Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC October 2, 1979 ~ o¡ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~ OCTOBER 2, 1979 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on October 2, 1979, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Orttel, Peach Councilman absent: Lachinski Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, John Davidson; Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman, d'Arcy Bosell; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others Agenda Approval MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that we accept the Agenda as published with the addition of Item Se, 160th Lane; Item Sf, Stenquist Addition Change Order and Partial Payment; and Item ga, Assessor's Contract. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearings - Junkyard License Denials Mayor Windschitl called to order the Public Hearings on the denial of the junkyard license applications for Anoka Auto Wrecking and Commercial Auto Parts. Lorraine Jellison, representing Anoka Auto Wrecking, 1775 Bunker Lake Boulevard - stated they have been fencing and have gotten quite a bit more done in the last six weeks. She felt they had approximately 400 feet left to go on the west side, approximately 500 feet left on the east side, plus across the back which is about 700 feet. Plus they have some poles set in. They are working on it. She felt that they wouldn't be able to complete the fencing this fall because of the ground freezing soon, but stated they would be able to complete it next summer. They have hired extra men to work on it. They have quite a large area to fence, and they are not adjoined with anyone to share fencing and costs, etc. They yard was also moved two years ago this November. Councilman Jacobson stated that unless the ordinance is enforced uniformly, there will be problems with everyone else. He felt it would be more desirable to have a specific date by which the fence would be completed. Mrs. Jellison again stated that they cannot be working through the winter months. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that because C. Jellison of Anoka Auto Wrecking has not completed his fencing in accordance with the Junkyard Ordinance, that the request for permit be denied, and an order be issued to cease action as a junkyard until the ordinance is complied with. Discussion: The Clerk and Mrs. Jellison both stated that junk is not visible from Bunker Lake Boulevard nor Hanson Boulevard, and that there is woods and the landfill area behind the junkyard. Councilman Jacobson noted that the matter of natural screening for junkyards was referred to the P & Z on September 18 for their considera- tion. He questioned whether this denial should be tabled until the P & Z has forwarded their recommendation. It was also noted that the Jellison's have had a year to complete the fencing under the ordinance presently in existence. It was Councilman Jacobson's feeling that if the P & Z comes with a recommendation to change the fencing to allow a variance for natural screening of any kind, that this yard should be allowed to take advantage of that provision as well as the other yards; and that denial of the license at this time might be premature. After the recommendation, all yards can be considered at once. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to table it until the P & Z comes back with a recommendation on the natural screening of junkyards or a variance provision. Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1979 - Minutes Page 2 (Public Hearings - Junkyard License Denials, Continued) Discussion: It is the intent that the applicant would be allowed to continue to operate until such time that that decision is made. The Attorney felt as long as all junkyards are treated uniformly, which is what this is attempting to do, he didn't feel the City is prejudicing its position. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we continue the Hearing for the Anoka Auto Wrecking Junkyard License until such time as the Planning and Zoning Commission returns on their deliberations on a variance procedure to the standards of the Junkyard Ordinance. Discussion: Chairman Bosell stated that this matter is on their October 9 Agenda. If a recommendation is made at that meeting, it will be back on the Council Agenda on November 6. Attorney Hawkins stated that the applicant is entitled to have a decision as to the request this evening. Ms. Jellison was agreeable to continuing the Hearing until there is a recommendation from the Planning Commission, as it would give them more time to be working on their fence. Mayor Windschitl explained if the Planning Commission recommendation is to allow the use of the trees or natural topography for screening and it doesn't fit their requirement, it makes it very difficult for the Council to allow the operation to continue, as many of the other yards have complied with the Ordinance. It would be to Ms. Jellison's advantage to get the work done or make a commitment as to a specific date for completion. Councilmen Jacobson and Peach WITHDREW the Second and the Motion for denial of the application. Councilmen Orttel and Jacobson WITHDREW the Second and the Motion to table the motion. VOTE ON MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING: Carried unanimously. IrVin¡ Shaw, Attorney, 2706 West Gannon Boulevard, St. Paul, represented Mr. Charles Mlste ske, owner of Commercial Auto Parts. Mr. Shaw stated that the general llabl lty lnsurance has been in effect, but there has been some confusion with the insurance agent. Mr. Mistelske is insured by Northland Insurance Agency. Mr. Shaw will have proof of the coverage to the City Clerk tomorrow to satisfy the Council that the insurance has been in effect at all times. Mr. Shaw also explained that Commercial Auto Parts fronts on Jay Street and is bordered on the north by Wilber Auto Parts, on the south by Andover Auto Parts, and in the back by Cecil Heidelberger. Wilber's, Commercial Auto, and Andover Auto all consist of approximately 10 acres of land each. This year, to comply with City Ordinance, Mr. Mistelske built a new building located on the front of the acreage on Jay Street. He has also been carrying on the fencing project. About 2/3 of the total area is now fenced. Also, a good portion is screened with trees planted in front. There is approximately 1300 feet along each side line going west and the front that is already fenced. There is no way that any portion of Commercial Auto Parts can be seen from any road. In the rear is a large stack of tires on Heidelberger's property. There is also a large rise of the land to the rear. Mr. Shaw also explained that Mr. Mistelske has been having trouble obtaining fence posts, plus the financial problems because of the construction of the new building. He will complete the fencing as fast as he can, but it was his estimate that he can't finish it until the spring. Originally, when Mr. Mistelske was in partnership with Mr. Shernell, there was a four-year plan to complete the fencing , and this is the third or fourth year of that plan. Mr. Mistelske explained that the junkyard was split into two five-acre sections. The front five acres is completely fenced including an 8-foot fence actually dividing the yard across the center. ~ uses approximately 1/3 of the second five acres to store cars at the present time. Mayor Windschitl stated that at the previous meeting the Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1979 - Minutes Page 3 (Public Hearings - Junkyard License Denials, Continued) question of using the tires for screening did not receive a favorable reaction from the Council. The topography question or enbankment is what will be addressed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Shaw asked that that area be viewed by City personnel, as he felt it is going to be difficult to build a fence on that particular area. Mayor Windschitl stated that this question can be continued as well, but if this particular yard does not comply with a Planning Commission recommendation, the Council must again address uniformly enforcing the ordinance with everyone. He stated that the Building Inspector will view the yard and make a report on the individual yards. The Planning Commission can have the benefit of that report when they make their deliberations. Mr. Mistelske also explained that he is building the sideyard fences in cooperation with the adjoining junkyard owners. They had no objections to continuing the Hearing. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the Public Hearing on Commercial Auto Parts be continued until the first meeting in November when some recommendation be had from the P & Z. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearings continued to the November 6 Regular City Council Meeting. 8:07 p.m. League of Minnesota Cities - General Discussion Donald A. Slater, Executive Director, and Duke Addicks, Legislative Counsel, represented the League of Minnesota Clties. Mayor Windschitl explained the major concern of the City has been the State Aid law and how if affects Andover and various other communities in the area. Preliminary information shows that the City is probably worse off with the new bill than with the old one basically because of the 20 percent limitation factor, and especially as it relates to population growth. And it makes it practically impossible to ever get back to any type of fiscal parity with other cities our size that were in under the old formula. Also, there is a disparity in comparing mill levies between cities, as Andover does not have any general indebtedness for improvements calculated in the mill levy as does the more established cities. The Mayor also stated that there has been sentiment that the position of the League has been counterproductive to the City's purposes. He asked if there is any hope that the League could be trying to get a technical amendment to help some of us out. Mr. Slater reviewed the League's organization, which serves as a legislative representa- tion unit, as a policy development organization, and as a clearing house and research organization for those member cities. He explained their policies are developed through a committee process, with five standing committees which are made up principally of elected officials from member cities. Mr. Slater reviewed the process the League went through to establish their policy on the State Aid issue this previous legislative session, noting how information was obtained and the recommendation proposed by the Revenue Committee and its subcommittee, which is basically the same procedure used on all League questions. The general membership votes on the recommendation, which becomes policy if approved. The Board of Directors does have the authority to look at new situations which are not covered in the policy or make new policy where there may be some doubt. The policy governs the League for a two-year cycle. The process for getting appointed to the various committees is beginning now and the question bnòthe State Aid formula will be under review in this process, and the question of whether or not there might be modifications of the existing Statute. The Legislature provided that there be some study of the State Aid system, and the League is going to have some input into that study. Concerns of the Cities should be made known to the Research Staff. The Governor is also committed to an evaluation of local government finance and will be in touch with the League and cities directly. So the present State Aid policy will be reviewed and in all probability some changes made. Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1979 - Minutes Page 4 (League of Minnesota Cities ~ General Discussion, Continued) Mr. Addicks explained that this is the first time the League had ever taken a position on the State Aid formula. Before that time the formula was specifically designed to benefit Minneapolis and St. Paul. This last session, the Legislature indicated that they were not going to stop that benefit but would look for a new formula. So the League had not really looked at that until they were requested by the Legislature to do so late last year. It was intended that the formula would be for two years and would be reviewed after that time. Clearly the formula fails to help Andover as much as would be liked, and he felt that is something they will have to look at. He doubted that there would be a change this next year, but felt changes would be considered in the next legislative session, 1981, as normally tax matters are considered every other year. But the League will look at the formula again through the normal Committee process. He didn't feel there would be a permanent formula but one that would change every two years and was hopeful it would benefit Andover in the future. Mayor Windschitl stated he would be interested in serving on the Committee. Discussion between League representatives and the Council elaborated on the disparity in the State Aid formula as it relates to Andover, with the Council requesting some help from the League to try to remove some of the inequity that exists in the present formula. Mr. Addicks will submit the Mayor's name to serve on the Committee. Mr. Slater also explained that the Metro City Association is separate from the League in that it has its own Board of Directors, committee systems, and does develop policies; but they are both bound that they cannot conflict on matters that concern the welfare of cities. He also presented a tabulation indicating what services are available from the League. Vacation of Street/Sonsteby Parties present were Rosella Sonsteby, 4151 141st Avenue NW, Anoka; Gabriel Giancola, Law er, 3700 Central Avenue NW, Columbla Hei 55421, and Jeffrey Johnson, Lawyer rom t e same aw lrm, bot representlng Mr. agen. Mrs. Hagen, 14234 Round Lake Boulevard, was also present. P & Z Chairman Bosell explained that this is the third time the Planning Commission looked at this particular issue of the vacation of the road easement on property owned by Mrs. Sonsteby located just west of State Aid No.9 and south of 143rd Avenue NW. The Commission determined that there was no specific benefit for the City for the release of this easement; therefore they recommended the easement vacation be denied because it is an existing easement of record, on the fact that the building permit was issued for a garage which faces the easement, vacation of the easement would not allow ingress or egress for the Hagen family for the use of the garage, that it would not benefit the public; there was a public hearing held and opposition was posed to the vacation. She stated it is unfortunate that it needs to be before the Council as the situation appears to be a multiplication of errors. Ms. Sonsteby stated there has been misrepresentation regarding this 33-foot easement, and she read Minutes of the Grow Township Board from April to December, 1941, which she interpreted to say that the easement was accepted for the George Houston cartway only. She showed a Hoium survey map dated January 5, 1973, on which she indicated that the easement does not come all the way out to Round Lake Boulevard. She owns a strip that she has deeded into the lots that she has sold on Round Lake Boulevard. She purchased the Hoosline lot and is referring to what is in front of her 79 feet and the 33 feet that is deeded into that lot. Ms. Sonsteby then read a description of the property. In her opinion that road easement to ingress and egress with no parking whatsoever does not exist any more since it is not used to get back to the George Houston property and has not for many years. She then read a statement from a law book On how easements are terminated and applied it to this case feeling the easement was put in for a George Houston cartway which no longer exists; therefore, the easement should Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1979 - Minutes Page 5 (Vacation of Street/Sonsteby, Continued) be terminated. She stated she wants to