02/07/1972 - 00017666L__J
�� �3 •;
�� .�, � ,
THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972
The Regular Fridley Council Meeting of February 7, 1972 was convened at 7:35 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
Scout Paul Larson led the Council and the audience in saying the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag, commemorating Boy Scout Week.
INVOCATION:
Councilman Kelshaw offered the Invooation.
ROLL CAI,L:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kelshaw, Liebl, Mittelstadt, Sreider, Utter
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION:
Mayox Liebl called off the following names and asked the people present to come
forward to receive their Certi£icates of Appreciation, for their service on
Fridley'S Boards, Committees, and Commissions.
� Board of Appeals: Donald Wall and Bill Drigans
Bualding Standards - Design Control: Tony Gnerre
Plats and Subdivisions - StYeets and Utilities: Robert M.Pa.erce and
Harry Crowder
Police Civil Service Commission: David Cook
Human Relations Committee: Linda Rossman, Betty Block, Barbara Koropchak,
James E- Thomson, ,Tohn Oden and Gene Parsons
Housing and Redevelopment Authority. John A.JOhnson, Jr.
Mayor Liebl presented the Certificates of Appreciation on behalf of the crtizens
of Fridley and said �.hank you from the members of the Council and himself.
ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCTL MEETING OF SANUARY 10, 1972.
Councilman Mittelstadt said he would like to make one small addition on Page
6, third paragraph, third line from the bottom; adding the word "exclusive"
before the word "franchise".
MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to adopt the Minutes of the Regular Council
Meeting of January 10, 1972 with that addition. Seconded by Councilman
Breidex. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried
unanimously.
ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SANUARY 17, 1972:
� MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to adopt the Minutes of the Regular Council
Meeting of January 17, 1972 as presented. Seconded by Councilman Utter. Upon
a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously.
� ;� -�
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING 6F FEBRUARY 7, 1972
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
PAGE 2
MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to adopt the Agenda as presented. Seconded by
Councilman Ma.ttelstadt. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared
the motion carried unanimously.
VISITORS:
Mayor Liebl announced th3t the Council sets aside 15 minutes to hear anyone
that wzshes to speak on any non-agenda type item. There was no one present
that wxshed to be heard.
ORDINANC� #503 - AN OR➢INANCE UNDER SECTION 12.07 OF THE CITY CHARTER TO
VACATE STREETS AND ALLEYS AND SO AMEND APPENDIX C OF THE CITY CODE; (Virginia
T. Jacobsen, SAV #71-07)
MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to adopt Ordinance #503 on second reading,
waive the reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilman Breider.
Upon a roll call vote, Mittelstadt, Breider, Kelshaw, Liebl and Utter
voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously.
CATV REFERENDUM.
Mayor Liebl said that the Council has asked £or the advice of the City Atf.orney
on determininq the validity of the referendum petition, and whether it is
legally sufficient to require a referendum.
The Acting City Attorney, Sames Gibbs, referred to the memorandum from Virgil
Herrick, City Attorney, clated Febxuary 4, 1972 and also the xeport by himself
on the number of petitions Mr. Barton has checked. His £igures show that he
questioned the signatures on 25 petitions. The signatures on those petitions
total 1,092. Mr. Barton checked approximately 100 signatures. As the City
Attorney points out in his memo the Council has three alternatives. One,
repeal the ordinance; two, reaffirm the ordinance and set a date for the
referendum; or three, they may find that the petition is invalid because of
either false verZfications or misrepxesentation given in acquiring the s1g-
natures. In the City Attorney's opinion, this is a legislative matter, not
a legal matter, and must be decide d by the elected memhers of the Council.
MOTION by Councilman Breider to receive the memorandum from the City Attorney
dated Pebruary 4, 1972 and the re�ort by the hand writing expert, Mr. Duane
L. Barton dated January 26, 1972. Seconded by Councilman Mittelstadt. trpon
a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Ole B7exkesett, 100 N.E. 63'� Way, said that previously irregularities
in witnessing the signatures were brought to the attention o£ 'the Council, with
the request that they take action to ascertain the signatures and the integrity
of those taking the petitions. By a unanimous vote of the Council the matter
was re£erred to the Ctiy Attorney with instructions to take such steps as
necessary to ascertain whefiher or not they were valid signatures. He said he
had not had an opportunity to qo over the report by Mx. Barton, but a pre-
liminary examination has caused him to believe they were worse than he had
thought. At the meeting o£ January lOth he had stated that he had found 4- 5
signatures that were not properly witnessed and the hand writing analyst has
1
'
,
4� Y� �
REGULAR WUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972 PAGE 3
� �ound more. The doubt in the minds o£ the people that questioned it has been
sustained. On the affidavit that accompanies the petitions it says "we the
undez'signed having xead the ordinance and determining it ta be detsunental
to the welfare of the City of Fridley do petition the City of Fridley for a
xeferendum", but he has talked to an excess of 100 people and he has yet to
meet someone that can explain to him how this would be detrimental. If they
seek to upset the action taken by their duly elected body, then they must be
prepared to sustain their claim. He felt the people were not informed that the
Council spent about 6 months on this ordinance, and the Crty Attorney spent
a lot of time in developing the ordinance. People also do not know that many
communities hava.ng CATV were contacted to see what their ordinances contained.
There is also the fact that General Televiszon Inc. will pay Fridley $25,000
as an acceptance fee, they will build a million dollar studio and also that the
Crty is guaranteed So of gross receipts, or $2500, wlv.chever is greater. This
is all at no expense to the tax payer. What were these people told? He said
he understood that Councilman Utter was quotecl as saying �that he circulated
a petition, and asked if he knew what these people were told. Councilman
Utter said his wife circulated a petition, he did not, but he went along in
a few cases. Mr. B7erkesett suggested that Councilman Utter contact the Sun
and ask for a retraction. All these �things add up to a fraudulant situation
and the Council would be within -their rights to re7ect this petition.
Mr. George Reilly, Attorney for the petltioners, said that he understood Mr.
� B�exkesett had a copy of the Barton report. The petitioners were not £urnished
with a copy, and this would seem to be an inequity. Mayor Liebl said that it
is public record and they could get one by asking. .Mr. Reilly said that the
minutes of January lOth wexe amended to add the word "exclusive" in front of
the word "Eranchise". He asked Mrs. Helen Treuenfels ii she did not have tapes
of the meetings, and also asked Mayor Liebl if the tapes o£ the lOth and 17th
o£ January meetings were not preserved, and Mayor Liebl replied yes. Mr.
Reilly said that we have heard it said that the ma�ority should not be �.l.ictated
to by the minority, but the concern should be what the people were told when
the petition was circulated. Hawever, this is not the purpose o.� a referendum
petition, and it should not be determined a� this point what is good and what
is bad al�out the ordinance. The people have only established by theix petition,
as set out in the City Charter, that 15� of the people are uncertain about the
ordinance, and they should have the privilege of petitioning to let this issue
go to a general election. This does rot necessarily mean that the ordinance
would be repea2ed, it only says that a signi£igant number of people may be
unsure about the oxdinance. Is there seally any good reason not to let the
people vote? He suggested that he believed that the courts would look at
this and ask the question, was the Counoil trying to follow tlie City Charter?
He said he has gotien the impression that a claim will ue made that because
certain names are not good, all the names on that particular petition should
be thrown out. I£ there are 100 good names and 10 bad, does that mean the
other 90 names are bad and should be thrown out? The courts have ruled �ust
the opposite, and quoted from an Iowa Supreme Court ruling, and added that the
Minnesota Supreme Court has spoken in general terms to the same effect, that
� a Charter "should be upheld if there is any way to do so". You must determine
the free will of the people. He said'an election �udge takes an oath, and if
there is a case where there is a slight irregularity in an election, and one or
two names are in error, and an election �udge certifies them, the whole election
is not thrown out. The Council has been made aware that the ordinance may be
)°7���
REGULAR COUNCIL NIEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972
PAGE 4
otherwise defective. It would be foolish to go through a lot of court costs, �
then find that the ordinance is, in fact, deiective.
Mr. Reilly continued that this ordinance grants no franchise by its terms and
it appears to be only a general enabling ordinance which says the City can grant
a fran¢hise. Nowhere does it say a franchise is gxanted to General Television
oP Minnesota, Inc. Some may say this is a technical defect, but 'the only other
franchise granted by Fridley to Mynneapolis Gas Company does so specifically
within the ordinance. The claim could be made of an intent to grant a£ranchise
and the title does speak of granting a franchise to General Television of
Minnesota Inc., and they have signed and accepted xt, however, most attorneys
will tell you while the title of an act can be used to assist in construing
something otherwise ambiguous, then the title can be used to give it meaning,
but the title of an act cannot be used to supply what is not there. This
ordinance is a£ranchise to grant to anybody, He said he would strongly
suggest that the Council accept the petYtion and set a date £or the referendum,
as 150 of the people in the City of Fridley have asked.
NLr. Jim Gibson said that this is the third time he has appeared before the
Council on this issue, and he must reiterate his statements made previously.
