HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP 06-24-2002
~
~HILLS
Arden Hills City Council
REGULAR
June 24, 2002
City Philosophy
To rovide a basic and necessary sco e of uality services throu h the innovative and
Mayor
Dennis Probst
Conneil Members
Beverly Aplikowski
David Grant
Gregg Larson
Lois Rem
Monda
1245 W. Highway 96
Arden Hills, Minnesota
55112
651,634,5120
U oseful use of resources.
Agenda
City Council Meeting Convenes 7:00 PM
Call to Order
1. AGENDA 7;00
2, MINUTES 7;00
A_ May 20, 2002 Council Work Session
B. June 10,2002 Council Meeting
C. June 17,2002 Council Work Session
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Claims and Payroll
B. Organizational RestructurelPlanner
C. Resolution No. 02-30 Appointing Cathy
Smithknecht to the Planning Commission
D, Resolution 02-29 Adopting the 2002 PMP
Assessment Rate
E. Cable Position
4, PUBLIC INQUlRIESIINFORMATIONAL
A. Resolution No. 02-28 Recognizing Therese
Galatowitsch for service to the Arden Hills
Planning Commission
B. D.A.R,E, Program - Undersheriff
Altendorfer
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. FINANCE
Those i1ems listed under the Consent CalendaT are 7:05
considered to be routine by the City Council and will be
enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format.
There will be no separate discussion of these items,
unless a Council Member so requests, in which event, the
item will be removed from the general order of business
and considered separately in its normal sequence on the
agenda.
Public InquirieslInformational is an oppornmity for 7:05
citizens to bring to the Council's attention any items not
clilTenlly on the agenda, In addressing the Council,
please state your name and address for the record, and a
brief summary of the specific item being addressed to the
Council. To allow adequate time for each person wishing
to address the Council, we ask thai individuals limi1 their
comments to three (3) minutes. Written documents may
be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting, or as
bench copies, to allow a more timely presentation.
None
Terry Post
a~e
7. COMMUNITY SERVICES 7:30
A. Planning Case 02-09: John and Liz Aaron Parrish
Modesette, 3743 New Brighton Road,
Minor Subdivision
Aaron Parrish
B. Planning Case 02-10: Bethel College, 3900
Bethel Avenue, Site Plan Review /
Amendment
C. Planning Case 02-11: Terry Dragich, 1838 Aaron Parrish
Beckman Avenue, Setback Variance
D. Ordinance No. 339 Establishing Aaron Parrish
Regulations for Lawn Fertilizer
Application
8. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Thomas Moore
9. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 8:00
A. 2002 Retreat Goals Review Joe Lynch
B, Mission Statement Update Joe Lynch
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS 8;30
A, Council Member Grant
B. Council Member Larson
C. Council Member Aplikowski
D. Council Member Rem
E. Mayor Probst
Arden Hills City Council Agenda
June 24, 2002
P 2
Tentative June 2002 Meetin2 Schedule
Meetinl! dates. times and locations are subject to chan2:e.
June 25
MFTF
7:00 p_m_
Tentative Jnlv 2002 Meetin2 Schedule
Meetim! dates. times. and locations are subiect to chanl!e.
July 4
July 8
July 15
July 17
July 23
July 29
July 31
City Hall Closed in Observance of lndependence Day
Council Meeting
Council Work Session
Planning Commission
PTRC Meeting
Council Meeting
Communications Conunittee
7:00 p,m.
7 :30 p,m.
4:45 p,m.
7:00 p,m.
7:00 p.m,
7:00 a,m.
TeAAP: Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant
PMP: Pavement Management Plan
PTRC: Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee
MFfF: Main1enance Facility Task Force (Ramsey County/Arden Hills)
.
.
.
~
~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
June 20, 2002
Agenda Item 3.B
TO:
Mayor and City Council ~ k
Joe Lynch, City Administrator(} rV
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Organizational Restructure
BACKGROUND
At your Work Session meeting on June 17,2002, Council discussed the proposed reorganization
of the City staff, including reporting requirements, job duties and responsibilities and types of
positions,
Council directed staff to place this item on the Consent Calendar for approval on the June 24,
2002, meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council approve the organizational changes presented including:
. Create the position of Director of Community Services.
. Appoint Aaron Parrish to the position of Director of Community Services.
. Align support staff to report to the Deputy Clerk; this includes the Office Support
positions and the Customer Service Representative I position.
. Authorize staffto fill the Planner position as soon as practical.
.
.
o
.
<
~
~
.
.
d
.~.'
~
,-g
: !iT
.~
!
,:q;
,',-'",
~,
!
<i
i
g. ~
i~~
_. z
~
g. \::c
~ >--<
Q ~
~ en
.
.
.
~
~ILLS
MEETING MINUTES
DRAFT
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MONDAY, MAY 20, 2002,4:45 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Probst called the meeting to order at 4:51 p,m. Present: Council
Members Beverly Aplikowski, David Grant, Lois Rem, and Gregg Larson.
Also present: Administrator, Joe Lynch; Operations and Maintenance
Director, Tom Moore; City Planner, Aaron Parrish, City Accountant, Terry
Post; Recreation Program Supervisor Michelle Olson; City Engineer, Greg
Brown; and Deputy Clerk, Cynthia Young.
School District #621 Transportation Discussion
Mayor Probst introduced Mounds View School District #621 Blake Larson, School
Board Member Barb Bollum, and School Board Chair Dr. Jan Witthuhn,
Ms, Larson reported that of the current budget cutting in the district, most cuts are
occurring in areas other than directly in the class room. She stated class sizes are
already large. She noted that of three community meetings relating to with
transportation and extra curricular activities, 30 teaching positions and building
support staff cuts were made, She explained, regarding the recent bus controversy,
the district is allowed by law to charge a fee to anyone who lives further than two
miles from schools.
Ms. Bollum said the response at the community meetings was, a) Increase class
sizes or do something concerning transportation because it did not affect class size,
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 20, 2002
2
.
b) Limit the number of roads which have hazardous crossings, c) Students who
have to cross where there are entrances to major roadways will be bussed. She said
the transportation department would send out letters to residents that week as to
whether they are in or out of the 2-mile limit.
Council Member Grant expressed his concern for bussing more students, further
away, and suggested Irondale has more capacity.
Council Member Larson said although this policy does put the City Council at a
disadvantage, the safety issue is paramount.
Ms. Bollum said the clear fact in this matter is there is no funding, and the trade-
off is increasing class sizes.
Council Member Aplikowski asked what the current class SIzes were, and if
crossing guards were being utilized.
Ms. Bollum said the high school averages were 36-39 students per class, middle
school 30-35, and elementary was 20-29.
.
Accountant Post asked if Community Education programs could provide some
funding, to which Ms. Bollum replied, "No."
Council Member Grant said other cities have adopted this 2-mile walk, but Arden
Hills does not have any sidewalks, which ultimately puts kids on the street and at
risk.
Council Member Larson asked if there had there been discussion of closing any
schools.
Dr. Witthuhn replied that because neighborhoods were spread out all over, the
district was locating offices in schools, and the result was to maximize space, and
not close a school.
Council Member Grant suggested Moundsview High School could not provide 200
more parking spots, and stated he though there would be an increase of parking on
City Streets.
.
.
.
.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 20, 2002
3
Dr. Witthuhn said this issue is a growing challenge with a less sense of common
good that is becoming more and more difficult, every year with the constant
criticism from the Taxpayers League.
Council Member Aplikowski expressed her concern regarding schools funding
special services such providing an excess of language instructors.
Dr. Witthuhn, Ms. Bollum and Ms, Blake urged the City Council to keep abreast of
related events through the media and invited the Council to attend any pertinent
meetings_
TCAAP - GSA
Mayor Probst introduced John Kelly (Washington D.C.), Ralph Connor (Boston),
and Bill Burnes, (Department of Army), program managers from GSA. Mayor
Probst said the focus is on the early transfer of authority.
Mr. Burnes said one big change since the last meeting is that the Army has
resolved the issue of the 276 acres, which, when transferred out of government
ownership, a warranty is issued. He noted any early transfer demands a clean-up
schedule, stating this does not mean Army is relieved of its. He explained that
special legislation is not going to get the property transferred to Arden Hills any
sooner.
Mr. Connor asked what steps Arden Hills need to take to get approval for this
process. He said delays are most always tied to the environmental commission, He
explained the question is can you have development occur simultaneously with
clean-up.
Mayor said the vision for city is to run a parallel path and work the transfer process
in 24 months, if possible. He said the City would like to bring the community in
with some degree of confidence.
Mr. Connor noted the City is off to a great start by working with a master
developer.
The Mayor asked if a formal request was recommended at this point.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 20, 2002
4
.
Mr. Kelly said once the property is handed over to GSA, GSA will do screening
with civilian agencies, then cities and townships can lay claim to the sites,
Council Member Larson asked iflegislation dictated the level of clean-up.
Mr. Connor said there was not enough money to clean-up the site to pristine levels,
and generally, the government will clean-up to commercial level.
Mr. Kelly said the issue the government is dealing with is the government can
clean-up this property and make the most advantageous plan in the shortest amount
oftime, and whether the it is valuable to bring a third party in on the clean-up.
Council Member Grant inquired if a well-articulated plan would secure the City's
development rights.
Mr. Kelly said yes, a well defined plan with an overlay is desirable, but keep it as
one parcel, with no disjointed land issues. He noted many agencies are not
interested in developing land that is not pristine. .
Council Member Larson asked if there is any residual liability.
Mr. Burnes said, yes, the government is always responsible for what it did, but the
City would be responsible for contamination subsequent to development.
Mr. Connors said the government ultimately responsible, and insurance can be an
issue, but the more the variables can be defined, cities can be insured against that.
Mr. Kelly stated the Department of the Army is detennining that this property is no
longer of any need with the Next being site characterization, as early as 30 days
from now. He said after a staging plan is presented, a 6O-day public body screening
would occur. Within 120 days, the City could begin serious negotiations with the
government.
2.A Indvkiewicz Parcel Discussion
Broker Rob Davidson said he had been working with Arden Hills for several years,
noting this is a very challenging site, coming to the general conclusion that the
appraisal is flawed.
.
.
.
.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 20, 2002
5
Mayor Probst asked what the likelihood is for this property.
Mr. Davidson said, "As it sits right now, the short-term for retail is dismal and he
did not see it happening, This site is not going to support a large office use."
Planner Parrish asked, from a marketing perspective, what uses will work on this
site,
Mr. Davidson suggested convenience store/gas/sandwich may be an appropriate
retail use, further stating this is a very limited market site.
Mr. Post asked how the use would change the value of the site,
Mr, Davidson said retail use would support the appraised value, but clearly any
upgrade to the neighborhood would hold a positive impact on the site, although
short term retail on the site will not work.
Council Member Larson asked what Mr. Davidson's strategy would be?
Mr. Davidson said development on the end mayor may not impact in an
appreciable way. He said he understood the convenience store idea is not
acceptable, noting an office use on the site could occur because of a good value on
the land. The fact that the bridge is going to be repaired and the high power lines
could cause an issue, stating again, this is a very challenging site.
Mayor Probst suggested further discussion with Chesapeake regarding this site.
1-694 Desil!:n Guidelines
Planner Parrish said anything outside the presented manual and the cost sharing
element is available for review.
l.B Finance Department
Mr. Post requested City Council comments concerning the Capitol Improvement
Plans he had submitted in his report,
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 20, 2002
6
.
Administrator Lynch said the tanker truck funding should continue, and regarding
the Operations and Maintenance video camera, he was hearing that the City should
be more aggressive with this approach.
Planner Parrish said it could be as early as March, at a minimum, assessment of our
current water quality.
The Mayor asked what the consequences would be.
Planner Parrish suggested some permits may be withheld.
My. Moore said, regarding the video camera -staff received notice today of another
claim, and said the City does not have the proper equipment, and without it, the
problem is becoming unmanageable. In response to the League of Minnesota
Cities, the City cannot justify that they are managing and maintaining the City's
system, He explained that a "predator" is a cutting tool which will allow the City to
be self-contained.
Council Member Larson asked how many surrounding communities have this
equipment.
.
My. Moore stated all surrounding communities own this equipment.
Mayor Probst said the issue is not just the cost of camera, but training cost
involved and staffing issues, as well.
Mr. Moore said URS would review the films with City personnel, therefore the
City will do the work, eliminating the "middle-man".
Council Member Larson said he was comfortable with the camera purchase,
especially because other communities have also made this investment, but he was
not comfortable with the purchase of a new truck at this time.
My. Moore explained that the current vehicle had a host of problems including the
brakes are not correct, the gauges are malfunctioning, but that he still can make the
current truck run.
Council Member Grant inquired about the all season plow_
.
.
.
.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 20, 2002
7
Mr. Moore said this equipment could clear all trails, brush-clean all trails, and
clear-cut trails in one trip.
Mr. Post said the recreation fund/long term balance continues to shrink.
Mayor Probst said it might be helpful to have an annual summary by each
department.
Council Member Larson suggested a range of fee increases for recreation programs
in order to compensate for what is not being subsidized by charitable gambling.
Ms. Olson said she had made overall cuts where she can.
Council Member Larson suggested funding half of recreation out of the "general
fund,"
Mayor Probst suggested a line item on the budget for expenditures for maximum
levy increase.
Enl!:ineers Report
Regarding Hunters Court and Waldon Place, Council Member Larson said he was
wondering iftaking on two neighborhoods is too much to take on at one time.
Engineer Greg Brown said should to invest in some neighborhoods in order to keep
up with the needs.
Mr. Post said the City should address the notification early on for the 2004 PMP,
Council Member Rem asked for more information to neighborhoods be
forthcoming stating timing on these projects is uppermost.
Mayor Probst suggested a reasonable level of expenditure by full reconstruction of
streets and mill/overlay of the remaining street, sensing Ingerson and Karth Lake
as projects to bring back to CC for discussion.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 20, 2002
8
.
C.1 Maintenance Facility Task Force
Mayor Probst asked if the City should order an appraisal of the current
Maintenance Facility property.
Council Member Grant suggested there might be a drastically different appraisal
based upon the future of TCAAP. He said a number of parties have shown an
interest in the current facility. Which view side of the facility. Presumably, Hwy 96
would be one, What is the other view shed approach. Discussion regarding using
the surrounding government property for nmp ponding. Gathering the Counties
needs, and still compiling data.
Council Member Larson said he was apprehensive regarding the facility, and the
site line barriers, stating it is a large building, with potential residential uses which
may be affected by the decision.
Planner Parrish said at an earlier meeting, Ramsey County discussed some space
constraints.
.
Council Member Larson suggested viewing the Hennepin County facility to use as
a benchmark.
E.1 Council Chamber Sil!:nal!:e
Deputy Clerk Young presented the Arden Hills logo sIgnage designed by
F ASTSIGNS, Inc.
Council Member Grant asked if another material could be used,
Ms. Young explained that due to the curvature of the wall surface, metal, which is
flexible, was the recommendation.
The Council Members agreed to the proposal and asked that it be brought forth as a
consent item at the next City Council Meeting.
.
.
.
.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 20, 2002
9
E.2 2002 Personnel Policv
Deputy Clerk Young presented the draft 2002 Personnel Policy.
Council Member Larson requested similar language in the harassment section and
equal opportunity section be adjusted.
The City Council directed staff to bring to the May 28, 2002 meeting as a consent
item.
Council Comments
Mayor Probst adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Young - Deputy Clerk
Dennis Probst, Mayor
Joe Lynch, Administrator
.
.
.
~
~~HILLS
MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 10,2002,7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Dennis Probst called to order the
regular City Council meeting at 7:05 p.m,
Present:
Mayor DeIlDis Probst, Council Members Beverly Aplikowski, David
Grant, Gregg Larson, Lois Rem.
Absent:
None.
Also present were City Administrator, Joe Lynch; City PlaIlDer, Aaron Parrish;
Parks and Recreation Director, Tom Moore; City Engineer, Chris Brown; City
Treasurer, Terry Post; Deputy Clerk, Cynthia Young; and Recording Secretary,
Kathleen Altman.
1. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
MOTION: Council Member Larson moved and Council Member Aplikowski
seconded a motion to adopt the agenda for the June lO, 2002, regular
City Council meeting as amended, The motion carried unanimously
(5-0).
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. May 28, 2002 City Council Meeting
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10,2002
2
.
Council Member Rem requested the following changes: Page 13, first paragraph,
first sentence change, Gatsby to GASB.
Council Member Grant requested the following changes: Page 14, fourth
paragraph add the word the before Edgewater and the word neighborhood after
Edgewater.
Council Member Larson requested the following changes: None.
Council Member Aplikowski requested the following changes: None.
Mayor Probst requested the following changes: None.
MOTION: Council Member Grant moved and Council Member Aplikowski
seconded a motion to approve the May 28, 2002 Regular City Council
Meeting as amended. The motion carned unanimously (5-0).
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR
.
A. Claims and Payroll.
B. Rochon Payment No. 17
C. Johns Solicitor Permit Moved to Item 5A.
Deputy Clerk Young updated staff on further information received on Item C ~
Johns - Solicitor Permit. Council Member Larson stated if they turned this item
down, they needed to state the reason for doing so and make sure it complied with
the Ordinance.
Mayor Probst recommended item Consent Agenda Item C be brought before item
5A for further discussion.
MOTION: Council Member Grant moved and Council Member Aplikowski
seconded a motion to approve the Amended Consent Calendar and
authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein,
The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
.
.
.
.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10, 2002
3
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Probst invited those present to come forward and address the Council on
any items not already on the agenda.
No one was present for public comments.
PUBLIC INOUIRlESIINFORMA TIONAL
A. Resolution No. 02-27 Recognizing Arden Hills Girl Scouts Gold Award
Recipients
Mayor Probst recognized Bobbie May Printz, Sonja Harpstead, and Amy
Thorstenson as Arden Hills young women who had achieved the Girl Scout Gold
Award.
MOTION: Council Member Larson moved and Council Member Aplikowski
seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. 02-27, Recognizing
Arden Hills Girl Scouts Gold Award Recipients. The motion carried
unanimously (5-0).
SA. JOHNS - SOLICITOR PERMIT
Council Member Larson asked what would be the basis for turning down the
particular request for a solicitor permit. City Administrator Lynch outlined which
Ordinances would apply for denying the request.
Council Member Aplikowski asked what type of books they were selling. Ms.
Young stated staffs recommendation was based on a negative response from a
surrounding community. She stated the books were children's books and religious
books.
Mayor Probst indicated he agreed with Council Member Larson that they would
need to state the basis for denial.
Mr. Lynch indicated these were students selling from out-of-state.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10, 2002
4
.
Council Member Larson stated the only real basis for saying no was that
neighborhood communities had withdrawn their permit, and no other communities
would allow them to solicit. He stated it did not appear there was much in the
Ordinance as to whether they could or could not issue a solicitor's permit.
Council Member Rem agreed with Council Member Larson, and stated they
needed to grant the permit, unless the Ordinance specifically stated a reason as to
why they should not grant a permit. She indicated the recommendations for denial
from the other Cities were against another person and not this person.
Council Member Aplikowski stated this person's character had not been found
undesirable, but the company's practices might be undesirable. She stated she
believed the company should be seeking the permit, and not the employee.
MOTION: Council Member Aplikowski moved and Council Member Larson
seconded a motion to deny Johns - Solicitor Permit Application on
the basis the company was not seeking the permit. The motion carried .
unanimously (4-1 Council Member Aplikowski).
PUBLIC HEARING
SB. Resolution No. 02-23 Ordering Improvement and Authorizing
Advertisement to Receive Bids: Pavement Management Plan, Hunters
Court and Waldon Place.
Mayor Probst opened the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m.
The City Engineer Brown indicated the final plans and specifications for the
project had been completed, The proposed improvements include the
reconstruction of Hunter's Court and Waldon Place to 32-foot wide streets with
concrete curb and gutter, The cul-de-sac bulbs were designed with 100-foot
diameters.
Carol Schjei, 1140 Hunters Square, stated she had an interest in cleaning up the
pond. She asked what Council's thoughts were and if they were willing to provide
some money towards the pond clean up. She indicated this was a great concern of
hers. Mr. Brown replied two lots had an easement and there was no homeowners
.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10, 2002
5
.
association. To the best of his knowledge, there was no obligation of the City to
maintain the ponds.
Council Member Larson asked if it was draining just Hunter's Court or both cul-
de-sacs. Mr. Brown replied it served both cul-de-sacs.
Council Member Larson stated he believed if these were public streets and the
stormwater drained to the pond, the City should maintain the pond,
Mr. Brown stated for a relatively low investment, the City could improve this
pond.
Mayor Probst asked if the City had an easement to get access to the pond. Mr,
Brown stated they would need to work with the homeowner about obtaining an
easement. He indicated they would not want to do this unless the homeowner
agreed to it.
. Mayor Probst urged the City obtain an easement from the homeowners as a
reasonable trade-off with the homeowners.
Mayor Probst closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
Council Member Larson asked if this would be a permanent easement. Mayor
Probst indicated that was correct. He indicated this would allow the City to
maintain and have access to the pond more easily.
MOTION: Council Member Aplikowski moved and Council Member Larson
seconded a motion to accept Resolution No. 02-23, Ordering
Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for
Improvement of Hunters Court and Waldon Place. The motion carried
unanimously (5-0).
Mayor Probst stated the City would need to obtain a permanent easement to get to
the pond,
.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10, 2002
6
.
Ms. Schjei asked how land would the easement cover. Mr. Brown replied the
access would be 20 feet, as well as the pond area. He stated the complicated part
here was the pond being on three different properties.
Council Member Aplikowski asked if this would set a precedence, Mr. Brown
replied recently they had been making these types of properties public easements,
and it was the City's intent to continue to make these types of properties public
domain.
Council Member Grant asked how much of the ponding area would be cleaned
out. Mr. Brown responded that most of it would be right around the outlet. He
stated it would be easier to work around the edge with the equipment. He indicated
this would be funded from the Stormwater Utility Fund_ He stated the homeowner
would not be able to plant trees or put any permanent type of structure on the
easement, which would restrict City equipment from reaching and maintaining the
pond.
Council Member Larson stated at a minimum they needed an easement for access, .
but ideally they wanted an easement to cover the entire pond area.
MOTION: Council Member Larson moved and Council Member Aplikowski
seconded a motion to authorize reclamation of a portion of the pond
adjacent to the outlet, and at the same time seek to acquire a drainage
easement for the entire pond, or at a minimum, that portion of the
pond accessible from Hunters Court that would allow access to the
pond. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
6. FINANCE
None,
7. COMMUNITY SERVICE
A. Stormwater Plan Update
City Planner Parrish explained City staff had recently met with the Rice Creek .
Watershed District Administrator and Engineers. As a result, they came up with an
.
.
.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10,2002
7
agreement with the District for Council's consideration. Mr. Parrish reviewed the
proposed agreement and asked for Council's comments,
Mayor Probst inquired about the funding of the $60,000,00. Mr. Post replied it
would come out of the Stormwater Utility Fund. It would have no impact on the
General Fund.