build a house on that particular piece of property. Ms. Sonsteby also read from the City Council Minutes of April 4, 1978, in which she interpreted the Attorney's statement that the easement cannot be used because it is not built according to City ordinance and cannot be used as a public road. She further argued that the City had no right to issue a building permit for the Hagen garage in 1975; that the garage itself is not built according to Ordinance 8, 4.0Sc; and that Judge Larson did not give them the right to trespass over that strip of land. Ms. Sonsteby admitted that this is the third time she is before the Council for vacation of that easement; it has no public access; felt she had cause of action for criminal trespass; and showed an aerial map dated 1965 and 1971 showing the Hagens coming in from the front of their lot facing Round Lake Boulevard. It was after she bought the property from Steffenson that the Hagens fenced the front. She also read a portion of the transcript in the last court case and Judge Larson's comments from the first court case, with the intent of proving that the road was not used 15 years by the Hagens. Ms. Sonsteby also presented pictures which she stated was of her easement, on her property, and on the Hoosline lot. Ms. Sonsteby also read part of Mr. Giancola's brief into the Supreme Court relating to her owning land on all sides of the Hagens, in which she argued the Hoium survey of January 5, 1973, and the legals (which she read to the Council) presented into the court as evidence indicates that the Hagens do own the front of their property. She felt that she has presented evidence that the Hagens do have other accesses to their property up to the time she bought the property from Steffenson. Mr. Giancola said that all of this information has been presented to the court. There was clearly established that the easement was in use and that the use had been there for at least 15 years prior to when Mrs. Sonsteby purchased the property in 1971. He stated that they believed Mrs. Sonsteby is trying to landlock the Hagens by indicating the sliver between the east edge of the Hagen property and the west edge of County Road #9 is a piece of property which she owns. He also stated that the County of Anoka intends to widen County Road #9, and he read from a letter addressed to him by the County's Chief Right-of-Way Agent, Ralph Kishel, which indicates in accordance with a telephone conversation of June 19, 1979, Mr. Kishel is furnishing Mr. Giancola a zerox print of a portion of Anoka County Highway right-of-way plat No. 14 and that it is the intent of the Anoka County Highway Department to acquire the right of way shown as platted and numbered, including Parcel 19A, which is a remnant of land which, according to records and as near as can be ascertained, belongs to the Estate of Elijah Rogers, with the last entry in the County Recorder's office dated 1865. The County will acquire that particular parcel through eminent domain proceedings listing the Estate of Elijah Rogers as fee owner and Rosella Sonsteby as claimant of an interest by virtue of a Quit Claim deed. M9 '~Aancola went on to explained that his firm has obtained Quit Claim deeds from 22/ fl e Elijah Rogers Estate, and he believed some have these deeds have been filed with the County. Mr. Giancola stated that the arguments presented by Mrs. Sonsteby is in the courts and before the Supreme Court. There is an easement there for right-of-way purposes; there is a right of ingress and egress over the 10.89-foot strip. When the garage was placed there, an application was made to the City of Andover and granted and laid out by M~ Arntzen. Both Hearings have been adverse to Mrs. Sonsteby, and she has appealed the second case which is before the Supreme Court at present. Mr. Johnson addressed the issue raised by Mrs. Sonsteby that Judge Larson concluded that there was an easement by adverse possession, which is continued use of an easement for greater than 15 years. That being the case, the underlying fee owners of that small sliver of land is really irrelevant. Because with the adverse possession determination, that easement exists no matter who the fee owner is or whether or not the fee owner granted the right to that easement. Mr. Johnson went on to explain they did research with the County Recorder's office to determine heirs of Elijah Rogers and have located Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1979 - Minutes Page 6 (Vacation of Street/Sonsteby, Continued) approximately 22 heirs and have sent and received Quit Claim deeds to this small piece of land. Mrs. Hagen stated when they moved there, there was a double garage facing #9, but there was no way to get behind their house with anything with four wheels except via the easement. And they have always used the tractor to get behind the house. David Jabloni~ 14269 Woodbine Street NW - stated they have property in the rear off Woodbine treet and asked how far the easement goes toward Woodbine. He now lives on a cul de sac and doesn't look forward to any traffic nor a road through there. There are many motorbikes running through there now. (It was determined by the Council that the easement extends westward to the 40 line between 200 to 300 feet south of the end of Woodbine Street.) Ms. Sonsteby stated the reason she read the legals from