Loading...
1984 01 23 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 23, 1984 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilmen Horn and Geving, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson Staff Present Don Ashworth, Bill Monk, Scott Martin, Roger Knutson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the agenda as presented-'ncluding discussion on railroad crossings, Teich dump, and signs. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the following con- sent agenda items pursuant to the recommendations of the City Manager. a. Final Plat, Barnett's First Addition. b. Planning Commission reappointments. (Susan Albee, Mike Thompson) c. Accept Jack Mauritz's resignation from the Park and Recreation Commission. d. Budget Adjustment, Chanhassen Fire Department, Re-allocate money for furnace repair. RESOLUTION #84-01 e. Sunnybrook Development Group, IRB proposal, February 27, 1984, public hearing. RESOLUTION #84-02 Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING EXTENSION OF INTERIM ORDINANCE PROHIBITING FAST FOOD RESTAURANT CONSTRUCTION Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to-orde~ Mayor Hamilton - Is there anyone here from the public who would like to make a comment about the proposed extension of a fast food moratorium? Don Ashworth - We did receive one letter from Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, & Lundgren, LTD, representing Mr. Mason. They basically are asking the Council not to put this moratorium through as it may adversely affect their cl ient. Mayor Hamilton - Scott, can you tell us what time frame we are projecting right now as far as completion of the revised Zoning Ordinance. Scott Martin - I am expecting to get the final proposed public hearing draft probably in the next ten days to two weeks from the consultant. The City Attorney and I will require two to three weeks to review the con- sultants draft. By mid to late February we should be able to give the draft to the Council and Planning commission for review prior to public imput. That would take us to mid-March and we talked about a joint meeting between the Council and the Planning Commission at the end of March to discuss any major problems and then calling public hearings sometime late April. I guess to be safe I wouldn't see the new Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances being adopted before July 1st. Council Meeting January 23, 1984 -2- Mayor Hamilton - Staff has noted that an additional nine month exten- sion to the previously adopted interim ordinance is permissible under the law. We may in fact be finished with the new Zoning Ordinance before that time. Scott Martin - You may wish to extend the interim ordinance to a certain date or until such time as the new Zoning Ordinance is adopted, whichever occurs first. I Roger Knutson - I don't have all the background on this. My knowledge is basically based on this January 20th letter from Mr. Sellergren. There is nothing that I see in here that would prohibit you from passing a mora- torium if that is your desire. Although I have not seen his July 28, 1982 and March 21, 1983, letters. There is nothing that I know of that would prohibit you from doing this. Councilman Geving - In the event, Mr. Knutson, that Mr. Mason does have a client and the client does not purchase this property as a result of some action on the part of the City tonight, what position would we be in in terms of litigation? Do we have strong grounds to continue our moratorium in light of this information? Roger Knutson - That information does not concern me from a legal perspec- tive. This would be no different actually than if you had reached that point and you were going to rezone that property this evening. If you were to rezone it presumably if somebody wanted to buy it for a fast food and they had that in mind and you had rezoned it to something that prohibited that they wouldn't buy either. No one has particular zoning rights until I they actually build and since there is nothing built there, the property owner has no vested interest. Councilman Geving - Even on the part of land that Mr. Mason cut away from McDonald's property. Roger Knutson - Assuming that there are some other permitted uses that land could reasonably be put to under the Zoning Ordinance. Councilwoman Watson - What about the gap between the first and second reading? Don Ashworth - Typical Council procedures are to have a first and second reading. Under your procedures you can waive a second reading by 4/5th vote of the Council. Roger, would you restate whether or not that would be a good idea or bad idea. Roger Knutson - If you want to insure that in the next couple of weeks that no one comes in and requests a building permit then you best be about imposing a moratorium. If you are not concerned about that then, of course, you can go to a second reading. Legally, you have every right to waive the second reading and adopt the proposed ordinance this evening. Mayor Hamilton - The second reading would be two weeks from this evening or whenever