Loading...
1982 09 07 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 7, 1982 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order with the following members present: Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. Councilman Geving was absent. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Carol Watson, Planning Commission, was present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the agenda with the following changes: Remove "Zoning Amendment, Allowing Driving Ranges in R-1A Districts", at the request of John Przymus. Add discussion of improvements to Bluff Creek Drive. Add discussion of the requirement to connect to city sewer. Add discussion of traffic problems on Narcissus. (A nonexistant street in the Carver Beach neighborhood.) Add discussion on a run planned by St. Hubert's Church. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative . votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING 1983 MUNICIPAL BUDGET INCLUDING PROPOSED USES OF REVENUE SHARING FUNDS Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order with the following persons present: Jay Dolejsi, 2600 Arboretum Blvd. Lewis Woitalla, 6740 Powers Blvd. Andy Borash, 6725 Nez Perce Drive Carol Watson, 7131 Utica Lane Unsie Zuege, Carver County Herald Bill McRostie, Bloomberg Companies Stan Cronister, 6730 Lotus Trail Steve and Bonnie Oien, 6780 Lotus Trail The purpose of this hearing is to inform the public that the Council will be considering allocating 1983 Revenue Sharing monies as a part of the budget process. The City will receive approximately $35,000. Proposed uses are street maintenance materials $20,000 and fire equipment the remaining amount. A letter was received asking that revenue sharing monies be considered for the purchase of park equipment. Councilman Neveaux moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. ASSESSMENT PUBLIC HEARING CARVER BEACH DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 81-4 Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order with the following interested persons present: Steve and Bonnie Oi&n, 6780 Lotus Trail Stan Cronister, 6730 Lotus Trail Andy Borash, 6725 Nez Perce Drive Lewis Woitalla, 6740 Powers Blvd. George Herrmann, 795 Carver Beach Road Melvin Herrmann, 795 Carver Beach Road Carol Watson, 7131 Utica Lane Council Meeting September 7, 1982 -2- The project included the installation of storm sewer and curb and gutter at a total cost of $36,293.34. The Engineer proposed to assess benefitted properties on an area basis with the City's share being 50% of the cost. I The City Manager recommended that the City pay 80% of project costs (50% as a general obligation levy and 30% paid via State Aid interest account). (See Page 2a, amended 10-4-82) Mayor Hamilton - It would seem like a 70% figure would give us the margin that we need which would be about $25,400 from that interest account and assess 30%. Councilman Neveaux - It is a dangerous precedent. That means that I pay for a portion of that improvement down there, you do and everybody else in the City and next year they pay again and they pay again. I think the City of Minneapolis does it that way. I am uncomfortable. Don Ashworth - This project was bonded for in the 1982 bonds. Councilman Neveaux - I believe that this is a special case and I think we should bend as far as we can legally. I personally would like to see it go at 80% of the charges being picked up by the City and the remaining 20% be assessed. Don Ashworth - Those bonds were sold with a maturity of five years and you cannot exceed the five years. Carol Watson - In the past has some of this been paid by general obligation bonds or have we paid whatever the City benefitted and the rest divided up? This 80% business, is this what we have done in the past? Mayor Hamilton - It's a little unusual because of the situation it is something we have never dealt with before. I Lewis Woitalla - I can't understand why we have to pay $5,833.47 for extra engineer's. I don't think that is right. We have to pay something that's really not our fault because· if our City Manager wouldn't issue the permit we wouldn't all be here aggravating ourselves plus the Council on account of this. Mayor Hamilton - As was stated earlier, because of the nature of the project we needed to have someone out there supervising it continually. The Engineer was unable to do that so we had to hire someone to oversee the project. Lewis Woitalla - That's sure a lot of money for a little bit of a job that they done. I am assessed for three full lots in that drainage and I don It have three full lots draining in there. I have three partial lots at one end. I don't think that's right neither. Mayor Hamilton - Why don't you see Bill and get that straightened out. Andy Borash - Can you tell me why the contractor that built these houses, how he got out of this? Why we didn't go after him? Mayor Hamilton - We discussed that at great length previously. You were here. You know why. Lewis Woitalla - We asked the question why he (contractor) was not taken to court. We never did get an answer. Russell Larson - It would be incumbent on the property owner to take him to court and as I recall we investigated that and found I that he was not financially responsible for some reason. The City would have no basis to proceed against the contractor for his negligence in preparing that site for home building since we are not the owner. It would be solely up to the