Mr. Hoium in 1973 was as evidence that they (Hagens) owned the front of their property. And she is not trying to get any land in front of the Hagen's property. All her property is in front of the 33-foot easement and now a 10-foot strip between the Hagen property and the road easement. All her land from Steffenson's deeds to the middle of Round Lake Boulevard. Mrs. Hagen stated the aerial map showing that they had access to the back of their house from Round Lake Boulevard shows that the attached garage had already been torn down. They could not build the new garage until after the court case and Judge's decision. Mr. Giancola stated there just isn't any way of policing the cars, visitors, etc., for Hagen or other purposes. They have no objections of the area being policed, and related incidences where the Hagens have made an honest effort to keep cars off the easement. Council discussion was that basically nothing has materially changed:since the last time this was before the Council except the question of the sliver of land and that the Council is addressing the easement that exists. Attorney Hawkins stated the only issue before the Council is whether or not there is any public purpose in vacating that easement. Is any public purpose being served by vacating it or is it something that potentially will be used in the future. The question of the strip of land has nothing to do with the Council action. Harr{ MOberg, 14279 Woodbine - would like to have the easement lifted for the purpose of a 1 the motorcycles, snowmobiles, etc., that come down past his property from off that easement. He explained the problems he's been having relative to this nuisance. Discussion of Council indicated that it would probably still be used whether it was dedicated easement or not; that by using this easement, they have to come across private property to get to Woodbine. The Mayor suggested the Sheriff Patrol come into that area with a saturation patrol to see if we can be of assistance on Woodbine. Mr. Jablonic - after seeing the layout of the easement, he wanted to go on record as objecting to the end of that easement. He would have no objection to the front part of the access, but the rear end does come close enough to Woodbine to have people coming through on Woodbine, which he objects to. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City of Andover deny the vacation, legal description identified by the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The reasons are: There is an existing easement of record prior to the time of Mrs. Sonsteby's acquisition of the property; the Andover Building Department granted a building permit for a garage which faces the said 33-foot easement; the rights of Mr. and Mrs. Hagen, who reside exactly south of the 10.89 feet, would be jeopardized with the vacation of said easement, that is the right to ingress and egress over the 10.89 feet; the civil action in 1974 in the court ruled in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Hagen granting them prescriptive easement rights over said 10.89 feet; the natural development of the property the City would use for potential use of the future road; and there is no public interest that would be advanced by the vacation. (See Resolution R84-9) Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1979 - Minutes Page 7 Recess at 9:22; reconvene at 9:37 p.m. Acceptance of Easement - Gengler MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the City accept the easement for drainage and utility purposes from Paul Gengler and Nickola Gengler, husband and wife, as described on the Quit Claim Deed presented to the City on October 2. Discussion: Attorney Hawkins stated that this is a temporary easement as that is all the Gengler's were willing to give at this time. Motion carried unanimously. Certification to County Auditor MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, a Resolution certifying to the County Auditor tor collection of the unpaid sewer charges; City Council of the City of Andover hereby resolves, pursuant to City Resolution the following charge is hereby certified to County Auditor tö'be placed on the taxrolls and collected with the 1980 taxes if not paid by October 10, 1979, pursuant to Lot 9, Block 2, Northwoods Addition, G. Koleber, $237.88. The above charge represents the cost paid by the City of Andover for the connection of the sanitary sewer to service the residence plus 6~ percent interest. Adopted by the City Council this Second day of October, 1979. (See Resolution R8S-9) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, entering a Resolution certifying to the County Audltor for collection of the unpaid sewer user charges; City of Andover hereby resolves pursuant to City Ordinance 32 the following charges are certified to the County Auditor to be placed on the taxrolls and collected with the 1980 taxes if they remain unpaid by October 10, 1979, with the list attached to the Resolution being those unpaid items; and that the above charges represent the sewer user charges, 15 percent administrative costs for certification, and 8 percent interest. Adopted by the City Council this Second day of October, 1979. (See Resolution R86-9) Motion carried unanimously. City Auditor - Discussion Bob Davis of Olsen,Thielen, and Company, explained the increase of the City's bill was due mainly to