11/12/1996 SPECIAL - 4867t� °
f SPECIAL FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETIN� OF
�
«m oF NOVEMBER 12,1996
FRIDLEY
The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment
in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status,
sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow indivicivals
with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an
interpreter or other persons with disabilifies who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one
week in advance. (TTD/572-3534)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
� i i ' • • • � •
NEW BUSINESS:
Receive Statement of Canvass from the
November 5, 1996, General E�ection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 - 1.06
� � • ;�
0
CITY OF FRIDLEY
M E M O R A N D O M
TO: WILLIAM W. BIIRNS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERR
SIIBJECT: NOVEMBER 5 G13NERAL ELECTION
DATE: NOVEMBER 7� 1996
Attached is the City of Fridley's Statement of Canvass for the
November 5 General Election. We are only required to canvass our
local Council races.
As soon as it becomes available, I will provide Council a
spreadsheet from Anoka County Elections Division which will show
how Fridley voted in other races.
As you will notice, 13,324 people voted in Fridley. This
represents approximately 71 percent of our reqistered voters.
Attachments
1.01
�
O
w
�
W
QL� =
1"' �
� � J
Z
ZZO� c�n
�UUT o�[
} � J � W
W O W W E-
°-za� o
��Wj z
�wZ� O
���Z Q
�� g
U
w
0
N � �n c� co o i. n ch c� o o�
� N 0� 1� � C+� CO 00 � N Ch 1� N
3 N � O � � � Ch Q7 � M CO CO M
T T T T r T M
�,a T
�
U
N
O
�
�
O
� r N Q7 d' r N M � r N M d'
� � � �i � � � � �i � �i �i �
� c c c c c c c c c c c c
3 'o 'o 'o 'o 'c� '� 'ci 'c3 'o '� '� 'ci
� d d � d � d d d d � d d
�a a a a � a a � a a a a a
o � � � � i � � � � � � �
� r T T r N N N N QO M @0 Ch
� � � 'Q 'a 'a "a 'a 'a "a � "a "a
Q � �i � � � �i � � � � � �
1.02
(O
W
W
N �
W Q
� W
Q m
a W
�>
u� O
Q z
I
Q Z
U �
�
O w
� J
W
w �
�
wW
¢Z
W
��
w
d
0
>
d
�
c
7
N
m
O
>
m
'o
O
m
.�
� N
C �
°' o
� �
a �
� �
U �
t �
�m
��
>
� .�
mr
� 3
>
m �
t C
N �
m
C�D N N 1q I�A
� n .- �o
C7 1n � N
W O � �A
� O iA �O
M �
�oaoonrn
N M � r
C7 N O W CD
M � � M
� � � � r
N � r-
� M � � �
r�n r�
�cncnov.-
¢ aMn rM
O
� N
� 3
N f� O O O M
aN "�' °' N
N
I
3
� N � � W f�
a ""*
N
I
a f� M O f0 f0
aN � � �
i
3
�000��
ar�iv °DN
�
3
N (7 f0 �' N N
� M � � N
r� M � tM0 a�D
M � N
N
�
�o
N
c0
v
�
�
M
O
W
a C7
r �
<
J
I
<
� I
M �
W
m
�
W
�
N J
a V
N Z
�
�
V
n
�
�
�
N
�
�
�
�
N
r N CO
O O aD
�A N
O O t0 O
� �
aD O � a
<o
N �
eY O � 1n
� �
.- O h O
� N T
inoc�o
c°o r�i �
rn � � �
n r
b r
� M � Q �
a eo �
n�o�r�rn
M M N
� W � � �
a M �
��°�`°
� M
f0 O CO �
� � �
�no��n
V'
Z
Z j
� W
2
Z (� � w U
Qp�w o �o�w
O-'FOZ � ZZ�OZ
�� O Q W J J m Y O� W J
�c�a�W� a � wctWF. ¢
�Zo�� ° � 1.03 moo�� °
m �
V W
� � �
L � � �
O � � �
T
� � � O �
� � � � m
0
