Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC April 3, 1984 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 3, 1984 AGENDA 1- Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. Mobile Home/Anoka Independent Grain & Feed Co. b. Northern Natural Gas Franchise c. Large Lots/Urban Development d. Crime Watch Program e. Schriptek, Inc./Temporary Mobile Home Permit f. Damages/1980 Truck 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Joint Powers Agreement/Mutual Aid-PW Equipment b. 1984 Summer Work Program M.E.E.D./S.Y.E.P. c. d. 6. Reports of Committees, Commissions, Staff a. Fire Department b. Administration/Crime Watch Funding c. Administration/Sick Leave Policy Changes d. 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment ~ 01 ANDOVER M E MaR AND U M TO: M YOR AND COUNCIL COPIES TO: ATTORNEY STAPF FROM: CITY CLERK/A. ADMINIST DATE: MARCH 28, 1984 REFERENCE: AGENDA COMMENTS - APRIL 3 REGULAR MEETING Item No. 3 - Aqenda Approval Please add Item No. 4f (Damages/lg80 Dump Truck). please delete Item No. 4e (Temporary Mobile Home Permit) and Item No. 6b (Crime Watch Program Funding.) Item No. 4a - Mobile Home/Anoka Independent Grain & Feed At the request of the property owner, this item has been continued from the March 22 Meeting to this meeting. Attached is the p&Z recommendation indicating they do_not feel a SUP is needed inasmuch as the home is "grandfather ed-in" . Apparently there was an mis- interpretation of the data furnished to the Commission, i.e. , Ordinance No. 8 clearly states in Section 4.03(J) that alterations may be made to a non-conforming residential structure, however, the existing "bulk" of the structure cannot be enlarged. In view of this, had Mr. Peterson simply repaired the mobile home that was on the property prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 8,and not moved in a newer larger mobile home, the problem would not be before the Council now. Ordinance No. 6B had not been adopted at the time Mr. Peterson replaced the non-conforming mobile home with a newer and larger one, therefore, the provisions of Ordinance 8 must apply; Section 4.10 prohibits mobile homes as dwelling units, thereby making them non-conforming except in a mobile home park or on a temporary basis; (Section 4.03) covers all non-conforming structures and/or uses. A SUP cannot be granted for a "mobile home park" under the provisions of Ordinance No. 6 and Ordinance No. 8, primarily because a rezoning would be required to change the R-l classification to R-5---and, an R-5 development is allowed only where municipal sewer and water is available. There is no variance provision in Ordinance No. 6 which would allow for the establishment of a "mobile home park" in an area not served by municipal sewer. Based on the provisions of both the above referenced ordinances, it would appear that the only option left to Mr. Peterson to house his employee would be the construction of a separate dwelling unit meeting all the requirements of a residential structure in a R-l zone and àso meeting the requirements of Ordinance 8, Section 8.15. Agenda Comments Apr il 3 Regular Meeting Page 2 Item No. 4b - Northern Natural Gas Franchise Ordinance Councilman Elling is reviewing this and will have a recommendation on the language for street openings, etc. Item No. 4c - Larqe Lots/Urban Development Enclosed is a letter from Attorney Hawkins, indicating that the "20-acre platting provision" does not apply to commercial property. This would mean that a developer could subdivide commercial property into lots of 5 acres or more without a need for Council approval. If the Council is of the opinion that they would like to see all commercial property in the urban area developed into lots of less than 5 acres, i.e. , platted, Ordinance 8 could be amended to require municipal sewer to service all parcels subdivided into less than 20 acres in a commercial zoned area within the USA. Item No. 4d - Crime Watch Program In review the 1984 Budget, it appears at this time that there is at least $5,000 available to set up the Crime Watch Program. The funding would come from the "Unallocated" Department. Inasmuch as this is the beginning of the budget year, it would be recommended that an amount of substantially less than $5,000 be used; this would leave a sufficient amount in the fund should any emergency situation occur for which the funds would be needed later in the year. Item No. 4e - Schriptek, Inc./Mobile Home Temporary Permit The applicant is requesting that this item be removed from the agenda. The firm is in the process of re-organizing and until this is complete, the work-program and associated time frames are uncertain, therefore, at this time they do not know if there will be a need for another construction trailer to be located near the existing building. Item No. 4f - Damages/1980 Dump Truck Enclosed is a letter from Attorney Hawkins with correspondence from the legal firm representing Kotke Bus Company. You will recall, they are being requested to reimburse the City for damages on the 1980 Dump Truck. The letter is self-explanatory. What does the Council wish to do? Item No. 5a - Joint Powers Aqreement/P.W. Equipment After the July 3 storm of last year, it became very apparent that during a time of emergency such as this, the services and equipment from other public works departments not affected by the emergency