Loading...
1983 01 10 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 1983 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. OATH OF OFFICE: The City Attorney administered the oath of office to the newly elected Mayor Tom Hamilton, Councilwoman Pat Swenson, and Councilwoman Carol Watson. The following members were present: Councilmen Geving and Horn, and Councilwomen Swenson and Watson. Don Ashworth, Bill Monk, Russell Larson, and Craig Mertz were present. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the agenda as presented with the following additional items: 1. Solid Waste Site, Discussion. 2. Bluff Creek Drive Railroad Crossing. 3. Roof Repair, Old Instant Web Building. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. MAPLE LEAF AWARDS: Mayor Hamilton presented Maple Leaf Awards to former Councilman Dick Pearson, former Mayor Walt Hobbs, and former Councilman John Neveaux for their outstanding service to the community. SOLID WASTE SITE: Al Klingelhutz gave a report on the progress of the committee in preparation for the public hearing January 11th. He asked if it was possible for the City to purchase the County Road 17 corridor south of Lyman Blvd. in order to implement constructing the road prior ·to the installation of the landfill. Councilwoman Swenson - I think in view of the fact that this road is shown on our comprehensive plan, that it isn't as if we are pulling something out of the air. The intent of putting it in eventually has already been established. Secondly, I am sure it is also on the county's comprehensive plan. We recognize that the preliminary work would be quite extensive before we get to this. I believe we did discuss figures today as far as how much the City would need. We do know we have had a couple of citizens come forth with offers. We have reason to believe that this is not an impossible project. Al Klingelhutz - The county has it on its thoroughfare plan. Chanhassen has had it on its guide plan for many years. It just seems kind of silly to me that the county could select this site as one of the five sites in Carver County when they knew that Highway 212 corridor and County Road 17 interchange would be exactly in the center of the landfill site. Councilman Geving suggested that a large map of the area should be presented showing the Highway 212 corridor and County Road 17 interchange. MINUTES: Councilman Geving moved to note the December 21, 1982, Public Safety Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The Council Meeting January 10, 1983 -2- following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson moved to note the December 22, 1982, Public Safety Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to note the December 14, 1982, Environmental Protection Committee minutes. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. I Council members noted that Ellen Chilvers has resigned from the Environmental Protection Committee and wondered who has been elected as the Chairperson. Councilwoman Swenson requested that all commission and committee minutes should be signed by whoever prepares them. Mayor Hamilton moved to note the December 21, 1982, Environmental Protection Committee minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. 201 SEWER UPGRADE PROGRAM, PHASE III: John Stuart and Tom Foster, Carver County1s consulting engineers, along with many residents were present. I The City Engineer explained that Phases I and II are now complete and the Council should approve the Joint Powers Agreement at this point if the Council wishes to move forward with the project. Mayor Hamilton asked for comments from persons present as to whether they are opposed or in favor of the project. Martin Jones, 7321 Dogwood - I am in favor of the project but I can It quite figure out where they came up with the figures. Ken Pung, 620 West 96th Street - When that on-site survey was done, I took a survey in the neighborhood and from what I could gather the only system that failed were the people that weren1t at their residences when they came through for the on-site inspections. I was one of those that was not there and my system was condemned. Has the engineering firm or the City looked at the comparative cost on a gravity flow sewer system to hook up to Lake Riley Councilwoman Swenson - The Metropol itan Council has put a nix on it and we are not permitted to hook you up. Ken Pung, Would this system be compatible to that at a later date? Tom Foster, The pumping station could be connected to an interceptor. Bill Monk, The system in West 96th Street, people will retain their tanks and pumps in their yards but up the street will be what is called a dosing station, basically it's a pump station, that will be directing the sewage up towards the east. We have done it that way so that we are planning to make one more attempt I of the PCA for a hook up directly into the line in Kiowa Trail. To date they have turned us down twice. The system has been designed so that in the future as the sewer is extended down that way connection would be as easily as possible. I I I Council Meeting January 10, 1983 -3- Ken Pung, Connection to what extent, they would have to dig up the whole road? Bill Monk, They would not have to dig up the whole road again. Ken Pung, At this time I am uncertain. That was my main concern if they are going to have to go back and dig it up again, why even bother. I have lived there 17 years and I have had my tank pumped once. Ted Hasse, 630 West 96th Street - I have got a lot of questions but I don