Council Member Grant asked where the reference was to pond number one. Mr.
Parrish replied they would need to look at that. He stated he was not sure where
that was at this point.
Council Member Grant asked of the 11 ponds, which one related to Valentine
Park. Mr. Parrish replied he did not have that information with him this evening,
but would look into that.
Mr. Lynch replied it was listed as number 4. Council Member Grant reiterated he
wanted to see Valentine Park preserved and not used entirely as a stormwater
retention pond.
After further discussion, Council concurred to proceed with the Stormwater Plan
as presented.
8. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
The Director of Operations and Maintenance Moore explained the City did not
have a cement mixer, He indicated previously a cement mixer had been rented or
the work performed by hand, He reviewed the immediate projects that the mixer
could be used for, He recommended purchasing a cement mixer for the purchase
price of $2,400.00, which would come from the water, sewer, and surface water
management Enterprise Funds,
MOTION: Council Member Larson moved and Council Member Grant seconded
a motion to approve the purchase of a cement mixer for a cost not to
exceed $2,400,00, The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10,2002
8
.
9. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
A. Fire Board Representative Appointment
Mr. Lynch indicated a new Fire Board had been created, which would be the
operational review for the new Fire Chief and the Fire Department. He stated the
City was responsible for appointing one representative from the community,
Council, or staffto represent the community on the new Fire Board.
Council Member Larson stated they had a Joint Powers Board that oversaw the
budget and the general agreement that the three Cities had. He stated they also had
a Board that oversaw the pension fund, He indicated this was a third Board that
would basically work with the new Fire Chief on the day-to-day aspects of running
the Fire Department. He stated this was a new Board and it was distinct from the
other two Boards that had been in place for some time,
Council Member Aplikowski stated she believed it would be good for Council .
Member Larson to be a member of this Board.
MOTION: Council Member Aplikowski moved and Council Member Grant
seconded a motion to appoint Council Member Gregg Larson to the
Fire Board. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
B. Future of DARE Program
Mr. Lynch explained the future of the DARE Program through the Ramsey County
Sheriff's Department had been under discussion for the past several months. He
indicated continuation of DARE has now reached a critical point within the City's
contract jurisdiction group. He stated Mounts View School District would be
using a school resource officer instead of a DARE officer. As a result, Arden Hills,
Shoreview, and North Oaks need to decide whether they are willing to fund the
greater share of DARE costs.
Council Member Aplikowski stated if the Sheriff's Department was in favor of
this program, they should come forward and explain what it means to them. She
indicated it was difficult for her to determine what exactly that meant to the City.
She asked if the City benefited from this program.
.
.
.
.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10,2002
9
Council Member Larson asked how effective the program was.
Council Member Aplikowski stated she believed the Sheriffs Department wanted
to be a part of this so they could stay connected with the students. She stated she
was not against the program, but she asked if the $35,000.00 was the best use of
the City funds. She requested the Sheriffs Department come in and update
Council on the DARE program and why they should support it.
Mayor Probst stated he also had concern about this program. He indicated he had
not seen any figures that proved this was a successful program. He stated this was
becoming a significant cost item. He indicated he was not inclined to support it,
unless there was a strong case made for the program_
Council Member Grant stated he wanted to hear more about the School Resource
Officer as well as have the Sheriffs Department give Council a presentation on
the DARE program. Mr. Lynch replied the School Resource Officer was an
enforcement officer in the schools. He indicated the students could contact the
School Resource Officer regarding criminal activity. He stated the Enforcement
Officer could enforce rules in the school. He indicated the DARE officer had a
totally different role. He stated the DARE officer presented information on drug
use and life style choices. He indicated a School Resource Officer could not
duplicate what a DARE Officer could do in the schools.
Council Member Rem agreed she would like the Sheriffs Department to give a
presentation to Council regarding the program.
Mayor Probst suggested this be tabled to the last meeting in June, and requested
staff contact the Sheriffs Department on giving a presentation to Council.
MOTION: Council Member Aplikowski moved and Council Member Rem
seconded a motion to table this item to the June 24, 2002 Council
meeting. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10, 2002
10
.
10. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Probst stated the he had received a declaration that the cable service was no
longer subject to franchise fees and asked if they wanted to discuss this at the next
Council meeting, Council decided to wait for an FCC decision before discussing
this.
Mayor Probst requested a future discussion about future Day in the Park Festivals,
Mayor Probst requested a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to update
them on the 35W coalition.
Mayor Probst gave an update on the TCAAP Issue and the first community
meeting.
Council Member Rem stated the League of Minnesota was having their annual
meeting on September 29.
.
Council Member Rem updated Council on information received from the
Northwest Youth and Family Services.
Council Member Rem stated the Metropolitan Council was having a meeting on
Wednesday night in North St. Paul, which she would attend.
Council Member Aplikowski stated Ms. Galatowitsch had resigned from the
Planning Commission due to her moving out of the City, She asked if Council
wanted to ask the other candidates who had applied for the previous openings if
they wanted to serve on the Commission, Mayor Probst requested staff gather
together the information from the previous applicants.
Council Member Aplikowski updated Council on the Day in the Park Festival.
She indicated the fundraising was coming along, but they would need further
funding. She asked if the Council Members would be willing to volunteer their
time after the parade to work for an hour or two,
Council Member Larson updated Council on the recent Fire Board Meeting,
e
,
.
.
.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10, 2002
11
Council Member Grant stated the Maintenance Facility design was decided upon.
He indicated he expected they would have paper copies of that design by the next
Council meeting, or by the next Task Force meeting, He stated they would also
have preliminary numbers in terms of cost sometime in late July.
Council Member Grant asked for an update regarding the three outstanding job
descriptions. Mr. Lynch replied they were still waiting for the Market Rate Study.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Probst adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:42 p.m.
Dennis Probst
Mayor
Joe Lynch
City Administrator
NOTICE OF MEETINGS
The next Council Meeting will be held Monday, June 24, 2002 at 7:00 p,m. at the
Arden Hills Council chambers,
.
.
.
~
~HILLS
MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MONDAY, JUNE 17,2002,4:45 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Probst called the meeting to order at 5:07 p,m. Present: Council
Members Beverly Aplikowski, David Grant, Lois Rem, and Gregg Larson,
Also present: Administrator, Joe Lynch; Operations and Maintenance
Director, Tom Moore; City Planner, Aaron Parrish; Recreation Program
Supervisor Michelle Olson; City Engineer, Greg Brown; and Deputy Clerk,
Cynthia Young.
2.A
TCAAP - Land Transfer Process
Mr. Barry Steinberg, who is engaged by Rehbein to assist with project, discussed
the following points:
. Federal land enjoys fair market value and does it competitively, unless
dealing with state, federal or municipal government, who has the authority to
negotiate.
. TCAAP is one ofthe more contaminated sites in the nation.
. Federal property deed must define the historical impact of the site. There is
as deed restriction provision which affects human health and the
environment.
. Early transfer process is available.
. EP A must provide approval along with Governor of State for early transfer.
. Federal government wants financial assurances that the private sector
contractor that is implementing the clean-up is protected. US government is
ultimately responsible no matter what the contract defines. Municipal
government may enter into a cooperative agreement with a private developer
to negotiate clean-up.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
JUNE 17,2002
2
.
Mr. Ray Clark stated TCAAP is a high priority project. He referenced a similar
scenario in Joliet, Illinois. Mr. Clark stated four major elements to accomplish the
transfer:
I) Coordination of all elected officials
2) Complete understanding to engage in a regulatory scheme
3) Continuous outreach to the entire community
4) Engage a high quality master development team
Mayor Probst asked if the excessing has begun.
Mr. Clark reported that this process has begun.
Mayor Probst asked if mapping the master strategy had been accomplished.
Mr. Clark said he owes Arden Hills a timeline no later than Friday, and reminded
the Council that they must have total community support. .
Mr. Steinberg suggested two years from the time environmental study begins, that
is optimistic.
Senator Grams said a meeting was scheduled Tuesday 25th of June at Governors
office regarding the TCAAP issue,
Council Member Rem requested a realistic timeline.
Mr. Clark replied that "notice of intent" goes out on day one; then frame a
decision; draft to EP A and public for at least 45 days (EIS); EP A reviews; final
EIS-public gets an additional 30 days. He said the process could clearly be
complete in eighteen months with a six month cushion.
4.A PTRC - Parks Comprehensive Plan/Funding
The Parks, Trails, Recreation Committee members introduced themselves and
briefly discussed their priorities (passions),
.
.
.
.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
JUNE 17,2002
3
Roberta Thompson - Trails
Steve Zilmer - Trails
Cindy Garretson - Valentine Hills area, trails are an important element.
Bill Henry - Trails which can unite the community.
Don Messerly- Nature areas, especially Creapeau
Rich Stromann - discussed current inventories, implementation; signage;
gardens and flower gardens; benches. Requested Council approval to install
signage and non-park funding to develop a master plan for park structures.
Director Moore suggested situating benches to promote a sense of community, and
encourage trail usage.
The Council directed staff to bring the signage issue and benches discussion to the
June 24, 2002 City Council regular meeting.
(Council Member Larson arrived 7:00 p,m.)
Council Member Aplikowski said she feels it is a little too early to go to Guidant
for funding for a Park shelter to be located at Cummings Park without some
planning.
Council Member Larson suggested certainly approaching Guidant and other
companies located in Arden Hills, but not to necessarily discuss issues relating to
City parks adjacent to their properties,
Mayor Probst suggested companies typically budget for these kinds of projects, but
would recommend some things for 2003.
Mr. Stromann asked if current funding will be replenished in the following years.
Mayor reminded that all expenditures occur with City Council approval.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
JUNE 17, 2002
4
.
2.B Cub Foods Concept PUD
Planner Parrish reviewed the Cub Foods Concept Planned Unit Development as
found in the June 10, 2002 staff report to City Council.
Paul Tucci - OPPIDAN Development said he heard from the Planning
Commission that green space was an issue, therefore, the plan is to install some
further islands in the parking lot area and stagger spacing of landscaping to
increase the green space, He noted 99% of delivery trucks will arrive from 694
then further down Lexington Avenue.
Council Member Grant said he was pleased the entrance is redesigned. He asked if
the Shannon Square lighting be redone, and encouraged Mr. Tucci to consider
other lighting options,
Mr. Tucci answered that they did not plan to remove and replace the existing light
poles,
Council Member Larson asked what the customer base is considering the near .
location of Rainbow, other CUB Foods, and he noted that this design will set the
tone for this side of Lexington and County Road E. He said he had hopes that there
can be some design guidelines in Arden Hills which will set itself apart from other
communities.
Mr. Tucci said the Cub organization had done zip code studies related to customer
demographics.
Mayor Probst agreed with Council Member Larson regarding setting this CUB
apart from other stores, by "raising the bar a bit". He expressed his concerns
regarding sidewalks and favade of the building,
Council Member Aplikowski expressed her support for the Cub proposal.
2.C Vau2hn Tower
Administrator Lynch reviewed the background of the 700-foot Arden Tower
located at 1770 Gateway Boulevard, as found in the June 12, 2002 staff report_
The Council Members discussed the specifications of the original tower proposal, .
finding that the antennae should be modified to compliance, and not removed.
.
.
.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
JUNE 17, 2002
5
Mayor Probst suggested pursuing the removal of the tower due to non-compliance
and the length of time this issue has been allowed,
Council Member Larson asked if the original tower installation was permitted at
the current height. He said if the applicant applied for a 600 foot tower, he should
have to come into compliance now.
Planner Parrish eXplained the application process.
Administrator Lynch brought up the idea that the City negotiated easement rights
for the property exchange with Chesapeake.
It was agreed that Bill Vaughn should be responsible for engineering expenses,
2.D Indv Parcel
Planner Parrish discussed the three eligible uses within the Gateway Business
District as presented in the staff report.
The Mayor and City Council discussed the options and directed staff to bring back
for recommendation at the June 24, 2002 meeting.
2.E Planning Commission Appointment
Council directed staff to appoint Cathy Smithknecht as Planning COnmllssioner
and bring to CC as consent agenda item for Monday, June 24, 2002 CC meeting.
2.F Cable TV Services
Planner Parrish discussed expanded enhancements to cable services to be paid for
from current franchise fees, the intent being to use franchise funds for public
servIce.
Mayor Probst said he supported the idea of further enhancements especially in
light of the impending TCAAP process, stating this would be another tool to keep
the public informed,
The Council Members agreed that the primary focus would be to utilize the
enhancements and additional staff responsibilities for a cable technician,
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
JUNE 17, 2002
6
.
3.A 2003 Recreation Program Budget
Administrator Lynch stated staff would like to have a more productive discussion
regarding Recreation Programs and the funding thereof for 2003, He requested
Council comments.
Council Member Aplikowski asked if classes were full and was the City turning
people away. She noted other issues which seem to be changing due to lack of
funding, such as the Ramsey County Library and Day in the Park event.
Supervisor Olson Michelle said rather than turn people away, she will hire staff to
handle the overflow and additional classes. She stated that some programs are fully
self-supporting and some that have low administration costs and not as high
enrollment. She said the City offered a wide variety of programs, which may be
amended to align with what other cities are offering, and the demographic changes
within the population. She suggested adjusting the program goals while making
some tough cuts that should result in increased revenues. She said she had taken a .
closer look at the budget this past year, and would be pleased to do so in the
commg years.
Council Member Grant suggested funding Park and Recreation at the same level as
2000 with inflationary increase, not fully aware of the budgetary source. He noted
that funding the fire department services would not be dependent upon charitable
gambling, and posed the question why should recreation programs be. He
suggested again using the cable services to advertise programs. He said another
option may be to coordinate with other communities.
Council Member Larson commended the programs and the directors, but noticed
the lack of growth as a reason to view some programs as a luxury during good
economic times, He suggested prioritizing provided services. He suggested a
reduction of programs so they could be more self-supporting. He said his
inclination to reduce the recreation budget was based upon so many other options
and opportunities offered through churches, schools, scouts, etc,
Mayor Probst said the difficult decisions are based the uncertainty in the
predictability of programming. He said there is indeed a budget reality that needs .
to be dealt with relative to the decrease in charitable gambling revenues.
.
.
.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
JUNE 17,2002
7
Council Member Rem suggested the population of Arden Hills is changing, and
that could be reflective in the emollment in programs,
Administrator Lynch said the City needs to define more than a one year plan to
deal with these issues,
Mayor Probst suggested the City may need to look at charitable gambling revenues
in a different way, and recreation programs as more significant than other
Council's may have. He noted the difference between capitol expenditures and
ongOIng expenses.
Director Moore said the focus should be to create community spirit, and urged the
City Council to spend the money to do so, with pride.
4.C 2003 PMP Schedule
Engineer Brown reviewed the summary of the proposed design/construction
schedule for the 2003 PMP.
Mayor Probst suggested focusing on the neighborhood meetings.
4.B 2002 PMP Assessment Rate
Engineer Brown reviewed the June 12, 2002 Proposed Assessment Role for the
2002 PMP role utilizing the Cities assessment policy guidelines.
Mayor Probst reminded the Council that the original establishment of the rate was
not based upon an actual estimate,
Administrator Lynch explained that 429 statutory requirements,
The City Council agreed to the
5.A Organizational Restructure
Council Member Rem said she sees the bottom line with the organizational issue is
to hire a planner and not go with using a consulting planner.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
JUNE 17, 2002
8
.
Mayor Probst encouraged forward movement, and said he did not see TCAAP as
the only driving force, He suggested staff move to fill the position, and not hire a
contract planner.
Council Reports
Council Member Rem offered her paid registration to the League Conference on
Wednesday, June 19,2002,
Council Member Grant discussed the proposed maintenance facility and said at the
meeting on the 25th of June the costs should be brought forward.
Council Member Larson reported he would be meeting at 6:30 in the morning,
June 19, 2002 to participate in the interviewing of Fire Chief candidates.
Council Member Aplikowski reported she had -turned in complaint to the City
Administrator. She said a decision had to be made about the use of a convertible
for the Day in the Park Parade. She also reviewed Day in the Park updates and
instructions.
.
Mayor Probst said the City had literally a month and a half to make a decision on
fertilizer legislation, He requested input regarding the League of Minnesota Cities
Permit Guide Plan.
Mayor Probst adjourned the meeting at 11:00 P.M,
Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Young - Deputy Clerk
Dennis Probst - Mayor
Joe Lynch - Administrator
.
.
.
.
~
~
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
June 20, 2002
TO:
Mayor Dennis Probst
Council Member Beverly Aplikowski
Council Member David Grant
Council Member Gregg Larson
Council Member Lois Rem
Terry post~ [C>V\
Claims and Payrol
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Agenda Item 3.A
Attached:
Claims
Payroll for period 6/01/02 - 6/14/02
.
.
.
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT
TO BE APPROVED AT 06/24/02 COUNCIL MEETING
CLAIMS PAID SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING (06/10102)
21294
21295
21296
21297
21298
21299
21300
21301
21302
21303
21304
21305
21306
21307
21308
21309
21310
21311
21312
n2::l<-U)Ati{:~
06/07/02
06/07/02
06/07/02
06/07/02
06/07/02
06/11102
06/11/02
06/11/02
06/11/02
06113/02
06113/02
06/13/02
06113/02
06117102
06/18/02
06/18/02
06/18/02
06/18/02
06/18/02
::::A~;~W~~f/
E-2 Rec din, Ine
5i -A-Rama
Multi Media Solutions
National Assoc. of Installation Dcvelo ers
Yauo ,C 1thia
Xcel Ener
Stanton Gron
Ci of Roseville
Rochon Co oration
Lakes Coun Service Coo erative
Youn,Cthia
AT&T Wireless Ine of"MN
WestWc1d
Affini Plus Federal Credit Union
leMA Retirement Trust - 457
Stanton Groll
Coverall of the Twin Cities, Ine
5i -A-Rama
Postmaster-St. Paul
Subtotal - Paid Claims
4,855.00
681.00
610.00
150.00
35.76
1,849.55
190.00
116,787.66
7,481.24
5,713.86
62.8]
943.00
326.41
4,690.56
2,469.82
338.50
1,238.60
747.99
],700.00
150,871.761
PAGE 1 OF3
Ma Service
50% Down mt~Da in the Park
Re lacement Pro" ector Bulb-CC Chambers
Membershi Dues-A. Parrish
Mjlea e/Ex ense Reimbursement
Ma Service
Da care Reimbursement 05/17102
1 02 Water Purchase-79M Gal
Pa Est#17-New Ci Hall
Insurance-Jul
Milca e1Ex ense Reimbursement
Escrow Release PC 02-0 I
Sho Su lies-Streets
Second June Pa oll
Second June Pa roll
MedicallDa care Reimbursement 6/14
Ci Hall Cleanin Service
Si s-Da in the Park
Posta e-Pcnnit #1962
Note: Checks for unpaid claims totaling $116,]67.49 were maIled on JilllC 11,2002
after approval at the JilllC 10,2002 COilllcil Meeting. They were check numbers
2]254 -21293. This sequence corresponds [0 unpaid temporary numbers TOl - T40.
Check numbers 21252 - 21253 were used for alignment.
Paid Claims From Above -
150,871.76
Add Unpaid Claims, Page 3 of 3 -
114.066.85
Total Accounts Payable Claims
for Council Approval, 06/24/02-
264,938.6]
..'dyl.am.....I"l"hlo'd..."1
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT
TO BE APPROVED AT 06/24/02 COUNCIL MEETING
PAGE 2 OF 3
.
UNPAID CLAIMS REGISTER,
::rollMl'L .d<;i>ATill \ :\\ >AMOONT::: '\,."",,,<<,
TI 06/25102 Accurate Press, Ine ],459.42 LelterheadlEnveloneslDav in the Park Flvers
T2 06/25/02 American Public Works Assoc 141.25 Membcrshio-IO/02-09/03
T3 06/25/02 Aramark Unifonn Service 53.68 Ru~ Service 6/10 & 6/]7
T4 06/25/02 Arden I-Iills N urserv ],773.76 2002 Flower Gardens
T5 06/25/02 Arden Hills Tire & Service Center 588.82 Tires- V#l 08-Insnections
T6 06/25/02 Ba~r Meter, Ine 639.00 Utility Service APTeement-S/02-5/03
T7 06/25/02 BFI of Minnesota, Ine 244.53 Waste Removal-CWO&:MJParks
T8 06/25/02 Biffs, Ine 491.82 Portable Toilets
T9 06/25/02 Continental Research Com 344.05 Grass Killer
TIO 06/25/02 C~orate E~ess 374.90 Office Sunnlies
TII 06/25/02 Crist,M~ 30.00 Refund-Soccer Mini Caron
TI2 06/25/02 Davanni's 61.30 Recreation Meeting:
T13 06/25/02 Fra-Dor Black Dirt 87.93 Black Dirt
TI4 06/25/02 Frattallone's Hardware 77.36 June Purchases
TI5 06/25/02 Glenwood Inll"lcwood 43.19 Snriup\vater-CHlO&M
T16 06/25102 G~er $;Ort 274.74 Rec Snorts Enuinment
TI7 06/25102 Grai~r, Ine 323.37 Furnace FiltersfBroomslMisc Supplies
TI8 06/25/02 Gr~ Larson S.....orts 35.20 Helmets/Chin Strans
T19 06/25102 Hakes. Jennifer 55.00 Refund- Tvke Time Plav12Tound Prof"
T20 06/25/02 leI Dulux Paint Centers 555.08 Field Markimr Paint
T21 06/25/02 Ikon 0 ffice Solutions 283.50 Mav Conicr Lease
T22 06/25102 Ind~endent ~rts Network 1,]81.25 UmT:\irc Services 5/28-6/13/02
T23 06/25102 jll';raham & Assoc, Ine 1,430.89 May Park Plannim~
T24 06/25/02 lV.O.E. Local 49 232.00 June Payroll Deductions
T25 06/25/02 Jones, Belinda 30.00 Refund-Soccer Mini Carnn
T26 06/25/02 Kath Auto Parts 155.82 Oil, Air & Fuel Filters #114
T27 06/25/02 Kinko's 32.75 Emerpencv Cards-Rec Dn1t
T28 06/25/02 Kohn, Ellen 260.00 CPR-First Aid Traininv
T29 06/25102 Lc~ of MN Human Ri----;::iht<; Commission 105.00 2002 Membership/Conference-Rem
T30 06/25102 Lillie Suburban Newsnaners 343.53 Lee:al Notices. Mav
T31 06/25/02 Linder's Green Houses 2,220.21 2002 Flower Gardens
T32 06/25/02 McDonald Batterv Co. 121.92 Batterv #103 Jetter
lr Total- Unnaid Claims - 14,051.27 H
.
.."dyi'eec"nli"")'IIbJc.~Jaim>1
.
.
.
.
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT
TO BE APPROVED AT 06/24/02 COUNCIL MEETING
UNPAID CLAIMS REGISTER:
PAGE30F3
~:tEMp.#:+:~(::i(i;i>'AT.lf:: ::::Yr;I~!i~Qjk:' .. . ",::::::::,:::::::<:::::::>:::::'>'::::::::(L: AMQVNi:>V: C6';\j~N!tS:::.:.
