Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP September 24, 1980 > - ~ 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 24, 1980 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Continued Public Hearing - Curb/Gutter (Auditor's Subd. 82, Chapman's Additions, and Quickstrom Addition). Petitions attached. 3. Budget Discussion 4. Set Levy - 1981 5. Approval of Claims 6. 7. 8. 9. Adjournment -- ~ 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 24, 1980 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on September 24, 1980, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall. 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, for the purpose of continuing the Public Hearing for concrete curb and gutter construction in the Southwest Area and for the purpose of discussing the proposed 1981 Budget for the City. Councilmen present: Jacobson (arrived at 8:47 p.m.), Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Councilmen absent: None A 1 so present: City Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CURB AND GUTTER CONSTRUCTION/1980-3 Mayor Windschitl explained that since the last meeting, the City has received two petitions. The results from the petition from Auditor's Subdivision 82 are 45 in favor. 25 opposed. and 17 no signatures. The results from the petition in Chapman's Additions are 36 in favor, 8 opposed, and 30 no signatures. Rosella Sonsteby - asked what the Council regards those no signatures as. (Mayor Wlndschit1 stated that it is just as noted, no signatures.) John Barry, 3755 143rd - asked how the vote is determined if a person ownS more than one lot. (Mayor Windschitl stated that each Councilman has to determine for himself how he relates those figures.) Mr. Barry - stated that those coming around with the petition couldn't answer a lot of the questions. He asked if the storm sewer existing in Auditor's Sub. would be sufficient to handle the increased drainage that would be created by concrete curb and gutter streets. (Mr. Winner stated that the existing storm sewer will be adequate to take care of drainage with concrete curb and gutter streets. The plans also include adding a storm sewer pipe and catch basin at 134rd and Xenia. It will only be a minimal cost for that.) Steve Wood, 3723 145th - asked if there was a significant amount of difference in maintenance between the concrete curb and gutter versus grass birm. (Mr. Winner stated that there probably isn't a large difference, but that the concrete curb and gutter would probably require less maintenance.) Wes Mand - was not aware of any petitions circulated in Quickstroms. John Quick. 13459 Round Lake Boulevard - asked if the bituminous included bituminous birming. (Mr. Winner expla1ned that at the original hearings, the street design proposed was without any birm and that the water would run off the street to adjacent property. Birms would be put where absolutely necessary. The grass-birm design also calls for a thickening of the edge of the street which would be turned down.) Mr. Wood - was confused as to what was said at earlier hearings about the bituminous curb turned under. He understood there would be some form of edging for the road. (Mayor Windschit1 stated that that is what was proposed at the original hearings -- the curb turned under to strengthen the edges.) Mr. Wood - clarified that the $18/FF is then the bituminous curb turned under so the edge of the street is strengthened. He felt this may have been misrepresented in the petition. Mr. Mand - understood that it would be less costly to turn the birm up rather than down on the street design. (Mayor Windschit1 didn't know if that was the case, but the problem with the birm turned up is that water is then carried over the street. With the birm turned down, the intent is to have the water flow off the side of the roadbed to limit the amount of storm sewer needed.) - _0 .-- Special City Council Meeting September 24, 1980 - Minutes Page 2 (Continued Public Hearing ~ Curb and Gutter Construction, 1980-3, Continued) Mr. Quick - asked if the bituminous proposed will be like the County's birm On Round Lake Boulevard or will it be flat. (Councilman Lachinski explained that the majority of the property owners would not have any curb visible, just where it would be needed to carry the water on top of the road.) Mr. Quick - stated there is no one behind him. He wondered what street design would be put ln for that small stretch of road on 135th Avenue. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution ordering the improvement of concrete curb and gutter for those streets in Chapman's Additions as presented by the City Clerk. (See Resolution Rl17-80) Dale , 3432 136th Lane - lives between Rose and Poppy, which has quite a bit of water running down it during heavy rain storms, which he felt should be controlled with cOncrete curb and gutters. Motion carried On a 4-yes, 1-absent vote. - asked about the annual financing difference on the two types of street designs. He felt that was misrepresented when the petition was brought around in Auditor's Subdivision 82. (Councilman Lachinski explained that for a typical 100~foot lot, it has been determined that the annual cost would be approximately $45 more a year for the concrete curb and gutter street design, but the assessment would be for 20 years rather than 15 years.) Gene Gibson, 14319 Xenia - stated when he took the petition around, he told everyone that the difference in the two prices is $45 a year for an extra five years. Mr. Wood - stated he wasn't told about the extra five years of assessment. Bill Goudy, 14319 Woodbine - talked to Mr. Wood and didn't tell him about the extra five years because Mr. Wood indicated he was opposed prior to giving him any explanations. He also stated that the no signatures are some of the vacant lots that he didn't know who the owners were. Otherwise every home in the Subdivision was contacted. Ms. Sonsteby - stated she wasn't contacted and owns seven lots in Auditor's Sub. 82. She ìs against the concrete curb and gutter and is in favor of the grass-birm section.' (Mayor Windschit1 stated that that then changes the ptition results to 46 in favor, 33 opposed, and 10 no signatures, assuming one vote for each of Ms. Sonsteby's seven lots. Even assuming the 10 nO signatures as being opposed, there is still a majority in favor of the concrete curb and gutter design.) Bill LeFebvre, 14278 Underc1ift - questioned how ownership of multiple lots affect the totals. (D1Scuss1on rev1ewed the figures determined by the Mayor, with several in the audience indicating they own more than one lot in Auditor's Sub. The Clerk stated that to arrive at the 89 assessable lots in the Subdivision, she also counted those houses facing Round Lake Boulevard but with their side lot on one of the streets in the project. Mr. Gibson stated those lots were not contacted. To obtain the results of the petition, the Clerk only counted signatures on the petition and did not determine if a signature represented more than one lot. Normally if a person owns more than one lot, he would sign separately for each lot.) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, introducing a Resolution ordering the improvement of concrete curb and gutter for those streets in Auditor's Subdivision 82, as presented by the City Clerk. (See Resolution Rl18-80) Motion carried On a 4-yes, 1-absent vote. In the absence of any petitions from Quickstroms Addition, no action was taken by the Council. Streets in Quickstroms will be constructed with the grass-birm design as originally proposed. -- .-....... Special City Council Meeting September 24, 1980 - Minutes Page 3 (Continued Public Hearing - Curb and Gutter Construction, 1980-3, Continued) Mr. Mand - asked how the ditch along the road in the grass-birm section affects the driveways. (Discussion noted that there is no ditch but a flat grass shoulder. The intent is not to carry the water but to have it run off the side to the shoulder where it would be absorbed.) John Johanson, 143rd and Xenia - asked on the culvert system On 143rd and Xenia, once the catch basin is ln, will the ditchin9 then be leveled and filled in. (Yes.) Russ Harbu1, 3502 136th Avenue - stated the survey crew of the contractor have been te111ng the res1dents that the sewer line can come out anywhere by the well. But the Andover Inspector has stated that the sewer line must be at least 20 feet away from the well. Which is right? (Mr. Winner then phoned Mr. Almgren and reported that the State Health Department requires the sewer line to be a minimum of 20 feet from the well using either PBC or cast iron pipe. He will talk with the contractor to be sure the correct information is being given to the residents.) Mr. LeFebvre - asked if the deadend streets will be made into cu1 de sacs or will they stay as deadend streets. (If there is no right of way to construct a cu1 de sac, then it will be constructed as a deadend street to the end of the property line to be connected to adjoining plats in the future.) Mr. LeFebvre - asked what happens if someone has some improvements on the City easements. (D1Scuss1on was that generally the contractor tries to move trees, shrubbery, etc., and to restore them if possible; but the contractor is not liable if something has to be removed from the right of way. The engineers generally discuss these types of things with the individual property owners. The construction will include a bituminous 16-foot driveway up to the property line.) MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we close the public hearing. (Several questions about the project were asked by the residents, with the Council noting that the Permit cost is $25 plus $15 administrative fees; that the SAC charge is $425 for this year; and that the property owner will also have to pay a private contractor to hook up from the street stub to the home. The SAC charge and permit can be applied for at any time, which is valid indefinitely.) Motion carried on a 4-yes, 1-absent vote. Public Hearing closed at 8:04 p.m. Recess to allow time for Councilman Jacobson to arrive; reconvene at 8:36 p.m. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Mr. Winner stated that the contractor doing the sea1coating has completed the radiuses and stub streets and is in the process of sweeping the streets. It was his feeling that withholding $3,000 at this time wou1d be sufficient to cover the remaining work. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, the approval of Check Number 3429 for $73.45 and Check Number 3430 for $17,998.27. Motion carried on a 4-yes, 1-absent vote. COMMUNITY EDUCATION DISTRICT ADVISOR Nancy Hageman, Community School Coordinator, stated that Phil Knutson, Andover's represen- tative on the Community Education Council, will no longer serve on that Council. She asked for suggestions for a replacement. Council agreed to give the matter some thought and to contact Ms. Hageman with any suggestions they may have. Park Board Chairman, Wes Mand, also stated he would ask if anyone on the Park/Recreation Commission wou1d be interested in the position. (Councilman Jacobson arrived at this time.) .-.........- Special City Council Meeting September 24, 1980 - Minutes Page 4 1981 BUDGET DISCUSSION Revenues 301.1 - Current Ad Valorem - 1980 Estimate should be $190,000. Clerk is to verify the 1981 proposed figure of $244,400. 334.4 - Grants - Should be $27,350 which represents $8,000 planning grant and $19,350 in grants for the Crooked Lake Boat Landing. 351.4 - Special Use/Variances - Council agreed to raise to $1,500. 351.5 - Dog Impounding - Council agreed to raise to $1,500. 361 - Court Fines - Council agreed to raise to $8,000. 385.1 - Revenue Sharing - The Clerk indicated she had no idea what amount, if any, the City will receive in Revenue Sharing. Council decided to show the Revenue Sharing at $29,000, and agreed to leave those funds una110cated. There would be a freeze on capital items in the budget until the revenue sharing funds are allocated to the City, which would then be used for those capital items indicated in the budget. 395.1 - Fees/Projects - 1980 estimate should also include the fees for the Northwest Area Street Improvement project being constructed and assessed this year. With the revisions made, it was estimated that the 1981 proposed revenue would amount to $733,461. Expenditures (Unless otherwise noted, Council agreed to the reductions suggested by the Clerk in the "REC" column of the budget.) The Clerk explained that on the sheet showing 1981 Employee Splits, the Public Works III person is a proposal by the Engineer to hire Ron Kellar as a full-time person as of the first of the year, and the budget is prepared with that recommendation. There was some question by the Council as to whether there is enough work to be done in the winter for another full-time person. No decision was made on the matter at this time. There was also a short discussion as to whether a computer system would eliminate the need for some clerical help. Councilman Peach agreed to talk with some data processing companies. 4011.14 - Benefits/Council - Agreed to change to $500. 405.10 - Administration Salaries - There was a short discussion on the Acting Administrator's September 23, 1980, memo to the Mayor and Council as to how the salaries were determined. No decision was made on the matter at this time. 4055.30 - Professional Services/Auditing - Agreed to change to $7,000. 406.304 - Attorney/Improvement Projects - Agreed to change to $5,000. 408.192 - Step Increases/Benefits - There was some discussion as to the title, indicating "Merit Increase/Benefits" may be more accurate. Ms. Lindquist explained that throughout the budget, salaries are reflected by an 8 percent cost of living increase over 1979, pro-rated by the number of months worked by an employee, as was previously agreed to by the Council. This item is an amount of money the Council can use for any merit increases, probationary increases, etc., for any staff member over and above the cost of living increase if the Council chooses to do so. She calculated the figure by taking 2 percent of the total payroll. Council agreed to the recommendation of $7,400. Special City Council Meeting September 24, 1980 - Minutes Page 5 (1981 Budget Discussion, Continued) 4091.10 - P & Z Salaries - MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, for $12.50 a meeting for P & Z members and $27.50 for the Chairman. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Lachinski Motion carried. P & Z Salaries would then be budgeted for $3,690. 4094.401 - Vending Machine - Agreed to change to $1,000. 4095.52 - Capital Outlay/Improvements/Fire Station - Fire Chief Bob Palmer explained some of the improvements he hopes to make on the building in 1981, including painting, the wall for the turnout gear, lights ,:over the gas pump, etc. Council agreed to leave the $3,375 in the budget with the understanding that this would be expended only if Revenue Sharing funds are forthcoming to the City. 4096.52 - Capital Out1ay/Improvements/P.W. - Agreed to change to $950 as its share for Public Service Building improvements. 4095.36 - Electric - Agreed to change to $1,100. 4095.211 - Heat/Fire Station - Agreed to change to $2,300. 