Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC May 5, 1981 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MAY 5,1981 AGENDA . Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. I. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Public Hearing a. 171st Avenue NW Extension 5. Discussion Items a. Lot Split/Doris Boie b. Final Plans & Specifications/White Oaks Country Estates c. Feasibility Report - 1981-2/Smith's Rolling Oaks d. Red Oaks Driveway Complaint e. Sewer Safety Equipment f. Pumphouse Equipment g. Proposed Landfill Sites/Discussion h. Water Meter Contract 6. Non-DiscussiQn a. Ordinance No. 8/Accessory Buildings b. Law Enforcement Contract/Joint Powers c. Fire-Fighting Agreement/City of St. Francis d. Pipeline Easement e. 7. Reports of Commissions, Committees~ Staff 8. Approval of Minutes 9. Approval of Claims 10. Adjournment -- . ._~ 1-'- ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MAY 5, 1981 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Month1y Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Acting Mayor Kenneth Orttel on May 5, 1981, 7:34 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1 Councilman absent: Mayor Windschitl Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others (Councilman Peach responded to a fire call at this time.) AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the Agenda as printed wlth the additions of 5g, Landfill Sites; h, Water Meter Contract/Water Ordinance; 6e, State Aid Resolution; 7a, Sumner Program; and 7b, Kelsey Park. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel; ABSENT-Peach Motion carried. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we suspend the rules. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1; ABSENT-Peach ~lotion carried. (Councilman Peach returned to the meeting at this time.) LOT SPLIT/DORIS BOlE MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve a Lot Split for Doris BOle at (legal description added in Resolution) for the reasons set forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission; such lot split contingent upon receiving the park dedication fee applicable. (See Resolution R27-81) DISCUSSION: was on the amount of park fees that would be applicable in this instance. Attorney Hawkins advised that park fees have never been collected and should be collected on both parcels involved. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - 171ST AVENUE NW EXTENSION Pursuant to public notice, the Public Hearing for the extension of 171st Avenue NW was called to order by Acting Mayor Orttel at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Winner reviewed the April 30, 1981, memo relative to the revised cost estimate of 171st Avenue extension. Councilman Peach noted that the revised cost estimate is based on the highest quote received to build the base. By using the lowest quote, he calculated it would amount to an additional $72 per lot in the White Oaks area project for their share of the street extension. He interpreted the quote from Thayer Company to read that the Council has 30 days, to May 23, in which to accept the quote. Discussion was on the time factor as to when work could begin in relation to the quote from Thayer Company. Mr. Winner also stated he has talked with NSP relative to the improvement on the easement and was told there probably would be no problem, but NSP wants to see the plans and specs first. The Hearing was then opened to resident testimony. Charles Clemetson, 2838 172nd Avenue NW - asked if the new road and the connecting road in Oakwood Estates are to be blacktopped. (Yes.) Jerry Kalk, 16920 Crocus - personally didn't see any benefit in connecting the two roads. There is only a block difference between 171st and 172nd. He felt opening another road is opening the area up to more traffic and eliminating the existing -- - Regular City Council Meeting May 5, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 (Public Hearing - 171st Avenue NW Extension, Continued) country atmosphere. He also felt that the people that want the extension should be paying for it themselves. Or if it is constructed, possibly 172nd should be left out of the improvement project since a majority of those residents didn't want it. (Councilman Peach felt that though 171st would be the southerly most route, traffic would be slowed because of the two 90-degree turns on it.) Eileen Fiore, 3045 172nd - thought the extension of 171st is only for the benefit of one particular property owner. (Acting Mayor Ortte1 stated that is incorrect because the abutting property owner indicated he was not in favor of it.) Ms. Fiore - stated that those along 172nd didn't loudly object to being included in the White Oaks project in spite of the fact that it is mainly those within White Oaks who wanted the project, not necessarily those living on 172nd Avenue. If White Oaks is now going to be given another access, she asked that 172nd Avenue be excused from the blacktopping and write off those 12 pieces of property abutting 172nd. Their biggest problem previously was not