our next regularly scheduled meeting is? Don Ashworth - February 6th. I Roger Knutson - It's possible that that wouldn't create a problem because he is just talking about a perspective builder right now. I I I Council Meeting January 23, 1984 -3- Councilwoman Watson - Procedurally, it is not a problem to have a first and second reading occur on the same night? Roger Knutson - No. Many communities have no second reading. They just pass it the first time around. Mayor Hamilton - Since the property owner in that area, Mr. Mason, has expressed his wishes in a letter through his attorney and there are no other people here to comment, I would suspect then that it really would be reasonable for us to pass and not have a second reading. Councilwoman Swenson - In the third paragraph of Mr. Se1lergren's letter, "Second, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355 authorizes a moratorium and a "extension" thereof for specified periods of time for specified reasons. Since the ordinance lapsed, it can no longer be "extended." Technically, there is no longer any statutory authority for the moratorium." Would you comment on that? Roger Knutson - You can make that argument. I don't think it's a par- ticularly good argument. I am not saying it's impossible that some judge won't buy it. Councilwoman Swenson - Would you say that this is consistent with the pre- vious action of the Council, therefore, it could not be conceived as being arbitrary? Mayor Hamilton - We passed this moratorium hoping to have our ordinances rewritten by the first of this year. They have not been finished and clearly everybody knows who was involved in this the first time around that that was our intent. Consequently, our intent hasn't been finished yet. I don't see any problem with extending it. Roger Knutson - I have a difficult time imagining anyone calling this arbitrary when you already have your Planning Commission actively pursuing this. Councilwoman Watson moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. INTERIM ORDINANCE PROHIBITING FAST FOOD RESTAURANT CONSTRUCTION: Mayor Hamilton moved to dispense wit~e-second reading of the proposed Interim Ordinance. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved to extend the Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting the Construction of Fast Food Restaurants with certain area of the City for a period of nine months or until the new Zoning Ordinance has been adopted, whichever occurs first. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Councilman Horn moved to approve the December 31, 1983, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting January 23, 1984 -4- Councilwoman Watson moved to note the December 14, 1983, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I ARCADE AMUSEMENT DEVICE ORDINANCE: Don Ashworth - The section under arcade was slightly changed. After the last Council discussion there was a question as to whether or not we were including arcade in that ordinance or not and Mr. Knutson did modify it to provide a definition for arcade, meaning five or more machines. A major concern by the Council appeared to be one of insuring that minors weren't abusing the mechanical amusement devices. Councilman Geving moved to approve an Ordinance Regulating and Licensing Mechanical Amusement Devices and Arcade Amusement Centers and Providing a Penalty for Violation. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #84-03: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution establishing an annual amusement device or arcade amusement center license fee at $25.00 for each device. Resolution seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. BILLS: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the bills as presented: Checks #015097 through #015229 in the amount of $843,013.86 and Checks I #019653 through #019728 in the amount of $1,626,005.30. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. 201 PROGRAM COSTS: Bill Monk - The contractor's bids have been received by the county. I have tried~let everybody know in the project what they could expect their local share costs to be. Most of them are in line. The ones that have changed the most are the Dogwood community because that is a community mound which is new technology. At this point, what the Council needs to do is to make a final decision on whether it's a go or no go on this project and if they decide to move forward as in the past, approve a motion recom- mending the County Board proceed with the program and award the contracts to the low bidders. I have talked to a lot of the participants late last week and today about the program. I haven't heard any negative impact. There are some people here who may wish to make comments but basically nothing has changed and the numbers are being presented to give everyone one last look before we proceed. Councilman Geving - I am concerned about the Dogwood and whether or not those people have been contacted individually and whether they still have an opportunity to opt out. Bill Monk - They do. The problem would be if one