Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1979/01/22A G E N D A Mounds View City Council January 22, 1979 7:30 PM 1. Roll call of officials 2. Approval of minutes of regular meeting January 8, 1979 3. Citizen comments and requests CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of consent agenda: Item A. Set date for Dailey Knolls development public hearing B. Reapportion special assessments C. Completion of employee probationary period D. Bills for payment E. Licenses for approval F. Receive December, 1978, activity reports 5. Public hearing 7:40 PM Woodlawn Drive house numbering 6. Mayors proposal for principles goals and committee on development (per January 15, 1979, presentation) 7. Advisory commission and Council liaison appointments 8. Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement No. 78 -22 Mounds View Development Co. No. 1 plat Applicants: Ken Thornton, Rodney Damm, Jim Kortas 9. NSP franchises for natural gas and electric utilities 10. Proposed ordinance on multiple driveways 11. Purchasing (a) Bids received for 1979 group health insurance (b) Bids received for 1979 janitorial services (c) Bids received for maintenance garage hoist 12. Reports of officials 13. Adjournment Harold Sundquist 4150 Otter Lake Road CONSENT AGENDA January 22, 1979 The consent agenda is a technique designed to expedite handling of routine and miscellaneous official business of the City Council. The entire agenda may be adopted by the Council in one motion. The motion for adoption is non debatable and must receive unanimous approval. By request of any individual Council Member, any item can be removed from the consent agenda and placed upon the regular agenda for debate. ITEM A. Set public hearing for 7:40 PM, February 12, 1979, on the revised Dailey Knolls preliminary plat, rezoning and develop- ment agreement. ITEM B. Adopt Resolution Nos. 959, 960, 961 and 962 reapportioning special assessments for the Pleasant Acres major subdivision, Midway Industrial major subdivision, Mounds View Industrial Park No. 2 major subdivision, and Kathleen Berg major subdivision respectively. ITEM C. Appoint Robert Mikulak, Building Inspector, to regular full -time employee status effective January 10, 1979, upon which date his probationary period was completed. ITEM D. Approve the January 22, 1979, bills for payment. ITEM E. Approve the following licenses: GENERAL CONTRACTORS new expire 6/30/79 Olympia Construction Co. Inc. 2709 79th Ave. N. ITEM F. Receive the December, 1978, activity reports of the City Attorney, Fire, Police and Nuisance Abatement departments. Mayor McCarty Councilmember Hodges Councilmember Rowley Councilmember Ziebarth Councilmember Forslund PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA A regular meeting of the Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor McCarty at 7:35 PM on January 22, 1979 at the Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. Members Present: Also Present: Acting Clerk- Administrator Anderson Attorney Meyers Mayor McCarty asked that the minutes of the January 8, 1979 meeting be changed at the bottom of the first page, last sentence, to say "his actual position" rather than "he had meant MSP (Ziebarth Hodges) to approve the minutes of January 8, 1979 as changed. 5 ayes CITIZEN COMMENTS AND REQUESTS Bill Doty, 3049 Bronson Drive stated he felt the City was operating under statute "B" rather than statute "A which is what the people had voted for. He also stated that he wanted Staff to report directly to Council and that the citizens do not hear enough from Staff. He added that he had spoken to the Attorney General's office and was willing to pursue the issue. Mayor McCarty asked Mr Doty if he would be amiable to meeting with the Council later to discuss the issue further. Mr. Doty replied he would. Sheila Fraser, 7652 Woodlawn Drive stated that she would experience a hardship if her address were changed, as proposed. Mayor McCarty replied that a public hearing would be held later during the meeting to discuss the issue. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Mayor McCarty asked that Item B be removed for discussion. MSP (Ziebarth Rowley) to approve the consent agenda as follows: 5 ayes ITEM A. Set public hearing for 7:40 PM, February 12, 1979, on the revised Dailey Knolls preliminary plat, rezoning and develop- ment agreement. ITEM C. Appoint Robert Mikulak, Building Inspector, to regular full -time employee status effective January 10, 1979, upon which date his probationary period was completed. January 22, 1979 Page 2 ITEM D. Approve the January 22, 1979 bills for payment. ITEM E. Approve the following licenses: GENERAL CONTRACTORS new expire 6/30/79 Olympia Construction Co. Inc. 2709 79th Avenue N. Harold Sundquist 4150 Otter Lake Road ITEM F. Receive the December, 1978 activity reports