necessarily the amount of traffic, but the speed of the traffic, which has now been remarkably slowed since she offered the use of her garage for the police hideaway. (Councilman Lachinski stated that whether 172nd is included in the extra cost or not, unless there is a clear mandate from those in White Oaks in favor of the extension of 171st, he would be voting against that extension.) Tom Wherry, 3008 172nd Avenue NW - originally only two people on 172nd were in favor of the blacktop, and he has agaTñ petitioned the area. He presented a petition of those asking to be excluded from the paving project. With the construction of 171st, he stated there would be no reason to include 172nd in the project, understanding that the only reason 172nd wasn't dropped before was because it is the only access road to White Oaks. He also felt that by dropping 172nd from the project, the overall cost of the White Oaks project would be less because the portion that runs past the park on 172nd would not be assessed among all units. (Acting Mayor Ortte1 stated the Council will recognize the petition; however, the Hearing is on the question of extending 171st, not on the question of excluding 172nd from the improvement project. Action on the petition can be considered later in the meeting when discussing the Final Plans and Specifications for the White Oaks Country Estates project.) Bob Loftus - originally didn't see any real reason why 171st should be extended past his property. But from the last meeting, he felt there was a strong "yes" vote from those in White Oaks for that extension and that it was something very important for that area. He would now go along with the extension and would dedicate the land, but it would be of no value to him because he is not going to develop the property now. He is neutral on the issue, but if it is going to help the neighborhood, he will not oppose it. (Council discussion noted that the fire and police departments have requested a second access into any development, as well as White Oaks, for public safety purposes; speculating that if 171st isn't extended now, it will be done so at some time in the future. The extension of 171st could be combined with the White Oaks project for purposes of contracting and bonding; but some Counci1membersquestioned the benefit to those on 172nd for the 171st extension and whether those residents should be assessed a portion of that expense.) Jack Pixle~, 2764 171st Avenue - asked for a clarification if it is approximately $3,000 addltiona1 that would be split among all lots. (It would be split between 39 parcels, estimated at approximatey $72 per parcel. The total estimated cost of the extension of 171st is $10,555; but two more units would then be added to the project.) Mr. Pixley - didn't really want the road through but understood that many others do from the standpoint of fire and police protection. However, he thought it was unfair that those on 172nd should be assessed for it, especially those closer to the highway, as they will derive little or no value from this. But he didn't know how it could be Regular City Council Meeting May 5, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 (Public Hearing - 171st Avenue NW Extension, Continued) figured to be fair to everyone. He is against it personally though he believes it may be a benefit for the community, and again felt that making it more equitable to those on 172nd should be addressed. (Councilman Peach stated that statistics show there are presently approximately 120 trips a day down 172nd, which he estimated would be cut in half with the extension of 171st.) Mr. Wherr¥ - asked the unit assessment for the White Oaks area if 172nd were not included ln the project, realizing the assessment past the park is being picked up by the entire project. (Dicussion noted that at this time it would be difficult to compute. Also, the petition presented previously contains five names, and there are 12 lots along 172nd.) Mr. Wherry - explained there are 10 houses and 2 vacant 10tson the street. He ca leu 1 ated the vacant lots as being one for and one against, as was done by the Council at the last meeting. He stated there are two along 172nd in favor of the project. He presented the petition for Council action. He thought that by deleting 172nd, the project would be cheaper for those in White Oaks. (Mr. Winner estimated the price would remain the same or decrease by $100 a lot. Councilman Lachinski stated the elimination of 172nd from the project also affects those in the White Oaks subdivision, and he wouldn't be in favor of changing the project unless he also heard how those in White Oaks feel about the change. Acting Mayor Ortte1 again noted that the Public Hearing is for the extension of 171st.) Mr. Wherry - felt they were tied together because the Council could make approximately 90 percent of the people happy by constructing 171st extension and eliminating 172nd from the improvement project. Harvey Kad1ac, 16970 Crocus Street NW - is in favor of the extension for the fire, safety, and police