T33
T34
T35
T36
T37
T38
T39
T40
T41
T42
T43
T44
T45
T46
T47
T48
T49
T50
T51
T52
T53
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25102
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25/02
06/25/02
Met Council Environmental Services
Mcvcr, Kerrv
Midwest Asphalt Corporation
MTI Distributini:! Co.
North Metro lnsoections
North Star Chanter ofICBO
North Gate Elcctric, Ine
Office Denot
Olson, Michelle
Pace Analytical
Post, Terrance
Ramscv Canotv
Ramsev Couotv
Roseville, City of
Safety-Kleen Corooration
Scherer Bros. Lumber Camnanv
SnrinlPCS
Stanton Groun
T cIIander, Gail
Tessman Seed Company
TimeSaver Off-Site Secretarial
36,121.00
55.00
63.16
970.03
594.00
85.00
291.00
222.30
33,22
319.00
22.27
240.00
58,199.85
1,666.67
114.97
102.72
67.86
100.00
10.00
302.03
435,50
~' Page 30f3-
2 of 3 Brought Forward -
Tolal Unnaid Claims--
100,015.58
14,051.27
114,066,85
Julv Sewer Charoe
Refund- Tvke Time Plavl!Tound Pro~ram
Road Renair Materials
Renair Toro Groundsmaster
Mav Electrical I~~~~ctions
Summer 2002 Ed Conference-Scherbel
Refund-Ovemavrnent EOO-ISO
Office Sunnlies
Mileap-e Reimbursement
WaterTcst~Junc
Mileaoe Reimbursement
Plat Man Conies
June Law Enforcement
June-Joint Powers APTeement-MIS
Hazardous Waste Di~~sal
E-;;:Ie Scout Pro.eet-Bird Houses
Cellular Phone Service
FSA Admin Fees-Mav
Refund-Tennis Lessons
Diamond Drv for Ball Fields
Recordill-;;:- Secre~CC 5/28 & PC 6/05
"'.drfO=.."'pIIl"bl<le.......1
~
[f ~ ~
l': ~ ~
~ ~: [
~ fr ~
~.;~
~~i
~ ~ ..,
0" ~ ~
" s
a- ~~.
e- ~ o'
'':; 0 a
.g *
~ ~ ~
".. ;;'li'
~ ~. ~
1 .., '~
* ~ a
Pl :ol z ;!1 [ ~
n ~ Ii
,. ,. ~ '" ""
~ 0 a 0 "
" ~" " .
~ "' " 0' -';;
*~ .." 0
" ~'"
I~ ~ ~ ,.
i<:
" or "
- 0 :ol ~ I?
t; '" ~
n R
'" ,. Ii
~
Ii
~ ~I
~ ~ - ~I/
~ '" 3: .j;:..w~l:::::::
~ ~ 00 VI tv!:::::::_
~ w 00 9' !,""Y'I?:::
'" " '-' ~ 00 ~
~ ~ 0 ~ 0 W
i
i\
i
"
1;
:6:
.~:
..~
..
'p;.:.
:~:
o
fl{ i.
.c:.I? i
It?
I{ ....
Ii?
.t:~~~
.c. 'A...-.... VI. W --l W N
~O\"o.<.\...>~o-.o-.'"
.~~~V>o-oo'-C
~:
O.
.;.;{
~:
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NNN~~~~~~~~
ngggg~gggg?g88ggggggSSSSoooo
~N~WN OO~~~_~~~~WN~~ AWNO~~~~
"'-.
Q~~~~~~on~~~~W~~%~
~ ~ S' ~ g III N ~ ~ :::j ~ ::t g 8"" ~ ?;< _ ::t
? ~ ~ ~ @C:g til ~ ~ g Jl> g ~ ~ J-'" Z~ {/) ;
~~-:-....~ III t=:s;::l ~~ ~~ ~?F:;J5 gj Vl
,.... ~ ~ 8- ;J g ~ :0 ~ z f2. ~ '"..... 8.. ~ ft III
g..~...~So~ 1ll<-'~P<SI~~' lll~
~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ go ~.~, g ~ IE. g. ~ III
o~ ::l["'::r ::r~::r
fi.
"'><"'
.~ 0 a
- S d.
>-:laq ~
~ n">
~ '2i "
g g: 8
.
'2':.:.n:
O:.:.:;!::.:
-
!,f:::M:
<E,;
.........
Z t'"
g '2i
'" n
" '"
.il :.,
o
g:,a
n '"
~~.~&~.~
gtaa. ts'
~~?~~~
'" ~....... u tri
III <11' 2.. III l'1
S o' s. ~
~ a. ~
~ W
~ ~
::=> ~
:;: :;:
~ ~ ~
~NOO~~~~OO~VlWW~~~~NWW~
~~g~~~~~~e~~~~t~~~~~
ooo~~~~~~~~~~bb~N~~b
OOOO~ON~~OO~~~ooo~ooo
:n:
'"
g
~
8 8
-l -l -l::;l ""
~u~~,
~~~~~~
s:: :::: ~ ~ ~
" c ,. ." 5" 2 ,.
o. E. ~ "' ~ 3i
:~: go ~ 0
~ on =
~. '" " . .~.
= ~
~!r ~.g t: 0 ~
'" a " "
'~..f'" c. ~
:-,:: ~ 5" ~
~ ;v
". '" ~
~.. ~ .
~. e.
~.. o'
'" n
.
g:
C
8.
t ~
- '"
.~ 0; ~ ~ ~
0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0
:&:';;. '" '" '" '-' '" 0.
~. 0 0 0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.~. :;; 0 0 '" '" '"
.0 0 0 0 0 0
"" '" t -J N gg '" gg ....
~gg~@ggg8 o~o SSg
~~g
~.o.(,7J.~ \O"6U.N~N~'D b ~ l;:. lJ.>oo~booo'D\O"'"
~~Co ~oo~tg~~OO~t~~og:~~t~~~i~oo
m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~8~~66~~SN
N
o
o
~ t '"'
" ~ ~
~ < ~
(j .
'"
... Pi '" Cl :z 2
::;: ~ f:i ~ ~ E-
li n ~
"1' " '"
~: if . ~
~.. 0: " ';;
e. g, a
~ "" '~
:r--. OJ 7. .
". . "'
=
" . 0
0 "' S '"
w "
~:. n
o'
~
....:. ~ ~ ~
~. ~ ~ ~
'" '-' '" N
~ 0 ~ ~ ~ R:
~. ~ '"
w: 0 ;; " 0; 0
o. 0 W ~
8 8
~"'''''''''~NOOO
8 ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ 8 8 8
~
m
......'ec
"'......
mii
',.
Cii
;;;
'C ~
g - g
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
[ [
~ ({
~
" R "
., on
~ 3:: ~
.~ ,.
lf
...
i
.~.
~. '" '"
~ f:i ::
m'
;0 ~ '"
... ~
...
.~.. ~ '"
~ 00 ~
=. ~ ~
.0 '" OJ
.0 ~
,
"
,
<
~
~
~
"
.,.j: .." .." .."
:~:: ~ ~ ~
,. ,. ,.
" if "
.;ll .g .. !l
"
:~: ~ 8- ~.
". n
to. g " (')
.1;. n . 0
00. " 1:' =
<
.~. ~ a
~ 1:'
2 o'
.0.
,. s 0
.~. ~
~. ~ 0; ~
m. 0 ~
.~ ~ ~ 00
.00. G- o. G-
.0 ~ 0 W
:0. p 0 0
-=-: :;: 0 :;;
o. 0
"
~
00
~
<:;
..
'"
;
I
"
~
n
~
S
n
~
n m
. . . . "'. ..i>..
~.
~. :!l :!l ~ :!l m
.ll. n n '1 "" :<.
,. ,. .~
.;10::: ,..
.... ~ 0 '"
..:.;!'.: ~ ~
'1>.-' ~ "'
.>::.: o' m
.M.. ~ "
:'f:':': 0 '"
e
'"
g.
'"
~
if ~ W ~..
~ '" '-> '"
~. ~ ~ ~ :'"
~. ~ W ~ ~
.;i: '" '" '" G-
.~. ~ ~ ~ ~
0
ZI.
w-. ~ ~
i.A. ~ '" "
Q. ~ " 5
:~:: ~ 0 p
'" " :;: :;:
_orI.. ~ ~
(')
~.
~
;ll
c
m
z
:I:
1"
r-
l/l
Oil/l
i' ~
~ 0
!!:z
:< c
0'-
!!!c:
5:z
am
"'"tI
~~
!!!;ll
~o
"'r-
or-
.!::!
.
(')
:I:
m
(')
'"
'"
o
~
m
o
o
'"
..
~
a
"
.,,"0
.. ;;;
"' ..
.. ~
~'"
0-
-
'"
.
.
:6 z:.:n
B" :0:-:-:;:;:
'". g
'" ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ... ,. ,. ... ,. :~?~
:~: 'C 'C 'C ." 'C " 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 00 00 V> V> V> V> V> V>
=. =. =. =. 8 8 =. =. =. =. =. =. =. =. =. =. =. =. =. =.
;!: N N N =. =. =. 8 w w =. =. =. =. =. 8
.~. '" ~ V> 00 '" ~ w 00 ~ v, V> - ~ V> ... w N .....:"!'
e: ~
~. 6' '" :;:: ~ :r: !;l :r: 0 :;:: N '" t:J OJ OJ en r en en en '"
"1:.- 0 ~ ~ ~ S r' 0 0 0 ~. ~~ Ef n 0 0 ~. 0
;!i: a ~ 0 . ~ 5 r s: ~
." n . " s. 0 ~ t=
0 f 'l:l F . n " 0 0
.~: N ,;; 00 .P ~. ~~ ~.... v'"1 F '" .?' " 0
p ." " 0' en OJ 0 '" .~ .
~ 0' ~ S ~ en n ." :;:: en n ~ ".
'" .'" 0 0 n Z! 0 0' . " . . :;:: . p. '"
> 5 S- F . So . [. EI ;;- ~
,;; '" 2- 0 ~ 3. ...
" :;:: r . " 0' 0 0 '<: Po o' ~ ~
Q' " " 0
'" s [ '" O. '<: '" " '" ,. ~
" "
" Q' . " ".
" ~ ;< " "
0
'<
""
.;.;,:j "
fc;: N w N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ."
Q c; u; 0;; 0;; 0 El 0 u; ~ w w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
:Q;.' ~ ~ N ~ 0 ,. 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ eo eo ~ on
0 U. 0 0 t: t;; G :;; U. W U. U. 0 0 :; :; :; :; :; :; on
~. 0 0 0 0 '~ 0 00 0 0 0 0
'"
~ '" N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i:i
=. u; W ;;: ~ w :ij Ci w
~ :0: :0: 00 0 ~ ~ ~ i'; e ~ ~ N H
.~ N ,. 00 ~ ~ ~ ,. 00 eo ~ ~ ~ ~
w Co 0 Co U. W U. U. C, '" '" 0 0 :0; u. u. " u. u. 00
'" 00 ~ 00 0 00 N 00 W ,. ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~
" " N N " N " C " ~ " 0 N
N ~ 0 N 0 ~
g ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ g 0
a 0 0 a f\
'0.
:~.
. . . [ " . . i . . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ i i -; -;
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ] I ~ ~ , , ~ ~
~ ] ~ i ~ ~ .' ~ i! ~ ~
~ [ g 0 0 W [ [ ~ CO CO
~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ 0 ~
~ ~ , ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~
~ , ,
2 ~ ~
~ ~
,
".
.
,
"
i
~
!
.
o
~
o
"'11
)>
;Q
C
m
Z
:J:
r-
r-
(J)
'iii
:iE'
..
..
,..
~
o
'"
o
~
o
N
(J)
m
o
o
z
c
'-
c:
z
m
"0
S'~
g;::o
~o
"'r-
or-
~
n
:I:
m
n
^
en
o
?:;
m
o
o
'"
~
o
N
"0
"
lQ
..
N
o
-
N
"ti
;a
".
~
~
.
.
.
~
/Z'\~ HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
5.A
TO:
JlllIe 13,2002
Mayor and City COlllIcil ~
Joe Lynch, City Administr~rO OV
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Organizational Structure Change
ENC:
Memo of 5/23/02, organizational chart
BACKGROUND
Enclosed within is information previously distributed to the Council regarding the organizational
structure change. At that time Council requested to table this discussion for further information
and an opportunity to review the information presented, Since that time I have had an
opportlllIity to have discussions with each City COlllIcil Member regarding the title change,
inclusion of duties and responsibilities, the alignment of support staff under one supervisor, and
the recommendation to appoint a current employee to the new position, I have also had an
opportunity to discuss with Council Members about the option of hiring a consultant for a six
month period to cover the probationary time for the new Director of Community Services
position. The feedback I received was very positive. The concerns expressed were as follows:
. Current staffing and work load
. Resources
. Consultant
I would like to address each ofthese concerns:
Current staffing and work load
I would like to use the TCAAP planning and development agreement process as an example,
Previously Terry Post, Aaron Parrish, and I were involved in this process. Now because of the
implementation of the new financial software Terry is no longer a part of this discussion group.
However, Aaron Parrish and I are still involved in handling different aspects of this process. Mr.
Parrish is handling the contract with the design center, the community dialogue process, and the
agenda preparation and discussion with the developer. I am handling the discussion with
potential local team members, communication with local and congressional elected officials and
the Anny National Guard, as well as pursuing legal advice on the draft of the interim
development agreement. Between the two staff we are spending approximately 6-10 hours per
week on this process. TCAAP planning and development process needs one person to devote
more time between both the development team and the local review team. Additionally, this
individual should be responsible for the coordination of information and communication between
the two teams and the City COlllIcil and residents in the City of Arden Hills. If the City
Administrator assumes this responsibility I would need to download work items to others,
.
.
.
Organizational Structure Change
Page 2
Similarly, if the Director of Community Services would assume this role, we would have a
greater need for a full time City Planner,
Resources
The 2002 budget contains allocated funds for all the positions we are currently discussing, This
includes the new Community Services Director position which was budgeted at a cost of
approximately $60,000 salary, We included this in the budget under the assumption that this
would be a full year cost. All other positions contemplated are budgeted in 2002.
Consultant
I heard concerns expressed about going back to the consultant we used when the planning
position was open. This is the first I heard about these concerns, Apparently there was a conflict
between the Planning Commission Chair on the approacb and demeanor of the consultant. This
seems to be a disagreement on style, not on product. The consultant was hired to do two things:
serve as the interim planner for the City of Arden Hills until the position was filled, and complete
a change in the sign ordinance. In both cases, the consultant did the job he was hired to do. The
consultant we used was a planner for the City of Minneapolis before going into business for
himself and is highly experienced. The City could find another firm or individual if necessary,
but we will lose time and the ability to perform basic City planning duties, Another option is for
the City Council to authorize staffto hire a City Planner.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Council authorize the organizational structure changes presented,
authorize the hire of Mr. Parrish for the Director of Community Services, and authorize staff to
begin the hiring process for a new City Planner.
~
~~HILLS
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joe Lynch, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Organizational Structure Change
DATE: May 23,2002
CC: All Staff
ENC: Director of Community Services Job Description & Organizational Chart
BACKGROUND
.
Council had previously approved hiring of additional support staff and return of job descriptions
for two new management positions,
Council received the job descriptions for the Director of Operations & Maintenance as well as
the Director of Administration. After discussion at Council Worksession, consensus was
indicated about changing portions of the Director of Administration position and to rename the
title to something to denote the change in emphasis and over sight,
Council took action on the request by staff to adopt the position and description for Director of
Operation & Maintenance. Council also took action by appointing Tom Moore to that position.
Enclosed for your information and review is the revised job description for the Director of
Community Services, The job title has been changed to reflect over sight of Planning and
Zoning, Building and Code Enforcement, Finance and Community Development, including
Economic Development. The major areas of responsibility have been modified to reflect this
change,
This position, along with the Director of Operations and Maintenance and the Deputy Clerk
would directly report to the City Administrator.
Along with the change to the job title and description, Council wanted to see realignment of the
support staff. As previously proposed, each Support Specialist would report to a Director level .
position. This would not accommodate, as well, the concept of the pooling ofthis support
resource for projects or time sensitive needs.
.
.
.
Organizational Structure Change, May 23, 2002, Page 2
Instead, what is now proposed is the coordination, management and evaluation ofthis resource
through the "office manager" concept with the Deputy Clerk. As a part of the management team,
the Deputy Clerk is in a better position to learn of the needs, know of current or pending projects,
and better able to assign support staff based on skills, abilities and availability.
In previous discussion about filling the position of Director of Community Services, it was first
mentioned that this position would be filled using a hiring process including advertising and
conducting interviews. Based on discussion with Council, comments made by Council and staff,
I have reconsidered the course of action of filling this position, I believe we have a current staff
person who is capable, qualified, and interested in having an opportunity to fill this position, Our
current City Planner, Aaron Parrish, has demonstrated his ability to perform not only his job as
Planner, but has taken on the role of in-house technical resource, assists in the TCAAP project
process, and has produced information and documentation that demonstrates his capabilities.
If you make this appointment, staff would recommend that a six month probationary period be
set for review and evaluation. In addition, planning services would need to be provided for those
routine cases. Mr. Parrish would need to continue to lead, guide and be involved with the
Guidant planning case, the Cub Food store case ifit comes forward, and the Presbyterian Homes
case. Otherwise, the City can either hire a replacement Planner or consider contracting with oUT
current planning consultant to handle these other cases, much in the same way it was handled
when we had a vacancy in our Planner position.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends the following:
o Council accept and adopt the job description and position of Director of Community
Services,
o Council accept the organizational structure demonstrating the positions of Director of
Operations and Maintenance with over sight of the Recreation Program Supervisor,
Operations & Maintenance Superintendent and Operations and Maintenance Staff and;
Director of Community Serviccs with over sight of Finance, Planning and Zoning,
Building and Code Enforcement and Community Development, support staff which
includes the two Office Support positions and the Customer Service Representative I
(Receptionist).
o Council accept the appointment of Aaron Parrish to the position of Director of
Community Services for a probationary period of six months. Mr. Parrish would be able
to use any time accumulated from his service time as City Planner for Personal Time Off
during this period.
o Council authorize the City Administrator to contract with Mike Cronin for consultant
planning services for the six months probationary period ofthe Director of Community
Services and to return to the Council with details of the contract for approval by Council.
~
'" ~
s: ~
:a:
Sf ~
10;
,0 ~
3;
~ Q. w ~
" '" () ~.
~. w g "
'"
f " 1;
g
[ N ~
f I ~
~ .~
o
.
<
.
~
.
o
llO.
<
~
l-
i
.
~ >
i@~
s' ';I. '(I
~ .......
Q b
!i en
.
.
.
.
.
AGENDA ITEM 3.e
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 02-30
A RESOLUTION
APPOINTING A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER
WHEREAS, there are currently one vacancy on the Planning Commission due to
a resignation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills is dependent upon and appreciative of
citizen input through membership on various committees and commissions, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission consists of members appointed by the
Mayor with the approval of the majority of the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Council
do hereby approve the appointment of Cathy Smithknecht to the Planning Commission.
ADOPTED by the Arden Hills City Council this 24th day of June 2002.
Dennis Probst, Mayor
Attest:
Joe Lynch, City Administrator
.
.
.
AGENDA ITEM 3.D
City of Arden Hills
Ramsey County, Minnesota
Resolution 02-29
A RESOLUTION
ESTABLISHING THE
2002 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
ASSESSMENT RATES
WHEREAS, upon completion of a preliminary report, the City of Arden Hills
ordered the making of the 2002 Street Improvements; and
WHEREAS, The City of Arden Hills authorized the preparation of detailed plans
and specifications addressing the necessary requirements of the 2002 Pavement Management
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has determined that the 2002 Pavement.~
Management Plan consists of two distioct levcls of street repair; and the reconstruction of
Hunters Court and Waldon Place, and
WHEREAS, those levels will be total street reconstruction, and bituminous overlay.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of
Arden Hills, Minnesota:
1. The residential property assessment rate for complete street reconstruction,
including pavement removal, subgrade correction, grading, compaction,
concrete curb and gutter construction, paving, and restoration shall be
established at $51.00 per assessable foot of frontage, as per the City's
assessment policy.
ADOPTED by the Council this 24'" day of June, 2002.
Dennis Probst, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Joseph P. Lynch, Administrator
.
~
~LS
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
Joe Lynch, City Administrator
Aaron Parrish, City Planner M
3.E
TO:
SUBJECT: Cable TV Services / Video Production
DATE:
June 19, 2002
Overview
At the June 17, 2002 City Council Work Session, the Council discussed the
enhancement of the Cities cable television operation. Based on the discussion, the
following services would be performed by a contract employee working approximately B-
. 15 hours per week.
. Live broadcast of regular City Council meetings; More frequent rebroadcasts.
. Live broadcast and rebroadcast of regular Planning Commission meetings. (If
determined by City Council)
. Additional public service programming (Pre-recorded public information pieces
such as the "Environmental Journal" produced by the Minnesota State Lottery,
fire prevention programming etc. . .). This type of programming is provided at
little to no cost.
· Special event coverage such as TCMP community open houses and other
public informational programming
. Expanded and up to date Community Bulletin Board (This is currently not actively
maintained).
See the attached outline of "Position Responsibilities" for additional information on
the services the contracted employee would provide
Reauested Action
Authorize staff to retain a contract employee to provide cable television services not to
exceed $7500 in 2002.
.
Attachments
1. Position Description
~
~ILLS
.
Position Responsibilities- Cable Technician
Posted: ,2002
Position:
· Provide Cable Television Production Support to the City of Arden Hills
on a contractual basis
. Responsible to the Community Services Department
Responsibilities:
· Videotaping/cablecasting public meetings for the City of Arden
Hills (Approximately 4 evening meetings per month).
. Produce and direct production using one-person remote camera
system.
· Maintain and enhance the City's bulletin board.
. Schedule, monitor, and identify different programming options
· Provide oversight and make recommendations on the
maintenance and enhancement of equipment.
. Additional special projects as required
.
Requirements:
· Currently enrolled in a broadcasting and electronic media
program or experience working with cable TV system and video
equipment.
· Experience in video production and control room operations.
. Strong attention to detail.
. Able to work independently.
. Ability to lift and move 25 pounds.
· Valid driver's license and satisfactory motor vehicle report.
Compensation:
$15.00 to$1B.00 per hour depending on experience
Approximately B-15 hours per week (Non-meeting time flexible)
Inquiries to:
City application is required. Contact (651) 634-5120
Return materials by
to:
City of Arden Hills
1245 Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
.
Deadline:
e
e
e
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
RESOLUTION NO. 02-28
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR THERESE GALATOWITSCH
WHEREAS, Mrs. Therese Galatowitsch has been appointed and reappointed to the Arden
Hills Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, Mrs. Galatowitsch served as an active member of the Planning Commission
for a number of years; and,
WHEREAS, Mrs. Galatowitsch has served as Vice Chair of the Commission; and,
WHEREAS, Mrs. Galatowitsch has resigned from her position on the Planning
Commission after many years of dedicated service; and,
WHEREAS, in her tenure, Mrs. Galatowitsch gained the respect and gratitude of those who
had the privilege of working with her on the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, on
behalf of the residents of the City of Arden Hills, expresses its appreciation to Therese
Galatowitsch for her dedicated and devoted service on the Arden Hills Planning Commission.