I£ the Council were to take the action Mr. Reilly has suggested, the Council
could be brought into District Court for malfeasance, misfeasance and non-
feasance of theix office. He said we, as residents, have gotten into a squabble
brouqht about by outside intere5ts. 3'hese people have been misled. Theze have
been other such cases in the past, such as Unity Hospital. When the proposal �
to build Unity Hospital was before you, there were outside interests trying
to tear the community apart, and some were very vehement about the issue and
they said it was senseless - yet where are these people today? They are sitting
on the Hospital Board. Another example of such folly is the Metxopolitan Sewer
Board. They seem to think we already have clean watex out here, yet he has in
his possession pictures taken in 1958 - 1959 of raw sewage. In 1965 we had the
tornada and the people of the community got their heads together and worked for
the community. The politicians in the Metro area did not want anything to do
with us. Then along came Urban Renewal and some of the good oitizens voted it
down. Now the issue is cable television. A governmental structure is built
through orclinances. He likened it to a builder who builds a house and finds
that one 2 X 4 is bad, fle does not tear down the whole house, he replaces
the defective part. The same can be done with the CATV ordinance. If after
a few years, it becomes apparent there are some defective parts, they can be
rearranged so it is right and proper. He said a.t is time we callecl a spade a
space and ,pointed out that Mr. Reilly is on the payroll of Hubbard Broadoasting
Inc , or at least very friendly with them. If Hubbard Broadcasting Inc. wants
to bring suit against the City of Fridley, let's have it. As to the issue
before the Council, he could see only one way they could go and that is for five
ayes £or denlal of the petition, because of the improprieties that have been
brought before the Council. Here we have neighbor fighting neighbor and friend
fighting friend, and he did not want to see Councilman £ighting Councilman. He
said he would hate to see this go into court, he would much rather see everyone
sit $own around a tahle and talk things out and axrive at a solution. All
would come out as better citizens. �
c�c��
�. .:� 6
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7� 1972 PAGE 5
� Mrs. Helen Treuenfels said that she was one of the sponsors, lives in Fridley
and has for a long time, and is not an outsider by any means. Mr. Ga.bson has
claimed that it is the Huhbard Bxoadcasting Company, Inc. 'that is fighting
Fridley, but this is not true, it is the eight sponsors of the petition. Suit
was filed to force a referendum as there were more than enough valid and authentic
signatures according to the hand writing analyst. She said she finds the clauns
of fraud on the circulation of the petition very objectionable. She mentioned
some of the circulators that lave not taken invalid signatures and there was no
fraud. In each case either the husband and wife signed the petition, or the
signature was authorized by the spouse. She said she finds the charges of
�orgery absolutely ridiculous.
N1rs. Herman Bakke said she has been a resident of Fridley for quite a£ew years,
and she would agree with Mr. Gibson's comments that some of the people n�ay have
been misled, but by whom? She did not believe it was by the petitioners,
because she was one of them. She said she could bring in people that she had
sign the petition, and they would swear there has been no fraud. She said Mr.
Gibson brought up the Metropolitan Sewer Baard and the building analogy, so she
would like to ask what Fridley is doing about the water problem on Ra.verview
Terrace. This has been brought up at a previous Council Meeting. The water
main has broken three times in the last three years. She could not see where
that would be too difficult to fix. 5he said to Mr. B�erkesett, as to the 100
people he had talked to, if there was any problem, let them come in and tell the
Council about it. So far it is his word against hers. As to the fact that
' General Television of Minnesota, Inc. is to pay $25,000 as an acceptance fee;
where does that money come from? Will the money to pay the hand writing expert
come from that money? Will it pay the Crty Attorney for his time taken in
going into court? You cannot say that $25,000 is actually Fridley's money yet
because of the petition, and nothing is settled.
The City Manager read from Section 8 of the ordinance concerning the acceptance
fee, and said he has not received a ruling yet from the City Attorney, but in his
opinion, all administrative expenses incurred because of the re£erendum could
be an expense charged against that fund, the same as the preparation of the
ordinance. Mrs. Bakke asked what if this went to a vote and General Television
of Minnesota Inc. was turned down, wouldn't Fridley have to xeturn the money�
The City Manager said he did not know.
Mrs. Bakke said that the Council has put a lot of time and effort into the
research of cable television. The bigqest problem seems to be that the Council
did not inform the voters and other interested factions about CATV so they could
learn about it. She said a lot of her friends are not aware of what has trans-
pired on the Council. The Council should take these people into consideration.
Mayor Liebl asked Mrs. Bakke if she was one of the circulators of a petition and
Mrs. Bakke replied yes. Mayor Liebl zead from the affidavit and asked her to
explain to him 7ust what was detrimental about cable television. Mrs. Bakke
replied she believed this was Somefilzing the Council should answer the voters.
Nlr. .Richard Harris asked i£ this is, or is not, a legal ordinance granting a
1 franchise. The Acting City Attorney replied that they were oP the opinion the
ordinance would stand. Mr. Harris said t.hat with all the hours of study, it
seemed peculiar that nobody came up with the question in granting the franchise,
so he would wonder about the competency of those people who studied it.
:)ct �
ti, _x'�r
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF EEBRUARY 7� 1972
PAGE 6
Mr. B�erkesett said that Mrs. Bakke had challengecl his statement that he had
talked to about 100 people to try to find out what was detrimental about the
ordinance, it seemed to him that the last few speakers have sustained his
opinion.
Nlrs. Connie Metcalf, 860 West Moore Lake Drive, said that Fridley has a City
Charter and is the basis for government. That Charter allows 15% of the
registered voters to ask for a re£erendum, therefore, is rt ethical, even
legal, to deny having a referendum? This is all the people are asking and they
fall within the law. As a minority, they have the right to ask for a referendum.
Mrs. Carolyn Rouse, 210 Rice Creek Boulevard, said she did sign the petition,
she was not misled and she knew what she was signing, and she would like the
people of Fridley to have the chance to detexmine if thep want CATV.
NLr. Reilly said that he had briefly examined the report from Mx. Barton and
wondered what action was taken a£ter the report was submitted. Were the people
called? The Acting City Attorney said there was some spot checking done, such as
where it appearecl both the husband's and wife's signature was signed by the same
person. In some instances the husband had not been home. He saa.d not every
signature was checked. For instance, on Petition #32 there was a signature
Mr. Barton questioned, it did not seem to compare with the voter registration
card. That party was called and she said she had, in fact, signed. The same
thing happened on Petition #61. That person was called and he stated that it
may not compare, but he had signed. Mr. Reilly asked how many people were
called. The Acta.ng City Attorney replied approximately 20. Mr. Reilly asked
how many said they did not sign. The Acting City Attoxney said the replies
were about half and half.
Mr. Henry Peterson, 6312 Pierce St. N.E., said that he had been a resident of
Fridley for about 15 years. He said we elect the City Council and they have
spent about six months on CATV. He asked if Councxlman Breider did not vote in
favor of rt each time. Councilman Breider said that was correct. Mr. Peterson
said that if his neighbor wants CATV, that is up to him, and each person has a
free choice whether to connect or not. He said he has a gas line, but his
neighbor burns oil. Each person has to respect the preferences of the other,
but if he was forced to connect onto a gas line, he certainly would petit�.on
himself. This is not the case here, the ordinance leaves the choice up to the
people. This ordinance as passed will bring in tax money and an individual does
not have to connect. The Council was elected to represent the people and the
voters made their choice. If there were to be a referendum on every issue, that
would cost a lot of money, yet people are always talking about cutting ta�ces
down. We have one of the lower mill rates here in Fridley. He said he was
annoyed with Councilman Breider, he seems to have a big play in this. Frldley
is big enough to handle its own problems without KSTP.
Councilman Breider said that he believed Mr. Peterson is very interested in
democracy, and his comments last week were in that vein. The Council is sworn to
uphold the Charter and his comments were directed to that isstie, not whether
Fridley should have cable television or not. It is his duty to live up to that
Charter and if 150 of the registered voters want a referendum, �then he is re-
quired to give it to them. It seemed to him these are two distinct issues. On
'
,
�
Ek��iY
f
REGULA.R COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972
PAGE 7
the one hand you have the Charter requirements, that is one question, and on
� the other you have the determination on whether cable television is good or
bad £or Fridley. On that issue he has made it known by his vote. These two
questions have to be separated and discussed on each of their me�its. Mr.
Peterson commented, why should he have to pay for a referendum, he is a.n favor
of CATV?
Dr. Nick Koropchak, 7144 Rtiverview Terrace, said that anyone can change their
minds about CATV. In the past Councilman Mittelstadt has said that he thought
that the ordinance was hastily drawn and has also said he would vote for a
referendum. It is honorable to change your mind. Dr. Koropchak said he was
in favor of CATV, but it has to be well regulated, and this is a good ordinance
as far as it goes, but there is very little in the ordinance regarding programming.
He said, lets go on from whexe we are now, there will then be a good CATV
ordinance, and ta�c dollars both.
Mr. Dick Kemper, 6736 7th Street N.E., said that he has listened to Mr. Gibson's
remarks indicating that if the Council accepted these petitions, they would be
guilty of wrong doings. In the memorandum from the City Attorney he has in-
dicated that rt is a legislative decision, not a legal one. According to the
memo, the Council could accept the petitions and they would not be guilty of
any wrong doing. The Acting City Attorney said that the City Attorney never
made such a statement.