protection, for the traffic on 172nd, and mostly because of the economics. By putting it off, it will cost more money when it is done. Mr. Pixley - heard a through road from a county highway is eligible for some State funds. (Discussion was on the requirements to meet MSAH funding, noting it would not apply in this case because the road must connect two numbered highways, not return to the same one.) Mr. Pixley - didn't feel that $72 per unit was very much money. Mr. Kad1ac - asked if Mr. Loftus is paying for two u,nit assessments and is donating the land for the street construction, is he paying anything for park dedication. (Dis- cussion was that the City is not subdividing his property; but if Mr. Loftus would subdivide his property, he would be subject to the same rules as anyone else. The Council has agreed in concept to allow Mr. Loftus to divide two lots, which would be somewhat cheaper for Mr. Loftus than if'he would plat the property. However, Mr. Loftus as basically said he is not interested in subdividing his property.) Mr. Loftus - stated he was approached about donating the land, assuming the extension of 171st is approved. It seemed to him that the neighborhood in the 171st area wanted the extension, and that is when he changed his viewpoint. He was opposed to it before; he is in favor of it now mainly because of what the community said last time. Mr. Loftus also stated he still is not in the land developing business. Paul Jensen, 17225 Round Lake Boulevard - after listening to the conversation this evenlng, he felt essentlally what wlll happen is a road going from 172nd, through White Oaks, out l7lst, back to County Road g again. It is his understanding that he is going to get charged for those on 171st in addition to his assessment for the improvement of 172nd, stating that is not right. (Council clarified that the proposal is to construct a 415-foot portion of 171st through vacant land, but the property owner Regular City Council Meeting May 5, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 (Public Hearing - 171st Avenue NW Extension, Continued) along that portion will also be assessed for two units. It is those costs for con- structing the road bed that is being proposed to be spread among the entire White Oaks Project; although it is clear that a majority of those on 172nd do not what to pay for that portion of the project and questionable whether they want their street paved at all.) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we close the public input portion of the PubllC Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion noted that because it is a Council-initiated project, it requires a 4/5 vote to pass, and one Counci1member is absent this evening. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, to table this matter until the full Council ëan vote on it. DISCUSSION: Attorney Hawkins stated that the matter can be tabled until up to six months from now. Discussion also was on the question of paying for the extension, that it is desirable to have the road built but there is no support for the additional cost to the remainder of the White Oaks project, that it is questionable whether there i$ a benefit to those on 172nd to assess for the additional cost, and that it would be preferable to simply include this extension with the entire White Oaks project and assess the project cost by the 39 units, noting that the increase to those in the project is minor. Councilman Lachinski suggested the Road Improvement Committee could look into the matter tomorrow night and consider using General Funds to offset those costs on 172nd to make it equitable, or Mr. Loftus could be contacted to see if he is willing to absorb any more of the costs for the extension. Mr. Kad1ac - has calculations as to the costs to everyone with the inclusion of 171st extenslOn. (Council clarified that the additional cost would amount to approximately $70 a unit in the White Oaks project, or $7 a year over a 10-year period.) Discussion noted the next scheduled Council meeting is the Board of Review on May 11. It was agreed to discuss the matter at that time. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Wherry - asked when the Council is going to consider the question of those on 172nd to be dropped from the project. (This can be considered on the next Agenda item.) Public Hearing closed at 8:25 p.m. FINAL PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS/WHITE OAKS COUNTRY ESTATES (1981-1) Mr. Winner reviewed the Final Plans and Specs with the Council, noting there are two deadend streets without cul-de-sac right of way, which.:1imits the type of turnarounds. Discussion was the north end of Bittersweet Street is just a short stub from the intersection, which should not interfere with plowing. The matter of extending 171st to the west has not yet been determined. Mr. Sowada, Public Works, stated on the south end of Crocus there is a driveway near the end of the stub and there is little problem turning around in that area. There already is some gravel for a turnaround now. Acting Mayor