were needed. As a result, the MPWA has put together a Joint Powers Agreement for just such a purpose. It will operate very similar to the Mutual Aid Agreements used by Fire Departments. To-date several of our neighboring cities have entered into this Agreement. Enclosed is information for you. A motion is needed to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute this document in the name of the City. Agenda Comments Apr il 3 Regular Meeting Page 3 Item No. 5b - 1984 Summer Work Program Enclosed is a memorandum from the City Engineer covering the use of the M.E.E.D. funding as well as that from the Summer Youth C.E.T.A. Program. You will recall the City Engineer indicated at the March 22 Meeting that he would like to again have Tim Koltes work in the Utilities Department this summer. He is not eligible for any funding at this time, however, he does have the experience in this area and is very dependable. He also has his Class "Bn license which is very necessary. The Council expressed some concern about hiring someone outright when people were available as well as fundinq for them. I would also like to bring to your attention that Tim is presently attending college, majoring in accounting. Because of the enlargement of our accounting system, we are finding that we could use some help in this area for a few hours each week. Inasmuch as Tim does have this experience and knowledge, is there a possibility that part of his time could be spent in the office with the balance on the sewer inspections? He would be available at $4.00 per hour. Item No. 6a - Fire Department No report received. Item No. 6b - Crime Watch Fundinq See item No. 4d. Item No. 6c - Sick Leave Policy This is continued from previous meetings. Enclosed is a memo covering the costs of providing disability coverage. We have not gotten any firm committments from the staff on whether or not they are interested in exchanging sick leave time for such a pOlicy. The Council will simply have to make a decision on this if it is to be utilized. Item No. 7 - Approval of Minutes February 21, March 6, March 22 Enclosures ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 3, 1984 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by. Mayor Jerry Windschitl on April 3, 1984, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Orttel Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, James Schrantz; City Clerk/A. Administrator, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Harvey Kadlec, 16970 Crocus - is in the process of planning Kadlec's Second Addition, but he has heard the Clty lS considering realigning South Coon Creek Drive to come through 142nd Lane. Mayor Windschitl reviewed the discussion at the March 28 public hearings where that was brought up, though no formal action has been taken on it yet. He asked that Mr. Kadlec let the City know his opinion on the matter. Mr. Kadlec - stated he is going before the Planning Commission next Tuesday with the plat, asklng how this affects his plat. Councilman Lachinski stated the Council will be discussing this again on April 17, also suggesting he talk with the City Engineer about it. Mr. Kadlec - stated it will become a thoroughfare through his plat, which he thought was horn b le. It becomes a freeway for everyone else. Council informed Mr. Kadlec that it would be designed as a 35 mph street at the same road design as he would do himse If. Mr. Kadlec - stated he is willing to work with the City, but couldn't see it going rlght down the middle of his plat, suggesting some curves be put in so it isn't just a straight shot through there. Council noted the meeting with the residents on the western end of South Coon Creek Drive to find out their feelings on the road and of the continued public hearing on the matter on April 17. It was felt that Mr. Kadlec should proceed with processing his plat through the P & Z as planned. Counc il suggested he also attend that meeting on the 17th. Carroll Abbott, 2917 142nd Lane - stated the tornado warning siren on Crooked Lake and Highway 10 can't really be heard in their area. His son was wondering if it is possible to have a siren installed closer to the area. Mr. Schrantz indicated he is in the process of finding that out. AGENDA APPROVAL The following changes were suggested: Delete Item 4e, Schriptek, Inc./Temporary Mobile Home Permit; Add Item 4g, Contract Award/IP83-3 and Item 5c, Accepting Donation from Fire Fighters Relief Association, and Combining Item 4d with item 6b, Crime Watch Program. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, that the Agenda be approved as changed. Motion carrled unanimously. MOBILE HOME/ANOKA INDEPENDENT GRAIN & FEED COMPANY Attorney Hawkins understood the area is presently zoned R-l. Mobi le home parks are not allowed in R-l districts without sanitary sewer and water, stating the area would have to be rezoned R-5. He didn't believe there was any provision in the ordinance that authorizes the issuance of a special use permit for this situation. Regular City Council Meeting April 3, 1984 - Minutes Page 2 (Mobile Home/Anoka Independent Grain & Feed Company, Continued) Peter Thom son, 100 Marquette Buildin , Minnea olis, representing Ernie Peterson - state t ere lS a crlmlna c arge 1 e ln no a ounty, and they propose because of the unique nature of this matter to try to resolve it short of going to trial on a