Councilman Kelshaw said that it is always good to hear the constituents speak
� out, he only wished �they would have spoken sooner. The remark has been heard
over and over that the people were not informed about cable. The Sun news-
papers carried many articles about cable television and he announced that he
— would meet with the people in his ward on a Sunday afternoon to try to answer
any of their questions. He had copies of the FCC regulations and copies of the
ordinance with him for the meeting. He said he was willing then, and he is
willing now, to go over the ordinance, and he is not opposed to spending time to
inform the people. He said he has tried to become as infoxmed as possible for a
layman. He spent an entire day at St. Cloud with a representative from the
Library Board and the School Board in going over their cable television system
and asking all types of questions. They then had a chance to go back to their
groups and inform them. He said he did not believe he was in error, he did try
to inform the citizens. Dr. Koropchak has said, lets go on with the ordinance
from here, and he would be in agreement with that. Mr. Reilly has questioned
whether this ordinance does grant a franchise. Councilman Kelshaw said that
Ordinance #496 was published in the legal newspaper and read the title which does
grant a franchise. What other language could have been used? It would certainly
seem to him that "An Ordinance Granting A Franchise to General Television of
Minnesota Incorporated ---" would mean �ust that. As to the fears that he has
heard expressed that the company may go defunct, or that the company could turn
around and sell the franchise at some fantastic price, Section 9 D specifies
"original company" and further that it cannot be transferrecl in any way without
prior Council consent. Dr. Koropchak said that he thought this ordinance should
be voted down, then used as a basis to construct a new one. Councilman Kelshaw
said that he has not heard comments that people are against CATV, the whole
, question seems to be the ordinance. He pointed out that the Council has re-
served the right to amend the ordinance at any time it seems necessary and the
company must concur with it. The ordinance was amended again on second reading
December 13, 1971, by adding the clause for a reduction in rates for the senior
crtizens and General Television could either accept it, or pull out. The
.i�n�i�
w r'� 'l i
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972 PAGE 8
people also had the right to come before the Council with any suggestions for
amendments. It is true as Councilman Srieder stated, the Council is elected
and sworn to uphold the Charter and he is no� going to do anything different,
l�ut when a petition is presented to him by the Crty Clerk and discrepancies are
pointed out on tha t petition, he cannot just go ahead and accept that peititon
until Yirst cleara.ng up that discrepancy. He said he felt the Council acted
in a reasonable way and acted unanimously to direct the City Attorney to take
the steps necessary.
MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw that, a£ter receiving the report from the Ca.ty
Attorney and from Mr. Barton stating there were 25 petitions in error
totalling 1092 names, further that the 90 names from Petition #15 and #16
be counted, giving a total oP 1002 names, he could do nothing else than dis-
qualify these petitions, adding the comment that he felt the Council was acting
reasonably. He would also like to move that the discussions be openecl up for
more public hearings and that a committee be formed of people from various
interested groups £or the purpose of develo�ing what they would like to be in-
cluded in the ordinance. Seconded by Councilman Mittelstadt.
Councilman Kelshaw said he could not in clear conscience accept the petition
based on the report by the City Attorney and the hand writing expert, but he
wa.11 not disregard the wishes to go ahead and have additional input into the
ordinance. He said he would be willing to meet with this committee and go over
what they think is needed and what they feel is detrimental to the City. He
said he could not see spending any more of the tax payers money by going into
a referendum at this point when it is the ordinance they are opposed to.
Mr. John Mickman, 1631 66'� Ave.,said that it seems that about one half of the
assumptions of the hand writing analyst have been incorrect, yet about 1000
people are being disquali.fied without even being asked.
Mr. Reilly said he wanted this point cleared up. He asked Councilman Kelshaw
if the reason for his motion was that some names may be in error based on the
Barton report, and that he was discounting a whole petition on the basis of a
few inaccurate names.
Councilman Kelshaw said that it is not only the report from the City Attorney
and the hand writing expert, and not only the signatures but also the fact there
was some misrepresentation as stated in the report and also stated by in-
dividuals who signed the petition that there was misrepresentation. He added
that the Council has every opportunity to amend the ordinance, and that he
thought that was what the people wanted. It can be changed at any time. Mr.
Reilly asked Councilman Kelshaw if his point was that some particular sig-
natures were not "those puxported to be". Councilman Kelshaw said that he must
go along wrth the affidavit sworn to on the petitions, including the withdrawal
petitions. The circulator is required to sign the affidavit and swear that
each signature was witnessed by them. He has not found such to be the case and
therefore, could not accept the petitions. He said if someone wants to take him
to court, fine, but he did not know how much more he can do to p�'ove to the
people that he wants their best interests accomplished. He said he felt that
there was still a question not answered; that was, what is detrimental? Mr.
Reilly asked again was his reason £or the mota.on that some names may be in-
accurate and the affidava.t sworn to? Councilman Kelshaw said he would reply to
that later. Mr. Reilly then asked Councilman Mittelstadt if this was the reason
for his second to the motion, and Councilman Mittelstadt replied yes.
�
�
,
��
t� � �
REGULAR COUNCZL NIEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972 PAGE 9
� Mrs. Barbara Koropchak said that she wanted to state that she has never been
contacted by anyone from �the Administration, Council, or the City Attorney as
to the valldity of her peta.tions. She said she did not know that a spouse
could not sign for the other, and no one has z�ked her why she did this. As a
matter of fact, this is the first time sl�e has officially been told this was
not proper. She said she would like the paople who signed in good faith to
have a chance to defend their signatures, and not have them thrown out. Dr.
Koropchak added to Councilman Kelshaw tnat rt is naive to think the company
would allow the City to make amendments to the ordinance without kicking up a
fuss. He commented, who is the better representative of the peop3e, the man
who defends the people and is sued by the Company, or the man who defends the
Company and is sued by the people?
Mayor Liebl said he resented these comments, and that he has studied very hard
and he voted fox cable television in the best interests of the City. Dr.
Koropchak saa.d that he was not attacking him personally, and did not say it was
a bad ordinance, only incomplete.
Mayor Liebl said that he was going to vote not to accept the referendum
petition. He believed the petition procedure whereby the Charter grants great
power to a small group of people must be kept free from irregularities, and if
not, a dangerous preca.dent would be set. He said he represented all the peopwe
of Fridley and would submit his vote accordingly. FIe said these petitions have
far too many irregularities to be acceptable to the Council. There were over
� 66 petitions submitted to the City and apparently 28 contained sign�ficant
irregularrties. On these 28 petitions the circulator has signed an affidavit
saying he/she witnessed the signature of that person purported to be. This means
that nearly g of the petitions circulated were not honest in the signing of
the affidavit. He saa.d he must uphold the law and he could not accept petitions
which treat the Charter so carelessly. He said his concern with the petita.ons is
compounded by the misrepresentation surrounding the ordinance, and all this taken
together with the nearly 200 withdrawals, means to him that this Council cannot
accept these petitions. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruling has establishecl a
duty to be abided by by a City Council and he must follow it. He said he knew
his vote w�.11 not please every citizen, but he must vote to protect the rights
of the people to guarantee a fair and honest petition procedure in the City of
Fridley.
Councilman Breider said, in referring to the report from the City Attorney, that
in his opinion the courts would be reluctant to disqualify a petition because of
a few bad signatures. Councilman Breider said he did not believe that would be
a legal right, and his interpretation of the memo would be that the Council
should accept the peta.tion, and that the petitioners should be given the benefit
of the doubt. As to improving the ord�.nance, he felt tiiat it was an excellent
ordinance and there were many points in favor of the ordinance as written. He
said he would certainly object to metropolitan control of cable television.
The suburbs already have a problem with the sewer situation with the Metropolitan
Sewer Soard. Anything the suburbs can do locally would be to our benefit. It
seems the people are complaining about the ordinance a.tself. These are two
� separate issues� and after re-reading the memo from the City Attorney, he could
not vote aye to the motion by Councilman Kelshaw. He said the Council should
accept the petitions and take the responsibility for it, then the ordinance can
be amended and if it is still not acceptable, it should be put to a referendum.
,� �; G),
�,.�.�
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972 PAGE 10
Councilman Breider told Mr. Peterson that he had spent many long houxs in
research on this particular issue, anci out of that came many refinements, such
as, the clauses that were added pertaining to the special rate for senior
citizens and that there shall be no disconnection fee. He said he has been
on the Council two years and there have been many many things on the Agenda
each evening that he must make a decision on, so a.£ Mr. Peterson does not
agree with one of them, that really does not hurt his feelings.
Councilman Mittelstadt said that he would agree with Councilman Breider, whether
the petitions are accepted or not, the ordinance can be changed at any time
by the City Council. He felt that the people did not want the ordinance totally
destroyed, only that they felt there were more amendments needed. The Council
could surely have more public hearings to allow the people to suggest what they
would want added, and to say what they do not like about the ordinance. It was
his belief that the petitioners did not want total repeal, only changes_
Councilman Utter said that he must agree with Councilman Breider, especially
after reading the memo from the City Attorney, and he would be reluctant to
throw out those petitions. It was pointed out that the memorandum written by
the City Attorney could be assumed to be the result of the conference held in
the 7udge's chambers last week, with both the attorneys present. Councilman
Breider commented that it appears the Council is heading in the same direction,
but by different routes, and that it is not a matter of throwing out cable
television, but more how to get tlze amendments to please everyone. Mayor Liebl
said he could not vote for falsi£ied signatures and that he takes his oath
very seriously.
