Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/10/1996 Council MinutesCOUNCIL MEETING DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT JUNE 10, 1996 CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNCIL MINUTES : June 10, 1996 . 6:30 P.M. : 10:33 P.M. : Bergeson, Kuether, Lyden, Neal, Landers : None Staff members present: City Attorney, Bill Hawkins; City Engineer, David Ahrens; Community Development Director, Brian Wessel; Planning Coordinator, Mary Kay Wyland; Recycling Coordinator, Jackie Constant; Community Service Officer, Jeannie Kenow; City Administrator, Randy Schumacher and Clerk -Treasurer Marilyn Anderson. SETTING THE AGENDA Council Member Neal asked that an item named, "Bus Depot" be added to the agenda under new business. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Kuether moved to approve the consent agenda as presented. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. ITEM Council Minutes, May 13, 1996 Disbursements: May 31, 1996 June 10, 1996 Centennial Fire District, May 20, 1996 OPEN MIKE DISPOSITION Approved Approved Approved Approved Oath of Office, Paul Montain, Parks and Recreation Board - Mr. Montain took the oath of office from Mr. Hawkins. The City Council congratulated him. Jay Peterson, 6315 Painted Turtle Road - Mr. Peterson explained that he has an issue regarding how the Birch Wood Acres/Park Grove park adjacent to his property is to be developed and asked the City Council to intervene and mediate concerns he and his PAGE 1 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 neighbors have regarding the development of that park. He explained that the residents adjacent to the park are not satisfied with the planning and development process that has been guided by the Park Board and the Park and Recreation Department. Mr. Peterson said that the Park Board and the Park and Recreation Department have not given the property owners the consideration that has been traditionally given to citizens in matters of this type. Mr. Peterson noted that petitions, letters and surveys have been submitted to the Park Board and the Park and Recreation Department staff. These items have not been given property attention as they relate to the selection and type of equipment being proposed for this park. The original master plan for this park is being altered without the consent of all. interested parties. Other concerned parties are involved in soliciting donations of money, material and labor for equipment that they desire regardless of the concerns of the adjacent property owners and the original master plan. They are proposing and in some cases purchasing equipment that the property owners do not want such as picnic shelters, barbecue grills, picnic tables and a large backstop for a playing field. Mr. Peterson said that just because something is donated does not necessarily mean that everyone wants it. Mr. Peterson noted some problems with the present development of the park.. There is no easy access to the park now or planned for the future. The park is landlocked and surrounded by cul-de-sacs. The picnic tables, shelter and ballfield will attract numerous park users by car. The parking space is to small to accommodate such use. The current design has the ballfield pointed at the playground which would have the potential for fly balls coming into the play equipment and injuring a child. Adding to the problem is a 30 foot buffer zone separating private property from park activity and equipment and the planting of trees in the area originally planned for a playground. These actions have the effect of reducing an already small play area. There is too much equipment planned for this small space. There is a lack of walking and bike paths and no money available or being raised to construct them. Mr. Peterson said that the Park Board should implement a policy that no park be developed until the bike/walking paths have been constructed throughout the park. It does no good to purchase a lot of equipment for a park that has no access. The result is a park that has little use or promotes shortcuts and trespass on private property to gain access to the park. Mr. Peterson noted that there is an adjoining nature area and he felt that the design and selection of equipment did not take this into consideration. The only choice of equipment considered for the park is plastic. He did not feel the selection of equipment took into consideration options for equipment made from natural materials. He noted Pinewood Elementary School, Moundsview as an example of materials that could be used. Mr. Peterson said that property owners are asking that all planning and development of the park be put on hold until all pending issues are resolved. They are also asking that the City Council intervene and mediate all issues so that there can be a negotiated settlement between all interested parties. Mr. Peterson noted that the Park Board has set another public meeting for June 27, 1996, 6:30 P.M. at the Lino Lakes fire hall to discuss this matter again and would like action to be of a compromising nature. He said that property PAGE 2 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 owners are not satisfied with the present plan and development. They do not want a picnic shelter and do want an informal ballfield. Mr. Peterson asked that the master plan be revised so that the park contains the type and selection of equipment that all interested parties can agree on before any further work is done. He said he feels that property owners concerns should be given the proper consideration that they deserve because their property values will be impacted by the design and content of the park. The residents will have to wake up everyday and view whatever is decided upon. Council Member Neal reminded Mr. Peterson that the City Council cannot take action on any matter brought under open mike. He explained that today was the first time he heard about this matter. Council Member Kuether asked if the residents have been involved in meetings with the Park Board. Mr. Peterson explained that there have been two (2) meetings and another is scheduled as he noted earlier. Council Member Kuether asked if this is the park that "residents were screaming for". Mr. Schumacher said yes and there has been a lot of input from the residents. Council Member Neal asked if the ballfield and playground are together. Mr. Peterson said yes and although the master plan has not been completed, there has been an ongoing and growing list of equipment that has not been agreed upon. Council Member Neal asked how do visitors get to the park. Mr. Peterson said by bike paths/walkways, however, they have not been constructed and there is no money to construct them. Council Member Lyden explained that he was the liaison to the Park Board and asked Mr. Peterson to call him. He said he would discuss the entire issue with Mr. Peterson. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 96 - 56 ADOPTING A CITY WIDE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY, RANDY SCHUMACHER Mr. Schumacher explained that Resolution No. 96 - 56 is important because it outlines a policy for drug and alcohol testing that would not cause distrust of the employees, but would rather provide for a better working environment for employees, protection of the community and protect the health of the individual employee. He explained that this policy should not be confused with the Federal Highway Commercial Driver's License holders. The policy outlines employee's rights, delineates procedures and state the City's stand as a drug and alcohol free work place. Mr. Schumacher explained that the language in the resolution is a combination of language from several other cities. He also noted that Mr. Hawkins had reviewed the resolution and is recommending that it be adopted as presented. Council Member Neal moved to adopt Resolution No. 96 - 56 Adopting a City wide Drug and Alcohol Policy. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. PAGE 3 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 Resolution No. 96 - 56 can be found at the end of these minutes. RECYCLING REPORT Consideration of Haulers License for United Waste Systems of Minnesota, Inc. - Ms. Constant explained that United Waste Systems has acquired Lake Sanitation, a licensed residential/commercial hauler in the City and plans to continue to operate the acquired hauler as United Waste Systems. Section 507 of the Lino Lakes City Code regulates the licensing of solid waste haulers. The ordinance indicates that the solid waste license is non -transferable, unless approved by the City Council. United Waste Systems has submitted a license application and is seeking Council approval. The acquisition has not created an additional hauler in the City but has replaced an existing hauler. Mayor Landers noted that Section 507 of the City Code was adopted for the purpose of reducing the number of waste haulers in the City thereby lessening the impact on City streets. He asked Mr. Hawkins to review City Code Section 507 and draft an amendment that would prevent this situation from occurring in the future. Council Member Neal moved to approve a license for United Waste Systems of Minnesota. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of Agreement with Anoka County for Multi -Unit Residential Recycling - Ms. Constant presented an Agreement for Multi -Unit Residential Recycling executed by Anoka County. The agreement is the result of a grant available to municipalities to provide financial assistance to the City in the promotion of multi -unit development. The agreement allows for the reimbursement of $810.00 for containers and promotional advertising expenses. The agreement is in addition to the standard residential recycling agreement. Council Member Kuether moved to adopt the Anoka County Multi -Unit Residential Recycling Agreement. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ANOKA COUNTY FOR ACCESS TO TAXSYS SYSTEM, RANDY SCHUMACHER Anoka County is allowing municipalities within the County to have direct computer access to their property records. The City currently owns the hardware needed for the access, therefore there is no need for extra costs. The County is providing this service free of charge. Direct computer access will enable staff to access current property records including: owner, legal description, values, etc. City staff will not have the ability to change any of PAGE 4 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10,1996 the County records. There should be no impact on staff since the staff currently supplies all information that is currently available at City Hall. Council Member Lyden asked when the system would be available. Mr. Schumacher said that this information is not currently available, however he did expect that the system would be available very soon. Council Member Lyden asked if there will be a fee for this service in the future. Mr. Schumacher said that there are no indications that there will ever be a fee. Council Member Bergeson moved to approve the request to connect to the Anoka County TAXSYS System. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING, IMPROVEMENT OF 12TH AVENUE/HOLLY DRIVE, DAVID AHRENS Mr. Schumacher explained that this matter involves pending litigation and asked the City Council to recess to a closed meeting. The City Council moved to the staff meeting room at 6:59 P.M. and returned at 7:39 P.M. Mr. Hawkins explained that this is a continuation of the public hearing for 12th Avenue/Holly Drive improvements which would run from Birch Street to the south. This project was instituted as a result of the approval of the Trapper's Crossing subdivision. The public hearing has been continued several times while the City was negotiating with the developer regarding several issues that were unresolved concerning the construction of these streets. The allocation of the costs for the street improvement and also some fencing issues that were a part of the City Council's preliminary plat approval for Trapper's Crossing. These issues remain unresolved. Mr. Hawkins explained that the City has negotiated with the developer and has reached a tentative agreement which is subject to the City Council's approval. The agreement includes an amendment to the existing development contract which has been signed for Trapper's Crossing, Phase I. The issues that have been negotiate include the following: a new roadway will be constructed by the City from Birch Street to the entrance of Trapper's Crossing, Phase I. The new roadway will be 24 feet in width with two (2) 12 foot driving lanes and two (2) gravel shoulders which would be two (2) feet in width. This will be done entirely at the developer's expense. The City will construct the improvements and assess the developer for the improvements. The developer has agreed to accept these assessments. The second part of the agreement deals with assessments that will be levied against the development in the amount of $265,000.00. This assessment is for off-street improvements and will constitute the full amount of assessments that is the responsibility of the developer. The City will have the full right to use the $265,000.00 assessment at their discretion. The money could be used for the improvement of another street and at such times that the City deems it necessary to expend the funds. PAGE 5 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 The developer has agreed to install a boundary line fence along the east and south side of the development. This fence will be the same type of fence that currently exists around the Oaks of Lino development. It is a chain link fence, four (4) feet in height supported by green poles. The remainder of the development contract will remain in effect as originally approved. These are the outstanding issues with the developer and now the City has a signed First Amendment executed by the developer this afternoon addressing these issues. Council Member Lyden asked if there are any legal ramifications if the City Council delays action on this matter until the residents have reviewed the Amendment and have had time to see what this fence looks like and give the City Council more time to evaluate the First Amendment. Mr. Hawkins said that there is no legal time limit that the City is up against at this time. However, he said that from a negotiation standpoint and reaching an agreement with the developer, it is imperative that the City Council reach an agreement tonight. Mr. Hawkins said that he has had numerous meetings on this matter and everybody is at the edge. He felt that the City Council needed to make a decision tonight from a legal negotiation standpoint. Council Member Lyden noted that a signed agreement did not reach the City Hall until about 4:30 P.M. this afternoon. He asked why not take a couple of weeks and let the City Council and the citizens, who the City Council represents, review it in detail. Mr. Hawkins said that the reason that the agreement was delayed until this afternoon is because the last meeting was held this morning. At this meeting he told all the persons at the meeting that a signed agreement was going to be reached today or there would be no agreement. The meeting ended at about 1:00 P.M. this afternoon and then was typed later. Council Member Bergeson asked if the roadway, that will be reconstructed at the developers expense, is not up to State Aid standards but could be upgraded to State Aid standards without tearing out the driving lanes? Mr. Ahrens said that is correct, the utility contract that covers the construction work occurring at this time includes adequate subgrade work to make sure that there is adequate subgrade and base. Therefore, this road surface will not have to be removed to upgrade the road to State Aid standards. Council Member Bergeson asked if the only thing that will not be to State Aid standards is the shoulders? Mr. Ahrens said yes. Council Member Lyden said that only half of the road will be upgraded at this time. This is like going to a shoe store and buying one boot. Council Member Lyden said that the initial spirit of the agreement covered the entire roadway from Birch Street to County Road J (Ash Street). Mayor. Landers asked if the City Council does not approve this agreement, where will the City find another million dollars to upgrade the roadway completely. Council Member Lyden said that the City Council should have the common decency to the people that the City Council represents, who have a vested interest in the fence and who have waited two (2) years and give them a couple of weeks to study the proposed amendment and give the City Council a few more hours before the ink is dry. PAGE 6 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 Council Member Kuether suggested that the three (3) residents out of the seven (7) who are in the audience adjourn to another area and discuss the fence issue with Mr. Hawkins. The City Council tabled this matter until Mr. Hawkins returned. Mr. Hawkins left the Council meeting with the residents. PUBLIC HEARING, OTTER LAKE ROAD REALIGNMENT, DAVID AHRENS Mr. Ahrens used the overhead projector to show the location of Otter Lake Road. He explained that this is the public hearing only and no action by the City Council is required. The project involves the realignment of Otter Lake Road (County Road 84) between Cedar Street and Main Street (CSAH 14). It will provide roadway access to the center of the Clearwater Creek Development Center and is proposed to be funded jointly with Anoka County. The purpose of this proposal is to address a problem with the existing Otter Lake Road and Main Street intersection which is very close to the ramps ofI35E. This project addresses this concern and will move the intersection of Otter Lake Road and Main Street east about 600 to 700 feet. The realigned roadway would greatly enhance the safety of this intersection. The new aligned roadway would provide access to the development area which is currently receiving a lot of interest from developers. Mr. Ahrens noted the area where Taymark plans to locate as well as the area where Northern Wholesale plans to locate. Mr. Ahrens explained that this project will be a joint project between the City of Lino Lakes and Anoka County and a joint powers agreement similar to the one that was executed between the City and Anoka County for the Apollo Drive project will be needed. Mr. Ahrens pointed out the new alignment of Otter Lake Road. The proposed ponding areas were also noted. Mr. Ahrens said that the ponding will provide a real benefit for the companies that are planning to relocate in this area. There will be no sewer and water utility work included in this project. Sanitary sewer and municipal water utilities were covered in a separate public hearing and are to be constructed this year. Mr. Ahrens noted another road that is planned to connect the existing Otter Lake Road to the new road. This roadway is not included in this public hearing and will be discussed at another time. It could eventually become part of this improvement project and could be constructed when the parcels surrounding the roadway are developed. Soil borings were completed in this area. A wet clay material was noted in the area of the proposed roadway realignment A thicker section of roadway will be required. The total street section will be 43 inches. Storm water drainage will be directed by storm sewers to four (4) holding ponds. Mr. Ahrens explained the location of the ponding areas. Catch basins will be constructed in the roadway that would accommodate the storm water from development areas and will direct the storm water to the ponds. PAGE 7 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 Street construction costs are estimated to be $608,000.00. This does not include the 30% overhead and right-of-way acquisition. The storm sewer construction is estimated to be $188,000.00. This includes necessary piping, catch basins and excavation of the ponding areas. Using the agreement between the City and Anoka County for Apollo Drive, Mr. Powell drafted a preliminary cost sharing formula. The cost of the storm sewer construction will be shared half by Lino Lakes and half by Anoka County. The street construction will also be shared by Anoka County and the City, however, the City's cost will be greatly lower than the County's costs because only street curb and gutter costs will be the responsibility of the City. Engineering and other costs are mainly the responsibility of the City. The total project cost including construction, engineering, legal and contingencies is estimated to be $1,035,289.00. The City does not know how much of the storm sewer projects are state aid eligible, therefore, approximately one half of the storm sewer costs are estimated to be paid by the state aid office. The ponding facilities will be paid by the City and the culvert is expected to be paid through state aid funding. A preliminary assessment roll has been prepared. Only properties fronting on the new road will be assessed at standard rates. The frontage near the ponds will not be assessed because they are not developable. If the City Council decides to proceed with the project, the plans and specifications can be ordered at the next Council meeting. The plans would be submitted to the City Council in January, 1997 and bids could be received in February with construction starting in the spring of 1997. The assessment hearing would be held in the fall of 1997. Mr. Ahrens noted that the project costs did not include any right-of-way or easement costs. Some of the right-of-way has been dedicated to the City as part of some of the development approvals. He explained that additional right-of-way may be dedicated to the City in a similar fashion when other properties develop. Financing will consist of Surface Water Management funds for the majority of the storm sewer costs, County State Aid has budgeted $600,000.00 in 1997 for this project, Municipal State Aid funds are available and the City may consider issuance of improvement bonds. Council Member Bergeson noted parcels five (5) and six (6) and expressed a concern that when the new road is installed these lots be deep enough to allow lots fronting on Main Street and other lots fronting on the new road. He said the City Council is on record as opposing double frontage residential lots and said he is also opposed to double fronting commercial lots because of dumpsters and other such equipment pertinent to commercial lots. He felt that the Economic Development Advisory Board would also be concerned about this situation. PAGE 8 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 Mayor Landers noted the park and ride lot located between Otter Lake Road and I35E and asked if it would be accessed from Main Street or the new street. Mr. Ahrens said it would be accessed by a driveway to the new street. He will be notifying Anoka County about this change. Mayor Landers asked what will be the tonage for the new road. Mr. Ahrens said it would be a nine (9) ton road, however, because of poor subgrade soils, the base and the blacktop will be unusually thick. Council Member Bergeson said that it is important that this road be constructed so that the development can progress without any interruption. Council Member Lyden asked if there will be an issue with creating ponding on the Northern States Power (NSP) right-of-way. Mr. Ahrens said that he has not contacted NSP, however he is aware of other ponds with the power lines running through it. NSP will be notified and their concerns will be taken into consideration. Mayor Landers opened the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. John Elder, 13920 Elmcrest Avenue - Mr. Elder explained that he lives in Hugo but raises strawberries near the area of the street realignment. He asked if public utilities will follow the new road or follow Cyril LaCasse's property line. Mr. Ahrens explained that they will follow the new roadway but will be installed under a different contract. The utility construction should start in late July of this year. There were no other comments from the audience. Council Member Kuether moved to close the public hearing at 8:18 P.M. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Council Member Kuether moved to approve the Otter Lake Road Realignment. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Council Member Bergeson noted that the "green sheet" states that this is a public hearing only and no action is required. Council Member Kuether rescinded her motion and Council Member Neal rescinded his second to the motion. PUBLIC HEARING, CEDAR STREET LIFT STATION, DAVID AHRENS Mr. Ahrens used the overhead projector to show the location of this proposed improvement project. This project involves the installation of the Cedar Street Lift Station for sanitary sewer and is to be located at the southeast corner of Cedar Street and Otter Lake Road (County Road 84). The improvement will serve the Clearwater Creek housing subdivision and the Clearwater Creek Development Center described above. The improvement will serve Sewer District No. 3 consistent with the Comprehensive Sewer PAGE 9 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 Plan prepared in 1990. The feasibility report was received and the public hearing was set at the May 13, 1996 Council meeting. The lift station will connect to the Metropolitan Council forcemain that runs from Centerville to Hugo to the Forest Lake interceptor located approximately a mile from Lino Lakes. The lift station is designed for the ultimate sewer flow coming from Sewer District No. 3. It will be coordinated with the Metropolitan Council lift station coming from Centerville and will have equipment that will allow monitoring and control from City Hall. The lift station will be located on Outlot E of Clearwater Creek subdivision. This lot was dedicated to the City. The project cost will be approximately $400,000.00. Financing will come from the Area andUnitor Enterprise Fund. No assessments are proposed. Tonight the City Council will be asked to order plans and specifications and also approve the plans and specifications. Bids will be opened July 17, 1996 and the contract will be awarded at the July 22, 1996 Council meeting. Construction will begin immediately upon the award of the contract and be completed by the end of September. Recently, the City decided to bond for the construction of this project. This process requires that the project be completed according to State Statutes Chapter 429 improvement process. Council Member Bergeson asked how large of an area will the lift station ultimately service. Mr. Ahrens explained that it will service all of sewer district No. 3. Mayor Landers opened the public hearing at 8:25 P.M. There was no one in the audience to speak on this matter. Council Member Bergeson moved to close the public hearing at 8:26 P.M. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 06 - 96, OFFERING SALE OF PROPERTY TO EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANCE, BRIAN WESSEL Mr. Wessel explained that this is the SECOND READING of an ordinance required for the sale of a one acre parcel in the City -owned portion of the Apollo Business Park. The City is selling the parcel next to the Klosner-Goertz building to Emergency Apparatus Maintenance. They plan to build a 5,000 square foot facility. The site plan for this project will be before the Planning and Zoning Board on Wednesday, June 12th. Mr. Wessel noted that the project is within the guidelines for development in the Apollo Business Park. PAGE 10 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 Council Member Bergeson asked if there will be a problem with outdoor storage since this business deals with the maintenance of fire department equipment. Mr. Wessel explained that there will be absolutely no outdoor storage and this will be a item included in the Council approval of the site plan. Council Member Kuether moved to adopt Ordinance No. 06 - 96 and dispense with the reading. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Ordinance No. 06 - 96 can be found at the end of these minutes. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REPORT, MARY KAY WYLAND Consideration of Extension of Conditional Use Permit, Rehbein Transit - Ms. Wyland explained that the City Council approved a conditional use permit for Rehbein Transit to allow the construction of a pole building to house buses on May 22, 1995. Since that time, the Rehbein's have been working on the project but have not received loan approval to date. They have installed the trail as requested by the City Council and some preliminary grading work has begun. At this time, Rehbein Transit is requesting an extension of their conditional use permit for 12 months. They do anticipate construction yet this fall, but to be on the safe side, they are requesting a 12 month extension. Staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval of the 12 month extension of the existing conditional use permit. The seven (7) conditions attached to the permit are still valid and apply to the site. Council Member Kuether asked if the new bus storage building will hold all the buses owned by Rehbein Transit. Mr. Rehbein said yes. It will also hold all the buses needed for the future growth of the Centennial School District. Council Member Kuether moved to approve the 12 month extension of the conditional use permit for Rehbein Transit. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. FIRST READING, Ordinance No. 03 - 96 - Ms. Wyland explained that this proposed animal ordinance was initiated by the Police Department to add enforcement provisions and is intended to address various animal concerns including number of dogs, wild animals, enforcement, kennels and the licensing of cats. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the ordinance in July, 1995, set a neighborhood meeting for discussion, followed with another Planning and Zoning meeting in November, 1995, formed a committee to discuss the proposed ordinance and ultimately recommended approval of the ordinance at their March, 1996 meeting. A fact sheet explaining the important differences between the existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance was included with the Council packet along with other information PAGE 11 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 prepared by Ms. Wyland and Ms. Kenow, the Lino Lakes Community Service Officer (CSO). Provisions of this ordinance includes the following: a resident may keep three (3) dogs on their property without the need for a kennel license; private kennels would be limited to a maximum of six (6) dogs on a lot that is one acre or more with a conditional use permit; a commercial kennel requires a conditional use permit; provisions for licensing both cats and dogs; and provisions for dangerous animals. There has been extensive work in preparing this ordinance. There are some residents who feel that since this ordinance is less restrictive, their concerns should be heard. Council Member Neal noted that he receives many cat complaints. Ms. Kenow explained that all cats are to be licensed and a fee will be charged. Council Member Neal said that he knows of other cities who have enforced cat regulations. In thesecities the ordinance was initially very unpopular. However, after a short period of time, the ordinance did work well. Mayor Landers said that it was his understanding that cats in the rural farm areas were not to be licensed. Ms. Wyland said that enforcement can become a problem in rural areas, however, this ordinance provides for licensing all cats. Mayor Landers said that he has some real concerns regarding allowing more dogs in residential areas and bringing in more kennels. This will increase the need for enforcement and the City does not have enough officers to cover these additional duties. Ms. Wyland explained that the kennels do not generate many complaints. Most complaints are about individual dogs. Council Member Kuether said she has a real concern with the process of licensing cats because the City does not have enough patrol officers needed to respond to the complaints. She said that she has never heard of licensing cats. Ms. Wyland explained that this ordinance was drafted using several ordinances from other communities. Ms. Kenow explained that not many calls involve stray cats although she felt that Lino Lakes did have a severe stray cat problem. She explained that the ordinance was drafted based on the type of calls that the Police Department is receiving. Most calls involve complaints that cats are attacking song birds, depositing in a child's sandbox or are noisy at night. Ms. Kenow also explained that there has been opposition to an ordinance requiring cats to be licensed. Some cat owners felt it was unnecessary to license their cat because it is an indoor cat and never allowed outside. However, stray cats running around do generate many calls to the Police Department. Nothing can be done about these complaints because Lino Lakes does not have a cat ordinance outlining the procedure for responding to these calls. Ms. Kenow explained that the reason she has been interested in licensing cats is to be sure that the cats get proper vaccinations such as rabies and distemper. Council Member Kuether said that adopting an ordinance requiring cats to be licensed would not only be officer time intensive, but would require the need for a vehicle. Ms. Wyland explained PAGE 12 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 that a cat attacked a small child in Lino Lakes. The parents of the child was unable to bring any charges against the owner of the cat because Lino Lakes does not have a cat ordinance. If the child had been bitten by the cat, the cat would have been required to be quarantined. Council Member Kuether asked if cat problems could be handled without requiring them to be licensed. Ms. Kenow said that if the cats are licensed, they could be returned to their owner if they stray and the owner would be educated about the responsibilities of being a cat owner. If this ordinance is adopted, a lot of time will be spent educating the public and actually getting cats licensed. Ms. Kenow said that the Police Department does not have the staff needed to address the problem at this time, however, she did feel it was necessary to make a proposal to aid the citizens who are have problems with cats at this time. Council Member Kuether said that she was concerned about what this proposed ordinance would do to the Police Department. Council Member Bergeson said that if there is a concern about rabies and other diseases of cats then cats should be licensed. It would be easier to find the owner to verify if they have been vaccinated. He noted that there has been a lot of work preparing this ordinance and said he would hate to see the Council deny it because of some specific concerns. Council Member Bergeson said that it appears that a number of issues have been clarified that may be unclear in the existing ordinances. He referred to the portion of the packet that identifies differences between the current ordinance and the proposed ordinance. It appears that four (4) items listed are more restrictive or clarifying than the current ordinance. Two (2) items are less restrictive. These two (2) are the number of dogs and the other is the amount of land needed for a private kennel. Council Member Bergeson