CC 08-30-1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Arden Hills Council August 30, 1993 8 opined that limiting approvals to non-profit organizations is not possibl e due to conunerce concerns, but the City may require proof of a County Auditor's permit (which includes the posting of a bond) as part of the approval process. Council briefly discussed how the City can advise residents of their rights with regard to door-to-door solicitation. staff was directed to investigate and report back to the Council suggestions for informing residents as to their rights and reconunendations for appropriate Ordinance amendments to address this matter. MOTION: Hicks moved, seconded by Aplikowski, to make the approval of door-to-door solicitation by Asphalt Driveway Company (approved earlier during Consent Calendar) subject to the condition that the applicant provide proof of a County Auditor's permit. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). ARDEN PLACE DRAINAGE Warren McGuire, l553 Arden Place, stated that as of september l5, 1993, he and his family are moving out of state and he was in attendance to answer any questions the Council may have regarding drainage problems affecting his property. Public Works Superintendent Winkel conunented that a public hearing regarding the matter of Arden Hills drainage has been tentati vel y set f or the first regul ar October Counci 1 meeting. Administrator Person advised that proper protocol requires review of plans and specifications prior to ordering a hearing and proper advanced notice of the hearing. No changes to tentative public hearing dates were made. ~MPLOYEE REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT Administrator Person reported that employees have requested that employees who are charged by the IRS an additional interest based on the Arden Hills 1991 - 1993 Section l25 plan be reimbursed. She conunented that employees realize they had use of the funds for one to three years, however, they believe they would not be subject to the interest charge if they had not been involved in the employer-provided section l25 Plan. Person noted that, to date, the cost to the City in correcting the problems caused by the erroneous Section l25 plan total $4,025 ($l,250 for tax preparation fee reimbursement, $2,775 for employee FICA, and $2,775 for employer FICA).