criminal matter. They thought the proper way to do it is by special use permit, to get approval for a mobile home park for one mobile home. They brought their arguments to the Planning Commission, reviewing the ordinances, the farmin9 operation there since 1958, the implementation of the ordinances which made it a nonconforming use in the 1970s but which grandfathered in the mobile home. In late 1979 Mr. Peterson replaced the unit with a nicer one on the same location for use by a single man employee who needs to live next to the turkey barns. Sometime in 1980 the Building Inspector informed him that because the mobile home was replaced, it was now a non- conforming use and it would have to be removed. After some discussion between the attorneys and the City, it was resolved by an agreement that Mr. Peterson could keep the mobile home there until October 1, 1982. Prior to that coming to pass, Ordinance 6 was passed; arid because of that, it was the conclusion of the Planning Commission that as of July 20, 1982, the effective date of Ordinance 6, which has an additional grand- father clause in it, the mobile home on the premises (the new replacement) had been grandfathered in. So the P & Z determined their special use permit was of no concern and did not need to be considered. They are requesting Council approval of that interpretation, which will then save the time and expense of a criminal proceeding. Attorney Hawkins explained Ordinance 6, the mobile home ordinance prohibiting replacement in the community unless in a mobile home park was adopted in 1970. Ordinances 6A and 6B are just modifications and revisions to comply with State law that changed what a mobile home is called. Ever since 1970, mobile homes have not been allowed anywhere in Andover except in approved parks. This mobile home was grandfathered in prior to the ordinance in 1970 and Ordinance 8 in 1971; but there has never been a period of time where this mobile home was ever allowed under any existing ordinances in Andover. If the planning Commission gave that impression, they are incorrect. Ordinance 6, 2a, b, and c contains the grandfather provision, and the only thing done in Ordinance 6B, 2b, is clarifying and defining the mobile home. The regulations have never been lifted that would have made this a conforming use at any point in time. Amendments A and B are amendments of the original prohibition adopted in 1970. The language con- cerning the grandfather provision has not been amended. The City's position is that it was a nonconforming use because it pre-existed the ordinance in 1970, but when Mr. Peterson increased the size of the mobile home, it is an enlargement of the nonconforming use, and the City believes that is not allowed under Ordinance 8. He did not dispute that the mobile home was on the premises as of July 20, 1982, but when put there in 1979 it was done so improperly according to the ordinances in effect at that time. At no time was the new mobile home ever a legal mobile home. Mr. Thomsðon - disagreed, as he didn't think the grandfather clause, which was included ln the or lnances for the first time in 1982, could be made retroactive to 1970. He felt it has to apply to any mobile home that was in the City as of 1982. He felt that was a reasonable interpretation of the ordinance and that which was also given by the Planning Commission. Attorney Hawkins explained municipal law doesn't require adding a grandfather clause to every change in ordinances, as that is a matter of right to municipalities and is not disputed. Mr. Thompson - felt the Council should consider the things concerning the operation of the farm and how important this is to Mr. Peterson, thinking there is a reasonable interpretation of the ordinances of allowing this mobile home and to clean up the entire problem. If the Planning Commission recommendation is overturned, it will go back to a trial;, and if the jury acquits, it will set a precedent for the City of Andover. He thought the City would be in a sounder position to uphold the grandfather clause and allow the mobile home. Regular City Council Meeting April 3, 1984 - Minutes Page 3 (Mobile Home/Anoka Independent Grain & Feed Company, Continued) Attorney Hawkins noted the application is for a special use permit for an R-5 designa- tion in an R-l district allowing continued use of one mobile home. Mr. Thompson - stated that request was: not acted upon by the Planning Commission, questioning whether the Council then has anything to rule on. Attorney Hawkins felt that the application should never have been accepted because there is no provision in the ordinances authorizing the City to issue a special use permit for mobile home parking in this area because of the requirements for sewer and water, etc. He didn't know if Mr. Thompson wished to proceed with that or to withdraw it. Mr. Thompson - stated if there is agreement that the mobile home is grandfathered in, they would ask to withdraw the special use permit application for a refund of whatever portion of the fees they are entitled to get back. He didn't know who made the interpretation of the ordinances. It was noted it is the attorney's responsibility, and Mr. Hawkins stated his interpretation is not the same as that of the Planning Commission. He again stated he did not think this is allowed as a nonconforming use, and the change in Section 2c in no