THE VOTE UPON THE MOTION, being a roll call vote, Kelshaw, Liebl and Mittelstadt
voting aye, Breider and Utter voting nay, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried.
RECESS:
Mayor Liebl declared a recess at 9:40 P.M. The City Council Meeting was re-
convened at 10:00 P.M.
CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYIIVG A CON5ULTANT FOR A MARKET ANALYSIS OF LIQUOR STORE
#1 (SKYWOOD): (Tabled 1-17-72)
Mayor Liebl asked Councilmen Utter and Mittelstadt if they had had a chance to
go over the Uackground material, and they both replied they had. Mayor Liebl
said that as he had stated previously, the City has department heads paid top
salaries to carry out their responsibilities, and if they cannot, they should
be replaced. It is time to £ind out if the tax payers are getting their money's
worth. He said his recommendation would be to ask the Administration to come
up with three or so recommendations in regard to where the new liquor store
should be located and also ask the Liquor Store Manager to give a competent
report, and not to hire an outside consultant.
�
L.
Councilman Mittelstadt said that he and Councilman Utter had had a long discussion
with the Administration, and he felt, and thought Councilman Utter agreed with '
him, that an outside firm hired to determine where a new liquor store should be
*aould get their data from the same source the Administration did. That data is
already in the City's possession.
k� � } i �
f�p�l
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972
PAGE 11
, MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt not to hire an outside consultant to study
Skywood. Seconded by Councilman Kelshaw for discussion.
Councilman Kelshaw asked Councilman Mittelstadt what he is proposing, what would
happen to Skywood and what he would recommend the Council should do. Councilman
Mittelstadt said he would not want to go on record as stating what should be done
with Skywood prior to having a total plan submitted. The o£fices at City Hall
do have documentation and supporting data, and the City Manager should be
assigned the responsibility of putting all the data together and proposing options
£or the Council to consider. Councilman Relshaw asked the Crty Manager if he
felt he was capable of doing this. The City Manager replied that he believed so,
and added that it was at the suggestion of the Council that he investigated
hiring an outside firm. Mayor Liebl said that the Council must be thrifty.
The Skywood operation went down again this year, but it would be £oolish to
spend the money for a market analysis.
THE VOTE UPON THE MOTION, being a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl
declared the motion carxied unanimously.
FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25.02 OF THE CITY CODE �Sale o£
Lost and Stolen Property)
The City Manager said this ordinance is being proposed because during the year a
great deal of lost and stolen merchandise is accumulated and this creates a
� storage problem. The ordinance would allow for one or more sales per year, as
it becomes necessary.
MOTION by Councilman Breider to approve the ordinance on first reading and waive
the reading. Seconded by Councilman Mittelstadt. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously.
REPORT ON RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS:
The City Manager summarized his report dated February 3, 1972 for the benefit of
the audience giving them the information that has been accumulated to date, and
what progress the Administration has made. There has not been any formal appli-
cation for a grant made, but they were told verbally that a.t would be extremely
doubtful that any application would be approved because of the high cost of the
land (approximately $3D,000 per acre), £urther that there had been an appli-
cation made for acquisition for a park elsewhere where the acquisition cost
was $10,000 per acre and they were re}ected outright. Fridley's share of the
cost would be either approximately $100,000 or $50,000 depending upon which
program was applied £or, and under which one they could qualify.
Mayor Liebl said that the City has spent a considerable amount o£ money in that
area on maintenance, and he would certainly like to see something done to help
these people. Councilmen Breider and Ma.ttelstadt have talked to these people
and it seems that they would like to get some help, if possible. If Fridley
could be successful in getting State or Federal participation, even with the
� large investment Fridley would have to make, over the long run, the City would
get it back through relieving the obligation for maintenance wsts in that
area, and the people could be helped too.
'f � � 5
.�.J P � -(
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETTNG OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972
PAGE 12
The City Engineer said throughout the discussions with HUD they were extremely
discouraging, and as pointed out a$10,000 figure per acre was rejected as
being too expensive. The City could still apply, but he felt the chances of
receiving a grant were very minimal.
Councilman Mittelstadt said he thought the City should still apply for it, as he
thought there was going to be a problem again this spring. There was high
water in 1965 and it seems there is going to be again in 1972. These people
are about 6 weeks away from suffering some property damage and there wj..11 have
to be a temporary dike put in right away i� they are qoing to get anp help. He
said he would like to see some help from the State and Federal govexnment and
that an application should be made soon. He said that he had talked to some of
these people concerning the price they feel they should receive, and he would
say that about 990 of the people would want to get out o� the area.
A resident of the area asked where the $30,000 figure came from. No one is askinq
$30,000 for an acre. Councilman Breider said that he had gone through the
initial study. There are property values and also assessment values. In talking
with HUD they consider land values, structure values and also the assessment
values, which does add up to about $30,000 per acre. HUD considers the total
package and there are some lots that do not have structures which are owned by
people, and are not taac forfeit. The City Manager asked if most of the people
would want to be relocated. It could become a difficult issue of all the
resxdents did not want to move out.
Mr. Harold Belisle, 7801 Apex Lane N.E., read a short letter fYOm Anoka County
written in the '50s in which this area is considered a flood plain. He said he
has nine children and has lived there a numbex of years. The last few years
you can see �the river bottom come up, and at times you can walk across. He
said that when a section of the river had a channel dug, he had talked to the
superintendent and he would like to see that channel extended up to the Coon
Rapids dam. In the years to come that channel will have to be dug because every
year they have to back up the water for Minneapolis further upstream. He said
he bought his place because he liked it, and he has sufPered through the
flooding like everyone else, and if the rest want to move, O.K., but he said he
likes his river frontage. He said he believed the answer was to do sontething
with the river, rather than the land.
Mayor Liebl asked Mr. Belisle, if the Council was success�ul in getting a grant,
he would not fight it, and would relocate with the rest? For a project like
this the residents would need some help and he thought the only way to proceed
is as the Administration suggested. Every year the City has to spend a lot of
money up there and over the years it would actually be a savings. Ae tol& Mr.
Belisle his representative has promised to try to help him.
Mr. Soe Connors, Representata.ve, said as he understood it, if an application was
made, there is a good chance it would not be granted? The City Manager said
they have had no £ormal word, but they have had a pre-submission aon£erence and
the verbal indication is that approval of a grant is extremely unlikely because
of the cost. Under the LAWCON program the City share of the cost could be ahout
$50,000 or more, and under the Legacy of Parks Program it couLd be as much as
$100,000. He added he could not say where Fridley would get their share, but
if so directed, he would work on it.
�
'
�
�r�,,�_
.�=a�
REGSILAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972 PAGE 13
, Nlr. Bela.sle said he could not understand why they were not included in the dike
system. He had thought they were going to dike the whole area. The City Engineer
showed the area on the overhead pro�ector, and saa.d that in 1969 there was a
study made with the Corps o£ Engineers to see what could be reasonably pro-
tected. The problem in this area is not actually the river, hut rather the
creek. When the water rises, it backs up in the creek and floods the area be£ore
it goes over the banks of the nver and ovex Ri.verview Terrace. To protect the
area in question the dike would have to encircle it. The Corps ,figuxed out
the expense in relation to the value of the structures and land and found that
it would be uneconomical. There is now a semi-permanent facility in place north
of 79th Way.
Mayor Liebl asked those residents in attendance if they would encourage the
Council in this endeavor and a ma�ority replied yes. Mr. Robert Kretlow,
7885 Broad Avenue N.E., said he has been through three floods_ It seems to be
a question o£ whether the City has the funds available. It has been said that it
costs a lot to maintain the area, yet these are temporary measuzes and it is going
to get worse, not better. As the land further upstream gets built up the pro-
blems here will be compounded. He said he would rather see the City spend the
money to vacate the area, rather than protect it.
MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to table to the next regular Council Meeting and
ask the City Manager to bring back complete figures on the costs of the maintenance
of that area.
� Mayor Liebl said that the people have indicated to him that they want help. They
do not want to depend on the City for any hand-out, wkaat they want is a permanent
solution.
Mayor Ziebl called for a second, there was no response, therefore, he declared
the MOTION DIES for lack of a second.
MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to receive the memorandum from the City Manager
dated February 3, 1972 with the supporting data, and also the memorandum £rom the
City Manager dated February 4, 1972 which accompanied the report put out by the
Corps of Engineers. Seconded by Councilman Utter.
The City Manager said that in his memo he states that the Corps of Engineers would
like to have a 7oint meeting with the Fridley and New Brighton Councils, and the
public. At �that time the report can be discussed in detail and the public can
ask questions. The New Brighton City Manager has polled the Council and
suggested some dates and asked the Council if they were available on any of�
these dates for a meeting. New Brighton would like to meet in Fridley as the
Fridley Civic Center is larger. The Council, after some discussion, decided to
meet on February 25, 1972 at 7:30 P.M.