of the City Attorney, Fire, Police and Nuisance Abatement departments. Mayor McCarty read a portion of the letter of January 8, 1979 from Com- stock and Davis regarding reapportioning special assessments for four major subdivisions in the City. Official Rose explained that the project had been set to go and included a cul -de -sac, but due to the high bids received, the City declined to accept them. Councilmember Ziebarth pointed out that Comstock and Davis has indicated the City may want to reconsider the issue. Attorney Meyers stated that public improvements can be assessed if they can prove benefit as defined by law. Attorney Meyers suggested that the TCity ask Comstock and Davis for more information before pursuing the issue. MSP (McCarty Ziebarth) to delay action on Item B of the consent agenda dated January 22, 1979. 5 ayes Mayor McCarty recessed the regular meeting and opened the public hearing. WOODLAWN DRIVE HOUSE NUMBERING PUBLIC HEARING Acting Administrator Anderson reported that following the January 17 infor- mational meeting, the City had received two more phone calls from residents of the area requesting that their house numbers remain the same. Acting Administrator Anderson presented the new concept plan drawn up by Staff, referring to it as plan #5. Mrs. Fraser stated that she had not been able to attend the January 17 meet- ing as she had been out of town for the past three weeks. She added that she would like her address to remain 7652 as she and her husband run a business out of their home and have letterhead and business cards printed with their address. Pat Delaney stated he was the owner of Lbe building at 7666 Woodlawn, which is an eight plex, and that his tenants would like their numbers to remain the same. _,Mrs. Fraser stated that her landlord, Harlan Severt, had asked her to speak for him and that he also would like the numbers to remain the same. January 22, 1979 Page 3 Mayor McCarty replied that the Council has a responsibility to insure public safety and that the numbers on Woodlawn must be sequential. He added that he wished there was some way to please everyone but that some- one would have to give a little. Councilmember Forslund pointed out that five proposals have been prepared and that each proposal requires someones number to be changed. Councilmember Rowley pointed out that the numbers must be set up with concern for safety. She added that each proposal would affect some of the residents and that she felt #5 was the best. Councilmember Ziebarth stated that he agreed with #5. He also added that the City should see what they can do to help those residents whose numbers will change. MSP (McCarty Ziebarth) to implement drawing #5, with assistance in changing the numbers from the City, as offered in the work session of January 17, 1979, for the Woodlawn Drive address change. A rollcall vote was taken: Councilmember Hodges aye Councilmember Forslund aye Councilmember Rowley aye Councilmember Ziebarth aye Mayor McCarty aye 5 ayes Mayor McCarty closed the public hearing and reopened the regular meeting. MAYORS PROPOSAL FOR PRINCIPLES AND GOALS AND COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT Mayor McCarty explained he was asking the Council to advocate his plans and guidelines in regard to land use and development. He added he felt it was directed by the election that something different be done than what had been done in the past. Mayor McCarty read a letter received from a citizen regarding development. Mayor McCarty asked the Council to advocate his proposal for land use and the development committee that would be responsible for investigating proposed development. He asked also that the committee be given permission to use the assistance of the Finance Director and be able to call on the City Attorney. Mayor McCarty stated the committee would be a technical advisory board to the Council and would be a committee rather than a commission, as they could not move well within the restrictions of a commi- ssion. He added, however, that they would work closely with the Planning Commission, especially in the Comprehensive Plan update. Councilmember Rowley asked Mayor McCarty to read his statement which he had presented to the Council on January 15, so that the citizens could have a better understanding of what was being discussed. Mayor McCarty read the ,,statement and also clarified that he planned on being on the committee, along with one other Councilmember, the Chair of the Planning Commission, the Finance Director, and a technical advisory board to assist the committee. January 22, 1979 Page 4 Councilmember Ziebarth pointed out that the original discussion started out as a resurrection of the Industrial Commission and that it was suddenly more than had been indicated. He added that issues would have to go back from the