said that he is concerned about the requirement of one acre needed for a kennel license. He felt one acre was not a very large parcel for a number of dogs. He said he is less concerned about the requirement that no more than three (3) dogs be allowed without the need for a kennel license. He noted that several cities in this area do allow three (3) dogs. It was his opinion that if Lino Lakes allowed three (3) dogs without the need for a kennel license, this would do away to a large extent with the need to reduce the size of lots where a private kennel would be allowed. He said he is not in favor of reducing the size of the lot where private kennel licenses would be allowed but would be in favor of increasing the number of dogs from two (2) to three (3) without the need for a kennel license. Council Member Lyden agreed that a lot of work had been put into the creation of the proposed ordinance. He referred to page 5, paragraph B and noted that the Council should be more proactive, as much as possible. To say that there is an unlimited number of adult dogs that would be allowed on five (5) acres or more is not the best interest of the residents. Ms. Wyland explained that the proposed ordinance does say that a conditional use permit would be required which would specify the number depending on what they are requesting. Council Member Lyden said that the wording does say unlimited number of dogs and this would be opening the door to other interpretations. He said he would like much stronger language. Council Member Lyden referred to Page 5, paragraph B again and said he felt allowing six (6) dogs on such a small parcel is not in the best interest of the City. He felt that should be at least as restrictive as the current ordinance. PAGE 13 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 Council Member Kuether said she would not be in favor of the first two (2) changes in the ordinance and would like to leave them as they are in the current ordinance. She would like to take all references to cats omitted from the ordinance and then prepare an ordinance dealing only with cats. Council Member Kuether said that the cat issue should be addressed more in depth at a work session. She felt that including cats at this time would place a burden on the Police Department that they are not equipped to handle at this time. Mayor Landers said he supported Council Members Kuether and Bergeson comments regarding dogs. He felt allowing more dogs on the small lots would be placing undo burden on the Police Department and the neighborhoods and maybe devaluing property. Ms. Wyland said that the FIRST READING could be adopted subject to the changes outlined by the City Council. The proposed ordinance would then be redrafted to incorporate the changes and brought to the City Council for the SECOND READING. Mayor Landers proposed that the matter be tabled at this time and then the changes incorporated into the draft ordinance and brought back to the City Council for the FIRST READING. Council Member Kuether referred to Council Member Lyden's suggestion that the work "unlimited" on page 5, paragraph B be changed to a specific number. This number could be determined at the time of the FIRST READING of the ordinance. Council Member Kuether moved to table this matter. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Council Member Lyden asked if other cities have been checked to see how much time their police officers spent dealing with cat issues. Ms. Kenow said she would prepare this information for discussion at the Council work session. Mr. Schumacher asked why the number of licenses issued has dropped significantly. It was explained that licenses are now being issued every other year instead of annually. Voting on the motion, motion carried unanimously. The. City Council took a five (5) minute break at 9:00 P.M. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT, DAVID AHRENS Consideration of Resolution No. 96 - 57, Order Improvement, Approve Plans and Specifications and Order Advertisement for Bids, Elevated Water Storage Tank No. 2 - Mr. Ahrens used the overhead projector to show the location of the proposed elevated water storage tank No. 2. He explained that the improvement involved the construction of a one million gallon elevated water storage tank in the vicinity of the Clearwater Creek Development Center. The project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Water Study prepared in 1991. The public hearing for this project was held January 22, 1996, after which the City Council ordered preparation of the plans and specifications. Construction of this improvement will begin this summer. PAGE 14 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 Mr. Ahrens noted that this water storage tank will be painted the same as the first water storage tank using teflon paint. Bids are being received on two (2) different types of tanks, however, the preferred tank is a fluted column tank similar to the current tank. Council Member Kuether moved to adopt Resolution No. 96 - 57 Ordering the Improvement, Approving the Plans and Specifications, and Ordering Advertisement for Bid for the Elevated Water Storage Tank No. 2. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 96 - 57 can be found at the end of these minutes. Consideration of Resolution No. 96 - 58, Intent to Bond, Elevated Water Storage Tank No. 2 - Mr. Ahrens explained that the City of Lino Lakes is required by the Internal Revenue Code to declare its intent to reimburse project costs from bond issue proceeds prior to making any expenditures for construction or land acquisition. This declaration must be made in the form of a City Council resolution. Resolution No. 96 - 58 is nearly identical to Resolution No. 96 - 48 passed by the City Council on May 13, 1996, the only difference being this resolution is for a single project while the previous resolution dealt with multiple projects. The resolution is a non- binding declaration which must be made to allow the project to be financed using bond proceeds. If the resolution is not adopted, the City Council will be required to identify alternate methods of financing this project. Council Member Neal moved to adopt Resolution No. 96 - 58. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 96 - 58 can be found at the end of these minutes. Consideration of Resolution No. 96 - 59, Order Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications, Cedar Street Lift Station - Mr. Ahrens explained that Lino Lakes Sewer District No. 3 is generally located around the I-35E/Main Street interchange. The Clearwater Creek Development Center a well as the new Clearwater Creek subdivision are contained within District No. 3. The sanitary sewer connection to the Metropolitan Council system in this area will be via a City lift station which is connected directly to MWCC 76-51, a Metropolitan Council forcemain interceptor. The Lino Lakes lift station is to be constructed on the southeast corner of Cedar Street and Otter Lake Road and is referred to as the Cedar Street Lift Station. The public hearing for this improvement project was held earlier in this meeting. The proposed financing of this project will be via issuance of a bond to be reimbursed from the Area and Unit (Enterprise) Fund. No special assessments are proposed as part of this project. PAGE 15 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 Council Member Kuether moved to adopt Resolution No. 96 - 59 Ordering the Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Cedar Street Lift Station. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 96 - 59 can be found at the end of these minutes. Consideration of Resolution No. 96 - 60, Approve Plans and Specifications and Order Advertisement for Bids, Cedar Street Lift Station - Mr. Ahrens explained that the preparation of the plans and specifications for the Cedar Street Lift Station was begun prior to this City Council meeting. As discussed at a previous meeting, the City was initially going to fund this project directly out of the Area and Unit Charge Fund with no bonding involved. In order to reduce the impact on this fund, the City and their bonding consultant, Springsted, Inc., recently decided to include the project in a future bond issue. To do this, the City first must proceed through the steps required by the Minnesota State Statute Section 429 including ordering and receiving the Feasibility Report and holding the public hearing. To expedite this process, the City is completing many steps at a single meeting where usually there would be time elapsed while the plans and specifications were being prepared. Council Member Kuether moved to adopt Resolution No. 96 - 60 Approve Plans and Specifications and Order the Advertisement for Bids for the Cedar Street Lift Station. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 96 - 60 can be found at the end of these minutes. Consideration of Resolution No. 96 - 61, Declaration of Intent to Bond, Cedar Street Lift Station - Mr. Ahrens explained that the Internal Revenue Code requires that the City of Lino Lakes declare its intent to reimburse project costs from bond issue proceeds prior to making any expenditures for construction or land acquisition. This declaration must be made in the form of a City Council resolution. This resolution is a non-binding declaration which must be made to allow the project to be financed using bond proceeds. If the resolution is not adopted, the City will be required to identify alternate methods of financing the project. Council Member Neal moved to adopt Resolution No. 96 - 61, Declaring the City's Intent to Bond for Cedar Street Lift Station Improvements. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 96 - 61 can be found at the end of these minutes. Consideration of Resolution No. 96 - 62, Ordering Preparation of Plans and _l Specifications for Pheasant Hills Preserve, 7th Addition - Mr. Ahrens used the overhead projector to show the location of this improvement project and explained that the feasibility report for the Pheasant Hills Preserve, 7th Addition street and utility PAGE 16 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 project was accepted by the City Council at the April 8, 1996 Council meeting. The project consists of the construction of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer and streets to serve a 19 -lot subdivision located north of Timberwolf Trail in the Pheasant Hills Preserve, 7th Addition plat. Per Minnesota Statutes and the Lino Lakes City Charter, the proposed improvements and the plans and specifications are required to be ordered by the City Council. Council Member Kuether asked if these are the lots that Mr. Vaughan, the developer, is trying to market at this time. Mr. Ahrens said yes. Council Member Kuether moved to adopt Resolution No. 96 - 62 Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Pheasant Hills Preserve, 7th Addition. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 96 - 62 can be found at the end of these minutes. Consideration of Resolution No. 96 - 63, Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering the Advertisement of Bids for Pheasant Hills Preserve, 7th Addition - Mr. Ahrens explained that the City Council ordered the improvement and preparation of plans and specifications for the Pheasant Hills Preserve, 7th Addition street and utility project. The plans and specifications are complete and the City Council is required to approve them and order advertisement for bids. The project schedule includes advertising for bids and receiving bids on July 8, 1996. The City Council will receive the bids on July 8, 1996. If the bids are accepted and the bid awarded, the project should be completed within six (6) weeks after the bid is awarded. Council Member Neal moved to adopt Resolution No. 96 - 63 Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No 96 - 63 can be found at the end of these minutes. NEW BUSINESS Bus Depot - Council Member Neal explained that the Country Traveler is looking for a place to use as a depot. He felt that City Hall would be an ideal location for the bus depot since the senior center is part of the building. Any citizen could come to City Hall and get on the bus and travel anywhere in Anoka County for a $1.00. A copy of the bus schedule would be posted and advertised on Cable TV so that residents would be aware of the bus schedule. Council approval is needed to locate the bus depot at City Hall. Mr. Schumacher asked if the Country Traveler had a written proposal that the City Council could review. Council Member Neal said no, they are only looking for a building to use as a bus stop. PAGE 17 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 Council Member Neal explained that the administrator of the Country Traveler bus will be at the next senior dinner. She will explained the service to the seniors. Council Member Kuether asked if this matter could be addressed in more detail at the next Council work session. Council Member Neal said that he would like an answer today. Council Member Kuether asked if this matter could wait until after the senior group deals with the matter. Mayor Landers suggested that a bus stop be located at the senior complex on Elm Street. Council Member Neal said that this service is for all Anoka County residents and felt the bus stop should be located at City Hall. Since all residents could use the service, he did not see the need to wait until the senior group discusses the service. Council Member Neal said that he would like Lino Lakes to be the first city to approve a bus stop since Lino Lakes has a reputation of being a city that does something. Council Member Kuether said her only concern is theamount of parking space the bus riders would need. Council Member Neal said that additional parking should constructed onthe pond side of the driveway. He noted that all the parking spaces were used this evening by the seniors who went on a bus trip to a casino and the ballfield users. Council Member Bergeson said that he felt that it is the consensus of the City Council that they approve the concept and asked Mr. Schumacher and Council Member Neal to bring the details of the program to the City Council at a later date. No other action was taken on this matter. Legal Newspaper, Quad Press - Council Member Neal noted that the Quad Press has not sent a reporter to a City Council meeting for some time. This is resulting in very little or no City Council meeting coverage in the Quad Press. He suggested that a letter be sent to the editor requesting that a reporter be at all Council meetings. Mr. Schumacher will write a letter to the editor of the Quad Press. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING, IMPROVEMENT OF 12TH AVENUE/HOLLY DRIVE Mr. Hawkins said that during this evening he met with some of the residents on 12th Avenue/Holly Drive and showed them pictures of the what the fencing will look like. Initially, they felt that the fencing was adequate but after looking at it for awhile they have some concerns about the style of the fence. They will probably want to express their concerns regarding the fencing. Mr. Hawkins said that the agreement with the developer includes the style of fencing shown in the pictures. The developer did come this evening and reconfirmed that this is the style of fence he has agreed to. Mayor Landers opened the public hearing at 9:37 P.M. Caroline Dahl, 1101 Holly Court - Ms. Dahl said that she has looked at the pictures of the proposed fence presented by Mr. Hawkins and did not initially see a problem. After PAGE 18 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 looking at the pictures a second time, the poles that she thought were like a standard fencing poles turn out to be stakes. She said that stakes are a lot different than poles. In her opinion, stakes are extremely dangerous to children. Ms. Dahl said that Mr. Hawkins had used the term "pole" when he first described the fence. She said again that stakes are entirely different from poles. When she looked at the pictures a second time, she noticed that the poles were just stakes. Ms. Dahl said that there cannot be a compromise on this situation. She said that at first she did not see the "points" sticking up on the fence. She thought that there were loops on top of the fence so that there would be no "points" sticking up. Ms. Dahl said that the neighborhood did not want a four (4) foot fence. She would like it higher, however, she and her husband were willing to compromise and accept a four (4) foot fence. But she said that she could not live with "points" sticking up and having children climb the fence and getting hurt. "Stakes" make the fence totally unsafe and did not understand why the developer who would be building R -1X homes would consider such a dangerous and hazardous fence. She said that she was looking at this from a safety issue. She said that she could not imagine how City staff could begin to suggest such a hazardous fence where children and adults will be. Ms. Dahl said that she believes that the fence should have been decided by the City Council before staff took it to the "helm". She said that the "points" are on top and asked the City Council to take a closer look at the fence. Ms. Dahl said she could not believe it when she looked at it a second time. She felt that the City Council should go out to the area and look at the fence. Ms. Dahl said that she was willing to compromise, however, when she saw how dangerous the fence and "stakes" are, she asked the City Council to reconsider what the fence should look like and how it should be constructed. This fence is not for a short time, it will be there for a long time. Council Member Kuether asked Ms. Dahl what she meant by "stakes". Ms. Dahl explained that poles have "cap" and there are rails running along the top of the fence. She said stakes would not do anything and not even hold the fence up properly. Ms. Dahl said she was concerned for all children and did not believe the fence proposed by the developer was safe. Ms. Dahl explained that Sue Walseth went through a great deal of time and trouble to find all the prices on fencing. Ms. Dahl said she also researched fence prices today. She said she would compromise on the four (4) foot fence but she would not compromise danger or hazard fencing for anyone. Safety comes first. She asked the City Council to reconsider the fence tonight. Mayor Landers asked who would put up the fence? He asked if it possible to bend the "points" down? Council Member Neal noted that the fence in the picture is a security fence. He felt that a fence could be ordered that did not have "points" sticking up causing a danger. Mayor Landers asked about the green "stakes". Mr. Hawkins said that they are metal fence posts that could be purchased at a hardware store. Al DeMotts, 6365 Holly Drive - Mr. DeMotts said that he agreed with Ms. Dahl. He said he wanted stipulated, in the agreement, that the north fence on the Sue Walseth PAGE 19 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 property be installed before any building permits be issued in Trapper's Crossing, 1st. Phase. Mr. Hawkins explained that the 1st phase agreement has already been completed. At this time, the City Council is only dealing with the development that will take place on the south side of Holly Drive. He outlined the agreement for the 1st Phase and noted that all terms of this agreement should be completed prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. The fencing and all other stipulations for the 2nd Phase will have to be completed before any occupancy permits will be issued. Council Member Lyden said that he wanted to be sure that there is no doubt in the minds of the City Council that Sue Walseth feels that the north fence is totally inadequate. She is not in agreement with what the City staff unilaterally did. She wants chain link fence on the north side of her property. Mayor Landers said that he heard that the board on board fence will go around to the north side of her property. Mr. Hawkins said that is not going to happen, there is an existing fence of woven wire. The agreementfor the north side of the Walseth property calls for the existing fence to stay in place and plantings down at the bottom of the slope. Mr. Hawkins said that some people will not be happy with the compromise and Ms. Walseth apparently will not be happy. Council Member Lyden noted that she is one of the residents that this Council represents, not the developer. Mr. DeMotts said he wanted it stipulated that there will be a four (4) foot fence put on the north side of the Walseth property. There was no response to this comment. John Dahl, 1101 Holly Court - Mr. Dahl said he would not repeat what his wife had presented. He said that everyone understands the situation in this area of the City. Mr. Dahl said that the residents are willing to compromise with a four (4) foot fence, however, they do not want a fence with wire sticking up. That fence is dangerous and other types of fencing can be purchased just as economically. Mr. Dahl said that the pictures show a security fence and that is not appropriate for this situation. He asked when the fence would be constructed. Mr. Dahl said that he did not want the houses constructed before the fence is in place. Mr. Hawkins said that the agreement states that the fence has to be in place before any certificates of occupancies are issued. There can be houses constructed, however, there cannot be anyone living there before the fence is installed. Mr. Dahl asked what the City will do when the builder constructs 20 new homes and the new home owners want occupancies for their new homes. Mr. Hawkins said that the fence must be installed prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. If a new home owner wants to move into his new home, he will have to take the matter up with the developer. No one will move into the new houses until the fence is in place. Ms. Dahl said that it is not sufficient to stipulate that when the house closes or before occupancy permits are issued the fence must be installed. She noted the new subdivision of Clearwater Creek where occupancy permits have been issued. She said that there is a problem with the people trespassing into the rural areas. Fencing was not negotiated and the hobby farmer is having a problem with people coming from that subdivision and throwing things at the horses. Ms. Dahl asked the City Council to take a closer look and PAGE 20 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 learn from the past so that the same mistakes are not made again. She explained that the problem in the Clearwater Creek area occurred when the model homes were on display and before any houses were occupied. There was no one else in the audience to speak on this issue. Council Member Bergeson said that when the City Council discussed this agreement with the City Attorney, the City. Council accepted the concept that anyone adjacent to the development who wanted a fence could have a fence. In regard to the Sue Walseth property, does the fact that the City has a separate fence agreement on her property take her property out of the group that has an option of getting this proposed fencing? Mr. Hawkins said yes, the fence agreement that is under discussion tonight does not involve Trapper's Crossing, Phase 1. He reminded the City Council that the Walseth fence issue went to arbitration and the parties could not come to an agreement. There was a wide disparity of what the Walseth's wanted and what the developer wanted. The staff made a decision to issue a permit for a board on board fencing on