The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCCP 11-26-1990 ~ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS -- REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING .~ CITY HALL AGENDA . MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1990 - 6:30 PM i /.. .- 1. Session with Karen Olsen to Discuss PW Negotifitis>ns., ~/ ==============================================- ~================ 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. 2 . AGENDA ADOPTION. 3. ISSUANCE OF OATHS OF OFFICE TO RE-ELECTED OFFICIALS. 4. APPROVAL OF NOV. 13 REGULAR MINUTES. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: a. Approval of Final Payment for Kem Milling Soil Removal. b. Acknowledgement of Letter from Charles Cook on Extension for Northridge Apartments PUD. "'... , END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS. . a. st. Paul Turner's Request. (Representatives will be present) . 7. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS: a. Citizen Survey Summary. Representative from Decision Resources will be present. 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS. 9. ADJOURN. NOVEMBER MEETINGS Nov. 27 - ParkjRec. - 7:30 PM Nov. 28 - City Hall Meeting - 7:30 PM Nov. 29 - Finance - 7:30 PM DECEMBER MEETINGS Dec. 1 - Board of Appeals - 10:30 PM Dec. 5 - Planning commission - 7:30 PM Dec. 10 - City Council - 7:30 PM . - :::::::"'''''; ~ ~ - PAGE DIseUSSION: ~ 'j."f E~ j - .~t.t~ut-~ .----- - -------3-- tsfC- ~ YlsL ~_~~ ' reA--e-v-&- . -, -, ~':""'-----------'- ------ ~- 1oved: <l:l1AYOR SATJ:l~UNCILMBR: 0~:ALO~ <=<"R~;i~ , ;econde.d; (l'JAYOl\ SATHER) eOUNe IUlER: CHi\:'\lSEN) (HALJONE) (GROHE) (H Oh. T IJ) ~~ - 'HAT eOUNen: ~1 :3"r-- ---~~----~- ---_.,-_._~-~._._-~ -. ---- --. ----~--- ----...-------.--------- ---------- VOTE: AYES: NAYS: -- -- -_.~.. Hansen Malone S~l tl1er Hansen l'falone Sather GrO\.Jc 1'1ahO'\<lalcl (;ro\.,'12 Ndhowald ABSTAIN: TOTAL: ( - ) . - ~_._-- ----.....-.--------- -- Hansen Nalone Sather Gro,.,rc Haho\olald Ayes Nays Abs, Clk/Administrator~__.Attorney - ........----- ALSO PRESENT: Treasurer . Engineer__------- Parks Director~-~-----pub. 'h1ks. '~~~\4_Planner -. Dep. Clk--X-- - ,,-~_....,.~~~i'!~''''.''''-!<!_..'.. -~.._.'.__. :::::i;,::""" '7. ~___ ~f;]{J "" . ~ . .--'-'-------------"-~'------'-- ,~ oved: {MAYOR eOUNCILMBR: C (CiALON~ (GRO"E) (HAHQ\ "D) cconded: (HAYOE CHALONE) (GROHE) .ALD) A HAT eOUNeIL: ,,{) Q ~ ' ~ ~ n. o. ' r_~ ' ,__ ~;tT .~;,~ ., ~l ~7l:-~ L ~--- VOTE: AYES: l) , N!,YS: 0 "iianse;--Malone---- a her -'-" Hanse-n 1'1alone Sather Growe Mahowald Growe Mahowald ABSTAIN: . TOTAL: (_ ) . Hansen Malone Sather ---C;-ro';e HahoClald - Ayes Nays Abs, ALSO PRESENT: elk/ Adminis tre. tor _.._____~ At torney._____~__ ___Tre2surer_~____ Engineer_ Parks Director Pub. 'h1ks. Supervisor Planner __}Jep, elk '" .-".' '. - MINUI'ES OF THE ARDEN HILlS RmJIAR CXlUNCIL MEEI'ING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990, 7:30 P.M. - CITY HALL CI\IL 'IO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Sather . called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CI\IL The roll being called the following members were present: Mayor Thomas Sather, Council1t1embers Nancy Hansen, Paul Malone and JoAnn Growe. Absent: Council1t1ember Thomas Mahowald. Also present: Planner John Bergly, Engineer Terry Maurer, Park Director John Buckley, Public Works SUperintendent Dan Winkel, Clerk Administrator Gary Berger and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. AOOPr Hansen moved, seconded by Malone, to adopt the November AGENDA 13 Council Agenda as suhnitted. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) APPROVE Hansen moved, seconded by Growe, to approve the october MINUI'ES 29 Regular Council minutes and November 8 Special Council Minutes as suhnitted. Motion carried unanimoUSly. (4-0) CXlNSENT Malone moved, seconded by Growe, to adopt the Consent CALENDAR Calendar as suhnitted and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein: a. Adopt Resolution No. 90-41, Tree city Designation. b. Adopt Resolution Nos. 90-42 and 90-43, Reapportiomnent of Assessments for Northridge Apartments, Continental Development Corporation. c. Acknowledge Reiling Conderrmation Award. d. Approve List of Claims and Payroll. . Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) PUBLIC CCMJIENTS PARKING Jaellen Johnson, 3320 Lake Johanna Boulevard, appeared ORDINANCE before Council to discuss her concerns regarding the six hour parking and winter parking ordinance =ently being enforced by the City. She referred to her letter dated November 6, outlining the topography of her property and the problems she encounters trying to keep her vehicles off the street. Johnson explained that she has always managed to remove her vehicles from Johanna Boulevard when there is a snowfall. Council1t1ember Malone carrnnented that Johnson must have experienced this parking problem for a long time. Johnson stated that she was informed the ordinance was not enforced over the past fifteen years she has been a homeowner in the city and that the ordinance was not enforced due to the fact it is a County road. She also was informed by residents that the street was widened to accommodate vehicle parking. Council1t1ember Hansen advised that the widening of Joharma Boulevard was done to provide a bike and walking pathway in that area. Johnson thanked the Council for their time and requested any suggestions as to a . possible solution to her parking situation will be welcomed. " Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 11-13-90 . Page 2 CASE #90-16; VAR. Council was refe:rred to the Planner's report and Planning FRONT & REAR YARD Cormnission minutes dated 11-7-90, relative to the request SEI'BACKS, 1388 for front and rear yard setback variances at 1388 Arden . ARDEN OAKS DRIVE, Oaks Drive, Mr. & Mrs. Hauck. The Planner explained that two separate actions on the requested variances will J::e required. He des=ibecl the request for a front yard setback variance to accormnodate a garage addition at the Hauck residence. Bergly reviewed the findings of fact listed on page 1 of his report and stated the Planning Cormnission and Board of Appeals recommended denial of the front yard setback variance based on these findings and no identifiable physical hardship and that the addition will extend. J::eyond the site line for adjacent properties on Arden Oaks Drive. Planner Bergly des=ibed the rear yard setback request and reviewed his findings of fact listed on page 2 of his report, noting the unusual lot configuration and placement of the home on the lot by the original builder as identifiable hardships. He also explained there is sufficient plantings along the rear of the applicants property to provide s=eening of the proposed addition from the adjacent residence. The Planner stated the Planning Connnission and Board of Appeals recommended approval of the 2.4 f=t rear yard setback variance, based on the findings listed in the Planner's report, the unusual lot configuration and the fact the variance will have no adverse effect on the adjacent properties. Council111ernl::er Growe noted the subject property also has a fence in the rear yard to provide further s=eening of the proposed addition from adjacent properties. . Malone moved, seconded by Hansen, to deny the front yard variance request, Case #90-16, based on no identifiable physical hardship relating to the property, the findings of fact listed in the Planner's report dated 11-7-9,0 and the fact that the addition will affect the site line of adjacent properties. Motion carried unanllnously. (4-0) Malone moved, seconded by Growe, to approve the 2.4 f=t rear yard setback requested, Case #90-16, for a building addition and deck, based on the unusual lot configuration and placement of the home on the property as identifiable hardships and that the variance as requested will pose no adverse effect on the adjacent properties. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) SCHEDULE PUBLIC Council was refe:rred to a meroorandum from the Clerk HE.I\RnIG; LEXINGIDN Administrator dated 11-9-90, relative to the Metropolitan AVENUE SIUDY Council initial approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment relating to the Lexington Avenue study. Planner Bergly explained the Planning Cormnission requested he poll the Council to determine if a public hearing should J::e scheduled at the next regular Planning meeting on December 5 or if Council prefe:rred the public hearing J::e scheduled for a future Council meeting. Council111ernl::er Malone questioned if the public hearing should J::e postponed until such time as all connnents are received from the Met Council, as noted in the letter, after January 1991. . ~ Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 11-13-90 Page 3 PUB. HRING. (Cont'd) Planner Bergly explained that any further camments from . the Met Council will probably relate to the zoning concepts and will most probably be insignificant. Malone ITKlved, seconded by Hansen, to direct the Planning Commission to proceed with a Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning of the Lexington Avenue study Area at their regular meeting held December 5. Motion =ied unanimously. (4-0) ASSESSMENT CoilllCil was referred to a report from Clerk Administrator MANUAL Berger dated 11-9-90, recommending adoption of the City assessment manual as prepared by city Engineer Maurer. The Engineer explained he has noted two minor revisions to be changed in the manual, as directed by councilmernber Malone, and that the manual includes all revisions discussed by Council at their worksession meetings. Council commended Maurer for an excellent job on the assessment manual. Councilmember Hansen suggested an article outlining the policy be placed in the Ta.vn Crier and that residents be advised the doct.nnent is available at city Hall for review. Malone ITKlved, seconded by Hansen, to adopt the assessment manual, as prepared by Maier stewart & Associates, Inc., and direct staff to prepare the financial analysis and resolutions for future :i:rrplementation of the City's 1991 Pavement Management Program. Motion =ied unanilllously. (4-0) . WATER SYSTEM CoilllCil was referred to a letter from Engineer Maurer MATER PIAN dated 11-7-90, relative to the completed Master Water Plan for the city's system. Maurer stated that none of the recommended :i:rrprovements are severe enough to require emergency action and suggested the CoilllCil consider these items during future budgeting sessions. He noted that same of the items may be accomplished in conjunction with other :i:rrprovements, such as the upgrade of HaInline Avenue or the development of the Rourxl Lake Area. Councilmember Malone reported the Finance Committee is =ently studying methods of financing the upgrade of the new water tCMer. Malone ITKlved, seconded by GrCMe, to a=ept the Water System Management Plan as presented by Maier stewart & Associates, Inc. Motion =ied unanilllously. (4-0) ORD. #274; CoilllCil was referred to a mem::>randum from the Clerk AMEND. WINTER Administrator dated 11-7-90, relative to a proposed PARKING HOURS revision of the hours restricting parking on the streets during the winter ITKlnths. Clerk Administrator Berger stated the Attomey drafted a proposed amendment which changes the hours parking is prohibited from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. . to 6:00 a.m., as directed by CoilllCil. Councilmember Malone asked for camments from the Public Works SUperintendent regarding the change of hours. ------------- ~ Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 11-13-90 Page 4 PARKING (Cont'd) Winkel stated he discussed the proposal with the Public Works staff and although the 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. . restriction is preferable, the staff concurred that regulation prohibiting parking on the street after a 2 inch snCMfall will help to keep vehicles from parking on the street during plowing operations. He stated the staff will evaluate the operation during the winter months and prepare a report for suhnission to Council next year. Councilmernber Hansen explained she has reviewed several areas of the city