Council to the Planning Commission for their consideration, since it would be a planning function, and should come under their jurisdiction. Councilmember Ziebarth stated that there were several mechanics to be worked out still before taking any action. He stated that the Council had not yet had an opportunity to discuss it in an agenda session and that he would prefer postponing any action until after that discussion. Mayor McCarty pointed out that it had been Councilmember Ziebarth's idea to form a committee. Councilmember Ziebarth replied that it had been but that his idea was to attach the committee somehow to the Planning Commission. He added that the Planning Commission, City Council and Staff and new Clerk Administrator would have to know how the committee fits in and what their relationship would be. Councilmember Ziebarth recommended that considerable thought be given before taking any action. He also pointed out that the legal ramifications of the committee would have to be considered. Mayor McCarty stated he wanted approval in policy, not mechanics. Council member Ziebarth replied that it was difficult to form a committee before seeing exactly what they =re going to be doing. He added that the idea to have more people to advise the City is not a bad idea at all, but they must know how it fits into the system. Councilmember Rowley stated that her comments were very similar to Council member Ziebarth's. She expressed her concern that the responsibilities of the committee be defined first and also that the legality be checked into. She also pointed out that the Planning Commission Chairperson could only speak as an individual on the committee, not the entire Planning Commission, unless the entire issue were to go back to the Planning Commission. Council member Rowley stated that she felt the idea was a good one, to use the citizens who were interested in working with the City, but that the committee must be defined first. Councilmember Rowley recommended the item be discussed at an agenda session, and also provide an opportunity for the citizens to comment to it. Councilmember Hodges stated that he agreed with Councilmembers Ziebarth and Rowley, that the committee is a good idea but that it needs to be better defined before any action is taken. He added that the concept is good but everything must be tied together. Councilmember Forslund asked if the committee would study the available land in the area and serve as a research committee. Mayor McCarty replied that it would be an advisory committee to do research. He also stated that the Council had assured him they would look over the statement he had presented on January 15, and that he could not see waiting any longer or any problems with working out the mechanics later. He also stated that he did not see how it would present any legal ramifications, as it would be an advisory committee. Neil Loeding, 5046 Long View Drive stated that the advisory committee and _,technical panel should be separated out and defined. He added that the committee and panel would not have any planning function, but they should first do an analysis of benefit to the City of any proposed development before it goes to the Planning Commission. January 22, 1979 Page 5 Jerry Linke, 2319 Knoll Drive asked why the advisory panel could not report to the Planning Commission directly. Mayor McCarty replied that he would like them to report to the Council directly, since different expertise would be required each time. Mr. Linke replied that the Planning Commission could have the same list of names to draw from. Councilmember Rowley stated that the information from the advisory committee could be more beneficial at the Planning Commission level when the developer first comes in. She added that it would make better sense to have the plan go to the technical committee first, then the Planning Commission, then on to the Council, rather than to the Planning Commission, City Council, advisory committee, back to the Planning Commission and then back to the Council. Mayor McCarty replied that he was thinking in terms of coordination, that while the developer is going through the Planning Commission, the advisory panel and committee will be working on the plan and will know by the time it goes to the Council what the monetary cost will be. Mr. Linke stated he felt there could be conflicts with the Planning Commission recommending one thing and the advisory committee another thing. He suggested that the information from the advisory committee go to the Planning Commission first, and they would then make their recommendation to the Council. Mayor McCarty replied that the Planning Commission and committee could work side by side and that he would like to see two different recommendations. He added that it is the Councils responsibility to make the