Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP January 22, 1980 ~ 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 22, 1980 r~INUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl, January 22, 1980, 7:30 P.M, at the Andover City Hall, for the purpose of reviewing and revising the City Street Standards and discussion on the engagement of a City Engineer. Counci1persons Present: Ortte1, Lachinski, Jacobson, Peach Counci1persons Absent: None Also Present: City Engineer, John Davidson (TKDA), and City Clerk- Patricia Lindquist. Agenda Approval The City Council agreed to discuss the following items, all requiring immediate attention: 1) Ditch No. 58, 2) MSA Funding, 3) Xenia Street Billing, 4)TKDA Representation at Meetings/Contract. Ditch No. 58 Mayor Windschitl read a letter from Sandi Olsen, dated January 18. requesting the City of Andover Officials to attend a Special Meeting on January 28 at McKinley School, relating to the ditch cleaning project. The City Council expressed concern of the project causing additional water to flow downstream at a more rapid rate, thereby creating a potential for flooding prob1ems.in the City of Andover. Counci1person Ortte1 stated he had attended two meetings relating to the project; and to date, no mention was made of cleaning any of the tributaries. It was his opinion, after hearing the reports, Andover would receive little or no additional water as a result of the cleaning up-stream of Ditch No. 58. Engineer Davidson informed the Council he would direct Mark Schumacher to check further into the question of potential flooding. The City Council also discussed a resolution from the City of Coon Rapids requesting legislation revising the Coon Creek Watershed Board and their statuatory powers, with such reconstruction of the present Law to up-date the Board's authority, thereby creating better feelings and working relationships between the Board and the cities under their jurisdiction. Street Standards The City Council briefly discussed the adoption of the Driveway Standards at the December 4 Meeting. Mayor Windschit1 noted this item was not On the published agenda and that all the Council was not in attendance at this meeting; therefore, felt it should be placed on a Regular City Council Meeting as a listed agenda item. It was agreed to discuss this later in the meeting. Rural Street Standards Mayor Windschit1 noted a resolution had been adopted at a previous meeting allowing the City Engineer to vary from the adopted standards in areas of existing development. Considerable discussion was had on the requirements for new undeveloped areas; and of setting a definite standard for existing development. Engineer Davidson brought up the question of drainage if ditches were eliminated. The City Council also felt drainage to be an item of major concern, but did not feel 2.5 feet ditches were required to attain a proper drainage in the area. · Sped a 1 City Cou,.~ i1 Mee g January 22, 1980 Page 2 Street Standards (continued) Rural Street Standards Councilperson Lachinski suggested that in an effort to keep assessment costs down, the City, through a maintenance effort, build up the roads over a period of time. He cited as an example, 157th Avenue. Upon completion of the preliminary build-up work, all that would be necessary woù1d be contract for the bituminous mat, noting all costs would be assessed back to the property owners. Engineer Davidson advised the Council that if this method were used, all responsibility for the streets/ drainage would fall on the City. He again mentioned that, although the drainage may not be a problem with the gravel roads due to water soaking into the ground, it could be a problem once bituminous is laid, inasmuch as the water would then rUn off causing potential flooding for property owners. It was felt by the City Council thoroughfares would involve increased construction as compared to the minor streets. Counci1person Peach stated he felt many of the property owners complaints were as a result of the engineers requirement of clear-cutting the entire right-of-way area. It was felt this also increased the costs of the construction considerably; and in many instances was unnecessary. Also discussed was the need for berms on the "Temporary Urban Streets" when constructed in the rural areas. It was agreed by the Council to have the engineer address 1) 24' mat with 4' shoulders and the depth of the ditch to be variable and only enough to provide adequate drainage, 2)clear-cut only the areas of the right-of-way absolutely required for visability and drainage. Urban Street Standards The City Council felt the concrete curbs to be deleted to save costs to the property owners. In addition, it was the general consensus of the Council that if off-street parking were prohibited, the streets could be narrowed down, thereby reducing the costs of construction even more. Engineer Davidson brought up the necessity of a berm or curb to direct the water to specific ponding areas, rather than let it pond it people's yards; and that the engineer could not be responsible if there were drainage problems affecting