HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC March 3, 1981
~ 01 ANDOVER
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 3, 1981
AGENDA
1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M.
2. Resident Forum
3. Agenda Approval
4. Public Hearing - Wetlands Designations
5. Discussion/Representative John Weaver
6. Discussion Items
a. Accept Feasibility Report/Set Public Hearing
1) White Oaks County Estates 1981-1
2) Unit/Front Footage Assessment Policy
b. Approval Resident Letters/1979-2, 1980-1, 1980-2
c. Preliminary Review/Oakwood Estates
d. Water Meter Ordinance
e. Green Acres/Traffic Report
f. Ag Preserve District
g. Water Meter Quotations/Funding h. Watershed District Resolution
7. Non-Discussion Items
a. Community/Summer School Report b. Date/Sewer Trunk('Charges
/Metro Council MUSA Changes
8. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Boards
g. Approval of C1 aims ....
10. r
Approval of Minutes
11. Adjournment
- - -. - -~
~ 01 ANDOVER
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 3, 1981
r'II NUTES
The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by
Mayor Jerry Windschitl on March 3, 1981, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685
Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota.
Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach
Councilmen absent: None
Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, Larry
Winner; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others
AGENDA APPROVAL
Council noted that the material for most of the Agenda items for this meeting had
not been prepared for the Council by the City Engineer, Mr. Winner.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the Agenda be approved as published with
the deletion of 6a, b, c, d, and e, and the addition of 7b, Date for the Sewer Trunk
Charges/Metro Council MUSA Changes. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, suspension of the rules. Motion carried
unanlmously.
PUBLIC HEARING - WETLANDS DESIGNATIONS
Bob Hutchinson, representing Anoka County, addressed the Wetlands Designation law
enacted by the State Legislature, noting that this is not a County program, that
the mapping was done based on the existing law. Mr. Hutchinson then gave a brief
background of the DNR administered public waters program and the recent legislative
actions to provide a more objective definition of public waters and wetlands. That
Act also provided that the DNR inventory and map the wetlands on a county basis,
submitting that map to the county for its review and correction of errors within 90
days. In Anoka County the DNR identified 695 public waters. The County held four
public meetings during the review period and found several extensive errors with
the DNR map in terms of location, size, and distorted shapes. The County received an
extension until June 1, 1981, to complete the review and comment, which is where they
are now. They have used data available and applied it to remap the public waters
and wetlands on a city by city basis.
Mr. Hutchinson then reviewed the City of Andover map prepared by the County of those
public waters and wetlands which were applicable under the law, those types 3, 4, and
5 wetlands of 2~ acres or greater. County or judicial ditch areas were calculated
based on the vegetation shown on the aerial photos done in 1977. The County feels
it can support all the changes they are suggesting and feels that the maps are now
accurate to within 100 feet. At this point, the County is suggesting three recommenda-
tions to the DNR: 1) that the mapping be done on an individual community basis on
a scale of 1 to 1000 which is much more accurate; 2) that road right of ways be
deleted from any delineation; and 3) that the minimum amount of correction to the DNR
map be in the line of what the County is submitting. The purpose of this meeting is to
have individual property owners review the maps and identify those areas in question,
after which the County will view the property.
Mr. Hutchinson also explained that when the mappings are submitted to the Commissioner
of Natural Resources on June 1, the Commissioner has 30 days to review the recommenda-
tions and act on them. At that point he has to publish the map in three newspapers with
general circulation in the County. That will start another 90-day time period in which
individuals who feel there is still some error in the maps can petition a hearing
~ --
Regular City Council Meeting
March 3, 1981 - Minutes
Page 2
(Public Hearing - Wetlands Designations, Continued)
before a three-member panel, one person appointed by the Commissioner of Natural
Resources, one person appointed by the County Board, and the third person appointed by
the other two members from the Board of the County's Soil and Water Conservation
District. Mr. Hutchinson also reported that the process the DNR has been taking is that
of litigating those decisions of the Appeals Board which are not in favor of the DNR.