It want to ask a lot of them right now, but I do want to say something. We were asked to state whether we were opposed or in favor of it. I think the whole purpose for me in being here is, I don1t know. We haven1t been given any information. We don't know what is wrong with our systems, if there is anything wrong. We don't know if it's going to take $500 to fix it or $12,000 to fix it. We did get an estimate from a company in Minneapolis for a complete sewer redo with a mounded system on our property. Their high estimate was $4,500. They ranged from $2,000 to $4,500, that's for complete replacement with a mounded system on our own property. I guess I am a little resentful of the fact that people are sitting here making a decision without having any information. We were at the meetings last fall and we were told there would be a further meeting to present the costs. To give us time to look at the alternative costs of other systems. We haven't had that opportunity. Councilwoman Swenson - It's been quite a while since we had that meeting. Would this have prevented you from having an extimatE made on your system? Ted Hasse, My system passed. I didn't need to have one. All of a sudden I see this coming down with no public meeting with no chance of reviewing or looking at what is exactly going to be done. My general feeling is one of resentment that I am being asked to be here. You had some information presented to you but I am going to pay for it and I haven It had any information presented to me. Even tonight we don't know whether we are going to hook into a sewer or whether we are going to go into a community drainfield and I understand from the conversation that there is even a question as to whether they can purchase the land to put the drainfield on. We contacted FHA today and FHA is not sure that they would approve this system for FHA financing of houses. Has anybody looked at that cost for us? How much is that worth to us? We delegated some of the research because of the short notice to do a little bit of work on some of this stuff. I don It know whether to be in favor of it or not or opposed to it. I just know that there has not been an ample opportunity to present a lot of information. If I am not informed I having a little trouble trusting that you all are completely informed either. Bill Heinlein, 721 West 96th Street - I am in favor of it. I have had problems with a failing system. The land out there where we are is basically clay and I had trouble and luckily what it was, the baffle had fallen off in the tank and the sludge had filled the line up and of course this happened in the middle of the winter and I didn't get a chance to check it out until it thawed so I continually pumped that system until it thawed. In the meantime I Council Meeting January 10, 1983 -4- got bids to upgrade it and just to add additional length of pipe in the field was going to cost me $1,500. I am in favor of this. Cliff Simons, 601 West 96th Street - I know one problem that we have got down there on that whole side, there is a pond down there and there is a culvert that is supposed to drain that pond. I have called the City and I have the State and everybody says it1s not my culvert. It drains into Lake Riley. You can go down there and look and that culvert has been plugged for 15 years and nobody has ever cleaned that culvert out since we have lived there. The water comes about 15 feet closer to my house every year. Within three or four years it will be in my back yard. I have lived there 15 years and I have pumped my tank three times. I have had no problems. I am against it. Dan Tester, 230 Flying Cloud Drive - My system is failing and I am for it. I would like to see it go. Jim Church, 611 West 96th Street - I have lived there for 15 years. We have not pumped the septic system yet. They claim that it is failing. I think it is not failing. The end of the drainfield becomes a little green once in a while but never soggy or wet except after rain storms. I think a major part of the problem is the fact that that lake has to be drained. I am opposed. Chris Hansen, 700 West 96th Street - I am opposed to the project right now. If the system were to fail or prove ineffective whose responsibility would that be and secondly, is this a good system guaranteed that it will provide good service? More importantly, if it doesn't work are we going to pay more than the estimated $200 or so a year? Bill Monk - The system as it is proposed is to take all of West 96th Street and pump it into a mound system to the east. It is a newer type concept. It is going to be basically the City's to maintain and I can't actually say 100% that it will work perfectly. Chris Hansen, I have never had a problem. We have lived there for five years and our ground is very dry in our backyard so I was very surprised to hear that my sewer system was not up to standards. I have never found out what the problem was. . Roger Oas, 7301 Dogwood - I have a neighbor who didn't go in on the project, so I am on an individual system. I am for it 100%. I think the costs, I have checked other prices on upgrading my drainfield, I have got a leaky drainfield, it runs into the lake. I am for this system 100%. Arthur Adamson, 7331 Dogwood - I am for it. Is the land up behind us, is that clear, is that purchased? Bill Monk - No we have not started into negotiations. Bob Haak, 771 Pioneer Trail - In concept I am very much in favor of having a new system. My system is failing. It has failed ever since I have been there which is