Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 03-25-2002 . . . ~ /f\I~~J-IILLS MEETIl'IG MINUTES (approved 4/8/U2) CITY OF ;\RDE~ HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002, 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereol; Mayor Dennis Probst called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7: 18 p.m. Present: Mayor Dennis Probst, Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski, David Grant, Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem. Absent: None. Also present V\iere City Administrator, Joe Lynch; City Accountant, Tenance Post; City Planner, Aaron Parrish; City Engineer, Grcg Brown, BRW; City Attorney, John Miller; and Recording Secretary, Kathlecn Altman. ADOPT AGENDA Councilmember Aplikowski added item G to the new business section to be a staff reorganization discussion. MOTlOl\: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to adopt the agenda for the \1arch 25, 2002, regular City Council meeting as amended. The motion carricd unanimously (5-0). APPROV AL OF MINUTES A. February 11,2002 Regular City Council Mecting B. March 11, 2002 Regular City Council Meeting C. March 11,2002 Special City Council Meeting Councilmcmher Rcm requested the following corrections/changes be made to the February 11, 2002 Regular Council Meeting: Page 2, under Consent Calendar, numbcr G, change SHE to SEH; Page 2, under Unfinished and l\ew Business A add in Mr. Matsen's first namc; Page 9, second paragraph last sentence under item D to rcad, "He noted one option for wal111ing house design would be .. ."; Pagc 14, add in who moved the adjournment and the time it was adjoumed. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mll\UTES MARCH 25, 2002 2 Councilmember Grant requested the following corrections/changes be made to the February 11, 2002 Regular Council Mecting: Page 3, under the NSY A Big Ten Supper Club Motion to add that Councilmember Aplikowski seconded thc motion; Page 5, third paragraph from the bottom should rcad, "He asked if there were some voltage point above which XceJ.. ."; Pagc 7, Slh paragraph, 41h sentcnce should read, "He noted it is frustrating to the Council since the rate payers are left to pay the bill"; Page 9, undcr the ~v1otion take out that the motion caJTied unanimously; Page 10, 5111 paragraph, should read "Councilmember Grant stated he was not sure he could supp0l1 anything morc than $50,000.00". On thc March 11,2002 Regular City Council -'vlceting 'vlinutes, Page 4, 6"h paragraph, second sentence, change a year-to-year to an annual. Mayor Probst requested thc following con'ections/changcs be made to the February 11, 2002 Regular Council Meeting. Page 4, I" paragraph, second sentence, should read, "He noted the linc would be paid for by residents of Arden Hills when the line services Shoreview. Hc added the line goes underground when i1 goes into Shoreview". MOTION: Counci1member Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve the February 11, 2002 Regular City Council -'vleeting as amended, March 11, 2002 Regular City Council Meeting as amended, and March 11, 2002 Special City Council Meeting as prescntcd. The motion canied unanimously (5-0). CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Payroll. MOTION: Councilmel1lber Larson moved and Councilmcmber Grant seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion can'ied unanimously (5-0). PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Probst invited those prescnt to comc fOlward and address the Council on any items not already on the agcnda. No public comments were made. UNFINISIIED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Case #02-02, 3159 Shorewood Drive, Setback Variance, Mindy Schulke Mr. PalTish reviewed bis memorandum (0 the City Council of -'vlarch 20, 2002. He stated the Planning Commission was recommending approval of the setback variance request as submitted. MOTIon Councilmcmbcr Grant moved and Councihnember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 1102-02, 3159 Shorewood Dri ve, Setback VariatlCe, -'vlindy Schulke, as submitted. The motion carricd unanimously (5-0). . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETI:\fG MINlJTES MARCH 25, 2002 " J B. Planning Case #02-01, Fel"llwood Water Tower, AT&T Wireless Special Use Pcrmit Amcndment Mr. PalTish reviewed his memorandum to the City Council of March 20, 2002. He stated the Planning Commission was recommending approval of the revised Special Use Permit. Mayor Probst asked where the antennas would be placed, and if they would match the other antcnnas on the tower. Mr. Pan-ish pointed out where the antennas would be placcd and indicatcd thcy would match the other antennas on the tower. Councilmember Lat'son asked if there would be a constant need to add new antennas as time went on. Dave Trost, Site Acquisition consultant representing ATT Wireless, 655 First Bank Drive, Illinois, replied this upgrade was for a sccond-generation wireless to a third-generation wireless using an existing structure. He stated he was not able to predict what thc future would bring with ncw developments in the wireless industry, but hc suspected if a new upgrade would come up, they would ask for another lease amcndment. He stated he did not see anything in thc immediate fLlture. Councilmcmber Larson asked if there was enough room on the tower to accommodatc future . antennas. Mr. Trost rcplicd that he believed there was enough room. . MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #02-01, Fcrnwood Water Tower, AT&T Wireless Special Use Pcrmit Amendment as submitted. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. AT&T Antenna Lease Mr. Post rcvicwcd his March 22, 2002 memorandum to Council and indicated staff was recommending the City Council authorize the City Administrator to exccute the First Amendment to the Water Tower Leasc Agrcement between AT&T Wireless and the City of Arden Hills. Mr. Lynch asked if number 2 on the Icase was subject to inflationary cost indexing. Mr. Post rcplied that was correct. Mayor Probst asked if the lease amounts wcrc market rate. Mr. Trost rcplied this was the typical lease pricing they wcre experiencing in this market. MOTION: Councilmember Gratlt moved and Councilmember Aplikowskj secondcd a motion to authorize the City Administrator to execute the First Amendment to the Water Towcr Lease Agreement between AT&T Wireless and the City of Ardcn Hil1s. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). . . . ARDEN IIlLLS CITY COUNCIL \1EETING MNUTES MARCH 25, 2002 4 D. Planning Commission Appointments Mayor Probst stated the three residents appointed to the Planning Commission were Ken Bezdicek, Brad Lcmberg, and Megan Ricke. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmcmber Larson seconded the appointments of the three recommcnded residents to the Planning Commission: The motion carried unanimously (5-0). E. 2002 Street Improvement Feasibility Stndy Mr. Lynch updated Council on the March 19, 2002 neighborhood information meeting regarding proposed 2002 strect improvements. Hc indicated staffs recommendation was for reconstruction oCthe Waldon Place and Hunter's Court cul-de-sac. Councilmember Rem statcd she was at that meeting and by the time the meeting had ended, there was a fair amount of discussion between residents and staff, and the rcsidents strongly requested the City do only a mill and overlay instead ofreconstruction at this time. Councilmembcr Larson statcd hc was also at that meeting and indicated the residents had requested overlay only, but he did not believe this was the right decision. He stated this was a project the City could handle this year and he did not believe we should invest thc amount of money to mill and overlay that strcct duc to the poor condition or the basc underneath it. He stated this would not be a wise decision on a part of tbe City. Hc stated he agreed that Benton Way would need to be reconstructed at some point in the futurc. Mayor Probst coneLllTed with Councilmembcr Larson that the Council had identified the street as needing reconstruction, and he did not believe it would be appropriate to expend the funds to do a mill and overlay. Councilmember Aplikowski asked what the CUHent condition of Benton Way was. City Engineer Greg Brown summarized what the condition of Benton Way was. He indicated there were other factors than what appears on the pavcmcnt of the street. He statcd it was hard for him to recommend reconstmcting Bcnton Way at this time. He stated he recommended if the City was not going to procccd with reconstruction of the cuI-de-sacs now, that they wait until they could reconstruct both the cul-de-sacs and Benton Way in the future. Councilmembcr Grant asked what the PC] rating was on Waldon Place and Hunters Court. The City Engineer replied 9 and 20, hut he was not sure which was which. Councilmember Grant asked if they could reduce the damage to Benton Way. The City Enginccr replied they could limit the truck traffic. Councilmcmber Grant inquired about the condition of the cuI-de-sacs. The City Engincer rcplied the cul-de-sacs had many patches, and it was recommended they be reconstructed. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MIl\LJTES :v!ARCH 25, 2002 5 . Councilmember Larson stated he believed thc City needed to do a better job with following up on seal coating after making improvements. He indicated some streets had not been seal coatcd. He also indicated thcy nceded to be sensitive to property owners on comcr lots due to assessment Issues. John Tholen, 1143 Waldon Placc, statcd he believed they should just overlay both of the cul-de- sacs. He indicated he did not believe they were in bad condition. He stated Benton Way should be seal coatcd if they were doing anything. He stated there were two cul-de-sacs with minimal housing, and they only had garbagc tmcks on the street. . Cliff Bujold, 1134 Hunters Court, stated in 1995 when the Council cntcrtaincd thc possibilities of doing street overlays of Benton Way thcre were rcsidcnts from Hunters Court and Waldon Placc who had asked for the streets to also be