Councilman Mittelstadt said that Mr. Belisle had a valid point, and perhaps if
the application is turned down, the matter should be pursued through the Corps
in that direction. The City Manager added that he would hold his report until
' after the meeting on Feb. 25th. Mr. Belisle said that a person could see for
himself in the summertime there is no channel. There is a small channel, per-
haps 10', on the other side. People who own boats use the river in the sy�ring
and early summer, but during the middle of the summer their boats hit the
rocks.
r,° i
�r�� F
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972 PAGE 14
Mayor Liebl asked Mr. Belisle, if the City was successful in getting funds,
would he move aut wa.th the rest, or would he fight the Council? The pxo�ect
should be unanimous, so if he were to get his money's worth, would he cooperate
with his neighbors? Mr. Belisle askeci where he could get another river frontage
with the money the City could afford to pay ha.m. He said he moved down there
when there were only a very few houses in the area. Mayor Liebl asked the
rest of the residents if they would cooperate and they replied yes. Mr. Belisle
said that this stretch of the river has never had anything done to it, between
N5P and the Coon Rapids dam. During the 1952 flood he had many many logs on
his lot - that was the first flood since 1883. Since that time things have
gradually gotten worse.
Mr. Earl Gemmill, 468 Longfellow, said that it did not sound too proma.sing in
getting the grant, so why not look into the costs of dredging. Councilman
Mittelstadt said they would bring it up at the meeting with the Corps o£ Engi-
neers. Mr. Rretlow said he believed that was looked into once, and they found
that they would only dredge navigable waters, and they would only go up to NSP.
THE VOTE UPON THE MOTION, being a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor LieHl de-
clared the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to set a meeting date o£ February 25, 1972 at
7:30 P.M. for the meeting with the Corps of Engineers, New Brighton and the
public, to be held in the Fridley Civic Center. Seconded by Councilman Kelshaw.
Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanunously.
RESOLUTION #19-1972 - A RESOLUTION SETTING SEWER CHARGES EFFECTIVE .TAN[JARY
1, 1972:
The City Manager reported that he had invited Mr. Tony Gnesre of the Metropolitan
Sewer Board to be present at the meeting to answer some questions on the Metro
Sewer charges which have already been outlined and fuxnished to the Council and
Mr. Gnerre.
l. Why is Fridley billed so high as compared to other communities such as
Golden Valley, even though the populations are quite similar?
Mr. Gnerre said that this is not really a good comparison because the assessed
valuation for Golden Valley is about 9 million more than Fridley, but Fridley
has a higher population. The real question is the service area boundaries. In
the metropolitan area there are six geographical areas and the costs between
Service Area #1 and the others show the greatest inequity. In Service Area #1
there are 51 local governments and in Service Area #2 there are 20. The bigger
the unit, the less cost per unit. The 5ewer Board budget which was rejected
attempted to inteqrate Service Area #1 and #2, but their efforts died in vain,
and they got no local government support. This would have sha.fted about 3/4
million in gross charges. He said they, on the Sewer Board, feel they should
get a response from Fridley, but they da.d not get any. The feeling seems to
be if you merge, you will lose your identity, but there is 3/4 million dollars
at stake. The areas that have the highest cost is this area in the northern
suburbs, and in the southwest, around Minnetonka.
,
�
�
��.A n.
H
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972
PAGE 15
� 2. Why is the charge in Service Area #2 so high relative to 5ervice Area
#1?
Mr. Gnerre said that the answer to that question is the same as the first question.
3. Is everybody paying on an equal basis for the treatrnent works reserve
capacity available at Pigs Eye Plant?
Mr. Gnerre said that answer was yes. The cost is taken for all 32 treatmet.t
plant facilities, compu'ted, then each community is charged on a per gallon basis,
and everyone pays equally. This is for the treatment works only. There is also
a second question, that of the interceptors, and that is where the problem is.
4. Why is reserve capacity shown so hiqh for Service Area #2 when moxe than
75� of the community is already developed?
Mr. Gnerre asked does this mean Fridley is 75o developed, or Service Area #2�
Service Area #2 is not even 35� developed. In Fridley, 13a of the interceptor
system is being used, in Blaine it is 8a, Coon Rapids 90, and in Brooklyn
Park 250. The question is actually inaccurate.
5. Why did Metro Sewex buy Brooklyn Park line for over 2 million dollars
whereas their cost was substantially lower than this figure, and is this
� buy back charged to only Service Area #2�
Mr. Gnerre said that the original cost to put the pipe in the ground was 2�,
million dollars. When the Sewer Board took over a year ago, it had outstanding
bonds of 1.7 million dollar5 against that pipe which the Metro Sewer Board took
over. Then they fa.gured that the net cost to Hrooklyn Park was about $800�000.
Then it all had to be indexed up so that as o£ January 1, 1971 the Sewer Board
bought every pipe in the area on an equal basis. In evaluating up this $800,000,
the cost came to l.l million dollars, then the Sewer Board said that 89a is the
Sewer Board's so they are paying back to Brooklyn Park a little over 1 million
dollars.
6. Why is the current value credit to Fridley so low in relation to other
communities?
Mr. Gnerre said that an azalysis of current value credits for the northern
suburban communities totals 2.9 million dollars, and of that Fxidley has 16a.
Brooklyn Park gets the biggest credit. Fridley is really not so low in relation
to the other north suburban communities.
7. Why is Fridley supposed to pay 39 thousand dollars deferred charges to
carry the cost for other communities and what would be the interest
rate and the number of years at which this money would be paid back?
Mr. Gnerre said that the Sewer Act provided a deferment feature, and the cost of
� the money to the Sewer Board is 5 3/4�. There is no established policy that will
say when Fridley will get back the money they spent to help someone else pay. The
Metro Sewer Board took the posita.on it must be paid back in 5 years, but the
Metropolitan Council overrode this and as of now there is no answer, and they are
studying it, Hopefully, Fridley wi11 get their money back with interest.
. ii v
��IPtit �
REGUI,AR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972
PAGE 16
8. Considering the Metro Sewer 5 year capitol improvement program and �
increase in other expenses, what kind of rate of increase can Fridley
expect for the sewer bill charges from Metro Sewer for the term of
this proqram?
Mr. Gnerre reported that the Metro Sewer Board must accompla.sh the cleaning up
of the rivers, lakes and streams. The PCA has taken the Sewer Soard to court
on three plants already. Three met their standards when the Metro Sewer Board
took over and 29 did not, today five meet their standar3s. Those 29 plants did
a miserable 7ob o£ dumping sewage into your lakes and streams. How do you
meet their standards? You spend money' Over the next 5- 6 years, if you
assume every household will generate 100,000 gallons of sewage per year, the
average cost for 1972 would be $31 per year. In 1971 the cost was about $29
per year and by 1976 the cost will almost double and the average cost will be
$53 per year on a unit cost basis. This is money the Metro Sewer Board must
spend because of pressures from the government, so they will have to borrow.
He said they now have an application in for a federal grant for 80 million
dollars and if they are able to secure the grant, the costs could be less.
9. Why did Metro Sewer sell a large amount of bonds and didn't actually
proceed with the improvements and the bond interest was not credited
back to the improvement areas but was put in a general fund?
NLr. Gnerre called the Council's attention to their financial report on their
construction program. This is a routine monthly report. It shows that the �
Sewer Board has taken in 76�, million dollars and encumbered 76 million. This
means that in 1970 they had available funds of $270,000. In the repo�t
there is a million dollar pro�ect specified, but the Board cannot commit
themselves to a contract unta.l they have a million dollars in hand. They are
waiting now for 9'� million dollars from Federal revenue that has been promised,
but has not yet been received. He called their attention to Page 12 of the
report. There is 14 million in revenue and an equal amount, actually over-
drawn, that has been expended. There are right now 6 million dollax's worth
in jobs to be let. There is no money laying around and it cannot be trans-
ferred to the general fund.
The City Manager said, on the matter of where the yearly increases are going
to go, Fridley has a proposal before the Council to increase the yearly costs
for 1972 to $48 per year to cover the increase in seWer charges. Mr. Gnerxe
said Fridley's costs should not double in 5 years. It will take 90 million
dollars to bring the plants up to standards set. The cost of the treatment
plants will be spread uniformly throughout the metro area. When the Sewer
Act was enacted, it created the requirement for uniform charges for uhiform
service. He said the Sewer Board feels that the service asea concept causes
inequities, and what they would like to do is create one big Service area and
everyone would pay equally. When they can achieve that, everyone will get
nice clean lakes and streams, but it will cost a lot of money• He added that
the standards they are required to meet are raised every year.
Mayor Liebl asked if the local governments must assume an obligation in order �
to be eligible for Federal grants. Mr. Gnerre said yes, and added that through-
out the country households have been subsidizing industry and now industry
must pay their fair share. If they cannot do it, 60 - 80 million dollars go
down the drain. The industries have been getting away with murder. This is
the ruling of the PCA and the EPA.
�,,,e
� Y '_�J �
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972 PAGE 17
� Mr. Jim Gibson said that in 1961 some things were told to the Water Pollution
Control Commission that would happen, and Mr. Gnerre 7ust proved that they
were right. People were told that the cost of inetro sewer would never under
any circumstances by over $30 per year, and this would be the ultimate cost
in about 1980 or 1985. The Metro Sewer Board wants the people in the suburbs
to pay the central city's bills. The Sewer Board bonded 21 million to update
Pigs Eye plant, now we are gettinq this thing 7ammed down our throats. There
are to be two 120" lines from Pigs Eye to empty at Hastings and St. Croix.
