Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP November 25, 1980 ~ 01 ANDOVER COUNCIL MEETIm - NOVEMBER 25, 1980 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 p.m. 2. Agenda Approval 3. Budget Discussion 4. Award Contract Pumphouse/Discussion 5. Authorization to level dirtjP.S.B. 6. 7. 8. 9. Adjourn . -- ~ 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 25, 1980 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on November 25, 1980, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crossto~ Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others (Councilman Peach responded to a fire call just prior to the meeting being called to order.) AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve the Agenda as printed. Motion carr1ed on a 4-Yes, 1-Absent vote. AUTHORIZATION TO LEVEL DIRT/P.S.B. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the City Engineer to arrange with Anoka County to level the fill area between the Public Service Building and the City Hall at a cost of $21.40 per hour and up to $1,000. f10tion carried on a 4-Yes, 1-Absent vote. BUDGET DISCUSSION/1981 Council discussion was on the 1980 budget reports relative to outstanding revenues and estimated surplus for the year. The Clerk stated she has not done a cash flow from November to the end of the year, but her figures indicate a balance of approximately $35,000, which is needed for carry-over for 1981. She usually tries to have at least $50,000 as a carry-over to meet expenses until July of the following year. She also explained that the total amount budgeted for 1980 revenues from grants will not be any more than what has been received, but the Park Board did expend the entire amount budgeted for the development of the boat landing for salaries instead. In the 1981 budget, the City has been told what it will get for local government aid, which is reflected in the budget. Revenue sharing is figured at 10 percent less than 1980 and is included in the budget. The result is expenditures exceed revenues by $36,463 in the proposed 1981 budget. Discussion was on the October 24, 1980, memo on the 1980 budget report from the Acting Administrator; Council questioned why the settlement on the Ho1asek case wouldn't come out of MSAH funds for the property settlement; the Clerk noting that most of the monies from 410.305, Improvement Projects, 1980 budget, have already been reimbursed; and those engineering costs reimbursable from the 1980-3 improvement project are not shown as revenues for 1980. Council generally felt that because of the closeness of the budget for 1980, that any reimbursable items from projects should be collected in 1980 if possible. Council also discussed the question of engineering fees on a project and whether the work the City Engineer is doing on projects is actually a reduction of the consulting engineering firm's costs or whether it is adding additional costs onto the projects for the residents. Council generally felt that TKDA had agreed to deduct from their billing whatever work could be done by City staff. Councilman Lachinski felt that there is some justification for charging a portion of the City Engineer's salary against the project that are not deducted from the consulting engineer's billing, for anything he would be doing over and above what a consulting firm would do, assuming Special City Council Meeting November 25, 1980 - Minutes Page 2 (1981 Budget Discussion, Continued) the City is getting a better project, etc. And the City does expect the City Engineer to be on top of the projects and be aware of what is going on. Council then went through the budget page by page in an attempt to find items to bring the budget into balance. There was discussion and questions on the following items: REVENUES: 311q6e~iq~R~n~icenses: Discussion was on what revenues may be brought in for 1981, . the maximum amount allowed by Statute. The Clerk testified later in the meeting that there is no limit for on-sale liquor licenses, but there is for off-sale licenses, although she didn't know what that figure was. 395.2 Fees/Projects: Discussion was on what portion of the City Engineer's salary can be expected to be reimbursed from projects and on the projects anticipated for next year. It was determined that approximately 48 percent of the Engineer's annual salary is in the 1981 budget proposal. No further action was taken by the Counci 1. EXPENDITURES: Discussion was on the Public Works III position being budgeted at a salary of $9,360. The position is being recommended by the City Engineer but has not yet been approved by the Council. Mr. Winner stated that the position has been temporary since last January, and he didn't feel that it would cost that much more to make the position a permanent position. Mayor Windschit1 questioned if there is enough work to justify the position. The Clerk also noted that Mr. Keller has been working for TKDA doing staking in the SW Area project and may continue to do so next spring. Mr. Ke ller is still being paid by the City, but the City will be reimbursed from the project. Discussion was on the number of people needed to operate equipment during the winter months. There was a suggestion to reduce the figure by $3,000, although a final decision will be made later. 405.10 Salaries, Clerk/Treasurer/Acting Administrator: A final decision will be made later. 4053.40 Contractual, Assessing: It was agreed to continue with the County cOntract for another year. 4055.40 Contractual, Auditing: The item is for use of a computer. A final decision will be made on this item later. Xerox Rental: It was generally felt that it might be worth checking into obtaining a less expensive copying machine. (Councilman Peach arrived at the meeting. 8:40 p.m.) 410.305 Improvement Projects, Consulting Engineering: Council questioned the amount, feeling that there may not be that many projects next year. A final decision will be made on this item later. 