Adopted this 24th day of June, 2002.
Mayor Dennis Probst
Council member David Grant
Council member Beverly Aplikowski
Councilmember Gregg Larson
Councilmember Lois Rem
ATTEST:
City Administrator Joe Lynch
.
.
.
4--t.~A & (-z--<-{(oz-
~
~~HILLS
4.B
June 13, 2002
Mr. George Altendorfer, Undersheriff
Ramsey County Sheriffs Department
655 West County Road E
Shoreview, MN 55126
Dear George,
As mentioned at our meeting on June 13, 2002, the City Council of Arden Hills would like to
invite you and your colleagues to attend the regular meeting on June 24, 2002, to discuss the
funding and continued viability for the D.A.R.E. program. The City Council meeting begins at
7:00 p.m., however, tllis is not expected to be discussed until approximately 7:45 p.m. Please
plan to arrive by that time.
Thank you in advance for your attendance. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me.
Sincerely,
J e Lynch
ity Administrator
JUjg
cc: Mayor & City Council
Ot)' of Arden Hills . 1245 West Highway 96 .. Arden Hills, MN . 55112-5794
Phone 651.634.5120 . Fax 651.634.5137 . www.ci.ard€n-hills.mn.us
.
.
.
~
~HILLS
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 18,2002
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Aaron Parrish, City Planner IJI
SUBJECT: Case #02-09
John and Elizabeth Modesette, 3743 New Brighton Road
Minor Subdivision
Request
The applicant is requesting a minor subdivision to divide an existing 2.21 acre lot into
two lots.
Planninl! Commission Recommendation
A. In Planning Case #02-03, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
minor subdivision based with the following conditions:
I. The application is able to meet the minimum requirements of Chapter 11 of City
Code for the minor subdivision of property;
2. Providing a 12 foot drainage and utility easement on the common lot line and 5
foot drainage and utility easements on the east/west lot lines.
3. Recording ofthe minor subdivision with Ramsey County within sixty days of
approval from the City Council; and
4. Following recording with Ramsey County, the applicant will provide evidence of
recording to the City of Arden Hills.
5. Payment ofthe appropriate park dedication fee as determined by an independent
appraisal provided by the applicant.
Deadline for Al!encv Actions
With regard to subdivision applications, Millllesota State Statute 462.358 Subd. 3B
indicates the following:
Mcmo to Mayor and City Council
Planning Case #02-09: Modesette Minor Subdivision
Page 2 of2
.
A subdivision application shall be preliminarily approved or disapproved within
120 days following delivery of an application completed in compliance with the
municipal ordinance by the applicant to the municipality, unless an extension of
the review period has been agreed to by the applicant.
This particular application was received May 8, 2002. As a result, the application must
receive approval or denial by September 5, 2002.
Options
1. Recommend approval as submitted.
2. Recommend approval with conditions.
3. Recommend denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in
writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request".
4. Table for additional information.
Attachments
1.
2.
Planning Commission Meeting Minute Excerpt
May 23, 2002 Memo to Planning Commission
.
.
Wednesday, June 19, 2002
.
.
.
MINUTES
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2002
7:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Sand call cd the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present wcre Chair David Sand, Commissioners Ken Bczdicck, Tcrri Duchene, Therese
Galatowitseh, Brad Lemberg, Megan Ricki, and Clayton Zimmerman.
Absent: None.
Also present were Councilmember Beverly Apli
Planner Aaron Parrish, City Enginccr Nick La
Altman. '"
6'"
APPROVAL OF MINUTES I.'ROM PLANN~~d1bMMISSION MEETING HELD ON
MAY 1,2002.
ski, Councilmember Lois Rem, City
and Recording Secretary Kathleen
Commissioner Zimmerman requeste
paragraph, change Hanson to T
Sand asked if the City Engine
the bottom, second scntcnce
act on replattin until C
paragraph, second scnt
of tOO their lots into... age 6
paragraph, change Elker to leI
o wing changes/revisions: Page 2, third
e 2, eighth paragraph, should read: "Chair
, t to the site". Page 3, second paragraph from
a "Hc noted the Planning Commission could not
ssed thc vacatin of Fcmwood". Page 5, third
r d: "Hc statcd it was not necessary to combine all
ourth paragraph, change Elkcr to OeIker. Page 7, fifth
Commissioner Lemberg moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman to approve thc
May I, 2002 minutes as amended. The motion carried unanimously (7 -0),
CASE #02-09 - MINOR SUBDIVISON - JOHN AND LIZ MODESETTE, 3743 NEW
BRIGHTON ROAD - PUBLIC HEARING
Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7 :36 p.m.
Staff reviewed their rcport dated May 23, 2002. Staffrecommcnded approval of the
request based on thc findings thercin.
Commissioner Zimmerman stated the future land use plan talkcd about half
neighborhood business and half residentiaL He asked if that plan was talking about this
lot or the general area. Mr. Parrish replied [he current single-family lot that would be
created would be low density residential and the parcel fronting Cleveland A vcnue would
be neighborhood busincss district.
Wednesday. June 19, 2002
ARDEN lIILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 5, 2002
2.
Commissioner Zimmemlan inquired about the electrical power in the front yard of parccl
B. Mr. Parrish stated that lot had a future land designation of neighborhood business. .
However, it was currently zoned singlc family residential. He stated the power company
had a utility easement for that power line.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if Lot B would be a developable lot. Mr. Parrish stated
that power line ran along Cleveland Avcnuc and it was a deep lot, which would allow for
a home and driveway.
Commissioner Dusehene asked how the division line matched up to the south lot. Mr.
Parrish replied it would bc close.
Elizabeth Modesette, 3743 New Brighton Road, replied the lot line would match the
south lot line. She stated shc had prepared a worse case analysis with the wetland and
utility concerns if the Commission wanted to see it.
Commissioncr Rieki moved, seconded by
approval of Planning Case #02-03, 3743 N
and Liz Modesette, based on the foil
sioner Zimmerman, to rccommend
hton Road, Minor Subdivision, John
, and with the following conditions:
.
There were no comments against the minor subdi
Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:46
I, The application is able to inimum requirements of Chapter 1] of City
Code for the minor sub pcrty;
2. Providing a l2-foot d ility easement on the common lot line and 5-
f(lot drainage and ents on the east/west lot lines.
3, Recording ofth 'sion with Ramsey County within sixty days of
approval from neil; and
4, Following recordi i amsey County, the applicant will provide evidence of
recording to thc City 0 Arden Hills,
5. Payment ofthc appropriate park dedication fee as determined by an independent
appraisal providcd by the applicant.
The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
CASE #02-10 - SITE PLAN REVIEW/AMENDMENT, BETHEL COLLEGE, 3900
BETHEL AVENUE - PUBLIC HEARING
Staff reviewed their May 24, 2002 report and recommended approval of the site plan
amendment as presentcd.
Chair Sand inquired about the doors on the concession stand building. Bruce
President, stated the doors were not changing, except for the location.
, Vice
Chair Sand inquircd about the press box, Bruce
would look.
explained how thc press box
.
.
.
.
f~
~
~~HILLS
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 23,2002
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Aaron Parrish, City Planner Af
SUBJECT: Case #02-09
John and Elizabeth Modesette, 3743 New Brighton Road
Minor Subdivision
Request
Thc applicant is requcsting a minor subdivision to divide an existing 2.21 acrc lot into
two lots.
Overview
Surrounding Area
Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoninl!. Existinl!. Land Use
North Neighborhood Business R-2 Single and Two Vacant
Family Residential
South Low Density R-2 Single and Two Multiplc Family
Residcntial Family Residential Residential
East Low Density R-2 Singlc and Two Single Family Detached
Residential Family Residential Residential
West N/A 0-35W) N/A (I-35W) N/A (I-35W)
Site Data
y, Nei horhood Business; Y2 Low Densi Residcntial
Sin Ie Famil Detached Residential
R-2 Sin Ie and Two Famil Residential
2.21 acres
N/A
Relativel Hat; Low Areas
Memo to Planning Commission
Planning Case #02-09: Modesette Minor Subdivision
Page 2 of 4
-
.
The request essentially divides an existing 2.21 acre parcel into two lots. A survey
outlining thc subdivision is included for the Commission's referencc. The following
highlights an evaluation of the proposed subdivision.
Lot Desil!n
Parcel A:
Parcel A excecds all code requirements in terms of lot width, depth, and area. This lot
includes the cxisting residence which would bc maintained.
Parcel B:
Parcel B exceeds all code requirements in terms of lot width, depth, and area. This lot
would be vacant having frontage on Cleveland Avenue.
,
I.
Minimum Lot Area. The Zoning Ordinance in Scction V, F, 2, states that the
minimum lot area for lots in the R-2 zoning district shall be at least 11,000 square
feet. The two lots to be created as a result of this minor subdivision meet the area
requirement
Lots
Parcel A
Parcel B
.
Re uired Lot Area
II ,000 s uare feet
11,000 s uare feet
Provided Lot Area
46,174 s uare feet
50,094 s uare feet
2. Minimum Lot Depth. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, F, 3, states that the
minimum lot depth in the R-2 zoning district shall be at least 120 feet. Both lots
meet this requirement
Lots Reouired Lot Depth Provided Lot DeDth
Parcel A 120 feet 500 feet
Parcel B 120 feet 541 feet
3. Minimum Lot Width. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, F, 3, states that the
minimum lot width in the R-l zoning district shall be at least 85 feet. Both of the
proposed lots meet this requirement.
Lots Required Lot Width Provided Lot Width
Parcel A 85 feet 93 feet
Parcel B 85 fect 92 feet
4.
Setbacks. The buildable area of each lot will allow for standard setbacks in the
R-2 Zoning District. The existing single family residence will still be in
compliance with the applicable setbacks if the subdivision is approved.
.
.
.
.
Memo to Planning Commission
Planning Case #02-09: Modesette Minor Subdivision
Page 3 of4
5. Easements. The subdivision regulations require easements at least twelve (12)
fect wide centered on lot lines for drainage and utilities to be dedicated to tbe city.
In addition, based on discussions with the City Enginecr staff would recommend
5 foot drainage and utility easements for the east/west property lines as well.
6. Grading. The proposed drainage, sedimcnt and erosion control measures which
are going to be used in the development of this property have not been included
with the minor subdivision application. The Zoning Ordinance in Section VI, G,
8, b, requires that finished slopes and grades shall not cause adverse drainage
effects on adjoining properties. This will be cvaluated in conjunction with the
building permit application when Parcel B is developed.
7. Utilities. Thc lots can be scrvcd with sanitary sewer and water service from
existing utilities.
8. Access. Parcel A would maintain its access on Ncw Brighton Road. Parcel B
would have access on Cleveland Avenue.
9.
Park dedication. The minor subdivision application provides for no dedication
of park land. The Park Service Area map from the comprehensive plan does not
show a need for additional park land in this area. Thcreforc, staff is
recommending payment of a park dedication fec in-lieu of thc dcdication of park
land if the minor subdivision is approved. Based on the subdivision ordinance,
the applicant would need to submit an independent appraisal of the lot so an
accurate market value can be ascertained.
The applicant will be available at the meeting to clarify any questions that you might
have relative to any of the aforementioned items.
Recommendation
A. In Planning Case #02-03, staff recommends approval ofthe minor subdivision based
on the following findings, and with the following conditions:
I. The application is able to meet the minimum requirements of Chapter 11 of City
Code for the minor subdivision of propcrty;
2. Providing a 12 foot drainage and utility easement on the common lot line and 5
foot drainage and utility easements on the east/west lot lines.
3. Recording of the minor subdivision with Ramsey County within sixty days of
approval from the City Council; and
4. Following recording with Ramsey County, the applicant will provide evidence of
recording to the City of Arden Hills.
5. Payment of the appropriate park dedication fee as determined by an independent
appraisal provided by the applicant.
Memo to Planning Commission
Planning Case #02-09: Modesette Minor Subdivision
Page 4 of 4
.
Deadline for Agencv Actions
With regard to subdivision applications, Minnesota State Statute 462.358 Subd. 3B
indicates the following:
A subdivision application shall be preliminarily approved or disapproved within
120 days following delivery of an application completed in compliance with the
municipal ordinance by the applicant to the municipality, unless an extension of
the review period has been agreed to by the applicant.
This particular application was received May 8, 2002. As a result, the application must
receive approval or denial by September 5, 2002.
Options
I. Recommend approval as submitted.
2. Recommend approval with conditions.
3. Recommend denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in
writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request".
4. Table for additional information.
Attachments
.
1. Location map
2. Survey
.
SIlUS<1V
!JUl:!/S<1S/
~.liiIlij.
"iii
">'lI'" ":-"'"
. .1
"C
CI 1lI
= 0
. a:: C
C"I 0
g C .-
=R:O~
Gl ::c :~
~ Cl "C
1lI 'c .a
Uca:l
Claccn
,5 Gl a
C z C
C ,-
1lI C") ::5
-or
ll.~
C")
c ~
.2 Q., r:/)
z
~'" ~
o:E
-I
'"
"=
<U
:J
0
'"
ill
~ 2:
ill
ill :J
LL (j)
0 "0
0 ~
('oJ 0
~ z
(l
<U
::;:
ill
~
0
z
0
0
(D
o
o
o
(D
OJ
co
"
:1J
Z
'"
co
co
J:
o
]1
'" ('J0'0::;
:;:J (') V) ro
o n 0 c ...,
ro 025'<&
a.. g:::.~-....::
2". 3':?.o~
;/) ('0 ~::'-
1- :;:J 0_;::,:
~ '~;~7r "
g.t:....--.=OO ;0
'-<:: o~g'- rrI
2... ~~g-~. 0
-, '~~ z
1"- '" -,~' _
~ 3:~~
'N O~"""'"',.-
o .....,. .--.
9 .-::r c
Ifj:>f O::rftlro
:;;l -::; Q a
OJ VI.,." (y ::J
~~~ ~~!~
. ::l -' ro-.
::;0 ~a..Y.:~
2 g~:
' ro ro
Z $'Cl..."t>
9 ~ 0" a
~:)(D
~;?.
DO
:,:. -:='.
"-0
o
o
-2..
CLEVELAND A\~NUE
S06'52'11 "1'1
9248
/,
~".
...1<"1<"(' '"
"I '0 ~'t' .'
"Qj-
<H
"
z
"
co
v.
c
~
co
o
o
"
~
c
;;:
o
.
*
F: g
r 15
M
~
o
M
Z
S
M
~
--."'C ~ :jld'
'< ('l "'"' -' .... ..,
-. () g 0... ~g
:l Q" 0"01_
~'Q Q..::I ~ '" to
~ -'~3..::.
a::~gg,
og'D>r
""'o_n.,;?
jf::R2.a~
n "" ~ (',
::r (ll :: ::0 ..:
~~;; t:> 9
;", =- '" 3 ..-.,
"'.....,...."'~
,..,. 11 "" ('1_
::;;;;o~~';'
o~ ~ 0 x
~~:a.s ~
~ Q ~"" Q;::'
So 0 r.. s:-
f') ...., 8 ?;: rI
o 0 a. s' B
~ 2..:;'~ ~
"'~:6 ?f
;i'a SJ;:;..
~s-~~
o..g S' (;>
Q'E~ :
?:=g.~:7
"" r"l .- (")
~ @ g, 3
(') 0,< ......
'< ....., 0 ~
n@::,G'
@~g:e::
ao~8..
'< "" - "
w :;)1JQ-1..
~o..~",
..' 0 eo> :r:
::I ........'-< 0
~ ::.:. 3
~ ~ 0
o
F
Q
~
>
z ~
~ M
M ~
~
8
z
0
~ ,
" "
~ I
~ ,
M
~ ,
lI\ , " V1
-+- , 10 v'
6"- ~. "'
r
,<:r, eo '"
'6\ 0
> ;;
z 0
o z
~ ~
:J r'1
M
~
~
I
o
~
:s
w
z
9
;;
~
o
~
ro
l;
M
'"
M
>
~
c
~
M
o
.
" z
C" co
'=~;;;
, 1- ,~o -'"
"'~8 o.
"'- UU
"'0 com,
'", ! 'co
t:m 0':-
~.Ca ...i i
~..., ~ ..
::: 1"'"
j
,
, ~
" ~.
'"
, >- , -
OJ
;r: ,
" 0
" ~
" [
~ (j) ~~
() >
, >- , > n g
~ > " '" "
'" 0 0 r
0
= S :>
It""
~g
""
;
o ::r'?:l ;11;'
.......tR. s. (';I n
""l :::-:::. ~ n
/'"0 "" () "'_
g;3 ~e;.>
a~ Z}:,
5'~ :::::;8
5'-;:;~8'
n V> ;j '"
o no...
-';:ll:JO
:=-t:=";:l..-,
(")'< c-:=..
~geS
;: e c..-g
..... n ,.., ..,
(;l C;..;:J ~
:::Ol:J;p.s,
~ ~..J' l-
~.~ ~ ~
{";I ~ ~ (fJ
~2:~~
O~89
n(On..-..
(11 0.,< _
8--~ (j~
-.() 0 (')
;:l () c ...
~ 0 ;:l ()
;:l 2..Q n
c.. -'w "t
Ql~ ~,~
;Sg~
p;l ;;.,." 0
3 (; 13 s
~~-;;[
n::::-<-<"
o ::r 5" C>::l
c ~ tIQ ":'>
;:l (ll '" n
.::;r ~~ ~
ig~~
=':=...'Z ;:;
~~~2.,
:g g --
;-o..'if
I
I
I'
~'''-
, ,
~~,~ ,~::t ,"'~
I "
j,!'
~
"""
i
i~
!~
~i3c~
>0;..:;: ~
-;;;-;;;,,~
2~~~
" "
rt~~
2~!~
~ ~
1,1
"1.'1
92.99 ..
NOO'OO'OO W
RO'D
NEW BRIGHTON ~
I
I
c__
~
o
::J
;::1
'1j
:::d
o
'1j
o
ill
t::r:j
d
OJ
;::1
0..
M
>-'
_.
~
p
u'
<'l
""
::J
~
o
0..
(D
UJ
(t.
""
-+
ro
..........
~
o
>--3
ill
'1j
L'
..........
>--3
>-rj
o
:::d
,
I
~
.
.
.
~
~~HILLS
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 19, 2002
TO: Mayor and City Council
City Administrator Joe Lynch
FROM: Aaron Parrish, City Planner !If
SUBJECT: Case #02-10
Bethel College
Site Plan Amendment
Request
Bethel College is requesting an amendment to their previously approved site plan for the
Ona Orth Athletic Complex.
Planninl! Commission Recommendation
In Planning Case #02-10, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the site
plan amendment.
Deadline for Al!encv Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on May 8,
2002. Pursuant to Milll1esota State Statue, the City must act on this request by July 7,
2002 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an
additional 60 day review period. The City may with the petitioners consent extend the
review period beyond the 120 days.
Options
1.
2.
3.
Recommend approval as submitted.
Recommend approval with conditions.
Recommend denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in
writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request".
Memo to Mayor and City Council
Planning Case #02-10: Bethel College
Page 2 of2
.
4. Table for additional information.
Attachments
I. Planning Commission Meeting Minute Excerpt
2. May 24, 2002 Memo to Planning Commission
.
.
Wednesday, June 19, 2002
.
.
.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 5, 2002
2
Commissioncr Zimmcnnan inquired about the electrical power in the front yard of parcel
B. Mr. Parrish stated that lot had a future land dcsignation of neighborhood business.
However, it was currently zoned single family residential. He stated the powcr company
had a utility easement for that power line.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if Lot B would be a developable lot. Mr. Parrish stated
that power line ran along Cleveland A venue and it was a deep lot, which would allow for
a home and drivcway.
Commissioner Duschene asked how the division line matchcd up to the south lot. Mr.
Parrish replied it would be elose.
Elizabeth Modesette, 3743 New Brighton Road, replicd thc lot line would match the
south lot line. She stated she had prepared a worse case analysis with the wetland and
utility concerns ifthc Commission wantcd to see it.
There were no comments against the minor subdi
Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:46
Commissioner Ricki moved, seconded by
approval of Planning Casc #02-03,3743
and Liz Modesette, based on the foil
4l' . .
, sSlOner ZImmerman, to recommend
ighton Road, Minor Subdivision, John
, and with the following conditions:
I. The application is ahle to inimum rcquircments of Chapter II of City
Code for the minor sub perty;
2. Providing a 12-foot d iJity easement on the common lot line and 5-
foot drainage and nents on the east/west lot lines.
3, Recording of th ision with Ramsey County within sixty days of
approval from neil; and
4, Following reeordi i amsey County, the applicant will provide evidencc of
recording to the City Arden Hills.
5. Payment of the appropriate park dedication fee as determined by an independcnt
appraisal provided by the applicant.
The motion carried unanimously (7-0),
CASE #02-10 - SITE PLAN REVIEW/AMENDMENT, BETHEL COLLEGE, 3900
BETHEL A VENUE - PUBLIC HEARING
Staff reviewed their May 24, 2002 report and recommended approval of the site plan
amendment as presented,
Chair Sand inquired about the doors on the concession stand building. Bruce ,_, Vice
President, stated the doors were not changing, except lor the location.
Chair Sand inquired about the press box. Bruce
would look.
explained how thc prcss box
Wednesday, June 19,2002
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 5, 2002
:3
Chair Sand asked if the hcight building was within City Ordinance. Mr. Parrish .
confirmed it was.
Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if restroom facilitics would be added in the future.
Bruce _ stated there would not be restrooms added to this building, but there would
bc portable rest facilities availablc.
Chair Sand asked what the future building referencc was on the plans. Bruce
stated he believed that might be the future restroom enclosure.
Mr. Parrish replied one of the original conditions requested by Council was to have a
restroom enclosure.
Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m.
There were no comments made at the Public Hearing.
Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.
Commissioner Lemberg moved, seconded
Case 02-10, Bethel College, 3900 Bet
presented.
The motion carried unanimously (7-0). .
,,~~jh,
PLANNING CASE 02-11: SEl1BA<!lk RIANCE - TERRY DRAGICH. 1838
BECKMAN AVENUE - PUBLICIlEARflife'$'
Staffrcviewcd their Fe
for a variancc. Staff
whcrc 30 feet was require
report. Staff reviewed the live findings necessary
d approval of a reduced rear yard setback of 22 feet,
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if there was a variance granted for the previous
addition. Mr. Parrish replied a previous building inspcctor had approved the addition for
a previous owner. He stated he did not know if a variance had been granted or noL
Terry Dragieh, 1838 Beckman Avenue, stated his father-in-law had built the addition and
he had purchased the property from him. He explained what he knew about the history of
the building of the addition and statcd a building pennit had been issued for the addition,
but he was not sure if a variance had bcen issued or noL
Chair Sand asked if they would be going any closer to the lot line than the other end of
the home. Mr. Dragich replied this proposal would not be any closer to the lot line than
the addition.