They cannot dump here because it will kill the river. NSSSD was started to
clean up our own sewer problems, now the metropolitan government wants the
suburbs to pay their bills. In 1958 there was a plan presented that suggested
having £ive rega.onal disposal systems. We must elect people to the legislature
that will dump the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Sewer Board, and
get back to the pxoposal made in 1958. The cost now is about six times too
high priced. Mr. Gnerre said there were no plans to dump in the St. Croix
and further, that the treatment must bring about complete removal of waste.
A lot of these costs were inherited by the Metro Sewer Board. There has been
some discussion about a Fridley plant, and some say yes and some say no.
Fridley's needs will not be until about 1985 and the concept says that treat-
ment will be allocated equally and everybody will pay for it, not �ust the City
of Fridley. What the Metro Sewer Board would like is only 5- 6 plants. The
technology in sewer treatment is basically the same as it was 40 years ago.
The sewage should be ready to drink when it comes out. The Sewer Board has
been assigned the duty of finding a way to clean things up anci get the 7ob
� done. The Sewer Act was passed unanimously and the Board can do it, but it will
cost money. Mayor Liebl asked if Mr. Gnerre felt that Fridley got a fair shake
in xegard to their bill. Mr. Gnerre said there was no deviation in the imple-
mentation of the Sewer Act. There are inequities which come about because of
the sewer area boundaries, but the Board must work within the Act. Minneapolis
and St. Paul buy out is 2/3 of the total system. The flow capacity and reserve
is �ust what NSSSD had. The Acting City Attorney asked how the service area
boundaries are set. Mr. Gnerre said by public hearings before the Metro-
politan Council. The suburbs should become more familiar with this and pro-
vide more input.
Mr. Richard Harris asked if what he was saya.ng was there has not been any
improvement in sewage treatment for the last 40 years. Mr. Gnerre said that
there is a treatment plant in Rosemount that cost almost 2 million dollars.
It is a pilot plant and i£ it works, it will be used for future plants. Mr.
Harris asked what the Metro Sewer Board was going to do with the land at
37th and Marshall. Mr. Gnerre said that Fridley's needs will not be until
1985. In the meantime, the Board hopes to convince Fridley that a treatment
plant will not be needed in Fridley if there is a big metro plant. There
would be sufficient capacity with a metro plant.
Councilman Utter asked if Mr. Gnerre was saying that Fridley will have to pay
for the pipe that goes across the river. Mr. Gnerre said that the cost is
allocated within the service area. Councilman Utter said that Fridley's
rates are right at the top of the list. Mr. Gnerre said this is because o£
, the service area boundaries. He added that reserve capacity is that amount
of pipe in the ground, and is like money in the bank. Councilman Utter said
that Fridley is 75% developed, so why do we need this much reserve capacrty?
NLr. Gnerre said that doesn't matter, the area boundaries do. That money was
borrowed and the pipe is in the ground and has to be paid for. The inter-
ceptors are already in the ground and the cost has to be divided up and
>-�l�
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7� 1972
PAGE 18
allocated. Councilman Breider asked if we were all in one big service area,
would Fridley's cost be less. Mr. Gnerre said that if we were on a truly
metropolitan system the bill per family for 1972 would be $31 average. He
said water going back into the river has to be pure and to do that we need
big plants to do the 7ob right. He pointed out that the last few years the
emphasis has been on environmental co,ntrol and pointed to Minnetonka. The
residents expressed a great concern for their lake, so their sewage treatment
plant has to be closed down.
N1r. Gnerre said thank you to the Council for inviting him and added that he had
a great deal of respect £or the City Manager and the Council used good judg-
ment in hiring him. He said that he will continue working with Fridley in
developing the rates. The Council then thanked Mr. Gnerre for coming.
MOTION by Counci7.man Mittelstadt to adogt Resolution #19-1972. Seconded by
Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote, Utter, Mittelstadt, Breider and La.ebl
voting aye (Kelshaw out of Chambers), Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried.
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE BY-LAWS OF THE FRIDLEY VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S
RELIEF ASSOCIATION.
Mr. Robert Aldrich, President of the Firemen's Relief Association, passed out
copies of the by-laws which have been amended to the Council. He said the
changes were in Article I, Section 6; Article II, Section 7; Article V,
Section 2; Article VI, Section 2; Article VI2, Section 4, and Section 8, and
gave a brie£ explanation of each change. He said these changes have been
before the membexship and passed by a unanimous vote. Councilman Mittelstadt
said thank you for the explanation and that these were well thought out
changes.
MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to adopt the changes as presented to the by-
laws of the Fridley Firemen's Relief Association_ Seconded by Councilman
Kelshaw. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion
carried unanimously.
Councilman Breider asked if there was any thought given to going further With
the disability. All the provisions are for 10 years minunum service. Nlr.
Aldrich said that they had looked around at what is being done elsewhere and
it seemed the standard used for a non-related disability was 10 years. For
PERA, it is 10 years before it becomes vested. This is what they used to
arrive at their figures.
RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2D,
1971:
MOTION by Councilman Nitittelstadt to receive the Minutes of the Parks and
Recreation Commission Meeting of December 20, 1971. Seconded by Councilman
Utter. IIpon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried
unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF RF,P.PPROVAL OF THE SHADY OAKS PLAT:
The City Engineer said this plat was submitted and approved earlier, but there
was a question of drainage.
�
�
�
�
�
6J
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972
MOTION by Counci].man Kelshaw to x�eapprove the Shady Oak Plat.
PAGE 19
Mayor Liebl said that in the earlier discussions about tha.s plat he raised
the question in�regard to whether there would be further problems with
Ben7amin Street. He was told there would not be problems with the drainage
on Ben�amin Street, but there may be some on Ferndale. The City Engineer
said yes, but since then the Council has ordered in more improvements, and
there is a public hearing proposed for next Monday night for the area 7ust
to the north. Hopefully, the problems will then be taken care o£.
THE MOTION was seconded and upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared
the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 258 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING IN THE INNSSRUCK NORTH
COMPLEX:
Councilman Kelshaw said that he was able to go with a member o£ Viewcon to
Brooklyn Center to see "The Beach", and he was impressed with the construction
of both the exterior anci interior of the complex. Viewcon is now asking to
reduce �the size of the units in this building, and he must admit that if they
were to keep the exterior of the quality he saw in Brooklyn Center, he could
find no fault with it. He would have only one comment as far as the extera.or
goes for the building a.n Fridley, he would like to see some brick on the facing.
He added that he had already discussed this with Chuck Van Eeckhout. He did
not believe the public could have any hard feelings looking at this building
from the outside, so the question comes down to a determination on the size
of +-,he units. He said he was skeptical about Fridley getting the reputation
of not bea.ng concerned with people who cannot afford a high rental. They are
proposing $138 a month for an efficiency. This would most probably be a single
person. The quality of the exterior or the interior has not changed. He said
he could not see that Fridley should discriminate against people that can
only pay $138 for an efficiency or $168 £or a one bedroom apartment. There
are still the other apartments in the other building that are more spacious,
and more costly, and these would be the same, only less footage.
Mayor Liebl said that it would seem that the smaller size would cut down on
the number of children. Councilman Kelshaw said rt would seem so. In the
efficiency there is no bedroom. In the one bedroom apartrnent, where would you
put a child? Mayor Liebl said that he thought the company was still living up
to their commitment. It will change the kind of rent they can ask, but that
would apply to all clientele. Councilman Kelshaw said that it would seem that
the ka.nd of person that would want an efficiency would be University students
etc. He could not conceive that there could be a child in them.
Councilman Breider said this is part of a total package of apartments and town-
houses. He had heard of no rental under about $225 and the proposal was pre-
sented to the people on that basis. He ob�ected to setting out on this endeavor
with the rent at $225 and above, then having it reduced to $138, and £elt that
this would be misleading the people on the other side of the freeway. Wouldn't
this be setting a precident? What if they say the rent will be one rate, then
charge $95 or so? Councilman Kelshaw said that the quality of the structure is
not changed, whether looking at a$138 efficiency or a two bedroom apartment.
They still must maintain the same good quality.
�?-� 1
�.r`�, .J
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7� 1972
PAGE 20
Councilman Utter said he was concerned about the people across the road. Some
of those houses are in the $150,000 range. Councilman Kelshaw said that a.f the
exterior is exactly the same, where would be the problem? Councilman Utter
said, what about the tenants2
Mayor Liebl asked what the average rent would be a.n this complex. Mr. Darrel
A. Farr, Vaewcon, said it would be $168 for a one bedroom, and at Twin i.akes
it is $165. The two bedroom in this section would be about $195. At Twin
Lakes the rent is from $195 to $225. There is nothing cheap about these units.
They have sunken living rooms, underground garages, fireplaces, garbage dis-
posals, built-ins etc. He said they cannot build the units as big as in
1968 - 1969. To stay competitive, they had to cut the size back.
Mayor Liebl said that the Innsbruck area is the nicest residential area in
Fridley and some of the houses are in the $150,000 range. He asked i£ this
criteria fit the overall plan Viewcon presented to the Council. Mr. Farr said
he felt that they have kept faith, and that the pro�ect has not heen downgraded.
There are 120 single family lots and they are now building homes Zn there.