410.304 MSAH - Projects - Maintenance, Consulting Engineer: Questioned if a consulting firm is needed for the maintenance projects. A final decision will be made on this item later. 4101.50 Capital Outlay/Staff Engineer: Questioned if the monies budgeted for this item in 1980 are available. A final decision will be made on this item later. 412.10 Salaries - Chief/Volunteers, Fire Protection: The $10,360 budgeted reflects approximately $4 per point for the firefighters. A final decision will be made on this item later. 412.50 Capital Outlay, Fire Protection: A final decision will be made on this item later. Special City Council Meeting November 25, 1980 - Minutes Page 3 (1981 Budget Discussion, Continued) 412.101 Salaries - Staff Employees, Fire Protection: The $4,000 is for those Staff Employees who are members of the Fire Department and responding to day fires. Council generally agreed that a figure as close to accurate as possible should be reflected in this item and questioned if it would be that much. 412.2112 Diesel Fuel/Streets/Highways: Council questioned the amount of money budgeted for fuel for the various departments throughout the budget. A final decision will be made on this item later. 4213.2112 Diesel Fuel: Council questioned the figure. No final decision was made. 455.2111 Diesel Fue1/Park/Rec: Questioned the figure. No final decision was made. 455.38 Rentals, Park/Rec: Questioned the figure. No final decision was made. Recess at 9:03. Council met with the Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting for an hour. Meeting reconvened at 10:10 p.m. AWARD CONTRACT PUMPHOUSE/DISCUSSION John Davidson, TKDA,and Jud Johnson and one other person representing Johnson Engineering, were present. Mr. Davidson reviewed the TKDA report on the iron removal from Well No.1, noting that the flexibility within the system provides for this treatment at the time it is determined necessary; that the well still had not yet been developed; that the water sample was taken recognizing that the well had not yet been test pumped or cleared; that the results indicate that the water is high in iron and manganese and is very hard; and that because of the high iron and manganese content, there will be some problem as the iron oxidizes and combines with the manganese which will have an affect on polyester clothes in washwater, but that a good flushing program at least twice a year should contro 1 that. Mr. Davidson went on to explain there are two approaches to removing the iron from the water. The first approach is to add po1yphosphate injection equipment, which won't remove the iron but sequesters it to keep it from oxidizing and eliminates the need for iron removal. Only up to 10 parts per million of po1yphosphates can be injected, which is what is allowed by the State Board of Health, and will take care of up to 2 parts per million of iron out of suspension. That would leave, based on the sample, about 1~ parts per million of free iron still in solution. Most home softener units would take care of up to 1 part per million of iron. This, plus the chlorination and fluoridation, will have to be monitored on a daily basis by a licensed Class B operator. Mr. úavidson stated there is a possibility that after the well has been developed and cleared, the iron and manganese content may level off and be reduced. At that time, he suggested the water be tested and establish what level can be treated with polymers as the first level of treatment by the City. There is adequate room in the pumphouse for the po1yphosphate injection equipment. That facility can be put into the pump house for approximately $2,500 plus approximately another $2,500 a year for the chemicals. Mr. Davidson stated at the point where there are enough homes on the water system, the City may want to consider spending the $100,000 for a central treatment facility when it becomes a cost effective situation. Mr. Davidson explained the iron removal method with sand filters, etc., requiring a tank of approximately 8 feet by 36 feet. The problem with using that approach now is that it requires 750 gpm to operate the backwash facility, which is the entire capacity of the water facilities. Norma 11y the backwash periods are between 15 minutes up to one hour, assuming it would need to be done on an every-other day basis. He also explained how the pumphouse building could be Special City Council Meeting November 25, 1980 - Minutes Page 4 (Award Contract Pumphouse/Discussion, Continued) added on to to store iron· removal equipment should it be desired in the future. He recommended that approach rather than designing the pumphouse to house the equipment now when there is no firm idea of what will ultimately be needed -- not knowing whether the treatment facilities are really needed at this time and not knowing how fast the water system will expand. The system was designed and built with flexibility built into the total system. It is also possible to build a separate structure which is more adequately designed strictly for treatment.. Council had a lengthy discussion on the two approaches being presented, the advantages and disadvantages of each; and on the procedures that would be used to maintain the lines, treatme~t, of iron, etc. After discussion, it was generally felt that it may be unwise to get involved with iron removal treatment outside the home because of the liability which arises when it malfunctions; that the water pipes can be protected by a regular flushing system and using po1yphosphates as an added protection; and that the burden of cost for the $100,000 iron removal equipment is ultimately upon the developers in the water service area and that at this pOint the City cannot afford to carry the cost of this equipment. It was felt that the installation of the po1yphosphate injection equipment would be beneficial, but to let the individual homeowner bear the responsibility of installing a home water softener for iron removal if they so desire. Mayor Windschit1 did question the safety of using the po1yphosphates and asked that no commitment be made to this approach until he can research it further. Mr. JOllnson stated they had prepared a change order to the pumphouse contract to install the po1yphosphate injection equipment at a cost of $2.476, but stated that the change order would not need to be approved immediately. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to accept bids and award contract for the construction of pumphouse under Improvement Project 1980-3 ... (To Johnson Engineering, Inc., for $149,961.95) (See Resolution R141-80) Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Davidson also reported on the standby power system, stating because of the type of facility and the single initial start-up conditions, it was felt that there may be a period of time before the lack of power would cause a problem in the system. They had first considered the record of power outages of the system to which this will be connected and found out that within the last five to six years, they had four outages for a duration of 20 minutes. They have worked out a system to have two power sources coming to the pumphouse, one from the north and one from the south which will tie in behind the shopping center. This will eliminate the cost of running a separate line for another power sources. Mr. Davidson went on to explain other alternatives for standby power they had considered, feeling the best alternative was to go with a mobile generator unit. He also suggested that some policy be established as to where the unit would be used first in an emergency situation. Because they do not yet know the exact requirements at the pump station, he could not provide specifics on the size of the generator that the City would need, but stated the generator should be adequate enough to be able to start the motor, suggesting a 320 KVA, 480 volt capacity, diesel, three phase,using alternating current generation, estimating the cost of approximately $50,000 new. Mr. Davidson stated that once the specifics are known, other sources can be investigated, including used generators. During discussion, the Council asked Mr. Davidson to research if the pumphouse can be provided with power lines from two different substations and to report back to the Council. 1981 BUDGET DISCUSSION CONTINUED Council generally agreed that no changes would be made to the budget proposal for Community School or the Summer School program. Special City Council Meeting November 25, 1980 - Minutes Page 5 (1981 Budget Discussion Continued) 412.10 Salaries - Chief/Volunteers, Fire Protection: Agreed to leave the figure at $10,360. . 412.101 Salaries - Staff Employees, Fire Protection: Agreed to chage the item to $3,000. 412.2112 Diesel Fuel, Fire Protection: Agreed to leave the figure at $700. 412.50 Capital Outlay, Fire Protection: Agreed to change item to $11,760. 4055.40 Contractual, Auditing: Agreed to reduce the item to zero. 410.304 MSAH - Projects - Maintenance, Consulting Engineer: Agreed to reduce the item to zero. 410.305 Improvement Projects, Consulting Engineer: Agreed to reduce to $5,000. 4101.50 Capital Outlay, Staff Engineer: Agreed to reduce to $4,200. It was generally agreed to reduce the allocations for gas and diesel throughout the budget by $3,000 and have Mr. Winner determine the specific line items that will be reduced. 408.192 Step Increases/Benefits: The Clerk explained that the salaries for all employees are budgeted at an 8 percent increase; this item is for merit increases for everyone except her position. Her salary has been figured at an 8 percent increase for her base salary plus compensation for her Acting Administrator duties. Council discussion was on an appropriate amount for this item and on the application of any merit raises for employees. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, to move that back from $7,500 to $4,000 (Item 408.192) DISCUSSION: was on the percentage of increase an employee could receive for cost of living plus merit increases; that not everyone would be receiving merit increases; and that three percent of the gross salaries to be applied for merit increases is $5,400. Councilmen Peach and Jacobson WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we set aside a total of $5,400 for merit increases for all employees, Line item 408.192. Motion· carried unanimously. 405.10 Salaries, Clerk/Treasurer/Acting Administrator: Agreed to change to $22,383, 4101.~aicea~~t¡~eoBèTðy~a~tgf¥sERªi~egr~ce~grjg6rt8sð~other change from $4,200 to $3,000. APPROVAL OF CLAIM MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we approve Claim Number 3618 for postage, $250. Motion carried unanimously. 1981 BUDGET DISCUSSION CONTINUED Discussion continued on items of expenditure that may be reduced, as expenditures still exceed revenues by $6,396, though no specific changes were agreed to. At one point, Councilman Jacobson MOVED to subtract $1,500 out of the Attorney's fees and let the staff figure out the redistribution. Motion dies for lack of a Second, although it was generally felt that money could be saved by dismissing the Attorney by 10:30 at meetings. Special City Council Meeting November 25, 1980 - Minutes Page 6 (1981 Budget Discussion Continued) Council generally agreed to postpone any further cuts in the budget until after the Clerk can find out the City's actual assessed valuation, which may have some effect on revenues. Everything in the budget has been based on an estimated assessed valuation. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:16 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ---------'--_.~ '\\,\c~i-~,~~\~~L Mar~la A. Peach Recor ing Secretary