decisions. Howard Neisen, 5150 Irondale Road stated that he had been in government for nine years, both with the City of Mounds View and the State. He stated that he felt Mayor McCarty was going about the issue backwards and that the guidelines and mechanics of the committee should be put down and clarified on paper first, before asking for approval. He recommended that the Mayor ask for approval to go ahead and draw up the guidelines and proposal for the advisory committee, and then at a later date hold a public hearing and vote on the committee. Mayor McCarty replied that in his own mind, he felt that the words "principles and goals" cover what is meant. Mr. Doty stated that the issue was getting bogged down and that the committee would be simply an advisory one. He added that he did not want it to get bogged down with open meeting laws. John Pickar, 2299 Knoll Drive stated that he did not feel the Council should accept Mayor McCarty's statement that the engineering firms used who could have a financial stake in the outcome have difficulty in remaining unbiased and that they tend to produce recommendations that look good to other pro- fessional firms rather than what is good for Mounds View. Mayor McCarty replied that he is looking for protection for the City and wants a double check. Bobby Deitz, 2612 Ridge Lane stated she did not feel comfortable having a committee set up without knowing the guidelines or rules. She also stated that she was concerned that the meetings be required to be open. She also pointed out that the City hires professional firms to make recommendations .because they will accept the legal responsibility for their decisions, and that she was afraid the City would get into legal problems with the advisory committee. Mrs. Deitz also stated that she felt the advisory committee would duplicate several things that the Planning Commission was already doing. MSP (Rowley Ziebarth) to give the Mayor the authority to set up, in clear terms, the guidelines for the proposed committee, and that they be brought back to the Council as quickly as possible, and that the Mayor review the minutes to sort out the various discussions. January 22, 1979 Page 6 A rollcal vote was taken: Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Mayor McCarty Hodges aye Forslund aye Rowley aye Ziebarth aye aye Mayor McCarty stated he would do his best to come up with a clear proposal. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 78 -25 MOUNDS VIEW DEVELOPMENT CO. NO. 1 PLAT Official Rose explained that approximately one year ago, the City reviewed the proposed plat for Mounds View Development Co. No. 1. The developer proposed to provide approximately 20 residential lots, involving cul -de -sacs, and the City approved the preliminary and allowed the developer to install his own improvements. The City entered into a development agreement with the developer, and the developer had the project bid from the plans and specs and chose Carpenter Construction, Inc. as the contractor. Official Rose reported that three construction meetings were held, where the City designated Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. to do the inspection work. The meetings consisted of S.E.H's inspector, LarryDecheine, the contractor, and Comstock and Davis, the developer's consultant. Upon starting the improvement, the S.E.H. inspector and the job foreman agreed on a format for when, how and which inspections would be called for. Work then started and problems arose from the contractor's unwillingness to call for inspections and install the improvements per the plans and specs the City had approved. Official Rose added that there was a dispute over how the plans and specs were to be read and if the piping was to be installed with an 18" vertical separation or a 10' horizontal separation. Official Rose read the with the improvements. post a bond of $15,000 could happen, but that been done so far so it five points recommended by S.E.H. to continue on He added that he would recommend the developer for an additional two years to cover anything that if the developer would agree to dig up what has could be inspected, the bond would not be required 5 ayes Bob Teiso stated he was an attorney representing Mr. Carpenter and that after briefly studying the matter, he felt the issue was the dispute between Mr. Carpenter and the inspector from S.E.H. Mr. Carpenter stated that he had called for an inspection 12 days prior to completion of the work but that it actually took him three days to complete the work, yet the S.E.H. inspector never showed up at the job site. He added that he should not have to call at all and that the inspector should ,,,come out as it was a continuous project and someone was there every day. Mr. Carpenter also stated that he could not afford to leave the trenches open for