He also reviewed several of the bills being introduced in the current legislative
session relative to the public waters/wetlands issue. Should any bills be passed and
signed by the Governor before June 1, it is the County's intent to apply them to what
would be recommended to the DNR. The County is also planning to notify the cities
and those individuals on their mailing list to advise them on the date the maps are
published. Presently no additional meetings are being p1anned,but he is willing to
talk with individual property owners affected and would be willing to hold additional
informational hearings after the maps have been published if there is a demand to do so.
Mayor Windschit1 asked if the wetlands cross a road or public right of way, does it
give the public the right to, in effect, tresspass legally across property that someone
else is paying taxes on. Mr. Hutchinson stated that from talking with the DNR and
County Attorneys, it is his understanding that there can be public access to public
waters. With respect to wetlands, though it is difficult to determine, it is generally
thought if the public can get on the surface of the water legally, they can travel on
it as long as they don't touch the bottom. Mayor Windschitl then asked if someone from
the County could draft a bill that would prevent people from going on private property
because of this public waters act. He also stated that this map is a definite improvement
over the map submitted by the DNR.
Ann Sikora, 11 177th Avenue NW - asked whether the property owner has an option of
partlcipatlng ln thlS. (No) She felt there is no benefit to the farmer and that it
is unjust that they pay taxes on the property for years and now have to have the
property controlled by the DNR with their having no rights to it. She didn't feel
more government control was needed. It's so easy to make laws, but it takes forever
to repeal them. Mr. Hutchinson explained that the law has been in effect for many
years, but it is now a matter of delineating it so people are aware that it exists.
There is a separate law dealing with tax credit for wetlands where the property owner
has an option of participating.
(?) - asked if they have to pay taxes on it but have nothing to say as to the
use of it. Nobody would even by it. Mr. Hutchinson stated if it qualifies under the
she_wouldn't have to pay taxes on it.
(?) - asked if the DNR has to buy the land. Mr. Hutchinson stated there are
several provisions in the law that deal with draining the wetland to farm it and the
DNR options at that point. If there are trees in the wetland, it shouldn't be included
under this law. He also explained that the law is an unpopular one, but he would do
the best he can to argue the case to meet the letter of the law.
Rosella Sonstebf - stated that this law was passed in 1976 by the Democrats. The
prevlous law on y included lakes and rivers, not wetlands. Mr. Hutchinson disagreed,
stating that wetland were included previously, but the new law specifically added
wetlands so it was clear and specified the type to be included now.
,
Ms. Sikora - has sold 30 acres, but a road would have to be built over lowland to get
to the hlgh acreage behind. She asked if the owner would now be able to put a road in.
Mr. Hutchinson stated that the law is now being enforced and the owner would have
to apply for a permit from the DNR if the land qualifies under the definition of
wet 1 and under. the 1 aw.
It was noted that a section of the western portion of the City is not included in the
County's map. Mr. Hutchinson stated he would send a copy of that portion of the map
to the City.
- --
Regular City Council Meeting
March 3, 1981 - Minutes
Page 3
(Public Hearing - Wetlands Designations, Continued)
Council discussion was on the map. Council asked Mr. Hutchinson to review the
following areas: 1) Section 14, southwest corner, a designation is being shown as
wetland; however, there is an existing power line easement and the City is purchasing
right of way easements for the extension of Hanson Boulevard. 2) East of the railroad
tracks, wetland~ area shown as 433W, Sycamore Street is an existing easement and street.
3) Along 138th Avenue, wetland shown as 615W, Bunker Lake Estates is an existing
mu1ti-p1ex unit.
Mr. Hutchinson stated that should the DNR modify the maps presented by the County,
the July 1 date by which the Commissioner of Natural Resources must publish the maps
is an important date to remember. If the County knows of some substantial change by
the DNR, they will try to let those affected know. The County has no assurances the
DNR will accept their proposal. Council generally agreed that the City's map should
be sent to the DNR at the same time the County submits those of the other communities.
