Loading...
Agenda and PacketAGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2019 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.5:30 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Note:  Work sessions are open to the public.If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda. 1.SouthWest Transit Update: Len Simich (verbal) 2.Yard Waste Dropoff Update B.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDER (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 December 2, 2019 2.Approve City Council Minutes dated November 25, 2019 3.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated November 19, 2019 4.Receive Economic Development Commission Minutes dated November 13, 2019 5.Receive Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 26, 2019 6.Resolution 2019­XX: Designate Polling Place Locations for 2020 Elections 7.Ordinance XXX: Amendments to Chanhassen City Code and Approval of Summary Ordinance 8.Approve Temporary On­Sale Liquor License to Rotary Club of Chanhassen, February Festival on February 1 at Lake Ann Park 9.Approve 2020 Contract for Police Services with Carver County Sheriff's Office 10.Approve Consultant Agreement for Lake Lucy Road Rehabilitation Project 11.Authorize Payment for Parcels 12 and 31, Highway 101 Improvement Project AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2019CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDA.5:30 P.M. ­ WORK SESSIONNote:  Work sessions are open to the public.If the City Council does not complete the worksession items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regularagenda.1.SouthWest Transit Update: Len Simich (verbal)2.Yard Waste Dropoff UpdateB.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)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 December 2, 20192.Approve City Council Minutes dated November 25, 20193.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated November 19, 20194.Receive Economic Development Commission Minutes dated November 13, 20195.Receive Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 26, 20196.Resolution 2019­XX: Designate Polling Place Locations for 2020 Elections7.Ordinance XXX: Amendments to Chanhassen City Code and Approval of SummaryOrdinance8.Approve Temporary On­Sale Liquor License to Rotary Club of Chanhassen, FebruaryFestival on February 1 at Lake Ann Park9.Approve 2020 Contract for Police Services with Carver County Sheriff's Office 10.Approve Consultant Agreement for Lake Lucy Road Rehabilitation Project 11.Authorize Payment for Parcels 12 and 31, Highway 101 Improvement Project 12.Resolution 2019­XX: Adopt Resolution of Support for SouthWest Transit E.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Visitor Presentations requesting a response or action from the City Council must complete and submit the Citizen Action Request Form (see VISITOR GUIDELINES at the end of this agenda) F.OLD BUSINESS 1.Avienda Preliminary Plat/Grading Permit Extension G.NEW BUSINESS 1.Ordinance XXX: Amendment to City Code Chapter 4, Fees 2.Resolution 2019­XX: Adopt Final Levy & 2020 Budget and 2020­2024 CIP H.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1.Announce Results of City Manager's 2019 Performance Review I.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS J.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION 1.Met Council Water Efficiency Grant Acceptance Letter 11­18­2019 2.Rate Adjustment Letter from Mediacom dated 11­21­2019 3.Letter from Robert Lindall of Kennedy & Graven dated 12­02­2019 4.Review of Claims Paid 12­09­2019 5.2019 Building Permit Activity through December 1, 2019 6.Building Permit Data as of December 4, 2019 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 seeking a response or action from the City Council following their presentation is required to complete and submit a Citizen Action Request Form. An online form is available at https://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/action or paper forms are available in the city council chambers prior to the meeting. 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 AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2019CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDA.5:30 P.M. ­ WORK SESSIONNote:  Work sessions are open to the public.If the City Council does not complete the worksession items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regularagenda.1.SouthWest Transit Update: Len Simich (verbal)2.Yard Waste Dropoff UpdateB.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)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 December 2, 20192.Approve City Council Minutes dated November 25, 20193.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated November 19, 20194.Receive Economic Development Commission Minutes dated November 13, 20195.Receive Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 26, 20196.Resolution 2019­XX: Designate Polling Place Locations for 2020 Elections7.Ordinance XXX: Amendments to Chanhassen City Code and Approval of SummaryOrdinance8.Approve Temporary On­Sale Liquor License to Rotary Club of Chanhassen, FebruaryFestival on February 1 at Lake Ann Park9.Approve 2020 Contract for Police Services with Carver County Sheriff's Office10.Approve Consultant Agreement for Lake Lucy Road Rehabilitation Project11.Authorize Payment for Parcels 12 and 31, Highway 101 Improvement Project12.Resolution 2019­XX: Adopt Resolution of Support for SouthWest TransitE.VISITOR PRESENTATIONSVisitor Presentations requesting a response or action from the City Council must complete andsubmit the Citizen Action Request Form (see VISITOR GUIDELINES at the end of this agenda)F.OLD BUSINESS1.Avienda Preliminary Plat/Grading Permit ExtensionG.NEW BUSINESS1.Ordinance XXX: Amendment to City Code Chapter 4, Fees2.Resolution 2019­XX: Adopt Final Levy & 2020 Budget and 2020­2024 CIPH.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS1.Announce Results of City Manager's 2019 Performance ReviewI.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONSJ.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION1.Met Council Water Efficiency Grant Acceptance Letter 11­18­20192.Rate Adjustment Letter from Mediacom dated 11­21­20193.Letter from Robert Lindall of Kennedy & Graven dated 12­02­20194.Review of Claims Paid 12­09­20195.2019 Building Permit Activity through December 1, 20196.Building Permit Data as of December 4, 2019K.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 seeking a response or action from the City Council following their presentation is required tocomplete and submit a Citizen Action Request Form. An online form is available athttps://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/action or paper forms are available in the city council chambers prior tothe meeting.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 Tequila Butcher, 590 West 79th Street in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Yard Waste Dropoff Update Section 5:30 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.2. Prepared By Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Coordinator File No:  SUMMARY The city hosted two yard waste collection events in 2019.  Attached is a full discussion on the events as well as background information on yard waste collection options that were first presented to the Council in August 2018. ATTACHMENTS: Yard Waste Collection Year End Report yard waste collection in neighboring cities List of private compost sites Cost estimates of permanent PW improvements for yard waste collection Diagram of PW yard waste layout City Compost Sites, Drop-Off Sites & Events The following cities provide yard waste disposal to their residents. Cities who operate a compost site manage material on-site while the cities who offer a drop-off location utilize roll off boxes to transport material to a processing facility. Please contact your city to inquire about location, hours of operation and delivery instructions. Please note: Because city resources are used to operate the following sites, residents MUST live within city limits of the collection city to utilize the site. City of Chaska 725 1st St W, Chaska (Athletic Park) (952) 448-9200 Type: Seasonal Events Please note: Chaska Residents ONLY City of Cologne 304 Louis St W, Cologne (952) 466-2064 Type: Year Round Drop-off Site Please note: Cologne Residents ONLY City of Hamburg 15405 Vera Ave, Hamburg (952) 467-3232 Type: Seasonal Drop-off Site Please note: Hamburg Residents ONLY City of Mayer 15300 Co Rd 30, Mayer (952) 657-1502 Type: Year Round Compost Site Please note: Mayer & New Germany Residents ONLY City of New Germany 15300 Co Rd 30, Mayer (952) 353-1781 Type: Year Round Compost Site Please note: New Germany & Mayer Residents ONLY City of Norwood Young America 640 Tacoma Ave, NYA (952) 467-1800 Type: Year Round Compost Site Please note: NYA Residents ONLY City of Victoria 1416 Steiger Lake Ln, Victoria (952) 443-4210 Type: Seasonal Drop-off Site Please note: Victoria Residents ONLY City of Waconia 310 10th St E, Waconia (952) 442-2184 Type: Seasonal Drop-off Site Please note: Waconia Residents ONLY City of Watertown 700 Lewis Ave N, Watertown (952) 955-2681 Type: Year Round Compost Site Please note: Watertown Residents ONLY Private Compost Sites The following compost sites are owned and operated by private entities and are open to residents and businesses year round. Please call ahead to inquire about disposal fees, hours of operation and delivery instructions. Eklund Yard & Tree Disposal 4220 Co Rd 10 N Watertown, MN 55388 (612) 723-9500 The Mulch Store Shakopee (SET) 14800 Johnson Memorial Dr (Hwy 169) Shakopee, MN 55379 (952) 445-2139 SMSC Organics Recycling Facility 1905 Canterbury Road Shakopee, MN 55379 (952) 403-7030 The Mulch Store Minnetrista (SET) 4275 Creek View Circle Minnetrista, MN 55364 (952) 446-1056 Costs for spring and fall yard waste collection: Item Cost ESTIMATE Employee – fulltime, benefitted, overtime $366.16 - $594.88 (avg – $480.48) Employee – seasonal, non-benefitted $214.24 Hauling - $9.50/cu yd – 400 cu yd $3800 ESTIMATED Total per event $4,494.72 Estimated annual costs for 2-day event (1 spring, 1 fall): 8,989.44 The costs of site improvements are as follows: Item Cost Storage bunkers – remove, replace, build walls to relocate storage $50,795.00 Yard waste area site improvements – class 5 gravel, block walls $14,559.75 Security gate $20,620.00 Power to gate $3,230.00 Security cameras and card reader $16,045.00 Power to cameras and card reader ESTIMATE $2,000.00 TOTAL $107,249.75 1 cubic yard = 3’ x 3’ x 3’ 8cy = 6’w x 12’l x 3’h CCEC charges $8 per cubic yard; full load in back of pickup about $10 20 cy dumpster = about 6 pickup truck loads 30cy dumpster = about 9 pickup truck loads 40 cy dumpster = about 12 pickup truck loads 80 cy – 24 pickup loads 160 cy – 48 pickup loads 400 cy – 120 pickup loads CCEC took in 10,000 cy in 2107 Average weekly quantity was 250 -300 cu yd 1st week November – 400 cu yd Last week November – 1000 cu yd May/June and Oct./Nov are busiest months 9099 yard waste transactions – 5083 were from Chanhassen (51%) Operational costs for yard waste site: Item Cost ESTIMATE Employee – fulltime, benefitted, overtime – high end of pay scale $74.36 per hour Employee – fulltime, benefitted, overtime – low end of pay scale $45.77 per hour Employee – fulltime, benefitted, overtime AVERAGE $60.06 per hour Employee – seasonal, non-benefitted $26.78 per hour Yard waste hauling - $9.50/cu yd – minimum 80 cu yds $760.00 minimum haul cost 160 cu yd $1520 ESTIMATED TOTAL PER WEEK –– MINIMUM COSTS – SAT ONLY Item Cost Per Event Sat (8a-4p) only – 8 hrs Cost Per Year (35 weeks/280 hrs) Employee – high rate ($594.88) + 160cy hauling $2,114.88 per event $74,020.80 annually Employee – low rate ($366.16) + 160 cy hauling $1,886.16 per event $66,015.60 annually Employee – average ($480.48) + 160 cy hauling $2,000.48 per event $70,016.80 annually Seasonal ($214.24) + hauling $1,734.24 per event $60,698.40 annually Employee - average + Seasonal +hauling $2,214.72 per event $77,515.20 annually ESTIMATED TOTAL PER WEEK –– MINIMUM COSTS – WEEKEND/WEEKDAY Item Cost Per Week Sat & Wkday (12-7p) – 15 hrs Cost Per Year (35 weeks/525 hours) Employee – high rate ($1,115.40) + 160cy hauling $2,635.40 per event $92,239.00 annually Employee – low rate ($686.55) + hauling $2,206.55 per event $77,229.25 annually Employee – average ($900.90) + 160 cy hauling $2,420.90 per event $84,731.50 annually Seasonal ($401.70) + hauling $1,921.70 per event $67,259.50 annually Employee average + Seasonal +hauling $2,822.60 per event $98,791.00 annually CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Approve City Council Minutes dated December 2, 2019 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the minutes dated December 2, 2019.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: City Council Summary Minutes dated December 2, 2019 City Council Verbatim Minutes dated December 2, 2019 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING TRUTH IN TAXATION MEETING DECEMBER 2, 2019 The City Council met in Executive Session from 5:30 to 6:55 p.m. to discuss the City Manager’s Performance Review. Mayor Ryan called the Truth in Taxation hearing to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, and Councilman Campion COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Coleman STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Jake Foster and Greg Sticha PUBLIC HEARING: PUBLIC MEETING ON THE PROPOSED 2020 BUDGET. Greg Sticha presented a detailed report on the proposed 2020 budget. Councilman McDonald asked for clarification of the $350,000 proposed to go towards the pavement management program fund. Mayor Ryan opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the following motion was made. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Truth in Taxation public hearing was closed. Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The 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 MEETING DECEMBER 2, 2019 The City Council met in Executive Session from 5:30 to 6:55 p.m. to discuss the City Manager’s Performance Review. Mayor Ryan called the Truth in Taxation hearing to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, and Councilman Campion COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Coleman STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Jake Foster and Greg Sticha Mayor Ryan: Again good evening everybody. Welcome to our council meeting. For those of you that are watching at home or livestreaming from Chanhassen Website, thank you for joining us. For the record we have 4 of our council members here with the exception of Councilwoman Julia Coleman. Our first action on the agenda is agenda approval. Council members are there any modifications to the agenda as printed? It’s pretty short so we’ll move forward with that. PUBLIC HEARING: PUBLIC MEETING ON THE PROPOSED 2020 BUDGET. Mayor Ryan: Tonight we have our Truth in Taxation hearing but if you did look at our agenda for tonight we were in Executive Session earlier today to give City Manager Gerhardt his review and I will share the results with that at our last meeting of the year on December 9th so tonight is our Truth in Taxation hearing and we will be having a public hearing but before that we will begin by Mr. Sticha I know you have a presentation and I will let you lead with that. Greg Sticha: Thank you Mayor and council. I’m going to go through a power point, several slides that kind of goes over some of the changes in the levy and budget for 2020 and some of our comparative data as well as some statistics about the general fund budget. So the entire budget process takes a lot longer than just a couple months. We actually typically start as early as June or July with some early discussions with the City Council as soon as June. And the preliminary budgets that are done by our departments are submitted to the City Manager and myself in late July. They begin their work in late June, early July. A detailed budget meeting is held in August. It was the second meeting in August of this year. Held in work session that goes over the entire detailed general fund budget with the City Council in that work session format. On September 23rd the City Council set a preliminary tax levy to be used for the Truth in Taxation statements which our residents should have received a little over a week ago. The basis of that levy is the starting point for the levy process. The final levy cannot be higher than what the preliminary levy was set at and can only be lower when the City Council then sets the final City Council Truth in Taxation Hearing – December 2, 2019 2 levy on December 9th. This evening’s the public budget meeting or the Truth in Taxation hearing which it’s also called. So before we get into some of the changes in the 2020 budget I wanted to kind of go over some historical statistics about the general fund budget and some of the changes that we’ve seen in it over the last 11 years, between 2009 and 2019. So I took a look at our 2009 general fund budget and put together some of these statistics for council. Total general fund spending in those 11 years has increased $1.89 million for an average annual increase of about 1.7 percent. That’s $172,000 per year. Of the $1.89 million, $1.68 million was for wage increases, health care increases, taxes, pension costs, and added seasonal and part time hours. We actually have the same exact FTE count in 2019 as we had in 2009. Of the $1.894 $432,000 roughly was for increases in the policing services contract and again of the $1.894 million $51,000 was for increases in the required assessing services contract. So if you notice, if you add up those 3 numbers that exceeds $1.894 million which is the total increase spending in the general fund over those 11 years. You actually have a decrease in all other general fund spending over that time period which in so many ways is quite remarkable that the previous City Councils and staff have been able to keep spending to only those things that were necessarily needed during that period. One last statistic I put in there is the largest increase is the wages, health care, taxes and pension and part time and seasonal salaries. That equates to about 2.8 percent per year and if you think about the cost of having employees, cost of living wage adjustments, in particular health care costs contract increases, to increase that spending by less than 3 percent per year is also I think quite remarkable. So let’s take a look at some of the budgeted general fund expenditures comparing 2019 to not only the 2020 preliminary budget but I’ve also included a column called 2020 recommended final budget. Staff’s recommendation is going to be for a final budget that mirrors the 2020 preliminary budget so all the numbers in the second and third column are the same. Looking at the 5 major areas you’ll notice 3 of them are larger than the other 2 and there’s a reason behind it. There are additional services that have been added in each of those work areas and we’re going to get into those here in the next slide. It has to do again like I said with those additional services that were at least included in the preliminary levy by the City Council for discussion purposes before setting the final levy here on December 9th. Revenues not a lot of changes. The largest dollar change within the property tax line item, we did keep license and permit revenues the same as the previous year’s budget. Some small dollar changes into the Inner-government Revenue and Fine and Penalty section, or excuse me other revenue. These were increases for, we had some fire department grants that we get for some of our fire department training and an increase in I believe interest income projected for the 2020 year as well as a cell tower rental agreement increase for the upcoming year. Councilman Campion: Mr. Sticha can you back up two slides? Or back up one slide. Is there a typo on the Community Development 2020 preliminary versus. Greg Sticha: There is. The I believe this number here should be $577,800. I bet you I left the wrong number in there so my apologies. I will make that adjustment for the next power point at the final. Councilman Campion: Alright thank you. City Council Truth in Taxation Hearing – December 2, 2019 3 Greg Sticha: Thank you for catching that. The $577,800 would be the correct number. Councilman Campion: Okay. Greg Sticha: As I stated some minor changes in some of the revenues you’ll notice an identical 4.4 percent increase in the total budget so obviously presenting a balanced budget of expenditures and revenues for 2020. So what impacted the budget and levy for 2020 which is what the Truth in Taxation statements were sent out and based on? The first item we look at each year is the new homes that are in the city of Chanhassen or the new construction dollars which was 1.61 percent for taxes payable in 2020. This amounts to $177,100 in additional property tax dollars. Property tax levy dollars that would be available to the City Council to use for that new construction. We did have I believe in my 15 years the first ever reduction in health care costs and by a significant amount. 16 percent. That had a huge impact on this year’s process and helped fund a couple of these other items that are going to be coming up next on the list. The police services contract had a 5 percent increase in it for their services to provide to the community next year. The average home in Chanhassen increased in taxable market value by 5 percent and that’s important because that’s the measure by which will have an impact on your property tax statement depending on what the City Council sets as the final levy. If your home increased by more than 5 percent in value you’ll see a larger property tax increase. If your home increased by less than 5 percent in taxable market value you’ll see a smaller increase or even possibly a decrease in your city portion of your property taxes. So let’s talk about some of the new services that were added or service levels that were added for at least the preliminary budget by the City Council. It includes an expansion of the fire department’s duty crews of a total cost of around $150,000. It includes one new street maintenance department employee for a total cost of approximately $80,000. It includes a new park maintenance department employee for a total cost of about $80,000 and it also includes a potential $350,000 for pavement management funding. As some may be aware the City Council went through an extensive process the past 2 years to find funding for their portion, for the City’s portion of it’s local street pavement management program and part of that suggested solution was to increase the levy as well as issue a franchise fee which was done earlier this fall. So taking a look at the total levies, comparing them from 2019 to 2020, the increases that you’ll note are not in the debt levy so those stay relatively flat. There’s always a small change in a couple of the debt payments by minor amounts of interest. The other operational and capital levies, the capital replacement levy, the MSA sealcoating levies stayed the same. The increase in the general fund levy was for the additional services mostly that I mentioned in the previous slide and you’ll notice the revolving street construction fund or the pavement management program fund levy increasing by roughly $350,000. The difference being the $2,700 below in the debt levies. For a total levy increase of 6.5 percent based on the preliminary levy. So when you look at this graph you’ll notice the far right column is significantly higher than the previous year’s columns. The levy was set above new growth, the preliminary levy was set above new growth for the first time in a few years. The levy was set above new growth by roughly $510,000 in order for the City Council to review all of the additional needs this community has in terms of the service levels that the City Council City Council Truth in Taxation Hearing – December 2, 2019 4 wants to consider, in particular with the fire department, the park maintenance department and the street department that were mentioned on the previous slide. As well as probably the most significant dollar impact here is the $350,000 for street funding for 2020. So each year we take a look at some property tax statements, some actual Truth in Taxation statements that were sent out a week ago and I pulled 6 of them to kind of review and just kind of see where things fall out on the different valued homes in the city of Chanhassen. As I mentioned earlier the average home increased in taxable market value by 5 percent so I tried to pick home that were somewhat close to that 5 percent meaning that the dollar change that you see in the second to last column roughly equates to the dollar amount for the increase in the preliminary levy above new growth. Had the City Council set a levy at new growth that dollar change column would have been relatively close to zero. Within a couple dollars. So the majority of those would have been within probably a range of $1 to $3 all 6 of those homes in the dollar change column. As the City Council is wanting to review the additional services, those additional services equate to these dollar costs to these homes based on what you see on this graph. So for example the home that is closest to average is parcel 3 with the average home being about $430,000. Taxable market value of $430,000. That home is what would see a $49 increase in it’s city portion of it’s property taxes if the final levy were set at what the preliminary levy was set at. When we had discussions earlier this summer I kind of had ballparked around for the average home about $45 so this is holding out as I projected. This home did increase by 5.8 percent in taxable market value so a little bit above the others within the city so really close to that $45 dollar amount that we had talked about earlier this year. As you will notice parcel 6 for example did see roughly the 5 percent increase in taxable market value. However it sees $147 change to it’s city portion of it’s property tax system. For those that aren’t familiar the State property tax system in the state of Minnesota is a computation based on increased value homes paying more than the lower value taxable market homes so a progressive tax like this, it makes sense that this would be the result of that levy so nothing in any of the Truth in Taxation statements really shocked me that I took a look at. They were all about exactly where I had estimated them to be. So taking a look at a total tax statement for all taxing jurisdictions within a property within School District 112, about 43 percent of that property tax bill, and this is based on an actual Truth in Taxation statement, about 43 percent of that bill is for the school district. 31 percent for the county and then 21 percent for the city so we’re roughly 21 cents on every property tax dollar a average home pays for in School District 112 about 21 cents of that dollar goes to the city. Mayor Ryan: Mr. Sticha did that dramatically change with the, from last year? Greg Sticha: By about a penny. Maybe a penny and a half. Or 1 ½ of 1 percent so it didn’t dramatically change. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Greg Sticha: So now we’re going to take a look at some of our KFS comparables and some of our county comparables and we do this each year to give the City Council some guidance onto how our spending compares to our peers as well as our spending within Carver County. This City Council Truth in Taxation Hearing – December 2, 2019 5 graph shows the 2019 general fund budget expenditures. We obviously don’t have data for our comparable cities for 2020 yet. We’re all following through the same exact process this evening that they are. You’ll notice that the increase in the general fund budgeted expenditures for 2019 was up 1.8 percent for Chanhassen while the average for our KFS was up 4.8 percent and I don’t believe anybody had a smaller increase the way it looks than we had in terms of total general fund budget expenditures. So obviously the city of Chanhassen as compared to our KFS cities looks very, very positive. When you break that into a per capita spending number, taking the budgeted spending divided by the population Chanhassen has the lowest per capita spending of all of our KFS cities with the average being 609 and the City of Chanhassen being 447. Taking a look at the Carver County tax rates, now this tax rate is based on the 2019 tax rate but in a minute I’m going to pull up a different sheet and kind of show you the proposed 2020 tax rates. Chanhassen has the lowest tax rate in Carver County and in a future slide I’m going to show you that Chanhassen has among the lowest tax rates in all of the Twin Cities metro. With the average in the county being 58 and the City of Chanhassen’s tax rate at 21. So for comparative purposes based on the preliminary levy the City Council set and based on the increase in market value that the city of Chanhassen noticed, which is essentially the derivative of how the tax rate comes about, the City’s tax rate for 2020 is actually not going to change that much. So if you take a look at the proposed notice sent by Carver County of the cities within Chanhassen, the City’s proposed rate is only increasing by .03 for 2020 even with the preliminary levy set $510,000 above new growth. Taking a look at Chaska which is a .13 percent increase in the tax rate. Take a look at Chaska for example, their tax rate’s increasing by 2.63 percent. I can assume that they increased their preliminary levy by significantly more than the percentage that they had taxable market value increase in that situation. There were some others that showed some decreases, and you can take a look at some of the others. The line you’re going to want to track here is the urban line and again these are based on the preliminary levy so each of these jurisdictions could see this number go lower when their City Council set their final levies here within the next couple of weeks but I think it’s important to note that even with the increased levy the Chanhassen tax rate will still only increase by a tenth of a percent. So going back to the presentation. So how does the City of Chanhassen compare to other Hennepin County taxing authorities. Cities and this is again based on 2019 rates. Most of the 2020, well all of the 2020 data for the other counties is not available at this point in time. Carver County does share their preliminary levies with us. But if you take a look at the Chanhassen tax rate, of these comparable jurisdictions some of which are obviously definitely different in size than the city of Chanhassen but we’ve looked at these same cities for the last several years. We have the lowest tax rate, and I even tried to find a city with a lower tax rate than Chanhassen that was at least somewhat comparable and I had a very difficult time finding one. I believe there was around the Lake Minnetonka that had a. Todd Gerhardt: Orono. Greg Sticha: It might have been Orono, that did have a lower tax rate but there were very few I could find with a lower tax rate than the City of Chanhassen. So with that I will take any City Council Truth in Taxation Hearing – December 2, 2019 6 questions from council and then ask the City Council to open the public hearing for any questions or comments about the 2020 preliminary levy and 2020 general fund budget. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Mr. Sticha. Council any questions before I open? Go ahead Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Thank you Mayor. Mr. Sticha would you go back and go into a little bit more detail about the $300,000 that we’re looking at putting into the pavement management fund. What I’m looking at was why are we doing that? If we didn’t do that what would be the impact future budgets and those type of things? Greg Sticha: Let me get to that number. I’ll get to the levies which is this line item right here on this graph. So the City Council decided based on information provided by the engineering department and it’s consultants that the appropriate amount of total spending on roads per year should be roughly $3.6 million dollars in annual road construction and mill and overlay projects in the city of Chanhassen, not including other either State or MSA funded roads as a part of that equation. That number is based on the number of street miles that were built 50 years ago. After a long in depth, detailed discussion of that $3.6 million the City Council then had to arrive at how they were going to come up with the City’s portion of that $3.6 million. How the City was going to fund their 60 percent of the $3.6 million. The City Council decided on a portion to be based from a franchise fee which is going to generate roughly $1.7 million in revenues and another portion in increased property taxes and to get to the City’s share a property tax increase of the $350,000 will be needed either in 2020 or for sure 2021 as well as a portion of the library debt that comes off the books for 2022, roughly $200,000 would be needed to get to the City’s share of the $3.6 million. So that $350,000 is something that in order for us to do $3.6 million per year in roads will need to be levied for or the City Council would have to reconsider that and consider doing less than $3.6 million per year in roads. Councilman McDonald: Okay if I could follow up then. So $350,000 is required for us to initially start a road management plan that we put in place so again what the $3.6 million per, $3.2 million? Greg Sticha: Roughly that’s our share. Councilman McDonald: Roughly so yeah. So we’ve agreed to that. Part of that is going to be funded by the franchise fee that we put together. Is this $300,000 going to be a continuing thing for a number of years or is it a one time thing or a two time thing? What could the citizens kind of look forward to as far as funding our share of the pavement management program? Greg Sticha: Well the $350,000 based on our current projections, and the roads that we plan on doing the next several years will probably need to stay in place for at least the immediate future. It is possible that in extended years beyond the next several years if we are making better progress with our roads. If we see them, that they are in better condition than what we had City Council Truth in Taxation Hearing – December 2, 2019 7 anticipated and if we had less severe winters, a whole bunch of variables that impact our road conditions that it is possible that that levy could be considered for lowering by a future City Council. But at least for the next immediate future, next several years I don’t see a way that that levy would probably be eligible for a reduction unless you wanted to reconsider like I said reducing the $3.6 million per year in roads. Reconstruction. Councilman McDonald: Okay so the alternative is if we were to take that $350,000 out of the budget we would have to revise the pavement management plan and actually spend less per year, thus stretching out the whole program by a number of years. Greg Sticha: That is correct. Councilman McDonald: Okay, thank you very much. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and council I just wanted to clarify one statement that Greg made is that the library referendum is going to be paid off next budget year 2021 so right now you’re levying $457,000. There’s enough money in reserves that you can pay that off so we’re not really taking the levy money for the library. The debt is paid off so the $457,000 is no longer needed but you’ve levied that over the years so there’s capacity in your general fund of $457,000 so it’s not ethically wrong or anything. You’ve got to come up with another $457,000 to make your total street pavement program balance so that’s one way of increasing the levy or taking what was the library levy without increasing the levy. So you’re not, you know I don’t want people to think you’re taking the library levy and that the library is going to be short money. The library is paid off at the end of this year. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Approve City Council Minutes dated November 25, 2019 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 November 25, 2019.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: City Council Summary Minutes dated November 25, 2019 City Council Verbatim Minutes dated November 25, 2019 City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 25, 2019 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES NOVEMBER 25, 2019 Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilman Campion, and Councilwoman Coleman STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Jake Foster, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, Greg Sticha and Roger Knutson PUBLIC PRESENT: Kendall and Sheila Qualls Medina Greg Boe Chaska PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: INVITATION TO TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY, DECEMBER 7, 2019. Mayor Ryan invited all area residents to attend the annual tree lighting ceremony being held in City Center Park on Saturday, December 7th beginning at 5:00 p.m. POLICE/FIRE DEPARTMENT RECOGNITION NIGHT. Mayor Ryan provided background information on how two letters from Mayor for the Day contest winners was the impetus for holding this first responders recognition night before saying thank you to all the first responders for their service. Council members, Congressman Dean Phillips, Senator Osmek, Representative Kelly Morrison, State Congressmen Greg Boe, Carver County Commissioner Tom Workman and kids from Chanhassen Elementary School all thanked first responders. Mayor Ryan, along with Mayors for the Day Emmy Rouse and Amelia Wagner, handed out City of Chanhassen pins to Carver County Sheriff Deputies introduced by Lt. Lance Pearce and his leadership team and City of Chanhassen Fire Fighters introduced by Chief Don Johnson. There was a short recess to serve cake in recognition of appreciation to the first responders. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Campion moved, Councilwoman Coleman seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: City Council Summary – November 25, 2019 2 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated November 12, 2019 2. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 22, 2019 3. Receive Environmental Commission Minutes dated October 9, 2019 4. Receive Senior Commission Minutes dated September 20, 2019 5. Item pulled for separate discussion. 6. Tort Liability Limits All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Kendall Qualls introduced himself as running for U.S. Congress on the Republican ticket for 2020. CONSENT AGENDA. (5). ACCEPT DONATION FROM LOVE INC FOR DONATION TO THE SENIOR CENTER MAPLE ROOM (MEMORY CAFE). Todd Gerhardt provided an update on donations from Love INC and other organizations for the Memory Café. Councilman McDonald explained that he pulled this item off the consent agenda to recognize the donations for remodeling of the Senior Center Maple Room. Resolution #2019-57: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council adopts a resolution accepting donations from Love INC for improvements to the Senior Center Maple Corner Room (Memory Café). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Todd Gerhardt reminded the public that the City Council will hold the Truth in Taxation meeting on December 2, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. and announced that the City has hired new City Engineer/Public Works Director Charles Howley. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Campion moved, Councilwoman Coleman 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 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 25, 2019 Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilman Campion, and Councilwoman Coleman STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Jake Foster, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, Greg Sticha and Roger Knutson PUBLIC PRESENT: Kendall and Sheila Qualls Medina Greg Boe Chaska Mayor Ryan: Well good evening everybody. To those of you that are watching at home we have a packed council chambers so we’re really excited about that. And everybody is here for our big event tonight for our first responders night so again we appreciate everybody being here this evening. We have to get through a few items before we get to the main event but again welcome everybody in council chambers and it’s a pretty cool scene for all of those that are watching at home. For the record we have all of our council members present tonight. Our first action is our agenda approval. Council members are there any modifications to the agenda as printed? If not we will proceed with the published agenda. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: INVITATION TO TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY, DECEMBER 7, 2019. Mayor Ryan: First on our agenda tonight is an invitation to the tree lighting ceremony on December 7th. With the holiday season approaching I’ m excited to invite everyone to the annual Chanhassen tradition, the 2019 tree lighting ceremony presented by the City of Chanhassen, Buy Chanhassen, Southwest Metro Chamber of Commerce, the Mustard Seed Landscaping and Garden Center. I invite all area residents, their families and friends to join the community on Saturday, December 7th 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. That will be done our Deputy Mayor Dan Campion and family. Thank you for doing that in my absence. In addition to the lighting there will be refreshments, caroling, gingerbread house displays, live reindeer and yes a very special visit from Santa Claus so very excited about that. The entire event is free and registration is not required so we welcome all of the community to join us on December 7th at 5:00 for the tree lighting ceremony. Chanhassen City Council – November 25, 2019 2 POLICE/FIRE DEPARTMENT RECOGNITION NIGHT. Mayor Ryan: Now to the main event and why we’re all here today. Thank you again for being here. Tonight is the first time we’ve ever done a fire responders recognition night. I’m just looking out at everybody. It’s very exciting to just see you all here so I really appreciate you being here but we thought it was a great way to start off Thanksgiving week is taking the time to thank all of you first responders for the service to the community. We have a fun program planned for tonight but I want to take you back and kind of give you a little understanding of how we arrived at this evening. So back in March/April of this year we held a Mayor for the Day contest and we asked fourth and fifth grade students from Chanhassen to write in and say what would they do if they were Mayor for a day and while we got a lot of responses and letters, some very funny. A lot of them just really touching. We had two winners. We had Emmy Rouse from Bluff Creek Elementary, if you want to raise your hand Emmy. You’ll be joining me later. And I see Amelia Wagner over there who was in fifth grade at the time from Chapel Hill. And they both wrote great letters and Emmy talked about how we treat each other and what you should do to take care of each other and those in your community and the thing that kind of put her letter over the top is she said that every day we should sprinkle joy and so we decided that it would be a great opportunity for us to sprinkle joy and appreciation for all of you first responders. And then Amelia also wrote a great letter and she talked about make sure that you say thank you to people. In addition to serving the residents here in Chanhassen she thought it was very important for Mayor and City Council to take the time to say thank you and so we are here tonight to say thank you to all of you first responders. So I just wanted to make sure that they both could check the box and say that you did your duties as mayor so well done. As part of that another piece of the puzzle on how we arrived tonight is in separate conversations that I’ve had both with the Fire Chief as well with Lieutenant Pearce. In conversations that I’ve had with them they talk about and actually one of the council initiatives was on mental health and we were talking about what we as a city should do in order to address the growing mental health crisis not only in our community but at large and what is the role that city plays in addressing this and so both Chief Johnson and Lieutenant Pearce have shared with the different experiences that you all face when you go out on some of these mental health calls but what a lot of times we don’t realize is the mental toll that it takes on all of you and the responsibility and the service that you have facing different situations and so we thought what a better opportunity to say you know what, this isn’t just, this isn’t a retirement. This isn’t some heroic act that we’re bringing you before council but we really just wanted to bring you here to say thank you. Thank you for the time. Thank you for your commitment and thank you for the service that you provide our community. You take care of all of our residents. You go when you’re asked. You never hesitate and you are faced with a lot of very challenging situations and so we just want to say thank you for your service. And so tonight not only did I want to say a few words. I know my fellow council members also want to share their appreciation and then there’s other people that distinguished members that we have here tonight that want to say a few words. Both elected officials and students and residents of our community that also have special wishes for you as well so ladies and gentlemen thank you so much. You do tremendous work and you make our Chanhassen City Council – November 25, 2019 3 community a safer and a better place to live so thank you so much for your service. Council I will turn it over to you to share a few words. Councilman McDonald if you’d like to begin. Councilman McDonald: Well thank you very much and I guess I’m going to keep this brief because I really appreciate all the distinguished politicians and everybody that showed up for this. This is really important. The big thing is I want to say thank you to the fire department for all you do. I think without you in this community it would be a much sadder place. I know a lot of the calls you go on are mainly, well they’re life and death calls so I thank you for responding. And then to the police officers who also support our firemen, thank you for responding also. Also you do keep the community safe and for that we’re greatly appreciative and I think we have one of the safest communities in the Twin Cities to be truthful but with that I would yield my time to our distinguished guests tonight and I’ll let them talk. So thank you all very much. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You mean me next? I don’t think you did but I’ll go next anyways. I too want to echo Councilman McDonald’s words. When I think about what you do every day both of your departments, it’s not just being a hero. It’s not just being a, saving someone’s life. What you’re doing is you are making a difference in someone’s life and they’re probably having the worst day of their life and you will forever be a part of that with them and they will carry that memory of that moment you guys shared together and I want to thank you for that because I mean that’s really the end result. Once the situation has been taken care of or resolved it still is with us and it still, we still carry it in our heart. I know I do and so I just want to thank you for your service and everything you do for this community. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Councilwoman Coleman: Good evening. As the proud daughter of a Ramsey County Deputy and wife of a Chanhassen firefighter I’ve had the privilege of seeing first hand the dedication, the sacrifice and the commitment that first responders put into their service. From the late nights to the missed family events to leaving your spouse at a restaurant to make a call. You all answer the call to duty without complaint. You put your lives on the line every single day with the level of humility that truly makes me proud to be an American. Thank you and your families for the sacrifice and commitment to service that you all put into this. We owe you a debt that I don’t think we could ever truly repay but we are so grateful that you do this for us. Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Councilman Campion. Councilman Campion: That was very well said Councilwoman Coleman. I would just like to keep it simple and say you know thank you to the fire department and thank you to the sheriff’s department for everything that you do. For your dedication. For the service that you provide to keeping our community safe every day and again those sacrifices that you make in being away from your family and loved ones to do just that for us and keep us safe so thank you. Chanhassen City Council – November 25, 2019 4 Mayor Ryan: Thank you council members for your words. Now I’d like to invite our distinguished guests. As many of you know that your service and your commitment to serve goes beyond just our city limits and so we have representation at the county level. At the state level and at the federal level and I was just overjoyed for lack of better words when I sent out the email inviting our elected officials to join us this evening and it was a resounding yes. I will be there and I couldn’t be more honored and privileged to have them here so we’ll begin with your Congressman Dean Phillips. Thank you for being here. Congressman Dean Phillips: Thank you Mayor Ryan and to the council for doing something that is quite remarkable and frankly the anecdote to I think what so troubles our nation right now and it’s expressing gratitude and as I look at all of you in uniform I’m humbled and I’m honored and I am eternally grateful for what you do. So many of us can sleep at night because of what you do and I want to thank not just you but also your families who I’m sure are in attendance and your children. As a Gold Star son myself I can understand what it means when your mom or dad goes off to protect all the rest of us so it is with gratitude that I share with all of you and just to tell a very quick story because I think for Thanksgiving week it’s one we could use. In a Congress that I know so many see as terribly dysfunctional, and you’re not incorrect in assuming that, there was a beautiful moment just a couple weeks ago. Congressman Elijah Cummings passed away. An esteemed member of Congress. Representative of Baltimore. A very liberal member of Congress and at the service at the Capitol upon his passing members of the House and Senate leadership made their speeches but it was the most remarkable eulogy was from Mark Meadows. My friend, member of Congress. One of the most conservative members of Congress. Co-Chair of the Freedom Caucus and he talked about their beautiful friendship. Their relationship that he Elijah Cummings had which none of us knew about and his final words in his eulogy were these and he said our Country and the world would be so much better off with more unlikely friendships so to all of us in the room, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, anything inbetween, thank you for standing up. For participating. For loving one another and taking care of this extraordinary community. I do believe the future will be better because of so many of you in this room and I’m so humbled to be amongst you and to serve you so thank you and God speed. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Congressman. Senator Osmek, please join us. Senator Osmek: Well thank you Mayor, members of the council. It’s so loaded I’m outside standing room only. A wise man once told me never stand between a crowd and a cake so I’ll be very brief. One of the good things that the legislature has done to help first responders is helping your city have their services as tax exempt. That they can buy equipment that is tax exempt and we did that a couple of sessions ago to stretch your dollars further. I think that’s important because why do we need it in St. Paul when you folks can spend it better here in Chanhassen. And I’m hoping I can get through this. Last month I lost my mom and first responders were the ones that came out and I know that they go to places and events that are hopeless. Where you can’t a life. But for a family member I just want you to know we appreciate you. We appreciate Chanhassen City Council – November 25, 2019 5 what you’ve done and we appreciate the fact that you go into a place where you know there is no hope so thank you. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Senator. Representative Morrison. Welcome, thank you. Representative Kelly Morrison: Thank you Mayor and thank you council. Good evening. I’m Kelly Morrison. I’m the State Representative for District 33B which includes part of Chanhassen. I’m really honored to be a part of honoring first responders tonight and as a physician and specifically an obstetrician I relate to some of your work. The jolt out of sleep in the middle of the night. The adrenalin. The moments of boredom abruptly interrupted by an urgent call to action. Occasional fear. That awful feeling when the news is sad and things don’t go well. And the satisfaction of a job well done and the appreciation from those that you helped. But my job has never required me to put my life on the line the way that your’s do so I want to thank you for your bravery. I want to thank you for your service to our community. And I want to thank you for keeping us safe. Thanks very much. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Representative Boe. Welcome. Representative Greg Boe: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. Greg Boe, District 47B which is a good portion of Chanhassen. A good portion of Victoria and also the City of Chaska. I’m here tonight because I just want to also say a heartfelt thank you. Thank you for your selfless giving of time and energy. Time spent with a large amount of training necessary to do the jobs that you do in our community but also time spent responding to calls for assistance. And those calls can come anytime day or night. They can come during a family meal. They can come during a piano recital. They can come during the middle of the night and interrupt a peaceful, relaxing sleep but you dutifully get up and you go out into the cold, or the heat of a summer day. Summer night and you respond. You dutifully risk your life or your health or your sanity to help a friend, a neighbor or perhaps even a complete stranger and because of that selfless attitude we owe you a great debt of gratitude and so I just want to tonight say thank you so much for all that you do to make our community a better place to raise our families. Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Commissioner Workman. Welcome. Carver County Commissioner Tom Workman: Madam Mayor and council. Good to see you. We’re not going by seniority here or rank of office I hope. Maybe years of service. I’ve been around a while. I know I don’t look old but you know I wonder how many people have had a first responder at their home. I know Councilmember Tjornhom and others and I was minding my own business on Bluff Creek one beautiful fall afternoon. I was a good husband. I built and got ready he wood fire in the fireplace like I, you know because it was a little chilly in the air and well my wife lit it and the chimney started on fire so after a frantic call with 5 holes to go, and I didn’t want to leave the golf course and came around the corner to this group of good looking folk on my front yard. Putting out the fire and running fans and everything else and so I always Chanhassen City Council – November 25, 2019 6 thought that was going to be somebody else. I went a long time without having these guys show up at my house and that’s over so. I know I live closer to Highway 5 now and I know they have been very busy in the early, early mornings going up and down Highway 5. That’s how I tell what’s going on. Something was going on at 4:00 a.m. the other night. While I was warm in bed and thinking about what they were doing. The call that a person makes of course comes down to our Carver County Dispatch Center. It does not go to the County Commissioner’s home as many wonder. That would be a disaster. But those good people manage those calls and it gets out to the fire department. The men and women of the fire department in the brown and white shirts here. The Carver County Sheriff’s Department which we at Carver County are very proud of and our relationship with Chanhassen and how that all works. You know the congress people and the legislators you know they’re in that white castle. You know we’re down here really working that, that I like to say that, but it is day to day working hard with the city and the county together to really get that accomplished but it’s these good folks that accomplish it so I want to take my hat off to them. Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Great, thank you Commissioner. I can’t believe you didn’t end your’s with Row the Boat. I know you really wanted to do that. Well as many of you know your hours are long and you go when you’re called but another component of your job and something that we so appreciate is the community outreach and you all do such a fabulous job really inserting yourself in the community. Going into schools. Going into businesses and really teaching our youth about fire safety. About public safety and there’s no politician that could say it so instead we asked some elementary students from Chanhassen Elementary School to come forward and they have a few words that they would like to share with all of you so, headed by PTO member, President of Chanhassen Elementary Laura Allen. If you want to have your kids come up and say a few words we’d appreciate it. Leo Allen: Hi. My name is Leo Allen. I’m a fourth grader at Chanhassen Elementary. Each of us wrote down a word that describes the first responders in our community. We would like to share those words with you. I think first responders are tough because they’re willing to go to an emergency at any time. Eli: Hi, my name is Eli and I chose the word helpful because I think first responders are helpful. They help people in the community. Ruthie: My name is Ruthie. I think first responders are courageous because they can save lives and help people. Jacob: My name is Jacob. I choose time because I think first responders are on time because they help you and save you as well. Wyatt: My name is Wyatt and I think first responders are smart because they have to think fast. Heather: Hi my name is Heather and I think first responders are strong because they can break… Chanhassen City Council – November 25, 2019 7 Wilton: My name is Wilton and I chose brave because first responders will go through a fire and risk their lives just to save your’s. Lila: Hi I’m Lila and I think first responders are amazing because they come for an emergency and they give their time to take care of us and make sure that we’re okay. Addie: Hi I’m Addie and I think first responders are heroes because they are people who lunge at problems and help during a time of need. Tina: Hi I’m Tina…that we would like to give our firefighter and our police officers, thank you for your time. Mayor Ryan: Awesome. You guys are awesome. Thank you so much. I know how much that meant to all of our first responders and like I said nobody says it better than kids so we appreciate all of you being here and parents thank you for bringing your kids here tonight. And again thank you for the community outreach that all of you do within our community. So the next part we’re going to do a little pinning ceremony. I’m not going to put the pin on you but I’m going to ask, I never was good at all that stuff there. So we’re going to have, I’m going to ask my two mayors for the day to join me down front and invite you up and we will give you a pin that is a City of Chanhassen pin and is representative of your continued service to our community that all of us so greatly value and appreciate so Emmy and Amelia if you want to join me down and then Lieutenant Pearce if you want come up and call up your deputies. Lt. Lance Pearce: Mayor, council I appreciate the invite to this amazing night for me and my staff along with our firefighters in the audience here. Tonight I’d like to highlight the dedication our deputies have shown to the sheriff’s office and to the city of Chanhassen. To point out just a few items collectively to date this year our deputies and sergeants assigned to Chanhassen, I think we have everybody except for one here in attendance tonight. We’ve put in over 28,000 hours. Kept our streets safe by arresting 66 people for DUI. Responded to 453 traffic crashes. Assisted 110 people in mental health crisis and assisted on 829 medical emergencies so far this year. We increased our community outreach and additional citizen contacts and several other additional events compared to last year. What I can tell you tonight is that the deputies have a dedication to the sheriff’s office mission statement which is to serve everybody with respect and dignity and to do so with honor, integrity and pride. They have a dedication to service as a core value. Chanhassen is a community for life. The efforts of this group continue to help make this a reality. The partnership and support of the City Council, city staff and fire department fundamentally help us achieve our goal of public safety. I am truly proud of the service to the county and to the city of Chanhassen for our staff. For their dedication and service tonight I can only say a simple thank you. Chanhassen City Council – November 25, 2019 8 Mayor Ryan along with Mayors for the Day Emmy Rouse and Amelia Wagner handed out City of Chanhassen pins to Carver County Sheriff Deputies introduced by Lt. Lance Pearce and his leadership team. Chief Don Johnson: Good evening Mayor and council. Thanks again for having us here to hear your accolades and appreciation from the council so it’s exceptionally special for me tonight for having all of us here to thank our staff and the work that they do. I didn’t bring a bunch of numbers with me tonight. I usually have them on the top of my head but our staff has responded to 901 calls this year already so with a total of 920 last year we’re still above the pace so appreciative of what our folks are doing on a daily basis. They just keep coming at us and we keep responding so we appreciate being here tonight. I'll start on this end of the room and we can just start rolling through staff. Mayor Ryan along with Mayors for the Day Emmy Rouse and Amelia Wagner handed out City of Chanhassen pins to Fire Fighters introduced by Chief Don Johnson. Mayor Ryan: Well before we adjourn for the cake, which is the most exciting part I again want to say thank you to the first responders for your continued commitment and service to our community. You make us a safer and a better place and really you’re at the heart and soul of our community so really appreciate your dedication to this community. I’d also like to extend my thanks to council, our elected officials and of course my co-mayors Emmy and Amelia for joining me here tonight so thank you all. I wish all of you a happy, safe Thanksgiving and holiday season and really appreciate all that you do for our community and we’ll take a short recess for, oh my gosh and the school children. I forgot the school children. Leo sorry buddy. Thank you all for being here. I know I’ll hear about it later Leo. I know. You can send me a text but thank you all for being here tonight so we’ll take a short recess and have some cake and again thank you all very, very much. There was a short recess to serve cake in recognition of appreciation to the first responders. Mayor Ryan: Alright call the meeting back to order. Well that was great. Thank you for all your words council. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Ryan: Are there any items that council would like to consider separately? Yes. Councilman McDonald: Yes Your Honor or Mayor. I’d like to pull item number 5 off of the consent agenda. Mayor Ryan: Okay we will pull item number 5 off and move that to New Business. J-1. Okay with that is there a motion to approve consent agenda items 1through 4 and 6? Chanhassen City Council – November 25, 2019 9 Councilman Campion moved, Councilwoman Coleman seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated November 12, 2019 2. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 22, 2019 3. Receive Environmental Commission Minutes dated October 9, 2019 4. Receive Senior Commission Minutes dated September 20, 2019 5. Item pulled for separate discussion. 6. Tort Liability Limits All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Ryan: I believe we have one visitor presentation. Please welcome. Kendall Qualls: Yeah thank you Mayor Ryan and the City Council. Thank you for having me tonight. Let me introduce myself first. My name is Kendall Qualls. I am running for U.S. Congress on the Republican ticket for the upcoming 2020 election and I thought it was apropos actually that you had the first responders here but you know unfortunately they’re gone but if they wanted to see a Black Republican announcing for U.S. Congress on a Republican ticket anybody that passed out could have had immediate response and help and you know I say that with all you know humility and humor but I say that with proud honor to be able to run on the Republican ticket as an American and also again I want to introduce myself to the council because if duly elected I’d look forward to working with you on federal related topics of agenda. Transportation. Environmental. Those type of things but I want to give you an idea of why I’m running and a little bit of my background. I haven’t run for local office before but it’s not the first time I served my country. I started out in my career after college serving our country in uniform and U.S. Army. I was actually 5 years serving in the U.S. as well in South Korea as an artillery officer. After that I spent roughly 15 years in health care all on the pharmaceutical side of the industry with Johnson and Johnson. And the other half of my career, say another 10 years or so on the med tech side most recently with Medtronic and so that’s my rationale for presence being here in Minnesota. It’s a jewel of a company. Just really a, when I talk to people across the country it’s really the envy of the country that you guys have that here. We have that here in Minnesota. Little bit about my background beyond professional. My wife is here with me. We’ve been married for 33 years. We have 5 children. People ask why am I doing this now? I tell we have 4 kids that are out of the home. We have two things we haven’t had in a long time. That’s leftovers and spare time and I just felt the need that based on where we are in politics Chanhassen City Council – November 25, 2019 10 today that I needed to serve. I felt compelled to serve my country again so again no action. Just an introduction and again is duly elected I’d be honored to be able to work with you guys as I mentioned on federally related topic of agenda. I’m also honored to have my opponent join me tonight but he left before my announcement so thank you. Mayor Ryan: Alright thank you Mr. Qualls in your election process. Kendall Qualls: Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Are there any other visitor presentations? I won’t put you on the spot like that. With no visitor presentations. We already got the updates from the fire department and law enforcement and so we’ll move right to New Business and go to what Councilman McDonald pulled off the consent agenda. CONSENT AGENDA. (5). ACCEPT DONATION FROM LOVE INC FOR DONATION TO THE SENIOR CENTER MAPLE ROOM (MEMORY CAFE). Mayor Ryan: Who would be, Mr. Hoffman or Mr. Gerhardt? Todd Gerhardt: I can take it. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Before you tonight is a request to accept a donation from Love INC for donating to the Senior Center Maple Room Memory Café. Love INC played a huge role in donating furniture to the Memory Café and just for those in the public, Memory Café is for those families that have loved ones that are dealing with memory care issues. They can come to the café and socialize with other family members that are dealing with Alzheimers or memory issues and we think that is the number one support group that is out there when other people are afflicted with this type of issue and the Memory Café is to help bring families together and share ideas and share thoughts and a lot of thanks go to Mary Blazanin, our Senior Center Coordinator. Sharmeen Al-Jaff, our Senior Planner that is also coordinates our Senior Commission. The Senior Commission was, played a big role in this. Ace Hardware made a lot of donations. Help me out if I’m forgetting anybody Todd. Mayor Ryan: The Legion. Todd Gerhardt: And we also had private donation of $2,000 to do our financial gap at the end that helped finish off the Memory Café and we’re very proud of it and it’s a beautiful facility. We had a ribbon cutting a couple months ago and thank you Mayor for doing that and would love to give you an update a year from now on how we’re doing. Mayor Ryan: Great. Thank you Mr. Gerhardt. Councilman McDonald? Chanhassen City Council – November 25, 2019 11 Councilman McDonald: Yes Mayor. As part of my long standing tradition I really believe that anyone who donates to the City to help us as far as doing causes or anything that would be a benefit to the community, I really think that they deserve a public acknowledgement which is why I wanted to pull this off. And according to the write up here we also forgot B&B Carpet One. Carpet’s always important. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, always important. Councilman McDonald: But that was the reason I pulled it off and I really have no questions. I just wanted to make sure that publicly we thanked everyone for the facility that they help put together for us. You know memory care units and memory care was a big priority of our’s about a year ago getting everything started and up and running so I’m glad to see that we’re continuing to make improvements to that and to add another resource to people whose loved ones are suffering through that disease. So thank you to everyone who contributed. And with that Mayor if you would like I’ll make a motion. Mayor Ryan: Yes please. Councilman McDonald: I’ll make a motion that the City Council adopts a resolution accepting donations from Love INC for improvements to the Senior Center Maple Corner Room. Mayor Ryan: We have a valid motion. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Resolution #2019-57: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council adopts a resolution accepting donations from Love INC for improvements to the Senior Center Maple Corner Room (Memory Café). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Ryan: Thank you for pulling that off Councilman McDonald. I appreciate the public recognition. I don’t know if anyone, if we’ve all had a chance to go down to that room but it really is, they’ve transformed that room so it’s just past the Fountain Conference Room. Go down the hallway a little bit further and you walk in and you can’t believe that, not only their furniture but the design elements that they, that Love INC contributed to this and it was the carpet and the blinds and they’re going to have students come in and paint a, kind of a collage type painting on the walls and so according to Sharmeen she said they’ve already had one meeting already. Or collage. I think I said mirage. They’re maybe one in the same. But they’ve already had one meeting last week and it was a tremendous success and people are really enjoying that room so again thank you for pulling that off and public recognizing all of our donors on behalf of the Maple Corner Room. Chanhassen City Council – November 25, 2019 12 COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Ryan: Administrative presentations Mr. Gerhardt. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. This is for the public. We have on June 2nd at 7:00 p.m. our Truth in Taxation meeting in this room so I think everybody’s received their Truth in Taxation statement. Councilman McDonald: Did you say June 2nd? Mayor Ryan: December. Todd Gerhardt: December. What did I say? Councilwoman Tjornhom: You said June. Todd Gerhardt: June oh. I don’t know what’s going on on June 2nd but yeah December 2nd. I didn’t have any cake. So December 2nd and so we look forward to the public coming to the council chambers here and having the opportunity to present our 2020 budget to them and again everybody should have received their notices in the mail and any questions that the public may have regarding their value or about the budget staff has prepared a great presentation to give to the public and explain how we’re planning to spend the 2020 taxes that will be collected from our residents and businesses. So if there’s nothing else for the council on that one. I’d also like to announce that we have hired our New Public Works Director, Charles Howley. He comes from us from Hansen-Thorpe-Gillian and Olson, known as HTPO and he was a vice president with HTPO. He’s worked on a couple of projects in Chanhassen. Has strong stormwater management resource background. He lives in Prior Lake and family man with 3 children and we’re excited. Very customer service oriented. Great listener. And has had experience as a council member. He has experience as a planning commissioner so Kate’s going to like that. She’s not here. Oh there she is. And so it’s always nice that my engineering staff is talking with my planning staff so he understands planning and he also serves on a watershed district over in Prior Lake right now so I think that’s everything that you’re looking for in an engineer and he has project management experience on roads so, and that’s right up our alley. It too us a while to find the right candidate but Mr. Howley is going to do a great job for us I think now and into the future so he starts January 2nd and not think of June 2nd as I mentioned earlier but I’m just excited to have my sixth public works director in a year, counting the interims and so I think he’s going to be here for the long run so excited for him to start. Mayor Ryan: Perfect. Todd Gerhardt: And that’s all I have. Chanhassen City Council – November 25, 2019 13 Mayor Ryan: Thank you Mr. Gerhardt. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Campion moved, Councilwoman Coleman 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 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 25, 2019 Mayor Ryan called the work session to order at 5:00 p.m. The City Council met in Executive Session until 5:30 to discuss the City Manager’s Performance Evaluation. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilman Campion, and Councilwoman Coleman STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Jake Foster, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Boettcher and Meredith Petouvis PUBLIC PRESENT: None. DISCUSS FEASIBILITY STUDY AND NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY FOR THE NEWLY ACQUIRED LAKE ANN PARK. Todd Hoffman provided background information on the work that’s been done to date before introducing Kevin Clarke, the consultant with Hoisington-Koegler Group Inc., working on this project Kevin Clarke reviewed the results from the feasibility study addressing key principles used in the study, a map outlining the Lake Ann Park components, the trail plan using paved trails as well as natural surface trails, the parking plan at Greenwood Shores Park, management and preservation of natural resources, signage and wayfinding, and estimated costs for 2020, which are subject to change, for a total estimated overall cost of $4.2 million. Councilman Campion asked about the cost for a bridge versus boardwalk construction. Todd Gerhardt asked Kevin Clarke to comment on the status of possibly including a dog park and playground equipment options with the plan. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked if off trail sites having benches has been explored. Councilman McDonald asked if the trail plan will be accessible for public safety. Mayor Ryan asked if public feedback has been addressed with this plan and next steps to find possible funding sources. She explained that the council needs to have a discussion on whether a referendum should include the $4.2 for Lake Ann Park expansion or $9 million to incorporate improvements at other community parks after feedback is received from the citizen survey. KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGY: DISCUSSION OF UTILIY FUND FEES. Greg Sticha provided background information on the study regarding utility fund fees and the use of hook up fees. He discussed equity issues involved with providing subsidies with local businesses. Councilman Campion asked about the use of extended repayment programs. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked if Met Council has similar incentives programs. Greg Sticha City Council Work Session – November 25, 2019 2 continued discussing the deferred program and possible loss revenue before explaining staff is recommending not setting an exception based policy. Todd Gerhardt discussed programs being offered by Carver Count CDA and the State of Minnesota. Councilman McDonald and Councilwoman Tjornhom concurred with staff’s recommendation. Mayor Ryan explained the impetus for putting this item under key financial strategy. She noted that no action will be taken in 2019 but her belief that it is something the council should continue to discuss early in 2020 to continue exploring this option as a way to encourage development in the city. Mayor Ryan adjourned the work session at 6:50 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated November 19, 2019 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 19, 2019.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated November 19, 2019 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated November 19, 2019 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 2019 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Randall, John Tietz, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO REMOVE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAIL PLATE REQUIREMENT FOR PERMEABLE PAVER SYSTEMS. MacKenzie Walters presented the proposed amendments for this section. Commissioner Reeder asked for clarification on the ICPI (Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute). Commissioner Tietz asked about the ICPI standards being applied locally. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE GOVERNING RECREATIONAL BEACH LOTS. MacKenzie Walters presented the proposed amendments for this section. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO REQUIRE TRAFFIC STUDIES AS PART OF SITE PLAN REVIEWS. MacKenzie Walters presented the proposed amendments for this section. Kate Aanenson provided examples of where this would be used. Commissioner Skistad asked for clarification of the request for traffic studies. Commissioner Reeder asked where in the process this requirement takes place. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ADOPT ZONING STANDARDS FOR SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS. Planning Commission Summary – November 19, 2019 2 MacKenzie Walters presented the proposed amendments for this section. Commissioner McGonagill asked if installers need to be certified. Commissioner Reeder asked for clarification of the proposed requirements. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO CORRECT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE INTERIM USES STATUTE. MacKenzie Walters presented the proposed amendment for this section. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO RESTRICT MERCHANDISE SOLD AT TEMPORARY AND SPECIAL EVENTS TO GOODS NORMALLY SOLD ON SITE. MacKenzie Walters presented the proposed amendments for this section. Commissioners Skistad and Tietz asked for clarification of who this ordinance would impact. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ADOPT MINIMUM DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION STANDARDS. MacKenzie Walters presented the proposed amendments for this section. Commissioner Tietz asked for clarification on enforcement of this ordinance. Commissioner Reeder asked for clarification of a zoning permit. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO REQUIRE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO HAVE WALKWAYS AND CONCRETE PADS FOR STAIRS AND LANDINGS. MacKenzie Walters presented the proposed amendments for this section. Commissioners asked for clarification on the material to be used in walkways. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ADOPT AIRPORT ZONING STANDARDS. MacKenzie Walters presented the proposed amendments for this section. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO BAN THE KEEPNG OF BIRDS OF PREY. MacKenzie Walters presented the proposed amendments for this section. Commissioner Skistad stated she could not support this amendment as she saw it as excessive. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO REMOVE OBSOLETE PARKING LOT CONFIGURATION GRAPHICS. Planning Commission Summary – November 19, 2019 3 MacKenzie Walters presented the proposed amendments for this section. Chairman Weick called the public hearing to order. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. After comments and discussion from Commissioner members the following motions were made. McGonagill moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the Chanhassen City Council adopts the proposed amendments for items 1 through 7, 9 and 11 of Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. McGonagill moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the Chanhassen City Council adopts the proposed amendments for items 1 through 7, 9 and 11 of Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Randall moved, Skistad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council not adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the keeping of birds of prey. All voted in favor, except for Chairman Weick who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Commissioner Reeder noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 15, 2019 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson provided updates on future agenda items and the status of current projects in the city. Skistad moved, Randall seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2019 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Randall, John Tietz, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner Weick: Welcome to everyone joining us here in chambers and elsewhere. For the record we have a quorum this evening with Commissioner Tietz, McGonagill, Skistad, Reeder and Randall, along with myself. The Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council. You may follow all of the amendments being discussed this evening with the City Council for final action on December 9, 2019. We will accept public input this evening all at once at the end. It’s a little different of a procedure. We will open up the public hearing once we’ve heard all of the amendment items being presented this evening. So tonight’s format, the items will be, the amendments will be introduced. At the conclusion of each amendment the commission, Commissioners may ask questions and gain clarification as needed. We’ll go through all of the amendments in that fashion. When we get through the last amendment then we will open up the public portion of the hearing and invite anyone present to offer their opinion on any one of the items. At that time then we would go through our normal process of hearing a motion, a second, providing any comment as necessary and voting and I believe if things go well we can vote on all the amendments at once. With that I will turn this evening’s proceedings over to MacKenzie. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO REMOVE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAIL PLATE REQUIREMENT FOR PERMEABLE PAVER SYSTEMS. Walters: Thank you. So the first amendment to discuss tonight is removing a standard for paver design plates that was in the pervious paver ordinance that was adopted last year. Basically one of our design criteria state that pervious pavement systems in order to be counted as pervious lot cover need to meet the current version of the City of Chanhassen’s standard specifications and detail plates. Staff looked into what it would actually take to create these plates and one of the quotes we got was around the neighborhood of $5,000 per plate. Figure 20 to 60 plates depending on how technical you want to be updating them every year, it got to be very prohibitive. Both in terms of staff time and resources. The ordinance already references the Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 2 Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute as the like presiding body for determining standards and designs. This organization has various design and detail plates available. Maintains a professional certification program. The more we looked into it the more we realized the city standard requirement was duplicate to have and redundant and the engineering department recommended that we amend the ordinance to remove a second set of city standards and just use the ones put down by the most common body which is the ICPI so this will establish equally effective standards. It’s already in the code and it would avoid a duplicative process on our end. I’ll, if you have any questions on that I’d be happy to address them. Weick: Thanks MacKenzie. Just one question on that. So then the code would, as the ICPI standards are updated the code would automatically update with those standards? Walters: Correct. Weick: Okay. And it wouldn’t have to be re. Aanenson: No. Walters: Yep no effort. Yep it wouldn’t need to come before you and staff wouldn’t need to update an administrative documents. It works a lot quicker and easier. Weick: Perfect. Reeder: Who are they? Weick: Who are who? Reeder: The ICPI. Walters: Yep it’s a planning organization that promotes pervious paver technologies. So they have a certification for different contractors that do work in making sure they’re trained. Know how to properly install and so they work, they provide technical expertise and resources on the subject. Reeder: So are there users on that board that help determine those criteria? Walters: I would have to look a little more into it. I know that they have a large number of member organizations and contractors and that they work with them to update and maintain standards. Reeder: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 3 McGonagill: So MacKenzie when the, and I guess what would happen when a building permit came in they’d referenced this and they would kind of show in the permit what they were going to use. But then you would have the opportunity or staff had an opportunity to look at it and be sure aesthetically it was going to work you know so if something’s totally crazy. Or if you knew of something better within those standards you could point them to that and collaborate with them on it. Is that kind of way the process would work? Walters: Right. So we require it to be an engineered design system within these standards so with the permit they would have to either have an engineer you know sign off on an independent system, and then show that it met the standards of the ICPI and that the installer was ICPI certified and then our engineering department would review those and say yep, this looks like it will do what it says or yeah, this is you know way left of what we expected. McGonagill: Okay thank you. Tietz: I’ve got a couple questions. The ICPI developed for our environment? Or is it a national standard, it’s the same for Southern California as it is for Maine? Walters: So when you go to their technical things you can actually pick based on states and provinces. They do gradient. Now do they go down to the level of Chanhassen exactly? Tietz: No I’m just talking cold weather environment with clay. Walters: Yes. Aanenson: And soil types too, yep. Tietz: Yeah. And then do they know are there certified contractors locally? Walters: Yep we’ve been told there are. Tietz: Okay. So it’s not limited to a couple contractors? Aanenson: No. Walters: And any contractor can apply and become certified and get trained. Aanenson: If I can just back up so when we talked about putting these pavers in place, if you recall we spent a lot of time looking at what those standards would be. We decided that they didn’t go into the shoreland district. We’ve used them sometimes in the variance applications to mitigate impact of hard cover. We spent a lot of time on that and I think the thing that we missed is the detail plate standards. The language. That language. But the purpose of that was to have a standard that someone’s just not doing pervious pavers but how do we know that they’re Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 4 effective in doing what they’re supposed to be doing. So the, working with the watershed district and the Water Resources Coordinator you know we decided that we wanted something that was demonstrated. That it was functioning as providing the pervious portion that was supposed to be because people say they’re going to put them in. It might just be landscaped or they said there’s a gap between the bricks and that’s going to cover it. And so we wanted something that was engineered and demonstrated that it met certain standards and that includes installation. Tietz: Yeah and I think it’s important that the quality of the paver, there’s some installations where I’ve noticed it over by, they put in pervious pavers over by Total Wine. Look at those. There’s a lot of failure in that area already. Aanenson: Okay. Yeah. Tietz: The brick or the stone that you used is crumbling so it’s not like significant but, and that hasn’t been in that long and there’s already failure in the material. So I’d be concerned that you know it’s like some of those concrete retaining walls and the composition of the concrete that’s used in creating those blocks, they get the salt spray and after 5 or 10 years it looks like they’re melting because the spray is just eroding the concrete so I think it depends upon the quality of the material that’s put in too and I don’t know if ICPI deals with the quality of the material. I’m not trying to make it you know gilded surface. I just don’t want people to spend a lot of money because these are not cheap installations and then have surface failure. Aanenson: Agreed. Walters: Yep the one thing I would say to that in terms of from the City’s interest ensuring the performance of the systems they do have to enter into maintenance agreements so if they degrade and no longer function the City can compel repairs. Regarding quality materials there is only so much we can do to protect people from themselves but it is you know something the engineering department would look at was obviously not going to last or work. Skistad: Is the Total Wine, is that concrete or is that actually pavers? Tietz: Well I don’t know and that’s a good question. I think it’s a new rock and paver and it’s the granite material between the pavers so theoretically it’s porous. I don’t know. That’s a good question. I’m not sure if it’s a concrete, I don’t think it’s, it’s not a cast or a brick paver. It’s some type of cemetous material I believe. Skistad: I asked a friend in the business actually and he installed concrete, impervious concrete in Excelsior along the shoreline and they said that they have seen significant, they don’t think it looks very good and I know it hasn’t been that long either. Tietz: I don’t know we’ll have to go check it out. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 5 Skistad: But the pavers are better than the concrete. So that’s why I asked the question. Aanenson: Sounds like that might be something that we could do on a field trip next year is maybe go out and look at some sites. There’s some at the Arboretum too where they’re doing some modeling and different types of pavers. We have some pervious pavement so there’s different applications of different things but I think that might be a good thing to go look at. Skistad: Is the City planning on having more impervious concrete or pavers and ongoing? Aanenson: No. So what we did is put in place an opportunity for somebody that’s maximized their hard cover to allow them, if they wanted to. Skistad: To increase by 5 percent. Aanenson: Right yep, they have to do yep exactly. They have to do the pervious. And we haven’t had that many applications for it because you really have to, you know it’s a cost and then again as I mentioned you can’t do it in the shoreland district so, because the whole goal is to protect the lakes and the streams and that’s all so. Skistad: Okay. I just when I was reading the first section I just wasn’t sure if the City had planned on adding. Aanenson: Not at this time. Skistad: The sort of, okay. Aanenson: It’s in place right now and so it’s just, as MacKenzie stated it’s just clarifying the detail plates. So if you want to show the motion that you had on there. Walters: Yeah so if there’s no more questions, if we’re doing some kind of I believe the motion would be the recommend would be the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning pervious paver design standards. Aanenson: We’ll just make that all omnibus at the end if nobody has any questions. Weick: And it’s certainly not a, this is not a question of whether we agree or not with pervious pavers. This is whether we can add this. Aanenson: Add to the standard, correct. Walters: What is being proposed would not substantively change how pavers are treated in the city or allowed or where they are allowed. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 6 Weick: Okay. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE GOVERNING RECREATIONAL BEACH LOTS. Walters: Recreational beach lots. This is primarily a clarification amendment. The language governing recreational beach lot dates back to the early 80’s. Has never been cleaned up. Has been amended a couple times and is not structured in the clearest way. It causes a lot of confusion as folks contact us and try to sort out what they can and can’t do. How they could potentially change beach lots that exist so staff went through it and tried to clean it up and make it flow a little smoother. Make it a little more decipherable to the average resident reading it. While we were doing this we discovered two sections of it that were either outdated references or just quite frankly made no sense and so we’re also proposing that those be removed. I put together a little chart of what we’re planning on doing so one of the big changes not, one of the bigger organizational changes I should say is reorganizing Subsection 7. As it’s currently structured it’s just one giant run of paragraph with about 6 different ideas so we broke it out to actually make it clear when it’s talking about docks. When it’s talking about rack storage and when it’s talking about sailboat moorings. We did not change any of the numbers or any of the storage allotments. We wanted to make very sure that we didn’t substantively change what was allowed under that ordinance. So none of these here changed the content. It’s all just structures and making it clearer of what’s being said instead of having it all lumped in one place. The changes we did make are, there’s a section where it refers to the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area. That hasn’t been accurate for I think since the 2020 Comp Plan and we’re now in the 2040 Comp Plan so just removing that so it now references the most recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. That will keep it perpetually up to date. The other thing is there was very confusing language about how if there were two bordering lots under common ownership they could put a dock within the required dock setback so I made a little graphic. So if one HOA owned both these lots they could combine the lot area and shoreline to put in one dock in the middle. There was no reason for this provision to exist. If an HOA wanted to do that they could do a zoning lot and combine those lots for the same rights or they could cluster them and as long as they didn’t complain to us about themselves we would never take enforcement action. So it was just, all of sat down and read it and couldn’t understand why it was in there or what it accomplished so it’s being removed for clarity sake. I will take any questions you have. Aanenson: I just want to add again we do have a lot of non-conforming beach lots and so this doesn’t substantively change, give anybody more boats. More canoes. But it clarifies how it can be used because we get questions. There’s a nomenclature now we have paddleboards. Things that weren’t originally put in there. People say if I’m not put 3 canoes can I substitute that for 6 paddleboards so this just cleans that all up. Skistad: So is it taking away those? Aanenson: No, no. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 7 Skistad: So it’s not adding or reducing? Aanenson: No. Just better language. More contemporary. Walters: Thoughts or questions? Alright seeing none. So the proposed motion would have been recommend City Council adopts proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning recreational beach lots. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO REQUIRE TRAFFIC STUDIES AS PART OF SITE PLAN REVIEWS. Walters: Next one. Site plan traffic impacts. So this one, as the city’s built out we’re having more and more properties come forward to redevelop and this, because it often times involves a use going to a more intensive use so a use that will generate more traffic. Expect to have more visitors. Maybe include a drive thru or something of that nature. There’s a greater potential for these redeveloped parcels to impact the surrounding uses and businesses and then also the roadways providing access to these older developments. So the existing criteria for site plan evaluation is really targeted a lot towards green field development so that’s new and fresh development and it talks a lot about interior, site circulation, interior vehicle flow. It doesn’t talk as much about the impact on adjacent properties and we wanted to make sure that the City had the ability when it was felt necessary to require applicants to provide a traffic study so that we could evaluate the impact of a proposal on the surrounding road system. So our proposed solution would be to add impact on level of service of roads to the site plan evaluation standards and also then add in there in the application requirements that the City can request a traffic study and that they would have to provide it if requested. So that’s the. Aanenson: I’ll just give you some examples that are coming forward now. So the council approved a liquor license for Jimmies Southern Barbeque which would be right next to the Tequila Butcher and they’ve asked for a drive thru to come around that building so this, having a traffic study gives, and you’ll probably see that on your January meeting. Will give a lot of additional information about stacking. How does that affect the circulation inside because that’s part of a strip mall. They’d have to go behind the whole strip mall. There’s a dry cleaner with a drive thru on one end. So we just want to see how that’s all going to work, and then also you’ve got a very busy driveway right next door with the new Tequila Butcher. The old Applebee’s site so. McGonagill: And you have Chick-fil-A and… Aanenson: Yeah right and so we made both of those do traffic studies too because when they came in so it, as MacKenzie said most of it’s from green fill but there are infill developments where we want to look at the traffic study. We anticipate that on the Perkin’s site. That PUD. The old Perkin’s site allowed for two drive thru’s. There’s already two. The Taco Bell and Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 8 Leeann Chin’s has a drive thru so, so if they were to come in that would be, they’d have to amend the PUD to allow for another drive thru but we’d also, because you’re amending the PUD then you have the authority to ask for a drive thru there too so we just want to make sure that existing businesses or you know are not negatively affected. But then positively if they can work out. We just want to make sure that everybody understands that so. Skistad: So this is primarily for the downtown area? Aanenson: Well anywhere. You could be a drive thru over, the neighborhood business on, our Kwik Trip down on Lyman and 101. There’s some other potential uses there that they’ve had some inquiries for drive thru’s so it could be there too. When Avienda comes in we only permitted I think two drive thru’s there so if they wanted to amend that we would also ask them for a traffic study on that too so. McGonagill: But Kate this is not just for drive service. Aanenson: Correct. McGonagill: If you drop in say a subdivision somewhere, you know they access in and out with that or? You’re doing an infill subdivision and maybe 5 or 6 homes inside of a large piece of property you could require a. Aanenson: Yep we’ll just have to make that, engineering to make that determination correct. Right so for example on The Park, because the County was upgrading Galpin they did the traffic study on that and we over modeled the number. I think they used 200 plus homes on that one and so that was modeled for that but yeah you’re right. So we look at that. Skistad: So you’re already doing that? You’re already asking for traffic studies? Aanenson: On a subdivision. But not always do we have that authority. Skistad: So there’s times when you don’t have, when you feel that you need one and you haven’t been able to ask for one? Aanenson: Correct. If there’s a conditional use we changed the language on the conditional use one that says if they’re asking for a conditional use that one of the conditions would be they do a traffic study, yeah. Walters: So for example let’s say I had a warehouse that had very low traffic impacts. You know it’s a storage facility or something. I sold it to another entity. They decided they wanted to get rid of the warehouse. Put up a new business that was going to generate a lot more traffic. Well that’s not really a rezoning. They’re not amending the PUD. We wouldn’t necessarily have the leverage to compel a traffic study under the current ordinance. What this would say is Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 9 no it is within our purview in the site plan to see how this new change of use for this building is going to impact this industrial development. You need to do a traffic study. It’s not something that would be done frivolously because you know they are expensive but we want to make sure we have that tool when it’s needed. Aanenson: …most common right now. We have some older warehouse buildings that are changing over into kind of commercial space. You look at what’s happening on Dell Road, a lot of those incubator businesses are now becoming kind of quasi retail and we have stuff in there that we never imagined. We’ve got a shooting range in there. We’ve got Feed my Starving Children so there’s a lot of trips being generated so right now there’s off peak and some of that also determines what are the peak traffic hours. When someone wants to do a dance studio and you’re in conflict with a lot of other things, we just want to make sure we understand that so that also helps determine that and those, you know not necessarily directional traffic but sometimes it’s talking more about that peak… Is there enough parking spaces out there. Skistad: How do you do a traffic study? Aanenson: A consultant does it. That’s their specialty so there’s engineering handles that…IT and traffic institute and then they model it. So if we actually did a traffic study we would require that, when Paisley Park changed over we wanted to see how they were going to get the traffic. With the back up on Highway 5 so there’s specific engineers that do traffic studies. That’s their thing. Skistad: Okay. Weick: And as part of this you don’t need to specify scope of that traffic study in any way in terms of radius? Aanenson: I think we’d leave it up to the engineering department or leave it in their, yeah each one is unique. Yeah. Weick: And this gives you the flexibility to be able to. Aanenson: Correct. Walters: Any additional questions? Reeder: Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. Do we have to specify that a traffic study be done by somebody in engineering or can I go out there and count cars and hand it in? Aanenson: No. It has to be a qualified traffic study. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 10 Reeder: Do we need to see it? My other question would be, when will you be as a staff required to tell them that they need a traffic study? Can you do it halfway through the process or is that something you need to communicate to them at the communications meeting? Aanenson: Well we would always try to if we feel like, that’d be up to engineering. Typically when we have that pre-meeting that was something in the engineering department would make that decision that they feel they need it or the planning staff together would do that. Maybe it got up to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission said you know what we can’t move forward. We don’t think we have enough information to make a decision. You might decide that in order for you to make a good decision that you need that information. Maybe during the hearing process you hear a lot of feedback from the neighborhood or the surrounding businesses that say we’re concerned about this. Reeder: I don’t think this does that because this says, this is part of the application. Walters: Yep. Reeder: So we’re saying even if the Planning Commission did go back and require more information at the end of the application stage? Aanenson: That’s happened. It happens on occasion sure. Reeder: Okay. Aanenson: You have the right to table it and that happens sometimes where you don’t have enough information you can table it and say we want to see additional information. Reeder: Okay and this one talks about the BCO district. Other districts are they allowed? Walters: The, this section of the code unless I’m way off in my memory on how it’s structured is so the site plan application has three subsections where it says if it’s in the BCO district staff can require this. This is a separate sub item so it would apply for all districts. Not just the Bluff Creek, the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Reeder: I didn’t understand what you said, try again. Walters: Yep, so if we go to the section of the code that’s being amended. I know what you’re referring to. So Subsection 7 is within the Bluff Creek Overlay District the applicant shall include A and B. This would be. Reeder: Okay this is separate you’re right. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 11 Walters: Yep. Seeing no other questions, again the proposed motion for this would be recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning site plan traffic impacts. Weick: I’m just going to jump in real quick and remind commissioners. If, since we’re not voting on these as we go, kind of take notes if there’s some, you know if there’s one of these that you potentially you know, you could have an issue with or want to handle separately please make a note of that so that we can take care of it when we get to the end. Thanks. Go ahead. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ADOPT ZONING STANDARDS FOR SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS. Walters: So solar energy systems. Staff receives quite a few not, well last year for contacts I talked with the building department. We believe we received about a dozen applications for roof mounted solar energy systems. We see more every year. They’re becoming more affordable. People are becoming more aware and interested in renewable energy. We expect we’ll continue to see more every year so one of the things that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified is that the City wanted to support residential and business solar development and one of the ways we said we’d do this is by amending the City Code to address accessory solar energy systems so staff is proposing adding a section to the code which would classify accessory solar energy systems as a permitted use in all districts. Establish a design criteria, setback standards, a relevant definitions and those things in order to govern their uses. Currently staff has basically been handling the applications by determining whether or not the structure can support the proposed solar energy array and then determining whether or not we think it’s likely to cause nuisance glare. And if it does we approve it. This would formalize that as well as create sub- standards for if people needed to do like a ground mounted system for example. So the proposed ordinance would, as I mentioned, allow accessory solar energy systems as a permitted use in all zoning districts. It would define the relevant terms. It would set a requirement that these systems need to be accessory so what that would mean is they need to primarily provide power for on site use. They could sell excess power back to the grid but this wouldn’t allow for instance for a, I don’t know, a 10,000 kilowatt or whatever solar farm to go up. That’s not envisioned by this ordinance. They would exempt cell paths for building integrated solar energy systems with the ordinance so that’s design features you know like big southern windows to provide natural light would tend to be things that fall into that category. The ordinance would strongly encourage placement on roofs but if an applicant could demonstrate that due to a structural short coming they couldn’t do roof mounted solar it would allow for accessory ground mounted systems. These systems would have to be screened. Not cause right-of-way glare or glare into neighboring properties and would be subject to a minimum 10 foot setback. Need to be located in the rear yard. Would limit the height to either the accessory structure height for a district or the building height. If they’re roof mounted again we would reiterate that they’re not permitted to cause glare and then design standards like unobtrusive colors and blending into buildings would be established as would permit requirements and a policy for what to do if you know these systems become non-functional or abandoned. A way for the City to require they be Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 12 removed and recycled. I know I went through that really quick. If you have any questions I’d be more than happy to address them. Weick: I have a very unfair question for you. Walters: Oh dear. Weick: So you can say I have no idea and that’s fine. Do you have any idea the size of a solar field or you know accessory that would be needed to power a standard, you know two story single family? Walters: So I can’t help, so it’s really going to depend on the size of the house. Exposures. Weick: Yeah. Walters: I know when I looked into it for my home, which is about 1,800 square feet split level, they told us we could probably do it with about a, I think it was about a 500-600 square foot would provide all. Weick: Okay. Walters: So now again my house has really nice southern exposure. You know so if you’ve got a bunch of tree cover you’re going to need more, you know. Weick: Yeah, okay. I was just curious. Walters: But that was when we talked with so. Weick: Okay. Walters: For the record I don’t live in Chanhassen and I’m not passing this for my own personal benefit. Weick: But are you going to use solar? Because that would be really cool. Maybe you can’t answer that. We’ll talk later. We can talk about that after the meeting. Walters: No that was my fault. I jumped into it but. Aanenson: So I just want to say too even though they’re permitted in this ordinance, if you were to approve it there are a lot of HOA’s that regulate these too so not all associations are going to permit these so just because the City allows it doesn’t mean an HOA would permit so. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 13 McGonagill: It’s more of a topical question. You know I’m just watching the news last couple days where, I’ll tie it back to permeable pavers so you have to follow me a little bit. In the news it was noticed, particularly I think it was the northern part of Minneapolis there were quite a few people that were scammed by solar installers. Power installers. They came in. Put them in. Didn’t finish them up and the citizens are left with them and the Attorney General of Minnesota is now dealing with this and trying to sort through and find the individuals. Does the, and where I’m going with this, does the ordinance, would it have a requirement that the installer of the solar panels, because you’re dealing with structures. You’re dealing with electricity. There’s a lot of stuff, be certified to be a certified installer? I use the analogy like you have with pavers. They have to be trained. Aanenson: Yeah, this is going to require a building permit so then you’re going to have to be licensed so it’s not something that you, so whoever the installers would have to get a license and that sort of thing. McGonagill: I mean it’s up to the homeowner to decide whether the company’s viable or not. Aanenson: Correct. Just like if you got a tree trimmer, something like that yep. They should be licensed yep. McGonagill: But you would have a shot to look at the installer to see if they knew what they were doing? Aanenson: Correct, the building department would. That’s correct. McGonagill: Thank you. Skistad: So if solar has a 30 year, basically it’s disposable in 30 years. So that’s what number 5, the abandonment covers that then? Aanenson: Yeah. Walters: Yep it would cover that or if. Aanenson: New owner. Walters: The system became damaged and they didn’t want to fix it. You know we put in clauses like that to protect ourselves. So if a neighbors complains that oh you know Jim’s solar system has been broken for 2 years. It’s got a giant crack through it. It’s an eyesore. It clearly doesn’t work. We make sure we have something in the code that lets us say okay, this is a nuisance. You need to address it and oh by the way you have to recycle it and do it properly so it’s just a way for us to protect ourselves in case something like that comes up. Most people are Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 14 going to be responsible are going to take care of it and if it’s on their roof they’ll get rid of it when they re-roof but. Randall: One more question. Under the required system to primarily provide power for on site use. So these would be a non grid system? Walters: They can be attached to the grid. We require if they do that they have an agreement with the grid and we do have you know the provision that, I believe we have it in there that if there is you know excess energy they can sell it back to the utility company but you know again it has to be accessory. Or it’d have to be mostly for on site and if they provide a little extra during peak hours and sell it back that’s, you know we’re not going to get upset. Randall: I guess because that’s a system that I’m familiar with like down in Arizona. Everyone is tied to the grid. You sell electricity back and then okay. Walters: Yep. Aanenson: The goal is I think not to sell it to your neighborhood to get a big enough system to. Randall: Gotch ya. Okay. Walters: Seeing no further questions, oh yep. Reeder: Somewhere in here it prohibits large solar energy systems for utility companies. I can’t remember where I read that but. Aanenson: That was one I just mentioned that you’re not creating electricity for the whole neighborhood. Reeder: You can’t do that anywhere in the state? Aanenson: We have solar gardens yeah. Reeder: We’re part of somewhere? Aanenson: Yes we do. We’re part of solar farms. There’s one down in, where the Met Council sewer in Shakopee. Sewer treatment plant. We have a solar garden, we’re part of that. Walters: But no portion of the city of Chanhassen is zoned to allow for that. Aanenson: Correct. Reeder: Say that again? Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 15 Walters: No portion of the city of Chanhassen is zoned to allow for like. Aanenson: Solar gardens. Walters: Production level solar gardens or solar collections. Reeder: Okay so it’s prohibited by zoning already? Aanenson: Correct. You’d have to go further out in the county to do that correct. Reeder: Okay. You have some language in here about trees blocking the neighborhood. How do you, how are you going to know that if somebody puts up a solar panel in their back yard and the guy plants a tree next door or? Walters: That section was in the narrative and staff discussed it as one potential that could be regulated and ultimately did not want to touch that because exactly as you said. You know if somebody has a 100 year oak and somebody else puts a solar panel in and then says your 100 year oak is shading, we don’t want to be drug into any of that. Reeder: Okay. And you also have a provision there that the solar panel can’t be any higher than zoning for the building. What if you, a person has a flat roof house that’s already at the maximum level, would you prohibit putting solar panels up there? Walters: It does not allow for them to go above the pitch or hip. However it limits them to the maximum height requirement for the applicable zoning district. In absolute theory if they had a flat roof and had built to the, you know let’s say there was a 30 foot height and they built their flat roof right up to that 30 foot height and it projected above that, this ordinance would prohibit it. In that case I would recommend they get a variance and I think you know assuming it was reasonably configured I think it’s likely staff would support that request. But yes that is a potential conflict. Reeder: Okay. Weick: Thank you. Walters: So again the, where this would be broken out separately a proposed motion would be recommend that the City Council adopt a proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning accessory solar energy systems. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO CORRECT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE INTERIM USES STATUTE. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 16 Walters: Interim uses. So reading it over the, one of the interim use permits are permits that we issue where they’re designed to have specific sunset clause so they’re designed to end either after a specific amount of time, say 5 or 10 years or when something happens like municipal sewer comes down and we expect an area to be ready for redevelopment. As it currently reads one of the issuance standards that’s put on all interim use permits says that in order to issue one we have to know the date of the event that will terminate the use with certainty. That sentence should read date or event. Looks like when it was codified an F was hit instead of an R. We looked over how we’ve traditionally structured these permits. We use clauses that are consistent with the or being in there, not of so we recommended this typo be fixed. Aanenson: Scribner’s error yeah. Walters: Yep if there’s no questions this would just be recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning fixing a typographical error in the interim use permit standards. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO RESTRICT MERCHANDISE SOLD AT TEMPORARY AND SPECIAL EVENTS TO GOODS NORMALLY SOLD ON SITE. Walters: Special and temporary events. So in 2017 staff did a major overhaul and rewrite of our temporary outdoor event ordinance. We created a couple different categories. We added, divided outdoor events into temporary outdoor events if they’re smaller sales and then special events which are larger and then seasonal sales permits for things like farmer stands. One of the things staff did when we restructured it was the old ordinance had criteria for approval. Instead we adopted criteria for denial that would give us better grounds to essentially deny a special event permit that we felt could negatively impact the city. One of the old criteria had been that in a temporary outdoor sale or event was limited to merchandise normally sold by the business in question. That had come up because for a while the City had concerns with a lot of pop up kiosk’s and like parking lot sales going on. You know for instance we were contacted once where if the Viking’s were going to go to the Super Bowl somebody wanted to set up a t-shirt shop in a parking lot so things like that which the City felt was not necessarily desirable. When we did the reboot that provision was lost. One of the reasons for that was we wanted to give a little more flexibility to special events to allow them to have things like food trucks and you know things that weren’t normally sold. However we did leave a hole for those type of uses to reappear so what the City’s recommending is restoring that prohibition on selling goods not normally stocked but then having an exemption for clear accessory sales. So like food trucks or concession sales during an open house. So the proposed criteria that would be added back in is the sale or event proposes to sell merchandise not normally sold or stocked by the occupants of the premise. That should be premise, not remises. Seasonal sales permits are exempted from this requirement as the sale of goods determined to be accessory to the proposed event, food truck or concession sales during an event or limited sale of goods as part of a charity event. So again the goal is to prevent like pop up tent sales of extraneous merchandise while making sure Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 17 our local businesses can promote themselves. Can have food trucks. Can do fun events. If you have any questions I’d be happy to address them. Aanenson: And just give you a little more background on this. So you know I think part of the fun of the downtown life is when there’s a lot of activity so you think about when we had the Ryder Cup out here. There was a lot of fun stuff going on and people wanted to take advantage of that and we want people to come here an have a good time. We had neighborhoods that did special events because they had food trucks in their neighborhood so we were monitoring all that. So the premise behind the special event permits is we know who to contact if there’s a problem. Like you know we can, the sheriff’s office can go out there so they’re routed around through the different departments making sure they’re not causing a traffic problem. So originally when this got started we had a lot of people that would just pull up a van and open up the door and we didn’t know who they were and so just trying to monitor that but we also want to allow businesses and companies that do parties, if they want to have a food truck come to their business, great. You know so there’s, we regulate them. There’s all different iterations of this but a lot of it, like MacKenzie said there’s a little part of it that kind of fell through the crack that we wanted to make sure that we’re not prohibiting but yet we’re regulating in a way that it’s safe for everybody that you know we know who this vendor is. It’s not somebody that’s you know not have met any inspections or anything like that so we just do that so it goes from parades. Some of the school things. I mean it runs the gamut. Paisley Park does special event permits. They’re limited to so many a year. I’m trying to think. All businesses can have up to so many special events a year so those are all tracked on our massive spread sheet by MacKenzie but those are the fun things that are in town and we like to, we like to have those but we just want to make sure that we’re not over regulatory but we just kind of know what’s going on and who’s here so. It’s seasonal sales too it kind of falls in that category too so if you know like over in front of Lunds Byerlys they had the temporary flower garden and then we have the seasonal sales. When I first started here I just bumped into them recently. The Dimler’s who had all the corn huts and they were all kinds of corners. We just want to make sure that when they’re parked the people come in. They can get in and out safely so we just have them give us a map. Show us where they’re going to be. That they got the owner’s permission. That’s one of the things we always ask for too. If they got the underlying owner’s permission to be there and that it’s, you know great. You can do those seasonal sales. So that’s all part of this whole thing and I think it’s worked pretty well. We keep making little tweaks to it. What we find out works and what doesn’t work so. Skistad: So if you have a graduation party and you have a food truck does that, this is not, this doesn’t impact it? You know when you guys started talking about that I was like. Walters: We get called about that. What we say is private residential events are private residential events. We remind people to make sure the food truck is parked in their driveway or on their yard you know and not obstructing traffic or anything like that but back yard weddings. Do what you want. You know we’re very hands off in residential. This is all for corporate entities. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 18 Skistad: So if someone wanted to have a charity event at one of the parks, this would apply for this? Walters: Depends on exactly what’s going on. So in some cases that’s handled through a public gathering permit by the parks department. In other cases this ordinance comes into play so unfortunately that’s where I’d have to ask you a lot more questions to figure out exactly what your event was. How many people you were having. What your impact was. If you were going to be using the trail system. You know. Aanenson: Who’s the sponsor? Yeah, all that kind of stuff. Skistad: I mean who would? Aanenson: We’d start you with park and rec first. Skistad: Okay. Aanenson: Because you’re using public property so they would be the ones to decide that, yeah. Skistad: Okay. Tietz: So if we had a, let’s say in the Byerlys, out in front of Byerlys, some folks from Cancer Society came and they wanted to have a pop up to sell shirts and do a fundraiser. Can they do that? Aanenson: Well they’d have to get Byerlys permission first. Walters: If Byerlys wanted to sponsor. Tietz: But it’s not part of Byerlys business. Walters: No but what we would say in that, so that’s where this exemption I put in there because that’s why an issue we get that flexibility but we said you know in this case it was accessory to the proposed event. So what we’d say here is, the proposed event is a charity awareness thing for American Cancer Society say. And as part of their charity event for American Cancer Society they may be selling some t-shirts. Some mugs. Some you know have a silent auction. That’s accessory to the goal of you know doing this like customer give back event. That’s what we’re promoting. The sale of goods is accessory to that. So we would you know for a charity event take a very liberal interpretation. Where we’d take stricter interpretations as far as you know okay I’ve got a business and I’m literally renting out my parking lot every weekend to different other entities so they can sell stuff in my parking lot just so I can get a cut of it. That’s where we’d say no, that’s not the intent of this ordinance. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 19 Skistad: So when you have this ordinance then you would go to the City and you would, is there a fee that goes with it? Walters: There is a relatively modest fee. The temporary outdoor event permit is a $50 fee. Special event permits are $100 fee. Those tend to be larger events where we anticipate it’s actually going to impact the community, you know the street system, etcetera. McGonagill: So it’s special use or the special permit would resemble, take Jon’s example. Not the Cancer Society but a high school club wants to do a car wash which we typically can see in the summer. Same thing. They would have to come and get some sort of permission from the owner. Aanenson: Correct. Walters: Yeah. McGonagill: Like for example Youngstedt’s down there. Somebody wanted to do that. That’s really the process that you’d follow. Walters: Yeah. Aanenson: It kind of goes beyond the scope. Again lots of times I would say the Fire Marshal and the sheriff’s office are kind of the key people that want to know kind of what’s going on. Again if they’re blocking you know we’ve had special events where helium balloons got really close to high tension power lines and there’s just, so just so there’s a contact there. That’s a lot of what this is involved in too if like there’s a problem going beyond the noise or traffic’s backed up where you can get a hold of somebody and try to solve the problem so. Tietz: So if I went to Youngstedt’s or I went to Byerlys and I said I want to do a car wash or I want to do a pop up for a fundraiser for a non-profit, how do they know they have to come to the City to get a permit? Aanenson: Because they’re limited in their permits. Tietz: Pardon? Aanenson: They know because they work with us regularly so all the businesses are aware of that. Tietz: All the property owners do, know that? Aanenson: Yep, yep yep. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 20 Tietz: But how do I know that and now I want to do it on. Aanenson: You’d talk to the General Manager and they would know that they need to contact us. Skistad: And so then your high school car wash would already be $50 bucks in the hole. Tietz: Before they even start. Skistad: Before you even start. Walters: And I will point out too we have been proactive and friendly at informing, you know when we noticed events that weren’t permitted we generally send a pretty friendly letter saying hey in the future just so you know this is the ordinance. Please contact us ahead of time. So we have done education on this with our local businesses. Skistad: I think I lost track on what this ordinance is doing. Walters: Yeah this, what we’re doing, all we’re doing here is so the temporary event ordinance exists. It’s been working pretty well for a couple years. All this is doing is when we redid the ordinance we didn’t include a provision that we realized we should have and we’re, we would like to re-include a provision limiting temporary outdoor events to selling goods and merchandise that normally sold by that business. With an exemption allowing you know food trucks and some other fun accessory sales to go on beyond what’s normally there, if that makes sense. Walters: Other questions? Comments. Seeing none, so again were this to be separated out the motion would be recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning allowable merchandise at temporary and special events. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ADOPT MINIMUM DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION STANDARDS. Walters: Driveway configurations. So the City’s had a couple ongoing issues with driveways. I broke it out into three general concerns that we’re going to try to address. As it’s currently written the driveway ordinance requires a 10 foot side yard setback for the first 20 feet of driveway length from the street towards the garage. However since that requirement was adopted the City created zoning districts that only have a 5 foot garage side setback. I’ve got some graphics that will help explain but that leads to some very unworkable driveway configurations being required by code. So we’d like to make it so that the driveway setback is the zoning district setback instead of an arbitrary 10 across all zoning districts. Another issue we’ve had is in order to reduce lot cover, usually when builders want to put a very large house on Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 21 with a very large, you know 3 or 4 car driveway and they’re told they’re over their property’s maximum impervious surface. The first thing they do rather than make the house smaller or lose the sunroom is they just take a big chunk out of the driveway and we’ve had a few proposed driveways that were completely unworkable. So again I have a graphic to show you an example of one of these. So what we’d like to do is establish some minimum standards for how the driveway should be configured. We looked at how we require parking lot sizes and we’re proposing that the similar to how we require parking stalls to be 18 feet deep, the driveway should be 18 feet going straight out from the garage door before it begins to taper off. The other thing is, this section of the code has been amended 7 times since 2001. Every time it’s been amended a new sub-section’s been added. Not necessarily with regards to whether or not there was similar material earlier in the code. So I believe I’m proposing dropping it from something like 11 sub-sections down to 6 and just getting it so they’re all in one place and a lot easier for builders to navigate. So first point I was talking about, so this red is what we would require the driveway to be set back. This is one of our RLM houses so residential low and medium density. They’re allowed to be 5 feet from the side lot line. You know as you can see here this is about a 7 foot distance and it already has to, in order to meet city standards it would have to cut that sharply. There’s no way you’d be able to actually maneuver a car there on your driveway. So what we have to do in these situations is the City Engineer has to sign a letter exempting them from the standards every time for every house within the zoning district. It doesn’t make a lot of sense so we’re proposing that the setback would then meet the district setback. So if we pass a PUD with a 7 ½ foot side yard setback like The Park development, that would be your driveway setback. If it has a 5 foot, that becomes your driveway setback. If it’s a 10 foot then the existing language would apply and it’d be a 10 foot because that’s what it’s been graded and designed for for the snow storage and things like that. So that’s our proposal for that. Skistad: So does that change any existing, does that affect any existing properties? Walters: Most of the properties that needed this got the letter of exemption from the engineering department but if there are any out there in an older subdivision that have a legal non-conforming driveway where just you know because there’s no other way to do it they put it there and didn’t tell us it would grant standing to that because they would now comply to code. But it shouldn’t, I mean other than legitimizing driveways that meet their district setback but not that requirement it shouldn’t change anything. Going forward it just means the City Engineer will have to sign a lot less letters. So this is an example of one where the driveway was trunucated to, truncated thank you. To reduce the lot cover so about 11 feet in here it begins cutting and about 14 feet here it begins cutting in kind of a Coke bottle shape to go down to the minimum, they’re allowed 10 feet. The property was built at 24.99 percent lot cover. I got a call from the new homeowners about a week after saying gee we love the house but that driveway’s you know, we can’t get our cars in. It’s really, really difficult to maneuver. What are our options? And I had to tell them well you’re at your maximum lot cover. You don’t have options. You know you can apply for a variance and so this is a situation where we would like to try to protect potential buyers from builders over building lots and cutting lot cover where it shouldn’t be covered. The other thing that will happen in these situations is they’ll, we’re informed they’re going to do a smaller Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 22 footprint and then when the crews get out there to pour concrete they pour the giant driveway that actually works and then we have to do after the fact enforcement and then we’re going after the poor homeowners who have taken ownership of the property and it’s now their problem even though they didn’t do anything wrong which is a rough way to welcome someone to the city. So we’re hoping to protect citizens from that type of thing so what we’d propose is that they be required to go out 18 feet from the garage doors before they begin tapering and that will be enough to provide required parking in front of the drive garage and then easy maneuvering in and out of the stalls. So that’s the rationale there. Tietz: Shouldn’t new construction that be picked up when they pull the permit? I mean we avoid that. Walters: Yeah we do and I’ve argued til I’m blue in my face. If I don’t have anything in ordinance telling them that they have to do it I don’t have the authority. Tietz: Well it’s a cover issue… Aanenson: It’s a field change. Walters: Yeah. Tietz: So this theoretically shouldn’t have happened. Walters: Right but sometimes folks do what they shouldn’t do. You know we’ve had people, sometimes the builder doesn’t communicate to the contractor and they just, or they look at it and this is where that homeowner says no pour it here or the builder says pour it here. Tietz: But is it red flagged at occupancy? Walters: We don’t, we find it at the as built but by that time sometimes the builder’s gone and then it’s, it’s a big fight. It’s not easy to do after the fact enforcement once it’s poured in. Tietz: Well we just approved pervious pavers too. Walters: Yep. I hear what you’re saying in practice it’s challenging to do enforcement on these. Tietz: Well isn’t a plan approved or a plan built and would, if someone came in with a plan like this to the City wouldn’t you say well yeah you meet code but you can’t, you can’t get into your garage so I’m sorry so here are the options that you have. Aanenson: Let’s be clear. The plan wasn’t approved this way. People make changes in the field and if you put an escrow down for $1,500 people walk from that every day. They don’t care. You can have the money. We’re not moving our driveway because it’s more expensive. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 23 Tietz: But we have to protect the homeowner. Randall: But having the 18 feet would…requirement so then it’s like well here’s what you have to do. You have to figure it out from there. Aanenson: Right. Randall: You know what I mean? Aanenson: Yeah. It solves that problem but there’s a lot of other that it’s not going to solve and there’s a bigger problem with people making field changes and yeah, it’s problematic so. Tietz: I guess we should be in the business of protecting the homeowner, not protecting. Aanenson: The homeowner’s the one that’s making the changes. Tietz: Well but what if the contractor did it because that was, he just decided to do it this way even though he got a plan approved and he’s at 25 percent coverage and he just said well I’m going to make this a better driveway…do that all the time. They do that all the time. Walters: It’s a minority. Aanenson: I would say this one is a small, small minority. This isn’t the most egregious ones. The ones are where the homeowner says hey, can you make the driveway wider. Tietz: So is Lennar going to make, meet all the standards for 169 lots? Aanenson: Yeah. I mean we check each one. Yeah. Tietz: You check the plan but now who’s going to enforce the plan? Aanenson: We are. I mean we take security in all those. Yep. Tietz: But okay. Aanenson: People leave security sitting here because they would rather just you know, and then go to litigation so you know we’re trying to push it so we have at least a minimum standard for the driveway approach. Walters: Yeah this gives, this gives a staff member during permit review additional ability not to issue a permit unless there’s been a design that we know will accommodate minimum functional driveway things, and we spell out what that is so we don’t have to argue with the contractor Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 24 saying no, no, no this works. Because we can sell well you may think it works but it doesn’t meet standards so this is our, we’re hoping this will reduce the amount of after the fact enforcement we have to do and we think it will give us a legal fall back for denying permits that do not meet minimum standards. McGonagill: So basically what you’re trying to do is create a situation where you’re not forcing them to do something wrong. In other words you set down a standard. Put it at 18 foot. And because if it doesn’t work they will change it in the field. Walters: Yep that’s a good way to put it. Yeah. Aanenson: Or what a lot of them will do is come back and ask for a variance. Or pervious pavers or the like. Yep. Reeder: Does anybody actually look at that driveway before they are approved? Walters: Yes and they need to have an as built survey as well which you know shows exactly the configuration that was poured. Where everything is but all we have hanging on the as built is a $1,500 escrow and if you’re looking at a million dollar house, yeah you’ll walk away from a $1,500 escrow. Reeder: You’re saying they just don’t submit it? Walters: Yeah they we have as builts that we’ve been trying to get submitted for oh 8, 9, 10 years and they won’t do it because they know they can’t meet it and it’s just $1,500. So it’s, there’s no perfect solution we can do. We think this puts us in a better position. So just in terms of the changes made to the ordinance. As I mentioned, oh my numbers were a little off. We were reducing it from 13 down to 6 sub-sections. We’re trying to place all related provisions under a single sub-section so everything under, everything dealing with driveway setbacks would go under one setback sub-section instead of being spread out over 3 or 4. Some provisions were rephrased to hopefully increase clarity. Substantive ones I went over in the earlier discussion. If there’s any additional questions I’d be happy to respond. McGonagill: How come you had permeable pavers in a driveway? Can you do that? Walters: Yep you can use permeable pavers for driveways. McGonagill: I misunderstood the third statement then. Yeah okay. Walters: Yep they would be considered a hard surface material, yep. Reeder: In 6(b), what is a zoning permit? Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 25 Walters: Yep glad you asked. So we have two types of permits that we do in terms of house construction. We have building permits which are covered by the State Building Code so that’d be you know an addition. A deck attached to a house. A 400 square foot shed, things like that. However there’s a lot of things that folks like to put on their property that isn’t covered by the State Building Code. So for instance sheds under 200 square feet are not covered by the State Building Code. Detached decks under 36 inches in height are not covered by the State Building Code. Patios, not covered by the State Building Code and concrete surfaces are not either so the City has a zoning permit which we use to evaluate those type of improvements and it’s a way that the City can use to check and make sure they’re being placed in line with the zoning code setbacks and then also with lot cover requirements. So we created zoning permits so that we would require them to submit plans for a driveway so we can evaluate to see whether or not they were going over their hard cover. Reeder: So you have an application process and a permit for zoning. Aanenson: Yeah and also just make sure they’re not in a drainage easement or something like that or they’re not encroaching into where there’s other easements for structures. Reeder: Okay. Walters: Seeing no further questions, were this one to be taken separately the motion would be the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning driveways. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO REQUIRE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO HAVE WALKWAYS AND CONCRETE PADS FOR STAIRS AND LANDINGS. Walters: So this is another looking to protect homeowners. This is requiring walkways and pads. So currently neither the city code or building code requires single family homes to have walkways connecting driveway to the front entrance or a concrete pads for stairs or landings or access doors. We do have a clause in the city code requiring that doors from the dwelling to the outdoor, so like rear patio doors be assumed to have a 10 by 10 square foot, 10 by 10 patio and that was done in response to issues where again properties are built up to the lot cover. They put a patio door there. Nothing else and then the homeowners will be shocked when they found out they couldn’t add a patio. So we built in a required assumption of a 10 by 10 patio to address that issue and it’s been pretty successful. We see a lot of similar issues with walkways connecting driveways to front doors and not having concrete stoops outside of deck landings. So we’d like to add these as requirements as well. Aanenson: So this kind of goes back to that part where you’re at your maximum hard cover. I’ll just cut out my front sidewalk. We deem that unacceptable. You know you can’t have guests go Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 26 to your front door without having a sidewalk so that’s been asked numerous times so it’s easier for us to be able to go to the code and say no this is a required thing. Walters: Yep and again similar to with driveways. You know what we have here is okay so the, the building plan comes in and they remove the sidewalk. Alright. There’s nothing in the code saying the have to have it which means we have to issue the permit. Well you know the house gets built. CO is given. As-built’s done and the they have a landscaper come in and well just pour a sidewalk and so then 2, 3, 4, 5 years later we discover the property’s 200 square feet over because the sidewalk’s been added in. It’s just a way again to instead of having to do after the fact enforcement a way to guarantee that these things are accounted for and that the property’s being designed to be able to accommodate common sense things like a walkway. Like a pad outside your garage access door. Things of that nature. So the proposed language would be when the main entrance does not connect directly to a driveway a walkway at least 4 feet in width connecting the driveway to main entrance shall be assumed, must meet all code requirements and then a landing not less than 3 feet deep shall be shown the width of any exterior stairs or proposed access doors unless that patio I mentioned earlier is already required. And again it would have to be shown to meet all requirements of the zoning code. Reeder: Why do you say assume instead of built? Walters: We’ve always allowed them to say for the patio proposed and then allow the homeowner to you know reconfigure or install it later. The main thing is making sure there’s enough lot cover on the property to accommodate the use. Reeder: Yeah I was more thinking of the walkway. Walters: That’s certainly something we could compel. We’re compelling it to be shown technically he is correct that they could put proposed walkway and it would meet the requirements. We can amend this to remove say shall be constructed instead of shall be assumed. Reeder: Makes more sense to me. And the other question I had on the second one was, the landing shall be not less than 3 feet deep. 3 feet deep? Walters: Depth. Well is depth is typically what we would use. McGonagill: And again this can be any impervious. It can be different type of surfaces. Walters: Yep. McGonagill: It could be. Aanenson: A paver. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 27 McGonagill: A paver or concrete or. Aanenson: So the Chair, you can do an omnibus motion, I don’t know if you want to talk amongst yourselves… McGonagill: But it can’t be, can it be people putting gutters and putting in woodchips? For a sidewalk. Walters: It does not say it has to be bituminous or improved so if they wanted to do you know for instance like a. Aanenson: I don’t think the, typically for fire code they don’t accept that. The woodchip’s not going to, you can’t really shovel woodchips from your driveway to your front door. It’d be hard to shovel. McGonagill: What about gravel or rock? Well how do you deny them? Walters: We’d have to amend it to say bituminous or improved surface. McGonagill: I would just suggest that. Skistad: Have you seen those? I think it’s in Minnesota or you just see this front door, sidewalks go to the yard. You’re like why? It goes halfway into the yard and that’s it. Aanenson: So what I’m hearing is that you want to…that it be improved surface. Yeah. McGonagill: I would suggest that. Aanenson: Yeah. McGonagill: What you’re going to is the fact that it should be able to be shoveled and cleared. Aanenson: Correct. McGonagill: And that makes total sense. You know people with delivery truck drivers and Amazon and all that, they’re doing that all the time. You need to provide access. Aanenson: And most people when they move into their home if it’s not there that’s the first thing they’re going to ask for. You know or just do it. McGonagill: Or they’ll be told that when they’re buying it oh you can put one of those in. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 28 Aanenson: Right, yeah. McGonagill: That’s the comment. Aanenson: And it’s the problem when they’re already at the max. You know where it becomes a problem is they take it off so they can meet their hard cover. And it’s kind of, go back and do it. Skistad: Is the hard cover, is that a State mandate? Or is that just a Chanhassen arbitrary amount? Walters: A little of both. So within the shoreland overlay district the DNR requires the 25 percent lot cover. Outside of that different communities establish their own lot cover. Generally they tend to not stray too terrible far from that but communities do look at like what type of soil they have. What type of storm water infrastructure. What they’re getting in return so for instance RLM District we allow to have 35 percent lot cover because we require the permanent preservation of large amounts of open space so we feel that offsets it. So every community is different but there is a rationale. It isn’t a number pulled out of a hat. Skistad: And RLM again is? Walters: Residential Low and Medium District. So that’s like the Foxwood development would be a good example. They donated you know that large Fox Wood Preserve to be a permanent park and forest in exchange instead of holding them to the 25 percent lot cover, they were allowed 35 percent. Aanenson: And that’s just residential. Commercial districts have different standards. Yeah, much more hard cover. Yep. So again that ties into our whole Comprehensive Plan of how we manage storm water and then it’d be approved by the different watershed districts so that’s what we’ve been operating on for a number of years. Weick: Would we be able to make those changes and still vote on this one? Aanenson: Oh yeah. Walters: Yes. Aanenson: Yeah I would say if you want to we can clarify that one and make that motion with the language change. Weick: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 29 Walters: Yeah I would perhaps suggest just treating the walkways and pads as a separate item just so we can specifically get amendments. And then keeping the rest as a omnibus. Weick: Yep. Walters: So we will work through that motion at the end I believe. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ADOPT AIRPORT ZONING STANDARDS. Walters: Airport zoning standards. So Chanhassen is required by state law to administer the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance. In order to be able to administer and enforce it the City has to adopt it into the city code. The most efficient way for us to do that is to establish an airport zoning overlay district and then just adopt the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance by reference as additional standards for any property within it. So just so you have a little bit of an idea of how much of the city we’re talking about, this is the section of the city within the Flying Cloud Airport zoning boundaries. So we’d be creating an overlay district here. These are all residential properties. The airport zoning ordinance doesn’t kick in until I believe 240 feet of height. We don’t allow anything practically speaking in the residential district that gets anywhere close to that. It’s very unlikely this provision would ever come up but we are required by state law to adopt it in order to be able to enforce it. Aanenson: That’s Lake Riley by the way. Walters: Oh sorry yep. Lake Riley here. So if you have any questions I’d be happy to answer them. If not the. Weick: Okay? Walters: Yeah the proposed motion would be the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning establishing an airport zoning overlay district. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO BAN THE KEEPNG OF BIRDS OF PREY. Walters: Birds of prey. So in 2009 the City did a big overhaul of it’s animal keeping ordinance and one of the things that happened was an addition to classifying you know, creating a farm animal definition and limiting them to properties of 10 acres. Wild animals and birds of prey were intended to be banned from the city. We’re not exactly sure why the City Council and Planning Commission passed an ordinance that did include language banning the keeping of birds of prey. Somehow it did not make it to codification. The definition did and the provision on wild animals did. Whether something was deleted or missed I couldn’t tell you but it should Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 30 have been in there in 2009. It wasn’t. Staff discovered it and so we’re proposing we rectify tat error. If anyone has any questions. The proposed amendment would be that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the keeping of birds of prey. Skistad: I guess I just wasn’t sure we even need to have that. I mean it seems excessive. Aanenson: We have had requests. Skistad: Really? Aanenson: Yeah. Walters: So legally speaking because the falconing permits are handled by the DNR, if we don’t have a local prohibition an individual who was a licensed falconer with the State of Minnesota would have every right to have a, what’s the mew? Is that the word? There’s a special word for an area where birds of prey are kept but they would legally have the right to do so and we don’t feel that’d be particularly compatible with other residential uses. Skistad: Why? Walters: One of the big concerns we have is the birds of prey are predators by nature. Were one to escape small dogs are certainly on the menu as are other, you know cats and other animals. In addition many smaller household pets have a strong fear reaction to like the calls and sight of birds of prey so again it would be disruptive to other animals traditionally kept in that context. Skistad: I guess I just saw a bald eagle literally in the tree in my back yard like this past week so like there’s your bird of prey. I mean we already have birds of prey all over the place so. Reeder: You’re in trouble. Skistad: The bald eagle and I’ve seen hawks and I have owls back there and turkeys and who knows what else. Walters: And we have received calls from residents saying there’s a hawk menacing my small dog. We want the City to help us out. That’s not something we can address but we get those calls more often than you think and again if there were a larger concentration continuing in the same area we’re certainly concerned that that could be an issue. Aanenson: It can be left in if you want to leave it in. Yeah it’s up to you. Skistad: Well I mean I. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 31 McGonagill: These are domesticated birds. The ones that are pets or something like that but wild animals really do… Walters: Yeah. Aanenson: Yep. Skistad: So you’re allowed to get one but you can’t keep it anywhere. So you can be, you can be approved. You can be approved to have one but you can’t have one anywhere. You can be trained to have one but you can’t keep it anywhere in the state of Minnesota. Walters: I think there’s places in the state you probably can but. Tietz: It’s a sport. I mean. Aanenson: Yeah, falconers. Yeah. Tietz: I’ve known falconers that train their, they use them for pheasant hunting and gross hunting. So it’s a sport. You know we’re now saying that that individual cannot house that critter in Chanhassen. Skistad: I guess I’m not going to vote for that. I’m just not going to. I don’t think we need excessive ordinances. Weick: It’s not the only thing we regulate though. Skistad: I know. I understand that. Weick: We regulate horses and bees. Skistad: Not that I want to have one, because I don’t have any interest in that at all but. Aanenson: We’ll make that a separate. That and driveway one. Walters: Right if there’s no further questions. So this one would be treated separately. We’ll return to it and the motion would be recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the keeping of birds of prey. AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO REMOVE OBSOLETE PARKING LOT CONFIGURATION GRAPHICS. Walters: Last item today is we found a parking lot graphic in the City’s parking lot design standards. In 2004 the City altered their parking lot design standards and changed the minimum Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 32 parking stall and drive aisle width required for parking lots. However there was a clarifying graphic that was overlooked so while the text and tables of the ordinance were adjusted to reflect the new requirement, this graphic was not and continued to list the old dimensions. We received a parking lot application that used the dimensions from the graphic and had to get an opinion from the City Attorney as to which took precedence. We were advised that the most recent standards so the written standard prevailed but we were also strongly advised to clean this up and avoid any further confusion. So the section in question is this is the table which has the correct numbers. It requires for 45 degree stalls a minimum of a 15 foot aisle and the old graphic lists 13.5 feet. Now additionally we now require 9 foot stall width and the confusing graphic shows an 8.5 foot stall width which was the old standard. So our proposal would be just to delete the old graphic and remove the source of confusion. If there’s any questions I would be happy to take them at this time. Weick: Questions or comments? Looks good. Walters: Seeing none the proposed motion for that again were it be done separately would be recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning parking stall and drive aisle standards. So if it pleases the change what I think might be best is if we did separate public hearings and motions for the sidewalk and concrete pad item and the bird of prey item and then handle the rest as a group. Aanenson: What I would recommend in your motion, I would them as you’ve got listed here. You know items 1 through, which ones, what numbers are we pulling out? Walters: I believe we’d be pulling out items. Skistad: 8 and 10. Walters: Thank you. Aanenson: Perfect, there you go. So pull out 8 and 10 so one motion would be everything excluding 8 and 10 and then we’d vote on those separately. Skistad: Can I just ask one more question on 6. So do we have high school car washes now that we allow to go on and they have to get permission? Aanenson: They’ve never been asked for. We’ve never been asked. Skistad: Alright. Aanenson: So that would be up to Lunds and Byerlys or Cub to ask. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 33 Skistad: I’m just trying to remember if I’ve seen one in Chan. I feel like I have seen one but I don’t know if it was Chan or if it was in Eden Prairie. Aanenson: A lot of it has to be, yeah they’re in Minnetonka all the time sure. Tietz: Cheerleaders or somebody has one all the time in the summer in Minnetonka and Eden Prairie I’ve seen them frequently. Aanenson: A lot of it has to do with the underlying…whether they want that use there. Skistad: I don’t know if we’re discouraging you know the schools or clubs from doing something by having a $50 fee. Walters: I would, sorry go on. Skistad: So that’s, you know that’s what I would. I mean I get it from a business perspective but from a charity perspective that bothers me. Walters: Understood. Just to be clear the proposed amendment would not in any way, shape or form affect that fee or the permitting requirements. This is you know narrowly tailored to commercial goods being sold in a specific instance so. McGonagill: You’re not going back and changing the fundamental foundation of the. Aanenson: No we’d have to re-notice the hearing. McGonagill: This is just particularly, you can’t sell other type of goods. Walters: Correct. Aanenson: Yes Skistad: Okay. McGonagill: So, and thanks for asking the question because we did get into that discussion and really that discussion I guess was… Aanenson: There are all kinds of other school activities that go through the City. Fun walks. Almost every school does a fun walk and those are you monitored through the City. Things like that. I’m trying to think of some other things where they use the parks so yeah. Skistad: So they have like a separate agreement or something? Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 34 Aanenson: Yeah, yes. Skistad: Okay. Alright. That was just my hang up on that one. Weick: For the, they all sort of had similar approval wording didn’t they? Walters: Yep. So what I would recommend is opening a public hearing for items, yeah for all of the items and then we can sort out the motions. Weick: We’ll do that right now. So at this time we would open the public hearing for input, inviting anyone present to come forward and offer an opinion on any amendments we’ve discussed this evening. Seeing nobody come forward I will close the public hearing portion of tonight’s meeting and open for commissioner discussion. Comments and/or motions. Tietz: Steve I still, sorry but I’m still this driveway issue still bothers me because if you say it’s 20 feet out, someone has a 3 car garage so now we’re, what’s that at least 35-40 feet? You know it’s 20 feet out so there’s 800 square feet. I mean you’d be over with your example MacKenzie they could be over their allowed coverage by hanging them go 20 feet out and 40 foot wide because they’ve got a 3 car garage front. So isn’t that going to get picked up or shouldn’t that get picked up in the permitting process? Walters: That would be if they were over their lot coverage. Tietz: Well yeah I mean so now, but we’re recommending that they do that which is potentially throwing them over the coverage. Aanenson: Well the challenge is. Tietz: I mean they’d have to reduce the size of their house or take off the patio or take off the screened porch or do something. Aanenson: There’s only so much house you can put on a lot. Tietz: Oh I know that but I’m not sure that this solves. Walters: I will say that in my experience many of the houses, and I sign off on every residential home permit that comes through the City of Chanhassen. Most of these properties with 3 car garages are proposing 1,200 plus square foot driveways and making it work along with a very nice footprint for the house. You know this is, it’s very atypical that they don’t provide at least that 18 feet before they begin tapering and it usually is when they’ve severely over built the property. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 35 Aanenson: And I would say most of the builders that we have, regular builders those aren’t the problem ones. Tietz: It’s the one off’s. Aanenson: It’s the one off’s correct that may be building it for somebody in particular or building a spec home and for people that are here all the time you build that relationship and so I mean a product that’s more flexible and less flexible when you’re installing certain types of homes and they’re pretty standard of what, they know what they can do right. Tietz: Just get closer to the road and you eliminate some of the problems. Aanenson: Well that, and well in some of those we have done that in the PUD’s but I think it’s the one off’s where you have somebody doing a spec home and then they think well if I add this and this it’s going to help it move. You know the screened porch and all that and then they’re over the cover and then who ends up on the down side of that is the future homeowner and as MacKenzie said we want people to feel welcomed here. We don’t want to say hey, now you’re in Chanhassen. Welcome to. Tietz: And we talked about that Kate several months ago. Aanenson: Yep. Tietz: Making sure that someone doesn’t sell something that’s at 99 percent of the coverage and someone can’t even put in a walk to their patio. Aanenson: Right exactly and that’s the problem. Tietz: Okay. Skistad: So is there another change to that requirement that would make you feel better about it? Tietz: Well I think it’s probably covered. I just was in my head I was trying to do the math based upon what MacKenzie had drawn up and it just seemed like there’s going to be a huge pad in front of that 3 car garage and that’s going to put, potentially put people right to the limit but if we, if we’re in the permitting process we’re calling them on that and if it’s the, you know if John Tietz decides to push it out another 8 feet on that side and after it’s been approved and a contractor does it then I’m going to either get, I’m either going to get penalized at some point or I’m going to skate under the radar until I sell the house and the next owner tries to put something else in and then they’re way over the limit. You know that’s what Kate has kind of explained. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 36 Aanenson: Well you know we’ve had situations where people have done the work like that without a permit and added on and sell the house and then maybe one person has left and take the job find out they’re non-conforming and we’ve had people in here pretty teary eyed. Tietz: Well we did that, wasn’t about year a half or two years ago Kate right down past old St. Hubert’s, the house that had a gravel expansion on the side lot and they were going to take part because it was really a tight site and they were going to sell the house and we made them take the gravel driveway, the parking area out because it exceeded what was allowable. I mean that was that 2 years ago? Aanenson: Yeah so those, a lot of different, again those are the one off’s. You know I’d say 95 percent there’s not a problem because we have you know the builders that are here they have a subdivision so they work through all those. It’s the one off. We do have a few people that want, you know I want what I want and. McGonagill: Yeah but what you’re doing by the ordinance is signaling your expectations. Aanenson: Correct. McGonagill: You know this is my expectation and so you try to go crossways we are going to have an issue instead of, in other words you’re not trying to set them up again to do something wrong. Here’s the way it has to be to be right. I get that. Aanenson: Just to clarify we’re looking for 3 motions. We’ll vote on 8 and 9 separately and then MacKenzie’s got them laid out here. We’ll do 7, 9, 11 and 12 and then you’ll take. I thought it was 8 and 9. Skistad: 8 and 10. MacKenzie 8 and 10 separately I believe. Skistad: Yeah. Okay. McGonagill: If you’d like to proceed Mr. Chairman. Weick: Yeah if there’s no other comments we could certainly consider a motion. McGonagill: For 1 through 7? Weick: (Yes). McGonagill: I’ll propose a motion. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 37 Weick: That would be wonderful. McGonagill: I propose the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopts the proposed amendments for items 1 through 7 and I guess item 9, 11 and 12 Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. Weick: However. Aanenson: Well we can just vote on the other two separately. Weick: I don’t think we have a 12. Skistad: 11. Walters: No you’re right we don’t. Aanenson: Thank you. McGonagill: Sorry. I’ll read it again. Weick: Thank you. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman I propose the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the Chanhassen, that the City Council adopts the proposed amendments for items 1 through 7, 9 and 11 of Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. Weick: We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Reeder: Second. Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Reeder. Any comments before we vote? McGonagill moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the Chanhassen City Council adopts the proposed amendments for items 1 through 7, 9 and 11 of Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick: The motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. Walters: Alright I think we’ll take them in the order they appear. So the next item would be item 8. Amendments for the proposal to require walkways and pads. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 38 Weick: And there were 3 things I think that we were looking at. Yes we wanted to, probably working backwards one was the surface. Including the surface. McGonagill: Hard surface yeah. Weick: And then there’s two language. Walters: Yeah there was a clarification that staff did not mean deep but depth. Weick: Okay and I don’t know how you. Walters: I’ll figure it out. Weick: And then the other one was in the first bullet where the main entrance shall be assumed. You wanted to change assumed to constructed or built or. Walters: I would say a walkway at least 4 feet in width connecting the driveway and main entry shall be required. Weick: Required. Walters: And that requirement to be bituminous or improved surface similar to. McGonagill: The driveway. Walters: So I believe for the proposed motion you could say recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning sidewalks and pads with the correction, with the language suggested by the Planning Commission or something to that effect. Aanenson: …change online. Walters: The motion I can. I can’t change the ordinance language on the fly. Weick: We can say with. Aanenson: Yeah you can. Weick: With changes. Reeder: As amended. Walters: Thank you. Perfect. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 39 Weick: Comments on this before we consider a motion. I think we’ve sort of talked it through. I think it makes sense. Those are awesome suggestions I think. McGonagill: Makes a lot of sense… Weick: So with that I certainly would accept a motion. Anyone so desires? Randall: I’ll make a motion. Proposed motion, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter of the Chanhassen City Code concerning sidewalks and concrete pads as amended. Weick: We have a valid motion from Commissioner Randall. Do we have a second? Reeder: Second. Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Reeder. Comments on this motion. Randall moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter of the Chanhassen City Code concerning sidewalks and concrete pads as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick: This amended motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. Walters: And then the next item would be item number 10, birds of prey which I will get to in a moment. There we are. Tietz: So would birds of prey be just caged critters like having panthers and cougars and stuff in your back. You can’t do that but if it’s a sport, if it’s a hunting sport and a bird of prey, a falcon is used for hunting purposes why would that not be allowable if it’s caged properly? Housed properly. Fed. There’s a difference in my mind there’s a difference between more or less a, I don’t want to call it domesticated but an animal that’s used for a specific purpose as opposed to a menagerie in your back yard. Weick: I’m not sure you can, you can’t house a bird of prey inside can you? Tietz: Sure. Randall: Can I have some input on this? Weick: Yeah. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 40 Randall: I looked at the DNR website an a recent article in May of 2019 it talked about a person that has one of these and there’s a picture and him and his family watching TV with the bird of prey. So basically it’s heavily regulated by the Federal government and the DNR. They have to be sponsored to even have the bird. They have to go through an apprentice process. Testing and all these type of things to be a full falconer. So my thought on it is that with all the standards of being able to participate in the sport that those type of people are going to be properly well suited to have this type of bird in their home. That’s just my thought on it. And I don’t know, sorry probably wasn’t listening to you guys on some of the past stuff. I was looking at that because I just wanted to know. I mean if it’s one of those things, is it a sport that people do and. McGonagill: …it’s illegal to have one. Randall: Yeah it is and in looking at this these people actually capture the bird and then train the bird and then that’s how the sport begins so, but it is federally regulated and regulated by the State including licensure and training standards and everything. It’s almost like when we had the bee discussion. The schooling and the amount of time it took to become a beekeeper within those standards. The other thing too that they don’t call them a bird of prey. They call them a raptor and that raptor includes a lot of things instead of bird of prey so that might be better terminology for our ordinance but. McGonagill: It winds up with the DNR, State code that way. I know the national codes. Randall: Yeah. Yeah. So it is a lengthy process. Like I just looked at the DNR website and the requirements are, let’s see here. They have a permit process. Classifications. Junior apprentice. Apprentice. General master. They have different classification upgrades. I suppose what you can do with the bird and that type of thing so. Skistad: I think you actually have to go to the centers for that. I had someone I worked with a long time ago was interested in this and it’s intensive. McGonagill: So Mark what would you suggest we do? Randall: I think that, I don’t like this blanket proposal on it. I think you know based on our discussion we had about beekeeping and that type of thing, maybe that, if we follow that kind of standard so it is inclusive with that. I don’t know enough about falconing. I don’t know if could someone come and bring their falcon in the city of Chanhassen and do their falconing sporting thing that day but not keep the bird in the city like they live in Minnetonka and bring the bird to Chan, I don’t know but I think it’s kind of going on that same realm as the beekeeping thing. We made some of those standards in that ordinance where you had to have so much training and that type of thing. I think that would be something to look at. Unless there’s a problem that we’ve had with these birds in the past, I don’t know of that but that’s just my two cents on it. I won’t be voting for this. I’ll move it out, or I won’t vote for it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 41 Reeder: Would it be better to write something that says unless a person has a State license or? Aanenson: Well it’s already implied. If you look at the, all the alternatives that were in here. The first alternative was to do nothing because it’s already heavily regulated so if we do nothing does it absolve the DNR requirements or any of those things so I think that’s what Mark, Commissioner Randall was saying. McGonagill: Just leave it alone and it will take care of itself. Randall: Yeah. Unless I guess we have a problem with it in the future if that’s something that needs to be addressed within the city. You know like every other house has a falcon at it and they’re causing problems with dogs or something. I mean I don’t know, I’m not trying to make light of it. McGonagill: I think bees would be a lot more common than a falconer showing up. Tietz: Oh yeah. There’s very few I’m sure. Weick: Just consider the nuisance factor. Randall: Yeah and I don’t. Weick: If that’s something you want to really deal with right? I mean they aren’t quiet. You know I mean. Randall: Yeah but the nuisance thing you could automatically deal with just like we do with barking dogs. I mean if we’ve got a barking dog, get a noise complaint. Sheriff’s office or code enforcement comes out and says hey we’ve got a problem. It’s interfering with your neighbors. Here’s your warning. Here’s your ticket. You know that type of thing so we do have mechanisms to deal with the nuisance type of thing I guess. But it isn’t something that, does the city code not having that in place it’s regulated by the DNR but is it something that our city has to go and check on? I don’t think our city should be responsible for that. I think the regulation from the State should be the ones doing that but. McGonagill: So could we just remove consideration of this proposed amendment or do we have to deny it? Weick: well I think you would, yeah. Aanenson: Recommend not adopting the change. Weick: The motion would be not to adopt. You’d have to word it negative, you know in the negative. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 42 Aanenson: Yep correct. Weick: But yeah we would have to vote on it. McGonagill: Okay thank you. Weick: It’d be something to the effect that we would. Aanenson: Recommend not adopting. Walters: Or deny the proposed amendment. Aanenson: Yeah. Weick: Which we can, we can hear a motion. I mean it’s up to you. We can hear a motion in either way, whoever wants to propose a motion. Tietz: It’d be nice to somehow move forward our discussion so that the council doesn’t read this differently and then eliminate it. And then say well why did they, why did the Planning Commission deny it and we think it’s appropriate and so we’re going to approve it. Weick: Which they can. Tietz: Well they can so that’s why I’m saying we have to have some of our discussion to make sure the council understands what we discussed. Randall: Do what, I can do a motion where it includes like we believe the regulatory authority should be the DNR or the State of Minnesota under the DNR and. Weick: I would, I’d keep the motion simple and then when we make comments after it’s seconded then I would ask you to maybe to second at that time and offer a summary of why. Randall: Okay. Weick: And then that might over I think, is that fair? Aanenson: Yeah… Weick: Yeah I mean it’s in the notes. Aanenson: Well we always do that with our staff report. …the rationale basis for the driveway. Why it was pulled off separately…and we’ll keep the omnibus. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 43 Walters: As a matter of practice I always when the commission has concerns, even if it’s a minority view I always put the commission expressed concerns about A, B, C and D and then in this case I would structure and for these reasons voted to recommend denial. So I will go through the verbatim minutes of this meeting and I will pull out every concern addressed to make sure it gets to the council. Weick: It will be on the record. Randall: So does this sound fine for a motion? The Chan Planning Commission recommends that the City Council not adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 concerning the keeping of birds of prey. I’d like to make a motion to reference what I just said. Is that fine? Weick: I think we have a valid motion. Yes we do, we have a valid motion from Commissioner Randall. Do we have a second? Skistad: I’ll second it. Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Skistad. Any comments for the record? Before we vote. Hearing none. Randall moved, Skistad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council not adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the keeping of birds of prey. All voted in favor, except for Chairman Weick who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Weick: That motion passes 5 to 1. Thank you everybody. Randall: Do we need to put comments under the City or for the? Weick: Well you had a moment to do that. Aanenson: We’ll summarize it. Weick: They’ve got it and everything you said is in the record and they’ll get that too so I think we’re, I think it’s pretty, I mean I think the City Council should understand. McGonagill: …this stuff we’ve seen before… Randall: Well the other thing it does though too it, like even with the traffic studies, by already having that it doesn’t bring up that concern so we’re not asking that question later on. It’s already been done. It’s like well you know I’m concerned about the traffic at this place. Have you looked at that? Ah no. Well now we know that they’ve already, they’re going to do that so. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 44 McGonagill: And be required. Randall: Yeah. Skistad: And thank you for sending me the extra things I asked for. Walters: Oh my pleasure. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Reeder noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 15, 2019 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: And do we have any administrative presentations? Aanenson: Yes we do. So on October 14th we discussed these proposed changes with the City Council but we haven’t had too many items going before that you have seen. We’ve got some remodels I mentioned. Jimmies Southern Barbeque going in. That’s one we’re looking at so you’ve actually got drive thru’s. You’ve got the Hour Glass Cleaners on, or now the Tide Cleaner on one end with a drive thru so. McGonagill: …Southern Barbeque is? Aanenson: Yes they’ve got a remodeling permit so, because it’s a permitted use in the zoning district you wouldn’t see that so, and then we’ve also got a robust use on the other end of that block so we just want to make sure everything’s working together with all the stuff that we’ve got on that street. And I did want to point out to you what’s coming. We do have a subdivision up on Minnewashta. We’re doing a lot of infill developments. Small subdivision up on Minnewashta. That’ll be on your next agenda. And it was also pointed out to me to, rightly so from Commissioner McGonagill that we do do long range planning. I don’t always share it with you so I’m going to put on the agenda, I’m going to share this the EDC, the Economic Commission. Share with you the downtown vision plan so I’ll kind of go through that and so we just got word today our comp plan has been accepted. We’ve been working through laboriously the I and I stuff. Oh my goodness. We have a lot of sewer inflow into our storm water system so, or storm water going into our sewer system so had to do a lot of remodeling of the, not remodeling but modeling of all that and by watershed district and a lot of different ways and so, anyway so we’re on schedule to have it formally adopted by January 22nd. We’ve all got that starred on our calendar so we’ll come back and share some of that stuff with you. Some of those changes and where we are on that. I also wanted to, I was going to tell you something else here. Oh Park 2nd Addition came in. They’ll probably go in January for that one. Yeah they’re plugging away so, let’s see. I was going to tell you one other thing here. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 45 McGonagill: Say Kate? Aanenson: Yeah. McGonagill: Commissioner Tietz has a question. Tietz: So who approves that grading… Aanenson: I’m not sure they will approve on that so you’ll have to talk to engineering about it, yep. Yep. McGonagill: So will you report that to engineering? Aanenson: Engineers are on top of that yes. They were notified probably a month ago on that so, yeah. So we’re working through some of the issues there. Trying to get some permits going with them. Getting the road. Temporary road. McGonagill: So my question…do we stop them? Aanenson: Yes, yes. Yes. Weick: I missed the first part. Tietz: I don’t think so. McGonagill: But okay that’s why I’m asking. That’s the question I have. Aanenson: Yeah a lot of dewatering. A lot of yes so. Weick: Which property is that? McGonagill: The Park. Weick: Oh. Skistad: Yeah I was wondering, I noticed that too. Aanenson: I was just going to point out too that. McGonagill: Will we be telling, making engineering aware of that Kate? Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 46 Aanenson: They‘re aware of it. They’ve been working with them. They had a meeting with them, yes. And the message was delivered. Yeah. Just to let you also know that Gedney Pickles has moved out so that building right now is vacant. We’re setting up a meeting with the owner of that building to kind of see what they want to do on that site. It has a big, huge commercial well so they’re down, yeah they’re next to Chaska there. To see what sort of uses they’re looking at for that site. So that’s kind of the only thing in the works right now. I think as far as some of the, you know we’ve got some infill development right now. Waiting to see where Avienda’s at. They’re probably going to ask for an extension going into next year. We’ve asked for them to give us some timeframe so what they want to do when because that seems to keep getting kicked down the road. I think those are the, I guess the main things that we’ve got going. Comp plan so we’ll be submitting the implementation of that once we get that adopted. And so that’s pretty much it but I think that pervious paver would be a good thing to kind of go visit too next summer. That’d be a good project. I think that’s all I had. Skistad: What about the roads? I mean the road issue. Aanenson: For, which road? Skistad: All of the roads. There’s deteriorating roads. Aanenson: In the city? Skistad: That council’s, yeah talking about Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. So they’re talking about with a franchise fee so that’s what they’re using to budget some of that so. Skistad: So the franchise fee passed then? Aanenson: Well that’s what they’re, well they haven’t voted on the budget yet. Walters: But they passed the franchise fee. The ordinance. Aanenson: Okay. Skistad: They did? That just happened? Yeah okay. Aanenson: I thought it went through with the budget but. Walters: Well the ordinances were passed for the franchise fee I thought. Aanenson: We’ll get clarification on that. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 47 Skistad: Okay. Aanenson: …yep they were published so then they were passed yeah. So the entire budget hasn’t been passed yet though. So that’s on for the Truth in Taxation is in, the first meeting in December then they have a December 9th meeting with the last meeting of the year and these will be on that meeting so that’s where we’re at on that. I think that’s it. So we’ll talk about the downtown plan. I think would be good to just kind of get updated on the, there’s some action steps for putting that plan. I think that would be good to get you aware of that. You know…activity, some of those sort of things. McGonagill: For the downtown? Aanenson: With the downtown, yep, yep, yep. You know…downtown we need more walkable. When we talk about when you’re talking on the Target side it’s not as windy…as opposed to walking on the Byerlys side where you kind of feel more exposed and some of those things that make it a more pleasant experience to walk between the different uses. Crossing back and forth on West 79th. 78th. Those sort of things so looking at some of those things as we look at individual projects and what we can do to make sure as a commission that we’re thinking about those guiding principles so we’ll go through that. And then like I say once we get the comp plan approval come back and circle back to some of the significant changes there. What that means and a lot of it’s going to be the storm water, the biggest chunk of some of those amendments so. Commissioner McGonagill’s question was not picked up by the microphone. Aanenson: They’d like to be in as soon as they can. They want to be in shortly. I mean obviously they’d like to be in by Thanksgiving. That’s kind of their window. McGonagill: To be in before the end of the year. Aanenson: Correct. McGonagill: Both of them? Aanenson: I don’t think the barbeque, Southern Barbeque, I’m not sure how much remodeling they’ve got going there so I think that’s going to be a little bit longer so. Randall: Where’s Jimmies going in? Aanenson: It’s where the liquor store used to be. It’s on the end where Paragon Bakery is so again this is kind of with the overall downtown vision plan. We’ve got a project where we manage them by parking so for example we were talking about these buildings that get converted to, yeah you have to show that. The, they’re changing uses and so what we had originally was warehouse, warehousing is now becoming more retail oriented so that’s why we always ask them Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 48 to say you need to demonstrate where your parking so it’s kind of some of the challenges that we have in the, you know kind of some of the infill in the core that we’re kind of balancing all that out too so that’s why Jimmies, not Jimmies but Tequila Butcher wanted to make sure because they know, it met the standards, our city standards but they anecdotally by their own business operations that they need more parking so that’s what we’re trying to manage yeah. McGonagill: Three restaurants right there next to each other. Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. They go across the street yeah. McGonagill: So then you’ve got Jimmies and you have Tequila Butcher. Aanenson: Then you’ll have Panera and yep. Well again that’s where you’re looking at your know the peak hours. I’m guessing Tequila Butcher’s probably going to have a lot later hours than probably Panera. More people behind that dinnertime but. Randall: Well just look at like North Coop. That whole, that changed strip up there and you’ve got a lot more traffic… Aanenson: But also so Pasture Property owns that. You know that also energies their whole center so they get more people there and then other people, it’s kind of like Tequila Butcher is going to energize that, everything else there too and then so things change. Kind of the spark plug. Is there anything else that you wanted me to follow up on before our last meeting or that I can bring to you for our last meeting? If there’s anything you want me get you updated on or can tell you. I’ll have more information on The Park, where they’re at. McGonagill: That’d be good. Aanenson: Yeah. See where they’re at but there was a meeting held on that, at that and some other issues out there. Just making sure that they’re not parking in the street, etcetera, some other issues like that so there’s a few things. Pardon me? Tietz: Have they been doing that too? Parking in the street? Aanenson: Well they’ve just been yeah. Tietz: Just big trucks they’ve moved in and out. McGonagill: Well parking across on Longacres streets. They’ve been parking over there. Aanenson: Yeah it’s you know. Tietz: They’ve got 200 acres to park on. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 49 Aanenson: Yeah but they’re only supposed to stay in Phase 1 right so that’s… Tietz: So is that just grading that they’ve been doing in Phase 2 or are they actually extending the storm and? Aanenson: Yes, just grading. Yeah, yeah. They haven’t got their plans approved for the sewer and water yeah. So those typically just go to City Council so. But if there’s anything else that comes to mind that you’d like me to follow up on. Franchise fees was approved. Tietz: Could we, well I can do it too because I know someplace in my computer I’ve got those Galpin Boulevard plans that were proposed by the County for the upgrades. Aanenson: Yeah. Tietz: I thought there was going to be some further design or considerations to the mini roundabouts and the roundabouts or something. Aanenson: There could be. I’ll follow up on that. Tietz: I just don’t know if that’s just idle right now. McGonagill: And the trails. You remember it was a size issue wasn’t it? Tietz: Or if the County is proceeding with their… That’s not til 2022 correct? Aanenson: Correct. Tietz: So it’s a couple years still. Aanenson: Yeah and we thought that’d be good because then we’d get all the heavy traffic off that, you know a lot of it and then rebuild it and so we don’t have a new road to wear and tear. Tietz: I was talking with Erick some time back that the top of the hill where Longacres. Aanenson: The crown’s going to come down. Tietz: It’d better come down a lot because you can’t see… Aanenson: Yeah, yeah I think that’s the biggest complaint we have out there yeah. So that crown will come down. I’ll put those plans in your packet. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 50 Tietz: …at that time because that was a year, that’s over a year ago that those plans were submitted weren’t they when you have those open houses. Aanenson: Yeah yeah. It was before the project even came through, yeah. Open houses yeah. It was like right before that but yeah I can get you a revised on that. Tietz: Maybe someone from engineering could just come and update us. Aanenson: Perfect yeah. Tietz: Even if there’s… Aanenson: I’ll have Erick or George come in and talk about it so. Yeah I think that’d be good. That’s part of the long range plan that we need to talk about that we don’t always do which is important to do too. Skistad: Does that get rid of the stop signs on Galpin? Aanenson: If they go roundabouts that’s what they were trying. McGonagill: It’s going to be roundabouts. Aanenson: So everybody slows down so I’ll have to check on this but that’s how it originally was intended. Tietz: Yeah I don’t know how many mini roundabouts can we do in the city but we were in France in September, I mean there’s a mini roundabout, there aren’t any stop signs. There are yield signs and mini roundabouts and boy does that slow traffic when you talk about I remember a couple years ago we were talking about how to slow traffic in Avienda because the neighbors on west, southwest were concerned about the through traffic. Well just throw in a few mini roundabouts. It brings it down to almost 10 miles an hour. I mean it’s just all the yield signs and roundabouts…Galpin because those intersections are really pretty brutal. Skistad: And there’s a lot of traffic on there now I noticed. Like so much more than there’s been in just this last few months. I don’t know why that would be but it’s. It’s really, really increased. Tietz: Yeah well see I’m still interested in where you hit Hennepin County and all of a sudden the great road just dies because when you go down the hill by Steller Pond, Shorewood has a road about that wide and that’s the connection to Highway 7 so we’re going to have this great improvement all the way to that point and I don’t think there’s any stop. Aanenson: Traffic calming. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 19, 2019 51 Tietz: Yeah I guess it would come to a screeching halt. Weick: Any other questions? Thoughts. I would entertain a motion to adjourn then. Skistad moved, Randall seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Receive Economic Development Commission Minutes dated November 13, 2019 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.4. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council receives the Economic Development Commission minutes dated November 13, 2019.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Summary Minutes CHANHASSEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2019 Chairman Jim Sanford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Sanford, Kathleen Donovan, James Ebeling, and Steve Stamy STAFF PRESENT: Greg Sticha, Finance Director; and Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Greg Sticha informed the commission that Anne Heinze has submitted her resignation from the commission. Donovan moved, Ebeling seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ebeling moved, Donovan seconded to approve the Minutes of the Economic Development Commission meeting dated October 8, 2019 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. REVIEW DOWNTOWN VISION PLAN. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and background information on this item. Chairman Sanford asked about ownership and zoning for the Lunds Byerlys property. Commissioner Ebeling asked about traffic studies for the downtown. Commissioner Stamy asked about potential development south of Highway 5. Chairman Sanford asked about the role of the Southwest Chamber of Commerce and the potential for Chanhassen having it’s own Chamber of Commerce. REVIEW BUSINESS SUBSIDY GUIDELINES. Greg Sticha presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Sanford asked for clarification on what state statutes Mr. Sticha was referencing. Mr. Sticha stated he would email that information to commissioners. In discussing tax increment financing (TIF) districts commission members asked for clarification on how TIF operates. Mr. Sticha continued with discussion of tax abatement and the application process. Commission Ebeling asked how often subsidies are requested of staff. Greg Sticha outlined agenda items proposed for upcoming Economic Development Commission meetings. Economic Development Commission – November 13, 2019 2 Stamy moved, Donovan seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Economic Development Commission meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Greg Sticha Finance Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Receive Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 26, 2019 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.5. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council receives the Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 26, 2019.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Park and Recreation Commission Summary Minutes dated November 26, 2019 Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim Minutes dated November 26, 2019 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 2019 Chairman Boettcher called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Boettcher, Meredith Petouvis, Joe Scanlon, Karl Tsuchiya, Matt Kutz, and Haley Pemrick MEMBERS ABSENT: Sandy Sweetser STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; and Priya Tandon, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Pemrick moved, Kutz seconded to approve the agenda with the addition of a City Council update under Old Business. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS. None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Tsuchiya moved, Petouvis seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated October 22, 2019 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. ESTABLISH 2020 PICNIC RESERVATION FEES. Jerry Ruegemer presented the staff report on this item recommending that picnic fees increase $25 for resident and non-resident. Chairman Boettcher asked how the new rates compare to surrounding communities. Tsuchiya moved, Petouvis seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council approve the 2020 Picnic Reservation Fees for group picnics with the following adjustments: Residents Monday through Thursday $125, Friday through Sunday $150; Non-Residents Monday through Thursday $225, Friday through Sunday $275. All other reservation fees will remain the same as 2019. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. OLD BUSINESS: UPDATE FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Chairman Boettcher provided an update on the Lake Ann Park discussion held at the City Council work session. Park and Recreation Commission Summary – November 26, 2019 2 REPORTS: 2019 HALLOWEEN PARTY EVALUATION. Priya Tandon presented the staff report on this item and suggested possible changes for the 2020 Halloween party. Commissioner Pemrick suggested looking into paid marketing through Facebook for advertising next year. Commissioner Kutz asked about maximum capacity for the event. 2019 TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY. Priya Tandon outlined the schedule of events for the 2019 Tree Lighting ceremony. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Chairman Boettcher noted the Senior Center Christmas Party and Holiday Boutique. Tsuchiya moved, Petouvis seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 2019 Chairman Boettcher called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Boettcher, Meredith Petouvis, Joe Scanlon, Karl Tsuchiya, Matt Kutz, and Haley Pemrick MEMBERS ABSENT: Sandy Sweetser STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; and Priya Tandon, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Boettcher: Todd I was thinking somewhere in here since you and I and Meredith were at the work session last night maybe we could do a brief update for the other commissioners about what went on? Some of the discussion points and such. Would that be under? Hoffman: Old Business. Boettcher: Under Old Business, that’d be the best. Okay. Pemrick moved, Kutz seconded to approve the agenda with the addition of a City Council update under Old Business. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS. None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Tsuchiya moved, Petouvis seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated October 22, 2019 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. ESTABLISH 2020 PICNIC RESERVATION FEES. Boettcher: Jerry is this you? Park and Recreation Commission – November 26, 2019 2 Ruegemer: Yes it is Chair Boettcher. Thank you again. Good evening park and rec commissioners. Just wanted to go through the annual discussion related to our picnic fees for this upcoming season. We’re looking to take a look at those. We always look at the kind of the reservation categories and kind of the criteria that we have and information related to the annual I guess reservation season or picnic season that we have. We reviewed that last month at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting so we always take a look at and see how we can improve on things and kind of where we are in the area of picnic fees. As you can see in the report you have not raised picnic fees for 10 plus years. Staff has looked at a number of different areas with Three Rivers Park District, the City of Eden Prairie, some other neighboring areas and I feel at this point it is time to take a look at raising those slightly so we had kind of listed an illustration here that staff is recommending that the resident rate go up Monday through Thursday from $100 to $125. Friday through Sunday from $125 to $150. Non-resident will go up from $200 to $225 and then non-resident Friday through Sunday from $250 to $275 so just a slight $25 increase across the board. Everything else is recommended to stay the same with that so our large group fees of 100 persons or more in the picnic area would remain the same at $50 and $100 for resident and non-resident for that. Staff’s also recommending that the school rates remain the same for that so just really kind of focus on graduation parties, company picnics, birthday parties, that sort of thing here for that so. It is staff’s recommendation that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council to establish the 2020 picnic reservation fees with the following adjustments. The resident rate Monday through Thursday goes up to $125. Friday through Sunday the price is increased to $150 for non-resident. Monday through Thursday non-resident will go up to $225 and then $275 for the Friday through Sunday rate for the non-resident. As stated in previous conversations here all the reservation fees for the rest of the remaining with the school rates and large group fees will stay the same so, and then your recommendation would be forwarded then to City Council for their approval at the January 13th meeting. Boettcher: Okay, any questions for Jerry? Tsuchiya: Jerry just approximately do you know what the increased revenue might be from the rate increase? Just over prior years. Ruegemer: You know roughly we have roughly about 125 reservations per year. I’d say 80-90 percent of those are resident rates so if I times that by say 100 times 25. Tsuchiya: Yeah okay, $2,500 so okay. That’s still nice. Boettcher: The one question I had when you said you compared to other cities in the area. Are we in the, does this put us now in the middle of the range? Top of the range? Lower range? Ruegemer: You know I’d say we’re kind of right in there Jim with the kind of the non-resident shelters. You know our shelters really have a higher capacity compared to a lot of the Three Park and Recreation Commission – November 26, 2019 3 Rivers shelters. The Eden Prairie shelters. Eden Prairie number one only rents to Eden Prairie residents or Eden Prairie businesses. Boettcher: They don’t rent to? Ruegemer: They don’t do anything non-resident so a 40 person capacity shelter at Eden Prairie is $100. So for a resident shelter at the Lakeside Pavilion we go 125-150 person capacity there so it’s quite higher capacity. The Klingelhutz Pavilion is up to 300 to 400 people for that so for our residents so the fee I think is kind of right in. I think we’re still in a very competitive rate for that. Another shelter at Eden Prairie is $225 for 125 capacity shelter there so again I think we’re right, we’re very competitive. I think this rate increase isn’t going to hurt us at all. Boettcher: So it’s still, it keeps us very competitive more than anyone. I know we had a company function at Lake Riley which was in Eden Prairie probably about 12 or 13 years ago and we were still able to get in at that time. Our office was located in Edina but we were able to get in, but I remember it was 150 back then and they said well you get a barbeque grill. Wow. It sounded like it was maybe double what it should have been at that time but maybe because we were non-residents maybe that was their tag to get you in. I don’t remember but I just remember that dollar at that time was more than we’re charging right now for some. Good. No other questions for Jerry, anyone want to put it to a question? The proposed motion. Tsuchiya: I’ll make the motion. I’ll move that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council approve the 2020 Picnic Reservation Fees for group picnics with the following adjustments: Residents Monday through Thursday $125, Friday through Sunday $150; Non-Residents Monday through Thursday $225, Friday through Sunday $275. All other reservation fees will remain the same as 2019. Petouvis: Second. Tsuchiya moved, Petouvis seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council approve the 2020 Picnic Reservation Fees for group picnics with the following adjustments: Residents Monday through Thursday $125, Friday through Sunday $150; Non-Residents Monday through Thursday $225, Friday through Sunday $275. All other reservation fees will remain the same as 2019. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. OLD BUSINESS: UPDATE FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Boettcher: The only thing which I had added earlier, as I said Todd and Meredith and I were at the work session last night and had a very informative presentation. I saw the Mayor and the City Council members, a lot of them doing the nodding in the affirmative which felt really good. Even when they talked about money. Talked about the two possibilities, Lake Ann by itself at $4.2 and the total package I think was $9.1 or something like that. About $5 million more so I’m Park and Recreation Commission – November 26, 2019 4 not sure which direction we’re going to go. The survey results will lead us in that direction but I think I heard some good stuff. I mean the questions that were asked by the mayor and a couple of the councilors really there was interest there. I mean there was no negativity that I noted. The one thing I guess I was kind of surprised, and it’s not a deal breaker by any means but was the parking at Greenwood Shores. I always thought in discussions that we’ve had in the past that was it a former park commission member way back when lived in the area and said there will never be any parking here and something was passed. I was kind of surprised to see that. I mean it’s necessary. It should have been there a long time ago but I hadn’t see that. I was kind of surprised to see that listed on the docket. Hoffman: Yeah the council requested that that be added in. Boettcher: Oh they did? Hoffman: At their work session when they took a look at the item. Boettcher: Okay. Hoffman: It’s currently the only park in the city that does not have some form of public parking at it. Carver Beach Park, if you’re familiar with that and Lotus Trail, that was probably back in the early 90’s that there was a plan for both parking at Greenwood Shores and the Carver Beach and then there was public meetings and the council at that time took out the plan for Greenwood Shores but they did go ahead with the plan at Carver Beach because there wasn’t any opposition there. It’s 6 stalls. As you heard Kevin Clarke talk about last night, it really would just get some cars off the street. It’s signed no parking but people do park on the street, both residents and non-residents. Visitors park on the street sometimes so at least having those 6 stalls, I think the budget item was $25,000 so it’s pretty nominal to add those. You take the gate, you pick it up. You move it down the hill a little bit. You add 6 stalls off to the side so I’m sure you’re going to hear something about it over time but it’s a good way to get those parking stalls in at that location. Boettcher: Now all the surveys were they mailed or were they? Hoffman: Mailed. Boettcher: And when was the anticipated arrival? I haven’t seen one yet. Hoffman: There’s a select group so everybody in the city doesn’t get them. It’s a select group that is mailed these surveys and then when you receive it there’s instructions. There’s a letter from the mayor and then it says the person with the birthday closest to the receipt I think, so it still takes some of that you know typically a 2 person household would get a survey and they’d say you know the more aggressive person might want to take the survey. This at least guides, Park and Recreation Commission – November 26, 2019 5 this is the selected person so you can at least take some of that bias out of it. And so there’s a lot of things, tricks that they do in making sure that the results are somewhat official. Boettcher: No I know there were questions last night and there was some discussion. Todd made some points about it was the boardwalk, because of the cost of it for two 400 foot boardwalks was $800,000 I believe and people were thinking well City Manager said was that the 3 by 3, 10 foot wide boards laid on the ground. He said no this is a little bit, you can drive on this one so it’s a little bit bigger. It’s got pilings and everything. I mean like I said the councilors and everyone at the meeting they were asking a lot of good questions which told me it peaked their interest and there wasn’t, they weren’t thinking in the negative. I didn’t hear any negative comments from them so we’re hopeful with what the survey says and then we’d make the determination and then the council. What our next step would be as far as how we get the money. Hoffman: Yeah and I think that’s a, it’s probably not just a referendum. You could you know cities can fund a $4.2 million dollar project. If it’s the desire of the park commission and the council to move forward you can find other. A referendum is fairly involved. It involves a lot of effort. Lots of leg work. Lots of meetings. Lots of emotion in the community and so yeah you can, there’s other ways to finance the project. You can raise the $4.2 million dollars and so, don’t know what the commission thoughts are as we move into the first quarter of next year but we’ll have those results probably back in February I’m thinking from the survey and then you can decide at that point. And there’s going to be a little bit of a timing, you know there’s some urgency to move ahead but there’s also, as you’re aware the land is coming in two chunks and so it’s giving us some time to kind of have these conversations about financing. We’re maybe a year to 18 months and so even though there is urgency you still have to wait til you get that second chunk of land until you can do the whole thing so you have some time there. So as you think through your schedule do you want to wait til April to your joint meeting and talk then. April or May when you typically have your joint meeting or do you want to have, you know you could ask the council to talk earlier as well. You can request some, it’s a pretty significant project. It’s not every day that the park commission and the City Council is talking about a project of this significance. One thing that I relayed to the council yesterday, and I really hadn’t thought about it until the start of this week is that, this is the largest public land acquisition in the City’s history and so it’s the largest piece of property acquired for public local park in our history. In our 52 year history and then to have such a nice plan for the trails and the open space preservation and I think everybody’s excited and you know would like to see it happen and then the real magic to this is just getting people into that space. For those of you who have been in there, once you’re in there it’s just pure magic. It’s just a beautiful, beautiful location and then to have all the neighborhood access points and the boardwalks. The boardwalks are actually I thought a heck of a value at $1,000 a foot. They’re an elaborate structure. It’s the only way you can get in there from two locations. Two of the sides and they’re really nicely done and so those boardwalks are a nice feature for the trails so the conversation will continue. I think this, obviously elected officials take, they lend a lot of credence to surveys and so you know if the survey is at least neutral, maybe even you know significantly positive based on would you Park and Recreation Commission – November 26, 2019 6 contribute $5 per month to make these things happen and that’s $9 million. So if you go lower than that then that contribution would be lower. So there’s still some ground work to be had and then a conversation in 2020. Boettcher: Yeah and the timing would probably be right if the survey is done in February. If we had the results for our March meeting and then usually about mid-April is our meeting with City Council so the timing there is for us to discuss it kind of our plan, our thoughts, our visions of it at our March meeting before we go to meet with council 2 or 3 weeks later would probably be perfect timing wise so. Hoffman: Yeah I got the feeling they wanted to be involved in that conversation and I think it’s obviously good that they are. Boettcher: Anything you wanted to add Meredith? You were a busy note taker last night. Petouvis: Oh I was just writing down what everybody’s comments and questions were. But just for those of us who weren’t there the presentation, correct me if I’m wrong Todd was essentially exactly the same as what we saw at our meeting last month so, so there’s nothing in there that I don’t think you all have seen so, but like Jim said mostly positive comments. Just questions about can we do this in there? Will public safety have access to the area? The answer is yes. And but really nothing, no significant concerns. Boettcher: There was a question from the mayor about a dog park and Todd explained that with access you would have to park way over here. Bring the dogs just it doesn’t lend itself to that type of facility at this location. Hoffman: Oh there’ll be plenty of dogs in there. Boettcher: Oh there will be. It just won’t be organized like at Lake Minnewashta. Hoffman: The current city code for dogs are dogs are allowed anywhere on a public trail on a leash, either in a park or outside of a park. Dogs are not permitted in parks per se but they are allowed on trails that are within parks. Boettcher: So you can’t even like on the softball fields over here at Lake Ann? Hoffman: No dogs off leash are not allowed at parks. Boettcher: Off leash but on leash? Hoffman: Nope, dogs if you’re in a park they have to be on a trail. Park and Recreation Commission – November 26, 2019 7 Boettcher: I try to tell people that sometimes and they just glare at me so I say I’m on the park commission. My name’s Karl Tsuchiya. Hoffman: I’m an attorney. Boettcher: I’m here to help. Tsuchiya: I’m here to help, you stole my line. Boettcher: But anyways I thought it was great, at least what I saw. I thought the perception from the council members so. If there’s nothing else we can move onto reports. Pemrick: Sorry one other thing I forgot to bring up earlier. So I think it was in our first meeting in here I had noticed the by-laws had a date older than when they were supposed to be re-upped and Todd was going to look at that and I noticed the set of by-laws you sent out to us last week about the junior commissioner had the 2013 date on it. Hoffman: Okay. Pemrick: And they’re supposed to be updated every 5 years so we are a year behind on that so I’m thinking we should probably get that on the docket in the future here. Boettcher: We can do that. January would be a good time probably. Start of the new year. Hoffman: Absolutely yep. Boettcher: Take a look at it and see. Pemrick: Okay. Boettcher: I had thought of that and. Pemrick: I think about it when I’m not here and then I forget when I get here so. Boettcher: Yeah for a January meeting that should be great. If nothing else move onto reports. REPORTS: 2019 HALLOWEEN PARTY EVALUATION. Boettcher: First one, number one Halloween Party evaluation. And I believe Priya is that you? Park and Recreation Commission – November 26, 2019 8 Tandon: Yes. Thank you Chair Boettcher and thank you park and rec commissioners. The 35th Annual Halloween Party was held on Saturday, October 26th at the Chanhassen Recreation Center. We had 415 registrants this year which was great. Normally at least 2015 registrations have been somewhere between 300 and 350 so we were up I think significantly this year which was awesome. Registrants and their families enjoyed carnival games, door prizes, refreshments, indoor trick or treating, two spooky rooms, hay rides and a magic show so just kind of going through those each specifically. The entertainment was provided by Brian Richards. He did a half hour magic show which got pretty positive reviews by both kids and parents. Rooms 1 and 2 in the Rec Center were spooky rooms as had been in the past. The carnival games were held in the Bluff Creek Elementary gym, kind of spread out throughout the gym so I think it worked really well because it was a highly trafficked area. Refreshments were cookies and apple cider in Rooms 3 and 4 which were purchased from Cub Foods in Chanhassen. I think next year we should consider purchasing 55 or 56 dozen cookies as we kind of ran out by the end but it was almost perfect with that number. The hay rides were in kind of that front field area by the rec center which had high visibility as participants were walking into the event. We had 24 wonderful volunteers from the community from park and rec commission and Chanhassen, Chaska and Minnetonka Key Clubs and National Honor Societies and they assisted with carnival games, refreshments, some last minute set up, registrations and then cleaning up the event as well. So some things that went well, the event continuing to use that conference room until Monday morning for easier clean up. I think we could be more active in recruiting volunteers for the 2020 Halloween Party just because we did have to pull two carnival games and I think the more volunteers would provide just those two extra games and some more coverage. Additional props to the spooky rooms to keep things fresh and fun for guests who have attended multiple years. And then I think the last thing I would hope to add in 2020 was maybe a photo station somewhere at the event. Not only for parents to take photos of their kids but maybe have a volunteer there to assist with taking full family photos which I think would be a fun event for the kids as well hopefully they might post those photos to Facebook or share them with their friends which would also hopefully bring those friends into the event in future years. Boettcher: Very good. So what is the total time? Is it 2 ½ - 3 hours? Priya: Two hours. Boettcher: Two hours. So 415, yikes. Ruegemer: Kids plus parents. Priya: It’s busy. Boettcher: Now for the last several years there was a former park commissioner used to show up as Mr. Incredible. Did I see somebody in a red with, he didn’t show this year? Ruegemer: Mr. Incredible was not there. Park and Recreation Commission – November 26, 2019 9 Hoffman: But 600 cookies Jim. Boettcher: Well see we were on our cruise. Well we actually had just gotten home but I like the fact that you’re go up a couple dozen more because that would fit for me next year. Some day I’ll have to tell you my whole cookie story and how I’ve been designated that. Commissioner Tsuchiya just really loves that whole thing that I do but it sounds like it was a great success. I mean it was from 300 last year you said? Tandon: Last year I believe the registration was 365. I’d have to double check. Boettcher: So it went up another 50. Tandon: Yep.. Boettcher: Okay. Tandon: Yeah it was great weather which I think had a lot to do with it and our Facebook event reached quite a few people as well so. Boettcher: Good. Ruegemer: Priya’s first week of work. At least she’s already done one. Boettcher: It took her a week Jerry. How long have you been doing it? Ruegemer: A few years. Boettcher: You’re pushing them away and she’s bringing them in, okay. Pemrick: Any thoughts or have you guys ever done paid marketing through Facebook ads in helping try, you know they can use all those algorithms and try and promote it to the people within different ranges. Tandon: You know not that I’m aware of but that would be something that would be really valuable I think to look into for next year. Pemrick: Cool. Kutz: What do you think your max capacity would be for that facility? I mean I’m assuming with potentially 800 people you had to be pretty full. I mean could you actually handle more than that? Park and Recreation Commission – November 26, 2019 10 Tandon: You know I would say we were pretty close to max capacity but we could handle more if we used the space differently I think so I definitely think we could have more participants. Petouvis: What’s fire code say? Kutz: Good question. Boettcher: You want to run it by the Chanhassen Fire Department that could check that out. Kutz: Yeah Fire Marshal. Tandon: It’s something to look into for next year. Boettcher: Well sounds good. So since that was your first event you know what that means, we just keep expecting that bar, it’s just going to keep, the carrot’s going to be dangling a little bit higher every time so. Tandon: Okay sounds good. Boettcher: Great job thank you. 2019 TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY. Boettcher: And I think you’re for the tree lighting. This is your’s also Priya. Tandon: Yes that’s correct, thank you. So looking ahead we have our tree lighting ceremony that will be held on the plaza in City Center Park on Saturday, December 7th. The event starts at 5:00 p.m. and will run for approximately one hour with the holiday tree being lit around 5:15 p.m. by Deputy Mayor Dan Campion. So at the event we’ll of course have the official lighting of City Center Park as well as we have live reindeer coming. Refreshments. Bonfires. S’mores. We have carolers. Gingerbread house displays and a visit from Santa Claus. The event is free and open to all ages. The event is expected to draw approximately 300 to 400 attendees. To advertise the event we have flyers going out in the Chanhassen Villager on December 5th. We’ll have a Facebook event that hopefully will get us some publicity on social media. We have flyers at City Hall and Chanhassen Recreation Center. And then the last thing is the tree lighting ceremony is co-sponsored by the City of Chanhassen, Buy Chanhassen is providing some of the refreshments. Southwest Chamber of Commerce who is providing the S’mores and the Mustard Seed Landscape and Garden Center who is providing the visit from Santa Claus. Boettcher: Sounds good. Bring the kids Karl. Tsuchiya: They’re up for it. Park and Recreation Commission – November 26, 2019 11 Boettcher: Okay. Alright thank you Priya. Very good. Tandon: Thank you. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Boettcher: I was looking through the administrative packet here. Anything Todd? I see a senior center has their Christmas Party coming up. Hoffman: They do. Boettcher: On Friday. Hoffman: And you’re all invited if you’d like to attend. Well you got two. Both an invitation and then just an invitation because of where’s at in life. Boettcher: Actually three. Tsuchiya: Tell you what I’ll forward it to you right now. Boettcher: The 7th is the Holiday Boutique. This is something that’s really, I think it’s how many years has this one been going on Todd? Hoffman: A bunch. Boettcher: A bunch. I know my wife has gone over and bought stuff several years so. What do we do for the tree lighting in case of 14 inches of snow? Hoffman: Party goes on. Tsuchiya: It looks pretty. Ruegemer: There was a pretty good amount of snow last year. Boettcher: Oh that’s right. That was the first big one last year too wasn’t it? Ruegemer: Yeah we’ve had snow before but that was a pretty big one last year. Park and Recreation Commission – November 26, 2019 12 Boettcher: Anyone have anything else? We don’t want to set a record for short meeting here. Oh do we? Alright with that being the case no more business I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Tsuchiya moved, Petouvis seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Resolution 2019­XX: Designate Polling Place Locations for 2020 Elections Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.6. Prepared By Kim Meuwissen, Office Manager File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council adopts a resolution designating polling place locations in Chanhassen for 2020 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 2020, 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 2020 elections. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: December 9, 2019 RESOLUTION NO: 2019-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING PLACE LOCATIONS FOR 2020 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 2020: 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 9th day of December, 2019. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor YES NO ABSENT CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Ordinance XXX: Amendments to Chanhassen City Code and Approval of Summary Ordinance Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The Chanhassen City Council approves an Ordinance amending Chapters 2, 4, and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, and approves a Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes.” City Council approval of the proposed amendments requires a simple majority vote of the City Council and approval of the summary ordinance requires a four­fifths vote of the entire Council. Approval requires a 4/5 Vote. SUMMARY On November 19, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take public input on the proposed changes to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. No member of the public spoke on the following proposed amendments: Remove Standard Specification and Detail Plate Requirement for Permeable Paver Systems Clarify Language Governing Recreational Beach Lots Require Traffic Studies as Part of Site Plan Reviews Adopt Zoning Standards for Solar Energy Systems Correct a Typographical Error in the Interim Use Statute Restrict Merchandise Sold at Temporary and Special Events to Goods Normally Sold on Site Adopt Minimum Driveway Configuration Standards Require Single­Family Homes to have Walkways and Concrete Pads for Stairs and Landings Adopt Airport Zoning Standards Remove Obsolete Parking Lot Configurations Graphic The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt these ordinances amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. A brief summary of each item discussed and a synopsis of the Planning Commission’s discussion is provided below. The full staff report for each item is provided as an attachment. In addition to the above items, the following proposed amendments to Chapters 2 and 4 of the Chanhassen City Code are proposed: CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectOrdinance XXX: Amendments to Chanhassen City Code and Approval of Summary OrdinanceSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an Ordinance amending Chapters 2, 4, and 20 of the Chanhassen CityCode, and approves a Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes.”City Council approval of the proposed amendments requires a simple majority vote of the City Council and approvalof the summary ordinance requires a four­fifths vote of the entire Council.Approval requires a 4/5 Vote.SUMMARYOn November 19, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take public input on the proposed changesto Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. No member of the public spoke on the following proposed amendments:Remove Standard Specification and Detail Plate Requirement for Permeable Paver SystemsClarify Language Governing Recreational Beach LotsRequire Traffic Studies as Part of Site Plan ReviewsAdopt Zoning Standards for Solar Energy SystemsCorrect a Typographical Error in the Interim Use StatuteRestrict Merchandise Sold at Temporary and Special Events to Goods Normally Sold on SiteAdopt Minimum Driveway Configuration StandardsRequire Single­Family Homes to have Walkways and Concrete Pads for Stairs and LandingsAdopt Airport Zoning StandardsRemove Obsolete Parking Lot Configurations GraphicThe Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt these ordinances amendingChapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code.A brief summary of each item discussed and a synopsis of the Planning Commission’s discussion is provided below.The full staff report for each item is provided as an attachment. In addition to the above items, the following proposed amendments to Chapters 2 and 4 of the Chanhassen City Code are proposed: Reconcile Vote Requirements for Removal of Commissioners Establish Electronic Message Center (ECM) Sign Fee Update Base Minimum Building Valuation Standards Since these amendments do not involve Chapters 18 or 20 of the City Code, a public hearing is not required and they did not go before the Planning Commission. A brief summary of these items is provided below, and a full staff report for each of these items is provided as an attachment. Note:  A proposed amendment to ban the keeping of birds of prey was also discussed during the November 19, 2019 Planning Commission meeting; however, since the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council deny the amendment, staff has withdrawn the proposed amendment. DISCUSSION SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Removing Standard Specification and Detail Plate Requirement for Permeable Paver Systems Report Summary: The city’s pervious paver ordinance requires pervious pavement systems be designed in compliance with standards established by the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI) and follow the current version of the City of Chanhassen Standard and Specification and Detail Plates (City Standards). When staff investigated creating City Standards for pervious pavers, staff discovered that due to the variety of pervious pavement systems and evolving nature of pervious pavement technology, it would be cost and time prohibitive to create and maintain comprehensive City Standards. Additionally, City Standards are typically only used for public improvements or private projects that affect the public rights­of way. Requiring a purely private pervious pavement system to adhere to a City Standard would not be in keeping with how other private improvements are treated. Since the ICPI maintains a library with over 60 details and specifications for pervious pavement systems and the ordinance already requires that pervious pavement systems be designed in accordance ICPI standards, staff believes it is unnecessary and redundant to create our own City Standards. Ordinance in Brief: Delete requirement to follow the current version of the City of Chanhassen Standard Specification and Detail Plates from the previous paver ordinance. Public Hearing: No comments from the public. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the structure and nature of ICPI. The Planning Commission expressed concern that quality materials be used to construct Pervious Pavement Systems. The Planning Commission asked if the city was planning to have more pervious pavement system and staff clarified that it was up to individual residents to determine if they wanted to install these systems. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. Clarify Language Governing Recreational Beach Lots Report Summary: Several sections of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) standards for recreational beach lots, particularly the section governing overnight storage and mooring, are poorly structured. In its current state, it is difficult to read and hard to determine what provisions apply and in what circumstances they apply. The city frequently receives calls from HOAs interested in amending their CUP or clarifying their understanding of what is and is not permitted, and the confusing structure of this section of the code can sometimes exacerbate rather than resolve their confusion. This section also contains an out­of­date reference that should be updated to continually reference the most recently adopted comprehensive plan. Finally, this section outlines a policy allowing adjacent lots under a common ownership to consolidate their docks that is confusing and unnecessary. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectOrdinance XXX: Amendments to Chanhassen City Code and Approval of Summary OrdinanceSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an Ordinance amending Chapters 2, 4, and 20 of the Chanhassen CityCode, and approves a Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes.”City Council approval of the proposed amendments requires a simple majority vote of the City Council and approvalof the summary ordinance requires a four­fifths vote of the entire Council.Approval requires a 4/5 Vote.SUMMARYOn November 19, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take public input on the proposed changesto Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. No member of the public spoke on the following proposed amendments:Remove Standard Specification and Detail Plate Requirement for Permeable Paver SystemsClarify Language Governing Recreational Beach LotsRequire Traffic Studies as Part of Site Plan ReviewsAdopt Zoning Standards for Solar Energy SystemsCorrect a Typographical Error in the Interim Use StatuteRestrict Merchandise Sold at Temporary and Special Events to Goods Normally Sold on SiteAdopt Minimum Driveway Configuration StandardsRequire Single­Family Homes to have Walkways and Concrete Pads for Stairs and LandingsAdopt Airport Zoning StandardsRemove Obsolete Parking Lot Configurations GraphicThe Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt these ordinances amendingChapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code.A brief summary of each item discussed and a synopsis of the Planning Commission’s discussion is provided below.The full staff report for each item is provided as an attachment.In addition to the above items, the following proposed amendments to Chapters 2 and 4 of the Chanhassen City Codeare proposed:Reconcile Vote Requirements for Removal of CommissionersEstablish Electronic Message Center (ECM) Sign FeeUpdate Base Minimum Building Valuation StandardsSince these amendments do not involve Chapters 18 or 20 of the City Code, a public hearing is not required and theydid not go before the Planning Commission. A brief summary of these items is provided below, and a full staff reportfor each of these items is provided as an attachment.Note:  A proposed amendment to ban the keeping of birds of prey was also discussed during the November 19, 2019Planning Commission meeting; however, since the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Councildeny the amendment, staff has withdrawn the proposed amendment.DISCUSSIONSUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTSRemoving Standard Specification and Detail Plate Requirement for Permeable Paver SystemsReport Summary:The city’s pervious paver ordinance requires pervious pavement systems be designed in compliance with standardsestablished by the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI) and follow the current version of the City ofChanhassen Standard and Specification and Detail Plates (City Standards). When staff investigated creating CityStandards for pervious pavers, staff discovered that due to the variety of pervious pavement systems and evolvingnature of pervious pavement technology, it would be cost and time prohibitive to create and maintain comprehensiveCity Standards. Additionally, City Standards are typically only used for public improvements or private projects thataffect the public rights­of way. Requiring a purely private pervious pavement system to adhere to a City Standardwould not be in keeping with how other private improvements are treated.Since the ICPI maintains a library with over 60 details and specifications for pervious pavement systems and theordinance already requires that pervious pavement systems be designed in accordance ICPI standards, staff believes itis unnecessary and redundant to create our own City Standards.Ordinance in Brief:Delete requirement to follow the current version of the City of Chanhassen Standard Specification and Detail Platesfrom the previous paver ordinance.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the structure and nature of ICPI.The Planning Commission expressed concern that quality materials be used to construct Pervious Pavement Systems.The Planning Commission asked if the city was planning to have more pervious pavement system and staff clarifiedthat it was up to individual residents to determine if they wanted to install these systems. The Planning Commissionvoted unanimously to recommend approval.Clarify Language Governing Recreational Beach LotsReport Summary:Several sections of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) standards for recreational beach lots, particularly the sectiongoverning overnight storage and mooring, are poorly structured. In its current state, it is difficult to read and hard todetermine what provisions apply and in what circumstances they apply. The city frequently receives calls from HOAsinterested in amending their CUP or clarifying their understanding of what is and is not permitted, and the confusingstructure of this section of the code can sometimes exacerbate rather than resolve their confusion. This section alsocontains an out­of­date reference that should be updated to continually reference the most recently adopted comprehensive plan. Finally, this section outlines a policy allowing adjacent lots under a common ownership to consolidate their docks that is confusing and unnecessary. Staff proposes to rewrite sections of the Code to clarify the intent of the portions that routinely cause confusion. The substance and nature of the provisions governing recreational beach lots should not be changed, other than updating the out­of­date reference and removing unnecessary provisions, but phrasing and organization should be reworked in the hopes of creating a more user­friendly section. Ordinance in Brief: Replace reference to Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary with reference to most recently adopted MUSA, organize subsection 7 into separate clauses addressing docking, storage on racks, and sailboat moorings, rewrite subsections 8 and 9 to improve clarity, place provision governing daytime docking and seaplanes in its own subsection, and rewrite subsection 15 to improve clarity. Public Hearing: No comments from the public. The Planning Commission verified that the proposed changes would not alter the existing storage limits. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. Require Traffic Studies as Part of Site Plan Reviews Report Summary: As the city builds out, there are fewer undeveloped sites available. This, combined with the fact that some of the buildings in the city’s older developments are nearing the end of their functional life span, means that there is increased interest in redeveloping existing sites. Many times this redevelopment takes the form of a new use that has the potential to generate more traffic than the preexisting use. In some cases, these developments may increase traffic to the point where the level of service of the surrounding roads is decreased. The best way to determine the impact of a development on the surrounding roads is to conduct a traffic study; however, the city’s site plan application requirements and review standards do not require applicant’s to provide a traffic study. Staff is proposing amending this section of the City Code to require the inclusion of traffic studies with site plan applications when requested by staff and to add maintaining an acceptable road system level of service to the evaluation standards. This change would ensure staff can obtain sufficient information to evaluate the impact of proposed developments on the city’s road system and that the City Council can act to protect the public interest in situations where a proposal will unacceptably degrade the road system’s level of service. Ordinance in Brief: Add “traffic study, if requested by the city” to the list of site plan application requirements and list “maintaining an acceptable road system level of service” to the site plan evaluation standards. Public Hearing: No comments from the public. The Planning Commission clarified that the proposed amendment could apply to all site plan throughout the city. Staff clarified that while there are currently situations where we can require traffic studies; this is not always the case. The Planning Commission asked how traffic studies were conducted. Staff responded that they were conducted by a consultant and the Engineering Department typically determined the relevant radius. The Planning Commission asked when applicants would be informed of this requirement. Staff responded that it would typically be part of the application, but that if the Planning Commission or City Council decided they required additional information during the review process, it could also be required at that point. The Planning Commission clarified that this would apply to all zoning districts. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. Adopting Zoning Standards for Solar Energy Systems Report Summary: The 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified supporting residential and business solar development that maintains community character as a natural resources goal, and listed amending the City Code to include definitions, permitted uses and plans, and access to sunlight as it pertained to solar energy as a policy. The Natural Resources Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan clarifies this policy by noting that the city has prioritized tree planting which means public investment in solar energy systems will be limited; however, the city wishes to facilitate the use of solar energy by CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectOrdinance XXX: Amendments to Chanhassen City Code and Approval of Summary OrdinanceSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an Ordinance amending Chapters 2, 4, and 20 of the Chanhassen CityCode, and approves a Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes.”City Council approval of the proposed amendments requires a simple majority vote of the City Council and approvalof the summary ordinance requires a four­fifths vote of the entire Council.Approval requires a 4/5 Vote.SUMMARYOn November 19, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take public input on the proposed changesto Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. No member of the public spoke on the following proposed amendments:Remove Standard Specification and Detail Plate Requirement for Permeable Paver SystemsClarify Language Governing Recreational Beach LotsRequire Traffic Studies as Part of Site Plan ReviewsAdopt Zoning Standards for Solar Energy SystemsCorrect a Typographical Error in the Interim Use StatuteRestrict Merchandise Sold at Temporary and Special Events to Goods Normally Sold on SiteAdopt Minimum Driveway Configuration StandardsRequire Single­Family Homes to have Walkways and Concrete Pads for Stairs and LandingsAdopt Airport Zoning StandardsRemove Obsolete Parking Lot Configurations GraphicThe Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt these ordinances amendingChapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code.A brief summary of each item discussed and a synopsis of the Planning Commission’s discussion is provided below.The full staff report for each item is provided as an attachment.In addition to the above items, the following proposed amendments to Chapters 2 and 4 of the Chanhassen City Codeare proposed:Reconcile Vote Requirements for Removal of CommissionersEstablish Electronic Message Center (ECM) Sign FeeUpdate Base Minimum Building Valuation StandardsSince these amendments do not involve Chapters 18 or 20 of the City Code, a public hearing is not required and theydid not go before the Planning Commission. A brief summary of these items is provided below, and a full staff reportfor each of these items is provided as an attachment.Note:  A proposed amendment to ban the keeping of birds of prey was also discussed during the November 19, 2019Planning Commission meeting; however, since the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Councildeny the amendment, staff has withdrawn the proposed amendment.DISCUSSIONSUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTSRemoving Standard Specification and Detail Plate Requirement for Permeable Paver SystemsReport Summary:The city’s pervious paver ordinance requires pervious pavement systems be designed in compliance with standardsestablished by the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI) and follow the current version of the City ofChanhassen Standard and Specification and Detail Plates (City Standards). When staff investigated creating CityStandards for pervious pavers, staff discovered that due to the variety of pervious pavement systems and evolvingnature of pervious pavement technology, it would be cost and time prohibitive to create and maintain comprehensiveCity Standards. Additionally, City Standards are typically only used for public improvements or private projects thataffect the public rights­of way. Requiring a purely private pervious pavement system to adhere to a City Standardwould not be in keeping with how other private improvements are treated.Since the ICPI maintains a library with over 60 details and specifications for pervious pavement systems and theordinance already requires that pervious pavement systems be designed in accordance ICPI standards, staff believes itis unnecessary and redundant to create our own City Standards.Ordinance in Brief:Delete requirement to follow the current version of the City of Chanhassen Standard Specification and Detail Platesfrom the previous paver ordinance.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the structure and nature of ICPI.The Planning Commission expressed concern that quality materials be used to construct Pervious Pavement Systems.The Planning Commission asked if the city was planning to have more pervious pavement system and staff clarifiedthat it was up to individual residents to determine if they wanted to install these systems. The Planning Commissionvoted unanimously to recommend approval.Clarify Language Governing Recreational Beach LotsReport Summary:Several sections of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) standards for recreational beach lots, particularly the sectiongoverning overnight storage and mooring, are poorly structured. In its current state, it is difficult to read and hard todetermine what provisions apply and in what circumstances they apply. The city frequently receives calls from HOAsinterested in amending their CUP or clarifying their understanding of what is and is not permitted, and the confusingstructure of this section of the code can sometimes exacerbate rather than resolve their confusion. This section alsocontains an out­of­date reference that should be updated to continually reference the most recently adoptedcomprehensive plan. Finally, this section outlines a policy allowing adjacent lots under a common ownership to consolidatetheir docks that is confusing and unnecessary.Staff proposes to rewrite sections of the Code to clarify the intent of the portions that routinely cause confusion. Thesubstance and nature of the provisions governing recreational beach lots should not be changed, other than updating theout­of­date reference and removing unnecessary provisions, but phrasing and organization should be reworked in thehopes of creating a more user­friendly section.Ordinance in Brief:Replace reference to Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary with reference to most recentlyadopted MUSA, organize subsection 7 into separate clauses addressing docking, storage on racks, and sailboatmoorings, rewrite subsections 8 and 9 to improve clarity, place provision governing daytime docking and seaplanes inits own subsection, and rewrite subsection 15 to improve clarity.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission verified that the proposed changes would not alter theexisting storage limits. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.Require Traffic Studies as Part of Site Plan ReviewsReport Summary:As the city builds out, there are fewer undeveloped sites available. This, combined with the fact that some of thebuildings in the city’s older developments are nearing the end of their functional life span, means that there is increasedinterest in redeveloping existing sites. Many times this redevelopment takes the form of a new use that has the potentialto generate more traffic than the preexisting use. In some cases, these developments may increase traffic to the pointwhere the level of service of the surrounding roads is decreased.The best way to determine the impact of a development on the surrounding roads is to conduct a traffic study;however, the city’s site plan application requirements and review standards do not require applicant’s to provide atraffic study. Staff is proposing amending this section of the City Code to require the inclusion of traffic studies with siteplan applications when requested by staff and to add maintaining an acceptable road system level of service to theevaluation standards. This change would ensure staff can obtain sufficient information to evaluate the impact ofproposed developments on the city’s road system and that the City Council can act to protect the public interest insituations where a proposal will unacceptably degrade the road system’s level of service.Ordinance in Brief:Add “traffic study, if requested by the city” to the list of site plan application requirements and list “maintaining anacceptable road system level of service” to the site plan evaluation standards.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission clarified that the proposed amendment could apply to all siteplan throughout the city. Staff clarified that while there are currently situations where we can require traffic studies; thisis not always the case. The Planning Commission asked how traffic studies were conducted. Staff responded that theywere conducted by a consultant and the Engineering Department typically determined the relevant radius. The PlanningCommission asked when applicants would be informed of this requirement. Staff responded that it would typically bepart of the application, but that if the Planning Commission or City Council decided they required additionalinformation during the review process, it could also be required at that point. The Planning Commission clarified thatthis would apply to all zoning districts. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.Adopting Zoning Standards for Solar Energy SystemsReport Summary:The 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified supporting residential and business solar development that maintainscommunity character as a natural resources goal, and listed amending the City Code to include definitions, permitteduses and plans, and access to sunlight as it pertained to solar energy as a policy. The Natural Resources Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan clarifies this policy by noting that the city has prioritized tree planting which means public investment in solar energy systems will be limited; however, the city wishes to facilitate the use of solar energy by private businesses and residences. Staff has reviewed the city’s existing solar energy provisions as well as literature and model ordinances produced by the American Planning Association, the Great Plains Institute, and other organizations, and is proposing amending the City Code to meet the policy objective stated in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment would allow accessory solar energy systems as a permitted use in all districts, adopt relevant definitions, encourage roof­ mounted systems but allow for ground­mounted systems where roof­mounted systems are impractical, ensure that solar energy systems do not create nuisance glare, and establish basic design, installation, and permitting requirements for these systems.  Staff is not proposing expanding the City Code’s existing provisions that protect access to solar resources, as the existing code strikes a good balance between solar resources and other considerations. Staff is not proposing any restrictions on private individual’s ability to enter into solar easements or adopt more restrictive standards that they feel are better suited to their neighborhood. Ordinance in Brief: List accessory solar energy systems as permitted accessory use in all zoning districts, define terms related to accessory solar energy systems, establish standards for accessory solar energy systems, establish permit and installation requirements for accessory solar energy systems, and establish provisions for addressing abandoned accessory solar energy systems. Public Hearing: No comments from the public. The Planning Commission asked for an estimate as to how large a solar energy system would need to be to power an average sized house; staff estimated around 500 square feet but cautioned that it would be highly variable. The Planning Commission asked how staff would ensure installers where reputable or qualified; staff clarified that the building permit process would require a licensed contractor. The Planning Commission clarified that the systems could be attached to the grid. The Planning Commission clarified that the zoning ordinance currently prohibits utility scale solar energy production. The Planning Commission asked what would happen if a building with a flat roof that was at its zoning district’s maximum height wanted to add solar panels; staff stated they would need a variance, but that if it was reasonably designed, staff would likely support the request. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. Correct a Typographical Error in the Interim Use Statute Report Summary: The intent of Interim Use Permits (IUP) is to permit temporary uses with set expiration points. The expiration point is either a fixed date or period, for example 10 years from the issuance of the IUP, or a set event, for example the extension of urban services to the site. Both types of termination conditions are present within IUPs issued by the city; however, the general issuance standards for interim use permits section 20­322(4) reads, “The date of event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.” As written, this would mean the city should only issue IUPs with fixed dates of termination, for example the 10­year anniversary of the permit, and not for future events of an uncertain date, like the availability of urban services. In order to be consistent with how IUPs have been issued and with the intent of IUPs, this section should read “date or event”. Staff believes the use of the word “of” rather than “or” is the result of a typing error during codification, and proposes fixing the error. As noted earlier, this language would be consistent with the existing termination clauses as well as the intent of the IUP ordinance. Ordinance in Brief: Change text to read “date or event”. Public Hearing: No comments from the public. The Planning Commission had no comments. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. Restrict Merchandise Sold at Temporary and Special Events to Goods Normally Sold on Site CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectOrdinance XXX: Amendments to Chanhassen City Code and Approval of Summary OrdinanceSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an Ordinance amending Chapters 2, 4, and 20 of the Chanhassen CityCode, and approves a Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes.”City Council approval of the proposed amendments requires a simple majority vote of the City Council and approvalof the summary ordinance requires a four­fifths vote of the entire Council.Approval requires a 4/5 Vote.SUMMARYOn November 19, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take public input on the proposed changesto Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. No member of the public spoke on the following proposed amendments:Remove Standard Specification and Detail Plate Requirement for Permeable Paver SystemsClarify Language Governing Recreational Beach LotsRequire Traffic Studies as Part of Site Plan ReviewsAdopt Zoning Standards for Solar Energy SystemsCorrect a Typographical Error in the Interim Use StatuteRestrict Merchandise Sold at Temporary and Special Events to Goods Normally Sold on SiteAdopt Minimum Driveway Configuration StandardsRequire Single­Family Homes to have Walkways and Concrete Pads for Stairs and LandingsAdopt Airport Zoning StandardsRemove Obsolete Parking Lot Configurations GraphicThe Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt these ordinances amendingChapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code.A brief summary of each item discussed and a synopsis of the Planning Commission’s discussion is provided below.The full staff report for each item is provided as an attachment.In addition to the above items, the following proposed amendments to Chapters 2 and 4 of the Chanhassen City Codeare proposed:Reconcile Vote Requirements for Removal of CommissionersEstablish Electronic Message Center (ECM) Sign FeeUpdate Base Minimum Building Valuation StandardsSince these amendments do not involve Chapters 18 or 20 of the City Code, a public hearing is not required and theydid not go before the Planning Commission. A brief summary of these items is provided below, and a full staff reportfor each of these items is provided as an attachment.Note:  A proposed amendment to ban the keeping of birds of prey was also discussed during the November 19, 2019Planning Commission meeting; however, since the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Councildeny the amendment, staff has withdrawn the proposed amendment.DISCUSSIONSUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTSRemoving Standard Specification and Detail Plate Requirement for Permeable Paver SystemsReport Summary:The city’s pervious paver ordinance requires pervious pavement systems be designed in compliance with standardsestablished by the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI) and follow the current version of the City ofChanhassen Standard and Specification and Detail Plates (City Standards). When staff investigated creating CityStandards for pervious pavers, staff discovered that due to the variety of pervious pavement systems and evolvingnature of pervious pavement technology, it would be cost and time prohibitive to create and maintain comprehensiveCity Standards. Additionally, City Standards are typically only used for public improvements or private projects thataffect the public rights­of way. Requiring a purely private pervious pavement system to adhere to a City Standardwould not be in keeping with how other private improvements are treated.Since the ICPI maintains a library with over 60 details and specifications for pervious pavement systems and theordinance already requires that pervious pavement systems be designed in accordance ICPI standards, staff believes itis unnecessary and redundant to create our own City Standards.Ordinance in Brief:Delete requirement to follow the current version of the City of Chanhassen Standard Specification and Detail Platesfrom the previous paver ordinance.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the structure and nature of ICPI.The Planning Commission expressed concern that quality materials be used to construct Pervious Pavement Systems.The Planning Commission asked if the city was planning to have more pervious pavement system and staff clarifiedthat it was up to individual residents to determine if they wanted to install these systems. The Planning Commissionvoted unanimously to recommend approval.Clarify Language Governing Recreational Beach LotsReport Summary:Several sections of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) standards for recreational beach lots, particularly the sectiongoverning overnight storage and mooring, are poorly structured. In its current state, it is difficult to read and hard todetermine what provisions apply and in what circumstances they apply. The city frequently receives calls from HOAsinterested in amending their CUP or clarifying their understanding of what is and is not permitted, and the confusingstructure of this section of the code can sometimes exacerbate rather than resolve their confusion. This section alsocontains an out­of­date reference that should be updated to continually reference the most recently adoptedcomprehensive plan. Finally, this section outlines a policy allowing adjacent lots under a common ownership to consolidatetheir docks that is confusing and unnecessary.Staff proposes to rewrite sections of the Code to clarify the intent of the portions that routinely cause confusion. Thesubstance and nature of the provisions governing recreational beach lots should not be changed, other than updating theout­of­date reference and removing unnecessary provisions, but phrasing and organization should be reworked in thehopes of creating a more user­friendly section.Ordinance in Brief:Replace reference to Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary with reference to most recentlyadopted MUSA, organize subsection 7 into separate clauses addressing docking, storage on racks, and sailboatmoorings, rewrite subsections 8 and 9 to improve clarity, place provision governing daytime docking and seaplanes inits own subsection, and rewrite subsection 15 to improve clarity.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission verified that the proposed changes would not alter theexisting storage limits. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.Require Traffic Studies as Part of Site Plan ReviewsReport Summary:As the city builds out, there are fewer undeveloped sites available. This, combined with the fact that some of thebuildings in the city’s older developments are nearing the end of their functional life span, means that there is increasedinterest in redeveloping existing sites. Many times this redevelopment takes the form of a new use that has the potentialto generate more traffic than the preexisting use. In some cases, these developments may increase traffic to the pointwhere the level of service of the surrounding roads is decreased.The best way to determine the impact of a development on the surrounding roads is to conduct a traffic study;however, the city’s site plan application requirements and review standards do not require applicant’s to provide atraffic study. Staff is proposing amending this section of the City Code to require the inclusion of traffic studies with siteplan applications when requested by staff and to add maintaining an acceptable road system level of service to theevaluation standards. This change would ensure staff can obtain sufficient information to evaluate the impact ofproposed developments on the city’s road system and that the City Council can act to protect the public interest insituations where a proposal will unacceptably degrade the road system’s level of service.Ordinance in Brief:Add “traffic study, if requested by the city” to the list of site plan application requirements and list “maintaining anacceptable road system level of service” to the site plan evaluation standards.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission clarified that the proposed amendment could apply to all siteplan throughout the city. Staff clarified that while there are currently situations where we can require traffic studies; thisis not always the case. The Planning Commission asked how traffic studies were conducted. Staff responded that theywere conducted by a consultant and the Engineering Department typically determined the relevant radius. The PlanningCommission asked when applicants would be informed of this requirement. Staff responded that it would typically bepart of the application, but that if the Planning Commission or City Council decided they required additionalinformation during the review process, it could also be required at that point. The Planning Commission clarified thatthis would apply to all zoning districts. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.Adopting Zoning Standards for Solar Energy SystemsReport Summary:The 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified supporting residential and business solar development that maintainscommunity character as a natural resources goal, and listed amending the City Code to include definitions, permitteduses and plans, and access to sunlight as it pertained to solar energy as a policy. The Natural Resources Chapter ofthe Comprehensive Plan clarifies this policy by noting that the city has prioritized tree planting which means publicinvestment in solar energy systems will be limited; however, the city wishes to facilitate the use of solar energy byprivate businesses and residences.Staff has reviewed the city’s existing solar energy provisions as well as literature and model ordinances produced bythe American Planning Association, the Great Plains Institute, and other organizations, and is proposing amending theCity Code to meet the policy objective stated in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment wouldallow accessory solar energy systems as a permitted use in all districts, adopt relevant definitions, encourage roof­mounted systems but allow for ground­mounted systems where roof­mounted systems are impractical, ensure thatsolar energy systems do not create nuisance glare, and establish basic design, installation, and permitting requirementsfor these systems.  Staff is not proposing expanding the City Code’s existing provisions that protect access to solarresources, as the existing code strikes a good balance between solar resources and other considerations. Staff is notproposing any restrictions on private individual’s ability to enter into solar easements or adopt more restrictivestandards that they feel are better suited to their neighborhood.Ordinance in Brief:List accessory solar energy systems as permitted accessory use in all zoning districts, define terms related to accessorysolar energy systems, establish standards for accessory solar energy systems, establish permit and installationrequirements for accessory solar energy systems, and establish provisions for addressing abandoned accessory solarenergy systems.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission asked for an estimate as to how large a solar energy systemwould need to be to power an average sized house; staff estimated around 500 square feet but cautioned that it wouldbe highly variable. The Planning Commission asked how staff would ensure installers where reputable or qualified; staffclarified that the building permit process would require a licensed contractor. The Planning Commission clarified thatthe systems could be attached to the grid. The Planning Commission clarified that the zoning ordinance currentlyprohibits utility scale solar energy production. The Planning Commission asked what would happen if a building with aflat roof that was at its zoning district’s maximum height wanted to add solar panels; staff stated they would need avariance, but that if it was reasonably designed, staff would likely support the request. The Planning Commission votedunanimously to recommend approval.Correct a Typographical Error in the Interim Use StatuteReport Summary:The intent of Interim Use Permits (IUP) is to permit temporary uses with set expiration points. The expiration point iseither a fixed date or period, for example 10 years from the issuance of the IUP, or a set event, for example theextension of urban services to the site. Both types of termination conditions are present within IUPs issued by the city;however, the general issuance standards for interim use permits section 20­322(4) reads, “The date of event that willterminate the use can be identified with certainty.” As written, this would mean the city should only issue IUPs withfixed dates of termination, for example the 10­year anniversary of the permit, and not for future events of an uncertaindate, like the availability of urban services.In order to be consistent with how IUPs have been issued and with the intent of IUPs, this section should read “dateor event”. Staff believes the use of the word “of” rather than “or” is the result of a typing error during codification, andproposes fixing the error. As noted earlier, this language would be consistent with the existing termination clauses aswell as the intent of the IUP ordinance.Ordinance in Brief:Change text to read “date or event”.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission had no comments. The Planning Commission votedunanimously to recommend approval. Restrict Merchandise Sold at Temporary and Special Events to Goods Normally Sold on Site Report Summary: In 2017, the city revised the section of the City Code that governs temporary and special events to better address larger events and races. As part of these revisions, the city switched from listing “criteria for approval” to stating “grounds for denial”. The goal of this shift was to provide stronger legal justification for denying permits that the city believed could negatively impact adjacent parcels or overtax municipal infrastructure and resources.  Most of the previously listed criteria for approval were rephrased and incorporated into the grounds for denial; however, the requirement that only merchandise normally sold or stocked by the occupants could be sold or promoted was overlooked. Due to this omission, properties with commercial zoning could theoretically apply for a temporary outdoor event permit to allow a business to set up a pop up shop in its parking lot. Since the goal of the ordinance is to allow for Chanhassen’s businesses and organizations to promote themselves and host community events, rather than accommodating transient merchants, staff feels this is contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Staff proposes adding the omitted provision limiting merchandise sales to the section of the Code regulating temporary and special events. Ordinance in Brief: Add a requirement limiting goods sold at temporary and special events to those normally sold on site, with an exception for goods clearly accessory to the proposed event. Public Hearing: No comments from the public. The Planning Commission clarified that private residential events were not covered by this ordinance. The Planning Commission clarified that charities could fundraise by selling items.  The Planning Commission asked if a fee would be involved in event permits; staff stated that there is a $50 temporary event fee and $100 special event fee. The Planning Commission asked how people knew they needed permits; staff responded that businesses were aware of the ordinance and that staff had sent out informational letters in the past. Staff clarified that the proposed ordinance only addressed the types of goods sold during events. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. Adopt Minimum Driveway Configuration Standards Report Summary: There have been several ongoing issues with driveways in the City of Chanhassen. The first is that builders who are informed that they are over their zoning district’s hardcover limits are increasingly choosing to reconfigure driveways in order to bring their proposed plans into compliance with City Ordinance. These reconfigured driveways sometimes taper so quickly down to the city’s 10­foot minimum width that there is not enough space provided to park cars in front of the garage or the movements needed to enter and exit the garage are impractical. The second concern is that the driveway ordinance’s minimum 10­foot side yard setback is more restrictive than the Residential Low and Medium (RLM) Density District’s 5­foot side yard setback. This creates a situation where many lots with RLM zoning have garages located five feet from the side lot line, which necessitates an exemption from the city’s 10­foot side yard driveway setback. The final issue is that the driveway ordinance has been amended seven times since it was adopted in 2001. Many of these amendments added new subsections but did not place them under headings linking them to existing provisions. This has led to the current driveway ordinance being difficult for residents and builders to navigate. Staff is recommending expanding the minimum design standards to ensure that driveways provide sufficient off­street parking and allow for functional movements, that the driveway setback be made commensurate to the property’s underlying zoning for the first 20 feet, and that the section be reorganized to improve readability. Ordinance in Brief: Reorganize 13 existing subsections into six grouped subsections, rewrite subsections to improve clarity, require driveways to meet district’s side yard setback for the first 20 feet of length, allow reduction of setback to 5 feet after the first 20 feet of length or if exemption criteria can be met, require, subject design of required turnarounds to approval by City Engineer, and require driveway to be the width of garage doors for the first 18 feet of length. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectOrdinance XXX: Amendments to Chanhassen City Code and Approval of Summary OrdinanceSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an Ordinance amending Chapters 2, 4, and 20 of the Chanhassen CityCode, and approves a Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes.”City Council approval of the proposed amendments requires a simple majority vote of the City Council and approvalof the summary ordinance requires a four­fifths vote of the entire Council.Approval requires a 4/5 Vote.SUMMARYOn November 19, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take public input on the proposed changesto Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. No member of the public spoke on the following proposed amendments:Remove Standard Specification and Detail Plate Requirement for Permeable Paver SystemsClarify Language Governing Recreational Beach LotsRequire Traffic Studies as Part of Site Plan ReviewsAdopt Zoning Standards for Solar Energy SystemsCorrect a Typographical Error in the Interim Use StatuteRestrict Merchandise Sold at Temporary and Special Events to Goods Normally Sold on SiteAdopt Minimum Driveway Configuration StandardsRequire Single­Family Homes to have Walkways and Concrete Pads for Stairs and LandingsAdopt Airport Zoning StandardsRemove Obsolete Parking Lot Configurations GraphicThe Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt these ordinances amendingChapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code.A brief summary of each item discussed and a synopsis of the Planning Commission’s discussion is provided below.The full staff report for each item is provided as an attachment.In addition to the above items, the following proposed amendments to Chapters 2 and 4 of the Chanhassen City Codeare proposed:Reconcile Vote Requirements for Removal of CommissionersEstablish Electronic Message Center (ECM) Sign FeeUpdate Base Minimum Building Valuation StandardsSince these amendments do not involve Chapters 18 or 20 of the City Code, a public hearing is not required and theydid not go before the Planning Commission. A brief summary of these items is provided below, and a full staff reportfor each of these items is provided as an attachment.Note:  A proposed amendment to ban the keeping of birds of prey was also discussed during the November 19, 2019Planning Commission meeting; however, since the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Councildeny the amendment, staff has withdrawn the proposed amendment.DISCUSSIONSUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTSRemoving Standard Specification and Detail Plate Requirement for Permeable Paver SystemsReport Summary:The city’s pervious paver ordinance requires pervious pavement systems be designed in compliance with standardsestablished by the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI) and follow the current version of the City ofChanhassen Standard and Specification and Detail Plates (City Standards). When staff investigated creating CityStandards for pervious pavers, staff discovered that due to the variety of pervious pavement systems and evolvingnature of pervious pavement technology, it would be cost and time prohibitive to create and maintain comprehensiveCity Standards. Additionally, City Standards are typically only used for public improvements or private projects thataffect the public rights­of way. Requiring a purely private pervious pavement system to adhere to a City Standardwould not be in keeping with how other private improvements are treated.Since the ICPI maintains a library with over 60 details and specifications for pervious pavement systems and theordinance already requires that pervious pavement systems be designed in accordance ICPI standards, staff believes itis unnecessary and redundant to create our own City Standards.Ordinance in Brief:Delete requirement to follow the current version of the City of Chanhassen Standard Specification and Detail Platesfrom the previous paver ordinance.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the structure and nature of ICPI.The Planning Commission expressed concern that quality materials be used to construct Pervious Pavement Systems.The Planning Commission asked if the city was planning to have more pervious pavement system and staff clarifiedthat it was up to individual residents to determine if they wanted to install these systems. The Planning Commissionvoted unanimously to recommend approval.Clarify Language Governing Recreational Beach LotsReport Summary:Several sections of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) standards for recreational beach lots, particularly the sectiongoverning overnight storage and mooring, are poorly structured. In its current state, it is difficult to read and hard todetermine what provisions apply and in what circumstances they apply. The city frequently receives calls from HOAsinterested in amending their CUP or clarifying their understanding of what is and is not permitted, and the confusingstructure of this section of the code can sometimes exacerbate rather than resolve their confusion. This section alsocontains an out­of­date reference that should be updated to continually reference the most recently adoptedcomprehensive plan. Finally, this section outlines a policy allowing adjacent lots under a common ownership to consolidatetheir docks that is confusing and unnecessary.Staff proposes to rewrite sections of the Code to clarify the intent of the portions that routinely cause confusion. Thesubstance and nature of the provisions governing recreational beach lots should not be changed, other than updating theout­of­date reference and removing unnecessary provisions, but phrasing and organization should be reworked in thehopes of creating a more user­friendly section.Ordinance in Brief:Replace reference to Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary with reference to most recentlyadopted MUSA, organize subsection 7 into separate clauses addressing docking, storage on racks, and sailboatmoorings, rewrite subsections 8 and 9 to improve clarity, place provision governing daytime docking and seaplanes inits own subsection, and rewrite subsection 15 to improve clarity.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission verified that the proposed changes would not alter theexisting storage limits. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.Require Traffic Studies as Part of Site Plan ReviewsReport Summary:As the city builds out, there are fewer undeveloped sites available. This, combined with the fact that some of thebuildings in the city’s older developments are nearing the end of their functional life span, means that there is increasedinterest in redeveloping existing sites. Many times this redevelopment takes the form of a new use that has the potentialto generate more traffic than the preexisting use. In some cases, these developments may increase traffic to the pointwhere the level of service of the surrounding roads is decreased.The best way to determine the impact of a development on the surrounding roads is to conduct a traffic study;however, the city’s site plan application requirements and review standards do not require applicant’s to provide atraffic study. Staff is proposing amending this section of the City Code to require the inclusion of traffic studies with siteplan applications when requested by staff and to add maintaining an acceptable road system level of service to theevaluation standards. This change would ensure staff can obtain sufficient information to evaluate the impact ofproposed developments on the city’s road system and that the City Council can act to protect the public interest insituations where a proposal will unacceptably degrade the road system’s level of service.Ordinance in Brief:Add “traffic study, if requested by the city” to the list of site plan application requirements and list “maintaining anacceptable road system level of service” to the site plan evaluation standards.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission clarified that the proposed amendment could apply to all siteplan throughout the city. Staff clarified that while there are currently situations where we can require traffic studies; thisis not always the case. The Planning Commission asked how traffic studies were conducted. Staff responded that theywere conducted by a consultant and the Engineering Department typically determined the relevant radius. The PlanningCommission asked when applicants would be informed of this requirement. Staff responded that it would typically bepart of the application, but that if the Planning Commission or City Council decided they required additionalinformation during the review process, it could also be required at that point. The Planning Commission clarified thatthis would apply to all zoning districts. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.Adopting Zoning Standards for Solar Energy SystemsReport Summary:The 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified supporting residential and business solar development that maintainscommunity character as a natural resources goal, and listed amending the City Code to include definitions, permitteduses and plans, and access to sunlight as it pertained to solar energy as a policy. The Natural Resources Chapter ofthe Comprehensive Plan clarifies this policy by noting that the city has prioritized tree planting which means publicinvestment in solar energy systems will be limited; however, the city wishes to facilitate the use of solar energy byprivate businesses and residences.Staff has reviewed the city’s existing solar energy provisions as well as literature and model ordinances produced bythe American Planning Association, the Great Plains Institute, and other organizations, and is proposing amending theCity Code to meet the policy objective stated in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment wouldallow accessory solar energy systems as a permitted use in all districts, adopt relevant definitions, encourage roof­mounted systems but allow for ground­mounted systems where roof­mounted systems are impractical, ensure thatsolar energy systems do not create nuisance glare, and establish basic design, installation, and permitting requirementsfor these systems.  Staff is not proposing expanding the City Code’s existing provisions that protect access to solarresources, as the existing code strikes a good balance between solar resources and other considerations. Staff is notproposing any restrictions on private individual’s ability to enter into solar easements or adopt more restrictivestandards that they feel are better suited to their neighborhood.Ordinance in Brief:List accessory solar energy systems as permitted accessory use in all zoning districts, define terms related to accessorysolar energy systems, establish standards for accessory solar energy systems, establish permit and installationrequirements for accessory solar energy systems, and establish provisions for addressing abandoned accessory solarenergy systems.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission asked for an estimate as to how large a solar energy systemwould need to be to power an average sized house; staff estimated around 500 square feet but cautioned that it wouldbe highly variable. The Planning Commission asked how staff would ensure installers where reputable or qualified; staffclarified that the building permit process would require a licensed contractor. The Planning Commission clarified thatthe systems could be attached to the grid. The Planning Commission clarified that the zoning ordinance currentlyprohibits utility scale solar energy production. The Planning Commission asked what would happen if a building with aflat roof that was at its zoning district’s maximum height wanted to add solar panels; staff stated they would need avariance, but that if it was reasonably designed, staff would likely support the request. The Planning Commission votedunanimously to recommend approval.Correct a Typographical Error in the Interim Use StatuteReport Summary:The intent of Interim Use Permits (IUP) is to permit temporary uses with set expiration points. The expiration point iseither a fixed date or period, for example 10 years from the issuance of the IUP, or a set event, for example theextension of urban services to the site. Both types of termination conditions are present within IUPs issued by the city;however, the general issuance standards for interim use permits section 20­322(4) reads, “The date of event that willterminate the use can be identified with certainty.” As written, this would mean the city should only issue IUPs withfixed dates of termination, for example the 10­year anniversary of the permit, and not for future events of an uncertaindate, like the availability of urban services.In order to be consistent with how IUPs have been issued and with the intent of IUPs, this section should read “dateor event”. Staff believes the use of the word “of” rather than “or” is the result of a typing error during codification, andproposes fixing the error. As noted earlier, this language would be consistent with the existing termination clauses aswell as the intent of the IUP ordinance.Ordinance in Brief:Change text to read “date or event”.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission had no comments. The Planning Commission votedunanimously to recommend approval.Restrict Merchandise Sold at Temporary and Special Events to Goods Normally Sold on SiteReport Summary:In 2017, the city revised the section of the City Code that governs temporary and special events to better addresslarger events and races. As part of these revisions, the city switched from listing “criteria for approval” to stating“grounds for denial”. The goal of this shift was to provide stronger legal justification for denying permits that the citybelieved could negatively impact adjacent parcels or overtax municipal infrastructure and resources.  Most of thepreviously listed criteria for approval were rephrased and incorporated into the grounds for denial; however, therequirement that only merchandise normally sold or stocked by the occupants could be sold or promoted wasoverlooked.Due to this omission, properties with commercial zoning could theoretically apply for a temporary outdoor eventpermit to allow a business to set up a pop up shop in its parking lot. Since the goal of the ordinance is to allow forChanhassen’s businesses and organizations to promote themselves and host community events, rather thanaccommodating transient merchants, staff feels this is contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Staff proposes adding theomitted provision limiting merchandise sales to the section of the Code regulating temporary and special events.Ordinance in Brief:Add a requirement limiting goods sold at temporary and special events to those normally sold on site, with anexception for goods clearly accessory to the proposed event.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission clarified that private residential events were not covered bythis ordinance. The Planning Commission clarified that charities could fundraise by selling items.  The PlanningCommission asked if a fee would be involved in event permits; staff stated that there is a $50 temporary event fee and$100 special event fee. The Planning Commission asked how people knew they needed permits; staff responded thatbusinesses were aware of the ordinance and that staff had sent out informational letters in the past. Staff clarified thatthe proposed ordinance only addressed the types of goods sold during events. The Planning Commission votedunanimously to recommend approval.Adopt Minimum Driveway Configuration StandardsReport Summary:There have been several ongoing issues with driveways in the City of Chanhassen. The first is that builders who areinformed that they are over their zoning district’s hardcover limits are increasingly choosing to reconfigure driveways inorder to bring their proposed plans into compliance with City Ordinance. These reconfigured driveways sometimestaper so quickly down to the city’s 10­foot minimum width that there is not enough space provided to park cars infront of the garage or the movements needed to enter and exit the garage are impractical.The second concern is that the driveway ordinance’s minimum 10­foot side yard setback is more restrictive than theResidential Low and Medium (RLM) Density District’s 5­foot side yard setback. This creates a situation where manylots with RLM zoning have garages located five feet from the side lot line, which necessitates an exemption from thecity’s 10­foot side yard driveway setback.The final issue is that the driveway ordinance has been amended seven times since it was adopted in 2001. Many ofthese amendments added new subsections but did not place them under headings linking them to existing provisions.This has led to the current driveway ordinance being difficult for residents and builders to navigate.Staff is recommending expanding the minimum design standards to ensure that driveways provide sufficient off­streetparking and allow for functional movements, that the driveway setback be made commensurate to the property’sunderlying zoning for the first 20 feet, and that the section be reorganized to improve readability.Ordinance in Brief:Reorganize 13 existing subsections into six grouped subsections, rewrite subsections to improve clarity, requiredriveways to meet district’s side yard setback for the first 20 feet of length, allow reduction of setback to 5 feet after the first 20 feet of length or if exemption criteria can be met, require, subject design of required turnarounds to approval by City Engineer, and require driveway to be the width of garage doors for the first 18 feet of length. Public Hearing: No comments from the public. The Planning Commission asked how this would affect existing properties; staff noted that most existing were either legal non­conforming or had received permission for their configuration from the Engineering department. The Planning Commission asked how non­functional driveways or over­built driveways were approved; staff explained that things are changed in the field or builders propose a poor design that technically meets code and staff has to approve it. The Planning Commission asked what happens when things are not built to plan; staff clarified that after the fact enforcement actions were needed, which are difficult. The Planning Commission clarified that permeable pavers could be used for the driveway. The Planning Commission asked what a zoning permit is; staff responded it is a code check for improvements not covered by the State Building Code. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. Require Single­Family Homes to have Walkways and Concrete Pads for Stairs and Landings Report Summary: Sidewalks and entrance/stair landings are typical features of homes; however, there are instances where they are omitted from proposed projects in order to meet the requirements of the city’s zoning code. When these features are not included, homeowners often discover that they are necessary and have them constructed after the fact. Often these after­the­fact additions are constructed without a permit and do not meet the requirements of the City Code, which can lead to the city having to take enforcement actions. Staff is proposing amending the Code to require applicants to include these features in order to give staff the ability to require the revision of projects that have a high potential of causing future problems. Ordinance in Brief: Require at a minimum a four­foot wide walkway of improved surface connecting driveway and main entrance of home and require at a minimum a three­foot wide landing for exterior stairs or access doors, unless a ten­feet­by­ten­feet patio is already required. Public Hearing: No comments from the public. The Planning Commission expressed concern that the use of the word assume would not actually require walkways to be built and the use of the word deep could be confusing. The Planning Commission clarified that these features could be construed using pavers and expressed concern that woodchips or non­hardscape would be used. The Planning Commission asked how lot cover limits were determined; staff responded it was derived from DNR standards and based on local characteristics. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval with amendments to address their concerns. Changes from Staff Report: Planning Commission amended the proposed ordinance to make it clear that these features were required, to require that walkways be constructed using bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, and to clarify the required dimensions of landings. Adopt Airport Zoning Standards Report Summary: A portion of the City of Chanhassen is located within the Flying Cloud Airport’s Airspace Zoning Limit. Structures and trees within this area are subject to the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance’s provisions limiting the maximum height of structures and trees within the airspace zoning limit and requiring airport zoning permits for the construction of structures above a certain height within the airspace zoning limit. The Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance lists the City of Chanhassen as the party responsible for administering and enforcing its provisions within the city’s municipal boundaries. In order to fulfill this responsibility, the city must adopt the provisions of the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance as part of its City Code. Staff believes that the most efficient way to do this is to establish an Airport Zoning Overlay District and adopt the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance by reference as additional standards for properties within the overlay district. Staff believes this will have a minimal impact on the city. Ordinance in Brief: CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectOrdinance XXX: Amendments to Chanhassen City Code and Approval of Summary OrdinanceSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an Ordinance amending Chapters 2, 4, and 20 of the Chanhassen CityCode, and approves a Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes.”City Council approval of the proposed amendments requires a simple majority vote of the City Council and approvalof the summary ordinance requires a four­fifths vote of the entire Council.Approval requires a 4/5 Vote.SUMMARYOn November 19, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take public input on the proposed changesto Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. No member of the public spoke on the following proposed amendments:Remove Standard Specification and Detail Plate Requirement for Permeable Paver SystemsClarify Language Governing Recreational Beach LotsRequire Traffic Studies as Part of Site Plan ReviewsAdopt Zoning Standards for Solar Energy SystemsCorrect a Typographical Error in the Interim Use StatuteRestrict Merchandise Sold at Temporary and Special Events to Goods Normally Sold on SiteAdopt Minimum Driveway Configuration StandardsRequire Single­Family Homes to have Walkways and Concrete Pads for Stairs and LandingsAdopt Airport Zoning StandardsRemove Obsolete Parking Lot Configurations GraphicThe Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt these ordinances amendingChapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code.A brief summary of each item discussed and a synopsis of the Planning Commission’s discussion is provided below.The full staff report for each item is provided as an attachment.In addition to the above items, the following proposed amendments to Chapters 2 and 4 of the Chanhassen City Codeare proposed:Reconcile Vote Requirements for Removal of CommissionersEstablish Electronic Message Center (ECM) Sign FeeUpdate Base Minimum Building Valuation StandardsSince these amendments do not involve Chapters 18 or 20 of the City Code, a public hearing is not required and theydid not go before the Planning Commission. A brief summary of these items is provided below, and a full staff reportfor each of these items is provided as an attachment.Note:  A proposed amendment to ban the keeping of birds of prey was also discussed during the November 19, 2019Planning Commission meeting; however, since the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Councildeny the amendment, staff has withdrawn the proposed amendment.DISCUSSIONSUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTSRemoving Standard Specification and Detail Plate Requirement for Permeable Paver SystemsReport Summary:The city’s pervious paver ordinance requires pervious pavement systems be designed in compliance with standardsestablished by the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI) and follow the current version of the City ofChanhassen Standard and Specification and Detail Plates (City Standards). When staff investigated creating CityStandards for pervious pavers, staff discovered that due to the variety of pervious pavement systems and evolvingnature of pervious pavement technology, it would be cost and time prohibitive to create and maintain comprehensiveCity Standards. Additionally, City Standards are typically only used for public improvements or private projects thataffect the public rights­of way. Requiring a purely private pervious pavement system to adhere to a City Standardwould not be in keeping with how other private improvements are treated.Since the ICPI maintains a library with over 60 details and specifications for pervious pavement systems and theordinance already requires that pervious pavement systems be designed in accordance ICPI standards, staff believes itis unnecessary and redundant to create our own City Standards.Ordinance in Brief:Delete requirement to follow the current version of the City of Chanhassen Standard Specification and Detail Platesfrom the previous paver ordinance.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the structure and nature of ICPI.The Planning Commission expressed concern that quality materials be used to construct Pervious Pavement Systems.The Planning Commission asked if the city was planning to have more pervious pavement system and staff clarifiedthat it was up to individual residents to determine if they wanted to install these systems. The Planning Commissionvoted unanimously to recommend approval.Clarify Language Governing Recreational Beach LotsReport Summary:Several sections of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) standards for recreational beach lots, particularly the sectiongoverning overnight storage and mooring, are poorly structured. In its current state, it is difficult to read and hard todetermine what provisions apply and in what circumstances they apply. The city frequently receives calls from HOAsinterested in amending their CUP or clarifying their understanding of what is and is not permitted, and the confusingstructure of this section of the code can sometimes exacerbate rather than resolve their confusion. This section alsocontains an out­of­date reference that should be updated to continually reference the most recently adoptedcomprehensive plan. Finally, this section outlines a policy allowing adjacent lots under a common ownership to consolidatetheir docks that is confusing and unnecessary.Staff proposes to rewrite sections of the Code to clarify the intent of the portions that routinely cause confusion. Thesubstance and nature of the provisions governing recreational beach lots should not be changed, other than updating theout­of­date reference and removing unnecessary provisions, but phrasing and organization should be reworked in thehopes of creating a more user­friendly section.Ordinance in Brief:Replace reference to Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary with reference to most recentlyadopted MUSA, organize subsection 7 into separate clauses addressing docking, storage on racks, and sailboatmoorings, rewrite subsections 8 and 9 to improve clarity, place provision governing daytime docking and seaplanes inits own subsection, and rewrite subsection 15 to improve clarity.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission verified that the proposed changes would not alter theexisting storage limits. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.Require Traffic Studies as Part of Site Plan ReviewsReport Summary:As the city builds out, there are fewer undeveloped sites available. This, combined with the fact that some of thebuildings in the city’s older developments are nearing the end of their functional life span, means that there is increasedinterest in redeveloping existing sites. Many times this redevelopment takes the form of a new use that has the potentialto generate more traffic than the preexisting use. In some cases, these developments may increase traffic to the pointwhere the level of service of the surrounding roads is decreased.The best way to determine the impact of a development on the surrounding roads is to conduct a traffic study;however, the city’s site plan application requirements and review standards do not require applicant’s to provide atraffic study. Staff is proposing amending this section of the City Code to require the inclusion of traffic studies with siteplan applications when requested by staff and to add maintaining an acceptable road system level of service to theevaluation standards. This change would ensure staff can obtain sufficient information to evaluate the impact ofproposed developments on the city’s road system and that the City Council can act to protect the public interest insituations where a proposal will unacceptably degrade the road system’s level of service.Ordinance in Brief:Add “traffic study, if requested by the city” to the list of site plan application requirements and list “maintaining anacceptable road system level of service” to the site plan evaluation standards.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission clarified that the proposed amendment could apply to all siteplan throughout the city. Staff clarified that while there are currently situations where we can require traffic studies; thisis not always the case. The Planning Commission asked how traffic studies were conducted. Staff responded that theywere conducted by a consultant and the Engineering Department typically determined the relevant radius. The PlanningCommission asked when applicants would be informed of this requirement. Staff responded that it would typically bepart of the application, but that if the Planning Commission or City Council decided they required additionalinformation during the review process, it could also be required at that point. The Planning Commission clarified thatthis would apply to all zoning districts. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.Adopting Zoning Standards for Solar Energy SystemsReport Summary:The 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified supporting residential and business solar development that maintainscommunity character as a natural resources goal, and listed amending the City Code to include definitions, permitteduses and plans, and access to sunlight as it pertained to solar energy as a policy. The Natural Resources Chapter ofthe Comprehensive Plan clarifies this policy by noting that the city has prioritized tree planting which means publicinvestment in solar energy systems will be limited; however, the city wishes to facilitate the use of solar energy byprivate businesses and residences.Staff has reviewed the city’s existing solar energy provisions as well as literature and model ordinances produced bythe American Planning Association, the Great Plains Institute, and other organizations, and is proposing amending theCity Code to meet the policy objective stated in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment wouldallow accessory solar energy systems as a permitted use in all districts, adopt relevant definitions, encourage roof­mounted systems but allow for ground­mounted systems where roof­mounted systems are impractical, ensure thatsolar energy systems do not create nuisance glare, and establish basic design, installation, and permitting requirementsfor these systems.  Staff is not proposing expanding the City Code’s existing provisions that protect access to solarresources, as the existing code strikes a good balance between solar resources and other considerations. Staff is notproposing any restrictions on private individual’s ability to enter into solar easements or adopt more restrictivestandards that they feel are better suited to their neighborhood.Ordinance in Brief:List accessory solar energy systems as permitted accessory use in all zoning districts, define terms related to accessorysolar energy systems, establish standards for accessory solar energy systems, establish permit and installationrequirements for accessory solar energy systems, and establish provisions for addressing abandoned accessory solarenergy systems.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission asked for an estimate as to how large a solar energy systemwould need to be to power an average sized house; staff estimated around 500 square feet but cautioned that it wouldbe highly variable. The Planning Commission asked how staff would ensure installers where reputable or qualified; staffclarified that the building permit process would require a licensed contractor. The Planning Commission clarified thatthe systems could be attached to the grid. The Planning Commission clarified that the zoning ordinance currentlyprohibits utility scale solar energy production. The Planning Commission asked what would happen if a building with aflat roof that was at its zoning district’s maximum height wanted to add solar panels; staff stated they would need avariance, but that if it was reasonably designed, staff would likely support the request. The Planning Commission votedunanimously to recommend approval.Correct a Typographical Error in the Interim Use StatuteReport Summary:The intent of Interim Use Permits (IUP) is to permit temporary uses with set expiration points. The expiration point iseither a fixed date or period, for example 10 years from the issuance of the IUP, or a set event, for example theextension of urban services to the site. Both types of termination conditions are present within IUPs issued by the city;however, the general issuance standards for interim use permits section 20­322(4) reads, “The date of event that willterminate the use can be identified with certainty.” As written, this would mean the city should only issue IUPs withfixed dates of termination, for example the 10­year anniversary of the permit, and not for future events of an uncertaindate, like the availability of urban services.In order to be consistent with how IUPs have been issued and with the intent of IUPs, this section should read “dateor event”. Staff believes the use of the word “of” rather than “or” is the result of a typing error during codification, andproposes fixing the error. As noted earlier, this language would be consistent with the existing termination clauses aswell as the intent of the IUP ordinance.Ordinance in Brief:Change text to read “date or event”.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission had no comments. The Planning Commission votedunanimously to recommend approval.Restrict Merchandise Sold at Temporary and Special Events to Goods Normally Sold on SiteReport Summary:In 2017, the city revised the section of the City Code that governs temporary and special events to better addresslarger events and races. As part of these revisions, the city switched from listing “criteria for approval” to stating“grounds for denial”. The goal of this shift was to provide stronger legal justification for denying permits that the citybelieved could negatively impact adjacent parcels or overtax municipal infrastructure and resources.  Most of thepreviously listed criteria for approval were rephrased and incorporated into the grounds for denial; however, therequirement that only merchandise normally sold or stocked by the occupants could be sold or promoted wasoverlooked.Due to this omission, properties with commercial zoning could theoretically apply for a temporary outdoor eventpermit to allow a business to set up a pop up shop in its parking lot. Since the goal of the ordinance is to allow forChanhassen’s businesses and organizations to promote themselves and host community events, rather thanaccommodating transient merchants, staff feels this is contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Staff proposes adding theomitted provision limiting merchandise sales to the section of the Code regulating temporary and special events.Ordinance in Brief:Add a requirement limiting goods sold at temporary and special events to those normally sold on site, with anexception for goods clearly accessory to the proposed event.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission clarified that private residential events were not covered bythis ordinance. The Planning Commission clarified that charities could fundraise by selling items.  The PlanningCommission asked if a fee would be involved in event permits; staff stated that there is a $50 temporary event fee and$100 special event fee. The Planning Commission asked how people knew they needed permits; staff responded thatbusinesses were aware of the ordinance and that staff had sent out informational letters in the past. Staff clarified thatthe proposed ordinance only addressed the types of goods sold during events. The Planning Commission votedunanimously to recommend approval.Adopt Minimum Driveway Configuration StandardsReport Summary:There have been several ongoing issues with driveways in the City of Chanhassen. The first is that builders who areinformed that they are over their zoning district’s hardcover limits are increasingly choosing to reconfigure driveways inorder to bring their proposed plans into compliance with City Ordinance. These reconfigured driveways sometimestaper so quickly down to the city’s 10­foot minimum width that there is not enough space provided to park cars infront of the garage or the movements needed to enter and exit the garage are impractical.The second concern is that the driveway ordinance’s minimum 10­foot side yard setback is more restrictive than theResidential Low and Medium (RLM) Density District’s 5­foot side yard setback. This creates a situation where manylots with RLM zoning have garages located five feet from the side lot line, which necessitates an exemption from thecity’s 10­foot side yard driveway setback.The final issue is that the driveway ordinance has been amended seven times since it was adopted in 2001. Many ofthese amendments added new subsections but did not place them under headings linking them to existing provisions.This has led to the current driveway ordinance being difficult for residents and builders to navigate.Staff is recommending expanding the minimum design standards to ensure that driveways provide sufficient off­streetparking and allow for functional movements, that the driveway setback be made commensurate to the property’sunderlying zoning for the first 20 feet, and that the section be reorganized to improve readability.Ordinance in Brief:Reorganize 13 existing subsections into six grouped subsections, rewrite subsections to improve clarity, requiredriveways to meet district’s side yard setback for the first 20 feet of length, allow reduction of setback to 5 feet afterthe first 20 feet of length or if exemption criteria can be met, require, subject design of required turnarounds toapproval by City Engineer, and require driveway to be the width of garage doors for the first 18 feet of length.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission asked how this would affect existing properties; staff notedthat most existing were either legal non­conforming or had received permission for their configuration from theEngineering department. The Planning Commission asked how non­functional driveways or over­built driveways wereapproved; staff explained that things are changed in the field or builders propose a poor design that technically meetscode and staff has to approve it. The Planning Commission asked what happens when things are not built to plan; staffclarified that after the fact enforcement actions were needed, which are difficult. The Planning Commission clarifiedthat permeable pavers could be used for the driveway. The Planning Commission asked what a zoning permit is; staffresponded it is a code check for improvements not covered by the State Building Code. The Planning Commissionvoted unanimously to recommend approval.Require Single­Family Homes to have Walkways and Concrete Pads for Stairs and LandingsReport Summary:Sidewalks and entrance/stair landings are typical features of homes; however, there are instances where they areomitted from proposed projects in order to meet the requirements of the city’s zoning code. When these features arenot included, homeowners often discover that they are necessary and have them constructed after the fact. Often theseafter­the­fact additions are constructed without a permit and do not meet the requirements of the City Code, whichcan lead to the city having to take enforcement actions. Staff is proposing amending the Code to require applicants toinclude these features in order to give staff the ability to require the revision of projects that have a high potential ofcausing future problems.Ordinance in Brief:Require at a minimum a four­foot wide walkway of improved surface connecting driveway and main entrance of homeand require at a minimum a three­foot wide landing for exterior stairs or access doors, unless a ten­feet­by­ten­feetpatio is already required.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission expressed concern that the use of the word assume wouldnot actually require walkways to be built and the use of the word deep could be confusing. The Planning Commissionclarified that these features could be construed using pavers and expressed concern that woodchips or non­hardscapewould be used. The Planning Commission asked how lot cover limits were determined; staff responded it was derivedfrom DNR standards and based on local characteristics. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommendapproval with amendments to address their concerns.Changes from Staff Report:Planning Commission amended the proposed ordinance to make it clear that these features were required, to requirethat walkways be constructed using bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, and to clarify the requireddimensions of landings.Adopt Airport Zoning StandardsReport Summary:A portion of the City of Chanhassen is located within the Flying Cloud Airport’s Airspace Zoning Limit. Structures andtrees within this area are subject to the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance’s provisions limiting the maximumheight of structures and trees within the airspace zoning limit and requiring airport zoning permits for the construction ofstructures above a certain height within the airspace zoning limit. The Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance lists theCity of Chanhassen as the party responsible for administering and enforcing its provisions within the city’s municipalboundaries. In order to fulfill this responsibility, the city must adopt the provisions of the Flying Cloud Airport ZoningOrdinance as part of its City Code. Staff believes that the most efficient way to do this is to establish an Airport ZoningOverlay District and adopt the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance by reference as additional standards forproperties within the overlay district. Staff believes this will have a minimal impact on the city. Ordinance in Brief: Establish Airport Zoning Overlay District for the portion of the city within Flying Cloud Airport’s Airspace Zoning Limit, subject properties within the Airport Zoning Overlay District to Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance, and adopt the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance by reference. Public Hearing: No comments from the public. The Planning Commission had no comments. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. Remove Obsolete Parking Lot Configuration Graphic Report Summary: During the review of a recently proposed parking lot plan, Engineering staff noticed that there was a discrepancy between the tables and clarifying graphic in section 20­1118. The graphic seemed to indicate that an aisle width of 13.5 feet would be permitted; however, the text of the ordinance requires a 15­foot aisle width. The City Attorney advised staff that the most recent ordinance would take precedence and recommended that the conflicting graphic be removed. Ordinance in Brief: Remove conflicting graphic. Public Hearing: No comments from the public. The Planning Commission had no comments. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. Reconcile Vote Requirements for Removal of Commissioners Report Summary: Currently, two conflicting sections of the City Code govern the removal of appointed commissioners. In the event that the City Council ever feels it necessary to remove an appointed commissioner, it is important that the City Code outline a clear and unambiguous process. Staff recommends reconciling the passages in favor of the majority vote provision. Ordinance in Brief: Delete language requiring a four­fifths vote of the City Council to remove commissioners and relocate language on announcing and filling vacancies from Section 2­46.15 to Section 2­46. Establish Electronic Message Center (ECM) Sign Fee Report Summary: While reviewing the City Code, staff discovered that the fee listed for electronic message centers (EMC) on the Planning Department’s Application Fee Schedule and Sign Permit section of the website was not listed under the section of the City Code that establishes permit fees. The city charges $100.00 for the review of permanent signs; however, due to the increased scrutiny associated with EMCs, the city has been charging $300.00 for the review of signs including an EMC. Staff has been unable to determine if or when the $300.00 fee was formally established or removed. Due to the unique standards and additional review associated with EMCs, staff recommends formally adopting the $300.00 fee that is currently being charged. Ordinance in Brief: Add a $300.00 Electronic Message Center Fee to list of sign permit fees. Update Base Minimum Building Valuation Standards Report Summary: Building permit fees are largely determined by the value of the project. When permit applicants apply for a building CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectOrdinance XXX: Amendments to Chanhassen City Code and Approval of Summary OrdinanceSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an Ordinance amending Chapters 2, 4, and 20 of the Chanhassen CityCode, and approves a Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes.”City Council approval of the proposed amendments requires a simple majority vote of the City Council and approvalof the summary ordinance requires a four­fifths vote of the entire Council.Approval requires a 4/5 Vote.SUMMARYOn November 19, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take public input on the proposed changesto Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. No member of the public spoke on the following proposed amendments:Remove Standard Specification and Detail Plate Requirement for Permeable Paver SystemsClarify Language Governing Recreational Beach LotsRequire Traffic Studies as Part of Site Plan ReviewsAdopt Zoning Standards for Solar Energy SystemsCorrect a Typographical Error in the Interim Use StatuteRestrict Merchandise Sold at Temporary and Special Events to Goods Normally Sold on SiteAdopt Minimum Driveway Configuration StandardsRequire Single­Family Homes to have Walkways and Concrete Pads for Stairs and LandingsAdopt Airport Zoning StandardsRemove Obsolete Parking Lot Configurations GraphicThe Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt these ordinances amendingChapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code.A brief summary of each item discussed and a synopsis of the Planning Commission’s discussion is provided below.The full staff report for each item is provided as an attachment.In addition to the above items, the following proposed amendments to Chapters 2 and 4 of the Chanhassen City Codeare proposed:Reconcile Vote Requirements for Removal of CommissionersEstablish Electronic Message Center (ECM) Sign FeeUpdate Base Minimum Building Valuation StandardsSince these amendments do not involve Chapters 18 or 20 of the City Code, a public hearing is not required and theydid not go before the Planning Commission. A brief summary of these items is provided below, and a full staff reportfor each of these items is provided as an attachment.Note:  A proposed amendment to ban the keeping of birds of prey was also discussed during the November 19, 2019Planning Commission meeting; however, since the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Councildeny the amendment, staff has withdrawn the proposed amendment.DISCUSSIONSUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTSRemoving Standard Specification and Detail Plate Requirement for Permeable Paver SystemsReport Summary:The city’s pervious paver ordinance requires pervious pavement systems be designed in compliance with standardsestablished by the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI) and follow the current version of the City ofChanhassen Standard and Specification and Detail Plates (City Standards). When staff investigated creating CityStandards for pervious pavers, staff discovered that due to the variety of pervious pavement systems and evolvingnature of pervious pavement technology, it would be cost and time prohibitive to create and maintain comprehensiveCity Standards. Additionally, City Standards are typically only used for public improvements or private projects thataffect the public rights­of way. Requiring a purely private pervious pavement system to adhere to a City Standardwould not be in keeping with how other private improvements are treated.Since the ICPI maintains a library with over 60 details and specifications for pervious pavement systems and theordinance already requires that pervious pavement systems be designed in accordance ICPI standards, staff believes itis unnecessary and redundant to create our own City Standards.Ordinance in Brief:Delete requirement to follow the current version of the City of Chanhassen Standard Specification and Detail Platesfrom the previous paver ordinance.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the structure and nature of ICPI.The Planning Commission expressed concern that quality materials be used to construct Pervious Pavement Systems.The Planning Commission asked if the city was planning to have more pervious pavement system and staff clarifiedthat it was up to individual residents to determine if they wanted to install these systems. The Planning Commissionvoted unanimously to recommend approval.Clarify Language Governing Recreational Beach LotsReport Summary:Several sections of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) standards for recreational beach lots, particularly the sectiongoverning overnight storage and mooring, are poorly structured. In its current state, it is difficult to read and hard todetermine what provisions apply and in what circumstances they apply. The city frequently receives calls from HOAsinterested in amending their CUP or clarifying their understanding of what is and is not permitted, and the confusingstructure of this section of the code can sometimes exacerbate rather than resolve their confusion. This section alsocontains an out­of­date reference that should be updated to continually reference the most recently adoptedcomprehensive plan. Finally, this section outlines a policy allowing adjacent lots under a common ownership to consolidatetheir docks that is confusing and unnecessary.Staff proposes to rewrite sections of the Code to clarify the intent of the portions that routinely cause confusion. Thesubstance and nature of the provisions governing recreational beach lots should not be changed, other than updating theout­of­date reference and removing unnecessary provisions, but phrasing and organization should be reworked in thehopes of creating a more user­friendly section.Ordinance in Brief:Replace reference to Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary with reference to most recentlyadopted MUSA, organize subsection 7 into separate clauses addressing docking, storage on racks, and sailboatmoorings, rewrite subsections 8 and 9 to improve clarity, place provision governing daytime docking and seaplanes inits own subsection, and rewrite subsection 15 to improve clarity.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission verified that the proposed changes would not alter theexisting storage limits. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.Require Traffic Studies as Part of Site Plan ReviewsReport Summary:As the city builds out, there are fewer undeveloped sites available. This, combined with the fact that some of thebuildings in the city’s older developments are nearing the end of their functional life span, means that there is increasedinterest in redeveloping existing sites. Many times this redevelopment takes the form of a new use that has the potentialto generate more traffic than the preexisting use. In some cases, these developments may increase traffic to the pointwhere the level of service of the surrounding roads is decreased.The best way to determine the impact of a development on the surrounding roads is to conduct a traffic study;however, the city’s site plan application requirements and review standards do not require applicant’s to provide atraffic study. Staff is proposing amending this section of the City Code to require the inclusion of traffic studies with siteplan applications when requested by staff and to add maintaining an acceptable road system level of service to theevaluation standards. This change would ensure staff can obtain sufficient information to evaluate the impact ofproposed developments on the city’s road system and that the City Council can act to protect the public interest insituations where a proposal will unacceptably degrade the road system’s level of service.Ordinance in Brief:Add “traffic study, if requested by the city” to the list of site plan application requirements and list “maintaining anacceptable road system level of service” to the site plan evaluation standards.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission clarified that the proposed amendment could apply to all siteplan throughout the city. Staff clarified that while there are currently situations where we can require traffic studies; thisis not always the case. The Planning Commission asked how traffic studies were conducted. Staff responded that theywere conducted by a consultant and the Engineering Department typically determined the relevant radius. The PlanningCommission asked when applicants would be informed of this requirement. Staff responded that it would typically bepart of the application, but that if the Planning Commission or City Council decided they required additionalinformation during the review process, it could also be required at that point. The Planning Commission clarified thatthis would apply to all zoning districts. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.Adopting Zoning Standards for Solar Energy SystemsReport Summary:The 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified supporting residential and business solar development that maintainscommunity character as a natural resources goal, and listed amending the City Code to include definitions, permitteduses and plans, and access to sunlight as it pertained to solar energy as a policy. The Natural Resources Chapter ofthe Comprehensive Plan clarifies this policy by noting that the city has prioritized tree planting which means publicinvestment in solar energy systems will be limited; however, the city wishes to facilitate the use of solar energy byprivate businesses and residences.Staff has reviewed the city’s existing solar energy provisions as well as literature and model ordinances produced bythe American Planning Association, the Great Plains Institute, and other organizations, and is proposing amending theCity Code to meet the policy objective stated in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment wouldallow accessory solar energy systems as a permitted use in all districts, adopt relevant definitions, encourage roof­mounted systems but allow for ground­mounted systems where roof­mounted systems are impractical, ensure thatsolar energy systems do not create nuisance glare, and establish basic design, installation, and permitting requirementsfor these systems.  Staff is not proposing expanding the City Code’s existing provisions that protect access to solarresources, as the existing code strikes a good balance between solar resources and other considerations. Staff is notproposing any restrictions on private individual’s ability to enter into solar easements or adopt more restrictivestandards that they feel are better suited to their neighborhood.Ordinance in Brief:List accessory solar energy systems as permitted accessory use in all zoning districts, define terms related to accessorysolar energy systems, establish standards for accessory solar energy systems, establish permit and installationrequirements for accessory solar energy systems, and establish provisions for addressing abandoned accessory solarenergy systems.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission asked for an estimate as to how large a solar energy systemwould need to be to power an average sized house; staff estimated around 500 square feet but cautioned that it wouldbe highly variable. The Planning Commission asked how staff would ensure installers where reputable or qualified; staffclarified that the building permit process would require a licensed contractor. The Planning Commission clarified thatthe systems could be attached to the grid. The Planning Commission clarified that the zoning ordinance currentlyprohibits utility scale solar energy production. The Planning Commission asked what would happen if a building with aflat roof that was at its zoning district’s maximum height wanted to add solar panels; staff stated they would need avariance, but that if it was reasonably designed, staff would likely support the request. The Planning Commission votedunanimously to recommend approval.Correct a Typographical Error in the Interim Use StatuteReport Summary:The intent of Interim Use Permits (IUP) is to permit temporary uses with set expiration points. The expiration point iseither a fixed date or period, for example 10 years from the issuance of the IUP, or a set event, for example theextension of urban services to the site. Both types of termination conditions are present within IUPs issued by the city;however, the general issuance standards for interim use permits section 20­322(4) reads, “The date of event that willterminate the use can be identified with certainty.” As written, this would mean the city should only issue IUPs withfixed dates of termination, for example the 10­year anniversary of the permit, and not for future events of an uncertaindate, like the availability of urban services.In order to be consistent with how IUPs have been issued and with the intent of IUPs, this section should read “dateor event”. Staff believes the use of the word “of” rather than “or” is the result of a typing error during codification, andproposes fixing the error. As noted earlier, this language would be consistent with the existing termination clauses aswell as the intent of the IUP ordinance.Ordinance in Brief:Change text to read “date or event”.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission had no comments. The Planning Commission votedunanimously to recommend approval.Restrict Merchandise Sold at Temporary and Special Events to Goods Normally Sold on SiteReport Summary:In 2017, the city revised the section of the City Code that governs temporary and special events to better addresslarger events and races. As part of these revisions, the city switched from listing “criteria for approval” to stating“grounds for denial”. The goal of this shift was to provide stronger legal justification for denying permits that the citybelieved could negatively impact adjacent parcels or overtax municipal infrastructure and resources.  Most of thepreviously listed criteria for approval were rephrased and incorporated into the grounds for denial; however, therequirement that only merchandise normally sold or stocked by the occupants could be sold or promoted wasoverlooked.Due to this omission, properties with commercial zoning could theoretically apply for a temporary outdoor eventpermit to allow a business to set up a pop up shop in its parking lot. Since the goal of the ordinance is to allow forChanhassen’s businesses and organizations to promote themselves and host community events, rather thanaccommodating transient merchants, staff feels this is contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Staff proposes adding theomitted provision limiting merchandise sales to the section of the Code regulating temporary and special events.Ordinance in Brief:Add a requirement limiting goods sold at temporary and special events to those normally sold on site, with anexception for goods clearly accessory to the proposed event.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission clarified that private residential events were not covered bythis ordinance. The Planning Commission clarified that charities could fundraise by selling items.  The PlanningCommission asked if a fee would be involved in event permits; staff stated that there is a $50 temporary event fee and$100 special event fee. The Planning Commission asked how people knew they needed permits; staff responded thatbusinesses were aware of the ordinance and that staff had sent out informational letters in the past. Staff clarified thatthe proposed ordinance only addressed the types of goods sold during events. The Planning Commission votedunanimously to recommend approval.Adopt Minimum Driveway Configuration StandardsReport Summary:There have been several ongoing issues with driveways in the City of Chanhassen. The first is that builders who areinformed that they are over their zoning district’s hardcover limits are increasingly choosing to reconfigure driveways inorder to bring their proposed plans into compliance with City Ordinance. These reconfigured driveways sometimestaper so quickly down to the city’s 10­foot minimum width that there is not enough space provided to park cars infront of the garage or the movements needed to enter and exit the garage are impractical.The second concern is that the driveway ordinance’s minimum 10­foot side yard setback is more restrictive than theResidential Low and Medium (RLM) Density District’s 5­foot side yard setback. This creates a situation where manylots with RLM zoning have garages located five feet from the side lot line, which necessitates an exemption from thecity’s 10­foot side yard driveway setback.The final issue is that the driveway ordinance has been amended seven times since it was adopted in 2001. Many ofthese amendments added new subsections but did not place them under headings linking them to existing provisions.This has led to the current driveway ordinance being difficult for residents and builders to navigate.Staff is recommending expanding the minimum design standards to ensure that driveways provide sufficient off­streetparking and allow for functional movements, that the driveway setback be made commensurate to the property’sunderlying zoning for the first 20 feet, and that the section be reorganized to improve readability.Ordinance in Brief:Reorganize 13 existing subsections into six grouped subsections, rewrite subsections to improve clarity, requiredriveways to meet district’s side yard setback for the first 20 feet of length, allow reduction of setback to 5 feet afterthe first 20 feet of length or if exemption criteria can be met, require, subject design of required turnarounds toapproval by City Engineer, and require driveway to be the width of garage doors for the first 18 feet of length.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission asked how this would affect existing properties; staff notedthat most existing were either legal non­conforming or had received permission for their configuration from theEngineering department. The Planning Commission asked how non­functional driveways or over­built driveways wereapproved; staff explained that things are changed in the field or builders propose a poor design that technically meetscode and staff has to approve it. The Planning Commission asked what happens when things are not built to plan; staffclarified that after the fact enforcement actions were needed, which are difficult. The Planning Commission clarifiedthat permeable pavers could be used for the driveway. The Planning Commission asked what a zoning permit is; staffresponded it is a code check for improvements not covered by the State Building Code. The Planning Commissionvoted unanimously to recommend approval.Require Single­Family Homes to have Walkways and Concrete Pads for Stairs and LandingsReport Summary:Sidewalks and entrance/stair landings are typical features of homes; however, there are instances where they areomitted from proposed projects in order to meet the requirements of the city’s zoning code. When these features arenot included, homeowners often discover that they are necessary and have them constructed after the fact. Often theseafter­the­fact additions are constructed without a permit and do not meet the requirements of the City Code, whichcan lead to the city having to take enforcement actions. Staff is proposing amending the Code to require applicants toinclude these features in order to give staff the ability to require the revision of projects that have a high potential ofcausing future problems.Ordinance in Brief:Require at a minimum a four­foot wide walkway of improved surface connecting driveway and main entrance of homeand require at a minimum a three­foot wide landing for exterior stairs or access doors, unless a ten­feet­by­ten­feetpatio is already required.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission expressed concern that the use of the word assume wouldnot actually require walkways to be built and the use of the word deep could be confusing. The Planning Commissionclarified that these features could be construed using pavers and expressed concern that woodchips or non­hardscapewould be used. The Planning Commission asked how lot cover limits were determined; staff responded it was derivedfrom DNR standards and based on local characteristics. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommendapproval with amendments to address their concerns.Changes from Staff Report:Planning Commission amended the proposed ordinance to make it clear that these features were required, to requirethat walkways be constructed using bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, and to clarify the requireddimensions of landings.Adopt Airport Zoning StandardsReport Summary:A portion of the City of Chanhassen is located within the Flying Cloud Airport’s Airspace Zoning Limit. Structures andtrees within this area are subject to the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance’s provisions limiting the maximumheight of structures and trees within the airspace zoning limit and requiring airport zoning permits for the construction ofstructures above a certain height within the airspace zoning limit. The Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance lists theCity of Chanhassen as the party responsible for administering and enforcing its provisions within the city’s municipalboundaries. In order to fulfill this responsibility, the city must adopt the provisions of the Flying Cloud Airport ZoningOrdinance as part of its City Code. Staff believes that the most efficient way to do this is to establish an Airport ZoningOverlay District and adopt the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance by reference as additional standards forproperties within the overlay district. Staff believes this will have a minimal impact on the city.Ordinance in Brief:Establish Airport Zoning Overlay District for the portion of the city within Flying Cloud Airport’s Airspace ZoningLimit, subject properties within the Airport Zoning Overlay District to Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance, andadopt the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance by reference.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission had no comments. The Planning Commission votedunanimously to recommend approval.Remove Obsolete Parking Lot Configuration GraphicReport Summary:During the review of a recently proposed parking lot plan, Engineering staff noticed that there was a discrepancybetween the tables and clarifying graphic in section 20­1118. The graphic seemed to indicate that an aisle width of13.5 feet would be permitted; however, the text of the ordinance requires a 15­foot aisle width. The City Attorneyadvised staff that the most recent ordinance would take precedence and recommended that the conflicting graphic beremoved.Ordinance in Brief:Remove conflicting graphic.Public Hearing:No comments from the public. The Planning Commission had no comments. The Planning Commission votedunanimously to recommend approval.Reconcile Vote Requirements for Removal of CommissionersReport Summary:Currently, two conflicting sections of the City Code govern the removal of appointed commissioners. In the event thatthe City Council ever feels it necessary to remove an appointed commissioner, it is important that the City Codeoutline a clear and unambiguous process. Staff recommends reconciling the passages in favor of the majority voteprovision.Ordinance in Brief:Delete language requiring a four­fifths vote of the City Council to remove commissioners and relocate language onannouncing and filling vacancies from Section 2­46.15 to Section 2­46.Establish Electronic Message Center (ECM) Sign FeeReport Summary:While reviewing the City Code, staff discovered that the fee listed for electronic message centers (EMC) on the PlanningDepartment’s Application Fee Schedule and Sign Permit section of the website was not listed under the section of theCity Code that establishes permit fees. The city charges $100.00 for the review of permanent signs; however, due to theincreased scrutiny associated with EMCs, the city has been charging $300.00 for the review of signs including an EMC.Staff has been unable to determine if or when the $300.00 fee was formally established or removed.Due to the unique standards and additional review associated with EMCs, staff recommends formally adopting the$300.00 fee that is currently being charged.Ordinance in Brief:Add a $300.00 Electronic Message Center Fee to list of sign permit fees.Update Base Minimum Building Valuation Standards Report Summary: Building permit fees are largely determined by the value of the project. When permit applicants apply for a building permit they are required to write in a value for the work they are doing. Since this valuation determines how much their building fee is, some contractors significantly understate the value. In instances where the number written is clearly incorrect, staff needs to have an alternative method available to determine the value of the improvement in order to ensure that the correct fee is paid. Currently, the ordinance refers to the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry as the source staff will use to determine minimum building valuation data; however, they do not actually provide this data. Staff is proposing that the International Code Council’s building valuation data be used instead. Ordinance in Brief: Replace reference to Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry with a reference to the International Code Council. RECOMMENDATION A full discussion of these items can be found in the attached staff reports. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Chapters 2, 4, and 20 of the City Code, and approve a Summary Ordinance for publication purposes. ATTACHMENTS: Omnibus Ordinance Ordinance Summary Pervious Pavement Design Standards Recreational Beachlots Site Plan Traffic Impacts Accessory Solar Energy Systems Interim Use Permit Correction Merchandise Sold at Temporary and Special Events Driveway Standards Sidewalks and Pads Airport Zoning Overlay District Obsolete Parking Lot Graphic Reconcile Vote Requirements Electronic Message Center Permit Fees Update Minimum Building Valuation 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, CHAPTER 4, LICENSE, PERMIT, AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES, AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 2-46 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-46. - Appointment to city committees, commissions, and boards. All vacancies on committees, commissions, and boards shall be advertised to seek applicants. Vacancies shall be announced in the city’s official newspaper and posted within city hall. Applications shall be available at the city clerk’s office and shall be forwarded to the City Council within the time prescribed. The City Council may interview applicants before making appointment. All appointments shall be by majority vote of the City Council. Vacancies during a term shall be filled for the unexpired portion of the term. Section 2. Section 2-46.15 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-46.15. - Resignations and removal from city committees, commissions, and boards. Members of a city committee, commission, or board may resign voluntarily or may be removed from office by a majority vote of the City Council. Section 3. Section 4-30(a)(1) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: 1. Building permit fees shall be as set forth in Table 1-A. When submittal of plans is required, and the valuation is more than $3,000.00, a plan review fee equal to 65 percent of the permit fee, shall also be charged. Base minimum building valuation shall be as established by the most current version of the International Code Council Building Valuation Data. Section 4. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 4-30(b)(8)(c) to read as follows: c) Electronic Message Center….. 300.00 Section 5. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-109(8) to read as follows: (8) The application shall include a traffic study, if requested by the City. 2 Section 6. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-110(9) to read as follows: (9) Maintaining an acceptable road system level of service. Section 7. Section 20-266 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-266. - Recreational beach lots. Intent. The city recognizes that the use of lakeshore as a recreational beach lot may be an intensive use of lakeshore that may present conflicts with neighboring uses of lakeshore or the use of other lakeshore on the same lake or the lake itself. Further, beach lots may generate complaints if they are not maintained to the same standards as single-family lakeshore lots. Therefore, the city requires the following conditions for recreational beach lots, in addition to such other conditions that may be prescribed in the permit: (1) Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200 feet of lake frontage. (2) For purposes of this subsection, the following terms shall mean those beach lots which are located either within (urban) or outside (rural) the Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in the most recently adopted comprehensive plan. a. Urban recreational beach lot: At least 80 percent of the dwelling units, which have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational beach lot, shall be located within 1,000 feet of the recreational beach lot. b. Rural recreational beach lot: A maximum of 50 dwelling units (including riparian lots) shall be permitted appurtenant rights of access to the recreational beach lot. Upon extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary into the rural area, the urban recreational beach lot standards will apply. (3) Except as specifically provided herein, no structure, ice fishing house, camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle, shelters (except gazebos) shall be erected, maintained, or stored upon any recreational beach lot. For the purpose of this section, a gazebo shall be defined as, "a freestanding roofed structure which is open on all sides." (4) No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini-bikes, all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles shall be driven upon or parked upon any recreational beach lot. (5) No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping. (6) Boat launches are prohibited. (7) Overnight storage or overnight mooring of motorized or non-motorized watercraft on recreational beach lots shall be subject to the following limits: a. Docking: i. A maximum of three motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per allowed dock. 3 ii. If a recreational beach lot allows more than one dock, the allowed boats may be clustered. b. Storage on Racks: i. Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes, kayaks, paddleboards, windsurfers, sailboards, and small sailboats may be stored overnight only if they are stored on racks specifically designed for their storage. ii. No more than six watercraft may be stored on a rack. iii. The number of racks shall not exceed either four racks or the amount of storage necessary to permit one rack slip per lot served by the beach lot, whichever is less. Under no circumstance may a recreational beach lot have more than 24 rack slips. c. Sailboat moorings: i. A maximum of three sailboat moorings may be permitted, subject to the requirements of section 20-266(9). (8) A maximum of three docks may be permitted on recreational beach lots, subject to the following standards: a. The recreational beach lot must have at least 200 feet of shoreline per dock. b. The recreational beach lot must have at least 30,000 square feet for the first dock and an additional 20,000 square feet for each additional dock. c. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six feet in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of 50 feet or the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of four feet. The width (but not the length) of the cross-bar of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the computation of length described in the preceding sentence. The crossbar of any such dock shall not measure in excess of 25 feet in length. d. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set-back zone. (9) A maximum of three sailboat moorings may be permitted on recreational beach lots subject to the following standards: a. The recreational beach lot must have at least 200 feet of shoreline per sailboat mooring. (10) Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft, where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach lot. (11) Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. 4 (12) No watercraft or boat lift shall be kept, moored, docked, or stored in the dock setback zone. (13) All recreational beach lots may be used for swimming beach purposes, but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with marker buoys which conform to the United States Coast Guard standards. (14) All recreational beach lots shall have a buffer sufficient to insulate other property owners from beach lot activities. This buffer may consist of topography, streets, vegetation, distance (width or depth), or other features or combinations of features which provide a buffer. To insure appropriate buffering, the city may impose conditions to insulate beach lot activities including, but not limited to: a. Increased side or front yard setbacks for beach areas, docks, racks or other allowed recreational equipment or activities; b. Hours of use; c. Planting and maintenance of trees and shrubs; d. Erection of fences; e. Standards of maintenance including mowing and trimming; painting and upkeep of racks, docks and other equipment; disposal of trash and debris; f. Increased width, depth or area requirements based upon the intensity of the use proposed or the number of dwellings having rights of access. (15) The use of and location of portable chemical toilets must be reviewed and approved as a condition of approval of a recreational beach lot. The maintenance and use of chemical toilets on some beach lots may be unsuitable because they cannot be adequately screened from residential neighbors or lake users. Any use of chemical toilets on recreational beach lots shall be subject to the following: a. The minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be 75 feet. Side and front yard setbacks shall be maximized to achieve maximum screening from adjacent lots and the lake. b. It may only be used Memorial Day to Labor Day and shall be removed from the lot during the rest of the year. c. It shall be securely anchored to the ground to prevent tipping. d. It shall be screened from the lake and residential property with landscaping. e. It shall be serviced at least weekly. f. Only models designed to minimize the potential for spilling may be used. g. Receipt of an annual license from the city's Planning department. The license shall be issued unless the conditions of approval of this ordinance have been violated. All license applications shall be accompanied by the following information: 1. Name, address, and phone number of applicants. 2. Site plan showing proposed location of chemical toilets. 3. Name, address, and phone number of chemical toilet supplier. 5 4. Plan for commercially maintaining the chemical toilet, including a copy of any agreement for maintenance, and the name, address, and phone number of person responsible for maintenance. 5. A written description of how the applicant intends to screen the portable chemical toilet from all views into the property, including views from the lake. (16) Gazebos may be permitted on recreational beach lots subject to City Council approval and the following standards: a. Minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be 75 feet. b. No gazebo shall be closer to any lot line than the minimum required yard setback for the zoning district in which the structure is located. c. Maximum size of the structure shall not exceed 250 square feet. d. Maximum height shall not exceed 20 feet. e. Gazebos shall make use of appropriate materials, colors, and architectural and landscape forms to create a unified, high-quality design concept for the lot which is compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures. f. Gazebos shall be properly maintained. Structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shall be repainted, repaired, removed, or replaced by the homeowners or beach lot association. g. The following improvements are prohibited in gazebos: screening used to completely enclose a wall, water and sewer service, fireplaces, and electricity. (17) The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks, and other structures shall be indicated on a site plan approved by the City Council. (18) To the extent feasible, the city may impose such conditions even after approval of the beach lot if the city finds it necessary. Section 8. Section 20-322(4) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: (4) The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. Section 9. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-573(11) to read as follows: (11) Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Section 10. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-593(10) to read as follows: (10) Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Section 11. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-613(9) to read as follows: 6 (9) Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Section 12. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-633(8) to read as follows: (8) Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Section 13. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-643(7) to read as follows: (7) Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Section 14. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-653(8) to read as follows: (8) Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Section 15. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-673(8) to read as follows: (8) Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Section 16. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-682(8) to read as follows: (8) Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Section 17. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-693(5) to read as follows: (5) Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Section 18. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-713(4) to read as follows: (4) Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Section 19. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-733(4) to read as follows: (4) Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Section 20. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-743(7) to read as follows: (7) Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Section 21. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-753(4) to read as follows: 7 (4) Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Section 22. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-772(4) to read as follows: (4) Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Section 23. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-793(5) to read as follows: (5) Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Section 24. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-813(6) to read as follows: (6) Accessory Solar Energy Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Section 25. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-905(7) to read as follows: (7) Where the main entrance does not connect directly to the driveway, a walkway constructed of bituminous, concrete, or other hard surface material at least four feet in width connecting the driveway and main entrance is required. This walkway must be shown to comply with required property line, lake and wetland setbacks; may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements; and shall not bring the site's lot coverage above that permitted by ordinance. Section 26. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-905(8) to read as follows: (8) A landing not less than three feet in length shall be constructed running the width of any exterior stairs or proposed access door, unless a ten-feet-by-ten-feet patio area is instead required by section 20-905(6). This landing must be shown to comply with required property line, lake and wetland setbacks; may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements; and shall not bring the site's lot coverage above that permitted by ordinance. Section 27. Section 20-921(3)(b) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: b. Pervious pavement systems must be designed to provide for rate and volume control for the first half-inch of treatment area. Treatment area includes the total square footage of the pervious pavement system plus the total square footage of impervious surface draining directly to the pervious pavement system. Section 28. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-964(7)(l) to read as follows: 8 l. The sale or event proposes to sell merchandise not normally sold or stocked by the occupants of the premises. Seasonal sales permits are exempted from this requirement, as is the sale of goods determined to be accessory to a proposed event (i.e. food truck or concession sales during an event or the limited sale of goods as part of a charity event). Section 29. Section 20-1093 to Section 20-1100 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Division 10. - Accessory Solar Energy Systems Sec. 20-1093. - Accessory Solar Energy Systems 1) Purpose. It is the intent of this section to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the community’s citizens by facilitating the safe, effective, and efficient use of accessory solar energy systems installed to reduce the on-site consumption of utility-supplied electric energy. The following solar energy standards specifically implement the following goal from the Comprehensive Plan: a. Support residential and business solar development that maintains community character. 2) Definitions. In this division, the following terms have the stated meanings: “Active Solar Energy Systems” means a solar energy system whose primary purpose is to harvest energy by transforming solar energy into another form of energy or transferring heat from a collector to another medium using mechanical, electrical, or chemical means. “Building-integrated Solar Energy Systems” means an active solar energy system that is an integral part of a principal or accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device, replacing or substitution or an architectural or structural component of the building. Building-integrated systems include but are not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems that are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings. “Passive Solar Energy System” means a solar energy system that captures solar light or heat without transforming it to another form of energy or transferring the energy via a heat exchanger. “Solar Collector” means a device, structure, or a part of a device or structure for which the primary purpose is to transform solar radiant energy into thermal, mechanical, chemical, or electrical energy. “Solar Collector Surface” means any part of a solar collector that absorbs solar energy for use in the collector’s energy transformation process. Collector surface does not include frames, supports, and mounting hardware. 9 “Solar Energy” means radiant energy received from the sun that can be collected in the form of heat or light by a solar collector. “Solar Energy System” means a device or structural design feature, a substantial purpose of which is to provide daylight for interior lighting or provide for the collection, storage and distribution of solar energy for space heating or cooling, electricity generating, or water heating. 3) Standards. a. Applicability. A system is considered an accessory solar energy system only if it supplies electrical or thermal power primarily for on-site use, except that when a property upon which the facility is installed also receives electrical power supplied by a utility company, excess electrical power generated and not presently needed for on-site use may be used by the utility company. b. Exemption. Passive or building-integrated solar energy systems are exempt for the requirements of this section and shall be regulated as any other building element. c. Location. i. Whenever practical, all accessory solar energy systems shall be attached to a building. If not designed to be attached to a building, the applicant shall demonstrate by credible evidence that such systems cannot feasibly be attached to a building due to structural limitations of the building. ii. In residential zoning districts, no portion of any accessory solar energy system shall be located within or above any front or side yard or within any required setback of any property, save that they may be located within rear yards so long as they maintain a minimum rear setback of ten feet. Ground-mounted systems on corner lots may not be located in any yard abutting a street. iii. In non-residential zoning districts, ground-mounted systems must comply with the district’s setbacks. d. Height. i. Building- or roof-mounted solar energy systems shall comply with the maximum height requirements in the applicable zoning district. Roof- mounted systems on pitched or hipped roofs may not extend above the peak of the roof. ii. Ground-mounted solar energy systems shall not exceed the maximum accessory structure height within the underlying zoning district. 10 e. Glare. i. Reflection angles from accessory solar energy system surfaces shall be oriented away from neighboring windows. ii. Accessory solar energy systems shall be designed and located in order to prevent reflective glare towards adjacent street right-of-way. f. Screening. i. Ground-mounted solar energy systems shall be screened from view to the extent possible without reducing their efficiency. Screening may include walls, fences, or landscaping. g. Design. i. Roof-mounted solar collectors shall be flush mounted on pitched or hipped roofs, and shall not extend beyond the exterior perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted. ii. Roof- and building-mounted solar energy systems shall use dark unobtrusive colors or colors that blend with the color of the roof or building. iii. All exterior electrical and/or plumbing lines must be buried below the surface of the ground and shall be placed in a conduit. 4) Permit and Installation: a. A building permit is required and shall be obtained for any solar energy system prior to installation. b. If roof-mounted, documentation shall be provided verifying that the roof can safely support the proposed system. c. The design and installation of accessory solar energy systems shall conform to applicable industry standards, including those of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Underwriters Laboratories (UL), or other similar certifying organizations, and shall comply with the Municipal Building Code and with all other applicable fire and life safety requirements. The manufacture specifications shall be submitted as part of the application. d. All grid connected systems shall have an agreement with the relevant utility prior to the issuance of a building permit. A visible external disconnect must be provided if required by the utility. 5) Abandonment. If the solar energy systems remain nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous period of one year, the system shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall constitute a public nuisance. The owner shall remove and recycle the abandoned system 11 at their expense after a demolition permit has been obtained. Removal includes the entire structure including transmission equipment. Sec. 20-1094 - 20-1100. - Reserved. Section 30. Section 20-1118 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-1118. - Design of parking stalls and drive aisles. (a) Parking spaces shall be designed in conformance with the following: parking stalls shall have a minimum paved dimension of nine feet by 18 feet. Stall and aisle dimensions shall be as noted below for the given angle: Angle Curb Length Stall Length Aisle 45 degree 12.0' 18.0' 15* 60 degree 10.0' 18.0' 18.5'* 90 degree 9' 18.0' 26' Parallel 20.0' 8.0' 22' *One-way aisles only. Dead end aisles must be provided with a 26-feet by ten feet unencumbered area at the end to facilitate vehicle turning movement. (b) All parking areas except those serving one- and two-family dwellings on local streets shall be designed so that cars shall not be required to back into the street. If deemed necessary for traffic safety, turn-around areas may be required in one- and two-family dwellings. (c) All parking and loading areas, aisles and driveways shall be bordered with raised concrete curbs or equivalent approved by the city. (d) All parking, loading and driveway areas shall be surfaced with asphalt, concrete or equivalent material approved by the city. (e) All parking stalls shall be marked with painted lines not less than four inches wide in accordance with the approved site and building plan. (f) All parking lots shall provide islands for traffic control as needed. (g) All parking areas shall be properly maintained in a neat and serviceable condition. (h) Up to 25 percent of the total number of required spaces may be for compact cars and have minimum paved dimensions as follows: 12 Angle Curb Length Stall Length 45° 10.0' 16.0' 60° 8.5' 17.5' 90° 7.5' 16.0' Parallel 16.0' 8.0' Compact car parking may be provided if the following conditions are met: (1) The parking area shall have a total size of at least 20 stalls; (2) Compact car stalls shall be identified by appropriate directional signs consistent with the city sign ordinance; (3) Compact car stalls shall be distributed throughout the parking area so as to have reasonable proximity to the structure served, but shall not have generally preferential, locations such that their use by noncompact cars will be encouraged; (4) The design of compact car areas shall to the maximum feasible extent be such as to discourage their use by noncompact cars; and (5) Compact parking stalls shall not be permitted for high turnover parking lots. Section 31. Section 20-1122 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-1122. - Access and driveways. The purpose of this section is to provide minimum design criteria, setback and slope standards for vehicular use. The intent is to reduce interference with drainage and utility easements by providing setback standards; reduce erosion by requiring a hard surface for all driveways; to limit the number of driveway access points to public streets and to direct drainage toward the street via establishment of minimum driveway slope standards. Parking and loading spaces shall have proper access from a public right-of-way. The number and width of access drives shall be located to minimize traffic congestion and abnormal traffic hazard. All driveways shall meet the following criteria: 1) Setbacks: Driveways shall meet the zoning district’s required side yard setback, except in the following circumstances: a. Beginning 20 feet from the front property line driveways may be setback a minimum of five feet from the side property line or the distance of the existing drainage and utility easement on the particular lot or parcel, whichever is greater. b. Encroachment into a side yard drainage and utility easement must be reviewed and approved by the city and requires an encroachment agreement. 13 c. Driveway setbacks may be reduced subject to approval by the City Engineer, if the following criteria are met: i. The lot frontage on a lot that accesses a cul-de-sac “bubble” or neck/flag lot does not permit adequate driveway access width or side yard setback; ii. The driveway will not interfere with any existing drainage swale or easement in which a utility is contained; iii. An easement encroachment agreement from the Engineering department, if required, is obtained; iv. The driveway must be designed to maintain stormwater drainage runoff on the property to ensure that it will not direct runoff onto adjacent properties; v. Snow storage may not be placed on adjacent properties; and, vi. A minimum 5-foot side yard setback shall be maintained. 2) Separation: On corner lots, the minimum spacing between the edge of the driveway and the corner right-of-way line shall be 30 feet. 3) Grades: Driveway grades shall be between a minimum of one-half of one percent and a maximum of 10 percent at any point in the driveway. The City Engineer may approve driveway grades in excess of 10 percent if they determine that extenuating circumstances exist. Examples of extenuating circumstances include bluffs, existing steep grades, shoreland setbacks, wetland conditions, and tree preservation. 4) Design Standards: All driveways must be constructed in accordance with current construction requirements/details. Additionally, they must adhere to the following standards: a. Within the right of way, driveways should access city streets at 90 degrees. b. Driveways shall be surfaced with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, as approved by the city engineer. c. Accessory driveways shall be maintained as natural grass or be constructed of bituminous, concrete, or paver surface. d. For A-2, PUD-R for single-family detached houses, RR, RSF, R-4 and RLM for single-family detached residential uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed 24 feet at the right-of-way line. Inside the property line of the site, the maximum driveway width shall not exceed 50 feet. For flag/neck lots, the lot coverage of the driveway access within the neck portion of flag/neck lots shall not exceed 33 percent of the neck's area. e. For all uses other than those specified in paragraph (d) above, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed 36 feet in width measured at the roadway right-of-way line. f. For all lots, no portion of the right-of-way may be paved except that portion used for the driveway. 14 g. For all lots, the minimum driveway width shall not be less than 10 feet. h. A turnaround is required on a driveway entering onto a state highway, county road or collector roadway as designated in the comprehensive plan, and onto city streets where this is deemed necessary by the City Engineer, based on traffic counts, sight distances, street grades, or other relevant factors. If the Engineer requires a turnaround, this requirement will be stated on the building permit and the design of the turnaround must be approved by the City Engineer. i. The driveway must be at least the width of the garage door(s) for a distance of 18 feet starting at the garage door and extending outwards. 5) Number of Driveway accesses within residential districts are limited as follows: a. One driveway access is allowed from a single residential lot to the street. b. Separate driveways serving utility facilities are permitted. 6) Permits Required: a. A driveway permit is required when any alteration is made to a driveway in the public right-of-way. b. A zoning permit is required for any other driveway work not in the public right of way to determine if the improvement will meet zoning ordinance requirements. Section 32. Section 20-1565 to Section 20-1580 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-1565 – 20-1574. – Reserved. ARTICLE XXXII. AIRPORT ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT Sec. 20-1575. – Establishment of Airport Zoning Overlay District. The Airport Zoning Overlay District shall be applied or superimposed (overlaid) upon all zoning districts within the portions of the City of Chanhassen depicted as being within the area labeled as Airspace Zoning Limit by the text and map contained in Exhibit D – “Airport Boundary and Airspace Zoning Limits” of the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance. Sec. 20-1576. – Requirements for Airport Zoning Overlay District. All properties within the Airport Zoning Overlay District are subject to the provisions of the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance. Sec. 20-1577. – Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance. The Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance adopted on April 10, 2019 by the Flying Cloud Airport Joint Airport Zoning Board, established pursuant to the authority conferred by Minnesota Statutes 360.061 to 360.074, is hereby adopted by reference. 15 Sec. 20-1578 – 20-1580. – Reserved. Section 33. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of December, 2019 by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor (Summary Ordinance XXX published in the Chanhassen Villager on [insert date]) 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, CHAPTER 4, LICENSE, PERMIT, AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES, AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE The purpose of these code amendments are as follows: Amend Section 2-46 to delete sentence requiring a four-fifth vote of City Council to remove commissioners and specify commissioner vacancy notification and appointment procedures; and, Amend Section 2-46.15 to delete commissioner vacancy notification and appointment procedures; and, Amend Section 4-30(a)(1) to reference the International Code Council Building Valuation Data when determining base minimum building valuation; and, Add Section 4-30(b)(8)(c) to set a fee of $300.00 for electronic message center sign permit applicants; and, Add Section 20-109(8) to allow the City to require a traffic study as part of a site plan application; and, Add Section 20-109(9) to list maintaining an acceptable road system level of service as a criteria for site plan review; and, Amend Section 20-266 to reference to most recently adopted MUSA, organize subsection 7 into separate clauses addressing docking, storage on racks, and sailboat moorings, rewrite subsections 8 and 9 to improve clarity, place provision governing daytime docking and seaplanes in its own subsection, rewrite subsection 15 to improve clarity, and remove provision allowing adjacent lots under common ownership to consolidate docks; and, Amend Section 20-322(4) to replace date of event with date or event; and, Add Sections 20-573(11), 20-593(10), 20-613(9), 20-633(8), 20-643(7), 20-653(8), 20- 673(8), 20-682(8), 20-693(5), 20-713(4), 20-733(4), 20-743(7), 20-753(4), 20-772(4), 20-793(5), and 20-813(6) to list accessory solar energy systems as permitted accessory uses; and, Add Section 20-905(7) requiring that main entrances of single-family homes be connected to the driveway by a four foot wide walkway constructed of bituminous, concrete, or other hard surface material; and, 2 Add Section 20-905(8) requiring that access doors and exterior stairs of single-family homes have landings, unless a ten-feet-by-ten-feet patio is already required; and, Amend Section 20-921(3)(b) to remove requirement that pervious pavement systems follow the current version of the City of Chanhassen Standard Specification and Detail Plates; and, Add Section 20-964(7)(l) restricting the sale of goods at temporary and special event to those typically sold on site, with an exception for goods clearly accessory to the event; and, Amend Sections 20-1093 to 20-1100 to state the purpose of accessory solar energy system ordinance, define terms relating to accessory solar energy systems, state applicability of ordinance, establish standards for location, height, glare, screening and design of accessory solar energy systems, establish permitting and installation requirements for accessory solar energy systems, and adopt clause to address the abandonment of solar energy systems; and, Amend Section 20-1118 to remove graphical representation of parking lot stall and aisle configurations; and, Amend Section 20-1122 to reorganize the section’s 13 subsections into six subsections, require driveways to meet zoning district’s side yard setback for first 20 feet of length, require a minimum driveway setback of 5 or the distance of any drainage and utility easement, remove provision referring to areas outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area, require driveways to be at least the width of the garage door(s) for a distance of 18 feet, and rewrite various provision to improve clarity; and, Amend Sections 20-1565 to 20-1580 to establish the boundaries of an Airport Zoning Overlay District, subject property’s within said overlay district to the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance, and adopt the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance by reference. A printed copy of Ordinance No. XXX 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 9th day of December, 2019, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on [insert date]) CITY OT CIIANHASSTN Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and planning for Tomorrow TO FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer November 19,2019 SUBJ: Pervious Pavement Systems - Design Standards SUMMARY: City Ordinance prescribes the use ofthe City of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for the design of pervious pavement systems. To date, the adoption of detail plates and standard specifications for pervious pavement systems into City Standards has not occurred. One reason for this is that the intent and use of City Standards is to create universal design criteria for the implementation and construction of public works projects. In addition, these standards are typically utilized for the build-out of infrastructure intended for the city to own and maintain, or private projects that have an impact on public rights-of-way. As pervious pavement systems are not an adopted practice for public projects. it was never necessary to have such City Standards. Along with requiring that designs meet City Standards, City Ordinance also requires pervious pavement systems be designed to the lnterlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI) standards, which houses over 60 details and multiple specifications for pervious pavement systems. In conjunction with these resources, ICPI also supplies information on finding certified installers, distributors, manufactures, suppliers; a database oftechnical papers on pervious pavement systems; other technical resources such as construction tolerances and recommendations; and technical specifi cation guidelines designed for govemment agencies. r/OO MARKET BOUTEVARO . PO BOX I47 .CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 553]7 MEMORANDTJM ISSUE: City Ordinance requires engineered pervious pavement systems to be designed in accordance with the current version of the City of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates (City Standards). Currently, the city has no set standards. Furthermore, there are many different types of pervious pavement systems. For example, there are pervious pavements, porous pavemenls, pervious pavers, plastic/concrete grids, and amended soils, just to name a few. Because of the plethora of systems, it would take considerable resources for staff to keep City Standards up to date with best practices for every type. PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110 Planning Commission Pervious Pavement Systems - Design Standards November 19,2019 Page 2 Given the above difficulties and the fact that the ICPI maintains an extensive catalog ofpervious pavement designs, which are already referenced by City Ordinance, staff proposes removing the Ordinance's reference to City Standards. This will eliminate the need for the city to develop and maintain a redundant set of standards. Pervious pavement systems are suitable for a wide variety of private residential, commercial and industrial applications. However, these systems require both proper installation and continual maintenance to function properly. Staff addressed maintenance concems by requiring owners enter into a maintenance agreement with the City, and addressed proper installation by requiring they meet both City Standards and ICPI design standards. As staff worked to develop City Standards for pervious pavement systems, it was determined that adopting independent City Standards would be an unnecessary duplication ofthe work already done by ICPI. In addition, City Sundards are generally reserved for the engineered specifications and details for publicly owned infrastructure, thus, staff believes that it would be onerous to continually update and track best practices and standards for private systems. Additionally, when it was investigated to augment staff time by having a consultant develop these standards, it became clear that developing and maintaining appropriate standards for the various types of pervious pavement systems would be cost prohibitive. An initial quote for producing one detail plate specific to pervious pavers was $5,000.00. As ICPI has already established and continually maintains and updates industry standards and detail plates for pervious pavement systems, staffbelieves it would be prudent to utilize ICPI's resources. This is similar to how the city utilizes MnDOT Specifications for construction projects or Ten State Standards for water and sewer specifications. Staff recommends Altemative 2. Staff believes that rather than having two design standards for pervious pavement systems (one by ICPI and one by the city), it would be more reasonable to have only one. 2 R.ELEVANT CITY CODE: Sec. 20-921. - Pervious Pavement. ANALYSIS: ALTERNATIVES: l) Do nothing. Leave City Code as is and update City Standards to include specifications and detail plates for pervious pavement systems. 2) Amend the City Code to eliminate the need to have City Standards as design criteria for pervious pavement systems. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission Pervious Pavement Systems - Design Standards November 19,2019 Page 3 The proposed amended pervious pavement ordinance would read as follows: Sec. 20-921. - Pervious pavement. Properly designed, installed, and maintained pervious pavements have the capacity to allow for stormwater detention and/or infiltration. When not properly designed, installed, and maintained pervious pavements fail to facilitate the detention and/or infiltration of stormwater. Additionally, pervious pavements contribute to the creation ofheat islands and do not provide the same surface water management benefrts as native vegetative cover. For these reasons, it is necessary to regulate the lot coverage, desigrr, installation, and maintenance of these systems. (l) Lot coverage.' Pervious pavements are considered to constitute lot coverage; however, when built to the standards espoused in this section they do not constitute impervious surfaces. Systems not built to the standards espoused in this section are considered to constitute impervious surfaces. (2) Localion restricl ions : a. Pervious pavements may not be installed in areas where trash or garbage receptacles will be stored. (3) Design and installarion: a. A building permit is required for the instillation ofpervious pavement systems. b. Pervious pavement systems must be designed to provide for rate and volume control for the first half-inch oftreatment area @ Treatment area includes the total square footage ofthe pervious pavement system plus the total square footage of impervious surface draining directly to the pervious pavement system. c. To meet the city's definition of pervious pavement, the system must: 1) be designed in compliance with standards established by the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI); 2) be installed by an ICPI certified installer; and 3) be designed to meet or exceed the standards listed in paragraph (3)b. d. The city engineer may permit pervious pavement technologies other than permeable interlocking concrete pavers, so long as the city engineer determines: I ) they are fimctionally equivalent or better; 2) the system is desigred in compliance with accepted guidelines and is installed by an appropriately certified installer; and 3) the system will meet or exceed the standards listed in paragraph (3)b. (4) Maintenance: a. The owner ofa pervious paver system must enter into a maintenance agreement with the city to ensure the system performs as designed in perpetuity. This agreement must conform to the manufactures guidelines, and stipulate the frequency and type of maintenance to be performed, 3 Planning Commission Pervious Pavement Systems - Design Standards November 19,2019 Page 4 (5) District restrictions: a. Planned Unit Developments Residential Districts (PUDR) are limited to the lot coverage specified by their ordinance and/or compliance table. For PUDRs created before June 1 1 , 201 8, the terms hardcover, hard surface, impervious surface, and similar phrases, shall be understood to mean lot cover inclusive ofboth pervious pavements and impervious surfaces, and in no circumstance shall the failure of the ordinance or compliance table to mention pervious pavements be understood to mean that pervious pavements are not subject to the lot cover, hardcover, hardscape, or similarly identified limits that govem the PUDR. b. Shoreland Management District restricts properties zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) to 25 percent lot coverage. c:\PLAl.I\City Code\20l9\20 | 9{5 vario$s\Pervious Pavement (Dcsign Stsndards[Pervious Pavernent Issue Paper.docx 4 CITY OT CHAI'IHASSIN MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Planning Commission MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner November 19,2019 Standards for Beach Lots ISSUE The section ofthe City Code governing recreational beach lots can be difficult to read and interpret, contains outdated references, and provisions that are not consistent with current city policy. Several sections ofthe Conditional Use Permit (CUP) standards for recreational beach lots, particularly the section goveming ovemight storage and mooring, are poorly structured. ln its current state, it is difficult to read and hard to determine what provisions apply and in what circumstances they apply. The city fiequently receives calls from HOAs interested in amending their CUP or clariffing their understanding of what is and is not permitted, and the confusing structure ofthis section ofthe code can sometimes exacerbate ralher than resolve their confusion. This section also contains an out-of-date reference that should be updated to continually reference the most recently adopted comprehensive plan. Finally, this section outlines a policy allowing adjacent lots under a common omership to consolidate their docks that is confi.rsing and unnecessary. Staff proposes to rewrite sections ofthe code to clarifo the intent ofthe portions that routinely cause confirsion. The substance and natue ofthe provisions goveming recreational beach lots should not be changed, other than updating the out-ofdate reference and removing ururecessary provisions, but phrasing and organization should be reworked in the hopes of creating a more user-friendly section. Sec. 1-2. - Rules of Construction and Definitions. Defines the term "Recreational beach lot". Sec.20-266. Recreational beach lots. Details the intent ofand standards for recreational beach lots. Amendment History PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110 77OO MARKET BOUTEVARD .PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317 Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SUMMARY RELEVANT CITY CODE Planning Commission Standards for Beach Lots November 19,2019 Page 2 Ordinance 80, passed in 1986, established the framework ofour existing zoning code and lists recreational beach los as a conditional use within residential districts. No standards, other than those generally goveming conditional uses, were put in place, nor was the term recreational beach lot defined. Ordinance 80-A, passed in 1987, defined the term "Recreational beach lot" and established limits for urban and rural recreational beach lots. Ordinance 83, passed in 1988, recodified the City Code into its current organizational structure and adopted standards goveming recreational beach lots. These standards have not been significantly changed since their adoption. Beach lots with non-conforming use permits tend to be older, often created by provisions within a subdivision's development contract or, more rarely, they are the result ofa use ofthe parcel predating city ordinances. Between 1992 and 1993, city staff undertook a project to determine what rights these prop€rties had and to determine the extent of their non-conformities. For those properties, a non-conforming use permit was issued by the City Council to formalize how they were being used and to prevent any expansion ofthe non-conformity beyond its verifiable historic level. Staffis often contacted by homeowners associations or property owners that have recreational beach lot rights granted by non-conforming use permits or conditional use permits to ask if they can modifo or expand their beach lot. Many times, they are interested in adding docks or increasing the amount of ovemight watercraft storage on the site. Due to the way portions of the existing ordinance run together and the fact that related provisions are spread throughout the section, they often struggle to decipher what is and is not permitted. The difficulty in interpreting this section also means it is challenging for staff to help them understand what the ordinance permits. Stalfs intent is to clearly break up and outline the ovemight storage provisions, simpliff language and sentence structure, and cluster related provisions to make this portion ofthe Code more accessible to residents and assist staffin explaining how the ordinance applies to a given 2 Ordinance 377, passed in 2004, moved the standard goveming recreational beach lots to section 20-266 (ftom section 20-263), and removed the 1987 date from the "grandfathered clause" in 20- 266(12).lt also fixed a formatting error where one of the subsections was not properly numbered. ANALYSIS There are approximately 26 recreational beach lots in the city. About halfofthese beach lots operate under a conditional use permit and the other half operate under a non-conforming use permit. Typically, the beach lots operating under a conditional use permit were created after 1986 and they meet the requirements ofthe existing conditionals use permit ordinance. Planning Commission Standards for Beach Lots November 19,2019 Page 3 property. Staffdoes not intend to substantively change the ordinance. Since all recreational beach lots are govemed by either a non-conforming use permit or a conditional use permit, any alteration to the content ofthis section would either create a legal non-conformity or require the amendment of the various beach lot permits. This would become especially problematic for the beach lots operating under non-conforming use permits, as large amounts of time, research, written affidavits, inspections, and, in some cases, legal action was required to establish those permits. Additionally, many HOAs have painstakingly created systems to allow for fair use of their beach lots and any alteration ofthe standards goveming these lots would have a significant impact on them and their members. Finally, recreational beach lots can have significant impact on other lake users and altering their standards without extensive public input would be inappropriate. Staffis proposing two minor changes to the content ofthe existing ordinance. Currently, the ordinance references the 2000 Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) with language indicating that it anticipates this line will be expanded. Currently, the city's comprehensive plan shows the 2020 MUSA line encompassing the city and this has been the case since the last comprehensive plan was adopted. Staffproposes amending the recreation beach lot ordinance to reference the MUSA established by the most recently adopted comprehensive plan. This update will remove any confusion caused by the outdated reference and remove the need to update the ordinance every time a new comprehensive plan is adopted. The other change is removing the subsection that reads: 'No dock shall encroach upon any dock set-back zone, provided, however, that the owner ofany two abutting lakeshore sites may erect one common dock within the dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, ifthe common dock is the only dock on the two lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions ofthis chapter." Not only is this provision confusing and poorly constructed, it does not serve a function. Theoretically, this provision would allow a homeowners associated (HOA) that owned two adjacent parcels of riparian land to consolidate both parcel's docking rights into a single dock located on the lot line. In practice, the city would not consent to the creation ofa new subdivision where the association beach lot was spread over two adjacent parcels and there would be no benefit to the HOA in having two parcels rather than one. Additionally, in a situation where the HOA did own two parcels and wanted to place the dock on the lot line, staffcould administratively create a zoning lot to allow this placement under the code's other provisions. Finally, staffis aware of only one existing beach lot that is comprised of two parcels, and this beach lot is a non-conforming use that would not be impacted by this change. Staff proposes rewriting this subsection to read, "No dock shall encroach upon any dock set-back zone." l)Do nothing. Staffis experienced at reading the ordinance in its current form, and has documentation of previous interpretations to support its application of the ordinance. 3 ALTERNATIVES 2)Amend Sec. 20-266 to improve readability, update the out-of-date reference, and remove unnecessary provisions. Staff recommends Altemative 2. The proposed amendments would read as follows: Sec. 20-266. - Recreational beach lots. lntenl. he city recognizes that the use of lakeshore bymCtiple-pa*ies as a recreational beach lot may be an intensive use of lakeshore that may present conflicts with neighboring uses of lakeshore or the use of other lakeshore on the same lake or the lake itself. Further, beach lots may generate complaints ifthey are not maintained to the same standards as single-family lakeshore lots. Therefore, the city requires the following conditions for recreational beach lots, in addition to such other conditions that may be prescribed in the permit: (1) Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200 feet of lake frontage. (2) For purposes ofthis subsection, the following terms shall mean those beach lots which are located either within (urban) or outside (rural) the Year2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in the most recently adopted comprehensive plan. (3) a. Urban recreationol beach /or.'At least 80 percent ofthe dwelling units, which have appurtenant rights ofaccess to any recreational beach lot, shall be located within 1,000 feet ofthe recreational beach lot. b. Rural recreational beach /ot: A maximum of 50 dwelling units (including riparian lots) shall be permitted appurtenant rights ofaccess to the recreational beach lot. Upon extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary into the rural are4 the urban recreational beach lot standards will apply. Except as specifically provided herein, no structure, ice fishing house, cnmper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle, shelters (except gazebos) shall be erected, maintained, or stored upon any recreational beach lot. For the purpose of this section, a gazebo shall be defined as, "a freestanding roofed structure which is open on all sides." No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini-bikes, all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles shall be driven upon or parked upon any recreational beach lot. No recreational beach lot shall be used for ovemight camping. 4 (4) (s) Planning Commission Standards for Beach Lots November 19,2019 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission Standards for Beach Lots November 19,2019 Page 5 (6) (7) Boat launches are prohibited. Ne reereatienat Ueaen ev€+ni ak€+edtoq/v are+tere+e* ix watereraft may be stered en a raek, The number efraeks shall net exeeed the loq herleYer; in no ease n€ekhg of €ther water ov€migh+ Overnight storage or overnight mooring of motorized or non-motorized watercraft on recreational beach lots shall be subject to the following limits: a. b. c. Docking: i. A maximum of three motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per allowed dock ii. Ifa recreational beach lot allows more than one dock, the allowed boats may be clustered. Storage on Racks: i. Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes, kayaks, paddleboards, windsurfers, sailboards, and small sailboats may be stored overnight only if they are stored on racks specifically designed for their storage. ii. No more than six watercraft may be stored on a rack iii. The number of racks shall not exceed either four racks or the amount of storage necessary to permit one rack slip per lot served by the beach lot, whichever is less. Under no circumstance may a recreational beach lot have more than 24 rack slips. Sailboat moorings: i. A maximum of three sailboat moorings may be permitted, subject to the requirements of section 20-266(9). (8) The A maximum number of three docks may be permitted on a recreational beach lots, subject to the following standards: istlree,Ne-deeleshallbe eendi+iens+ a. The recreational beach lot must have Shereliae-ef at least 200 feet of shoreline per dock. and 5 Planning Commission Standards for Beach Lots November 19,2019 Page 6 b. The recreational beach lot must have A+e+efat least 30,000 square feet for the first dock and an additional 20,000 square feet for each additional dock. c. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six feet in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of50 feet or the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a waler depth of four feet. The width (but not the length) ofthe cross-bar ofany "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the computation of length described in the preceding sentence. The crossbar ofany such dock shall not measure in excess of25 feet in lenglh. d.Nodockshallencroachuponanydockset-backzone.'fi@ that th€ ewner ef any tive abutting lakeshere sites may ere€t ene eefiIrnon ;f tne aeel< etlenvise eon (e) @A maximum of three sailboat moorings may be permitted on recreational beach lots subject to the following standards: a. The recreational beach lot must have at least 200 feet of shoreline per sailboat mooring. (10) Ovemight docking, mooring, and slorage of watercraft, where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant ofhomes which have appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach lot. (11) Docking ofother watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. (12) No watercraft or boat lift shall be kept, moored, docked, or stored in the dock setback zone. (13) All recreational beach lots may be used for swimming beach purposes, but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with marker buoys which conform to the United States Coast Guard standards. (14) All recreational beach lots shall have a buffer sufficient to insulate other property owners from beach lot activities. This buffer may consist of topography, streets, vegetation, distance (width or depth), or other features or combinations of features which provide a buffer. To insure appropriate buffering, the city may impose conditions to insulate beach lot activities including, but not limited to: 6 Planning Commission Standards for Beach Lots November 19,2019 PageT (15) a. Increased side or front yard setbacks for beach areas, docks, racks or other allowed recreational equipment or activities; b. Hours of use; c. Planting and maintenance of trees and shrubs; d. Erection of fences; e. Standards of maintenance including mowing and trimming; painting and upkeep ofracks, docks and other equipment; disposal of trash and debris; f. Increased width, depth or area requirements based upon the intensity of the use proposed or the number of dwellings having rights of access. The use of and location of portable chemical toilets may$e-all,erred must be reviewed and approved as a condition of approval ofa recreational beach lot. The maintenance and use of chemical toilets on some beach lots may be unsuitable because they cannot be adequately screened from residential neighbors or lake users. Any use of chemical toilets on recreational beach lots shall be subject to the following: a. The minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be 75 feet. Side and front yard setbacks shall be maximized to achieve maximum screening from adjacent lots and the lake. b. It may only be used Memorial Day to Labor Day and shall be removed from the lot during the rest of the year. c. It shall be securely anchored to the ground to prevent tipping. d. It shall be screened from the lake and residential property with landscaping. e. It shall be serviced at least weekly. f. Only models designed to minimize the potential for spilling may be used. C. Receipt ofan annual license from the city's Planning depafiment. The license shall be issued unless the conditions of approval ofthis ordinance have been violated. All license applications shall be accompanied by the following information: l Name, address, and phone number of applicants. 2. Site plan showing proposed location of chemical toilets. 3. Name, address, and phone number ofchemical toilet supplier. 4. Plan for commercially maintaining the chemical toilet, including a copy ofany agreement for maintenance, and the name, address, and phone number ofperson responsible for maintenance. 7 Planning Commission Standards for Beach Lots November 19,2019 Page 8 5. A written description ofhow the applicant intends to screen the portable chemical toilet from all views into the property, including views from the lake. Gazebos may be permitted on recreational beach lots subject to City Council approval and the following standards: a. Minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be 75 feet. b. No gazebo shall be closer to any lot line than the minimum required yard setback for the zoning district in which the structure is located. c. Maximum size ofthe structure shall not exceed 250 square feet. d. Maximum height shall not exceed 20 feet. e. Gazebos shall make use of appropriate materials, colors, and architectural and landscape forms to create a unified, high-quality design concept for the lot which is compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures. f. Gazebos shall be properly maintained. Structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shall be repainted, repaired, removed, or replaced by the homeowners or beach lot association. g. The following improvements are prohibited in gazebos: screening used to completely enclose a wall, water and sewer service, fireplaces, and electricity. The placement ofdocks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks, and other structures shall be indicated on a site plan approved by the City Council. To the extent feasible, the city may impose such conditions even after approval of the beach lot if the city finds it necessary. glplan\cio codeuol9\2019{5 various\beachlot updare\beachlor issue paper.docx (16) (17) (18) 8 CITY OT CHANHASSII'I Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow MEMORANDUM FROM: TO Planning Commission MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner November 19,2019 Site Plan - Traffrc Impact DATE: SUBJ: The section ofthe City Code that regulates site plans does not require a traffic study or explicitly list traffic impacts under its evaluation standards. SUMMARY As the city builds out, there are fewer undeveloped sites available. This combined with the fact that some of the buildings in the city's older developments are nearing the end oftheir functional life span means that there is increased interest in redeveloping existing sites. Many times this redevelopment takes the form ofa new use that has the potential to generate more traffrc than the preexisting use. In some cases, these developments may increase traffic to the point where the level of service ofthe surrounding roads is decreased. The best way to determine the impact of a development on the surrounding roads is to conduct a traffic study; however, the city's site plan application requirements and review standards do not require applicant's to provide a traffic study. Staff is proposing amending this section of the City Code to require the inclusion oftraffic studies with site plan applications when requested by staff and to add maintaining an acceptable road system level of service to the evaluation standards. This change would ensure staff can obtain sufficient information to evaluate the impact ofproposed developments on the city's road system and that the City Council can act to protect the public interest in situations where a proposal will unacceptably degrade the road system's level ofservice Chapter 20 - Zontng, Article II. - Administration and Enforcement, Division VI. - Site Plan Review The intent of the city's site plan review process is to facilitate a comprehensive review ofnew or intensified development with the goal of mitigating the adverse impacts ofone land use upon another, promoting the orderly and safe flow of traffrc, and preserve and enhance the natural and PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110 77OO MARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317 ISSUE RELEVANT CITY CODE ANALYSIS Planning Commission Site Plan - Traffic Impact November 19,2019 Page2 built environment. To accomplish these goals, the City Code specifies what materials should be submitted with a site plan application and the standards that a site and building plan should meet. Despite the fact that the ordinance's intent statement implies that offsite impacts on neighboring properties and traffic should be addressed, the application requirements and standards within the site plan ordinance are very focused on the site itself. This intemal orientation is because applicants only have control over property they own, so the review process fiocuses on how they are developing their property and how it accesses the public right ofway and surrounding parcels. Additionally, the city has historically been engaged in greenfield development. In these cases, large projects that could create significant traffic impacts were required to either dedicate right-of-way and construct public streets or build private streets to accommodate their intemal traffic circulation. These types oflarge developments were also guided to locate near collector or arterial roadways that could absorb the traffic generated by the developments. As some ofthe city's older commercial and industrial buildings age, there is increased interest in redeveloping these properties. Often times the proposed redevelopment is a more intense use than the existing building could accommodate, and, in some cases, the traffic infrastructue that was constructed as part of the initial development may not be able to adequately support the new use. Due to the intemal focus ofthe site plan ordinance, it is difficult to evaluate and address these types of offsite impacts. Staff first became aware of this concem several years ago when a number ofolder properties redeveloped to incorporate drive-thru facilities. The city addressed concerns over drive-through stacking and impacts by amending the City Code in 2017 to classifu all drive-throughs as conditional uses, and adding a provision to the condition use permit (CUP) standards for drive-throughs allowing the city to require a vehicle stacking study as part ofthe CUP application. This amendment has allowed staff to more effectively evaluate and respond to subsequent requests to construct new drive+hrough facilities within the city. With the continued interest in redeveloping existing sites, it is important to ensure that the city has access to sufficient information to evaluate traffic impacts for all types of uses, not just drive- thoughs. Staffis proposing adding a provision to the site plan application requirements allowing staff to require traffic studies and adding maintaining an acceptable road system level ofservice to the site plan evaluation standards. This change would ensure staff can obtain suffrcient information to evaluate the impact of proposed developments on the city's road system and that the City Council can act to protect the public interest in situations where a proposal will unacceptably degrade the road system's level of service. ALTERNATIVES 1) Do nothing. Many larger projects provide traffic studies and a development's impact on the road system is part of the holistic review of a site plan. ) Planning Commission Site Plan - Traffic Impact November 19,2019 Page 3 2) Amend Sec. 20- 109 and Sec. 20- l l0 to allow the city to require traffic studies and to list impact on road system level of service as a review criterion. RECOM ATION Staff recommends Altemative 2. The proposed amendments would read as follows: Sec. 20-109. - Applications. Application for a site plan review shall be made to the city planner on forms provided by the city and shall be frled 30 days in advance of the planning commission meeting, at which it is to be considered. Prior to filing an application for site plan review, the applicant shall attend a conference with city staff. The primary purpose ofthe conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance on the general merits of the proposal and its conformity to the provisions ofthe comprehensive plan and the City Code before incurring substantial expense. Incomplete or deficient applications shall not be scheduled for a meeting unless the community development director has determined that official action is warranted. The application shall also include: ( I ) Evidence of ownership or an interest in the property; (2) The application fee; (3) Complete site plans, sigred by a registered architect, civil engineer, landscape architect or other design professional, to include the following. (4) General: a. Name of project. b. Name, address and telephone number of applicant, engineer, and owner of record. c. Legal description (certificate of survey will be required). d. Date proposed, north arrow, engineering scale, number of sheets, name of drawer. e. Vicinity map showing relationship ofthe proposed development to surrounding streets, rights-of-way, easements and natural features. f. Description of intended use ofthe site, buildings and structures, including type of occupancy and estimated occupancy load. g. Existing zoning and land use. h. Tabulation box indicating: l. Size of parcel in acres and square feet. 2. Gross floor area ofeach building. 3. Percent ofsite covered by building. J Planning Commission Site Plan - Traffrc Impact November 19,2019 Page 4 4. Percent of lot coverage on site broken out by impervious surface and pervious pavement. 5. Percent ofsite covered by parking area. 6. Projected number of employees. 7 . Number of seats if intended use is a restaurant or place of assembly. 8. Number of parking spaces required. 9. Number of parking spaces provided including handicapped. 10. Height of all buildings and structures and number of stories. ll. Breakdown ofthe building area allocated for specific uses, e.g., manufacturing, office, retail, showroom, warehouse, etc. (5) Site and building plan: a. Property line dimensions, location ofall existing and proposed sfiuctures with distance from boundaries, distance between structures, building dimensions and floor elevations. b. Grading and &ainage plans showing existing natural features (topography, wetlands, vegetation, etc.), as well as proposed grade elevations and sedimentation and stormwater retention ponds. Plans shall include runoff and storage calculations for ten- year and 100-year events. If stormwater is proposed to be routed to existing stonnwater ponds, documentation shall be provided to demonstrate that the downstream pond is sufficient to accommodate the additional stormwater. c. All existing and proposed points of egress/ingress showing widths at property lines, tuming radii abutting rights-of-way with indicated centerline, width, paving width, existing and proposed median cuts, and intersections of streets and driveways. d. Vehicular circulation system showing location and dimension for all driveways, parking spaces, parking lot aisles, service roads, loading areas, fire lanes, emergency access (if necessary), public and private streets, alleys, sidewalks, bike paths, direction oftraffic flow and trafiic-control devices. e. Landscaping plan in accordance with the provisions of article XXV' f. Location, access and screening detail of trash enclosures. g. Location and screening detail of rooftop equipment. Screening shall be provided from the perspective ofa point six feet high at all adjacent property lines or from a distance of250 feet, whichever is geater. h. Location and detail of signage including method of lighting, height, width, sign display area, etc. i. Lighting location, style, mounting and photo metrics. 4 Planning Commission Site Plan - Traffic Impact November 19,2019 Page 5 j. Building elevations from all directions indicating materials and colors. Interiot floor plans may be required. k. Utility plan identifiing size and direction of existing water and sewer lines, fire hydrants, distance of hydrant to proposed building. l. List ofproposed hazardous materials, use and storage. m. Proposed fre protection system. n. Such other information as may be required by the city. o. Photo composite images, artistic renderings, or site elevations which depict the visual impact of the proposed development's design, landscaping, street layout, signage, pedestrian ways, lighting, buildings, or other details that affect land use within the city shall be submitted. Such images and renderings shall be from key vantage points and provide an undistorted perspective ofthe proposed development from abutting properties, less intensive land uses, and/or from entryway locations. Photorealistic imaging or renderings are the appropriate level ofresolution. (6) llithin the HC districts, the application shall also include: a. Building elevations from all directions, indicating materials, colors and landscaping at installation. b. Building and site views from Highway 5, the appropriate access boulevard (north or south of Highway 5), and any other appropriate arterial or collector roadways. c. Site views showing the relationships of the proposed building or development to adjacent development, including buffered areas. d. Drawings ofall significant or atypical site features, such as unusual landscaping, manmade water features other than retention ponds, outdoor sculpture, or other large- scale artwork and other uncommon constructs. e. Sample building materials. f. Sample paving materials, upon the city's request. (7) Ilithin the BCO distict, the application shall also include: a. Identified boundaries ofthe primary zone and secondary zone on a drawing depicting existing conditions and on a site plan depicting the proposed development pattem. b. Calculations and/or drawings that identify the allowable density (number of units or building coverage) under this Code, including lands lying in the primary and secondary zone. Calculation of allowable density shall specifically exclude lands classified as bluffs, floodplains and designated wetlands. Calculation of allowable lot coverage may include bluffs and floodplains but shall specifically exclude designated wetlands. (8) The application shall include a trafiic study, if requested by the City. 5 Sec. 20-1 10. - Standards. Planning Commission Site Plan - Traffic Impact November 19. 2019 Page 6 In evaluating a site and building plan, the planning commission and city council shall consider its compliance with the following: (l) Consistency with the elements and objectives ofthe city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation ofthe site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and desigring grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An intemal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site and provision ofa desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression ofthe design concept and the compatibility ofthe same with the adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms oflocation and number ofaccess points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation ofpedestrian and vehicular traflic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects ofdesign not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. (7) Maintaining an acceptable road system level of service. (8) Within the HC districts, consistency with the purpose, intent and standards of the HC districts. (9) Within the BCO district, consistency with the purpose, intent and standards of the BCO district. g:\plan\city code\2019\201945 various\site plan (traffic)hite plan tramc $udy issue pater.docx 6 T + \ fl[ CITY OT CHAI'IIIASSXN Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner November 19,2019 Accessory Solar Energy SystemsSUBJ: ISSUE The City Code is largely silent on accessory solar energy systems, and amending the code to explicitly address the installation ofthese systems was adopted as a policy in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified supporting residential and business solar development that maintains community character as a natural resources goal, and listed amending the City Code to include definitions, permitted uses and plans, and access to sunlight as it pertained to solar energy as a policy. The Natural Resources Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan clarifies this policy by noting that the city has prioritized tree planting which means public invesunent in solar energy systems will be limited; however, the city wishes to facilitate the use of solar energy by private businesses and residences. Staff has reviewed the city's existing solar energy provisions as well as literature and model ordinances produced by the American Planning Association, the Great Plains Institute, and other organizations, and is proposing amending the City Code to meet the policy objective stated in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment would allow accessory solar energy systems as a permitted use in all districts, adopt relevant definitions, encourage roof-mounted systems but allow for ground-mounted systems where roof-mounted systems are impractical, ensure that solar energy systems do not create nuisance glare, and establish basic design, installation, and permitting requirements for these systems. Staffis not proposing expanding the City Code's existing provisions that protect access to solar resources, as the existing code strikes a good balance between solar resources and other considerations. Staffis not proposing any restrictions on private individual's ability to enter into solar easements or adopt more restrictive standards that they feel are better suited to their neighborhood. PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110 77OO I'4ARKET BOULEVARD . PO 8OX ]47 .CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317 SUMMARY Planning Commission Accessory Solar Energy Systems November 19,2019 Page2 RELEVANT CITY CODE Sec. 7-18. - Building code: Adopts Chapter 1325 - Solar Energy Systems of the Minnesota State Building Code. Sec. l8-60. - Lots: Requires subdivision lot layouts to take into consideration the potential use of solar energy design features. Sec. 20-58. - General conditions for granting: Lists inadequate access to direct sunlight as a practical diffrculty that canjustifr a variance request. Sec.20-232. - General issuance standards: Lists not resulting in the destruction, loss, or damage of solar access as a finding for granting a conditional use permit' Sec. 20- 1061 . - Intent: Design standards for commercial, industrial, and office-institutional developments require the consideration of solar effects in the site design' Sec. 20- 1086. - Intent: Design standards for multi-family developments require the consideration of solar effects in the site design. Issue I: Ovemiew on solor energ) systems Solar energy systems can be active or passive. Passive systems utilize solar energy without transforming it to another form ofenergy or transferring it via a heat exchanger. Examples ofa passive system would be skylights to naturally light the interior ofa house, large south facing windows to allow the sun to help heat the house, or utilizing construction materials that absorb sunlight and radiates it into the interior ofthe house. Since passive solar energy systems are integral design elements ofa building, they are not addressed in this report. Their use would be governed by the building code and general zoning provisions applicable to all buildings. Active solar energy systems fall into two major categories: 1) photovoltaic systems that convert sunlight into energy, and 2) solar thermal systems that use solar energy to create heat. Photovoltaic systems can be mounted at a fixed angle or placed on tracking devices that follow the sun. These systems can be ofvastly different scales ranging from large solar farms that produce enough power to supply a community to small residential systems that partially meet the needs of a single-family home. Within communities such as Chanhassen, they most often take the form of relatively modest roof-mounted systems designed to provide energy for on-site use. Solar thermal systems are often used to heat water as part of residential hot water systems. Such systems can also be used for space heating/cooling or heating spas and swimming pools. These systems do not typically generate electrical energy, but rather reduce the amount ofelectricity needed to heat water or a building. 2 ANALYSIS Planning Commission Accessory Solar Energy Systems November 19,2019 Page 3 Issue 2: llhot scale/lype of syslems should be allowed? Solar energy systems can be ofvastly different scale. Large solar energy systems designed to produce significant amounts ofenergy for sale to utility companies are not currently permitted by the city's zoning code, nor does the 2040 Comprehensive Plan contemplate permitting such uses. Staffs proposed ordinance would only apply to accessory solar energy systems where the energy generated is primarily intended for on-site use. From a zoning perspective, the differences between the various types ofactive solar energy systems are not significant enough to require separate regulations. In instances where system design has extemal impacts, for example using solar reflectors rather than collectors, general design provisions limiting placement, height, and glare should be sufficient to prevent negative impacts. Staff believes it is appropriate to use broad language and definitions that can encompass all types ofactive solar energy systems so that overly specific language does not unintentionally prevent the use ofnew innovations in solar energy systems. As was previously noted, passive/building inte$ated solar energy systems would continue to be govemed by the state building code and general zoning provlslons. Issue 3: Howfilhere should lhese systems be allowed? The 2040 Comprehensive Plans goal of supporting residential and business solar development is best achieved by classi$ing accessory solar energy systems as a permitted use in all ofthe city's zoning districts. This classification will allow property owners in the city the option of installing accessory solar energy systems that comply with the city's zoning code by applying for and receiving a building permit. Staffbelieves that classiffing these systems as conditional uses, which would require public hearings and City Council approval, would subject them to an excessive and unnecess:rry level of scrutiny. Issue 1: Potenlial impact on neighbors The most common concem that municipalities have about allowing solar energy systems in urban environments is the possibility ofthe solar panels creating glare that annoys the neighbors or poses a danger to motorists. Cunently, the city's Planning Department reviews building permits for solar energy systems in order to ensue that their proposed location will comply with the glare provisions of the city's nuisance ordinance. To date, all of the residential solar energy systems that have been installed in the city have been roof-mounted systems, which, by virtue oftheir elevation and orientation, have a low potential for affecting neighboring properties or motorists. The city has not received any complaints about glare generated from solar energy systems. Generally, glare is not a signihcant issue for systems using solar collectors since they are designed to absorb sunlight rather than reflect it. Solar collectors are constructed ofdark-colored materials and covered with anti-reflective coatings in order to minimize the reflected light since reflected light represents a loss ofoperation efficiency. The glare produced by solar collectors is similar to that produced by a glass window, and since panels are angled towards the sun, most ofthe light reflect is 3 Planning Commission Accessory Solar Energy Systems November 19,2019 Page 4 directed up and away. Additionally, when glare is generated, it tends to be for a relatively short duration due to both the daily and seasonal movements ofthe sun. Some solar energy systems do utilize reflectors rather than solar collectors. These systems do have the potential to reflect enough light to cause glare issues. In most cases, these issues can be mitigated through a combination of location, screening, and system design. Staff proposes to address potential glare issues by requiring solar energy systems to orient reflection angles away from neighboring windows, requiring systems to be located where they will not direct glare towards public right ofways, expressing a preference for roof-mounted systems, and requiring screening for ground-mounted systems. The other potential impact ofaccessory solar energy systems is aesthetic. Some neighbors may find these systems to be visually obtrusive or unsightly, or be concemed that the proliferation ofthese systems could significantly alter the character oftheir neighborhood. These types of concems can be applied to any other type of accessory use in residential neighborhoods, and accessory solar energy systems should be subject to the same types ofprovisions that govem other accessory structures. Staffproposes requiring roof- and building-mounted systems to use dark unobtrusive colors or colors that blend into roofor building that the system is attached too, and requiring ground-mounted systems to be located in the rear ofthe structure outside ofany required setbacks. A screening requirement is also proposed for ground-mounted systems and these systems would be subject to their District's maximum accessory structure height. Issue 5: Should Homeownerc Associalions be able to restrict these systems? Cities have the option to adopt language preventing homeowners associations (HOA) from adopting more restrictive requirements for solar energy systems than are present in the City Code. The advantage ofthese tlpes ofprovisions is that they ensure that interested citizens have the ability to install solar energy systems meeting the city's guidelines regardless of what neighborhood they happen to live in. These provisions can also avoid the conflicts that can arise when a resident buys and installs a system after receiving a permit from the city, only to have the HOA inform them that the HOA's bylaws do not allow the system in question. It should be noted that the city is often unaware of HOA restrictions and that it is up to the HOAs to notify residents of their rules and, if necessary, enforce their regulations. The downsides to these types of provisions is that they can be seen as govemment overreach and preempting local control. Some residents feel that they and their neighbors should be able to determine what types ofaccessory uses are suitable for their neighborhood. It should be noted that an amendment preventing more restrictive requirements would not just prevent an HOA from banning solar energy systems, it would also prevent them from exercising more moderate limits such as establishing higher aesthetic criteria, requiring additional screening, or imposing minimum efficiency standards for solar energy systems. 4 Planning Commission Accessory Solar Energy Systems November 19,2019 Page 5 Issue 6: Should lhe cily guarantee solar access? Minnesota law allows for the creation ofsolar easements that protect a property's solar access tn perpetuiry. Typically, these easements prevent adjacent properties from building structures or planting vegetation that would block sunlight from reaching a solar energy system. Some communities have adopted ordinances that allow them to require developers to enter into solar easements as a condition ofa PUD, subdivision, or conditional use permit. A few cities throughout the nation have adopted provisions guaranteeing solar access throughout their communities. Currently, Chanhassen requires subdivisions to take potential solar energy design features into account, lists not resulting in the destruction or damage ofsolar access as a condition for granting conditional use permits, and requires commercial, industrial, office-institutional, and multi-family developments to consider solar effects in their site design. The city's current approach requires staff and developers to be mindful of potential impact of development on solar resources, but does not prioritize solar resources over other natural resources. Statutory provisions or solar easements ensuring access to solar resources do guarantee that the functionality of an installed solar energy system will not be impaired by future development, but they can also come into conflict with other environmental resources. For example, an already existing tree could grow to height where it begins to shade a solar collector or new homeowner may find they are unable to plant trees due to a neighbor's solar energy system. In these cases, blanket provisions protecting solar access for the installation ofa new solar energy system may create conflicts with pre-existing trees. The city has chosen to prioritize tree cover in its 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and for this reason, staff does not propose adopting any new Code provisions guaranteeing solar access or requiring solar easements. Private citizens would still have the right to purchase or grant solar easements to guarantee permanent solar access for their solar energy systems. Staff proposes allowing HOAs and similarly empowered neighborhood level organizations to determine what, if any, additional requirements are appropriate for their community. ALTERNATIVES l) Do nothing. The glare ordinance and state building code provide sufficient guidance to allow roof-mounted systems in residential districts. 2) Amend the City Code to include definitions, standards, and list accessory solar energy systems as permitted uses in all districts. 3) Amend the City Code to include definitions, standards, list accessory solar energy systems as permitted uses in all districts, and include provisions limiting the ability of HOAs to restrict the installation of solar energy systems. 4) Amend the City Code to include definitions, standards, list accessory solar energy systems as permitted uses in all districts, include provisions limiting the ability of HOAs to restrict the installation ofsolar energy systems, and protect resident's access to sunlight. 5 Planning Commission Accessory Solar Energy Systems November 19" 2019 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Altemative 2. Staffbelieves that adopting definitions, standards, and clearly stating what solar energy systems are allowed and where they may be located will make the community more solar friendly. Staff does not believe it is practical to attempt to guarantee access to sunlight and feels HOAs and similar organizations should be allowed to determine their own policies on solar energy systems. The proposed solar energy ordinance would read as follows: Sec. 20-573. - Permitted accessory uses (l l) Accessory Solar Enerry Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Division 10. - Accessory Solar Energr Systems Sec. 20-593. - Permitted accessory uses (10) Accessory Solar Energr Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Sec. 20{13. - Permitted accessotT uses (9) AccessorT Solar Energr Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Sec. 20-633. - Permitted accessorT uses (8) Accessory Solar Enerry Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Sec. 20-643. - Permitted accessory uses (7) Accessory Solar Enerry Systems (subject to the requiremeuts of section 20-f093) Sec. 20{53. - Permitted accessor? uses (8) Accessory Solar Energr Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Sec. 20{73. - Permitted accessorT uses (8) Accessory Solar Energr Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Sec. 20-682. - Permitted accessorJ uses (8) Accessory Solar Enerry Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Sec. 20{93. - Permitted accessorT uses 6 Planning Commission Accessory Solar Energy Systems November 19,2019 Page 7 (5) Accessory Solar Energr Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Sec. 20-713. - Permitted accessorT uses (4) Accessory Solar Enerry Systems (subject to the requirements ofsection 20-1093) Sec. 20-733. - Permitted accessory uses (4) Accessory Solar Energr Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-f093) Sec. 20-743. - Permitted accessorT uses Accessory Solar Energr Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Sec. 20-753. - Permitted accessory uses (4) Accessory Solar Enerry Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Sec.20-772. - Permitted accessorJ uses (4) Accessora Solar Energr Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-f093) Sec. 20-793. - Permitted accessory uses (4) Accessory Solar Enerry Systems (subject to the requirements ofsection 20-1093) Sec. 20-813. - Permitted accessorT uses (6) Accessory Solar Enerry Systems (subject to the requirements of section 20-1093) Division 10. - Accessory Solar Energr Systems Sec. 20-1093. - Accessory Solar Energr Systems l) Purpose.It is the intent of this section to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and preserve the health, safety, and welfare ofthe community's citizens by facilitating the safe, effective, and efficient use of accessory solar energr systems installed to reduce the on-site consumption of utility-supplied electric enerry. The following solar energr standards specifically implement the following goal from the Comprehensive Plan: a. Support residential and business solar development that maintains community character. 7 Planning Commission Accessory Solar Energy Systems November 19,2019 Page 8 2) DeJinitions,In this division, the following terms have the stated meanings: "Active Solar Energr Systems" means a solar energr system whose primary purpose is to harvest enerry by transforming solar enerry into another form of enerry or transferring heat from a collector to another medium using mechanical, electrical, or chemical means. "Building-integrated Solar Enerry Systems' means an active solar enerry system that is an integral part of a principal or accessorJ building rather than a separate mechanical device, replacing or substitution or an architectural or structural component of the building. Building-integrated systems include but are not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energr systems that are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights' and awnings. "Passive Solar Enerry System" means a solar enerry system that captures solar light or heat without transforming it to another form of enerry or transferring the enerry via a heat exchanger. "Solar Collector'means a device, structure, or a part ofa device or structure for which the primary purpose is to transform solar radiant energi into thermal, mechanical, chemical, or electrical energr. "Solar Collector Surface" means any part of a solar collector that absorbs solar enerry for use in the collector's ener5/ transformation process. Collector surface does not include frames, supports, and mounting hardware. "Solar Enerry" means radiant enerry received from the sun that can be collected in the form of heat or light by a solar collector. "Solar Energr System" means a device or structural design feature, a substantial purpose of which is to provide daylight for interior lighting or provide for the collection, storage and distribution ofsolar enerry for space heating or cooling, electricity generating, or water heating. 3) Standards. a, Applicability. A system is considered an accessory solar enerry system only if it supplies electrical or thermal power primarily for on-site use, except that when a property upon which the facility is installed also receives electrical power supplied by a utility company, excess electrical power generated and not presently needed for on-site use may be used by the utility company. 8 Planning Commission Accessory Solar Energy Systems November 19,2019 Page 9 b. Exemption. Passive or building-integrated solar enerry systems are exempt for tbe requirements of this section and shall be regulated as any other building element. i. Whenever practical, all accessory solar energr systems shall be attached to a building. Ifnot designed to be attached to a building' the applicant shall demonstrate by credible evidence that such systems cannot feasibly be attached to a building due to structural limitations of the building. tl.In residential zoning districts, no portion of any accessory solar enerry system shall be located within or above any front or side yard or within any required setback of any property' save that they may be located within rear yards so long as they maintain a minimum rear setback of ten feet. Ground-mounted systems on corner lots may not be located in any yard abutting a street. In non-residential zoning districts, ground-mounted systems must comply with the district's setbacks. d. Height. i. Building- or roof-mounted solar enerry systems shall comply with the maximum height requirements in the applicable zoning district. Roof- mounted systems on pitched or hipped roofs may not extend above the peak of the roof. ii. Ground-mounted solar energi systems shall not exceed the maximum accessory structure height within the underlying zoning district. e. Glore. i. Reflection angles from accessory solar enerry system surfaces shall be oriented away from neighboring windows. lI.Accessory solar enerry systems shall be designed and located in order to prevent reflective glare towards adjacent street right-of-way. f. Screening i. Ground-mounted solar energr systems shall be screened from view to 9 llt, c. Location. g. Design. Roof-mounted solar collectors shall be flush mounted on pitched or hipped roofs, and shall not extend beyond the exterior perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted. ii. Roof- and building-mounted solar ener5/ systems shall use dark unobtrusive colors or colors that blend with the color ofthe roof or building. iii. All exterior electrical and/or plumbing lines must be buried below the surface of the ground and shall be placed in a conduit. 4) Permit and Installotion: a. A building permit is required and shall be obtained for any solar energr system prior to installation. b. If roof-mounted, documentation shall be provided verifoing that the roof can safely support the proposed system. The design and installation of accessory solar energr systems shall conform to applicable industry standards, including those of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Underwriters Laboratories (UL), or other similar certi$ing organizations, and shall comply with the Municipal Building Code and with all other applicable fire and life safety requirements. The manufacture specifications shall be submitted as part of the application. 5) Abondonmezf. If the solar enerry systems remain nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous period of one year, the system shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall constitute a public nuisance. The owner shall remove and recycle the abandoned system at their expense after a demolition permit has been obtained. Removal includes the entire structure including transmission equipment. C:\PLAN\City Code\2019\2019-05 Various\Solar\Accessory Solar Issue Paper.docx c l0 Planning Commission Accessory Solar Energy Systems November 19,2019 Page l0 the extent possible without reducing their efficiency, Screening may include walls, fences, or landscaping. d. All grid connected systems shall have an agreement with the relevant utility prior to the issuance of a building permit. A visible external disconnect must be provided if required by the utility. CITY OT CIIAI'IHASSXN Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Planning Commission MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner November 19,2019 Fringe Business District - Uses Section 20-322(4) reads, "The date ofevent that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty." This section should read "date or event". In 1990, the city created interim use permits (lUP) and began classifoing uses that it desired to be temporary in nature as interim uses. The purpose of IUPs are to accommodate uses that are curently appropriate to an area, but which the city anticipates will not be appropriate in the future. The main difference between an IUP and a conditional use permits (CUP) is that a CUP will continue to be in effect so long as the use is maintained, whereas IUPs have built in expiration clauses. ANALYSIS The intent of IUPs are to permit temporary uses with set expiration points. The expiration point is either a fixed date or period, for example l0 years from the issuance of the IUP, or a set event, for example the extension ofurban services to the site. Both types of termination conditions are present within IUPs issued by the City; however, the general issuance standards for interim use permits section 20-322(4) reads. "The date ofevent that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty." As written, this would mean the city should only issue IUPs with frxed dates of termination, for example the 1O-year anniversary ofthe permit, and not for future events ofan uncertain date, like the availability of urban services. PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110 71OO MARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX t47. CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 553]7 ISSUE BACKGROUND RELEVANT CITY CODE Chapter 20 - Zo ng, Article IV. - Conditional Uses: This article details general criteria, conditions, and procedures for granting and revoking CUPs and IUPs. Planning Commission Fringe Business District - Uses November 19, 2019 Page 2 ALTERNATIVES RECOMMEND N Stalf recommends Altemative 1. The proposed Code Amendment would read as follows: Sec.20-322. - General issuance standards. (Ord. No. 377, 5 28, 5-24-04) g:Vlan\city code\2o19\2019{5 variors\iup minor correclion\iup minor comction issue paper-docx 1 In order to be consistent with how IUPs have been issued and with the intent of IUPs, this section should read "date or event". Staffbelieves the use of the word "of' rather than "or" is the result ofa typing enor during codification, and proposes fixing the error. As noted earlier, this language would be consistent with the existing termination clauses as well as the intent ofthe IUP ordinance. I ) Amend the ordinance to read "dater or event". 2) Do nothing. IUPs come up very seldom and conditions could likely be phrased to meet the requirements ofthe existing ordinance. The Planning Commission shall recommend an interim use permit and the council shall issue interim permits only if it finds, based on the proposed location, that: (l) The use meets the standards ofa conditional use permit set forth in section 20-232 of the City Code. (2) The use conforms to the zoning regulations. (3) The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district. (4) The date efor event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. (5) The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. (6) The user agrees to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for permission of the use. CITY OT CIIANHASSAI'I Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow MEMORANDUM TO Planning Commission MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner November 19,2019 Temporary Events - Allowable Merchandise FROM: SUBJ: ISSUE When the temporary sales and events ordinance was updated in 2017, the prohibition on selling merchandise not normally stocked by the occupant ofthe premises was removed. This created the potential for pop up retail businesses to operate under temporary event permits within commercial disticts. In2017, the city revised the section ofthe City Code that governs temporary and special events to better address larger events and races. As part ofthese revisions, the city switched from listing "criteria for approval" to stating "grounds for denial". The goal of this shift was to provide stronger legal justification for denying permits that the city believed could negatively impact adjacent parcels or overt.x municipal infrastructure and resources. Most ofthe previously listed criteria for approval where rephrased and incorporated into the grounds for denial; however, the requirement that only merchandise normally sold or stocked by the occupants could be sold or promoted was overlooked. Due to this omission, properties with commercial zoning could theoretically apply for a temporary outdoor event permit to allow a business to set up a pop up shop in its parking lot. Since the goal of the ordinance is to allow for Chanhassen's businesses and organizations to promote themselves and host community events, rather than accommodating transient merchants, staff feels this is contrary to the intent ofthe ordinance. Staff proposes adding the omitted provision limiting merchandise sales to the section ofthe Code regulating temporary and special events. RELEVANT CITY CODE Sec. 1-2. - Rules of Construction and Definitions. Defines the term temporary outdoor sales. PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1t10 //OO I4ARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I47 . CHANHASSEN . MINNESOTA 55517 ,II 0\ tl fl[S DATE: SUMMARY Planning Commission Temporary Events - Allowable Merchandise November 19,2019 Page 2 Sec. 20-964. - Temporary outdoor events, sidewalk sales, seasonal sales, and special events. Establishes the intent oftemporary and special event ordinance, permit requirements for events, application process, grounds for denial, permit conditions, and provisions for administration and enforcement of the ordinance. Amendmenl Hislory Ordinance 80 passed in 1986 established the framework for the existing zoning code and listed temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale as a conditional use within commercial districts. Granting temporary sales permit required Council action and no standards beyond those associated with general conditional use permits (CUP) were established. Ordinance 83 passed in 1988 reorganized the City Code, established a definition for temporary outdoor sales and established CUP standards for them in section 20-290. These new standards took into account traffic and parking impact and allowed for the administrative review of temporary sales permits. Both retail promotions and produce stands were allowed under this ordinance. Ordinance 243 passed in 1995 amended section 20-290 to provide ajustification for regulating temporary sales, to stipulate the required permit application process, establish criteria for approval, list the permitted tnes ofsales, and stipulate the general conditions that were placed upon these permits. One ofthe criteria for approval was that only merchandise normally sold or stocked by the occupant on the subject premises could be sold. Ordinance 377 passed in 2004 relocated section 20-290 to section 20-312 and temporary outdoor sales were moved from conditional to permitted accessory uses within commercial districts. A section was also added further regulating the location ofdisplays associated with temporary events. Ordinance 5 1 1 passed in 20 I 0 relocated section 20-3 I 2 to section 20-964 and expanded the section to explicitly address temporary outdoor events, seasonal and sidewalk sales activates rather than just temporary outdoor sales. 2 Ordinance 619 passed in 2017 expanded the section to encompass special events and to require race addendums for events leaving the applicant's prop€rty. Temporary events and sales were added to both the industrial office park and office institutional district's list of permitted accessory uses. This section ofthe Code was significantly altered to include unique provisions and requirements for temporary sales, seasonal sales, and special events. The criteria for approval section was replaced with grounds for denial section. The limitation ofsales to merchandise normally sold and stocked by the occupant on the subject premises was not retained. Planning Commission Temporary Events - Allowable Merchandise November 19,2019 Page 3 Note: These standards have been relocated within the City Code several times, which makes it extremely challenging to trace the history ofthese provisions. Staff has done its best to note the relevant changes, but some amendments may have been missed. The intent ofthe city's special and temporary event ordinance is to allow local businesses and organizations the opportunity to promote themselves or organize community events that require the temporary use ofan outdoor location. In 1986, the ordinance was originally designed to accommodate weekend promotions and sidewalk sales; however, in 1988 it was it was subsequently expanded to accommodate and regulate seasonal produce stands. In 1995, a formal permitting process and prohibition on the sale ofmerchandise not normally sold on site was established. As business started to engage in more promotional events that did not neatly fall into the categories of retail promotions or seasonal produce stands, the ordinance was revised in 2010 to allow for more general temporary outdoor events as well as seasonal and sidewalk sales. The prohibition on outside merchandise remained as the intent was still to allow an existing business to promote itself, rather than permit transient merchants to operate within the city. In 2017, the city noticed a significant increase in the number of permit applications for races and walks. The city realized that the existing temporary event ordinance was not designed to evaluate the impact that large events that left the applicant's property could have adjacent parcels and the city's trail, sidewalk, and road system. Additionally, several organizations were hosting large events with thousands of attendees that were far beyond the scope that had been anticipated by earlier ordinances. In response to this, the city rewrote the temporary and special event ordinance to create three categories ofevent permits, a race addendum, and establish criteria for the denial of permits. Most of the preexisting limitations on permits where carried over; however, the prohibition on the sale of merchandise not normally sold on site was not. This prohibition was not carried over because staffbelieved that the prohibition on activities not permitted by zoning or other statute was suffrcient, and because ofthe potential for desired temporary and special events to include the incidental sale ofgoods. For example, a bank's open house may feature a food truck or a church's charity walk might include t-shirt sales. Staff felt that this increased flexibility was especially desirable for special events, particularly those hosted by non-profits that typically had no on-site commercial activity. Unfortunately, by not including this prohibition, staff undermined the intent ofthe ordinance. Without the restriction to goods typically sold on site, pop-up tent vendors and otler transient merchants could be permitted by ordinance. For example, a gas station could apply for a temporary event permit to allow an outside merchant to set up a weekend t-shirt stand in their parking lot. Since 1995, it has been the explicil intent ofthe temporary and special event ordinance to prohibit pop-up parking lot stands. 3 ANALYSIS Staff believes that a criterion for denial should be added to the section ofthe City Code regulating temporary and special events that prohibits the sale of merchandise not normally sold on the property, with an exemption for seasonal sales and goods accessory to the event. Structuring the prohibition in this manner will prohibit transient merchants from operating under a temporary event permit, but will allow for food trucks and limited sales associated with special events. It will also accommodate concession sales at events hosted by non-profit organizations, like churches and schools, which typically do not sell merchandise on site. Finally, seasonal sales would continue to be allowed, accommodating traditional community fixtures like produce stands and Christmas tree lots. Staff feels the above proposal will balance providing some additional flexibility in permitted event activities with prohibiting pop up parking lot sales. ALTERI{ATIVES I ) Do nothing. The city rarely receives these types of requests, and business owners are typically leery of leasing portions oftheir parking lots to unaffiliated entities. 2) Amend Sec. 20-964 to include a prohibition on sales of merchandise not normally sold by the occupants of the premises, with exceptions for the sale ofgoods that are clearly accessory to the proposed event. Staff recommends Altemative 2. The proposed amendments would read as follows: Sec.20-964. - Temporary outdoor events, sidewalk sales, seasonal sales and special events (7) Grounds for deniol. A sales or event permit application may be denied if based on the application and other relevant information, the city finds that: a. Information contained in the application or otherwise submiued by the applicant is false or insufficient to allow for an effective evaluation ofthe proposed sale or event. b. The applicant fails to provide required or requested supplemental information after having been notified by the city that additional documentation is required. c. The applicant fails to agree to all conditions and terms of permit. d. The applicant has outstanding fees due to the city, unresolved code enforcement or noncompliant building permit issues, has violated the terms and conditions ofa previously issued sale or event permit, or has had a previously issued sale or event permit revoked by the city. e. The type of sale or event is not permitted by zoning or other statute. f. The sale or event proposes to sell merchandise not normally sold or stocked by the occupants of the premises. Seasonal sales permits are exempted from this 4 Planning Commission Temporary Evens - Allowable Merchandise November 19,2019 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission Temporary Events - Allowable Merchandise November 19,2019 Page 5 requirement, as is the sale of goods determined to be accessory to a proposed event (i.e. food truck or concession sales during an event or the limited sale of goods as part of a charity event). gf. The time, hours, location, size, or natue ofthe sale or event will substantially disrupt or burden traffic, parking, public safety, or other municipal services and the city does not have sufficient resowces to mitigate these impacts. hg. The location or time of the sale or event conflicts with previously scheduled sales or events, and the city does not have sufficient resources available to adequately support both sales or events and/or normal operation ofthe city. ih. The location of the sale or event would interfere with construction or maintenance work scheduled to take place upon or along public property or right-of-way. ji. The location of the sale or event would cause undue hardship for adjacent uses. ki. The sale or event is likely to endanger public safety, health or property. lk. The applicant does not have the required liability insurance. glplan\city c.deuol9U01945 varioustemp evenb limi6 on merch issue paper.docx 5 CITY OT CIIANIIASSII'I Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow MEMORANDUM TO Planning Commission MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner November 19,2019 Driveway Standards FROM: DATE: SUBJ: The city's minimum driveway standards are not sufficient to ensure that functional driveways are installed, nor do the required side yard setbacks align with some ofthe city's zoning districts. Additionally, the existing driveway ordinance contains redundancies and should be reorganized to improve clarity. SUMMARY There have been several ongoing issues with driveways in the City of Chanhassen. The first is that builders who are informed that they are over their zoning district's hardcover limits are increasingly choosing to reconfigure driveways in order to bring their proposed plans into compliance with City Ordinance. These reconfigured driveways sometimes taper so quickly down to the city's l0-foot minimum width that there is not enough space provided to park cars in fiont of the garage or the movements needed to enter and exit the garage are impractical. The second concem is that the driveway ordinance's minimum l0-foot side yard setback is more restrictive than the Residential Low and Medium (RLM) Density District's S-foot side yard setback. This creates a situation where many lots with RLM zoning have garages located hve feet from the side lot line, which necessitates an exemption from the city's lO-foot side yard driveway setback. The final issue is that the driveway ordinance has been amended seven times since it was adopted in 2001. Many ofthese amendments added new subsections but did not place them under headings linking them to existing provisions. This has led to the current driveway ordinance being difficult for residents and builders to navigate. PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Fx 952.227.1110 77OO MARKEI BOULEVARD .PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN 'MINNESOTA 55317 01I t fl[\ ISSUE Staff is recommending expanding the minimum design standards to ensure that driveways provide sufficient off-streel parking and allow for functional movements, that the driveway setback be made commensurate to the property's underlying zoning for the first 20 feet, and that the section be reorganized to improve readability. Planning Commission Driveway Standards November 19,2019 Page2 Sec. 20-908. - Exempts driveways from all yard setbacks. Sec. 20-l122. - Access and driveways: Establishes the design criteria, standards, and setbacks that govem all driveways within the city. Amendment History l) Ord. 117 passed in 1990 created Sec. 20-1122 and required proper accesses with width and number of access drives to minimize traffic congestion and hazard (Note: This section was a relocation of virtually identical provisions created by Ord. 80 in 1986.) 