where it is apparent there is not sufficient off street parking area provided on residential property. She suggested el:i1nination of the restricted hours and utilizing stronger enforcement of the parking requirements during plowing operations. Councilmernber Growe suggested changing the hours to 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., as required in neighboring communities. Mayor Sather supported the 1:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. amendment and suggested the matter be reviewed after April 1991 to determine if the ordinance is effective or needs to be further revised. Malone moved, seconded by Growe, to adopt Ordinance No. 274, AN ORDINANCE AMENDlliG CHAPI'ER 26, ARrICLE I, SECrION 26-3(a) OF THE ARDEN HIllS MUNICIPAL CDDE RElATlliG TO WINTER PARKING RB:;UIATIONS. Motion failed. (Malone, Sather voting in favor; Hansen and Growe opposed) (2-2) Hansen moved, seconded by Growe, to amend Ordinance No. 272, Section 26-3 (a) , Winter Parking Regulations, by revising the hours to read; . "Between the hours of 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. from october 15th to April 15th; and". Motion failed. (Hansen, Growe voting in favor; Malone and Sather opposed) (2-2) Council discussed the =iginal amendment to the ordinance and suggested review of the hours in April 1991. Hansen moved, seconded by Malone, to reconsider and adopt Ordinance No. 274, AN ORDINANCE AMENDlliG CHAPI'ER 26, ARrICLE I, SECrION 26-3(a) OF THE ARDEN HIllS MUNICIPAL CDDE RElATING TO WINTER PARKING REGUlATIONS. Motion carried. (Hansen, Malone and Sather voting in favor; Growe opposed) (3-1) FINAL REPORT'; Council was referred to a memorandum from the Clerk KEM MILLING SITE, Administrator dated 11-7-90, relative to the final DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL report prepared by Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc., on the Kem Milling demolition project. Clerk Administrator Berger advised Daryl Ohman, representing Delta Erwironmental, is present to answer any questions on the d=ument. Malone moved, seconded by Growe, to accept the final report as prepared by Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc., on the Kem Milling demolition project. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) CDUNCIL CXM1ENTS . IMCFOLICY Clerk Administrator Berger advised Council of the League IDRKSHOP of Minnesota cities Policy Workshop to be held on 11/27/90; if interested in attending, contact staff. . Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 11-13-90 Page 5 REGIONAL RAIL CouncilJnember Malone reported on the Regional Rail . REPORT Authority meeting. INVFSl'IGATION ; CouncilJnember Malone referred to the carnplaint fram OPEN BURNING Gerald raurneyer, 3540 New Brighton Road, relative to a:.MPIAINr the actions of the Ramsey County Sheriffs Deparbnent in ronjunction with an open burning carnplaint. Council discussed the matter with Fire Chief Winkel and it was noted that a similar complaint at this residence was received several years ago. Malone moved, seconded by Growe, to direct the Clerk Administrator to forward ro=espondence to Mr. raurneyer which states, that upon completion of Council investigation, it was determined the Ramsey County Sheriffs Deparbnent took appropriate action relative to this incident. Motion carried unanim:msl y. (4-0) AIR QUALITY Mayor Sather reported on the Air Quality Board carmnents BOARD REPORT relative to the draft permit proposed to be issued to Mengelkoch Company, as per the letter fram AttOIney David Roland dated 11-13-90. Council requested staff forward ropies of the document to all CouncilJnembers for further review. ADJOURN Malone moved, seconded by Growe, that the meeting be adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) . Gary R. Berger ThcnrasR.Sather Clerk Administrator Mayor NonCE OF MEEI'ING There will be a w=ksession and Special Council Meeting held on Monday, November 19, 1990, at 4:30 p.m., at city Hall. The next regular Council meeting will be held on Monday, November 26, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., at city Hall. . eOUNCIL MINUTES~~ DATE PAGE - SUBJEeT: \b .(-<.(._ DIseUSSION: . .~~-~ ~ (Qj2~ ck~;-i.A.n p ~ ~-~ - . -, ~':"''-'------'-----~ ---.--... . 'oved: (l1AYORSATHER) eOUNeILHBR: (HANSEN) (HALONE) (GROHE) econded: (l1AYOR SATHER) COUNeILMBR: (HANSEN) (i'iALONE) (GRO"E) HAT COUNCIL: VOTE: AYES; NAYS; --~,.~- ~--- Hansen Malone Sather Hansen Halone Sather Growe 1-Iahm.;ald Grm..rc. Haho~.jald ABSTAIN: -~ TOTAL: ( ) . ilansen _______n__.._ Malone Sather Grov;'e rt~~howald Ayes Nays Abs, ALSO PRESENT: elk/Administrator __~~_.At torneY_~.___.__Treasll:rer __ En.gi11eer_~ Parks Direc tor Pub. \.Jks. Supervis or ~_._~P lanner __Dep. elk __...........__'............--"'_'c -,...~._.__. -- co"'''' ",,"nee 4' ";'~.J? t!;;;: -- ""'-- SUBJECT: 1/ 1J;1} A. 4. ~ ""C~ DIseUSSION: - -~---- . --- _.----- . . - Moved: {},1f.YOR eOUNeILMBR: QHANSEN)~("L"LONE) Seconded: (l1AYOR COUNCILHBR: (HANSEN) (l'lALONE) THAT COUNCIL: _ - L c.J I OA~~ VOTE: AYES: ~ NAYS:-o Hansen Malone S ther Hansen Nalone Sather Growe Nahm....ald Grmyc Mahowald ABSTATN: TOTAL: (- ) . Hansen Malone Sather Cro~e l'bhowald Ayes Nays Abs. ALSO PRESENT: elk/Administrator Attorney Treasurer Engineer Parks Director Pub. h1ks. Supervisor Planner Dep. elk .. .. MINUI'ES OF THE ARDEN HILlS RffiUIAR COUNCIL MEErING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990, 7:30 P.M. - CITY HALL CALL 'ID ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor sather called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. . ROLL CALL TIle roll being called the following :members were present: Mayor TIlomas sather, Council1nernbers Nancy Hansen, Paul Malone and JoAnn Growe. Absent: Council1nernber 'Thomas Mahowald. Also present: Planner Jolm Bergly, Engineer Terry Maurer, Park Director John Buckley, Public Works SUperintendent Dan Winkel, Clerk Administrator Gary Berger and Deputy Clerk catherine Iago. AIXlPl' Hansen moved, seconded by Malone, to adopt the November AGENDA 13 Council Agenda as subnitted. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) APPROVE Hansen moved, seconded by Growe, to approve the October MINUI'ES 29 Regular Council minutes and November 8 Special Council Minutes as suhnitted. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) CONSENT Malone moved, seconded by Growe, to adopt the Consent CALENDAR calendar as sul:rnitted and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein: a. Adopt Resolution No. 90-41, Tree city Designation. b. Adopt Resolution Nos. 90-42 and 90-43, Reapportiornnent of Assessments for Northridge Apartments, Continental Development Corporation. c. Acknowledge Reiling Condemnation Award. d. Approve List of Cla:i1ns and Payroll. . Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) PUBLIC CDMMENTS PARKING Jaellen Johnson, 3320 Lake Johanna Boulevard, appeared ORDINANCE before Council to discuss her concerns regarding the six hour parking and winter parking ordinance =ently being enforced by the City. She referred to her letter dated November 6, outlining the top:::>graphy of her property and the problems she encounters trying to keep her vehicles off the street. Johnson explained that she has always managed to remove her vehicles from Johanna Boulevard when there is a snowfall. Council1nernber Malone cormnented that Johnson must have experienced this parking problem for a long time. Johnson stated that she was informed the ordinance was not enforced over the past fifteen years she has been a homeowner in the city and that the ordinance was not enforced due to the fact it is a County road. She also was informed by residents that the street was widened to a=mmodate vehicle parking. Council1nernber Hansen advised that the widening of Johanna Boulevard was done to provide a bike and walking pathway in that area. Johnson thanked the Council for their time and requested any suggestions as to a possible solution to her parking situation will be welcomed. . Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 11-13-90 .. .. Page 2 CASE #90-16; VAR. Council was referre:i to the Planner's report and Planning FRONT & REAR YARD Conunission minutes date:i 11-7-90, relative to the request SEI'BACKS, 1388 for front and rear yard setback variances at 1388 Arden . ARDEN OAKS DRIVE, Oaks Drive, Mr. & Mrs. Hauck. The Planner explaine:i that two separate actions on the requested variances will be required. He des=iJ:;ed the request for a front yard setback variance to accamrnodate a garage addition at the Hauck residence. Bergly reviewed the findings of fact listed on page 1 of his report and stated the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals reconnnended denial of the front yard setback variance based on these findings and no identifiable physical hardship and that the addition will extend beyond the site line for adjacent properties on Arden Oaks Drive. Planner Bergly des=ibed the rear yard setback request and reviewed his findings of fact listed on page 2 of his report, noting the unusual lot configuration and placement of the home on the lot by the original builder as identifiable hardships. He also explaine:i there is sufficient plantings along the rear of the applicants property to provide screening of the proposed addition from the adjacent residence. The Planner stated the Planning Conunission and Board of Appeals recommende:i approval of the 2.4 foot rear yard setback variance, based on the findings listed in the Planner's report, the unusual lot =nfiguration and the fact the variance will have no adverse effect on the adjacent properties. Council1nember Grawe noted the subject property also has a fence in the rear yard to provide further screening of the proposed addition from adjacent properties. Malone move:i, seconded by Hansen, to deny the front yard . variance request, Case #90-16, based on no identifiable physical hardship relating to the property, the findings of fact listed in the Planner's report dated 11-7-9,0 and the fact that the addition will affect the site line of adjacent properties. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) Malone move:i, seconde:i by Grawe, to approve the 2.4 foot rear yard setback requested, Case #90-16, for a building addition and deck, based on the unusual lot =nfiguration and placement of the home on the property as identifiable hardships and that the variance as requested will pose no adverse effect on the adjacent properties. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) SCHEDULE PUBLIC Council was referred to a memorandum from the Clerk HEARING; LEXINGTON Administrator dated 11-9-90, relative to the Metropolitan AVENUE SI'UDY Council initial approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment relating to the Lexington Avenue study. Planner Bergly explained the Planning Conunission requested he poll the Council to determine if a public hearing should be schedule:i at the next regular Planning meeting on December 5 or if Council preferred the public hearing be scheduled for a future Council meeting. Council1nember Malone questioned if the public hearing should be postponed until such time as all corrnnents are recei ve:i from the Met Council, as noted in the letter, after January 1991- . . . Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 11-13-90 Page 3 PUB. HRING. (Cont'd) Plarmer Bergly explaine:1 that any further comments fram the Met Council will probably relate to the zoning . concepts and will rrost probably be insignificant. Malone moved, seconded by Hansen, to direct the Plarming Commission to proceed with a Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning of the Lexington Avenue study Area at their regular meeting held December 5. Motion =ied unanlinously. (4-0) ASSESSMENT Council was referred to a report from Clerk Administrator MANUAL Berger dated 11-9-90, reccmunending adoption of the City assessment manual as prepared by city Engineer Maurer. 