(1) - was concerned that individual property owners were not notified of this
law and felt a lot of people involved are not aware of it. Mr. Hutchinson stated that
that is a problem a number of people have commented on, noting that bills on that matter
are being introduced into the legislature.
DISCUSSION/REPRESENTATIVE JOHN WEAVER
Representative Weaver distrubted data to the Council relative to the wetlands designations
issue. He then reviewed the status of the public waters/wetlands inventories, outlined
the process that has occurred to date relative to the 1979 law authorizing the in-
ventories of the public waters and wetlands in each county in Minnesota, and reviewed
the requirements of the law and the events which have taken place in Anoka County and
in those counties in southwestern Minnesota who have already completed the process.
He also noted that in 27 counties in southwestern Minnesota where the process has gone
back to the DNR as the last step, there are now 839 farmers defending themselves in the
courts against DNR action. It was Mr. Weaver's opinion that this is a bad law, and it
denies property rights of people.
Representative Weaver also explained that the process in Minnesota has become so
critical that a group of legislators have sent a letter to all County Commissioners
suggesting that one of the remedies might be to declare a moratorium in the process,
mostly to stop the DNR from throwing all these properties into the courts, until after
the legislature has had an opportunity to address it. Since then, 34 counties have
presented certified resolutions asking that the process be stopped; and tomorrow he
and other legislators are going to meet with the Governor asking to take action to
stop the process until there is an opportunity to make some changes in the law.
Representative Weaver then reviewed several of the proposed changes in the law,
including requiring notification of property owners affected, placing the burden of
proof on the DNR to prove that there will be a detrimental environmental impact if a
particular piece of property is not included in the inventory, giving the counties
the right to withdraw the initial permitting authority from the DNR if the counties
choose to do so, and that the three-member Appeals Board be the end of the line for
the DNR so the DNR would not be able to take property owners into litigation. These
bills will be heard before the Environmental Natural Resources Committee on March 12.
Mayor Windschit1 again expressed his concern over the effects of the bill of allowing
tresspassing on private property, hoping a bill could be introduced providing for the
right of privacy on the property taxes are paid on. Representative Weaver agreed that
the law denies the property owner of any riparian rights and felt that there will be
the desire to cross private property to get on public waters within that private
property.
Regular City Council Meeting
March 3, 1981 - Minutes
Page 4
(Discussion/Representative John Weaver, Continued)
Representative Weaver also stated that he has taken the liberty of informing other
legislators of the hazardous waste situation in Andover and of the urgency of solving
the problem. Around March 12 a Minnesota Superfund Bill will be brought into Committee;
and if it is successful, the Andover site would be the top priority. It is now known
that there will be no funds available from the Congressional Superfund monies for
Andover. Representative Munger has indicated he wants to bring the Environmental
Natural Resources Committee to visit the site, and Representative Weaver asked that
Andover officials be present as well if possible. Mayor Windschit1 indicated most would
be present if possible. He also noted the City's concern over the hazardous waste pit
at the landfill. The Clerk was directed to provide Representative Weaver with a copy
of the Barr Engineering report done for the County relative to that waste pit and the
landfill site. Representative Weaver thanked the Council for their time this evening.
DISCUSSION/LANDFILL
Mayor Windschitl stated the City has sent resolutions to the County asking that the
landfill be terminated, and he asked if the County is going to react to the City's
requests. He also reviewed some of the City's concerns over the operation there,
especially relative to the termination and security deposits.
Mr. Hutchinson stated that the license renewal comes up before the Committee the
third Thursday in May. He thought the license for 1980 had been issued last June with
some conditions. Mr. Hutchinson was not in dispute over the low security. But he
explained that the south and west slopes of the landfill received terminal application
in compliance, and it was seeded; however, it did not take root and there was some
erosion. So there may be some repair work necessary. When working on the top, they
cut into the slope some, and there will have to be some repair work where they made
the tie-in. There was a condition of the license that the easterly one-quarter get
the terminal cover application. That was done, but the seeding was not done. That is
expected to be done this spring. Also, they are now reaching final elevation to begin
terminal cover on the top, which is to be done roughly six weeks behind. So the areas
not finished are small.