Ortte1 felt that on any street potentially being extended in the future, only the width of the street should be tarred, and the remainder of the turnaround should be graveled .for the temporary turnaround. Mr. Winner stated that driveway apron construction is proposed to the street right of way line. He also stated that the placement of culverts would be determined in the field, and the contractor will be directed which ones to install. Property owners will be notified to allow them to install their own if so desired. The street plans for the extension of 171st are not included in these plans; but it can be added as an addendum to all bidders if it is ordered soon enough; and if ordered later, it Regular City Council Meeting May 5, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 (Final Plans & Specs/White Oaks Country Estates, Continued) could be added as a change order to the project. Mr. Winner also stated that he has the elevations for those streets on the last two pages of the plans, but they did not come through on the copies before the Council, and estimated construction to begin June 15, to be completed by August 31. Attorney Hawkins stated the First National Bank of Anoka has preliminarily indicated about a month ago that they would purchase approximately $130,000 of General Obligation Improvement Bonds to fund this. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the Plans, Specifications and Profl1es for 1981-1 Improvement Project within the City of Andover, commonly known as 172nd Avenue and all the streets within the White Oaks Country Estates; and authorize the City Engineer and Clerk to send the plans and specifications out for the bidding process; and to authorize the Clerk and Engineer to have an alternate add-on bid on the project for approximately 415 feet of 171st Avenue which abuts the White Oaks Estates in the southern section of that plat. DISCUSSION: Mr. Winner stated the boilerplate for the bid is the same as what TKDA has used in the past. Counci lman Lachinski felt the petition for deleting 172nd Avenue from the project should be acknowledged but felt nothing has changed except he didn't feel those on 172nd should be assessed anything for the extension of 171st. Councilman Jacobson clarified the motion that the add-on would be for final grading and blacktopping of 171st Avenue. Mr. Winner stated that then some engineering costs would be incurred to design a profile and street grade for that extension. He suggested waiting until the project is actually ordered. Acting Mayor Ortte1 stated that the final grade and blacktop would be done on a unit basis cost. Councilman Jacobson CHANGED MOTION: to delete from my motion all reference to the 415-foot section of 171st. Second still stands. (See Resolution R28-81) Motion carried unanimously. Larry Carlson, developer of the proposed Oakwood Estates - clarified that he is paying for the Oakwood Estates area. He asked for a clarification of the figures for the extension of 171st. (Using the low bid, approximately $9,800 for the entire con- struction, with Mr. Loftus paying approximately $7,000 for two units, leaving $2,800 to be split among the 39 lots in the project area. And those on 172nd are objecting to that additional cost.) Mr. Carlson - stated the extension of 171st doesn't affect his property, but he is wllllng to take care of the costs for those lots along 172nd up to White Oaks if it will let the progress of the project go through. He felt that the price is very reasonable; and if White Oaks wants it, and this will get it off dead center, he'd be happy to do that. He also realizes that this is something that police and fire wants and needs, and he is willing to do his part. (Council thanked Mr. Carlson for his offer, noting this will be discussed again on May 11.) There was then a lengthy discussion with Mr. Wherry relative to the petition to exclude 172nd from the project, with Mr. Wherry feeling the Council should address the issue. Acting Mayor Ortte1 stated the Council recognized the petition, which was five out of 12 property owners. This has already been done at the public hearing when all those involved have the benefit of all the information and nothing has changed since that hearing. Mr. Wherry stated that at the public hearing it was noted that if 172nd wasn't done there was not much point in doing White Oaks as well; but now with the additional exit of 171st, it is possible to delete 172nd. Council argued that there is no change from what was presented at the public hearing, and there is no change from the Council's standpoint because nothing has been added or taken out of the project. The decision on the extension of 171st has not yet been made. The action of the Council previously was on the basis of a petition for the entire area, and it is very difficult to begin sectiona1izing streets from a project. It is possible that the people in White Oaks would also be against the project if 172nd were dropped from the project. Councilman Lachinski recognized a majority of people on 172nd doesn't want the pro,;ect; but