m i � �
m � m �
I v
'C m C C O
� m o
� � � � U
� •V U O �
m � y � m
U �
� � � ��
`�' '°�
'; a � z
� T's
M- rt
m � •-
H O C_
U
rn
�
� �
W ¢
� W
Q m
aW
I >
u� O
�n z
>�
Qz
U �
�
OW
� J
W
W ��
W W
Q Z
W
W i7
N
m
�
v
�
�
�
2
0
w
N
�
N
�
C
O
�
m
m
m
t
O �
m d
��
� �
� c
m �
w T
.4
O �
� U
� �
C C
W N
L �
F-
ui
v
H
U
z
U
w
Q
a
�
�
Q
�
M
H
U
z
U
w
�
a
0
�
¢
3
N
F
U
z
U
w
Q
a
�
Q
Q
�
U
Z
U
W
Q
d
�
Q
Q
3
m m
p �� c m c c'=>
� E " o � �'� � a6 U
� p�� � 2= m O J u
� m� T
� d m a�a >. m c� m � m
O 7 C O�� m>� T
Z � � � � � Q � � U �
>
0�0 �6 � Y � a �
m� a �>i,m �� �
� m=� L m� 6f � N
� � m m S Y~ a �c
N N C` � m N C'�
«�Q�UD ���Z�
c ..
� .n T 3
c — m m � �— rt � � o
� � mr �,L°� � m('3� � �m`
J� C m 0` U� r Gf l0 � y� m
� > jZ � m "� 'c m o � o •c
� t/1 m T T m � C j� m Z= V�
m�' O O O�� m Ol Q �!� t-6 Q
a� V�.i �.i U� Q�(i V 0 Q J i/i
E
c � � O �
ai � � `�
E �°n L�� �� L m
� c � � � a° � >
� m L t m E> U m C C.�+
_��' C�O W(AW(A ;m�
O
�! 16 m a6 m
O� m m�� m W O�� y m
N�7 �"6 C C � � C�7 U
� J 2 Q Q f/i ��� m� J g
1.04
v
H
U
z
W
¢
a
N
0
Q
Q
�
M
H
U
z
W
Q
a
N
2
�
N
�
U
Z
U
w
Q
a
N
Q
Q
�
U
Z
U
W
Q
a
N
�
Q
Q
3
�
y � � � � ,� � � o
� � � � m .� � '� � a � N 0 c
��ZO � �'02 m� � �
m� �cvam m`o m c mV ¢
� � m af O � � `^ � � a3 a36 � La�
« 2tA�=m�� W �i2��m
�
'3 c m 3 m
m 3 v E� a�. � as r
� c J m t'� � c Y� 3 a
�Q m�JUQ �� W CfAYm w
y m� �.m m �03 c�� m�c¢'
. �_��,� c ��
°c� �o `c$' �m m«
«°o ��Z-�i(�QOC��m(�oa
� � p �
-E c `o `� v w� m •`— a�a
� v�i m� a`a 'm °� m e�a E t
� � m � C L � W > E � �
U N>. C Q�? m� O O m�
c> o O ¢= C m t pp
Q U �~ c� cmi � m~ c�
O a6 ���'� .� L 7� rt O
« w� m w Q� U w m o U
� � c
Y � -�p C C � � � N �
S O O� a��� U-p � AI
Y L v m J Z� W m=
� � N � 0 m � � m � � �
m m
m� p C m V O m L m V�
�� H � U� � m m Z� Z
ui
U
�
�
O
m
L
�
�
N
7
O
�
�
m
L
O
�
Q
O
U
m
7
�
N
.�
C
.;
O
O
w
N
L
F
M �
W �
� W
Q m
aW
i>
m0
(!J Z
Q �
>
Q Z
U �
LL V
Ow
� J
Z W
W �W W
Q Z
W
��
1.05
rn
rn
��
w�
�w
a 0°
a�
i>
cn O
cn z
> �
Qz
U �
LL V
O J
�w
w�
i
W W
Qz
W
��
v
H
U
Z
W
Q
a
M
0
Q
¢
�
M
H
U
Z
W
Q
a
M
�
�
Q
�
N
H
U
Z
U
W
Q
a
�
�
¢
a
3
U
Z
U
w
�
a
M
O
Q
Q
�
v
m �o
� Y _
� Y '
Q j � � � C = � � � y �
�. Z �+ � J m
�°' c�g m �a o m o=z
�� r C m m���= C A
7
c'nmUOd�w'a°�m�m° �0°10
�
o w �
y t Y
� U
c
`m � �� C o � p�c t m
°� > a`s m a`a ul �� a a� m
� m LL,� = aa m g aa o
m � 'a Z �
�� — � � � � � C � �
�> a J� Q � U� J Z
C 'a
w m m
�
m v � c �
o� m o m m
N� � N y m N O�. p�
m(� m t m O— m� C p_ T m
Zy N� m�.. � 2 Y M O 7 t m
�rt c °�c °��a� � m��a`�
g o �a m a� o m>>�=$ `o =
� UiC7UCtmoCaC�w-,Om
c� t �� m O� m�
. E n_ m �n a��
0 0 0` C7 � o�£ o� o
m Y m E Q N J!A J � tlJ
� T
d C j� > U� � C 16 ��
°«°��JQ�i'��Vi�
�
0
m
m
�
m
�
�
c
m
m
Q
w
z
w
U
w
Q �
U �
J �
2 Z
1.06
w
w
z
�
�
Q
J
J
3
i
�
O
a
�
�
L
Q�1f OF
FRIDI.EY
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AND
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CONFERENCE MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 1996 - 7:15 P.M.
MEETING ROOM 1 (LOWER LEVEL)
l. Discuss redevelopment priorities.
(See HRA agenda materials.)
, _ .
MEMORANDUM[
HOUSING
. �
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
DATE: November 7, '1996 �/
� �I
TO: William Bums, Executive Directoc of HRA �
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Canrrwnity Deveiopment Diredor
SUBJECT: Summary of Responses to Redevelopment Issues Survey
Nine responses to the survey were received as of 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, November 7,
1996. An additionai survey was also sent #o the newly-efected Councifinember At
Large, Bob 6amette. Additional surve.y responses will be tabulated and {xeserrted in
tandem with the previous �esponses at Tuesda�s meeting.
. : ,, , _ . � , ,
A summary copy of #he responses �s attached. A11 written oomme�ts from the surveys
are also noted in the margins.
Redevelopment Obiectives
Four of the nine responde�ts indicated that all of the objec�ives ident�fied in:Question
#1 were the objectives for-�redevelopment in Fridley.:,:The remairnng�five identifed :::
responses A; B; F, and G the most often: Q�estion #2 ihen" asked .each cespondent to
identify a rating or scale for each of #Me objectives: ` The top four objectives in #erms of
points matched the preferences in Question #9:
1. "Bn, Elimination of biight.
2. °A", Preservation and upgrading of property values.
3. "F", Overall improvement of neighbofiood livability.
4. "G°, Maximize tax revenues.
1.
Redevelopmeni lssues Survey
November 7, 1996
Page 2
The consensus of opinion appears to be that the objectives of redevelopment are to
eliminate "blighted properties', to preserve and upgrade property values, to improve the
overall neighborhood livability� and maximize tax revenues. Aocompiishing specific
housing objectives is of secondary importance.
Level of Government Involvement
Question #3 asked about the leve) of involvement the City should take in community
redevelopment. Five of the nine indicated a"financial incentive' approach. One
preferred just code enforcemen� The remainder opted to select the op#ion which
promotes locaf government using all of its tools. There appears to be a consensus to
continue with the current strategies now underway. Single and multipfe family
rehabilitation programs have been established, and various code enforcement
ordinances have been adopted or are being considered (rental inspection, point of
sale, housing maintenance code).
FundinQ Allocation
Question #4 queried as to how funds should be allocated on a geographic basis to
accomplish redevelopment objectives. A majority of the respondents indicated that a
two-track approach should be_utilized; dividing the funds so that 1/3 of the funds are for
City-wide use and 2/3 of the funds are used on a targeted neighborfiood basis.
Distribution of Limited Financial Resources
In response to Question #5 as #o how to spend $1.00 of iocal govemment resources on
redevelopment projects, the top three priorities were as foilows:
1. $.26 on single family rehabilitation loans and grants.
2. $.20 on single family acquisition (scattered-site program).
3. $.18 on multiple family rehabili#ation foans a�d grants.
This reflects roughly the current allocation approach.
Land Bankinq
An overwhelming majority indicated a prefere�ce of Option B In Question #6 which
states as follows: "I could accept land banking i# a propesty becomes avaifabte at an
�
Redevelopment Issues Survey
November 7, 1996
Page 3
attractive cost, and the property acquisition meets high priority �edevelopmerrt
objectives, even though it may be necessary to hold the property for longer than tvvo
years."
Redevelopment Areas
Question #7 asked for a rating of specific redevelopment priorities. The top three
redevelopment priority areas, as indicated by the responses, are as follows:
1. Hyde Park and Holiday Plus area.
2. Redevelopment of the University Avenue corridor that lies east of University Avenue
between I-694 and 61 �` Avenue.
3. Redevelopment of the areas currently used as junk yards.
PlanninQ Process
Question #8 provided a spectrum of options regarding the amoun# of neighbort�ood
involyernent in the planni�g process. Four responden#s indicated Option B{conduct
informationa! meetings a�.projec;ts prior to formal decision-making processes occurrin9
on the neighbofiood redevelopment project). Five respondents selected Optio� C -
which is a more inclusive option of: having neighbors and business owners completing a
comprehensive plannir�g {xocess for the neighbofiood prior to discussion of
redevelopment projects.
Because the responses were so close, further discussion on this issue should occur.
Desipn lssues
None of the respondents indicated that design/streetscape improvements should not be
included in projects. Five respondents stated that the HRA should share expenses with
the developer, while four said the developer should incur this expense knowing that the
land saie price would be reduced.
Nexi Steps
The HRA budget and staff resources will be adjusted to accomplish the following
projects in order of priority: �
u �
Redevelopment lssues Survey
November 7, 1996
Page 4
1. Hyde Park and Holiday Plus area.
2. Redevelopment of the University Avenue corridor north of I-894.
3. Redevelopment of areas currently used as junk yards.
4. Redevelopment of the northeast quadrant of University Avenue and Mississippi
Street intersection.
5. Redevelopment of the northeast quadrant of I-694 and TH 65.
6. Redevelopment of deteriorati�g apartments.
Staff will develop a workplan and schedule prior to Tuesday evening to give the City
Council and HRA an idea of what tasks can be accomplished within the next one to
three years. All of the above priorities will take several years #o accomplish.
It is clear ihat land banking is acceptable.if the property meets high prio�ity
redevelopment objectives, even though it may be �ecessary to hold the property for
longer than two years. Further, the use�of �inancial:ince�tives coupled with current
code enforcement initiatives should be �oor�tinued. --
Less:clear, however, is the struc#ure of the planning process which needs to occur prior
to initiation of redevelopment projects,` and whether desigNstreetscape improvements
should be a requirement of the developer oc a shared expense with the HRA.
The City Council and HRA should clariiy direction on these issues, and any other issue
discussed in the survey.
BDldw
M-96-523
iC
S
� g � f' r
! �} S `:^;��=!'
f
. � y..
�'l �.._l� /-i1= r ` , �_.... : _'-
t
;i
�. ___-__..V._... .. -
REDEVELOPMENT ISS U�S S U� VEY
1. What should be the objectives of redevelopment i� Fridle�
� A. Pre.servation and upgrading of property values
� B. Elimination of blight
� C. Provisio� of a balanced mix of housing in Fridley
� D. Provision ofi housing for seniors
�
1 � F.
� G.
�� H.
Provision of housing for low and moderate income families
Overall improvement of neighborhood livabiliiy
Maximize tax revenues
AII of the above
2. Please examine the redevelopment objectives listed in Question #1. How
would you rate e�ach of these objectives on a scale of 1- 10, with 10 being the
highest? �
�A:•'
��° B-
� C.
_ f` f D.
�
;� E .
�.� F.
�� G.
H.
iD
.
� _
�
�
�
`-�—
�
,�:
�
.�
�
�
�
,.3
v
�
�
.
�
�_
�
Page 2- Redevelopmer�t Issues Survey
3. Which of the foiiowing statemerrts best reflects your feelings about the proper
level of govemment involvemerrt i� community redevelopmeM?
A. Local govemment should restrict its involvemerrt to code
enforcemer�t and other reguiatory methods of maintai�ing safe
and habitable properties. In generai, local govemment shouid
leave invastment in pr+operty to the priva#e market place.
J8. Local govemmerrt should provide financial incentives that attract
individuals and organizations toward investment in blighted areas.
C:
F
� D.
Loca� govemment shouid not oniy provide financial incentives to
attract investment, but should own and operate property
necessary for meeting the housing needs of cer#ain
disadvantaged individuals, i.e., the homeless, low and moderate
income families, and seniors.
Local govemment should use all of the tools at its disposal, code
eriforcement, financial incentives, and ownership, to accomplish
its redevelopment objectives in the most efficient and effective
manner. •
�, �r.�-►�+a.�3 e �l,c. ��_ r �� �-�*c �`�' �'�U�
4. Assume that a ma�o�ity of decision-makers on your board wish to accomplish
redevelopment objectives in�a manner that requires some foRn of direct
investment in Fridley property, i.e., ifirough loans and grants or property
acquisition. Also, assume a limited number of staff and financiai resources.
Which of the foitowing geographic approaches most appeals to you?
Y
��;
A.
:
Use scarce resou�ces to upgrade the City on a neighbofiood by
neighborhood basis. -
Use scarce resources to address the worst properties wherever
they are located within the City.
C. Use a two track approach that places primary emphasis on a
target �eighbofiood, but ieaves about o�e-third (1/3) of the funds
available for City-wide use.
D. Use a two track approach ihat divides resources equally (50/50)
on a target neighbofiood and City wide use.
1E
Page 3- Redeveiopment Issues Survey
E. Use a two-track approad� that uses one-fourth (1/4) to one-third
(1/3) of available funds i� a target neighbofiood with the
remainder avaitable for distribution on a City-wide basis.
5. Once again assume that local govemment has decided to make some
investment in redevelopment of private property and tha# the local govemment
has limited resources. How would you distribute $1.00 of local govemmer�t
resources on the following types of projects?
lt
�
f
A.
:
�
�d C.
`� D.
�1�� E.
Singfe family rehabilitation loans and grants
Multi-family rehabilitation loans and grants
Single family acquisitio� (scattered-site program)
Muiti-family acquisition
Rehabilitation of commercial properties
� t c;�,,�,�,.-� a �
_ �� F. Acquisition of commercial properties ,., � ,_ -,�--�,� `"
_ �j�Ss.,�,�. A:�U �s•,,� .
�
6. �and banking has been an ugly word in our locaf govemment vocabulary.
Notwithstanding our reluctance to tie up resources in land that may not be
used immediately, which of the following stat�nerrts best reflects your feelings
abaut land banking?
`v A. We should �ever acquire a property that we will not use
��� •
immediately (within 24 mo�ths of aoquisition).
I could accept land banking i# a property becomes available at an
attractive cost and the property aoquisition meets high priority
redevelopment objectives, even though it may be necessary to
hold the property for longer thari two years.
C. Local govemments st►ould aggressively pursue the acquisition of
properties that are needed to support high priority redevelopment
objectives, even "rf it means holding them for longer than two
years.
i. � _ n ; ` �, �..'..� �I/� �//'��, ����� �
�i� �t"l_ � t: i , l, (�-�'� � !�`.�(.f,`�_ � ' ♦ � �= � . � \ 7�.. V . ti.�.� ,!�.'� � ` �`✓'
�� �. : � bS�_1 � � `. � �
�
1F
Page 4- Redevelopment Issues Survey
7. Based on the objec#ives in Qu�tion #1, please examine the foliowing list of
specific redevelopmen# p�io�s. How v�ould you ra#e each of these on a
scale of i- 10 with 10 being the most urge�t
�
�
A.
:
�� C
� � D.
�� E.
�
�
�:� G.
��
�
Hyde Park and #he Holiday Plus area
Aedevelopment of the no�theast quadrarrt of #he 1-694/T.H. 65
intersection
Redevelopmerrt of areas currently used as junk yards
Redevelopmerrt of areas currently used as "trailer parks"
Redevelopment. of the University Avenue corridor that lays east of
University Avenue between I-694 and 61 st Avenue �
Redevelopme�t of deteriorated apartments {i.e., Charles Street
and Anna Street apartrnents, Polk Street apartments, and others
which may be scattered across the City)
Redevelopmeirt of the northeast quadrant of the University
Avenue/Mississippi Street intersection
Other; please idenMy
Other; please
� J. Other, please iderrti '� ��� ��
�}- K , ��,�� �., `�c�r,�„�.,
8. Nov4, we'd like you;#o addr what ou consider to be the
Y, proper role of
neighbofioods and the business'community in defining redevelopmen#
projects. Piease check the sta#ement that best reflects your feeling about
neighbofiood and business irnolvement in redevelopme�t projects.
A. Neighbofioods and business owners should be invited to City
Council and Housi�g & Redevelopment Authority meetings where .
major redevelopment decisions are made affecting property in
these neighbofioods.
�
1G�
a
Page 5- Redevelopment lssues Survey
' ,�
V� B• Informational meetir�gs with neighbofiood residerrts and business
�
owners should be estabiished prior to %rmal �tic decision
malcing processes on neighbortiood redeveloprnerrt. The
�eighbors' poirrt of view should be taken irrto consid�ation before
redevelopment issues reach the City Council and Housir�g &
Redevelopmerrt Authority.
C. Neighbors and business owners ought to be brought irrto a
comprehensive planning process for the�r neighbort�ood prior to
any discussion of redevelopment projects. Projects that are
brought to neighbofiood meetings, and formal City deliberative
bodies ought to reflect the comprehensive plans that have been
developed for particular neighbofioods and the City as a whole.
D. In addition to involvement in comprehensive pla�ning, project-
specific informational meetings, and foRnaf deliberative bodies_of
the City, representatives of neighbort�oods and the business
community should have the specific abiiity to veto particular
redevelopment projects if they fee! they are no# in the best interest
of the neighborhood.
9. Historically, the Housing & Redevelopment Authority has considered, and in
some cases, completed a variety of "streetscape". improvements as part of
redevelopmerrt projects. Replacing'the chain li�k fe�ce .on University Avenue
with a decorative fence was iderrtified as a potential idea in a s#udy completed
in the 1980's. Another example is the Mississippi Street project Ovefiead
power lines were installed underground, decorative street lights were installed,
and brick pavers were instaQed a# various points along the abutting sidewalks.
� NVhich of the following statemerrts best reflects your feelings about
"streetscape" or "design" retated improvements:
A.
8.
� �
'�„i$ �� q', ,'�:� � C-
�esi9n/streetscape improvements should no# be included in
redevelopmer�t projects.
Design/streetscape improvements should be included in
redevelopmerrt projects, but as a requirement of the developer,
knowi�g that the land sale price wili be reduced.
Design/streetscape improvements should be inciuded in
redevelopment projects as a shared expense with a developer(s).
„
�t � ��,,,, y� .� i � - r :.f= % r � ,
r,v 4. �'"tlin C 1� i r R�-t �.`.�].{ A f ,�{.Z• �: `�.�....
Q �S V`- '•, , t . ✓ 1 e .:i ✓'l_ '�l-�` . . .i .
;_
1H
Page 6- Redevelopment issues Survey
�• �9Ns�ee�ape improvements shouid be included i�
��Pme� p+�jects and should be completed and paid for by
Thanks for taking your time to express your policy preferences.
0
11
� ` � 4