Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP March 30, 1989 ~ ~ March 24, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Andover City Hall 1685 Crosstown Boulevard Andover, Minnesota 55304 Dear Sirs & Madame; It has come to my attention that the City of Andover may soon be facing some difficult decisions with regard to the Bruce Hay property located to the southwest of Round Lake in Sections 29 and 30, Over the past several years a number of us who have been active in opposing high density housing on this parcel have been sitting back trusting that the city would negotiate an acceptable compromise with Mr. Hay, It now appears that those efforts have been unsuccessful. Before I make some recommendations on what options the city has at this point, I need to provide some prospective on how things got to where they are, I would like to indulge your patience to read the following chronology of events as seen from the eyes of an adjoining property owner: Sometime in the late '60s Bruce Hay purchased from Rosella Sonsteby the property in question, Bruce Hay purchased the property for a price that was based on allowed uses of agricultural or low density single family housing. The total purchase price paid for this property was probably between $15,000 and $30,000. o On or about April 17, 1970 Mr, Hay applied for a special use permit to develop a mobile home park on this'property, In August of 1970 approval was given to another mobile home park development in Grow Township (Andover), In December of that year the Planning and Zoning Board denied Mr, Hay's application for a special use permit for a mobile home park. In June of 1971 Mr, Hay sued the Township of Grow, arguing that since one mobile home park permit had been issued he should be entitled to one also, The City appealed the decision. twice and lost both times. I have attached some of the judgments to this letter along with the Grow Township defense argument in District Court. The Township issued a special use permit to Bruce Hay on August 19, 1974, It did not however change the Township zoning maps to reflect this new approved use. " o The adjoining parcels of land that became Lund's Round Lake Estates and Johnson-Oakmount Terrace were at this time undeveloped. When I began looking for a homesite in 1977 I, like many others, was attraoted to the Lund development. I, like several others, went to the Andover City Offices and asked to see the zoning map for the city so that I would be aware of what development could take place in the surrounding area. The Hay paroel was zoned R-l. Based on this information I purohased our lot from Lund. It was only after our home was built that I learned that possibly I would be looking at a mobile home park in my backyard. I was outraged and called the city to try and understand how they could act so irresponsibly as to not put people on notice of that possible use. I was informed that the issue had been discussed when Lund's plot came up for approval (presumably in a City Council Meeting) and that the sense was that to change the zoning map may have a adverse effect on Lund's ability to market the property and consequently open the city to damages from the developer, Damages for making an honest disclosure of allowed uses! This is one reason why I was particularly disturbed to read in Judge Leslie's recent decision that "all property owners were on notice that Hay's land was subject to a special use permit for a mobile home park." (page 15). As far as property owners in Lund's goes this was definitely not the fact and should have been pointed by the City's legal council when the case was argued, That information may have had an influence on the decision, There is evidence that misrepresentations were made to homeowners who purchased properties in Johnson's Oakmount Terrace. While Bruce Hay claims that he told everyone that purchased a lot from him that there could be a mobile home park on the adjacent property, the fact of the matter is that Hay sold very few if any of the lots to homeowners himself, Most of the lots were sold by Ms, Johnson or Wicklund Construction. I have been told that in certain cases quite different representations were made, Ask yourself; if you were selling homes or lots next to a potential mobile home park what would you say? o I for one am frustrated and disappointed by the City's failure to deal with this situation with aggressive legal action, The City's legal representation apparently has been more focused on limiting the potential liability threatened by Mr. Hay than representing the interest of all of Andover's residents, Who represented the homeowners interests? . o Many of us are supportive of the City Council and want to help in whatever way we can to work toward a compromise use of this property that is fair to everyone. Where do we go from here? Recommendations: 1. The City Council should continue to negotiate with Mr, Hay for other uses of the property that would provide him an adequate return on his investment. This could include some high density housing (even multiple housing) if sewer is going to be brought to the property, A planned unit development that keeps the borders with Lund's and Oakmount at a R-2 density (single family homes on one acre lots) would probably be acceptable to the neighborhood and minimize the risk to the city of neighborhood legal action. 2. The City Council should make it clear to Mr. Hay that if a mobile home park is constructed that it must include all reasonably required services at his expense, This would include a severe weather safety structure, Park dedications should be taken so as to minimize the detrimental impact to the property values of the adjoining property owners, A buffer area with attractive visual barriers should be required and approved by the neighborhood, 3. As I have said several times in the past an appeal or retrial of the initial suit should be started. At the time of the original decision there was no development on adjoining properties and this fact was an important consideration in the original decision (see Article XIV in attached District Court Decision 8/11/1971). Bruce Hay himself took actions or allowed actions to be taken that changed the facts that were the basis for the original decision. The City must give serious consideration to this option. o And finally, there is a moral and ethical issue here, Mr. Hay argues that the City of Andover has an obligation to provide low cost house to lower income families, and Mr, Hay is the one who can provide it if only the city would stop fighting his mobile home park, However, Mr. Hay's attorneys argued in his most recent suit against the city that he has suffered over $1,328,000 in lost income from the potential mobile home park due to the city's refusal to grant him access to sewer in 1981. I ask the city council members; Where would this $1,328,000 come from? Clearly this money would come from the rent paid by low income families for a o o piece of land to place their mobile home on. If the city truly wants to provide responsible low cost housing options how can it tolerate such profits being made off of those in the most difficult of financial positions. Would not the interest of low income housing be better served by having the city develop a mobile home park and offer the sites at cost? The last time I checked, the owner of record of the property in question is the JBH Round Lake Development Corporation, Their address is 4550 Central Ave. N.E" Columbia Heights, MN. (about 6-10 blocks south of 694). I would encourage each one of the city council members to take a few minutes and drive by 4550 Central. You will find the trip well worth your time! If any of you would like to discuss any issues raised here please call me, I would also be happy to host a meeting where city council members could meet with area property owners. 'Best Regards, ~~ )1~ Peter Rauen 4110 147th Ln. N,W. 427-5754 o TERSON & KALINA :.: 1:1.1 T I 'JIil"-lL y~:) Af I j\VI/ :.._ 1-:=1 "-"'Lul'~xj IJDI)glds ,,), P,-,LuI':o;un Run,;hj S. Kalina W,lli.., n C~. MOOI '8 April 18, 1980 ~3Leplmn M. Hdlsey lIonorable ~l,.yor and ~lel1lbc['s of the CI ty COllnc i I Andover City Hall 1685 Cl-osstown Boulevard Anoka, Minnesota 55303 Gentlemen: Hr. Lee Warneka, 14791 Blackfoot Street N.W., Andover, Minnesota 55303 has retaillcd me regarding the possible rezoning of a large parcel of land in Andover tri an R-4 zone. The particular piece of property that most affects Hr. Harneka is the proper- ty located to the southwest of Round Lake in Sections 29 and 30, which Is presently zoned R-l. I t is my understanding that there \~as a mobile home park special use permi t issued to the owners of Sections 29 and 30 in August of 1974 as a result of a Minnesota Supreme Court decision of March 26, 1973. Hr. and Mrs. Harneka and many other families bava, \,-ithin the last: three YCi.ll-S, pur- .chased expensive single family !WJlIC:s adjacent to ilnd near the iHea d"cdglld' ed by the :;;pecial use permit. Although Sections 29 and 30 are, and have been since October 21, 1':170, designated as being zoned R-l, the special use permit apparently allows the construction of a mo- bile home park. I realize the City had no choice but to issue the permit pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court. However. because the Andover zoning ordinance adopted October 21, 1970 does not include a mobile home park as a permitted use in an R-l zone, neither my client nor any other individual purchasing a lot for a single family home in the area had a~ notice that they wel-e purchal;ing property next to a potential trailer park. ", ,: J J. Ii ;; ~ The zoning ordinance made it clear to these people that the property they purchased was not zoned tei allow a trailer park; a trailer park was not a permitted ul;e within the zone, and Hr. and HI'S, Warneka and other families had no reason wlwtsoever to be on notice that a trailer park could be constructed on Sections 29 and 30. The City took no actiun_ whatever to put Hr., and !