property owner. Stan Cronister - That builder is still in business. I I I Council Meeting September 7, 1982 2a Councilman Horn - What are the other options that we could use for this State Aid Interest Account? Bill Monk - The Council could undertake any portion of the City's obligation in this project. However, there are monies available in the State Aid Interest Account that are basically unallocated for the year and I see them as a usable means of financing the City's share of this particular project but by no means do we have to use them. Those monies can basically be allocated for any project that the Council would wish to designate. The only monies that have been allocated so far this year are for the Ironwood Drainage Project otherwise the money has not been set up for anything and it is the Council IS discretion to allocate those monies. I donlt see that there will be any problem with using a portion of next yearls interest earnings, if the Council wishes to go that way. $18,000 is the City's participation if we go on a strict area basis but the total could go to $29,000. Councilman Horn - That takes into account the State Aid portion of interest. Bill Monk - That1s not figured in here anywhere. That's just a suggestion on how the City could pay its share of the assessment. Councilman Horn - I guess what I don't understand is how we got into the State Aid portion of it, the City's share. Bill Monk - This project is in no way State Aid. All I am saying is that one funding source for the City's share would be to use the interest in the State Aid Fund. This project is not tied in with State Aid in any way. Councilman Horn - My question is, when you are looking at this $29,000 figure, are you taking into account using the interest portion? Bill Monk - Either one, I would suggest that the Council use the State Aid interest whether it assumes 50% or 80% of the storm sewer assessment. Councilman Neveaux - The City's share based upon typical assessment procedures that have been conducted in this City for projects like this, on an area basis, comes out to be $18,000. The maximum that we could pick up would be that 80% figure when that $18,000 would rise to $29,000. Either of those, or any figure in between, will have to be picked up by either general obligation, which we don't have monies, or take the $18,000 or $29,000 or whatever figure we do decide upon, out of the State Aid Fund. As I see it there is no other option for a source of funds other than perhaps borrowing in the next year. Councilman Horn - I guess my concern is we run into things like this continually and we are not sure what our crisis is going to be for next year. I would hate to allocate all of our discretionary funds before we even get started. Mayor Hamilton - These are 1982 funds. Councilman Horn - But we don't have to spend the money. We can use it in the 1983 Budget if problems come up. Mayor Hamilton - Are you suggesting that you would rather see this amount levied on a general levy? That is an alternative. Councilman Horn - I am not suggesting that. I am only suggesting that we take the 50% portion out of the State Aid not the 70% I I I Council Meeting September 7, 1982 -3- A motion was made by Councilman Neveaux and seconded by Councilwoman Swenson to close the public hearing. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CARVER BEACH DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 81-4: RESOLUTION #82-49: Councilman Neveaux moved the adoption of a resolution certifying the assessment roll for Project 81-4 which under the provision of Minnesota Statute 429 allows the City to assume 80% of the costs of said project which amounts to a total of $29,030.78 and that will be 50% as a general obligation levy and 30% out of the State Aid interest account. The remaining 20% will be spread upon the properties in the project listed on the drainage assessment roll and their share will be reduced from a basic charge of $9,847.60 an acre to $3,913.00 an acre as reflected in the Manager's comments of August 31, 1982, and the term of the assessment will be five years at an interest rate of 13%. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Council to reimburse itself in the future for the portion of the cost of this improvement paid for from municipal funds by levying additional assessments, on notice and hearing as provided for the assessments herein made, upon any properties abutting on the improvement but not herein assessed for the improvement when changed conditions relating to such properties make such assessment feasible and to the extent that this improvement benefits non-abutting properties which may be served by the improvement when one or more later extensions or improvements are made, but which are not herein assessed therefor, it is hereby declared to be the intention of the Council, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, 429.051, to reimburse the City by adding the portion of the costs so paid to the assessments levied for any such later extensions or improvements. Resolution seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman Neveaux. Councilman Horn voted no. Motion carried. ASSESSMENT HEARING PROJECT 80-4 COLONIAL GROVE AT LOTUS LAKE SECOND ADDITION Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order with Bill McRostie, representing Bloomberg Companies, being present. These improvements consist of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, curb and gutter, and street for a total cost of $217,714.40. Bill McRostie - A somewhat extended payment schedule would be most helpful right now. There are two parcels of property that do have some benefit from this project and I donlt think we should be required to pay for those properties. In the development contract thought in terms of a minimum of eight years for the assessment period. The City Engineer at that time recommended 20 years in view that the costs are high per lot. Any consideration that you could give us in extending the assessments would be most appreciated. Mayor Hamilton - Can we extend this over 20 years? Don Ashworth - Eight years. Councilman Horn moved to close the public hearing. Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. Hearing closed at 8:30 p.m. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton, No negative votes. Council Meeting September 7, 1982 -4- COLONIAL GROVE AT LOTUS LAKE SECOND ADDITION: Bill McRostie - There are some parcels to the south that have some benefit. Bill Monk - Itls the culvert that runs under Cheyenne has been plugged and I the water from Cheyenne south has been forced to go to the south and not continue to the north through this subdivision. I guess there could be a portion of some front yards that could cross the street but it is not general practice to create such small parcels of a lot and put them in and that was not proposed in the feasibility nor is it proposed right now. Russell Larson - Any city property in this? Bill Monk - No. RESOLUTION #82-50: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution certifying the assessment roll for Project 80-4 Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition, in the amount of $217,714.40 to be spread over eight years at 13% interest. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Council to reimburse itself in the future for the portion of the cost of this improvement paid for from municipal funds by levying additional assessments~ on notice and hearing as provided for the assessments herein made, upon any properties abutting on the improvement but not herein assessed for the improvement, when changed conditions relating to such properties make such assessment feasible. To the extent that this improvement benefits non-abutting properties which may be served by the improvement when one or more later extensions or improvements are made, but which are not herein assessed therefor, it is hereby declared to be the intention of the Council, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes 429.051, to reimburse the City by adding the portion of the costs so paid to the assessments levied for any such later extensions or improvements. Resolutionl seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Neveaux - I am somewhat uncomfortable with eight years being the fact that this is a storm sewer, sanitary sewer~ street resurfacing, watermain, concrete curb and gutter. I believe that many of our projects of similar construction are 15 years. Bill Monk - It is at the Council IS discretion if they wish to go longer but the bond issue that was sold was calculated at eight years. Bill McRostie - I guess we agreed to sign the development with a minimum of eight years under duress because it was the only way we were going to get any kind of a contract at all. We didn't agree to the eight years. We felt it was too short of a time. It is a substantial burden today. Councilman Neveaux - We do have a letter of credit. Is there some way we could make it longer and hold that letter of credit beyond that eight years. Don Ashworth - A letter of credit kicks in if there is a failure by the property owner to pay. In this case, assuming they made payment and we would extend it out to ten or fifteen years they would still be in compliance but it could be a problem for us. Our repayment is set up on eight years. In all I likelyhood, if this project were to follow 99% of them, you are going to have pre-payments. You can1t go on that, the way the economy is today I think people are going to try to keep those assessments on for as many years as they can. I I I Council Meeting September 7, 1982 -5- Don Ashworth - I wish that there were a better alternative. If the rates would not have been so bad earlier this year we could have extended more maturities, again realize that if you want to borrow money for a longer period of time your interest cost raises. Mayor Hamilton - Would it be possible, if we assess on an eight year term now and then look at it as a future item to be refinanced and spread over a longer period of time and include it with another bond issue, would that be possible? Don Ashworth - Yes. If we do this we will do it with the understanding that we are going to look at it as a part of our next years bond issue. Bill McRostie - I would appreciate it if the resolution could some how embody the idea that that is the sense of the Council. I understand your problem, you have got to be able to pay the bonds but if it truly is the sense of the Council to look favorably the refinancing of those bonds at such time as it is practical to do so, we would appreciate it if the motion could reflect that. Russell Larson - I would not recommend that. Councilman Neveaux - Not incorporate it in the resolution. Mayor Hamilton - We direct Don to pursue that. You will, however, pursue that through our bond counsel for 1983 or 1984 or any year after that to try to give you some relief. PUBLIC ASSESSMENT HEARING