inspection as they were so deep due to safety hazards, but that he had taken pictures of the work done. January 22, 1979 Page 7 Mayor McCarty stated he could understand Mr. Carpenter's feelings but that the City was not concerned with who was legally responsible but rather with the health, welfare and safety of the City, and what would be done to correct the situation. Mr. Carpenter stated he would like to hire an engineer to study the dis- pute. Attorney Meyers replied that he was welcome to and pointed out that the City must rely on professional opinions. Mr. Thornton asked if the decision could be delayed to allow Mr. Carpenter time to have tests done. Official Rose replied that the problem is up to the developer, in that if he wants to develop the lots, it is Staff's recommendation that they answer the questions first before further develop- ment is allowed. Official Rose added that he did not believe any further work would be done until spring. Attorney Meyers recommended that Mr. Carpenter hire a professional firm to present his side of the issue. Mayor McCarty pointed out that the plans and specs called for 10' horizontal separation yet Mr. Carpenter had put in the 18" vertical separation. Mr. Carpenter replied that he had put in the 18' by mistake. Mr. Thornton stated that he would like the Council to allow Mr. Carpenter time to set up some tests for verification of what has been done and to allow him to meet with the inspector and see if there is some way to Th satisfy the requirements. He added that Mounds View Development Co. No. 1 'does not want inferior work. Councilmember Ziebarth pointed out that the contractor had not been licensed to work in Mounds View and asked if that had been rectified. Mr. Carpenter replied that it had. MSP (McCarty Ziebarth) to delay action on the item for 30 days and reschedule it to allow Mr. Carpenter to present an engineering report relevent to the project and Development Agreement 78 -25. This effort will be coordinated by the Mounds View Building Official and Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Thornton. The item will be continued to February 26. 5 ayes ADVISORY COMMISSION AND COUNCIL LIAISON APPOINTMENTS MS (McCarty Ziebarth) to approve the following appointments: Planning Commission Barb Haake Chair Paul Fedor David Freeman Park and Recreation Commission Gordon Fedor Frank Holm Lloyd Scott Human Rights Commission Gerald Skelly Wayne Lago Ed Smith January 22, 1979 Page 8 Festivities Commission Shirley Munholand Chair Barb McCluskey Karen Leverentz Marilyn Dennehy Safety Committee Hershel Peppin Planning Commission Liaison Councilmember Forslund Park and Rec Commission Liaison Councilmember Ziebarth Lakeside Park Commission Liaison Councilmember Rowley Human Rights Commission Liaison Mayor McCarty Festivities Commission Liaison Councilmember Ziebarth Fire District Board Liaison Councilmember Hodges Ramsey Co. League of Local Governments Councilmembers Rowley and Forslund Association of Metro. Municipalities Mayor McCarty and Councilmember Forslund Metropolitan Council Councilmember Ziebarth No. Suburban Day Activity Center Councilmember Rowley NW Suburban Youth Service Bureau Councilmember Hodges MN Mayors Association Mayor McCarty No. Suburban Chamber of Commerce Acting Administrator Anderson Councilmember Ziebarth stated he had seconded the motion for the sake of discussion. He stated that he would like to do some trading of liaison posi- tions as he'd been involved with thdestivities Commission and felt it would be valuable for someone else to become involved. He also stated that he was concerned with the imbalance of men and women on the Park and Rec Commission and Planning Commission, and that he wasn't certain Mrs. Dennehy wanted to be on the Festivities Commission. Councilmember Rowley agreed that she would like to speak with Mrs. Dennehy before appointing her to the Festivities Commission. Councilmember Hodges stated he had mixed emotions as to the nominations as many dedicated people had served on the various commissions in the past and some were not being reappointed. Councilmember Hodges recommended to the Council that the Planning Commission and Park and Rec Commission be changed back from seven members to nine, to allow both for new blood and to keep the dedicated people on them. He added that the Commissions had been changed from nine to seven members earlier because of problems with quorums but he felt with all the interested parties, there would be no problem now. Councilmember Hodges stated that he felt both Jerry Linke and Nancy Burmeister had been very devoted to the community and should be reappointed. January 22, 1979 Page 9 Mayor McCarty replied he was well aware of the hours the people had devoted to the City but that he felt the election had pointed out that the people in Mounds