2) Ord. lzA passed in 1991 amended Sec. 20-908 1o allow driveways in any required yard. 3) Ord. 330 passed in 2001 created the base of the existing ordinance. It established that driveways could be setback five feet from the side yard after the first 20 feet. Existing design standards, reduction/encroachment provisions, and access limitations created. 4) Ord. 377 passed in 2004 established the Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM) District, which had altemating s-foot side yard setbacks. 5) Ord. 409 passed in 2006 clarified that a l0-foot setback existed for the first 20 feet. 6) Ord.423 passed in 2006 amended RLM setbacks to be five feet on the garage side and l0 feet on the house side with a minimum separation of l5 feet between structures. 7) Ord. 452 passed in 2007 established additional design criteri4 8) Ord. 507 passed in 2010 tweaked language regarding encroachment agreements, elaborated criteria for reducing driveway setbacks, and stated permit requirements. 9) Ord. 612 passed in 2015 established criteria for permitting the City Engineer to allow driveways with grades over l0 percent. l0) Ord. 6t9 passed in 2017 limited maximum impervious surface of driveway within flag lots to 33 percent. I 1) Ord. 628 passed in 2017 replaced the term impervious surface with lot coverage. Issue I: Selbacks The first ordinance addressing driveway setbacks was passed in l99l and allowed them to be placed within any required yard setback. This essentially meant that driveways could be placed up to the property line, unless a drainage and utility easement was present. In 2001, the driveway ordinance was amended to state that driveway setbacks could be reduced to five feet after the first 20 feet from the road or if circumstances warranted. The verbatim minutes associated with this amendment stated that the Planning Commission was trying to balance allowing residents to place parking pads for boatVtrailers alongside their garage with not having driveways, especially those associated with side loading garages, paved right up to the lot line. In 2006, the ordinance was further amended to clarify that a l0-foot setback existed for the first 20 feet from the road, since the original language did not actually state what setback, ifany, existed for the first 20 feet of driveway length. 2 RELEVANT CITY CODE ANALYSIS Planning Commission Driveway Standards November 19,2019 Page 3 Currently, all properties in the city are subject to the same driveway setbacks, regardless oftheir underlying zoning district. Driveways are required to be setback 10 feet from the side yard for the first 20 feet from the road after which the setback may be reduced to five feet or the width ofthe propeny's drainage and utility (D&U) easement, whichever is greater. The Code does allow driveway setbacks to be reduced with the approval ofthe City Engineer ifcertain criteria are met; however, one ofthe criteria is lot frontage offa cul-de-sac or neck/flag lot that does not permit adequate access width while meeting the side yard setback. Provisions are also made for granting encroachment agreements into the side yard D&U easements. Issues have arisen because the RLM district and several Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUD-R) Districts have S-foot garage side setbacks combined with 25-foot front yard setbacks. When homes are built with garages five feet from the side lot line and a 25-foot long driveway. it is not possible to design a functional driveway that maintains a 10-foot side yard setback for 20 feet of the driveway's 25-foot length. Stafls practice has been to have the City Engineer grant driveway setback exemptions for these properties; however, this means these homes require additional administrative approvals as part of the building permit process. Additionally, the exemptions clause in the driveway setback ordinance is intended to address extenuating circumstances associated with flaglneck and cul-de-sac lots, rather than accommodate every property in a suMivision. This diffrculty could be addressed either by eliminating the side yard setback for driveways, by reducing it to five feet for all properties, or by making it commensurate with a property's zoning. The first option creates the possibility for parking areas next to the garage that go up to the lot line. Staff regularly receives calls fiom neighbors concemed about boats, trailers, and campers being stored near the lot line, which is allowed by ordinance, and allowing homeowners to install permanent parking surfaces up to the lot line would likely increase the number and severity ofthese concems. In addition, allowing the installation of pavement and associated gading right up to lot lines has the potential to divert runoff onto neighboring properties and otherwise negatively affect an area's drainage. Finally, installation of permanent surfaces near or on the lot line is likely to increase the number of lot line disputes that occur, especially since the city does not conduct inspections to verifo that structues, like parking pads, permitted through zoning permits are installed in the proposed location. The second option would address the issue, but would potentially cause snow storage and driveway run offissues for Single-Family Residential (RSF) Districts and PUD-Rs designed and graded with l0-foot side yard setbacks in mind. Reducing these properties' driveway setbacks to five feet would also facilitate closer driveway spacing within the right ofway, and could create aesthetic situations where two large driveways on adjacent properties could be separated by as little as l0 feet. Finally, these properties are already allowed to reduce the driveway setback to five feet after the first 20 feet of lengh, which permits the creation of side parking pads. The third option would address the issue by allowing properties designed to have I S-foot rather than 20-foot separation between adjacent structures to install driveways that line up with their garages. Issues such as the minimum distance between driveways would be mitigated by the fact that these districts typically require altemating 5- and lO-foot setbacks. Some of the city's more recent 3 Planning Commission Driveway Standards November 19,2019 Page 4 PUD-RS, like Arbor Glen, have already adopted language establishing S-foot driveway side yard setbacks; however, an ordinance change would be needed to address older existing PUD-Rs and properties in the RLM district. Staffbelieves that making driveways' side yard setback commensulate with a property's zoning district's side yard setback while continuing to allow a reduction to five feet after the first 20 feet would be the best remedy for this issue. Issue 2: Minimum Slandards When builders and homeowners are told that they are at or over their property's lot cover limit, they generally try to find areas of paved surface that can be removed rather than redesign and reduce the size ofa proposed house or addition. Driveways are often the first target for reduction. In some cases, the proposed driveway configurations do not accommodate off-street puuking and create dilficulties in entering and exiting the garage. While the driveway ordinance establishes a minimum width of 10 feet, a maximum width of 24 feet at the right of way line and a maximum width of50 feet within the property, it does not allow staff to require a practical driveway configuration. In several cases, prospective homebuyers have contacted the city about the possibility ofreceiving a variance to expand driveways that were reduced to meet lot cover requirements due to the diffrculty ofnavigating these driveways. In other cases, builders have poured driveways significantly larger than what was proposed to address the deficiencies ofthe approved driveway. which causes the property to exceed its lot cover limits and requires the city to take enforcement actions. Staffbelieves that it is reasonable to require that driveways be designed to facilitate adequate ingress and egress to the garage and provide a number of off-street parking spaces equivalent to the number of garage stalls. To accomplish this, stalf is proposing that driveways be required to extend the width ofthe garage doors for a distance ofat least l8 feet before tapering down to a reduced width. Staff chose 18 feet because it is the city code's minimum depth for a parking stall and it would provide adequate maneuverability within the driveway. Issue 3: Reorganizalion ond Clarity The city's driveway ordinance has been amended seven times since it was established in 1990. The result is an ordinance with 13 numbered subsections without headings where provisions goveming similar elements are not always located near each other. For example, subsection I notes that its setbacks do not apply to cul-de-sac or neck/flag lots, but the criteria for reducing those setbacks are contained in subsection 8, and subsection 5 notes an additional setback not mentioned in subsection l. Staff proposes reorganizing the driveway ordinance into six main categories, each of which will contain all of the relevant clauses. For example, the clauses currently contained in subsections l, 5, and 8 would all be placed under a new subsection called "setbacks". Staffbelieves this will make it 4 Planning Commission Driveway Standards November 19,2019 Page 5 easier for all parties to read and implement the city's driveway ordinance. The proposed formatting and organization can be found in the recommendation section at the end ofthis report. As part ofthe reorganization, numerous non-substantive changes to the wording and grammar ofthe provisions are also included and redundant language has been removed. 1) Do nothing. 2) Amend the City Code to reorganize the driveway section. 3) Amend the City Code to reorganize the driveway section and update the side yard setbacks. 4) Amend the City Code to reorganize the driveway section, update the side yards setbacks, and expand minimum design standards. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Altemative 4. Staff believes: 1) that expanded minimum design standards will reduce the number of non-functional/impractical driveways that are installed; 2) that aligning driveway and yard setbacks will reduce the number ofexemptions requested; and, 3) that reorganizing the section will increase its clarity. The proposed amended driveway ordinance would read as follows: Sec.20-1122. - Access and driveways. The purpose of this section is 1o provide minimum design criteria, setback and slope standards for vehicular use. The intent is to reduce interference with drainage and utility easements by providing setback standards; reduce erosion by requiring a hard surface for all driveways; to limit the number of driveway access points to public streets and to direct drainage toward the street via establishment of minimum driveway slope standards. Parking and loading spaces shall have proper access from a public right-of-way. The number and width ofaccess &ives shall be located to minimize traffic congestion and abnormal traffic hazard. All driveways shall meet the following criteria: l) Setbacks: Driveways shall ines meet thezoningdistrict'srequiredsideyardsetbachexceptffi yarkbaek+equirement in the following circumstances: a. Beginning 20 feet from the front propeny line, driveways may be setback a minimum offive feet from the side property line or the distance ofthe existing drainage and utility easement on the particular lot or parcel. b. Encroachment into a side yard drainage and utility easement must be reviewed and approved by the city and may requires an encroachment agreement' 5 ALTERNATIVES Planning Commission Driveway Standards November 19,2019 Page 6 Driveway setbacks may be reduced subject to approval by the City Engineer and the+Uo+vinfe+iteriq if they meet the following criteria: i. The lot frontage on a lot that accesses a cul-de-sac "bubble" or neck/flag lot does not permit adequate driveway access width or side yard setback; ii. The driveway will not interfere with any existing drainage swale or easement in which a utility is contained; iii. Shallregtlire An easement encroachment agreement from the Engineering department, if required, is obtained; iv. The driveway must be designed to maintain stormwater drainage runoff on the property to ensure that it will not €ause direct runoff onto adjacent properties; v. Snow storage may not be placed on adjacent properties; and, vi. A minimum S-foot side yard setback shall be maintained. 2) Separation: On cornerlots, the minimum@ rva;dine spacing between the edge ofthe driveway and the corner right ofway line shall be 30 feet te+he+dgeeflthedd+e+vay. 3) Grades: Driveway grades shall be between a minimum of one-half of one percent and a maximum grade of l0 percent at any point in the driveway. Ilextearla+i€-eireumstasees exis& The City Engineer may approve driveway grades in excess of l0 percent ifthey determine that extenuating circumstances exist. Examples of extenuating circumstances include: bluffs, existing steep grades, shoreland setbacks, wetland conditions, and tree preservation. 4) Design Standards: All driveways must be constructed in accordance with cunent construction requirements/details. Additionally, they must adhere to the following standards: a. Within the right of way, driveways should access city streets at 90 degrees. b. In areas leeated within th @ Driveways shall be surfaced with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, as approved by the city engineer. In areas eutside ttrc MUS^ ity c. Accessory driveways shall be maintained as natural grass or be constructed of bituminous concrete, or paver surface. 6 c Planning Commission Driveway Standards November 19,2019 Page 7 d. For A-2, PUD-R for single-family detached houses, RR, RSF, R4 and RLM for single-family detached residential uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed 24 feet at the right-of-way line. @ Inside the property line ofthe site, the maximum driveway width shall not exceed 50 feet. For flaglneck lots, the lot coverage of the driveway access within the neck portion of flaglneck lots shall not exceed 33 percent ofthe neck's area. e. For all €t&er-uses other than those specified in paragraph (d) above, the width ofthe driveway access shall not exceed 36 feet in width measured at the roadway right-of-way line. f. For all lots, no portion of the right-of-way may be paved except that portion used for the driveway. g. For all lots, the minimum driveway width shall not be less than 10 feet. h. A tumaround is required on a driveway entering onto a state highway, county road or collector roadway as designated in the comprehensive plan, and onto city slreets where this is deemed necessary by the City Engineer, based on traffic counts, sight distances, street grades, or other relevant factors. If the Engineer requires a tumaround, this requirement will be stated on the building permit and the design of the turnaround must be approved by the City Engineer. i. The driveway must be at least the width of the garage door(s) for a distance of 18 feet starting at the garage door and extending outwards. 5) Number of: Driveway accesses within residential districts are limited as follows: a. One driveway access is allowed from a single residential lot to the street. b. Separate driveways serving utility facilities are permitted. 6) Permits Required: a. A driveway permit is required when any alteration is made to a driveway in the public right-of-way. b. A zoning permit may*e is required for any other driveway work not in the public right of way @ to determine if the improvement will meet zoning ordinance requirements ef{hepa*+ieularJe+e+parcel. C:\PLAN\MWUssue Pap€rs and Reports (Drafu)\Driveways\Driveway Issue Paper.docx 7 CITY OT CHANHASSXI'I Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow MEMORANDUM TO: FROMr Planning Commission MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner November 19,2019 Sidewalks and Concrete PadsSUBJ: The City Code does not require single-family homes to have sidewalks or concrete pads for stairs, landings, and access doors, other than those from a dwelling to the outdoors. These features are common-sense amenities that help facilitate safe ingress/egress and their subsequent addition can cause properties to exceed their permitted lot cover. Sidewalks and entrance/stair landings are typical features ofhomes; however, there are instances where they are omitted fiom proposed projects in order to meet the requirements ofthe city's zoning code. When these features are not included, homeowners often discover that they are necessary and have them constructed after the fact. Often these after-the-fact additions are constructed without a permit and do not meet the requirements olthe City Code, which can lead to the city having to take enforcement actions. Staffis proposing amending the Code to require applicants to include these features in order to give staff the ability to require the revision of projects that have a high potential of causing future problems. Sec. 20-905. - Single-family dwellings. This section lists the city's minimum standards for detached single-family dwellings. Sec. 20-908. - Yard regulations. This section allows certain architectural elements to encroach specified distances within required yard setbacks and specifies what structures may be located within city easements. Issue 1: Sidewalks and walkways PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110 77OO MARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I47 .CHANHASSEN . I'4INNESOTA 55317 TI 0 lY fl[S DATE: ISSUE SUMMARY RELEVANT CITY CODE ANALYSIS Planning Commission Sidewalks and Concrete Pads November 19,2019 Page 2 Homes typically feature an improved surface connecting the driveway to front entryway. These walkways provide easy and safe access to the home and also help keep the interior ofa house clean by reducing the amount ofdirt brought in from crossing the yard. An entry walkway is a basic amenity that is either constructed along with the home or added soon after the house is complete. Over the last year, there have been a few instances where builders or homeowners have proposed omitting or removing the entr)$/ay in order to get under the property's lot cover limits. These proposals, while permitted by the City Code, create long-term issues for future property owners. ln the case ofnew construction, the new owners typically try to install the sidewalk immediately after purchasing the home. When they consult with the city, they are surprised and frustrated to discover that the property cannot accommodate a simple paved walkway. There have also been instances where landscapers have installed the sidewalk at the puchaser's request without pulling a permit and the Foperty cannot pass its as-built inspection due to being over its permitted lot cover. For older homes where applicants propose removing existing sidewalks to free up lot cover for a different project, there have been cases where the segments have been subsequently replaced or were simply not removed. In both ofthese situations, after-the-fact enforcement and compliance are problematic, and homeowners are understandably frustrated to discover that their home cannot have a common sense feature. Historically, the city had a similar issue with patios where builders would install patio doors but not leave sufficient lot cover available to provide for the installation ofa patio. In 2006, the city addressed this problem by adopting Ordinance 423, which requires builders to show a ten-foot-by- ten-foot future patio outside of access doors not connected to a sidewalk or stoop. While there are still issues with homeowners wishing for a larger patio area than can be accommodated, this has given the city the ability to require builders to provide for a functional patio area outside of patio doors. This provision has resulted in significantly fewer issues caused by homeowners not having reasonable use oftheir property due to builders constructing homes that utilize the entirety ofthe property's available lot cover. Issue 2: Landings Exterior doors and stairs, such as those providing access from the ground to a deck or porch, typically feature a small concrete landing. These landings help provide safe access to the doors and stairs by preventing frequent travel from wearing divots in the lawn. Landings are typically small enough that they do not create lot coverage issues; however, problems can arise when the door or stairs are located directly adjacent to drainage and utilities easements. ) Staffbelieves that a similar provision would help address the issues that can arise when builders and owners try to maximize building size by removing or severely reducing the size of entryway sidewalks. It is significantly easier to prevent lot cover issues fiom being created during the building phase than it is to correct them after the house has been built and concrete has been poured. Staff is recommending that a four-foot walkway be required to connect the main entrance to the driveway. Planning Commission Sidewalks and Concrete Pads November 19,2019 Page 3 This is not generally an issue for doors that are part ofa principal structure within zoning districts with l0-foot side yard setbacks, since the typical side yard drainage and utility easement is only five feet. However, the Residential Low and Medium Density District and some Planned Unit Developments allow for 5-foot side yard setbacks along a home's garage side. Additionally, the city's yard regulations allow uncovered stairs and landings to project up to six feet into required setbacks. Problems can arise when deck stairs are oriented to terminate right at the start of easements or when access doors are located immediately adjacent to easements. In these cases, encroachment agreements cannot always be issued for the installation of landings. Staff has observed that when the installation of a landing is problematic, builders typically choose to remove the landing from the proposed project; however, these features are often installed as part of subsequent landscaping efforts without a permit. The installation of landings without encroachment agreements or in places where encroachment agreements would not have been issued can create issues for the city when it needs to utilize its easements. Cunently, staff does not have the ability to require revisions to proposed access and stair locations that have a high potential to create future problems. Staff would prefer to be able to require buildings and stairs to be configured to accommodate the inevitable addition ofa landing rather than attempt to conduct after-the-fact enforcement actions. Staff is recommending that landings with a minimum depth of three feet be shown running the width of stairs and access doors. ALTERNATIVES l) Do nothing. Most homes include these features, and the lot cover amounts are typically small enough that most properties can accommodate their addition. 2) Amend Sec. 20-905 to require new detached single-family homes to include sidewalks, and pads for stairs, landings, and access doors other than those fiom a dwelling to the outdoors. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Altemative 2. The proposed amendment would read as follows: Sec. 20-905. - Single-farnily dwellings. All single-family detached homes shall: ( I ) Be constructed upon a continuous perimeter foundation that meets the requirements of the state Building code. (2) Conform to the following standards for living areas: a. Ifa one-story rambler design, have an area of960 square feet. 3 Planning Commission Sidewalks and Concrete Pads November 19,2019 Page 4 b. tfa split level design, have an area of 1,050 square feet. c. Ifa split foyer and two-story desigr, have an area of600 square feet on the first floor. d. A two-car garage must be provided with the single-family structure. (3) Have an earth covered, composition, shingled or tiled roof or other materials approved by the Minnesota State Building Code as adopted and amended by the city. (4) Receive a building permit. The application for a building permit in addition to other information required shall indicate the height, size, design and the appearance ofall elevations ofthe proposed building and a description ofthe construction materials proposed to be used. (5) Meet the requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, as adopted and amended by the city or the applicable manufactured housing code. (6) Where access doors are proposed from a dwelling to the outdoors, which does not connect directly to a sidewalk or stoop, a minimum ten-feet-by-ten-feet area ofpatio shall be assumed. This patio area must be shown to comply with required property line, lake and wetland setbacks; may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements; and shall not bring the site's lot coverage above that permitted by ordinance. (7) Where the main entrance does not connect directly to the driveway, a walkway at least four feet in width connecting the driveway and main entrance shall be assumed. This walkruay must be shown to comply with required property line, lake and wetland setbacks; may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements; and shall not bring the site's lot coverlge above that permitted by ordinance. (8) A landing not less than three feet deep shall be shown running the width ofany exterior stairs or proposed access door, unless a ten-feet-by-ten-feet patio area is instead required by section 20-905(6). This landing must be shown to comply with required property line, lake and wetland setbacks; may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements; and shall not bring the site's lot coverage above that permitted by ordinance. G:\PLAN\City CodePOlguolg-05 Various\Sidewalks and pads\Sidewalks and Pads lssue Paper.docx + CITY OT CIIAI'IIIASSXN Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for loday and Planning for Tomorrow MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Planning Commission MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner November 19,2019 Airport Zoning DATE: SUBJ: The City of Chanhassen is required to administer the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance, and in order to enforce this zoning ordinance. the city must adopt it into its zoning code. A portion of the City of Chanhassen is located within the Flying Cloud Airport's Airspace Zoning Limit. Structures and trees within this area are subject to the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance's provisions limiting the maximum height of stnrctures and trees within the airspace zoning limit and requiring airport zoning permits for the construction of structures above a certain height within the airspace zoning limit. The Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance lists the City of Chanhassen as the party responsible for administering and enforcing its provisions within the city's municipal boundaries. In order to fulfill this responsibility, the city must adopt the provisions of the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance as part of its City Code. Staff believes that the most efficient way to do this is to establish an Airport Zoning Overlay District and adopt the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance by reference as additional standards for properties within the overlay district. Staffbelieves this will have a minimal impact on the city. Minnesota Statues 360.063 Airport Zoning; Authority, Procedure: Allows for the creation of joint airport zoning boards in cases where t}te airport hazard area crosses county or municipal boundaries. This board has the ability to adopt, administer, and enforce airport zoning regulations. Minnesota Statues 360.069 Airport Zoning Adminisuation: Requires that airport zoning regulations provide for administration and enforcement ofthe regulations by an appropriate permirissuing agency. PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110 77OO MARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX ]4T.CHANHASSEN ' MINNESOTA 55517 ISSUE SUMMARY RELEVANT CODE Planning Commission Airport Zoning November 19,2019 Page 2 Chapter 20, Article XXX. - Towers and Antennas: Establishes maximum heights for towers and antennas within the City of Chanhassen. These are the tallest structures permitted by City Code with a maximum potential height of225 feet (ground to top ofhighest antenna), though this is capped at 105 feet in residential districts. Section 20-907 - Height regulations: Exempts certain structures from the zoning code's height limitations. The Flying Cloud Airport Joint Airport Zoning Board, upon which the City of Chanhassen had appointed representatives, has been working for the last eight years on developing and adopting an airport zoning ordinance. On April 10, 2019, the Board adopted the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance that went into effect on May 1, 2019. FCI Zonine Ontnanc. Erhlbl O . AlrDon Bound.ry rnd Aitr[c. Zon iog Llartt! i-.--! .crl AqO u.l-] rnFo.zEr rJr 'rqrr iroz.nr r, Cl'.ahrc<a Mrmicioel Bormderv 'crr,t :ltr!|'E . "-i . BACKGROUND ANALYSIS Area of Citv within Airspace Zonins Limits o 2.f@ 6 rrd! --*-_-F..t I I : 4 [-*- -Z ( t Planning Commission Airport Zoning November 19,2019 Page 3 Only a small portion of the city adjacent to Lake Riley is located within Flying Cloud Airport's airspace zoning limits. Upon examination of the airport zoning ordinance, staff found that the most restrictive height limit placed upon a parcel within the City of Chanhassen was the requirement ofan Airport Zoning Permit for stnrctures 240 feet or higher. The tallest structure permitted by City Code outside of the Central Business District, which does not have height limits, would be a tower with a maximum height of 225 feet; however, since all of the property within the airspace zoning limits is zoned for residential use, the maximum height within that area would actually be 105 feet. Theoretically, a variance could be issued to exceed this height, but it is highly unlikely the city would consent to a variance for a structure that more than doubled its district's maximum height. Unlike the City Code, the airport zoning ordinance also regulates the maximum height oftrees. Since the tallest tree in the state of Minnesota is a 130-foot tall white spruce in Littlefork, staff does not believe that it is likely the adoption ofthe airport zoning ordinance will impact any existing or future trees within the city. Finally, it should be noted that Sec. 20-907 of the City Code exempts some struclures, such as flagpoles, and architectural features, such as church spires, from the height limitations prcsent in the Zoning Code. Since the tallest flagpole in the United States of America is 400 feet tall and the tallest church in the United States is 392 feet, it is possible, though again unlikely, that a resident could propose a 240+ flagpole or church spire that would trigger the airport zoning permit. Given the above, it is staffls beliefthat adopting the airport zoning ordinance will not in any way hinder the use or development ofthe parcels that will fall within its overlay district. 1) Amend the City Code to establish an Airport Zoning Overlay District and adopt the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance. 2) Do nothing. Staff recommends Alternative 1, which would allow the city to administer and enforce the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment would read as follows: Sec. 20-1565 - 20-1574. - Reserved. ARTICLE XXXII. AIRPORT ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT Sec.20-1575. - Establishment of Airport Zoning Overlay District. ) ALTERNATIvES RXCOMMENDATION Planning Commission Airport Zoning November 19,2019 Page 4 The Airport Zoning Overlay District shall be applied or superimposed (overlaid) upon all zoning districts within the portions ofthe City of Chanhassen depicted as being within the area labeled as Airspace Zoning Limit by the text and map contained in Exhibit D - "Airport Boundary and Airspace Zoning Limits" of the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 20-1576. - Requirements for Airport Zoning Overlay District. All properties within the Airport Zoning Overlay District are subject to the provisions ofthe Flying Could Airport Zoning Ordinance. Sec. 20-1577. - Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance. The Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance adopted on April 10,2019 by the Flying Cloud Airport Joint Airport Zoning Board, established pursuant to the authority conferred by Minnesota Statutes 360,061 to 360.074, is hereby adopted by reference. Sec. 20-1578 - 20-1580. - Reserved. ATTACHMENT 1) Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance g:\plan\city codeuol9U0l9{5 various\airpon zoning updaae\issue psper airpon zoning updare.docx ,l CNYMCIIAI'IIIASSXI'I Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow MEMORANDUM FROM: Planning Commission MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner November 19,2019 Incorrect Parking Aisle Graphic DATE: SUBJ: ISSUE The clariSing graphic in section 20-1 I l8 ofthe City Code is from 1990 and does not depict the ordinance's current standards. SUMMARY During the review ofa recently proposed parking lot plan, Engineering stalf noticed that there was a discrepancy between the tables and clariffing graphic in section 20- 1 1 18. The graphic seemed to indicate that an aisle width of 13.5 feet would be permitted; however, the text ofthe ordinance required a lS-foot aisle width. The City Attomey advised staff that the most recent ordinance would take precedence and recommended that the conflicting graphic be removed. Sec. 20-l 1 18. - Design of Parking Stalls and Drive Aisles. Lists the desigr standards for parking lot stalls and drive aisles, and contains clarifying tables and graphics. Amendment Hklory Ordinance 80 passed in 1986 establishing the framework ofour existing zoning code and requiring parking stalls and areas to meet the standards set forth in the city's Design Handbook. Ordinance I I 7 passed in 1990 added specific parking lot design standards to the City Code. These standards required an 8.5-foot by 18-foot parking stall and allowed for 45-degree angle parking stalls to 13.5-foot wide one-way aisles. A clari$ing graphic was adopted as part ofthis ordinance. Ordinance 321 passed in 2001 removed a provision allowing for aisles not located between two rows of ninety-degree angle parking spaces to be twenty-two feet wide. Ordinance 377 passed in 2004 changed the stall requirements to 9-feet by l8-feet and increased the aisle width for 45-degree angle parking stalls to l5 feet. The pre-existing graphic was not mentioned or depicted in the amending ordinance. PH 952.227.1 I 00 . www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us . FX 952.227.tt1 0 77OO MARKET BOUTEVARD . PO BOX I47 .CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317 TO: RELEVANT CITY CODE Planning Commission lncorrect Parking Aisle Graphic November 19,2019 Page 2 ANALYSIS It appears that when ordinance 377 was passed it did not contain any provision for removing or altering the graphic appearing in section 20-l I 18. The graphic was likely overlooked due to its location at the end ofthe section; below the section on compact car parking. This location, combined with the fact that the graphic is somewhat difficult to decipher, may have caused staff to believe it depicted the compact car standards and was not related to general parking standards. Regardless of the reason for the omission since the graphic was not specifically addressed by the amending ordinance, it was not removed. Staff believes that the existing tables and text ofsection 20-1 I 18 provide sufficient clarity that a graphic is unnecessary, and that given the difficulties and expense associated with creating and codifuing a new graphic, the simplest way to resolve the discrepancy between the graphic and text would be to remove the graphic. ALTERNATIVES l) Amend section 20-l 1 18 to remove the conflicting graphic. 2) Create a new graphic and amend the ordinance to replace the incorrect graphic with a correct graphic. Staff recommends Altemative 1. The proposed amendments would read as follows: Sec. 20-1118. - Design of parking stalls and drive aisles. (a) Parking spaces shall be designed in conformance with the following: parking stalls shall have a minimum paved dimension of nine feet by l8 feet. Stall and aisle dimensions shall be as noted below for the given angle: 90 degree ) 15*18.0'45 degree 18.0'18.5'*60 degree g'.18.0'26' 8.0'20.0'Parallel +One-way aisles only. RECOMMENDATION AisleCurb Length Stall LenglhAngle 12.o', 10.0' 22', Planning Commission Incorrect Parking Aisle Graphic November 19,2019 Page 3 Dead end aisles must be provided with a 26-feet by ten feet unencumbered area at the end to facilitate vehicle tuming movement. (b) All parking areas except those serving one- and two-family dwellings on local streets shall be designed so that cars shall not be required to back into the street. If deemed necessary for traffrc safety, tum-around areas may be required in one- and two-family dwellings. (c) All parking and loading areas, aisles and driveways shall be bordered with raised concrete curbs or equivalent approved by the city. (d) All parking, loading and driveway areas shall be surfaced with asphalt, concrete or equivalent material approved by the city. (e) All parking stalls shall be marked with painted lines not less than four inches wide in accordance with the approved site and building plan. (f) All parking lots shall provide islands for traffic control as needed. (g) All parking areas shall be properly maintained in a neat and serviceable condition. (h) Up to 25 percent ofthe total number of required spaces may be for compact cars and have minimum paved dimensions as follows: 450 +One-way aisles 60' 10.0'16.o', 17.5',8.5', 16.0'90" 8.0'Parallel 16.0' J 7.s', Stall LengthCurb LengthAngle Planning Commission Incorrect Parking Aisle Graphic November 19,2019 Page 4 Aisles Compact car parking may be provided if the following conditions are met: ( I ) The parking area shall have a total size of at least 20 stalls; (2) Compact car stalls shall be identified by appropriate directional signs consistent with the city sign ordinance; (3) Compact car stalls shall be distributed throughout the parking area so as to have reasonable proximity to the structure served, but shall not have generally preferential, locations such that their use by noncompact cars will be encouraged; (4) The design of compact car areas shall to the maximum feasible extent be such as to discourage their use by noncompact cars; and (5) Compact parking stalls shall not be permiued for high tumover parking lots. g:Vlan\city codeuol9U0l945 various\parking graphic\parking graphic.docx 4 td T **t lfudc a J:3t \ til{.f r' br;1ll @'orr&'. *-'+ CITY OT CIIANHASSXI'I Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow MEMORANDUM Todd Gerhar&. City Manager FROM: MacKenzieYoung-Walters,AssociatePlanner DATE: December9,2019 SUBJ: Vote Requirements for Removal of Commissioners Section 2-46 ofthe City Code states that it requires a four-fifths vote ofthe City Council to remove an appointed commissioner; however, Section 2-46.15 states that commissioners may be removed by a majority vote ofthe City Council. These contradictory sections should be reconciled. Currently, two conflicting sections ofthe City Code govem the removal of appointed commissioners. In the event that the City Council ever feels it necessary to remove an appointed commissioner, it is important that the City Code outline a clear and unambiguous process. Staff recommends reconciling the passages in favor ofthe majority vote provision. Sec. 2-46. - Appointment to city committees and commissions: States that applicants serve until removed by a four-fifths vote olthe City Council or until the expiration of their term of appointment. Sec. 2-46.15- Resignations and removal from commissions: States that commissioners may be removed from office by a majority vote of the City Council. The City Attomey discovered this inconstancy while researching the votes required for various actions by the City Council. The City Attomey recommended that the contradictory provisions by reconciled in favor ofthe majority vote provision. PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110 I/OO I4ARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN . MINNESOTA 553]7 TO: ISSUE SUMMARY RELEVANT CITY CODE BACKGROUND Todd Gerhardt Vote Requirement for Removal of Commissioners November 19,2019 Page 2 ANALYSIS Section 2-46.15 was added by ordinance 363 on January 12,2004 which relocated the sections goveming the composition and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, Board of Adjustments and Appeals, Environmental Commission, and Senior Commission to Chapter 2 and established Section 2-46.15 to address the resignation and removal of commissioners. Ordinance 363 was intended to govem the city's various commissions; however, it did not amend the language in Sec. 2-46 which also made provisions for the removal of commissioners. ALTERNATI VES 1) 2) 3) Amend the City Code to require a majority vote for the removal of a commissioner. Amend the City Code to require a four-fifths vote for the removal of a commissioner. Amend the City Code to require another threshold for the removal of a commissioner. RECOMMENDATION staff recommends Altemative 1 which would provide for the removal of commissioners by a majority vote of the City Council. The proposed amendments would read as follows: Sec. 2-46. - Appointment to city committees,-and commissions, and boards. All vacancies on committees, commissions, and boards shall be advertised to seek applicants. Vacancies shall be announced in the city's ollicial newspaper and posted within city hatt. Applications shall be available at the city clerk's oflice and shall be forwarded to the city council within the time prescribed. The city council may interview applicants before making appointment. with the exeePtien ef the heusing and redevelepment autherity; aAll appointments shall be by majority vote of the City Coun cil. enee-appeinte*,-a+applieant Vacancies during a term shall be filled for the unexpired portion ofthe term. Sec. 246.15. - Resignations and removal from city committees, commissions, and boards' 2 Staffbelieves it is appropriate to reconcile the discrepancy in favor ofthe most recently adopted ordinance, since it contained a section that specifically addressed the resignation and removal of commissioners; whereas, Sec. 2-46 govems appointments more generally. It is likely that Sec. 2- 46 was not amended due to an oversight in drafting ordinance 363. Ifthe Council believes it is desirable to have a higher threshold for the removal of commissioners, the discrepancy can instead be reconciled in favor ofSec. 2-46 which requires a four-fifths vote for the removal of commissioners or the Council can establish a different threshold for the removal of commissioners. Todd Gerhardt Vote Requirement for Removal of Commissioners November 19,2019 Page 3 eemmissieners Members of a city committee, commission, or board may resign voluntarily or may be removed from office by a majority vote of the City Council. Ir'aeanei€ren hatl, ^peti€atien ity @ g:\plan\city code\2o | 9\201945 various\vote requircmenls\issue papel vote requirements-docx -) MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner DATE: December 9, 2019 SUBJ: Electronic Message Centers (EMC) Sign Fee ISSUE The city’s website and Application Fee Schedule both list the fee for electronic message centers as $300.00; however, there is no fee listed for electronic message centers within the City Code. SUMMARY While reviewing the City Code, staff discovered that the fee listed for electronic message centers (EMC) on the Planning Department’s Application Fee Schedule and Sign Permit section of the website was not listed under the section of the City Code that establishes permit fees. The city charges $100.00 for the review of permanent signs; however, due to the increased scrutiny associated with EMCs, the city has been charging $300.00 for the review of signs including an EMC. Staff has been unable to determine if or when the $300.00 fee was formally established or removed. Due to the unique standards and additional review associated with EMCs, staff recommends formally adopting the $300.00 fee that is currently being charged. RELEVANT CITY CODE Sec. 4-30. – Fees Set: Establishes the city’s Permit and Administrative Fees. It lists fees for temporary and permanent signs, but not electronic message centers. Sec. 20-1252. – Permit and Variance Fees: States that sign permit fees will be established by the City Council and listed in Chapter 4 of the City Code. Sec. 20-1276. – Electronic Message Center Signs: Establishes standards for electronic message centers. ANALYSIS The City Code states that sign permit fees will be established by the City Council within Chapter 4 of the City Code. Since at least 2006, a $300.00 fee for EMC sign applications has been listed on the Planning Department’s Application Fee Schedule; however, going back to Ordinance 368, which was enacted in 2004, there is no specific fee established for EMC signs. Staff is uncertain if the $300.00 Planning Commission Electronic Message Centers Sign Fee November 19, 2019 Page 2 2 fee was removed by omission at that time or in a previous amendment of the city’s fees. The city does not receive a large number of applications for EMCs. For example, in 2018 the city received two EMC permit applications. The stated intent behind the city’s sign permit application fee is to cover the costs associated with permit review, installation inspection, and periodic enforcement activities and compliance checks. EMC signs have a higher fee because they have additional standards that must be reviewed during the initial review and because the changeable nature of their displays means they can have significantly greater enforcement costs over the life of the sign. Typical static display signs do not change significantly after they are installed, and baring issues with brightness do not have the potential to generate complaints. EMC’s can be reprogrammed after installation to violate the city’s restrictions on animated and flashing messages. Additionally, there can be compliance issues with the daytime/nighttime brightness levels established by Sec. 20-1276. Historically, the city’s businesses have been very good about complying with the ordinance, but the increased fee exists to cover the increased initial scrutiny and the potential for future enforcement and compliance issues. For these reasons, staff recommends formally establishing the $300.00 EMC fee. ALTERNATIVES 1) Amend the City Code to formally establish the $300.00 EMC fee. 2) Treat EMCs like other signs and change the website and fee schedule to reflect this. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative 1, which would formally list the EMC sign fee that is currently being charged in the City Code. The proposed amendments would read as follows: Sec. 4-30. – Fees Set. 8. Sign permit: a) Permanent ................................. 100.00 b) Temporary .................................. 35.00 c) Electronic Message Center….. 300.00 ATTACHMENT 1) Application Fee Schedule g:\plan\city code\2019\2019-05 various\emc fee\emc sign fee.docx MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner DATE: December 9, 2019 SUBJ: Base Minimum Building Valuation Standards ISSUE The City Code states that base minimum building valuation shall be established by the most current version of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry Building Valuation Data; however, this organization no longer provides this information. SUMMARY Building permit fees are largely determined by the value of the project. When permit applicants apply for a building permit they are required to write in a value for the work they are doing. Since this valuation determines how much their building fee is, some contractors significantly understate the value. In instances where the number written is clearly incorrect, staff needs to have an alternative method available to determine the value of the improvement in order to ensure that the correct fee is paid. Currently, the ordinance refers to the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry as the source staff will use to determine minimum building valuation data; however, they do not actually provide this data. Staff is proposing that the International Code Council’s building valuation data be used instead. RELEVANT CITY CODE Sec. 4-30. – Fees Set: Establishes the fees for various city issued permits, including building permit fees. BACKGROUND The city’s building official was reviewing the city’s fee structure and noticed that it references a data source that is no longer available. ANALYSIS Building permit fees help defray the costs associated with building plan review and inspections. Building permit fees are established by City Code and are based on the value of the improvement being made. In order to determine the value of an improvement, the city requires applicants to list the value of the improvement on the building permit application. Todd Gerhardt Base Minimum Building Valuation Standards December 9, 2019 Page 2 2 Some contractors significantly underreport the value of their project in an effort to lower their building permit fee. In cases where it is obvious to staff that the reported value is unrealistically low, the city needs a way to determine an alternative amount. This alternative amount is the base minimum building valuation. Currently, the City Code states that base minimum building valuation shall be established by the most current version of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry Building Valuation Data; however, the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry does not actually provide this information. The lack of an authoritative source and method for determining base minimum building valuation makes it difficult for staff to determine if listed values are truly reasonable and to dispute reported values that are significantly lower than what has been reported for similar projects conducted by other builders in the city. In order to address this, staff is proposing that the City Code’s reference to the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry be replaced with a reference to the International Code Council. The International Code Council releases building valuation data twice a year that allows a defensible building valuation to be determined based on the use type and square footage of a building. Staff believes referencing a reputable and regularly updated source will allow for a justifiable determination of base minimum building valuation and will make it easier to evaluate and challenge atypical building valuations, ensuring that the correct fee is paid. ALTERNATIVES 1) Amend the City Code to reference the International Code Council to determine minimum base building valuation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative 1 which would provide a regularly updated source for determining minimum base building valuations. The proposed amendment would read as follows: Sec. 4-30. - Fees set. The fees and charges for the various permits required by this Code are set forth as follows: (a) Building permit and fire prevention fees: 1. Building permit fees shall be as set forth in Table 1-A. When submittal of plans is required, and the valuation is more than $3,000.00, a plan review fee equal to 65 percent of the permit fee, shall also be charged. Base minimum building valuation shall be as established by the most current version of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry International Code Council Building Valuation Data. ATTACHMENT 1) International Code Council: Building Valuation Data – February 2019 g:\plan\city code\2019\2019-05 various\building valuation\issue paper building valuation.docx CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Approve Temporary On­Sale Liquor License to Rotary Club of Chanhassen, February Festival on February 1 at Lake Ann Park Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.8. Prepared By Kim Meuwissen, Office Manager File No: LIQ Chanhassen Rotary PROPOSED MOTION “The Chanhassen City Council approves the request from the Rotary Club of Chanhassen for a temporary on­sale intoxicating liquor license to sell alcoholic beverages at the February Festival on February 1 or 2, 2020 on Lake Ann. The fee for said license shall be $1.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY The Rotary Club of Chanhassen has submitted an application for a temporary on­sale intoxicating liquor license for the annual February Festival on February 1, 2020 (or February 2, 2020, if February 1 is cancelled due to weather) on Lake Ann. They plan to sell alcoholic beverages on the ice. The Rotary has submitted liquor liability insurance covering this event. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Rotary Club of Chanhassen ’s request for a temporary on­sale liquor license for the February Festival on Saturday, February 1, 2020 (or February 2, 2020 if February 1 is cancelled due to weather) on Lake Ann. The fee is $1. ATTACHMENTS: Application Alcohol & Gamhling Enlorcement ZG@ MINNESOTA OEPAMEM OF PUBLIC SAFffi Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 222,5t. Paul, MN 55101 651-201-7500 Fax 651 -297-5259 TTY 651-282-6555 APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR A 1 DAY TO 4 DAY TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE Date o nized State Name of on Address Name of maki a of on officer's name nization officer's name nization officer's name anization officer's name ton Tax exempt number Zi Code Minnesota Business Home hone Type of organization I Club fiffiaritable I Religious tr Other non-profit C State z Code Minnesota State Code Minnesota State Code Minnesota State Zi Code Minnesota Location where permit will be used. lf an outdoor area, describe.iah.;;;: /;dF";f-- On-#?ce, urbL 4e />j//6euqqeg lf the applicant will contract for intoxicating liquor service give the name and address of the liquor license providing the service. rz/a lf the applicant will carry liquor !iability insurance please provide the carrier's name and amount of coverage. t" /* APPROVAL APPLICATION MUST BE APPROVED BY clry OR COUNry BEFORE SUBMITTING TO ALCOHOL AND GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT City or County approving the license Date Approved Fee Amount Permit Date Date Fee Paid City or County E-mail Address City or County Phone Number I' e5 /-Z ZZ- 9tror^a- 4.) Signature City Clerk or County Official Approved Director Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement CLERKS NOTICE: Submit this form to Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division 30 days prior to event. ONE SUBMISSION PER EMAILAPPLICATION ONLY. PTEASE PROVIDE A VAttD E-MAtt ADDRESS FOR THE CITY/COUNTY AS ALL TEMPORARY PERMIT APPROVALS WILL BE SENT BACK VIA EMAIL. E-MAII THE APPTICATION SIGNED BY CIW/COUNTY TO AGE.TEMPORARYAPPLICATION@STATE.MN.US ChanhassenXXXX $1.00 11/19/2019 12/9/2019 February 1 & 2, 2020 kmeuwissen@ci.chanhassen.mn.usXXXX XXXX 952-227-1107 XXXX (scheduled for 2/1/2020, or 2/2/2020 if bad weather on 2/1/2020) (or, not both) XXXXX Lexington Insurance Company - $4,000,000 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Approve 2020 Contract for Police Services with Carver County Sheriff's Office Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.9. Prepared By Jake Foster, Assistant City Manager File No: ADM­242 PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the 2020 contract for policing services with the Carver County Sheriff's Office.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY The cost of the 2019 Policing Contract was $1,836,593 and the 2020 Policing Contract cost will be $1,898,795.  The increase amount is $62,202 reflecting an overall impact of a 3.4% increase in Policing Contract cost to the city. The increased costs are related to: 4.5% increase in wages .75% increase in PERA contributions $35/ month increase per person for health insurance coverage Mileage rate increase of 3 cents/ mile ( average 33,000 miles per year per car). Increase of approximately $5,000 to go from a 2080  hour per year deputy to 2184 hour per year deputy (power shift). ATTACHMENTS: 2020 Chan­Carver Co Policing Contract Page 1 of 8 CONTRACT FOR POLICE SERVICES Chanhassen THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 9th day of December, 2019 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. 5. 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 to be responsible for acts or omissions of the other parties. Page 4 of 8 6. 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, 2020 to December 31, 2020. 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 2021, 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 Mike Wollin Carver County Sheriff’s Office 606 East 4th Street Chaska, MN 55318 mwollin@co.carver.mn.us Office: 952-361-1857 Cell: 952-220-7926 City of Chanhassen Todd Gerhardt, City Manager 7700 Market Blvd. PO Box147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 tgerhardt@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1119 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 eighty (80) 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 80 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 $68.42. 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 Deputy 9 (2184 FTE) $1,012,815 Sergeant 1 (2080 FTE) $131,488 Sergeant 2 (2184 FTE) $258,912 Investigator 1 (2080 FTE) $107,475 SRO 1 (2080 FTE) $107,475 Lieutenant 1 (2080 FTE) $148,564 CSO 26 hours $1,121 Page 6 of 8 VEHICLE COST Patrol Vehicle 5 $121,790 SRO vehicle 1 $5,863 Investigator vehicle 1 $2,359 Lieutenant 1 $933 TOTAL POLICE SERVICES $1,898,795 2. PAYMENT. The Sheriff shall invoice one half of the total amount of the current year police staffing option cost hereunder, or $949,397.50 to be paid on or before June 30 of the current contract year. The Sheriff shall invoice the remaining half, or $949,397.50 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 approximates the intent of the Agreement. Page 7 of 8 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. Page 8 of 8 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 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Approve Consultant Agreement for Lake Lucy Road Rehabilitation Project Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.10. Prepared By Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer File No: Project No. 20­03 PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves a consultant contract with WSB & Associates in the amount of $78,423.00 and authorizes the preparation of a feasibility study for the Lake Lucy Road Rehabilitation Project No. 2020­03.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND On November 7, 2019, the Engineering Department prepared and released a request for proposals (RFP) for consultant services for the project.  On November 22, 2019, the Engineering Department received three proposals from consultants for professional services for the Lake Lucy Road project. DISCUSSION Lake Lucy Road is a collector street located on the east side of Lake Minnewashta between State Highway 41 (Hazeltine Boulevard) and County Rd 117 (Galpin Boulevard) and is in need of roadway pavement rehabilitation.  The city's Capital Improvement Plan has planned for the rehabilitation of Lake Lucy Road in 2020.  Staff utilized the city's Pavement Management Program and site investigations to determine the project limits as shown in Figure 1.  The project includes a 0.66­mile long urbanized street corridor.  The existing road section was originally constructed between 1994 and 1998. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectApprove Consultant Agreement for Lake Lucy Road Rehabilitation ProjectSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.10.Prepared By Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer File No: Project No. 20­03PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council approves a consultant contract with WSB & Associates in the amount of $78,423.00 andauthorizes the preparation of a feasibility study for the Lake Lucy Road Rehabilitation Project No. 2020­03.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDOn November 7, 2019, the Engineering Department prepared and released a request for proposals (RFP) forconsultant services for the project. On November 22, 2019, the Engineering Department received three proposals from consultants for professionalservices for the Lake Lucy Road project.DISCUSSIONLake Lucy Road is a collector street located on the east side of Lake Minnewashta between State Highway 41(Hazeltine Boulevard) and County Rd 117 (Galpin Boulevard) and is in need of roadway pavement rehabilitation.  Thecity's Capital Improvement Plan has planned for the rehabilitation of Lake Lucy Road in 2020.  Staff utilized the city'sPavement Management Program and site investigations to determine the project limits as shown in Figure 1.  Theproject includes a 0.66­mile long urbanized street corridor.  The existing road section was originally constructed between 1994 and 1998. Figure 1: Project Area Map Lake Lucy Road is designated as a Municipal State Aid (MSA) route.  The city will utilize State Aid funding and special assessments to finance the street improvements.  In addition, special assessments to benefiting properties are proposed to be included for supplementing the street funding for the project.  City utility funds will be used for funding of the utility improvements as required. The average pavement overall condition index (OCI) is 63, which is within the range where overlays should be considered.  While the preliminary geotechnical information is currently being prepared, it is anticipated that the surfacing improvements can be accomplished via a mill and overlay.  As with any overlay project, minor spot repair of curb and gutter and other public utilities are anticipated; however, major replacements of utility mains is not anticipated.  The consultant will incorporate in the feasibility study and subsequent design all inspection reports and input from staff regarding utilities.  Furthermore, the consultant will perform an evaluation of the storm sewer capacity within the project area to determine if additional capacity is needed and recommend improvements. Proposed improvements will address current NPDES and Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District requirements in regards to water quality treatment and best management practices for stormwater runoff related to construction activities. ENGINEERING SERVICES Consultant engineering services are necessary for this street project including preparation of the feasibility report, surveying, preliminary and final street design, utility design (as necessary), SWPPP preparation, construction administration, and preparation of as­built drawings. Staff solicited a request for proposals (RFP) to three engineering companies:  WSB & Associates, Kimley­Horn & Associates, and SEH, Inc.  Proposals were received from all of the consultants and are summarized below: Proposals Fee WSB & Associates $78,423.00 SEH, Inc.$94,880.60 Kimley­Horn & Associates $97,720.00 All of the proposals were received prior to the deadline and in the correct format, and were comparable from the perspective of understanding the project.  The proposal received from WSB & Associates presents the lowest cost alternative from a firm the city has extensive experience working with.  WSB & Associates was awarded and is currently completing the Lake Drive East project. Their work in Chanhassen and other communities has been CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectApprove Consultant Agreement for Lake Lucy Road Rehabilitation ProjectSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.10.Prepared By Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer File No: Project No. 20­03PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council approves a consultant contract with WSB & Associates in the amount of $78,423.00 andauthorizes the preparation of a feasibility study for the Lake Lucy Road Rehabilitation Project No. 2020­03.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDOn November 7, 2019, the Engineering Department prepared and released a request for proposals (RFP) forconsultant services for the project. On November 22, 2019, the Engineering Department received three proposals from consultants for professionalservices for the Lake Lucy Road project.DISCUSSIONLake Lucy Road is a collector street located on the east side of Lake Minnewashta between State Highway 41(Hazeltine Boulevard) and County Rd 117 (Galpin Boulevard) and is in need of roadway pavement rehabilitation.  Thecity's Capital Improvement Plan has planned for the rehabilitation of Lake Lucy Road in 2020.  Staff utilized the city'sPavement Management Program and site investigations to determine the project limits as shown in Figure 1.  Theproject includes a 0.66­mile long urbanized street corridor.  The existing road section was originally constructedbetween 1994 and 1998.Figure 1: Project Area MapLake Lucy Road is designated as a Municipal State Aid (MSA) route.  The city will utilize State Aid funding andspecial assessments to finance the street improvements.  In addition, special assessments to benefiting properties areproposed to be included for supplementing the street funding for the project.  City utility funds will be used for fundingof the utility improvements as required.The average pavement overall condition index (OCI) is 63, which is within the range where overlays should beconsidered.  While the preliminary geotechnical information is currently being prepared, it is anticipated that thesurfacing improvements can be accomplished via a mill and overlay. As with any overlay project, minor spot repair of curb and gutter and other public utilities are anticipated; however,major replacements of utility mains is not anticipated.  The consultant will incorporate in the feasibility study andsubsequent design all inspection reports and input from staff regarding utilities.  Furthermore, the consultant willperform an evaluation of the storm sewer capacity within the project area to determine if additional capacity is neededand recommend improvements.Proposed improvements will address current NPDES and Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed Districtrequirements in regards to water quality treatment and best management practices for stormwater runoff related toconstruction activities.ENGINEERING SERVICESConsultant engineering services are necessary for this street project including preparation of the feasibility report,surveying, preliminary and final street design, utility design (as necessary), SWPPP preparation, constructionadministration, and preparation of as­built drawings.Staff solicited a request for proposals (RFP) to three engineering companies:  WSB & Associates, Kimley­Horn &Associates, and SEH, Inc.  Proposals were received from all of the consultants and are summarized below:Proposals FeeWSB & Associates $78,423.00SEH, Inc.$94,880.60Kimley­Horn & Associates $97,720.00All of the proposals were received prior to the deadline and in the correct format, and were comparable from theperspective of understanding the project.  The proposal received from WSB & Associates presents the lowest cost alternative from a firm the city has extensive experience working with.  WSB & Associates was awarded and is currently completing the Lake Drive East project. Their work in Chanhassen and other communities has been satisfactory.  The consultant contract will be completed on a time and materials basis with a not­to­exceed amount unless there is a significant change in scope. As with all engineering contracts, the consultant will provide periodic invoices that staff will review before processing.  The consultant will be required to submit time sheet summaries verifying the hours worked on the project and expenses.  Staff will review the invoices for accuracy and conformance to the contract. FUNDING Budget for the proposed work has been included in the 2019 CIP for the project to be constructed in 2020.  The budget will need to be reviewed and updated based upon construction cost estimates after the feasibility report is completed.  Funding for the project is proposed to come from Municipal State Aid funds, special assessments to properties directly benefiting from the project, and city utility funds as required. SCHEDULE A tentative schedule for the project is as follows: Task Date Award Consultant Contract December 2019 Neighborhood Project Open House December 2019 Accept Feasibility Report & Call Public Hearing January 2019 Public Hearing February 2019 Approve Plans & Specifications March 2019 Bid Opening April 2019 Neighborhood Meeting May 2020 Assessment Hearing & Award Construction Contract May 2020 Start Construction June 2020 Substantial Construction Complete Fall 2020 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends a consultant contract be awarded to WSB & Associates in the amount of $78,423.00 and authorize preparation of a feasibility study. ATTACHMENTS: WSB & Associates Proposal CIP Sheet A PROPOSAL FOR Lucy Road Rehabilitation City Project No. 20-03 FOR THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN 701 XENIA AVENUE S | SUITE 300 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN | 55416 | 763.541.4800 | WSBENG.COMNovember 22, 2019 George Bender, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposal Response for Professional Services for Lake Lucy Road Rehabilitation City Project No. 20-03 Dear Mr. Bender: Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to provide professional services for the design of proposed improvements to Lake Lucy Road. WSB has hand-picked a team that we believe has the experience and expertise necessary to successfully complete this project. We are proposing to keep the same project team that has worked on the City’s Orchard Lane Street Reconstruction Project (C.P. 18-01) and the Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project (C.P. 18-02). This will provide consistency in our project delivery as well as maintain the City’s level of comfort in dealing with our staff. We have a long history of working with the City of Chanhassen and are looking forward to continuing that relationship with the Lake Lucy Road Rehabilitation Project. WSB did not receive any addenda but we acknowledge receipt of email correspondence providing additional direction regarding necessary State Aid plan review elements. Please contact Nick if you have any questions/concerns or to discuss our next steps forward. We appreciate the opportunity to propose on this project and we look forward to your favorable consideration. Sincerely, WSB Nick Preisler, PE Eric Eckman, PE Project Manager Deputy Project Manager 763.287.8537 763.512.5257 npreisler@wsbeng.com eeckman@wsbeng.com 701 XENIA AVE S | SUITE 300 | MINNEAPOLIS | MN | 55416 | 763.541.4800 | WSBENG.COMTABLE OF CONTENTS Firm Overview ...................................................1 Meet the Team .................................................2 Project Understanding ...................................6 Work Plan/Approach .......................................8 Consultant Fee ...............................................14 Exceptions and Deviations ............................17 Firm Overview | 1A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) Asset Management Systems | Community Planning | Construction Administration | Construction Materials Testing & Inspection | Design–Build | Economic Development | Environmental Planning & Natural Resources | Environmental Compliance | Geographic Information Systems | Geohazard Risk Assessments | Geotechnical Engineering | Intelligent Transportation Systems | Landscape Architecture | Land Development | Management Analysis & Development | Municipal Engineering | Pavement Management/Forensics | Pipeline | Project Controls | Project Funding | Renewable Energy | Right of Way | Site Validation | Structures | Surveying | Transportation/Traffic | Visualization | Water Resources | Water/Wastewater 450+ STAFF 25+ SERVICE AREAS 12 OFFICES 4 STATES Forge ahead. WSB is a design and consulting firm specializing in engineering, community planning, environmental, and construction services. Our staff of over 450 improve the way people engage with communities, transportation, infrastructure, energy and our environment. We offer services in over 25 complementary areas that seamlessly integrate planning, design and implementation. Our coast-to-coast client base is served from 12 offices in four states. We share a vision to connect your dreams for tomorrow to the needs of today— the future is ours for the making. FIRM OVERVIEW Firm Overview Meet the Team | 2A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) Meet the Team George Bender ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER Nick Preisler, PE PROJECT MANAGER Eric Eckman, PE DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGER Adam Gadbois, PE MUNICIPAL PROJECT ENGINEER Mike Miller CADD SPECIALIST Bill Alms, PE WATER RESOURCES PROJECT ENGINEER THE TEAM Shawn Williams SR. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST Andrea Blanchette, PE PAVEMENT SPECIALIST Tom Wood PAVEMENT SPECIALIST Paul Kyle, PE STATE AID CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR WETLAND DELINEATION & PERMITS PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Meet the Team | 3A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) Nick Preisler, PE PROJECT MANAGER Nick will be the Project Manager providing interaction with City staff and overseeing the day-to- day aspects of the project. Nick is a Project Engineer with six years of experience at WSB and is experienced in preparing feasibility reports, technical reports, plans and specifications for a wide range of municipal engineering projects. Nick has specialized in similar projects in Chanhassen (2016 Street Reconstruction, Park Road Mill and Overlay, 2018 Street Reconstruction, Lake Drive Improvements), Excelsior (2018 & 2019 Street and Utility Improvement Projects), and Osseo (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 Street Reconstruction Projects). In addition to his design experience, he has also provided construction inspection and contract administration for several roadway construction projects, which gives him a unique and valuable viewpoint that emphasizes constructability. Eric Eckman, PE DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGER Eric is a Project Manager in WSB’s Municipal Group and the City Engineer for Circle Pines. He is involved in all aspects of municipal projects, from the concept stage through closeout. Eric has over 13 years of experience on projects ranging from the design and construction of new housing developments to full reconstructs along county roads as well as other municipal reconstruction projects. As Deputy Project Manager Eric will assist Nick in day to day operations, focusing heavily on the QA/QC aspect of the plan feasibility report and plan production, and assist with the assessment methodology for the project. Eric has overseen and/or provided municipal design services for several reconstruct projects in Chanhassen (2016 Street Reconstruction, Park Road Mill and Overlay, 2018 Street Reconstruction, Lake Drive Improvements), Monticello (2016 and 2017 Street & Utility Improvements, Chelsea Road Street & Utility Improvements), Circle Pines (2016, 2018, and 2020 Street & Utility Improvements), and Maple Grove (2018, 2019, and 2020 Street Reconstruction Projects). Adam Gadbois, PE MUNICIPAL PROJECT ENGINEER Adam will lead the overall design and coordination of the project. He has nearly 7 years of design and construction experience, mainly focusing on municipal street reconstruction projects. He has been an integral part of the design and construction administration for projects in Chanhassen (2018 Street Reconstruction and Lake Drive Improvements), Lakeville (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 Street Reconstruction), Minnetrista (2019 and 2020 Street Improvements), and Rosemount (2017 Street Improvements). He has also acted as the lead inspector on multiple street reconstruction and new development projects for the Cities of Minnetrista and Lakeville. His experience in the field, as well as his experience with estimating, project administration, and document controls, will be valuable to the design and implementation of the proposed project. Meet the Team | 4A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) Mike Miller CADD SPECIALIST Mike has over 15 years of diverse experience in several types of municipal and general civil engineering applications, including street rehabilitation and reconstruction, storm sewers, water distribution systems, sanitary sewer systems, site grading, parking facilities, and municipal State Aid projects. He is a seasoned CAD user and utilizes his time-management skills to meet deadlines. Michael is detail-oriented and possesses a positive “can do” attitude. He is an effective communicator when working with clients and project team members, which enables him to assist in the completion of successful projects. Michael has worked as the lead CAD Designer on several large-scale projects throughout his career. He focuses on customer service which makes him a valuable member of the project team. Bill Alms, PE WATER RESOURCES PROJECT ENGINEER Bill has more than eight years of professional water resources engineering consulting experience and is a project manager in WSB’s Water Resources Group. He will serve as the lead water resources engineer on this project to help ensure the design meets the City’s and RPBCWD’s stormwater management permitting requirements. He has experience completing hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for drainage systems in a wide variety of water resource management, transportation, and municipal projects. Bill has been responsible for the development of State Aid Hydraulic reports, watershed permitting submittals, plans and specifications, and construction management. Shawn Wililiams SR. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST Shawn has more than ten years of professional environmental consulting experience. He completes wetland delineations and reports, wetland replacement plans, ecological evaluations, threatened and endangered species reviews, wetland permit applications, and woodland evaluations. Shawn has proven successful coordinating with clients, project engineers, and agency staff to achieve timely results. For the MN Wetland Conservation Act, he serves the role of local government unit (LGU) for several local municipalities. Shawn has received formal training in wetland delineation methods, wetland plant identification, tree surveys, floristic quality assessment methods, erosion control inspections, and geographic information systems (GIS). He is certified through the University of Minnesota for Stormwater Construction Site Management and SWPPP Design and provides environmental compliance oversight for large transportation construction projects. Meet the Team | 5A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) Andrea Blanchette, PE PAVEMENT SPECIALIST Andrea has an undergraduate degree and master’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Minnesota with an emphasis on pavements and materials. Her master’s degree research detailed the effect of heavy agricultural equipment on flexible and rigid pavements in rural roads in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Andrea joined WSB’s Pavements Section in 2011 and is now leading WSB’s pavements and pavement management efforts, incorporating experience from her work with GIS, contract administration, and asset management. In that time, she has developed pavement management and asset management systems for numerous counties and cities across the state. Her education, research, and experience are valued additions to WSB’s Construction Services Group and she is helping to expand an already recognized pavements and materials group. Tom Wood PAVEMENT SPECIALIST Tom has more than 35 years of experience and is an expert in asphalt-based emulsions. He has worked with all types of pavement and previously worked for MnDOT both in the maintenance and pavement research areas. He has worked on preventative maintenance treatments, surface treatments, in-place recycling, HMA construction practices, asphalt forensics and mediation, and pavement preservation research. Tom is well-known in his field for being an expert on chip sealing and microsurfacing. Tom has a passion for sharing his expertise and has spoken at more than 100 conferences nationwide. He also has authored multiple published reports on chip sealing, asphalt dust, and a variety of other topics. Paul Kyle, PE STATE AID CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR Paul has nine years of experience in construction services and MnDOT certified in several disciplines. His responsibilities include project management, quality engineer, project design, construction inspection, contract administration, record documentation, and materials testing. He has worked in a variety of settings with municipal, county, and State shareholders. Paul’s experience as a contract administrator and quality assurance make him a valuable asset to the completion of an array of construction projects. Project Understanding | 6A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) Project Understanding The City of Chanhassen is seeking professional engineering services for feasibility, design, surveying, and construction administration for improvements within the 0.66-mile-long Lake Lucy Road Corridor. Lake Lucy Road is a Municipal State Aid (MSA) street and the City will be using State Aid funds to finance a portion of the project. As a result, the plans prepared for the project will incorporate MnDOT design standards and will be formatted for State Aid review. In addition to State Aid funds, special assessments to benefitting properties are proposed, which will require State Statutes Chapter 429 processes be followed with project implementation. Additional surface improvements include replacement of pavement on the adjacent bituminous trail, installation of ADA-compliant ramps, and replacement of curb and gutter at various locations. The stormwater collection system in the area is likely in need of minor repair work, such as rebuilding structures, casting replacement and replacement of damaged cone sections. The final scope of work will be determined by field inspections performed by City staff. In addition to the minor storm sewer repair work, the project will also include a storm sewer capacity analysis to determine if additional capacity is needed. WSB will review existing City and Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) hydraulic and hydrologic models to identify drainage issues in the project area and prepare a memorandum summarizing potential stormwater improvements. SITE PHOTOS Project Understanding | 7A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) The twelve-inch diameter trunk watermain within the project corridor is ductile iron which has several documented breaks. An investigation into this history is necessary to provide a recommendation for watermain improvements. WSB will analyze data from the City such as break history and maintenance records and collaborate with City staff to determine effective strategies for extending the useful life of the existing utility. Alternatives methods to open cut replacement such as CIPP lining and pipe bursting will be explored for any recommended replacement. The sanitary sewer system within the project area consists of PVC pipe that ranges between 8-10 inches in diameter. WSB will review the televising videos and reports provided by the City along with City inspection reports to determine the extent and locations of system repairs to extend the service life of these facilities. Potential repairs may include chemical and grout sealing of joints and manholes; replacement of deteriorated cone sections; and point repairs of the sewer pipe. It is our understanding that final improvements to the system will be selected by the City based on the project consultant’s recommendations. We understand that geotechnical services will be required for the design of the project. Geotechnical services will not be coordinated through our scope of services. These services will be acquired under a separate contract by the City therefore we have not included an allowance for geotechnical services. We will work with the selected firm and use a collaborative approach to determine the most economical improvement for the project area. Work Plan/Approach | 8A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) TASK 1: Design and Bidding Services Work Plan/Approach Based on our understanding of the project, WSB proposes the following scope of services. The schedule provided presumes award of the consultant contract on December 9, 2019 and estimates substantial construction completion in Fall 2020. 1.2 Storm Sewer System Evaluation The storm sewer capacity within the Lake Lucy Road corridor will be evaluated to determine if additional capacity is necessary to meet State Aide Requirements. WSB will create existing conditions hydraulic and hydrologic models to identify existing infrastructure and drainage issues. Existing conditions model will be developed using a combination of existing hydraulic and hydrologic models from the City and Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD), topographic survey and utility data, as-builts, and LiDAR data. A storm sewer system evaluation memorandum will be provided summarizing findings of modeling analysis along with potential stormwater catch basin of pipe capacity improvement options for consideration. It is assumed that recommendations will be limited to those options that maintain the mill and overlay project classification to prevent additional permitting and permeant stormwater management requirements for the project. 1.1 Project Management Project management is an essential task that WSB includes with each project to maintain an open line of communication between the City and our team. Proper execution of this task allows us to monitor project progress in relationship to project budget in order to minimize schedule and scope deviations. This task also involves quality assurance and control reviews of documents and processes to maximize efficiency in the project development process. Work Plan/Approach | 9A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) tile in various locations to supplement the existing stormwater system and extend the life of the road. It is assumed that the improvements will be limited to those options that maintain the mill and overlay project classification to prevent additional permitting and permanent stormwater management requirements for the project. WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS The results of the watermain investigation will be discussed with City staff to determine the extent, location, and type of watermain replacement and/or rehabilitation. Watermain, valves and hydrants in need of repair or replacement will be incorporated into the plans. Anode bags may be considered for installation at the location of these repairs to minimize future deterioration of the pipe and extend its useful life. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The City will provide the televising videos and reports of the sanitary sewer system prior to the completion of the feasibility study. WSB will review the information and any available City inspection reports to generate a list of recommended improvements that can be incorporated into the final design of the project. 1.3 Preliminary Plans WSB will complete a preliminary design for all components within the project, which will serve as the basis for the feasibility study. The preliminary design will address the following features: PAVEMENT DESIGN WSB will review existing pavement distresses in conjunction with the recommendations made from the geotechnical exploration obtained by the City. This will allow for the development of a pavement section that will address anticipated traffic loading and existing subgrade soil conditions. WSB will provide recommendations on techniques, such as the Texas Under Seal, to help control reflective cracking. The Texas Under Seal has been used by MnDOT with similar pavement sections and has proven to be a cost-effective way to drastically reduce early reflective cracking. TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS The existing bituminous trail in the corridor will be improved with this project. Using the City’s pavement management scores for the trail segments, WSB will recommend removal and replacement options. The project will also include installation of ADA-compliant curb ramps. STORMWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Based on the results of the storm sewer evaluation and direction from City staff, improvements to the storm sewer system will be included in the plans. In addition, WSB will investigate options for the installation of drain Work Plan/Approach | 10A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) 1.4 Identify Required Right of Way & Easements/Acquisition Assistance WSB will identify areas where temporary and/or permanent right of way easements are necessary for the proposed infrastructure in the project corridor and provide legal descriptions and exhibits. • Final Pavement design and typical section based on MnDOT requirements. • Stormwater collection system improvements, including minor storm sewer pipe replacement, structure repairs, casting adjustments/repairs, and drain tile installation. • Watermain repairs identified through input from City staff. • Sanitary sewer repairs as determined by televising logs and manhole inspection reports. • Report text • Graphics depicting proposed improvements • Engineer’s opinion of probable cost • Preliminary assessment roll with one methodology As part of the feasibility report, WSB will prepare a presentation and handout materials for the project public hearing and attend and facilitate the public hearing as needed. 1.6 Final Design/Plan Preparation Feedback from residents at neighborhood meetings and the public hearing, along with input from City staff, will provide the basis for the final design and plan preparation. Once the City Council has ordered the project following the public hearing, WSB will complete the final design, which will include the following: All elements of the final design will be documented in the construction plans prepared for the project. The construction plans will also detail miscellaneous items necessary to complete the project. The final plan set may consist of the following plan sheets, as well as others necessary for bidding the project: • Title sheet • Alignment sheet (per MnDOT) • Geometrics (per MnDOT) • Statement of Estimated Quantities • Project tabulations (per MnDOT) • General construction details • Removal sheets • Street and storm sewer plan and profile sheets as needed (mill and overlay/spot storm repair) • Watermain and sanitary sewer plan and profile sheets as needed for spot repairs • Surface water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) • Restoration and turf establishment plans • Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 1.5 Feasibility Report Upon obtaining the City’s approval of the preliminary design, WSB will prepare a feasibility report that will include the following: Work Plan/Approach | 11A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) 1.8 Preparation of Assessment Rolls WSB will prepare the preliminary assessment roll at the feasibility stage of the project, based on preliminary costs. The assessment roll will include all necessary information, including parcel identification numbers, property owner name and address, along with the basis of assessment and assessment amount. The preliminary assessment roll will be updated based on final design quantities for use at the assessment hearing and then be updated again after the bids are received for the project. The City may consider an alternative to the unit assessment methodology due to the unique nature of the project area. WSB will provide preliminary and final assessment rolls based on one assessment methodology. 1.9 Bidding Services Upon authorization from the City Council to bid the project, WSB will provide bidding support services, including plan and specification reproduction and distribution, fielding questions from potential bidders, and providing a final engineer’s opinion of probable cost. WSB will also attend the bid opening and prepare a tabulation of bids received and a letter of recommendation for contract award. Quantities will be calculated and tabulated on a bid proposal form that will be distributed with the plans and specifications for potential bidders to submit their individual bids. An engineer’s estimate of probable cost will also be created and given to the City for review prior to bidding. The project manual will be prepared based on the City of Chanhassen’s Standard Specifications for Construction and will contain all contract documents relating to the project. 1.7 Permits Based on the nature of the construction and overall size of the project, the following permits will be prepared and submitted on behalf of the City: -Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – NPDES Construction Activity Permit. This permit will not be required for the mill and overlay component of the project. -Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed (RPBCWD) – Erosion and sediment control. -MnDOT Work in Right-of-Way – Work adjacent to TH 41 (Hazeltine Blvd) -Carver County in Right-of-Way – Work adjacent to CR 117 (Galpin Blvd) Work Plan/Approach | 12A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) Topographic Survey WSB will perform the design survey at this stage to create accurate base mapping and provide a more in-depth construction estimate as part of the feasibility study. The preliminary design survey will be completed using conventional survey methods with invert verification of sanitary and storm sewer structure. Existing right-of-way and/or road easements will be mapped, property pins located where available, and tree locations and size will be included in the survey. Base Mapping Base mapping will be created from the survey data collected (i.e. property pins) and from City data, such as plat maps and current deeds for unplatted property. Information on private and public utilities will also be incorporated into the base map to identify potential conflicts at the feasibility level. As an added benefit, base mapping and design will be created utilizing 3-D Civil Design in AutoCAD. WSB has developed templates specifically for use in drafting and designing with the TASK 2: Survey for Design Services Initial underground data to be collected will be primarily based on a Gopher State One Call design locate. Following the locate request, WSB will contact each private utility company to inform them of the project and gather mapping of individual private facilities in the project site. Additional work performed and information to be collected will include the following: 3-D program. These templates will be provided to the City along with the base files for the project at no additional cost to the City. WSB 360 The existing Google Street View data from the project area is from 2014 and is too outdated to reliably document the existing conditions of the project area. As an added benefit, and at no additional cost to the City, WSB will use a vehicle-mounted camera to photograph the existing conditions within the project corridor. This detailed camera view will record the preconstruction condition of all project components visible from the roadway, eliminating the need to have City staff document the preconstruction conditions using traditional still-frame camera images. WSB 360 includes camera systems that integrate directly with Google Street View. This process enhances the public involvement, project design, and resident communication during the construction phase. This information will be uploaded to Google Maps to provide current images in the Street View feature. Consultant Fee | 13A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) TASK 3: Meetings The proposal includes preparing handouts and exhibits in addition to coordinating and attending the following meetings: TASK 5: Construction Observation/ State Aid Contract Administration WSB will provide an allowance of 40 hours of construction observation to assist with project inspection. WSB will provide personnel that have the appropriate MnDOT certifications for the work performed with a State Aid project. In addition, WSB will provide contract administration services to assist with the documentation required for a State Aid project. WSB has assumed a construction schedule of six weeks for the contract administration. Additional time will be charged at the attached billing rates. TASK 6: Preparation of As-Built Drawings A draft of the as-built drawings will be completed and delivered to the City for review within 90 days following the completion of the construction. Final edits will be made to the drawings and delivered to the City within two weeks following the initial review. Services necessary for the completion of the as-built drawings will include the following: -Surveying to locate and identify as-built elevations for repaired hydrants, valves, and structures -Structure measure downs on repaired facilities -Record drawing preparation -Any necessary tie cards for repaired utilities. • Two (2) City Council meetings • Two (2) neighborhood informational meetings for the entire project area • Staff meetings as necessary, which may include joint meetings with other regulatory agencies such as RPBCWD • Individual property owner meetings as needed • Weekly meetings during construction TASK 4: Construction Staking WSB will provide construction staking and survey for project construction. We assume one-time staking for all required elements. The scope of services as proposed herein is based on services identified as necessary in the RFP from the City, review of the project site, and discussions with City staff. Consultant Fee | 14A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) Consultant Fee WSB is willing to renegotiate the proposed fee if the scope of the project is reduced based on preliminary findings and investigations. Based on our understanding of the project, knowledge of the site, and discussions with City staff, WSB is proposing to complete the separate tasks proposed herein for the project: Lake Lucy Road Rehabilitation Project $78,423 The final scope and fee agreed upon will be prepared upon the City’s acceptance. TASK | DESCRIPTION DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGERERIC ECKMANPROJECT MANAGERNICK PREISLERPROJECT ENGINEERADAM GADBOISWATER RESOURCES ENGINEERBILL ALMSSR. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTSHAWN WILLIAMSPAVEMENT SPECIALISTTOM WOODPAVEMENT SPECIALISTANDREA BLANCHETTEENGINEERING TECHNICIANMIKE MILLERGIS SPECIALISTMIKE PHILLIPPIADMINSUE BUCKLEYSTATE AID CONTRACT ADMINISTRATORPAUL KYLECONSTRUCTION INSPECTORTWO PERSON SURVEY CREWTOTAL HOURS COST TASK 1: DESIGN AND BIDDING SERVICES 1.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 4 12 4 20 $2,752 1.2 STORM SEWER SYSTEM EVALUATION 24 24 $3,600 1.3 PRELIMINARY PLANS A. PAVEMENT DESIGN/TYPICAL SECTION 1 1 2 1 5 $611 B. TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS 1 2 1 4 8 $914 C. STORMWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 1 2 2 1 2 8 $1,021 D. WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS 1 2 2 5 $594 E. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 1 2 1 4 $493 1.4 IDENTIFY NECESSARY EASEMENTS & RIGHT-OF-WAY 1 2 2 5 $594 1.5 FEASIBILITY REPORT A. REPORT TEXT 1 2 10 2 1 1 6 23 $2,813 B. REPORT GRAPHICS 1 3 1 4 9 $977 C. ENGINEER’S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST 2 6 8 $1,040 D. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL 1 1 2 2 6 $722 E. REPORT REVISIONS 1 3 4 $520 1.6 FINAL DESIGN/PLAN PREPARATION A. FINAL DESIGN I.60% DESIGN 1 8 24 2 1 1 2 39 $5,121 II.90% DESIGN 2 4 14 4 1 1 1 27 $3,631 III. 100% DESIGN 1 4 12 2 19 $2,532 IV.DRAWINGS 2 10 2 46 60 $6,498 V.QA/QC 5 5 4 1 1 1 17 $2,347 VI.MNDOT STATE AID SUBMITTAL & COORDINATION 2 4 6 $784 Continued on following page Consultant Fee | 15A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) B. COST ESTIMATE II.90% QUANTITY TABULATIONS AND COST ESTIMATE 2 6 1 9 $1,190 III.100% QUANTITY TABULATIONS AND COST ESTIMATE 1 2 4 1 8 $1,086 C. PROJECT MANUAL I.COMPILE & FORMAT 1 2 6 9 $956 II.SPECIAL PROVISIONS 1 4 6 1 1 2 15 $1,920 VIII.MNDOT STATE AID SUBMITTAL & COORDINATION 1 3 4 $520 1.7 PERMITS 1 3 6 2 12 $1,674 1.8 PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL 2 2 4 2 10 $1,266 1.9 BIDDING SERVICES 2 2 6 10 $1,092 TASK 1 TOTAL ESTIMATED HOURS AND FEE 19 64 137 48 7 3 9 59 8 20 374 $47,268 TASK 2: SURVEY FOR DESIGN SERVICES 2.1 UTILITY COORDINATION/DATA COLLECTION 1 3 3 7 $823 2.2 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 34 34 $6,664 2.3 DATA PROCESSING 6 6 $606 TASK 2 TOTAL ESTIMATED HOURS AND FEE 1 3 9 34 47 $8,093 TASK 3: MEETINGS 3.1 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS (2)2 2 4 $528.00 3.2 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS (2)4 4 2 10 $1,356 3.3 PROGRESS MEETINGS WITH CITY STAFF (3)2 4 4 2 12 $1,660 3.4 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER MEETINGS (2)2 2 4 $528 3.5 WEEKLY CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS (6)4 4 8 16 $1,936 TASK 3 TOTAL ESTIMATED HOURS AND FEE 2 16 16 4 8 46 $6,008 TASK 4: CONSTRUCTION STAKING 4.1 SURVEY COMPS 2 2 $202 4.2 SURVEY STAKING 20 20 $3,920 TASK 4 TOTAL ESTIMATED HOURS AND FEE 2 20 22 $4,122 TASK 5: CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION/ADMINISTRATION 5.1 PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING ATTENDANCE 2 2 2 6 $746 5.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION*40 40 $4,400 5.3 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION*12 4 16 $2,144 5.4 STATE AID CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION*4 2 16 22 $2,832 TASK 5 TOTAL ESTIMATED HOURS AND FEE 18 6 18 42 84 $10,122 TASK 6: PREPARATION OF AS-BUILT DRAWINGS 6.1 FIELD SURVEY 2 6 8 $1,378 6.2 DRAWINGS 1 2 3 4 2 12 $1,432 TASK 6 TOTAL ESTIMATED HOURS AND FEE 1 2 3 6 2 6 $2,810 TOTAL ESTIMATED HOURS 22 101 165 52 7 3 9 76 8 20 18 52 60 573 AVERAGE HOURLY BILLING RATE 152 136 128 150 127 146 118 101 89 94 127 110 196 TOTAL FEE BY LABOR CLASSIFICATION $3,344 $13,736 $21,120 $7,800 $889 $438 $1,062 $7,676 $712 $1,880 $2,286 $5,720 $11,760 $78,423 TOTAL PROJECT COST $78,423 * THIS ASSUMESA 6-WEEK CONSTRUCTION DURATION ** THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMIT FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT (WATERSHED, MPCA, MDOH, MNDOT, COUNTY, ETC.) Consultant Fee | 16A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) BILLING RATE/HOUR PRINCIPAL | ASSOCIATE $152 - $192 SR. PROJECT ENGINEER | SR. PROJECT MANAGER $152- $192 PROJECT MANAGER $135 - $150 PROJECT ENGINEER | GRADUATE ENGINEER $90 - $146 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN | ENGINEERING SPECIALIST $58 - $146 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT | SR. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT $70 - $150 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST | SR. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST $58 - $146 PLANNER | SR. PLANNER $70 - $150 GIS SPECIALIST | SR. GIS SPECIALIST $70 - $150 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVER $95 - $120 SURVEY ONE-PERSON CREW $149 TWO-PERSON CREW $196 THREE-PERSON CREW $211 OFFICE TECHNICIAN $53 - $94 2020 RATE SCHEDULE Costs associated with word processing, cell phones, reproduction of common correspondence, and mailing are included in our hourly rates. Vehicle mileage is included in our billing rates [excluding geotechnical and construction materials testing (CMT) service rates]. Reimbursable expenses include costs associated with plan, specification, and report reproduction; permit fees; etc. Multiple rates illustrate the varying levels of experience within each category. Exceptions and Deviations | 17A Proposal for Lucy Road Rehabilitation (City Project No. 20-03) Exceptions and Deviations During the review of the RFP that has been provided, we believe the following exceptions needs to be considered in order for proper project delivery: • Resident Notification or Survey and Neighborhood Meeting: December 3rd • Consultant Contract Award: December 9th • Neighborhood Meeting: December 19th (aerials/project location) • Draft Feasibility Report: January 9th • Accept Feasibility Report/Notice of Public Hearing: January 27, 2020 • Public Hearing/Authorize Plans and Specs: February 10, 2020 • Approve Plans and Specs/Authorize Ad for Bid: March 23rd (assumes 90 percent plans and state aid review in process) • Bid Opening: April 17, 2020 • Neighborhood Meeting: Late April/Early May • Call Assessment Hearing: April 27, 2020 • Assessment Hearing/Award Contract: May 25, 2020 • Start Construction: Mid-June 2020 • Substantial Completion: Fall 2020 We anticipate a minimum of a two-week extension starting with plan approval through the start of construction if significant utility improvements are required based on the findings of the storm sewer capacity analysis and watermain improvement recommendations (I.e. storm sewer pipe replacement, watermain rehabilitation/service replacement). Survey The preliminary survey time allotted assumes minimal snow cover between December 10, 2019 and December 20, 2019 and that residents were notified of the survey work prior to award of the consultant contract. If significant snowfall is present once the survey work is authorized, additional time may be required and the fee may need to be renegotiated beyond the hours proposed. Design The fee provided assumes spot watermain replacement (valves, hydrants) and minimal storm sewer replacement (castings, 3-4 structures). If significant utility improvements are required based on the findings of the storm sewer capacity analysis and watermain improvement recommendations, then additional fees may need to be negotiated beyond the hours proposed. Schedule The RFP requests that the feasibility report be brought to Council on January 9, 2020, with a bid time frame of late February. We do not believe this schedule is obtainable with the MN State Statute requirements for the 429 process, state aid review, and bidding requirements. We are suggesting the following for a project schedule assuming only spot watermain replacement (valves/hydrants), spot storm sewer improvements, and surface improvements only requiring a mill and overlay. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Authorize Payment for Parcels 12 and 31, Highway 101 Improvement Project Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.11. Prepared By Bruce Loney, Interim Director of Public Works/City Engineer File No: Project No. 2014­08 PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council Approves Administrative Settlements as to Parcel 12, Dypwick property, and Parcel 31 Myslivecek/Abramovich property, for the Highway 101 Improvement Project No. 2014­08.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND On May 13, 2019, Council authorized the Director of Public Works and the City's right­of­way acquisition agent for the Project to submit written offers of compensation on behalf of the City to the owner(s) of each of the parcels of real estate which will be affected by the Project. DISCUSSION Property from Parcel 12, the Dypwick property located at 10300 Great Plains Boulevard, is needed to make improvements to Highway 101. The project requires 1,855 square feet of temporary easement and 9,768 square feet of fee acquisition. An offer of $12,550 was made to the owners. A tentative agreement has been reached with the owners for an additional $5,000, for a total of $17,550. The additional payment is for increased fencing cost, the mailbox, and to avoid condemnation. Property from Parcel 31, the Myslivecek/Abramovich property located at 10151 Great Plains Boulevard, is needed to make improvements to Highway 101. The project requires 1,009 square feet of temporary easement and an offer of $500 was made to the owners. A tentative agreement has been reached with the owners for an additional $1,000, for a total of $1,500 to avoid condemnation. Robert Lindall, Kennedy and Graven, Chartered, attorney for the city, is recommending this settlement as well as Sonya Henning, Henning Professional Services, right­of­way agent for the city who has personally been working with the owners. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends payment of easements for parcels 12 and 31 on the CSAH 101 project. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectAuthorize Payment for Parcels 12 and 31, Highway 101 Improvement ProjectSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.11.Prepared By Bruce Loney, Interim Director of PublicWorks/City Engineer File No: Project No. 2014­08PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council Approves Administrative Settlements as to Parcel 12, Dypwick property, and Parcel 31Myslivecek/Abramovich property, for the Highway 101 Improvement Project No. 2014­08.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDOn May 13, 2019, Council authorized the Director of Public Works and the City's right­of­way acquisition agent forthe Project to submit written offers of compensation on behalf of the City to the owner(s) of each of the parcels of realestate which will be affected by the Project.DISCUSSIONProperty from Parcel 12, the Dypwick property located at 10300 Great Plains Boulevard, is needed to makeimprovements to Highway 101. The project requires 1,855 square feet of temporary easement and 9,768 square feetof fee acquisition. An offer of $12,550 was made to the owners. A tentative agreement has been reached with theowners for an additional $5,000, for a total of $17,550. The additional payment is for increased fencing cost, themailbox, and to avoid condemnation.Property from Parcel 31, the Myslivecek/Abramovich property located at 10151 Great Plains Boulevard, is neededto make improvements to Highway 101. The project requires 1,009 square feet of temporary easement and an offerof $500 was made to the owners. A tentative agreement has been reached with the owners for an additional $1,000,for a total of $1,500 to avoid condemnation.Robert Lindall, Kennedy and Graven, Chartered, attorney for the city, is recommending this settlement as well asSonya Henning, Henning Professional Services, right­of­way agent for the city who has personally been working withthe owners.RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends payment of easements for parcels 12 and 31 on the CSAH 101 project. ATTACHMENTS: Drawing of Parcels 12 and 31 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Resolution 2019­XX: Adopt Resolution of Support for SouthWest Transit Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.12. Prepared By Todd Gerhardt, City Manager File No: Planning General 74 PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council adopts a resolution of support for SouthWest Transit.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: December 9, 2019 RESOLUTION NO: 2019-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR SOUTHWEST TRANSIT WHEREAS, a Replacement Transit Service Program was established by the Minnesota Legislature in 1984 to continue Metropolitan Transit Service Program under Minnesota Statutes Section 473.388; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Chanhassen, Chaska, and Eden Prairie, all being municipal corporations organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, pursuant to authority conferred upon the parties by Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.59, 473.384, 473.388, and related statutes; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Chanhassen, Chaska, and Eden Prairie, entered into a Joint Powers Agreement, to provide Replacement Transit Services dated July 21, 1986, which has since been restated in 1994, 1996, 2005, 2012, and in 2016; and WHEREAS, through this Joint Powers Agreement, the agency “SouthWest Transit” was formed; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council was charged to provide financial assistance under Minnesota Section 473.388 which up until 2002 meant 90 percent of the tax revenues which would accrue to the Council from the tax it levied under Section 473.446 in applicant City; and WHEREAS, in 2002 funding for transit shifted from property taxes collected for transit operations within the metro area transit taxing district to the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) account where 21.5% of the MVST collected went towards metro area transit; and WHEREAS, of the MVST funding allocated for metro area transit, Metro Transit and the Metropolitan Council’s Transit Operations received 82.85 percent of the funding and the suburban transit providers received 17.15 percent of the funding; and WHEREAS, in 2008 the MVST funding allocation for metro area transit increased from 21.5 percent of the statewide MVST collection to 36 percent; and WHEREAS, the Legislature did not mandate a formula for the distribution of the increased MVST funding for regional transit; and WHEREAS, on the average Metro Transit/Metropolitan Council has retained over 96% of the additional MVST funding leaving 4% for the other suburban providers including SouthWest Transit; and 2 WHEREAS, SouthWest Transit was provided over $500,000 in transit assistance from the State General Fund through the Metropolitan Council for the 2018-2019 biennium; and WHEREAS, beginning with the 2020-2022 biennium, the Metropolitan Council eliminated any share of the State General Fund provided for transit to suburban transit providers; and WHEREAS, SouthWest Transit, along with the other suburban transit providers, all have capital needs related to expanding and maintaining its facilities, and for bringing in regional technologies it has not received funding for; and WHEREAS, the Council has not included any capital requests for any of the suburban transit providers in its 2020 Legislative Bonding Request; and WHEREAS, SouthWest Transit is limited by the Metropolitan Council’s fare policy to charge fares that would keep local and special event services cost-effective; and WHEREAS, SouthWest Transit continues to bring a cost-effective, innovative, and entrepreneurial approach to transit to some of the fastest growing areas in the State; and WHEREAS, through its approach, SouthWest Transit has had tremendous ridership growth, continues to have on-time performance and customer satisfaction ranking above 99% annually, and has brought innovations such as transit oriented development; coach vehicles; Wi- Fi, real time mobile apps, and micro-transit to the metropolitan region. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Chanhassen supports SouthWest Transit efforts to: • Reinstatement or replacement of the funding lost when the Metropolitan Council made the decision not to provide any of the General Fund it receives for transit to the suburban systems. This loss amounts to over $500,000 to SouthWest Transit and over $1 million to MVTA. • Provide an equitable distribution of the RAMVST funding (the additional 14.5% of MVST funding provided to the Metropolitan Council for all regional transit operations in 2008). Currently 96.4% of RAMVST funding goes to Metro Transit and the Metropolitan Council, and the suburban providers receive 3.6%. (Note the initial MVST spilt derived when transit came off the property tax in 2002 had a split of 82.85% to Metro Transit/Metropolitan Council, and 17.15% to the suburban providers.) • Provide funding to meet our vehicle and facility expansion needs, as well as to keep our facilities maintained and in a “state of good repair”. 3 • Provide funding to incorporate regional technologies we have been denied that include OMG Routers; Ubisense Transponders; Cubic Go-To Validators; Dead Reckoning Capabilities; MTrac; Fareboxes; and Ticket Vending Machines. • Provide an exemption from the regional fare policies as it relates to local and micro transit service and special events. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 9th day of December, 2019. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Elise Ryan , Mayor YES NO ABSENT CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Avienda Preliminary Plat/Grading Permit Extension Section OLD BUSINESS Item No: F.1. Prepared By Kate Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director File No:  PROPOSED MOTION "The City Council approves extension of the preliminary plat until June 30, 2020 and permits grading as stated in the conditions listed below and in accordance with the preliminary plat approvals." 1. Approval of the Stormwater permit by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD). 2. Meet all requirements of the WCA approval. 3. Receive approval of the plan set for grading and stormwater by both the city and the RPBCWD. 4. Placement of Outlot A in a Conservation Easement. The city shall review the easement language. 5. Boundary of Outlot A shall be staked and inspected prior to grading. 6. Provide proof of withdrawal of the wetland banking credits from the banks once the withdrawal is completed. 7. Complete the Withdrawal of Banking Credits form for LGU review and signature. Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY Level 7 Development is requesting an extension to their Preliminary Plat on the Avienda Project. In their letter stating the desire for the extension, they state that they are prepared to move forward with the mass grading and Phase 1 of the infrastructure installation in the spring of 2020.  They are also prepared to meet with the City Council to give an update on proposed changes to the plan. BACKGROUND Significant dates on the Avienda project: July 10, 2017:  Preliminary Plat et al approved (conditions for final approval) June 25, 2018:  Final Plat approved April 8, 2019: Final Plat is extinguished and extension of the preliminary plat and grading plan was extended until December 31, 2019. DISCUSSION CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectAvienda Preliminary Plat/Grading Permit ExtensionSectionOLD BUSINESS Item No: F.1.Prepared By Kate Aanenson, AICP CommunityDevelopment Director File No: PROPOSED MOTION"The City Council approves extension of the preliminary plat until June 30, 2020 and permits grading as stated in theconditions listed below and in accordance with the preliminary plat approvals."1. Approval of the Stormwater permit by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD).2. Meet all requirements of the WCA approval.3. Receive approval of the plan set for grading and stormwater by both the city and the RPBCWD.4. Placement of Outlot A in a Conservation Easement. The city shall review the easement language.5. Boundary of Outlot A shall be staked and inspected prior to grading.6. Provide proof of withdrawal of the wetland banking credits from the banks once the withdrawal is completed.7. Complete the Withdrawal of Banking Credits form for LGU review and signature.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYLevel 7 Development is requesting an extension to their Preliminary Plat on the Avienda Project. In their letter statingthe desire for the extension, they state that they are prepared to move forward with the mass grading and Phase 1 ofthe infrastructure installation in the spring of 2020. They are also prepared to meet with the City Council to give an update on proposed changes to the plan.BACKGROUNDSignificant dates on the Avienda project:July 10, 2017:  Preliminary Plat et al approved (conditions for final approval)June 25, 2018:  Final Plat approvedApril 8, 2019: Final Plat is extinguished and extension of the preliminary plat and grading plan was extendeduntil December 31, 2019. DISCUSSION There has been a significant amount of work done by the developer and the city in the review of this development moving forward. The development team plans on meeting with the City Council in March to update them on their plans.  RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the extension request.  ATTACHMENTS: Extension Request Letter dated 11/26/19 Preliminary Plat Approval Letter dated 7/18/17 Grading Permit Site Plan November 26, 2019 Kate Aanenson City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Avienda - Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, and CUP extension Dear Kate, Level 7 Development, LLC has been working diligently to meet the conditions of the grading permit, finalizing our Phase 1 development plans, and continued marketing of the property to end users. The ownership group is preparing to move forward with mass grading and Phase 1 of the infrastructure installation in spring 2020, inclusive of Bluff Creek Drive and Avienda Parkway connections, at which point we will pull the grading permit. As a reminder, the Council granted approval of our Preliminary irlat, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit and Wetland Alteration permit on July 10,2017 and extended these preliminary approvals (including grading permit) until December 31 , 2019. We are hereby requesting that these approvals be extended to June 30, 2020. This will allow us to begin grading in 2020 with a goal of completion of Phase 1 infrastructure by Fall2O2A. As we finalize the development plans for the potential end users of the Avienda project, we expect to request minor alterations to the approved PUD plans and look fonruard to presenting an updated plan at a future Council Work Session. Our plans are to present these updated plans at a Council work session in March 2020 and prepare a formal submittal in the spring for approval of the of the updated PUD plans and a revised final plat in the summer. We appreciate the City of Chanhassen's cooperation and look forward to delivering a high-quality development for the community. Please reach out to Kendra Lindahl at Landform with any questions regarding this request. Sincerely Mark Nordland Development Representative Level 7 Development, LLC July 18, 2017 Mr. Bahram Akradi Level 7 Development 4600 Kings Point Road Minnetrista, MN 55331 Re: Avienda Planning Case #2017-10 Dear Mr. Akradi, This letter is to confirm that on July10, 2017, the Chanhassen City Council adopted the following motion: Request for Preliminary Plat creating 17 lots, 3 outlots and dedication of public right-of-way for public streets (115.519 acres); and a Rezoning of 115.519 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Planned Unit Development-Regional Commercial District (PUD-RC) including Exhibit A Avienda Design Standards; and Conditional Use Permit to encroach into the primary zone and required buffer for development in the Bluff Creek Corridor; Wetland Alteration Permit to 4.897 acres of permanent wetland impacts as shown in plans dated April 14, 2017, and June 13, 2017, to request to construct into the primary zone and required buffer for development in the Bluff Creek Corridor located at the southwest corner of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. PUD The City Council approved the Rezoning of 115.54 acres, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, PUD Regional Commercial including the PUD Ordinance 625. SUBDIVISION The City Council approved the Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 17 lots, 3 outlots and dedication of public right-of-way, plans prepared by Landform dated April 14, 2017 and June 14, 2017, subject to the following conditions: Engineering 1. Top and bottom elevations for all retaining walls shall be labeled on the plan set. Mr. Bahram Akradi Avienda Planning Case 2017-10 July 18, 2017 Page 2 of 9 2. Landscaping between tiered walls shall be low or no maintenance. 3. A fence or other barrier is required at any location where a wall is greater than 6 feet tall and within 10 feet of a public right of way. 4. The following wall materials are prohibited: smooth face, poured in place concrete (stamped or patterned is acceptable), masonry, railroad ties, or timber. Boulder walls are prohibited if the maximum height is greater than 6 feet. 5. All retaining walls shall be owned and maintained by a property-owners association. 6. The applicant shall revise their plan and relocate Wall F outside the buffer area of the adjacent wetland prior to grading the site. 7. As large, landscaped boulevards are proposed, the applicant shall add a note to the typical sections to identify a corridor for installation of private utilities such as power, communication, gas, etc. 8. The applicant shall show the road profiles and a horizontal alignment table in the plan set for all public roads prior to final plat. 9. The public roads constructed with this development are: Bluff Creek Boulevard, Avienda Parkway, Sunset Trail and Mills Drive. All other roads and drives constructed with this development will be privately owned and maintained. 10. The applicant proposes an Ultimate Plan for the Bluff Creek intersection with Powers Boulevard that includes two-lane entry into the roundabout. The City requires this Ultimate Plan be constructed at this time, but the roadway can be striped for one-lane only. 11. The applicant shall remove pavement and expand the median on the southern leg of the Powers Boulevard/Bluff Creek Boulevard intersection to remove the second left-turn lane from northbound Powers Blvd to westbound Bluff Creek Blvd. 12. Staff recommends the applicant add traffic calming measures to Avienda Parkway West near the residential areas of development. Specifically, the applicant shall incorporate pedestrian-friendly crossing features to the intersection at Mills Drive and Avienda Parkway West. 13. The applicant shall revise the width of Mills Drive to correspond with the existing Mills Drive section in The Preserve at Bluff Creek. 14. The applicant shall align the intersection of Mills Drive and the access to the apartment building with the parking ramp to form an intersection rather than offset as the current plan shows. Mr. Bahram Akradi Avienda Planning Case 2017-10 July 18, 2017 Page 3 of 9 15. Sunset Trail will become a private roadway from Avienda Parkway to Bluff Creek Boulevard as it winds through the center of the development. When Block 5 and/or Lot 2, Block apply for site plan approval, this private road shall be constructed. 16. The plan for concrete sidewalk on the inside of Avienda Parkway shall be revised to a 5- foot width. 17. ADA-compliant pedestrian ramps shall be constructed at all intersections and median refuges per the MnDOT standard details. 18. The sanitary stub from MH 25 shall be no larger than the 8” downstream pipe and the slope shall be adjusted accordingly. 19. Sanitary service stubs shall be provided for the six twin home units proposed on Mills Drive. 20. Sanitary structures shall be moved out of the landscaped median and into the center of lanes for improved future maintenance access. 21. All sanitary sewer main constructed within the right-of-way in this project shall be publically owned and maintained. 22. Private sanitary main must be constructed to meet the City’s requirements for public utilities. 23. The plan shall use 2017 Chanhassen standard detail plates, which are available on the City’s website. 24. The proposed water main connection 570 feet north of the Bluff Creek Blvd/Powers Blvd intersection shall be removed. A water main connection from Avienda Parkway to Lyman Boulevard through the parking lot of Lot 3, Block 4 shall be installed. The applicant shall grant a drainage and utility easement for this publically owned and maintained connection. 25. Water service stubs shall be provided for the six twin home units proposed on Mills Drive. 26. Additional water main stubs shall be provided at the accesses for Lot 1, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5. 27. All water main constructed within the right-of-way in this project shall be publically owned and maintained. Private sanitary and water main must be constructed to meet the City’s requirements for public utilities. 28. The applicant must show a maintenance access route for the pond at the bottom of Wall D. Mr. Bahram Akradi Avienda Planning Case 2017-10 July 18, 2017 Page 4 of 9 29. The applicant must provide the total disturbed area of the proposed development. 30. Permanent stormwater management controls for Volume, Rate, and Water Quality are required per the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) rules. 31. The applicant must provide a figure clearly identifying the areas to be irrigated with areas quantified, which is not included in the current plans. 32. The proposed reuse system does not provide sufficient volume reduction per RPBCWD rules. It is recommended that the irrigation system is revised to provide further volume reduction. 33. The applicant must provide documentation that each of these ponds meets the Level 1, 2, and 3 criteria per the Minnesota Stormwater Manual to ensure that they will produce the calculated water quality benefits. 34. The applicant must provide the annual runoff volumes to each wetland for the pre- and post-project conditions. 35. The applicant must provide further information on the bounce and inundation periods for each of the identified critical wetlands. The bounce and inundation changes caused by the project must be in compliance with WCA requirements. 36. The twin home units must pay a water and sanitary service partial hook-up fee when Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 are replatted at the rate in place at that time. The remaining hook-up fees would be paid with the building permits. 37. The developer shall work with the Building Department to determine the City SAC and WAC fees for commercial and multi-family buildings. The hook-up fees for commercial and multi-family buildings are due with the building permit at the rate in place at that time. 38. The developer shall pay this site’s portion of the 2005 AUAR costs- which is $25,836.70 with the final plat. 39. Collector and Arterial Roadway Traffic Impact Zone fees will be collected with the final plat. The fee will be based on the commercial rate of $3,600 per acre and a residential rate of 2,400 per acres. 40. The developer shall escrow funds for installation of traffic signals at Sunset Trail, Powers Boulevard and Audubon Road. The escrow amount shall be based on the Carver County’s cost participation policy as published on their website. 41. The proposed redevelopment will need a Riley-Purgatory –Bluff-Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) permit prior to beginning construction activities. Mr. Bahram Akradi Avienda Planning Case 2017-10 July 18, 2017 Page 5 of 9 42. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e., Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, RPBC Watershed District, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA, etc.). 43. A drainage and utility easement shall be placed over Outlot B. 44. The developer shall dedicate the Conservation Easement containing the Bluff Creek Primary Zone to the City. 45. Provide a cross access easement to Lot 4, Block 1 Landscaping 1. No development encroachment on the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone shall be allowed nor fragmentation of the primary zone area. 2. The access route shall follow the shortest route from Camden Ridge to the proposed development. 3. The applicant shall submit an overall landscape plan that shows proposed landscaping for the overall site including items such as parking lots, perimeter, foundation and open space areas. 4. Parking lot islands shall be linear areas incorporating planting area and stormwater management. 5. If the applicant chooses to install the minimum requirement sizes of parking lot landscaping islands, then if the proposed plan remains committed to individual landscape islands, then silva cells, engineered soil or other accommodations must be used in order to insure the survival of the trees. 6. No more than 20% of the total trees should be from any one genus and no more than 10% should be from any one species. 7. A reuse watering system should be considered to irrigate all plantings within the site. 8. Drought tolerant plants shall be incorporate into the overall landscape plan. 9. Proposed landscaping plant materials shall be selected based on site conditions. 10. At a minimum, overall tree cover should be at least 20-25% or higher in commercial areas and a minimum of 30-35% or higher in residential areas. Mr. Bahram Akradi Avienda Planning Case 2017-10 July 18, 2017 Page 6 of 9 11. Any landscaping located within the ROW or the median shall be covered by an encroachment and maintenance agreement Park and Trail 1. Incorporate meaningful park-like places, including the provision of appropriate recreation equipment, site furnishings, and landscaping adjacent to residential components. 2. Preserve the woodlands identified in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Provide a blanket trail easement over the entire preserved area to accommodate the installation of natural surface public trails. 3. Provide an attractive public trail connection from the north entering the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 4. Incorporate traffic calming into all pedestrian crossing locations. 5. Full park dedication fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of requiring parkland dedication. Building Official Comments 1. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. 2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3. Soil evaluation (geo-technical) report required. 4. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. Fire Department Comments The east and west bound driving lanes of Bluff Creek Boulevard extending from Powers Boulevard to the existing Bluff Creek Boulevard be increased from 16 feet to 20 feet curb to curb. This is in order for emergency apparatus to safely pass cars and trucks once they pull over and stop. CUP The City Council approved the Conditional Use Permit to encroach into the primary zone and required buffer for the construction of Bluff Creek Boulevard; subject to conditions in the staff report: Mr. Bahram Akradi Avienda Planning Case 2017-10 July 18, 2017 Page 7 of 9 1. The developer shall dedicate the Conservation Easement containing the Bluff Creek Primary Zone to the City. 2. The Developer shall provide the city with a management for the area and submit to the city for review. 3. Monuments indicating the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be placed at every other property corner and at an angle of deflection greater than seven percent, but in no case shall they be greater than 150 feet apart. 4. The developer shall not encroach into the Bluff Creek Primary Zone. 5. The developer shall comply with the with the 40 foot primary zone setback and preserve or create a 20 foot buffer from the primary zone. 6. The buffer will be required to have a vegetation management plan and soil amendments. 7. The plans shall be revised to remove any structure in the BCOD. VARIANCE The Applicant has withdrawn their request for a variance. WETLAND ALERATION PERMIT The City Council approved the Wetland Alteration Permit to 4.4659 acres of permanent wetland impacts subject to conditions: • The applicant needs to supply the needed additional information to the city. The additional information is needed to determine if the project meets the WCA requirements. • A Technical Evaluation Panel meeting is needed to review the application. • If the application is deemed to meet the avoidance and minimization criteria of the WCA, a mitigation plan that adequately replaces wetland functions and values is needed. • City Staff has reviewed mitigation options. City Staff recommends the applicant provide wetland mitigation via the purchase of wetland bank credits, at a ratio of 2:1, in accordance with WCA requirements. • The applicant shall contribute $300,000 to the city for water quality improvement projects within the watershed. Mr. Bahram Akradi Avienda Planning Case 2017-10 July 18, 2017 Page 8 of 9 Wetland Functions and Mitigation If the project meets the WCA sequencing and shows that the wetland impacts need to occur for the project (i.e. if the project meets wetland avoidance and minimization requirements), the rest of the WCA review for this project is dependent on wetland replacement. The WCA requires that wetland replacement must replace the public value of wetlands lost because of an impact. The public value of wetlands is generally based on the functions of wetlands including: water quality, flood water attenuation, public recreation and education, and fish/wildlife/plant habitats. The WCA uses the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) to determine functions and values. The City completed a citywide MnRAM in 2006. The applicant has completed MnRAM as part of the application process. For the onsite wetlands that were previously evaluated by the City, the applicant’s MnRAM has either the same result or a slightly higher quality results for the wetlands. The table above shows the wetland management categories from the application. The standard categories that the city uses, which are in conformance with state guidance, is as follows: • Preserve: These are the highest quality wetlands and have high quality habitat and native vegetative diversity. • Manage 1: These are a lower quality than Preserve, but still show high habitat quality and plant diversity. • Manage 2: These wetlands have been impacted by stormwater, invasive species, or other impacts and are lower quality than Manage 1. They likely still provide some habitat and may have some native plant species. • Manage 3: These wetlands have been impacted the most and may provide a stormwater treatment function and have minimal native plants. These are the lowest quality wetlands. The wetlands proposed to be impacted by the project are either Manage 2 or Manage 3 wetlands. Some have historically been excavated. These wetlands do not contain a diversity of native plants. They do provide stormwater and floodplain treatment for downstream wetlands as they are at the headwaters of the Bluff Creek and Lake Susan watersheds. Downstream waters are impaired for water quality. Wetland mitigation that replaces wetland functions and values at a minimum of a 2:1 ratio is required and can be met in a variety of ways: • Onsite mitigation: New wetlands are created or restored within a project area. This could address replacing functions and values in the same area, but the current layout does not provide opportunity for a reasonable creation or restoration project. Also, creating new Mr. Bahram Akradi Avienda Planning Case 2017-10 July 18, 2017 Page 9 of 9 wetlands takes time and there are many factors to consider for its success. • Replacement in the same subwatershed: New wetlands are created or restored within the same minor or major subwatershed as the project. This would allow wetland functions and values to be replaced within the subwatershed where the project is located and the project layout would not have to be altered to fit mitigation on site. However, a suitable site would need to be located. • Purchase of wetland credits from a wetland bank: There are several wetland banks in the state and applicants can purchase credit from these already created wetland areas. It is preferred in the WCA rules that a bank within the same bank service area be chosen to purchase credit for a project. • Some combination of these mitigation options: An eligible project can also use a combination of these mitigation options. As stated, if the project is determined to have met the avoidance and minimization criteria for the wetland impact, wetland mitigation for the lost functions and values would be required at a minimum of a 2:1 ratio. Currently, the applicant is proposing mitigation through the purchase of credit from three wetland banks in Blue Earth, Stevens, and Rice Counties. These banks are in the same bank service area, and only one is in the same major watershed area. • In addition to the wetland bank credits, City staff recommends that a condition of approval will include that the applicant shall contribute $300,000 to the city for water quality improvement projects within the watershed. If you have additional questions or need more information, please contact me. Sincerely, Kate Aanenson Community Development Director cc: Kendra Lindahl, AICP, Landform Professional Services enc. GRADING PERMIT PERMIT dated ______________, issued by the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota political subdivision ("City"), to _______________________________., a Launch Properties, LLC (the "Developer"). 1. Request for Grading Permit. The Developer has asked the City to approve a grading permit in conjunction with the proposed plat for Avienda (referred to in this permit as the "plat"). The land is legally described as follows: THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (S 1/2 OF SW 1/4), SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA, EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING 2 DESCRIBED TRACTS: LINE 1. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23; THENCE RUNNING NORTHON SECTION LINE 30 FEET; THENCE IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION, 30FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE WEST 30 FEET TO SAID SOUTHWEST CORNER OFSAID SECTION AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING A THREE CORNERED PIECE IN SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION23, TOWNSHIP 116 RANGE 23; AND 2. THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THEEAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, BOTH IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 116 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHICH LIES EASTERLY OF LINE 2 DESCRIBED BELOW: LINE 2. BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE RUN WEST ON AN AZIMUTH OF 271DEGREES 56 MINUTES 13 SECONDS ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 23 FOR 1634.23 FEET TO A POINT; THENCEON AN AZIMUTH OF OO DEGREES 43 MINUTES 24 SECONDS FOR 500.11 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE ON AN AZIMUTH OF 91DEGREES 56 MINUTES 13 SECONDS FOR 1173.46 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE ON AN AZIMUTH OF 29 DEGREES 19 MINUTES18 SECONDS FOR 152.11 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE ON AN AZIMUTH OF 352 DEGREES 57 MINUTES 23 SECONDS FOR709.36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE ONAN AZIMUTH OF 91 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 02 SECONDS ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER FOR 475.37 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THERE TERMINATING. ABSTRACT. TOGETHER WITH PARCEL 1 THE NORTH 420.00 FEET OF THE EAST 414.86 FEET OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA. PARCEL 2 THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA EXCEPT FOR THE SOUTH 658.24 FEET THEREOF; AND ALSO EXCEPT THE NORTH 420.00 FEET OF THE EAST 414.86 FEET THEREOF. PARCEL 3 THE SOUTH 658.24 FEET OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA. TOGETHER WITH THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4) OF SECTION TWENTY- THREE (23), TOWNSHIP ONE HUNDRED SIXTEEN (116) NORTH OF RANGE TWENTY-THREE (23) WEST, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA, EXCEPT THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER {NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4) OF SECTION TWENTY-THREE (23), TOWNSHIP ONE HUNDRED SIXTEEN (116) NORTH, RANGE TWENTY-THREE (23) WEST, SHOWN AS PARCEL 64 ON MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-19, FILED 10-19-2004 AS DOCUMENT NO. 39930 2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the permit on condition that the Developer abide by its terms and furnish the security required by this permit and meet all conditions of the City Council approved for final plat and grading plan. 3. Plans. The proposed plat shall be graded in accordance with the City approved plans. The plans shall not be attached to this permit. If the plans vary from the written terms of this permit, the written terms shall control. The plans are: Grading and Soil Erosion Control Plan for Avienda Plat 4. Time of Performance. The Developer shall complete the grading, drainage and erosion control in the plat by December 31, 2019. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 5. Erosion Control. Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented by the Developer and daily inspected by its Engineer. The City will inspected the proposed plat area as needed and may impose additional erosion control requirements if deemed necessary. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for any cost the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit to pay any costs. A NPDES General Permit to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (MN R100001) must be obtained before any soil disturbing activity begins. In compliance with MN R100001 Part III.C., A temporary sediment basin must be provided for every 5 acres of disturbance. Prior to receiving a grading permit developer must submit a dewatering plan including proposed staging of dewatering equipment, and materials being used. All dewatering activity done during construction must have prior approval from City Water Resources Staff. A certified SWPPP Inspector must be identified, and contact information provided, before any soil disturbing activity begins. All disturbed, unworked slopes 3:1 or greater require erosion control blanket or equivalent stabilization within 7 days. 6. Grading Plan. The proposed plat shall be graded in accordance with the grading plan. Within thirty (30) days after completion of the grading and before the City releases the security, the Developer shall provide the City with an "as constructed" grading plan and a certification by a registered land surveyor or engineer that all ponds, swales, and ditches have been constructed per plan and functioning to meet approved storm water requirements. 7. Clean up. The Developer shall promptly clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. 8. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this permit, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, from a bank ("security") for $500,000. The bank and form of the letter of credit shall be subject to the approval of the City. The letter of credit shall be for a term ending December 31, 2020. 9. Responsibility for Costs. A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the grading, drainage and erosion control, including but not limited to legal, planning, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the permit, the preparation of this permit, and all costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting the grading, drainage and erosion control. B. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from permit approval and work done in conjunction with it. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this permit, including engineering inspection and attorney's fees. D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this permit within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all work and construction. 10. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This permit is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 11. Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain or cause to be taken out and maintained until six (6) months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $750,000 for one person and $2,000,000 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City signing the plat. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: ____________________________________ (SEAL) Mayor AND ____________________________________ City Manager DEVELOPER: BY: ____________________________________ Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF Carver ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of _________________, 20__, by ____________________________ and by _______________________, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. _____________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF __________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of _______________, __, by _____________________, the ______________________ of Launch Properties, LLC of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on its behalf. _____________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (612) 452-5000 AMP EXHIBIT "A" TO GRADING PERMIT Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. ___________________ Date: _________________ TO: City of Chanhassen 601 Main Street PO Box 99 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55054 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of ___ Launch Properties, LLC and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $500,000, available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the undersigned bank. The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. __________, dated ________________, 20___, of ____(Name of Bank)____"; b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Clerk of the City of Chanhassen. c) Be presented for payment at ___(Address of Bank)___, on or before 4:00 p.m. on November 30, 20___. This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty- five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), the Bank delivers written notice to the Chanhassen City Clerk that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Chanhassen City Clerk, Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317, and is actually received by the City Clerk at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 500. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. BY: ____________________________________ Its ______________________________ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Ordinance XXX: Amendment to City Code Chapter 4, Fees Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council adopts an Ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code revising the fees for 2020." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND City fees are designed to cover the cost of providing a specific service. DISCUSSION Wetland Boundary and Type Determination The city is responsible for making a wetland boundary and type determination for wetlands in the community.  However, we currently do not collect any fees for this and are covering the fees via general funds.  The property owner or developer is required to hire a wetland specialist to create the initial wetland boundary and type study.  They then submit this to the city for a decision. The requirements for a wetland boundary and type determination include: Notification of application. Field review of wetland. Review by Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) if necessary. Notice of decision. Staff is recommending that we establish a $500 fee for this application, which is consistent with other communities and will, generally, cover the costs associated with meeting this requirement.  The city has been paying a consultant to perform this function, so our cost should be reduced when brought back in house. 195 79th St West WCA LGU ­ $370.00. Delineation review 6760 Minnewashta Pkwy ­ $555.00. Delineation review 685 Pleasant View Road ­ $740.00. Delineation review LGU HCRRA Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Delineation ­ $795.50. Delineation Review. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectOrdinance XXX: Amendment to City Code Chapter 4, FeesSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council adopts an Ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code revising the fees for2020."Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDCity fees are designed to cover the cost of providing a specific service.DISCUSSIONWetland Boundary and Type DeterminationThe city is responsible for making a wetland boundary and type determination for wetlands in the community. However, we currently do not collect any fees for this and are covering the fees via general funds.  The propertyowner or developer is required to hire a wetland specialist to create the initial wetland boundary and type study.  Theythen submit this to the city for a decision.The requirements for a wetland boundary and type determination include:Notification of application.Field review of wetland.Review by Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) if necessary.Notice of decision.Staff is recommending that we establish a $500 fee for this application, which is consistent with other communities andwill, generally, cover the costs associated with meeting this requirement.  The city has been paying a consultant toperform this function, so our cost should be reduced when brought back in house.195 79th St West WCA LGU ­ $370.00. Delineation review6760 Minnewashta Pkwy ­ $555.00. Delineation review 685 Pleasant View Road ­ $740.00. Delineation review LGU HCRRA Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Delineation ­ $795.50. Delineation Review. LGU Nye Property Delineation Review ­ $592.00. Delineation review Average:  $610.50 Amend Section 4­30 (b) 15. 15. Wetlands alteration permit : a) Alteration Permit Single­family residence ..... $150.00 b) Alteration Permit All other uses ..... $275.00 c) Boundary and Type Determination ..... $500.00 d) Monumentation for all wetland buffer strip (per sign)..... $20.00 per sign 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 stormwater 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 third 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 storm sewer 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 eight 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. For 2020, Ehlers & Associates, the city’s financial advisor, 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 $4,730 4,820 Single­Family Residential $8,320 8,490 Medium Density Residential $9,990 10,190 Townhouse/Apartment Complex/High Density Residential $14,950 15,250 Industrial $21,580 22,010 Commercial $31,530 32,160 Fees are based on the developable land.  Undeveloped areas such as wetlands and buffers placed into an outlot, 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 $5,393 5,582.00/unit, or $7,704 7,974.00 if a portion of the water hook­up fee was not paid at the time of final subdivision approval CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectOrdinance XXX: Amendment to City Code Chapter 4, FeesSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council adopts an Ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code revising the fees for2020."Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDCity fees are designed to cover the cost of providing a specific service.DISCUSSIONWetland Boundary and Type DeterminationThe city is responsible for making a wetland boundary and type determination for wetlands in the community. However, we currently do not collect any fees for this and are covering the fees via general funds.  The propertyowner or developer is required to hire a wetland specialist to create the initial wetland boundary and type study.  Theythen submit this to the city for a decision.The requirements for a wetland boundary and type determination include:Notification of application.Field review of wetland.Review by Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) if necessary.Notice of decision.Staff is recommending that we establish a $500 fee for this application, which is consistent with other communities andwill, generally, cover the costs associated with meeting this requirement.  The city has been paying a consultant toperform this function, so our cost should be reduced when brought back in house.195 79th St West WCA LGU ­ $370.00. Delineation review6760 Minnewashta Pkwy ­ $555.00. Delineation review685 Pleasant View Road ­ $740.00. Delineation reviewLGU HCRRA Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Delineation ­ $795.50. Delineation Review.LGU Nye Property Delineation Review ­ $592.00. Delineation reviewAverage:  $610.50Amend Section 4­30 (b) 15.15. Wetlands alteration permit :a) Alteration Permit Single­family residence ..... $150.00b) Alteration Permit All other uses ..... $275.00c) Boundary and Type Determination ..... $500.00d) Monumentation for all wetland buffer strip (per sign)..... $20.00 per signSurface 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 stormwater 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 third generation plan. In the past 24 yearsthe National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (NPDES MS4) permitwas issued and revised. This permit allows the City to operate its storm sewer system. Our local Watershed Districtshave also implemented Rules and Standards the City must meet. This has resulted in increased storm water andsurface water 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 eight lakes and creeks that donot meet State water quality standards. For instance, meeting the reduction requirement for Bluff Creek could cost theCity approximately $5.8 million.For 2020, Ehlers & Associates, the city’s financial advisor, 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 $4,730 4,820Single­Family Residential $8,320 8,490Medium Density Residential $9,990 10,190Townhouse/Apartment Complex/High Density Residential $14,950 15,250Industrial$21,580 22,010Commercial$31,530 32,160 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 $2,311.00 to $2,392.00/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 $7,704.00 to $7,974.00.  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 $9,508.00 to $9,841.00. 2016 2017 2018 2019 Proposed 2020 Water Hook­up $6,882 $7,157 $7,443 $7,704 $7,974 Sewer Hook­up $2,302 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302 Water Connection $8,493 $8,833 $9,186 $9,508 $9,841 Sewer Connection $7,710 $7,710 $7,710 $7,710 $7,710 Lake Ann Interceptor $1,971 $1,971 $1,971 $1,971 $1,971 Sub­trunk $2,068 $2,068 $2,068 $2,068 $2,068 The Met Council SAC fee for 2020 remains the same as 2019 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 $2,311 2,392.00/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. 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 $5,393 5,582.00/unit, or $7,704 7,974.00 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 $7,704 7,974.00/unit SAC As established by the Metropolitan Council and $75.00 city SAC surcharge CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectOrdinance XXX: Amendment to City Code Chapter 4, FeesSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council adopts an Ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code revising the fees for2020."Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDCity fees are designed to cover the cost of providing a specific service.DISCUSSIONWetland Boundary and Type DeterminationThe city is responsible for making a wetland boundary and type determination for wetlands in the community. However, we currently do not collect any fees for this and are covering the fees via general funds.  The propertyowner or developer is required to hire a wetland specialist to create the initial wetland boundary and type study.  Theythen submit this to the city for a decision.The requirements for a wetland boundary and type determination include:Notification of application.Field review of wetland.Review by Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) if necessary.Notice of decision.Staff is recommending that we establish a $500 fee for this application, which is consistent with other communities andwill, generally, cover the costs associated with meeting this requirement.  The city has been paying a consultant toperform this function, so our cost should be reduced when brought back in house.195 79th St West WCA LGU ­ $370.00. Delineation review6760 Minnewashta Pkwy ­ $555.00. Delineation review685 Pleasant View Road ­ $740.00. Delineation reviewLGU HCRRA Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Delineation ­ $795.50. Delineation Review.LGU Nye Property Delineation Review ­ $592.00. Delineation reviewAverage:  $610.50Amend Section 4­30 (b) 15.15. Wetlands alteration permit :a) Alteration Permit Single­family residence ..... $150.00b) Alteration Permit All other uses ..... $275.00c) Boundary and Type Determination ..... $500.00d) Monumentation for all wetland buffer strip (per sign)..... $20.00 per signSurface 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 stormwater 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 third generation plan. In the past 24 yearsthe National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (NPDES MS4) permitwas issued and revised. This permit allows the City to operate its storm sewer system. Our local Watershed Districtshave also implemented Rules and Standards the City must meet. This has resulted in increased storm water andsurface water 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 eight lakes and creeks that donot meet State water quality standards. For instance, meeting the reduction requirement for Bluff Creek could cost theCity approximately $5.8 million.For 2020, Ehlers & Associates, the city’s financial advisor, 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 $4,730 4,820Single­Family Residential $8,320 8,490Medium Density Residential $9,990 10,190Townhouse/Apartment Complex/High Density Residential $14,950 15,250Industrial$21,580 22,010Commercial$31,530 32,160Fees 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 $2,311.00 to $2,392.00/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 $7,704.00 to $7,974.00.  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 $9,508.00 to $9,841.00.2016 2017 2018 2019 Proposed2020Water Hook­up $6,882 $7,157 $7,443 $7,704 $7,974Sewer Hook­up $2,302 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302Water Connection $8,493 $8,833 $9,186 $9,508 $9,841Sewer Connection $7,710 $7,710 $7,710 $7,710 $7,710Lake AnnInterceptor $1,971 $1,971 $1,971 $1,971 $1,971Sub­trunk $2,068 $2,068 $2,068 $2,068 $2,068The Met Council SAC fee for 2020 remains the same as 2019 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 $2,311 2,392.00/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 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 $9,508 9,841.00 Water and Sewage Rates For 2020, the Ehlers and Associates analysis recommends a 5% increase to the water utility rates for all tiers and the bulk rate.  In 2020, multi­family properties will pay a uniform rate of $2.70 per 1,000 gallons.  The utility rate analysis also recommends a 5% increase to the sewer utility rates. Listed below is the 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and proposed 2020 water consumption rate structure along with the sewer rate structure: Water 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Fixed Charge (minimum per quarter)8.43 8.88 12.99 13.65 14.34 0 – 6,000 Gallons 1.16 1.22 1.22 1.28 1.34 6,001 – 24,000 Gallons 2.32 2.45 2.45 2.57 2.70 24,001 – 48,000 Gallons 2.90 3.06 3.21 3.37 3.54 48,001 – 99,000 Gallons 3.37 3.56 3.74 3.93 4.13 99,001+ Gallons (Irrigation and Residential Only)4.28 4.52 4.75 4.99 5.24 Multi­Family 2.32 2.45 2.45 2.57 2.70 Bulk sales to contractors, landscapers, etc. at City fill stations or other designated locations 5.82 6.14 6.45 6.77 7.11 Sewer 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Minimum Charge (includes up to 6,000 gallons)22.89 23.85 30.00 31.50 33.09 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 $5,393 5,582.00/unit, or $7,704 7,974.00 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 $7,704 7,974.00/unitSACAs established by the Metropolitan Council and $75.00 city SAC surchargeCITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectOrdinance XXX: Amendment to City Code Chapter 4, FeesSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council adopts an Ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code revising the fees for2020."Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDCity fees are designed to cover the cost of providing a specific service.DISCUSSIONWetland Boundary and Type DeterminationThe city is responsible for making a wetland boundary and type determination for wetlands in the community. However, we currently do not collect any fees for this and are covering the fees via general funds.  The propertyowner or developer is required to hire a wetland specialist to create the initial wetland boundary and type study.  Theythen submit this to the city for a decision.The requirements for a wetland boundary and type determination include:Notification of application.Field review of wetland.Review by Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) if necessary.Notice of decision.Staff is recommending that we establish a $500 fee for this application, which is consistent with other communities andwill, generally, cover the costs associated with meeting this requirement.  The city has been paying a consultant toperform this function, so our cost should be reduced when brought back in house.195 79th St West WCA LGU ­ $370.00. Delineation review6760 Minnewashta Pkwy ­ $555.00. Delineation review685 Pleasant View Road ­ $740.00. Delineation reviewLGU HCRRA Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Delineation ­ $795.50. Delineation Review.LGU Nye Property Delineation Review ­ $592.00. Delineation reviewAverage:  $610.50Amend Section 4­30 (b) 15.15. Wetlands alteration permit :a) Alteration Permit Single­family residence ..... $150.00b) Alteration Permit All other uses ..... $275.00c) Boundary and Type Determination ..... $500.00d) Monumentation for all wetland buffer strip (per sign)..... $20.00 per signSurface 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 stormwater 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 third generation plan. In the past 24 yearsthe National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (NPDES MS4) permitwas issued and revised. This permit allows the City to operate its storm sewer system. Our local Watershed Districtshave also implemented Rules and Standards the City must meet. This has resulted in increased storm water andsurface water 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 eight lakes and creeks that donot meet State water quality standards. For instance, meeting the reduction requirement for Bluff Creek could cost theCity approximately $5.8 million.For 2020, Ehlers & Associates, the city’s financial advisor, 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 $4,730 4,820Single­Family Residential $8,320 8,490Medium Density Residential $9,990 10,190Townhouse/Apartment Complex/High Density Residential $14,950 15,250Industrial$21,580 22,010Commercial$31,530 32,160Fees 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 $2,311.00 to $2,392.00/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 $7,704.00 to $7,974.00.  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 $9,508.00 to $9,841.00.2016 2017 2018 2019 Proposed2020Water Hook­up $6,882 $7,157 $7,443 $7,704 $7,974Sewer Hook­up $2,302 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302Water Connection $8,493 $8,833 $9,186 $9,508 $9,841Sewer Connection $7,710 $7,710 $7,710 $7,710 $7,710Lake AnnInterceptor $1,971 $1,971 $1,971 $1,971 $1,971Sub­trunk $2,068 $2,068 $2,068 $2,068 $2,068The Met Council SAC fee for 2020 remains the same as 2019 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 $2,311 2,392.00/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 $9,508 9,841.00Water and Sewage RatesFor 2020, the Ehlers and Associates analysis recommends a 5% increase to the water utility rates for all tiers and thebulk rate.  In 2020, multi­family properties will pay a uniform rate of $2.70 per 1,000 gallons.  The utility rate analysisalso recommends a 5% increase to the sewer utility rates.Listed below is the 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and proposed 2020 water consumption rate structure along with thesewer rate structure:Water 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Fixed Charge (minimum per quarter)8.43 8.88 12.99 13.65 14.340 – 6,000 Gallons 1.16 1.22 1.22 1.28 1.346,001 – 24,000 Gallons 2.32 2.45 2.45 2.57 2.7024,001 – 48,000 Gallons 2.90 3.06 3.21 3.37 3.5448,001 – 99,000 Gallons 3.37 3.56 3.74 3.93 4.1399,001+ Gallons (Irrigation and ResidentialOnly)4.28 4.52 4.75 4.99 5.24Multi­Family 2.32 2.45 2.45 2.57 2.70Bulk sales to contractors, landscapers, etc.at City fill stations or other designatedlocations 5.82 6.14 6.45 6.77 7.11Sewer20162017201820192020 Minimum Charge (includes up to 6,000 gallons)22.89 23.85 30.00 31.50 33.09 Residential – amounts over 6,000 gallons (based on winter quarter usage)4.45 4.64 4.88 5.12 5.38 Commerical – amounts over 6,000 gallons (based on actual quarterly usage)4.45 4.64 4.88 5.12 5.38 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)                           $13.65 14.34 per quarter 0 to 6,000 gallons per quarter                                                             $1.28 1.34 per 1,000 gallons 6,001 to 24,000 gallons per quarter                                                    $2.57 2.70 per 1,000 gallons 24,001 to 48,000 gallons per quarter                                                  $3.37 3.54 per 1,000 gallons 48,001 to 99,000 gallons per quarter                                                  $3.93 4.13 per 1,000 gallons 99,001+ gallons per quarter (Irrigation and Residential Only)          $4.99 5.24 per 1,000 gallons Multi­family properties – uniform water rate                                    $2.57 2.70 per 1,000 gallons Bulk sales to contractors, landscapers, etc. at City fill stations or other designated locations                                   $6.77 7.11 per 1,000 gallons Sewage: Residential based on winter quarter usage                                         $5.12 5.38 per 1,000 gallons Commercial based on actual quarterly usage                                     $5.12 5.38 per 1,000 gallons Minimum sewage charge per quarter                                                 $31.50 33.09 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 $14.88 to $15.63.  The rates for tax parcels classified 4 through 8 shall increase from $28.99 to $30.44. 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 The surface water management fee for each tax parcel classified 1, 2 and 3 shall be $14.88 15.63 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 30.44 multiplied by the utility factor multiplied by the acreage of the parcel. RECOMMENDATION 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 $5,393 5,582.00/unit, or $7,704 7,974.00 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 $7,704 7,974.00/unitSACAs established by the Metropolitan Council and $75.00 city SAC surchargeCITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectOrdinance XXX: Amendment to City Code Chapter 4, FeesSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council adopts an Ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code revising the fees for2020."Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDCity fees are designed to cover the cost of providing a specific service.DISCUSSIONWetland Boundary and Type DeterminationThe city is responsible for making a wetland boundary and type determination for wetlands in the community. However, we currently do not collect any fees for this and are covering the fees via general funds.  The propertyowner or developer is required to hire a wetland specialist to create the initial wetland boundary and type study.  Theythen submit this to the city for a decision.The requirements for a wetland boundary and type determination include:Notification of application.Field review of wetland.Review by Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) if necessary.Notice of decision.Staff is recommending that we establish a $500 fee for this application, which is consistent with other communities andwill, generally, cover the costs associated with meeting this requirement.  The city has been paying a consultant toperform this function, so our cost should be reduced when brought back in house.195 79th St West WCA LGU ­ $370.00. Delineation review6760 Minnewashta Pkwy ­ $555.00. Delineation review685 Pleasant View Road ­ $740.00. Delineation reviewLGU HCRRA Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Delineation ­ $795.50. Delineation Review.LGU Nye Property Delineation Review ­ $592.00. Delineation reviewAverage:  $610.50Amend Section 4­30 (b) 15.15. Wetlands alteration permit :a) Alteration Permit Single­family residence ..... $150.00b) Alteration Permit All other uses ..... $275.00c) Boundary and Type Determination ..... $500.00d) Monumentation for all wetland buffer strip (per sign)..... $20.00 per signSurface 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 stormwater 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 third generation plan. In the past 24 yearsthe National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (NPDES MS4) permitwas issued and revised. This permit allows the City to operate its storm sewer system. Our local Watershed Districtshave also implemented Rules and Standards the City must meet. This has resulted in increased storm water andsurface water 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 eight lakes and creeks that donot meet State water quality standards. For instance, meeting the reduction requirement for Bluff Creek could cost theCity approximately $5.8 million.For 2020, Ehlers & Associates, the city’s financial advisor, 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 $4,730 4,820Single­Family Residential $8,320 8,490Medium Density Residential $9,990 10,190Townhouse/Apartment Complex/High Density Residential $14,950 15,250Industrial$21,580 22,010Commercial$31,530 32,160Fees 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 $2,311.00 to $2,392.00/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 $7,704.00 to $7,974.00.  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 $9,508.00 to $9,841.00.2016 2017 2018 2019 Proposed2020Water Hook­up $6,882 $7,157 $7,443 $7,704 $7,974Sewer Hook­up $2,302 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302Water Connection $8,493 $8,833 $9,186 $9,508 $9,841Sewer Connection $7,710 $7,710 $7,710 $7,710 $7,710Lake AnnInterceptor $1,971 $1,971 $1,971 $1,971 $1,971Sub­trunk $2,068 $2,068 $2,068 $2,068 $2,068The Met Council SAC fee for 2020 remains the same as 2019 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 $2,311 2,392.00/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 $9,508 9,841.00Water and Sewage RatesFor 2020, the Ehlers and Associates analysis recommends a 5% increase to the water utility rates for all tiers and thebulk rate.  In 2020, multi­family properties will pay a uniform rate of $2.70 per 1,000 gallons.  The utility rate analysisalso recommends a 5% increase to the sewer utility rates.Listed below is the 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and proposed 2020 water consumption rate structure along with thesewer rate structure:Water 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Fixed Charge (minimum per quarter)8.43 8.88 12.99 13.65 14.340 – 6,000 Gallons 1.16 1.22 1.22 1.28 1.346,001 – 24,000 Gallons 2.32 2.45 2.45 2.57 2.7024,001 – 48,000 Gallons 2.90 3.06 3.21 3.37 3.5448,001 – 99,000 Gallons 3.37 3.56 3.74 3.93 4.1399,001+ Gallons (Irrigation and ResidentialOnly)4.28 4.52 4.75 4.99 5.24Multi­Family 2.32 2.45 2.45 2.57 2.70Bulk sales to contractors, landscapers, etc.at City fill stations or other designatedlocations 5.82 6.14 6.45 6.77 7.11Sewer20162017201820192020Minimum Charge (includes up to 6,000gallons)22.89 23.85 30.00 31.50 33.09Residential – amounts over 6,000 gallons(based on winter quarter usage)4.45 4.64 4.88 5.12 5.38Commerical – amounts over 6,000 gallons(based on actual quarterly usage)4.45 4.64 4.88 5.12 5.38Amend 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)                           $13.65 14.34 per quarter0 to 6,000 gallons per quarter                                                             $1.28 1.34 per 1,000 gallons6,001 to 24,000 gallons per quarter                                                    $2.57 2.70 per 1,000 gallons24,001 to 48,000 gallons per quarter                                                  $3.37 3.54 per 1,000 gallons48,001 to 99,000 gallons per quarter                                                  $3.93 4.13 per 1,000 gallons99,001+ gallons per quarter (Irrigation and Residential Only)          $4.99 5.24 per 1,000 gallonsMulti­family properties – uniform water rate                                    $2.57 2.70 per 1,000 gallonsBulk sales to contractors, landscapers, etc. atCity fill stations or other designated locations                                   $6.77 7.11 per 1,000 gallonsSewage:Residential based on winter quarter usage                                         $5.12 5.38 per 1,000 gallonsCommercial based on actual quarterly usage                                     $5.12 5.38 per 1,000 gallonsMinimum sewage charge per quarter                                                 $31.50 33.09 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$14.88 to $15.63.  The rates for tax parcels classified 4 through 8 shall increase from $28.99 to $30.44.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 0.468Parking lots as a principal use 6.14The surface water management fee for each tax parcel classified 1, 2 and 3 shall be $14.88 15.63 per quarter.The surface water management fee for each tax parcel classified 4 through 8 shall be calculated for each quarter asfollows:  $28.99 30.44 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 the fees for 2020. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Amending Chapter 4, Chanhassen City Code, Fees Executive Summary of Utility Rate Analysis for 2020 Rates 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE- LICENSE, PERMIT AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 4-30 (b) 15 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: 15. Wetlands: a) Alteration Permit Single-family residence $150.00 b) Alteration Permit All other uses $275.00 c) Boundary and Type determination $500.00 d) Monumentation for all wetland buffer strip $20.00 per sign Section 2. 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 $4,820 Single Family Residential $8,490 Medium Density Residential $10,190 Townhouse/Apartment Complex/High Density Residential $15,250 Industrial $22,010 Commercial $32,160 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 3. Section 4-30 (c) 5 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: 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 $2,392.00/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. 2 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 $9,841.00 Section 4. Section 4-45 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: Utility rates are established for each 1,000 gallons of usage: Water: Fixed Charge (minimum water charge per quarter) $14.34 per quarter 0 to 6,000 gallons per quarter $1.34 per 1,000 gallons 6,001 to 24,000 gallons per quarter $2.70 per 1,000 gallons 24,001 to 48,000 gallons per quarter $3.54 per 1,000 gallons 48,001 to 99,000 gallons per quarter $4.13 per 1,000 gallons 99,001+ gallons per quarter (Irrigation and Residential Only) $5.24 per 1,000 gallons Multi-family properties – uniform water rate $2.70 per 1,000 gallons 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 $5,582.00/unit, or $7,974.00 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 $7,974.00/unit SAC As established by the Metropolitan Council and $75.00 city SAC surcharge 3 Bulk sales to contractors, landscapers, etc. at City fill stations or other designated locations $7.11 per 1,000 gallons Sewage: Residential based on winter quarter usage $5.38 per 1,000 gallons Commercial based on actual quarterly usage $5.38 per 1,000 gallons Minimum sewage charge per quarter $33.09 per quarter (for amounts up to 6,000 gallons per quarter) Section 5. 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 $15.63 per quarter. The surface water management fee for each tax parcel classified 4 through 8 shall be calculated for each quarter as follows: $30.44 multiplied by the utility factor multiplied by the acreage of the parcel. Section 6. This ordinance shall be effective January 1, 2020 after its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of December, 2019, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ______________________________) December 9, 2019 Executive Summary of the Utility Rate Analysis for 2020 Rates CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Utility Rate Study December 2019 Chanhassen, Minnesota Page 1 Introduction 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 its quarterly charges and development fees. This rate study provides a recommendation for the 2020 user rates and development fees of the water, sanitary sewer, and storm water utilities. The rate study reviews each utility fund to ensure that the recommended rates and fees will be adequate to support all operations and capital costs in 2020 and into the future. We completed a ten-year financial projection for each utility fund. This report details the findings and the recommendations for each utility, reviews development fees, and summarizes a sample 2020 utility bill for a homeowner in the City of Chanhassen. Methodology and Assumptions Ehlers prepared a 10-year cash flow projection for the water, sewer and storm water utility funds through the year 2029 to examine projected cash flows in future years and estimate the user rate increases necessary to meet all financial obligations of the utility funds while maintaining and building adequate cash reserves. The cash flow analysis method determines future revenue requirements by incorporating operating and maintenance expenses, transfer payments, current and future debt service and future capital projects. We also include future growth estimates in the model. The primary financial inputs in the development of the analysis were the City’s audited financial statements, budget documents, and Capital Improvement Plan. The cashflow projections include the following assumptions:  3-4% annual inflation on operating costs.  4% annual inflation on capital expenses.  5% annual inflation on MCES disposal charges.  80 new residential units for 2020, 130 new residential units 2021-2024 then 120 new residential units per year thereafter and 25 new commercial SAC units per year as discussed with City staff.  Future water use will remain at 2019 expected consumption, despite anticipated growth. This is a conservative assumption to reflect the trend of declining per capita water consumption in the City. Utility Rate Study December 2019 Chanhassen, Minnesota Page 2 Funding capital improvements for a growing community as well as replacing aging utility infrastructure drive the need for adequate utility revenue. City staff developed a 10-year Capital Improvement Plan for each utility (See Appendix A). All capital costs are in today’s dollars and have been inflated 4% annually beginning in 2020. The total inflated cost is at the bottom of the table. Water Fund The rate study proposes a 5% annual water rate increase in 2020 and beyond. The recommended increase of 5% is consistent with last year’s rate study. The 5% rate increases will help pay for the City’s projected investment in expanding and improving the water system as well as water projects completed as part of the Street Improvement Program. Between 2020 and 2029, the City plans to spend $21 million on capital improvements (in today’s dollars) from the water utility fund. This is a 25% increase over the same time period in last year’s rate study. The $4.2 million increase in capital expenditures is due to additional water main replacement projects and other water infrastructure completed in connection with street reconstruction projects. The chart below outlines some of the major water system capital projects in the City’s capital improvement plan. Water Fund - Major Projects Year Amount Annually $1,800,000 2025-2029 $380,000 Annually $700,000 2024/2029 $2,600,000 2026 $1,100,000 2024 $2,600,000 Average Debt Service Watermain Replacement - Average Street Improvement Program - Average New Wells Lower Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvements Low Zone 1M Gal. Elevated Storage Tank TH101 Imp-Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr 2020-2021 $1,000,000 Utility Rate Study December 2019 Chanhassen, Minnesota Page 3 Recommended Water Rates Existing Proposed Quarterly Rates 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Percentage Increase 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Flat Rates All Users Minimum Charge $13.65 $14.33 $15.05 $15.80 $16.59 $17.42 Usage Rates Residential/Commercial/Irrigation 0-6,000 gallons $1.28 $1.34 $1.41 $1.48 $1.56 $1.63 6,001-24,000 gallons 2.57 2.70 2.83 2.98 3.12 3.28 24,001-48,000 gallons 3.37 3.54 3.72 3.90 4.10 4.30 48,001-99,000 gallons 3.93 4.13 4.33 4.55 4.78 5.02 > 99,001 gallons 4.99 5.24 5.50 5.78 6.07 6.37 Multi-Family All Usage, per 1,000 gallons $2.57 $2.70 $2.83 $2.98 $3.12 $3.28 Despite the overall increase in future capital expenditures, we have been able to maintain 5% annual increases similar to the prior years’ recommendations through increased reliance on debt. Eighty-seven percent of future capital projects are expected to be financed. If capital costs increase faster than anticipated, annual rate increases will need to be higher than 5% in the future as the Water Fund does not have the financial capacity to support additional debt with the current revenues projected. Sewer Fund The driving factors in setting sewer rates are the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services’ (MCES) disposal charge and planned capital costs. The MCES disposal charge represents over 50% of the operating expenses within the Sewer Fund. The city has been informed that there will be a 9.7% increase for 2020. Capital costs have increased from last year’s planned amounts by 13% (in today’s dollars). Similar to the Water Fund, the capital increases are largely due to increased funding for sewer replacements under street reconstruction projects. The recommended sewer rate increase of 5% in 2020 and beyond reflects the inflationary increases in the MCES disposal charge plus the planned capital costs. Utility Rate Study December 2019 Chanhassen, Minnesota Page 4 Sewer Fund - Major Projects Year Amount Average Debt Service Annually $65,000 Sanitary Lift Station Rehabilitation Program - Average Annually $100,000 Street Improvement Program - Average Annually $330,000 Inflow and Infiltration Abatement Annually $200,000 Lower Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvements 2026 $1,800,000 TH101 Imp-Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr (CSAH 61) 2020-2021 $1,000,000 2010 MUSA Sanitary Lift Station 2025 $950,000 Despite the overall increase in future capital expenditures, we have been able to maintain 5% annual increases similar to the prior years’ recommendations because two major projects (the 2010 MUSA Sanitary Lift Station and the Lower Bluff Creek Utility Improvements) were delayed. These improvements will occur when prompted by development activity. If capital costs or MCES disposal charges increase in the future, higher annual rate increases will be required. Many of these potential future costs (i.e. rising construction costs and MCES disposal charges) are outside of the City’s immediate control. Recommended Sewer Rates Existing Proposed Quarterly Rates 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Flat Rates All Users Minimum Charge $31.50 $33.08 $34.73 $36.47 $38.29 $40.20 Usage Rates All Users >6000 gallons $5.12 $5.38 $5.64 $5.93 $6.22 $6.53 Utility Rate Study December 2019 Chanhassen, Minnesota Page 5 Storm Water Fund 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 allocation of costs on road reconstruction projects it plans to complete within its Capital Improvement Plan. Specifically, from last year’s Capital Improvement Plan to this year’s, there was a 70% increase (in today’s dollars) in capital costs. The major projects within the Storm Water fund are outlined below. Storm Water - Major Projects Year Amount Storm Water Pond Improvements Annually $300,000 Storm Water Infrastructure Maintenance - Average Annually $82,500 Street Improvement Program - Average Annually $580,000 It is recommended that the City adopt a 5% increase over last year’s rate. Recommended Storm Water Rates Existing Proposed Quarterly Rates 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Flat Rates Residential Base Charge $14.88 $15.62 $16.41 $17.23 $18.09 $18.99 Commercial/Industrial Base Charge $28.99 $30.44 $31.96 $33.56 $35.24 $37.00 In the past, the City has funded its storm water projects with cash. Between 2021 and 2029 the capital expenditures per year are expected to average $1,000,000 and we anticipate the City will need to finance 63% of its capital project costs. This represents a change from last year’s rate study when only $400,000 of bonding was anticipated over the ten-year projection period. Cash Reserves Cash balances in the utility funds serve several purposes. Adequate cash balances provide the needed cashflow for the city during potential seasonal mismatches between revenues Utility Rate Study December 2019 Chanhassen, Minnesota Page 6 and expenses. In addition, the City needs to have cash on hand as of December 31 each year to make its February bond payments. Appendix B is the 10-year cash flow analysis for the City’s utility funds. The cash flow analysis projects the user rate increases necessary to meet the estimated annual expenses of the utility and maintain a minimum recommended reserve level (“Target Working Capital”). The following graphs show the projected year end cash balance in each utility fund as compared to the Target Working Capital. For the water and sewer funds, the Target Working Capital equals 50% of annual operating expenses plus 10% accumulated depreciation. Utility Rate Study December 2019 Chanhassen, Minnesota Page 7 For the Storm Water Fund the Target Working Capital was established at $1,000,000 in 2016 and inflates 4% annually to keep up with construction costs. The graphs above show that the City is projected to meet its goals for cash reserves for each utility. 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Sewer Fund Projected Cash Balances Target Working Capital Actual Working Capital 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Storm Water Fund Projected Cash Balances Target Working Capital Actual Working Capital Utility Rate Study December 2019 Chanhassen, Minnesota Page 8 Community Comparison Each community has different demands on its utility systems that make it unique – different growth patterns, groundwater sources, soil conditions, usage patterns and infrastructure. Therefore, one should set rates based on documented need, as the City of Chanhassen does through its annual rate study. Nevertheless, it is informative to know how the City’s rates compare to other developing communities with similar characteristics – the KFS communities Chanhassen has previously identified as well as its neighbors. Figure 1 shows a sample 2019 bill for a residential customer who uses 26,000 gallons of water and sewer in each KFS city and Figure 2 shows a sample bill for adjacent communities. Figure 1. Quarterly Bill Comparison Assuming 26,000 Gallons of Water and Sewer Used Utility Rate Study December 2019 Chanhassen, Minnesota Page 9 Figure 2. Quarterly Bill Comparison Assuming 26,000 gallons of Water and Sewer Used – Adjacent Communities Putting It All Together: Sample Bills The chart below shows a sample monthly bill for a residential and commercial customer. Existing 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Residential Property Water (26,000 gallons/quarter) 74.33$ 78.05$ 81.95$ 86.05$ 90.35$ 94.87$ Sewer (26,000 gallons/quarter) 133.90 140.60 147.62 155.01 162.76 170.89 Storm Water 14.88 15.62 16.41 17.23 18.09 18.99 Total Quarterly Utility Bill 223.11$ 234.27$ 245.98$ 258.29$ 271.20$ 284.75$ Total Annual Utility Bills 892.44$ 937.10$ 983.90$ 1,033.14$ 1,084.79$ 1,139.00$ $ Increase/(Decrease) 11.16 11.70 12.31 12.91 13.55 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Commercial Property Water (50,000 gallons/quarter) 156.33$ 164.15$ 172.35$ 180.97$ 190.02$ 199.52$ Sewer (50,000 gallons/quarter) 256.78 269.62 283.10 297.25 312.12 327.72 Storm Water (Classified 6 w/1 acre) 122.63 128.76 135.20 141.96 149.05 156.51 Total Quarterly Utility Bill 535.74$ 562.53$ 590.65$ 620.18$ 651.19$ 683.75$ Total Annual Utility Bills 2,142.95$ 2,250.12$ 2,362.59$ 2,480.71$ 2,604.78$ 2,734.99$ $ Increase/(Decrease) 26.79 28.12 29.53 31.02 32.55 % Increase/(Decrease) 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Proposed Quarterly Bills Utility Rates Utility Rate Study December 2019 Chanhassen, Minnesota Page 10 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 80 new residential units to be constructed for 2020 and 130 new units from 2021 through 2024 and 120 units per year thereafter as discussed with City staff. In addition to the residential growth, 25 SAC units per year are assumed to come from commercial development and new irrigation meters. This rate study’s recommendation for a 3.5% annual water hook-up fee increase and no increase to sewer hook-up fees is consistent with last year’s rate study and 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. 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, consistent with last year’s rate study. Charge Per Acre 2019 (Before Credits) Proposed 2020 (Before Credits) Single Family $ 8,323 $ 8,490 Townhouse $14,953 $15,252 Apartment Complex/ High Density $14,953 $15,252 Commercial $31,528 $32,159 Industrial $21,583 $22,015 Single-Family Home Development Fees 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 City WAC Fees 5,393 5,582 5,777 5,979 6,189 6,405 City SAC Fees 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,611 City Surcharge 75 75 75 75 75 75 TOTAL $7,079 $7,268 $7,463 $7,665 $7,875 $8,091 Utility Rate Study December 2019 Chanhassen, Minnesota Page 11 The City requested Ehlers to provide a comparison of hook-up fees and area charges for three sample developments: 1.A single-family home; 2.A 100-unit multifamily development on 4 net developable acres; and 3.A 130,000 square foot industrial development with 34 SAC units on 8 net developable acres. The comparison was made with both neighboring communities and the City’s identified KFS cities. Please see Appendix C for the sample comparisons. Summary We recommend keeping the City’s existing rate structure and implementing the following percentage rate increases for 2020: Utility Fee Percent Increase Water Usage Rates 5% Sewer Usage Rates 5% Stormwater Utility Fee 5% Water Hook-up Fee 3.5% Sewer Hook-up Fee 0% Storm Water Area Charge 2% These rate increases accommodate the City’s increased commitment to funding street reconstruction projects and maintain adequate cash reserves. Utility Rate Study Chanhassen, Minnesota December 2019 Appendix A – Capital Improvement Plans Water Fund Capital Improvement Plan Sanitary Sewer Fund Capital Improvement Plan Storm Water Fund Capital Improvement Plan City of Chanhassen, MNUtility Rate StudyWater SystemCapital Improvement Program2019 20202021202220232024202520262027 2028 2029OPERATING PROJECTSSoftware Purchases(EQ-048)11,950 12,550 13,170 14,290 15,000Generator(EQ-059)52,350Light Duty Trucks: Utilities (EQ-062)15,000 21,50044,000 70,00025,00025,000Annual Skid Loader Trade-In (EQ-124)9,5003,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Bobcat Trailer Replacement(EQ-160)3,600Mailing Folder/Inserter(EQ-161)5,000Generator Truck(EQ-168)95,000Watermain Replacement (W-024)600,000100,000 800,000 100,000 800,000 100,000Well Rehabilitation Program (W-032)50,000 51,000 56,000 96,000 61,000 43,000 50,000 90,000 50,000 90,000 50,000Well #4 Re-roofing Project(W-064)19,500Repaint Watertower Place Tank (W-061)2,000,000Finance/UB/Permiting/Planning Software(EQ-174)Lake Susan Park Water Re-Use Project(SWMP-052)Chanhassen H.S. water reuse project(SWMP-054)Downtown water reuse project(SWMP-057)Annual Street Improvement Program(ST-012)679,6001,550,000 1,605,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000Galpin Blvd Improvements - Hwy 5 N to City Limits(ST-040)500,000Future Capital - Operating200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000Powers Bld Watermain Loop(W-063)510,000Subtotal - Operating (2019 Dollars)3,354,100 2,168,950 1,673,550 1,312,770 914,290 880,350 1,053,000 1,818,000 1,053,000 1,818,000 1,053,000Inflated Project Costs - Operating3,354,100 2,255,708 1,740,492 1,419,892 1,028,452 1,029,8851,281,1362,300,350 1,385,6762,488,059 1,498,747CONNECTION PROJECTSWell #16 (W-059) (W-059)1,400,000Well #17 1,200,000Well #18Lower Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvements (SS-024)1,100,000TH101 Imp-Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr (CSAH 61) (ST-032) 500,000 500,000Low Zone 1M Gal. Elevated Storage Tank (W-046)2,600,000MUSA Trunk Watermain Oversizing (W-056) 150,000West Water Treatment Plant (W-037)Future Capital - Connection00000Subtotal - Connection (2019 Dollars)150,000 500,000 500,00000 4,000,0000 1,100,00000 1,200,000Inflated Project Costs - Connection150,000 520,000 520,00000 4,679,4340 1,391,85100 1,707,974Total CIP (2020 Dollars)3,504,100 2,668,950 2,173,550 1,312,770 914,290 4,880,350 1,053,000 2,918,000 1,053,000 1,818,000 2,253,000Percent Inflation4%4%4%4%4%4%4%4% 4%4%Total Inflated Project Costs3,504,100 2,775,708 2,260,492 1,419,892 1,028,452 5,709,319 1,281,1363,692,201 1,385,6762,488,059 3,206,722 City of Chanhassen, MNUtility Rate StudySanitary Sewer SystemCapital Improvement Program 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20242025 2026 2027 2028 2029OPERATING PROJECTSDump/Plow Truck Replacements/Additions(EQ-016)Light Duty Trucks: Utilities (EQ-062)15,000 21,50044,000 70,00025,00025,000Annual Skid Loader Trade-In (EQ-124)9,5003,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Utility Dept - Generator Trailer (EQ-133)Bobcat Trailer Replacement(EQ-160)3,600Mailing Folder/Inserter(EQ-161)5,000Finance/UB/Permitting/Planning Software Upgrade(EQ-174)Sanitary Sewer Replacement (SS-014) 160,000Sanitary Lift Station Rehabilitation Program (SS-017) 135,000 130,000 120,000 130,000 85,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000Annual Street Improvement Program(ST-012)192,500 517,500 325,000 325,000 325,000 325,000 325,000 325,000 325,000 325,000Vactor Sewer/Jetting Truck (EQ-110)Galpin Blvd Improvements - Hwy 5 N to City Limits(ST-040)250,000Software Purchases(EQ-048)11,950 12,550 13,170 14,290 15,000Generator(EQ-059)52,350Generator Truck(EQ-16895,000Future Capital - Operating10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Subtotal - Operating (2020 Dollars)319,500 360,950 650,050 721,770 563,290 552,350 425,000 453,000 428,000 453,000 428,000Inflated Project Costs - Operating319,500 375,388 676,052 780,666633,625646,171 517,077 573,190 563,219 619,962 609,177CONNECTION PROJECTSInflow and Infiltration Abatement (SS-012) 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,0002010 MUSA Sanitary Lift Station (SS-020)950,000Lower Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvements (SS-024)1,800,000MUSA Trunk Sanitary Sewer Oversizing (SS-025)Reconstruct-Cty Rd 61 from TH101 to Charlson Rd (ST-033)TH101 Imp-Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr (CSAH 61) (ST-032) 500,000 500,000Sub-District LB-1 Trunk Lift StationFuture Capital - ConnectionSubtotal - Connection (2020 Dollars) 200,000 700,000 700,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,150,000 2,000,000 200,000 200,000 200,000Inflated Project Costs - Connection 200,000 728,000 728,000 216,320 224,973 233,972 1,399,151 2,530,638263,186273,714284,662Total CIP (2020 Dollars) 519,500 1,060,950 1,350,050 921,770 763,290 752,350 1,575,000 2,453,000 628,000 653,000 628,000Percent Inflation4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%Total Inflated Project Costs 519,500 1,103,3881,404,052 996,986858,597 880,143 1,916,2283,103,828826,405893,676893,840 City of Chanhassen, MN Utility Rate StudyStorm Water System Capital Improvement Program PROJECTS2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029Street Sweeper (EQ-118)261,000Mailing Folder/Inserter(EQ-161)5,000Property Acquisition(SWMP-014) 75,000 75,00075,00075,00075,000St Improvement Projects - Storm Water Mgmt.(SWMP-019)Lower Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation (SWMP-024) 75,000 50,000Storm Water Pond Improvements (SWMP-032) 80,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000LID Implementation Project (SWMP-035)Storm Water Infrastructure Maint./Replacement (SWMP-045) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000Lotus Lake Channels & Outfall Improvements(SWMP-046)50,000100,000Upper Riley Creek Channel Stabilization (SWMP-048)10,000 15,000Lake Susan Park water re-use project(SWMP-052)Rice Marsh Lake iron enhanced san filter(SWMP-053)50,000Chanhassen H.S. water re-use project(SWMP-054)Lake Lucy Lan Culvert Replacement(SWMP-055)Pioneer Trail Flood Mitigation(SWMP-056) 75,000Downtown Water Reuse Project(SWMP-057)Lake Virginia TMDL Load Reduction(SWMP-058) 10,000Software Purchases(EQ-048)11,950 12,550 13,170 14,290 15,000Finance/UB/Permiting/Planning Software Upgrade(EQ-174)Annual Street Improvement Program(ST-012)389,948 185,500 785,500 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000Future Projects30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000Total CIP (2020 Dollars)1,015,948 677,450 1,208,050 1,028,170 1,064,290 1,115,000 1,030,000 1,105,000 1,030,000 1,105,000 1,030,000Percent Inflation4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%Inflated Project Costs1,015,948 704,548 1,256,372 1,112,069 1,197,182 1,304,392 1,253,152 1,398,178 1,355,410 1,512,269 1,466,011 Utility Rate Study Chanhassen, Minnesota December 2019 Appendix B – Projections Water Fund Projections Sanitary Sewer Fund Projections Storm Water Fund Projections 1 Rates Inflation 2 Revenue growth assumption - non-usage3 Investment income yield4 Expense growth - general and admin 5 Expense growth - contractual6 Expense growth - non personnel7 Connection fee increase8 MCES rate increase910 Beginning net assets1112 Operating Revenues13 Water Sales14 Sewer Charges15 Storm Sewer Charges16 Penalties and other17 Total Operating Revenues1819 Operating Expenses20 Personal services21 Materials and supplies22 MCES23 Other contractual services24 Repairs and maintenance25 Depreciation26 Total Operating Expenses2728 Net Operations29 Non operating revenues (expenses)30 Investment income31 Connection charges32 Intergovernmental33 Refunds and reimbursements34 Interest and fiscal charges35 Gain (loss) on disposal of Capital assets36 Transfers in37 Transfers out38 Contributions of Capital assets39 Prior period adjustment40 Special assessments41 Total non operating revenue (expenses)4243 Net increase (decrease) in resources4445Ending net assetsWater FundBudget2017 2018 2019 2020 202120222023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 20295.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 2.00% 2.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50%33,503,241 33,528,323 34,742,933 33,032,450 32,408,251 32,472,619 32,744,340 33,238,832 33,964,156 34,837,884 35,948,647 37,304,212 38,914,8602,824,929 2,994,530 3,145,034 3,308,359 3,477,701 3,658,282 3,852,336 4,056,920 4,270,942 4,497,457 4,735,946 4,987,041 5,251,4050 00 0 0 0 00000000 00 0 0 0 000000091,710 114,276 94,000 95,880 97,798 99,754 101,749 103,784 105,860 107,977 110,137 112,340 114,5872,916,639 3,108,806 3,239,034 3,404,239 3,575,499 3,758,036 3,954,085 4,160,704 4,376,802 4,605,434 4,846,083 5,099,381 5,365,992778,844 812,519 832,300 857,269 882,987 909,477 936,761 964,864 993,8101,023,624 1,054,333 1,085,963 1,118,542298,098 385,900 416,800 425,136 433,639 442,311 451,158 460,181 469,384 478,772 488,348 498,115 508,0770 00 0 0 0 0000000442,319 695,072 518,900 534,467 550,501 567,016 584,027 601,547 619,594 638,182 657,327 677,047 697,358374,056 263,528 315,500 324,965 334,714 344,755 355,098 365,751 376,723 388,025 399,666 411,656 424,0061,669,757 1,607,497 1,669,757 1,989,757 1,989,757 1,989,757 1,989,757 1,989,757 1,989,757 1,989,757 1,989,757 1,989,757 1,989,7573,563,074 3,764,516 3,753,257 4,131,594 4,191,598 4,253,317 4,316,800 4,382,100 4,449,268 4,518,360 4,589,430 4,662,537 4,737,739(646,435) (655,710) (514,223) (727,355) (616,099) (495,280) (362,716) (221,396) (72,466)87,074 256,653 436,844 628,252120,248 159,813 119,674 78,335 69,659 63,930 64,729 65,268 68,244 70,234 72,673 118,663 121,056688,257 2,387,509 1,028,753 703,278 1,239,564 1,282,948 1,327,852 1,374,326 1,333,408 1,380,077 1,428,380 1,428,380 1,478,3738,77800 8,778 9,2179,678 10,162 10,670 11,203 11,763 12,352 12,969 13,6185,297 12,486 5,225 5,486 5,7616,0496,351 6,669 7,002 7,352 7,720 8,106 8,511(303,736) (752,091) (778,585) (692,722) (643,734) (595,604) (551,886) (510,213) (473,663) (445,738) (422,213) (394,313) (365,513)0(45,983)0 0 0 0 000000021,0637,2230 0 0 0 0000000(580,671) (221,003)0 0 0 0 0000000709,699 310,7430000000000000 0 0 0 00000002,58211,6230 0 0 0 0000000671,517 1,870,320 375,067 103,156 680,467 767,001 857,208 946,720 946,194 1,023,689 1,098,911 1,173,805 1,256,04525,082 1,214,610(139,156) (624,199)64,368 271,721 494,492 725,324 873,728 1,110,763 1,355,564 1,610,648 1,884,29733,528,323 34,742,933 34,603,777 32,408,251 32,472,619 32,744,340 33,238,832 33,964,156 34,837,884 35,948,647 37,304,212 38,914,860 40,799,157ProjectedActual 1 Rates Inflation 2 Revenue growth assumption - non-usage3 Investment income yield4 Expense growth - general and admin 5 Expense growth - contractual6 Expense growth - non personnel7 Connection fee increase8 MCES rate increase946 CIP Funding47 Purchase of Capital Assets48 Proceeds from internal borrowing49 Bond Proceeds - Operating Projects50 Bond Proceeds - Connection Projects51 Bond P&I - Future 52 Bond P&I - Future 53 Bond P&I - Future 54 Bond P&I - Future 55 Bond P&I - Future 56 Bond P&I - Future 57 Bond P&I - Future 58 Bond P&I - Future 59 Bond P&I - Future 60 Bond Prin - Existing6162Beginning Cash63 Add net operations (line 29)64 Add back depreciation (line 26)65 Add net non operating (line 42)66 Add capital and bond (lines 47-60)67 Net change in balance sheet items68 Other investments69Ending Cash70 Other investments71Ending net assets7273 Target Operating Reserve 74 10% of Accumulated Depreciation75 Target minimum working capital 76 Actual working capital-cash balance77 Over (Under) target working capitalWater FundBudget2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 20295.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 2.00% 2.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50%ProjectedActual(8,663,639) (7,448,138) (3,504,100) (2,775,708) (2,260,492) (1,419,892) (1,028,452) (5,709,319) (1,281,136) (3,692,201) (1,385,676) (2,488,059) (3,206,722)0 00 0 0 0 00000005,231,246 1,867,0790 2,200,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 700,000 700,000 1,200,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,0005,231,246 1,867,080500,000 500,00000 4,500,0000 1,000,00001,700,000(306,112) (306,112) (306,112) (306,112) (306,112) (306,112) (306,112) (306,112) (306,112)(241,185) (241,185) (241,185) (241,185) (241,185) (241,185) (241,185) (241,185)(162,869) (162,869) (162,869) (162,869) (162,869) (162,869) (162,869)(82,481) (82,481) (82,481) (82,481) (82,481) (82,481)(620,537) (620,537) (620,537) (620,537) (620,537)(145,018) (145,018) (145,018) (145,018)(367,116) (367,116) (367,116)(122,372) (122,372)(244,744)(895,000) (1,312,500) (1,959,632) (1,983,935) (2,045,846) (1,630,367) (1,402,502) (1,175,000) (1,210,000) (655,000) (915,000) (945,000) (975,000)10,804,267 12,278,374 9,573,902 6,266,795 5,572,710 5,114,385 5,178,306 5,221,436 5,459,551 5,618,717 5,813,834 5,933,162 6,052,819(646,435) (655,710) (514,223) (727,355) (616,099) (495,280) (362,716) (221,396) (72,466)87,074 256,653 436,844 628,2521,669,757 1,607,497 1,669,757 1,989,757 1,989,757 1,989,757 1,989,757 1,989,757 1,989,757 1,989,757 1,989,757 1,989,757 1,989,757671,517 1,870,320 375,067 103,156 680,467 767,001 857,208 946,720 946,194 1,023,689 1,098,911 1,173,805 1,256,045903,853(5,026,479) (5,463,732) (2,059,643) (2,512,450) (2,197,556) (2,441,120) (2,476,966) (2,704,319) (2,905,402) (3,225,994) (3,480,748) (3,774,155)(1,124,585) (500,100)0 0 0 0 00000000 00 0 0 0 000000012,278,374 9,573,902 5,640,771 5,572,710 5,114,385 5,178,306 5,221,436 5,459,551 5,618,717 5,813,834 5,933,162 6,052,819 6,152,71833,528,323 34,742,933 34,603,777 32,408,251 32,472,619 32,744,340 33,238,832 33,964,156 34,837,884 35,948,647 37,304,212 38,914,860 40,799,157946,659 1,078,510 1,041,750 1,070,919 1,100,920 1,131,780 1,163,522 1,196,171 1,229,756 1,264,301 1,299,837 1,336,390 1,373,9912,422,935 2,569,229 2,736,205 2,923,720 3,122,695 3,321,671 3,520,647 3,719,623 3,918,598 4,117,574 4,316,550 4,515,525 4,714,5013,369,594 3,647,739 3,777,955 3,994,638 4,223,616 4,453,451 4,684,168 4,915,794 5,148,354 5,381,875 5,616,386 5,851,915 6,088,49212,278,374 9,573,902 5,640,771 5,572,710 5,114,385 5,178,306 5,221,436 5,459,551 5,618,717 5,813,834 5,933,162 6,052,819 6,152,7188,908,780 5,926,163 1,862,816 1,578,072 890,769 724,855 537,267 543,757 470,363 431,959 316,776 200,904 64,226 1 Rates Inflation 2 Revenue growth assumption - non-usage3 Investment income yield4 Expense growth - general and admin 5 Expense growth - contractual6 Expense growth - non personnel7 Connection fee increase8 MCES rate increase910 Beginning net assets1112 Operating Revenues13 Water Sales14 Sewer Charges15 Storm Sewer Charges16 Penalties and other17 Total Operating Revenues1819 Operating Expenses20 Personal services21 Materials and supplies22 MCES23 Other contractual services24 Repairs and maintenance25 Depreciation26 Total Operating Expenses2728 Net Operations29 Non operating revenues (expenses)30 Investment income31 Connection charges32 Intergovernmental33 Refunds and reimbursements34 Interest and fiscal charges35 Gain (loss) on disposal of Capital assets36 Transfers in37 Transfers out38 Contributions of Capital assets39 Prior period adjustment40 Special assessments41 Total non operating revenue (expenses)4243 Net increase (decrease) in resources4445Ending net assetsSanitary Sewer FundBudget2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 20222023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 20294.00%5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%1.25%1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25%4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%18,483,441 17,980,652 18,008,680 17,789,384 17,403,301 17,181,070 16,985,105 16,836,232 16,736,587 16,673,656 16,679,628 16,822,590 17,034,36400000 0 00000002,699,906 2,950,883 3,110,379 3,270,661 3,434,194 3,605,904 3,805,207 4,011,834 4,234,277 4,468,721 4,716,025 4,977,864 5,251,99400000 0 000000064,576 82,639 67,000 68,340 69,707 71,101 72,523 73,973 75,452 76,961 78,500 80,070 81,6712,764,482 3,033,522 3,177,379 3,339,001 3,503,901 3,677,005 3,877,730 4,085,807 4,309,729 4,545,682 4,794,525 5,057,934 5,333,665467,003 492,693 575,200 598,208 622,136 647,022 672,903 699,819 727,811 756,924 787,201 818,689 851,43739,730 36,976 40,300 41,106 41,928 42,767 43,622 44,494 45,384 46,292 47,218 48,162 49,1251,564,754 1,830,942 1,889,083 2,071,854 2,175,447 2,284,219 2,398,430 2,518,351 2,644,269 2,776,483 2,915,307 3,061,072 3,214,126516,408 604,538 158,400 163,152 168,047 173,088 178,281 183,629 189,138 194,812 200,656 206,676 212,876137,187 123,268 134,500 138,535 142,691 146,972 151,381 155,922 160,600 165,418 170,381 175,492 180,7571,016,753 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,7003,741,835 4,067,117 3,776,183 3,991,555 4,128,949 4,272,767 4,423,316 4,580,916 4,745,903 4,918,629 5,099,462 5,288,791 5,487,021(977,353) (1,033,595) (598,803) (652,554) (625,048) (595,763) (545,586) (495,109) (436,174) (372,946) (304,938) (230,857) (153,355)39,219 83,552 71,087 73,305 66,139 62,232 58,159 56,374 55,779 61,442 64,576 61,414 58,270301,986 742,756 312,253 196,124 338,844 338,844 338,844 338,844 317,206 317,206 317,206 317,206 317,20600000 0 0000000192 6850 202 212223234 246 258 271 284 298 313(5,045) (4,435) (3,833) (3,161) (2,379) (1,501)(523)0000000(45,968)000 0 0000000037,000000 0 0000000(223,074) (21,742)000 0 0000000361,286 269,507000 0 000000000000 0 00000000268000 0 000065,83363,71373,386474,564 1,061,623 379,508 266,470 402,817 399,797 396,714 395,464 373,243 378,918 447,900 442,631 449,175(502,789)28,028(219,296) (386,084) (222,231) (195,965) (148,872) (99,645) (62,931)5,972 142,962 211,774 295,82017,980,652 18,008,680 17,789,384 17,403,301 17,181,070 16,985,105 16,836,232 16,736,587 16,673,656 16,679,628 16,822,590 17,034,364 17,330,184ActualProjected 1 Rates Inflation 2 Revenue growth assumption - non-usage3 Investment income yield4 Expense growth - general and admin 5 Expense growth - contractual6 Expense growth - non personnel7 Connection fee increase8 MCES rate increase946 CIP Funding47 Purchase of Capital Assets48 Proceeds from internal borrowing49 Bond Proceeds - Operating Projects50 Bond Proceeds - Connection Projects51 Bond P&I - Future 52 Bond P&I - Future 53 Bond P&I - Future 54 Bond P&I - Future 55 Bond P&I - Future 56 Bond P&I - Future 57 Bond P&I - Future 58 Bond P&I - Future 59 Bond P&I - Future 60 Bond Prin - Existing6162Beginning Cash63 Add net operations (line 29)64 Add back depreciation (line 26)65 Add net non operating (line 42)66 Add capital and bond (lines 47-60)67 Net change in balance sheet items68 Other investments69Ending Cash70 Other investments71Ending net assets7273 Target Operating Reserve 74 10% of Accumulated Depreciation75 Target minimum working capital 76 Actual working capital-cash balance77 Over (Under) target working capitalSanitary Sewer FundBudget2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 20222023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 20294.00%5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%1.25%1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25%4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%ActualProjected(24,082)112,682(519,500) (1,103,388) (1,404,052) (996,986) (858,597) (880,143) (1,916,228) (3,103,828) (826,405) (893,676) (893,840)00000 0 00000000000 400,000000 300,000 400,00000000000 0 001,200,0002,200,00000000 0 00000000 0 0000000(46,534) (46,534) (46,534) (46,534) (46,534) (46,534) (46,534) (46,534)000000000000000000(183,558) (183,558) (183,558) (183,558)(318,167) (318,167) (318,167)(60,000) (62,500) (62,500) (62,500) (65,000) (65,000) (67,500)0000005,031,128 4,971,583 5,686,989 5,864,393 5,291,122 4,978,539 4,652,753 4,509,950 4,462,327 4,915,334 5,166,086 4,913,084 4,661,623(977,353) (1,033,595) (598,803) (652,554) (625,048) (595,763) (545,586) (495,109) (436,174) (372,946) (304,938) (230,857) (153,355)1,016,753 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700 978,700474,564 1,061,623 379,508 266,470 402,817 399,797 396,714 395,464 373,243 378,918 447,900 442,631 449,175(84,082)50,182(582,000) (1,165,888) (1,069,052) (1,108,520) (972,631) (926,677) (462,762) (733,920) (1,374,664) (1,441,935) (1,442,099)(489,427) (341,504)000 0 000000000000 0 00000004,971,583 5,686,989 5,864,393 5,291,122 4,978,539 4,652,753 4,509,950 4,462,327 4,915,334 5,166,086 4,913,084 4,661,623 4,494,04417,980,652 18,008,680 17,789,384 17,403,301 17,181,070 16,985,105 16,836,232 16,736,587 16,673,656 16,679,628 16,822,590 17,034,364 17,330,1842,043,812 2,316,313 2,098,112 2,259,641 2,362,687 2,470,550 2,583,462 2,701,662 2,825,402 2,954,946 3,090,572 3,232,568 3,381,2402,026,549 2,114,834 2,212,704 2,310,574 2,408,444 2,506,314 2,604,184 2,702,054 2,799,924 2,897,794 2,995,664 3,093,534 3,191,4044,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,080,000 4,161,600 4,244,832 4,329,729 4,416,323 4,504,650 4,594,743 4,686,638 4,780,3704,971,583 5,686,989 5,864,393 5,291,122 4,978,539 4,652,753 4,509,950 4,462,327 4,915,334 5,166,086 4,913,084 4,661,623 4,494,044971,583 1,686,989 1,864,393 1,291,122 898,539 491,153 265,118 132,599 499,010 661,436 318,341(25,014) (286,326) 1 Rates Inflation 2 Revenue growth assumption - non-usage3 Investment income yield4 Expense growth - general and admin 5 Expense growth - contractual6 Expense growth - non personnel7 Connection fee increase8 MCES rate increase910 Beginning net assets1112 Operating Revenues13 Water Sales14 Sewer Charges15 Storm Sewer Charges16 Penalties and other17 Total Operating Revenues1819 Operating Expenses20 Personal services21 Materials and supplies22 MCES23 Other contractual services24 Repairs and maintenance25 Depreciation26 Total Operating Expenses2728 Net Operations29 Non operating revenues (expenses)30 Investment income31 Connection charges32 Intergovernmental33 Refunds and reimbursements34 Interest and fiscal charges35 Gain (loss) on disposal of Capital assets36 Transfers in37 Transfers out38 Contributions of Capital assets39 Prior period adjustment40 Special assessments41 Total non operating revenue (expenses)4243 Net increase (decrease) in resources4445Ending net assetsStorm Water FundBudget2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 202932.50%5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%1.25%1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%16,008,609 15,829,446 15,786,052 15,774,457 15,530,684 15,353,261 15,214,555 15,102,795 15,041,514 15,021,317 15,072,165 15,237,615 15,457,344693,552 748,618 991,919 1,041,515 1,093,591 1,148,270 1,205,684 1,265,968 1,329,266 1,395,729 1,465,516 1,538,792 1,615,73115,906 16,151 16,621 16,953 17,292 17,638 17,991 18,351 18,718 19,092 19,474 19,863 20,260709,458 764,7691,008,540 1,058,468 1,110,883 1,165,908 1,223,675 1,284,319 1,347,984 1,414,821 1,484,990 1,558,655 1,635,991272,452 335,178 343,200 353,496 364,101 375,024 386,275 397,863 409,799 422,093 434,755 447,798 461,23218,586 39,435 62,300 63,546 64,817 66,113 67,436 68,784 70,160 71,563 72,994 74,454 75,9430000 0 0 0000000344,814 334,461 246,700 254,101 261,724 269,576 277,663 285,993 294,573 303,410 312,512 321,888 331,5442,407 614 600 618637656675 696 716 738 760 783 806900,209 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,5351,538,468 1,583,2231,526,335 1,545,296 1,564,813 1,584,904 1,605,583 1,626,871 1,648,783 1,671,339 1,694,557 1,718,458 1,743,061(829,010) (818,454)(517,795) (486,828) (453,931) (418,995) (381,909) (342,552) (300,799) (256,517) (209,567) (159,803) (107,070)11,577 20,437 14,106 12,181 14,996 16,318 16,422 18,197 18,159 19,406 18,443 20,023 20,041104,265 172,844 454,094 192,875 223,511 225,972 215,727 225,073 224,442 249,960 252,741 257,795 268,21036,331 44,604 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,0005016100 0 0 00000000000 0 0 00000000(51,252)00 0 0 0000000079,91200 0 0 0000000(392,953) (236,238)00 0 0 0000000890,577 744,59200 0 0 00000000000 0 0 00000000000000000 65,833 63,713 73,386649,847 775,060 506,200 243,056 276,507 280,290 270,149 281,271 280,601 307,366 375,018 379,532 399,638(179,163) (43,394) (11,595) (243,772) (177,424) (138,706) (111,760) (61,281) (20,197)50,848 165,450 219,729 292,56815,829,446 15,786,052 15,774,457 15,530,684 15,353,261 15,214,555 15,102,795 15,041,514 15,021,317 15,072,165 15,237,615 15,457,344 15,749,912ActualProjected 1 Rates Inflation 2 Revenue growth assumption - non-usage3 Investment income yield4 Expense growth - general and admin 5 Expense growth - contractual6 Expense growth - non personnel7 Connection fee increase8 MCES rate increase946 CIP Funding47 Purchase of Capital Assets48 Proceeds from internal borrowing49 Bond Proceeds - Operating Projects50 Bond Proceeds - Connection Projects51 Bond P&I - Future 52 Bond P&I - Future 53 Bond P&I - Future 54 Bond P&I - Future 55 Bond P&I - Future 56 Bond P&I - Future 57 Bond P&I - Future 58 Bond P&I - Future 59 Bond P&I - Future 60 Bond Prin - Existing6162Beginning Cash63 Add net operations (line 29)64 Add back depreciation (line 26)65 Add net non operating (line 42)66 Add capital and bond (lines 47-60)67 Net change in balance sheet items68 Other investments69Ending Cash70 Other investments71Ending net assets7273 Target Operating Reserve 74 10% of Accumulated Depreciation75 Target minimum working capital 76 Actual working capital-cash balance77 Over (Under) target working capitalStorm Water FundBudget2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 202932.50%5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%1.25%1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%ActualProjected(55,648) (222,064) (1,015,948) (704,548) (1,256,372) (1,112,069) (1,197,182) (1,304,392) (1,253,152) (1,398,178) (1,355,410) (1,512,269) (1,466,011)0000 0 0 0000000000 300,000 700,000 500,000 750,000 750,000 850,000 850,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,100,0000000 0 0 0000000(34,012) (34,012) (34,012) (34,012) (34,012) (34,012) (34,012) (34,012) (34,012)(80,395) (80,395) (80,395) (80,395) (80,395) (80,395) (80,395) (80,395)(58,167) (58,167) (58,167) (58,167) (58,167) (58,167) (58,167)(88,372) (88,372) (88,372) (88,372) (88,372) (88,372)(89,501) (89,501) (89,501) (89,501) (89,501)(102,721) (102,721) (102,721) (102,721)(104,016) (104,016) (104,016)(122,372) (122,372)(134,609)0000 0 0 00000001,380,288 1,259,125 1,128,485 974,477 1,199,691 1,305,418 1,313,771 1,455,790 1,452,705 1,552,442 1,475,480 1,601,870 1,603,309(829,010) (818,454) (517,795) (486,828) (453,931) (418,995) (381,909) (342,552) (300,799) (256,517) (209,567) (159,803) (107,070)900,209 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535 873,535649,847 775,060 506,200 243,056 276,507 280,290 270,149 281,271 280,601 307,366 375,018 379,532 399,638(55,648) (222,064) (1,015,948) (404,548) (590,384) (726,476) (619,756) (815,339) (753,600) (1,001,346) (912,595) (1,091,826) (1,180,177)(786,561) (738,717)00 0 0 00000000000 0 0 00000001,259,125 1,128,485 974,477 1,199,691 1,305,418 1,313,771 1,455,790 1,452,705 1,552,442 1,475,480 1,601,870 1,603,309 1,589,23515,829,446 15,786,052 15,774,457 15,530,684 15,353,261 15,214,555 15,102,795 15,041,514 15,021,317 15,072,165 15,237,615 15,457,344 15,749,9121,040,000 1,081,600 1,124,864 1,169,859 1,216,653 1,265,319 1,315,932 1,368,569 1,423,312 1,480,244 1,539,454 1,601,032 1,665,0741,040,000 1,081,600 1,124,864 1,169,859 1,216,653 1,265,319 1,315,932 1,368,569 1,423,312 1,480,244 1,539,454 1,601,032 1,665,0741,259,125 1,128,485 974,477 1,199,691 1,305,418 1,313,771 1,455,790 1,452,705 1,552,442 1,475,480 1,601,870 1,603,309 1,589,235219,125 46,885(150,387)29,833 88,765 48,452 139,858 84,136 129,131(4,765)62,416 2,277(75,839) Utility Rate Study Chanhassen, Minnesota December 2019 Appendix C – Development Fee Comparison Water Trunk Fee*Water Hook-Up Fee**Total WaterSanitary Sewer Trunk Fee*Sanitary Sewer Hook-Up Fee**Total Sanitary SewerStorm WaterTotal Fees Per UnitCommentsChanhassen2,311$ 5,393$ $ 7,704 $ 691 $ 1,686 $ 2,377 $ 1,387 $ 11,468 Assumes property receives the 50% credit on stormwater fees for meeting NURP standards for on-site treatment.Chaska858$ 4,314$ $ 5,172 $ 1,151 $ 3,539 $ 4,690 $ 2,603 $ 12,465 Cottage Grove 1,134$ 1,160$ $ 2,294 $ 597 $ 360 $ 957 $ 2,401 $ 5,652 Charges vary by Area. Comparison assumes West Draw Area 1.Elk river368$ 3,396$ $ 3,764 $ 5,200 $ 5,200 $ - $ 8,964 Inver Grove Hts 2,363$ 3,560$ $ 5,923 $ 2,363 $ 490 $ 2,853 $ - $ 8,775 Assumes a 1" water meterInver Grove Hts Northwest Area833$ 5,000$ $ 5,833 $ 1,413 $ 5,830 $ 7,243 $ 4,623 $ 17,699 Assumes a 1" water meterLino Lakes3,680$ -$ $ 3,680 $ 3,044 $ - $ 3,044 $ 2,391 $ 9,115 Prior Lake2,702$ 2,690$ $ 5,392 $ 1,483 $ 1,078 $ 2,561 $ 1,362 $ 9,314 Assumes a 15 acre plat.Rosemount2,166$ 2,425$ $ 4,591 $ 358 $ 1,200 $ 1,558 $ 3,058 $ 9,208 Shakopee1,484$ 6,039$ $ 7,523 $ 994 $ - $ 994 $ 3,020 $ 11,536 Some areas require lateral sewer connection charges. Depending on the area this would range from $1,375 to $4,168 per single family unit. Additional stormwater cost of approx. $275 if property uses regional infiltration pond.Savage2,301$ 3,071$ $ 5,372 $ 2,102 $ 2,302 $ 4,404 $ 4,181 $ 13,957 Additional stormwater charge of $2,018 per unit if no on-site ponding.Average (excluding Inver Grove Heights NWA)1,937$ 3,205$ 5,141$ 1,278$ 1,586$ 2,864$ 2,040$ 10,045$ * For purposes of comparison, fees that other cities charge at time of plat are characterized as trunk fees.** For purposes of comparison, fees that other cities collect at time of building permit are characterized as hook-up fees.Comparison of 2019 Sewer and Water Development Fees for a Single Family Home - KFS CitiesJuly, 2019Assumes one single family home on one-third of an acre. Assumes .5 gross acres.Excludes lateral installation, permit fees and meter costs $- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000 $20,000Chanhassen Chaska Cottage Grove Elk river Inver Grove Hts Inver Grove HtsNorthwest AreaLino Lakes Prior Lake Rosemount Shakopee SavageUtility Development Fees for Sample Single Family Home(Assumes lot size of 1/3 acre)Storm WaterTotal Sanitary SewerTotal Water Water Trunk Fee*Water Hook-Up Fee**Total Water FeesSanitary Sewer Trunk Fee*Sanitary Sewer Hook-Up Fee**Total Sanitary Sewer FeesStorm WaterTotal Fees Per UnitCommentsChanhassen2,311$ 5,393$ $ 7,704 $ 691 $ 1,686 $ 2,377 $ 1,387 $ 11,468 Assumes property receives the 50% credit on stormwater fees for meeting NURP standards for on-site treatment.Chaska858$ 4,314$ $ 5,172 $ 1,151 $ 3,539 $ 4,690 $ 2,603 $ 12,465 Eden Prairie1,159$ 3,100$ $ 4,259 $ 1,738 $ 710 $ 2,448 $ - $ 6,707 Water Quality fee in lieu of land dedication applicable depending on whether storm water pond is on-siteExcelsior-$ 2,000$ $ 2,000 $- $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ - $ 3,000 Minnetonka-$ 1,883$ $ 1,883 $ 1,060 $ 1,060 $ - $ 2,943 Shakopee1,484$ 6,039$ $ 7,523 $- $ 994 $ 994 $ 3,020 $ 11,536 Some areas require lateral sewer connection charges. Depending on the area this would range from $1,375 to $4,168 per single family unit. Additional stormwater cost of approx. $275 if property uses regional infiltration pond.Shorewood-$ 10,000$ $ 10,000 $- $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ - $ 11,200 Developers are required to install water trunk lines as well as laterals.Victoria 1,690$ 2,250$ $ 3,940 $- $ 3,650 $ 3,650 $ 12,631 $ 20,221 Stormwater fee only applies to lots within downtown district. If units are not assessed for laterals there is a $6,600 per unit lateral benefit charge.Average 938$ 4,372$ 5,310$ 511$ 1,730$ 2,177$ 2,455$ 9,942$ * For purposes of comparison, fees that other cities charge at time of plat are characterized as trunk fees.** For purposes of comparison, fees that other cities collect at time of building permit are characterized as hook-up fees.Comparison of 2019 Sewer and Water Development Fees for a Single Family Home - Neighboring CitiesJuly, 2019Assumes one single family home on one-third of an acre. Assumes .5 gross acres.Excludes lateral installation, permit fees and meter costs $- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000Chanhassen Chaska Eden Prairie Excelsior Minnetonka Shakopee Shorewood VictoriaUtility Development Fees for Sample Single Family Home(Assumes lot size of 1/3 acre)Storm WaterTotal Sanitary Sewer FeesTotal Water Fees Water Trunk Fee*Water Hook-Up Fee**Total WaterSanitary Sewer Trunk FeeSanitary Sewer Hook-Up Fee**Total Sanitary SewerStorm Water Total FeesTotal Fees per UnitCommentsChanhassen231,100$ 539,300$ $ 770,400 $ 69,100 $ 168,600 $ 237,700 $ 29,900 $ 1,038,000 $ 10,380 Assumes property receives the 50% credit on stormwater fees for meeting NURP standards for on-site treatment.Chaska10,292$ 431,400$ $ 441,692 $ 14,180 $ 353,900 $ 368,080 $ 42,280 $ 852,052 $ 8,521 Cottage Grove13,612$ 116,000$ $ 129,612 $ 7,164 $ 36,000 $ 43,164 $ 43,216 $ 215,992 $ 2,160 Charges vary by Area. Comparison assumes West Draw Area 1.Elk River36,800$ 339,600$ $ 376,400 $- $ 520,000 $ 520,000 $- $ 896,400 $ 8,964 Inver Grove Hts 22,444$ 186,660$ $ 209,104 $ 22,444 $ 49,000 $ 71,444 $- $ 280,548 $ 2,805 Assumes a 3" water meter.Inver Grove Hts Northwest Area60,000$ 434,330$ 494,330$ $ 101,760 $ 583,000 $ 684,760 $ 55,480 $ 1,234,570 $ 12,346 Assumes a 3" water meter.Lino Lakes368,000$ -$ 368,000$ $ 304,400 $- $ 304,400 $ 38,584 $ 710,984 $ 7,110 Prior Lake39,024$ 269,000$ $ 308,024 $ 26,800 $ 87,800 $ 114,600 $ 26,940 $ 449,564 $ 4,496 Rosemount26,000$ 242,500$ $ 268,500 $ 4,300 $ 120,000 $ 124,300 $ 48,360 $ 441,160 $ 4,412 Shakopee17,804$ 603,900$ 621,704$ $ 11,932 $- $ 11,932 $ 48,264 $ 681,900 $ 6,819 Some areas require lateral sewer connection charges. Depending on the area this would range from $22,660 to $416,806 for the project. Additional stormwater cost of approx. $4,425 if property uses regional infiltration pond.Savage27,611$ 307,104$ $ 334,715 $ 25,996 $ 230,243 $ 256,239 $ 59,764 $ 650,718 $ 6,507 Additional stormwater charge of $41,470 if no on-site ponding.Average (excluding Inver Grove Heights NWA)79,269$ 303,546$ 382,815$ 48,632$ 156,554$ 205,186$ 33,731$ 621,732$ 6,217$ * For purposes of comparison, fees that other cities charge at time of plat are characterized as trunk fees.** For purposes of comparison, fees that other cities collect at time of building permit are characterized as hook-up fees.Comparison of 2019 Sewer and Water Development Fees for a 100 unit Multi-Family Housing Project - KFS CitiesJuly, 2019Assumes 25 multi-family units per net developable acre for a total site of 4.0 net developable acres. Assumes 4.75 gross acres.Excludes lateral installation, permit fees and meter costs $- $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000Chanhassen Chaska Cottage Grove Elk River Inver Grove Hts Inver Grove HtsNorthwest AreaLino Lakes Prior Lake Rosemount Shakopee SavageUtility Development Fees for Sample Multifamily Project(Assumes 100 units on 4 developable acres)Storm WaterTotal Sanitary SewerTotal Water Water Trunk Fee*Water Hook-Up Fee**Total WaterSanitary Sewer Trunk Charge*Sanitary Sewer Hook-Up Fee**Total Sanitary SewerStorm Water Total FeesTotal Fees per UnitCommentsChanhassen231,100$ 539,300$ $ 770,400 $ 69,100 $ 168,600 $ 237,700 $ 29,900 $ 1,038,000 $ 10,380 Assumes property receives the 50% credit on stormwater fees for meeting NURP standards for on-site treatment.Chaska10,292$ 431,400$ $ 441,692 $ 14,180 $ 353,900 $ 368,080 $ 42,280 $ 852,052 $ 8,521 Eden Prairie13,906$ 310,000$ $ 323,906 $ 20,858 $ 71,000 $ 91,858 $- $ 415,764 $ 4,158 Excelsior-$ 200,000$ $ 200,000 $- $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $- $ 300,000 $ 3,000 Minnetonka-$ 188,300$ $ 188,300 $- $ 105,950 $ 105,950 $- $ 294,250 $ 2,943 Shakopee17,804$ 603,900$ $ 621,704 $ 11,932 $ 11,932 $ 48,264 $ 681,900 $ 6,819 Some areas require lateral sewer connection charges. Depending on the area this would range from $22,660 to $416,806 for the project. Additional stormwater cost of approx. $4,425 if property uses regional infiltration pond.Shorewood-$ 260,000$ $ 260,000 $- $ 96,000 $ 96,000 $- $ 356,000 $ 3,560 Developers are required to install water trunk lines as well as laterals.Victoria169,000$ 225,000$ $ 394,000 $- $ 365,000 $ 365,000 $ 151,589 $ 910,589 $ 9,106 Stormwater fee only applies to lots within downtown district. If units are not assessed for laterals there is a $6,600 per unit lateral benefit charge.Average55,263$ 344,738$ 400,000$ 14,509$ 180,064$ 172,065$ 34,004$ 606,069$ 6,061$ * For purposes of comparison, fees that other cities charge at time of plat are characterized as trunk fees.