Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP July 18, 1985 CITY of ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 18, 1985 AGENDA 1- Call to Order - 7:30 p.m. 2. Agenda Approval 3. Discussion Items a. Public Works Utility Van b. Joint Meeting with Park & Recreation Commission/ Park Survey Results - 8 p.m. c. Ordinance 8 Review d. Woodland Terrace/Storm Sewer e. f. g. 4. Adjournment ~ 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 18. 1985 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on July 18, 1985, 7:52 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard, Andover, Minnesota Councilmen present: Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Orttel Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Engineer, James Schrantz; and Frank Stone, Public Works PUBLIC WORKS UTILITY VAN Mr. Schrantz said he talked with Bob Ryan Fleet, and they will sell the City a half- ton truck versus the three-quarter ton ordered. He stated it satisfies the needs of the City. There would be no extra charge for rustproofing, plus several other different features. It has the same wheel base as the three-quarter ton, and comes with a heavy-duty package. Council discussion noted that a half-ton truck will not carry the same weight as well as the three-quarter ton will even though it has the same size wheel base, that Bob Ryan Fleet should be able to either fulfill their contract for the three-quarter ton truck or provide the half-ton truck for less, and that the 1986 models should be available shortly, suggesting the Department ask for quotes for a ]9B6three-quarter ton truck and order one. It was finally agreed to take bids for a 1986 three-quarter ton truck and get it on order. PUBLIC WORKS WATER TRUCK Mr. Schrantz asked for the Council's opinion on the purchase of the used water truck for $8,500, trading in the current one. The budget allows $7,500 for a water truck. He explained the one the City has is no longer safe to drive on the road, and a truck will be needed to flood the rinks this winter. Council had no trouble with allocating an extra $1,000 for the truck if the Public Works Department felt it is worth that price. Mr. Stone was asked to make some compression tests on it, to study the maintenance records on it, and to negotiate with the owner to attempt to purchase it for $7,500. WOODLAND TERRACE/STORM DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT John Davidson of TKDA reviewed his letter of July 15, 1985, ona new assessment rate structure for the southwest area storm sewer constructed in 1981, especially as it relates to the Woodland Terrace development. He asked if the Council generally agreed with the theory they used behind the reassessment; and if so, he will meet with the developer of Woodland Terrace on the proposal. About $42,000 is added to what the City of Anoka is asking for storm drainage into their system. Council discussed how the assessment was calculated, that the costs are calculated as if the entire system were built in 1981, on the concept of the additional ponding needed in Woodland Terrace to meet the restricted flow into the pipe to the Chutich pond, that Woodland Terrace adds more volume to the system, but that larger ponds would have been requried if the plat were not allowed to discharge through the pipe to the Chutich pond. Council noted the developer¡paid partway into the system and the intent is now to pay the rest of the way into the system with credit given only for the developer's construction and land use; but they questioned whether it should be a full assessment if there is a limited or restricted use of the system. Mr. Davidson stated in the Special City Council Meeting July 18, 1985 - Minutes Page 2 (Woodland Terrace/Storm Drainage Assessment, Continued) original system, the developer was charged at a lesser rate because it was known he would have to build some additional storm sewer to get into the system. Council generally had no problem with the concept as long as it is fair. Mr. Davidson stated if the Council agrees with the concept, the specific amounts may vary somewhat because the numbers used in the report are estimates based on contract costs. JOINT MEETING/PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION/PARK SURVEY - BOND ISSUE The following Park Board members were present: Chairman Merlyn Prochniak, Dave Szyplinski, Bill LeFebvre, Marce McMullen, Stuart Kinkade, Gretchen Sabel, and Larry Strootman. Andover Athletic Association PresJdêDt,Ga~yWest was also present, as well as Maureen Gaalaas, Campaign Success, Inc. Ms. Gaalaas reviewed the results of the survey taken of 250 Andover residents relative to opinions on the Andover park system, noting the following points of interest: The general attitude of the people was positive, that the people were glad to be asked their opinion. The error factors of + or - three percent is very conservative, that it is probably closer to 1~ percent. A lot of people voting 3 or above on satisfaction of the park system also indicated a willingness to spend additional money for park improvement. She was surprised by the percentage using playground equipment and the high use of parks for winter activities. She has also found that many people with small children indicated a preference for neighborhood parks, not realizing that in three to four years they will want the larger regional parks for organized sports, etc. One thing she found out in the survey was the people who were willing to spend more money turned out to be men. Statistically, she felt if the people felt they would get a park closer to their home, they would most likely vote for a bond issue. She also felt there would be a willingness to vote for a bond issue if they knew what it was going to cost them and what the monies would be used for. She stated a lot of people in the City use parks; and she felt with the right kind of appropach to a bond issue, it would pass. Council comments were that the two factors that may make a bond issue difficult to pass is the amount they are willing to spend and the fact that over half of the people are satisfied with the existing facilities. There was some surprise at the high level of use of the parks. Discussion was then on the Park Commission's recommendation for a 3-year park development plan as to where the General Fund dollars plus $300,000 from a bond issue would be spent. One of the Council's major concern was that the parks proposed for improvement are not located where the majority of voters are. It was felt a person would be more likely to vote for the bond if they would be receiving some direct benefit from it, some improvement of a park within their neighborhood as the poll indicated. Spending a majority of the funds on the City Hall Park Complex also contradicts what the survey said, as the survey indicated a greater desire for neighborhood parks. It was suggested that the bond issue should be based on the survey, so almost everyone's area will be benfitted if possible. Another suggestion was the Park Board establish a minimum standard as to what improvements should be in a neighbor- hood park, and use that as the criteria for improvements in the parks by the bond issue funds plus General Fund Dollars. Discussion was also on the feasibility of increasing the mill levy to meet the park improvement plan versus pursuing a bond referendum, on the interpretation of the survey results, on the logistics of presenting a referendum to the residents, on the packaging of the bond issue into a salable product for the community, on the opposition that will Special City Council Meeting July 18, 1985 - Minutes Page 3 (Joint Meeting/Park and Rec/Park Survey - Bond Issue, Continued) arise toward such an issue, on the increased maintenance costs that will arise as more parks are improved, on the differing impact a special levy will have on the residents depending on the assessed valuation of the homes, and on when a referendum should be held. It was generally felt there would be a better representation from residents if it were in a general election; however, there isn't a general election until 1986. It is estimated a special election will cost approxiamtely $2,500. At this point the Council was generally favorable toward a bond referendum for park improvements if it is something that can be packaged correctly. The Park and Recreation Commission members agreed to redo the improvement matrix in an attempt to meet the survey results, that is more improvements in neighborhood parks and to try to benefit as many residents as possible. They also noted that with the: $300,000 bond issue, they felt they would be able to bring the parks within the City up to date; and from here on in, the General Fund and park dedication fees would be sufficient to meet the needs in the City's parks. When asked by the Council and Park Board, Ms. Gaalaas stated she would be able to provide input when developing a park improvement matrix and to design a brochure for the bond referendum. Her rates are $40 an hour, but she would have to determine how many hours it would require. It was also suggested the Park Board ask the Clerk to determine how a $300,000 bond issue would affect the special taxes to the housesrPfvarious assessed valuations. It was also thought a special election could be held in October or November of this year. It was also agreed to meet with the Park Board again either on August 6 or August 8 on the new park improvement matrix. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Orttel, to authorize CSI to work with the Park Board for an amount not to exceed $40 an hour for a total of up to eight (8) hours. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meetlng adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~\IJ ~c~L Marc la A. Peach Record Secretary