Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JUNE 25, 2012 5 <br /> B. May 14, 2012 Regular City Council <br /> C. May 21, 2012 City Council Work Session <br /> MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Werner seconded a <br /> motion to approve the May 14, 2012, Special Council Work Session, the May <br /> 14, 2012 Regular City Council, and May 21, 2012, Work Session Meeting <br /> minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> 5. CONSENT CALENDAR <br /> A. Motion to Approve Consent Agenda Item- Claims and Payroll <br /> B. Motion to Accept 2011 Financial Statements and Audit Reports <br /> G. Motion to Approve Emerald Ash Baref Managefnei4 Plan App <br /> D. Motion to Adopt Trail Maintenance Guidelines <br /> E. Motion to Award Fahner Asphalt Sealers of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, the 2012 Trail <br /> Maintenance and Arden Oaks Drive Street Patching in the Total Amount of <br /> $35,333.26 <br /> F. Motion to Approve Planning Case 12-010 — CSM Site Plan Review at 4923 <br /> Lexington Avenue S <br /> G. Motion to Adopt Resolution 2012-020, Calling for a Public Hearing on July 30, <br /> 2012, for the Recovery of Costs Related to Animal Control Regulation Costs at <br /> 1415 Glenhill Road <br /> MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Tamble seconded a <br /> motion to approve the Consent Calendar as amended and to authorize <br /> execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried <br /> unanimously (5-0). <br /> 6. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS <br /> A. Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan Approval <br /> Public Works Director Maurer presented the Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan that was <br /> originally discussed at the May 21 Work Session. Michelle Olson is the author of the memo and <br /> it outlines staff s understanding of the changes or clarifications that were discussed at that <br /> meeting. <br /> Councilmember Tamble offered a suggestion in wording content found in number five of the <br /> memo. The memo states, "If EAB is discovered in a resident's tree, the City would mark it for <br /> removal and give 30 days. However, if the tree had not declined significantly, the resident may <br /> request to be given the opportunity to treat the tree versus removal." He does not see a need to <br /> mark it and remove it in 30 days if we are giving the option to treat and not remove. Perhaps the <br /> City can send notice to the resident/business and request documentation or find out what their <br /> plans are. <br />