** For purposes of comparison, fees that other cities collect at time of building permit are characterized as hook-up fees.Comparison of 2019 Sewer and Water Development Fees for a 100 unit Multi-Family Housing Project - Neighboring CitiesJuly, 2019Assumes 25 multi-family units per net developable acre for a total site of 4.0 net developable acres. Assumes 4.75 gross acres.Excludes lateral installation, permit fees and meter costs $- $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000ChanhassenChaskaEden PrairieExcelsiorMinnetonkaShakopeeShorewoodVictoriaUtility Development Fees for Sample Multifamily Project(Assumes 100 units on 4 developable acres)Storm WaterTotal Sanitary SewerTotal Water Water Trunk Fee*Water Hook-Up Fee**Total WaterSanitary Sewer Trunk Fee*Sanitary Sewer Hook-Up Fee**Total Sanitary SewerStorm Water Total Fees Total Fees per Building Sq. Ft.CommentsChanhassen78,574$ 183,362$ $ 261,936 $ 23,494 $ 57,324 $ 80,818 $ 86,320 $ 429,074 $ 3.30 Assumes property receives the 50% credit on stormwater fees for meeting NURP standards for on-site treatment.Chaska20,584$ 146,676$ $ 167,260 $ 27,632 $ 120,326 $ 147,958 $ 99,312 $ 414,530 $ 3.19 Cottage Grove25,424$ 19,520$ $ 44,944 $ 16,168 $ 10,816 $ 26,984 $ 86,432 $ 158,360 $ 1.22 Elk River12,512$ 115,464$ $ 127,976 $- $ 176,800 $ 176,800 $- $ 304,776 $ 2.34 Inver Grove Hts 42,525$ 75,120$ $ 117,645 $ 42,525 $ 16,660 $ 59,185 $- $ 176,830 $ 1.36 Inver Grove Hts Northwest Area15,557$ 158,450$ 174,007$ $ 26,385 $ 198,810 $ 225,195 $ 120,560 $ 519,762 $ 4.00 Lino Lakes52,770$ 48,314$ 101,084$ $ 36,745 $ 50,014 $ 86,759 $ 85,480 $ 273,324 $ 2.10 Prior Lake69,048$ 91,460$ $ 160,508 $ 35,600 $ 38,852 $ 74,452 $ 67,696 $ 302,656 $ 2.33 Rossemount52,000$ 29,450$ $ 81,450 $ 8,600 $ 40,800 $ 49,400 $ 73,080 $ 203,930 $ 1.57 Shakopee35,608$ 205,326$ 240,934$ $ 23,856 $- $ 23,856 $ 128,938 $ 393,728 $ 3.03 Some areas require lateral sewer connection charges. Depending on the area this would range from $4,096 in VIPII to $150,048 to connect to the Whispering Oaks Sanitary Sewer Lateral. Additional stormwater cost of approx. $8,850 if property uses regional infiltration pond.Savage55,221$ 104,415$ $ 159,637 $ 51,992 $ 78,283 $ 130,275 $ 144,271 $ 434,183 $ 3.34 Assume >55% of site is impervious. Additional stormwater charge of $165,877 if no on-site ponding.Average (excluding Inver Grove Heights Northwest Area)44,427$ 101,911$ 146,337$ 26,661$ 58,987$ 85,649$ 77,153$ 309,139$ 2.38$ * For purposes of comparison, fees that other cities charge at time of plat are characterized as trunk fees.** For purposes of comparison, fees that other cities collect at time of building permit are characterized as hook-up fees.Comparison of 2019 Sewer and Water Development Fees for a Mixed Use Industrial Development - KFS CitiesJuly, 2019Assumes 34 SAC units, 130,000 square feet on 8 net developable acres (9 gross acres) with a 3" water meter. Excludes lateral installation, permit fees and meter costs $- $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000Chanhassen Chaska Cottage Grove Elk River Inver Grove Hts Inver Grove HtsNorthwest AreaLino Lakes Prior Lake Rossemount Shakopee SavageUtility Development Fees for Sample Industrial Property(130,000 sq. ft. office warehouse with 34 SAC units)Storm WaterTotal Sanitary SewerTotal Water Water Trunk Fee*Water Hook-Up Fee**Total WaterSanitary Sewer Trunk Fee*Sanitary Sewer Hook-Up Fee**Total Sanitary SewerStorm WaterTotal Fees Total Fees per Building Sq. Ft.CommentsChanhassen78,574$ 183,362$ $ 261,936 $ 23,494 $ 57,324 $ 80,818 $ 86,320 $ 429,074 $ 3.30 Assumes property receives the 50% credit on stormwater fees for meeting NURP standards for on-site treatment.Chaska20,584$ 146,676$ $ 167,260 $ 27,632 $ 120,326 $ 147,958 $ 99,312 $ 414,530 $ 3.19 Eden Prairie27,811$ 137,020$ $ 164,831 $ 41,717 $ 43,180 $ 84,897 $ - $ 249,728 $ 1.92 Excelsior-$ 68,000$ $ 68,000 $- $ 34,000 $ 34,000 $- $ 102,000 $ 0.78 Minnetonka-$ 64,022$ $ 64,022 $ - $ 36,023 $ 36,023 $- $ 100,045 $ 0.77 Rob at City checking on area chargesShakopee35,608$ 205,326$ $ 240,934 $ 23,856 $ - $ 23,856 $ 128,938 $ 393,728 $ 3.03 Some areas require lateral sewer connection charges. Depending on the area this would range from $4,096 in VIPII to $150,048 to connect to the Whispering Oaks Sanitary Sewer Lateral. Additional stormwater cost of approx. $8,850 if property uses regional infiltration pond.Shorewood-$ 340,000$ $ 340,000 $ - $ 23,522 $ 23,522 $ - $ 363,522 $ 2.80 Developers are required to install water trunk lines as well as laterals.Victoria13,520$ 76,500$ $ 90,020 $ 124,100 $ 124,100 $ 303,178 $ 517,298 $ 3.98 Stormwater fee only applies to lots within downtown district. If units are not assessed for laterals there is a $6,600 per unit lateral benefit charge.Average (excluding Inver Grove Heights Northwest Area)22,012$ 152,613$ 174,625$ 16,671$ 54,809$ 69,397$ 77,218$ 321,241$ 2.47$ * For purposes of comparison, fees that other cities charge at time of plat are characterized as trunk fees.** For purposes of comparison, fees that other cities collect at time of building permit are characterized as hook-up fees.Comparison of 2019 Sewer and Water Development Fees for a Mixed Use Industrial Development - Neighboring CitiesJuly, 2019Assumes 34 SAC units, 130,000 square feet on 8 net developable acres (9 gross acres) with a 3" water meter. Excludes lateral installation, permit fees and meter costs $- $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000ChanhassenChaskaEden Prairie ExcelsiorMinnetonka ShakopeeShorewoodVictoriaUtility Development Fees for Sample Industrial Property(130,000 sq. ft. office warehouse with 34 SAC units)Storm WaterTotal Sanitary SewerTotal Water CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Resolution 2019­XX: Adopt Final Levy & 2020 Budget and 2020­2024 CIP Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: G.2. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No:  PROPOSED MOTION The City Council adopts the attached resolution establishing the 2020 final levy of $11,741,368 and approves total general fund expenditures of $11,899,700.  It also approves the CIP for 2020­2024 in the total amount of $106,696,900. Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND On September 23, 2019, the City Council approved the preliminary levy in the amount of $11,741,368.This includes an increase in the total levy of $721,500 or 6.55%.This would result in an increase in the city portion of the property tax bill on the average home in the city by about $45. 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. The budget includes: $177,100 (1.61%) increase in levy dollars due to new construction A 16% reduction in healthcare costs Building permit revenue budgeted same as 2019 A 3% increase for cost of living and merit pay A 5% increase in the police services contract The average home in Chanhassen increased in taxable market value by 5% Includes increased service levels for expanded duty crews $150,000 Includes new Street Maintenance Department Employee $80,000 Includes new Park Maintenance Department Employee $80,000 Includes $350,000 for Pavement Management Program Funding The CIP document reviewed in October only had minor changes in proposed projects that were moved for construction timing reasons.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 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, December 9, 2019SubjectResolution 2019­XX: Adopt Final Levy & 2020 Budget and 2020­2024 CIPSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.2.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: PROPOSED MOTIONThe City Council adopts the attached resolution establishing the 2020 final levy of $11,741,368 and approves totalgeneral fund expenditures of $11,899,700.  It also approves the CIP for 2020­2024 in the total amount of$106,696,900.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDOn September 23, 2019, the City Council approved the preliminary levy in the amount of $11,741,368.This includesan increase in the total levy of $721,500 or 6.55%.This would result in an increase in the city portion of the propertytax bill on the average home in the city by about $45.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.The budget includes:$177,100 (1.61%) increase in levy dollars due to new constructionA 16% reduction in healthcare costsBuilding permit revenue budgeted same as 2019A 3% increase for cost of living and merit payA 5% increase in the police services contractThe average home in Chanhassen increased in taxable market value by 5%Includes increased service levels for expanded duty crews $150,000Includes new Street Maintenance Department Employee $80,000Includes new Park Maintenance Department Employee $80,000Includes $350,000 for Pavement Management Program FundingThe CIP document reviewed in October only had minor changes in proposed projects that were moved for constructiontiming reasons.None of the delays has a significant impact on the overall condition or ability to keep utility infrastructuremaintained 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 The City Council adopts the attached resolution establishing the 2020 final levy of $11,741,368 and approves total general fund expenditures of $11,899,700.  It also approves the CIP for 2020­2024 in the total amount of $106,696,900. ATTACHMENTS: PPT Resolution 2020 Budget 2020­2024 CIP Final Levy Impact Sheet KFS Wage Comparison Pavement Management Project Fund Balances Tax Debt Levies 2020 Special Revenue Funds 1 Final Levy & Budget Adoption For taxes payable in 2020 City of Chanhassen –December 9, 2019 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 23 Public budget meeting held on December 2 Budget adoption on December 9 Budget Comparison 2009 Vs. 2019 3 Total General fund spending in 11 years has increased $1,894,200 in total ($172k/year) for an average annual increase in spending of 1.7% $1,680,000 of the $1,894,200 above, was for wage increases, health care increases, taxes, pension costs and increased added seasonal and part time hours.We have the exact same FTE count in 2019 as 2009 $431,900 of the $1,894,200 was for increases in the policing services contract $51,000 of the $1,894,200 was for required assessing services contract Meaning that ALL other spending in the General Fund over 11 years has actually decreased by $268,900 The $1,680,000 in increased wages, health care, taxes and pension costs equates to an average increase of 2.8%/year Expenditures 2019 Final Budget 2020 Preliminary Budget 2020 Recommended Final Budget % Change from 2019 General Government $2,233,300 $2,244,700 $2,244,700 +0.5% Law Enforcement/Fire $3,709,100 $3,966,900 $3,966,900 +7.0% Public Works $2,601,200 $2,745,000 $2,745,000 +5.5% Community Development $582,800 $577,800 $577,800 -0.9% Park & Recreation $2,268,560 $2,365,300 $2,365,300 +4.3% Total $11,394,960 $11,899,700 $11,899,700 +4.4%4 4 Revenues 2019 Final Budget 2020 Preliminary Budget 2020 Recommended Final Budget % Change from 2019 Property Tax $8,755,333 $9,161,833 $9,161,833 +4.6% Licenses & Permits $1,035,000 $1,035,000 $1,035,000 0.0% Intergovernmental Rev.$400,000 $442,000 $442,000 +10.5% Charges for Services $620,900 $636,900 $636,900 +2.6% Fines & Penalties $116,500 $116,500 $116,500 0.0% Other Revenue $370,127 $413,867 $413,867 +11.8% Total Revenue $11,395,360 $11,899,700 $11,899,700 +4.4% 5 5 What factors change the budget for 2020? 6 ▪$177,100 (1.61%) increase in levy dollars due to new construction ▪A 16% reduction in healthcare costs ▪Building permit revenue budgeted same as 2019 ▪A 3% increase for cost of living and merit pay ▪A 5% increase in the police services contract ▪The average home in Chanhassen increased in taxable market value by 5% ▪Includes increased service levels for expanded duty crew’s $150,000 ▪Includes new Street Maintenance Department Employee $80,000 ▪Includes new Park Maintenance Department Employee $80,000 ▪Includes $350,000 for Pavement Management Program Funding Operational/Capital & Debt Levy Changes Operational & Capital Levies 2019 Final Levies 2020 Preliminary 2020 Recommended Final Levies % Chg General Fund $8,810,333 $9,181,833 $9,181,833 Capital Replacement $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 MSA (Sealcoating) Revolving Street Const Fund $93,000 $381,223 $93,000 $728,523 $93,000 $728,523 Total Operational & Capital Levies $10,084,556 $10,803,356 $10,803,356 +7.1% 7 Debt Levies Public Works Facility $475,800 $480,600 $480,600 Library Referendum $459,512 $457,412 $457,412 Total Debt Levies $935,312 $938,012 $938,012 +0.3% TOTAL ALL LEVIES $11,019,868 $11,741,368 $11,741,368 +6.5% 7 Total Levy vs. New Growth 8 -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Pre & Final 2.23% 1.38% 0.53% -0.30% 0.40% 1.36% 1.45% 1.39% 1.56% 1.10%0.97% 6.50% 2.45% 1.39% 1.06%1.16% 1.82%1.77%1.76%1.87% 1.56% 1.10%0.97% 6.50% Total Levy New Growth Effect on Homeowners Below are some examples of how the 2020 levy will impact property owners. The average home in Chanhassen increased in value approximately 5% in taxable market value for 2020. Parcel 2019 Value 2020 Value Percent Change 2019 City Property Tax 2020 City Property Tax Dollar Change Percent Change 1 $264,800 $279,200 +5.4%$587 $618 $31 +5.3% 2 $296,100 $311,300 +5.1%$656 $688 $32 +4.9% 3 $399,200 $422,500 +5.8%$884 $933 $49 +5.5% 4 $576,500 $607,100 +5.3%$1,316 $1,397 $81 +6.1% 5 $742,000 $778,100 +4.9%$1,770 $1,866 $96 +5.4% 6 $1,051,900 $1,107,000 +5.2%$2,619 $2,766 $147 +5.6% 9 Actual Property Tax Statement for Proposed 2020 Taxes (School District #112) 10 31% 43% 21% 5% Property Taxes County 31%School 43%City 21%Other 5% Gen Fund Budgeted Expenditures % Increase City Population 2018 2019 From 2018 Chanhassen 25,955 11,414,000 11,618,060 1.8% Chaska 26,941 16,511,385 16,896,838 2.3% Cottage Grove 36,399 20,160,615 20,958,986 4.0% Elk River 24,567 16,072,250 17,096,650 6.4% Inver Grove Heights 35,106 24,925,500 27,189,400 9.1% Lino Lakes 21,117 9,675,086 9,984,864 3.2% Prior Lake 25,735 12,651,813 13,336,972 5.4% Rosemount 23,965 13,566,000 14,261,600 5.1% Savage 30,713 14,948,819 15,951,876 6.7% Shakopee 41,519 26,928,100 27,558,500 2.3% Stillwater 19,748 14,996,044 15,995,345 6.7% Average 28,342 16,537,783 17,349,917 4.8% KFS General Fund Budgeted Expenditure Comparison 2020 Per Capita City Spending 2019 Chanhassen 447 Chaska 627 Cottage Grove 576 Elk River 696 Inver Grove Heights 774 Lino Lakes 473 Prior Lake 518 Rosemount 595 Savage 519 Shakopee 664 Stillwater 810 Average 609 KFS General Fund Per Capita Spending Comparison 202 0 City 2019 Tax Rate**2020 Proposed Rate Chanhassen 21.104 21.133 Chaska 27.678 28.405 Victoria 31.271 30.976 Mayer 49.252 51.992 Carver 50.592 49.591 Waconia 52.500 47.207 Watertown 56.473 55.097 Cologne 62.415 64.305 Norwood Young America 70.399 73.656 New Germany 97.651 96.404 Hamburg 122.130 117.002 Average 58.315 57.797 ** Based on Urban Tax Rates Carver County Tax Rates 2020 Hennepin County Tax Rates -2019 2020 City Tax Rate**City Tax Rate** Chanhassen 21.104 Mound 43.107 Medina 21.529 St. Louis Park 46.373 Wayzata 21.672 Crystal 48.771 Minnetrista 24.915 Robbinsdale 50.807 Plymouth 26.355 Rockford 50.931 Excelsior 27.124 Brooklyn Park 52.695 Edina 27.499 Golden Valley 53.780 Shorewood 28.539 Richfield 54.737 Eden Prairie 31.690 Minneapolis 57.312 Maple Grove 34.899 Osseo 60.009 Minnetonka 34.960 New Hope 67.990 Rogers 35.917 Hopkins 71.697 Champlin 39.611 Brooklyn Center 71.860 Bloomington 41.581 AVERAGE 42.499 ** Based on Urban Tax Rates Recommendation 15 Staff recommends adopting a 2020 final levy of $11,741,368 and approves total general fund expenditures of $11,899,700. It also approves the CIP for 2020-2024 in the total amount of $106,696,900. DECEMBER 9, 2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: December 9, 2019 RESOLUTION NO: 2019-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2020 BUDGET AND CIP, AND ESTABLISHING TAX LEVIES IN 2019, COLLECTIBLE FOR 2020 WHEREAS, the City Council has examined the budgetary and tax levy needs for Chanhassen for the calendar year 2020 through detailed public budget meetings; and WHEREAS, the Public Budget meeting was held on December 2nd 2019, to receive public input into the budget and tax levy for 2020; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen that the 2020 Budget for the City of Chanhassen is adopted with revenue and expenditure amounts for the General Fund of $11,899,700, Special Revenue Funds of $53,600, $2,000, and $168,700 respectively which are detailed in the 2020 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 $11,741,368 for 2020; 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 2020; 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 2020-2024 in the total amount of $106,696,900. 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 9th day of December, 2019. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor YES NO ABSENT Personal Materials Contractual Capital 2020 2019 %2018 Services & Supplies Services Outlay Total Total Change Actual General Government1110Legislative 46,700 - 81,600 - 128,300 128,300 0.00%127,686 1120 Administration 492,900 - 61,400 - 554,300 564,300 -1.77%527,332 1130 Finance 323,500 200 48,300 - 372,000 371,500 0.13%348,833 1140 Legal - - 200,000 - 200,000 200,000 0.00%191,253 1150 Property Assessment - - 161,000 - 161,000 156,000 3.21%152,430 1160 MIS 168,800 41,400 48,000 - 258,200 257,800 0.16%229,810 1170 City Hall 92,400 41,400 277,500 - 411,300 395,800 3.92%405,703 1180 Elections 26,000 4,000 18,000 - 48,000 48,000 0.00%38,829 1190 Library Building - 2,500 109,100 - 111,600 111,600 0.00%105,505 *Total 1,150,300 89,500 1,004,900 - 2,244,700 2,233,300 0.51%2,127,383 Law Enforcement1210Police Administration - 1,000 1,977,800 - 1,978,800 1,885,800 4.93%1,780,646 1220 Fire Prevention & Admin 1,012,200 45,100 152,000 - 1,209,300 1,020,000 18.56%1,008,779 1250 Code Enforcement 696,500 6,800 11,700 - 715,000 742,500 -3.70%651,006 1260 Community Service 57,200 1,200 5,400 - 63,800 60,800 4.93%55,873 *Total 1,765,900 54,100 2,146,900 - 3,966,900 3,709,100 6.95%3,496,303 Public Works1310Engineering 677,600 800 29,300 - 707,700 669,900 5.64%609,793 1320 Street Maintenance 942,700 115,300 43,400 - 1,101,400 1,015,100 8.50%1,003,974 1350 Street Lighting & Signals - 4,000 366,500 - 370,500 357,500 3.64%375,319 1370 Fleet Department 323,400 171,700 64,800 5,500 565,400 558,700 1.20%550,586 *Total 1,943,700 291,800 504,000 5,500 2,745,000 2,601,200 5.53%2,539,672 Community Development1410Planning Commission - 200 1,500 - 1,700 1,700 0.00%828 1420 Planning Administration 519,600 400 11,500 - 531,500 540,900 -1.74%502,004 1430 Senior Commission 29,600 - 15,000 - 44,600 40,200 10.95%44,876 *Total 549,200 600 28,000 - 577,800 582,800 -0.86%547,708 Park & Recreation1510Park & Rec Commission - 200 1,000 - 1,200 1,200 0.00%25 1520 Park & Rec Administration 250,300 200 5,700 - 256,200 256,800 -0.23%235,876 1530 Recreation Center 234,500 17,700 94,400 - 346,600 346,800 -0.06%327,125 1540 Lake Ann Park Operations 12,300 10,200 48,600 - 71,100 68,800 3.34%64,106 1550 Park Maintenance 910,200 84,200 104,300 - 1,098,700 1,002,700 9.57%1,068,895 1560 Senior Citizens Center 84,500 4,300 30,700 - 119,500 121,700 -1.81%130,212 1600 Recreation Programs 246,600 22,300 128,800 - 397,700 393,560 1.05%362,400 1700 Self-Supporting Programs 19,900 3,300 12,500 - 35,700 38,400 -7.03%51,000 1800 Recreation Sports 30,400 7,900 300 - 38,600 38,600 0.00%31,653 *Total 1,788,700 150,300 426,300 - 2,365,300 2,268,560 4.26%2,271,291 Total Operational Expenditures 7,197,800 586,300 4,110,100 5,500 11,899,700 11,394,960 4.43%10,982,357 Transfer for Roads - - - - **Total General Fund 11,899,700 11,394,960 4.43%10,982,357 Dollar Change from Previous Year 504,740 2020 General Fund Budget Expenditures 2017 2018 2019 2020 Inc Over 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget PY Budget EstimateGeneral Property Tax3010Current Property Tax 8,475,905 8,679,991 8,810,333 9,181,833 4.2%9,365,470 3002 Allowance for Delinquent Taxes (75,108) (46,746) (70,000) (40,000) (60,000) 3011 Delinquent Property Tax 7,050 14,350 15,000 20,000 15,000 3090 Excess TIF Taxes 86,633 - - *Total General Property Tax 8,494,480 8,647,594 8,755,333 9,161,833 4.6%9,320,470 Licenses3203 Dog Kennel 250 325 500 500 500 3206 Massage License 150 50 500 100 100 3213 Solicitor - - - - 3226 Liquor On and Off Sale 92,018 76,904 93,000 90,000 90,000 3284 Rubbish 3,000 1,200 3,500 3,000 3,000 *Total Licenses 95,418 78,479 97,500 93,600 -4.0%93,600 Permits3301 Building 518,620 778,694 520,000 520,000 520,000 3302 Plan Check 253,777 428,932 255,000 255,000 255,000 3305 Heating & A/C 172,701 183,881 119,300 119,300 119,300 3306 Plumbing 97,615 149,778 90,000 90,000 90,000 3307 Trenching 55,066 54,154 30,000 30,000 30,000 3308 Hunting/Shooting 840 700 1,400 1,400 1,400 3309 Sprinkler 11,074 16,664 11,000 11,000 11,000 3311 Sign 4,015 8,280 5,000 5,000 5,000 3316 Septic Tank - 222 - - - 3320 Stable 200 190 300 300 300 3331 Firework's Application Fee 200 200 - - - 3390 Misc. Permits 5,525 4,545 3,000 3,000 3,000 *Total Permits 1,119,633 1,626,240 1,035,000 1,035,000 0.0%1,035,000 Fines & Penalties3401Traffic & Ordinance Violation 126,636 93,455 115,000 115,000 115,000 3402 Vehicle Lockouts 950 1,400 1,000 1,000 1,000 3404 Dog/Cat Impound 808 496 500 500 500 3405 Other Fines and Penalties - - - - *Total Fines & Penalties 128,394 95,351 116,500 116,500 0.0%116,500 Intergovernmental Revenue3503Reimbursement from School Dist.49,407 51,233 45,000 55,000 52,000 3509 Other Shared Taxes 196,021 201,162 195,000 200,000 200,000 3510 Grants-State 163,912 176,847 160,000 180,000 180,000 3530 Grants-Federal - - - - - 3533 Grants-Other 6,291 7,016 - 7,000 5,000 *Total Intergovernmental Revenue 415,632 436,258 400,000 442,000 10.5%437,000 2020 General Fund Budget Revenue 2017 2018 2019 2020 Inc Over 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget PY Budget EstimateCharges for Current Services3601Sale of Documents 950 779 800 800 800 3602 Use & Variance Permits 21,533 17,660 20,000 25,000 25,000 3603 Rezoning Fees 1,750 1,675 2,000 2,000 2,000 3604 Assessment Searches - 45 - - - 3605 Plat Recording Fees 2,290 1,537 3,000 2,000 2,000 3607 Election Filing Fees - 40 - - - 3613 Misc.-General Government 5,616 2,456 5,000 5,000 5,000 3614 Admin. Charge-2% Constr.52,225 10,806 50,000 50,000 50,000 3617 Engineering General - - - - - 3619 Investment Management Fee 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 3629 Misc.-Public Safety 9,971 8,412 10,000 10,000 10,000 3630 Recreation Program Fees 59,520 63,596 52,000 62,000 62,000 3631 Recreation Center 217,077 228,935 218,000 226,000 226,000 3633 Park Equipment Rental 93 34 100 100 100 3634 Park Facility Usage Fee 19,022 16,976 19,000 19,000 19,000 3635 Watercraft Rental 18,020 17,543 18,000 18,000 18,000 3636 Self-Supporting Programs 45,276 42,366 42,000 42,000 42,000 3637 Senior Programs 47,025 39,327 45,000 45,000 45,000 3638 Food Concessions 10,862 11,023 11,000 11,000 11,000 3639 Misc.-Park & Rec.1,347 1,345 1,200 1,200 1,200 3642 Recreation Sports 44,384 34,061 44,000 38,000 38,000 3649 Misc.-Public Works 3,651 1,038 2,000 2,000 2,000 3651 Merchandise Sales 2,950 2,339 2,800 2,800 2,800 *Total Charges for Current Services 638,562 576,992 620,900 636,900 2.6%636,900 Other Revenue3801Interest Earnings 36,120 73,165 30,000 40,000 50,000 3802 Equipment Rental & Sale 186,978 192,792 250,000 275,000 275,000 3803 Building Rental 5,798 5,849 5,800 5,800 5,800 3804 Land Sale 8,100 - - - - 3807 Donations 28,609 25,387 24,127 25,867 25,000 3808 Insurance Reimbursements 18,709 10,267 - 10,000 10,000 3816 SAC Retainer 4,386 8,449 4,000 6,000 6,000 3818 Sur-Tax Retainer 740 903 700 700 700 3820 Misc. Other Revenue 766 930 500 500 500 3903 Refunds/Reimbursements 55,635 50,160 55,000 50,000 50,000 3980 Cash Short/Over 1 (1) - - - *Total Other Revenue 345,843 367,900 370,127 413,867 11.8%423,000 **Total General Fund Revenue 11,237,962 11,828,816 11,395,360 11,899,700 4.4%12,062,470 Total General Fund Expenditures 11,899,700 Net Levy Remaining (Use of Gen Fund Reserves)- 2020 General Fund Budget Revenue 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4020Salaries & Wages-Temp 42,000 41,550 43,600 43,600 0.0%45,400 4030 Contributions-Retirement 2,804 2,769 3,000 3,000 0.0%3,200 4050 Workers Compensation 90 85 100 100 0.0%100 *Total Personal Services 44,894 44,404 46,700 46,700 0.0%48,700 4300 Fees, Services - - 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4340 Printing & Publishing 29,911 33,838 32,000 32,000 0.0%33,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 41,560 42,031 42,000 42,000 0.0%43,000 4370 Travel & Training 5,650 5,686 6,000 6,000 0.0%6,000 4375 Promotional Expenses 599 1,727 600 600 0.0%600 *Total Contractual Services 77,719 83,282 81,600 81,600 0.0%83,600 **Total Legislative 122,613 127,686 128,300 128,300 0.0%132,300 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Legislative (1110) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 360,011 357,790 377,300 378,700 0.4%390,000 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 209 2,331 300 300 0.0%300 4021 Overtime-Temp - 98 - - 0.0%- 4030 Contributions-Retirement 51,126 51,704 55,500 57,400 3.4%59,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 59,127 63,824 68,000 53,000 (22.1%)64,300 4050 Workers Compensation 3,045 2,844 3,700 3,500 (5.4%)3,500 *Total Personal Services 473,517 478,591 504,800 492,900 (2.4%)517,100 4300 Fees, Services 4,634 3,685 15,000 15,000 0.0%12,000 4310 Telephone 5,677 4,752 5,800 5,800 0.0%5,800 4320 Utilities - 302 200 300 50.0%300 4330 Postage 22,968 22,500 23,000 23,000 0.0%23,000 4340 Printing & Publishing - 380 300 300 0.0%300 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 4,633 5,238 4,600 5,000 8.7%5,000 4370 Travel & Training 9,503 10,115 8,600 10,000 16.3%10,000 4380 Mileage 1,079 1,349 1,000 1,200 20.0%1,200 4410 Rental-Equipment 860 420 1,000 800 (20.0%)800 *Total Contractual Services 49,355 48,741 59,500 61,400 3.2%58,400 **Total Administration 522,872 527,332 564,300 554,300 (1.8%)575,500 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Adminstration (1120) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 226,932 225,766 239,500 247,100 3.2%254,000 4030 Contributions-Retirement 33,129 31,855 36,300 37,400 3.0%38,500 4040 Contributions-Insurance 38,281 46,400 50,900 37,000 (27.3%)50,000 4050 Workers Compensation 1,937 1,778 2,300 2,000 (13.0%)2,000 *Total Personal Services 300,279 305,799 329,000 323,500 (1.7%)344,500 4120 Supplies-Equipment - 64 100 100 0.0%100 4210 Books & Periodicals - - 100 100 0.0%100 *Total Materials & Supplies - 64 200 200 0.0%200 4300 Fees, Services 14,087 10,447 16,000 16,000 0.0%16,000 4301 Fees, Financial/Audit 19,147 26,047 20,000 26,000 30.0%26,000 4310 Telephone and Communications 997 1,082 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4340 Printing & Publishing 200 1,087 300 300 0.0%300 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 465 425 500 500 0.0%500 4370 Travel & Training 3,926 3,883 4,500 4,500 0.0%4,500 *Total Contractual Services 38,821 42,970 42,300 48,300 14.2%48,300 **Total Finance 339,100 348,833 371,500 372,000 0.1%393,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020Fees, Financial/Audit A small increase is included for the negotiated Audit Contract as well as new GASBRequirement for actuarial services related to pension reporting.2021 2020 General Fund Budget Finance (1130) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4302Fees, Legal 198,417 191,253 200,000 200,000 0.0%200,000 *Total Contractual Services 198,417 191,253 200,000 200,000 0.0%200,000 **Total Legal 198,417 191,253 200,000 200,000 0.0%200,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Legal (1140) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4300Fees, Services 146,422 152,430 156,000 161,000 3.2%166,000 *Total Contractual Services 146,422 152,430 156,000 161,000 3.2%166,000 **Total Property Assessment 146,422 152,430 156,000 161,000 3.2%166,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Property Assessment (1150) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 112,230 118,751 123,800 128,000 3.4%131,800 4030 Contributions-Retirement 16,505 17,286 18,800 19,400 3.2%20,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 19,697 21,908 23,300 20,400 (12.4%)22,800 4050 Workers Compensation 957 935 1,200 1,000 (16.7%)1,000 *Total Personal Services 149,389 158,880 167,100 168,800 1.0%175,600 4150 Maintenance Materials 1,062 875 1,300 1,000 (23.1%)1,300 4210 Books & Periodicals 55 83 100 100 0.0%100 4220 Software Licensing & Support 27,670 24,100 43,000 40,000 (7.0%)35,000 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 274 35 300 300 0.0%300 *Total Materials & Supplies 29,061 25,093 44,700 41,400 (7.4%)36,700 4300 Fees, Services 21,368 21,846 22,000 24,000 9.1%22,000 4310 Telephone and Communications 1,980 1,700 2,000 2,000 0.0%2,000 4320 Utilities 11,070 10,998 11,000 11,000 0.0%11,000 4370 Travel & Training 5,755 7,465 6,000 6,000 0.0%6,000 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 4,990 3,828 5,000 5,000 0.0%5,000 *Total Contractual Services 45,163 45,837 46,000 48,000 4.3%46,000 **Total MIS 223,613 229,810 257,800 258,200 0.2%258,300 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Management Information Systems (MIS) (1160) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 58,399 59,964 60,000 61,200 2.0%63,000 4011 Overtime-Reg - 965 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4030 Contributions-Retirement 8,301 8,557 9,000 9,200 2.2%9,500 4040 Contributions-Insurance 14,691 18,183 19,300 17,000 (11.9%)19,000 4050 Workers Compensation 3,479 3,417 4,200 4,000 (4.8%)4,000 *Total Personal Services 84,870 91,086 93,500 92,400 (1.2%)96,500 4110 Supplies-Office 32,629 35,553 34,000 35,000 2.9%36,000 4120 Supplies-Equipment 176 8 900 500 (44.4%)500 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 411 453 500 500 0.0%500 4150 Maintenance Materials 4,250 5,576 4,500 5,000 11.1%5,000 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 144 56 400 400 0.0%400 *Total Materials & Supplies 37,611 41,645 40,300 41,400 2.7%42,400 4300 Fees, Services 11,166 11,442 11,000 12,000 9.1%12,000 4310 Telephone 10,357 10,424 11,000 10,500 (4.5%)11,000 4320 Utilities 37,768 39,509 39,000 39,000 0.0%41,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 29,201 30,434 30,000 31,000 3.3%32,000 4370 Travel & Training - - 200 200 0.0%200 4410 Rental-Equipment 14,442 12,342 14,500 14,500 0.0%14,500 4440 License & Registration - 32 100 100 0.0%100 4483 Insurance-General Liability 141,675 158,898 150,000 160,000 6.7%170,000 4510 Repair & Maintenance-Building 12,932 5,386 1,000 5,000 400.0%5,000 4520 Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles - - 200 200 0.0%200 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 10,245 4,505 5,000 5,000 0.0%5,000 *Total Contractual Services 267,785 272,972 262,000 277,500 5.9%291,000 **Total City Hall 390,266 405,703 395,800 411,300 3.9%429,900 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget City Hall (1170) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4020Salaries & Wages-Temp - 27,088 26,000 26,000 0.0%28,000 4030 Contributions-Retirement - - - - 0.0%- 4050 Workers Compensation - - - - 0.0%- *Total Personal Services - 27,088 26,000 26,000 0.0%28,000 4110 Supplies-Office - 1,239 1,500 1,500 0.0%1,500 4120 Supplies-Equipment - 114 2,500 2,500 0.0%2,500 *Total Materials & Supplies - 1,352 4,000 4,000 0.0%4,000 4300 Fees, Services - 4,090 12,000 12,000 0.0%14,000 4340 Printing & Publishing - 447 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4370 Travel & Training - 5,851 5,000 5,000 0.0%6,000 *Total Contractual Services - 10,388 18,000 18,000 0.0%21,000 **Total Elections - 38,829 48,000 48,000 0.0%53,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Elections (1180) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4150Maintenance Materials 2,333 50 2,500 2,500 0.0%2,500 *Total Materials & Supplies 2,333 50 2,500 2,500 0.0%2,500 4300 Fees, Services 3,258 7,191 3,000 4,000 33.3%5,000 4310 Telephone 1,526 1,526 1,600 1,600 0.0%1,700 4320 Utilities 56,908 58,149 63,000 60,000 (4.8%)60,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 29,304 33,301 30,500 32,500 6.6%33,000 4510 Repair & Maintenance-Building 10,274 4,954 6,500 6,500 0.0%6,500 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 5,562 333 4,500 4,500 0.0%4,500 *Total Contractual Services 106,832 105,455 109,100 109,100 0.0%110,700 **Total Library Building 109,165 105,505 111,600 111,600 0.0%113,200 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Library Building (1190) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 5,209 - - - 0.0%- 4030 Contributions-Retirement 766 - - - 0.0%- 4040 Contributions-Insurance 1,442 - - - 0.0%- 4050 Workers Compensation 45 - - - 0.0%- *Total Personal Services 7,463 - - - 0.0%- 4130 Program Supplies 313 342 1,000 1,000 0.0%- *Total Materials & Supplies 313 342 1,000 1,000 0.0%- 4300 Fees, Services 1,795,040 1,779,397 1,882,700 1,976,700 5.0%2,075,500 4370 Travel & Training 15 90 100 100 0.0%100 4375 Promotional Expense 1,405 817 2,000 1,000 (50.0%)1,000 *Total Contractual Services 1,796,460 1,780,303 1,884,800 1,977,800 4.9%2,076,600 **Total Police Administration 1,804,236 1,780,646 1,885,800 1,978,800 4.9%2,076,600 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Police Administration (1210) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 217,749 205,907 217,000 225,200 3.8%232,000 4011 Overtime-Reg 292 2,724 3,000 3,000 0.0%3,000 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 153,469 208,252 200,000 345,000 72.5%350,000 4030 Contributions-Retirement 222,858 232,909 230,000 252,000 9.6%255,000 4031 Fire Relief Required Contribution - 54,749 40,000 50,000 25.0%50,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 25,335 22,068 23,500 21,000 (10.6%)23,000 4050 Workers Compensation 71,572 68,767 75,000 80,000 6.7%80,000 4060 Unemployment 439 36 - - 0.0%- 4070 Contracted Wages 34,048 34,048 36,000 36,000 0.0%38,000 *Total Personal Services 725,763 829,461 824,500 1,012,200 22.8%1,031,000 4120 Supplies-Equipment 6,994 7,015 7,000 7,000 0.0%7,000 4130 Supplies-Program 3,073 3,282 2,200 2,200 0.0%2,200 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 6,943 4,310 9,000 9,000 0.0%9,000 4150 Maintenance Materials 1 164 400 400 0.0%400 4210 Books & Periodicals - - 500 500 0.0%500 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 9,044 9,853 11,000 11,000 0.0%11,000 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 4,924 8,166 8,000 8,000 0.0%8,000 4290 Misc. Materials & Supplies 3,642 6,407 7,000 7,000 0.0%7,000 *Total Materials & Supplies 34,620 39,197 45,100 45,100 0.0%45,100 4300 Fees, Services 29,088 26,056 32,000 34,000 6.3%35,500 4310 Telephone 8,541 7,815 8,000 8,000 0.0%8,000 4320 Utilities 15,464 18,392 16,000 17,000 6.3%17,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 4,469 5,606 5,100 5,100 0.0%5,100 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 1,327 1,452 2,000 2,000 0.0%2,000 4370 Travel & Training 40,072 43,692 41,500 41,500 0.0%41,500 4375 Promotional Expense 6,922 7,415 10,000 8,000 (20.0%)8,000 4483 Insurance-General Liability 734 1,175 800 2,400 200.0%2,400 4510 Repair & Maintenance-Building 5,775 7,544 5,500 5,500 0.0%5,500 4520 Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles 1,909 100 7,000 4,000 (42.9%)4,000 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 20,338 20,367 20,500 22,500 9.8%23,600 4531 Repair & Maintenance-Radios 63 508 2,000 2,000 0.0%2,000 *Total Contractual Services 134,704 140,122 150,400 152,000 1.1%154,600 **Total Fire Prevention and Admin 895,087 1,008,779 1,020,000 1,209,300 18.6%1,230,700 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Fire Prevention and Administration (1220) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 537,534 474,940 504,000 515,700 2.3%531,200 4011 Overtime-Reg 82 310 - - 0.0%- 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 14,490 972 18,000 1,000 (94.4%)1,000 4030 Contributions-Retirement 75,207 70,259 76,400 78,000 2.1%80,500 4040 Contributions-Insurance 96,731 88,481 120,300 98,200 (18.4%)110,000 4050 Workers Compensation 3,575 3,298 4,200 3,600 (14.3%)3,800 *Total Personal Services 727,619 638,260 722,900 696,500 (3.7%)726,500 4120 Supplies-Equipment - - 100 100 0.0%100 4130 Supplies-Program 877 689 900 800 (11.1%)800 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 279 891 2,000 1,500 (25.0%)1,500 4210 Books & Periodicals 77 331 1,500 2,500 66.7%2,500 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 956 1,242 1,500 1,500 0.0%1,500 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 344 74 400 400 0.0%400 *Total Materials & Supplies 2,534 3,227 6,400 6,800 6.3%6,800 4310 Telephone 2,535 2,736 4,500 3,000 (33.3%)3,000 4340 Printing & Publishing - 594 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 761 1,120 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4370 Travel & Training 3,336 4,973 5,000 5,000 0.0%5,000 4440 License & Registration - 96 500 500 0.0%500 4520 Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles - - 300 300 0.0%300 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip - - 900 900 0.0%900 *Total Contractual Services 6,632 9,518 13,200 11,700 (11.4%)11,700 **Total Code Enforcement 736,784 651,006 742,500 715,000 (3.7%)745,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Code Enforcement (1250) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4020Salaries & Wages-Temp 35,473 42,434 45,500 48,000 5.5%50,000 4021 Overtime-Temp 289 83 300 300 0.0%300 4030 Contributions-Retirement 4,576 6,490 6,000 7,000 16.7%7,500 4040 Contributions-Insurance 321 590 600 600 0.0%600 4050 Workers Compensation 1,115 1,280 1,300 1,300 0.0%1,300 4060 Unemployment 527 524 - - 0.0%- *Total Personal Services 42,302 51,400 53,700 57,200 6.5%59,700 4120 Supplies-Equipment 175 116 300 300 0.0%300 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 17 105 700 200 (71.4%)300 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 801 250 700 700 0.0%700 *Total Materials & Supplies 993 470 1,700 1,200 (29.4%)1,300 4300 Fees, Services 4,126 2,757 3,200 3,200 0.0%3,200 4310 Telephone 1,229 1,245 1,600 1,600 0.0%1,600 4340 Printing & Publishing 16 - 100 100 0.0%- 4520 Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles - - 200 200 0.0%- 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip - - 100 100 0.0%- 4531 Repair & Maintenance-Radios - - 200 200 0.0%- *Total Contractual Services 5,370 4,002 5,400 5,400 0.0%4,800 **Total Community Service 48,665 55,873 60,800 63,800 4.9%65,800 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Community Service (1260) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 464,860 419,427 473,000 494,000 4.4%506,500 4011 Overtime-Reg 6,157 7,436 6,000 7,000 16.7%7,000 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 13,897 7,047 14,000 12,000 (14.3%)12,000 4021 Overtime-Temp - 51 - - 0.0%- 4030 Contributions-Retirement 68,941 62,455 71,700 74,500 3.9%78,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 80,702 78,157 73,500 86,600 17.8%97,000 4050 Workers Compensation 3,588 2,833 4,000 3,500 (12.5%)3,500 *Total Personal Services 638,144 577,405 642,200 677,600 5.5%704,000 4120 Supplies-Equipment 21 399 500 500 0.0%500 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 10 416 300 300 0.0%300 *Total Materials & Supplies 32 814 800 800 0.0%800 4300 Fees, Services 10,822 23,254 16,000 16,000 0.0%16,000 4310 Telephone 3,915 4,350 4,000 4,600 15.0%4,600 4340 Printing & Publishing 292 358 300 300 0.0%300 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 1,383 1,280 1,500 1,500 0.0%1,500 4370 Travel & Training 3,971 2,331 4,500 6,300 40.0%6,300 4380 Mileage 149 - 100 100 0.0%100 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip - - 500 500 0.0%500 *Total Contractual Services 20,533 31,573 26,900 29,300 8.9%29,300 **Total Engineering 658,709 609,793 669,900 707,700 5.6%734,100 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Engineering (1310) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 489,181 493,599 543,100 605,000 11.4%623,000 4011 Overtime-Reg 27,554 65,137 27,000 40,000 48.1%45,000 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 24,366 27,994 28,000 32,000 14.3%34,000 4021 Overtime-Temp 428 438 - - 0.0%- 4030 Contributions-Retirement 77,435 84,190 82,300 91,700 11.4%88,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 100,282 119,357 120,000 108,000 (10.0%)127,000 4050 Workers Compensation 59,215 58,393 66,000 66,000 0.0%66,000 4060 Unemployment 3,328 4,008 - - 0.0%- *Total Personal Services 781,789 853,116 866,400 942,700 8.8%983,000 4120 Supplies-Equipment 43,237 38,254 45,000 40,000 (11.1%)45,000 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 18,263 9,420 12,000 12,000 0.0%12,000 4150 Maintenance Materials 33,014 50,856 48,000 55,000 14.6%55,000 4210 Books & Periodicals - - 100 100 0.0%100 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 5,439 4,308 5,500 5,500 0.0%5,500 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 2,758 1,706 2,700 2,700 0.0%2,700 *Total Materials & Supplies 102,710 104,543 113,300 115,300 1.8%120,300 4300 Fees, Services 9,353 3,953 3,500 3,500 0.0%3,500 4310 Telephone 5,128 8,299 5,200 8,300 59.6%9,100 4340 Printing & Publishing 63 173 300 300 0.0%300 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 2,051 522 2,000 2,000 0.0%2,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships - 100 200 100 (50.0%)100 4370 Travel & Training 1,589 2,111 1,600 1,600 0.0%1,600 4410 Rental-Equipment 8,383 8,260 3,000 8,000 166.7%8,000 4440 License & Registration 5 464 500 500 0.0%500 4510 Repair & Maintenance-Building 450 16 100 100 0.0%100 4520 Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles 200 2,824 800 800 0.0%800 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 650 2,250 700 700 0.0%700 4540 Repair & Maintenance-Streets 6,875 5,800 6,500 6,500 0.0%6,500 4560 Repair & Maintenance-Signs 11,850 11,544 11,000 11,000 0.0%11,000 *Total Contractual Services 46,597 46,316 35,400 43,400 22.6%44,200 **Total Street Maintenance 931,096 1,003,974 1,015,100 1,101,400 8.5%1,147,500 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Street Maintenance (1320) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4120Supplies-Equipment 4,679 5,233 3,000 4,000 33.3%5,000 *Total Materials & Supplies 4,679 5,233 3,000 4,000 33.3%5,000 4300 Fees, Services 2,166 - 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4310 Telephone 360 360 500 500 0.0%500 4320 Utilities 320,328 328,234 323,000 330,000 2.2%332,000 4565 Repair & Maintenance-Light/Signal 31,664 41,492 30,000 35,000 16.7%40,000 *Total Contractual Services 354,518 370,086 354,500 366,500 3.4%373,500 **Total Street Lighting and Signals 359,197 375,319 357,500 370,500 3.6%378,500 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Street Lighting and Signals (1350) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 206,685 213,491 217,100 224,400 3.4%231,100 4011 Overtime-Reg 4,771 14,072 5,000 7,000 40.0%9,000 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 4,182 4,500 5,000 5,000 0.0%5,500 4021 Overtime-Temp - 127 - - 0.0%- 4030 Contributions-Retirement 30,569 32,815 33,000 35,000 6.1%36,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 40,026 44,291 48,300 42,000 (13.0%)47,000 4050 Workers Compensation 9,266 9,276 11,000 10,000 (9.1%)10,000 *Total Personal Services 295,498 318,572 319,400 323,400 1.3%338,600 4120 Supplies-Equipment 1,610 502 2,000 1,600 (20.0%)1,600 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 48 60 200 200 0.0%200 4150 Maintenance Materials 113 2,058 600 600 0.0%600 4170 Motor Fuels & Lubricants 144,222 142,536 165,000 165,000 0.0%165,000 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 1,055 1,104 1,200 1,300 8.3%1,300 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 2,605 2,293 3,000 3,000 0.0%3,000 *Total Materials & Supplies 149,654 148,552 172,000 171,700 (0.2%)171,700 4300 Fees, Services 4,798 3,539 5,000 4,000 (20.0%)4,000 4310 Telephone 2,432 2,375 2,500 2,500 0.0%2,500 4320 Utilities 32,540 36,441 32,000 36,000 12.5%36,000 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 5,145 5,342 5,500 5,500 0.0%5,500 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 40 40 200 200 0.0%200 4370 Travel & Training 691 - 800 800 0.0%800 4440 License & Registration - 425 300 300 0.0%300 4510 Repair & Maintenance-Building 12,451 31,448 12,000 12,000 0.0%12,000 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 8,798 291 3,500 3,500 0.0%3,500 *Total Contractual Services 66,895 79,901 61,800 64,800 4.9%64,800 4703 Office Equipment - - 500 500 0.0%500 4705 Other Equipment 6,761 3,561 5,000 5,000 0.0%5,000 *Total Capital Outlay 6,761 3,561 5,500 5,500 0.0%5,500 **Total Fleet Department 518,808 550,586 558,700 565,400 1.2%580,600 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Fleet Department (1370) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4210Books & Periodicals - - 200 200 0.0%200 *Total Materials & Supplies - - 200 200 0.0%200 4340 Printing & Publishing 1,090 702 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships - - 200 200 0.0%200 4370 Travel & Training 249 126 300 300 0.0%300 *Total Contractual Services 1,338 828 1,500 1,500 0.0%1,500 **Total Planning Commission 1,338 828 1,700 1,700 0.0%1,700 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Planning Commission (1410) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 339,898 366,597 403,400 402,300 (0.3%)414,400 4011 Overtime-Reg - 1,410 - - 0.0%- 4030 Contributions-Retirement 48,624 52,927 61,000 61,000 0.0%63,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 62,321 65,198 61,000 53,300 (12.6%)60,000 4050 Workers Compensation 2,860 2,888 3,800 3,000 (21.1%)3,200 *Total Personal Services 453,704 489,020 529,200 519,600 (1.8%)540,600 4120 Supplies-Equipment 62 66 300 100 (66.7%)100 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 441 284 100 300 200.0%300 *Total Materials & Supplies 503 350 400 400 0.0%400 4300 Fees, Services 37,392 10,354 5,000 5,000 0.0%5,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 909 1,894 800 2,000 150.0%2,000 4370 Travel & Training 3,722 385 5,500 4,500 (18.2%)4,500 *Total Contractual Services 42,024 12,633 11,300 11,500 1.8%11,500 **Total Planning Administration 496,230 502,004 540,900 531,500 (1.7%)552,500 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Planning Administration (1420) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 21,852 22,594 22,600 23,300 3.1%24,000 4030 Contributions-Retirement 3,220 3,305 3,500 3,500 0.0%3,600 4040 Contributions-Insurance 2,481 2,748 2,900 2,600 (10.3%)2,900 4050 Workers Compensation 182 177 200 200 0.0%200 *Total Personal Services 27,735 28,824 29,200 29,600 1.4%30,700 4300 Fees, Services 14,240 14,737 10,000 14,000 40.0%14,000 4370 Travel & Training 295 - 200 200 0.0%200 4375 Promotional Expense 984 1,316 800 800 0.0%1,000 *Total Contractual Services 15,519 16,052 11,000 15,000 36.4%15,200 **Total Senior Commission 43,254 44,876 40,200 44,600 10.9%45,900 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Senior Commission (1430) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4130Supplies-Program - 25 100 100 0.0%100 4210 Books & Periodicals - - 100 100 0.0%100 *Total Materials & Supplies - 25 200 200 0.0%200 4340 Printing & Publishing - - 100 100 0.0%100 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships - - 500 500 0.0%500 4370 Travel & Training 175 - 400 400 0.0%400 *Total Contractual Services 175 - 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 **Total Park and Rec Commission 175 25 1,200 1,200 0.0%1,200 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Park and Recreation Commission (1510) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 172,863 168,124 182,300 186,700 2.4%192,300 4030 Contributions-Retirement 25,112 23,811 27,600 28,200 2.2%29,100 4040 Contributions-Insurance 26,993 36,543 38,900 33,900 (12.9%)39,000 4050 Workers Compensation 1,452 1,331 1,800 1,500 (16.7%)1,500 *Total Personal Services 226,420 229,809 250,600 250,300 (0.1%)261,900 4120 Supplies-Equipment 16 - 100 100 0.0%100 4130 Supplies-Program - 324 100 100 0.0%100 *Total Materials & Supplies 16 324 200 200 0.0%200 4300 Fees, Services 828 - 300 300 0.0%300 4310 Telephone 617 998 700 700 0.0%700 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 3,448 2,716 3,100 2,800 (9.7%)2,800 4370 Travel & Training 1,821 2,029 1,800 1,800 0.0%1,800 4380 Mileage - - 100 100 0.0%100 *Total Contractual Services 6,713 5,743 6,000 5,700 (5.0%)5,700 **Total Park and Rec Admin.233,149 235,876 256,800 256,200 (0.2%)267,800 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Park and Recreation Administration (1520) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 64,313 66,539 68,100 70,800 4.0%73,000 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 97,000 103,816 113,000 113,000 0.0%116,000 4030 Contributions-Retirement 24,008 25,377 30,000 30,000 0.0%30,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 9,848 10,920 11,600 10,200 (12.1%)12,000 4050 Workers Compensation 9,909 9,667 10,500 10,500 0.0%10,500 *Total Personal Services 205,079 216,319 233,200 234,500 0.6%241,500 4120 Supplies-Equipment 1,358 1,678 1,600 1,600 0.0%1,600 4130 Supplies-Program 13,066 14,884 15,000 15,000 0.0%15,000 4150 Maintenance Materials 450 248 500 500 0.0%500 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 631 500 600 600 0.0%600 *Total Materials & Supplies 15,505 17,310 17,700 17,700 0.0%17,700 4300 Fees, Services 50,812 50,977 52,000 51,000 (1.9%)52,000 4310 Telephone 917 618 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4320 Utilities 35,409 37,345 37,000 37,000 0.0%38,000 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 351 410 400 400 0.0%400 4370 Travel & Training 15 30 400 400 0.0%400 4375 Promotional Expense 700 890 800 800 0.0%800 4510 Repair & Maintenance-Building 1,978 1,745 2,500 2,000 (20.0%)2,000 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 1,653 1,481 1,800 1,800 0.0%2,000 *Total Contractual Services 91,834 93,496 95,900 94,400 (1.6%)96,600 **Total Recreation Center 312,419 327,125 346,800 346,600 (0.1%)355,800 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Recreation Center (1530) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4020Salaries & Wages-Temp 8,164 9,121 10,700 11,000 2.8%11,400 4021 Overtime-Temp - 8 - - 0.0%- 4030 Contributions-Retirement 625 698 700 700 0.0%800 4050 Workers Compensation 500 523 600 600 0.0%600 *Total Personal Services 9,288 10,351 12,000 12,300 2.5%12,800 4130 Supplies-Program 10,477 8,143 9,000 10,000 11.1%10,000 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 200 200 200 200 0.0%200 *Total Materials & Supplies 10,677 8,343 9,200 10,200 10.9%10,200 4300 Fees, Services 35,341 32,346 35,000 35,000 0.0%35,000 4310 Telephone 1,288 1,145 1,200 1,200 0.0%1,200 4320 Utilities 10,765 11,642 11,000 12,000 9.1%12,000 4340 Printing & Publishing 214 268 400 400 0.0%400 4903 Bad Debt Expense - 12 - - 0.0%- *Total Contractual Services 47,607 45,413 47,600 48,600 2.1%48,600 **Total Lake Ann Park Operations 67,573 64,106 68,800 71,100 3.3%71,600 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Lake Ann Park Operations (1540) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 489,295 500,639 457,100 509,000 11.4%523,700 4011 Overtime-Reg 32,956 46,899 30,000 40,000 33.3%46,000 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 112,282 119,810 118,000 126,000 6.8%133,000 4021 Overtime-Temp 3,829 4,776 5,000 5,000 0.0%5,000 4030 Contributions-Retirement 83,513 86,052 88,000 93,000 5.7%98,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 78,394 81,739 84,000 97,200 15.7%101,000 4050 Workers Compensation 36,995 35,687 39,000 40,000 2.6%40,000 *Total Personal Services 837,263 875,602 821,100 910,200 10.9%946,700 4120 Supplies-Equipment 45,221 41,455 40,000 41,000 2.5%41,000 4140 Supplies-Vehicles 11,122 3,049 5,000 5,000 0.0%5,000 4150 Maintenance Materials 21,561 35,339 27,000 30,000 11.1%30,000 4151 Irrigation Materials 3,967 1,515 5,000 4,000 (20.0%)4,000 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 2,453 3,304 2,600 3,000 15.4%3,000 4260 Small Tools & Equipment 2,032 1,022 1,200 1,200 0.0%1,200 *Total Materials & Supplies 86,356 85,684 80,800 84,200 4.2%84,200 4300 Fees, Services 52,825 46,982 43,000 45,000 4.7%45,000 4310 Telephone 5,813 6,704 5,900 6,200 5.1%6,200 4320 Utilities 4,796 5,220 4,800 5,200 8.3%5,200 4340 Printing & Publishing 105 254 200 200 0.0%200 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 3,591 3,932 3,700 3,900 5.4%3,900 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships - - 400 400 0.0%400 4370 Travel & Training 2,537 684 1,000 1,000 0.0%1,000 4400 Rental-Land & Buildings 29,984 34,853 36,000 35,000 (2.8%)36,000 4410 Rental-Equipment 1,274 973 700 1,000 42.9%1,000 4440 License & Registration 44 368 300 300 0.0%300 4510 Repair & Maintenance-Building 5,073 134 1,700 1,500 (11.8%)1,500 4520 Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles 2,387 - 100 100 0.0%100 4530 Repair & Maintenance-Equip 8,889 6,344 1,000 3,000 200.0%3,000 4560 Repair & Maintenance-Signs 754 1,159 2,000 1,500 (25.0%)1,500 *Total Contractual Services 118,073 107,608 100,800 104,300 3.5%105,300 **Total Park Maintenance 1,041,692 1,068,895 1,002,700 1,098,700 9.6%1,136,200 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Park Maintenance (1550) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 64,425 77,833 56,200 58,100 3.4%60,000 4030 Contributions-Retirement 9,772 8,907 8,600 8,900 3.5%9,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 3,536 10,900 19,300 16,900 (12.4%)19,000 4050 Workers Compensation 535 493 600 600 0.0%600 *Total Personal Services 78,268 98,133 84,700 84,500 (0.2%)88,600 4120 Supplies-Equipment 41 116 300 300 0.0%300 4130 Supplies-Program 4,431 3,688 4,000 4,000 0.0%4,000 *Total Materials & Supplies 4,472 3,804 4,300 4,300 0.0%4,300 4300 Fees, Services 34,713 27,561 32,000 30,000 (6.3%)30,000 4310 Telephone - 180 - - 0.0%- 4350 Cleaning & Waste Removal 95 98 100 100 0.0%100 4360 Subscriptions & Memberships 110 110 100 100 0.0%100 4370 Travel & Training 222 233 300 300 0.0%300 4375 Promotional Expense 60 11 100 100 0.0%100 4380 Mileage - 82 100 100 0.0%100 *Total Contractual Services 35,200 28,275 32,700 30,700 (6.1%)30,700 **Total Senior Citizens Center 117,940 130,212 121,700 119,500 (1.8%)123,600 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Senior Citizens Center (1560) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 103,215 105,339 121,860 122,900 0.9%126,600 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 64,368 73,798 68,000 78,000 14.7%86,000 4021 Overtime-Temp 402 562 1,000 700 (30.0%)800 4030 Contributions-Retirement 20,434 21,321 27,000 27,000 0.0%29,000 4040 Contributions-Insurance 10,720 11,947 28,000 12,500 (55.4%)15,000 4050 Workers Compensation 4,802 5,148 5,000 5,500 10.0%5,500 *Total Personal Services 203,942 218,116 250,860 246,600 (1.7%)262,900 4120 Supplies-Equipment 2,019 2,352 2,500 2,300 (8.0%)2,300 4130 Supplies-Program 22,063 19,277 18,000 18,000 0.0%18,000 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 2,035 1,982 1,700 2,000 17.6%2,000 *Total Materials & Supplies 26,117 23,611 22,200 22,300 0.5%22,300 4300 Fees, Services 65,606 58,900 66,600 66,600 0.0%66,600 4310 Telephone 2,155 2,418 2,200 2,400 9.1%2,400 4320 Utilities 4,660 7,447 4,600 7,500 63.0%7,500 4340 Printing & Publishing 9,683 7,477 7,500 7,500 0.0%7,500 4370 Travel & Training 507 364 500 500 0.0%500 4380 Mileage - - 100 100 0.0%100 4400 Rental-Land & Buildings 8,303 8,298 7,000 8,200 17.1%8,200 4410 Rental-Equipment 32,412 35,768 32,000 36,000 12.5%36,000 *Total Contractual Services 123,325 120,673 120,500 128,800 6.9%128,800 **Total Recreation Programs 353,384 362,400 393,560 397,700 1.1%414,000 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Recreation Programs (1600) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4010Salaries & Wages-Reg 25,806 26,335 13,600 13,700 0.7%14,000 4020 Salaries & Wages-Temp 1,950 1,100 2,200 2,200 0.0%2,200 4030 Contributions-Retirement 4,020 3,991 2,100 2,100 0.0%2,300 4040 Contributions-Insurance 2,645 2,951 3,100 1,500 (51.6%)2,000 4050 Workers Compensation 337 271 400 400 0.0%400 *Total Personal Services 34,757 34,647 21,400 19,900 (7.0%)20,900 4130 Supplies-Program 4,283 4,424 4,500 3,300 (26.7%)3,300 *Total Materials & Supplies 4,283 4,424 4,500 3,300 (26.7%)3,300 4300 Fees, Services 11,573 11,929 12,500 12,500 0.0%12,500 *Total Contractual Services 11,573 11,929 12,500 12,500 0.0%12,500 **Total Self-Supporting Programs 50,614 51,000 38,400 35,700 (7.0%)36,700 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Self-Supporting Programs (1700) 2019 to 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Account Description Actual Actual Budget Budget % Inc/(Dec)Estimate4020Salaries & Wages-Temp 23,393 21,525 26,000 26,000 0.0%27,000 4021 Overtime-Temp - 19 - - 0.0%- 4030 Contributions-Retirement 2,438 2,386 2,800 2,800 0.0%2,800 4050 Workers Compensation 1,481 1,235 1,600 1,600 0.0%1,600 *Total Personal Services 27,311 25,164 30,400 30,400 0.0%31,400 4120 Supplies-Equipment 82 - - 0.0%- 4130 Supplies-Program 2,438 1,573 2,500 2,500 0.0%2,500 4240 Uniforms & Clothing 5,427 4,917 5,400 5,400 0.0%5,400 *Total Materials & Supplies 7,947 6,490 7,900 7,900 0.0%7,900 4375 Promotional Expenses - - 300 300 0.0%300 *Total Contractual Services - - 300 300 0.0%300 **Total Recreation Sports 35,258 31,653 38,600 38,600 0.0%39,600 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE2020 2021 2020 General Fund Budget Recreation Sports (1800) Source City of Chanhassen, MN C apital Improvement Pro gr am 2020 tnru 2024 FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total AssessmenURevolving Assess Fund Cable TV Fund Capital Replacement Equipment Fund MSA Other Agency Contribution Park Dedication Fund Park Replacement Fund Sewer Utility Fund Street Pavement Management Surface Water Utility Fund Tax Levy Water Utility Fund 2,622,500 25,000 '1,083,550 1 ,716,500 15,900,000 1,375,000 255,000 1,060,950 300,000 677,450 93,000 2,668,950 3,752,500 25,000 'l ,218,050 3,1 62,1 00 23,709,000 25,000 245,000 '1,350,050 300,000 1,208,050 93,000 2,173,550 3,740,000 42,000 1,479,090 3,145,600 7,3'10,000 25,000 250,000 921,770 300,000 1,028,170 93,000 1,312/70 3,840,000 25,000 1,1 17,930 345,600 25,000 255,000 763,290 300,000 '1,064,290 93,000 914,290 3,900,000 25,000 1,775,600 145,600 25,000 255,000 752,3s0 300,000 1,1 15,000 93,000 4,880,350 17,855,000 142,000 6,674,220 8,515,400 46,919,000 1,475,000 1,2N,000 4,848,410 1,500,000 5,092,960 465,000 11,949,910 GRAND TOTAL 27,777p00 37,261,300 19,647,400 8,743,400 13,266,900 10A,696,900 Source City of Chanhassen, MN C apital Improvement Pro gram 2020 thru 2024 PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Project# Priority 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Assessment/Revolvingasseiif'unO I Tennis Court Refurbishment Annual Street lmprovement Program Downtown Sig nal Controller Replacement Assessment/Revolving Assess Fund Total TV Fund Audiolr'isual Equipment Citizen Survey Cable TV Fund Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund ! Fire Dept.: SCBA Equipment PPE: TumouUHelmets Computer/Network Equipment Purchases/Upgrades Telecommunication Purchases/Upgrades Light Duty Trucks: Community Dev. Dump/Plow Truck Replacements/Additions Light Duty Trucks: Streets Software Purchases Computerized Records Retention System Fire Vehicles Aerial Photognaphy for City GIS Dataseb Administration Vehicle Replacement Engineering Vehicle Replacement Storage Area Network (SAN) CSO Truck Office Fumiture Snowblower SnowBlast Sicard Sweeper - Parks Light Duty Trucks - Parks Mower Replacement - Park Skid loader - Street Department Tractor Replacement - Park Brush Chipper Annual Skid Loader Trade ln Copier Replacements Fleet Vehicles Miscellaneous Fire EquipmenUHose Replacement Recreation Center Revitalization Project Zero Tum Mower Replacement - Parks Hot Box with Asphalt Premix Heater PK&T-072 sT-012 sr-043 EQ-026 M8-023 2,582,500 40,000 75,000 3,637,500 40,000 3,700,000 40,000 3,800,000 40,000 3,900,000 75,000 17,620,000 160,000 n/a n/a nla 2,6212,500 3,752,500 3,740,000 3,840,000 3,900,000 17,855,000 25,000 25,000nla nla 25,000 25,000 25,000 17,000 125,000 17,000 25,000 25,000 42,000 25,000 25,000 142,000 EQ-004 EQ-010 EQ-013 EQ-014 EQ-015 EQ-016 EQ-029 EQ-)48 EQ-049 EQ-154 E8-055 EQ-063 EQ-065 EQ-081 EQ-083 EQ-084 E8-098 EQ-099 EQ-100 EQ-104 EQ-105 EQ-106 EQ-115 EQ-124 EQ-127 EQ-132 EQ-137 EQ-140 EQ-154 EQ-758 20 25 n/a nla nla nla nla n/a nla nla nla nla nla n/a nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla n/a nla nla nla nla 30,000 82,700 6,600 221,000 50,000 88,250 22,000 2)00 30,400 92,300 2,300 31,000 228,000 36,000 98,350 6,1 00 30,000 1 7,1 00 29,500 350,000 31,300 79,300 2,300 64,000 235,000 100,490 s,000 65,000 27,000 33,400 5,000 36,000 19,000 9,000 1 5,000 31,300 76,300 50,000 242,000 104,030 7,000 2,900 5,000 46,000 18,600 123,400 19,000 9,000 32,250 7'1,300 330,000 49,000 106,800 '144,000 '17,900 45,600 5,000 1 54,500 41,700 47,000 83,000 240,400 1 04,800 19,000 9,500 20,000 25,000 350,000 155,250 401,900 61,200 95,000 1,256,000 135,000 497,920 40,100 239,000 40,000 56,500 45,600 55,000 33,400 25,000 1 54,500 41,700 172,000 202,600 240,400 228,200 86,000 95,000 46,000 35,000 85,000 50,000 18,000 44,300 55,000 5,000 5,000 43,000 101,000 19,000 86,000 19,000 18,500 35,000 15,00015,000 ,000 ,000 18,000 44,300 Source Project # Priority 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Crack Sealer Annual Zero Tum Mower Replacement - Park Vibratory Compactor Craig loader plow & wing M-B Broom Compressor Street Sweeper Trailer Replacement Weed Sprayer Vehicle Replacement - Planning Permiting/Planning Software Upg rade City Hall Remodel Fire Department Building lmprovements City Hall Roof Replacement Recreation Center Wall Replacement Recreation Center Lobby Furniture Lake Ann Lake Side Pavilion Roof Replacement City Center Park Paver Replacement Well ll4 Re+oofing Project Capital Replacement Equipment Fund Total Annual Street lmprovement Program Lyman Blvd lmprovements-Galpin Blvd to TH 41 Galpin Blvd lmp-Hwy 5 N to City limits (PW176A) TH 41 Rehabilitation - Pioneer Trail to TH 5 MSA Total Other Asencv Contribution I TH101 lmp-PioneerTrto Flying Cloud Dr(CSAH 61) Lyman Blvd lmprovements-Galpin Blvd to TH 41 Galpin Blvd lmp-Hwy 5 N to City limits (PW176A) Lower Bluff Creek TMDL lmplementation Lotus Lake Channels & Outfall lmprovements Upper Riley Creek Channel Stabilization Rice Marsh Lake lron Enhanced Sand Filter Other Agency Contribution Total Dedication Fund Picnic Tables/Park Benches Trees Chanhassen Nature PreseNe Trail, Final Phase Arboretum Trail and Hwy 41 Underpass Cost Share EQ.'59 EQ-l64 EQ-165 EQ-166 EO-167 EQ-769 EQ-170 EQ-171 EQ-172 EQ-173 EQ-l74 MB-010 MB-026 MB-033 MB-034 MB-035 PK&T-I32 PK&T-142 w-064 47,000 1,000 310,000 1,000 7,400 300,000 30,000 1,000 s9,000 46,300 16,400 29,900 47,000 5,000 59,000 46,300 16,400 29,900 310,000 76,750 9,900 33,000 94,500 150,000 218,900 300,000 65,500 12,000 30,000 165,000 19,500 nla n/a nla nla nla nla n/a nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla n/a nla nla n/a nla nla n/a n/a 1 000 1,000 36,000 33,350 9,900 33,000 94,500 150,000 93,900 165,000 19,500 125,000 65,500 1 2,000 1,083,550 1,218,050 1,479,090 1,1',|7,930 ',|,775,600 6,674,220 sT-012 sr-038 sr-040 sT-042 sr-032 sr-038 sr-040 swMP-024 swMP-046 swMP-048 SWMP-053 PK&T-042 PK&T-043 PK&T-099 PK&T-138 1,716,500 1,516,500 '1,645,600 100,000 145,600 3,33s,000 2,082,400 3,000,000 100,000 145,600 100,000 1,716,500 3,162,100 3,145,600 345,600 145,600 8,515,400 145,600 3,000,000 nla nla n/a nla nla nla n/a 15,000,000 15,000,000 8,494,000 900,000 200,000 15,000 7,000,000 60,000 2s0,000 30,000,000 8,494,000 7,000,000 900,000 200,000 75,000 250,000 15,900,000 23,709,000 7,310,000 46,919,000 n/a nla nla nla 10,000 15,000 150,000 '1,200,000 10,000 15,000 10,000 15,000 10,000 15,000 10,000 1 s,000 50,000 75,000 150,000 1,200,000 Park Dedication Fund Total Park Replacement FunO I Park Equipment Replacement PK&T-141 1,375,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 1,475,000 n/a 255,000 245,000 250,000 255,000 255,000 1,260,000 Source Project # Priority 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Park Replacement Fund Total Sawar I ltititv E'rrnd i Software Purchases Generator Light Duty Trucks: Utilities Bobcat Trailer Replacement Mailing Folder/lnserter Generator Truck lnflow and lnfiltration Abatement Sanitary Lift Station Rehabilitation Program Annual Street lmprovement Program TH101 lmp-PioneerTrto Flying Cloud Dr(CSAH 61) Galpin Blvd lmp-Hwy 5 N to City limits (PW176A) Software Purchases Mailing Folder/lnserter Annual Street lmprovement Program Property Acquisition Lower Bluff Creek TMDL lmplementation Stormwater Pond lmprovements Storm Water lntrastruc{ure Maintenance/Replacement Lotus Lake Channels & Outfall lmprovements Upper Riley Creek Channel Stabilization Rice Marsh Lake lron Enhanced Sand Filter Surface Water Utility Fund Total Pavement Management lity Fund Tax Levy Total Software Purchases Generator Light Duty Truck: Utilities Bobcat Trailer Replacement Mailing Folder/lnserter Generator Truck Annual Street lmprovement Program TH'101 lmp-PioneerTrto Flying Cloud Dr(CSAH 61) Galpin Blvd lmp-Hwy 5 N to City limits (PW176A) Well Rehabilitation Program 255,000 24s,000 2s0,000 2s5,000 255,000 1,260,000 12,550 13,170 14,290EQ-048 EQ-059 EQ-l62 EQ-160 EQ-161 EQ-768 ss-072 ss-07 7 sT-012 sr-032 sr-040 n/a nla nla nla nla nla nla n/a n/a nla nla 1 1,950 2'1,500 5,000 200,000 130,000 192,500 500,000 200,000 120,000 517,500 500,000 3,600 200,000 130,000 32s,000 250,000 44,000 95,000 200,000 8s,000 32s,000 1 5,000 52,350 70,000 200,000 90,000 32s,000 60960 52,350 135,500 3,600 5,000 95,000 1,000,000 555,000 1,685,000 1,000,000 250,000 Sewer Utility Fund Total Street Pavement Management I Pavement Management SI-078 Street Pavement Management Total rface Water U Fund 1,060,950 1,350,050 92',1,770 763,290 752,350 4,848,410 nla 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 EQ-148 EQ-l61 sT-012 swMP-l14 swMP-024 swMP-032 SWMP.O45 SWMP-046 swMP-048 swMP-053 sr-0r8 EQ-048 EQ-059 EQ-l62 EQ.'60 EQ-161 EQ-'68 sT-j12 sr-032 sT-040 w-032 'l 1,950 5,000 18s,500 75,000 50,000 300,000 50,000 1 2,550 785,500 1 3,1 70 600,000 300,000 50,000 15,000 50,000 60960 5,000 2,771,000 150,000 50,000 1,500,000 325,000 150,000 25,000 50,000 600,000 75,000 300,000 75,000 600,000 300,000 1 00,000 100,000 nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla n/a 14,290 15,000 300,000 s0,000 50,000 10,000 677 ,450 'r,208,0s0 1,028,170 1,064,290 1,115,000 5,092,960 nla 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 465'000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 93,000 465,000 11,950 12,550 13,170 14,290nla nla n/a nla n/a nla nla nla nla nla 21,500 5,000 1,550,000 500,000 1,605,000 500,000 3,600 700,000 500,000 96,000 700,000 1 5,000 52,350 70,000 66,960 52,350 135,500 3,600 5,000 95,000 5,255,000 1,000,000 500,000 307,000 44,000 95,000 700,000 51,000 56,000 61,000 43,000 Tax Source Project # Priority 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Low Zone 1 million gallon Storage Tank Well#16 Powers Blvd Watermain Loop Well #4 Re+oofing Project Water Utility Fund Total GRAND TOTAL w-046 w-059 w-063 w-064 nla nla nla nla s10,000 19,500 2,600,000 1,400,000 2,600,000 1,400,000 510,000 19,500 2,668,950 2,173,550 1,312,770 914,290 4,880,350 11,919,910 27,177,900 37,261,300 19,647,400 8,743,400 13,266,900 106,696,900 Department City of Chanhassen, IV[N Capital Improvement Pro gram 2020 thru 2024 DEPARTMENT SUMMARY 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Major Equipment Municipal Buildings Park & Trail lmprovements Sanitary Sewer lmprovements Street lmprovements Surface Water Management Water System lmprovements 774,000 243,900 '1,795,000 330,000 22,660,000 1,375,000 600,000 1,078,200 202,500 345,000 320,000 34,634,600 625,000 56,000 1,550,800 17,000 275,000 330,000 16,653,600 725,000 96,000 '1,133,800 300,000 310,000 285,000 6,203,600 450,000 61,000 2,090,300 280,000 290,000 6,063,600 500,000 4,043,000 6,627,100 763,400 3,005,000 1,555,000 86,215,400 3,675,000 4,856,000 TOTAL 27,777,900 37,261,300 19,647,400 8,743,400 13,266,900 106,696,900 Department City of Chanhassen, MN C apital Improvement Pro gram 2020 thru 2024 PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT Project# Priority 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Maior Equipment --l Fire Dept.: SCBA Equipment PPE: Tumoul/Helmets Computer/Network Equipment Purchases/Upgrades Telecommunication Purchases/Upgrades Light Duty Trucks: Community Dev. Dump/Plow Truck Replacemenb/Additions Audioly'isual Equipment Light Duty Trucks: Streets Software Purchases Computerized Remrds Retention System Fire Vehicles Aerial Photography for City GIS Datasets Generator Light Duty Trucks: Utilities Administration Vehicle Replacement Engineering Vehicle Replacement Storage Area Netrork (SAN) CSO Truck Office Fumiture Snowblower SnowBlast Sicard Sweeper - Parks Light Duty Trucks - Parks Mower Replacement - Park Skid loader - Skeet Department Tractor Replacement - Park Brush Chipper Annual Skid Loader Trade ln Copier Replacements Fleet Vehicles Miscellaneous Fire EquipmenUHose Replacement Recreation Center Revitalization Project Zero Tum Mower Replacement - Parks Hot Box with Asphalt Premix Heater Crack Sealer Bobcat Trailer Replacement Mailing Folder/lnserter Annual Zero Tum Mower Replacement - Park Vibratory Compaclor Craig loader plow & wing M-B Broom Generator Truck Compressor Street Sweeper Trailer Replacement 221,000 25,000 s0,000 124,100 22,000 330,000 25,000 49,000 151 ,800 EQ-004 EQ-010 EQ-o13 EQ-014 EQ.O'5 EQ-016 EQ-026 EQ-029 EQ-l48 EQ-049 EQ-054 EQ-055 EQ-059 EQ-062 EQ-063 EQ-065 EQ-081 EQ-083 EQ-184 EQ-098 E8-099 EQ-100 EQ-l04 EQ.'05 EQ-l06 EQ-115 EQ-124 EQ-127 EQ-l32 EQ-l37 EQ-l40 EQ-l54 EQ-158 EQ-759 EQ-160 EQ-161 EQ-l64 EQ-165 EQ-'66 EQ-167 EQ.'68 EQ-169 EQ-170 EQ-171 nla nla nla nla nla nla n/a n/a n/a n/a nla nla nla n/a nla n/a nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla n/a nla nla n/a nla nla nla nla nla nla n/a nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla 30,000 82,700 6,600 2,100 30,400 92,300 2,300 31,000 228,000 25,000 36,000 136,000 6,1 00 30,000 17,'100 350,000 31,300 79,300 2,300 64,000 235,000 25,000 '140,000 5,000 65,000 36,000 19,000 9,000 31,300 76,300 50,000 242,000 25,000 146,900 7,000 2,900 88 000 s,000 46,000 18,600 123,400 19,000 9,000 32,250 71,300 144,000 17,900 104,700 140,000 45,600 5,000 1 54,500 41,700 47,000 83,000 240,400 104,800 19,000 9,500 350,000 155,250 401,900 61,200 95,000 1,256,000 125,000 135,000 698,800 40,100 239,000 40,000 104,700 271,000 56,500 45,600 55,000 33,400 25,000 154,500 41,700 172,000 202,600 240,400 228,200 86,000 95,000 46,000 35,000 85,000 50,000 18,000 44,300 47,000 7,200 15,000 5,000 59,000 46,300 16,400 190,000 29,900 s10,000 76,750 43,000 5,000 5,000 43,000 101 ,000 1 9,000 86,000 19,000 18,500 35,000 15,00015,000 18,000 29,500 27,000 55,000 33,400 5,000 15,000 1,000 1 5,000 20,000 25,000 44,300 47,000 7,200 1,000 1,000 1,000 190,000 20,000 25,000 1,000 59,000 46,300 '16,400 29,900 36,000 3'10,000 7,400 33,350 Department Project # Priority 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Weed Sprayer Vehicle Replacement - Planning Permiting/Planning Software Upgrade Major Equipment Total Municipal Buildings City Hall Remodel Citizen Survey Fire Department Building Improvements City Hall Roof Replacement Recreation Center Wall Replacement Recreation Center Lobby Furniture Municipal Buildings Total Paili C Trail Improvements I Picnic Tables/Park Benches Trees Tennis Court Refurbishment Chanhassen Nature Preserve Trail, Final Phase Lake Ann Lake Side Pavilion Roof Replacement Arboretum Trail and Hwy 41 Underpass Cost Share Park Equipment Replacement City Center Park Paver Replacement Park & Trail Improvements Total Sanitary Sewer Improvements I lnflow and lnfiltration Abatement Sanitary Lift Station Rehabilitation Program Sanitary Sewer Improvements Total Street Improvements I Annual Street lmprovement Program Pavement Management TH101 lmp-PioneerTrto Flying Cloud Dr(CSAH 61) Lyman Blvd lmprovements-Galpin Blvd to TH 41 Galpin Blvd lmp-Hwy 5 N to City limib (PW176A) TH 41 Rehabilitation - Pioneer Trail to TH 5 Downtown Signal Controller Replacement Street Improvements Total Surface Water tvtanagiment I Property Acquisition Lower Bluff Creek TIvIDL lmplementation Stormwater Pond lmprovements Storm Water I nfrastructure Maintenance/Replacement Lotus Lake Channels & Outfall Improvements Upper Riley Creek Channel Stabilization Rice Marsh Lake lron Enhanced Sand Filter EQ-l72 EQ-173 EQ-l74 MB-010 MB-023 MB-026 M8-033 MB-034 MB-035 PK&T-042 PK&T-043 PK&T-072 PK&T-099 PK&T-132 PK&T-138 PK&T-141 PK&T-142 ss-0r2 ss-o17 sT-012 sr-078 sr-032 sr-038 sT-040 sT-042 sr-043 swMP-ll4 swMP-024 SWMP-032 swMP-045 swMP-046 swMP-048 swMP-053 nla nla nla 9,900 33,000 94,500 774,000 1,078,200 1,550,800 1,133,800 2,090,300 6,627,100 150,000 9,900 33,000 94,500 nla n/a nla nla nla nla 17,000 150,000 17,000 218,900 300,000 65,500 12,000 93,900 125,000 65,500 12,000 300,000 243,900 202,500 17,000 300,000 763,400 nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla 10,000 15,000 150,000 1,200,000 255,000 165,000 1 0,000 15,000 75,000 10,000 15,000 10,000 15,000 30 000 255,000 10,000 15,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 150,000 30,000 1,200,000 1,260,000 165,000 245,000 250,000 255,000 1,79s,000 345,000 275,000 310,000 280,000 3,005,000 nla nla 200,000 130,000 200,000 120,000 200,000 1 30,000 200,000 85,000 200,000 90,000 1,000,000 555,000 330,000 320,000 330,000 285,000 290,000 1,555,000 nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla nla 6,227,000 393,000 1 6,000,000 8,062,000 393,000 16,000,000 1 0,1 39,600 5,325,000 393,000 145,600 10,750,000 5,525,000 393,000 5,525,000 393,000 30,664,000 1,965,000 32,000,000 10,576,400 10,750,000 100,000 160,000 145,600 145,600 100,000 40,00040,000 40,000 40,000 22,660,000 34,634,600 16,653,600 6,203,600 6,063,600 86,215,100 75,000 950,000 300,000 50,000 300,000 50,000 250,000 25,000 300,000 50,000 75,000 300,000 75,000 300,000 75,000 300,000 1 50,000 950,000 1,500,000 325,000 350,000 100,000 300,000 ,000 ,000 100 100 Surface Water Management Total 1,375,000 625,000 725,000 450,000 500,000 3,675,000 Department Project # Priority 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Water System Improvements Well Rehabilitation Program Low Zone 1 million gallon Storage Tank Well #16 Powers Blvd Watermain Loop Well *14 Re+ooflng Project Water System Improvements Total GRAND TOTAL w-032 w-046 w-059 w-063 w-064 510,000 39,000 nla nla nla nla nla 51,000 56,000 96,000 61,000 43,000 2,600,000 1,400,000 307,000 2,600,000 1,400,000 510,000 39,000 600,000 56,000 96,000 61,000 4,043,000 4,856,000 27 ,777 ,900 37,26'1,300 19,647,400 8,743,400 13,266,900 106,696,900 Capital Improvement Prograrr City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-004 Project Name Fire Dept.: SCBA Equipment Account #3 Account #4 Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type Llseful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Don Johnson Equipment 20 years Fire nlaAccount #l 400-41 l5-4705 Account #2 'l'otal Project Clost: $499,100 2024 Total Description program is to provide additional and/or replacement SCBA air bottles, SCBA face masks, and upgrades to SCBA air packs as needed. Justification is a very rigorous and demanding activity that is performed in an environment of extremes. The periodic replacement and/or additions SCBA equipment is required to maintain current quantities through replacement of damaged or destroyed equipment and to equip new firefighters. The cunent equipment has reached the NFPA compliance life cycle. Equipment 350,000 350,000 Total Total 3s0,000 350,000 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 3s0,000 350,000 Total 350,000 350,000 Budget Impact/Other should be no operational impact from this purchase. The current maintenance budget will accommodate for this addition. lT4q16il tT4g,mo-l Total Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-010 Project Name PPE: Turnout/Ilelmets 2020 thru 2024 Department Contrct Type Llseful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Don Johnson Equipment 5-7 years Fire nla Prior Expenditures Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 Account#l 400-4105-4705 Account #2 2022 2023 2024 Total Description s is for the purchase of PPE (tumout gear) to meet the NFPA I 85 I standard, along with the replacement of tumout 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 gear lasts approximately 5-7 years on average. Purchases in 2019 were increased due to higher than anticipated hiring. Maintenance 30,000 30,400 31,300 3'1,300 32,250 155,250 Total Total 30,000 30,400 31,300 31,300 32,250 155,250 Prinr Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 30,000 30,400 31,300 31,300 32,250 1 55,2s0 Tntal Total 30,09q 30,400 31,300 31,300 32,250 155,250 Budget ImpacVOther should be no operational impact from this purchase. The current maintenance budget will accommodate for this addition. 'l'otal Pro.iect Cost: $460,400 f-soffi,jl fTosr5dl Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-013 Project Name Com puter/|.{etwork Equipment Purchases/Upgrad es 2020 thru 2024 Department Major EquiPment Contact Richard Rice Type Equipment flseful Life 3-8 years Category Administration Priorify n/aAccount #l 400-4126-4703 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Total Project Cost: $1,466,250 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 TotalPrior Expenditures Description wasscheduleandhardware. Theofandusernetwork replacementtheFundsperipherals,networkingprinter,purchase replacement computer, heads.thewith of the andlsmodificationtotheCoordinator departmentManagerMISItnandapprovalCity999 subject by Justification whereto ISit theneededthedirecttothisallowsequipmentCityflexibilitygreaterandequipmentcomputerthroughprojectpurchasing I1n and999 1the 999MIStheCoordinatorindividual1nTheschedulewasbyapprovedthandevelopedbyratherbudgets.replacement server network 1 6foraretheIofswitches,IT the 2020 uests backupCouncilintedTask Force.replacementreq'Expenditures budgetappo llwl be re-issuedand totheof CityMostrecycledtablets8theandorSeniCenteruipmenteqreplacedbeing4PC'S,PC's,projector.laptopdesktop veha'movedbeen tosite.auction relatedtheinwlbe onsold the expendituresThestaff.surplus Securitypublicoldest equipment inventory City Control Systems project.the Office Equipment 82,700 92,300 79,300 76,300 71,300 401,900 Total 82,700 92,300 79,300 76,300 71,300 401,900'I'otal Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 1,064,350 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 82,700 92,300 79,300 76,300 71,300 401,900 Total Total 82,700 92,300 79,300 76,300 71,300 401,900 Budget ImpacVOther theareitemsdonestaffMISafterto warrantv expires.periodawithto3byitemsthisforcomeaccountRepairsyearwarrantypurchased or 0 60-4300060-4530 &.(Consulting).outsideor are outtunded of Maintenance-Equipment)(Repairpartsrepairs flp64i5ill Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-014 Projett Name Telecommunication Purchases/Upgrades 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type tlseful Life Categorl.' Priority Major Equipment Richard Rice Equipment I 0 years Administration nlaAccount #l 400-4101-4703 Account #2 Prior Expenditures Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 'l'otal Project Cost: S165,350 2023 2024 Total Description 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 Mitet 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 Plants. Justification 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 handsets will be ordered as replacements for existing Inteftel digital phones at City Hall and the Fire Station. The current call accounting software is going end of life in 2020 and will be replaced with an add on module to the Phone Manager application implemented in 2019. The system will reach its projected service life in 2022 at which time other options such as a hosted or hybrid solution will be evaluated. Office Equipment 6,600 2,300 2,300 50,000 61,200 Total Prior Funding Sources Total 6,600 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total '104,150 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 6,600 2,300 2,300 50,000 61,200 Total Total 6,600 2,300 2,300 s0,000 61,200 Budget Impact/Other for the replacement telephone system will be funded out ofthe 1 160-4300 services account. i *1oryFt 2,300 2,300 50,000 61,200 Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-015 Project Name Light Duty Trucks: Community Dev. Account #3 Account #4 Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type Useful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Jason Wedel Vehicles Unassigned Community Development nlaAccount #l 400-41074704 Account #2 'l'otal Project Cost: $268,000 2024 Total Description 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. 2021 - #607 2007 GMC Canyon 2022 - #611 2008 GMC Canyon 2022 - #612 2008 GMC Canyon Justification These vehicles are used to provide building inspection services throughout the community. The life expectancy ofthese vehicles is 12 years and average replacement age is over l3 years. Vehicles 3'1,000 64,000 95,000 'Iotal Total 31,000 64,000 95,000 Prior Funding Sources 2020 202t 2022 2023 2024 Total 173,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 31,000 64,000 95,000 Total Total 31,000 64,000 95,000 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. fligpool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-016 Projctt Name DumplPlow Truck Replacements/Additions 2020 rhru 2024 Department Contact Type flseful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Jason Wedel Vehicles Unassigned Street Equipment nlaAccount #l 400-4108-4704 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Total Project Cost: $2,625,800 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 TotalPrior Expenditures Description 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 ofdelivery. Replacement schedule is as follows: 2020 - #124 1998 Ford L8513 Dump/Plow Truck-with plow, wing and sander 2021 - #126 2001 Sterling L8513 Dump/Plow Truck-with plow, wing and sander 2022 -#127 2001 Sterling L8513 Dump/Plow Truck-with plow, wing and sander - # 128 2003 Sterling L85 I 3 Dump/Plow Truck-with plow, wing and sander - #104 2008 Mack GU7l3 with low Justification vehicles are used to provide a variety of maintenance services throughout the community including winter response average replacement age is 18.5 years. Winter emergency service necessitates these vehicles be reliable and dependable. Growth in the creates additional work for these trucks. These vehicle purchases are consistent with the Vehicle Replacement Schedule. for plowing and hauling The Vehicles 221,000 228,000 235,000 242,000 330,000 1,256,000 Total Total 221,000 228,000 23s,000 242p00 330,000 1,256,000 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 1,369,800 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 221,000 228,000 235,000 242,000 330,000 1,256,000 Total Total 221,000 228,000 235,000 242,000 330,000 1,256,000 Budget Impact/Other purchases witl include a limited warranty and will reduce the annual maintenance and repair costs as compared to the vehicles replaced. t1i-sodl Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-026 Project Name AudioA/isual Equipment Account#l 210-00004705 Account #2 Prior Expenditures Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2020 thru 2024 2022 Department MajorEquipment Clontact Jacob Foster Type Equipment flseful Life Unassigned Category Administration Priorify n/a Total Project Cost: $350,000 2023 2024 Total Description for the systematic maintenance and upgrading of audio/visual equipment. Justification The original A/V equipment was purchased in 1989, with the upgrades in 1994, 2008 and2012. 225,000 Maintenance 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 1 25,000 Total Total 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 225,000 Cable TV Fund 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 '125,000 Total Total 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Impact/Other Future upgrades include expanding access to programming to those without access to cable, and continued enhancement ofthe live and broadcast experience. Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-029 Project Name Light Duty Trucks: Streets 2020 thru 2024 Prior Expenditures Account #l 400-4120-4'104 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 Department Major EquiPment Contact Jason Wedel Type Vehicles flsefulLife Unassigned Category StreetEquipment Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $286,000 2023 2024 Total Description 0 - #101 2004 Chevrolet3l4ton pickup, with plow I - #130 2007 Chevrolet 3/4 ton pickup, with plow tnareunitsearl'lntrucks streetthe andforscheduledof Replacement vpurchasedgenerallylightdutygaragedepartments.replacement MNframestimeestablishedtheandofStateorderlnaccommodatetothe Cooperative Program.PurchasingbyCountyHennepinyear - # 131 2010 GMC Sierra 2500, with Justification These vehicles are used for a variety ofservices throughout the community. The average replacement age is l4 years.These purchases are consistent with the Vehicle Replacement Program. Vehicles 50,000 36,000 49,000 135,000 Total 50,000 36,000 49,000 135,000"fotal Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 151,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 50,000 36,000 49,000 13s,000 Total TotaI 50,000 36,000 49,000 1 35,000 Budget ImpacVOther purchases wilt include a limited wananty and witl reduce annual maintenance and repair costs as compared to the vehicles replaced. l-Ts1;oool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-048 Project Name Software purchases 2020 thru 2024 Major Equipment Richard Rice Equipment 3-6 years Administration nla Department Contact Type flseful Life Category PriorityAccount #l 400-41 17-4703 Account #2 .{ccount #3 Account #4 Total Project Cost: $1,602,870 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Prior Expenditures Total Description project funds the purchase and renewal of major software programs for all City departments that are not associated with a specific, individual Smaller annual software support and license renewal fees are funded out ofaccount l0l-l 160-4300. The major reoccurring software costs moved to this account in 201 0 Justification major portion of funds requested for this project are for BS&A, ESRI, Laserfiche, Microsoft and City joined the Microsoft Enterprise Purchasing Agreement for the State of Minnesota in 2007. under this agreement. Participating in the state agreement allows the City to spread the cost ofthe product over a period ofthree years. Cartegraph software purchases and renewals. All Microsoft software is purchased and aover threeforallowwhenareThesereleased.arecosts SOalareSoftrvarewithto spread yearAssuranceupgradestheypurchased forciti es software whichESRI GISlnIsoftwareCarverwithandotherseveralintISTheojoagreementicensingCountyparticipatinCity reducedat Thecost.assetforGISlimitedicationwhichlicenseslnarelnusefundedISthfromISalloweddepartmentThisappleveryproject. intodivided different4costsPurchasewerewasatoverslonnew20ln7 tundingsoftwarefromasedCartegraphupgradedpurch of those costs in this ect.sources with one 904,070 Office Equipment 124,100 136,000 140,000 146,900 ',151,800 698,800 Total 124|100 1 36,000 140,000 146,900 lsl,800 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 698,800Total I)rior Funding Sources 904,070 "l'otal Capital Replacement Equipment Fund Sewer Utility Fund Surface Water Utility Fund Water Utility Fund 11,950 1'1,950 1'1,950 13,'170 1 3,1 70 1 3,1 70 88,250 98,350 100,490 1 2,550 1 2,550 1 2,550 104,030 1 06,800 497p20 14,290 14,290 14,290 1 5,000 15,000 I 5,000 66,960 66,960 66,960 Total 124,100 136,000 140,000 146,900 151,800 698,800 Budget ImpacVOther Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-049 Project Name Computerized Records Retention System 2020 rhru 2024 Department Contact Type tlseful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Richard Rice Equipment 3-5 Years Administration nla Prior Expenditures Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 'l'otal Project Clost: S179,900 2024 Total Account#l 400-41244703 Account #2 2023 Description This project originally funded the purchase ofan 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 of 5 to 7 years. Additional client licenses are planned to accommodate additional users and project workflows in 2020. Additional modules are proposed for later years to allow for improved integration with the City web site. Justification is system allows for quick and simultaneous retrieval of documents from any computer on the City network. Both physical document storage and the occurrence of lost or misfiled documents will be significantly reduced. In addition, documents specified for public access can be made available to the public from any internet capable computer or mobile device. The system was upgraded to the Laserfiche Avante atform in 2015. This upgrade included a new workflow engine, web enabled clients and improved auditing and scanning functions. Workflows automating the scanning and importing of documents were started in 2015. Additional workflow will be created to manage property records. The I 0 user Public Portal starter module included with the Avante upgrade was upgraded to 25 users in 20 19. An upgrade the enterprise Public Forms is proposed in2020 which will allow staff to create publicly accessible forms that will integrate with internal The primary wide format scanner in Engineering is also proposed for replacement in 2020. The replaced unit would be moved to the is less.where the Office Equipment 22,000 6,100 5,000 7,000 40,1 00 Total Prior Funding Sources Total 22,000 6,100 5,000 7,000 40,100 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 139,800 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 22,000 6,100 s,000 7,000 40 100 Total Total n,000 6,'t00 5,000 7,000 40,100 Budget Impact/Other Hardware maintenance and repairs are funded out ofthe l0l-1 160-4300 services account. A proposed upgrade to Public Forms will add $1600 to 400-41 l'7 -4703 account. T l3rrool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-054 Project Name Fire Vehicles 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type Useful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Don Johnson Vehicles l0-15 years Fire nla Prior Expenditures Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 Total Proiect Cost: 52,860,500 2023 2024 Total Account #l 400-4135-4704 Account #2 Description ,lacement of existing emergency response vehicles and major apparatus. This request 2022 - Replace 20 1 3 Chevy Tahoe #203 2024 - Replace 2015 Chevy Tahoe#202 Replace 2015 Chevy Tahoe#204 outlines a schedule for existing vehicles. I - Replace 2005 Polaris Grass Response 2t2026 -1996 Justification Vehicles are reaching or exceeding useful life standards outlined by NFPA for emergency response front line service.Major apparatus require a year process to spec, order and manufacture 2,621,500 Vehicles 30,000 65,000 144,000 239,000 Total 30,000 65,000 144,000 239,000'I'otal Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 30,000 65,000 144,000 239,000 Tntal Total 30,000 65,000 144,000 239,000 Budget Lnpact/Other are considered front line response vehicles and impact response to fire incidents within the City and to mutual aid partners. lzsrLsool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-055 Project Name Aerial photography for City GIS Datasets Account#l 400-0000-4752 Account #2 Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020 thru 2024 Account #3 Account #4 Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Improvement tiseful Life 2-3 years Category Administration Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $137,750 2024 Total Description pro.ject funds the aerial photography for the integration with the City's existing GIS datasets. The City is participating with Carver County and initial ioint aerial flyover for high resolution orthographicother cities and counties in ajoint project to purchase services and data. An data was conducted in April of2005 and was scheduled to be re-flown every three years. The schedule was revised as needed to budget changes and to allow for a collaborative project. The last county/city aerial flyover for high resolution photography was in 2016. The next flight will be done in2020. The County has decided to cover the costs ofall future orthographic layers. The City map layers in2021ll need to fund for Planometrics, Pictometry, LiDAR, Contours and other Justification withlssues andresidentsotherwithdatasetsGIStoveresolanduseStAlTdatathisgeographical1nconjunctionhelpPlanners,Engineers utility Sheriffsthe andOffice firestaffhasandusefultowithoutvisits.site ISIt lnused scheduledcontractorseverynearly meeting provenrepeated threea vlewdimensional toachosevendornewwhichaddedwhensearches.area In Carver2008, County (Pictometry),conductingdepartment whichtoolset forallows accurateeachvlewofsideandaincludesThesolutionthestaff tofordata.buildingsPictometryprovidesabilityingmapp alsoIS used tostaff andmearsurethelromdataaerialcollectedareasoflines.and Enhanced created bymeasurement(Planometrics),map layers lots and others.hard surface coverage such as 97,750 Maintenance 2,100 1 7,1 00 2,900 17,900 40,000 Total Total 2,100 17,100 2,900 't7,900 40,000 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 97,750 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 2,100 1 7,1 00 2,900 '17,900 40,000 Tntal Total 2,100 17,100 2,900 17,900 40,000 Budget operational impact is Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-059 Project Name GeneratOr 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type tlseful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Jason Wedel Equipment Unassigned utilities nla Prior Expenditures Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 'I'otal Project Cost: $l14,700 2023 2024 Total Account #l Account #2 Description 2024 - #325 1999 Cat generator Justification This replaces the existing generator in compliance with the equipment replacement plan. Equipment 104,700 1 04,700 Total Total 104,700 1 04,700 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Sewer Utility Fund Water Utili$ Fund 52,350 52,350 52,350 52,350Total Total 1 04,700 104,700 Budget ImpacUOther fTop-ool 10,00c Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-062 Project Namc Light Duty Trucks: Utilities Account #3 Account #4 Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type ITseful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Jason Wedel Vehicles Unassigned Utilities nlaAccount #l 700-7025-4704 Account #2'101-7025-4704 'fotal Project Cost: $713,000 2024 Total Description allows for replacement of existing vehicles in the Water and Sewer department. - #305 2006 Chevrolet 3/4 ton pickup - #307 2017 Chevrolet Equinox - #308 2013 GMC Sierra - #309 2003 Ford Step Van 2024 - #302 20 I 2 Ford 3/4 ton Justification This replaces pickups in accordance with the vehicle replacement plan Vehicles 43,000 88,000 140,000 271,000 Total 43,000 88,000 140,000 271,000Total Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 442,000 Sewer Utility Fund Water Utility Fund ,500 ,500 21 21 44,000 44,000 70,000 70,000 '135,500 135,500 Total Total 43,000 88,000 140,000 271,000 ImpacVOther f-44r--oool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-063 Project Name Administration Vehicle Replacement 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact 'rype Ilseful Life Category Priority Total Project Cost: $81,500 Major Equipment Jason Wedel Vehicles Unassigned Administration nlaAccount#l 400-0000-4704 Account #2 Prior Expenditures .{ccount #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Description This allows for replacement of an existing vehicles for City Hall. 2021 -2010 Chev Colorado 4x4 Crew Cab (#002) - 20 I 0 Chev Impala 4 door Sedan (#00 1 ) Justification replaces the vehicles in accordance with the vehicle replacement plan. 25 000 Vehicles 29,500 27,000 56,500 "[ntal Total 29,500 27,000 56,500 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 29,500 27,000 56,500 Tntal Total 29,500 27,000 56,500 Budget ImpacVOther f-lioool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-065 Project Name Engineering Vehicle Replacement 2020 rhru 2024 Department Major EquiPment Contact Jason Wedel T-vpe Vehicles Llseful Lil'e Unassigned Category StreetEquipment Priorify n/aAccount#1 400-0000-4704 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 'I'otal Proiect Cost: $105'600Description 2024 - #501 20 0 Chevrolet Silverado Justification replacement is in accordance with the vehicle replacement plan. Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total r p:,0 Vehicles 45,600 45,600 Total 4s,600 45,600'fotal Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total f-- 60000 I Capitar neptacement Equipment Fund 45,600 45,600 Total Total 45,600 45,600 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-081 Project Name Storage Area Network (SAN) ,{ccount #3 Account #4 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type tlseful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Richard Rice Improvement 5-7 years Administration nlaAccount #l 400-4147 -4703 Account #2 'I'otal Project clost: $293,600Description project funds the data storage equipment for the City storage area network, which is where the majority of all City electronic data is This storage are network (SAN) is a system comprised of numerous individual storage arrays, all managed from a single console. The allows disk storage to be easity modified as storage needs change, without any downtime for users. This equipment also hosts the City's network servers. A primary production storage array is located at City Hall in the main server room. Backup replication storage arrays are in an auxiliary server room at the Public Works facility. Justification utilization Ilsaatofrate Tb storageExistingforneedfordocumentationyearperandapplicationsgrowingapproximatelystoragedigitalspaceCity downtimeInternalISandtodifficultonindi idual servers.inefficient,svstemrequiresnetworkbecamestoragemanagephysical timereal forwelltheAStomakenetworkalforlowstimerealcopiesareareconfigurationability(SAN)technologyStoragereconfigure, into threeserversnetworkvirtualizedwereandrTheoftheintegratedjustfoanddayimeprocesses.backup maJ ority physicalCity A new20ln61theAS Compellent afiayAlentwasinstalledarray.whiservers utilch thistze storageproductionstorage.Compet storage affay licPub Worksicationattheolderlentthen theaced oldertwo building.this 20ln 9.I The repl Equallogic arraysCompelarfayreplaffay wil evaluated.besuchtnAt2022.timethat other,lacementrecommendedISfor Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total f--f8,6-00l Equipment 55,000 55,000 Total 55,000 55,000Total Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 238,600 Capital Replacement 55,000 55,000 Equipment Fund Total Total 55,000 55,000 Budget Impact/Other arrays will be purchased with 5 years of warranty support. Software and hardware support funded out of the MIS services account 101-l160-4220. for the storage arrays beyond 5 years will be Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-083 Project Name CSO Truck 2020 rhru 2024 Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 Department Contact Type Useful Life Category Priority 'I'otal Project Cost: $93,400 2024 Total Major Equipment Jason Wedel Vehicles Administration n/aAccount#l 400-4129-4704 Account #2 Prior Expenditures 2023 Description 2022 - #702 2016 GMC Sierra allows for replacement of an existing CSO truck. Justification is replaces a vehicle in accordance with the vehicle replacement plan. 60,000 Vehicles 33,400 33,400 Total 33,400 33,400'fotal Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 33,400 33,400 Total Total 33,400 33,400 Budget ImpacVOther f- omool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-084 Project Name Office Furniture .tccount #3 Account #4 2020 thru 2024 Deprrtment Contact Type I-rseful Life category Priority Major Equipment Jacob Foster Unassigned Administration nlaAccount#l 400-0000-4703 Account #2 Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 'fotal Project Cost: $85,000 2023 2024 Total Provide for office fumiture and chair replacements. Justification This item witl allow items to be replaced as they wear out or needs change. Office Equipment 5 000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 'I'otal Total 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 Prior Funding Sources 2020 202t 2022 2023 2024 Total 60,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 Tntal Total 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 Budget Impact/Other l-Topool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Projcct # EQ-098 Project Name Snowblower SnowBlast Sicard 2020 rhru 2024 Department Contact Type Useful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Jason Wedel Equipment Public Works nlaAccount#t 400-0000-4705 Account #2 Expenditures .Account #3 Account #4 2020 202t 2022 'l'otal Project Clost: $154,500 20242023 Total Description 142 - 1989 Snowblower SnowBlast Sicard Justification s replaces the snowblower in accordance with the vehicle replacement plan Equipment 154,500 154,500 Total 1 54,500 154,500 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund '154,500 154,500 Total 1 54,500 154,500 Budget ImpacUOther Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-099 Project Name Sweeper - ParkS Account#l 400-0000-4705 Account #2 2020 thru 2024 Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 2023 Department Contact Type Useful Life Category Priority Total Project Cost: $41,700 2024 Total Major Equipment Jason Wedel Equipment Park nla Expenditures Description 1999 Tenant Sweeper (#470) Justification replaces the sweeper in compliance with the equipment replacement plan Equipment 41,700 41,700 Total 41,700 41,700 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement 4'1,700 41,700 Equipment Fund Total 41,700 41,700 Budget ImpacVOther Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-100 Project Name Light Duty Trucks - Parks Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2020 thru 2024 2022 Department Major Equipment Contact Jason Wedel Type Vehicles Useful Life Category Park Priority r/a I-otal Project Cost: $569,300 2024 Total Future Account #l 400-41204704 Account #2 Prior Expenditures 2023 Provides for scheduled replacement oflight duty trucks in the parks department. These vehicles are purchased using the State of Minnesota purchasing contract. Justification - #406 2008 Ford F450 rvith low I - #401 2004 Chevrolet 4x4 with plow - #402 2004 Chevrolet 4x4 3 - #408 2008 Chevrolet 4x4 with plow - #411 2010 GMC Sierra 4x4 2025 - #419 201 2 Chevrolet 4x4 with plow - #420 2012 Chevrolet 4x4 with plow 207,000 Vehicles 43,000 36,000 46,000 47,000 172,000 190,300 Total 43,000 36,000 46,000 47,000 172,000 TotalTotal Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Future 207,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 43,000 36,000 46,000 47,000 172,000 flri-:ool TotalTotal Total 43,000 36,000 46,000 47,000 172,000 ImpacUOther Description Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-104 Project Name Mower Replacement - park Account #3 Account #4 Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type Iiseful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Jason Wedel Equipment Park nlaAccount#l 400-0000-4705 Account #2 Tofal Project Cost: $582,600 2023 2024 Total 2021 - 2009 Toro Groundsmaster 5900 (#450) - 2008 72" Exmark (#481 ) - 2012 Toro Groundsmaster 4000D (#45 I ) Justification City had 4 high-production grounds mowers. Each machine is used daily during the growing season and needs to be in good working ition. In 2012,lhe City replaced two 325D mowers with one large Toro 4000 mower. It is anticipated that staffwill be able to mow just as with one large mower. Equipment 101,000 1 8,600 83,000 202,600 Total Prior Funding Sources Total 1 01,000 18,600 83,000 202,600 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 380,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 101 ,000 18,600 83,000 202,600 Tntal Total 101 ,000 18,600 83,000 202,600 Budget Impact/Other Description fTsqoool Capital Improvement Progrart City of Chanhassen, MN Proiect # EQ-105 Project Name Skid loader - Street Department 2020 thru 2024 Department MajorEquiPment Contact Jason Wedel Type EquiPment Llseful Life Category StreetEquipment Priority n/aAccount#l 400-0000-4705 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Prior Expenditures 2020 Total Proiect Cost: $283,,100 2027 2022 2023 2024 Total Description 1996 John Deere 544G Loader (#146) Justification replaces the loader in accordance with the vehicle replacement p lan. f@rT Equipment 240,400 240,400 To{al Total 240,400 240,400 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2424 Total 43,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 240,400 240,400 Total Total 240,400 240,400 Budget ImpacUOther Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-106 Project Name Tractor Replacement - Park 2020 thru 2024 Department Major EquiPment Contact Jason Wedel Type Equipment Iiseful Life Category Park Priorify n/aAccount#l 400-0000-4705 Account #2 Account #J Account #4 'I'otal Project Cost: 5262,200Description tractors are used for ball field maintenance, maintaining skating rinks and sweeping trails. - 1997 Toro Workman (#475) - 2001 John Deere 455 Tractor (#472) - 2004 John Deere 5520 Tractor/Blower - 2001 John Deere 5520 with snowblower (#471) - 2001 Erksine Tractor/snowblower (#480) Justification These tractors are used for maintenance and upkeep ofbaseball fields, skating rinks and trails. These tractors will be at least 20 years old before they are replaced. Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Equipment 123,400 104,800 228,200 Total 123,400 104,800 228,200l'otal Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 123,400 104,800 228,200 Total Total 123,400 104,800 228,200 Budget Impact/Other l .T,qqg] fT4,oool Capital Improvement Prograrr City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-l15 Project Name Brush Chipper 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type fiseful Life Category Priorify Major Equipment Jason Wedel Equipment Street Equipment nlaAccount#l 400-00004705 Account #2 .A,ccount #3 Account #4 Expenditures 2020 202r Total Project Cost: $86,000 2022 2023 2024 Total Description This item is to replace the brush and tree limb chipper. This unit will be l8 years old when it is replaced. This I the public works departments and needs to be in good working condition. unit is used heavily year round by 1 - #147 1999 Vermeer t 800A Brush Chipper Justification keep equipment in good repair. This purchase is consistent with the vehicle replacement program Equipment 86,000 86,000 Total 86,000 86,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 86,000 86,000 86,000 86,000Total Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Progrant City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-124 Project Name Annual Skid Loader Trade In 2020 rhru 2024 Department Contact Type I-rseful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Jason Wedel Equipment Streot Equipment nla Frior Expenditures Account#I 700-7025-4705 Account #2 701-7025-4705 Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 Total Project Cost: $185,000 2022 2023 2024 Total Description item would fund the annual trade in ofskid loaders. 0 Bobcat Skidloader 1# I 50) 50 Bobcat Skidloader (#3 1 5570 Bobcat Skidloader (# 149) T590 Bobcat Skidloader (#413) Justification newer1n machines4.001 hour.for $toable ourtrade loadersskid per TradingvthetobidstatetheannuallyapproximatelCitypricing, This lswilhaveapproachthebecausemachinewarrantvoilandalwayswltherebellothernojobsexceptchangesgreaseexpenses staffSO llwltheorlntradenotheonbidstateprice,formachines 5I There IS pricinglifecostovertheguaranteealsobetteryears.cycl keeping toon machinethe anfor extendedaordealweifldshouhold period.determineto itif lsbe goodpricingannually 90,000 Equipment 19,000 1 9,000 '19,000 1 9,000 19,000 95,000 Total 19,000 't9,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 95,000'lotal Priol' Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 90,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 95,000 Total Total 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 95,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Progrart City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-127 Project Name Copier Replacements 2020 thru 2024 Department MajorEquiPment Contact Richard Rice Type EquiPment Useful Life 5-7 years Category Administration Priority n/aAccount #1 400-4109-4703 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 Total Project Cost: $69,000 2023 2024 Total 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 in20l2 Justification in City Hall and the Public Works Facility, The three copiers located at City Hall were A new color copier was purchased in 20 I 6 to replace the existing black and white and a color printer located at the Public Works Facility. Replacement units wilt be ordered when maintenance becomes an issue. Item Konica Bizhub C754 Konica Bizhub C454 Konica Bizhub C454 Konica Bizhub 250 Year Purchased 2013 2013 2013 2016 City has 4 multifunction departmental copiers located laced in 2013 and are under a shared maintenance plan. Building Engineering Public Works 23,000 Equipment 1 8,500 9,000 9,000 9,500 46,000 Total Total 1 8,500 9,000 9,000 9,500 46,000 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total f- ,3oool Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 18,500 9,000 9,000 9,500 46,000 Total Total 1 8,500 9,000 9,000 9,500 46,000 Budget ImpacVOther and supplies are funded from account 101-1 17-41 10, city office supplies. Capital Improvement Prograrr City of Chanhassen, MN Proiect # EQ-132 Project Name Fleet Vehicles Account #3 Account #4 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type Useful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Jason Wedel Vehicles Public Works nlaAccount #l 400-4120-4704 Account #2 Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 Total Project C)ost: $65,000 2023 2024 Total Description vehicles in the fleet department are used for picking up parts, delivering vehicles for service and other public works related travel. 1 - #155 2002 Chevrolet l/2 ton pickup Justification These vehicles will average l9 years old when they are replaced. They are becoming rusty and unreliable. Vehicles 35,000 35,000 Iotal Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 Total 35,000 35,000 2023 2024 Total 30,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 35,000 35,000 Total Total 35,000 35,000 Budget ImpacUOther f*r"-*.qqql Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-137 ProjectName Miscellaneous Fire Equipment/flose Replacement 2020 rhru 2024 Major Equipment Don Johnson Equipment Fire nla flepartment Contact Type []seful Life Category PriorityAccount #l 400-4127 -4705 Account #2 Prior Expenditures Account #3 Account #4 Total Project cost: $155,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Description 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 fire department utilizes specific, specialized equipment to perform specific fire ground and emergency response work. Expenditures will be annually to replace aging equipment on fire department apparatus. r;aml Equipment 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 20,000 85,000 'Xotal Prior Funding Sources Total 15,000 1 5,000 1 5,000 20,000 20,000 85,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 70,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 20,000 85,000 Tntal Total 15,000 1 5,000 1 5,000 20,000 20,000 85,000 Budget Lnpact/Other Capital Improvement Prograrr City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-140 Project Namc Recreation Center Revitalization Project 2020 rhru 2024 Department MajorEquiPment Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Priority n/aAccount #l 400-4125-4706 Arcount #2 Account #3 Account #4 Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 'I'otal Project Cost: S125,000 2024 Total2023 Description andtables chairstreatmentswindowthecenterlacementfailingfacility,newof fitness countertops,throughoutequipment,rep calpet, neededIS toforaandlo,b informationarethetocenterfitness svstemaudiosystemparticipantsdigitalbyupgradesrequiredreplacement, improve customer experience at the Chanhassen Recreation Center Justification Recreation Center is entering its 20th Anniversary. Due to age, usage and wear; a number of items require - window treatments for Lake Susan and Lotus Lake Rooms, replacement countertops for locker rooms, ten padded chairs and frve, eight foot r and one stair climber and two elliptical machines for fitness center - window treatments for fitness center, studio and Conference Room, ten padded chairs, four, six foot tables and a five foot round table and replacement or upgrades at this one treadmill and one recumbent bike for fltness center 75,000 Maintenance 25,000 2s,000 50,000 1'otal Total 25,000 25,000 50,000 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 25,000 Tot*l Total 25,000 25,000 50,000 Budget Impact/Other repair costs and increased customer experience at the Recreation Center f ispool 25,000 50,000 Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-154 Project Name Zero Turn Mower Replacement - Parks 2020 thru 2024 Department MajorEquiPment Contact Jason Wedel Type EquiPment frseful Life Category Park Priority n/aAccount#l 400-0000-4705 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Description 2021 - 2005 Toro 597D 60" Z-Master Zero Turn Mower (#462) Justification mowers have extensive hours and are starting to need expensive repairs. 16,000 Equipment 18,000 18,000 Total 18,000 18,000Total l'rior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 16,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 18,000 18,000 Total Total 18l0qq 18,000 Budget Total Project Cost: $34,000 Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-158 Project Name Hot Box with Asphalt Premix Heater 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type Llseful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Jason Wedel Equipment Public Works nlaAccount#I 400-0000-4705 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 Total Project Cost: $44,300 2023 2024 Total Description The 2009 hot box is used for pothole patching. 158 - 2009 Hot Box with Asphalt Premix Heater Justification hot box is wom from years ofuse. 44,300 44,300Equipment Total 44,300 44,300 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 44,300 44,300Capital Replacement Equipment Fund Total 44,300 44,300 Budget ImpacUOther Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-159 Project Name CraCk Sealer 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type []seful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Jason Wedel Equipment Public Works nlaAccount#1 400-0000-4705 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 Total Project Cost: S47,000 2023 2024 TotalExpenditures Description 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 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. Equipment 47,000 47,000 Total 47,000 47,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 47,000 47,000 Total 47,000 47,000 Budget knpacUOther Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-160 Project Name Bobcat Trailer Replacement 2020 thru 2024 Department Major EquiPment Contact Jason Wedel Type Equipment Llseful Life Category Public Works Priority n/aAccount #l 700-7025-4705 Account H2 701-7025-4705 Account #3 Account #4 Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Proiect Cost: $7,200 2024 Total Description - 2003 Felling Bobcat Trailer Justification s trailer is 19 years old and the rating is not enough for the load they are hauling. 