one side of the Walseth property and put landscaping at the bottom of the fence already on the Walseth property. Staff felt that this decision met the intent of the Council's approval to deter trespassing. Somebody had to make a decision because the two (2) parties involved could not come to an agreement. Mr. Hawkins said that normally, these types of disputes are decided by a staff decision. Council Member Bergeson said that he thought that the City Council was still dealing with the Jensen's and the LaMotte's whose property border Phase 1. Mr. Hawkins said that these property owners indicated that they did not want fencing. Council Member Bergeson said that he has had a fence of the same design that is being proposed for the southern part of Trapper's Crossing. He said he did not think that the posts were particularly dangerous however he did share the concern with the wire sticking up. Council Member Bergeson suggested that the Council approve the fence subject to the wire being turned down. He felt that this is a security issue but felt that the safety issue should also be addressed. Council Member Bergeson suggested that the fence be approved subject to the fact that there not be any sharp edges. He asked if this would be a small enough detail that would not violate the contract signed by the developer. Mr. Hawkins said that this is a cost issue and did not know if there is much difference in cost. Council Member Kuether said that safety is an issue that this Council must deal with. Mr. Hawkins said that the City Council do anything they want with the fence proposal. He did not know whether or not the developer would accept any changes. Council Member Neal moved to close the public hearing. Council Member Kuether seconded the motion. Council Member Lyden said that he felt that the City Council is no farther along than last Council meeting. There is no signed agreement. There is no agreement on the fence only ideas of what the fence should or should not be. He said he did not feel it is the Council's PAGE 21 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 perogative to close the public hearing at this time. Council Member Kuether suggested that the Council close the public hearing and approve the agreement subject to the developer installing a no sharp edge fence. Council Member Lyden said that means nothing to him. He said that if the Council requires a top rail on the fence and fence posts instead of stakes, that will mean something to him. Council Member Lyden said that he envisions someone bending over this proposed fence creating just as much of a hazard as the fence proposed by the developer. He said that the City Council should be very specific about the design of the fence. If not, the public hearing should be continued because everything else is "up for grabs". Voting on the motion. Council Members Bergeson and Neal and Mayor Landers voted yes. Council Members Kuether and Lyden voted no. There was a question regarding parliamentary procedure. Mr. Hawkins said that Mayor Landers had called for the question and therefore the voting had to proceed. Mayor Landers said that by closing the public hearing, the 60 day clock has started. (The City Council must order the improvement within 60 days.) Council Member Lyden said that the development was approved based on the premise that there be satisfactory agreements between the developer and the City. Mayor Landers said that this matter (the improvement of 12th Avenue/Holly Drive) should have been resolved three (3) years ago. However, what was done two (2) or three (3) years ago cannot be corrected today. Council Member Kuether moved to approve the First Amendment to the Development Contract subject to the City Council approval of the physical quality and safety of the fence. She felt that the actual physical material of the fence should be seen and approved by the City Council at a Council work session. Council Member Lyden suggested that the fence should be a standard cyclone fence, with poles and a top bar at $4.70 per foot. Council Member Kuether said that the developer agreed to put in the same fence that is in the Oaks of Lino. Council Member Lyden said that was unacceptable. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Council Member Bergeson said that the language of the motion could be interpreted as vague. He asked Mr. Hawkins where this motion puts the City Council in terms of a legal position. Mr. Hawkins explained that the issue that has been the most difficult to interpret is the style of the fence. It has been the most contentious and has held this matter up this evening and caused the developer to come to City Hall this evening. If the City Council feels that the top wire should be rolled over instead of leaving points, that is not a substantial deviation from what is required in this First Amendment. Mr. Hawkins said that he feels that if the City Council does not make a decision or is talking about coming back again and bringing in fence styles and opening up the whole issue, there will be no "deal" with the developer. He said he senses that if the City Council does not come to some agreement tonight, the entire "deal" will be lost. Mr. Hawkins said that he along with Mr. Schumacher, Mr. Ahrens and Mr. Ballic, the developers attorney have spent hours and hours drafting the agreement. Not everyone is going to be happily, however, this is the best compromise that can be drafted. Mr. Hawkins said that there are other PAGE 22 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 major issues involved in this document involving thousands of dollars. Now, the only issue is whether or not the fence should be rolled over. He said that the City Council should make a decision this evening. If the City Council wants the top rolled over, then make this a part of the motion. However, if the City Council wants to talk about top rails and big posts, there will be no deal. Council Member Lyden said that Mr. Hawkins is making a cyclone fence sound like some kind of calculus thing. He said that a cyclone fence like what you see in everybody's back yard is the simplest answer and is what the residents want. Council Member Lyden said that he feels that it would not be a great burden to the developer or to anyone else. It would meet the safety issues. Mr. Hawkins said that if the City Council makes that requirement, then the City will not have an agreement with the developer. Council Member Lyden said that was no great threat to him. Mr. Hawkins said that he wanted the City Council to understand the significance of the situation. This is how far he and other staff have been able to negotiate on behalf of the City Council. The City Council will have to make a decision as to where this matter goes from here. Council Member Bergeson said it is true that this is not an ideal fence in terms of what some residents may want. The other consideration is that there is a fair amount of money on the table with this proposal. There is payment of construction of the road from Birch Street to the entrance to the development plus $265,000.00 plus the fence. This is considerably more money than what was talked about a week or more ago. Mayor Landers asked if the green posts will be cemented into the ground. Mr. Hawkins said that he understands that they cannot be cemented in some of the wetland areas. They will be driven into the ground as the posts in the other fence were. Voting on the motion, motion carried with Council Members Lyden and Kuether voting no. Council Member Kuether questioned the motion that was just approved. She asked if the City Council wanted samples of fence brought before the City Council for their approval? It was not what the Council Members thought they were voting on. Council Member Lyden said that when the City Council is talking about the safety and physical quality of the fence, is the City Council limiting themselves to what is in the picture? There was no answer to this question. Council Member Kuether moved to rescind the previous motion. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Council Member Kuether moved to approve the First Amendment to the Development Contract with the fence to be of a safe design with a rolled safe top or no sharp edges on the top of the fence. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Council Member Lyden said that the City will have the most unique fence in the whole twin cities area. He asked are we going to take the fence and roll the top over? Why not just buy the rail? A PAGE 23 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 gentleman in the audience said that all fences have sharp edges. Council Member Kuether said that the no sharp edges refers to the top of the fence only. Mr. Ballic asked the City Council if action on this matter tonight means that no further City Council approvals will be needed on the Trapper's Crossing improvement project. Mr. Ballic was told that there will be no further Council action necessary. Council Member Bergeson said that his concept of no sharp edges on top, is that where the two (2) wires come together, the wire is looped and locked together. Voting on the motion, motion carried with Council Member Lyden voting no. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED Consideration of Renewal of Liquor Licenses, Marilyn Anderson - Mrs. Anderson explained that applications for renewal of all liquor licenses were included in the Council packets. All insurance certificates have been filed with the Clerks office and all license fees have been paid. The Police Department is in the process of investigating each establishment owner and their managers. No problems are expected since there has not been any changes in ownership. The approval of the licenses should be contingent upon a satisfactory investigation report. Mrs. Anderson noted that earlier this spring, the City Council approved an off -sale liquor license for Mr. Steve J. Arhip, Jr. for an off -sale business to be located at 7860 Lake Drive (Simonson's Garage). Mr. Arhip has not opened his business at this time. Mrs. Anderson said that she has been trying to contact him to determine when this off -sale liquor establishment will be open. Council Member Kuether asked if the Council approval of Mr. Arhips off -sale license has a specific time limit. Mrs. Anderson explained that all licenses automatically expire on June 30, 1996. She explained that if Mr. Arhip plans to open his off -sale liquor establishment after that date, he will have to reapply for the license. Mrs. Anderson said that she would bring further information on Mr. Arhips license request to the City Council when the information is available. Mr. Schumacher asked if approval of the licenses could be delayed two (2) weeks rather than make the approval contingent upon a favorable police report. Mrs. Anderson said yes, however, the liquor licenses must be sent to the State Liquor Control division and must be approved by July 1st. The next Council meeting is June 28, 1996 and that is very close to the license expiration date. PAGE 24 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1996 Council Member Bergeson asked what procedure would be followed if the Police Department issued an unfavorable report on a particular liquor license. Mrs. Anderson explained that she would not submit the renewal license request to the State until the Police Department notifies her that whatever problems were found have been resolved. Mayor Landers said he noticed that the VFW on -sale liquor license fee is $100.00 and all other on -sale licenses are $3,000.00. Mrs. Anderson explained that Club license fees are set by the State. The City Council does have the option of increasing all regular on -sale license fees. Council Member Kuether moved to approve the on -sale and off -sale liquor licenses subject to a favorable investigation report from the Chief of Police. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of a Beer License and a Cabaret License for the Annual St. Joseph Catholic Church August Festival - Mrs. Anderson explained that the August Festival will be held on the weekend of August 10th and 11th this year. The Festival will be held in the church parking lot. A license to sell beer and a cabaret license is required for the dance that will be held in the evening. The Church does hire an off-duty Lino Lakes Police Officer for security during the evening events. A certificate of insurance is in the process and will be required prior to the issuance of the licenses. There have been no reported concerns regarding this annual event. Mrs. Anderson recommended approval of the beer license and the cabaret license. Council Member Neal moved to approve the beer license and cabaret license for the St. Joseph Catholic Church annual festival. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Council Member Neal moved to adjourn at 10:33 P.M. Council Member Kuether seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at a regular Council meeting held on July 8, 1996. Marilyn G. Anderson Clerk - Treasurer ' J,P L. Landers, Mayor PAGE 25 Councilmember Kuether introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNTY OF ANOKA ORDINANCE NO. 06-96 AN ORDINANCE OFFERING THE SALE BY THE CITY OF LINO LAKES A 1 -ACRE PARCEL OF LAND IN APOLLO BUSINESS PARK The City Council of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota does ordain: I. The real property described Lot 1, Block 1, Apollo Business Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, (the "Property") is owned by the City of Lino Lakes (the "City"). The city council of the City has determined that the Property is no longer needed by the City for any public purpose. II. The city council of the City authorizes sale of the Property to Emergency Apparatus Maintenance for $39,000 per acre. The mayor and city clerk -treasurer are hereby authorized and directed to execute such deed and other documents as may be necessary in order to sell the Property. Proceeds from the sale of the Property shall be used in accordance with the requirements of the city charter. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days following its passage and publication, in accordance with section 3.09 of the city charter. ATTEST: Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer John L. Landers, Mayor • The motion for adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by councilmember Lyden and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Bergeson, Kuether, Lyden, Neal, Landers. The following voted against same: none. Whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. First Reading Approved on May 28 , 1996 Second Reading Approved on June 10 , 1996 Published in the official newspaper on June 18 ,1996 Council Member Neal introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 96-56 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CITY WIDE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY WHEREAS, The City of Lino Lakes has pledged to create a drug and alcohol free working environment for its' employees, and WHEREAS, The City of Lino Lakes has a responsibility to ensure the health and safety of its' citizens, employees, and property, and WHEREAS, The City of Lino Lakes needs a policy that lays out policies and procedures designed to clearly defines rights and responsibilities, and WHEREAS, The attached policy has been drafted to balance the employee's rights against the rights of co-workers and the community, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA, that the attached Drug and Alcohol Policy be adopted. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 10th day of June, 1996. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer L. Landers, Mayor The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Lyden and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bergeson, Kuether, Lyden, Neal, Landers. The following voted against the same: None. Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Council Member Kuether adoption: introduced the following resolution and moved its CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 96-57 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT, APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK NO. 2. WHEREAS, a resolution of the Lino Lakes City Council adopted the 18th day of December, 1995 fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement and, WHEREAS, Ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 22nd day of January, 1996, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the City Council on the 22nd day of January, 1996, TKDA has prepared plans and specifications for the improvement and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted the 18th day of December, 1995. 2. Such plans and specifications are hereby approved. 3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for two days, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be opened and bids will be received by the 'City Clerk until 1:00 P.M. on Wednesday, July 17, 1996 at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Clerk and Engineer, will be tabulated and will be considered by the Council at 6:30 P.M. on Monday, July 22, 1996 in the Council Chambers. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given the opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the Clerk for five (5) percent of the amount of such bid. Adopted by the City Council this 10th day of June, 1996. •-t9 al.„„ Marilyn G. Anderson Clerk -Treasurer Neal The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member _ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bergeson, Kuether, Lyden, Neal, Landers The following voted against same: None . Whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by the City Council on . 1996. Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer Council Member Neal resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 96-58 introduced the following RESOLUTION RELATING TO FINANCING OF THE ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK NO. 2 TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE CITY OF LINO LAKES; ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND. REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE WHEREAS, The City of Lino Lakes is in the practice of constructing certain improvements and in some instances reimbursing itself for the cost of any portion of the improvements with bond proceeds, and WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued proposed Treasury Regulations Section 1.103-17 (as proposed and/or finally adopted, the "Regulations") dealing with the issuance of bonds where all or a portion of the proceeds are to be used to reimburse the City for any project costs paid by the City prior to the time of the issuance of the bonds, and WHEREAS, the Regulations generally required that the City make a prior declaration of its official intent to reimburse itself for such prior expenditures out of the proceeds of a subsequently issued taxable or tax exempt borrowing, that such declaration generally be made prior to but not more than two years before the time the expenditure is actually paid, that the borrowing occur and the reimbursement allocation be made from the proceeds of such borrowing within one year of the payment of the expenditure or, if longer, within one year of the date tie project is placed in service, and the expenditures relate to property having a reasonably expected economic life of at least one year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota, that: 1. Official Intent - The City desires to comply with requirements of the Regulations with respect to a certain project hereinafter identified. a. The City proposes to undertake the following project: Elevated Water Storage Tank No. 2. b. Other than costs to be paid or reimbursed from sources other than a tax- exempt borrowing or costs permitted to be reimbursed pursuant to the transaction provision of Section 1.103-17 (1) of the Regulations, none of the costs of the foregoing project estimated to total $1,500,000.00, all of which is to be reimbursed from Bond Proceeds, has heretofore been paid by the City and none of the costs will be paid by the City until after the date to this Resolution. The project and costs related thereto, constitutes property having a useful life of at least one year. • RESOLUTION NO. 96-58 PAGE 2 c. The City intends to reimburse itself for the payment of the designated project costs out of the proceeds of a tax exempt bond issue, debt or similar borrowing (the "Bonds") to be issued by the City after the date of payment of all or a portion of the costs. Pending the issuance of the Bonds, the City reasonably expects to pay and temporarily finance the costs from the Area and Unit Fund. d. The Bonds are proposed to be issued by the City pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, and other applicable statutory authority. The reasonably !expected sources of funds to be used by the City to pay the debt service on the Bonds is the Area and Unit Fund, in the amount of $1,500,000.00. 2. Budgetary Matters - As of the date hereof, there are no City funds reserved or otherwise allocated pursuant to the City's budget (or expected to be reserved or allocated pursuant to the City's budget) to provide permanent financing for the bonding portion of the project costs, other than pursuant to the issuance of the Bonds. Furthermore, there has been no allocation, budgeting, or restriction of moneys (or the adoption of a requirement or policy to reimburse a fund) as part of the City's budgetary process, the primary purpose of which is to prevent moneys from said sources from being available for the permanent financing of the costs of the projects. This resolution, therefore, is determined to be consistent with the City's budgetary and financial circumstances as they exist or are foreseeable on the date hereof, all within the meaning and content of the Regulations. 3. Filing. - This resolution shall be filed in the publicly available official books, records, or proceedings of the City, which shall be continuously available for inspection by the general public. This resolution shall be available for inspection at City Hall during normal business hours of the City on every business day the period beginning on the earlier of 10 days after the adoption hereof or the date of issuance of the reimbursement bonds and ending on the day after the issuance of such bonds. 4. Reimbursement Allocation - The City's financial officer shall be responsible for making the "reimbursement allocations" described in the Regulations, being generally the transfer of the appropriate amount of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse the source of temporary financing used by the City to make payment of the prior costs of the projects. Each allocation shall be evidenced by an entry on the official books and records of the City maintained for the Bonds, shall specifically identify the actual prior expenditure being reimbursed, and shall be effective to relieve the proceeds of the Bonds from any restriction under the bond resolution or other relevant legal documents for the Bonds, and under any applicable state or federal statute, which would apply to the unspent proceeds of such bond issue. RESOLUTION NO. 96-58 PAGE 3 Adopted by the City Council this 10th day of June, 1996. M- ilyni . Anderson Clerk -Treasurer n L. Landers, Mayor The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolutiop was duly seconded by Council Member Bergeson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bergeson, Kuether, Lyden, Neal, Landers. The following voted against same: None. Whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted. CERTIFICATION 1 hereby certify that the above is a correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by the City Council on June 10, 1996. n G. nderson Clerk -Treasurer r •t Council Member Kuether introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 96-59 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CEDAR STREET LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS. WHEREAS, a resolution of the Lino Lakes City Council adopted the 13th day of May, 1996 fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement and, WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 10th day of June, 1996, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted the 13th day of May, 1996. 