ten or 11 years and it looks like it will continue to fail. One of my big questions is and this is why I said I approve of it in concept and that is because according to this map they would like to put a 60 foot long mound in the middle of what I presently call my back yard. I am on a 2~ acre lot and they want to put it like 30 to 40 feet from the back of my house and I am just wondering I I I I I I Council Meeting January 10, 1983 -5- if this can be moved or altered to put it in some other area still on my property? Bill Monk - The consultant engineers that prepared the plans tried to find the best site to put it based on soil conditions but the plans would allow for it to be moved if there is another site on your site that it could be located on. Bob Haak, If I could be assured that it could be on a site on my property that was not so obtrusive as it is right dead center in the middle of my yard I certainly would approve this system. Councilman Geving - I can't understand why only you have the problem on Pioneer Trail. You have got two or three houses there and it seems to me they would have the same problem that you have. Bob Haak, The way I understand it is they didn't sign up through the program. Another question is, is that if I put in the system are my neighbors still going to have that problem? Councilman Geving - The problem is if we go in there with Bob's 2~ we tear that up and put a mound in there and I those other systems probably are going to fail like Bob's. Bob Haak, They are right now. Councilman Geving - We would be doing a disservice to him as a homeowner to upgrade his and then have your neighbors fail and no 201 to pull them out. Ron Mundale, 10260 Mandan Circle - I built my home near Bluff Creek Highlands about 12 years ago and when I designed my home and had it contracted I told the contractor I wanted the best septic system I could possibly have. At that time he recommended an aeration holding tank system. Basically what this is, is that it has two concrete cisterns that are roughly eight feet across and that holds the sludge and any water runoff goes into a third tank and any overflow from that tank (this is all underground) runs into the ground. The soil that I have is clay. My system, I think, isn't failing. I think the problem with my system is that the rear of my home slopes toward a ravine quite steeply and 15 feet roughly from this last water tank is where the water is seeping into the ground and I was told that this could be improved by just adding a great pile of dirt on top of it keeping it from going to the surface. I am for the project but I think that I have probably the best system that I could possibly afford. Richard Derhaag, 711 West 96th Street - My system is not failing at the present time but I am all for it. Ilene Niesche, 600 West 96th Street - I guess when we talked about the guarantee before, we had no answer as to the amount of time that this system would be guaranteed. Bill Monk - On the 96th Street, as much as I dislike this portion of it, right after it is constructed it is a city installation, full city maintenance and whatever, from the tank and pump right on to the mound system. So basically it is guaranteed forever. Ilene Niesche, We recently bought community systems. we cannot sell our acres, know just our home and FHA does not approve If we go along with a community system homes through FHA financing. Council Meeting January 10, 1983 -6- Mayor Hamilton - They can say that without knowing an~thing about this system? Ilene Niesche, That's what we were told. If this system would have been in effect when we bought our home, we were told FHA would not approve it. Councilman Horn - Did they approve your current system? Ilene Niesche, Yes. We had our home federally inspected for the loan and it was all approved. If our home is approved, must we hook up? If our systems are not failing, do we still have to hook up to these lines and pay the cost? Bill Monk -If the West 96th Street mound system or the Dogwood mound system is approved, everyone has to participate or it cannot be eligible for the PCA program. Ilene Niesche, We are opposed. Councilman Horn - Since this is a federally backed program and FHA is another federally backed program, you would think there would be a little better coordination between the two programs. Bill Monk - I have not researched that. Perhaps that was an oversight on my part. I would have to believe that if the city upgraded this to the point where we were maintaining it that that would be a superior system to what is in place now and FHA would accept that. Again, I have not researched that aspect of the project. Councilman Horn - One other question on the maintenance to the city, would that be under general obligation or assessment? Bill Monk - The plan as proposed on the community system is to have full city maintenance and to charge an annual maintenance charge presently estimated at $198.60 per year. That's to cover just about everything that we can think of but should that fall short there is no question that we would have to rely on the sewer expansion fund to cover any shortage. Gary Anderson, 725 Creekwood - I was just wondering, is the $10.00 charge for the individual system, is that an annual type of charge? Bill Monk - The Council may remember there was discussion as to whether anything should be charged. I put down the $10.00. Basically the city is responsible to keep up the paper work on where the system is located and how it was designed and built and also to send out