Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC January 19, 1982 - - ~ o¿ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-JANUARY 19, 1982 AGENDA 1 . Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. Industrial Revenue Bonds/Rademacher b. Agricultural Preserve Ordinance/Discussion c. Sewer Useage Charges/MWCC d. Junkyard Licenses e. f. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Cigrette, Non-Intoxicating Off-Sale Licenses Tom Thumb Store - 15825 Seventh Avenue b. Date for Planning Commission Interviews c. 6. Reports of Commissions, Committees 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9 . Adjournment -", ,-- - CITY 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL COPIES TO: ATTORNEY, STAFF 'I FROM: CITY CLERK/A. AD'J¡<}) . <, c./ '. ./1 I DATE: JANUARY 14, 1982 REFERENCE: AGENDA INFORMATION - JANUARY 19, 1982 Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval Item No. 4a - Industrial Revenue Bonds/Rademacher Enclosed are copies of resolutions extending the expiration date and increasing the amount of the bonds for the Rademacher Shopping Center. As you will note, the basic plan for the Center is not changing, however, added costs and security items are requiring the additional monies. Item No. 4b - Agricultural Preserve Ordinance Discussion Approximately two-three weeks ago, I sent you copies of the newly drafted ordinance incorporating the changes made at earlier meetings. We have been attempting to determine what the impact would be if the City would rezone considerable area to "Ag Preserve", and at some time the State of Minnesota would withhold the subsidy to the City. In checking with the State Department of Revenue, they seemed to feel that if we used 1980 figures, the amount would be under $5,000.00, with proportionate increases. The concern is that inasmuch as this is a minimum 8 year program, with a more reasonable projection of a 16 year program, that $5,000 figure could be changed drastically be different legislation. Item No. 4c - Sewer User Charges/MWCC/Arden Hills Connection In December we received notification that the City's payment to MWCC for 1982 Sewer User Charges would be $85,152.00. This would result in an $8.00 per unit/per month charge just to pay this bill; operating costs would come on top of that, so we could be looking at a $10.00 per month sewer bill for our residents. As a result of the above Jim Schrantz has spent considerable time researching our useage, making comparisons, etc. in an effort to get MWCC to reduce this charge. His report was given to you on January 12. He will cover this in more detail at the meeting. We are presently having problems with Met Council in the acreage shown in our Comprehensive Plan for development prior to 1990. - Agenda Information January 19, 982 Meeting Page 2 Item No. 4c - Sewer User Charges, etc. (continued) We have tried everything possible to attempt to come close to their figures so they would accept our Plan; but without specifiying certain areas within the MUSA for development only after 1990, it is really a problem. Their reason for the restrictions if that the sanitary waste system will not accept as much as we are proposing. It has now been brought to our attention that a portion of the City of Arden Hills is to be added to Service Area #2. Our concern is that there is an inequity when a City already in Service Area #2 is prohibited from development that a new area can be added??? Jim has researched this per the attached report and will discuss it further with you at the meeting. Item No. 4d - Junkyard Licenses Attached is the Building Inspector's report on the physical status of the Junkyards licensed in 1981. To-date I have received application and bonds/insurance from all except Pumpkin City and Rite-Way (Batson/ Imre. I did have Dave check Pumpkin City after my expiration notices were returned and he has reported that it appears they are not in operation. This will have to be watched in the event they would start up again. You will note from Dave's report that the majority of them could use a replant of trees this spring. Two years ago, all the trees were planted, however, they have since died and there are just one or two scraggly seedlings still growing. Item No. 4a - Cigarette/Non-Intoxicating Off-Sale Licenses A notice was sent in December to all licensees advising them of their license expiration on December 31, 1981 . We did not receive the renewal from Tom Thumb Store #574 until December 30, 1981, therefore, it was too late for action on January 5 Meeting, so he has been operating without a license since that time. I would recommend that the Council include in their motion for approval that he is being put on notice that renewals must be received in time to be acted upon prior to the expiration of the license. We had received some complaints on the selling of cigarettes to minors, however, none have come in for at least six months. Item No. 4b - Date for Planning Commission Interviews You have received copies of applications from 8 City residents. In addition, Mr. Kishel has re-applied, so there will be 9 interviews. Allowing 15 minutes for each, the process could be completed in one evening. A date should be set for the month of January. Presently, no meetings are scheduled for next week-January 25th........ Item No. 6 - Reports of Commissions, Committees, Depattments None received. Item No. 7 - Approval of Minutes December 30, 1981, January 5, 1982. ~ o¿ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 19, 1982 MINUTES The R~gular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor JerryWindschitl on January 19, 1982, 7:30 p.m.. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present; Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, Jim Schrantz; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others AGENDA APPROVAL Mayor Windschitl suggested the addition of 4e, Work Compensation Resolution/Council and 4f, Platting Fees Resolution. MOT! ON by Jacobson, Seconded by Jacobson, the adoption of the Agenda as presented with those additions agreed to. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to suspend the rules. Motion carried unanimous ly. INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS/RADEMACHER Wayne Anderson introduced Frank Dunbar of Boyclair Corporation. He stated that Rademacher and Boyclair Corporation have formed a partnership called Andover Partners and will work on the Andover Shopping Center project together with their combined financial strength and combined expertise to do a quality project. Mr. Anderson explained the reason for the increased amount is they have refined the costs of the project. And in view of the fact there is legislation pending to change the revenues regulations for IR bonds, they would ask for this increase based on their refined costs. Councilman Jacobson was concerned about the large increase from $4.3 million to $7.7 rni llion. He didn't feel the Council has enough information at this time to act on it. It is his understanding from talking with people at the State that a public hearing must be held prior to initiating or extending the Industrial Revenue Bond. He also asked for something in writing as to why the costs have increased so much, what was in the original plan, what changes are being made to that plan, to look at the financial statements again since a partner is now involved, and to look into the legality now that a partner is involved. He also stated that an underwriter or investment banker must be identified in the form going to the State. When he talked with Mr. Rademacher's attorney today, the attorney stated that had not yet been selected. Attorney Hawkins stated he would have to research the Statutes as to whether or not a public hearing would be required and submit an opinion to the Council. Mr. Anderson stated he has talked with their bond counsel relative to Councilman Jacobson's concerns, and they feel that everything being asked for is in order. The partnership is not a problem because the original Resolution indicated that Rademacher could do this as an individual or with some other entity. Because of the timing on the original Resolution, their bond counsel also feels a public hearing is not required. Mr. Dunbar stated they are not sure there would be a problem if their request was delayed for 45 days. But there is suggested legislation in front of the Senate that was there at the end of last year which would restrict IR bonds jn some manner. They are trying to have a Resolution in place prior to that legislation being enacted to allow them to proceed with the project. A 45-day delay under typical circumstances would prove to be of no problem. Regular City Council Meeting January 19, 1982 - Minutes Page 2 (IR Bonds/Rademacher, Continued) Mr. Anderson then explained there are a combination of reasons for the cost increase. Flrst, construction costs have increased somewhat since the original project proposal. Secondly, they will now have to provide tenant and leasehold improvements, which is a substantial sum; and thirdly, the reserve amount is substantial should that be a requirement of the lender. Councilman Lachinski was desirous of having the nicest possible shopping center developed there; and if the cost is $7 million rather than $4 million, it is only going to add to the neighborhood. He felt the City should try to proceed with this in the most expedient manner. Council discussion with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Dunbar continued on reasons for the cost increase and on the questions raised by Councilman Jacobson. Mr. Dunbar stated the $7.7 million is the absolute most they would talk to with any lender as they have built in every conceivable cost. They will need specific statements and documents to present to any lender, and they will come back to the Council for the Final Resolution documenting all costs. Under this Preliminary Resolution, any request that a lender would make upon them could be covered in the tax exempt law. It gives them additional flexibility to negotiate with any lender. Mr. Dunbar also reviewed the reasons for the cost increases as explained by Mr. Anderson previously, plus a reserve is built in for carrying costs under the guidelines of the law and during the lease-up period. Plus they have increased the capitalized interest portion of the bond so that during construction the lender is assured of his interest. They are talking to many lenders right now, all having different underwriting criteria. Once a lender is found; the Final Resolution would also have a breakdown of the details involved. Councilman Jacobson asked if the partnership is contemplating or will ask for tax exempt interim financing on the project. Mr. Dunbar stated they have not contemplated that. When discussing the bond counselor underwrlter of the firm, Mr. Anderson stated they need the flexibility for a change in that regard as a certaln lender may not accept their bond counselor they may change underwriters because it is a matter of competition. This Resolution is extending the previous one listing Piper, Jaffrey, and Hopwood. Mr. Dunbar stated if a change is made in bond counselor underwriter, that would be brought back to the City Council for approval. They are not asking for that at this time. Mayor Windschitl pointed out that the City also hires its own bond counsel to review the entire procedure as it is being developed with those fees being paid for by the developer. The developer's attorney, the City's attorney, and the lender's attorney are all involved in this procedure. Councilman Orttel also noted another safeguard is built in as State review and approval is required. After further discussion, the following items were agreed to: The Attorney will research the question of whether or not a public hearing is required; Mr. Anderson and Mr. Dunbar will submit written documentation as to the reasons for the cost increase, etc.; and the Clerk is to be authorized to publish notices to avoid a time delay if it is found a public hearing is required. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, to table the question of Industrial Revenue Bonds for Rademacher until the first meeting in February, 1982, pending the receipt of legal information and financial information; and authorizing l,the City Clerk, if necessary, to advertise for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE ORDINANCE (Reference the revised Agricultural Preservation Ordinance as presented by the City Attorney with letter dated December 8, 1981) Mayor Windschitl stated the one issue that has arisen since the ordinance was discussed last is what would happen in the event the State would not fund the difference from'wh"at the Ag Preserve land would be taxed at and what it would normally have been taxed at under the Anoka County levy. Regular City Council Meeting January 19, 1982 - Minutes Page 3 (AgP Ordinance, Continued) The estimated loss for this year would be under $5,000; but because of the taxing rate for AgP, that amount would in all probability increase in future years as the spread between the tax rates increases. In the absence of the State rebate for tax losses, the AgP then becomes a city-subsidized program. Discussion noted that the Council was lead to believe that the tax rate would equal the present Green Acres tax rate, but it has since been found out that that is not correct. Also, it is not possible to determine the amount of the annual tax loss to the City for AgP properties. Mayor Windschitl also explained an option to the City would be to enter into a contract with the farmer that would contain essentially all the same provisions and protections of the AgP Ordinance but would not provide the tax benefit to the farmer. Kenneth Slyzuk - asked about the other provisions of the right to be able to farm the property. He stated he is getting somewhat peeved at the City worrying about a few tax dollars when money isn't spent doing other things. A few farmers are asking for protection. One can see what is happening to the rest of the country when agriculture is allowed to go downhill. He felt someone should be willing to back it, referring to a newspaper article of the backlash that occurs when agriculture businesses are not backed. Councilman Peach felt the suggestion of writing a contract might be more ameniable to both the City and the farmers, thereby keeping the program on a totally local level, if the farmers would be willing to help write the contract. Council discussed the taxing procedures under the AgP Act and what it could mean to the City. One man in the audience stated he felt the amount of tax money lost is insignificant when one considers if the property was developed, many more demands for increased services would be put upon the City. Mr. Slyzuk also felt that if the farmland is developed, it is a proven fact that a house doesn't carry its own weight in tax monies for increased services. Several Councilmembers stated they felt that the houses in Andover are paying their way. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, introducing Ordinance No. 57, the Agricultural Preservation Ordinance, promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Andover, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota as presented by the City Attorney. DISCUSSION: Councilman Orttel pointed out that the total tax dollars generated from the agricultural land involved is not very substantial. He also asked, since part of the agreement is the State will reimburse uncollected tax and if the State would decide not to do so, is the City still obligated to grant the tax relief. Attorney Hawkins stated once the agreement is signed by the farmer and the City, the only way the terms of those provisions can be altered is if the Governor would deem there to be a national emergency. There is nothing in the Statutes that authorizes a separate side agreement such as eliminating the preferential tax benefit. Councilman Lachinski did not like the idea of the State planning the various programs for the cities, but he was in favor of the idea of agricultural preserve. He felt if the State would not reimburse the uncollected tax, the recourse would be to serve the eight-year notice to the farmers right away. Discussion was then on the map of those areas requesting the AgP designation, noting no final decision has been made relative to the inclusion of the Urban Service Area. Attorney Hawkins explained once the ordinance is passed, each parcel will be acted upon individually and will require a 4/5 vote to change the zoning to AgP. There was a lengthy discussion on those properties in the Urban Service Area, with the concern being what criteria would be used to determine whether or not a parcel in the MUSA would be rezoned to AgP. Attorney Hawkins advised the reasons would be that the area is in the urban area and is designated for development and services within the City's guide plan. Council discussion was that the new Capital Improvements Plan has Regular City Council Meeting January 19, 1982 - Minutes Page 4 (AgP Ordinance, Continued) not yet been approved and that any decision in the urban area is premature. It was generally felt that once the Plan is approved, it will provide the criteria to be used in reviewing parcels in the MUSA. Discussion was then on the best way to exclude the Urban Service Area from consideration at this time until the new Capital Improvements Plan is adopted. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, to amend the Ordinance to make the approval of the Ordinance contingent upon not considering any properties within the Urban Service Area until such time that a Capital Improvements Program has been adopted. DISCUSSION: Attorney Hawkins felt that wouldn't have to be put into the ordinance but could be made as a policy statement for supporting denial in the Urban Service Area. After further discussion, Councilmen Jacobson and Lachinski WITHDREW the Second and the Amendment to the Motion. Councilman Peach again expressed his opinion that a contract between the City and the farmers could be written that would be better for both parties than what is being imposed by the State. Mr. Slyzuk stated everyone is concerned about taxes, but he is wondering about being able to stay in farming for the next 15-20 years. He is looking to spending a lot of money to enlarge his operations, but would be foolish to do so if he can be forced out of agriculture or if he is not provided some protection to be able to continue farming. Mayor Windschitl stated he is aware of Mr. Slyzuk's problem concerning his property in the Urban Service Area, but he is not aware of anything in this ordinance that would help in that particular situation. Council discussion was then on the suggestion of excluding the Urban Servce Area from consideration in the proposed ordinance until the Capital Improvements Program has been adopted and possibly allowing private contracts with the farmer in that area and/or the City establishing an agricultural district to provide protection for those farmers. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, to change the ordinance to read: "The governing body does hereby find that the land lying outside of the Urban Service Area of the City" in Paragraph 1 under Legislative Intent and Findings of Fact, and the Second Paragraph of the same section: "It is the purpose of this ordinance to identify and classify such lands lying outside of the Urban Service Area of the City of Andover...", striking "within the boundaries of Andover" in both cases. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; NO-Peach Amendment carried. DISCUSSION: The Urban Service Area will not be considered at this time; but once the Capital Improvement Plan is approved, it is intended the Ordinance would be amended to allow that area to be considered. VOTE ON MOT! ON : Carried unanimously. Discussion was then on the prepared resolution designating the specific areas in the City to be considered eligible for Atricultural Preserve Zoning. Mayor Windschitl stated within the rural service area, there are two properties lying within the Scenic River District, which is a more restrictive district than the AgP. Attorney Hawkins advised that any areas within the Scenic River District should not be rezoned to the AgP district until the conflicts can be worked out with the State. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution designating specific areas in the City of Andover to be considered eligible for Agricultural Preserve Zoning; WHEREAS, the City Council is desirous of preserving and protecting agricultural land within the City; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State 473H provides the means by which such lands may be so preserved and protected; and WHEREAS, the City Council has through such legislation adopted an ordinance setting out the requirements to allow specific lands to be rezoned to Agrilcutural Preserve; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover to hereby designate those lands shown on the attached Regular City Council Meeting January 19, 1982 - Minutes Page 5 (AgP Ordinance, Continued) map of the City of Andover lying in the rural service district and excluding any property in the Scenic River District to be eligible for Agrièultural Preserve Zoning... (See Resolution Rl-82) Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION: The Clerk was directed to check into the eli9ibility for AgP of those properties within the Scenic River District. Recess at 9:06; reconvene at 9:21 p.m. WORK COMPENSATION RESOLUTION/COUNCIL Councilman Orttel reported that the Clerk was been told the cost would be $480 for the Council for the year because they are rated as Municipal employees. In checking with the Work Comp Bureau in the new work comp index or classification, Councils, Commissioners, etc., have a specific code, which is a clerical code at a 23-cent rate, or approximately $48 per year for the entire Council. He felt that the Council would be covered under ;,the lower rate. Councilman Orttel also stated that if one is disabled in this type of service, the compensation is based on the person's full-time position, and noted at the present time the Commissions are also not covered. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, introducing a Resolution declarying eligibility and requesting Workers Compensation Coverage for elected officials, for the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Park and Recreation Commission members of the City of Andover... (See Resolution R2-82) Motion carried unanimously. JUNKYARD LICENSES (Reference the January 6, 1982, memo from Dave Almgren relative to the Junkyard yearly inspections) Attorney Hawkins advised that Mom's Auto Salvage is still under court action. There are still some things to be done, but the ground is frozen at this time so they have been given until this spring to get them done. There has been an effort made in this case to comply with the ordinance. ·Council discussion noted that those yards without the trees do not meet the ordinance requirements and on what course of action should be taken at this time to ensure that the required natural screening is installed. The ordinance requires that trees that have died are to be replaced by the next growing season. Attorney Hawkins suggested issuing the license based on the condition that the trees be planted by a specific date or the license will then be revoked; but the City then has to follow up on it. The Clerk reported that all bonds, insurance, applications, etc., have been received from all yards except from Pumkin City, but there is no activity on that site at this time. Also, the paperwork is not in order for both Rite-Way Auto yards. She also stated that none of the yards have natural screening as is required by the ordinance. There was some discussion as to making the definition of natural screening more specific such as requring S-foot trees to be planted. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we direct the City Attorney to prepare the proper language for the Junkyard Ordinance to allow the City to enforce the living fence provisions of the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion returned to determining which yards meet ordinance requirements to be granted a junkyard license. Attorney Hawkins stated he has spoken with Mrs. Heidelberger's lawyer and with Mr. Almgren, and the things left to do are relatively minor; and the court has given her the right to continue operation and to meet the requirements. Mrs. Heidelberger - stated they didn't get the gate completed because it was on back order, but they have it now. Some of the trees died; and in talking with Dick Swanson, he advised planting them as early in the spring as possible. There are some trees on the other side of the bank, and she will be hiring someone with a tree spade to dig them out and replant them in front. Regular City Council Meeting January 19, 1982 - Minutes Page 6 (Junkyard Licenses, Continued) There was also some question as to whether K & K Salvage is the yard with the very rusty fence. Mrs. Heidelberger stated that part of that fence is for the tire company, not K & K's. They wlll be foreclosing on the tire company shortly. Mr. Heidelberger is running the tire business and that should be his responsibility. K &(K has the white fence. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the following Junkyard Licenses be approved for 1982 subject to review by 5-1-82 if they should not comply with all screening and living fence provisions of the ordinance: Harold Wilbur, Mom's Auto Salvage, Anoka Auto Wrecking, Andover Auto Parts, Bob's Auto Parts, Commercial Auto Parts, and K & K Salvage; and move that Rite-Way Auto at 1864 Bunker Lake Boulevard, Rite-Way Auto at 1714 Bunker Lake Boulevard, and Pumkin City, 2054 Bunker Lake Boulevard be denied license renewals on the basis there is major noncompliance with theJunkyard Licensing Ordinance. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that they be separated and voted on separately. DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach felt that Mom's just started last year, so she can meet the tree requirement next spring. The rest have been in business for years and have not maintained the fence, and he feels their licenses should not be renewed. Attorney Hawkins stated the ordinance requires them to replant this year if the trees died last year. It would be encumbent upon the City to prove that the trees had died before last year, which may be difficult to do. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Jacobson, Peach; NO-Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl Motion failed. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel,Windschitl; NO-Peach Motion carried. Discussion: It was suggested that once the ordinance is changed, the yards should be notified of the ordinance change and that they have until May 1, 1982, to bring their yards into compliance or the junkyard license will be revoked. It was also suggested that pictures be taken of each site around September of every year to keep a pictorial record of each site. The Clerk was also directed to place the ordinance change on the next Council Agenda. PLATTING FEES RESOLUTION MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, entering a Resolution establishing the fees for various licenses and permits, to include platting costs, as presented by the City Clerk. (See Resolution R3-82) DISCUSSION: There was some discussion as to the specific fees proposed. The Clerk explained many of the fees have been the same since 1971 and the fees are no longer covering expenses. She felt that the proposed fees will now cover the City's costs. Motion carried unanimously. CIGARETTE, NON-INTOXICATING OFF-SALE LICENSES/TOM THUMB STORES MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve a Cigarette License and Non- Intoxicating Off-Sale Liquor License to the Tom Thumb Store at 15825 Seventh Avenue NW, Andover; and notify the owner of the store that in the future license renewals are to be in the City 30 days prior to expiration to allow the City time to investigate for renewal purposes; and in the absence of providing the City with the lead time necessary for renewal, the City will take action to stop the sale of these products during the time that no license is in force. DISCUSSION: It was noted this is the second violation of this business regarding these licenses. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. Regular City Council Meeting January 19, 1982 - Minutes Page 7 DATE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEWS MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we set Monday, February 8, at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall as the time and place to interview new applicants for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. SEWER USAGE CHARGES/MWCC/ARDEN HILLS CONNECTION Mr. Schrantz reviewed his January 8, 1982, memo and charts to the Mayor and City Council relative to the MWCC Sewer Service Charges for Andover, comparing the gallonage per residential equitable use in the surrounding cities, and feeling Andover's Gal/REC is out of porportion. In reviewing the City of Andover Gallons assigned by year VS Gallons calculated by Gallons/REC, he felt the City should be somewhere inbetween MWCC Gallons and Andover's Survey Gallons. At 100,000 Gal/REC, the City should be 8 million in 1976, 45 million in 1977, 61 million in 1978, 68 million in 1979, 70 million in 1980, and 83 million in 1981. If 90,000 Gal/REC is used, the City should be 40 million in 1977, 54 million in 1978, 61 million in 1979, 63 million in 1980, and 74 million in 1981, which he felt were reasonable figures and could be the goal to be negotiating with the MWCC. The last time the City was metered, it came to 217,000 gallons per day average, which comes to around 90,000 gallons/REC. A permanent meter is being installed, which should be receiving final inspection within the next two weeks. Mayor Windschitl was concerned with a ground-water problem from a specific area of the City, feeling it is not fair to the rest of the residents to be charged for high usage from one area. Mr. Schrantz then reviewed the Final Cost Allocation for Budget Year 1980, which shows a deficit of $17,774.27. He felt if that deficit could be eliminated and a reasonable number negotiated for 1982, the total charges for 1982 can be reduced by approximately 25 percent, with that 25 percent then being used as the City's operating costs. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the City Engineer and the Mayor to meet with the Metropolitan Waste Water Commission to discuss the sewer charges for the City of Andover and to come back to the Council with recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schrantz then presented the Council with a letter dated January 18, 1982, from Barbara Moeller, Environmental Planner, Metropolitan Council relative to the Arden Hills Request for MWCC Acquisition and Extension of the New Brighton Trunk Sewer. (Also reference the January 11, 1982, memo from Mr. Schrantz to the Mayor and City Council relative to the Arden Hills Flows to Service Area #2). It was suggested a formal resolution be prepared expressing opposition to the proposal to be presented to the Physical Development Committee. . There was also some discussion as to what position the City should take relative to the SAC line, suggesting it may not be desirable to move it down to the present MUSA area but the very northeastern portion of the City, which clearly will never be served, should probably be removed and other areas added that would be served in the future. No decision on the matter was made at this time. There was also discussion on the dissatisfaction over the City's representation on the Metropolitan Council and the apparent lack of support received from Andover's representative. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the City Clerk, in conjunction with the City Engineer, prepare a Resolution for presentation to the Metropolitan Council Physical Development Committee in opposition to the Arden Hills Request for MWCC Acquisition and Extension of the New Brighton Trunk Sewer. DISCUSSION: The Resolution is to be presented to the Council for review at the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting January 19, 1982 - Minutes Page 8 (Sewer Usage Charges/MWCC/ARden Hills Connection, Continued) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the City Clerk prepare a letter expressing our displeasure with our representation on the Metro Council for presentation to Chairman Weaver. DISCUSSION: Mayor Windschitl asked if the Council would first like him to meet with Mr. Weaver, Mr. Scherer and others relative to the City's Comprehensive Plan and the sewer problems prior to a letter being mailed. Discussion was on the concern and dissatisfaction of the City's Metro Council representative. Councilman Peach agreed the letter woul d not be mailed until after the Mayor's meeting with those officials. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we have the Mayor, City Clerk, City Englneer meet with the appropriate people at the Metropolitan Council to see whether or not we can get the Comprehensive Plan moving and to discuss the waste water difficulties. Motion carried unanimously. POLICIES ON SNOW PLOWING, ETC. Mr. Schrantz submitted a copy of Policies on snow plowing streets, sanding streets, and maintaining skating rinks. Council agreed to add the item to the next Council Agend a. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, the approval of Checks 4613 through 4655 for a total of $473,487.38. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '~~~ lSZL Marce la A. Peach Recordl g Secretary