-Irs. I-Ianwka and other famil ies on notice of a potential trailer. park located virtually in their hDckya~d. It is my IInderstanding that the rezoning, b(~cause of the reduction i.n'the mlIllmum lot sizes, very well may result in the ecollomic feasibility of bdnging public sani- tary sewer and water lines into Sectiolls 29 and 30, thereby allowing con:;trllction of the trailer park. , '" ; ',! 1G dDt t, AVE,NUE NDHTIIf.::AS r CUI. L JMl'llA ; II )(31" E,) ': 1 ~ I f rVlFJL~3. MINf'-.J1' ~')(J r A ~':)~.J4~.M:1 .. :1,1.' o " . Hon. Nayor and Council April 18, 19HO Page 2 Unless rezuning is acc(lmplished in a malineI' \,'hich positively precludes the construc- tion of a trailer park in Sections 29 and 30, Nr, Warneka is very "wch opposed to the rez.onIng. If a trailer park is constructed in the area, Nr. \~arneka \.wuld very serIously consider legal action for damages against any party involved in failing to put him on notice regarding the special use permIt. Therefore, 1 urge you to not take any action which would result in the construction of a trailer paL'k on St,,:tions 29 and 30, Very tn.ly yours, Douglas J. Peterson IJJP/jm cc: William Hawkins, Andover City Attorney / O,:,.;':'E OF ~:!:\:\::S"':'.; COUKTY OF 1,!'\OKA 0: S'':'Z".GC': ccur.~':' Tr:~':'H =:;DIC!l~!.. Ii:S':':-<:C': 3::,uce B.. Hay, e~ al, Plaintiffs, -vs- v?:FE:\!);'.~~? I 5 :~;::.:0?;.;~~t:~.~ OF lJ..\\' faD l-.RG;;;.:E~;': ~ow~ship of Grow, et aI, Defendants. * * * * * '" . The above entitled matter c~~e en for trial on t~e 2ls~ cay of June, 1971, be=o~e the Honorable Leonarc J. ^eyes, Jucge 0= :>ist=ict Court.. Wy~an A. s~ith appeared as attC=uey fer ?lai~~i==s anc ^icha~d A. Beans o~ Eabcock, Lochar, Keilscn & ~:~~nella, lle ~ast ~ain Street, Anoka, Minnesota, appeared as attorney for ;:)e::enc.ants. All relevant facts were stipulated by a~c between the attorneys for the par~ics and r~ad into t~e re~c=d. ?u::suant -:.0 the i~struc~ions ot Ju~ge Ke~es, Deie~cant he=ew~~~ su~=its the =ollowing ~emorandu~ of Law. :;:;:GRODUCTIO:-i :~ ~~e ~~5tant case, Plaintiffs _have a::eged :na~ ~~e ~o~~s~:? c= G=cw.s ce~ial 0= ~~ei~ a?plica~~c~ =c~ a 5?eC~a: use ::e~:7.:': ~c C?c=a~e a ::'lo;;:'J.e ho::.e parj{ was 1Ic:.:"b:.-:.=e..:::y a:i':: ca?:::.c:.ous" as a ~~:-:.a~ 0= :~~ ~~d a ce~ial 0: e~~G.~ ?rc~~c~: ::". 5"..:?::.C=t 1 I 'j i ,. i ~ ....._ ......_a. C~:'. -:.e::..:.::.c:-., ?:ai:-.'t.i:::s ::'.a;~e . . . ~::'=c.e ;;)Z.~:..: z._.S"':':7.~:-.":.s : ?~~:.:.::::..=:.:s c:..:~~;~ -:.::a-.: -.::.~~ :'c:.. - -_...;............; :Je::c:".c:.;':i-:' ..c...... c==ect a-:. ':..~'" ti::ie ~~e a??:~c~:~~~ ~as c=~~~~~=e~ =c~~~~~=c ~c ~-':~~G~=cs 0= ?=oced~=es :o~ .......1.: ::. SE,:"::':.::e. c= .:;?ec.:.::.~ -..:.s€: ?=::::l:"~s. 2. ?:~i~-:.i==s allege -:.nat De=enca~~$ =a~:e~ t~ iss~~ G..:'".y 1I:::'~c.i::SSIl 0= ::,,::,::,sC:'".S ce::.:..al. o Qing ?laintii=s allege that Da=c~cants sole roczv~ :or their applicatlon was the :act that a ?=~vious s~e~~l uze 3. :,pe=;r.it :or the purpose of operating a mob~' - "<-",.e !>,.t.: r.ad ;:,een ~ssu~d to anoth~r c?plicant. :~.; :ltain their o.::nial of Plaintiff's z.??lication was a =(:usv~.~:.le Defencants ceny each of these allega~ion5 a~d, furt~~r, exercise of the 7o~nship's police powers. z=gu~entG, ~ short review 0: the role played ;:,y speciz.l use ?~:~.~S Before d~recting our attention to Plaintiff's inaiviG~al ::::.:nn 152, 167 N\\2d ~5 (1969), the }:innesota Sup=e:o... Court st,,';:"';' ~~. zoning control is in order, ...Jl ~ V~. ~ ~ ~~a1,' 283 "?hev (s';)ecial use ';)o?r"..i.t:s) are c.::siC;~.ec to =.eet ~~e ;ro~iern which arises "~e~e certain cses, althOUC;h generally co~patible with the bas~C use classification of a particular ZO:le, shoulc not be located as a matter of riqht (underlining mine) in everv area includec wi~h~n the zo~e ~ecause of hazardS inherent in the use itself or special ';)roble~s which its ';)=ooosed location mav ';)resent. EY this cevice, cer~ai; uses (e.g.. gasoline service s~ati?ns, electric su~stations, h07P~tal~~ ~chools, c~~rc~es, cou~~~y clu~s, a~d c~e l~ke) ~~~c~ ~~y be consice=ed e$sentially desira~le to t~e co~~u~itv shoulc no~ ~eauthc=~zec ce~e=al:v in a particular zone because of consic;ratio~s' such as cu~~ent o~ anticipated traffic congestion, ~c~~la~ion de~sitv, r.oise, ef=ect on ac~oi~i~c iand values, or other consideratio~s ~r.~olv~~g public health, safety or general wel:are, ~ay be permitted upon a proposed site ce?e~ci~g ~?O~ the ::acts and circu:nstances of the ?articular case," . nc;n~n~stcri~g a zoning ordinance has broad ciscrctionnry power I~ is obvious from the foregoing, tha~ the ~ocy to gr~~t or ccny an application for a special use pcr:n~t. J\:.s~ ilS o;,'!',ously, t.he aclrnir.istering body cannot deny an a?plic"''tOio:'l . . .. :.:.~:...~'.. ..~.:.. J.y. ii<J'I,(.:vcr, 'the: lJurcJ.cn or zho\...ir.g ~~;;..i :,:'::.t" i:"'.c:~~.:J ~......:.5 Zvlka vs. Ci~v ~ c=vs~al, S~?=a., ? 5~. ~~~~ ~~e ?l~~~~~=f. ~~a~ co~sti~u~~Z an a~bitrary cenial? o 11.,. c.ar..:.al \-Joule. be a=bitrary, for e:-:z.::-:ple, ...... ~as ~s~ablisheo ~hat all 0= t~e sta~da~ds s~e=ifiec by the ordi~ance as a condition to grant~nc-t~e - - --, ~ ,.. . -- ~ ,- . . - . ~ ;-'c_..._- ..;~,:e ;::lee:: a,o..c,:. ...::.e:: ":.:lE: o~c:':"oa~ce c.oes ~C~ s?a=~=Y stancarcs, as ~s us~al~v ~~a case ~~~l;:~~:~~;;.~;~ri~:=~~a~~~;:~~:~~~:~~t~~t;;?;~~:: o wh~n th~ eV1Q~nCa prcscnt~d at ~r.e hearing ~~fore the 1.:unicipal govc::ning body end the t"c.:ViC\lli::g Court cstablis]les that the requested UE~ iz co:noati~le \.,rith the basic uze l.I".Jtr.orizc::c1 \tlithin t~e.particular zone and docs not cnd~ngcr the oublic health or safety or the general welfare of ~he area affected or the com..T,uni ty z:.s a \-lbole." l-.RGU:I,ENT 1, 'i'!;Z JI.PPLICABLE TOl,,\SnIP OF G~OW ZO!\Il\G O~OI:\l-.l';CE DOES ?"OVI~;:: A ?i<OCEOURE A;,O STJI.:\:JARD FO,< THE ISSU.z.:\CE OF S?ZCIl-.L US;:: ?ER)~:7S . The Township of Grow ZONING PLAN AND C~!FO~~ EUI~~I~G COD~, ADO?T~D JU~E 20, 1950, with su~sequent a~enc~ents, was ir..~rocuced as a joint e)~hibit at t:=ial. It has been sti?ula~ec t~at saic o=ci~ance ~as i~ effect at the ti~e 0= Plaintiff's a??licatio~ a~d u~til Janua=y 1, 1971, ~cen De=cncant adoptee a ~ew corr.?=er.ens~ve zon~n; coce. Sec. 2-44 (a) of the TOwns:.~? of G:OW'S Zc~in~ Plan and U~iior~ Buildi~g Coce se~s o~t ?rocec~~es anc stancarcs for the issuance of a special us~ ?er~i~. I~ proviees as follov.'s: 1l2-~4 (a) Application for the issuance of a s?ecial use permit shall be ffiace to the Tow~ ?lan~ing and Zo~i~g Co~issioni provided that the proceedings to classify certain uses as conforming uses as provided i~ t~is section may be initiated either by ap?licant 0= by the Town Boa~c or by said co~ission. S~ie co~~issio~ ~av hold such hcarincs on t~e nro~osal to issue a spacial use permit a; it ~ay consider necessary; but at least one public hearing shall be ~elc O~ . ~ny application for the use permit =or ~~e estab~is~~ent 0= any use for which special use pe~mits are recu~=aCa :cllowing t~e afo=esaid hearing, t~e saic co~~i~sio~ s~all ~ake a report to the Town 3oa~d u~c~ a D=c~o5al anc s~al1 recoillrnena to the Town Bca=d wha~ever ac~ic~ it cee~s advisable; but it s~all not ~eco~~end ~~e sran~ing of a permit unless it fincs that t~e ~sta~lish~ent, ~ainte~ance, 0= concuc~~~c c= ~~e ~5e fc: which the special use ?ercit is souS;~ \:i:: ~O~ ~~~:~_anr ci:c~w~tance~.cf th~ ?artic~l~= 7~s~ be ce..._~~.;~n...al ,:,0 toe pub..1..l.c \-lelza:::e 0= .l.::':.Ju:,.l.c',,:,s -='0 ?=o?er~y O~ .l.ffi?