overlaid, but were denied. He stated the residents had not bccn heard. He indicated if the overlay had occulTed in 1995, they would not bc here today. He statcd he was concemed about damage to Bcnton Way if there were heavy trucks going over Benton Way to get to thc cul-dc-sacs. He stated there may be a lot of damage to Bcnton Way with the truck traffic. He stated he believed this City also necdcd to have an established strcct maintenance program. He indicated hc bclieved Council operated in a crisis management mode when it comes to street maintenance. He believed the overlay would allow thc resident's time until Benton Way needed to be reconstructed. He askcd that the City do the whole neighborhood at one time. He stated he belicved an overlay was best at this time, until the entire neighborhood could be reconstmcted. He urged Council to also seal-coat Benton Way at this time. Gary Drewa, 1141 Hunters Court, stated if a reconstruction of Waldon Place and H Lmtcrs COutt is done, the rcsidcnts would bc displaced for three months, and if they waited to do Benton Way at a future time, they would be displaced again because they could not reach their cul-de-sacs whcn Benton 'Nay was under reconstruction. Council member Grant asked for the estimate of the ovcrlay. The City Engineer replied it was about $40,000 - $50,000 combined, with 5195,000 for reconstruction, both including engineering and contractor costs. Councilmember Rem stated one of the resident's concerns at the public meeting was her family had just contracted to put an addition to their house this summer, wbich would lead to more traffic and if they had received morc noticc, they would have changed their plans. She stated the residents would appreciate more notice for proj ects such as these. The City Engineer stated the disturbance where therc was actual din and dust would bc 3-4 wceks. The rcsidents would not be displaced for three months. He stat cd thcre were certainly inconveniences, but the residents would always be able to gct to their driveways. . Councilmember Aplikowski asked if it was okay with the residents in attendance at tonight's meeting to essentially be assessed twice if they did thc overlay and then did the reconstmction at a future date. The residents in attendance at tonight's meeting stated thcy were in support of this approach. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 6 . Councilmember Grant askcd the rcsidcnts in attcndance at tonight's meeting if the remaining neighbors would also be in agreement with the cul-de-sacs being overlaid and not reconstructed with the possibility of assessed for two projects. The rcsidcnts in attendance at this meeting stated they believed all of the residcnts werc in agreement that they wanted the cul-de-sacs overlaid at this point in time. Mayor Probst stated his concern was that the City's practice was that they assessed for half ofthe streets to the residents benefiting from the streets, and the other hal f came out of the General Fund which all residents contributed to, and if they only did overlay now and reconstruction at a future date, that would lead to morc expcnse to the taxpayers. He stated these cul-de-sacs came in very low on the PCI, and he believed it was time to do the reconstruction improvement. Mr. Drewa stated for fiftecn years the City had ignored their cul-de-sacs and when they askcd for an overlay in 1995, the Council refused. He indicated the City had not maintaincd the streets. Councill1lember Larson stated it was not logical that there would be two assessments for this proj ect - one for an overlay now and one for a reconstruction in the future. He stated he did not believe the City should spend the money for an ovcrlay and then, in a relatively short period of time, have to tear up thc cul-de-sacs for the reconstruction. He agreed with thc arguments the residents had, and he wished the City would have maintained the streets better, but the issue . tonight was that the streets needed to be repaired, and what made the most financial sense. Couneilmember Grant asked how long the streets would last with full reconstruction. The City Engineer replied a full reconstruction should last approximately 40 years, with somc overlays during that period of time. Councilmember Grant asked how long the streets would last with an overlay. The City Engineer replied atl average of six years. Councilmember Grant statcd the Council was essentia]]y looking at a combined annual cost difference of $1,500 more by doing the reconstruction. The City Engineer rcplied that the feasibility study was not done yet, but he fully expected there would nothing left of the bituminous once a mi]]ing machinc wcnt over it. He stated the cuI-de-sacs were a]] patched right now. Hc statcd he belicved the issues were structural problems below the surface. . Mr. Bujold stated, in terms ofthc amount of the materia] that would need to be removed iCtotal reconstruction were donc, they were not talking about a street that had a lot of traffic. He indicated he did not believe they