Mr. Hutchinson also explained that they are the only place in the state which closes
landfills on windy days if litter can't be controlled or equipment isn't operating to
cover, etc.; so his office has been trying to not be lenient. He estimated that by this
fall the main fill area would be finished and better than 2/3 of the top will have
received terminal cover.
Mr. Hutchinson then met with individuals in the adjoining room relative to the public
waters/wetlands designation.
AG PRESERVE DISTRICT
Discussion was on the effects of having such a district in the City, noting the only
improvements that would be waived would be sanitary sewer and water. Council therefore
questioned if such a designation would be necessary in the rural area of the city.
It was also understood that in Anoka County it will not have an effect on the taxes.
Councilman Lachinski indicated he didn't see any advantage to the City by participating
in the Act, and it appears there is a lot of bureaucracy involved. The type of
property that would qualify for Ag is not the property the City would assess anyway.
Councilman Peach stated it would provide a legal grounds for assuring that development
would not occur on that particular area.
Discussion was also on the effects of the Act for such land designated within the urban
service area, of the qualifications the land must meet, and that either initiating an
Regular City Council Meeting
March 3, 1981 - Minutes
Page 5
(Ag Preserve District, Continued)
ag preserve district or excluding it would simply require an amendment to the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Some on the Council felt a further in-depth look at the bill
should be made; and if it is felt the City wants to participate in the Act, then have
the necessary ordinances drafted.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we submit the Ag Preserve question to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for their analysis and development of an ordinance if
that is their recommendation.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson, Lachinski
Motion carried.
Councilman Lachinski stated he didn't see where it is any benefit whatsoever for the
City. And as far as the residents, if they are farming the property, there doesn't
appear to be any tax benefit. All it really appears is that the City ends up with a
lot of paperwork and bureaucracy to go through without any real significant benefit to
anyone. Mayor Windschit1 felt that those interested in applying for this should
clearly understand that there can be only one house per 40-acre parcel. Planning
Commission Chairman d'Arcy Bose11 also noted that it ties up the land for a minimum of
eight years, probably more. Later in the meeting Attorney Hawkins reviewed the Act
and found nothing that would prohibit an owner from making application for the ag
preserve and renting the land as long as it is used for agricultural and can meet the
definitions.
WATER METER QUOTATIONS/FUNDING
Mr. Winner stated he received two quotations for water meters, from Rockwell and
from Neptune. The quotation for Badger meters hasn't come in yet.
Bob Polston, Davis Water Equipment Company, submitting the bid for Neptune water
meters -- addressed the Council relative to the two types of water meters they now
have. He explained that the old type is an electromechanical remote system that
transmits a pulse at a predetermined gallonage to an outside unit. But throughout
the industry, there is a 10 to 15 percent failure rate because of the nature of the
design of that equipment. They have developed the ARB system, Automatic Reading and
Billing, which allows the register to be interrogated electronically either with a
manual reading device or transferred onto magnetic tape, which can then be put into a
computer for billing. Because the City is starting a new metering system, he felt it
would be beneficial to consider employing this type of system because of its greater _
accuracy and time saved from computer and reading standpoint. The old electromagnetic
unit costs $40.29 per unit, and the new unit is $49.95; however, he felt the difference
in price is justifiable, estimating that with the increased accuracy and efficiency,
the increased price of the new unit could pay for itself in 6~ years.
Mr. Polson also demonstrated the use of the manual reader with the ARB system, noting
that the cost of the manual reader is $360. He stated that there are many service
bureaus that do billings on a contract basis. The ARB systems are installed in
Fairmont, MN, and DeMoine, IA; and Big Lake is considering the system. But the
reason there are no more in Minnesota is because all the other cities are committed to
using the electromechanical system, and the costs for changing is quite expensive. Mr.
