Loading...
03/07/1994 - 4911�� �; ' � UT�'OF FRiDLEY FRIDLEY CITY COONCIL MEETING ATTENDENCE SHEET Monday, M�rch 7, 1994 7:30 P.M. PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PRINT NAME (CLEARLY) ADDRE5S ITEM NUMBER `, � �� ;..� ; �'�1 � � +�-. � s s 1 lo U I �.' . �iv � � h � u c:.� � �e. �--____... --��-- ��l / .,r.�..�. ��-�'� /� �- /- / �-./ , a9 T`j�-� ��-�-�" ' ,� � 5�� - 1 ,7 �u� ���� �� _� 4 � ,.�.�a.C��-- '�` �' �tix, �4 lx l4 I�� _ � � L [ � � `�� ����� i / �� � �l`�����/ S �L..}L V+�iL ,GAL . �� � �, 11 � t �' � �C-G(.°rGfri r nr.!>.� I'`'� P oS G S.L`"t c i9 SJ ��{.. ?-�s 1 1� � � � C� �� •,.4 % i . `Li'� � . . . . / �(� L ' � � % Sv `� i � � ° i. � .. �` , . .. � �� � *€. "L . . , � U � . l �.V`i � � � n . t / �. , " r� , ��� � 3 v; v� c, S i �ti �/�,� �. . `- / � ;'� �. �tst 5 5 . � — �� � � - : . . � . S�� � :��� � r � - � j �- . � �o � - `�, � - /. � � �t,� ' ` - hr i� ` �i �� r, .. i . ���f-� - —/ ;''` �1�"��C � � �'? � � ,�(( � �j�% t._1 !t% /-Y'Ot' W�J `I�.1"� � / ? �=, �c o,�� l�j� ��� -� 'i/� �t j _ ,, . . . ' �r 5 %r � — a r �i � �� .� % - � � Y y J ,:� �r� � u�. � S l� �i'�' � ` � �- � �-�`�'l �� � t l.�u t� r � �� �c� ' A ��ii� ' ?�U �i�2c�� S�`N�. .3-3C= ,, % _ , �- ..��Jj�,�; ,-,-c, ,3 .� c", y' : /-�'z� � � �� � / �. � —l% � � 7� � � �� � � 5 � ,�^.,,�.�„s ;� -�..-- . � , (� FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 7, 1994 Page 2 OLD BUSINESS: Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, Entitled "Zoning," and Chapter 211, Entitled "Subdivision," to Amend the . Public Hearing �Notification Radius . . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 2B . Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4 of the Fridley City Charter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3C NEW BUSINESS: Appointments: City Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Resolution in Support of a Renewal Application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit to World Association of the Alcohol Beverage Industries (WAABI) (Sandee's) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resolution in Support of a Renewal Application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit to World Association of the Alcohol Beverage Industries (WAABI) (Shorewood lnn) . . . . . . 5-5B ........... 6 FRIDLEY C1TY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 7, 1994 Page 3 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED� First Reading of an Ordinance Recodifying the Fridley City Code, Chapter 205, Entitled "Zoning," by Adding 205.27 (0-4 Wetland District) and Renumbering Official Title � � � and Summary� 205.28, and Amending Chapter 11, "General Provisions and Fees" ....................................... 7-7BB Approve Extension of Special Use Permit, SP #93-01, by Westminster Corporation, to Allow Homes for the Elderly, Generally Located North and East of St. William's Church Abutting Fifth Street N.E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 8A Approve Waiving Fee for Temporary Sign Permit for St. Wiiliam's Church, Generally Located at 6120 Fifth Street N.E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 9B Approve Joint Powers Agreement for the Expansion and Improvement of Manomin Park at Locke Lake in Anoka County ...................................... 10-10F FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 7, 1994 Page 4 (dEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED� Approve Change Order No. 1 to Locke Lake Dam Restoration Project No. 211 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 11 C Resolution Ordering Preliminary Plans, Specifications and Estimates of the Costs Thereof: Stinson Boulevard Street Improvement, Project No. ST.1993-7 ................................... 12-12C Resolution Receiving the Preliminary Report and Cailing for a Public Hearing on March 21, 1994, on the Matter of Construction of Certain Improvements: Stinson Boulevard Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1993-7 . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . 13 - 13A Resolution Authorizing and Directing the Splitting/Combination of Special Assessments on: Lot 1, Block 1, and Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Northco Business Park........................................ 14-14B FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 7, 1994 Page 5 NEW BUSINESS �CONTINUED): Informai Status Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Claims ...........................:.......... 16 Licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 17A Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 18A ADJOURN: THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF FEBRUARY 22, 1994 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Mayor Nee. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nee led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman Billings, Councilman Schneider, and Councilwoman Bolkcom MEMBERS ABSENT: None PRESENTATION OF AWARD: PRESENTATION OF AWARD FROM CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION: Mr. Scott Erickson, Assistant Public Works Director, presented this award to the Council from the City Engineers Association. He stated that each year the City Engineers Association of Minnesota receives a list of construction projects that are eligible for this award as an innovative project. Mr. Erickson stated that the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) project was voted upon by the association for innovation in partnership. He stated that this award was given due to the number of agencies involved including the Army and the cities of Fridley and New Brighton, as well as other agencies. Mr. Erickson presented this plaque to the Council on behalf of the City Engineers Association. PROCLAMATION: VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA WEEK MARCH 6- 13, 1994;_ Mr. Burns, City Manager, read this proclamation, which was issued by Mayor Nee, proclaiming the week of March 6 through 13, 1994 as Volunteers of America Week in the City of Fridley. PRESENTATION: 1993 CITIZEN SURVEY: Mr. Bill Morris, representing Decision Resources, Ltd. presented the 1993 Citizen Survey to the Council. He stated that this survey FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22 1994 PAGE 2 had two thrusts. The first was a mail-out sent to 3,400 residents throughout the community, with 1,004 responses received. He stated that a sub-sample of four hundred residents was used as a control mechanism to measure the bias. He stated that follow-up phone calls were made to these four hundred residents which provided an 85 percent response rate among this controlled group. Mr. Morris stated that one of the differences noted between the control group and mail-out group was that among the mail-out group, older residents were more apt to respond than younger residents. He stated that as a result, residents above the age of sixty tended to be represented twice as much. He stated that in the under thirty age group, ten percent responded to the mail-out, and 21 percent responded from the control group. Mr. Morris stated that the longer a resident has been in the community, the more likely he or she is to respond to the survey. He stated that for those living in Fridley over fifteen years, 65 percent responded to the mail-out, and 58 percent responded from the control group. He stated that a bias was expected towards women responding. That was not the case, however as the ratio was 42 to 47 percent. Mr. Morris stated that the survey provides responses for both the mail-out group and control group; however, he would focus on the control group during this presentation. He stated that the survey was broken down into areas of concern. Mr. Morris stated that the first part of the aurvey concerned recreational activities and Springbrook Nature Center. He stated that overall responses in terms of adequacy and variety of sports offerings, fees, and information were extraordinary. He stated that ninety percent were satisfied with Springbrook Nature Center, and the overall ranking for recreational activities was 88 percent satisfaction and only twelve percent dissatisfaction. He stated that this is in line with the suburban norms across the metropolitan area. Mr. Morris stated that the next question dealt with the City's water and sewer system. He stated that 66 percent felt the water was free of discoloration, and over ninety percent had no sewer backups or had a satisfactory resolution to backups. Mr. Morris stated that in regard to the streets, the ranking was very high with over eighty percent satisfaction. He stated that one negative was snow and ice removal where 23 percent indicated they were not satisfied with this service. He stated that the eighteen percent dissatisfaction with pot holes is below the forty percent norm across the metropolitan area. Mr. Morris stated that questions were raised regarding parks including.maintenance, sufficient picnic areas, parking, athletic FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22 1994 PAGE 3 fields and playground equipment. He stated that the overall rating was in excess of ninety percent satisfaction; however, fifteen percent voiced some concern about parking. Mr. Morris stated that in the area of community development, building inspection had a satisfaction rate of 87 percent. He stated that two areas of concern were the weeds and trash violations and zoning compliance. He stated that over one-third of the community was dissatisfied with what the City has done in these areas. Mr. Morris stated that in regard to public safety, nineteen percent felt the police were not aZways courteous. He stated that this response came from the younger age group. He stated that police and fire response times were over 95 percent with a solid showing with respect to public safety services. Mr. Morris stated that in reviewing the concerns and attitudes regarding public safety, twelve percent had used the 911 emergency response. He stated that there were no unreported fires, and about half of those surveyed had observed park police. He stated that there was a feeling among residents that neighborhood crime was increasing, and 48 parcent felt a need to increase neighborhood patrolling. He stated that there was less concern with enforcement of speed limits. Mr. Morris stated that a question was asked relating to the impact of park police. Half of those surveyed had not observed them, with 45 percent not sure if they were having.an impact, and 51 percent felt they were having a great deal of impact. Mr. Morris stated that the issue regarding the City's responsive- ness indicated that 74 percent were satisfied and 26 percent were dissatisfied. He stated that 33 percent felt they did not have a say on how things were run in the City. He stated that the norm is 25 percent. This also tended to be age related. Mr. Morris stated that on the use of tax money by the City, the results were very positive. He stated that 34 percent had no idea on how the money was spent, and 61 percent stated tax money was always or mostly spent wisely. Mr. Morris stated that in regard to recreational priorities, 63 percent felt Springbrook Nature Center programs were important; 45 percent favored the senior programs; and 87 percent the playground programs. Mr. Morris stated that in water and sewer system priorities, one hundred percent felt no water discoloration or sewer backups were very important. He stated that street priorities ranged from 95 percent to 100 percent. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22 1994 PAGE 4 Mr. Morris stated that park priorities lean towards good maintenance and playground equipment. Mr. Morris stated that in regard to community development priorities, building inspection was at the ninety percent level, and enforcement of the weed and zoning ordinances ranged from 86 percent� to 88 percent. He stated that the collection of recyclables had a 91 percent priority. Mr. Morris stated that in the area of public safety priorities, safety is the key factor. He stated that police courtesy was very important to the residents. Mr. Morris stated that 93 percent of residents in single family homes felt the appearance of their neighborhood was good compared to those residing in duplexes and apartments where there was a range of 21 percent to 27 percent dissatisfaction with the appearance. He stated that only one percent agree that their own home is not in good shape. Mr. Morris stated that over ninety percent of the residents felt safe in their homes. He stated that only ten percent felt their own neighborhood was not safe. Mr. Morris stated that 95 percent of the respondents felt there were sufficient parks, and that there were very little problems with the bike/walkways and street lights. Mr. Morris stated that a number of issues were addressed in potential capital improvements and services. He stated that in some cases residents were very favorable. In other cases, they felt they were not important. He stated that in regard to a recreational/community center, 52 percent felt it was important. He stated that seventy percent felt a supervised teen center was important, and 68 percent felt gym space was important. He stated that 54 percent favored a regional senior center, and 72 percent felt after school recreational activities were important. He stated that 71 percent of the respondents felt it was important to have an outreach worker for at-risk youth. Mr. Morris stated that 74 percent felt inspections before the sale of a home were important; 47 percent felt a cat leash law was important; 26 percent felt 24 hour telephone service was important; and 17 percent felt an auto bank to pay utility bills was important. He stated that 80 percent felt a drop-off site for yard waste was important, and 70 percent felt curbside yard waste was important. Mr. Morris stated that eighty percent felt rehabilitation of old apartments was important, and 68 percent felt rehabilitation of single family homes was a priority. He stated that 54 percent felt incentives for affordable housing was a priority, and 71 percent felt incentives to attractive industry was important. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1994 _ PAGE 5 Mr. Morris stated that in general, this survey is very positive for the community. He stated that most residents regard the services provided as very high caliber in regard to taxes and spending. Councilman Schneider asked if there were any comments from the respondents. Mr. Morris stated that 72 percent of those responding submitted comments which will be forwarded to the Council. Mayor Nee stated that he appreciated the report. Mr. Morris for the presentation this evening. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: COUNCIL MEETING, FEBRUARY 7. 1994: He thanked Councilwoman Bolkcom requested that the minutes reflect that she abstained from voting on the Locke Lake Dam item. MOTION by Councilman Schneider above correction. Seconded by vote, all voting aye, Mayor unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: to approve the minutes with the Councilman Billings. Upon a voice Nee declared the motion carried Mr. Burns, City Manager, requested that the following item be added: 7AA. Establish a Public Hearing for Consideration of Amendments to Chapter 220 of the City Code. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt the agenda with the above addition. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: MS CINDY HOGETVEDT 201 SYLVAN LANE RE: SEWER BACKUP: Ms. Cindy Hogetvedt, 201 Sylvan Lane, addressed the Council concerning a sewer backup at her home on January 16, 1994. She stated that the damage was about $5,000. If they had not been at home, the loss would have been a minimum of $20,000. She stated that the City was not able to get someone to clean until the next day and this was minimal. Ms. Hogetvedt stated that this was not the first time they have had a sewer backup at their home. She stated that they_had a backup in the spring of 1983 and another one about three years ago. She stated that their insurance coverage was very limited at the time of the second occurrence, and a rider was taken out on their policy with a $500 deductible. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 6 Ms. Hogetvedt stated that she has submitted a letter to the City requesting reimbursement for the $500 deductible which they had to pay for this sewer backup. She stated that she would like some answers from the City if they will be reimbursed this $500, as it has been five weeks since the backup occurred. Ms. Hogetvedt also asked what action the City would take to correct the problem. She stated that she believes there is a back flow valve that needs to be installed. Mr. Erickson, Assistant Public Works Director, stated that there was a backup at the Hogetvedt home on January 16, 1994, and the City did respond. He stated that the City received a call at 9:30 a.m., and the stoppage was relieved at approximately 10:20 a.m. He stated that Service Master was called and was not able to respbnd for a day due to the cold weather. He stated that the City has records showing three backups at this address in April, 1983; January, 1988; and the one on January 16, 1994. He stated that in regard to the most recent backup and based on inspection, there was a stick lodged in the manhole. Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the procedure is to file a claim with the City's insurance company. If it is determined the City was negligent, the City would cover the loss. Ms. Hogetvedt stated that the problem is with the City's sewer line and not with the line to their home. Councilman Schneider stated it is likely that the City's insurance company will not find the City negligent. He stated that in the interest of good will, the question has been raised if a fund should be established to cover damages up to $500 for sewer backups. He stated that he would encourage some feedback from the residents if they are watching on cable. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that he would find out the status of Ms. Hogetvedt's claim. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ON-SALE BEER LICENSE FOR JANG-WON RESTAURANT: MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:40 p.m. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that this is a request for an on-sale beer license at 6440 University Avenue. He stated that the Police Department has reviewed the request, and the applicant is present this evening to answer any questions. FRIDLEY CITY COUNGIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 7 Councilman Schneider stated that there are no addresses listed for previous residences. Mr. Andy Jang, the owner's son, stated that they previously operated a restaurant in Iowa City, Iowa, but they did not know the address. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 8:44 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE CHAPTER 205 ENTITLED "ZONING " BY ADDING 205.27 (0-4 WETLAND DISTRICT) AND RENUMBERING OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY 205 28 AND AMENDING CHAPTER 11, "GENERAL PROVISIONS AND FEES:" MOTION by Councilman Billings to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:44 p.m. Ms. McPherson, Planning Assistant, stated that this will be a new chapter in the Zoning Code. She stated that the purpose of adopting the Wetland Overlay District is to comply with the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act adopted by the state legislature in 1991. She stated that the purpose of the Act is to achieve no net-loss wetland functions and values. She stated that the law requires developers to examine sequencing in order to avoid wetland impacts. If they cannot be avoided, the law requires repiacement of the lost wetland. Ms. McPherson stated that the City contracted with Westwood Engineering and Peterson Environmental Consulting to determine the number of wetland basins located in the City. She stated that there are 59 wetland basins in the City; 36 are located in the Rice Creek Watershed District and 23 are located in the Six Cities Watershed District. She stated that three basins would be exempt from the s_equencing requirements of the ordinance, and 21 basins are less than half an acre in area. Ms. McPherson stated that the City would be responsible for issuing certificates of exemption, determining instances of no loss, reviewing and approving or denying replacement plans, reviewing monitoring reports submitted by the property owner, and maintaining documentation for these activities for a minimum of ten years. She stated that as part of the ordinance, it is recommended that the City establish fees for exemption certificates, replacement plan applications, no loss determinations, and appeals. She stated that the State law limits the amount that can be charged to $75.00. � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22 1994 PAGE 8 Ms. McPherson stated that staff reviewed this proposed ordinance with the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission and Planning Commission and notified each of the affected property owners who are adjacent to or abutting a wetland. She stated that informa- tional meetings have been held with those owners and public hearings conducted by the Commissions. She stated �hat the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission and the Planning Commission have recommended approval of this ordinance. Councilman Schneider asked for a definition af the term "sequencing." Ms. McPherson stated that the sequencing requires a developer to go through a series of steps before he submits a replacement plan. She stated that a developer has to attempt to avoid a wetland or to minimize and rectify the impact. She stated that if this cannot be done, the developer must replace the wetland. Councilman Schneider stated that, basically, the "sequencing" is really a list of items that have to be done before a developer would get to replacement of the wetland. Ms. McPherson stated that there are 25 activities listed under the exemptions where a developer may drain or fill a wetland depending on the activities. He stated that for wetland areas les$ than one- tenth of an acre, the City can make sequencing determinations without written documentation from the applicant. Mr. Robb Bouta, representing Westwood Engineering, stated that his firm, as well as Ron Peterson frvm Peterson Environmental Consulting, was involved in the wetland inventory for the City. He stated that data sheets were compiled and completed for each wetland and given an identification number. He stated that the inventory did not include storm water basins, open storm water ditches, or road ditches, as they are exempt. Mr. Bouta stated that 59 wetland basins were identified in the inventory. He reviewed the procedures for sequencing in order to avoid impacting the wetland. He stated that before any private or public entity can fill or drain a wetland, they must submit a �aetland replacement plan to the City. He stated that this plan requires thirty different components which includes such items as the size, type, photographs, soils and vegetation of the basin, proof of ownership, and the area where the wetland would be replaced. He stated that a basin would be replaced at a ratio of two to one but could go as high as a three to one ratio. Mr. Bouta stated that when the City has finished reviewing the replacement plan components and is sure the sequencing is adequate, there is a finding of fact. He said that state law requires a five-year monitoring program for the replacement of wetland. To make sure the replacement will be done adequately, the City can FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRIIARY 22, 1994 PAGE 9 rely on the technical evaluation panel which is comprised of a representative from the City, one from the Board of Soil and Water Resources, and a representative from the Anoka County Soil and Water Conservation District. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that there was reference to areas less than one-tenth of an acre. She asked how much square footage would be involved. Mr. Bouta stated that this would be an area less than 4,360 square feet. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if this area would be exempt from these requirements if there was a City lot where half of it was wetland. Mr. Bouta stated that they would not be exempt, but if the fill activity is less than one-tenth of an acre, the City can make a sequencing determination. He stated that the wetland still has to be replaced at a ratio of two to one, but an alternative to filling the wetland does not have to be submitted. Mayor Nee asked if the $75.00 fee was the maximum that could be charged. Mr. Bouta stated that under this Act, a City cannot charge more `- than $75.00 for any permit issued for any of the activities which include the certificate of exemption, the review of the replacement plan, the review of any appeal of a decision by the City, or a determination of a no loss or temporary impact. He stated, however, that there may be other activities that may not fall under the permit portion of the law. He stated that there has not been clear direction from the Board of Soil and Water Resources what can be charged. He stated that this Board will be issuing some type of policy directive. Mayor Nee stated that taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize a developer, and any expenses should be paid by the developer. Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that she talked to Ron Peterson regarding the fee issue, and there may be a change in the state law. She stated that the Urban Wetland Coalition is focusing on the issue whether or not the consultant fees could be reimbursed by the developer. Mr. Bouta stated that the City of Lakeville requires that the applicant also pay a certain fee for staff time for processing each permit application. Ms. McPherson stated that the Anoka County Conservation District received some grant money. The City can monitor staff time for administration of this ordinance and, hopefully, recoup some of the expenditures through this grant program. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 10 Councilman Schneider stated that it seemed the City could encounter some significant expenses if anyone applied for a very large development in a wetland area. He felt that there should be some way to recoup the fees. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, suggested that perhaps the costs could be added to the building permit. No other persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed ordinance. MOTION by Councilman Billings to by Councilman Schneider. Upon a Nee declared the motion carried closed at 9:37 p.m. OLD BUSINESS• close the public hearing. Seconded voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor unanimously and the public hearing 3. ORDINANCE NO. 1025 UNDER SECTION 12.07 OF THE CITY CHARTER TO VACATE STREETS AND ALLEYS AND TO AMEND APPENDIX C OF THE CITY CODE (VACATION REQUEST, SAV #93-03, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY): MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the second reading of Ordinance No. 1025 and adopt it on the second reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the mation-carried unanimously. 4. AWARD CONTRACT FOR LOCKE LAKE DAM RESTORATION PROJECT NO. 211 STABLED FEBRUARY 7, 1994): Mayor Nee removed this item from the table. Mr. Erickson, Assistant Public Works Director, stated that the bids for this project were received at the last Council meeting, and the contract award was tabled for additional information. Mr. Erickson stated that the original estimate for this project was $635,000. He stated that the total cost for restoration of the dam is $607,376 which includes engineering and construction costs. He stated that the original estimate of the City's portion of that cost was $192,500, but some additional expenses attributable to this project amount to approximately $24,000. Mr. Erickson stated that the County will fund a bituminous parking lot and path but will postpone these improvements to a later date. He stated that the County would reimburse the City $7,400 for removal of the Sajady home and approximately $3,000 for some landscaping. He stated that the additional expenses of $24,000 would be reduced by these two amounts which will be paid by the County. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE il Councilman Billings stated that when the public hearing was held for this project, the original cos.t estimate was about $635,000 and included in this figure were the improvements which would be paid by the County. He stated that until last week, the City had assumed the County would contribute $100,000 plus the cost of acquiring the Sajady property. He stated that it now has been determined that the County is only covering the cost of acquiring the Sajady home and for demolishing this structure. He stated that the City now has to contribute an additional $100,000 in order to make the project work. Councilman Billings stated that the bids were $27,000 less than anticipated and $55,000 to $59,000 can be eliminated from the proj ect for improvements the County will fund in the next few years so these savings add up to $82,000 to $86,000. He stated that this means the City is now faced with a$13,000 to $17,000 shortfall. Councilman Billings stated that he wanted to make it very clear that even though the bids were less than expected, the cost to the City will actually increase. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to award the contraet for the Locke Lake Dam Restoration Project No. 211 to.the low bidder, Lunda Construction Company, in the amount of $537,375.75. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Councilman Billings asked what funds would be used for this additional amount of $13,000 to $17,000 for the project. Mr. Pribyl stated that he would assume the funds would be taken from the capital improvement portion of the storm water fund. He stated that there should be sufficient funds to handle this excess without impeding any other projects. Councilman Billings stated that he has not been following this project very closely. He is.shocked to find that the project comes to this, and now it is found that the County is contributing considerably less than anticipated. Mayor Nee stated that he felt it was a misunderstanding between the City and the Director of Parks for the County. He felt that the City's Public Works Director and the County's Park Director had a different perception than the County Commissioners. Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the County's cost• for acquiring the Sajady property has increased, and the County will be completing park improvements at a later date. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that in 1992, the Anoka County Board allocated $100,000 in their capital improvement plan for Locke Lake to acquire the Sajady property. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 12 Councilman Schneider felt that in the future, there should be written commitments and agreements before the Council makes judgments. UPON A VOiCE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman Schneider, Councilman Billings, and Mayor Nee voted in favor of the motion. Councilwoman Bolkcom abstained from voting. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS• 5. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2 AND SECTION 4.04 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CHARTER (CITY COUNCIL ORGANIZATION, AND NOMINATIONS AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS�: MOTION by Councilman Billings to waive the reading and approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Councilman Schneider stated that he would be comfortable with this ordinance amendment if Section 2.06, subsection 1 did not have the reference to, eight consecutive regular meetings of the Council. He stated that he would like a set time period rather than reference to eonsecutive regular meetings. Councilman Billings stated that the Charter Commission did a marvelous job of addressing the issues. He stated that he_has no problem with the ordinance amendments, except for the language regarding the eight consecutive meetings. He stated that if this was not included, he would be able to support the amendments. Councilman Billings stated that the current Council chooses to meet two regular meetings per month. With the proposed language of eight consecutive regular meetings, a Council member could miss four months. He stated, however, that some future Council could change their meeting schedule, and he would be more comfortable with a quantitative time period. Mr. Backlund, Chairman of the Charter Commission, stated that reviewing this ordinance amendment has been a lengthy process, and he would not be surprised if this would take another form in its next process. He stated that this amendment needs to be implemented because it solves a problem of vacancies. He stated that the Charter Commission will have to take what action they feel is appropriate. Councilman Billings stated that if this change had not been added, he would be willing to support the amendment. He stated �ahat he is hearing is if the Council does not approve it, the Charter Commission is going to do something different. He felt that this was a very complicated issue and would be difficult to present to the voters. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22 1994 PAGE 13 Mr. Backlund stated that as Chairman of the Charter Commission he cannot tell what action the Commission would take. He stated that the Council has every right to reject this amendment in whole or part. He stated that the Charter Commission has sought outside information from the League oE Women Voters and other parties. He felt that perhaps in the future, there should be dialogue between the Charter Commission members and the Council. He stated that he would not make a threat but would only point out the alternatives available. He stated that there is some frustration among the Commission members because of the number of times this has been reviewed. He stated that the important item is that the City have a Charter that deals with vacancies between regular elections. He stated that it is their intent as a body to act as a group and deliver a product as they see fit. It is the Council's prerogative to approve or reject it. Mr. Backlund stated that if the Council approves this change, it may be possible for the Charter Commission to re-review the changes in this questionable area. He stated that this is a complicated process and is difficult to change; however, he respects the judgment of the Council and will deal with the outcome. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, Councilwoman Jorgenson voted in favor of the motion. Mayor Nee, Councilman Schneider, Councilman Billings and Councilwoman Bolkcom voted against the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion failed. Mayor Nee stated that there have been periods in the past where the Council had four or five meetings per week. He stated that it seems the City would be well served if the Charter Commission talked to the Council during their deliberations. Mr. Backlund stated that the Charter Commission should make the Council aware of the changes they are deliberating so that their time and the Council's is not wasted. Mayor Nee stated he would like to talk to the Commission to discuss the issue. Mr. Backlund stated that he felt it was incumbent on both the Charter Commission and Council to communicate. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated that he did not know whether the Charter Commission or their legal counsel had followed a recent case in Coon Rapids, but they may want to review it. Mr. Backlund stated that the Charter Commission would definitely want to insure that they did not do anything that would cause legal consequences for the City. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRIIARY 22, 1994 PAGE 14 6. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CHARTER (NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS): MOTION by Councilman Billings to waive the first reading and approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 7. FIRST READING OF AN ORDTNANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ENTITLED "ZONING " AND CHAPTER 211 ENTITLED "SUBDIVISION " TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION RADIUS• MOTION by Councilman Billings to waive the first reading and approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 7AA. ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 220 OF THE CITY CODE: MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to set the public hearing on these proposed amendments to Section 220 of the City Code for March 7, 1994. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 17-1994 AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL: Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that this resolution is an update of a resolution passed in 1978 which gives the City Treasurer authority to issue checks without prior Council approval. He stated that items (a) through (p) were included in the 1978 resolution, and items (q) through (t) have been added in this resolution. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to adopt Resolution No. 17-1994. 5econded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 9. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR CORRID0�2 MAINTENANCE PROJECT NO. 266- MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the following bids for Corridor Maintenance Project No. 266: Bidder Total Bid Innovative Irrigation 10006 University Avenue N.W. Coon Rapids, MN 55448 $13,444.00 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 15 Jon Isaacson Lawn Care 10515 County Road 116 Rogers, MN 55374 $15,421.00 Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Erickson, Assistant Public Works Director, stated that two bids were received for this project, and it is recommended the contract be awarded to the low bidder, Innovative Irrigation. MOTION by Councilman Billings to award the contract for Corridor Maintenance Project No. 266 to the low bidder, Innovative Irrigation in the amount of $13,444.00. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 10. INFORMAL STATUS REPORT: HUGO STREET AND RUTH STREET STOP SIGN ISSUE• Mr. Erickson, Assistant Public Works Director, stated that Mr. Wasserman, 340 Hugo Street, has requested a three-way stop sign at Hugo and Ruth Streets. He stated that at the request of Councilwoman Bolkcom, input was received from the residents regarding installation of a stop sign. He stated that ten residents were in favor of the stop sign, and ten residents were opposed. , Councilwoman Bolkcom suggested having a neighborhood meeting to discuss this issue. She stated that the question was not necessarily about vehicles colliding but for the safety of children at the bus stop. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to direct staff to establish a meeting with the neighborhood residents and crime prevention specialist to discuss this issue. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 11. CLAIMS• MOTION by Councilman Schneider to authorize payment of Claim Nos. 54057 through 54297. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 12. LICENSES: MOTION by Councilman Billings to approve the licenses as submitted and as on file in the License Clerk's Office. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ` FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 16 13. ESTIMATES• MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to approve the estimates as submitted: Barna, Guzy & Steffan, Ltd. 400 Northtown Financial Plaza 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard N.W. Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Statement for Services Rendered as City Attorney for the Month of January, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6, 814 . O1 NewMech Companies, Inc. 1633 Eustis Street St. Paul, MN 55108-1288 Locke Park Filter Plant Modification Project No. 240 Estimate No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $61, 866. 00 Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of February 22, 1994 adjourned at 10:43 p.m. � Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad William J. Nee Secretary to the City Council Mayor �'; } . t„� � : �S �_� � -i s � t.. � � `'� � � � a� �� « ,,6 :� : �, � �a. &�; °� ,�v} ��; a ,��,.� ,$ � ` w 3 . � �{: �� - �� N' f � � � � a =3�. ' �I � #� A��Yu :3 <� y aa �1� � r a � � ` ��, � � ,? � r �r�, i �� _ r�, � �. "� � �+' �� �; � �.: i a � � . �`a �.` � ' ' 4' ,��8�'�'�6.,- - � ; , � , . �� � � �� � ;� �r ° n+ � ,;�, p � �� `�Y�'� 6:. €`" #,¢.... .bf"9 � � �� ��� �� ? H - � k. � ': f i t � �r" ' . � . 1_� i ' � � Y, • ,¢ C � � . � M'b � _ a ���� � , �,'"�� � �� y � � ��'��a 3: -: '�r't` � � � Y� � ��', �� �� �,� 1 j k��v�" � �„`', � , �^ � <� i � " ' :� �s 7) � W���`�� - !. I � r xy.`X :.``�� .. .�y� �". . � . _ 5� F4 ' � - . 'i ' � . r, � v. . , - ,�` � . � � i g � . �4 1 �" f: � � . � '. ':-, � . �... _. � � �b � Lv.."-_ � . . '_. t.� . ... . � i � � i s ,� ,1 ; - �� � 1 �r � � y- ;�.yFS j�� . {�� 1 f j�,� �• � 1' . _ 1 ��:�� �. , j. � �� �.�� �I � � �� �� � � � � � �� j, r : �` i � 2'M } � i- �' ��� � � _ . . i f _ ; , � �: � � � � � � ; � y! { } ' - :,i. 1 �.. . � . � �. �: � E � , x ' fe .� �.;- . � �' � �;� . � ' . . I - {�� � � � . � � .. . ' I i. . . . . .. � � :. . . . � . . . i�` i � : ��� � .�� �; � . � � � . �� } ,�., � { ��� i � ! � . . . . - . . . . . . � �� � l ��L '�� t , 1,. . . . . ,.. . . . � . � � ��� � � I' � .. . . ��'� � 1 � ����� �� i � : � �� � ff _ _ i � 1 �, ��� �`. 1 E?�� �?- ' : � c '� � F �` i q ��. � � � �" "� %�.-� y A : � -� �. , : -"r' K�, a r . , '�,"� tp�� � '� �'�M`+e` ' ��' .- 3�#4 �i*a �. a �. � ,:��"" w� �,�� s ✓ � � � - � �- ro �'k'` - . � �. ,� t,�"� `�!� sy "Y ,� . ,�"' � �` d� �` ��, �, {-' k � F � � y, ��� . , } y ? i ' �� :. � a�' t� �: i y � W s � �,.� k -r �"" ��� �.� � ,,�"r'� �yr • ,�q, 3 � � 3� � � �" , ✓` y��a 4 � ,�c j .�'$:. �y �t'�.� t �'� '� � • d "' s' y .: � `o'� 4 `j. J�YY�, � . �' _ :. I � �rv � . � 4. � . �4`t�� „ �-� ti . - . s�" �� �+: � � . f� t i " �,���, , � : . . : I � .�9 � 1 � #,� f �� �' r a�, � � �' d '�. � - . �: � �� �� a��,"�"'.� < i 'rg . ��� �� �: � � J �� �� �� ���.� " � � , ? /"� ,} p gpt "�-� �r �a '"3F '�'�, � . . �,;'�:�' � ^l�; t .i ,��..�':, . . ��C� � �+.;.. _,.,�p� , .,.<�a.� . . i . .r � MAR Q 7 1994 �w�.t;� t�r �,��.��.�r cc�ur�zci 1 M�mb�r� -.� P���yc�t' htanag�r Ua�S].i�n���Ci Ac�eY1tS R�vIE'•W cUf C�F�'iwFT �'.2Q Th� Ca.t�y shou].d look tc�r new way:� of la.censin� residential rental rather tY��an placinc� all rental il].'s on t.he property managers , c���ners , banks �tc . Tl���r� ar� far more tenants t.ha.n prap�rty mar�agers/owner�. �ii��:rasp�ct, ��ark���e, �r�fititi, �'?x c��rn�ge ar� t.enant IJ�il�V1VT"� �.T1Ci C:G1`7C�'�Tlu G� �ropert.y 111c�.T"Ic%g�l"S �.Il�� OW'fIEY �. _ _ . .. .. � .. _. _ �ntoi°c�rnent ���h : i��a nn �t.�t . 5�� I��J`� y ,JJ 152 , 5a :3�+���-'� , 5 � ��i k� , SS o2� �.nci f="ricll�y� Co��. C�a.� 10�=s � 1�7, a.r� �h,w responsa.k�i�ity oY tf��� P�.�k�liu 5af�ty uirf�ct��r anci n,�r t�.'t-�� pro�c�r-ty awn�r , mana.ger , k�anker or k����ineus �ersan. Wh�n a prnblem occur� wit}� �� cu�tc�rne�- iri .