needed to haul in a lot of sand. He stated, in tenns of the patch- work donc on thc two cul-de-sacs, he had contacted the strcct department to fi]] the potholes. lIe expressed frustration that the City did not do regular maintenance on thc streets. He staled he was surprised last spring that there was so much patching done. He did not believe the amount to be excessive. lIe indicated if the total reconstmction was delayed, the rcsidents could stm1 to plan for that expense. He statcd this was too short of a noticc for a total reconstruction. He requested Council give the residents a one-year noticc, which is in the street maintcnance policy. ARDEN HILLS ClTY COUNCIL MEETING MIl\UTES MARCH 25, 2002 7 . Councilmember Aplikowski asked how they felt about waiting until Benton Way needed to be reconstructed. She asked if they could they live on their streets as is with no improvements. Mr. Bujold stated one of his concerns about doing nothing was not having any commitment by Council. He indicated there may not be money to do a fulJ reconstruction on the cul-de-sacs in the future, or there may be different priorities down the road by a future Council that diffcrcd with what Council's priorities were today, and then the cul-de-sacs may not be done. He stated somcthing needed to happen sooner than waiting for the Benton Way rcconstruction. Mr. Drewa stated as long as their street was patched as needed, he belicved the residents could wait thrce to five years. He indicated he had lived in his homc for 25 years and nothing had been done by the City to maintain the strcet. Councilmember Rem stated the staffs recommendation was for a feasibility report being preparcd and she stated they were stuck on not knowing on the condition of the roads. She agreed the Engineer should do a feasibility study, but she also wanted an overlay evaluation. She indicated once they received that information, they would be better infonned as to what really necdcd to be done at this time. Councilmember Aplikowski asked when the feasibility study would be done. The City Engineer . replied they should have the study done within tbe next two weeks, or a month at the longest. Councilmember Grant asked for the cost of the feasibility study. The City Engineer replied $2,500 for the boring tests and approximately $4000-$5000 for the report. MOTION: Councilmember Rem moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to authorize a Strcct Improvement Feasibility Study for mill and overlay or for completc reconstruction of Waldon Place and Hunters Court with for an evaluation of Benton Way. 'v!otion carried 3-2 (Probst and Larson). Councilmembcr Larson stated number three should be removed from the recommendations. He stated Benton Way would not be reconstructed this year. MOTION: Councilmcmber Larson moved for authorizing options 1 and 2. Motion failed for a lack of a second. Mayor Probst stated he understood what Councilmembcr Rem was trying to do, but he did not believe Benton Way should be included because notice had not been scnt to the residents. Councilmember Aplikowski stated having the information on Benton Way was crucial for a decision, and the study was only a tool for them to determine where they were going with this recommendation. . Councilmember Larson stated it made sense for thc Council to do a feasibility study for options one and two because Benton Way would not be reconstructed. . . . ARDE0J HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETll\G MINUTES \1ARCH 25, 2002 8 \10TION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a friendly amendmcnt to number three stating "a completc cvaluation on the condition of Benton way as it related to Waldon Place and Hunters Court". Councilmember Rem accepted Councilmember Grant's friendly amendment. Amendment carricd 3-2 (Probst and Larson). \1ayor Probst rcqucsted conespondence be sent to residents along Benton Way as to why borings wcrc going to be done. Councilmembcr Larson stated this was not a neighborhood project; these were t\VO small cul-de- sacs and while it was thc intcntion of giving a year's notice for large projects, he did not scc this as a large project. He stated he did not scc that any information obtaincd about Benton Way in the feasibility report would influence what the decision was for Waldon Place and Hunters Court. Councilmember Grant asked the City Engineer how long Benton Way would last before reconstruction was recommended. The City Engineer replied 3-8 years. Councilmember Grant stated if it was thrcc ycars and the residents were willing to wait, and then nothing should be done at this time, but if it was eight years, then this needed to be looked at. Councilmember Rem stated it was the City's policy to givc a year notice, and this was not done in this case. She stated these residents wcre given too short of a notice. Councilmember Larson pointed OLlt iC they did not do Waldon Place and Hunters Court at this time, this would push off other neighborhood projects also. He expressed lrustration that the Council could not make decisions and stick with them. Mayor Probst statcd hc supported the feasibility study, but was not gomg to support the amendment. Councilmembcr Aplikowski stat cd this was different in some ways because thcy had 100 percent resident concel11 regarding the reconstruction. She stated the Council was committed to doing something this year and she did not believe a couple of borings on Benton Way would throw the ncighborhood into chaos. Mayor Probst stated only three of the sixteen residents were in attendance at tonight's meeting, and he would want additional resident's opinions before hc would assume all of the residents had agreed to a double project/asscssmcnt plan. Councilmcmber Larson stated it was thcir job to listen to the residents and then makc the best decision for the City. He stated they should be looking at option numbcrs one and two. Councilmember Grant asked if boring sal1lples on Benton Way werc takcn, would that give them furthcr infol11ution if Benton Way wOllld stand up to rcconstruction of the cul-de-sacs. Thc City Engineer statcd thcy would bc able to determine what was below the surfacc arca, and if Benton . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 9 Way was in as poor shape as they wcre assuming it was, they would be able to make a better determination as to what might happen to Benton Way and its life expectancy. Councilmember Grant indicated this vvould be a useful piece of information. F. Authorization to contract for architectural services Mr. Post rcvicwed his memorandum to Council regarding architectural scrviccs. Councilmember Grant reviewed what the Task Force recommended. Councilmember Aplikowski asked if they were looking at other options on shared facilities at this point. Councilmember Grant replied the Task Force felt they should also look at other options available. He stated if there were some other options, thc Task Force wanted to make sure they looked at all of thosc. Mayor Probst asked i r the Task Force was looking at options on this site only, or where there broader discussions. Councilmcmbcr Grant replicd thcy were looking at a number of di rferent sites. He stated if Council wanted the Task Force to only look at the County facility, thc Council could direct them do to that, but he believed the Task Force shOldd look at all options. Councilmember Larson stated hc believed thcy had already resolved this, and had dccided they would only look at the County facility, and that was the reason it was bcing refelTed to as a joint facility. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she understood the Task Forcc was designed to look at the space needs. She stated she would rather see the aJtemativcs in the possible design of a building on the Ramsey county sileo Councilmember Rem agreed they were supposed to look at thc Ramsey County site, and while it would be nice to consider other options, that was not what Council had agreed to. Councilmembcr Grant indicatcd he would bring this back to the Task Force. Mayor Probst stated as long as it related to the site, they could look at all options for the site. He stated they nccded to look for the most cost effective way to get a maintenance facility on that site. Councilmember Aplikowski stated there were very few places where they could put a maintenance facility in Arden Hills. Councilmember Grant clarified there was no othcr option the Task Force should consider other than the County site. Mayor Probst stated the Council wanted options for that location only. Councilmember Grant stated he did not believe there had ever been a Motion made by Council rcgarding this. y!ayor Probst stat cd thcrc may not have been a Motion, but evelY Council had attempted to movc this forward at that location. He indicated there had been a number of discussions over the years and Council had never wavcred as far as the location. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MIKLTES \,1ARCH 25, 2002 10 Mr. Post stated the Task Force was concenled about the environmental issucs on the site, and that might be why they were looking at other options. Councilmember Aplikowski stated it was her understanding that thc Task Force would come up with a dcsign of the building. She indicated she was worried that the City would not be ahle to keep up with thc County's fast planning proccss. Councilmcmber Grant stated he would info!111 the Task Force of Council's decision. MOTTO1'\: Councilmember Grant moved atld Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to authori/.e the contract for architectural planning services in an amount not to cxcecd $4,000.00 in linc with rccommendation one of the staff memorandum dated March 22, 2000, and to negotiate with Ramsey County and TKDA on services for economies of scale with a joint facility. The motion canied unanimously (5-0). G. Staff Reorganization Councilmember Aplikowski stated a year ago they had authorized the City to move forward with a staff reorganization plan. She indicated after much discussion and reevaluation, shc was not comfortable with the plan. She stated one part of the motion was to hire additional support staff, which had been done, and was a good thing to do. However, the remaindcr of the motion was for job descriptions to be prepared, which had also been done, but once she read the job descriptions, she was conccnlcd the new structure was top heavy. She stated it did not provide a team- building work atmosphere. She indicated she was not comf0l1able with this. .\10TION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to reconsider the vote previously takcn to restructure staff. Motion caITied 3-2 (Probst and Larson). Councilmember Rem stated she agreed with Councilmember Aplikowski and after reading the job descriptions, she would still vote no both lor budget and personnel reasons. She indicated she did not believe this was wherc thc City should be going with the staff. She stated she would not be able to accept those items. Councilmcmber Larson statcd this was another example of how that the Council could not make decisions and stick with them. He indicated he did not see how thesc descriptions were inadequate. He asked for reasons as to why they should not go forward to fill the Director of Administrativc Scrvices and Director of Operations and Maintenance positions. Councilmcmbcr Aplikowski stated the motion might have been not to accept the job descriptions. She stated it appeared to hcr that it moved the City Administrator farther away from the employees. She indicated for a City this si7.e, this added too much top-heavy hierarchy. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 11 . Mayor Probst expressed concern about reconsidering this because it had been previously authorized and the staff had worked hard on this restructuring. Hc asked for further clarification what Councilmember's Aplikowski concerns were. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she was uncomfortable with the structurc format, and it was too top heavy, which would separate the City Administrator from the employees. Councilmember Rem asked for a budgetary breakdown as to what thesc two Directors positions would cost. She indicatcd shc had not becn convinced that the new structure would work. Councilmcmber Rem indicated that Mr. Moore has had his hands too full, and she believed both of his positions wcrc morc than two part-time positions and should not be one full-time position. She agreed if this new structure was accepted, the City would be too top heavy in managcmcnt. Councilmember Grant stated if they were going to talk about specific positions, they should do this in a closed session. He indicated this reorganization would providc an extra layer of managcmcnt, which was an expense to the City. . Councilmember Larson stated he believed the City Administrator had prcviously provided a cost breakdown of what the expense for these new positions would be, and he believed the City had been functioning as it should be. He stated the Council had previously approved this and he did not believe they shOltld reconsider it. Mayor Probst stated he still supported what had been dccided last year and encouraged Council to stay with their original decision. Councilmember Aplikowski stated her biggest concern was that the City Administrator was separating himself from the rest of the employees. She inquired as to why this was the best way to proceed. Mr. Lyllch replied a lot of discussion had previously gone into this proposal, and that all of the staff had becn consulted with. He indicated this was what staff had agreed to at that time. He stated he would not isolate himself from the rest of staff. He indicated this was not his management style. He stated the rcason for thc two positions was for a greater sense of "team" and to havc two people manage those two areas. He stated all cmployees would meet regltJarly and would know what was going on. It would be up to staff to decide how to schedulc the workload. He stated this would create more of a sense of "team", rather than less. He stated he was listening to the stan; and he did not believe it was fair to do elcvcnth hour reconsideration. He stated his original intcnt was organization by function and management by people who werc available, including him, and to proceed with the dedication of long-range plans for the City. He noted this would undo work that had taken place to date, including union and staff work. Hc indicated staff had made a commitment to the structure and this would undo that commitment. . Councilmember Aplikov\iski stated they were not undoing anything at this time. She indicated they had in the past brought in a pcrson to do economic development and things did not get done. She stated she wanted to take another look at this. She indicated this \vas not the only way to do the rcstructuring. She stated it would have bcen nice if Council had the opportunity to talk about this and had heard from staff. She stated if the rest of thc Council felt the reorganization was the . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETI1\G MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 12 way to go, she would go along with it. Shc indicated she still believed the City Administrator would be separated from the rest of the staff. She stated she had not come to this decision casily. She stat cd this was not the way she wanted the City to look. Councilmcmber Aplikowski stated her issue was \vith the job descriptions. Councilmember Rem statcd thcy nccdcd to have morc discussion. Councilmcmber Larson stated if this was an issue about the job descriptions, why didn't Conncil discuss the job dcscriptions, and not reconsider the prcviously approved structure. Councilmcmber Rem stated she believed Council should hcar from more of the staff, other than the City Administrator, as to what they wanted the City structnre to be. MOTlOK: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmcmber Aplikowski seconded a motion to extcnd the Arden Hills City Council meeting to 10:30 p.m. Motion carricd unanimously. (5-0) Mayor Probst statcd it was thc Council's responsibility to lead the City, and thcy had the responsibility to support the City Administrator when they had instructcd him to do something. He expressed frustration that the Council was unable to reach a decision and stick with it. He stated he did not see the logic for backtracking. Hc indicated he not believe any employcr would consult thc cntire staff as to how managcmcnt should be structured. Councilmember Grant recommended they take this issue to a worksession. Mayor Probst asked for direction as to what Council was looking for in order to have a worksession discussion. Councilmember Grant stated he wanted to see other altcrnatives to restructuring. Hc suggested the combining of Parks with Public Works was a good idea. He stated hc was not in favor of a taJl and nalTOW structure; but a taJl and wide structure. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she wanted to see a budget analysis. She stated these positions had not been posted yet, and shc did not feel that fifteen days would make much of a diffcrence. Councilmember Larson stated he thought it was unfair to the Administrator to ask him to come up with other altematives, whcn this was the altemative they had agreed to. He stated if the City Administrator did not agree with an altemative, it would be counterproductive. He statcd they needed the City Administrator's support of a structure. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she had not seen any other altematives and she wanted other ideas to be prescntcd. Councilmembcr Rcm also requested a budget breakdown. She stated with respect to the job descriptions; she was not convinced that the structure they had was working. She stated team building nccdcd to get donc by the staff. She asked why thcy needed two new people, and what . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETlNG Mlt\UTES MARCH 25, 2002 13 the actual cost would be to add these two new people. Mayor Probst replied they had looked at the cost previously and this had been budgeted for in the 2002 budget. Councilmember Aplikowski requested they take another look at this, and indicated she would agree to mcet with the City Administrator about her concerns. Mayor Probst requested the City Council members discuss their issues with the City Administrator, and that this issue would be further discussed at the April 15, 2001 worksession. ADMINISTRATOR CO~lMENTS There \vere no Administrator comments. COUNCIL COM~IENTS Councilmember Grant stated the Maintenance Facility Task Force would be meeting tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. Councilmcmber Larson stated the Parks, Trails and Rccreation meeting would also be tomorrow evenmg. Councilmcmbcr Rem stated the Newsletter Committee would be meeting on Wednesday. Mayor Probst stated they were trying to arrange a meeting this Thursday with Senator Dayton's oCfice. He stated he had reccivcd a call from Alliant Tech rcgarding what they wcre doing at TCAAP, and they might have some issues they would bc bringing to Council. He stated they had offered a tour of their facility to Council, and the City Administrator would arrange a time. Mayor Probst statcd thcy would adjourn the meeting to go into a special session to discuss the City Administrator's evaluation. Mr. Lyo1ch replied after consultation with the City Attorney, he requested his evaluation be an open session. Thc City Attomcy rcad from the State Statutes as to what type of meetings could bc closed. Mayor Probst asked Council if they wanted to discuss thc City Administrator's performance cvaluation now or at a futnre meeting. Mr. Lynch replied it was his option if he wanted this discussed in an open or a closed session. Councilmember Larson stated he would likc to discuss this now. Councilmember Aplikowski requested a livc-minute recess. . Mayor Probst recessed the meeting at 10:24 p.m. and reconvened the mceting at 10:30 p.m. MOTlON: Councilmember Larson movcd and Councilmembcr Aplikowski seconded a motion cxtcnd the meeting to 11 :00 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).