The URL can be used to link to this page

02/02/1998 CONF MTG - 4809� � CffY OF FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING February 2,1998 - 7:00 P.M. Conference Room A (iJpper Level) 1. Update on Telecommunications Business Plan (Model Right-of-Way Ordinance). 2. Community Center Update. 3. Update on 611 Lafayette Street N.E. 4. Complaint Tracking Software. 5. 1998 City Council/Commissions Survey. 6. Other Business. Adjourn. �' MEMOR.ANDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: January 29, 1998 � TO: � William W. Bums, City Manager�� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Telecommunication Update John Harrington, from the Kreines and Kreines consulting firm, will present an altemative approach regarding the telecommunication business plan issue on Monday evening. Although the City has recently completed its ordinance regarding "approved sites" and location of 125 foot monopoles, the next wave of technology, "micro cell antennae" will have a direct effect on the landscape of the City and regulation of public rights of way. The proposed concept is more fully explained in a memo which is expected to be faxed to my attention on January 30, 1998. In summary, the initiative is to encourage the smaller antennae to be collocated on existing street lights within the right of way, and to discourage additional taller monopoles. There may be revenue opportunities for the City for this approach; the extent of which would be analyzed by the consultant. Micro cells are shorter antennae which can be mounted on street lights or are about thirty feet in height. Micro cells, or additional smaller antennae, are needed when the capacity of the taller monopoles has been reached. Other metropolitan areas in the nation are experiencing the next wave of antennae as more businesses and citizens demand more personal communication services. • REQUESTED DISCUSSION Prior to authorizing the consultant to complete a business plan to determine the extent of revenue, the Council needs to determine if the proposed concept is worthwhile pursuing. Mr. Harrington will be available to answer detailed questions on Monday night. BD/ M-98-19 KREINES & KREINES INC. TEL�1-415-435-1522 , _� , .� ,.� Krelnes & Krelnes A Califarnla Corp. Jan 30 98 10�23 No.001 P:02 '` �'/ Summary of Approach to Develop a Business Plan \ for Wireless Deployment in the City of Fridle� ` � January 29,1998 S8 Pa�ao MIrA�o! Tlburon, CA 94920 Phone 415 4�S 92M Fax 4tS 435-1522 Kreine� & Kreines, lnc. has been retained to prepare a Business Plan for an entity created by the City of rridley to undertake wireless deployment. Por purposes of this discussion, that entity is being called a"Cooperative." Kr�ines & Kreines, Inc. suggests that a"cooperative" Ue created under Miny�es�ta Statutes Section 308A et seq. The c�operative would start as a small vcnture, concerncd o��y with wireless deployment in thc Ciry of rridley. Eventually, the Cooperative could branch out inkv other forins oi telecammunications. The purpose of the 13usiness Plan is to determine the financial viability oi fihe cooperative. Kreines & Kreines, Inc, suggests that the Cooperative st�arr oui with wireless deployment and not a large telecommunications venture, such as an entire fiber optic nettivork for the Gity of Fridley. Such a lar�e veniure may assume toa mucl� of a financial obligation and exposc the City to financial ]osscs. Thc T3usiness Plan w�uld show if � Co�pea�ative could pay for it,self and withiyi, say, five years, begin returning zevenves t� the City of Fridl�y and /o�• the customcrs and residents of Fridley. The Business Plan will Help to Define the Cooperative A Cooperative exists to benefit both Uuyers and sellers. While the City of �ridlcy is not a selier of wire�ess sites, the City both re.gulntes wireless sites and so�nei�imes J.eases s�tes lo carriers. While carriers usually don'i buJ wireless sii�es, fihey do apply t.o fihe Ciiy of rridley #o have their wireless sites approved and they pay rPnt. to a property owner, whether to a pa•ivate properly owner or t� a public owner such as the City of Fr�dley. The end users of a wireless system in the City of Fz'idley wi1J be xesid�xlts and Uusinesses in the City as well as people passing t�lrough the Ciky. At least tl��se who are Pridley taxpayers (e.g., those who pay property taxes or who reside in laridley) among these three groups could be considered members of the Cooperative, because they will be,nefit financially (if not in dividends, by lower taxes). The custc�iners of the Coaperative wauld l�e the wireless carriexs. Tluy would bene#it by knowing where it is they can deploy their facilities, how mu�lti thcy KREINES & KREINES INC. TEL�1-415-435-1522 Jan 30 98 10�23 No.001 P.03 . , ,t necc� to pay for deployment and, if they follow thc Cooperative's �lan, how t� deplvy tllcir wireless sites as quickly as possible. Rec�ucing th� Hrne c�t c�eployment is in the financial infierest of the carricr, becauce tim�-to-marl<�t is kcy in wireless competition. 7'o t11e extenfi that th� City �f. Fridley can control the Cooperative as describ�d <-�U�v� and profit directly from th� entity's surcess, ihe entity mi�l�t b� callc�d a "C�a�crative." 7'o the exteni t�hal tltc Cooperative could not functi�n under the co�ih�o] of the City of Pridley, tlien thc entity inight be called a subsidiar�r �r an agency of the City of Pridley. The Busincss Pla». will fit any entity and the nature of thc Business i')an will help to determine whai• kind of cntity i� Ue�t svited f�r the City c7f Fridley. Principal Features of the Cooperative (or Similar EnHty) '1'he Cooperative will tacilitate wireless �ites to be located in tlle City-ownc,d right-of-way. Whcn cai�ie�s agrcc to locate in the City-owiled right-of-way, lcase rates will resulfi in revenues to the City of Fridley. Carriers may locate in rights-�f-way not o�nmed by the City �f Fridley, but t�ic appr�va] of such Sites Uy the Cifiy will depend on a design acceptable to the Ci .ty foy the wircicss sitc. A carrier may elect tv build a tall wireless site on privale property, but the �•�vicw and approval process will be longer, rnore difficult and less certain as tc� autc�n�e than a right-of-way site. The carrier will be induced to locaie in thc City-owned right-of-way. A"CooperaHve p�le" will be specified by the City of Fridley ta meet all engineering and appearance requirc�nents of the City. The car7ier w�uld purchase the C:oo�eraHve pole fr�m the manufactur�x (or rnanufacturers) approved by the City �f Fridley. No other pole can be apprnved for use in th� �ight-of-way, regardless of who owns the raght-of-way. Tlus wauld provide for t1�e uniform appearance and quality in keepin� with City c�des. Tl�c pole would be installed by the carriers and, after passing inspection for acc�ptance by the C.ity, dedicated to tlte Cooperative. The Cooperative would then own the pole, c�llect revenue and pay ihe City rent for use of tile City's ri�ht-of-way or the Cooperative's pole. All wireless sites must send a signal to a Public Switched Telephone Network. 'fhis pa�t t�f a wirelc�s tclephone call is called "backhau]" and u�ually involves ih� transfer �f a wireless messaqe to a wireline. This backhaul connection is madc to cvcry wireleSS site, although some wireless sites use micr�wave relay 2 KREINES & KREINES INC. TEL�1-415-435-1522 , •, � Jan 30 98 10�24 No.001 P.04 (disl�cs) to m�vc the sibnal t� another wireless site. Microwave relay dishes would bc prohibited in the Gity �f Pridley becausc tlley ar� visually obt�v�ive. Rackhaul is usually sent ta a Public Switched Tclephonc Network via the a•ig11t-of-way. But when a wireless site is nofi in the right-of-way, it m.ust reach ihe right-of-way �ver a utility easeinent, a5 shown in Pigurc A. Pi�ure A is frc�m an acival Sprint application to the City of rridley. The casement connects the wireless site to the rigl�t-of-way where the T.EC� (Local �xchange Company) has a trui�k line. Thc call leaves ihe wireless sitc, travels ovr�r tl7e �asement and is connected ta the LEC line in the rigllt-of-way. The easement �ver which Uackllaul accesses thc ri�ht-�f-way is usually grailted to the carricr by the private property owner. The Cooperative would <�iscrnitinue such practices. The Business Plait assumes that thc property c�wner, who benefits from a wireless site lease, must dedicai:e khe: casement t;o thc Ciry of Fridley and thai� tl�e carrier construct broadband wireline in the casement, The broadUand would bc dedicated to the Cooperative. The carrier wc�uld then pay a fee f�r use of lhe casGment. This process could Uc expensive anc� w'ould discourage the carriers from deploying on private propca•ty, Uut ihey could do ii if d��y wanted to pay far thc use of the backhaul case�nent. If tl�e carrier does deploy on private properfiy, thc City of Fridley gains reve�iuc as well as a se�nent of Uroadband wl�ich would ultimately become a part of the City'�s (or Cooperative's) broadband system. Objectives of the CooperaHve Thc Cooperative has t�wo objectives, Pirst, the City of Nridley wants ta contro] the deplvyment of wireless facilitics in the City because, without c�ntrol, these facilities 11ave a fiendency to pop up ailywhere and ailger surroundin�; reSident�s. Sccond, there is a potential for reve�lue to the City if. a vehicle can be esi�ablished to deploy the �acilities at ihe car�rier's expense. That vehicle would Uc the Cooperative, and the Cooperative would make money eithcr renting space on the poles, through right-of-way leases and/or Uy charging backhaul ease�nent use fees. Traditional]y, the City of rridley has z�ning review and approval autllority ov�r per�onal wirelcss service facilities. l I.owever, as in all cities and counties, that purview is ea;erted oti a case-by-case, first-come-first �erved basis. Carriers initiate the revicw pr�cess at their. conveniencc a�id the City of i�jridley has no idea of ].iow many or where future applications will app�ar. ►�„ r��iaiey, r>>� LLC i� us w�sr, � KREINES & KREINES INC. TEL�1-415-435-1522 Jan 30 98 10�25 No.001 P.05 , , 4�I�ooC Y!O/I��iond Emtuy Inc. ' � ' � ' � OwMr�r ��+0 Mµ<r� r � fAi[�lnl OOG Iq, 17SIIJy � � �., ; ; UTILI T �; INGR� SS & � I,:: EGRE�S EA S�MEN r . r; � , �,�M� {,. � - � 0�',1,�, �;� � � � , :.: , ��,,., , �� .. ��,;� , � ., �, , _� � ; ::` ' ` � � � ..�::... _ _.._ -- —f , . r,; --��1 : �� ' .a.r . _--,.'.-,.,.- _ _, _„ ��r � � . -1 , � '"� ; � j j LE'ASED �� EM/SE,� ,;: � Sl E � ; � :; � � �/ � � J � ::; IiNLN Y.N1F x � � IM MUf M/L41.V/ � � I J �" nn.na, ��.�� vs� � "' � i :' r� I �'' ✓ i N� iu � � ,l)t � �t > i � � � � � f �� 8� i � i I C � � �p , � i � I .� � ' � , ► � 8 � ; � .r � I � ,e 1 I � , � � 1 I - '� �- — .�� ./' / j j �n / � / � � b�Ja y % 1 ; ,«�,��,£ 1 -__ ,�a, � � ,� ► i � � �' �+ 1 ! �. ti i !.� ; vo�' /� I � � / 1 / f 1 / � � ' , � / I � � ,� / 7 � % / � 1 �♦ � � � ' �'� 6 � i � v .� � /0 �,��, � � Py � • : / . / ' � rw c.n...n,�«r wa�.�.iru, " ��`� � 6 5 t W�0 d d lr�ii Sq i+J1. r•+�r wwr..r' .�,y In�O �rY �w �.� � :M 1�V N �W� ��7 f1�MN , �_ ; �� u : ►� u : �u � u � �b � O �. N ro � ; ,� Q � Li � Flau re A rowt� eocancw BLVr/NC COC4A�v t/lC/NlTY MAP SITE P � ." 1 � P � i � FR/DC EY fK00RaPNIC 0(101�u1ES Of DROVOS[0 10W(q u I.n11NOf � 0)li.�f' to�utior o�•�s•so.ea• ►u0 C7 [LNAttON wT PJSC 0I pAQPOSCO TpVtC�i 0�0.0 AVSL iAOVD[Rf1� JUtG i2�e�s sowpE �EE7 GYRR[Ni IOAtI1tG Y-2 (FtGIW WOUS�AtW JUWmiCTpN - C�r!' Of I'RiDLE7 1�-° %�q.�l i1000 R� IF tuSUA. 0�� u�hfN Z 1�81 SrlOwS NOit: Up�ITQS S��OwN fAE i !�+'+� ��F�O �Ew�iCO �m[A� r� AWST BE COnf��l(0 PAIOR i .53� o ,.:,., ,,.. ...... Y r.. w'..� M 4i� Mrti � fM IN �"� �`�wltiw�/ — ati..na...ani - • - i..�. u. ^M� fs NN/�n� CiI W ".o`. (� W�'►w.M NnN�r Y^— G w+..w r..r µ. —..., u w....� �.,—w u --�'— r. wryw...r,.. � r^' � �whl Ifw 41�..�1� �-r ew.i t►. �n i,., � " � M.,,w. �.w V4o�0 fNSI� {yp .—. N�r� !r w� AD . xw+a«.��A�e S.}3A . a�na+r tr�cr�AU►1 ►i ro�-�,� ��vnr KREINES & KREINES INC. TEL�1-415-435-1522 Jan 30 98 10�25 No.001 P.06 . •, ,� The Couperative would have a deployment plan that would not state where or when p�rsonal wireless service facilities would appear, but rather those ar4�s and conditions under whic)�. applicatio��s f.or personal wireless service facilities would be expecied. Zoninfi als� gives the City of Fridley purview over sifiin�; (where the facility is placed) and desi�;n (what the facility looks like). The Cooperative pole would allow the City of Fridley to intrc�duce a standard desi�l that is both acceptable tc� the City and uniform to all carriers. The right-of-way i.s a unif.orm setting for sitin�, alth�ugh tllere are certain rules (e.�., dista�ic� From travel lancs, r�lationship to existiil� poles, ete.) that must be followrd. The prospect of a Ci�y generating r4venu�s fram personal wireJess ser.vic4 facilities b�co�nes challenging since the supply �f public land is li�nited. Only wheil the puUlic right-of-way is seen as possible for wixcless deployment does the Notential for leasing most wireless sites (if not all wireless sites) on public land seein realistic. Thc qucstion for thc Business Plan is: how inuch rev�nue mighi Ue possible froxn ]c�asing wireless sites in the right-of-way? What if the City of Pridley can't legally charge for space in the right-�f-way? Th�n the City c�uld charge for the use of the pole. ,A.nd if the pole iF deemed bcyond the Cooperative's ability to charge rent, tl�en there would Ue a char�e for th� backhauI connectian in the right-of-way. IGreinc� & Kreines, Inc. believes that there are several revenue generating potentials in fihe right-of- way, and the i3u,Siness Plan will identify them. Rcvenues may also be possible hom the backhaul casemeizt. If the easement is owned by the Cooperative or the City of Fridley, anci its use is rcpcatcd every time th�re is a call �vcr the wireless site, then significant revenve� may be c>btained from charging the carrier for the use c�f the ea5ement. The carriex is noc forcec� to agree t� thi� arrangement, since placzn�; a wireless site in the ri�ht-�f-way removes t�he need tor an easement, Tlie carrier has the choice of either �oing in the right-of-way or findin� an accept�ible site on private property and the City of Fridley obtains revenue from bokh options. 