'Ihe Engineer explaine:1 he has noted two minor revisions to be changed in the manual, as directed by Council1nember Malone, and that the manual includes all revisions discussed by council at their worksession meetings. Council cornrnended Maurer for an excellent job on the assessment manual. Counciln1ernber Hansen suggested an article outlining the policy be placed in the TaNn Crier and that residents be advised the document is available at city Hall for review. Malone moved, seconded by Hansen, to adopt the assessment manual, as prepared by Maier stewart & Associates, Inc., and direct staff to prepare the financial analysis and resolutions for future ilrplementation of the city's 1991 Pavement Management Program. Motion =ied unanlinously. (4-0) . WATER SYSTEM Council was referred to a letter from Engineer Maurer MATER PlAN dated 11-7-90, relative to the completed Master Water Plan for the city's system. Maurer stated that none of the reconunended ilrprovements are severe enough to require emergency action and suggested the Council cxmsider these items during future J:udgeting sessions. He noted that some of the items may be accomplished in cxmjunction with other ilrprovements, such as the upgrade of HaInline Avenue or the development of the Round Lake Area. Counciln1ernber Malone reported the Finance Committee is =ently studying methods of financing the upgrade of the new water tCMer. Malone moved, seconded by GrCMe, to a=ept the Water System Management Plan as presented by Maier stewart & Associates, Inc. Motion =ied unanlinously. (4-0) ORD. #274; council was referred to a memorandum from the Clerk AMEND. WINI'ER Administrator dated 11-7-90, relative to a proposed PARKING HOURS revision of the hours restricting parking on the streets during the winter months. Clerk Administrator Berger stated the Attorney drafted a proposed amendment which changes the hours parking is prohibited from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., as directed by Council. . Counciln1ernber Malone asked for conunents fram the Public Works SUperintendent regarding the change of hours. Minutes of the Arden Hills Re:JUlar Council Meeting, 11-13-90 . . Page 4 PARKING (Cont'd) Winkel stated he discussed the proposal with the Public Works staff and although the 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. restriction is preferable, the staff con=ed that regulation prohibiting . parking on the street after a 2 inch snowfall will help to keep vehicles fram parking on the street during plowing operations. He stated the staff will evaluate the operation during the winter months and prepare a report for sul:xnission to Council next year. Counci11nember Hansen explained she has reviewed several areas of the city where it is apparent there is not sufficient off street parking area provided on residential property. She suggested elimination of the restricted hours and utilizing stronger enforcement of the parking requirements during plowing operations. Counci11nember Growe suggested changing the hours to 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., as required in neighl::oring corrununities. Mayor Sather supported the 1:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. amendment and suggested. the matter J::e reviewed after April 1991 to determine if the ordinance is effective or needs to J::e further revised. Malone moved, seconded by Growe, to adopt Ordinance No. 274, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CWIPI'ER 26, ARTICLE I, SECI'ION 26-3(a) OF THE ARDEN HILlS MUNICIPAL mDE RELATING TO WINTER PARKING REl3UIATIONS. Motion failed. (Malone, Sather voting in favor; Hansen and Growe opposed) (2-2) Hansen moved, seconded by Growe, to amend Ordinance No. 272, Section 26-3 (a) , winter Parking Regulations, by revising the hours to read; . "Between the hours of 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. fram October 15th to April 15th; and". Motion failed. (Hansen, Growe voting in favor; Malone and Sather opposed) (2-2) Council discussed the original amendment to the ordinance and suggested review of the hours in April 1991. Hansen moved, seconded by Malone, to reconsider and adopt Ordinance No. 274, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CWIPI'ER 26, ARTICLE I, SECTION 26-3(a) OF THE ARDEN HILlS MUNICIPAL mDE RELATING TO WINTER PARKING RmlLATIONS. Motion carried. (Hansen, Malone and Sather voting in favor; Growe opposed) (3-1) FINAL REPORT; Council was referred to a memorandum from the Clerk !<EM MILLING SITE, Administrator dated 11-7-90, relative to the final DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL report prepared by Delta Envirorunental Consultants, Inc., on the Kem Milling demolition project. Clerk Administrator Berger advised Daryl Ohman, representing Delta Envirorunental, is present to answer any questions on the document. Malone moved, seconded by Growe, to accept the final report as prepared. by Delta Envirorunental Consultants, Inc., on the Kem Milling demolition project. Motion carried unanbnously. (4-0) CDUNCIL CXM1ENTS IMCPOLICY Clerk Administrator Berger advised CoW1Cil of the league . IDRKSHOP of Minnesota cities Policy Workshop to J::e held on 11/27/90; if interested in attending, contact staff. . . Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 11-13-90 Page 5 REGIONAL RAIL Councilroember Malone reported on the Regional Rail REPORI' Authority meeting. . INVESI'IGATION; Councilroember Malone referred to the complaint from OPEN BURNING Gerald Laurneyer, 3540 New Brighton Road, relative to <XMPIAINT the actions of the Ramsey County Sheriffs Deparbnent in conjunction with an open burning complaint. Council discusse:i the matter with Fire Chief Winkel and it was noted that a similar complaint at this residence was received several years ago. Malone moved, seconded by Growe, to direct the Clerk Administrator to forward co=espondence to Mr. Laurneyer which states, that upon completion of Council investigation, it was deter.m:ined the Ramsey County Sheriffs Deparbnent took appropriate action relative to this incident. Motion =ied unanimously. (4-0) AIR QUALITY Mayor Sather reported on the Air Quality Board corrnnents BOARD REPORI' relative to the draft permit proposed to be issued to Mengelkoch Company, as per the letter from Attomey David Roland dated 11-13-90. Council requested staff forward copies of the document to all Councilmembers for further review. ADJOURN Malone moved, seconded by Growe, that the meeting be adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Motion =ied unanimously. (4-0) . Gary R. Berger ThomasR.Sather Clerk Adrninistrat= Mayor NarICE OF MEETING There will be a Worksession and Special Council Meeting held on Monday, November 19, 1990, at 4:30 p.m., at City Hall. The next regular Council meeting will be held on Monday, November 26, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., at City Hall. . COUNCIL HINUTES ) DATE PAGE I ,- SUBJEeT: . DISCUSSION: ---- \ ~-- --.------- -,-_._~--_.._-_..~-----------------,--- . tll ~~ 3J -frO-- rpe~ 1 /4.i( /'1 t ' ! / - . - ---. . ~ Noved: (lJ-I<YOR SATHER) eOUNCILMBR: (HANSEN) ~:::;) (GROI,E) Seconded: (l1AYOR SATHER) COUNCIUlBR: (HANSEN) C'iALONE) QGROH~ ,""""COn, ~ ~~~~ ~f100~__ VOTE: AYES: ~her NAYS: b Hansen Malone Hansen Halone Sather Growe r1ahm.;rald Gro\ole Maho\.Jald . ABSTAIN: TOTAL: ( - - ) ----- Hansen Malone Sather Growe Hahmvald Ayes Nays Abs, . ALSO PRESENT: elk/Administrator At torney Treasurer Engineer Parks Director Pub. Hks. Superv] Sl)T__ - Planner Del" elk ,.. '. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM . ================================================================= . DATE: November 19, 1990 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: (p B Gary R. Berger, city Administrator SUBJECT: Final Payment - Kem Milling Soil Remediation ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Attached please find a recommendation from Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc., regarding final payment to CleanSoils, Inc. for soil remediation work at the Kem Milling site. CleanSoils, Inc., is requesting final payment for this work in the amount of $2,318.73. Delta concurs with this request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this final payment request. ACTION REQUIRED: This is placed on the Consent Calendar as routine business. If . Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion, under Consent, approving final payment in the amount of $2,318.73 to CleanSoils, Inc., for remediation of 70.73 tons of . contaminated soil at the Kem Milling site. GRB:mah attachment . . . Client: City of Arden Hills DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL ~' CONSULTANTS, INC. Address: 1450 West Highway 96 1801 Highway 8 - Suite 114 St. Paul, MN 55112 . Arden Hills, MN 55112 612/636-2427 .ttention: Mr. Gary Berger Date: November 7, 1990 SUBCONTRACfOR INVOICE REVIEW FORM Project Name: KEM Milling Project Location: 619 14th Street N,E., Arden Hills, Minnesota Delta Project No.: 10-89-385 Client No,: NIA ISSUE PAYMENT TO: Subcontractor Name: CleanSoils, Inc. Subcontractor Address: 84 2nd Avenue SE, New Brighton, Minnesota 55112 Invoice Date: September 19, 1990 Invoice Number: 90.050-1 Amount of Invoice: $2,318.73 Date Received: October 23, 1990 Activity Code: 207 State Reimbursement Code: . escri tion of Work Performed b Subcontractor - Soil remediation of 70,73 tons of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil. Payment Recommendation ~ Full Payment _ Partial Payment If partial payment, recommended payment amount: Reason for partial payment: If you have any questions regarding this invoice review form, please contact me at 612/636-2427, Sincerely, DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Wrf . Joseph Enfield Geologist 1007/3-89 -------- , , D~~ . . ~ '~ V)0'li O''''SoH, ,"'. 84 ',d A,,",oS E. New 8d9"'00 M NO"". '" 2) 639-88'1 · FAX (612) 639-881 . INVOICE September 19, 1990 CLIENT: Tnvoice No ~ : 90.050-1 City of Arden Hills 1450 West Highway 96 Contract Date: July 12, 1990 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Terms: Due Upon Receipt RE: Soil Remediation site: MN Hide and Tallow (KEM Millimg) site MPCA Leak ID#: LEAKOOO02540 Item Cost . Weigh Trucks 4 trucks @ $5.00 each $ 20.00 Process Soil 70.73 tons @ $32.50 each $ 2,298.73 . Total Amount Due $ 2,318.73 FINANCE CHARGES OF 1.5% PER MONTH ON OUTSTANDING BALANCE WILL BE ASSESSED ON ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE PAST DUE MORE THAN 30 DAYS. . . l~ Q ffi ~ .'? I- '> ~ cucolIJr: ~ ~ ~ . . ~ .J.J.Jil.. DO ~ ~ w ~ << " ~ :;) ... - -, ~ <:( > ~ ; 0 Z f"I L! 1...11- 0\ w w I- lJ ~ ~ 1" Cl ~. 11' ! ~ ...l2 <:(ltIltI 'It <t:> >- ~Oo:(:i~ lJ~'V-M" Q. ~;:: 'z ' ,,- r ., f' 0 cnu o:(_::!: u.l ....1..1) ',l u <~ J::E~ (f) . ...Ja::~.J! -q'..-.4(IJ Cc <(... z j 0 Ul I-w;;::<:{..c , :E oz o<:e..e.. . 0:: 0 . 1-8~:;; ~C;, ~ ~ ~ rl l ~ ~ .," ::> '<l' ... III ,..... u ;:)]1 M is c..o 'f ((t'~. ~.. 00<< ~ ~ O~~\ w . 0 <:Il. ~-< ~ ~ fr: LLII]I ~ m f' ~ III...J l'1\/Z ,.... ...J 0 X >< o 0 f,.. ..... M U ~ ~ " ,', "",." " ," .. -' ;""''','''''C'',,' <,..-" .,~. ..,,~, " ... ' '. --. '~ ", '"" I [ ffi ~ t' CDil:iroE U ~ ~ ~ ~"" .J_I.JCL If- DO ~ ~ w , ~ 0:: w . ~ e'l-/'-! I'~I <:( <( ~ o Z M ... ... u. w w I-()~~ (rl-l(r,('11 ~ ~ "~ ~ z <:(:g ~ .. :"; \ ; ~ ~ 0 <( "ltl 11.1'11'1" 1 >- ..... - J: Z f'I ... 1.1, U. 0.. g;r.<~= !r.,...r'lr'l 00 <:(- I:;;~ .. , ::> w , . ".. en -'a: Z..J ~ 1'''1)'' 0 j l:r: ~t; ~~.E , , 'w oz::Ell...ll. /'!, a:: :!: 1-8:i~ L::~ ~ ~ ~ n _. , z oJ') !1J'; "'" .. ... f~.:.. 1 ai 0... :J ~ ,,;:-0'1"' M G Lt)' <.) . ~. f ((l~ '~. g , ((,{!: ~ OO~. O~~ \ w . 0 ~, ~ ct l1J 0", ;:j ltI ...... 0 b L'I':1.Z M d x x z ~ , .., , "~:.~'"'..-,.-- "',' ".,..."',."~,.,,.,, ~-- . v, ..". '" '" CIlC!JC1I:E: fi 'w ~ -.I.J.Jo..'1t- 99 ---...... ::l ... _ .- ~. <( <:( ""-. ci ~ 2 1..)1_'1_' 'J: 1-: '~~--'j -, t,U UJ ~ U > in I.D '-I 1.[1 '1'.....- 7""""---, . is-: \. ~ ~ " <( Z < Ill:g - -,;~-:,_" .~"~;lF::#~'. ~ Q; :t:o<zle 'P-I":t'r~.... :;'-;~~:~~~.:.::.> '<t >- ~i= ~z~ 1': ~-"~'ir.r;:: & '<( lJ I :E II:) r..... r... 1J'1 0J ,.~~.~.. ~'~_:+t-~ 0 -' ~ ~..J -: .,.+. ,..,,,,1 .-,,/:("d:;' '~-""'J' en <tl-z::>g ~ W i:;,)r;.$__- ~ DO Cc I- ct.t -<(.to ,-".' 1 'in'-.) W 02 :Za..o. ! I~ ::E I- O~..: ~1":~;-_; ffi 0 U anll'l '_ e~ Cl I- ~ r r I' ~, Z lI'I (f) e.. ..,. - ,?",\ - Q,. ro ;:J ~.." ";.-'7>. I'" . j' ",~ ~ i : () '. III: W~'.II. l.' l'? U q- l ';':"'\.. " W ' .. , r.n. ~' P (r)c! r',. -;.. 