There are some townhouses sold and they average $36,000. They have agreed to
put in concrete streets as Fridley desired. Councilman Utter said that £or
the single family lots, the cost ranges from $8,500 to $14,000 and asked if there
was any value on the structure. Mr. Farr said there are restrictive covenants
and they now have 4- 5 under construction. The cheapest house on the cheapest
lot would be ahout $53,000. Councilman Kelshaw said that this building would
be 258 units, were they planning on putting in any more buildings7 Mr. Farr
said only the one already approved with 238 units that will be more spacious
and more expensive. _
MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to approve the plans for the 258 unit apartment
building presented by Viewcon, Inc., sub�ect to their maintaining the same
quality as stated in tlie original proposal, that the facing will be 1/3 brick
as he had discussed with Mr. Van Eeckhout, and subject to the stipulations
imposed by the Building Standards - Design Control at their meeting of
November 23, 1971. Seconded by Councilman Mittelstadt.
Councilman Mittelstadt asked what inspections will be done. The City Engineer
said all the phases of cnnstruction will be inspected before a certificate o£
occupancy is issued. He added that the apartment building that has already
been approved has not been started yet. In this plan the two bedroom unit is
about 20D' short of what has been the standard in the past, and will be one of
the lowest size in the last 3- 4 years. He suggested there should be some type
of restrictions on the number of tenants in each unit, such as in the efficiency,
there should not be more than one person. The Council approved the concept
based on what was originally presented, and this plan was not included. Fridley
does have about 17a that is considered low income housing. He said tliat he
would also like to see that both buildings are built at the same time, or the
low income one might be built and the other might not be built for a number of
years.
Councilman Kelshaw said he appreciated the City Engineer's comments and wondered
if it would be possible to restrict the efficiency to only one person. Mr.
Farr said he was not sure, but in his experience an efficiency apartment would
have one person, but he has not built too many ePficiencies. He added that he
believed they could live with that restriction. The Acting City Attorney said he
was not too sure the City could restxict the occupancy of an efficiency to only
one person, but they could perhaps restrict it to two.
�
�
L__1
,
�
�
REGULIIR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972
PAGE 21
THE VOTE UPON THE MOTION, being a voice vote, Liebl, Mittelstadt and Kelshaw
voting aye, Breider and Utter voting nay, Mayor Liebl declared the motion
carried.
Councilman Utter said he lived in that general area, and he did not believe
this plan was up to standard. Councilman Breider said that when this area
was rezoned, he thought both buildings would be approximately the same, now
there is 200 square feet difference. After the rezoning was accomplished they
came back with this new plan for smaller units. When he voted for the rezoning,
he voted for the whole package as it was presented.
Councilman Kelshaw asked if the square footage ia the same as originally
presented. Mr. Farr said yes, on the original proposal that was passed they
had all apartment house type housing, since that time, they have taken some
o£ the land for townhouse construction. Tha.s will be the highest quality of
building in existence in Fridley. The City Engineer said they originally had
a plan for apartment buildings, then it was changed to two apartment buildings
and townhouses. This is what was originally approved. They got approval of
the 238 unxt apartsnent building, then came in with the second 258 unit apart-
ment building with the reducecl size. The quality will be the same, but to
keep the rental cost down, they had to shrink the unit size. Their second
plan does not meet the standard size that has been approved in recent years.
CONSIDERATION OF LAWSUIT BETWEEN VILLAGE OF SPRING LAKE PARK AND CITY OF FRI➢LEY
INVOLVING STORM WATER RUNOFF:
MOTION by Councilman Breider to proceed with the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Seconded by Councilman Mittelstadt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FIRST PHASE LIGHTING PROGRAM FOR 1972:
MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to approve the program submitted by the City
Engineer. Seconded by Councilman Utter. Upon a vmce vote, all ayes, Mayor
Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Liebl believed there were supposed to be some lights installed in Ward
3, Precinct 3. The City Engineer said that the last order was in August, 1971
and they still are not up. Most of the complaints come from those areas where
lights have already been ordered.
CONSIDERATION OF SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM ON PROPERTY OWNED BY CONSOLIDATED CON-
TAINER:
MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to concur in the recommendation of the City
Attorney outlined in his memo dated Janaury 26, 1972 and settle the claim £or
$18�000. Seconded by Councilman Mittelstadt.
Mr. Richard Harris asked how much acreage was involved and the City Engineer
replied approximately 1.5 acres.
THE VOTE UPON THE MOTION, being a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared
the motion carried unanimously.
i,'
,_. 1 C�
`�-�-�
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972
PAGE 22
RESOLUTION #20-1972 - A RESOLUTION REQUESTING MINNESOTA HIGHWAY ➢EPARTMENT
TO PREPARE PLANS AND PROVIDE IMPROVEMENT FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY ON CERTAIN T.H.
#47 AND T.H. #65 INTERSECTIONS:
MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to adopt Resolution #20-1972. Seconded by
Councilman Mittelstadt. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liehl decla�'ed
the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF REAPPROVAL OF EAST RANCH ESTATES, INC.� 2ND ADDITION:
The City Engineer said that the lst Addition has already been approved, the
2nd Addition was approved but not filed, so it needs reapproval. As the Council
will recall, the area in the loopback is 1.3 acres, and .2 acxe short of the
requirement for industrial zoning, so the question the Council should deter-
mine, is if they would want the loopback area increased by .2 acre. Council-
man Kelshaw asked if this area is large enough to put in a�illing station.
The City Engineex said yes, plus a lot o£ othex types of industxial uses.
Mayor Liebl asked if they were intending to build. The City Engineer ex-
plained that they plan to Pile the plat and according to the ardinance, they
must file within 90 days of approval.
Mr. Richard Harris said that there has been talk in the past about closing
off the raa.lroad crossing at 77th Avenue, and asked a.f the Council was still
considering it. Councilman Breider said that right now they axe at an impasse,
because of the facilities north of Osborne Road. Ae did not £eel they could
close off the 77th crossing until there is another access out to University
Avenue. At that tame he agreed the Council should again consider closing it
off. Mr. Harris asked when they could grade 79th out to University. Mayor
Liebl said it would depend on the development, if the property owners Want
it, it could be improved. There is also the water problem in that area.
Mr. Haxris felt that if it was only graded, not necessarily improved, it
would be a great help to opening up the area, and would give much better
access. The City Enqineer commented that there are plans to extend Main
Street to 83rd and 83rd to Universrty Avenue, hopefully, next year.
MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to grant reapproval of the final plat, East Ranch
Estates 2nd Addition. Seconded by Councilman Mittelstadt. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVING ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FROM THE POLICE PENSION ASSOCIATION:
MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to receive the financial report .�rom the Police
Pension Association dated February 4, 1972. Seconded by Counoilman Mittelstadt.
The City Manager said he suggested to the President of the Police Pension
Association that they should have an audit by the Public Examiners Office and
he understood they are willing. He £elt there should be an annual audit since
the City does make a substantial contribution. The Finance Director commented
that it is required that the Firemen's Pension Association be audited, but
not the Police Pension Association. The City Manager said he felt the City
could require it because the City does make payments to it, and that the audit
should be done annually.
,
�
'
'
�
�_ 1
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972
PAGE 23
THE VOTE UPON THE MOTION, being a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl
declared the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF SALARY PROPO5AL FOR NON-UNION PERSONNEL:
MOTION by Councilman Breider to concur wa.th the City Manager's recommendation
contained in his memorandum dated February 4, 1972. Seconded by Councilman
Utter. Lipon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion
carried unanimously.
AUTHORIZATION FOR ATTENDANCE AT MANAGERIAL GRID SEMINAR, MARCH 26 - MARCH
31, 1972•
MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to authorize the City Manager attendance at
the Managerial Grid Seminar March 26 through 31, 1972. Seconded by Councilman
Breider. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried
unanimously.
RESOLIITION #21-1972 - A RESOLUTION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS - HIGH VELOCITY SEWER
CLEANER:
MOTION by Councilman Breider to adopt Resolution #21-1972. Seconded by Council-
man KelShaw. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion
carried unanunously.
AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE PARCEL 600 AND PARCEL 60:
MOTiON by Councilman Kelshaw to authorize the purchase of Parcel 600 and Parcel
60 at a cost of $2,D00 per acre. Seconded by Councilman Mittelstadt.
Councilman Utter asked what £unds the money is coma.ng from. The City Manager
replied that the proposal £or the allocation of funds is covered in his memo
dated February 4, 1972, as found in the Agenda.
THE VOTE UPON THE MOTION, bea.ng a voice vote, Mittelstadt, Breider, Kelshaw
and Liebl voting aye, Utter voting nay, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried.
RESOLUTION #22-1972 - A RESOLUTION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS - COMBINATSON MOBILE
WARMING HOUSE AND SI3ELTER BUIL➢ING:
MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to adopt Resolution #22-1972. Seconded by
Councilman Breider for discussion.
Councilman Breider asked if this was something that was going to be moved
between the pasks. The City Manager said that it was possible to move them,
but there were two specific locations they will be used at for summer and
winter use. Basically they axe in lieu of permanent structures. The City
has one now. Councilman Utter said there is one at Terrace Park and he felt
that one was all right, although he did not know how people felt about bringing
in trailer houses. There is also one at Grace High School that is a disgrace.
There are no windows left and there is a gas tank sitting beside the trailer.