the lncrease of services, which include special funds, capital project funds, special assessment funds, establishment of a fire department, convert from a cash basis general ledger to accrual basis financial statements; some problems with the Prairie Road Improvement; and the financial statement presentation change recommended by the State Auditor,in that the financial statements should be prepared in an over- view- type format. They put those statements on as of 12/31/78 and will not be an additional cost in 1979. Their increase was due mainly to the increase in funds and the change in the report. They anticipated the 1979 audit cost to be approximately the same, $4,900 based on 160 hours at an average rate of $27.50 an hour including write-off hours. Last year's hours of 201 hours equated to approximately $23.80 per hour. He anticipated the City preparing more schedules for them and doing more work at the City itself this year to hold down their costs. Discussion was on some confusion as to the actual cost of the Auditor's billing, as Mr. Davis' record indicated a cost of $4,900 and the Clerk's records indicated a billing of $5,200. Mr. Davis and the Clerk were to review their records further. Mr. Davis estimated if the City prepared more schedules for them, that it would be approximately a 30-hour reduction in their time. The Mayor stated it would be helpful if the Council could receive a breakout of pure audit hours and the additional hours billed for special services. Mr. Davis felt they could give a fair estimate of it by the next meeting. He also stated they would like to meet with either the Finance Committee or the Council as early as possible after the audit report is completed. The Mayor felt it would be appropriate for the full Council to schedule a meeting with the Auditors. Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1979 - Minutes Page 8 (City Auditor - Discussion, Continued) In response to a question from Councilman Peach, Mr. Davis felt that if the City used data processing equipment, auditing could be easier or it could be very much more difficult, depending on the type of records and what is put on data processing. It would normally increase the audit bill because the internal controls need to be reviewed, etc. 160th Lane, Stenquist Addition Bill Lewis, North Branch, MN, represented Northern Natural Gas Company. Mr. Davidson explained that there was a pre-existing easement for Northern Natural gas line along the south right-of-way line along 160th for 1,500 feet. The design for 160th was adjusted by the Council previously to eliminate the ditching over this line. The pipe is located approximately 15 feet south of the birm on the street. Northern Natural was invited to the pre-construction conference and were aware of the City's plans. They have now come back and asked that the City provide an Encroachment Agreement basically that would state that they would not be responsible for damage to their facility as a result of the street construction nor would they be responsible for replacement of the street if they would have to come back at some later date to work on the existing pipeline or add another pipeline within their dedicated easement. He felt that they can adjust the street grades to provide the gas company with their minimum (3 feet) and maximum (5 feet) coverage of the line. Mr. Lewis explained that the line is 15 to 16 feet south of 160th on the west end and angles to about 8 feet from the bituminous on the east end. He stated this is a problem because they have a maintenance easement and during emergency repair or pipeline in- spection, their heavy machinery can tear up the blacktop in uncovering of the line, etc., because they do not have the working area to properly maintain the pipeline. The line is a high-pressure transmission line with 30 feet of maintenance easement on either side of it. On the question of the blacktop carrying a gas leak, Mr. Lewis explained that should a leak develop in the pipe, the gas will find the easiest way out, which is not necessarily up. An easy path would be under the blacktop and follow under it until it found a place to rise up and out of the blacktop on the other side, quite often it will come up under a driveway. The maximum allowable pressure on that line is 885 pounds, and most of the distribution in residential areas is 40 pounds. Normally a pipline leak with that kind of pressure does raise the ground. The Mayor stated it is trouble- some the way this is written. The City is not blacktopping over the pipeline at all. Mr. Davidson stated that in this case the street would be compacted to greater density than the material adjacent to the pipeline, so perhaps that would be less of a possibility. Council discussion continued on whether or not the blacktopping of the street should be eliminated, whether the proposed encroachment agreement should be agreed to, or whether some compromise can be worked out. Council was also troubled as to why such large equipment would be required to expose a six-inch pipe which is only three- to five-feet deep; that these roads were put in with the full knowledge of the gas company quite some time ago and allowed to exist; if these things would have been known in the earlier stages of the construction project, the Engineers might have been able to design something to offset the street or look at different possibilities. Mr. Lewis explained that they did not receive requested plans of the project and still don't have the plans. He appealed for proper planning before a contractor begins a project to avoid possible accidents, citing two incidences in the City when contractors began work prior to their knowledge which could have resulted in a serious accident. Mr. Davidson was lead to believe that they were notified of the project and wasn't aware that plans were not sent to them. He will check on this further. Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1979 - Minutes Page 9 (160th Lane, Stenquist Addition, Continued) Council generally agreed that 160th should be blacktopped along with the rest of the project. The problem that evolved is that the contractor will be ready to begin black- topping next Wednesday, but Mr. Lewis stated that their Land and Right-of-Way man is out of town and will not be able to provide the City Attorney with a copy of the Encroachment Agreement until next Tuesday. Mr. Lewis also stated that without that Agreement, the Company would take steps to halt the blacktopping of that road. Attorney Hawkins argued that the City is not depriving the Company from the use of their easement as blacktop is not being placed over the pipeline along 160th, and he felt it would be unreasonable for them to stop the blacktopping. We are encroaching on the easement, but it doesn't in any way affect the current use of that. It may affect the upcoming maintenance of the line, but it wouldn't deny them the use of that easement. He also wondered about the legality and necessity of this Agreement. Mr. Lewis stated he would try to contact their Right-of-Way man tomorrow, and Mr. Davidson felt they could work around 160th and do the street last. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, to refer the whole matter regarding the necessity of an Encroachment Agreement with the Northern Natural Gas Company to the City Attorney for his review; and if necessary, that the City Attorney present a completed Encroachment Agreement to the City. Also authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into any such agreement the Attorney prepares. Motion carried unanimously. Stenquist Addition Change Order and Partial Payment Mr. Davidson reviewed the change order for changes made in the design of the project (as per the September 24, 1979, Council Meeting at the Stenquist Addition project site) including some unit cost revisions requested by the contractor because of those changes. Joe LaCasse- 6474 20th Avenue South, Hugo, MN, contractor - indicated that a certain portion of his overhead costs and operating costs were lncluded in the culvert portion, which was a substantial part of the work. He has already purchased the culverts and had them delivered to the job. He felt there should be some compensation for returning those culverts plus for those culverts that were removed and relocated. There is a 20 percent rehandling charge for returning the culverts. And he felt the simplest way to work it in was to get a flat $4.50 increase in the per foot culvert price, which covers all culverts removed, re-installed, etc. The lineal feet of culvert on the project was reduced from 1620 feet to 585 feet. The Attorney felt that with the reduction in the overall project cost the City would still be within the five percent legal bonding limit. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that on the Stenquist Addition Improvement project, to credit the contract by the following: Excavation, 24,268 cubic yards at $1.10 a cubic yard for a total price of $26,694.80; and lS-inch culverts, 1620 linear feet at $14.80 a linear foot for a total amount of $23,976; the total credit being $50,670. And increase the contract by the following revised quantities and unit prices: 15,225 cubic yards of common excavation at $2.15 a cubic yard for a total of $32,733.75; and 585 linear feet of culvert at $19.30 a linear foot for a total price of $11,290.50; total add-on being $44,024.25. Revise total contract price being $201,400.45. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Davidson recommended partial payment to the Contractor in the amount of $36,328.09, which will be processed with Claims this evening. Crooked Lake Advisory Council Jim Stewart, Nancy Hagman, plus other members of the Advisory Council were present. Ms. Hagman presented copies of the attendance at the 1979 summer school program and reviewed those figures, indicating that over the previous year the daily average Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1979 - Minutes Page 10 (Crooked Lake Advisory Council, Continued) attendance had tripled. Over all, approximately 700 students participated in activities at one time or another which also includes some duplicates. Mr. Stewart explained that this was the second summer that there was a full-time employee, and the enrollment is significant over the previous year. He also stated the number of eligible students in Andover Grades K through 6 is about 1,900. Councilman Jacobson explained that in reviewing the budget, a majority of the Council voted to cancel the summer school program because they were looking at some very severe budget constraints. He asked about the City's commitment to fulfill the contract with the school district. Mr. Stewart