Polson also stated that should the City consider the card system of billing, it wouldn't
require reading the meters more than once a year. The next step is reading by telephone,
which is being done in several pilot projects throughout the U.S.; and with the ARB
system, the only thing necessary would be the addition of a coupler from the telephone
company at some future date.
Regular City Council Meeting
March 3, 1981 - Minutes
Page 6
(Water Meter Quotations/Funding, Continued)
Oiscussion with Mr. Polson and staff members. Frenchie Stone, Dave Almgren, and Ray
Sowada was on the advantages and disadvantages of both systems of water meters. Staff
members generally expressed opposition to the ARB system because of the additional
expense, because the electromechanical system has been a proven system, because there
is generally a lot of difficulty with the outside readers, and expressing concern that
not that much is known about the ARB system nor is it that widely used presently.
Mr. Polson stated they had no maintenance problems with the equipment itself, and it
carries a 10-year warranty. They stock the electromechanical systems, but a 30- to 45-
day lead-time is needed for the ARB system. Also, the only thing that would need to
be repaired is the measuring chamber or bottom cap. The cost of the cap is approxi-
mately $2.50, and the measuring chamber is $9. The chamber carries a 15-year warranty,
even against freezing. There are no moving parts in the remote; it has the gears that
drive the numbers and an integrated circuit card that permits the interrogation in
the ARB.
Mr. Winner suggested waiting until the next meeting to make a decision, at which time
the Badger quote should also be received and this information on the ARB system can
be reviewed. Mr. Winner also informed the Council that the pumphouse contractor will
be asking for a one-month extension on the contract, which would make the completion
of the pumphouse on April 1. And TKDA is requesting a change order on the pumphouse
contract for a deduct for a different pump, but there is a four- to six-week time to
order this pump, which would bring it to the middle of April.
Several on the Council had a favorable reaction to the use of the ARB system, but felt
they did not have enough information before them this evening to make a decision.
Council also expressed concern that the water system has been developing for a year,
but this matter is first now coming before them, almost being forced to make a very
quick decision. Should the City go with the ARB system, by waiting to March 17 to
make that decision, it would be May 1 before it could be received.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, to table this item until the next meeting at
WhlCh time the Engineer will have a report. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Polson
agreed to provide Mr. Winner with the costs for data processing on the ARB unit.
Recess at 9:30; reconvene at 9:50 p.m.
WATERSHED DISTRICT RESOLUTION
Mayor Windschitl reported he has learned that the request to the legislature is a
permanent mill levy increase because the watershed felt they would not get approval for
a one-time levy to cover the cost of the Study. The additional $50,000 would first be
used to pay back the cities for their portion of the cost of the study, and then be
used for operating expenses in the future.
Ken Slyzuk, representing the Watershed Board of Managers, stated that just because the
lncreased mill levy is available doesn't mean they will use the maximum levy every year.
In looking at their budget, it has only been the last few years that they have levied
their full limit allowed.
Discussion was also on the amount each city would be asked to share in the costs of
the study, with the City's concern of where it would get the money if any significant
amount were involved. Ms. Lindquist and Mr. Winner had not had any meetings on the
matter since the last Council meeting. Mr. Slyzuk stated that they will be meeting
next Monday to interview consulting engineers to do the study. Mayor Windschit1 felt
it would be extremely important to work out the formula and reach an agreement for
each City's share of the study prior to signing any contract to have the study done.
-~
Regular City Council Meeting
March 3, 1981 - Minutes
Page 7
(Watershed District Resolution, Continued)
Mr. Slyzuk felt that that was the intent of the Watershed Board and that the Committee
was to be working on that. If the levy increase is approved this Legislative session,
they would have the money to pay back the cities in 1982. The contract also reads that
the work for the study is to be done within one year. All the other cities involved have
approved this Resolution.
Councilman Jacobson stated the City would be paid back assuming the Legislative session
approved the increase. He also asked the legality of using general funds for the
Watershed study, since the watershed district does not encompass the entire City. It
was Mr. Hawkins' opinion that it would be legal.
