Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP December 30, 1981 ~ 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 30,1981 AGENDA 1, Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Good Value Homes-Special Use Permit 3. Payment of SAC charge-Pixler 4. Junkyard Renewal Fee 5. Authorizations - Police Contract 6. Baghouse Dust Disposal-Landfill 7. Personnel Items-Wages, Mileage, Insurance, Holidays 8. Approval of Minutes a. July 21,23,28, August 4, 11 , 18, 24, September 1,15,24,29, October 1, 6, 20, November 3, 5, 10, 17, December 1, 3, 15, 9 . Repair/Replace - 1970 Dump Truck 10. Budget Discussion 11, 12. - -~- ~ 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 30, 1981 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on December 30, 1981, 7:34 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, to discuss the items on the prepared Agenda. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Engineer, Jim Schrantz; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; Various Staff Members and Fire Fighters, and others GOOD VALUE HOMES - SPECIAL USE PERMIT John Peterson of Good Value Homes provided four sketches of possible exterior appearances of a slab-on-grade unit they are requesting to construct, explaining the variations of siding and roof line. It is their feeling that such a home would have no negative impact on the neighborhood. He again explained that one-half of the unit would be used as a model, and the other half would be sold. Council discussion was on the drawings, that they are not the same as was originally presented for the slab-on-grade units, that a two-car garage would be constructed for each unit; and that the garages are 20 feet wide and 22 feet deep with a total square footage of the house being 928 feet. Mayor Windschitl's concern was the lack of storage space in the units. Mr. Peterson understood the objection, but they feel they are making the homes affordable and that twice as much storage space is available than what is required under the ordinances for single-family homes. But the Mayor argued that the lot size for single-family homes are also twice as big so there is an ability to build additional storage if it is needed. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, to amend the Special Use Permit on the PUD in NorthGlen to allow for the construction of one duplex unit on Lots 3 and 4 of Block 6 as proposed by Good Value Homes, with the exterior elevation to meet the drawings of either one or four as proposed by Good Value this evening. (See Resolution 102-81) DISCUSS ION: Bob LeRoa, 3404 139th Lane NW - objected to the proposal. He asked if the Council knew the foun atlon had been constructed for the unit prior to asking for the authority to do so. Also, they bought in that area because Andover had a plan for the area; they were presented that plan as future homeowners; and they invested their money based on that plan. He did not object to the looks of the house, but that there is no storage area in the building, which means outside storage facilities will be needed or cars parked on the street because the garage is used for storage. And it will be under a Homeowner's Association, which means outside storage facilities would not be built without approval of all homeowners. He felt such a unit will devalue the house they invested their money in. He felt this doesn't need to be put in an area where people have already committed themselves to an area with a particular plan; and he was concerned that now that plan can be changed. Discussion was on the statement made that the foundation has been already constructed. Dave Almgren, Building Inspector, stated the hole has been dug for the unit, and they have made application for the permit, which has been turned down. There is a foundation in the area put in last year for a different unit; but there is no foundation for a slab-on-grade unit. Mr. Peterson denied that they had gone ahead without approval. . [hey have moved the dirt in an attempt to prevent the frost from going too deep. There was also a lengthy discussion by the Council, Mr. Peterson and Mr. LeRoy as to the pros and cons of allowing the slab-on-grade unit. Mayor Windschit1 reiterated his concern for lack of storage space and that a change is being made after the PUD was approved. Mr. LeRoy also reiterated his concern for changing the plan when they made their lot choice and house choice and paid money based on the plan presented by Good Value .--- - .~.. - ---- .-,..-.