yearly notices that it should be pumped or whatever. Basically, it was a charge to do those services. That has not been decided and it could go up from year to year at the Council's discretion. Maynard Happe, 495 Lakota Lane - I have a lot of reasons for changing my mind from going in the program. Itls not my home, it's rental property and I guess the best thing, as far as I am concerned, that I would drop off the program. Ralph Freudenberg, 631 West 96th Street - I had a question concerning the community system and they talked about eventually possibly hooking into a central sewer, from what I understand it would just pump out the liquid. Is this pipe big enough to handle at a later date, they want to take the complete sewage from West 96th Street and pump it into a central system or is it designed only to take the liquid and if so, I think I am kind of against it. I can It quite see putting something in and then at a later date it won't handle it. I I I I I I Council Meeting January 10, 1983 -7- Bill Monk - The sewer is designed basically to just take the liquid portion. The system would operate if it were pumped into the existing system. It would operate basically as designed now. The only change being that instead of going into the mound system it would go into a sewer on Kiowa Trail but it would require an upgrading if it was to be changed to a completely conventional system in the future, such as an eight inch line. Spencer Boynton, 777 Creekwood - I am in favor of it. Mrs. Donald Wisniewski, 621 West 96th Street - I am in favor of it. That annual fee of $200, what does that include and how does that compare with what you charge other people on the sanitary sewer system? Bill Monk - That includes basically handling the system from the tank, including the pump as it would pump all the way up into the mound, including all the individual pumps, tanks, lines as they would go from those tanks in your yard to the two inch forcemain in the street, maintenance on the large dosing station in the street, and maintenance on the mound systems wherever they are placed. We went through a cost analysis of what it would cost the city to inspect the individuals periodically and tried to be as exact as we could in putting that number together. It is higher than the cost that we charge a normal system. The reason for that is basically the extra tank and pump on each house that must be maintained that is not there on a conventional sewer system. Mrs. Donald Wisniewski, If it was determined that your system was failing, what would happen, who determines this and what is the definition? Bill Monk - The determination would be made within the City of Chanhassen by the City Building Inspector. To define a failing system, there are clean wate~ provisions, ordinances, laws, in effect that would have to be used for trying to determine exactly what a failing system is. It is difficult to determine that but once it has been determined basically a 60 to 90 day period would be given to the owner of the failing system to rectify that system. As the system was dug up and reviewed the inspector would take a look at it to see whether modifications could be made to bring it into compliance or whether a full upgrade would be required. John Malakowsky, 10301 Great Plains Blvd. - I am really in favor of this. I think it gives us a unique opportunity to take advantage of some federal and state money. I have got a failing system. In 21 years I have upgraded it once. I see now in the plan that they have for my on-site may be a way that will help my system. Wes Dunsmore, 730 West 96th Street - I don't know when these were tested to see whether they passed or failed, I have only been over there a year and a half but we bought the land from Louise Bleed and I asked her how the sewer system was and she said she had it pumped twice in 14 years. Well, we moved in in April and the first thing I had to pump the tank and the water steady run in, it filled up that same night. My biggest concern is, this is a good system and I would be in favor of it, but, if it's not going to be FHA or VA approved and never ever sell the house, that would be my Council Meeting January 10, 1983 -8- biggest concern right now. It's a good system and I would be for it if FHA or VA approved it if I ever wanted to get I rid of the house. Mayor Hamilton - What we would do, if we decided to go ahead with this, would be contingent upon the ability of the people owning the homes to be able to sell them. We are certainly not going to do something that1s going to keep the residents from selling their homes. Ronald Landin, 720 West 96th Street - I am in favor of the system. Vernon Teich, 220 Flying Cloud Drive - I just have one question, I have a utility easement for a piece of property that I own, then I have a plat here of the house where I live and they are conflicting pieces of property and I wonder which one was condemned. I have never had a problem with either one. Bill Monk - I can't answer that right at the moment because I am going on blind trust with the county. They sent me the easements and the maps and I did not have time to check. Vernon Teich, I am sure it is something that can be clarified. Martin Jones, I just wanted to clarify, Bill said on Dogwood all people along Dogwood would have to comply, am I correct? Bill Monk - No, on Dogwood I believe there were four houses. Martin Jones, As far as I know 7311 Dogwood did not say that he wanted anything. Is that going to make a problem for us? Bill Monk - No, I don't think