Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 01-08-2001 . . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2001 7:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Dennis Probst called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:31 p.m. Present: Mayor Dennis Probst, Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski, David Grant, Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem. Absent: None. Also present were City Administrator, Joe Lynch; Public Works Director, Dwayne Stafford; City Accountant, Terrance Post; Planner, Jennifer Chaput; Parks and Recreation Director, Thomas Moore; City Engineer, Greg Brown, BRW; and Recording Secretary, Kathleen Altman. ADOPT AGENDA MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to adopt the agenda for the January 8, 2001, regular City Council meeting. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Payroll B. Res. #01-05,2001 Fee Schedule MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Probst invited those present to come forward and address the Council on any items not already on the agenda. Elizabeth Garski, 1795 Lake Valentine Road, expressed concern regarding the lighting at Mounds View High School remaining on until 12:00 midnight each night. She stated she had spoken with the school, but could not come to an agreement regarding lighting. Ms. Garski stated she spoke with Jan Witthuhn, I.S.D. No. 621 Superintendent, who indicated she was surprised the lighting was still on at that hour. Ms. Garski stated that Ms. Witthuhn indicated she would contact the appropriate parties regarding this. Ms. Garski asked this issue be put on record - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 2 considering the school was not following the special use permit. Ms. Garski asked for . suggestions from Council as to what she should do next. Mayor Probst stated they have had further conversations with staff, and unfortunately staff was not in a position to do a lot about it at this time, but they were aware of the problem. He asked if this was a 7- day a week occurrence. Ms. Garski replied this was an every night occurrence, and the lights do stay on until midnight even though the events get over with at 10:00 p.m. or 10:30 p.m. and there is nobody around the school. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she parked in front of Ms. Garski's home to see what the effect would be, but it was difficult sitting in the car. Ms. Garski responded the way her property was graded, the lighting was above her home and, therefore, would light up the whole house. Councilmember Aplikowski suggested the school use a yellow light instead of a bright white light. Ms. Garski replied she had asked a different color of light on several occasions, but she never received any response from the school. . Mayor Probst stated the lights could not simply be changed because they have different ballast. Mr. Lynch stated the lights would eventually be changed out, but this would not be done until the end of the school renovation. He stated that Julie Wikelius, Mounds View High School Principal, Rocenius (?sp), had indicated the school district would be willing to pay for landscaping or window treatments if that would help with this problem. The school district had also discussed motion detection lights. Mr. Lynch stated the lights were controlled until 11 :30 p.m. and the controls would not be brought inside again, until the renovation was done. Ms. Garski indicated she did not object to the lights being on when there was an activity taking place, but did not understand why the lights could not be turned off earlier than midnight. Mr. Lynch responded the school had informed him the light box controls were difficult to get at. Councilmember Larson stated he was surprised by the reaction of the school district. He stated he had not heard the school district say they would move the controls inside. Mr. Lynch replied the school district had recently indicated the lights would be moved inside once renovation was completed. Councilmember Larson stated he could not understand why the school district could not run a line inside the building to run the controls. He indicated the school district had not been very responsive, and needed to be a good neighbor. He stated the City had a right to ask for some consideration regarding this issue. Ms. Garski stated that was why she had come to the Council again. She stated she was frustrated that nothing had been done. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS . A. City Logo Presentation, Derek Hames . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 3 Derek Hames explained he volunteered his services in developing a new logo for the City. He presented the proposed new logo for the City and explained that through a series of work sessions they had come up with a tree and trail image that captured what the City was all about. The logo would have an updated look. He presented the layout of the logo and applications it could be used for. Mayor Probst indicated it was time for the City to have a new image and was using the opportunity of the 50th Anniversary of the City as a good time to incorporate the new logo. He believed they had come up with a good logo for now and into the future. Councilmember Aplikowski indicated she liked the green border around the pages. Mr. Hames explained that was done for the presentation purposes only. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve new City logo and to commend the work of Mr. Hames. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). A. Planning Cases 1. Case #00-37, Thomas Whittles, 1867 Glen Paul Avenue, Front Yard Variance Ms. Chaput explained applicant was requesting a front yard setback variance for a kitchen addition at 1867 Glen Paul Avenue, zoned R-2. In September, 2000, Mr. Whittles prepared a building permit application. This application was incomplete because the applicant did not address the five hardship criteria. Mr. Whittles subsequently submitted an additional letter addressing the five hardship criteria. Currently, the central front portion ofMr. Whittles' home was situated 35.5 feet from the front yard setback. It was currently non-conforming because it did not meet the front yard setback requirement. The remainder of the home was 39.5 feet from the front yard setback. Mr. Whittles' wished to build an addition onto his home from the 39.5 feet to be in line with the portion that was 35.5 feet from the property line. The front yard setback for the B-2 zoning district was 40 feet. Therefore, he required a front yard setback variance. The application was completed in November, 2000. Ms. Chaput stated Mr. Whittles installed the foundation for this project already, without a building permit. Plus, the foundation was not installed to meet frost requirements and, if the variance was granted, this will have to be re-done. Ms. Chaput explained in order to grant a variance, a hardship must be identified. Applicant had responded to the hardship criteria in a letter. For this application for a front yard setback variance, staff made the following findings: 1. Whether the circumstances for which the variance is requested are unique to the property. Ms. Chaput indicated the properties along Glen Paul Avenue were generally between thirty-five and forty feet from the front yard setback. The current Code required that the homes be placed forty feet from the front property line. There were no plans to amend the language of the Ordinance, nor does the comprehensive ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 4 . . plan forecast any future changes to this area. The location of the home, terrain or shape of the property was no different than its neighboring properties. Therefore, this request did not possess any unique circumstances. 2. Whether granting the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Code. Ms. Chaput explained the zoning ordinance was to".. . fix reasonable standards to which building, structures and land shall conform for the benefit of all". The zoning ordinance also stated that a variance should only be granted if the configuration of the property prohibits reasonable development that may be permitted on a similar sized lot within the same district. This lot was no different from other lots in the district. There was no physical feature of this property that was prohibiting development so that it needed to occur within the setbacks. Any reasonable development that could be constructed on any lot in the district could also be duplicated on this lot according to the standards that have been set. Therefore, granting a variance for this application would not meet the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. 3. Whether the property in question can be put to a reasonable use without granting a variance. Ms. Chaput explained a single family home was currently constructed on the property. Therefore, the property in question had already been put to reasonable use. The applicant was proposing to add on to the front of his because of the interior layout and location ofthe kitchen. However, it was possible to reconfigure the addition in some manner to avoid requiring a variance from the Ordinance. It could not be said that without this variance, the property could not be put to a reasonable use. 4. Whether the hardship was created by the property owner. Ms. Chaput stated although the shape of the lot and position ofthe house was not the fault of the current owner, the owner was proposing the addition within the setback area, creating the need for the variance. This could be avoided by reconfiguring the addition so that it was not within the required setback area. The need for this variance was being created by the property owner. 5. Whether granting the variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Ms. Chaput stated the current structure was situated at 35.5 feet from the front yard line. Therefore, to expand the home by four feet to match this setback would not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood. However, it should be noted that the structure was currently nonconforming by building placement and, by Ordinance, nonconforming structures should not be expanded. If this was not the intent of the City, then the Ordinance should be amended. Ms. Chaput stated staff recommended denial of this variance for the following reasons: . 1. The circumstances of the request were not unique to this property in the Glen Paul Avenue area or the R-2 zoning district; ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 5 2. By not meeting the provisions of the ordinance, the application does not meet the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Code; . 3. The property can be put to a reasonable use without this variance and the proposal could be reconfigured outside of the setback area; and 4. The hardship is being created by the property owner by proposing an addition within the setback area. Ms. Chaput stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance for the following reasons: 1. The hardship was not created by the property owner since the home existed before the Ordinance was adopted; and 2. The granting of the variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood; and 3. The property could not be put to a reasonable use without allowing for the addition of the kitchen in its proposed location due to the location of the kitchen within the structure; and 4. The variance proposal meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. . Mayor Probst asked if the front face of the addition was farther out than the house. Ms. Chaput replied no, it would not go farther than the porch. Mayor Probst asked in terms of the remainder of the neighborhood, if this type of a request was a common occurrence. Ms. Chaput replied it was not uncommon. Councilmember Grant asked ifltem No.3 made reference to the location of the kitchen within the structure. He asked for explanation of that reference. Ms. Chaput stated everything she had for this application had been submitted to Council. Councilmember Grant asked the applicant where his kitchen was located in the home. Mr. Whittles indicated where the kitchen was located on the diagram. He also stated there was one no vote at the Planning Commission, and it was suggested that he move his kitchen to the back of the house. Councilmember Grant asked if this addition would enlarge Mr. Whittles' kitchen. Mr. Whittles replied it would. . Councilmember Grant read Item No.3 and asked ifMr. Whittles if the kitchen was in need of expansion. Mr. Whittles replied the kitchen was very small and needed enlarging. He indicated the end of the neighborhood where his home was was built in the 1940's and the home is very small. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 6 Councilmember Aplikowski commented she was prepared to follow the Planning Commission's recommendations, however, the staff recommendation stated it did not meet with the spirit of the Ordinance. She requested this be looked at by staff because Council cannot consider requests such as these both ways. Mr. Whittles replied the house was built in the 1940's, before the City even existed, and commented he could not go anywhere else with an addition. Councilmember Aplikowski replied she understood his situation, but the Council would need to look at the Ordinance so citizens in Mr. Whittles' position do not have to go through all of the problems Mr. Whittles encountered. Mayor Probst stated this area was not built to the same standards as they would build today and given the state of the Ordinance as it existed now, this was the process and he understood that staff needed to follow the Ordinance. He stated he was prepared to support this application because the facts supported it. Councilmember Larson stated this situation was the same as the lots around the lakes with the small and unusual shaped lots not fitting the Ordinances very well. He stated he believed this situation was unique because there was a portion of the house that already sat in the setback. He stated staff was doing the right thing with their recommendation and believed this also needed to be looked at. He stated his support of his application. He indicated the City needed to support homeowners who were trying to improve their property. Mr. Whittles indicated the foundation was part of the house and was not added. Councilmember Rem indicated she agreed with this application and also agreed that the Ordinance needed to be looked at to come up with guidelines that worked with the citizens rather than putting homeowners through this type of a process. Mr. Whittles indicated he was unhappy with the Planning Commission because only one person took the time to look at his property and the other properties in the neighborhood. He indicated he was very angry nobody took the time to deal with this. He stated the one no vote on the Planning Commission was from a member who did not even look at the area or his home. Mayor Probst indicated he understood Mr. Whittles' frustration with the process in general, but indicated Mr. Whittles' did receive professional opinions and treatment. Councilmember Grant indicated Item No.3 was important to him, and he supported the Planning Commission's recommendation given the set up of the house, and the fact that the addition would not extend past the existing structure in addition to the home being built prior to the City's Ordinances being in effect and, therefore, this did present a hardship to the applicant. Councilmember Larson stated the Planning Commission voted for Mr. Whittles' request. Mr. Whittles replied he realized that, but he would have been very angry if things had not gone his way. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 7 MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #00-37, Thomas Whittles, 1867 Glen Paul Avenue, Front Yard Variance. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). . 2. Case #00-40, Manufacturer's Services, 4300 Round Lake Road, Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment Ms. Chaput explained the applicant was requesting to amend the Planned Unit Development for 4300 West Round Lake Road for expansion of a trash compactor from an eight-yard compactor to a forty-yard compactor. Ms. Chaput stated applicant's business had grown significantly in staff size and business volume, requiring the need for an expansion to their compactor. The expanded forty-yard compactor would allow the business to operate more efficiently with a more cost-effective way of disposing of solid waste. . Ms. Chaput stated the Zoning Ordnance required that, "Screening shall also be provided where mechanical operating equipment is located on the ground or on the roof of the premises.. . constructed and located to present direct view of the equipment". Screening types may be a fence, wall or landscaping area. It was the property owner's responsibility to provide screening, as required. Currently, the eight-yard trash compactor was not screened. It was situated outside a large screened area, holding liquid nitrogen tanks. The compactor was not currently enclosed because it was pulled five days a week for servicing and could not be accessed from within an enclosure. Also, it was not visible from the road since it was screened by the adjacent enclosure. Since the proposed compactor was significantly larger than the existing compactor, the applicant had proposed a screening fence that juts out from the enclosure to solely screen the compactor from the road. This would be on one side of the screening, not an enclosure. The applicant proposed that it match the materials and height of the existing screening that was currently beside the compactor and extend for the length of the compactor surpasses the enclosure. The proposed forty-yard compactor was an overall length of26' plus the doghouse, which was an additional 5 feet. Ms. Chaput stated the Planning Commission recommended approval for the expansion of the trash compactor from eight-yard to forty-yards with the following conditions: 1. Construct a screening fence in the location shown on the applicant's plan of the same materials, opacity and height of the existing screened enclosure to the west of the existing compactor, screening liquid nitrogen tanks; and 2. Application for a building permit must be made with the Building Inspector; and 3. The compactor may be installed immediately on the condition that the screening will be in place by no later than June 1, 2001. . Ms. Chaput indicated while reviewing this case, the Planning Commission expressed some dissatisfaction with an existing dumpster on the property. She stated staff would contact United Properties to discuss the issue of dumpster screening for this location as well as the buildings along Gateway Boulevard. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 8 Mayor Probst asked Ms. Chaput to point out the location of the compactor in relation to the dumpster. Ms. Chaput indicated the area Mayor Probst was inquiring about. Ms. Chaput stated the applicant was present if Council had any questions. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she understood the business had grown a lot, but was concerned that the Council kept reviewing this issue about the garbage and trash compactor. She asked what could be done about this. Ms. Chaput replied maybe the whole area needed to be screened in. Mayor Probst stated the original applicant was no longer the owner of the property. He made a request of applicant that they deal with these issues more comprehensively. He stated the Council had a variety of requests for the same issues and Council did not like these issues coming to them in bits and pieces instead of on a comprehensive basis. Sue Compton, Manufacturing Services, stated they did look at the whole issue before they moved into the building. She indicated at the time they moved into the building, they had 350 employees, they now had over 600 employees. She stated part of the problem was petroleum waste and that took up a large portion of the waste. She indicated they used to have a 40-yard compactor before they moved into this facility, and stated she did not think it would be this soon that they would grow out of the current compactor. Mayor Probst indicated he did not have an issue with Manufacturing Services, but did have a problem with United Properties. He stated Manufacturing Services was a good business to have in the City, but he was frustrated with United Properties indifference to this situation. Ms. Chaput stated United Properties was willing to do something about this, but does not know if the solution was to enclose each dumpster. She stated she would be talking to United Properties again about this issue. Councilmember Aplikowski asked if applicant was okay with the recommendations being made. Ms. Compton indicated they were. She explained the screening would be put on one side of the compactor because of the dock doors. She indicated if they put screening on the side of the dock doors, they run the risk of the screening getting hit by the semi-tractors. Councilmember Grant asked ifthey had problems with the current compactor getting hit by the semi-tractors. Ms. Compton stated the current compactor did not get hit by the semi-tractors. Councilmember Grant asked with the new compactor being larger would that create a problem. Ms. Compton replied they would have to be a little more careful turning around, but there would be no other problems. Councilmember Larson stated it was nice to see the business growing, but he did not believe they would ever get a solution to this until Council finally made it clear to the owners of the building that they needed to add wing walls to the building or more landscaping. He disagreed that enclosing each dumpster could be a solution. He indicated he would vote against this until the management took a more global approach to this problem. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 9 . Counci1member Rem asked if they wanted the compactor to be screened in on an individual basis, or did they want the building management to come in with a proposal. Councilmember Larson replied he did not think they should be fencing this in individually, even though that is what has been done in the past. He stated each time they dealt with this issue, they had asked the building management to deal with the problem. Councilmember Rem asked when the project was done, did they want screening on an individual basis. Mayor Probst responded no. The building management should be responsible for this and the original idea was that all of this was going to occur inside the building, but as requests had been made, each one was getting addressed individually. He stated part of it was good news that the businesses are being successful and growing, but the bad news was that the plan the building management originally presented was not being followed. He stated Councilmember Larson was correct in that if they understood this going in, they would have required a more aggressive screening approach, not individual screening. Councilmember Rem asked ifturning down a tenant's request was the most effective way to deal with this problem, or should the building management company be contacted directly. She stated this issue should not be given to the building management indirectly through the tenants. Mayor Probst replied the building management seemed to be more responsive when the tenants were trying to get something. . Ms. Compton stated they were the only tenants in the facility and they had a ten-year lease with seven (7) years remaining on the lease. She indicated the compactor they currently had is on "its last leg", and if they were not allowed to get the new compactor, they would have a pile up of garbage in the parking lot, which would lead to a lot of problems. She stated the current compactor did not run properly in the cold weather. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she was in favor of this application. She indicated there were two issues - one being enlarging of the compactor and the other being the screening issue. She asked if there was some way that they could approve the compactor issue, and then get the management company in to deal with the screening issues. She stated she did not have a problem with the enlargement of the compactor. Mayor Probst replied if they were going to approve this tonight, they should approve it with the screening in case the building management did not deal with this issue. He stated there was still some time before the screening was required to be put up, and in that period of time they may be able to get the management company to address these issues. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #00-40, Manufacturer's Services, 4300 Round Lake Road, Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, with the Planning Commissions' recommendations being taken into consideration. The motion carried (4-1, Larson). . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 10 . Councilmember Grant stated he understood Councilmember Larson's position, but he was going to vote in favor of this applicant's request. Councilmember Aplikowski suggested getting the building management in to address this issue as soon as possible. C. Website Development Task Force Recommendations Roger Aiken explained upon Council's request, the web site construction, design, oversight responsibilities, web development, ongoing operational issues, and initial costs were explored by Committee. A packet was presented to Council containing a general outline of the initial Arden Hills website and page examples, a general matrix that outlines the process considerations for development, and a possible phasing of steps to meet basic goals. A budget was not included since the initial development was planned to be worked into existing staff time and consultant help would be sought on a pro-bono basis from the community. Future phases would include evaluations and budgets. . Mr. Aiken stated the phasing reflects the two main goals of the web site; the first being informational, and the second being transactional. The initial phase of development would concentrate on development of the site and internal procedures to maintain it in a quality manner at a minimum of time expenditure. Once this stage could be implemented and evaluated, the possibilities for further use of the web site and the inherent savings to the City should be explored. Phase two and three should be considered after some review and demonstrated value of the initial web site. Real cost savings and improved services would be most likely realized with the further development of the transactional stages of the Site. Mr. Aiken recommended that phase one actions be implemented as soon as possible. The Committee also recommended the Web Site task force continue as a planning and operational body to facilitate development. Mayor Probst asked for clarification regarding informational and transactional references. He asked if phase one would be the informational phase and stage two the transactional phase. Mr. Aiken responded that was correct; that was what they were envisioning. He stated it may go faster than anticipated because technology kept getting easier. He stated the major benefits were enhancing staff time by relieving them of some minor duties and allowing them to go to higher, better use duties. This would come in the transactional phase. He stated the initial costs were basically quite small. . Councilmember Aplikowski indicated she was excited about the website development because of finally getting to the point of putting information out to citizens by this method. Mr. Aiken stated it should work out fairly well and pretty quickly once they received the appropriate assistance. He stated the City was going to get out a fairly simple format for ease of use. He stated the initial site would probably not have all ofthe items fully mapped out in the secondary pages, but the secondary pages would all be there ready to add on to in the future. Councilmember Rem stated one of the more interesting brainstorming sessions the task force had was going through the layout of the website and realizing how much of it was already on paper at ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 11 . City Hall, so it was assumed that not a lot of time would be invested reinventing these documents. Councilmember Grant stated he was excited about the website because the Internet was an outstanding way to get information to the citizens and he was looking forward to doing this. Councilmember Larson stated this was long overdue. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to accept the report of the Arden Hills Web Site Task Force and proceed to phase one, and continued to utilize the Task Force and solicit additional resources from the community The motion carried unanimously (5-0). D. Award of Bid, 2001 Lift Station #8 Reconstruction and Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project Gregory Brown explained bids were received from three contractors. A bid from Jay Bros., Inc. was not received at the Engineer's office by the submittal deadline and therefore was returned unopened. The tabulation bid was as follows: . Contractor Gridor Construction, Inc. Moorhead Construction Co., Inc. Lametti & Sons, Inc. Jay Bros., Inc. Base Bid Amount $302,484.00 313,521.00 318,275.00 Returned Unopened Bid Alt. # 1 $56,920.00 32,722.00 30,500.00 Bid Alt. #2 $32,310.00 28,810.00 27,050.00 All bids had proper bid guarantees in the amount of ten percent of the total bid as required by the Project Manual. Bid alternative #1 included open trench sewer spot repairs in the Ingerson Road, Shoreline Lane and Lake Lane neighborhoods. Bid alternative #2 included sewer cleaning and televising in the area bound by 1-694, Old Highway 10 and Chatham Avenue. Mr. Brown stated Gridor Construction, Inc. submitted the low base bid with a total base bid amount of $302,484.00. This included $184,700.00 for the lift station reconstruction and $117,784.00 for the sanitary sewer line testing and sealing and trenchless spot repair of the sanitary sewer mains flowing into lift station #8. MCES would reimburse the City for $5800.00 of the $184,700.00 for the installation of a new flow-monitoring meter to this station. The remaining $178,900.00 was approximately 5% greater than the Engineer's estimate of $170,000.00 for this portion of the project. Considering the other two bids, the Engineer felt that this bid was representative of the current market value of the improvement and the City would not likely see a significant savings by rebidding the work. Therefore, although the base bid was approximately 12% ($32,000.00) greater than the Engineers estimate of $270,000.00 the bids submitted were all relatively close in price and represented fair market value for the improvements. Therefore, the City Engineer recommended the Council award the base bid for this project to Gridor Construction, Inc. . Mr. Brown explained Bid Alternative # 1 included various open trench spot repairs to 8" clay sewer mains Bid prices received varied from $56,920.00 to $30,500.00. They believed the prices . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 12 varied greatly because this work could become labor intensive. Although this work should be completed fairly soon, it was not required to be completed with the lift station reconstruction. Bid Alternative #1 was included with this project in order to solicit construction costs and accomplish the work if budget allowed. The bid prices were higher than expected for this work and it was not a necessary component in the reconstruction of lift station #8. Therefore, the Engineer recommended that Bid Alternative #1 not be included in this project and be completed separate from this contract at a later date either by a separate contract or with City forces, under a pavement management program, or with the following year's sanitary sewer program. Mr. Brown explained Bid Alternative #2 included about 22,000 linear feet of sanitary sewer cleaning and televising. The average price of the three bids was approximately 17% higher than the Engineer's estimate and budget of $25,000.00. The Engineer's estimate was based on bid prices of previous sanitary cleaning and televising projects. The work associated with Bid Alternative #2 was not necessary for the reconstruction of lift station #8. Because the bid prices for Bid Alternative #2 were higher than expected and were not necessary to the reconstruction of lift station #8, the Engineer recommendation that Bid Alterative #2 not be included with this project and be bid as a separate project at a later date. Mr. Brown stated although he did not have any direct experience with Gridor Construction, Inc., the contractor had supplied him with a resume and an extensive list of references for projects of this nature. The Engineer had checked the references and was confident that Gridor Construction was capable of successfully completing this project. The City Engineer recommended the award of the Base Bid for the 2001 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project to Gridor Construction, Inc. for the total base bid amount of $302,484.00. Both Bid Alternative from all Contractors were higher than estimate based on previous cost of projects with the same elements. Therefore, the City Engineer recommended not awarding Bid Alternative #1 or Bid Alternative #2. Councilmember Aplikowski asked where was the closest location Gridor Construction had done work. Mr. Brown replied Gridor Construction had done work all over the Twin Cities, as well as work for the Metropolitan Council. He stated all of the people he had spoken with had nothing but good things to say about their work. In addition, because this is all Gridor Construction does, it gave him a high level of confidence. Mr. Stafford stated he had a list of projects Gridor Construction had completed since 1992, and they were all over the upper Midwest, including work done for the Metropolitan Council. Mayor Probst asked if Bid Alternative #1 allowed them to do other things, as allowed by staff. Mr. Brown replied that was correct. In Bid Alternative #1 it might come in cheaper than estimated, but it turned out the rehab work came in higher in the base bid and therefore, there was not enough left for the bid alternatives. Mayor Probst asked if the work in the Ingerson area would still be done. Mr. Brown stated this could be bid next year, which would allow it to be done properly. It was not critical this project be done this year, and it did not need to be done right away. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 13 ' Mayor Probst asked ifthe City should consider rebidding this. Mr. Brown stated the base bid amount was competitive and rebidding it probably would not change the figures much. Mr. Brown stated he felt comfortable with the base bid because it was competitive looking at the market and it was good winter work. Also, if it was rebid, they run into the difficulty of spring time and the possibility of having the bids come in higher. Mayor Probst asked if the City could absorb the additional costs. Mr. Post responded the City had the funds for the additional costs. Councilmember Larson asked what was the policy regarding the Jay Brothers bid. He asked if Jay Brothers had made the mistake. He stated it made sense if Jay Brothers had failed to get the bid in time to the City, but inquired ifthere was any possibility the City could still look at that bid. Mr. Post replied he had not had any contact with Jay Brothers regarding their bid, but in fairness to the other bidders, it was the responsibility of the contractor to see that the bid was received by the City Engineer at the designated bid opening location on time. Councilmember Larson asked if the City knew what the circumstances were surrounding the bid being received late. Mr. Post replied he did not know. Mr. Stafford stated the bid was brought in to the City Hall at 10: 15 a.m., which was not the sated location for bids to be accepted. The bid opening was at the BRW offices not at City Hall. Mayor Probst stated this was the procedure, and ifthey would have opened the bid, the City could open itself up to a bid protest. Councilmember Grant asked clarification regarding the $117,000.00 for sanitary sewer and sewer line testing and sealing and trenchless spot repair of the sanitary sewer mains flowing into lift station #8. He asked how extensive that was. Mr. Brown explained the layout of the lift station and stated they were testing and sealing the trunk line that heads north along Highway 51 toward County Road E and the industrial area. He explained they expect a lot of infiltration in this area. He stated the repairs can be accomplished from above ground would not disturb anything. He stated the trenchless technology, which previously was very expensive, is getting more reasonable in cost. Councilmember Grant asked if the repair would extend the life of the line. Mr. Brown replied that was correct. The initial benefit should be savings in treating infiltration. Some of the costs, approximately $6,000.00 would be reimbursed from the Metropolitan Council. Mayor Probst stated the total cost to MCES for processing services was approximately $40 - 50,000.00 - $60,000.00 per quarter. Mr. Post replied that amount was per month. The annual cost was approximately $475,000.00 per year. Mayor Post stated this project could result in flow reduction savings of approximately 3 - 4% percent per year. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 14 MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to award the base bid amount for the 2001 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project to Gridor Construction, Inc. for the total base bid amount of $302,484.00. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). E. Water Towers, Recommendation to Accept Proposal for Maintenance Mr. Stafford explained the City had two water towers that supplied water for the City. The City has a 1,000,000-gallon tower south ofI-694 on Red Fox Road and a 500,000-gallon tower north ofI-694 on the north end of Fernwood Road near the Friskies Plant. The City has these towers inspected every eight years for structural or coating failures. In the spring, 2000, AEC Engineering of Minneapolis, a company that specialized in water storage facilities, inspected the north tower. The AEC inspection report for the north water tower indicated the tower was in good condition. AEC identified areas where spot repairs of the tank coating, both inside and out were recommended. The estimated costs for the recommended repairs to the North tower were $11,500.00 plus an additional $9,200.00 for AEC Engineers specifications for the repairs and inspection costs. The south water tower was inspected in 1996 with follow-up repairs made in 1997. This tower was also in good condition and only minor coating repairs were made. An exposed ladder on the interior of the tower support structure provides access to the top of the south tower. Public Works employees have long sought a safety cage surrounding the ladder, which would bring the ladder up to OSHA standards. AEC estimated it would cost $7,000.00 to install a steel safety cage around the ladder that climbers could lean back and rest against. Additional costs for specifications and inspection of the cage installation were estimated to be $3,000.00, bringing the total costs for the south tower ladder cage to approximately $10,000.00. Mr. Stafford stated staff had budgeted $42,500.00 for water tower engineering and maintenance in 2001. Mr. Stafford recommended that Council authorize staff to accept the proposal from AEC Engineering to provide the City with the scope of work identified in the AEC proposal, but not limited to: 1. Specifications for the project; 2. Bid administration; 3. Necessary forms and documents; 4. Field inspection; 5. Recommendation to the City to accept the project. Staff would then proceed with the necessary work to begin the project. Mayor Probst asked if total estimated cost was $37,700.00 against budgeted amount of $42,500.00. Mr. Stafford replied affirmatively. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 15 Councilmember Larson concurred with Mr. Stafford regarding climbing the tower. He stated he had climbed the water tower and they were exhausted when they reached the top of it. It would have been very nice to have a cage around the ladder. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve making the necessary repairs to the north water tower in the amount of$II,500.00 plus an additional $9,200.00 for AEC Engineers specifications for repair and inspection costs, and to provide for ladder cage installation at a cost of$10,000.00. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). F. Metro East Development Partnership, Membership Renewal Request Mr. Lynch advised he had received the 2001 invoice for the Metro East Development Partnership investment in the amount of$I,OOO.OO. Mr. Lynch stated he had previously encouraged the Councilmembers to join last year and to evaluate the services they received. He indicated the City had received information on businesses that were in the process of relocating or were looking to locate. He stated there were professional opportunities to review what other cities had done. He stated he did not have strong feeling one way or another as to the continued membership. Mayor Probst stated he concurred with Mr. Lynch's evaluation that since they were not active in this at the moment, he believed the question was if they wanted to leave the organization at the present time with the possibility of rejoining at a later date. Councilmember Grant stated he would be voting no on this because he did not think they had received enough benefit for this compared to the amount of dues. He did not believe the City was getting the $1,000.00 benefit from the dues. Councilmember Larson concurred. He stated if staff was not enthusiastic about this, he could not think of any reason to renew this at this time. Mr. Post replied he concurred with the statements of Councilmembers Grant and Larson, and stated most of the prospects out there were looking for land to purchase or land to build on. Rarely, was there anybody looking to lease space. He stated the City did not have any suitable sites available for purchase at the present time. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to not participate in the Metro East Development Partnership for the year 2001. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). G. City Hall Construction 1. Combined Change Order # 1 Mr. Lynch stated the total amount of Change Order #1 was $12,443.00. This included $2,891.00 for underground duct board insulation, $3,195.00 for PVC coated ductwork, $3,653.00 for costs associated with underground ductwork, $1,081.00 for air supply into basement toilet rooms and $1,724.00 for 6 ml polyethylene vapor barrier under the slab on grade. Staff had met with ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 16 . representatives of the architect, contractor and contractor consultants to review the need for the changes and to review the costs associated with such changes. The costs for all of the items, except the 6ml polyethylene barrier, reflect an agreement on costs and responsibility ofthose costs. Staff recommended Council approve the request for items in Change Order #1 and pay Rochon Corp. in the amount of$12,443.00. Mr. Lynch indicated he was not pleased with this situation because the City had not been notified about construction meetings and this work was started before the City was contacted. He stated he had spoken with the architects, contractor and contractor consultants about this and the City will be added to all meeting notices in the future. He indicated he did not anticipate this to be a regular occurrence and this was a code compliance issue and therefore needed to be done. 2. Payment Request #3 Mr. Lynch stated Payment Request #3 was for work completed through November 30, 2000. There was a retainage of 5% and the total amount year-to-date requested was approximately 12% of the total amount of the contract. Staff recommended Council approve the request for Pay Order #2 and pay Rochon Corp. $169,479.17. . Councilmember Grant asked what the ductwork was, how it was missed and who caught it. Mr. Lynch replied the building inspector caught that it was galvanized ductwork and not PVC ductwork. Staff informed the contractor that City this needed to be Code compliant and would need to be done