=ove~ents in the neighbc=hooc. ..1.... ~ay cesig~ate co~citio~s a~c reaui=e gua=a~tees i~ ~~e s=a~ting of special ~se permitsa G~on =eCe~~t c= ~he ~e?crt 0= said cor~issio~, ~he Town 3ca=c- .shall ho~d whateve= pcblic hea=incs ~~ cee~s ~tvisable a:;.c 'shall. r:ia}:e a decisio:1 U'OO:1 the n::'o"Oosals~c sra~~ a special use ?e=~i~a- If i~ ~~~ds ~~a~ ~~e o o conditions exist which are necessary unuer this section before said commission may reco~~cnd the oranting of a special use permit, the Town ~oard ;":1\, grant the special use permit and it mny ..ttach to' the permit such conditions and guar..r.tces as it deems necessary to substantially secure the objects of this resolution." It should be noted that the standard set out in Sec, 2-44 (a) is substantially similar to the judicial standard stated in ~, supra., p, 49, Beth are gene.ric in nature and speak in broad terms of "public welfare". Both are constructed so as to allow the governing body the right to consider any relevant factors concerning applicant's case which may have ar.y ultimate bearing on public welfare, As can be seen from the' foregoing, Plaintiff's contention that the Township of Grow Zoning Ordinance contains no standard ior the issuance of special use permits is totally without ~erit. The ordinance does contain a standard. Even if it did not have a standard, that fact would be of no legal effect. The Court '. in ~ recognizes the fact that many zoning ordinances do not contain sufficient standards, and as a consequence, imposes a judicial standard to be applied in such cases, 2. liT TIlE 'fINE DEFENDlINT DENIED PLlIINTIFF' S APPLICA'rION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, "FINDINGS" AND REASONS SUFFICIE:NT AS A ~~TTER OF LAWh~RE PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFF, Based upon the holding in ~ vs, ~ of, Crvstal, supra., Plaih~iff has strenuously argued that the Grow 70wn Board's denial of his requested permit on January 11, 1971, was made without :inc~nss of fact. Plaintiff's argument seems to presume that the ~ case requires the Town Board to accompa~y a cenial of an application for a special use pe~rnit with formal, written, syllogistic Findings 0= Fact, Conclusions 0= Law and O~Qe= for J'ucS'::Jent so ::aInl.liar to law~"er5 and judges. A review of the =inal paragraph in ~ clearly indicates that the Cou~t did not i~tend so narrow a construction. o .. o l'~ccor~ingly, we hold ~h~t ~hc tri~l Court correctly ~nvaliestcd ~he denial of the perMit ~~C&USC ~~e uc~ivn of the council ~as so arbitrary as a ~att~r\of law. It ~as not ~ccornpanied by written Find~ngE of Fact snacifving the reason or reasons for the denial nor "~s a~v oral statement of such rccson ~ace by the r.:a\'or or any !:lemer of the council conter..;:>ora:-:eollsly ~i~h the denial nor was there su~=icic~t cvi~cnce p~csented at trial to co~pel a finding by the Co~rt that t~e iSSuance of th~ oer~it would acv~rsely af:cct t~c public health or. safety or general welfare of t~e CO::ui.unity.1I r:he ~ requirement oi "fincinc;s" can c.p?are:ntly ::.e fulfilled in a~y one of three differe~t ways; first, by writta~ :i~dings of Fact, or second, by oral stat~~ent of t~e governi..g body ~ace co~~em?oraneously with t~e denial or, lastly, by evidence p=esa~~ec at ~rial. It is Defendant's co~t6ntio~ that Plaint~ft \.;as p::'ovioec. 'vIi th legally sufficient reasons or II .findings II which were ?~esented O~ all three occasions. ~he Pla~ning and Zoning Boare minutes of Dece~~er 29, 1970, w~~ch we:e i~~=oduced into evice~ce at t=ial, con~ain a copy of t~e ~oard's written report to the ~own Boare. This sta~es as a \-.~=it-=.er.. =eason 0: "finc.:":igU for de:-:.ial that II.. .\'le ::ave 2P?rOVec. of o~e ~obile ho~e park and are not certain if tow~shi? can ha~c~e =esulta~t rapid increase of population if two ~o~ile ho~e pa~ks are a21o\..~ac. at this ti~e. II ?~is written finding was t~a~s~ittee to t~e ~ow~ Board ana adopted by refere~ce at the ti~e of denial of Ja~~ary 11, 1971. The Town Board minutes of that date reflect ". .. ~:::.s =ac~. Fu=~he=, the Decerr~er 29, 1970,Minutes of t~e Pla~~i~g and Zo~i~g Eoa=a state t~at Plainti=f Hay speci=ically asked the ~oa=d s~c=e~ary, Robert Ritner, to state his ::'easo~s for ~oving to =ecc~~e~~ a ce~ial. The ~inutes =u=t~e= reflect tha~ Plai~~if= ~ay =ece~vec a verzal e^?~anatic~ at the ~eeting~ T::.e ':'0\'::1. :='oa:c ~~~~~~S c= =a~ua=y 11, 1971, state the P1ainti== Eay ~as ?resa~t a,':. sa:..c. ::-.eetir.g ~ ~~e ~inutes fu=ther ::e::lect that t~e To~~ 3oa=d c.i$cusse~ a 'vlic.e --range 0:: factors \"hic~ ::elate to public ,.:elfa=e ~~d w~ic~ ~ere o~viously cC:1.sidered l~ the board's =inal cecisic~ -:c t~:-.~' 0-..-- ?~a~~~i=='s a??lic~~io~. ;....~cns O~.-6a::s, t~ey C.iSC"o.:.!;5C=' ..".. :;.t.1~:..cipa~ se=v~cc:s, ?op~:atio:-. de~Ei ~y I taxes sc::e=z,,':.(::5. . by mobile ho~e par}:s vs, hand-crafted homes, methods of ass~ss~~"t, 4::)epreciation of ~obile ho~es vs. depreciation of hand-crafted homes, and the collection and disbursement of taxes. Following this, the Town Board voted to adopt the Planning and Zoning Board' s recor.~n"ndation that Plaintiff's application be denied, Further evidence, particularly with reference to municipal services and population density was presented at trial, It was shown that Grow Township has a present population of approximately 3,800 people. The special use permit for a Planned Unit Development issued to Carlyle Co, .on October 13, 1970, will allow ti:e construction of 290 mobile home park units and 207 ~ultiple dwelling units. If we assume an average density of three persons per unit, granting of the Carlyle permit will result in a final population increase of 1,500, Plaintiffs had requested a special use permit which would allow them to build 450 mobile ho~e units and 300 apartment units. Again assuming an ultimate density of three persons per unit, that granting of Plain~~=fls application would result in a population increase of over 2,200 people. It was further stipulated that Grow Township p~ese~tly coes not have a police force. It must rely upon the Anoka County Sheriff's Department for whatever police protection it can get. Further, it has no fire department; this particular ~unici?al se=vice is presently provided by contract with the City of A~oka Fire Depart~ent and funded by a yearly mill levy. section 5, Subdivision X, 0= Grow ?o~nshi? O=ci~ance Ku::,.ber 6 regulating mobile home parks, requires the availability C= ffiunicipal sewer service bafore a permit will ~e ~ss~e~. -- ..... ~he time the Carlyle permit was grantec, it was a~tici?ated t~at service could be obtained through the City of ;:.oka t=~~k sewe= syste~. (See COillp=eh~nsive sanitary Sewer Pla~ =0= G=ow To~~ship p. 3) However, ~he City of Anoka has t~us fa= ceniec a~y extension of sanitary sewer serv!ce ir.to Grow To~nshi? (See . ......... . . .. r.==:..cav.l.-:' 0: 05--"-; Ges"'o '-}-- C'-" ) t;W1".n;;;_ H, .n..uO ~c. .1. ...":;' '!".ar.age:= It is ~ncisp~~ed t~a~ ~u~~ci?al water and storm sewer service is not presently availa~le to C::>applicant's property. Given the present lack of municipal services in Grow Township, rapid population increase cannot help but be a ~ajor The township is only now on the verge of cc~"ancing concern. Increased extension of these services to the present residents. population will inevitably increase de~and for municipal services. Extension of services will place a considerable financial burden Injection of an additional 2,200 people into on the residents, the township at this point can only compound this burden and the consequent governmental problems. In su~ary, it is apparent that Defendant provided Plaintiff with legally sufficient reasons having a direct bearing upon public health, safety and welfare at all three stages alluded to in ~. 3. DEFENDANT'S DENIAL OF APPLICA~T'~ SPECIAL USE PERV-IT WAS NOT BASED ON AN INTENT TO LI~IT COMPETITION. Citing Pearce VS~ villace of ~, 263 l'~in:1 553, 118 1\1..2d 659, and ~ vs. ~ of Minneaoolis, 263 }jinn 1, 115 KW2d 73~, Plaintiff contends that Defendant's denial of their special usa permit ~as based solely on an intent to limit mobile ho~e pa=k competition within Grow Township and, therefore, exceeded the discretionary power of the Town Board. Plaintiff's cc~ten~ion "o~lc seem to assume ~hat he had obtained a vested rig~t to use h~s property as a mobile ho~e park. This is not the case. ?laintiff's land ~as zoned for residential uses under t~e ordin~~~e applicable a~ t~e ti~e he requested the special use permit and u~ce= the new ?o~nship of Grow Co~prehensive zoning Ordinance. ~he properties i~~ediately adjacent to Plaintiff's are also zo~ed for resice~tial pt:.::-?cses. Unaer the zoning in effect at the time of Plaintiff's c??licr- tic:l, mobile home parks were allo,,-ted any\.;rhe::-e i:1 the to,,-.::,ship ?