so. Everyone who had to connect in the Dogwood area has been notified. Martin Jones, Schoell and Madson came out and surveyed in the pasture or I the woods area behind our home, who absorbs the cost of taking over that property to put in a septic system? Is that the homeowners or is that the city? Bill Monk - That is a system cost and will be charged back to the people participating in the program. Ted Hasse, If this system fails three years from now, will the cost of repair be handled through special assessments or out of the city's general budget? Bill Monk - I don't see how the homeowners could be assessed again and I would say that the cost would have to be borne by the fund that would be started with the $200 coming in and any excess picked up by the expansion fund. That is my interpretation. Mayor Hamilton - The Council has discussed that and I believe that is what we agreed to. If the system failed it is the city's responsibility to correct it. Cliff Simons, 601 West 96th Street - When they put this sewer system in the line in front of your house is not going to help us in any way when they do put sewer in, right? Bill Monk - When and if conventional sewers go in the line would be replaced. Should a line be run down 101 in the future, this line could be hooked in and do away with the mound system. Perhaps the annual cost cut down because of that. If a conventional system was put in this system would be replaced. Councilwoman Swenson - Has the PCA been approached on the sewer connection I thing from the standpoint that these drainfields are draining towards the pond and that pond has got to be the recipient of some of that waste and in fact it is true that there is a drainage or a culvert that is going in to Lake Riley. Now this I I I Council Meeting January 10, 1983 -9- is in violation and pollution of a public water. Bill Monk - One of the things that you have to remember is that any septic system is going to drain and the water is going to get away. A lot of it is going back to that pond and will eventually get to Riley Lake. In my own mind there are some questions about how polluted some of that effluent is that is flowing back to that pond. Tonight we have heard both sides. There are some failing systems and there are not but how clean the water is or how good the water is that goes back to that pond it1s hard to say. Councilwoman Swenson - It seems to me from a standpoint of public safety, that lake is designated a recreational lake and and there is a public park on the Eden Prairie side of it and it seems to be from the standpoint of health, welfare, and safety of the citizens, not only of our own community but the surrounding communities and anybody that uses that, that this is something we had jolly well find out and if we have any contamination we do have an ordinance prohibiting the continuation of any septic drainage into our public waters. Bill Monk - It would be the responsibility of the city if we did not move forward on this project to try and actually define what a failing system is specifically so that we can determine what systems have to be upgraded. Councilwoman Swenson - I would just like to remind people who are concerned about this $200 a year fee, the Kiowa Trail sewer system was put in about two or three years ago and it was $8,800 a head so that if you can get somebody to help you put your septic systems in and get a system in there that works you are not going to do badly at all. Councilman Horn - It seems like our city staff has had to do all the research on this thing, I am wondering why we aren't getting more assistance from the consultants for the county on questions such as FHA. Why is Bill having to do all this research on this? Bill Monk - One of the things the Council has to remember is back a few years when this project got going, the Council decided at that point not to use the county1s consultant but instead have Schoell and Madson take care of the project. As the project has progressed I have taken as much of the project away from them as possible and put the major portion of it on the county's consultant. Councilman Horn - I don't like to put Al (Klingelhutz) on the spot, but as a realtor do you have any comment on what this may do to property values of people who would sign up for this program? Al Klingelhutz - If they couldn't get FHA or VA financing it would decrease the property values. If they could get that and you had a community system I believe it would increase the value. Councilman Geving - I was wondering at what point we would pullout those individuals who have indicated that they would like to pull from the system, like Maynard? Bill Monk - They can drop out at this point and the community systems could go right on. Council Meeting January 10, 1983 -10- Councilman Horn - I notice in the Joint Agreement, item 26, that if the county is unable to secure financing it becomes a city responsibility. I seems somewhat indefinite someone, should decide up front who is going to do it. Bill Monk - I went to a meeting at the courthouse. We talked to the county finance people. They did indicate that they believe that they could front end the acquisiton and other miscellaneous costs that would come through the next three/four months but as construction started they would be required to bond and they would handle that in-house because of the county's A rating and the ease of doing it that way versus all the communities doing it themselves. There is no question that the Council should be aware that this agreement