opts out and the other I two don't. Everyone has received a copy of this report. I I I Council Meeting January 23, 1984 Martin Jones - Why is there such single on-site system? My cost, to an average of around $2,000. or just twice as costly? -5- disparity between the mound system and the apparently is going to be $4,135 compared Is that because my system is twice as good Bill Monk - It's the design criteria that has been set by the PCA for a community mound versus a single mound. The amount of sand, the amount of drainfield, and just the overall criteria that must be met for a community system where there is more than one person on that system and because of all those requirements, the depth of the fill has to go in, the pure sand, the length of all lateral lines, that is the cost differential. Councilman Horn - Couldn't this be reconfigured at this point to put those on individuar-basis. Bill Monk - The reason that they had to go to the joint mound system was that mound systems could not be placed on the individual lots. There was not enough area to incorporate the size mound that was required and that was the reason that we had to go to this. We tried everything we could to get around this but we couldn't meet the criteria on site. Martin Jones - This land that is going to be used for the system that's across the road, this land is purchased? Bill Monk - Yes. Martin Jones - Do I become a title holder to that land? ~ Monk - The City does because the City maintains the system. Martin Jones - At an annual fee of whatever. Bill Monk - That will have to be figured. It would be an annual fee. So rar-t~umbers are in the $30 to $50 per quarter range. Martin Jones - They maintain the access into it. Bill Monk - Yes, as much as I don't want to. Martin Jones - What was the cost of the land? Bill Monk - The appraisal on that property was $3,000 and that is 96% grant eligi~ Martin Jones - How much property is being taken off that? Bill Monk - I believe it's between one and two acres. Martin Jones - What about the guarantee of the workability of this par- ticular system? Is it guaranteed through my assessment until I am done paying for it? If so, am I going to be stuck paying for rebuilding a new system? Bill Monk - It will be the same guarantee there always is on any project that goes in the ground. The only problem with this type of a mound is there are so few in the ground right now that the life of the mound is questionable. It comes back to the City is required in this community Council Meeting January 23, 1984 -6- mound system to basically maintain them and there setup allows for backup mounds within the system so that is one fails you can switch over to the other. Hopefully, all that is built into the design so that it can be guaranteed for a lifetime of ten or fifteen years at a minimum. Ken ~ - I live on West 96th Street. At one of the original hearings I had a couple questions and I expressed my concern on the project. The one concern that I am still somewhat concerned about is the fact that I think originally the proposal was to put in a 2" line to pump water only into a drainfield system and now they are going to hook up at Lake Riley. If you are going to go to the extent of digging up the road and peoples yards and hooking into an existing sewer system, why wasn't the decision made to go to a full sewer system rather than just a water main? I Bill Monk - The reason the mains are being kept smaller is size for the West 96th Street system is because if we go any bigger they are not grant eligible and the whole theory behind this thing was to keep the costs down by using the grant. They will not allow anything larger than a 4" pipe to be used and that's what we are going to use in the street. Ken ~ - If their concern is improving the pollution, why are they spending all that money for then. Why not do it right? Bill Monk - We went over this a number of times with PCA and all I can tell you is-the requirements that they have on the system. Ken ~ - I am paying $2,650 and I still can't put a toilet in my basement because I have got to pump all that basement water up and so do most of the I people along the south side of West 96th Street. I am paying for something that, to me, is not going to improve my system one bit. I have never had trouble with it. Bill Monk - There is a possibility and one thing that we should take a look at with your particular system is that, I believe, the line is going to be deep enough in the street that we may well be able to service the basement in your house. Ken ~ - Are we going to put in a whole new septic tank, then? Bill Monk - The septic tank will be rebuilt as that's-50mething, I think, that we can handle. based on the theory that all the basements can system. a part of the project but That whole system is built flow by gravity to this Ken ~ - I think most of the neighbors on the south side have to pump up their basement water approximately over 41 because the drain systems are so high to the surface. Bill Monk - That's why we are putting the main in the street about 