'ihe Cooperative Culture The Coopexative is intended to be entrepreneurial: it will spend money, take ir�dest risks axid it wi)J rcccivc revenues for the City of Fridley. A� �such, the C�operative has several �ptions: 4 KREINES & KREINES INC. TEL�1-415-435-1522 Jan 30 98 10�26 No.001 P.07 . •. •'1'he Conperative can be an ag�ncy of the Ciiy of Fridley, but as such it may be limited in thc amount of risk-taking and entr�prencurial behavior it can cngage in. • Thc Cooperative could be independent of the Ciiy of Fridley, Uut then the City's coi�trol could be lunited and tlle net revenue may have ta b� shared with residents and users. The 13usia�css Plan will assumc some type of subsidiary relationship for the C.00peraiivc: n�t a direct a�ency of, but not independent from, the City c�f Pridley. Tlic C�aperativc would employ a mana�cr who reports directly to the City Mana�;er and the Cit�y Council. nther help could be contraci�ed, or city staff can be usc:d on a for-fee basis. Thc C�operative would plan io be self-sustaining after a start-up period. The Business Plan will sug�est how much inifiial funding is needed and to what extent rcvenues will be forthc�ming to the City of Pridley. Market Changes Tl�c 13usiness Plan depends on understanding the wireless market. Therc was � suggestion from the special afitorneys that the City of Fridley atfiempt an enfiire telecommunications system in the City of Pridley. 7'his would entail the buildinb of a broadband system throughout the City at great expense. The cost of suc11 a venture would have required a Business Plan showing gr.eat rislc and high, ]ong-l•erm capital investmeitt. Such a venture might be unwise �or thc tollowiil� rcas�ns: BroadUand companics like WorldCom, are acquiring, mcrging and folding witli yapidity. • New media, switching techniques and applicatior�� are. anilounccd daily. • The large capital investrnent could be a fulancxal cost to khe City. A subsiantial investment in a high-growth envirorunent like this is iraught witlti slippery slopc.s. One need only examine t1�c fate of CATV companies tc�day: one minute cable is view�d a� the answer to mosi; broadband prayers, t114 �icxt minute �t is seen as a dying industry. Wirelcss, r�n the other hand, is new to North America. T3ecause wireless i� starfing small, it 11as oi11y one patll to follow and that is �rowth. Haw fast a 5 . .. . iM.':YISfLV�W�IS1IY..Y �' . KREINES & KREINES INC. TEL�1-415-435-1522 Jan 30 98 10�27 No.001 P.08 •, g;rowth, how lligh a growth and how rocky a grovv�h are al] legitimatc quc,stions, Uut we know there will be maily rnore users of wireless scrvices in tl�c year 2000 than today. And this trend should continue through th� first half of the 21st Century, Nc�t all wireless services are cven known -- muck� lcss developed -- u11998. "1'ltese arc tlle services we know of and wllich we beaievr. have a future: • P4rsonal Wireless Services. A Eavorite of. the Telecoinmvnicati�ns Act of 199b, and subject to some limitations of local zoning aut�hority, they include: - Cellular, The most common type of movile telephone. - PCS (Personal Communication Services). PCS is due to out-compete and avc�rtakc cellular Uecause of greater capaUilities. - Paging. Thc most popular form of wirelcss service ioday. - SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio). SMR includes coinm�rcial dispatcll a�1d data lines. If a contraclor or t��xi cab company docsn't have their own service, they purchase space from a SMR company. - F�.SMR (Enhanced Speciali�ed Mobile Radio). E.SMR allows mobile radio (SMR) as w�ll as cellular telephone, all in �ne system. NL�XTEL ii� t11e primary company and is considered a strong competitor to PCS as wcll as cellular. Satellite Services. These are be�oming available at gieat cost. They will probably never be a strong coinpetitor to personal �uvireless services. • Other Wireless Services: - Wireless Cable. Capable of delivering TV as wcll as phone service t� �z�ulti-user buildi�lgs, such as offices aaid apartments. - LMDS (Loca1 Multipoint Uistributio�i Services). T..MDS is aUout to be licensec� by the NCC ta compele with wireless cablc. - Wireless i�ocal Loops. Tixec� systeins that supplant wired physical plant in the ground or strung on poles. (AT&T is pursuin�; thest in every telephone market. Beta testing is t�nderway in Ghicago.) All of these services need snine degree of height .froyn which to send and receive si�,�ials and all except cellular are in their infancy. 6 KREINES & KREINES INC. TEL�1-415-435-1522 Jan 30 98 10�27 No.001 P.09 Will wireless ever equal Uroadband in terms �f capacity and speed? At tl�i� juncture, it looks doubtfuI. Can wYreless Ue deployed mueh mare quicicly t11an, say, fiber aptic cable? Yes, and witli conStant technological changc, this is to wireless' advantage. Will wireless phones eveiltually replace corded handsets? Probably. Will wireless services ever be completely divorced from wireline? Probably nnt. Most futurists �ee the two "co�lv�rgin�': wireless and wireline will combine ii� the rnost unpredictable wayr. Aor example: � A c�rc�less telephone is actually a fixed wireless system operating within 7,000 fcet + �f its cradle. A call fi'om a wir•eline phone is answered "c.ordlessly" and thc two, wircless and wirclinc, are "convcrging." AT&T is planning to provide service to 1lomes with�ut u.sing the Lc>cal Lxchange Coinpany's (US WesE's) wireline. A tcXcphone cali lca�cs a wireline i�elephone and is wirelessly corrununicated to a ncighborhoad pole, where it then eni:ers the wireline systean, as shown in Figure B. Thc City of Fridley or the Cooperative should own that neigltborhood pole, and tllere needs to be one for every 2U houses, Convcr�ence means that wireles� will Ue a vital link in the wireline network, which is built but changing. Wu•eless is still largely unUuilt and it therefore re�aresents the greaiest� opportunity to start a busixiess with. Induatxy Responds to Market Change8 C�mpetition is intense between wireless services, but not as ga•cat witllin wire;lcss servicc;�. For example, PCS companies are fixated on one market nbjective: catch cellular and take away their customers. Cellular companies a�r. boldly resistulg PCS by stayu�g focuscd on building and improvin� th�ix systems. '1'he resulc is a rush to deploy new wireless sites, w1UCh impacts local goverrunents aikc Fric�icy, I�eploymeni� is expeilsive, prunarily because of the electronirs at the base of. a "tow�r" or even a short masi;, because the boxe� are pretty inuch tlte sam� re�arc�less c>f the heigh.t of the anteitna. By keepin� the number of wireles� sites to a minimum, a carrier can serve a market area with a minimum invcstment iil electroni�s. �-iowever, this minunuan cost deployment requires a maximum height for poles, since each wireless site must "reach" further than a shorter poie. It is t11c heigllt of the "tower" tllat most local govcrnments object to, and tl�.at is the �Uject of much ��ning re�ulation. 7 KREINES & KREINES INC. TEL�1-415-435-1522 Jan 30 98 ::�j(�(,.' ,v,� ''� it�� +�" •. n .r,i,��.� �•>�'`'�4'�' ��5;'�.:., !t;* .; u. , r:r.�ri ' ,. �. ., ..• 'i.l.:r,�;, ' �R. � � ''��; :1�r. i ;�! . ,,� . �,`, o0 II:i1.�'.�. . . ��::; .: : ,r;.,.,: . �,..:; . ::: :, �. .,: '�,;y�; t�,; ;:j'}; ".i�'�: (�.:,:�;.;>.'', I.�,�+� �. J" � � �..': ":. .,','�..:�''�' . ''. ; +.,' � '�. ,.' I:1� �.,' 1 :,; �'�.�'{ � /tiC��t� '��A� C9� : � � ;;.. ;;:. : , ;� m 10�28 No.001 P.10 '�g'��;,'�:<i� . ,.; . �'.;' ! , ' �, ,.�-,� . . : �:..:E' :,d: a .;;,' " ` �� '�: ;;: , ..,:: �;:�"�'� , o, . , ; • • ., � ,�.�.. , $. �' . �`r ,�"1' ��..`� . . iS . �'r,�� .��:�.:• r ��. ; .,: w- tn �'� m. �;� �01� ' s � � ID �. ��;� . t '� '', " �: : .�:.:';:�..; .� Q 0;:... a ; :,;`�.:.�•. ;:.::. :� ,..: . I �..�...�. ..: , . -1;4�' "•�4i1N:�i^.�'�:r�'�11�.� -��• :r. l r.$,. .`�.' ;�.r��;; ' . . 'I'i :�;'i.• ��; ��i'it � }�ji. `:(,.,. Ci';M:.i.`;�': _/., r , �;.':,, ; � :':` .:.'; •: ir jr.i.^�r�P��'hlSi`}i,�!r,�.'�:+;�'ii��; ,..... :a � � � y � �'.�' " . � '. � ro � � ..�'. � � �'\�i. �� . ��. . � .� ' � ��'� �I �� :� ;�.. . .�;. � . � ; �' � ��:� � �(� �i`� ' :� ��. r� . . ,,S ,� i'. ' dq)" � ':�� IJ�. � :� :�: ;.:. .'�. . .� ,o� ,;��:;.:,. �:� :� -� ` '�� ►-- �: � � �, Q:, :�. �. .'�': � � �� a. �:�� ;} : ��. � � � � .�: :�;� � : t � � �., � _�� ;. �� `°:. • . �� .�:� ;� N. �.. � — ,.��: � ,, � �' �:� � �� ,:�ga: �. � � � �` , �. � w:• ,:� � a � �� -� a � N ri et ui � m � w 7 � LL KREINES & KREINES INC. TEL�1-415-435-1522 Jan 30 98 10�31 No.003 P.01 /�s wircless sites bccome m�re Uusy witli passing moUile (and stationary) usr.rs, ihc sites reach ca}�acity and start turnin� away customexs. At this point, t]�c carrier builds a new wireless sitc vei�vvicen two existing buey onc�s. T'h� new wireless site relievcs capacity problcins and Allows the carrier to reduce the height of all antennas so they don t"ii�vade" each otlier's s�rvice area. Uliimately, the City of Fridley will see applicati�ns for 30-foot poles as shown in Pigure C, Figure C is fro�n an actual prop�sal in a Chicago suUurU where the oldest ceJlulaz system (begun in 1�)$3) is in placc. Each wireless site is ala�cady, i�� soine Chicago area Iocations, as close as 1/4 mile to cach nc�i�;hboring wireless site; and that's f�r one carrierJ Should all nvie carriers that �rc licensed to us� tlie wireless site approach reach this leve] �f uUiquity, ilic�rc will be 30-f�at poles everywhere. Carriers Pay Cities to Deploy Quickly Across the count�y, carriers have resorted to all types of inducemenis for rapid reviews and appr�vals. They will lease puvlic lands at high ratcs, give away frec telephones and service and disguise their facilities to look like ir�es or clock towers. 7'l�e budbcts that carriers wield are well padded to guarantee initial deplay�nent. However, ihe carriers are experienci��g high Front-end costs in obtainiilg local governmental approvals, and they nced a b4tter approach; one way is to seek federal prcemption ovea• local zoning, which is not cansidered likely. Anotl�ea� way is to strike a deal with cities and counties so thak d�ployment becomes automatic and therefore not as costly. The Cvope��ative preFents an opportunity for sh,iking such a deal beYween the City of Tridley and the licensed carriers in the IVlinneapolis/St. Paul area. Kreines & I<r�inea, Inc. believes that the Fridley Cnoperative will be ai�hactivc to many aihc�r cities. How the Busi�tess Plan Works Krc�ines & Kreines, lnc. will estimate the number of carriers today and f�r t11e future. We will deterniine t��e initial numb�r of wireless rites needed in F��idley and h�w many therc arc likely to be in the futurc. 1'his tc�ta] x�umber rcpresents the market for new wireless sites between now and five to ten ycars in tile futur�. The Business Plan ascribes cost,s to tlle City of Fridley in a•evicwing and approving these wircless sites on the basis of how they are being applicd for ioday: • One-at-a-time, . KREINES & KREINES INC. TEL�1-415-435-1522 Jan 30 98 10�31 No.003 P.02 ONE Ullll 6' BASE A 12' CONCI 6' ABOVE 6' BElO� Ex�STJwG � ANTENNA MOUNT DETAIL Fi�uro C ,R A E lINE? �'6• TE �T10N ST1NG �DE .......�....__ .. . . .. . __ ...,., ,.,,._. The Business Plan will estimate annuai costs and expenditures over the next ten years. The purposc is to �nable the City of Fridley to detc�rmine whether they want to undertakc the Cooperative. 9 KREINES & KREINES INC. TEL�1-415-435-1522 • Each desi�,m is different. Jan 30 98 10�33 No.004 P.01 • Substantial negotiation belween stafE and carrier. • T'ublic hearing(s). • Risk �f Ucing dei�ied and starting over. Tk�is process results ixi a Base C:ase assumption of costs: • It� costs the City of Pridley to regulatc and d1e city may not be recovering those costs. lt costs fihe carriers to deploy 1lardware, apply for approval, lease the �ite, etc. • Tl1cr City of Iaridley receives rev�nue froin a few (sc�ven) public sites. Thc. Businc�s l'lan then compares these costs to l•he Cooperative Casc, where: • The Cooperative cost� the City of Pridley to initiat�. •'1'he City of Pridley initially pays to hire a inanager, rcvise iis zoning �rdinance and to plan for deployment in the right-of-way wiih a "Cooperative pole." +'I'he Cooperative receives revenue fvr the right-�f-way lease. • The C�operative receives revenues from the Coope.rative pol�, •'1'he Cooperative receives revenucs for the use of backhau] easements. 1n turn, i�he industry will have different costs for the Cooperative Case tl�tan fc�r the 13as� Case. Tl�e point of the 13usiness Y'lan is: how much can thc City of Fri�ley expect to earn from t11e Co��erative Cai�e, or is fihe venture wrn•th thc� risk? I'roducts 'I'he liusines�s Pla�i will estimate annua] cnsis and expenditureF c�v�r the next ten years. The purpose is to enable the City o�f Pridley to determine whether ihey want to undertake the Cooperative. 9 � � CffY OF FRIDLEY MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager �� DATE: January 30, 1998 SUBJECT: Community Center Update William W. Burns City Manager Jack Kirk and John Litchy will be present at the conference meeting on Monday evening to provide an update on the finishing of the lower level of the Community Center. /rsc r� City of Fridley Community Development Department MEMORANDUM DATE: January 30, 1998 T0: William Burns, City Manager �� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator SUBJECT: Update on 611 Lafayette St. Backqround The house in question is a one story structure, slab on grade construction. Accord-ing to our assessing records, the home was built in 1941, has 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, and a total of 600 square feet of living space. The property is considered legal, non-conforming because the lot area is 5,500s.f. There may be other non- conformities (setback or lot coverage),but a survey is not available to determine the extent of the encroachments. Several fires have been reported at the property within the last few years, the most recent on December 23, 1997. The fire caused significant damage to the building including: Both the building inspection and fire department staff have inspected the property and determined that the cost to repair the structure is at least 525,000. According to Mr. Saxe, the insurance company has agreed to pay 534,000 which is the full insured value of the structure. Prior to the fire, the property was assessed for tax purposes at 541,429 (518,275 for land, $23,154 for buildings), however since the fire the assessor has reduced the building value to zero. Current Status The property is currently vacant and not habitable due to the significant fire damage which occurred. It appears that the property is secure and not open to trespass. Since the fire, the owner and his insurance company have attempted to secure a building permit to make the necessary repairs. However, staff has determined that a permit cannot be issued because the property is considered non-conforming and has been damaged beyond 50% of its fair market value. 