Chair Sand opcned the publie hearing at 8:06 p.m.
.
There werc no comments at the Public Hearing.
Chair Sand closcd thc public hearing at 8:07 p.m.
.
.
.
fJJJ
'.
~
~~HILLS
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 24, 2002
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Aaron Parrish, City Planner If!
SUBJECT: Case #02-10
Bethel College
Site Plan Amendment
ReQuest
Bethel College is requesting an amendment to their previously approved site plan for the
Ona Orth Athletic Complex.
Overview
Surrounding Area
Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoninf! Existinf! Land Use
North Public and Institutional R-l Single Family Institutional
Residential
South Low Density R-l Single Family Single Family Detached
Residential Residential Residential
East Public and Institutional B-1 Limited Business Institutional
District
Low Density R-I Single Family Natural Open Space /
West Residential Residential Single Family Detached
Residential
Site Data
Future Land Use Plan: Low Densitv Residential
Existinf'Land Use: Institutional
Zoninf': R-l Single Family Residential (Overall Campus is zoned B-1
Memo to Planning Commission
Planning Case #02-10: Bethel College
Page 2 ofJ
In 2000, Bcthcl submitted and received approval for a Special Use Permit amendment
and site plan to construct the Ona Orth Athletic Complex. The Complex is located on the
west of Old Snelling directly across from the main entrance to Bethel College. Generally
speaking, they are requesting two revisions relative to the previously approved
concession and storage building. First, they are requesting a slight revision in building
design to allow for a second level press box. The proposed and previously approved
elcvations are included for your review.
Second, they are requesting a slight shifting and reorientation of the building to the
southeast to enhance the functionality of the press box. This would cssentially give the
press box a view from behind home plate. The proposed and previously approved
building elevations are included for your review.
Site Plan Review
Since the change does not have a substantive impact to the ovcrall site, and the site plan
was previously approved, a comprehensive site plan evaluation has not been included. In
essence, the Planning Commission is being asked to evaluate the revised building
elevations and slight modification in building location. The applicant will be available at
the meeting to clarifY any questions that you might have relative to any of the
aforementioned items.
Staff Recommendation
In Planning Case #02-10, staff recommends approval of the site plan amendment as
presented:
Deadline for Aeency Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on May 8,
2002. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City must act on this request by July 7,
2002 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an
additional 60 day revicw period. The City may with the petitioncrs consent extend the
review period beyond the 120 days.
Options
1.
2.
3.
Recommend approval as submitted.
Recommend approval with conditions.
Recommend denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in
writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request".
Table for additional information.
4.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
Memo to Planning Commission
Plamling Case #02-10: Bcthcl Collegc
Page 3 oD
Attachments
I. Location map
2. Lctter from applicant
3. Previously approvcd site plan
4. Previously approved building clcvation
5. Plan set submitted by applicant
z
c
o
~- c.
~m
o:t
-'
>.
"'"
(U
(J)
2.:
::J
(j)
-
0
~
0
z
Cl
(U
2:
~ (J)
(J)
(J) ~
0
LL Z
0
0
0
N
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
~
w
U')
:s
BETHEL COLLEGE
~ SEMINAR~__
Office of Campus Services
Bethel College & Seminary
3900 Bcrhel Drive, SL Paul, Mionesom 55112-6999
651"638"6431
~\'w,v_belheLedu
May 6, 2002
Mr. Aaron Parrish
City of Arden Hills
1245 Wcst Highway 96
Arden Hills, Mn55ll2
Dear Aaron:
.
Attached are the plans lor the storagc/utility/press box building at the Orth Athletic
Complex. When the complex was originally approved thc building was included but the
press box component was not specified. At the time, size, shape, and overall architecture
wcre the most significant issues.
The press box component is a critical part due to Bethel's commitment to gender equity
issues. The building will be located in the samc area of the Orth complex as originally
planned and will also be used for storage and a concession stand.
If you have questions regarding the project, please call me at (651) 638-643 L
//
Bruce A. Kunkel
Vice President for Campus Services
.
....
.
__~--_~',J_I J~C~~~'~~" ,
c._, rl; ';~ ,~~~~,
r-1J! n;i:.' ~.,~\:: ~~~' ~ ~"'~~ ,
.. -'" 'cr A"" ,,>-
-- -,; >:~-, ;1t. ' --'-:I"L "~ ' ", '
.li/ ; i ~ ffi ~ '.
:_Ir_j fn C: . _. II
'___c--_o' "r-)~I:r;
::~~~~ ~t!-
( ~\J;1. ~;lll,CII fri ,,~:i,'(\;.~<~,,<.,::'\\'~ \ ""
"c '. 1Ej1Ej 1Ej ,__~ . ~,
'" \ \\ \,
,~" EO:; -1-J ,~ ,
,... .,,~.-- ,
.r:'::'~'~ ~_.....---- ,,r I :",
..../ cry. f--:. ,"'_____
:.'(~ (r' ci j /-li--
# ~...c n4 i. i--. / M..
/ \- G'(J :
.-~ \ t-l~ _ ,"tc=__
\ \ ( I: ii, _",:;._
(:) \ l~y..: \
B./ .... _;
/' -,
(i:/ '
r !-"-t---~--__J
~~------+----~-
l
//
~,
\-
~- -
zo
0-
-I~~
"(1)
Oc
;::Om
03:
0-
z~
(1)-
-10
;::oZ
c'
o
::!
- r'r:. I w""
~
OLOPMEMf
L~D~"j;:.~,:~gSD~ W k 111
...__r~____~_-.;~:a
~::.";.".....:;._...
:..::.:".::"'...~
:..."":;:-"".~.....----""'----
SrTElA,YOUT
'CAN
.---"'"
~~I
~j
.
.
- .~-~;:::::..._':;,.-"'=--
--~- -~-
~~,C""'~' _________
;- ,', -, .."..--==-
. ,
,
I
i
i
1\
ii
I
1\
ii
j i~-:::,:~
1,- ..__
1:;'::;::;-
\\.------
-~':":':;;,:::.~
~""
",'.-
i___.
'i
-;=;~'=-:~~
--"""~"-~
0::;-:-_
--
'?J?""-
1:::'=""__
~~ -J)
!~-~~_.~
\'"'=CC.
l I
G9
--1 "-""-"__~
SPORTS SE;;-CE FAC1UTY
!~1>E>>__=-
~"----~..,,---
(; .
;:;::.:..:;~->--~-; I
~,;,~;,;--i- -Bdttd\I:. I
=~z><. ! .S~' l\
. .o;;.;O"';O'~W)~,~cc+ i- ':i
' --- / ~~.",~ ~''''''''~"I
~;':=~;;::.;-:: ~'''''----'--+-- ---:t~~~=i
i ~- 1______ -'
I.~~c:~::'::;":
i
---::.;;~""~--
'-'''-'--:8!
""""W-i\" ,..'1
Y I"
..~, nUZ'~~Twn--rit
f!'r.,l' IHI --:_'~--:'4 1
~r tt;<tf----- n_ ----.-'4
~j::t;' ~~:h~~:~-.--------- ------:~~~~~::::::--..::------.-
Q
ENlRANCE GATE
"""
-'-a'~;:;;"
'~~1
1:~t~:~_/
--~~;~-i.~=
;~;:~~~
~....~--
"""""'-,"'"-....,.......
~";.;~t;-
j:' ~-tf-~, -+ I};i'~:~
-,~ -1' . c "YP'
,-,:' I, ,L ;:~,~: ,ttd'LLAR
I I I t ~--'----'""---~ ---r~-
",ce.,( ";;';~V'-El,'d.{~ \. ~~;~:~.~ :-lC::: ~
-=:~- '",'-0' ~ ,
lCJ
!'C,:'~;.~~\
. ".i" .' ~I~
\;". .
OX> '(~~ ~'~~,j i I
..... iU
-l
::I:
~ ..... ,
..... r- iii
V> "
-l 0
'mil z: > 1=
0
~ II> II> > -l .....
i ~ ~ ;1 ::0 ::I: C)
&: !;i! '" Ei .....
mm ..... ill
d'll :z Ill"
lllhl 2<) II> n
"'~ ...l!! ::I: " V>
i I :!I'~ ~.- "'6 ;=: 0 ..... .1
I I . :1 , , ~~ 5jx y; E: il:
I . . " I;,'! =!~ ...", ~ Z
:tt..ll. j~ r- > h
2~ il: ..... ::0
:z >< -<
..
.
_'5'"_
t~~"~"=~'O:>'-
oo.n",__.,__~""""1'''''''''C''
!e:_
..
~l.>l
. . '"
. '" ~ i
' -
~ ~ \l1
\l1 r=
0
r= ~
0
I~ ~
rn
~
rn
~ ."
.-
~
rn
.-
rn ;ll
~
--< '~
~
t)
m J- I
:;;
, ::;;~ ~ ~
.< ffi m m
~i ~ ,
~g m
< . s
p ~~ ~s :~ ,
~~ ~~ 1 ~~
~
,.
:a;:"-l
. '"
~ i
rn
I
t)
------- .
_._.______.~.________~____+.__________. ___ ._____._._.__.___~_._H..________. __._..n
t
.. ~
i: Il'
g ""1"
11'-1(1'
I~
"
~
_J
mm_+ m
~4.___'__ __~_ __.u______n~__..~.u._____h__d_
2!)'-el'
~~
n_"if---"
~E
>>~
~~
.______.....___y....,___n__....__
'ill'
~i
11
ll;~
~~
~e
r
,
'->>:';
~~;~,';~J
[01
! '01
I. '
I
hlO
I ~ ,1101
JJO
I~
,q
,
\l1
r=
o
I~
~
~
;ll
~
~
~
"
"
m
~
V
I
J
r
1 -'
: ;ill! I
l______n '_.m_n---'---nuu,u.m';;,,~.-_mnn'--.n_--~l---r--' .
'..
.
.
1+
.'
"
j::
~
c
,
Iii Ii i
i ~ ~ Ii
~ I I ~
I I ~
. ,
II ~ ~
I . ~
I ! ffi
! i ..
~ i i
I I I
I i I
I ~
. ,
~
,
~
C
.tll~
i~
:C
~ ;
,
''"'"
------
"
"
, , I
L-...i.,.-;'",
r' __
, ,
,
tt i
:cq:;
d :
I
-
--
1\ .......
1.31. t:;r~
0." [ ~;
.......
........
'C
C
,
..... :
I "
II !'
~I
ij
.......
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'- - ---
""-
\ i
\ i
\ .
I
'i
,
",,'"
<
<
... ._-
.- ~
,:
:,
: ,
'" ,
V ....
~'
',,,,, /
C. '------~
. .
C ' . ...~.. ~~.'-
~.. C 0------------"-----. _--
C ___---<co .....--- _--
. ~ - --- ~- ._--
~~.--~~ ~ ,--- --:::::..--
---------i- '------ L___- -.----:-:--.- /-'r.'
_._--~'- ..--.-'. .~ ----~_.- ., ~..
_ --- : ,.._,,-- ..-- _p- . ,,8 ._'~(J'.18
"'
"'
-'
"'
-----
.----
C5
WEST PROPERTY. ATHLETIC FACILrTY DEVELOPMENT
BEltIEl COUIOE
&lJNT PMR., MtNNEIOTA
SITE LAYOUT
PLAN
- .....,
~ ., ===:::is
---
-
---
~........-...
ANDER30N-JOHNS~N
AS$OCIA rks, ... ...
INC.
-......--_._...,.~~...:=
_..;;-~.~-
1....,~_IIl'-JolIII
---'~""'''~''''
...,............,.......1_
::::1hI~.4ef ~'fr'
1'I~.....---.Jl\!ISl....
...... tl'm
__ 00---
. "
>.-
.
.
!~
Ii Ii Ii ; i i Ii Ii Illi Ii ; Ii i i ii Ii !i!lili i illl! i l
II II II I I, i Ii II illl ~ Ii! ! ! il Ii 11~11!1 i 111!l il
! ' I I I I ! jl lill Ii: ! I ! 'I II ill ill I IIII i i
I i II : : I I II Iii ~ I I '! I il!!111 I 11',1 I
'I! I I I I I J ,I
I
.
,
,
~ I
~ f'
o .
. .
Cl,
. i'
'- '
--
--
"
"
l~:m$o ~ ~i<iB!
t illl m )
I' ! I ill I I ! III ill I II II 1'1 !
I I !ll I I l!i jl I!;I III g
l ll'l' Ii Ii ! JjJ I!,
ill
, !
I~i"i~ i~l. IIi IIi Ii i Ii !i Ii ~
'ii ~i III II I i 'i 'I I ~
il!;! . h!U II ii i II It II ~
,ii 'I II! Ii ! I 'I II II ~
!~! Cli m !:,: II Iii II: I!l ~
\ l~ Iii I . lie
I I ~. III II I I; II ~
'I Ii ~'1.i'~ I I I
}; I~ . I
1
.--.-
\..
\ \
,\
\ \
\ \
\ ,.~~
:<.. ....~_.
\
\
\
.... WEST PROPERTY - ATHLETIC FACILITY DEVELOPMENT I.......,~....r..."""" ----
elTHti.col...l..E!:OE AND6MON-"OHNS~ ::.r:= - w -- "" IRRIGATION ~"d
SAINT P....UL.IIlNNhOT... ASSOCIATES, .. .. _____Il!IIII_
C7 INC. :J::'..~~.411f "-~ AND LANDSCAPE
-...... :..~_o...-.-J:!:SIL- PLAN -'-
~_.a~""Jr'CIJ -
.....".,AUl.._... ---_. _._~.. -
,. ...- -
. "
, "
.
.
.
~
~~HILLS
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
June 19,2002
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Joe Lynch, City Administrator
Aaron Parrish, City Planner ;II
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Case #02.11, Setback Variance
Terry and Sharon Dragich, 1838 Beckman Avenue
Reauest
The applicant is requesting a variance from the rear yard setback requirement in the R-2
Zoning District for an addition. The applicant is requesting a 22 foot rear yard setback
where a 30 foot setback is required.
Plannina Commission Recommendation
In Planning Case 02-11, the Planning Commission recommends approval of a reduced
rear yard setback of 22 feet, where 30 feet is required finding:
1. Granting the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning
Code.
2. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Deadline for Aaencv Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on May B, 2002.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by July 7,2002 (50
days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 50-day
review period. The City may with the petitioners consent, extend the review period beyond
120 days.
Memo to Mayor and City Council
Planning Case #02-11
Page 2 of2
Options
1. Recommend approval as submitted.
2. Recommend approval with conditions.
3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial. If the City denies the petitioners
request, "...it must state in writing the reasons forthe denial althe time that it denies
the request."
4. Table for additional information.
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Meeting'Minute Excerpt
2. May 23, 2002 Memo to Planning Commission
.
.
.
Wednesday, June 19. 2002
f,
.
.
.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 5, 2002 3
Chair Sand asked if the height building was within City Ordinance. Mr. Panish
confin1Jed it was.
Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if restroom facilitics would bc added in the future.
Bmcc _ stated there would not be restrooms added to this building, but there would
be portable rest facilities available.
Chair Sand asked what the future building reference was on the plans. Bmce
stated he believed that might be the future restroom enclosure.
Mr. Pan-ish replied onc of the original conditions requested by Council was to have a
restroom enclosure.
Chair Sand opened the public hcaring at 7:57 p.m.
Therc were no comments made at the Public Hearing.
Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.
Commissioner Lcmberg moved, seconded.
Case 02-10, Bethel Collegc, 3900 Bet
presented.
The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
PLANNING CASE 02-11: SEJ~
BECKMAN AVENUE - PUBLIC.
RIANCE - TERRY DRAGICH 1838
StafT reviewed their Fe
for a variance. Staff
where 30 feet was require
report. Staff reviewed the five findings necessary
d approval of a reduced rear yard setback of 22 feet,
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if there was a variance granted for the previous
addition. Mr. Parrish replied a previous building inspector had approved thc addition for
a previous owner. He stated he did not know if a variance had been granted or not.
Ten-y Dragieh, ] 838 Beckman Avenue, stated his father-in-law had built the addition and
he had purchased the property from him. He explained what he knew about the history of
the building of the addition and stated a building permit had been issued for the addition,
but he was not sure if a variance had becn issued or not.
Chair Sand asked if they would be going any closer to the lot line than the other end of
thc home. Mr. Dragieh replied this proposal would not be any closer to the lot line than
the addition.
Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
There were no comments at the Public Hcaring.
Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 8:07 p.m.
Wednesday. June 19, 2002
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 5, 2002
4
.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked what type of a foundation were they proposing. Mr. .
Dragich stated there would be footings, which would save a large oak tree on the
property.
Commissioner Ricki moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to approve
Plmming Case 02-11, Terry Dragich, 1838 Beckman Avenue, Setback Variance based on
staffs recommendations and findings as presented.
The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
PLANNING CASE #02-08 PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW
CORPORATION, 4100 HAM LINE AVENUE NORTH
GUIDANT
Chair Sand stated this item had been pulled from
CUB
PLANNING CASE #02-13 - CONCEPT PL
FOODS/OPPIDAN INVESTMENTS 3715 LE
Staff rcvicwed their report dated May 2
plan.
. d asked for comments relative to the
Commissioner Zimmerman ask
Parrish replied there was a liq
would deal with.
were prepared to issue a liquor license. Mr.
ilable and this was an issue the City Council
.
Commissioner Zimme
need to work with th
easement and would not h
ut the rail line. Mr. Parrish stated applicant would
s to have the easement vacated. This was a private
low the City vacation processes.
Commissioner Ricke asked how much of the square footage was going to be retail and
how much was warehouse. Mr. Parrish stated he did not havc these numbers, but that the
applicant may be able to provide a breakdown.
Chair Sand stated he would like to see more green spacc along Lexington A venue, either
by reducing parking or adding more landscaping along Lexington Avenue. He stated
without a planting or landscaping plan it was hard to know what this site would look like
from Lexington A venue. Mr. Parrish replied a landscape plan would be submitted in the
future. He requested the sign age be reduced also. He requested having a different
material at the doorway entrances that would break up the cut-stone. He recommended
the "low priced leader" sign be removed.
Commissioner Ricke statcd she also had the same concerns as Chair Sand with respect to
the amount of signage and the lack of greenspace. .
Commissioner Galatowitsch stated she would also like to see more greenspace.
,~
~\ J).j
~ '
.
~
~~HILLS
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
February 27, 2002
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
,
Aaron Parrish, City Planner f/
SUBJECT:
Case #02-11, Setback Variance
Terry and Sharon Dragich, 1838 Beckman Avenue
Reauest
. The applicant is requesting a variance from the rear yard setback requirement in the R-2
Zoning District for an addition. The applicant is requesting a 22 foot rear yard setback
where a 30 foot setback is required.
Backqround
Surrounding Area
-.-"---' - --- _._~_." - - --- .~"- "" '._.,
Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use
~..._,-
North Low Density Residential R-2 Residential
East Low Density Residential R-2 Residential
~_._---
South Low Density Residential R-2 Residential
West Low Densitv Residential R-2 Residential
Site Data
.
Future Land Use Plan: Low Densitv Residential
Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential
Zoninq: R-2 Single and Two Family Residential
Size: 14,B50 square feet
Topography: Relatively Flat
\"
Memo to Planning Commission
Planning Casc #02-11
Page 2 of 4
.
Variance Criteria
The applicant is seeking to construct a 16' X 18' addition within the rear yard. This addition
would match up with an existing addition which is also 22' from the rear property line. See
the attached site layout for additional information. For reference, this addition would fit on
the east side yard of the property. The R-2 Zoning District allows for a 5' side yard setback
for principle structures. There is currently 3B' of side yard available. However, the
applicant has indicated that they currently have two egress windows that serve two
bedrooms in the basement. As such, they cannot put the addition on this side of the house
without expanding the basement as well. See the attached letter from the applicant
outlining the need for a variance.
A. State Requirements
Minnesota State Statue in Chapter 462.357, Subdivision 6, (2), defines "undue
hardship" as:
"... means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions
allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if
reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the ordinance...."
.
B. City Requirements
Section VIII, D, 4, c and d, of the City's Zoning Ordinance state that,
"Adherence to the provisions of this ordinance is required, except for special cases which arise
because of the configuration of a particular parcel. The condition shall not have been created by
the landowner. A variance or variances of a side of a lot. the shape of the lot or the unusual
terrain prohibit reasonable development equivalent to that which would be permitted without
variance on a similar size lot located in the same districl, but which lot has no unusual
configuration. Economic conditions alone shall not be grounds for a variance. In no case shall
the granting of a variance impair the health. safety, comfort and general welfare of the public, nor
will it be contrary to the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan, the official map or this or
any other ordinance of the City".
Variance Findinqs
In order to grant a variance, the following criteria must be addressed as defined by the City
and the State. For this variance application, staff can make the following comments:
1. Whether the circumstances for which the variance is requested are unique to the .
properly.
.
.
.
Memo to Planning Commission
Planning Case #02-11
Page 3 of 4
There are no circumstances that are particularly unique to the property. However,
as previously stated, the southwest side of the house does currently extend into the
30 foot setback. The addition would match the existing.
2. Whether granting the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
City's Zoning Code.
The variance would be keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning code. More
specifically, granting the requested variance would "promote the character of and
preserve and enhance the properties and areas within the city. . .." From staff's
perspective, this addition would create more architectural interest than extending
the property into the side yard.
3. Whether the property in question can be put to a reasonable use without granting of
a variance.
With our without the addition, the property can be put to use as a single family
home.
4. Whether the hardship was created by the property owner.
At this point, no specific hardship can be identified.
5. Whether granting the variance will alter/he essential character of the neighborhood.
This will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. As the applicant
indicates, there is significant separation between properties in the area.
Deadline for AQency Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on May B, 2002.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by July 7,2002 (60
days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional60-day
review period. The City may with the petitioners consent, extend the review period beyond
120 days.
Options
1.
2.
3.
Recommend approval as submitted.
Recommend approval with conditions.
Recommend denial with reasons for denial. If the City denies the petitioners
request, "__.it must state in writing the reasons forthe denial at the time that it denies
the request."
Memo to Plalming Commission
Planning Case #02-11
Page 4 of 4
4. Table for additional information.
Recommendation
In Planning Case 02-11, staff recommends approval of a reduced rear yard setback of 22
feet, where 40 feet is required finding:
1. Granting the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning
Code.
2. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Site Layout
3. Applicant's Statement
.
.
.
.
n
I2S.:I
[J
olfJ ~.'
n
~
~.
.
,
~~:;
G
Cf)
::J
~
.~.
z
~
00"
,c': ,. :-;,~ ,',
"c. 'C"."":
Q
Gfi1
())
:J
C
())
>
<J::
c
co
E
~
o
())
a:l
c
0," "-'~
.~
lli'liiiiiiiiii' ~
~.
~. (U
'. :,
'. ::!
