to help achieve because the last thing that we want is to damage or in any way cause any problems with either one of the lakes as well which is part of the reason why we’ve worked closely with staff to help try to preserve such a large area. So that, let’s see buffers. Cul-de-sacs. Lot sizes. I guess you know some of the questions and obviously I heard that quite a few times. Lot sizes are a concern. Again the reason why we’re doing it is two fold. One in order to allow the property the ability to develop it either all has to be developed or some of it has to be concentrated and you have a willing seller that wants to sell the property. You have a willing buyer who wants to buy the property and we have to do it in a manner that follows the rules and the guidelines laid out by the city code and by the zoning ordinances and doing that which is why we’ve shown two plans. One that impacts a lot of the area down in here and the other that falls within the PUD guidelines. Still maintaining the same setbacks. The same lot coverage areas are a little bit flexible but the setbacks are the same on the sides and the front usually. There may be some instances where front setbacks are relaxed or asked to be relaxed but we maintain the same side setbacks that are required in the RS-1 standards so while they are smaller and they are a little bit different it is a way to develop in a manner that allows us and gives the city the opportunity to preserve a large area of open space. Let’s see. I heard a comment about donating the land to the City. If that were to occur that probably would have occurred by the estate of the property owner and they elected to sell it and you know I don’t know if the City was prepared to pay or had any opportunity to review the use or the price of the property but they, it was shopped or put out for sale to the open market and at that time the City could have also put in the opportunity to buy it so. That, and I know it’s difficult to see these types of properties develop. It’s a very pristine piece of property. We understand that. We know that. We’ve done a lot of development not just in Chanhassen but around the Twin Cities and we really see these as partnerships with the cities and we want to see it not only develop in a way that works for us but works for the people of Chanhassen. Not just in the immediate neighborhoods but the whole neighborhood and we recognize that there’s some unique things here and we want to help the City see them so I know that’s difficult to hear or can be difficult to see and, but it is a Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 43 developable property. It is in your zoning districts. It is provided city sewer and water which gives it the ability to be developed so. Aller: Great thank you. Audience: I have a question. On your other plan all your lot sizes were 90 feet. Joe Jablonski: Correct. Audience: Why don’t you carry that over to this plan? That’s what everybody’s been talking about. Joe Jablonski: Well there’s economics involved that don’t allow the, there’s not enough lots on that plan shown in the upland areas or up in these areas only to support the ability to have it developed. Aller: Okay. Are we done? Joe Jablonski: I think I covered as many broad questions as I had written down. I know there’s some specifics but if you folks have anything more I’d be happy to address them. Aller: Anything for staff or the applicant at this point in time? Thank you. Okay I’ll open it up for comments from the commissioners. Weick: I’ll start. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: If that’s okay. As I often do, I’m fairly consistent with my views. I’ll go ahead and share some of those as it relates to this. Development, before I do that I would say thank you to everyone that came out this evening. It is critically important that everyone voices their opinions and I applaud in return your respectful input that you provided tonight and appreciate that. I’m also impressed that the comments were mostly focused on our natural resources which I have a serious concern about and so I appreciate the facts that were brought forward about various lakes and things like that that got into the record tonight as well. I would say also that I’m not sure it’s fair to say that planning without public input is happening because I think that’s what tonight is the first step in representing and there’ll be more opportunities to do that as well so I hope everyone is able to feel comfortable that at least their opinions are being heard throughout this process. That said I would say that I am always and will always be opposed to large houses on small lots. I never will be convinced that if, you know if you have the land you should necessarily build on it and I understand there’s a lot of, there’s a lot of realities about developing that that doesn’t take into account but it’s still my opinion and I’m opposed to 35 percent lot coverage. I’m always opposed to increasing the lot coverage over 25 percent. I’ll continue to be opposed to that. And so I hope that the City Council is sincere in listening to the comments and the feedback from this evening as well as my own as we move forward. Thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 44 Tietz: Chairman Aller? Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Yeah I’d just like to echo all the sentiment tonight for the speaking on behalf of the resource. You know it’s a spectacular resource that we can’t duplicate. The woods. The big, the remnant big woods. The mature high quality oaks that exist on that north slope. The severity of the slope on that north side. I think the plan, the concepts really lack a respect for the landscape basically or fundamentally. And then if you took these plans, either one of them, they’re basically the same except for the shoreline development. If you walk that site with these plans it’s going to be totally mass graded and totally clear cut. There’s no, in my opinion there’s no way you can build that road on the north side. The north end of the property without virtually clear cutting that hillside. Those are severe cross slopes and to put the city grade, the city standard road in there and then to develop lots that you would put what, 15,000 square foot lots and those are going to be the largest homes. It’s going to be, you will not recognize that hillside so I think we do want a quality development and the old adage of less is more I think really applies in this situation. That we do not have to maximize the density of this property to meet a code to get a quality development and that’s all I have to say. Aller: Additional comments? Okay well I will again thank everybody present and it is not an easy conversation to have when nobody wants to hear someone tell them what they would like done with your potential property and at the same time nobody wants to have somebody come in and build something that they feel is not to their, either their standards or is something that is detrimental to an area that we all love. We’re all passionate about our safety. The safety of our kids and our roads. We’re all passionate about the trees and the lakes that we have here and so again I appreciate the civility with which you’ve handled yourself tonight and I would thank the representative of Lennar as well for coming in and actually participating in the process. Listening and attempting to answer to the best of his ability those things that are put out there on short notice. Again this matter will be moving forward to the City Council. Your comments are in the record. The information that we’ve received in emails is also in the record. Before we close I will just state that I join in my fellow commissioners in their belief that it may not be Option A or Option B but I feel that there’s an Option C out there that is going to be acceptable to all. We’re not going to please all but at least it will be a combined effort that was started here tonight with your comments and Lennar’s listening so with that I’ll request that the motion, appreciate motion be made to move this forward. Tietz: It’s just a review. Aller: It’s a review then I’ll just ask that the review be forwarded to the City Council and that will be on August 13th as well? Aanenson: Correct and we do the verbatim Minutes so the comments will be. Aller: So the verbatim Minutes will be for the City Council to hear and to read and reflect on before they take action on the concept as is presented to them on the 13th so again if you’re at Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 45 home or you’re here follow the website. Come on in and see the City Council on the 13th or follow them at home. Moving forward to, let’s take a 2 minute recess. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Randall noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on June 19, 2018 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: I will give you, we do have an item on the August 7th meeting. I know it’s National Night Out but it didn’t get on the city schedule so we actually have a subdivision on that night so, and then the next night back to back, because we love being together, joint commission tour. So we do have a bus this time so we can all be together and hear the same thing which will be nice so we are going to go by some of those projects on Lake Lucy. We’ll just talk about those infill development and ask for good conversation and then we’re hoping to revisit the water treatment plant. We’re hoping it’s pretty close but the architecture in there. Weick: It’s beautiful. Aanenson: It’s beautiful. I will give a compliment to Sharmeen Al-Jaff on our staff who worked with the Public Works Director to get that looking so spiffy so. Weick: If I may I drove by with my family and I said, I said hey what do you think that looks like because they didn’t know what it was and they said it looks like a mansion. Aanenson: Good job. I’ll tell her that. Yes. So you know we really don’t have anything else. We were talking about Foxwood. A couple ideas but if somebody wants to shoot me an email of something they would like to look at for that night on Wednesday. We’ll have snacks. Again the Senior Commission, Environmental Commission, and Park Commission will all be there so let me know if you can make it and I’ll have Jenny send out to email to everybody so we can get a head count. Randall: What day again? Aanenson: It’d be Wednesday. Aller: The 8th of August. Aanenson: Throw out back to back unfortunately. Randall: No that’s fine. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2018 46 Aanenson: We always try to find, well because our meetings are prescriptive we can’t just bump our meeting and so, so that’s where we’re at so that is all I had for you. Thank you for the long meeting. Aller: Thank you. That was a good meeting. Everybody got their voices heard and I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Madsen moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Resolution 2018­59: Approve Quote for Ithilien Pond Maintenance Project Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7. Prepared By Paul Oehme, Public Works Director File No: Project No. 2018­11 PROPOSED MOTION "The City Council adopts a resolution approving a quote for the Ithilien Wetland Maintenance and Restoration Project from Kusske Construction in the amount of $98,338.00." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND The wetland proposed for maintenance has had significant amounts of sediment accumulation from stormwater runoff over the past 26 years. Staff has been working on planning for the pond cleanout since 2017. Also, residents have requested their pond be cleaned out to protect their properties. This particular basin receives all the stormwater from the 20 homes in the Ithilien development, prior to its discharge into the Curry Farms Park ponds and eventually into Christmas Lake. Maintenance of this basin is critical to prevent significant pollution from entering the lake, streams, and for flood control.  The project is proposed to excavate sediment and grade the pond to the original contours.  DISCUSSION Stormwater treatment is very important as it reduces pollutants (sediment and phosphorus) from entering our public waters. It is also important that the wetland maintenance is completed so it functions as designed to best treat the stormwater before it enters the Curry Farms Park ponds and Christmas Lake. Residents are supportive of the project, but have concerns regarding tree protection and construction access. City staff held neighborhood meetings with the directly­affected property owners on September 22, 2018, and November 30, 2018. Solutions to their concerns that were satisfactory to both city staff and property owners were found at the November 30 meeting.  The trees in the northeast corner of the pond are planned to be saved.  The construction access will be moved farther to the south on Teton Lane, and a willow tree planned for removal along Teton Lane will be trimmed instead.   QUOTES RECEIVED The city received five quotes from contractors for the work on November 20, 2018.  The low quote for this project was from Kusske Construction. This contractor has completed work in Chanhassen in the past and their work has been acceptable. Contractor Quote Total Kusske Construction $98,338.00 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectResolution 2018­59: Approve Quote for Ithilien Pond Maintenance ProjectSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By Paul Oehme, Public Works Director File No: Project No. 2018­11PROPOSED MOTION"The City Council adopts a resolution approving a quote for the Ithilien Wetland Maintenance and RestorationProject from Kusske Construction in the amount of $98,338.00."Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDThe wetland proposed for maintenance has had significant amounts of sediment accumulation from stormwater runoffover the past 26 years. Staff has been working on planning for the pond cleanout since 2017. Also, residents haverequested their pond be cleaned out to protect their properties. This particular basin receives all the stormwater fromthe 20 homes in the Ithilien development, prior to its discharge into the Curry Farms Park ponds and eventually intoChristmas Lake. Maintenance of this basin is critical to prevent significant pollution from entering the lake, streams,and for flood control.  The project is proposed to excavate sediment and grade the pond to the original contours. DISCUSSIONStormwater treatment is very important as it reduces pollutants (sediment and phosphorus) from entering our publicwaters. It is also important that the wetland maintenance is completed so it functions as designed to best treat thestormwater before it enters the Curry Farms Park ponds and Christmas Lake. Residents are supportive of the project,but have concerns regarding tree protection and construction access. City staff held neighborhood meetings with thedirectly­affected property owners on September 22, 2018, and November 30, 2018. Solutions to their concerns thatwere satisfactory to both city staff and property owners were found at the November 30 meeting.  The trees in thenortheast corner of the pond are planned to be saved.  The construction access will be moved farther to the south onTeton Lane, and a willow tree planned for removal along Teton Lane will be trimmed instead.  QUOTES RECEIVEDThe city received five quotes from contractors for the work on November 20, 2018.  The low quote for this projectwas from Kusske Construction. This contractor has completed work in Chanhassen in the past and their work hasbeen acceptable. Contractor Quote Total Kusske Construction $98,338.00 BKJ Land Company $99,954.00 Minger Construction Co. Inc.$106,258.50 Widmer Construction $130,044.50 Burschville Construction Inc.$197,525.00 Funding for this project has been budgeted for in the 2018 CIP and will be paid for by the Stormwater Pond Improvements – Stormwater Management Fund SWMP­32 and Water Resources fees for services budget.   The total amount of the project came in higher than expected due to additional sediment removal and dewatering costs. The project may start in December and will take approximately three weeks to complete, depending on weather.   ATTACHMENTS: Resolution CIP Sheet Project Location Map Grading Plan CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: December 10, 2018 RESOLUTION NO: 2018-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A QUOTE FOR ITHILIEN POND MAINTENANCE PROJECT NO. 18-11 WHEREAS, pursuant to a request for quotes for the Ithilien Pond Maintenance Project, four quotes were received and opened. The quotes are as follows: Contactor Quote Total Kusske Construction Co, LLC $98,338.00 BKJ Excavating $99,954.00 Minger Construction Co. Inc $106,258.50 Widmer Construction LLC $130,044.50 Burschville Construction, Inc. $197,525.00 AND WHEREAS, Kusske Construction Co, LLC had the lowest responsible quote with a total quote amount of $98,338.00. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Chanhassen City Council: 1. The mayor and clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Kusske Construction Co, LLC in the name of the City of Chanhassen for Ithilien Pond Maintenance Project No. 18-11, according to the plans and specifications. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day of December, 2018. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor YES NO ABSENT CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Resolution 2018­60: Designate Polling Place Locations for 2019 Elections Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.8. Prepared By Kim Meuwissen, Office Manager File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council adopts a resolution designating polling place locations in Chanhassen for 2019 elections.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND Minnesota State Statute 204B.16 Subdivision 1 requires that by December 31st of each year, the governing body of each municipality designate by ordinance or resolution a polling place for each election precinct for the following calendar year.  For 2019, the following polling places are designated for each election precinct in Chanhassen: Precinct Location 1A Chanhassen Fire Station, 7610 Laredo Drive 1B Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard 2A Chanhassen Recreation Center, 2310 Coulter Boulevard 2B Chanhassen Recreation Center, 2310 Coulter Boulevard 3 Westwood Community Church, 3121 Westwood Drive 4 Chanhassen Public Works Building, 7901 Park Place 5 Living Christ Lutheran Church, 820 Lake Drive Hennepin County 1 Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard Hennepin County 2 Chanhassen Recreation Center, 2310 Coulter Boulevard These polling locations remain unchanged from the 2018 elections.  RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution designating polling place locations in Chanhassen for 2019 elections. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: December 10, 2018 RESOLUTION NO: 2018-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING PLACE LOCATIONS FOR 2019 ELECTIONS WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute 204B.16 Subdivision 1 requires that by December 31 of each year, the governing body of each municipality designate by ordinance or resolution a polling place for each election precinct for the following calendar year. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, that the following polling places are designated for each election precinct in 2019: Precinct Location 1A Chanhassen Fire Station, 7610 Laredo Drive 1B Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard 2A Chanhassen Recreation Center, 2310 Coulter Boulevard 2B Chanhassen Recreation Center, 2310 Coulter Boulevard 3 Westwood Community Church, 3121 Westwood Drive 4 Chanhassen Public Works Building, 7901 Park Place 5 Living Christ Lutheran Church, 820 Lake Drive Hennepin County 1 Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard Hennepin County 2 Chanhassen Recreation Center, 2310 Coulter Boulevard Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day of December, 2018. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor YES NO ABSENT CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Resolution 2018­61: Orchard Lane Area Street & Utility Reconstruction Project ­ Call Assessment Hearing Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.9. Prepared By George Bender, Assistant City Engineer File No: Project No. 18­01 PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council adopts a resolution calling the assessment hearing for the Orchard Lane Street and Utility Reconstruction Project No. 2018­01 for Monday, January 28, 2019.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND On March 13, 2017, the City Council approved a consultant contract for the 2018 Street Reconstruction Project. On October 8, 2018, the City Council accepted the feasibility study and ordered the public hearing. On October 18, 2018, city and WSB staff held a neighborhood meeting for the proposed project. On October 22, 2018, the City Council held the public hearing and authorized the preparation of plans and specifications. On November 13, 2018, the City Council approved plans and specifications and authorized the advertisement of bids. DISCUSSION Every year the city considers streets that are in poor condition to be rehabilitated or reconstructed.For the 2018 Street Reconstruction Project, staff is proposing to make improvements to approximately 0.7 miles of streets in the Orchard Lane neighborhood.The current pavement condition indices (PCIs) are shown on the graphic below.  The bid opening is scheduled for December 13, 2018. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectResolution 2018­61: Orchard Lane Area Street & Utility Reconstruction Project ­ CallAssessment HearingSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.9.Prepared By George Bender, Assistant City Engineer File No: Project No. 18­01PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council adopts a resolution calling the assessment hearing for the Orchard Lane Street and UtilityReconstruction Project No. 2018­01 for Monday, January 28, 2019.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDOn March 13, 2017, the City Council approved a consultant contract for the 2018 Street Reconstruction Project.On October 8, 2018, the City Council accepted the feasibility study and ordered the public hearing.On October 18, 2018, city and WSB staff held a neighborhood meeting for the proposed project.On October 22, 2018, the City Council held the public hearing and authorized the preparation of plans andspecifications.On November 13, 2018, the City Council approved plans and specifications and authorized the advertisement of bids.DISCUSSIONEvery year the city considers streets that are in poor condition to be rehabilitated or reconstructed.For the 2018Street Reconstruction Project, staff is proposing to make improvements to approximately 0.7 miles of streets in theOrchard Lane neighborhood.The current pavement condition indices (PCIs) are shown on the graphic below.  The bid opening is scheduled for December 13, 2018. Per State Statute, the City Council must call the assessment hearing and publish the hearing date at least two weeks prior to the assessment hearing. Staff will publish the notice in the January 10, 2019 edition of the Chanhassen Villager. This schedule provides just over two weeks’ time between the publication date and the assessment hearing. SCHEDULE The proposed project schedule is as follows: Call Assessment Hearing December 10, 2018 Assessment Hearing; Accept Bids and Award Contract January 28, 2019 Start Construction April 2019 Construction Substantially Complete September 2019 The previous schedule recommended calling for the Assessment Hearing on January 14, 2019.  However, due to notice requirements, this item was moved to December 10, 2018.  This will not affect the overall project schedule. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: December 10, 2018 RESOLUTION NO: 2018-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION CALLING THE ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR THE 2018 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PROJECT NO. 18-01 WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute 429 regarding special assessments for public improvement projects requires City Council to officially set the assessment hearing date for capital improvement projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 28th day of January, 2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvements will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessments to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvements. The clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment rolls not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City of Chanhassen, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid by October 1 of the year the assessment is adopted. The property owner may at any time thereafter, pay to the City of Chanhassen the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day of December, 2018. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor YES NO ABSENT CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Resolution 2018­62: Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project Public Hearing ­ Order Improvements and Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: F.1. Prepared By George Bender, Assistant City Engineer File No: Project No. 2018­02 PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council orders improvements and preparation of plans and specifications for the 2018 Street Improvement Project No. 18­02." Approval requires a 4/5 Vote. BACKGROUND On May 8, 2017, the City Council approved a consultant contract for the Lake Drive East Street Rehabilitation Project No. 18­02. On November 8, 2018, an open house neighborhood meeting was held to discuss the proposed project. On November 26, 2018, the City Council received the feasibility report and ordered the Public Hearing.  Council also requested cost breakouts for three project scenarios, including (1) intersection improvements in addition to mill and overlay of Dakota Avenue and a small portion of Lake Drive East relative to the intersection improvements; (2) just utility improvements; and (3) mill and overlay of just Lake Drive East. DISCUSSION Every year the city considers streets that are in poor condition to be rehabilitated or reconstructed. The Capital Improvement Program planned for the rehabilitation of Lake Drive East in the summer of 2019. Staff utilized the city’s Pavement Management Program and site investigations to determine the project extents, as illustrated in Figure 1. The project includes approximately 0.76 miles of urbanized streets. Lake Drive East is a Municipal State Aid Route that was constructed in 1991, overlaid in 2002 and sealcoated in 1995 and 2005. The 2018 surveyed pavement conditions were 59 and 58 on the west and east sides of Dakota Avenue, respectively, as shown in Figure 1. A PCI of 100 represents a new street. Figure 1: Proposed Project Area and 2018 Pavement Condition Scores Dakota Avenue is also a Municipal State Aid Route constructed in 1986 and sealcoated in 2005. As shown in Figure 1, the 2018 surveyed pavement condition was 73, which is higher than expected due to the extensive patching along the street corridor. A 190­foot long, raised concrete median separates northbound and southbound Dakota Avenue. The northbound portion consists of two through lanes, one left turn lane, and one right turn lane. The southbound portion consists of two lanes that transition to a right turn and a through/left turn lane at the Lake Drive East intersection. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectResolution 2018­62: Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project Public Hearing ­ Order Improvements and Authorize Preparation ofPlans and SpecificationsSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: F.1.Prepared By George Bender, Assistant City Engineer File No: Project No. 2018­02PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council orders improvements and preparation of plans and specifications for the 2018 Street Improvement Project No. 18­02."Approval requires a 4/5 Vote.BACKGROUNDOn May 8, 2017, the City Council approved a consultant contract for the Lake Drive East Street Rehabilitation Project No. 18­02.On November 8, 2018, an open house neighborhood meeting was held to discuss the proposed project.On November 26, 2018, the City Council received the feasibility report and ordered the Public Hearing.  Council also requested cost breakouts for threeproject scenarios, including (1) intersection improvements in addition to mill and overlay of Dakota Avenue and a small portion of Lake Drive East relativeto the intersection improvements; (2) just utility improvements; and (3) mill and overlay of just Lake Drive East.DISCUSSIONEvery year the city considers streets that are in poor condition to be rehabilitated or reconstructed. The Capital Improvement Program planned for therehabilitation of Lake Drive East in the summer of 2019. Staff utilized the city’s Pavement Management Program and site investigations to determine theproject extents, as illustrated in Figure 1. The project includes approximately 0.76 miles of urbanized streets.Lake Drive East is a Municipal State Aid Route that was constructed in 1991, overlaid in 2002 and sealcoated in 1995 and 2005. The 2018 surveyedpavement conditions were 59 and 58 on the west and east sides of Dakota Avenue, respectively, as shown in Figure 1. A PCI of 100 represents a newstreet.Figure 1: Proposed Project Area and 2018 Pavement Condition ScoresDakota Avenue is also a Municipal State Aid Route constructed in 1986 and sealcoated in 2005. As shown in Figure 1, the 2018 surveyed pavementcondition was 73, which is higher than expected due to the extensive patching along the street corridor. A 190­foot long, raised concrete median separates northbound and southbound Dakota Avenue. The northbound portion consists of two through lanes, one left turn lane, and one right turn lane. The southbound portion consists of two lanes that transition to a right turn and a through/left turn lane at the Lake Drive East intersection. Traffic counts were performed in August 2017. Analysis focused on weekday AM and PM peak hours because weekend traffic was determined to be 30% to 50% lower than weekday traffic. The counted vehicles were 8,000 vehicles per day (VPD) between the intersection with TH 5 and the intersection at Lake Drive East. The counted vehicles were 4,100 VPD east of the Dakota Avenue intersection and 3,650 VPD west of the intersection. 950 VPD were counted utilizing the southern leg of the Dakota Avenue intersection. Street Improvements Staff recommends the pavement rehabilitation be accomplished as a mill and overlay project area. Based on the pavement condition, traffic, and geotechnical report, a three­inch mill and overlay is recommended.  Based on field visual inspection, approximately 20% of the concrete curb and gutter and sidewalk within the project area is deficient and is recommended for replacement.  In addition to the sidewalk spot repairs, new ADA compliant pedestrian curb ramps are proposed to be installed at all crosswalk locations within the project area. Proposed Intersection Improvements Over the years, the city has received resident feedback related to this intersection. The intersection currently has a two­way stop condition for both directions of the Lake Drive East traffic. Residents in the Chanhassen Estates neighborhood to the south are concerned with eastbound Lake Drive East traffic failing to yield to traffic on Dakota Avenue. The intersection averages about one crash per year. There is also concern for pedestrian and bicyclist safety at this intersection. The feasibility study analyzed six alternatives for the intersection design including leaving the existing two­way stop condition or modifying it to a three­way stop or an all­way stop with and without turn lanes. The study also analyzed installing a traffic signal and a mini roundabout. The feasibility study and staff recommend a three­way stop condition be considered as the primary alternative (Figure 2). The secondary alternative (Figure 3) would be the installation of a mini roundabout. Both alternatives would include pedestrian crossing improvements. Both alternatives addressed traffic concerns but the three­way stop is much more cost effective and does not require right­of­way to be acquired. The recommended pedestrian improvement includes signed and marked crossings on the north and west sides of the intersection. In conjunction with the three­way stop alternative, the median north of the intersection would be extended to the south and incorporate a pedestrian refuge. In addition, a sidewalk along the west side of the block to the south of the intersection will also be considered to improve pedestrian safety to the neighborhood. One of the biggest neighborhood concerns with traffic at the Dakota Avenue and Lake Drive intersection is the eastbound  and westbound Lake Drive East traffic failing to stop for traffic on Dakota Avenue.  Currently, there are orange flags on the stop signs to draw drivers' attention to the stop condition.  Some drivers still roll through the intersection without completely stopping.  An enhancement to the stop sign which would draw drivers' attention to the stop condition would be replacement of the stop sign with stop signs that have embedded LED flashing perimeter lights.  National studies have shown these signs help improve driver stop compliance.  However, the signs have demonstrated they lose their effectiveness over time, as the traveling public becomes accustomed to the signs.  Two embedded LED solar­powered stop signs on Lake Drive East are estimated to cost $4,500 installed.  Battery life expectancy of these units are three years, with a replacement cost of $200 each.     CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectResolution 2018­62: Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project Public Hearing ­ Order Improvements and Authorize Preparation ofPlans and SpecificationsSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: F.1.Prepared By George Bender, Assistant City Engineer File No: Project No. 2018­02PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council orders improvements and preparation of plans and specifications for the 2018 Street Improvement Project No. 18­02."Approval requires a 4/5 Vote.BACKGROUNDOn May 8, 2017, the City Council approved a consultant contract for the Lake Drive East Street Rehabilitation Project No. 18­02.On November 8, 2018, an open house neighborhood meeting was held to discuss the proposed project.On November 26, 2018, the City Council received the feasibility report and ordered the Public Hearing.  Council also requested cost breakouts for threeproject scenarios, including (1) intersection improvements in addition to mill and overlay of Dakota Avenue and a small portion of Lake Drive East relativeto the intersection improvements; (2) just utility improvements; and (3) mill and overlay of just Lake Drive East.DISCUSSIONEvery year the city considers streets that are in poor condition to be rehabilitated or reconstructed. The Capital Improvement Program planned for therehabilitation of Lake Drive East in the summer of 2019. Staff utilized the city’s Pavement Management Program and site investigations to determine theproject extents, as illustrated in Figure 1. The project includes approximately 0.76 miles of urbanized streets.Lake Drive East is a Municipal State Aid Route that was constructed in 1991, overlaid in 2002 and sealcoated in 1995 and 2005. The 2018 surveyedpavement conditions were 59 and 58 on the west and east sides of Dakota Avenue, respectively, as shown in Figure 1. A PCI of 100 represents a newstreet.Figure 1: Proposed Project Area and 2018 Pavement Condition ScoresDakota Avenue is also a Municipal State Aid Route constructed in 1986 and sealcoated in 2005. As shown in Figure 1, the 2018 surveyed pavementcondition was 73, which is higher than expected due to the extensive patching along the street corridor. A 190­foot long, raised concrete median separatesnorthbound and southbound Dakota Avenue. The northbound portion consists of two through lanes, one left turn lane, and one right turn lane. Thesouthbound portion consists of two lanes that transition to a right turn and a through/left turn lane at the Lake Drive East intersection.Traffic counts were performed in August 2017. Analysis focused on weekday AM and PM peak hours because weekend traffic was determined to be 30%to 50% lower than weekday traffic. The counted vehicles were 8,000 vehicles per day (VPD) between the intersection with TH 5 and the intersection atLake Drive East. The counted vehicles were 4,100 VPD east of the Dakota Avenue intersection and 3,650 VPD west of the intersection. 950 VPD werecounted utilizing the southern leg of the Dakota Avenue intersection.Street ImprovementsStaff recommends the pavement rehabilitation be accomplished as a mill and overlay project area. Based on the pavement condition, traffic, andgeotechnical report, a three­inch mill and overlay is recommended.  Based on field visual inspection, approximately 20% of the concrete curb and gutter andsidewalk within the project area is deficient and is recommended for replacement.  In addition to the sidewalk spot repairs, new ADA compliant pedestriancurb ramps are proposed to be installed at all crosswalk locations within the project area.Proposed Intersection ImprovementsOver the years, the city has received resident feedback related to this intersection. The intersection currently has a two­way stop condition for bothdirections of the Lake Drive East traffic. Residents in the Chanhassen Estates neighborhood to the south are concerned with eastbound Lake Drive Easttraffic failing to yield to traffic on Dakota Avenue. The intersection averages about one crash per year. There is also concern for pedestrian and bicyclistsafety at this intersection. The feasibility study analyzed six alternatives for the intersection design including leaving the existing two­way stop condition ormodifying it to a three­way stop or an all­way stop with and without turn lanes. The study also analyzed installing a traffic signal and a mini roundabout. Thefeasibility study and staff recommend a three­way stop condition be considered as the primary alternative (Figure 2). The secondary alternative (Figure 3)would be the installation of a mini roundabout. Both alternatives would include pedestrian crossing improvements. Both alternatives addressed trafficconcerns but the three­way stop is much more cost effective and does not require right­of­way to be acquired.The recommended pedestrian improvement includes signed and marked crossings on the north and west sides of the intersection. In conjunction with thethree­way stop alternative, the median north of the intersection would be extended to the south and incorporate a pedestrian refuge. In addition, a sidewalkalong the west side of the block to the south of the intersection will also be considered to improve pedestrian safety to the neighborhood.One of the biggest neighborhood concerns with traffic at the Dakota Avenue and Lake Drive intersection is the eastbound  and westbound Lake Drive Easttraffic failing to stop for traffic on Dakota Avenue.  Currently, there are orange flags on the stop signs to draw drivers' attention to the stop condition.  Somedrivers still roll through the intersection without completely stopping.  An enhancement to the stop sign which would draw drivers' attention to the stopcondition would be replacement of the stop sign with stop signs that have embedded LED flashing perimeter lights.  National studies have shown these signshelp improve driver stop compliance.  However, the signs have demonstrated they lose their effectiveness over time, as the traveling public becomesaccustomed to the signs.  Two embedded LED solar­powered stop signs on Lake Drive East are estimated to cost $4,500 installed.  Battery lifeexpectancy of these units are three years, with a replacement cost of $200 each.     Figure 2: Three­Way Stop with Pedestrian Improvements Alternative Figure 3: Mini Roundabout Alternative with Pedestrian Crossings Water Main Improvements Twelve­inch ductile iron water main is within Lake Drive East and eight­inch cast iron water main is within Dakota Avenue as shown in Figure 4. There are no documented water main breaks within the project area. Some of the existing valves and hydrants are anticipated to be repaired/replaced with this project. Figure 4: Existing Water Main It has been the city’s practice to replace cast iron water main in conjunction with street projects in order to reduce the potential for disruptive and costly water main breaks. In addition, the 8­inch cast iron water main under Dakota Avenue extends to the north under Highway 5. The pipe was not installed within a casing and access to it underneath Highway 5 is limited due to traffic volumes. A water main break under Highway 5 would be a poor location for it CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectResolution 2018­62: Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project Public Hearing ­ Order Improvements and Authorize Preparation ofPlans and SpecificationsSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: F.1.Prepared By George Bender, Assistant City Engineer File No: Project No. 2018­02PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council orders improvements and preparation of plans and specifications for the 2018 Street Improvement Project No. 18­02."Approval requires a 4/5 Vote.BACKGROUNDOn May 8, 2017, the City Council approved a consultant contract for the Lake Drive East Street Rehabilitation Project No. 18­02.On November 8, 2018, an open house neighborhood meeting was held to discuss the proposed project.On November 26, 2018, the City Council received the feasibility report and ordered the Public Hearing.  Council also requested cost breakouts for threeproject scenarios, including (1) intersection improvements in addition to mill and overlay of Dakota Avenue and a small portion of Lake Drive East relativeto the intersection improvements; (2) just utility improvements; and (3) mill and overlay of just Lake Drive East.DISCUSSIONEvery year the city considers streets that are in poor condition to be rehabilitated or reconstructed. The Capital Improvement Program planned for therehabilitation of Lake Drive East in the summer of 2019. Staff utilized the city’s Pavement Management Program and site investigations to determine theproject extents, as illustrated in Figure 1. The project includes approximately 0.76 miles of urbanized streets.Lake Drive East is a Municipal State Aid Route that was constructed in 1991, overlaid in 2002 and sealcoated in 1995 and 2005. The 2018 surveyedpavement conditions were 59 and 58 on the west and east sides of Dakota Avenue, respectively, as shown in Figure 1. A PCI of 100 represents a newstreet.Figure 1: Proposed Project Area and 2018 Pavement Condition ScoresDakota Avenue is also a Municipal State Aid Route constructed in 1986 and sealcoated in 2005. As shown in Figure 1, the 2018 surveyed pavementcondition was 73, which is higher than expected due to the extensive patching along the street corridor. A 190­foot long, raised concrete median separatesnorthbound and southbound Dakota Avenue. The northbound portion consists of two through lanes, one left turn lane, and one right turn lane. Thesouthbound portion consists of two lanes that transition to a right turn and a through/left turn lane at the Lake Drive East intersection.Traffic counts were performed in August 2017. Analysis focused on weekday AM and PM peak hours because weekend traffic was determined to be 30%to 50% lower than weekday traffic. The counted vehicles were 8,000 vehicles per day (VPD) between the intersection with TH 5 and the intersection atLake Drive East. The counted vehicles were 4,100 VPD east of the Dakota Avenue intersection and 3,650 VPD west of the intersection. 950 VPD werecounted utilizing the southern leg of the Dakota Avenue intersection.Street ImprovementsStaff recommends the pavement rehabilitation be accomplished as a mill and overlay project area. Based on the pavement condition, traffic, andgeotechnical report, a three­inch mill and overlay is recommended.  Based on field visual inspection, approximately 20% of the concrete curb and gutter andsidewalk within the project area is deficient and is recommended for replacement.  In addition to the sidewalk spot repairs, new ADA compliant pedestriancurb ramps are proposed to be installed at all crosswalk locations within the project area.Proposed Intersection ImprovementsOver the years, the city has received resident feedback related to this intersection. The intersection currently has a two­way stop condition for bothdirections of the Lake Drive East traffic. Residents in the Chanhassen Estates neighborhood to the south are concerned with eastbound Lake Drive Easttraffic failing to yield to traffic on Dakota Avenue. The intersection averages about one crash per year. There is also concern for pedestrian and bicyclistsafety at this intersection. The feasibility study analyzed six alternatives for the intersection design including leaving the existing two­way stop condition ormodifying it to a three­way stop or an all­way stop with and without turn lanes. The study also analyzed installing a traffic signal and a mini roundabout. Thefeasibility study and staff recommend a three­way stop condition be considered as the primary alternative (Figure 2). The secondary alternative (Figure 3)would be the installation of a mini roundabout. Both alternatives would include pedestrian crossing improvements. Both alternatives addressed trafficconcerns but the three­way stop is much more cost effective and does not require right­of­way to be acquired.The recommended pedestrian improvement includes signed and marked crossings on the north and west sides of the intersection. In conjunction with thethree­way stop alternative, the median north of the intersection would be extended to the south and incorporate a pedestrian refuge. In addition, a sidewalkalong the west side of the block to the south of the intersection will also be considered to improve pedestrian safety to the neighborhood.One of the biggest neighborhood concerns with traffic at the Dakota Avenue and Lake Drive intersection is the eastbound  and westbound Lake Drive Easttraffic failing to stop for traffic on Dakota Avenue.  Currently, there are orange flags on the stop signs to draw drivers' attention to the stop condition.  Somedrivers still roll through the intersection without completely stopping.  An enhancement to the stop sign which would draw drivers' attention to the stopcondition would be replacement of the stop sign with stop signs that have embedded LED flashing perimeter lights.  National studies have shown these signshelp improve driver stop compliance.  However, the signs have demonstrated they lose their effectiveness over time, as the traveling public becomesaccustomed to the signs.  Two embedded LED solar­powered stop signs on Lake Drive East are estimated to cost $4,500 installed.  Battery lifeexpectancy of these units are three years, with a replacement cost of $200 each.    Figure 2: Three­Way Stop with Pedestrian Improvements AlternativeFigure 3: Mini Roundabout Alternative with Pedestrian CrossingsWater Main ImprovementsTwelve­inch ductile iron water main is within Lake Drive East and eight­inch cast iron water main is within Dakota Avenue as shown in Figure 4. There areno documented water main breaks within the project area. Some of the existing valves and hydrants are anticipated to be repaired/replaced with thisproject.Figure 4: Existing Water Main It has been the city’s practice to replace cast iron water main in conjunction with street projects in order to reduce the potential for disruptive and costly water main breaks. In addition, the 8­inch cast iron water main under Dakota Avenue extends to the north under Highway 5. The pipe was not installed within a casing and access to it underneath Highway 5 is limited due to traffic volumes. A water main break under Highway 5 would be a poor location for it to occur due to the impact to a high volume of traffic and the repair expense. An engineering report was prepared specific to this section of pipe to consider if it would be necessary to rehabilitate the existing pipe via a cured­in­place structural lining process due to pressure or flow concerns. This section of pipe was modeled and analyzed for ancillary effects related to pressure and flow if it was eliminated. The report found the 8­inch water main could be eliminated with little effect on the water system in the area within and around the project. The cast iron water main under Dakota Avenue is proposed to be replaced with PVC pipe to the service connection to the businesses on the west side of the street and abandon the cast iron pipe that is under Highway 5. Sanitary Sewer Improvements Municipal sanitary sewer within the project area is 8­inch PVC pipe and 12­inch RCP as shown in Figure 5. The city had the sewer lines cleaned and televised to determine the scope of work. Some minor repairs are recommended to the sanitary sewer system including removal of mineral deposits at joints within the existing mains. Other inflow and infiltration reduction items recommended include replacement of concrete adjusting rings, installation of chimney seals, and replacement of casting lids that do not conform to city standards. Staff inspections indicated there is not a need for manhole repair or replacement. Figure 5: Existing Sanitary Sewer Storm Sewer Improvements The existing storm system is shown in Figure 6.  City staff inspected the storm sewer system and identified necessary repairs.  Improvements to the system will include replacement of structures that are failing including concrete adjusting rings and invert repairs.  Additionally, the project will include the installation of drain tile behind the back of the curb at known problem areas to alleviate groundwater from weeping onto the street.  In addition, drain tile will be placed at sump pump discharge locations to collect this water before discharging on the street. Figure 6: Existing Storm Sewer Feasibility Report The feasibility report was prepared by WSB and Associates.  A copy of the feasibility report is available in the Engineering Department.  CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectResolution 2018­62: Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project Public Hearing ­ Order Improvements and Authorize Preparation ofPlans and SpecificationsSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: F.1.Prepared By George Bender, Assistant City Engineer File No: Project No. 2018­02PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council orders improvements and preparation of plans and specifications for the 2018 Street Improvement Project No. 18­02."Approval requires a 4/5 Vote.BACKGROUNDOn May 8, 2017, the City Council approved a consultant contract for the Lake Drive East Street Rehabilitation Project No. 18­02.On November 8, 2018, an open house neighborhood meeting was held to discuss the proposed project.On November 26, 2018, the City Council received the feasibility report and ordered the Public Hearing.  Council also requested cost breakouts for threeproject scenarios, including (1) intersection improvements in addition to mill and overlay of Dakota Avenue and a small portion of Lake Drive East relativeto the intersection improvements; (2) just utility improvements; and (3) mill and overlay of just Lake Drive East.DISCUSSIONEvery year the city considers streets that are in poor condition to be rehabilitated or reconstructed. The Capital Improvement Program planned for therehabilitation of Lake Drive East in the summer of 2019. Staff utilized the city’s Pavement Management Program and site investigations to determine theproject extents, as illustrated in Figure 1. The project includes approximately 0.76 miles of urbanized streets.Lake Drive East is a Municipal State Aid Route that was constructed in 1991, overlaid in 2002 and sealcoated in 1995 and 2005. The 2018 surveyedpavement conditions were 59 and 58 on the west and east sides of Dakota Avenue, respectively, as shown in Figure 1. A PCI of 100 represents a newstreet.Figure 1: Proposed Project Area and 2018 Pavement Condition ScoresDakota Avenue is also a Municipal State Aid Route constructed in 1986 and sealcoated in 2005. As shown in Figure 1, the 2018 surveyed pavementcondition was 73, which is higher than expected due to the extensive patching along the street corridor. A 190­foot long, raised concrete median separatesnorthbound and southbound Dakota Avenue. The northbound portion consists of two through lanes, one left turn lane, and one right turn lane. Thesouthbound portion consists of two lanes that transition to a right turn and a through/left turn lane at the Lake Drive East intersection.Traffic counts were performed in August 2017. Analysis focused on weekday AM and PM peak hours because weekend traffic was determined to be 30%to 50% lower than weekday traffic. The counted vehicles were 8,000 vehicles per day (VPD) between the intersection with TH 5 and the intersection atLake Drive East. The counted vehicles were 4,100 VPD east of the Dakota Avenue intersection and 3,650 VPD west of the intersection. 950 VPD werecounted utilizing the southern leg of the Dakota Avenue intersection.Street ImprovementsStaff recommends the pavement rehabilitation be accomplished as a mill and overlay project area. Based on the pavement condition, traffic, andgeotechnical report, a three­inch mill and overlay is recommended.  Based on field visual inspection, approximately 20% of the concrete curb and gutter andsidewalk within the project area is deficient and is recommended for replacement.  In addition to the sidewalk spot repairs, new ADA compliant pedestriancurb ramps are proposed to be installed at all crosswalk locations within the project area.Proposed Intersection ImprovementsOver the years, the city has received resident feedback related to this intersection. The intersection currently has a two­way stop condition for bothdirections of the Lake Drive East traffic. Residents in the Chanhassen Estates neighborhood to the south are concerned with eastbound Lake Drive Easttraffic failing to yield to traffic on Dakota Avenue. The intersection averages about one crash per year. There is also concern for pedestrian and bicyclistsafety at this intersection. The feasibility study analyzed six alternatives for the intersection design including leaving the existing two­way stop condition ormodifying it to a three­way stop or an all­way stop with and without turn lanes. The study also analyzed installing a traffic signal and a mini roundabout. Thefeasibility study and staff recommend a three­way stop condition be considered as the primary alternative (Figure 2). The secondary alternative (Figure 3)would be the installation of a mini roundabout. Both alternatives would include pedestrian crossing improvements. Both alternatives addressed trafficconcerns but the three­way stop is much more cost effective and does not require right­of­way to be acquired.The recommended pedestrian improvement includes signed and marked crossings on the north and west sides of the intersection. In conjunction with thethree­way stop alternative, the median north of the intersection would be extended to the south and incorporate a pedestrian refuge. In addition, a sidewalkalong the west side of the block to the south of the intersection will also be considered to improve pedestrian safety to the neighborhood.One of the biggest neighborhood concerns with traffic at the Dakota Avenue and Lake Drive intersection is the eastbound  and westbound Lake Drive Easttraffic failing to stop for traffic on Dakota Avenue.  Currently, there are orange flags on the stop signs to draw drivers' attention to the stop condition.  Somedrivers still roll through the intersection without completely stopping.  An enhancement to the stop sign which would draw drivers' attention to the stopcondition would be replacement of the stop sign with stop signs that have embedded LED flashing perimeter lights.  National studies have shown these signshelp improve driver stop compliance.  However, the signs have demonstrated they lose their effectiveness over time, as the traveling public becomesaccustomed to the signs.  Two embedded LED solar­powered stop signs on Lake Drive East are estimated to cost $4,500 installed.  Battery lifeexpectancy of these units are three years, with a replacement cost of $200 each.    Figure 2: Three­Way Stop with Pedestrian Improvements AlternativeFigure 3: Mini Roundabout Alternative with Pedestrian CrossingsWater Main ImprovementsTwelve­inch ductile iron water main is within Lake Drive East and eight­inch cast iron water main is within Dakota Avenue as shown in Figure 4. There areno documented water main breaks within the project area. Some of the existing valves and hydrants are anticipated to be repaired/replaced with thisproject.Figure 4: Existing Water MainIt has been the city’s practice to replace cast iron water main in conjunction with street projects in order to reduce the potential for disruptive and costlywater main breaks. In addition, the 8­inch cast iron water main under Dakota Avenue extends to the north under Highway 5. The pipe was not installedwithin a casing and access to it underneath Highway 5 is limited due to traffic volumes. A water main break under Highway 5 would be a poor location for itto occur due to the impact to a high volume of traffic and the repair expense. An engineering report was prepared specific to this section of pipe to considerif it would be necessary to rehabilitate the existing pipe via a cured­in­place structural lining process due to pressure or flow concerns. This section of pipewas modeled and analyzed for ancillary effects related to pressure and flow if it was eliminated. The report found the 8­inch water main could be eliminatedwith little effect on the water system in the area within and around the project.The cast iron water main under Dakota Avenue is proposed to be replaced with PVC pipe to the service connection to the businesses on the west side ofthe street and abandon the cast iron pipe that is under Highway 5.Sanitary Sewer ImprovementsMunicipal sanitary sewer within the project area is 8­inch PVC pipe and 12­inch RCP as shown in Figure 5. The city had the sewer lines cleaned andtelevised to determine the scope of work. Some minor repairs are recommended to the sanitary sewer system including removal of mineral deposits at jointswithin the existing mains. Other inflow and infiltration reduction items recommended include replacement of concrete adjusting rings, installation of chimneyseals, and replacement of casting lids that do not conform to city standards. Staff inspections indicated there is not a need for manhole repair or replacement.Figure 5: Existing Sanitary SewerStorm Sewer ImprovementsThe existing storm system is shown in Figure 6.  City staff inspected the storm sewer system and identified necessary repairs.  Improvements to the systemwill include replacement of structures that are failing including concrete adjusting rings and invert repairs.  Additionally, the project will include the installationof drain tile behind the back of the curb at known problem areas to alleviate groundwater from weeping onto the street.  In addition, drain tile will be placedat sump pump discharge locations to collect this water before discharging on the street.Figure 6: Existing Storm SewerFeasibility Report The feasibility report was prepared by WSB and Associates.  A copy of the feasibility report is available in the Engineering Department.  An open house was held on Thursday, November 8, 2018 to discuss the proposed project and to answer questions; approximately 30 people attended.  All of the residents' questions were answered at the meeting and/or with a follow­up after the meeting. At their meeting on November 26, 2018, City Council requested the project be broken out into three projects, including (1) Intersection improvements, in addition to mill and overlay of Dakota Avenue and a small portion of Lake Drive East, relative to the intersection improvements.  The work on Lake Drive would be from the proposed western project limit to the McDonald's entrance; (2) Utility and intersection improvements only; and (3) Overlay Lake Drive, east of the McDonald's entrance. Staff has also included the feasibility costs in the background.  Following is a breakdown of the cost estimate and projected assessments for the entire project as presented in the feasibility report: All Improvements included in feasibility report ­ Estimated Cost Summary Street Improvements $580,702.12 Water Main Improvements $75,389.79 Sanitary Sewer Improvements $17,325.00 Storm Sewer Improvements $77,272.67 Intersection Improvements (Roadway Alt. 2, Pedestrian Alt. 4)$13,744.50 Total Project Cost $764,434.08 The project is proposed to be assessed to 18 adjacent benefiting properties. Assessments will be based on the city’s assessment practice of assessing 40% of the street improvement cost to the benefiting properties on a per lot basis. The remaining 60% of the street improvement costs will be funded through state aid funds and city funds. The utility improvements are proposed to be 100% funded through city funds.  Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project ­ Assessment Summary Total Assessable Street Cost $438,086.32 40% of Assessable Cost $175,234.53 Assessable Area (Acre)71.01 Per Unit of Area Assessment $2,467.65/acre The assessments would be proposed for an 8­year term at an interest rate of prime rate plus 2% at the time the contract is awarded. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 1)Project Estimate for Just Intersection Improvements Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project ­ Estimated Cost Summary Street Improvements $273,836.69 Storm Sewer Improvements $45,000.00 Intersection Improvements (Roadway Alt. 2, Pedestrian Alt. 4)$13,744.50 Total Project Cost $332,581.19 This project alternative is proposed to be assessed to only three adjacent benefiting properties. Assessments will be based on the city’s assessment practice of assessing 40% of the street improvement cost to the benefiting properties on a per lot basis. The remaining 60% of the street improvement costs will be funded through state aid funds and city funds. The utility improvements are proposed to be 100% funded through city funds. The project is a lot smaller and the unit prices are estimated to increase.   Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project ­ Estimated Cost Summary Total Assessable Street Cost $77,342.42 40% of Assessable Street Cost $30,936.97 Assessable Area (Acre) 4.10 Per Unit of Area Assessment $7,545.60/acre The assessments would be proposed for an 8­year term at an interest rate of prime rate plus 2% at the time the contract is awarded. Based upon the Opinion of Probable Cost, the proposed special assessments calculate to a cost of $7,545.60/acre for the commercial properties. The assessment cost for Property 1 on the assessment map will increase from $3,775.50 to $11,544.77. The assessment cost for Property 2 on the assessment map will increase from $5,034.00 to $15,393.03. The assessment cost for Property 18 on the assessment map will increase from $1,307.85 to $3,999.17. 2) Utility Improvements Only Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project ­ Estimated Cost Summary Water Main Improvements $75,389.79 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectResolution 2018­62: Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project Public Hearing ­ Order Improvements and Authorize Preparation ofPlans and SpecificationsSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: F.1.Prepared By George Bender, Assistant City Engineer File No: Project No. 2018­02PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council orders improvements and preparation of plans and specifications for the 2018 Street Improvement Project No. 18­02."Approval requires a 4/5 Vote.BACKGROUNDOn May 8, 2017, the City Council approved a consultant contract for the Lake Drive East Street Rehabilitation Project No. 18­02.On November 8, 2018, an open house neighborhood meeting was held to discuss the proposed project.On November 26, 2018, the City Council received the feasibility report and ordered the Public Hearing.  Council also requested cost breakouts for threeproject scenarios, including (1) intersection improvements in addition to mill and overlay of Dakota Avenue and a small portion of Lake Drive East relativeto the intersection improvements; (2) just utility improvements; and (3) mill and overlay of just Lake Drive East.DISCUSSIONEvery year the city considers streets that are in poor condition to be rehabilitated or reconstructed. The Capital Improvement Program planned for therehabilitation of Lake Drive East in the summer of 2019. Staff utilized the city’s Pavement Management Program and site investigations to determine theproject extents, as illustrated in Figure 1. The project includes approximately 0.76 miles of urbanized streets.Lake Drive East is a Municipal State Aid Route that was constructed in 1991, overlaid in 2002 and sealcoated in 1995 and 2005. The 2018 surveyedpavement conditions were 59 and 58 on the west and east sides of Dakota Avenue, respectively, as shown in Figure 1. A PCI of 100 represents a newstreet.Figure 1: Proposed Project Area and 2018 Pavement Condition ScoresDakota Avenue is also a Municipal State Aid Route constructed in 1986 and sealcoated in 2005. As shown in Figure 1, the 2018 surveyed pavementcondition was 73, which is higher than expected due to the extensive patching along the street corridor. A 190­foot long, raised concrete median separatesnorthbound and southbound Dakota Avenue. The northbound portion consists of two through lanes, one left turn lane, and one right turn lane. Thesouthbound portion consists of two lanes that transition to a right turn and a through/left turn lane at the Lake Drive East intersection.Traffic counts were performed in August 2017. Analysis focused on weekday AM and PM peak hours because weekend traffic was determined to be 30%to 50% lower than weekday traffic. The counted vehicles were 8,000 vehicles per day (VPD) between the intersection with TH 5 and the intersection atLake Drive East. The counted vehicles were 4,100 VPD east of the Dakota Avenue intersection and 3,650 VPD west of the intersection. 950 VPD werecounted utilizing the southern leg of the Dakota Avenue intersection.Street ImprovementsStaff recommends the pavement rehabilitation be accomplished as a mill and overlay project area. Based on the pavement condition, traffic, andgeotechnical report, a three­inch mill and overlay is recommended.  Based on field visual inspection, approximately 20% of the concrete curb and gutter andsidewalk within the project area is deficient and is recommended for replacement.  In addition to the sidewalk spot repairs, new ADA compliant pedestriancurb ramps are proposed to be installed at all crosswalk locations within the project area.Proposed Intersection ImprovementsOver the years, the city has received resident feedback related to this intersection. The intersection currently has a two­way stop condition for bothdirections of the Lake Drive East traffic. Residents in the Chanhassen Estates neighborhood to the south are concerned with eastbound Lake Drive Easttraffic failing to yield to traffic on Dakota Avenue. The intersection averages about one crash per year. There is also concern for pedestrian and bicyclistsafety at this intersection. The feasibility study analyzed six alternatives for the intersection design including leaving the existing two­way stop condition ormodifying it to a three­way stop or an all­way stop with and without turn lanes. The study also analyzed installing a traffic signal and a mini roundabout. Thefeasibility study and staff recommend a three­way stop condition be considered as the primary alternative (Figure 2). The secondary alternative (Figure 3)would be the installation of a mini roundabout. Both alternatives would include pedestrian crossing improvements. Both alternatives addressed trafficconcerns but the three­way stop is much more cost effective and does not require right­of­way to be acquired.The recommended pedestrian improvement includes signed and marked crossings on the north and west sides of the intersection. In conjunction with thethree­way stop alternative, the median north of the intersection would be extended to the south and incorporate a pedestrian refuge. In addition, a sidewalkalong the west side of the block to the south of the intersection will also be considered to improve pedestrian safety to the neighborhood.One of the biggest neighborhood concerns with traffic at the Dakota Avenue and Lake Drive intersection is the eastbound  and westbound Lake Drive Easttraffic failing to stop for traffic on Dakota Avenue.  Currently, there are orange flags on the stop signs to draw drivers' attention to the stop condition.  Somedrivers still roll through the intersection without completely stopping.  An enhancement to the stop sign which would draw drivers' attention to the stopcondition would be replacement of the stop sign with stop signs that have embedded LED flashing perimeter lights.  National studies have shown these signshelp improve driver stop compliance.  However, the signs have demonstrated they lose their effectiveness over time, as the traveling public becomesaccustomed to the signs.  Two embedded LED solar­powered stop signs on Lake Drive East are estimated to cost $4,500 installed.  Battery lifeexpectancy of these units are three years, with a replacement cost of $200 each.    Figure 2: Three­Way Stop with Pedestrian Improvements AlternativeFigure 3: Mini Roundabout Alternative with Pedestrian CrossingsWater Main ImprovementsTwelve­inch ductile iron water main is within Lake Drive East and eight­inch cast iron water main is within Dakota Avenue as shown in Figure 4. There areno documented water main breaks within the project area. Some of the existing valves and hydrants are anticipated to be repaired/replaced with thisproject.Figure 4: Existing Water MainIt has been the city’s practice to replace cast iron water main in conjunction with street projects in order to reduce the potential for disruptive and costlywater main breaks. In addition, the 8­inch cast iron water main under Dakota Avenue extends to the north under Highway 5. The pipe was not installedwithin a casing and access to it underneath Highway 5 is limited due to traffic volumes. A water main break under Highway 5 would be a poor location for itto occur due to the impact to a high volume of traffic and the repair expense. An engineering report was prepared specific to this section of pipe to considerif it would be necessary to rehabilitate the existing pipe via a cured­in­place structural lining process due to pressure or flow concerns. This section of pipewas modeled and analyzed for ancillary effects related to pressure and flow if it was eliminated. The report found the 8­inch water main could be eliminatedwith little effect on the water system in the area within and around the project.The cast iron water main under Dakota Avenue is proposed to be replaced with PVC pipe to the service connection to the businesses on the west side ofthe street and abandon the cast iron pipe that is under Highway 5.Sanitary Sewer ImprovementsMunicipal sanitary sewer within the project area is 8­inch PVC pipe and 12­inch RCP as shown in Figure 5. The city had the sewer lines cleaned andtelevised to determine the scope of work. Some minor repairs are recommended to the sanitary sewer system including removal of mineral deposits at jointswithin the existing mains. Other inflow and infiltration reduction items recommended include replacement of concrete adjusting rings, installation of chimneyseals, and replacement of casting lids that do not conform to city standards. Staff inspections indicated there is not a need for manhole repair or replacement.Figure 5: Existing Sanitary SewerStorm Sewer ImprovementsThe existing storm system is shown in Figure 6.  City staff inspected the storm sewer system and identified necessary repairs.  Improvements to the systemwill include replacement of structures that are failing including concrete adjusting rings and invert repairs.  Additionally, the project will include the installationof drain tile behind the back of the curb at known problem areas to alleviate groundwater from weeping onto the street.  In addition, drain tile will be placedat sump pump discharge locations to collect this water before discharging on the street.Figure 6: Existing Storm SewerFeasibility ReportThe feasibility report was prepared by WSB and Associates.  A copy of the feasibility report is available in the Engineering Department. An open house was held on Thursday, November 8, 2018 to discuss the proposed project and to answer questions; approximately 30 people attended.  Allof the residents' questions were answered at the meeting and/or with a follow­up after the meeting.At their meeting on November 26, 2018, City Council requested the project be broken out into three projects, including (1) Intersection improvements, inaddition to mill and overlay of Dakota Avenue and a small portion of Lake Drive East, relative to the intersection improvements.  