the property owners to a greater degree than prior to the installation of the bituminous street. Counci1person Jacobson asked to what extent could the standard be changed without affecting the guarantee; and then suggested that in existing areas of development the engineer use the width and elevation of the road as it was prior to bituminous construction, and from there tailor it to insure improved drainage. Mayor Windschit1 noted the Metropolitan Council is looking to reducing the requirements for all land uses, i.e., lot size, street size, house size, etc. It was agreed by the Council to address a narrower roadway. Discussed were the advantages and disadvantages of a 28' and 24' surface with possibly a 30' surface in the heavily travelled areas. Rather than go to a curb, the bituminous would be laid somewhat thicker on the outside edges to prevent edge breakoff. Engineer Davidson pointed out the 66 ' right-of-way is needed to allow for whatever utility construction may be needed. The question of a "double-standard" for developed and undeveloped areas was discussed. Those present felt the standard would have to be the same for both, noting a developer could always expand On the standarg if he neraed àhiS for drainage or ~esthetic reasons. It was agreed the englneer shou ad ress the following: 1) 28' and 24' mat and leave concrete curb and gutter, 2) 28' and 24' and reverse berm except in cases of drainage problems, 3) all minor roads (less than 500' in length) to be 24' w/thoroughfares to be 28', noting assessments to be spread equally. Special City CL -:il Me ng January 22, 1980 Page 3 General Streets/Storm Drainage The feeling of the City. Council was the need to reduce the costs for storm drainage. Discussed was the "crowning of the street" to allow the water to drain equally to both sides, rather than directing it to a storm sewer. Engineer Davidson cautioned the City Council to be aware that if the streets are surfaced and drainage is not paramount in the design, the problems with owners could be severe inasmuch as more water will pond after surfacing than with the gravel streets; and that unless the street is almost "flat", simply "crowning" will not help the water to run to the sides, but rather will flow to the lowest point., The question of proper access for emergency vehicles on narrower streets was again discussed. The City Council again noted that all off-street parking could be prohibited through ordinance enforcement. Driveway Standards After some discussion it was agreed that the driveway standard showing variable ditch depth should remain, however, further revision should include the deletion of the provision requiring 4:1 ins1ópe. Xenia Street Improvement/Billing Mayor Windschit1 requested the City Engineer to explain, in detail, the costs billed to-date, noting they did not appear to be realistic, expecia11y the survey work; his computations indicated three men @ an average $30.00 per hour spending in excess of 15 weeks on the job. Engineer Davidson referenced a memo under the date of January 20, 1980, setting out the reasons for such high costs, citing the numerous public hearings, revisions, topography, inaccurate descriptions of roadways, and changes in the actual plat. MSA Funding Engineer Davidson informed the City Council the MSA construction allocation had been increased from $118,445 to $133,405, resulting in a balance of $136,116.40 in the MSA Construction Fund. This item is to be placed on the February 5 Agenda to discuss and consider the 1980 projects. TKDA-Representation/Contract Engineer Davidson informed the City Council that due to work overload and committments, he would like to have Mark Schumacher start attending the City Council Meetings, noting he would act as back-up for public hearings etc. He also stated another reason for this recommended change would be to insure continuity between the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council; lower costs to the City and improved service were also given. The City Council discussed at length, the advantages and disadvantages to not have Davidson cover the meetings, with the primary reason being the number of questions asked at meetings and to which the Council did not feel Mr. Schumacher. would have the answers immediately due to lack of experience in municipal work. i~ayor Windschitl voiced objection citing as primary reasons 1)a1though very qualified as a professional engineer, Mr. Schumacher lack municipal experience, 2) Andover's need for a seasoned person to be responsible for its projects, and 3) too many changes in personnel handling Andover. It was his feeling that an individual such as David Pil1atzke, who had worked two to three years in Andover and on the major projects, might be a better choice. Councilpersons Ortte1, Jacobson, Lachinski, and Peach were of the opinion that ~1ark Schumac,her would suffice if it 1) reduces costs substantially, 2)provides better service, and 3) John Davidson acts as back-up, · . Special City Council Meeting January 22, 1980 Page 4 TKDA - Representative/Contract (continued) Engineer Davidson explained to the City