explained the City's contract with Ms. Hagman is on a January to January basis. If the Council's decision would stand and because Ms. Hagman is a 12-month employee, he would have to try to assign her to another community school, as there wouldn't be any need to have a 12-month person at Crooked Lake, and a 10-month coordinator would be assigned instead. No part of Ms. Hagman's salary was included in the $6,100 that the Council deleted from the 1980 budget under Summer School Program. Mr. Stewart felt there were some alternatives he would like to present to the Council regarding the Summer School Program. He stated that from a planning position, it would be desirable to know whether or not there would be funding for the 1980 summer school proqram bv January; but for staffinq purposes, they would like a decision from the City soon. The Mavor felt it would be reasonable for Mr. Stewart to present alternate proposals. as the formal budaet has not yet been adopted: and it was felt that the budqet would be discussed again at the October 16 regular meeting. Park/Recreation Commission Park Board Chairman Wes Mand explained that in the Lake Ridge plat, they would like the $3,500 park dedication fees generated to be used within that plat; and he requested Engineer input on grading plans for the park, especially building up a sliding hill on one end using the excess material. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that the Park Commission arrange slope designs for sliding area in the Park in Lake Ridge with the City Engineer. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Mand explained that in the Lake Ridge Park area another large area would make good ballfields; and his thought was that if the slopes adjacent to the fields were terraced, a natural amphitheater could be created. He requested input from the Engineers as to its feasibility, how to avoid erosion, etc. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, to authorize the Park Board to meet with the Clty Engineer as to the feasibility of the construction of natural terraced bleachers or slopes around the future playing field in the Lake Ridge Park. Motion carried unanimously. The question of reimbursing Chairman Mand for time missed from work to attend meetings on behalf of the Park Board was referred to the Personnel Committee to make a recommendation, suggesting if it is going to be a policy for one Commission, it should apply to all Commissions as well. Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief Bob Palmer stated that they will not be conducting the burning of brush as was requested at previous meetings. Chief Palmer explained that in the repair of the six-wheel drive truck, a problem has been discovered; and they believe the exhaust manifold is warped. He didn't know what the cost would be to repair it, and Mr. Lindeen has asked for an additional $30 to do the additional repair on the truck. Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1979 - Minutes Page 11 (Volunteer Fire Department, Continued) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we authorize the Fire Department to repair the exhaust manifold on the 6x6 and authorize an extra $30 to Rich Lindeen for additional time spent on repairing the motor. Motion carried unanimously. Chief Palmer asked the Attorney on whether or not churches are exempt from inspection by the Fire Marshall. He related some problems they have encountered with the Meadow- creek Baptist Church. The Attorney will investigate this furtaer. Assessor's Contract Attorney Hawkins reviewed the changes he had made to the Assessor's Contract as there was some conflicting statements about the termination of the contract. He added a provision so there would be no misunderstanding that the City could terminate the contract at any time as long as notice was given the prior year. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that the Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the amended contract for the City Assessor with the County of Anoka. Motion carried unanimously. League of Minnesota Cities Regional Meeting MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City Council authorize the City Council, the Mayor, and the City Clerk to attend the League of Minnesota Cities meeting October 25 should they desire. Motion carried unanimously. Approval of Claims MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the following checks be paid: Number 2715 through 2732 excluding Check No. 2731 for a total of $12,638.92 (that includes Check 2627 to League of Minnesota Cities for dues as well). Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that Check 2731 for Charles Lund for a total of $3,637.20 be approved subject to an affirmative recommendation from the Park Board and inspection by the Public Works Department. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the following Improvement Funds be paid: 1978-2 for a total of $7,633.30; Prairie Road Bridge Approaches for a total of $8,955.71; and MS Bridges for a total of $14,422.99; Check Numbers 299 through 312. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that Lino Lakes Contracting be paid $36,328.09 as preliminary partial payment on their Stenquist Addition project. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:46 p.m. Respectfully sUbm~~ ~CL Z Ma lla A. Peach Recording Secretary