The work on Lake Drivewould be from the proposed western project limit to the McDonald's entrance; (2) Utility and intersection improvements only; and (3) Overlay Lake Drive,east of the McDonald's entrance. Staff has also included the feasibility costs in the background. Following is a breakdown of the cost estimate and projected assessments for the entire project as presented in the feasibility report:All Improvements included in feasibility report ­ Estimated Cost SummaryStreet Improvements $580,702.12Water Main Improvements $75,389.79Sanitary Sewer Improvements $17,325.00Storm Sewer Improvements $77,272.67Intersection Improvements(Roadway Alt. 2, Pedestrian Alt. 4)$13,744.50Total Project Cost $764,434.08The project is proposed to be assessed to 18 adjacent benefiting properties. Assessments will be based on the city’s assessment practice of assessing 40%of the street improvement cost to the benefiting properties on a per lot basis. The remaining 60% of the street improvement costs will be funded throughstate aid funds and city funds. The utility improvements are proposed to be 100% funded through city funds. Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project ­ Assessment SummaryTotal Assessable Street Cost $438,086.3240% of Assessable Cost $175,234.53Assessable Area (Acre)71.01Per Unit of Area Assessment $2,467.65/acreThe assessments would be proposed for an 8­year term at an interest rate of prime rate plus 2% at the time the contract is awarded.PROJECT ALTERNATIVES1)Project Estimate for Just Intersection ImprovementsLake Drive East Street Improvement Project ­ Estimated Cost SummaryStreet Improvements $273,836.69Storm Sewer Improvements $45,000.00Intersection Improvements(Roadway Alt. 2, Pedestrian Alt. 4)$13,744.50Total Project Cost $332,581.19This project alternative is proposed to be assessed to only three adjacent benefiting properties. Assessments will be based on the city’s assessment practiceof assessing 40% of the street improvement cost to the benefiting properties on a per lot basis. The remaining 60% of the street improvement costs will befunded through state aid funds and city funds. The utility improvements are proposed to be 100% funded through city funds. The project is a lot smaller andthe unit prices are estimated to increase.  Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project ­ Estimated Cost SummaryTotal Assessable Street Cost $77,342.4240% of Assessable Street Cost $30,936.97Assessable Area (Acre) 4.10Per Unit of Area Assessment $7,545.60/acreThe assessments would be proposed for an 8­year term at an interest rate of prime rate plus 2% at the time the contract is awarded.Based upon the Opinion of Probable Cost, the proposed special assessments calculate to a cost of $7,545.60/acre for the commercial properties.The assessment cost for Property 1 on the assessment map will increase from $3,775.50 to $11,544.77.The assessment cost for Property 2 on the assessment map will increase from $5,034.00 to $15,393.03.The assessment cost for Property 18 on the assessment map will increase from $1,307.85 to $3,999.17.2) Utility Improvements Only Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project ­ Estimated Cost Summary Water Main Improvements $75,389.79 Sanitary Sewer Improvements $17,325.00 Total Project Cost $92,714.79 This cost does not include restoration. It is recommended that watermain improvements in Dakota Avenue be replaced in conjunction with intersection improvements. 3) Lake Drive Mill and Overlay Improvements Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project ­ Estimated Cost Summary Street Improvements $306,865.43 Storm Sewer Improvements $30,389.79 Total Project Cost $337,255.22 Street Improvements would be paid for by State Aid Funds.  Assessments would be similar to the estimated assessments in the feasibility study. Summary of Project Alternatives: Separating the intersection improvements from the rest of the mill and overlay improvements of Lake Drive would not save the city money in the long term.   Assessments to the property owners at the intersection of Dakota Avenue and Lake Drive intersection are estimated to be higher if the rest of the Lake Drive Mill and Overlay is not included in the project. The watermain improvements at Dakota Avenue should be made when Dakota Avenue intersection improvements are made.   SCHEDULE The proposed project schedule is as follows: Public Hearing; Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications December 10, 2018 State Aid Submittal January, 2019 Approve Plans and Specifications; Authorize Advertisement for Bids February 25, 2019 Open Bids March 21, 2019 Assessment Hearing; Accept Bids and Award Contract April 22, 2019 Public Informational Meeting May, 2019 Start Construction July, 2019 Construction Substantially Complete September, 2019 Final Completion October 18, 2019 ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Preliminary Assessment Roll and Map MnDOT ­ LED Stop Signs CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: December 10, 2018 RESOLUTION NO: 2018-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS & AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2018 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – LAKE DRIVE EAST PROJECT NO. 18-02 WHEREAS, on November 26, 2018, the City Council received the feasibility report and called for the public hearing to be held on December 10, 2018 for the 2018 Street Improvement Project – Lake Drive East; and AND WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 10th day of December, 2018 which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Chanhassen City Council: 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted December 10, 2018. 3. Authorizes preparation of plans and specifications for the 2018 Street Improvement Project No. 18-02. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day of December. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor YES NO ABSENT Arboretum BlvdDakota Ave Chanhassen RdErie Ave Cheyenne Ave79th St WLake Dr ELake Dr EArboretum Blvd78th St WDell RdDell Rd 78th St WMagenta BayWynnfield Rd?©A@2617154312111314151089167181 inch = 500 feetDocument Path: K:\010297-000\GIS\Maps\AssessmentMap.mxd Date Saved: 11/1/2017 12:44:43 PM Chanhassen Street ProjectChanhassen, MNProject LocationAssessed ParcelsAssessment Map0 500Feet¯ City Project Lake Drive East Street Improvement ProjectStreet Improvement Cost438,086.32$ Project No. 18-02Assessable Cost @ 40%175,234.53$ Date: 10/24/2018Assessable Area (acre)71.01Area Assessment Rate (per acre)2,467.65$ MAP IDPARCEL ID PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS LOT BLK PLAT NAMEPARCEL AREA (ACRE)AREA ASSESSMENT RATE ASSESSMENT AMOUNT1 252410010 190 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID P JOHNSON 5353 WAYZATA BLVD STE 650 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416-1349 1 1 DAKOTA RETAIL 1.53 2,467.65$ 3,775.50$ 2 251760010 90 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MCDONALD'S CORP (22-157) 15455 110TH ST NYA, MN 55397-9453 1 1 CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 2ND ADDITION 2.04 2,467.65$ 5,034.00$ 3 251770010 60 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ABRA CHANHASSEN REAL ESTATE CO 6322 TIMBER TRL EDINA, MN 55439-1049 1 1 CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 3RD ADDITION 1.88 2,467.65$ 4,639.18$ 4 251780010 50 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KAHNKE BROS INC PO BOX 7 VICTORIA, MN 55386-0007 1 1 CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 4TH ADDITION 0.92 2,467.65$ 2,270.24$ 5 251780020 40 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CLS PROPERTIES II LLC 4711 SHADY OAK RD HOPKINS, MN 55343-8840 2 1 CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 4TH ADDITION 0.77 2,467.65$ 1,900.09$ 6 251780030 30 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DYS PROPERTIES 4711 SHADY OAK RD HOPKINS, MN 55343-8840 3 1 CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 4TH ADDITION 1.76 2,467.65$ 4,343.06$ 7 1811622220010 18940 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CSM CORP 500 WASHINGTON AVE S #3000, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 1 1 CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER 4TH ADDN 3.36 2,467.65$ 8,293.58$ 8 1811622220007 18902 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CSM INVESTORS INC 500 WASHINGTON AVE S #3000, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 1 1 CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER THIRD ADDN 1.63 2,467.65$ 4,027.60$ 9 1811622220008 18860 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CSM INVESTORS INC 500 WASHINGTON AVE S #3000, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 2 1 CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER THIRD ADDN 1.82 2,467.65$ 4,482.55$ 10 1811622220004 18780 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CSM INVESTORS INC 500 WASHINGTON AVE S #3000, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 1 1 CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDN 4.33 2,467.65$ 10,677.56$ 11 1811622210004 18720 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CSM INVESTORS INC 500 WASHINGTON AVE S #3000, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 2 1 CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER 4.78 2,467.65$ 11,797.23$ 12 1811622210003 18640 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CSM INVESTORS INC 500 WASHINGTON AVE S #3000, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 1 1 CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER 5.29 2,467.65$ 13,048.62$ 13 1811622210005 18251 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CSM INVESTORS INC 500 WASHINGTON AVE S #3000, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 1 1 SOUTHWEST TECH CENTER 7.06 2,467.65$ 17,425.52$ 14 1811622210006 18701 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CSM INVESTORS INC 500 WASHINGTON AVE S #3000, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 2 1 SOUTHWEST TECH CENTER 4.39 2,467.65$ 10,844.84$ 15 1811622210007 18751 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CSM INVESTORS INC 500 WASHINGTON AVE S #3000, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 3, 4 1 SOUTHWEST TECH CENTER 8.49 2,467.65$ 20,946.28$ 16 1811622220009 19011 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CSM INVESTORS INC 500 WASHINGTON AVE S #3000, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 5 1 SOUTHWEST TECH CENTER 19.47 2,467.65$ 48,051.88$ 17 250133000 CHANHASSEN, MN CHANHASSEN CITY PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0147 - - - 0.96 2,467.65$ 2,368.94$ 18 251750030 99 LAKE DR E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAISLEY PARK ENTERPRISES INC PO BOX 8265, WITCHITA FALLS, TX 76307 1 2 CHAN HAVEN PLAZA0.53 2,467.65$ 1,307.85$ 175,234.53$ Lake Drive, Dakota AvenuePreliminary Assessment Roll CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Resolution 2018­63: Venue Project­Approve Registered Land Survey Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1. Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: PC 2017­11 PROPOSED MOTION “The Chanhassen City Council adopts the resolution approving Registered Land Survey (RLS) No. 130." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY The applicant, Chanhassen Frontier LLC, is requesting approval of a Registered Land Survey (RLS) reconfiguring property lines (a new lot is not being created as a result of this action) and creating parcels for the parking area, the commercial building and the apartment building. BACKGROUND City Council approved the preliminary RLS on July 10, 2017 in conjunction with the site plan for the buildings. DISCUSSION The final legal description for the parcels includes the footprint for the Aldi Grocery Store building on top of the parking garage of the apartment building, which includes an elevation height of 972.8, and the loading dock area (Tract B). Until the garage structure was actually constructed and surveyed, based on the ceiling of the parking garage, an exact legal description was not possible.Tract A contains the Venue residential building on the property. Tract C encompasses the parking lot areas of the property.The legal description on the RLS must match the Certificate of Title. Minnesota State Statute §508.47, subd. 4 requires that the RLS be approved "in the manner required for the approval of subdivision plat."  Thus, although the city's ordinance does not require anything more than an administrative subdivision for approval, Minnesota Statutes require the city to approve the RLS as they would a subdivision plat. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the resolution for the Registered Land Survey. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectResolution 2018­63: Venue Project­Approve Registered Land SurveySectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: PC 2017­11PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council adopts the resolution approving Registered Land Survey (RLS) No. 130."Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYThe applicant, Chanhassen Frontier LLC, is requesting approval of a Registered Land Survey (RLS) reconfiguringproperty lines (a new lot is not being created as a result of this action) and creating parcels for the parking area,the commercial building and the apartment building.BACKGROUNDCity Council approved the preliminary RLS on July 10, 2017 in conjunction with the site plan for the buildings.DISCUSSIONThe final legal description for the parcels includes the footprint for the Aldi Grocery Store building on top of theparking garage of the apartment building, which includes an elevation height of 972.8, and the loading dock area (TractB). Until the garage structure was actually constructed and surveyed, based on the ceiling of the parking garage, anexact legal description was not possible.Tract A contains the Venue residential building on the property. Tract Cencompasses the parking lot areas of the property.The legal description on the RLS must match the Certificate ofTitle.Minnesota State Statute §508.47, subd. 4 requires that the RLS be approved "in the manner required for the approvalof subdivision plat."  Thus, although the city's ordinance does not require anything more than an administrativesubdivision for approval, Minnesota Statutes require the city to approve the RLS as they would a subdivision plat.RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the resolution for the Registered Land Survey. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Registered Land Survey 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: December 10, 2018 RESOLUTION NO: 2018- MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION APPROVING REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 130 CHANHASSEN FRONTIER, LLC WHEREAS, Chanhassen Frontier, LLC, has requested approval of a Registered Land Survey of property in downtown Chanhassen described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the property is guided for Commercial use; and WHEREAS, the property is zoned Central Business District, CBD; and WHEREAS, the proposed Registered Land Survey complies with all requirements of the Chanhassen City Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed Registered Land Survey adequately provides for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by the city; and WHEREAS, the proposed Registered Land Survey is consistent with the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chanhassen City Council hereby approves Registered Land Survey No. 130 consisting of three tracts. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day December of 2018. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor YES NO ABSENT 2 EXHIBIT A S88°06'20"E 167.76N00°34'02"E7.00S88°06'26"E 168.13S01°52'17"W 49.90S59°13 '48 "W 99 .99 S00°40'53"W 198.52 78.92 S89°51'29"E54.37S00°08'32"W 90.12S79°32'13"W31.70S10°27'47"E 98.29S00°08'32"W 63.25 S18° 3 4 ' 3 8 " W 41.3 2 S18°34'38"W6.11S00°08'32"W 110.00S79°32'00"W 305.22N00°08'32"E 147.78 N89°53'01"E45.42N00°02'02"W 113.53 N44°54'03"W27.40N00°02'02"W16.19N15°52'37"W29.93N00°02'02"W 123.94 S89°56'40"W2.99N00°08'32"E 217.81 N00°41'57"E 153.98 S89°18'03"E 49.83N00°41'57"E9.29S89°18'03"E 73.00S00°41'57"W7.29S89°18'03"E 91.84N00°41'57"E 155.98 S00°41'57"W 170.51S89°18'03"E 144.03S89°18'03"E 49.33S00°41'57"W 64.67N89°18'03"W 120.67N00°41'57"E16.33N89°18'03"W 141.67N00°41'57"E 62.86 N09°07'01" E 1 2 9 . 8 0 N08°10'31"W 48.28 S 4 3 ° 1 1 ' 5 5 " W 1 9 6 . 5 2 N29°09'45"W 152.09N14°1 4 ' 2 1 " E 38.16 S00°41'57"W 124.75N89°18'03"W25.361/2" IronRLS 143451/2" IronRLS 217291/2" IronRLS 217291/2" Iron RLS 217291/2" IronRLS 217291/2" IronRLS 441231/2" IronRLS 21729Mag NailMag NailMag NailMag N a i l1/2" IronMag NailMag NailMag NailChiseled XChiseled XChiseled XChiseled X1/2" IronN17°52'40"E (deed)N00°33'26"W (deed) Sout h e r l y (dee d )N78°50'15"E (deed)N11°09'45"W (deed)Southerly (deed) N00°33'27"W (deed) 40.00 S89°26'33"W (deed)N00°01'05"W (deed) S01°10'19"W (Chanhassen Transit Station) S 5 8 ° 3 1 ' 5 0 "W ( C h a n h a s s e n T r a n s i t S t a t i o n ) S00°01'05"E (Chanhassen Transit Station)S88°48'24"E(Chanhassen Transit Station)N00°07'56"W(Chanhassen Transit Station)(Right of Way Width Varies)Except ion Exception 1.67142.36TRACT ATRACT BTRACT CTRACT CLower Limit = 972.8'No Upper Limit24.4725.36124.7529.23 TRACT BNo Lower Limit No Upper Limit 21.2070.64SE CornerOutlot AE. Line Outlot A W. Line Lot 2NE CornerOutlot APOB ExceptionAccess EasementPer Doc. No. A387172FINAL PLAT FOR REVIEWREGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 130JOB # 20280 DATE: 12/3/18 Iron Monument FoundIndicates Mag Nail To BeSet Before Time Of Recording.LEGENDBEARING NOTE:The orientation of this bearing system is basedon the plat of Frontier Cinema Addition0SCALE IN FEET4080SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATEI hereby certify that in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 508.47, I have surveyed the following described property situatedin the County of Carver, State of Minnesota:PARCEL ONE:Lot 2, Block 1, Frontier Cinema Addition, Carver County, Minnesota.Together with a non-exclusive Easement for ingress and egress by vehicles and pedestrians over and upon that portion of the followingdescribed property:Lot Two (2), Block One (1), Chanhassen Mall and Outlots A, B and C, Easy Rider Addition, and vacated Pauly Drive, as dedicated in theplat of Easy Rider Addition, that lies easterly of the following described line:Beginning at the northwest corner of Outlot A, said Easy Rider Addition, thence South 0 degrees 08 minutes 32 seconds West, anassumed bearing, along the easterly right of way line of Market Boulevard, as dedicated in the plat of Easy Rider Addition, a distance of80.22 feet; thence southerly and southeasterly 339.36 feet along a tangential curve concave to the east having a radius of 555.82 feet anda central angle of 34 degrees 58 minutes 56 seconds, and said line there terminating. According to the plats thereof on file and of recordin the Office of the County Recorder, Carver County, MinnesotaANDOutlots B and C, Frontier Cinema Addition; and the West 90.00 feet of the South 13.50 feet and the East 60.61 feet of the West 150.61feet of the South 3.5 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Bloomberg 2nd Addition, Carver County, Minnesota.as described in the Access Easement Agreement dated April 7, 2004, recorded May 20, 2004 as Document No. 387172.PARCEL TWO:Outlot A, Frontier Cinema Addition, Carver County, Minnesota EXCEPT that part thereof now platted into Chanhassen Transit Station, describedas follows:Commencing at the southeast corner of said Outlot A, Frontier Cinema Addition, Carver County, Minnesota; thence North 00 degrees 33minutes 26 seconds West, an assumed bearing, along the east line of said Outlot A, a distance of 110.00 feet; thence North 17 degrees 52minutes 40 seconds East along the east line of Outlot A, a distance of 6.11 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 11 degrees 09 minutes45 seconds West a distance of 98.29 feet; thence North 78 degrees 50 minutes 15 seconds East a distance of 31.70 feet to said east line ofOutlot A; thence southerly along said east line of Outlot A to the point of beginning.PARCEL THREE:Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Transit Station, Carver County, Minnesota, EXCEPT that part of said Lot 3 lying southerly of Lot 2, Block 1, saidChanhassen Transit Station, and easterly of the following described line:Beginning at the northeast corner of Outlot A, Frontier Cinema Addition, said Carver County, Minnesota; thence North 00 degrees 33 minutes 27seconds West, assumed bearing along the northerly extension of the east line of said Outlot A, a distance of 40.00 feet; thence South 89degrees 26 minutes 33 seconds West a distance of 54.37 feet to the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 2; thence North 00 degrees01 minutes 05 seconds West, along said line extended a distance of 78.92 feet to the southern most corner of said west line and said line thereterminating.I hereby certify that this Registered Land Survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor underthe laws of the State of Minnesota and that this Registered Land Survey is a correct representation of said parcel of land.Dated this _______ day of ___________________, 20_____.___________________________________________________________Daniel L. Stueber, Licensed Land SurveyorMinnesota License No. 43110State of MinnesotaCounty of Blue EarthThis instrument was acknowledged before me on _______________________, 20_____ by Daniel L. Stueber, Licensed Land Surveyor.___________________________________________Kent A. HaysNotary Public, MinnesotaMy Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2020CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTAWe do hereby certify that on the _____ day of _____________________, 20_____, the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, has approved thisRegistered Land Survey.___________________________________________ __________________________________________Mayor ClerkCOUNTY AUDITOR/TREASURER, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTAI hereby certify that taxes payable in ___________________ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat.Dated this _______ day of ___________________, 20_____.Laurie Davies, County Auditor/TreasurerBy:___________________________________________COUNTY SURVEYOR, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTAPursuant to Chapter 395, Minnesota Laws of 1971, this Registered Land Survey has been approvedthis _______ day of ___________________, 20_____.Brain E. Praske, County SurveyorBy:___________________________________________REGISTRAR OF TITLES, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTAI hereby certify that this Registered Land Survey No. 130 was filed this _______ day of ___________________, 20_____,at _____ o'clock _____.M. as Document Number _______________._______________________________, Registrar of TitlesBy:___________________________________________NW 1/4 SEC. 13, TWP. 116, RGE. 23SITEVICINITY MAP(NOT TO SCALE)Carver County, MinnesotaNW 1/4NW 1/4NE 1/4NW 1 / 4 S E 1 / 4NE 1/4SW 1 / 4NW 1/4Great PlainsBlvdMarket Blvd 78th Street WPLAT FILE NO.R.T. DOC. NO.South ElevationElevation 972.8Tract BTract ATract ATract CTract C Tract CTract CElevation Details (Not to Scale)NOTE:Tracts A and C have no vertical limits.S'ly Line - Tract CE'ly Line - Tract CW'ly Line - Tract C N'ly Line - Tract CBENCHMARK:Top Nut Fire Hydrant located at northwest cornerof Lot 2, Block 1, Frontier Cinema Addition.Elev=978.38 (NAVD88)Offsite Benchmark - MnDOT monument HASSEN MNDT.Elev=983.32 (NAVD88)North Elevation(See Detail)West Elevation (See Detail)NOTE:Tracts A and B are partially limited verticallyas shown below.Tract C has no vertical limits.West ElevationEast ElevationNorth ElevationElevation 972.8Tract ATract ATract BTract CTract CNOTE:Tracts A and B are partially limited verticallyas shown above.Tract C has no vertical limits.W'ly Line - Tract CE'ly Line - Tract CTract ATract CTract CN'ly Line - Tract C S'ly Line - Tract CNOTE:Tracts A and C have no vertical limits.South Elevation(See Detail)East Elevation (See Detail) CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Resolution 2018­64: Approve Application for Funding from the Carver County Community Development Agency Community Growth Partnership Initiative Program for the Holasek Business Park Development Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: G.3. Prepared By Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director File No: PC 2018­18 PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council adopts a resolution approving application for funding from the Carver County Community Development Agency Community Growth Partnership Initiative Program for the Holasek Business Park development.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. DISCUSSION Eden Trace Corporation is pursuing redevelopment of the Holesak Property.  In 1957, Betty and Earl Holasek founded the nursery and greenhouse on the property and operated it until the end of 2014.  This is guided for office/industrial development. The developer is rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Industrial Office Park (IOP); Subdivision review is creating three lots and an outlot; a Wetland Alteration Permit; and Site Plan Review of a total of 449,350 square feet in three separate office industrial buildings. ANALYSIS The proposed development requires extensive soil correction work and a large retaining wall. Staff is supporting the redevelopment of the site for the following reasons: 1. The industrial buildings are permitted in the zoning district. 2. The site will create three buildings for a total of 449,350 square feet of office/warehouse. 3. The first of the three buildings will encompass an existing local business, which currently has 60 jobs and intends to add 20 more jobs. 4. The site has $1.8 million in soil corrections. In order to assist the developer in defraying unexpected costs, the city will be applying for funding from the Carver County Community Development Agency’s (CDA) Community Growth Partnership Initiative Program. This initiative CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectResolution 2018­64: Approve Application for Funding from the Carver County CommunityDevelopment Agency Community Growth Partnership Initiative Program for the HolasekBusiness Park DevelopmentSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.3.Prepared By Kate Aanenson, AICP, CommunityDevelopment Director File No: PC 2018­18PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council adopts a resolution approving application for funding from the Carver County CommunityDevelopment Agency Community Growth Partnership Initiative Program for the Holasek Business Parkdevelopment.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.DISCUSSIONEden Trace Corporation is pursuing redevelopment of the Holesak Property.  In 1957, Betty and Earl Holasekfounded the nursery and greenhouse on the property and operated it until the end of 2014.  This is guided foroffice/industrial development.The developer is rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Industrial Office Park (IOP); Subdivision review iscreating three lots and an outlot; a Wetland Alteration Permit; and Site Plan Review of a total of 449,350 square feetin three separate office industrial buildings.ANALYSISThe proposed development requires extensive soil correction work and a large retaining wall.Staff is supporting the redevelopment of the site for the following reasons:1. The industrial buildings are permitted in the zoning district.2. The site will create three buildings for a total of 449,350 square feet of office/warehouse.3. The first of the three buildings will encompass an existing local business, which currently has 60 jobs and intendsto add 20 more jobs.4. The site has $1.8 million in soil corrections. In order to assist the developer in defraying unexpected costs, the city will be applying for funding from the Carver County Community Development Agency’s (CDA) Community Growth Partnership Initiative Program. This initiative was approved by the CDA in January 2016 with the goals to increase the tax base and improve the quality of life in Carver County.  There are three categories for funding: Affordable Housing Community Development Redevelopment The Community Development program is intended to assist cities in job creation and community development. This development is consistent with the goals of the City’s Business Subsidy Guidelines: Increase the tax base. Retain local jobs and/or increase the number and diversity of jobs that offer employment at attractive wages. Encourage unsubsidized private development. Removes blight and or encourages redevelopment of industrial areas that result in high quality developments. To offset the increased cost of redevelopment (contaminated sites). Staff is requesting the maximum grant allowed of $60,000.  The next funding cycle deadline is February 1, 2019.  Staff will be making application on behalf of Eden Trace Corporation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council adopt a resolution approving application for funding from the Carver County Community Development Agency Community Growth Partnership Initiative Program for the Holasek Business Park development. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution City of Chanhassen Business Subsidy Guidelines, 2018 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: December 10, 2018 RESOLUTION NO: 2018-64 MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION APPROVING APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FROM THE CARVER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMUNITY GROWTH PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen has identified a proposed project within the city that meets the Carver County Community Development Agency (CDA) Community Growth Partnership Initiative Grant program’s purposes and criteria; and WHEREAS, the city has established Business Subsidy Guidelines of which the proposed project is a component; and WHEREAS, the city has the capability and capacity to ensure the proposed project be completed and administered within the Growth Partnership Initiative Grant program guidelines; and WHEREAS, the city has the legal authority to apply for financial assistance; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen that the City of Chanhassen approve the application for funding from the Carver County CDA Community Growth Partnership Initiative Grant program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of its application by the Carver County CDA, Mayor Denny Laufenburger is hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to receive and use the funding for the proposed project. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day of December, 2018. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor YES NO ABSENT City of Chanhassen Business Subsidy Guidelines Approved October 11, 1999 Amended April 28, 2003 Amended September 24, 2018 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BUSINESS SUBSIDY GUIDELINES GENERAL PURPOSE Economic development incentives are financial tools that enable the City of Chanhassen to provide opportunities and benefits for its businesses and residents. Incentives can take a variety of forms, including, but not limited to: grants, tax increment financing, tax abatement, and sewer access credits. The City of Chanhassen provides economic development incentives in order to achieve its long-range vision of creating a diverse and sustainable economic base. This is achieved in part through the creation and retention of quality, high paying jobs. A diverse and sustainable economy offers opportunity for improved quality of life for the residents of Chanhassen. Economic development projects may also achieve other worthwhile goals. For instance, some projects provide value to the community in the forms of infrastructure improvements, stabilization of business districts or neighborhoods, or concentration of selected industries. The City of Chanhassen reserves the right to approve or reject subsidies for projects on a case-by- case basis, taking into consideration established policies, project criteria, and demand on City services in relation to the potential benefits from the project. Meeting the guidelines in this document does not guarantee the award of business assistance to the project. Approval or denial of one project is not intended to set precedent for approval or denial of another project. The City of Chanhassen can deviate from these guidelines for projects that supersede the objectives identified herein. Any applicant who is not in good standing with the City, in regards to licenses, fees or other specific charges, will not be considered for business subsidies. OBJECTIVES The City of Chanhassen may consider offering a business subsidy or incentive in order for a project to achieve one or more of the following objectives: • To increase the City’s tax base. • To retain local jobs and/or increase the number and diversity of jobs that offer stable employment and/or attractive wages and benefits. Preference will be given to higher paying jobs that also provide benefits such as health care coverage. • To support projects that provide value in the forms of needed transportation and other utility infrastructure improvements that would be completed in conjunction with the project. • To encourage additional unsubsidized private development in the area, either directly or indirectly through “spin off” development. • To facilitate the development process and to achieve development on sites which would not otherwise be developed but for the use of a business subsidy. • To remove blight and/or encourage redevelopment of commercial and industrial areas that will result in high-quality redevelopment and private reinvestment. 2 • To offset increased costs of redevelopment (i.e. contaminated site clean-up) over and above the costs normally incurred in development. • To create opportunities for a diversification of housing stock available within the community. • To support a project that will improve the quality of life in the City by providing a desirable good or service and addressing an unmet demand in the community. • To contribute to the implementation of other public policies, as adopted by the City from time to time, such as the promotion of energy conservation, and decreasing capital and/or operating costs of local government. • To support the retention and/or adaptive re-use of buildings of historical or architectural significance. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAMS The application and subsequent use of these programs is at the discretion of the Chanhassen City Council, and may include additional applications, policies, and procedures. 1) Tax Abatement: The City of Chanhassen is granted the power to utilize tax abatement by the State of Minnesota. The fundamental purpose of tax abatement is to encourage desirable development or redevelopment that would not otherwise occur but for the assistance provided through the tax abatement. The City utilizes “Pay-As-You-Go” Tax Abatement, which relies on the developer to pay for the up-front project costs with reimbursement from tax abatement. 2) Tax Increment Financing: The City of Chanhassen is granted the power to utilize tax increment financing (TIF) by the State of Minnesota. The fundamental purpose of TIF is to encourage desirable development or redevelopment that would not otherwise occur but for the assistance provided through TIF. The City utilizes “Pay-As-You-Go” TIF, which relies on the developer to pay for the up-front project costs with reimbursement from tax increment. 3) MN DEED Programs: There are a variety of programs available through the State of Minnesota DEED division. They include the Job Creation Fund and Minnesota Investment Fund, among others. In order for a business to utilize these programs it is typical for MN DEED to ask for support and cooperation from the city. Chanhassen has worked with MN DEED in the past on projects and would consider the use of these programs in the future on a case-by-case basis. APPLICATION PROCESS 1. The City reserves the right to: a) Request additional information. b) Deny any application. c) Select a third party administrator to assist in the management of the process. 3 2. Applicant should retain and be assisted by qualified financial consultants and/or underwriters, and legal counsel. 3. Construction of the project shall not be commenced until the City has given preliminary approval to the application for financing. Any advanced planning or construction completed will be done at the sole risk of the applicant. 4. Applicants should complete the appropriate planning application, and include a plans and/or narratives that outline the following: a) The specific request (program, amount) b) The reasoning and need for assistance c) Description of the company d) A concept plan and description of the project e) The number of jobs created and total compensation (breakdown of wages and benefits) f) Impact to the tax base g) Other impacts to the community h) Traffic demands i) Infrastructure demands and/or needs j) Any additional information that would be helpful to staff and City Council 5. Development must be of the highest quality with high quality building materials and landscaping as agreed between the City and the Developer. 6. If establishing a TIF district, the developer must pay all costs of establishing the district unless the City agrees to allow costs to come out of the district. 7. All projects must be consistent with Chanhassen’s Comprehensive Plan and any other similar plan or guide for development of the community. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1. City staff will review the data and make preliminary recommendations to the City Council as to compliance of the application and proposed project with City objectives, and business subsidy criteria, and Comp Plan. 2. After evaluation of the formal recommendation, the City Council will consider approval of the establishment of the Business Subsidy and hold the appropriate hearings. 3. All applications and supporting materials and documents shall become the property of the City. g:\admin\cp\economic development\business subsidy\business subsidy guidelines - 2018 final.docx CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Ordinance 636: Update Flood Plain Protection Ordinance and Approve Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: G.4. Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: General 49 PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council adopts Ordinance 636 amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code (requires simple majority vote); and The City Council approves Summary Ordinance 636 for publication purposes (requires 4/5 vote).” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY The current FIRMs for the City of Chanhassen went into effect on July 2, 1979. The city adopted these maps and established the floodplain overlay district with the passage of Ordinance 68 on July 16, 1979. The existing floodplain overlay district dates back to the reorganization and overhaul of Chapter 20 by Ordinance 80 on December 12, 1986. Many provisions and definitions from Ordinance 68 appear to have been removed, relocated, or summarized by Ordinance 80. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) has provided a model floodplain ordinance and, due to discrepancies between the model floodplain ordinance and the floodplain ordinance established by Ordinance 80, staff believes that the existing floodplain ordinance should be replaced with a tailored version of the model ordinance. The MN DNR has granted conditional approval for the city's proposed floodplain ordinance.   Since the modeling and understanding of floods has advanced significantly since 1979, there have been changes in the location and extent of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the area subject to flooding by a 1% annual chance flood/100­year flood. In Chanhassen, this has resulted in approximately 16 properties where the principal structure may have been added or removed from the floodplain overlay district; however, in some cases the addition or removal of a property may be the result of a mapping error. Homeowners who are now shown as being located within the floodplain will be notified by their mortgage holder that they now require flood insurance after the new FIRMs go into effect. There is no mechanism for notifying homeowners who are no longer shown as being located in a floodplain that they may no longer require flood insurance. Staff has conducted a mailing in advance of the adoption of the new FIRMs to inform these homeowners of their change in status and of their ability to appeal this determination. There are approximately 130 residential properties in the city where some portion of the property is newly shown as within the floodplain; however, except for the 16 properties referenced above, it does not appear that the principal structure is located near the SFHA. Since the insurance requirements for these properties should not be impacted by the map update, staff is not proposing individually notifying these property owners. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectOrdinance 636: Update Flood Plain Protection Ordinance and Approve Summary Ordinance forPublication PurposesSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.4.Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: General 49PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council adopts Ordinance 636 amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code (requires simple majorityvote); andThe City Council approves Summary Ordinance 636 for publication purposes (requires 4/5 vote).”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYThe current FIRMs for the City of Chanhassen went into effect on July 2, 1979. The city adopted these maps andestablished the floodplain overlay district with the passage of Ordinance 68 on July 16, 1979. The existing floodplainoverlay district dates back to the reorganization and overhaul of Chapter 20 by Ordinance 80 on December 12, 1986.Many provisions and definitions from Ordinance 68 appear to have been removed, relocated, or summarized byOrdinance 80. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) has provided a model floodplainordinance and, due to discrepancies between the model floodplain ordinance and the floodplain ordinance establishedby Ordinance 80, staff believes that the existing floodplain ordinance should be replaced with a tailored version of themodel ordinance. The MN DNR has granted conditional approval for the city's proposed floodplain ordinance.  Since the modeling and understanding of floods has advanced significantly since 1979, there have been changes in thelocation and extent of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the area subject to flooding by a 1% annual chanceflood/100­year flood. In Chanhassen, this has resulted in approximately 16 properties where the principal structuremay have been added or removed from the floodplain overlay district; however, in some cases the addition or removalof a property may be the result of a mapping error. Homeowners who are now shown as being located within thefloodplain will be notified by their mortgage holder that they now require flood insurance after the new FIRMs go intoeffect. There is no mechanism for notifying homeowners who are no longer shown as being located in a floodplain thatthey may no longer require flood insurance. Staff has conducted a mailing in advance of the adoption of the newFIRMs to inform these homeowners of their change in status and of their ability to appeal this determination.There are approximately 130 residential properties in the city where some portion of the property is newly shown aswithin the floodplain; however, except for the 16 properties referenced above, it does not appear that the principal structure is located near the SFHA. Since the insurance requirements for these properties should not be impacted by the map update, staff is not proposing individually notifying these property owners. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed ordinance. A full breakdown and analysis of the proposed update to the floodplain ordinance can be found in the attached staff report. BACKGROUND Timeline of city actions: September 18, 2018: Staff attended Carver County's Floodplain FAQ/Training October 8, 2018: City Council Work Session October 16, 2018: Planning Commission Work Session October 31, 2018: Sent Public Hearing Notice to paper November 2, 2018: Staff sent proposed ordinance to DNR for review November 7, 2018: Sent out letters to selected property owners November 8, 2018: Public Hearing Notice appears in paper November 9, 2018: Received conditional approval from DNR for proposed ordinance November 20, 2018: Planning Commission Public Hearing DISCUSSION During the public hearing, no member of the public spoke for or against the proposed amendment to the City Code. Commissioner Aller asked staff to clarify the city’s obligation to notify people whose homes may have been added to or removed from the floodplain. Staff stated that individual mailings were not required, but that the city has sent letters to 16 property owners who they believe may be incorrectly included in the floodplain or may no longer be located within the floodplain. Commissioner Weick asked staff what agency handles the appeals process. Staff responded that the city was not involved, and that residents would need to work through their mortgage holder. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code. The proposed ordinance would adopt the revised FIRMs and update the city's floodplain ordinance, allowing the city to remain in the NFIP. ATTACHMENTS: PC Floodplain Staff Report Model Floodplain Ordinance Letter for Properties Possibly Clear of SFHA Letter for Properties Possibly Removed from SFHA Changes in Annual 1% Chance Flood Areas FEMA Letter 11­16­18 DNR Conditional Approval Ordinance 636 Summary of Ordinance 636 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner Vanessa Strong, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: November 20, 2018 SUBJ: Floodplain Update ISSUE The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is in the process of updating Carver County’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). As part of this update, cities are required to update their floodplain ordinances and adopt the new maps by December 21, 2018 or lose their ability to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. SUMMARY The FRIMs currently in effect for the City of Chanhassen went into effect on July 2, 1979. The city adopted these maps and established the floodplain overlay district with the passage of Ordinance 68 on July 16, 1979. The existing floodplain overlay district dates back to the reorganization and overhaul of Chapter 20 by Ordinance 80 on December 12, 1986. Many provisions and definitions from Ordinance 68 appear to have been removed, relocated, or summarized by Ordinance 80. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) has provided a model floodplain ordinance, and, due to discrepancies between the model floodplain ordinance and the floodplain ordinance established by Ordinance 80, staff believes that the existing floodplain ordinance should be replaced with a tailored version of the model ordinance. Since the modeling and understanding of floods has advanced significantly since 1979, there have been changes in the location and extent of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the area subject to flooding by a 1% annual chance flood/100-year flood. In Chanhassen, this has resulted in approximately 16 properties where the principal structure may have been added or removed from the floodplain overlay district; however, in some cases the addition or removal of a PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code.” Planning Commission Floodplain Update November 20, 2018 Page 2 property may be the result of a mapping error. Homeowners who are now shown as being located within the floodplain will be notified by their mortgage holder that they now require flood insurance after the new FIRMs go into effect. There is no mechanism for notifying homeowners who are no longer shown as being located in a floodplain that they may no longer require flood insurance. Staff will conduct a mailing in advance of the adoption of the new FIRMs to inform these homeowners of their change in status and of their ability to appeal this determination. There are approximately 130 residential properties in the city where some portion of the property is newly shown as within the floodplain; however, except for the 16 properties referenced above, it does not appear that the principal structure is located near the SFHA. Since the insurance requirements for these properties should not be impacted by the map update, staff is not proposing individually notifying these property owners. RELEVANT CITY CODE Chapter 1, Section 1-2. – Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article V. – Floodplain Overlay District ANALYSIS Issues 1: Flood Insurance 101 Federal law requires a federally regulated and/or insured lender to require flood insurance for primary structures on mortgage properties located in the SFHA. The SFHA is the area that has a one-percent annual flood chance. The structure is deemed to be located in the SFHA if any portion of the house or its attached deck, if present, is within the SFHA. The federal government relies on lenders to determine who needs flood insurance, and some lenders may require flood insurance for homes that are located outside of the SFHA but which they determine to have elevated flood risks. Planning Commission Floodplain Update November 20, 2018 Page 3 Homeowners can purchase flood insurance either through the NFIP or through private flood insurance providers. The federally mandated minimum flood insurance covers the building, HVAC systems, and major appliances; however, it does not cover most other contents of the building. Homeowners can purchase supplemental insurance either through the NFIP or other insurance providers to cover their furniture and other household items. Rates will vary significantly depending on the distance between a home’s lowest floor elevation and the area’s base flood elevation. In cases where the lowest floor elevation is lower than the base flood elevation, flood insurance can be very expensive. Issue 2: New Maps v. Old Maps The initial and current FIRMs for Carver County went into effect in 1979. Throughout the nearly 40 years they have been in effect, FEMA has collected new data on observed floods and improved its understanding and modeling of floods. New technologies, such as LIDAR, have also allowed for more accurate measuring and mapping of Carver County’s topography. Finally, changing weather patterns and increased development has also changed the location and extent of the SFHA in some areas. Planning Commission Floodplain Update November 20, 2018 Page 4 The result of the above factors is that FEMA has been able to create new FIRMs for Carver County that more accurately represent the actual location of the SFHA. These new maps will go into effect on December 21, 2018. Unfortunately, there is a known issue with some portions of Bluff Creek’s SFHA where the new maps show the SFHA as being located at elevations that do not correspond to the creek’s base flood elevation. There is a process that the City could use to request the FIRMs be updated or revised to correct this issue; however, it is not available until after the new maps go into effect and would take a significant amount of time to work through FEMA’s amendment process. Issue 3: Impact on Residents Once the new maps are adopted, the location and extent of SFHAs within Chanhassen will change and some properties that are not currently located within the SFHA will be added to it, and some properties that are currently within the SFHA will no longer be located within it. According to the MN DNR, throughout Carver County, more homes will be removed from the SFHA than will be added to it; however, Chanhassen is one of the communities that has homes that will be added to the SFHA. If a resident’s property is shown as being within the SFHA on the new FIRMs and they do not currently have flood insurance, they may receive a letter from their mortgage holder informing them that they are required to purchase flood insurances. The homeowner would then have to either purchase flood insurance within 45 days or appeal the determination through a letter of Planning Commission Floodplain Update November 20, 2018 Page 5 map amendment (LOMA). If the homeowner does not purchase flood insurance or receive a LOMA within the 45-day period, the lender will be able to force purchase flood insurance for the property and pass the cost on to the homeowner. Policies purchased in this way are typically significantly more expensive than those available through the NFIP. Generally, lenders use an automated system to determine which properties are located within the SFHA. These systems can flag every parcel that has any portion within the SFHA as requiring flood insurance and sends out the appropriate notification. It is important to note that even if a portion of the parcel is located within the SFHA, the owner is not legally required to carry flood insurance unless a portion of the principal structure or its attached deck is located within the SFHA. This means that homeowners may be notified that they require flood insurance when, in fact, they do not. In these instances, residents have the ability to appeal their placement within the SFHA for insurances purposes through a LOMA. In cases where it is visually obvious on the city or county’s GIS map that the house is located outside of the SFHA, the LOMA request can be substantiated by submitting a map generated by the city or county’s GIS programs. If it is not visually clear that the principle structure is located outside of the SFHA, the owner will need to hire a surveyor to verify that the building’s elevations are above the areas base flood elevation. FEMA does not require the city to inform residents that they have been added to, removed from, or have the right to appeal their placement within the SFHA. In practice, residents will only be informed by their mortgage holder that they need insurance, but may not be made aware that they can appeal this determination or if they are no longer required to carry flood insurance. Staff has identified six parcels that may have been incorrectly added to the SFHA and 10 parcels that may no longer require flood insurance due to being removed from the SFHA. Staff will conduct a mailing informing these property owners that they may be added or removed from the SFHA and informing them of the process they will need to go through to get a LOMA. Due to the relatively small number of homes impacted by this, staff believes that it will be able to assist residents by generating GIS maps that meet the LOMA requirements. The watershed districts may also have access to additional information on base flood elevations that could assist residents who choose to pursue a LOMA. Some homeowners that have existing LOMA’s that exempt them from carrying flood insurance may have these letters either revalidated or superseded. A list of these properties was sent out as part of the June 7, 2018 letter of final determination and staff can work with the MN DNR to get additional information about these properties. Planning Commission Floodplain Update November 20, 2018 Page 6 Issue 4: Ordinance Update In order to remain enrolled in the NFIP, Chanhassen must officially adopt the new FIRMs and update its floodplain protection ordinance by December 21, 2018. Chanhassen first adopted a floodplain ordinance in 1979 that was similar to the model ordinance being provided by the MN DNR. When the city overhauled its zoning code in 1986, the city’s floodplain ordinance appears to have been significantly simplified and condensed. The 1986 iteration of the floodplain ordinance was amended in 2004 to remove previously listed interim and conditional uses, but no other changes have been made since its adoption. Many of the provisions contained in the model ordinance are mandatory provisions/language that the City must adopt if it wishes to remain enrolled in the NFIP. Staff has incorporated all of the required provisions into its proposed ordinance, has endeavored to eliminate redundancies between the floodplain ordinance and other sections of the City Code, and whenever possible has attempted to minimize the change from the existing ordinance. The full text of the proposed floodplain ordinance is provided as an attachment; however, the most significant changes/additions are highlighted below: 1) Definitions: Many new definitions will need to be adopted and the definitions of words like “Floodplain” have changed to provide increased clarity. Staff has worked with the MN DNR to retain existing definitions like “basement” in cases where the model ordinance’s language has the potential to negatively impact other aspects of the City Code. Finally, staff has requested that the City not be required to adopt definitions such as “start of construction” which it feels can best be handled though the common understanding of the term and could have unforeseen consequences on other sections of the City Code. 2) Critical Facilities: This is a new category of uses that are either necessary to the community’s public health and safety or have the potential to cause significant environmental damages or loss of life in the event of a flood, examples include hospitals, fire stations, electrical utilities, and fuel storage facilities. These facilities must be located at least three feet above the regional flood elevation or 500-year flood elevation, whichever is higher. Previous provisions addressed some, but not all, of these uses and typically required either floodproofing or elevation above the regulatory flood protection elevation, previously defined as two feet above regional flood elevation. 3) Regulatory flood protection elevation: Staff is proposing increasing this from two feet to three feet in order to bring it in line with the city’s Local Water Management Plan and other minimum elevation provisions in other sections of the City Code. In all cases, the stricter standard would apply and the presence of two differing standards would create confusion. 4) Permitted Uses: The new ordinance requires that the city adopt more stringent performance standards for permitted uses within the floodplain overlay districts. These Planning Commission Floodplain Update November 20, 2018 Page 7 standards are intended to insure any use within the floodplain has a low probability of being damaged by a flood and will not obstruct flood flows or flood elevations. These standards differ between the Floodway and Floodway Fringe districts, with the Floodway Fringe allowing more uses. 5) Conditional Uses: Are substantially similar to what were previously allowed; however, additional standards have been added as a requirement for receiving a conditional use permit. The model ordinance proposes making grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards a conditional use; however, the City Code already requires an interim use permit for grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards, and the city prefers to address these types of activities though the existing ordinances. 6) General Floodplain District: The existing ordinance does not specify how to determine if an area within the General Floodplain District is actually floodway or flood fringe. The proposed ordinance will adopt the mandated standards for determining the property classification of land within the general floodplain district when developments are proposed within that area. 7) Subdivisions: The proposed ordinance would require new subdivision within a floodplain district to show viable building sites outside of the floodway and flood fringe district boundaries. Subdivisions must also be reviewed to assure that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within flood prone areas and that critical facilities are properly located. 8) Public Infrastructure: Additional standards, i.e. floodproofing or being elevated above the regulatory flood protection elevation, are required for public utilities, public transportation facilities, and on-site water supply and sewage treatment systems. 9) Manufactured Homes/Recreational Vehicles: The MN DNR requires the city to adopt provisions regulating manufactured home and recreational vehicle parks, regardless of if these facilities are permitted by the City Code. Staff is proposing adopting the model ordinance’s provisions in order to comply with this requirement. 10) Administrative Provisions: The new floodplain ordinance contains mandatory additional requirements for the issuance of permits, conditional use permits, and variances beyond what is required in other areas of the Code. Many of these requirements involve additional information that an applicant must submit, criteria they must meet, or additional factors the Planning Commission or City Council must consider. There are also additional record keeping requirements, particularly concerning certificates of zoning compliance and floodproofing, which only apply to the above. Finally, the administrative sections stipulate the process and notifications required to amend the floodplain ordinance as well as the City’s obligation to enforce the ordinance. Planning Commission Floodplain Update November 20, 2018 Page 8 11) Nonconforming Uses: The provisions governing nonconforming uses within the floodplain are stricter than those found in the general City Code. In particular, repairs/alterations beyond a specified extent will require a nonconforming use to meet the standards of the floodplain protection ordinance and nonconforming structures damaged beyond a specified extent must be repaired or rebuilt in a manner that conforms to current standards. The proposed floodplain ordinance is currently awaiting final approval by the MN DNR; however, based on conversations with the DNR, staff is not expecting that any significant revisions will be required. Staff will make any revisions required by the MN DNR before the City Council votes on the final version of the ordinance. ALTERNATIVES 1) Do nothing. Chanhassen residents will lose access to the National Flood Insurance Program on December 21, 2018. 2) Adopt the new FRIMs and amend the existing floodplain ordinance to meet the minimum requirements to maintain eligibility for the NFIP. 3) Adopt the new FIRMs and a tailored version of Minnesota Department of Natural Resource’s model ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends alternative three, as the existing ordinance differs significantly from the model ordinance and it would be difficult to reconcile the two. ATTACHMENTS 1) Proposed Floodplain Ordinance 2) Model Floodplain Ordinance 3) Letter for Properties Possibly Clear of SFHA 4) Letter for Properties Possibly Removed from SFHA 5) Changes in Annual 1 percent (1%) Chance Flood Areas G:\PLAN\City Code\2018\Floodplain\Staff Report_Floodplain Update.docx Minnesota Sample Floodplain Ordinance Three District Ordinance This sample ordinance includes the three primary types of floodplain districts: Floodway, Flood Fringe, and General Floodplain. It can be used in a variety of situations, where all three districts or only some of them are present. Highlights and blank spaces identify parts of the ordinance that should be customized for the community as appropriate. Contents SECTION 1.0 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE ...................................... 2 SECTION 2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS .......................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 3.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS ....................................................................... 6 SECTION 4.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS ............................................................... 6 SECTION 5.0 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW) ................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 6.0 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) ............................................................................................... 9 SECTION 7.0 GENERAL FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT (GF) ................................................................................ 11 SECTION 8.0 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS .................................................................................................. 12 SECTION 9.0 UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND BRIDGES ................................................................... 12 SECTION 10.0 MANUFACTURED HOMES AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. ............................................. 13 SECTION 11.0 ADMINISTRATION .............................................................................................................. 13 SECTION 12.0 NONCONFORMITIES .......................................................................................................... 16 SECTION 13.0 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES ............................................................................................ 17 SECTION 14.0 AMENDMENTS .................................................................................................................. 17 Ordinance Language Commentary SECTION 1.0 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE 1.1 Statutory Authorization: The legislature of the State of Minnesota has, in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103F and Chapter [394/462] delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Therefore, the City Council/Board of Commissioners of [community], Minnesota, does ordain as follows. 1.2 Purpose: 1.21 This ordinance regulates development in the flood hazard areas of the [community]. These flood hazard areas are subject to periodic inundation, which may result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base. It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by minimizing these losses and disruptions. 1.22 National Flood Insurance Program Compliance. This ordinance is adopted to comply with the rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 59 -78, as amended, so as to maintain the community’s eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. 1.23 This ordinance is also intended to preserve the natural characteristics and functions of watercourses and floodplains in order to moderate flood and stormwater impacts, improve water quality, reduce soil erosion, protect aquatic and riparian habitat, provide recreational opportunities, provide aesthetic benefits and enhance community and economic development. SECTION 2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS 2.1 Lands to Which Ordinance Applies: This ordinance applies to all lands within the jurisdiction of the [community] within the boundaries of the Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Floodplain Districts. The boundaries of these districts are determined by scaling distances on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, or as modified in accordance with Section 3.2. 2.11 The Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Floodplain Districts are overlay districts that are superimposed on all existing zoning districts. The standards imposed in the overlay districts are in addition to any other requirements in this ordinance. In case of a conflict, the more restrictive standards will apply. 2.12 Where a conflict exists between the floodplain limits illustrated on the official floodplain maps and actual field conditions, the flood elevations shall be the governing factor in locating the regulatory floodplain limits. 2.13 Persons contesting the location of the district boundaries will be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the (Planning Commission/Board of Adjustment) and to submit technical evidence. 2.2 Incorporation of Maps by Reference: The following maps together with all attached material are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of the Official Zoning Map and this ordinance. The attached material includes the Flood Insurance Study for ____ County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas, dated ____ and the Flood Insurance Rate map panels enumerated below, dated ____, all prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These materials are on file in the (list location where maps will be filed – i.e., Town Hall). 2.3 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions: It is not intended by this ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or other private agreements. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this 1.1. is mandatory language. The zoning enabling statute reference is Chapter 394 for counties and Chapter 462 for cities and townships. “Governing body” is the City Council or County or Township Board. 1.21 & 1.22 is mandatory language 1.23 is optional language referencing the natural beneficial functions of floodplains. 2.1. The types of floodplain zones present in a community will vary, depending on hydrologic conditions and the level of detail of the applicable maps. 2.11 is optional – if the community has a zoning ordinance – as most do – it’s helpful to define these districts as overlay districts. If not, then delete this statement and other overlay references. 2.2 is mandatory, but should be customized by jurisdiction and map type. Under Minnesota Rules 6120.5700, Subp. 2, these materials are considered attachments to the Zoning Map. For counties, the map index may be used in lieu of listing all the map panels individually. Cities may choose to adopt additional map panels to encompass areas that may potentially be annexed in the future. See Section 2.7. Communities are also encouraged to adopt preliminary flood studies and/or other best available data for regulatory purposes. Estimated 1% Base Flood Elevations (or “pink lines”) would only have to be referenced here if this data exists in unmapped locations in your community. ordinance prevail. All other ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. 2.4 Warning and Disclaimer of Liability: This ordinance does not imply that areas outside the floodplain districts or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance does not create liability on the part of [community] or its officers or employees for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. 2.5 Severability: If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of law, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected and shall remain in full force. 2.6 Definitions: Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this ordinance must be interpreted according to common usage and so as to give this ordinance its most reasonable application. 2.611 Accessory Use or Structure – a use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure. 2.612 Base Flood – the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. 2.613 Base Flood Elevation – The elevation of the “regional flood.” The term “base flood elevation” is used in the flood insurance survey. 2.614 Basement – any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade (below ground level) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground level. 2.615 Conditional Use – a specific type of structure or land use listed in the official control that may be allowed but only after an in-depth review procedure and with appropriate conditions or restrictions as provided in the official zoning controls or building codes and upon a finding that: (a) Certain conditions as detailed in the zoning ordinance exist, and (b) The structure and/or land use conform to the comprehensive land use plan if one exists and are compatible with the existing neighborhood. 2.616 Critical Facilities – facilities necessary to a community’s public health and safety, those that store or produce highly volatile, toxic or water-reactive materials, and those that house occupants that may be insufficiently mobile to avoid loss of life or injury. Examples of critical facilities include hospitals, correctional facilities, schools, daycare facilities, nursing homes, fire and police stations, wastewater treatment facilities, public electric utilities, water plants, fuel storage facilities, and waste handling and storage facilities. 2.617 Development – any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate, including buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, or storage of equipment or materials. 2.618 Equal Degree of Encroachment – a method of determining the location of floodway boundaries so that floodplain lands on both sides of a stream are capable of conveying a proportionate share of flood flows. 2.619 Farm Fence – A fence as defined by Minn. Statutes Section 344.02, Subd. 1(a)-(d). An open type fence of posts and wire is not considered to be a structure under this ordinance. Fences that have the potential to obstruct flood flows, such as chain link fences and rigid walls, are regulated as structures under this ordinance. 2.620 Flood – a temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake that results in the inundation of normally dry areas. 2.3. This statement not needed if already included in zoning ordinance. 2.4. This statement not needed if already included in zoning ordinance. 2.5. This statement not needed if already included in zoning ordinance. 