4096.211 - Heat/P.W. - Agreed to change to $2,300. Discussion was also on installing electric door openers on the Public Works side of the building which may save in the heat costs of the building. 4096.36 - E1ectric/P.W. - Agreed to change to $1,100. 4096.53 - Capital Outlay - Equipment/P.W. - Discussion was on the recommendation to ':construct a fence in the back of the building for storage purposes. Council suggested postponing construction of the fence in 1981 and looking into the possibility of constructing a cold storage pole-type building the following year instead. Mr. Sowada stated that he also requested approximately $2,000 for tools such as a jack for lifting the grader and dump truck, etc. Discussion was On the large amount of money the City spends for small tools in the various departments. Mr. Winner was directed to work with the Clerk and Mr. Sowada to develop a policy on tools in the City, whether it be an allowance to each person for small tools, or purchasing tools for each individual for which he would be personally responsible, or whatever is felt would work best to minimize the loss of tools and the expenses involved. It was also suggested that "Small Tools" be categorized as a separate activity in the budget which would be for all Departments. Council then agreed to allow $2,000 for the jack and miscellaneous tools. 412.10 - Salaries/Fire Chief and Volunteers - Fireman Bill Bush explained how he arrived at the recommendation of allowing $5 per point earned by the fire fighters as they respond to fires, drills, etc. It is the Department's feeling that they want to at least be reimbursed for their mileage, which they are not at the present time. Chief Palmer also stated he would like to see an amount budgeted for reimbursement to those fire fighters who leave their jobs during the day to respond to fires and who are not paid by their employer for that time. This would be only in those cases of a second call, when those on the scene request more help, or for structure fires. Council discussion was on the recommendation from the present approximately $1.30 per point to the requested $5 per point and on what other Fire Departments reimburse their fire fighters. Council generally agreed to figure this item at the rate of $4 per point for the time being which would change this item to $10,260. This is subject to further discussion in order to balance the entire budget. ~~ 0_. . Special City Council Meeting September 24, 1980 - Minutes Page 6 (1981 Budget Discussion, Continued) 412.101 - Salaries/Staff Employees - Agreed to change to $1,500. 412.20 - Office Supplies - Agreed to change to $750. 412.401 - Schools/Dues - Agreed to change to $1,200. 412.402 - Subscriptions - Agreed to leave the amount at $200. 412.23 - Small Tools - Chief Palmer stated he is recommending purchasing some adaptors for hydrants which are a requirement of the Mutual Aid Association, some valves, etc. Council agreed to the figure of $1,000 for this item. 412.50 - Capital Outlay - Assistant Fire Chief Tom May explained their recommendations for purchasing some radios and lights for the Chief's vehicle, additional pagers for the EMTs, portable radios, etc. Discussion was on the additional pagers for the EMTs, in that the present pagers cannot be retrofitted with a different tone to alert only the EMTs. Council agreed to temporarily leave $13,670 for this item based on what, if any, Revenue Sharing funds the City receives. 455.402 - Summer School Program - Agreed to leave the figure at $6,190. Discussion was that if those in charge of the Summer School programs feel that additional fees need to be charged to stay within the budget, that they should look at a way to equalize the fees between the various activities. 455.403 - Community School Program - Agreed to leave the figure at $13,854. 455.101 - Salaries/Other /Parks - The Clerk indicated that the $4,000 reduction she has recommended is shown elsewhere, as she has figured a different distribution of personnel for parks. 455.22 - Maintenance Supplies - Agreed to change to $1,000. There was also a suggestion that parks not be mowed if people are not using them or only portions of the larger parks be mowed, that portion being used. It was also suggested that someone be contracted to mow some of the parks. 455.23 - Small Tools - Agreed to change to $300. 455.30 - Professional Services - Chairman Mand indicated they would like to get some professional help for development plans for some of the parks. Council suggested that the neighborhood get involved in planning their own park, simi1iar to what was done in Meadowwood this year. Council agreed to the figure of $1,000 for this item. 455.404 - Assessments - Agreed to change to $7,300 to include the assessments for Cedar Crest park. 455.52 - Capital Outlay/Improvements - Agreed to change to $27,400 to include $6,950 as the City's share for the Crooked Lake Boat Landing plus $19,350 which will be received in grants for the Boat Landing. Some Councilmen felt that"the monies committed to the White Oaks Park should come from Park dedication fees that will be received. It was felt that the City's share for the Crooked Lake Boat Landing plus an additional $1,100, totalling approximately $8,000. equals the 1980 budget for Capital Outlay. Any other expenditures the Park Board may want to do will have to come from park dedication fees they receive. 