Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC March 20, 1986 CITY of ANDOVER *REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM MARCH 18, 1986 TO MARCH 20, 1986 DUE TO CAUCUSES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-MARCH 20, 1986-AGENDA 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to order 2. Agenda Approval 3. Resident Forum 4. Discussion Items a. Hidden Creek Preliminary Plat b. Feasibility Study/Hidden Creek/86-4 c. Esther Olson Sketch Plan 8:00 P.M. Public Hearing/85-8B/Sanitary Sewer 8:45 P.M. RECESS 9:00 P.M. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Approve County Plans/Crosstown & Cty. 116 b. CDBG Apporitionment for 1987 c. Joint Powers Agreement Mayor Group d. Award Siren Bids e. CCWD Ponding Fees f. Park Const/Johnson Mining Permit g. Order R/W Condemnation/86-5 9:45 P.M. 6 . Commission, Committee, Staff Items a. Authorization to Purchase Existing Phone System b. Uniforms/Public Works c. Directional Signs d. Park Commission vacancies e. Senior Transportation Bus 7. Approval of Claims 8. Approval of Minutes 10:15 P.M. 9 . Adjournment - ---- CITY of ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 20, 1986 MINUTES The Regular B-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on March 20, 1986, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anodver, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Ortte1 Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; TKDA Engineer, John Davidson; City Administrator/Engineer, James Schrantz; City Clerk/Treasurer, Larry Johnson (arrived at 9 p.m.); and others AGENDA APPROVAL The following suggestions were made to the Agenda: Add Item 6f, Approve Letter/DNR/ Public Water Boundary; 6g, Meeting date/Group SW28; 6h, Crooked Lake Cleanup Questionnaire; 6i, Tournament Application Form; 6j, CCWB Bill; and 6k, Complaint/ Pole Building; and 61, Tax Increment Financing District. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, the Agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. HIDOEN CREEK PRELIMINARY PLAT Commissioner d'Arcy Bosel1 reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the preliminary plat of Hidden Creek as presented. Points that were raised were the kind of berm and size of it along the plat, how to handle the parcel for the fire station, and the concern of the alignment of County 116 through that plat. John Peterson, Good Value Homes - stated they have reached an agreement with Roger and Dlane Nutt, though lt lS not yet in contractural form, to acquire their property, agreeing to build them a home on one of the lots within the plat. That property could then be used for the realignment of the county road through that area. They have excepted that parcel out of the preliminary plat. Mayor Windschitl stated the motion should be made contingent upon a purchase agreement being completed before the filing of the final plat. Mayor Windschitl felt the parcel on which the fire station will be located should be given as a separate parcel in fee title. Mr. Peterson agreed to do so. Discussion was on whether the parcel for a proposed fire station should be made larger by decreasing the depth of the two adjoining parcels. Mr. Schrantz felt the setbacks could be met in the area shown, thinking it may even be possible to move the building somewhat to the east. To his knowledge, the Fire Department is satisfied with what has been proposed in the preliminary plat. Council agreed to leave the fire station parcel as proposed. Ms. Bose11 stated one variance will be required for Hidden Creek Drive, as it exceedS the minimum length for a cu1 de sac by 15 feet. Council then reviewed the recommendations of the Park and Recreation Commission with Mr. Peters on. Mr. Peterson stated they agree to grade and seed the two park parcels; they agree to berm the north edge of the park along Bunker lake Boulevard; and they agree to install a post-cable fence along Bunker Lake Boulevard and two 20-foot walkways to the park area. - - --- - - - - --~ . Regular City Council Meeting March 20, 1986 - Minutes Page 2 (Hidden Creek Preliminary Plat, Continued) Mayor Windschit1 asked if they have agreed to fence the two walkways. Mr. Peterson stated fencing has not been agreed to. They would prefer not to do so. They have agreed to give the land plus additional cash dedication, to berm, to cable along the highway, and to add a one-half acre tot lot (Lot 30). He suggested the cash dedica- tion could be used by the City to install fencing along the walkways if it is desirable. In other developments they have put in posts only and felt they would be willing to do that. In further discussion, Council raised some concern over the walkways consisting of grass or gravel surfacing, feeling it would end up just a sand path with all the bicycle use, etc. Mr. Peterson then stated they would be willing to install a five-foot wide asphalt pathway in both walkways instead of fencing the walkways. Council agreed. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, a Resolution approving the preliminary ~of Hidden Creek as being developed by Good Value Homes in Section 33-32-24 as presented with the following variance: a variance will be granted for the length of Hidden Creek Drive which exceeds the maximum 500 feet for a cu1 de sac and the developer will be required to go before the City Council with Phase II of the plat when it is platted; and at that time they will have to have the exception shown on the preliminary plat resolved. Also note the agreement on park dedication: 1) that the developer will grade and seed the two parcels, the second parcel being Lot 30, Block 5; 2) the developer will berm the north edge of the park along Bunker Lake Boulevard. This berm will be approximately 3' to 4' high; 3) the developer will install a post-cable fence along Bunker Lake Boulevard; 4) the developer will install two 20-foot walkways to the park area to include grading and seeding of the two walkways and to include blacktop of a five-foot wide blacktop walkway within the two walkways; and 5) if the county denies access off Bunker Lake boulevard, the developer will also 9ive Lot 1, Block 2 as park area. And the area designated for the Fire Station be given in fee ownership to the City. (See Resolution R023-86) DISCUSSION: Mr. Peterson aksed if the fire station area is being treated as for park dedication. Mayor Windschit1 said yes, as it is being acquired for public purposes. Discussion also clarified the five-foot blacktop strip is within the 20-foot wide walkways. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Peterson stated this plat has been developed with input from 11 different agencies, feeling it is one of the best developments they have ever planned. He stated it is environmentally sensitive, has excellent traffic ~atterns, and is compatible with the many interests that have been involved. He thanked the Council and Staff for their cooperation. FEASIBILITY STUDY/HIDDEN CREEK/86-4 MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Elling, a Resolution accepting feasibility study, waivlng public hearing, ordering improvement and directing preparation of plans and specifications for the improvement of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm drain and streets with concrete curb and gutter for Hidden Creek, IP86-4, as prepared (See Resolution R024-86). DISCUSSION: Council requested a sewer manro1e and hydrant located in the park. Motion carried unanimously. ESTHER OLSON SKETCH PLAN Esther Olson - explained the cul de sac on 154th ends one-fourthmile off Swallow Street. Mr. Schrantz reviewed the comments of the Review Committee, noting their concern over the area of rifle soils as to whether it can be made buildable. He also Regular City Council Meeting March 20, 1986 - Minutes Page 3 (Esther Olson Sketch Plan, Continued) noted there would be developable property to the south and north of this property, recommending at least one street be extended to the south to provide access for future development. He also noted the requirement to pave the streets. Council discussion with Ms. Olson was on the proposal, with the Council generally suggesting the wings (north and south of Uplander) should be eliminated, that one road should extend to the south property li;ne with a temporary turnaround unti 1 the street is extended, and that there may be a possibility of getting an additional lot in the center. Council asked that the Planning Commission also look at extending Swallow Street to the north and 153rd Lane to the east. Ms. Olson was advised she should now get the proposal drawn to scale before having the preliminary plat done. PUBLIC HEARING/85-8B/SANITARY SEWER John Davidson of TKDA reviewed the proposed project to extend sanitary sewer along Bunker Lake Boulevard from its present location at Verdin Street easterly to Quinn Street. He explained they have reconsidered the location of the line and are suggesting it be located on the north side of the roadway 50 feet off the center of the right of way. The waterlines would also be installed on the north side 10 feet from the sewer line to keep the utilities on the same side of the street. Mr. Davidson also reviewed the costs involved in the project: Sanitary Sewer -- Trunk Area Charge of $798/acre, Lateral Charge of $16.75/FF, and Connection Charge of $191.50/unit based on a density factor of 2\ units per acre. Municipal Water -- Trunk Area Charge of $855/acre, Lateral Charge of $17.90/FF, and Connection Charge of $900/unit. He stated the costs have not changed materially by changing to the north side of Bunker Lake Boulevard. The extra cost is mainly because of the deepened depth at this location and the large amount of dewatering that will need to be done. James Liesinger - had understood there was no charge for running across the front of his property unless he hooked up. Mr. Davidson explained the charges again, noting the total assessment for his two acres is $15,863 for both sewer and water. Mr. Liesinger - asked if there would be additional charges·' when he hooks