Councilman Lachinski indicated he found the whole matter distasteful and felt the study
would not provide that much information. However, the Resolution in question does not
bind the City to anything at this point, and he understood the Watershed's position;
therefore, he would be in favor of this Resolution. Councilman Peach felt this is
"putting the cart before the horse," encouraging the Legislature to authorize taxation
on unknowns. He felt the specifics should be known, then get the funds to do it.
Councilman Ortte1 thought it was the Cìties' idea to have this study done, which is now
being coordinated by the Watershed. Mr. Slyzuk didn't feel that approval of this
Resolution indicates the City's approval of participating in the Study. The Resolution
is an attempt to pay for the study.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, introducing the Resolution as presented by
the Coon Creek Watershed. (See Resolution Rll-81)
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson, Peach
Motion carried.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, the City Council of Andover make it known
to the Watershed Board they would expect that the Watershed Board not enter into any
agreement with the consultant for the completion of Storm Water Drainage Study until
the pro rata share of the participating cities is determined and funds are allocated
by those affected cities for the payment of the Study. Motion carried unanimously.
COMMUNITY SCHOOL
Community School Coordinator Nancy Haåeman provided the Council with the enrollments
of the Winter session and highllghte the winter program. She then addressed the summer
school program, stating she is looking into having a morning playground at the Family
of Christ Lutheran Church. Also, there was not good attendance at the morning play-
ground in Quickstroms last summer, and she asked for ideas for another site within the
City. Council suggested she consider having the morning playground in the Green Acres
park. For the afternoon playground, Ms. Hageman suggested having it at Crooked Lake
School three afternoons a week rather than the four done last year, and instead hold
one in Quickstroms Addition. Also, she suggested the possibility of using Cedar Crest
park rather than Aztec park. Council agreed with those suggestions. After discssuion,
Council also agreed to offer softball during the summer program in lieu of the
baseball program offered previous years in an attempt to increase participation.
DATE/SEWER TRUNK CHARGES
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we set a date at the next regular meeting
of the Council for item 7b. Motion carried unanimously.
METRO COUNCIL MUSA CHANGES
Council discussed the urban service area map done by TKDA for considered inclusion to
the Comprehensive Development Plan. Council debated whether or not this map should be
- -
Regular City Council Meet,,,g
March 3, 1981 - Minutes
Page 8
(Metro Council MUSA Changes, Continued)
included in the Plan. Several Councilmen felt the City should not be locked into
developing only specifically identified properties in the urban area and that it would
be too restrictive on the landowners and on the City. Ms. Lindquist stated she talked
to Barb Moeller, who stated they cannot require the City to include the map. but that
the Plan might appear better to the Physical Development Committee if it were included.
Council then generally agreed to the concept proposed by the map but also agreed that
it not be included as part of the City's Comprehensive Development Plan.
Discussion was then on the staging of the trunk sewer lines through the year 1990.
Ms. Lindquist stated that TKDA was planning to do that staging from the urban service
map just considered using it as a guideline as to where development may occur. It
was generally agreed that realistically the City would '~not require the CAB Interceptor
before the year 1990 and that the Plan should reflect there would be no need for the
CAB prior to 1990 because there are very few small lots in that area.
When discussing the areas to be served by the extension of the Coon Rapids Interceptor,
there was a question on the accuracy of the urban service area boundary on the map
before the Council, and the Clerk was asked to research the motion for that change
made last year. Discussion was postponed until later in the meeting.
ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
Fire Chief Bob Palmer explained the Department would like to start a reserve fire
fighters group. The night positions are full and there is a waiting list, and they
would like to train people before they are accepted as fire fighters. Council generally
had no problem with the suggestion but noted that the Department's By-Laws would have
to be amended to provide for that and brought back for Council approval.
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Chairman Bill LeFebvre asked for some direction relative to the Capital Improvements
Plan. During the discussion that followed it was agreed that the CIP should be done
on a 6-year basis so it could then be updated on an every-other-year basis, that
priorities for park development need to be established by the Park Board, and that
Councilmen Lachinski and Peach will attend the Park Board meeting this Thursday to
answer questions and provide further direction.