in this case he felt in the best interest of the area Regular City Council Meeting May 5, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 (Final Plans & Specs/White Oaks Country Estates, Continued) and in White Oaks that 172nd should be improved as well. There was also some mention of the tendency toward paving all gravel roads in the City in the future because of the maintenance of sand/gravel streets. After further discussion, Councilman Lachinski then asked if there was anyone of the Council in favor of deleting 172nd from the project at this point. General consensus was not to delete 172nd at this time, but consideration could be given to the issue at the awarding of the contract on June 2. FEASIBILITY REPORT - 1981-2/SMITH'S ROLLING OAKS Mr. Winner reviewed the Feasibility Report on the 1981 Street and Drainage Improvement No.2 dated April 28, 1981, relative to the location, initiation, 49 abutting parcels, easements, estimated cost of $234,600, assessment of $4,512 per unit or $14.22 per adjusted front foot; and project schedule. Discussion on the extension of the streets to the plat limits noted that this amounts to approximately 800 extra feet of street, 400 feet on each stub, and there was some question as to the necessity of extending the two stubs as proposed. Discussion also noted the May 5, 1981, memo from the Acting Administrator that the City of Ham Lake was not able to participate in the improvement of University Extension mainly because of the extremely high cost estimate. Mr. Winner was asked to talk with Ham Lake's consulting engineering firm to determine why they think the costs are too high. Discussion was also on possible ways to reduce the costs for the overall proposed project, with Mr. Winner explaining most of the difference comes in the common excavation for the ditches where there presently aren't any. Dave A1måren - stated the proposed unit assessment is about $400 more than previously estimate to the residents. Mr. Winner stated part of the reason for the increased cost is because of the added extensions to the end of the plat with no more benefitted parcels. Councilman Jacobson stated the land to the north of the proposed stub appears to be high enough to plat, and the stub to the west would go through a lot of evergreen tress and parallel a driveway; but the extension of those stubs would serve no purpose right now. It was the feeling of some that the property owners of the vacant land abutting the plat had no interest in platting their property in the near future, suggesting the possibility that when that property is developed, the developer would then construct the stub streets necessary to tie into this area. Discussion was also on 146th Lane through Barnes Rolling Oaks. That portion of 146th is constructed to a higher standard with gravel and the required width; whereas those streets within Smith's Rolling Oaks are not. It was questioned whether that portion of 146th should then be assessed the same as the remaining project area, although it was also noted that the lots along 146th are considerably larger than those in the remaining project area. Mr. Winner stated he used four units for the north side of 146th Lane, feeling it would be possible to divide that area into four lots. Council suggested Mr. Winner consider using the ffront footage assessment for that portion of 146th and a unit assessment for the remaining project area. ? (property owner to the south of the prposed stub west on 150th Lane) - stated he would be opposed to the construction of that stub, as the road would go just to the north of his garage. Mr. Almgren - asked why they have to have four feet of gravel shoulders. He fe 1t one foot would be sufficient. Council discussion was that the arguments for four-foot shoulders have been to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian traffic, for parking, to hold the road bed and to prevent washing by the bituminous mat. Some Councilmen questioned the need for that shoulder width, with some discussion on the street standards of the city and possible changes, wondering if a modified street standard Regular City Council Meeting May 5, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 (Feasibility Report - 1981-2, Continued) with bituminous birm would be less expensive. It was also noted that some of Mr. Winner's estimates may be on the high side, and that better prices may be bid by some of the contractors. Mr. ,Winner stated he does intend to sublet the project. Mr. Almgren - also questioned a 6-inch concrete driveway standard, feeling it was a hlgh standard for private residential driveways. Mr. Winner stated that that is the standard used in all previous projects and stated other cities use that standard as well. Councilman Lachinski felt that should be questioned on the projects in the future unless it can be justified replacing with six-inch rather than four-inch concrete driveways. Discussion also noted that the City's policy is to pave to the property line for one driveway per lot at a width of up to 16 feet; anything beyond