up. Mr. Davidson explained the City collects the MWCC SAC charge of $475. The City's ordinance requires hookup to the sanitary sewer within two years of its availability. For municipal water, if it is a dividable parcel, they can be given an exception for the parcel with the house on it for the average lot size until the actual connection is made. Gilbert Menkvelt - asked how many acres he is getting charged for. Mr. Davidson noted the wetlands have been exempted, and this assessment for sanitary sewer is for 27 acres. He has already been assessed for water. Cecil Heidelber,er - stated he only owns a 33-foot easement that would be Nightengale when it lS deve oped. He asked what he is being charged for that easement. Mr. Davidson stated the proposed assessment would be $1,722. At the assessment hearing, nonbuildab1e parcels are given individual consideration. M. Olson - asked what his assessment would be. Mr. Davidson stated the total assessment for 4.37 acres plus an additional acre, plus 625 feet of frontage would be approximately $18,062 for sanitary sewer. He was assessed for municipal water previously. Regular City Council Meeting March 20, 1986 - Minutes Page 4 (Public Hearing/85-8B/Sanitary Sewer, Continued) Wes Bever - stated he paid for half of the front footage for the sanitary sewer when he hooked up to the sewer. Discussion noted that needs to be verified and he would then only be assessed for the previously unassessed portion for sanitary sewer at the time of the assessment hearing. Mr. Menkve1t - asked how much front footage he has. Mr. Davidson stated 1,020 feet. Approximately 300 feet of wetlands was removed from consideration. Mr. Olson - asked why they have to hook up to sanitary sewer within two years. He dldn't have to do that in Coon Rapids. Mr. Davidson stated it is a City ordinance which adopts by reference the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's rules and regulations. They require hookup within two years. Mr. Liesinger - asked why his assessment is $15,000 on his two acres when others are only that much for 6 or 8 acres. Mr. Davidson explained the others have been assessed for municiap1 water previously, and these figures represent only the sanitary sewer assessment for them. His assessment is for both sanitary sewer and water. Mr. Liesinger - asked when he will know the exact assessment. Mr. Davidson explained the assessment hearing process generally takes place in the fall. Mr. Olson - asked how come water is so much more expensive than sanitary sewer. Mr. Oavidson explained the one-time charge for the trunk, source, and storage, etc. Mr. Liesinger - asked when the project will be done. Mr. Davidson explained the watermain portion has been awarded to the east line of Mr. Olson's property, and that project has already begun. The portion of that contract for the sanitary sewer and extension of the water to Mr. Liesinger's property has been deferred for a 60-day period to allow for holding the public hearing. If the Council approves the project, the contract can be awarded. The costs presented are based on actual bid prices. Mr. Liesinger - asked if the project will use the easement such that it will affect his strawberry bed. Mr. Davidson explained the 1in,e will cross about 20 feet of his east line and will have very little affect on his property. Mr. Bever - explained he only has two acres and can only get one other lot, but he lS being charged for 2~ units. For water he was charged for only 2 units" Mr. Davidson stated that should be adjusted to two units for two service lines at the time of the assessment hearing. Mr. Olson - asked about the lateral charge and a stub coming into his property. Hr. DaVldson stated the lateral charge will depend on the length and setbacks of his property. There will be a stub at approximately his bituminous driveway to service his property. Mr. Liesinger - asked about the hookup to his house and whether he could do it himself. Mr. Davidson explained the property owner is responsible for the hookup from the lateral to the house. A master plumber must pull the permit at the City, but he cou1d:do the digging himself. Mr. Olson - asked the length of the assessment and at what interest. Discussion noted it is generally 15 to 20 years, and the interest won't be known until the bonds are sold. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting March 20, 1986 ~ Minutes Page 5 (Public Hearing/85~8B/Sanitary Sewer, Continued) MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight; that we accept the J;easibility report as presented by TKDA with the modifications made to the Bever's property as discussed tonight for unit connection charges, and order the project J;or the J;inal plans and specifications, (See Resolution R025",86) Motion carried ~nanìmously, (Late;r in the meeting the Council awarded the contract for this project,) Council recessed at 8:58 p.m.; reconvened at 9;Q8 p.m, TELEMETERING SYSTEM/RADIO " Mr, Davidson asked for three change orde;rs to convert the telephone telemetering system to radio in Pumphouse No. 2. He noted it would be $303,90 less expensive to put all telemetry into the monitoring and control contract (Proj ect 85~10) than to leave it split between the two projects (85~10 and 85~9). MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, that we approve Change Order Number 2 by deleting telephone telemetry from Project 85-9 in the amount of $1,100 and add Radio Telemetry for Well Pumphouse No. 2 to Project 85-10 for $4,910. for a net increase of $3,810. Motion carried unanimously, MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Lachinski, that we make a change in Project Number 85-10 , Change Order No. 2, for an amout of $2,030 for additional parts for the telemetry system. Motion carried unanimously, TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Mayor Windschitl explained he had a discussion with an attorney who is familiar with the tax increment financing laws. There are some provisions available in the laws that will be closed off in about six months or so that would allow the City to place residential distri~t in tax increment J;inancing: He suggested the City look at the possibility of capturing the tax increment off the Good Value plat of Hidden Creek to generate dollars to attract commercial development into that area around Bunker Lake Boulevard, . Council agreed to IDeet with someone from the Charles LeFevere J;i;rm regarding this iteID on April 8 (or April 10 as a backup date). MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, to so move, Motion carried unanimously. . 'APPROVE COUNTY PLANS/CROSSTOWN & COUNTY 116 County Commissioner Natalie Haas, and County Highway Department engineers Paul Ruud and William Sironen were present, Council first reviewed the proposed improvement for Crosstown Boulevard J;rom County 20 to TH65. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that we accept the plans as presented by the County for Crosstown Boulevard, County Road 18 from County Road 20 to TH65, Motion carried unanimously. Council then reviewed the plans for the realignment of Bunker Lake Boulevard from County Road 9 to County Road 7, Mr. Ruud explained one of the items the county agreed to in initial negotiations waS to provide a 50-foot buffer strip to the existing Anoka homes, And because oJ; sloping and design ;requirements, Regular City Council Meeting March 20, 1986 - Minutes Page 6 (Approve County Plans/Crosstown & County 116, Continued) the road was not centered in the remaining 150~foot right of way; but is 15 feet east of the centerline. He also noted they will have a lot of borrow for this project and that they are improving the storm drainage outlet from the ponds across Bunker Lake Boulevard into the Anoka system at no cost, He felt with the improvement, the construction of the road through Andover"s storm drainage pond would not have any effect on the pond. With the improvement of the outlet and the construction of the ditches, there will be better drainage control in that area. , , The Council raised several points of concern over this project. One, the City of Anoka has taken the position that Andover should be buying into their storm; drainage system, possibly even for that which has been drai:ning theJ;'e .for years'; and they have failed to acknowledge that they have some drainage problems as well, Secondly, Mayor Windschitl argued that it was understood at preliminary meetings that the road would be centered on the remaining ~50-foot right of way. He stated by moving it another 15 feet to the east, Andover's residents are materially affected by having a major thoroughfare in their back yards with no buffer whatever. He felt the main benefit of the road is for the City of Anoka to relieve the conjestion in their;residential area along Bunker Lake Boulevard between County Roads 9 and 7, yet it appears that Andover is having to give in on all points, Thirdly, the Council questioned the need or desire for the culverts across the road and how it affects the wetlands and drainage problem through that area, Mr, -Fuud stated the 48-inch culverts are equalizers and are required by the DNR, He stated the construction of the roadway as proposed has negligible impact on the wetland problems there. It was the Council's position that the City of Andover would not be paying the City of Anoka anything for storm drainage as a result of this project going in, Mayor Windschitl stated the City of Coon Rapids questioned altering the traffic flow from County Road 9 to Highway 10 because of the unsafe intersections. Mr, Ruud stated they have received that request asking for a general study of traffic in that area, stating that will go before the Highway Committee at their next meeting. The Council questioned at what depth the culvert under Bunker Lake Boulevard will be placed. Mr. Ruud stated the depth is set by the DNR as required to take care of the wetland. He suggested the Council either approve the plans tonight contingent upon the City of Anoka approving it at their April 7 