12-14 feet deep so that we can actually take care of that. Ken ~ - If you are going to do that then that would solve my problem. Bill Monk - I would have to check the construction plans for your house but y-am almost sure that that can work and will work. I I I II Council Meeting January 23, 1984 -7- Ken ~ - That's my concern. If that's what they are going to do then I am in favor of the project. Wes Dunsmore - West 96th Street. This figure $2,650, is that based on the whole bid? Bill Monk - Yes. Wes Dunsmore - So if you accept the low bid that will be our cost per household. Bill Monk - Give or take 5%. I have tried to figure in the interim interesr-costs and things like that as close as I can but this is as close as I can come based on those construction costs of what I expect those individual costs to be. Wes Dunsmore - How many years will the assessment be spread over? Bill Monk - There has been talk by the Council of three to eight years. That won't be decided until the assessment hearing which will be held after the project is in. I don't think the Council wants to tie a future Council into a specific time period. Wes Dunsmore - If they go ahead with this, are they going to start and finish by the end of this summer or early fall? Bill Monk - I believe so, yes. West 96th Street will be done. Whether all ~individua1 mounds will be completely sodded over and completely restored it's going to be touch and go but they are hoping to be complete by the end of this construction season. Wes Dunsmore - Do you have any idea how they plan on doing it? Are they goTng down the road with the main line and then branch off to the homes. Bill Monk - They will do the main lines first. Get the station set up. Martin Jones - This gentleman brought up about a toilet in the basement, is it going to be possible for our homes to have a toilet in the basement? Bill Monk - The system is not going to be deep enough. The community mound rs-basica11y a surface system whereas their's is a forcemain system. I don't believe the community mound will allow for that type of thing although there will be individual pumps in that system so it is something that we can take a look at. Karen Hasse - West 96th Street. I am wondering if you could tell me when the assessment would begin. Bill Monk - The earliest that the project could go in is this year. The ear1iesr-that the assessment hearing could be held would be this fall. If that was to happen the assessment could show up on the taxes in 1985 but that's going to be very tight. I guess a better chance that the project will not be assessed until the following year and it wouldn't show up on taxes until 1986. Karen Hasse - Do the homeowners have some imput at that assessment hearing as to the length of time that the loan extends over? Council Meeting January 23, 1984 Bill Monk - You will be allowed to speak at that hearing. Councilwoman Swenson - Does this system include the actual hookup to the house? They don't have to pay to have someone come in like the rest of us do? -8- Bill Monk - On the West 96th Street system and the Dogwood mound, the City basically is taking over the system as it leaves the house and goes all the way into the other systems. That is much different than any other type of system that we have now. We will not be doing that on the individual upgrades but it is a PCA requirement on the West 96th Street and Dogwood systems. I Councilwoman Swenson - My point is the assessment will include the total job. The reason I mentioned that is because you could have an additional charge which could be rather substantial if you were going to have to make your own hookup. I am glad to hear that that will be taken care of. Gary Anderson - 775 Creekwood. I was wondering as far as placing the mound on-the property, is that negotiable? Bill Monk - Yes, it can be. There have been a lot of questions about indi- vidua,-sJstems. They have not been set in final form and there will be some movement in talking with each individual owner. Gary Anderson - Has the fee been set? Bill Monk - I thought the Council, at the last meeting, had talked about a I fee or-IT.OO per quarter for the individual systems only because the City wouldn't be doing anything except keeping track of who was connected and who wasn't and sending them notices on how often they had to have the system pumped. It could be anywhere from $1.00 to $10.00 per system per quarter or even per year but it would be very minimal. Mayor Hamilton - I think we had talked about $10.00. Councilman Geving - I still didn't get a question answered from the three homeowners on Dogwood. Did you hear at all from Lundell and Adamson on Dogwood? Martin Jones - I talked with Dick Lundell last night and he said "I hope the Council puts the assessment for ten years." I said, well, presumably it would be over a ten year period when we are looking at over $4,000. Adamson, they want the system. Councilman Geving - What you are saying then is all three of them want the system. Martin Jones - We all want the system. Councilman Horn - Do we have to have the same time period on all of these or would it-se-possible to have a longer time period on the larger amounts? Bill Monk - I think the Council would have the discretion to set the Dogwo~ommunity system at a longer time period because it is a larger amount and you would only be restricted due to the negative comments you might receive. I I I I Council Meeting January 23, 1984 Martin Jones - What interest rate is this on? -9- Bill Monk - Whatever the permanent financing is. Right now we probably estimare-anywhere around 9 to 10%. RESOLUTION #84-04: Councilwoman Watson moved the adoption of a resolution recommending the County Board proceed with the program and award contracts to the low bidders. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. NSA ASSESSMENT REVIEW, LOT 6 AND EAST PART OF LOT 7, MINNEWASHTA PARK: MaYor Hamilton - Your last paragr~on-the-rirst page seemed to say it all for me. I don't know why we don't just do that and that is the restruc- turing of the assessment because of Mr. Pope's senior citizen classifica- tion. It seems as how that would not have an adverse affect on the City financial situation why it would seem to me to be a reasonable thing to do. Councilwoman Watson - Have we had any other problems such as this and how have we handled them? Mayor Hamilton - We haven't had quite this type of solution before. Bill Monk - We have done deferments. We never really have handled a restructuring of an assessment before in this manner although there have been numerous requests due to tax delinquencies in the recent past. Councilman Geving - I think in this case Mr. Pope became a senior citizen after the project was completed and assessed. Bill Monk - There are two assessments on the property. The first one for ~OO was originally placed for the existing house and will stay as is. The second one in the amount of $11,000 would be updated from the date of re-assessment to todays date for recertification. Interest would be charged at whatever the project was being charged from when it was assessed in 1980 and when it was re-assessed now, that amount would be re-assessed in total at the going interest rate and he would be paying off that total plus interest over a number of years to give him a chance to get his feet under him and pay it off. Councilwoman Swenson - You can't just give him a senior citizen deferment. Bill Monk - That option is open to the Council. I have made Mr. Pope aware or-the-cTty's plight concerning repayment of the project bonds. I also suggested a deferment until sale or development. It would not be offered lightly because the Council could then be expected to be inundated with similar requests throughout the area. Councilwoman Swenson - You don't think the restructuring and the abatement is going to create this inundation? Bill Monk - I saw it as a way to give everybody a little of what they were looking-for. The City, to be sure that they would have the assessment on the books and be able to collect in a reasonable amount of time and Mr. Pope to be able to get his finances together and be able to pay it off in that amount of time. The Council has the right to defer the assessment and I am sure Mr. Pope would go for the deferment. Council Meeting January 23, 1984 -10- Councilwoman Watson - Mr. Pope, are you comfortable with this program of restructuring? Geof. Pope - I am comfortable with the apparent desire to help me. I I didn't say in my letter because I am not sure of the facts, but when the original assessment was made I understood that the two additional hookups would be deferred until the property was sold. That's what I always assumed. When I first talked to Bill about this he felt maybe there had been an error or something but he could not find anything in the minutes that said that there was such a deferment. I guess you should always get things in writing or something. I didn't want to bring it up in my letter because it's a negative thing to get into whether who said this or who said that. Whatever help I can get will be appreciated. I guess, naturally, if the two hookups can be deferred until the property is sold that would be most beneficial to me but I also know that things have to be paid for and I also know that your original costs didn't plan out because growth and deve- lopment did not happen the way you expected it and, therefore, there weren't the monies to take care of it. Councilwoman Swenson - On the updating of the May 12, 1980, when we went over all of these, I see Mr. Pope is on here, do we have any specifics as to what this revision was that was made on his property? Bill Monk - When you read that first sentence, "That the 1979 North Area Sewer-and Water Service Area Assessment Roll as revised to this date" that refers to the re-assessment roll that the City Council had to come up with. I put these minutes in here because as Mr. Pope had said, I thought that perhaps some mistake had been made and he was supposed to get a deferment. I These minutes represent all I can find and there is no question that they state that in discussion