0. " ("ff . r,I-,.&., '!""j 't'""(. o O~~\ w . d I- '.' W'" ~ . '-' Z a LL. UI ~ III 0 ~;3 I..:1::iZ M ;j X X 2 ~ ~ -. . - ed' ~ . . U"_.\,. -;,.,','. " , Ie 0 ,. e"'.,.."":,,,:.,Bs "1"'\"""'" tro~ w w I- > ~ w ilHIJC(,Z" < u ~ w ~i .. % Ie ""'..1..1...1<1 2 I w ~ Ie Ie ~ ~ , 000'1"'"1 < < '-, w w w ~ ((rC' (C r:1 ~ ~ . . ~ ;; ~, >- ' 2M "- o wo ':! U:' 'J, " , 0 ~U >iiiU') u <.Z <(IDCO 1"1... (1', f'. <fJ . :r 0 ~zl'J fr: "'5 <!~ r~, r') [,) "' '" %. " <(;:Jw. 0 ...I c: Z...l ~ Ie f- oe{ I- ~~1 w U) b~ ~~Q. 0 :> ,,0 2 (7) () 1-8 ~ln iD ~ -1."'-lJ"j :; I.Q' ~ l~~\ 0 ~ ,LL. '." qo ((,0;, ~;'t)) .-I ((1-:1 ... DO 01--.. \ w r d ~ Il: '-'-I'J, < m X ;2 0 m ~ 0 I- I~{:U:.::Z: ;:; .U '-- 2 0 ~ m ~ Q 0 ~ . . . '. . eOUNCIL HINU DATE PAGE SUBJEeT: ~ _ ~_______u___ . DIseUSSION: - -,- ' ~,~ ~Jl.".1:: .'---'--S-p.,.m ." ~ 'to ~ ~~~~ {~O ~ _Dw ~l p~- ~ Av~ - ~'YhA4-Y"~1 . ~ tJ~ S-Ot.t-.3 . -~. ~ - " ~ ~ ~ CY1-{~ +0 {MA-- ~ ~~J ~::::-J0~~~M'~ Y;JJ-..JL ~-~ 6lYJ ~~A.~ ~6m ~.~ Moved: {~YOR,SATHER) eOUNCILMBR: (HANSEN) (MALONE) (GROWE) (M~ Seconded: (l1AYOR SATHER) COUNCILHBR: (HANSEN) (t'lALONE) '(GROHE) (M 0\01 ,LD) THAT COUNCIL: --_._~- VOTE: AYES: NAYS: Hansen Malone ~rather Hansen Ma lone Sather . Growe HahmoJald Gro'IYe Haho\;ald ABSTAIN: TOTAL: ( - - ) Hansen Malone Sather Growe Nahowald Ayes Nays Abs, ALSO PRESENT: elk/Administrator Attorney Treasurer Engineer --- Parks Director Pub. HKS. Supervlsor__ Pl<1.i1ner Del', Clk - -- ~- -_~~~ OA-'-- - ~ .,n~ ~ aL ~ ~4 ~ ~~"' -~~~ ~ .' {.> ~_~ JL ~~_ t' ~ -\1Y ~ .;t;iJ;:" ~ - ~ ~ *' ,<J.Of , _ __/ _ __'" _~k - - ~"'r ~-- t'-' ~ ~ ~ ~ l/J?i>1-'-f- ~ ~&<- ~_ ~ (}JLWoA ~ ~ "(tk ~vht-~ +,~ ~I U , ~ tIl ~' o1Jj;fl5~~ ,", , ~f ~\ tuJ!u v - ';J,;;; -o-c: ,-" ~ ~ - !l < a' --n ?f-~ /('~ tW-- ~ . \j '. ~ _ 1 - ~A-~ ~1;' 'IU' iMI(f ~ ~ - ~ . ~:-- VV(f~~ tz;;.J2 'fMI(f - ~ it J,. ~) Pi ~\O. i" ~~ , ~,__ fI'/> rfw/u- +0 W~ 11M"'" rv ~ J-~ tW1 __ cL-!~~ ~.~ tIl ,.' ~'- ~-wLk _ ~f-~'~ 0 . ~:::~~-- . . eOUNCLL MINUTES DATE PAGE SUBJECT: DIseUSSION: . - . .-.- - . ,----_.------. - ----- -.--..-------------------- - ..-.--.------- - . - ---------- -~_. Moved: (!%YOR SATHER) COUNCILMBR: (HANSEN) (HALONE) (GRQ\<E) (MAHOWALD) Seconded: (l1AYOl~ SATHER) eOUNCILHBR: (HANSEN) (MALONE) (GROI<E) (HAHOWALD) THAT eOUNCLL: -------~--_. -- VOTE: AYES: NAYS: Hansen Malone Satcher Hansen Halone Sather Growe HahoHald Grm<le HahoHaId . ABSTAIN: TOTAL: ( - - , Hansen Malone Sather Growe Hahowald Ayes Nays Abs, ALSO PRESENT: Clk/Administrator Attorney Treasurer Enginee:r__ --~- -. Parks Director Pub. \~Iks . Supervisor Planner Dep. elk . St, Paid 7f11U1e114" 1", 643 OHIO STREET ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55107 Novem}}er ~61 1990 HayoL- aIle. City Cot:..ncil 1450 vi ~3'::::'- t Highway #96 A1:.:':E-i-:' ~il~,~~, MN 55112 _' c .~~.. s:.. ~~.3 ; We would : :.>.e to be present and il1C 1 uded on the Agenda : c';: I-:.::.2 N\~!'/e-:Tbe::...- 26 tl'i Ci t:l council meeting. This will be rega!:c.ing tr:.e C:CG::..~-.:.an.c(:: :: :>(l"U:';: l!~'; :,0% of the net profits for gambling cperatioL to b~ SDe.=.-~t in F~t"de:1 Hills. ~< ,','" d ~"; ._'~: _:. thi~ requirement would severely impair t ;...,,,:;- -- . . ~ ';"'-.-J :. ::..na!lCl a..:. . --. -. ".-' " ~ _.. .--" " r OceL' orga:1izatio::;.. '-- '-'.. ....- -'- ~ _. '-'-~ '-' - , c '::',0s3ibl e I could you ;:otify us of the ~< ac.d p~ace aGel . - L.~me ....... ?geY1::1.~ bt'-f or ':-. the meeting? Thank you for your help. st. ?aul Turner Gymnastic Societ:t" . eOUNCIL HINUTES SUBJEeT: . ~- ----.. ---------- -.. -~.,.,,-----:--- .- . - \~~~~1bw iwJ f MU"- NfiLct - \ J . ---. -, ,- , ...- Hoved: (/MYOR SATHER) COUNeILMBR: (HANSEN) (MALONE) (GROI,E) Seconde.o;i: (l1AYOR SATHER) eOUNe ILHBR: (HANSEN) (l'IALONE) (GRO,"E) (; THAT COUNeIL: VOTE: AYES: NAYS: Hansen Malone Sather Hansen Malone Sather . Growe Hahm,ald Grm.;re Hahowald ABSTAIN: TOTAL: ( - - ) - Hansen MaIone Sather Growe Hahowald Ayes Nays Abs. ALSO PRESENT: Clk/Administrator ,Attorney Treasurer Engineer Parks Director Pub. Hks. Supervisor P13nner Del', elk .. Decision ... Resources Ltd. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 403 randomly selected residents of the city of Arden Hills. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers across the community between September 18, and October 4, 1990. The average interview took twenty-one minutes. In general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of adult Arden Hills residents within ~ 5.0 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases. Arden Hills is a mature, upscale, stable, and well-educated community. The median longevity of adult residents was 8.5 years. Thirteen percent of the sample reported moving to the city during the past two years, while forty-six percent had been there over a decade. Over one-half of the sample came from two locations prior to moving to the community: twenty percent reported moving from Saint Paul, while thirty-one percent moved . from other Northern Ramsey County suburbs. A majority either had no plans to move, or felt they would remain in Arden Hills for at least ten years. Forty-five percent of the households contained school-aged children; seventeen percent reported pre-schoolers. Ninety-four percent owned their current residences, with eighty- seven percent residing in single family homes. The average age of respondents was 45.3 years old. Over half of the sample fell into the 35-54 year age range. A very high sixty-seven percent reported heads-of-households working in either Professional-Technical or Owner-Manager jobs. Twenty- three percent reported working in Arden Hills. Blue Collar households were only seven percent, and retirees accounted for fifteen percent. The median educational achievement was college graduation; in fact, almost eighty percent of the sample had at least some college experience. The median household yearly income was $55,875.00, approximately $17,000 higher than the current Metropolitan Area suburban norm. In general, then, Arden Hills must be classified as a maturing "gold collar" community. Location, high quality schools, and available housing were the major reasons offered for settling in the community; forty percent mentioned the first reason, while nineteen percent cited schools and twenty percent pointed to housing. Small town ambience, peacefulness, strong neighborhoods, and parks were also . positive attributes. A very strong ninety-eight percent rated the quality of life as either "excellent" or "good;" the f ifty.~ four percent rating it as "excellent" is the strongest ratinq within the Metropolitan Area. Residents are extremely satisfied, 3128 Dean Courl · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 . (612) 920-0337 , ~ with their lives in the city. Location within the Metropolitan Area was the most liked feature of the city. At thirty-eight percent it dwarfed all other responses. Quiet, strong neighborhoods, open spaces, small town ambience, and friendly people were each cited by between nine and five percent, each. On the other hand, inadequate city services and property taxes were the most unpopular feature of the community, cited by twenty-one percent. Growth, traffic, and city government all scored above five percent. But, it is note- worthy that thirty-two percent reported there was "nothing" they disliked about the community; this "booster" segment is one of the highest in the Metropolitan Area. The trade-off between services and property taxes, as well as concerns about future growth and development, appear to be the greatest concerns cur- rently facing residents. Seventy-eight percent rated the sense of community among Arden Hills citizens as "excellent" or "good." However, when queried about a focal point in the city, fifty-five percent could suggest no focus. County Road E was the most popular candidate, pointed to by twenty-six percent of the citizenry. At present, then, there is no existing city "center." Residents do feel empowered within the community. Seventy- eight percent reported they could have a say in the way the City . of Arden Hills runs things, if they wanted. An unusually small seventeen percent thought they could not. This group of alienated citizens is one of the smallest present in any Metropolitan Area suburb. ~~ ~:::1.e residents are moderately strong "fiscal conservatives." By a forty-five percent to forty-four percent split, they would support a property tax increase to maintain city services at their current level. Forty-two percent reported their current property taxes as either "relatively high" or "excessively high;" forty-eight percent viewed them as "about average. Even though the City's tax rate has remained relatively stable during the past few years, forty-two percent felt it had increased and twenty-two percent were unsure. The median estimate of the City's share of the property tax was sixteen percent, equal to the current rate. Residents, then, appear to be in a "cautious" mood with respect to their taxes, and would require proponents to clearly justify any proposals to raise them. City services were, however, viewed by seventy-four percent as "excellent" or "good" values for the property taxes paid. In fact, city services evaluations were moderately positive, with a few notable exceptions. Police protection, sewers and water, and snow plowing scored approval ratings of eighty percent or higher. . city street repair and maintenance, street sweeping, and summer park maintenance topped seventy percent approval marks. Fire protection, animal control, winter park maintenance, and enforcement of selected city codes received approval ratings of 2 . over sixty percent. street lighting was viewed positively by only fifty-five percent. In most cases, city service approval ratings were at least ten percent lower than the suburban norm. Fairly high disapproval levels were also encountered: city street repair and maintenance, animal control, and enforcement of selected city codes earned negative ratings in the middle-to-high twenty percent range. street lighting was viewed critically by a very high forty-three percent. The generally lower ratings of city services may be the cause of concerns expressed in other parts of the survey; but, in any case, the city may wish to re- examine the latter four services for effectiveness and responsiveness. Forty-five percent reported observing or participating in a situation where a member of the Ramsey county Sheriff's Department was present in an official capacity. Eighty-nine percent of these participant-observers thought the police handled the situation in a "good" or "excellent" manner. Eighty-four percent also felt the police responded promptly to the call. changing emphasis somewhat, sixty-eight percent of the residents felt the amount of police patrolling in their neighborhood was "about right;" twenty-five percent -- the suburban norm -- labeled it "not enough." Overall, the Ramsey county Sheriff's Department obtains solid evaluations from Arden Hills citizens. . Only ten percent of the sample reported being involved in or observing a situation where the Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department was present in an official capacity. All of them rated the handling of the situation by the fire fighters as either "good" or "excellent," and seventy percent felt they responded promptly. Turning to fire safety, ninety-six percent of the surveyed households reported the presence of at least one smoke detector; seventy-four percent also said they had a mounted fire extinguisher in their home. In general, like the Sheriff's Department, the Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department gains the overwhelming endorsement of the citizenry. Arden Hills residents are outdoor enthusiasts: sixty-one percent prefer outdoor leisure time activities, while sixteen percent opt for the indoors. A very high seventy-five percent also feel at least "somewhat informed" about the Arden Hills park system and its facilities. Seventy-three percent of the citizenry use the parks or recreational facilities at least "occasionally," and a solid eighty-one percent rate them as either "excellent" or "good." The basis for good evaluations is that they are clean and kept up, as well as being good and fun to use: lower evaluations were motivated by the perception that improvements could be made. On one aspect of the park system, trails, residents expressed no consensus over the materials to be used in their construction, but a majority wanted a dual purpose trail system. Facilities, then, are viewed fairly positively by . most residents. Eighty-four percent of the residents thought the current mix of recreational opportunities met the needs of their households. 