Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> Arden Hills Council 3 February 22, 1993 <br /> Councilmember Aplikowski said that all the feedback she <br /> heard was positive and she hopes the event can take place <br /> again. <br /> Mayor sather thanked Buckley for his report. <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 93-13 REGARDING <br /> JOINT PUBLIC FACILITIES <br /> Administrator Person explained that proposed Resolution No. <br /> 93-13 has been drafted to represent Arden Hills' interest in <br /> sharing the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) <br /> property as a joint public facility with Ramsey County, the <br /> State of Minnesota and other public agencies. <br /> She added that Ramsey County will be attending a National <br /> Association of Counties Meeting within the next few days <br /> which County officials are planning to present to <br /> Congressional District Representatives a packet of <br /> information regarding this matter, including resolutions of <br />. support from interested parties. <br /> Mayor Sather stated he has been in contact with Ramsey <br /> County staff and learned that the information packet being <br /> compiled includes general information, resolutions of <br /> support, and collateral information which was discussed in <br /> joint meetings. He endorsed this effort and recommended <br /> adoption of Resolution 93-13. <br /> MOTION: Malone moved, seconded by Aplikowski, to adopt <br /> Resolution 93-13 Regarding Joint Public Facilities That <br /> Would Be Shared With the City of Arden Hills, Ramsey <br /> County, the State of Minnesota, and Other Public <br /> Agencies. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). <br /> Councilmember Probst asked if Resolution 93-13 makes <br /> reference to the description of the property. Administrator <br /> Person stated that property description is planned to be <br /> included in the information packet that Ramsey County will <br /> be presenting to the Congressional District Representatives. <br /> SECTION 125 PRE-TAX <br /> ~~DUCTIQN CORRECTION <br /> City Accountant Post reported that, during computer <br /> conversion, staff has discovered an erroneous payroll <br />. process has been used since 1989 in the treatment of PRE- <br /> pre-tax dependent health deduction. He explained that since <br /> 1989, payroll has been treating some dependent health <br /> deductions as if an approved "cafeteria (Section 125) plan" <br /> was in place, when in fact, such a plan was not approved. <br />