of these assessments that they were put in place. Councilwoman Swenson - These are the two alternatives now. We can either give a senior citizen or an abatement and restructuring. Councilman Horn - I really don't have a good feel for how many more of these we mi~be seeing. Will we get other requests like this, Bill? Bill Monk - Since I have been here we have had about four assessment reviews-Tn the North Service Area. We haven't had any recently but I have no feel for whether a few senior citizens will come in for help or whether anybody will come in for help. Councilman Horn - What have we done with the other requests? Bill Monk - We have never had a request such as this. Most of the other ones that you assessed me five units, I don't have the frontage, I don't have the depth. That's what we have handled to date. This is unique. Councilman Horn - Legally, what would our recourse by if we had ten more of these after-we-approve this one? Bill Monk - That's why I wanted to make sure the Council paid a lot of I attention to the senior citizen status because I am worried about these things coming up in the future. . I I I Council Meeting January 23, 1984 -11- Roger Knutson - The statute for senior citizen deferments states that you can adopt uniform criteria for deferring senior citizens special assessments on a uniform basis. I don't think for the most part, from my experience they are all that popular. Remember, the interest runs and unless you are really strapped it goes, say one for 20 years that interest of 10% is just accumulated. At the end of 20 years that's going to be a big pile of money. Councilwoman Watson - If we go for the restructuring we really couldn't get into any trouble really with any future proposals because the restructuring doesn1t stop the payment of these assessments. It just sets it up dif- ferently. Councilman Horn - How do you deny someone else who wants to come in and do this. Bill Monk - I think the Council should know if they do go to restructuring, this particular one is restructuring for a senior citizen. It does not necessarily mean that anybody who walks in off the street can get his assessment restructured necessarily. I guess that's what my mind was grasping at was being able to help somebody but at the same time not putting the City in a position where we will have to restructure 1,000 assessments. Mayor Hamilton - A terms of this one. because they think its own merits. senior citizen combined with a hardship I would say in If somebody else comes in and they want to do it just it's a good idea then I think you have to judge that on Councilwoman Swenson - Unless we could specify they were senior citizens in 1980. You can't have people arriving at 65 any time. Councilman Geving - In previous cases we have asked for a financial state- ment from individuals. It is kind of a hastle but it's one way of assuring that the individual has financial problems. I, personally, prefer the restructuring method. I don't think the City is losing anything. I am not very much in favor of the deferment process. Geof. Pope - I would rather try to struggle, I think, with what you suggest. RESOLUTION #84-05: Councilman Geving moved the adoption of a resolution approving the restructuring of the 1980 assessment for Geof. Pope. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PREPARATION OF SPECIFICATIONS AND BID ADVERTISEMENT FOR VEHICLES INCLUDED IN 1984 BUDGET: Mayor Hamiltonimoved to authorize t~preparation of spe- CTfications and proceed with the advertisement for bids for the following equipment: Dump Truck Sedan Animal Control Van (1/3) 3/4 ton 4-Wheel Drive Pick-Up 3/4 ton 4-Wheel Drive Pick-Up Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting January 23, 1984 -12- CHANHASSEN WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM: The City Engineer presented a report on the City water system, its problems and possible solutions. TID NO.2, FINANCIAL CONSULTIVE SERVICES: Councilwoman Watson moved to I approve the engagement letter as setforth by Juran and Moody in their letter of January 17, 1984, at a cost not to exceed $7,500. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. MEETING WITH LIQUOR LICENSE HOLDERS: A joint meeting with the Council and Liquor-License holders will be held February 8, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. RAILROAD CROSSINGS: Councilman Geving asked if signal arms could be installed on Great Plains Blvd. The City Engineer stated he is dealing with MnDOT Railroad Office to try to get something resolved with the Bluff Creek Drive crossing. TEICH DUMP: The Engineer reported that nothing has been going on because of the large amount of snow. SIGN: Councilwoman Swenson asked that the Trumpy Homes sign on West 78th Street be removed. The Sign Ordinance does not permit off premises signs. Staff was instructed to have the sign removed. NEW HORIZON HOMES LETTER OF CREDIT: New Horizon has filed a new letter of credit with the City. Councilman Geving moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I Don Ashworth City Manager I