~ovicing a s?ecial use permit ~as c~tained. I:1 ~, ? "8, o the Minnesota supreme Court clearly indicates that the ~vail~~ility c::>= s;ecial use permit procedu~e does not, as a ~attc= of richt, allow plaintiff a particular use, A special use provision per7..its property, wi thin the discre.tion of the governing body, to ~e used in the matter expressly authorized by the' orcinance. ~vs. City 9i Crystal, supra, \'Iestling vs. City of ?!.:.. ~ Pari:, 170 KN2d, 218, p. 221. Clearly, zoning laws cannot be used to destroy vested property rights. Pearce vs. Village of Edir.a, supra. HO\t:ever, plaintiff has a vest right to nothing more than residential uses, It would be illogical to grant vested rights for special uses and then say, as the ~ and Westling court said, that issuance 0: special use permits is discretionary with the governing body. Ne agree that a denial based on'an underlying intent to limit co~?etition would be improper. However, the record clearly demonstrates that the board's basic concern was with public health, safety, and welfare. h~~eneve= a, sover~~ental boay enacts 0: administers a zoning ordinance, there is an ine~itable limitation of co~?etition in variou$ areas. However, so long as the legislative 0= ac~inist=ative decision is based primarily on conside:ations of public health, safety, and welfare, the acts rep=csent a valid exercise of th~ police power. The obvious concern of the Grow Town Board was with a too rapid population increase and t~e consequen~ burden on municipal facilities. CONCLUSION ~he cecision of Defendant to deny Plaintiff's special use permit was based on announced and valid consideration of public heal~h, safe~y, and welfare, and, therefore, was within the De~~ndant1$ discretionary powers. As a result, jucgment should be ente=ed for Defendant. EABCOCK, LOCHER, NEILSON & ~~~NELLA Attornevs for Defe~cants 118 ~~st Mai~ Street ;~oka, Mi~~esota 55303 o By: Ric;:a=c. Eee::.s . ..:-.-.~ .-' - -~ --.. ... o , ,-----"" STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA /// ! :>1 STRICT COURT . TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT / \,. .~ "- - -------- -------------------- -. "', Bruce B. Hay, William A. Goldberg, Herbert R. Goldenberg, Sidney H. Levinsohn and Joseph Gitis, Pl ainti ffs, vs. FINOINGS OF FACT CONCLUS :0;;5 0" LhW AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT Township of Grow, Anoka County, Minnesota and Louis Appleby, , Supervisor of Town Board, LeRoy Willner, Supervisor of Town Board and Richard Schneider, Supervisor of Town Board, Oefendants. -------------------- . -, The above entitled. matter was regularly placed upen the trial calendar for trial on the 21st day of June, 1971, before the undersi9ned, at the Courthouse in the City of Anoka, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota. Wyman Smith, Esquire, appeared for the plaintiffs. Richard Beens, Esquire, appeared for the defendants, The parties were present, the facts were stipulated and the case submitted to the Court, without a jury. FINDINGS OF FACT I. That the Township of Grow is a Township existin9 in Anoka County, Minnesota. The additional defendants ar~ the duly qualified and elected supervisors of the Township of Grow. II. That the plaintiffs are the applicants for a special use permit presented to the Town of Grow on or about April 17, 1970, requesting a development of a roobile hor.~ park on property situated in the Township of Grow, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, described as follows to-wit: o The South 4 rods of the North half of the Northeast 1/4, Section 30, Township 32, Range 24, The South 84 rods of Government Lot I, Section 29, Town- ship 32,. Range 24, The Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast l/4, Section 30, Township 32, Range 24, ...... " '. The Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, Section 30, Township 32. Range. 24. That par~ of Government Lot 2. Secti o~ 29. Townshi p 32. . Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, 1Y1ng West~r1y of a ~lne drawn equal distance from the East and West l1nes of sald Govern- ment Lot 2, o I II. That at the time of said application the zoning ordinance in effect in said Town of Grow allowed for a mobile home park in all districts with a special. use permit. ~--.-:-.- .' IV. That plaintiff's application was referred to the Zoning and Planning Commission and a notice for a public hearing on the Petition was set for the 14th day 'of May, 1970. V. That at said meeting of May 14, 1970, the Planning and Zonin9 Board .. neither rejected nor approved said plan. ., . VI. That on the 11th day of June, 1970, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing for an application for a special use permit on property described as the North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 32 N, Range 24 W, in the Town of Grow, Anoka County, Minnesota. That said application was made in the name of Carlyle. VII. That on August II, 1970, the Carlyle Petition was 9iven preliminary approval by the defendant supervisors of the Town Board of Grow. VII I. That the supervisors of the Town Boal'd of Grow did on August 11, 1970, adopt Ordinance No.6 which is entitled "A Mobile Home Park Ordinance". IX. Tha t the defendant' supervisors of the Town Board. of Grow di d on the 21st day of October, 1970, adopt a new zoning ordinance designated as o Ordinance Ho, 8. That a zoning w~p rroade a part of said zoning ordinance purports to set up a classification known as R-S in which rr~nufactured o housing is permitted, including a mobile home park, and that the parcel of land being developed by the Carlyle applicant was granted R-S zoning as well as other zoning. . That the five parcels in plaintiffs' application . 1. , . "..::. . .', '.- . . . were zoned R-l. X. That at a meeting of the supervisors of the Town Board of Grow held on the 13th day of October, 1970, a contract for a special use permit with the. Carlyle applicant was approved allowing a permit for a period of two years from the time sewer and water lines were available to the tract. . XI. That on the 29th day of December, 1970, the Planning and Zoning Board of the Town of Grow met and considered plaintiff's application and denied the application chiefly for the reason that one special use permit for a mobile home park had been previously issued to the Carlyle appl icant. XII. , . That the report of the P-l anning and Zoning Board of the Town of Grow was considered by the defendant supervisors or the Town of Grow at.its meeting on January 12, 1971. At that meeting the special use permit as applied for by the plaintiffs was denied. XIII. That plaintiffs believed that water and sewer facilities are available _~~'~~from the City of Anoka. There is some question of such availability. A pennit or"a":licerise for.:,the..bperation and construction of a mobile hore park must be had from the State of Minnesota, who would requir~ adequate water and sewer facilities before such a permit or license is issued. 0, XIV. That the Township of Grow is in an area that is under urban or suburban development and its population is likely to increase.in the near future. The Township presently is sparsely settled and the proposed use by plaintiffs of the five parcels of property will make no greater demands on the functions of the municipality than some other development. .. xv, o A mobile home park is a common and perhaps necessary part of the modern urban scene. Such a park would furnish quality housing for a family earning under $10,000.00 per year income. . XVI. " The minutes of the Planning Commission and of the Town Board do not re- flect any valid reasons for the denial of plaintiffs' application. The growth of the Town' of Grow, because of its location in the Metropolitan. area, is likely to continue at an accelerating rate whether the houses are mobile homes or hand-crafted homes. The difference in taxable:values, 'if any, is not a valid reason for the denial of a special use permit. XVI1. Plaintiffs' application calls. for ultimately 450 home units in a IlObile home cOllTnunity. Plaintiffs are agreeable to minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet with roads, set backs and other requi rements as provi ded for in ., " the new Ordinance No.6 entitled lOA Mobile Home Park Ordinance". XV II I. The facts presented would indicate that plaintiffs' land was entitled to R~5 zoning under the new Ordinance No.8, being the zoning ordinance for the Town of Grow. XIX. The evidence indicates that the Town Board had no basis in fact for '. denying plaintiffs' application. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. That the action of the defendants in refusing the special use permit application of the plaintiffs, submitted on April 17, 1970, was discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious. 2. That the gra~ting vf a special use permit to the second appli- cant, Carlyle, was a discriminatory act to the plaint~ffs who were entitled to equal protection and equal exercise of their property rights. 3. That .the defendants, and each of them, shall cause to be issued.. to the plaintiffs the special use permit for the development of a mobile home park on the property.situated in Township of Grow, County of Anoka, 0_ . ... '" -.. -:;~..... - ~. State of Minnesota. described as follows to-wit: o The South 4 rods of the North half of the Northeast 1/4. Section 30. Township 32. Range 24, The South 84 rods of Government Lot I, Section 29. Town- . ship 32. Range 24. The Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4. Section 30. Township 32. Range 24. The Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4. Section 30. Township 32. Range 24. That part of Government Lot 2. Section 29, Township 32. Range 24, Anoka County. Minnesota. lying Westerly of a line drawn equal distance from the East and West lines of said Government Lot 2. ..' ..,. LET' JUOGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. .. ,,' BY THE COURT: " . . .....: ':,''': / "~ ~\ ;'~ :.. :'. .' :." . ....: ..'I...... ,.. .... . "-' . . '~ . ,..,:..