Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC February 3, 1981 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 3, 1981 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. Charges/Backowski RLS b. Petitions/Streets-White Oaks Country Estates c. Street Acceptance/Degardner-Bia1ke Subdivision d. Variance/Lazarz e. 1979-2, 1980-1, 1980-2 Final Costs f. Coon Creek Watershed/Approval of Consultants 5. Ordinances & Resolutions a Scenic River Ordinance b. Dog Ordinance c. Ordinance 8 Amendment/Accessory Buildings d. Counc i1 By-Laws 6. Non-Discussion Items a. Cigarette, Non-Intoxicating Liquor Licenses/Tom Thumb b. Variance Referral/Rademacher c. Refund of Sewer Late Charge/So Johnson 7. Reports of Commissions, Committees and Boards 8. Approval of Minutes 9. Approval of Claims 10. Adjournment - - --- >- ~, ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 3, 1931 MINUTES The Regular Bi-f1onth1y Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on February 3, 1981, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Counci 1men absent:· None Also present: TKDA Engineer, Mark Schumacher; City Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM John Berr~, 143rd and Underc1ift Street - stated the residents of Auditor's Sub. 82 petltlone the Councll to consider purchasing the unbuildab1e lots on Round Lake for a park area. He asked what actions are being considered at this time. Mayor Windschit1 stated that once the sewer is i nsta lled, those lots are buildab 1e. The Council had discussed the purchase of those lots but was unwilling to buy the land or have it involved with the Rosella's Addition plat. Mr. Berry - stated 'that asking for five lots for parkland in Rosella's Addition is conslderab1y more than what is required of other developers, referencing Johnson's Oakmount Terrace, and noting that the City has monies dedicated by the Rademacher firm for parkland that could be used to purchase land. He expressed concern that in the eight years he has lived in the area, nothing has been done to provide parkland in that area, and he wondered if something could be done. Discussion with Mr. Berry - was that the land dedication desired for Rosella's Addition is in accordance with City ordinances, that full parkland dedication is desired because of the multiple density housing proposed for the development, that all developers are required to abide by the ordinance for park dedication, that the Park Board can still make a determination to purchase the lots on Round Lake if it so desires, and Mr. Berry can request that the item be placed on the Park Board's Agenda. Mr. Berr¥ - stated when meetings were held for installation of sanitary sewer and streets ln their area, it was mentioned that each individual homeowner would be able to hook up his own sewer. He now finds that there is a $48 fee for inspections, and the permit has to be taken out by a licensed master plumber. He didn't understand the reason for that, feeling it was an additional expense that was not necessary. If this is so, that should have been explained at that time. Building Inspector, Dave Almgren, stated the State Plumbing Code requires the license to be taken out by a master plumber who has to hook it up and to make sure the pipe is laid according to plumbing specs. The homeowner can do all the plumbing inside the home. Council noted that it does not have the option to change the requirements since it is regulated by the State Plumbing Code. Steve Johnson, 14033 Yukon Street - referenced Item 6c, Refund of Sewer Late Charge, explalnlng that he did not receive the last quarter sewer billing for 1980. He then received a late charge notice. He called City Hall and was told to put a note in with his payment; however, the late charge was again put on the next quarter billing. He asked the Council's consideration for waiving the late charge. Council agreed to discuss the item later in the meeting. Bob Palmer, 2540 140th Avenue - had previously brought the problem of peat rock on the streets not belng removed after the sealcoating project in his area. There is now a lot of peat rock in the snow, which is causing a lot of problems with snowblowers. He also felt there will be a lot of problems with yards in the spring. Mr. Winner explained the problems of getting the contractor to complete the project, but there is money remaining in the project fund to have the sweeping completed in the spring. Counc i 1 agreed to add the item to the Agenda. - - --~ ~- Regular City Council Meeting February 3, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that the Agenda as presented be approved with the additions of 4g, Sonsteby Change order; 4h, Stop Signs; 4i, Andover Response to Anoka County; 41, Street Cleaning; 5e, Comprehenisve Plan; and 6d, Budget; and deletion of 5d. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, the suspension of the rules. Motion carried unanimously. PETITIONS/STREETS - WHITE OAKS COUNTRY ESTATES Council reviewed the petition before them requesting a feasibility study for street improvement. Tom Cebu11a, 16981 Crocus Street NW - stated that on the petition, Gerald Prior has changed hlS vote to "undecided"; Mike Johnson is "undecided"; and Mr. Matthies has asked to change his vote to a "no". Mr. Cebulla explained that he took the petition to the residents, explaining the situation as he understood it. With the changes of the pesitions of the three residents, the petition presently stands at 17 yes, 2 undecided, and 6 no, which is 45 percent of the lots indicating yes. He asked that the Council reiterate the procedures for those present. He also reviewed comments made at the last meeting in that the price is lower than other projects in the City because of the existing base on the roads; but that that base would eventually deteriorate and then have to be rebuilt, adding to any costs if the improvement was done in the future. Mr. Cebu11a personally wanted to see the project go through to completion; as he felt if these cost estimates are true, that it would be economically wise to do it now because of the existing gravel base presently keeping the cost low and because of rising prices and inflation in the future. Mayor Windschit1 reviewed the State Statute 429 procedure and Council consideration of ordering feasibility study, public hearìngs, etc. Mr. Winner also stated that there is approximately one or two inches of Class 5 existing on the roads, and normal road standards require four inches of Class 5 base. It was his estimate that the existing base would deteriorate through grading and wear within the next two, three, four years. Councilman Jacobson also noted that the price to the homeowner will also vary depending on the interest rate the City receives when selling the bonds for the project. Paul G. Jenson, 17225 Round Lake Boulevard -asked the location of the proposed project. Mayor Windschitl explalned lt lS 172nd and into White Oaks Country Estates. Roger Ka1tke, 17143 Round Lake Boulevard - asked what the feasibility study is and if it costs the homeowner anything. Also, when will the public meeting take place. Mayor Windschit1 stated that the City carries the cost of the feasibility study in the general fund until such time as the project is ordered, the costs then to be passed to the residents. Mr. Winner estimated the study would cost approximately $1,000. Residents are also notified of the public hearing, which will take place after the feasibility study is completed. Jake Heller, 17080 Bittersweet - stated he talked with Councilman Orttel, and asked the possibllity of having the Engineer do the general contracting on the project and if it would reduce the costs. Councilman Ortte1 felt it would be possible to contract each component of the project separately, and he felt the project would be more economical that way. It was thought the guestimate of the cost of this project was determinated by the work that needs to be done in the area, basing costs on other projects done in the City. Mayor Windschitl noted that the City still has to go through a bidding process, even though the project is segmented. Jerry Kelp, 16920 Crocus Street - asked how they can guard against overruns of the project as occurred in projects done last year (referencing 1979-2, 1980-1, and 1980-2 projects). He also asked for the projections of city sewer and water in that area. Regular City Council Meeting February 3, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 (Petitions/Streets - White Oaks Country Estates, Continued) Mayor Windschit1 explained that they try to get the best cost estimate at the time the project is bid. On the one project, the quantities used in the project were way over what the Engineers had estimated, causing the overrun. Mr. Winner also explained that one of the problems with those projects was the new street section had never been used before. These streets are the typical rural section and there are a lot less unknowns in this type of project. Mayor Windschit1 also explained that the City has no capacity for sanitary sewer in that area, noting that that is controlled by the Metropolitan Waste Water Control Commission. Should problems occur in that area, the City would be forced to go to a localized-type sewer system. Mike Johnson, 17021 Bittersweet - asked the procedure now and what the feasibility study wlll provide. Also, after the feasibility study, is another petition presented for the actual job? Mr. Winner explained that the feasibility study is a more accurate estimate of costs, method of assessment, right of way data, etc. He felt some fine grading, more gravel, would just be needed before blacktopping. Mayor Windschitl stated typically an update of the petition or a new petition is brought to the City in favor of or against the street improvement after the feasibility study figures are known. The Council has tried to work with the wishes of the majority of the residents of an area. If a majority is in favor of the improvement, the Council then orders plans and specifications to go out for bids. Mr. Johnson - stated that the residents are then actually giving a vote before the actual bids are received, and bids could change over the feasibility estimate. Council stated that they then have the option of rejecting bids if they are too high or of asking the residents their position at that time. Discussion was on the estimated cost of the project relative to the costs for culverts. Mr. Winner explained that is mainly for 15-inch driveway culverts, which he felt should be there to prevent the obstruction of the flow of water through the ditches. Mr. Ka1tke - asked if the road is blacktopped, do all driveways need culverts. He stated that presently there is only one culvert on 172nd. Mr. Winner stated that that would be