� busz��ess, th� ��r-�nnw� ca.usin� the probl.em are h�ld accountable -For their b�havi�r not th� business person, mana��er, �r owner. Why the diff�r�nce wi.th �r-esidential rent.al , Th�� Ciry �hou�� develop an Orr�inanc� ��r: T�n�nt Occupancy in �ridley �.nd th�n License each t�nai�t t�at wishe� to rent. It is workable. A�ood �tart is Seetian 220.14 �.s fal.lc�w�� 1. It� shall b� t-esponsi4aility o�t= the tena��t licen�ee, �hdt a.11 laws anci c�r�iinance�; ar� �:�,mpli�� a�itl�� within �.I-�ei�r h��rri� anc� on tl-�e premises oY the rer-ital un%t . 7i-�is a�pli�� ta th�ir cl��il.dr�n, uisitors �ri�.:i �u�:�t. ( Tf d�5ir�cf� list cl��� law:� ��:� i n �r.�t t ) ., G:. Ci�': aS 1S :�. F;��l�ce t.he w�rd "licens��" witf� "lic:�ns�ci tena.nt" . -�+, F;�plac� th� worct "lic�nses" with "license� tenant", al�:o LINE 1� c�f �+ i.�:. "th� rent�l dwellir�� lic�n�;e i°or e�c,� shc�u l�� rea�� "th� r�nta l t�nant 1 ic:�ns� tor rtc .". �. Ch�.n�e "licens�e" and "r�nta.l dw�llina licens�" �.d �� l icen:�f=c� t�en�nt " anc� "rental t�n�nt l icen5e " r-espect��`ul ly . �. Needs t.o ��: �rewritten �.o ut� evictic�n as a course c�f actioi-� by the �'roperty Manager/Qwner/�gent witl� the powe�� c�f thi�; o�rdinanc� and �ssista.nce c�f the Publa.c Safety tJir�ctor. i. GK a.s is. (when us� with tcnant license) �1��r,� 2�'G . 15 � OK a� is .( u�ec� witl� tenant 1 icense ) �ldd a�� mucr� of t.h� rest. of 2,20 t�at mak�� �,en�e r-�c�a•r�ing wh�� i.� �x�rw,�ta� �f rental t�nants. Ch�r�e a�ee for this r 11{:4wT'I'��. (�i1�1 i�c- :''�. i�ilt.-�,6�J��, �'t.,''fr 11 f;i1�T1�E?:� e1Y� Cll�(7�. (i'IF�'11 fri�ilv l�. �i 'i'��'�GT"1 sl�l�.l�.y O� C�.C:il �YC��'i�'f"�,yr ma.r-��g�r t.0 Y'E=CQ7`C� L.il-�.' .�1.C�T`ISC 1lUfl1s.�"'iE'.Y, �Xj711`c��.lOil C�c��.�' c�t: ���5 c'� COTlc�'1�,LOlI 0?' Y�T1'C.1T1� a. unit. t.cy �.nyc>ne: Wo�r ki. nc� t.ogether ��a ff�renc� . A i����.^-_.�� pY't�j��Y"t.Y �4JT1�'T" �.�.'�-�G�� witl�� th� ��afe�,y Uirect,nr �,�e can make a M , 0 � .. � .'� �"� . . :. .� , � E � o�' �s�.0�_,�.. O : °' s,,,e � � ; • � $ • � � � � � e —� � �. � � � _�� � � :: � � . ..� � _ _ � }� , ,.. O O � A � .t �� -- �V � O � �� � s � �� , �����_� - � :� � � � � = � . �� �. .�_ � � � � �_ �. _�B �� � �$ � � � �,$ � � �� � � . ; -� :�j .. � �;,, _ �� ;. � �� � M � � Q�� �'��� 7�� �t�_ , ` �+��_ a� `�� }�w � •i . � - •� y ��C � �" � , � ��� G �V 3 �� : Q� ' � � �,�c��o g �� g� �o� �a � c . a�o� • ��;3oE � _�pQ• �°� m� �a � I� ���� G��� L��C E � b� e0m � � �Y �� _ . ���' g . ������ � �; ���g �� � �;�a � � �� CQm��� � 00�� �S q� •� j � i mF� , �° a � . �} �!�l3� �� � E m � � �� � �a��� �,bS��L -•�o�=0��� �C-���� ! "� � � � °' �� �Q ������g�� �°� _ ° g� � s�� � �:;���� <> �� Q� � �° �� �� �� ai �a� �� ��-.� ��—�'—� : �: ; ;� , �� � � . - --- --_ - -- �''° :'�` [!S�4 �2253 To; Mr Stevea� Barg atlad rr�,d�,ey C�.��r Ca�Ma�,1 Fx�o�; Rodger a�d �,aVear�e Carey � Ma.x�ch 4th 19q4 �W'� are very di�app��nted tYta�. you would eee :f�.� io eet�,bli�h �, Reaid�ntial k��a` Mski�teR�Ce and Licenei�g Code� Ybtzr imtie�t az�d the ward Rent�7. ��re�.p xa�a].d i.mdicat� d�,�crl�al��ation. There i� i�r p],aaa a 1ic�n�i�g _ ��q��a�e��n� far R�r�tale so all tha� is �e�eded �,� a Ho�dlz�g Mai.��. Cod� that �oa�,d cav�r al� R�e:iden�fai �d axi equal, inspactio� plaxi for a�.l. �� �h.ex�� iracl�d�ci �a requi.rese�t the�t Aan�ge�een� aQflrees ao�pl�l.�ts vritb�ia �� �a�r�� � I�` �a, d�a ya�z real3y th�,�3c thi� ie reaen�able ? A�.so i.x yo� ���� �o ho�a �h� owner re�poz��qib�.e toar a�isdead� o! rex�tera the� sha�tld you i�iax�� �h� vr�near o� each a�d ��rer� i�cide�at 7 Ie that Mot wkra� �he ow�.er �•��� a�.ice��e fee suad �tetch hlghe�' taxes ior ? �':hau a" Tenar�t r�.gi�ts, have �hey been com�idered? We hope so , you �aead T�:r��s:tr� �.� cxur butild.iugs a� ��toh as we owr�ers do. �";�.���.�.�, S��vu�t, can yot� i� good aa�ci��aQ cvn,aid�r i�OT �ez�d3�tg r�aticea to %�:�ex�s bec�.�tusa the�► ha*�e noti atte�deQ p�t;a� ���ti�.g$. I hope aot. �t��e�t, v�s ar;� thi�•t yo� shar� thi� lett�� w�.th 'ihe Cour�c�,1 at ax prior to ��e� � 2�arah 7th meeti.z�g. The�rsk You, Rodger & LaVearle Carey 102?Q Mias. B1Wd. Coon Rapids 55433 a��2 C�i G+'s,�� f'r�20( �:4.�L� 4G��1 j ��� ca, f� 1e � _ _ I DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Community Development Department PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley March 4, 1994 William Burns, City Manager � ��� Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to Chapter 220, Entitled "Residential Rental Property Maintenance and Licensing Code" The purpose of the proposed amendment to Chapter 220 of the Fridley City Code is to accomplish the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Increase the number of inspections to 1,000 rental units per year; 1/4 of the City's total rental units. Update the City's current rental property maintenance standards. Increase the rental license fees to cover a portion of the cost of the program. Implement an equally aggressive and active maintenance and rehabilitation program as surrounding communities. The amendment to Chapter 220 is part of the City's overall housing program to maintain and improve neighborhood livability. As you know, the City Council has directed staff to implement the following programs as-part of our housing program effort: 1. Evaluate and implement ordinances which ensure ongoing maintenance of structures in the City, including a nuisance abatement ordinance for property violations occurring outside the building (adopted January 1994); a truth-in-sale. ordinance for ongoing maintenance of single family homes; an annual certificate of occupancy program for commercial and industrial buildings; and a rental licensing ordinance and inspection program. 2. Establish a Rental Owner/Landlord Coalition (the Police Department initiated this effort and owners/landlords are now organizing their own coalition). 1 Chapter 220 March 4, 1994 Page 2 3. � 5. Establish rehabilitation programs for multiple family and single family buildings. Apply for and use federal and state housing program monies, such as HUD programs and MHFA programs. Implement a scattered-site acquisition program of deteriorated/abandoned homes. Research Completed to Proposed Ordinance Staff contacted 16 communities to collect.rental ordinances and related information. Each ordinance was reviewed for content, format, and readability. Most of the ordinances seemed to closely model one another. Staff then contacted a smaller number of communities similar to Fridley to determine their inspection policies, procedures, and personnel requirements. Common elements to all of the communities included an annual license, regular inspections, establishment of licensing fees, and a minimum of one full-time inspector. Major Features of the Proposed Ordinance There are four major features of the ordinance: 1. The minimum building and structural standards have been updated and revised. These standards pertain to exterior appearances, plumbing, heating, electrical, and structural elements of the buildings. 2. Licensing procedures have been amended to require owners to maintain an occupancy register, have written procedures for responding to tenant complaints, and to be accountable for the behavior of the tenants (Section 220.14). 3. � License fees would be increased to cover a partion of the cost of the program. The ordinance provides for the systematic inspections of 1,000 units per year instead of the current procedure of responding to complaints. Proposed Inspection Proclram During our research, we dete�mined that there are two sets of inspections occurring in multiple family buildings; a fire inspection in the common areas as well as an inspection inside 1A Chapter 220 March 4, 1994 Page 3 the rental unit which should meet the standards identified in a city's rental code. In order to eliminate the necessity for two sets of inspectors to perform these inspections, it seemed appropriate to combine the inspections in one department. Columbia Heights, for example, uses fire fighters to conduct their rental inspections. We also determined that it was easier to cross-train fire inspectors into rental inspectors versus training rental inspectors into fire inspectors. Fire inspections require more training, classwork, and practical experience. Further, the Fire Department has been administering the City's current rental inspection program since 1982. They have been able to respond to complaints on a 24 hour basis because of the availability oE fire department personnel. There are more . resources and equipment available to the fire personnel at this time as compared to hiring full-time city staff or contract personnel. A vehicle is available £or inspections, and the fire fighters would be wearing uniforms. It is proposed that the inspection program would be implemented by a full-time fire fighter, a half-time fire fighter, and a part-time clerical person. It is estimated that the personnel costs approximate $65,000. Although the Fire Department has computer programming available, tracking the inspections and ongoing maintenance of a program this size would require additional software and computer hardware. We are therefore estimating a potential one-time charge of $10,000 to $20,000 for computer equipment (the Information Systems Committee is currently evaluating these issues as part of its overall mandate to evaluate computer use within the Municipal Center). Another $15,000 in soft costs is also anticipated in terms of providing forms, office space, and other office equipment to appropriately serve the inspection program. Therefore, we are anticipating a total program cost initially of approximately $100,000. Review Process City staff was invited to the Renta� Owner/Manager Coalition meeting on February 2, 1994 to review the proposed ordinance. Several concerns were identified at that meeting. Chuck McKusick in the attached memo reviews issues pertaining to administration of the inspection program which were raised at the Owner's Coalition meeting. Also, staff inet with Angie Fleming, manager of Springbrook Apartments, who is the chairperson of the Rental Owner/Manager CoaZition, and Steve Schachtman, President of Steven Scott Management Inc. on Wedne5day, March 2, 1994. We anticipate that they will present the following concerns to the City Council at the public hearing: : Chapter 220 March 4, 1994 Page 4 1. They are concerned about the administration and implementation of the tenant behavior section of the ordinance (Section 220.14). This section identifies specific requirements for the owner to address unlawful tenant behavior as defined in the ordinance. This section of the ordinance would provide the City with the ability to suspend or revoke the owner's license if the owner does not properly follow the procedures contained in the ordinance to evict the tenant after two occurrences. 2. We anticipate an alternative fee schedule to be proposed. They felt it was unfair to propose a large fee increase given that the fees have not been increased since originally implemented. Further, they recommended that we contact the City of Plymouth to compare fee schedules given that they recently worked with Plymouth on a similar issue (staff wili do that prior to Monday's hearing). 3. Specific features of the ordinance may be questioned including the definition of a"Family" and other issues. As a result of the Owner's Coalition meeting on February 2, 1994 and as part of our usual process to have our prosecution attorney and the City Attorney's office review the ordinance, we are now in the process of ineeting with legal staff about specific features of the ordinance. The owners were concerned about the authority of the City to enter property for municipal inspections. While the City has adequate authority to conduct systematic inspections in order to insure that the units are in compliance with the minimum building standards in Chapter 220, the City as in the case with all inspections must receive permission for the purpose of inspection (see memo from Gregg Herrick dated February 17, 1994). If permission is refused, the City must obtain a search warrant or consent if the inspection is refused. It should be noted that the majority of leases already permit landlords to access tenants units for inspections, repairs, or to "show" the unit. The prosecutor's office has suggested amendments to several areas of the ordinance: 1. Section 220.13.09 should be amended to provide for a 20 day notice to the owner instead of a 5 day notice. 2. Section 220.02, "Preamble", should be expanded and amended. 3. Section 220.13 regarding resident agent requirements should be amended to require every non-resident owner to designate �C Chapter 220 March 4, 1994 Page 5 a resident agent. 4. Notice�to tenants in Secti��.220.14 beyond posting should be provided. Staff will be meeting with both the City Attorney and the Prosecuting Attorney on Monday, March 7, 1994 to follow-up on these issues. Recommendation The City Council should conduct the pubZic hearing as advertised. Because we are anticipating additional information from the Owner's Coalition and because the attorney's offices are still. reviewing the proposed language in the ordinance, staff recommends that the hearing be continued beyond Monday's hearing to the meeting on March 21, 1994. This would provide staff with additionaZ time to respond as directed by the City Gouncil to the testimony received at Monday night�s hearing. BD/dn M-94-107 1D 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM MEMO TO: BARB DACY, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: DICK LARSON, DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF �� DATE: March 2, 1994 SUBJECT: CITY CODE CHAPTER 220 In response to the three questions posed concerning administration of subject proposed ordinance: 1. Response by Owner to Complaint: In the event the Fire Department receives a rental property complaint from a tenant, and the tenant has already given complaint notice to the landlord, then the Fire Department will verify the complaint status with the landlord. The time permitted to correct the complaint will vary depending on the nature of the problem. However, the Fire Department is concerned that the landlord acknowledge to the Fire Department that he/she has in fact received the complaint from the tenant and will be implementing corrective action if the complaint is fiounded. Accordingly, the Fire Department believes a reasonable time to make that acknowledgement and affirm a corrective action plan, is 24 to 48 hours from the date we tried to contact the landlord. This does not mean the problem must be carrected in that period. It does mean that we can create a written record of having discussed the matter with the landlord. The basis for this procedural need is that we have often experienced landlords who will not return our repeated telephone calls, or simply can't be contacted. The burden for being available to our calls must rest with the landlord or his/her agent. 1E Page 2 2. Inspection Schedule: Upon direction from the City Manager to implement the ordinance, the rental inspection program will start. The program contemplates the addition of personnel, funded in part by the rental property permit fees. Because the new fee schedule is not effective until August, the City will determine if the additional personnel should be retained prior to August. In any event, the Fire Department will utilize existing staff to the best of its ability to accelerat� inspection frequency. This will require the Fire Department to defer other activities due to personnel shortfaN, pending additional staff, but will result in an attainment of the prorated year end total inspection goal. 3. Inspection Strategy The question of whether one part of the City will be inspected first, or whether complaints will be handled before routine inspections, assurnes that the Fire Department will not have sufficient human resources to fu(ly implement the program. The expectation is that the Fire Department will be staffed 24 hours per day, permitting receipt of complaints at any hour, rather than during just normal business hours. We expect all priority complaints, e.g. lack of heat, fire Qr health hazard, to be inspected immediately by on duty staff. All firefighters will be trained in this area, and some wiN receive advanced training. Property inspection will not be the sole responsibility of one or two designated firefighters, but rather a department responsibility. This means that the Deputy Chief who is the administrator for all inspection programs, can and wilt schedule as many personnel as needed to achieve needed inspection rates. He will determine the inspection strategies appropriate to the situations that exist. Inspection priorities change with time, building ownerships, complaint histories, and neighborhood composition. As a stakeholder in the program's success, owners should be confident that they will receive the inspection service, at least once each four years, that it will be a constructive process for them and the community, and that it wiil be conducted at mutually convenient times and dates. dir: ORD220. DAC �F Comparison of Municipal Rental Inspection Proqrams City Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Columbia Heights Crystal New Brighton Richfield Robbinsdale 0 IInits/Year 500 2,000 625 850 450 1,500 750 1G Inspectors 1 (F.T. ) 2 (F.T. ) 2 (P.T.) 1 (F.T.). 1 (F.T. ) 2 (F.T. ) 1.5 (F.T.j � '"� • �~ M � � C�.�I � � r�l V M � � w '� � � � a O � N � .�.+ ..� � �--� O N �--� � O O � � � � ...., � � N O d' N � O � � � � � .'.., � � M O � M � � � � O •� . � � � �^ 'C �- � O � O � . U O O 4� r--� � � � � � ..� � � N � � O � �. ^, � r� O �t � � 0 � � � �_ (V ''� �� + � O O V «i � � � ct d� bg b�} � �-+ • �--� � v� v� � 4� v� '�' r--+ w �� � � ♦, o � � � � � � � � � o o �' � �, �, o L� r--+ N M o0 � 1H N d 'Jr � � G�1 � 't7 � •� v� �� W d 0 W •rl oa �'I ri � � �ri � U � � a .-. o\� o\� o\� o\� o\� o\° o\� o\� o\� o� oM o\� o\� o\� o\° o\� o\° o�° oM o\� oM d�o o\� o\° o\a 1 CO l� ri lC) 01 d' ln ln U'1 lf) rl O CO �O c'7 i-1 01 Q1 0� CO l0 l0 N I� Ln � \ O C � l� 01 O�-1 d' tn �O I� CO CO CO i� l� l� t� �O �O 10 �D �O � �O ln l!') '."� �- rl rl i-i N N r'1 ri �-1 rl e-I � e-1 r-I �-�I r-1 �-1 e-i � rl r-I .-1 rl rl e-I e-i � v � � � -� i-% a-1 T3 -ri U '� � OOOOOC'�NOCOOh�OMO d'OMLf10Nl11Nlf10l!')I��O 'S O l�j ,'� � OOOOOMd�0000NtflMOd'OMt�l11d'MNd101M(�LL1 f-1 O � . . . . . . . . � 3� G4 lf) tn Ln ln � CO �O ln M M N r-I O O Ol dl CO l� t� l� l� !'� l9 lU �D ln lfl C!� lll l� 41 N N N N N rl �--i �--i �-I �-i r-I c-i r-i �-I tR Vi �/i th Vi (!} {/} th Vi t/i th th {!} � � a ��rv}�v}�tirvrv}vrcnvr��r d w + � �no�noo � 0000�no�noino�no�n0000�n0000ino�n�nin 'd Nlnl�00 � OOOOMOIi-100Nt0 d'COIf)ONOOONNOIOCOCOC'lI�01C0 N tl}Vii/ir-1r-I � �--iONMt�Od�lp�iN101flv-I d'Oe-iNN[�d'OhNO1COI.C)t� U1 i? tR � . i!} . � t/� t/� •• t/?� •• tR c/} i? t/� ih . t/?� t/} �� i/} V} O N M I� �-1 � N N r-I M �i N r-1 r-I d� �-1 t1+ P�' l/� t/r i/� th i/i Vi iR t/} il� th t/� il� il� th O H a �n � Ul N UI -•-i � � � � � •�-�-�•�p � �no�noinoinoino�noin0000�no�noO�nou�inin S�'-. -�'i S�-. �".. N Nlf14�00c-l�-INNMMd'lntfl[�COONd'd'lnlUC0d1[�dl W 'a '�7 ,'� ,'� -I- G4 {!i tR iR r-I c-i r-I r-i �-I r-I �-i e-I e-i r-I a-1 r-1 r-i N N N N N N N N M ln l� ih ih t/i i!� (/} (/� ih tJ� � t/� (J} tJ} t/� (!i t!� i/i i/i i/� {/� i/� V? (Ji (/i V� r-I N M d' lf) � .r., o � � a� o •� Sa •.� � OOOOOOd�M�YOInCOIO�OCOInd��OCOlI1MO1001Nd'CO '.'S N- '�.7 N OOOONOe-Irid'O�d'O�OInMN OCO(�l�(��p�Otnd�Nr-I +� s!i 'd a! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U 'Z� Sa G4 N N N dl l� t0 111 l0 lfl d' d' d' M f') M M M N N N N N N N N N N � -� (� � r-I '-1 e--I V� V� t!i i/� iJi t/i V� t!� i/� t/� (/� (h t/� c/� {!� t/i {h ili V� Vi �/i i!i (h (!� H a v} � rir 1� N d' l0 dl O1 • C1� r-I N M d^ d' ltf t� t/} � tJ� t!� N N N O� O O 00 N d' t0 lfl Ol CO C7 00 LCl ln l0 ln M M L� N N c-1 t� M ln t-1 l� N � oOlOd'lOtn001.f)COd'01NOOtf')c`7�0\OL�OOIOCOhOIOLnc-iM0 W S"-. d' M l� N N lO l� l0 ih (h M LA tR GO M tR {!} iR N�--I (`'1 N c-� CO C� N M N N �� � r� i/i t!i ur � v� t!r � vr � t� �r t/� �� �h � � U) � ;7 r-I M N rl r-i �'i a-7 •r-I U] N t/� t!)- (/i i/i i/i a� -� � +� a u � � •� . � ��� � V -r-I -r-I I� e-� � QI N d' 10 al lf� h� tn M f") Ol �-i M!� l� Ol M e-i I� � � �- v �-iNM� _ : � d'� _ _ � lntC)�IOI�COCO�IO�OIOOd'c')O D� � 1 [� v} v� ur t/i Vi tR Vi t/i Vi Vi t/} t/i Vi i!} .-1 rl ri N M N Vi i/} t/i (h t/?� �-1 N M CO �-I N � � w -� o� � • -r-1 O � zm � � -ri � -r-I S� � � C� E-� d' O l0 M I� Ol �-i d� r-I N t� N�--� LC) l0 �--� r� �-I M N d' M�--� l� lfl �-i i-i N d' r-I l� r-I N� N� c--I �-I � � Ul N N Ul Ul Ul U1 N U1 UJ U1 UI Ul N Ul Ul Ul N Ul Ul (!1 U1 N N Ul Ul 1� � � �{-� � � � � J-� � � 1� � � � � � � � 1-� � � �7-� � � 1� 1� -rl •.i -r-I -r-I •rl -r-I -rl •r�i -ri •r-1 •rl •rl •ri •r-I -rl •� -r-I -.-1 -r-I -rl •ri •�-I •r-I •rl •rl •rl •�-i � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � i 7 iJ '� � � :7 ..'7 � `� :� � `� .'7 '�7 '� '� � 'r7 `� '`-7 'r� '�.7 � 'a '� '� � N M d' ln �D l� CO Ol O r-I N tf 1�D CO O d' Ol N M d� l0 .-1 N 6� M r-I �--� �-i �--� �-1 rl �-1 N N N M M M M d' d' lf1 O d' � r-1 7� o\� � � � � � 0 � � � d' t/� d' � W � �--1 � tll � d W C1 Cl C', G1 U � a � :�i •,a N � O x r-t fd � C"i N a �-i ld i1, .,� U .,-1 � � � W O � 0 � •,i � � � � O U O O O� N i • �1 � 't3 tf) O O (� r-1 't'j ��rn �ro � N [/Y N . . . .� p ,ti • • • -�-I o U • � . . . � � � . . . � O W-•� . . . o� � . . . �tr>� � • • • 3-� O �-i • N N O'd W r-i +� -�i -� -�i � tT O � ?i ��� O b� O U �-�1 N M d� U t�i} -� O O O O O o O O � � � iri ui o o�� z3 C1 e-1 c-1 d' d' �+ ld .I.t �rr vr v� c!} U] ,C . . . . +� O .� �+ • • • • •rl O U • .,� . . . . � • t�3 � m • • • • � O N •�-I x : : : :a���� rtt • • � o •rl • U] N UI O'ZJ W r-1 �1J }� {� 1� � � RS -�-I •.i •r-1 -rl �1 O � .-t ���� O c��•� O ,� M a..� U �-I cv c�^� d� �A U vr -�-I 000 o O o � � I� Ln Lf� Ln f� r� 't'� NNN ¢i!d cI� tI} tI} N . . . J-� p ,�,' x• • ••�+o � i�l • • • � • «S � b . . . � ln � -r1 p.� • • • N � . . . N v} �-t � � • � o .'