View wanted a change and new blood and new ideas. He stated that he was open to the idea of enlarging the membership of the commissions but not while some people were on two commissions. Councilmember Rowley stated she was very much in favor of the recommendation to go from seven to nine members on the commissions. She added that at the time the filings for the positions closed on January 17th, she hadn't seen any problem with the appointments but then many late applications had come in. She stated that she would hate to have the City lose the expertise of the commissions while trying to train new members in and that the commissions needed the past experience. Councilmember Rowley pointed out that in terms of dual roles on commissions, Barb Haake's and Jerry Linke's dual roles were well thought out. She explained that when the Park and Rec Commission had had a vacancy, it was a conscious decision to put Jerry Linke in that position to serve as the liaison between Lakeside Park and the Park and Rec Commission. She added that the City of Spring Lake Park has stated they thought Mounds View's decision was a very good one, and she would hate to see that link broken. Councilmember Rowley stated that she also felt Barb Haake was an important link between the Planning Commission and Park and Rec Commissio which she would also hate to see broken. Councilmember Rowley stated the Silverview development project as a good example of the importance in that link. Councilmember Rowley stated she would be in favor of expansion, which would allow the present members to stay on the commissions and other interested citizens to join. She stressed that she did not want to discourage citizen participation. Councilmember Rowley also stated that she would like to trade off her liaison position as it would be beneficial to all concerned to have the wider range of experience. Mayor McCarty replied that past experience on the commissions was very important but that he did not feel an entire commission would fold because one member was not reappointed. He also stated that he did not reel that Jerry Linke's removal from the Park and Rec Commission would hurt as he could still attend the meetings as a citizen and give his input. Council- member Rowley replied that there was a big difference between being a member of the commission versus a citizen attending the meeting. Mayor McCarty pointed out that Mr. Linke is presently chairman of the Lake- side Park Commission and asked if there was any reason why he couid not continue to perform the coordinating duties as just a member of Lakeside Park and not the Park and Rec Commission. Mr. Linke replied that he felt personally slighted and that he had not been given the opportunity to interview with the Council as had the new applicants. He added that he would gladly resign from the Lakeside Park Commission to stay on the Park and Rec Commission. Mayor McCarty stated that he and Mr. Linke had discussed the issue on the telephone prior to the last Council meeting. Mr. Linke replied that he _,,had indicated to the Mayor in that conversation what his interest was, to stay on the Park and Rec Commission. Mayor McCarty replied that it was the mayor's perogative to make the appointments and that he did not see the good of having people remain on two commissions. January 22, 1979 Page 10 Councilmember Ziebarth stated he would like to withdraw his second of the previous motion. Mayor McCarty replied that he would not allow it and called for a rollcall vote. Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Mayor McCarty Mayor McCarty voted nay to the motion. Hodges nay Forslund nay Rowley nay Ziebarth nay aye MSP (Hodges Rowley) to amend the Parks and Playground Ordinance #34.02 to increase the number from seven to nine members and the Planning Commission Ordinance #32.02 to increase the number from seven to nine members, so to get new blood on the commissions and utilize the dedicated people. 4 ayes 1 nay NSP FRANCHISES FOR NATURAL GAS AND ELECTRIC UTILITIES Attorney Meyers read the resolution he had prepared concerning the NSP franchises. Councilmember Forslund asked if it was necessary to refer to the fee in the resolution. Attorney Meyers replied that it was good until 1981 but that they should let NSP know the City has problems with the 4% fee. Councilmember Rowley added that she understood the 4% was added because some Cities already had it in their ordinances, and they did not want it deleted. 1 aye, 4 nays MSP (Rowley Forslund) to direct the Acting Clerk- Administrator to discuss the matter with the appropriate representative for their reactions and commento and come back to the City Council as soon as possible. 