~ ! ~.,..., ... : . .' ': .... ~~~ Dated: .. ...... aM{ /~ '17? /', . ; : .~~ ::~:-, ~ ." -~ . ..' '.;..' ". }f}}Ar5fI11.id5fff/p,117/' o , , # 717 5.e, delaware 5t, p.o. box 9441 minnesota department of health minneapoli5 55440 1; C,C. ~ol?J d (612) 623.5000 Andover City Council c/o Ms. Vicki Volk, Clerk City Hall 1685 Crosstown Boulevard, N.W. Andover, Minnesota 55304 Dear Council Members: :r:E. 7fJ/~ March 21, 1989 Rr~=~:1~91D CITY OF ANDOVER We have recently received a copy of the attached bill and are forwarding it to your community for your information. We do not have any further details on the bill so you may wish to contact your congressional delegation for more information and to express any interest you may have in the legislation. Sincerely yours, ~~ oe;~- Richard D. Clark, P.E., Supervisor Public Water Supply Unit Section of Water Supply and Engineering RDC:ter Enclosure o an equal opportunity employer o o > ,. II 101sT CONGRESS 1ST SESSION s. 397 To provide assistance to small communities with ground water radium contamination, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES FEBRUARY 9 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 1989 Mr. DIXON (for himself and Mr, SIMON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works A BILL To pr9vide assistance to small communities with ground water radium contamination. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 RADIUM REMOVAL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 4 SECTION 1. The Administrator of the Environmental 5 Protection Agency, in cooperation with State public authori- 6 ties, may assist local governments in demonstrating mitiga- 7 tion ofradium contamination in ground water. Upon applica- 8 tion of -any State public authority, the Administrator may 9 make a grant to that authority for such purposes. Assistance 10 provided pursuant to this section shall be used for financing ." J 2 o 1 the acquisition and installation of ground water treatment 2 technologies needed to remove radimn from ground water 3 used as a source of public drinking water for residents of 4 small communities under the jurisdiction of such local. gov- 5 ernments. 6 LEVEL OF CONTAMINATION 7 SEC. 2. A grant may only be made under section 1 for 8 removal of radium from ground water if the level of contami- 9 nation from such radium exceeds the maximum contaminant 10 level for radium established under title XIV of the Public 11 Health Service Act (relating to safe drinking water). 12 PURPOSES OF GRANTS 13 SEC. 3. Funds made available through grants under sec- 14 tion 1 may only be used by the grant recipient for one or both 15 of the following purposes: 16 (1) Providing insurance or prepaying. interest for 17 local obligations issued by a local government to fi- 18 nance the acquisition and installation of treatment 19 technologies described in section 1. .20 (2) Paying for the costs of administration. for estab- 21 lishment and operation by such authority of a program 22 to provide financing for such acquisition and installa- 23 tion. 24 DEFINITIONS o 25 SEC. 4. For purposes of this Act, the term- 8 39118 '. o o c . 3 1 (1) "small community" means a political subdivi- 2 sion of a State the population of which does not exceed 3 twenty thousand individuals; and 4 (2) "State public authority" means an agency or 5 instrumentality of a State which is established for the 6 purposes of assisting local governments in financing . 7 capital improvements on a statewide or regional basis. 8 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS 9 SEC. 5. The following sums are authorized to be appro- I 10 priated to carry out this Act: Fiscal Year 1990...........,..........,.......,.....................................,....,......... 1991........,......,........,.................................................,......., 1992......,..................,................,..,.................................,.., Amount $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000, o 8 39118 o NOTICE OF METROPOLITAN COUN PUBLIC MEETING , " . REVIEW OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER COMPREHENSIVE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (LRT) SYSTEM PLAN FOR ANOKA COUNTY The Metropolitan Council will hold a public meeting (as part of a Systems Committee meeting) to receive comments as a part of its review of the Comprehensive LRT System Plan for Anoka r~unty. You are enoouraged to participate in this meeting and provide input. / The comprehensive LRT plan has been prepared by the Anoka County Regional Railroad Authority (ACRRA) in fulfillment of legislative requirements for LRT planning. The plan considers: LRT design and service standards and policies; location of service within Anoka county; ridership forecasts; capital and operating costs; sources of project funding; potential pUblic benefits; and implementation methodology, including operating agency or entity. . The Metropolitan Council is reviewing this plan as required by state law. The Council, in order to provide the broad regional perspective, is using a variety of ways to solicit input to its decision. Several existing policy or advisory boards are being asked to provide input, including: the Regional Transit Board; the Metropolitan Council LRT Advisory Committee; and the Transportation Advisory Board. In addition to these groups, the Council is offering the opportunity to interested individuals, communities and organizations to provide additional input to the process by submitting testimony as part of this public meeting. The Metropolitan council will consider the comments and make its final recommendations on April 27, 1989. PUBLIC MEETING INFORMATION When: Tuesday, April 4, 1989, 11 a.m. Where Metropolitan Council Chambers Hears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth St. St. PaUl, MN 55101 o Who will be Metropolitan Area state legislators notified: Local officials Interested Citizens and community organizations (over) , .~ ."i:) '2. ; , You may attend the meeting 'and offer oral or written comments. Please call the Community Outreach Division at 291-6500 if you wish to register to speak. You may send a letter with comments by April 11, 1989 to: , . How to , l.'1 . :' I;' ," Participate:" l.' Questions: SW300A PHTRN3@5 Steve Wilson Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Call th$ Council's Transportation Division and talk to Steve Wilson (291-6344). Summaries of Anoka County's Comprehensive LRT System Plan are available from the Metropolitan Counoil Data Center at 291-8140. !.J!t'-.~. ; " \o! ~ o o cOVf~V~fW OVERVIEW OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LRT SYSTEM PLAN FOR ANOKA COUNTY AND THE PROCESS FOR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE PLAN The 1987 Minnesota Legislature placed primary responsibility for developing light rail transit (LRT) with regional railroad authorities formed by individual counties. The Anoka County Regional Railroad Authority (ACRRA) has prepared a comprehensive plan for LRT development in Anoka County. The plan was prepared in conjunction with the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority planning for the Northeast Corridor and in conjunction with the Anoka County 2010 Transportation Plan. The ACRRA plan addresses that county's portion of the proposed Northeast Corridor. The corridor would begin in downtown Minneapolis, connecting to the alignment currently being studied by Hennepin County. Alignment options for the Minneapolis portion of the corridor are a Burlington Northern (BN) railroad right-of-way or Central Av. (TH 65) to approximately 37th St. Av. NE. The Anoka County portion of the corridor, covered in the ACRRA plan, proposes to follow either TH 47 or TH 65 north from that point to I-694 and then TH 47 north of I-694 to the Northtown Shopping Center. Future extensions of the corridor would be considered north from that point along U.S. Highway 10 or TH 65. Due to the complexity of issues for the alignment options, both options would be carried forward to the preliminary design phase of study. The BN/University Av. option would be 6.4 miles long, have a capital cost in Anoka County of about $90 million, and is forecast to have. a year 2010 ridership of between 18,500 and 19,700 daily riders for the entire corridor. The Central/University Av. option would be 6.8 miles long, cost about $103 million (Anoka County portion) and have a total corridor ridership of 26,000- 27,000. . It is recommended that several funding sources be used to fund construction of the corridor in Anoka County, including property tax revenues, a motor vehicle registration surtax, a portion of the state motor vehicle excise tax, and a drivers license fee dedication. c The plan identifies several benefits of LRT, including enhanced transit service in LRT corridors, increased transit ridership, economic use of transit resources, increased crosstown transit services, fewer automobile trips, improved air quality and increased development potential near stations. ~ METROPOLlT'N r:OUNCIL. Mean f'qrk Centre. 230 FAst Fifth Street. St. Pal/I. Minnesota 5~lm . "'2 29/-6<!YI -j " '"" ~ Four alternative implementation strategies are being considered, ranging from 0 traditional, public sector-controlled implementation to a "super turnkey" approach that makes a private contractor responsible for financial and land development arrangements. The plan recommends that the Metropolitan Transit Commission be the operator of the system and proposes these implementation decisions be made in coordination with other regional railroad authorities. LRT REVIEW PROCESS The Minnesota Legislature has placed specific responsibilities on the Metropolitan Council to review the light rail transit plans prepared by regional railroad authorities. Minn. Stat. 1988, Chapter 473, section 10 states that: "The council and the regional transit board shall review and colimlent on comprehensive light rail transit plans and preliminary design plans of regional railroad authorities. The council and the board shall conduct their review and comment before the regional railroad authority prepares final design plans." The Metropolitan Council will be reviewing the plan for consistency with the Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan and other chapters of its Metropolitan Development Guide. In order to ensure that the regional perspective is represented, the Council is using a variety of methods to gather input for its review: The Council's LRT Advisory Committee, composed of representatives from' regional railroad authorities and other affected agencies in the Metropolitan Area, will be meeting on April 14. The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), an advisory body to the Council composed of appointed and elected local and regional decisionmakers and citizens, will review the plan through its LRT Task Force and Technical Advisory Committee and adopt any comments on April 19. The Council's Metropolitan Systems Committee, which has primary responsibility for the Council's review, and the Regional Transit Board, will hold a joint public meeting on Tuesday, April 4~ to solicit testimony from interested individuals, communities and organizations. Written testimony will be accepted from interested individuals, communities and organizations until April 11. The Regional Transit Board will be conducting its own review, to be completed on April 17. The Council will consider the comments of the RTB in taking its action. The Metropolitan Systems Committee will take action on the plan review on April 18. The Metropolitan Council will act at its meeting on April 27. The Council's comments will then be submitted to the Minnesota Legislature. o o o CITY of ANDOVER Special city Council Meeting - March 30, 1989 7:30 P.M. Call to Order 1. Interviews/Finance Director 7:30 P.M. Roger Larson 7:50 P.M. Alan Folie 8:10 P.M. Jessie Hart 8:30 P.M. Howard Koolick 8:50 P.M. Wayne Henneke 2. Sewer & Water Budget 3. Fire Marshal Discussion 4. Adjournment o CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION March 30, 1989 DATE Engineering APPROVED FOR AGENi;>./l (J v.~ Bv/l AGENDA SECTION NO. ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO. .I. . Interviews/Finance Director BY: James E. Schrantz The schedule for interviews for the Finance Director position is as follows: 7:30 P.M. Roger Larson 7:50 P.M. Alan Folie 8:10 P.M. Jessie Hart 8:30 P.M. Howard KooH ck 8:50 P.M. Wayne Henneke Copies of the applicant's resumes have been given to you already. c MOTION BY TO COUNCIL ACTION SECOND BY o o ,r CITY of ANDOVER The attached are the questions asked by the Staff Interview Committee of the applicants for the Finance Director position, !'..: ~ o o r ,^ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 QUESTIONS FOR FINANCE DIRECTOR INTERVIEWS 1. What were your reasons for applying for this position? 2. What type of work do you hope to be doing five years from now? 3. Explain how you believe your education and experience can help Andover. 4. Explain your computer related experience. 5. Please describe your present job. 6. Which aspects of your current position do you enjoy the most? The least? 7. Why are seeking to leave your present job? 8. Have you had much contact with city Council in previous positions? Do you enjoy this aspect of the job? 9. Are you able to work under pressure with deadlines to meet? Have you done so in previous positions? 10. Have you ever had any problems with your co-workers? Your supervisor? 11. What types of people have you found it difficult to work with or for? Why? ~ o o . , ,- ~ 12. Have you ever had to work overtime? overtime work? How do you feel about 13. This position may involve attending .two Council meetings per month. Would this be a problem? 14. May we contact the references you listed on the application form? Current or former employers? 15. What would you say is your one best qualification for this position? 16. If hired, when would be available for work? 17. What are your salary expectations and requirements? 18. If asked to take a physical, could you pass it? 19. Is there anything you would like to ask us about the position or about working for. the City of.Andover? .... ! ~~ " ~ CITY OF ANDOVER POSITION DESCRIPTION -0 POSITION TITLE: Finance Director DEPARTMENT: Finance Department ACCOUNTABLE TO: city Administrator PRIMARY OBJECTIVES Position is responsible for the organization, planning, management and. coordination of all financial services utilized by the city. Is responsible for monies, investments, internal control and Providing administrative supervision of City Clerk and City Treasurer and manages insurance, workman's comp and personnel records. , MAJOR AREAS OF ACCOUNTABILITY Plans and develops sound accounting policies and administrative practices so that financial records are maintained in an acceptable manner, bills are. paid on time, and all funds are invested in a manner which will maximize the return on investments. prepares annual City budget for all City funds, annual and monthly financial reports. ,Manages and invests City monies according to legally approved 'investment practices. personally directs development and implementation of capital financing programs. Directs and supervises special assessment project accounting, reporting and bonding. Develops and maintains data processing systems which will meet the. information recordkeeping demands of all City departments. Prepares an operating budget for Finance Department, as well as budgets for the insurance, debt services and special funds to insure that the allocation of monies is sufficient to carry out the responsibilities of the department. Provides overall direction to the central services of reproduction, mailing, office supply stores and purchasing. Supervises the City Clerk and City Treasurer. PAGE 1 OF 2 ,~ } , , ~ o o ~. . . , , Attends Council meetings and advises Council .and administrative staff regarding financial procedures. Supervisory Responsibilities: _ Participates in and recommends the selection of new employees for Department Employees. _ Defines and clearly delegates work assignments to personnel in terms of work methods, service required and standards of performance expected. , . _ Reviews the work performance of employees on a continuing basis. _ Establishes and maintains a level of discipline and a working climate in which employees are motivated to work up to their full potential. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ABILITIES _ Thorough knowledge of principles and practices of all aspects of public financing administration. _ Extensive knowledge of city budget process. _ Thorough knowledge of municipal government functions and management concepts. _ Considerable knowledge of data processing and purchasing principles and procedures. _ General knowledge of local, state and national laws pertaining to City operations. Ability to develop and implement sound accounting systems. Ability to maintain effective working relationships in high stress and conflict situations.' _ Ability to communicate ideas, explanations and recommendations clearly, both orally and in writing. _ Ability to prepare complex financial statements and reports in accordance with legal requirements. _ Ability to assign, supervise, discipline and motivate staff while maintaining productive working relationships. _ Ability to prioritize constantly changing activities and resources. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS Bachelor's Degree in accounting, business administration, finance, economics, or public administration. Two to five years of progressively responsible experience in governmental finance management work with at least one year of supervisory experience. DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS Master's Degree in accounting, business or public administration, public finance or economics. Three years municipal finance supervisory experience. PAGE 2 OF 2 o CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE March 30, 1989 BY: James E. Schrantz FOR AGENDA SECTION NO. ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Engineering ITEM NO. Water & Sewer Budget BY: The City Council is requested to consider the following proposal to balance the 1989 Water and Sewer Budgets. Water Budget Recommendation Revenues Increase water rates by 10% from $.82/1000 gal. to $.90/1000. This will increase the revenues under General Customer from $129,000 to about $140,000. Transfer $9000 from the fund balance to the 1989 revenue budget as previously budgeted for pump and well repair. The new total water revenues will be $172,030 + $11,000 + $9,000 = $192,030. Expenditures Reduce Item 402 under Source, Storage and Treatment to $9,000. The new total water expenditure is then $194,806 - $11,000 = $184,806. MOTION BY TO COUNCIL ACTION SECOND BY o page Two March 21, 1989 Water & Sewer Budget The excess revenue is now $192,030 - $184,806 = $7,224. Use this $7,224 to partially fund the Public Works Employees. Sewer Budget Recommendation Revenues Metro Waste Control underestimated Andover's sewer usage and have billed the previous year's underpayment this year. The sewer fund balance hasn't had $54,504 transferred to it from the Bond fund as deficit payment for Sewer Fund "A" - transfer $50,000 of the $54,504 to Sewer Revenues. The new total Sewer Revenues is then $200,800 + $50,000 $250,800. Expenditures The expenditures remain the same at $235,313. The excess sewer revenue is now $250,800 - $235,313 = $15,487. Use this $15,487 to partially fund the Public Works Employees. o Page Three March 21, 1989 c:> Water & Sewer Budget Public Works Employees Funding Water excess $7,224 plus sewer excess $15,487 for a total of $22,711. To fund a Public Works II for a year is about $30,000 including 20% overhead. From May 1st to the end of 1989 the cost is about 66% of $30,000 or $19,800 needed to fund the employee with $22,711 available. Sewer Fund "A" Transfer I also recommend that the Council review the Sewer Fund "A" refund and discontinue that policy and charge all the sewer users the same rate. Currently, the customers in District A pay $4.50/month and in District B pay $8.50/month. o < , o CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION NO. DATE March 30. 1 qRq ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Administration ITEM NO. Fire Marshal posi tion 3 BY:Jim Schrantz The City Council is requested to discuss the Fire Marshal position concerning schedule and hours. We received two messages from the Council on the Fire Marshal as to who she reports to. The understanding that Bob and I have is that Bob will assign her work and she will be responsible to him and will come to me if there are some items that concern City policy. I have tried to find where we discussed the Fire Marshal position during the budget process but I have only found the short statement in the November 22, 1988 minutes. I will have someone listen to the tapes if the Council wishes. MOTION BY TO COUNCIL ACTION SECOND BY ". (' t:tCITY OF ANDOVER ~, POSITION TITLE: POSITION DESCRIPTION , . FIRE MARSHAL DEPARTMENT: FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCOUNTABLE TO: FIRE CHIEF & CITY ADMINISTRATOR PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF POSITION To develop, apply and administer City fire safety standards in the City of Andover in a manner which will safeguard lives and property. The Fire Marshal shall participate in the investigation of all fires of questionable origin in the City of Andover. To coordinate and direct fire prevention efforts as the Fire Prevention Public Information Officer for the City. MAJOR AREAS OF ACCOUNTABILITY Prepares, implements and administers a fire and safety inspection program to ensure that facilities and structures conform with municipal codes and applicable State regulations. Develops and carries out an effective inspection program covering commercial, industrial, multiple dwellings, schools, churches, and public buildings throughout the City for the purpose of fire prevention. Examines building plans for conformity with the fire prevention codes and coordinates inspections with building, electrical, plumbing and heating inspectors. participates in the investigation of all fires of questionable origin with the Sheriff's Department and the State Fire Marshal's Office to determine the cause of fires. Prepares comprehensive reports on fires as required by the City and State Fire Marshal's Office. Prepares monthly reports summarizing inspections, investigations, fire and fire prevention activities. . Submits budget requests for inclusion in the annual budget. ~ Department Head Effective Date ~"'--- .' PAGE 1 OF 3 " - ...t o \.-.. o , '--. Recommends changes to fire ordinances and codes. Reports violations of other municipal codes found during inspections and fire investigation duties to appropriate parties for corrective action. Conducts training on the use of fire extinguishers, evacuations, and fire prevention for industries, nursing homes, schools and other groups. Keeps abreast of changes in fire codes, building codes, fire prevention practices and construction materials. Reviews all development proposals for fire safety and prepares a report on fire safety implications. Assists the Fire Chief in maintaining contact with the Fire Insurance Rating Bureau to ensure best possible rating. Assists the Fire Chief in the preparation of the Master Fire Plan covering all aspects of firefighting and prevention. Serves as a member and resource person to the Safety Committee. Cooperates with the Fire Chief and Training Officer in . establishing fire suppression pre-plan for all commercial and industrial buildings. performs other duties as delegated. E~PLES OF PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ***Conducts inspections in a businesslike and impartial manner. ***Recognizes potential fire hazards and follows through to see corrective action is taken. ***Communicates tactfully and effectively with property owners and contractors. ***Hakes periodic inspections in accordance with specified duties. ***Keeps informed of changes in regulatory codes and the interpretation of same. RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORK OF OTHERS None. : PAGE 2 OF 3 ~ o G o ~- MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE High school graduate. Training in fire service or closely related fields. A combination of four years in firefighting, either full-time, part-time, or volunteer, and/or in fire prevention and inspection activities. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES Considerable knowledge of principles, practices, methods, techniques, equipment, tools and sciences applied to fire prevention and investigation. Full knowledge of relevant City and state fire codes, and regulations in the area of fire prevention or investigation. Ability to do complex fire prevention and investigation work. Ability to establish and maintain effective working relations with others. Ability to express oneself clearly and concisely both orally and in writing. Considerable knowledge of the geography of the City and location of hydrants, buildings and special areas requiring special pre- fire control planning, inspection and firefighting techniques. Considerable:knowledge of first-aid and the uses of first aid : equipment. . Be physically able to perform the duties outlined. SALARY Salary is subject to adjustment after a probationary period based on performance review and as set forth in Andover Personnel Policies. PAGE 3 OF 3 1..._~.( I o Special City Council Meeting February 21, 1989 - Minutes Page One Mayor Elling: Why in the world do you want the job? Joyce Noyes: Well, I've been a firefighter for many years and it's always been interesting. Councilman Jacobson: Do you see this as something that really can't be handled the way we're doing it and we really need to do it this way? Joyce Noyes: It's not being handled, I don't feel. We don't have time to get all the buildings checked. Councilman Jacobson: You know who the other person is who is applying? Joyce Noyes: Yes. Councilman Jacobson: Why do you think, or what qualities, what do you possess that the other person doesn't that we would pick you? Joyce Noyes: I've been a firefighter longer and I feel I have ~he time to do it. Councilman Knight: I'm not real clear on the role. In terms of new construction, like commercial construction, does she work with Dave? Fire Chief Palmer: You bet. Councilman Knight: O.K. So they would both have to approve. Councilman Knight: Does anything you object to in terms of hours? Fire Chief Palmer: I don't think a definite wage has been quoted to anyone. ...the same as the Assistant Building Inspector but I don't know the dollar amount that was in there so it might be something that... Councilman Jacobson: $70,000 a year, I think. Mayor Elling: That's only the second year, Don, not the first year. That's after probation period. f Councilman Knight: It's $12 something. 0 Councilman Jacobson: $13,200 or $13,400. Councilman Knight: It's $12.00 something per hour, isn't it? .' ! o Special City Council Meeting February 21, 1989 - Minutes Page Two Mayor Elling: It's the same as Don Olson 'cause we figured that the Fire Marshal would know the same codes that the Building Inspector would have to. Fire Chief Palmer: It's not going to be less than $12 but it probably isn't going to be over $13. Mayor Ellin1: I see in the requirements that we have for the Fire Marsha , Joyce, that it requires 10 minutes driving time to City Hall and must reside. You do that? Joyce Noyes: I do. Mayor Elling: I know you. I don't know if I could ask you any question that would mean anything. Councilman Knight: You've got an impressive list of... Councilman Orttel: Have the hours been set when this person will work? Mayor Elling: That was the requirement of the job? Councilman Orttel: ...require working like four hours each day... Mayor Elling: What we agreed to is 20 hours a week maximum and that it had to be done during normal business hours. It's open _ whatever the need is there, I guess. Councilman Orttel: What would happen if this expanded to the full time position, Joyce, would you have any trouble in picking up hours, adding hours? Joyce Noyes: I work part-time now for Target, just part-time _ 16 hours one week and 24 the next so, this would fit in real nice. If it was full-time, then I'd just quit my other job. Councilman Knight: I assume you're going to set up a schedule that would be the same all the time so that contractors would know. Fire Chief Palmer: Of course, some bugs are going to have to be ironed out. o Mayor Elling: Part of the problem we've got right now is like daycare centers and stuff that have not been done for a long time... Fire Chief Palmer: No, daycares have been getting done. .. J o Special city Council Meeting February 21, 1989 - Minutes Page Three Mayor Elling: Have they? I heard there were some that were not. We're getting behind. Fire Chief Palmer: Yeah, there's some slack there but he's been following up pretty closely. MarOr Elling: We talked about last time, in the beginning of th1s thing, that they'd fully use 20 hours a week and then there was some concern as to whether we could keep somebody going 52 weeks a year. In the beginning,... \ Councilman Jacobson: Ask you one final question, did you... ...have to work a with a lot of contractors and I don't want to say this as a negative, but you're coming out as a gal and you're telling them what to do and how to do it - do you think you can handle some of these guys saying "Why do I have to listen to (her?". Now this is kind of just... Mayor Elling: Ask Roger. Councilman Jacobson: Do you think you can stand up to them and say "This i. it."? Joyce Noyes: I can just write it on a piece of paper if they don't do it and then they have to do it. Councilman Perry: I guess my only question would be, if we were interviewing the people that you have worked with on the Fire Department, how do you think they would respond? Maxor Elling: If you remember right, too, there was a vote an ... Mayor Elling: Is there anything you'd like to ask us, Joyce? Joyce Noyes: Well, I'd like to get the job defined. what would you expect really? Mayor Elling: Have you seen the job description and this function? Fire Chief Palmer: The one we read to them, there were modifieations done to it after that, so... Mayor Elling: Was it changed substantially from what the first draft came out? o Fire Chief Palmer: No, the wording is about all that got changed. J o o 4' Special City Council Meeting February 21, 1989 - Minutes Page Four Mayor Elling: It's pretty similar. Mayor Elling: I guess we'll interview Dave next and then we'll go to... Joyce Noyes: O.K. Mayor Elling: Thank you very much. I / ~eCial City I~~~embee 22. / v'age 2 Counc i I Meeti ng 1988 - Minutes (Peoposed 1989 Budget, Continued) Civil Defense: Me. Almgeen eecommended adding one OL two mOLe waening sieens, estimating a cost of $10,000 each. Council agLeed to inceease the budget amount by $10,000 to $36,285. Flee Protection: Chief Palmee stated most of the inceease Is in wages. The DNR is peedicting anotheL dey yeae, so the amount was based on last yeae's Lesponses. TheLe have been 244 calls so fae this yeaL compaLed to 178 total foe 1987. The inceease in the Relief Association is because they have had good Letentlon of the fiLeflghteLs. All othee items weee held in line with the peevlous budget. Chief Palmee stated there is a pLoblem with so many medicals occueing dueing the day. They aLe consideeing the possibility of having two people on duty dULing the day fOL a pay of $50 per day. It would mean an additional $24,000 to the budget. No Council action was taken on this item. Chief Palmee also eepoeted theLe is a big need for a 20-houe a week fiLe maeshal, estimating it would cost $14,000 plus benefits. That amount is not included in the budget. LateL In the meeting the Council set aside $17.000 foe this position. PLotectlve Inspection - ML. AlmgLen explained a poetion of the incLease is foe the puechase of anothee car, as the otheL Building Inspectoe is now using his own teuck. Most of the eemalning increase is foe wages, which also Leflects the addition of one-half of a seceetary which has been in the depaetment since last March. No action was taken by the Council. Streets and Hiahwavs - ML. Stone stated the budget allows fOL the purchase of a one-ton tLuck, the cost divided between StLeets and Highways and Snow and Ice Removal. HoweveL. $6.000 is still needed to puechase the teuck. Council geneeally ageeed to the pULchase of the teuck. allocating anothee $6.000 towaed it latee in the meeting. Paek and Recreation - Chaieman McMullen presented the peoposed paek expenditures for 1989 with the fol lowing corrections: Delete Items 7 and 8 feom the City Pack Complex (2 new hockey elnks and lights). Total Park Dedication for the City Pack Complex: $984.50; Total Expendituee. $8,950. The coeeected totals on the last page -- Total Dedication Money, $9,407.50; Total Capital Budget. $55,000; Total Carey Dvec 1988. $18,200; Total Expendituces. $82,607.50. Chaieman McMullen explained the eeason for the coreection Is there is not as much money in the dedication fund as they had thought. Me. Scheantz stated the budget includes the inceeased staff for O Community School just appcoved by the Council. No fucthee Council action was taken on this item. ~ 5 .~ .~ ~ \ -j - ::l , ] . ,j i~ .11 . ~ ~ ~ A " ~ . . Special City Council Meeting November 22, 1988 - Minutes Page 3 (Proposed 1989 Budget, Continued) Addition of Communitv Service Officer - Councilman Orttel felt there is a very serious problem in the City with the lack of nuisance abatement. In Coon Rapids a Community Service Officer is used for nuisance abatement and works with the Zoning Administrator, not the Police Department. He felt such a position would work well for Andover. It would be a part-time position, 3 to 4 hours a rlay, where a uniformed officer would ride through the City in a marked car and give citations for ordinance violations such as Illegal storage, junk cars, etc. There would also be little need for prosecution, as action would be taken under the ordinance passed to issue a citation granting 20 days to abate the problem or the City comes in to do it. Council discussed the pros and cons of such a position, generallY agreeing to add $12,000 to the budget for it, plu~$3,000 for Attorney's fees, thinking the result would be an increase in the number of prosecutions. Unallocated - After discussion on the amount proposed, it was generallY agreed the funding needed to correct the Police Protection fund ($8,000), to add one warning siren ($10,000), to fund a half-time fire marshal position ($17,000), to adequately fund the Public Works truck ($6,000), to fund a part-time CSO or prot~ctive investigative position ($12,000), and to increase funding for prosecutions ($3,000) could be taken from this fund, leaving a ba'lance of $21,300. Salaries - Mr. Schrantz explained the proposed budget reflects a 4 percent across-the-board increase for all employees. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that the bUdgeted 4 percent across-the-board salary increase be approved for 1989. DISCUSSION: It was noted the Planner will get an increase after his 6-month probationary period, after which the 4 percent increase would take effect. Because the Public Works employees wil I now be represented by the union, Council did not want to jeopardize those negotiations and agreed to take no action on those salaries at this time. ,Councilmen Elling and Orttel WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we approve a 4 percent cost of living adjustment increase for all City employees effective January 1, 1989, with the exception of employees currently under probation, and their 4 percent Increase will take effect after their probationary time has expired, and all those Public Works employees represented by the union contract because it Is the feeling of the Council that this item is a negotiating Item relating to the contract which has not yet been ratified. Motion carried unanimously.