� • N UI O '� W � �-i +� +� � � � td '.+� •ri •r-i •rl � O � O � � � O ttl � � � � � � a1 � N M d' U V} -rl O O O 000 � U1 1 i-1 � 'Li ln ln lf') f� r-I '� N f') d' i� (� N vr �r � Ul � . . .+�o,� .�.� • • • •.-I o U . m . . . � tn N -� U • • • d� � Q • � • � � O � ?� • U1 Ul O'd W ri r-1 -1-� +� J-� � � �tl O .�.��1�+�00 o ��� o � ••�+ � � � +� (Y� rl N M �' U {!i -r1 O O O O O O O O�� O d' CO t[) 1n 1� Aa O O O N N • �-�I r-1 rl r-I N O d� Vi i? V} �/} {� O i/� • . • . . -rl .{� . . . . � tc1 U1 •� � . .. . .�(��i: . . . . ��� . . . . � vr p,, ,q . . . � .� �.1 •tANNO'd�CU � +� +i +� +� � N d � O •� •rl •r1-.-I b� � N � � � � � � � O O Rv �-�I cV c� d� tn U U W 0000o N Ul O o O O O��� oui�noo p,� ln l� Ol N ch fA cd V} tl} ih r-1 H}� o • • • v} tn� •rl o � . . . . . � U . . . . . � O � � Q� • • • • • CE N -rt . ,� . . . . ,.., � . . . . . s� v} 3� � v • • •o 0 �1 • fA tA UI N�'� W r--i -ei -� -� � -� � �1 � O �. A � � � � � O � o O O M.C�+� i� e-1 N M V' If) rl U�•� 000o cn 0 0 0 0 � � � I11 lIl ln �ti f� i�'� � � � � � i!i th ch t1� U� � . . . . � p �; • • • • •r1 o U • • • • � td +� . . . . � � N -•-1 • . • . lf) L: � . . . . � cn� 3-� � � • � o N • N U1 UI O'i3 W rl -�-I +� � +� +� � N cd W -rl -.-1 -� -.-1 � O � U ���� O t�dt� O •r1 .� oo � a ri N M cJ' lf1 U Vi �rl � O 11') � t/? Q• � ; b+ +� :i •� p0 � 3 � �ms � 1�1 �i � m rl b .,� � w 0000 In 0000 ���I t!') O t!1 O RS Q.i't� N ln I� O RS t!i t/} th r-I Ul O . . . � +� o .� . . . . -rl • U . . . .�Ot'd+� • � o N ••-I . . . . �--I � . . . . � tI} S-i � • N N Ul O'd W r1 +� +� +� +� � N cd -.-1 -.-i •rl -r1 ZT O � ����3-�S-i00 p � � � O td • -r-I ��� r-1 cV r� d� tn U v} ••-1 ROBERT A. GUZY BERNARD E. STEPFEN RICHARD A. MERRILL DARRELL A. JENSEN JEFFREY S. jOHNSON RUSSELL H. CROWDER JON P. ER[CKSON LAWRENCE R. JOHNSON DAV[D A. COSSI THOMAS P. MALONE MICHAEL F. HURLEY VIRGIL C. HERRICK HERMAN L. TALLE TO: FROM: RE: DATE: �� RY'�'k� : � � i i `, �� � 1 Barna, Guzy & Steffen, ]Ltd. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 400 Northtown Financial Plaza 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55433 (612) 780-8500 FAX (612) 780-1777 M E M O R A N D U M Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator City of Fridley Gregg Herrick, Assistant County Attorney� PAMELA M. HARRIS CHARLES M.SEYKORA WILLIAM M. HANSEN DANIEL D. GANTER, JR. BEVERLY K. DODGE GREGG V. HERRICK JAMES D. HOEFT JOAN M. QUADE SCOTI' Ivf. LEPAK STEVEN L. MACKEY DAVID M. WEIGEL ELIZABETH A. SCHADING WILLIAM F. HUEFNER ROBERT C. HYNES 1935-1993 Authority to Enter Property for Municipal Inspections February 17, 1994 It has been held by the United States Supreme Court tha.t entry into a building without permission for the purpose of inspection violates constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures. Thus, based upon the case law, absent a search warrant or consent, inspection is not permitted. Entry of buildings without permission is, however, allowed in emergency situations. 1K An Equal Oppor[uniry Employer � � Community Development Department � PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: March 3, 1994 � TO: William Burns, City Managery� �n FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: , Second Reading of an Ordinance to Expand Public Hearing Notification Radius At its February 22, 1994 meeting, the City Council approved for first reading the attached ordinance to expand the public hearing notification radius on development applications. Second and final reading is recommended. BD/dn M-94-103 2 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTBR 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODL� ENTITLLD ��ZONIN(3��, AND CBAPTER 211, � ENTITLED ��SIIBDIVISION��, TO AMEND THE PIIBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION RADIIIS . The Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows: 205.05. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT 4. SPECIAL USE PERMIT E. Action by the Planning Commission. (1) Notices shall be maiied to all owners of p�operty within 350 feet of the parcel included in the request not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. Failure of a property owner to receive notice shall not invalidate any such proceedings as set forth within this Chapter. 5. VARIANCES C. Recommendations by Appeals Commission. Within thirty (30) days after filing an appeal from an administrative order or determination, or request for variance from City Code provisions, the Appeals.Commission shall hold a public hearing thereon and shall hear such persons as want to be heard. Notice of such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the date of hearing to the person or persons who file the appeals, and to all adjacent property owners within a 350 foot distance of the.requested variance location. Within a reasonable time, after the hearing, the Appeals Commission shall make its recommendations or approvals subject to conditions of the Fridley City Code and forward a copy of such recommendation or approval to the City Council through the Planning Commission. 211.04. SUBDIVISIONS 1. Lot Split. B. Review (1) The proposed lot split shall be informally heard by the Planning Commission. Notices shall be mailed to all owners of property within 350 feet of the parcel included in the request, not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to 2A Page 2 - Ordinance No. the hearing. Failure of a property owner to receive notice shall not invalidate any such proceedings as set forth within this chapter. (2) After considerin.g such things as adjacent land use, traffic patterns, zoriing •�regulations, future develop�ent, plans for parks, bikeway/walkways, street extensions, and other criteria deemed pertinent, the Planning Commission shall recommend to the City Council either approval, with or without stipulations, or disapprova2. (3) After review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the application for Iot split shall be informally heard by the City Council. The City Council shall approve or disapprove the request for the lot split within sixty (60) days. 2. Plat and Registered Land Survey Process. C. Steps (3) Action on Preliminary Plat by Planning Commission (b) Not less than ten (10) days before the date of a meeting of the Planning Commission, for consideration of a preliminary plat, the City shall do the following: ((1)) Notify by United States mail the subdivider and the property owners of the property within three hundred fifty (350) feet adjoining the land within the plat of the time and place of such hearing. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF _ , 1994. WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK First Reading: February 22, 1994 Second Reading: Publication: s• � _ C�� OF FRtDLEY MEMORANDUM Municipal Center 6431 University Avenue Northeast Fridley, Minnesota 55432 (612) 572-3507 FAX: (612) 571-1287 William C. Hunt Assistant to the City Manager MEMO TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER � �� FROM: WILLIAM C. HUNT, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER� �� SUBJECT: DATE: SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CHARTER MARCH 3, 1994 Following passage on first reading on February 22, 1994 it is in order to schedule the second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Fridley City Charter for the Councii meeting of March 7, 1994. According to Minnesota Statutes 410.12, Subd. 7 the ordinance "shall be adopted by the council by an affirmative vote of all its members after a public hearing upon two weeks' published notice containing the text of the proposed amendment and shall be approved by the mayor and publ ished as in the case of other ordinances ." There is no provision in the statute which would allow the Council to alter the amendment proposed by the Charter Commission. It is a straight up or down vote. The proposed changes are listed below by section. 4.02 4.02 4.06 4.07 4.08 Eliminates obsolete language. Eliminates obsolete language, and deletes confusing reference to "regular" municipal elections in a section on primary elections. Clarifies some language and raises filing fee from $5.00 to $10.00. Clarifies some language in the nomination petition. Eliminates redundant lariguage �and breaks: up �engthy sentence. � � Attachments c: Charter Commissioners �' I 3 � � ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDYNG CHAPTER 4 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CHARTER The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows: That the following sections of the Fridley City Charter be amended as follows: CHAPTER 4 NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS Section 4.01. GENERAL ELECTION LAWS TO APPLY. Except as hereinafter provided, the general laws of the State of Minnesota pertaining to registration of eligible voters and the conduct of primary and general elections shall apply for all municipal elections of such offic�rs as are specified in this Charter. The Council shall, through ordinances duly adopted in compliance with such state Iaws and this Charter, adopt suitable and necessary regulations for the conduct of such elections. (Ref. Ord. 857) Section 4.02. REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. Regular municipal elections shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, at such place or places as the City Council may .designate by resolution. Regular municipal elections shall be held every even numbered year. The Council may divide the City into_as many voting precincts as�it may from time to time deem necessary. Each ward shall const.itute at least one (1) voting precinct and no precinct shall be in more than one (1) ward, At ieast fifteen. (15) days' notice shall be given by the City Clerk of the time and places of holding such election, and of the offi�ers to be elected, by posting a notice ther�of in at least one (1) public place in each voting precinct and by publishing a notice thereof at least once in the official newspaper of the City, but failure to give such notice shall not invalidate such election. (Ref. Ord. 919, Ord. ) Section 4.03. PRIMARY ELECTIONS. On the first Tuesday a.fter the second Monday in September there shall be a primary election for the selection of two (2) nominees for each elective office at the regular municipal election, unless only two (2) nominees file for each elective office. Primary municipal elections shall be held every everr numbere�d year, if. necessary. (Ref. Special. Election 4/12j60, Ord. 592, Ord. 919, Ord. ) � Section.4.04. SPECIAL ELECTIONS. The Gouncil may by resolution order a special election, fix the time of holding the same, and provide all means for holding such special election, provided that three (3) weeks' published notice shall be given of said special election. The procedure at such 3A elections shall conform as nearly as possible to that herein provided for other municipal elections. Section 4.05. JUDGES OF ELECTION. The Council shall at least twenty-five (25) days before each municipal election appoint two (2) registered voters of each voting precinct to be judges of elections therein and one (1) registered voter of the same precinct to be head judge of election, or as many more or less as may be determined by the Council. No person signing or circulating a petition of nomination of candidate for election to office or any member of a committee petitioning for a referendum or recall shall be eligible to serve as a judge of such election. (Ref. Ord. 592, Ord. 873) Section 4.06. NOMINATIONS BY PETITION. The mode of nomination of all elective officers provided for by this Charter shall be by petition. The name of any eligible voter of the City shall be printed upon the ballot whenever a petition as hereinafter prescribed shall have been filed in that person's behalf with the City Clerk. Such petition shall be signed by at least ten (10}. registered voters qualified to vote for the office in question. No elector shall sign more than one petition for any office for which there is an election. Should such a case occur, the signature shall be void as to the petition or.petitions last filed. All nomination petitions shall be filed with the City Clerk in accordance.with Minnesota State Statut�s. Each petition,.when presented, must be accompanied by a ten dollar ($10.00) filing fee. (Ref. Special Election 4/12/60, General Election 11/3/64, Ord. 825, Ord. 857, Ord. 921, Ord. ) � Section 4.07. NOMINATION PETrTIONS. The signatures to the nomination petition need not all be appended to one (1) paper, but to each separate paper there shall be attached an affidavit of the circulator thereof stating the number of signers of such paper and that each signature appended thereto was made in the circulator's presence and is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. With each signature shall be stated the place of residence of the signer, giving the street and number or other description sufficient to identify the same. The nominee shall indicate by an endorsement upon the petition acceptance of the office if elected thereto. The form.of the nomination petition shall be substantially as follows: NOMINATION PETITION We, the undersigned, registered voters�of the City of Fri.dley, �ereby riominate , . . , whose residencs. is . . . . ,. for the office of ...., to be voted for at the election to be held on tYie . . . . day of . . . . . , 19 . . ; and we individually certify that we are registered voters and that we have not signed other nomination petitions of candidates for this office. Name Street and Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . being duly sworn, deposes and says, "I am the circulator of the foregoing petition paper containing signatures and that t3eBsignatures appended thereto were made in my presence and are the genuine signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subscribed and sworn to before me this ..... day of ..... , 19 . . This petition, if found insufficient by the City Clerk, shall be returned to . . . . . . , at Number . . . . . . . Street. I hereby indicate my willingness to accept the office of .... if duly elected thereto. (Ref. Ord. 857, Ord. ) Section 4.08. CANVASS OF ELECTIONS AND TAKING OF OFFICE. The Council shall meet and canvass the election returns within seven (7) calendar days after any regular or special election, shall make full declaration of the results, and file a statement thereof with the City Clerk. Said statement shall be made a part of the minutes. This statement shall include: (a) the total number of good ballots cast; (b) the total number of spoiled oz- defective ballots; (c) the vote for each candidate, with a declaration of those who are elected; (d) a true copy of the ballots used; (e) the names of the judges of election; and (f) such other information as may seem pertinent. The City Clerk shall forthwith notify all persons elected of the fact of their election, and the persons elected shall take office at the time provided for by Section 3.01, upon taking, subscribing and filing with the City Clerk the required oath of office. (Ref. Ord. 592, Ord. ) PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1994. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR Public Hearing: February 7, 1994 First Reading: February 22, 1994 Second Reading: 3C 1 � � � i CITY OF FRIDLEY M E M O R A N D II M . . .. �� TO: WILLIAM W: BURN8, CITY MANAGER�Y �j� FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR AILLIAM A. CIiAMPA, CITY CLERR SUBJECT: MINNESOTA LAFTFQL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT REI�IEWAL APPLICATIONS FOR WORLD ASSOCIATION OF ALCOHOL BEVERAGE INDII$TRIES (AAABI) DATE: MARCH 3, 1994 Attached are two resolutions approving the renewal applications for Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permits for World Association of Alcohol Beverage Tndustries (WAABI). WAABI's gambling premise permits are for Sandee's, 6490 Central Avenue Northeast, and Shorewood Inn, 6161 Highway 65 Northeast. Also attached is a copy of a Iisting of donations WAABI has made the past few months. The Minnesota Gambling Control Board requires the adoption of a resolution approving or denying these premise permit renewal applications. These applications expire e�ery two years. � �J � ;�/ / �/ 8 �9�! ; C?�"1� ��!'.L-?�1L iT Y?QC�� ,:�° � ��� . �a � ��'oo �u����� . � . �:. J� '�' ' v " ..-. ...,.■ �j �,%/.S'�95� . - • ' •/. . � . . �� . � i � . . ��= � �_ � i .. • �i I � / � '/ � � I 1 � ./ �� . : / / I I � / � / i � �i � � � j f .. � ��- ''�' �� i / - �� � . ; �, i ' � _ • i � � � ill, � � �. � . , � . ,, ��. , � . � , , � �� • • �'�..i � ,� A� � � � � i f�/ .� � � I,� i ', �,' �► ii. i / / ' � � � �• % � i �/1 i • I • : , i ' � � . . • � . � ���' �,�, �i � % �i � �� i •/ � • / / / / ' / � �`, / ' 'i i� • , /I / � �.�I/i,i � �/ i �i , _ / �. � j , �i .� . � � /�, �'iI '� , � �, - �'� � ,.� � _� � .� f �� •♦ s . � i� i � �wr.1r_ ' / � • / /� i l I I �2/� r ck, . �1a$�- ���.8 � �laa e� � ����% �DD �� Ca 9 a�� �. 90 � �/� � — I�,v ' 1�����'G�,�,d ����� .��� � y� �aa�t C�� ���;h.�, ' � C 5�.�,.��� � a ao �:�.t L �a�, ��a �Q�ac� �uz�2) �RG'� �L21v���'a oo �1.��-- C�, � o��� �2c¢` �` ��� �/.3oo a 5A -�/z � � �:■ RESOLUTION N0. - 1994 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A RENEWAL APPLIGATION FOR A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT TO WORLD ASSOCIATION OF TiiE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE INDUSTRIES (WAABI) WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has been served with a copy of a Renewal Application far a Minnesota Lawful Gamblir�g Premise Permit for World Association of the Alcohol Beverage Industries (WAABI); and WHEREAS, the location of the Premise Permit is for Sandee's, 6490 Central Avenue Northeast; and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has not found any reason to restrict the location for the charitable gambling operation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Fridley approves the Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit to World Association of the Alcohol Beverage Industries. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 'DAY OF , 1994, ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK . � WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR RESOLUTION N0. - 1994 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT TO WORLD ASSOCIATION OF THE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE TNDIISTRIES (WAABI) WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has been served with a copy of a Renewal Application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit for World Association of the Alcohol Beverage Industries (WAABI)• and � WHEREAS, the location of the Premise Permit is for Shorewood Inri, 6161 Highway 65; and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has not found any reason to restrict the location for the charitable gambling operation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City. Council of the City.of Fridley approves the Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit to World Association of the Alcohol Beverage Industries. PASSED.AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1994. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK l•, WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR I _ � Community Development Department PL,��IVNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: March 3, 1994 �ry TO: William Burns, City Manager � �, I FROM: SUBJECT: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant First Reading of O-4, Wetland Overlay District Ordinance Based on the City Council's discussion during the public hearing on February 22, 1994 regarding the 0-4, Wetland Overlay ordinance, staff has added additional language regarding fees for administration oE the wetland ordinance. This additional language is based on the City of Lakeville's administrative charges of 2 1/2 times the hourly rate for staff and consultant time for administration of the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. We have titled this fee "Administrative Assessment" and have included various other activities such as traffic studies, environmental impact worksheets, drainage plans, etc. The City Attorney has reviewed and agrees with this proposed language. The revised language can be found on the last page of the ordinance and will become part of Chapter 11, entitled "Fees". Based on the Council hold ordinarice. MM/dn M-94-95 revised language, staff recommends that the City the first reading of the O-4, Wetland Overlay % ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYIN(3 THL FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 2Q5, ENTITLED "ZONING'�, BY ADDING 205.27 {0-4 AETLAND DISTRICT) AND� RENIIMBERING OF�'ICIAL TITLB AND SIIMMARY 205.28, AND AMENDING'CHAPTER 11, ��GFNERAL PROVI8ION8 AND FESB�� The City Council of the City of Fridley, Minnesota hereby ordains: 205.27 0-4 WETLAND DISTRICT l. PURPOSE AND INTENT It is the purpose and intent of this section to establish special controls to protect the unique and valuable wetland resources within the City of Fridley. 2. DISTRICT BOIINDARIES The boundaries of the O-4 district shall be located on the official overlay map of the City of Fridley and shall encompass all areas delineated within the Wetland Delineation and Evaluation Study, Westwood Engineering 1993. The boundaries of. the O-4 district are subject to change due to site-specific delineations accepted by the City. 3. POLICY. A. The preservation and use of significant wetlands is critical to the environment. The City will coordinate with.federal, state and local agencies in order to ;° achieve no net loss of wetlands. B. Significant wetlands will be maintained in their natural condition or improved to provide more benefits for water quality management, with consideration for other amenities. C. The City encourages sound, contemporary land use development that incorporates grassed, open, and wetland spaces to allow infiltration of precipitation in all la.nd use categories. D. The City proposes to preserve and enhance wetlands within the community through implementation of development regulations that will ensure the design and construction of adequate on-site storm water sedimentation and retention and detention basins, flow 7A Page 2 - Ordinance No. control devices, and implementation of effective erosion control techniques. E. The City will comply with and implement.the 1991 � Wetland Conservation Act and the accompanying rules of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources.� 4. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE This ordinance incorporates•the following documents by reference: A. The 1991 Wetland Conservation Act (the Act) and Minnesota Rules, 8420. B. The Federal Manual for ldentifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands dated January 1989, with appropriate amendments. C. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service Classification of Wetlands and Designation Habitats, Table 4. D. Wetlands and Deep water Habitats of the United States. E. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter I03. 5. WETLAND OVERLAY DISTRICT REGIILATION3 A. No development shall be allowed within a wetland overlay district without first: (1) Having the City or the Local-Government Unit certify that the activity is exempt as defined in Section 205.27.04, or (2) Having the City or the Local Government Unit certify an acceptable wetland replacement plan submitted by the applicant for compliance with the Act. B. Prior to the issuance of a City permit, the petitioner must show proof of, compliance or exemption from the DNR and Corps of Engineers regulations concerning drainage, grading, or filling of wetlands. In addition, the application must show consideration of the affected wetland values for stormwater runoff storage and detention, sedimentation and nutrient trapping and retention, fish and wildlife habitat, and the recreation and open space needs of the community. : Page 3 - Ordinance No. C. Sequencing (1) The following principles of wetland mitigation are listed in descending priority. A wetland. , replacement�pl.an shall not be approved unless the applicant has demonstrated that the activity impacting a wetland has complied with the highest priority possible: (a) Avoids direct or indirect impacts to the wetland that may destroy or diminish the wetland; (b) Minimizes the impact to the wetland by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation; (c) Rectifies the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland; (d) Reduces or eliminates the impact to the wetland over time by preservation and maintenance operations; and (e) Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetland by restoring or creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value. (2) The applicant may either submit the information required for sequencing analysis as part of the application for replacement plan approval or apply for a preliminary sequencing determination from the City. For projects impacting wetland areas less that 4,356 square feet, the City may provide on-site sequencing determinations without written �� documentation from the applicant. D. Sequencing Determinations (1) The City shall determine whether any feasible and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid impacts to wetlands. An alternative shall be considered feasible and prudent if: (a) It is in accordance with accepted engineering standards and practices; (b) It is consistent with reasonable requirements of the public health, safety and general welfare; %C Page 4 - Ordinance No. (c) It is an environmentally preferable alternative based on a review of social, economic, and environmental impacts; and (d) It would create no truly unusual problems. (2) The City shall consider the following in evaluating alternatives: (a) The basic project purpose can be xeasonably accomplished using one or more other sites in the same general area that would avoid wetland impacts. An alternate site may not be excluded from consideration only because it includes or requires an area not owned by the applicant that could.be easily obtained, used, expanded, or managed to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed project; (b) The general suitability of alternate sites considered by the applicant; (c) Whether reasonable modification of the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project would avoid impacts to wetlands; (d) Efforts by the applicant to accommodate or remove constraints on alternatives imposed by zoning standards or infrastructure, including requests for special use permits, variances, or planned unit developments; and (e) The physical, economic, and demographic requirements of the project. Economic considerations alone do not make an alternative not feasible and prudent. (3) If the City determines that a feasible and prudent alternative exists that would avoid impacts to wetlands, it shall deny the replacement plan: (4) If no feasible and prudent alternative is available that would avoid impacts to wetlands, the City shall evaluate the replacement plan to determine that it will minimize impacts to wetlands. The City shall use the following criteria to determine the sufficiency of the applicant's efforts to minimize impacts to wetlands: (a) The spatial requirements of the project; 7D Page 5 - Ordinance No. (b) The location of existing structural or natural features that may dictate the placement or configuration of the project; (c) The purpose, of th�e project and how the purpose relates to the placement, configuration, or density; (d) The sensitivity of the site design to the natural features of the site, including topography, hydrology, and existing vegetation; (e) (f) �g) The value, function, and spatial distribution of wetlands on the site; Individual and cumulative impacts, and An applicant's efforts to: ((1)) Modify the size, scope, configuration or density of the project; ((2)) Remove or accommodate site constraints including zoning, infrastructure, access, or other features; and ((3)) Minimize other impacts. (5) If the City finds that an appiicant has not complied with the requirements to minimize wetland impacts, the City shall list, in writing, its objections to the project. If, within 30 days, the applicant does not withdraw the project proposal or indicate intent to submit an amended project proposal satisfying the City's objections, the statement of objections shall constitute a denial. (6) Temporary impacts to a wetland shall be rectified by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland. The City may determine that an applicant's activity may qualify for a no-loss determination if the following criteria are met: (a) The physical characteristics of the affected wetland, including ground elevations, contours, inlet dimensions, outlet dimensions, substrate, hydrologic regime, are 7E Page 6 - Ordinance No. restored to pre-project conditions sufficient to ensure that all pre-project functions and values are restored; (b) The activity is completed �nd the physical 'characteristics of the wetland are restored within six months of the start of the activity; (c) The party responsible for the activity provides a performance bond to the City for an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost to restore the wetland to pre-project conditions. The City shall return the performance bond to the responsible party upon a determination by the City that the conditions in Section 205.27.5.D.(6).(c) and Section 205.27.5.D.(4). (d) An applicant shall be granted a no-loss determination under the criteria a through c above once in a ten-year period for a particular site within a wetland, except that repairs to the original project shall be allowed under the no-loss determination, if the City determines the request to be necessary and reasonable. (7) After an activity is completed, further wetland impacts from the draining or filling must be reduced or eliminated by maintaining, operating, and managing the project in a manner that preserves and maintains remaining wetland functions and values. The City will require applicants to implement best management practices to protect wetland functions and values. (8) Unavoidable wetland impacts that remain after efforts to minimize, rectify, reduce, or eliminate them must be replaced. 6. EXEMPTIONS A. The following activities are exempt from the O-4, Wetland Overlay District regulations: (1) Activities in a wetland created solely as a result of: (a) Beaver dam construction; %F Page 7 - Ordinance No. (b) Blockage of culverts through roadways maintained by a public or private entity; (c) Actions by public entities that were taken for a purpose other than creating the wetland; (d) Any combination of (a) to (c). (2) Impoundments or excavations constructed in non- wetlands solely for the purpose of effluent treatment, storm water retention, soil and water conservation practices, and water quality improvements, and not as part of a compensatory wetland mitigation process, that may, over time, take on wetland characteristics, are also exempted. (3) Placement, maintenance, repair, enhancement, or replacement of utility or utility-type service, including the transmission, distribution, or furnishing, at wholesale or retail, of natural or manufactured gas, electricity, telephone, or radio service or communications; (4) Activities associated with routine maintenance of utility and pipeline rights-of-way, provided the activities do not result in additional intrusion into the wetland; (5) Activities associated with routine maintenance or repair of existing public highways, roads, streets, and bridges, provided the activities so not result in additional intrusion into the wetland outside of the existing right of way; (6) Emergency repair and normal maintenance of existing public works, provided the activity does not result in additional intrusion of the public works into the wetland and do not result in the draining or filling, wholly or partially, of a wetland; (7) Normal maintenance and repair o causing no additional intrusion structure into the wetland, and repair of private crossings tha the draining or filling, wholly wetland. This exemption applie structures, such as buildings o 7G f structures of an existing maintenance and t do not result in or partially, of a s to private r road crossings; Page 8 - Ordinance No. (8) Activities that result in the draining or filling of less than 400 square feet of wetlands. This exemption a�plies if the total wetland loss by draining and filling.will be less than•400 square feet per year per Yandowner, and the�cumulative� impact by all persons on a wetland over time after January 1, 1992, does not exceed five percent of the watland's area. 7. REPLACEMENT PLAN DETERMINATIONS A. A landowner intending to drain or fill a wetland who does not qualify for an exemption in Section 14 or a no-loss determination in Section 205.27.5.D.(6).(a-�d) shall obtain approval of a replacement plan from the City or local government unit before beginning draining or filling. B. The City shall, within ten days of receipt of the application, mail a copy of the application and an invitation to submit comments to the Board of Water Soil Resources (the board), which will publish it in the Environmental Quality Board Monitor; members of public who have requested a copy; the soil and water conservation district; the watershed district or watershed management organization; the county board; mayors of cities within the watershed; and the commissioners of agriculture and natural resources. the same time, the City shall publish notice of the application with an invitation for comment in the City's official newspaper. and the At C. The City shall not make its decision before 30 days and not more than 60 days have elapsed from the mailing of notice, publication in the Environmental Quality Board Monitor, when required, or publication in the newspaper, whichever is later. The City's decision shall not be effective until 30 days after a copy of the decision has been mailed to the Environmental Quality Board Monitor for publication, when required, and mailed to the same list specified above for notice of the application, and to the applicant. The mailing to the applicant shall be by registered mail and shall advise that the decision is not effective for 30 days and is stayed if it is appealed. D. The City's decision shall be based on the replacement standards in Section 205.27.8 and on the determination of the Technical Evaluation Panel concerning the public values, location, size, and type of wetland being altered. The City shall consider the recommendation of 7H � Page 9 - Ordinance No. the Technical Evaluation Panel to approve, modify, or reject the proposed replacement plan. 8. REPLACEMENT PLAN COMPONENTB A. On a Combined Joint Notification form provided by the City, and with needed attachments supplied by the applicant, the following documentation shall be provided: (1) Organizational information, including the following: (a) The post office address of the applicant; (b) For corporations, the principal officers of the corporation, any parent companies, owners, partners, and joint ventures, and a designated contact person; (c) Managing agents, subsidiaries, or consultants that are or may be involved with the wetland draining or filling project; (2) An affidavit confirming that the wetland values will be replaced before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland. The City may require an irrevocable bank letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City to guarantee the successful completion of the proj ect ; (3) For the impacted wetland: (a) A recent aerial photograph or accurate map of the impacted wetland area; (b) The location of the wetland, including the county, watershed name or number, and public land survey with the coordinate of the approximate wetland center; (c) The size of the wetland, in acres or square feet; (d) The type of wetland using USFWS Circular 39, and NWI mapping conventions; (e) A list of the dominant vegetation in the impacted wetland area, including common names of the vegetation exceeding 20 percent 7� Page 10 - Ordinance No. coverage and an estimate of coverage; (f) A soils map of the site showing soil type and substrate, where available; (g) The size of the watershed that drains surface water into the wetland as determined from a United States Government Survey topographical map or other suitable topographical survey; (h) The locations of any surface inlets or outlets, natural or otherwise, draining into or out of the wetland, and if the wetland is within the floodplain of a stream, river, or other watercourse, the distance and direction to the watercourse; (i) A map, photograph, or written description of the land use of the immediate watershed within one mile of the impacted wetland. The surrounding land use information shall also indicate the presence and location, if any, of wetland preservation regions and areas, wetland development avoidance regions and are�s, and wetland deficient regions and areas as identified in the comprehensive water plan; (j) The nature of the proposed project, its areal '" extent, and the impact on the wetland must be shown in sufficient detail to allow the City to determine the amount and types of wetland to be impacted and to demonstrate compliance with the replacement sequencing criteria in Section 5D; (k) Evidence of ownership or rights to the affected areas, including a legal description. When two or more landowners are involved, including both the impact site and the proposed replacement site, a contract or other evidence of agreement signed by all landowners and notarized must be included with the replacement plan. The contract or agreement must contain an acknowledgement of the covenant provisions in Section 205.27.7.4.9, by landowners on which a replacement wetland is proposed and the location and acreage of replacement wetlands. The contract becomes binding upon final approval of the replacement plan; 7J Page 11 - Ordinance No. (1) A list of all other local, state, and federal permits and approvals required for the activity; and (m) Other information considered necessary by the City for evaluation of the activity. (4) For the replacement wetland: (a) A recent aerial photograph or accurate map of the replacement wetland area; (b) The location of the wetland, including the county, watershed name or number, and public land survey coordinate of the agproximate wetland center; (c) The size of the wetland, in acres or square feet; (d) The type of wetland using USFWS Circular 39, and NWI mapping conventions; (e) A list of the dominant vegetation in the impacted wetland area, including common names of the vegetation exceeding 20 percent coverage and an estimate of coverage; (f) A soils map of the site showing soil type and substrate, where available; (g) The size of the watershed that drains surface water into the wetland as determined from a United States Government Survey topographical map or other suitable topographical survey; � (h) The locations of any surface inlets or outlets, natural or otherwise, draining into or out of the wetland, and if the wetland is within the floodplain of a stream, river, or other watercourse, the distance and direction to the watercourse; (i) A map, photograph, or written description of the land use of the immediate watershed within one mile of the impacted wetland. The surrounding land use information shall also indicate the presence and location, if any, of wetland preservation regions and areas, wetland development avoidance regions and areas, and wetland deficient regions and 7K Page 12 - Ordinance No. areas as identified in the comprehensive water plan; (j) Evidence of ownership or rights to the affected areas, includirig a legal � description. When two or more landowners are involved, including both the impact site and the proposed replacement site, a contract or other evidence of agreement signed by all landowners and notarized must be included with the replacement plan. The contract or agreement must contain an acknowledgement of the covenant provisions in paragraph 9, by landowners on which a replacement wetland is proposed and the location and acreage of replacement wetlands. The contract becomes binding upon final approval of the replacement plan; (k) A list of all other local, state, and federal permits and approvals required for the activity; (1) An explanation of the size and type of wetland that will result from successful completion of the replacement plan; (m) Scale drawings showing plan and profile views of the replacement wetland and fixed photo-reference points for monitoring purposes. Photo-reference points should include views of any control structures and enough additional points to accurately depict the entire project; (n) How the replacement wetland shall be constructed, including the best management practices that will be implemented to prevent erosion or site degradation; (o) For created wetlands only, additional soils information sufficient to determine the capability of the site to produce and maintain wetland characteristics; (p) A timetable that clearly states how and when implementation of the replacement plan shall proceed, and when construction of the replacement wetland shall be finalized; (q) A notice in a form provided by the BWSR 7L Page 13 - Ordinance No. attached to and recorded with the deed for lands containing a replacement wetland, specifying the following: ((1)) The location of the replacement � wetland; ((2j) That the wetland is subject to the act; ((3)) That the fee title owner is responsible for the costs of repairs or reconstruction, if necessary, or for replacement costs; ((4)) That reasonable access to the replacement wetland shall be granted to the proper authorities for inspection, monitoring, and enforcement purposes; ((5)) That costs of title review and document recording is tl�e responsibility of the fee title owner; and ((6)) That the City or board can require necessary repairs or reconstruction work to return the wetland to the specifications of the approved replacement plan and require reimbursement or reasonable costs from the wetland owner, or can require replacement of the wetland according to the Act; (r) A statement that the replacement wetland was not previously restored or created under a prior approved replacement plan; (s) A statement that the replacement wetland was not drained or filled under an exemption during the previous ten years; (t) A statement that the replacement wetland was not restored with financial assistance from public conservation programs; (u) A statement that the replacement wetland was not restored using private funds other than 7M Page 14 - Ordinance No. those of the landowner unless the funds are paid back with interest to the individual or organization that funded the restoration and the individual or organization notifies the City in writing that the restored wetland may be considered for replacement; (v) A plan for monitoring the success of the replacement plan in meeting the project goal in paragraph 1 and as specified in Section 205.27.12; and (w) Other information considered for evaluation of the project by the City. (5) The applicant must provide information considering the special considerations criteria in Section 205.27.8.G. 9. REPLACEMENT PLAN EVALIIATION CRITERIA A. Before consideration or approval of the replacement plan, the City shall ensure that the applicant has exhausted all possibilities to avoid and minimize adverse impacts according to sequencing in Section 5D. B. The order of preference for the method of replacement, from the most preferred