~..,-- , Special City Council Meeting December 30, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 (Good Value Homes - Special Use Permit, Continued) Homes. Councilman Lachinski desired to have one slab-on-grade unit constructed to see what it looks like, noting that if this had not been a PUD development, such a unit would be allowed without Council approval directly across the street from Mr. LeRoy. He didn't think the location of this unit would adversely affect Mr. LeRoy's property. After the building is up, the area residents will be able to view it and express their opinion if other units are requested by Good Value Homes. Mr. LeRoy noted that this has already been voted down but it is back again. Will they have to be coming back every month until all the lots are filled? Mr. Peterson stated that a slab-on-grade unit will save approximately $4,000 to $5,000 in terms of cost to the purchaser. Councilman Jacobson stated he too has the same concerns about storage and felt that basements are needed for storm protection. He also noted that the ordinances stated when granting a PUD, it should not be judged soley on the basis of financial consideration. He felt that the reason this is being considered is to provide an economic advantage to Good Value Homes. He didn't feel that the price range of $4,000 to $5,000 is justification for a change. Counc i lman Lachinski felt that the reasons are not strictly financial. He felt that the home will improve the looks of the neighborhood. Councilman Peach stated that Mr. LeRoy's concerns are well founded. But he has talked with Mr. Peterson about this; and to resolve the issue and in fairness to the developer, he felt the construction of one slab-on-grade unit should be allowed to see how it looks and fits into the neighborhood. He was confident that given Good Value's reputation, a nice-looking unit will be constructed. Once it is built, the Council can make the decision of how many others, if any, should be allowed in the development. Discussion was on the location of Mr. ¡leRoy's lot, the number of vacant lots, and the style of homes in the area. Mayor Windschit1 also felt that making such a change in an approved planned unit development which has been proposed by a developer puts the Council in a difficult position when approving other PUDs, wondering if a change will be made to that plan in the future. Councilman Jacobson felt that changes could be made if some major problem surfaced; but he didn't feel the inability of Good Value Homes to sell homes because of the financial market is a justifiable reason for changing the PUD. Mr. Peterson wasn't sure when this unit would be built if it is approved; but it will be constructed as soon as possible. He also noted that studies indicate that such properties do not devalue surrounding properties. He also felt that with the decreased cost, they will have a substantial number of older people who will be able to purchase this type of house. Mr. LeRoy disagreed with Mr. Peterson's points, and he again stated that this is proposed as a financial consideration for Good Value Homes to sell more homes. But it is not good for him, as he invested his money based on the plans that were accepted and now those plans are beiJ1g changed. Councilman Ortte1 didn't agree this is being done as a financial consideration. It is the City's responsibility to keep current with the state of the art in housing·and providing housing for all people of all ranges. And the thought here is that housing has changed. And it is also providing a variety of housing units in the development. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; NO-Jacobson, Windschitl Motion carried. DISCUSSION: There was a question as to whether or not the approval of the permit required a 4/5 vote since it is dealing with a zoning issue. The Clerk is to ask the Attorney's opinion and to inform Mr. Peterson of the decision next week. Mayor Windschitl - asked the record to reflect the fact that the building, in his opinion, didn't supply enough storage, or very limited storage; and he felt it will presented a problem in the future. - - Special City Council Meeting December 30, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 PAYMENT OF SAC CHARGE - PIXLER (Reference the December 17, 1981, letter from Lester Betts, Housing Coordinator for Anoka County Community Action Program, Inc., to the Andover City Hall, rej,ative to the payment of the S.A.C. charge for Jim Pixler) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City pay the $425 S.A.C. Charge for the property 2962 141st Avenue NW, and that the S.A.C. Charge plus interest be assessed against the property to be collected with the property taxes certified in 1982. DISCUSSION: There was a question as to the interest rate to be charged. Action was postponedwhi1e the Clerk investigated the matter further. AUTHORIZATIONS - POLICE MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, authorizing the City Clerk to forward a letter to the Sheriff's Office to request that the Deputies in charge provide information to the City about icy intersections. Motion carried unanimously. PAYMENT OF SAC CHARGE - PIXLER, CONTINUED The Clerk stated that the interest rate is 8 percent but an administrative cost has been assessed in similiar situations. Councilman Peach ADDED TO PREVIOUS MOTION, at an interest rate of the maximum amount. Second still stands. (See Resolution R103-81) Motion carried unanimously. JUNKYARD RENEWAL FEE The Clerk reviewed her December 21, 1981, memo to the Mayor and Council as to the mixup that has occurred in the amount charged for junkyard license fees. The Council agreed to leave the amount at $100 per license and increase the amount to $150 for 1983. It was also suggested that the amount of the fee be changed to be set by Resolution rather than by an amendment to the Ordinance. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the Clerk to pr~pare a Resolution confirming the fact that for the year 1982 Junkyard License fees will be $100, and after 1982 they will be $150. Motion carried unanimously. AUTHORIZATIONS - POLICE CONTRACT MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, approval of the Law Enforcement contract for 1982 with the Anoka County Sheriff's Office in the amount of $117,725. Motion carried unanimously. BAGHOUSE DUST DISPOSAL - LANDFILL MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the Council direct Pat Lindquist to reply to the Pollution Control Agency on the matter of the industrial waste in the sanitary landfill, and notify the Pollution Control that the City is opposed to this type of disposal due to the fact that it could be hazardous to the health and safety of the people living in the immediately surrounding area, and the fact that due to the past experience with the landfill operation, we have found there is reason to believe it may not be disposed of in such a manner to protect the safety of the residents. Motion carried unanimously. PERSONNEL ITEMS - MILEAGE MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the mileage amount paid to employees and Commlssion members and Counci1persons for reimbursement for use of their private vehicles for City business be increased and be set to coincide with the amount that the Federal Government allows as a deduction for that use in their IRS regulations. Motion carried unanimously. . .. _. ~ .. _. Special City Council Meeting December 30, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 PERSONNEL ITEMS- HOLIDAYS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we increase the holidays from the present nine paid holidays per year to ten; the tenth to be a floating holiday at which all the employees collectively would determine at the beginning of the year which single day they collectively would be taking off. Motion carried unanimously. PERSONNEL ITEMS - INSURANCE MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the City's share of the participation in the group health insurance be increased from $90 to $105 for family coverage. Motion carried unanimously. PERSONNEL ITEMS - WAGES (Reference the October 29, 1981, memo from the City Clerk on the Personnel Committee's recommendation for wage increases.) Presci11a Nicho - It was agreed to take no action on an increase at this time pending a report on her progress from the Auditor. . Marcella Peach - An error was noted in the memo, in that the $56/14 figure should be for the date ending 12/31/81. Council agreed to an increase of approximately 8 percent. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we increase the Council Secretary's salary from $56 per meeting to $60 per meeting for 1982, and for every hour after 11 o'clock, increase the rate from $14 to $15 per hour. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschit1; PRESENT-Peach Motion carried. Pat Lindquist, David Almgren, Ray Sowada, Frank Stone, Kevin Starr, Rae Bakke, and Vlckie Vo1k - It was recommended by the Mayor that Mr. Starr's lncrease be dealt with separately from any promotional considerations. The Clerk stated the reason she recommended an 11 percent increase for Ms. Bakke was because different types of jobs have been added to her responsibilities, though they are still within the scope of the job she was hired to do and to bring her more in line with the percentage increase given other employees in the past. Discussion also noted that at the present time Mr. Starr's classification is Public Works IV (unskilled labor). The 1982 budget reflects both Public Works III and IV positions. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we allow 10 percent increases for 1982 for the following individuals: Vickie Vo1k; Rae Ellen Bakke; the position of Public Works IV, Kevin Starr; Frank Stone; Ray Sowada; and Pat Lindquist under the category of Clerk/Treasurer. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, the Building Inspector's salary be increased by 9 percent for 1982, and the Acting Administrator's salary be increased by 12 percent for 1982 as presented. DISCUSSION: After discussion it was generally agreed that the City should be taking advantage of Mr. Almgren's engineering abilities and experience, and that he be given a 10 percent increase with the understanding that he work with Mr. Schrantz in the engineering and public works departments as his schedule permits, noting workìin the Building Inspection Department would have first priority. Mr. Almgrem stated he would be agreeable to that. Councilman Peach CHANGED MOTION to change Mr. Almgren's increase to 10 percnet on the understanding that Dave Almgren's responsibility would also include, as available, engineering assistant. Second stands. DISCUSSION: Councilman Lachinski felt for the $36 extra a year that a 12 percent increase for Acting Administrator generates over a 10 percent increase that it isn't worth the possible morale problems it may cause. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Jacobson, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Lachinski Motion carried. , ~-, Soecial City Council Meeting December 30, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 (Personnel Items - Wages, Continued) Kevin Starr - Promotion discussion - Council discussion was on the duties, responsibilities and salary differences between the various Public Works positions, specifically between the Public Works IV, III, and II positions. Mayor Windschitl felt that if the position is to be advanced, it should be posted. Mr. Schrantz stated that Mr. Starr is now operating the snow plow truck and the four-wheel drive with water tank to flood ice rinks. He is used almost as a Public Works II person. Mr. Stone also stated that Mr. Starr is now able to test the well, work on the sewers, just about runs the router, and he is very reliable. Mr. Sowada also stated that Mr. Starr has been.sanding by himself without any problems. He recommended Mr. Starr be promoted to a light equipment operator and that an unskilled laborer be hired rather than a light equipment operator. Mr. Stone also noted that it would be difficult to find a light equipment operator that has both sewer and water experience as well. Council generally felt that the promotion to that position would not be necessary and would serve no purpose. Council discussion continued on a public works classification and salary commensurate with Mr. Starr's duties and responsibilities. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that noting Kevin's (Starr) exemplary progress and expanding ability in the Public Works Department, that he be promoted to the position of Public Works III at a pay scale of $7 an hour. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 9:20; reconvene at 9:33 p.m. REPAIR - 1970 DUMP TRUCK Mr. Schrantz reported that a quote from Boyer Ford for a 1972 Ford simi1iar to what the City has would be $9,600. He felt a reconditioned motor and clutch, etc., could be put into the 1970 dump truck for under $2,000. Mr. Almgren has also found a used motor which could be installed for approximately $1,000. He thinks the transmission is good and the clutch is about three years old. To order a new truck would take several months at a cost of approximately $45,000, and the dump truck is needed now during the winter months for road maintenance. Council discussion was on the merits of repairing this dump truck versus purchasing a new one; however, it was noted that a truck is needed now. Discussion was also on the need for new tires and on whether a new, used, or reconditioned motor should be put into this truck. It was suggested by several staff members that this truck be repaired at this time and that a new truck be ordered with the first payment to be made in 1983. Council agreed to authorize the repair of the truck in the most prudent manner plus tires, generally feeling a rebuilt engine with some warranty would be preferable to a used one without a warranty. MOT! ON by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize up to $2,500 for the repair of the motor and other drive-train parts of the old dump truck and tire replacement. Motion carried unanimously. FIRE DEPARTMENT - MODIFICATION TO 4892 Fire Fighter Tom May presented a comparison of quotes for the modifications to 4892, the brush tanker, to add more weight to the front wheels. Mr. May reviewed the reasons for the modifications, how they would be done, and compared the work to be done under the quote of the two firms. Although Custom Fire Apparatus has a quote of approximately $160 more, it is generally felt that it would be preferable to award the bid to them because they would do the complete job; whereas Jet-Son Iron Works would require Andover to furnish many items and no written specifications would be provided. . L._ ~ . - , Special City Council Meeting December 30, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 (Fire Department - Modification to 4892, Continued) MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, to authorize $2,450 for the Fire Department to modlfy Truck Number 4892 to Custom Fire Apparatus, Inc., in Osceola, Wisconsin. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the funds authorized for expenditures for Custom Fire Apparatus, Inc., in the amount of $2,450 be committed from the 1981 budget and be shown as an accounts payable at year end. Motion carried unanimously. FIRE DEPARTMENT - MISCELLANEOUS Mayor Windschit1 requested authorization to have the City Attorney meet with the Fire Department representatives to explain the State Law relative to the Relief Association because it is very confusing. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the Mayor and the Fire Department representatives to meet with the City Attorney to resolve the questions about the Fire Department's Relief Association Pension Fund. VOTE ON MOT! ON : YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Windschit1; PRESENT-Peach Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we accept the. Check from Lloyd Stromgren for Andover Fire Fighters and to allow the Fire Department to designate how the funds wi 11 be spent. DISCUSSION: Fire Chief Bob Palmer stated the intent is to use the funds toward the purchase of a mannequin to be used in First Aid instruction. Councilmen Orttel and Lachinski WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we accept the Check from Lloyd Stromgren for the Andover Fire Department and allow the Fire Department to designate how they would like to spend the funds. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. May also stated they are looking at a used van which looks like a good piece of equipment, but he didn't think anything could be done about purchasing it until the budget for next year is finalized. The proposal for the 1982 budget was $28,500 for a new van which would be used for an equipment and personnel carrier on calls. 1982 BUDGET DISCUSSION Councilman Lachinski suggested taking all capital equipment purchases out of the budget at this time, including the smaller items, but keep a separate itemized list of those purchases. In case the City receives some of the funding it is expecting to loose, those funds could be used for the capital purchases. The Clerk also noted that either the revenues must be decreased by $15,000 or an increase made in expenditures for $15,000 to cover the Kelsey Park Grant because it is a wash item. The expenditures side in the Parks Department was inadvertently removed, but it was not taken out as a revenue. Therefore, the expenditures exceed revenues by a total of $36,000 as the budget now stands. Council discussion was that there is a possibility the City will not be receiving approximately $25,000 of the state aid shown as revenues; however, that could be offset by the $50,000 left as the unreserved portion of expenditures. It was agreed to adopt the figures for total revenues and expenditures for the 1982 budget and to set another meeting to finalize the line items within the budget. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City adopt the 1982 budget of revenues of $836,267 and expenditures of $836,267. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we set the final budget meeting for January 12, 1982. Motion carried unanimously. - . --.._ t" ,.- Special City Council Meeting December 30, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 AUD !TORS MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the Mayor to execute the engagement letter with the City Auditor. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 21, 23, 28, August 4, 11, 18, 24, September 1, 15, 24, 29, October 1, 6, 20, 1981: Correct as written. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, approval of Minutes as written for the dates of July 21, 23, and 28. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to approve the Minutes of August 4, 1981, as presented. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschit1; PRESENT-Peach Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve the Minutes of August 11 as wrltten. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; PRESENT-Windschit1 Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, approval of the Minutes of August 18 as written. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Jacobson Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, to approve the Minutes of August 24 as written. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Ortte1 Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, we approve the Minutes of September 1 as Wrl tten. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve the Minutes of September 15 as Wrl tten. VOTE ON MOT! ON : YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; PRESENT-Windschit1 Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve the Minutes of September 24, September 29, and October 1 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve the Minutes of October 6. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Jacobson, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Lachinski Motion carried. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the Minutes of October 20 as wr itten. VOTE ON MOT! ON : YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; PRESENT-Jacobson; YES EXCEPT ON THE DIS~ CUSSION OF LAKESIDE ESTATES PLAT-Windschitl Motion carried. November 3, 1981: Page 1, First paragraph of Senior Citizen Building Public Hearing: Delete last two sentences. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the Minutes of November 3 as amended. VOTE ON MOT!ON: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; PRESENT-Windschit1 Motion carried. ....., , Special City Council Meeting December 30, 1981 - Minutes Page 8 (Approval of Minutes, Continued) November 5, 10, and 17, 1981: Correct as written. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the November 5, November 10, and November 17 Minutes as written. Motion carried unanimously. December 1, 1981: Page 3, first paragraph, fourth to the last line, change to: " . . . through ~ better soils but is a shorter route..." December 3 and 15, 1981: Correct as written. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the Minutes of December 1, 3, and 15 as amended. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; YES EXCEPT ON THE DISCUSSION OF THE LAKESIDE ESTATES PLAT-Windschitl Motion carried. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, we approve Claims Numbered 4580 through 4604 ln the amount of $8,522.92. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve Claims 538 through 540 in the amount of $11,992.33. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10,43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, , )~~~:ê~---~~~ Marce 11 a A. Pe ach Recording Secretary ---.-¡" ..- . - . --.