2.6. These definitions may already exist as part of zoning ordinance, but check for consistency. Definitions are mandatory unless otherwise indicated. 2.612 is an optional definition. This term is synonymous with the term “regional flood, which is predominantly used in this ordinance. 2.615. Some local ordinances – and the state rules that apply to floodplains – use the older term “special use.” 2.616. At the moment, this is an optional definition, but MN Rules 1335 is expected to be revised to adopt ASCE 24-14, which details the provision in Section 4.5 2.619 is an optional definition – to be left in if this type of farm fence is to be exempted from permit requirements. See 4.12. 2.620. Optional definition 2.621 Flood Frequency – the frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may be equaled or exceeded. 2.622 Flood Fringe – the portion of the Special Flood Hazard Area (one percent annual chance flood) located outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term “floodway fringe” used in the Flood Insurance Study for [community], Minnesota. 2.623 Flood Insurance Rate Map – An official map on which the Federal Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). 2.624 Flood Prone Area – any land susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. 2.625 Floodplain – the beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. 2.626 Floodproofing – a combination of structural provisions, changes, or adjustments to properties and structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages. 2.627 Floodway – the bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining floodplain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge. 2.628 Lowest Floor – the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building’s lowest floor; provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60.3. 2.629 Manufactured Home – a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term “manufactured home” does not include the term “recreational vehicle.” 2.630 New Construction - Structures, including additions and improvements, and placement of manufactured homes, for which the start of construction commenced on or after the effective date of this ordinance. 2.631 Obstruction – any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory floodplain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. 2.632 One Hundred Year Floodplain – lands inundated by the “Regional Flood” (see definition). 2.633 Principal Use or Structure – all uses or structures that are not accessory uses or structures. 2.634 Reach – a hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a stream or river influenced by a natural or man-made obstruction. In an urban area, the segment of a stream or river between two consecutive bridge crossings would most typically constitute a reach. 2.635 Recreational Vehicle – a vehicle that is built on a single chassis, is 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection, is designed to be self- 2.621. Optional definition 2.622. For cities mapped as part of county- wide flood insurance study, the county name should be inserted here. 2.624 is an optional definition – sections 8.15 use the term flood-prone to encompass vulnerable structures outside of mapped areas. 2.628. If not adopting the optional alternative elevation methods outlined in 6.33 and 6.46, the second sentence can be deleted. 2.631. Optional definition 2.632. Optional definition 2.633. Optional definition propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck, and is designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. For the purposes of this ordinance, the term recreational vehicle is synonymous with the term “travel trailer/travel vehicle.” 2.636 Regional Flood – a flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 1% chance or 100-year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in a flood insurance study. 2.637 Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) - an elevation not less than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain that result from designation of a floodway. 2.638 Repetitive Loss: Flood related damages sustained by a structure on two separate occasions during a ten year period for which the cost of repairs at the time of each such flood event on the average equals or exceeds 25% of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. 2.639 Special Flood Hazard Area – a term used for flood insurance purposes synonymous with “One Hundred Year Floodplain.” 2.640 Start of Construction – includes substantial improvement, and means the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement or other improvement that occurred before the permit’s expiration date. The actual start is either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, foundations, or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. 2.641 Structure - anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground or on-site utilities, including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached garages, cabins, decks manufactured homes, recreational vehicles not considered travel ready as detailed in Section 10.22 of this ordinance and other similar items. 2.642 Substantial Damage - means damage of any origin sustained by a structure where the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. 2.643 Substantial Improvement - within any consecutive 365-day period, any reconstruction, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair), repair after damage, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the “start of construction” of the improvement. This term includes structures that 2.637. Freeboard higher than one foot is strongly recommended, as it can yield increased protection, result in lower premiums, and can be easier to administer by taking stage increases (encroachments) out of the equation. 2.638. This is an optional, but highly encouraged definition linked to the optional provision for repetitive loss properties in Section 12.16. Communities are required to adopt repetitive loss provisions to be eligible for Increased Cost of Compliance – which are funds to get such a structure into compliance. have incurred “substantial damage,” regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: (a) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or (b) Any alteration of a “historic structure,” provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure’s continued designation as a “historic structure.” For the purpose of this ordinance, “historic structure” is as defined in 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 59.1. 2.7 Annexations: The Flood Insurance Rate Map panels adopted by reference into Section 2.2 above may include floodplain areas that lie outside of the corporate boundaries of the [community] at the time of adoption of this ordinance. If any of these floodplain land areas are annexed into the [community] after the date of adoption of this ordinance, the newly annexed floodplain lands will be subject to the provisions of this ordinance immediately upon the date of annexation. 2.8 Detachments. The Flood Insurance Rate Map panels adopted by reference into Section 2.2 above will include floodplain areas that lie inside the corporate boundaries of municipalities at the time of adoption of this ordinance. If any of these floodplain land areas are detached from a municipality and come under the jurisdiction of [community] after the date of adoption of this ordinance, the newly detached floodplain lands will be subject to the provisions of this ordinance immediately upon the date of detachment. SECTION 3.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS 3.1 Districts: 3.11 Floodway District. The Floodway District includes those areas within Zones AH delineated within floodway areas as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps adopted in Section 2.2. 3.12 Flood Fringe District. The Flood Fringe District includes areas within Zones AH on the Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps adopted in Section 2.2, but located outside of the floodway. 3.13 General Floodplain District. The General Floodplain District includes those areas within (Zone A or Zones AE/AO/AH) (that do not have a floodway delineated) as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in Section 2.2. 3.2 Applicability: Where Floodway and Flood Fringe districts are delineated on the floodplain maps, the standards in Sections 5 or 6 will apply, depending on the location of a property. Locations where Floodway and Flood Fringe districts are not delineated on the floodplain maps are considered to fall within the General Floodplain district. Within the General Floodplain district, the Floodway District standards in Section 5 apply unless the floodway boundary is determined, according to the process outlined in Section 7.2. SECTION 4.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS 4.1 Permit Required. A permit must be obtained from the Zoning Administrator to verify if a development meets all applicable standards outlined in this ordinance prior to conducting the following activities: 4.11 The erection, addition, modification, rehabilitation, or alteration of any building, structure, or portion thereof. Normal maintenance and repair also requires a permit if such work, separately or in conjunction with other planned work, constitutes a substantial improvement as defined in this ordinance. 4.12 The construction of a dam, on-site septic system, or any fence not meeting the definition of farm fence outlined in Section 2.619 of this ordinance. 2.643(b). “Historic structures” as defined in the CFR generally include sites listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and state- or locally-designated historic properties. 2.7 applies to cities only. It is optional but recommended – if not included, any annexation will trigger an amendment of the floodplain ordinance. Section 2.8 applies only to counties or townships that exercise zoning authority. Counties may choose to adopt specific map panels or adopt the countywide map index. 3.11 – 3.13. These sections will reference applicable flood zones in each community. For communities that have a mapped 500- year floodplain (areas with .02 percent chance of being flooded any given year), it is recommended that these areas are also identified in Section 3.12. If your community has Estimated 1% Base Flood Elevations (or “pink lines”) in areas that are completely unmapped, these should be referenced in both Sections 2.2 and 3.13. For lakes, ponds and wetlands, the area at or below the Ordinary High Water Level can be administratively defined as floodway. If a community has floodplain delineations on the FIRM for lakes, ponds and wetland without delineated floodways, contact DNR Floodplain Program staff for specific language. Zones AO and AH are areas prone to flooding due to overland flow or small ponds, and are not typically found on most FIRMs. 4.12. The exemption for farm fences is optional. 4.13 The change or extension of a nonconforming use. 4.14 The repair of a structure that has been damaged by flood, fire, tornado, or any other source. 4.15 The placement of fill, excavation of materials, or the storage of materials or equipment within the floodplain. 4.16 Relocation or alteration of a watercourse (including new or replacement culverts and bridges), unless a public waters work permit has been applied for. 4.17 Any other type of “development” as defined in this ordinance. 4.2 Minimum Development Standards. All new construction and substantial improvements must be: 4.21 Designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent floatation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy; 4.22 Constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage; 4.23 Constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage; and 4.24 Constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, ductwork, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. 4.3 Flood Capacity. Floodplain developments must not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining floodplain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system. 4.4 The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. 4.5 Critical Facilities, as defined in Section 2.616, are to be located, so that the lowest floor is not less than two feet above the regional flood elevation, or the 500 year flood elevation, whichever is higher. SECTION 5.0 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW) 5.1 Permitted Uses: The following uses, subject to the standards set forth in Section 5.2, are permitted uses if otherwise allowed in the underlying zoning district or any applicable overlay district: 5.11 General farming, pasture, grazing, farm fences, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting. 5.12 Industrial-commercial loading areas, parking areas, and airport landing strips. 5.13 Open space uses, including but not limited to private and public golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks, wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, shooting preserves, hunting and fishing areas, and single or multiple purpose recreational trails. 5.14 Residential yards, lawns, gardens, parking areas, and play areas. 5.15 Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines and pipelines, provided that the Department of Natural Resources’ Area Hydrologist is notified at least ten days prior to issuance of any permit. 5.2 Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses: 5.21 The use must have a low flood damage potential. 4.17. Any change in the course, current or cross-section of public waters requires a public waters work permit from the DNR under Minn Stat 103G.245. See also 5.44. 4.22. FEMA Technical Bulletin 2 details requirements for flood-damage resistant materials 4.5. At the moment, this is an optional provision, but Minnesota Rules 1335 is expected to be revised to adopt ASCE 24- 14, which includes this provision. It is encouraged to adopt a further higher standard here and prohibit critical facilities from mapped floodplain areas entirely. 5.0. This section (along with section 6) can be revised to be more restrictive. Permitted uses identified in Section 5.1 must meet the standards in 5.2. Floodways need to be protected so that they can transport and store the waters of the regional (100-year) flood without increased flood heights or velocities or threats to public health and safety. Note that communities are not required to accommodate all of the listed uses. Communities are encouraged to be more restrictive, but must provide for some reasonable use of the floodway land. Other similar uses may be included in this section if they meet the standards in Section 5.2. 5.22 The use must not involve structures or obstruct flood flows. The use must not cause any increase in flood damages, nor any increase in flood elevations in areas where a floodway has been established, as certified by a registered professional engineer. 5.23 Any facility that will be used by employees or the general public must be designed with a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area is inundated to a depth and velocity such that the depth (in feet) multiplied by the velocity (in feet per second) would exceed a product of four upon occurrence of the regional (1% chance) flood. 5.3 Conditional Uses: The following uses may be allowed as conditional uses following the standards and procedures set forth in Section 11.4 of this ordinance and further subject to the standards set forth in Section 5.4, if otherwise allowed in the underlying zoning district. 5.31 Structures accessory to primary uses listed in 5.11 – 5.13 above and primary uses listed in 5.32 - 5.33 below. 5.32 Grading, extraction, fill and storage of soil, sand, gravel, and other materials. 5.33 Marinas, boat rentals, permanent docks, piers, wharves, water control structures, and navigational facilities. 5.34 Storage yards for equipment, machinery, or materials. 5.35 Fences that have the potential to obstruct flood flows. 5.36 Levees or dikes intended to protect agricultural crops for a frequency flood event equal to or less than the 10-year frequency flood event. 5.4 Standards for Floodway Conditional Uses: 5.41 A conditional use must not cause any increase in flood damages, nor any increase in flood elevations in areas where a floodway has been established, as certified by a registered professional engineer. 5.42 Fill; Storage of Materials and Equipment: (a) Fill, dredge spoil, and other similar materials deposited or stored in the floodplain must be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, riprap or other acceptable method. Permanent sand and gravel operations and similar uses must be covered by a long-term site development plan. (b) Temporary placement of fill, other materials, or equipment which would cause an increase to the stage of the 1% percent chance or regional flood may only be allowed if the (Governing Body) has approved a plan that assures removal of the materials from the floodway based upon the flood warning time available. 5.43 Accessory Structures. Accessory structures, as identified in Section 5.31, may be permitted, provided that: (a) Structures are not intended for human habitation; (b) Structures will have a low flood damage potential; (c) Structures will be constructed and placed so as to offer a minimal obstruction to the flow of flood waters; (d) Structures must be elevated on fill, open sided or structurally dry floodproofed and watertight to the regulatory flood protection elevation. Certifications consistent with Section 11.22 shall be required. (e) As an alternative, an accessory structure may be floodproofed in a way to accommodate internal flooding. To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic 5.3. Note that these conditional uses are optional for the community, provided they meet the standards in Sections 5.4. Any of these uses (and corresponding standards in 5.4) can be identified as permitted uses in 5.1 (and 5.2) as appropriate. Requiring CUP gives additional community control for these sensitive areas. 5.32. Communities may choose to further limit these activities. 5.33. Wharves, breakwaters and other similar structures must satisfy Minnesota Rules 6115.0211. 5.35. Farm fences do not require a permit. See Section 4.12 5.36. Use does not need to demonstrate that it will not cause an increase in flood damages per 5.41 as long as the top of the dike does not exceed the 10-year event. 5.4. Note that flood control projects intended to remove areas from the floodway to allow development of single or multiple structures are not permitted unless a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) can be obtained to change the floodway boundary. Contact DNR Floodplain Program staff for further information. 5.42(a) must be included if community chooses to allow deposition or storage of fill in the floodway 5.42(b) is an optional alternative allowing temporary storage of fill or other materials that could increase flood stage, suitable for the types of locations where adequate flood warning times will be available to allow removal of materials. pressure, there shall be a minimum of two openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. The openings shall have a minimum net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding, have a net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding, and shall allow automatic entry and exit of floodwaters without human intervention. A floodproofing certification consistent with Section 11.22 shall be required. 5.44 Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters are subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245. 5.45 A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway must not cause an increase to the 1% chance or regional flood. The technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream. SECTION 6.0 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) 6.1 Permitted Uses: Permitted uses are those uses of land or structures allowed in the underlying zoning district(s) that comply with the standards in Sections 6.2. If no pre- existing, underlying zoning districts exist, then any residential or nonresidential structure or use of a structure or land is a permitted use provided it does not constitute a public nuisance. 6.2 Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses: 6.21 All structures, including accessory structures, must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor, as defined, is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures must be no lower than one foot below the regulatory flood protection elevation and the fill must extend at the same elevation at least 15 feet beyond the outside limits of the structure. Elevations must be certified by a registered professional engineer, land surveyor or other qualified person designated by the community. 6.22 Accessory Structures. As an alternative to the fill requirements of section 6.21, structures accessory to the uses identified in Section 6.1 may be designed to accommodate the inundation of floodwaters, meeting the following provisions, as appropriate: (a) The accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment and satisfy the development requirements in Section 4.2. (b) Any enclosed accessory structure shall not exceed 576 square feet in size, and only be used for parking and storage. Any such structure shall be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer, or be designed in accordance with the following floodproofing standards: (1) To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure, there shall be a minimum of two openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. The openings shall have a minimum net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding, have a net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding, and shall allow automatic entry and exit of floodwaters without human intervention. 6.23 The cumulative placement of fill or similar material on a parcel must not exceed 1,000 cubic yards, unless the fill is specifically intended to elevate a structure in accordance with Section 6.21 of this ordinance, or if allowed as a conditional use under Section 6.33 below. 5.43(e) is optional language allowing for wet floodproofing of small accessory structures that constitute a minimal investment. Specifications are further guided by FEMA Technical Bulletins 1 and 7-93 5.44 is an optional provision providing notice that work in public waters requires a DNR permit. 6.1. If underlying zoning district(s) are present (as in most communities) the second sentence can be deleted. 6.21. “Lowest floor” is defined as the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area, including basements, crawl spaces, etc. See definition in Section 2.628. FEMA Technical Bulletin 10-01 details specifications for structures built on fill. 6.22(a). A special note that the bulk standards here slightly exceed those allowed through 6120.3300, Subp 3(H) of the Shoreland Rules. Most restrictive standard applies. 6.22(b). If an accessory structure exceeds 576 square feet, then FEMA will not allow internal floodproofing, and the structure must be elevated on fill in accordance to 6.21 or dry floodproofed in accordance with 6.42. 6.23. Applying a given volume threshold is an optional provision. Requiring a CUP for larger volumes of fill (see 6.32) allows communities to require an erosion control and emergency removal plan for uses such as sand and gravel mining or dredge spoil storage. 6.24 All service utilities, including ductwork, must be elevated or water-tight to prevent infiltration of floodwaters. 6.25 All fill must be properly compacted and the slopes must be properly protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable method. 6.26 All new principal structures must have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation, or must have a flood warning /emergency evacuation plan acceptable to the (Governing Body). 6.27 Accessory uses such as yards, railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at an elevation lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. However, any facilities used by employees or the general public must be designed with a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area is inundated to a depth and velocity such that the depth (in feet) multiplied by the velocity (in feet per second) would exceed a product of four upon occurrence of the regional (1% chance) flood. 6.28 Manufactured homes and recreational vehicles must meet the standards of Section 10 of this ordinance. 6.3 Conditional Uses: The following uses may be allowed as conditional uses following the standards and procedures set forth in Section 11.4 of this ordinance and further subject to the standards set forth in Section 6.4, if otherwise allowed in the underlying zoning district(s). 6.31 The placement of floodproofed nonresidential basements below the regulatory flood protection elevation. Residential basements, are not allowed below the regulatory flood protection elevation. 6.32 The cumulative placement of more than 1,000 cubic yards of fill when the fill is not being used to elevate a structure in accordance with Section 6.21 of this ordinance. 6.33 (OPTIONAL) The use of methods other than fill to elevate structures above the regulatory flood protection elevation. This includes the use of: stilts, pilings, filled stem walls, or above-grade, internally flooded enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages, meeting the standards in Section 6.44. 6.4 Standards for Flood Fringe Conditional Uses: 6.41 The standards for permitted uses in the flood fringe, listed in Sections 6.24 through 6.28, apply to all conditional uses. 6.42 All areas of nonresidential structures, including basements, to be placed below the regulatory flood protection elevation must be structurally dry floodproofed, which requires making the structure watertight with the walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. A floodproofing certification consistent with Section 11.22 shall be required. 6.43 The placement of more than 1,000 cubic yards of fill or other similar material on a parcel (other than for the purpose of elevating a structure to the regulatory flood protection elevation) must comply with an approved erosion/sedimentation control plan. (a) The plan must clearly specify methods to be used to stabilize the fill on site for a flood event at a minimum of the regional (1% chance) flood event. (b) The plan must be prepared and certified by a registered professional engineer or other qualified individual acceptable to the (Governing Body). 6.26 is optional, but such access requirements is mandatory for subdivisions 6.31 FEMA Technical Bulletin 3-93 detail requirements for floodproofing through watertight construction methods. Select communities have been granted “basement exceptions”, allowing dry-floodproofing of residential structures below the RFPE. 6.32. These fill requirements are an optional conditional use. This (along with the corresponding standard in 6.43) can be identified as permitted uses in 6.1 (and 6.2) as appropriate. Requiring CUP gives additional community control to require an erosion control and emergency removal plan for uses such as sand and gravel mining or dredge spoil storage. 6.33. The DNR refers to these as “alternative elevation methods”, meaning it is an alternative to fill. This is designated optional because they are burdensome to administer – typically requiring nonconversion agreements and detailed monitoring and inspections. These uses must follow the standards listed in 6.46, which are further detailed in FEMA Technical Bulletins 1 and 7-93 6.43. Optional provision, depending on community’s application of 6.32. (c) The plan may incorporate alternative procedures for removal of the material from the floodplain if adequate flood warning time exists. 6.44 (OPTIONAL) Alternative elevation methods other than the use of fill may be utilized to elevate a structure's lowest floor above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The base or floor of an enclosed area shall be considered above-grade and not a structure’s basement or lowest floor if: 1) the enclosed area is above-grade on at least one side of the structure; 2) it is designed to internally flood; and 3) it is used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage. These alternative elevation methods are subject to the following additional standards: (a) Above-grade, fully enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages must be designed to internally flood and include a minimum of two openings on at least two sides of the structure. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade, and have a minimum net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding unless a registered professional engineer or architect certifies that a smaller net area would suffice. (b) Floodproofing certifications consistent with Section 11.22 shall be required. The structure shall be subject to a deed-restricted nonconversion agreement with the issuance of any permit. SECTION 7.0 GENERAL FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT (GF) 7.1 Permitted Uses: 7.11 The uses listed in Section 5.1 of this ordinance, Floodway District Permitted Uses, are permitted uses. 7.12 All other uses are subject to the floodway/flood fringe evaluation criteria specified in Section 7.2 below. Section 5.0 applies if the proposed use is determined to be in the Floodway District. Section 6.0 applies if the proposed use is determined to be in the Flood Fringe District. 7.2 Procedures for Determining Floodway Boundaries and Regional Flood Elevations: 7.21 Detailed Study. Developments greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, or as requested by the zoning administrator, shall be subject to a detailed study to determine the regulatory flood protection elevation and the limits of the Floodway District. The determination of the floodway and flood fringe must be consistent with accepted hydrological and hydraulic engineering standards, and must include the following components, as applicable: (a) Estimate the peak discharge of the regional (1% chance) flood. (b) Calculate the water surface profile of the regional flood based upon a hydraulic analysis of the stream channel and overbank areas. (c) Compute the floodway necessary to convey or store the regional flood without increasing flood stages more than one-half (0.5) foot. A lesser stage increase than 0.5 foot is required if, as a result of the stage increase, increased flood damages would result. An equal degree of encroachment on both sides of the stream within the reach must be assumed in computing floodway boundaries, unless development or geographic features warrant other analysis, as approved by the Department of Natural Resources. 7.22 Alternative Methods. Provided no detailed study is available, an applicant must identify a base flood elevation, at minimum, to determine the boundaries of the special flood hazard area. The applicant shall obtain and utilize best available data to determine the regional flood elevation and floodway boundaries from a 6.44. Standard tied to the optional 6.34. The DNR refers to these as “alternative elevation methods”, meaning it is an alternative to fill. 7.1. If the General Floodplain District (the A zone, or the AE, AO or AH zones without a defined floodway) is not present within the community, delete the contents of this section and retitle it “Reserved for Future Use” (i.e., in case a future annexation or map update would add an A zone). 7.2. State and federal rules establish standards for this determination but do not specify a procedure to be followed. (However, the community is required under 44 CFR 60.3(b)(4) to “obtain, review and reasonably utilize” base flood elevation and floodway data.) The procedure shown here is one that DNR suggests that communities follow, and accommodates for obtaining best available data that is commonly available – most notably, the Estimated 1% Base Flood Elevations (or “pink lines”). DNR Floodplain Program staff can assist communities in obtaining relevant data and completing determinations as they arise. state, federal, or other source. If no such data exists, the applicant may determine the base flood elevation and floodway limits through other accepted engineering practices. Any such method shall assume a 0.5 foot stage increase to accommodate for future floodway determination. 7.23 The Zoning Administrator will review the submitted information and assess the technical evaluation and the recommended Floodway and/or Flood Fringe District boundary. The assessment must include the cumulative effects of previous floodway encroachments. The Zoning Administrator may seek technical assistance from an engineer or other expert person or agency, including the Department of Natural Resources. Based on this assessment, the Zoning Administrator may approve or deny the application. 7.24 Once the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries have been determined, the Zoning Administrator must process the permit application consistent with the applicable provisions of Section 5.0 and 6.0 of this ordinance. SECTION 8.0 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS 8.1 Subdivisions: No land may be subdivided which is unsuitable for reasons of flooding or inadequate drainage, water supply or sewage treatment facilities. Manufactured home parks and recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds are considered subdivisions under this ordinance. 8.11 All lots within the floodplain districts must be able to contain a building site outside of the Floodway District at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. 8.12 All subdivisions must have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation, unless a flood warning emergency plan for the safe evacuation of all vehicles and people during the regional (1% chance) flood has been approved by the (Governing Body). The plan must be prepared by a registered engineer or other qualified individual, and must demonstrate that adequate time and personnel exist to carry out the evacuation. 8.13 For all subdivisions in the floodplain, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries, the regulatory flood protection elevation and the required elevation of all access roads must be clearly labeled on all required subdivision drawings and platting documents. 8.14 In the General Floodplain District, applicants must provide the information required in Section 7.2 of this ordinance to determine the regional flood elevation, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries and the regulatory flood protection elevation for the subdivision site. 8.15 Subdivision proposals must be reviewed to assure that: (a) All such proposals are consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within the flood prone area, (b) All public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems are located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage, and (c) Adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure of flood hazard. SECTION 9.0 UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND BRIDGES 9.1 Public Utilities: All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply systems to be located in the floodplain must be floodproofed in accordance with the State Building Code or elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation. Section 8.0 is mandatory as long as the community is not built out. These provisions can be integrated into a city or county subdivision ordinance, where one exists. Note that manufactured home and recreational vehicle parks are treated as subdivisions. 8.12. The two foot access requirement is a suggested standard. 6120.5900, Subd. 2 requires the establishment of access standards, but does not detail what those standards should be. 9.2 Public Transportation Facilities: Railroad tracks, roads, and bridges to be located within the floodplain must comply with Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this ordinance. These transportation facilities must be elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation where failure or interruption of these facilities would result in danger to the public health or safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area. Minor or auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where failure or interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public health or safety. 9.3 On-site Water Supply and Sewage Treatment Systems: Where public utilities are not provided: 1) On-site water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and are subject to the provisions in Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725.4350, as amended; and 2) New or replacement on-site sewage treatment systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters, they must not be subject to impairment or contamination during times of flooding, and are subject to the provisions in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080.2270, as amended. SECTION 10.0 MANUFACTURED HOMES AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. 10.1 Manufactured Homes: Manufactured homes and manufactured home parks are subject to applicable standards for each floodplain district. In addition: 10.11 New and replacement manufactured homes must be elevated in compliance with Section 6 of this ordinance and must be securely anchored to a system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. 10.12 New manufactured home parks and expansions to existing manufactured home parks must meet the appropriate standards for subdivisions in Section 8 of this ordinance. New or replacement manufactured homes in existing manufactured home parks must meet the vehicular access requirements for subdivisions in Section 8.12 of this ordinance. 10.2 Recreational Vehicles: New recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds and expansions to existing recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds are prohibited in any floodplain district. Recreational vehicles placed in existing recreational vehicle parks, campgrounds or lots of record in the floodplain must either: 10.21 Meet the requirements for manufactured homes in Section 10.1, or 10.22 Be travel ready, meeting the following criteria: (a) The vehicle must have a current license required for highway use. (b) The vehicle must be highway ready, meaning on wheels or the internal jacking system, attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities commonly used in campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks. (c) No permanent structural type additions may be attached to the vehicle. (d) Accessory structures may be permitted in the Flood Fringe District, provided that they constitute a minimal investment, do not hinder the removal of the vehicle should flooding occur, and meet the standards outlined in Sections 4.2 and 6.22. SECTION 11.0 ADMINISTRATION 11.1 Duties: A Zoning Administrator or other official designated by the (Governing Body) must administer and enforce this ordinance. 11.2 Permit Application Requirements: 9.3. MPCA oversees the Rules regulating septic systems (7080.2270) and wells (4725.4350), which regulate location and design in relation to floodplains. 10.1 and 10.2 are mandatory, but can be reworded based on the prevalence of manufactured/RV home parks. 10.2 is worded to recognize MN Department of Health rules (4630.0200), which prohibit mobile home parks and recreational camping areas in flood-prone areas. Placement or replacement of manufactured home units may be allowed in existing manufactured home parks or on lots of record. 10.21. If other provisions in your zoning ordinance do not allow the establishment of permanent RVs, this provision can be omitted. 10.22 (d). Communities may apply a monetary limit such as $500 as a threshold for a “minimal investment,” recognizing that this threshold will vary from place to place. 11.0. Many of the standards and procedures in this section are likely to exist in other parts of the community’s zoning ordinance, and may be cross-referenced rather than repeated here. However, the 11.21 Application for Permit. Permit applications must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator on forms provided by the Zoning Administrator. The permit application must include the following as applicable: (a) A site plan showing all pertinent dimensions, existing or proposed buildings, structures, and significant natural features having an influence on the permit. (b) Location of fill or storage of materials in relation to the stream channel. (c) Copies of any required municipal, county, state or federal permits or approvals. (d) Other relevant information requested by the Zoning Administrator as necessary to properly evaluate the permit application. 11.22 Certification. The applicant is required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Floodproofing measures must be certified by a registered professional engineer or registered architect as being in compliance with applicable floodproofing standards in in the State Building Code. Accessory structures designed in accordance with Section 6.22 of this ordinance are exempt from certification, provided sufficient assurances are documented. Any development in established floodways must not cause any increase in flood elevations or damages, as certified by a registered professional engineer. 11. 23 Certificate of Zoning Compliance for a New, Altered, or Nonconforming Use. No building, land or structure may be occupied or used in any manner until a certificate of zoning compliance has been issued by the Zoning Administrator stating that the use of the building or land conforms to the requirements of this ordinance. 11.24 Recordkeeping of Certifications and As-Built Documentation. The Zoning Administrator must maintain records in perpetuity documenting: (a) all certifications referenced in Section 11.22 of this ordinance as applicable (b) Elevations complying with Section 6.21 of this ordinance. The Zoning Administrator must also maintain a record of the elevation to which structures and alterations to structures are constructed or floodproofed. 11.25 Notifications for Watercourse Alterations. Before authorizing any alteration or relocation of a river or stream, the Zoning Administrator must notify adjacent communities. If the applicant has applied for a permit to work in public waters pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245, this will suffice as adequate notice. A copy of the notification must also be submitted to the Chicago Regional Office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 11.26 Notification to FEMA When Physical Changes Increase or Decrease Base Flood Elevations. As soon as is practicable, but not later than six months after the date such supporting information becomes available, the Zoning Administrator must notify the Chicago Regional Office of FEMA of the changes by submitting a copy of the relevant technical or scientific data. 11.3 Variances: 11.31 Variance Applications. An application for a variance to the provisions of this ordinance will be processed and reviewed in accordance with applicable State Statutes and Section(s) _________________ of the zoning ordinance/code. 11.32 Adherence to State Floodplain Management Standards. A variance must not allow a use that is not allowed in that district, permit a lower degree of flood community must be able to demonstrate that these procedures or comparable ones are in place. The term “Zoning Administrator” is used throughout this section for ease of reference, but in some communities the City Clerk or other official may fill this role. 11.21. This section may cross-reference any other permitting requirements in the zoning ordinance. 11.31 should cross-reference all sections of the zoning ordinance that regulate processing and review of variance applications. 11.3 only contains DNR/FEMA – mandated regulatory & notification provisions. protection than the regulatory flood protection elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those required by state law. 11.33 Additional Variance Criteria. The following additional variance criteria of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must be satisfied: (a) Variances must not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. (b) Variances may only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of good and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. (c) Variances may only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. 11.34 Flood Insurance Notice. The Zoning Administrator must notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage; and 2) Such construction below the base or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification must be maintained with a record of all variance actions. 11.35 General Considerations. The community may consider the following factors in granting variances and imposing conditions on variances and conditional uses in floodplains: (a) The potential danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments; (b) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others; (c) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems, if any, and the ability of these systems to minimize the potential for disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions; (d) The susceptibility of any proposed use and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; (e) The importance of the services to be provided by the proposed use to the community; (f) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location; (g) The availability of viable alternative locations for the proposed use that are not subject to flooding; (h) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future; (i) The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and flood plain management program for the area; (j) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; (k) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site. 11.33 is language required by FEMA. Note specifically that the reference to “exceptional hardship” in (b)(ii) must remain in the ordinance, even though it has been replaced by the term “practical difficulties” in state zoning enabling statutes. Federal standards for variances are detailed in 44 CFR 60.6, and further clarified in FEMA Publication P-993 – Variances and the National Flood Insurance Program. 11.34 is required by FEMA. Section 11.35 is optional guidance for communities in reviewing variance applications. The same suggested considerations are recommended for review of conditional use applications, below. 11.36 Submittal of Hearing Notices to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The (designated body/community official) must submit hearing notices for proposed variances to the DNR sufficiently in advance to provide at least ten days’ notice of the hearing. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. 11.37 Submittal of Final Decisions to the DNR. A copy of all decisions granting variances must be forwarded to the DNR within ten days of such action. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. 11.38 Record-Keeping. The Zoning Administrator must maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and must report such variances in an annual or biennial report to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, when requested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 11.4 Conditional Uses: 11.41 Administrative Review. An application for a conditional use permit under the provisions of this ordinance will be processed and reviewed in accordance with Section(s) ______________ of the zoning ordinance/code. 11.42 Factors Used in Decision-Making. In passing upon conditional use applications, the (Governing Body) must consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this ordinance, and those factors identified in Section 11.35 of this ordinance. 11.43 Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. In addition to the standards identified in Sections 5.4 and 6.4, the (Governing Body) may attach such conditions to the granting of conditional use permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this ordinance. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation. (b) Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed restrictions. (c) Requirements for construction of channel modifications, compensatory storage, dikes, levees, and other protective measures. 11.44 Submittal of Hearing Notices to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The (designated body/community official) must submit hearing notices for proposed conditional uses to the DNR sufficiently in advance to provide at least ten days’ notice of the hearing. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. 11.45 Submittal of Final Decisions to the DNR. A copy of all decisions granting conditional uses must be forwarded to the DNR within ten days of such action. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. SECTION 12.0 NONCONFORMITIES 12.1 Continuance of Nonconformities: A use, structure, or occupancy of land which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this ordinance but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance may be continued subject to the following conditions. Historic structures, as defined in Section 2.643(b) of this ordinance, are subject to the provisions of Sections 12.11 – 12.16 below. 12.11 A nonconforming use, structure, or occupancy must not be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way that increases its flood damage potential or degree of obstruction to flood flows except as provided in 12.12 below. Expansion or 11.41 should cross-reference any conditional use procedures in the zoning ordinance, if these exist. Section 11.42 is optional but recommended as guidance for decisions on conditional uses (and variances, as noted above). 11.43 is also optional; conditions are intended to be specific to the particular site and proposed use. 12.11. Buildings and structures within the Floodway District may not be enlarged or expanded. In some cases, a floodway area can be filled without causing any rise in flood stage. In such cases, a Letter of Map Revision may be obtained that changes the floodway boundary, placing the area in the Flood Fringe. Contact Floodplain Program staff for details. enlargement of uses, structures or occupancies within the Floodway District is prohibited. 12.12 Any addition or structural alteration to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use that would result in increasing its flood damage potential must be protected to the regulatory flood protection elevation in accordance with any of the elevation on fill or floodproofing techniques (i.e., FP1 thru FP4 floodproofing classifications) allowable in the State Building Code, except as further restricted in 12.14 below. 12.13 If any nonconforming use, or any use of a nonconforming structure, is discontinued for more than one year, any future use of the premises must conform to this ordinance. 12.14 If any structure experiences a substantial improvement as defined in this ordinance, then the entire structure must meet the standards of Section 5.0 or 6.0 of this ordinance for new structures, depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District, respectively. If the current proposal, including maintenance and repair during the previous 365 days, plus the costs of any previous alterations and additions since the first Flood Insurance Rate Map exceeds 50 percent of the market value of any nonconforming structure, the entire structure must meet the standards of Section 5.0 or 6.0 of this ordinance. 12.15 If any nonconformity is substantially damaged, as defined in this ordinance, it may not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. The applicable provisions for establishing new uses or new structures in Sections 5.0 or 6.0 will apply depending upon whether the use or structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe, respectively. 12.16 If any nonconforming use or structure experiences a repetitive loss, as defined in Section 2.638 of this ordinance, it must not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 13.0 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES 13.1 Violation Constitutes a Misdemeanor: Violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or conditional uses) constitute a misdemeanor and will be punishable as defined by law. 13.2 Other Lawful Action: Nothing in this ordinance restricts the [community] from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Zoning Administrator within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses will constitute an additional violation of this ordinance and will be prosecuted accordingly. 13.3 Enforcement: Violations of the provisions of this ordinance will be investigated and resolved in accordance with the provisions of Section(s) ________________ of the zoning ordinance/code. In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the Zoning Administrator and (Governing Body) may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after-the- fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The [community] must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to correct ordinance violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. SECTION 14.0 AMENDMENTS 14.1 Floodplain Designation – Restrictions on Removal: The floodplain designation on the Official Zoning Map must not be removed from floodplain areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above the elevation Section 12.13 reflects an optional provision in Statute (462.357(Subd 1e)(1) and 394.36) – local government may impose reasonable conditions on the nonconforming use or structure. Many communities have adopted similar provisions in their zoning ordinances. 12.14. The language presented is recommended, in order to gradually eliminate nonconformities over time. Federal standards require that substantial improvement is tracked over a one-year period. The last sentence can be omitted if community does not wish to track improvements over the life of a structure. Section 12.15 is specific to floodplain uses in state and federal statute, as distinct from the standard provisions for nonconformities in Chapters 394 and 462. Section 12.16 is optional but highly encouaraged, in order to gradually eliminate nonconformities that are frequently damaged but not to the “50%” level. Communities are required to adopt repetitive loss provisions to be eligible for Increased Cost of Compliance – which are funds to get such a structure into compliance. 13.3. Cross-reference any sections of the zoning ordinance that deal with enforcement procedures. If such provisions don’t exist, contact Floodplain Program staff for sample language. of the regulatory flood protection elevation and is contiguous to lands outside the floodplain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) if it is determined that, through other measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended use. 14.2 Amendments Require DNR Approval: All amendments to this ordinance must be submitted to and approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to adoption. 14.3 Map Revisions Require Ordinance Amendments. The floodplain district regulations must be amended to incorporate any revisions by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the floodplain maps adopted in Section 2.2 of this ordinance. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval and publication, as required by law and/or charter. Adopted by the [community] Board/City Council This _____ of _______, _____ (Day) (Month) (Year) Attest: _________________________ , County Board Chairperson/Mayor (Name of Elected Official) Attest: __________________________, County Administrator/City Clerk (Name of Community Official) Stamp with Community Seal: November 8, 2018 «TAX_NAME» «TAX_ADD_L1» «TAX_ADD_L2» Re: Notification of Updates to FEMA Flood Hazard Maps – Planning General File No. 49 Dear Property Owner: A multiyear project by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to re-examine flood risks throughout Carver County and develop digital flood hazard maps is nearing completion. The updated maps will become effective on December 21, 2018. Preliminary versions of the maps and additional information can be found on the City’s website at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/floodplain. «SITEADD» The principle structure located at the address identified above 1) appears to be located in, or 2) is located adjacent to the Special Flood Hazard Area (aka SFHA, the 1 percent (1%) or 100-year floodplain). Please be aware that the City does not establish the location of the SFHA and does not have the ability to alter the location of the SFHA. How will these updated maps affect you? If you have a mortgage or secured loan from a federally regulated or insured lender (this includes most loans) and the principle structure on this parcel is within the SFHA, then by Federal law your lender must require you to carry flood insurance. Most lenders will check their loans when the updated maps become effective on December 21, 2018. They will send a letter to all properties in the SFHA (or close to it) to notify them that they must purchase flood insurance within 45 days. If a policy is not purchased within this time period, the lender will “force place” a policy, which is normally much more expensive than what is otherwise available. In most cases, flood insurance is available through your home or car insurance agent. If your insurance agent does not sell flood insurance, you can call the National Flood Insurance Program Help Center at 800-427-4661. You can see additional information at FEMA’s Flood Insurance website, FloodSmart.gov. If you have any kind of risk for flood damages, both in or out of the floodplain, the city encourages you to purchase flood insurance. What to do if you believe you’ve been inadvertently included in the SFHA? There are often scenarios where the boundaries of the floodplain do not accurately reflect the true topographic characteristics of a site. If you believe your structure and/or parcel is higher than the Planning Commission Notification of Updates to FEMA Flood Hazard Maps November 8, 2018 Page 2 actual flood elevation, there is a procedure for appeals known as a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA). Traditionally, a LOMA involves hiring a surveyor to verify the lowest ground touching the structure, deck or stairs is above the 100-year flood elevation. Under the right circumstances, two streamlined methods can be pursued in lieu of a field survey: • Letter of Map Amendments using updated elevation data would be used when LIDAR- derived contour elevations can verify that a structure is above the 100-year flood elevation. • Letter of Map Amendment – Out as Shown (LOMA-OAS) would be used when a flood map overlaid on top of an aerial photo plainly shows that a structure is completely out of the floodplain. Lenders often use automated systems (i.e. computers) to see if a lot has floodplain and may not check whether your structure is actually touching the floodplain. You can check the FEMA floodplain map to see if your structure is really in or touching the floodplain. If your structure is not in or touching the floodplain, give a copy of the FEMA floodplain map to your lender. If they want something more official from FEMA beyond a simple map, you would go through the LOMA-OAS process. For those that would qualify for either of the two streamlined methods described above, the city can assist in obtaining a map that can be used in lieu of a field survey. Please contact the city’s Water Resources Coordinator, Vanessa Strong, (Email: vstrong@ci.chanhassen.mn.us) if you believe your property’s principal structure is not located within SFHA and would like the city’s help in obtaining a map. Please be aware that the city does not have the ability to approve or deny LOMA. The city is assisting in map creation for certain types of LOMA as a public service, but has no formal role in the process. More information on the process for submitting a LOMA is available from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/floodplain/map_appeals.html What can be done to mitigate flood risk and/or reduce premiums? If it is verified that your structure is located in the SFHA, elevating, retrofitting, or flood proofing may help to reduce both risk and insurance premiums. If the lowest walking surface of the structure is within just a few feet of the 100-year flood elevation, you would likely qualify for lower premiums by hiring a surveyor to complete a FEMA Elevation Certificate. Sincerely, MacKenzie Walters Assistant Planner g:\plan\city code\2018\floodplain\fp letter for properties likely clear of sfha.docx November 8, 2018 «First_Name» «Last_Name» «House_number» «Street_Name» «City», «State» «Zip_Code» Re: Notification of Updates to FEMA Flood Hazard Maps – Planning General File No. 49 Dear Property Owner: A multiyear project by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to re-examine flood risks throughout Carver County and develop digital flood hazard maps is nearing completion. The updated maps will become effective on December 21, 2018. Preliminary versions of the maps and additional information can be found on the City’s website at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/floodplain. [Insert Parcel Address] The principle structure located at the address identified above is located adjacent to the Special Flood Hazard Area (aka SFHA, the 1 percent (1%) or 100-year floodplain). Please be aware that the city does not establish the location of the SFHA and does not have the ability to alter the location of the SFHA. How will these updated maps affect you? If you have a mortgage or secured loan from a federally regulated or insured lender (this includes most loans) and the principle structure on this parcel is within the SFHA, then by Federal law, your lender must require you to carry flood insurance. The map update may mean that your principal structure is no longer located within the SFHA. If this is the case, you may no longer be required to carry flood insurance. What to do if you believe your principal structure is no longer located in the SFHA? There are often scenarios where the boundaries of the floodplain do not accurately reflect the true topographic characteristics of a site. If you believe your structure and/or parcel is higher than the actual flood elevation, there is a procedure for appeals known as a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA). Traditionally, a LOMA involves hiring a surveyor to verify the lowest ground touching the structure, deck or stairs is above the 100-year flood elevation. Under the right circumstances, two streamlined methods can be pursued in lieu of a field survey: • Letter of Map Amendments using updated elevation data would be used when LIDAR- derived contour elevations can verify that a structure is above the 100-year flood elevation. Notification of Updates to FEMA Flood Hazard Maps November 8, 2018 Page 2 • Letter of Map Amendment – Out as Shown (LOMA-OAS) would be used when a flood map overlaid on top of an aerial photo plainly shows that a structure is completely out of the floodplain. Lenders often use automated systems (i.e., computers) to see if a lot has floodplain and may not check whether your structure is actually touching the floodplain. You can check the FEMA floodplain map to see if your structure is really in or touching the floodplain. If your structure is not in or touching the floodplain, give a copy of the FEMA floodplain map to your lender. If they want something more official from FEMA beyond a simple map, you would go through the LOMA-OAS process. For those that would qualify for either of the two streamlined methods described above, the city can assist in obtaining a map that can be used in lieu of a field survey. Please contact the city’s Water Resources Coordinator, Vanessa Strong, (Email: vstrong@ci.chanhassen.mn.us) if you believe your property’s principal structure is not located within SFHA and would like the city’s help in obtaining a map. Please be aware that the city does not have the ability to approve or deny LOMA. The city is assisting in map creation for certain types of LOMA as a public service, but has no formal role in the process. More information on the process for submitting a LOMA is available from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/floodplain/map_appeals.html What can be done to mitigate flood risk and/or reduce premiums? If it is verified that your structure is located in the SFHA, elevating, retrofitting, or flood proofing may help to reduce both risk and insurance premiums. If the lowest walking surface of the structure is within just a few feet of the 100-year flood elevation, you would likely qualify for lower premiums by hiring a surveyor to complete a FEMA Elevation Certificate. Sincerely, MacKenzie Walters Assistant Planner g:\plan\city code\2018\floodplain\fp letter for properties likely removed from sfha.docx 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 A E FCDB 11300 11200 11100 11000 11400 40012001600200010070090015001700200600100014001800220030050011001300190021002300270028008800 8700 8900 260010900 10800 10700 10600 10500 10400 10300 10200 10100 10000 9900 9800 9700 9600 9500 9400 9300 9200 9100 9000 8900 8800 8700 8500 8400 8300 80 0 0 79 0 0 78 0 0 77 0 0 76 0 0 75 0 0 6900 7000 7100 7200 19000188007400 186008200 8100 7300 9000 8600 8006400 6300 6200 6500 6600 6700 680013001200110010009008006007001002003004005000280035003400330032003100300029002700260025002400230022002100200019001800170015001600140042004100400039003800370036006200 6300 6400 6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7200 7300 7100 7400 7500 7600 7700 7800 7900 8000 8100 8200 8300 8600 8500 8400 40003900380037003600350033003400320031003000290010600 10500 10400 10300 10200 10100 9100 9200 9300 9400 9500 9600 9700 9800 9900 10000 11400 11300 11100 11000 11200 10900 10800 10700 Lake Ann Park Rice Marsh Lake Preserve North LotusLake ParkLake Minnewashta Regional Park (County Park)SunsetRidgeParkMeadowGreenPark K e rb e rP o n d P a rk Lake Susan PreserveBluff Creek Preserve ChanhassenRecreationCenter He sse Fa rm Preserve Pheasant HillPark CurryFarmsPark CityCenterParkStoneCreekPark RoundhousePark HermanFieldPark CarverBeachPlayground Park PrairieKnollParkPowerHillPark ChanhassenHillsPark BandimereHeightsPark Greenwo od Shores Park Ca rve rBeachPark Bluff Creek Golf Course RaguetWildlifeManagement Area (WMA) MN Valley NationalWildlife Refuge Mi n n e s o t a L a n d s c a p e A r b o r et u m SugarbushPark ChanhassenNaturePreserve Minnesota Landscape Arboretum Pleasant ViewPreserveFoxwoodsPreserve Minnew as hta Heights Park S LotusLake Park BandimerePark Chanhassen Estates Park La ke S u san P ar k Seminary FenScientific andNatural Area (SNA) Park RileyRidge Park Pi on e erPass P ark Raguet WildlifeManagement Area (WMA) Bluff CreekPreserve Rice MarshLake Park San d y H o o k R oad W82ndStWestLa ke Crt LakeSusanDriveL a k o t a L aneSunset TrailSandyHook C irCheyenneBighornDrive HazeltineBlvd(Hwy41)Lym an Blvd ( C S A H 1 8 )MinnewashtaParkwayCircle JuniperAve.DogwoodRdSommerGate RingneckDr.Pheasant D r Hillsd ale Crt S o u th e rnCrt ForestRidgeCircleHawthorne ChaskaRoadMolineCirS telle rCir WhiteDoveDr S t r a t ton Cr tCharing Bend H eatherCourtPowersBlvd(CSAH17)SaddlebrookP ass Trott ersCirTargetLaneK er berBlvdChippewaCir ChippewaTrailSantaV e r a DrSaratogaDr SaratogaCirSanta Fe Trail S i e rraTrailSierraCourt S h a d o w m ere CanterburyCir R e d w in g C t.NezPerceCt O x b o wBendSum mit Circle Sta gHornLn Oxbow B endD akotaDa k o t aCir c l eBuckingw oodCourtT im berwood Dr Pin e w o o d Circle AcornLaneMaplewoodTerraceOakwoodRidge R e n a i s s a n c e C o u r tBenwoodCircle StoneCr eekRdStoneCre e kDrStoneCreekDr BluffViewCourt CreekViewCourt Lake D riveWestCommerce DrValleyRidge Trail North V alley Rid g eTrail South ValleyViewCourt ValleyRidgeCourtValleyRidge Place ValleyViewPlSpoon b illCirM a lla rd C rtEgretCrtLakeSusanHillsD r FlamingoDrT e rn C rtK ingfis h e r Crt Th r ush Crt Merga nserCrt Oakside CircleLyman Court M aryJ aneCirBarbara C r tDrakeCrtDoveCrtParkDrPark R oadL a keDriveDakotaCirErie AveW 86thSt Quinn RoadBluffCircleF awnH i l l Cou r t RidgeRoadBelm ont LnW 78th St W.VillageRoad LakeLucy Lane C r e s t v i e wCir W h ite ta ilR id g e C o u r t MoccasinTrai l W 7 9 t h S t .Crimson Bay RdGreatPlainsBlvdIndian Hill Rd Yu ma Dr KiowaLongacre s D rMcGlynn DrMelodyLane P.V.LN.P.V.CirLake LucyRoad CenturyBoulevardLon g acre sDrFawnHillRdFAWNHILLROAD82nd Street MainStreetHighoverDriveHighoverCrtS HighoverCrtN 21 3 4 5 6 Grandview RdStone CreekCrt HeronDr AlisaCourtAlisaLaneBentBowTrail GunflintCourt 3 C o u lte rB o u le v a rd Coulter Blvd Andrew Court Coulter Blvd 1 KIMBERLY LANE 3 Nicholas Way2 Kelly CourtLakewayDrive Lake DriveWestL a ke D riveLakeDrE.Deerbrook DrHorseshoeLaneHorseshoeCurveBridleCreekCircle NorthwoodCourt4 Autumn Ridge Ct5 Autumn Ridge Ln6 Autumn Ridge Way StoughtonAveHennepinCountyRegionalTrailC o rrid o rWest F arm R o a d H e id i L a neHesse Farm Cir VogelsbergTrailMandan RaspberryHillBl uf f CreekDriveMillsRoad FlintlockTrailW. 96th Street Hwy101GreatPlainsBlvdFoxfordRoadW 94thSt.KiowaTrailLake Riley BlvdDeerfootTrail ParklandWay Sprin g fiel d D rE a s t woodCrt OverlookCourt S u n n yv a l e DrGree n vie w Dr. ShoreviewCourt GreenleafCourtSummerfieldDr Summerfie ld D riveLyman B lvd L a k eviewRdE N o r t hB ayDr1 Mission Way Hill W2 Marshland Tr3 Blackbird Ct4 Hartland Ct5 Mission Hill Way E6 Rice Ct7 Monk Ct8 Mayfield Ct9 Mission Hills Dr10 Frisco Ct Tigu a L aChanhass en Hills Dr NorthC hanh assenHillsDrSouthLakeSusanCrtL akeSusan H i l l s Dr2 43 1 W 187th StW 77th St 5PelicanCrtOspreyLnBluebillTrailBitternCourtSwanCourtIbi s CrtWestLakeDr MarketBlvd DellRoadL a keDrive E. Cheyenne Spur CheyenneAveLake Dr E .H id d e n Cir Eri eCircleErie SpurDakota Lane Dakot a LaneHiddenCourtMarsh D r DakotaAveHiddenLaneSinnen CirGreatPlainsBlvdW79thSt 77 th S tQuattroD r Park Roa d Park Court ParkPlac e 3 Autumn Ridge Avenue2 Harvest Way1 Harvest Lane LukewoodDr S tone C r e e k Lan e W S t o n e C r eekLaneEBoulderRoadBridle CreekT ra i l W 82nd St. A r b o r e t u m Boulevar d Highway 41State Hwy 5 ArboretumDrive77thS t L o neCedarL ane Minnewashta Court South Cedar DriveRed O a kLane White OakLane WhiteOakLane Hallgren Lane CountryOaksRoadStratford RidgeGlendale D r 6 6 Jersey Way StratfordLn StratfordBlvdStateHwy7Crestview Dr Linden C irK i rkw o o dC ir Landin g sDriveLandingsCrtJoshuaCi rCountryO aks RdLes leeCurveGreenbri ar AveN ez P erce Dr AudubonRd(CSAH15)Glendale Dr. Maple Cir Maple DrLeslee Curve Chur chRoadMeadow LaneW. 62nd St.MeadowCourtElmTreeCypressDriveDartm o u th D rFi rTreeS h o r e Drive Highover LaneBar b erryCirAr borLan eDogwoodAveI r o n w o o d P ip e r R id g e L n TanagersPointNorth Man orWash taBay R oadTanagersLnS a n dpiperTrailMin n e washtaW o o d s DrForrestCirForest A v e OrioleAve6 4th St.MelodyHill MurrayHillRoadW. 