He asked how much a trailer house would cost. The City Manager replied it is
estimated to be $2800 each. Councilman Utter asked how much the one at
Terrace Park cost. The City Manager said $2600 and added that there are no
I � `±
n_. 4
f'
� �l 'l3
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7� 1972
PAGE 24
restroom facilities and that they have tried to make it as vandal-proof '
as possible. Councilman Utter asked if they did not think it would be
better to look toward putting in a permanent structure? The City Manager
said that has been checked out. There is one permanent building at Locke
Park and one at :he Commons. The one at Locke Park is a rather expensive
building. It was built keeping the decor a.n agreement with Columbia Arena
and cost about $20,000. Councilman T7tter said that he did not like the idea
of putting in these temporary homes, then bringing in satellites. The City
Manager said he would agree with Councilman Utter, the use of moHile homes
is not the ideal solution, but he did not think that the City could think
in terms of permanent buildings without a bond issue.
The Acting City Attorney asked about the mobile home at Grace High School, and
added that there is an orda.nance against bringing in mobile homes in Fridley.
The Finance Director said he believed it belongs to the High School. The
Acting City Attorney said that he thought the one at Terrace Park was unani-
mously received. They could use a permanent Huilding there. Councilman Utter
said that the one at Grace High School belongs to them, but the City has an
agreement with them for maintenance of the hockey rink. Councilman Kelshaw
asked the City Manager to please check this out. The City Manager suggested
that the Council could authorize the bids and in the interim, he could pro-
vide the Council with estimates of a permanent building 5o they could be com-
pared with the bids. Mayor Liebl pointed out that the Director of Parks and
Recreation feels that mobility would be of some value. Counczlman Utter
said that the mobile home at Terrace Park was used at Common5 Park fox a day, �
but every time a mobile home has to be moved, NSP has to be contacted to
come out and make tlze hook-up, and there is an additional cost.
THE VOTE UPON THE MOTION, being a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl
declared the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF SETTING THE THIRD COUNCIL MEETING OF THE MONTH WHICH F11LLS ON
PRESIDENTS BIRTHDAY EOR THE FOURTH MONDAY (FEBRUARY 28� 1972):
MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to set the third Council Meeting of the month
on February 28, 1972. Seconded by Councilman Kelshaw. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously.
CLAIMS:
MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to authorize payment o£ General Claims #27477
through #27655 and Liquor Claims #6337 through #6394. Seconded by Councilman
Utter. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried
unanimously.
RESOLUTION #23-1972 - A RESOLIITION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE TRANSFERRING
OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT5 FROM PARCEL 1260, SECTION 3� TO PARCEL 1300� SECTION 3:
MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to adopt Resolution #23-1972. Seconded Hy Council-
man Breider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion '
carried unanimously.
REGIILAR COUNCIL MEETING OF EEBRUARY 7. 1972
� LICENSES:
Type of License
Service Station
�
Tavern
Grocery
Cigarette
Off Sale Beer
Cigarette
Vending Machine
Liquor Employees
Licenses
' Excavating
Applicant
Lemm's Country Village
1301 Mississippi St.
Henry Lemm
Dick's Texaco SeYVice
6071 University Ave.
Dick Middaugh
ShoYewood Ittn
6161 xwy. #65
William Nicklow
Lemm's Country Village
1301 Missassippi St.
Henry Lemm
Lemm's Country Village
1301 Mississippi St.
Henry Lemm
Dick's Texaco Service
6071 University Ave.
Dick Middaugh
Le[[un's Country Village
1301 Mississippi St.
Henry Lemm
Shorewood Inn
6161 Highway #65
William Nicklow
Dick's Texaco Service
6071 Universrty Ave.
Go1d Medal Bev.
Dick's Texaco Service
6071 University Ave.
Dick Middaugh
George Nicklow
Thomas Lund
Rand Sackstrom
Anthony Nicklow
Dailey Homes Inc.
8510 Central Ave. N.E.
Minneapolis, Minn.
Aoward Nystrom
Approved Sy
Building Insp
Fire Insp.
Fire Insp.
Building InsFi.
Chief of Police
Health Insp.
Chief o� Po11ce
Chief of Police
Health Insp
Chief of Police
Health Insp
Health Insp.
City Manager
City Manager
Crty Manager
City Manager
Building Insp.
1 `i { �
PAGE 25
Fee
$30.00
30.00
12.00
25.00
12.00
12.00
15.00
12.00
15.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Z-�tw
REGULAR CDUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972
LICENSES CONTINUED:
Type of License Applicant
General Contractor Dunkley SurPacing Co., Inc.
3756 Grand Street N.E.
Minneapolis, Minn.
James E. London
Sign Erector's
Heating
Multiple Dwellings
Name
John Matti
44 Locke Lake Rd.
Fridley, Minn
Bric of Minnesota
A.C. Barthe
Resident Mgr.
5701 Central Ave.
Fridley, Minn.
Bric of Minnesota
Same as above
A.T. Gearman
Pine Tree Lake Rd.
White Bear Lake
Minnesota 55110
John E. Phelps
2626 Stevens Ave. S.
Minneapolis, Minn.
55408
Osborne Construction
7565 University Ave. N.E.
Fridley, Minnesota
iaarren Osborne
Leroy Signs, Inc.
3101 North Second St.
Minneapolis, Minn.
Leroy Reiter
Naegele Outdoor Adv. Co.
1700 West 78th Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota
H.A. Bartolome
PAGE 26
Appxoved By
Building Insp.
Building Insp.
Building Insp.
Building Insp.
Reliable Heating & Cooling Inc. Plumbinq Insp.
917 Cedar Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota
David Diamond
Address Units Fee Approved By
6551 E. River Rd. 11 $11.00 Fire Prevention Bur.
5701 Centsal Ave.
5700 Polk St. NE
5650 Polk St. NE
6035 Main St. NE
32
32
32
C!
32.00 Fire Prevention Bur.
32.00 Fire Prevention Bur.
32.OD Ea.re Prevention Bur.
10.00 Fire Prevention Bur.
�
�
'
'
�
�J
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OE FEBRUARY 7, 1972
PAGE 27
MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to approve the licenses as submitted. Seconded
by Councilman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared
the motion carried unanimously.
ESTIMATES.
Weaver, Talle & Herrick
316 East Main Street
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
January Billa.ng for 5ervices Rendered
Dunkley Surfacing Co.,
3756 N.E. Grand
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Inc.
55421
PARTIAL Estimate #3 - Water, Sanitary Sewer &
Storm Sewer, Innsbruck North
Suburban Engineering,
6875 Highway #65 N.E.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
znc.
55432
PARTIAL Estimate #4 - Inspection time tilrough 1-22-72
for con5truction of utilities in Innsbruck North,
Pro�ect #1D3
PARTIAL Estimate #10 - Staking Additional Utilities
in Innsbruck North from Dec. 28, 1971 through 1-21-72
Comstock & Davis, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
1446 County Road "J"
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432
PARTIAL Estimate #16 for the furnishing of resident
inspection and resident supervision for the stakinq
out o£ the construction work for Water Improvement
Pro7ect #95 - Schedule B£rom 8-2-71 through 9-4-71
PARTIAL Estimate #10 £or furnishing of resident
inspection and resident supervision for Sanitary Sewer
& Storm Sewer Improvement Pro�ect #100 from 8-2-71
through 9-4-71
$ 3,214.D0
44,901.12
949.19
1,102.64
727.72
83.89
MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to approve payment of the estimates as presented
Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl
declared the motion carried unanimously.
OF CHANGE ORDER #1 FOR SS&SW #102:
MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to approve Change Order '�1 for Sanitary Sewer, Storm
5ewer and Watermain Improvement Project #102 which adds $4,430 to the contract
price, making a total of $587,173.70. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a
voice vote� all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously.
�;h S ( f
�. -�
�k����
REGULAR COUNCIL M�ETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1972 PAGE 28
COMMUNICATIONS:
A. COON RAPIDS: RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO NAMES OF SEVERAL SC$OOLS:
MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to receive the communication £rom Coon Rapids dated
January 19, 1972 and the accompanying resolution. Seconded by Councilman Mittel-
stadt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to instruct the City Manager to draft a similar
resolution for the Fridley Council to pass. The motion was seconded and upon a
voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously.
B. JOHN A. JOHNSON� SR. RESIGNATION FROM FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY:
MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to receive the communication from MY. John A.
Sohnson, Jr. dated January 31, 1972. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a
voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously.
C. ELPIER OLSON: RESIGNATION FROM PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION:
MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to receive the resignation from Elmer Olson
dated Eebruary 3, 1972 and order a certificate of appreciation be prepared.
Seconded by Councilman Uttex. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl
declared the motion carried unanimously.
D. EUGENE PARSONS: WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND MEETING TO RECEIVE CERTIFICATE
OF APPRECIATION:
MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to receive the communication from Mr. Eugene PaYSOns
dated February 2, 1972. Seconded by Councilman Mittelstadt. Upon a voice vote,
all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously.
E. ST. PAUL DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS: REPORT -"FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION,
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND RICE CREEK, FRIDLEY AND NEW BRIGHTON� MINNESOTA":
This item was received and discussed with the discussion regarding the Riverview
Heights problem earlier in the Meeting.
MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to ad7ourn the Meeting. Seconded by Councilman
Kelshaw. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion
carried and the Regular Council Meeting of February 7, 1972 adjourned at
12.55 A.M.
R��submitted,
Suel A. Mercer�%�"' —
Secretary tothe City Council
��T
Frank . L ebl
Mayor
�
1
1