Discussion was then on investing Park Board funds to receive maximum interest on them.
The Clerk stated she needs a cash flow sheet of park funds to determine how much can
be invested and for what length of time. Mayor Windschit1 suggested that all park
funds be invested in 30-day Treasury Bills, which would be at an interest rate
considerably better than they are currently receiving. It was agreed that at the Park
Board meeting this week they would make a general determination of when monies will be
used and the amounts that can be invested in high-yield accounts and for what length
of time. If this is not done by the Park Board, the Clerk is to invest all park funds
in 30-day Treasury Bills this Friday.
Discussion with Mr. LeFebvre was on the City Hall site, that the intent has always been
to have park area behind the buildings, and that the site plan simply needs to be
updated. Also, it is generally felt that additional park development should be in the
more populated areas such as Red Oaks, Green Acres, Northwoods, etc.
PRELIMINARY REVIEW/OAKWOOD ESTATES
Council discussed the Fire Department's and Public Works' recommendation that 170th
Lane in the plat tie into 171st Avenue NW in White Oaks Estates. Council generally
agreed that that would be preferable and offered suggestions as to how that could be
accomplished, such as running 171st Lane to the east end of the plat, then north to
Regular City Council Meeting
March 3, 1981 - Minutes
Page 9
(Preliminary Review/Oakwood Estates, Continued)
meet 171st Avenue, or extending 171st Avenue westerly to meet Eidelweiss Street, or
angling 170th Lane northeasterly from Eidelweiss to meet 171st Avenue. Council was
aware that some agreement would have to be made with the property owner to the north
of this platted area in order to connect the streets.
Council then directed that the Planning Commission investigate the matter further.
METRO COUNCIL MUSA CHANGES, CONTINUED
The Clerk reported that the MUSA boundary as shown on the Base Plan of the urban service
area of the City of Andover is correct. Council noted that that is the urban service
area and should not be referred to as the "expanded MUSA area", aM that the broken
vertical line indicating the former easterly boundary of the MUSA should not be shown
on the map.
Discussion continued as to what direction TKDA should be given relative to the
extension and staging of the trunk line of the Coon Rapids Interceptor. Council
generally agreed to the following: extension of the trunk as Hanson Boulevard is
being constructed north to the General Business limit (the bottom of the landfill
area), 1982 to 1985; extension of the trunk from 140th and Crosstown to South Coon
Creek Drive and Crosstown, 1982 to 1985; and extension of trunk from Hanson Boulevard
easterly along Bunker Lake Boulevard to the railroad tracks, 1985 to 1989.
Council had no problem with the language changes to the Comprehensive Plan as
recommended and submitted to them by TKDA.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 17, 1981: Correct as written.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve the Minutes of February 17
as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
MOTION by Lachinski that we discontinue garbage pickup at the Public Services Building.
Motion dies for lack of a Second. The Clerk was directed to find out how often the
garbage is picked up.
Discussion was then on the Johnson Engineering Claim for $24,633.21 and on the pumphouse
project itse 1f. Mr. Winner explained that Johnson Engineering has all the material on
site so there would be no delay in getting the material as the construction progresses.
The payment to Johnson Engineering is also so they can pay their suppliers.
Mr. Winner also explained the reason for the request for a different pump in the pump-
house is because the characteristics needed are slightly different than what was bid.
Mayor Windschitl asked Mr. Winner for all the details relative to that different pump
so he can have it investigated further.
Discussion was also on the question of the continued operation of the pump if the prime
is lost, which Mr. Winner was directed to research further. Council also expressed
concern that no. backup system has been provided nor proposed for the water system.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we approve Checks 3857 through 3890, with
Check No. 3880 being voided, in the amount of $15,644.19. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, approval of Check 449 to TKDA for $10,871.36 and
Check 450 to Johnson Engineering for $24,633.21. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 11:56 p.m.
~~0
arc la A. Peach, Recording Secretary
- - - - .,