0,
"'",.-
---I:
Q
r:c'l
LSJ
~."O'"
0<'>", ':_'_:_.,._'_:'~
f:\, :;<<.:"
-'"""'
z
>.
~
(\J
::J
0
>.
Q)
2':
::J
(j)
~ ~
Q) 0
Q) ~
LL 0
Z
C) 0.
C) (\J
.q :2:
Q)
~
0
Z
C)
C)
('oJ
C)
C)
C)
('oJ
~
lfJ
>-
K
..-
1"8~ "it
;;
"
"-
00
CO
18 Feel
;;
"
"-
'"
N
laa~ a
~
(J)
ill
LL
CD
C
a>
E
a>
.
:2_
. _ c
'" a>
rom
-a ::>
~~
(')~
c_
o::>
-aD
~~
"'D
D",
50)
o ~
>-E
~ ~
Q)"'D
(5 ~
z '"
o
'"
o
~
o
o
~
.
.'
.
.
.
Terence M. and Sharon L. Dragich
1838 Beckman Ave.
Arden Hills, MN 55112
May 20, 2002
City Council
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills MN 55112-5794
Ladies and Gen~emen,
Please accept this letter along with our formal request for a variance on our property at 1838 Beckman
Avenue. We are applying for a variance because a planned addition to our house will be closer to the
rear property line than is allowed by the city in normal situations.
We feel the circumstances for which we are applying for this variance are unique to our property for
several reasons. First, we are planning to add on a bedroom on the southeast end of the house. This
would be a one-story addition that would match in size and shape an existing addition on the southwest
comer of our house. The existing addition was built by a pervious owner in the mid 1970's. The effect of
doing the planned addition would give us more living space in the house and create a U shaped
courtyard in the rear of the house. The existing addition is 22 feet from the property line as would the
new addition also be. Second, the neighboring house in the rear of our property is on a lot that over an
acre in size and the house on that lot is 85 feet away from our shared property line. This means the
combined distance between houses would still be more than 100 feel.
We feel the variance is in keeping with the intent of the cities zoning code because it is for residential
purposes, it does not cause a problem with sight lines, run-off or through way.
The 16' x 18' piece of property that the addition will occupy would not be put to any other use other than
open yard. There is no other purpose that the land would be used for.
Building this addition without digging a foundation will help to solve a water problem we are currently
experiencing on that comer of the house. The addition would divert the drainage away from that
existing wall but would not cause any adverse issues with our lot or neighboring lots. We, the current
property owners, did not cause this hardship. It has been an issue since we purchased the house.
Granting the variance would not atter the essential character of the neighborhood because it is an
addition to a residence in a residential neighborhood. It simply will match the existing addition directly
across from it on the southwest comer of the house.
~IfJ, ~
~\ ~.~~\
Terence M. and Sharon L. Draglch
.
.
.
~
~
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
7.D
June 19,2002
TO: Mayor and City Council
Joe Lynch, City Administrator
FROM: Aaron Parrish, City Planner /fP
SUBJECT: Ordinance Regulating the Sale of Phosphorous Fertilizer
Overview
A law adopted by the Minnesota Legislature this year requires that any ordinance restricting the
sale of phosphorous fertilizer, compared to the application of phosphorous fertilizer, be in effect
prior to August 1, 2002. Based on previous Council direction, attached is an ordinance that
regulates the sale of phosphorous fertilizer in the City of Arden Hills. To be in effect prior to
August 1, 2002, it would be necessary to conduct a second reading of the ordinance and consider
its adoption at the July 8, 2002 City Council. A letter has been sent to the Arden Hills business
that would potentially be affected.
Requested Action
Consider introduction and first reading of Ordinance 339 establishing regulations for the sale of
lawn fertilizer.
.
.
.
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 339
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE OF
LAWN FERTILIZER
Section 339.01 - GENERAL
Subd. 1. Title. This Chapter shall be known, cited and referred to as the "Arden Hills Lawn
Fertilizer Regulations"
Subd. 2. Purpose and Intents. The City has in the past convened a Water Quality Task Force
and has reviewed existing data to determine the current and projected water quality of various
lakes within its community. The data indicates that lake water quality may be maintained and
improved if the City is able to regulate the amount of lawn fertilizer and other chemicals entering
the lakes as a result of storm water runoff or other causes. The purpose of this Chapter is to
establish regulations that will aid the City in managing and protecting its water resources that are
enjoyed by its residents and other users.
Subd. 3. Statutory Authorization. This Chapter shall be adopted pursuant to the authorization
contained in furtherance of the policies declared in Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103F and 462
and Minnesota Rules Parts 6120.2500-6120-3900.
Subd. 4. Interpretation. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this Chapter
shall be held to be minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the City,
and its City Council, and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted
by State Statutes.
Subd. 5. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. It shall not be intended by this Chapter to
repeal, abrogate or impair any existing easements, covenants or deed restrictions. However,
where this Chapter imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this Chapter shall prevail.
Section 339.02 - DEFINTIONS
Subd. 1. Definitions.
A.
Fertilizer. A substance containing one or more recognized plant nutrients
that is used for its plant nutrient content and designed for use or claimed to
have value in promoting plant growth. Fertilizer does not include animal
and vegetable manures that re not manipulated, marl, lime, limestone, and
other products exempted by Rule by the Minnesota Commissioner of
Agriculture.
Ordinance #339
Pagel
Section 339.03 - GENERAL REGULATIONS
.
Subd. 1. Sale of Fertilizer Containing Phosphorous. Effective 31 July 2002, no person, firm,
corporation, franchise, or commercial establishment shall sell any lawn fertilizer, liquid or
granular, within the city of Arden Hills that contains any amount of phosphorous or other
compound containing phosphorous, such as phosphate, except:
A. Effective 31 July 2003. Small quantities of such fertilizer may be sold for
use as for the following as allowed by Minnesota State Statute:
1. a tissue, soil, or other test be a laboratory or method approved by
the Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture and performed within
the last three years indicates that the levels of available
phosphorous in the soil is insufficient to support health turf
growth;
11. the property owner or agent is first establishing turf via seed or sod
procedures, and only during the first growing season; or
Ill. the fertilizer containing the plant food phosphorous is used on a
golf course under the direction of a person licensed, certified, or
approved by an organization with an ongoing training program
approved by the Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture.
Displays of lawn fertilizer containing phosphorous shall be limited to ten .
percent (10%) of the quantity of non-phosphorous lawn fertilizer on display at
any given time. Use of lawn fertilizer containing phosphorous allowed under
this section shall not exceed rates recommended by the University of
Minnesota and approved by the Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture.
B. Effective 31 July 2003. Displays of such fertilizer must be clearly marked as
containing phosphorous, and must be separated from the display of other
fertilizers by no less than eight (8) feet.
C. Effective 31 July 2003. For each sale of such fertilizer the seller shall
provide the buyer with a copy of this Chapter ofthe Arden Hills City Code.
Section 339.04 -PENALTY
Subd. 1. Any person violating this Chapter shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Effective Date:
This ordinance shall become effective the day following its
publication.
Adoption Date:
Passed by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills
the 8th day of July 2002.
.
Ordinance #339
Page 2
.
.
.
ATTEST:
DENNIS PROBST, MAYOR
JOSEPH P. LYNCH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Ordinance #339
Page 3
~
.
~
~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
June 20, 2002
Agenda Item 9.A
FROM:
Mayor and City Council ~
Joe Lynch, City Administrator 0' 0
TO:
SUBJECT:
Revised 2002 Goal Schedule
BACKGROUND
At the Staff/Council retreat in January, Council determined that it would like to focus on
. achieving three goals for the year 2002. The goals for the year are:
I. Develop a CIP
2. Select and proceed with TCAAP development
. 3. Joint Maintenance Facility
Council requested periodic updates from staff on these goals, the proposed schedule and
revisions, if any. At this time staff would like to review the goals with Council, share a few
thoughts and update the schedules for each ofthe goals.
At the conclusion of the 2002 Retreat, Council and staff determined that the CIP was a long
range goal, not a single year event, and staff would proceed with trying to accomplish as many of
the identified tasks as they could and report back to Council on those items it could not achieve
with current resources.
The following is a review of the identified tasks, a comment about information that feeds into the
task and revised dates, if possible. Also, enclosed for your information is a revised, complete list
of the goals and steps as identified at the retreat.
.
e
.
.
City of Arden Hills
Strategic Planning Action Plan
Revised June 2002
Page 1
Develop a CIP WHO WHEN
Develop an equipment replacement schedule Staff
(rolling stock, technology, fixed assets)
. Current CIP identified needs for five years
on vehicles and equipment
. Park Comp Plan identified some asset
replacement for 20 years
. Technology Master Plan will layout some
needs for 2-5 years
. Have a few tasks in place but need a
comprehensive tool encompassing all of
these needs into one document
Inventory existing equinment Staff Have not begun vet
Develop expected life schedule for each item City Administrator Have not begun yet -
Staff will be part of staff
budget discussions III
July/August
Develop replacement cost schedule for next 10 Staff Have not begun yet
years using 2002 as base
Prepare five year plan for equipment to be Staff Review this part with
replaced with total annual replacement costs Council in August
. Will not be ready with items B through E
in August
. Can be ready by October Work Session
Other items in list
. Selected 2003 street project communicating
with residents/affected parties to begin
meetings in July 2002
To do
. Complete inventory of sewer/water lines Staff w/consultant 2/03
. Complete inventory of street conditions Staffw/consultant 9/02
. PCI has been done and presented to Review on projects for
Council 2-5 years has begun
. Incorporate parks, trails, planning 10/02
document
. Park Comp Plan Adopted May 2002
PTRC returning to City Council on July 15,
2002 with recommendations on priority items,
funding, incorporation into 2003 CIP
City of Arden Hills
Strategic Planning Action Plan
Revised June 2002
Page 2
e
TCAAP Developer WHO WHEN
Completed presentation process Council/Staff on schedule
Planning 4/02
Commission!
Community Fomms
Select developer for preliminary developer Council/Staff on schedule
agreement 5/02
Request for proposals for master planner Council/Staff 6/02
(new item)
Review proposals/select master planner (new Council/Staff 6/02-8/02
item) Planning
Commission
Planning process with developer with periodic Staff 9/02 11/02
review about to begin ahead of previous Planning 7/02-3/03
schedule Commission
Review planning proposals Couucil/ 11/02 2/02
(revised schedule) Planning 3/03-5/03
Commission!
Community Fomms
Final development agreement CounciJ/Devcloper -6ffl3 , -'
(revised schedule) (,111 "3
.
.
1
.
.
.
City of Arden Hills
Strategic Planning Action Plan
Revised June 2002
Page 3
Joint Maintenance Facility WHO WHEN
Joint meetings between City and County Council/Staff completed 5/02
. County Board will review preliminary Community 7/02
design and authorize design work 6/25
Preliminary design (included III the above 7/02
item)
Review design County/City 9/02-11102
County will be making a decision in 60-90 7/02-10/02
days on type of construction (on schedule)
Financing options Council 11/02 12/02
(revised schedule) MFTF 7/02-10/02
County will need to know within 90 days if
Arden Hills is participating in the project and
how our portion will be financed
Final Design, Ramsey County will proceed Architect ~
with design within 90 days of acceptance and 12/03
demonstration of ability to pay by partnering
agencies, (revised)
Solicit/review bids* County/City 4/03-6/03
Award contract* County/City 7/03
Begin construction* County/City 8/03
Construction complete* County/City 10/04
Occupancy* County/City 10/04
Sell city property* City 2/05
*Too early to tell whether this schedule can be accomplished as designed. Staff feels it is very
ambitious, particularly given our most recent exnerience
.
.
.
~
~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
Agenda Item 9.B
TO:
June 20, 2002
Mayor and City Council 4
Joe Lynch, City AdministratorOVV
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mission Statement Review
ENCLOSURE:
2002 Retreat Work
Copies of mission statements
Policy governance model information
At the 2002 Council/Staff Retreat there was discussion about the existing mission statement and
the need for better understanding ofthe purpose, meaning and use of a mission statement.
Council indicated a desire to continue exploring the current Mission Statement, review other
examples and understand staffs desire to possibly create a different one.
Council heard from the staff about lack of understanding the Mission Statement and its
intentions, lack of knowledge about its existence and inability to incorporate existing statement
into their daily work.
Council reviewed the hard work and time that went into establishment of the current Mission
Statement, lack of desire to go through similar difficult discussion, and need for revision.
Council directed staffto work further on the Mission Statement and report back.
At this time, staff has collected some mission statements from other cities. That information is
enclosed for your review and information.
Staffhas outlined the points from the discussion at the Council/Staff Retreat:
A mission statement should:
. Be concise
. Bein
. Be authoritatively generated (from the Council)
. Be horizontally and vertically intcgrated (across and between government agencies and
within and throughout all departments)
. Be understood by an eighth grade civics class
.
2
June 6, 2002
Mission Statement Review
Upon review of the above mentioned criteria, the retreat group went through a brief exercise on
mission statement redevelopment. Enclosed is a copy of the proposed "revised" Mission
Statement with accompanying statements of value for the City. This is provided for your review
and information.
The Mission Statement should serve the following purposes:
. Decision forming tool (biggest bowl)
. Understanding by all as the basis for budgetary, program and service decisions
. Quickly identifies the purpose and function of the City
. Guiding framework for the every day work of staff
Council needs to consider what their next step should be. You are poised on the edge of a major
undertaking, TCAAP planning and redevelopment. The question that needs answering, is the
current Mission Statement capable of carrying the City through that process? Does it apply to the
product that will ultimately develop and does it apply to the other portions ofthe City during and
upon completion ofredevelopment?
Council can deal with this issue now and develop a Mission Statement that can be a guide to the
. TCAAP process and any and all outcomes.
The other options is the Council can wait until the planning process piece is completed and use
that community bonding experience to forge the Mission Statement that will apply to the
community on both sides of Highway 96.
.
THE POUCY MAKING NESTING BOWL
Based on John Carver's Model of Governance
.
MEANS
he staff's domain.
. Concerned with wbat's
. Prudent
. Ethical
41 Effective
COUNCIL PROCESS
. How the council connects with the
public and each other to determine
what's important..
COUNCIL - STAFF RELATIONS
. Council established monitoring
systems to account for
executive actions.
EXECUTIvE LThfiT ATIONS
. Go 'ill council says stop.
. Stated in the negative to limit
staff's practices, methods,
activities, circumstances.
ENDS
· What good?
. Which people?
. What cost?
. Dermes the existence of
the organization
MISSION
. Briefest, broadest statement of
what the city organization is
for, and how the world will be
different as a result.
.
.
I
Arden Hills
See Us From The Inside
.:. Quality Services
.:. Innovative, Adaptable
.:. Efficient, Purposeful
.:. Meeting Resident Expectations
N E SOT A
RECEIVED
MAY 3 1 2002
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
THE CITY OF BLAINE MINNESOTA SEEKS A DYNAMIC AND VISIONARY
LEADER TO SERVE AS ITS NEXT
CITY MANAGER
THE COMMUNITY
The City of Blaine (population 48,000+) is
situated just 13 miles from both downtown
Minneapolis and St. Paul. Blaine is one
of the Twin Cities' largest and fastest
growing suburban communities. Since its
incorporation in 1961, Blaine has rapidly
grown from a small rural community to a
booming business and residential center.
Blaine consists of .)4 square miles of pristine
wetlands and preserved woodland areas made
even more appealing by auractive residential
The Mission of the City of Bla is to Provide Onaoill9,guality Municipal
Services and to .Brin!! AboutQuality and Balanced Residential, Commercial
and Industrial Development Through the Teamwork of the City Council, City
Commissions, City Staff and Residents.
areas, viable industrial/commercial parks
and thoughtful pLmning. Ciry government
has placed maximum emphasis on citizen
participation, responsive customer service
and conscr'/ative fiscal stewardship
While one-third of the community is
available for future development, Blaine
is currently home to such well-known
businesses as Avcda Corpor:ation, Benno
Inc., CF Motor Freight, Dayton Rogers
Manufacturing Company, Diversified
Dynamics and others. Blaine is also home
to Minnesota's Olympic-class training facilily,
the National Sports Center (NSC). NSC is
host to the U.S,A. Cup, the world's fourth
largest youth soccer tournament each July.
Also located at NSC is the Schwann's Super
rink, which consists of four Olympic-size
ice sheets, located in one facility. The NSC
attracts over tvvo million visitors to Blaine
each year and is listed in the Guinness
.
.
.
City of Rose mount
VISION STATEMENT
Rosemount offers the opportunities to live, work, shop, play, and learn while maintaining
its unique historical backgr?un.si,_and continuestO.~!lhance its small town character and
pride through our neighborhoods, parks, downtown, ;;ch6ols, andsommunity activities.
MISSION STATEMENT
1;lle City of Rosemount and its citizens work together to provide a safe, healthy, pi sant
;community in a fiscally responsible manner.
i
\
\
'~
',,-
"
.------
..~'"
The Policy Governancc@ Model
Page 1 of16
.
Policy Governance@ Defined
John Carver's Policy Governanee@ model is the world's only complete, universal theory of
governance~a conceptually coherent paradigm of principles and concepts (not of structure). The
model enables boards-as "servant-leaders" of shareholders, public, members (or other
"ownership" equivalent}--to ensure that organizations achieve board-stated goals and conduct
themselves with probity.
. Because it is a complete theory, it informs board planning, mission, committee work, agenda
control. budgeting, reporting, CEO evaluation, management relationships, fiduciary
responsibility. and all other aspects of the board job.
. Because it is universally applicable, it works for organizations that are new or mature, large or
small. profit or nonprofit (including government). and troubied or successful.
. Because it is carefully crafted, it enables an efficient summing of board wisdom capable of
adequate control without micromanagement.
The most thorough explanation of the Policy Governance model is in Boards That Make a
Difference by John Carver (Jossey-Bass, 2nd edition, 1997), although four other books and almost
160 published articles and monographs describe various aspects and applications of the model. .
The following essay jointly authored by John and Miriam Carver is, however, the most complete
description in an article-length form. Although Policy Governance applies to corporate and
governmental (including elected) boards. as well as non profits, this piece is addressed to
non profits. A similar article written specifically for corporate boards, "A Theory of Corporate
Governance: Finding a New Balance for Boards and Their CEOs." was electronically published by
Corporate Board Member, April 2001, at httQ;[/wwwJ).Qi!fdmember.eom. The following article was
originally published in French in the Canadian journal Gouvernance: Revue internationa/e. Vol. 2, nO
1, Hiver 2001.
Carver's Policy Governance@ Model in Nonprofit
Organizations
by John Carver and Miriam Carver
Over the last decade or two, there has been increasing interest in the composition, conduct, and
decision-making of nonprofit governing boards. The board-staff relationship has been at the center
of the discussion, but trustee characteristics, board role in planning and evaluation, committee
involvement, fiduciary responsibility, legal liability, and other topics have received their share of
attention. Nonprofit boards are not alone. for spirited debate about the nature of business boards
has been growing as well. Whatever the reasons for this intense interest in governance, the Policy
Governance model for board leadership. created by the senior author, is frequently a primary focus
of debate.
.
The Nature of Governance and the Need for Theory
http://www.carvergovemanee.com/model.htm 6/12/2002
.
.
.
The Policy Governance@ Model
Page 2 of 16
The Policy Governance model is, at the same time, the most well-known modern theory of
governance worldwide and in many cases the least understood. It applies to governing boards of all
types-nonprofit. governmental, and business-and in all settings, for it is assembled from universal
principles of governance. In this article, we will focus exclusively on its use in nonprofit boards,
though many descriptions of its application in business (for example, Carver, 2000a. 2000c) and
government (for example, Carver. 1996a, 1997d, 2000b, 2001) are available elsewhere.
Governing boards have been known in one form or another for centuries. Yet throughout those
many years there has been a baffling failure to develop a coherent or universally applicable
understanding of just what a board is for. While comparatively little thought has been given to
developing governance theory and models, we have seen management of nonprofit organizations
transform itself over and over again. Managers have moved through PERT, CPM, MBO, TOM, and
many more approaches in a continual effort to improve effectiveness. Embarrassingly, however,
boards do largely what they have always done.
We do not intend to demean the intent, energy, and commitment of board members. There are
today many large and well known organizations that exist only because a dedicated group of
activists served as both board and staff when the organization was a "kitchen table" enterprise.
Board members are usually intelligent and experienced persons as individuals..Yet boards. as
Qroups. are mediocre. "Effective governance by a board of trustees is a relatively rare and unnatural
act. . . . trustees are often little more than hi h owered well-intentioned people en a ed in low-
level "diviti,,~" (Chait. Holland, and Taylor, 1996, p. 1). "There is one mg a oards have in
common. . . . They do not function" (Drucker, 1974, p. 628). "Ninety-five percent (of boards) are not
fully doing what they are legally, morally, and ethically supposed to do" (Geneen, 1984. p.28).
"Boards have been largely irrelevant throughout most of the twentieth century" (Gillies, 1992. p. 3).
Boards tend to be. in fact, incompetent groups of competent individual;;.
An extraterrestrial observer of board behavior could be forgiven for concluding that boards exist for
several Questionable reasons. They seem to exist to help the staff, to lend their prestige to
, organizations, to rubber stamp management desires, to give board members an opportunity to be
unappointed department heads, to be sure staffs get the funds they want, to micromanage
organizations, to protect lower staff from management. and sometimes even to gain some
advantage for board members as special customers of their organizations. or to give board
members a prestigious addition to their resumes.
But these observations-accurate though they frequently are-simply underscore the disclarity of
the board's rightful job. Despite the confusion of past and current board practices. we begin in this
article with the assertion that there is one central reason to have a board: Simply put_ the board
exists (usually on someone else's behalf) to be accountable that its organization works. The board is
where all authority resides until some is given away (delegated) to others. This simple total
authority-total accountability (within the law or other external authorities) is true of all boards that
truly have governing authority.
The Policy Governance model begins with this assertion, then proceeds to develop other universally
applicable principles. The model does not propose a particular structure. A board's composition.
history, and peculiar circumstances will dictate different structural arrangements even when using
the same principles. Polic Governance is a s stem of such rinci les, desiQned to be internallv
consistent, externally applieab e, and-to the oreat relief of those mncerned with governance
inteority~loaical. Logical and consistent principles demand major changes in governance as we
know it. because these principles are applied to subject matter that has for many years been
characterized by a hodgepodge of practices, whims of individuals, and capricious decision making.
Such a change is a paradigm shift, not merely a set of incremental improvements to the status QUO.
Paradigm shifts are difficult to cope with. since they often render previous experience unhelpful; they
demand a significant level of discipline to be put into effect. But if there is sufficient discipline to use
the Policy Governance model in its entirety. board leadership and the accountability of organizations
ca n be tra nsform ed.
It is important that we underscore this point Using parts of a system can result in inadequate or
http://www.carvergovernanee.com/model.htm
6112/2002
The Policy Govemanee@ Model
Page 3 of 16
even undesirable performance. It is rather like removing a few components from a watch, yet
expecting it still to keep accurate time. Unlike the traditional practices to which boards have become
accustomed, the Policy Governance model introduces an integrated system of governance (Carver
and Carver, 1996; Carver, 1997).