5 ayes PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON MULTIPLE DRIVEWAYS Official Rose reported that the Planning Commission had come up with a problem with the existing zoning ordinance concerning single family construction and double bungelow construction, in that the code only allows for one curb cut per structure. He stated that in driving through the City, it is easy to see that two curb cuts have been allowed in many cases, via a variance. He added that Staff surveyed eight other communities and found that all allowed two curb cuts for medium density, which would include a two plex to six plex. Official Rose stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed the situation and recommended to the Council that two curb cuts be allowed, or one curb cut with a maximum 30' width, and a second ordinance change to allow two curbs cuts for medium density, provided that each individual cut does not exceed twelve feet and that their surfaces are a minimum of forty feet apart. Mayor McCarty stated that he was concerned with the increase from 10 feet to twelve feet for driveway widths. Official Rose replied that Staff had January 22, 1979 Page 11 recommended the increased width because of the concern that 10 feet was inadequate, due to people backing up on the grass and with trucks or wide vehicles, they would be required to walk on the grass. MSP (Hodges Ziebarth) to adopt the Ordinance No. 288 relevant to curb cuts. PURCHASING BID OPENINGS Acting Administrator Anderson reported that bids had been opened by Staff at 11:00 AM this morning, with three bids being received for health insurance. Acting Administrator Anderson recommended that action be deferred on the insurance award since each of the three bids received was bid on a different level of insurance, which made it hard to compare. He added that Staff was concerned since the employees pay part of the premium, and felt that they should meet with the employees to discuss it. He also stated that he would like the City Attorney to review the bid specs. 5 ayes Acting Administrator Anderson reported that he had contacted Connecticut General, who presently carries the Cities policy, and received an okay from them to renew the coverage for one month, at a four percent increase. MSP (Ziebarth- McCarty) to have Connecticut General pick up insurance for one additional month, while the City makes a final decision. 5 ayes Acting Administrator Anderson reviewed the four bids received for the janitorial service, with the bids ranging from $344 per month to $1030 per month, and recommended that the City accept the low bid of Contract Cleaning Specialists at $344 per month. He added that Contract Clea. -ing Specialists had held the 1978 contract at $388 per month, so had thus come down in their price. He also added that they had done a very good job the past year. Acting Administrator Anderson reported that Contract Cleaning Specialists certificate of insurance had not been received yet but that it was in the mail. He also stated that the Police Chief had requestel to approve all employees of the chosen firm for security measures. MSP (Rowley Ziebarth) to accept the bid of Contract Cleaning Specialists at $344 per month, with it being contingent upon them submitting an insurance certificate and the employees working for them meeting the approval and screening of the Police Department. 5 ayes Acting Administrator Anderson reviewed the two bids received for the maintenance garage hoist and recommended the City accept the low bid of Ram Hydrolics of $4015. He added that Staff nad checked into getting a used hoist but found that there were none available, and also that used hoists have a very low time expectency compared to new ones. He also explained that the total of the purchase and installation would be $5080, A with the entire cost being budgeted from Revenue Sharing. Mayor McCarty asked if the City had the capability to install the hoist. Acting Administrator Anderson replied that they will install the air compressor unit and knock out the concrete and do the excavating but January 22, 1979 Page 12 could not do the actual installation due to lack of expertise. Council ..,member Ziebarth added that they would most likely lose the warrantee if they installed it themselves. MSP (Forslund- Rowley) to accept the bid of Ram Hydrolics for $4015 for one twin post floor hoist, with the funds to come from revenue sharing. 