Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP June 13, 1990 ~ CITY of ANDOVER Special City Council Meeting-June 13, 1990 7:30 P.M. Call to Order 1. Optical Scan Voting Equipment 2. Assessment Manual 3. 4. Adjourn .- / (i1"" CITY of ANDOVER {r\. i '''' C"o=o~ ,0umMO ,.w. . ~Oo,,". "'''",0", "'" . "'" '''.'00 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE 13, 1990 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jim Elling on June 13, 1990, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota, Councilmembers present: Jacobson, Knight, Perry Councilmember absent: OrtteJ Also present: City Administrator/Engineer, James Schrantz: and others AGENDA APPROVAL It was agreed to add Item 3, Fire Department/Refurbishing 4886. MOTION by Perry, Seconded by Jacobson, to approve the Agenda. Motion carried unanimouslY. OPTICAL SCAN VOTING EQUIPMENT County Commissioner Natalie Haas-Steffen and Maureen Gaalas, the county's representive for the optical scan voting equipment, were present. Mayor Elling indicated the City has received conflicting information regarding the purchasing of these machines, asking for a clarification of the county's position. Commissioner Haas-Steffen stated the county had planned to go with this decision for the 1992 election but was urged to move up the date by some of the cities to get it at reduced costs. She noted the county's commitment to keep on the same schedule in terms of dollars as originally programmed but to get the equipment early. Ms. Gaalas stated the machines will be available for the September primary, with extras at the courthouse in case of failures; but they will not be operational for the primary because they must stilI be programmed. If the City decides it cannot afford to purchase the units this year, the county is willing to work out a rent or lease agreement with the City until it can put it in the 1992 budget. Most of the cities are bonding for It. She gave a brief background of how the optical scan voting equipment was recommended, noting the impetus came from some of the larger cities to upgrade and phase out the punched card system. Ms. Gaalas continued the machine from Unisys has been approved by the State and the price is very good because the company wants to get a foothold In Minnesota. The cities are the decision makerS In terms of election equipment: however, the county has tried to make it easier by bidding and doing the up-front financing. Special City Council Meeting Minutes - June 13, 1990 Page 2 (Optical Scan Voting Equipment, Continued) Council discussion noted four machines are needed for the precincts but one or two more are needed for backup and for the future when more precincts are added. It was debated whether that cost should be Included in the capital improvement bond or whether to rent or lease them for awhile with an option to buy. Ms. Gaalas stated it can be done either way; the county isn't Interested in making money on them. She Just needs to know that the City will go ahead with It so she can order the machines. Council asked about maintenance costs. Ms. GaaJas stated they are still working out an agreement with the vendor, but there will be some maintenance costs. She will do all the programming at the county at no cost to the cities. The county Is also responsible for the cost of the white ballot, noting the cities will continue to be responsible for that portion of the optical scan ballot that takes up the city's election. There are special ballots for each precinct that the machine reads. Only one machine per precinct Is needed. Discussion was also on how the machines function. Councilmember Jacobson asked if the concerns of Commissioner McCarron about the machines have been resolved. Commissioner Haas-Steffen felt that they had been, noting Commissioner McCarron now supports the decision to acquire the machines from Unlsys. Mayor EllIng asked If the county would have a problem if the City stayed with the punched card system. Ms. Gaalas stated the City would probably have to do Its own counting, and It would not get the price advantage when the optical scan machines are purchased later. The price quoted is good until December 31, 1990. MOTION by Perry, Seconded by Perry, that we advise the county that the City of Andover reaffirms the Resolution that It Is In fact going to use the optical scanning for their primary election in the fall and that we are Interested In obtaining 5 units for the City. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Haas-Steffen clarified the county will buy the machines and will work with the CIty on either purchasing or rent/lease terms. If the City chooses to lease, the terms will be the same as what Is done for other cities. Mayor Elling noted a decision probably won't be made on whether to bond for the units until August or September. Then the Council will have firm figures on the amount of the bond needed, depending on the outcome of the Fire Department referendum. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 1-Absent (Orttel) vote. FIRE DEPARTMENT/REFURBISHING 4886 Mayor Elling stated the Fire Chief Is asking for an additional $2,250 for refurbIshing truck 4886 for work on the Inside of the tank. Special City Council Meeting Minutes - June 13, 1990 Page 3 (Fire Department/Refurbishing 4886, Continued) Fire Chief Glen Smith stated the funds are already In their vehicle maintenance budget; it is a matter of approving more than what was originally asked for. He also showed pictures of the condition of the truck and the work that will be done. When the work is done, they expect to make 4886 their first-responder truck. Chief Smith also stated he will be drawing up a list of capital items needed by the Fire Department In the event the referendum does not pass. Counc i I generally had no problem with the additional $2,250 as long as It Is an approved expenditure in the budget. ASSESSMENT MANUAL Counc I I suggested that throughout the manual, the word "benefiting" be correctly spelled. Mayor Elling also noted the policy on three-year temporary bonds Is not Included on Page 8. Mr. Schrantz stated the Staff position is to finance everything with permanent bonds. After some discussion, Counc I I agreed to Include the polley of financing development proJects with one three-year temporary bond as has been done In the past. After the three-year period, the bonds would be converted to permanent bonds. Those assessments would be kept In house for the length of the temporary bond and certified to the county once permanent bonds are issued. No decision was made on possible Increases in administrative fees for those assessments kept In house to cover the additional costs. Discussion was then on Page 13 as revised in the Agenda material. Counc il agreed with the policy as presented for Water Service of Fire Line. Under Storm Drainage Mainline, Staff was asked to Insert the policy per Resolution R042-90 passed on April 3, 1990, relating to a $100 flat fee for existing lots. Council noted the polley differs for sidewalks. as it is assessed along benefiting properties except along MSA or County roads where It is not assessed. To keep with the policy of assessing all unreimbursable costs along MSA roads, Council agreed to delete the last sentence on Page 13: "Sidewalks will not be assessed." The intent is that sidewalks along MSA or county roads will be assessed If not reimbursed by MSA funds. Mr. Schrantz noted the City Is responsible for the costs of any curb and gutter when county roads are updated. That cost is not reimbursable. The Council debated whether or not a "benefit" Is derived from the Improvement and the abutting property owners should be assessed. Though the feeling generally was the total benefit Is minimal to nl I for residential property, there probably Is more benefit to commercial properties. Special CIty Council Meeting Minutes - June 13, 1990 Page 4 (Assessment Manual, Continued) A maJority then agreed that the City must recover those costs not recovered from any other source through assessments, even along county roads. Counc II also questioned the last paragraph on Page 13 and the first paragraph on Page 14. thinkIng they were repetitIve. They asked Staff to clarify them. possibly deleting the top paragraph on Page 14. DiscussIon was then on the four paragraphs with asterIsks on Page 14. Mr. Schrantz stated those are existing policies that were approved In the early 1980s. There was some confusion over the wording of the second paragraph that 50 percent of the costs incured by the CIty for construction and expenses shall be assessed to abutting commercial and Industrial properties. Mr. Schrantz explained that refers to all costs of the proJect, not just the unreimbursable costs. Counc i) debated whether or not commercial and Industrial should pay for half of the cost of the street when residentIal lots do not. No consensus was reached. Because It was felt the entire section on MSA and county roads is awkwardly written, Mr. Schrantz was asked to put that sectIon in a logical order and to clarify the policy. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to adjourn. Motion carrIed unanimously. Meeting adJourned at 9:38 p.m. Respectfully submItted, ~~~Gc~~ Ma cella A. Peach Recording Secretary