65th St.Hummingbird RdMelod yHillCirHighover Way Ches Mar Farm Rd Ches Mar DrHun te r Dr LodgepolePointHarrisonHillTrailHarrisonHillCourt R e d F o xCircle Brinker St CrocusCt.TulipCt.Maje s ticWa y WindmillDr5 BANEBERRY WAY E6 CONE FLOWER CRV S7 BLUEBONNET BLVD 10 BLUE SAGE LN E9 POPPY DR8 CHICORY WAY 13 BUTTER CUP CRT14 BLUESAGE LN WMillCreekLNKings R oad Settlers CtTrailsEndRdTrails E n dRdLake Lucy Rd W.78thSt HighwoodDr TreeTopRdMarket St Crestview Dr. C h estnut L a n e Pinehu rstDrPinehurst Dr 16 SNAPDRAGON DR 4 PRIMROSE PLACE 2 CLOVER1 BANEBERRY WAY W 3 CONEFLOWER CRV N 12 LADY SLIPPER LANE11 WATERLEAF LANE E 15 WATERLEAF LANE WWalnutCurve 6 7 89101115 1 4 2 3 1 3 1 1 6 5 5 4 12Prairie Flow e r BlvdWhiteDoveCir Wood Duck CirPintailCir Partridge Cir TealCir We st 6 3r d StCardinal Ave.CreekRu n Tr.AudubonBlue JayKoehnen Cir. EastKoehnenCir. West P h easantCir Shadow LaneIthlienAshton CT Te tonLaneBretton WayPipewood Cir £¤212 Arlington Ct. WelsleyCt.PleasantViewCoveW illow C reekDevonshireDrPointeLakeLucyMulberryCirEastMul b erryCir W est PeacefulLaneTroendleCircleTecumsehLaneShawneeLa ne RedmanLnUticaLaneUticaTerraceUticaCircleU t i c a L ane State Hwy 5 Picha KerberBlvdMarketBlv d W 78th St Chan ViewKiowaIroquois AveHuronFrontierTrailWest 76th St Great Plains BlvdSouthShore D r S o uthS h oreCtErieAveFrontierCourtLaredoDrive21 S a n t a VeraDrLaredoLaneSantaFeCirFrontier TrlIroqu ois Cimarron Cir SantaFeCirC a nyonC urveSad d le b rook Trail C one s togaTrailConestogaCourtButte C o urt PontiacCrt.Ponti a cCircle Pon t i a c L n DerbyDrive D e lRioDrDel Rio Dr PreaknessLn PimlicoLaneF o x H ill D rNa v a j o DrBroken A rro wDrRin g o Dr C a rv e r Be a c h Rd Pi ma LnCh a p a rr al LnRed w i ngL a n eKerber Blvd NezPerceDrWoodhill Dr Cr e e D r Ponderosa Dr Impe ria l Lone E a g leRd Carver BeachRd PenamintCtRedwingLnPenamintLnChaparralL N Hiawatha Dr Western Dr ChaparralCourtLotusTr a ilMohawk DrLakeAnnParkDrPawneeV i n elan d CtFoxPat hH opi R d DeerwoodDrQ uiverDrive NapaDr. P leasa n t V iewRoadFox Pat hFoxCtLake P oi ntPl e a sant Vie w R o ad TrappersP ass Mountai n W a yMountainViewCt NearMou n t a i nBl vd Pi edm ontCt Cascade Court S hastaC ir.W C a s tl eRidgeC a s cade Cir Shasta Cir. E Olympic Cir. CastleRidgeCourtCa s c ade P a s s Townline Road Tra pLin eCircle Tim b e r Hill RdRojinaLaneTrapLineLn PleasantParkDrBluffRidgeCrtGr a yFoxC urveFoxtail Crt QuailCrossingGrayFoxLaneHuntersCrtFox Hollow D r Chanhassen Rd. HWY. 101PleasantViewWayC h octawCirBrule CircleKruversPointRdW i l l o w ViewCove TwinMapleLn Basswood CirHorseshoeCurve M e rry P laceH olly LaneKNOBHILLLANE Lakew ay Lan eWoodDuckLn HighgateCir O r chard L a n e M aplewoodC irCactusC urveS a d dlebrookCurveChan View Dakota Lane HennepinCountyRegionalTrailCorridorF lyin g C lo u d D r ( C S A H 6 1 )State H W Y 10112 3 4 5Highland DrLaredoLn 7 6 MissionHillsCourtMissionHillsCircleMissionHillsLan e1098 P i o n e erT rail(C S A H 14)Meadowlark LnHesse F arm Road Sun r idgeCrtAudubonRdPioneerCircleCreekwood Dr H omestead LaneUp l a n d C ir cl e MalloryCourtBriarwoodCt.Galpin Blvd. (CR 117)LakeL u c y Road Lake Lucy Road D ia mo n d C o urt Melody HillMurrayHillCrt AudubonRdHill StLongviewCirGalpinBlvd(CSAH 15)C e n tu r y Trail CenturyBlvd1 234 7 6 5 3 Coach Place2 Coach Lane1 Coach Court 4 Coach Dr !Chesterfield Ln 5 Village Street6 Village Place !Century CircleCentury Ct.Century Place 7 Arboretum Village Trl Big Woods Blvd ArboretumVill a geCircleWaterTower Place Corporate Place Century BlvdSteller Court LucyRidgeCourt Em eral dLaneLucy Ridge LaneBentBowTrailW 78thStreet W78thStree tW78thStreet W78th St r e e t W 78th Stre etPond P ro m e n a d ePipewoodCurvePipewoodCrt Ruby L a n e T o pazDriveSapphireLane Ridgeview Way RidgeviewPoint Lakerid g eRoadRidgehillRoadT r i s t a n D r Trista n KnollVas s erman Trail VassermanPlace Delphinium LaneBramble Dr H ancock Place Hickory Road ShenendoahCircle GoldenCourtCountry OaksDr EdgewoodCt LakeLuc y R oadBrendenCourtManchesterDriveLakeH arrisonCircle High o v e rT railGal pi nCr t F o x D r Lake Harrison Rd A m berwoodLN Alder Way GunflintTrailArrowheadL n G unflint TrailH ig h cre stC irStonefieldLNPipewoodLaneCartwayLanePowersPlace4 Rosewood Dr3 Burlwood Dr2 Suffolk Dr1 Essex Rd LakeSusan HillsDr L a k e DriveWestYosemiteYosemiteLilacLane B lu ffCreekBlvd1234 5 Lyman Blvd (C S A H 18) PioneerTrail(CSAH14) B l u ffCre e k B l v d 1 Degler Circle2 Ellendale Lane3 Pembroke Pass4 River Rock Drive N. 78th St W Beacon Court 5 Bethesda Circle 7 8 9 1011 12 13 13 14 15 15 Roosevelt Dr 16 16 Columbia Lane 1717 Freedom Lane 7 Lincoln Lane8 Washington Circle9 Commonwealth Blvd10 Franklin Lane11 Madison Dr12 Jefferson Dr 14 Declaration Dr13 Washington Blvd Springfield Dr Pineview CrtPowers Blvd (CSAH 17)Maple Shores Dr RedCedarPoint Rd PaddockLn Lake Riley DrLakeR i leyTrl W atersEdgeDrFoxHollowCt CrossroadsBlvd18 Independance Circle 1819 Colonial Lane 1920 20 Freedom Lane Dell RoadTanadoonaDrive WestwoodDrSW Vil la ge DrA p p l e T r e e L a n eMotorplex CtWashta Bay Ct £¤212 £¤212 Flyin g C loudDr(CSA H 6 1 )Bl uffCr eekDrH em lockWayM a ya p p le P a ss!Village Ln Riley Ridge !Village Cir !Village Crt !Arboretum VillageLn, Pl, Crt, & Crv!Rock Island Ln VioletReflectionsRdL a k e vi ewRdE!BellevueCt 1 Hemlo ckWay Cottongrass CourtM a rig o ld C o u rtRed CedarCove Reflections RdWynsongLane Pleasant View Rd Blaze TrlRiver R ock DrS C a m denRidgeDrHenryCrtStrawberryLane HWY 101Mission Hills Stre et Names P r e serveC T F a wn HillRd Degler LNBentz CtWindsorCt14-07 EagleRidgeRdHawkcre s t Cir HawkcrestCtEagleCtCrossroad CourtAnthemPlace OHW 877.0 OHW 699.2 OHW 896.3 OHW 865.3 OHW 944.5 OHW 956.1 OHW 881.8 OHW 955.5 OHW 993.6 OHW945.2 OHW 932.77 OHW 929.8 Lotus Lake Lake Riley Lake Minnewashta Lake Lucy Rice Lake Lake Su sa n LakeAnn Lake Virginia LakeHarrison RiceMarshLake Clasen Lake Lake St J o e ChristmasLake Hennepin County Carver County CityofChaskaCity of ChanhassenC i ty o f S h a k o p e e City of Chanhassen S c o t t C o untyC a r v e rC ountyHennepin CountyCarver CountyCity of ChanhassenCity of Eden PrairieCity of Shorewood City of VictoriaCity ofChanhassen Flood Plain Changes Current vs Preliminary Flood Plains Added to 100 year flood plain Added 500 year flood plain Change from 100 to 500 year flood plain Change from 500 to 100 year flood plain No Change Removed from floodplain µ 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000Feet K:\NickLH\Projects\Special_Projects\FEMAFloodmaps\MapsforWebsite\Flood_Zone_Changes.mxd Date: 10/11/2018 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472 FEMA Nov 16 2018 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED The Honorable Denny Laufenburger Mayor, City of Chanhassen Post Office Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 553 ll Dear Mayor Laufenburger: I am writing this letter as an official reminder that the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, has until December 2t,2018, to adopt and have the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regional Office approve floodplain management measures that satisfy 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 60.3(d) of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. The City of Chanhassen must adopt floodplain management measures, such as a floodplain management ordinance, that meet or exceed the minimum NFIP requirements (copy enclosed) by December 21,2018, to avoid suspension from the NFIP. If suspended, your community becomes ineligible for flood insurance through the NFIP, new insurance policies cannot be sold, and existing policies cannot be renewed. Under the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended, flood insurance must be purchased by property owners seeking any Federal financial assistance for construction or acquisition of buildings in Special Flood HazardAreas (SFHAs). This financial assistance includes certain federally guaranteed mortgages and direct loans, federal disaster relief loans and grants, as well as other similarly described assistance from FEMA and other agencies. In addition, all loans individuals obtain from Federally regulated, supervised, or insured lending institutions that are secured by improved real estate located in SFHAs are also contingent upon the borrower obtaining flood insurance coverage on the building. However, purchasing and maintaining flood insurance coverage on a voluntary basis is frequently recommended for properties located outside SFHAs. Your NFIP State Coordinator and FEMA would like to assist the City of Chanhassen to ensure it remains in good standing with the NFIP and avoids suspension from the Program. If your community is suspended, it may regain its eligibility in the NFIP by enacting the floodplain management measures establishedin 44 CFR Section 60.3 of the NFIP regulations. As stated in my previous correspondence, I recommend you contact your NFIP State Coordinator or the FEMA Regional Office if the City of Chanhassen is encountering difficulties in enacting its measures. www.fema.gov The Honorable Denny Laufenburger NO\/ l6 2018 Page2 I recognize that your community may be in the final adoption process or may have recently adopted the appropriate floodplain management measures. Please submit these measures to the Floodplain Management Program at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water. Ceil Strauss, CFM, the NFIP State Coordinator, is accessible by telephone at (651) 259-5713, in writing at 500 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-4032, or by electronic mail at ceil. strauss @ state.mn.us. The FEMA Regional staff in Chicago, Illinois, is also available to assist you with your floodplain management measures. The FEMA Regional Office may be contacted by telephone at (3L2) 408-5500 or in writing. Please send your written inquiries to the Director, Mitigation Division, FEMA Region V, at 536 South Clark Street, Sixth Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60605. In the event your community does not adopt and/or submit the necessary floodplain management measures that meet or exceed the minimum NFIP requirements, I must take the necessary steps to suspend your community from the NFIP. This letter is FEMA's final notification before your community is suspended from the Program. Sincerely, Rachel Sears, Director Floodplain Management Division Mitigation Directorate I feUe Enclosure cc: James K. Joseph, Regional Administrator, FEMA Region V Ceil Strauss, CFM, NFIP State Coordinator, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Vanessa Strong, Water Resources Coordinator, City of Chanhassen RA Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS S 59.24 Suspenslon of community eligibility. (a) A community eligible for the sale of flood insurance shall be subject to suspension from the Program for failing to submit copies of adequate flood plain management regulations meeting the minimum requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) or (0 of S 60.3 or paragraph (b) of SS 60.4 or 60.5, within six months from the date the Federal lnsurance Administrator provides the dab upon which the flood plain regulations for the applicable paragraph shall be based- Where there has not been any submission by the community, the Federal lnsurance Administrator shall notify the community that 90 days remain in the six month period in order to submit adequate flood plain management regulations. Wlere there has been an inadequate submission, the Federal lnsurance Administrator shall notify the community of the specific deficiencies in its submitted flood plain managoment regulations and inform the community of the amount of time remaining within the six month period. ll subsequently, copies of adequate flood plain management regulations are not received by the Administrator, no later than 30 days before the expiration of the original six month period the Federal lnsurance Administrator shall provide written notice lo the community and to the state and assure publication in the FEDEML REGTSTER under part 64 of this subchapter of the communitfs loss of eligibility for th€ sale of flood insurance, such suspension to become effective upon the expiration of the six month period. Should the community remedy the defect and the Federal lnsurance Administrator receive copies of adequate flood plain management regulations within the notice period, the suspension notice shall be rescinded by the Federal lnsurance Administrator. lf the Federal lnsurance Administrator receives notice from the State that it has enacted adequate flood plain management regulations for the community within the notice period, the suspension notice shall be rescinded by the Federal lnsurance Administrator. The communitys eligibility shall remain terminated after suspension until ocpies of adequate flood plain management regulations have been received and approved by the Federal lnsurance AdminisFator. (b) A community eligible for the sale of flood insurance which fails to adequately enforce flood plain management regulations meeting the minimum requirements set forh in SS 60.3, 60.4 and/or 60.5 shall be subiect lo probation. Probation shall represent formal notification to the community that the Federal lnsurance Administrator regards the community's flood plain management program as not compliant with NFIP criteria. Prior to imposing probation, the Federal lnsurance Administrator (1) shall inform the community upon 90 days pfor written notice ofthe impending probation and orthe specmc program deficiencies and violations rdative to the failure to enforce, (2) shall, at least 60 days before probation is to begin, issue a press release to local medh explaining the rEasons for and the efbcts of probation, and (3) shall, at least 90 days before probation is to begin, advise all policyholders in the community of the impending probation and the additional premium that will be charged, as provided in this paragraph, on policies sold or renewed during the period of probation. During this 90-day period the community shall have the opportunity to avoid probation by demonstrating compliance with Program requirements, or by conecting Program deficiencies and remedying all violations to the maximum extent possible. ll at the end of the g&day period, the Federal lnsurance Administrator determines that the community has failed to do so, the probation shall go into effect. Probation may be continued for up to one year afier the community corrects all Program deficiencies and remedies all violations to lhe maximum e)dent possible. Flood insurance may be sold or renewed in ttre community while it is on probation. Where a policl covers property located in a community placed on probation on or afler October '1, 1986, but prior to October 1, '1992, an additional premium of $25.00 shall be charged on each such policy newly issued or renewed during the on+.year period beginning on the date the community is placed on probation and during any successive on+.year periods that begin prior to october 1, 1992. Where a community's probation begins on or after october 1 , 1992, the additional premium described in the preceding sentence shall be $50.00, which shall also be charged during any successive one-year periods during which he community remains on probation for any part thereof. This $50.00 additional premium shall further be charged during any suclessive one-year periods that begin on or afier Octobet '1, 1992, where the preceding one-year probation perbd began prior to October 1, 1992. (c) A community eligible for the sale of flood insurance which fails to adequately enforce its flood plain management regulations meeting the minimum requirements set forth in $$ 60.3, 60.4 andior 60.5 Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS g 60.3 Flood plain management criteria for flood-prone areas. The Federal lnsurance Administrator will provide the data upon which flood plain management regulations shall be based. lf the Federal lnsurance Administrator has not provided sufficient data to furnish a basis for these regulations in a particular community, the community shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize data available from other Federal, State or other sources pending receipt of data from the Federal lnsurance Administrator. However, when special llood hazard area designations and waler surface elevations have been furnished by the Federal lnsurance Administrator, they shall apply. The symbols defining such special flood hazard designations are set forth in S 64.3 of this subchapter. ln all cases the minimum requirements governing the adequacy of the flood plain management regulations for flood-prone areas adopted by a particular community depend on the amount of technical datia formally provided to lhe community by the Federal lnsurance Administrator. Minimum standards for communities are as follows: (a) When the Federal lnsurance Administrator has not defined the special flood hazard areas within a community, has not provided water surFace elevation data, and has not provided sufficient data to identify the floodway or coastal high hazard area, but the community has indicated the presence of such hazards by submitting an application to participate in the Program, the community shall: (1) Require permits for all proposed construction or other develdpment in the community, including the placement of manufactured homes, so that it may determine whether such construction or other development is proposed within flood-prone areas; (2) Review proposed development to assure that all necessary permits have been received from those governmental agencies from which approval is required by Federal or State law, including section 404 ofthe Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1334; (3) Review all permit applications to determine whether proposed building sites will be reasonably safe from flooding. If a proposed building sile is in a flood-prone area, all new construction and substantial improvements shall (i) be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic load9, including the effects of buoyancy, (ii) be constructed with materials resistant to flood damage, (iii) be constructed by methods and practices that minimize ffood damages, and (iv) be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service iacilities lhat are designed and/or located so as to prevent waler from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. (4) Review subdivislon proposals and other proposed new development, including manufactured home parks or subdivisions, to determine vyhether such proposals will be reasonably safe from flooding. lf a subdivision proposal or other proposed new development ls in a flood-prone area, any such proposals shall be reviewed to assure that (i) all such proposals are consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within the flood-prone area, (ii) all public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems are located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage, and (iii) adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards; (5) Require within flood-prone areas new and replacement water supply systems to be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systemsi and (6) Require within flood-prone areas (i) new and replacement sanilary sewage systems to be designed to minimize or eliminate inflltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters and (ii) onsite waste disposal systems to be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS (2) Require that all new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures within Zones 41-30, AE and AH zones on the community's FIRM have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to or above the base flood level, unless the community is granted an exception by the Federal lnsurance Administrator for the allowance of basements in accordance with S 60.6 (b) or (c); (3) Require that all new construction and substanlial improvements of non-residential structures within Zones A'l-30, AE and AH zones on the community's firm (i) have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to or above the base flood level or, (ii) together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be designed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrcstatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; (4) Provide that where a non-residential structure is intended to be made watertight below the base flood level, (i) a registered professional engineer or architect shall develop and/or review structural design, specificalions, and plans for the construction, and shall certify that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the applicable provisions of paragraph (cx3)(ii) or (c)(8)(ii) of this section, and (ii) a record of such certiftcates which includes the specific elevatbn (in relation to mean sea level)to which such strucfures are floodproofed shall be maintained with the official designaied by the community under S 59.22(axgxiii); (5) Require, for all new construction and substanlial improvements, that fully encloEed areas below the lowest floor that are usable solely fior parking of vehicles, building access or storcge in an area other than a basement and which are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on e)derior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs icr meeting this requirement must either be certified by a regislered professional engineer or architect or meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: A minimum of tvro openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch fur every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided lhat they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. (6) Require that manufactured homes that are placed or substantially improved within Zones A1-30, AH, and AE on the community's FIRM on sites (i) Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision, (ii) ln a new manutactured home park or suMivision, (iii) ln an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, or (iv) ln an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which a manufac{ured home has incuned 'substantial damage' as the result of a flood, be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated to or above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist floatation collapse and lateral movement. (7) Require within any AO zone on the community's FIRM that all new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community's FIRM (at least two feet if no depth number is specified)i (8) Require within any AO zone on the community's FIRM that all new construction and substantial improvements of nonresidential structures (i) have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest ad.iacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community's Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS (2) Select and adopt a regulatory floodway based on the principle that the area chosen for the regulatory floodway must be designed to carry the vraters of the base flood, without increasing the water surface elevation of that flood more than one foot at any point; (3) Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge; (4) Notwithstanding any other provisions of S 60.3, a community may permit encroachmenb within the adopted regulatory floodway that would result in an lncrease in base flood elevations, provided that the community first applies for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision, tulfills the requirements for such revisions as established under the provisions of $ 65.12, and receives the approval of the Federal hsurance Administrator. (e) When lhe Federal lnsurance Administrator has provided a notice of final base flood elevations within Zones 41-30 and/or AE on the community's FIRM and, if appropriate, has designated AH zones, AO zones, A99 zones, and A zones on the community's FIRM, and has identified on the community's FIRM coastal high hazard areas by designating Zones V1-30, VE, and/or V, the community shall: (1) Meet the requirements of paragraphs (cX1) through (14) of this sectioni (2) Within Zones Vl-30, VE, and V on a communitfs FIRM, (i ) obtain the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the bottom of the lowest structural member of the lowest floor (excluding pilings and columns) of all new and substantially improved structures, and whether or not such structures contain a basement, and (ii) maintain a record of allsuch information with the ofricial designated by the community under S 59.22(aXgXiii); (3) Provide that all new construction within Zones V1-30, VE, and V on the community's FIRM is located landward of the reach of mean high tide; (4) Provide that all new constructon and substantial improvements in Zones V1-30 and VE, and also Zone V if base flood elevation data is available, on the community's FIRM, are elevated on pilings and columns so lhat (i) the bottom of ihe lowest horizontal structural member of the lowest floor (excluding the pilings or columns) is elevated to or above the base flood level; and (ii) the pile or column foundation and structure attached thereto is anchored to resist flotation, colhpse and lateral movement due to the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building components. Water loading values used shall be those associated with the base flood. \Mnd loading values used shall be those required by applicable State or local building standards. A registered professional engineer or architect shall develop or review the structural design, specifications and plans br the construction, and shall certify that the design and methods of construction to be used are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of paragraphs (e)(4) (i) and (ii) of this section. (5) Provide that all new construction and substantial improvements within Zones V'l-30, VE, and V on the community's FIRM have the space below the lowest floor either free of obstruction or constructed with non-supporting breakaway walls, open wood lattice-work, or insect screening intended to collapse under wind and water loads without causing collapse, displacement, or other structural damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system. For the purposes of this secton, a breakway wall shall have a design safe loading resishnce of not less than 10 and no more than 20 pounds per square fool. Use of breakway walls which exceed a design safe loading resistance of 20 pounds per square foot (either by design or when so required by local or Stata codes) may be permitted only if a registered professional engineer or architect certifies that the designs proposed meet the following conditions: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS (2) Adopt the official map or legal description of those areas within Zones AR, AR/A1-30, AR/AE, AR/AH, AF/A, or AR/AO that are designated developed areas as dellned in S 59. 1 in accordance with the eligibility procedures under S 65.14. (3) For all new construction of structures in areas within Zone AR that are designated as developed areas and in other areas within Zone AR where the AR flood depth is 5 feet or less: (i) Determine the lower of either the AR base flood elevation or the elevation that is 3 feet above highest adjacent grade; and (ii) Using this elevation, require the standards of paragraphs (cxl ) through (14) of this section. (4) For all new consfuction of structures in those areas within Zone AR that are not designated as developed areas where the AR Rood depth is greater than 5 feet: (i) Determine the AR base flood elevation; and (ii) Using that elevation require the stiandards of paragraphs (c)(1) through (14) of this section. (5) For all new construction of structures in areas within Zone AR:/A1-30, AFyAE, AR/AH, ARyAO, and ARI/A: (i) Determine the applicable elevation for Zone AR from paragraphs (aX3) and (4) of this section; (ii) Determine the base flood elevation or flood depth for he underlying A1-30, AE, AH, AO and A Zone; and (iii) Using the higher elevation from paragraphs (a)(sxi) and (ii) of this section require the shndards of paragraphs (cXt) through (14) of this section. (6) For allsubstantial improvements to existing conslruction within Zones AR/A1-30, AR/AE, AFyAH, ARYAO, and ARYA: (i) Determine the A1-30 or AE, AH, AO, or A Zone base flood elevation; and (ii) Using this elevation apply the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (14) of this section. (7) Notify the permit applicant that the area has been designated as an AR, AFUA1-30, AR AE, AR/AH, AR/AO, or AFyA Zone and whether the structure will be elevated or protected to or above the AR base flood elevation. [41 FR 46975, Oct. 26, 19761 EorroRrql NorE: For FEDERAT REGTSTER citations affecling S 60.3, see the List of CFR Seclions Afecled, which appeara in the Finding Aids section ofthe printed volume and at lyu ,y.flsys.goy. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • Division of Ecological and Water Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25, Saint Paul, MN 55155-4025 November 9, 2018 The Honorable Denny Laufenburger Mayor, City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CONDITIONAL STATE APPROVAL OF FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE & REQUIRED NEXT STEPS Dear Mayor Laufenburger, On behalf of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), I am writing to conditionally approve the City of Chanhassen’s draft floodplain management ordinance. We received the most recent draft of the city’s floodplain management ordinance via email on November 2, 2018 from Assistant Planner, MacKenzie Walters. The ordinance is being amended to incorporate the Flood Insurance Study, Carver County, Minnesota and Incorporated Areas, and the accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map panels with an effective date of December 7, 2018. We will provide final approval of the city’s draft ordinance once the following conditions have been met: • Please edit the items in Sections 20-327(2), 20-328(1), and 20-351(1) as indicated in the enclosed ordinance, and • Submit the following materials to the DNR no later than December 18, 2018: o one (1) copy each of the adopted ordinance incorporating the items noted above (signed and stamped with the community seal), o the affidavit of publication, and o the completed “Ordinance Certification Checklist” (enclosed). Please forward the documents listed above to Ceil Strauss, the DNR’s State NFIP Coordinator in St. Paul via email or to the address below in the footer. Upon receipt and verification, Ms. Strauss will transmit one copy of these materials and other required NFIP enrollment materials to Mr. John Kinley at FEMA’s Chicago Regional Office. Please remember, FEMA must receive a signed, certified, and effective ordinance no later than December 21, 2018. To allow sufficient time for processing and transmittal, we request that you submit the materials noted above to the DNR no later than December 18, 2018. If FEMA has not received the documentation by the map effective date, FEMA will suspend the City from the National Flood Insurance Program. Any future amendments of this ordinance or change in the designation of flood prone areas require prior DNR approval. In addition, you are required to send copies of hearing notices and final decisions pertaining to variances, conditional uses, and ordinance amendments to this agency. Those notices may also be sent to State NFIP Coordinator Ceil Strauss at the address below. Should you have any questions on this ordinance or related matters, please contact Ms. Strauss at (651) 259-5713 or ceil.strauss@state.mn.us. While our office in St. Paul will continue to be the main contact for the ordinance update, your DNR Area Hydrologist will continue to be your main contact for day to day assistance with administering your floodplain management ordinance and questions about other DNR water-related programs and permits. Your Area Hydrologist is Jennie Skancke, who can be contacted at (612) 259-5790, or jennie.skancke@state.mn.us. The DNR greatly appreciates your community’s cooperation and initiative in providing for the reduction of flood damages through the adoption and administration of this ordinance. Sincerely, Jennifer Shillcox Land Use Unit Supervisor Enclosures: Ordinance Processing Checklist Draft Ordinance with DNR edits ec: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner – City of Chanhassen Dan Lais, DNR Eco-Waters’ Regional Manager Jeanne Daniels, DNR Eco-Waters’ District Manager Jennie Skancke, DNR Area Hydrologist Ceil Strauss, DNR NFIP Coordinator 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 636 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 1-2 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Base Flood Elevation means the elevation of the “regional flood.” The term “base flood elevation” is used in the flood insurance survey. Critical Facilities means facilities necessary to a community’s public health and safety, those that store or produce highly volatile, toxic or water-reactive materials, and those that house occupants that may be insufficiently mobile to avoid loss of life or injury. Examples of critical facilities include hospitals, correctional facilities, schools, daycare facilities, nursing homes, fire and police stations, wastewater treatment facilities, public electric utilities, water plants, fuel storage facilities, and waste handling and storage facilities. Dwelling, manufactured, also called mobile or manufactured home, means a structure which is transportable in one or more sections on its own chassis, and which is equipped with necessary utility service connections and designed to be used for single-family occupancy with or without a permanent foundation when attached to required utilities. The terms “manufactured dwelling” or “manufactured home” does not include the term “recreational vehicle.” (20) Flood Fringe means the portion of the Special Flood Hazard Area (one percent annual chance flood) located outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term “floodway fringe” used in the Flood Insurance Study for Carver County, Minnesota. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) means an official map on which the Federal Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). Flood Prone Area means any land susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. Floodproofing means a combination of structural provisions, changes, or adjustments to properties and structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages. 2 Flood, regional means a flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in the state and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 1% chance or 100-year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in a flood insurance study. (20) Floodplain means the beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. (20) Floodway means the bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions adjoining floodplain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood. (20) Lowest Floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). Manufactured Home. See Dwelling, manufactured. Recreational vehicle means a vehicle or vehicular unit that is built on a single chassis, is 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection, is designed to be self- propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck, and which is primarily designed as a temporary living accommodation for recreational camping, seasonal, and travel use. Recreational vehicles include travel trailers, travel vehicle, camping trailers, truck campers and self-propelled motor homes. (20) Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) means an elevation not less than three feet above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain that result from designation of a floodway. Repetitive Loss means flood-related damages sustained by a structure on two separate occasions during a ten-year period for which the cost of repairs at the time of each such flood event on the average equals or exceeds 25% of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. Special Flood Hazard Area means a term used for flood insurance purposes synonymous with “One Hundred Year Floodplain.” Substantial Damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure where the cost of restoring the structure to it’s before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50% of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. Substantial Improvement means within any consecutive 365-day period, any reconstruction, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair), repair after damage, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure before the start of construction of the improvement. This term includes structures that have incurred “substantial damage,” regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: 3 1) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or 2) Any alteration of a “historic structure,” provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure’s continued designation as a “historic structure.” For the purpose of this ordinance, “historic structure” is as defined in 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 59.1. SECTION 2. Section 20-326 to Section 20-400 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: ARTICLE V. - FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY Sec. 20-326. - Statutory Authorization, Findings of Fact and Purpose 1) Statutory Authorization: The legislature of the State of Minnesota has, in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103F and Chapter 462 delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Therefore, the City Council of Chanhassen, Minnesota, does ordain as follows. 2) Purpose: a. This ordinance regulates development in the flood hazard areas of the City of Chanhassen. These flood hazard areas are subject to periodic inundation, which may result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base. It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by minimizing these losses and disruptions. b. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance. This ordinance is adopted to comply with the rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 59 -78, as amended, so as to maintain the community’s eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. c. This ordinance is also intended to preserve the natural characteristics and functions of watercourses and floodplains in order to moderate flood and stormwater impacts, improve water quality, reduce soil erosion, protect aquatic and riparian habitat, provide recreational opportunities, provide aesthetic benefits and enhance community and economic development. Sec. 20-327. - General Provisions 1) Lands to which Ordinance Applies: This article applies to all lands within the jurisdiction of the City of Chanhassen within the boundaries of the Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Floodplain Districts. The boundaries of these districts are 4 determined by scaling distances on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, or as modified in accordance with Section 20-328. a. The Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Floodplain Districts are overlay districts that are superimposed on all existing zoning districts. The standards imposed in the overlay districts are in addition to any other requirements in this ordinance. In case of a conflict, the more restrictive standards will apply. b. Where a conflict exists between the floodplain limits illustrated on the official floodplain maps and actual field conditions, the flood elevations shall be the governing factor in locating the regulatory floodplain limits. c. Persons contesting the location of the district boundaries will be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the Planning Commission and to submit technical evidence. 2) Incorporation of Maps by Reference: The following maps together with all attached material are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of the Official Zoning Map and this ordinance. The attached material includes the Flood Insurance Study for Carver County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas, dated December 21, 2108, the Flood Insurance Study for Hennepin County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas, dated November 4, 2016, the Carver County Flood Insurance Rate map panels numbered 27019C0113D, 27019C0114D, 27019C0118D, 27019C0119D, 27019C0207D, 27019C0226D, 27019C0277D, 27019C0229D, 27019C0231D, 27019C0232D, 27019C0233D, 27019C0234D, 27019C0237D, 27019C0241D, and 27019C0242D dated December 21, 2018, and Hennepin County Flood Insurance Rate Map panel number 27053C0410F dated November 4, 2016 all prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These materials are on file with the city. 3) Flood studies performed by local Watershed Districts and Water Management Districts shall be adopted by reference as part of the city’s Local Wastewater Management Plan. 4) Abrogation and Greater Restrictions: It is not intended by this ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or other private agreements. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this ordinance prevail. All other ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. 5) Warning and Disclaimer of Liability: This ordinance does not imply that areas outside the floodplain districts or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance does not create liability on the part of the City of Chanhassen or its officers or employees for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. 6) Severability: If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of law, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected and shall remain in full force. Sec. 20-328. - Establishment of Floodplain Districts 1) Districts: a. Floodway District. The Floodway District includes those areas within Zone AE delineated within floodway areas as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps adopted in Section 20-237(2). 5 b. Flood Fringe District. The Flood Fringe District includes areas within Zones AE on the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in Section 20-237(2), but located outside of the floodway. c. General Floodplain District. The General Floodplain District includes those areas within Zones A and AE (that do not have a floodway delineated) as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps adopted in Section 20-237(2). 2) Applicability: Where Floodway and Flood Fringe districts are delineated on the floodplain maps, the standards in Division 2 or 3 will apply, depending on the location of a property. Locations where Floodway and Flood Fringe districts are not delineated on the floodplain maps are considered to fall within the General Floodplain district. Within the General Floodplain district, the Floodway District standards in Division 2 apply unless the floodway boundary is determined, according to the process outlined in Section 20-378. Sec. 20-329. - Requirements for all Floodplain Districts 1) Minimum Development Standards. All new construction and substantial improvements must be: a. Designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent floatation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. b. Constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. c. Constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage. d. Constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, ductwork, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. 2) Flood Capacity. Floodplain developments must not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining floodplain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system. 3) The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. 4) Critical Facilities are to be located, so that the lowest floor is not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation, or the 500-year flood elevation, whichever is higher. Sec. 20-330. - 20-347. - Reserved DIVISION 2. - FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW) Sec. 20-348. - Permitted Uses 1) Permitted Uses: The following uses, subject to the standards set forth in Section 20- 348(2), are permitted uses if otherwise allowed in the underlying zoning district or any applicable overlay district: 6 a. Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture, grazing, farm fences, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting. b. Industrial-commercial loading areas, parking areas, and airport landing strips. c. Open space uses, including but not limited to private and public golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks, wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, shooting preserves, hunting and fishing areas, and single or multiple purpose recreational trails. d. Residential yards, lawns, gardens, parking areas, and play areas. e. Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines and pipelines, provided that the Department of Natural Resources’ Area Hydrologist is notified at least ten days prior to issuance of any permit. 2) Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses: a. The use must have a low flood damage potential. b. The use must not involve structures or obstruct flood flows. The use must not cause any increase in flood damages, nor any increase in flood elevations in areas where a floodway has been established, as certified by a registered professional engineer. c. Any facility that will be used by employees or the general public must be designed with a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area is inundated to a depth and velocity such that the depth (in feet) multiplied by the velocity (in feet per second) would exceed a product of four upon occurrence of the regional (1% chance) flood. Sec. 20-349. - Sec. 20-350. - Reserved Sec. 20-351. - Conditional Use Permits The following open space uses require accessory structures or fill or storage of materials or equipment. These uses may be permitted in the Floodway District only after the issuance of a conditional use permit as provided in Section 20-387: 1) Structures accessory to primary uses listed in Section 20-348(1)(a-c), provided that: a. Structures are not intended for human habitation. b. Structures will have a low flood damage potential. c. Structures will be constructed and placed so as to offer a minimal obstruction to the flow of flood waters. d. Structures must be elevated on fill, open sided or structurally dry floodproofed and watertight to the regulatory flood protection elevation. Certifications consistent with Section 20-385(3) shall be required. e. Structures will not cause any increase in flood damages, nor any increase in flood elevations in areas where a floodway has been established, as certified by a registered professional engineer. 2) Placement of fill, provided: 7 a. Any fill deposited in the floodway shall be no more than the minimum necessary for use. Generally, fill shall be limited to that needed to grade or landscape for that use and shall not in any way obstruct the flow of floodwaters, cause an increase in flood damages, or increase flood elevations in areas where a floodway has been established, as certified by a registered professional engineer. b. Spoil from dredging or sand and gravel operations shall not be deposited in the floodway unless it can be done in accordance with paragraph (a). c. Fill, dredge spoil, and other similar materials deposited or stored in the floodplain must be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, riprap or other acceptable method. Permanent sand and gravel operations and similar uses must be covered by a long-term site development plan. 3) Storage of materials and equipment, provided: a. The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal or plant life is prohibited. b. Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed only be allowed if the City of Chanhassen has approved a plan that assures removal of the materials from the floodway based upon the flood warning time available. c. Storage of other materials or equipment must not cause any increase in flood damages, nor any increase in flood elevations in areas where a floodway has been established, as certified by a registered professional engineer. 4) A levee, dike or floodwall, provided: a. It must not cause an increase to the 1% chance or regional flood. The technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream b. It must not cause any increase in flood damages, nor any increase in flood elevations in areas where a floodway has been established, as certified by a registered professional engineer. 5) Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters are subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245. Sec. 20-352. - 20-365. – Reserved. DIVISION 3. – FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) Sec. 20-366. - Permitted Uses Permitted uses are those uses of land or structures allowed in the underlying zoning district(s) that comply with the standards in Section 20-367. Sec. 20-367. - Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses 1) All structures, including accessory structures, must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor, as defined, is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures must be no lower than one foot below the regulatory flood protection elevation and the fill must extend at the same elevation at least 15 feet beyond the outside limits of the structure. Elevations must be certified by a registered 8 professional engineer, land surveyor or other qualified person designated by the community. 2) Accessory Structures. As an alternative to the fill requirements of Section 20-367(1), structures accessory to the uses identified in Section 20-366 may be designed to accommodate the inundation of floodwaters, meeting the following provisions, as appropriate: a. The accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment and satisfies the development requirements in Section 20-329. b. Any enclosed accessory structure shall not exceed 576 square feet in size, and only be used for parking and storage. Any such structure shall be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer, or be designed in accordance with the following floodproofing standards: i. To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure, there shall be a minimum of two openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. The openings shall have a minimum net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding, have a net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding, and shall allow automatic entry and exit of floodwaters without human intervention. c. All service utilities, including ductwork, must be elevated or water-tight to prevent infiltration of floodwaters. d. All fill must be properly compacted and the slopes must be properly protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable method. e. All new principal structures must have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation, or must have a flood warning /emergency evacuation plan acceptable to the City of Chanhassen. f. Accessory uses such as yards, railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at an elevation lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. However, any facilities used by employees or the general public must be designed with a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area is inundated to a depth and velocity such that the depth (in feet) multiplied by the velocity (in feet per second) would exceed a product of four upon occurrence of the regional (1% chance) flood. g. Manufactured homes and recreational vehicles must meet the standards of Division 7 of this ordinance. Sec. 20-368. – Conditional Uses The following uses may be permitted in the Flood Fringe District only after the issuance of a conditional use permit as provided in Section 20-387: 1) The placement of floodproofed nonresidential basements below the regulatory flood protection elevation, provided: a. The standards for permitted uses in the flood fringe listed in Section 20-367 are met. 9 b. All areas of nonresidential structures, including basements to be placed below the regulatory flood protection elevation, must be structurally dry floodproofed, which requires making the structure watertight with the walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. A floodproofing certification consistent with Section 20-385(3) shall be required. c. Residential basements are not allowed below the regulatory flood protection elevation. Secs. 20-369. - 20-376. - Reserved. DIVISION 4. - GENERAL FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT (GF) Sec. 20-377. - Permitted Uses 1) The uses listed in Section 20-348 of this ordinance, Floodway District Permitted Uses, are permitted uses. 2) All other uses are subject to the floodway/flood fringe evaluation criteria specified in Section 20-378. Division 2 of this article applies if the proposed use is determined to be in the Floodway District. Division 3 of this article applies if the proposed use is determined to be in the Flood Fringe District. Sec. 20-378. - Procedures for Determining Floodway Boundaries and Regional Flood Elevations 1) Detailed Study. Developments greater than 50 lots or five acres, or as requested by the zoning administrator, shall be subject to a detailed study to determine the regulatory flood protection elevation and the limits of the Floodway District. The determination of the floodway and flood fringe must be consistent with accepted hydrological and hydraulic engineering standards, and must include the following components, as applicable: a. Estimate the peak discharge of the regional (1% chance) flood. b. Calculate the water surface profile of the regional flood based upon a hydraulic analysis of the stream channel and overbank areas. c. Compute the floodway necessary to convey or store the regional flood without increasing flood stages more than one-half (0.5) foot. A lesser stage increase than 0.5 foot is required if, as a result of the stage increase, increased flood damages would result. An equal degree of encroachment on both sides of the stream within the reach must be assumed in computing floodway boundaries, unless development or geographic features warrant other analysis, as approved by the Department of Natural Resources. 2) Alternative Methods. Provided no detailed study is available, an applicant must identify a base flood elevation, at minimum, to determine the boundaries of the special flood hazard area. The applicant shall obtain and utilize best available data to determine the regional flood elevation and floodway boundaries from a state, federal, or other source. If no such data exists, the applicant may determine the base flood elevation and floodway limits through other accepted engineering practices. Any such method shall 10 assume a 0.5 foot stage increase to accommodate for future floodway determination. 3) The Zoning Administrator will review the submitted information and assess the technical evaluation and the recommended Floodway and/or Flood Fringe District boundary. The assessment must include the cumulative effects of previous floodway encroachments. The Zoning Administrator may seek technical assistance from an engineer or other expert person or agency, including the Department of Natural Resources. Based on this assessment, the Zoning Administrator may approve or deny the application. 4) Once the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries have been determined, the Zoning Administrator must process the permit application consistent with the applicable provisions of Division 2 and Division 3 of this article. DIVISION 5. - SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS Sec. 20-379. - Subdivisions In addition to the standards contained in Chapter 18, subdivision of lands within the floodplain districts must meet the standards enumerated in this section. Manufactured home parks and recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds are considered subdivisions under this division. 1) All lots within the floodplain districts must be able to contain a building site outside of the Floodway District at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. 2) All subdivisions must have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation, unless a flood warning emergency plan for the safe evacuation of all vehicles and people during the regional (1% chance) flood has been approved by the City of Chanhassen. The plan must be prepared by a registered engineer or other qualified individual, and must demonstrate that adequate time and personnel exist to carry out the evacuation. 3) For all subdivisions in the floodplain, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries, the regulatory flood protection elevation and the required elevation of all access roads must be clearly labeled on all required subdivision drawings and platting documents. 4) In the General Floodplain District, applicants must provide the information required in Division 4 of this ordinance to determine the regional flood elevation, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries and the regulatory flood protection elevation for the subdivision site. 5) Subdivision proposals must be reviewed to assure that: a. All such proposals are consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within the flood prone area; b. All public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems are located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage; and, c. Adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure of flood hazard. 11 DIVISION 6. - UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND BRIDGES Sec. 20-380. - Public Utilities Public Utilities: All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply systems to be located in the floodplain must be floodproofed in accordance with the State Building Code or elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation. Sec. 20-381. - Public Transportation Facilities Public Transportation Facilities: Railroad tracks, roads, and bridges to be located within the floodplain must comply with Divisions 2 and 3 of this ordinance. These transportation facilities must be elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation where failure or interruption of these facilities would result in danger to the public health or safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area. Minor or auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where failure or interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public health or safety. Sec. 20-382. - On-site Water Supply and Sewage Treatment Systems On-site Water Supply and Sewage Treatment Systems: Where public utilities are not provided: 1) On-site water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and are subject to the provisions in Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725.4350, as amended; and, 2) New or replacement on-site sewage treatment systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters, they must not be subject to impairment or contamination during times of flooding, and are subject to the provisions in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080.2270, as amended. DIVISION 7. - MANUFACTURED HOMES AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES Sec 20-383. - Manufactured Homes Manufactured Homes: Manufactured homes and manufactured home parks are subject to applicable standards for each floodplain district. In addition: 1) New and replacement manufactured homes must be elevated in compliance with Division 3 of this ordinance and must be securely anchored to a system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. 2) New manufactured home parks and expansions to existing manufactured home parks must meet the appropriate standards for subdivisions in Division 5 of this article. New or replacement manufactured homes in existing manufactured home parks must meet the vehicular access requirements for subdivisions in Section 20-379(2) of this ordinance. 12 Sec 20-384.-Recreational Vehicles Recreational Vehicles: New recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds and expansions to existing recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds are prohibited in any floodplain district. Recreational vehicles placed in existing recreational vehicle parks, campgrounds or lots of record in the floodplain must either: 1) Meet the requirements for manufactured homes in Section 20-383(1), or 2) Be travel ready, meeting the following criteria: a. The vehicle must have a current license required for highway use. b. The vehicle must be highway ready, meaning on wheels or the internal jacking system, attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities commonly used in campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks. c. No permanent structural type additions may be attached to the vehicle. d. Accessory structures may be permitted in the Flood Fringe District, provided that they constitute a minimal investment, do not hinder the removal of the vehicle should flooding occur, and meet the standards outlined in Sections 20-329(1) and 20-367(2). DIVISION 8. - ADMINISTRATION Sec 20-385. - Permits Unless otherwise stated the permit requirements within the floodplain districts shall be identical to those contained in Chapter 7 and Chapter 20. Additional permit requirements within the floodplain districts shall be as follows: 1) Show location of fill or storage of materials in relation to the stream channel. 2) Provide copies of any required municipal, county, state or federal permits or approvals. 3) Certification. The applicant is required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Floodproofing measures must be certified by a registered professional engineer or registered architect as being in compliance with applicable floodproofing standards in in the State Building Code. Accessory structures designed in accordance with Section 20-367(2) of this ordinance are exempt from certification, provided sufficient assurances are documented. Any development in established floodways must not cause any increase in flood elevations or damages, as certified by a registered professional engineer. 4) Certificate of Zoning Compliance for a New, Altered, or Nonconforming Use. No building, land or structure may be occupied or used in any manner until a certificate of zoning compliance has been issued by the Zoning Administrator stating that the use of the building or land conforms to the requirements of this ordinance. 5) Recordkeeping of Certifications and As-Built Documentation. The Zoning Administrator must maintain records in perpetuity documenting: a. All certifications referenced in Section 20-385(3) of this ordinance as applicable. 13 b. Elevations complying with Section 20-367(1) of this ordinance. The Zoning Administrator must also maintain a record of the elevation to which structures and alterations to structures are constructed or floodproofed. 6) Notifications for Watercourse Alterations. Before authorizing any alteration or relocation of a river or stream, the Zoning Administrator must notify adjacent communities. If the applicant has applied for a permit to work in public waters pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245, this will suffice as adequate notice. A copy of the notification must also be submitted to the Chicago Regional Office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 7) Notification to FEMA When Physical Changes Increase or Decrease Base Flood Elevations. As soon as is practicable, but not later than six months after the date such supporting information becomes available, the Zoning Administrator must notify the Chicago Regional Office of FEMA of the changes by submitting a copy of the relevant technical or scientific data. Sec. 20-386. - Variances Unless otherwise stated a variance request from the provisions of this article will be processed and reviewed in accordance with applicable State Statutes and Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code. Additional variance requirements within the floodplain districts shall be as follows: 1) Adherence to State Floodplain Management Standards. A variance must not allow a use that is not allowed in that district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the regulatory flood protection elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those required by state law. 2) Additional Variance Criteria. The following additional variance criteria of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must be satisfied: a. Variances must not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. b. Variances may only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of good and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. c. Variances may only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. 3) Flood Insurance Notice. The Zoning Administrator must notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage; and 2) Such construction below the base or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification must be maintained with a record of all variance actions. 4) General Considerations. The community may consider the following factors in granting variances and imposing conditions on variances and conditional uses in floodplains: 14 a. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others. b. The availability of viable alternative locations for the proposed use that are not subject to flooding. c. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site. 5) Submittal of Hearing Notices to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Zoning Administrator must submit hearing notices for proposed variances to the DNR sufficiently in advance to provide at least ten days’ notice of the hearing. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. 6) Submittal of Final Decisions to the DNR. A copy of all decisions granting variances must be forwarded to the DNR within ten days of such action. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. 7) Recordkeeping. The Zoning Administrator must maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and must report such variances in an annual or biennial report to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, when requested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Sec. 20-387. - Conditional Uses Unless otherwise stated an application for a conditional use permit under the provisions of this article will be processed and reviewed in accordance with Chapter 20, Article IV of the City Code. Additional requirements for conditional uses within the floodplain districts shall be as follows: 1) Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. In addition to the standards identified in Sections 20-351 and 20-368, the City of Chanhassen may attach such conditions to the granting of conditional use permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this ordinance. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation. b. Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed restrictions. c. Requirements for construction of channel modifications, compensatory storage, dikes, levees, and other protective measures. 2) Submittal of Hearing Notices to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Zoning Administrator must submit hearing notices for proposed conditional uses to the DNR sufficiently in advance to provide at least ten days’ notice of the hearing. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. 3) Submittal of Final Decisions to the DNR. A copy of all decisions granting conditional uses must be forwarded to the DNR within ten days of such action. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. Sec. 20-388. - Nonconformities Continuance of Nonconformities: A use, structure, or occupancy of land which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this ordinance but which is not in conformity with the 15 provisions of this ordinance may be continued subject to the following conditions. Historic structures, are subject to the provisions of this section. 1) A nonconforming use, structure, or occupancy must not be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way that increases its flood damage potential or degree of obstruction to flood flows except as provided in Sec. 20-388(2) below. Expansion or enlargement of uses, structures or occupancies within the Floodway District is prohibited. 2) Any addition or structural alteration to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use that would result in increasing its flood damage potential must be protected to the regulatory flood protection elevation in accordance with any of the elevation on fill or floodproofing techniques (i.e., FP1 thru FP4 floodproofing classifications) allowable in the State Building Code, except as further restricted in Sec. 20-388(4) below. 3) If any nonconforming use, or any use of a nonconforming structure, is discontinued for more than one year, any future use of the premises must conform to this ordinance. 4) If any structure experiences a substantial improvement as defined in this ordinance, then the entire structure must meet the standards of Division 2 or Division 3 of this article for new structures, depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District, respectively. 5) If any nonconformity is substantially damaged, as defined in this ordinance, it may not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. The applicable provisions for establishing new uses or new structures in Division 2 or Division 3 will apply depending upon whether the use or structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe, respectively. 6) If any nonconforming use or structure experiences a repetitive loss, it must not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. Sec. 20-389. - Violations and Penalties 1) Violation Constitutes a Misdemeanor: Violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or conditional uses) constitute a misdemeanor and will be punishable as defined by law. 2) Other Lawful Action: Nothing in this ordinance restricts the City of Chanhassen from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Zoning Administrator within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses will constitute an additional violation of this ordinance and will be prosecuted accordingly. 3) Enforcement: Violations of the provisions of this ordinance will be investigated and resolved in accordance with the provisions of Section 20-26 of the zoning ordinance/code. In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the Zoning Administrator and City Council may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after- the-fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The City of Chanhassen must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to 16 correct ordinance violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. Sec. 20-390. - Amendments 1) Floodplain Designation – Restrictions on Removal: The floodplain designation on the Official Zoning Map must not be removed from floodplain areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above the elevation of the regulatory flood protection elevation and is contiguous to lands outside the floodplain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) if it is determined that, through other measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended use. 2) Amendments Require DNR Approval: All amendments to this ordinance must be submitted to and approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to adoption. 3) Map Revisions Require Ordinance Amendments. The floodplain district regulations must be amended to incorporate any revisions by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the floodplain maps adopted in Section 20-327(2) of this ordinance. Secs. 20-391—20-400. - Reserved SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of December, 2018 by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor (Summary Ordinance published in the Chanhassen Villager on December 20, 2018) 17 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 636 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE The purpose of these code amendments are as follows: Amend Section 1-2 to adopt the definitions in the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ model ordinance for Base Flood Elevation, Critical Facilities, Dwelling (manufactured), Flood Fringe, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Flood Prone Area, Floodproofing, Flood (regional), Floodplain, Floodway, Lowest Floor, Manufactured Home, Recreational Vehicle, Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE), Repetitive Loss, Special Flood Hazard Area, Substantial Damage, and Substantial Improvement. Amend Section 20-326 to state statutory authorization and purpose of the floodplain overlay district. Amend Section 20-327 to state jurisdictional limits and boundaries of the ordinance, establish the Floodway, Flood Fringe, and General Floodplain as overlay districts, provide mechanism for contesting district boundaries, incorporate Federal Emergency Management Agency maps and studies by reference, incorporate flood studies by local Watershed Districts and Water Management Districts by reference, state that in all areas the most restrictive provisions prevail, note that the ordinance does not imply safety from flooding or flood damages, state that the City has no liability for flood damages, and assert that the invalidation of one section of the ordinance does not invalidate the other portions of the ordinance. Amend Section 20-328 to establish the location of the Floodway District, Flood Fringe District, and General Floodplain District and the standards that shall apply to each district. Amend Section 20-329 to list the requirements for all Floodplain Districts. These include: minimum development standards designed to minimize the potential for flood damage; clauses to protect existing flood capacity; prohibitions on storing dangerous substances; and location restrictions for critical facilities. Amend Section 20-330 to Section 20-347 to reserve space for future amendments. Amend Section 20-348 to list the permitted uses and standards for permitted uses within the Floodway District. Amend Section 20-349 to Section 20-350 to reserve space for future amendments. Amend Section 20-351 to list conditional uses and standards for conditional uses within the Floodway District. 2 Amend Section 20-352 to Section 20-365 to reserve space for future amendments. Amend Section 20-366 to list permitted uses for the Flood Fringe District. Amend Section 20-367 to establish standards for permitted uses within the Flood Fringe District. Amend Section 20-368 to list conditional uses and standards for conditional uses within the Flood Fringe District. Amend Section 20-369 to Section 20-376 to reserve space for future amendments. Amend Section 20-377 to list permitted uses for the General Floodplain District. Amend Section 20-378 to establish procedures for determining floodway boundaries and regional flood elevations within the General Floodplain District for developments greater than 50 lots or five acres, and require that this information be used to place these areas within either the Floodway District or the Flood Fringe District. Amend Section 20-379 to establish additional standards beyond those listed in Chapter 18 for the subdivision of lands within floodplain district. Amend Section 20-380 to establish standards for Public Utilities located within the floodplain. Amend Section 20-381 to establish standards for Public Transportation Facilities within the floodplain. Amend Section 20-382 to establish standards for On-site Water Supply and Sewage Treatment Systems within the floodplain. Amend Section 20-383 to establish standards for manufactured homes and manufactured home parks within each floodplain district. Amend Section 20-384 to prohibit the expansion or creation of new recreation vehicle parks or campgrounds within any floodplain districts, and establish standards for recreational vehicles located within the floodplain. Amend Section 20-385 to establish permitting, recordkeeping, and notification requirements for floodplain districts. Amend Section 20-386 to establish the process, standards, criteria, factors to consider, notification, and recordkeeping requirements for granting variances within floodplain districts. Amend Section 20-387 to establish the permit process, conditions imposable, notification, and decision requirements for conditional uses within floodplain districts. 