Council, the increase from the 2.4 multiplier to the 2.5; and the addition in the Contract of a provision requiring an assessment of a finance charge on all accounts not paid 30 days following. billing. Another change listed was that of meeting costs--the Contract will provide for 4-3 hr meetings per mOnth at a flat rate of $50.00. Any hours or meetings in excess of this will be billed at the hourly rate of the person attending, plus multiplier. City Engineer Discussed were the advantages of having a engineer in-house; citing l)more concern for the City, 2)the ability to see public works and construction items first-hand, 3)10wer costs, 4)better service, and 5)avai1abi1ity to staff and citizens. The City Clerk informed the Council there was an interest by East Bethel in sharing the services of an engineer. It was the general consensus of the Council töat the City of Andover should hire the individual, provide office/equipment; and then, through a Joint-Powers Agreement, allow him to work On specific projects for East Bethel. Also discussed were the anticipated costs of equipment and/or assistance required to perform the functions required, i.e., plans, survey work, resident inspections, etc. It was agreed it would be better to hire the engineer first, and then, based on his recommendations, fill in the Department. The City of Ramsey has supplied. their 1980 Budget for an engineering Department. The City Clerk stated she would contact the City of Champlin, noting they had just hired a staff engineer in 1979, and would probably have better figures. Several up-coming projects were mentioned, most of which could be handled in-total by a staff engineer. The Mayor asked the City Council if they were interested in looking to hiring another consulting firm. He cited travel time, costs, services, etc. being now provided by TKDA which may be handled better by another firm. It was emphasized that many cities use the services of several firms, which could be an answer for us. MOTION by Ortte1, seconded by Windschit1, to solicit bids from other Consult1ng Firms on the basis of names submitted by the City Councilor general public, with response required in the following areas: l)history of firm, 2)fee schedule, 3)billing procedures, 4)resumes of principals, 5)supporting staff, and 6)mumci~1 ~xperience. Motion carried unanimously. Further discussion was had on the timing for hiring the staff engineer. MOTION by Ortte1, seconded by Jacobson to place an ad in the LMC Magazine and other engineering publications, showing a salary range of $23,000 - $27,000. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, seconded by Ortte1, to set Monday, February 11, 1980, 7:30 P.M., as the date to discuss the engineering question with the City of East Bethel. Motion carried unanimously. HOURLY REQUIREMENT/SALARIED EMPLOYEES Counci1person Peach requested this item be discussed at this time, referencing a memo from the City Clerk, dated January 14, 1980, requesting the establishment of a policy by the City Council in an effort to alleviate misunderstandings with employees. Special City Council Meeting January 22, 1980 Page 5 Hourly Requirement/Salaried Employees (continued) The City Council was of unanimous agreement in that salaried/exempt employees are expected to put in more than 40 hours per week, noting Dave Almgren's salary is based on an average 43 hours per week, and the increase included payment for the expected additional hours. The Clerk was directed to relay this information to Mr. Almgren. General Information Mayor Windschit1 informed the City Council he had been appointed to the Metropolitan Advisory Committee and the LMC Revenue Sources Committee. He asked that he be made aware of all items of cOncern, in order that he could, on the City's behalf, present the facts to the Committees. He noted the Revenue Sources Committee is now dealing with State Aid. Mayor Windschit1 briefly outlined the problems being encountered with the hazardous wastes at the Musket Ranch and the Waste Disposal Landfill. He urged the City Council to attend the Special Meeting, January 29, 1980, relating to these wastes. He informed them he had requested attendance by State Legislators, County Representatives, Pollution Control Agency Personnel, and other interested people. Discussed was the severity of the problems, and the apparent disregard by those Agencies carrying responsibility for enforcement. A question On the City's ability to take legal action against the operators of the landfill to insure compliance. The Clerk was directed to contact the City Attorney on this matter, requesting an opinion prior to the January 29th Meeting. Counci1person Lachinski announced he would not be able to attend the February 5 Regular City Council Meeting. Due to the nature of the items, Liquor Study Committee Report/Discussion and Baker & Sons Re~oning were recommended to be carried over to a meeting when the entire Council would be in attendance. Adjournment MOTION by Ortte1, seconded by Peach to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. . Meeting adjourned: 11 :05 P.M. R;spectfuHY"Submi tted: I !