meeting. Or the Council could act on the plans once the Citr of Anoka has done so, MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we accept the plans as submitted by Anoka County for the realignment of Anoka County 116 contingent upon approval of the Anoka City Council with no changes. Councilmen Orttel and Lachinski WITHDREW the Second and the Motion, MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, entering the,Resolution IVREREAS, plans for Project No. 85-03-116, showing proposed alignment, profiles, grades, and cross- sections for the construction, reconstruction or improvement of County High,~y No. 116 within the limits of the City of ,Andover as a County Project have been prepared and presented to the City. NOW, THEREFORE/ BE IT RESOLVED that said plans be in all things approved, contingent upon approval by the AnokaCity Council with no changes to the plans as submitted. (See Resolution R026-86) ReguLar ç~t~ Coµncil Meetipg ~a.ch 2a; J 86 ,,·)ltnutes Page 7 (Approve Coµnty Plans/Crosstown & County 116, Continued) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Knight, Lachinski, Orttel; NO-Elling, Windschitl Motion carried. Mayor Windschitl stated he was concerned about rushing into this without knowing what the City of Anoka is going to do regarding the project and the drainage issue in that area. Commissioner Haas stated if it gets to the point where the City of Anoka and Andover cannot reach an agreement, then they can pull the entire project. At this point, they cannot proceed with acquiring any funding for the Rum River crossing if either Andover or the City of Anoka reverses their support for this proj ect. It was agreed to table any approval of right of way the County needs from Andover on this project until it is known what action the City of Anoka will take on this proj ect. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, to table the right-of_way acquisition for this project. Motion carried unanimously. AWARD SIREN BIDS Mr. Schrantz reported the Building Inspector and Public Works Supervisor ipdividually reviewed the bids, the specifications, the maintenance contracts, and visited cities where each of the bidders have sirens installed; and both came up with the recommenda- tion to award the bid to Lehn Electric even though ~t is not the Low~st bid, They are also recommending the purchase of 5 single"phase units· and one 3"phase unit for the City of Andover. Mr. Schrantz also noted the bid from Lehn Electric includes sales tax! and since the City is exempt from paying sales tax, he reduced the bid by the amount of the sales tax. The Electric Service Company bid did not mention whether sales tax was included or not. By taking out the sales tax for Lehn, he summari~ed the bid for 5 single-phase units and one 3-phase unit: Lehn Electric - $49,840,97~ Electric Service Company _ $45,732.00; for a $4,100 difference. The bid was for up to 8 sirens for the City. There was considerable Council discussion with staff and representatives of the two bidders regarding the bid, the differences between the sirens, and reasons for the staff's recommendation to award to the higher bidder. Mr, Schrantz explained it was the staff's opinion that the service on the Penetrator warning sirens would be considerably higher than on the Federal Thunderbeam sirens, , Jim Peterson, Electric Service Company - stated his bid is approximately 15 percent Lower than the Federal sirens bid. He disagreed that their maintenance costs are in excess of Federal's. He also disagreed that the annual maintenance on their unit is about $550 per unit. Mr, Almgren's March 20 memo indicates the Federal units were much less for maintenance; but because they are a relatively new unit, no one realLy knows how much maintenance there is on them. He felt maintenance would be relatively the same for each unit. He was disturbed about the information on the March 20 memorandum, stating no one talked with him about the unit and that he was unable to contact Mr. Almgren about it, Mr. Peterson also questioned the sales tax. He stated he was not asked, but their bid also includes sales tax. As a contractor, it is their obligation to pay sales tax when they purchase equipment, The City does not have to pay saLes tax when it purchases directly from the vendor. But the sales tax C9des require a contractor to pay the sales tax and that is built into the bid cost, He felt either the sales tax should be taken out of both bids or added back into the Lehn Electric bid for an equal comparison of the bids. Regular City Council Meeting March 20, 1986 "7' Minutes Page 8 (Award Siren Bids, Continued) Tom McGriffen, representing the Thunderbeamsiren , explained the bid separated the sales tax based on a recommendation from their tax consultants, He agreed with the statements and recommendations of the staff; feeling their findings are both important and concrete. Their siren also meets the specifications for the lowest price. They are extending their five-year warranty on their sirens to Lehn Electric