3 Amend Section 20-388 to establish provisions for the continuance, alteration, improvement, mitigation, repair, replacement, and elimination of nonconforming uses within the floodplain district. Amend Section 20-389 to state that a violation of the floodplain ordinance is a misdemeanor, that the city may take any and all lawful action to enforce the ordinance, and that the city must act in good faith to enforce the ordinance. Amend Section 20-390 to limit the city’s ability to remove the floodplain designation on the official zoning map, to state that amendments of this ordinance require approval from the Department of Natural Resources, and to require the city to amend the ordinance to incorporate any revisions made by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the floodplain maps. Amend Section 20-391 to Section 20-400 to reserve space for future amendments. A printed copy of Ordinance 636 is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Manager/Clerk. PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION this 10th day of December, 2018, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on December 20, 2018) CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Ordinance 637: Amendment to City Code Chapter 4 Concerning Fees and Chapter 5 Concerning Animals Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: G.5. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council adopts the attached ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code revising the fees for 2019, and Chapter 5 of the Chanhassen City Code revising stable permits.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND City fees are designed to cover the cost of providing a specific service. DISCUSSION Kennel Fee The City of Chanhassen currently charges a $25.00 annual kennel permit fee, whether the kennel is commercial or private.  Section 4­15 (d) only references a private kennel fee in the amount of $25.00. Amend Section 4­15 (d). (d)  Private Kennel fees:  $25.00 Stable Permit Fee The City of Chanhassen currently charges a $10.00 annual stable permit fee which is not listed in Chapter 4 of the city code. Section 5­102 states “A nonrefundable application fee in the amount established by resolution shall be paid to the city when the application is filed.” Fees are required by law to be established by ordinance, not by resolution.  Also, since there are considerable city resources put into each stable permit including staff time, materials, and inspections, staff is proposing to increase the fee to $25.00, which is in line with other Key Financial Strategy cities. Amend Section 4­15 by adding (l). (l)  Stable permit fee:  $25.00 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectOrdinance 637: Amendment to City Code Chapter 4 Concerning Fees and Chapter 5Concerning AnimalsSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.5.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council adopts the attached ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code revising the feesfor 2019, and Chapter 5 of the Chanhassen City Code revising stable permits.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDCity fees are designed to cover the cost of providing a specific service.DISCUSSIONKennel FeeThe City of Chanhassen currently charges a $25.00 annual kennel permit fee, whether the kennel is commercial orprivate.  Section 4­15 (d) only references a private kennel fee in the amount of $25.00.Amend Section 4­15 (d).(d)  Private Kennel fees:  $25.00Stable Permit FeeThe City of Chanhassen currently charges a $10.00 annual stable permit fee which is not listed in Chapter 4 of the citycode. Section 5­102 states “A nonrefundable application fee in the amount established by resolution shall be paid tothe city when the application is filed.” Fees are required by law to be established by ordinance, not by resolution. Also, since there are considerable city resources put into each stable permit including staff time, materials, andinspections, staff is proposing to increase the fee to $25.00, which is in line with other Key Financial Strategy cities.Amend Section 4­15 by adding (l). (l)  Stable permit fee:  $25.00 Amend Section 5­102. – Application. Application for the permit required by this division shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the city. A nonrefundable application fee shall be as established in Chapter 4 of this Code by resolution and shall be paid to the city when the application is filed. Peddler, Solicitor or Transient Merchant Registration Fee The City of Chanhassen currently charges a $25.00 deposit per solicitor permit, which is fully refundable if the solicitor returns their city­issued identification badge. There are considerable city resources put into each solicitor permit including staff time, materials, and the background check for each solicitor application. In order to recoup some of these costs, staff is proposing to increase the fee to $100.00, which is in line with other Key Financial Strategy cities. Amend Section 4­15 (c). Peddler, solicitor or transient merchant registration fee:is one hundred dollars per individual. 1. Twenty­five dollars per person; 2. Fifty dollars per nonprofit organization. Surface Water Management Fees The City’s Surface Water Management Plan was first adopted in February of 1994.Based upon recommendations in that plan the City established surface water connection fees as a means of financing citywide improvements recommended in the plan’s implementation section. The initial fee was based upon the cost of the recommended pipes and ponds in the 1994 plan. The fees were apportioned according to acreage and intensity of land use and intended to be a more equitable distribution of the cost associated with storm water runoff.This did not consider long­term maintenance of the facilities or increased regulatory requirements. Twenty four years after the 1994 plan was adopted the City is entering its 3 rd generation plan. In the past 24 years the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (NPDES MS4) permit was issued and revised. This permit allows the City to operate its stormsewer system. Our local Watershed Districts have also implemented Rules and Standards the City must meet. This has resulted in increased storm water and surface water management requirements. The city has begun to look at the significant life cycle costs of maintaining our existing infrastructure as well as the cost of repairing damage caused by runoff in the past. Chanhassen has been replacing storm sewer infrastructure with every road reconstruction project.This has ranged in cost from $50,000 to over $400,000 per project.The amount of infrastructure has increased substantially over what the city had in 1994 and this amount continues to grow with each new development. For example, it is estimated that if all ponds were cleaned out this year, the cost would be $2.5 million for the excavation alone. These costs will continue to increase. Other costs not considered included the City’s pollution reduction requirements for the 8 lakes and creeks that do not meet State water quality standards. For instance, meeting the reduction requirement for Bluff Creek could cost the City approximately $5.8 million. In 2019, Ehlers & Associates, the city’s financial advisors, recommends a two percent increase to the surface water development fees. Amend Section 4­30 (c) 3. Surface water development fees: Development Type Per Acre Fee Parks/Open Space $4,640 4,730 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectOrdinance 637: Amendment to City Code Chapter 4 Concerning Fees and Chapter 5Concerning AnimalsSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.5.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council adopts the attached ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code revising the feesfor 2019, and Chapter 5 of the Chanhassen City Code revising stable permits.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDCity fees are designed to cover the cost of providing a specific service.DISCUSSIONKennel FeeThe City of Chanhassen currently charges a $25.00 annual kennel permit fee, whether the kennel is commercial orprivate.  Section 4­15 (d) only references a private kennel fee in the amount of $25.00.Amend Section 4­15 (d).(d)  Private Kennel fees:  $25.00Stable Permit FeeThe City of Chanhassen currently charges a $10.00 annual stable permit fee which is not listed in Chapter 4 of the citycode. Section 5­102 states “A nonrefundable application fee in the amount established by resolution shall be paid tothe city when the application is filed.” Fees are required by law to be established by ordinance, not by resolution. Also, since there are considerable city resources put into each stable permit including staff time, materials, andinspections, staff is proposing to increase the fee to $25.00, which is in line with other Key Financial Strategy cities.Amend Section 4­15 by adding (l).(l)  Stable permit fee:  $25.00Amend Section 5­102. – Application.Application for the permit required by this division shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the city. Anonrefundable application fee shall be as established in Chapter 4 of this Code by resolution and shall be paid tothe city when the application is filed.Peddler, Solicitor or Transient Merchant Registration FeeThe City of Chanhassen currently charges a $25.00 deposit per solicitor permit, which is fully refundable if the solicitorreturns their city­issued identification badge. There are considerable city resources put into each solicitor permitincluding staff time, materials, and the background check for each solicitor application. In order to recoup some ofthese costs, staff is proposing to increase the fee to $100.00, which is in line with other Key Financial Strategy cities.Amend Section 4­15 (c).Peddler, solicitor or transient merchant registration fee:is one hundred dollars per individual.1. Twenty­five dollars per person;2. Fifty dollars per nonprofit organization.Surface Water Management FeesThe City’s Surface Water Management Plan was first adopted in February of 1994.Based upon recommendations inthat plan the City established surface water connection fees as a means of financing citywide improvementsrecommended in the plan’s implementation section. The initial fee was based upon the cost of the recommended pipesand ponds in the 1994 plan. The fees were apportioned according to acreage and intensity of land use and intended tobe a more equitable distribution of the cost associated with storm water runoff.This did not consider long­termmaintenance of the facilities or increased regulatory requirements.Twenty four years after the 1994 plan was adopted the City is entering its 3 rd generation plan. In the past 24 years theNational Pollution Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (NPDES MS4) permit wasissued and revised. This permit allows the City to operate its stormsewer system. Our local Watershed Districts havealso implemented Rules and Standards the City must meet. This has resulted in increased storm water and surfacewater management requirements.The city has begun to look at the significant life cycle costs of maintaining our existing infrastructure as well as the costof repairing damage caused by runoff in the past. Chanhassen has been replacing storm sewer infrastructure with everyroad reconstruction project.This has ranged in cost from $50,000 to over $400,000 per project.The amount ofinfrastructure has increased substantially over what the city had in 1994 and this amount continues to grow with eachnew development. For example, it is estimated that if all ponds were cleaned out this year, the cost would be $2.5million for the excavation alone. These costs will continue to increase.Other costs not considered included the City’s pollution reduction requirements for the 8 lakes and creeks that do notmeet State water quality standards. For instance, meeting the reduction requirement for Bluff Creek could cost theCity approximately $5.8 million.In 2019, Ehlers & Associates, the city’s financial advisors, recommends a two percent increase to the surface waterdevelopment fees.Amend Section 4­30 (c) 3.Surface water development fees: Development Type Per Acre Fee Parks/Open Space $4,640 4,730 Single­Family Residential $8,160 8,320 Medium Density Residential $9,790 9,990 Townhouse/Apartment Complex/High Density Residential $14,660 14,950 Industrial $21,160 21,580 Commercial $30,910 31,530 Fees are based on the developable land.Undeveloped areas such as wetlands and buffers placed into an outlot, public parks, and public right­of­way are exempt from these fees. Sewer and Water Fees A lateral connection charge replaces a missed assessment.When the city installs a pipe next to a property, some owners choose not to connect.In some instances, the city may not have assessed the property owner for their portion of the pipe.When those properties eventually connect, the lateral connection charge approximately covers the cost of the omitted assessment.These charges are only levied in rare instances.Trunk hook­up charges, on the other hand, are for core utility infrastructure such as wells, lift stations, and trunk main oversizing.Every new lot in the city that hooks up to the utility system pays a trunk hook­up charge. Hook­up fees paid at the time of final residential subdivision approval remain the same for sewer at $691.00/unit and increase for water from $2,233.00 to $2,311.00/unit.  The remainder of the sewer and water hook­up fee is collected with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time.  The total sanitary hook­up fee remains the same at $2,302.00 and the total water hook­up fee is increasing from $7,443.00 to $7,704.00.  Parcels within the Lake Ann Sewer District will also be subject to the Lake Ann Trunk sewer fees in addition to the sewer trunk hook­up fees.  The Lake Ann Interceptor hook­up fee remains at $1,971.00 and the sub­trunk fee remains at $2,068.00.  Commercial, industrial and institutional developments pay the total hook­up fee at the time of building permit.  Trunk hook­up fees are based on the number of sanitary access charge (SAC) units assigned by Metropolitan Council for office or industrial/commercial buildings. Lateral connection charges are charges for utility infrastructure which has been constructed by the city but were not assessed to or paid for a property.  Sewer lateral connection charges remain the same at $7,710.00 and water lateral connection charges increase from $9,186.00 to $9,508.00. 2015 2016 2017 2018 Proposed 2019 Water Hook­up $6,523 $6,882 $7,157 $7,443 $7,704 Sewer Hook­up $2,257 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302 Water Connection $8,050 $8,493 $8,833 $9,186 $9,508 Sewer Connection $7,559 $7,710 $7,710 $7,710 $7,710 Lake Ann Interceptor $1,932 $1,971 $1,971 $1,971 $1,971 Sub­trunk $2,027 $2,068 $2,068 $2,068 $2,068 The Met Council SAC fee for 2019 remains the same as 2018 at $2,485.00. Amend Section 4­30 (c) 5. Sewer and water fees. Residential development: Shall pay a portion of the sewer and water hook­up fees (area trunk fees) at the time of final subdivision approval:  $691.00/unit (sewer) and $2,233 2,311.00/unit (water).  The remainder of the sewer and water hook­up fees shall be collected with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time. Sanitary sewer $1,611.00/unit, or $2,302.00/unit if a portion of the sewer hook­up fee was not paid at the time of final subdivision approval—(Lake Ann Interceptor ­ $1,971.00/unit and subtrunk $2,068.00/unit)* Water $5,210 5,393.00/unit, or $7,443 7,704.00 if a portion of the water hook­up fee was not paid at the time of final subdivision approval SAC As established by the Metropolitan Council and $75.00 city SAC surcharge Sanitary sewer $2,302.00/unit—(Lake Ann Interceptor ­ $1,971.00/unit and subtrunk $2,068.00/unit)* Water $7,443 7,704.00/unit SAC As established by the Metropolitan Council and $75.00 city SAC surcharge CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectOrdinance 637: Amendment to City Code Chapter 4 Concerning Fees and Chapter 5Concerning AnimalsSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.5.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council adopts the attached ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code revising the feesfor 2019, and Chapter 5 of the Chanhassen City Code revising stable permits.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDCity fees are designed to cover the cost of providing a specific service.DISCUSSIONKennel FeeThe City of Chanhassen currently charges a $25.00 annual kennel permit fee, whether the kennel is commercial orprivate.  Section 4­15 (d) only references a private kennel fee in the amount of $25.00.Amend Section 4­15 (d).(d)  Private Kennel fees:  $25.00Stable Permit FeeThe City of Chanhassen currently charges a $10.00 annual stable permit fee which is not listed in Chapter 4 of the citycode. Section 5­102 states “A nonrefundable application fee in the amount established by resolution shall be paid tothe city when the application is filed.” Fees are required by law to be established by ordinance, not by resolution. Also, since there are considerable city resources put into each stable permit including staff time, materials, andinspections, staff is proposing to increase the fee to $25.00, which is in line with other Key Financial Strategy cities.Amend Section 4­15 by adding (l).(l)  Stable permit fee:  $25.00Amend Section 5­102. – Application.Application for the permit required by this division shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the city. Anonrefundable application fee shall be as established in Chapter 4 of this Code by resolution and shall be paid tothe city when the application is filed.Peddler, Solicitor or Transient Merchant Registration FeeThe City of Chanhassen currently charges a $25.00 deposit per solicitor permit, which is fully refundable if the solicitorreturns their city­issued identification badge. There are considerable city resources put into each solicitor permitincluding staff time, materials, and the background check for each solicitor application. In order to recoup some ofthese costs, staff is proposing to increase the fee to $100.00, which is in line with other Key Financial Strategy cities.Amend Section 4­15 (c).Peddler, solicitor or transient merchant registration fee:is one hundred dollars per individual.1. Twenty­five dollars per person;2. Fifty dollars per nonprofit organization.Surface Water Management FeesThe City’s Surface Water Management Plan was first adopted in February of 1994.Based upon recommendations inthat plan the City established surface water connection fees as a means of financing citywide improvementsrecommended in the plan’s implementation section. The initial fee was based upon the cost of the recommended pipesand ponds in the 1994 plan. The fees were apportioned according to acreage and intensity of land use and intended tobe a more equitable distribution of the cost associated with storm water runoff.This did not consider long­termmaintenance of the facilities or increased regulatory requirements.Twenty four years after the 1994 plan was adopted the City is entering its 3 rd generation plan. In the past 24 years theNational Pollution Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (NPDES MS4) permit wasissued and revised. This permit allows the City to operate its stormsewer system. Our local Watershed Districts havealso implemented Rules and Standards the City must meet. This has resulted in increased storm water and surfacewater management requirements.The city has begun to look at the significant life cycle costs of maintaining our existing infrastructure as well as the costof repairing damage caused by runoff in the past. Chanhassen has been replacing storm sewer infrastructure with everyroad reconstruction project.This has ranged in cost from $50,000 to over $400,000 per project.The amount ofinfrastructure has increased substantially over what the city had in 1994 and this amount continues to grow with eachnew development. For example, it is estimated that if all ponds were cleaned out this year, the cost would be $2.5million for the excavation alone. These costs will continue to increase.Other costs not considered included the City’s pollution reduction requirements for the 8 lakes and creeks that do notmeet State water quality standards. For instance, meeting the reduction requirement for Bluff Creek could cost theCity approximately $5.8 million.In 2019, Ehlers & Associates, the city’s financial advisors, recommends a two percent increase to the surface waterdevelopment fees.Amend Section 4­30 (c) 3.Surface water development fees:Development Type Per Acre FeeParks/Open Space $4,640 4,730Single­Family Residential $8,160 8,320Medium Density Residential $9,790 9,990Townhouse/Apartment Complex/High Density Residential $14,660 14,950Industrial$21,160 21,580Commercial$30,910 31,530Fees are based on the developable land.Undeveloped areas such as wetlands and buffers placed into an outlot,public parks, and public right­of­way are exempt from these fees.Sewer and Water FeesA lateral connection charge replaces a missed assessment.When the city installs a pipe next to a property, someowners choose not to connect.In some instances, the city may not have assessed the property owner for their portionof the pipe.When those properties eventually connect, the lateral connection charge approximately covers the cost ofthe omitted assessment.These charges are only levied in rare instances.Trunk hook­up charges, on the other hand,are for core utility infrastructure such as wells, lift stations, and trunk main oversizing.Every new lot in the city thathooks up to the utility system pays a trunk hook­up charge.Hook­up fees paid at the time of final residential subdivision approval remain the same for sewer at $691.00/unit andincrease for water from $2,233.00 to $2,311.00/unit.  The remainder of the sewer and water hook­up fee is collectedwith the building permit at the rate in effect at that time.  The total sanitary hook­up fee remains the same at $2,302.00and the total water hook­up fee is increasing from $7,443.00 to $7,704.00.  Parcels within the Lake Ann SewerDistrict will also be subject to the Lake Ann Trunk sewer fees in addition to the sewer trunk hook­up fees.  The LakeAnn Interceptor hook­up fee remains at $1,971.00 and the sub­trunk fee remains at $2,068.00.  Commercial,industrial and institutional developments pay the total hook­up fee at the time of building permit.  Trunk hook­up feesare based on the number of sanitary access charge (SAC) units assigned by Metropolitan Council for office orindustrial/commercial buildings.Lateral connection charges are charges for utility infrastructure which has been constructed by the city but were notassessed to or paid for a property.  Sewer lateral connection charges remain the same at $7,710.00 and water lateralconnection charges increase from $9,186.00 to $9,508.00.2015 2016 2017 2018 Proposed2019Water Hook­up $6,523 $6,882 $7,157 $7,443 $7,704Sewer Hook­up $2,257 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302Water Connection $8,050 $8,493 $8,833 $9,186 $9,508Sewer Connection $7,559 $7,710 $7,710 $7,710 $7,710Lake AnnInterceptor $1,932 $1,971 $1,971 $1,971 $1,971Sub­trunk $2,027 $2,068 $2,068 $2,068 $2,068The Met Council SAC fee for 2019 remains the same as 2018 at $2,485.00.Amend Section 4­30 (c) 5.Sewer and water fees.Residential development:Shall pay a portion of the sewer and water hook­up fees (area trunk fees) at the time of final subdivision approval:  $691.00/unit (sewer) and $2,233 2,311.00/unit (water).  The remainder of the sewer and water hook­up fees shall be collected with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time. Parcels previously assessed trunk hook­up fees are exempt.  Residential trunk hook­up fees are based per unit. *Parcels within the Lake Ann Sewer District will be subject to the Lake Ann Trunk sewer fees in addition to the sewer trunk hook­up fees. Commercial, industrial and institutional development: Sewer and water trunk hook­up fees (area trunk fees). Fee is paid at the time of building permit. Parcels previously assessed trunk hook­up fees are exempt. Trunk hook­up fees are based on the number of sanitary access charge (SAC) units assigned by Metropolitan Council for office or industrial/commercial buildings. *Parcels within the Lake Ann Sewer District will be subject to the Lake Ann Trunk sewer fees in addition to the sewer trunk hook­up fees. All development: Lateral connection charges: If the lot or tract of land, or portion thereof, to be served by a lateral connection that has not been assessed for the cost of construction, then the applicant shall pay the following lateral connection: Sewer lateral connection charge $7,710.00 Water lateral connection charge $9,186 9,508.00 Water and Sewage Rates For 2019, the Ehlers and Associates analysis recommends a 5% increase to the water utility rates for all tiers and the bulk rate.In 2019, multi­family properties will pay a uniform rate of $2.57 per 1,000 gallons.The utility rate analysis also recommends a 5% increase to the sewer utility rates. Listed below is the 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and proposed 2019 water consumption rate structure along with the sewer rate structure: Water 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Fixed Charge (minimum per quarter)7.98 8.43 8.88 12.99 13.65 0 – 6,000 Gallons 1.10 1.16 1.22 1.22 1.28 6,001 – 24,000 Gallons 2.20 2.32 2.45 2.45 2.57 24,001 – 48,000 Gallons 2.75 2.90 3.06 3.21 3.37 48,001 – 99,000 Gallons 3.19 3.37 3.56 3.74 3.93 99,001+ Gallons (Irrigation and Residential Only)4.06 4.28 4.52 4.75 4.99 Multi­Family 2.20 2.32 2.45 2.45 2.57 Bulk sales to contractors, landscapers, etc. Sanitarysewer $1,611.00/unit, or $2,302.00/unit if a portion of the sewer hook­up fee was not paid at the time of finalsubdivision approval—(Lake Ann Interceptor ­ $1,971.00/unit and subtrunk $2,068.00/unit)*Water $5,210 5,393.00/unit, or $7,443 7,704.00 if a portion of the water hook­up fee was not paid at the time offinal subdivision approvalSACAs established by the Metropolitan Council and $75.00 city SAC surchargeSanitary sewer $2,302.00/unit—(Lake Ann Interceptor ­ $1,971.00/unit and subtrunk $2,068.00/unit)*Water $7,443 7,704.00/unitSACAs established by the Metropolitan Council and $75.00 city SAC surchargeCITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectOrdinance 637: Amendment to City Code Chapter 4 Concerning Fees and Chapter 5Concerning AnimalsSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.5.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council adopts the attached ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code revising the feesfor 2019, and Chapter 5 of the Chanhassen City Code revising stable permits.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDCity fees are designed to cover the cost of providing a specific service.DISCUSSIONKennel FeeThe City of Chanhassen currently charges a $25.00 annual kennel permit fee, whether the kennel is commercial orprivate.  Section 4­15 (d) only references a private kennel fee in the amount of $25.00.Amend Section 4­15 (d).(d)  Private Kennel fees:  $25.00Stable Permit FeeThe City of Chanhassen currently charges a $10.00 annual stable permit fee which is not listed in Chapter 4 of the citycode. Section 5­102 states “A nonrefundable application fee in the amount established by resolution shall be paid tothe city when the application is filed.” Fees are required by law to be established by ordinance, not by resolution. Also, since there are considerable city resources put into each stable permit including staff time, materials, andinspections, staff is proposing to increase the fee to $25.00, which is in line with other Key Financial Strategy cities.Amend Section 4­15 by adding (l).(l)  Stable permit fee:  $25.00Amend Section 5­102. – Application.Application for the permit required by this division shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the city. Anonrefundable application fee shall be as established in Chapter 4 of this Code by resolution and shall be paid tothe city when the application is filed.Peddler, Solicitor or Transient Merchant Registration FeeThe City of Chanhassen currently charges a $25.00 deposit per solicitor permit, which is fully refundable if the solicitorreturns their city­issued identification badge. There are considerable city resources put into each solicitor permitincluding staff time, materials, and the background check for each solicitor application. In order to recoup some ofthese costs, staff is proposing to increase the fee to $100.00, which is in line with other Key Financial Strategy cities.Amend Section 4­15 (c).Peddler, solicitor or transient merchant registration fee:is one hundred dollars per individual.1. Twenty­five dollars per person;2. Fifty dollars per nonprofit organization.Surface Water Management FeesThe City’s Surface Water Management Plan was first adopted in February of 1994.Based upon recommendations inthat plan the City established surface water connection fees as a means of financing citywide improvementsrecommended in the plan’s implementation section. The initial fee was based upon the cost of the recommended pipesand ponds in the 1994 plan. The fees were apportioned according to acreage and intensity of land use and intended tobe a more equitable distribution of the cost associated with storm water runoff.This did not consider long­termmaintenance of the facilities or increased regulatory requirements.Twenty four years after the 1994 plan was adopted the City is entering its 3 rd generation plan. In the past 24 years theNational Pollution Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (NPDES MS4) permit wasissued and revised. This permit allows the City to operate its stormsewer system. Our local Watershed Districts havealso implemented Rules and Standards the City must meet. This has resulted in increased storm water and surfacewater management requirements.The city has begun to look at the significant life cycle costs of maintaining our existing infrastructure as well as the costof repairing damage caused by runoff in the past. Chanhassen has been replacing storm sewer infrastructure with everyroad reconstruction project.This has ranged in cost from $50,000 to over $400,000 per project.The amount ofinfrastructure has increased substantially over what the city had in 1994 and this amount continues to grow with eachnew development. For example, it is estimated that if all ponds were cleaned out this year, the cost would be $2.5million for the excavation alone. These costs will continue to increase.Other costs not considered included the City’s pollution reduction requirements for the 8 lakes and creeks that do notmeet State water quality standards. For instance, meeting the reduction requirement for Bluff Creek could cost theCity approximately $5.8 million.In 2019, Ehlers & Associates, the city’s financial advisors, recommends a two percent increase to the surface waterdevelopment fees.Amend Section 4­30 (c) 3.Surface water development fees:Development Type Per Acre FeeParks/Open Space $4,640 4,730Single­Family Residential $8,160 8,320Medium Density Residential $9,790 9,990Townhouse/Apartment Complex/High Density Residential $14,660 14,950Industrial$21,160 21,580Commercial$30,910 31,530Fees are based on the developable land.Undeveloped areas such as wetlands and buffers placed into an outlot,public parks, and public right­of­way are exempt from these fees.Sewer and Water FeesA lateral connection charge replaces a missed assessment.When the city installs a pipe next to a property, someowners choose not to connect.In some instances, the city may not have assessed the property owner for their portionof the pipe.When those properties eventually connect, the lateral connection charge approximately covers the cost ofthe omitted assessment.These charges are only levied in rare instances.Trunk hook­up charges, on the other hand,are for core utility infrastructure such as wells, lift stations, and trunk main oversizing.Every new lot in the city thathooks up to the utility system pays a trunk hook­up charge.Hook­up fees paid at the time of final residential subdivision approval remain the same for sewer at $691.00/unit andincrease for water from $2,233.00 to $2,311.00/unit.  The remainder of the sewer and water hook­up fee is collectedwith the building permit at the rate in effect at that time.  The total sanitary hook­up fee remains the same at $2,302.00and the total water hook­up fee is increasing from $7,443.00 to $7,704.00.  Parcels within the Lake Ann SewerDistrict will also be subject to the Lake Ann Trunk sewer fees in addition to the sewer trunk hook­up fees.  The LakeAnn Interceptor hook­up fee remains at $1,971.00 and the sub­trunk fee remains at $2,068.00.  Commercial,industrial and institutional developments pay the total hook­up fee at the time of building permit.  Trunk hook­up feesare based on the number of sanitary access charge (SAC) units assigned by Metropolitan Council for office orindustrial/commercial buildings.Lateral connection charges are charges for utility infrastructure which has been constructed by the city but were notassessed to or paid for a property.  Sewer lateral connection charges remain the same at $7,710.00 and water lateralconnection charges increase from $9,186.00 to $9,508.00.2015 2016 2017 2018 Proposed2019Water Hook­up $6,523 $6,882 $7,157 $7,443 $7,704Sewer Hook­up $2,257 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302Water Connection $8,050 $8,493 $8,833 $9,186 $9,508Sewer Connection $7,559 $7,710 $7,710 $7,710 $7,710Lake AnnInterceptor $1,932 $1,971 $1,971 $1,971 $1,971Sub­trunk $2,027 $2,068 $2,068 $2,068 $2,068The Met Council SAC fee for 2019 remains the same as 2018 at $2,485.00.Amend Section 4­30 (c) 5.Sewer and water fees.Residential development:Shall pay a portion of the sewer and water hook­up fees (area trunk fees) at the time of final subdivision approval: $691.00/unit (sewer) and $2,233 2,311.00/unit (water).  The remainder of the sewer and water hook­up fees shall becollected with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time.Parcels previously assessed trunk hook­up fees are exempt.  Residential trunk hook­up fees are based per unit.*Parcels within the Lake Ann Sewer District will be subject to the Lake Ann Trunk sewer fees in addition to the sewertrunk hook­up fees.Commercial, industrial and institutional development:Sewer and water trunk hook­up fees (area trunk fees). Fee is paid at the time of building permit. Parcels previouslyassessed trunk hook­up fees are exempt. Trunk hook­up fees are based on the number of sanitary access charge(SAC) units assigned by Metropolitan Council for office or industrial/commercial buildings.*Parcels within the Lake Ann Sewer District will be subject to the Lake Ann Trunk sewer fees in addition to the sewertrunk hook­up fees.All development:Lateral connection charges: If the lot or tract of land, or portion thereof, to be served by a lateral connection that hasnot been assessed for the cost of construction, then the applicant shall pay the following lateral connection:Sewer lateral connection charge $7,710.00Water lateral connection charge $9,186 9,508.00Water and Sewage RatesFor 2019, the Ehlers and Associates analysis recommends a 5% increase to the water utility rates for all tiers and thebulk rate.In 2019, multi­family properties will pay a uniform rate of $2.57 per 1,000 gallons.The utility rate analysisalso recommends a 5% increase to the sewer utility rates.Listed below is the 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and proposed 2019 water consumption rate structure along with thesewer rate structure:Water 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Fixed Charge (minimum per quarter)7.98 8.43 8.88 12.99 13.650 – 6,000 Gallons 1.10 1.16 1.22 1.22 1.286,001 – 24,000 Gallons 2.20 2.32 2.45 2.45 2.5724,001 – 48,000 Gallons 2.75 2.90 3.06 3.21 3.3748,001 – 99,000 Gallons 3.19 3.37 3.56 3.74 3.9399,001+ Gallons (Irrigation and ResidentialOnly)4.06 4.28 4.52 4.75 4.99 Multi­Family 2.20 2.32 2.45 2.45 2.57 Bulk sales to contractors, landscapers, etc. at City fill stations or other designated locations 5.52 5.82 6.14 6.45 6.77 Sewer 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Minimum Charge (includes up to 6,000 gallons)22.11 22.89 23.85 30.00 31.50 Residential – amounts over 6,000 gallons (based on winter quarter usage)4.30 4.45 4.64 4.88 5.12 Commerical – amounts over 6,000 gallons (based on actual quarterly usage)4.30 4.45 4.64 4.88 5.12 Amend Section 4­45. Water and sewage rates. Utility rates are established for each 1,000 gallons of usage: Water : Fixed Charge (minimum water charge per quarter)$12.99 13.65 per quarter 0 to 6,000 gallons per quarter $1.22 1.28 per 1,000 gallons 6,001 to 24,000 gallons per quarter $2.45 2.57 per 1,000 gallons 24,001 to 48,000 gallons per quarter $3.21 3.37 per 1,000 gallons 48,001 to 99,000 gallons per quarter $3.74 3.93 per 1,000 gallons 99,001+ gallons per quarter (Irrigation and Residential Only)$4.75 4.99 per 1,000 gallons Multi­family properties – uniform water rate $2.45 2.57 per 1,000 gallons Bulk sales to contractors, landscapers, etc. at City fill stations or other designated locations $6.45 6.77 per 1,000 gallons Sewage: Residential based on winter quarter usage $4.88 5.12 per 1,000 gallons Commercial based on actual quarterly usage $4.88 5.12 per 1,000 gallons Minimum sewage charge per quarter $30.00 31.50 per quarter (for amounts up to 6,000 gallons per quarter) Surface Water Management Fees (Utility Factor) The utility factor for each land use is not changing.The rates for tax parcels classified 1, 2 or 3 shall increase from $11.22 to $14.88.The rates for tax parcels classified 4 through 8 shall increase from $21.88 to $28.99. Amend Section 4­50. Surface water management fees: Classification Land Use Utility Factor 1 Single­family and Rural residential Not Applicable 2 Agricultural Not Applicable 3 Undeveloped Not Applicable 4 Medium density residential 2.22 5 High density residential, Industrial, Office, Institutions (churches, schools, government buildings, hospitals) 3.30 6 Business/Commercial 4.23 7 Parks, cemeteries, golf courses, arboretum 0.46 8 Parking lots as a principal use 6.14 Sanitarysewer $1,611.00/unit, or $2,302.00/unit if a portion of the sewer hook­up fee was not paid at the time of finalsubdivision approval—(Lake Ann Interceptor ­ $1,971.00/unit and subtrunk $2,068.00/unit)*Water $5,210 5,393.00/unit, or $7,443 7,704.00 if a portion of the water hook­up fee was not paid at the time offinal subdivision approvalSACAs established by the Metropolitan Council and $75.00 city SAC surchargeSanitary sewer $2,302.00/unit—(Lake Ann Interceptor ­ $1,971.00/unit and subtrunk $2,068.00/unit)*Water $7,443 7,704.00/unitSACAs established by the Metropolitan Council and $75.00 city SAC surchargeCITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectOrdinance 637: Amendment to City Code Chapter 4 Concerning Fees and Chapter 5Concerning AnimalsSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.5.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council adopts the attached ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code revising the feesfor 2019, and Chapter 5 of the Chanhassen City Code revising stable permits.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDCity fees are designed to cover the cost of providing a specific service.DISCUSSIONKennel FeeThe City of Chanhassen currently charges a $25.00 annual kennel permit fee, whether the kennel is commercial orprivate.  Section 4­15 (d) only references a private kennel fee in the amount of $25.00.Amend Section 4­15 (d).(d)  Private Kennel fees:  $25.00Stable Permit FeeThe City of Chanhassen currently charges a $10.00 annual stable permit fee which is not listed in Chapter 4 of the citycode. Section 5­102 states “A nonrefundable application fee in the amount established by resolution shall be paid tothe city when the application is filed.” Fees are required by law to be established by ordinance, not by resolution. Also, since there are considerable city resources put into each stable permit including staff time, materials, andinspections, staff is proposing to increase the fee to $25.00, which is in line with other Key Financial Strategy cities.Amend Section 4­15 by adding (l).(l)  Stable permit fee:  $25.00Amend Section 5­102. – Application.Application for the permit required by this division shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the city. Anonrefundable application fee shall be as established in Chapter 4 of this Code by resolution and shall be paid tothe city when the application is filed.Peddler, Solicitor or Transient Merchant Registration FeeThe City of Chanhassen currently charges a $25.00 deposit per solicitor permit, which is fully refundable if the solicitorreturns their city­issued identification badge. There are considerable city resources put into each solicitor permitincluding staff time, materials, and the background check for each solicitor application. In order to recoup some ofthese costs, staff is proposing to increase the fee to $100.00, which is in line with other Key Financial Strategy cities.Amend Section 4­15 (c).Peddler, solicitor or transient merchant registration fee:is one hundred dollars per individual.1. Twenty­five dollars per person;2. Fifty dollars per nonprofit organization.Surface Water Management FeesThe City’s Surface Water Management Plan was first adopted in February of 1994.Based upon recommendations inthat plan the City established surface water connection fees as a means of financing citywide improvementsrecommended in the plan’s implementation section. The initial fee was based upon the cost of the recommended pipesand ponds in the 1994 plan. The fees were apportioned according to acreage and intensity of land use and intended tobe a more equitable distribution of the cost associated with storm water runoff.This did not consider long­termmaintenance of the facilities or increased regulatory requirements.Twenty four years after the 1994 plan was adopted the City is entering its 3 rd generation plan. In the past 24 years theNational Pollution Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (NPDES MS4) permit wasissued and revised. This permit allows the City to operate its stormsewer system. Our local Watershed Districts havealso implemented Rules and Standards the City must meet. This has resulted in increased storm water and surfacewater management requirements.The city has begun to look at the significant life cycle costs of maintaining our existing infrastructure as well as the costof repairing damage caused by runoff in the past. Chanhassen has been replacing storm sewer infrastructure with everyroad reconstruction project.This has ranged in cost from $50,000 to over $400,000 per project.The amount ofinfrastructure has increased substantially over what the city had in 1994 and this amount continues to grow with eachnew development. For example, it is estimated that if all ponds were cleaned out this year, the cost would be $2.5million for the excavation alone. These costs will continue to increase.Other costs not considered included the City’s pollution reduction requirements for the 8 lakes and creeks that do notmeet State water quality standards. For instance, meeting the reduction requirement for Bluff Creek could cost theCity approximately $5.8 million.In 2019, Ehlers & Associates, the city’s financial advisors, recommends a two percent increase to the surface waterdevelopment fees.Amend Section 4­30 (c) 3.Surface water development fees:Development Type Per Acre FeeParks/Open Space $4,640 4,730Single­Family Residential $8,160 8,320Medium Density Residential $9,790 9,990Townhouse/Apartment Complex/High Density Residential $14,660 14,950Industrial$21,160 21,580Commercial$30,910 31,530Fees are based on the developable land.Undeveloped areas such as wetlands and buffers placed into an outlot,public parks, and public right­of­way are exempt from these fees.Sewer and Water FeesA lateral connection charge replaces a missed assessment.When the city installs a pipe next to a property, someowners choose not to connect.In some instances, the city may not have assessed the property owner for their portionof the pipe.When those properties eventually connect, the lateral connection charge approximately covers the cost ofthe omitted assessment.These charges are only levied in rare instances.Trunk hook­up charges, on the other hand,are for core utility infrastructure such as wells, lift stations, and trunk main oversizing.Every new lot in the city thathooks up to the utility system pays a trunk hook­up charge.Hook­up fees paid at the time of final residential subdivision approval remain the same for sewer at $691.00/unit andincrease for water from $2,233.00 to $2,311.00/unit.  The remainder of the sewer and water hook­up fee is collectedwith the building permit at the rate in effect at that time.  The total sanitary hook­up fee remains the same at $2,302.00and the total water hook­up fee is increasing from $7,443.00 to $7,704.00.  Parcels within the Lake Ann SewerDistrict will also be subject to the Lake Ann Trunk sewer fees in addition to the sewer trunk hook­up fees.  The LakeAnn Interceptor hook­up fee remains at $1,971.00 and the sub­trunk fee remains at $2,068.00.  Commercial,industrial and institutional developments pay the total hook­up fee at the time of building permit.  Trunk hook­up feesare based on the number of sanitary access charge (SAC) units assigned by Metropolitan Council for office orindustrial/commercial buildings.Lateral connection charges are charges for utility infrastructure which has been constructed by the city but were notassessed to or paid for a property.  Sewer lateral connection charges remain the same at $7,710.00 and water lateralconnection charges increase from $9,186.00 to $9,508.00.2015 2016 2017 2018 Proposed2019Water Hook­up $6,523 $6,882 $7,157 $7,443 $7,704Sewer Hook­up $2,257 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302Water Connection $8,050 $8,493 $8,833 $9,186 $9,508Sewer Connection $7,559 $7,710 $7,710 $7,710 $7,710Lake AnnInterceptor $1,932 $1,971 $1,971 $1,971 $1,971Sub­trunk $2,027 $2,068 $2,068 $2,068 $2,068The Met Council SAC fee for 2019 remains the same as 2018 at $2,485.00.Amend Section 4­30 (c) 5.Sewer and water fees.Residential development:Shall pay a portion of the sewer and water hook­up fees (area trunk fees) at the time of final subdivision approval: $691.00/unit (sewer) and $2,233 2,311.00/unit (water).  The remainder of the sewer and water hook­up fees shall becollected with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time.Parcels previously assessed trunk hook­up fees are exempt.  Residential trunk hook­up fees are based per unit.*Parcels within the Lake Ann Sewer District will be subject to the Lake Ann Trunk sewer fees in addition to the sewertrunk hook­up fees.Commercial, industrial and institutional development:Sewer and water trunk hook­up fees (area trunk fees). Fee is paid at the time of building permit. Parcels previouslyassessed trunk hook­up fees are exempt. Trunk hook­up fees are based on the number of sanitary access charge(SAC) units assigned by Metropolitan Council for office or industrial/commercial buildings.*Parcels within the Lake Ann Sewer District will be subject to the Lake Ann Trunk sewer fees in addition to the sewertrunk hook­up fees.All development:Lateral connection charges: If the lot or tract of land, or portion thereof, to be served by a lateral connection that hasnot been assessed for the cost of construction, then the applicant shall pay the following lateral connection:Sewer lateral connection charge $7,710.00Water lateral connection charge $9,186 9,508.00Water and Sewage RatesFor 2019, the Ehlers and Associates analysis recommends a 5% increase to the water utility rates for all tiers and thebulk rate.In 2019, multi­family properties will pay a uniform rate of $2.57 per 1,000 gallons.The utility rate analysisalso recommends a 5% increase to the sewer utility rates.Listed below is the 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and proposed 2019 water consumption rate structure along with thesewer rate structure:Water 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Fixed Charge (minimum per quarter)7.98 8.43 8.88 12.99 13.650 – 6,000 Gallons 1.10 1.16 1.22 1.22 1.286,001 – 24,000 Gallons 2.20 2.32 2.45 2.45 2.5724,001 – 48,000 Gallons 2.75 2.90 3.06 3.21 3.3748,001 – 99,000 Gallons 3.19 3.37 3.56 3.74 3.9399,001+ Gallons (Irrigation and ResidentialOnly)4.06 4.28 4.52 4.75 4.99Multi­Family 2.20 2.32 2.45 2.45 2.57Bulk sales to contractors, landscapers, etc.at City fill stations or other designatedlocations 5.52 5.82 6.14 6.45 6.77Sewer20152016201720182019Minimum Charge (includes up to 6,000gallons)22.11 22.89 23.85 30.00 31.50Residential – amounts over 6,000 gallons(based on winter quarter usage)4.30 4.45 4.64 4.88 5.12Commerical – amounts over 6,000 gallons(based on actual quarterly usage)4.30 4.45 4.64 4.88 5.12Amend Section 4­45.Water and sewage rates.Utility rates are established for each 1,000 gallons of usage:Water :Fixed Charge (minimum water charge per quarter)$12.99 13.65 per quarter0 to 6,000 gallons per quarter $1.22 1.28 per 1,000 gallons6,001 to 24,000 gallons per quarter $2.45 2.57 per 1,000 gallons24,001 to 48,000 gallons per quarter $3.21 3.37 per 1,000 gallons48,001 to 99,000 gallons per quarter $3.74 3.93 per 1,000 gallons99,001+ gallons per quarter (Irrigation and Residential Only)$4.75 4.99 per 1,000 gallonsMulti­family properties – uniform water rate $2.45 2.57 per 1,000 gallonsBulk sales to contractors, landscapers, etc. atCity fill stations or other designated locations $6.45 6.77 per 1,000 gallonsSewage:Residential based on winter quarter usage $4.88 5.12 per 1,000 gallonsCommercial based on actual quarterly usage $4.88 5.12 per 1,000 gallonsMinimum sewage charge per quarter $30.00 31.50 per quarter(for amounts up to 6,000 gallons per quarter)Surface Water Management Fees (Utility Factor)The utility factor for each land use is not changing.The rates for tax parcels classified 1, 2 or 3 shall increase from$11.22 to $14.88.The rates for tax parcels classified 4 through 8 shall increase from $21.88 to $28.99.Amend Section 4­50.Surface water management fees:Classification Land Use Utility Factor1Single­family and Rural residential Not Applicable2AgriculturalNot Applicable3UndevelopedNot Applicable4Medium density residential 2.225High density residential, Industrial, Office, Institutions(churches, schools, government buildings, hospitals)3.306Business/Commercial 4.237Parks, cemeteries, golf courses, arboretum 0.46 8 Parking lots as a principal use 6.14 The surface water management fee for each tax parcel classified 1, 2 and 3 shall be $11.22 14.88 per quarter. The surface water management fee for each tax parcel classified 4 through 8 shall be calculated for each quarter as follows:  $21.88 28.99 multiplied by the utility factor multiplied by the acreage of the parcel. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code revising fees for 2019, and Chapter 5 of the Chanhassen City Code revising permits. ATTACHMENTS: Solicitor Permit Fee Ordinance Amending Chapter 4, Chanhassen City Code, Fees Ehlers Executive Summary of Utility Rate Analysis for 2019 Development Fee Comparison KFS City Fee Chaska $40 Cottage Grove $100  Elk River $150 Inver Grove Heights Solicitor‐ $50 Peddler‐ $80 Lino Lakes $250 per company Prior Lake $50 Rosemount $90 ‐ first 3 individuals, $20/each  additional Savage $100 Shakopee $50 Stillwater $15 Eden Prairie $40 Excelsior $120 Minnetonka $75 Shorewood $50 Victoria $35 per week or $100 annual Average = $87 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 637 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE- LICENSE, PERMIT AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES, AND CHAPTER 5 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE-ANIMALS AND FOWL THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 4-15 (c) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: (c) Peddler, solicitor or transient merchant registration fee is one hundred dollars per individual. Section 2. Section 4-16 (d) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: (d) Kennel fees: $25.00 Section 3. Section 4-15 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended by adding the following section: (l) Stable permit fee: $25.00 Section 4. Section 4-30 (c) 3 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: Surface water development fees: Development Type Per Acre Fee Parks/Open Space $4,730 Single Family Residential $8,320 Medium Density Residential $9,990 Townhouse/Apartment Complex/High Density Residential $14,950 Industrial $21,580 Commercial $31,530 Fees are based on the developable land. Undeveloped areas such as wetlands and buffers placed into an outlot, public parks, and public right-of-way are exempt from these fees. Section 5. Section 4-30 (c) 5 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2 Sewer and water fees. Residential development: Shall pay a portion of the sewer and water hook-up fees (area trunk fees) at the time of final subdivision approval: $691.00/unit (sewer) and $2,311.00/unit (water). The remainder of the sewer and water hook-up fees shall be collected with the building permit at the rate in effect at that time. Parcels previously assessed trunk hook-up fees are exempt. Residential trunk hook-up fees are based per unit. *Parcels within the Lake Ann Sewer District will be subject to the Lake Ann Trunk sewer fees in addition to the sewer trunk hook-up fees. Commercial, industrial and institutional development: Sewer and water trunk hook-up fees (area trunk fees). Fee is paid at the time of building permit. Parcels previously assessed trunk hook-up fees are exempt. Trunk hook-up fees are based on the number of sanitary access charge (SAC) units assigned by Metropolitan Council for office or industrial/commercial buildings. *Parcels within the Lake Ann Sewer District will be subject to the Lake Ann Trunk sewer fees in addition to the sewer trunk hook-up fees. All development: Lateral connection charges: If the lot or tract of land, or portion thereof, to be served by a lateral connection that has not been assessed for the cost of construction, then the applicant shall pay the following lateral connection: Sewer lateral connection charge $7,710.00 Water lateral connection charge $9,508.00 Section 6. Section 4-45 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sanitary Sewer $1,611.00/unit, or $2,302.00/unit if a portion of the sewer hook-up fee was not paid at the time of final subdivision approval—(Lake Ann Interceptor - $1,971.00/unit and subtrunk $2,068.00/unit)* Water $5,393.00/unit, or $7,704.00 if a portion of the water hook-up fee was not paid at the time of final subdivision approval SAC As established by the Metropolitan Council and $75.00 city SAC surcharge Sanitary Sewer $2,302.00/unit—(Lake Ann Interceptor - $1,971.00/unit and subtrunk $2,068.00/unit)* Water $7,704.00/unit SAC As established by the Metropolitan Council and $75.00 city SAC surcharge 3 Utility rates are established for each 1,000 gallons of usage: Water: Fixed Charge (minimum water charge per quarter) $13.65 per quarter 0 to 6,000 gallons per quarter $1.28 per 1,000 gallons 6,001 to 24,000 gallons per quarter $2.57 per 1,000 gallons 24,001 to 48,000 gallons per quarter $3.37 per 1,000 gallons 48,001 to 99,000 gallons per quarter $3.93 per 1,000 gallons 99,001+ gallons per quarter (Irrigation and Residential Only) $4.99 per 1,000 gallons Multi-family properties – uniform water rate $2.57 per 1,000 gallons Bulk sales to contractors, landscapers, etc. at City fill stations or other designated locations $6.77 per 1,000 gallons Sewage: Residential based on winter quarter usage $5.12 per 1,000 gallons Commercial based on actual quarterly usage $5.12 per 1,000 gallons Minimum sewage charge per quarter $31.50 per quarter (for amounts up to 6,000 gallons per quarter) Section 7. Section 4-50 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: Surface water management fees. Classification Land Use Utility Factor 1 Single-family and Rural residential Not Applicable 2 Agricultural Not Applicable 3 Undeveloped Not Applicable 4 Medium density residential 2.22 5 High density residential, Industrial, Office, Institutions (churches, schools, government buildings, hospitals) 3.30 6 Business/Commercial 4.23 7 Parks, cemeteries, golf courses, arboretum 0.46 8 Parking lots as a principal use 6.14 The surface water management fee for each tax parcel classified 1, 2 and 3 shall be $14.88 per quarter. The surface water management fee for each tax parcel classified 4 through 8 shall be calculated for each quarter as follows: $28.99 multiplied by the utility factor multiplied by the acreage of the parcel. Section 8. Section 5-102 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: 4 Application for the permit required by this division shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the city. A nonrefundable application fee shall be as established in Chapter 4 of this Code and shall be paid to the city when the application is filed. Section 9. This ordinance shall be effective January 1, 2019 after its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of December, 2018, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ______________________________)                                                                                        Prepared By: City Staff and Ehlers December 5, 2018 Executive Summary of the Utility Rate Analysis for 2019 Rates City of Chanhassen, Minnesota 1    Key Findings The goal of a rate study is to ensure the long-term financial health of the utility enterprise funds. Toward this end, the City of Chanhassen annually updates its utility rate study. It reviews both quarterly charges and development fees. Quarterly User Charges The 2019 rate recommendations for storm water, sanitary sewer and water rates are below. Storm Water Rates Existing Proposed Quarterly Rates 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Flat Rates Residential Base Charge $11.22 $14.87 $15.46 $16.08 $16.72 $17.39 Commercial/Industrial Base Charge $21.88 $28.99 $30.15 $31.36 $32.61 $33.92 Managing storm water is a significant and increasingly complex mandate imposed on cities by the state. Meeting new storm water requirements is expensive and puts pressure on all cities to increase storm water rates. In addition, the City of Chanhassen has increased the cost of road reconstruction projects it plans to complete in its Capital Improvement Plan, and each road project has a storm water component paid for from the utility fund. The proposed 2019 quarterly storm water charge of $14.87 for a single-family home represents a $3.65 increase per quarter, or $1.22 per month. The storm water area charges are proposed to increase at 4% annually in 2020 and beyond. Sewer Rates Existing Proposed Quarterly Rates 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Flat Rates All Users Minimum Charge (includes 6,000 gallons) $30.00 $31.50 $33.08 $34.73 $36.47 $38.29 Usage Rates All Users >6000 gallons $4.88 $5.12 $5.38 $5.65 $5.93 $6.23 2    The single biggest expense in the sanitary sewer utility is the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) disposal charge. After four years of small increases and some decreases, the MCES charge increased 18.5% between 2017 and 2018, and has informed the City there will be another 4% increase for 2019. The proposed City sewer rate increase of 5% in 2019 and beyond reflects the inflationary increases in MCES charges plus planned capital costs, and is consistent with last year’s rate study. Water Rates Existing Proposed Quarterly Rates 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Percentage Increase 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Flat Rates All Users Minimum Charge $12.99 $13.64 $14.32 $15.04 $15.79 $16.58 Usage Rates Residential/Commercial/Irrigatio n 0-6,000 gallons $1.22 $1.28 $1.35 $1.41 $1.48 $1.56 6,001-24,000 gallons 2.45 2.57 2.70 2.84 2.98 3.13 24,001-48,000 gallons 3.21 3.37 3.54 3.72 3.90 4.10 48,001-99,000 gallons 3.74 3.93 4.12 4.33 4.55 4.77 > 99,001 gallons 4.75 4.99 5.24 5.50 5.77 6.06 Multi-Family All Usage, per 1,000 gallons $2.45 $2.57 $2.70 $2.84 $2.98 $3.13 The recommended 2019 water rate increase of 5% is also consistent with last year’s rate study as we have been planning for the financing and construction of the new water treatment plant for some time. The proposed 5% rate increases will also pay for the City’s projected investment for expanding and improving the water system. Between 2019 and 2028, the City plans to spend $18.2 million on capital improvements from the water utility fund, with 47.5% of these improvement costs attributable to growth in the community.   Each community has different demands on its utility systems that make it unique – different growth patterns, groundwater sources, soil conditions, usage patterns and infrastructure. Therefore, one should set rates based on documented need, as the City of Chanhassen does through its annual rate study. Nevertheless, it is informative to know how the City’s rates compare to other developing communities with similar characteristics – the KFS communities Chanhassen has previously identified. Figure 1 shows a sample 2018 bill for a residential customer who uses 26,000 gallons of water and sewer in each KFS city. 3    Figure 1. Quarterly Bill Comparison Assuming 26,000 Gallons of Water and Sewer Used Growth and Development Fees How quickly the City grows will impact the utility fees collected, the hook-up revenues, and storm water area charges. For the rate study, we have assumed that there will be 130 new residential units constructed each year from 2018 through 2024 and 120 units per year thereafter. In addition to the residential growth, 28 SAC units per year are assumed to come from commercial development and new irrigation meters. Staff has received feedback from developers that the City’s utility related development fees are high compared to other communities. This rate study’s recommendation for a 3.5% annual water hook-up fee increase and no increase to sewer hook-up fees balances the need to keep developer fees competitive while also covering growth related infrastructure costs. The proposed water and sewer developer fees for a single-family home are listed in the chart below. Water and Sewer Hook-Up Fees The City also charges developers a Storm Water Area Charge when land is platted to pay for off- site storm water improvements. Most developments receive a credit for a portion of this charge for completing certain on-site improvements that reduce water run-off and improve water quality. Staff estimates the average credit is about 50%. The fees, before the credit, are listed in the chart below and are proposed to increase 2% annually. $0.00 $25.00 $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 $125.00 $150.00 $175.00 $200.00 $225.00 $250.00 $275.00 $300.00 Chanhassen 2018 Chanhassen 2019 Chaska Cottage Grove Elk River Inver Grove Heights Inver Grove Heights NWA Lino Lakes Rosemount Savage Shakopee Storm Water Charges Sewer Charges Water Charges Average 2018 Quarterly Bill Single-Family Home Development Fees 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 City WAC Fees 5,210 5,393 5,581 5,777 5,979 6,188 City SAC Fees 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,611 City Surcharge 75 75 75 75 75 75 TOTAL $6,897 $7,079 $7,268 $7,463 $7,665 $7,875 4    Storm Water Area Charges Charge Per Acre 2018 (Before Credits) Proposed 2019 (Before Credits) Single Family $8,160 $8,323 Townhouse $14,660 $14,953 Apartment Complex/ High Density $14,660 $14,953 Commercial $30,910 $31,528 Industrial $21,160 $21,583 Summary Rate increases less than those recommended above will weaken the cash positions of the utility funds. The City currently benefits from the AAA rating it has earned from Standard and Poor’s. Rating agencies pay attention to enterprise fund activities for cities, and Standard and Poor’s rating methodology looks at whether enterprise funds will put financial burdens on the general fund due to structural imbalances (i.e., insufficient utility revenue).                                                                                        December 5, 2018 2018 Development Fee Comparison City of Chanhassen, Minnesota   Assumes 3 single family units per net developable acre and a 15 acre subdivision. Costs to install lateral lines (i.e. lateral connection fees or assessments) are not included. Water Sewer Subtotal  Water and  Sewer Stormwater TOTAL Comments Chanhassen 7,443$        2,302$        $         9,745 1,360$                    $          11,105 50% Credit Applied to  Stormwater Chaska 5,071$        4,599$        $         9,670 2,552$                    $          12,222  Cottage Grove  (West Draw  Area 2) 2,294$        1,350$        $         3,644 2,401$                    $            6,046 Additional off‐site stormwater  ponding fee Elk River 3,633$        5,085$        $         8,718 240$                       $            8,958  Inver Grove  Heights 4,957$        1,987$        $         6,943 ‐$                        $            6,943 Stormwater costs paid for with  storm water taxing districts. Lino Lakes 3,522$        2,913$        $         6,435 2,288$                    $            8,723 No credits applied for  Stormwater Prior Lake 2,606$        1,369$        $         3,974 2,041$                    $            6,015  Rosemount 4,567$        1,558$        $         6,125 3,058$                    $            9,183  Savage 5,137$        4,281$        $         9,418 4,066$                    $          13,483 Storm water fee $6026 if no on‐ site ponding Shakopee  (Whispering  Oaks) 6,980$        5,133$        $      12,113 2,933$                    $          15,046  Assumes no use of regional  stormwater pond.  Discharge to  regional pond would increase  stormwater fee by $1,343 per  impervious acre.  Average 4,621$        3,058$        7,679$          2,094$                    9,772$              Comparison of 2018 Sewer, Water and Stormwater Development Fees for a Single  Family Home in KFS Cities Prepared by Ehlers  $‐  $2,000  $4,000  $6,000  $8,000  $10,000  $12,000  $14,000  $16,000 Chanhassen Chaska Cottage Grove (West Draw Area 2) Elk River Inver Grove Heights Lino Lakes Prior Lake Rosemount Savage Shakopee (Whispering Oaks) Development Fee Comparison KFS Cities ‐ Single Family   Water Sewer Stormwater Prepared by Ehlers Assumes 3 single family units per net developable acre and a 15 acre subdivision. Costs to install lateral lines (i.e. lateral connection fees or assessments) are not included. Water Sewer Subtotal  Water and  Sewer Stormwater TOTAL Comments Chanhassen 7,443$        2,302$        $         9,745 1,360$                    $          11,105 50% Credit Applied to  Stormwater Eden Prairie 4,169$        2,428$        $         6,597 ‐$                        $            6,597  Excelsior 2,000$        1,000$        $         3,000 ‐$                        $            3,000  Minnetonka 1,825$        1,027$        $         2,852 ‐$                        $            2,852  Shorewood 10,000$      1,200$        $      11,200 ‐$                        $          11,200  Victoria          (Downtown  Storm Water  Area District) 3,940$        3,340$        $         7,280 12,632$                  $          19,912  Victoria also has a $6,600 water  main lateral charge and $6,600  sewer main lateral charge per unit.   Stormwater fee only applies within  downtown Storm Water Area  District. Average 4,896$        1,883$        6,779$          2,332$                    9,111$              Comparison of 2018 Sewer, Water and Stormwater Development Fees for a Single  Family Home in Neighboring Cities  $‐  $5,000  $10,000  $15,000  $20,000  $25,000 Chanhassen Eden Prairie Excelsior Minnetonka Shorewood Victoria (Downtown Storm Water Area District) Development Fee Comparison Neighboring Cities ‐ Single Family   Water Sewer Stormwater Prepared by Ehlers Assumes industrial development with 160 SAC units and 6.0 Net Developable Acres and 3" water meter Water Sewer Subtotal  Water and  Sewer Stormwater TOTAL Comments Chaska 691,938$      575,516$     $  1,267,454 73,026$       $    1,340,480  Chanhassen 1,101,120$    380,320$     $  1,481,440 62,226$       $    1,543,666 Assumes 50% credit is provided for  stormwater charges Cottage Grove (West  Draw Area 2)33,732$         20,238$       $       53,970 64,824$       $       118,794  Elk River 581,280$      803,350$     $  1,384,630 8,196$         $    1,392,826  Inver Grove Heights  (outside Northwest Area)305,160$      102,500$     $     407,660 ‐$              $       407,660 Stormwater costs paid for with  storm water taxing districts. Lino Lakes 255,478$      251,648$     $     507,126 61,350$       $       568,476  Prior Lake 466,382$      161,116$     $     627,498 46,158$       $       673,656  Rosemount 68,450$        198,450$     $     266,900 54,810$       $       321,710  Savage 456,520$      454,533$     $     911,053 87,033$       $       998,086 City fees are calculated on gross  acreage Shakopee (VIP Industrial  Park)974,578$      105,410$     $  1,079,988 93,828$       $    1,173,816  Assumes no use of regional  stormwater pond.  Discharge to  regional pond would increase  stormwater fee by $1,343 per  impervious acre.  Average 493,464$      305,308$     798,772$      55,145$       853,917$         Comparison of 2018 Sewer, Water and Stormwater Development Fees for a  Commercial/Industrial Building in KFS Cities Prepared by Ehlers  $‐  $200,000  $400,000  $600,000  $800,000  $1,000,000  $1,200,000  $1,400,000  $1,600,000  $1,800,000 Chaska Chanhassen Cottage Grove (West Draw Area 2) Elk River Inver Grove Heights (outside Northwest Area) Lino Lakes Prior Lake Rosemount Savage Shakopee (VIP Industrial Park) Development Fee Comparison KFS Cities ‐ Commercial  Water Sewer Stormwater Prepared by Ehlers Assumes industrial development with 160 SAC units and 6.0 Net Developable Acres and 3" water meter Water Sewer Subtotal  Water and  Sewer Stormwater TOTAL Comments Chanhassen 1,101,120$    380,320$     $  1,481,440 62,226$       $    1,543,666 Assumes 50% credit is provided for  stormwater charges Eden Prairie 646,456$       228,090$     $      874,546 ‐$              $        874,546  Excelsior 320,000$       160,000$     $      480,000 ‐$              $        480,000  Minnetonka 292,058$       164,280$     $      456,338 ‐$              $        456,338  Shoreweood 130,680$       15,682$       $      146,362 ‐$              $        146,362  Victoria                (Downtown Storm Water  Area District) 630,400$       534,400$     $  1,164,800 227,383$     $    1,392,183  Victoria also has a $6,600 water  main lateral charge and $6,600  sewer main lateral charge per unit.   Stormwater fee only applies within  downtown Storm Water Area  District. Average 520,119$       247,129$     767,248$       48,268$       815,516$         Comparison of 2018 Sewer, Water and Stormwater Development Fees for a  Commercial/Industrial Building in Neighboring Cities  $‐  $200,000  $400,000  $600,000  $800,000  $1,000,000  $1,200,000  $1,400,000  $1,600,000  $1,800,000 Chanhassen Eden Prairie Excelsior Minnetonka Shoreweood Victoria (Downtown Storm Water Area District) Development Fee Comparison Neighboring Cities ‐ Commercial  Water Sewer Stormwater Prepared by Ehlers CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Resolution 2018­65: Adopt Final Levy, 2019 Budget, and 2019­2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: G.6. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No:  PROPOSED MOTION The City Council adopts a resolution establishing the 2019 final levy at $11,019,868 and approves total general fund expenditures of $11,395,360.  It also approves the CIP for 2019­2023 in the total amount of $104,527,245. Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND On September 24, 2018, the City Council approved the preliminary levy in the amount of $11,019,868.This includes an increase in the total levy of $106,000 or 0.97%, which is the amount of new growth for taxes payable in 2019. This would result in a zero percent increase in the city portion of the property tax bill on the average home in the city (new growth). Since setting the levy in September staff has not been made aware of a change in economic conditions or other factors that would impact any of the General Fund expenditure line items.There have been some changes in personnel expenditure line items in various departments (some due to changes in employees within that department and some from changes in health care benefit elections), but all of the changes have a neutral impact on total expenditures in the General Fund. The budget includes 3% wage increases for all employees (which has a COLA and performance portion within the 3%).The 3% for all employees (including department heads) totals $140,000.In addition market adjustments are included for the department heads and those market adjustments range from an additional 0%­5%, with the average being about an additional 4%.The market adjustments for department heads total $40,000.Together the total is $180,000 and is 1.58% of the entire General Fund Budget.There are two attached surveys that are the basis for the 3% increase and for the market adjustments. The CIP document reviewed in October only had changes in proposed projects (almost all related to utility improvements) that were delayed for either construction timing reasons or for a better fit within the cash flows of each of the utility funds.None of the delays has a significant impact on the overall condition or ability to keep utility infrastructure maintained appropriately. Staff will be reviewing the impacts of the budget and levy in a PowerPoint with city council similar to what was reviewed at the public budget meeting last week. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 10, 2018SubjectResolution 2018­65: Adopt Final Levy, 2019 Budget, and 2019­2023 Capital ImprovementProgram (CIP)Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: G.6.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: PROPOSED MOTIONThe City Council adopts a resolution establishing the 2019 final levy at $11,019,868 and approves total general fundexpenditures of $11,395,360.  It also approves the CIP for 2019­2023 in the total amount of $104,527,245.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDOn September 24, 2018, the City Council approved the preliminary levy in the amount of $11,019,868.This includesan increase in the total levy of $106,000 or 0.97%, which is the amount of new growth for taxes payable in 2019.This would result in a zero percent increase in the city portion of the property tax bill on the average home in the city(new growth).Since setting the levy in September staff has not been made aware of a change in economic conditions or other factorsthat would impact any of the General Fund expenditure line items.There have been some changes in personnelexpenditure line items in various departments (some due to changes in employees within that department and somefrom changes in health care benefit elections), but all of the changes have a neutral impact on total expenditures in theGeneral Fund.The budget includes 3% wage increases for all employees (which has a COLA and performance portion within the3%).The 3% for all employees (including department heads) totals $140,000.In addition market adjustments areincluded for the department heads and those market adjustments range from an additional 0%­5%, with the averagebeing about an additional 4%.The market adjustments for department heads total $40,000.Together the total is$180,000 and is 1.58% of the entire General Fund Budget.There are two attached surveys that are the basis for the3% increase and for the market adjustments.The CIP document reviewed in October only had changes in proposed projects (almost all related to utilityimprovements) that were delayed for either construction timing reasons or for a better fit within the cash flows of eachof the utility funds.None of the delays has a significant impact on the overall condition or ability to keep utilityinfrastructure maintained appropriately. Staff will be reviewing the impacts of the budget and levy in a PowerPoint with city council similar to what was reviewed at the public budget meeting last week. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the 2019 final levy at $11,019,868, and approving total general fund expenditures of $11,395,360.It also approves the CIP for 2019­2023 in the total amount of $104,527,245. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution PowerPoint Presentation Detailed General Fund Budget KFS Wage Comparison KFS/Competitive Cities Dept Head Wage Comparison Special Revenue Funds Detail 2019­2023 CIP 2019 Final Levies Revolving Assessment Construction Fund Debt Levies MSA Projected Fund Balance CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: December 10, 2018 RESOLUTION NO: 2018-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2019 BUDGET AND CIP, AND ESTABLISHING TAX LEVIES FOR 2018, COLLECTIBLE IN 2019 WHEREAS, the City Council has examined the budgetary and tax levy needs for Chanhassen for the calendar year 2019 through detailed public budget meetings; and WHEREAS, the Public Budget meeting was held on December 3rd 2018, to receive public input into the budget and tax levy for 2019; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen that the 2019 Budget for the City of Chanhassen is adopted with revenue and expenditure amounts for the General Fund of $11,395,360, Special Revenue Funds of $51,500, $2,700, and $168,500 respectively which are detailed in the 2019 Budget which is made part of this motion by reference; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen adopts a total tax levy of $11,019,868 for 2019; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen adopts a tax levy of $800,000 for the purpose of equipment upgrades and purchases for 2019; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen determines that certain bonded indebtedness levies are hereby adopted to meet statutory requirements and bond covenants and that the County Auditor is hereby authorized to spread the adopted bonded debt levies as shown on the attached Tax Levy Certification document; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts a Capital Improvement Program for years 2019-2023 in the total amount of $104,527,245. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen authorizes the County Auditor to levy the amounts shown on the attached Tax Levy Certification document upon taxable property in the City of Chanhassen in 2018 for collection in 2019, as set forth in the attached Tax Levy Certification document. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day of December, 2018. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor YES NO ABSENT 1 Final Levy & Budget Adoption For taxes payable in 2019 City of Chanhassen –December 10, 2018 Budget Process 2 Preliminary budgets submitted by Department Directors in early July Budget reviewed by Finance Director and City Manager in late July Detailed Budget Meeting held in August Preliminary Tax Levy Adopted for Truth-in- Taxation Statement purposes, September 24 Public budget meeting held on December 3 Budget adoption on December 10 Expenditures 2018 Final Budget 2019 Preliminary Budget 2019 Recommended Final Budget % Change from 2018 General Government $2,163,600 $2,233,300 $2,233,300 +3.2% Law Enforcement/Fire $3,665,500 $3,709,500 $3,709,500 +1.2% Public Works $2,586,800 $2,601,200 $2,601,200 +0.6% Community Development $534,400 $582,800 $582,800 +9.1% Park & Recreation $2,253,300 $2,268,560 $2,268,560 +0.7% Total $11,203,600 $11,395,360 $11,395,360 +1.7%3 3 Revenues 2018 Final Budget 2019 Preliminary Budget 2019 Recommended Final Budget % Change from 2018 Property Tax $8,709,333 $8,755,333 $8,755,333 +0.5% Licenses & Permits $1,032,800 $1,132,500 $1,132,500 +9.7% Intergovernmental Rev.$409,000 $400,000 $400,000 -2.2% Charges for Services $627,700 $620,900 $620,900 -1.1% Fines & Penalties $116,000 $116,500 $116,500 +0.4% Other Revenue $308,767 $370,127 $370,127 19.9% Total Revenue $11,203,600 $11,395,360 $11,395,360 +1.7% 4 4 What factors change the budget for 2019? 5 ▪$106,000 (0.97%) increase in levy dollars due to new construction ▪A 8% increase in healthcare costs ▪Building permit revenue budgeted $100,000 higher than 2018 ▪A 3% increase for cost of living and merit pay ▪Market adjustments for department heads ▪No increase in the police services contract ▪Elimination of the Crime Prevention Specialist position Operational/Capital & Debt Levy Changes Operational & Capital Levies 2018 Final Levies 2019 Preliminary 2019 Recommended Final Levies % Chg General Fund $8,704,333 $8,810,333 $8,810,333 Capital Replacement $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 MSA (Sealcoating) Revolving Street Const Fund $93,000 $384,838 $93,000 $381,223 $93,000 $381,223 Total Operational & Capital Levies $9,982,171 $10,084,556 $10,084,556 +1.0% 6 Debt Levies Public Works Facility $470,400 $475,800 $475,800 Library Referendum $461,297 $459,512 $459,512 Total Debt Levies $931,697 $935,312 $935,312 +0.4% TOTAL ALL LEVIES $10,913,868 $11,019,868 $11,019,868 +0.97% 6 Total Levy vs. New Growth 7 -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Pre & Final 2.91% 2.23% 1.38% 0.53% -0.30% 0.40% 1.36% 1.45%1.39%1.56% 1.10%0.97% 1.82% 2.45% 1.39% 1.06%1.16% 1.82%1.77%1.76%1.87% 1.56% 1.10%0.97% Total Levy New Growth Effect on Homeowners Below are some examples of how the 2019 levy will impact property owners. The average home in Chanhassen increased in value approximately 7.5% in taxable market value for 2019. Parcel 2018 Value 2019 Value Percent Change 2018 City Property Tax 2019 City Property Tax Percent Change 1 $199,900 $217,200 +8.6%$477 $481 0.8% 2 $316,700 $346,400 +9.4%$754 $766 +1.6% 3 $354,700 $381,100 +7.4%$844 $842 -0.2% 4 $912,700 $981,600 +7.5%$2,404 $2,422 0.7% 8 Actual Property Tax Statement for Proposed 2019 Taxes 9 31% 44% 20% 5% Property Taxes County 31%School 44%City 20%Other 5% Gen Fund Budgeted Expenditures % Increase City Population 2017 2018 From 2017 Chanhassen 25,955 11,192,800 11,414,000 2.0% Chaska 26,941 15,043,932 16,841,385 9.3% Cottage Grove 36,399 19,839,100 20,160,615 1.6% Elk River 24,567 15,182,950 16,072,250 5.9% Inver Grove Heights 35,106 23,628,900 24,925,500 5.5% Lino Lakes 21,117 9,583,744 9,675,086 1.0% Prior Lake 25,735 12,141,543 12,651,813 4.2% Rosemount 23,965 12,836,600 13,566,000 5.7% Savage 30,713 14,521,627 14,948,819 2.9% Shakopee 41,519 24,253,200 26,928,100 11.0% Stillwater 19,748 14,270,848 14,966,044 5.1% Average 28,342 15,681,386 16,559,056 5.4% KFS General Fund Budgeted Expenditure Comparison 201 9 Per Capita City Spending 2018 Chanhassen 440 Chaska 625 Cottage Grove 554 Elk River 654 Inver Grove Heights 710 Lino Lakes 458 Prior Lake 492 Rosemount 566 Savage 487 Shakopee 649 Stillwater 758 Average 581 KFS General Fund Per Capita Spending Comparison 201 9 City 2019 Tax Rate** Chanhassen 21.066 Chaska 27.614 Victoria 31.439 Mayer 49.901 Carver 50.512 Waconia 52.710 Watertown 56.635 Cologne 62.260 Norwood Young America 70.287 New Germany 97.451 Hamburg 140.176 Average 60.005 ** Based on Urban Tax Rates Carver County Tax Rates –Preliminary Levies 201 9 Hennepin County Tax Rates -2018 201 9 City Tax Rate**City Tax Rate** Medina 21.521 Mound 44.923 Wayzata 21.749 St. Louis Park 46.383 Chanhassen 22.666 Crystal 49.168 Plymouth 26.344 Robbinsdale 48.881 Minnetrista 25.742 Brooklyn Park 51.159 Edina 27.751 Rockford 52.999 Excelsior 27.133 Golden Valley 55.152 Shorewood 28.635 Richfield 57.730 Eden Prairie 32.348 New Hope 57.709 Minnetonka 35.710 Minneapolis 59.556 Maple Grove 36.709 Hopkins 66.293 Rogers 36.810 Osseo 63.157 Bloomington 40.573 Brooklyn Center 67.067 Champlin 39.704 AVERAGE 42.355 ** Based on Urban Tax Rates Discussion Points 14 Staff recommends adopting a 2019 final levy at $11,019,868 and approves total general fund expenditures of $11,395,360. It also approves the CIP for 2019-2023 in the total amount of $104,527,245. DECEMBER 10, 2018 2019 General Fund Budget Expenditures Personal Materials Contractual Capital 2019 2018 2017 Services Supplies Services Outlay Total Total Change Actual General Government 1110 Legislative 46,700 81,600 128,300 126,500 1.42% 122,613 1120 Administration 504,800 59,500 564,300 535,100 5.46°/% 522,872 1130 Finance 329,000 200 42,300 371,500 358,700 3.57% 339,100 1140 Legal 200,000 200,000 190,500 4.99% 198,417 1150 Property Assessment 156,000 156,000 150,000 4.00% 146,422 1160 MIS 167,100 44,700 46,000 257,800 234,800 9.80% 223,613 1170 City Hall 93,500 40,300 262,000 395,800 413,800 4.35% 390,266 1180 Elections 26,000 4,000 18,000 48,000 42,600 12.68% 1190 Library Building 2,500 109,100 111,600 111,600 0.00% 109,165 1,167,100 91,700 974,500 2,233,300 2,163,600 3.22% 2,052,467Total Law Enforcement 1210 Police Administration 1,000 1,884,800 1,885,800 1,961,400 3.85°/% 1,804,236 1220 Fire Prevention & Admin 824,500 45,100 150,400 1,020,000 919,600 10.92% 895,087 1250 Code Enforcement 722,900 6,400 13,200 742,500 718,100 3.40% 736,784 1260 Community Service 53,700 1,700 5,800 61,200 66,400 7.83% 48,665 1,601,100 54,200 2,054,200 3,709,500 3,665,500 1.20% 3,484,772Total Public Works 1310 Engineering 642,200 800 26,900 669,900 681,300 1.67% 658,709 1320 Street Maintenance 866,400 113,300 35,400 1,015,100 996,900 1.83% 931,096 1350 Street Lighting & Signals 3,000 354,500 357,500 356,500 0.28% 359,197 1370 Fleet Department 319,400 172,000 61,800 5,500 558,700 552,100 1.20% 518,808 1,828,000 289,100 478,600 5,500 2,601,200 2,586,800 0.56% 2,467,810Total Community Development 1410 Planning Commission 200 1,500 1,700 1,700 0.00% 1,338 1420 Planning Administration 529,200 400 11,300 540,900 494,400 9.41% 496,230 1430 Senior Commission 29,200 11,000 40,200 38,300 4.96%1 43,254 558,400 600 23,800 582,800 534,400 9.06% 540,823Total Park & Recreation 1510 Park & Rec Commission 200 1,000 1,200 1,200 0.00% 175 1520 Park & Rec Administration 250,600 200 6,000 256,800 245,600 4.56% 233,149 1530 Recreation Center 233,200 17,700 95,900 346,800 346,200 0.17% 312,419 1540 Lake Ann Park Operations 12,000 9,200 47,600 68,800 70,500 2.41% 67,573 1550 Park Maintenance 821,100 80,800 100,800 1,002,700 1,030,300 2.68% 1,041,692 1560 Senior Citizens Center 84,700 4,300 32,700 121,700 114,100 6.66% 117,940 1600 Recreation Programs 250,860 22,200 120,500 393,560 352,100 11.78% 353,384 1700 Self -Supporting Programs 21,400 4,500 12,500 38,400 55,800 31.18% 50,614 1800 Recreation Sports 30,400 7,900 300 38,600 37,500 2.93% 35,258 1,704,260 147,000 417,300 2,268,560 2,253,300 0.68% 2,212,203Total Total Operational Expenditures 6,858,860 582,600 3,948,400 5,500 11,395,360 11,203,600 1.71% 10,758,075 Transfer for Roads Total General Fund 11,395,360 11,203,600 F 1.71%1 10,758,075 191,760DollarChangefromPreviousYear 2019 General Fund Budget Revenue 2016 2017 2018 2019 Inc Over 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget PY Budget Estimate General Property Tax 3010 Current Property Tax 8,000,093 8,475,905 8,704,333 8,810,333 3002 Allowance for Delinquent Taxes 39,158) 75,108) 40,000) 70,000) 3011 Delinquent Property Tax 34,408 7,050 45,000 15,000 3090 Excess TIF Taxes 33,069 86,633 Total General Property Tax 8,028,411 8,494,480 8,709,333 8,755,333 Licenses 114,368 128,394 116,000 116,500 0.4% 121,500 3203 Dog Kennel 500 250 500 500 3206 Massage License 600 150 800 500 3213 Solicitor 3226 Liquor On and Off Sale 92,221 92,018 93,000 93,000 3284 Rubbish 2,400 3,000 3,500 3,500 Total Licenses 95,721 95,418 97,800 97,500 Permits 406,222 415,632 409,000 400,000 2.2% 412,000 3301 Building 524,996 518,620 500,000 520,000 3302 Plan Check 252,621 253,777 235,000 255,000 3305 Heating &A/C 114,854 172,701 82,800 119,300 3306 Plumbing 92,927 97,615 65,000 90,000 3307 Trenching 40,641 55,066 30,000 30,000 3308 Hunting/Shooting 940 840 1,400 1,400 3309 Sprinkler 8,335 11,074 11,000 11,000 3311 Sign 8,590 4,015 6,500 5,000 3316 Septic Tank 1,560 3320 Stable 200 200 300 300 3331 Firework's Application Fee 200 200 3390 Misc. Permits 3,410 5,525 3,000 3,000 Total Permits 1,049,275 1,119,633 935,000 1,035,000 1.2% 0.5% 500 500 93,000 3,500 0.3% 97,500 520,000 255,000 119,300 90,000 30,000 1,400 11,000 5,000 300 3,000 10.7% 1,035,000 Fines & Penalties 3401 Traffic & Ordinance Violation 113,232 126,636 115,000 115,000 120,000 3402 Vehicle Lockouts 692 950 1,000 1,000 1,000 3404 Dog/Cat Impound 427 808 500 500 3405 Other Fines and Penalties 16 Total Fines & Penalties 114,368 128,394 116,000 116,500 0.4% 121,500 Intergovernmental Revenue 3503 Reimbursement from School Dist. 47,056 49,407 47,000 45,000 50,000 3509 Other Shared Taxes 196,298 196,021 200,000 195,000 200,000 3510 Grants -State 162,175 163,912 162,000 160,000 162,000 3530 Grants -Federal 3533 Grants -Other 692 6,291 Total Intergovernmental Revenue 406,222 415,632 409,000 400,000 2.2% 412,000 2019 General Fund Budget Revenue Account Description 2016 Actual 2017 Actual 2018 Budget 2019 Inc Over Budget PY Budget 2020 Estimate Charges for Current Services Interest Earnings 27,080 36,120 30,000 30,000 3601 Sale of Documents 863 950 500 800 800 3602 Use & Variance Permits 13,309 21,533 20,000 20,000 20,000 3603 Rezoning Fees 2,700 1,750 2,000 2,000 2,000 3604 Assessment Searches 15 300 3605 Plat Recording Fees 1,650 2,290 4,000 3,000 4,000 3607 Election Filing Fees 3613 Misc.-General Government 2,892 5,616 5,000 5,000 5,000 3614 Admin. Charge -2% Constr. 56,079 52,225 55,000 50,000 55,000 3617 Engineering General 125 3619 Investment Management Fee 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 3629 Misc.-Public Safety 9,465 9,971 10,000 10,000 10,000 3630 Recreation Program Fees 52,417 59,520 52,000 52,000 56,000 3631 Recreation Center 218,732 217,077 218,000 218,000 218,000 3633 Park Equipment Rental 57 93 300 100 100 3634 Park Facility Usage Fee 19,395 19,022 19,000 19,000 19,000 3635 Watercraft Rental 16,169 18,020 16,000 18,000 18,000 3636 Self -Supporting Programs 42,001 45,276 42,000 42,000 42,000 3637 Senior Programs 45,854 47,025 45,000 45,000 47,000 3638 Food Concessions 11,470 10,862 12,000 11,000 11,000 3639 Misc.-Park & Rec. 905 1,347 1,200 1,200 1,200 3642 Recreation Sports 44,556 44,384 46,000 44,000 45,000 3649 Misc.-Public Works 4,646 3,651 2,000 2,000 3,500 3651 Merchandise Sales 3,702 2,950 2,400 2,800 2,800 Total Charges for Current Services 622,000 638,562 627,700 620,900 -1.1% 635,400 Other Revenue 3801 Interest Earnings 27,080 36,120 30,000 30,000 45,000 3802 Equipment Rental & Sale 182,378 186,978 178,000 250,000 250,000 3803 Building Rental 6,692 5,798 6,500 5,800 6,000 3804 Land Sale 35,324 8,100 3807 Donations 24,275 28,609 25,267 24,127 25,000 3808 Insurance Reimbursements 18,709 3816 SAC Retainer 3,404 4,386 4,000 4,000 4,000 3818 Sur -Tax Retainer 662 740 1,000 700 1,000 3820 Misc. Other Revenue 418 766 300 500 500 3903 Refunds/Reimbursements 60,805 55,635 63,700 55,000 60,000 3980 Cash Short/Over 0 1 Total Other Revenue 341,039 345,843 308,767 370,127 19.9% 391,500 Total General Fund Revenue 10,657,035 11,237,962 11,203,600 11,395,360 1.7% 2,692,900 Total General Fund Expenditures Net Levy Remaining (Use of Gen Fund Reserves) 11,395,360 2019 General Fund Budget Legislative (1110) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4300 Fees, Services 4340 Printing & Publishing 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 4370 Travel & Training 4375 Promotional Expenses Total Contractual Services Total Legislative SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2,096 2020 1,000 28,800 42,000 42,000 43,600 3.8% 43,600 1,915 2,804 2,800 3,000 7.1% 3,000 106 90 100 100 0.0% 100 30,821 44,894 44,900 46,700 4.0% 46,700 2,096 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 28,251 29,911 32,000 32,000 0.0% 32,000 41,682 41,560 42,000 42,000 0.0% 42,000 6,500 5,650 6,000 6,000 0.0% 6,000 1,679 599 600 600 0.0% 600 80,208 77,719 81,600 81,600 0.0% 81,600 111,030 122,613 126,500 128,300 1.4% 128,300 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Adminstration (1120) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 4011 Overtime -Reg 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4040 Contributions -Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4300 Fees, Services 4310 Telephone 4320 Utilities 4330 Postage 4340 Printing & Publishing 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 4370 Travel & Training 4380 Mileage 4410 Rental -Equipment 4807 Property Tax Expense Total Contractual Services Total Administration SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 374,858 2,503 231 48,549 58,697 2,995 360,011 209 51,126 59,127 3,045 362,000 300 54,700 58,000 3,500 377,300 300 55,500 68,000 3,700 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 17.2% 5.7% 388,600 300 58,800 76,200 3,900 487,832 473,517 478,500 504,800 5.5% 527,800 21,755 4,634 15,000 15,000 0.0% 15,000 4,934 5,677 5,000 5,800 16.0% 5,800 89 200 200 0.0% 200 21,641 22,968 21,000 23,000 9.5% 23,000 220 300 300 0.0% 300 4,221 4,633 4,500 4,600 2.2% 4,600 6,834 9,503 8,600 8,600 0.0% 8,600 837 1,079 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 755 860 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 4 0.0% 61,291 49,355 56,600 59,500 5.1% 59,500 549,123 522,872 535,100 564,300 5.5% 587,300 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Finance (1130) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 4011 Overtime -Reg 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4040 Contributions -Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4120 Supplies -Equipment 4210 Books & Periodicals Total Materials & Supplies 4300 Fees, Services 4301 Fees, Financial/Audit 4310 Telephone and Communications 4340 Printing & Publishing 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 4370 Travel & Training Total Contractual Services Total Finance SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 100 218,028 226,932 224,600 239,500 6.6% 246,700 156 0.0% 32,253 33,129 34,100 36,300 6.5% 37,400 29,734 38,281 48,000 50,900 6.0% 57,000 1,643 1,937 2,200 2,300 4.5% 2,500 281,814 300,279 308,900 329,000 6.5% 343,600 100 100 0.0% 100 100 100 0.0% 100 200 200 0.0% 200 13,955 14,087 17,000 16,000 5.9%) 16,000 21,599 19,147 26,000 20,000 23.1%) 21,000 972 997 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 241 200 600 300 50.0%) 300 465 465 500 500 0.0% 500 4,037 3,926 4,500 4,500 0.0% 4,500 41,269 38,821 49,600 42,300 14.7%) 43,300 323,083 339,100 358,700 371,500 3.6% 387,100 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Legal (1140) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4302 Fees, Legal Total Contractual Services Total Legal SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 187,471 198,417 190,500 200,000 187,471 198,417 190,500 200,000 187,471 198,417 190,500 200,000 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 5.0% 210,000 5.0% 210,000 5.0% 210,000 2019 General Fund Budget Property Assessment (1150) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4300 Fees, Services Total Contractual Services Total Property Assessment SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 146,371 146,422 150,000 156,000 146,371 146,422 150,000 156,000 146,371 146,422 150,000 156,000 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 4.0% 161,000 4.0% 161,000 4.0% 161,000 2019 General Fund Budget Management Information Systems (MIS) (1160) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 125,068 112,230 116,300 123,800 6.4% 127,500 4030 Contributions -Retirement 18,102 16,505 17,700 18,800 6.2% 19,300 4040 Contributions -Insurance 17,384 19,697 22,800 23,300 2.2% 26,200 4050 Workers Compensation 921 957 1,100 1,200 9.1% 1,400 Total Personal Services 161,475 149,389 157,900 167,100 5.8% 174,400 4150 Maintenance Materials 1,264 1,062 1,300 1,300 0.0% 1,300 4210 Books & Periodicals 40 55 300 100 66.7%) 100 4220 Software Licensing & Support 20,277 27,670 28,100 43,000 53.0% 45,000 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 262 274 300 300 0.0% 300 Total Materials & Supplies 21,843 29,061 30,000 44,700 49.0% 46,700 4300 Fees, Services 32,485 21,368 21,300 22,000 3.3% 23,000 4310 Telephone and Communications 1,899 1,980 3,300 2,000 39.4%) 2,200 4320 Utilities 11,545 11,070 11,300 11,000 2.7%) 11,000 4370 Travel & Training 5,420 5,755 6,000 6,000 0.0% 6,000 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 3,428 4,990 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 Total Contractual Services 54,777 45,163 46,900 46,000 1.9%) 47,200 Total MIS 238,095 223,613 234,800 257,800 9.8% 268,300 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget City Hall (1170) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget %Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 57,088 58,399 59,000 60,000 1.7% 61,800 4011 Overtime -Reg 1,702 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 4030 Contributions -Retirement 8,779 8,301 9,000 9,000 0.0% 9,400 4040 Contributions -Insurance 8,977 14,691 18,300 19,300 5.5% 21,700 4050 Workers Compensation 3,249 3,479 3,900 4,200 7.7% 5,000 Total Personal Services 79,795 84,870 91,200 93,500 2.5% 98,900 4110 Supplies -Office 33,017 32,629 36,000 34,000 5.6%) 34,000 4120 Supplies -Equipment 629 176 900 900 0.0% 900 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 699 411 300 500 66.7% 500 4150 Maintenance Materials 5,554 4,250 4,000 4,500 12.5% 4,500 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 7 144 400 400 0.0% 400 Total Materials & Supplies 39,907 37,611 41,600 40,300 3.1%) 40,300 4300 Fees, Services 11,495 11,166 6,500 11,000 69.2% 11,000 4310 Telephone 10,413 10,357 11,000 11,000 0.0% 11,000 4320 Utilities 41,055 37,768 42,000 39,000 7.1%) 39,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 29,847 29,201 30,000 30,000 0.0% 30,000 4370 Travel & Training 200 200 0.0% 200 4410 Rental -Equipment 12,236 14,442 14,500 14,500 0.0% 14,500 4440 License & Registration 16 100 100 0.0% 100 4483 Insurance -General Liability 141,936 141,675 163,000 150,000 8.0%) 150,000 4510 Repair & Maintenance -Building 3,548 12,932 9,500 1,000 89.5%) 1,000 4520 Repair & Maintenance -Vehicles 132 200 200 0.0% 200 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 4,951 10,245 4,000 5,000 25.0% 5,000 Total Contractual Services 255,630 267,785 281,000 262,000 6.8%) 262,000 Total City Hall SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 375,331 390,266 413,800 395,800 (4.3%) 401,200 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Elections (1180) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4110 Supplies -Office 4120 Supplies -Equipment Total Materials & Supplies 4300 Fees, Services 4340 Printing & Publishing 4370 Travel& Training Total Contractual Services Total Elections SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2,500 2020 0.0% 29,581 24,000 26,000 8.3% 26,000 500 100.0%) 100 100.0%) 29,581 24,600 26,000 5.7% 26,000 691 1,500 1,500 0.0% 1,500 40 2,500 2,500 0.0% 2,500 732 4,000 4,000 0.0% 4,000 8,052 8,000 12,000 50.0% 12,000 208 2,500 1,000 60.0%) 1,000 6,299 3,500 5,000 42.9% 5,000 14,560 14,000 18,000 28.6% 18,000 44,873 42,600 48,000 12.7% 48,000 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Library Building (1190) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4150 Maintenance Materials 2,105 2,333 2,500 2,500 0.0% 2,500 Total Materials & Supplies 2,105 2,333 2,500 2,500 0.0% 2,500 4300 Fees, Services 7,216 3,258 2,000 3,000 50.0% 3,000 4310 Telephone 1,526 1,526 1,600 1,600 0.0% 1,600 4320 Utilities 61,902 56,908 63,000 63,000 0.0% 63,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 28,723 29,304 34,000 30,500 10.3%) 30,500 4510 Repair & Maintenance -Building 7,050 10,274 5,000 6,500 30.0% 6,500 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 3,432 5,562 3,500 4,500 28.6% 4,500 Total Contractual Services 109,850 106,832 109,100 109,100 0.0% 109,100 Total Library Building SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 111,954 109,165 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 111,600 111,600 0.0% 111,600 2019 General Fund Budget Police Administration (1210) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4040 Contributions -Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4130 Program Supplies Total Materials & Supplies 4300 Fees, Services 4370 Travel & Training 4375 Promotional Expense Total Contractual Services Total Police Administration SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 73,900 2020 100.0%) 23,910 5,209 47,400 100.0%) 2,710 766 7,200 100.0%) 3,806 1,442 18,900 100.0%) 171 45 400 100.0%) 30,597 7,463 73,900 100.0%) 475 313 2,500 1,000 60.0%) 1,000 475 313 2,500 1,000 60.0%) 1,000 1,683,764 1,795,040 1,882,700 1,882,700 0.0% 1,967,500 173 15 300 100 66.7%) 100 1,838 1,405 2,000 2,000 0.0% 2,000 1,685,775 1,796,460 1,885,000 1,884,800 0.0%) 1,969,600 1,716,848 1,804,236 1,961,400 1,885,800 3.9%) 1,970,600 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Fire Prevention and Administration (1220) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 191,863 217,749 195,400 217,000 11.1% 223,600 4011 Overtime -Reg 292 1,000 3,000 200.0% 3,000 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 124,317 153,469 167,500 200,000 19.4% 210,000 4022 Training Wages 41,344 0.0% 4030 Contributions -Retirement 187,866 222,858 220,000 230,000 4.5% 240,000 4031 Fire Relief Required Contribution 34,521 20,000 40,000 100.0% 40,000 4040 Contributions -Insurance 24,098 25,335 22,200 23,500 5.9% 26,200 4050 Workers Compensation 51,330 71,572 58,000 75,000 29.3% 78,000 4060 Unemployment 162 439 0.0% 4070 Contracted Wages 31,696 34,048 35,000 36,000 2.9% 37,000 Total Personal Services 687,196 725,763 719,100 824,500 14.7% 857,800 4120 Supplies -Equipment 5,859 6,994 7,000 7,000 0.0% 7,000 4130 Supplies -Program 477 3,073 2,000 2,200 10.0% 2,200 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 9,485 6,943 9,000 9,000 0.0% 9,000 4150 Maintenance Materials 403 1 500 400 20.0%) 400 4210 Books & Periodicals 600 500 16.7%) 500 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 11,992 9,044 11,000 11,000 0.0% 11,000 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 1,770 4,924 8,000 8,000 0.0% 8,000 4290 Misc. Materials & Supplies 4,541 3,642 7,000 7,000 0.0% 7,000 Total Materials & Supplies 34,526 34,620 45,100 45,100 0.0% 45,100 4300 Fees, Services 24,444 29,088 32,000 32,000 0.0% 32,000 4310 Telephone 8,426 8,541 7,200 8,000 11.1% 8,000 4320 Utilities 16,542 15,464 22,000 16,000 27.3%) 16,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 4,914 4,469 5,000 5,100 2.0% 5,100 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 1,648 1,327 2,500 2,000 20.0%) 2,000 4370 Travel & Training 21,084 40,072 41,500 41,500 0.0% 41,500 4375 Promotional Expense 6,506 6,922 10,000 10,000 0.0% 10,000 4483 Insurance -General Liability 685 734 1,200 800 33.3%) 1,000 4510 Repair & Maintenance -Building 7,874 5,775 5,500 5,500 0.0% 5,500 4520 Repair & Maintenance -Vehicles 1,100 1,909 7,000 7,000 0.0% 7,000 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 19,968 20,338 19,500 20,500 5.1% 20,500 4531 Repair & Maintenance -Radios 297 63 2,000 2,000 0.0% 2,000 Total Contractual Services 113,488 134,704 155,400 150,400 3.2%) 150,600 Total Fire Prevention and Admin 835,210 895,087 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 919,600 1,020,000 10.9% 1,053,500 2019 General Fund Budget Code Enforcement (1250) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 508,082 537,534 504,000 504,000 0.0% 520,000 4011 Overtime -Reg 289 82 0.0% 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 16,307 14,490 20,000 18,000 10.0%) 18,000 4030 Contributions -Retirement 74,422 75,207 78,000 76,400 2.1%) 78,700 4040 Contributions -Insurance 84,469 96,731 92,000 120,300 30.8% 135,000 4050 Workers Compensation 4,059 3,575 4,500 4,200 6.7%) 4,800 Total Personal Services 687,628 727,619 698,500 722,900 3.5% 756,500 4120 Supplies -Equipment 186 100 100 0.0% 100 4130 Supplies -Program 409 877 900 900 0.0% 900 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 2,722 279 2,700 2,000 25.9%) 2,000 4210 Books & Periodicals 1,129 77 1,500 1,500 0.0% 1,500 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 1,197 956 1,000 1,500 50.0% 1,500 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 99 344 400 400 0.0% 400 Total Materials & Supplies 5,742 2,534 6,600 6,400 3.0%) 6,400 4310 Telephone 2,827 2,535 4,500 4,500 0.0% 4,500 4340 Printing & Publishing 1,500 1,000 33.3%) 1,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 724 761 800 1,000 25.0% 1,000 4370 Travel & Training 4,541 3,336 4,500 5,000 11.1% 5,000 4440 License & Registration 530 500 500 0.0% 500 4520 Repair & Maintenance -Vehicles 207 300 300 0.0% 300 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 92 900 900 0.0% 900 Total Contractual Services 8,922 6,632 13,000 13,200 1.5% 13,200 Total Code Enforcement 702,293 736,784 718,100 742,500 3.4% 776,100 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Community Service (1260) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 43,007 35,473 49,500 45,500 8.1%) 48,000 4021 Overtime -Temp 203 289 200 300 50.0% 300 4030 Contributions -Retirement 6,623 4,576 7,000 6,000 14.3%) 6,500 4040 Contributions -Insurance 541 321 700 600 14.3%) 600 4050 Workers Compensation 1,121 1,115 1,300 1,300 0.0% 1,500 4060 Unemployment 527 0.0% Total Personal Services 51,495 42,302 58,700 53,700 8.5%) 56,900 4120 Supplies -Equipment 193 175 300 300 0.0% 300 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 1,604 17 700 700 0.0% 700 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 801 700 700 0.0% 700 Total Materials & Supplies 1,797 993 1,700 1,700 0.0% 1,700 4300 Fees, Services 2,677 4,126 2,800 3,200 14.3% 3,400 4310 Telephone 1,615 1,229 1,700 1,600 5.9%) 1,600 4340 Printing & Publishing 697 16 600 100 83.3%) 100 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 200 200 0.0% 200 4370 Travel & Training 200 200 0.0% 200 4520 Repair & Maintenance -Vehicles 73 200 200 0.0% 200 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 100 100 0.0% 100 4531 Repair & Maintenance -Radios 200 200 0.0% 200 Total Contractual Services 5,062 5,370 6,000 5,800 3.3%) 6,000 Total Community Service 58,355 48,665 66,400 61,200 (7.8%) 64,600 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Engineering (1310) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 4011 Overtime -Reg 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 4021 Overtime -Temp 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4040 Contributions -Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4120 Supplies -Equipment 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 4210 Books & Periodicals Total Materials & Supplies 4300 Fees, Services 4310 Telephone 4340 Printing & Publishing 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 4370 Travel & Training 4380 Mileage 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip Total Contractual Services Total Engineering SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 479,255 464,860 462,300 473,000 2.3% 487,000 5,229 6,157 5,500 6,000 9.1% 6,000 5,790 13,897 13,000 14,000 7.7% 16,000 126 0.0% 72,025 68,941 70,000 71,700 2.4% 73,800 62,895 80,702 96,900 73,500 24.1%) 81,700 3,942 3,588 4,800 4,000 16.7%) 4,500 629,261 638,144 652,500 642,200 1.6%) 669,000 262 21 1,000 500 50.0%) 500 212 10 300 300 0.0% 300 369 0.0% 843 32 1,300 800 38.5%) 800 14,593 10,822 16,000 16,000 0.0% 16,000 3,614 3,915 3,400 4,000 17.6% 4,000 140 292 500 300 40.0%) 300 1,503 1,383 1,500 1,500 0.0% 1,500 4,444 3,971 4,500 4,500 0.0% 4,500 95 149 100 100 0.0% 100 1,500 500 66.7%) 500 24,389 20,533 27,500 26,900 2.2%) 26,900 654,493 658,709 681,300 669,900 1.7%) 696,700 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Street Maintenance (1320) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 465,380 489,181 531,400 543,100 2.2% 559,400 4011 Overtime -Reg 31,835 27,554 26,000 27,000 3.8% 30,000 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 18,525 24,366 28,000 28,000 0.0% 28,000 4021 Overtime -Temp 327 428 0.0% 4030 Contributions -Retirement 74,870 77,435 80,500 82,300 2.2% 84,800 4040 Contributions -Insurance 88,894 100,282 123,500 120,000 2.8%) 133,500 4050 Workers Compensation 45,866 59,215 64,000 66,000 3.1% 70,000 4060 Unemployment 4,911 3,328 0.0% Total Personal Services 730,608 781,789 853,400 866,400 1.5% 905,700 4120 Supplies -Equipment 32,557 43,237 45,000 45,000 0.0% 45,000 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 8,264 18,263 10,000 12,000 20.0% 12,000 4150 Maintenance Materials 46,265 33,014 50,000 48,000 4.0%) 48,000 4210 Books & Periodicals 100 100 0.0% 100 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 5,438 5,439 5,000 5,500 10.0% 5,500 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 2,733 2,758 2,500 2,700 8.0% 2,700 Total Materials & Supplies 95,257 102,710 112,600 113,300 0.6% 113,300 4300 Fees, Services 3,256 9,353 2,500 3,500 40.0% 3,500 4310 Telephone 4,120 5,128 5,200 5,200 0.0% 5,200 4340 Printing & Publishing 63 300 300 0.0% 300 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 969 2,051 1,000 2,000 100.0% 2,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 200 200 0.0% 200 4370 Travel & Training 1,377 1,589 1,600 1,600 0.0% 1,600 4410 Rental -Equipment 844 8,383 1,000 3,000 200.0% 3,000 4440 License & Registration 513 5 500 500 0.0% 500 4510 Repair & Maintenance -Building 450 100 100 0.0% 100 4520 Repair & Maintenance -Vehicles 756 200 1,000 800 20.0%) 800 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 500 650 1,500 700 53.3%) 700 4540 Repair & Maintenance -Streets 6,757 6,875 5,000 6,500 30.0% 6,500 4560 Repair & Maintenance -Signs 8,621 11,850 11,000 11,000 0.0% 12,000 Total Contractual Services 27,712 46,597 30,900 35,400 14.6% 36,400 Total Street Maintenance 853,577 931,096 996,900 1,015,100 1.8% 1,055,400 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Street Lighting and Signals (1350) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 lccount Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4120 Supplies -Equipment 2,785 4,679 2,000 3,000 50.0% 3,500 Total Materials & Supplies 2,785 4,679 2,000 3,000 50.0% 3,500 4300 Fees, Services 2,166 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 4310 Telephone 360 360 500 500 0.0% 500 4320 Utilities 326,178 320,328 329,000 323,000 1.8%) 323,000 4565 Repair & Maintenance-Light/Signal 30,239 31,664 24,000 30,000 25.0% 33,000 Total Contractual Services 356,778 354,518 354,500 354,500 0.0% 357,500 Total Street Lighting and Signals 359,562 359,197 356,500 357,500 0.3% 361,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Fleet Department (1370) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 198,243 206,685 210,800 217,100 3.0% 223,700 4011 Overtime -Reg 5,514 4,771 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 1,129 4,182 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 4030 Contributions -Retirement 29,259 30,569 32,000 33,000 3.1% 34,000 4040 Contributions -Insurance 36,597 40,026 47,200 48,300 2.3% 54,200 4050 Workers Compensation 8,927 9,266 11,400 11,000 3.5%) 13,000 Tolal Personal Services 279,669 295,498 311,400 319,400 2.6% 334,900 4120 Supplies -Equipment 1,638 1,610 2,000 2,000 0.0% 2,000 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 82 48 600 200 66.7%) 200 4150 Maintenance Materials 1,147 113 600 600 0.0% 600 4170 Motor Fuels & Lubricants 110,112 144,222 170,000 165,000 2.9%) 165,000 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 1,003 1,055 1,200 1,200 0.0% 1,200 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 2,848 2,605 3,000 3,000 0.0% 3,000 Total Materials & Supplies 116,829 149,654 177,400 172,000 3.0%) 172,000 4300 Fees, Services 5,664 4,798 2,500 5,000 100.0% 5,000 4310 Telephone 2,456 2,432 3,000 2,500 16.7%) 2,500 4320 Utilities 31,170 32,540 32,000 32,000 0.0% 32,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 4,825 5,145 5,500 5,500 0.0% 5,500 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 37 40 200 200 0.0% 200 4370 Travel & Training 118 691 800 800 0.0% 800 4440 License & Registration 93 300 300 0.0% 300 4510 Repair & Maintenance -Building 9,007 12,451 10,000 12,000 20.0% 12,000 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 2,447 8,798 3,500 3,500 0.0% 3,500 4933 Sales Tax 141 0.0% Total Contractual Services 55,958 66,895 57,800 61,800 6.9% 61,800 4703 Office Equipment 4705 Other Equipment Total Capital Outlay Total Fleet Department SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 500 500 0.0% 500 4,743 6,761 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 4,743 6,761 5,500 5,500 0.0% 5,500 457,199 518,808 552,100 558,700 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 1.2% 574,200 2019 General Fund Budget Planning Commission (1410) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4210 Books & Periodicals Total Materials & Supplies - - 4340 Printing & Publishing 1,149 1,090 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships - - 4370 Travel & Training 11 249 Total Contractual Services 1,160 1,338 Total Planning Commission 1,160 1,338 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 200 200 0.0% 200 200 200 0.0% 200 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 200 200 0.0% 200 300 300 0.0% 300 1,500 1,500 0.0% 1,500 1,700 1,700 0.0% 1,700 2019 General Fund Budget Planning Administration (1420) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 320,925 339,898 353,000 403,400 14.3% 415,500 4011 Overtime -Reg 1,348 0.0% 4030 Contributions -Retirement 45,870 48,624 53,500 61,000 14.0% 63,000 4040 Contributions -Insurance 56,502 62,321 73,000 61,000 16.4%) 68,200 4050 Workers Compensation 2,390 2,860 3,200 3,800 18.8% 4,200 Total Personal Services 427,035 453,704 482,700 529,200 9.6% 550,900 4120 Supplies -Equipment 97 62 300 300 0.0% 300 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 22 441 100 100 0.0% 100 Total Materials & Supplies 118 503 400 400 0.0% 400 4300 Fees, Services 2,270 37,392 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 408 909 800 800 0.0% 800 4370 Travel & Training 5,083 3,722 5,500 5,500 0.0% 5,500 Total Contractual Services 7,762 42,024 11,300 11,300 0.0% 11,300 Total Planning Administration 434,915 496,230 494,400 540,900 9.4% 562,600 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 20"20 2019 General Fund Budget Senior Commission (1430) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4040 Contributions -Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4300 Fees, Services 4370 Travel & Training 4375 Promotional Expense Total Contractual Services Total Senior Commission SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 0.0% 2020 26,403 20,907 21,852 22,100 22,600 2.3% 23,300 3,074 3,220 3,400 3,500 2.9% 3,500 2,267 2,481 2,900 2,900 0.0% 3,200 155 182 200 200 0.0% 200 26,403 27,735 28,600 29,200 2.1% 30,200 9,010 14,240 9,000 10,000 11.1% 14,000 295 200 200 0.0% 200 320 984 500 800 60.0% 800 9,329 15,519 9,700 11,000 13.4% 15,000 35,733 43,254 38,300 40,200 5.0% 45,200 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Park and Recreation Commission (1510) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4130 Supplies -Program 4210 Books & Periodicals Total Materials & Supplies 4340 Printing & Publishing 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 4370 Travel & Training Total Contractual Services Total Park and Rec Commission SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 1,000 2020 1,000 100 100 200 100 500 325 175 400 325 175 1,000 325 175 1,200 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 100 0.0% 100 100 0.0% 100 200 0.0% 200 100 0.0% 100 500 0.0% 500 400 0.0% 400 1,000 0.0% 1,000 1,200 0.0% 1,200 2019 General Fund Budget Park and Recreation Administration (1520) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4040 Contributions -Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4120 Supplies -Equipment 4130 Supplies -Program Total Materials & Supplies 4300 Fees, Services 4310 Telephone 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 4370 Travel & Training 4380 Mileage Total Contractual Services Total Park and Rec Admin. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 100 2020 0.0% 161,579 172,863 174,500 182,300 4.5% 187,700 23,446 25,112 26,400 27,600 4.5% 28,400 23,414 26,993 37,000 38,900 5.1% 43,700 1,195 1,452 1,600 1,800 12.5% 2,000 209,635 226,420 239,500 250,600 4.6% 261,800 16 100 100 0.0% 100 100 100 0.0% 100 16 200 200 0.0% 200 828 200 300 50.0% 300 721 617 900 700 22.2%) 700 2,903 3,448 2,900 3,100 6.9% 3,100 1,225 1,821 1,800 1,800 0.0% 1,800 100 100 0.0% 100 4,849 6,713 5,900 6,000 1.7% 6,000 214,483 233,149 245,600 256,800 4.6% 268,000 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Recreation Center (1530) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 61,765 64,313 66,400 68,100 2.6% 70,200 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 101,768 97,000 115,000 113,000 1.7%) 115,000 4030 Contributions -Retirement 24,105 24,008 28,500 30,000 5.3% 32,000 4040 Contributions -Insurance 8,995 9,848 11,300 11,600 2.7% 13,000 4050 Workers Compensation 6,869 9,909 8,200 10,500 28.0% 11,000 Total Personal Services 203,502 205,079 229,400 233,200 1.7% 241,200 4120 Supplies -Equipment 726 1,358 2,000 1,600 20.0%) 1,800 4130 Supplies -Program 14,846 13,066 20,000 15,000 25.0%) 16,000 4150 Maintenance Materials 237 450 500 500 0.0% 500 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 438 631 500 600 20.0% 600 Total Materials & Supplies 16,248 15,505 23,000 17,700 23.0%) 18,900 4300 Fees, Services 59,162 50,812 50,000 52,000 4.0% 54,000 4310 Telephone 617 917 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 4320 Utilities 33,875 35,409 37,000 37,000 0.0% 37,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 348 351 300 400 33.3% 400 4370 Travel & Training 275 15 400 400 0.0% 400 4375 Promotional Expense 654 700 800 800 0.0% 800 4510 Repair & Maintenance -Building 3,659 1,978 2,500 2,500 0.0% 2,500 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 1,532 1,653 1,800 1,800 0.0% 1,800 Total Contractual Services 100,123 91,834 93,800 95,900 2.2% 97,900 Total Recreation Center 319,873 312,419 346,200 346,800 0.2% 358,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Lake Ann Park Operations (1540) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 9,110 8,164 10,700 10,700 0.0% 11,500 4030 Contributions -Retirement 697 625 900 700 22.2%) 700 4050 Workers Compensation 289 500 600 600 0.0% 700 Total Personal Services 10,096 9,288 12,200 12,000 1.6%) 12,900 4130 Supplies -Program 8,433 10,477 9,000 9,000 0.0% 9,000 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 200 200 200 200 0.0% 200 Total Materials & Supplies 8,633 10,677 9,200 9,200 0.0% 9,200 4300 Fees, Services 32,349 35,341 34,500 35,000 1.4% 36,000 4310 Telephone 1,145 1,288 1,200 1,200 0.0% 1,200 4320 Utilities 12,947 10,765 13,000 11,000 15.4%) 11,000 4340 Printing & Publishing 428 214 400 400 0.0% 400 Total Contractual Services 46,868 47,607 49,100 47,600 3.1%) 48,600 Total Lake Ann Park Operations 65,597 67,573 70,500 68,800 (2.4%) 70,700 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Park Maintenance (1550) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 479,890 489,295 490,400 457,100 6.8%) 470,900 4011 Overtime -Reg 32,631 32,956 25,000 30,000 20.0% 32,000 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 114,904 112,282 121,000 118,000 2.5%) 120,000 4021 Overtime -Temp 5,211 3,829 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 4030 Contributions -Retirement 85,025 83,513 88,000 88,000 0.0% 94,000 4040 Contributions -Insurance 76,977 78,394 87,000 84,000 3.4%) 93,400 4050 Workers Compensation 26,127 36,995 32,000 39,000 21.9% 42,000 4060 Unemployment 864 0.0% Total Personal Services 821,630 837,263 848,400 821,100 3.2%) 857,300 4120 Supplies -Equipment 38,744 45,221 40,000 40,000 0.0% 40,000 4140 Supplies -Vehicles 2,852 11,122 3,000 5,000 66.7% 5,000 4150 Maintenance Materials 26,479 21,561 30,000 27,000 10.0%) 27,000 4151 Irrigation Materials 3,200 3,967 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 1,295 2,453 2,200 2,600 18.2% 2,600 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 2,822 2,032 600 1,200 100.0% 1,200 Total Materials & Supplies 75,393 86,356 80,800 80,800 0.0% 80,800 4300 Fees, Services 28,322 52,825 43,000 43,000 0.0% 43,000 4310 Telephone 4,512 5,813 5,100 5,900 15.7% 5,900 4320 Utilities 4,584 4,796 5,000 4,800 4.0%) 4,800 4340 Printing & Publishing 105 200 200 0.0% 200 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 3,474 3,591 4,000 3,700 7.5%) 3,700 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 10 400 400 0.0% 400 4370 Travel & Training 501 2,537 600 1,000 66.7% 1,000 4400 Rental -Land & Buildings 29,347 29,984 34,000 36,000 5.9% 36,000 4410 Rental -Equipment 250 1,274 700 700 0.0% 700 4440 License & Registration 429 44 300 300 0.0% 300 4510 Repair & Maintenance -Building 759 5,073 1,700 1,700 0.0% 1,700 4520 Repair & Maintenance -Vehicles 2,387 100 100 0.0% 100 4530 Repair & Maintenance -Equip 640 8,889 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 4560 Repair & Maintenance -Signs 2,093 754 5,000 2,000 60.0%) 2,000 Total Contractual Services 74,921 118,073 101,100 100,800 0.3%) 100,800 4705 Other Equipment 977 0.0% Total Capital Outlay 977 0.0% Total Park Maintenance 972,921 1,041,692 1,030,300 1,002,700 2.7%) 1,038,900 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 Rental -Land & Buildings 2020 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE Increase in portable restroom contract 2019 General Fund Budget Senior Citizens Center (1560) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4040 Contributions -Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4120 Supplies -Equipment 4130 Supplies -Program Total Materials & Supplies 4300 Fees, Services 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 4370 Travel & Training 4375 Promotional Expense 4380 Mileage Total Contractual Services Total Senior Citizens Center SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 0.0% 2020 2,483 44,535 64,425 66,000 56,200 14.8%) 57,900 6,720 9,772 10,000 8,600 14.0%) 8,800 295 3,536 3,500 19,300 451.4% 21,700 339 535 600 600 0.0% 600 51,889 78,268 80,100 84,700 5.7% 89,000 56 41 300 300 0.0% 300 2,483 4,431 4,000 4,000 0.0% 4,000 2,540 4,472 4,300 4,300 0.0% 4,300 30,856 34,713 29,000 32,000 10.3% 33,000 95 95 100 100 0.0% 100 107 110 100 100 0.0% 100 99 222 300 300 0.0% 300 60 100 100 0.0% 100 100 100 0.0% 100 31,157 35,200 29,700 32,700 10.1% 33,700 85,585 117,940 114,100 121,700 6.7% 127,000 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 General Fund Budget Recreation Programs (1600) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 98,490 103,215 105,300 121,860 15.7% 125,500 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 56,230 64,368 71,000 68,000 4.2%) 71,000 4021 Overtime -Temp 1,272 402 1,000 1,000 0.0% 1,000 4030 Contributions -Retirement 19,207 20,434 22,000 27,000 22.7% 26,000 4040 Contributions -Insurance 10,026 10,720 12,000 28,000 133.3% 31,300 4050 Workers Compensation 3,045 4,802 3,600 5,000 38.9% 5,400 Total Personal Services 188,269 203,942 214,900 250,860 16.7% 260,200 4120 Supplies -Equipment 4130 Supplies -Program 4240 Uniforms & Clothing Total Materials & Supplies 4300 Fees, Services 4310 Telephone 4320 Utilities 4340 Printing & Publishing 4370 Travel & Training 4380 Mileage 4400 Rental -Land & Buildings 4410 Rental -Equipment Total Contractual Services Total Recreation Programs SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 2,321 2,019 2,500 2,500 0.0% 2,500 15,524 22,063 17,000 18,000 5.9% 18,000 1,575 2,035 1,600 1,700 6.3% 1,700 19,420 26,117 21,100 22,200 5.2% 22,200 61,653 65,606 64,000 66,600 2,140 2,155 2,700 2,200 3,718 4,660 4,000 4,600 9,409 9,683 6,600 7,500 414 507 500 500 100 100 5,999 8,303 6,200 7,000 25,108 32,412 32,000 32,000 108,439 123,325 116,100 120,500 316,128 353,384 352,100 393,560 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 4.1% 66,600 18.5%) 2,200 15.0% 4,600 13.6% 8,000 0.0% 500 0.0% 100 12.9% 7,000 0.0% 32,000 3.8% 121,000 11.8% 403,400 2019 General Fund Budget Self -Supporting Programs (1700) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 24,624 25,806 26,300 13,600 48.3%) 14,000 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 1,950 1,950 2,400 2,200 8.3%) 2,200 4030 Contributions -Retirement 3,851 4,020 4,200 2,100 50.0%) 2,200 4040 Contributions -Insurance 2,472 2,645 3,000 3,100 3.3% 3,200 4050 Workers Compensation 267 337 400 400 0.0% 400 Total Personal Services 33,164 34,757 36,300 21,400 41.0%) 22,000 4130 Supplies -Program 4,142 4,283 4,500 4,500 0.0% 4,500 Total Materials & Supplies 4,142 4,283 4,500 4,500 0.0% 4,500 4300 Fees, Services 11,766 11,573 15,000 12,500 16.7%) 13,000 Total Contractual Services 11,766 11,573 15,000 12,500 16.7%) 13,000 Total Self -Supporting Programs 49,071 50,614 55,800 38,400 31.2%) 39,500 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 General Fund Budget Recreation Sports (1800) 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate 4020 Salaries & Wages -Temp 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4120 Supplies -Equipment 4130 Supplies -Program 4240 Uniforms & Clothing Total Materials & Supplies 4375 Promotional Expenses Total Contractual Services Total Recreation Sports SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 21,370 23,393 25,500 26,000 2.0% 26,500 2,302 2,438 2,700 2,800 3.7% 2,800 899 1,481 1,100 1,600 45.5% 1,700 24,571 27,311 29,300 30,400 3.8% 31,000 82 0.0% 3,309 2,438 2,500 2,500 0.0% 2,500 4,852 5,427 5,400 5,400 0.0% 5,400 8,161 7,947 7,900 7,900 0.0% 7,900 300 300 0.0% 300 300 0.0% 32,732 35,258 37,500 38,600 2.9% 38,900 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE City COLA only adjustment Chaska 3.00% Cottage Grove 3.00% Elk River 3.00% Inver Grove Heights 2.50% Lino Lakes 2.75% Prior Lake 3.00% Rosemount 2.75% Savage 3.00% Shakopee 3.00% Stillwater 3.00% AVERAGE 2.90% All of our KFS cities but one have COLA and step increases KFS 2019 Budgeted Wage Adjustments KFS CitiesAsst City ManagerOffice ManagerFire ChiefFinance DirectorPW Dir/City EngComm Dvlp DirMIS CoordinatorPark & Rec DirChaska90,185$ 67,343$ 106,038$ N/A102,663$ 119,208$ 104,532$ 97,864$ Cottage Grove98,936 N/A117,009 136,746 126,693 126,693 98,936 117,009 Elk River N/A 84,431 113,508 114,035 120,200 120,200 96,131 110,953 Inver Grove Heights N/A 90,336 131,856 131,856 131,856 131,856 108,036 131,856 Lino Lakes95,866 78,739 127,763 119,983 118,627 115,631 N/AN/APrior Lake112,512 N/A109,008 134,949 134,949 105,576 N/AN/ARosemount110,912 N/AN/A119,966 124,240 120,726 81,189 113,488 Savage64,228 N/A115,877 111,966 111,966 106,621 83,034 108,139 Shakopee125,116 81,254 127,644 139,020 139,020 129,751 117,601 127,644 StillwaterN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AAverage99,679$ 80,421$ 118,588$ 126,065$ 123,357$ 119,585$ 98,494$ 115,279$ Competitor CitiesAsst City ManagerOffice ManagerFire ChiefFinance DirectorPW Dir/City EngComm Dvlp DirMIS CoordinatorPark & Rec DirEdina149,781$ 75,804$ 149,781$ 141,972$ 141,972$ 134,572$ 127,556$ 141,972$ St. Louis Park N/A N/A 146,393 133,408 148,147 129,780 146,393 155,517 Minnetonka134,244 91,680 135,996 133,380 145,392 135,084 N/A 124,572 Eden Prairie N/A 60,808 136,556 128,588 148,700 140,895 110,448 143,177 Bloomington147,000 80,225 161,980 127,393 176,475 140,000 140,045 133,800 Plymouth137,664 101,976 129,084 N/A 152,136 151,248 121,380 151,248 Maple Grove N/A N/A 133,746 128,918 146,640 133,746 118,612 128,274 Lakeville122,979 N/A129,515 147,125 134,000 127,515 121,603 127,515 Average138,334$ 82,099$ 140,381$ 134,398$ 149,183$ 136,605$ 126,577$ 138,259$ Chanhassen 2018 Budget87,610$ 75,712$ 129,189$ 123,885$ 131,622$ 128,315$ 101,712$ 125,778$ % Different from KFS Avg-12.11%-5.86%8.94%-1.73%6.70%7.30%3.27%9.11%1.95%% Different from Comp Avg-36.67%-7.78%-7.97%-7.82%-11.77%-6.07%-19.64%-9.03%-13.34%Department Head Comparable Salaries 2019 Special Revenue Funds 201 10% Charitable Contribution 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate Revenue 4030 3801 Interest Earnings 3807 Donations 3903 Refunds/Reimbursements Total Other Revenue Total Revenue Expenditures 4030 Retirement Contributions Total Contractual Services 4370 Travel & Training Total Contractual Services 4705 Other Equipment Total Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Revenue Over/(Under) Expenditures SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 266 324 - - 36,527 41,603 38,000 38,000 104 - 36,792 42,031 38,000 38,000 36,792 42,031 38,000 38,000 0.0% 0.0% 38,000 0.0% - 0.0% 38,000 0.0% 38,000 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 3,383 3,500 100.0% 3,700 3,383 3,500 100.0% 3,700 16,670 46,082 46,000 48,000 4.3% 48,000 16,670 46,082 46,000 48,000 4.3% 48,000 5,900 4,516 0.0% 5,900 4,516 0.0% 22,570 53,981 46,000 51,500 12.0% 51,700 14,223 11,949) 8,000) 13,500) 13,700) DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 Special Revenue Funds 202 Cemetery 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate Revenue 3670 Internment Fee 450 750 900 700 22.2%) 700 Total General Property Tax 450 750 900 700 22.2%) 700 3801 Interest Earnings 167 279 100 200 100.0% 200 3804 Land Sale 25,400 3,400 3,000 3,000 0.0% 3,000 3807 Donations 349 0.0% Total Other Revenue 25,567 4,028 3,100 3,200 3.2% 3,200 Total Revenue 26,017 4,778 4,000 3,900 2.5%) 3,900 Expenditures 4300 Fees, Services 1,104 1,963 3,000 2,200 26.7%) 2,400 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 500 500 0.0% 500 Total Contractual Services 1,104 1,963 3,500 2,700 22.9%) 2,900 Total Expenditures 1,104 1,963 3,500 2,700 22.9%) 2,900 Revenue Over/(Under) Expenditures 24,912 2,815 500 1,200 1,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 2019 2020 2019 Special Revenue Funds 210 Cable TV 2018 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 2020 account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec) Estimate Revenue 3080 Franchise Fees 194,082 187,802 195,000 190,000 2.6%) 190,000 Total General Property Tax 194,082 187,802 195,000 190,000 2.6%) 190,000 3801 Interest Earnings 2,371 3,326 2,000 2,000 0.0% 2,000 3903 Refunds/Reimbursements 249 0.0% Total Other Revenue 2,620 3,326 2,000 2,000 0.0% 2,000 Total Revenue 196,702 191,129 197,000 192,000 2.5%) 192,000 Expenditures 4010 Salaries & Wages -Reg 4011 Overtime -Reg 4030 Contributions -Retirement 4040 Contributions -Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation Total Personal Services 4120 Supplies -Equipment Total Materials & Supplies 4300 Fees, Services 4340 Printing & Publishing 4370 Travel & Training 4483 Liability Insurance Total Contractual Services 4705 Other Equipment Total Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Revenue Over/(Under) Expenditures SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2019 2020 78,245 82,014 82,000 87,600 6.8% 90,200 464 0.0% 11,805 12,244 12,500 13,300 6.4% 13,700 11,244 12,314 13,500 14,500 7.4% 16,300 591 695 600 800 33.3% 900 102,350 107,267 108,600 116,200 7.0% 121,100 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 5,000 5,000 0.0% 5,000 62,665 29,595 30,000 30,000 0.0% 30,000 500 500 0.0% 500 600 300 300 0.0% 300 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 0.0% 1,500 64,765 31,095 32,300 32,300 0.0% 32,300 4,557 15,000 15,000 0.0% 15,000 4,557 15,000 15,000 0.0% 15,000 171,671 138,362 160,900 168,500 4.7% 173,400 25,031 52,767 36,100 23,500 18,600 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE City of Chanhassen, MN Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY Source 2019 2020 2021 AssessmenttRevolving Assess Fund Cable TV Fund Capital Replacement Equipment Fund Cash Reserves Developer Assessments MSA Other Agency Contribution Park Dedication Fund Park Replacement Fund Sewer Utility Fund State Funds Street Pavement Management Surface Water Utility Fund Tax Levy Water Utility Fund 2022 2023 Total 2,025, 000 300,000 4,875,000 2,200,000 9,400,000 40,000 25,000 25,000 42,000 25,000 157,000 1,177,000 765,000 756,900 860, 945 2,122,400 5,682,245 1,000,000 1,000, 000 8,850,000 8,850, 000 2,500, 000 1,900,000 1,100,000 3,000,000 100,000 8,600, 000 17,725,000 21,350, 000 465,000 7,310,000 46,850,000 225, 000 625,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 925,000 245,000 255,000 245, 000 250,000 255,000 1,250,000 519, 500 1,175,500 395,000 3,333, 500 535,000 5,958, 500 500,000 500, 000 290,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 1,330,000 986,000 590,000 570,000 375,000 660,000 3,181,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 465,000 2,824,500 1,975,500 315,000 1,698,500 3,565, 000 10,378,500 GRAND TOTAL 3u,lbu,uuu ZV,314,UVU V'1Z4'UVV w,VVi,a4o U,O4V, YVV IVY,OU,LYJ City of Chanhassen, MN Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Source Project # Priority 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Assessment/Revolving Assess Fund Capital Replacement Equipment Fund Tennis Court Refurbishment PK&T-072 n/ a 150,000 n/a 75,000 225,000 Annual Street Improvement Program ST -012 n/ a 1,850,000 300,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 6,550,000 Market Blvd Improvements ST -037 n/ a 158,500 Computer/Network Equipment Purchases/Upgrades 2,600,000 n/a 2,600,000 TH 5 Corridor Study (West of Hwy 41) ST -044 n/a 25,000 402, 000 Telecommunication Purchases/Upgrades EQ -014 25,000 Assessment/Revolving Assess Fund Total 2,000 2,025,000 300, 000 4,875,000 2,200,000 9,400,000 EQ -015 n/a 31,000 33,000 33,000 97,000 Dump/Plow Truck Replacements/Additions EQ -016 n/a 216,000 Cable TV Fund Audio/Visual Equipment EQ -026 n/ a 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Citizen Survey MB -023 n/a 15,000 Software Purchases EQ -048 17,000 32,000 Cable TV Fund Total 40,000 25,000 25,000 42,000 25,000 157, 000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund Fire Dept.: SCBA Equipment EQ -004 n/a 200,045 200, 045 PPE: Turnout/Helmets EQ -010 n/a 35,500 30,000 30,400 31,300 31,300 158,500 Computer/Network Equipment Purchases/Upgrades EQ -013 n/a 82,200 85,600 75,500 87,500 71,200 402, 000 Telecommunication Purchases/Upgrades EQ -014 n/a 2,600 2,000 3,200 1,200 50,000 59,000 Light Duty Trucks: Community Dev. EQ -015 n/a 31,000 33,000 33,000 97,000 Dump/Plow Truck Replacements/Additions EQ -016 n/a 216,000 230,000 237, 000 683,000 Light Duty Trucks: Public Works EQ -029 n/a 47,000 85,000 132,000 Software Purchases EQ -048 n/a 85,100 85,800 83,500 88,300 91,700 434, 400 Computerized Records Retention System EQ -049 n/a 22,000 21,900 3,000 5,000 7,000 58,900 Fire Vehicles EQ -054 n/a 650, 000 77,000 795,000 1,522,000 Aerial Photography for City GIS Datasets EQ -055 n/a 2,300 26,000 2,300 2,300 26,000 58,900 Storage Area Network (SAN) EQ -081 n/a 55,000 55,000 110,000 Office Furniture EQ -084 n/a 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 Light Duty Trucks - Parks EQ -100 n/ a 35,000 38,000 36,000 42,000 36,000 187,000 Mower Replacement - Park EQ -104 n/ a 70,000 98,000 168,000 Tractor Replacement - Park EQ -106 n/ a 18,000 113,000 131,000 Brush Chipper EQ -115 n/ a 112,000 112,000 Annual Skid Loader Trade In EQ -124 n/a 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 76,000 Copier Replacements EQ -127 n/a 18,500 9,000 9,000 9,500 46,000 Fleet Vehicles EQ -132 n/a 32,000 32,000 Miscellaneous Fire Equipment/Hose Replacement EQ -137 n/ a 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 80,000 Recreation Center Revitalization Project EQ -140 n/ a 25,000 25,000 Security /Access Control Systems EQ -152 n/ a 18,300 7,200 25,500 Zero Turn Mower Replacement - Parks EQ -154 n/ a 18,000 18,000 Tar Kettle EQ -157 n/a 43,000 43,000 Hot Box with Asphalt Premix Heater EQ -158 n/ a 44,300 44,300 Crack Sealer EQ -159 n/ a 47,000 47,000 Compact Excavator EQ -163 n/ a 37,000 37,000 Annual Zero Tum Mower Replacement - Park EQ -164 n/ a 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Source Project # Priority 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total City Hall Remodel MB-010 n/ a 150,000 150,000 Fire Department Building Improvements MB-026 n/ a 100,000 100,000 Senior Center Kitchen Update MB-031 n/a 15,000 15,000 City Hall Roof Replacement MB-033 n/ a 300,000 300,000 Recreation Center Wall Replacement MB-034 n/ a 69,700 69,700 Lake Ann Lake Side Pavilion Roof Replacement PK&T-132 n/ a 30,000 30,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 1,177,000 765,000 756,900 860,945 2,122,400 5,682,245 Total Cash Reserves - Lyman Blvd Improvements-Galpin Blvd to TH 41 ST-038 n/ a 1,000,000 1,000,000 Cash Reserves Total 1,000,000 1,000,000 LDeveloper Assessments 2010 MUSA Sanitary Lift Station SS-020 n/a 950, 000 950, 000 Lower Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvements SS-024 n/a 7,900,000 7,900, 000 Developer Assessments Total 8,850,000 8,850,000 iMAA Annual Street Improvement Program ST-012 n/ a 700,000 1,900,000 500,000 3,100,000 Market Blvd Improvements ST-037 n/ a 600,000 600,000 Lyman Blvd Improvements-Galpin Blvd to TH 41 ST-038 n/ a 1,500,000 1,500,000 Enhanced Pedestrian Roadway Crossings ST-039 n/a 300,000 300,000 Galpin Blvd Improvements-Hwy 5 N to City limits ST-040 n/ a 3,000, 000 3,000,000 TH 41 Rehabilitation - Pioneer Trail to TH 5 ST-042 n/ a 100,000 100,000 MSA Total 2,500,000 1,900, 000 1,100,000 3,000,000 100,000 8,600, 000 Other Agency Contribution Vactor Street Sweeper EQ-118 n/a 30,000 30,000 TH 101 Imp-Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr(CSAH 61) ST-032 n/ a 7,500, 000 20,450,000 27,950,000 Lyman Blvd Improvements-Galpin Blvd to TH 41 ST-038 n/a 9,100,000 9,100,000 Enhanced Pedestrian Roadway Crossings ST-039 n/a 300,000 300, 000 Galpin Blvd Improvements-Hwy 5 N to City limits ST-040 n/a 7,000,000 7,000,000 Lower Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation SWMP-024 n/a 100,000 900, 000 1,000, 000 Lotus Lake Channels & Outfall Improvements SWMP-046 n/a 200,000 200, 000 Upper Riley Creek Channel Stabilization SWMP-048 n/a 15,000 60,000 75,000 Rice Marsh Lake Iron Enhanced Sand Filter SWMP-053 n/a 250,000 250, 000 Pioneer Trail Flood Mitigation SWMP-056 n/a 685,000 685,000 Downtown Water Reuse Project SWMP-057 n/a 250,000 250,000 Lake Virginia TMDL Load Reduction SWMP-058 n/a 10,000 10,000 Other Agency Contribution Total 17,725, 000 21,350,000 465,000 7,310,000 46,850,000 Park Dedication Fund Picnic Tables/Park Benches PK&T-042 n/a 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Trees PK&T-043 n/a 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 Chanhassen Nature Preserve Trail, Final Phase PK&T-099 n/a 200, 000 200,000 Arboretum Trail and Hwy 41 Underpass Cost Share PK&T-138 n/ a 600,000 600,000 Source Project # Priority 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Park Dedication Fund Total 225,000 625,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 925,000 JP_a Replacement Fund i Park Equipment Replacement PK&T-141 n/a 245,000 255,000 245,000 250,000 255,000 1,250,000 Park Replacement Fund Total 245,000 255,000 245, 000 250,000 255,000 1,250, 000 Sewer Utility Fund Light Duty Trucks: Utilities EQ -062 n/a 15,000 15,500 30,500 Annual Skid Loader Trade In EQ -124 n/a 9,500 9,500 Bobcat Trailer Replacement EQ -160 n/ a 3,500 3,500 Mailing Folder/Inserter EQ -161 n/ a 5,000 5,000 Inflow and Infiltration Abatement SS -012 n/ a 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Sanitary Sewer Replacement SS -014 n/ a 160,000 75,000 75,000 250, 000 560,000 Sanitary Lift Station Rehabilitation Program SS -017 n/ a 135,000 130,000 120,000 130,000 85,000 600,000 2010 MUSA Sanitary Lift Station SS -020 n/a 950, 000 950,000 Lower Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvements SS -024 n/ a 1,800,000 1,800, 000 TH101 Imp -Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr (CSAH 61) ST -032 n/ a 750,000 750,000 Galpin Blvd improvements -Hwy 5 N to City limits ST -040 nla 250,000 250,000 Sewer Utility Fund Total 519,500 1,175,500 395,000 3,333,500 535,000 5,958,500 State Funds TH101 Imp -Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr(CSAH 61) ST -032 n/ a 500,000 500,000 State Funds Total 500,000 500,000 Street Pavement Management Pavement Management ST -018 n/a 260,000 260,000 260,000 260, 000 260, 000 1,300,000 Downtown Signal Controller Replacement ST -043 n/ a 30,000 30,000 Street Pavement Management Total 290,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 1,330,000 Surface Water Utility Fund Vactor Street Sweeper EQ -118 n/ a 261,000 261,000 Mailing Folder/Inserter EQ -161 n/ a 5,000 5,000 Property Acquisition SWMP-014 n/ a 75,000 75,000 75,000 225, 000 Street Improvement Projects - Storm Water Mgmt SWMP-019 n/ a 360,000 250,000 250,000 100,000 350,000 1,310,000 Lower Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation SWMP-024 n/ a 75,000 50,000 125,000 Stormwater Pond Improvements SWMP-032 n/ a 80,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 720,000 Storm Water Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement SWMP-045 n/ a 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 275,000 Lotus Lake Channels & Outfall Improvements SWMP-046 n/ a 50,000 50,000 Upper Riley Creek Channel Stabilization SWMP-048 n/a 10,000 15,000 25,000 Rice Marsh Lake Iron Enhanced Sand Filter SWMP-053 n/ a 50,000 50,000 Pioneer Trail Flood Mitigation SWMP-056 n/ a 75,000 75,000 Downtown Water Reuse Project SWMP-057 n/ a 50,000 50,000 Lake Virginia TMDL Load Reduction SWMP-058 n/ a 10,000 10,000 Surface Water Utility Fund Total 986,000 590,000 570,000 375,000 660,000 3,181,000 Tax Levy Source Project # Priority 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Pavement Management ST -018 n/a 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 465,000 Tax Levy Total Water Utility Fund Light Duty Trucks: Utilities EQ -062 Annual Skid Loader Trade In EQ -124 Bobcat Trailer Replacement EQ -160 Mailing Folder/Inserter EQ -161 Lower Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvements SS -024 TH101 Imp -Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr(CSAH 61) ST -032 Galpin Blvd Improvements -Hwy 5 N to City limits ST -040 Downtown Water Reuse Project SWMP-057 Watermain Replacement W-024 Well Rehabilitation Program W-032 Low Zone 1 million gallon Storage Tank W-046 MUSA Trunk Watermain Oversizing W-056 Repaint Watertower Place Tank W-061 Water Utility Fund Total 5,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 465,000 n/ a 15,000 15,500 30,500 n/ a 9,500 9,500 n/ a 3,500 3,500 n/ a 5,000 5,000 n/ a 1,100,000 1,100,000 n/ a 800,000 800,000 n/ a 500,000 500,000 nla 50,000 50,000 n/ a 600,000 1,100,000 200,000 900,000 2,800,000 n/a 50,000 55,000 65,000 95,000 65,000 330,000 n/a 2,600,000 2,600,000 n/a 150,000 150,000 n/a 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,824,500 1,975, 500 315,000 1,698,500 3,565,000 10,378, 500 GRAND TOTAL 30,150,000 29,314,000 9,124,900 26,097,945 9,840,400 104,527,245 City of Chanhassen, MN Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 DEPARTMENT SUMMARY Department 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Major Equipment 1,542,000 836,000 781,900 892, 945 1,482,700 5,535, 545 Municipal Buildings 15,000 17,000 634, 700 666,700 Park & Trail Improvements 620,000 880,000 345,000 275,000 310,000 2,430,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements 495,000 405,000 395,000 13,030,000 535,000 14,860,000 Street Improvements 23,158,000 24,553,000 6,253,000 11,103,000 2,653,000 67,720,000 Surface Water Management 1,520,000 1,485,000 1,085,000 685, 000 660,000 5,435, 000 Water System Improvements 2,800,000 1,155,000 265,000 95,000 3,565,000 7,880,000 TOTAL 30,150,000 29,314,000 9,124,900 26,097,945 9,840,400 104,527,245 City of Chanhassen, MN Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Department Project # Priority 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Major Equipment Fire Dept.: SCBA Equipment EQ -004 n/ a 781,900 892,945 1,482, 700 5,535,545 FA4unicipal Buildings -----i 200,045 200,045 PPE: Turnout/Helmets EQ -010 n/a 35,500 30,000 30,400 31,300 31,300 158,500 Computer/Network Equipment Purchases/Upgrades EQ -013 n/a 82,200 85,600 75,500 87,500 71,200 402,000 Telecommunication Purchases/Upgrades EQ -014 n/a 2,600 2,000 3,200 1,200 50,000 59,000 Light Duty Trucks: Community Dev. EQ -015 n/a 69,700 31,000 33,000 33,000 97,000 Dump/Plow Truck Replacements/Additions EQ -016 n/a 216,000 230, 000 237,000 683,000 Audio/Visual Equipment EQ -026 n/a 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Light Duty Trucks: Public Works EQ -029 n/a 47,000 85,000 132,000 Software Purchases EQ -048 n/a 85,100 85,800 83,500 88,300 91,700 434,400 Computerized Records Retention System EQ -049 n/a 22,000 21,900 3,000 5,000 7,000 58,900 Fire Vehicles EQ -054 n/ a 650,000 77,000 795,000 1,522, 000 Aerial Photography for City GIS Datasets EQ -055 n/ a 2,300 26,000 2,300 2,300 26,000 58,900 Light Duty Trucks: Utilities EQ -062 n/ a 30,000 31,000 61,000 Storage Area Network (SAN) EQ -081 n/a 55,000 55,000 110,000 Office Furniture EQ -084 n/ a 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 Light Duty Trucks - Parks EQ -100 n/a 35,000 38,000 36,000 42,000 36,000 187,000 Mower Replacement - Park EQ -104 n/a 70,000 98,000 168,000 Tractor Replacement - Park EQ -106 n/ a 18,000 113,000 131,000 Brush Chipper EQ -115 n/a 112,000 112,000 Vactor Street Sweeper EQ -118 n/a 291,000 291,000 Annual Skid Loader Trade In EQ -124 n/a 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 95,000 Copier Replacements EQ -127 n/a 18,500 9,000 9,000 9,500 46,000 Fleet Vehicles EQ -132 n/a 32,000 32,000 Miscellaneous Fire Equipment/Hose Replacement EQ -137 n/a 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 80,000 Recreation Center Revitalization Project EQ -140 n/a 25,000 25,000 Security I Access Control Systems EQ -152 n/a 18,300 7,200 25,500 Zero Turn Mower Replacement - Parks EQ -154 n/a 18,000 18,000 Tar Kettle EQ -157 n/ a 43,000 43,000 Hot Box with Asphalt Premix Heater EQ -158 n/a 44,300 44,300 Crack Sealer EQ -159 n/ a 47,000 47,000 Bobcat Trailer Replacement EQ -160 n/ a 7,000 7,000 Mailing Folder/Inserter EQ -161 n/a 15,000 15,000 Compact Excavator EQ -163 n/a 37,000 37,000 Annual Zero Tum Mower Replacement - Park EQ -164 n/a 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Major Equipment Total 1,542,000 836,000 781,900 892, 945 1,482,700 5,535,545 FA4unicipal Buildings -----i City Hall Remodel MB -010 n/a 150,000 150,000 Citizen Survey MB -023 n/a 15,000 17,000 32,000 Fire Department Building Improvements MB -026 n/a 100,000 100,000 Senior Center Kitchen Update MB -031 n/a 15,000 15,000 City Hall Roof Replacement MB -033 n/a 300, 000 300,000 Recreation Center Wall Replacement MB -034 n/a 69,700 69,700 Department Project # Priority 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Municipal Buildings Total 15,000 200, 000 200, 000 Fark & Trail Improvements Picnic Tables/Park Benches PK&T-042 Trees PK&T-043 Tennis Court Refurbishment PK&T-072 Chanhassen Nature Preserve Trail, Final Phase PK&T-099 Lake Ann Lake Side Pavilion Roof Replacement PK&T-132 Arboretum Trail and Hwy 41 Underpass Cost Share PK&T-138 Park Equipment Replacement PK&T-141 Park & Trail Improvements Total 75,000 n/a 150,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Inflow and Infiltration Abatement SS -012 Sanitary Sewer Replacement SS -014 Sanitary Lift Station Rehabilitation Program SS -017 2010 MUSA Sanitary Lift Station SS -020 Lower Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvements SS -024 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Total n/a 495,000 405, 000 Street Improvements Annual Street Improvement Program ST -012 Pavement Management ST -018 TH101 Imp -Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr (CSAH 61) ST -032 Market Blvd Improvements ST -037 Lyman Blvd Improvements-Galpin Blvd to TH 41 ST -038 Enhanced Pedestrian Roadway Crossings ST -039 Galpin Blvd Improvements -Hwy 5 N to City limits ST -040 TH 41 Rehabilitation - Pioneer Trail to TH 5 ST -042 Downtown Signal Controller Replacement ST -043 TH 5 Corridor Study (West of Hwy 41) ST -044 Street Improvements Total 275, 000 310, 000 2,430,000 Furface Water Management Property Acquisition SWMP-014 Street Improvement Projects - Storm Wafer Mgmt SWMP-019 Lower Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation SWMP-024 Stormwater Pond Improvements SWMP-032 Storm Water Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement SWMP-045 Lotus Lake Channels & Outfall Improvements SWMP-046 Upper Riley Creek Channel Stabilization SWMP-048 Rice Marsh Lake Iron Enhanced Sand Filter SWMP-053 Pioneer Trail Flood Mitigation SWMP-056 Downtown Water Reuse Project SWMP-057 Lake Virginia TMDL Load Reduction SWMP-058 Surface Water Management Total 250, 000 100,000 350, 000 Water System Improvements Watermain Replacement W-024 Well Rehabilitation Program W-032 n/ a 15,000 200,000 200, 000 17,000 634,700 666, 700 n/a 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 n/a 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 n/a 150,000 75,000 1,900, 000 225,000 n/a 200,000 10,800, 000 200,000 n/a 495,000 405, 000 395,000 13,030, 000 30,000 30,000 n/a 600,000 10,750, 000 600,000 n/a 245,000 255,000 245,000 250,000 255,000 1,250, 000 n/a 620, 000 880,000 345,000 275, 000 310,000 2,430,000 n/ a 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 n/a 160,000 75,000 75,000 353, 000 250,000 560,000 n/a 135,000 130,000 120,000 130,000 85,000 600,000 n/a 3,200, 000 1,900, 000 1,900,000 n/a 11,600, 000 10,800, 000 10,800,000 n/a 495,000 405,000 395,000 13,030, 000 535,000 14,860,000 n/a 2,550,000 2,200,000 2,700,000 2,200,000 9,650,000 n/a 353,000 353,000 353,000 353, 000 353,000 1,765,000 n/a 8,000,000 22,000, 000 30,000,000 n/a 3,200, 000 3,200, 000 n/a 11,600, 000 11,600,000 n/a 600, 000 600, 000 n/a 10,750, 000 10,750,000 n/ a 100,000 100,000 n/a 30,000 30,000 n/ a 25,000 25,000 23,158,000 24,553,000 6,253,000 11,103,000 2,653,000 67,720,000 n/a 75,000 75,000 75,000 225,000 n/a 360,000 250,000 250,000 100,000 350,000 1,310,000 n/a 175,000 950,000 1,125,000 n/ a 80,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 720,000 n/a 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 275,000 n/ a 250, 000 250,000 n/a 25,000 75,000 100,000 n/a 300, 000 300,000 n/a 760,000 760,000 n/a 350,000 350,000 n/a 20,000 20,000 1,520, 000 1,485,000 1,085,000 685,000 660,000 5,435,000 n/ a 600,000 1,100,000 200,000 900,000 2,800, 000 n/ a 50,000 55,000 65,000 95,000 65,000 330,000 Department Project # Priority 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Low Zone 1 million gallon Storage Tank W-046 n/a 2,600,000 2,600,000 MUSA Trunk Watermain Oversizing W-056 n/a 150,000 150,000 Repaint Watertower Place Tank W-061 n/a 2,000, 000 2,000, 000 Water System Improvements Total 2,800,000 1,155,000 265,000 95,000 3,565,000 7,880,000 GRAND TOTAL 30,150,000 29,314,000 9,124,900 26,097,945 9,840, 400 104,527,245 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -004 Project Name Fire Dept.: SCBA Equipment Account#1 400-4115- 4705 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact Don Johnson Type Equipment Useful Life 20 years Category Fire Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $349,145 s program is to provide additional and/or replacement SCBA air bottles, SCBA face masks, and upgrades to SCBA air packs as needed. Justification Firefighting is a very rigorous and demanding activity that is performed in an environment of extremes. The periodic replacement and/or additions to SCBA equipment is required to maintain current quantities through replacement of damaged or destroyed equipment and to equip new Prior Expenditures 149,100 Equipment Total Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 200,045 200,045 200,045 200,045 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 149,100 Capital Replacement 200,045 200,045 Total Equipment Fund Total 200,045 200,045 Budget Impact/Other Fhere should be no operational impact from this purchase. The current maintenance budget will accommodate for this addition. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -010 Project Name PPE: Turnout/Helmets Account#1 400-4105-4705 Account #2 Account #3 Account 44 Department Major Equipment Contact Don Johnson Type Equipment Useful Life 5-7 years Category Fire Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $428,150 This is for the purchase of PPE (turnout gear) to meet the NFPA 1851 standard, along with the replacement of turnout gear that has reached its average service life of 5 to 7 years. The department will also provide new members with turnout gear after they complete their probationary period. Justification Turnout gear lasts approximately 5-7 years on average. Purchases in 2019 were increased due to higher than anticipated hiring. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 269,650 Maintenance 35,500 30,000 30,400 31,300 31,300 158,500 Total Total 35,500 30,000 30,400 31,300 31,300 158, 500 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 269,650 Capital Replacement 35,500 30,000 30,400 31,300 31,300 158,500 Total Equipment Fund Total 35,500 309000 30,400 31,300 31,300 1589500 Budget Impact/Other There should be no operational impact from this purchase. The current maintenance budget will accommodate for this addition. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -013 Project Name Computer/Network Equipment Purchases/Upgrades Account #1 400-4126-4703 Account #2 Account#3 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Equipment Useful Life 3- 8 years Category Administration Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $1,384,150 Funds the purchase of replacement user and network computer, printer, peripherals, and networking hardware. The replacement schedule was adopted in 1999 and is subject to modification by the MIS Coordinator with the approval of the City Manager and department heads. Justification Budgeting and purchasing computer equipment through this project allows the City greater flexibility to direct equipment to where it is needed the most, rather than in individual budgets. The replacement schedule was developed by the MIS Coordinator in 1999 and approved by the 1999 Council appointed IT Task Force. Expenditures in the 2019 budget requests are for the replacement of 4 workstations, 15 desktop PC's, 5 laptop PC's and 12 tablets. Also included are the Engineering plotter and the Fountain Room projector. Most of the equipment being replaced will be recycled and re -issued to City staff. The oldest equipment in the inventory will be sold on the City public surplus auction site. Security related expenditures have been moved to the Security/Access Control Systems project. Prior 982,150 Total Prior 982,150 Total Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Office Equipment 82,200 85,600 75,500 87,500 71,200 402, 000 Total 82,200 85,600 75,500 87,500 71,200 402,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 82,200 85,600 75,500 87,500 71,200 402, 000 Equipment Fund Total 82,200 85,600 75,500 87,500 71,200 402,000 Budget Impact/Other Most items purchased for this account come with a I to 3 year warranty. Repairs to items are done by MIS staff after the warranty period expires. Spare parts or outside repairs are funded out of 101-1160-4530 (Repair & Maintenance -Equipment) or 101-1160-4300 (Consulting). Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -014 Project Name Telecommunication Purchases/Upgrades Account#1 400-4101-4703 Account #2 Account #3 Account#4 Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Equipment Useful Life 10 years Category Administration Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $160,550 This project funds the expansion and upgrades to the City telephone systems, excluding cellular equipment and service which remains an individual department budget item. The current City telephone system is a Mitel model 5000 and is located in the server room at City Hall. This system provides phone service for City Hall, the Library, Public Works, the Recreation Center, Fire Station 1 and the Water Treatment Plant. Justification I A central PBX system simplifies the management of phone services and allows for the integration of phone services with other City applications such as unified messaging and fax services. The PBX system was replaced with a Mitel 5000 in 2012. Additional IP and digital handsets will be ordered as replacements for existing Intertel digital phones at City Hall and the Fire Station. The conference phones for the small conference rooms, along with some headsets for existing phones are being replaced beginning in 2018. Prior 101,550 Total Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Office Equipment 2,600 2,000 3,200 1,200 50,000 59,000 Total 2,600 2,000 3,200 1,200 50,000 59,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 10-1-,5-5-oJ Capital Replacement 2,600 2,000 3,200 1,200 50,000 59,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 2,600 2,000 3,200 1,200 50,000 59,000 Budget Impact/Other Maintenance for the replacement telephone system will be funded out of the 1160-4300 services account. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -015 Project Name Light Duty Trucks: Community Dev. Account #1 400-4107-4704 Account #2 Account #3 Account#4 Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Vehicles Useful Life Unassigned Category Community Development Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $270, 000 These purchases are consistent with the Vehicle Replacement Schedule. Replacement units are generally purchased early in the year to accommodate the time frames established by Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Program. 0 - #607 2007 GMC Canyon 2 - #6112008 GMC Canyon 3 - #612 2008 GMC Canyon Justification These vehicles are used to provide building inspection services throughout the community. The average replacement age is over 13 years. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 173,000 Vehicles 31,000 33,000 33,000 97,000 Total Total 31,000 33,000 33,000 97,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 173,000 Capital Replacement 31,000 33,000 33,000 97,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 31,000 33,000 33,000 97,000 Budget Impact/Other These purchases will include a limited warranty and will reduce the annual maintenance and repair costs as compared to the vehicles replaced. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -016 Project Name Dump/Plow Truck Replacements/Additions Account #1 400-4108-4704 Account #2 Account#3 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Vehicles Useful Life Unassigned Category Street Equipment Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $2,052,800 These purchases are required to maintain a reliable truck fleet. Costs include truck chassis, dump box, hydraulic system, snow wing, snow plow and sander. These vehicles are purchased using either the Hennepin County or State of MN cooperative bid systems. Orders for truck chassis are typically required to be placed up to one year in advance of delivery. Replacement schedule is as follows: 2020 - # 124 1998 Ford L8513 Dump/Plow Truck -with plow, wing and sander 2022 - # 126 2000 Sterling L8513 Dump/Plow Truck -with plow, wing and sander 2023 - # 127 2001 Sterling L8513 Dump/Plow Truck -with plow, wing and sander Justification These vehicles are used to provide a variety of maintenance services throughout the community including winter response for plowing and hauling snow. The average replacement age is 18.5 years. Winter emergency service necessitates these vehicles be reliable and dependable. Growth in the community creates additional work for these trucks. These vehicle purchases are consistent with the Vehicle Replacement Schedule. Prior 1,369,800 Total Prior 1,369,800 Total Expenditures Vehicles 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 216,000 230,000 237, 000 683, 000 Total 216,000 230,000 237, 000 683,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 216,000 230,000 237, 000 683,000 Equipment Fund Total 216,000 230,000 237, 000 683,000 Budget Impact/Other Fhese purchases will include a limited warranty and will reduce the annual maintenance and repair costs as compared to the vehicles replaced. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -026 Project Name AudioNisual Equipment Account#1 210-0000-4705 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Description 3rovides for the systematic maintenance and upgrading of audio/visual equipment. Justification The original AN equipment was purchased in 1989, with the upgrades in 1994, 2008 and 2012. Prior Expenditures 200,000 Maintenance Total Prior Funding Sources 200,000 Cable N Fund Total Department Major Equipment Contact Chelsea Petersen Type Equipment Useful Life Unassigned Category Administration Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $325,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Total 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125, 000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Total 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125, 000 Budget Impact/Other uture upgrades include expanding access to programming to those without access to cable, and continued enhancement of the live and broadcast Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -029 Project Name Light Duty Trucks: Public Works Account #1 400-4120-4704 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact PaulOehme Type Vehicles Useful Life Unassigned Category Street Equipment Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $283,000 rovides for scheduled replacement of light duty trucks in the street and garage departments. Replacement units are generally purchased early in he year in order to accommodate the time frames established by Hennepin County and the State of MN Cooperative Purchasing Program. 0 - #10 1 2004 Chevrolet 3/4 ton pickup, with plow 1 - # 130 2007 Chevrolet 3/4 ton pickup, with plow Justification These vehicles are used for a variety of services throughout the community. The average replacement age is 14 years. These purchases are consistent with the Vehicle Replacement Program. Prior Expenditures 151,000 Vehicles Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 47,000 85,000 132,000 Total 47,000 85,000 132,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 151,000 Capital Replacement 47,000 85,000 132,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 47,000 85,000 132,000 Budget Impact/Other these purchases will include a limited warranty and will reduce annual maintenance and repair costs as compared to the vehicles replaced. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -048 Project Name Software Purchases Account #1 400-4117-4703 Account #3 Account #2 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Equipment Useful Life 3-6 years Category Administration Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $1,253,370 This project funds the purchase and renewal of major software programs for all City departments that are not associated with a specific, individual project. Smaller annual software support and license renewal fees are funded out of account 101-1160-4300. The major reoccurring software costs were moved to this account in 2010. Justification The major portion of funds requested for this project are for Springbrook Software, ESRI, Laserfiche, Microsoft and Cartegraph software purchases and renewals. Those reoccurring costs were moved to this project in 2010. The City joined the Microsoft Enterprise Purchasing Agreement for the State of Minnesota in 2007. All Microsoft software is purchased and renewed under this agreement. Participating in the state agreement allows the City to spread the cost of the product over a period of three years. Products are purchased with Software Assurance to allow for upgrades when they are released. These costs are also spread over a three year period. The City is participating in a joint software licensing agreement with Carver County and several other cities for ESRI GIS software which is funded from this project. This allowed for unlimited GIS application licenses which are in use in every department at reduced cost. The asset management software purchased from Cartegraph was jupgraded to a new version in 2017. Purchase costs were divided into 4 different funding sources with one quarter of those costs in this project. Prior 818,970 Total Prior 818, 970 Total Expenditures 2019. 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Office Equipment 85,100 85,800 83,500 88,300 91,700 434,400 Total 85,100 85,800 83,500 88,300 91,700 434, 400 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 85,100 85,800 83,500 88,300 91,700 434, 400 Equipment Fund Total 85,100 85,800 83,500 88,300 91,700 434,400 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -049 Project Name Computerized Records Retention System Account #1 400-4124-4703 Account #2 Account #3 Account#4 Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Equipment Useful Life 3-5 Years Category Administration Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $176,700 This project originally funded the purchase of an electronic records retention system in 2002. Laserfiche was the vendor chosen for the project. This project is now used to fund its add on modules and the replacement costs for associated scanning equipment, which have a useful life expectancy of 5 to 7 years. Additional client licenses are planned to accommodate additional users and project workflows in 2018. Additional software modules are proposed for later years to allow for improved integration with the City web site. Justification This system allows for quick and simultaneous retrieval of documents from any computer on the City network. Both physical document storage space and the occurrence of lost or misfiled documents will be significantly reduced. In addition, documents specified for public access can be easily made available to the public from any internet capable computer or mobile device. The system was upgraded to the Laserfiche Avante platform in 2015. This upgrade included a new workflow engine, web enabled clients and improved auditing and scanning functions. Workflows for automating the scanning and importing of documents were started in 2015. Additional workflow will be created to manage property development records. The 10 user Public Portal starter module included with the Avante upgrade is planned to be upgraded to the standard 25 user module in 2019. Prior 117,800 Total Prior 117,800 Total Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Office Equipment 22,000 21,900 3,000 5,000 7,000 58,900 Total 22, 000 21,900 3,000 5,000 7,000 58,900 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 22,000 21,900 3,000 5,000 7,000 58,900 Equipment Fund Total 22,000 21,900 3,000 5,000 7,000 58,900 Budget Impact/Other Hardware maintenance and repairs are funded out of the 101-1160-4300 services account. A proposed upgrade to 25 external users from the current 10 will add $2,000 to the 400-4117-4703 account. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -054 Project Name Fire Vehicles Department Major Equipment Contact Don Johnson Type Vehicles Useful Life 10-15 years Category Fire Account #1 400-4135-4704 Account #3 Priority n/ a Account #2 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: $3,493,500 teplacement of existing emergency response vehicles and major apparatus. This request outlines a schedule for existing vehicles. 19 - Replace 1996 Toyne Engine 12 21 - Replace 2005 Polaris Grass Response Replace 2013 Chevy Tahoe #203 23 - Replace 2015 Chevy Tahoe #202 Replace 2015 Chevy Tahoe #204 Replace 1996 Tovne Eneine 21 Justification Vehicles are reaching or exceeding useful life standards outlined by NFPA for emergency response front line service. Major apparatus require a wo year process to spec, order and manufacture. Prior Expenditures 1,971,500 Vehicles Total Prior Funding Sources 1,971,500 Capital Replacement Total Equipment Fund 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 650,000 77,000 795,000 1,522,000 Total 650,000 77,000 795,000 1,522,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 650,000 77,000 795,000 1,522,000 Total 650,000 77,000 795,000 1,522,000 Budget Impact/Other Chese are considered front line response vehicles and impact response to fire incidents within the City and to mutual aid partners. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -055 Project Name Aerial Photography for City GIS Datasets Account#1 400-0000-4752 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Improvement Useful Life 2-3 years Category Administration Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $154,350 This project funds the aerial photography for the integration with the City's existing GIS datasets. The City is participating with Carver County and several other cities and counties in a joint project to purchase services and data. An initial joint aerial flyover for high resolution orthographic imagery data was conducted in April of 2005 and was scheduled to be re -flown every three years. The schedule was revised as needed to accommodate budget changes and to allow for a collaborative project. The last county/city aerial flyover for high resolution photography was completed in 2016. The next flight will be done in 2019. The County has decided to cover the costs of all future orthographic layers. The City will need to fund for Planometrics, Pictometry, LiDAR, Contours and other specialty map layers in 2020. Justification City Planners, Engineers and Utility staff use this data in conjunction with other GIS datasets to help resolve geographical issues with residents and contractors without repeated site visits. It is used in nearly every scheduled staff meeting and has proven useful to the Sheriffs Office and fire department when conducting area searches. In 2008, Carver County chose a new vendor (Pictometry), which added a three dimensional view to mapping data. The Pictometry solution provides the ability for staff to view each side of buildings and includes a toolset which allows for accurate measurement of areas and lines. Enhanced map layers (Planometrics), created from the aerial data collected is also used by staff to measure and display hard surface coverage such as driveways, parking lots and others. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 95,450 Maintenance 2,300 26,000 2,300 2,300 26,000 58,900 Total Prior Funding Sources Total 2,300 2019 26,000 2020 2,300 2021 2,300 2022 26,000 2023 58,900 Total 95,450 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 2,300 26,000 2,300 2,300 26,000 58,900 Total Total 2,300 26,000 2,300_ 2,300 26,000 58,900 Budget Impact/Other Vo operational impact is expected. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN roject # EQ -062 Project Name Light Duty Trucks: Utilities Account #1 700-7025-4704 Account 42 701-7025-4704 Account#3 Account #4 This allows for replacement of existing vehicles in the Water and Sewer department. 2019 - 4304 2005 Chevrolet 3/4 ton pickup 2020 - #305 2006 Chevrolet 3/4 ton pickup Justification This replaces pickups in accordance with the vehicle replacement plan. Prior Expenditures 412,000 Vehicles Total Department Major Equipment Contact PaulOehme Type Vehicles Useful Life Unassigned Category Utilities Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $473, 000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 30,000 31,000 61,000 Total 30,000 31,000 61,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 412,000 Sewer Utility Fund 15,000 15,500 30,500 Total Water Utility Fund 15,000 15,500 30,500 Total 30,000 31,000 61,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -081 Project Name Storage Area Network (SAN) Account#1 400-4147-4703 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Description Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Improvement Useful Life 5-7 years Category Administration Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $293,600 This project funds the data storage equipment for the City storage area network, which is where the majority of all City electronic data is maintained. This storage are network (SAN) is a system comprised of numerous individual storage arrays, all managed from a single console. The SAN allows disk storage to be easily modified as storage needs change, without any downtime for users. This equipment also hosts the City's virtual network servers. Production storage arrays are located at City Hall in the main server room. Backup replication storage arrays are located in an auxiliary server room at the Public Works facility. Justification The need for digital storage space for City documentation and applications is growing at a rate of approximately 1 Tb per year. Existing storage space became difficult to manage on individual physical network servers. Internal storage utilization is inefficient, and requires system downtime to reconfigure. Storage area network (SAN) technology allows for real time reconfiguration as well as the ability to make real time copies for redundancy and for daytime backup processes. The majority of the City physical network servers were virtualized and integrated into just three host servers which utilize this storage. A Compellent storage array was installed in 2016 and is now the production storage array. A new Compellent array is proposed for 2019 which will become the production storage array. The existing Compellent array will be moved to Public Works to replace the two older EQualloeic arrays. one of which will reach end of service life in November of 2018. Prior 183,600 Total Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 55,000 55,000 110,000 Prior Funding Sources 183,600 capital Replacement 55,000 55,000 110,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 55,000 55,000 110,000 Total 55,000 55,000 110,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Budget Impact/Other arrays will be purchased with 5 years of warranty support. Software and hardware support for the storage arrays beyond 5 years will be d out of the MIS services account 101-1160-4220. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -084 Project Name Office Furniture Account#1 400-0000-4703 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Description Provide for office furniture and chair replacements. Justification This item will allow items to be replaced as they wear out or needs change. Prior Expenditures 55,000 Office Equipment Total 2019 2020 2021 5,000 5,000 5,000 Department Major Equipment Contact Chelsea Petersen Type Unassigned Useful Life Category Administration Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $80,000 2022 2023 Total 5,000 5,000 25,000 Total 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 55,000 Capital Replacement 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -100 Project Name Light Duty Trucks - Parks Account#1 400-4120-4704 Account #2 Account#3 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Vehicles Useful Life Category Park Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $359, 000 Provides for scheduled replacement of light duty trucks in the parks department. These vehicles are purchased using the State of Minnesota nurchasina contract. Justification 2019 - #403 2006 Chevrolet 4x4 2020 - #401 2004 Chevrolet 4x4 with plow 2021 - #402 2004 Chevrolet 4x4 2022 - #408 2008 Chevrolet 4x4 with plow 2023 - #411 2010 GMC Sierra 4x4 Prior Expenditures 172,000 Vehicles Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 35,000 38,000 36,000 42,000 36,000 187,000 Total 35,000 38,000 36,000 42,000 36,000 187,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 172,000 Capital Replacement 35,000 38,000 36,000 42,000 36,000 187,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 35,000 38,000 36,000 42,000 36,000 187,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -104 Project Name Mower Replacement - Park Account 41 400-0000-4705 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Description 2019 - 2003 Toro 4000D (#454) 2020 - 2009 Toro Groundsmaster 5900 (#450) Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life Category Park Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $478,000 Justification The City had 4 high -production grounds mowers. Each machine is used daily during the growing season and needs to be in good working condition. In 2012, the City replaced two 325D mowers with one large Toro 4000 mower. It is anticipated that staff will be able to mow just as much with one large mower. Prior Expenditures 310.000 Equipment Total Prior Funding Sources F___31_o_,00_o1 Capital Replacement Total Equipment Fund Budget Impact/Other 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 70,000 98,000 168,000 Total 70,000 98,000 168,000 2019. 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 70,000 98,000 168,000 Total 70,000 98,000 168, 000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -106 Project Name Tractor Replacement -Park Account#1 400-0000-4705 Account #2 Account #3 Account#4 Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life Category Park Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $147, 000 These tractors are used for ball field maintenance, maintaining skating rinks and sweeping trails. 2019 - 1997 John Deere 455 (#468) 2021 - 2001 John Deere 5520 with snowblower (#471) Justification These tractors are used for maintenance and upkeep of baseball fields, skating rinks and trails. These tractors will be at least 20 years old before they are replaced. Prior Expenditures 16,000 Equipment Total Prior Funding Sources 16,000 Capital Replacement Total Equipment Fund Budget Impact/Other 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 18,000 113,000 131,000 Total 18,000 113,000 131,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 18,000 113,000 131,000 Total 18,000 113,000 131,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 Department Major Equipment City of Chanhassen, N N Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Project # EQ -115 Useful Life Project Name Brush Chipperp Category Street Equipment Account #1 400-0000-4705 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: $112, 000 This item is to replace the brush and tree limb chipper. This unit will be 18 years old when it is replaced. This unit is used heavily year round by all the public works departments and needs to be in good working condition. 2021 - # 147 1999 Vermeer 1800A Brush Chipper Justification To keep equipment in good repair. This purchase is consistent with the vehicle replacement program. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 112,000 112,000 Total Funding Sources 2019 2020 112, 000 2021 2022 112,000 2023 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 112, 000 112,000 Total 112,000 112,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -118 Project Name Vactor Street Sweeper Account #1 720-7025-4705 Account #2 Account #3 Account#4 Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life Category Street Equipment Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $291, 000 Chis purchase is for a vacuum street sweeper. A loader would be sold in conjunction with this purchase (#140 - 1987 caterpillar 936 with 8,400 lours). The estimated value of the loader is $30,000. The trade in value of the loader will be used to offset the purchase of the sweeper. Justification rhe street department sweeps all the streets at least once a year starting as soon as weather permits in the spring. The vactor sweeper is necessary o pick up debris and fine particulates that street sweepers cannot pick up. The vactor street sweeper would help meet the City's storm water MS4 ermit requirement. This vactor sweeper will be used more often in the downtown and around impaired water bodies to help keep street debris rom entering these features. It is one of the most cost effective best management practices available to municipalities. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 291,000 291,000 Total Funding Sources 291,000 2019 2020 2021 291,000 2022 2023 Total Other Agency Contribution Surface Water Utility Fund 30,000 261,000 30,000 261,000 Total 291,000 291,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, NIN Project # EQ -124 Project Name Annual Skid Loader Trade In Account#1 700-7025-4705 Account#2 701-7025-4705 Account#3 Account#4 Description I The item would fund the annual trade in of skid loaders. 5570 Bobcat Skidloader (4149) T590 Bobcat Skidloader (#413) S630 Bobcat Skidloader (# 150) T750 Bobcat Skidloader (#318) Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life Category Street Equipment Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $166,000 Justification due to the state bid pricing, the City is able to trade our skid loaders annually for approximately $14.00 per hour. Trading in newer machines uarantees there will be no other expenses except oil changes and grease jobs because the machine will always have a warranty. This approach is also a better life cycle cost over keeping the machines for 15 years. There is no guarantee on the state bid pricing or the trade in price, so staff will e pricing annually to determine if it is a good deal or if we should hold on to the machine for an extended period. Prior Expenditures F---7-1—,00-01 Equipment Total Prior Funding Sources 71,000 Capital Replacement Total Equipment Fund Sewer Utility Fund Water Utility Fund Budget Impact/Other 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 95,000 Total 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 95,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 76,000 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 Total 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 95,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -127 Project Name Copier Replacements Account#1 400-4109-4703 Account #2 Account N3 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Equipment Useful Life 5-7 years Category Administration Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $69,000 This item funds the replacement of departmental copiers. Copiers were previously part of individual department budgets but were moved to the MIS CIP budget by the Finance Director in 2012. Justification The City has 4 multifunction departmental copiers located in City Hall and the Public Works Facility. The three copiers located at City Hall were replaced in 2013 and are under a shared maintenance plan. A new color copier was purchased in 2016 to replace the existing black and white copier and a color printer located at the Public Works Facility. Replacement units will be ordered one per year beginning in 2020. Dept Item Year Purchased Administration Konica Bizhub C754 2013 Building Konica Bizhub C454 2013 Engineering Konica Bizhub C454 2013 Public Works Konica Bizhub 250 2016 Prior Expenditures F---23-,-00-01 Equipment Total 2019 2020 2021 18,500 9,000 2022 2023 Total 9,000 9,500 46,000 Total 18,500 9,000 9,000 9,500 46,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 2-3—,00-61 Capital Replacement 18,500 9,000 9,000 9,500 46,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 18,500 9,000 9,000 9,500 46,000 Budget Impact/Other vlaintenance and supplies are funded from account 101-117-4110, city office supplies. Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -132 roject Name Fleet Vehicles 2019 thru 2023 Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Vehicles Useful Life Category Public Works Account #1 400-4120-4704 Account 43 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: $62,000 fhe vehicles in the fleet department are used for picking up parts, delivering vehicles for service and other public works related travel. 2021 - # 155 2002 Chevrolet 1/2 ton pickup Justification These vehicles will average 19 years old when they are replaced. They are becoming rusty and unreliable. Prior Expenditures 30,000 Vehicles Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 32,000 32,000 Total 32,000 32,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 30,000 Capital Replacement 32,000 32,000 Equipment Fund Total Total 32,000 32,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -137 Project Name Miscellaneous Fire Equipment/Hose Replacement Department Major Equipment Contact Don Johnson Type Equipment Useful Life Category Fire Account #1 400-4127-4705 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $135,000 Specialized fire department emergency response equipment with a service life of more than 5 years. Equipment included with this project: Air Monitoring, Thermal Imaging, Positive Pressure Ventilation Fans, Hose Replacement, Nozzles and Appliances. Justification The fire department utilizes specific, specialized equipment to perform specific fire ground and emergency response work. Expenditures will be used annually to replace aging equipment on fire department apparatus. Prior Expenditures 55,000 Equipment Total 2019 2020 15,000 15,000 2021 2022 15,000 15,000 2023 Total 20,000 80,000 Total 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 80,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 55,000 Capital Replacement 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 80,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 80,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -140 Project Name Recreation Center Revitalization Project Account#1 400-4125-4706 Account #2 Account#3 Account 94 Department Major Equipment Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $125,000 Purchase of new fitness center equipment, replacement carpet, countertops, window treatments throughout the facility, failing tables and chairs need replacement, upgrades are required to the fitness center audio system for participants and a digital lobby information system is needed to improve customer experience at the Chanhassen Recreation Center. Justification I The Recreation Center is entering its 20th Anniversary. Due to age, usage and wear; a number of items require replacement or upgrades at this 2023 - window treatments for Lake Susan and Lotus Lake Rooms, replacement countertops for locker rooms, ten padded chairs and five, eight foot tables and one stair climber and two elliptical machines for fitness center 2024 - window treatments for fitness center, studio and Conference Room, ten padded chairs, four, six foot tables and a five foot round table and one elliptical machine one treadmill and one recumbent bike for fitness center Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Future 75,000 Maintenance 25,000 25,000 25,000 notal Prior Total Funding Sources 2019 2020 25,000 2021 2022 2023 25,000 Total Total Future 75,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 TotalTotal Total 25,000 25,000 Impact/Other repair costs and increased customer experience at the Recreation Center. Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -152 Project Name Security / Access Control Systems Account #1 400-4148-4703 Account #2 Account #3 Account#4 Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Equipment Useful Life 10 years Category Administration Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $38,600 This project funds the expansion of the security and access control systems in all City buildings with the exception of the Water Treatment Plants which come out of an enterprise fund. An access control system was installed in City Hall and Fire Station 1 in 2015. The project also included software and hardware conversions for the system originally installed at the Public Works facility. All access control systems are now on one central control system, including the Water Treatment plants. Justification The access control system allows for more efficient control of City building access through the use of proximity cards and readers and greatly reduces the need for issuing and re -issuing keys as staff and vendor needs change. Additional readers were installed at City Hall and the Fire Stations to allow access to Carver County Sheriffs staff utilizing their county issued badges. Combined with the network of surveillance cameras, the system provides the means to secure and document security events or issues. Four interior cameras will be placed at the Recreation Center with newer higher resolution cameras. An additional camera is proposed to cover the NE corner of Public Works. One interior camera is proposed for Fire Station 2 and three exterior cameras are proposed for Fire Station 1. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 13—,l 05- 01 Equipment 18,300 7,200 25,500 Total Prior Funding Sources Total 18,300 2019 7,200 2020 2021 25,500 2022 2023 Total 13,100Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 18,300 7,200 25,500 Total Total 18,300 7,200 25,500 Budget Impact/Other viaintenance for the security system will be funded out of the 101-1160-4300 services account. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -154 Project Name Zero Turn Mower Replacement - Parks Account#1 400-0000-4705 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Description 020 - 2005 Toro 5977 60" Z -Master Zero Turn Mower (#462) Justification Chese mowers have extensive hours and are starting to need expensive repairs. Prior Expenditures 16,000 Equipment Total Total Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life Category Park Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $34,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 18,000 Capital Replacement 18,000 18,000 Equipment Fund Total Total 18,000 18,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 Department Major Equipment City of Chanhassen, MN Contact Paul Oehme Project # EQ -157 Project Name Tar Kettle Account#1 400-0000-4705 Account #2 Account#3 Account#4 Description 157 - 2008 Stepp SBF300 tar kettle for tack oil when blacktopping Type Equipment Useful Life Category Public Works Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $43,000 Justification This machine has a weak engine that is burning oil and the kettle is rusting from the burner. This machine is used for street pothole patching. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 43,000 43,000 Funding Sources Total 43,000 2019 2020 2021 43,000 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 43,000 43,000 Total 43,000 43,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -158 Project Name Hot Box with Asphalt Premix Heater Account#1 400-0000-4705 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Description The 2009 hot box is used for pothole patching. 158 - 2009 Hot Box with Asphalt Premix Heater Justification The hot box is worn from years of use. Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life 44,300 2022 2023 Category Public Works Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $44,300 Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 44,300 44,300 Total Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 44,300 2022 2023 44,300 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 44,300 44,300 Total 44,300 44,300 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN roject # EQ -159 Project Name Crack Sealer Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life Category Public Works Account #1 400-0000-4705 Account 93 Priority n/a Account#2 Account#4 Description I Total Project Cost: $47,000 The crack sealing machine is used to blow out the cracks in streets and trails and fill the cracks with a sealer to stop the crack from getting larger. 153 - 2003 Stepp Crack Sealer Justification The 2003 Stepp crack sealer will be 19 years old. This machine should be replaced due to the rust from the burner in the material tank. Expenditures Equipment 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 47,000 47,000 Total 47,000 47,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 47,000 47,000 Equipment Fund Total 47,000 47,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 chru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -160 Project Name Bobcat Trailer Replacement Account#1 700-7025-4705 Account#2 701-7025-4705 Description OB - 2003 Felling Bobcat Trailer Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life 7,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 Category Public Works Account #3 Priority n/a Account #4 Total Project Cost: $7,000 Justification This trailer is 19 years old and the rating is not enough for the load they are hauling. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 7,000 7,000 Total Funding Sources 2019 7,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 7,000 Total Sewer Utility Fund Water Utility Fund 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Total 7,000 7,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -161 Project Name Mailing Folder/Inserter Department Major Equipment Contact Greg Sticha Type Equipment Useful Life 15,000 2020 2021 Category Finance Account #1 700-7025-4703 Account #3 720-7025-4703 Priority n/a Account #2 701-7025-4703 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: $15,000 This is a replacement of the existing folder/inserter machine. This machine is used monthly for all City utility statements and on an as needed basis for other city-wide mailings. Justification The existing machine was purchased in 2010 and is starting to need more frequent repairs resulting in periods of down time. The average life expectancy of this type of machine is 7 years, replacing it in 2020 will give us approximately 10 years of use from it. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 15,000 15,000 Total Funding Sources 2019 15,000 2020 2021 15,000 2022 2023 Total Sewer Utility Fund Surface Water Utility Fund Water Utility Fund 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Total 15,000 15,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, NIN Project # EQ -163 Project Name Compact Excavator Account #1 400-0000- 4705 Account #2 Description 3obcat E55 Mini Excavator Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life Category Public Works Account #3 Priority n/a Account#4 Total Project Cost: $37,000 Justification This machine will be used for various projects, digging, tilling and grading. This machine is compact for use in tight spaces and light weight for less disturbance for easy restoration. This machine will replace the 1996 Caterpillar dozer. The dozer will be traded in for the mini excavator. The trade in value of the dozer is estimated at $27,000. This trade in value will be used to offset the purchase of the excavator. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 37,000 37,000 Total 37,000 37,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 37,000 37,000 Equipment Fund Total 37,000 37,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ -164 Project Name Annual Zero Turn Mower Replacement - Park Account#1 400-0000-4705 Account#3 Account#2 Account#4 Description 018 Toro 5000 Zero Turn Mower - 4482 Department Major Equipment Contact Paul Oehme Type Equipment Useful Life Equipment Category Park Priority n/ a Total Project Cost: $5,000 Justification due to the state bid pricing, the City is able to trade this mower annually for less than the average cost of keeping the mower and replacing it at the and of its life expectancy. Trading in newer machines guarantee there will be no other expenses except for oil changes and grease jobs because the nachine will always be under warranty. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 11000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Total Funding Sources 1,000 2019 1,000 2020 1,000 2021 1,000 2022 1,000 2023 5,000 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Total 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # MB -010 Project Name City Hall Remodel Department Municipal Buildings Contact Chelsea Petersen Type Improvement Useful Life Category Administration Account #1 400-4148-4xxx Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $190,000 This project will remodel and refurbish areas of City Hall that need paint, carpet or storage areas added. Justification The entry and front reception area of City Hall need security improvements for employee safety and reconfiguration for a better customer service experience for residents. Prior Expenditures 40.000 Maintenance Total Prior Funding Sources 40,000 Capital Replacement Total Equipment Fund Budget Impact/Other 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 150,000 150,000 Total 150,000 150,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 150,000 150,000 Total 150,000 150, 000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, NIN Project # MB -023 Project Name Citizen Survey Account #1 210-0000-4300 Account 43 Account#2 Account#4 Description Fhe City will conduct a triennial survey of residents. Justification The City will use the feedback to monitor and respond to residents values and concerns. Prior Expenditures 28,000 Study Total Prior Funding Sources 28,000 Cable N Fund Total Budget Impact/Other Department Municipal Buildings Contact Chelsea Petersen Type Improvement Useful Life Category Administration Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $60,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 15,000 17,000 32,000 Total 15,000 17,000 32,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 15,000 17,000 32,000 Total 15,000 17,000 32,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # MB -026 Project Name Fire Department Building Improvements Account #1 400-4003-4xxx Account #3 Account #2 Account #4 Description Chis project would renovate the main fire station. Department Municipal Buildings Contact Don Johnson Type Maintenance Useful Life Category Fire Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $303, 000 Justification Fhe fire department is utilized for several public events such as; elections, open house, Lion's breakfast, and official fire department ceremonies. ity employees frequent the kitchen and work out areas on a regular basis as well. Prior Expenditures 203,000 Maintenance Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 100,000 100,000 Total 100,000 100,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 203,000 Capital Replacement 100,000 100,000 Total Equipment Fund Total 100,000 100,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # MB -031 Project Name Senior Center Kitchen Update Department Municipal Buildings Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Account #1 400-4130-4xxx Account #3 Priority n/a Account 42 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $15,000 Additional counter space is needed as well as more storage, cabinets and built in recycling. The dishwasher, refrigerator and sink also need to be replaced. Justification The senior center and kitchen is over 15 years old and the countertops and equipment are aging. With additional programs and participants the current kitchen is used daily and is not meeting current needs. There will be no renovation costs as we will be adding new space and storage. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Improvement 15,000 15,000 Total 15,000 15,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 15,000 15,000 Equipment Fund Total 15,000 15,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # MB -033 Project Name City Hall Roof Replacement Account #1 400-4148-4702 Account #3 Account #2 Account #4 Description The City Hall roof is in need of replacement. Department Municipal Buildings Contact Chelsea Petersen Type Maintenance Useful Life Category Administration Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $300,000 Justification The oldest section of roof is 30 years old and has had minimal improvements. This project will replace the City Hall roof in three sections, as the building was built and expanded in three segments. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Maintenance 300,000 300,000 Total 300,000 300,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 300, 000 300,000 Equipment Fund Total 300,000 300,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # MB -034 Project Name Recreation Center Wall Replacement Account #1 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Description This request is to replace the 3 moveable walls in the rooms at the Recreation Center. Department Municipal Buildings Contact Todd Hoffman Type Maintenance Useful Life Category Park Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $69,700 Justification The current walls are original to the building. They are showing significant wear and have damage on each side. The floor seals are not working correctly, which causes a great deal of noise coming from adjoining rooms. The internal wall mechanisms are plastic and a repair company is called several times each year to keep them functional. The walls are moved daily and are crucial to the Rec Center operations. Customers and program participants have complained about the impact on meetings and activities caused by noise from neighboring rooms. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Maintenance 69,700 69,700 Total 69,700 69,700 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 69,700 69,700 Equipment Fund Total 69,700 69,700 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-042 Project Name picnic Tables/Park Benches Account #1 410-000-4705 Account #3 Account #2 Account 44 Description Purchase of picnic tables and park benches. Justification New tables and benches are needed annually to replace old stock and meet new needs. Prior Expenditures 106,000 Equipment Total Prior Funding Sources 106,000 Park Dedication Fund Total Budget Impact/Other Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Useful Life 30 Years Category Park Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $156,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Total 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Total 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-043 Project Name Trees Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Useful Life 50 Years Category Park Account #1 410-0000-4701 Account #3 Priority n/a Account 92 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: $245, 000 Annual tree planting program. This program is proposed to be accelerated to mitigate the affects of Emerald Ash Borer. Justification Parklands and other City properties experience tree loss annually, due to storm damage, disease, stress, etc. Prior Expenditures 170,000 Land Improvement Total Prior Funding Sources 170,000 Park Dedication Fund Total Budget Impact/Other 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 Total 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 Total 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN roject # PK&T-072 roject Name Tennis Court Refurbishment Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Useful Life 25 years Category Park Account #1 601-0000-4706 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $425,000 Crack seal and resurface tennis courts. 2019 - Lake Susan Park, Meadow Green Park, North Lotus Lake Park, South Lotus Lake Park and the Chanhassen Recreation Center 2021 - City Center Park and Lake Ann Park Justification Tennis courts offered are kept in playable condition through patching and resurfacing on a six to ten year cycle. Prior Expenditures 200,000 Maintenance Total Prior Funding Sources 200,000 Assessment/Revolving Assess Fund Total Budget Impact/Other vlaintenance and operations costs. 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 150,000 75,000 225,000 Total 150,000 75,000 225,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 150,000 75,000 225, 000 Total 150,000 75,000 225,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-099 Project Name Chanhassen Nature Preserve Trail, Final Phase Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Account #1 410-0000-4710 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $200,000 k 900 foot section of eight foot wide bituminous trail, located at the perimeter of Lot 2, Block 1 Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition. Justification This section of trail is the final phase of a two mile trail loop around the Chanhassen Native Preserve. The trail project was initiated in 1995. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 200,000 200,000 Total Funding Sources 200,000 2019 2020 200,000 2021 2022 2023 Total Park Dedication Fund 200,000 200,000 Total 200,000 200,000 Budget Impact/Other vlaintenance and operation costs. Will need to be included in the pavement management program. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-132 Project Name Lake Ann Lake Side Pavilion Roof Replacement Account 91 400-0000-4702 Account #3 Account #2 Account #4 Description of the roof at the Lake Side Pavilion at Lake Ann Park. Justification The roof is 25 years old and is in need of replacement. Expenditures Maintenance Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Maintenance Useful Life Category Park Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $30,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Replacement 30,000 30,000 Equipment Fund Total 30,000 30,000 Budget Impact/Other vlaintenance costs will be reduced. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-138 Project Name Arboretum Trail and Hwy 41 Underpass Cost Share Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Account #1 410-0000-4710 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: 5600,000 k ten foot wide bituminous pedestrian trail located on the south side of State Highway 5, from Century Boulevard to the Minnesota Landscape krboretum entry road. The project will also include a pedestrian underpass at State Highway 41. Carver County is the lead agency on the project. Chis funding allocation is the City's share of the local match for a transportation enhancement grant. Justification Completing a pedestrian/bicycle trail route to the Arboretum has been a long range goal for the City, Carver County and the Arboretum. The public will have access to the first pedestrian trail to the Arboretum from the east. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 600,000 600,000 Total 600,000 600,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Park Dedication Fund 600,000 600, 000 Total 600,000 600,000 Budget Impact/Other additional trail maintenance duties will be added to the weekly park maintenance department schedule. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-141 Project Name Park Equipment Replacement Account#1 401-0000-4xxx Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Description Replace existing park equipment that has reached its useful life expectancy. Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Equipment Useful Life Category Park Priority n/ a Total Project Cost: $1,250,000 2019 - Herman Field Park Playground, Prairie Knoll Park Playground and Sunset Ridge Park Playground 2020 - Curry Farms Park Basketball Court & Trail, Lake Ann Beach Playground, Powers Blvd Pipe Rail Fence, Rice Marsh Lake Park Backstop and Ballfield Benches, Meadow Green Park Backstop and Ballfield Benches and South Lotus Lake Park Playground 2021 - Carver Beach Park Playground, Lake Susan Park Basketball Court, Pheasant Hills Park Playground, Roundhouse Park Structure and Stone Creek Park Playground 2022 - Bandimere Park Playground and North Lotus Park Hockey Rink 12023 - Carver Beach Playground, Power Hill Park Playground and Sugarbush Park Playground Justification Existing playground equipment has reached its useful life expectancy of 25 years. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Equipment 245,000 255,000 245,000 250,000 255, 000 1,250, 000 Total 245,000 255,000 245,000 250,000 255,000 1,250,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Park Replacement Fund 245,000 255,000 245,000 250,000 255, 000 1,250, 000 Total 245,000 255, 000 245, 000 250,000 255,000 1,250, 000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SS -012 Project Name Inflow and Infiltration Abatement Account#1 701-70xx-4751 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Department Sanitary Sewer Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Category Utilities Priority n/ a Description I Total Project Cost: $2,500,000 This annual project includes televising, repairs and rehabilitation of existing sanitary sewer. The program also detects and eliminates points of entry of ground water and surface water into the City sanitary sewer system. Projects have been identified from the 2006 Inflow and Infiltration Report and aspects of the program are included in the annual street project. The projects were reviewed by Metropolitan Council and approved in lieu of surcharge fees. Justification City staff has identified numerous older sewer lines that are in need of repair. The City of Chanhassen pays the Metropolitan Council for sewage treatment. Those payments are based on the amount of flow generated by the City of Chanhassen. Surface water and ground water that makes its way into the system either through breaks, displaced joints, manhole covers, or private connections to the system increase the amount charged to the City for sewage disposal and increasing the load on the City's lift stations. Prior 1,500,000 Total Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Maintenance 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000, 000 Total 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 1,500,000 Sewer Utility Fund 200,000 200,000 200,000 200, 000 200,000 1,000, 000 Total Total 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200, 000 1,000,000 Budget Impact/Other The efforts may decrease operational costs, MCES fees and emergency call outs. It is also the City's intent to use connection charges to help fund for those costs. It is the City's belief that as new customers come on line those connection fees should help fund future infiltration problems. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SS -014 Project Name Sanitary Sewer Replacement Department Sanitary Sewer Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Category Utilities Account #1 701-7025-4751 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $2,220, 000 2eplacement or rehabilitation of existing sanitary sewer lines in conjunction with the reconstruction of the City street. Justification The City considers the condition of the existing utilities in the process to select streets for rehabilitation in an effort to realize cost savings by consolidating these projects. Prior Expenditures 1,660, 000 Construction Total Prior Funding Sources 1,660,000 Sewer Utility Fund Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 160, 000 75,000 75,000 250,000 560, 000 Total 160,000 75,000 75,000 250,000 560,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 160,000 75,000 75,000 250,000 560,000 Total 160,000 75,000 75,000 250,000 560,000 Budget Impact/Other Chis project will decrease maintenance costs. Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, N N Project # SS -017 roject Name Sanitary Lift Station Rehabilitation Program Department Sanitary Sewer Improvements Contact PaulOehme Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Category Utilities Account #1 701-7025-4751 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $1,230,000 The sanitary lift station rehabilitation program is designed to minimize sewer backups and emergency calls due to failed lift station equipment. The City currently maintains 32 lift stations. Many of these lift stations are high service pumps and need frequent servicing. The program will service or replace pumps, pipe gallery, and electrical components as needed. The proposed lift stations scheduled for improvements over the next 5 years are as follows: 2019-#18&#28 2020 - #13 & #22 2021 - #2 2022 - # 17 2023 - #1 Justification Reduce emergency calls and potential sewer backups. Prior Expenditures 630,000 Maintenance Total Prior Funding Sources 630,000 Sewer Utility Fund Total Budget Impact/Other 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 135,000 130,000 120,000 130,000 85,000 600, 000 Total 135,000 130,000 120,000 130,000 85,000 600,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 135,000 130,000 120,000 130,000 85,000 600, 000 Total 135,000 130,000 120,000 130,000 85,000 600,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SS -020 Project Name 2010 MUSA Sanitary Lift Station Department Sanitary Sewer Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Utilities Account #1 701-7025-4702 Account 43 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $1,900,000 Fhis lift station will be located on Powers Boulevard south of TH 212 to service the future 2010 MUSA and will also be used to service the area o he City south of Pioneer Trail. The project needs to be constructed before this area starts to develop and is contingent on when that happens. Justification Required for future development of the 2010 and 2015 MUSA's. The cost for this improvement will be paid for by future developments with future connection fees and development assessments. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 1,900,000 1,900,000 Total 1,900,000 1,900, 000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Developer Assessments 950,000 950, 000 Sewer Utility Fund 950,000 950,000 Total 1,900, 000 1,900,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SS -024 Project Name Lower Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvements Account #1 701-7025-4751 Account#2 700-7025-4751 Account #3 Account#4 Department Sanitary Sewer Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Utilities Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $10,800, 000 Chis project will help pay for trunk sewer, lift station and water main below the bluff along Flying Cloud Drive. The project primarily will help ay for lift station improvements and watermain oversizing necessary to service future development along Flying Cloud Drive. This project will be levelopment driven and may be constructed along with a development of a standalone City project. This project has been budgeted through the itility rate study and paid for with hookup charges. Justification To provide sewer service to the Lower Bluff Creek Sewer District. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 10,800,000 10,800,000 Total Funding Sources 2019 10,800,000 2020 2021 2022 10,800,000 2023 Total Developer Assessments Sewer Utility Fund Water Utility Fund 7,900, 000 1,800,000 1,100,000 7,900,000 1,800,000 1,100,000 Total 10,800, 000 10,800, 000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST -012 Project Name Annual Street Improvement Program Account#1 601-xxxx-4751 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Department Street Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Category Streets/Highways Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $33,130,000 Annual project to rehabilitate and reconstruct streets in the City. Current 5 -year plan shows the following neighborhood areas: 2019 - Orchard Lane area MSA - Lake Drive East and Dakota Ave (TH 5 to Lake Drive East) 2020 - MSA - Minnewashta Parkway overlay and trail and Lake Lucy (TH 41 to Galpin Blvd) 2021 - Stone Creek, Meadow Lane, Saddlebrook, Kurvers Point, Lake Lucy east of Powers Blvd, Vineland Court and Troendle Circle area MSA - Lake Drive (Dakota Ave to Great Plains) and Great Plains (south of TH 5) 2023 - Creekview area from this program also funds annual trail and parking lot Justification The City uses a Pavement Management System to monitor the condition of the City streets. While proper preventative maintenance extends the life of the street and is cost effective, a street will eventually deteriorate to a point that major maintenance is required. Rehabilitation projects extend the life of the street. In cases when utilities or poor sub grade needs to be replaced or where streets have deteriorated to a point where rehabilitation will no longer be practical, reconstruction of the street is necessary. A feasibility study is written to consider the merits of the project and scope of work. Prior Expenditures 23,480,000 Construction Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 2,550,000 2,200,000 2,700,000 2,200,000 9,650,000 Total 2,550,000 2,200,000 2,700,000 2,200,000 9,650, 000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 23,480,000 Assessment/Revolving 1,850,000 300,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 6,550,000 Assess Fund Total MSA 700,000 1,900,000 500,000 3,100,000 Total 2,550,000 2,200,000 2,700,000 2,200,000 9,650,000 Budget Impact/Other This project may decrease maintenance costs. Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST -018 Project Name Pavement Management Department Street Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Maintenance Useful Life 7-10 years Category Streets/Highways Account #1 420-0000-4751 Account #3 Priority n/a Account#2 Account#4 Description Total Project Cost: $5,038,000 This project will provide maintenance such as crack sealing, seal -coating, pothole patching, replacement of curb and gutter and sidewalk repairs for City streets. Also included in this project are trails and City parking lot rehabilitations. Seal -coat projects will be determined annually based on the pavement condition index as generated by the pavement management program. The street department uses this funding source to pay for bituminous material for annual street patching. Justification This will provide a centralized funding mechanism that will help reduce the effect on General Fund operating expenditures. Prior Expenditures 3,273,000 Maintenance Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 353,000 353,000 353,000 353,000 353,000 1,765,000 Total 353,000 353, 000 353,000 353,000 353, 000 1,765,000 Prior Funding Sources 3,273,000 Street Pavement Management Total Tax Levy Total 353,000 353,000 353,000 353,000 353, 000 19765,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 260,000 260,000 260,000 260, 000 260,000 1,300,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 465,000 Budget Impact/Other Chese improvements will cost effectively prolong the life of the street so major improvements such as reconstruction projects can be delayed. Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, NIN Project # ST -032 Project Name TH101 Imp -Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr (CSAH 61) Account#1 605-0000 Account #2 Account #3 Account#4 Department Street Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Streets/Highways Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $32,710,000 This project will reconstruct TH 101 from Pioneer Trail (CSAH 14) to Flying Cloud Drive (CSAH 61). This is the last section of TH 101 that needs improvements from TH 5 into the City of Shakopee. The improvements are proposed to improve safety, mobility and to plan for future growth in the region. The project is consistent with the 2007 TH 101 corridor scoping study. State and Carver County funds will be used to pay for most of the improvements. The City contribution to the project is anticipated to help pay for some environmental work, watermain improvements, corridor landscaping, trails and storm sewer improvements. The tentative schedule is to complete final design and right of way acquisition in 2019 and construction would commence in 2020. Justification To improve safety and mobility on TH 101. The project also plans for growth in the region. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 2,710,000 Planning/Design 2,000,000 2,000,000 notal Land Acquisition 6,000,000 6,000,000 Construction 22,000,000 22,000, 000 Total 8,000,000 22,000,000 30,000,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 2,710,000 Other Agency Contribution 7,500,000 20,450,000 27,950,000 Total Sewer Utility Fund 750,000 750,000 State Funds 500,000 500,000 Water Utility Fund 800,000 800, 000 Total 8,000,000 22,000,000 30,000,000 Budget Impact/Other The City would be responsible for the future maintenance of the trunk watermain and trails. Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST -037 Project Name Market Blvd Improvements Department Street Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life 30 Years Category Streets/Highways Account 41 601-0000-4752 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $3,240,000 This project would make improvements to Market Blvd from West 78th Street to Highway 5. A corridor study was completed in 2016 that identified safety and mobility needs. A feasibility study will be completed prior to construction. Justification s the downtown continues to develop, more traffic is anticipated to use Market Blvd. To improve safety, mobility and continuity of the corridor, he roadway is expected to need improvements. Prior Expenditures 40-,-000-1 Construction Total Prior Funding Sources 40,000 Assessment/Revolving Assess Fund Total MSA Budget Impact/Other 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 3,200,000 3,200,000 Total 3,200,000 3,200,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 2,600,000 2,600, 000 600,000 600,000 Total 3,200,000 3,200,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST -038 Project Name Lyman Blvd Improvements-Galpin Blvd to TH 41 Account#1 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Department Street Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life 50 Years Category Streets/Highways Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $11,600,000 Fhis project will upgrade Lyman Blvd to current design standards. The project will construct three round -a -bouts at the TH 41, Peavey Road and Vorex Drive intersections. Justification To improve safety and mobility along the corridor and to replace the deficient pavement section. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 11,600,000 11,600, 000 Total 11,600,000 11,600,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Cash Reserves 1,000,000 1,000, 000 MSA 1,500,000 1,500,000 Other Agency Contribution 9,100,000 9,100,000 Total 11,600,000 11,600,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST -039 Project Name Enhanced Pedestrian Roadway Crossings Department Street Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Streets/Highways Account #1 601-xxxx-4751 Account #3 Priority n/a Account 42 Account 44 Description I Total Project Cost: $900,000 This project would install an enhanced pedestrian crossing at Powers Blvd and Lake Lucy Road. A study will be completed in 2018 to justify the enhancement. Typically these crossings include a push button actuated rapid flash system. Carver County is expected to participate in funding the Justification For increased pedestrian safety. Prior Expenditures 300,000 Construction Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 600,000 600,000 Total 600,000 600,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 300,000 MSA Total Other Agency Contribution Total 600,000 600,000 300,000 300,000 300, 000 300,000 Budget Impact/Other The city would need to own, operate and maintain the system. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST -040 Project Name Galpin Blvd Improvements -Hwy 5 N to City limits Account#1 601-6040-4751 Account #2 Account #3 Account#4 Department Street Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Streets/Highways Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $10,840,000 Fhe project will reconstruct Galpin Blvd from 78th Street north to the City limits. The street is proposed to have geometric improvements made to onform to current design standards and urbanized to have concrete curb and gutter. Turn lanes will be constructed and trail improvements made. Fhis section of Galpin Blvd is on Carver County's tumback list for roadways to be jurisdictionally transferred to the local agency. Once Galpin 3lvd is reconstructed the City would be responsible for operations and future maintenance. Justification The pavement of Galpin Blvd has reached its life expectancy. The roadway at this time should be reconstructed and designed to current standards. The project is also planned for growth in the area. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 90,000 Construction 10,750,000 10,750,000 Total Total 10,750, 000 10,750,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 90,000 MSA 3,000,000 3,000,000 Total Other Agency Contribution 7,000,000 7,000,000 Sewer Utility Fund 250,000 250,000 Water Utility Fund 500,000 500,000 Total 10,750,000 10,750,000 Budget Impact/Other The project will require the City to have operational and maintenance over this section of Galpin Blvd. Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 Department Street Improvements City of Chanhassen, NIN Contact Paul Oehme Project # ST -042 Type Maintenance Useful Life Project Name TH 41 Rehabilitation - Pioneer Trail to TH 5 Category Streets/Highways Account #1 Account #3 Priority n/a Account 42 Account#4 Description Total Project Cost: $100,000 The State of Minnesota is planning to resurface TH 41. In conjunction with the roadway project, the signal at 82nd Street will be replaced. The City is responsible for the eastern leg of the signal. Justification Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Maintenance 100,000 100,000 Total Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 100,000 2022 2023 100,000 Total MSA 100,000 100,000 Total 100,000 100,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST -043 Project Name Downtown Signal Controller Replacement Department Street Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Streets/Highways Account #1 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: $30,000 Chis project will replace the signal controllers for the downtown signals. The controllers are 26 years old and have reached their life expectancy. Che new controllers are more technically capable and allow for better pedestrian crossing options. Justification Co improve traffic flow and enhance pedestrian crossing timing. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Improvement 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Street Pavement Management 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST -044 Project Name TH 5 Corridor Study (West of Hwy 41) Account #1 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Department Street Improvements Contact PaulOehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Streets/Highways Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $25,000 Carver County and MnDOT are asking the local agencies to participate in a corridor study of TH 5 and other County roads west of TH 41. The primary purpose of this study is to provide for short-, mid- and long-term transportation improvements along TH 5. The proposed project will include reviewing traffic and design needs, access management, safety, connectivity to other major highways in the area, bicycle/trail and pedestrian connections, storm water requirements and environmental screening and documentation. As part of the project process, public communication, public engagement, consensus, and decision-making will be required. The study will take about 18 months to complete. Once the study is complete, Carver County plans to seek funding for improvements to the corridor. Carver County is planning to study other corridors in the TH 5 area, but Chanhassen would only participate in the TH 5 study area from TH 41 to Minnewashta Parkway and TH 41 south of TH 5 to 82nd Street. A joint powers agreement will need to be approved by the City Council before this project is authorized. Justification To help plan for future improvements to TH 5. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Study 25,000 25,000 Total Funding Sources 25,000 2019 2020 2021 25,000 2022 2023 Total Assessment/Revolving Assess. Fund 25,000 25,000 Total 25,000 25,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 Department Surface Water Management City of Chanhassen, MN Contact Paul Oehme Project # SWMP-014 Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Project Name Property Acquisition Category SWMP Account #1 720-7025-4701 Account 43 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $875,000 The City will acquire property in accordance with its Comprehensive and Surface Water Management Plans. Justification Properties within the City must be acquired in order to achieve the goals set forth in the Comprehensive and Surface Water Management Plans. Prior Expenditures 650,000 Land Acquisition Total Total 75,000 75,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 75,000 75,000 75,000 225,000 75,000 225,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 650, 000 Surface Water Utility Fund 75,000 75,000 75,000 225, 000 Total Total 75,000 75,000 75,000 225,000 Budget Impact/Other Citywide. No map Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-019 Project Name Street Improvement Projects - Storm Water Mgmt Department Surface Water Management Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Category SWMP Account #1 720-7025-4751 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description I Total Project Cost: $3,335,000 kn annual amount set aside for storm water management infrastructure construction or expansion associated with street improvement projects rndertaken by the engineering and public works departments. Justification Street improvement projects frequently require construction or expansion of storm water management infrastructure in order to comply with federal, state and local regulations, as well as protecting existing and proposed development adjacent to the projects. Prior Expenditures 2,025,000 Construction Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 360,000 250,000 250,000 100,000 350,000 1,310,000 Total 360,000 250,000 250,000 100,000 350,000 1,310,000 Prior Funding Sources 2,025,000 Surface Water Utility Fund Total Total 360,000 250,000 250,000 100,000 350,000 1,310, 000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 360,000 250,000 250,000 100,000 350, 000 1,310, 000 Budget Impact/Other Inventory, inspection and maintenance of new infrastructure will be required. Citywide. No map Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-024 Project Name Lower Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation Account#1 720-7025-4751 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Department Surface Water Management Contact PaulOehme Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Category SWMP Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $2,400,000 The Bluff Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report identified the lower reach of Bluff Creek (south of Pioneer Trail) as the primary source of total suspended solids (TSS). During the calibration time period (6/25 to 11/17) TSS loads at the TH 101/CR 61 "Y" exceeded the TSS load at Pioneer by more than 400% - 41,280 lbs to 9,900 lbs. In addition to the turbidity issues, there exists a discontinuity between the lower reach and the upper reach resulting from a severe drop in elevation at the downstream end of the culvert under the Hennepin County Regional Trail. These findings are consistent with the Bluff Creek Natural Resource Management Plan. Both indicate that the numerous escarpments and gullies tributary to and contained within the Bluff Creek channel are the primary source of sediment to Bluff Creek. This project will decrease sediment load to Bluff Creek, improve the fish assemblage within Bluff Creek and will assist Chanhassen in meeting their Waste Load Allocation WLA) for Bluff Creek, the Minnesota River and the Metro Mississippi Watershed. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District has expressed their interest in partnering with Chanhassen on this project. Justification 2019 - Source Volume Reduction and Rate Control 2020 - TH 101 Stormwater Improvements, including Chloride Management Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 1,275,000 Construction 175,000 950,000 1,125,000 Total Total 175,000 950,000 1,125,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 1,275,000 Other Agency Contribution 100,000 900,000 1,000,000 Total Surface Water Utility Fund 75,000 50,000 125,000 Total 175,000 950,000 1,125,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-032 Project Name Stormwater Pond Improvements Account #1 720-7025-4751 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Department Surface Water Management Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category SWMP Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $1,160,000 Phis project will provide inspection and cleaning of City stormwater ponds. This work may include sediment removal, placement of blanket, rip- ap or other erosion control BMP's, vegetation management and assessment, repair and replacement of inlet and outlet structures. Justification There are over 170 stormwater ponds in the City of Chanhassen, all requiring regular maintenance to assure they function to National Urban Runoff Program recommendations. This measure has also been identified in Chanhassen's National Pollution Discharge Elimination Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permit. The project will also minimize flooding potential. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 440,000 Maintenance 80,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 720,000 Ibtal Total 80,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 720,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 440,000 Surface Water Utility Fund 80,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 720,000 Total Total 80,000 160, 000 160,000 160,000 160,000 720,000 Budget Impact/Other This will require an input of other public works staff hours. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-045 Project Name Storm Water Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement Account#1 720-7025-xxxx Account #2 Account#3 Account#4 Department Surface Water Management Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category SWMP Priority n/ a Description Total Project Cost: $525,000 This project is an annual maintenance budget used to maintain or replace failing or deficient public storm water infrastructure and have a construction cost less than $75,000. In some instances public works staff can complete the work in house and pay for materials out of this fund. Other times a contractor may be needed to complete the work. Justification very year the City replaces culverts, storm water structures and pipe throughout the City that have failed. These replacements are unforeseen and ire typically noticed only after they have failed. Often these failures result in public safety issues or pose a potential threat to private property or ther City infrastructure. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 250, 000 construction 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 275,000 Total Prior Total Funding Sources 50,000 2019 50,000 2020 50,000 2021 50,000 2022 75,000 2023 275,000 Total 250000 Total Surface Water Utility Fund Total 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 275, 000 275,000 Budget Impact/Other These activities will likely involve the utilization of public works labor. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-046 Project Name Lotus Lake Channels & Outfall Improvements Account#1 720-7025-4751 Account #2 Account #3 Account 44 Description Stabilization of deeply incised outfalls and channels draining to Lotus Lake. Department Surface Water Management Contact PaulOehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category SWMP Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $275, 000 Justification I Fhis work was identified in the 2007 feasibility study and in the 2015 RPBCWD gully inventory. Channels and outfalls are rapidly eroding and xhibit substantial undercutting of the embankments. This erosion is impacting property adjacent and resulting in the deposition of significant unounts of sediment into Lotus Lake. Over time, the erosion will begin to impact nearby sanitary sewer utilities. 1 - W. Central Lotus Lake Channel Restoration, Phase II 4 - Lotus Lake Outfall Improvements Prior Expenditures 25,000 Maintenance l otal 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 250,000 250, 000 Total 250,000 250, 000 Prior Funding Sources 25,000 Other Agency Contribution Total Surface Water Utility Fund Total 250,000 250, 000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 200,000 200, 000 50,000 50,000 Budget Impact/Other I Long term maintenance will be required including vegetation management. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-048 Project Name Upper Riley Creek Channel Stabilization Account #1 720-7025-4xxx Account #3 Account #2 Account #4 Description Stabilization of in and near stream bank undercutting, escarpment and gully erosion. Department Surface Water Management Contact Paul Oehme Type Unassigned Useful Life 25,000 Category SWMP Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $132, 500 Justification As part of the approval for the Public Works Facility, Riley Creek adjacent to the facility was to be stabilized. In 2013, a visual assessment of the upper Riley Creek Corridor from Lake Ann to Lake Susan was evaluated. This assessment revealed significant in and near stream erosion issues resulting in sediment deposition into Riley Creek and, subsequently, into Lake Susan. Prior Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 32,500 Maintenance 25,000 75,000 100,000 Total Total 25,000 75,000 100,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total F---3-2, 5-001 Other Agency Contribution 15,000 60,000 75,000 Total Surface Water Utility Fund 10,000 15,000 25,000 Total 25,000 75,000 100,000 Budget Impact/Other luring construction, some of the City expense will involve in-kind labor. This would likely involve the use of City staff and equipment for iauling materials. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-053 Project Name Rice Marsh Lake Iron Enhanced Sand Filter Account #1 720-7025-4xxx Account #3 Account #2 Account #4 Description Installation of an iron filing enhanced sand filter within Rice Marsh Lake Park. Department Surface Water Management Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category SWMP Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $300,000 Justification Neither Rice Marsh Lake nor Lake Riley meet MPCA standards for total phosphorous, chlorophyll -a or secchi disc depth readings. This watershed contributes the largest total phosphorous load to Rice Marsh Lake at 232 lbs (or 32% of the entire watershed load to Rice Marsh Lake) and is only one of two watershed with a load greater than 100 lbs/year. This project, once complete, could reduce the load to Rice Marsh Lake by as much as 115 lbs/year (z50%). Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 300,000 300,000 Total 300, 000 300,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Other Agency Contribution 250,000 250, 000 Surface Water Utility Fund 50,000 50,000 Total 300, 000 Budget Impact/Other This filtration feature will require some annual maintenance and will require an input of iron in approximately 25 years. 300, 000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-056 Project Name Pioneer Trail Flood Mitigation Account #1 Account #2 Account #3 Account 44 Department Surface Water Management Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category SWMP Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $760, 000 Fhis project will help reduce the flooding potential of properties west of Highway 101 and north of Pioneer Trail. After large rain events the vetland and backyards of properties in this area flood and the water does not subside for several days. The area is mostly drained by a very old oncrete farm tile which is in very poor condition. This project would abandon the old farm tile and replace the tile with new storm sewer pipe. Che proposed storm sewer system will need to be modeled to reduce flooding potential. Some of the drainage is from Carver County roadways. Justification To reduce flooding potential to residential structures. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 760,000 760,000 Total 760,000 760, 000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Other Agency Contribution 685,000 685,000 Surface Water Utility Fund 75,000 75,000 Total 760,000 760,000 Budget Impact/Other Fhe City would be responsible for owning and maintaining the storm sewer. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-057 Project Name Downtown Water Reuse Project Account #1 Account #2 Account#3 Account#4 Department Surface Water Management Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category SWMP Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $350,000 fhe City is considering improvements to Market Blvd in the future. The storm water pond at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Market Blvd las been identified as a viable water reuse resource for irrigation. It is estimated that all of the City's downtown irrigation areas could be switched o the surface water source plus other private irrigation systems. A study will need to be completed to document the reuse potential of this pond. fhe study is proposed to be completed by another agency. Justification Chis project will reduce the amount of potable treated water which will help postpone the potential for drilling new wells as the City grows. Water euse is also identified as a best management strategy in the City's MS4 permit. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 350, 000 350, 000 Total Funding Sources 2019 350,000 2020 2021 2022 350,000 2023 Total Other Agency Contribution Surface Water Utility Fund Water Utility Fund 250,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 50,000 50,000 Total 350,000 350, 000 Budget Impact/Other Some operational staff time will be expected in the spring and the fall. Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-058 Project Name Lake Virginia TMDL Load Reduction Account #1 Account #3 Account#2 Account#4 Description 019 - Lake Minnewashta erosion & channelization stabilization project Department Surface Water Management Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life 20,000 2019 2020 Category SWMP Priority n/ a Total Project Cost: $20,000 Justification ake Minnewashta and Lake St. Joe are located in the Lake Virginia subwatershed. Lake Virginia is an impaired water body. Stormwater mprovement projects in the subwatershed show progress towards meeting the City's Waste Load Allocation. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Improvement 20,000 20,000 Total Funding Sources 20,000 2019 2020 20,000 2021 2022 2023 Total Other Agency Contribution Surface Water Utility Fund 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total 20,000 20,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # W-024 Project Name Watermain Replacement Account#1 700-7025-4751 Account#3 Account #2 Account #4 Description Department Water System Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Category Utilities Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $6,200,000 Replacement of existing water main lines in coordination with the reconstruction of the City street projects or minor fixes of water distribution system for street rehabilitation projects. Justification I The City considers the condition of the existing utilities in the process to select streets for rehabilitation in an effort to realize cost savings by consolidating these projects and also to avoid potential cuts in recently improved streets. If significant repairs are necessary to the existing water main, replacement may be the most cost effective option. Given the highly corrosive soils in the City, water main replacement is an ongoing project in the City. Prior 3,400,000 Total Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 600,000 1,100,000 200,000 900,000 2,800,000 Total 600,000 1,100,000 200,000 900,000 2,800,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 3,400, 000 Water Utility Fund 600,000 1,100,000 200,000 900,000 2,800,000 Tota I Total 600,000 1,100,000 200,000 900,000 2,800, 000 Budget Impact/Other these projects will decrease maintenance costs. Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # W-032 Project Name Well Rehabilitation Program Account 91 700-7025-4530 Account #2 Account#3 Account 44 Department Water System Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Unassigned Category Utilities Priority n/a Description Total Project Cost: $893,000 This program annually inspects and performs regular maintenance of the City's wells. Well pumps are recommended to be serviced every 8 years. It is recommended that the following pumps and motors be pulled and inspected for wear: 2019 - Well #4 2020 - Well #3 2021 - Well #9 2022 - Well #10 2023 - Well #2 Justification Performing regular maintenance will extend the life of well components, reduce emergency calls and have a more reliable water supply system. Prior Expenditures 563,000 Maintenance . Total Prior Funding Sources 563,000 Water Utility Fund Total Budget Impact/Other 2019 2020 2021 50,000 55,000 65,000 2022 2023 Total 95,000 65,000 330, 000 Total 50,000 55,000 65,000 95,000 65,000 330,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 50,000 55,000 65,000 95,000 65,000 330,000 Total 50,000 55,000 65,000 95,000 65,000 330,000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 thru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # W-046 Project Name Low Zone 1 million gallon Storage Tank Department Water System Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Utilities Account #1 700-7025-4751 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: $2,600,000 Phis tank is needed to meet the peak day irrigation demand and potential emergency demand for the growth of the community. It is needed in the ow zone pressure area to service the growth area south of Lyman Boulevard. The location of the tank is proposed on the Public Works Building ide on the ease site of Audubon. This tank is dependent on development. Staff plans to evaluate the need for this tank annually and adjust the onstruction date accordingly. Justification To meet peak irrigation and emergency water demands for the growing community as identified in the 2008 water comprehensive plan. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Construction 2,600,000 2,600,000 Total 2,600,000 2,600,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Water Utility Fund Budget Impact/Other 2,600,000 2,600, 000 Total 2,600,000 2,600, 000 Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN Project # W-056 Project Name MUSA Trunk Watermain Oversizing Account 01 700-7025-4xxx Account #2 Account#3 Account #4 Department Water System Improvements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Utilities Priority n/a Description I Total Project Cost: $200, 000 Fhis project pays for the oversizing of lateral watermains for future developments and is development driven. Payment for this project will e from he Trunk Water fund which is funded by development hook-up charges. The infrastructure will most likely be constructed with a development roiect. Justification Fhis project is necessary to support growth in the City and to ensure proper water pressure and fire flows. Prior Expenditures F -7—o—,66-61 construction Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 150,000 150,000 Total 150,000 150,000 Prior Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total F___5_0_,00_01 Water Utility Fund 150,000 150,000 Total Total 150,000 150,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program 2019 rhru 2023 City of Chanhassen, MN EProject # W-061 Pr°feet Name Repaint Watertower Place Tank Department Water System Improvements Contact PaulOehme Type Maintenance Useful Life Total 2,000,000 2019 2020 2021 Category Utilities Account #1 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 Description Total Project Cost: $2,000,000 chis project will remove the existing paint and repaint the interior and exterior surface of the tower. The tank was constructed in 1995 and the xpected life expectancy of a tank coating is 20 years. Justification An inspection report will be drafted prior to construction to justify the work. Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Maintenance 2,000,000 2,000, 000 Funding Sources Total 2,000, 000 2019 2020 2021 2,000, 000 2022 2023 Total Water Utility Fund 2,000,000 2,000,000 Total 2,000,000 2,000,000 Budget Impact/Other CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2019 Budget 2018 2019 Dollar Percent OPERATIONAL & CAPITAL LEVY Levy Levy Change Change General Fund $8,704,333 $8,810,333 Capital Replacement Fund (for equipment) 800,000 800,000 Revolving Imp Street Reconstruction 384,838 381,223 Pavement Mgmt Fund (Sealcoating)93,000 93,000 Total Operational & Capital Levy 9,982,171 10,084,556 102,385 1.03% DEBT LEVY Public Works Facility 470,400 475,800 Library Referendum 461,297 459,512 Total Debt Levy 931,697 935,312 3,615 0.39% TOTAL TAX LEVY $10,913,868 $11,019,868 $106,000 0.97% Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3 Levy Levy Levy Taxes applied to:General Fund $8,886,333 $8,810,333 $8,760,333 Capital Replacement 800,000 800,000 800,000 Pavement Mgmt 93,000 93,000 93,000 Revolving Imp St Recon 381,223 381,223 381,223 Total Levy subject to levy limits $10,160,556 $10,084,556 $10,034,556 Library Referendum $475,800 $475,800 $475,800 Public Works Building 459,512 459,512 459,512 Total $11,095,868 $11,019,868 $10,969,868 Tax Generation Capacity (Not actual levy, Used only for estimating the impact on the average home) Prior Year $10,913,868 $10,913,868 $10,913,868 New Construction (0.97%)$106,000 $106,000 $106,000 Total Capacity $11,019,868 $11,019,868 $11,019,868 Percent Change (To avg home city prop tax) after New Growth 0.69%0.00%-0.45% Staff recommendation for final Levy TAX LEVY 12/5/2018 G:\ENG\state-aid\MSA Projected Fund Balance City of Chanhassen, City # 194 Municipal State Aid Construction Fund Account Estimated Yearly Expenditures and Balances Assumes State Aid has sufficient funds to Advance Maximum Advancement $4M Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Beginning Year Balance $10,276 -$1,566,400 -$2,524,609 -$2,663,982 -$4,684,143 -$3,784,707 -$4,265,282 Allocation (assume 2% adjustment annually $923,324 $941,791 $960,627 $979,839 $999,436 $1,019,425 $1,039,813 Yearly Programmed Expenditure $2,500,000 $1,900,000 $1,100,000 $3,000,000 $100,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 Year Ending Balance -$1,566,400 -$2,524,609 -$2,663,982 -$4,684,143 -$3,784,707 -$4,265,282 -$5,225,469 Lake Drive E Minnewashta Pkwy Market Blvd Galpin Blvd.TH 41/82nd St. Signal Bluff Creek Drive Pleasant View Road $700,000 Powers Blvd. Ped Crossing $300,000 $1,200,000 $600,000 $3,000,000 $100,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 Lyman Blvd. Galpin to 41 Lake Lucy Road Lake Drive W. & Great Plains $1,500,000 $700,000 $500,000 $900,000 - Closed Bond Fund $100,000- 212 MUSA Assessment Bonds Subtotal $2.5 Million Lyman Signal Imp. On TH 41 Bluff Creek Drive (Pioneer Trail to Flying Cloud Drive) Pleasant View Road (Powers to TH 101)Projects Lake Drive Imp. (Dell to Dakota) Lyman Blvd west of Galpin Blvd. Powers Blvd. Ped Crossing Galpin Blvd. (TH 5 to north City limits) Market Blvd. Imp. (78th to TH 5) Lake Drive E ( Dakota to Great Plains) Great Plains south of TH 5 Minnewashta Pkwy (TH 7 to south City limits), Lake Lucy TH 41 to Galpin Blvd. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Review of Claims Paid 12­10­2018 Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: J.1. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No:  SUMMARY The following claims are submitted for review on December 10, 2018: Check Numbers Amounts 168399 – 168476 $105,498.70 ACH Payments $1,039,252.21 Total All Claims $1,144,750.91 ATTACHMENTS: Check Summary Check Summary ACH Check Detail Check Detail ACH Accounts Payable User: Printed: dwashburn 11/30/2018 8:49 AM Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount AARP AARP 11/21/2018 0.00 395.00168399 BCATRA BCA 11/21/2018 0.00 75.00168400 BORSTA BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 11/21/2018 0.00 1,771.62168401 BRYROC BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC 11/21/2018 0.00 2,026.94168402 BURKCHAR Charlie Burke 11/21/2018 0.00 32.94168403 COLELE Collins Electrical Construction Co 11/21/2018 0.00 370.50168404 COMASP Commercial Asphalt Co 11/21/2018 0.00 169.83168405 EHLERS EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2018 0.00 8,917.50168406 FerEnt Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. #1657 11/21/2018 0.00 13.10168407 FLOTOT FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 11/21/2018 0.00 82.50168408 GOGYMN Go Gymnastics 11/21/2018 0.00 889.00168409 HERDBEVE Beverly Herda 11/21/2018 0.00 1,200.00168410 ICMART ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 11/21/2018 0.00 1,445.83168411 KOEHJASO Jason Koehnen 11/21/2018 0.00 189.97168412 LEAINS LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST 11/21/2018 0.00 2,218.00168413 MNHEAL MN DEPT OF HEALTH 11/21/2018 0.00 13,252.00168414 MNNAT MN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 11/21/2018 0.00 200.00168415 MOOMED MOORE MEDICAL 11/21/2018 0.00 50.71168416 NatSho Natural Shore Technologies, Inc.11/21/2018 0.00 14,974.00168417 NEWSIG NEWMAN SIGNS INC 11/21/2018 0.00 1,288.38168418 UB*01545 RICK PETERSEN 11/21/2018 0.00 73.29168419 PULTGROU Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 11/21/2018 0.00 2,500.00168420 SANDCHRI CHRIS SANDBERG 11/21/2018 0.00 164.99168421 SOFHOU SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 11/21/2018 0.00 215.00168422 SpeScr Spectrum Screen Printing Inc 11/21/2018 0.00 149.17168423 STACONLL Sta Con LLC 11/21/2018 0.00 69.03168424 UNIMIN UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 11/21/2018 0.00 140.00168425 WALLJJ James Wall 11/21/2018 0.00 179.99168426 WILNUR WILSON'S NURSERY INC 11/21/2018 0.00 264.00168427 WINGRICH RICHARD WING 11/21/2018 0.00 100.00168428 carlic CARVER COUNTY LICENSE CENTER 11/21/2018 0.00 1,921.18168429 AUTHOM Authentic Homes LLC 11/29/2018 0.00 100.00168430 BAUBUI Bauer Built Inc 11/29/2018 0.00 1,091.48168431 BCATRA BCA 11/29/2018 VOID 212.00 0.00168432 BECKCURT Curtis Beckmann 11/29/2018 0.00 200.00168433 UB*01546 BERCH CAPITAL LLC 11/29/2018 VOID 82.58 0.00168434 BRESTIM TIM BRESNAHAN 11/29/2018 0.00 291.90168435 BROSHARO HAROLD BROSE 11/29/2018 0.00 20.00168436 CAPCONS Capitol Construction Solutions Inc 11/29/2018 0.00 3,500.00168437 CDWGOV CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 11/29/2018 0.00 128.56168438 CEMPRO CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 11/29/2018 0.00 429.00168439 CHASKA CITY OF CHASKA 11/29/2018 0.00 1,563.02168440 CLACCO CLASS C COMPONENTS INC 11/29/2018 0.00 22.77168441 CORMAI CORE & MAIN LP 11/29/2018 0.00 6,727.98168442 DulSal Dultmeier Sales LLC 11/29/2018 0.00 2,454.09168443 EARAND Earl F Andersen Inc 11/29/2018 0.00 58.00168444 GOODIN GOODIN COMPANY 11/29/2018 0.00 15.39168445 Page 1AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (11/30/2018 8:49 AM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount GRANOT Grace Notes Trio 11/29/2018 0.00 300.00168446 HENTEC Hennepin Technical College 11/29/2018 0.00 305.00168447 HERLAN HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 11/29/2018 0.00 292.00168448 KENGRA KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 11/29/2018 0.00 2,220.62168449 KOEHJASO Jason Koehnen 11/29/2018 0.00 259.00168450 KOSKDUST DUSTIN KOSKELA 11/29/2018 0.00 128.74168451 LANEQ1 Lano Equipment 11/29/2018 0.00 2,800.00168452 LawPro Lawson Products, Inc.11/29/2018 0.00 87.84168453 MNNAT MN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 11/29/2018 0.00 135.00168454 MORSAL MORTON SALT 11/29/2018 0.00 3,914.70168455 MTIDIS MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 11/29/2018 0.00 1,974.64168456 MULCCON MULCARE CONTRACTING LLC 11/29/2018 0.00 5,250.00168457 NEWSIG NEWMAN SIGNS INC 11/29/2018 0.00 134.47168458 OLSCOM OLSEN COMPANIES 11/29/2018 0.00 280.00168459 POST POSTMASTER 11/29/2018 0.00 689.29168460 POST POSTMASTER 11/29/2018 0.00 167.61168461 RMBENV RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 11/29/2018 0.00 1,160.00168462 ROERBRIA BRIAN ROERICK 11/29/2018 0.00 375.00168463 Senja Senja Inc 11/29/2018 0.00 268.80168464 SOFHOU SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 11/29/2018 0.00 855.00168465 TheGar The Garden By The Woods 11/29/2018 0.00 375.00168466 UnitRent United Rentals (North America), Inc.11/29/2018 0.00 642.50168467 VALRIC VALLEY-RICH CO INC 11/29/2018 0.00 4,284.50168468 VIKELE VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 11/29/2018 0.00 240.08168469 WallJJ James Wall 11/29/2018 0.00 49.99168470 WastMana Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 11/29/2018 0.00 350.68168471 WEIGJENN JENNIFER WEIGHT 11/29/2018 0.00 28.00168472 WILNUR WILSON'S NURSERY INC 11/29/2018 0.00 5,694.00168473 BCATRA BCA 11/29/2018 0.00 180.00168474 BCATRA BCA 11/29/2018 0.00 32.00168475 GOWEN Christopher & Catherine Gowen 11/29/2018 0.00 82.58168476 Report Total (78 checks): 105,498.70 294.58 Page 2AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (11/30/2018 8:49 AM) Accounts Payable Checks by Date - Summary by Check User: dwashburn Printed: 11/30/2018 8:50 AM Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH ADAPES ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC 11/21/2018 0.00 125.00 ACH BATPLU BATTERIES PLUS 11/21/2018 0.00 19.95 ACH BRAINT BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 11/21/2018 0.00 4,928.90 ACH carcou Carver County 11/21/2018 0.00 921,425.00 ACH COMINT COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN. 11/21/2018 0.00 4,000.00 ACH CRYINF Crystal Infosystems LLC 11/21/2018 0.00 245.95 ACH DelDen Delta Dental 11/21/2018 0.00 2,287.10 ACH GeaWas Gear Wash, LLC 11/21/2018 0.00 4,881.76 ACH IMPPOR IMPERIAL PORTA PALACE 11/21/2018 0.00 4,328.20 ACH kidplu Kidd Plumbing Inc 11/21/2018 0.00 392.50 ACH MVEC MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 11/21/2018 0.00 331.80 ACH NusEqu Nuss Truck & Equipment 11/21/2018 0.00 3,008.17 ACH PREMRM PRECISE MRM LLC 11/21/2018 0.00 137.36 ACH PremLand Premier Land Surveying, LLC 11/21/2018 0.00 2,826.00 ACH RBMSER RBM SERVICES INC 11/21/2018 0.00 4,413.04 ACH SPSSLP SPS Companies-St Louis Park 11/21/2018 0.00 28.33 ACH STRGUA STRATOGUARD LLC 11/21/2018 0.00 160.00 ACH SUNLIF Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 0.00 1,397.80 ACH UNIWAY UNITED WAY 11/21/2018 0.00 28.40 ACH WMMUE WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/21/2018 0.00 3,185.87 ACH WSB WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2018 0.00 2,742.25 ACH WWGRA WW GRAINGER INC 11/21/2018 0.00 270.13 ACH XCEL XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2018 0.00 11,439.64 ACH AFLAC American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus 11/29/2018 0.00 39.78 ACH AMESOL AMERICAN SOLUTIONS 11/29/2018 0.00 1,183.40 ACH BOYTRU Boyer Truck Parts 11/29/2018 0.00 46.95 ACH carcou Carver County 11/29/2018 0.00 64.00 ACH CHOICE Choice, Inc. 11/29/2018 0.00 177.60 ACH ColLif Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 11/29/2018 0.00 202.08 ACH COMINT COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN. 11/29/2018 0.00 5,813.14 ACH EMEAUT EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 11/29/2018 0.00 458.32 ACH FASCOM FASTENAL COMPANY 11/29/2018 0.00 453.75 ACH FergEnte Ferguson Waterworks #2516 11/29/2018 0.00 20,708.45 ACH Avesis Fidelity Security Life 11/29/2018 0.00 153.74 ACH HAWCHE HAWKINS CHEMICAL 11/29/2018 0.00 5,428.41 ACH IndPla Indelco Plastics Corporation 11/29/2018 0.00 100.54 ACH InnOff Innovative Office Solutions LLC 11/29/2018 0.00 420.65 ACH MACEQU MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 11/29/2018 0.00 39.58 ACH MVEC MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 11/29/2018 0.00 179.96 ACH NusEqu Nuss Truck & Equipment 11/29/2018 0.00 24.57 ACH POMTIR POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC 11/29/2018 0.00 1,368.15 ACH PreWat Premium Waters, Inc 11/29/2018 0.00 11.30 ACH ProTec Pro-Tec Design, Inc. 11/29/2018 0.00 8,429.82 ACH RUFJOH RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO 11/29/2018 0.00 46.70 ACH SafFas Safe-Fast, Inc. 11/29/2018 0.00 828.00 Page 1 of 2 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH SURPLU SURE PLUS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 11/29/2018 0.00 68.74 ACH TCIInc TCIC, Inc. 11/29/2018 0.00 435.00 ACH ULTCON ULTIMATE CONTROLS ELECTRIC LLC 11/29/2018 0.00 2,280.00 ACH WMMUE WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/29/2018 0.00 648.00 ACH XCEL XCEL ENERGY INC 11/29/2018 0.00 17,038.43 Report Total: 0.00 1,039,252.21 Page 2 of 2 Accounts Payable Check Detail-Checks User: dwashburn Printed: 11/30/2018 - 9:27 AM Name Check Da Account Description Amount AARP 11/21/2018 101-1560-4300 Driver Safety-4 hr refresher course 395.00 AARP 395.00 Authentic Homes LLC 11/29/2018 101-1310-3629 Encroachment - 595 Summerfield Drive 100.00 Authentic Homes LLC 100.00 Bauer Built Inc 11/29/2018 101-1320-4120 (4) CDL37 G CONSTELLATION TL 1,091.48 Bauer Built Inc 1,091.48 BCA 11/21/2018 101-1120-4300 background investigation 75.00 BCA 11/29/2018 101-1120-4300 employee background investigation 180.00 BCA 11/29/2018 101-1220-4300 Firefighter background investigation 32.00 BCA 287.00 Beckmann Curtis 11/29/2018 101-1560-4300 Remarks before senior organizations 200.00 Beckmann Curtis 200.00 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 11/21/2018 701-0000-4150 Supplies 1,771.62 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1,771.62 BRESNAHAN TIM 11/29/2018 101-1320-4240 Clothing allowance - pants 291.90 BRESNAHAN TIM 291.90 BROSE HAROLD 11/29/2018 701-0000-4551 Hay Bales 20.00 BROSE HAROLD 20.00 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC 11/21/2018 101-1550-4150 Rice Marsh Lake Park - Red Ball 484.78 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC 11/21/2018 101-1320-4150 Yard - CL-2 Rip 1,542.16 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC 2,026.94 Burke Charlie 11/21/2018 101-1320-4370 Annual Snow meeting - Donuts, Cake 32.94 Burke Charlie 32.94 Capitol Construction Solutions Inc 11/29/2018 815-8221-2024 Security Escrow - 531 W 79th St - Meter Deposit 3,500.00 Capitol Construction Solutions Inc 3,500.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (11/30/2018 - 9:27 AM)Page 1 of 6 Name Check Da Account Description Amount CARVER COUNTY LICENSE CENTER 11/21/2018 400-4120-4704 License/registration-park pickup 1,899.43 CARVER COUNTY LICENSE CENTER 11/21/2018 400-4135-4704 License/registration-#208 ladder 21.75 CARVER COUNTY LICENSE CENTER 1,921.18 CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 11/29/2018 400-4126-4703 APC Basic PDU, Video Adapter 128.56 CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 128.56 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 11/29/2018 700-0000-4550 3A32 3900 PSI 6BG 3/4, fee, load charge 429.00 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 429.00 CITY OF CHASKA 11/29/2018 101-1560-4300 Mighty Mississippi Show on 11/2, Radio Gals Trip on 11/7 1,563.02 CITY OF CHASKA 1,563.02 CLASS C COMPONENTS INC 11/29/2018 101-1320-4240 Gloves 22.77 CLASS C COMPONENTS INC 22.77 Collins Electrical Construction Co 11/21/2018 101-1190-4510 Replaced Ballasts in office lights 370.50 Collins Electrical Construction Co 370.50 Commercial Asphalt Co 11/21/2018 420-0000-4751 9.5MM Rec Wear 169.83 Commercial Asphalt Co 169.83 CORE & MAIN LP 11/29/2018 700-0000-4552 Parts/Supplies 6,131.48 CORE & MAIN LP 11/29/2018 101-1320-4150 24 PVC SDR35 SWR PIPE 556.50 CORE & MAIN LP 11/29/2018 101-1370-4510 Gaskets 40.00 CORE & MAIN LP 6,727.98 Dultmeier Sales LLC 11/29/2018 400-0000-4704 Pump w/Honda Engine 2,323.83 Dultmeier Sales LLC 11/29/2018 101-1550-4120 Iron Relief Valve 130.26 Dultmeier Sales LLC 2,454.09 Earl F Andersen Inc 11/29/2018 101-1550-4560 Sign - Manchester Park Right Arrow 58.00 Earl F Andersen Inc 58.00 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2018 700-0000-4300 Utility Rate Study 2,352.50 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2018 701-0000-4300 Utility Rate Study 2,352.50 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2018 720-0000-4300 Utility Rate Study 2,352.50 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2018 601-0000-4300 Franchise Fee Analysis 1,860.00 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 8,917.50 Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. #1657 11/21/2018 700-0000-4550 3/4 COP STRUT CLMP W/HDWR 13.10 Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. #1657 13.10 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 11/21/2018 101-1190-4510 rekey 3 cylinders to master and change 82.50 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (11/30/2018 - 9:27 AM)Page 2 of 6 Name Check Da Account Description Amount FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 82.50 Go Gymnastics 11/21/2018 101-1537-4300 gymnastics classes 644.00 Go Gymnastics 11/21/2018 101-1538-4300 gymnastics classes 245.00 Go Gymnastics 889.00 GOODIN COMPANY 11/29/2018 700-0000-4150 Red Rubber Flange Gasket 15.39 GOODIN COMPANY 15.39 Gowen Christopher & Catherine 11/29/2018 701-0000-1191 Utility Refund- 7773 S Shore Drive 49.52 Gowen Christopher & Catherine 11/29/2018 720-0000-1191 Utility Refund- 7773 S Shore Drive 0.97 Gowen Christopher & Catherine 11/29/2018 700-0000-1191 Utility Refund- 7773 S Shore Drive 32.09 Gowen Christopher & Catherine 82.58 Grace Notes Trio 11/29/2018 101-1560-4300 12/6/18 Music Entertainment for Senior Holiday Party 300.00 Grace Notes Trio 300.00 Hennepin Technical College 11/29/2018 101-1220-4370 EMS Skills - Jim Van Asten 305.00 Hennepin Technical College 305.00 Herda Beverly 11/21/2018 101-1600-4300 Tree lighting ceremony - Reindeer 1,200.00 Herda Beverly 1,200.00 HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 11/29/2018 101-1550-4150 pulverized dirt 292.00 HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 292.00 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 11/21/2018 101-0000-2009 11/23/2018 ID#304303 1,114.58 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 11/21/2018 210-0000-2009 11/23/2018 ID#304303 25.00 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 11/21/2018 700-0000-2009 11/23/2018 ID#304303 152.49 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 11/21/2018 701-0000-2009 11/23/2018 ID#304303 152.50 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 11/21/2018 720-0000-2009 11/23/2018 ID#304303 1.26 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 1,445.83 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 11/29/2018 601-0000-4300 Franchise Fees 2,220.62 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 2,220.62 Koehnen Jason 11/21/2018 101-1550-4240 Clothing reimburement - Carhartt bibs and pants 189.97 Koehnen Jason 11/29/2018 101-1550-4240 Clothing reimbursement - pants, boots 259.00 Koehnen Jason 448.97 KOSKELA DUSTIN 11/29/2018 101-1550-4240 Safety clothing - Carhartt biberalls 128.74 KOSKELA DUSTIN 128.74 Lano Equipment 11/29/2018 101-1320-4410 Kubota Excavator 2,800.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (11/30/2018 - 9:27 AM)Page 3 of 6 Name Check Da Account Description Amount Lano Equipment 2,800.00 Lawson Products, Inc.11/29/2018 101-1320-4120 Maintenance Paint 29.28 Lawson Products, Inc.11/29/2018 101-1550-4120 Maintenance Paint 29.28 Lawson Products, Inc.11/29/2018 701-0000-4120 Maintenance Paint 29.28 Lawson Products, Inc. 87.84 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST 11/21/2018 101-1170-4483 General Liability Acct# 10002587 2,218.00 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST 2,218.00 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 11/21/2018 700-0000-4509 Water Supply Service Connection Fee 10/1/18-12/31/18 13,252.00 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 13,252.00 MN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 11/21/2018 101-1611-4300 MN DNR Permit - 2019 Feb Fest Ice Contest 200.00 MN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 11/29/2018 101-1611-4300 MN DNR Permit - 2019 Feb Fest Fishing Contest 135.00 MN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 335.00 MOORE MEDICAL 11/21/2018 101-1220-4130 Sphyg adult navy 50.71 MOORE MEDICAL 50.71 MORTON SALT 11/29/2018 101-1320-4150 bulk safe-t-salt 3,058.28 MORTON SALT 11/29/2018 101-1320-4150 bulk safe-t-salt 856.42 MORTON SALT 3,914.70 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 11/29/2018 101-1550-4120 Parts/Supplies 1,653.09 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 11/29/2018 101-1550-4120 Parts/Supplies 321.55 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 1,974.64 MULCARE CONTRACTING LLC 11/29/2018 410-0000-4706 Manchester Park-Playground & Picnic Shelter 5,250.00 MULCARE CONTRACTING LLC 5,250.00 Natural Shore Technologies, Inc.11/21/2018 720-0000-4130 Spring cleanup,weeding,mulching 3,385.50 Natural Shore Technologies, Inc.11/21/2018 720-0000-4130 Lake Ann Rain Garden Planting 4,825.00 Natural Shore Technologies, Inc.11/21/2018 720-0000-4130 Weeding and Cattail Control 757.50 Natural Shore Technologies, Inc.11/21/2018 720-0000-4130 Spring cleanup,weeding 1,604.50 Natural Shore Technologies, Inc.11/21/2018 720-0000-4130 Weeding,planting,herbicide treatment 2,970.50 Natural Shore Technologies, Inc.11/21/2018 720-0000-4130 Weeding,herbicide treatment 1,431.00 Natural Shore Technologies, Inc. 14,974.00 NEWMAN SIGNS INC 11/21/2018 701-0000-4510 Signs 117.18 NEWMAN SIGNS INC 11/21/2018 101-1320-4560 Signs 1,171.20 NEWMAN SIGNS INC 11/29/2018 701-0000-4150 Signs 134.47 NEWMAN SIGNS INC 1,422.85 OLSEN COMPANIES 11/29/2018 701-0000-4300 Hoist Annual Inspection 280.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (11/30/2018 - 9:27 AM)Page 4 of 6 Name Check Da Account Description Amount OLSEN COMPANIES 280.00 PETERSEN RICK 11/21/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 25.21 PETERSEN RICK 11/21/2018 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 34.88 PETERSEN RICK 11/21/2018 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 11.22 PETERSEN RICK 11/21/2018 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.98 PETERSEN RICK 73.29 POSTMASTER 11/29/2018 101-1120-4330 Postage 167.61 POSTMASTER 11/29/2018 700-0000-4330 Utility Statement postage 344.65 POSTMASTER 11/29/2018 701-0000-4330 Utility Statement postage 344.64 POSTMASTER 856.90 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 11/21/2018 815-8226-2024 As-Built Escrow - 742,740,738,736,734 Maggie Way 2,500.00 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 2,500.00 RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 11/29/2018 720-0000-4300 Chlorophyll, Escherichia, Nitrogen, Phosphorus 232.00 RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 11/29/2018 720-0000-4300 Chlorophyll, Escherichia, Nitrogen, Phosphorus 232.00 RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 11/29/2018 720-0000-4300 Chlorophyll, Escherichia, Nitrogen, Phosphorus 232.00 RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 11/29/2018 720-0000-4300 Chlorophyll, Escherichia, Nitrogen, Phosphorus 232.00 RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 11/29/2018 720-0000-4300 Chlorophyll, Escherichia, Nitrogen, Phosphorus 232.00 RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 1,160.00 ROERICK BRIAN 11/29/2018 101-1370-4240 Jeans, Shirts, Work boots 375.00 ROERICK BRIAN 375.00 SANDBERG CHRIS 11/21/2018 101-1320-4240 clothing reimbursement - boots from Bass Pro Shop 164.99 SANDBERG CHRIS 164.99 Senja Inc 11/29/2018 101-1539-4300 Tai Chi instruction 268.80 Senja Inc 268.80 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 11/21/2018 400-4126-4703 VMWare Workstation Pro 215.00 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 11/29/2018 101-1160-4220 Audit Plus Annual Renewal 855.00 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 1,070.00 Spectrum Screen Printing Inc 11/21/2018 720-0000-4120 Polos, Button front shirt 149.17 Spectrum Screen Printing Inc 149.17 Sta Con LLC 11/21/2018 701-0000-4530 Repair Kit 69.03 Sta Con LLC 69.03 The Garden By The Woods 11/29/2018 720-7202-4300 tree coupons 375.00 The Garden By The Woods 375.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (11/30/2018 - 9:27 AM)Page 5 of 6 Name Check Da Account Description Amount United Rentals (North America), Inc.11/29/2018 101-1320-4410 14' Rugged Road Mat Pins, T-Bar Tool 792.50 United Rentals (North America), Inc.11/29/2018 101-1320-4370 credit - registration for a class employee didn't attend -150.00 United Rentals (North America), Inc. 642.50 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 11/21/2018 720-0000-4370 MN Wetland Delineator Certification - Vanessa Strong 140.00 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 140.00 VALLEY-RICH CO INC 11/29/2018 700-0000-4550 Excavator, Generator, Labor 4,284.50 VALLEY-RICH CO INC 4,284.50 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 11/29/2018 101-1370-4705 250V Angle Plug 6-50P 70.00 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 11/29/2018 101-1370-4260 250V Angle Plug 6-50P 70.00 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 11/29/2018 101-1370-4705 BLK STR 600V MR 90 DEG 600V CORD .695 OD 100.08 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 240.08 Wall James 11/21/2018 101-1550-4240 Clothing reimbursement - boots from Red Wing Shoes 179.99 Wall James 11/29/2018 101-1550-4240 Carhartt Dungaree - safety 49.99 Wall James 229.98 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 11/29/2018 101-1550-4300 Nov 2018 garbage svc for Lake Ann Park 350.68 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 350.68 WEIGHT JENNIFER 11/29/2018 101-1806-3642 Refund - Super Hero in Training 28.00 WEIGHT JENNIFER 28.00 WILSON'S NURSERY INC 11/21/2018 101-1550-4150 12 - Arcadia Junipers 264.00 WILSON'S NURSERY INC 11/29/2018 101-1550-4300 City Hall Veterans Monument - Shrubs, Mulch 4,575.00 WILSON'S NURSERY INC 11/29/2018 101-1550-4300 Manchester Park trees 1,119.00 WILSON'S NURSERY INC 5,958.00 WING RICHARD 11/21/2018 101-1220-4350 Station 2 cleaning 100.00 WING RICHARD 100.00 105,498.70 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (11/30/2018 - 9:27 AM)Page 6 of 6 Accounts Payable Check Detail-ACH User: dwashburn Printed: 11/30/2018 - 9:28 AM Name Check D Account Description Amount ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC 11/21/2018 101-1170-4300 Monthly service 125.00 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC 125.00 American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus 11/29/2018 101-0000-2008 November 2018 premium 39.78 American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus 39.78 AMERICAN SOLUTIONS 11/29/2018 700-0000-4340 Utility Bill Statements 591.70 AMERICAN SOLUTIONS 11/29/2018 701-0000-4340 Utility Bill Statements 591.70 AMERICAN SOLUTIONS 1,183.40 BATTERIES PLUS 11/21/2018 101-1190-4510 6V Lead Battery 19.95 BATTERIES PLUS 19.95 Boyer Truck Parts 11/29/2018 101-1320-4140 Accumulator 50.51 Boyer Truck Parts 11/29/2018 101-1320-4140 Core ASY 71.44 Boyer Truck Parts 11/29/2018 101-1320-4140 Stud Taper -73.16 Boyer Truck Parts 11/29/2018 101-1320-4140 Gasket, Seal -1.84 Boyer Truck Parts 46.95 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 11/21/2018 720-0000-4300 Stormwater Pond Sediment Sampling 4,928.90 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 4,928.90 Carver County 11/21/2018 101-1210-4300 2nd half 2018 Police Contract 918,282.50 Carver County 11/21/2018 400-0000-4752 2017 Pictometery Flight - 2nd half 2,092.50 Carver County 11/21/2018 700-7043-4320 Dark Fiber - WWTP - Sept 350.00 Carver County 11/21/2018 700-7043-4320 Dark Fiber - WWTP - Oct 350.00 Carver County 11/21/2018 700-7043-4320 Dark Fiber - WWTP - Nov 350.00 Carver County 11/29/2018 101-1550-4150 Yard Waste CUYD 64.00 Carver County 921,489.00 Choice, Inc.11/29/2018 101-1220-4350 cleaning 10/15-11/9 177.60 Choice, Inc. 177.60 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 11/29/2018 101-0000-2008 November 2018 premium 60.72 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 11/29/2018 700-0000-2008 November 2018 premium 70.68 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 11/29/2018 701-0000-2008 November 2018 premium 70.68 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 202.08 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (11/30/2018 - 9:28 AM)Page 1 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN.11/21/2018 101-1160-4300 Services Retainer 4,000.00 COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN.11/29/2018 400-4126-4703 Switch Module, HP J9534A 2,143.07 COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN.11/29/2018 400-4126-4703 Switch Module, HP J9986A 2,143.07 COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN.11/29/2018 400-4126-4703 Management Module, HPE 5400Rzl2 J9827A 1,527.00 COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN. 9,813.14 Crystal Infosystems LLC 11/21/2018 101-1170-4110 Toner, HP 87x 245.95 Crystal Infosystems LLC 245.95 Delta Dental 11/21/2018 101-0000-2013 December insurance premium 1,605.61 Delta Dental 11/21/2018 101-0000-2013 December insurance premium - cobra 120.80 Delta Dental 11/21/2018 700-0000-2013 December insurance premium 233.80 Delta Dental 11/21/2018 701-0000-2013 December insurance premium 203.61 Delta Dental 11/21/2018 720-0000-2013 December insurance premium 123.28 Delta Dental 2,287.10 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 11/29/2018 101-1550-4120 Whelen Vertex Hideaway LED Module 150.04 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 11/29/2018 101-1550-4120 Flange Kit, LED Module 308.28 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 458.32 FASTENAL COMPANY 11/29/2018 101-1550-4120 Stake flags 219.40 FASTENAL COMPANY 11/29/2018 101-1370-4260 4-1/8"W x 11-5/8"D 42.00 FASTENAL COMPANY 11/29/2018 101-1370-4705 72 Hole Bin 192.35 FASTENAL COMPANY 453.75 Ferguson Waterworks #2516 11/29/2018 700-0000-4250 Meters 19,866.43 Ferguson Waterworks #2516 11/29/2018 700-0000-4552 NON-REV MAIN VLV 842.02 Ferguson Waterworks #2516 20,708.45 Fidelity Security Life 11/29/2018 101-0000-2007 Vision insurance - December 128.95 Fidelity Security Life 11/29/2018 700-0000-2007 Vision insurance - December 14.18 Fidelity Security Life 11/29/2018 701-0000-2007 Vision insurance - December 8.23 Fidelity Security Life 11/29/2018 720-0000-2007 Vision insurance - December 2.38 Fidelity Security Life 153.74 Gear Wash, LLC 11/21/2018 101-1220-4530 Turnout Gear Cleaning/Inspections/Repairs 2,335.19 Gear Wash, LLC 11/21/2018 101-1220-4530 Turnout Gear Cleaning/Inspections/Repairs 2,546.57 Gear Wash, LLC 4,881.76 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 11/29/2018 700-7019-4160 Azone 15 - EPA 5,428.41 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 5,428.41 IMPERIAL PORTA PALACE 11/21/2018 101-1550-4400 portable restrooms - October 4,328.20 IMPERIAL PORTA PALACE 4,328.20 Indelco Plastics Corporation 11/29/2018 700-7019-4150 Bulkhead Fittings 100.54 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (11/30/2018 - 9:28 AM)Page 2 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount Indelco Plastics Corporation 100.54 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 11/29/2018 101-1170-4110 Planner, Paper, Calendar 335.84 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 11/29/2018 101-1170-4110 Desk Pad, Forks, Plates, Pads 84.81 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 420.65 Kidd Plumbing Inc 11/21/2018 101-1170-4510 9/14/18 Install water cooling unit at City Hall break room 392.50 Kidd Plumbing Inc 392.50 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 11/29/2018 701-0000-4150 Nozzles 39.58 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 39.58 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 11/21/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 116.25 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 11/21/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 215.55 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 11/29/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 41.20 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 11/29/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 138.76 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 511.76 Nuss Truck & Equipment 11/21/2018 400-0000-4705 Software, Cables 3,008.17 Nuss Truck & Equipment 11/29/2018 101-1320-4120 Manual Actuat 24.57 Nuss Truck & Equipment 3,032.74 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC 11/29/2018 101-1320-4140 385/65R22 5/18 Hankook AM15 (3) 1,368.15 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC 1,368.15 PRECISE MRM LLC 11/21/2018 101-1320-4310 Pooled Data Plan US/Network Access Fee 137.36 PRECISE MRM LLC 137.36 Premier Land Surveying, LLC 11/21/2018 720-0000-4300 Research/Set Up, Survey Crew, Prepare Certificate 2,826.00 Premier Land Surveying, LLC 2,826.00 Premium Waters, Inc 11/29/2018 101-1550-4120 Monthly fee - Nov 11.30 Premium Waters, Inc 11.30 Pro-Tec Design, Inc.11/29/2018 700-7050-4705 Water Plant NVR - Surveillance Cameras 8,429.82 Pro-Tec Design, Inc. 8,429.82 RBM SERVICES INC 11/21/2018 101-1170-4300 nightly janitorial - city hall - Dec 2018 2,239.99 RBM SERVICES INC 11/21/2018 101-1190-4300 Nightly/Weekend Janitorial - Library - Dec 2018 2,173.05 RBM SERVICES INC 4,413.04 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO 11/29/2018 101-1320-4120 Tank Cap 46.70 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO 46.70 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (11/30/2018 - 9:28 AM)Page 3 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount Safe-Fast, Inc.11/29/2018 101-1550-4120 T-shirts, Sweatshirts, Jackets 828.00 Safe-Fast, Inc. 828.00 SPS Companies-St Louis Park 11/21/2018 101-1190-4510 B-51-A Triple Seal Handle Kit 28.33 SPS Companies-St Louis Park 28.33 STRATOGUARD LLC 11/21/2018 101-1160-4300 ProofPoint Email filtering service - Dec 160.00 STRATOGUARD LLC 160.00 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-0000-2011 Life Insurance-December cobra 49.37 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1120-4040 Life Insurance-December 29.90 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1130-4040 Life Insurance-December 20.59 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1160-4040 Life Insurance-December 10.53 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1250-4040 Life Insurance-December 38.16 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1310-4040 Life Insurance-December 40.68 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1320-4040 Life Insurance-December 47.34 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1370-4040 Life Insurance-December 18.60 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1520-4040 Life Insurance-December 15.35 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1530-4040 Life Insurance-December 6.03 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1560-4040 Life Insurance-December 4.95 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1600-4040 Life Insurance-December 9.58 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1700-4040 Life Insurance-December 2.39 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1550-4040 Life Insurance-December 44.18 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1420-4040 Life Insurance-December 33.21 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1430-4040 Life Insurance-December 1.98 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 210-0000-4040 Life Insurance-December 7.65 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 720-7201-4040 Life Insurance-December 2.34 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 720-7202-4040 Life Insurance-December 2.34 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1170-4040 Life Insurance-December 5.31 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-1220-4040 Life Insurance-December 18.45 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 701-0000-4040 Life Insurance-December 31.30 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 700-0000-4040 Life Insurance-December 42.28 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 720-0000-4040 Life Insurance-December 20.64 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 101-0000-2011 Life Insurance-December 668.79 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 210-0000-2011 Life Insurance-December 6.00 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 700-0000-2011 Life Insurance-December 103.76 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 701-0000-2011 Life Insurance-December 103.76 Sun Life Financial 11/21/2018 720-0000-2011 Life Insurance-December 12.34 Sun Life Financial 1,397.80 SURE PLUS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 11/29/2018 101-1320-4120 parts/supplies 68.74 SURE PLUS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 68.74 TCIC, Inc.11/29/2018 700-0000-4530 N-Female Conn 435.00 TCIC, Inc. 435.00 ULTIMATE CONTROLS ELECTRIC LLC 11/29/2018 701-0000-4150 HOA replacement final round - lift station sites 20-32 2,280.00 ULTIMATE CONTROLS ELECTRIC LLC 2,280.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (11/30/2018 - 9:28 AM)Page 4 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount UNITED WAY 11/21/2018 101-0000-2006 PR Batch 00423.11.2018 United Way 28.40 UNITED WAY 28.40 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/21/2018 410-0000-4706 Shop 357.78 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/21/2018 410-0000-4706 Manchester 200.00 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/21/2018 410-0000-4706 Manchester 868.05 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/21/2018 101-1550-4150 Pond Excavation 528.00 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/21/2018 410-0000-4706 Manchester Park 512.00 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/21/2018 410-0000-4706 Manchester Park 552.04 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/21/2018 101-1550-4150 Pond Excavation 168.00 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/29/2018 720-7025-4751 Park 648.00 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 3,833.87 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2018 720-0000-4300 2018 Misc Ponds - Aug 2018 793.25 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2018 720-0000-4300 Avienda WCA Review - Oct 2018 259.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2018 720-0000-4300 Hwy 101 Wetland Permitting - Oct 2018 1,689.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 2,742.25 WW GRAINGER INC 11/21/2018 101-1190-4510 Soap Dispenser 270.13 WW GRAINGER INC 270.13 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2018 101-1600-4320 electricity charges 12.15 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 111.05 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2018 700-7019-4320 electricity charges 7,939.95 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 11.31 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2018 700-7043-4320 electricity charges 3,295.87 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 29.22 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 21.98 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2018 700-0000-4320 electricity charges 17.21 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2018 101-1600-4320 electricity charges 0.90 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/29/2018 101-1540-4320 electricity charges -46.26 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/29/2018 101-1600-4320 electricity charges 54.39 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/29/2018 101-1550-4320 electricity charges -66.35 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/29/2018 101-1600-4320 electricity charges 219.22 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/29/2018 700-0000-4320 electricity charges 6,134.27 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/29/2018 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 37.44 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/29/2018 700-0000-4320 electricity charges 3,124.60 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/29/2018 701-0000-4320 electricity charges 3,474.49 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/29/2018 101-1170-4320 electricity charges 106.48 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/29/2018 101-1190-4320 electricity charges 615.78 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/29/2018 101-1220-4320 electricity charges 927.37 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/29/2018 101-1370-4320 electricity charges 1,891.25 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/29/2018 101-1120-4320 electricity charges 92.93 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/29/2018 700-0000-4320 electricity charges 236.41 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/29/2018 701-0000-4320 electricity charges 236.41 XCEL ENERGY INC 28,478.07 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (11/30/2018 - 9:28 AM)Page 5 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount 1,039,252.21 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (11/30/2018 - 9:28 AM)Page 6 of 6 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Mediacom Rate Adjustments Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: J.2. Prepared By Todd Gerhardt, City Manager File No:  ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Mediacom dated November 30, 2018: Rate Adjustments CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject Building Permit Data Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: J.3. Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No:  ATTACHMENTS: Building Permit Data CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 10, 2018 Subject November Website Analytics Overview Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: J.4. Prepared By Kim Meuwissen, Office Manager File No:  ATTACHMENTS: November Website Analytics Overview City of Chanhassen All Web Site Data GO TO REPORT Top Channels Users Conversions Acquisition Behavior Set up a goal. To see outcome metrics, define one or more goals. GET STARTED Conversions Acquisition Overview Nov 1, 2018 -Nov 30, 2018 Primary Dimension:Conversion: Edit Channel Grouping To see all 5 Channels click here. Top Channels All Goals Organic Search Direct Social Referral (Other) 23.1% 70.5%  Users  Goal Conversion Rate …Nov 8 Nov 15 Nov 22 Nov 29 1,5001,5001,500 3,0003,0003,000 …Nov 8 Nov 15 Nov 22 Nov 29 0.00%0.00%0.00% 100.00%100.00%100.00% 1 Organic Search 2 Direct 3 Social 4 Referral 5 (Other) Users 14,828 New Users 11,965 Sessions 19,901 10,535 3,453 492 466 1 Bounce Rate 61.46% Pages / Session 2.13 Avg. Session Duration 00:01:54 59.15% 69.67% 60.63% 60.78% 100.00% © 2018 Google All Users 100.00% Users City of Chanhassen All Web Site Data GO TO REPORT Page Rows 1 - 10 of 2300 Pages Nov 1, 2018 -Nov 30, 2018 Explorer Pageviews Unique Pageviews Avg. Time on Page Entrances Bounce Rate % Exit Page Value 42,325 % of Total:100.00% (42,325) 34,353 % of Total:100.00% (34,353) 00:01:41 Avg for View:00:01:41 (0.00%) 19,901 % of Total:100.00% (19,901) 61.46% Avg for View:61.46% (0.00%) 47.02% Avg for View:47.02% (0.00%) $0.00 % of Total:0.00% ($0.00) 1.5,792 (13.68%) 3,877 (11.29%)00:02:13 3,608 (18.13%)35.03%30.59%$0.00 (0.00%) 2.2,850 (6.73%) 2,444 (7.11%)00:01:38 1,972 (9.91%)58.52%55.44%$0.00 (0.00%) 3.2,531 (5.98%) 2,209 (6.43%)00:04:04 1,801 (9.05%)74.85%71.12%$0.00 (0.00%) 4.1,467 (3.47%) 1,286 (3.74%)00:03:31 905 (4.55%)86.41%77.30%$0.00 (0.00%) 5.1,361 (3.22%) 1,203 (3.50%)00:03:45 801 (4.02%)76.90%72.23%$0.00 (0.00%) 6.1,255 (2.97%) 1,038 (3.02%)00:00:52 914 (4.59%)24.51%27.81%$0.00 (0.00%) 7.1,245 (2.94%) 753 (2.19%)00:00:34 341 (1.71%)28.74%19.12%$0.00 (0.00%) 8.1,105 (2.61%) 873 (2.54%)00:03:16 452 (2.27%)79.20%62.53%$0.00 (0.00%) 9.972 (2.30%) 887 (2.58%)00:02:07 538 (2.70%)88.85%77.67%$0.00 (0.00%) 10.619 (1.46%) 452 (1.32%)00:01:47 372 (1.87%)73.92%64.94%$0.00 (0.00%)  Pageviews …Nov 8 Nov 15 Nov 22 Nov 29 3,0003,0003,000 6,0006,0006,000 / /252/Voting-Elections /780/Mayor-City-Council-Candidates /1018/Job-Opportunities /690/Polling-Locations /296/Recreation-Center /194/Proposed-Developments /240/Agendas-Minutes-Videos /301/Gym-Schedule /959/Holiday-Boutique © 2018 Google All Users 100.00% Pageviews City of Chanhassen All Web Site Data GO TO REPORT Search Term Rows 1 - 10 of 842 Search Terms Nov 1, 2018 -Nov 30, 2018 Explorer Site Usage Total Unique Searches Results Pageviews / Search % Search Exits % Search Refinements Time after Search Avg. Search Depth 1,092 % of Total:100.00% (1,092) 1.18 Avg for View:1.18 (0.00%) 32.60% Avg for View:32.60% (0.00%) 18.39% Avg for View:18.39% (0.00%) 00:02:34 Avg for View:00:02:34 (0.00%) 1.59 Avg for View:1.59 (0.00%) 1.Pickleball 13 (1.19%)1.31 53.85%11.76%00:01:17 1.46 2.Election Results 10 (0.92%)1.10 20.00%0.00%00:00:48 1.30 3.permits 9 (0.82%)1.00 11.11%33.33%00:00:45 1.56 4.Election results 7 (0.64%)1.00 71.43%0.00%00:02:55 0.71 5.Open Indoor Pickleball 7 (0.64%)1.00 57.14%14.29%00:00:50 0.71 6.pickleball 7 (0.64%)1.29 42.86%0.00%00:00:44 1.71 7.Yoga 7 (0.64%)1.00 57.14%0.00%00:00:25 1.14 8.55317 6 (0.55%)1.50 33.33%0.00%00:00:47 0.83 9.zoning map 6 (0.55%)1.17 33.33%14.29%00:03:39 1.17 10.avienda 5 (0.46%)1.00 20.00%20.00%00:05:37 2.40  Total Unique Searches …Nov 8 Nov 15 Nov 22 Nov 29 505050 100100100 © 2018 Google All Users 100.00% Total Unique Searches City of Chanhassen All Web Site Data GO TO REPORT Rows 1 - 3 of 3 Overview Nov 1, 2018 -Nov 30, 2018 Explorer Summary 14,828 % of Total: 100.00% (14,828) 14,828 % of Total: 100.00% (14,828) 1.desktop7,30749.20% 2.mobile6,42543.26% 3.tablet1,1217.55%  Users …Nov 8Nov 15 Nov 22 Nov 29 1,5001,5001,500 3,0003,0003,000 Device CategoryUsersUsers Contribution to total: Users 49.2% 7.5% 43.3% © 2018 Google All Users 100.00% Users City of Chanhassen All Web Site Data GO TO REPORT Rows 1 - 3 of 3 Overview Nov 1, 2018 -Nov 30, 2018 Explorer Summary 14,828% of Total: 100.00% (14,828)14,828% of Total: 100.00% (14,828) 1.desktop 7,307 49.20% 2.mobile 6,425 43.26% 3.tablet 1,121 7.55%  Users …Nov 8 Nov 15 Nov 22 Nov 29 1,5001,5001,500 3,0003,0003,000 Device Category Users Users Contribution to total: Users 49.2% 7.5% 43.3% © 2018 Google All Users 100.00% Users NOVEMBER 2018 WEBSITE ANALYTICS OVERVIEW City of ChanhassenAll Web Site Data GO TO REPORT Language Users % Users 1.en-us 14,595 98.30% 2.en-gb 88 0.59% 3.en-ca 19 0.13% 4.de-de 14 0.09% 5.en 12 0.08% 6.ko 10 0.07% 7.zh-cn 10 0.07% 8.nl-nl 7 0.05% 9.es-es 6 0.04% 10.es-xl 6 0.04% Audience Overview Nov 1, 2018 -Nov 30, 2018 Overview  Sessions  Pageviews …Nov 8 Nov 15 Nov 22 Nov 29 2,0002,0002,000 4,0004,0004,000 3,0003,0003,000 6,0006,0006,000 Users 14,828 New Users 11,965 Sessions 19,901 Number of Sessions per User 1.34 Pageviews 42,325 Pages / Session 2.13 Avg. Session Duration 00:01:54 Bounce Rate 61.46% New Visitor Returning Visitor 27.4% 72.6% © 2018 Google All Users100.00% Users SESSIONS VS. PAGEVIEWS 19,901 Sessions vs. 42,325 Pageviews Session: The period of time a user is actively engaged with our website, app, etc. Pageview: Total # of pages viewed. Repeated views of a single page are counted. HOW ARE THEY FINDING US? 10,535 Organic Search 3,453 Direct 492 Social 466 Referral WHAT ARE THEY USING TO VIEW OUR SITE? WHAT ARE THEY SEARCHING FOR?WHAT PAGES ARE THEY VISITING? NEW VS. RETURNING VISITOR 11,922 New Visitors 4,492 Returning Visitors WHAT CAN WE LEARN? As can be expected, elections in November drove much of the traffic to the city’s website. Pickleball was also a major hit. A little FYI- the / below for pages visited is the city’s homepage