7,200 7,200Equipment Total 7,200 7,200 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Sewer Utility Fund Water Utility Fund 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 7,200 7,200Total Budget ImpacUOther Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-161 Projr:ctName Mailing Folder/Inserter 2020 rhru 2024 Department Contact Type Useful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Greg Sticha Equipment Finance nlaAccount #l 700-7025-4703 Account #2 701-7025-4703 Account #3 720-'7025-4703 Account #4 2021 Total Project Cost: S15'000 2022 2023 2024 TotalExpenditures2020 Description for other city-wide mailings. statements and on an as needed basiss is a replacement of the existing folderiinserter machine.This machine is used monthly for all City utility Justification lifelndownoftime.The averageln120and0ISneedtomoreresultingperiodswasmachinefrequentrepalrsstartingexistingpurchased fromof use it.I 0lnitwill2020veUSthisofofISmachine7giapproximate yearsrlyyears,replacingexpectancytype Equipment 15,000 15,000 Total 15,000 1 5,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Sewer Utility Fund Surface Water Utility Fund Water Utility Fund 5,000 s,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Total 15,000 15,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-164 Project Name Annual Zero Turn Mower Replacement - Park 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type Ilseful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Jason Wedel Equipment Park r.la Prior Expenditures Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 Account#l 400-0000-4705 Account #2 Total Proiect Cost: $6,000 2022 2023 2024 Total Description l8 Toro 5000 Zero Tum Mower - #482 Justification Due to the state bid pricing, the City is able to trade this mower annually for less end of its life expectancy. Trading in newer machines guarantee there will be no than the average cost of keeping the mower and replacing it at the other expenses except for oil changes and grease jobs because the will always be under warranty Equipment 1,000 1,000 '1,000 5,0001,000 1,000 Total Total 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 1,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Total Total 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Budget Impact/Other I-TIool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-165 Project Name Vibratory Compactor 2020 thru 2024 Account #l Account #2 Department Contact 'type I-rseful Life Category Priority Total Project Clost: $59,000 Major Equipment Jason Wedel Equipment Street Equipment nla Expenditures .{ccount #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Description 1995 Caterpillar vibratory compactor (# 152) Justification s replaces the vibratory compactor in compliance with the equipment replacement plan Equipment 59,000 s9,000 Total 59,000 59,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 59,000 59,000 Total 59,000 59,000 Budget ImpacVOther Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-166 ProjectName Craig loader plow & wing 2020 thru 2024 Department Major EquiPment Contact Jason Wedel Type Equipment tlseful Life Category StreetEquiPment Priorify n/aAccount #1 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Description This attachment goes with the John Deere loader (#146). Justification This replacement is in compliance with the equipment replacement plan' Equipment 46,300 46,300 Total 46,300 46,300 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 46,300 46,300 Total 46,300 46,300 Budget ImpacVOther Total Project Cost: $46,300 Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-167 Project Name M-B Broom .{ccount #3 Account #4 2020 thru 2024 Account #l Account #2 2020 2021 2022 Department MajorEquiPment Contact Jason Wedel Type Equipment Llseful Life Category StreetEquipment Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $16,400 2023 2024 TotalExpenditures Description This attachment is used with the John Deere tractor. unit #141 M-B Broom Justification replacement is in accordance with the equipment replacement plan. Equipment 16,400 16,400 Total 16,400 16,400 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 16,400 16,400 Total 16,400 16,400 Budget ImpacVOtler Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-168 Project Name GeneratOr TrUCk Account #3 Account #4 Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020 rhru 2024 Department Contact Type tlseful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Jason Wedel Equipment Utilities nlaAccount #1 Account #2 Total Project Cost: $190,000 2024 Total I 998 Ford L85 l 3 Generator truck with generator (#3 I 1 ) Justification replaces the generator truck and the generator in accordance with the vehicle replacement plan. Vehicles '190,000 190,000 Total 190,000 190,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Sewer Utility Fund Water Utility Fund 95,000 9s,000 9s,000 95,000 Total 190,000 190,000 Budget ImpacVOther Description Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-169 ProjectName Compressor 2020 thru 2024 Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 2023 Department Major Equipment Contact Jason Wedel Type Equipment Llseful Life Category StreetEquipment Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $29,900 2024 Total Account #l Account #2 Expenditures Description I 993 Sullair Compressor (# I 3 7) Justification This replaces the compressor in accordance with the equipment replacement plan. Equipment 29,900 29,900 Total 29,900 29,900 Funding Sources 2020 2027 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 29,900 29,900 Total 29,900 29,900 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Prograrr City of Chanhassen, MN Projcct # EQ-170 Project Name Street Sweeper Account #l Account #2 Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type tiseful Life Category Priority Ma.jor Equipment Jason Wedel Equipment Street Equipment nlaAccount #3 Account #4 Total Project Cost: $310,000 2024 Total Description 2003 Elgin Sueeper (# 136) Justification Iife expectancy is l5 years and this sweeper will be l8 years old in2021 Equipment 31 0,000 310,000 Total 31 0,000 310,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 310,000 310,000 Total 310,000 310,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-171 Project Name Trailer Replacement Account #3 Account #4 Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020 thru 2024 Account #l Account #2 Department Major EquiPment Contact Jason Wedel Type Equipment Useful Life Category StreetEquipment Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $76,750 2024 Total Description - 2009 Felling Tandem Axel (#lA) - 2010 Felling Tandem dxel (# I F) - 2008 Felling Tandem Axel (# I H) 1 - 2000 Towmaster Tri Axel (# 1G) Justification Life expectancy for the trailers is l2 years. Equipment 36,000 7,400 33,3s0 76,750 Total 36,000 7,400 33,350 76,750 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 36,000 7,400 33,350 76,750 Total 36,000 7,400 33,350 76,750 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-172 Project Narne Weed Sprayer Account #3 Account #4 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type frseful Life Category Priority Major Equipment Jason Wedel Equipment Public Works nlaAccount #l Acrount #2 Expenditures 2020 202t 2022 'fotal Project Cost: $9,900 2023 2024 Total Description 1996 Weed Sprayer, 300 gallon Justification replaces the existing weed sprayer in compliance with the equipment replacement plan. Equipment 9,900 9,900 Total Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 9,900 9,900 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 9,900 9,900 Total 9,900 9,900 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-173 Project Name Vehicle Replacement - Planning 2020 thru 2024 2022 2023 Major Equipment Jason Wedel Vehicles Community Development nla Department Contact Type Llseful Life Category PriorityAccount #l Arcount #2 Account #3 Account #4 Expenditures 2020 2021 Total Project Cost: $33,000 2024 Total Description 2010 Grand Caravan (#802) Justification This replaces the vehicle in accordance with the vehicle replacement plan. Vehicles 33,000 33 000 Total 33,000 33,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 33,000 33,000 Total 33,000 33,000 Budget Tmpact/Other Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # EQ-174 ProjectName Permiting/Planning software upgrade 2020 thru 2024 Department Major Equipment Contact Richard Rice Type Equipment tlseful Life Category Finance Priority n/aAccount #l Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 Total Proiect Cost: $94,500 2023 2024 Total Description project funds the implementation of a new software suite which will initially replace the current a land management component for processing all city developments. The requested vendor has Springbrook building permit application and additional software modules that can be implemented at a later date. Justification Thereadded.beenhasnofeaturesnew increasingareISmodulesatofendbeingversloncurrentofsoftwaredevelopmentSpringbrook le WhileAswitchvendorISmobifornotdoesthisofferapplications.onlinefor and requiredSpringbrookoption.permitting modules.financiallssueswiththeitoft-erdoes onlinean module are SpringbrookthereAccellaintegratingpermitcompanyparent thefor S&AB lication software.database whichlcense a1Salsoectaincludes appMicrosoftSQLrequirementproJ Office Equipment 94,500 94,500 Total 94,500 94,500 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 94,500 94,500 Total 94,500 94,500 Budget Impact/Other licensing and support fees to be funded in account 400-4117-4703 after initial one year warranty has expired. Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # MB-010 Project Namc City Hall Remodel Account#1 400-4148-4xxx Account #2 2020 thru 2024 Department MuniciPa[ Buildings Contact Jacob Foster Account #J Account #4 2021 2022 Type lmprovement Llseful Life Category Administration Priority n/a 'l'otal Project Cost: $190'000 2023 2024 TotalFrior Expenditures 2020 proiect will remodel and refurbish areas ofCity Hall that need paint, carpet or storage areas added. Justification entry and front reception area of City Hall need security improvements for employee for residents. safety and reconfiguration for a better customer service [l',-E]Maintenance 150,000 150,000 "[otal Total 150,000 150,000 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 40,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 1 50,000 150,000 Total Total 150,000 150,000 Budget Description Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Proiect # MB-023 Project Name Citizen Survey 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type Llseful Life Category Priority Municipal Buildings Jacob Foster Improvement Administration nlaAccount #1 210-0000-4300 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 Total Project Cost: $60,000 2023 2024 Total Description City will conduct a triennial survey of residents. Justification City will use the feedback to monitor and respond to residents values and concerns. Study 17,000 17,000 Total 17,000 17,000Total l'rior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Cable TV Fund 1 7,000 17,000 17,000 17,000TntalTotal Budget Impact/Other fTTdo: f--,1.,9-,-l Capital Improvement Prograrr City of Chanhassen, MN Project # MB-026 Project Name Fire Department Building Improvements 2020 rhru 2024 2021 2022 2023 Department Contact Type Useful Life Category Priority I'otal Project Cost: $421,900 Municipal Buildings Don Johnson Maintenance Fire nlaAccount#1 400-4003-4xxx Account #2 Prior Expenditures .{ccount #3 Account #4 2020 2024 Total - Convert three offices to bedrooms - Convert conference room into multipte user work space - Add beds and furniture - Update two main floor bathrooms project would renovate the main fire station. men's and women's locker rooms Justification fire department is utilized for several public events such as; elections, open house, Lion's breakfast, and official fire department ceremonies. City employees frequent the kitchen and work out areas on a regular basis as well. In 2020, the office spaces will need to be converted to bedrooms to accommodate an ovemight duty crew program. A conference room will also be converted to a combined supervisor work space. The male and female basement locker rooms would be fully renovated in202l to accommodate overnight duty crews. Maintenance 93,900 12s,000 218,900 Total Prior Funding Sources Total 93,900 125,000 218,900 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 203,000 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 93,900 125,000 218,900 "I'otal Total 93,900 125,000 218,900 Budget Impact/Other f-roilool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # MB-033 Projert Name Ciff Hall Roof Replacement 2020 thru 2024 Account #l 400-4148-4702 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 Department Municipal Buildings Contact Jacob Foster Type Maintenance trseful Life Category Administration Priority n/a TotalExpenditures Total Project Cost: $300,000 2022 2023 2024 Description City Hall roof is in need of replacement. Justification 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. Maintenance 300,000 300,000 Total 300,000 300,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 300,000 300 000 Total 300,000 300,000 Budget ImpacVOther Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # MB-034 Project Name Recreation Center Wall Replacement 2020 thru 2024 Department MuniciPalBuildings Contact Todd Hoffman Type Maintenance Llseful Life Category Park Priority n/aAccount #l Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Expenditures 2020 202t 2022 'I.otal Project Cost: $65,500 2024 Total2023 Description This request is to replace the three moveable walls at the Recreation Center Justification called several times yearly to keep them functional. The walls are moved daily and program participants have complained about the impact on meetings and activities. de,floorThe ateseals nothaveandonSIeach workingarewearwallscurrentarethetodamageThey showing significantbuilding.original lsaandintemalThemechanismswallcompanyareSEnolfiomrooms.repairplasticcausesrvhichaofdealcomingadjoiningcorrectlygreat andCustomerscrucialarethetoCenterRecoperations. Maintenance 65,500 65,500 Total 65,500 65,500 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 65,500 65,500Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 65,500 65,500Total Impact/Other Without functioning walls, the Rec Center would no longer be able to offer larger programs and rentals for the community Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # MB-035 Project Namc Recreation Center Lobby Furniture 2020 thru 2024 Department MuniciPal Buildings Contact Todd Hoffman Type Maintenance Ilseful Life Category Park Priority n/aAccount #l Account #2 Account #3 Account #,1 Expenditures 2020 2021 Total Project Cost: $f2,000 2022 2023 2024 Total new lobby furniture for the Recreation Center. Justification existing fumiture in the lobby is stained and torn from 11 years of use. The furniture is in need ofreplacement. The lobby is not aesthetically easing to Rec Center users. Maintenance 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000Total Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 12,000 12,000 Total 12,000 12,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-042 Project Name picnic Tables/park Benches 2020 thru 2024 Account#l 410-000-4705 Account #2 Prior Expenditures Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement I-lseful Life 30 Years Category Park Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $166,000 2023 2024 Total Description Purchase ofpicnic tables and park benches. Justification ew tables and benches are needed annually to replace old stock and meet new needs. Equipment 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Total Total 10,000 1 0,000 1 0,000 1 0,000 10,000 s0,000 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Park Dedication Fund 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Total Total 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 1 0,000 50,000 Budget ImpacUOther li-i6;oddl fl6pool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-043 Project Name TfeeS 2020 rhru 2024 Department Park & Trail Improvements Contect Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Useful Life 50 Years Category Park Priority n/a Total Account #l 410-0000-4701 Account #2 Prior Expenditures Account #3 Account #4 'Iotal Project Cost: $260,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Description tree planting program. This program is proposed to be accelerated to mitigate the affects of Emerald Ash Borer, Justification and other City properties experience tree loss annually, due to storm damage, disease, stress, etc. Land lmprovement 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 'Iirtal Prior Funding Sources Total 15,000 15,000 I 5,000 15,000 15,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 75,000 Total 185,000 Park Dedication Fund 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 1 s,000 75,000 Total Total 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 1s,000 75,000 Budget Impact/Other l-T8dl66] Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-072 Projert Name Tennis Court Refurbishment Account #3 Account #4 2020 thru 2024 2022 Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffrnan Type lmprovement Useful Life 25 years Category Park Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $425,000 2023 2024 Total Account#l 601-00004706 Account #2 Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 Description Crack seal and resurface tennis courts. 2021 - City Center Park and Lake Ann Park Justification courls offered are kept in playable condition through patching and resurfacing on a six to ten year cycle. f5o.,ofol Maintenance 75,000 75,000 'I'otal l'rior Funding Sources 2020 202r 2022 2023 2024 Total 75,000 75,000 Total 350,000 75,000 75,000 Tntal Total 75,000 75,000 Budget ImpacUOther and operations costs. AssessmenVRevolving Assess Fund Capital Improvement Program CiW of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-099 Projcct Namc Chanhassen Nature Preserve Trail, Final Phase Account #3 Account #4 Expenditures 2020 202t 2022 2023 2020 thru 2024 Account #l 410-0000-4710 Account #2 Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement l-lseful Life Category Park Priority r/a Total Project Cost: $150,000 2024 Total Description 900 foot section of eight foot wide bituminous trail, located at the perimeter of Lot 2, Block I Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition. Justification s 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. Construction '1s0,000 150,000 Total 1 50,000 150,000 2020 2027 2022 2023 2024 TotalFunding Sources Park Dedication Fund 150,000 150,000 Total 1 50,000 150,000 Budget Impact/Other Maintenance and operation costs. Will need to be included in the pavement management program. Capital Improvement Progra:n CiW of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-132 ProjcctName Lake Ann Lake Side Pavilion Roof Replacement Account #3 Account #4 Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020 thru 2024 Account#1 400-00004702 Acconnt #2 Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Maintenance Useful Life Category Park Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $30,000 2024 Total Description ofthe roofat the Lake Side Pavilion at Lake Ann Park. Justification The roofis 25 years old and is in need ofreplacement. lvlaintenance 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2024 Total20222023 Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 30,000 30,000 Total 30,000 30,000 Impact/Other costs will be reduced. Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-138 Project Name Arboretum Trail and Hwy 4l Underpass Cost Share 2020 thru 2024 Account #1 410-0000-4710 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type Improvement Llseful Life Category Park Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $1,200,000 2024 TotalExpenditures2023 Description A ten foot wide bituminous pedestrian trail located on the south side of State Highway 5, from Century Boulevard to the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum entry road. The project witl also include a pedestrian underpass at State Highway 41. Carver County is the lead agency on the project. funding allocation is the City's share of the local match for a transpoftation enhancement grant. Justification a pedestrian/bicycle trail route to the Arboretum has been a long range goal for the City, Carver County and will have access to the first pedestrian trail to the Arboretum from the east. the Arboretum. The Construction 1,200,000 1,200,000 Total 1,200,000 1,200,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Park Dedication Fund 1,200,000 1,200,000 Total 1,200,000 1,200,000 Budget ImpacVOther trail maintenance duties will be added to the weekly park maintenance department schedule. Capital Improvement Progrart City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-141 Project Name Park Equipment Replacement 2020 thru 2024 Department Park & Trail Improvements Contact Todd Hoffman Type EquiPment Ilseful Life Category Park Priority n/aAccount#l 401-0000-4xxx Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 l'rior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Project Cost: $1,505'000 2024 Total Description 2020 - Curry Farms Park (basketball court & trail), Lake Ann Beach (playground), Powers Blvd (pipe rail fence), Power Hill Park (ptayground), Rice Marsh Lake Park (backstop and ballfield benches) and Meadow Green Park (backstop and ballfield Benches) 1 - Carver Beach Park (playground), Lake Susan Park (basketball court), Pheasant Hills Park (playground), Roundhouse Park (structure) and 2023 - Caner Beach Playground (ptayground), Sugarbush Park (playground) and South Lotus Lake Park (playground) and Lake Ann ParkMeadow Green Park2024 - Lake Ann Park that has reached its useful life expectancy.existing park Creek Park (playground) - Bandimere Park (playground) and North Lotus Park (hockey rink) Justification playground equipment has reached its useful life expectancy of 25 years' Equipment 2s5,000 245,000 250,000 255,000 255,000 1,260,000 Total Prior Funding Sources Total 255,000 245,000 250,000 255,000 255,000 1,260,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total f-r4ioool Park Replacement Fund 255,000 245,000 250,000 255,000 255,000 1,260,000 Total 25s,000 24s,000 250,000 255,000 255,000 l,260,()o0'total Budget Impact/Other f*Iiroool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # PK&T-142 Project Name City Center Park Paver Replacement 2020 thru 2024 Department Park & Trail Improvements (lontact Todd Hoffman Type Maintenance Llseful Life Category Park Priority n/aAccount #l Accnunt #2 Account #3 Account #4 Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 'I'otal Project Cost: $165,000 2024 Total Description dilapidated pavers in main walkways at City Center Park in vicinity of library. The existing concrete pavers will be replaced with a clay product for extended reliability Justification pavers in critical walkway corridors have deteriorated and no longer provide a safe walking surface. Paver replacements will be limited to ofthe entire plaz4 additional sections will need to be5,000 square feet in the poorest condition. This project will replace approximately 20o% replaced over time. Maintenance 165,000 '165,000 Total 165,000 165,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund 165,000 165,000 165,000 165,000 Budget Impact/Other will reduce maintenance and operational costs and increase safety Total Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Projcct # SS-012 Project Name Inflow and Infiltration Abatement 2020 thru 2024 Account#1 701-70xx-4751 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 Departmelt Sanitary Sewer Improvements Contact Jason Wedel Type Improvement lJsefulLife Unassigned Category Utilities Priority n/a Total Project Clost: 52,700,000Description annual project includes tetevising, repairs and rehabilitation ofexisting sanitary sewer. The program also detects and eliminates points of ofground water and surface water into the City sanitary sewer system. Projects have been identified from the 2006 lnflow and Infiltration and aspects ofthe program are included in the annual street project. The projects were reviewed by Metropolitan Council and approved in lieu ofsurcharge fees. Justification 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. Councilitan forChanhassenoftheTheneedlnofMetropol sewagehasstaffdentifiedonumeroussewerlderthatlinesareCitypaysrepairCity makes itswaterthatflowtheofChanhassen.waterSurface andThosebasedaretheonofamount groundgeneratedbyCitypayments Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Maintenance 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 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 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 ImpacUOther The efforts may decrease operational costs, MCES fees and emergency call outs. It is also the City's intent to use for those costs. lt is the City's belief that as new customers come on line those connection fees should help fund future infiltration problems. connection charges to help fund fmonoo-l l_liodDoTl Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SS-017 Project Name Sanitary Lift Station Rehabilitation Program 2020 rhru 2024 Department Sanitary Sewer Improvements Contact Jason Wedel 'Iype Improvement flsefulLife Unassigned Category Utilities Priority n/aAccount #l 701-'1025-4'1 5l Account #2 Prinr Expenditures Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 Total Project Clost: $1,320,000 2022 2023 2024 Total Description 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 gatlery, and electrical components as needed. The proposed lift stations scheduled for improvements over the next 5 years are as follows: 2020 - #t3 &#22 2021 - #2 2022 - #17 2023 - #1 2024 - #6 Justification Reduce emergency calls and potential sewer backups. Maintenance 130,000 120,000 130,000 85,000 90,000 s5s,000 Total Prior Funding Sources Total 130,000 120,000 130,000 85,000 90,000 5ss,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 765,000 Sewer Utility Fund 130,000 120,000 130,000 8s,000 90,000 555,000 Total Total l-r6rbool 130,000 '120,000 130,000 85,000 90,000 555,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST-012 Project Name Annual Street Improvement Program 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type tTseful Life Category Priority Street Improvements Jason Wedel Improvement Unassigned Streets/Highways nlaAccount #l 601-xxxx-4751 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 Total Project Cost: $56,694,000 Prior Expenditures 2023 2024 Total Description project to rehabilitate and reconstruct streets in the City. The following streets are scheduled to 2020 - Minnewashta Parkway (MSA, 2020 &2021) and Lake Lucy-TH4l to Galpin Blvd (MSA) - Krvers Point, Willow View, Twin Maple and Basswood - Stone Creek Drive, Boulder Road, Stone Creek Ct, Stone Creek Ln, etc. - Hidden Lane, Hidden Circle, Hidden Court, Marsh Drive, Sinnen Circle and Dakota Lane - Lake Lucy, Nez Perce, Vineland Court and Troendle Circle - Brendan Court be completed in2020, future areas will be by available funds and condition ofthe streets. Justification City uses a Pavement Management System to monitor the condition of the City streets. While proper preventative ofthe street and is cost effective, a street will eventually deteriorate to a point that major maintenance is required. the life ofthe street. In cases when utilities or poor sub grade needs to be replaced or where streets have deteriorated to a point where itation will no longer be practical, reconstruction of the street is necessary. A feasibility study is written to consider the merits of the project maintenance extends the Rehabilitation projects scope ofwork. 26,030,000 Construction 6,227,000 8,062,000 5,325,000 5,52s,000 5,s25,000 30,664,000 Total 6,227,000 5,325,000 5,525,000 5,525,000 30,664,000Total Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total AssessmenVRevolving Assess Fund MSA Sewer Utility Fund Surface Water Utility Fund Water Utility Fund 2,582,s00 3,637,500 3,700,000 3,800,000 3,900,000 17,620,000 Total '1 ,716,500 192,500 185,500 1,550,000 1,516,500 517,500 785,500 1,605,000 325,000 600,000 700,000 100,000 32s,000 600,000 700,000 325,000 600,000 700,000 3,333,000 1,685,000 2,771,000 5,255,000 Total 6,227,000 5,325,000 5,525,000 30,664,000 Budget Impact/Other project may decrease maintenance costs. fr6$odool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST-018 Project Name Pavement Management 2020 thru 2024 Department Streetlmprovements Contact Jason Wedel Type Maintenance Useful Life 7-10 years Category Streets/Highways Priority n/aAccount#1 420-0000-4751 Account #2 .Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 2023 'I.otal Project Cost: $5,591,000 2024 TotalPrior Expenditures Description forcurbofandandsidewalkrepalrswillsuchmaintenancecrackASreplacementguttersea[-coating,sealing.patching,potholeprovideproject onbasedwillectsdeterminedberehabilitations.lot eal-coatS annuallylnincludedthiecttrailsareandprojAlsoCityparkingstreets.proJ forthisusessourcetopayThe streetASindexthe department fundingconditionprogram.managementbygeneratedpavementpavement material for annual street patching. Justification This will provide a centralized funding mechanism that will help reduce the effect on General Fund operating expenditures lVlaintenance 393,000 393,000 393,000 393,000 393,000 1,965,000 'Iotal Total 393,000 393,000 393,000 393,000 393,000 1,965,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 TotalPrior Funding Sources Street Pavement Management Tax Levy 300,000 93,000 300,000 93,000 300,000 93,000 300,000 93,000 300,000 93,000 1,500,000 465,000 Total Total 393,000 393,000 393,000 393,000 393,000 1,965,000 Budget Impact/Other improvements will cost effectively prolong the life of the street so major improvements reconstruction projects can be delayed.such as i 3-Tzo,000l nqr9.-mfl Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST-032 Project Name THl01 Imp-Pioneer Tr to Flying Cloud Dr (CSAH 61) 2020 rhru 2024 Department Street Improvements Contact Jason Wedel Account#l 605-0000 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 2021 2022 Type Improvement ITseful Life Category Streets/Highways Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $38,710,000 2023 2024 TotalPrior Expenditures 2020 Description s project will reconstruct TH l0l from Pioneer Trail (CSAH l4) to Flying Cloud Drive (CSAH 6l). This is the last section of TH 101 that 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 10 1 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 storrn sewer improvements. The tentative schedule is to complete final design and right of way acquisition in 2019 and construction would commence in2020. Justification improve safety and mobility on TH 101. The project also plans for growth in the region. Construction 16,000,000 16,000,000 32,000,000 Total 1 6,000,000 32,000,000Total Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 6,710 000 Total Other Agency Contribution Sewer Utility Fund Water Utility Fund 15,000 000 500,000 500,000 15,000,000 s00,000 500,000 30,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Total 't6,000,000 't6,000,000 32,000,000 Impact/Other City would be responsible for the future maintenance of the trunk watermain and trails. [qmddol Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST-038 Project Name Lyman BIvd Improvements-Galpin BIvd to TH 41 Account #3 Account #4 Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2020 thru 2024 Department Contact Type Llseful Life Category Priority Street Improvemsnts Paul Oehme Improvement 50 Years Streets/Highways nlar\ccount #l Account #2 'l'otal Project Clost: $10,722,000 2023 2024 Total Future Description s project will upgrade Lyman Blvd to current design standards. The project will construct three round-a-bouts at the TH 4 1, Peavey Drive intersections. Road and Justification improve safety and mobility along the corridor and to replace the deficient pavement section. Construction 10,139,600 145,600 145,600 145,600 10,576,400 '145,600 Total 't0,139,600 145,600 145,600 145,600 10,576,400 Total 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total F utu reFunding Sources MSA Other Agency Contribution 1,645,600 8,494,000 145,600 145,600 145,600 2,082,400 8,494,000 1 45,600 Total Total 10,139,600 145,600 145,600 145,600 10,576,400 Budget ImpacUOther Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST-040 ProjectName Galpin Blvd Imp-Hwy 5 N to City limits (PW176A) Account#l 601-6040-4751 Account #2 2020 thru 2024 Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 2023 Department Contact Type tlseful Life Category Priority Street Improvements Jason Wedel Improvement Streets/Highways nla Prior Expenditures Total Project Clost: Sf0,840,000 2024 Total Description The project will reconstruct Galpin Blvd from 78th Street north to the City limits. The street is proposed to have geometric improvements made to conform to current design standards and urbanized to have concrete curb and gutter. Turn lanes will be constructed and trail improvements made. This section of Galpin Blvd is on Carver County's turnback list for roadways to be jurisdictionalty transferred to the local agency. Once Galpin Blvd is reconstructed the City would be responsible for operations and future maintenance. Justification pavement ofGalpin Blvd has reached its life expectancy. The roadway at this time should be reconstructed and designed to current standards project is also planned for groMh in the area. Construction 10,7s0,000 10,750,000 Total Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 Total 1 0,750,000 10,750,000 2022 2023 2024 Total Tot*l IVISA Other Agency Contribution Sewer Utility Fund Water Utility Fund 3,000,000 7,000,000 250,000 500,000 3,000,000 7,000,000 250,000 500,000 Total 10,750,000 10,750,000 Budget ImpacUOther project will require the City to have operational and maintenance over this section of Galpin Blvd. r@@l f-lo,olol Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST-042 Project Name TH 41 Rehabilitation - Pioneer Trail to TH 5 Account #3 Account #4 Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020 thru 2024 Account #l Account #2 Depsrtment Streetlmprovements Contact Jason Wedel Type Maintenance I-lseful Life Category Streets/HighwaYs Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $100,000 2024 Total Description In conjunction with the roadway project, the signal at 82nd Street will be replaced. The City is responsible for the eastern leg ofthe signal. State of Minnesota is planning to resurface TH 41 Justification Maintenance 100,000 100,000 Total 100,000 100,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total MSA 100,000 1 00,000 Total 100,000 1 00,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # ST-043 Project Name Downtown Signal Controller Replacement Account #3 Account #4 Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020 thru 2024 Account #1 Acrount #2 Department Streetlmprovements Contact Paul Oehme Type Improvement Useful Life Category Streets/Highways Priority n/a fotal Project Cost: S160,000 2024 Total Description project will replace the signal controllers for the downtown signals. The controllers are 26 years new controllers are more technicatly capable and allow for better pedestrian crossing options. old and have reached their life expectancy. To improve trafftc flow and enhance pedestrian crossing timing. 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 160,000lmprovement Total 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 160,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 160,000AssessmenVRevolving Assess Fund Total 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 160,000 Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project# SWMP-014 Project Name Property Acquisition Account #l 720-'7025-4701 Account #2 Prior Expenditures 2020 202r 2022 2023 2020 rhru 2024 Account #3 Account #4 Department Surface Water Management Contact Jason Wedel Type Improvement Llseful Life Unassigned Category SWMP Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $875,000 2024 Total Description 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. Land Acquisition 75,000 75,000 150,000 Total Prior Funding Sources Total 75,000 75,000 150,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Surface Water Utility Fund 75,000 75,000 150,000 Total Total 75,000 75,000 150,000 Budget ImpacUOther No map 725,000 T-rrjoool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project# SWMP-024 Project Name Lower Bluff Creek TMDL Implementation 2020 rhru 2024 Department Surface Water Management Contact Jason Wedel 'fype Improvement tlsefulLife Unassigned Category SWMP Priority n/aAccount#l 720-70254751 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 'l'otal Project Cost: $2,400,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 TotalPrior Expenditures with Chanhassen on thistheir interest in ect. Pof loneer theastheidentifiedreachlowerBluffofCreekB Creekluif MaximumTotal Load (south Trail)primaryreport(TMDL)Daily TH I0 6/CR "Y"I theexceeded STStime6t25tol1TSSatloadsthetotalofsolidsthecalibrationt)(TSS).period (suspended During thebetween lowerthetoexiststhereaIn addition lssues,discontinuityI4lbs9.to lbs.Pioneer thanmore 40l%o turbidity,280 ,900alloadby thetheatenddownstreamthofculverteunderthereachafromsevereelevation Hennepin RegionalCountylnand upper resulting drop andthenumerousBothPlan.thatindicatewithconsistentBlufftheNaturalCreek escarpmentsResource'rail.These are Managementfindings This willect decreaseofsourcetosedimentluffB Creek.thewithin CreekBluff arechannel projtheliesandto contained primarytributary LoadWaste AllocationllwlChanhassenassistlntheirfitheshBI "vithin Creekuff andIsedimenttooadluffB meetingimproveassemblageCreek, hasDistrictWatershedCreekRiMinnesotaandver Metrothe Watershed.expressedBlufffbrtheRitey-Purgatory-BluffMississippiCreek,(wLA) Justification l9 - Source Volume Reduction and Rate Control - TH l0l Stormwater Improvements, including Chloride Management '1,450,000 Construction 950,000 950,000 Total Total 950,000 9s0,000 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Other Agency Contribution Surface Water Utility Fund 900,000 50,000 900,000 50,000 Total Total 950,000 950,000 Budget ImpacVOther f rTtqoE Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-032 Project Name StOrmwater Pond Improvements 2020 thru 2024 Account #l 720-7025-4751 Account #2 Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 Department Surface Water Management Contact Jason Wedel Type Improvement flseful Life Category SWMP Priority n/a 'I'otal Project Cost: $2,020,000 2024 TotalPrior Expenditures 2023 Description ofsedimentinclude blanket,and of stormwater ISTh rip-removal,work1lwl may placementinspection cleaning City ponds.project provide inletof outletand structures.and andotheroroneroslcontrolassessment,replacementBMP'S,management repairvegetationrap Justification Separate Storm Sewer System permit. The project will also minimize flooding potential UrbanNationaltomaintenancetofunctionassurethelnofalloverare701Chanhassen,regular theystormwaterpondsCityrequiring iminationEIationalNrlutionPolmeasure'f his alsohas identifiedbeen Chanhassen's Discharge Municipallnrecommendations.Program Maintenance 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 Total Total 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 TotalI)risr Funding Sources f lzoIool Surface Water Utility Fund 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 Total Total 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 Budget will require an input of other public works staff hours. F.q-qql Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-045 Project Name Storm Water Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2020 thru 2024 Account#l 720-7025-xxxx Account #2 Department Surface Water Management Contact Jason Wedel Type Improvement Llseful Life Category SWMP Priority n/a 'I'otfll Project Clost: $625,000 Total Description project is an annual maintenance budget used to maintain or replace lailing or deficient public storm water infrastructure. In some instances 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 Justification Every year the City replaces culverts, storm water structures and pipe throughout the City that have failed. These replacements are unforeseen and are typically noticed only after they have failed. Often these failures result in public safety issues or pose a potential threat to private property or other City infrastructure. 300,000 Construction 50,000 s0,000 s0,000 75,000 100,000 325,000 Total Total s0,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 325,000 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Surface Water Utility Fund 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 32s,000 Total Total s0,000 50,000 s0,000 75,000 100,000 325,000 Budget ImpacUOther activities will likely involve the utilization of public works labor, Account #3 Account #4 fToopool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-046 Project Name Lotus Lake Channels & Outfall Improvements Account #l 720-70254751 Account #2 Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020 rhru 2024 .{ccount #3 Account #.1 Department Surface Water Management Contact Jason Wedel Type Improvement Llseful Life Category SWMP Priority n/a 'l'otal Projert Cost: $375,000 2024 Total Description Stabilization ofdeeply incised outfalls and channels draining to Lotus Lake. Justification This work was identified in the 2007 feasibility study and in the 2015 RPBCWD gully inventory. Channels and outfalls are rapidly eroding exhibit substantial undercutting ofthe embankments. This erosion is impacting property adjacent and resulting in the deposition ofsignificant of sediment into Lotus Lake. Over time, the erosion will begin to impact nearby sanitary sewer utilities. and I - W. Central Lotus Lake Channel Restoration. Phase II - Lotus Lake Outfall Maintenance 2s0,000 100,000 350,000 Total Total 250,000 100,000 350,000 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2024 Total20222023 25,000 Other Agency Contribution Surface Water Utility Fund 200,000 50,000 100,000 200,000 'rs0,000 Total Total 250,000 100,000 350,000 Budget Impact/Other Long term maintenance will be required including vegetation management. Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-048 Project Name Upper Riley Creek Channel Stabilization Account #3 Account #4 Prior Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020 thru 2024 Account #l 720-7025-4xxx Account #2 Department Surface WaterManagement Contact Jason Wedel Type Unassigned Llseful Life Category SWMP Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $132,500 2024 Total Description Stabilization ofin and near stream bank undercutting, escarpment and gully erosion. Justification Riley Creek Corridor from Lake Ann to Lake Susan was evaluated. This assessment ng in sediment deposition into Riley Creek and, subsequently, into Lake Susan. Works theof201InassessmentavisualCreektoacent the towas stabilized.J,beAstheofforPuthelcblRileyadjfacilityFacility,part approval lssuesandlneroslonnear streamrevealedsignificant 32,500 Maintenance 25,000 75,000 100,000 Total 25,000 75,000 100,000Total Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Other Agency Contribution Surface Water Utility Fund I 5,000 10,000 60,000 15,000 75 000 25,000 T<ltal Total 25,000 75,000 100,000 Budget Impact/Other construction, some of the City expense will involve in-kind labor. This wou.ld likely involve the use of City staffand equipment for ing materials. f-rsool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # SWMP-053 Project Name Rice Marsh Lake Iron Enhanced Sand Filter 2020 rhru 2024 Account #l 720-7025-4xxx Account #2 Expenditures Account #3 Account #4 2020 2021 2022 Department Surface WaterManagement Contact Jason Wedel Type Improvement Llseful Life Category SWMP Priority n/a 'l.otal Project Cost: $300,000 2023 2024 Total Description Installation of an iron filing enhanced sand filter within Rice Marsh Lake Park. Justification either Rice Marsh Lake nor Lake Riley meet MPCA standards for total phosphorous, chlorophyll-a or secchi disc depth readings. This watershed the largest total phosphorous load to Rice Marsh Lake at 232 lbs (or 32%o of the entire watershed load to Rice Marsh Lake) and is only 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 I l5 lbs/year (=50%). Construction 300,000 300,000 Total 300,000 300,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Other Agency Contribution Surface Water Utility Fund 250,000 50,000 250,000 50,000 Total 300,000 300,000 This filtration feature will require some annual maintenance and will require an input of iron in approximately 25 years. Budget Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Projcct # W-032 Project Name Well Rehabilitation Program 2020 rhru 2024 Account #3 Account #4 Department Contact Type tlseful Life Category Priority 'I'otal Project Cost: $920,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Water System Improvements Jason Wedel Improvement Unassigned Utilities nlar\ccount#l 700-70254530 Account #2 Prior Expenditures Total Description program annually inspects and performs regular maintenance of the City's wells. Well pumps are recommended to is recommended that the following pumps and motors be pulled and inspected for wear: 2020 - Well #4 2021 - Well #3 2022 - Well #10 2023 -Well#2 2024 - Well #12 be serviced every 8 years. Justification regular maintenance will extend the life of well components, reduce emergency calls and have a more reliable water supply system. 613,000 Maintenance 51,000 s6,000 96,000 61,000 43,000 307,000 'Iotal Total 51,000 56,000 96,000 61,000 43,000 307,000 Prior Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Water Utility Fund 5'1,000 56,000 96 000 61 000 43,000 307 000 Total 51,000 56,000 96,000 61,000 43,000 307,000'l'otal Budget Impact/Other f-6mool Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Projcct # W-046 Project Name Low Zone 1 million gallon Storage Tank Account#l 700-7025-4751 Account #2 Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2020 thru 2024 Account #3 Account #4 Department WaterSystemlmprovements Contsct Jason Wedel Type lmprovement tlseful Life Category Utilities Priority n/a 'I'otal Project Cost: $2,600,000 Total Description low zone pressure area to service site on the east side ofAudubon. construction date accordingly. It neededls thelntheforoftheanddemanddemandlstanktoneeded themeet growth communityemergencypotentialdaypeakirrigation WorkstctheofrstankonPubltheofTheBoulevard.location BuildingthesouthproposedareaLvmangrowth and theustneedthethisfortankonStaffevaluateannuallyadjtotankThislsdevelopment.plansdependent Justification meet peak irrigation and emergency water demands for the growing community as identified in the 2008 water comprehensive plan. Construction 2,600,000 2,600,000 Total 2,600,000 2,600,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 TotalFunding Sources Water Utility Fund 2,600,000 2,600,000 Total 2,600,000 2,600,000 Impact/Other Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # W-059 Project Name Well #16 Account #3 Account #4 2020 thru 2024 Account #l Account #2 2020 2021 2022 Department WaterSystem Improvements Contact Jason Wedel Type Improvement flseful Life Category Utilities Priority n/a 'I'otal Project Cost: $1,400,000 2023 2024 TotalExpenditures Description s well is proposed to meet the water needs of the growing community. This project is needed dependent on growth, summer water usage and aquifer levels. Justification meet the growing water needs of the City planned for in the 2008 water comprehensive plan. Construction 1,400,000 1 ,400,000 Total 1,400,000 1,400,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Water Utility Fund 1,400,000 1 ,400,000 Total 1,400,000 Budget ImpacUOther Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # W-063 Project Name powers Blvd Watermain Loop 2020 thru 2024 Department Water System ImproYements Contact Jason Wedel Account #1 Account #2 .{ccount #3 Account #4 Type lmprovement Llseful Life Category Utilities Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $510,000 2022 2023 2024 TotalExpenditures20202021 Description Horizontal directional drill approximately 1,000 LF of HDPE watermain to complete watermain loop disrupted by a line break. Justification the watermain loop will provide adequate fire flows, improve reliability and serviceability,and improve water quality. Construction 510,000 510,000 Total 510,000 s10,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Water Utility Fund 5'10,000 510,000 Total s1 0,000 510,000 ImpacVOther Capital Improvement Program City of Chanhassen, MN Project # W-064 Project Name Well #4 Re-roofing Project Account #3 Account #4 Expenditures 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020 rhru 2024 Account #l Account #2 Depsrtment WaterSystem Improvements Contact Jason Wedel Type Maintenance I-rseful Life Category Utilities Priority n/a Total Project Cost: $39,000 2024 Total Description The roofofthe structure housing well #4 is leaking and in need ofreplacement. The multi-use structure is shared by departments. It houses bathrooms for Lake Ann Park and a drinking water fountain for public use in addition to serving as the well house for deep well #4. The roofline also shelters a rental pavilion. the Parks and Utility Justification existing roofing material is 39 year old wood shakes. The roof will be replaced with a pre-finished standing seam steel roof. Construction 39,000 39,000 Total 39,000 39,000 Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Replacement Equipment Fund Water Utility Fund 19,s00 19,500 19,500 19,500 Total 39,000 39,000 Budget ImpacVOther CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2020 Budget 2019 2020 Dollar Percent OPERATIONAL & CAPITAL LEVY Levy Levy Change Change General Fund $8,810,333 $9,181,833 Capital Replacement Fund (for equipment)800,000 800,000 Revolving Imp Street Reconstruction 381,223 728,523 Pavement Mgmt Fund (Sealcoating)93,000 93,000 Total Operational & Capital Levy 10,084,556 10,803,356 718,800 7.13% DEBT LEVY Public Works Facility 475,800 480,600 Library Referendum 459,512 457,412 Total Debt Levy 935,312 938,012 2,700 0.29% TOTAL TAX LEVY $11,019,868 $11,741,368 $721,500 6.55% Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3 Levy Levy Levy Taxes applied to:General Fund $9,181,833 $9,181,833 $9,181,833 Capital Replacement 800,000 800,000 800,000 Pavement Mgmt 93,000 93,000 93,000 Revolving Imp St Recon 728,523 728,523 728,523 Total Levy subject to levy limits $10,803,356 $10,803,356 $10,803,356 Public Works Facility $480,600 $480,600 $480,600 Library Referendum 457,412 457,412 457,412 Total $11,741,368 $11,741,368 $11,741,368 Tax Generation Capacity (Not actual levy, Used only for estimating the impact on the average home) Prior Year $11,019,868 $11,019,868 $11,019,868 New Construction (0.97%)$177,100 $177,100 $177,100 Total Capacity $11,196,968 $11,196,968 $11,196,968 Percent Change (To avg home city prop tax) after New Growth 4.86%4.86%4.86% Staff recommendation for final Levy TAX LEVY City 2020 Wage Adjustment IGH 3% Shakopee 3% Prior Lake 3% Stillwater 3% plus $20/month for health insurance Lino Lakes * 2.75% Chaska **3% Savage 3% Cottage Grove 3% Elk River *3% Rosemount *3% * Proposed but not yet finalized/settled ** Minimums and maximums will be increased by 3%, the actual employee wage adjustment is based on perf formance Revolving Assessment Fund - $3.61\ll No debt for assess share 2019 1,900,000 (760,000) 1,140,000 (40o,000) 1 ,751 1,803,825 (1,s00,000) 983,414 19,668 2020 2,600,000 (1,040,000) 1,560.000 2021 3,600,000 (1,440,000) 2,160,000 (7s,000) 2022 3,708,000 (1,483,200) 2,224,800 2023 3,819,240 (1.527,696) 2,291,544 2024 2025 2026 4,173,347 (1,669,355) 2.50/,.O32 2027 4,298,588 (1,719,435) 2.579,153 2028 4,427,546 (1,77't,018) 2,656,528 (4,427,5/6) 1,0'12,303 20,246 2029 4,560,372 (1,824,149) 2,736,223 (4,560,372) 1,175,88'l 23,518 $229,603 $236,491 $243,585 $250,893 $254.420 $266,172 $274,1 58 $282,382 2030 4,697,1 83 (1,878,873) 2,81 8,310 '1.199,399 1.732,OOO 2,102,955 930.000 2031 4,838,099 (1,s35,240) 2,902,859 (4,838,099) 1,282,454 25,649 $243,585 $250,893 $258.420 $266,172 $274,158 $2A2342 $290,854 $299,579 2032 4.943,242 (1,993,297) 2,989,945 (4,983,242\ 1,217,890 24,354 $250,893 9258,420 $266,172 $274,1 58 $282,342 $290.854 $299,579 $308,567 2033 1,242,244 1,732,ON 2,297,956 930,000 2034 5,286,721 (2,1 14,689) 3,172,033 2035 Prcject Cost (Street Only) Assessments 40Yo City Share Other project Cos Isfs in 3,933,817 (1,573,5271 2.360,290 4,051,832 (1,620,733) 2,43't,099 5,132,739 (2,053,096) 3.O79,644 5,445,323 (2,178,',t29) 3,267.194 400,000 884,838 Prcject Costs lnvestable Balance lnterest ln@me (2,600,000) 1,O97,337 21,947 Fund Bal - BOY Estimate for 2018"" Franchise Fee Revenue Assessment Repayment Capital Levy Requirement Fund Bal - EOY Repayment Schedule 8 yr assmt @ 5.750lo Tenn Courls & Trail 2005 2006 2@7 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2019 2020 202',| 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2024 2029 2030 2031 2033 203/. 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 1,1 19,283 't,732,000 820.575 730,000 616,01 1 1,732,O00 1,452.314 930,000 (4,051,832) 678.493 1 3,570 $204,739 $0 $121,179 $165,824 $229.603 s236,491 $243,545 $250.893 692,063 1,732,000 '1,505,995 930,000 (4,173,387) 686,671 13,733 $0 $'121.179 $165,824 $229,603 $236,491 9243,585 $250,893 $25A.420 1,003,082 1,200,000 764,254 730,000 741,395 '1,732,OOO 962,030 930.000 670.574 1,732,000 'I,110,999 930,000 636,819 1,732,000 1,238,930 930.000 700,405 1.732,@O 1,772.',167 930,000 a52.7U 1.732.000 1,925,146 930,000 1,032,549 1,732,000 2,0/.1,7U 930,000 1,292,514 1,732,000 2.lffi,U4 930,000 't,308,107 '1,732,000 2,231,O25 930,000 1,090,854 1,732,O00 2,366,894 930,000 849,687 1,732,000 2,437,901 930,000 (3,600,000) 726,458 14,537 (3,708,000) 657,425 13,149 $a7.522 $1 15,654 $37,509 $204,739 $o $121,179 $16s,824 $229,603 (3,819,240) 624,333 12,447 (3,933,817) 603.932 12.O79 (4,298,588) 835,984 16,720 (4,697,183) 1,267,170 25.U3 (5,132.73s) 1,069,465 21,s89 (s,445,323) s04,266 10,085 (5,286,721) 833,027 16,66'l $266,172 $274.158 $242,382 $290,854 $299,579 $308,567 $317,824 $327,358 $274,158 $2A2.3A2 s290,854 $299,579 $308,567 $317,424 $327,358 $337,179 Prcject Year 77,297 '109,504 $88,147 $87,522 $1 15,654 $37,509 $204,739 $o s88,147 $47,522 $'115,654 $37,509 $204,739 $0 $121,1 79 $165,824 $1 15,654 s37,509 $2M,739 $0 $121,179 $165,824 $229.603 s236,491 $37,509 $204,739 s0 $121,179 $165,824 9229,603 $236,491 $243,585 $121,'179 $165,824 s229.603 $236,49'l $243,585 s250,893 $258,420 $266.',t12 $165.824 $229,603 s236,491 $243,585 $250,893 $258,420 $2e6,172 $274.158 $236.491 s243,585 $250,893 $2s8,420 $266.172 $274.158 $242,342 $290,854 $258.420 $266.172 $274,158 $242,382 $290.8s4 $299,579 $308,567 $317,824 '109,504 $88,147 $47,522 $1 1 5,654 $37,509 $204,739 $0 $121,179 City ol Chanhassen, Minnesota Bond Ta Levies 2006-2029 2005 C Ref 1998A Park GO Park Bonds 2010A cO Refund 20024 Lib Debt Levies Subtotal of Market Value Levies 20044 GO Bonds Subtotal of GO Levies Subtotal of Total Other Generai Levies Bonded DebtYear of Collection 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20't9 2020 2021 634,800 696,500 695,900 972,700 20024 GO Library Bonds 486.700 489.100 490,700 491,300 496,400 495.400 1,121,500 't ,'185,600 1,186,600 1,464,000 496,400 495,400 35'1.648 445.310 448,880 446,098 452,792 451,952 461.297 459,512 457,412 465.497 1 38,8 14 141,380 138,173 345.800 346.900 346,700 297,900 4U,614 488,280 484,873 297,900 100.000 100.000 100,000 122,O44 122,548 122,703 122,603 122,195 126I20 122,M8 122,544 122,703 122.603 122,'195 126,420 1,424.162 1,896,428 1,894,176 1,884,503 618,595 621,420 351,648 445,310 448,880 2146,098 452,792 451,952 461,297 459,512 457,412 465.497 200'lc GO Equip Certs 2003A GO Equip Certs 1999 Go lmpr Bonds 2001 B "^ GO lmpr Bonds Subtotal ol Spec Assmt Levies 100,000 100,000 100,000 2000 GO Pub Pro.i 351,648 445,310 448,880 446,098 452,792 451,952 461,297 459,512 457,412 465.497 Totals 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20 13 2014 2015 20'16 )n17 2014 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2009A@@ 200s 212 Bonds 80,000 80,000 285,000 285,000 337,500 336,800 335,900 550,000 233,800 232,300 240,700 2008 w 2010 PWFacility FireStation 599.300 594,000 593.800 593,200 592,100 590,600 594.000 596,700 20''to Audubon Year Total Levy W CIP Est Ex65b" Pffibl Atul Pay debt Erc65 Lery LvY Er6s Lib 253,795 2fi,570 437,U2 130,680 444,410 55,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20't1 2012 2013 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019)nul 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2024 2029 1,908,162 1,976,424 2,179,',t76 2,169,503 1,809,1 90 1.809.1 90 1,71 9,190 1,719,'190 '1.719,190 1,323,998 1,2A7,492 1,048,652 931,697 935.312 938,012 5,297 483.900 482.300 485,600 487,500 489.100 490,600 497.1 00 285,000 67,234 269,986 {60,313 't,938,790 r,909,190 1,909,190 1,809,190 1,809.190 1,809,190 1,719,',t 90 1,7r9.190 '|,7r 9,r 90 I,719.190 1,719,1 90 1.433,490 1,3't6,535 1,316,535 1,316,535 1,316,s3s 1,316.535 1,316,535 1,316,535 1,316,535 1,316,535 1,316.535 1,316,535 1,316,535 470,400 475,800 480,600 479.800 483,900 482,300 485,600 487.500 489,100 490,600 497,100 aaR 100 100 395,192 431,698 3E4,838 3&,838 381,23 378,523 371,234 832,635 834235 630835 829p35 427,135 825,935 819,,135 818,,135 2016 A PW Refund ooo 5 a20 800 4.753.700 157A.297 44.420 a77 1.082.5362.267.OOOTotals " - Thes fun(h to be 6ed to pay dom he debt l€vy eadr ot lhe ne( tour yea6. *t - The Pil hcility is for 8 Milhn and bondhg for $7 Milion of h I Milion. @@ - The 2OO9A Reft-ded tlE 2005A Mndot loand and 2006A MUSA area imprdemeG. 2020 Special Revenue Funds 2Ol 10olo Charitable Contribution Revenue 324 41,603 L04 3801 Interest Earnings 3807 Donations 5t4 44,952 0.070 5.3o/o 0.00/o 38,000 40,000 40,000 3903 Expenditures 4370 Travel & 0.00/o Revenue Over/(Under) Expenditures SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2020 2021, (Lr,e49) (10,668) (13,s00) (13,600) DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE (13,700) 42,037 45,466 38,000 2017 Actual 20LB Actual 202\ f,stimate 20L9 2020 2024 4030 Retirement Contributions* Total Contrachral Services 4705 Other Equipment* Total Capital Outlay 3,383 3,504 3,500 3,600 2.9o/o 3,700 3,383 46,082 3,504 48,77r 3,500 48,000 3,600 50,000 2.9o/o 4.20/o 3,700 48,000 50,000 50,000 50,00046,082 4,516 48,77L 3,859 0.0o/o 56,134 51,500 53,600 4.Lo/o 53,700 4,5t6 3,859 2020 Special Revenue Funds 2OZ Cemetery Revenue 3670 lnternment Fee 750 279 3,400 349 664 11,800 200 3,000 3,000 0.00/o 0.0%3,000 700 2002003801 3804 3807 Interest Earnings Land Sale Donations 4300 Fees, Services 1,963 L,397 2,200 (9.LVo) 2,000 4350 & Waste Removal Revenue Over/ (Under) Expenditures SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2020 2021 2,815 LL,BI7 1,200 1,900 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 1,900 2018 Actual 20t920t7 2020 750 700 Expenditures 2,000 2,000 (100.00/o) (25.9o/o) 2,0001,963 2,700 2020 Special Revenue Funds zLO Cable TV Revenue 3080 Franchise Fees 3801 Interest 787 Expenditures 4010 4011 4030 4040 4050 Salaries & Wages-Reg Overtime-Reg Contributions-Retirement Contributions-lnsurance 82,074 85,595 87,600 87,600 L2,244 t2,314 t2,674 13,654 674 13,300 14,500 800 13,500 14,500 0.00/o 0.00/o 1.50/o 0.00/o 0.00/o 89,500 13,500 16,000 Workers 4300 Fees, Services 4340 Printing & Publishing 4370 Travel&Training 29,595 38,001 30,00030,000 0.0% 0.00/o 0.00/o 30,000 500 300 500 300 500 300 4483 Insurance 15,000 15,000 ,941 Revenue Over/(Under) Expenditures SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2020 2021 52,767 78,587 23,500 22,300 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 33,900 2017 Actual za21 Estimate 20t9 2020 20202018 ** Total Revenue 190,000 ..1-9q,000 (L.10/o)- 1q81090 190,000 188;000 (1'10lo) '188,000 3,326 7,647 2,000 3,000 50.0%3,000 I 3,326 7,647 238,627191,129 2,000 3,000 50.0%3,000 (0.5%) 1e1,000 Total Personal Services 4120 Supplies-Equipment* Total Materials & Supplies 31,095 39,501 \16,200 176,400 5,000 0.20/o 0.00/o 119,800 5,0005,000 5,000 5,000 0.00/o 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 32,300 32,300 0.00/o 32,300 15,0000.0% 0.00/o 4705 0ther Equipment 4706 Otherlmprovements* Total Capital Outlay 7,947 15,000 15,000 0.00/o ** Totat Expenditures L38,362 160,040 168,500 168,700 o.!o/o 157,100 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Met Council Water Efficiency Grant Acceptance Letter 11­18­2019 Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: J.1. Prepared By File No:  ATTACHMENTS: Met Council Water Efficiency Grant Acceptance Letter 11­18­2019 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Rate Adjustment Letter from Mediacom dated 11­21­2019 Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: J.2. Prepared By File No:  ATTACHMENTS: Mediacom Letter 11­21­2019 1leil iln S'"L'^ c'L' Medi acom Theresa Sunde Senior Manager, Government Relations Vio USPS Moil November 2L,2OL9 Dear Chanhassen Community Official The purpose of this letter is to inform you that with the January, 2020 billing, Mediacom will be implementing the following rate adjustments:1 Prod uct:Old Rate:New Rate:Net Change: Local Broadcast Station Surcharge2 s14.73 s16.s7 s1.84 Regional Sports Su rcha rge s4.88 st.e1 s6.7e TV Essentials ss9.9s Sog.gs s10.oo Family TV s80.49 S84.ss S+.so Prime TV se6.49 s100.99 s4.s0 HD DTA Ss.gs So.oo Sz.or SD DTA Sg.gg S6.oo s2.01 Sta rz s11.00 s12.00 s1.00 Xtream Bronze s169.98 s179.98 s10.00 Xtream Silver s189.98 s199.98 s10.00 Xtream Gold s209.98 s219.98 s10.00 Xtream Platinum s229.98 s239.98 Sro.oo TV Essentials 60 s149.98 s1s9.98 Sro.oo Family 60 Plus s2os.s8 s21e.e8 Sro.oo Trip Charge 52e.00 s49.00 s20.00 ln addition, several packages which are no longer offered for sale to new customers will also be going up in price by 510.00 per month. Those include the Elite Pak, Whole Home Pak, Performance Pak and One Star Packages. ' Depending on the terms of each customer's promotional package, these rate changes may not impact a customer until their current promotional package expires. 2 Mediacom bills monthly in advance. As a result, the increases for both the Local Broadcast Surcharge and Regional Sports Surcharge arc based on our best estimate of the cost increases our company will incur for broadcast and regional sports programming. Mediacom will "true up" customer bills in a subsequent month if it turns out that our estimate was too high or too low. Mediacom Communications Corporation 15O4 2"d Street SE, PO Box ll0. Waseca, Minnesota 56093 Despite massive customer migration away from traditional pay TV services, the owners of the channels we carry continue to raise their rates. lnstead of adjusting their prices to help slow customer losses, the channel owners are getting even more aggressive, driving prices higher and higher for the remaining cable and satellite customers. At the same time, many of these same channel owners are making much of their content available direct to consumer over the internet in smaller packages and, in many cases, for better prices. The long-term effect of all the price increases pushed down by the channel owners onto cable and satellite companies is that traditional video bundle is no longer affordable. This has forced many consumers to migrate to web based over-the-top services for their entertainment needs. It is becoming more evident that the future of video is over the internet, so we have tried to make it easy for customers to access content online by deploying consumer friendly TiVo devices that easily navigate between traditionaltelevision and over-the-top services like Netflix and Hulu. ln addition, we have continued to invest in our fiber-rich network to make sure our customers have access to the ultra-fast broadband speeds needed to support bandwidth intensive online video services they are increasingly using. To accommodate price sensitive customers, Mediacom introduced a lower cost broadband service earlier this year called Access lnternet 60 with retail price of $29.99. ln addition, Mediacom has broadly launched a low-cost internet service for low-income customers featuring 10 Mbps download speeds for $9.95 per month. The service, called Connect2com pete, is offered in partnership with EveryoneOn and is available to families with students participating in the National School Lunch Program. Additional information is available at www.media omc2c.coc m Mediacom appreciates the opportunity to continue to serve your community's telecomm u nications needs. lf you have any questions, please contact me directly at (507) 831-4878 or tsu nd e(a med iacomcc.com. Customers with inquiries should call 855-633-4226 TTtseta,Sunde The decision to make price adjustments is always a difficult one as we know when we raise prices, we lose customers. This is an issue plaguing our entire industry. Analysts project that cable and satellite companies will lose over 6 million video customers in 2019 and over 6 million more in 2020. AT&T/DirecTV lost over 1.4 million customers in the 3rd quarter of 2019 alone. Sincerely, CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Letter from Robert Lindall of Kennedy & Graven dated 12­02­2019 Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: J.3. Prepared By File No:  ATTACHMENTS: Letter From Robert Lindall 12­02­2019 ravenG Offices in Minneapolis Saint Paul St. Cloud 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 telePhone (612) 337-9310 lx www. kennedy-graven. com A-ffirmative Action, Equal Oppomrniry EmployercHARTERED ROBERT J. LINDALL AttomeY at Law Direct Dial (612) 337'9219 Real ProPertY Law SPecialist Certified By Minnesota State Bar Association December 2,2019 Todd Gerhardt City of Chanhassen City Manager 7700 Market Boulevard P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: City of Chanhassen v. PCH Development, LLC, et al Reconstruction and Expansion of CSAH l0l-Pioneer Trail to CSAH 61 Court File No. 10-CV-19-1132 Dear Todd: Thank you for the opportunity to represent the City of Chanhassen in this matter. The condemnation petition has been filit with the Court and the notice of the City's intention to take title and possession of the condemned property interests as of February 18,2A7O has been served' The Court hearing for approval of tne petilion is scheduled for January 7,2020 at 8:30am. Service of the condemnation p.iition and notice of hearing upon the affected parties is underway. After 50 years in the practice of law, I have decided to retire, as of December 31, 20L9' I hope to ;;il;iliFl-inirauy on February 2g,2o2o,so I would like to enjoy more time with my wife and ro-ir,,-or.t o,f,a1y,"r-e4rc. oflretiregenj w},i!€ I arn Still in good health. IarirrrJ-dre *- Len Jvi My colleague, Doug Shaftel, will be taking overthe Chanhassen condemnation from me. Doug is a shareholder in our fir-, i. a graduate of th-e Northwestern University School of Law and has extensive experience in eminent domain law. As an Assistant Attomey General, he represented the State of Washington Department of Transportation in eminent domain matters for seven years before joining Kennedy & Graven. Since joinin! us six years ago, a substantial share of his practice has involved eminent domain matters, inctuaing representatioiof the Metropolitan Council, the City of Minneapolis and various other condemning uuIloritier. Doug can be reached at612'337-9248, or by email to dshaftel@kennedy- graven.com. Doug will be assisted by Abby Jacobson and Nick valle, both of whom are associates with our firm. Abby has been an attorney for five years. Nick recently completed a judicial clerkship' Both of them will te spending a substantial portion of their time on eminent domain matters. This has been a very difficult decision for me because I have greatly enjoyed workilg with you, Bruce Loney, and membeis of the Project team, and the opportunity to work on public projects' 624329v2CH135-61 Between now and December 31,2019,1 will be transitioning my files and information to Doug. He and I will both be available during this interim period to assure that we continue to respond to any issues that present themselves. Doug and I would be happy to meet with you and members of the Project team to enable anyone who has not previously met Doug to get to know him and to discuss any issues which are in need of being addressed in the near term. Best wishes to you and members of the Project team, as you complete the Project. 'Trufu Robert J. Lindall RJL/cr cc. Bruce Loney, P.E. Jon Horn, P.E. Sonya Henning, P.E. Darin Mielke, P.E. Pat Lambert Steve Carlson CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Review of Claims Paid 12­09­2019 Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: J.4. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No:  SUMMARY The following claims are submitted for review on December 09, 2019: Check Numbers Amounts 172106 – 172217 $951,752.58 ACH Payments $1,645,187.56 Total All Claims $2,596,940.14 ATTACHMENTS: Check Summary Check Summary ACH Check Detail Check Detail ACH Accounts Payable User: Printed: dwashburn 12/2/2019 10:14 AM Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount 861LLP 8610 LLP 11/21/2019 0.00 186,207.00172106 UB*01838 JAMES AKERHIELM 11/21/2019 0.00 10.48172107 UB*01831 ANCONA TITLE 11/21/2019 0.00 23.45172108 ANDEJOAN Joan Anderson 11/21/2019 0.00 75.00172109 AVIBUI AVID BUILDERS 11/21/2019 0.00 250.00172110 UB*01848 BANKERS TITLE 11/21/2019 0.00 14.44172111 BCATRA BCA 11/21/2019 0.00 15.00172112 BollAnd Bollig & Sons, Inc.11/21/2019 0.00 500.00172113 BOYSCO BOY SCOUT TROOP 330 11/21/2019 0.00 290.00172114 BOYBUI BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION 11/21/2019 0.00 5,900.00172115 BROSHARO HAROLD BROSE 11/21/2019 0.00 32.00172116 UB*01825 BURNET TITLE 11/21/2019 0.00 8.36172117 UB*01826 BURNET TITLE 11/21/2019 VOID 7.68 0.00172118 UB*01842 BURNET TITLE 11/21/2019 0.00 37.40172119 UB*01849 BURNET TITLE 11/21/2019 0.00 158.27172120 CEMPRO CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 11/21/2019 0.00 1,096.00172121 CHANLAI CHAN-O-LAIRES 11/21/2019 0.00 100.00172122 CHAPET CITY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH 11/21/2019 0.00 104.24172123 COEMAT MATTHYS JAY COETZEE 11/21/2019 0.00 500.00172124 CTRCON CONTROL CONCEPTS 11/21/2019 0.00 335,711.00172125 CORMAI CORE & MAIN LP 11/21/2019 0.00 426.42172126 CULLIG CULLIGAN 11/21/2019 0.00 52.47172127 UB*01836 CUSTOM HOMES BUILDERS TITLE 11/21/2019 0.00 16.98172128 CUTABO CUT ABOVE INC 11/21/2019 0.00 3,500.00172129 DiveCons Diverse Construction Services, LLC 11/21/2019 0.00 924.00172130 DORTEC DOOR TECH SYSTEMS 11/21/2019 0.00 1,229.00172131 UB*01833 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP 11/21/2019 0.00 17.55172132 UB*01834 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP LC 11/21/2019 0.00 144.28172133 UB*01844 EDINA REALTY TITLE 11/21/2019 0.00 145.93172134 EHLERS EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2019 0.00 2,802.50172135 UB*01845 EXECUTIVE TITLE SERVICES 11/21/2019 0.00 29.23172136 FACMOT FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 11/21/2019 0.00 201.04172137 FIRHEA FIRESIDE HEARTH & HOME 11/21/2019 0.00 9.61172138 FLOTOT FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 11/21/2019 0.00 12.19172139 UB*01841 JOHN & DIANNE FUDALA 11/21/2019 0.00 109.59172140 GERHTODD TODD GERHARDT 11/21/2019 0.00 189.46172141 HERLAN HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 11/21/2019 0.00 192.00172142 HOOPTHRE Hoops & Threads LLC 11/21/2019 0.00 18.00172143 ICMART ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 11/21/2019 0.00 1,366.67172144 UB*01828 KRISTI KAHANA 11/21/2019 0.00 26.68172145 KENGRA KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 11/21/2019 0.00 1,048.10172146 KEUSSTEV STEVEN KEUSEMAN 11/21/2019 0.00 250.00172147 MATSCH MATTSON SCHUSTER LLC 11/21/2019 0.00 750.00172148 UB*01840 TIMOTHY & JOANNA MEESTER 11/21/2019 0.00 62.00172149 METCO2 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 11/21/2019 VOID 39,362.40 0.00172150 UB*01823 MINNESOTA TITLE 11/21/2019 0.00 611.36172151 UB*01835 MINNESOTA TITLE 11/21/2019 0.00 10.24172152 Page 1AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (12/2/2019 10:14 AM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount UB*01832 MINNETONKA TITLE RESIDENTIAL TITLE SERVICES11/21/2019 0.00 5.81172153 MASS MN ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR SERV 11/21/2019 0.00 25.00172154 MNHEAL MN DEPT OF HEALTH 11/21/2019 0.00 13,398.00172155 NORASP NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC 11/21/2019 0.00 208,432.17172156 NORPOW NORTHWESTERN POWER EQUIP CO 11/21/2019 0.00 9,712.25172157 UB*01839 CRAIG & AMY PABICH 11/21/2019 0.00 46.47172158 PAIPAP Paint,Paper, Scissors 11/21/2019 0.00 250.00172159 UB*01830 PILLAR TITLE SERVICES 11/21/2019 0.00 75.44172160 UB*01843 CHRISTOPHER PRICCO 11/21/2019 0.00 80.90172161 UB*01846 RESULT TITLE 11/21/2019 0.00 26.21172162 UB*01847 THOMAS & HEIDI RUSCH 11/21/2019 0.00 108.56172163 SSDEVE S&S Development LLP 11/21/2019 0.00 93,552.00172164 SamLaw Sam's Lawn & Landscape 11/21/2019 0.00 900.00172165 SEH SEH 11/21/2019 0.00 4,324.41172166 SHEWIL SHERWIN WILLIAMS 11/21/2019 0.00 375.39172167 SIGNSO SIGNSOURCE 11/21/2019 0.00 55.50172168 ShaMde SMSC Organics Recycling Facility 11/21/2019 0.00 66.80172169 SOULOC SOUTHWEST LOCK & KEY 11/21/2019 0.00 188.50172170 STOCRA STONE CRAFT LLC 11/21/2019 0.00 500.00172171 MONSTR MONTANA STRAIT 11/21/2019 0.00 400.00172172 UB*01829 TITLE SMART INC 11/21/2019 0.00 133.19172173 UB*01837 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES 11/21/2019 0.00 10.53172174 UB*01850 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES INC 11/21/2019 0.00 156.50172175 TRUWES TruWest LLC 11/21/2019 0.00 2,500.00172176 TWOTEA TWO TEACHER CONSTRUCTION 11/21/2019 0.00 250.00172177 WastMana Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 11/21/2019 0.00 472.18172178 UB*01824 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 11/21/2019 0.00 58.89172179 UB*01827 ANN MARIE WILSON 11/21/2019 0.00 29.08172180 WINGRICH RICHARD WING 11/21/2019 0.00 100.00172181 AARP AARP 11/27/2019 0.00 485.00172182 ALLSTR ALLSTREAM 11/27/2019 0.00 490.84172183 ASPEQU Aspen Equipment 11/27/2019 0.00 376.50172184 BCATRA BCA 11/27/2019 0.00 180.00172185 CARPRO CARVER COUNTY 11/27/2019 0.00 10.00172186 CenLin CenturyLink 11/27/2019 0.00 59.63172187 CHASKA CITY OF CHASKA 11/27/2019 0.00 1,460.13172188 COMASP Commercial Asphalt Co 11/27/2019 0.00 320.46172189 ComMin Compass Minerals America, Inc 11/27/2019 0.00 11,696.99172190 CORMAI CORE & MAIN LP 11/27/2019 0.00 1,072.26172191 DRAGJOHN JOHN & RENA DRAGSETH 11/27/2019 0.00 1,218.90172192 ECOLAB ECOLAB 11/27/2019 0.00 76.32172193 GloEqu Global Equipment Company 11/27/2019 0.00 192.49172194 GOGYMN Go Gymnastics 11/27/2019 0.00 1,162.00172195 HENCOU HENNEPIN COUNTY 11/27/2019 0.00 4.44172196 HERLAN HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 11/27/2019 0.00 192.00172197 IROHAW IRONHAWK INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION11/27/2019 0.00 5,158.61172198 GRETRE STU JANIS 11/27/2019 0.00 225.00172199 JWPEP JW PEPPER & SON INC 11/27/2019 0.00 17.60172200 KENGRA KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 11/27/2019 0.00 19,793.65172201 L&RSub L & R Suburban Landscaping 11/27/2019 0.00 1,000.00172202 MADGAL MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN LLP 11/27/2019 0.00 561.00172203 MCKMED McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc 11/27/2019 0.00 169.03172204 RICMOR RICHARD MORRIS 11/27/2019 0.00 1,000.00172205 NatSho Natural Shore Technologies, Inc.11/27/2019 0.00 15,700.00172206 NORELE NORTH ELEVATION LLC 11/27/2019 0.00 3,000.00172207 NRDLan NRD LANDSCAPE 11/27/2019 0.00 500.00172208 NusTru Nuss Truck Group Inc 11/27/2019 0.00 235.00172209 Page 2AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (12/2/2019 10:14 AM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount POST POSTMASTER 11/27/2019 0.00 653.15172210 BLACOM JOSEPH RING 11/27/2019 0.00 250.00172211 SSDEVE S&S Development LLP 11/27/2019 0.00 1,000.00172212 SchmGera Gerald Schmitz 11/27/2019 0.00 1,401.74172213 Senja Senja Inc 11/27/2019 0.00 307.20172214 SIGNSO SIGNSOURCE 11/27/2019 0.00 360.00172215 UB*01851 YOSEMITE HOLDINGS LLC 11/27/2019 0.00 5.46172216 UB*01852 YOSEMITE HOLDINGS LLC 11/27/2019 0.00 5.46172217 Report Total (112 checks): 951,752.58 39,370.08 Page 3AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (12/2/2019 10:14 AM) Accounts Payable Checks by Date - Summary by Check User: dwashburn Printed: 12/2/2019 10:18 AM Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH A1ELE A-1 ELECTRIC SERVICE 11/21/2019 0.00 919.04 ACH AdvEng Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 11/21/2019 0.00 628.50 ACH OLSOANNI Annika Olson 11/21/2019 0.00 287.00 ACH carcou Carver County 11/21/2019 0.00 918,316.50 ACH DelDen Delta Dental 11/21/2019 0.00 2,550.10 ACH FASCOM FASTENAL COMPANY 11/21/2019 0.00 35.94 ACH FergEnte Ferguson Waterworks #2516 11/21/2019 0.00 1,486.26 ACH GMHASP GMH ASPHALT CORP 11/21/2019 0.00 437,256.22 ACH HAWCHE HAWKINS CHEMICAL 11/21/2019 0.00 15,440.65 ACH HenPro Henning Professional Services, Inc 11/21/2019 0.00 523.25 ACH HOIKOE HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP 11/21/2019 0.00 6,894.44 ACH IMPPOR IMPERIAL PORTA PALACE 11/21/2019 0.00 3,785.25 ACH InnOff Innovative Office Solutions LLC 11/21/2019 0.00 94.25 ACH JOHSUP JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 11/21/2019 0.00 78.07 ACH KIMHOR KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2019 0.00 18,190.00 ACH MinPum Minnesota Pump Works 11/21/2019 0.00 23,572.80 ACH MNLABO MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 11/21/2019 0.00 4,909.62 ACH MVEC MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 11/21/2019 0.00 131.10 ACH NAPA NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 11/21/2019 0.00 57.19 ACH PreWat Premium Waters, Inc 11/21/2019 0.00 12.30 ACH RBMSER RBM SERVICES INC 11/21/2019 0.00 7,054.47 ACH SPSCOM SPS COMPANIES INC 11/21/2019 0.00 385.57 ACH STRGUA STRATOGUARD LLC 11/21/2019 0.00 176.00 ACH MINCON SUMMIT COMPANIES 11/21/2019 0.00 2,890.00 ACH TWISEE TWIN CITY SEED CO. 11/21/2019 0.00 78.00 ACH UniFar United Farmers Cooperative 11/21/2019 0.00 399.96 ACH UNIWAY UNITED WAY 11/21/2019 0.00 29.40 ACH USABLU USA BLUE BOOK 11/21/2019 0.00 1,192.69 ACH WMMUE WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/21/2019 0.00 2,454.52 ACH WSB WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2019 0.00 44,005.00 ACH XCEL XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2019 0.00 7,158.41 ACH metco Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 11/22/2019 0.00 39,362.40 ACH AFLAC American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus 11/27/2019 0.00 39.78 ACH BOYTRU Boyer Ford Trucks 11/27/2019 0.00 422.92 ACH Choice Choice, Inc. 11/27/2019 0.00 195.52 ACH ColLif Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 11/27/2019 0.00 134.58 ACH EMEAUT EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 11/27/2019 0.00 197.43 ACH engwat Engel Water Testing Inc 11/27/2019 0.00 500.00 ACH Avesis Fidelity Security Life 11/27/2019 0.00 202.75 ACH ImaTre ImageTrend, Inc 11/27/2019 0.00 254.62 ACH InnOff Innovative Office Solutions LLC 11/27/2019 0.00 74.87 ACH JEFFIR JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 11/27/2019 0.00 3,079.45 ACH KIMHOR KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 11/27/2019 0.00 93,695.09 ACH MacEme Macqueen Emergengy Group 11/27/2019 0.00 55.17 ACH MRPA MN RECREATION & PARK ASSOC. 11/27/2019 0.00 545.00 ACH NAPA NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 11/27/2019 0.00 31.07 ACH DaniReem Reem Danial 11/27/2019 0.00 226.80 Page 1 of 2 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH SafVeh Safety Vehicle Solutions 11/27/2019 0.00 358.00 ACH Southwes Southwest Metro Chamber of Commerce 11/27/2019 0.00 840.00 ACH MINCON SUMMIT COMPANIES 11/27/2019 0.00 900.00 ACH UniFar United Farmers Cooperative 11/27/2019 0.00 69.95 ACH WMMUE WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/27/2019 0.00 1,887.36 ACH XCEL XCEL ENERGY INC 11/27/2019 0.00 1,122.30 Report Total: 0.00 1,645,187.56 Page 2 of 2 Accounts Payable Check Detail-Checks User: dwashburn Printed: 12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM Name Check Da Account Description Amount 8610 LLP 11/21/2019 815-8221-2024 8600 SHELBY COURT - HOLASEK BUSINESS PARK 186,207.00 8610 LLP 186,207.00 AARP 11/27/2019 101-1560-4300 1 AARP 12 NON AARP 255.00 AARP 11/27/2019 101-1560-4300 2 AARP 10 NON AARP 230.00 AARP 485.00 AKERHIELM JAMES 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.93 AKERHIELM JAMES 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 6.32 AKERHIELM JAMES 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.72 AKERHIELM JAMES 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.51 AKERHIELM JAMES 10.48 ALLSTREAM 11/27/2019 101-1160-4300 mitel phone system maintenance 490.84 ALLSTREAM 490.84 ANCONA TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 7.44 ANCONA TITLE 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 12.60 ANCONA TITLE 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.01 ANCONA TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.40 ANCONA TITLE 23.45 Anderson Joan 11/21/2019 101-1539-4300 Pickleball Lessons 75.00 Anderson Joan 75.00 Aspen Equipment 11/27/2019 101-1550-4140 HEADLIGHT 376.50 Aspen Equipment 376.50 AVID BUILDERS 11/21/2019 815-8202-2024 7531 BEACON CT - PERMIT 2017-00865 250.00 AVID BUILDERS 250.00 BANKERS TITLE 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 12.83 BANKERS TITLE 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.61 BANKERS TITLE 14.44 BCA 11/21/2019 101-1120-4300 SOLICITOR /EMPLOYEMENT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION 15.00 BCA 11/27/2019 101-1120-4300 BACKGROUND CHECK 180.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM)Page 1 of 10 Name Check Da Account Description Amount BCA 195.00 Bollig & Sons, Inc.11/21/2019 815-8202-2024 3738 HICKORY LANE - PERMIT 2019-00123 500.00 Bollig & Sons, Inc. 500.00 BOY SCOUT TROOP 330 11/21/2019 101-1220-4290 FIRE STATION 100.00 BOY SCOUT TROOP 330 11/21/2019 101-1170-4110 CITY HALL, BLDG, SENIOR CENTER 140.00 BOY SCOUT TROOP 330 11/21/2019 101-1370-4120 PW 50.00 BOY SCOUT TROOP 330 290.00 BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION 11/21/2019 815-8202-2024 3738 HICKORY LANE - PERMIT 2019-00062 5,900.00 BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION 5,900.00 BROSE HAROLD 11/21/2019 701-0000-4150 BALES OF HAY 32.00 BROSE HAROLD 32.00 BURNET TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 6.26 BURNET TITLE 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.10 BURNET TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 29.95 BURNET TITLE 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.64 BURNET TITLE 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.13 BURNET TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.68 BURNET TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 47.16 BURNET TITLE 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 78.81 BURNET TITLE 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 28.50 BURNET TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.80 BURNET TITLE 204.03 CARVER COUNTY 11/27/2019 101-1150-4300 TRUTH IN TAXATION COPY 10.00 CARVER COUNTY 10.00 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 11/21/2019 700-0000-4552 REPAIR SERVICES 548.00 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 11/21/2019 700-0000-4552 REPAIR SERVICES 548.00 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 1,096.00 CenturyLink 11/27/2019 700-7043-4310 MONTHLY SERVICE 59.63 CenturyLink 59.63 CHAN-O-LAIRES 11/21/2019 101-1560-4130 AFTERNOON DELIGHT CONCERT 100.00 CHAN-O-LAIRES 100.00 CITY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH 11/21/2019 101-1120-3903 NOTARY FEE 2.00 CITY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH 11/21/2019 605-6501-4300 BUILDING 60.00 CITY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH 11/21/2019 101-1170-4110 WATER 1.78 CITY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH 11/21/2019 101-1560-4130 SUPPLIES 30.00 CITY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH 11/21/2019 700-7012-4300 PERMIT 0.12 CITY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH 11/21/2019 701-0000-4300 PERMIT 0.04 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM)Page 2 of 10 Name Check Da Account Description Amount CITY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH 11/21/2019 101-1170-4300 REPAIR 0.08 CITY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH 11/21/2019 700-7019-4300 REPAIR 0.20 CITY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH 11/21/2019 101-1170-4300 REPAIR 0.04 CITY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH 11/21/2019 101-1170-4300 REPAIR 0.08 CITY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH 11/21/2019 101-1170-4300 REPAIR 0.04 CITY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH 11/21/2019 700-0000-4300 REPAIR 0.04 CITY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH 11/21/2019 101-1320-4300 REPAIR 0.32 CITY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH 11/21/2019 720-0000-4300 SURCHARGE OF CITY DEMO 9.50 CITY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH 104.24 CITY OF CHASKA 11/27/2019 101-1560-4300 EXPENSE OF SHOW - SHOJI TABUCHI/PARAMOUNT THEATER 1,460.13 CITY OF CHASKA 1,460.13 COETZEE MATTHYS JAY 11/21/2019 815-8202-2024 8768 LAKE RILEY DRIVE - PERMIT 2019-02563 500.00 COETZEE MATTHYS JAY 500.00 Commercial Asphalt Co 11/27/2019 420-0000-4751 ASPHALT 320.46 Commercial Asphalt Co 320.46 Compass Minerals America, Inc 11/27/2019 101-1320-4150 BULK COARSE LA - HWY 3,929.28 Compass Minerals America, Inc 11/27/2019 101-1320-4150 BULK COARSE LA - HWY 3,930.11 Compass Minerals America, Inc 11/27/2019 101-1320-4150 BULK COARSE LA - HWY 1,844.46 Compass Minerals America, Inc 11/27/2019 101-1320-4150 BULK COARSE LA - HWY 1,993.14 Compass Minerals America, Inc 11,696.99 CONTROL CONCEPTS 11/21/2019 815-8221-2024 PERMIT 2019-04 335,711.00 CONTROL CONCEPTS 335,711.00 CORE & MAIN LP 11/21/2019 700-0000-4550 SUPPLIES 418.40 CORE & MAIN LP 11/21/2019 420-0000-4751 SUPPLIES 8.02 CORE & MAIN LP 11/27/2019 700-0000-4150 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,072.26 CORE & MAIN LP 1,498.68 CULLIGAN 11/21/2019 101-0000-2033 Overpayment 52.47 CULLIGAN 52.47 CUSTOM HOMES BUILDERS TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.12 CUSTOM HOMES BUILDERS TITLE 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 7.20 CUSTOM HOMES BUILDERS TITLE 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.87 CUSTOM HOMES BUILDERS TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.79 CUSTOM HOMES BUILDERS TITLE 16.98 CUT ABOVE INC 11/21/2019 720-7202-4300 CITY TREE REMOVALS 3,500.00 CUT ABOVE INC 3,500.00 Diverse Construction Services, LLC 11/21/2019 101-1190-4300 REPAIR ON LIBRARY 924.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM)Page 3 of 10 Name Check Da Account Description Amount Diverse Construction Services, LLC 924.00 DOOR TECH SYSTEMS 11/21/2019 101-1220-4510 WORK ON FIRE STATION 1 AND LIFT STATION 24 1,229.00 DOOR TECH SYSTEMS 1,229.00 DRAGSETH JOHN & RENA 11/27/2019 601-6038-4300 DRIVEWAY PAVING REIMBURSEMENT 1,218.90 DRAGSETH JOHN & RENA 1,218.90 ECOLAB 11/27/2019 101-1430-4300 RINSE DRY - KITCHEN SUPPLIES 76.32 ECOLAB 76.32 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.64 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 6.58 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.59 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.74 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP 17.55 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP LC 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 32.84 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP LC 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 70.76 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP LC 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 35.90 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP LC 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.78 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP LC 144.28 EDINA REALTY TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 54.89 EDINA REALTY TITLE 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 66.60 EDINA REALTY TITLE 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 21.57 EDINA REALTY TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.87 EDINA REALTY TITLE 145.93 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2019 700-0000-4300 UTILITY RATE STUDY 934.17 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2019 701-0000-4300 UTILITY RATE STUDY 934.17 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2019 720-0000-4300 UTILITY RATE STUDY 934.16 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 2,802.50 EXECUTIVE TITLE SERVICES 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 29.23 EXECUTIVE TITLE SERVICES 29.23 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 11/21/2019 101-1550-4140 SUPPLIES 201.04 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 201.04 FIRESIDE HEARTH & HOME 11/21/2019 101-0000-2033 OVERPAYMENT 9.61 FIRESIDE HEARTH & HOME 9.61 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 11/21/2019 101-1190-4260 FOR POST INDICATOR VALUE 12.19 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM)Page 4 of 10 Name Check Da Account Description Amount FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 12.19 FUDALA JOHN & DIANNE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 36.59 FUDALA JOHN & DIANNE 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 65.02 FUDALA JOHN & DIANNE 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 7.04 FUDALA JOHN & DIANNE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.94 FUDALA JOHN & DIANNE 109.59 GERHARDT TODD 11/21/2019 101-1120-4370 UBER FEES - ICMA CONFERENCE 136.46 GERHARDT TODD 11/21/2019 101-1120-4360 ROTARY CLUB MONTLY MEMBERSHIP 53.00 GERHARDT TODD 189.46 Global Equipment Company 11/27/2019 700-0000-4150 SHIPPING CONTAINER 192.49 Global Equipment Company 192.49 Go Gymnastics 11/27/2019 101-1538-4300 CLASSES 1,162.00 Go Gymnastics 1,162.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY 11/27/2019 101-1150-4300 TRUTH IN TAXATION NOTICES 4.44 HENNEPIN COUNTY 4.44 HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 11/21/2019 101-1550-4150 DIRT 192.00 HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 11/27/2019 420-0000-4751 DIRT 192.00 HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 384.00 Hoops & Threads LLC 11/21/2019 700-0000-4240 EMBROIDERY 18.00 Hoops & Threads LLC 18.00 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 11/21/2019 101-0000-2009 11/22/2019 ID #304303 1,060.42 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 11/21/2019 700-0000-2009 11/22/2019 ID #304303 152.50 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 11/21/2019 701-0000-2009 11/22/2019 ID #304303 152.50 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 11/21/2019 720-0000-2009 11/22/2019 ID #304303 1.25 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 1,366.67 IRONHAWK INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION 11/27/2019 101-1320-4120 SNOW PLOW EQUIPMENT 5,158.61 IRONHAWK INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION 5,158.61 JANIS STU 11/27/2019 101-1560-4300 HOLIDAY LUNCHEON 225.00 JANIS STU 225.00 JW PEPPER & SON INC 11/27/2019 101-1560-4130 CHAN-O-LAIRES EXPENSE/MUSIC/EQUIP 17.60 JW PEPPER & SON INC 17.60 KAHANA KRISTI 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 12.08 KAHANA KRISTI 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 9.43 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM)Page 5 of 10 Name Check Da Account Description Amount KAHANA KRISTI 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.56 KAHANA KRISTI 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.61 KAHANA KRISTI 26.68 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 11/27/2019 605-6501-4300 LEGAL SERVICES 19,793.65 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 11/21/2019 601-0000-4300 FRANCHISE FEES 1,048.10 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 20,841.75 KEUSEMAN STEVEN 11/21/2019 815-8202-2024 3622 RED CEDAR PT RD - PERMIT 2018-03071 250.00 KEUSEMAN STEVEN 250.00 L & R Suburban Landscaping 11/27/2019 815-8203-2024 1435 HEMLOCK WAY 1,000.00 L & R Suburban Landscaping 1,000.00 MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN LLP 11/27/2019 101-1140-4302 LEGAL SERVICES 561.00 MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN LLP 561.00 MATTSON SCHUSTER LLC 11/21/2019 815-8202-2024 3622 RED CEDAR PT ROAD - PERMIT 2017-0063 500.00 MATTSON SCHUSTER LLC 11/21/2019 815-8202-2024 3622 RED CEDAR PT ROAD - PERMIT 2017-02177 250.00 MATTSON SCHUSTER LLC 750.00 McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc 11/27/2019 101-1220-4130 SUPPLIES 169.03 McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc 169.03 MEESTER TIMOTHY & JOANNA 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 62.00 MEESTER TIMOTHY & JOANNA 62.00 MINNESOTA TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 344.14 MINNESOTA TITLE 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 259.34 MINNESOTA TITLE 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 6.96 MINNESOTA TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.92 MINNESOTA TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.61 MINNESOTA TITLE 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 6.66 MINNESOTA TITLE 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.22 MINNESOTA TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.75 MINNESOTA TITLE 621.60 MINNETONKA TITLE RESIDENTIAL TITLE SERVICES11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.52 MINNETONKA TITLE RESIDENTIAL TITLE SERVICES11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.31 MINNETONKA TITLE RESIDENTIAL TITLE SERVICES11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.63 MINNETONKA TITLE RESIDENTIAL TITLE SERVICES11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.35 MINNETONKA TITLE RESIDENTIAL TITLE SERVICES 5.81 MN ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR SERV 11/21/2019 101-1560-4360 LACELLE CORDES DUES 25.00 MN ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR SERV 25.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM)Page 6 of 10 Name Check Da Account Description Amount MN DEPT OF HEALTH 11/21/2019 700-0000-4509 WATER SUPPLY SERVICE CONNECTION FEE 13,398.00 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 13,398.00 MORRIS RICHARD 11/27/2019 815-8203-2024 3790 LONE CEDAR LANE 1,000.00 MORRIS RICHARD 1,000.00 Natural Shore Technologies, Inc.11/27/2019 720-0000-4130 SUPPLIES 15,700.00 Natural Shore Technologies, Inc. 15,700.00 NORTH ELEVATION LLC 11/27/2019 815-8202-2024 7516 FRONTIER TRAIL - PERMIT 2018-03076 3,000.00 NORTH ELEVATION LLC 3,000.00 NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC 11/21/2019 601-6038-4751 ORCHARD LANE AREA STREET RECON 208,432.17 NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC 208,432.17 NORTHWESTERN POWER EQUIP CO 11/21/2019 700-0000-4530 SUPPLIES 9,712.25 NORTHWESTERN POWER EQUIP CO 9,712.25 NRD LANDSCAPE 11/27/2019 815-8203-2024 241 EASTWOOD CT 500.00 NRD LANDSCAPE 500.00 Nuss Truck Group Inc 11/27/2019 101-1370-4260 RENEWAL 235.00 Nuss Truck Group Inc 235.00 PABICH CRAIG & AMY 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 34.59 PABICH CRAIG & AMY 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 8.66 PABICH CRAIG & AMY 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.79 PABICH CRAIG & AMY 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.43 PABICH CRAIG & AMY 46.47 Paint,Paper, Scissors 11/21/2019 101-1560-4300 SUPPLIES 250.00 Paint,Paper, Scissors 250.00 PILLAR TITLE SERVICES 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 24.71 PILLAR TITLE SERVICES 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 36.26 PILLAR TITLE SERVICES 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 12.77 PILLAR TITLE SERVICES 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.70 PILLAR TITLE SERVICES 75.44 POSTMASTER 11/27/2019 700-0000-4330 PERMIT 14 326.57 POSTMASTER 11/27/2019 701-0000-4330 PERMIT 14 326.58 POSTMASTER 653.15 PRICCO CHRISTOPHER 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 19.52 PRICCO CHRISTOPHER 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 38.15 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM)Page 7 of 10 Name Check Da Account Description Amount PRICCO CHRISTOPHER 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 20.50 PRICCO CHRISTOPHER 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.73 PRICCO CHRISTOPHER 80.90 RESULT TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 8.63 RESULT TITLE 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 8.77 RESULT TITLE 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 7.78 RESULT TITLE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.03 RESULT TITLE 26.21 RING JOSEPH 11/27/2019 815-8203-2024 6339 TETON LANE 250.00 RING JOSEPH 250.00 RUSCH THOMAS & HEIDI 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 60.03 RUSCH THOMAS & HEIDI 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 24.12 RUSCH THOMAS & HEIDI 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 21.55 RUSCH THOMAS & HEIDI 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.86 RUSCH THOMAS & HEIDI 108.56 S&S Development LLP 11/21/2019 815-8221-2024 8600 SHELBY COURT - HOLASEK BUSINESS PARK 93,552.00 S&S Development LLP 11/27/2019 815-8203-2024 8610 GALPIN BLVD 1,000.00 S&S Development LLP 94,552.00 Sam's Lawn & Landscape 11/21/2019 601-6038-4751 IRRIGATION 825.00 Sam's Lawn & Landscape 11/21/2019 601-6044-4751 IRRIGATION 75.00 Sam's Lawn & Landscape 900.00 Schmitz Gerald 11/27/2019 601-6038-4300 Driveway Paving Reimbursement Request 1,401.74 Schmitz Gerald 1,401.74 SEH 11/21/2019 701-7052-4751 CHANH PP I&I STUDY 4,324.41 SEH 4,324.41 Senja Inc 11/27/2019 101-1539-4300 TAI CHI INSTRUCTION 307.20 Senja Inc 307.20 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 11/21/2019 701-0000-4150 PAINT 375.39 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 375.39 SIGNSOURCE 11/21/2019 101-1170-4110 NAME PLATE 55.50 SIGNSOURCE 11/27/2019 101-1220-4120 reflective graphics 205.00 SIGNSOURCE 11/27/2019 101-1220-4140 TRUCK GRAPHICS 155.00 SIGNSOURCE 415.50 SMSC Organics Recycling Facility 11/21/2019 101-1550-4300 ORF CHARGES OCT 2019 66.80 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM)Page 8 of 10 Name Check Da Account Description Amount SMSC Organics Recycling Facility 66.80 SOUTHWEST LOCK & KEY 11/21/2019 701-0000-4510 LOCKSET 188.50 SOUTHWEST LOCK & KEY 188.50 STONE CRAFT LLC 11/21/2019 815-8202-2024 7531 BEACON CT - PERMIT 2019-01834 500.00 STONE CRAFT LLC 500.00 STRAIT MONTANA 11/21/2019 101-1539-4300 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY CLASS 400.00 STRAIT MONTANA 400.00 TITLE SMART INC 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 39.80 TITLE SMART INC 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 65.96 TITLE SMART INC 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 24.21 TITLE SMART INC 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.22 TITLE SMART INC 133.19 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.17 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.62 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.18 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.56 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES 10.53 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES INC 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 129.98 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES INC 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 13.65 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES INC 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 11.36 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES INC 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.51 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES INC 156.50 TruWest LLC 11/21/2019 815-8226-2024 PERMIT 2019-00689 - 775 CROSSROADS COURT 2,500.00 TruWest LLC 2,500.00 TWO TEACHER CONSTRUCTION 11/21/2019 815-8202-2024 6910 RUBY LANE - PERMIT 2019-02924 250.00 TWO TEACHER CONSTRUCTION 250.00 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 11/21/2019 101-1550-4120 LAKE ANN PARK 472.18 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 472.18 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 11/21/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 33.07 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 11/21/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.16 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.78 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 20.88 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 58.89 WILSON ANN MARIE 11/21/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 29.08 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM)Page 9 of 10 Name Check Da Account Description Amount WILSON ANN MARIE 29.08 WING RICHARD 11/21/2019 101-1220-4350 STATION 2 CLEANER 100.00 WING RICHARD 100.00 YOSEMITE HOLDINGS LLC 11/27/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.46 YOSEMITE HOLDINGS LLC 11/27/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.46 YOSEMITE HOLDINGS LLC 10.92 951,752.58 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM)Page 10 of 10 Accounts Payable Check Detail-ACH User: dwashburn Printed: 12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM Name Check Da Account Description Amount A-1 ELECTRIC SERVICE 11/21/2019 701-0000-4551 LIFT STATION 29 191.25 A-1 ELECTRIC SERVICE 11/21/2019 701-0000-4551 DELL ROAD LIFT STATION 727.79 A-1 ELECTRIC SERVICE 919.04 Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 11/21/2019 701-0000-4300 Professional Services 628.50 Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 628.50 American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus 11/27/2019 101-0000-2008 NOVEMBER 2019 39.78 American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus 39.78 Boyer Ford Trucks 11/27/2019 101-1320-4140 OIL 422.92 Boyer Ford Trucks 422.92 Carver County 11/21/2019 101-1210-4300 POLICE CONTRACT 918,296.50 Carver County 11/21/2019 101-1550-4300 DISPOSAL 20.00 Carver County 918,316.50 Choice, Inc.11/27/2019 101-1220-4350 WORK COMPLETED 9.16 - 10.11 195.52 Choice, Inc. 195.52 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 11/27/2019 701-0000-2008 NOVEMBER 2019 36.93 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 11/27/2019 101-0000-2008 NOVEMBER 2019 60.72 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 11/27/2019 700-0000-2008 NOVEMBER 2019 36.93 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 134.58 Danial Reem 11/27/2019 101-1539-4300 zumba class 226.80 Danial Reem 226.80 Delta Dental 11/21/2019 720-0000-2013 DECEMBER 2019 118.41 Delta Dental 11/21/2019 101-0000-2013 DECEMBER 2019 1,876.00 Delta Dental 11/21/2019 101-0000-2013 DECEMBER 2019 - COBRA 30.20 Delta Dental 11/21/2019 210-0000-2013 DECEMBER 2019 24.93 Delta Dental 11/21/2019 700-0000-2013 DECEMBER 2019 265.38 Delta Dental 11/21/2019 701-0000-2013 DECEMBER 2019 235.18 Delta Dental 2,550.10 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 11/27/2019 700-0000-4120 VEHICLE SUPPLIES 55.33 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 11/27/2019 101-1320-4140 VEHICLE SUPPLIES 142.10 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM)Page 1 of 5 Name Check Da Account Description Amount EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 197.43 Engel Water Testing Inc 11/27/2019 700-0000-4300 25 WATER SAMPLES - NOVEMBER 2019 500.00 Engel Water Testing Inc 500.00 FASTENAL COMPANY 11/21/2019 700-0000-4150 SUPPLIES 8.48 FASTENAL COMPANY 11/21/2019 101-1320-4120 SUPPLIES 10.64 FASTENAL COMPANY 11/21/2019 101-1320-4120 SUPPLIES 16.82 FASTENAL COMPANY 35.94 Ferguson Waterworks #2516 11/21/2019 700-0000-4250 SUPPLIES 1,486.26 Ferguson Waterworks #2516 1,486.26 Fidelity Security Life 11/27/2019 101-0000-2007 DECEMBER 2019 167.67 Fidelity Security Life 11/27/2019 210-0000-2007 DECEMBER 2019 3.98 Fidelity Security Life 11/27/2019 700-0000-2007 DECEMBER 2019 18.03 Fidelity Security Life 11/27/2019 701-0000-2007 DECEMBER 2019 11.89 Fidelity Security Life 11/27/2019 720-0000-2007 DECEMBER 2019 1.18 Fidelity Security Life 202.75 GMH ASPHALT CORP 11/21/2019 601-6039-4751 PROJECT 18-02 437,256.22 GMH ASPHALT CORP 437,256.22 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 11/21/2019 700-7043-4160 CHEMICALS 8,067.69 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 11/21/2019 700-7019-4160 Chemicals 7,372.96 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 15,440.65 Henning Professional Services, Inc 11/21/2019 605-0000-4300 LABOR 523.25 Henning Professional Services, Inc 523.25 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP 11/21/2019 410-0000-4300 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,894.44 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP 6,894.44 ImageTrend, Inc 11/27/2019 101-1220-4300 FEE 254.62 ImageTrend, Inc 254.62 IMPERIAL PORTA PALACE 11/21/2019 101-1550-4410 PORTABLE RESTROOMS OCT 2019 3,785.25 IMPERIAL PORTA PALACE 3,785.25 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 11/21/2019 101-1170-4110 OFFICE SUPPLIES 94.25 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 11/27/2019 101-1170-4110 OFFICE SUPPLIES 74.87 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 169.12 JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 11/27/2019 400-4105-4705 HELMET 1,919.45 JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 11/27/2019 400-4105-4705 CLOTHING 1,160.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM)Page 2 of 5 Name Check Da Account Description Amount JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 3,079.45 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 11/21/2019 101-1190-4150 SEAL KIT FOR PUMP 78.07 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 78.07 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2019 601-6038-4300 SERVICES THROUGH SEPT 30, 2019 4,231.50 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2019 400-0000-1155 SERVICES THROUGH SEPT 30, 2019 13,958.50 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 11/27/2019 605-6501-4300 TH 101 RECONSTRUCTION - PRO ID 160511044.3 93,695.09 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 111,885.09 Macqueen Emergengy Group 11/27/2019 101-1320-4120 VEHICLE SUPPLIES 55.17 Macqueen Emergengy Group 55.17 Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 11/22/2019 101-1250-3816 October SAC -397.60 Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 11/22/2019 701-0000-2023 October SAC 39,760.00 Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 39,362.40 Minnesota Pump Works 11/21/2019 701-7025-4751 INSTALLATION OF NEW ABS VORTEX IMPELLER 23,572.80 Minnesota Pump Works 23,572.80 MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 11/21/2019 700-0000-4530 WEST WATER TREATMENT 10.00 MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 11/21/2019 101-1250-3818 PERMITS -99.87 MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 11/21/2019 101-0000-2022 PERMITS 4,999.49 MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 4,909.62 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSOC.11/27/2019 101-1520-4370 ANNUAL CONFERENCE 545.00 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSOC. 545.00 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 11/21/2019 101-1350-4320 BLUFF CRK & FLYING CLOUD DR 131.10 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 131.10 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 11/21/2019 101-1550-4140 SUPPLIES 37.50 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 11/21/2019 700-0000-4120 SUPPLIES 19.69 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 11/27/2019 101-1550-4120 VEHICLE SUPPLIES 31.07 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 88.26 Olson Annika 11/21/2019 101-1538-4300 BABYSITTING SAFETY TRAINING 287.00 Olson Annika 287.00 Premium Waters, Inc 11/21/2019 101-1550-4120 LAKE ANN DRIVE 12.30 Premium Waters, Inc 12.30 RBM SERVICES INC 11/21/2019 101-1190-4350 JANITORIAL 3,471.10 RBM SERVICES INC 11/21/2019 101-1170-4350 JANITORIAL 3,583.37 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM)Page 3 of 5 Name Check Da Account Description Amount RBM SERVICES INC 7,054.47 Safety Vehicle Solutions 11/27/2019 101-1220-4510 VEHICLE EQUIPMENT 358.00 Safety Vehicle Solutions 358.00 Southwest Metro Chamber of Commerce 11/27/2019 101-1110-4360 MEMBER INVESTMENT 840.00 Southwest Metro Chamber of Commerce 840.00 SPS COMPANIES INC 11/21/2019 101-1370-4510 ELECTRONIC MODULE CLOSET ONLY 144.88 SPS COMPANIES INC 11/21/2019 101-1370-4510 ELECTRONIC MODULE CLOSET ONLY 144.88 SPS COMPANIES INC 11/21/2019 101-1370-4510 RELIEF VALUE 95.81 SPS COMPANIES INC 385.57 STRATOGUARD LLC 11/21/2019 101-1160-4300 PROOFPOINT EMAIL 176.00 STRATOGUARD LLC 176.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 11/21/2019 101-1370-4300 SPRINKLER INSPECTION 245.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 11/21/2019 101-1220-4300 SPRINKLER INSPECTION 195.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 11/21/2019 101-1190-4300 SPRINKLER INSPECTION 195.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 11/21/2019 101-1170-4300 SPRINKLER INSPECTION 230.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 11/21/2019 101-1370-4300 FIRE ALARM INSPECTION 400.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 11/21/2019 101-1220-4300 FIRE ALARM INSPECTION 400.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 11/21/2019 101-1170-4300 FIRE ALARM INSPECTION 300.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 11/21/2019 101-1170-4300 FIRE ALARM INSPECTION 400.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 11/21/2019 101-1550-4300 FIRE ALARM INSPECTION 200.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 11/21/2019 101-1550-4300 SPRINKLER INSPECTION 325.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 11/27/2019 700-7043-4510 ANNUAL FIRE ALARM INSPECTIONS 310.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 11/27/2019 700-7019-4300 ANNUAL SPRINKLER INSPECTION 390.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 11/27/2019 700-7019-4300 ANNUAL FIRE ALARM INSPECTION 200.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 3,790.00 TWIN CITY SEED CO.11/21/2019 701-0000-4150 COVER GROW MULCH PELLETS 78.00 TWIN CITY SEED CO. 78.00 United Farmers Cooperative 11/21/2019 101-1320-4260 STIHL BACKPACK BLOWER 399.96 United Farmers Cooperative 11/27/2019 101-1220-4120 FIRE DEPT 69.95 United Farmers Cooperative 469.91 UNITED WAY 11/21/2019 101-0000-2006 PR Batch 00422.11.2019 United Way 29.40 UNITED WAY 29.40 USA BLUE BOOK 11/21/2019 700-0000-4530 DIECUT LETTERING 1,260.11 USA BLUE BOOK 11/21/2019 700-7043-4510 DIECUT LETTERING -67.42 USA BLUE BOOK 1,192.69 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/21/2019 420-0000-4751 GRAVEL 132.60 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/21/2019 420-0000-4751 GRAVEL 175.10 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM)Page 4 of 5 Name Check Da Account Description Amount WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/21/2019 700-0000-4150 GRAVEL 139.94 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/21/2019 700-0000-4552 GRAVEL 2,006.88 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/27/2019 420-0000-4751 BLACKTOP 304.50 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/27/2019 700-0000-4150 BLACKTOP 99.51 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 11/27/2019 420-0000-4751 BLACKTOP 1,483.35 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 4,341.88 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2019 601-6039-4752 PROJECT 18-02 19,591.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2019 601-6038-4752 PROJECT 18-01 11,402.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2019 601-6038-4752 PROJECT 18-01 4,830.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 11/21/2019 601-6039-4752 PROJECT 18-02 8,182.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 44,005.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2019 700-0000-4320 ELECTRICITY -2.75 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2019 101-1350-4320 ELECTRICITY 11.02 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2019 101-1350-4320 ELECTRICITY 11.02 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2019 101-1350-4320 ELECTRICITY 10.72 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2019 700-7043-4320 ELECTRICITY 4,728.92 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2019 101-1600-4320 ELECTRICITY 11.74 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2019 101-1600-4320 ELECTRICITY -8.71 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2019 101-1350-4320 ELECTRICITY 105.06 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2019 700-7019-4320 ELECTRICITY 2,288.38 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/21/2019 101-1350-4320 ELECTRICITY 3.01 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/27/2019 700-0000-4320 LIFT STATION 30, 25, 1, 4, 5, 15 117.17 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/27/2019 700-0000-4320 WELL NO 8 1,975.56 XCEL ENERGY INC 11/27/2019 701-0000-4320 LIFT STATION 30, 25, 1, 4, 5, 15 -970.43 XCEL ENERGY INC 8,280.71 1,645,187.56 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (12/02/2019 - 10:18 AM)Page 5 of 5 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject 2019 Building Permit Activity through December 1, 2019 Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: J.5. Prepared By File No:  ATTACHMENTS: 2019 Building Permit Activity through 12­1­2019 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Bouleva Chanhassen, MN 55 952-227-1100 2019 Building Permit Activity Thru Dec. lr20l9 37117l54Residential Single-FamilY 0 l86012Residential Townhomes 00000Apartments/Senior Facilities 5527274Total Residential 300J0New 1I000Redeveloped 53206t4l3Remodeled 57237t4t3Total Commercial 75 1238199Single-Family Lots 43 244961Residential Townhome Lots I l8 147130160Total Available Lots 49485510057Single-Family 56124096Townhomes 26876000Apartments/S enior Facilities 581096710982Commercial 43r233134235213Total Number of All Permits \\cfs5\cfs5\shared_data\admin\forms\building permit activity 2019 ytd.doc Residential Building Permits I't Quarter 2od Quarter 3'd Quarter YTD 4th Quarter Total YTD Commercial Building Permits 1't Quarter 2nd Quarter 3'd Quarter YTD 4th Quarter Total YTD Available Lot Inventory (end 1't Quarter 2nd Quarter 3"d Quarter YTD 4th Quarter Total Permit History 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, December 9, 2019 Subject Building Permit Data as of December 4, 2019 Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: J.6. Prepared By File No:  ATTACHMENTS: Building Permit Data 11­04­2019 1214t20192019 BUILDING PERMIT DATA 3-4 FAMILY I 5 OR MORE FAMILY ] Subtotal ldio!23trit!@EJe8 HOTELSA,IOTEL"S OTHER Subtolal I@ lAmumot lChurche llndusrial ATT 2.FAMILY Works 213 126 2 2 I $0 t2 I 6 6 BItbE 6 ___l _-', -E Itl I 6 5 5 5 BER 1 2 2 2 )FCEMBER 50 I 12 ALS 3 I $o $0 $0 othff thm Subtohl or more I 99 $0 t08 $0 7 4 134 7 I SO I 100 -l I l 3 8 8 #Dw/01 $0 871 $o 791 sl9? l2 \\CfSs\CfS5\ShATEd_DAIA\PLAN\CENSUS\RPT 201 9 AI IGI ]ST lJtri! ---'1 - . r- $0 I $s.400.000 I_i-I- t---l $0 q7 1]s 000 gg . @ . . I