455.531 - Capital Outlay/Equipment - Discussion was on whether there is manpower available to operate the additional equipment being requested. It was clarified that the $3,000 mower being requested would be an attachment to the new tractor being requested. It was again suggested that some contract help be investigated to mow the parks, which may be more economical than City staff doing it. Later in the meeting it was agreed to reduce this item to zero. Special City Council Meeting September 24, 1980 - Minutes Page 7 (1981 Budget Discussion, Continued) Council then had a lengthy discussion on the mill levy increase, noting that as the budget now stands, the expenditures far exceed the revenues. Mayor Windschit1 cautioned that the City is close to its mill levy maximum limit, which could then cause problems in the coming years. He noted that once the City levies to its limit, there is no alternative but to cut back services just to keep up with normal inflationary increases. Councilman Ortte1 stated he would be willing to raise the levy limit by 1.5 mills, and also noted that the Clerk has a recommendation for balancing the budget at a 2-mi11 increase. He didn't feel new programs should be started now if the City can't afford to support them in the coming years. Councilman Peach stated he would not be willing to raise the mill levy by more than 2 mills. Councilman Jacobson stated that a 2.8 mill levy increase as prepared by the Clerk amounts to approximately $27 more per homeowner, and he felt that was a nominal amount to pay for increased services by the City on the roads and parks. Councilman Lachinski stated he would be willing to make an annual payment for one peice of equipment for Public Works/Streets & Highways/Parks. He was unsure of what the mill levy increase should be without knowing what, if any, surplus funds will be available from the 1980 budget which would be used for capital expenditures. Discussion also noted that with a 2-mi11 increase, there would be little, if any, capital improvement expenditures unless there is a surplus in the 1980 budget by year end; that most of the departments have requested large increases in their budgets, using the Fire Department as an example with requests of approximately $20,000 over the previous year, questioning at what point can't the City afford it any longer. 414.81 - Buid1ing Permit Surcharge - Should be $1,725. 414.811 - SAC - Should be $34,400. 421.22 - Repairs/Maintenance (Vehicles) - Should be $2,000. 421.2211 - Repairs/Maintenance (Special Project~ -Agreed to $15,000, agreeing that some of that will be used for oiling dirt roads. 421.4011 - GradingiSpecial Projects - Agreed to $6,000. 421.401 - Grading/Contract - Agreed to change to $4,000. 421.52 - Capital Outlay/Improvements - There was some discussion as to whether this figure for sea1coating should remain to keep up with the increased number of tarred streets in the City or to decrease the amount. There was no agreement on this item; it will temporarily remain at $36,000. 421.53 - Capital Outlay/Equipment - Agreed to reduce the amount to zero. The Clerk estimated that with the changes suggested to the budget this evening, and with raising the mill levy by two mills, the expenditures exceed revenues by approximately $48,000. MOTION by Jacobson, that we increase thé mill levy for 1981 by 2.1 mills. Motion Cì~or lack of a second. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that we increase the mill rate by 2.0 mills for 1981. (See Resolution Rl19-80) DISCUSSION: Councilman Ortte1 stated that that leaves only a little over a mill next year when the maximum levy will be reached. Mayor Windschitl feared that cutbacks would have to be made if the Legislature decided no revenue sharing funds will be forthcoming and feared levying close to the maximum mill levy. He didn't think that the 1\ mills remaining to the maximum levy for the following year would be sufficient to even cover the inflationary increases that will occur. At some point there won't be the funds to pay for some of the programs being initiated. Discussion was also on the increases in the requests in some of the Departments and how they could be cut. Special City Coun~, Meet , September 24, 1980 - Minutes Page 8 (1981 Budget Discussion, Continued) (Motion by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski to riase mill rate by 2.0 mills) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach; NO-Ortte1, Windschit1 Motion carried. Discussion was on reducing expenditures and balancing the budget, though no specific suggestions were made. It was then suggested that each Department be asked to review its proposed 1981 budget requests to stay within 15 to 17 percent of their 1980 budget. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 1:09 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~C~ ~L Ma ,ce lla A. Peach RecOrding Secretary . ~.. - ..~.~"..