AMERICAN LEGION SEWER AND WATERMAIN PROJECT 81-5 Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order with Bernard Schneider present representing the Legion. This project was initiated at the request of the Legion. This extension services only the Legion property and it is proposed to assess the full cost to the Legion property in the amount of $36,866.03. Bernard Schneider - I am here to voice objection to the total project cost to be spread over a term of three to five years. I was given a copy of the recommendations from the engineering firm of Schoell and Madson and it is stated in there that they recommend up to a 20 year assessment term. I would say that the Legion probably could work over an eight year period but a three year is out of the question and a five year would be very difficult. The second thing, I am not familiar with is the fact that in the Schoell and Madson report itls stated that the cost per acre was $2881 for the Legion's 3.5 acres for a total estimated cost of $10,316 and the Sinnen site, which would be 9.27 would be an estimated cost $26,710. So now we have the total cost recommended to be assessed to the Legion. I am wondering whether this particular project certainly had some over sized pipes to service the other areas and I question whether the entire amount should be assessed to the Legion. Bill Monk - The feasibility study was based on two possible funding options, one that both the Sinnen and Legion sites be assessed on an area basis and the other that the Legion would pick up 100%. It was discussed in detail at the improvement hearing. The minutes are attached and I believe at that time when the Council discussed it and felt it would be very difficult to sustain an assessment Council Meeting September 7, 1982 -6- against the Sinnen property for this type of improvement and the Legion was put on notice at that point. The minutes show that the Legion would be expected to pick up 100%. After reviewing the project in more detail I agree that the City would have legal difficulties in sustaining a sewer and water assessment against any portion of the Sinnen property. (See amendment, page 2, October 4, 1982) Councilman Neveaux moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. AMERICAN LEGION SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN PROJECT 81-5: RESOLUTION #82-51: Councilwoman Swenson moved the adoption of a resolution to assess the American Legion property for a sanitary sewer and watermain extension in the amount of $36,866.03 for an eight year period of time at 13% interest. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Council to reimburse itself in the future for the portion of the cost of this improvement paid for from municipal funds by levying additional assessments, on notice and hearing as provided for the assessments herein made, upon any properties abutting on the improvement but not herein assessed for the improvement, when changed conditions relating to such properties make such assessment feasible. To the extent that this improvement benefits non- abutting properties which may be served by the improvement when one or more later extensions or improvements are made, but which are not herein assessed therefor, it is hereby declared to be the intention of the Council, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, 429.051, to reimburse the City by adding the portion of the costs so paid to the assessments levied for any such later extensions or improvements. Resolution seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING COULTER DRIVE AND CITY HALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 80-1 Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order with Bernard and Charles Schneider present. This project includes the construction of Coulter Drive and the city center area improvements. It includes grading, sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, gravel base, concrete curb and gutter, street lighting. It is proposed to assess this project to the lots in Schneider Park. The City owns the lots in Block 1 and it is proposed that the City's share of these assessments total $259,657 with the balance of $51,908 going to the lots in Block 2. The Engineer pointed out that the proposed right-of- way assessment for Lot 3, Block 2, is not consistent with the feasibility study. That was not included as a part of the feasibility study. I I Bernard Schneider - The Community Facilities Committee met several times with Charles and myself regarding the property and then Mr. Monk listened to us the other day and came along with the proposed breakdown, it sort of caught me by surprise. At the time we originally negotiated with the City for the sale of the property, the price was $1.25 a I square foot. This was some time two years prior to the actual time that the City did negotiate the bond issue and shortly before the bond issue came up we were again approached and asked whether we would still be willing to sell and my recollection is that we said, yes, we Council Meeting September 7, 1982 -7- IMayor Hamilton Don Ashworth - would sell and the price was mentioned. We agreed to stay with the price provided the City paid for the costs on the property which would be benefitting the. City. We had to receive approval from the Commissioner of Banks and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in order to exchange the property and this property could be exchanged if we accepted like land which would