way gave this mobile home any more right than it had prior to the change, which was none under the City's ordinances. He did not feel the change to Amendment B in any way litigimized the placement of that mobile home. Mr. Thompson - stated if Mr. Hawkins' interpretation is correct and they are not grand- fathered ln as far as the Council is concerned, then they would like to pursue the application for the special use permit. Mayor Windschitl stated then the Council has an obligation to process it. Councilman Knight realized the legalities of the matter, but what Mr. Peterson has done hasn't changed the site nor the useage of the place. He drives past it every day and he didn't even notice it has been changed. He didn't know how to resolve the matter, but he had a problem because nothing has changed since 1958. Mr. Thompson - also stated that Mr. Peterson built another home; and the day that the lnspector was out to approve the permit for that new home was the same day that the old mobile home was taken off the foundation and the new one put on. The inspector was there, saw it, and voiced no objection. Dave Almgren, Building Inspector - did not agree with that as being fact, noting his memo to the Council on that allegation. Mr. Thom)son - explained there are four employees living on the farm, one of them in the mobl e home in question. They raise one-half million turkeys a year, and that is a minimum crew on site monitoring on a 24-hour basis. It is in operation year- found. The employee housing are not on individual lots but are on the farm, which is over 500 acres under Ag Preserve zoning. In further Council discussion, the majority agreed with the Attorney's interpretation of the ordinance, that the mobile home is illegal according to the ordinances. The question of whether or not mobile homes should be allowed in the AgP district for farm employees was raised; though it was realized that if there would be such a change, it would require going through normal channels for ordinance revisions. It was suggested the Planning Commission be directed to investigate that matter further. Mr. Thompson - didn't know if it was proper to rule on the application if it wasn't ruled on by the Planning Commission. Attorney Hawkins explained the Planning Commission is only an advisory board; the City Council is the body who has the final say. Regular City Council Meeting April 3, 1984 - Minutes Page 4 (Mobile Home/Anoka Independent Grain & Feed Company, Continued) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, to deny the special use permit requested for a mobile home park in an R-l district for Mr. Peterson and direct the City Clerk to provide the information as to the appropriateness of the mobile home park in that area of the City such as that it is not allowed in an R-l district, the City water and sewer is not available as per Section 6.01, Ordinance 8, and it is not allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. (See Resolution R023-84) Motion carried unanimously. Council again discussed reviewing the mobile home issue on a permanent and/or temporary basis for employees in an Ag Preserve area. Mayor Windschitl suggested meeting with the Planning Commission and City Attorney to discuss the issue because of the complexity and emotional nature of the matter. Attorney Hawkins felt the City could restrict the allowance of mobile homes only within the AgP district; however, the reasons for distinquishing why it would be allowed in that zone as opposed to others must be established. Mr. Thompson - felt that taking a contrary view as to having the mobile home there under the grandfather provision is a violation of the State Statute regarding the designation of farmland as Agricultural Preserve. The farmer has to have that employee there. The use of this farm has been approved by the City, which is a material benefit to the economy of the community for another ten years. He felt an interpretation had to be made of either the grandfather provision or making an exception for AgP so that people can do what the State allows under AgP. Mayor Windschitl explained a farmer has asked for the same thing several years ago and was denied by_ the City, noting the difficulty of meeting normal zoning requirements. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we set April 19 as a joint City Council/ Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to discuss Ordinance 8 and specifically the provisions to deal with use of allowing trailer parks in Ag Preserve district. Motion carried unanimously. (This meeting was cancelled later in the evenin'!Ji and the item put on the Apri 1 17 regular Council agenda.) NORTHERN NATURAL GAS FRANCHISE Councilman Elling stated he rewrote Section III and added a relocation clause. Attorney Hawkins reviewed Councilman Elling's changes and didn't have any problem with them. He felt the procedure should be to forward this to North Central Public Service and ask them for comments. Discussion was on Section III: "The City shall have 5 working days to approve or deny this permit." Councilman Elling stated the five days was just an arbitrary number. Mr. Schrantz didn't feel that was enough time, suggesting ten or fifteen days would be more appropriate in case he wanted to bring something before the Counc il. The general consensus of the Council was to delete that sentelce from the