is written to the county's benefit. It gives the county tremendous leaway in what can be done. That is how they have worded the Joint Powers Agreement. The city can go on record and ask for changes but this is the same agreement that has been given to all other municipalities and I don't know whether the city has much option with this agreement. Councilman Horn - Is this agreement part of the suggestion of the federal program or is this totally generated by the county? Bill Monk - The county as far as I know. Councilman Horn - Also, I noticed that on number 28 that the EPA should stop work if the city is totally liable not the county. It really makes me uncomfortable to have the city assume of the risk and we are the least qualified to assume t his . Bill Monk - These programs are considered by the county as municipal programs being handled by the county and the county is being our big brother. That is the approach the county is taking to this program and that is the reason for the language that you see. Councilwoman Swenson - I I Number 13, the local share of post construction engineering costs will be billed to the affected cities and townships on a monthly basis, what do they mean by that? Tom Foster - Because that's an alternative system and the EPA is funding it at a higher percentage than conventional systems, they require a certain amount of follow up to provide a report on the effectiveness of the system over the first year of operation. Councilwoman Swenson - This could be an open ended thing and that scares me. I have to agree with Clark that the terminology would appear to put us in a position that's shakey at best. Bill Monk - That is not the approach the county is taking. The approach right now by the County is that it is not their project they are the lead agency but that is the extent of their participation. Councilman Geving - I have seen this particular form of contract several times from the county and I am not leery of it. I think the language is typical of the county's. I I think the question that came up tonight should be answered though and maybe it could b~co~e.a contingency I do feel that the people that have lndlvldual systems should be given the opportunity to drop out at any time. I I I Council Meeting January 10, 1983 - 11 - Councilman Geving moved to sign the Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County to proceed with the sewer upgrade project and the 201 program contingent upon the City Engineer receiving a favorable response to the question of FHA, VA or any other type of financing of the homes. The City Engineer will clarify some of the wording in the Joint Powers Agreement to his satisfaction. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. RULES OF PROCEDURE: Councilman Geving moved to adopt the Rules of Procedure for the conduct of City Council Business as amended: 1. Section 1, 1.06, Order of Business. 1. Call to Order (Pledge of Allegiance) 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Consent Agenda 5. Visitor Presentations 6. Public Hearings 7. Award of Bids 8. Approval of Minutes 9. Unfinished Business 10. Approval of Accounts 11. New Business 12. Council Presentations 13. Administrative Presentations 14. Adjournment 2. Section 5, 5.04, Reconsideration. A motion to reconsider any action taken by the council may be made at any time following original action. A motion to reconsider must be made by a member of the council who voted with the prevailing side. Should a motion to reconsider fail, an additional request for reconsideration cannot occur for a period of six months following the date of the first motion for reconsideration. If a motion to reconsider is passed, then parties entitled to notice shall be notified and action shall be taken at the next regular meeting following passage of the motion to reconsider. Should the city council determine that other parties are not likely to be affected by an item presented for reconsideration, the city council may, at its discretion, act on the original action the same evening as the council votes on reconsideration. 3. Section 1, 1.08, Curfew. No additional agenda items shall be discussed after 11 :30 p.m. No meetings shall continue past 12:00 midnight. Meetings adjourned under this policy shall be continued to a time specified by the council. The continued meeting will start at the point on the agenda where the adjournment occurred. 4. Section 2, 2.01, Filing Deadline. All matters to be submitted to the council shall be filed with the City Manager1s office not later than 12:00 noon on the Monday prior to the following Monday council meeting at which consideration is desired. In unusual circumstances and when the matter does not require investigation, an item may be accepted after said deadline upon the approval of the City Manager or Mayor. 5. Section 11, 11.04, Grievance Committee. The council shall sit as a Grievance Committee. Any employee may appear before the committee to discuss anything the employee wishes to discuss. (New subsection) 6. Section 5, 5.06, Contents of the Minutes. Delete. 7. Section 2, 2.02, Maintenance of Agenda. (Third paragraph) No matter may be submitted for council action by any administrative official Council Meeting January 10, 1983 -12- department head or employee unless it has first been presented to the City Manager or Mayor for inclusion on the agenda. The City Manager I and Mayor shall establish the agenda for each regular and special meeting. 