be probably better for the bank than what the bank had prior to that time. It was our belief and I am sure the regulatory authorities believed that this would be at no cost to the bank. What happened, I believe, the cost of the right-of-way is tossed in there and the cost of the improvements. Our contention is that we have no objection to the assessment on Lot 1, Block 2. The other, we were of the opinion that this was going to be borne by the City and for that reason the price of the land was agreed to at $1.25 a square foot. I did not talk to Councilman Neveaux but Al Klingelhutz was in our shop the other day and I asked him whether he was of that same opinion and he said yes, that is the understanding he had at the time the agreement was made. Councilman Horn - As I understand it, Bernie, you thought that the agreement was that you would not be assessed for Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, as a result? Bernard Schneider - That was my understanding, yes. Charles Schneider - I think we made a condition that there be no assessments against the bank property. That was one of the conditions. Icouncilman Neveaux - Essentially what Bernie has said is true and what Don has said. During the negotiation for the sale of the property for $1.25 a square foot a part of the agreement was the fact that the assessments for the project essentially would fall upon Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 2, the undeveloped parts of Parcel B to the west of the present bank building and that there would be no assessments against the existing bank property until such time, if ever, the downtown development plan was put in and then the Coulter Drive was extended through the top part of the bank property and the existing parking area for the City to connect up with the Ring Road and at which time there would be that swap of land for the two parking changes and we would be given that little piece of severence and at that time there would obviously be another project for the construction of that road and that's a whole new issue then. I think that that's where the problem is. Present assessment proposal for the project has some costs that are placed against Lot 3, Block 2, which should not be there. That1s my interpretation. Not to say that when that road goes in there won't be a benefit to you at that time. Right now I am uncomfortable with putting a benefit against the piece of property where nothing has happened to it. They had sewer and water, they had streets. - I think itls best at this time to be deferred until such time as the road is actually constructed. If the Council were to do that, I would suggest then that it simply not be assessed as a part of this project. I Council Meeting September 7, 1982 -8- Mayor Hamilton - It seems like it should be a part of the assessment for the downtown redevelopment project. Councilman Neveaux - And if it doesn't occur, the existing bank lot has I benefitted none at all by what's happened to date. I don't know how we could hold up an assessment and a deferral when they havenlt benefitted. Bill Monk - One of things that gave us problems is that the plat was not finalized at the time of the feasibility study so it's difficult to interpret what Parcel B became. My interpretation is that Parcel B became Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2. That basically is what I did the assessment roll on. The bank property is Lot 3. Councilman Horn - I think either way you look at it the improvement does all of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. There is only a question that if it covers a portion of Lot 3. Bill Monk - The street does not. The only question is basically the right-of-way. Don Ashworth - This project was financed by temporary bonds of 1980. Those bonds will require permanent financing in 1983. The 7% figure is one percent higher than what we sold the bonds for in 1980. Starting for 1983 this would be proposed to be assessed at 7% for 1983 but in 1984 and years thereafter it would go up significantly. It would go up to one percent more than whatever we sell bonds for next year. Bernard Schneider - Lot 1, Block 2, which is the southwest corner, does receive some benefit but the benefits are questionable because of the fact that it had access to that I particular lot off Kerber Blvd. and probably off County Road 16. The road really benefitted the City and the property that the City purchased. At this point it does not benefit Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, with the exception of possibly some lighting that goes over and keeps the place a little more safe. The fact that the road is there is of no particular benefit to the property. It might be at some future date. Councilman Neveaux moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. COULTER DRIVE AND CITY HALL IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 80-1: RESOLUTION #82-52: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution amending the proposed assessment roll by deleting the right-of-way assessment for Lot 3, Block 2, Schneider Park. Levy assessments for Sanitary Sewer Later, Sanitary Sewer Trunk, Street, and right-of-way on Lot 1 Block 2 in the amount of $21,622.50 and Lot 2, Block 2 in the amount of $20,726.45. Assessments to be spread over eight years at 7% interest. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Council to reimburse itself in the future for the portion of the cost of this I improvement paid for from municipal funds by levying additional assessments, on notice and hearing as provided for by the assessments herein made, upon any properties abutting on the improvement but not herein assessed for the improvement when changed conditions relating to such properties make such assessment feasible. To the extent that this I I I Council Meeting September 7, 1982 -9- improvement benefits non-abutting properties which may be served by the improvement when one or more later extensions or improvements are made, but which are not herein assessed therefor, it is hereby declared to be the intention of the Council, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes 429.051, to reimburse the City by adding the portion of the costs so paid to the assessments levied for any such later extensions or improvements. Resolution seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING NORTH LAKE SUSAN TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 81-2 Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order. No interested persons were present. The purpose of this hearing is to assess Outlots D, F, and I, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, for trunk watermain. Councilman Horn moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. NORTH LAKE SUSAN TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 81-2: RESOLUTION #82-53: Councilman Neveaux moved the adoption of a resolution levying trunk watermain assessments on Outlots D, F, and I, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park to be spread over four years at 13% interest. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Council to reimburse itself in the future for the portion of the cost of this improvement paid for from municipal funds by levying additional assessments, on notice and hearing as provided for the assessments herein made, upon any properties abutting on the improvement but not herein assessed for the improvement, when changed conditions relating to such properties made such assessment feasible. To the extent that this improvement benefits non-abutting properties which may be served by the improvement when one or more later extensions or improvements are made, but which are not herein assessed therefor, it is hereby declared to be the intention of the Council, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes 429.051, to reimburse the City by adding the portion of the costs so paid to the assessments levied for any such later extensions or improvements. Resolution seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Amend the motion on the top of page 4 in the August 23, 1982, Council Minutes under IICONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST, MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK" to read: Councilman Neveaux moved that an ad-hoc committee of Tom Merz, Pat Murphy, Arnie Hed, Councilman Neveaux and Councilman Horn be appointed to review options and report back to the Council within 30 days. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the August 23, 1982, Council minutes as amended. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried Council Meeting September 7, 1982 -10- Councilman Neveaux moved to note the August 12, 1982, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried Councilwoman Swenson requested a report on the maintenance of the City parks, especially Lake Ann tennis court. Mayor Hamilton moved to note the August 3, 1982, Park and Recreation Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to note the July 27, 1982, Environmental Protection Committee minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved to note the August 10, 1982, Environmental Protection Committee minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. BLUFF CREEK DRIVE: John Skraba and Nick Waritz appeared before the Council to complain about the condition of Bluff Creek Drive. The City Engineer was directed to prepare a report on options for repairing the road for a future Council meeting. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Managerls recommendations: a. Street Vacation and Easement Vacation Procedures. RESOLUTION #82-54. c. On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Liquor License, Chanhassen Jaycees. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. REQUIREMENT TO CONNECT TO CITY SEWER: Councilwoman Swenson expressed concern that lakeshore homes along Lake Riley are not connected to City sewer and asked staff to check into this. TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ON NARCISSUS: Council members discussed the problems created by motorcycles and other off-road vehicles through this area of Carver Beach. The City Engineer was instructed to look into a way of stopping vehicles from going from Powers Blvd. to Nez Perce Drive by the use of barricades or some other method. I I ST HUBERTIS RUN: Mayor Hamilton stated that he had received questions regarding the St. Hubert1s run proposed for September 19. He requested that the City Manager insure that on future activities such as this that the City be notified in advance, and that the various emergency people be notified and approve of the proposed activity, i.e. police, fire, I paramedics, and public works department (if street closings are necessary). Council Meeting September 7, 1982 -11- I A motion was made by Councilwoman Swenson and seconded by Councilman Horn to adjourn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager I I