that is paid for by the property owner. Ray Sowada - asked what percentage of his area is going to be ditched. He felt that the runoff will still be going down the street and didn't feel the need for ditching. The water off Butternut basically runs down to a low spot in his yard, which he felt would continue to do so. By ditching, the cost of the project is just raised higher. Mr. Winner stated that the ditches are to carry the runoff and if it is not ditched, more water will be draining to the area because of the hard surface road and running along the edge of that pavement. The installation of culverts across the road generally directs the water to existing ponds or low areas. Gary Garbe, 14856 Ever~reen - asked if the procedure is for the City to assume res- ponsibillty for the malntenance of that road. Acting Mayor Ortte1 explained the City is responsible through the life of the bond. Dave Jack, 14826 Butternut - felt that the expenditure for topsoil borrow is unnecessary, noting his experience with the ineffectiveness of black dirt used in those areas, and that the street extensions are really unecessary as well. Mr. Garbe - noted the proposed costs do not include culverts, feeling that that should be included as a part of the total project costs. Acting Mayor Ortte1 explained that that was changed because some owners already have culverts installed at their own expense, and residents are given the option to put it in themselves which would probably be less expensive than the City doing it. Because of the sandy soil in the area and with the ditching, he questioned how many culverts would be needed and hoped caution would be used to determine their locations. Councilman Lachinski felt that culverts should be used where stagnant water is a problem; but a foot of water standing for a day should not be a problem. Mr. Sowada - didn't feel there were any culverts in the area at this time; and there- fore questioned the need for ditching, adding more cost to the project. Presently the water comes down Butternut to his front yard and there are no drainage problems. If it is left as it is now, and put a culvert under the road, the water would sîmp1y run to the low spot. If it is ditched, he felt that culverts would then be needed under everyone's driveway, which is adding to the cost of the project and is a waste of money. Council discussion was that the policy calls for minimum ditching and minimum culverts that would be required. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to accept the feasibility report and authorize the Clerk to advertise for a public meeting on June 2 at the City Hall, and at the same time direct the Engineer to eliminate the two small stubs in Smith's Rolling Oaks and refigure these calculations based on that, and also direct the Engineer to assemble the necessary figures if we went to a modified urban street in this area, what the costs would be for that type of option; and also direct the Engineer to look into the possibility of providing the people in Barnes' Rolling Oaks with some sort of credit for the road to that area because it is already built to a higher standard. (See Resolution R29-81) DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach stated he Regular City Council Meeting May 5, 1981 - Minutes Page 8 (Feasibility Report - 1981-2, Continued) would be willing to delete one of the stubs but felt one of them should be put in that northwest corner; although he didn't know which one. Councilman Lachinski stated Mr. Winner should have the figures for both ways at the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 9:43; reconvene at 9:50 p.m. RED OAKS DRIVEWAY COMPLAINT Councilman Peach stated he had talked with Mr. Buckhouse, informing him of the Engineer's recommendation. Mr. Buckhouse then stated he would not attend this meeting. No action was taken by the Council. SEWER SAFETY EQUIPMENT (Reference May 1, 1981, Memo from Frank Stone.) Mr. Stone answered various questions relative to the quote received for the sanitary sewer safety equipment, noting that he is able to select items from all bids received, explaining the difference in the safety harness bid, and that the First Aid Kit requested contains all the items he felt are needed. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the Public Works Department be authorized to purchase the Sanitary Sewer Safety Equipment requested by Mr. Stone for a total purchase price not to exceed $3,500 as presented by Mr. Stone. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stone also explained that they need additional help in Public Works at this time. Ms. Lindquist stated several applications have been received in response to the ad for help. Discussion was that the salary would be commensurate with experience and that the assignment of duties should be worked out in-house. PUMPHOUSE EQUIPMENT (Reference May 1, 1981, Memo on Safety Equipment for Pump House #1) Attorney Hawkins felt that the monies for these items could come from the bond issue since it is needed for setting up the system. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the Public Works Department to purchase safety equipment and testing equipment for Pump House No. 1 not to exceed $1,800, noting the bids received from the various equipment suppliers and equipment needs from Mr. Frank Stone to the Council dated May 1, 1981. Motion carried unanimously. PIPELINE EASEMENT John Ripsin, Manager of Right of Way, Evergreen Land Services Company, consulting firm for Northern Natural Gas - explained that there has been a change in their plans, and drew a sketch of the park in Barnes' Rolling Oaks and the existing easements through that park. Northern Natural Gas is planning to add additional trunk lines through both easements, which are required to be 25 feet apart. They are now proposing that the lines of the easements be shifted, so that each easement would remain 66 feet wide but would be 20.5 feet from the existing pipeline and 20.5 feet from the new pipeline, with the pipelines being 25 feet apart within that 66-foot easement. It amoutns to simply exchanging easement rights from one side to the other. The easements run to the center of the roads. And the proposal is just for the park area. The new pipe- line will run from the Lexington Station to Elk River, adding capacity to service more area, and the easement changes are being requested along the entire route. Regular City Council Meeting May 5, 1981 - Minutes Page 9 (Pipeline Easement, Continued) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the City Clerk and Mayor to slgn the agreement with Northern Natural Gas as presented, subject to the approval of the City Attorney. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we amend the motion to read that any costs incurred in making this change during the Attorney's review be borne by Northern Natural Gas. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Carried unanimously. VOTE ON MOTION: Carried unanimously. PROPOSED LANDFILL SITES/DISCUSSION There was a brief Council discussion on the alternative sites within Andover as recommended by the County for landfill areas; however, no one had the map showing the locations at this time. Acting Mayor Ortte1 suggested the City give some thought to drafting ordinances for the control of landfills should the proposals become a reality. Attorney Hawkins is to review the Solid Waste Management Act to determine what authority the City would have in the matter. He is also to see if the City has the authority to charge dumping fees or whether an additional dumping charge can be established to be used as a security against the landfill termination. WATER METER CONTRACT MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we correct the Motion made on March 17 relatlve to the acquisition of water meters to read, instead of $2,500, $2800 for ten two-inch with automatic readout and the total contract price to be $9,330.50; and authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the contract. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 8/ACCESSORY BUILDINGS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we refer the matter of Ordinance No.8, Accessory Buildings, to the Planning and Zoning Commission accompanied with the note from the City Clerk as to what exactly the problem is and ask for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review and recommend any course of action to the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT/JOINT POWERS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the Anoka County Law Enforcement JOlnt Powers Agreement as sent to the City by letter dated March 27, 1981, such letter signed by Robert M. A. Johnson, the Assistant County Attorney; and authorize the City Clerk and Mayor to sign such document. Motion carried unanimously. FIRE-FIGHTING AGREEMENT/CITY OF ST. FRANCIS MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, the adoption of the Reciprocal Fire Service Agreement with St. Francis as presented, and direct the Mayor and Clerk to sign the Agreement. Motion carried unanimously. STATE AID RESOLUTION MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, a Resolution to appropriate Municipal State Aid Funds to CSAH No.9 traffic signals on CSAH No.9 and County Road No. 116 as presented by the Clerk. (See Resolution R30-81) Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting May 5, 1981 - Minutes Page 10 MUNICIPAL WATER ORDINANCE/FEES The Clerk stated the only other change made was all the costs were pulled out of the ordinance and placed in a resolution. Councilman Lahcinski had a problem with the amount for the Unit Connection Charge, feeling the amount should now be an estimated amount for approximately 1~ times the original cost until such time as the exact amount is set at the public hearing. He preferred having to refund money when the final figures are known rather than having to bill for additional money for the connection charge. Councilman Lachinski suggested collecting at least $600 per residential equivalent connection charge, informing those users that it is an estimated amount to be adjusted in the near future. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, introducing Ordinance No. 55, Municipal Water System Ordinance, as presented by the Clerk, and authorize its publication. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we adopt Resolution No. 31 setting Tees for permits, connection fees, services, and useage rates pursuant to Ordinance No. 55, Section 3, as presented with the exception of Section 4, Subdivision 1, Per residential equivalent connection which is listed as $400, that be changed to read $600. (See Resolution R31-81) Motion carried unanimously. KELSEY PARK Discussion with Park Board Chairman, Bill LeFebvre, was that with the existing park land in LakeRidge park, the proposed park land from Andover West, and this proposal, the total park area would amount to 134 acres; that the Park Board's idea is the regional park would be for both athletic and passive activities; that the land proposed for acquisition contains the historical Kelsey Clay Pits; and that the local share of 50 percent would be the worst situation should the grant be approved. Council generally agreed with the concept of a regional park in that area, but seriously questioned where the local share of the costs would come from, not wanting to imply that approval of this preliminary grant application is approval of spending the $134,000 for matching funds, questioning when the money would be needed and where the local share would come from. Mr. Winner explained the final application is due in October; but he felt within a couple weeks after receiving this preliminary application, the Committee would be inspecting the sites, with evaluation on the preliminary application made in June or July. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we table the matter of an application for funds for LawCon Grant for Kelsey Park Acquisition Project. DISCUSSION: The Clerk felt the application may not even be considered if the City doesn't make a commitment, because they will be spending a lot of time in the review process. Counc i 1man Lachinski was willing to undertake the project, noting at this time the attua1 costs and time frame are not yet known. Acting Mayor Orttel felt the only way he could approve the preliminary application was if it was noted that the source of the local share is not known at this time. Councilman Jacobson felt that the City should be improving the existing parks in the City. Councilman Peach was opposed to spending $134,000 on property that is low, and that there are existing parks that need im- provement. It was agreed to discuss this again with a full Council. Motion carried unanimous 1y. Council also suggested that the Park Board make a presentation of their plans for the proposed regional park, possibly with Lyle Bradley present, and their proposal for financing the project as well. SUMMER PROGRAM - NORDEEN PARK Council recognized the use of Gordon Nordeen's private park area for the summer program. Regular City Council Meeting May 5, 1981 - Minutes Page 11 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT Chairman LeFebvre stated the boat landing remains the top priority project; Jim Brewer will be completing the City Hall site plans; the excess fill remains in Northwoods Park; the Sodervi11e Athletic Association is working on Pine Hills park; and they are looking at grading the back of the City Hall site for soccer fields and putting topsoil on from LakeRidge park. Mr. Sowada stated Burt Kraable has quoted $1,400 to $2,000 to remove the excess dirt from the Northwoods park. Doing it in-house with public works equipment would take several days, plus it would be hard on the little tractor. Mr. Stone stated that until the safety equipment arrives in a month or so, he would have time to do some of these projects and recommended renting a loader for $2,000 a month. In that time he felt he would be able to move the dirt from the Northwoods park, place black dirt on the area between City Hall and the Public Services Building, take care of the dirt placed in Pine Hills, and finish some of the other projects that need to be done around the City. Discussion was if this loader were rented, the grader would remain in use, and that if the loader is used for park use, monies could come from the Park budget, otherwise the funds should come from elsewhere. There was a lengthy discussion as to how long a loader should be rented, where the funds would be coming from, the personnel to be using the equipment, and the jobs that could be done. It was agreed to continue the discussion at the May 11 Council meeting, and the Clerk was directed to determine where the funds would come from. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, the approval of Checks 3989 through 4021 for a total of $37,989.82. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, the approval of Check 461 for $1,365; 462 for $245; 463 for $975; 466 for $44,610.30; and 467 for $18,703.28. Motion carried unanimous ly. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~2L ~ê\.. ) EC Marc 1a A. Peach Recording Secretary