3 - . only two additions were offered with any frequency: trails were supported by six percent, and more youth activities were supported by four percent. Like facilities, programming also appears to satisfy the needs of most residents. By a fifty-five percent to thirty-nine percent margin, residents would support a property tax increase to maintain and improve the park system. Proponents would support an average yearly property tax increase of about $20.00. But, from the standpoint of electoral success, the odds are very small that a bond referendum would pass in a special election: total opposition is almost twice as high as strong support. Fifty-one percent of Arden Hills residents disapprove of charitable gambling within the city; thirty-six percent feel strongly that way. But, if an elimination of these activities would lead to a property tax increase or city services cut, a sixty-four percent majority would oppose taking that action. Economic consequences outweigh philosophical tenets on this issue. A very high eighty-six percent of the sample participated in the curbside pick-up recycling program; this level of participation is about ten percent higher than the suburban norm. A fifty-four percent majority recycle weekly, while another twenty-five percent do so twice monthly. Seventy-seven percent were satisfied with the program. Of those expressing ... dissatisfaction, two major complaints were leveled: the need to pick-up plastics and the need for more frequent on-schedule services. Providing further information to residents could increase participation by another seven percent. The Arden Hills program is clearly a success. On related waste management issues, fifty-one percent of the respondents composted grass clippings and yard waste on their property, while twenty-one percent used a drop-off site. And, almost two-thirds of the community prefer the present "free- market" refuse hauling system over designation of one company by the City or assignment of haulers to exclusive zones. The Mayor and Council were awarded a job approval rating of seventy-seven percent and a disapproval rating of eight percent. The level of the approval rating is very high in comparison with other Metropolitan Area suburbs, and the almost ten-to-one approval-to-disapproval rating is exceptionally strong. But, nearly fifty percent of the community felt they knew very little about the Mayor and the City Council, thus many of the ratings were based upon generalized feelings that things were "going well." The city may wish to consider highlighting more fully City Council actions and activities in the city newsletter. The City Staff received a job approval rating of seventy . percent and a disapproval rating of twelve percent. Both the absolute level of approval and the almost six-to-one ratio of approval-to-disapproval are much higher than the suburban norm. The forty-three percent of the residents reporting first-hand 4 . contact with the staff is much higher than comparable suburban areas. The approval ratings of staff stemmed primarily from good experiences with them; the negative ratings resulted from feelings that the staff could improve. Contact with City Hall during the past year was reported by fifty-four percent of the sample. General problems and information requests, complaints, and park information prompted the overwhelming majority of contacts. About fifty percent of those making contact were unsure with whom they talked, but many residents mentioned a specific department. Thirteen percent were dissatisfied with their contact, an average percentage; but further probing indicated the source of the dissatisfaction was the content of the response rather than the process, itself. sixty-two percent of the sample also reported visiting the Arden Hills City Hall during the past two years. sixty-two percent of the sample felt the condition of the structure was at least "adequate," while only eighteen percent disagreed. A solid fifty-nine percent also felt the facility was adequate for providing service to the residents of the community. A large majority of residents, then, are unfamiliar with existing limitations in the current City Hall. Seventy-three percent of the sample felt the pace of . economic development was "about right;" thirteen percent described it as "too rapid," while ten percent viewed it as "too slow." Most residents thought city actions to date had resulted in a good mix of development projects. The most support was evidenced for future office development, at twenty-five percent. Residential scored second, at nineteen percent, and light industrial ran third, at seventeen percent. Seventy-five percent of the sample supported the city taking an active and aggressive role in attracting targeted development, but fifty-one percent oppose offering financial incentives as part of that package. Equal support was found for three development priorities: increasing the tax base, providing housing opportunities for young families and retirees, and providing recreational and leisure time offerings. Balanced future growth is clearly the theme underlying these results. While residents possessed very definite views about the appropriate city action on several types of development opportunities, a lack of consensus was also clear in several key areas. citizens thought the city should act aggressively to attract single family homes for moderate income families, senior citizens housing, commercial office buildings, and parks and recreational open spaces. They also thought the city should act aggressively to discourage apartment buildings and mobile homes. Residents offered no unified view of action to take on low income ,. family housing, townhouses, condominiums, retail shopping centers, and light industrial parks. Projects falling into those categories will garner either citizen support or opposition after review of their specific parameters. 5 While sixty-four percent favor the City initiating action to ... speed up the sale of the Arsenal property, sixty-five percent also feel the community should regulate its use instead of outright purchasing it. In fact, seventy-four percent would oppose a referendum to increase property taxes to fund the Arsenal property purchase and redevelopment; fifty-one percent indicated "strong opposition." Forty-seven percent would favor the City buying parts of the property; but, again, the fate of a referendum to issue bonds is indeed pessimistic. If that property is developed, though, residents lean toward a mixed use, featuring single family dwellings, light industry, and recreational and park areas. After being informed of the inadequacies of the present city Hall, a fifty-eight percent to twenty-nine percent margin favored the construction of a new one. A majority would support a multi- use facility containing space to be rented to other government bodies. The current site for this new facility was favored by sixty-four percent of the sample; no other site generated much enthusiasm. A popularly supported community center addition would contain only meeting rooms for community groups; athletic facilities and an indoor swimming pool were opposed by strong majorities. The residents split, though, in their support for a stand-alone city Hall versus one with a community center addition: thirty-seven percent prefer the former, while thirty- nine percent opted for the latter. By a narrow forty-seven . percent to forty-five percent margin, residents would support a bond referendum for a new City Hall. They would oppose a combination City Hall-Community Center bond referendum by a fifty-eight percent to thirty six percent margin. Neither of these margins bode well for a successful special election bond referendum. Under these circumstances, the City may wish to investigate funding alternatives which do not require a bond referendum election. The issue of financial responsibility for neighborhood improvements found residents arriving at different conclusions for each type of project. sixty-one percent felt the entire city should pay for street reconstruction. Forty-seven percent felt similarly about the addition of street lighting. On sidewalks, though, citizens were split: Forty-one percent felt the area of the city under construction should bear the costs, while thirty- eight percent felt it should be shared citywide. A consensus has developed, though, around the appropriate formula for a cost- sharing arrangement between impacted residents and city as a whole: strong support existed for a one-third/two-thirds split, with the city paying the larger portion. The City has a very well developed and focused communications system. Majorities look to the "Town Crier" as their principal source of information about community events and . city government activities. The "Focus" and the "New Brighton Bulletin" ranked in the distant second tier. Even so, the two newspapers were read by approximately eighty-seven percent of the residents. An incredibly high ninety-four percent of the 6 . residents reported both receiving and reading the quarterly "Town Crier Newsletter." suggestions for changes included small numbers feeling that it should be longer, published more often, and better formatted. Given the unusually great impact of the "Town Crier" the city should take the additional effort and resource allocation to insure it is one of the finest newsletters in the Metropolitan Area. Electronic media ran a distant second. Forty-six percent of the sampled households reported currently subscribing to cable television. Thirteen percent occasionally watched local government access Channel 16. But, a majority of those occasional viewers criticized the quality of the sound and picture. An up-grading of the cable television programming of the City would seem in order, but it should take second priority to current print media outlets. In general, Arden Hills citizens are very highly satisfied with the community. The key issue facing decision-makers in the future is balancing the needs and wants of citizens with the concerns of taxpayers, particularly in the provision of city services. While residents are not reflexively anti-taxation, they are inclined to view proposals critically; the burden of proof is clearly on proponents. The city has managed so far to mitigate many of development's most undesirable consequences. So long as development is targeted, most residents will accept ~ growth as an inevitable part of the evolution of the city. "Gold collar" communities, such as Arden Hills, have high expectations about their government and its services -- though there are signs of some unrest due to rising expectations, they have not yet reached a critical level. But, there is a realization that the community is changing. Even so, there is also a concrete sense of optimism about the future direction of the city and its ability to meet the challenges ahead. . 7 , DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. ARDEN HILLS RESIDENTIAL . 3128 Dean Court QUESTIONNAIRE Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 September, 1990 . Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd. , a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of Arden Hills to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the city. The survey is being taken because your city representatives and staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) l. Approximately how many years LESS THAN ONE YEAR... ..3% have you lived in Arden Hills? ONE OR TWO YEARS......lO% THREE TO FIVE YEARS.. .20% SIX TO TEN YEARS......20% ELEVEN - TWENTY YEARS.24% OVER TWENTY YEARS.....22% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. ....0% 2. In what city and/or state was your immediately prior residence located? ARDEN HILLS, 3%; ST. PAUL, 20%: OUT OF STATE, 16%: OUT OF METRO AREA, 7%; MINNEAPOLIS, 10%; NEW BRIGHTON, 5~~ ROSE- o , VILLE, 12% ; SHOREVIEW, 7'2. REST RAMSEY, 7~. REST HENNEPIN, 0, 0, 6~:'" REST METRO, 8%. . 