to least preferred: (1) Project-specific restoration; (2) Project-specific creation; (3) Wetland banking. � Modification or.conversion of non-degraded wetland from one wetland type to another does not constitute adequate replacement. Wetlands drained or filled under an exemption may not be restored for replacement credit for ten years after draining or filling. C. Replacement of wetland values shall be completed before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland, unless an irrevocable bank letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City is submitted to the City to guarantee successful completion of the replacement. Al1 wetlands to be restored or created as part of an approved replacement plan shall be clearly designated prior to approval of the replacement plan by the City. %� Page 15 - Ordinance No. D. Replacement wetlands shall be located in the same watershed as the impacted wetlands, or the ratio in Section 205.27.10 shall apply. E. Replacement wetlands must be of a size sufficient to ensure that they provide equal or greater public value than the wetland that was drained or filled. The minimum size of the replacement wetland must be in the ratio of two acres of replaced wetland for each aere of drained or filled wetland. The actual replacement ratios required for a replacement wetland may be more than the minimum, subject to the evaluation of wetland functions in Section 9. Future owners may make no use of the wetland after it is altered for a period of ten years unless future replacement to achieve a 2:1 ratio occurs. The landowner shall record a notice of this restriction in the office of the county recorder in which the project is located. F. Restoration and replacement of wetlands must be accomplished according to the ecology of the landscape area affected. A replacement plan that would result in wetlands or wetland characteristics that do not naturally occur in the landscape area in which the replacement will occur will not be approved. G. The following factors when, applicable to an impact or replacement site, shall be considered by the City: (1) The site contains endangered species listed in Minnesota Rules, parts 6134.0200 to 6134.0400 and the proposed activities would take those species, the replacement plan shall not be approved. (2) The site contains a rare natural community, and the proposed activity would adversely affect the community, the replacement plan shall not be approved. (3) The site contains a significant fish and wildlife resource; including but not limited to fish passage and spawning areas, colonial waterbird nesting colonies, migratory waterfowl concentration areas, deer wintering areas, or wildlife travel corridors, and the proposed activity would adversely impact those resources, the replacement plan shall not be approved. (4) The site contains archaeological or historic areas, and the activity would adversely affect those areas, the replacement plan shall not be � Page 16 - Ordinance No. approved. (5) The proposed activity would have significant adverse impact on the groundwater quality, the replacement plan shall not be approved. . (6) The proposed activity would have significant adverse impact on the water quality of outstanding resource value waters as listed in Minnesota Rules, 7050.0180 or on trout waters, the replacement plan shall not be approved. (7) Wetlands used for educational or research purposes shall be maintained or adequately replaced. (8) The proposed activity involves known or potential hazardous wastes. Such activities shall be conducted in accordance with applicable federal or state standards. (9) The proposed activity shall be consistent with other plans, including, but not limited to zoning, comprehensive, watershed management, and land use plans. 10. EVALUATION OF WETLAND FIINCTIONS AND VALIIES A. Replacement wetlands shall replace the functions and values that are lost from a wetland that is drained or filled. A replacement wetland should replace the same combination or functions and values provided by the impacted wetland. The wetland type index system in Minnesota Rules 8420.0540, subpt 10, item B, uses relative values of wetland functions compared across wetland types to evaluate the adequacy of wetland replacement. The City may allow the evaluation of wetlands by measuring and comparing public values specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 103b.3355, with the current version of the Minnesota wetland evaluation methodology or another scientifically acceptable methodology. B. Table 4, Minnesota Rules, part 8420.0550, provides technical specifications for canstructing wetland types. In evaluating a wetland replacement plan, the City shall determine whether the wetland type stated as the replacement plan goal will result from the replacement plan specifications. If a wetland type other than the replacement plan goal is likely to result, the City shall evaluate the plan based on this determination. [L r Page 17 - Ordinance No. C. The City may consider allowing constructed stormwater detention basins for replacement credit if the basin conforms to the following specifications: (1) The basin design uses a two-cell system in which the upstream cell has a 24-hour retention time for a two-year storm event; (2) The downstream cell is designed for a maximum 12-inch rise in water level for a ten-year storm event; (3) The standards in Minnesota Rules, part 8420.0550 are followed; (4) The design goal is a palustrine emergent wetland that meets all statutory definitions of a wetland, for example, soils, hydrology, and vegetation. Only the downstream cell can be counted for wetland credit, and the replacement plan must include a plan and schedule for maintenance of the storm water basin system. Storm water basins which allowed for replacement are not eligible for an exemption; and (5) Storm water management basins constructed for the primary purpose of controlling or treating stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces or developed areas, not conforming to the units in 1-4 above, are not considered wetlands. These therefore exempt from replacement plan requirements when constructed in non-wetlands, also cannot be considered for credit as part of replacement plan, regardless of their location. are and a D. When wetland functions lost as a result of drainage or filling are replaced by restoring a wetland of the same type and in the same watershed with the same inlet and outlet characteristics as described in Section 205.27.9.E, and related definitions, the replacement shall be considered to be in-kind and the minimal replacement ratio shall be used to determine the necessary size of the replacement wetland. The minimum replacement ratio is 2:1, requiring two times the impacted area be replaced. E. If the wetland functions lost as a result of drainage or filZing are to be replaced by creating a wetland or restoring a wetland of a differe�t type than the impacted wetland, or if the replacement wetland is in a - watershed other than the impacted wetland or had % Q Page 18 - Ordinance No. different inlet and outlet characteristics than the impacted wetland, the replacement shall be considered out of kind, and the City shall use the replacement ratios in Minnesota Rules, 8420.0540, subpt b, ite� D, Table 2, to�determine the amount of replacement wetland needed to replace the lost wetland values. (1) Differences in wetland functions and values among wetland types are to be evaluated and replaced using the wetland type ratio table located and, to be applied as specified in Administrative Rules, 8420.0540, subpt 10, Table 2. The wetland type ratio table incorporates an evaluation of public values as specified in Minnesota.Statutes, section 103B.3355, for the purposes of comparison among wetland types. (2) If a wetland to be drained or filled exhibits more than one wetland type as determined by the Technical Evaluation Panel, and more than one wetland type is proposed to be drained or filled, the City shall use the following procedure to determine needed replacement. The acreage of each wetland type tv be converted to non-wetland shall be determined. The wetland type ratio table shall _ then be used to determine the amount of replacement wetland for each wetland type. The sum of the replacement for each wetland type shall be the resultant acreage requirement for the wetland type ratio. (3) When a replacement wetland is located in a different hydrologic unit than the impacted wetland, as indicated by the USGS Hydrologic Unit Map for Minnesota, the ratios in MInnesota Rules 8420.0540 must be followed. (4) If the inlet and outlet characteristics of a replacement wetiand differ from those of the impacted wetland, the ratios in Minnesota Rules 8420.0540 Table 3 shall be applied. (5) The City may, by local ordinance, establish additional local public value to address wetland conservation or preservation issues of local concern. These ratios shall have a minimum value of zero and shall be based on wetland management objectives of a local water management plan adopted under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B or 103D. 7R Page 19 - Ordinance No. (6) The required replacement ratio for out-of kind replacement shall be the sum of the wetland type ratio plus the hydrologic unit ratio plus the inlet and outlet characteristic ratio plus the local public value ratio. If this ratio is less than the minimum in-kind ratioF the minimum in-kind ratio shall be the required replacement ratio. (7) In cases of partial drainage, the amount of wetland to be replaced shall be calculated using the formulas in Minnesota Rules 8420.0540, Item E. (8) In cases where partially drained wetlands are restored to their former state, credit may be received as calculated in Administrative Rules 8420.0540, Item F. (9) For projects of unusual complexity, or replacement plans that have been denied and are being appealed, and for which the City believes an alternative evaluation process may produce a substantially different replacement requirement, the City may evaluate the replacement plan using the current version of the Minnesota wetland evaluation methodology or another scientifically accepted methodology approved by the board, in consultation with the Commissioner, that evaluates all wetland functions and values for both the impacted and replacement wetlands. When using the Minnesota wetland evaluation methodology or another board, in consultation with the Commissioner, approved methodology to evaluate replacement plans, the ratio of impact wetland to replacement wetland shaZl not be less than the minimum required. Further, the hydrologic unit ratio, the inlet and outlet characteristics ratio, and the local public value ratio, shall also be considered when using the Minnesota wetland evaluation methodology or another board, in consultation with the Commissioner, approved methodology. (10) A replacement plan that fails to meet the requirements in items 1-8 shall be considered inadequate in replacing lost functions and values and shall not be approved by the City. A replacement plan that has been considered by the City and not approved may be revised and resubmitted for consideration by the City. The %3 Page 20 - Ordinance No. decision of the City to approve, approve with conditions, or not approve a replacement plan becomes final if not appealed to the board within 30 days after the date on which�the decision is mailed to those required.to receive notice of the decision. Before construction of the wetland�, a notice as required in Section 205.27.7.4.9 must be recorded and proof of recording provided to the City. 11. WETLAND REPLACEMENT STANDARDS. A. The standards and guidelines in this part shall be used in wetland creation and restoration efforts to ensure adequate replacement of wetland functions and values. Minnesota Rules 8420.0540, Table 4 provides general guidelines for the physical characteristics that each type of replacement wetland should have. B. The standards in items 1 to 8 shall be followed in all wetland replacements unless the technical evaluation panel determines that a standard is clearly not appropriate. (1) Water control structures must be constructed using specification provided in the Minnesota Wetland Restoration Guide or their equivalent. Control structures may be subject to the department dam safety regulations. (2) Best management practices must be established and maintained to the entire perimeter of all replacement wetlands. (3) For replacement wetlands where the dominant vegetation of the wetland type identified as the replacement goal in Section 205.27.7.A.4.1, is not likely to recover naturally in a five-year period, wooded and shrub wetlands especially, the replacement wetland must be seeded or planted with appropriate species, as determined by the soil and water conservation district, the seed or planting stock should be of local wetland origin to preserve local genotypes. During the monitoring period, the applicant must take reasonable steps to prevent invasion by any species, for example, purple loosestrife and Eurasian water milfoil, that would defeat the re-vegetation goal of the replacement plan. (4) Erosion control measures as determined by the soil 7T Page 21 - Ordinance No. and water conservation district must be employed during construction and until permanent ground cover is established to prevent siltation of the replacement wetland or nearby water bodies. (5) For all restored wetlands where the original organic substrate has been striped away and for all created wetlands, provisions must be made for providing an organic substrate. When feasible, the organic soil used for backfill should be taken from the drained or filled wetland. (6) The bottom contours of created types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands should be undulating, rather than flat, to provide a variety of water depth. (7) Sideslopes of created wetlands and buffer strip must not be steeper than 5:1, five feet horizonta] for every one foot vertical as averaged around the wetland. Sideslopes of 10:1 and 15:1 are preferred. (8) Created wetlands should have an irregular edge to create points and bays to be consistent with Section 205.27.8.F. I2. MONITORING ANNIIAL REPORT A. The purpose of wetland value replacement monitaring is to ensure that the replacement wetland achieves the goal of replacing lost functions and values. B. The applicant City on a date applicant has City. shall submit the annual report to determined by the City until the fulfilled all of the requirements the of the C. The purpose of the annual report is to describe actual wetland restoration or creation activities completed during the past year, activities planned for the upcoming year, and the information in Section B. D. The annual report shall include the following information and other site-specific information identified by the City: (1) A description of the project location, size, current wetland type (Cowardin.classification), and desired wetland type (goal); (2) A comparison of the as-built specifications versus 7U Page 22 - Ordinance No. the design specifications (first annual plan only) and a rationale for significant changes; (3) Hydrology measurements: seasonal water level elevations duri�q the period April through October (msl or referenced to a known benchmark); (4) A list of the dominant vegetation in the wetland, including common names of the vegetation exceeding 20 percent coverage and an estimate of coverage. (5) Color photographs of the project area taken anytime during the period June through August, referenced to the fixed photo-reference points identified on the wetland replacement plan and labeled accordingly. 13. MONITORING DETERMINATIONS BY THE CITY The City: A. Shall inspect the project when construction is complete and certify compliance with construction specifications, and may inspect the project at any time during the construction and monitoring period, and any time after that to assess the long-term viability of the replaced wetland. When the City certifies that the construction specifications have been met, the City shall so advise the applicant and return any bond or other security that the applicant had provided; B. May order corrective action at any time during the required monitoring period if it determines that the goal of the approved replacement plan will not be �et, and may require the applicant to prepare an amended wetland value replacement plan for review and approval by the City, which describes in detail the corrective measures to be taken to achieve the goal of replacing the lost wetland functions and values; C. Shall make a finding based on a site visit at the end of the monitoring period as to whether the goal of the replacement plan has been met. If the goal of the replacement plan has not been met, the City shall order corrective action and extend the monitoring period; and D. Shall require one or more of the following actions if, during the monitoring period, the City finds that the goal of the replacement plan will not be met: (1) Order the applicant to prepare and implement a new %V Page 23 - Ordinance No. replacement plan; (2) Issue a cease and desist order on the draining and filling activity if it has not been completed; (3) Order restoration of the impacted wetland; (4) Obtain forfeiture of a bond or other security and use the proceeds to replace the lost wetland values; (5) (6) Ask the district court to order the applicant to fulfill the replacement plan; or Other actions that the City determines necessary to achieve the goal of the replacement plan. E. A landowner intending to drain or fill a wetland without replacement, claiming exemption under Section 205.27.14, shall contact the City before beginning draining or filling activities for determination whether or not the activity is exempt. The City shall keep in file all documentation and findings of fact concerning exemption determinations for a period of ten years. F. The City shall issue a certificate of exemption to the landowner. G. The landowner requesting the exemption is responsible for submitting the proof necessary to show qualifications for the particular exemption claimed. The landowner shall ensure that proper erosion control measures are taken to prevent sedimentation in the water, the drain or fill does not block fish passage, and the drain or fi11 is conducted in compliance with all other federal, state, and Zocal requirements, including best management practices and water resource protection requirements established under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103H. 14. NO LOSS DETERMINATION3 A landowner unsure if the proposed work will result in a loss of wetland shall apply to the City for a determination. The City shall keep on file all documentation and findings of fact concerning no-loss determinations for a period of ten years. The landowner applying for a no-loss determination is responsible for submitting the proof necessary to show qualification for the claim. %w Page 24 - Ordinance No. The City shall issue a no-loss certificate if: A. The work will not drain or fill a wetland; B. Water level management activities will not result in the conversion of a wetland to another use; C. The activities are in a surface impoundment for containment of fossil fuel combustion waste or water retention, and are not part of a compensatory wetland mitigation program; or D. The activity is being conducted as part of an approved replacement plan or is conducted or authorized by public agencies for the purpose of wetland restoration and the activity is restricted to placing fill in a previously excavated drainage system to restore a wetland to its original condition. E. The activity meets the conditions in Section 205.27.5.D.6. 15. TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL For the City, there is a Technical Evaluation Panel of three persons: a technical professional employee of the board, a technical professionaT employee of the soil and water conservation district of Anoka county, and a technical professional with expertise in water resources management appointed by the City. One member selected by the City shall act as the contact person and coordinator for the panel. Two members of the panel must be knowledgeable and trained in applying methodologies of the Federal Manual for ldentifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, and evaluation of public values. The Technical Evaluation Panel may invite additional wetland experts in its work. The panel shall make technical determinations on questions of public values, location, size, and type for replacement plans if requested to do so by the City. the landowner, or a member of the Technical Evaluation Panel. The panel may review replacement plans and recommend to the City either approval, approval with changes or conditions, or rejection. The panel shall make no determinations or recommendations without at least one member having made an on-site inspection. Panel determinations and recommendations must be endorsed by at least two of the three members. The panel, or one of its members when so authorized by all of the members, may assist the City in making wetland size and type determinations when asked to do so by the City as part of making %x Page 25 - Ordinance No. an exemption or no-loss determination. If requested by the City, the landowner, or Technical Evaluation Panel, the panel shall questions or participate in the monitoring wetlands according to Section 205.27.13. 