correctly. Mr. Lynch stated he had a discussion as to who would pay for this. The amount before the Council was the result of that compromise. Councilmember Grant asked who inspected the work other than the building inspector. Mr. Lynch responded he was now at the construction meetings. The architects were not responsible for inspection. He indicated at one time Council had discussed getting a construction manager, but this was never decided upon. Mayor Probst stated Rochon Construction was responsible for the management ofthe project. He applauded staff for the effort they made in catching this. Councilmember Aplikowski also applauded staff for catching this mistake, even though she stated she wished the City did not need to pay this. She requested staff to continue to monitor all contractors closely so mistakes are caught in time to eliminate any future problems. Councilmember Grant also applauded the efforts of staff in finding and negotiating this settlement. He recommended the building inspector keep a close watch on City Hall to catch things up front and make things go smoothly. He inquired if the $169,479.17 included sales tax. Mr. Lynch responded he assumed it does include sales tax. . Councilmember Grant asked if there would be legislation coming up at some point in the future that would return some of the sales tax the City had spent. Mr. Lynch replied ifthe could get the legislation to be retroactive to January 1,2000 there would be a refund, but the League of Minnesota Cities stated they did not believe it would be retroactive to that date. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 17 . Councilmember Grant asked ifthe refund would be retroactive to January 1,2001. Mr. Lynch replied that would be more realistic. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve Change Order #1 and pay Rochon Corp. $12,443.00, and approve Pay Order #3 and pay Rochon Corp. $169,479.17. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS A. City's Legislative Objectives Council discussed legislative issues and decided the following were priorities: 1. Sales tax exemption; 2. HACA/LGA discussion; 3. Telecommunications COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Grant commended staff for the different style agenda, which included the calendar for the next two months. He stated this looked very nice and was going to be very . helpful. Councilmember Grant stated the Ramsey County League of Local Government would have a meeting on January 25,2001 at 7:00 p.m. at the League of Minnesota Building, 145 University Avenue, and the topic would be meeting with Ramsey County Legislators, and the City had been asked to submit the top five legislative priorities for the community. The Council decided to submit the following three issues: sales tax exemption; transportation funding; and levy limits. The following Councilmembers indicated they would be present at the meeting: Mayor Prost (indicated he would try to be at the meeting), Councilmembers Grant, Aplikowski, and Rem. Councilmember Larson stated the top two checks on the consent calendar was nice to see get resolved. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she did not take a good look at the business card with the new City Logo, but indicated she wanted the printing to be Y4 inch up from the bottom. Councilmember Aplikowski gave an update of the 50th Anniversary plans. She stated Presbyterian Homes had Offered both financial and physical assistance for the event. Mr. Stafford stated Northwestern had also made a similar financial commitment. . Councilmember Aplikowski stated the banners were under construction and they needed to decide if they were going to have a professional business install and maintain them. She stated the banners should be up as close to February 12,2001 as possible. She stated they had also received substantial corporate gifts so far. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 18 Councilmember Aplikowski asked if the sponsors should be given something for their contributions. She suggested a cup or a plaque with the new City's logo on it. She showed Council some samples of coffee cups with various logos on them. She stated if the coffee cups were approved, it needed to be approved by the Council and brought to the committee as this being a gift from the Council to the people working on the Anniversary preparation. She indicated a plaque for the corporate sponsors might be more appropriate. Councilmember Larson agreed, and indicated the cups were a good idea because it was a nice appreciation gift to acknowledge people. Councilmember Aplikowski stated they would continue to pursue this and get back to the Council. Councilmember Aplikowski stated the AMM was going to have a board meeting on Thursday, January 11,2001. Councilmember Aplikowski requested staff look at the Ordinance on variances, especially if it involved an older House or the lot was unusual. She stated citizens in these situations should be "cut some slack" so they did not have to go through a lengthy process. Councilmember Rem stated the Northwest Youth and Family Services 25th Anniversary Celebration would be on February 8, 2001 in the Shoreview Community Center at 5:30 p.m. Mayor Probst indicated he had received a certificate from the U.S. Census Bureau and asked if the Certificate should be framed. He indicated if the Certificate was going to be framed the name on the Certificate should be changed from Arden Hills City to the City of Arden Hills. He gave Mr. Lynch the Certificate to have it changed. Mayor Probst stated on January 19,2001, there was an affordable housing speaker at the Midway Sheraton. He indicated he would not be able to attend this. Councilmember Aplikowski responded she was going to try and attend this. Mayor Probst indicated he had received information regarding the Minnesota Housing and Financing Agency, but stated he believed the City did not qualify to participate in this program. Mayor Probst stated they were trying to get a meeting with Representative McCollum and would continue to pursue this. ADJOURN ilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to the meeting at 10: 17 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 19 NOTICE OF MEETINGS The next regular City Council meeting will be held Monday, January 29, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. at the Arden Hills Council chambers.