ordinance. Relative to the five-day permit for as-built permits. it was agreed to leave that time period in and let North Central Public Service comment on it. Councilman Elling then reviewed the other sections: Section IV, Relocation of Utility Facilities; Section V, City to Give Reasonable Notice; Section VI, Reimbursement for Relocation within 10 Years; Section VII, Right to Reimbursement not waived by relocation; Section VII, Relocation when Streets Vacated; and Section IX, Relocation for Convenience. It was questioned why the City would add some of the provisions to the ordinance, that possibly North Central Public Service should be asking for them, especially relative to reimbursement. Councilman Elling stated this is standard language for a majority of the cities. Council generally felt they wanted more time to review the ordinance before forwarding it to North Central Public Service. Regular City Council Meeting April 3, 1984 - Minutes Page 5 (Northern Natural Gas Franchise, Continued) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, that we table any further action on the franchise for Natural Gas proposed Ordinance No. 65 until the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. DISCUSSION: Councilman Elling asked the feeling of the Council about a franchise fee or revenue tax on it. Usually the cost is three to four percent and is passed onto the residents, but may offset some of the costs encountered by the City. By law the City has the option of doing that. Council felt that may be worth looking into. Motion carried unanimously. CRIME WATCH PROGRAM/FUNDING Councilman Knight stated there would be some funds available for the Crime Watch Program, asking how much the Council would commit, looking at starting the program in the fall. Melanie DeLuca, Community School Coordinator, stated she talked with the Director of Communlty Education about the Council's definite interest in going ahead with the program. The Director expressed the problem that the last coordinator is on a leave of absence and does have the option to come back in the same capacity. The Director's proposal was to wait until January to find out whether he will come back or not but the setup could be done in the fall. The Director is willing to talk with someone about staffing. Council generally felt that since the City has the funds available, the program should begin as soon as possible, not wanting to wait until January. It was also felt that the City ought to request a commitment on the part of the School District, not wanting to stop the program in the middle once it began. It was agreed that Mayor Windschitl and/or Councilman Knight will meet with the Director of Community Education about the matter. It was also agreed to fund $3,000 for the program for the last half of 1984, July through December, with the intent to fund the entire $6,000 in 1985 and the following years. Ms. DeLuca - stated the other problem is the budgeting for the school district is on a flscal year; and she thought because of the staffing problem, the Director was considering putting the funds in the budget as of January 1. This program would be something new and not in this year's budget. Council agreed that this item would also have to be discussed with the Director. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City of Andover allocate up to $3,000 for the initial funding for the Crime Watch Program for the City of Andover with those funds to come out of the unallocated portion of the 1984 budget. Motion carried unanimously. CONTRACT AWARD, IP83-3 John Davidson of TKDA reviewed the bids received for the project, recommending the contract be awarded to the low bidder of C. S. McCrossan, Inc. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, that we award contract to C. S. McCrossan, Inc., in the amount of $89,719.34 for 1984 street improvements, Commission No. 7791. (See Resolution R024-84) Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 8:51; reconvene at 9:12 p.m. LARGE LOTS/URBAN DEVELOPMENT Mayor Windschitl reviewed the map showing the urban service area, the undeveloped property in that area, and the commercially zoned properties. He felt the real question is when would the Council reasonably believe services would be brought to the industrial area around Bunker Lake and Hanson Boulevards (the north half of Section 35). Regular City Council Meeting April 3, 1984 - Minutes Page 6 (Large Lots/Urban Development, Continued) If no commitment is made to deliver services to that area, the result could very well be undesirable development of large lots in the industrial area rather than platted in an orderly manner. And rather than see that happen, he felt the land would serve a better purpose as residential. Other discussion noted that Good Value has a petition for sewer and water for the area south of Bunker Lake and Crosstown Boulevards; that the area in question is just north of the proposed Site Q landfill site; that the Metropolitan Council likes to see the installation of sanitary sewer around landfills; and that the area in question is the buffer area around the proposed landfill. It was also brought out that the owners of the property in the northeast corner of Bunker Lake and Hanson Boulevards have not been successful in selling their land. Mayor Windschitl also suggested that if sewer and water are extended to the area, the