16. APPEAL OF CITY DECISiON3 a member of the answer technical of replacement A. The decision of the City to approve, approve with conditions, or reject a replacement plan, or determination of exemption or no-loss, becomes final if not appealed to the board within 30 days after the date on which the deci'sion is mailed to those required to receive notice of the decision. B. Appeal may be made by the landowner, by any of those required to receive notice of the decision, or by 100 residents of the county in which a majority of the wetland is located. C. Appeal is effective upon mailing of the notice of appeal to the board with an affidavit that a copy of the notice of appeal has been mailed to the City. The City shall then mail a copy of the notice of the appeal to all those to whom it was required by Section 205.27.6.B to mail a copy of the notice of decision. D. An exemption or no-loss determination may be appealed to the board by the landowner after first exhausting all local administrative appeal options. E. Those required to receive notice of repiacement plan decisions as provided for in Section 205.27.6.B may petition the board to hear an appeal from an exemption or no-loss determination. The board shall grant the petition unless it finds that the appeal is merit-less, trivial, or brought solely for the purposes of delay. In determining whether to grant the appeal, the board shall give consideration to the size of the wetland, other factors in controversy, any patterns of similar acts by the City or landowner of petition, and the consequences of the delay. 17. APPEAL FROM BOARD DECISION An appeal of a board decision is taken to the state court of appeals and must be considered an appeal from a contested case decision for purposes of judicial review under Minnesota Statutes, section 14.63 to 14.69. �y Page 26 - Ordinance No. 18. COMPENSATION A. Replacement plan applicants who have completed the City's process and the board appeal process, and the plan has not been approved as submitted, may apply to the board for compensation under Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.237. B. The application must identify the applicant, locate the wetland, and refer the board to its appeal file in the matter. C. The application must include an agreement that in exchange for compensation the applicant will convey to the state a perpetual conservation easement in the form required by Minnesota Statutes, section 103F.516. The applicant must provide an abstract of title demonstrating the ability to convey the easement free of any prior title, lien, or encumbrance. Failure to provide marketable title negates the state's obligation to compensate. D. The applicant must submit official documentation from the US Army Corps of engineers, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the watershed district or water management organization if any, the county, and the City, as applicable, that the proposed drain or fill activity and the proposed subsequent use of the wetland are lawful under their respective legal requirements. E. The landowner must demonstrate that the proposed drain or fill is a feasible and prudent project and that the replacement plan as proposed is a reasonable good faith effort to fulfill the replacement requirements of Sections 205.27.� to 205.27.10 and the Act. F. If the plan was approved, but with conditions or modifications, the applicant must show that the conditions or modifications make the replacement unworkable or not feasible. A plan is unworkable or not feasible if the replacement must be on land that the applicant does not own, the applicant has make good faith efforts to acquire a replacement site and not succeeded, and there is not a qualifying replacement available in a wetland bank. A plan is also unworkable or not feasible if it is not possible to carry out for engineering reasons. The applicant must show that not going ahead with the project will cause the applicant damages and that disallowing the proposed use will enhance the public values of the wetland. %Z Page 27 - Ordinance No. G. The applicant must submit the requirements of this Section in writing, by certified mail, to the board. If the applicant wants to make oral argument to the board, it must be indicated art of the application. The board may require that the applicant appear before the board. H. If the board finds that the applicant has submitted a complete application and proved the requirements in this Section, the board shall compensate the applicant as required by law within 90 days after the board received a completed application, provided that within the same time period the applicant must convey to the board a conservation easement in the form required by Minnesota Statutes, section 103F.516. If the board does not provide the required compensation in exchange for the conservation easement, the applicant may drain or fill the wetland in the manner proposed, without replacement. 19. WETLAND BANRING The applicant may use wetland complies with Minnesota Rules alternative site is available. 20. PENALTIES Any violation of this all penalties provided of Chapter 901 of this 11.10. FEES � CODE SUBJECT banking credits if the project 8420.0740 subparagraph 2 if no Chapter is a misdemeanor and is subject to for such violations under the provisions Code. FEE 205 Wetlands Certifying Exemptions $75.00 Replacement Plan Application $75.00 No Loss Determination $75.00 Appeal of D�cision $75.00 11.11. ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS In addition to the fees in Section 11.10, an administrative assessment will be required to fund special studies such as environmental assessment worksheets, transportation, drainage, noise impacts, indirect source permits, wetland impacts, etc. The amount of the assessment is to be based on the site, complexity, diversity, and location of the project as determined % Q %�. Page 28 - Ordinance No. by staff, but shall not be less than 2.5 times the hourly wage of estimated staff time. PASSED AND�ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS � DAY OF .�., 1994. WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERK Public Hearing: February 22, 1994 First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: - - � C� � Community Development Department PLarnvirrG DrviSION City of Fridley DATE: March 4, 1994 TO: William Burns, City Manager ��, � FROM: SUBJECT: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Request to Extend Special Use Permit, SP #93- ' O1, by Westminster Corporation On March 15, 1993, the City Council approved the special use permit, SP #93-01, by Westminster Corporation, to construct a 50 unit elderly housing project on the west side of 5th Street, just north of St. Williams Church. Westminster is within a few weeks of submitting the building permit application. City staff has been meeting with the contractor recently regarding the proposed building plans. � The zoning ordinance requires that construction commence within one year of the special use permit approval unless an extension is approved. Westminster has submitted the attached letter requesting a 90 day extension to August 15, 1994. The City Council extended approval for the lot split application last Fall to September 1, 1994. To be consistent with that action, staff recommends that the City Council extend the special use permit to September 1, 1994. This should provide more than adequate time for the project to commence construction. �: � C�1 M-94-98 : �UUestminster Building Partnerships fora Caring Community WEST�tINSTER CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS *Joseph Errigo, President . *Edward Driscoll, Chair *Albert Colianni *Anne Heegaard *Josephine Reed Taylor Patrick Conway Diana Markfore Mary Leintz Frank Snowden Jerry A-4adsen Rev. Kec�in McDonough Ellen Brown *Executite Committee William Cosgriff (of Counsel) WEST:�tINSTER MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Joseph Errigo John Horner Susan Sands WEST�fINSTER RESIDENT SERVICES CORPORATION Joseph Erri�o Richard \1cCarthy Barbara Kilbourne February 28, 1994 Ms. Barbara Dacy City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Re: Norwood Square Fridley, Minnesota Dear Barb: This letter is to request a 90 day extension of the Special Use Permit approved by the Fridley City Council on March 15, 1993. This extension should provide adequate time to eomplete our financing arrangements, close on the mortgage loan, and begin construction. The process for obtaining HUD financing has taken longer than expected. Furthermore, our contractor does not want to start construction until the snow is melted and most of the frost is out of the ground, so as to avoid the additional cost of winter construction. HLJD is very close to issuing its firm commitment, but there are a couple of details that need to be worked out. I expect these matters to be resolved in the next couple of weeks, at which time HUD will issue its firm financing commitment. I anticipate construction will start in mid April. Thank you for your help in this matter. If you need any additional infgrmation, please do not hesitate to call me at 290-6245. Director of I��using Development cc: Dore Mead Barb Laney 328 �k%est Kellogg Boulevard • St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 •(612) 291-1750 • Fax (612) 291-1003 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION ORGANTZATION �� � _ � � Community Development Department PL�►NNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: March 3, 1994 i�. TO: William Burns, City Manager J�n�` n� FROM: SUBJECT: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Waive Temporary Sign Permit Fee for St. Williams Church; 6120 - 5th Street N.E. St. Williams has applied for and received a temporary sign permit to display a sign advertising their Family Fun Fest, which occurs in April. The church paid both the $50.00 temporary sign permit fee and the $200 deposit. The deposit will be refunded if the sign is removed in a timely fashion. St. Williams has requested that the City Council waive the $50.00 temporary sign permit fee. The Family Fun Fest is a fundraiser for church activities. The sign is 3' x 5' in area and will be displayed for two weeks in April. Chapter 214 of the Fridley City Code permits the City Council to waive fees for non-profit organizations if requested. This is the first time that St. Williams has requested the temporary sign permit fee be waived. Staff recommends that the City Council approve waiving the temporary sign permit fee for St. Williams church. MM/dn M-94-96 � ` / i - �,_ � � , � February 18, 1994 Attn: Michele McPherson Mayor and City Council Fridley Municipal Center 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mayor and City Council, THE CHURCH OF SAINT WILLIAM ��120 Fitth Sircct �,'F�r(hc�;�t f��ri�_il�°�� :11inrc���C,i 55-1�:? 5n�i�� le�t'{?ht�n�� Ir,l��l `��;I-?r,Ul) � I am requesting that you waive the fee of $50 for the temporary sign permit for the Church of St. William. The sign will be in use for two weeks to advertise our Family Fun Fest, which will be held on April 17, 1994. The sign is appro�mately 3' X 5' and will be placed on the grass area facing 61 st Avenue. The purpose of our Family Fun Fest is to raise money for our parish programs. We seek any opportunities to help us cut costs and keep our expenses as low as possible. you for your consideration in this matter. I � �� � � ,�- `, inistrator . � ���U CITY OF FRIDLEY Effective 1/3/94 TEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION Appl icant : �'f� u �.0 Address• 6�� o City/Zip/Telephone: Sign Erector• Name/Business: (,�,�/�/ZCiy Address • �/,�i3 �/� T� City/Zip/Telephone: F��� Sj L!//LL/fi-� � �L Y ft �..v`r/. .f��5�. 3a-. � S7_ � �/GG//i�'l � �tI- E _ � h i�r/�'c/• .J:r��r �Z --.S�a Period of Temt�orary SiQn Display: Erection: Proposed Sign Location: 00 Expiration• (14 days maximum) ���ress:- '� -%1'� �;�, �� ���� � /,.:r°/' �S i Zcning: Description of Siqn: ( ) Balloon ( ) Porta-Panel ( ) Banner ( ) Other Length Height Square Footage Building Characteristics: ( ) Multi-Tenant Builcling ( ) Free-Standing Building The undersigned hereby makes application for a temporary sign permit for the work herein specified, agreeing to do all work in strict accordance with the City of Fridley ordinances and rulings and hereby declares that all the facts and representatives stated in this application are true and correct. z /� /y � .�,�.�� �a� .�o�.�-�� -- ���s,� ���,�„v Date � ,/ Applicant (please print) ��/ �� `/" ���2C�r �� _Si GUi�C./��� Date Owner (please print) Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: City Sign Code Enforcement Previous Permits Granted this Year: Yes, Permit No. Temp.orary Sictn Permit Number: Fees• No S I ���' • Ci � Under 40 square feet in area -$ 50.00 - Receipt: 330 Over 40 square feet in area -$ 80.00 Receipt: * Deposit - $200.00 � Receipt: 3 a`j * THE DEPOSIT WILL BE CASHED BY THE CITY. The deposit will be refunded if the temporary sign is removed by noon of the next business day after the temporary sign permit expires. THERE WILL BE A 2-3 WEEK WAIT AFTER EXPIRA�N PRIOR TO APPLICANT RECEIVING REFUND. Eng�^eenng Sewer +":Jfer P�rks SIrCCiS �Y�i1;IliEflJfiCL' � ME MORANDUM �� TO: William W. Burns, City Manager � PW94-069 FROM: John G. F1ora,�Public Works Director DATE: March 3, 1994 SUBJECT: Anoka County Joint Powers Agreement/Manomin Park The Anoka County Commissioners have prepared a Joint Powers Agreement dealing with the purchase of the residential lot (Akbar Sajady) adjacent to the north side of the Locke Lake dam. 1'he Joint Powers Agreement specifies that the County will own the properiy as an addition to Manomin Park. They propose to implement future improvements on the prope�rty with a parking lot, concrete curb and gutter, retaining wall, walkway, steel railings, fishing pier and ca.nce portage within 2 years after the Rice Creek Watershed District completes the dredging of Locke Lake. The Joint Powers Agreement also requests the City to remove the structure on the properiy and seed the lot in conjunction with the dam reconstruction project. The cost of those improvements, not-to-exceed $11,000, will be paid to the City in equal installments in April of 1995 and 1996. In addition, the Joint Powers Agreement authorizes the City access across the property for construction, operation and maintenance of the Locke Lake dam. Recommend the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Joint Powers Agreement. JGF:cz 10 � � �1L�i��� ,.��.4 SE'�T �Y � �TTC1RtiEY � 2-2�-94 ; 16 � �9 ; aN�KA COt�`TY— 612 �71 12ii7 ; .� 2,' 7 AnokQ County C��nffact No. ,{U1N'1' N(lW�itS Al:1t��;M�N'!' FOiZ THE EXYANSION ANU YMPROVEM�N'1' QF NiA1v()MIN PARK ,1,T T,OCKE LAKE IN ANOKA COUNTY '7'�IIS AG1t�Cvil�NT is made anc1 entered intc� lhis day t�f 1994, h� anc[ hekwee� the C..'��unty C�f Anok�t, a politi�a.l subdivisi�n of thc Statc of Mi�vicsota, 21{X1 'I�iird Avenue, Ani�k�, Mirirse.�>c�kd 553U3, hereinaft.er referred ta as riie "County," ��d thc Gity of F�iclley, 6431 I i,�.ivcrsity kvc��uc. Na�ti�ic��st, Fridlr.y, Minnesuta 55432, tt�reinafter referrecl !i� ss the "City." wi�rhH��F.TH: WHEREA:s, the pa,rties iu dus A�reetr�ettt de.Sire to jr�intly cauwe the exnantiic�n and imprc�ve�Z�e�7G c�f ;'VCane�snin P�rk, �t Lc►ck� L[�e, i��clvdis�g but nat limitecl ta the at.yui5ition af �tnperty thcrcf�r, thC c.c�r�tn�ctiUn uf ccrt�tin emprovements ihereto �nd the rebuitding of thc: dattl otl RiCC Crc;ek, which itnpr���citicilf� ti,re hereinafter colle<:tively i�efeiTed to as tise "Project' ; and ��IHEREAS, ttt� nanies ��ree khat. it. is in their hest interest tha� thc cust of said Prc,ject t� shareci �W4 hereirt;,�fter Prs�videcl; ;�nd �71.59. 1�'4'tiEREAS,'� ai�f �v�rk will he cameci uut in ac;tx�rdance with dlc provisions of Mitui. Stat. � ��i�7��', Ti-IFR.�F�DfiE, it is niutu�lly slipulal�d and ��;reed: PUKPOSE: .rt. Thc Couilty �lu [I�e C:ity 113ve• ji�ineii �if�e�t�er ftir the �ur�x��e nf ac��ttirin� a,jditit�tt�( ��=°a_�t.�.�:y ;4� �7k� :.s�=.ii i(1 CU13JU[1C%l1U[t LV1iI11IS �X[J2til�ll?II dtltj t1I1()CQVCRIC.I1COt �1'ta(lf�illlll P;irk, wtiich prc�}�eity .� :����� �;E; uc��ti;ri!�'ri� in Exttibil ?., �uhich is uttacheii hereta and ine�rpc�rated i�erein by reference f��:;�.inti1=��.r "�ubject pri��?�rty",l. The suhject Tir��crty shall t.het� t�: imprui�eci .�s herein�tfter E}r��vided. r_ Tiic City shal! rct�uil,! ihe ilFUtl li�i;t�lcil ur� Rice Creek :�dj:�cent tn tl�e :ut�ject. propcny, in ::��,,r�<►��c:�� ��i�.h chc ptan, anii si?ecifications prcpueiJ by Ayres & Asic�ciates, lnc., Eau Claire, �`�ISCOl1SiI1, ui�i�:�� l�l�!t, iu�d �{?ecit�L3tlUtts �.rr. Uli lile i�t Uie uffi�.e uI ttie Anc�ka C'c�unty Paif:s acid Reereatic,ti LSe�,:�rtr�iecu (hL.reinaTler referrec! tc} as il�c "plans ��d spccilicaliirns"). Tt�e Cc�unty �hall allo�i• tfle City ai;ceys uver the subjec! propett}' Co d1C datu It�t' L11c; purpUtie irf recUntitructing, vperatin� �illd Illcl.�ll513it1lll� the clarn. 10A � ������_, �E\T. �Y � aTTt?P\EY II: METHOT�: ; 2-?�-9� � 16�49 ; aNUK_a CUL'`TY- 612 571 12$7;# 3J 7 A. 't`kar•. City shall �r��vide all enginecring scrviccs a��d s�1atl causc thc reconstruction of thc d<un in wr�ocniance with sud pltu�s and spec:ificati�ns. The letLing of bids :u�d t,he acc;epl.�u�ce of all bid �roposalti i�or �tie re�i�nsti-ucti�n Of the d�un sliall be doue by tl�e City. except far the iten�s described 'u� fa�•agrapi� f�' izerein. � � � . . . B. '['hc Caunty shail be responsible for ac;quiring the subjecl pare;el ;utd the costs �sscx;iat,eci tl�crcwith. C. As �!art itf lhe reconstruciion uf the dam and 1x� PrOviiie ac�.e`s ki> acuamPli�h t.he �une. tljc Ci .ry slsal( �icm��lish thc cxisting structures locatc.d an tllc subjcct prc�perty (indud'u�� thc rcmoval of tltc fc�undatio�! «�alis v�d fluors}, rcmavc and dispasc of all cicbris resulting thcrcfrocu, fill the resultii�g ht�Ie, �ratle ttie surl:�ce c�� tl�e tiubaect pro[►erty, ;u►il xc�d :uid seea the subject Prc�perty. III. C�STS: A. Ttte Cow11y �hal! he resnon�ihle !nr ��d pay all cosis as�ciated witt� �tie ucquitiiG�n c�f �he �ut;j?Gt pri�p;,riy. B. Thc City shali tx; rc��xmsible ft►r paying r'or all costs as.aciatcd with ihe reco��sUVCtion �irid rTi£tutl�tlar?C� Ol� ihe C�attl. C'. The Giau�lty shall reiinhurse tlle (rity f�r the actual cnst qf the demolition and restorati�n ���c�rry detcrih�ci iu P:�r-a�s�aPif II.C. herein, prt)videcl tl�al 1he i.c��at :�rnuunt. reirnnu�ecl �.c� t.he City by the i:.:a����.;� �;ha(i nt�texceed tlie sun� of hleven Thous�nd t�cillars (:}+11,{�Cx).Utlj. 1�e County shali pay tlie City r_>1.�:-h�lf of ti�c c��sE of i:tic dcmoli[ian �uld reconstnictioit work on or bcfore April 1. 1}�}5, a�id tlie r��::uir!i:�� nsi•:�±rit��e <�❑ i�r t?eli�te An�tl 1, lyyb. i�'. P.�RK f'�•lPR�VEMENTS .��`�e: :±.-•yuisilii�tY oi Ltte �rt�{�erty, the Ci�urily sh�ill injprc�ve the `uhject Prcr�erky by Cc)i�StrUCtiott _; t±.3.- f�:�;�t;ti:-�F impr-�,vcmcnts: partcing lot. ait�crctc, curti �nd gutrcr. at�d part�in� li,t rei�uiung wall, ^��±ii:�..�:.-��;. .t�:.�: f�ill(Il�?S. �istiin� pier a�i� c�uic,e pc,rtage �at�i (t�ecY.i�►af�er "�iark ictr�r��vernenls"). The C�,u::iy stia?1 r�:tain solc discir.ii��n as tc� the dcsign �u�d timing oC t1�e park improveinecils, whit:h sh:ill he e��r�tzlac:tc:� �tir;fy aftcr thc pac�C i�i3�mvcmcnts proc.�.cd through ��d rec.i:ivc approval by Q►e C.i,uiity thmugh ±t4 n�)cin�l pt�.nning an<i l�uctget. prc�cess, provided that the installati�n vf tl�c park impcovements sh�ll be �:o���t-,lc.t�.i1 hy �ii�f [atcr tha.n t.cN� yc1r� afti.r thc complctior� of thc dr�:dgin� of l.,�ticke L.ake .ts ifet'u�ed in -2- l: �E�;T �"t : aTT�JR\EY � � � ' ?-25-94 ; 1 � � 50 : :�NUKa CUL�TY� 61? 571 1287 ; � 4,� 7 t�ie Ric.e Creek Watertihed District's Stvrm Water Managem�nt (509) Plan, prcaPt�sea Pr��ect No. 90-01. Tt�e Gity shall c(elete fi�n� its p1u�.s and sp�ecificatians the P�i: im�rc�vementc tn t�c c��i�sirucled by the C�iun .ty_ t�. OtL�NERS�IP nNt? MAIIVTENAIVCfi OF IMPROVEMENTS: Tl�c: C:our�Cy shall retain ownership pf the Subjcct. prupc;rty :u�d a!1 imprcrvements tllerep», tuld sL�tll he re:�;pci�.4ihle fi�r the cOntittued tll�ititCt�attce iltereut. The City shatl be respo��sible for the maintenance a:iii re��ir c�i ihe tlam, prc►vidcd, hawcve;r, thst Q�e C(�unty shall ali�w thc Ciry ace.ess t7ver the subject ��r�?�.:t�t.y t_� C11C� d1211 2OP ill� �u[�fC7Se c1f U�ratiC�n� �aintcn�lcc vid repair i►f the ti:une. Vt. L�ISSUItSEME1tiT pF FLINI)S: .hli hinds c�isnur�,eci hy t�te Ci�unty c�r City pur�uant to tlus Agrceaien� stiall he drsbursed by cach �-17iity �ut'su�t�t it� (1te ttlethird �n�vided by law. VIi. C�3'��TRACTS ANI) PLTFtCiIASES: �il �t?ntracts let �i�d purc:ha.se� made pursu�uit ta ttii5 Agr�e�tient sh:ilE he madc hy thc Coa��ty or [t-�� Ci�y in CC�n£iyrrnance tt� st.•tte It�WS. !�'III. STRi!=°I' AC'GQ�.?NTAI31L1TY: A�iri�:�1 t�cc:c�uriti;ng sh�ll he ma�e �f all fun�s .a�il report c7f ;�ll receipts �ici disbu�'SCtlle[iLs tihall i�C. ?��.tJc �sr<ir. re.yue;;t h}� either party. i�. .�,t=F;.�IYi��TIVE ACTION: li: s�:�:ti�ii•:�rice :�ith thc. Ca{�t�ty's Aflirtt7�tive Acticm Poli�.y �trtd tllc County Ci►mmi�sionet�' �k�ii�-ieti c�_,�:t7�t dis_:17ir�ir,atic,�t, ni� J�enan shall illcgatty t�c; exelu�e�l fri,ctr full-time employ�ilent rigtiL� ir�, � _ ,�� � � ; _-� �=.-�i��:, T�«° =�e�'c��iS 01. ()r I7C c)(h�rwi�e �ubjected ro discrimiiia�io�f irt the �rogr�un �rhich is ttte suhjeCt a��i i_�� .{4������E,�iiL im Lhe h�,�i� c)f fi1CC, CCCCd, COli�r, Sex, marik<ll wtdtUS, puLi9iC aSSiSi�t►Ce 5tat.uS, �aC, t.jFti;ii=ri�1{.�` :11' li;a(li?t1iLl VCI�:IIL X: IvOTiC'E: F;�r ��r��_�se i�f d��live�y af :u�y �tiotices hereun�ier, the noticc shall Li� CffecUve ii� tieliveri.d to th�� Ct�l:nty Aciministrato�- of A»ok3 County, Z10f) Third Avenue, Aneika, MinnesUlt� 553U3, c�n hehalf ol'the -�- 10C h'1�u:'''�''•"� .�-�?5-g:� ; 1F,�5U ; :a1VUKa COL'NTY- 612 771 1287;# 5/ 7 �E\T� 6Y � aTTORVEY • -- C��unty, and tc► t�r. Willia�n W. Burns. City Ma��ager, 5431 Unlvcrsity Avenue Northcast. Fridtey, hliiu�csota 55432. �►ri het�alf af �c Cicy. {:,. ;:,; .. ^s,. r . _ _ .. ��.