his opinion. Tom ( ?) , 3008 172nd - was told by the Building Inspector he needed a culvert when he bUllt hlS house, WhlCh he put in. He could not accept helping pay for culverts in the project now because the Building Inspector apparently didn't require one in other driveways. He also asked the possibility of dropping 172nd from the project if a majority are opposed to it. Councilman Lachinski was of the opinion that it should be left with the remainder of the project because it would be almost impossible to get a street to the back if the first half-mile of road doesn't want the street. (?) - stated that there are plans for a road to go back there from a potential plat. Mr. Prior - wished to change his vote from "undecided" to "yes". Mr. Jensen and Mr. Kaltke - stated they were not contacted with the petition or about thlS meetlng and would vote "no" for now. Mr. Cebu11a - stated he was not aware they were included in the project area and apologized for that. Mr. Ka1tke - stated the two lots on Round Lake Boulevard were just split, and his address was changed to 172nd, so they are both facing 172nd. Dick Johnson, 17020 Bittersweet Street - asked if the residents are assessed for the feaslbillty study lf the project is not ordered. Council noted that the City carries the cost of the feasibility study and any revisions to it until such time as the project is ordered. Then all costs relating to the feasibility study are added to the project costs and assessed back to the residents. I Regular City Council Meeting February 3, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 (Petitions/Streets - White Oaks Country Estates, Continued) Discussion with some of the residents was also on the method of assessment - foot footage versus unit assessment. Council noted that the method of assessment can be discussed as a separate issue following the public hearing; but that if the size of the lots in the area are approximately the same, with the adjustments in the existing assessment policy, assessment would be about the same as if it were done on a unit assessment basis. The feasibility study will be done based on the existing adjusted front footage method, but the unit cost will also be available at the public hearing. Councilman Lachinski also felt that the culverts should be kept separate from the cost of the project, as it would not be fair to charge those who already have culverts for those being put into this project. Mr. Johnson - asked to change his vote to "yes". Mr. Cebul1a - noted there are now 19 votes in favor of the feasibility study, which amounts to 50 percent. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the City Staff Engineer to prepare a feasibility study for White Oaks Country Estates and 172nd Avenue NW area. (See Resolution R5-81) DISCUSS ION: was on whether thi s should be done by the Staff Engineer or by a consulting engineer. Councilman Peach suggested that this project would be easier to do than Smith's Rolling Oaks for the Staff Engineer, especially since a petition has not yet been received from Smith's and this project may take less manhours to do. Mr. Winner felt he could have the feasibility report done in two to four weeks. Council hoped the plans could be completed by the first meeting in March with the public hearing held the middle of March. Motion carried unanimously. STREET ACCEPTANCE/DEGARDNER-BIALKE SUBDIVISION MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we accept the streets in the Degardner- Bialke Subdivision contingent upon the one-year maintenance bond in the amount of $2,500 being deposited with the City. (See Resolution R6-81) Motion carried unanimous ly. CHARGES/BACKOWSKI RLS Mr. Backowski was not present. Discussion was that the charges did not seem out of line, that some engineering charges do not necessarily relate to the amount of land involved, that Mr. Winner reviewed a preliminary plat plus a revised preliminary plat with changes, plus in this case the Engineer was required to do things that are not normally done in plats such as preparing easement documents. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City Council, City of Andover, has revlewed the charges for engineering reviewal of the Backowski RLS and does feel that the charges are in line. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE/LAZARZ Planning Commission Chairman d'Arcy Bosell summarized the Commission's recommended approval of the variance request, Memo dated January 14, 1981. Building Inspector, Dave Almgren, stated that the bu11ding permit had not been applied for, but that because it is an agricultural building, just an agra-bui1ding permit needs to be applied for. He didn't know the building was being built until it was already up and stated that the galvanized metal correlates with the existing structure. Also, Mr. Lazarz had a difficult time obtaining the galvanized metal and could have more easily obtained colored siding. Gerald Lazarz, 3705 157th Avenue NW - stated he owns the three acres the structure is on, plus an additlonal five acres on the east and seven acres to the west. I Regular City Council Meeting February 3, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 (Variance/Lazarz, Continued) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that the City Council approve a variance from Ordinance 8, Section 8.2, Amendment 8i, Visual Standards, for Gerald Lazarz, 3705 157th Avenue NW, for the following reasons: First, the new galvanized corregated metal covered addition to the existing building matches with the existing structure in that the sheeting of the old building is galvanized corregated metal; the variance would allow more asthetic building because of the fact that the entire building would then be galvanized corregated metal instead of a non-contrasting color creating an eye sore; and that there was no opposition to the variance from the public; and also that the variance be contingent upon the owner obtaining an agra-bui1ding permit from the City. (See Resolution R7-81) Motion carried unanimously. 