Greater effectiveness in the governing role requires board members first to understand qovernance
in a new way. then to be ~isciolined enouGh to behave in a new wav, Boards cannot excel if they
maintain only the discipline of the past any more than managers of this new century can excel if they
are only as competent as those of the past. Does this ask too much of boards? Perhaps it does ask
too much of many of today's board members. Yet there are other board members-or potential
board members who thus far have refused to engage in either the rubber-stamping or the
micromanaging they see on boards-who would rejoice in greater board discipline.
The Policy Governance model requires that boards become far more enlightened and more
competent as groups than they have been. If that means losing some board members as the
composition of boards goes through change, then the world will be the better for it. The Polir.y
Governance monel is not desi']npn to please today's board members or today"s manaqers. It is
designed to give orgaoizations' true owners competent servant-leaders to govern on their behalf.
Board as Owner-Representative and Servant-Leader
In the business sector, we can easily see that a board of directors is the voice of the owners
(shareholders) of the corporation. It is not always apparent that nonprofit organizations also have
owners. Certain nonprofits, such as trade associations or professional societies, are clearly owned
by their members. Beyond such obvious cases of ownership, however, it is useful to conceive that
community-based agencies in the social services. health, education, and other fields are "owned" by
their communities. In neither trade associations nor community agencies is there is a legal
equivalent of shareholders, but there is a moral equivalent that we will refer to as the "ownership."
Looking at ownership in this very basic way. it is hard to conceive of any organization that isn't
owned by someone or some population, at least in this moral sense.
The Policy Governance model conceives of the governing board as being the on-site voice of that
ownership. Just as the corporate board exists to speak for the shareholders, the nonprofit board
exists to represent and to speak for the interests of the owners.
A board that is committed to representing the interests of the owners will not allow itself to make
decisions based on the best interests of those who are not the owners. Hence. boards with a sense
of their legitimate ownership relationship can no longer act as if their job is to represent staff. or
other agencies, or even today's consumers (we will use that word to describe clients, students,
patieots, or any group to be impacted). It possible that these groups are not part of the ownership at
all, but if they are, it is very likely they constitute only a small percentage of the total ownership.
We are not saying that current consumers are unimportant. nor that staff are unimportant. They are
critically important, just as suppliers, customers, and personnel are for a business. It is simply that
those roles do not qualify them as owners. They are due their appropriate treatment. To help in their
service to the ownership, Policy Governance boards must learn to ,distinGuish between owners and
customer!;;. for the interests of each are different. It is on behalf of owners that the board chooses
what Grouos will be the customers of the future. The responsible board does not make that choice
on behalf of staff, today's customers, or even its own speCial Interests.
Who are the owners of a nonprofit organization? For a membership orgaoization, its members are
the owners. For an advocacy organization. persons of similar political, religious. or philosophical
conviction are the owners. There are many variations. But for purposes of this paper, we will
assume a community organization. such as a hospital, mental health or family service agency. for
which we can confidently say that the community as a whole is the legitimate ownership. In this
case. it is clear that in a community organization. the board must be in a position to understand the
http://www.carvergovcrnancc.com/model.htm
6/] 2/2002
.
.
.
The Policy Govcmance@ Model
Page 4 of ] 6
.
various views held in the community about the purpose of the organization. In short, if the
community owns the organization, what does the community want the organization for?
Traditionally, boards have developed their relationships largely inside the organization-that is, with
staff. Polie Gov demands that boards' . r rei ionshi s or i ati n
that is. Wit owners This parallels the concept of servant leadership developed by Greenleaf (1977,
1991), in that the board is first servant, before it is leader. It must lead the organization subject to its
discoveries about and judgments of the values of the ownership.
We have thus far referred repeatedly to the board and very little to board members; that is
intentional. Since we are now establishing the starting point for governance thinking, it is important
that we start with the body charged with authority and accountability-the board as a group, not
individual board members. It is the board as a body that speaks for the ownership. not each board
member except as he or she contributes to the final board product. So while we might derive roles
and resDonsibilities for individual board members, we must derive them from the roles and
resDonsibilities of thp. homd as a qroup, not the other way around. Hence, board practices must
recognize that it is the board, not board members. who have authority.
The board s eaks authoritatively when it asses an official 'on at a ro erly constituted meeting.
atements b rs horit . In other words, the board spea s WI one vOice
or not at all. The "one voice" principle makes it pOSSible to know what the board has said, and what
it has not said..This is important when the board qives instructions to one or more subordinates.
"One voice" does not require unanimous votes. But it does require all board members, even those
who lost the vote, to respect the decision that was made. Board decisions can be changed by the
board. but never by board members.
7
. The Necessity for Systematic Delegation
On behalf of the ownership, the board has total authority over the organization and total
accountability for the organization. But the board is almost always forced to rely on others to carry
out the work, that is, to exercise most of the authority and to fulfill most of the accountability. This
dependence on others requires the board to give careful attention to the principles of sound
delegation. _..
Since the board is accountable that the organization works, and since the actual running of the
organization is substantially in the hands of management, then it is important to the board that
management be successful. The board must therefore increase the likelihood that manaqement will
be successful, while makina it no~~ihlp. tn rpr'r'lQnbo whpthpr or not it re;:]llv is successful. ThIS calls
upon the board to be ,,-eey clear about its expectations, to personalize the assiqnment of those
expectations. and then to check whether the eXDeetations have been met. Only in this way is
everyone concerned clear about what constitutes success and who has what role in achieving it.
At this point, we wish to introduce the chief executive (CEO) role. (Policy Governance works in the
absence of a CEO role, but the governing job is more difficult than with a CEO.) We are not
concerned whether the CEO is called executive director, director-general, president, general
manager, superintendent, or any other title. We are, however, concerned how the role is defined
and we will use the term "CEO" to reflect the role definition we recommend.
.
We recommend that the board use a single point of delegation and hold this position accountable for
meeting all the board's expectations for organizational performance. Naturally, it is essential that the
board delegate to this position all the authority that such extensive accountability deserves. The use
of a CEO position considerably simplifies the board's job. Using a CEO, the board can express its
expectations for the entire organization without having to work out any of the internal, often complex,
divisions of labor. Therefore, all the authority granted by the board to the organization is actually
granted personally to the CEO. All the accountability of the organization to meet board expectations
is charged personally to the CEO. The board, in effect, has one employee.
t:. __
http://www.carvergovemance.com/modcl.htrn
6/12/2002
The Policy Govemancc@ Model
Page 5 of 16
It is important that boards maintain a sense of cause and effect with respect to their CEOs. The
board creates the CEO; the CEO does not create the board. As the board contemplates its
accountability to the ownership, it decides that creating a CEO role will be a key method in fulfilling .
that accountability. It is true that a founding father or mother will sometimes be the inspiration for a
new organization, so that the board then created occurs after rather than before the founder. If the
founder becomes the new CEO, it will seem that the CEO is parent to the board. Boards established
in this way make a grave error when they mistake an accident of history for a proper view of their
accountability. The CEO role, as such, is even in these cases created and governed by the board
(see Carver. 1992).
Consequently, in every case, the board is totally accountable for the organization and has.
therefore, total authority over it-including over the CEO. We can say that the board is accountable
for what the CEO's job is and that the CEO do the job well. But we cannot say the CEO is
accountable for what the board's job is and that the board do its job well. Unfortunately, much of
current nonprofit practice supports this board-staff inversion. CEOs are expected to tell their boards
what to talk about (provide agendas), to pull their boards together when there is dissension, and to
orient new board members to their job. Nowhere else in an organization are subordinates
responsible for the conduct of the superiors. Yet virtually all nonprofit literature on governance falls
into this fallacy of CEO-centrism. "Thus, we argue, the board's performance becomes the
executive's responsibility," say Herman and Heimovics (1991. p. xiii), a position we contend excuses
and prolongs board irresponsibility.
We have said being accountable in leadership of the organization requires the board (1) to be
definite about its performance expectations, (2) to assign these expectations clearly, and then (3) to
check to see that the expectations are being met. Traditional governance practices lead boards to
fail in most or all of these three key steps.
Board expectations-which are instructions-when they are stated at all, tend to be unclear,
incomplete, or a mixture of whole board and individual board member expressions. Board members .
form judgments of staff performance on criteria the board (as a whole body) has never stated.
Regular financial reports report against few or no criteria. Staff members can be seen taking notes
of what individual board members say, as if it matters and as if they work for the board members
rather than the CEO. Boards decide whether CEO's budgets merit approval when they have never
stated the grounds for approval and disapproval. Virtually every board meeting-other than in Policy
Governance boards-is testimony to carelessness of delegation and role clarity.
Traditional governance allows boards to instruct staff by the act of approving staff plans, such as
budgets and program designs. When the board has approved a staff recommendation, doesn't the
resulting approved document become a clear board instruction? Actually, it does not. For example,
when a board approves the CEO's personnel pOlicies or budget, does it really mean as an
instruction every tiny segment of that document? Does every budget line and the smallest issues of
a program plan become a criterion on which the CEO will be judged? Certainly not. Even the most
micromanaging board does not go that far. But to what level of detail should the CEO treat the
approved document as being a board instruction. therefore a criterion for evaluation? The tradition-
blessed habit of board approvals is a poor substitute for setting criteria, then checking that they have
been met. Board approvals are not proper governance, but commonplace examples of boards not
doing their jobs.
What about the clear assignment of expectations to a person or persons? In conventional practice,
boards' delegation to a CEO is frequently compromised by delegating the same responsibilities
more than once or by delegating to around the CEO to sub-CEO staff. An example of the former is
when a board charges the CEO and a board finance committee for financial decisions. Delegating
around the CEO occurs either when a board gives instructions to the financial officer or other person
who reports to the CEO or when a board itself judges the performance of sub-CEO staff.
Finally, in the absence of clear instructions or clear assignment. evaluating performance is an
exercise in futility. Yet boards receive volumes of information that purports to monitor organizational
performance. The sheer amount of information masks the fact that proper monitoring is still not
occurring. Because monitoring performance is the systematic disclosure of whether board
.
http://www.carvergovernancc.com/model.htm
6/12/2002
.
.
.
The Policy Governance@ Model
Page 6 of 16
expectations have been met. monitoring that is fair and incisive can only occur after clearly stated
and clearly assigned board expectations.
Using the Ends/Means Distinction
The point was made earlier in this paper that the board is accountable that the organization works.
Clearly, the word "works" must be defined; defining it establishes the board's expectations for the
organizations, the performance that will constitute success. The board need not control everything.
but it must control the definition of success. It is possible to control too much, just as it is possible to
control too little. It is possible to think you are in control when you are not. The zeal of a
conscientious board can lead to micromanagement. The confidence of a trusting board can lead to
rubber stamping. Defining success is a matter of controlling for success, not for everything. How can
a board control all it must, rather than all it can?
Boards have had a very hard time knowing what to control and how to control it. Policy Governance
provides a key conceptual distinction that enables the board to resolve this quandary. The task is to
demand organizational achievement in a way that empowers the staff, leaving to their creativity and
innovation as much latitude as possible. This is a question of what and how to control, but it is
equally a question of how much authority can be safely given away. We argue that the best guide
for the board is to give away as much as possible. short of jeopardizing its own accountability for the
total.
What is there to control? In any organization, there are uncountable numbers of issues, practices.
and circumstances being decided daily by someone. The Policy Governance model posits that all of
these decisions can be classified as those that define organizational purpose, and those that don't.
But the model calls for a very narrow and careful definition of purpose: it consists of what (1) results
. for which (2) recipients at what (3) worth.
Let us define these more fully: Some decisions directly describe the intended consumer results of
the organization. for example, reading skills, family harmony, knowledge, or shelter from the
elements. Some decisions directly describe the intended recipients of such results, such as
adolescents. persons with severe burns, or low income families. Some describe the worth of the
intended results, such as in dollar cost or priority against other results.
In Policy Governance, this triad of decisions is called "ends."' Ends are always about the changes for
persons to be made outside the organization, along with their cost or priority. Ends never describe
the organization itself or its activities. For example, the professional and technical activities in which
the organization engages are not ends. In a school, for example, which students should acquire
what knowledge at what cost are ends issues. Ends are about the organization's impact on the
world (much like cost-benefit) that justify its existence.
Any decision that is not an ends decision is a "means" decision. In that same school, the choice of
reading program, teachers' credentials. and classroom arrangement are means issues. Most
decisions in an organization are means decisions; some are very important means. But even if a
decision is extremely important, even if it is required by law, even if it is critical to survival, unless it
passes the ends test (designation of consumer results, which consumers, or the worth of consumer
results), it is not an ends decision. Hence, means include personnel matters, financial planning,
purchasing. programs, services and curricula, and even governance itself. No organization was ever
formed so it could be well governed, have good personnel policies, a fine budget, sound purchasing
practices, or even nicely planned services. programs or curricula.
The ends/means distinction is critical. Many boards claiming to use the model routinely confuse the
Policy Governance meaning of ends and means. thereby sacrificing much of the benefit the model
can give. For example, means is not synonymous with "administration" as some have misinterpreted
(Herman and Heimovies, 1991. p. 44). Ends is not synonymous with "strategic plan," as others have
misinterpreted (Murray. 1994). The ends/means distinction is not comparable to any other distinction
http://www.earvergovernancc.eom/model.htm
6/12/2002
The Policy Govemance@ Model
Page 7 of16
used in management or governance; it is not parallel to policies/procedures, strategies/tactics,
policy/administration, or goals/objectives. Indeed. ends may include very small and specific
decisions about a single consumer, while means may include very important programmatic
decisions as well as how a board constructs its committees. The ends/means distinction is
exclusively peculiar to Policy Governance (with the possible exception of Argenti, 1993) and,
therefore, is governed by Policy Governance principles. In Policy Governance,means are means
simply because they are not ends.
.
Are ends the same as mission? Unfortunately, the answer is usually "no." because mission
statements have not traditionally had to conform to the definition we have given ends. Consider the
following mission statement of a mental health center: "The mission of the XYZ Center is to be a
responsible employer, providing quality mental health services in a cost-efficient manner." This
statement-quite acceptable in traditional governance-is entirely means. no ends. This
organization can fulfill its mission even if consumers' lives are not any better. In contrast, consider
this broad statement of ends: "The XYZ Center exists so that people with major mental illness live
productive lives in an accepting community at a cost comparable to other providers."' In the latter,
unless the targeted group are benefited in the required way. the organization is not successful. no
matter how good an employer it is and no matter how much "quality" its services have. Notice that
the cost component in the first statement is the cost of staff activity (services), while in the second
statement it is the cost of consumer results.
No matter how central ends are to the organization's existence. however, because the board is
accountable for everything, it is accountable for means as well. Accordingly, it must exercise control
over both ends and means, so having the ends/means distinction does not in itself relieve boards
from any responsibility. The ends/means distinction does, however, make possible two entirely
different ways of exercising control. ways that-taken together-allow the board to have its arms
responsibly around the organization without its fingers irresponsibly in it, ways that for the staff
maximize accountability and freedom simultaneously. The board simply makes decisions about
ends and means-that is, it controls the organization's ends and means-in different ways, as
follows:
.
.
a. Using input from the owners, staff, experts and anyone in a position to increase the board's
wisdom. the board makes ends decisions in a proactive, positive. prescriptive way. We will
call the board documents thus produced "Ends policies."
b. Using input from whoever can increase board wisdom about governance, servant leadership,
visioning. or other skills of governance and delegation, the board makes means decision
about its own job in a proactive, positive. prescriptive way. We will call the board documents
thus produced "Governance Process policies" (about the board's own job) and "Board-Staff
Linkage policies" (about the relationship between governance and management). Both of
these categories are means, but they concern means of the board, not the staff.
e. Using input from whoever can increase its sense of what can jeopardize the prudent and
ethical conduct of the organization, the board makes decisions about the staff's means in a
proactive, but negative and boundary-setting way. Because these policies set forth the limits
of acceptable staff behavior. that is. the unacceptable means. we will call the board
documents thus produced "Executive Limitations policies."'
At this point in our argument, we have used the ends/means concept to introduce new categories of
board policies. These categories of board policies are exhaustive, that is, no other board documents
are needed to govern except bylaws. (Articles of incorporation or letters patent are required to
establish the nonprofit as a legal entity, but these are documents of the government, not the board.)
We will not discuss bylaws here. except to say they are necessary to place real human beings
(board members) into a hollow legal concept (the corporate "artificial person") (Carver, 1995).
However, so that we might continue to discuss the concepts represented by the words "ends" and
"means." yet distinguish the titles of policy categories, we will capitalize Ends, Executive Limitations,
Governance Process, and Board-Staff Linkage.
The negative policies about operational means requires further discussion. Here is the logic: If the
board has established Ends and has determined through monitoring that those Ends are actually
accomplished, it can be argued that the staff means must have worked. In other words. the means
.
http://www.carvergovernance.com/model.htm
6/1 2/2002
.
.
e
The Policy Governanee@ Model
Page 8 of16
by which Ends were accomplished, though interesting, is of little importance to the board. This logic
is largely accurate, but there is an important problem with it. Some means can be unacceptable
even if they do work. Means that are effective. but still "unacceptable" are ones that are improper
treatment of people or assets. that is, means that are imprudent or unethical. Consequently,
although there is no reason for a board to control staff means decisions for reasons of effectiveness,
there is reason to control staff means for reasons of prudence and ethics.
Whoever is directly responsible for producing ends must decide which means to use. That is, one
must be prescriptive about one's own means. But the board is not charged with producing ends,
only with defining them, It is to the board's advantage to allow the staff maximum range of decision-
making about means, for skill to do so is exactly why staff were employed. If the board determines
the means of its staff, it can no longer hold the staff fully accountable for whether ends are achieved,
it will not take advantage of the range of staff skills, and it will make its own job more difficult.
Happily. it is not necessary for the-board to tell the staff what means to use. In Policy Governance
the board tells the staff or-more accurately-the CEO what means not to usel
Therefore, it is the board's job to examine its values to determine those means which it does not
want in its orqanizatiol1 then to name them, The board can then tell its CEO that as long as the
Ends are accomplished and the unacceptable means do not occur, the CEO can make all further
decisions in the organization that he or she deems wise, It is in this way that extensive. albeit
explicitly circumscribed, authority is granted to the CEO. Effectiveness demands a strong CEO;
prudence and accountability to the board demand that the CEO's power be bounded.
This unique delegation technique has a number of advantages. First, it recognizes that board
interference in operational means makes ends harder and more expensive to produce. Therefore,
delegation which minimizes such interference is in the board's interest. Second. it accords to the
CEO as much authority as the board can responsibly grant. Therefore, there is maximum
empowerment inside the organization to harness for ends achievement. Third, it gives room for
managerial flexibility. creativity and timeliness. Therefore, the organization can be agile, able to
respond quickly to emergent opportunities or threats. Fourth. it dispels the assumption that the
board knows beller than the staff what means to use, Therefore, the board does not have to choose
between overwork and being amateurs supervising professionals. Fifth, in this system all means that
are not prohibited are. in effect, pre-approved, Therefore, the board is relieved from meticulous and
repetitive approval of staff plans, Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, by staying out of means
decisions. except to prohibit unacceptable means. the board retains its ability to hold the CEO
accounlable for the decisions that take place in the system,
Thus. when we say a board is responsible that its organization works, we simply mean that the
organization (1) accomplishes the intended results for the intended people at the intended cost or
priority-expressed in the board's Ends policies; and that it (2) avoids unacceptable methods.
conduct, activities. and circumstances-unacceptable means expressed in the board's Executive
Limitations policies.
Expressing Expectations in Nested Sets
We have established that Policy Governance boards express their expectations for themselves and
for their organizations in four categories of board policies: Ends. Executive Limitations (the
unacceptable means), Governance Process, and Board-Staff Linkage (the latter two are board
means divided into two parts). The separation of organizational values into these categories is a
major organizing principle for governing boards, These four categories completely embrace all
possible organizational values (except those more pertinent to articles of incorporation/letters patent
and bylaws)---no other policies or documents are needed, But another feature must be added to
enable the board to address its desired level of specificity within these categories.
To ensure precision as well as completeness in policy-making. Policy Governance provides an
additional principle. one which recognizes the varying sizes of issues and values, One Ends
http://w.Ww.carvergovernance.comJrnodel.htm
6/12/2002
The Policy Governance@ Model
Page 9 of 16
statement of a nonprofit board may be that persons without shelter should have adequate housing.
Another may be that families with school age children should have housing that allows children of .
different genders to sleep in separate rooms. It is easy to see that the second example is more
detailed. or "narrower," than the first. Notice that these two statements can be pictured as a set of
nested bowls, in that the first is a broader value that includes the second one within it. Even more
detailed choices exist within the second level, and so on to third. fourth. and more bowls until the
specificity reaches a level where Mr. Smith rather than Mr. Jones gets a particular amount of shelter
next week.
Now let's illustrate the "nested bowls" concept with an example of unacceptable means. One means
value of a nonprofit board may be that the CEO not allow anything imprudent, illegal or unethical.
Another may be that unbonded persons may not have access to material amounts of funds. The first
example is a broader prohibition than the second, but less specific. Even more detailed "bowls"
exist, of course, such as a further proscription against access to more than $5.000 on anyone
occasion or more than $8.000 cumulatively OVer a one year period.
Board values about ends and unacceptable means. as well as the board's own means, then, can be
stated broadly, or more narrowly. The advantage of stating values broadly is that such a statement
is inclusive of all smaller statements. The disadvantage, of course, is that the broader the statement,
the greater is the range of interpretation that can be given to it. To take advantage of the fact that
values or choices of any sort can be seen as nested sets, the Policy Governance board begins its
policy making in all four categories by making the broadest, most inclusive statement first.
The board then considers the range of interpretation that such a statement allows, and determines
whether it is comfortable with the statement being given any interpretation that is reasonable. If the
board would be uncomfortable delegating such a range. that is a signal that the board must define
its words more narrowly, moving into more detail one level at a time. At some point. the board will
have narrowed its words to the point that it can accept any reasonable interpretation of those words.
Now the board has reached the point of delegation.
.
As an example, consider an Executive Limitations policy in which the board is putting certain
financial conditions and activities "off limits." At the broadest level. the board might say: "With
respect to actual, ongoing financial condition and activities, the CEO shall not allow the development
of fiscal jeopardy or a material deviation of actual expenditures from board priorities established in
Ends policies." That covers the board's concerns about the organization's current financial condition
at anyone time, for there is likely nothing else to worry about that isn't included within this "large
bowl" proscription.
However, most boards would think such a broad statement leaves more to CEO interpretation-
eVen if reasonable interpretation-than the board wishes to delegate. Hence, the board might add
further details. such as saying the CEO shall not: (1) Expend more funds than have been received
in the fiscal year to date except through acceptable debt. (2) Indebt the organization in an amount
greater than can be repaid by certain, otherwise unencumbered revenues within 60 days, but in no
event more than $200,000. (3) Use any of the long term reserves. (4) Conduct interfund shifting in
amounts greater than can be restored to a condition of discrete fund balances by unencumbered
revenues within 30 days. (5) Fail to settle payroll and debts in a timely manner. (6) Allow tax
payments or other government ordered payments or filings to be overdue or inaccurately filed. (7)
Make a single purchase or commitment of greater than $100.000. with no splitting of orders to avoid
this limit. (8) Acquire, encumber or dispose of real property. And (9) Fail to aggressively pursue
receivables after a reasonable grace period.