8. Section 10, 10.05, Contents of Minutes. All ordinances and resolutions shall be filed with the Manager and made a part of the minutes. Reports, petitions, and correspondence shall be filed with the Manager and made a part of the minutes by reference. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER: Mayor Hamilton moved to designate the Carver County Herald as the official city newspaper. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. OFFICIAL DEPOSITORY: Councilman Horn moved to designate the State Bank of Chanhassen as the official depository of the city and authorize the Mayor and Treasurer or Manager as authorized signatures for all city checks and the following persons be authorized to enter the safe deposit box: Mayor or Treasurer or Manager. The Mayor's facsimile signature be used on all city checks. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. The City Attorney asked council members whether they are either shareholders, officers or directors of the State Bank of Chanhassen. Council members stated no. I FINANCIAL CONSULTANT: Councilwoman Swenson moved to appoint the firm of Juran and Moody as the financial consultant for the City. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. ACTING MAYOR: Mayor Hamilton moved that Councilman Geving be appointed Acting Mayor to serve in the absence of the elected Mayor. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. Councilman Geving abstained. Motion carried. FIRE MARSHAL: Mayor Hamilton moved to appoint Jim McMahon to the position of Fire Marshal for the City of Chanhassen. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. CITY AUDITOR: Councilman Horn moved to appoint the firm of DeLaHunt Voto and Co., LTD as auditors for the city. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and I Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. WEED INSPECTOR: Councilman Horn moved to appoint Mayor Hamilton as Weed Inspector and Bill Monk, Public Works Director, as Deputy Weed Inspector I I I Council Meeting January 10, 1983 - 1 3- for the City. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. HEALTH OFFICER: Councilman Geving moved to appoint Dr. David McCollum as the City's Health Officer at a fee of $1.00. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. FIRE CHIEF: Mayor Hamilton moved to accept the recommendation of the fire department and appoint Jack Kreger as Fire Chief and Jerry Schlenk and Joel Hedtke as representatives to the W.A.F.T.A Board. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CITY ATTORNEY: Due to budget constraints, the City Attorney will only attend future Council meetings upon request of the City Manager or Mayor. Mayor Hamilton moved to appoint the firm of Larson and Mertz as the City Attorney. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. MANAGER PRO TEM: Councilwoman Swenson moved to designate Bill Monk as Manager Pro Tem in the event that the City Manager is unable to perform his job. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. 1983 BUDGETARY CHANGES: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the following policy changes: 1. The city employee holiday schedule be nine regularly scheduled holidays and two floating holidays. City Attorney's Services: 1. No requests for written responses shall be sought from the city attorne) office without approval of the Manager or Mayor. This action does not in any way hinder any city council member discussing issues with the city attorney's office. 2. The city attorney1s office will attend no meetings of any commission/ city council unless it is known in advance that such is absolutely necessary and then only if authorized by the Mayor/Manager. 3. All minor zoning violations will be reviewed by city staff to insure that other remedies are not available prior to instituting the citation process. 4. That city staff will carry out a g~eater dependence on the existing staff and/or League of Cities/other professional resources to prepare special reports for the city council. Park and Recreation Director: 1. The position of Park and Recreation Director be eliminated. Date to be decided by the City Manager. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting January 10, 1983 -14- ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, FIRE DEPARTMENT: Councilman Horn moved to place on first reading an ordinance for the organization and regulation of volunteer I fire department. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the consent agenda pursuant to the recommendations of the City Manager. a. Park Laborer and Utility Operator Positions. b. Approval of five year capital improvement program for municipal state aid streets. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. SOLID WASTE: Councilwoman Swenson gave a report on the progress of the committee and presented a rough draft of the statement to be presented at the January 11th hearing. Councilman Geving suggested a large map of the affected area be included with the presentation. BLUFF CREEK DRIVE RAILROAD CROSSING: Councilman Geving noted that a number of people along Bluff Creek Drive and Hesse Farm are very concerned about what is going to happen with the railroad crossing. The City Engineer explained that the it is proposed during the summer of 1983 to upgrade the crossing and install descending arms. The city will be liable for 10% of the project cost. FORMER INSTANT WEB BUILDING - ROOF COLLAPSE: The City Engineer reported I on the progress on having the roof repaired. Councilman Horn moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Don Ashworth City Manager I