�.r�._ X(. i1VDEMiV�PICA1'lON: Thc C�ty and ltie Gounty muCually iibree tv indemnify �d huld harmlec� each othcr f�m any claims, ii►SSCS, ec�sls, exrx,a�es or dsux�ages resulting fr�m the acts or omissions of tl�e resix;c;Gve alfice�s, age�tls C�r cmployees relating fi! activity cocniucted by citl�cr p:�rt.y uneier this Agrecmen�. XII. EIrT'i`[KE ACJREEMENTJftEQUIREMENT OF A VtrFt:i'1'1NCi: It is uc�tler�ti►c�d and agrced Qi�,t the entire aarccmei�t c�i� the Parties is containe�i herein and thal • this A�r�etrier►t �uPe��ed��s ail ��raf agreements �tttd all negc�tiaticros bctwcctl the p�rties retatuta to the suhjec:t m�titer [hc:reof, ac we11 as any previvus a�r�ee�nent piresently in effec� hetwecn tl�c parties relating i�, rl►e suhiect matter QlE:ret�f. Any altcraiit,ni, v;uiatic►ns or �u�dificaiic�ns of thc pt�visiotLt of Chis Aerccment shali he valid only wheij Cfiey h�ivc bccn reduced to writing and duiy signed by thc parties hC[�itl. '`i- 10D C+1L4LLr��4 SE\T Bi' �:�TTUR�'EY � 2-?5-9� : 16:51 ; �NUK.a CUI��TY- 61? � i 1 1?87:.= 61 7 [N WITNESS V�i-iEREOF, the ��u�tics ��t thi� A�reement havc l�ereuntc� sct their ha��ds nn the dfl.t�;s wrrtlen betow. t,�trr�•rY c�r A.tvotca. $y: , Dar� E�f�art Cttairn��u� County B��ard of Comu�issioncrs Dated: AT'1'RST Iiy: � JC!#�ti "Jdy�� Mc��it]c�en Ctititlty Adcninistr�tor uatcd: �FF'�tt)t�[�il AS TC1 H'()RM �y" �- �— l�illt �lI]t :�e;:ist<.�rit �.c�unty Att.omey Uated: cik`�cl;nira� �i1a(titl4LLl.�pa G1TY t)F FRI�)L�;Y �y: Namc: Tille: T)ate�: _ I3y: Namc: T'itle: Dated: � 5 ' 10E SE`T BY�aI°TUR\EY :?-25-94 ; 16�51 ; AIVOKA COLI�TY� 612 571 1287;# 7! 7 E7Cl-YIliI'1' A Lnt Six, (bj, Blc}ck Onc {1), vid the 5outheriy iive feet of L,ot Five (5), Bl�x,k One (t), St;herer Aciciition�, acc�rding to the �lat on �ile in the ofticc of thc Rcgistrar of 'I'itles, Anoka, Micuiesot�. Suh;c:c:[ ti� cascmcnts C�f xe;GC►rd. r, . .,.,s._. �,,:,�„��, �� �.;n� 10F En9�neennn Sewer V':altr P�?rk5 $f1E;C15 rJ�::��n;enanc� � � . MEMORAND�JM � � TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: William W. Burns, City Manager �� � John G. Flora, �Public Works Director March 7, 1994 PW94-070 Change Order No. 1 to Locke Lake Dam Restoration Project No. 211 Based upon a Joint Powers Agreement that we have received from Anoka County, it was requested that seven line items associated with park improvements included in the dam project be deleted. This amounts to $48,306.50. Recommend the City Council approve Change Order No. 1 to the Locke Lake Dam Restoration Project No. 211 for deletion of $48,306.50. JGF:cz Attachment ,„,;,,,, 11 � � March 7, 1994 Lunda Construction Company 620 Cebhardt Road Biack River Falls, VNI 54615 SUBJECT: Gentlemen: CITY OF FRIDLEY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 Change Order No. 1, Locke Lake Dam Restoration, Project No. 211 You are hereby ordered, authorized, and instn.icted to modify your contract for the Locke Lake Dam Restoration Project No. 211 by deleting the following work: Deletions: ltem 1. Fishing Pier 2. Concrete Curb and Gutter 3. Bituminous Parking Lot 4. Bituminous Walkway 5. Steel Railing 6. Block Retaining Wall 7. Canoe Portage TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS: Quarrt' Price Amount Lump Sum $23,000.00 $ 23,000.00 200 LF 17.50 3,500.00 275 SY 16.00 4,400.00 200 SYH 12.75 2,550.00 250 LF 35.00 8,750.00 270 SF 13.75 3,712.50 Lump Sum 2,394.00 2,394.00 TOTAL DELETIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 306.50 Original Contract Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $537,375.00 Contract Deletions - Change Order No.1 ....................................................... 48,306.50 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489,068.50 1yq Lunda Constn,iction Company Change O�der No. 1 March 7, 1994 Page 2 Submitted and appraved by John �G. Flora, Public Worics Director, on the 7th day of March, 1994. Prepared by Checked by � Jo . Flora, P.E. Director of Public Works Approved and accepted this day of_ . 1994 by LUNDA CONSTRUCTION COMPAIdY Approved and accepted this day of . 1994 by CiTY OF FRIDLEY William J. Nee, Mayor William W. Bums, City Manager 11B 1 1a- W . � � � yl l.l : C. � - O N L n- U � _ W Z LL � �i ZZ C�R G � � � .. i t� � � � � � + � �'��'��I � � � ��� � � � � � �_ _ w �1�� � ,, \ S! _ _ '" _ _— .'-_.. _ �8. , `� W „ � �. . \'�• B ___; __�.. .. ` ' �' �3 � f� i �� r , � � � �9j9 `.c_. L . �;/6fB � � � o= � l� .. . � r, B \ � -�— � _ .p\ �� w a � I/ . � . - � •• A '' - - � 91B � co ¢ '^ � ' v; �,•. : \_. __ �' . �I :��%,' � � � � \� _ r � I. � � � i � � � 4 �.-� � \. "- " �'�9 � �� � � / i \ � i, - o� a ' c'c. �\._ - . ..., � i . � � B �_ � OZB — �S. � -- -- C'v�. W � � r 3 C: ���` J/ l 6 � Z�� O � 4 Q ' ' � 8 : ' ' W J N.a � . ..'��� �� . .. _ ' � �`_ . m = '�'-�-.._ � � r . � _ _Y2a . ,. P � 1� � W • O F '�-^ �• 6 . ( _ Q - ' " .p � m W:. aVii . 0-.0$ 62 --aJ • ��+ I Z 1 3 � � �• N ¢ � vii n�.� W, w e• ' YN- � ' , �l .�, � __.. '•-� �_ .om a �\, a. . • � --- . N N W� � W �'N ' 2 I .. . I W . Z .V�O (v�JN Q¢\_." �:t� 4J `S N�`C'.f� I AO . I� . . . p J� � ���� C 3� . J W ; W'. O � f' - 1 O O J � : W 1 2U� • 20 V" �U� � N� �.=J .I�.=WII'-^ . . . �' . WY� 3NN N� 4j� � ��,.:. � JaI'I � . O N N� � �aQ 7 � OWa� ""' � I _t�i_ - r q t °'` �' ` oao"-823�' �� \zw ,�l'Gr aoa � � — . ��� M O N I. .t�� 02 — HZG� ._ �" OZ! —. . _ _ �'\ � `� I ' /W �� NW � '` � 'b .. ._ ' . , //m � . _ '.�' 8�e ' �2��� 4' 02 .' �,� � . � . \ ., i , 9�'9 �.O�O z � � � � � .' _ ;,:�r,q , o � -(�� � � � \�`�. Z o°,`'� ' � � ? N `O ; `�, � m � a `' � /IJ / \ \'� � � r• •� _� �: \\t,� a0 � � } �N°~ '� II/ Ir`IL � � � ��\� : .,m j.yJj - ..\ � 1 . .< (�a J W I ��� \ ,:\ 8! ' '. III � Ml) �i . � l._1 . .. `�`•\� \..� `, B ,�� ��,0�8 `'•� .8 �� , I \ �� _ r ' � Nv � `. � \: i /}. � ' \ �i �� .� . /'. ` m � N o �B� � ��. _ 1" ♦ .2 0 + �l'= r .. � W J /1 1.�..�` A � Bl�i �. SN. ', J.-. .. J - � � ' . " 1 �'4 r I � . r � Q ra- _ � \� . . �c � � / •� ;'''F- v=i � i�' � __. �ui oc �\ i\�� o�� :� � � bIB,. N , � � W W aQ ��- �- W 6 t� .1� �\ .. • a ' i ie., � �' . W P.� N 2B �� �• / : Y `\`'fi (� � Lr� N N. Q. � i�' . t � ~ •'� �.. '`�t Z .- / ��" . -. - � \ 4 � " i �� f" J . • '� \ : . �. � :, aD . a3 � r � W.Z . . .� C+. 3 �,,'O� `�� .. 6 - � Ia- � O Or� ' ': 1\ . h- . � 1 1 � �. � � • • � O n �n O J j , � a° '�WO� �I . . F8 : � '�4S �W ti0(g -� � j� ° �° °. +: �`.`�- w .m z: .. ��� u w -. � - ao � jw ' u• � �� ', , wu� J J; .i' � Y Z U N . � �- p J N. f' � :.� ' �N �I• ` V� � W .. �� � P m .t'.� O �' m�W W �. . .. M //I - N O '� "� CO - O W � WK\ � _ -' r a~ = m aND �p' O Q�' � �C1N � � �__ Fgr. l /G 1 m m.. �FaoD� � \ ,._ .. '::. " o � / -\ � O'.. ' Z � a t f Z . 0� -.�., U e0N W 1 - � ( J� � 111 . K fD W � = e yl P � /• ' . � \ � � ' ' � ' _ ' _' � � 2' W �� Cr \ � : �. 1 , . F14 W . � '� � \ Z u�u', J "�o�maao . . ' 8!0'-'-' o -- . u • 0"> + j��in�a .� c, '�\ '^ - __ . . �..J\ i �_ � a t- B ., ' Z.P --`-- - . !'_"..�'�i�-o:�wr�vi-_ , •' 9i ' _ —"= :—"._---. � m3��Na j` � .� � � � (� � `y'.�• � ;' �¢ •�4v ,� � � 6�6 z2mc�ic.° �''�� � arZ'�� � ��� ✓ �P' u o .._.,,y, � w s,�,� ?! N ��". - a� w m / � .t � � [L "\ Q IV = LL j • N: \ .Q� W\ 1 w� � W ..... _ _ ��� � • � H 4�4 �� J� p �:�� •. • _� � 6,z � ro�.� p�,: p,� v�V+ V� ` �\ .. 8 / � m �-�- � t -a .�w � � � � w . _' �```� _ 1; :� , / � .. � � �`_ � p� �.* t/' � w ��. .!%` C, � '�,.. GF, . � � �� � w, � �Q ///��� J J ` J / V Q �_� I eM1 W . m � ¢ W � 7 w W p , • U vi ' � � \`\ .�:' , �,: o � \\ ;. V pi " J �- - Z W ��;I .� \ ` Z . � Z d W ,� u � \ '" . . . q v, m � _ " - � a /' . . v � /; � .. . _ . . � roo � �� �� �1C � � i: ; Engmeer;n9 Sewer V.'a;er Pa�ks $treet5 I(J'�l;R!f'�n�lnc`_ L � - � MEMORANDUM � . TO: William W. Bums, City Manager �� � FROM: John G. Flora,� Public Works Director DATE: March 7, 1994 SUBJECT: Stinson Boulevard Improvements PW94-071 Since last year we have been working with the City of Mounds View to joindy upgrade Stinson Boulevard/Pleasant View Drive between 73rd Avenue and Osbome Road. Last September we received petition No. 14-1993 from the Fridley residents for upgrading of the road to 38 feet with parking on both sides and the installation of concrete curb and gutter with an assessment not-to-exceed $8 per front foot. Ramsey County has completed the plans and specifications for the project. We expect that Ramsey County will also provide the construction inspection, construction surveying and testing for the project. The City of Fridley has been requested to advertise and award the contract, review the inspection and pay the bills. A Joint Powers Agreement will be executed between the cities of Fridley and Mounds View for the payment of the contract. It is understood that Mounds View will be paying 60% of the construction cost and Fridley 40%. This has been established based upon the storm water flows that the city will be receiving from the Mounds View portion of the roadway. The street has been designated as MSAS and MSAS funds will be requested. In order to expedite the contract award for this spring, recommend the City Council approve the attached two resolutions calling for the preliminary plans and setting a public hearing for March 21, 1994. JGF:cz Attachment y2 � � En9meenng Sewet VValer P�rkS Slreets M�inten�nc� -_ � - � ME �OR�ANDUM � TO: FROM: DATE: William W. Burns, City Manager � �� John G. Flora, �Public Works Director Scott Erickson, Asst Public Works Director March 7, 1994 PW94-071 SUBJECT: Resolutions Ordering Preliminary Plans, Specifications and Fstimates and Calling for a Public Hearing for Stinson Boulevard Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1993-7 The first resolution orders the preliminary plans, specifications and estimates for Stinson Boulevard Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1993-7. This project eonsists of the reconstruction and widening of Stinson Boulevard from 73rd Avenue to Osborne Road. The reconstruction includes new gravel base, asphalt surface, concrete curb and gutter and storm waier improvements in order to upgrade the existing street to current urban standards. ,.� ->, The second resolution sets the public hearing for this project as March 21, 1994. On August 18, 1993, a joint public meeting between Mounds View and Fridley was held to inform the residents of the proposed street reconstruction project and answer any questions they had. Twenty-four (24) residents had attended the meeting, the majority of which were from Fridley. The residents opted for a 38-foot wide street with parking on both sides. A petition was prepared and walked through the neighborhood by residents on the street. Si�cteen of 18 residents or 89% signed the petition and agreed to an assessment not-to- exceed $8.00 per front foot. The reconstruction of Stinson Boulevard between 73rd Avenue and Osborne Road wiil be a joint project between the cities of Mounds View and Fridley. The estimated cost of the project is approximately $201,000. The costs will be shared between the two cities. This section of street is currently in the process of being redesignated as State Aid and should be eligible for State Aid reimbursement. SE/JGF:cz Attachment y 2A � � , .---- -- �-n � s o rJ ? T. 30, IQ' 2 4 FR/OL E Y 12 13 � `� � � fH1S !S A COMPIUf10N C% RfCOR05 AS iHfY AiYEAR IN IMf ANOKA COUNTY OfFICES AFfECIING 1NE A.7EA SHOWN. THIS GRAWp�'G IS f08f USfD ONLY FOR RffERENCF PURPOSES AND lHE COUN- 7Y !S NOl RESPONSIE(F fOR ANY IN- ACCURACIES HEREIN CONiAlNED. 539/2 � ,.t�.� �;��.,� • ,,,� ,� ... SPR/N� LAKE N E CORNER � SEC. /2 ; _' i -' C._.� "'.., : ^� :._. r l J' � `� . /� ��V.. � �.�.. E//�CORNER �i-jp1 ';�I S£C. /1 '•d�r�io Y f't; �= ROLAND W. ANDERSON COU��lY $URV(YOR .nor• cow,�r. .w..rsor� ��� �4. � u n� �2 RE90I�U1'I�1 1�U. - 1994 'I:n' � 1 •; • 'I�;:rl' I • Y:+1 1 �� r. •� • ;rM�' �+• •! �' • I� 5�. � /• �.: •1' Y:1' •�� Y:1:�1'15�1' � ti �; : � 1 ^ � . •J� 'J5i' 1 1• '.� � 5� 1:�1 • •,• � • �S, Petition No. 14-1993 was reoeived req�estinq the street ari th�e petiti.oa� be included with the City's 1994 street reconstruc�tion pr+ogram, �S, Zhis will be a joint project with the City of Maiuyds View. 1�7W. �, B$ IT R�'�OLVED �lT, ttle City Oo�uzcil of the City of Fridley, Anoka Caunty, Minnesota, as follaws: l. That it appears in the interests of the City ar�d of the property awners affect.ed that there be constru�,ted certain in�rov�nents t.o�ait: street impravements, including grading, stabilized base, hot�nix bittnmir�as mat, concrete curb ar�d 9uttex, water ar�d sanitary sewoer servic�s, storm sewer system, lar�dscaP�J� � other facilities located as follaws: Stinson Boulevard 73rd Avenue to Osborne Rpad �at the w�ork involved in said imprr�vemexits listed above si�a7.1 hereaftex be designated as: � ti �� : � i � � . •�� •�:�� � �• •.� � a ia+ • •,• a � 2. That the Public Works Direc,-tor, J� G. Flora, City Hall, FYidley, I�T, is hereby authorized and direct;ed to draw the prelimir�rv pians arrl specifications ar�d to tabulate the results of his est�mates of the costs of said improvements, includi.nq every item of cost frcan inoeption to ecs�letion and all fees ar�d e�x�ses irx;urred (or to be irx;urred) in connection therewith, or the fir�aricing ther�eof, ar�d to make a preliminarv repprt of his fit�dil�gs stating therein whethex said ]1�rovemerlts are feasible and whether they can best be made as Proposed, or in oonnec.-tion with scarie other i�rove�ments (arid the estimated cvst as reaoa�amended) , includitx� also a description of the laryds or ar�a as may r�eo�ive benefits the"r'efican ar�d as may be Proposed to be assessed. 3. 'I'hat said preliminary report of the Public Works Direct�or shall be fi,rni ch� �{�e City Council. ,«�..,° - �m ��pTID � T� �TY O�LA�IL O�' '� CITY OF �'RIDI�Y THIS 7TS LIAY OF �i, 1994. � WILLIAM A. QiAMPA - CI'I'�C Q�EftK WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR 12C RE80I�T1'I�T �U. -1994 I•�;r:. � •: •�:ra�:,� �� c �:i: •�,:,� � �� �� •a v:,�••i•� �. v• � c �.;• • �t:� :�:,+• � •�, r• -,�.: • r:l: r� 4:,1• •�� •�'. �: 1i'JI •� •1- �+:il'.IV� � 1 1• '�• ' 's I:rr / C�', :t'1 ^• . •1� '1:,1" f 1"��''s I:�i '�• :r • �iS, Resolutioai No. -1994 ad�ted o� tl�e 7th day of Mat�rh, 1994, by ttye City C�aancil, . ordered the P��Y Plans, s�ecifications arid estimates of the oosts � ti�e.reof for tt�e in�irove�aents in thi.s project. � 1�45, the aoa�struatiari of oertain iro�rave�nents is d�ee9med tA be in tiye intere.st of tt�e City of Fridley and the pro�erty awnei�s affec.�ted tl�. 1�W, �, B8 IT RF�OLVED, by th�e City Cau�cil of th,e City of FYi.dley as follaws: 1. ZY�at the prelinunaYy report su�nitted by Jahn G. Flora, Public Works Direct�or, is hereby r�eceived ar�d aaoepted. 2. 'Itzat the City Clerk shall act to asoertain th�e name aryd address of the o�ar�er of each paroel of lar�d directly affect�ed or within the area of laryd.s as may be pro��osed to be asses��ed for said i�rove�nents, arid calcul.ate estimates of as.sessnerits as may be prq�osed relative thereto against each of said land.s. 3. That the area prc�osed to be assessed for said iaprove�ments and each of t2�m as noted in said notice are all the larr,�s arrd areas as rbted in said natioe: All of the same to be asse.ssed piroportioa�ately ac�oord.irig tA the benefits received. 4. Zhat the estimates of ass��4nents of the Clerk shall be available for inspection to the aaner of any paroel of latxi as may be affected tt�ereby at arry public hearing held relative thereto, as wael.l as at arYy prior time reasonable ar�d corYVenie.nt. 5. That the City Clexk is authorized and direc,�ted to give rwtice thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Fridley arxi by mailed notioe to all the pro�erty owners whose praperty is li.able to be a��.ses.sed with the making of these i�rctvements a000rdir�g to law, such notioe to be substantially in the form ar�d substanoe of the natioe attached hereto as �ibit "A". 6. 'It�at this Cauncil meet on the 21st day of March, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. at the Fridley Municipal Center Qaancil Q�ambe,rs at 6431 University Ave., N.E., FYidley, NIlJ, for the puzpose of holdirig a public hearing on the i�rwetaent noted in the Notice attached hereto ar�d made a part thereof bsr reference, �i.bit "A" . '1y1� i� � �� • :il� YCI' N •� il M� • ' �,I' M • ' • U Y:/ : �: �'• •)' h '.�: � �� WILLIAM J. NEE - N�YOR � � r� i� • w w a+� w�_ ! �' �+; � �. :+1 � :,+:r n • �� a+' • � :i�+• � � •; � i� •.• � :� i:�+ ■ �-�' : �'1 � I . '�� 'I:tl' � I' '.� � :� �I:�I '.• J • �AS, the City Qa�r�cil of th�e City of Fridley, Ar�oka Oauzty, Minr�eso�ta, has deemad it expedierit to reoeive evidenoe pertaining to the in�pravements hereinafter described. . - I�7W� �FO�• 1�ATIC� IS �Y GIVIId �II�T oai the 21st day of March, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. the City Gau�cil will meet at ti�e �idley Municipal Oeriter C7au�cil Ct�ambers, 6431 University Ave. , N. E. ,�idley, I�1, ar�d will at said time ar�d place hear all parties interested in said imprwements in whole or in part. The gene,ral nature of tt�e i�ravements is the aonstruction ( in th+e lar�ds arid streets noted belvw) of the follawiryg improvements, to wit: �S'I'R[Jt'I'ION I'I�I Street i�pr�v�e�rts, including gradirig, stabilized base, 2wt�ni.x bi'twa.ir�u.s mat, concr'ete curb ar�d gutter, storm sew�r syst.em, water ar�d sanitaxy se�x, larydscaP�l� and orther facilities located as follaws: Partialy Assessed (bncrete curb and gutter riot-to-exceed $8 per front foat Stin.son Bonileva�i 73rd Ave to Osborne Road All of the lar�d abuttiryg upan said streets named �Uove and all lv�ds within, adjaoer�t ar�d abKitting th�ereto. All of said lar�d to be asses�sed piroportionately a000�lir�g t;o the benefits Y�eived by such i�rovement. Published: FRIDIEY �OQJS• M�azr,h 8, 1994 - March 15, 1994 13A . TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER �� FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR HOWARD D. KOOLICK, AS5ISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION SPLITTING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS DATE: March 3, 1994 Attached you will find a resolution for Council approval which reapportions the assess�nents on Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 7 and 8, Block 2 of the Northco Business Park to the newly created Northco Business Park 4th Addition. The plat for the 4th Addition was approved by the City Council on December 13, 1993. Approval of the resolution will allow the County to properly spread the assessments to the four new properties. HK/me 14 RESOLUTION NO. - 1994 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE SPLITTING/COMBINATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON: LOT l, BLOCK l, A1�TD LOTS 7,.8 BLOCK 2, NORTHCO BUSINESS PARK ' � . WHEREAS, certain special assessments have been levied with respect to certain land and said land has subsequently been subdivided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: That the assessments levied against the following described parcels, to-wit: Lot 1, Block l, Lots 7, 8 Block 2, Northco Business Park may and shall be apportioned and divided and replatted as follows: oriqinal Parael Lot 1, Block 1 Northco Business Park Pin No. 11-30-24-31-0019 Lot 7, Block 2 Northco Business Park Pin No. 11-30-24-42-0003 Lot 8, Block 2 Northco Business Park Pin No. 11-30-24-42-0004 TOTAL ASSESSMENTS Fund Reg SA (WSM) SW#24 (SM) SW#24 (SS) W#34 (WM) PARK FEE SEWER MAIN ST-1989-01 W,S&SS#188 (WSML) Reg SA (WSM) SW#24 (SM} SW#24 (SS) W#34 (WM) W#34 (SS) ST-1968-2A (ST) ST-1968-1B (ST) SEWER MAIN ST-1989-01 (ST) ST-1989-02 (ST) Reg SA (WSM) W#34 (WM) W#34 (WS) SW#24 (SM) SS#24 (SS) ST-1968-2A (ST) ST 1991-02 (ST) W,S&S#188 (WMSL) ST-1989-01 (ST) 14A Oriqinal Amount Paid Paid Paid Paid Paid Paid $ 12,990.50 $ 37,240.67 Paid Paid Paid Paid Paid Paid Paid Paid $ 23,432.97 $ 32,059.40 Paid Paid Paid Paid Pa id Paid $ 13,994.62 $ 15,659.51 $ 2,807.48 $138,185.19 New Parcels Lot l, Block 1 Reg SA (WSM) Northco Business Park 4TH ADD.SW#24 (SM) Pin No. 11-30-24-42-0005 SM#24 (SS) WM#34 (SS) �#34 (WM) SEWER MAIN PARK FEE � . w,s&ss#i-ss (WSML) . ST �989=01 (ST) ST-1989-Q1 (ST) Lot 2, Block 1 Reg SA (WSM) Northco Business Park 4TH ADD.SW#24 (SS) Pin No. 11-30-24-42-0006 SW#24 (SM) WM#34 (WS) WM#34 (WM) SEWER MAIN PARK FEE ST-1989-01(ST) ST-1991-02(ST) Lot 3, Block 1 Northco Business Park 4TH ADD. Pin No. 11-30-24-42-0007 Reg SA (WSM) SW#24 (SS) SW#24 (SM) WM#34 (WS) WM#34 (WM) ST-1968-2A (ST) ST-1989-01 (ST) ST-1991-02 (ST) W,S&SS#188 Lot 1, Block 1 Northco Business Park 4TH ADD. Pin No. 11-30-24-31-0023 Reg SA (WSM) SW#24 (SS) SW#24 (SM) SEWER MAIN PARK FEE WM#34 (WS) W,S&SS#188 ST-1989-01 (ST) TOTAL ASSESSMENTS Paid Paid Paid Paid Paid Pa id Paid $ 14,406.75 2,582.89 12, 875.�06 Paid Paid Paid Paid Paid Paid Paid $ 8,201.54 $ 11,220.79 Paid Paid Paid Paid Paid Paid $ 16,625.16 $ 21,958.17 $ 4,604.42 Paid Paid Paid Pa id Paid Paid $ 33,889.01 $ 11,821.40 $ 138,185.19 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF ATTEST: WILLIAM M. CHAMPA - CITY CLERR , 1994 WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR � ` �� � � FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL ESTIMATES Fi�o°Eir MARCH 7, 1994 Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered 30� Fridley Plaza Office Building. 6401 University Avenue N.E. � Fri d I ey, M N 55432 Statement for Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attorney for the Month of January, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 15,528.75 Maier Stewart & Associates 1326 Energy Park Drive St. Paul, MN 55108 52nd Avenue Floodway/Clover Pond Diversion Project No. 222 Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,570.00 Locke Park Filter Plant Modification Project No. 240 Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7,651.23 NewMech Companies, Inc. 1633 Eustis Street St. Paul, MN 55108 Locke Park Filter Plant Project No. 140 Estimate No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 201,433.50 l�' •� •