A given board might go into less or more detail than in this example. But in any case, these
principles stay intact: The language moves from a broad level toward a lesser level (we showed two
levels in the example just given). The values that become policy are generated by the board's
deliberations, not approved from a staff recommendation. The board, not the staff, decides what to
say and where to stop. No matter where the board stops, the CEO is granted authority to use any
reasonable interpretation of the board's words. The board can shrink. expand. or change the content
of the policy at any time, as long as it does not judge performance retroactively.
e
http://www.carvergovernance.com/model.htm
6/12/2002
.
.
.
Thc Policy Govemanee@ Model
Page 10 of ] 6
This view of organizational issues-as values that can be specified moving methodically from the
broadest to more narrow levels-allows the board to manage the amount delegated. The board is
always clear about the authority being given away. The recipient of the board's delegation is always
clear about the amount of accountability expected in return. There is a continuum of sizes of issues
upon which. in Policy Governance. the board owns the broadest level, then successively smaller
levels until it decides to delegate, after which it is safe to allow the remaining decisions to be made
by others.
It is often observed by other governance authors that the distinction between what is board work
and what is executive work is a na.ive distinction. There is no universal rule, they contend, to mark
where board policy stops and administration begins. Indeed, they are right as far as traditional
governance is concerned, for the conventional approach to the board job is unable to make a policy-
administration distinction that holds up in the real world. Policy Governance, however, introduces
entirely different, more powerful conceptual tocls- rigorous "one voice" clarity of delegation using
descending levels of board control within the ends/means context. Even though there is still no
predetermined or fixed point where board work automatically becomes executive work, each board
using the principles we are describing can establish and, when necessary change. a distinct point of
delegation applicable to its own organization. It is at that point. by the values of that board, for that
organization. for that time, that governance stops and "sub-governance" begins.
To summarize the policy development sequence, Policy Governance boards develop policies which
describe their values about Ends, Executive Limitations. Governance Process, and Board-Staff
Linkage. Each policy type is developed from the broadest, most inclusive level to more defined
levels, continuing into more detail until the board reaches the point at which it can accept any
reasonable interpretation of its words from its delegatee. A step-by-step guide to such development
of policy documents is available (Carver and Carver, 1997). Ends and Executive Limitations are
delegated to the CEO. who is held accountable by the board for accomplishing any reasonable
interpretation of the boards expectations in these areas. Governance Process and Board-Staff
Linkage policies are delegated to the board Chair. who is given the authority to ensure that the
board governs in accordance with its own expectations of itself, using any reasonable interpretation
of the policy language.
Board Discipline, Mechanics, and Structure
It is clear that the Policy Governance model requires a board to govern in an organized, planned
and highly disciplined manner. Boards which are accustomed to talking about issues simply
because they interest individual board members will find agenda discipline to be a major challenge.
as will boards that rely on their staffs to supply their agendas. Not everything is appropriate for
board discussion just because it is interesting or even because the staff wants the board to make
the decision. Matters that have been delegated to the CEO should not be decided by the board or
by board committees, for in making such decisions, the board renders itself unable to hold the CEO
accountable.
Policy Governance boards know that their job must result in the production of three deliverables. (1)
The first deliverable is a systematic linkage between the organization and the ownership. This is not
public relations. The board connects with the ownership in order to ascertain the range of ownership
values about the purpose of the organization. If the board is to make Ends decisions on behalf of the
owners. it must know what the owners in all their diversity think. (2) The second deliverable is
written governing policies in the four areas. using the principles we have described. (3) The third
deliverable is the assurance of organizational performance, that is, performance which can be
shown to be a reasonable interpretation of the board's Ends and Executive Limitations policies.
We use "deliverables" to mean job products, outputs, or values-added. Since these summarize the
purpose for the board's job, producing these deliverables is what board meetings are for. In fact. the
list of job outputs can be considered to be a perpetual job description. for every agenda is an
instance of the board's working to perform its job. A board can decide how much. in what detail, and
http://www.carvergovemance.com/model.htm
6112/2002
The Policy Governance@ Model
Page II of 16
at what level of excellence it will pursue its perpetual agenda in the ensuing year. By doing so, it
takes control of its own agenda, rather than allowing its agenda to be staff-driven_ Establishing its
own job description and the longterm or midterm agenda is recorded as one of the board's
Governance Process policies. As we shall shortly point out, if the board sketches its annual agenda
only broadly, the specifics will be filled in by the board Chair, who is charged with taking care of
Governance Process details.
.
Accordingly, the board must plan meetings that enable and guarantee the production of these
deliverables_ Being entertained or intrigued by staff jobs is no substitute for the board's
accomplishment of its own job. While the board is entitled to any information it wants. it must be
aware that collecting information about staff activities and even conscientiously listening to many
staff reports does not substitute for governance. Let us again reiterate that the board, not the staff, is
responsible that a board's meetings fulfill its governance responsibilities_
In taking responsibility for its own performance, the board confronts the difficulty of acting
responsibly as a group of equals. Since the board is by definition a group of peers. no one has
authority over anyone else_ The first action of a group of peers is to create a position of
Chairperson-a first among equals-to help it stay on task_ Although it is important that each board
member continue to take responsibility for the board's group behavior. the board grants the Chair
extra authority required to make rulings that keep the board on track. To stay consistent with the
superior role of the board as a group, however, in Policy Governance the Chair only has authority
that Is within a reasonable interpretation of the board's policies on Governance Process and Board-
Staff Linkage_ Hence, the Chair is truly the servant-leader of the board (Carver, 1999). .
It is usual for nonprofit boards to expect the Chair to supervise the CEO, but in Policy Governance
there is no need for the Chair to have authority over the CEO. Only the board has authority over
staff operations, and it exercises that authority through carefully crafted policies. It is not only
unnecessary, but harmful for the Chair to tell the CEO what the board wants, for the board speaks
for itself. Consequently, both the Chair and the CEO work for the board as a whole, but their roles
do not overlap because they are given authority in different domains. The Chair's job is to see to it
that the board gets its job done-as described in Governance Process and Board-Staff Linkage
policies. The CEO's job is to see to it that the staff organization gets its job done-as described in
Ends and Executive Limitations policies.
.
Board Treasurers, as commonly used, threaten CEO accountability as well as the one voice
principle. Treasurers are typically expected to exercise individual judgment about the financial
dealings of the organization_ But Policy Governance boards do not allow Treasurers to exercise
authority over staff_ (Rendering an official judgment of performance against one's own individual
criteria has the same effect as exercising authority.) By creating a role with supervisory authority
over the CEO with respect to financial management, the board cannot then hold the CEO
accountable for that topic. The board should accept responsibility for financial governance (setting
policy. then comparing performance) and require the CEO to be accountable for managing finances
so that performance compares favorably to policy. The typical use of a Treasurer. when a Policy
Governance board is required by law to have one, is to assist the board in making financial policy.
never to judge CEO compliance against the Treasurer's own expectations. For more thorough
treatment of the board's role in financial oversight, including commentary on the Treasurer and
finance committee, see Carver (1991, 1996b).
In keeping with the "one voice" principle, the board can allow no structures or practices in which
board members or board committees exercise authority over staff. any function of staff. or any
department of staff. Typical nonprofit boards have a myriad of traditions that violate the one voice
principle, such as placing the Chair between the board and the CEO. So it is common for boards to
underestimate the amount of board member interference in operations. Such interference, even
when well-intended, undermines the board's ability to hold the CEO accountable, for the CEO can
argue that his or her actions were taken in compliance with a board member instruction_
.
Advice is a concept often carelessly used in nonprofit boards. This seemingly innocuous and well-
intended practice can have the same deleterious effect as direct instruction by individuals or
committees. It is common for the board, board committees, or individual board members to give
http://www.carvergovcrnance_com/model.htm
6/12/2002
.
fo,&v
#
IV
~~
.
.
The Policy Governance@ Model
Page 12 of 16
advice to staff. But advice. if it is really advice, can be rejected. If staff has any doubt that advice
given by the board or one of its components cannot safely be turned down, the clarity of board-to-
staff delegation will be undermined. Policy Governance boards refrain from giving advice or allowing
their members to give advice unless advice is requested. This protects the board's ability to hold the
CEO accountable for his or her own decisions. The CEO and any of the staff can request advice if
they need it. and they can request it from wherever Ihey wish.
Traditional boards frequently create committees to assist or advise the CEO or staff, such as
committees on personnel, finance, program, properly maintenance, and other such staff means
issues. In Policy Governance, such committees are illegitimate. They constitute interference in the
CEO's sphere of authority and accountability. and damage the board's ability to hold the CEO
accountable.
If. for example, the staff wishes to have an advisory committee, it is perfectly free to create one. then
to use the advice or not as it deems wise. If, however, the board controls the mechanism of advice,
a very different relationship between advisors and advisees is established. The wisest route is for
the board to govern and leave advice and advisory mechanisms to the staff's own initiative. This
way the staff gets all the advice it needs, role clarity and accountability are maintained, and board
members are frequently spared unnecessary work.
Policy Governance boards use committees only to help the board to do its own job. Hence, a
committee which explores methods of ownership consultation about ~ options is legitimate, as is
a 90mmittee that~s possible sources offiscal jeopardy that the board might address in an
Executive LimitCltinns pnliry But a human resources committee that advises on or intervenes in
- personnel iss"is not. To request advice or assistance with one's own job is acceptable and does
not compromise accountability. but to foist help or advice on subordinates is not only unnecessary
but destructive of accountability as well.
Policy Governance takes seriously the normally rhetorical assertion that boards be visionary and
provide long term leadership. The discipline required for this challenge cannot be overstated. In fact.
Policy Governance has been criticized as a "heroic board" model that is romantically idealistic! Yet
boards do. in fact, have a critical job to do; no amount of helping staff can substitute for getting its
own job done. Boards.llll.lli!. oersevere. with the arduous, complex task of iescribinQ ouroose and
ethics/orudence boundaries. Forming those values into clear policies is far harder than telling the
staff how to do its job. SpeakinQ oroactivelv for the ownershio requires stronQ commitmi>nt nnt In
take reactive refuge in rituals. reports, and approvals.
This requires board member expertise relevant to governance. not management. Board members
should no longer be recruited based on their having skills that mirror the skills of staff. Governance
excellence requires members who can think conceptually and with a long term perspective, able to
welcome a diversity of opinions but abide by group decisions. They must be able to speak on behalf
. of the ownershio rather than merelv from their own or some splinter Qroup oersDeetive. They must
place organizational accountability above personal gratification. They must be able to view the
board's task of assuring performance at arm's length-through setting expectations (using the
ends/means principle and values viewed as descending "bowls"), delegating pointedly (to a CEO if
possible). and monitoring. And it is to the function of monitoring or evaluation that we turn now.
Evaluation
Evaluation of performance is not extraneous to the board's job. It is as integral to the board's job as
it is to any manager's. But, as we have shown, proper evaluation is impossible unless the board has
first stated its expectations and assigned them to a specific delegatee. That is, evaluation of staff
performance cannot occur appropriately unless the board has done its job first.
Moreover. if the board has a CEO, the results of proper evaluation of organizational success is the
only fair evaluation of CEO performance. Since the CEO's job is to see to it that the organization
http://www.carvergovernance.com/model.htm
6/] 2/2002
The Policy Governance@ Model
Page 13 of 16
meets the board's expectations, there is and nothing less to evaluate when essing
the CEO Thus, the board's evaluation of organizational pe ormanee IS e same as board
< evaluation of CEO performance (Carver. 1997a). Monitoring the evaluative data. as we shall see, is .
an ongoing activity-perhaps as frequently as monthly-and the board may wish to have a formal
evaluation of the CEO once each year. However. the CEO's formal evaluation is only a summary of
the accumulated monitoring data, not something in addition,
But let us consider the monitoring or evaluative information itself. Not all information is useful in
monitoring performance, Two types of information are useful for other purposes, but not for
monitoring: information for board decisions and information simply for board member interest. To
examine evaluation or monitoring, we must first separate out these two types of information do not
qualify as monitoring against pre-established criteria,
First, jnformation for board decisions is needed in order for the to make wise oli
...Qlac<>, To create policies that are both rea IS IC an emanding, boards require information from a
variety of sources. These sources include staff, owners, experts, associations to which the board
may belong, and others. This information is required for the board's own decision-making and does
not judge staff accomplishment. Boards should invest a great deal of energy in gathering wisdom,
spending perhaps half their time in becoming educated. So information for board decisions is
essential for board performance, but not for monitoring staff performance.
Second, information for board interest is infor
. not useful or board deeision-makino but is of political. social or technic,,1 inlprpqlln hnard
_ memb~ This information does not include data that directly measure the degree of staff
pertormanee on board expectations, for that would qualify it to be called true monitoring information.
This kind of information is incidental to the board's job of monitoring, but comprises most of what
most traditional boards receive. There is nothing wrong with boards getting all the incidental
information they want, but there is something very wrong with the delusion that they are at that time
doing their job, In traditional governance, most staff reports. including most financial reports and
reports that purport to be "evaluation" are incidental information simply because they are not data
compared with previously stated board criteria.
.
Monitoring or evaluative information must speak directly to whether board expectations are being
fulfilled. Consequently, it is always related to expectations set by the board in its Ends and
Executive Limitations policies. This discipline not only makes it unnecessary for the board to trudge
through the mountains of data staff are able to assemble, but it keeps evaluation fair. After all, it is
only right that the CEO should know ahead of time the criteria on which he or she will be judged.
Since monitoring information is only that information that describes actual performance compared to
expected performance, it is evident that most reports collected. examined and approved by
traditional boards constitute interesting information, but cannot be said to be effective monitoring
reports. For example, boards that gravely approve (or accept) financial statements thinking they
have thereby exercised fiduciary responsibility are simply engaging in a meaningless ritual. for
without criteria they don't even know what in those reports would have been disapprovable.
When monitoring is defined as we have done here, reports tend to be straightforward and
transparent. Each board member can follow the link from board criteria to management data, for the
report is not cluttered with incidental information. Monitoring is not nearly as difficult or time-
consuming when boards know what performance they are expecting to see proven. Monitoring is
thus more exact and, simultaneously, requires negligible board meeting time, In fact, we
recommend that monitoring data be mailed to board members, thereby preserving valuable meeting
time for board education and deliberation. Getting monitoring largely out of board meetings allows
those meetings to focus on creating the future rather than reviewing the past. because inspection of
the past is now safely routinized, For each Ends and each Executive Limitations policy, the board
will have set a frequency and a method of monitoring, after which the process runs automatically,
The choice of method will be a report from the CEO, judgment by a disinterested party (for example,
an auditor). or-less frequently-direct board inspection of organizational practices or
circumstances. It turns out to be rare that monitoring needs to be discussed in the board meeting,
except for board members to affirm that they have received and read the mailed reports,
.
http://www.carvergovernanee.eom/model.htm
6/12/2002
.
.
.
The Policy Governance@ Model
Page 14 of 16
To illustrate the nature of what is reported in a Policy Governance monitoring report, we will use two
items from an Executive Limitations policy already shown. In that policy. among other unacceptable
means. the CEO was told he or she cannot (1) expend more funds than have been received in the
fiscal year to date except through acceptable debt and (2) indebt the organization in an amount
greater than can be repaid by certain. otherwise unencumbered revenues within 60 days, but in no
event more than $200.000. Here is what the monitoring data might look like for these two provisions:
Item 1: Through the end of May. $3,694,800 has been expended. Receipts in the same period were
$3,654.728. The shortfall of $40,072 was offset by a $60,000 short term loan. Item 2: Total debt is a
45 day working capital loan for $60,000 incurred on May 25. Revenues of $75,000 from our
foundation grant, guaranteed by letter of May 5, are not otherwise encumbered and will be used, in
part, to retire the debt prior to due date.
Notice that the data are rather bare-bones, only enough to answer the question, unobseured by
incidental information. Board members should adopt a "prove it to me" attitude, so if the information
submitted is insufficient to convince them, then more detail can be added. But the detail must be
such that directly address the criteria. For example, what data prove the "not otherwise
encumbered" statement? Obviously. the complexities of some organizations will cause the
monitoring data to have more facets than in our simple example. Even then, however, the reported
data should be as brief as possible and maintain a razor-sharp connection to the policy-based
criteria being monitored. If more interesting, explanatory information, other than that directly
addressing the criteria, is desired by the board or offered by the CEO. it should not clutter the
monitoring report, but be distributed separately. Board members can know anything they wish, but
they should never be in doubt about what is disclosure of performance on the board's criteria and
what is not.
Using similar criterion-focused reasoning, when the board seeks to evaluate itself, it compares its
actual behavior and accomplishment with the behavior and accomplishment it committed to in its
Governance Process and Board-Staff Linkage policies (Carver, 1997b). Policy Governance boards
tend to self evaluate on a frequent basis-we recommend every meeting-because a more
sophisticated system requires continual tending.
Board Meetings
Because in Policy Governance the board is in charge of its own job. board meetings become the
board's meetings rather than management's meetings for the board. Board meetings occur because
of the need for board members to learn together, to contemplate and deliberate together, and to
decide together. Board meetings are not for reviewing the past, being entertained by staff. helping
staff do its work, or performing ritual approvals of staff plans. As a result, many board meetings may
not look like traditional board meetings at all, but learning and studying sessions or joint meetings
with other boards. particularly in communities where boards rarely talk with each other.
The CEO is always present. but is not the central figure. Other staff might be present when they
have valuable input on matters the board is to decide. For community boards. with rare exceptions
meetings would be open~not to please the law. but because a board commitment to transparency.
The board is not merely a body to confirm committee decisions, but the body that makes the
decisions. Board committees might be used to increase the board's understanding of factors and
options, but never to assume board prerogatives or remove difficult choices from the board table. In
contrast to the old bromide that "the real works takes place in committees,"' in Policy Governance
the real work takes place in the board meeting.
Board meetings should thus be more about the long term future than the present or short term
future. . . more about ends than means. . . more about a few thoroughly considered large decisions
than many small ones. And by their very character. meetings should demonstrate that the board's
primary relationship is with owners, not with staff.
hltp://www.earvergovernance.com/model.htm
6/12/2002
The Policy Govemanee@ Model
Page 15 ofl6
Summary
The Policy Governance model recognizes that any governing board is obligated to fulfill a crucial link .
in the "chain of command" between owners-whether legal or moral in nature-and operators. The
board does not exist to help staff, but to give the ownership the controlling voice. The board's
owner-representative authority is best employed by operating as an undivided unit, prescribing
organizational ends, but only limiting staff means, making all its decisions using the principle of
policies descending in size. The model enables extensive empowerment to staff while preserving
controls necessary for accountability. It provides a values-based foundation for discipline. a
framework for precision delegation, and a long term focus on what the organization is for more than
what it does.
The Policy Governance model provides an alternative for boards unhappy with reactivity. trivia, and
hollow ritual-boards seeking to be truly accountable. But attaining this level of excellence requires
the board to break with a long tradition of disastrous governance habits. And it offers a challenge for
visionary groups determined to make a real difference in tomorrow's world.
For boards unhappy with reactivity. trivia, and hollow ritual-boards determined to be accountable
for making a real difference in tomorrow's world-Policy Governance offers a visionary challenge.
But transforming today's reality into tomorrow's possibility requires a radical break from a long
tradition of comfortable. but disastrous governance habits.
REFERENCES
Argenti. John. Your Organization: What Is It For? London: McGraw-Hili Europe, 1993.
.
Carver, John. "Redefining the Board's Role in Fiscal Planning." Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 1991. 2 (2),177-192.
Carver. John. "The Founding Parent Syndrome: Governing in the CEO's Shadow."Nonprofit World.
1992.10 (5).14-16.
Carver, John. "Shaping Up Your Bylaws." Board Leadership. July-Aug 1995, No. 20, 4-6.
Carver, John. "Policy Governance Model Views Citizens as Owners." Nation's Cities Weekly,
January 29, 1996a. 5.
Carver, John. Three Steps to Fiduciary Responsibility. The CarverGuide Series on Effective Board
Governance, NO.3. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996b.
Carver, John. Board Assessment of the CEO. The CarverGuide Series on Effective Board
Governance, NO.7. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997a.
Carver, John. Board Self-Assessment. The CarverGuide Series on Effective Board Governance. No.
8. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997b.
Carver, John. Boards That Make a Difference, 2nd edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1997c.
Carver, John. "Reinventing the Governance in Government: The Next Frontier for City Councils."
Nalion's Cities Weekly, January 27, 1997d. 10.
.
Carver, John. The Unique Double Servant-Leadership Role of the Board Chairperson. Voices of
Servant-Leadership Series. NO.2. Indianapolis: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant
Leadership, 1999.
http://www.carvergovemance.comJmodcl.htm
6/12/2002
.
.
.
The Policy Governanee@ Model
Page 16 of16
Carver, John. "The Opportunity for Re-inventing Corporate Governance in Joint Venture
Companies," Corporate Governance - An tnternational Review. 8 (1). January 2000a, 75-80.
Carver. John. "Remaking Governance: The Creator of 'Policy Governance' Challenges School
Boards to Change," American School Board Journal, 187 (3), March 2000b, 26-30.
Carver, John. "Un nouveau paradigme de gouvernance: un nouvel equilibre entre Ie conseil
d'administration et Ie chef de la direction", Gouvernance: Revue internationale, 1 (1). Printemps
2000c. 100-108.
Carver, John. "A Theory of Governing the Publie's Business". Public Management, 3 (1). March
2001, 53-72.
Carver, John. and Carver, Miriam Mayhew. Basic Principles of Policy Governance. The
CarverGuide Series on Effective Board Governance, No.1. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
Carver. John. and Carver. Miriam Mayhew. Reinventing Your Board. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1997.
Chait, Richard P.. Holland, Thomas P., and Taylor, Barbara E. Improving the Performance of
Governing Boards. Phoenix: American Council on Education and The Oryx Press, 1996.
Drucker, Peter F. Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. New York: HarperCollins, 1974.
Geneen, Harold S. "Why Directors Can't Protect the Shareholders." Fortune, 1984, 110,28-29.
Gillies, James. Boardroom Renaissance. Toronto: McGraw-Hili Ryerson and The National Centre
for Management Research and Development, 1992.
Greenleaf, Robert K. Servant Leadership. New York: Paulist Press. 1977.
Greenleaf, Robert K. The Servant as Leader. Indianapolis: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center. 1991.
Herman, Robert D., and Heimovics, Richard D. Executive Leadership in Nonprofit Organizations.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.
Murray, Vie. "Is Carver's Model Really the One Best Way?"" Front & Centre, Sept, 1994, 11.
~...~~
hltp://www.earvergovernance.com/model.htm
6112/2002