2. John Powell, TKDA, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Adopted by the City Council this 10th day of June, 1996. Th&LLt 7—' Manlyn G. erson Clerk -Treasurer Thmotion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Membe Nealend upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bergeson, Kuether, Lyden, Neal, Landers. The following voted against same: None. Whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by the City Council on 6 /10 , 1996. Marlyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer Council Member Kuether introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 96-60 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE CEDAR STREET LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS. WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the Council on June 10, 1996, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the Cedar Street Lift Station Improvements and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published on two days, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be opened and bids will be received by the City Clerk until 10:00 A.M. on Tuesday, July 16, 1996 at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Clerk and Engineer, will be tabulated and will be considered by the Council at 6:30 P.M. on Monday, July 22, 1996 in the Council Chambers. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given the opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the Clerk for five (5) percent of the amount of such bid. Adopted by the City Council this 10th day of June, 1996. Marilyn L,JAnderson Clerk -Treasurer atAJLA-uf6,7, L. Landers, Mayor The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council MemberNe and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bergeson, Kuether, Lyden, Neal, Landers. The following voted against same: None . Whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by the City Council on 6 /10 , 1996. Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer Council Member Neal resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 96-61 introduced the following RESOLUTION RELATING TO FINANCING OF THE CEDAR STREET LIFT STATION TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE CITY OF LINO LAKES; ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE WHEREAS, The City of Lino Lakes is in the practice of constructing certain improvements and in some instances reimbursing itself for the cost of any portion of the improvements with bond proceeds, and WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued proposed Treasury Regulations Section 1.103-17 (as proposed and/or finally adopted, the "Regulations") dealing with the issuance of bonds where all or a portion of the proceeds are to be used to reimburse the City for any project costs paid by the City prior to the time of the issuance of the bonds, and WHEREAS, the Regulations generally required that the City make a prior declaration of its official intent to reimburse itself for such prior expenditures out of the proceeds of a subsequently issued taxable or tax exempt borrowing, that such declaration generally be made prior to but not more than two years before the time the expenditure is actually paid, that the borrowing occur and the reimbursement allocation be made from the proceeds of such borrowing within one year of the payment of the expenditure or, if longer, within one year of the date the project is placed in service, and the expenditures relate to property having a reasonably expected economic life of at least one year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City; Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota, that: 1. Official Intent - The City desires to comply with requirements of the Regulations with respect to a certain project hereinafter identified. a. The City proposes to undertake the following project: Cedar Street Lift Station. b. Other than costs to be paid or reimbursed from sources other than a tax- exempt borrowing or costs permitted to be reimbursed pursuant to the transaction provision of Section 1.103-17 (1) of the Regulations, none of the costs of the foregoing project estimated to total $400,000.00, all of which is to be reimbursed from Bond Proceeds, has heretofore been paid by the City and none of the costs will be paid by the City until after the date to this Resolution. The project and costs related thereto, constitutes property having a useful life of at least one year. c. The City intends to reimburse itself for the payment of the designated project costs out of the proceeds of a tax exempt bond issue, debt or similar borrowing (the "Bonds") to be issued by the City after the date of payment of all or a portion of the costs. Pending the issuance of the Bonds, the City reasonably expects to pay and temporarily finance the costs from the Area and Unit Fund. d. The Bonds are proposed to be issued by the City pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, and other applicable statutory authority. The reasonably expected sources of funds to be used by the City to pay the debt service on the Bonds is the Area and Unit Fund, in the amount of $400,000.00. 2. Budgetary Matters - As of the date hereof, there are no City funds reserved or otherwise allocated pursuant to the City's budget (or expected to be reserved or allocated pursuant to the City's budget) to provide permanent financing for the bonding portion of the project costs, other than pursuant to the issuance of the Bonds. Furthermore, there has been no allocation, budgeting, or restriction of moneys (or the adoption of a requirement or policy to reimburse a fund) as part of the City's budgetary process, the primary purpose of which is to prevent moneys from said sources from being available for the permanent financing of the costs of the projects. This resolution, therefore, is determined to be consistent with the City's budgetary and financial circumstances as they exist or are foreseeable on the date hereof, all within the meaning and content of the Regulations. 3. Filing - This resolution shall be filed in the publicly available official books, records, or proceedings of the City, which shall be continuously available for inspection by the general public. This resolution shall be available for inspection at City Hall during normal business hours of the City on every business day the period beginning on the earlier of 10 days after the adoption hereof or the date of issuance of the reimbursement bonds and ending on the day after the issuance of such bonds. 4. Reimbursement Allocation - The City's financial officer shall be responsible for making the "reimbursement allocations" described in the Regulations, being generally the transfer of the appropriate amount of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse the source of temporary financing used by the City to make payment of the prior costs of the projects. Each allocation shall be evidenced by an entry on the official books and records of the City maintained for the Bonds, shall specifically identify the actual prior expenditure being reimbursed, and shall be effective to relieve the proceeds of the Bonds from any restriction under the bond resolution or other relevant legal documents for the Bonds, and under any applicable state or federal statute, which would apply to the unspent proceeds of such bond issue. Adopted by the City Council this 10th day of June, 1996. Marilyn GV Anderson Clerk -Treasurer The motion for adoption of the foregoing Member Lyden taken thereon, the following voted in favor th Landers. The following voted against same: None. L. anders, ayor resolution was duly seconded by Council and upon vote being ereof:- Bergeson, Kuether, Lyden, Neal, Whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by the City Council on June 10, 1996. Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer Council Member Kuether introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 96-62 RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS - PHEASANT HILLS 7TH ADDITION. WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the City Council passed by the council on December 18, 1995, a report has been prepared by Loucks and Associates, Inc., for the improvement of Pheasant Hills 7"' Addition, and this report was received by City Council on April 8, 1996, and WHEREAS, a petition signed by 100% of the property owners proposed to be assessed for these improvements has been received waiving their right to a public hearing and appeal of assessment and requesting that 50 days of the 60 day waiting period as per Section 8.06 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be waived. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 8th day of April, 1996. 2. Loucks and Associates, Inc. is hereby designated as the Engineer for these improvements. The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvements. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 10th da of June, 1996. Marilyn G. derson, Clerk -Treasurer L. Landers, Mayor Resolution No. 96-62 Page 2 The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Lyden and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Bergeson, Kuether, Lyden, Neal, Landers. The following voted against same: None. Whereupon said resolution was duly passed and adopted. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by the City Council on January 22, 1996. Marilyn . Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer Council Member Neal introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 96-63 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS - PHEASANT HILLS 7TH ADDITION. WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council passed by the council on June 10, 1996, Loucks and Associates, Inc., has prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of Pheasant Hills 7th Addition and has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is attached hereto and made part hereof, are hereby approved. 2. The City clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin and advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for three weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be received by the Clerk until 10 a.m. on Monday, July 8, 1996, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Clerk and Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, July 8, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the Clerk for five (5) percent of the amount of such bid. Resolution No. 96-63 Page 2 Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 10th day of June, 1996. eldific(L Marilyn . Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer L. Landers, Mayor The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Bergeson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favorthereof: Bergeson, Kuether, Lyden, Neal, Landers. The following voted against same: None. Whereupon said resolution was duly passed and adopted. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by the City Council on June 10, 1996. M 'lyn f Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer