Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 12-11-2000 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2000 . 7:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDERlROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Dennis Probst called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:30 p,m. Present: Mayor Dennis Probst, Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski, David Grant, Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem, Absent: None. Also present were City Administrator, Joe Lynch; Public Works Director, Dwayne Stafford; City Accountant, Terrance Post; Building Official, Dave Scherbel; Planner, Jennifer Chaput; Parks and Recreation Director, Thomas Moore; City Engineer, Greg Brown, BRW; City Attorney, Jerry Filla; and Recording Secretary, Carla Wirth. ADOPT AGENDA Councilmember Grant requested that Item 6G, Vendor Authorization, Comprehensive Park and . Recreation Plan, be considered prior to Item 6A. Councilmember Aplikowski requested the addition ofItem 61, City Events Discussion. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to adopt the agenda for the December 11, 2000, regular City Council meeting, as amended. The motion carried unanimously (5-0), APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. November 13,2000 Regular Council Meeting B, December 4, 2000 Special Council Meeting (Planning Commission Interviews) C, December 4,2000 Truth in Taxation Hearing Councilmember Grant requested the following changes to the November 13, 2000 Regular Council meeting minutes: Page 2, fifth paragraph, "He noted the project payment includes some storm sewer extension and minor work in Arden Manor Park, both of which were partiallv completed, Page 2, ninth paragraph, "Councilmember Grant asked if the City will submit for a portion of the development grant money to fund the project," Page 6, eighth paragraph, "Councilmember Grant stated the Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee would meet". " . Councilmember Larson requested the following changes to the November 13, 2000 Regular Council meeting minutes: Page 6, sixth paragraph, "Mr. Lynch stated, on another item, that he recently attended the Governor's Big Plan meeting, adding that nothing new with regard to the ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 11, 2000 2 . plan was revealed or discussed," Page 7, sixth paragraph, "He noted the capital budget would be affected if a replacement truck were purchased." Page 9, first paragraph, "Councilmember Larson stated that Commissioner Nelson was willing to remain on the Commission until Summer 200 I." Councilmember Rem requested the following change to the November 13, 2000 Regular Council mceting minutes: Page I, paragraph preceding election motion, "Councilmember Rem stated that Precinct 3 often gets new voters, adding that they often have a lower percentage of J:2!!:registered voters than other precincts," MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve the November 13,2000 Regular Council meeting minutes, the December 4, 2000 Special Council meeting minutes, and the December 4, 2000 Truth in Taxation Hearing minutes as corrected above, The motion carried unanimously (5-0). CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Payroll B, 2001 Liquor License Renewals C. IRS Mileage Rate Increase D, Abdo, Abdo, Eick & Meyers, Authorization for 2001 Audit Agreement . E, Law Enforcement Services Agreement, Thrce Year Renewal Contract F, LMCIT Municipal Excess Liability Coverage G. Resolution #00-47,2001 Pay Plan With regard to Item 4e, Law Enforcement Services Agreement, Three Year Renewal Contract, Councilmember Grant noted it states "City of Shoreview" rather than the "City of Arden Hills" on first page and signature blocks. Councilmember Larson inquired regarding the overbilling of the sheriffs contract. Mr. Lynch explained the Ramsey County SherilIhas indicated they could not give an estimated net billing based upon planned revenues. In addition, it is easier for them administratively to address contract revenues at the end of the contract year. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein, The motion carried unanimously (5-0), PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Probst invited those present to come forward and address the Council on any items not already on the agenda, . There were no public comments. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 11, 2000 3 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS . G. Vendor Authorization, Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan Mr. Moore noted the planning process for the City's first Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan began at the April 25, 2000 Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee (PTRC) meeting. At that meeting, they voted unanimously to present the concept of a Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan to the Council for approval. That recommendation was presented to the Council at their June 26, 2000 City Council meeting where a motion was made, seconded, and unanimously carried to approve funding of a Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan. He reviewed the process undertaken, noting the vendor selection process took five months and 148 hours of staff and PTRC time to complete. He advised that the three vendors selected to make a presentation to tbe PTRC were URS/BRW, Inc" Short Elliott Hendrikson, Inc" and Ingraham & Associates. After three hours of presentation and discussion time, the PTRC unanimously selected Ingraham & Associates as the preferred vendor for the City's first Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. Mr. Moore acknowledged the attendance of Committee members at the meeting tonight. MOTION: COlillcilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve Ingraham & Associates as the vendor for the City's first Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). . A. Planning Cases 1. Case #00-44, City of Arden Hills, Special Use Permit (50" Anniversary Banners) Ms. Chaput explained that the City is requesting approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) to attach banners to 17 utility poles along County Road E for the year 2001, in celebration ofthe City's 50th Anniversary. The Events Committee has proposed that banners, advertising the Anniversary, be attached to the utility poles along County Road E during the year. She advised that the public hearing was noticed in the newspaper and since the Planning Commission was by- passed, tbe public hearing will be held at the Council meeting tonight. Mayor Probst opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Ms, Chaput stated banners were placed in these locations approximately eight years ago and supported by local business people. She noted the applicable sign ordinance sections state that attacbing to sign posts is prohibited as well as posting any sign within the public right-of-way or within dedicated public easements, However, the Council may, upon recommendation from the Planning Commission, grant a permit to allow temporary civic or community signs to be located within rights-of-way and easements for a specific period of time. Ms. Chaput advised that this application can be evaluated according to the "Additional . Flexibility" section of the SUP requirement of the Ordinance as follows: ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER I 1,2000 4 (a) A degree ojjlexibility in the application of this Ordinance by allowing signs that are not . specifically permitted by this Ordinance. The proposed banners are not permitted by the Ordinance, as written, for the following reasons: banners are prohibited; signs attached to utility poles are prohibited; and signs in the right-of-way are prohibited. Some flexibility to this language may be made to support a different type of sign application than what is defined in the Sign Ordinance, Banners promoting a City event, located within the City's right-of-way and attached to utility poles maintained by the City differs from any other applicant wanting to promote a business or place a sign on land that is not theirs. Therefore, although these signs are not permitted by Ordinance, it is clear that there should be some flexibility for an application that didn't appear to be a consideration when the Ordinance was written. (b) Unique circumstances that may not have been apparent when the Ordinance was adopted. At the time that the Ordinance was adopted, the types of banners, as proposed, were not addressed. The section of the Ordinance that refers to signs attached to utility poles as being prohibited was referring to "snipe signs" or a temporary sign or poster affixed to a tree, etc. When this language was adopted, stalf does not believe it considered banners like those that are proposed by the City, The same holds true for not allowing signs within the City right-of-way, directly relating to allowing signs on utility poles which are in the right-of-way. The Ordinance also does not permit banners of any sort, except as approved by the City Council. Banners, as defined by the ordinance, are "A temporary sign or attention getting device, generally made of tlexible materials, such as paper, cloth, plastic or any non-rigid material with no enclosing tramework." Staff does not believe that this language considered this type of application of . banners but relates specifically to business advertising banners, A 50'h Anniversary celebration is a unique circumstance for the City and should be granted the necessary sign approvals to celebrate this civic event. (c) Changing technologies in the Sign Industry. Overall, it could be said that the sign materials and durability have been improvcd over time and signs that may not have been aesthetically pleasing in the past, are much more acceptable today, Ms, Chaput stated that based on this analysis, staff recommends approval of Planning Case #00- 44, Special Use Pcrmit, to attach banners to 17 utility poles along County Road E for the year 2001 in cclebration of the City's 50'h Anniversary subject to three conditions as detailed in her staff report. No comments were made so Mayor Probst closed public hearing at 7:49 p,m. Councilmember Grant asked how long the banners would be in place, Ms, Chaput stated the banners would be in place during the calendar year. Councilmember Aplikowski asked if the ordinance would be looked at for possible change to allow this type of request in the future, Ms. Chaput stated the Planning Commission would review the sign ordinance as a whole so this discussion may be raised as something that could be . permitted by the City. Councilmember Aplikowski stated her support of the banners. ---- ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER II, 2000 5 . MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and COlU1cilmember Rem seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #00-44, Special Use Permit to attach banners to 17 utility poles along County Road E for year 2001, in celebration of the City's 50'h Anniversary, with the following conditions: 1. Each banner shall not exceed 32 square feet in area, as rcquired by the Sign Ordinance; and 2, In celebration of the 50'h Anniversary of the City, the banners shall remain up for the 200 I calendar year; and 0 The Planning Commission will review this issue in 200 I and make j, recommendations to amend the Sign Ordinance accordingly, The motion carried tmanimously (5-0). 2. Vaughan Tower Appeal (Code Enforcement) Ms, Chaput explained that the Building Official denied a building permit application for the construction of a new antenna tower at 1777 Gateway Boulevard based on the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, That decision is being appealed by Dan Vaughan, the property owner of 1777 Gateway Boulevard. The appeal process requires that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council, with findings regarding the Building Inspector's . interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance in this mattcr. Ms, Chaput advised that the Planning Commission, at their December 6,2000 regular meeting, supported staffs decision to deny a building permit request by Dan Vaughan based on four findings, She presented the background section of her staff report which indicated that U,S. West made application to the City in Planning Case #98-10, to install an antenna array on the tower at 1777 Gateway Boulevard (formerly 14th Street) owned by Dan Vaughan, The application was approved with the condition that they comply with the Ehresmann Engineering report dated February 2, 1998. Ms. Chaput explained that after numerous engineering reports, requested by staff and Mr, Vaughan, serious questions were raised regarding the State Code compliance of the antenna. After confirmation from the State, City staff declared the tower to be an unsafe structure. Ms, Chaput advised that Mr. Vaughan applied on Dccember 17, 1999, for a building permit to construct a new 700-foot tower on the site. On January 6, 2000, staff denied the building permit application because construction of a new tower to replace the existing did not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. She explained that the Zoning Ordinancc does not allow for towers over 75 feet high and towers are only allowed as an accessory use to the principal use on the property. Mr. Vaughan appealed the building permit denial on February 24, 2000. Ms. Chaput explained that the Building Official has denied Mr. Vaughan's building permit . application to construct a new 700-foot tower for the following reasons: ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 11,2000 6 1) Section 6 #3 (a) of the City of Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance states that, "No antenna or . tower shall exceed a height of seventy five feet (75');" and 2) Section 6 #2 of the City of Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance states that, "Antennas, satellite dish antennas and towers are allowed only as special accessory uses. They are therefore allowed only on property containing a principal use to which the antenna, dish antenna or tower is accessory;" and 3) Section II (A) #1 of the City of Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance states that, "No building permit or other permit pertaining to the use of land or buildings shall be issued unless such building is designed and arranged to conform to the provisions of this ordinance." Mr. Scherbel stated he denied the request based purely on zoning issues. Councilmember Aplikowski inquired regarding the use for the original tower when constructed. Mr. Scherbel explained that when the tower went up in 1981 and at the time approved, it was a two-way radio tower with three antenna groupings at a 600 foot leveL The tower was built without meeting the State requirement of one-half inch radial ice being calculated on the tower structure, He explained that State law carne into effect about a year before they built the tower but it was never designed with that criteria. Now there are numerous antenna groupings, John Bannigan, attorney representing Mr. Vaughan, introduced himself. He reviewed the background material related to this case and clarified that by definition it is not saying the tower . is prepared to collapse, but that the tower is non-code complaint. However, that issue is not before the Council tonight. Ratller, the question is one of use and whether Mr. Vaughan was appropriate in applying for a building permit to erect a code complying tower to replace the non- compliant tower. Mr. Bannigan noted the City issued a SUP making it a complying land use but, as the Building Official indicated, it was not known to the City, the applicant, nor Motorola who designed the tower that Minnesota Codes had changed to require one-half inch radial ice loading. He explained that they proposed at the end of 1999 or beginning of 2000, to build a new code compliant tower on the site and to take the non-complaint tower down so he could continue to provide the same service. Mr. Bannigan stated now they are looking at zoning districts which are not favorable to this type of use due to code and zoning changes. He stated they had hoped to have a site plan before the Planning Commission indicating their intention to bring the tower into compliance and developing the rest of the site. Mr. Bannigan stated they do not take issue with whether the Building Official has applied tlle proper codes to the application and believe this is only one step in a continuum they hope to take to the Council over the next year. He offered to show that plan to the CounciL Mayor Probst explained the proper procedure would be to present that plan to staff and then the Planning Commission, Mr. Bannigan stated a presentation to the Council at this time would provide an opportunity for . the Council to provide direction to stan: however, this is a Council determination, ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER II, 2000 7 Mayor Probst asked if the Council is under the same limitations on timing of approvals and . denials as relates to other planning actions. Mr. Filla stated the City has continued this process a number of times at the request, written or verbal, of the property owner. He stated the timing of the review process is covered by