1979-2, 1980-1, 1980-2 FINAL COSTS Discussion was on the January 30, 1981, memo from Mr. Winner relative to the Final Costs of the three improvement projects, noting that the engineering costs for the 1979-2 project reflects the reduction of TKDA's engineering fees for the project. Mr. Winner also stated that the proposed new assessment rates do not reflect any additional administrative costs for the reassessment hearings or for recordkeeping. Discussion was on the reason for the lower price for the concrete curb and gutter streets on 138th and Xavis than for the grass birm streets on Eidelweiss and 133rd et a1, with Mr. Winner noting the major reason is because of the extra assessable footage along 138th. Also, he determined if the 1980-1 and 1980-2 projects were assessed equally, the assessment would amount to $17.52 FF for both types of street. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we have the City Engineer draft a letter for flnal Council approval explaining to the citizens in project 1979-2 the reason for that increase; and a separate letter for 1980-1 and separate letter for 1980-2, each explaining the cause for the increase or decrease and that the Council will review those letters before they are sent out. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion continued with the Council questioning the rationale for assessing Eidelweiss north of Bunker Lake Boulevard at a different rate than those streets south of Bunker Lake Boulevard Mr. Schumacher noted that the original intent was to assess Eidelweiss Street the same as the 133rd et al street project. Several Councilmen indicated they would have a problem if they would be assessed differently now. Councilman Lachinski also questioned the wisdom of reassessing the 1980-2 project to decrease one percent of the assessment when it may cost almost that much for the reassessment hearing and for future administrative costs Mr. Winner was directed to prepare a schedule of assessable footage for the 138th Avenue/Xavis area and the assessable footage for the 1980-1 project. COON CREEK WATERSHED/APPROVAL OF CONSULTANTS Discussion was what action the City had taken in the past; that it was heard that the City of Ham Lake is refusing to participate in the study; questioning the funding procedure and what the City had agreed to previously. Council agreed to recess to allow the Clerk to research previous actions. Recess at 9:07; reconvene at 9:24 p.m. The Clerk read the Council meeting Minutes of July 1, 1980, and Resolution 83-80. Discussion was that the Watershed Board is asking for Legislative approval for interim financing of the Comprehensive Plan and questioned what the City's costs would be if the study is ordered. Mr. Winner explained that the Watershed Board has set February 12 as the deadline to accept engineering proposals for the study, with the Engineering I Regular City Council Meeting February 3, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 (Coon Creek Watershed/Approval of Consultants, Continued) firm to review all proposals on February 13 and make recommendations to the Watershed Board. The Board is requesting the cities to review the list of consulting engineering firms and to raise any objection~ if there are any, to the firms being considered. It is estimated the study will cost approximately $125,000. Mr. Winner also stated that at the last meeting, they were discussing paying for interim financing, with various suggestions for formulas to be applied to each city. Credit for storm drainage plans already done has always been a consideration. Counc i lman Orttel also stated that he has been informed there is a Resolution prepared by the Watershed Board relative to financing. Because no action is required at this time and no one had any objections to the consulting firms being considered, the Council agreed to put the item on hold. SONSTEBY CHANGE ORDER Mr. Schumacher requested approval of a change order deleting the watermain from Change Order No.2 previously approved. The Change Order relates to all watermain improvements associated with Rosella's Addition. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we adopt Change Order No.3 for Southwest Area Improvement Project in the amount of $37,327.92 for the elimination of all water service to the property known as the Sonsteby property. Motion carried unanimously. STOP SIGNS - GREEN ACRES Councilman Jacobson related several problems of reckless driving on the corner of 141st and Ivywood and asked if stop signs could be installed to control the traffic problem. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the matter of street signing, stop signs, in the Green Acres area of 141st and Ivywood to the City Engineer for his review. Motion carried unanimously. Bob Palmer - asked if something more could be done for traffic control in that entire Green Acres/Northwoods area, also relating incidents of racing, reckless driving, etc. Council generally felt the area should be policed better and asked the Engineer to investigate the possibility of installing speed dips in conjunction with stop signs for traffic control. ANDOVER RESPONSE TO ANOKA COUNTY Mayor Windschitl reported that the County is in the process of renewing the landfill license, but that it is currently operating without one. The main permit expires in 1982. He felt another resolution should be passed and sent to the County noting the Council's concern over the continued operation of the landfill. Discussion was on the major concerns over the landfill: that the City is of the opinion that there is not adequate security to insure that all the terminal cover and finished elevations will be completed by the contractor; that if this license is to be renewed, it is the City's understanding that the County is assuming responsibility for all these things should the operators default; that the staged improvements of terminal cover and finished elevations have not been complied with in the past, so the City can only believe that the termination-type improvements will not be done either; that due to the continuing lack of compliance with regard to landfill regulations, the City strenuously objects to the continued operation of the landfill, noncompliance items including terminal cover regulations not being on schedule, lime sludge being stockpiled on top of landfill in such a way that disrupts natural drainage, lack of intermediate cover in accordance with MPCA regulations, lack of establishment of a I Regular City Council Meeting February 3, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 (Anodver Response to Anoka County, Continued) final two percent grade and vegetation on the finished areas to carry surface runoff in an adequate manner (reference Page 61, Item a, of the Barr Report); and concern over the conditions of the hazardous waste pit as noted in the Barr Report. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we direct the Clerk to prepare a Resolution to the County of Anoka regarding licensing of Waste Disposal Engineering Landfill, and also express concern over the hazardous waste pit and its condition according to the Barr Report. (See Resolution R8-81) Motion carried unanimously. SWEEPING STREETS - SEALCOATING PROJECT Mr. Winner explained that after the November 18 meeting, he talked with the City Attorney, who advised that notice be given to the City's contractor and to the bonding company before using the money held from the project to get the peat rock swept up. The contractor had been working on the project, although slowly; and Mr. Winner was confident the contractor would then complete the sweeping. The contractor then never came back; and by that time it was too late to get anyone else to sweep up the peat rock because everyone else had put away their sweeping machinery for the year. That is why the work was not completed in the fall. Discussion was on what course of action should be taken on the problem; with Council expressing concern that the directive to Mr. Winner to be sure the project was completed in the fall was not done; expressing concern over any potential damages the City may be faced with; and questioning whether the money retained from the contract is sufficient to have the job completed. Mr. Winner stated that to date he had not yet given written notice to the contractor that the City considers the project unfinished. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the City Engineer and City legal counsel to draft a letter to the contractor and the bonding company notifying them that the City feels that they are in default of their contract and take whatever legal measures are necessary to secure resolution, either in terms of extra money paid to the City or assumption of the funds that are left in the City's treasury on the project. Motion carried unanimously. SCENIC RIVER ORDINANCE MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the Rum River Scenic River Ordlnance No. 52 as amended and reviewed and approved by the Department of Natural Resources. Motion carried unanimously. DOG ORDINANCE MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the ordinance as proposed by Councilman Peach be forwarded to the City Attorney for his review. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson, as he felt there are some provisions in the ordinance that are not legal. Motion carried. ORDINANCE 8 AMENDMENT/ACCESSORY BUILDINGS Since the Planning Commission recommended no change to the amendment, no further Council action was taken on the item. DATE TO DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Discussion was on the January 29, 1981, letter from Barbara Moeller, Environmental Planner from the Metropolitan Council relative to the Review of the Andover Comprehen- sive Plan. Counci 1 members interpreted the various requests and suggestions in the review differently, but agreed it would be better to ask for a suspension of the Plan I Regular City Council Meeting February 3, 1981 - Minutes Page 8 (Date to Discuss Comprehenisve Plan, Continued) rather than have the Plan denied by the Metropolitan Council, although some felt that the various requests could be completed prior to the February 26, 1981, review by the Metropolitan Council. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the Council request the Metropolitan Council to suspend our review of our Comprehensive Plan, and request a meeting of the staff member of the Metro Council to review the preliminary staff draft, tentatively on Monday night. DISCUSSION: Deliberation was on whether or not a suspension of the Plan should be asked for at this time. Council and Ms. Bosel1 also briefly went through some of the recommended items being suggested by Metro Council staff as noted on pages 21 and 22 of the report. It was also requested that a copy of the County's Solid Waste Ordinance be obtained. The P & Z was also asked to be present at this meeting. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson, Lachinski Motion carried. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we withhold the request for suspension to the Metropolitan Council of our Plan until after the Monday evening meeting. Motion carried unanimously. CIGARETTE, NON-INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSES/TOM THUMB MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, we approve the Cigarette and Non-Intoxicating Liquor Licenses for Mr. Paul Bertils for the Tom Thumb store at 15825 Seventh Avenue. VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Jacobson Motion carried. VARIANCE REFERRAL/RADEMACHER MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we refer the matter of the Rademacher convenience store building being not in compliance with our ordinance due to the building setback to the Planning and Zoning Commission for variance. Motion carried unanimously. REFUND OF SEWER LATE CHARGE/S. JOHNSON Mr. Johnson indicated that this has never happened before. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we waive the late fee for Mr. Johnson on hlS sewer bill for the last quarter of 1980 due to the fact that Mr. Johnson indicated that he did not receive a bill and since this is the first time he has ever had a late payment. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET - 1981 MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we adopt the budget for the City of Andover for the year 1981 as amended and before us this evening and marked "Budget 1981", with total Revenues to be in the amount of $719,118, total Expenditures to be in the amount of $717,179, with a Surplus of $1,939. Motion carried unanimously. ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the Fire Chief for 1981 be designated as Bob Palmer, the Assistant Chief, Frank Stone, and the Fire Marshall, Rich Lindeen, and Secretary, Phil Rzeszutek. Motion carried unanimously. I Regular City Council Meeting February 3, 1981 - Minutes Page 9 (AVFD, Continued) Fire Chief Bob Palmer invited the Council and their wives to participate in a CPR class on February 21, which will be from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Chief Palmer also stated that the Department expects to have the rescue vehicle in operation beginning February 13, 1981. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the City authorize the Fire Marshall to charge a fee of up to $3 for inspections related to the issuance of fire permits, with the . funds to be deposited in the general fund and to be used to offset costs associated with the inspections. Motion carried unanimously. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTEE Councilman Lachinski stated that Marcie Peach has agreed to work with the CIP Committee on the Plan, and that the Monday evenings of those weeks when there will not be a Council meeting have been established for Committee meetings. BUILDING INSPECTOR REPORT Dave Almgren reported on his inspections of the apartments on 138th and Bunker Lake Boulevard (reference February 2, 1981, memo to Mayor and Council from Mr. Almgren). C. MAREK LOT SPLIT After reviewing the ordinance, Council agreed the park dedication fee for the lot split approved on January 20 should be $200. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that C. Marek be charged a total of $200 for creating two lots under the Lot Split Ordinance as required by Ordinance No. 40. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 29, 1980: Correct as written. January 6, 1981: Page 1, last line, add: Road Committee, Don Jacobson, Chairman; with Mayor Windschitl as member. Page 3, sixth paragraph, change "suitable for a dumping station" to "suitable for a fire station" Page 4, fifth paragraph from bottom: Change "Mayor Windschit1..." to "Counci 1man Orttel. .." January 20, 1981: Correct as written. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting for January 20 and December 29 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the Meeting Minutes of January 6 as amended. VOTE ON ~1OTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschit1; PRESENT-Peach Motion carried. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that we approve Claims 3771 through 3817 with the exception of 3780 and 3788 in the amount of $30,592.71 from the General Fund; and Checks 432 through 436 in the Account Fund in the amount of $39,399.21. r~otion carried unanimously. I Regular City Council Meeting February 3, 1981 - Minutes Page 10 MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, - '~\ Uo~uC,- ~;~_ Maice11a A. Peach Reco~ing Secretary