0, 3. As things now stand, how long LESS THAN ONE YEAR.....2% in the future do you expect to ONE TO TWO YEARS.......4% live in Arden Hills? THREE TO FIVE YEARS...12% SIX TO TEN YEARS......IO% OVER TEN YEARS........54% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. ...18% 4. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT....... ......54% life in Arden Hills -- excellent, GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44% good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR............. .1% POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ..1% 5. Thinking back to when you moved to Arden Hills, what factors were most important to you in selecting the city? NO ANSWER, 4%: NEIGHBORHOOD, 5%: "SMALL TOWN," 6%: SCHOOLS, 19%: LOCATION, 40%; PARKS, 3%; HOUSING, 20%; PEACE - QUIET, 3'2- SIZE, 2~ 0, o. 6. What do you like MOST about living in Arden Hills? NO ANSWER, 4%; SMALL TOWN AMBIENCE, 9%: PEOPLE, 6%; LOCA- TION, 38%; QUIET, 13%; SCHOOLS, 5%; NICE SUBURB, 29,-- OPEN 0, . SPACES, 8%: NEIGHBORHOOD, 9%; WELL RUN, 3%. 1 7. What do you like LEAST about it? . , NO ANSWER, 11% ; NOTHING, 32%; TAXES, 11%, CITY SERVICES, 15%; TRAFFIC, 8%; GROWTH, 5%, CITY GOVERNMENT, 5%; NO . SHOPS, 4%; SCHOOLS, 2%~ LOCATION, 4%; PEOPLE, 2%; ARSENAL, 1%: SCATTERED, 1%. 8. How would you rate the general EXCELLENT.............17% sense of community among Arden GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61% Hills residents -- excellent, ONLY FAIR.............18% good, only fair, or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2% 9. Is there a geographical area in the city which you consider to be the focal point of Arden Hills? (IF "YES," ASK:) Where is it? NO ANSWER, 55%; COUNTY RD. "EIII 26%; ARDEN CENTER, 59-4 0, LAKE JOHANNA, 6~. LEXINGTON AVE.,3%: OTHER, 5~ 0, o. changing topics.... 10. Would you favor or oppose an in- FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45% crease in city property taxes if OPPOSE............... .44% it were needed to maintain city DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....11% services at their current level? ll. Do you consider property taxes in COMPARATIVELY LOW......6% Arden Hills to be (ROTATE SERIES) ABOUT AVERAGE.........48% . comparatively low, about average, RELATIVELY HIGH.......35% relatively high, or excessively EXCESSIVELY HIGH.......7% high? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5% As you may know, property taxes are divided between the City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County, and the Mounds View Public School District. 12. For each dollar of property taxes UNDER TEN PERCENT.....10% you pay, about what percentage do 10% TO 20%....................... 41% you think goes to city govern- 21% TO 30%............13% ment? (READ CHOICES, IF NEEDED) 31% TO 40%.......................... 4% 41% TO 50%.............2% 51% TO 60%.... ... ......1% OVER SIXTY PERCENT.....2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....27% As you may know, the City share of the property tax in your school district is about sixteen percent. 13 . During the past few years, has INCREASED.............42% the City's tax rate increased, DECREASED..............2% decreased, or remained about the ABOUT THE SAME........34% same? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....22% For your information, the City'S tax rate has relatively stable. . 2 . '14. When you consider the property EXCELLENT.............18% taxes you pay and the quality GOOD..................56% of city services you receive, ONLY FAIR.............21% . would you rate the general value POOR...................2% of city services as excellent, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....3% good, only fair, or poor? I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? EXC GOOD FAIR POOR D.K. 15. Police protection? 19% 61% 12% 3% 5% 16. Fire protection? 21% 57% 3% 1% 19% 17. City street repair and maintenance? 13% 58% 22% 7% 1% 18. Sewers and water? 17% 69% 4% 3% 8% 19. Snow plowing? 29% 55% 10% 3% 3% 20. Animal control? 10% 58% 17% 7% 9% 21. Street sweeping? 10% 64% 15% 3% 8% 22. winter park . maintenance? 12% 55% 8% 2% 23% 23. Summer park maintenance? 16% 60% 10% 5% 10% 24. Street lighting? 10% 45% 27% 16% 3% 25. Enforcement of city codes on off-street parking, weeds and un- sightly yards, and building regulations. 8% 59% 15% 10% 9% IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR" IN QUESTIONS #15-25, ASK FOR EACH: 26. Why did you rate as (only fair/poor)? NO ANSWER, 21%; POTHOLES, 9%; LOOSE ANIMALS, 8%; SLOW SERVICE, 6%; THREE OR MORE, 27%; NO LIGHTS, 19%; SWEEPING, 3%; CODES, 7%; SEWERS, 2%. 27. Other than voting, do you feel YES...................78% that if you wanted to, you could NO....................17% have a say about the way the City DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....6% of Arden Hills runs things? . 3 28. How much do you feel you know GREAT DEAL.............6%. about the work of the Mayor and FAIR AMOUNT...........46% City council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE...........47% fair amount, or very little? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% . 29. From what you know, do you ap- STRONGLY APPROVE......19% prove or disapprove of the job SOMEWHAT APPROVE......58% the Mayor and city council are SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE....5% doing? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) STRONGLY DISAPPROVE....3% And do you feel strongly that DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....16% way? IF OPINION STATED IN QUESTION #29, ASK: 30. Why do you feel that way? GOOD JOB, 32%; NO PROBLEMS, 20%; COULD IMPROVE, 13%; SPECIFIC ISSUES, 6%: HEARSAY, 8%; NO ANSWER, 5~ o. 31- How much first-hand contact have QUITE A LOT............7% you had with the Arden Hills city SOME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36% Staff -- quite a lot, some, very VERY LITTLE...........39% little, or none at all? NONE AT ALL...........18% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% 32. From what you have seen or heard, EXCELLENT.............14% how would you rate the job per- GOOD................. .56% formance of the Arden Hills City ONLY FAIR.............10% Staff -- excellent, good, only POOR.................. .2% fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ..19% . IF RATING GIVEN IN QUESTION #32, ASK: 33. Why did you rate city staff as ? GOOD JOB, 43%; NO PROBLEMS, 14% ; COULD IMPROVE, 11%; SPECIFIC ISSUES, 7'2. HEARSAY, 4%; NO ANSWER, 5~ 0, o. Let's talk about public safety in Arden Hills.... 34. During the past year, have you YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45% been involved in or observed a NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55% situation in which a member of DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% the Ramsey County Sheriff Depart- ment was present in an official capacity? IF "YES," ASK: 35. Would you say the way the EXCELLENT.............21% police handled the situation GOOD.. ........ ....... .19% was excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR.............. 3% fair, or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% . 4 36. Would you say the time PROMPT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38% it took the police to re- NOT PROMPT.............3% spond was prompt, or not? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% . 37. How would you rate the amount of TOO MUCH............... 3% patrolling the police department ABOUT RIGHT...........68% does in your neighborhood -- NOT ENOUGH............25% would you say they do too much, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% about right, or not enough? 38. During the past year, have you YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10% been involved in or observed a NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90% situation in which a member of DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% the Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department was present in an official capacity? IF "YES," ASK: 39. Would you say the way the EXCELLENT..............6% firefighters handled the GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 % situation was excellent, ONLY FAIR........... ...0% good, only fair, or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% 40. Would you say the time PROMPT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 % it took the fire department NOT PROMPT.............1% to respond was prompt, or DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ..2% not? . 41. Do you have a working smoke YES/MORE THAN ONE.. ...78% detector installed in your home? YES/ONLY ONE....... ...18% (IF "YES," ASK:) Do you have NO.................... .4% more than one? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .0% 42. Do you have a fire extinguisher YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74% mounted in your home? NO................... .26% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .0% Moving on. . . . 43. During the past twelve months, YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54% have you contacted anyone working NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46% for the City of Arden Hills, other DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% than the police or fire depart- ments, whether to obtain informa- tion, to get service, or make a complaint of any kind? IF "YES," ASK: 44. What was the nature of your most recent inquiry; that is, what information or service did you need? PERMIT, 7%; COMPLAINT, 17%; PARK QUESTION, 8%; GEN- . ERAL INFO, 14%; RECYCLING, 5%; TREE REMOVAL, 3%. 5 '"', "" \ 45. What department or official did you contact first about this inquiry? "CITY HALL," 26%;- PARK & REC, 8%; BLDG. INSPECTOR, . 4%; PUBLIC WORKS, 6%; SCATTERED, 3%, DON'T KNOW, 79-- o. 46. In general, were you satis- SATISFIED.............41% fied or dissatisfied with the DISSATISFIED..........13% way your inquiry was handled? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3 IF "DISSATISFIED," ASK: 47. Why were you dissatisfied? NOTHING DONE, 11%; INCORRECT INFORMATION, 29-- o. 48. Have you visited the Arden Hills YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 % city Hall during the past two NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 % years? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% 49. From what you have heard or seen, EXCELLENT..............6% how would you rate the condition ADEQUATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . .56% of the building -- excellent, ade- INADEQUATE............14% quate, inadequate, or poor? POOR.................. .4% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....20% 50. In general, do you feel that the ADEQUATE..............59% structure is adequate or inade- INADEQUATE. . . . . . . . . . . . 17% quate for providing service to DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....24% the residents of Arden Hills? . Let's talk about future economic development in Arden Hills.... 5l. How would you rate the pace of TOO RAPID............ .13% economic development in Arden ABOUT RIGHT...........73% Hills -- too rapid, about right, TOO SLOW.............. 10% or too slow? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5% IF OPINION IS GIVEN, ASK: 52. Why do you feel that way? GOOD MIX, 70%; TOO FAST, 12% ; NEEDS NOT MET, 10%. 53. If the city were to attract more development, what kind would you most prefer? DON'T KNOW, 15%, NONE, 9%; RESIDENTIAL, 19%; OFFICE, 25%; RETAIL - STORES, 12% ; RECREATIONAL, 3%; LIGHT INDUSTRY, 17%. . 6 54. Do you support or oppose the city STRONGLY SUPPORT......27% taking an active and aggressive SUPPORT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48% role in attracting targeted devel- OPPOSE................12% . opment to Arden Hills? (WAIT FOR STRONGLY OPPOSE.......14% RESPONSE) And, do you feel strong- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....11% ly that way? 55. Do you favor or oppose the City STRONGLY FAVOR........ .9% offering financial incentives to FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28% attract various types of devel- OPPOSE................24% opment to the community? (WAIT STRONGLY OPPOSE.......27% FOR RESPONSE) And, do you feel DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... .13% strongly that way? The City could undertake many different initiatives to attract or discourage various types of future development. For each of the following categories, please tell me if you feel the City of Arden Hills should act aggressively to attract that type of growth, act aggressively to discourage that type of growth, or take no action one way or the other. If you have no opinion, just say 50. AGG AGG NO DK/ ATT DIS ACT REF 56. Single family homes for moderate income families. 56% 8% 30% 5% 57. Low income family housing. 20% 40% 33% 8% 58. Apartment buildings. 16% 52% 27% 5% 59. Townhouses. 44% 25% 26% 5% 60. Condominiums. 32% 36% 27% 5% . 61. Senior citizen housing. 64% 14% 19% 4% 62. Mobile homes. 7% 77% 13% 3% 63. Retail shopping centers. 33% 43% 21% 3% 64. Commercial office buildings. 49% 26% 21% 3% 65. Light industrial plants. 44% 36% 15% 5% 66. Parks and recreational open spaces. 75% 10% 12% 3% 67. Should the TOP priority for devel- TAX BASE..............29% opment in this city be on increa- JOBS..................12% sing the tax base, providing head- HOUSING...............20% of-household jobs, providing hou- RECREATION. . . . . . . . . . . .19% sing opportunities for young RETAIL SHOPPING........6% families and retirees, providing COMBINATION (VOL) . . . . . .6% recreational and leisure time NONE OF ABOVE..........4% offerings, or attracting more re- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5% tail shopping opportunities? 68. What should be the second prior- TAX BASE.............. 13% ity? (RE-READ ABOVE LIST, IF JOBS................. .19% NECESSARY. ) HOUSING...............21% RECREATION............20% RETAIL SHOPPING........8% COMBINATION (VOL) . . . . . .6% NONE OF ABOVE..........6% . DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....8% 7 There is the possibility that the Arsenal property in Arden Hills could become available for other uses. The property lies completely within the city and covers 2,331 acres. 69. Would you favor or oppose the STRONGLY FAVOR........33% . City initiating action to speed FAVOR................ .31% up the sale of this property? OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel STRONGLY OPPOSE........8% strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....18% 70. Should the City of Arden Hills PURCHASE..............17% attempt to purchase that land to REGULATE..... ... .... . .65% directly control its use or should DEPENDS (VOL) . . . . . . . . . .7% it try to regulate its future use DON'T CARE (VOL) . . . . . . .3% through zoning decisions without DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....8% buying the property? If the city were to purchase and redevelop that land, substantial costs might be involved. The city would not only have to pay fair value for the land, but would have to bear costs to clean up contaminated soil and remove buried ammunition. The city might have to ask residents to permit the issuing of long term bonds to finance this project. Property owners would be asked to increase their property taxes to cover the principal and interest of the bonds. 71- Would you favor or oppose a prop- STRONGLY FAVOR.........5% erty tax increase to purchase and FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12% redevelop the Arsenal site? (WAIT OPPOSE............... .23% . FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel STRONGLY OPPOSE. ......51% strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....9% IF "STRONGLY FAVOR" OR "FAVOR," ASK: 72. How much would you be willing NOTHING................O% to see your property taxes $25.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3% increase per year? Let's $50.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5% say, would you be willing to $100.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5% see a yearly increase of $125.00............... .0% $ ? (CHOOSE RANDOM START- $150.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1% ING LEVEL; MOVE UP OR DOWN $175.00............... .2% DEPENDING ON ANSWER.) How DON'T KNOW.............1% about $_? (REPEAT PROCESS) REFUSED............... .0% 73. Should the arsenal property be SINGLE FAMILY DWELL...19% developed PRIMARILY for single MULTIPLE FAMILIES......O% family dwellings, multiple family RETAIL SHOPPING........3% housing, retail shopping, light LIGHT INDUSTRY........10% industry, offices, OR recreational OFFICES....... .........4% and park uses? RECREATIONAL/PARKS....17% COMBINATION (VOL) . . . . .37% NONE OF ABOVE (VOL)... .4% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....7% . 8 74. If the city cannot procure all of YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47% the Arsenal property, should it NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 % attempt to purchase parts of it? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....14% . There has been some discussion about the need for a new City Hall and Public Works Building. The present city Hall is about forty years old, provides inadequate office space, needs major repairs, and has been cited for building code violations. 75. Do you favor or oppose the cons- STRONGLY FAVOR........22% truction of a new city Hall? FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And, do you OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11% feel strongly that way? STRONGLY OPPOSE.......18% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....14% 76. Should a new city Hall just con- JUST CITY OFFICES.....34% tain city offices or should it be MULTI-USE FACILITY....55% a multi-use facility in which DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....ll% space can be rented to other government bodies, such as the School District? 77 . Should a new City Hall be placed CURRENT SITE..........64% at the current site or in some OTHER SITE............16% other part of the community? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....20% IF "OTHER PART OF COMMUNITY," ASK: . 78. Where would you like to see a new City Hall built? BY ARSENAL, 3~. liEu & LEXINGTON, 4%: OTHER CENTRAL 0, LOCATION, 49.-- LEXINGTON & 694, 2%. 0, Several cities in the Metropolitan Area have built community centers adjoining their city halls. Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose, a community center addition which contained.... StF SmF SmO sto DKR 79. Meeting rooms for community groups? 16% 39% 20% 22% 3% 80. Athletic facilities, such as a gymnasium or exercise rooms? 10% 28% 27% 31% 5% 8l. An indoor swimming pool? 11% 23% 30% 32% 4% 82. Would you be most likely to favor CITY HALL ALONE.......37% a new City Hall if it stood alone, INCLUDE COM CENTER....39% included a community center addi- OPPOSE IT.............16% tion, or would you oppose it under DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....8% either condition? . The building of a new city Hall and/or Community Center would 9 . likely require citizens to approve a bond referendum. Property owners would be asked to increase their property taxes to cover the principal and interest of the bonds. First, let's consider just a City Hall.... . 83. Would you favor or oppose a prop- STRONGLY FAVOR........13% erty tax increase to construct a FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34% new City Hall? (WAIT FOR RE- OPPOSE.............. . .18% SPONSEl And do you feel strongly STRONGLY OPPOSE.......27% that way? DON'T KNOWjREFUSED.....8% IF "STRONGLY FAVOR" OR "FAVOR," ASK: 84. How much would you be willing NOTHING................O% to see your property taxes $10.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5% increase per year? Let's $20.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12% say, would you be willing to $30.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10% see a yearly increase of $40.00................ .4% $_? (CHOOSE RANDOM START- $50.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5% ING LEVEL; MOVE UP OR DOWN $60.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4% DEPENDING ON ANSWER.) How DON'T KNOW............. 6% about $_? (REPEAT PROCESS) REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0% How about a new City Hall with adjoining Community Center.... 85. Would you favor or oppose a prop- STRONGLY FAVOR........11% erty tax increase to construct a FAVOR.. ....... ....... .25% new city Hall and Community Cen- OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17% ter? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And, do STRONGLY OPPOSE.......41% . you feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOWjREFUSED.....6% IF "STRONGLY FAVOR" OR "FAVOR," ASK: 86. How much would you be willing NOTHING................O% to see your property taxes $15.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5% increase per year? Let's $30.00............... .11% say, would you be willing to $45.00................ .8% see a yearly increase of $60.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5% $_? (CHOOSE RANDOM START- $75.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1% ING LEVEL; MOVE UP OR DOWN $90.00................ .3% DEPENDING ON ANSWER.) How DON'T KNOW............. 3 % about $_? (REPEAT PROCESS) REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0% Turning to parks and recreational opportunities.... 87. In general, do you usually spend OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES....61% your leisure time in outdoor INDOOR ACTIVITIES.....16% activities, weather permitting, BOTH (VOL.) ...........23% or indoor activities? NO FREE TIME (VOL.) . . . .1% DON'T KNOWjREFUSED.....O% . 10 88. In general, how well informed are VERY WELL INFORMED....22% you about the Arden Hills park SOMEWHAT INFORMED.....53% system and facilities. Would you NOT TOO WELL INFORMED.22% . say you are very well informed, NOT AT ALL INFORMED....3% somewhat informed, not too well DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% informed, or not at all informed? The Arden Hills park system is composed of neighborhood parks and trails. 89. How often do you visit or use an FREQUENTLY............35% Arden Hills park or recreational OCCASIONALLY..........38% facility -- frequently, occasion- RARELy............... .20% ally, rarely, or never? NEVER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% 90. How would you rate park and rec- EXCELLENT.............23% reational facilities in Arden GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58% Hills -- excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR............. 11% fair, or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....7% IF RATING IS GIVEN, ASK: 91- Why do you feel that way? CLEAN - KEPT UP, 45%: GOOD - FUN TO USE, 29%: COULD IMPROVE, 15%; NEED MORE OF THEM, 4%. . 92. If you could choose, would you PAVED/ASPHALT.........33% prefer trails in the city to be UNPAVED/WOODCHIPS.....38% paved surfaces, with materials DON'T CARE............24% such as asphalt, or unpaved DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% surfaces, with materials such as woodchips, or don't you care? 93. Should trails in the City serve PEDESTRIANS ONLY......26% pedestrians only or pedestrians PEDESTR + BICYCL......53% and bicyclists? SOME OF BOTH (VOL) . . . .17% DON'T CARE (VOL) . . . . . . .2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ..2% 94. Do you feel that the current mix yES.................. .84% of recreational opportunities NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16% sufficiently meets the needs of DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% members of your household? IF "NO," ASK: 95. What additional recreational opportunities would you like to see the city of Arden Hills offer residents? TRAILS, 6%; FOR YOUTH, 4%. BALLFIELDS, 1%; SWIMMING, 1%; SCATTERED, 3%. . The Arden Hills Park system has been constructed and maintained 11 through the use of park dedication fees, and has never required any type of property tax funding. That financial situation may change in the future. 