for the City of Andover. He stated the additional cost for their unit is not for maintenance but ~strictly in the value of the siren. It is ~ore dependable, Nothing is being charged for maintenance on the Thunderbeam siren. Mr. Peterson - didn't know which units the staff had demonstrated, but their bid is for a IS-horsepower siren, which is bigger than the one used in the past. Their engineers have revised the motor because they did have problems with maintenance on their 10hsp unit. The newer unit bid has a greater output and has less maintenance. Mr. Thompson, Federal - stated there is no charge for the extra warranty because the service on their siren is practically nill. He also stated they did not talk to the staff about their unit or bid. Mr. Schrantz determined that both bidders reduced their cost per unit on the second bidding: Electric Service Company's original bid was $7,788(unit compared to $7,622(unit this time; Lehn Electric's bid was $9,132(unit last time compared to $8,987 this time. Council continued to discuss the differences between the units. They basically questioned awarding the higher bid as recommended by the staff without a substantial reason for doing SO~ And the consensus was finally reached that the extra mainten~ ance on the lower-bid Penetrator unit would not warrant awarding the contract to the higher-priced Federal unit. Council also asked ,if the City could make a direct purchase from the vendor to eliminate the sales tax, Council also raised the question as to whether 6 or 8 units should be purchased, It was felt at a previous meeting that 8 units would be needed to cover the entire City. Now the staff is recommending 6 units feeling any more would be over penetration. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, that we award the bid for sirens to Electric Service Company for a minimum of six sirens at $7,622 each to a maximum of eight sirens at tha.t:price; and also do whatever is necessary to eliminate the sales tax if ·possible. Motion carried unanimously, Council discussed the completion date of the installation, staff noting the date on the bids is no longer realistic. Mr. Peterson - thought they could be installed by May 15 and definitely by June 1. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, that we authorize an extention of the completion date on the Project to May 15. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Windschitl asked for a motion to direct the staff to prepare a final grid for the placement of the sirens to determine whether more than six units are needed. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachinski, to so move, Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting March 20, 1986 ~ Minutes Page 9 PARK CONSTRUCTION/JOHNSON MINING PERMIT Chuck Rugroden, Park Construction Company - asked to be able to start mining right after the Planning Commission approves the special use permit on March 25, which would be prior to the Council approval. He explained the need to complete a project within 20 days from March 24, needing every day possible. Council was sympathetic to the problem, but noted there is no provision in the ordinance to grant permission to begin mining prior to Council approval, Council also did not want to set a precedent of circumventing the ordinance. Council agreed to move the item to the next regularly scheduled meeting, April 1. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION Chairman Stuart Kinkade explained $24,000 has been budgeted for 1986 for a watering system at the City Hall site. The Andover Athletic Association has volunteered the labor of installing it and the expertise in plumbing for laying the pipe. He asked that the City Engineer be directed to go out for bids on this item. They would like the bids to indicate whether the factory would warrant the materials if someone other than an authorized factory representative installed it. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we authorize the City Engineer to go out for bids for a sprinkling system for the City Hall site. Motion carried unanimously. CDBG ,_?APPORTIONMENT FOR 1987 Council reviewed the correspondence from the County regarding the apPQrtionment of the 1986 CDBG funds. Council was frustrated that the City will not be getting back all what was originally proposed because of the Federal cutbacks in the program and because Andover agreed to delay receipt of the funds ~ntil the third year of the three-year schedule, The Council concurred with the Administrator's recommendation that the only acceptable option was A~tachment C. Mr. Johnson was asked to represent the City at the March 25 TAC meeting to develop an allocation plan for the 1987~1989 CDBG program. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT MAYOR GROUP MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachinski, to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to enter into a joint powers agreement to form a coalition of Metropolitan Communities and to authorize payment of the 1986 full membership fee of $230. Motion carried unanimously. ORDER RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDEMNATION/86-5 MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, a Resolution determining the necessity for and authorizing the acquisition of certain property by proceedings in eminent domain as required on Hanson Boulevard between 16lst Avenue and l81st Avenue. (See Resolution~27-86) Motion carried unanimously. AUTHORIZAT ON TO PURCHASE EXISTING PHONE SYSTEM MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the staff to purchase our phone system from the owner. Motion carried unanimously, Regular City Council Meeting March 20, 1986 - Minutes Page 10 UNIFORMS/PUBLIC WORKS MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, that we adopt the policy of uniforms on a test basis of one year, the policy as outlined here with the change in the second paragraph, last sentence of "after working hours will not be replaced.." rather than "may not be replaced" I' Motion carried unanI;õtlsly. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS Council noted the Engineer's memo that the State Department of Transportation has not agreed to install directional signs to Andover along Highway 10. Council asked that the Engineer request just one sign at Round Lake Boulevard, PARK COMMISSION VACANCIES Mr. Johnson was directed to advertise for the vacancies on the Park and Recreation Commission. SENIOR TRANSPORTATION BUS Mr. Johnson explained it is a county program, and a county employee will drive the free van to be used for senior transportation, Council agreed to ask a representa- tive to attend a Council meeting to explain the program further. EASEMENT ACQUISITION/85-8 MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we accept easements for Project 85-8 as outlined in the letter from the City Attorney to the City Clerk dated March 6, 1986, Motion carried unanimously, APPROVE LETTER/DNR/PUBLIC WATERS BOUNDARY Council gave verbal approval of the March 21, ~986 draft to John Stine, DNR, requesting the DNR to review the properties in the southwestern portion of the City to determine the boundary of any public waters and to establish an ordinary high water elevation. MEETING DATE/GROUP SW28 Mr. Schrantz stated the Group SW28 representative has requested a meeting for April 8 to discuss the landfill study. Council then directed the staff to set up the meeting on tax increment financing for April 10, MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, that we meet with the Group SW28 people at 7:30 on April 8 and to change the Tax Increment Financing meeting to the ~O, or reverse them if that cannot be arranged. Motion carried unanimously. CROOKED LAKE CLEANUP QUESTIONNAIRE Council generally had no problem with the questionnaire as proposed, It was noted the Crooked Lake Association is willing to distribute the questionnaire to those around the lake. TOURNAMENT APPLICATION FORM Council was unsure of the changes in this form versus what was approved last year. It was then assumed the only changes were the underlined words: Park Usage and Fees, 1., fourth paragraph, last sentence: "Fee is NOT returned," and the last paragraph, second sentence, "..,one-half of the park usage fee..." - Rêgu1ar City Council Meeting March 20, 1986 - Minutes Page 11 (Tournament application form, Continued} MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel¡ the approval of the tournament application form as presented tonight. Motion carried unanimously. COON CREEK WATERSHED BILL MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel; that we did not approve the in~tallation of the culvert and do not agree with the need for the installation; and; therefore, do not agree to acknowledge that a bill is due and payabla. Motion carried unanimously. (RE: Culvert under University Avenue Extension as a result of ditch repair) AWARD CONTRACT/IP85-8B MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, introducing a Resolution ordering the improvement, accepting bids, and awarding contract for the improvement of Project 85-8B for sanitary sewer in the area of Bunker Lake Boulevard from Verdin Street to Quinn Street as presented, to Kenko for $175,662.35. (See Resolution R028-86) Motion carried unanimously. COMPLAINT/POLE BUILDING Council discussed the complaint of Dan Skwarek, 18017 Ward Lake Drive, that the requirements of the Building Official to move the pole building caused extra expenses. Mr. Almgren explained that the changes were at no extra cost to the owner, which has been acknowledged by the builder, Council directed that Mr. Almgren and/or the Engineer meet with the owner to clàrify the misunderstanding. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve Claims 10822 through 10877 in the amount of $70,710.21, Motion carried unanimously.· MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously, Meeting adjourned at 12:07 a.m. , jReSpeCtfUllY s~itted, { .> ". f, \,r- ________ J CA_> }o..:--'<-""c l~ 0-\ '-:c· ._ Marce a A. Peach Recordin ecretary