611 Lafayette St. Memo January 30, 1998 Page 2 On January 8, 1998, Barry Riesch, Building Inspector, sent a letter (copy attached) to Mr. Saxe notifying him that a building permit would not be issued and that he would need to raze the building. Zoning Code Issues As previously mentioned, the property is considered legal non-conforming property and constructing a new home on the site would require a number of variances. On August 25, 1997, the City Council denied a request by William and Wendy Nergard to reduce the required lot size from 7,500 to 5,500 s.f.; to increase the lot coverage from 25% to 32%; to reduce the front yard setback from 35' to 22'; and to reduce the rear yard from 27.5' to 17.5'. At that meeting the City Council asked the property owner if they knew the lot was not buildable when they purchased it. Mr. D'Aigle said they were aware that many 50' lots had been built upon. Mr. Knaak indicated that the minimum lot size is the standard. How it is configured does not matter. A person who makes a purchase is charged with knowing the requirements of the City. He said there is a court case supporting this requirement. If a person asked City staff about the requirement and received an incorrect response, the home owner is still charged with knowing the requirements. Mr. Knaak said that what you are confronted with is what happens with lot issues. There is one case in which a radio station gave out 20 foot wide lake lots. A family owned a home on one of the lots. Later a fire destroyed that home. The owners sought a permit to rebuild, the property had been in the family for decades. The City where the lot was located had never approved the 20' lots given by the radio station. Once the home burned, the City chose to protect the City's minimum lot size and not grant a permit to rebuild. Fritz Knaak continued by stating that the City of Fridley is on solid ground in enforcing the lot size requirements. When it comes to variances, similar requests have to be treated in similar ways. If Council allows this variance, they should be very clear on how this is different. If the Council allows the variance, it will be amending the City Code by precedent. . 61 1 Lafayette St. Memo January 30, 1998 Page 3 Later in that meeting Councilman Billings asked, in a catastrophic event, if the City took the position that in order to treat similar lots in a similar manner, Council would have to deny 109 homes built on these similar lots. Mr. Knaak responded that there would be no difference in the hardship if these are similar lots. If they are non-conforming lots they would require a variance to rebuild. The City Council denied the Nergard variance requests. Mr. Monte Maher, who was opposed to a home being built on this lot, bought the lot from its owner for $ 8, 000. 00. The Nergard case, and statements by the City Attorney make the response to Mr. Saxe very clear. A variance, or variances would be required to rebuild on this non- conforming lot. If the City Council grants a variance, they will be amending the Code by precedent. Acquisition Issues The property has been identified as a priority under the HRA scattered site program. On September 15, 1997 a letter was mailed to the owners indicating our interest in the property and outlining the program. The owner subsequently indicated that he was not interested in selling because of an existing 57,500 lien held by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The lien was placed against the home in 1989 in connection with a home improvement grant. The lien remains in effect until April 1999 when it is completely forgiven. If the house is sold before then the grant must be repaid in full. Mr. Saxe has apparently spoken with MHFA officials who have refused to waive the lien, but would be willing to transfer it to a new property. According to the owner there is also a 534,000 mortgage against the property. We are still interested in negotiating with Mr. Saxe, however an appraisal would be required before an offer could be made. In all likelihood, the value will be limited to the land only ($18,000 to 520,000). If acquired, the owner would not incur any real estate commission cost and the HRA would be assuming the cost and responsibility for demolition. One possible scenario would be for the owner to use the insurance settlement to pay off the 1 St mortgage, sell the land to the HRA, pay-off the 2"d lien to MHFA and use the balance of the proceeds to make a down payment for a new or existing home. Mr. Saxe has made it clear that his preference is to repair the home or re-build on the existing lot. � -- 611 Lafayette St. Memo January 30, 1998 Page 4 Summary It is our understanding that the Council would like to discuss the issue on Monday evening. Let us know if we can put together other information. � � CRY OF FRIQLEIf MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager � � DATE: January 30, 1998 SUBJECT: Complaint Tracking Software William W. Burns City Manager Following our January 12 conference meeting, I asked each department manager to evaluate the CityServe complaint tracking software. For the most part, I believe they used the demo disc for this purpose. I also asked each of them to assess the number of computers that would need to be equipped with this software. In general, I believe they felt that the software was impressive and user friendly. Barbara Dacy and her staff, however, do not like the code enforcement software. She pointed out that they have been evaluating a software alternative based on Microsoft Access. Her reason for rejecting the CityServe software is that it does not include a word processing function that would automatically print notification letters. Bill Hunt felt that the software "has capabilities beyond our needs." Both Bill Hunt and Dave Sallman expressed a concern about the software in terms of its data privacy implications. Apparently, under data privacy laws, the names of complainants are protected. To the extent that the tracking system requires the names of complainants and to the extent that it is considered public domain, it may be at cross-purposes with data privacy requirements. I also think there are other legal implications related to the staff comments that may be attached to a complaint narrative. Most of the staff comments and those that generated the strongest feelings are those related to tracking requirements. In general, our staff feel that logging every contact is unnecessary and that it would generate more work than can possibly be done with existing staffing levels. This is particularly evident in the comments from Community Development, Public Works, and the Finance Department. Barbara Dacy, for example, calculates that the logging of every ca11 in her department would require an additional 1.8 hours of work per week for each of her 11 employees. On a more positive note, staff inembers feel that they would manage the additional work created by complaint tracking if we limit our tracking to those calls or visits that require follow-up. . � Complaint Tracking Software January 30, 1999 Page 2 In addition to asking for feedback on the impacts of the complaint tracking requirement, I also asked staff to estimate the number of computers that would need to be equipped with the complaint tracking software. Altogether, they indicated that 56 PCs would need to be equipped in this manner. (I would hope that we might be able to shave that number to 40 as we refine our calculations.) Staff also felt that they and their employees should have hand-free telephone headsets that allow them to input data as they talk. While we do not have numbers on the cost of telephone headsets, we do know that the asking price for the software is $2,000 per user or computer. If we assume that we can negotiate that number down to $1,500 and that we could reduce the number of PCs to 40, our initial cost would be about $60,000. If we also assume that council will need notebook computers to access the complaint tracking system, we would need to add an additional $12,500 (5 x$2,500). Altogether, our initial expenditure would be $72,500. Our next stop is to discuss the reactions of staff with you at the conference meeting on Monday evening. If you direct us to proceed, my next step would be to invite the CityServe vendor to Fridley for a sofiware demonstration. WWB:rsc Attachments � � CITY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Department Managers William B. Hunt, Assistant to the City Manager William W. Burns, City Manager �'� �� January 15, 1998 SUBJECT: Complaint Tracking Software William W. Burns City Manager Please review the attached complaint tracking demo disc carefully and let me know how its implementation will impact the workload and work procedures in your departmental environment. I also need to know the number of computers that would need to be equipped with this software. As I indicated to you in the staff meeting, the price for the software is $2,000 per computer. Additionally, I would like to encourage you to develop your list of web site information. My understanding is that this information can be loaded on a hard disc for Lisa's input to the web page. Please be selective. Identify what you consider to be the most useful information. You must also be willing to update this information on a regular basis. Thank you for your help. If you have any questions, give me a call. WWB:rsc Attachment MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: January 29, 1998 TO: v William W. Bums, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: CityServ Complaint Tracking Software The Community Development Department staff reviewed a demonstration of the CityServ software and its sister software for code enforcement. If implemented, you asked how the software would affect the staff workload and work procedures under two scenarios: 1. If all calls were tracked; and 2. If only certain complaint oriented calls were tracked. � In addition, you asked how many computers in the department would have to have the software on their computers, and who would be the appropriate "department monitor". PROS AND CONS After reviewing the demo, staff brainstormed a list of pros and cons (see attached). The greatest benefit of the system is that it could literally document every public contact, and consequently report the tremendous amount of activity which occurs in the department on a day to day basis. The greatest drawback to the system is the additional time it will take for each staff member to maintain the files/phone call or walk-in. Based on a phone call survey completed in February 1996, the department receives approximately 250 calls/week. If five minutes/call is assumed to complete the computer input (conservative estimate), an additional 20 hours of time is added across 11 employees (Section 8 Coordinator not included) or about 1.8 hours/employee. The additional time therefore competes with completing the requested task and other work priorities. More to the point, doing the tracking will directly affect efficiency. Tracking every phone call would mean installing the software on each computer (11 x $2,000 =$22,000). The department staff is cross trained on a number of department issues and we all answer each others phone. We have recently added a function to our phones where each line into the department flashes on everyone's phone (an attempt to prevent voice mail jail). If secretaries are in the copy room or on the phone, it is not unusual for me to pick up a recycling call or a call to the Planning Assistant's phone. CityServ Complaint Tracking Software January 29, 1998 Page 2 Tracking every call is literally impossible for the Building Division staff. The volume of work demands inspections on the half hour from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The inspectors retum phone calls and answer code questions in the moming or in the late aftemoon. The Building Division Secretary is already inputting permit data on the computer, so tracking every call would add another layer of documentation. COMPETING PRIORITIES If the CityServ software is purchased, how does its expenditure compare in priority to pending computer software requests? The department's 1998 budget was cut $10,000 to initiate optical imaging for building plans and preparing land use files for optical imaging. The imaging software would help department operations become more efficient. For example, I was recently looking for Special Use Permit file 85-18 for the Lake Pointe site in preparation for the MEPC land use request. Instead of requesting the City Clerk's office to retrieve it from the tunnel, I could use the software on my computer to retrieve it, and review the file documents within seconds. The address files also have to be imaged; immediate access on the computer versus digging through files would be a tremendous efficiency boost. It is my understanding that the current imaging system could also be used to scan in any documents, letters, or other correspondence pertaining to a file, which can then be viewed by those who are linked to the system. Data for the GIS system also needs to be annually entered into the system. We have been using JoAnn Vaughn from Public Works to input building permit data and other data as time permits. Housing rehab information also needs to be entered, and so far CEE has been doing the tracking on their system. To date, funds have not been available to provide for labor costs to enter the data. CODE ENFORCEMENT SOFTWARE The CityServ code enforcement package does not include a word processing function which would automatically print the notification letters. Without this feature, the address, violation type and letter content would have to be entered twice. In 1997, we ordered a software integration project combining Microsoft Word with the Access software to track violations and print the different forms of notification and citations. The software is still under analysis since the printing function is not working properly; it is anticipated that it will be corrected in February. TRACKING CERTAIN TYPES OF CALLS Code enforcement calls are the most appropriate to track in the Planning Division. Once the code enforcement tracking software issue has been resolved, a variety of reports of violation activity can be compiled on a regular basis. The Code Enforcement Officer would then be the appropriate department monitor. CityServ Complaint Tracking Software January 29, 1998 Page 3 In the Housing Division, rehab program loan data needs to be tracked. Although CEE provides us with the disk of information, we noticed that CityServ has a sister software for this activity. The Housing Coordinator will be investigating it and other software. � In the Building Division, we are beginning to research computer technology which would enable inspectors to enter inspection data in the field versus inspection slips, and download information to hardware at the office. , SUMMARY Tracking every call with CityServ would adversely affect the department workload and department procedures. Tracking Code Enforcement calls is appropriate, but the CityServ software does not have the word processing component. Finally, there are pending data entry and optical imaging needs which have not been funded, and should not be overlooked in establishing priorities for software expenditures. BD/ M-98-18 � "CITY SERVE" SOFTWARE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PROS CONS 1. Clearly documents every contact & will 1. Time to input every call competes against produce staggering results. time to handle request plus continue work " tasks and priority projects. 2. Creates reports by variety of categories. 3, Ties into parcel based land information system. 4. Has "sister" software in other areas of community development (code enforcement and housing programs). 5. Saves on paper; stores information. 6. Documents can be scanned into system. 7. Some callers may be impressed with extent of documentation. 2. Creating reports is a feature common to most software. 3. Links to a parcel based system is a feature common to most software. 4. Does not have word processing function. 5. Adds time to input data for every call— creates another layer of documentation. 6. Duplicating existing optical imaging effort. 7. Some callers may be uncomfortable giving information knowing that computer system has everything documented—Data Privacy issues. 8. Impossible for inspectors to track every call, given current workload. 9. Each employee is crosstrained in a number of general information a�eas (recycling, basic zoning issues, floodplains); could require software on everybody's computer plus headsets for ergonomic safety. 10. How does expenditure compare in priority to other recent software requests which have been cut in the budget? a. Optical imaging scanning for building plans b. GIS data input c. Land use file imaging d. Building permit tracking a 1. Raises efficiency concerns; are we being too concerned about tracking versus efficiency of responding? � � CRY OF FRIDLEY MEMORANDIlM William C. Hunt Assistant to the City Manager Memo to: William W. Burns, City Manager From: William C. Hunt, Assistant to the City Manager ��%�� 5ubject: Date: Compiaint Tracking Software January 26,1998 I have had a chance to view the demonstration disk of the CityServe citizen contact and complaint tracking software. It appears to be a very sophisticated and versatile progam. If anything it is able to handle more data than we will ever enter. One general concern is with data privacy. As I understand state law, the identity of a person making a complaint about property is non public data. It is not clear to me from the demonstration disk whether this data can be blocked from people other than city staff who ha�e a need to know. For example, could the identity of a complainant be screened from others (such as Councilmembers) who have access to the system over a network or over the Internet? There well may be other data privacy issues of which I am not aware. If this program is used for tracking all complaints and requests for information, it could involve a lot of e�ra work. Lately, I have been responding to complaints and concerns about the increase in Cable TV rates. I suppose I have had twenty to twenty-five calls in 7anuary alone. Each one took from five to fifteen minutes, and several required calls back. I suppose I could key in some of the data while talking over the telephone, but in general I think it would involve another five minutes for each call or about an hour and a half per month. Of course, it would be much more time consuming in departments which have a lot more citizen contact. If this progam is used for tracking only calls that require more than one phone call or further contacts after a citizen's visit to the Municipal Center, it would be considerably less time consuming, at least for our office. In either scenario we would need the software on s� computers: yours, Roberta's, Joan's, Lisa.'s, Brian's, and mine. City Manager's Office Staff % �- � 'I/ � TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITYMANAGER FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: COMPLAINT TRACKING SOFTWARE DATE: January 29,1998 This memo is in response to your question regarding what changes would occur to the workload and work procedures related to the implementation of complaint tracking soflware. The first issue that we would need to identify would be related to defining the customers and the complaints we are going to log. Since the Finance Department provides internal service to all deparhnents, do we log both the inside and outside customer complaints? This is the first policy issue we must answer. If we were to log all requests for service calls including the internal customers, it would be a burden that could not be handled by the current staff. Utility Billing, Accounts Payable, Payroll, City Clerk and others have a large volume of calls from the employee customer base. These types of requests for service are handled easily with simple answers whether in person or a simple phone conversation. If we were to exclude these internal customers and log all external calls, this would once again be a task that would over burden the existing staff. The calls we handle from outside customers are usually Utility Billing, Accounts Payable, and General City information. Once again, these requests for information or service are usually handled on the initial phone call. We rarely see a complaint ever escalating from Staff to the Finance Director. If all these types of calls were required to be logged, we would spend more time tracking them, than solving them. A manageable situation would be to log only those calls that cannot be handled by the first contact with the Finance Staff. If some sort of follow up were required, a policy could be defined whereby the contact would be logged as a request for follow up. Urility Billing might still be an exception to this rule since they usually are following up with requests. Scenario #1- Log all requests for service, both internal and external. Staff does not recommend this Scenario. Required number of pieces of software if implemented — 9 Scenario #2 - Log all external requests for service. Staff does not recommend this Scenario. Required number of pieces of software if implemented — 9 Scenario #3 - Log only ezternal requests for service that cannot be resolved by the initial contact. Staff could implement this Scenario. Required nnmber of pieces of software if implemented — 4 y ,!U �' a\ /� �` �� C�� 5��. ,> � '�•,.: � � r� \` `f Fridley Police Department Memorandum To: William W. Bur� From: Dave Sallman ' Date: January 23, 1998 Re: Complaint Tracking I have briefly reviewed the "Complaint Tracking Software" and it appears to be relatively user friendly. There are some issues that need to be addressed. The police department probably has relatively few issues that would end up on the software as we already have a formalized reporting system for a11 of our calls for service and I believe that it has already been decided that duplication would not be in anyone's best interest. With that in mind we could probably get by with software on one terminal and updates would be provided to the operator for entry. This would be time consuming (duplicative) as the operator probably would not be the person handling the complaint but it probably makes more sense than purchasing additional software. It has already been noted that there needs to be a common understanding as to what would be tracked. Of those issues that are currently not tracked via our formal ICR system, most- are probably dealt with in one phone ca11. A common "complaint" is a citizen calling to complain about a"snowbird" tag. There is not much to tell the caller except explain the ordinance and tell them that they have the right to take the case to a court of law if they disagree with the tag. There would not appear to be much value in tracking that type of complaint. The software uses the term of "closing" the case. When we close a case in law enforcement it means that (1) someone has been arrested, (2) the complaint has been unfounded (i.e. someone reports a stolen vehicle and later finds that another family member has the vehicle), (3) the ca.se is inactivated (i.e. there are insufficient leads to warrant further investigation of the case) or (4) the case is exceptionally cleared (a suspect has been identified but for any number of reasons is not charged or the complainant decides not to cooperate with the police). Trying to place this into a citizen complaint conte�, I could see a situation where staff has responded and there really isn't anything else to do (snowbird example) but the citizen still does not feel as though they have received the assistance that they were looking for (they probably wanted their tag dismissed). The point here is that we need to have a common definition of "closed". There are some other issues such as numbering system, data practices, etc. that will need to be dealt with concerning any reporting system. Law enforcement data is fairly well identified as to it's classifications and who may see it. A common type of complaint that will probably be tracked is code enforcement which will include property complaints. The name of the complainant in that type of issue is classified as private and cannot be released INTEROFFICE MEORAND UM � TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGE�t � .%' F FROM: CHUCK MCKUSICK, FIRE CHIEF � DATE: JANUARY 30, 1998 SUBJECT: COMPLAINT SOFTWARE Number of workstations receiving complaints: 6 • Fire Chief • Deputy Chief • Department Secretary • Rental Property Office Assistant • Full Time Firefighters Office • Duty Crew (Paid on Call firefighters) Evaluation of Software: User friendly & comprehensive. Workload Ixnpact: • Initial Trauung - 4 to 5 hours per employee (33 employees) = 165 hours . Data Entry Time - 2 hours per weekday shift (10 hours), 1 hour per week night shift (5) hours, and 2 hours per weekend = 17 hours per week. Other than Rental Property, most "complaints" or customer service contacts require a fire departxnent response. Accordingly, if we record only those contacts where a fire department response is necessary, we'll reduce the number of recordable complaints by about one third which reduces the weekly data entry time to about 12 hours. City of Fridley TO: William W. Burns, City Manager FROM: John G. Flora �ublic Works Director DATE: January 22, 1998 SUBJECT: CityServe - Complaint System PW98-021 We have reviewed the CityServe software in regards to a City complaint monitoring system. In order to address a complaint system, there is a question of whether it should be applied to every phone call received or only those calls which are not immediately answered. It was my original impression to only deal with those phone calls which are not addressed during the initial contact. After reviewing the software, I believe that every phone call would have to be recorded to provide a continuity and chain of events should any questions arise as to contacts or issues. To be useful, every person in the Engineering Department, as well as the foreman, the secretaries and Paul Lawrence in the Garage, would have to have a computer and a hands free telephone system to be able to input the data as communication is initiated. Without a hands free phone and a computer station available, information would have to be hand recorded and then transferred to the computer. This results in a considerable duplication of work, delay and also lack of total information or mis-information as the conversion is made. While CityServe may serve well as a suspense file or for code related items and also for the initiation of work orders, I do not believe it is cost effective or productive for day-to-day telephone communications and questions that we receive. As a matter of fact, I believe that this system would be extremely labor intensive for the amount of value received. JGF:cz City of Fridley TO: John Flora, Public Works Director FROM: Char Zimmerman DATE: January 21, 1998 SUBJECT: CityServe Software In my evaluation of the CityServe sofiware, several questions came to mind. First what type of information do we want to track? Which calls would be entered, just complaints and calls requiring action? Who will enter the data? If all, this would require a PC with the software package and a hands free phone system for each person. If one person would take all calls and input the data, residents would really be agita.ted as the majority of questions/problems are currently resolved immediately. I feel this could be very labor intensive. This software does, however, have possibilities for tracking PW work orders for such items as water breaks, sewer backups and also for code enforcement. My observation: Surveys that have been sent out and returned indicate that the greatest majority of residents are satisfied. We are responding in a timely fashion and to the satisfaction of the residents with a few exceptions. Those exceptions are citizens who will always have a need to complain rather valid or not. �pF_ F c�3 :::::�` -< PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Lawrence, Superintendent of Public Works FROM: Lois Witte and JoAnn Vaughn, Public Works Department DATE: January 20, 1998 SUBJECT: CityServe JoAnn and I both looked over the demo from CityServe. It looks like a decent system, but we both think there are several reasons why it wouldn't suit our purposes. Too expensive - if it costs $2,000 for each computer, this would cost $4,000 for just the two of us in the office. If you add in the four supervisors, plus Paul, this would be an additional $10,000. Because the supervisors get complaints we don't know about, we both feel that the supervisors should be hooked up, and this would make the complaint system more accurate. 2. We both feel that this system is too complex and more than we need. When starting out in a new system it is probably better to start out with a more simplistic approach. When the system has been up and running for a few years it would make more sense to expand to a more complex system at that time if it is necessary, which we don't think it will be. 3. We both feel that this system, because it is more complex, will increase our work load a great dea1. With the exception of the Police Department, most of the complaints that come in to the City are handled by the Public Works Department. With the increased work load from the new vehicle inventory system and the changes in the fuel system, this will be an additional increase in our work load. The problem with adding more responsibilities with the same amount of people increases the chances of inaccurate and uncompleted work. In summary, we do see the need for a complaint system that can be tracked by all departments, but we do not see this system as being the answer to our needs. Recreation and Natural Resource Department emo To: William W. Burns, City Manager From: Jack Kirk, Director of Recreation and Natural Resources ,�% Date: January 23, 1998 Re: Complaint Tracking Software As requested, I have reviewed the complaint tracking demo disc and agree that it is a good product. The workload impact upon our department will depend greatly on the guidelines for use that will be established. If, for example, every citizen contact is to be logged on the system, the staff time involved will be significant and will require additional resources or a change in service levels for our department. If the guidelines would require input of citizen contacts that needed follow-up action or a phone call, the impact would be less and could be handled with existing resources. In order for the complaint tracking system to be most effective in my department, it would be important that all staff members have the capability to input data at their desk. It seems that having the complaint tracking on the network would be the best option. It would involve eleven (11) computers in the Recreation and Natural Resource Department. � � C]TY OF FRIDLEY MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager �~ � DATE: January 30, 1998 SUBJECT: City CounciUCommissions Survey William W. Burns City Manager Attached is the 1998 version of the City CounciUCommissions survey. Many of the questions were developed by staff. I developed others using the most recent citizen survey and a few of the questions from the 1997 survey. I would like to request that we discuss the survey at our conference session on Monday night. In particular, I am interested in knowing whether you want to add or delete questions or have modifications you would like to suggest. I would also like to discuss procedure. Do you want all of the survey questions sent to the various City commissions? I think you do; but, I want to make sure before sending it to a11 the commissions. Additionally, I would like to discuss a timetable for completing the survey and discussing the results. Once the surveys have been completed, they will be used as a basis for the 1999 goals and objectives setting, as well as for our 1998 budgeting process. Thank you for taking the time to look this over. I look forward to discussing it with you. WWB:rsc Attachment � , ' � � 0 � � � � � � � � � � � � Y99$ CITY COUNCIL/COIVIIVIISSIONS su��l�Y � ' 1 ' � � ' � u � ' 1998 CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSIONS SURVEY POLICE DEPARTMENT: * 1. Communitv Oriented Policing: Neighborhood or community oriented policing in � its ideal form involves officers who are fully devoted to working with residents in a particular neighborhood. While Fridley has 10 officers who are assigned to work with neighborhoods, they spend less than 5 percent of their time perfornung community policing activities. What do you think? Should we be doing more? Please look at each of the statements below and put a check mazk by the one that best represents your point of view. A. I am generally satisfied with our community oriented policing effort; however, I would like to see our officers spend at least one-fourth of their time working with specific neighborhoods (this might entail additional officers). B. I would like to see our officers spend about one-half of their on-duty time doing community oriented policing (this probably would entail additional officers). C. I would like to see us move toward having one NRO assigned to a neighborhood/district without any call responsibilities except in emergencies (this would require additional officers). ' D. I think we should do what we can to provide additional police officer time in working with neighborhoods; however, I do not believe that we should hire additional police o�cers to facilitate this effort. � �� IJ' ' ' � �I 2. Proiect Safetv Net: Our Recreation and Police Departments currently operate a number of youth programs under the umbrella name of Project Safety Net. While we budget $50,000 in local money and receive another $38,000 from the cities of Blaine, Columbia Heights and Coon Rapids, the bulk of the funding ($186,000) comes from grant funding that is due to run out at the end of this year. While we are applying for additional grant money, we regard our chances as 50/50 at best. Moreover, the amount of potential grant funding is much less than we are receiving currently. With these set of circumstances in mind, please identify which of the following alternatives best represents your point of view. A. Modify Project Safety Net programming to reflect any lost grant funding. * See Appendix for background on Police Department questions. B. Prioritize Project Safety Net programming. Seek support of other cities and use local funds to replace about one-half of the grant funding reduction. C. Do what is necessary, including the levying of additional taxes to maintain existing Project Safety Net programs that cannot be accommodated through budget cuts. - 3. Police Sta ffing: Our Public Safety Director indicates that a good case can be made for adding two additional police officers. There is still Federal "COPS" money available that provides up to 75 percent of an officer's salary over three years. He also points out that the officers would give us additional ability to address vehicle thefts and special problems identified by our NROs. Which of the following comments best reflects your feelings about this request? A. Public safety is a top priority for the City. We should fund both positions, even if it means raising additional taxes. B. While I believe that hiring two additional officers would improve our ability to address special problems and problem areas, I would not commit to additional taxes to pay for them. C. I believe that there aze several other competing priorities that should be considered before I would commit to hiring more police officers. D. While the grant money is attractive for the short-term, I am not willing at this time to commit to long-term funding of additional police officers. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 4. Rental Inspection Program: We have been operating the rental inspection program since January of 1995. To date, we have inspected 2,477 units, or an average of 826 units per year. The cost of the program since its inception has been $279,448, or about $93,149 per year. These costs aze partially offset by revenues of $132,715, or $44,238 per year. Based on this quick overview, which of the following changes do you like? A. We should gradually raise our renta.l licensing fees (over a period of five years) to cover the cost of the program. B. We should maintain existing fees for an initial inspection and increase fees for reinspections. C. We should maintain rental licensing fees as they are. � ' I'� ' ' ' , � � ' ' � � �� C LJ ' u ,� �I 5. Fire Training Center: As we neaz the completion of the fire training center, we envision the need to replace the existing portable building with more permanent classroom space. We also see a need for additional storage facilities. If these facilities can be paid for from revenues generated by expanding the center's use by both government and private sector participants, should the City and its partners , proceed to plan additional site improvements? Yes No 6. Fire Suppression: In order to strengthen and maintain our City's Class 3, IFO fire rating, it is important that we follow through with the implementation of o�r fire equipment replacement plan. In effect, this means spending approximately $300,000 for a new fire engine in 1999, and $600,000 for a new ladder truck in 2004. T'he alternative is to allow the rating to drop and to pass the cost on to property owners through higher fire insurance rates. Which of the following statements best reflects your feelings about this issue? A. I agree that we should stick with a long-term plan to purchase equipment needed to maintain our Class 3 fire rating. B. I believe that we should replace existing fire equipment only as it wears out. If this policy causes us to lose our Class 3 rating, so be it. C. I tend to favor the upgrading of equipment in a manner that preserves and strengthens our Class 3 fire rating; however, I do believe that this choice should be made annually as we weigh this priority against other City priorities. 7. Fire Cadet Program: We currently do not have a fire explorer or cadet program, that would attract young citizens who would serve in a station support capacity and participate in public education and fire prevention activities for the Fridley Fire Department. Assuming that this program would generate minimal or no new expenditures, should the Fire Department establish this program? Yes No 8. Firefighters: Last year, we pointed out that we have been experiencing a shortage of firefighters during weekday hours. Since that time, we have been working with the Columbia Heights Fire Department to implement an expanded automatic response program. Do you have any concerns regarding this movement by Fridley with Columbia Heights toward joint operations planning? 3 Yes No Q � Should we be planning the siting of future fire stations with neighboring cities, such as Columbia Heights and New Brighton? Yes No 10. Response Time: Citizen feedback to the Fire Department focuses on two criteria: how quickly the Fire Department arrives on the scene, and how professionally the incident is managed. Currently, the Fire Department has an average response time, of 3 to 4 minutes for fire emergencies and 3 minutes for medical emergencies. Response times, however, vary depending upon the location of the response and other circumstances. In the Innsbruck area, the response time may be as long as 8 to 10 minutes. In other areas of the community that are closer to fire stations, the response time is 2 minutes. What importance does Council place on the Fire Department's current response time situation? A. It is of great importance. Efforts should be made to improve current response times. B. It is very important. We are, however, satisfied with the current average response time. RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT: 11. Parks Service Areas: In 1997, we completed a very elaborate parks service area study that identifies those groups and areas that are under served in terms of access to City parks. In order to address this issue, we have identified the following options. Please look at each of the options below and let us know how you feel about the option by ranking it on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being most preferred and 1 being least preferred. A. Buy property in under served areas now to create appropriate park facilities (may require condemnation of homeowner's property). B. Improve bikeways/walkways to provide better access to pazk facilities nearby or in other park service azeas. C. Buy property in the under served areas in the future (as it becomes available on the market) and create pazk facilities. D. Tolerate the existing problem and accept that some areas will remain under served. E. Other (please specify): 4 L. 1 II� CI � r lJ I�� 12. Parks and Recreation Improvements: In view of our limited financial resources, it would seem that we should prioritize future Parks and Recreation improvements. With this in mind, please use a scale of 1 to 5 to indicate the degree of importance that you attach to each of the following alternatives. If you attach high importance to the alternative, place a 5 in the space provided. If you attach no importance to the alternative, place a 1 in the space provided. If your sense of importance is, somewhere between none and great, place a 3 or 4 in the space provided. A. Upgrade and redevelop our existing facilities in the pazk s,ystem (including replacement of outdated children's play equipment). : B. Purchase additional land to expand the parks and open space areas (e.g., additional property at Moore Lake Park, and additions to the size of the smaller, mini parks). , C. Build new facilities in the park system (i.e., more permanent park activity buildings, warming houses, and picnic shelters). ' D. Use our fnancial resources toward building community center facilities (i.e., additional improvements to the Community Center project). , � , C, ' � ' L�' � ' 13. Communitv Center Facilities: We have recently participated in the construction of the Fridley Community Center, a gymnasium at Hayes Elementary School, and are working on completing the lower level of the Community Center. What other indoor recreation facilities, if any, do you envision for the City of Fridley? Please indicate your sense of priority for the following items by using a rating scale of 1 to 5. If you feel the item is a very high priority, give it a rating of 5. If it is a low priority, give it a 1. Within the next two to four years, the City should: A. Complete the Fridley Community Center (including the lower level), but construct no more community center facilities. B. Add a double gymnasium to the Community Center project. C. Add a family-oriented swimming facility. D. Add a therapeutic swimming pool (to be used for senior water aerobics, arthritis classes, etc.). E � E. Add an indoor children's playground facility (similar to the one at the New Brighton Family Service Center). F. Add an exercise / fitness area to the Community Center (to include weights, stationary bikes, treadmills, etc.). G. Other facilities you would like to see: 14. Springbrook Nature Center Programs and Services: With the recent reduction of full-time staff and hours of operation at Springbrook Nature Center, there has been a corresponding reduction in some programs and services. In ,order to provide quality services in the future, we need to focus efforts on the most important programs and services for our residents. Please examine the following list of Naturalist Division programs and service options. How would you rate the importance of each option to Fridley residents on a scale of 1 to 5. If you feel the option is a very high priority, give it a rating of 5. If it is not important and not needed, give it a 1. A. Maintain the 127-acre Springbrook Nature Center trails and facilities for community use, education classes, and fitness activities (includes boardwalks, overlooks, trails, and the interpretive building). B. Manage the animal and plant populations at Springbrook (i.e., management of population, wetlands management, maintaining native prairies and forests). C. Provide volunteer coordination of youth and adults to accomplish Nature Center maintenance and programming activities. D. Serve as an information resource for questions from the public on nature, plants, animals, etc. E. Provide nature interpretation / outdoor education classes / activities for community groups and the general public. F. Coordinate environmental study projects in areas such as water quality, animal population management, plant species management, etc. 0 ' � � ' Ll L_ _l ' � 1 C''� CJ ' ' � C ' G. Provide specialized camp programs such as the summer day nature camp, the winter adventure camp, and school vacation days mini- camps, etc. H. Conduct special events such as the Halloween Special, Winter Carnival, Volksmazch, and Spring Celebration. I. Serve as a speaker/leader for nature programs presented to. scout groups, clubs, businesses, etc. J. Provide self-guided programming (i.e., nature walks using audio tapes and/or brochures). K. Provide environmental education curriculum for elementary and middle school classes in the city. L. Maintain and update the interpretive building exhibits (including live animals) for walk-in visitors. 15. Skateboard/In-Line Skating Faci[itv: Ordinance 513 of the Fridley City Code prohibits skateboarders and in-line skaters from using our public facilities such as the tennis courts, parking lots, and the Municipal Center plaza and ramp. With the growing popularity of skateboarding and in-line skating, there has been an increase in requests for appropriate facilities. How should the City respond to these requests? Please indicate your sense of importance to each of the following statements by using a rating scale of 1 to 5. If you feel the option is a very high priority, give it a rating of 5. If it is a very low priority, give it a 1. A. Continue our current approach and prohibit these activities on public property. Limit skateboazding and in-line skating to paths, sidewalks, streets, and private property with the owner's permission. B. Build a skateboard/in-line skate park facility complete with ramps, jumps and an in-line hockey rink. C. Change our current approach and allow skaters on certain designated courts (tennis and basketball) in various locations throughout the City. 16. West Moore Lake Park: The West Moore Lake Park (Sand Dunes Natural History , Area) is a 7.6 acre park on the western shore of Moore Lake, immediately across the street from the Fridley Middle School and Fridley High School. The park is one of , the last areas in Fridley that shows how the Anoka Sand Plain looked before development. The wooden boardwalk system in the park has been in place for , 7 C many years, and is going to need replacement soon. T'here have been some recent suggestions that the use of the park could be changed. Please check the option below that you favor for West Moore Lake Park. The City should: A. Continue to support this area as a natural, sand dunes park and replace the aging boardwalk system. � B. Convert the park to a more traditional waterfront park, complete with grass turf, more shade trees, a canoe launch, and picnic facilities. C. Other suggested use: 17. Additiona[ Senior Programs and Hours of Operation: The majority of programs for senior citizens are run between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Few programs are offered in the evening hours, and the Community Center is generally closed on Sundays and holidays. If the participants are interested in additional program opportunities, should the City expand the current program schedule to include evening, weekend and holiday hours? Additional programs and hours of operation will likely result in higher building supervision and program leadership costs (estimated between $7,000 to $10,000 annually to open five hours on Sundays and holidays). Please check the alternative below which best reflects your preference: A. Continue the current level of programming and hours of operation. Do not start new programs or expand hours if it will increase our expenditures. B. Continue the current hours of Community Center operation unless additional hours can be supported by fees and/or volunteer services. C. Limit program expansion to occasional special programs on Sundays and holidays, and minimize additional costs. D. Expand the program opportunities and hours of operation to meet the interest level shown by the seniors. Additional dollars should be allocated to the budget to cover increased costs. 8 ' ' ' � � ' � LJ �I � ,I� ' ' ' �� ' ' � ' � � � ' , 1 C 18. Provision of Recreation Programs for Older Youth: Although the 1997 citizen survey results were generally very positive, there was a noticeable drop in levels of satisfaction with the variety of recreational programs. This dissatisfaction seems to be centered among those respondents with older children. In view of this drop in satisfaction, what should we do? Please rate each of the following options using a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest level of support for the option. A. Conduct focus group meetings and do additional surveying to determine the reasons for dissatisfaction as well as the best ways to address the dissatisfaction. B. Evaluate our current mix of program options. Determine whether it is desirable to realign program offerings in a manner that provides more programming for older youth, presumably at the expense of younger youth, adults and senior adults. C. In addition to offering more opportunities for drop-in activities, once ' the lower level of the Fridley Community Center is completed plan additional activities for older youth at this new facility. � � � J ' ' i� Il ' � � D. Provide additional gymnasium time and supervision for a variety of intramural sports programs for high-school aged youth. 19. Fee Adiustment/Fee Waiver Program: For many years now, the Recreation and Natural Resource Department has offered a fee adjustment/fee waiver program to registrants unable to pay the activity fee for in-house programs and classes. The value of these fee waivers has risen from $1,000 six years ago to about $5,000 in 1997. The current policy applies to Fridley residents only and allows waivers for selected activities (trips and activities requiring the City to purchase tickets are excluded). There are also no limits on the number of activities or a dollar value of fees waived. Moreover, applicants are not required to document their need for assistance. Should the same policy continue or should there be revisions? Please indicate your point of view by checking either A or B for each of the following: Selected Activities: A. Continue to limit the fee waiver/fee adjustment program to selected activities. B. Open the program to all activities offered by the department. Annual Waiver Limit: A. Continue the program without an annual limit for participants. B. Set a maximum limit on the number of activities or maximum dollar allowance for individuals or families. 0 Proof of Eligibility: A. Continue the current honor system policy to apply for assistance. B. Require program applicants to provide proof of financial need to qualify. Residency Requirement: A. Continue the current policy to service Fridley residents only. B. Allow non-residents to register using the waiver/adjustment program when there are openings in the activities. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: 20. Streets: We have been upgrading the asphalt bermed streets since 1991. Although we have made a lot of progress on the upgrades, approximately 42 percent of the remaining streets are 30 years old. Assuming that we are going to continue our annual street reconstruction program, it would be helpful to clarify criteria that should be used in selecting streets that are to be upgraded. Please consider each of the following alternatives and check the alternative that most appeals to you. A. Use our street inventory system to upgrade the streets with the lowest scores in the inventory, regardless of their location. B. Upgrade City streets by geographic area, attempting to work on the lowest scored areas first. (This concentrates the work in the general geographic area and should reduce the overall construction costs, inconvenience, and time for completion.) C. Upgrade streets by ward. This would force work in each ward once every four years. D. Initiate an upgrade program which includes streets in all wards each year. E. Upgrade streets in areas that have been identified as target areas for our housing rehabilitation program. 21. Road Signs: We periodically receive requests from residents for various traffic control signs. Currently, when the request is received by the Engineering staff, a needs assessment is coordinated with the Police and Fire Departments, and a recommendation is prepared for Council's consideration. While the current process seems to work, there are other options that could be adopted. Which of the following options do you like best? A. Install signs as requested, after conducting a neighborhood survey. I[I� , II � � ' ' I _l , ' ' II ' � ' ' ' ' , ' ' � � IL� f.l ' B. Develop a sign policy for various types of signs and criteria for installation that are approved by Council. Staff will install signs according to the adopted policy. C. Send sign requests through a formal Council and commission process. D. Bring all sign requests directly to Council without a recommendation from staff. E. Continue our current sign policy in which sign requests are reviewed and brought to Council with staff s recommendation. 22. Municipal Garage: In 1995, a consultant was retained to evaluate the municipal ' garage. The study identified code compliance items that would cost an estimated $460,000. The total cost for vazious remodeling and construction options ranged between $1.1 million to $4.6 million. In view of these fmdings, which of the ' following options is most attractive to you? J A. Address code-related items only; do only those that are required on the existing structure. ' B. Address code-related items and other improvements to the maintenance facility that will provide more space for working on large equipment. 1 1 � �I�� ' � ' �I ' C. Address truck and equipment pazking issues in addition to code requirements and maintenance facility improvements. D. Address other non-code shortcomings of employee facilities including those related to the locker room, the lunchroom and the restroom facilities, in addition to those items mentioned in A through C above. E. Do nothing. 23. Snowbirds: Every year, we receive numerous complaints and suffer wasted man hours while plowing City streets because of snowbirds. Our current policy states that vehicles are not to be parked on the street between November 1 and May 1 while snow removal operations are in progress. This is confusing in that many times it is not snowing when the residents park their cars on the street. In an attempt to simplify the City's street parking policy during the winter months, which of the following alternatives would you support? A. Establish an outright ban on parking on City streets during the period November 1 through April 15. 11 B. Prohibit parking on City streets when two or more inches of snow is expected or has accumulated on City streets, until the snow has been removed curb to curb. C. Maintain existing policy. D. Other. Please specify. ; 24. Street Lights: The City continues to receive complaints regarding our street lighting policy. Residents indicate that when the street is dark, it becomes a safety issue and increases crimes in neighborhoods. Our current policy calls for lights at intersections, curves, tops of hills, or mid-block lights for streets in excess of 1,300 feet. If a new street light policy were adopted, which change would you support? A. Install mid-block street lights on all streets. B. Install quarter-block lights on all streets. C. Maintain existing policy. 25. If an option to change the street light policy is supported, which funding mechanism would you prefer: A. Use utility franchise fees. B. Assess the cost to the benefiting areas. C. Use the general fund. D. Use a mix of two or more of the above sources. 0 26. If an option to change the street light policy is made, which method of implementation would you support? A. Install street lights in conjunction with the street upgrade program. B. Respond to neighborhood petitions. C. Use precinct and ward boundaries to establish an area sequence. D. Do the entire City as one project. 12 i^ �li C � , L�J ' � � � ll ' � , LJ ll u , l_J � 27. Ice Control: Historically we have used a six to one sand/salt mixture on City intersections, curbs, and hills. In recent years, however, we have changed to a pure salt mixture in the area between University Avenue and Highway 65, north of Mississippi Street. While the sand/salt mixture costs $10 per ton, the pure salt costs $28 per ton. Salt does not need to be cleaned up in the spring or removed from our store cellars. Pure salt is also much more effective at melting snow and ice at temperatures above 25 degrees. On the negative side, pure salt is more corrosive to automobiles. There would be a need to construct a new salt storage facility if we decided use the pure salt option. , Based upon the above assumptions, which of the following options do you like best: A. Expand our use of salt to all areas of the City, temperature permitting. B. Restrict the use of pure salt to the azeas between University Avenue and Highway 65 north of Mississippi Street. C. Discontinue to use pure salt and revert to the use of the sand/salt mixture. D. Discontinue the use of salt and explore the use of other improved ice control methods. 28. Maintenance Personnel: While the survey results with respect to the various services performed by the Public Works Department remained very positive, we do receive complaints from time to time, about weeds along public rights of way and the lack of maintenance along City bicycle paths. As we have added bicycle paths and parks, we have added other duties to those already being performed by Public Works employees. There is the perception, at least by the Public Works employees, that additional help is needed. Assuming that we are stretching the current manpower in the Public Works Department as far as it will go, which of the following options appeazs most attractive to you? A. Hire additional maintenance help on an as-needed basis through contract services. B. Hire at least two full-time Public Works employees to fill those positions left vacant in recent years. C. Hire one additional full-time employee and as many part-time employees as that additional person can supervise. D. Maintain the status quo. 13 � 29. Monthlv Pickup of Brush and Tree Limbs: Our 1997 citizen survey told us that 70 percent of the respondents favored a monthly pickup of brush and tree limbs. Forty- one percent of the respondents are willing to pay additional property taxes to fund the service. What do you think? Which of the following alternatives best reflect your point of view? A. In view of the strong support for monthly brush and tree limb pickup, the City should begin this service, even if it means levying higher property taxes to pay for it. B. We should begin the monthly pickup of brush and tree limbs if it can be funded through cost savings to other areas. C. I favor monthly pickup of brush and tree limbs if at least one-half the cost could be covered by cost savings in other azeas. D. I would like to restrict our brush and tree limb pickup to those occasions when we have heavy storm damage. 30. Recvcling Center: The City took over operation of the. Recycling Center on January 1, 1997. The site has operated at a deficit (even under private ownership); but, the City has changed contractors, made several site improvements, and improved customer service since taking over operation of the site. Financial projections show that the City's net costs will only be $11,000 in 1998 versus $21,500 in 1997. The SWAP fee was increased this past year to help cover expenses. Staff is continuing to evaluate ways to improve the financial operation of the center without reducing service; however, service cuts may have to be implemented to keep costs down. We are also talking to County officials about a financial contribution from the County. Please rate each of the options below by assigning points on a scale of 1 to 5; with 5 being the most preferred option and 1 being the least preferred option. Remember that 50 percent of the site's users aze from Fridley and the other 50 percent from other parts of the north metro. A. Maintain existing levels of service as long as those levels can be provided without significantly increasing our operating deficit or requiring a S WAP fee increase. B. Eliminate those services that are not self-supporting. T'his would leave us with aluminum can redemption, scrap metal, florescent lamps, and appliance collection. 14 � -� J ' IJ � �I � � ' ' lJ � �� ' � ' �J � LJ � r-� �� II U I C. Maintain existing levels of services only if the County is willing to reimburse use for a significant portion of our deficit (say $10,000 per Ye�')• ' D. Close the site. The City will lose the tonnage and possible bonus payment, but will not lose any SCORE funding from the County. The Recycling Coordinator can spend more time assisting the Nature ' Center staff, and provide additional backup services for housing programs and code enforcement. , C, , , , u ' ' � ' �� E. Seek County operation of a county-wide problem waste facility, even if it means increases in County property taxes. 31. Yard Waste Site: Our 1997 citizen survey revealed that 80 percent of the respondents felt that our yazd waste site is very important or somewhat important to them. At the same time, only 22 percent of the respondents reported using the yard waste site. In view of this response and in view of strong citizen support for monthly pickup of tree branches, would we be better off spending the $7,000 annual cost for the yard waste site on the pickup of tree branches? " Yes No 32. Redeve[opment Priorities: Forty-two percent of our citizen survey respondents considered blighted commercial and industrial properties to be a major redevelopment priority. Thirty-three percent felt that the elimination of junk yards was a maj or redevelopment priority. Thirty percent identified rehabilitation of single family homes as a major priority. Twenty-eight percent felt that rehabilitation of apartment stock was a major priority. There are several interesting aspects of these results. The first is that our citizens do not seem to exhibit a strong sense of urgency about any redevelopment priority. The second point of interest is that the respondents' preferences are much different from the program priorities we have been addressing. Most of our money has gone into the rehabilitation of single family homes. Very little money has been spent on the upgrading of blighted commercial and industrial property in recent years. In view of these results, what do you think we should do? A. We should continue to place our main redevelopment emphasis on residential rather than commerciaUindustrial properties. B. We should address commerciaUindustrial properties that are adjacent ' to residential redevelopment target areas. Other than that, I would not reorder our redevelopment priorities. � ' 15 C. We should do an assessment of commercial/industrial redevelopment needs and evaluate the impact of our residential rehabilitation efforts. Then, decide whether to reallocate funds for commerciaUindustrial redevelopment. D. Studies and assessments take time and detract from getting other things done. What we really should do is establish a revolving loan fund for commerciaUindustrial properties. MISCELLANEOUS: 33. Complaint Tracking: Our 1997 citizen survey indicates that 65 percent of the respondents believe that the City responds promptly to citizen complaints and inquiries. Only 5 percent felt that we did not respond promptly. The remainder appazently had not contacted the City and did not know. Additionally, City employees are given very high ratings for courtesy, listening, understanding, and effectiveness. At the same time, Council members do experience some frustration in keeping track of requests that they get and forward to the City Manager. Many requests involve the Court system, the County, the school districts and a host of outside factors over which we have little control. As a result, due to the ongoing nature of these requests, information feedback to Council members is sometimes slow and the loop in these cases does not always close. Currently, we are investigating the potential use of complaint tracking software and its impact on staff resources. We are also evaluating the cost of the software and software support. At this point, we estimate that the software will cost between $1,500 and $2,000 per computer. Additionally, we can estimate that the notebook computers that Council members would use to access the complaint tracking system would cost about $2,500 each. If we assume that we would equip between 40 and 50 computers with software that would cost $1,500 per computer and add in the cost of notebook computers for Council members, the cost for the complaint tracking system would range between $72,500 and $87,500. This number does not include annual support and maintenance costs. What do you think? Which of the following alternatives do you like? A. It is very important that Council members have a tool that will a11ow them to have direct access to complaint handling files. I would make this a high priority for acquisition in 1998. B. The complaint tracking system along with the staff dedication to supporting the system would give Council members a valuable tool for communicating with citizens. The cost, however, should be compared with the cost of other priorities as part of the 1998 budget discussions. 16 � � ' , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' � i � ' C. The cost of the complaint tracking software, including the cost of staff , resources, is high relative to the benefits received. Based on what I know now, I do not favor purchasing complaint tracking softwaze. ' L__J l___l ' 34. Political E�'�cacy: Our 1997 survey reveals that people's sense of "political efFcacy" or their feelings about their ability to have a meaningful voice in City� government has declined since 1995. While 50 percent of the respondents said that they can have a say about the way City officials are running things, 31 percent said that they did not feel that they have an affect on the way City officials are running things. Our consultant tells us that this erosion of "political e�cacy" is principally among older residents (+55). What do you think we should do about this? Please check the alternative that makes the most sense to you. � A. Develop focus groups that include representatives from the over 55 age group. Attempt, through the focus group process, to better understand ' the reasons for their feelings, as well as ways in which their sense of efficacy might be improved. ' � B. Conduct further telephone surveys among representatives of this age group that would focus on understanding the source of these feelings, as well as steps that might be taken to improve their sense of political efficacy. C. Use both focus groups and telephone surveys to better understand the ' reasons for declining political efficacy and the steps that might be taken to improve it. � � ll LJ �� CI � D. Assume that this declining sense of political effectiveness is beyond the City's control. Focus on doing a good job with the many issues that are already on our plates. 35. Size of Refuse Containers: Our 1997 survey asked residents whether or not the City should allow garbage containers that are larger than 32 gallons. While 37 percent of our sample think larger conta.iners should be permitted, 26 percent think we should continue to limit the size of garbage containers to 32 gallons. Another 38 percent either do not caze or do not know. What do you think? Please check the alternative that most appeals to you. A. I believe we should raise the limits in a manner that would allow the 90 gallon containers that are currently being used by a number of garbage haulers. 17 B. I would prefer to maintain the existing 32-gallon limit on the size of garbage containers. C. It makes no difference to me. 36. Placement of Garbage Containers: Our 1997 citizen survey also revealed that 48 percent of the respondents favored an ordinance change that would allow garbage pickup at the curb. Only 21 percent of the respondents prefer the existing system that limits the placement of containers within 3 feet of the garage. What do you think? Should we allow the curbside placement of containers? , Yes No Undecided 37. Commemorative Memorial: Our 1997 survey also told us that 57 percent of our residents do not favor building a commemorative memorial. Among the 22 percent who feel we should build a commemorative memorial, there is no strong agreement on a site. What do you think? In view of the survey, should we abandon plans for building a commemorative memorial for persons who have made outstanding contributions to Fridley? Yes No 38. Image Enhancements: Our 1997 survey results indicate that 57 percent of Fridley residents believe that Fridley does not have an image problem. Among the 33 percent who did perceive an image problem, there was no strong agreement on solutions to that problem. There was, however, moderate consensus that the City should rededicate funding for mowing our major north-south corridors and develop a comprehensive beautification plan for these corridors. What do you think we should do? A. We should finish our planned work in Hyde Park and Riverview Heights before we launch another program. B. We should at least return to mowing the University Avenue right-of- way and consider having a consultant do a beautification plan for our north-south corridors. C. We should redirect some of our 1998 HRA budget toward the development of a corridor beautification plan for University Avenue. We should also use fund balances to renew the mowing of the University Avenue right-of-way in 1998. D. We should move on as fast a track as possible to plan and implement a corridor beautification plan for all three north-south conidors. 18 , �i �I , IJ � ' � ' � � �! '� � � ' , 1 U I� ' � ' 39. Revenue to Sunport Services: There are limited means of raising revenue to support our new Community Center and other new services that we may choose to provide Fridley residents. Which of the following statements regazding the raising of , revenue do you most agree with? Please rate each alternative on a scale of 1 through 5, with 5 being the most attractive. � ' ' � C� ' l.l �� ' ' ' , ' I�� I'� A. We should raise additional revenue by selling services to other cities or to the private sector. , B. We should impose utility franchise fees if that can be done in collaboration with other cities. C. We should impose utility franchise fees whether or not it can be done in collaboration with other cities. D. We should raise the property tax levy to cover the additional cost of the Community Center and other new services that we may choose to provide. E. We should seek State funding for our housing rehabilitation programs. F. We should seek to improve liquor profts as a service of new operating revenue. G. Other (please specify): 40. Fund Balances: At the end of last year, we were estimating that the City had $24 million in discretionary fund balances that could, if necessary be used to fund City operations. Over the last few years, there has been considerable discussion of proposed uses of fund balances. As a practical matter, we have been using $400,000 to $700,000 in fund balances each year to support our General Fund operations in each of the last four yeazs. As we approach the future, what policy(s) do you feel should be used to govern the expenditure of fund balances? Once again, use a scale of 1 through 5, with 5 being the most attractive, to evaluate each of the following statements: A. We should do whatever is necessary to avoid using fund balances to support current year obligations. We should either raise new revenues or cut expenditures to pay for current year operations out of current year revenue. 19 B. We should avoid drawing down the fund balance principal, but be willing to use interest growth in excess of the rate of inflation to help support the General Fund. C. We should use whatever amount of fund balances that are necessary to support the General Fund and avoid raising local property taxes. D. We should purposefully draw down fund balances to support the General Fund or to fund new projects and new services that are needed for Fridley residents. The money has been saved for a rainy day, and, the rainy day is here. E. Other (please specify): 41. Telecommunications: For more than a year, we have been using our money and staff resources to study alternatives for regulating the growth of PCS telecommunication facilities in Fridley. One option is to limit our involvement to more traditional land use regulation. The other option is to establish a telecommunications utility or co-op that would buy land, poles, and antennas and then lease them to the telecommunications industry. In order to study these options, we have hired a technical consultant and spent considerable money for legal review of the consultant's concepts. While we initially focused on the identification of off-the-road sites for tall telecommunication monopoles, it now seems likely that shorter antennas may be attached to poles in the public rights-of-way. If this is the case, we could lease our rights-of-way and/or poles to PCS providers. At this point, however, much work remains to be done to study the feasibility of this option. It is also unclear, at this point, what revenue, if any, the City might generate from this approach. What is also troublesome is that getting these answers will take several more months and will likely require more attorney's fees. Given this set of circumstances, which of the following alternatives do you prefer? A. Although the costs are high, the long-term benefits from this analysis are worth it. We should continue to spend what we need to spend and take the time we need to conclude our investigation of telecommunications utility options. B. I am inclined to see our telecommunications analysis through to completion; however, I also believe that we need to bring it to a conclusion within the next four months (by June 1). If additional money is needed for legal evaluation, I would be willing to consider spending a reasonable amount. 20 C� 1 � ' �� l' ' �� ,'� ' ' u �� ,I �� _l fl ' ��'� �' n �i �I �I � ' � ,I� ' ' ' ' ' �'i �� ' �� C,I C, � ' C. At this point, I would be willing to spend another two months and another $10,000 on legal analysis. I would not, however, go beyond this commitment of resources. The staff time and money involved are detracting from other priorities. D. Enough is enough. Let's pull back to the traditional regulatory roll immediately. The risks involved in pursuing the telecommunications utility/co-op option are too high and the benefits are too uncertain. 42. Overall Priorities: It would appear that Council can expect larger than usual requests for the expenditure of new money in the 1998 budgeting process. Up to this point in the survey, you have been evalua.ting these requests in piecemeal fashion. Now, if you will, please take a look at these competing requests as a group and use a scale of 1 to 5 as you prioritize them. As in previous questions, 5 represents the highest priority. A. Replacement of a fire engine in 1999. B. Municipal garage improvements. C. Street lighting improvements. D. Addition of two Public Works employees for street and parks maintenance. E. Construction of a skateboard/inline skate facility. F. Weekend and holiday hours of operation for the Fridley Community Center. G. Purchase and implementation of complaint tracking software and related hardware. H. Establishment of a monthly program for pickup of brush and tree limbs. I. Replacement of grant funding for Project Safety Net. J. Addition of two police officers. K. Resume mowing the University Avenue corridor. L. Use of a consultant to develop a beautification plan for the University Avenue corridor. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. WWB:rsc 1/30/98 21 .l ��_ �� /. �� ///i,'>�:.:�i�,�\\ �� I��\ �� rl;� tO ,� � ��w�� ;'��t�- ,,,1 .h;� , C � � ' ' � � , � , Fridley �olice Department Memorandum To: Wiliiam W. Burns From: Dave Saliman ��' t' Date: January 21, 1998 Re: Council Survey This is intended as a supporting document to the questions in the Council Survey from the Police Department. The first question that we asked in the 1997 survey was concerned with Community Oriented Policing (COP). As the question was presented in the 97 survey there was not a strong consensus on any of the courses of action from the council, in part due to some apparent ambiguity in the question. At the discussion session it appeared that the council supported the idea of attempting to free up 25% of Neighborhood Resource Officers time for COP but that we should attempt to do so without adding officers. We have used federal grants to purchase equipment which should assist in this effort. The laptop PC's have been installed and eventually, there should be some time saving in report writing, processing, etc. (we aze not there yet). The goal is to create an in caz office where officers can interface with police records, complete formatted reports, perform reporting requirements to the state, etc. The second technology area that should save some time is the grant funded equipment which will provide for booking of many of those arrested without having to transport prisoners to the jail. This is more of a future saving as beginning Jan. 1�`, State law requires that we book all juveniles (this has not been required in the past) and the legislature continues to create enhanceable crimes (assaults, thefts, etc.) that require booking in order to get a notation on the Criminal History, which in turn allows to enhance certain crimes if committed a second time. This equipment should be in place by July of 1998. ' The other area that provides for officers to spend more time performing COP is just getting use to that thought process. There have been some successes in working with various neighborhoods to deal with certain problems (i.e. Riverview Terrace youth issues, ' party house on Osborne, traffic issues in several azeas, drug dealing, burglary problem in Hyde Park, etc.). This will continue to improve as relationships develop between the , officers and citizens, and we (administration and council) gain acceptance of the concept of using the NRO's to deal with various problems. � � ' With the above as background, I believe that the COP question can remain the same. The only issue tk�at changes is that I am going to request two additional officers for 1999. I have been asked by the council for several years if we need additional officers and my response has been that the answer is more political than absolute. There no set number of officers that a police department is required to employ. The number tends to be a consideration of budget, comfort level of the citizens, etc. There are formulas that would generally support 40 plus officers for a city of our size and activity but up to the point that it actually becomes unsafe for officers or the citizens, the number is fairly azbitrary. There aze a number of benefits to having more police officers (better cleazance rates, faster response time, more visibility which translates into citizens feeling safer, etc.). T'he cost is more money. There are several reasons that lead me to ask for additional officers at this time. One is just the practical issue that the federal government (Clinton Cops) is still willing to pay for 75% (up to $25,000) of new officers salaries for 3 yeazs. The original promise was for 100,000 additional officers and I believe the most recent figures are in the 70-80,000 range that have been hired around the country. The window of opportunity closes when the figure is reached or the current administration ends. The grant is such that it will fund 75% (up to $25,000) of an officers salary per yeaz for 3 years. The impact on the budget for each officer hired under the grant would average about $23,116 for the first 3 years in 1998 dollazs (this represents the average salary and benefits for a patrol officer for the first 3 yeazs of employment minus the average $25,000 per year from the grant assuming a 3% contract settlement in 1998). The City would be responsible for full salary and benefits after 3 yeazs. The other reasons have to do with our current direction of (1) attempting to free up officers time and (2) the types of crimes that we are facing. One of our goals for 1997 was to decrease thefts by 10%. We did not accomplish this goal. Many of our thefts are business related and we are working with the Chamber (businesses partner grant) to deal with this issue. A substantial portion of the thefts aze break in to vehicles. Fridley on any given night has an incredible number of vehicles parked in various lots around the city (apartment buildings, businesses, etc.). The vehicle break in issue is not just a Fridley issue but we are going to have more vehicles which aze not parked in garages at night then a bedroom community such as Andover or Shoreview. We have tracked the break ins and there is no particulaz pattern of days, location, or perpetrators (we actually catch some of them) other than that they occur in apartment building lots or business lots (not brain scientist stuffl. We have been meeting with various apartment complexes to stress crime watch and prevention but the reality of this crime is that it tends to occur in the late/eazly hours when the real answer is for us (police) to make a stronger presence (both with patrols and some proactive type enforcement). Vehicle break ins are a problem throughout the metro area as the drug users have realized that there is relatively little risk to breaking into vehicles (about $100+ in damage per break in) to steal a few bucks in change or stereo equipment that is in every vehicle. We have actually gone to telling people to empty their vehicles and leave the doors unlocked. ' � I�_J �I � r �i � L � � ' � , ' ' � ' , In order for us to make a stron er resence we need additional officers. I would g P � � probably assign them to the Problem Response Team (PR'I). This provides us with a stronger response to the vehicle break in issue. It also gives us someone to actually solve the problem that NRO's and citizens are identifying (assuming the solution is law enforcement related). I will make a stronger case for this request through the budgeting ' process, but I felt that it was important to provide it as background to the questionnaire. , The question conceming the police computer system resulted in a stronger consensus among council members that we should work towards a cooperative arrangement with other jurisdictions on this issue. Cities in Anoka County are working towazds that goal ' currently and it is not necessary to repeat the question to council unless someone has an issue. ' T'he other two questions from 1997 were involved with youth and some of the youth programs. One was a question which started with "If cost were no issue". As one of the Council members noted at the discussion, cost is always an issue but we were looking for ' some direction concerning possible future programs if funding became available. The second question was concerning all of youth related programs. I would propose that we � replace both questions with the attached question concerning the various segments of Project Safety Net (PSN). Grant funding for PSN will expire at the end of 1998. ' Cu'rrently the only position that is budgeted is Outreach Worker Kevin Thomas. When the program was originally started, we were asked to fmd alternative funding and for several years have been successful in doing so. I also believe that we can continue the ' Drop Off Center (curfew) with the contract money from the participating cities (plus Fridley's share). The proposed question is intended to make a determination of budget funding (if we do not receive more grants) and get a feeling for which programs we need ' to cease if funding is not available. The Council may desire a more complete evaluation of each segment. We will be working on some evaluation in terms of numbers, participation, and examples of exactly what the youth workers ha.ve been accomplishing ' and provide that as part of the budgeting process ' In summary we are proposing that the COP question be repeated as stated last yeaz, with this attached explanation. We are also requesting feedback as to the possibility of adding police officers. We aze deleting computer question. The two youth questions from last ' yeaz has been replaced with the attached concerning PSN. We look forwazd to the Council's feedback. I�' ' ��I �I PROJECT SAFETY NET FUNDING SOURCES Dron Off Center The Drop Off (Curfew) Center is a joint project involving Fridley, Coon Rapids, Bla.ine and Columbia Heights. Fridley operates the center and costs are shared by participating cities. Follow-un and Family Services, as well as overall program supervision is handled by Kevin Thomas who is a full time permanent employee of the City of Fridley. This position is included in the Police Department's regulaz budget. � Outreach Services Harambee --"Let's Join Together"-- is an outrea.ch program which provides culturally relevant services for African American youth. Two groups, one for boys and one for girls meet on a weekly basis. Teens Talk is a group for girls that meets in Columbia Heights and Girls Group meets in Fridley. Both groups address needs of senior high level females and meets on a weekly basis. Graf�ti/Community Service provides a supervised setting for youth who need to complete community service hours either for school or court ordered. Approximately 5 hours a week are devoted to this activity. Additional outreach services also include: --Contact and follow up with runaway youth --School and Community Outreach for Columbia Heights and Fridley --13 nights of Drop Off staffmg covering extra days off in Columbia Heights School District. The Zone: a safe, positive recreation opportunity for youth on weekend evenings. An alternative to the consequences of unstructured leisure time resulting in problematic behaviors. Zone activities are located at the Community Center in Fridley and on occasion at Murzyn Hall in Columbia Heights on Friday and Saturday nights. RAP (Recreational Afterschool Program) is an after school program for Middle School students that is offered four nights a week throughout the school year. This program has been operated by the Recreation & Natural Resources Department for the past 3 years.