96. Would you favor or oppose a prop- STRONGLY FAVOR........22% . erty tax increase to maintain and FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33% improve the park system? (WAIT OPPOSE................19% FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel STRONGLY OPPOSE.......20% strongly that way? DON'T KNOWjREFUSED.....7% IF "STRONGLY FAVOR" OR "FAVOR," ASK: 97. How much would you be willing NOTHING................1% to see your property taxes $10.00............... .17% increase per year? Let's $20.00............... .12% say, would you be willing to $30.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9% see a yearly increase of $40.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5% $ ? (CHOOSE RANDOM START- $50.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7% ING LEVEL; MOVE UP OR DOWN $60.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3% DEPENDING ON ANSWER.) How DON'T KNOW.............5% about $_? (REPEAT PROCESS) REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0% Changing topics.... 98. Do you approve or disapprove of STRONGLY APPROVE......16% charitable gambling in Arden Hills APPROVE........ .......23% establishments? (WAIT FOR RE- DISAPPROVE........... .15% SPONSEl And do you feel strongly STRONGLY DISAPPROVE...36% that way? DON'T KNOWjREFUSED....11% . The city raises $110,000.00 per year through taxes on charitable gambling activities. 99. Would you support the elimination YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27% of charitable gambling in the city NO....................64% even if property taxes would have DON'T KNOWjREFUSED.....9% to be raised or city services cut to make up the difference? Some people feel that neighborhood improvements should be paid for only by the people directly affected in the area. Others feel that neighborhood improvements should be paid for by general city funds, since property values across the city are indirectly impacted. For each of the following improvements, please tell me if you think that only property owners in the area, or the entire city should pay.... AREA CITY BOTH DKRF 100. Street lighting? 30% 47% 20% 3% 10I. Sidewalks? 41% 38% 20% 5% 102. Street reconstruction? 15% 61% 21% 3% . 12 '--- '"" i suppose the City decided to use a cost-sharing formula to pay for these types of improvements. Residents directly affected by neighborhood improvement would pay a certain percentage of the . costs, while general city funds would be used to pay for the remainder. 103. If you set the percentage to be ENTIRE AMOUNT..........5% paid by directly impacted home- THREE-QUARTERS.........9% owners, would you require them to ONE-HALF............. .26% pay the entire amount, three- ONE-QUARTER...........23% quarters, one-half, one-quarter or NONE..................18% none of the costs? DON'T KNOWjREFUSED....19% As you may know, recyclable materials are picked up at the curb in Arden Hills. Households are asked to separate recyclables from the rest of their trash and haulers carry them away. 104. Do you now participate in the yES.................. .86% curbside pick-up program? NO.................................... .14% DON'T KNOWjREFUSED.....O% IF "YES," ASK: 105. How often do you put recy- WEEKLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54% clables out for collection TWICE MONTHLY.........25% -- weekly, twice monthly, ONCE MONTHLY...........6% monthly, quarterly, or less? QUARTERLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1% LESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0% . DON'T KNOWjREFUSED.....O% 106. Are you satisfied or dis- SATISFIED.............77% satisfied with the recycling DISSATISFIED...........9% program? DON'T KNOWjREFUSED.....O% IF "DISSATISFIED," ASK: 107. Why do you feel that way? PICK UP PLASTICS, 5%; NEED MORE INFO, l~. MORE 0, FREQUENT - ON TIME, 3%. IF "NO," ASK: 108. Which of the following best STATEMENT A........... .2% describes your reasons for STATEMENT B............5% not participating: STATEMENT C............2% A. I wasn't aware of the STATEMENT D............2% program. STATEMENT E............2% B. I knew about it, but need ALL OF THE ABOVE (VOL) .0% more information. OTHER REASON...........2% C. The program is too incon- NONE OF ABOVE (VOL) . . . .1% venient. DON'T KNOWjREFUSED.....O% D. I am just not interested. . E. It isn't worth it to take the time. 13 109. How do you currently dispose of COMPOST ON PROPERTY...51% grass clippings and yard waste USE DROP-OFF SITE.....21% -- do you compost on your prop- GARBAGE HAULER.........8% erty, use a yard waste drop-off OTHER METHOD (VOL.) . . .16% . site, or have your garbage hauler DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5% collect it? As you also may know, several refuse haulers serve Arden Hills. This arrangement has permitted citizens to choose their own haulers and contract directly with them. Some people say it has created significant overlap between the hauler routes and increased noise and congestion on city streets. 110. Of the following three proposals, PROPOSAL A............65% which do you most favor: PROPOSAL B............13% A. The present system. PROPOSAL C............15% B. The City assigns current ALL EQUALLy.... . . . . . . . .3% haulers to exclusively handle DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....6% specific areas; C. The city designates one hauler to serve the entire city; Changing topics again.... 111. What is your primary source of information about community events going on in Arden Hills? NONE, 3%: CABLE, 2~. PAPER, 99--. NEWSLETTER, 9%; TOWN 0, 0, CRIER, 50%; FOCUS, 12%: NEW BRIGHTON BULLETIN, 15%: . PEOPLE, 3%: FLYERS, 2~ o. 112. What is your primary source of information about City government and its activities? NONE, 5%: CABLE, 4%: PAPER, 7%: NEWSLETTER, 8%: TOWN CRIER, 50%; FOCUS, 10%; NEW BRIGHTON BULLETIN, 12%; PEOPLE, 2%; DISPATCH, 2%: FLYERS, 1~ o. 113. Do you receive the quarterly RECEIVE/READ..........94% "Town Crier" Newsletter"? (IF RECEIVE/DON'T READ.....3% "YES," ASK:) Do you regularly DON'T RECEIVE......... .3% read the newsletter? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% IF "RECEIVE AND READ," ASK: 114. Are there any changes in the format or coverage you would like to see? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are they? MORE OFTEN, 3%: LARGER, 6~. BETTER FORMAT, 3%. o , 115. Does your household currently yES.................. .46% subscribe to cable television? NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54$ DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% IF "YES," ASK: . 14 " . 116. Would you say you watch local FREQUENTLY.............2% government access Channel 16 OCCASIONALLY..........11% frequently, occasionally, RARELY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15% . rarely, or not at all? NOT AT ALL............19% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% IF "FREQUENTLY" OR "OCCASIONALLY," ASK: 117. How would you rate the EXCELLENT..............O% quality of the picture GOOD.................. .6% and sound -- excellent, ONLY FAIR..............6% good, only fair, or POOR.................. .1% poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% 118. Would you say you watch city FREQUENTLy........... ..1% Council meeting telecasts OCCASIONALLY...........8% telecasts frequently, occa- RARELY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11% sionally, rarely, or not at NOT AT ALL............23% all? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....3% 119. Do you read either the "Focus" or "FOCUS" ONLY . . ... .. .. . ...... 6% the "New Brighton Bulletin" or "BULLETIN" ONLY. . . . . . . .7% both newspapers? BOTH NEWSPAPERS.. .....80% NEITHER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. ....0% Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes.... . Could you tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to youngest, and be sure to include yourself.... NONE, 86%; ONE, 6%; 120. Persons over 65? TWO OR MORE, 8~ o. NONE, 12%: ONE, 10%: TWO, 59%: 121- Adults over 18? THREE, 13% ; FOUR OR MORE, 6~ o. NONE, 62%; ONE, 14%: 122. School-aged children? TWO, 18%; THREE OR MORE, 6~ o. NONE, 83%; ONE, 14%; 123. preschoolers? TWO, 4%; 124. Do you own or rent your present OWN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94% residence? RENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6% REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0% 125. Which of the following categories 18 - 24................6% contains your age, please? 25 - 34...............12% 35 - 44...............30% 45 - 54...............26% . 55 - 64.............. .14% 65 AND OVER.......... .12% 15 126. Which of the following best SINGLE FAMILY HOME....87% . describes your present residence? DUPLEX/DOUBLE BUNGALOW.l% (READ CHOICES #1-#6.) 3-PLEX OR 4-PLEX.......3% APARTMENT BUILDING OF . 5-9 UNITS.........O% APARTMENT BUILDING OF 10 OR MORE UNITS..l% MOBILE HOME............2% OTHER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% 127. What is the last grade of LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL..2% education you completed? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE..14% VO-TECH SCHOOL.........5% SOME COLLEGE..........17% COLLEGE GRADUATE......35% POST-GRADUATE........ .27% REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0% 128. What is your occupation and, if applicable, the occupation of your spouse? (CODED AS HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD) PROFESSIONAL - TECHNICAL, 30%: OWNER - MANAGER, 37%; CLERICAL - SALES, 7~. BLUE COLLAR, 7!X~ RETIRED, 15%; . , . , SCATTERED, 451- . . 129. Do you and/or your spouse, if RESPONDENT ONLy.... ...11% applicable, work in Arden Hills? SPOUSE ONLY............6% BOTH...................6% . NEITHER... . ... . .... ...71% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....6% 130. Which of the following categories BELOW $12,500. ..........2% includes your 1989 total pre-tax $12,501-$25,000.........6% household income. Please stop me $25,001-$37,500.........9% when I read the right one. $37,501-$50,000........18% $50,001-$62,500........17% $62,501-$75,000........13% $75,001-$87,500.........6% $87,501-$100,000........8% OVER $100,000........ ...9% DON'T KNOW............. .2% REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13% 131. Gender (DO NOT ASK) MALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50% FEMALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50% LIST: PRECINCTS ONE & TWO...38% PRECINCT THREE........30% PRECINCT FOUR.........32% . 16 , eOUNeIL HINUTES ~-~- DATE PAGE ----.--.----- ------. -..----.... SUBJECT: DIseUSSION: ----!!!f- ~----- ! ! I ----------------" ~ . 4Zll - /? / . - I1c ... ~ (/ 11P~.J Hoved: (IMYOR SATHER) eOUNCILMBR: (HANSEN) (GROHE) (J,~~ Seconded: (l1AYOlZ SA~HER) COUNCILHBR: (HANSEN) (GROHE) (l' H_OliJLD) THAT COUNCIL: -~---~------"_.- -- VOTE: AYES: NAYS: ---- --, Hansen Malone Sather Hansen Halonc Sather . Growe Hahovald Grmole Nahowald ABSTAIN: TOTAL: ( - ) - --, Hansen Malone Sather Growe :Hahowald Ayes Nays Abs. ALSO PRESENT: Clk/Adrninistrator _______.\t(Ol"llCy___ Treasurer _Engineer__ Parks Director Pub. \~ks . Supervisor Planner Dep. elk (~ td' I / ~ ,;' -:7 '. jkwe-fiM/~ ...~ 1 ~ '2#14f....,.--- v . IZW (/., " ~I // o' /k,d~ - / . -.....~_."_.- ~/'-..----_/ 1n-/ /~ / ;//:J /If/ - ~.. ./1 . J~~~ 'I' -/7 fJ{f( ~ /Jrbp-dl' f:::4 ~/~ /J't/ . I/~ V d.?m> Pz . ___ it '"71'" 9-L- (/ ,~~ " . l/A/ .. 4 . I) 'r .' . .'" '-- IX~j - {//./ (j/ . eOUNCIL HINUTES ~ DATE PAGE ~----- ,-- SUBJECT: .J . DIseUSSION: ~-------- - . - ---- -- Moved: {lMYOR SATHER) COUNCILMBR: Seconded: (l1AYOR SA'fHER) eOUNCILHBR: THAT eOUNCIL: ~ ._---~-,- U -----~._-,.- VOTE: AYES: NAYS: Hansen Hansen Halono Sather . Growe Grmole Hahmvald ABSTAIN: TOTAL: ( - - ) Hansen Malone Sather Growe l-lahowald Ayes Nays Abs, ALSO PRESENT: elk/Administrator Attorney Treasurer Engineer Parks Director Pub. '~ks . Supervi.sor Planner Del" elk - ---------