State regulations which indicate 90 to 120 days with an extension at the consent of the property owner. Mr. Filla stated his agrcement with the Building Official's finding and Planning Commission recommendation. He stated the City has a process to review development applications, text amendments, and rezonings if that is requested. All of them require application and reviews by the Planning Commission at public hearings. Mr. Filla stated his agreement with Mr. Bannigan that the Building Official acted properly and the other matters, while important, will be dealt with at some point in the future when Mr. Vaughan can make a more thorough presentation. Mr. Filla stated that in 1981, towers were a use consistent with the City's regulations and allowed via a SUP. At that time, it was not realized that the design should have been to a higher standard so the tower has never complied with the State building code, The City then changed its regulations in 1990 by adopting the Gateway Business regulations and rezoned this property and other property within the Gateway area. Some were rezoned trom Limited Industrial or Light Industrial to Gateway and some trom Residential to Gateway. In 1990, the tower use continued to be allowed in the Gateway zone by SUP. It became a nonconforming use in 1993 when the City adopted regulations to limit the size of towers or towers as a principal use, Mr. . Filla stated all of those regulations apply to the repair or replacement of the nonconforming tower. Mayor Probst askcd if denial of the appeal would prohibit rebuilding the tower. Mr. Filla stated it would be difficult to reconstruct a tower in the Gateway zone without a legislative change. Mayor Probst asked if the design parameters compared with what is required today and how that comes into place as it relates to the denial. Mr, Filla stated if the City accepts the recommendation of the Planning Commission and affirms the decision of the Building Official, that does not mean the tower will come down. He explained that additional actions would be needed, based on additional investigation that the tower is being operated in manner inconsistent with the SUP. If that is concluded, then a public hearing to rescind the SUP would be held. Mr. Filla explained that the next logical step would then be to tell the property owner to take the tower down. Mr. Filla stated the City could also conclude, based on the Building Inspector's comments and engineering stndies dcaling with this tower, that the tower is a public safety hazard. Then the City would concludc the tower fails to comply with State bnilding requirements and is a danger in some manner to public health, safety, and welfare. However, that would require a different process. . Mr. Filla stated the third possibility is if an ice storm were to occur and the weight of the ice caused the tower to collapse. He explained that, at that point, he would encourage the City to ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER II, 2000 8 . look at the conforming and nonconforming uses and determine if the tower can or cannot be constructed. Mr, Filla stated the legal issues with these scenarios are complicated and the property owner does not share staffs interpretation of which regulations would apply in those situations. However, the applicant agrees tonight that the Building Official properly applied the code in denying the building permit application. Mr. Bannigan stated he had asked the Planning Commission to table the matter until they could bring in their own plan, However, he realizes certain aspects need finality but, in his view, to delay and consider the site plan development and land use application at the same time as considering the tower and other aspects would be appropriate, However, the Planning Commission did not concur with that method. Mr. Bannigan stated he would support delaying and keeping both to run concurrently. He stated they would also have to continue to renew the 60-day reviewal extension. Mr. Bannigan stated irrespective of Council action tonight, they will bc presenting their plan but would prefer not denying the appeal. Councilmember Larson asked why they do not withdraw the appeal. Mr. Bannigan stated this has been with staff since February and ifhe were to have processed it, hc would have recommended it be taken from the table. However, there does need to be some finality. He stated he is not interested, at this point, in removing it from the table. . Councilmember Larson noted that City never reached a conclusion the tower was too unsafe to continue and nothing prevents the applicant from continuing operation but the applicant would be prohibited from adding to the tower to increase revenue, Mr. Bannigan stated that is correct. Councilmember Larson stated the only instances that prevent operation is if the Council were to move to find the tower represents some type of health and safety issue and takes action on that point. Mr. Bannigan reviewed the past consideration on the compliance and load issues, and change in the Codc. He stated his agreement with Mr. FiIIa that this is not an easy legal consideration, Mayor Probst reviewed that a year ago is not the first time the issue of the structure surfaced. He statcd there was something several years ago that triggered, in part, the same discussion. Mr. Bannigan stated that is correct, it was discussed about three years ago. Mayor Probst reviewed the issues that had been discussed and thus determination that the antenna may have been constructed beyond the approved height. Mr. Bannigan stated the initial lease was with Motorola and went from 3 to 25 antem1a by the end ofthe lease. Then Mr. . Vaughan reduced the net number to 20. Mr. Bannigan stated the issues related to the land use will be returned to at a later date. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER I I, 2000 9 . Mr. Vaughan, applicant, explained that until this recent incident with Qwest, he was unaware the tower had to conform to the one-half inch ice standard. He stated when ever there was a change in the array of the towers, he had an engineering study conducted to determine whether it was safe, As a result, he has declined an array of users to go on the tower. He stated this is his living and no one is more concerned with safety than is he. Now that he has learned that the law was changed, he researched when the law was changed and learned it was prior to the time the tower was constructed, meaning the City and his engineers missed that new regulation. Now, to correct the problem, they are willing to reconstruct the tower at his expense. Mr. Vaughan stated he respects the City Building Official and has always tried to be a good citizen of Arden Hills, He stated he wants to address his plight and assured the Council they want the tower to be safe, Mayor Probst noted the action proposed is a review of the denial by the Building Official. He noted the staff and Planning Commission recommendation is well documented to affirm the denial. Mr. Filla explained that tabling consideration does not gain anything for either party. He stated if a decision is made tonight, this part is resolved. If they want to apply for some type of a use, once approval is given for the use to be constructed, the next logical step is to make application for a building permit. Mr. Filla stated that could only happen ifthe Council ultimately decides to change the regulations. . Councilmember Aplikowski noted that things have changed over the last ten years no matter what the business is, and it behooves the business person to be aware ofthose changes. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she finds it difficult to believe they had no knowledge of the change in regulations. She stated she knows there have been discussions on road and land issues in the past. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she does not want to tell any business that they cannot remain in business. But, at the same time, she does not want to consider a new tower since they are no longer allowed in the Gateway District. Mayor Probst stated his support to affirm the denial as recommended by staff. He noted Mr. Bannigan has stated he agrees with the logic used by the Building Official in his denial so it would seem appropriate to close this "chapter" and move onto the next one. Councilmember Grant stated if the Council does not affirm the denial, it does not change that denial. Mr. Filla explained the request of the property owner is to postpone this decision so it can be considered concurrent with a development action. However, he believes that would complicate future considerations, Mr. Filla reiterated that by affirming staff s recommendation, it does not require the tower owner to remove that tower. Mr. Filla again reviewed the possible future scenarios the Council may consider. . Councilmember Larson stated his support to affirm the decision of the Building Official, noting that oncc it is done, three events could occur. He reviewed those three events and stated his support to take action on the appeal tonight. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 11, 2000 10 Councilmember Rem agreed that according to docwnentation presented, thc Building Official . has reached an appropriate detcrmination which shc supports. Councilmcmbcr Aplikowski askcd if the propcrty owncr was notified whcn the City changed thc zoning. Mr. Filla statcd hc rcviewed thc City filcs and in 1990, whcn City adopted the Gateway zoning regulations, it was preceded with appropriate mailed and published notices. In 1993, there was also appropriate published noticc. However, he remembers Mr. Vaughan indicating he may have had somc hcalth problems during those times, which preventcd him from being as involved, as he would have liked to have been. Mr. Filla stated the action taken tcn years ago and seven years ago was not contested. MOTION: Councilmembcr Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to uphold the dccision of the Building Official and rccommendation of the Planning Commission to dcny a building pcrmit request by Mr. Dan Vaughan based on the following findings: 1. An application for a building permit was made by Dan Vaughan to reconstruct a new 700 foot antenna tower; and 2. The proposed new tower is greater than 75 feet in height and serves as thc principal use on the property; and , City staff denied the application bascd on staff s interprctation of City -'. Ordinancc 291; and . 4. City staff correctly intcrpreted the Ordinance and the denial is affirmed by the Planning Commission. Thc motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Planning Commission Vacancy, Appointment Mayor Probst rcported there was correspondence from Planning Commissioncr Nelson indicating flexibility in his situation. Mayor Probst stated he would recommend the Council appoint two new Planning Commissioners, Warren Pakulski and A. Clayton Zimmerman, effective the first meeting in January of 2001. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to affirm the following appointments to the Planning Commission: Warren Pakulski and A. Clayton Zimmerman effective the first meeting in January of 2001. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. Resolution #00-41, Resolution Authorizing a Surcharge and Eventual Shutofffor City Water Users Using Non-Radio Read Meters Mr. Stafford reviewed that at the November 13, 2000 Council meeting, he had advised that . approximately 160 water meters remain to be replaced or upgraded. He noted the three options undertaken to encourage the remaining residents to schedule access to the City-owned meter on their property as required by City Ordinance Section 28-71. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 11,2000 11 . Mr. S !afford stated the contractor has been unsuccessful in his attempts to contact anyone at these residences to schedule this work. He recommended the Council adopt the draft resolution which would authorize a surcharge and eventual shutoff for City water users using non-radio read meters. Mayor Probst noted the draft letter staffrecommends be sent to notify these residents. He suggested the letter being sent to the residents emphasize the water meters are owned by the City. Mr. Stafford indicated how the letter could be so revised. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve Resolution #00-41, Authorizing a Surcharge and Eventual Shutoff for City Water Users Using Non-Radio Read Meters. Councilmember Rem asked if the letters would be sent via certified mail with return receipts. Mr. Staflord stated that is correct and the letters will be mailed before the first of the year. The motion carried wlanimously (5-0). D. Resolution #00-48, Resolution Revising Sanitary Sewer Utility Rates Effective January 1, 2001 . Mr. Post eXplained that at the Febmary 28, 2000 regular meeting, the Council adopted a resolution to revise the sanitary sewer utility rates effective January 1,2000. The impact of that action was to increase the senior rate flat charge and to decrease rates to other sanitary sewer customers. The increase in the senior rate resulted from an earlier staffrecommendation to phase in a seventeen percent increase over a three year period (1999-200 l) to accomplish the objective of having the senior sanitary sewer rate reflective of average senior water consumption relative to other residential customers. The first two years of that phase-in have been implemented and staff recommends the Council adopt the draft resolution revising the sanitary sewer utility rates effective January l, 2001. Mr. Post stated in light of the continued reduction in processing costs from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division, the City is experiencing a double benefit of reduced processing and reduced flow which is reflected in a recommendation to further reduce the non- senior sanitary sewer rates. Thus, staff is also recommending a reduction in the residential and non-residential sanitary sewer rates. Councilmcmber Larson stated he has been an advocate of not making a distinction between regular and senior rates and believes the best way to assess sanitary sewer rates is based on water usage, taking into consideration if they are away during the winter months. He stated he hopes, at some time, the appropriate advisory committee takes another look at whether there is a method to base the sanitary sewer rates on water consumption rather than a combination of flat rate and . water consumption. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER II, 2000 12 . MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve Resolution #00-48, Revising Sanitary Sewer Utility Rates Effective January 1,2001. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). E. Resolution #00-45, Clarifying Final Sums of Money to be Levied for Levy Year 2000, Payable in 2001 Mr. Post noted the Council has had several meetings in 2000 to review and prepare the budget for 200 I. On December 4, 2000, the Council held its Truth in Taxation Hearing to review the proposed budget and levy. After completion of that hearing, the Council provided no additional discussion comments relative to the proposed levy, which represents a 2.50% increase over the payable 2000 levy. Staff recommends the Council adopt the draft resolution to clarify the final sums of money to be levied for levy year 2000, payable in 2001. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve Resolution #00-45, Clarifying Final Sums of Money to be Levied for Levy Year 2000, Payable in 2001. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). F. Resolution #00-46, Resolution Adopting the 2001 Budget . Mr. Post presented the changes made to the EDA budget since the Truth in Taxation hearing, noting the reduction of District #2 revenue and expenditures of$45,000. Mr. Post presented a summary of the final proposed 2001 budget and recommended the Council adopt the resolution for the 2001 budget. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve Resolution #00-46, Adopting the 2001 Budget. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). G. Vendor Authorization, Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan This item was considered prior to Item 6A. H. Authorize Special Council Meeting, December 18, 2000 for End-of-Year Final Business Mr. Lynch stated staff has requested the opportunity to have a decision-making Council meeting in conjunction with the December 18,2000 workshop to consider payroll, claims, and other potential items. The request is to schedule this meeting so it can be posted and Council decisions can be made at that meeting. . MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to authorize the scheduling of a Special Council Meeting on Monday, December 18,2000 for end-of-ycar final business. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER II, 2000 13 . I. City Events Discussion Councilmember Aplikowski provided an update on the events planned for the 50th Anniversary Celebration. She then reported on the Day in the Parks event and potential activities. She advised that the fireworks event is currently on hold pending a site investigation. Councilmember Aplikowski displayed two colored examples of the 50th Anniversary Celebration banners and requested Council input. Councilmember Aplikowski stated the Proclamation Day event that was scheduled for February 14th, has now been tentatively rescheduled to February 12th, a regular City Council meeting date. The event has been expanded to include the business community and will be held at the Holiday Inn. Staff has determined it will not cost much to do that as long as the Cable Company can provide service at that location. Mr. Post reviewed the budget for the 50th Anniversary Celebration and requested a motion to adopt this budget. Couneilmember Larson asked if corporate contributions is a firm amount. Mr. Post stated he has been involved with some of the fund raising activities and there are currently firm commitments for approximately $25,000 in contributions. . MOTION: Couneilmember Aplikowski moved and Couneilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve the 50th Anniversary Celebration Budget as presented in the bench handout. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). The Council discussed the banner sketches and their individual preferences. MOTION: Couneilmember Aplikowski moved and Couneilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve the lighter colored version of the 50th Anniversary banner. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). With regard to the 50th Anniversary Celebration, Mr. Lynch advised that they would like to include the recognition of former City Councilmembers and Mayors. They would also like to tie in businesses as being part of the City's history. He explained it is suggested to have a presentation of the proclamation by tbe Council and then a short history of the businesses followed by socialization. Couneilmember Aplikowski stated she has no objection to those suggestions as long as the cost is covered from the budget. Mr. Lyncb noted tbat a confirmation has not yet been received on use ofthe hotel banquet . facilities. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 1 I, 2000 14 . Councilmember Larson stated his support to invite the businesses that have already contributed to the event. Mayor Probst suggested a printed invitation be used to invite them at the request of the Mayor and Council. Council consensus was reached to proceed on this basis. Mr. Lynch explained the sole purpose is to present the proclamation so another Council business meeting will need to be scheduled. ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS A. Part-Time Building Inspector Position Mr. Lynch reviewed the City's past contractural relationship with the City of Shoreview for part time building inspection services which Shoreview was not able to totally fulfill. Staff recommended the City authorize a part time building inspector/code enforcement position. He advised of an applicant who is available for 20 hours per week, has experience with fire inspections, and can conduct fire suppression inspections. He stated the City of Shoreview has indicated a desire to also use that person for such purposes. Mr. Lynch stated the applicant will need some training related to building inspections. . Councilmember Grant asked if other options were evaluated. Mr. Lynch reviewed staff's contact with neighboring communities and advised that is not an option. Councilmember Rem asked if those positions are licensed by the State. Mr. Lynch stated Mr. Scherbel is licensed so this employee can work under his direction and fulfills the State requirement. He reviewed the work ofthe applicant with the Lake Johanna Fire Department. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to approve the hiring of Eric Nordeen as a part-time Building Inspector. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Department Quarterly Reports Mr. Lynch noted the Fourth Quarter Department Reports. Mayor Probst commended Parks and Recreation Director Thomas Moore for his appointment to the Milmesota Recreation & Parks Legislative Committee. Mayor Probst inquired regarding the half dozen sewer plugs in the last month. . Mr. Post reported on a break in a water line and a possible future project to repipe from County Road E-2 to McCracken Lane due to high maintenance costs for this line. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 11,2000 15 COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE ACTIVITY REPORTS . On behalf afthe Parks, Trails and Recreatian Cammittee, Cauncilmember Grant expressed their appreciatian far approval af and funding the Camprehensive Park and Recreatian Plan and awarding afthat project to. Ingraham & Assaciates, Cauncilmember Larsan reparted an actian taken at the last Planning Cammissian meeting. Cauncilmember Aplikawski cammented an her attendance at the staff/public celebratian and reparted she was asked by many to. thank the Cauncil far the Christmas gifts which were mast appreciated. Cauncilmember Aplikawski asked staff to. draft a letter af appreciatian to. the retiring Caalitian for Healthy Y auth Chair Timathy Thampsan far his wark with that caalitian. She also. nated the great cantributian af Thomas House, Ruth Fingerson, and Ady Wickstrom and stated she wanted to publicly thank them for their time and effart. She commented that the Coalition may not continue once the Chair retircs since other groups have taken aver those respansibilities. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she wauld like to. keep the logo discussian on the agenda for December 18th sa it can be moved forward far the new year. Councilmember Aplikawski raised the issue of the Surface Water Management Plan and . recammendatian to. have BRW withdraw as a candidate far this project and write the scape of services. Mayar Prabst nated that someone with expertise is needed to. draft the request and assure its accuracy. He stated he is comfortable with staffs recammendation. Mr. Lynch stated staff discussed this issue and same of the same cancerns were raised abaut lasing a patential service provider who. knaws Arden Hills best and may be able to develap a plan in the shortest amount af time. He noted the benefit to. be gained with BR W writing the scope of services is to. get the best price on the contract. He noted the other two. applicants are widely knawn and have dane a lot of municipal work in ather cities, Councilmember Grant stated he has no objection as long as there is an adequate number of bidders, He agreed the best use of BR W may be to write tbe scope of services. Mr. Lynch stated staff discussed the passibility af going to other engineering firms who. did not respand. Hawever, the RFQ was sent to. ten to. twelve firms and anly three respanded so it was felt to. be fair to invite responses from thase three responders, Councilmember Larson stated he is comfortable with staff s propasal and believes it wauld be a goad use of BR W' s expertise to layout the scape af services and negatiate samething with the . two. other firms. lie suggested a larger issue is what the Council sees within the scape of services with the City Engineer and what services are not within the scope of services. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 11,2000 16 . Councilmember Rem agreed it would be interesting to see the type of analysis and prices received from BR W. She stated she would appreciate being able to ask someone other than the consultant who had done the specifications for alternatives. Councilmember Rem noted that Greg Brown has done a good job and she would appreciate his analysis of the proposals. Mr. Post stated one of the more controversial aspects of the Second Generation Surface Water Plan would be its linkage to the City's Pavement Management Plan. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she is also comfortable with staffs recommendation to use BRW to draft the scope of services and specifications. Councilmember Rem commented briefly on the 2001 budget, the increase in the length of license period for dog and cat registrations, and related fee increase of $1 per year. Councilmember Rem reported on the two Community Development Block Grants received by Northwest Youth and Family Services, which were used to fund purchasing their building. She noted the requirement that they must stay in that office for five years was fulfilled in December. Mayor Probst asked staff to send a thank you letter to Medtronic for its donation to the Recreation Program. Mayor Probst thanked and congratulated Mr. Scherbel for his efforts at the State Fair Code . Information Booth. Mayor Probst stated he has received a mailing from the Minnesota Twins in their attempt to do something about a ballpark, with the promise of additional information being provided in the future months. Mayor Probst addressed the possibility of the Council spending concentrated time to discuss TCAAP goals, perhaps at a worksession dedicated solely to this topic. He noted the information provided from Mn/DOT regarding program information and request for financing for the growing maintenance facility on the Arsenal property. Mayor Probst suggested returning a letter indicating the City is not yet willing to sign on as a participant and would like more discussion before the project proceeds too far and results in a conflict of uses on the property. Councilmember Larson agreed with the need to be careful and asked if this provides an opportunity to get the facility on County Road I and farther away from the area next to the City Hall complex. Mayor Probst asked Mr. Lynch to draft a letter that does not imply the City is endorsing the effort. The Council agreed. Mayor Probst recommended the Council invite the City's legislative delegation to a Council . meeting, worksession, or special meeting to discuss pursuing a legislative remedy to the current HACA and LGA commitment from the State and how it relates to the per capita contribution. He advised he has spoken to the Finance and Operations Committee Chair about having a ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER I 1,2000 17 broader discussion to include sales tax, TCAAP, HACA, LGA, I-35W Corridor Coalition, and . possibly other issues that could be discussed in that forum. Mayor Probst stated he would prefer inviting the delegation to hold a broader discussion with the Council placing priorities, inviting the Chairs of other City committees, and the entire membership of the Finance and Operations Committee. Mayor Probst stated Senator Reiter has indicated interest in attending the January worksession in an initiative to meet local officials. He asked if the meeting with the delegation should occur prior to their next session. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she felt waiting until January of2001 may be too late so she would prefer the meeting occur prior to the start of the session or early in the session. Councilmembers Grant and Larson stated their support to schedule a meeting prior to the start of the session. Mayor Probst suggested the Council hold further discussion at the December 18, 2000 work session and asked staff to contact the delegation to determine the dates they would be available. Mayor Probst stated his intention to have a draft of the 200 I appointments before the Council at the December 18, 2000 worksession. . ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:38 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). , ?;' f;:/ ,'.J -I J ., ./ / , I ." r' j'- .----- :l,j-J.l/ ;'':'_: '. ~ I :,_i>f l Joe l.bncl1 ' ....' .. City/Administrator NOTICE OF MEETINGS The next regular City Council meeting will be held Monday, January 8, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. at the Arden Hills Council chambers. .