four 40s north of the creek should be brought into the urban service area, with the utilities designed to provide the ability to get across the creek to service that are a. Discussion continued that the area around Bunker Lake and Hanson Boulevards is basically the only land available in the City that would be industrial. But the concern was on the costs of running utilities to that area and if there is enough property that can be assessed to pay for the utilities. The Capital Improvement plan calls for the extension of utilities to that area between 1981 and 1985. It was also noted that the Good Value property has not yet been assessed for the trunk line that goes past their property because of the assessment policy in effect at that time. That assessment will be picked up once the property is developed. It was felt that the assessment policy should be reviewed again to be sure the utilities can be adequated funded. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we authorize the City Engineer to prepare a feasibility study for the extension of sanitary sewer for the segments identified in the Capital Improvements program through 1985, particularly the extension to the east area of the urban service area, to review the acreage to be served and to review the current assessment policy to determine if the acreage charge would have to be modified to cover the cost of the trunk line. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that we authorize the City Engineer to obtain the assistance of TKDA in the preparation of some preliminary costs and area estimates for the potential of the utilities east of Crosstown and Bunker Lake Boulevard area providing the costs are deferred and not over $1,000. Motion carried unanimously. Council also discussed the possibility of requiring the installation of sewer and water for all commercial development under 20 acres, but it was decided not to act on the matter until more is known about the data that will be gathered on the feasibility report just ordered. DAMAGES/1980 TRUCK Mr. Schrantz explained during a storm in November, 1983, about 4:30 or 5 a.m. the truck tipped over. North Star sent a wrecker to tip it back up. They don't know how long the truck ran while it was on its side. Mr. Starr stated when he got up to shut the truck off, the engine was already off. But it is not known definitely whether or not Mr. Starr was unconscious for any period of time. After it was tipped back up, they tried to start it but the battery was low. The truck was brought back to the garage and the charger put on. They then called Boyers and Kotke to see what should be done. Boyer,s said they should take the injectors out and take the engine apart. They were hopiflgto get the truck running because of the oncoming snowstorm, so the truck was pulled to Kotkes. They told the mechanic at Kotke what Boyer had said about taking Regular City Council Meeting April 3, 1984 - Minutes Page 7 (Damages/lg80 Truck, Continued) the injectors out. Kotke called some other people about what should be done and was told it wouldn't be necessary to take the injectors out. So Kotke just drained the oil, put in new batteries, and started it it up; and it was driven back to the City. The truck was used about l~ hours and then the rod went through the block. Councilman Elling stated standard procedure for a diesel engine is to first take the injectors out and turn the engine over by hand, get the oil out of the cylinders, put the injectors back in, and then try to start it. Mr. Schrantz stated that Kotke talked with several different diesel people and they all had a different procedure. He went on to explain they then took the truck to Boyer, who took it apart, put in a new engine giving some credit for the old block. The insurance adjustor is saying they will only pay for damages to the body of the truck and $2,463.06, which is what it -would have cost to take the injectors out, flush it out, and check thE injectors and rods. They are assuming no damage was done during the rollover but only after the ro 11 over. Mr. Hawkins has contacted the Kotke insurance company about their liability. Mayor Windschitl was concerned about that communication, questioning what Kotke did that warranted this. Over the years Kotke has provided the City a service when it was needed.. Discussion wasc'on whether or not there was some liability on the part of Kotke, questioning whether the procedure they used to start the truck was proper. Mr. Schrantz stated they took it to Kotke with the impression that they would advise the City what to do. Mayor Windschitl read a portion of the letter from Kotke's attorney relative to the procedure they used to start the engine. Frank Stone, Public Works, stated he didn't remember anyone giving them permission to start the truck. But they did take the truck over there with the idea of getting it running. Mayor Windschitl stated it appears the engine was damaged in the rollover. Mr. Schrantz stated he thought so too. Mr. Starr hàd'~Sc'aiú'i1e didn't shut the engine off, ~~lir~Rè~oUld have been unconscious for a peri od of time. The on ly thi ng that bothers ¡·¡Ii.. s w they took the truck to Kotke, he thought they would be getting the same kind of service as they would get from Boyer. But evidently that is not the case. It was suggested the Attorney be authorized to start an arbitration procedure with the City's insurance carrier in an attempt to get more of the claim paid. It was fe lt an expert witness would need to testify as to how the engine: was damaged and whether it was damaged when the truck was rolled over. Because it is a Caterpillar engine, it was felt an expert on the engine from that company should be contacted. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the City Attorney to negotiate and/or arbitrate the matter of the claim on the rolled over truck with our insurance carrier. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schrantz stated the total claim was $9,425, with a core exchange of $2,200, for an adjusted claim of $7,226. The insurance company offered $2,463, making the difference approximately $4,763. Council discussion was to wait to see what an expert from Caterpillar will say about the matter; and if there is some blame on the part of Kotke, the decision to make a claim against them will be made then. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT/MUTUAL AID - PW EQUIPMENT MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, enter a Resolution as prepared authorizing joint cooperative agreements for use of personnel and equipment - Regional Mutual Aid Associ ati on. (See Resolution R025-84) Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting April 3, 1984 - Minutes Page 8 1984 SUMMER WORK PROGRAM The Clerk explained that Tim Koltes would be doing primarily filing work in the office. He is majoring in accounting in school, and she has received good recommendations from 'his instructors. Mayor Windschitl felt that if someoneòis needed in accounting, the City should be looking at getting a computer. He didn't feel the position for Mr. Koltes should be justified by using him in the office and thought it would be better to hire M.E.E.D. employees for the office help if such help is needed, someone that could be on call all year round. Ms. Lindquist stated as long as Mr. Koltes is going to college, he could work on a part-time basis. Mr. Schrantz and Mr. Stone explained the reasons they prefer hiring Tim Koltes in public works for the summer months -- he has some experience because he worked for the City last summer, he is a responsible individual, he has a Class B drivers license and has proven to be a responsible driver of the trucks. An individual is needed to work in the sewers this summer, and Mr. Koltes has the experience. Mayor Windschitl and Councilman Lachinski were reluctant to hire someone at $4 an hour when M.E.E.D. employees can be hired at no cost to the City, thinking someone with the necessary qualifications could be hired under that program. And if an individual is not doing the job, they can be turned back to the county. Mr. Schrantz and Mr. Stone noted the problem with the time consuming tasks of interviewing those people, training them, and extra supervision required that would not be required with Mr. Koltes. The intent is to hire as many M.E.E.D. employees as they need, but Mr. Koltes wouldn't require the added training and could even be used for limited super- vision in some areas. It is also a question of safety. They already know that Mr. Koltes is trustworthy"dependable, and they have confidence in him~ but that is not always the case with an employee. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the City to employ Dave Sharp as a mechanic for $5 an hour under the terms and conditions set forth in the letter from Jim Schrantz for a period of six months. Motion carried unanimously. After considerable discussion, it was suggested Mr. Schrantz interview M.E.E.D. employees over the next few weeks in an attempt to find someone who will meet the qualifications of the position before making a commitment to Mr..Koltes. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the Public Works Department to screen M.E.E.D. applicants for the position as needed in the City, including the position of sewer inspections and report back in 30 days the results of the talents they found among those applicants. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the City Administration to interview applicants needed to fill the temporary help position over the summer under the M.E.E.D. program. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, that we authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the Agreement with the Anoka County M.E.E.D. Program. Motion carried unanimously. ACCEPT DONATION FROM FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City of Andover move to accept the donatlon from the Andover Fire Fighters Relief Association, Inc., for $~,5uO to be applied to the purchase of the new medical unit for the City of Andover, and express the City's appreciation to the Association. Motion carried unanimously. ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT Mayor Windschitl informed the Council that the City's rescue vehicle is being called in by the Sheriff's Department into Oak Grove to handle emergencies. Also, the fire department is starting to get called in by Oak Grove to handle fires. The City of Regular City Council Meeting April 3, 1984 - Minutes Page g (Andover Volunteer Fire Department, Continued) Oak Grove has a contract with the Anoka Fire Department, but Andover does not have a mutual aid agreement with Oak Grove. The greatest concern is the liability question. The City is also open to criticism for spending Andover tax money in another city. Fire Chief Frank Stone stated he has not yet approached Oak Grove about this concern. But he has talked to the Sheriff's Department about the rescue squad. Most of the time the rescue squad is called out is because extracation is needed; but that equip- ment is on the first fire truck, not the medical unti. Discussion was thati.if any of the cities want Andover to help and don't have the ability to reciprocate, it should be done on a fee basis. Chief Stone stated at the last fire they assisted in Oak Grove, Oak Grove called St. Francis for mutual aid, and St. Francis also called Andover. The City has a mutual aid agreement with St. Francis. Mayor Windschitl questioned whether there is an ability to reciprocate with the City of St. Francis. Chief Stone felt the mutual aid agreements probably should be reviewed on a yearly basis to see if the City wants to continue those agreements. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, that the Fire Chief meet with the Fire Chief of Oak Grove and explore-tn~ possibilities of some kind of agreement that's beneficial to both, either contractual or otherwise; and explain to them that we cannot continue this service without some form of agreement or contract. Motion carried unanimously. Chief Stone noted another $250 is needed in the pension fund. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to authorize $250 to the Fire Fighters' penSlon fund to come from the unallocated fund. Motion carried unanimously. Chief Stone stated the check for the rescue unit will be coming through claims tonight. He would like the check to be held at the office until the unit is checked out and altl the specs are met. Chief Stone also requested funds to purchase an answering machine for his home, as he gets numerous calls and it is becoming disruptive for his family. The unit would belong to the City and would be used by future chiefs as well. The attorney saw no legal problem with allowing this. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the Fire Department to purchase a telephone answering devièe to be used by the Chief for an amount not to exceed $200. Motion carried unanimously. - Relative to the billing for the repair of the pump on the new truck, Attorney Hawkins stated he wrote the company demanding they provide the City with an itemized breakdown, disputing the amount of the bill. He has not yet received a response. If nothing is received by the next Council meeting, the Council may have to make the decision as to whether or not to sue the company. Chief Stone also informed the Council he has been voted President of the Anoka County Fire Protection Council. ADMINISTRATION/SICK LEAVE POLICY CHANGES (Reference the memo from the Clerk outlinin~he information on disability insurance from Anoka County and Hennepin County, recommending it be offered as an option to the employees.) MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, that Policy 3, Sick Leave Policy, as presented and add Item j from the front. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting April 3, 1984 - Minutes Page 10 CITY PROPERTIES/NORDEEN'S ADDITION Attorney Hawkins advised that it is a complicated procedure of having to go through the State and County to have the nonpublic use restriction on the deed and to finally be allowed to sell the lots in NOrdeen's Addition. They City will first have to pay the appraised value of the lots before they will be conveyed to the City. Council discussion was that it would be the only way to get those properties back on the tax rolls and felt the Attorney should proceed with the application. If the value is more than what the City thinks it can be sold for, then the process can be stopped. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to make application to reconvey the tax forfeit parcels in Nordeen's Addition to the State of Minnesota and direct the Clerk to apply to have the property transferred to the City with a nonpublic use designation. Motion carried unanimously. JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION Because the meeting set for April 19 falls on a religious Holy Day, it was agreed to cancel that meeting. There was a lengthy discussion as to when the joint meeting should be held, some discussion on the issue of mobile homes on AgP properties, the need to discuss the ordinance revisions with the P & Z plus possible changes to the junkyard ordinance. There did not appear to be any date between now and the second week in May that was acceptable to all of the Councilmembers, so it was finally decided to discuss the mobile home issue at the regular April 17 meeting. (Formal motion made later in the meeting.) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, that we approve Check Numbers 7724,7735, and 7746 in the amounts of $15,386.58, $404.32, and $419.68. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Orttel; PRESENT-Windschitl Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve the remainder of the presented claims in the amount of $78,938.43 minus the amounts approved in the prior mot i on . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, to rescind the 19th meeting that was scheduled with the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourend at 11:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~~ Marc la A. Peach Recordlng Secretary