5 ayes ATTORNEY MEYERS' REPORT Attorney Meyers had no report. ACTING ADMINISTRATOR ANDERSON'S REPORT Acting Administrator Anderson reported that Senior Accounting Clerk Dorothy Sandgren would be taking a three to four week medical leave of absense, beginning January 30, and asked for authorization to hire a temporary bookkeeper, as required, not to exceed $4.85 per hour. He explained that Bill Myers would be filling in Mrs. Sandgren's position and the temporary person would fill Mr. Myer's accounting position. Mayor McCarty asked if a lateral transfer had been considered. Acting Administrator Anderson replied that the City is short of Staff already and that they did not have anyone with the necessary skills to fill the position. MSP (Ziebarth- Hodges) to authorize Staff to hire a temporary in the event it is necessary, while Mrs. Sandgren is out, at of $4.85 per hour. This should be done closely with Council Rowley. Attorney and that value in bookkeeper, a maximum Liaison Acting Administrator Anderson reported that Staff had attended the Minnesota State Art Board Council meeting on January 18 and found that funds are available for a sponsor assistance package, with the deadline for application on February 1. He explained that Staff had met with the Festivities Commission and put together a sponsor assistance package for entertainment for the Festival, with $325 to be available from the State. MSP (Rowley Forslund) to direct Staff to make application to the Minnesota State Art Board for a sponsor assistant grant for the Festivities Commission in the amount of $325, with the requirement that there be no matching funds from the City. 5 ayes Acting Administrator Anderson distributed a memo to Council regarding special assessments on Project 1978 -3. He explained that Council had previously directed that Mr. Beim be sent a statement of expenses, and that Staff would recommend Council set an assessment hearing on the project. Meyers explained that he had discussed the matter with Mark Achen they would have to prove the assessments increased the market order to assess the property. 5 ayes MSP (McCarty- Ziebarth) to set a special assessment hearing for February 26, 1979 at 7:=:0 PM, on Project 1978 3, Northcrest Park special assessments of costs incurred, and also to direct the Acting Clerk Administrator to place proper notices in the paper, pursuant to Chapter 429. 5 ayes January 22, 1979 Page 13 Mayor McCarty stated he would like to have a Council work session soon nnd work on the issue to insure that the City does not get into the same situation again. Acting Administrator Anderson reported that the work session with the Finance Director was rescheduled for February 3 at 12 noon. COUNCILMEMBER ROWLEY'S REPORT Councilmember Rowley reported that she had been asked at the last agenda session, after meeting with Midwest Planning, to pull together information from Resolution #913 regarding the airport issue. Councilmember Rowley reviewed the items she found in the resolution and presented a listing of additional items she felt should be included. She added that she would put it together in resolution form for presentation at the next agenda or Council meeting. COUNCILMEMBER FORSLUND'S REPORT Councilmember Forslund asked that at the next work session the Council discuss Plans A and B, as they involve the City, and see where the City is at. COUNCILMEMBER ZIEBARTH'S REPORT Councilmember Ziebarth reported that there would be a Park and Rec Commission meeting on January 25 at 6:30 PM. COUNCILMEMBER HODGES' REPORT Councilmember Hodges stated he would like to take the opportunity to thank both the Maintenance Supervisor and Police Chief for the excellent tours they had given the Council of their departments. Councilmember Hodges inquired if the City has a placque from the North Suburban Chamber of Commerce as he had received a tag for the placque. Acting Administrator Anderson replied that he would contact them about a placque and find out the cost. Councilmember Hodges pointed out that in 1975 City Hall had been dedicated but the cornerstone was never put in place because of collecting items to go in it, and suggested that 1979 be the year to get it put in. MAYOR MCCARTY'S REPORT Mayor McCarty stated that he would like to add his compliments to the excellent tours given by the Maintenance Supervisor and Police Chief. Mayor McCarty stated that he would like to hold a special meeting on February 5 to discuss the Ardan Avenue study and MTC route changes, with the meeting to be held at City Hall. January 22, 1979 Mayor McCarty reported he had received a request from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding Mounds View's participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Week, and read the resolution. MSP (Ziebarth- Rowley) adopt the Resolution No. 959 as read. 5 ayes Acting Administrator Anderson reported that he had received a letter from New Brighton regarding their Comprehensive Plan. MSP (Rowley- McCarty) to have the Planning Commission review New Brighton's Comprehensive Plan when it is received. 5 ayes Councilmember Rowley asked that Staff check into changing all the locks in City Hall and accounting for all keys. Acting Administrator Anderson replied that he would check into it. MSP (Zieba -th- Rowley) to adjourn the meeting at 12:10 A.M. 5 ayes Bruce Anders Acting Cler Administrator Page 14